Loading...
20051118.pdfD'"'c"'ID FPERMIT EXPIRE C17Y OF EDMONDS PERM T - NIUMVER 2005- 110 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JASD A E S S <7V ?U- NP1140AMIC FLAT NAMUSLUDIVISION, NO I'D No A MAILINGADDRESS LID FEE S 9 zAkit W 19� (.G e PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TLSCPA­P­ Er 0 cm "I TELEPHONE P­1111� 0 EXISTING F`iFfflPh*pEcTjON REQUIR 5­P-r­L­" 0 ,q,I zr,, .­� Ie,­ � 0 R 13 COUdREDDEDWT1CS7,gEgj_ _MXARM 0 _T,;,Z fiT, NAME XTURE — _ , METE11 SIZE I Z LEW a Kg)�N�,RED NO OFF, ell DNEES S MUST 88 CA PPUDE)%T No 0 IC ADDRESS OWNEH1CONTRACj2jQ5MJjjj�aZN CONTROUDRAINAGE CITY mOSE 818 WinfRAV151 =NSTALLIT 7717 Dump AT APPROVED DUMP Sli ONLY NAME CGLI AT ENGINEERING `F"`SWYDEmoLIn0,N ON 0 CHECKLIST ON ACINSOPEC'Una ADDRESS Pq RECYCLE REVIEWEIJIVIC INSPECTION REQUIREMEft?-- CITY ZIP TELEPHONE 0 PUBLIC WORKS REVIEWED BY D77TE z STATE LICENSE NUMBET EXPIRATION DATE CHECKEDsy FIRE REVIEWED By DATE 0 VARIANCE 08 CU HORELINEORADS# INSPECTION EP�.__ PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL No A Do (_� q jcC Co �3 1 0.�;00 10 YES 0 No [3 NEW D'4_11EUDENTIAL [3 PLUMBING I MECH ZONE DWEN AR A HEIGHT C 1)5__z4%5 BIG WAIVER ALL D IF —C. AIUDWE. F- ED WSTUDY 0 3: pill C I I I I M COMMERCIAL C MPLIANCE OR ADDITION 13 0 CHANGE OF USE MIXED USE LOTCOVERAGE IREDSETD CK E S FEE A S (FT, PIOII15 D ET13ACKS 1111 0 REMODEL MU IFAMILY E] SIGN ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REAR FRONT URSIDE REAR I= REPAIR GRADING Ei FENCE CYOS I PARKING M IT! z --i X _ FT.) I LOT AREA PLANNING REVIEWED BY DATE PROV REQ 'BED jo TANK OTHER I EiGARAGE RETAINING WALL 7�E SPRINKLER CARPORT ROCKERY FIR ALARM REMA KS (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVIT 0 -n NUMBER UMBER 11 Id OF LLIN GO TYPt)Vj�T 3: FM rn BW 0 0 STORIES NITS DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE LUCTION n 0 SPECIAL INSPECTION CONSULTANT OCCUPANT 0 M LOAD REQUIRED 13 YES C 1:1) 9 0) REMARKS U, M 0 CCLA aCD—L GEO ECH REPORT By X ST UCTURALDESIGN BY VALUATION z $ Description FEE Descriptio; FEE co z HEAT SOURCE LOT SLOPEI� VESTED DATE Plan Check State Surcharge Building Permit CitySurcharge 0 PLAN CHECK NO: IT! Plumbing Base Fee T IS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORKTO BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY, ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC Mechanical 2 DOMAIN (CURDS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.), WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMISSION. Grading PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC 19.0D.00SA)(5) PERMIT LIMIT. SEE ECDC 19,00.005(A)t6l Engr. Review Recording Fee -SEEBACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION Engr. Inspection Plan Chk. Deposi -APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS - i IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY 01 Fire Review Receipt It III EDMONDS , WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS. EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE� ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRE FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOCTSLYE Fire Inspection Total Amt. Due DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.- Receipt Landscapainsp. 317�4� 1 I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS A1111CATIONI THAT THE INFO MATIO1 APPLICATION APPROVAL GIVEN IS CORRECT, AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF CALL nal aPPIK.P.. 1. d.I. Inned adIII 119aaV III I THE 0 NER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING ONSTRUC- Be" FOR INSPECTIO� eng OIIKIII If hISIall Odedy ad Fee, 11, Plal. and THIN; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, 00 PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED IN In " 0 THE ' CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHING70N RELATING TO 0� ­adW'Ieag-,Qd ­ "O'dee WOROL S Uj.01NS..Af,I�. A.. Raw AT KME. A SIGNA RE DATW ELZ (425) 771-0220 DATE EXT. 1333 ATTENT110N L IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI. ORIGINAL � FILE YELLOW - INSPECTOR FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS B EEN GRANTED. UBC109 I IBC110 / IRC110- PINK -OWNER GOLD ASSESSOR PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES MICHAEL A. POWERS 18427 88'" Avenue West, Edmonds, WA 98026 August 31, 2005 RECEIVED AUG '�' 1205 City of Edmonds, Planning Division DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS 121 - 5" Avenue North z Edmonds, WA 98020 INS SEP RE. Variance Application, V-05-88 0 Mike Carrithers ------ ---- M Dear Hearing Examiner: rn 0 80 I have been a resident of the Seaview neighborhood for over 42 years but am unable to m think of a detached structure that fits in less with its neighboring buildings than the M z 0 carport being addressed by this application. It is too tall, too large, and too close to its property lines. The applicant's lot is one of the larger lots in the neighborhood. Had he consulted the 0 -n .111 city planners before designing this project and obtained a building permit before building X C M it, I believe he could have built a carport that meets his needs while complying with all m the requirements of the building code. Side and rear setbacks could have been 0 r- respected