Loading...
533 ELM WAY (3).pdfLl FILE;'i- V- EXHIBIT' 2 DAIL', o / zz C ITY OF EDMONDS FEE HEARING EXAMINER RECT -7 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE APO'S HEARING DATE: APPLICANT NECKAS ESTATE ADDRESS_Case�j, Pruzan & Kovarik CITY & ZIP 18th Floor, pacific Bldg. Seattle, PHONE--(-2061 CJ23-3577 WA 98104 INDICATE TYPE OR DEGREE OF INTEREST IN PROPERTY Owns Propertv LOCATION OR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY 533 Elm 'Nav Volume 23 of Plats, LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Lot 9, Highlands Park, page 76 VARIANCE REQUESTED: An area variance which viould enable the Neckas family to have a fifth unit at this address FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: USE ZONE: �)M- ),!5 ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT:. 4 u jut -c -,, - Release/Hold Harmless Agreement The undersigned applicant, his heirs and assigns, in consideration for the City processing the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages and/or claims for damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from any action or inaction is based in whole or in part upon false, misleading or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his agents or employee7s. Permission to Enter Subject Property The undersigned applicant grants his, her or its permission for Dublic officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this apolication. Sign ture ot(,kpplfcant, Owner or Rerr sentative 11 a DECLARATIONS OF APPLICANT 1. What are the physical characterics, (i.e. topography, shape of lot, etc.) which create a hardship for you in regard to development of your property? The Neckas family seeks an area variance at 533 Elm Way. A variance is necessary at that location to legitimize a fifth apartment unit which was built by the prior owner of the apartment building located at that address, without obtaining a building permit. The lot is currently zoned RM-1500. The lot contains 6,689 square feet. See Appendix A. The lot has sufficient area for at least four units; the Neckas lot contains more square footage than is required for four apartment units. However, there is insufficient area at this location to legally accommodate a fifth unit. The City of Edmonds has requested that the Neckas family dismantle the illegitimate fifth unit. However, if this unit were dismantled, it would impose a great hardship on the Neckas family. The lot at 533 Elm Way is irregularly shaped. Because of the irregular shape of the lot, and consequently, the irregular shape of the apartment building located on this lot, it would be highly disruptive to dismantle the offending unit; dismantling the fifth unit would impose a hardship on the residents of the building as well as adjacent property owners. Additionally, dismantling the fifth unit would impose a financial hardship on the Neckas family. The lot at this address has a unique, irregular shape: It is long and narrow. Elm Street cuts across the front of the lot in a diagonal fashion and renders a large portion of the front of the lot, which faces Elm Street, unusable. The apartment building at this site necessarily reflects the irregular shape of the lot. Like the lot, the apartment development is long and narrow. The long, narrow shape of the lot dictated that the residential units, at this address, be stacked. Because there is little usable space at the f ront of the lot, all of the apartment units are oriented toward the back side of the lot. Additionally, common living areas, outdoor living areas, utility areas and the parking lot are all located at the rear of the building. Dismantling the fifth unit would adversely affect the residents of the other units at this address and surrounding property owners. Residents and surrounding property owners would be exposed to nuisance conditions, prohibited by the clear terms of the Edmonds Community Development Code ("Development Code"), such as noise and vibration. Addi- tionally, the construction project would generate dust and dirt which would impair the quality of life in the area and subject the property of the apartment residents to damage. Abolishing the fifth unit would impose a financial hardship on the Neckas family. it is likely that such construction activity would cause the residents either to move out of the building or request rent abatement during the period of construction. Also, apartment residents would probably want compensation for property damage and cleaning expenses resulting from this construction activity. 2. How does your property differ from other property in the same vicinity? -2- 0 M t There is no other lot in the vicinity which has a similar shape. Consequently, the improvements erected on other lots are also conventionally shaped. 3. Will this variance be detrimental to the public or damaging to other property or improvements in the vicinity? Granting an area variance, in the present case would not deterimentally impact on the interest of the public or other property owners or improvements in the area. The variance sought is an area variance; the improvements on the property are consequently in conformity with the use require- ments of the zoning district in which the property is located. The lot is classified under the Development Code as RM-1500. The lot is located in an area surrounded by multi -family residential units. Thus, the present and proposed use of this property is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and the zoning classification of the lot and surrounding properties. Allowing the fifth unit as this site would not generate any adverse