21317 76TH AVE W (2).pdfCITY, OF EDMONDS
250 5TH AVENUE NORTH 0 EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR 4
t 9 %J I I I I
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION.
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
AP PLICANT: Bruce Goodnight
CASE NO.: V 97-40
LOCATION: 21317 76th Avenue West (see Exhibit A, Attachments 1, 2 and 4).
APPLICATION: A variance for an 8-foot fence on top of a 2 to 4 foot high retaining
wall where the maximum permitted combined fence and retaining
wall height of 6 feet is allowed. The requested variance has been
proposed to mitigate potential impacts to the exist) condominium
to the south of the proposed development (see Exhibit A,
Attachments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6).
REVIEW PROCESS: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes
final decision.
MAJOR ISSUES:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 17 (FENCE
HEIGHI').
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Chapter 20
(VARLANCES).
Description of Proposal
Application by Bruce Goodnight to install an eight toot high fence along the south property top
of a 2 to 4 foot high retaining wall. The proposed fence is intended to mitigate impacts to the
existing condominium to the south of the proposed development. The F f6nce is a requirements
placed on the subject property by the ADB as part of its approve D 12 unit multiple, family
complex (File No. ADB-97-12 1) (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6)
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions
Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions
Incorporated August 11, 1890 e
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
- womi m"
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-97-40
Page 2
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 9:05 a.m., May 1, 1997, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds
Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:08 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.
I Lul
I U.
HEARINGCOMMNTS:
0
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.
<
From the City:
Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor, entered the staff report into the record and
recommended approval of the request with conditions.
From the Applicant:
1 LUI
Bruce Goodnight, applicant, said he concurred with the conditions and said that the
i
propo sed retaining wall and fence will provide privacy for the adjacent neighbors.
LU
5.
From theCommunity:
4!
No one from the general public spoke at the hearing.
1 � ,
0;
Z
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
tnl
2
A. Site Description
1. Site Development And Zoning:
a) Facts
(1) lize. The subject property is 32,228 square feet in area. The proposed fence
would be located along the south property line (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4).
(2) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Residential, multiple family, 2.400
square feet of lot area required per dwelling unit (RM 2.4).
0
(3) Existing and Proposed Development: he site is currently vacant. A single family
building was recently moved off the site to allow the construction of a new 12
unit multiple family development. The ADB has granted approval of the design Of
the new building, and the applicant has applied for building permits.
(4) Terrain and Veget tion: The subject property slopes gently down to the east away
from 76th Avenue West, and then slopes down steeply at the eastern end of the
property to the adjacent developments. All vegetation has been removed from the
site in preparation for construction. The applicant is proposing to redevelop the
site with ornamental landscaping around the perimeter of the site (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 4).
,I.
0
a
LU
U.
0
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No V-9740
Page 3
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a) Eacts-
(1) North- Developed with a 12 unit multiple [family dwelling complex. and
zoned RM 2.4.
(2) gouth Developed with a 12 unit multiple family dwelling complex. and zoned
RM 2.4.
(3) East. Developed with a large multiple family dwelling complex and zoned CG
under a contract rezone.
(4) Aest: Currently under constructiol I with a new high school. and zoned Public
Use (P).
b) Conclusion: The proposed development would be consistent with the'suffounding
zoning and development.
B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
1. Compliance with RM 2.4
2. Zoning Standards
a) Facts:
(1) The fundamental site development standards in a RM 2.4 zone are set forth in
Chapter 16.30.
(2) The proposed building and site development conforms to all RM 2.4
requirements.