and, with a small amount of grading, the maximum height would not need to 9.1 [� be exceeded. z 0 Instead, Mr. Carrithers chose to demolish an existing structure then proceeded to build a new 800 square foot carport all without applying for a building permit. When the project was issued a stop -work order ("red -tagged"), the applicant then chose to z continue working on the carport to the point of completion and began using it to protect his vehicles. Now the applicant would like the city to change its building requirements z to conform to his building. This obviously is not right. I support the city's recommendation to deny both of the setback requests and further 0 m ask that the Planning Department limit the structure's height to 15 feet. Respectfully, Michael A. Powers 0 June 5, 2005 Jeannine L. Graf 121 5th Ave North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Jeannine Graf, I've received a notice from the City of Edmonds to stop work on my carport. I don't currently have a permit and never did. For this I must apologize, and I'm sure that there will be some monetary compensation for my oversight. I came down to the city on Friday to take care of this situation, but you were out of the office, and I never could get a chance to talk to Robert Chave. As I was beginning the application process, it became pginfull obvious to me that I'm going to need a variance to keep my carport in it's current location. I would like to talk to Mr. Cbave about this, and it is my full intention to have a meeting with him at his earliest convenience. I hope that I could start the variance process at that inne. It doesn't make any sense for me to apply for a permit if it's not going to be approved. I have every intention ofjumping through all the hoops, and paying all the fee's and fines. I don't know if it matters to you or not, but it was never my intention to try and sneak something past the city. This started out as an attempt to modify the existing building that had been in place since prior to 1976. After attempted roof modification and several structural upgrades, it became obvious that this building was never going to work. The largest piece of lumber in it was a 2x4 and it was essentially held up by the siding. It was not built very well and it eventually had to be taken down. At that point, I just gave up and bought some poles and an engineered truss package. Voila! Instant carport. Finally I had gotten a little satisfaction and would be able to park my camper and pick-up in a nice covered spot. It was very disturbing to come home last Tuesday to a big red notice. Please accept my apologies and know that I will do everything I need to do in order to make this right. Sincer Mike Carrithers 19416 84" Ave. W Edmonds. WA 98026 425.864.7216 Cell 425.774.5448 Home Z m C m 80 C m m C -1 (A 1- 0 -n M M a 0 0 rn 0 Z Z 0 m GARY HAAKENSON CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR 121 STH AVENUE NORTH -EDMONDS, WA98020 - N25) 77"220 -FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: �ci.edmonds­us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning Building Engineering November 14, 2005 0 =1 m Mr. & Mrs. Michael Carrithers 19416 84'h Avenue West -4 -n Edmonds, Washington 98026 m m 0 RE: Hearing Examiner Decision oil Carport -40 0 C Dear Mr. & Mrs. Carrithers, As a follow-up to City letter dated October 3, 2005, as you are aware the City Hearing z Examiner granted partial approval of the carport variance at your residence and established the deadline of December 15, 2005 to obtain the required building pen -nit 0 and/or reduce or remove the carport (with a demolition permit). 'n _n m M We strongly suggest that you i1jilliediatelt, apply for the perrnit in order to meet the 055 Hearing Examiner deadline as staffhas no ability to extend the timeline for compliance in 0 0 this matter. Regardless of whether you choose to completely remove the carport or C (a reduce it per the decision --building perraits are required. Failure to obtain a permit by the m 0 deadline shall result in the initiation of the Civil Penalties process whereby Fines of $100.00 per day shall be assessed until Hearing Examiner compliance is obtained. We are still quoting ten days for initial review of a carport permit application,and a z demolition permit can be issued over the counter. Please remember investigation fees shall be assessed at three times the normal peninit cost (if you choose to keel) the carport per the Hearing Examiner's decision). Z Sincerely, m Jeannine L. Graf Building Official Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Citv - Hekinan, Japan U GARY HAAKENSON CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: -Ledmonds.wa.US DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning Building Engineering October 3, 2005 z 0 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Carrithers :j 0 1941684 Avenue West R, Edmonds, Washington 98026 35 RE: Hearing Examiner Decision on Carport 0 m Dear Mr. & Mrs. Carrithers, m 0 -q 0 0 The City Planning Division has informed my office that the Hearing Examiner granted m m tv� partial approval of the carport variance at your residence located at 19416 84"' Avenue 0 C West in Edmonds. Since you have decided not to appeal the matter the decision of the Hearing Examiner stands and you have until December 15, 2005 to obtain required permits and reduce or remove the carport per this decision. 