spill -over effects which would detrimentally impact on surrounding properties and improvements. The apartment development at this site complies with all of the relevant front set -back and side set -back requirements. Because of the unique shape of the lot, and consequently the unique shape of the improvement at this site, it is not apparent from examining the front of this apartment that five units are located at this site. The offending fifth unit is located in the basement and to the rear of the building. The windows of the individual units do not penetrate the facade the building. (There are only three windows on the front side of the building). Additionally, -3- 4 i [" I the lack of usable space in the front part of the lot dictates that all common utility areas, parking areas, living areas and outdoor living areas be located at the rear of the building. An extra apartment unit at this location would not adversely affect parking conditions in the area. There is sufficient space at the rear of the lot to install extra parking spaces. Allowing an extra apartment unit at this site will not be inconsistent with the public health, safety and welfare of Edmonds as a whole: An extra unit at this site will not impair the City's ability to provide fire protection, utilities (water, sewer, etc.) or constitute an aesthetic blight. The granting of the variance will not be prejudicial to the public health, safety and welfare of neighboring developments or to the residents of the City. Failure to grant this area variance will impair the public interest. It is well recognized that construction projects have numerous adverse environmental impacts. In the present situation, dismantling the fifth unit would adversely affect adjacent property owners and residents of this apartment. Also, dismantling the fifth unit would clearly be contrary to numerous policies set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan clearly states that private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of development including, inter alia, noise and vibration. See Comprehensive Plan at Section 15.20.005(d). See Appendix B. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan states that freedom from air, water, -4- a noise and visual pollution is a fundamental value which the City is obliged to promote. See Section 15.20.060(B)(4)(d) at Appendix C. The Comprehensive Plan states that it is imperative that residents of the City be protected from noise pollution. Section 15.15.050 states: Although no area of human activity is free of sound, the modern urban environment is increasingly suffering from an overload of sound in a form of noise. The effects of noise may be severe. The most obvious effect is loss of hearing where levels of noise are very high and sustained. A less documented fact is stress from the physiological and pychological impact of noise. Noise generally contributes to loss of amenity and livability." see Appendix D. Section 15.15.050(B) states that one of the comprehensive planning goals in residential areas is to: "Preserve the quiet, residential environment of the City by limiting increases in noise and reducing unnecessary noise where it now exists in accordance with policies See Appendix D. Clearly, abolishing the fifth unit would contravene the above -recited comprehensive planning goals. The construction project, rather than reducing noise pollution, would create noise pollution. The construction activity would unnecessarily subject residents of the apartment and surrounding property owners to noise pollution and contribute to a loss of livability in the area. Dismantling the fifth unit would fail to provide residents living in the apartment building protection from adverse environmental impacts of development as required by Section 15.20.005(d) of the Comprehensive Plan. -5- IYI It is also important to note that abolishing the fifth unit would be contrary to one of the purposes for which residential zones are established. Section 16.10.000 of the Comprehensive Plan sets forth purposes which govern all residential districts and states that one of the general purposes of residential zones is: "To protect residential uses from hazards and nuisances, such as fire, explosion, noxious fumes and noise, .2dor, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat, glare and heavy traffic, which may resuft from other more intense land uses." See Appendix E. The above discussed construction project clearly would not protect residents of the this apartment building and adjacent residential properties from the above -recited conditions. Instead, this project would promote such nuisance conditions and adverse environmental impacts. 4. What hardships will result to you if the variance is not granted? Will these hardships have been caused by your own action? Failure to grant the area variance would impose extreme hardship on the Neckas family. If this variance is not granted, the Neckas family will be contrained to dismantle .A the fifth apartment unit located at this site. That construction project will almost certainly cause apartment residents and adjacent property owners to suffer various hardships resulting from adverse construction impacts. Additionally, abolishing the fifth unit w . ill impose a financial hardship on the Neckas family: The Neckas family will have to (1) compensate residents for damages which they suffer as a result of this construction project and (2) bear I M. the cost of dismantling the fifth unit. The Neckas family can ill -afford to bear such a financial burden. Dismantling the fifth unit would adversely affect the residents of the apartment. The residents will be forced to live in the midst of a construction project and to be exposed to (1) construction noises, (2) dust generated by the project, (3) plaster dust generated by the project, and (4) dirt generated by the project. Use of construction equipment will cause residential units, located at this site, to vibrate. Additionally, the property of residents will be covered with dirt, plaster dust and other pollutants resulting from construction activity. The construction project, because of the unique shape of the lot and improvement located at this address, will necessarily be centered in the rear portion of the lot. Thus, the project will preclude residents from making effective use of the outdoor utility areas, living areas, parking areas and balconies. Abolishing the fifth unit will impose a financial burden on the Neckas family because the project would clearly impair the livability of the apartment units located at this site. It is doubtful that individuals would pay to live under such conditions; residents undoubtedly would either request that the Neckas family abate their rent during the period of construction or terminate their tenancy. Also, it is likely that residents of this apartment would require the Neckas family to compensate them for cleaning expenses and property damage caused by plaster dust and dirt generated by the construction project. -7- �'M The plight of the Neckas family is not self-inflicted. The Neckas family did not commit the present zoning violation. When Christina and her late husband, Tom, purchased this apartment, the fifth unit had already been constructed. The prior owners did not disclose that they had built a fifth unit at this location without obtaining proper authorization from the City of Edmonds. The price which Christina and her late husband, Tom, paid for this apartment reflected the fact.that five units were located at this address. After the death of Tom Neckas, a trust, created to support the widow of Tom Neckas and his four children, assumed ownership of the apartment building. This apartment building is one of the few assets of the trust which provides support to the widow and children of Tom Neckas. The Neckas family wishes to take whatever steps are necessary in order to legitimize this fifth apartment unit. However, absent obtaining an area variance, it will be impossible for the Neckas family to legitimize this unit. If this variance is not granted, the Neckas family can ill -afford to assume the financial hardship which would result from abolishing the fifth apartment unit. PROPOSAL FOR USE OF THE FIFTH UNIT The Neckas family is strongly opposed to dismantling the offending fifth unit. Such an action is wasteful and contrary to various policies which are articulated in the Comprehensive Plan. one of the goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan is to provide affordable housing for all segments of the population. Section 15.20.005 states: ! M. A M "Provide affordable housing for elderly, disad- vantaged, disabled and low income [individuals] in proportion to the population of Edmonds See Appendix F. Section 15.20.005 states: "A broad range of housing types and densities should be encouraged in order that a choice of housing will be available to all Edmonds residents See Appendix F. The Neckas family would be glad to reserve the fifth unit as housing for the elderly and to rent out the unit at a reduced rate to an elderly individual. It is interesting to note that, under the terms of the Development Code, housing for the elderly is subject to reduced area requirements. It would be consistent with the policy reflected in Section 20.25 of the Development Code, to allow reduced area requirements at this address if the fifth unit were used exclusively as housing for the elderly. See Chapter 20.25 of the Development Code at Appendix G. MM 4 August 7, 1986 File No. 02-86-095 Jane Ryan Koler Casey, Pruzan & Kovarik 18th Floor Pacific Building Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Jane: Pursuant to letter of request dated July 29, 1986, we have computed the gross area of Lot 9, Highlands Park, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 23 of Plats on page 76, records of Snohomish County Washington. I Our calculations indicate the area to be 6,689 square feet. Please call if further information is required. Very truly yours, REID, MIDDLETON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Robert L. Stevenson Survey Manager RLS/ja APPENDIX A 121 5th Avenue North, Suite 200, Edmonds, Washington 98020 (206) 775-3434 15.20.005 2. Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures in the area* 3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construc- tion or additions to existing structures. 4. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible. 5. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful control of other types of development and expansion based IlDon the following principles: a. Residential privacy is the most fundamental protection to be upheld bv local government. od ,_b� Traffic not directly accessing residencesFuC'd n g�orh�o must be discouraged. c. Stable nr- Ilues inust not be-thre—at—ened by view, traffic and use encroachments. d. Private property must be protected rom adverse environmental impacts of development including voise,� drainage, traffic, slides, etc. 6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetat-ion and. drainage. C. Goal. A broad range of housing types and densities should be encour- aged in order that a choice of housing will be available to all Edmonds residents, in accordance with the following policies: rianned Residential Development. Consider planned residential development solutions for residential subdivision. a. Consider single-family homes in a PRD configuration wh"--re significant benefits for owner and area can be demonstrated (trees, view., open space, etc.). 23 b. Consider attached single-family dwelling units in PRD's near a tei`nativ�et �ti�ple- downtown and shoppi-n& -ce-nte-rs--&�� �oni�n� ,,rt4ultjp]L6'0 The City's development policies encourage high quality,\ silte and building design to promote coordinated development and to� preserve the trees, topography and other natural features of the site. Stereotyped, boxy multiple unit residential (RM) buildings. are to be avoided. APPENDIX B 12/31/85 a a. Light (including direct sunlight) b. Privacy c. Views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features- -a-.--F-re-e-&o-ff-frum-a4:r,—wztg-r_, noJ­ onO visual pollution.. 5. Any residential growth should be designed to promote as much as possible a balanced mixture of income and age groups. 6. Edmonds should cooperate with surrounding communities to ensure that the regional growth policy is consistent with the stated local policy. 7. The City should maintain an adequate staff to enable the implemen- tation of the foregoing policies. 12/31/85 APPENDIX C 33-1 k 77r,, 15.15.050 5. Encourage local referral center for car pooling. 15.15.050 NOISE POLLUTION - - d�__ '_ -AI-t-ffo—ugtf-� the K. neral. no afFeaof human activity is free of sound, modern urban environment is increasingly suffering from an overload of sound in the form of noise. The effects of noise may be severe. The most obvious effect is loss of hearing where levels of noise are very high and sustained. A less documented effect is stress from physio- logical and psychological impact of noise. Noise generally contrib- utes to a loss of amenity and livability. _TM—Sd=n&%_CGmmTn--ft_y is free, to a large extent, rrom the worst kinds of noise pollution and most residents believe that it is a quiet place to live. However, an environmental noise survey taken by the Building Department in 1974 indicates that there are some areas of concern. The main problems come from vehicular noise, particularly motorcycles. Some point source problems, refrigeration equipment in stores near residential areas, have also occurred in the city. TmpLLlsiv intensity noises which occur only periodically may also be irritating in quiet suburban_-aajzg-hb �mp e�sar6­airplanes, electroni- cally amplified music, sirens, etc. Certain noise problems can be alleviated more easily than others. The noise of vehicular traffic, particularly on arterial streets is diffi- cult to control. Point sources can be more easily regulated by requiring noise muffling equipment. Enforcement of noise standards can be a problem because of the training and skill involved in taking noise measurements. Cost of enforcement may be excessive if standards are too stringent. The federal government has passed legislation to deal with major sources of noise in commerce which require national conformity of treatment. The State Department of Ecology has adopted Motor Vehicle o-rmance-.-S.tancla-r.ds-and-EnNr-i-r-onmerrtz7l---No-ise—Le-v-els-guidelines. B . Goal. Preserve the quiet residential environment of the city by liM7- iting increases in noise and reducing unnecessary noise where it now exists in accordance with the following_pnli-A-e��_ 1. Studies should be made to determine the existing noise environment in order to provide baseline data for assessment of the environ- mental impact of changes or increases in noise. 19 2. The unique areas of quiet in the city should be identified and appropriate measures taken to preserve the quiet environment. 3. The city should update the existing noise standards to meet State Standards in modest stages in order to maintain flexibility and benefit from improvements in technology and experience. Increases in manpower or training to enforce standards should be cautiously made as experience is gained in enforcement. APPENDIX D 12/31/85 a CHAPTER 16.10 RESIDENTIAL ZONES - PURPOSES 16.10.000 PURPOSES The general purposes of the Residential, or R, zones are: A. To provide for areas of residential uses at a range of densities consistent with public health and safety and the adopted Compre- hensive Plan. B. Any growth or development should strive to preserve for itself and its neighbors the following values: 1. Light (including direct sunlight). 2. Privacy. 3. Views, open spaces, shorelines and other natur-a-1--fea res. 1�u 4. Freedom from air, water, noise and visual pollution. C. To provide for community racilities which complement residential areas and benefit from a residential environment. D. To minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of uti- lities by relating the size and density of new buildings to the land around them, the capacity of nearby streets, and the avail- ibility of utilities. E. To protect residential uses from hazards and nuisances, such as fire, explosion, noxious fumes and noise, odor, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat, glare, and heavy truck traffic, which may result from other, more intense, land uses. APPENDIX E 79 4 Ud 15.20.005 2. protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures in the areas 3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construc- tion or additions to existing structures. 4. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible. 5. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful control of other types of development and expansion based liDon the following principles: a�._Re_s�iential privacy is the most fundamental protection to be upheld bv local governments ,.b� Traffic not directly accessing residence6-1d­a—ff9rgT55rhood must be discouraged. c. Stable nro V__j .-ties 1Utj3t LtOt Ye-ttreatened by view, traffic .4 and use encroachments. d. Private property must be protected rom adverse environmental impacts of development including voise,� drainage, traffic, slides, etc. 6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and. drainage. C. Goal. A broad range of housing types and densities should be encour- aged in order that a choice of housing will be available to all Edmonds residents, in accordance with the following policies: 23 rianned Residential Development. Consider planned residential development solutions for residential subdivision. a. Consider single-family homes in a PRD configuration where significant benefits for owner and area can be demonstrated (trees, view, open space, etc.). b. Consider attached single-family dwelling units in PRD's near downtown aqd shoppiag­ -cent-ers-� �ai`rnatl`vet��tiple- ,,rgultiplij. The City's development policies encourage high qualit silte and building design to promote coordinated development and to preserve the trees, topography and other natural features of the site. Stereotyped, boxy multiple unit residential (RM) buildings, are to be avoided. APPENDIX F 12/31/85 20.25.000 PIRPOSE This chapter is included to allow reasonable changes in RM zone site development standards for housing projects for the elderly, because these projects usually have fewer persons per unit than a normal mul- tiple residential project. OPMENT STANDARDS 20.25.010 CHANGES TO SITE REVEL The Hearing Examiner may approve the following changes to the normal site development standards of the district in which the housing project for the elderly is to be located. A. A decrease of as much as one_half of the minimum required site area per unit. B. A decrease of as mucp as five -sixths of the minimum number of parking spaces per unit. 20.25.020 ELIGIBLE PROJECTS To be e��� to elderl ers ELY_P�?rso persons receiving under t , he insured eldETTY _�.6`rsim�il ci a! §.guritv Disability Benef its, rtqag(�_­P�ror;im of -HUD for housing government programs. ec vely financed 20.25.030 APPLECATION The applicant shall apply for a conditional use permit in order to use the provisions of this section. The applicant shall submit a full des- cription of the Proposal with the application, including a statement of how the project qualifies under Section 20.25.020 above. The applicant shall also show on the site plan a reservation of sufficient space to provide the normally required number of parking spaces if the project should ever be converted to a normal multiple residential project. 20.25.040 LOCATION CRITERIA The Hearing Examiner shall, in deciding whether to approve a permit under this section, find that the project is located in an area which has the following characteristics: APPENDIX G 208 k :1CH OF PROPERTY SE OUT IN ATTACHED ORDER Z�'_- 1,; /1 a- I '-f- — not based on a survey, and the comP&DY To 83sist it) 10cat'Dg the istions, if &Dy, in dimtosions and location- Isssume a no liabiLity for T&I PINE ST /0 j Fn 40 4 V 2 - I Z 9 2-11,79 L 6 ku to L FORSYTH LANE 7 - 131 1 00 6 r 1 11 - 14L 1 OL 00 2 5' 00 0% OL OL. P/ FIR 10 FIR P'L. I -NI SHA o K J.. PLAZA (19;800) #9 (CONDO) A 5 b 7 C� e�o T 6 13 (D 4 r.i ELM WAY t 4 722) 1? ELM HIGHL A 1VD R1 il Y 0 ST'S F1 RST ADD. I eats Alrectiag the propem. how an highways, road$ or easem Note—j"his map does not PurPorl to 5 e I . I ,0I AN' '44 I _74 m t 4 u 4 i tn tA ,I - qq� -�(w %Ifflt�oaa /7 I i '44 0 11 le - ---------- woe co;v I 4 Apartment 2 560 Elm Way Edmonds, Wa. 98020 November 4, 1986 City of Edmonds Variance Hearing Unfortunately, Mrs. Taylor and I shall be out of town on Thursday, November 6, 1986, but are anxious to express our interest in the hearing that concerns Apartment 5, 533 Elm Way, Edmonds, Washington. We have enjoyed living at 560 Elm Way since May 1, 1980, and hope to remain there indefinitely. We have found Mrs. Christina Neckas to be very ethical with a real interest in her tenants and one who takes pride in maintaining the high standard of our neighborhood. Residents here are mostly childless couples or single people - a low density population - quiet and well behaved. Ile think the variance at 533 Elm Way should be allowed. DMT/c Yours very truly, &'=Z 5 L nL Davia M. 'Pailor Charlotte Be Taylo h M E M 0 R A N D U M November 10, 1986 TO: James M. Driscoll Hearing Examiner FROM: Duane V. Bowman Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Lot Area Requirements for 533 Elm Way in 1967 (Exhibit 8 / V-32-86) At your request, I have reviewed the past zoning ordinances for the City of Edmonds to determine the lot area requirement for dwelling units in the multiple family zone district, under which the Neckas apartment building was built in 1967. The zoning at 533 Elm Way in 1967 was RMH. The lot area requirement formula was 2,800 square feet for the first dwelling unit, and 1,250 square feet for each additional unit. The subject lot contains 6,689 square. Applying the formula shows the following result: 6,689 sq. ft. (Lot Area) - 2,800 sq. ft. (1st D/U) = 3,389 sq.ft. 3,389 sq. ft./1,250 sq. ft. = 2.711 D/U Total Allowable dwelling units = 3 Building Perm'it #670068 shows a lot area of 6,800 square feet, which allows 4 units. Apparently, someone miscalculated the actual lot area of —the property. Under current zoning, there is sufficient lot area for 4 dwelling units. cc: Jane Kolar k