6908 174TH ST SW.pdf4
F.
4
LU
0
0
Uj
U.
6i
0
Z
241
!I.t 11 �890
CITY.OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
250 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS. WA 98020 * (206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
I ficants:
V. Joseph Schmidt Elnora R.
pp
and Hill
ise No.
V-97-98
)C�tion:
pl�,Iicatio , n:
6908 - 174th Street SW
A variance to reduce the required rear setback from 15-feet (in the RS-8
zone) and 25 feet (in the RS-12 zone).to 5 feet to allow construction of a
proposed pitched roof over an existing addition which currently has a flat
gle
roof on an existing sin -family residence (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2
through 4).
.V�ew Process:
Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final
decision.
aier 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 (VARIANCES).
LY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:
Recommendation: Approve with conditions
,ng Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions
HEARING:
Afte� reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report with
attachments; and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a.public hearing on the
appli I cation. The hearing on the application was opened at 9:31 a.m., September 18, 1997, in the
Plaza Room, Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:37 a.m. Participants at
the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim
'ding of the hearing is available in the Planning Division.
recor
HEARING COMNENTS:
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing..
Incor'porated Auctust 11, 1890
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
J
� '2" � �� "� �:
n_
Z
LU LLA
0
L,
LL
Z
LU Cl)
0
Z
From the City:
Meg Gruwell, Project Planner, reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of
the application with certain conditions (see Exhibit A, page 2, Recommendations). She
noted that the existing house was constructed under previous county regulations.
From the Applicant:
The applicants were asked if the staff report and analysis adequately covered their request
and if they would like to add anything further.
Elnora R. Hill & V. Joseph Schmidt, applicants, stated the staff report accurately reflected
their request. They added that the intrusion into the rear setback is an existing condition
and the only change being made was to alter the roof line from a flat to a pitched roof.
They also indicated a desire to install skylights into the new roof.
Staff was asked if the installation of the skylights would violate any provisions regarding height.
Meg Gruwell, Project Planner, indicated the skylights would be conforming as to height.
From the Community:
No one was present or submitted written comments from the community.
FMINGS OF FACT A" CONCLUSIONS
Site Description
Site Development And Zoning:
Facts:
Size: The subject property is approximately 24,645 square feet with property dimensions of
approximately 165-feet wide by 150-feet deep with 165 feet of street frontage (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 4).
kn_ndUse. The subject property is currently developed with a detached single-family residence.
Zoning The subject property is located in a single-family residential zone and is split between the
RS-8 and RS-12 zone, with the zone line running north to south through the existing house
(see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
Terrain and Veaetation The site slopes down towards 174th Street SW and is landscaped with
grass, shrubs, fruit trees and a pine tree.
Neighboring Development And Zoning:
The properties to the south and west are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-8) and are
developed with single-family homes (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
7be properties to the north and east are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-12) and, are
developed with single-family homes (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
Ea_ct. Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review (WAC 197-11-
800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080).
2
LU
K�
rZ
2
D
U
0
a
LU
LL
0
Z
E dmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
Critical Areas Compliance
Facts:
Ibis proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.153 (Critical Areas Ordinance).
The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Checklist (CA-97-151) and a wai ver was granted to
the critical areas study requirement.
Conclusion: The applicant has met the requirements of the Critical Areas Ordinance.
Compliance with RS-20 Zoning Standards
Fact: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development in the
RS-8 and RS-12 zones are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030. These include the following for locating
structures:
RS-8 RS-12
Street Setback: 25 feet 25 feet
Rear Setback: 15 feet 25 feet
Side Setbacks: 7.5 feet 10 feet
Maximum Height: 25 feet 25 feet
Lot Coverage: 35% 35%
Conclusion The proposal complies with the requirements of the RS-20 zoning stand ards
except for the rear setback.
Compliance with Requirements for a Variance
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 are as follows:
&—ecial 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, nor any factor
resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property.
Special Privilege: 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.
Cgmprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance That the approval of 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.
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.
3
V
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.
Z
The applicant has submitted declarations with their subn-dttal which address the decisional criteria
as follows (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3):
The applicants point out that the home and addition were constructed to County standards then
cc
<
in effect, which in 1958 was a 5 foot setback. They assume the addition was added to
LU
-J 0!
U.1
the back of the house because of a 5 foot rockery on the front of the house. They
L� -. I �L
0�
further assume that the roof on the addition was constructed as a flat roof to save
f) LU
money. The applicants point out that most roofs in the vicinity have a pitch to them
Ift X!
-J I—
so their proposed change will make it more harmonious with the neighborhood.
U) U.
0
Ile applicants state that the owners of a home at 6909 - 174th Street SW received a variance
to a rear setback in 1994, so the proposal will not be a grant of special privilege.
:3
U. <
The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive Plan, state the applicants, because it will
allow them to rehabilitate and retain older housing, while improving the aesthetics of
the house as seen from the neighboring properties, and doing this without obscuring
Z
0
any views.
The applicants have calculated that their house will be well below the zoning height limit, and
L" LW
will have a pitch of 4/12.
T
The applicants believe their proposal is not detrimental because it will increase the property
0
values of neighbors, will not impair scenic views or use of surrounding properties,
UJ
X
and involves no perils to their neighbors.
ts
The 4/12 pitch roof is the minimum variance required, say the applican , in order to improve
U- 01
Z),
the current inefficient design and improve the appearance of the home to a standard
enjoyed by the applicant's neighbors.
The current flat roof over the addition has leaked and caused some of the rooms to be
Z
unusable until the roof can be mended and the damage repaired.
The home most directly adjacent to the addition is 17439 - 69th Place W, which fronts on 69th
Place W and has its side yard adjacent to the subject parcel's rear property line.
Ann Bullis, Plans Examiner, confirmed that a 4/12 or 5/12 pitch is a very common rambler -
style roof pitch. A 2/12 pitch roof would typically be a tarred root
Conclusions
The applicants are applying for a variance to the required rear setback solely to allow the
addition of a pitched roof over an addition which was constructed with a flat roof.
The addition over which the proposed roof will be located was constructed legally under
previous county regulations, with the owner maintaining the then required 5' setback, and
choosing a flat roof over the addition.
Two setback variances have been granted along 174th Street SW, so granting the variance
would not constitute a special privilege.
Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the rehabilitation of the existing structure
in a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning. Code and the Comprehensive Plan
designation.
The proposed roof will be more imposing to the house to the south, but will not block any
views, nor will their be windows in the roof, so the adjacent property owners will not loose
any additional privacy. Ibe variance will not be detrimental to properties in the area.
'M
Mi A,4;
3
W:,: q
L
The variance requested is to allow a 4/12 pitch roof, which is the lowest of the common
rambler pitch roofs. This appears, to be the irtinimurn necessary to achieve the applican&
desire to upgrade the structures root
Technical Committee
LU,
Review by City Departments
The
Fact: variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire Department, Public
L) 01
V) 01
Works Division, Engineering Division, and the Parks and Recreation Division, The only
V) LUj
comments received were from the Engineering Division. Those comments are included in Exhibit
A, Attachment 5.
LO LL
LU 0
Conclusion: The applicant will need to comply with the terms of any future permits, as required by the
Engineering Division.
U-
Cn
Comprehensive Plan (ECDC)
0.
Ui
Comprehensive Plan Designation
01
Lact* The subject property is designated as "Single Family Residential."
uJi
Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use
designation for the site.
5 a'
0
Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
U.1 u4i
3: t)
Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and'policies which
relate to "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies are outlined below:
U. O�
zi
Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential development which is
L) X
appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be. maintained and
promoted ......
Z
Policy B.4 states "Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds
whenever it is economically feasible."
Page 31, subsection B.5.A states, "Residential privacy is a fundamental protection to be
upheld by local government."
Conclusiow. The proposed remodel will allow for the retention and rehabilitation of older housing,
while not allowing any windows to come any closer, to property lines, So it Will not adversely
affect the neighbors privacy. Therefore it is consistent with the above adopted goals and policies
of the City.
0
DECISION
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the reque t for Variance Request V-97-98 is
S
approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. The rear setback of the residence shall be no ess than 5 feet, as shown. on the
site plan and on the submitted building elevations shown in Exhibit A,
Attachment 4.
\J
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any construction
approved under this permit.
P
5L
T;
�,F, 7 "-U"7pV,�,711111
;A-5 7-4
E.
Z �-:
0:
Z
L" LU
0
LU Uj
L)
z
LU (A
z
3. The applicant shall comply with all the terms of any future permits.
4. The permit shall be transferable and run with the land.
Entered this lst day of October, 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
under Chapter 20. 100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
Donald B. Largen
Hearing Examiner
RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's
and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal
should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information.
Request for Reconsideration
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision
or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the
date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs
the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an
ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or
recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the
findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of
application being reviewed.
Appeals
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision
or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall
include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project applicant
and the date of the decision, the name and address 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 fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the
decision being appealed.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 20.85.020.0 states 'The 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."
6�
�0