35 0 Since a building permit is required, you should immediately apply for the permit in order m In to meet the Hearing Examiner deadline as staff has no ability to extend the timeline ror Vi 0 compliance in this matter. Regardless of whether you choose to completely remove the carport or reduce it per the decision, building permits are required. M 0 Please contact JoAnne Zulau f, Permit Specialist if you need permit information at 425- 771-0220 extension 1336. M At this time the City would quote ten days for initial review. of a carport permit z application and a demolition pennit can be issued over the counter. Please remember investigation fees shall be assessed at three times the normal pennit Cost (if You choose to Vi keep the carport per the Hearing Examiner's decision). z 0 Sincerely, m Jeannine L. Graf Building Official Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister CHU - Hekinan. Japan CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 121 STH AVENUE NORTH Edmonds, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER '1705 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISIOV/Vilov- OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: Mke Carrithers CASE NO.: V-05-88 LOCATION: 19416 84h Avenue W (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1) AEPLICATION- A variance to reduce the required 20-foot rear setback to 12.5 feet, a variance to reduce the required 10-foot side setback to 8.5 feet and a variance to increase the allowed height from 15 feet to 16.5 feet for a new carport (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 through 4). REVIIEWPROCESS: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION D DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Deny the rear setback variance, Deny the side setback variance, Approve the height variance with conditions Hearing Examiner Decision: Deny the rear setback variance, Deny the side setback variance Approve the height variance with conditions 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 Carrithers application was opened at 3:01 pm, September 1, 2005, in the City Council Chambers, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 3:20 pm. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan z a m a in 0 -40 0 C in in z jo -4 z -4 09 0-11 m M 0 �5 0 0 (a in 0 Z z -4 z 0 0 in Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-05-88 Page 2 HEARING COAUMNTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City: MV _Gruwell Senior Planner, entered the staff advisory report into the record as Exhibit A, and said the only new information or comments received after the staff report had been prepared were questions from the Building Official asking if work had continued on the carport after the "Stop Work" order had been posted and if the carport was complete. From the Applicant: Mke Carrithers entered Exhibits E — G and reviewed his prepared hearing statement (Exhibit G). He said: • His truck is over 21 feet long and withthe trailer in tow it is about 40 feet long. The turning radius for his truck and pickup is 53 feet. • The carport as built, is not only in the best location on the property, it's in the only location on the property that can still make use of all the existing vegetation and topography. If 100 people were to look at his property a good majority would agree this is the best space for the carport, • He built it where it is to keep it away from the house. He said you can't attach a pole building to a Roman brick rambler and not have it look like a lean-to. • His goal is to move his recreational vehicles out ofthe driveway and out ofsight from 84'. • The location where he built the carport had no vegetation or trees, has good access, is relatively flat and was unused. • A carport on the north side ofthe house (as suggested by city staff) would only be able to house the lawn care equipment as the topography wouldn't allow parking without building a retaining wall and installing a large amount of fill. • If the carport were turned 90 degrees (as also suggested by city staff) that would butt the carport right up against the house in order to have the same amount of maneuvering space as he now has with the current location, He said that not only would that look bad, the slope would have to be changed drastically and all ofthe lawn and existing buffer vegetation in the footprint would have to be removed, The staff even notes that rotating the structure would probably be more objectionable than leaving it where it is. • There are special circumstances relating to this property and its topography, and without a Variance being granted, he would be deprived ofrights and privileges permitted to others in the vicinity with the same zoning. • The city's only argument for minimum variance seems to be the fact that he already has a two -car garage. He uses both stalls in the garage for one car and two motorcycles. That doesn't leave any room for a large truck, camper or utility trailer, nor room for a small collection ofyard care equipment. • To do what he wants to do the carport "needs" to be 40 feet