545 PINE ST (2).pdf(7�1� �
CITY OF EDMONDS
BARBARA,,FAHEY
MAYOR
250 6TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
��St. JS9
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPLICANT: Thomas Belt
CASE NO.: V 96-117
LOCATION: 545 Pine Street (See Exhibit A, Attachment 1)
APPLICATION: A variance to reduce the required 20 foot street setback on the
north property line to 15 feet (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2).
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 (VARJANCES).
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
The subject property is a recently subdivided lot between Pine St. and Seamont Lane in an
RS-6 zone district. A typical lot in the RS-6 zone would require a 20-foot street setback and
a 15-foot rear setback. Because of the property's location between Pine St. and Seamont
Lane, it has a 20-foot street setback required from both the north and south property lines.
Because the property is located in a zone that allows small lots, the applicant states, when
additional setbacks are required because the property is adjacent to more than one road, a
hardship is created which necessitates their variance request of 5-feet from the required 20-
foot street setback along the north property line.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Staff Recommendation: Modified approval
Hearing Examiner Decision: Deny,
Incorporated August 11, 1890
,Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
UJ
T)
Z
Z
tit
2
M
0
a
W
LL
W
Y
8
Z
to
41
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 96-117
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 Belt application was opened at 9:08 a.m., October 17, 1996, in the Plaza Room,
Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:56 a.m. The hearing was held jointly
with the hearing on case V 96-114. 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.
HEARING COMMENTS:
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.
From the City:
Stephen Bullock, Project Planner, reviewed the staff report (Exhibit A) and recommended
modified approval of the request.
From the Applicant:
Thomas E. Belt said:
• He doesn't have to build a smaller house on the property. Rather, he would just have
to squeeze the house onto a smaller area of the property and the result would be a
house with less modulation.
• The City's recommendation of a 17 1/2 foot setback in front is not consistent with the
rest of the area. He would prefer a 15 foot setback on the back of the house and a 20
foot setback on the front of the house.
• He doesn't believe the 5. foot setback variance on the north will affect anybody.
• The proposed house will only cover 35% of the lot area.
Tom Belt said:
* He will design the house and the whole point of the variance is to build a house that is
not straight up and down, but has some relief.
9 He felt the variance will result in a better looking house.
From the Community:
William Rees said:
• He disagreed that this variance would not affect people to,the north.
• He does not want a house any closer to him than is allowed by d'
CP
�P.
in,
U) -
Cf) LU
LU
fn LL
WO
ILL
LU
z I--
�- 0
Z �-
LU LU
0
Q
LU LU
3:
2
LU Cf,
z
a
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 96-117
Page 3
He feels the house which is proposed is out of scale with the neighborhood.
Dave Dolacky said:
9 His house will be directly impacted by the 5 foot variance.
The proposed new houses, particularly the one next to him would impact his view (He
submitted photographs to show the view impact - Exhibit D).
9 Houses could be designed to fit on the lots if they were downsized.
• The proposed houses will make for more profitable use of the property for the
applicant.
• Seamont Lane is a private street, but it meets the code definition of a street and a 20
foot setback is required.
Gene Hochwalt said:
• He agreed with the previous speakers.
• Scamont Lane is a very narrow street and reduction of the rear yard will put the new
house right in front of his house.
• There is a drainage ditch between Seamont Lane and where the proposed house will
be located. He is concerned about what will happen to the drainage ditch.
• He would like a fence installed so the new owners will not be able to access Seamont
Lane.
Joan Baker said:
She can't see any reason for houses with 3 car garages.
0 She felt the proposed houses are way out of scale for the neighborhood and they
should be downsized.
Response from the Applicant:
to
Thomas E. Belt said:
• Most new houses have 3 car garages.
• The drainage ditch will be cleaned up and improved.
• He is willing to work with Mr. Dolacky to help minimite any. view impact, but he
said you do not buy a view when you buy a lot. p
• He is willing to show Mr. Dolacky what he is proposing to build.
r- -C�
UJI
cc 2�
U) LA.
