Loading...
15722 75TH PL W.pdf11- H c,gty Of Eddlonds: V47.27_EXr.DW QVIM I MANCE'l submittedA:: tier city de s"Aiack de setback cet.:setback ached to a p ciWow Ka=e. w lie Hearing iyAriance,-, ner.. . ..... . ...... lo 1'r Lol IT, L u Ullestad,(received, rG EXA?vCMR ION OF 'I�` KEEP z Property Address or location Property Owner 1 r� Agent f Phone `(1S- 419,/ - Phone _46-) .5 Phone Tax Acc #—t,:� I - L7� r� Cx�[.-� - C� tr.�_ Sec. Twp. Rng. Legal Description.�Z.ta 4 # �-t- �. ---r- r-7 Details of Project or Proposed Use U �w 0 The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorneys fees, arising from any action or Infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or Incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or �$ employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of Inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT ATTACHMENT 1 ic CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 BTH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 + (2001771-0220 + FAX i208) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER c s f 18 9 V FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: Walt Pisca CASE NO.: V 97-27 LOCATION:15722 : 75th Place W. APPLICATION: Multiple .variances to: 1) reduce the cumulative required side setbacks (north and south property lines) from 35 feet to 12.5 feet; 2) reduce the minimum side setback requirements (south property) from 10 feet to 5 feet; 3) reduce the minimum side setback requirements (north property) from 10 feet to 7.5 feet; 4)' reduce the minimum required street setback (east property line) from 25 feet to 10 feet; and, 5) increase the maximum permitted height of 25 feet to 30 feet above the average grade level for the peak of a garage roof attached to a residence. The requested variances have been sought to allow additions to an existing residence including a new attached garage (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 through 4). REVIEW PROCESS: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: aring Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Partial approval with conditions Hearing Examiner Decision: Partial approval with conditions 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 application was opened at 9:01 am., May 1. 1997, in the Plaza Room of the Edmonds Library and at 9:03 a.m. was continued to June 5, 1997. The hearing was reopened at 9:14 a.m., June 5, 1997, in the Community Services Conference Room, 250 5 1h Ave. N., Edmonds, Washington, and was closed at 9:25 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. HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City: Meg Gruwell, Project Planner, reviewed the staff report and noted that: • Two surveys have been prepared and the one which is most restrictive is the one which will be used. • The garage would be allowed at the proposed height if it were a detached rather than an attached garage, however, in that case, the house would need a 7 foot height variance. 0 The new garage will be much longer along 75P Place W. than the existing garage. • The new garage may restrict some views because of its additional length and the fact that it will be approximately 2 feet higher than the existing garage. • The proposal is consistent with the variance criteria, except for the height variance. From the Applicant: Vince Cjala, Architect, said: • Everything is within the height limit, except the garage. • The pitch on the garage roof will allow for drainage. • He didn't see where there would be any impact to views. L 4 T t . S p k t t i 7 S t J. David Smith, Attorney, said: • The biggest concern expressed by staff is view impact. • The architect is proposing a structure which is consistent with other structures in the vicinity, which he also designed. s There have been several other height variance approvals in this area. o The house is designed to be consistent with the site. • The garage is only a little over 2 feet higher than the existing garage. • If there is any view impact, it would be an impact to the view of the railroad tracks. Walt Pisco, Applicant, said: • All issues from the prior submittal have been addressed with the neighbor who opposed the prior submittal. • He is not proposing to add onto the deck as he did on the last application. • The house is being designed to minimize impacts on views. From the Community: No one from the general public spoke at the public hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCREMON I. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Size: The subject property is approximately 8,500 square feet in area, with a 50-foot width along 75th Place W. (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). Previously, the lot was 45-feet wide, but the applicants have submitted information showing that on. October 3, 1996, title in the strip of.land south of the subject lot and approximately 5 feet in width, from 75th PIace W. to the southwest corner of the Pisco's house was quieted in Walter Pisco. Though the,court has declared this strip of land to belong to the Piscos, no lot line adjustment has been done yet. The, lot size is further, complicated because two surveys done show different locations of the property lines, so this application has been revised to reflect the most restrictive survey, S3� ff �karing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 4 (2) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with a detached single-family residence. (3) Zoning: The subject property is -located in a single-family residential zone (RS-20); (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). (4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property slopes from east to west with portions of the site exceeding.25% slope. Landscaping includes grass, shrubs, and trees. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Facts (1) The lots on the north, south and east sides of the subject property are developed with detached single-family residences, and zoned RS-20 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). (2) To the west is the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of- way and tracks and the Puget Sound (see. Exhibit A, Attachment 1). b) Conclusion: The proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding zoning and development. 3. History of Variances in the Neighborhood and on the Site: a) Facts: (1) In 1985, Jean .Riggle at 15714 - 75th Place W. (the property directly north) requested a variance to reduce the side setback (file V-30-85). The variance was approved, but was not acted upon within the required one year. In 1986, Jean Riggle requested a variance to the required street setback (V-17-86) to allow a carport at the same setback as is currently being requested in this proposal. This request was approved, but not acted upon. In 1990, Ms. Riggle requested a variance to the street and side setbacks and to the height limit to allow her current home (V-6-90). Staff recommended approval of the street and side setback variances, and recommended denial of the height variance. The Hearing Examiner approved all of the requested variances. (2) In 1989, Gail and Harrison Jewell at '15706 - 75th Place W. (two properties to the north of the subject parcel) requested a variance to the required street and side` setbacks (V-38-89). This variance was approved. In { CO, 3kl 1990, the Jewells requested a height ,variancefor both their house and garage (V=5-90), which was alsoSz approved. In this case also the staff' recommended approval of the setback variances, but recommended i�- C. earing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 5 denial of the height variance. The Hearing Examiner approved all of the requested variances. (3) In 1993, Ursula Schluter at 15620 - 75th Place W. (several properties to the north of the subject parcel) requested a variance to the required street setback and height limit (V-93-11) to allow a driveway/bridge from the road to a garage on the top of her proposed house. These variances were approved. (4} In 1996, Walter Pisco, owner of the subject property at 15772 - 75th Place W., requested a height variance from 25 feet to 33 feet to allow him to reconstruct the roof, on his existing house at a steeper pitch in order to make maintenance easier. This variance was denied. Reasons given for the denial include that it was not the minimum variance needed, as the roof could be replaced in the same configuration, and that the height variance could impact the views of surrounding property and therefore be detrimental to them. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) 1. Fact: Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review (WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080). 2. Conclusion: Where special circumstances are shown to exist, the requirements of ECDC 20.15A have been met. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. a) Facts: The basic site development standards pertaining to single-family development in an RS-20 zone are set forth in ECDC Section 16.20.030. (1) Minimum setbacks are 25 feet to the street property line, 25 feet to the rear property line, 10 feet to the side property lines, and the side setbacks added together must total at least 35 feet. (2) The maximum allowed height for primary structures is 25 feet. Maximum allowed height for accessory structures is 15 feet. Height calculations are based on an average grade, taken from original, undisturbed soil. b) Conclusion: Except for the many variances requested, the proposal complies with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. w KA A ry�m§r f 16aring Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 page ti a) Facts (1) ECDC Chapter 20.85 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: (a) Special 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 securea 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) Special Privilege: That the., approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the Iimitations upon other properties in' the vicinity with the same zoning. (c) Comprehensive ]Plan and Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be consistent withthe 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 significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone. (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 presented declarations to respond: to all of the required criteria as follows (see Exhibit`A, Attachment 4). (a) Side Setbacks: The applicant points out that with; only a 50-foot maximum lot width, the requirement 'of a 35-foot combined side setback would leave only. a 15400t' building area over the existing house, which they feel leaves an impractical living area. The applicant also states that a poor survey, not of his doing, created the - ( Y 1 qC } , l 1 Y j.. ✓V t > A i ) i '?' r.,t.te,2a,ii+5+ftk."L`SS"MVO".'�.L''&i:It�=!:{>.Y.G,n^inW^"'="„n9vixnaiw+�ree+rrwuwrav144.:• aww�.wwwrw.w �.vair+mldMYwMn.uNrr.+ w+tuww.rr+rr+v. earing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 7 close proximity to the side of his property. There are also two surveys which have been done, and the two surveys Z do not agree, so the applicant is using the survey which k shows him with the least area in requesting the 7.5 foot F— W' ac side setback. LU U . .UiStreet Setback: Due to the steep slope, the applicant states they meet the requirement for special circumstance, J% since meeting the 25-foot setback would require a steeply cn u. sloped driveway and more disturbance of the soil. The W applicant notes that owners to the north were both granted exceptions to the front setback , requirement for the construction of their garages for similar reasons. X U Height Limit: The applicant would like to construct a z sloped roof, and believes that the owners to the north were r Q( granted exceptions to the allowable height for the W W i construction of their garages. g � o` (b) The applicant states that this proposal is not a grant of O PC special privilege because other property owners have t z received variances for similar reasons. W c (c) , The applicant states that this proposal will be consistent ui with the Comprehensive Plan because it will be to improving and adding a garage to an existing single- z family residence. (d) The applicant states that this request is similar to other variances which have been approved, and if no variances are granted the zoning ordinance would curtail construction due to the narrow lot width. (e) The applicant states that the proposal will not be YI detrimental -to the surrounding area. The variance to r setbacks they state will allow for standard construction, and the house will be 2 feet under the allowable height. ' 0 ' The construction of a new garage will remove the old garage, which was partly in road right-of-way, and will only exceed the height of the existing garage by 2 feet, but since the garage will be 12 feet further west, they feel the visual impact of the new garage would be minimal. (f) The applicant states that this proposal is the minimum necessary for a practical remodel and alteration to the owner's property to allow them to have a residence similar 5Mft F in size and appearance to ones those to the north where sa> variances were granted. (3) The applicant applied for a height variance to allow a new roof to be added to his home at this same address file yy1j �1 'vx�lf VH under 177 cd4 -. ��...'T�`- �i ` 7 t;..7.� 4 f L t '� f t i 41. f .✓ �`f,.*i3 e'i it ia,.?r S.u,.`u;:its`,.a'.°dF",� t ;;i� _ : i�.y^. .. n . _..4xi:..( 1 Oaring Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 8 number V-96-139. That variance was to allow the maximum allowed height, to be increased from 25 feet to 33 feet. That variance was denied as it was not the minimum variance required, and could potentially affect the neighbor's view. b) Conclusions: (1) For most of the proposed variances, the proposal meets the. special circumstances criteria due to the narrow width of the property and steep slope from the street. Because of the narrow width, a requirement of a 35-foot combined side setback would severely limit the building area available. Also because of the steep slope from the road, it is reasonable to place the garage at the top of the hill in the street setback. The applicant also mentions a survey which he did not do which was in error as a special circumstance, but this would be considered an action of past owners or their agents. a �i The applicants have indicated that they would like to have the height variance in order to allow a pitched roof on their garage, similar to what their neighbors have. The proposal to have a pitched roof on the garage is predicated on a personal desire of the applicant. Reasonable use of the land could be achieved if a flat roofed garage were to be constructed. An earlier submittal shows that a detached garage could maintain r the required 15-foot height limit for accessory structures, so the slope on the site does not prevent them from having a garage with a pitched roof. However, if the garage were detached, the house as proposed would require a height variance of approximately 7 feet. (2) The approval of this variance request will not be a grant of special privilege as the two lots to the north have also received side and street setback variances and height variances. (3) Approval of the proposed variances would allow for the continued use of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance designation of the site. (4) Approval of the variances would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, but the proposed garage with a height variance would block more views than the existing garage. The applicant states that the proposed height of the garage will be two feet taller than the existing garage, but will be further west. Although having the garage` further west may reduce some impact, : the new orientation of the garage with its length along 75th Place W. results in more t 4 (5) 'Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 9 in s blocking the.view.from the street'arid. from properties acr ss the street. The increased height of the proposed roof ofle house compared with the existing roof will also restrict sortie views in the area. Approval of the requested street setback variance appears to be the minimum required to allow the owners to have a gar ige near the level of the street. Approval of the requested side setback appears to be the minimum to add a second sto over an existing foundation on this narrow lot. The height variance has been stated as needed to allow a pitched roof on the garage, yet an earlier plan and elevation showing the garage as a separatestructure shows that the gar ge could meet the height limit for an accessory structure (15 -feet) with a pitched roof. If the garage was treated as a det ched structure, then the house would need a height variance as designed. A variance to Allow a,lower house proposal was already denied by the Hearing Examiner as not being the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. D. TECHMCAL'COMMTTEE 1. Fact: The Variance Application has been reviewed and evaluated by other Departments/Divisions of the City (i.e. Fire Department, Public Works Division, Engineering Division, and the Parks & Recreation Division). Both the Engineering Division and the Public Works Division had comments. a. Go� I dy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator, commented that the Engineering Division will support the reduction of the street setback to ten feet in light of the requirements imposed upon the � applicant's neighbors. However, he noted that the property appears to need a lot line adjustment, and the terms and conditions of all future permits must be met. (See Exhibit A, Attachment 5) b. ( The Public Works Division commented "Note on sewer modification required" (see Exhibit A, Attachment 6) 1 presumably because the addition is proposed to be plaQ ove{ the sewer line. E. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) I 1. a. Fa t The subject property is designated as "Single Family Residential' It ti [a aj� I b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive. Plan Land Use designation for, the site, r i s r r i daring Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 F Page 10 2. a. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies which relate to z "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and < policies are discussed in detail below. arc gl (1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High, quality 5 residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be 0a1 maintained and promoted...." W} (2) Policy B.2. states: "Protect neighborhoods from N o incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures in the area. " (3) Policy B.3. states: "Minimize encroachment on view of U.existing homes by new construction or additions to cn O existing structures. " x: (3) Page 31, subsection B.5.0 states, "Stable property Z t-i values must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments." �i b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with � �P P P the above adopted goals and policies of the City except for o the height variance, which encroaches an the view of existing i LU "' homes. ►- —A U' z ]DECISION: A. Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the following variance requests are APPROVED: • the request for a side setback variance from the required cumulative 35 feet to 12.5 feet, • the request of the side setback variance (south property line) from 10 feet to 5 feet, • the request of the side setback variance (north property line) from 10 feet to 7.5 feet, and • the request for the reduction of the front yard setback from 25 feet to 10 feet, WITH the following conditions: 1. 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. 2. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction. 3. The permit is transferable. 4. The approved variances must be acted on by the owner within one year from the date of approval or the variances shall expire and be null and a a 21. U O,. Cn UJ: -Jj U)QC z w U 0 a w x u. iu U H 0 z ~Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page I void, unless the owner files an application for extension of time before the expiration and. the City approves the application. (ECDC 20.85.020.C) 5. The side setbacks and street setback variances are approved as shown on the site plan (Exhibit A, Attachment 4). 6. A Iot line adjustment is required, prior to building permit application. B. Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, the request for a variance to allow an increase in height from 25 feet to 30 feet is DENIED. 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 McConnell Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations 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,G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider. his 0''` decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision 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. B. 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 'f .....: V. '" �:. ,,!. r, .. ,., t:�.�. tK . ,.. v... uTt „!..,.-er.,. . ��4-..v. .'d.. Se.. I 0) CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 STH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - 1206) 771.0220 * FAX (266) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER zS t1S9, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECONSIDERATION DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER Cc 21 pi CITY OF EDMONDS _J U) L.0[ APPLICANTS: Walt Pisco U) Ui (n U. CASE NO.: V 97-27 0 W LOCATION: 15722 - 75h Pl. W FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 3: Z 1—1 A. The applicant's architect filed a request for reconsideration dated June 30,1907 1 z I.-0I (Reconsideration Exhibit A). UJ LUI B. City of Edmonds staff did not respond to the request for reconsideration 0 a L C. The following represents the Examiner's response to each major point raised in the LU i 3: UJ request for reconsideration: zi Point-L U 15 The increase in height from 25 to 30 feet is, for the garage only and not to be applied to 0 z the entire project. Response: It is acknowledged that the request for a height variance is only for the garage. Point 2: The portion of the variance request that asks for a height increase for the garage would not be granting a special privilege because the owners of the two properties to theNorth, 0. of the subject property had received height variances for their respective garages. Re_soonse: As was previously stated, approval of this request would not be a grant of special privilege. However, that is only one of the variance criteria which must be net before a variance can be approved. In this case, the Examiner did not believe the request met all of the variance criteria. Incorporated August 11, 1890 ATTACHMENT.3 Sister Cities International -- Hekinan, Japan wring Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-27 (Reconsideration) Page 2 Request. Request that the Examiner, grant an increase in height from 25 to 30 feet for the garage only in order to allow for positive drainage from the garage roof and in order for the proposed garage to match the other existing garages on adjacent properties. Response: The Examiner is not convinced that a five (5) foot variance is the minimum necessary to provide positive drainage. In addition, the variance criteria does not address architectural styles of the proposed structure or surrounding structures RECONSIDERATION DECISION Based upon the foregoing, the decision of the Hearing Examiner Report dated June 19, 1997 remains unchanged. Entered this 17a' day of, July 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. zon, Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner AIPPFALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing appeals. Any person ©' 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 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 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. M's W m d w U 0 Z 0 0 �J {z• t, 5 I�IEIl�I JJ�t DUM pI July 28,1998 To File No V 97=27 f� From:,Jeffrey S Wilsan J Planning' Supervisor 7 Subject REQUEST FOR' EXTENSION OF DE FOR APPROVED VARIANCE GRANTED TO FILE ,NO, V,97 27 On May 13, .1998, the property, owner of the property located at I5722 75'b, Place i?6►est submitted a request,for an extensian,to the time lunit•for the Vareance� granted 4o above pmperiy under City of Edmonds Planning Division File No. V 97-27 (see Attached), 3 HISTORY 1.' On;June 5, 1997, t}�e Hearing Examiner held a pubLc hearing on the request by Mr Watt. Pisco for multiple variances to: 1}. 