20623 88TH AVE W.pdf-4. I,_ j
:C Z-k
�— Lu,
LLI
0
LIJ:.
Lu X:
_j 1--:1
u) LL
LU 0
LL
D
Lu.
Z F—
F- 0
Z �-
Lu Lu
U (n
0—
F-
0
Z'
us U)
U
0
'Z'-
am
C 0
JI
CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY
250 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-0221 MAYOR
HEARING EXAMINER
S t 189
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION sk-P 16 f
OF THE HEARIN6 EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS 443 0,6pr
APPELLANT: Robert Hoffman
CASE NO.: V 96-91
LOCATION: 20623 88th Avenue West (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
APPLICATION: Variance to reduce the required street setback from 25-feet to 5-
feet and to increase the maximum permitted building height from
25-feet above average grade level to 36-feet for the construction of
a new single-family residence.
REVIEW PROCESS: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes
final decision.
MAJOR ISSUES:
a. Compliance width Edm onds Community Development Code (ECDC)
Chapter 20.85.010 (VARIANCE).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site
Development Standards).
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Staff Recommendation: Denial
Hearing Examiner Decision: Partial approval with conditions
PUBLIC HEARING:
After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and
after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The
hearing on the application was opened at 9:15 a.m., August 28, 1996, in the Plaza Room,
Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:45 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
757
0
E6 LU
LU
U) LL.
0
(n a!
X Lu.
�- X,
Z
Z
UJ U)
UT
;:ILU LU
�L_ 0
Z
LU U)
y
0
Z
to
Steve Bullock, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report (Exhibit A). He noted that there
were steep slopes on the western slope and that there was a hammerhead at the end of 207th.
It was noted that the hammerhead is located on the west side of the right-of-way. He noted
that a variance had been granted for a reduction of setback and increased height on Lot I
immediately adjacent to this lot. He indicated that Lot 2 can get access from 88th from the
access easement serving lot 3. Therefore, Staff recommended denial of the request.
From the Applicant:
Dean Read, Architect, representing the applicant stated that they felt the request was justified
for the following reasons:
• The house built without a variance will not be compatible with the adjacent
neighborhood or the house on the adjacent lot which received a valiance.
• From 207th you will only see the upper part of the roof. He noted that because of the
topography of the site, the roof of this building with the height variance would be
lower than that approved on Lot 1.
• The driveway from the easement from 88th will be awkward and difficult to enter and
exit due to the double slopes.
• More large evergreen trees will need to be removed.
Paul Stromme, Stromme Construction, who will be building these homes indicated that he
felt the two homes would be more compatible built with access from 207 and with the same
relationship to the cul-de-sac. He noted that there had been no neighborhood opposition
From the Community:
No Comments were received.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
1. Site Development And Zoning:
a. Facts:
1) Size: The total size of the subject property is 12,621.
2) Land Use: The subject property is currently undeveloped, surrounding
development consists of single family dwellings (see Exhibit A,
Attachments I and 3).
W
0
LU
3:
Cn LL
LU 01
U_
UJ:
Z
Z
LU UJ
CD
0 -1
0 �-
LU Lul
LL
Z
W (n
Z
X-2
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 96-91
Page 3
3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned RS-12 (single residential
family with a minimum 12,000 square foot lot size requirement) (see
Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property slopes from the west to
east with the greatest slope closest to the west property line.
Vegetation consists of several trees and native grasses.
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a. Fact:
1) The adjacent properties to the north, south, east, and west are currently
zoned as single-family (RS-12) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
2) The adjacent properties to the east, north, and south are currently
developed as single-family homes.
3. History
a. Facts:
1) The following is a chronological account of the development of Mr.
Hoffmans property.
• September 2Z 1995. Robert Hoffinan appliesfor a 4-lot short plat.
• November 3, 1995. Staff conducts a public hearing on the
proposed 4-lot short plat. The Hearing Officer approved the short
plat with the conditionsfrom the Engineering Division noted on
Exhibit A, Attachment 5 of the Preliminary Review of the Proposed
Short Subdivision..
