20060808114345.pdflac. 18911
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPLICANT: Barbara Wyatt (Exhibit A, Attachment 2)
CASE NO.: V-06-18 & V-06-19
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
LOCATION: 17627 Talbot Road (Exhibit A, Attachment 1)
APPLICATION: Two separate variance requests in order to add a second story
addition to an existing accessory structure located in the RS -20
zone. Variance file number V-2006-19 is to allow a building in
excess of 600 square feet within 5 feet of the (east) rear property
line. Variance file number V-2006-18 is to increase the maximum
height of an accessory structure from 1.5 feet to 18.75 feet (Exhibit
A, Attachments 3, 4, and 5)
REVIEW PROCESS: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts a public hearing and makes
the 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 AND DECISION:
Staff Recommendation: Deny both variances
Hearing Examiner Decision: Deny the setback variance
Approve the height variance, with conditions
' Incorporated August I1, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-06-18 & V-06-19
Page 2
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 3:05 pm. April 20, 2005, in the City Council
Chambers, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 3:47 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.
HEARING COMMENTS:
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.
From the City:
Gina Coccia, Project Planner, entered the staff advisory report into the record (Exhibit A) and
noted that no new information had been submitted following preparation of the staff advisory
report.
From the Alicant:
John Bissell, Agent for the Applicant, said:
• Special circumstances exist on this site in that much of the site has 20 to 25% slopes.
• The Comprehensive Plan and the Environmental Regulations indicate grading should be
avoided on slopes greater than 15%.
The driveway -on the property meanders to accommodate the slope, which leaves only the
front yard as an alternative space on the property for additional development. If the
proposed studio were to be constructed in front of the applicant's house, it would be very
visible from both the applicant's house, and the neighbor's house to the south, as well as
from Talbot Road. If the studio were to be constructed in the proposed location it would
not be readily visible.
• The proposal complies with the provisions of the comprehensive plan. If the studio were
to be constructed in front of the applicant's house, the studio would not be in harmony
with the surrounding area and would not comply with several sections of the provisions
of the Comprehensive Plan.
• Staff has not given a reason why the proposal would grant a special privilege. If the
proposal meets all of the other criteria, it would not result in a special privilege. In this
case, the proposal meets all of the criteria for approval.
• The proposal is the minimum variance needed because it allows the land owner to enjoy
the space of an accessory structure, as is allowed by other property owners in the vicinity
and zoning, without needing to create a new building footprint elsewhere on the property.
• The total height of the proposed building is to be only 18.75 feet as opposed to 20 — 25
feet as is typical of most two-story buildings.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-06-18 & V-06-19
Page 3
From the Community:
No one from the general public attended the public hearing.
Response from Staff:
Steve Bullock, Senior Planner, said
• He concurred with Mr. Bissell's argument regarding special privilege and said if all other
criteria were met, then no special privilege would be granted.
• If the proposed studio addition were connected to the house by a covered walkway, then
it would not be considered to be an accessory structure and would be allowed to exceed
the requested 18.75feet in height. Then no height variance would be needed.
BACKGROUND:
The applicants would like to build a second -story addition to their existing single -story detached
garage that they would use as an art studio. The existing garage, constructed in 1979 on their
half -an -acre lot, has been permitted to be set -back 5 feet from the rear property line because it is
less than 600 square feet in area. A new addition would cantilever a portion of the second story
over the original footprint, which would increase the area to approximately 621 square feet. Any
detached strucure over 600 square feet in area needs to meet the minimum rear yard setback,
which is 25 feet in the RS -20 zone. In addition to the setback issue, the applicant would also like
to exceed the 15 foot maximum height limit required for acessory structures and construct the
addition at 18.75 feet in height. The rear setback variance would allow their proposed addition
to remain where the garage is currently sited on the lot at 5 feet from the rear property line. The
height variance would allow their proposed addition to exceed the 15 foot height limit. The
following is the Edmonds Planning Division's analysis and recommendation of the applicant's
submittal.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. INTRODUCTION
1. History:
a. Facts:
(1) There is an existing single -story detached garage that is approximately 600 square
feet in area (Exhibit A, Attachment 7) and is sited 5 feet from the rear lot line,
which is adjacent to a park.