long. Ifthe carport is cut down to 30 feet, as suggested by the city, the trailer will still be stored where it is — itjust won't be covered. Z m C m 0 0 C M ii 1�1 I C — 11, Z 0 m M a 0 0 M Z 7-1 Z Z 9 0 m Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-05-88 Page 3 . Given the topography and the layout, these are the minimum variances he needs to not be deprived offights and privileges permitted to others in the vicinity with the same zoning. . There are only two points ofcontention with the city. They have found with him on all ofthe other criteria. He believes that upon finther review he "I meet all ofthe criteria including special circumstances and the minimum variance necessary. He disagreed with city staffs statement that "the Spartan lines of the carport do not harmonize particularly well with the existing structures in the neighborhood." He said he doesn't know what Spartan means, but his neighb6rhood doesn't have a theme. Every Z house is different in design and architecture. No one can see the carport, except from one spot on 84b and it only becomes evident ?5 M when you turn down the easement road and at that point it becomes visible. He noted that none of the neighbors that live adjacent to his property or that use the easement road have objected to the carport. The neighbors immediately to the west have a garage that is about 200 square feet larger M C and 8 feet taller than his carport, and it was granted a variance in 1978 (see Exhibit E). m 0 C They have a hedge on their property that they recently trimmed and cut down some ofthe 0 height. m m In response to Exhibits C & D he said: The Scobels seem to be referring to someone else's property. The Scobels don't live C > Z next door and their property doesn't border his. Mr. Powers lives several blocks away and is not affected by his carport. He said the Ci) carport was finished when he was red tagged and that all he has done since then is to 0 -n spread some gravel in the drive area and under the carport. It was never his intent to slide past the rules. He started doing some repair work on the m m old bam and realized that wouldn't work, so he tore it down and replaced it with the 0 carport. 0 C M 0 From the Community: Z r- Jeremy Makin said: He lives above the garage immediately west ofthe carport and said the carport doesn't bother him, He feels it is in a good location. Z He noted that his parents own the property he lives on and that they do not object to the vi carport either (see Exhibit B, Attachment 2). Z 9 0 m The following is a summary ofthe correspondence received: Nancy Rasmussen,.Marsha Makin. and Bryan and Permv.Janssen wrote in Exhibit B, Attachments I through 3 that: . They represent the only three households using the easement road adjacent to the newly constructed carport. . They have no objections to the structure, or its location. . The structure does not impede any view and cannot be seen from their living spaces. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-05-88 Page 4 They understand the structure doesn't meet the height and setback requirements; but feet it is aesthetically far more acceptable than several vehicles covered with large blue tarps or portable frame canopies, The carport replaces an old bam that was far less appealing, The carport allows the applicant to move vehicles from his driveway on 84rb to the back comer of his property, increasing the street appeal from the main roadway, and making good use of an otherwise unused space. C. L. Scobell wrote in Exhibit C that: . He is unhappy with the structure that has been erected right next to our property line. . Because ofthe slope it seems to tower even moreover our hedgerow. . He would prefer stricter laws on the building code. Michael A. Powers wrote in Exhibit D that: nable He has been a resident in the Seaview neighborhood for over 42 years, but is u to think ofa detached structure that fits less with its neighboring buildings than the subject carporL . It is too tall, and too close to its property lines. . The applicant's lot is one of the larger lots in the neighborhood and had he (the applicant) consulted city planners before designing this project and had he obtained a building permit before building it, he could have built a carport that meets his needs while complying with all the requirements of the building code. tructure then proceeded to Instead, Mr. Carrithers chose to demolish an existing s build a new 800 square foot carport all without applying for a building permit. . When the project was issued a stop work order, the applicant then chose to continue working on the carport to the point of completion and began using it to protect his vehicles. . Now the applicant would like the city to change its building requirements to conform to his building. This obviously is not right. He wrote that he supports the city staffs recommendation to deny* both setback variance requests and asked that the height of the structure be limited to 15 feet. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS: A. INTRODUCTION 1. History: a) Facts: (1) The applicant states in their application that when the lot was subdivided, an existing horse bam did not meet setbacks. (2) Staffchecked the original subdivision, city file S-3-72 and determined that a shed is shown in roughly the spot as the carport, though no setback dimensions are shown, and the size ofthe bam/shed is not shown (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5). Z 0, M am C ma 0 80 a m CE o -n m m a 0 0 C 0) M 0 Z > Z Z m Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-05-88 Page 5 (3) The applicant states in their letter that they have already co mvieted the carport and give the reaso ns they chose the location and height in their letters (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3). (4) The city received a complaint about construction being done without a permit and issued a stop work order on the carport. (5) The applicant has applied for these variances to allow their carport in the configuration it currently is in. B. SITE DESCRIPTION 0 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Eacts: 0 (1) Size and Access: The su ect property is approximately 25,920 square feet, with m M 180 feet of frontage on 84 Avenue W., and what appears to be 144 feet of 0 80 frontage on the access road (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). C (2) Land Use: The site has a home with attached garage (see Exhibit A, Attachment m Z 4). C Z (3) Zonin : The subject property is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-10) (see > Exhibit A, Attachment 1). (4) Terrain and Vegetation The subject site is quite level along 84h Avenue W, large 0-11 and slopes slightly downhill to the west. The vegetation on the site consists m M fir trees, other trees, shrubs, and lawn (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). a Vi b) Neighboring Development And Zoning: 0 0;; C: (A (1) M 0 Z q� (a) The properties to the north, south and west are zoned Single -Family W Residential (RS-10) and are developed with single-family residences (see -4 Exhibit A, Attachment 1). The two lots to the west gain access offthe > Z easement to the south ofthis lot, where the access to the carport is also obtained. The lot to the south has its own driveway and does not take access off the easement. Z 9 (b) The properties to the east are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-8) and are 0 developed with single-family residences (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). m C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) 1. Facts: a) Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review (WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080). Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-05-88 Page 6 2. Conclusion: The application complies with the requirements ofthe State Environmental Policy Act. The following sections determine how the proposal meets the requirements ofCity codes. D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. Critical Areas Compliance a) Facts: (1) This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 23.40 (Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions). (2) A Critical Areas Checklist has been submitted (CA-2005-85) and a waiver from the requirement to complete a critical areas study was granted, as no critical areas were found on or adjacent to the site. b) Conclusion: The proposal meets the requirements ofthe Environmentally Critical Areas Chapter. 2. Compliance with (RS-10) Zoning Standards a) Fact: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development in the Single -Family Residential zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030. RS-10 standards are as follows: RS-10 Street Setback: 25 feet Rear Setback: 20 feet Side Setbacks (to all other property lines): 10 feet Maximum Height: 25 feet Lot Coverage: 35% b) Conclusion: The proposal requires variances to height, and rear and side setbacks to be approved before it complies with the requirements ofthe RS-10 zoning standards. 3. Compliance with Requirements for a Variance a) Facts: 1) Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision ofthe Code may be varied on a case -by -case basis ifthe application ofthe 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 ofthe property, strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner ofuse rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Special circurnstances should not be predicated upon any 0 3: m C ma 0 80 C m m 0) 0 _n n ;D m M V _C r m M ;0 Z Z 0 m Hearing Examiner Decision CaseNo. V-05-88 Page 7 factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action ofthe owner or any past owner ofthe same property. (b) Special Privilege, That the approval ofthe 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) CoMRrehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: That the approval ofthe variance will be consistent with the intent oftbe comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the zoning district in which the property is located. (d) Not Detrime 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 Varian That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. (2) The applicant has submitted declarations with his submittal, which address the decisional criteria and they are found in Exhibit A, Attachment 3. The applicant has also submitted photographs ofthe site (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). (3) The applicant is requesting three