(3) ECDC Chapter 17.30 states the standards by which fences may. be developed,
including height. The standards from which the applicant is requesting relief are:
"Unless a variance isfirst obtained nofence or hedge shall be more than 6jeet in
height as measuredfrom the top of thejence to the lowest original grade "(ECDC
IZ30.000(C)). and
"When a retaining wall treefeet or greateris contiguous to and below a proposed,
fence, the proposedjence may be constructedfor the purposes of safety not greater
thanfourfeet above the top of the retaining wall or theflnished grade, whichever is,
less. "(ECDCIZ30.000(D)).
b) Conclusion As conditioned the proposal complies with the.development standards
for RM 2.4 zones as set forth in Chapter 16.30, and 17.30 except the standard for
which the applicant is seeking a variance.
ff
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-97-40
Page 4
3. Compliance with requirement for a Variance
ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances) states an applicant may reques t a variance from the
standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85.
Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC also 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
Lui result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2).
X I
LL
01 a) Facts:
R
(1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance
C)
request must comply in order to he granted by the Hearing Examiner. These
criteria include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted.
Z
the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the
proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum necessary.
Ui Wi
A
(2) Variances may be used to modify bulk standards. They may not be used to,
0
modify use or procedural requirements.
(3) The applicant states that special circumstances exist due to the adjacent
development. "The proposed Rose Ridge Condominiums are situated between two
LU
existing condominium projects. The adjacent Rose Pointe Condominiums are to
the north with the rear yards facing the site. The adjacent Stratford Square
Z
Condominiums are to the south with their rear yardsfacing the proposed project.
The proposedfence is to buffer the impact of the two
adjacent rear yards. that of
the proposed Rose Ridge, and the adjacent Stratford Square Condominiums. as
required I—v the ADB. "
(4) The applicant states that the proposal would not he a grant of special privilege as
other fence height variances have beerr granted by the City of Edmonds for
buffering adjacent properties. Many of the other sites which used taller fences to
buffer impacts are buffering commercial impacts from existing multiple family
developments. These sites include the Top Foods site and the Funtasia site. One
case where an impact from a new Multiple Family projeci was buffeted from an
existing Multiple Family site was at the Cottage Crest Condominiums on 196th
Street Southwest.
(5) The applicant states that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive plan
0 and by developing multiple family while protecting privacy.
(6) The applicant states that the proposal is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance as'
the applicant is developing twelve units where the zoning allows twelve units.
(7) The applicant states that the proposal will not be detrimental as the fence wais
required by the ADB to mitigate privacy reduction impact.
g��4m, W V"
a E�
%04
zmm-
N
ON"'
I 'Af`�
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-97-40
Page 5
(8) The applicant states that this is the mini I mum variance because, based: on
z
testimony by adjacent property owners, the ADB recommended that the height of
the fence be allowed to be eight feet along the southern property line.
(9) The proposed design has been approved by the ADB with the condition that the
0
0! applicant obtain a variance to allow the proposed f�nce height (file No.
LUU X ADB-96121 ) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 6).
CD
z
0
0
W
F-
U-
F�
1A
b) Conclusions:
(1) Special Circumstances
Special circumstances include the size. shape, topography, location or
surroundings of the property and public necessity for public structures.
Special circumstances exist for this proposal due to the location or surrounding..
of the property. Specifically. the condominium project to the north is oriented
with the drive aisle on the north side and the backyards on the south side, while
the,condon-dnium project on the south is oriented with the drive aisle on the south
side and the backyards on the north side. This requires the backyards of the
proposed project to face the backyards of an existing project.
(2) Special Privilege
It does not appear that any special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this
variance as other fence height variances have been granted by the City of
Edmonds for buffering adjacent properties.
(3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan
Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the development of the site in
a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive
Plan designation of the site while preserving privacy of adjacent properties.
(4) Not Detrimental
Approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health. safety or
welfare because the proposal is intended to reduce detrimental impacts.
14
LUI
21
M.
(.)i
0!
LU!
xl�
LL
10�
F41
Z
0
C3
LU
X
Z
C. Technical Committee
1. Engineering Division Comments
a) Eact. The Engineering Division has commented that the height of the fence. adjacent
to 76th Avenue West must not he allowed at a height which would create a vehicle
sight obstruction for vehicles entering and exiting 76th Avenue West.
b) Conclusion: A condition should be incorporated into the decision stating that the
applicant must obtain a building permit for the proposed fence, and that the fence
must comply with the regulations of the City of Edmonds Engineering Division with
respect to vehicle sight distance.
2. Other Comments
a) Eact- No other City Divisions or Departments submitted comments.
D. Critical Areas Ordinance
1. Facts:
a) The subject proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.1 SB (Critical
Areas Ordinance).
b) The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Checklist, and the City has issued a
Waiver from the requirement to prepare a Critical Areas Study (File No CA-96-21 1)
2. Conclusion: The applicant has complied with the requirements of the ECDC Chapter
20.15B.
DECISION
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is approved,
subject to the following conditions:
1. This variance is to allow the proposal in the location identified on the proposed site plan
(see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). Any other structures, additions or remodels would have to
conform with the typical setbacks or height requirements for the zone or the
applicant/property owner would be required to obtain an additional -variance.
2. 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.
3. The applicant must obtaining a building permit for the proposed fence.
U.
0
FA
D
U
0
0
LU
U.
0
z
Ell]
0-
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-9740
Page 7
4. The fence must comply with the regulations of the City of Edmonds Engineering Division
pertaining to vehicle site distance obstruction.
5. The permit is transferable.
Entered this 9th day of May, 1997, pursuant to the a6thority granted the Hearings Examiner
under Chapter 20. 100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
Ikon McConnell
Hearing Examiner
RECONSMERATIONS AND APPEALS
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.
REQUEST FOR RECONSEDERATION
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 sips 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
cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances
governing the type of application being reviewed.
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
the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the
decision being appealed.
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 n4ll and void, unless the owner files an
application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.'
In t-hn"cr.- in th,- walivatinn ^f t-hg- nmn^rfw hw thp, -4Zni%lw%m;Qh rt%llsn en
;-C1TY..0.F,1:EDM0NDS... :,BARBARA FAHEY.
MAYOR
266 5TH AVEkUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) -771-0120.,* FAX (206).771-0221'
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT'. .
4 11'c
Works Planning Parks! and Amami n En I rin
i':Public . g nee 9
nsM it, a.
Letter of Tra tm�
Date:: ,
April 25,1997
L
TO
Bru6e Goodnight
PO Box 669
Edmonds, WA 980K'
S u bJect:
Vr97-40
T MIW
rans ng
Agenda & Staff R port for Hearing Exami ner Meetinaof 5/1197:
For Your Information: XX
As you,requested:
For your file:
0
C mment: .
Note attachments:
Sincerely
Diane M. COnninghamA ministrative Assistant,
cc: k6 mccopnell, Hea6ng EXaminer
lhcor06�dted AUgust -11,--1890
ities Inte tion6l -�Hekinan, J,
ister.0 ma apaw,,,
M
[a
9DMQNP$-IJEAIMIQ,EXAXIMR
MEETING AGENDA
MAY, 1, IM AT 9:00 A.IVL
Plant Room - Unionds ]U*bmry
650 ISUn Street
Call to Order
L Public Hearings
a. FILE NO, V-974Q, Application by Bruce Goodnislit for a, Varia I = to increase I the maximum
permitted height of a fence � fiom, 6-fect to 8-fixt for an approximate 312.fiwt long fc= ou'dw south
property fine of a proposed multi&mily development Mie proposed Variai= is sought in order to
provide the required buffering along the skes south property hm as required by the Architedural
Design Board under File, No. ADB-%-121. MIC subject Property is located at 21317.76th Avenue
West and, is zoned RM-2.4.
b. FILE NO. V-97-27 Application by Walt Pisoo for mu . Itiple Vari I ances tw. 1) reduce the cumulative':
required side setbadcs (wrth and south property lines) fivin 35-fixt to 14-fed, � 2) TWum the
minirmun side setback requiranent 0
(Scuth pMpeq) f
MM, 10_f a to 5-feet, 3):reducc the minimum
1
required street setback (CM Property line) fim 2.5-fed to 10-ftet, and. 4) increase the maximum
PcmftW height of 25-fect to 30-fed above ave"80 WadO level for the peak of a garage' roof attached
tD a residence. Ilic requested variances have been sought to allow additions to an existing resideno:
including a new attached garage 11c subject property is located at 15722 75th Place West and is
zoned RS-20.
