20031 81ST AVE W.pdfowli
D
U
0
a
LU
LL-
di
0
Z
nir
CITY OF EDMONDS MRBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
250 STH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS,WAS8020 (206)771-0220 FAX(206)771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
St. 89
/W
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION A,
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
(CORRECTED FIRST PAGE)
APPLICANT: William Cummins
CASE NO.: V 97-4
LOCATION: 200318 1 st Avenue West
APPLICATION: Application by William A. Cummins for multiple Variance
requests to accommodate the construction of a new 1,440 square
foot detached workshop/garage/storage building for an existing
single-family residence. Specifically, the applicant has requested a
variance to reduce the required side setback from south property
line by 2.5-feet, from 7.5 feet to 5-feet; a reduction of the required
rear setback (from the east property line) of 10-feet, from 15-feet to
5-feet; and, an increase of 2.5-feet to the maximum permitted
height of the structure from 15-feet to 17.5-feet (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 1).
REVIEW PROCESS: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes
final decision.
MAJOR ISSUES:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site
Development Standards).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES).
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Staff Recommendation: Deny
Hearing Examiner Decision: Deny
PUBLIC HEARING:
A f+— +1' -fir. —1 'rl —U: U I A -A .1. n
2�' �w 11r, �' 11 V, c nc u e ianningjjivisionaLmiAuvisoryxeport;ana
after visiting the site, the Hearing Exan*u*ner conducted a public hearing on the application. The
hearing on the application was opened at 10:15 a.m., March 6, 1997, in the Plaza Room,
Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 10:44 a.m. Participants at the public
hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the
hearing is available in the Planning Division.
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
0
LAJ
(n
z
z
LU
2
M
U
0
0
LU
LL
z
The height recommended by staff is o.k. and he can work with a 7 V2 side yard
setback, but he needs a reduction in the rear yard setback so he can build a
structure which is large enough for everything he would like to store.
He felt the houses next door are not consistent with the surroundings.
He didn't think a special privilege would be granted if the request is approved
because there are several other structures in the neighborhood which do not meet
setback requirements. (He submitted Exhibit B into the record to make his point).
From the Community:
No one from the general public spoke at the public hearing.
Response from the City:
Kirk Vinish responded that:
9 City staff would like to see the proposed garage shortened so it would comply with
the code.
e The old structure was closer than the one proposed, but it was also smaller.
* He didn't know if any of the examples identified in Exhibit B were built with City'
approval.
Response from the Applicant:
William Cummins responded that:
He was charged with finding structures which did not meet setback requirements. He.
did that and listed many examples, some of which were over 600 square feet in size.
a
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 97-4
Page 3
He is trying to improve what he had and he needs the depth proposed for storage for
Z
himself and his parents.
I
F- U11No
:'CORRESPONDENCE
correspondence was submitted by members of the general public.
LU
_J
L) 01
LU
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
(n
iii �V
-J
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
—0
LU
1. Site Development And Zoning:
a. Facts:
LL <
1) Size: The subject property is approximately 19,500 square feet in area (see
X
Exhibit A, Attachment 4).
Z
OR
2) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Single-Farnfly Residential (RS-
8).
Z
W LU;
M
3) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property is generally flat with a sharp
slope at the west property line, with all open areas vegetated with native
C3
grasses. The proposed garage would be located along the southeast property
LU
lines (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4).
Z
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
UJ Cc
UT
a. Facts:
Z
1) North: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned RS-8
(see Exhibit A, Attachment 3).
2) South: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned RS-8
(see Exhibit A, Attachment 3).
3) East: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned RS-8, (see
Exhibit A, Attachment 3).
4) West: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned RS-8 (see
Exhibit A, Attachment 3).
b. Conclusion: The proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding.
zoning and development.
B. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE
1. Compliance with RS-8 Zoning Standards
a. Facts:
1) The fundamental site development standards in a RS-8 zone are set f6 in
Chapter 16.20.030.
2) Minimum side setback in the RS-8 zone is 7.5-fdet,. minimum rear'setback is
15-feet and maximum height is 25-feet.
0
2 1
i
W.74
Z
U
0
in
LU
U
0
Z
0
0
1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a
variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Exantiner.
These criteria include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege
is granted; the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the
Zoning Code; the proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum
necessary.
2) Variances may be used to modify bulk standards. They may not be used to
modify use or procedural requirements.
3) The applicant states that special circumstances exist in that he has steep
slopes, sensitive soils and a public utility pole thereby restricting the available
locations available for a garage.
4) The applicant states that the variance would not be a grant of special privilege
in that other properties in the immediate vicinity have been granted variances.
5) The applicant states that the proposal would not be detrimental to adjacent
property owners.
6) The applicant states that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan because the site is designated as single-family (see Section "U' of this
report for further discussion of conformance with the Comprehensive Plan).
7) The applicant states that the proposal would allow for the continued
development of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning
Code.
8) The applicant states that the proposal is the minimum necessary due to the
location of existing structures and his desire to park a recreational vehicle in
the garage requires the additional height and setback variances.
9) Typical length for garages is 22-feet.
IO)The applicant states that 7621 through 7625 on 200th Street Southwest have
similar development and therefore granting the variance would not be a grant
of special privilege.
11) through 7625 on 200th Street Southwest is zoned multi -family (RM-3).
0
(1) LL
UJ 0
:3
LU
Ui LU
2-
no
U Cn
0-
(31--
W LL
LL. C
2
LU (1,
0
Z
V
It is unknown if any of the examples cited by the applicant were constructed
when the subject properties were in the City. They may have been constructed
in the County under different regulations and then annexed to the City or they
may have been constructed in the City without permits. Neither case would
set a precedent for this application.
3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan
The proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (see Section "D'.')
or the Zoning Code.
4) Not Detrimental
Approval of the variances would be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare. Specifically the neighbors to the east and south will have their sense
of privacy adversely affected.
5) Minimum Required
The request is not the niinimurn necessary for accommodation of the garage in
that the applicant could comply with the existing setbacks and still enjoy the
v
full use of the garage. The applicant could move the garage forward on the
site, reduce the size of the garage or change the dimensions of the garage (i.e.
make it longer, but not as deep) so that it can fit within the required setback
area. While the applicant may have to redesign the roof configuration it
should be possible to maintain an adequate slope to the roof and still comply
7T 7 71--
0
zumuriay resuzents snouta ve maintainea ana promatea....
2) Page 3 1, subsection B.5.0 states, "Stable property values must not
be threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments. "
3) Page 3 1, subsection B.6 states, "Require that new residential
development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes,
soils, geology, vegetation and drainage.
b. Conclusion: The proposed development is inconsistent with the above
adopted goals and policies of the City for the development of residential
property in the City, in that the neighbors to the east and south would find
a diminution of their sense of privacy due to the encroachment of the
garage toward their property.
DECISION
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is denied.
Entered this 20th day of March, 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
0 under Chapter 20. 100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
Ron McConnell
0 Hearing Examiner
RECONSIDERATIONS AND AIPPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and
appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should
contact the Planning Department for further procedural information.
0
WII
9--
F�
F-
z
fit
0
a
LU
LL.
W
Li
F-
0
z
E0
Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is
required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval,
the conditional use permit.shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an
application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.'
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request
a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office.
EXHERITS:
The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record.
A. Planning Division Advisory Report
B . List of other structures in the area which don't appear t o. meet code requirements
PARTIES oF RECORD:
William A. Cummins
200318 I't Ave. W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Planning Division
Engineering Division
Fire Department
Parks Department
Public Works Department
0