'reduce the cumulative. equued side setbacks {north'. pnd south property lines) from 35 feet to 12:5 feet; 2) reduce the : minimum side setbaclt' . requirement (south property line} from 14 feet to 5 feet, 3) reduce'the minimum side setback - requireiuent {north property line) to :7:5 feet; 4} reduce the:muumum required sbw setback (east property line) from 25 feet io 10 feet; and 5} increase the maximum permitted height of i 25 feet to 30 feet above average e level for the rag grad Peak of a garage roof attached to a' residence. 2 _ On June 19, 1997, the Hearing Examiner entered decision to approve in partthe application submitted by the applicant. The specific. approval granted by'the Hearing Examiner is contained in his Findings, Conclusions and lleeision (see Attaclimentl2 3. On June 30,1997, the applicant's architect filed a request for rcconsideration with the Hearing Examiner., On July .17, 1997, the Hearing Examiner issiied 6' dccision on the request for k reconsideration, reaffirming his decision of June l9; 1997 (see Attachriient3).; 4. On May 13, 1998, the applicant fled a request for. an extenscon to the approved ,variance granted on July I7, 1997 (see Attachment 1},.This request:was filed in a timely manner `4 pity olEtimonds c� Plarmiatig Division V-MLEWCM 'fi 0 Eel I a. r , j� DEas, 6 , Uq applicant's request ; for an extension: of tame to tne, approved Variance granted to it • of j Edmonds ; ]File No: V: 97-27 as hereby granted, in accordance .with ,the conditions and,. approval giralited by the )Hearing Examiner on..yune 997, an&64uV,17, '1997, aril'. response ;to, the applicant's request for reconsideratton (see Attachments pnd 3) , THE DEADLINE IS.THEREFORE Hk" i'Y EkTENDEI3 FOiI A MAX MI%iM OF ONE (I 'YEA It,"ly'R®M dULY 17' 1995, TO ULY . i k NOWRTHER MAX BE GRANTED. RECDNSIDERATIOPI'SAND APPEALS—, -The.following is a'summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and: appeals. Any person.wishing to' file.or respond to a recommendation or appeal should coaxtact thePlanning Department for further procedural information..., A ` RMuest for Reconsideration Edmonds `Commmity Development Cade 'Seetaori. 20100,010 G `allows :for the Hearing Exannner toreconsider his:decisioiror recoinmerndation >f a amtten request is filed vithan 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 . tho subject of such decasron - ;or recommendation: The -reconsideration request must itspecific° references to the: findings 7 and/or ;the criteria ;contained 'in .the ordinances. governing` the type .of .application being .. reviewed. B:, Appeals , Edmonds Community Development Code Section 20105 020A Adescribe how;appeals of ..B a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be : Tile appeal -shall be:made in , writing, and shall include the decision being. app , od along wath''th 'name _of tie` prclect and the date of the' decision, the name of the individual or. group appealing the decisioi% :their interest in file .matter, and reasons .why the 'appellant bolives 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 I ding appealed. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Pursuant to ECDC Section 20,85.020 C, The approved. variance; -must be''acted;on by the owner within one-year from the date of approval`or,the variance shad! expire an be null and void, unless the owner files an application for. an extension of time bofaie th, . expiration and the city approves #lie application. IT11 E 1 1 1 + k4 t 1 Request for Tmie Littut Extension for File'No 3/13198) " 2. FINDINtiS CONCLUSIONS ANi2 ,DELIS pciWning.to File Nt► V .97-27 (issued hfi6,19,;1 3 PIN1)ING$ CONCLUSI®NS AN13 RED HIEARIII�;G EXAIvIiNER genii ng to Fite No PARTIES'OF RECORD 10 ® QRIGINAIL`APPI 1.' Hurt 011estad • 13722 7Y Place West • Edn on Yoke Ocala, Arclutcct • 7703 33`d NE •Seattle,'' 3::` .,, Walter Pisces. + 13722 �3'" PI ace West a Edmond# 4. David :Snuth • 226 4Avenue North Edmonds;, 3; ! Edn ands,Engineenng Division Edmonds Public Woiks Division,. 7. Edmonds Planning Division . pc: File No , 27 Cheon File JW -Correspondence Notebook 1.' rt t yy j' t (' 1 f; � t � � t 3 K y '• � t 1. � � a t8 t �bmrtted by Hnrt 011estad {received f, t THE HEARING EXAMINER ry \ ` city()f edmonds land use application NAY 13 19.01" ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ❑ COMP PLAN AMENDMENT zit+ ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE #. ii "`f ? -�-, ZONE_ ❑ HOME OCCUPATION r w ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION DAT REC'D BY { ac �' ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION v`: ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FEE RECEIPT#�_ U o! ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HEARING DATE �++' STREET VACATION ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT/ HE STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC N. Ln o� Ell REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ACTION TAKEN: �� ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE U.aj EXCEPTION ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED Ln w�s �OTHER�i12 u >�A1hf APPEAL# �- :E . z z o Applicant r Phone '` E 2S ' �f / ~ 4 K-1- Address l9 2Z- r7 S*� L Edm av, 11JA C) oProperty Address or Location P ' OL i Property Owner 'Bo- 1r DI(P S`tt, C` Phone ��s_ 44(_ „z Address 1Sr ) 5 %i. 1) /-.E-ct ?o�L LL;Ln� Agent Phone U � o Address z Tax Acc # y2R ~ Obtn - b -) Sec. Twp. Rng. Legal Description C tt , -. yJ Details of Project or Proposed Use a 1 44 n I- 0 The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorneys fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT ATTACHMENT 1 ® �� ❑s C y 0. P. CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771.0220 • FAX 1206) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER S t 18 9" FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: Walt Pisco CASE NO.: V 97-27 LOCATION: 15722 - 75th Place W. APPLICATION: Multiple variances to: 1) reduce the cumulative required side setbacks (north and south o! property lines) from 35 feet to 12.5 feet; w LU} M oi 2) reduce the minimum side setback requirements (south o- property) from 10 feet to 5 feet; LU 1L° 3) reduce the minimum side setback requirements (north property) L6 o. from 10 feet to 7.5 feet; a "�""��, 4)' reduce the minimum required street setback (east property line) from 25 feet to 10 feet; and, z ) increase the maximum permitted height of 25 feet to 30 feet above the average grade level for the peak of a garage roof attached to a residence. The requested variances have been sought to allow additions to an -- existing residence including a new attached garage (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 through 4). D REVIEW PROCESS: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. Staff Recommendatii Hearing Examiner D P1UBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the offic after visiting the site, thc hearing on the applicati, Edmonds Library and at 9:14 a.m., June 5, 199 Edmonds, Washington, exhibits offered and ent available in the Planning HEARING COM The following is a From the City: Meg Gruwell, • Two su which I • The gai than an height i • The new • The new g fact that it • The prop variance. From the Applicant: Vince 0ja1a, Arc • • The pitch • He didn't Baring Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 2 MIENDATION AND DECISION: n: Partial approval with conditions cision: Partial approval with conditions al file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The n was opened at 9:01 a.m., May 1, 1997, in the Plaza Room of the ►:03 a.m. was continued to June 5, 1997. The hearing was reopened at , in the Community Services Conference Room, 250 5"` Ave. N., ad was closed at 9:25 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the red are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is of the comments offered at the public hearing. iect Planner, reviewed the staff report and noted that: ys have been prepared and the one which is most restrictive is the one be used. would be allowed at the proposed height if it were a detached rather iched garage, however, in that case, the house would need a 7 foot ge will be much longer along 75a` Place W. than the existing garage. ge may restrict some views because of its additional length and the 11 be approximately 2 feet higher than the existing garage. is consistent with the variance criteria; except for the height Baring Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 3 L David Smith, Attorney, said: • The biggest concern expressed by staff is view impact.' • The architect is proposing a structure which is consistent with other structures in the vicinity, which he also designed. • There have been several other height variance approvals in this area. • The house is designed to be consistent with the site. • The garage is only a little over 2 feet higher than the existing garage. • If there is any view impact, it would be an impact to the view of the railroad tracks. Walt Pisco, Applicant, said: • All issues from the prior submittal have been addressed with the neighbor who opposed the prior submittal. • He is not proposing to add onto the deck as he did on the last application. • The house is being designed to minimize impacts on views. From the Community: No one from the general public spoke at the public hearing, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts• (1) Size: The subject property is approximately 8,500 square . feet in area, with a 50-foot width along 75th Place W. (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). Previously, the lot was 45-feet wide, but the applicants have submitted information showing that on October 3, 1996, title in the strip of land south of the subject lot and approximately 5 feet in width, . from 75th Place W. to the southwest corner of the Piscb's house was quieted in Walter Pisco. Though the court has declared this strip of land to belong to the Piscos, no lot line adjustment has been done yet. The lot size is further complicated because two surveys done show different locations of the property lines, so this application has been revised to reflect the most restrictive survey, r !t t� i..k Irjrf�i >,.5 {:� Jy! tS ay h. Emit fr .it 9r tiS f z i ii 1 { U,. M k�Jzt Yo i �t tt }sir s tn5 m cr +xin s 4 gr iJ.eft� 5r r'p- 1 z T r r h. 3,7,4 i a } 1M1t r y 5 3 xrt Dearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 4 . (2) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed • with a detached single-family residence. z (3) Zoning: The subject property isJocated in a single-family residential zone (RS-20), (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). v . 1 (4) Terrain and Ve eta ation: The subject property slopes from can Q# east to west with portions of the site exceeding 25°Io slope. UJ Landscaping includes grass, shrubs, and trees. 1 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Facts: LL, (1) The lots on the north, south and east sides of the subject d property are developed with detached single-family }- x; residences, and zoned RS-20 . (see Exhibit A, Attachment z r, U3 (2) To the west is the Burlington: Northern Railroad right-of- way and tracks and the Puget Sound (see ExhibitA, o Attachment 1). = W b) Conclusion: The proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding zoning and development. 0 3. History of Variances in the Neighborhood and on the Site: LU F- rl a) Facts' 0 z (1) In 1985, Jean Riggle at 15714 75th Place W. (the property directly north) requested a variance to reduce the side setback (file V-30-85). The variance was approved, but was not acted upon within the required one year. In 1986, Jean Riggle requested a variance to the required street setback (V-17-86) to allow a carport at the same setback as is currently being requested in this proposal. ! This request was approved, but not acted upon. In.1990, Ms. Riggle requested a variance to the street and side setbacks and to the height limit to allow her current home (V-6-90). Staff recommended approval of the street and side setback variances, and recommended denial of the height variance. The Hearing Examiner approved all of the requested variances. (2) In 1989, Gail and Harrison Jewell at 15706 75th Place W. (two properties to the north of the subject parcel) requested a variance to the required street and side setbacks (V-38-89). This variance was approved. In 1990, the Jewells requested a height variance for both their house and garage (V-5-94) which was .also approved. In this case, also the staff recommended approval of the setback variances, but recommended ,;s t�'ell t`•3 1 :SAtt tsi�ti .y n a - � t .s i`Iearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 5 denial of the height variance. The Hearing Examiner approved all of the requested variances. 3 In 1993, Ursula Schluter at 15620 - 75th Place W. (several properties to the north of the subject parcel) requested a W variance to the required street setback and height limit o; (V 93-11) to allow a, driveway/bridge from the road to a 4: garage on the top of her proposed house. These variances � were approved. cn u. W 01 (4) In 1996, Walter Pisco, owner of the subject property at 15772 - 75th Place W., requested a height variance from e 25 feet to 33 feet to allow him to reconstruct the roof on U. cn 0: his existing house at a steeper pitch in order to make maintenance easier. This variance was denied. Reasons 2 C given for the denial include that it was not the minimum �. variance needed, as the roof could be replaced in the same g ai configuration, and that the height variance could impact :3 the views of surrounding property and therefore be oa F detrimental to them. r U* B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) U. 1. Fact: Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt ZI i from SEPA review (WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080). z 2. Conclusion: Where special circumstances are shown to exist, the requirements of ECDC 20.15A have been met. C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. a) Facts: The basic site development standards pertaining to single-family development in an RS-20 zone are set forth in r ECDC Section 16.20.030. (1) Minimum setbacks are 25 feet to the street property line, A 25 feet to the rear property line, 10 feet to the side property lines, and the side setbacks added together must total at least 35 feet. (2) The maximum allowed height for primary structures is 25 feet. Maximum allowed height for accessory structures is 15 feet. Height calculations are based on an average grade, taken from original, undisturbed soil. b) Conclusion: Except for the many variances requested, the proposal complies with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. 2. Baring Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 6 a) Facts: (1) ECDC Chapter 20.85 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: (a) Special 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) 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. (c) Comprehensive Plan and Zonine 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. (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. (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 presented declarations to respond to all of the required criteria as follows (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). (a) Side Setbacks: The applicant points out that.with only a 50-foot maximum lot width, the requirement of a 35-foot combined side setback would leave only a15-foot building area over the existing house, which, they feel leaves an impractical living area. The applicant ' also states that a poor survey, not of his doing, created the E t ,. ... , v....m.dusrtcsae:�..n.�1ai�,.` t+'N7a,Pt:t t1Nr�}+ic k.......�..�_..,.....t•. �Fu�ra�uwa.u:un. ' �"+.ow.:.,o:.:..:�.A�....i" ..rnavend.w..r9w, rx.3ma*s,: i Baring Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 { Page 7 close proximity to the side of his property. There are also two surveys which have been done, and the two surveys z do not agree, so the applicant is using the survey which shows him with the least area in requesting the 7.5 foot cc side setback. o ? Street Setback: Due to the steep slope, the applicant states they meet the requirement for special circumstance, fit since meeting the 25-foot setback would require a steeply cn u. sloped driveway and more disturbance of the soil. The w z applicant notes that owners to the north were both granted exceptions to the front setback requirement for the construction of their garages for similar reasons. 's UJ a Height Limit: The applicant would like to construct a zsloped roof, and believes that the owners to the north were of granted exceptions to the allowable height for the Ui W! construction of their garages. (j M` (b) The applicant states that this proposal is not a grant of o f- special privilege because other property owners have L W received variances for similar reasons. LL o (c) The applicant states that this proposal will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it will be Ui T1 improving and adding a garage to an existing single- family residence. (d) The applicant states that this request is similar to other variances which have been approved, and if no variances are granted the zoning ordinance would curtail construction due to the narrow lot width. (e) The applicant states that the proposal will not be ;p detrimental to the surrounding area. The variance to setbacks they state will allow for standard construction, and the house will be 2 feet under the allowable height. tA; The construction of a new garage will remove the old garage, which was partly in road right -of --way, and will only exceed the height of the existing garage by 2 feet, but since the garage will be 12 feet further west, they feel the visual impact of the new garage would be minimal. (f) The applicant states that this proposal is the minimum necessary for a practical remodel and alteration to the owner's property to allow them to have a residence similar in size and appearance to ones those to the north where variances were granted. (3) The applicant applied for a height variance to allow a new } roof to be added to his home at this same address under, file i "--`tliearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 . Page 8 number V-96-139. That variance was to allow the maximum allowed height to be increased from 25 feet to 33 feet. That variance was denied as it was not the minimum variance required, and could potentially affect the neighbor's view. b) Conclusions; (1) For most of the proposed variances, the proposal meets the special circumstances criteria due to the narrow width of the property and steep slope from the street. Because of the narrow width, a requirement of a 35-foot combined side setback would severely limit the building area available. Also because of the steep slope from the road, it is reasonable to place the garage at the top of the hill in the street setback. The applicant also mentions a survey which he did not do which was in error as a special circumstance, but this would be considered an action of past owners or their agents. The applicants have indicated that they would like to have the height variance in order to allow a pitched roof on their garage, similar to what their neighbors have. The proposal to have a pitched roof on the garage is predicated on a personal desire of the applicant. Reasonable use of the land could be achieved if a flat roofed garage were to be constructed. An earlier submittal shows that a detached garage could maintain the required 15-foot height limit for accessory structures, so the slope on the site does not prevent them from having a garage with a pitched roof. However, if the garage were detached, the house as proposed would require a height variance of approximately 7 feet. (2) The approval of this variance request will not be a grant of special privilege as the two lots to the north have also received side and street setback variances and height variances. (3) Approval of the proposed variances would allow for the continued use of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance designation of the site. (4) Approval of the variances would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, but the proposed garage with a height variance would block more views than the existing garage. The applicant states that the proposed height of the garage will be two feet taller than the existing garage, but will be further west. Although having the garage further west may reduce some impact, the new orientation of the garage with its length along 75th Place W. results in more hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 9 mass blocking the view from the street and from properties across the street. The increased height of the proposed roof of the house compared with the existing roof will also restrict some views in the area. (5) Approval of the requested street setback variance appears to be the minimum required to allow the owners to have a garage near the level of the street. Approval of the requested side setback appears to be the minimum to add a second story over an existing foundation on this narrow lot. The height variance has been stated as needed to allow a pitched roof on the garage, yet an earlier plan and elevation showing the garage as a separate structure shows that the garage could meet the height limit for an accessory structure (15 feet) with a pitched roof. If the garage was treated as a detached structure, then the house would need a height variance as designed. A variance to allow a lower house proposal was already denied by the Hearing Examiner as not being the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. D. TECMUCAL COMMITTEE 1. Fact: The Variance Application has been reviewed and evaluated by other DepartmentslDivisions of the City (i.e. Fire Department, Public Works Division, Engineering Division, and the Parks & Recreation Division). Both the Engineering Division and the Public Works Division had comments. a. Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator, commented that the Engineering Division will support the reduction of the street setback to ten feet in light of the requirements imposed upon the applicant's neighbors. However, he noted that the property appears to need a lot line adjustment, and the terms and conditions of all future permits must be met. (See Exhibit A, Attachment 5) b. The Public Works Division commented "Note on sewer modification required" (see Exhibit A, Attachment 6), presumably because the addition is proposed to be placed over the sewer line. E. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) 1. a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Residential". b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for iuss�..w..,..`�:..R..mmu•.we+a..naw.w::+....w ire.+.u.....w..::.+........... .__ ._.. ... Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 10 2. a. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies which relate to z "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and rpolicies are discussed in detail below. LU cc gl (1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High.quality ;5 residential development which is appropriate to the 0 o? diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be cn G1. maintained and promoted...." cn w � f- , (2) Policy B.2. states: "Protect neighborhoods from CO w U. incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures in the area. g � (3) Policy B.3. states: "Minimize encroachment on view of LL I existing homes by new construction or additions to W,a existing structures. " z XI: (3) Page 31, subsection B.5.0 states, "Stable property. p; values must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land z F"! use encroachments. w wr 01 b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with o t0S the above adopted goals and policies of the City except for a �" the height variance, which encroaches on the view of existing Xv homes. W 01 zDECISION: s1 o �-' A. Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the following varignce requests are z T APPROVED: o the request for a side setback variance from the required cumulative 35 feet to 12.5 feet, e the request of the side setback variance (south property line) from 10 feet to 5 feet, e the request of the side setback variance (north property line) from 10 feet to 7.5 feet, and • the request for the reduction of the front yard setback from 25 feet to 10 feet, WITH the following conditions: 1. 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. 2. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction. 3. The permit is transferable. 4. The approved variances must be acted on by the owner within one year from the date of approval or the variances shall expire and be null and S.. iX ti =� riearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 11 void, unless the owner files an application for extension of time before the expiration and the City approves the application. (ECDC 20.85.420.C) 5. The side setbacks and street setback variances are approved as shown on the site plan (Exhibit A, Attachment 4). 6. A lot line adjustment is required, prior to building permit application. B. Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, the request for a variance to allow an increase in height from 25 feet to 30 feet is DENIED. 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 McConnell Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations 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.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 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. B. 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 I -it m 1 1Z s CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 260 6TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 86020 - 1206) 771.0220 • FAX (2061771.0221 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECONSIDERATION DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANTS: Walt Pisco CASE NO.: V 97-27 LOCATION: 15722 - 75`h Pl. W FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. The applicant's architect filed a request for reconsideration dated June 30,1997 (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: Point 1: The increase in height from 25 to 30 feet is for the garage only and not to be applied to. the entire project. Response: It is acknowledged that the request for a height variance is only for the garage. Point 2: The portion of the variance request that asks for a height increase for the garage would not be granting a special privilege because the owners of the two properties to the North of the subject property had received height variances for their respective garages. Jearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-27 (Reconsideration) Page 2 Request' Request that the Examiner grant an increase in height from 25 to 30 feet for the garage only in order to allow for positive drainage from the garage roof and in order for the proposed garage to match the other existing garages on adjacent properties. Response: The Examiner is not convinced that a five (5) foot variance is the minimum necessary to provide positive drainage. In addition, the variance criteria does not address architectural styles of the proposed structure or surrounding structures RECONSIDERATION DECISION Based upon the foregoing, the decision of the Hearing Examiner Report dated June 19, 1997 remains unchanged. Entered this 17a' day of, July 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing appeals. Any person 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 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 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 w^ • .,:..' .. ..::.: ,..-._-...-.. .. ... . ..:... .... .. .. ...., . .: .. .. .. it :Yn.. M.A!.: da%C:.'•A.. ... .a::3 r.�`Jn���i.. ik�...i'i.: j,�' j .:5 J^t�?�`i 6�k Y'y� t5y�`�4 "C,��lt Shc �:�l d E �Yrt h i � f 1 YL. ✓i!Y �. d:.c'� ( ✓tt 4 ' t• .. m � r' i s �i'^�` fiy'iv 4, v r?' rr � r� l l�.. n .x 1 } 'P'. j ��S7�a/ . �y' �! � wM�.a.»..rraate:«aw:.an�+.:,.,.:auttr1.• 4<; TYPE ON THIS SIDE WITHIN BOX � LOTS 1 AND 2 LOTS,3 AND 4 LOT 5 5131-028- 001-0001..,5131-028-003-0009 5131-028-005-0106 URSULA SCHULTER ROGER M. LANTZ JR. HARRISON JEWELL 15620 75th PL'-W 18225.47th PL NE 15706 75th PL,W ` EDMONDS, WA ,98026. SEATTLE, WA-.98155 I EDMONDS, WA 98026 _ LOTS 5 AND 6 ;LOT 7.w.._.:..�..w..__o,._..�.�... 5131-028-005-0205...,. 5131-028-007-0005- .�cay JEAN RIGGLE GRADY HELSETH 15714 75th PL W 14204 64th AVE W 3 Co y` EDMONDS WA 98020 I EDMONDS WA 98020 N a ��OT »i {LOT 2 5131-029-001-0009 5131-029-002-0008 GILBERT AND JANET THIRY, GILBERT end JANET TNIRY U. 15821 75th PL W .15821 75th PI W EDMONDS, WA 98020 { EDMONDS, WA 98020 z.I--[ r:d 5131-029N003-0007 (513.1-030-001-0007 I RICHARD VAN SAUN JQWN E PECK. LU,c 7715 173rd ST LSW 300.:2nd AVE.N EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS,WA 98020 • O i i two _ LOTS 2, 3 Ahd 4_ __.._ LOTS 26'and 26 { ►-,� 5131-030-002= 0006 5133-OQ0-Q25-Q1O9 U. 0 GLADYS NORTHFIELD ,MICHEAL RUSNAK 15821 75rh PL W 15620 72nd AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98020: EDMONDS, WA 98020 o LOT25 LOT 25 5133-000-025-0208 5133-000-025-0307 D.H. CARYL JOANNE SPRIO LIVING TRUST° 15701 75th PL W 15631 75th PLOW EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 LOTS 32'and 32 LOT-32 5133-000-31-0002 5233-000-032-0100 WR and PAUL C. BEERS DONNA E. PAUL TRUSTEES FAMILY TRUST 12947 SW ORchard HILL PL 7324 158th ST SW LAKE OSWEGO,;:QR 9ZO35 ® �EDMONDS.. WA_ _ _ 98026..._,_�_.: l 1 PC EDMONDS HEAPi�iG`lE�A���R :. MEETING-'AGEND�► JUNE St 1997 AT 9WO A.M. SPECL4L'ME'ETVVG LOCATION Community Services conference Room -Community Services wilding 250 Sth Avenue North 1. Call to Order :L Public Hearings JB a:; FILE Na "CU 97-16: Applicstion by Faith 0onirn Church for a Conditional Use Permit for an entryway addition onto the existing church which is currently a nonconforming > use. The subject property is located at 10220 238th Street South v esti and is zonW, RS-8. MG b FILE NO. V-9 7-27: Application by Walt Disco %r mul iple Variances to: 1) reduce the cumulative required side setbacks (north and south propertylines) :from 35-fed to 12.5-6es; 2) reduce the minimum :side setback requirement (south property line). from 14-feet to 5-feet,,: 3) radu6D the , rnininium side setback requirement (norftroperty line) to`7.5 -feet; 4) reduce the minimum yequixed street setback (east property line) from 25-feet to 10-feet; and, 5) increase the maximum permitted height of 25-feet to 30-feet above average grade level for the peak of a garage roa£ attached to a residence. The requested variances have been sought to allow additions to an existing residence including a new attached.garage. The subjeetproperty is, located at 1372275th.Place West and is zoned RS-20. MG c. FILE NO. V 97-57: Application by ]David 8c Inge Johnson -for a Variance to reduce the required street setback (northeast property line).from 25-feet to 10-feet and to reduce the required rear setback (southwest property line) from 25-feet to 20-feet for the construction of a new: one-story single-family residence. The subject property is located at 17002 Talbot Road and is zoned RS-12. MG d. FILE NO. V-97-64: Application by Randy &Debbie Johnson for a Variance to allow a 12-foot high hedge to be located adjacent to the east mid south property line, in excess of the rnWrnum permitted' height of 6-feet. This application was submitted in response to a code enforcement action. The . subject property is located.at 643 9th Avenue North and is zoned RS-12. JW C. FILE NO. V 97-55: Application by Sheila & Kasey Knowlen for a :Variance to reduce the required' street setback (from the cast property line; 104th Avenue West) fiv;n . 25-feet to 26 feet-: for the 4 construction. of an approximate 936 square foot detached garage with an additional approximate 208 '. square foot attached carport. The Pett3' subject sub3jproperty is located at 24025104th Place,West and is zoned P �. RS-8. ' r 3. Administrative Reports - No Reports. 4. Adjournment T I Sister Cities. lnt4ina,66nal,Helkina nj : Japan CITY C OF EDMC>NIDS e.e pelAae, Pal+av MAYOq ii0 aTN AViNYi NORTH • ■OMONOa. WA iaOSO.' • ti001 771-0SS0�. ♦Ax.laOal 771-tlSS1. . COMMUNITY SaRVICUS DHPARTMENT_,. {B *t. 1491m - Public Work* Planning •" Parks and Roaraatlon • gnglnaaring - ��; • ^G.A....-�`� C1A-TE TRAN$MI'iTEt�' NUMBER OP PAQES gnoluding Cover Pag®) Fieclptenta'retecc lar Number. ��- C% Gi i r' !'ACSttVllt_E MQUIPMEN1": Automatic//Mroup l/ reins.); C3roup "fit PROM;' �^-'� ^`� If there pro anproblems . during transmission or documents are received - inaOmpTate. please "call - C206) 771-0220and ras1k for 8+anciaPaTnstocoo tar Number_ 2061771p - t NO REMOTE STATION I.D. START, TIME DURATION: #PAgES COMMENT 1 7- 3-97 ,11 * HAM. _1-3 7 2' CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 260 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771.0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECONSIDERATION DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANTS: Walt Pisco cn ® LU CASE NO.: V 97-27 LOCATION: 15722 - 75 h Pl. W U. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ', I —; A. The applicant's architect fled a request for reconsideration dated June 30,1997 (Reconsideration Exhibit A). ui B. City of Edmonds staff did not respond to the request for reconsideration a r C. The following represents the Examiner's response to each major point raised in the w� t request for reconsideration: U. of z Point 1 : LUy The increase in height from 25 to 30 feet is, for the garage only and not to be applied to z ? the entire project. Response: It is acknowledged that the request for a height variance is only for the garage. Point 2 { The portion of the variance request that asks for a height increase for the garage would not be granting a special privilege because the owners of the two properties to the North ® of the subject property had received height variances for their respective garages. Response: As was previously stated, approval of this request would not be a grant of special privilege. However, that is only one of the variance criteria which must be met before a !g : variance can be approved. In this case, the Examiner did not believe the request met all of the variance criteria. { • Incorporated August,11, 1890 0 Sister Cities International— Hekinan, Japan Request that the Examiner grant an increase in height from 25 to 30 feet for the garage only in order to allow for positive drainage from the garage roof and in order for the proposed garage to match the other existing garages on adjacent properties. Response: The Examiner is not convinced that a five (5) foot variance is the minimum necessary to provide positive drainage. In addition, the variance criteria does not address architectural styles of the proposed structure or surrounding structures RECONSIDERATION DECISION Based upon the foregoing, the decision of the Hearing Examiner Report dated June 19, 1997 remains unchanged. Entered this 17`h day of, July 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing appeals. Any person 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 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 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. f - t i 113,A N = i J '� P ut 41✓ ",� t1 ,i'V r t*'°Y l � i F` } ! f {{ �t 3f s i�}d t t� � 2aa ltr A "f�` y7 YZ t t .,e. f •.fy h U Y.J! of �t ,' u9fik �c::LLi2s •: 'Rearing Examiner Decision Case No. ;V,97-27 (Reconsideration) Page 3 LAPSE OF APPROVAL z Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is g "'. 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 LU f: The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a w U. ; change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. x o� ccaa aFE rs RECONSIDERATION EXHIBIT: . t" °"� TWO following reconsideration exhibit was offered and entered into'the record.' A. Request for reconsideration submitted by; dated 6/30l97. ; U a_ `h UJ "' PARTIES of RECORD: z Vince Ojala, Architect Edmonds.Planning Division v 7703 33`d NE Edmonds`Engineering Division o Seattle, WA 98115 Edmonds Public Works Division z Walter Pisco David Smith 15772 75" Pl. W 220 4s' Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 ®; a' iiiiii YINCE RAW • ALA qK+ v 7703 33rKi''NE AER /w.,, ' S4eattle, Washington ` I JUL = 3 1997 d I 9811 s x LU .PERMIT COUNTER. . . ac zo6.ss7 sz89 U: 30 JuneT. 19-97 a Cn (n WIII , City of Edmond o Planning "Department N. K W - .. ire: Reconsideration of Hearing N Examiner Decision. z u3# z �' Case Number: V9.7-27'Wait Pis-6 Variance Request t ' Qi W Wi .. - o .Pursuant to Section 20.loo.OlO.O we are requesting that the Heoring Examiner reconslder.the issue regarding the increase in height a which was denied In Findings, Conclusions and Decision by the. Hearing X u. IL 11 Examiner'signed 19'June 1997. �- On page one of the Findings, item #5 under APPLICATION; Indicates that; the Increase In height from 25 feet to 30 feet Is far the ogarage t only and not to be applied to the entire project. - z .r On page two of the Findings; Item #2 under CONCLUSIONS states thatthe, portion of the variance request that asks for a height Increase, for the garage would not be a granting of special privilege because the ;owners of the two properties to the North of the subject property had received height variances for their respective garages. During the course of the Hearing, Meg Oruell of the City of Edmbnds stated that the height Increase was only for the garage. We ask.that the Hearing Examiner reconsider his fihding a .addressed on page 11 of the Findings' under DECISION 5. and that he grant an increase in height•from 25 feet to 30 feet FOR THE GARAGE, ONLY In order to allow for positive drainage from the garage roof and in order, for the proposed garage to match the other existing_ 1 garages on adjacent properties. Thank you for your tl regcl I is matter. Vince OJ a Arch eC "j•4`R�''.?Y.. �`�xa+��"i",7��i1r�73 °� L s01 a CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 6TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206! 771.0221 HEARING EXAMINER FS t 18 g FINDINGS; CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION ? OF THE FEARING EXAMINER CITY'OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: Walt Pisco CASE NO.: V 97-27 LOCATION: 15722 - 75th Place W. APPLICATION: Multiple variances to: 1) reduce the cumulative required side setbacks (north and south property linos) from 35 feet to 12.5 feet; 0 2) reduce the minimum side setback requirements (south o , property) from 10 feet to 5 feet; w' r _ 3) reduce the minimum side setback requirements (north property) tip ". from 10 feet to 7.5 feet; z 4) " reduce the minimum required street setback (east property line) 0 from 25 feet to 10 feet; and, z , 5} increase the maximum permitted height of 25 feet to 30 feet above the average grade level for the peak of a garage roof attached to a residence. The requested variances have been sought to allow additions to an - existing residence including a new attached garage (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) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code ECDC) Section 16.26.030 ( (SITE. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS). F. i Incorporated August I1 I890 Sister Cities International Hekinan, Japan 'K t' r as S. { IN, n : p s.r^n;xa,:vv+ia''�kn.axn413ar'tiv1.h&c#3`�;ry v 5.s t Aft- Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: ¢ Staff Recommendation: Partial approval with conditions r ¢I. Hearing Examiner Decision: Partial approval with conditions �y PUBLIC HEARING: J LUI h. After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and W o after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The 2 hearing on the application was opened at 9:01 a.m., May 1, 1997, in the Plaza Room of the g a: Edmonds Library and at 9:03 a.m. was continued to June 5, 1997. The hearing was r�eopened at U. N & 9:14 a.m., June 5, 1997, in the Community Services Conference Room, 250 5sAve. N., Edmonds, Washington, and was closed at 9:25 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the z r.-f exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is o available in the Planning Division. w wi HEARING COMMENTS: o t= The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. UJ Lu From the City: LL c>> y: 21 Meg Gruwell, Project Planner, reviewed the staff report and noted that: U' o Two surveys have been prepared and the one which is most restrictive is the one a which will be used. i The garage would be allowed. at the proposed height if it were a detached rather than an attached garage, however, in that case, the house would need a 7 foot height variance. • The new garage will be much longer along 75`s Place W. than the existing garage. Y- i The new garage may restrict some views. because of itsadditional length and the ®. fact that it will be approximately 2 feet higher than the existing garage. The proposal is consistent with the variance criteria, except for the height variance. From the Applicant: Vince Ojala, Architect, said: • Everything is within the height limit, except the garage. o The pitch on the garage roof will allow for drainage. • He didn't see where there would be any impact to views. :�".'.A-1. TMtw P MW Hearing Examiner Decision No 11'7 Page 3 J. David Smith, Attorney, said: The biggest concern expressed by staff is, view impact. • The architect is proposing a structure Which is consistent with other structures in the vic'miv, which he also designed • There have been several other height variance approvals in this area. 0 The house is designed to be consistent with the site. 0 The garage is only a little over 2 feet higher than the existing garage. 0 If there is any view impact, it would be an impact to the view of the railroad tracks. Walt Pisco, Applicant, said: All issues from the prior su bmittal have been addessed with the neighbor Who opposed the prior submittal. • He is not proposing to add onto the deck as he did on.the last application. • The house is being designed to minimize impacts on views. From the Community: No one from the general public spoke at the public hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) aim The subject property is approximately 8,500 square feet in area, with a 50-foot width Wong 75th Place W. (see ti Exhibit A, Attachment 4). Previously, the lot was 45-feet wide, but the applicants have submitted, information ttiti showing that on October 3, 1996,title in the strip of land " south of the subject lot and approximately 5 feet in width, from 75th Place W.-to the southwest comer of the l.Pisco's: house was quieted in Walter Pisco.Though the court has declared this strip of landto belong to the PiSCOS'L no lot . line adjustment has beea done yet. The lot size is further complicated because two surveys done show different fi locations of the propertylines, so this application has keen '.L revised to reflect the most restrictive survey., ;N r Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 4 (2) Land Use: The subject, property is currently developed. With a detached single-family residence. (3), Zoning: The subject property is located in a single-family residential zone (RS-20); (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). (4) Terrain and Ve etation• The subject property slopes from east to west with portions of the site exceeding 25% slope. Landscaping includes grass, shrubs, and trees. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Facts: , (1) The lots on the north, south and east sides.of the subject property are developed with detached single-family residences, and zoned RS-20 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). (2) To the west is the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of- way and tracks and the Puget Sound (see . Exhibit A, Attachment 1). b) Conc� lesion: The proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding zoning and.development. 3. History of Variances th N h �n a gig borhood and on the Site: a) Facts: (1) In 1985, Jean Riggle , at 15714 - 75th Place W. (the property directly north) requested a variance to reduce the side setback (file V-30-85). The variance was approved, but was not acted upon within the required one year. In 1986, Jean Riggle requested a variance to the required street setback (V-17-86) to allow a carport at the same setback as is currently being requested in this proposal. This request was approved, but not acted upon. In 1990, Ms. Riggle requested a variance to the street and side setbacks and to the height limit to allow her current home (V-6-90). Staff recommended approval of the street and side setback variances, and recommended denial of the height variance. The Hearing Examiner approved all of the requested variances. (2) In 1989, Gail and Harrison Jewell at 15706 - 75th Place W. (two properties to the north of the subject parcel) requested a variance to the required street and side setbacks (V-38-89). This variance was, approved. .lb 1990, the Jewells requested a height variance for. both H��. their house and garage (V-5-90), which was also s approved. In this case also the staff recommended x�¢ approval of the setback variances, but recommendeds" k ti j� tys °t6 ors {' 1 �! 5 .ne.v.. ,Ci.fhYNd",Jrl4vef31a".aY.ht4J6A�ik5uT�Ta"TAa+yMNs�al.Aaµ`LL'::T'nLi14�x�.u'nMik� r�S;w"G.•1�u:LYi=nCIASSM1vYM.•d ,,M;: � � �` t kF. i"b�S�YJIdAVv�ti�ii�:fif4n'Si�75i�! '4ti?i �',�,Z"(�Y?.j.§ '{''�,�.%`:�ii'A►S,wt_..ie .S u1%. J. (r .. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 . Page 5 i denial of the height variance. The Hearing Examiner approved all of the requested variances. • In 1993, Ursula Schluter at 15620 - 75th Place W. (several ; �{ properties to the north of the subject parcel) requested a vl variance to the required street setback and height limit U , (V-93-11) to allow a driveway/bridge from the road to a (n u,� garage on the top of her proposed house. These variances Ui rn �� were approved. W (4)' In 1996, Walter Pisco, owner of the subject property at 15772 -75th Place W., requested a height variance from tt 25 feet to 33 feet to allow him to reconstruct the ;roof on G his existing house at a steeper pitch in order to make Ln maintenance easier. This variance was denied. �ieasons given for the denial include that it was not the minimum variance needed, as the roof could be replaced in the same u�,( configuration, and that the height variance could, impact c�n4 the views of surrounding property and therefore be r detrimental to them. o LU c,x B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA); 1. Fact: Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt N! UJ from SEPA review (WAC 197-11-800(6)(b)and ECDC. r+ 20.15A.080). z ' 2. Conclusion: Where special circumstances are shown to exist` the requirements of ECDC 20.15A have been met. C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECD�) COMPLIANCE 1. a) Facts: The basic site development standards pertaining to single-family development in an RS-20 zone are set forth in ECDC Section 16.20.030. (1) Minimum setbacks are 25 feet to the street property line, 0, 25 feet to the rear property line, 10 feet to toe side property lines, and the side setbacks added together must total at least 35 feet. { (2) The maximum allowed height for primary structures is 25 feet. Maximum allowed height for accessory structures is 15 feet. Height calculations are based on an average ; f grade, taken from original, undisturbed soil. b) . Conclusion: Except for the many variances 'requested„ the �''41,2 a proposal complies with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. r' E.ffir . i. t3y} C �Cy =11 WAR Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 6 2. a) facts- (1) ECDC Chapter 20.85 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: (a) Special 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 withthe 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) 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.. (c) Comprehensive 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. (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. (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 presented declarations to respond to all of the required criteria as follows (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). (a) Side Setbacks: The applicant points out that with only,a 50-foot maximum lot width, the requirement of a.35-foot combined side setback :would -leave only `a 15-foot building area over the existing house, which' they, feel leaves an impractical living area.. The applicant also states that a poor survey, not of his doing, created, the i i• t .,fly y r to ra ;'t, J. f Y �,'te `, t..+ y° yt iel, 'r°il,. Fkv f r t r l ti t i t 4y l F r ..„..o.,r,.z� ...<..,. y Rr..:.rc.'�:.�`u',.c.'m,.,a.`µ.',.�ii�,d""y" .al -ry` .• u,:�:3t".$'RrY`:fdC�tt125:diu»'ii.°'.r.�^'wtA'iL•cctdn�tt,:l±vG.i7.1f9'.rt.4.Y.f.a a..�„''i�'o�.t,,.YEwo-7�sixa�r..sck•a..rs...+�,'�5..tit� ?::iX'�r;"'!L.. 3ti:..+°.,, T., ...�..,,h.n.s3.r. ' Hearing Examiner Decision Case No: V-97-27 Page 7 close proximity to the side of his property. There are also two surveys. which have been done, and the two surveys • do not agree, so the applicant is using the survey which shows him with the least area in requesting the 7.5 foot side setback. U O Street Setback: Due to the steep slope, the applicant LU' states they meet the requirement for special circumstance, rf since meeting the 25-foot setback would require a steeply w U. sloped driveway and more disturbance of the soil. The g applicant notes that owners to the north were both granted exceptions to the front setback requirement for the oconstruction of their garages for similar reasons. xF Height Limit: The applicant would like to construct a z Fi' sloped roof; and believes that the owners to the north were z of granted exceptions to the allowable height for the USAQ construction of their garages. i (b) The applicant states that this proposal is not a grant of a � special privilege because other property owners have ='a', received variances for similar reasons. U. a (c) The applicant states that this proposal will be consistent with the ,Comprehensive Plan because . it will be r FC' improving- and adding a garage to an existin single- 9z family residence. (d) The applicant states that this request . is similar to other variances which have been approved, and if no variances are granted the zoning ordinance would curtail construction due to the narrow lot width. (e) The . applicant states that the proposal will not be r detrimental to the surrounding area. The variance to setbacks they state will allow for standard construction, and the house will be 2 feet under the allowable height. O The construction of a new garage will remove the old garage, which was partly in road right-of-way, and will only exceed the height of the existing garage by 2 feet, but since the garage will be 12 feet further west, they feel the visual impact of the new garage would be minimal. ®, (f) The applicant states that this proposal is the minimum necessary for a practical remodel and alteration to the owner's property to allow them to have a residence similar. in size and appearance to ones those to the. north where variances were granted. (3) The applicant applied for a height variance to allow a new roof to be added to his home at this same address under file n.'t3�i'"�' 'irk R;tz �r%��ttk :lrf � , .:k.4 .Fp ';y f .�'.. 33 <$.. , �'•.h�. r�7,.. {:' T.T% to , S( _ m1c E- 0 a LU X F- U. 0 z E Ell Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-91-2.1 Page 8 number V-96-139. That variance was to allow the maximum allowed height to be increased from 25 feet to 33 feet. That variance was denied as it was not the minimum variance required, and could potentially affect the neighbor's view. b) Conclusions: (1) For most of the proposed variances, the proposal meets the special circumstances criteria due to the narrow width of the property and steep slope from the street. Because of the narrow width, a requirement of a 35-foot combined side setback would severely limit the building area available. Also because of the steep slope from the road, it is reasonable to place the garage at the top of the hill in the street setback. The applicant also mentions a survey which he did not do which was in error as a special circumstance, but this would be considered an action of past owners or their agents. The applicants have indicated ,that they would like to have the height variance in order to allow a.pitched roof on their garage, similar to what their neighbors have. The proposal to have a pitched roof on the garage is predicated on a personal desire of the applicant. Reasonable use of the land could be achieved if a flat roofed garage were to be constructed. An earlier submittal shows that a detached garage could maintain the required 15-foot height limit for accessory structures, so the slope on the site does not prevent them from having a garage with a pitched roof. However, if the garage were detached, the house as proposed would require a height variance of approximately 7 feet. (2) The approval of this variance request will not be a grant of special privilege as the two lots to the north have also received side and street setback variances -aftdIh,, height variances. (3) Approval of the proposed variances. would allow for the continued use of,the;lsite in a manner consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance designation of the site. (4) Approval of the variances would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, but the proposed garage with a height variance would block more views than the existing garage. The applicant states that the proposed height of the garage will be two feet taller than the existing, garage, but will be further west. Although having the garagefurther west may reduce some impact, the new, orientation of the 'results gi garage with its length along 75th Place W. in more R t .`%Y. t � < i 1 a t +...,..,c.a+:3v.2iu41.4d„�,}rii.rAixet�.wa?SlY�..f+wswJ%t12{;:vi}.itM�P.wi_iL3.i`ve�eiid"wnJ.�.'.ti3+n�'+e'.,IL"±wlYk�✓.'�M°J.Z'1}'}.{.-ifiiTaiWW...txi.�,�'�'.{�.b`�ii'«Lr ckk�\4".a4v!i4K.4.TRh'Lk't..A'9i:xRYLi�',Xi.}F�i{}.x.ae..{.."{,RYi+*ib..�'F3"r_fi;.t,dn... J�.._.,.t1„ Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 9 mass blocking the view from the street and from properties across the street. The increased height of the proposed roof sof the house compared with the existing roof will also restrict E-- some views in the area. U' (5) Approval of the requested street setback variance appears to UJ U o! be the minimum required to allow the owners to have a a; wf garage near the level of the street. Approval of the requested -J side setback appears to be the minimum to add a second wo story over an existing foundation on this narrow lot. The height variance has been stated as needed to allow a LL pitched roof on the garage, yet an earlier plan and elevation us showing the garage as a separate structure shows that the Ld garage could meet the height limit for an accessory structure ? E—; (15 feet) with a pitched roof. If the garage was treated as'a detached structure, then the house would need a height UJ UJ; variance as designed. A variance to allow a lower house �1 proposal was already denied by the Hearing Examiner as not o being the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights s ui enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. LL. D. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE z� 1. Fact: The Variance Application has been reviewed and evaluated by other Departments/Divisions of the City (i.e. Fire Department, z Public Works Division, Engineering Division, and the Parks & Recreation Division). Both the Engineering Division and the Public Works Division had comments. . a. Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator, commented that the Engineering Division will support the reduction of the street setback to ten feet in light of the requirements imposed upon N the applicant's neighbors. However, he noted that the + property appears to need a lot line adjustment, and the terms and conditions of all future permits must be met. (See 0 Exhibit A, Attachment 5) b. The Public Works Division commented "Note on sewer modification required" (see Exhibit A, Attachment 6), presumably because the addition is proposed to be placed over the sewer line. ® E. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) 1. a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single FamilyK t Residential".> 4, b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with i the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation ' for the site. �4 t ��a � u"• r ftti� t i- t t t t a ...... .`...h.., nt/r ,: n...1,t,f...u'ty.,<,.{.+,m�.�"+ N6.L.a'.p,a�(`tz"�'o�NOjlulawtiK,'w'h.$Yt.`"•.thr,'..J..' c�a%Y`":iaY4:Si5..!...Lw.S,.,3aSt,'.*.1.,X.i.'texh'n¢T%,'..V":DL��F,'«A'7si�'uK.'tl�'..:irw.a..wculsaat.:x7l.Lat.tl•6P:C*�1? ': ,� . ,..Y..r�i.. R.-;•.�,*,.. .s%r .,r +;tee.,... Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 10 2. a. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies which relate to d "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and ' policies are discussed in detail below. 3 X (1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High. quality i v residential development which is appropriate to the U o diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be (n LU maintained and promoted.... " � � ' CO (2) Policy B.2. states: "Protect neighborhoods from incompatible do not —� p E additions to existing buildings that " harmonize with existing structures in the area. C2 -J (3) Policy B.3. states: "Minimize encroachment on view of U. d `h existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. " ZUt �F (3) Page 31, subsection B.5.0 states, "Stable property - O; values must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments. " W ,-:u�l Is Q b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with 0 the above adopted goals and policies of the City except for the height variance, which encroaches on the view of existing W� homes. U. O� Z DECISION: L) o �' A. Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the following variance requests are APPROVED: • the request for a side setback variance from the required cumulative 35 feet to 12.5 feet, • the request of the side setback variance (south property line) from 10 feet to 5 feet, • the request of the side setback variance (north property line) from 10 ' feet to 7.5 feet, and e the request for the reduction of the front yard setback from 25 feet to 0 _ 10 feet, WITH the following conditions: 1. 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. 2. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction. x�f 3. The permit is transferable. �u 4. The approved variances must be acted on by the owner within one year, f x from the date of approval or the variances shall expire and be null and pP p " 4 } ,©MM", •`'^ r. i r- _S" E -�._r, �r,.rr?ty;>;{z5.`5h1»k}'`i��i ""Y4 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 1 I void, unless the owner files an application for extension of time before the - expiration and the City approves the application. (ECDC 20:85.020.C) 5. The side setbacks and street setback variances are approved as shown . on the site plan (Exhibit A, Attachment 4). 6. A lot line adjustment is required, prior to building permit application. B. Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, the request for a variance to allow an increase in height from 25 feet to 30 feet is DENIED. 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 McConnell Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations 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.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 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. B. 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 ..x�t.r✓..+ruu.3.t=tJ3A',�nWa'+TitS�'c, y�i:'zees'AR4Y�41Sa.�'�'�'ki7"�u3cyS4N�" :R'iHY. -n f '` ' IV Rk�A'.�bh.t'$.Vllk'�""'n's°'�'SBt'fYk`n..M1Yl3M.Fh'Ytr.TiwNtMfs.W.i .v Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 12 of the.projectand the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group "appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellanubelieves the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ton(10) working days after the date of.the decision being appealed. 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: LAPSE OF APPROVAL 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.' EXHIBITS , The following exhibit-was,offered and.entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with attachments. PARTIES of RECORD: Walter Pisco Vince Ojala 15772 75d` Place West : 7703 33`d N.E. Edmonds, WA 98020 Seattle, WA 9$115 David Smith Edmonds Planning Division " 220 0 Avenue North 'Edmonds Public Works Division '. Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds Engineering Division Edmonds Parks & Recreation Division Edmonds `Fire Department d t:1 I I in.r- weg luruweu ti J {1{ Project Planner N C l Date: MAY 22,1997 s W.; z File: V-97-27 — WALT PISCO w w Hearing Date, Time, And Place: June 5,1997 At 9:00 AM, . Community Services Conference Room c y y 250'5th Ave. N.,'Edmonds LUw TABLE OF CONTENTS LU5 F- Section Page zr 1 �; . INTRODUCTION ...... ......... ......... ......... ...« ...... ... ..2 ca A. Application ................................................ ..2 z' B. Recommendations.............................................................. .. ..................2 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ...... . . A. Site Description ................................. ......... .................. ......... ......... ......... .......«.... 3 B. SEPA....................................................................... ........................ ................................ 4 C. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance.......... .. ................... 4 D. Technical Committee ........................................................................ .............. ....... ........ ......... 7 E. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) .................... ..... , $ .. ................. ......... ............. ........... III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS ... 8 © A. Request for Reconsideration............ .,.. . $ B. Appeals ..................................... .... .. .. 9 IV NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR......... ..........p.9..«, ........«. ......:... 9 V. LAPSE OF APPROVAL .................. ............ ..... .................. ........................... ........:... 9 OVI. APPENDICES ................................. ......... ........ .....«.......................................... ...........9 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD ....................................... ..«... .....:......,.. .... .....«, ......,...9..' ;. y ® t ;., . i. z r- r0 z w tu• M, Cl, U m 007 N1 = U� U. p _z ui Cn v� O F" z U I. INTRODUCTION A. APPLICANT INFORMATION I. Applicant: Wait Pisco (see Attachment 2). 2. Site Location: 15722 - 75th Place W. (see Attachment 1). 3. Reguest: Multiple variances to: 1) reduce the cumulative required side setbacks (north and south property lines) from 35 feet to 12.5 feet; 2) reduce the minimum side setback requirements (south property) from 10 feet to 5 feet; 3) reduce.the minimum side setback requirements (north property) from 10 feet to 7.5 feet; 4) reduce the minimum required street setback (east property line) from 25 feet to 10 feet; and, 5) increase the maximum permitted height of 25 feet to 30 feet above the average grade level for the peak of a garage roof attached to a residence. The requested variances have been sought to allow additions to an existing residence including a new attached garage (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) Chapter 26.85 (VARIANCES). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.0130 (SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS). R. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on Statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, we recommend APPROVAL of the following: • the request for a side setback variance from the required cumulative 35 feet to 12.5 feet, • the request of the side setback variance (south property line) from 10 feet to 5 feet, • the request of the side setback variance (north property line) from 10 feet to 7.5 feet, and • the request for the reduction of the front yard setback from 25 feet to 10 feet, WITH the following conditions: 1. 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. 2. The applicant must obtain a buildinp nerm it nrinr to onnefrnnfinn 3. ®1I 4. u .. - : `-. _ ;. . _.. ...... .. ... ,_.., . ..1. .. ..F 4 Y .�, s � iA ;; 4 �� �,;� ', • ! - . � # Walter Casco t . tale No. V-97-27 Page 4 of 9 3. History of Variances in the Neighborhood and on the Site: a) Facts (1) In 1985, Jean. Riggle at 15714 - 75th Place W. (the property. directly north) requested a variance to reduce the side setback (tile V-30-85). The variance was approved, but was not acted upon within the required one year. In 1986, .lean, Rigglerequested a variance to the required street setback (V-17-86) to allow a carport at the same setback as is currently being requested in this proposal. This request was approved, but not acted upon. In 1990, Ms. Riggle requested a variance to the street and side setbacks and to the height limit to allow her . current home (V-6-90). " Staff recommended approval of the street and side setback variances, and recommended denial of the height variance. The Hearing Examiner approved all of the requested variances. (2) In1989, Gail and Harrison Jewell at 15706 - 75th Place W. (two properties to the north of the subject parcel) requested a variance to the required street and side setbacks (V-38-89). This variance was approved. In 1990, the JewelIs requested a height variance for both their house and garage (V-5-90), which was, also approved. In this case also the staff recommended approval of the setback variances, but recommended denial of the height variance. The Hearing Examiner.approved all of the requested variances. (3) In 1993, Ursula Schluter at 15620 - 75th Place W. (several properties to the north of the subject parcel) requested a variance to the required street setback and height limit (V-93-11) to allow a driveway/bridge from: the road to a garage on the top of her proposed house. These variances were approved. (4) In 1996, Walter Pisco, owner of the subject property at 15772 -.75th Place W., requested a height variance from 25 feet to 33 feet to allow him to reconstruct the roof on his existing house at a steeper pitch in order to make maintenance easier. This variance was denied. Reasons given for the denial include that it was not the minimum variance needed, as the roof could be ,replaced in the same configuration, and that the height variance could impact the views of surrounding property and therefore be detrimental to them. B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) 1. Fact: Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review (WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080). 2. Conclusion: Where special circumstances are shown to exist, the requirements of ECDC 20.15A have been met. C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. a) Facts: The basic site development standards pertaining to single-family development in an RS-20 zone are set forth in ECDC Section 16.20.030. (1) Minimum setbacks are 25 feet to the street property line, 25 feet to the rear property tine, 10 feet to the side property lines, and ;the side setbacks added, together must total at least 35 feet. V-97-2TDOC J May 36; -t997 / Staff Repotf i"71 A 1%] S 2. a) Facts: (1) ECDC Chapter 20.85 sets forth the mechanism,whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a case-by-case,basis if the application of L the provision would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship. The criteria are as follows: (a) Special 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) 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. (c) Comprehensive 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. (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. (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. The applicant has presented declarations to respond to all of the required criteria as follows (see Attachment 4). (a) Side Setbacks The applicant. points out that with only a 50-foot maximum lot width, the requirement of a 35-foot combined side setback would leave only,a 15- foot building area over the existing house, which they feel leaves. an impractical living area. The applicant also states that a poor survey, not of his doing, created the close proximity to the side of his property. There are also two:surveys which have been done, and the two surveys do. not agree, so the,applicant is using the, . survey which shows him with the least area in requesting the 7.5 foot side setback. Street Setback Due to the steep slope, the applicant stMes'they meet the requirement for special circumstance, since meeting the,25-Mbot setbalik.would V-97-27.DOC t May 30, 19971 Staff Report 47 7.7 7 0 X& (2) I ,require a steeply sloped driveway and more disturbance at the soil. The applicant notes that owners to the north were both granted exceptions to the front setback requirement for the construction of their garages for similar reasons. Heieht Limit: The applicant would like to construct a slope d roof, and believes that the owners to the north were granted exceptions to the allowable height for the construction of their garages. (b) The applicant states that this proposal is not a grant of special privilege because other property owners have received variances for similar reasons. (c) The applicant states that this proposal will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it will be improving and adding a garage to an existing single-family residence. (d) The applicant states that this request is ,similar to other variances which have been approved, and if no variances are granted the zoning ordinance would curtail construction due to the narrow lot width. (e) The Applicant states that the proposal will not be detrimental to the surrounding area. The variance to setbacks they state will allow for standard construction, and the house will be 2 feet under the allowable height., The construction of a new garage will remove the old garage, which was partly in road right-of-way, "and will only exceed the height of the existing garage by 2 feet, but since the garage will be 12 feet further west, they feel the visual impact of the new garage would be minimal. (f) The applicant states that this proposal is the minimum necessary for a practical remodel and alteration to the owner's property to allow them to have a residence' similar in size and appearance to ones those to the north where variances were granted. (3) The applicant applied for a height variance to allow a new roof to be added to his home at this same address under file number V-96-139. That variance was to allow the maximum allowed height to be increased from 25 feet to 33 feet. That variance was denied as it was not the minimum variance required, and could potentially affect the neighbor's view. b) Conclusions: (1) Eq- El For most of the proposed variances, the proposal meets the special circumstances criteria due to the narrow width of the property and steep slope from the street. Because of the narrow width, a requirement of a 35-fdot combined side setback would severely limit the building area available. Also because of the steep slope from the road, it is reasonable to place the garage at the top of the hill in .the street setback. The applicant also mentions a survey which he did not do which was in error as a special circumstance, but this would be considered an action of past owners or their agents. Walter Pisco File No. V-97-27 ra9c 0 01 V K Waiter Pisco File No. V-97-27 Page 7 of.9. them from having a garage with a pitched root: ' However, if, the garage were detached, the house as proposed would require a height variance of approximately 7 , feet. i (2) The approval of this variance request will not be a grant of.speciaII privilege as the two lots to the north have also received side and street setback variances and height i variances. I (3) Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the continued use of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance designation of the site. (4) Approval of the variance would not,be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, but it will block more views than the existing configuration. The applicant states that the proposed height of the garage will be two feet taller than the existing garage, but will be further west. Although having the garage further west may reduce some impact, the new orientation of the garage with its length along 75th PlaceW. resultsin, more mass blocking the view from the street. The increased height of, the proposed roof of the house compared with the existing roof will also restrict some views in the area. (5) Approval of the requested street setback variance appears to - be the minimum required to allow the owners to have a garage.'near the level of the street, Approval E of the requested side setback appears to be the minimum to add a second story over an existing foundation on this narrow Iota The height variance has been stated as needed to allow a pitched roof on the garage, yet an earlier plan and elevation showing the garage as a Separate structure shows that the garage could meet the height limit for an accessory structure (15 feet). with a pitched root: If the garage was treated as a detached structure, then the house would need a height variance as designed. A variance to allow a lower house proposal was already denied by the Hearing Examiner as not being the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. D. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE 1. 7717777 �c r 4 jai Cc u`ta Cj -J U O N uw J �.. to u. E OU. } Ln Z F^' O LULU C}; Q Ci 0 �11 _ �r LLa _Z U O Z . ,- , E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) 1. a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Residential". b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. 2. a. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies which relate to "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below. (1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential development which Is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted...." (2) Policy B.2. states: Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures in the area. (3) Policy B.3. states: "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures." (3) Page 31, subsection B.S.0 states, "Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments." b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City except for the height variance, which encroaches on the view of existing homes. III. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing "reconsiderations 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.E 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 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. B. 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 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. IV. 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. V-97-27.DOC / May 30,19971 Smff Report , 4,- .... _.,. _:ilex ..,,.ar[w.:•= +..s:.,, ... �"� r e P:-A'.tGils+i'ays.Huu +,y,�ourrtnuxy^mniff r.uryvxx _.ren .nw�urrv..: uNw „`„rr �� WAlter Fhsco File No. V-97 27 ;. Page:9 of 9 V. LA:PSE iiF APPROVAL Section 20 05.020 C states,'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if :uo 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 fifes an application for an extension of'` `ttie time before the expiration date.' VI. APPENDICES ATTACHMENTS 1 THROUGH 6 ARE ATTACHED. 1. Vicinity / Zoning Map 2. `Application FormifL,egal Description I Declarations of Applicant 4. Site Plaa and. Elevations 5. Memoirandum from Gordy Hyde . 6. Side Sewer Drawing VIL ' PARTIES DF RECORD Applicant Agent: Vince O,jala, Architect Planning Division r V=97 I LtOG / Ma 34 199? / Sfeff Rc rt t r�tF 4 V i. � f 'C � i { �• d'� � � � � h ., c- tt, �d{�r. �'n ��3".�'•r�?re;.7�N'Kv4�?,%TtLk +r�iLgffa* ; ��# r• ��� 1.9 FE X Vicinity and Zoning Map Attachment 1 File No. V-97-27 0 ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ❑ COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT O HOME OCCUPATION 2 ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ I SHORT SUBDIVISION e 0 ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Q' w ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT / U.! STREET VACATION a` ❑ REZONE O SHORELINE PERMIT 9 VARIANCE J REASONABLE USE d 1 EXCEPTION 0; ❑ OTHER i I z I- E-- o z ww ca, U tA� ww X C t, t— N`f � 0I ui u) z Applicant Address FILE # ZONE DATESPIJ11 REC'D BY FEE 1,5 L- """-" RECEIPT# HEARING DATE HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PS ❑ ADB ❑ CC ON TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED APPEAL# Phone _ 4ibfp ty.S2 Property Address or Location Property Owner _ W^.Lt e�eu e Phone 445 CA t 7 xaare Agent Addre; Tax Acc # r? t'Qt_=+t� .. OQ 1C4r, 61 Sec. Twp. Ring. Legal Descriptiont+C.k It C> . op , 1Ay BtdC>A.�.8E s S17 L !1-' to 4 VA.(,.. Am. Details of Project or Proposed Use 0 The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns,, in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attomey's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staf. Attachment 2 enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this W File No. V_97_27 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT ;�Y .'Y � t• 'r f di�..2. .l.t.. '�. .-�•� ., .r., .. ih :t.! �. i_.k .?,r r..», ,A+. �r t'��s..... �..� , i.. f .. ,_. ,.. ,.. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE for 15722 75th Place West Edmonds Washington EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The subject property Is located in the Meadowdale Beach area of Edmonds Washington. The site Is located adjacent and to the west of 75th Place West and Slopes downhill to the west where the site borders the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. The existing house located on the site was encroaching onto the property bordering at the South property line. The encroachment was of a distance of approximately 2-0" (Two feet). In order to rectify the encroachment, an agreement was met between the property owners to annex an additional five feet of the southerly property to the subject property. This annexation allowed the owner of the subject property to begin development of a remodel and alteration which would otherwise have been disallowed by the City of Edmonds due to the "straddling" of the south property line. The existing house Is located In a RS-20 zone. The setback requirements of the zone are 33' cumulative side setbacks with a minimum of 10' on a side; 25' front and rear setbacks. The existing lot with the 5'-O annexation Is a total of 50' in width for approximotly 100 along the south property line. If the required side setback Is enforced, the allowable area for construction would be only 13'. This is an impracticable dimension for the improvement of the existing house. The existing garage is now located partially within the right--of-way of 75th Place West, A new garage Is proposed as part of the renovation n J y i.4 1 t G t s i t r " t t y Me.fmtyuastYM'.VQYStlld.i' CCSpuTL)9ttEi MW4Y of the existing property, and as new construction, it must be located 26 from the property line In order to satisfy the front setback requirement. The existing slope condition Is such that any construction made to a adhere to the 25 requirement would hove to be constructed on the ram- UJ;. steep slope which might create an undesirable affect to the soils and difficult access to the building. U 01 The overall height allowance for the project Is calculated to be at Cn W elev. 515. Due to the steep slope of the site and the relative location of J PP the garage to the existing house; the garage roof will exceed the cn u. L 01 calculated height using a minimum of 3' as a plate height for the garage. U. a VARIANCE PROPOSAL ca Zlo- The request for variance encompasses three Issues. z °I ISSUE #1. 5 Relief from the 35/10` side setback in order to remodel the �,. existing residence in a practical fashion. o il ISSUE #2. UJ X Relief from the 25' front setback in order to construct the garage u~. ® with a minimum Impact to the steep slope. v �. ISSUE #3. Relief from the calculated allowable height for the construction of z the garage The proposed variance Is as follows: ISSUE #1. We request that the minimum side setback be reduced from 10' to o minimum of 5of the South property line and we request that the ` cumulative side set back be reduced to the existing conditions on the site which are 5' at the South and 9 at the closest North portion of the m existing building for a total of W. ISSUE #2. We request a minimum of 10' front set back from the front property line. This would allow for the construction of a garage for the project with a minimal Impact to the existing slope. ®' ISSUE #3. We request that the calculated maximum height be increased an additional 5` for the garage only In order to provide a practical slope for drainage. P 1. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES- Strict enforcement of the zoning regulations would deprive the owner of the subject property of use rights afforded others In the Meadowdole beach area as follows: IS511E #?: The stricture of the side setbacks imposed on the property would allow only for a 15' wide addition to be constructed over the existing house. This would create an impractical living area to the existing house and it would also severely limit the livability of the house. The neighbor to the north and the neighbor two lots to the north were afforded rellef from the side setback requirements for new construction for the reasons heretofore mentioned. The owner of the subject property doesn't hove the flexibility of building anew, but rather Is restricted by on existing condition not of his doing which Is a poor survey creating the close proximity to the side of his property. ISSUE #2. The limits of topography of the lot require that the proposed garage be constructed on the"most level portion of the site that ovolls Itself to the adjacent roadway. A 10 setback will afford a more level access to the garage from the roadway as well as affording minimal slope disturbance during construction. The absence of a sloped driveway to the garage will also help alleviate unnecessary water collection and drainage difficulties. The enforcement of a 25 front setback would cause the garage to be constructed lower than the roadway which would necessitate the need for a very steeply sloped driveway, conceivably greater than 20%. A steep driveway would make access and egress dfficult and perhaps hazardous due to restricted slght lines. The owners to the north were both granted exceptions to the front setback requirement for the construction of their garages for reasons similar to those given. ISSUE #3, The limits of topography which govern the allowable maximum height create a condition that would allow only for a flat -roofed garage. We are requesting that the height allowable be Increased by a distance of 3'. This Increase would afford the owner an opportunity to build a sloped roof on the proposed garage. The two owners to the north were granted exceptions to the allowable height requirement for the construction of their arages g �1 2. 9PECAL PRIVILEGE-* Variances for the Issues #1, #20 #3 do not become special privilege because variances for the height and the side and front setback requirements for neighboring properties have been granted for reasons similar to those rotated In Item #1. 3. COMPREHENSN/E PLAN- The comprehensive plan for the Meadowale Beach area Indicates that single family residential are desired. The Improvement of an existing small residence and the addition of a garage are In -keeping with the consistency of this planning concept. 4. ZONING ORDINANCES- The approval of the variances requested Is consistent with previous variances that have been granted to neighboring properties for reasons similar to those given In this request. The zoning requirements for setbacks severely limits and also curtails construction of any type due to the existing narrow lots which In turn deprives the property owners of Improving or developing their land. A variance to the requirements allows the property. owners to a reasonable course of development. 3. NOT DETRIMENTAL- The proposed remodel and alteration will not signiflcontly and adversely affect public health, !safety, or welfare. Further, the proposed project will not be Injurious to the property or Improvements In the immediate vicinity. The new garage would remove the existing garage, a potential problem from the right -of way. The proposed Improvements to the existing residence would' increase the height of the existing house, but the new ridge would be under the allowable height by a distance of 3'-C'. (proposed ridge OT 512 allowable height OW 515) The exception requested for height Is for the garage only and the proposes ridge of the new garage would exceed the height of the existing garage by a distance of 2-0". Because the location of the proposed garage is 12' further toward the west, the visual impact of the new ridge would be minimal. The variance to the setbacks would allow for standard construction and practical, livable building dimensions and would not adversely affect the neighboring properties. ro. MINIMUM VARIANCE- The requested. variance would be the minimum necessary for a practical remodel and alteration to the owners property. Previous surveys created an awkward building placement on the site and the construction of the existing house for down slope limit N � N J K .. UN OW ( O I O ff IC C SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN N:' 'FROM VINCE WALA ARCHI T t 1 PHONE NO. : 52 7 89 LETTER OF CLARIFICATION FOR VARIANCE : V-97.27 Apr. 14 1997 05:51PM P2 This fetter is being writer in response to a phone call received fr pm Jeff Wilson, representing the City of Edmonds, regarding corfislon and lack of understanding of the writ -ten and graphic material submitted In request for ra variance for Wait Pisces for his property at 17522 75+h Place West, Edmonds Washington. This area is also referred to as ML,adowdale Beach. My conversation with Jeff Wilson entailed discussion as to how there was no mention of the proposed garage for the project as being ATTACHED to the proposed addition in the original submittal to the City of Edmonds. The graphic material accompanying the Addendum indicated clearly that +fie house and the proposed garage were to be physically connected by a bridge and therefor ATfAGHED. Further conversation indicated thc+ the information shown was not adequate far datermining whether or not the garage and the house would qualify as being o ltached due to the fact that there was not enough Information for such a determination. Jeff Wilson recommended that a full set of construction documents that showed the physiccl connection at both the house and the garage would be required by him in order to determine the validity of the de�nl+ion ofA r rACH50 STRUCTURE . Due to +he fact +hat the deadline for publication is less than 24 hours hence, it would be Impossible to produce the required drawings and still be within the time deadlines 4or the next available hearing date. This would cause greater delay than would be occeptcable. Drawing#i shows the proposed footprint of the remodel project (Flan View). In the circled area the drawing shows from left to rlghi. the exleting deck, t he exts+ing house, the proposed addition, and the garage. As is shown and now written, the house and the garage are ATTACHED by means of the addition. The house and the proposed FRGM VihiCE 03ALR AftCHtT ':.' PHONE NO. s SM269 Apr. 14 1997 e5:52PM P3 addition phy,oically share a common wall and the garage land the addition shire a.common wall. The floor and rooF planes of the addition physically, +amend f'rern +he haul to the garage and are ATTACHED to each respectivey. Drawing #:2 is an enlarged drawing for the purpose of making clear, that +he house, the addition and the garage are to be treoted as ans0 building: It is also. hoped that the larger drawing will survive the F-AX process a bit better and be more readable. Drowing #3 is a SChIEMAMC. 91"M ISECTION and shows generally the proposed sp4al envelope of the proposed project. It Is s k4miolic because the development of full design and construction documents prior to the request for variance ig Imprudent and Impracticable. The heavy (dark) ou Hlne Indicates the projected parameters of the proposed, prgjsect The heavy horiaortgl line Indicates o ridge that is turned at -00 degrees to the other sloped roofs. This structure(ome building) will eyed the maximum allowable height by 3 feet. AMMENDED REEQUEST FOR VARIANCE V-97-27 We request that the maximum height for this project be raised from 515'tta 52U'. r, �a �a =C g o i = LL - ti tttNNN AVERAGE GWUc GALGN.AtIGN K r 477 . i06 5IX .1%0 1 95fl/4 - 490 r I Z dW . 15 191I MI4EGM I (o E%ISTo P,2M 1 i 7f ICH m 11 n SL#T1ATI: SITE hLAV SEE EFLAAGEp ORS P C� .list, 1 ii - % C1 RI(vGt£fFe6mENL£ 1£IIM b��eornsed H.Ha2e¢ 515 max-hL allowableV��� ---- i r p r i r PROPOSED GARAGE G_ S3 PROPOSED APDITM 9l3 exist � _ a SCHEMATIC SITE SECTION j� EMSTI1 k'a HOUSE ---- Ff}xe ,1e s t•s.., } ,.0 u ,nrt< +} jt Y` xr�,t u. 4 rr � ( f r 1r r �, � t � i4 4 e S+t f� t •, y `e t .. ._._msnwvKrfxciSY'+nav3i<J799➢ttA'utzsle F a..t�t r u, 1 . t,.tc a ¢4+..:.,o....+w.w+..«....r....,.........,«..�...,.,..._.,�...,.....� , MIE Cr do Date: April 15, 1997 UJ To: Planning Division W U. From: � � Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator qew LL _; Subject: Variance for Pisco at 15722 - 75th P1, W. (V.97-27) o' The application has been re -analyzed by the Engineering Division. In light of i wI the requirements imposed upon the applicant's neighbors, the Engineering 2 M1 Division supports the reduction of the setback to ten feet. The Division does not have any comments regarding the.request for height allowance, but still has the 0-following comments regarding this proposal: w • 1. It appears that a lot line adjustment is required to be completed on this U- a property LU W 2. The terms and conditions of all future permits must be met. The Engineering Division reserves the right to impose requirements on future permit applications. The application is considered complete at this time. r 0 crrY ofnMoxns Attachment 5 ENGINEEMG DIVMox ` File No. 97-27 V97Q27A.DOC ,r a FRC VINCE OJAL.A ARCH ti,y; PHONE NO. : 527e289 Apr. 30 1997 03:42PM P2 VINCE a1AI.A . 7703 33rd NE , wattle, washington April 3t�,1997 206,5�27.8269: M.E. Meg Gruwell, , Project Planner 'City of ladmonds re: Wait Pisa• Variance' Dear Meg, W7 are riqueeting 0 C01111 nuance of our meeting witty' the F- ecaring Examiner scheduled for, May 1,1997. Due +o the fact that there le a discrepancy between surveye that define the common boundary between the .Pasco property and the' R ogle property, our request fdr ojt ck from the North property One may need to be changed. Negotlattons •dre Mill in progress regarding ate location of the'property line and depending upon it'te resaiution, the re Iueirtecl setback (cumulative) may cl4 ange. If is my understanding tKat in order• to provide proper notiflcafiion, any, revislanrs +o the wording of the publlshed noVice murat be• in your hands no later than Hay 1o,' 1997 ,1200 1r'.M. so thaf we can be on the ' schedule for hearings on .tune 5,1997. I 6-further understood that the cost of publishing will be borne by Wait Pisco at,$26 per publication ' notice. We request that the fie: V:_(�7-27 remain open beyond the May 1. 1997 hearing date un-ml June 5,1997 eq that ,any discrepancies, regarding property; boundary con.be settied and so that i'he e> GaGt mgiv e of the. request for variance cpm be m,6de clear. Pursuant to our tetepho a conver5otlon of,Aprll BO.1997. l,am Faxing this to you. If original de enta`Hon is requlred, pled!pe call me and f . let me know, f Winne bjulo Architebt ne x � a i P tit7"r� �s i•k4 G c{ r,.at.h#vt C I> s� t 4 t - sn �� 1 �i u� r +� t s � 7 � t,: FROM UINCE OJALA ARCHITE PHONE NO. :'5278289 May. 14 1997 04:12PM PS us F- z FROM : VINCE OJALA ARCHITE, 1 PHONE NO. $278289 May. 14 1997 04t12PM P2 Z H L, LUl LU, - .. SIM i L Vi W IA111�1/"` Ui\/I�atC N Ai��lt5 msof 1 X W. z rl To: Meg Coruell �( projee Planner us Ujj City of Edmonds o r Re: File V-- J 7-27 Y LU U. a-' — a Dear Meg, for total should be amended to read as The request Side setback } v _ fclfowg: 0 Multiple variances to.1)reduce the cumulative required aside se+backs (north and south property Ilnee) from thirty five feet(35' to1Z- 0". 2)reduce the minimum side setback requirements (south property lino) from ten feet OC7) to five feat (5'); 3) reduce the minimum side setback requirements (north property line) to seven feet-sbt inches (7-61, 4) Reduce the minimum required street setback from twenty flue feet (25) to ten feet 00Y 5) increase the rncadstmum permitted helaht° of 25 feet to r 30 feet above the average grade level for the peak of the garage roof attached to a residence. The requested variances have been sought to allow additions to an existing residence including c new attached garage. This is the proposed amendment to Item 3(Request) under. A. (applicant Information) under L(INTRODUCTION) page 2 of the i PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REP0;ZT FINDINC75, ® CONCWSION5. AND RECOMNI5NDAMON5 dated April 25,;t9_'7: p< ...... . n t 3< V: } -N z WY ,( 2 ;'R 4 'W-i ■ uw LL. t t I r I� a t :- � nr I t tY l r 7 r tt t 7 ; A i` � � r ,, fqq t t• + _.:.,.y .c ;u>i..r,isc„.o�..un..u:umc,r.e.m+•.....,..: � t'• t � a. • :,, ; .. -. r . .. ., . i • � � �_........�.,...-..::...:.............. w..A.,.�a,.y�,.,.yy. - ....«...•..mod-1sm�+..».r.. Affidavit of Publication Z STATE Or wASNINGTON, } • SCOVNTy GF SNOHOMISH, j} a& �l PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT j Q APPLICATION - - LU cjf NAME OF APPLICANT: CJ urcb —1 �� ' PROJEC"r LOCATION:16The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says Edmonds atn St. SIN that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper LU PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Lu Conditional Use Permit for an printed and y y �; enir way addition onto the published in the City of Count of Snohomish, exfs�ing churoh which Is cur- LL , r a eubjaeI scope ly is zoned and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper � of C TV•CONTACT: Jofin Bissell PUBLIENT PERsse general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper C COMM DUE aY: 616197 .,Iles J NAME OF APPLICANT: been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Wait Piece U. PROJEC7r ,OCATION: Court of Snohomish County and that the notice ........................................ d PROJECT6DESCRIPTION: Maniple Variances to: reduce Public Hearing and Development Application .the cumulative side setbacks............................................................................................................ north 6. south) from 35-feet to .................... 2 F- , 2.5•taet• reduce the ride l setback lsoutb) from 10-feet , of 10 6•fetal: reduce the side set- Faith CommunityChurch Z � duce ifie ties! (eait'l from 26.......... W lift feet to 10•feeh and increase the height of 26•feet to 30•fast 0 above aversce grade level for File NO. CU-97..16 thepeak of a Garage roof ....... .,.i.l..................................................................................:......:............................ N attached to residence. The eub)ect property Is zoned RS- copy of which is hereunto attached was published in said O '" 20. a printed co d {+ CITY CONTACT: Map Gruwoll r PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD news DUE BY: 615197 paper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and NAME OF APPLICANT: David a Ingpe Johnson entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: FILE NO,: V. 7.57 PROJECT LOCATION: 17002 Talbot Rd. Edmonds PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ma Zl 1997 tL Z Variance to reduce the re - In (Jolted street setback....,.......y................................................................................................................ (} . (northeast} educe the r qu red .... teat and to reduce !ha required 0 h I rear .tI.setback ((southwest) from construction io 2 f lost for the dory 8cgon of a new one-..........................................................:. � � atoN sinpie•tamfty resldance................................ ..................................... :... The aobject property Is zoned As-12, a t at said newspaper 4rl. y dist buted to its subscribers CITY CONTACT: Meg Gruwell PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD period, OUE BY: 616197 du at of said NAME OF APPLICANT: Randyq 6 Debbie Johnson -� FILE NO.: V-97.64 PROJECT LOCATION: .. ••••... •-•:-•••.` 643 9th Ave. N. Ftlmonde ...... .... .. ..... T.........................:..:.............. PROJECT DESCRIPTION• Variance to allow a 12:toot Principal Clerk high hedge to be located ad - )Scent to -the east and south - .,-.. property Ilse, in excess of the Subscribed and sworn to before"me this ................... maximum is application height ¢I 2l s t - osubmi. This response was - .... 1 - submitted In response to e subject enforcement action. od RS- subject property Is zoned RS• - CITY CONTACT: Meg Gruwell da of ............... ...��­��­ May..................................., PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ® DUE BY: 915197 NAME OF APPLICANT: Shelia 3 Kas¢YY Knowlen ....................... .. ..... FILE NO.: V-97.55- •..-... PROJECT LOCATION: Notary Publid for e S to of Washington, Edmonds 41h PI' W. residing at Everett, Snoh County. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Variance to reduce the re- 10if6AvefeWt) Irotma23•feet to 20-fast for the construction of an a,pprox. 930 Uvars toot detached garage with an ad- ditional aparox. 200 square foot attached carport. The subject property is zoned RS- 8. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD DUE BY: 615197 - - PUBLIC HEARING .. - INFORMATION - - TIME: 9t00 AM DATE: June 5,1997 - LOCATION: 8ont. Room Services - _ RECEIVED 210 SANDY Ave. Edmonds Clark ' Pubitshed: May 21, 1097. - - JUN 2 1997 SEsisr Class Intsrristlonal — Hokinan, Japan TRANSNt I SS I OWN REPORT NO REMOTE STATION I.D. START TIME DURATION #PAGES COMMENT 1 12063383049 5-15-97 12.15PM 1`39" 3 PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION, Name of Applicant: Faith Community Church File No.: CU-97-16 Project Location: 10220 238th St. SW, Edmonds Project Description: Conditional Use Permit for an entryway addition onto the existing church which is currently a nonconforming use. The subject property is zoned RS-8. City Contact: John Bissell Public Comment Period Due By: 6/5/97 Name of Applicant: Wait Pisco, File No.: V-97-27 Project Location: 15722 75th Pl. W. Project Description: Multiple Variances to: reduce the cumulative Side setbacks (north & south) from 35. feet to 12.5-feet; reduce the side setback (south) from 10-feet to 5-feet; reduce the side setback (north) to 7.5-feet, reduce the street (east) from 25-feet to I 0-feet; and increase the height of 25-feet to 30-feet above average grade level for the peak of a garage roof attached to residence. The subject property is zones RS-20 City Contact: Meg Gruwell Public Comment Period Due By: 6/5/97 Name of Applicant: David & Inge Johnson File No.: V-97-57 Project Location: 17002 Talbot Rd., Edmonds Project Description: Variance to reduce the required street setback (northeast) from 25-feet to 10-feet and to reduce the required rear setback, (southwest) from 25-feet to 20-feet for the construction of a new one-story singe -family residence. The subject property is zoned RS-12. City Coptact: Meg Gruwell Public Comment Period Due By: 6/5/97 Name of Applicant: Randy & Debbie Johnson File No.: V-97-64 Project Location: 643 9th Ave. N., Edmonds Project Description: Variance to allow a 12-foot high hedge to be located adjacent to the east and south property line, in excess of the maximum permitted height of 6-feet. This application was submitted In response to a code enforcement action.. The subject property is zoned RS-6. City Contact: Meg Gruwell Public Comment Period Due By: 6/5197 Name of Applicant: Sheila & Kasey Knowlen File No.: V-97-55 Project Location: 24025 104th Pl. W., Edmonds Project Description: Variance to reduce the required street setback (east, 104th Ave. W.) from 25-feet to 20-feet for the construction of an approx..936 square foot detached garage with an additional approx. 208 square foot attached carport The subject property is zoned RS-8. am E44 n [A Hearing Date, Time, And Place: May 1.1997, At 9:OO AM, Plaza Room -'Edmonds Library 650 Main Street TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION.................................................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...............2 A. Application ......... ................. ..... . .. .. ...... ..2 i B. Recommendations .. ..................... .....,........ .. ..2 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS .. ........ ......... ..,.. 3 A. Site Description ......................................... ............................................................................ 3 B. SEPA............................................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...............4 C. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance .................... . ............. 4 D.,Technical Committee ................................ ......... .................. .............:.... ............... 7 E. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) .................. ......... ......... ......... ....................................... 7 III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS ........ ........ ......... ........ ...... ........ ............. 8 A. Request for Reconsideration......... ............ .. 8 B. Appeals ............................................ .................. ......... .................... ........................... g IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL ......................... ................................ ......... ...................................... 8 V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR ...... ......... ......... ,.............. ..... .................. .........,..... 8 VI. APPENDICES ........................... ......... .................. .................. ............... .............. 9 0 0 \ 1 Waiter Pisco File No. V-97-27 Page 2 of 9 I. INTRODUCTION A. APPLICANT INFORMATION 1. Applicant: Wait Pisco (see Attachment 2). 2. Site Location: 15722 - 75th Place W. (see Attachment 1)., 3. Request- Multiple variances to: 1) reduce the cumulative required side setbacks (north and south property lines) from 35 feet to 14 feet; 2) reduce the minimum side setback requirements (south property) from 10 feet to 5 feet; ,3) reduce the minimum required street setback (east property line) from 25 feet to 10 feet; and, 4) increase the maximum permitted height of 25 feet to 30 feet above the average grade level for the peak of a garage roof attached to a residence. The requested variances have been sought to allow additions to an existing residence including a new attached garage (see Attachments 2 through 4). 4. Review Process: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. E 5. Msior Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) ,Chapter 20,85 (VARIANCES). b, Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS). B. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on Statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, we recommend approval of the following: • the request for a side setback variance from the required cumulative 35 feet to 14 feet, • the request of the side setback variance (south property, line) from 10 feet to 5 feet, and • the request for the reduction of the front yard setback from 25 feet to 10 feet, with the following conditions: L 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. 2. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction. 3. The permit should be transferable. 4. 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 ownerfiles an ' application for extension of time before the expiration and the City approves the application. (ECDC 20.85.020.C) 5. The side setback and street setback variance is approved as shown on the site plan (Attachment 4). V-97-27.DOC 1 April 25,1997 % Staff Report :. 0 N C*7 H . '. .: a.<1 .... i..:: . ...a_. �..... .Y `...:. _. .» .«: . n....:....r.n _.............. :.....c.....:m n .. K...... wa..m ... -... Walter Pisco File No. "V-97-27 Page 4 of 9 approved, but was not acted upon within the required one year. In 1986, Jean ' Riggle. requested a variance to the required street setback (1417-86) to allow a carport at the same setback as is currently being requested in this proposal. This request was approved, but not acted upon. In 1990, Ms. Rggle requested a variance to the street and side setbacks and to the height limit to allow her current home (V-6-90). Staff, recommended approval of the street and side setback variances, and recommended denial of the height variance. The Hearing Examiner approved all of the requested variances. (2) In 1989, Gail and Harrison Jewell at 15706 - 75th Place W. (two properties to the north of the subject parcel) requested a variance to the required street and side setbacks (V-38-89). This variance was approved. In 1990, the Jewells requested a height variance for both their house and ` garage (V-5-90), which was also _ approved. In this case also the staff recommended approval of the setback variances, but recommended denial of the height variance. The Hearing Examiner approved all of the requested variances. (3) In 1993, Ursula Schluter at 15620 - 75th Place W. (several properties to the north of the subject parcel) requested a variance to the required street setback and height limit (V-93-11) to allow a driveway/bridge from the road to a garage on the top of her proposed house. These variances were approved. s (4) In 1996, Walter Pisco, owner of the subject property at 15772 - 75th Place W., , requested a height variance from 25 feet to 33 feet to allow him to reconstruct the roof on his existing house at a steeper pitch in order, to make maintenance easier. This variance was denied. Reasons given for the denial include that it was not the minimum variance needed, as the roof could be replaced in the same configuration, and that the height variance could impact the views of surrounding property and therefore be detrimental to them. c D. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) x 1. Fact: Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review (WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080). 2. Conclusion: Where special circumstances are shown to exist, the requirements of ECDC 20.15A have been met. C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE . 1. a) Facts: The basic site development standards pertaining to single-family development in an RS-20 zone are set forth in ECDC Section 16.20.030. (I) Minimum setbacks are 25 feet to the street: property line, 25 feet to the rear property line, 10 feet to the side property lines, and, the side setbacks added together must total at least 35 feet. (2) The maximum allowed height for -primary structures is 25-feet. Maximum allowed height for accessory structures is 15 feet. -Height calculations are based on an average grade, taken from original, undisturbed soil. V-97-2?.170C t Apnl 2 1997 i Staff Report � . ' 151 D�] Walter Iisco File No. Ni-97-27 Page 5 of 9 b) Conclusion: Except for, the: many variances requested, the proposal complies with the requirements of the zoning ordinance: 2. a) Facts: (1) ECDC Chapter 20.85 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 areas follows: (a)' Special 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 zoningordinance 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 bei necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, not any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any post owner of the same property. (b) .,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. (c) Comprehensive Plan and Zonine 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. (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. (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 presented declarations to respond to all of the required criteria as follows (see Attachment 4). (a) Side Setbacks: The applicant points out that withonly a 50-foot maximum ,lot ' width, the requirement of a 35-foot combined side setback would leave only a 15- foot building area over the existing house, which they feel leaves an impractical living area. The applicant also states that a poor survey, not of his doing, created the close proximity to the side of his property. 0 -F NP 0 0 I"W Walter Pisco File No. V-97-27 Page 7 of 9 (3} Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the continued use of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance' designation of the site. (4) Approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. The applicant states that the proposed height of the garage will only be two feet taller than the existing garage, but will be further west. Although having the ` garage further west may reduce some impact, the new orientation of the garage with its length along 75th Place W..results in more mass blocking the viewYrom the street. (5). Approval of the requested street setback variance appears to be the minimum required to allow the owners to have a garage near the level of the street. Approval of the requested side setback appears to be the minimum to add a second story over an existing foundation on this narrow lot. The height variance has been stated as needed to allow a pitched roof on the garage, yet an earlier plan and elevation showing the garage as a separate structure shows that the garage could meet the height limit for an accessory structure (15 feet) with a pitched roof. If the garage was treated as a detached structure, then the house would need a height variance as designed. A variance to allow a lower house proposal was already denied by the Hearing Examiner as not being the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. D. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE 1. Fact: The Variance Application has been reviewed and evaluated by: other Departments/Divisions of the City (i.e. Fire Department, Public Works Division, Engineering' i Division, and the Parks & Recreation Division). Both the Engineering Division and the Public Works Division had comments. a. Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator, commented that the Engineering Division will support the reduction of the street setback to ten feet in light of the`requirements imposed upon the applicant's neighbors. However, he noted that the property appears to need a lot line adjustment, and the terms and conditions of All future permits must be met. (See Attachment 5) i b. The Public Works Division commented "Note on sewer modification required" (see Attachment 6), presumably because the addition is proposed to be placed over the sewer line. l E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) 1. a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Residential". b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the . existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site: 2. a. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifiesgoals and policies which relate to "Residential Development" in the City.,: Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below. (1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: -"High quality 'residential developrirent which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds. residents should be maintained and promoted..." V47-27.130C J ApnP25: a997 / Staff Report tJ , Z F- i:-_ 0� Z F-� Lit Uj 0 Z LU to 0 Z E Z Walter Pisco File No. V-971-27 Page 8 of 9 Policy &2. states: "Protectneighborhoods from In com#adble additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures in the area. (3) Policy 0.3. states:. "Minimize encroachmint on vlew of existing homes by"netv .1 construction or additions to existing structures. (3) Page 31, subsection B.5.0 states, "Stable property values must not, be threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments. b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the above adopted goals.' and policies of the City except for the height variance, which: encroaches on the view of existing homes. III. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and.procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals.* Any personwishing 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.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 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. B. APPEALS Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall he 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 *by the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be flied with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. Notice of Development Application &Public Hearing Date of Notice: April 17, 1997 File # V-97-27 :. .. ,.. poi Name ofApplican( " 9 Wail Issco Requested Permits Variance or DateofppPioaaon Z Marchlois''A and Approvals ........ r truuuw���wwF�XXi`iiltt'' Data Application complete..... ... OApnl 3,isn Other Required Unknown t\ zj Permits not yet applied ai u>' Project Location: ........................... — a 1572275th PI. W., Edmonds for (If knOWn):........:...... r Fi Project Descriptian :.......................... Variances to: 1) reduce the atmucalso required z , side setbacks (north & south) from 35-feet to 14, Required Studies Unknown feet;2) reduce the side setback requirement (south) related from 104ea uce to 5-feet; 3) redthe minimum street setback (east)from 25-feet to 10-feet, 84)increase to the projects ............... the maximum pennifted height of 25-feet to 30-feet above avemgegrade Imetfar the peak of a garage. Related Environmental Critical Areas Checklist mcf ahached to a residence. Documents ................. Public Comments due by: ................ ,May 1, 1997 City Contact for prol act _........ Meg Gruwell o Public Hearinglnformation Date: May 1, 1997 Time: 9:00 A.M.. Place: Plaza Meeting Room -650 Main St., Edmonds Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City or Edmonds Community Services Department, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020. (206) 771-0220. Public comments should also be sent to this address. The d -on on this development ppl catrop I1 ba ..dewith n 120 days afthe dare,eflie Leiner fC inplete ess w rh all w ade fa; tud16 bb,d additional inforsection reguests Noce thatabrhty to appeal a decrsmn onnngen/ apo parhe ri the permitd crsmn praces Warning! - Theremmal, mutilation, destruction, or concealment crime This notice may beremoved notice before the hearing date Is a misdemeanor punishable by May afte 1. 1997 fine and imprisonment. •£ki.:i`;c�2*ic+t:r•"i " .iv Jn . � :•n••. µ�p,{�,'j(�:ii •J r+tj f PE ON THIS SIDS WITHIN BOSS I 1 AND 2 3 hoIs 3 AND 4 5131-028-003-0009 0 5 5131-0 8-005-010f + ;? -02&001-0001 EUELL.HODGE `ROGER M. LANTZ JR.• VE.S.W. 2626 CABERN T WAY 811 GLENNI.NG.ST. S RANCH CORDNA'CAL.95670 LYNDEN;WN.>9$264, LOTS5AND6 LOT 7 5131-02$!007-0005 5131-028-005-0205 GRAD H Walt Pi sco JEAN R I GGLE 15714 75TH PL.W: 7 SN ri SH .98290: 15722 75th 01. W. EDMONDS WN:.98020 Edmonds,.WA 98020 LOT1 5131-029-001-0009 LOT2 5131-029-002=000$ GILBER @ .JANET` THIRY GILBERT: @ JANET THIRY Vince Djala, Architect 15821 H- PL.W. 15$21 75TH PL :W. 7703 33rd Ave: NE EDMOND N 98020 EDMONDS WN. 98020' Seattle, WA 98115 LOTS 3 AND`4 LOT1.5131-030-001-0007 R I CHA D V SAON, .JOHN . E ' PECK Donna Paul -Nielsen T S.W. 22601 42ND PL.W. 2947 SW Orchard Hill P1. " E S 9$020 MOUNTLAKE:TERRACE .WN.' . Lake. Oswego, OR 97035 98043 LOTS 2,3, AND4 LOTS.25 AND.- 5131-030-002-0006 MICHEAL RUSAL GLADYS NORTHFIELD 21325 66TH AV, w.. 98036 15821 75TH PL.W. LYNWOOD WN.' EDMONDS WN. 98020 LOT 25 5133-000-025-020$ LOT 25 513-000-025-0307 D.H.CARYL A N S 15701 75TH PL:W. 1 EDMONDS WN. W20 E Ds WT. 9$020� 0 3qq AND 3322 �51 LOT 32 5133-000-032-0100 -000-•31-0002 WM. BEERS 46TH D N S ST. 44 k�GA AvE ' 9264 AV. S.W. SA 98107 SEATTLE WN.,98116 i STATE Or WASHINGTON, The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of -Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice ........................................ Hearing &Development Application ................ Walter Pisco, File No.: V-97-27 .... I ............ ...... .................... ................. ............ ........... ­ .......... ........ ........... ­­­ ............................................... .......................... a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published ' in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: ........... Ap 11.1 .... 1.7A ... M� ............................ ............. ..................................... ..... . ...... .. ... an .... th .... s ... ... newspaper . . . . '. w . as ­ reg . u . I?rl . y di ......... u .......................................... r risiributed to its subscribers -te du jng a of said period. .......... ... . ..... .. ..... ... ......................... Principal Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this .......... II.t.h. day ..................April... ... ...... ...... .. I .... ....... 19 ... 9.7.. ...... .. .. ay ota ry Pub I in and n, i'u� i Lni y. residing at Everett, Snoho * 40 Q��tJSs14N Exp�9'c �40TAnp P A UBLXG ct`Or As a-2-1 11 .r.t (Du ti � r CITY EL?MtJ1'-11>S sAR,aA,,n t=�H�Y gtHO IITN AYHNIJH NOATN •. HOMONOH� WA HHQHO +' tSOH)'791•DIIHO • IAX 4IIOH)'19 t.01it - + 6npinoHrMq - wrke aand Re oreIItlan- Pubilo+RWUarrTksYw Planning+Parke TEI..�GC►PIEFt C:A'VER PAraiE C Ci^CSl✓LY..6i�. R��CtiZ.t�(JZ/� TGY: - DATE TFtANSMI`t-I'I 1.� n Q N1.ItVIBEFt OF PAt3ES'^' _ '(including Cover ¢age) i Rocipiternta'raimcopter Number: 3 �'t-'�1' F'ACSiMILE EtatsiPMENT': � ' Automatic/C3roup It (2.3 miner.); Mroup III P pM; if %hare are any problor"s - during transmission or - . documents are received Incorn fete..league calk. - , 771-0 20 and ask .. or for g San is relocopler Number: (206) 771-0221 j 1 RE _ - e, rnconvarcrr•.w ,-+udsunr < � . Slater Cities Intwrnational "Okinan. Japan - - *** SEND *** NO REMOTE STATION I.D. START TIME DURATION #PAGES COMMENT 1 206 252 5613 4-15-97 4:40PM 1'21" 2 i fY ( tSr � �• ;>� .fit 1 ,' Yt �N k � t �{.^ '4 .•f I b' } �. +' i'* l ,' u.•,.t.aw.zv.z.�:...:_....,..»-.A.»ww�swxtiw...w::...,....,«.:.:-.:....__.s.:..,xa.:.,,.......,' � ... .,. •.. a.,:. �': ..L....�.._.:;a..__;.�r :. , ..., 1 , t:� �l r, 4 ... _ _.,..tom � .. � V THIS IS A LEGAL ADV TISEMENT AND SHOULD BE BILLED TO `rtHE PLANNING DEPARTMENT { t PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION • Name of Applicant: Waiter Pisco File No.: ' V-97-27 cc Project Location: 15722 75th Pl. W., Edmonds v ! Project Description: Application for multiple Variances to: 1) reduce the cumulative required side setbacks (north and v p south property lines) from 35-feet to 14-feet; 2) reduce the minimum side setback requirement (south property) from 10-feet to 5-feet; 3) reduce the minimum required street setback (east property N LU F line) from 25-feet to 10-feet; and, 4) increase the maximum permitted height of 25-feet to 30-feet above average grade level for the peak of a garage roof attached to a residence. The requested © variances have been sought to allow additions to an existing residence including a new attached t garage. City Contact: _ Meg Gruwell LL Public Comment Period Due By; 5/1/97 Ui Name of Applicant: Herb & Joy Hamilton File No.: AP-97-53I CUH-97-25 Project Location: 90212th Place North, Edmonds W w Project Description: Consolidated permit reviews for an appeal of an Environmental Determination .of Nonsignificance - (AP-97-53) related to an application by Herb & Joy Hamilton for, a, Conditional Use Permit (CUH-97- ` 25) for a Home Occupation to conduct private music instruction from within their single-family p tZ residence. The subject property is zoned RS-12. W City Contact: Meg Gruweil Public Comment Period Due By: 5/1t97 u. x v M Name of Applicant: Bruce Goodnight r File No.: V-9740 z Project Location: 21317 76th Ave. W., Edmonds Project Description: Variance to increase the maximum permitted. height of a fence from 6-feet to 8-feet for an approximate 312-foot long fence on the south property line of a proposed multifamily development.. The proposed Variance is sought in order to provide the required buffering along the site's south property line as required by Architectural Design Board under File No. ADB-96-121. City Contact: John Bissell Public Comment Period Due By: 5/1/97 Name of Applicant: City of Edmonds, Eng. Dept. File No.: V-97-59 Project Location: 100th Avenue West, from Edmonds Way to 140 feet north and 140 feet south of the intersection. ® Project Description: Application for a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted noise standard of 45 dBA from 7:00 PM to 5:00 AM between July 1, 1997 to September 30, 1997, to allow for the completion of a roadway reconstruction project during pavement overlay of 100th Avenue West. City Contact: Jeff Wilson Public Comment Period Due By: 5/1197 PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION TIME: 9:00 AM DATE: May.1,1997 . LOCATION: Plaza Meeting Room - 650 Main St.; Edmonds Sandy Chase, City Clerk i i Publish: April 17,1997 I- i t k iti t of , EDMONDS HEARING EXAMINER MEETING AGENDA :MAY 1,1997 AT 9:00 A.M. Plaza Room - Edmonds Library 650 Main Street x 1. rder 2. duPublic Hearings, cn � W MG a. (TENTATIVE) FILE NO. V 97-27; Application by Walt Pisco for multiple Variances to: W o 1) reduce the cumulative required side setbacks (north and south property lines) from 35-feet to 14-feet; 2) reduce the minimum side setback requirement (southproperty) from 10-feet to U ' 5-feet; 3) reduce the minimum required street setback (east property line) from 25-feet to 10- W d feet; and, 4) increase the maximum permitted height of 25-feet to 30-feet above average grade . u{ level for the peak of a garage roof attached to a residence. The requested variances have been 2! sought to allow additions to an existing residence including a new attached garage. The Z� subject property is located at 15722 75th Place West and is zoned RS-20. ua ua - d� F E NO. AP-97-53 - 7- 5- o ermit reviews for an appeal of a c� to Environmenta etermination of Nonsignificance (AP-97-53) r on by p F- Herb &:Joy Hamilton fora Conditional Use Permit (CUH-97-25) .fora Home Occupation to eu conduct private music instruction from within their single-family residence. The subject LL property is located at 90212th Place North and is zoned RS-12. 2}} �w� c JB c. FILE NO. VA7-40; Application by Bruce Goodnight for a Variance 'to increase the maximum permitted height of a fence from 6-feet to 8-feet for an approximate 312-foot long fence on the south property line of a proposed multifamily development. The proposed Variance is sought in order to providing the required buffering along the site's south property line as required by the Architectural Design,Board under File No. ADB-96.121. The subject property is located at 21317 76th Avenue West and is zoned RM-2.4. 3. Administrative Reports a. ' 4. Adjournment i 0t a ;:x s PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE ACCESSIBLE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (Contact the City Clerk of 771-fiZ4S with 2� hours advance notice for special accommodations) s . - 050199.DOC.AGENDAME CIS < r �IyI�1���T�y77�T7^T�..a somdbe Toaup�po� N�aAra�irgcairerme�t AftnNairubWmbWe$$marsum OWMA it n�►rb,.wi t���v�►+1 COWANFaWANAmovaAmoswcom arr.r� [� A�eNovkw/ ❑ �yowl�d' �A' ldunddireN�rf�J A somdbe Toaup�po� N�aAra�irgcairerme�t AftnNairubWmbWe$$marsum OWMA it n�►rb,.wi t���v�►+1 COWANFaWANAmovaAmoswcom arr.r� [� A�eNovkw/ ❑ �yowl�d' �A' ldunddireN�rf�J A 'FROM UINCE OJAi_A ARCHITE PHONE NO. 5278289 Apr. 14 1997 05:51PM P2 ,. LF-TTEIR OF: CLARIFICATION FOR VARIANCE V-97-27 This letter Is being written in response to o phone Call received 5dmond5reregarding corrfusianom Jeff Wilson, representing the CIty aF and lack of understanding of the written and graphic material submitted in request for a variance for Walt Pisco for his property Eat 17522 75th Place West, Edmonds Washington. This area is also referred to as ML-adowdale Beach. My conversation with Jeff Wilson entailed discussion as to haw there wars no mention of the proposed garage for the project as being ATTACHED to the proposed addition In the original submittal to the City of 5dmonds. The graphic material accompanying the Addendum indicated clearly th0t- +he house and the proposed garage were to be physically Connected by a bridge and therefor ATiAGHEU. Further conversation indicated that the information shown was not adequate far determining whether or not the garage and the house would qualify as being W toched due to the fact that there was not enough lnforma Ion for such a determination..Jeff Wilson recommended that a full set of cons+rvction documents that showed the physical connection at both the house and the garage would be required by him in order to determine the validity of the deflnition aA"i` ACHE O STRUCTURS . Due •tc> the fact that +he deadline for publication Is less than 24. hours hence, it would be Impossible to produce the required drawings and still be within the time deodliners for the next available hearing date. This would douse greater delay than would be acceptable. Drawinggl shows the proposed footprint of'the remodel project (Plan VJew). In the circled area the drawing shows from left to right: the existing deck, the existing house, the proposed addition, and the garage. As Is shown and now written, the house and the garage are ATTACHED by means of the addition. The house and the proposed t tiff 6Eih`; j°5i�, t ,::..ja,'t'Crrol`ki7¢i-3",,, It 'h lal ai +4s�.fprr�u`A11 ,y Vt i,rf'��',-� root M" ,?nir'4i 1r1Jt..;t f, L;�;,`, f,"t. i r i. wM, rr r i.3 ai i. i iha� 15-r e S i "k''"` �FJ'-?' bra 7'j^7 ,7`' ..F^ ,Jt)rti Y:•r`t, n.*fZi �"'R4�... r'k..sr -'YrF. r f'. tit j. f :: r t S s ,� a 3 r z� rie � r ��-44r�:GSt� of � '*�,�, fx y 1 r �,; fS�F` a �'��' 4 y�".� t Y v'�t ., #� �. ` � - ✓� f t "., ,} �5 �;;.,' FROM VINCE OJALA ARCHI? PHONE NO. 5278289 Apr. 14 1997 05:52PM P3 "00d on PHYSICally chore a cornnIon wail ond'the ,garage and the odditlon share a common wall. The floor and roof planes of the addition physically x extend from'the haua& to the garage and are ATTACHED.to.each �`- respectively. Drawing #2 Is an enlarged drawing for the purpose of making clear .r v that the house, the addition and the garage are to be treatedas one building. It is oleo hoped that the larger drowing will survive the ~A7f W process a bit better and be more readable. w o, Drawing #3 is a SCH)�I"'AnC; "...-ITS Si~G'i10141 and shows �. generally theproposed sp4al envelope of*e proposed project. It is ecHernotic bacau� +a development of full design and COtiStruGtlOn (&C1 documents prior to the request- forvarianceis imprudent and x Improcticable.:The heavy (dark) outline Indicates the projected porometers yy of the_:proposed project The heavy horizontal line Indicotee a ridge that Is LU ut' 9roars.�~,' turned a0 degrees to the other sloped roars. This structure(one o building) will exceed the maximum allowable height by 5 feet. c.a N o AMMF-ND50 RIFFOUEST FOR VAR ANGE V- 97--27 U LU UU. o We request that the maximum height for this project be raised from 515°trr 52C7`. u 0 z I r z : f t ---------------- I 1 � AVWJLE GRADE CALW ATUN P,b9f4 = Z / 49O +15e 515.. i I i 11AJfl�l9`I{EKe4R 1 ExlStq�i HGllSE I I S n +� PkbFl� TPJtt' I 1 !'�•�+e t— Q I ` 1 — 1 SC!lEttATIC 511E PLAY SEE ENLARGED DRA" $ j LL jO 1 2 •• —:Z �_~PW*V'IFetrj aeimnliwe9 P'P^0�' V I I mega 1 li I 1 PopwW mgwv,�x ", y� EASTIVIG 410U6E I I e -C m (>! P1:CP� ADpITION ax 1 I 1j �,yr� P nea.aww� O 4 5CNEMATIC 81TE PLAN 9 g a RI UE IFSMWE BETfMD^ ST®pie�wsetl Kaereies 545 max: ht aliowable PROP09FD i 95 — - ---- � — —= _ � - -_ � GARAGE 83 -- _. _ PROPOSED ADDITION proposed ex,sik� 413 5GNEMATIC SITE SECTION EXi5TING HOUSE :L�> propoma ao.-�I�, .- A� �. ,! ... ... !.• j. N,6 '^:. t y,'�y I}��,.•.l�el.}.SX.,..#'.ii.n�,�T�.�.t'"',lu'aH �'S?,",�%"fab�f�R�vx_#ar?n .' �,.... U. 0 0. 0 0 LU U- LU 0 z E 91 , VON t4 �1 April 11,1997 This addendum is being submitted 1n order to clarify and correct the errors In the published Notification for Variance for this proposed remodel: ISSUE #5 as submit -red In the request for variance dated March 10 and Apr113 deals with the need to increase the allowable maximum height an additional 5 feet In order to provide a sloped of for the proposed garage. HISTORY- On or about March 6 or 7, 1 had a phone c onver s aflon with KJrk Vinlsh regarding the possibility of attaching the proposed garage with the proposed addition In order to make the remodel projectca single strumre. Fr was agreed upon that the construction of a bridge element that attached to both the residence and then to the proposed garage would make the project a residence with on attached garage. It was also discussed that this configuration would also make height calculations lass complicated. It was upon the conversation with Kirk \Ankh that the calculations for coverage grade, maximum allowable height and -rhe request for height exemption were based. CALCULATIONS - Average grade 4475 at the narthwest corner of the f^E ' k kt, t , y�.,f b:. "N �"'l.E % �C; •Y F..i l ; iairN".CL;> '4 t4i fi Y, n ii of t at.:.'.. ?. 4 rit.;{4} F ✓tw '` -�' P 1:. 7 ItC i61 r u "i.t.:?a, FROM : VINCE OJXA ARCHITE PHONE NO. 5278289 Apr. 11 1997 10:42AM P4 v z Drawing W 5chematic.9lte SeOon shows that the maximum allowable height ( an drawing #9) coinddas wH-H the wall plate height of LU o the proposed garage (E on drawing #1) The request to exceed the va maximum allowable height Is for the purpose of providing a sloped roof for r the proposed garage for draining. cn 0 g All of the Information ifhusfar provided was reviewed by Mr. Mmsh r and was further cxplalned to him by phone convereatlon on or about- LL March or 7. The publication Issued by The City. of Edmonds infers that X.Uhthe garage Is a detached 6tructure and that- the requested variance was z for the garage only, neither of which Is accurate. 0 ' iMJ ,1Vi]1=E7 CdEQUEST 150I:2 H- 51G dT MARO NCB The request for variance into callow for the proposed garage roof " a:. to be constructed up to elevation +520. Elevation 4.520 exceeds the s calculated allawable maximum height by 5 feet Our. request Is that ca variance be granted to the allowable maximum height+515) to a maximum z of +524. This Is a request to allow the construction of the garage roof to v exceed the maximum allowable height by a distance of 3 t. fee r - z Due to the Inaccuracies In publication by The City of Edmonds. It is our stance that the costs of republishing the notice for the variance be borne by The City of Edmonds. jG i � INfi. Tc6D8lCf B:rCM� '�R�pk McWe S- _ 4benkalduab � �i' �-jj b _ J (iS�'pT'Ci efir— P^Fa�9 be _1. 1s18 d a,; ----- — — X14EMATIC 51TE SEGTM ILI " q ff pcpaaed twreM.�^'n ®; 1 j � NameofAppiicann................ O Walt Phro Requested Permits Z Variance and Approvals: ............... Date of Application:....._........ O March 10, 1997 C'Date Applicatilete:... p April Other Required Permits a Unknown .) on compnot yet applied for (if Project Location: .................... p 15722 75th PI. W., Edmonds known):.......................... Project Description: ............... g Variances to: reduce the cumulative side setbacks Required Studies related Unknown barth& south) from 35-feet to l4feet; reduce in, eq minimum side setback (south) from 10.feet to 5. to the project: ........... feet; reduce the minimum Steel setback (east) from 2Sfeettol4feeh,antlincreaseUeheightaf Related Environmental Z Critical Areas Checklist gam set to 20deet above average elevation for a Documents: garage. The subject prop" is zoned RS-20. .................... Public Comments due by:...... Apd117,1997 City Contact for project:........ Kirk Vinish Public Hearing Idprimatlgn C: Date: April 17, 1997 Time: 9:00 A.M. Place. Plaza Meeting Room - 650 Main St., Edmonds Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Community Services Department, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020. (206) 771-0220, Public comments should also be sent to this address. Thadecision lh devel p J ppl afon wtAbe made wtlhr 720day pfJhe dar oJ'Jh Z JJ fC mplele ss wdhei; want .rmad fQrsmd and add nona! rnfarmaban requests. Note that abihty'Jo pp al decis on J g nJ pon p 1 e pdf on [h p rpi i d p o e The removal, mutilation, destruction, or concealment of this This notice may be removed Warning! notice before the hearing date is a misdemeanor punishable by after. April 17 1997 fine and imprisonment. K a FIt.E,Nfl.: V97- 2 'APPLICANT: Pisco z NOTICE OF HEARING LU 'AFFIDAVIT OF MAKING LU a STATE OF WASHINGTON ) } COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) z _o L" u, o ` 1, DIANE M. CUNNINGHAM, sworn on oath, depose and say: Ucn er o'Uj P That .on the .3rd' day of April, 1997, the attached Notice of Hearing was mailed as `property �. required to adjacentowners, the namesof which were provided by the tom, applicant. o� z , Signed' Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3 day of 1', 19 I Notary Public in and for the S e of Washington.' i Residing at�-'u !1t/lJ�,; 1 �Y Y t� + I m=cnt3 .. .. i t* s IZ AARMAR^ FAHEY as* 0-n4 ^vsrium moXv" saHallow, w^ wocao. I most 77 1.0220, PAX 4 x0at 771-0321 M^von COMMUNITY sumvicas c8p.Aft. rM8NT 4a•07 Ts9o� Pubito Works 6 Plannina Parka end Roarsation Unalnewrina 1riM1-V-=CWII3R =QVIEFt PAG90Tsai - �fS ��r�Belf� C.">1... 7"1.!'7 "S L?..G7 OAYt_TRANSMtT7`J±O�„---� "" ' . of= P^mr=s;- Oncludln& OC�wr Page) Recipients Tetecopter Number: - FACSIMILE EQUIPMENT: AUtornatli*/Oroup it (2.3 mine.); C3r=up 111 If there are any problernei during tranarnissolon or documents are reCISIVed IncorrIplet lasso cuts g206) 71 - and ask or sender's -ratecopler Number: (208) 771-0221 Ft 1-= 14PI 0M lrvcorporatwd AuOust 21. 2890 a sista!r Cities i-takt-on. Japan TRANSMISSION REPORT THIS DOCUMENT (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE) WAS SENT V COUNT # 2 SEND NO REMOTE STATION I.D. START TIME DURATION' #PAGES COMMENT., 11 1206339304S 4- 1-97, 4:14AM 1'22", 2 THIS S A LEGAL ADVISEMENT AND SHOULD BE BILLED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMEI PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Name of Applicant: Norm Boddy File No.: V-97-13 Project Location: 8320 234th St. SW, Edmonds Project Description: Application for a variance to reduce the rear setback from. 15-feet to 7.5-1eet to permit construction of a proposed 21.5-foot by 41.5-foot (89225 square feet), storage shed attached to an existing single-family. residence. The subject property is zoned RS-8. City Contact: Meg Gruwell Public Comment Period Due By; 4/17197 Name of Applicant: Nelson & Nelson, Inc. on behalf of Terry & Linda Olson File No.: V-97-24 Project Location: 16319 75th Pl. W., Edmonds Project Description: Application for a variance to increase the maximum permitted height of 25-feet in an RS-20 zone, to 30-feet, to allow the construction of a new single family residence. attached to an existing single-family residence: City Contact: Kirk Vinish Public Comment Period Due By: 4/17/97 Name of Applicant: Wait Pisco File No.: V 97-27 Project Location: 15722 75th Pl. W., Edmonds Project Description: Application for multiple variances to: 1) reduce the cumulative required side setbacks (north and south property lines) from 35-feet to 14-feet; 2) reduce the minimum side setback requirement (south property) from 10-feet to 5-feet; 3) reduce the minimum required street setback (east property line) from 25-feet to 10-feet; and, 4) increase the maximum permitted height of 15-feet to 20-feet above average building elevation for a garage. The requested variances have been sought to allow an addition to the existing residence and new garage. The subject property is zoned RS-20. City Contact: Kirk Vinish Public Comment Period Due By: 4/17197 PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION 6i (D Uy z E ] ION RW A PLICAT OUTINGTORA -2,7' FILE • .7� HEOKLIST— PLA NNW -� ROUTED TO: �',RETUR Eno6e g 3/1 /97 Engine n1golp PARIMA REMM, Fire'.3 Z97 Public Works _I 1/97".'' , 0 Public W r1a A/ 44 0 Park jeX Rec., Staff Comments: OFTHE 'CO]Dt? *COMM ENTs wiThouiriciTATiowsWILL �gbt�: 'PE �CONS DE.REID'i *Additlioml:lnfoffnafjoh, R6q'Uir6dLf6r.Cor�016t6"Application *Additional Studies Requireflo Complete Review • Owner, - WALT DISCO • Property Add • Date of Appilcation 3L 1 0/97 Type VARIANCE • Hearing Requ1red1:Yes—X— No--�— Date of Hod n) rN x _Application Plan for'Short SOdhdslon (8.5 x 1 1 X Fee -A—Site, Pla x17) X APO list X Legalp (Existing Proposed) Ti de.Report _-9kipfimental As�essment Vicinity Map P Proof of 2464 O�pawy. (,om) Elevations X Declarations {Variance) Petition (Official Steel Map} P) n roftental Checklist Critical Areas Determination , ti . . . . . . . . . . � 0 I t" .x E r� 6j 0 z V., X "4APPLI�CATIQN,-,RO,UTING��FORM,.:��,�'� "FILE.." V-97 27�",,. ti ND' CHECKLIST �,�,.:fROW PLA -7 OAV RQUTED10- � . ", RETURNED: Engineering i'/iZ- Ength6erin Fire 3/11IL27�= Tire Public Works Panics ig ., , et., 3/11197 Parks 8t Rec. 7777 Staff Com tIffcoln ments. *PER WHAT SECTIONqf TH'CODE? WITHOUT. CITATIONSVIL COMMENTS' L1N0V3Ej:O1NSI1DERED *Md1tion6l'Informaition Required for Complete -Appilcafion *Addffiona1,Studies ,Req6ired to Complete, 'keview • Owner.. WAIN PISCO 1 Property Address. 15722 75TH PL. W. i Date of Application 3/10/97 Type VARIANCE 1 Hearing Required:Yes-)L— N 0 Date, of. H exiiing (if *n6w''n) 7.1 X Application 7"= --------- Site Plan ,for Short S6bdhilsion (8 F X Fee x .Site 0146 fij z q r x APO Ust als(&sUng'& Prdpcied)�, Title Report Environmental Assessment, Vicinity Map Proof of2-"Year 0:ccu'p4ncy(ADU).;,-,*, Elevations 7777777� Petition (Official Street Map)Environmentat Checklist Critical Areas bet4minatio'n ]Lamm Side Sewer 6:41n 9 The aty of Edmonds EASEMENT NO . ... ...... ........... . . . IfteAD. C.K]4. NEW coNs-rRucnoN Ei REPAIRS 0 LID NO. ASbff. NO . .................. OWNER CONTRACTOR sox .. . . ... . . . .................... - .... .. .......... . PERMIT No. .6501. 2 ...... . .................... .-j9B ADDRESS . ..... LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO. BLOCK NO. On.:: D-.0.2W .... ......... ....... ... ME OF ADDITION Ae"OWDALIZ-Beer-A.7 .............. . . ... .............. IS72Z 75 X w. 0 C 101 r 'Additional Studies Required to Complete Review 9 Owner BARB ARA HOLM��BERG t _ Property` Address 7416 1 Atif SL SW • ®ate of Application 3/11197 Type VARIANCE s Hearing Requlred:Yes—X._ No Bate of Hearing {iif known) X Application Site Plan far Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11} X Fee X Site Plan (11 x 17) X APO test legafs {Ewsbng & proposed) Tiffe Report Environmental Assessment` . Winity Map . Proof of 2 Year Oo upancy;{ADu) Elevations X Oeclara6ons (Variance) Petifion {Official Street Map) >' Envronmental Cfiecklist 96-132 cdcal Areas Determination`' : ar U X Application Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8 5 x 11) X Fee X SEte.Plan(11x17). X APO List X . Legals'(Ews6ng & Proposed) Title Report Environmental Assessment Vicinity Map Prop#of 2-Year Oocupancy.(ADU) Elevations X Dedara5o6s(Variance) Petition (Oifiaal Street Map} _Envlronmentai Checklist N PC Cq1qN-ROUTING f01RW FILE' -,V-97427, ANDC It CHECKLIST ROUTE. RETURNEDi"i Engineering F're. Publk Woft .............. =191 `:J/ Parks ex Rk.L -J'JaZ �m C men s:- - 0 t .StaffComments: *PEKWHAT ,SECTIOKOFTIDE COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS "Additional :l*,rmatbh,Required for, ornpet6:Apbllci6i,.'� nearing Kequirewyes—A_, :,No�_� Vate of Hearing:( _A_ApplicaUon b PI an f brsilioi _A_Fee x "Site. Plan 1'-k-11 X APO List -FX qais (&sun'g:k ride Report Envirtinni6fital'K Vicinity Map Elevations. Petition (Official Street Map) Environmental, Ct Critical Areas Determination 0r. _z r: r o' z w w; OUJ n r. r� �L p z LUx or z city of editionds RECEID -� land use application -MAR-1 1997 ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ❑ COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT / STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ° VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER FILE # ZONES DATE REC'D BY FEE RECEIPT# HEARING DATE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC kCTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED Property Address or Location Property Owner '*,4XL-r e.e- Phone 46 CP t231 Address l r2'122 1 S'�+ 0 aw S Agent AL Gft- Phone v Address _ Tax Acc #_ S0 7L •• 0 —fa 80 toe as Sec. Twp. Rng. Legal Description00 LQ� Details of Project or Proposed Use The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this appli- i`on. U, 1 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT { �.{:1! } 'w .tlr4 i��/�:iif���Y,'t}S�f 1`•t i��'} �3'f 1C1 Y �s t't jS �i 2t'%f '_ {ti ti (�! � }'[ --i 2 f��iti}'� 1�R �'�„It `� 1�'T"�4��µ1 ! Z C � L5 y. VINR..•E O1ALA 7763 334NE ♦f'. Seattle, Washington):l9� ali�pu ¢C 98115 OC ' �{ 206.527.8289 Oi Us�. cn . j —p `APPIrICATION FOR VARIANCE �- for WALT PISCO z t-•( 15?22 75th PlaceWest Edmonds: Washington ' U, uUl 3. o rn o r- z _ w LU X d Legip Descrlpiion- Block 028 D-00 Meadowdole Beach W o 5.30 ft.-of lot 6 plus: acated Street . Ui a rX N.15 ft. of lot 7 plus vacated street °z . 'Property Tax Account Parcel Number- #5131-028-00ro .0000 Owner- Walt Plsco Archltect- Vince Ojola 7703 33rd Avenue N.E. SeatHe War hington 98115 ®` 41 (206) 527-8289 S - • EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The subject property Is located in the Meadowdole Beach area of Edmonds Washington. The site Is located adjacent and to the west of 75th Place West and Slopes downhill to the west where the site borders the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. The existing house located on the site was encroaching onto the property bordering at the South property line. The encroachment was of a distance of approximately 2-O" (Two feet). In order to rectify the encroachment, an agreement was met between the property owners to annex an additional five feet of the southerly property to the subject property. This annexation allowed the owner of the subject property to begin development of a remodel and alteration which would otherwise have been disallowed by the City of Edmonds due to the "straddling" of the south property line. The existing house Is located In a RS-20 zone. The setback requirements of the zone are 35cumulative side setbacks with a minimum of 10' on a side, 25front and rear setbacks. The existing lot with the 5-01" annexation Is a total of 30' in width for approximotiy 10ro' along the south property line. If the required side setback is enforced, the allowable area for construction would be only 15. This Is an Impracticable dimension for the Improvement of the existing ; house. The existing garage Is now located partially within, the right-of-way f Of 75th Place West. A new garage is proposed as part of the renovation'`Zi 11 cy i 1 - • F mo+.m'aarm.wwx..+,w...a 1+....-,..i•.._._...... �F ...o.: ..,...... ... .... ... . . .......:....»...w.1... ._•-..�........._........:.......».+,.....w...+........,.... '.........•.. ix..._,,.. _. .. '. _ ......._.._;.........__._..._:ter: of the existing property, and as new construction, it must be located 25' from the property line In order to satisfy the front setback requirement. z The existing slope condition Is such that any construction mode to a 2 ` adhere to the 25' requirement would have to be constructed on the steep slope which might create on undesirable affect to the soils and L51 ,01 d9cult access to the building. The overall height allowance for the project Is calculated to be at JM elev. 513. Due to the steep slope of the site and the relative location of I- to a the garage to the existing house; the garage roof will exceed the calculated height using a minimum of 8' as a plate height for the garage. sea VARIANCE PROP©SAI< ey z The request for variance encompasses three Issues. rQ z ; ISSUE #1. UJ 0 Relief from the 3511C side setback in order to remodel the o existing residence In a practical fashion. a ~ ISSUE #2. UJ X �� Relief from the 25' front setback In order to ccnstruct the garage U. ZI with a minimum Impact to the steep slope. U ISSUE #3. o' Relief from the calculated allowable height for the construction of z the garage Nil O'I The proposed variance Is as follows: ISSUE #1. We request that the minimum side setback be reduced from 10 to a minimum of 5' at the South property line and we request that the cumulative side set back be reduced to the existing conditions on the site which are 5' at the South and 9 at the closest North portion of the existing building for a total of W. ISSUE #2. We request a minimum of 1C front set back from the front property line. This would allow for the construction of a garage for the project with a minimal impact to the existing slope. ISSUE #3. We request that the calculated maximum height be increased an additional 5' for the garage only in order to provide a practical slope for drainage. I su 0 0 w x M w U 0 z 4 h 1. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES- Strict enforcement of the zoning regulations would deprive the owner of the subject property of use rights afforded others In the Meadowdole beach area as follows: I-GSUE #1. The stricture of the side setbacks Imposed on the property would allow only for a 15wide addition to be constructed over the existing house. This would create on Impractical living area to the existing house and It would also severely limit the livability of the house. The neighbor to the north and the neighbor two lots to the north were afforded relief from the side setback requirements for new construction for the reasons heretofore mentioned. The owner of the subject property doesn't have the flexibility of building anew, but rather Is restricted by an existing condition not of his doing which Is a poor survey creating the close proximity to the side of his property. „ice 1 #2. The limits of topography of the lot require that the proposed garage be constructed on the most level portion of the site that avails Itself to the adjacent roadway. A 1C setback will afford a more level access to the garage from the roadway as well as affording minimal slope disturbance during construction. The absence of a sloped driveway to the garage will also help alleviate unnecessary water collection and drainage difficulties. The enforcement of a 25' front setback would cause the garage to be constructed lower than the roadway which would necessitate the need for a very steeply sloped driveway, conceivably greater than 2096". A steep driveway would make access and egress difficult and perhaps hazardous due to restricted sight lines. The owners to the north were both granted exceptions to the front setback requirement for the construction of their garages for reasons similar to those given. ISSUE #3. The limits of topography which govern the allowable maximum height create a condition that would allow only for a flat -roofed garage. We are requesting that the height allowable be Increased by a distance of 5'. This Increase would afford the owner an opportunity to build a sloped roof on the proposed garage. The two owners to the north were granted exceptions to the allowable height requirement for the construction of their garages. a I 2. SPECIAL PRMLEGE- Variances for the issues #1, #2, #3 do not become special privilege because variances for the height and the side and front setback requirements for neighboring properties have been granted for reasons similar to those stated In item #1. 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN- The comprehensive plan for the Meadowale Beach area Indicates that single family residential are desired. The improvement of an existing small residence and the addition of a garage are In -keeping with the consistency of this planning concept. 4. ZONING ORDINANCES- The approval of the variances requested Is consistent with previous variances that have been granted to neighboring properties for reasons similar to those given In this request. The zoning requirements for setbacks severely limits and also curtails construction of any type due to the existing narrow lots which In turn deprives the property owners of improving or developing their land. A variance to the requirements allows the property owners to a reasonable course of development 5. NOT DETRIMENTAL The proposed remodel and alteration will not significantly and adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare. Further, the proposed project will not be injurious to the property or improvements In the immediate vicinity. The new garage would remove the existing garage, a potential problem from the rlght of way. The proposed Improvements to the existing residence would Increase the height of the existing house, but the new ridge would be under the allowable height by a distance of 3'-0". (proposed ridge @ 512 allowable height @ 315) The exception requested for height Is for the garage only and the proposes ridge of the new garage would exceed the height of the existing garage by a distance of 2-01". Because the location of the proposed garage is 12 further toward the west, the visual Impact of the new ridge would be minimal. The variance to the setbacks would allow for standard construction and practical, livable building dimensions and would not adversely affect the neighboring properties. 6. MINIMUM VARIANCE- The requested variance would, be the minimum necessary for a practical remodel and alteration to the owners property. Previous surveys created on awkward .building placement on the site and the construction of the existing house far down slope limit the extent of development. Grail** of the requested variances would allow" .he;owner to have a residence°in s€ze. and'appearance to'tho e. res€dences to the nortK where similar variances :h' ' been granted for Z the reasone of steep slope and narrow lot dimension and vehicle access in a order°to rovide the'o ortunity of reasonable prop erty develo ment. p.... PP P P p COAL LLS Z' ' tiu_US' - j` 0 UA u. Z O Z . ,i } r ®' k i F t w �aR 44 RECEIVED ADJACENT PROPERV fJkVNERS LIST:-, MAR i 0 1997 PEANUT COUNTER Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners fist. On my oath; l certify'that the names and addresses provided represent 61I properties. 3 located within 300 feet,ofthe subject property: Ah , wi Signature of ppli t or Applicant's Representative. Subscribed and sworn to befor ! — day of M*4Ct 1 'e�1�� �.ygm A mom Notary Pub c in and forth' State of Washington . �, 97AsA��`rrrrr• - �`� Residing atiNCtLiA } Ia ;f t�APO.docU.,:lTemp\fonms w,..:m...a,......._ i xiti : i '1--=...,{ �? L�.S:: u..: �, •.i c.,�; ,r C ':.r�: R,.S.r k;. W " (i E ON THIS SIDE WITHIN B 3~AND :4 31 2 0(5-0106 �5�3-2301=OOt�1-028-003-4449 iT.Ar? trEBL� ROGER.'LANTZ JR.5 SEAVIEW AVE-S.W.. EUELL�'HODGE ER 2626 CABERN T WAY. 811.GLENNING ST. SEATTLE,WN. 98107 RANCH CORDO�A,CAL.95674 LYNDEN WN. 98264. LOTs5AND6 t_OT 7 5131-028P007-0005 5131-028-005-0245 GRADY HELSETH Walt Pi, sca g JEAN RIGGLE 7027 184TH ST. �� F 15714 75TH PL,W. SNOHOMISH WN-98294 157z2 75tn P1 W. �, WN. 98020 Edmonds, WA 98a�a EDMOND cn U. LOT1 5131.-029-001-0009 LOT2 5131-029-002-0008 G I LBER @ JANET TN.IRY G..I LBERT @' JANET TH I RY Vince ajal a, Architect ►� 15821 H PL.W. 15821 ` 75TH PL.W. 77a3 33rd Ave. 'NE EDMOND N. 98424 EDMONDS WN. 98424 Seattle, WA 98115 z LOTS 3 AND 4 _ LOT1 5131-030-001-0007 ( r RICHARD VAN .SAUN J HN .E. `PECK ! 7715 173RD ST.S.W. 2�1601. 42ND PL.W. EDMONDS WN, 98024 MOUNTLAKE;TERRACE WN. 98043 ~-' LOTS " 2, 3, AND4 LOTS 25 AND 26 LL O 5131-030-002-0006 MICHEAL RUSNAL as GLADYS NORTHF:IELD 21325` 66TH AV. W. 15821 75TH PL.W. LYNWOOD WN, 98036 EDMONDS WN. 98020 _ LOT 25 5133-000-025-0208 LOT 25 5133-.000425-0307 D.H,CARYL JOANNE SPIRO 15701 75TH PL.W. 7711 171ST ST.S.W, EDMONDS WN. 98020 EDMONDS WN. 98020 qqz 31 A LOT 32 .5133-000-932=0144 -8602 DONNA E. PAUL i WM. BEERS 4421 MARSEILLES ST. + 9264 46TH AV. S.W. SAN DIEGO CAL. 98107 SEATTLE WN. 9811.E t.F t 'xr z fi y"r "F- ! 1 4iryyr 1 �a xy 5 \,� t r y ` t1 jt D ut w =f LK S S 114 cn 0 ui LL XLLhGi ' 0 w( At cos aodt. tot a j m N Q 24 i Q 05 Z V,J— LL 01 aP y� ov a 4� 25 3 OZ 4 � � ol w � 6 �s4DOif! � ® 2 VIA F • 158th. S.W. {J3 3/ 2 'Q 5 t. h st� ttyt ;ic Ty 4 ?-.M4�tx-t 3�c t4, ..m ....tin �, .: .. .. :. s.';:� I n. .:::v 7v,�,.'; .,{... .. wi.-,r•ai.r.y,hRir.:,'t'T�4.,nmKaA S, zr }- O ww �n 0 0 o— N- wC U� O� z [*I v M,qR"j 1997 PERMIPCpUNTEIi SUPERIOR COURT OF'6WASHINGTON FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY WALTER J. PISCO, NO.. 96-2-02004-2 PetitioneriPlainf4s) CALENDAR NOTE: (NTC) Must be filed Kith Clerk VS. not later than sbc (6) worlang days preceding date GRADY HELSETH, et ux., requested. MO NOT note on troth Presiding and Respondent/DCtti ndant(s) Court Commissioner calendars at the same time.)' PRESIDING DEPT. 2ndFloor,Room201 3 October 1996 @ 11:30 a.m.* Date PRESIDING CALENDAR ` Tues. thruFri at 10 am (Confirm at 3883587) *Per Judge Hansen's Clerk's Direction. SEE NOTE ON REVERSE SIDE AS TO WHAT CASES ARE Nature of Hearing TO BE SET IN PRESIDING OR BEFORE COURT Presen ation_ iBefore judge -Hansen COMMISSIONER - Only) COURT COMNIISSIONER DEPTS.-2nd Floor, Dept. 4 or 3rd Floor, Room 301 or 305 CIVIL CALENDAR Date Requested Tues. thru Fri at 10 am Nature of Hearing: (Confirm at 388 3587) FAMILY LAWJDOMESTIC CALENDAR Daily at 9:00 a.m. (Confirm at 388 3587) Date Requested Nature ofHartiag: PRO SE DISSOLUTION CALENDAR Date Requested Wednesday at 1:00 p.m. (No con formation required) Matters set before a Court Commissioner will be assigned later to a particular department The assignment will be posted the day of the heating. E amled motions are set by the Court Commissioner, not a party or counsel. If a presentation, or if a particular Court Commissioner has already heard a recant motion in the mattes, please indicate Court Commissioner WARNING: The moving party MUST CONFIRM by noon two (2) court days prior to the hearing in order for the matter to be argued. Failure to notify the Court of a continuance or strim may Mutt in sanctions andlor terms. SCLCR 7(b)(2)(E). This form cannot be used for trial settings. SCLMAR 2.140(b). See reverse side for other confirmation and rating informations. FOR MATTERS NOTED BY PARTY PRO SE: See reverse side of this NOTE FOR MATTERS NOTED BY COUNSEL: I hereby certify that I mailed a copy of this document to the Noted by: attorneysiparues listed on the rvx= side hereof, postage prepaid on the day of .19_ WSB 5993 CouaselfOr Plaintiff m SIGNED .a r-TATANVOWWROREC M43N (CALUMAR.Nam vws (OVER] FOR PARTIES PRO SE: Someone other than you must sense this document on the other parties in the action de that ! pm ill out the section below. IpAf I haft certify that I am not a party to this have maned/personally served this document on the parties listed below on the _ day of 19 SIGNED Voted bir CIMCKONE(redtimw?WnfflpmpondawDefendant This document was maw Person* smved pc other Personally delivered by J. David Smith Specify Pawns served: Persons saved:* Name Ilavid S. Carson Name 1602 Hewitt Ave., #700 Address Everett, WA --- Address - - - - - - - - - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 Name Name. x - LU �- U11 Address--� Address LL. 211 LU Cn" ----------------------------------- --------------------------- 0 Name Name z Address Address - (Additional parties should be added below). WHERE TO NOTE VARIOUS MATTERS: 01 FAMILY L4,w/DomEsTic MOTIONS: Most are heard on a Court commissionees calendar. The exc*dons are matters relating to trial settings and continuances or revisions, which are heard in Presiding Department. ]I CrM MOTIONS.. The following are heard on the Court Commissioner Chril Calendar Defaults, DiscoMModons kalfoxcement thaeot, Supplemental Pzo=dmgr, Unbw&I Detamer or Eviction; Pmbate, Guardianship & Rwaya action;; Motions; to Amend Pleadings. AD other cut motions are heard an the Presiding Calendar. CONF]RMATION NOTES: All matters set on the Presiding or Court Commissioner Calendars must be confirmed at 388-3587. Matters; set before a sp=fficjudge must be confirmtWcontinued by his/her law cloak. Adoptions, msonA)Icness hearings and minor settlements are specially set and confirmed through presiding Law Cleric 388-3421. If you reach voice mail when confirming, y-w must Igm the requested information or the matteruill not be continued/confirmed. MEN M 777F7. 0rr 59 �­w 2 :3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 44 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 1 N C1,11) Plaintiff, NO. 96-2-02004-2 V. FINDINGS AND ORDER GRADY HELSETH and JANE DOE GRANTING PARTIAL HELSETH, and the marital community SUMMARY JUDGMENT composed thereof, Defendants. THIS MATTER having come before the Honorable Paul D. Hansen, Presiding Judge, on the 19th -day of September, 1996, upon the motion of Plaintiff for, summary judgment; the Plaintiff, Walter J. Pisco, appearing by. and through his counsel of record; J. David Smith and Elizabeth Turner Smith; and the Defendants, Grady Helseth and Jane Doe Helseth, husband and wife, appearing by and through their counsel of record, David S. Carson; the court having heard argument of counsel, having read the records and files herein, and in particular. 1. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, with attached Affidavit of J. David Smith and exhibits; 2. Affidavit of Jess & Lisa Jessen; 3. Affidavit of Ann Whaton; 4. Affidavit of Jerome Krell; 5. Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Summary Aidgment; 6. Declaration of Grady Helseth; 7. Plaintiffs Reply Memorandum; and 8. Plaintiff's Reply Declaration and the Court being fully advised in the premises.,now makes the followimg J. DAVID SMITH FINDINGS AND ORDER ORANTING 220 - 4th,Avemii North PARTUL SUMMARY JUDObdENT - PAGE I Edmonds: WA98020 (206) 7717M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 X FMINGS 1. There.has been no affirmative denial and no controverting affidavit as to the facts submitted by Plaintiff in the underlying motion. 2. There are no allegations from Defendants which would defeat Plaintiff's claim of adverse possession. Plaintiff has established the elements of adverse possession and has met the. statutory time requirements. 3. The Defendants admit, at page 1, lines 17-20, of their Memorandum that the Plaintiffs alo:-�- the bu - 1116cad and fence.property viicroached upon and used a -�oiti6n' of�,Defkn"' 4. The Defendants admit at page 5, lines 4-7, of their Memorandum that Defendants do not object to any encroachment of the area where Plaintiff's house and bulkhead are situated. No counterclaim was filed requesting removal of those encroachments and it is therefore stipulated that Plaintiff has adversely possessed those areas. 5. While the survey submitted by Plaintiff is accurate, because the line is indistinct the Court cannot conclude, from the evidence submitted, what the appropriate boundary line for the entire parcel should be. The Court having entered its findings, and it appearing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to some of the issues herein and that the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on those issues, the Court now makes the following ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART. Tide in the strip of land the width of the bulkhead extending in a straight line West and terminating at the Southwest comer of Plaintiffs house, described in Exhibit A attached hereto, is hereby quieted in the Plaintiff, Walter J. Pisco. DONE IN OPEN COURT this day of 1996, PAUL D. HANSEN, Judge J. DAVED SMITH FINDINGS AND ORDER GRANTING 4th Avenue North PARTLALSUMMARYAIDGMENT-PAciE2 Edmonds, WA 98020 (206Y 771-7830 I R�'� 11 4 Y� Mf Y �p�Y d' lot T :t i v 1.Y S Y5 yt j r � . is two'}+ z �t�u�z� } >y "� ' �` x t � � � � t � ✓ � }j�j LEGAL DESCP-WnYx ]E'OK WALT PMCO ADVSE POSSESSION AREA Ak portion of t.7 Block 2e itiFeadawdate Bear-�& as per -plat recon is Yotumo 5 otplats, P eR:or c rSnoi�oi it Cc�; rAy � r:slzP0 1-4 d �t:*.i'w foK�rc��. ja4mdng at Southeast corner of the North 15.00 fat_ of said Lot 7; thence S2'48' 17"W' aWng the East I of saW Lot 4.85 thence N8V291.23"W 28'.40 ahem N88009'43"'w paralld with North line of said Loot 7 a dl yta we of 77.68 It et; tba= Nl 30` 17"E 5.0t to the South lira f the North 15.00 f Det of said Lot 7; thence S38.09'43'E along said North lime t06.tG feet to point :�'b8�ng• ,..' 4 � I 4 a ,life R RIN—• is.00•�' kr :fir• _...... •gym � �!� �� N �•�e•�7• c � .�..,o.or,.�• 6a Asa. 75th , , PL , S . W C R/Y EXHIBIT A, PAGE 2 �: , c 3{ ' .4.. ' d� a>,�.s v''�";r?.«,"�r�rt'��5,�}�t`X�w��t,a`i •+ ��Yr� ��,�ii, {+ i� E u.x V. fS, t4, F f k 11 i� r r RECEI a 9 RR� R/ MAR - 61997 W PERMIT COUNT its-- D=00291260 * L=45.03 T z aco O o �0 Lul —0LU ?� co co z sd: /f is,o� 30,0- 0 z 1— 1 f z Lu+ 2 MI W w F- Ff u- Z': N1050,17`E 5.01 z ! x OD° a . •p ` lV CA OD cl N qa. rl 9 d N .L � •n 'y . � •} OD co •. }..i r. 'gyp• . ONr�. S tl Nl