Loading...
081217 Reimer Modification Request Narrative (2).doc Modification Request Narrative Mr. Reimer is in the midst of processing a 3 lot short plat, S-2008-37, located at th 8805 220 St. SW. In the course of the review of this proposal, it has become apparent that a modification must be approved to allow the existing home to remain on the lot in its current configuration. This is because the required setback along the west side of the property is a 15’ rear setback from the 20’ wide access easement and the existing house will only be approximately 10’ from that line. The following is a description of the proposal and the discussion which demonstrates how the proposed Modification complies with the modification criteria as identified in ECDC 20.75.075 and 20.85.010. The subject property is roughly 30,000 sq ft. in area, 222 feet deep and 132 feet wide. Because the property is located in an RS-8 zone where the minimum lot size is 8,000 sq. ft. and the minimum lot width is 70 feet, the property is easily subdividable into 3 lots that all comply with the code’s requirements. The only exception to this is related to keeping the existing house on lot 2 of the proposed subdivision. Because of the home’s location on the lot and the application of the required setbacks from the house to the proposed property lines, only approximately 10’ of rear setback is provided from the west side of the house to the easement line to the west where 15’ is required. This is somewhat of a unique situation in that the Rear Setback in this case appears to be more of a side setback. However, because of an existing private easement that provides access to 5 or more houses to the east, the east setback becomes a street setback and the opposite, or west, setback becomes a rear setback. The following discussion indicates how the proposed Modification to the Required Rear Setback on Lot 2 from 15’ to approximately 10’ complies with the modification criteria: 1. Special Circumstances. That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the 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. 1. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses as set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats. First, the size and shape of the property are such, that a 3 lot subdivision with an associated access drive for all three lots is easily approvable by the City. Second, subdivisions and lot segregations were completed on properties to either side of the subject property over the years. The division of the properties to the east has resulted in an easement/driveway along the east property line that serves 5 lots. This means that easement is considered to be a street for setback purposes. This creates further impacts to the subject property that further minimize the buildable area of the site. East and west setbacks that used to be side setbacks are now considered to be street and rear setbacks which doubles and triples their required size. 2. 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; As mentioned above, development on adjacent properties changed what had previously been side setbacks to the east and the west of the subject property to street and rear setbacks. It was not the result or action of the current or previous property owner of the subject property. 2. Special Privilege. That the approval of the variance is not a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; There are other subdivisions that have been approved in the City of Edmonds through the 1990’s and the 2000’s where modifications for setbacks have been approved to retain existing housing stock. Conditions have been placed on those properties that allow the current structure to encroach the new required setback but that would also require all new construction to comply with the new setbacks. That is an acceptable solution in this case. Since other properties have had setback modifications approved in similar circumstances, this is not a grant of special privilege. 3. Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance/modification will be consistent with the comprehensive plan; The City of Edmond’s Comprehensive Plan has specific provisions related to residential subdivision and development that encourage both the full development of residential properties and the retention of existing housing stock. This modification request specifically addresses these two issues by dividing the property into as many lots as its size and zoning would allow. And it proposes the retention of the existing house on the property. Not approving the Modification and allowing the house to remain in its current configuration likely will lead to the demolition of the home and its replacement by an entirely new home. 4. Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance/modification will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located; The proposed modification will comply with the purposes and intent of the Residential and RS-8 zone in which it lies. More specifically, the approved modification will continue to reserve land for single family development and protect the values specified in ECDC 16.10 5. 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 same zone; The proposed modification to allow an existing house to be approximately 10’ from its access easement line where 15’ is required will not be detrimental or injurious to any surrounding properties. This is because there is still a 20’ access easement which will separate the existing house from the adjacent property to the west. Further, the applicant is willing to stipulate that the modification is for the current home only. All additions to the current home or any new structures would have to apply the setbacks as they apply at that time. 6. Minimum Variance. That the approved variance/modification is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. The proposed modification which would allow the current house to remain in its current location, encroaching approximately 5’ into the required 15’ rear setback for lot two is the minimum necessary to allow the property to be divided into 3 lots and to retain the existing home. Anything less would result in either the removal of the existing home or the elimination of a proposed lot.