variances, The two setback variances are to allow the shed to be closer to the side setback along the easement and to the rear setback, and the last variance is to allow the carport to be higher than 15 feet. (4) The applicant states that he has a large lot of 0.56 acres, or roughly 24,400 square feet. (5) Accessory structures less than 600 square feet only need to maintain a five-foot setback, per ECDC 16.20.050.C. (6) The height ofaccessory structures is limited to 15 feet per ECDC 16.20,050.B. (7) The proposed structure is 20 by 40 feet, or 800 square feet. Because of its size, it must maintain the full 20-foot setback. (8) The "existing bam" as shown on the paperwork submitted from V- 10-78, appears to be approximately 20 by 30 feet, so it may have met the 600 square foot limit. The setback shown appears to be approximately five feet to the rear property line, and approximately 25 feet to the easement (side property line). (9) In looking at older code books, the code has varied from allowing all accessory buildings at the five-foot rear setback (in 1964) to allowing only accessory Z RI C in in -4 0 0 0 C -1 3: in in C: E:=J 0 -n n i! C �!, in in 0 0 C: in rn 0. Z Z 9 0 in Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-05-88 Page 8 buildings under 100 feet at the five-foot setback (in 1978). Without further research it is not clear what the regulations would have been in 1972 when the lot was subdivided. Presurnably the accessory structure was checked for proper setbacks to the new property line. Staff measured over 20 feet between the existing garage and the north side property line. (10) Staffirteasured approximately 15 feet between the carport and the existing house. (11) The house to the west and the house to the south both have arborvitae hedges Z along their adjacent property lines. This hedge screens the house to the south from having to see the carport, since the house is only one story high. However, 0 in the house to the west is two-story, and is not screened from the carport by either their arborvitae hedge, or the holly bushes and low trees on the subject property to the west ofthe carport. The applicant noted at the hearing that his neighbors a recently trimmed the hedge and reduc; ed its height. in C: a in (12) The area between the carport and the easement to the south has not yet been 0 0 planted, and currently contains grass, stumps, and weeds. C C (13) The area between the carport and the home to the west is vegetated with holly in in LO bushes and low trees, with a bare dirt area near. the carp ort that has not yet been Z planted. Vq (14) The City's Engineering Division requires 18 feet between garage doors and 0 -n property lines. n .-I (15) The city's access database shows several approved variance requests along 84"' = in in Avenue N. in this neighborhood, including the Erickson request submitted with in 0 this request. 0 Fn C CA (16) Views in the area are local, though depending on topography, some parts of the in 0 neighborhood may have glimpses ofthe Puget Sound through the trees. Z r- b) Conclusions Regarding Setback Variances: M (1) Special Circumstances: The site is quite large, which offers more than one Z location for potential carports. Not all dimensions are given on the site plan, so it is not easy to tell all ofthe areas. However, a narrow carport could potentially be ra placed to the side of the existing garage for the smaller items mentioned (i.e. lawn Z equipment). The carport adjacent to the easement could be cut back, allowing it 0 to be located at the required ten feet setback from the side property line. It could 0 M also be located as close as five feet from the rear property line if it were reduce d to less than 600 square feet in size. Ifthis were done, maneuvering should not be hampered. Neither of these two options seems to require the removal of any large trees, and both would conform to a strict interpretation of the code, Another option would be to locate a small carport or shed behind the existing garage for storage of the lawn equipment, Therefore, the Hearing Examiner does not see how a 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 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-05-88 Page 9 zoning. The code is clear that special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner, extra expense, which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, nor any factor resulting from the action ofthe owner or any past owner of the same property. The Examiner believes the applicant did not intentionally try to break any laws, and it is unfortunate that the carport has already been constructed. However, the Examiner believes he should review the application as ifthe carport did not exist. In this case (as discussed above), the Examiner believes the application does not meet the special circumstance test. (2) Sppcial Privilege: The applicant has provided a variance approval and photographs of other properties in the area that currently enjoy garages and other such structures closer to the property lines than currently allowed by code. Therefore, the approval ofthe variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. (3) CoMprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The approval ofthe