• December 4, 1995. Mr. Hoffinan rescinds his application for a 4-
lot short plat (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2).
• December 12, 1995. Mr. Hoffinan appliesfor a 4-lot short plat,
with modiflicationsfor lots I and 2.
• February 29, 1996. Mr. Hoffinan appeals the hearing officers
decision.
• April 15, 1996. The Hearing Examiner denies the appeal.
• April 24, 1996. Mr. Hoffinan requests a reconsideration of the
Hearing Examiners decision.
• May 1, 1996. The Hearing Examiner denies the requestfor
reconsideration.
B. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE
I . a. Facts:
1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential
development in a RS- 12 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030.
-�7
0
z
01
LU
W
U) LL
LU
2 �:
C2 -J
LL <
Ln BI
UJ
z
�- 0:
Z �-
LU LU
0-
0 �-
L.0
z
W Cn
U :F
8 �-' I
z
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 96-91
Page 4
2) Except for the requested street and height setback alterations, the
existing development conforms to all RS-12 requirements (see Exhibit
A, Attachment 3).
b. Conclusion: The proposal complies with the development standards for
the RS-12 zone as set forth in Chapter 16.30, with the exception of the
street and height setbacks.
2. Compliance with requirement for a Variance
ECDC Chapter 20.15B. 180.A, states an applicant may request a variance from
the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC
Chapter 20.85 (Variances). Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the
mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a case -by -case
basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual and
unreasonable hardship (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2).
a. Facts:
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
Examiner. 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 standard width for bike paths is eight feet.
4) The adjacent right-of-way is on the Comprehensive Bikeway Plan.
5) The applicant is requesting a 5-foot street setback and a maximum
height of 36-feet.
6) The applicant states in his declarations that steep slopes on the
property make construction of a driveway difficult, and that special
0 circumstances exist because the improved portion of the right of way is
between 20 and 25 feet from the street property line for lot 2. The
applicant also states that other property owners in the area have
setbacks from the improved roadway of 25 to 30 feet.
7) The applicant also states that the home would be below the existing
street which creates a hardship which other properties in the vicinity do
not have (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2).
8) The applicant has stated that the proposal meets the minimum variance
criteria because it will reduce the driveway slopes to a safe grade (see
Exhibit A, Attachment 2).
t
0
=Z-
�— LU,
cc
01
U) LU
LU
W LL
0
LU
2 �
g 0
LL.
UJ:
Z
�- 0
Z �—
LU UJ
U U),
0 p
a �—
LU Lul
U
LU U)
C-)
I--
0
Z
M)
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 96-91
Page 5
b. Conclusions:
1) Special Circumstances
(a) Street Setback request: The applicant's property has steep slopes
which may exceed 35% in some places. Although the applicant could
take access off the easement from 88th Avenue West, the double slope
of the easement and the driveway will make safe access problematic.
The driveway also may still exceed 14% which is inconsistent with
City standards. Locating the home in this area will preserve existing
trees, which is consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan. It appears that special circumstances exist due to topography,
compatibility with the neighborhood and adjacent home, and tree
preservation, and therefore the applicant should be provided some
relief from the setback requirements of the ECDC.
(b) Height Variance request: Although the applicant could take access
off 88th Avenue West, homes along 207 th Place Southwest are two
stories and the applicant's request is consistent with development
along that street and the adjacent home on Lot 1. Therefore, it appears
that special circumstances exist due to topography, and therefore the
applicant should be provided some relief from the setback
requirements of the ECDC.
2) Special Privilege
(a) Street Setback request: Although other property owners on 88th
Avenue West or 207th Place Southwest do not have setbacks of less
than 25 feet from the property lines as the applicant has proposed, they
do not have the situation of a hammerhead which is located on the
opposite side of the right of way. It does not appear that any special
privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that other
properties in the same zone with similar street circumstances would
also qualify for a variance (See Exhibit A, Attachment 2).
(b) Height Variance request: It does not appears that any special
privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that other
properties in the same zone with similar circumstances would also
qualify for a variance (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2).