W 0
LL
LU
Z
Z
LU W!
0—,
a �-
LU
ZI
0
Z
0
• He doesn't think the 5 foot variance will hurt the people living on Seamont Lane.
• This whole area is zoned for 6,000 square foot lots and other variances have been
granted in the area.
WPXrMN COMMENTS:
Ray Anderson wrote in Exhibit B that he had inspected the site and felt a variance should
not be granted in this case.
Paul Lewer wrote in Exhibit C that the property was recently subdivided into small lots
consistent with the other lots in the Edmonds bowl. When the owners made the choice to
subdivide into small lots they should live with the setback requirements which are in the
city code.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
1. Site Development And Zoning:
a. Facts:
1) Size: The subject property is 6,048 square feet in area, and is
rectangular in shape with 84-feet of frontage along Seamont Lane to
the north and 72-feet of lot depth (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4).
2) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with a single-
family house.
3) Zoning The zoning of the subject property is Residential Single -
Family - 6,000 sq. ft. lots (RS-6) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
Single -Family homes are a permitted primary use in this zone.
4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property is generally flat to
rolling and vegetated with lawn and fruit trees.
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a. Fact: The adjacent properties on all sides are currently zoned under the
same RS-6 zone (see Exhibit A, Attachments 1). These properties are also
developed with single-family homes.
B. HISTORY
In June of 1996, the applicant received approval of a four lot short -plat, S-96-49. These
four lots will gain access from Pine Street, but lots 2 and 3 will also abut the private road
known as Seamont lane along their north property lines. The current proposal is for a
variance to the required street setback along the north property line of lot 3 of that short -
plat.
I
Fo
M
U
0
a
LU
d;
U
0
z
to
a
C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE
1. Critical Areas Compliance
a. Facts:
1) Ibis proposal is subject to review under, ECDC Chapter 20.153
(Critical Areas Ordinance).
2) The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Checklist, and the city has
issued a Waiver from the requirement to prepare a Critical Areas
Study.
b. Conclusion: The applicant has complied with the requirements of the
City's Critical Areas Ordinance.
2. Compliance with RS-6 Zoning Standards
a. Facts:
1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential
development in the RS- 12 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030.
These include the following for locating structures:
a) Street Setback: 20 feet
b) Rear Setback: 15 feet (5 feet for detached structures < 600 sq.
c) Side Setbacks: 5 feet
d) Maximum Height: 25 feet
e) Lot Coverage: 35%
2) Because of the existing streets to the north And south of this lot, the
required setbacks are as follows:
a) Street Setback: North and South property lines
b) Rear Setback: None
c) Side Setbacks: East and West property lines
3. 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, Attachments 3).
a. Facts:
1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which
a variance request must comply in order to be grantedby the Hearing
Examiner. These criteria include: a Special Circumstance must exist;
no Special Privilege is granted; the proposal is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan; the proposal is consistent with the Zoning Code.
UJ
LA.
0
Ln 51
UJI
Z
0
Z
UA UX
(ni
0
LU
Z
LU
0
Z
• Special Circumstances - The location of roads on opposite sides of
the subject property and the subsequent street setback from those
roads is a fairly unique situation. The application of two 20-foot
setbacks on opposite property lines fairly rapidly constrains a small
lot.
• Special Privilege - This is not a special privilege in that other
property owners with the circumstances would have the same
opportunity to meet the variance criteria
• Comprehensive Plan The proposal is consistent with the
A
Comprehensive Plan in that it does not create a greater density or
change the residential character of the neighborhood.
• Zoning Ordinance - The proposal is consistent with the Zoning
Ordinance in that it does not create a greater density or ask for any
increase in lot coverage or additional height.
• Not Detrimental - The granting of this variance does not appear to
be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare
or injurious to adjacent properties or improvements in the vicinity
and with the same zone.