setback variance is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The variances would have to be approved for the carport to be in compliance with the zoning ordinance. (4) Not Detrimental: The applicant has brought up the issue ofscreening as one that makes the use less detrimental. As the points out, the carport is well screened from the 84'h Avenue W. The use is relatively well screened from the property to the south because ofthat property owner's hedge and the low height ofthe house. lb Rotating the carport so that it moved fin-ther east, towards 84 Avenue W. (as suggested by staff), would bring it more into the southern neighbor's view (since their arborvitae are primarily in their rear yard), and probably make it more objectionable. The carport is not particularly well screened from the neighbor to the west. That home is a two-story home, so the shrubs, hedge and low trees do not serve to screen the carport. However, as noted by the applicant at the hearing those neighbors recently reduced the height ofthe hedge. The proposal should not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity ifit is well screened. (5) Minimum Variance: The variance request seems primarily motivated by the fact that the carport has already been built, and not driven by how to make the constraints ofthe site and the needs ofthe owner meet the requirements ofthe Edmonds Community Development Code. By breaking down the mass ofthe building (reducing the carport to 30-feet wide - so that the total square footage does not exceed 600 square feet), it could be allowed within the rear setback as proposed, and be reduced in width to meet the side setback, without having to sacrifice safety in maneuvering the vehicles into it. Since the site already has a two car garage, it is hard to argue that the owners now need a 40-foot wide carport, instead ofa 30-foot wide carport to enjoy the same rights as owners of other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Ifthe applicant were to Z 0 C in in 0 80 1, C in in Z jo -i C 2 0 -n n in in 0 o Fn C 0) C (1) in 0 X Z _q Z 0 4 0 in Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-05-88 Page 10 disassemble and reassemble the reduced width carport to meet the zoning requirements he will still have approximately 1,000 square feet of carport/garage space (not including additional storage space he may construct for his lawn equipment). It is difficult to see how more than that is the minimum needed. Therefore, the minimum variance appears to be no setback variance. c) Conclusions Regarding Heigbt Variance: (1) Spgcial Circumstances: The applicant notes that his camper is 12 feet tall, and when it comes down the moderate slope to the rear of the property it increases its height to over 12 feet. The camper as seen at the site was not a particularly tall camper, and appeared to be considerably shorter than many recreational vehicles. The applicant chose to have engineered trusses, which appear to have a very moderate pitch. The moderate slope ofthe site accounts for the one -foot raise in the roof This lot has special circumstances in the slight slope ofthe property that could make it difficult to gain access to the carport without a variance. (2) SNcial Privilege: The adjacent neighbor to the west also has an accessory building that is over 15 feet in height', so the grant ofthe variance would not be a grant of special privilege. (3) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance:. The approval ofthe height variance is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan if adequately screened. Ifthe variance was approved, the carport would be in compliance with the zoning ordinance. (4) Not Detrimental: The height variance is primarily only detrimental if it is not screened. The screening recommended above will help to screen the added height ofthe structure. As conditioned, the 16.5 foot carport should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone. (5) Minimum Varian : The applicant has described how the height oftheir carport is the minimum to allow them to be able to park their camper underneath the carport. The City does not guarantee that all recreational vehicles will be allowed to have carports ofadequate height, but this minor variance is the minimum variance that will allow for the parking ofthe owner's vehicles, and is lower than the height of the garage on the adjacent property to the west. E. TECIRNICAL COMMITTEE 1. Review by City Departments a) EaSk The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire Department, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, and the Parks and Recreation Department. No comments were received. b) Conclusion: As shown, the proposal appears to meet the requirements ofthe above City departments. Z 9 0 M 4"fl 0 m C M 0 0 0 C: —4 K X M M Z Z 0 -n m M 0 o) 0 C cl) C 0) To Z Z 9 0 m E , Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-05-88 Page I I F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) 1. Comprehensive Plan Designation a) Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family — Urban 3." b) Conclusion: Single-family residential development and accessory uses are consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. 