3) Zoning Code and the ComRrehensive Plan
(a) Street Setback request: Approval of the variance would allow for
the continued development of the site in a manner consistent with the
intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation of
the site (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). The Comprehensive Plan
supports the retention of existing trees and the applicant would have a
greater opportunity to do so if the application were approved.
(b) Height Variance request: Approval of the variance would allow
for the continued development of the site in a manner consistent with
0
U) LL
LU 01
LL
MW
�-:c
Z t--
�- 0
Z
UJ LU
(n!
0
LU U11
L)
U- 0
Z
di cn
C.) :F
0
Z
M
.... ... ---- -- W ... . ..... 5 -- --�
of the site.
4) Not Detrimental
(a) Street Setback request: As proposed, approval of the street setback
would potentially be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare
(see Exhibit A, Attachment 2) since the City may choose to locate a
bicycle path in the right-of-way and a home situated 5-feet from the
property line may pose a safety hazard to the home owners and
cyclists. However, if the setback were increased to 8 feet, then
sufficient distance between autos and bicyclists would exist.
(b) Height Variance request: Approval of the height variance does not
appear to be detrimental to surrounding property owners or the general
public.
5) Minimum Reguired
(a) Street Setback request: If the setback were expanded to 8 feet,
then the variance would be the minimum necessary to allow the owner
rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning..
(b) Maximum Height request: The variance is the minimum
necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity with the same zoning.
C. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
1. Review by City Departments
a. Fact: No comments were submitted by other departments.
D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC)
1. a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Large Lof'.
b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing
Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site.
2. a. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section,
identifies goals and policies which relate to "Residential Development" in the
City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below.
(1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality
residential development which is appropriate to the diverse
lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and
promoted. The options available to the City to influence
the quality of housingfor all citizens should be approached
realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic
consideration, in accordance with thefollowing policies:
0
-J
Cn U.
Ui
LL
D
X UJ
:C
Z �-'
;-- 0i
Z �-
W LU
U CD;
0
Q;:
LXU Lu�
LU Ln
Z
ol
K�
(2) Policy B. 1. states, "Encourage those building custom
homes to design and construct homes with architectural
lines which enable them to harmonize with the
surroundings, adding to the community identity and
desirabilitv.
-1
(3) Policy B.2. states, "Protect neighborhoods from
incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not
harmonize with existing structures. "
(4) Policy B.3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view of
existing homes by new construction or additions to existing
structures. "
(5) Page 31, subsection B.5.0 states, "Stable property values
must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use
encroachments. "
(6) Soils and Topography section C.3.b. Erosion Control states,
"Natural vegetation should be preserved wherever possible
to reduce erosion and stabilize slopes, particularly on the
downhill property line. "
b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the above adopted
goals and policies of the City for the development of residential property in the
City.
DECISION
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is partially
approved, subject to the following conditions:
I . This variance is to allow the proposal in the location identified on the proposed site plan
for Lot 2 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4), however the residence must be set back from the
street at least 8-feet. Any other structures, additions or remodels would have to conforin
with the typical setbacks or height requirements for the zone or obtain another variance.
All trees around the house and in the right-of-way shall be retained to the maximum
extent possible.
2. The residence shall not exceed 36.0 feet in height as measured from average grade.
3. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds
Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure
compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances.
4. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction.
5. The permit is transferable.
0
Entered this 12th day of September, 1996, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings
z
< Examiner under Chapter 20. 100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
UJ
UJ
-J
0
0
(n LU RoberR7. Burke
LU X
-J �- Hearing Examiner Pro Tern
(n wi
0
LU
RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS
U. <
n The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and
T) 0i
W, appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should
:C contact the Planning Department for further procedural information.
z �-
�- 0
Z �-
UJ UJ A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
C3 Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the
initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register
and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land
which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must
z
UJ tn cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances
U y
governing the type of application being reviewed.
8 "1
z B. APPEALS
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the
name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and
reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with
t e ommunity Deve opment Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the
decision being appealed.
0 LAPSE OF APPROVAL
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.'
t NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request
"�—J a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office.
0
'U3
tno i