Minimum Variance - The granting of this variance, appears to be
the minimum necessary to grant the applicants the rights enjoyed
by the other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
3) The proposed variance would impact only those lots that are already
developed with single family homes to the north.
b. !Qonclusions.
1) Special circumstances do not exist on this site anymore than they do on
any similar lot in the City which has required street setbacks on both
the front and rear yards. This lot was recently subdivided by the
applicant, has flat topography, and is rectangular in shape. The lot
complies with all of the size requirements of the RS-6 zone. If any
special circumstances or hardship exists because of the depth of the
lot, it was self-created when the applicant subdivided the property. He
could have subdivided the property into fewer, but larger lots to gain a
larger buildable area to accommodate the houses he would like to
build.
2) The examiner believes a special privilege would be, granted if, this
variance is approved. The applicant can build a fairl y large house �on
the property and still meet all of the setback requirements.
Hearing Exammer Decisi
Can No. V 96-117
Page 7
3) Approval of the proposed variance would not allow for the
development of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the
Zmaing Code,
4) Appro of the variation would be detrimental to the public health,
.1
or
d
safety welfare.
5) Approval of the requented variance dam not appear to be the minimum
required to allow for constructi of a new single family house - the
in
ana. The me om the let which mid be built an it if all of the setback
2
requirements an met is appro innately 1,998 square fact in sin. That
Wool d allow the construction of a nearly 4,000 square foot two am
shucturs. The re, a house of wall am 3,000 square feet in sin
a,
plus a garage mid be built on the lot even if all setback requirements
z
0
I
met.
D. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
1. Review by City Departments
0—
a. Fact: No cirearests were =do by other City departments.
0,
-
b. Conclusion: Other City departments have no initial concerns.
E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC)
T
1. Compurheirsi-PlanDesigimfitur
a. Fact: The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property wa Low
Density Residential,
b. Conclusion: The proposed project is consistent with the Law Density
Residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan.
DECISION
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variame to redure the
required 20 foot street setback from the north property tire to 15 feet is hereby denied,
0
0
Entered this 29th day of October, 1996, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
under Chapter 20. 100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Ednamda.
to
Ron WC ... 11
Hearing Emu-
0
HearingEsmainerDecisi n
Case No. V 96-117
Page 8
RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing accustaiderstirms and
appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a rissmanstarkifirm or appeal should
coman the Planning Department for further proxeducal information.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examinsr to moribler his decision or
recommendation ifawrittan request is filed within am (10) working days of the date ofthe
initial decision by my fiction who attends the public hearing ad signs the attendance register
and/or presents testimony or by my person holding an ownership interest in a wart of land
which is the subject of such decision or maccomandation, The racrusideration request =at
cite specific reforeacca to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances
governing the type of application being reviewed.
APPEALS
Section 20.105.020.A & 13 describe how appeals of a Heating Examicur decision or
--dation shall be made. Th. appeal shall be made in writing, it sholl 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
masons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrang. The appeal =at be filed with
the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the dam of the
decision being appealed,
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may as a result of the decision tendered by the Hearing Exminer request
a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office.
EXHIBITS:
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
A. Planning Division Advisory Report (prepared October 14,1996)
B. Utter submitted by Mr. Ray Anderson mcceived October 15,1996)
C� Letter submitted by Mr. Paul Lever fieceived October 16, 1996)
D. Photos by Mr. Dolacky
OCTOBER 17,1996
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, ZIP
CODE AND PHONE NUMBER BELOW IF YOU WISH TO
SPEAK ON THIS ITEM
z
Lu'�
V-96-117 THOMASBE
ci 01
uJ
05 6
uj
-i
Lp uo-
Lu
ancr 14tvE W dAi, 6
J,
Min a-j9dmew 4s ct cog o
LX,
`4, RF.EO S-b"O -�r--AfvLoOIT LAWE
z
;7- 01
51
0 Di
uj
:r u
uj T)i
jg
roil
NOTICE: IF THE
TWIq NOTICE