C. FILE No. AP-97-53 & CUR-97-25 Consolidated permit &r an appeal of an Environmental
reviews
Determination of Nonsignificance (Ap-97-53) related to an application by Herb & Joy Hamilton for a
Conditional Use, Permit (CUH-97-25) for a Home Occupat6 to conduct private music instruction
fiom within their single-family rwidence. ne subject property is located at 902 12th Place North
and is zoned RS-12.
d. FILE No. V-97-59-- Application by the City of Edmonds Engineering Division fora, Vadance to
exceed die mwcimun' permitted noise standard of 45 dBA from 7:00 PM to 5:00 AM between July 1,
1997 to September 30, 1997, to allow for the completion of a roadway reconstructi project, fDr
100th Avenue- West fiom Edmonds Way to 140 fed north and 140 W south of tboin intersection
during pavement overlay of 100th Avenue West
I Administrative Reports No RqWds.
4. Adjournment
PAMNG MD ?
MEnNG ItOOM AM ACCMMU MR FEMONS WIM DISMILITM
lContwt Ow City Cie& at 771-024.5 vI& 24 ko�w a&=w!wfi0rfiw s^pdal
OSDI"MOCAOMMAMM
Al
10
�4' N:- U
1-14Q VAIXI*
--M
iV� V�')l Ri-;' �.W
22.1
Of. EDMONDS
250'5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020.
Z
DIVISION
"VISORY,REPORT
TINDINGS� CONCLUSIONS9 AND RECOMMEIgDA17IONS
0.
U)
T(j:
en LWL Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner,
-J
in u.
Lu From:
John Bissell
U. Project Planner
9) 5,
XLLJ� Date:, APRIL 25, 1997
Z
File: V-97-40
Bruce Goodnight
UA
Hearing Date, Time, And Place: May'l, 1997,L At 9:00 AM,
09 Plaza Room - Edmonds Library
650 M ain Street
UJ
ZfA
U. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Z Section
Page
UX1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. I ............................. ............. 2
A. Application .......... I ...................... ...................
0 .......... I ......................... 2
ZB. Description of Proposal .......................................................................... I ................................. I ................... 2
C. Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 2
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................... 3
A. Site Description ............................................................................................ ................... 3
......................
B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance ................................................................. 3
C. Technical Committee ......... '5
........................................................................................ I ..........
..........
D, Critical Areas Ordinance ..... ....................... ! .......... I ....... ... ........... . . ..................... �.6
III. RECONSIDERATION AND ALS ......................................................
........ ................... 6
A. Request for Reconsideration ...............................
......... I ..................................... ..................................... 6.
B. Appeals ................................................... I ...................................
............................ I ....... I .................. 6
01 ... �6
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL ...................................................................... i ........................
V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR....
............................................................... ......... ..
6
VI. APPENDICES .........................
.................................................................................................. 7
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD ............................................................................................. 7
:V9740.DOC AO�i 25, 1997 StaffReport:.�
BLU
ui
Z
IV—
Bnice Goodnight
File No, V-97-40
Page 3 of 7
IL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A.— Site Description
1. Site Development And Zoning:'
a) Facts:
(1) Size: The subject property is 32,228 square f6et in area. The proposed fence would
be located along the south property line (see Attachment 4).
(2) Zoning The zoning of the subject property is Residential, multiple family, 2,400
square feet of lot area required per dwelling unit (RM 2.4).