2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies a) EjgjU The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies, which relate to this proposal. Specific goals and policies are discussed below. neighborhoods from (1) Residential Development Policy B.2. states, "Protect incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures in the area." b) Conclusion The Spartan lines ofthe carport do not harmonize particularly well with the existing structures in the neighborhood, and screening of them are important. Retaining ofthe trees that screen them from the street is important. Also, providing screening to the neighbors will help protect the neighborhood. DECISION: Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions: The requested rear setback variance is denied. The requested side setback variance is denied The carport shall be reduced in size to meet the setback requirements within ninety (90) days following the date ofthis decision. As noted above, the reduced size carport can be relocated and another smaller carport or shed can be constructed on the north side ofthe property or behind the garage so long as they meet all of the requirements of the RS- 10 zone, except for height as is noted below. The requested height variance of 16.5 feet for the carport on the south side ofthe house is approved subject to the following conditions. I . This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility ofthe applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 2. The applicant must obtain a building permit for the carport and revisions. 3. The applicant must comply with all the terms of any future permits. 4. The permit is transferable. Z X in ma 0 0 M in Z C: -2 0 -n in M 0 0 C C o) in 0 Z --i Z 0 0 M Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-05-88 Page 12 Entered this 15th day of September 2005 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 ofthe Community Development Code ofthe City ofEdmonds. Ron McConnell, FAlICP Hearing Examiner M RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL: The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration and appeal. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. ]REQUEST FOR RECONSIODERATION: Section 20. 1 00.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation ifa written request is filed within ten (10) working days ofthe date ofthe initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject ofsuch decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. APPEALS: Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name ofthe project and the date of the decision, the name ofthe 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 ofthe decision being appealed. TEWE LIMffS FOR RECONSEDERATION AND APPEAL: The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. Ifa request for reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, ifa reconsideration request is filed on day 5 ofthe appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request. a in C rn 0 80 C in z c: 0 n ;a in in a 0 0 C in C 0) M 0 Z M z --i z 0 in Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-05-88 Page 13 LAPSE OF APPROVAL: Section 20.05.020.0 states'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or ifno building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date ofapproval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension ofthe time before the expiration date.' NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR: z The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner 0 request a change in the valuation ofthe property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. 0 m EXHIBITS: :q "H Vi :0 The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record. 0 in C A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with 5 attachments in 0 C) C B. Letter from Mike Carrithers (undated), with 3 attachments in m C. Letter from C. L. Scobell, dated 8/23/05 z g) � f�, D. Letter from Michael A. Powers, dated 8/31/05 C > E. Setback Adjustment and Subdivision Modification, for Conrad L. Baker, dated 11/29/88 55 -n o -n X F. Photo of Applicant's RV G. Applicant's hearing statement m in a(— I H. Address map 0 o Fn in 0 PARTIES oF RECORD: ;u Mike Carrithers Nancy Rasmussen 19416 80 Ave. W 19500 84h Ave. W z Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Marsha & Jeremy Makin Bryan & Penny Janssen z 19418 8e Ave. W 19420 84h Ave. W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98024 0 in C. L. Scobel Michael A. Powers 1932186' Ave. W 18427 8e Ave. W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds Planning Division Edmonds Building Division ""U 'W&fWlh� 136ildin Offidiffdr e 9 "Of Edmonds 0"qso�s'Are Ordered to WWO s _;)p Qkt, 0 "o, i6� E �011._",� IN 0 m C: "10 "'n"Rf" N5 0 0 pe y C: .. . ... . 7: M m I 1 v 0, �R.�qp 909P �WP rk e are u u) cU`­Gf0SHAjLUN cbn mue�im i a9rPermil sge -n X Or�Wiff9the > _g p 1;��j zr,�q q�", P F m m ffiRi"k, eiif,'fo ik burl 0 rn ira -pesponselp:wri ing F gg'e,9 'W ed cn 0, m m Q�.Qp; -'off" r 'I *e�ma, US m JC 4.- OR TO VE TIM -ELR UEASSO�jtii.r:,, L z 6, d cn ay 0 0 m wx A. g jj�jq N X "T e hA,',Tyffiirp!. nJs nw- I r r'*,�.h gn of:� !§NE e,.� r 'Alie Won' resuming v An 'an imbinsommen -A��N-.*4�E(iiii�)ii'ds;,WA980- ­025)771�022 '12and -4 F: