Loading...
643 9TH AVE N.pdfF. z LU UJi L) U)l 0 ZE Ly Z LU U) Z E CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 STH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - 1206) 771-0220 - FAX 1206) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECONSIDERATION DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANTS: Randy and Debbie Johnson CASE NO.: V 97-64 Jul , 1 1 �,�Q ;, LOCATION: 643 - 9dAvenue N FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. The applicant filed a request for reconsideration dated June 27,1997 (Reconsideration Exhibit A). B. City of Edmonds staff did not respond to the request for reconsideration C. The following represents the Examiner's response to each major point raised in the request for reconsideration: Paragrat)h 1: There are. many hedges in Edmonds planted after 1978 which are over the allowed height. Response: As pointed out in Conclusion D.3.b.2) on page 7 of the June 19, 1997 Hearing Examiner report, hedges planted in violation of the hedge height regulations are in violation of the regulations and should not be used as a basis for granting approval of a variance application. Rather, a violation is the basis for code enforcement action. Paragrnli 2 The tree which was removed was a public safety hazard. Ninth Street is an urban arterial and with the tree removed, living along the street is likei living in a fish bowl. The applicant's should not be penalized for removing a public safety hazard. Response: There is no intent to penalize the applicant's for removing a public safety hazard. Conclusion D.3.b.4) on page 8 of the June 19, 1997 Hearing Examiner report said "it appears that the replacement of the tree with the hedge is an improvement for public safety and a benefit for properties in the area." * Incorporated August 11, 1890 * Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan W H A six foot high hedge will not provide relief from car lights leaving Glen Street or the neighbor's driveway. Response: LU, X. A reduction in the height of the hedge will probably not provide much relief from car U. lights leaving Glen Street, particularly if they turn north due to the difference in elevation 01 between Glen Street and the applicant's home. Glen Street is a short, dead-end street which serves a relatively small number of homes, however, the Examiner did not consider lights from any cars coming from Glen Street when the original decision was made. Paragraph 4: Z ;7- 0: Z R Staff informed the applicants that view was not an issue so no view defense was pursued. LU LU, There was no view from the Merrill home before the hedge was planted due to the large 2 =) :3 0, tree which existed in front and a large fir tree and cherry trees which existed in back of U W, 0 the applicant's house. LU L; Reaponse: i--! �L- a zll� Conclusion D.3.b.4) on page 8 of the June 19, 1997 Hearing Examiner report concluded that based on assertions from the applicant and the former owner of the house currently 0 occupied by the applicant that the current hedge blocks views less than the old cedar tree Z in front and the old fir tree in back did. View blockage by the current hedge was not a significant issue in the Examiner's decision. Paragraph 5: Several points were raised: An average of 10 feet was taken from the applicant's property in 1970. 0 There are four rooms in the front of the applicant's home. The hedge was planted where the tree existed. It seems crazy to cut down the hedge if a compromise can't be reached and then replace it with lots of large trees and bushes. Resl2onse: All of the points raised above are acknowledged. However, before a variance can be granted, an application for a variance must meet all of the criteria found in Chapter 20.85. In this case, the Examiner originally concluded that the special circumstance test was not met, and the Examiner was not convinced that a 121/2 foot high hedge is the minimum necessary to allow the applicants rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity where the zoning requirements have been met. In reconsidering this case, the Examiner now 0 p Street, howeve;, the Examiner still believes a hedge height of over 12 feet is excessive and is not the minimum necessary. After further review of this case, the Exariiiner Uji i believes a hedge height of 8 feet would provide reasonable relief from car lights from Glen Street and the original decision should be modified to allow an 8 foot high hedge. .0 RECONSIDERATION DECISION :n LUI� .0 X! 1 1— The decision of the Hearing Examiner Report dated June 19, 1997 is hereby modified to read: n U. LU After reconsideration, the request to increase the height of the hedge to 12 V2 feet is denied, however, a hedge height of 8 feet shall be allowed. If the applicants desire the top of the hedge to be level, then the hedge shall be limited to a height of 8 feet from the lowest point of the slope. z Otherwise, the top of the hedge may be parallel with the ground and the hedge height shall not exceed an average of 8 feet above the ground. z LLO LU LU 0 W Entered this 10th day of, July 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner X U- 0: under Chapter 20. 100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. UJ CM� fn z Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing appeals. Any person 0 wishing to file an appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural� information. Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision orl 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. 0 4� 2 z I W 0 C3 LU 3: 0 z DI AIRL Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-64 (Reconsideration) Page 4 TA"SE OF MPROVAL Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. RECONSIDERATION EXHIBIT: The following reconsideration exhibit was offered and entered into the record. A. Request for reconsideration submitted by, dated 6/27197. PARTIES oF RECORD: Randy and Debbie Johnson 643 9h Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020-3039 Bonnie Merrill 604 9h Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds Planning Division Edmonds Engineering Division Janice Brown 521 South 51"'Court Renton, WA 98055 9 4 w U 0 Q LU z N Its: <--rry 6F F-E)mcn-4ns� 20 BARDARA PAHMV commul"I" ry off"Vicas DOPARTMENT P.gn. ,.arks Planning a Parke and Ploorwation o 11inginewrino VER-F-r-'C�P11MR =OVF-R PAAME-S Reeiplente'relecopler Number: C5-15 r-> '=C FRam. TRANSMISSION REPORT NO REMOTE STATION I.D. START TIME DURATION #PAGES COMMENT I '1 7- 1-97 11:32AM L— 2'15- 3 TOTAL 0:02'15" 3 XEROX TELECOPIER 7020 UJ El NewAr6�a,C6de*1(42% CITY OF EDMONDS: BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 1 260 6TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 1206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-6221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DE PARTMENT D W. AA1 L C) V or s Planning Parks and Recreation Engineering TELECOPIER COVER PAGE TO: C, (QM(� DATE TRANSMITTED - NUMBER OF PAGES (including Cover Page) Recipients Telecopier Number: 0_1 5 0 FACSIMILE EQUIPMENT: AUtomatic/Group 11 (2,3 mins.); Group III FROM' If there are any problems CF during transmission or documents are received incomplete, please call (206) 771-0220 and ask for Sender's Talpmnipr Niimhp.r- tqnAN771_nqqi drn 0A0\Worddata%FaxForm. 0, Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 1. Many of our neighbors do have hedges that were planted after 1978. Mrs. Merrill who complained about our hedge was one in her front yard. The City staff only assumed that the hedges in the neighborhood were planted before 1978, but we can give many examples in our immediate neighborhood and around Edmonds. We don't care to involve our friends and neighbors in this dispute, but with further investigating you will find many hedges planted after the grandfathered year that don't comply with the city ordinance. One example is the new roll of trees planted on the south side of highway 104, in a few years they will meet the definition of a hedge. On Aloha Street,and even are neighbors to the south have hedges over the height limit and there are more. 2. When we cut the tree down in February, 1990 and were confronted with a possible law suit, the city staff told us the sidewalk was our responsibility to keep clean. This tree was a public safety hazard and a homeowner's liability. Even Mrs. Merrill in her complaint stated the tree was big. We are on a state urban arterial which gets approximately 6500 cars per day with no compensation for traffic noise, lights and dirt. There are no other north/south straight arterials in Edmonds like 9th Ave. When we cut the tree down it was like living in a fish bowl. Surely, the City of Edmonds did not intended for us to be penalized for taking care of a public hazard. 3. On page 8, the Hearing Examiner states that a six foot hedge would provide some relief from traffic lights but what about the cars leaving Glen Street which is the cross road or our neighbor's drive way to the south? 0,� G Z Page 2 4. City staf f informed us that view was not an issue for a hedge height variance.so we didn't pursue a view defense. Mr. Kasper's letter, who was the previous ownerof 643 9th Ave North, clearly stated that this home had no view from.the south west quadrant. If you look at the vicinity and zoning map you will see her lot dissects the middle of our house. The large tree that was taken down wasn't the only reason she didn't have a view. Planted in the,back of our home were large fir and cherry trees and the last storm in January, 1997, opened up our view from that side of the house. 5. Just for the record an average of 10 feet was taken from our home in 1970. We have four rooms in the front of our home; dining.room,kitchen,bath and I bedroom. And the tree was planted exactly where the hedge is now and the stump is there to prove it. There was still stumps in the back yard and lot behind us to prove there were no views from that side of the yard. We are asking your to please reconsider your decision. If not, 4:, can we at least compromise? It seems so crazy to cut this hedge down just to replace it with lots of large tall trees and bushes. .Sincerely, Debbie and Randy Johnson 643 9th Ave North Edmonds, Washington 98020-3039 (425) 775-6261 F-I Ii LU U 0 a LU U- 0 Z 0 June 27, 1997 Request for reconsideration Case No.: V 97-64 Dated: June 19, 1997 Location: 643 9th Ave North, Edmonds Debbie and Randy Johnson 1,9 ,9 We are requesting that the Hearing Examiner reconsider his decision based on the following: 1. Many of our neighbors do have hedges that were planted after 1978. Mrs. Merrill who complained about our hedge was one in her front yard. The City staff only assumed that the hedges in the neighborhood were planted before 1978, but we can give many examples in our immediate neighborhood and around Edmonds. We don't care to involve our friends and neighbors in this dispute, but with further investigating you will find many hedges planted after the grandfathered year that don't comply with the city ordinance. one example is the new roll of trees planted on the south side of highway 104, in a few years they will meet the definition of a hedge. On Aloha Street,and even are neighbors to the south have hedges over the height limit and there are more. 2. When we cut the tree down in February, 1990 and were confronted with a possible law suit, the city staff told us the sidewalk was our responsibility to keep clean. This tree was a public safety hazard and a homeowner's liability. Even Mrs. Merrill in her complaint stated the tree was big. We are on a state urban arterial which gets approximately 6500 cars per day with no compensation for traffic noise, lights and dirt. There are no other north/south straight arterials in Edmonds like 9th Ave. When we cut the tree down it was like living in a fish bowl. Surely, the City of Edmonds did not intended for us to be penalized for taking care of a public hazard. 3. on page 8, the Hearing Examiner states that a six foot hedge would provide some relief from traffic lights but what about the cars leaving Glen Street which is the cross road or our neighbor's drive way to the south? 0 4. City staff informed us that view was not an issue for a hedge height variance so we didn't pursue a view defense. Mr—Kasper's letter, who was the previous owner of 643 9th Ave North, clearly stated that this home had no view from the south west quadrant. If you look at the vicinity and zoning map you will see her lot dissects the middle of our house. The large tree that was taken down wasn't the only reason she didn't have a view. Planted in the back of our home were large fir and cherry trees and the last storm in January, 1997, opened up our view from that side of the house.'' 5. Just for the record an average of 10 feet was taken from our home in 1970. We have four rooms in the front of our home; dining room,kitchen,bath and 1 bedroom. And the tree was planted exactly where the hedge is now and the stump is there to prove it. There was still stumps in the back yard and lot behind us to prove there were no views from that side of the yard. We are asking your to please reconsider your decision. If not, can we at least compromise? It seems so crazy to cut this hedge down just to replace it with lots of large tall trees and bushes.. Sincerely, Debbie and Randy Johnson 643 9th Ave North Edmonds, Washington 98020-3039 (425) 775-6261 V 0 CASE NO.: V 97-64 LOCA17ION: 643 - 9th Avenue N. (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). APPLICATION: A variance to increase the maximum allowed hedge height from 6 feet to 12-1/2 feet along the south and east property lines of a single-fan-dly residence in the RS-12 zone (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 through 4). REVIEW PROCESS: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 17.30.000 and 11.30.010 (FENCES AND HEDGES — General and Special Height Restrictions). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions Hearing Examiner Decision: Deny 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 oh the application. The hearing on the application was opened at 9:29 a.m., June 5, 1997, in the Community Services Conference Room, 250 5h Ave. N., Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:59 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. * Incorporated August 11, 1890 * Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 0 0 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-64 Page 2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The applicants are requesting this variance to allow their existing hedge to continue at its same height. The hedge was planted to screen headlights and noise from traffic coming down 9th Avenue N. after a tree was removed which had provided this function, but had also dropped needles on the sidewalk which had been a slipping hazard to joggers (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5). HEARING COMMENTS: g . J11 The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. LL &From the City: Z Meg Gruwell reviewed the staff report. She noted that: W LW The applicants don't want lights from cars in their house and want the variance to 2 Mi :) 0: allow a hedge high enough to block those lights. L) W! 0— C3 1--ii 0 Hedge heights are measured from the lowest grade and are allowed to be 6 feet in LU W11 X V height. The existing hedge is on a hill and is approximately 9 feet high from the �- I uphill side and approximately 121/2 feet tall at the lowest grade. U- Z, W CD-11 0 Many neighbors have hedges over 6 feet in height, however, no height variances for hedges have been granted in this neighborhood. It is believed most of the 0 Z hedges which are over 6 feet in height were there before the hedge height limit was adopted and are now nonconforming. From the Applicant: Debbie Johnson, applicant, said: 0 A large cedar tree was located where the hedge is now. The tree encroached over the sidewalk and was very messy. It was their responsibility to keep the sidewalk clean. 0 0 The cedar tree and another tree which was located on the back of their property blocked the view of the water from Mrs. Merrill's house. From the Community: Janice Brown, daughter of Bonnie Merrill, said: Mrs. Merrill has owned the house since 1959. When 9�h Avenue was widened, 5 feet was supposed to come from the Merrill side and 15 feet was supposed to come from the Johnson side. Actually, all of the property for the widening came from the Merrill side and there is more of a problem with headlights on the Merrill side than on the Johnson side. 0 1140. v Y I-W+ Page 3 She understands why the Johnsons wanted to take the tree down, but before the hedge was installed her mother had a view and now the hedge blocks it so she would like the hedge to be trimmed. Bonnie Merrill, neighbor, said: • Eighteen feet was taken off her property for the street widening and none was taken off the Johnson property. • There is a 6 foot high limit on hedges and she doesn't know why it needs to be higher. • She does not object to a 6 foot high hedge. 0 Only two rooms from the Johnson house face the road, a bedroom and the kitchen. 0 The hedge is only planted in half of the Johnsons front yard, but it blocks the view from her master bedroom. 0 The hedge is nowhere near where the tree was. Jane Jacobson, Edmonds resident, asked how much time was spent in the master bedroom looking at the view. Response from the Applicant: Debbie Johnson said: • The hedge was planted where the tree was taken out. • An English Laurel hedge is planted below the house which blocks headlights coming from the other direction. • They could have planted a clump of trees instead of the hedge and accomplished the same thing in that the trees would also block the lights from cars and the code does not regulate the height of trees. CORRESPONDENCE: One letter was received from members of the general public on this issue. Bonnie Merrill submitted Exhibit B in which she objected to a variance which would allow the hedge to be 12 feet high as she feels it will affect her property value and block a view corridor. t 0 Z i UJ W 0 i7- LU UJ U y 15 �- Z F17 ul�� FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a. Facts: 1) &ize- The subject property is 12,000 square feet in area, rectangular in shape with 110 feet of frontage along 9th Avenue N. and a depth of 120 feet (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). An access easement runs along the northern 20 feet of the lot. 2) Land Use The subject property is developed with a single-family residence. 3) Zoning The zoning of the subject property is Single -Family Residential (RS- 12) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). 4) Terrain and Vegetation The subject site slopes down to the west, and is landscaped with trees and shrubs. The high point of the property is along 9th Avenue N., and particularly along the southeast comer. The hedge is growing along 9th Avenue N. and the south property line on a slope to the west, 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a. Facts: 1) The properties to the north, south and east are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-12) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1) and are developed with single-family residences. 2) The property to the west is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-12) and is undeveloped (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). B. HISTORY The applicants have stated that when they purchased their home, a 120 foot high by 35 foot wide Lebanon or diadora cedar tree was growing in their front yard. After they were informed that someone had slipped on the needles the tree dropped on the sidewalk, and that it was their responsibility to keep the sidewalk clean, they cut the tree down (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5). Because 9th Avenue N. slopes down steeply from the south, the headlights shine at the applicants' house where the tree used to stand, and the noise from traffic was also greater after the tree was removed. The applicants planted the hedge to block the headlights and noise from cars along 9th Avenue N. In October 1995 the Planning Department received a complaint about the height of the hedge, stating that the hedge blocked the complainant's view of Puget Sound (Exhibit A, Attachment 6). Due to staff turnover and heavy workloads, the complaint was not researched until February 1997. At that time the hedge measured approximately 9 0 1. � I C­ I ­ �11 I,, I . I � -�o 0 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-64 Page 5 feet from the uphill side. A letter was sent to the property owners informing them of the hedge height limit. The owners have chosen to request a variance to allow 2! < them to keep their hedge at the height it is now. C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) .0 J J 1. Facts: Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from C LU SEPA review (WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080). LU X -J �- V) IL D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVE LOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE LU C 1. Critical Areas Compliance U- a. Facts: (n = C 1) This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.15.13 Z (Critical Areas Ordinance). 2) The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Checklist (CA-97-65) and LU U 2 = C the city has issued a Conditional Waiver to the Critical Areas Study a requirement. This is because the site has an Erosion Hazard Area, so 0 a any alteration must meet conditions designed to reduce erosion, W U including an erosion control plan, timing of the project and tree X C. clearing perrnits for slopes exceeding 25 percent. LL C b. Conclusion: The proposal complies with the requirements of the City's UJ C Critical Areas Ordinance. Z 2. Compliance with Chapter 17.30 -- Fences and Hedges a. Ea_ct.- Regulations regarding hedges in all zones are set forth in Chapter 17.30. 1) ECDC 17.30.000.0 states that "Unless a variance is first obtained, no fence or hedge shall be more than six feet in height as measured from the top of the fence to the lowest original grade." 2) ECDC 17.30.010.A gives special height restrictions for streets and comers. "Height shall normally be limited to three feet within 10 feet of any street right-of-way or access easement or 30 feet of any comer, unless an exception is approved." 3) ECDC 17.30.010.11 gives the exception criteria: "If the city engineer finds that no hazard to users of the street or to nearby property will be created, the city engineer may approve a fence or hedge of up to six feet in height." 4) The Engineering Division has stated in a memorandum from Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator, that no hazards are created by the current hedge height (see section II.E.I.a.). b. Conclusion: The city engineer, through his designee, has approved the proposed height, so if the variance criteria are met, the proposal will comply with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. 0 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-64 Page 6 3. Compliance with Requirements for a Variance Z a. Facts: Z 1) Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a U1 provision of the Code may be varied on a case -by -case basis if the U; application of the provision would result in an unusual and 0! V) unreasonable hardship. The criteria are as follows: cn LU I a) Special Circumstances: That because of special circumstances V) U. LU 0 relating to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or 2 � surroundings of the property, strict enforcement of the zoning g =1 ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges LL < M permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. C) Uf Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor X Z 1— personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense I-- F! which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the Z ; Wi ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable p; use of the property, not any factor resulting from the action of the 0 L a �L�u owner or any past owner of the same property. LU b) Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would not be'a X grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same Z M zoning. 0 c) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of Z the variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the zoning district in which the property is located. d) Not Detrimental: That the variance, as approved or conditionally approved, will not be signifcantly detrimental to the public health, _J safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone. e) Minimum Variance: That the approved variahce is the minimum 0 necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 2) The applicant has submitted declarations with their submittal which address the decisional criteria as follows (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3): a) The special circumstances the applicants mention include the increased traffic on 9th Avenue N. causing more noise and loss of privacy. Also because the cars come downhill from above them the headlights shine in their windows. LL 01 Z I.-! LU LU Ln 0 a L-� UJ it&, Z LU fA 0 Z E* B C) d) e) are over the 6 foot limit, so the approval would not be a grant of special privilege. Approval will allow for a single-family use, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicants state they are trying to protect their single- fan-dly home from the glare and noise of 9th Avenue N. The applicants feel that the hedge is a benefit to the neighborhood over the 120-foot tree which had been in that location, since the tree blocked more views than the hedge does, and because the tree had dropped needles on the sidewalk, which was a safety hazard to pedestrians. f) The applicants feel this is the minimum variance needed, as it is the proper height to block the headlights of cars coming down 9th Avenue N. and is just in the area left when the tree was cut down. 3) Traffic volumes on this segment of 9th Avenue N. are about 6300 vehicles per day, according to Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator. 4) The ordinance which set a limit on hedge heights was passed in 1978, eight years after the widening of 9th Avenue N. mentioned above. b. Conclusions: I ) The traffic along 9th Avenue N. and the slope down the hill towards this house provide no more in the way of special circumstances than exist on many other hills in Edmonds. If the City Council intended to exempt properties on hills from the hedge height requirements it is believed that they would have specified so in the ordinance. The Examiner believes, however, that the Council intended the hedge height regulation to be implemented throughout the City, especially in areas where there are hills in order to protect views. 2) Several property owners along 9th Avenue have hedges which are over 6 feet in height so granting the variance would not appear to be a special privilege. However, it is unknown when these other hedges were planted. Staff thinks they were planted in the 1970s and could have been over 6 feet in height before the hedge height regulations were adopted. Therefore, they would be legal nonconforming hedges and should not be used as a basis for granting a variance under the present regulations. If they were planted after the hedge height regulation was adopted, they are in violation of the regulation and again should not be used as a basis for granting approval of a variance. Rather, a violation is the basis for code enforcement action. Staff indicated at the hearing that no other hedge height variances have been Z 1--:I 0. Z1--: LU LU, Lg 0 a t�l LU LU, 0 Z LU (n 0 Z 2!1 11 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-64 Page 8 granted in this area. Therefore, the approval of a variance to allow a 12V2 foot high hedge would be a grant of special privilege. 3) Approval of the proposed variance would not change the use of the property, which is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site (see also Section F below). 4) The complaint which was received (see Exhibit A, Attachment 6) states that the hedge blocks a view of the Puget Sound, but the applicant and the former owner both assert that the removal of the tree which the hedge is replacing actually improved views in the area, and that the current hedge blocks views less than the tree did (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5). The reason for replacing the tree with the hedge was that the tree was dropping needles which were a hazard to the health of joggers who slipped on them, so the hedge is an improvement in that respect. In sum, it appears that the replacement of the tree with the hedge is an improvement for public safety and a benefit for properties in the area. 5) The applicants have been trimming the hedge at the height it is now and intend to keep it that height, because it is the height needed to keep headlights from shining in their windows. On a level lot, a 6-foot high hedge would be adequate to keep headlights from shining in ground - level windows. In this case,. a 6-foot high hedge which is trimmed parallel to the ground should also provide some relief from car headlights 1. Review by City Departments a. Fact: The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire Department, Public Works Division, Engineering Division, and the Parks and Recreation Division. The only comments received were from the Engineering Division, who commented, "The Engineering Division has no requirements to impose at this time. The sight distance restriction in this case is not created by the height of the hedge. The hedge should not be allowed to grow out into the public right- of-way. The applicant will need to comply with all the terms of any future permits." b. Conclusion: The requirements of the Engineering Division should be met. TI, 0 E3 a Z Z 0 0 LU LL 0 Z 17V1 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-64 Page 9 F. COWREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) 1. Comprehensive Plan Designation a. Fact: The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as Single Family -Large Lot within the Downtown Activity Center. b. Conclusion The proposed project is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan designation for the site. 2. Comprehensive Plan Policies a. Ea_ct., The Residential Development section of the Comprehensive Plan identify goals and policies which relate to "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies include: 1) Section B states, "High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted..." 2) Section B.3 states, "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures." b. Conclusion: The hedge is not an addition or new construction, so it is not restricted by the above adopted goals and policies of the City for the development of residential property. No goals or policies specifically address hedges. DECISION Before a variance can be approved, it must meet all of the adopted criteria. Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, this request does not meet all of the criteria, and therefore, the request for a variance to increase the maximum allowed hedge height from 6 feet to 12 1/2 feet is denied. The top of the hedge may be parallel with the ground and the hedge height shall not exceed an average of 6 feet above the ground. If the applicants desire the top of the hedge to be level then the hedge shall be limited to a height of 6 feet from the lowest point of the slope. Entered this 19th day of June, 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20. 100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Ron McConne-11 Hearing Examiner 0 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-64 Page 10 RECONSEDERATION'S AND APPEALS Lui 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 X( �-i or appeal should contact the Planning Department for ftirther procedural information. LL 01 ?- 11' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION �! =1 U- 4c Ln Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed P within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance z I-- ; �?, 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. z LU LU The reconsideration request must cite sp i c ec fi references to the findings and/or the criteria 2 :D =) a contained in the ordinances governing the ty application being reviewed. pe of U Wi 0 C3 P APPE ALS UJ W1 X 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, zi . N U i um): and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, X, 9 �-,l the narn of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, e and reasons why the z 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 bein appealed. 9 11 LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.85.020.0 states '7he approved variance must be acted on by* the owner within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration and the city approves the application." NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR 0 The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the by the Snohomish property County Assessors Office. EXHIBITS: The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report B. Letter from Bonnie Merrill, dated June 4, 1997 C. Deodara cedar tree needles sample D. Photographs Of stump of Deodara cedar tree and cross section of stump 0 Hearing Exan r -dne'Decision Case No. V 97-64 Page'l I E. Photograph looking west from where Deodara tree stood PARTIES oF RECORD: Randy and Debbie Johnson Bonnie Merrill Janice Brown' 643 - 9th Avenue N. 604 9" Avenue 521 South 5 1" Court Edmonds, WA 98020-3039 Edmonds, WA 98020 Renton, WA 98052. Edmonds Planning Division Edmonds Engineering Division JUNE 5,1997 ZI LU 0 a LU U- 0 z E MON 4�$ fill "-1 X: �A' ff- KAKIRXIBITS LIST z FILE NO. V-97-64 A. Planning Division Staff Advisory Report (prepared May 29,199j) d The following exhibit was received after the Staff Report was completed, but pri I or to the UJ Hearing: Ui X1 i �- B. Faxed Letter from Bonnie Merrill, dated June 4,1997 W U. W 0 C. Deodara cedar tree needles sample D. Photographs of stump of Deodara cedar tree and cross section of stump E. Photograph looking west from where Deodara tree stood iE U1 0' z 1 0 EUMMDOO-5-JUN-91 0 0 MAW, WWI-, ROW,!, WIN �. 1, ;'2;1 a. �r IF 4r. -- �R VTY.. I JX4� *4r. Pp �:- - !.,� p4l !�4t I 0 U. W Z 0 Oowwc� alexxi& June 4, 1997 City of Edmonds Community Services Department FAX # 771-0221 RE: Application of Randy & Debbie Johnson 12' shrub height variance/643 9th Ave. N. To Whom It May Concern: I may or may not be able to personally be at the variance hearing tomorrow, but I would like to express my feelings about this request. I have lived in my home since 1959. When I purchased my home and also when Captain Einmo lived there, I was able to see Puget Sound in the area where the Johnsons have planted hedges that have grown to heights around 12'. At one time we employed the same gardener and I asked him to keep them trimmed down so I could enjoy the view. It is my understanding the City has an ordinance restricting the height of shrubs to 6'. Let it be known for the record that I obiect to such a variance, as it affects my property value and blocks a view corridor. As it is my view that is blocked I feel my vote should have considerable weight in the decision. Someone asked me why I did not communicate directly with the Johnsons. About 2 years ago they arbitrarily moved my mailbox that had been in place since 1957 to another location, without consulting me, to better suit their personal desires. They did not ask me and I am handicapped. Subsequently the post office and I came to an agreement on an alternate location. I realize that Debbie Johnson works for the City part time and I feel that this should not have an influence on the decision of the Planning Commission. In the event I am unable to attend, my daughter, Janice Brown, will attend in my place. 01 Sincerely, JUM-04-VT 63:11 PM TALBOT rARK -0, '45f 1 % -V 0 June 4, 1997 City of Edmonds Community Gervioes Department FAX 0 771-0221 — F-1 Lo V-1 RE: Application ot Randy & Debbie Johnson LU 0 12' shrub height variance/643 Oth Ave. N. E �: To Whom It May Concern: I may or may not be able to personally be at the varlanCe hearing tomorrow, but I Z t..! would like to express my feelings about this request. 0! w F--� I have lived in my home since 1969. When I purchased my home and also when LU =)i Captain EInmo lived there, I was able to see Puget Sound in the area where the 01 Johnsons have planted hedges that have grown to holghts around 12'. At one C3 0 time we employed the same gardener and I asked him to keep them trimmed UJ UJ down so I 0ould enjoy the view. L.L 0! I It Is my understanding the City has an ordinance restricting the height of shrubs Z U to 6'. Lot it be known for the record that I obiect to such a variance. as it LU M U — X! @Ters my D[Q d blocks is view cprTidor- 3 it is my view that is 2211U.111ILM blocked I feel my vote should have considerable weight in the decision. Z Someone asked me why I did not communicate directly with the Johnsons. About 2 years ago they arbitrarily moved my mailbox that had been in place since 1957 to another location, without consulting me, to better suit their personal desires. They did not ask me and I am handicapped. Subscquontly the post offime and I come to an agreement on an alternate location, I realize that Debbie Johnson works for the City part time and I feel that this should not have an Influence on the decision of the Planning Commission, In the event I am unable to attend, my daughter, Jonice Brown, will attend In my 0 piece. Sincerely, Bo 6y"# .94 0 ROUTED TO: Engineering 5/12/97 Fire 5/12/97 Public Works 5/1,2/97 "';WfA;770tj RETURNED Engineering Fire '4"0 'Public Works Parks ex Rec. A F! W, 0 , VAT , 711�_ �' IF, 5 M V 9 Rhow. -a-, W� *Additional Information Required for Complete Application *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review • Owner RANDY ez DEBBIE JOHNSON • Property Address- 643 9TH "E. N. • Date of Application 5/12/97 Type— VARIANCE FOR HEDGE HEIGHT HearinLy Reaulred: Yes X No I 64� X Application Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11) x -Fee __2�_Site Plan (11 x 17) X -APO Ust ______Legals (Existing & Proposed) Tide ReDort Environmental Assessment x -Vilcinitylap _____proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) X Elevations Declarations (Variance) Petition (Official Street Map) __lEnvironmental Checidist X -Critical Areas Determination E LU I 2 : M U 0 a LU U- uj '="' �i L) 0 V) 0 V) LU LIJ X -i F- U) U- 0 UJ U- < �- 0 Z I-- LIJ LU L) (J) 0- 0 �- LU UJ LL- C Z LU Cr 0 Z T, LWA 17*3 EDMONDS HEARING EXAMINER MEETINGAGENDA JUNE 5, 1997 AT 9:00 A.K SPECUL MEE77NG LOCA 77ON Community Services Conference Room - Community Services Building 250 5thAvenue North 1. Call to Order 2. Public Hearings a. FILE NO CU--97---1,6 Application by Fluth Commututy Church for a Conditional Use Permit for an entrymy addition onto the cKisting church which is currently a nonconfDnning use. The subject property is located at 10220 238th Street Southwat and is zoned RS-8. b. FILE NO. V-97-27: Application by Walt Pisco for multiple Variances to- 1) reduce the cumulative requuvd side setbacks (north and south property Imes) fiom 35-fed to 12.5-fect, 2) reduce the minimum side setback requirement (south property line) from 10-fect to 5-&et� 3) reduce the minimum side setback requirement (north property line) to 7.5 -feet; 4) reduce the minimum required street setback (cast property line) fi-om 25-feet to 10-fect; and, 5) increase the maximum pem-dtted height of 25-fict to 30-fect above average grade level for the peak of a garage roof attached to a residence. Ile requested vanances have been sought to allow additions to an existing residence including a new attached garage. The subject property is located at 15722 75th Place West and is zoned RS-20. C. FILE NO. V-97-57. Application by David & Inge Johnson for a Variance to reduce the required strect setback (northeast property line) fi-om 25-fect to 10-fect and to reduce the required rar setback (southwest property line) from 25-fed to 20-fcct for the construction of a new one-story single-fimily residence. Tim subject property is located at 17002 Talbot Road and is zoned RS-12. d. FILE NO. V-97-64 Application by Randy & Debbie Johnson Ebr a Variance to allow a 12-fi)ot high hedge to be located adjacent to the cast and south property line, in excess of the maximum permitted height of 6-feet. Tlus application was submitted in response to a code enforcement actiow, The subject property is located at 643 9th Avenue North and is zoned RS-12. C. FILE NO. V-97-55: Application by Sheila & Kasey Knowlen for a Variance to reduce the required street setback (from the east property Ime, 104th Avenue West) fiom 25-fixt to 20 fed for the construction of an approximate 936 square foot detached garage with an additional approximate 208 square foot attached carport. Mu: subject property is located at 24025 104th Place West and is zoned RS-8. 3. Administrative Reports - No Reports. 4. Adjournment PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE ACCESSIBLE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (Contact the City Clerk at 771-024S with 24 hours advance noticefor speclaf acconnodadow) 6WWM0CAGWMWM 1#1 .11 9 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner From- M.E. Megk&iiw'cll Project Planner Date: MAY 29,1997 File: V-97-64 RANDY AND DEBBIE JOHNSON Hearing Date, Time, And Place: June 5,1997, At 9:00 AN, Community Services Conference Room Community Services Building 250 - 5th Avenue N. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Pa&e LINTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 2 A. APPLICATION .............................................................................................................. 2 B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL ...................................................................................... * .............................. 2 C. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 2 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................... 2 A. SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................... 2 B. HISTORY ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) ....................................................................................... 3 D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE .................................................. 3 E. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE .......................................................................................................................... 6 F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) ............................................................................................................... 6 HL RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS ........................................................................... 7 A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ............................................................................................................ 7 B. APPEALS ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL ........................................................................................................ 7 V. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR ............................................................................. 7 VI. APPENDICES ................................................................ .......................................................... 7 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD ............................................................................................ .......... 7 V-97-".DOC/May 29, IM/StaffReport 10 Randy & Debbie Johnson File No. V-97-64 Page2of7 INTRODUCTION A. Application 1. Applicant Randy and Debbie Johnson (see Attachment 2). 2. Site Location: 643 - 9th Avenue N. (see Attachment 1). 3. Request: A variance to increase the maximum allowed hedge height from 6 feet to f2-1/2 feet along the south and east property lines of a single-family residence in the RS- 12 zone (see Attachments 2 through 4). 4. Review Process: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. 5. Maior Issues, a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 17.30.000 and 17.30.010 (FENCES AND HEDGES — General and Special Height Restrictions). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). B. Description of Proposal The applicants are requesting this variance to allow their existing hedge to continue at its same height. The hedge was planted to screen headlights and noise from traffic coming down 9th Avenue N. after a tree was removed which had provided this function, but had also dropped needles on the sidewalk which had been a slipping hazard to joggers (see Attachment 5). C. Recommendations Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend APPROVAL of this application subject to the following conditions: 1. The hedge height variance is for the location shown approximately on the site -plan along the south and east property lines and the hedge shall not exceed the 12-1/2 foot height proposed in this application. 2. The hedge shall be pruned so that it does not grow out into the public right-of-way. 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 permit should be transferable. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Site Description 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) NjW. The subject property is 12,000 square feet in area, rectangular in shape with 110 feet of frontage along 9th Avenue N. and a depth of 120 feet (see Attachment 4). An access easement runs along the northern 20 feet of the lot. (2) Land Use The subject property is developed with a single-family residence. V-W-64.DOC / May 29,1997 / StaffReport R.My & Debbie Job... File,No.V-97-64 Page 3 of 7 (3) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Single -Family Residential (RS- 12) (see Attachment 1). (4) Terrain and vegetation The subject site slopes down to the west, and is landscaped with trees and shrubs. The high point of the property is along 9th Avenue N., and particularly along the southeast corner. The hedge is growing along 9th Avenue N. and the south property line on a slope to the west. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) The properties to the north, south and east are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-12) (see Attachment 1) and are developed with single-family residences. (2) The property to the west Is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-12) and is undeveloped (see Attachment 1). B. History The applicants have stated that when they purchased their home, a 120 foot high by 35 foot wide Lebanon or diadora cedar tree was growing in their front yard. After they were informed that someone had slipped on the needles the tree dropped on the sidewalk, and that it was their responsibility to keep the sidewalk clean, they cut the tree down (see Attachment 5). Because 9th Avenue N. slopes down steeply from the south, the headlights shine at the applicants' house where the tree used to stand, and the noise from traffic was also greater after the tree was removed. The applicants planted the hedge to block the headlights and noise from cars along 9th Avenue N. In October 1995 the Planning Department received a complaint about the height of the hedge, stating that the hedge blocked the complainant's view of Puget Sound (Attachment 6). Due to staff turnover and heavy workloads, the complaint was not researched until February 1997. At that time the hedge measured approximately 9 feet from the uphill side. A letter was sent to the property owners informing them of the hedge height limit. The owners have chosen to request a variance to allow them to keep their hedge at the height it is now. C. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) 1. Facts: Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review (WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080). D. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance 1. Critical Areas Compliance a) Facts; (1) This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.15.B (Critical Areas Ordinance). (2) The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Checklist (CA-97-65) and the city has issued a Conditional Waiver to the Critical Areas Study requirement This is because the site has an Erosion Hazard Area, so any alteration must meet conditions designed to reduce erosion, including an erosion control plan, timing of the project and tree clearing permits for slopes exceeding 25 percent. b) Conclusion The proposal complies with the requirements of the City's Critical Areas Ordinance. Randy & Debbie Jolinson File No. V-97-64 Page4of! Fences and Hedges Compliance with Chapter 17.30, a) Fait: Regulations, regarding hedges in all zones are set forth In Chapter 17.30. (1) ECDC 1730.000.0 states that "Unless a variance Is first obtained, no fence or hedge shall be more than six feet in height as measured from the top of the fence to the lowest original grade." (2) ECDC 17.30.010.A gives special height restrictions for streets and corners. "Height shall normally be. limited to three feet within 10 feet of any street right- of-way or access easement or 30 feet of any corner, unless an exception is approved." (3) ECDC 17.30.010.131 gives the exception criteria: "If the city engineer finds that no hazard to users of the street or to nearby property will be created, the city engineer may approve a fence or hedge of up to six feet in height." (4) The Engineering Division has stated In a memorandum from Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator, that no hazards are created by the current hedge height (see section H.E.I.a.). b) Conclusion: The city engineer, through his designee, has approved the proposed height, so if the variance criteria are met, the proposal will comply with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. 3. Compliance with Requirements for a Variance a) Facts: (1) 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. The criteria am as follows: (a) Sipecial Circumstances That because of special circumstances relating to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, not any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property. (b) SpecialPrivile :That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. (c) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: That the approval ofthe variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the zoning district in which the prop" is located. (d) Not Detrimental: That the variance, as approved or conditionally approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or Injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone. V-97-64-DOC May 29, 1"7 1 StaffReport 0 10 Z I.- l- 0 Z �- LU LU 0 C3 �- UJ U1 F- LL 0 LU (n U F- 0 Z LVI 1-7� Ready & Debbie Johnson File No. V-97-64 Page 5 of7 (e) Minimum Variance: That the approved Variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights -enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. (2) The applicant has submitted declarations with their submittal which address the decisional criteria as follows (see Attachment 3): (a) The special circumstances the applicants mention include the increased traMc on 9th Avenue N. causing more noise and loss of privacy. Also because the cars come downhill from above them the headlights shine in their windows. (b) The applicants point out that the city widened 9th Avenue N. in 1970 and since then many neighbors have planted hedges that are over the 6 foot limit, so the approval would not be a grant of special privilege. (c) Approval will allow for a single-family use, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (d) The applicants state they are trying to protect their single-family home from the glare and noise of 9th Avenue N. (e) The applicants feel that the hedge is a benefit to the neighborhood over the 120-foot tree which had been in that location, since the tree blocked more views than the hedge does, and because the tree had dropped needles on the sidewalk, which was a safety hazard to pedestrians. (f) The applicants feel this is the minimum variance needed, as it Is the proper height to block the headlights of cars coming down 9th Avenue N. and is just in the area left when the tree was cut down. (3) Traffic volumes on this segment of 9th Avenue N. are about 6300 vehicles per day, according to Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator. (4) The ordinance which set a limit on hedge heights was passed in 1978, eight years after the widening of 9th Avenue N. mentioned above. b) Conclusion : (1) The traffic along 9th Avenue N. and the slope down the hill towards this house provide special circumstances. (2) Several property owners along 9th Avenue have hedges which are over 6 feet in height so granting the variance would not be a special privilege. Many of these hedges were probably planted in the 1970s, with the road widening, and could easily have been above 6 feet by the time the hedge height ordinance was passed, so they are probably legally over the height limit. (3) Approval of the proposed variance would not change the use of the property, which is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site (see also Section F below). (4) The complaint which was received (see Attachment 6) states that the hedge blocks a view of the Paget Sound, but the applicant and the former owner both assert that the removal of the tree which the hedge is replacing actually improved views in the area, and that the current hedge blocks views less than the tree did (see Attachment 5). The reason for replacing the tree with the hedge was that the tree was dropping needles which were a hazard to the health of joggers who slipped on them, so the hedge is an improvement in that respect. V-97-64.DOC May 29,1997 Staff Report 40 nr �- 01 Z �- UJ LU 0 �L- 0 Z LU Cn 0 Z 17*1 am In sum, it appears that the replacement of the tree with the hedge is an improvement for public safety and a benefit for properties in the area. (5) The applicants have been trimming the hedge at the height it is now and intend to keep it that height, because it is the height needed to keep headlights from shining In their windows. On a level lot, a 6-foot hedge would be adequate to keep headlights from shining in ground -level windows, so the proposed variance appears to be the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. E. Technical Committee 1. Review by City Departments a) Fact: The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire Department, Public Works Division, Engineering Division, and the Parks and Recreation Division. The only comments received were from the Engineering Division, who commented, "The Engineering Division has no requirements to impose at this time. The sight distance restriction in this case is not created by the height of the hedge. The hedge should not be allowed to grow out Into the public right-of-way. The applicant will need to comply with all the terms of any future permits." b) Conclusion: The requirements of the Engineering Division should be met. F. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) 1. Comprehensive Plan Designation a) Fact: The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as Single Family - Large Lot within the Downtown Activity Center. b) Conclusion The proposed project is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan designation for the site. 2. Comprehensive Plan Policies a) fact. The Residential Development section of the Comprehensive Plan identify goals and policies which relate to "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies include: (1) Section B states, "High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted..." (2) Section B.3 states, "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures." b) Conclusion The hedge is not an addition or new construction, so it is not restricted by the above adopted goals and policies of the City for the development of residential property. No goals or policies specifically address hedges. Rudy & Debbie Johnson File No. V-97-U Page 7 of 7 III. RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for riling 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. A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20.100.010.43 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 cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. LL mi B. Appeals X Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or z I-- recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the 0 decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the Z I-- LU W 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 riled with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. U11 3:0 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL LIL- 0 Section 20.85.020.0 states "The approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year .. z from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an UJ application for an extension of the time before the expiration and the city approves the application." z V. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. VI. APPENDICES Affachments I through 6 are affached. 1. Vicinity / Zoning Map 2. Application 0 3. Declarations of the Applicant 4. Site Plan 5. Letters from Applicant and Former Owner 6. Complaint VII. PARTIES OF RECORD Randy and Debbie Johnson Engineering Division 643 - 9th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020-3039 V-97-64.DGC/ May 29,1997 / StaffReport M 0