(3) Existing and Proposed Development The site is currently vacant. A single family
building was recently moved off the site to allow the construction of a new 12 unit
multiple family development, The ADD has granted approval of the design of the
new building, and the applicant has applied for building permits.
(4) Terrain and Vezetation: The subject property slopes gently down to the east, away
from 76th Avenue West, and then slopes down steeply at the eastern end of the
property to the adjacent developments. All vegetation has been removed from the
site in preparation for construction. The applicant is proposing to redevelop the site
with ornamental landscaping around the perimeter of the site (see Attachment 4).
Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) North: Developed with a 12 unit multiple family dwelling complex, and zoned RM
2.4.
(2) South: Developed with a 1,2 unit multiple family dwelling complex, and zoned, RM
2.4.
(3) East- Developed with a large multiple family dwelling complex and zoned CG under
a contract rezone.
(4) West: Currently under construction with a new high school, and zoned Public Use
(P).
b) Conclusion: The proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding
zoning and development.
B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
1. Compliance with RM 2.4
2. Zoning Standards
a) Facts:
(1) The fundamental site development standards in a RM 2.4 zone are set forth in
Chapter 16.30.
(2) The proposed building and site development conforms to all RM 2.4 requirements,
(3) ECDC Chapter 17.30 states the standards by which fences may be developed,
including height. The standards from which the ap�lieantis requesting relief are,
"Unless a variance isflrst obtained nofence or hedge shall be.more than 6feet in
height as measured from the top of the fence to the loi4st original grade "(ECDC
V970DOC /Apnl 25,1997 Staff Re�ort
Bruce Goodnight
File No. V-9740
Page 4 of 7
17.30.000(C)). and "When a retaining wall treefeet or greater is contiguous to and
below a proposedJence, the proposedfehce may be constructedfor the purposes of
safety not greater than four feet above th top of the reta
e ming wall or the finished
grade, whichever is less. " (ECDC I Z30.000(D)).
�b) Conclusion As conditioned the proposal complies with� the development standards for
RM 2.4 zones as set forth in Chapter 16.30 and 17.30 except the standard for which the
applicant is seeking a variance,
3. Compliance with requirement for a Variance
ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances) states an applicant may request a variance from the'
standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85.
Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC also 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 Auachment 2).
a) Eacts-
(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 i& 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 due to the adjacent
development. "The proposed Rose Ridge Condominiums are situated between two
existing condominium projects. The adjacent Rose Pointe Condominiums are to the
north with the rear yards facing the site. The adjacent Stralford Square
Condominiums are to the south with their rear yards facing the proposed project.
The proposedJence is to buffer the impact of the two adjacent rear yards, that of the
proposed Rose Ridge, and the adjacent Stratford Square Condominiums, as required
by the ADA
(4) The applicant states that the proposal would not be a grant of special privilege as
other fence height variances have been granted by the City of Edmonds for buffering
adjacent properties. Many of the other sites which used taller fences to buffer
impacts are buffering commercial impacts from existing multiple family
developments. These sites include the Top Foods site and the Funtasia site. One
case where an impact from a new Multiple Family project was buffered from an
existing Multiple Family site was at the Cottage Crest Condominiums on 196th Street
Southwest.
(5) The applicant states that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
by developing multiple family while protecting privacy.
(6) The applicant states that the proposal is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance as the
applicant is developing twelve units where the zoning allows twelve units.
(7) The applicant states that the proposal will not be detrimental as the fence was
required by the ADB to mitigate privacy reduction impact.
(8) The applicant states that this is the minimum variance because, based onjestimony
by adjacent property owners, the ADD recommended that the height of the f6fice be
allowed to be eight feet along the southern property line.
V9740.1DOIC April 251,1997 Staff Report
M" ,
�V'
VN' �i zT,
E'�
Bruce Goodnight
File No. V-97-40
Page 5 of 7
(9) The proposed design, has been approved by the ADB with the condition that the
applicant obtain a variance to allow..the proposed fence heiifit.(file No. ADB-96-
121) (see Attachment 6).
z W Conclusions
3: �(1) Special Circumstances
Special.circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings
of the property and public necessity for public structures.
d 5c,
Special circumstances exist for this proposal due to the location. or surroundings of
U) U.1 the property. Specifically, the condominium project to the north is oriented with the
�J — I I I � I I drive aisle on the north side and the backyards on the south side, while the
U) W
condominium project on the south is oriented with the drive aisle on the south, side
W and the backyards on the north side. This requires the backyards of the proposed
project to face the backyards of an existing projea
U.. <
A2) Special Privilegg
C),
X LL? i It does not appear that. any special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this
ZP variance as, other fence height variances have been granted'by the City of Edmonds
0; for buffering adjacent properties.
LUILU (3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive PrIan
Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the developm ent of the site in a
U 10
manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan
des ignation of the site while preserving privacy of adjacent properties.
LU
(4) Not Detrimental
LL Approval of the variance would not be'detrimental to the
Z public health, safety or
LU (A welfare because the proposal is intended to reduce detrimental impacts.
0 (5) Minimum Required
z
The request is the minimum necessary to reduce the possible impacts of the proposal
on adjacent properties.
C. Technical Committee
1. Engineering Division Comments
a) Eact: The Engineering Division has commented that the height of the fence, adjacent
to 76th Avenue West must not be allowed at a height which would create a vehicle sight
, f
obstruction for vehicles entering and exiting 76th r Avenue West.
A
b) Conclusion: A condition should be r incorpora ted into the decision stating that the
applicant must obtain a building permit for the proposed fence, and that the fence must
comply with the regulations of the City of Edmonds Engineering Division with respect to,
vehicle sight distance.
2. Other Comments
a) ERSL No other City Divisions or Departments submitted comments.
V9740DOC April 25, 1997 Staff Report
Bruce Goodnight
File No. V-97-40
Page 6 of 7
a
D. Critical Areas Ordinance
-1. Ticits-
z
a) The.subject proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.15B (Critical Areas
Ordinance),
cc
b) Ile applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Checklist, and the City has issued a Waiver
from the requirement to prepare a Critical Areas Study (File No CA-96-21 1)
-J
0
Conclusion: The applicant has complied with the requirements of the ECDC Chapter
U)
Cn
20.15B.
ca LL
—0
U.1
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedure . s for filing I reconsideration's and appeal I s. Any
wishing to file or
person respond to a recommendation, or appeal should contact the Planning Department
for further, information.
procedural
PC Ld
z
A., Request for Reconsideration
�-,
i 01
Section .20.100.010.G allows for - the Hearing 'Examiner to reconsider his, decision or
uJ Wi
M
recommendation if a written request is filed within teh (10) working days of the date i# the�initial
decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or
0 T
presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the
C3
subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific
LU UA
references to the findings, and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of
U.
application being reviewed.
.. z
B. Appeals
U.1
Section 20.105.020 A & B describe how appeals of a. Hearing Examiner decision or
z
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 the Community
Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed.
IV. 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 variance shall
expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for extension, of the time before the
expiration date.'
V. 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 Assessor' S, Office
V9 90/ Staif.Ripw
740MOC Apri� 25, 1,
Broce Goodnight
File No.�V-9740
P 7 of7
We APPENDICES
'Atta.clufi�nts 1 through 6.ir6 attkhed.'.
z
1. Vicinity Map
2. Application
3. Declarations of the Applicant
4. Site.PlAn
5.'
Fence section and elevation views
U,
6. Minutes from the February 19,1997 ADB meeiini for file ADB-97-121
C a LUUJ
VH. PARTIES OF RECORD
W, U.
—0
Bruce. Goodnight Planning,N
ivision
Engineering Division.
Goodnight Brothers Const.
P.O. Box 669
Edmonds, WA 98020
Public.Works Division Parks & Recreation
Fire Department''
Division
LU LU
0
Mt)
LU:11
z
0-
-'�V9740.DCiC/'Aprii�5;'1§47/St'afiRe rt:'
po'
JI
S2 U- I
LU 011, 1
z F-
0
�i �-
LU Uj
M.
U
0
F-
LU
z
N
Ifif
oil /,OPP�N Vicin . and Zoning Map
44
Attachment I
File# V-97-40
z t_�
;7-
z
W UJ;
2:D
0
a
Lu UJ
8�
IE
[A
U CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
13 HOME OCCUPATION
0 FORMAL SUBDIVISION
Q SHORT SUBDIVISION
(3 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
E3 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
E3 OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT
STREET VACATION
E3 REZONE
(3 SHORELINE PERMIT
IN VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE
EXCEPTION
C3 OTHER
FILE # ZONE 4(
DATE REC'D BY ___4,V
FEE RECEIPT# -Z� -Z 6 (f
HEARING DATE
HE Q STAFF E3 PB; 13 ADB Q CC
ACTION TAKEN:
13 APPROVED 13 DENIED 13 APPEALED
Applican Cd>r) A.-- —Phone
Address i /,n
Property Address or Location
Property Owner _D
Address hone Q')4;9z14
Address vnone
Tax Acc L-no-=_0 —C- Sec. TwP. Rng.
Legal Description
Details of Project or Proposed Use
a lot 0) uo'&- S
U
The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the
application agrees to release, indemnify defend and hold the City Of Edmonds harmless from any and all
damages, including reasonable attorney's i6es, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon
false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant
employees. , hisl her/ its agents or
The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds
enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to IN application.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT A�
T7TACHNMENT 2
0
llkfl��%� , -11�
;IS" F
0
.. . . .... .
1. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES: The proposed Rose Ridge Condominiums are situated
between two existing condominiums. The actnt Rose Pointe Condominiums 'are to the
north with their rear ya—rds facing the proposed site. The adjacent Statford Square
Condominiums are to the south with their rear yards flicing the proposed project. This is a
proposal to buffer the impact of two adjacent rear yards,, that of the proposed Rose Ridge
Condominiums and the adjacent Statford Square Condominiums,. as required by the ADB.
2. SPECIAL PRIVILEGE: Granting this variance would not, be a special privilege as other
complexes have resolved similar issues by raising their fence height. Some of these other
sites have been between commercial and multi familysuch as Top Foods and the adjacent
condominiums to the west or Funtaisa and the condom*uu'*ums to the south. Similar sites
with multi family rear yards abutting each other have resolved privacy issues by raising
fence height as was required at Cottage CrestCondominiums, and the condominiums to
the west.
3. COMPROIENSIVE PLAN: Rose Ridge complies with the comprehensive plan.
Building multi-finnity family housing in a multi -family zone, while protecting by buffering
the privacy between buildings.
4. ZONING ORDINANCE: Our site is zoned RM 2.4. Rose, Ridge has a total of twelve
units which is consistent with the adjacent existing multi -family housing to the north and
south,
5. NOT DETRIMENTAL: This variance would not be detrimental to surrounding
properties, as it is a beneficial buffer to both Rose Ridge Condominiums and the adjacent
Statford Square Condominiums.
6. MINIMUM VARIANCE: To buffer the adjacent buildings rear yard it has been
recommended to raise the fence height from six feet to eight feet by the ADB, by adding a
retaining wall this will accommodate the variable grades between yards. We feet this Will
allow maximum privacy with the smallest amount of fence elevation
15
A �U
C')
0 o ii
--I
ox
rn
:4 0
0
m
m rn
z
--I z
I .
"n
oT
n cn
i -rl rm-
:m con
�00 0
rl
om
�c
>