(2) ECDC 16.20.050.0 states "The normally required rear setback may be reduced to
a minimum of five feet for accessory buildings covering less than 600 square feet
of the site."
(3) The minimum rear yard setback in the RS -20 zone is 25 feet.
The existing detached garage is a single story and is under the required 15 foot height
limit (Exhibit A, Attachment 6).
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-06-18 & V606-19
Page 4
(4) ECDC 16.20.0503, regarding accessory buildings, states, "Height shall be
limited to 15 feet, except for amateur radio transmitting antennas and their
supporting structures."
(5) The applicant has applied for a rear yard setback variance to allow a second story
to be added to the building, while allowing the building to remain in its current
location (Exhibit A, Attachment 6).
(6) The applicant has applied for a height variance to allow the building to exceed the
maximum 15 -foot height limit.
(7) The City's Annexation Map indicates the site was annexed into the City of
Edmonds on August 23, 1961.
(8) The City of Edmonds building permit (1979-0338) indicates that the existing
single-family residence and existing detached garage were both constructed in
1979, after annexation (Exhibit A, Attachment 10).
(9) There is a roof structure labeled "covered storage" on the Topographic Survey
(Exhibit A, Attachment 7). This structure extends beyond the property line. This
does not meet the minimum setback requirements and it does not have an
approved building permit.
B. STYE DESCRIPTION
1. Site Development and Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Size and Access: The subject property is approximately .51 acres (approximately
22;215 square feet in area). The minimum lot size in the RS -20 zone is 20,000
square feet. The site gains access through Talbot Road.
(2) Land Use: The site is developed with a single-family home, a gated pool, and a
detached 2 -car garage (Exhibit A, Attachment 7).
(3) Zoe: The subject property is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS -20)
(Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
(4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject site fronts on Talbot Road and the house is
set back approximately 120 feet from the street. There is a gated pool in the front
yard that is set back approximately 73 feet from the street. The driveway runs
along the north portion of the site and leads to a two car detached garage that is in
the back of the site. Because the site slopes down from east to west, and because
of the size of the house, the existing single -story garage cannot be seen from
Talbot Road. There are mature trees on/adjacent to the property, and the property
shares its eastern border with the South Snohomish County Park.
2. Neighboring Development and Zoning:
a) Fact:
(1) The properties to the north, south, and west are zoned Single -Family Residential
(RS -20) and are developed with single-family residences. The property to the
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-06-18 & V-06-19
Page 5
east is zoned Public Use (P) and is the South Snohomish County Park (Exhibit A.
Attachment 4
C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)
L 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: The application complies with the requirements of the State Environmental
Policy Act. The following sections determine how the proposal meets the requirements
of City 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 -1999-0057) and it was
determined to be a "waiver" (exempt from critical areas study requirements).
b) Conclusion: The proposal complies with the requirements of the
Environmentally Critical Areas Chapter.
2. Compliance with (RS -20) Zoning Standards
a) Facts:
(1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential
development in the Single -Family Residential zone (RS -20) are set forth in
Chapter 16.20.030.
(2) The maximum height for detached accessory structures is 15 feet, pursuant to
Chapter 16.20.050.B. The proposed height is 18.75 feet, which exceeds the
height limit.
(3) There is an existing covered shed -roofed structure that protrudes from the garage
and crosses the eastern property line, which shows up on the survey (Exhibit A,
Attachment 7). This is not a permitted addition to the garage and does not meet
setbacks. This structure is not shown on the elevation views or on the site plan
(Exhibit A, Attachment 6).
(4) The following table illustrates the required setbacks for the RS -20 zone, the
existing setbacks to the detached garage, and the proposed setbacks to construct
the new, cantilevered addition that would increase the area to exceed the 600
square feet threshold. The existing structures on the lot meet setbacks — this table
illustrates the change in setbacks for the garage if it were to develop as proposed.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-06-18 & V-06-19
Page 6
(5) All existing structures on site meet the minimum setback requirements for the RS -
20 zone except the shed -roof projection on the east side of the garage.
(6) The east (rear) setback to the proposed addition would not change and would
remain at 5 feet from the property line. Because the proposed addition would
make the existing building exceed the 600 square feet in area threshold to be able
to locate as close as 5 feet from the rear property line, the applicant is requesting
relief from this requirement.
(7) The north (side) setback to the proposed addition would change from
.approximately 48 feet to approximately 45 feet from the north property line
because of the proposed cantilevered addition. This would still meet the
minimum setback requirement.
(8) The south (side) setback to the proposed addition would decrease, with the
construction of the stairs, but would still meet the minimum setbacks under
today's zoning requirements. The approved building permit in 1979 required a
minimum of 17.5 feet from the side property line, however the current code
requires the building to remain at a minimum 10 feet from the side property line
(and the total combined side setbacks would need to be at least 35 feet).
(9) The west (street) setback to the proposed addition would not change and would
remain approximately 175 feet from the west street property line. This would still
meet the minimum setback requirement.
(10) Art studios are a permitted secondary use in any residential zone. The proposed
use of the second floor of the garage is an art studio as shown on the floor plan
(Exhibit A, Attachment 9) and as detailed in the declarations (Exhibit A,
Attachments 3, 4, and 5).
(11) Accessory Dwelling Unit permits and Guest House permits are approvals
required if a property owner wishes to have these uses on the property. The
applicant has not applied for an Accessory Dwelling Unit permit or a Guest
House permit and has expressed that they do not intend on using the building for
these uses (Exhibit A, Attachment 5).
1 "35110" means 35 feet combined with a minimum of 10 feet on each side.
2 Pursuant to ECDC 16.20.050.C, accessory structures are permitted to be located as close as 5 feet from the rear
property line, provided they remain under 600 square feet in area.
EAST
S�VI�1-i
WEST
Garage Setbacks
(Rear)
(Side Setbacks
(Street)
Required Setbacks
25 feet
35/10
35/10
25 feet
feet
feet
Existing Setbacks
5 feet 2
— 48 feet
17.5 feet
—175 feet
Proposed Setbacks
5 feet
— 45 feet
15 feet
—175 feet
(5) All existing structures on site meet the minimum setback requirements for the RS -
20 zone except the shed -roof projection on the east side of the garage.
(6) The east (rear) setback to the proposed addition would not change and would
remain at 5 feet from the property line. Because the proposed addition would
make the existing building exceed the 600 square feet in area threshold to be able
to locate as close as 5 feet from the rear property line, the applicant is requesting
relief from this requirement.
(7) The north (side) setback to the proposed addition would change from
.approximately 48 feet to approximately 45 feet from the north property line
because of the proposed cantilevered addition. This would still meet the
minimum setback requirement.
(8) The south (side) setback to the proposed addition would decrease, with the
construction of the stairs, but would still meet the minimum setbacks under
today's zoning requirements. The approved building permit in 1979 required a
minimum of 17.5 feet from the side property line, however the current code
requires the building to remain at a minimum 10 feet from the side property line
(and the total combined side setbacks would need to be at least 35 feet).
(9) The west (street) setback to the proposed addition would not change and would
remain approximately 175 feet from the west street property line. This would still
meet the minimum setback requirement.
(10) Art studios are a permitted secondary use in any residential zone. The proposed
use of the second floor of the garage is an art studio as shown on the floor plan
(Exhibit A, Attachment 9) and as detailed in the declarations (Exhibit A,
Attachments 3, 4, and 5).
(11) Accessory Dwelling Unit permits and Guest House permits are approvals
required if a property owner wishes to have these uses on the property. The
applicant has not applied for an Accessory Dwelling Unit permit or a Guest
House permit and has expressed that they do not intend on using the building for
these uses (Exhibit A, Attachment 5).
1 "35110" means 35 feet combined with a minimum of 10 feet on each side.
2 Pursuant to ECDC 16.20.050.C, accessory structures are permitted to be located as close as 5 feet from the rear
property line, provided they remain under 600 square feet in area.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-06-18 & V-06-19
Page 7
b) Conclusions:
(1) The existing house and garage have been legally constructed and have met the
setback requirements at the time of building permit issuance in 1979 (Exhibit A,
Attachment 10).
(2) This proposal requires an approved variance to allow a structure greater than 600
square feet to encroach into the rear setback before it complies with the
requirements of the RS -20 zoning standards.
(3) This proposal requires an approved variance to exceed the height limit before it
complies with the requirements of the zoning standards.
(4) The proposed Art Studio use is consistent with the zoning code. The floor plan
labels the second floor of the garage "Studio," and in order to clarify that the use
is not an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADH the label should be changed to "Art
Studio."
(5) In order to clarify that the proposed new addition is not to be used as a dwelling
unit, the applicant should record a "Statement on Accessory Dwelling Units" at
the County. This would ensure that the proposed use is consistent with the zoning
code.
(6) The attached shed roof on the east side of the garage is not a legal structure and
should be removed. This should be a condition of approval or if denied, it should
be forwarded to the Code Enforcement Officer..
3. Compliance with Requirements for a Variance
a) Facts:
(1) Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the
Code may be varied on a case-by-case basis if the application of the provision
would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship. The criteria 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, nor 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.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-06-18 & V-06-19
Page 8
(c) Comprehensive Plan and Zgmn 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 submitted declarations with the submittal that address the
decision criteria (Exhibit A, Attachments 3, 4, and 5, and Exhibit F). The
applicant has also submitted an aerial photo of the site and the surrounding
properties, with a view analysis that depicts the views in the vicinity (Exhibit A,
Attachment 8). The applicant also submitted five photos of the site and
surrounding area, which show existing views in the area (Exhibit E).
(3) The applicant is requesting two variances. The height variance is to allow the
addition to exceed the 15 -foot height limit. The rear setback variance is to allow
an addition to the existing detached garage which would make the footprint of the
garage larger than 600 sq. ft. to still be sited where it currently is placed on the lot,
which is 5 feet from the rear property line (Exhibit A, Attachment 6).
(4) The Examiner agrees with the declarations of the applicant in regards to
compliance with the variance criteria regarding the height variance and agrees
with most of (but not all) of the declarations of the applicant regarding the setback
variance. Those issues will be discussed in the following sections of this report.
(5) The site has a fairly consistent slope of 20-25% across the entire site (Exhibit A,
Attachment 11). The City's Comprehensive Plan indicates that sites with slope in
excess of 15% should be addressed with care (see Section E of this report).
(6) There is mature vegetation on the west side of the existing house including
several Evergreen trees in excess of 50 feet tall (Exhibit A, Attachment 11). The
City's Comprehensive Plan states a desire to retain existing large, mature
vegetation, see Section E of this report.
(7) The eastern property line is adjacent to the South Snohomish County Park, which
means that the property is only adjacent to residential properties to the north and
to the south (and also across Talbot Road to the west).
(8) The detached garage is located on the east side of the property adjacent to the
park.
(9) The existing detached garage was legally established on the property (Exhibit A,
Attachment 10)
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-06-18 & V-06-19
Page 9
(10) There have been approved setback and height variances for some properties
addressed off Talbot Road, but the height variances appear to be for single-family
homes, not for accessory buildings.
(11) The existing garage will remain in the same location. The garage will meet all
other setbacks, except from the one that it is requesting relief.
(12) The location of the accessory structure is tucked back away from the street and is
sited behind the existing home. There is no residential neighbor to the rear of the
property, because it is a park.
(13) The proposed addition is to be made to an existing garage that is not visible from
the west (street) as it is behind the existing two-story house, or from the north due
to the topography and vegetation, and to the east due to the existing forested park.
The proposed second -story addition would still not be visible from any of these
directions.
(14) A heavily forested park borders the property to the east. This park is steep and
abundant with evergreen and deciduous trees. The park is large and the nearest
house located to the east is over a half -mile in distance through the dense forest
and over 150 higher in elevation (Exhibit A, Attachment 8).
(15) The use of a pitched roof would reduce the bulk of the overall building. The
impact is further reduced by the fact that the existing garage (to be the first floor
on the completed building) is constructed into the hillside. The total height of the
proposed building is to be only 18.75 feet as apposed to 20-25 feet as is typical of
most two-story buildings.
(16) It appears that the only place from which the second story addition would be
visible, would be from the property directly to the south. Because the garage is
located in the back of the property adjacent to the park, no views would be
blocked (Exhibit A, Attachment 8).
(17) The south elevation (Exhibit A, Attachment 6) of the proposed second floor
addition shows that the building would appear to be a one-story building from the
south property line in height, because the topography slopes up at the southeast
corner of the lot.
(18) The elevations depict a proposal for a pitched roof (Exhibit A, Attachment 6)
(19) The elevations and floor plan show shorter walls (about 4 -feet high) on one side
of the second story addition with a vaulted ceiling throughout the entire second
floor. Because the western exterior wall is only four feet tall the area adjacent to
that wall will only be suitable for storage (Exhibit A, Attachments 6 and 9).
The eastern wall of the second floor of the garage is shown at a height of 8 -feet
with the vaulted ceiling rising from that point.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-06-18 & V-06-19
Page 10
(21) The ECDC code section that limits the height of accessory buildings to 15 -feet
typically results in one-story buildings. Only in the case of extreme topography
change could a two-story building be constructed under the 15 -foot limit.
(22) There is at least one other place (in. front of the subject house) that a one story
accessory building could be placed on the property that would comply with
setbacks and height limits for accessory buildings. If constructed in front of the
subject house, the accessory building would be more visible than if it were to be
constructed in the proposed location, however, the accessory building could then
be constructed without the need for a variance.
b) Conclusions Regarding Setback Variance (V-2006-19):
(1) Special Circumstances: Because of the large size of the lot, its location next to
the park, and the topography onsite, the Examiner has concluded that Special
Circumstances exist on the site that justify the consideration of a setback variance.
(2) Special Privilege: Because accessory buildings that exceed 600 square feet in
area are required to comply with the 25' rear setback, the Examiner believes that
approval of the proposed setback variance to be a grant of special privilege.
Furthermore, as noted under section D.3.b)(5) below, the Examiner has concluded
the request does not comply with the minimum variance criterion and therefore, to
say that the special privilege criterion is met would not even be consistent with
the arguments offered by the applicant's agent on this issue.
(3) Comprehensive Plan and ZggLnZ Ordinance: Based on the facts identified above
and in section E.2 of this report, it appears that the approval of the setback
variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The variances would
have to be approved for the proposed addition to comply with the zoning
ordinance, as shown in section D.2 of this report.
(4) Not Detrimental: Because the proposed setback variance will not create any new
impacts on views or privacy, the Examiner has concluded that the proposed
setback variance will not be detrimental.
(5) Minimum Variance: Because there are places on the site that could accommodate
an accessory building of the size that the applicant is proposing, 621 sq. ft.,
without needing a variance, and more importantly, because no substantive
information was submitted to show the proposed studio would not be functional if
the cantilevered area were not added, the Examiner has concluded that the setback
variance proposal is not the minimum necessary.
Adding a second story with no additions beyond the existing 600 sq. ft. garage
would not require a variance and the second story addition would comply with the
setback requirements of the City.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-06-18 & V-06-19
Page 11
c) Conclusions Rejzardiu Height Variance (V-2006-18):
(1) Special Circumstances: Because of the large size of the lot, its location next to
the park, and the topography onsite, the Examiner has concluded that Special
Circumstances exist on the site that justify consideration of a height variance.
(2) Special Privilege: As noted by staff in response to a question asked by the
Examiner at the hearing, there would be no need for a height variance in this case
if the applicant were to connect the garage/studio to the house by way of a
covered walkway. The garage/studio would then be connected to the existing
house'and would be considered to be an extension of or part of the house
structure. Given that response (which the Examiner concurs with), it is believed
no special privilege would be granted if the applicant were to build the proposed
second story, minus the covered walkway. The end result relative to height would
be the same as far as the new addition is concerned. The only difference would
be the technical issue of the connection to the house.
(3) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: Based on the facts identified above
and in section E.2 of this report, it appears that the approval of the height variance
is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The variances would have to be
approved for the proposed addition to comply with the zoning ordinance, as
shown in section D.2 of this report.
(4) Not Detrimental: Because the proposed height variance will not create any new
impacts on views or privacy, the Examiner has concluded that the proposed
variance will not be detrimental.
(5) Minimum Variance: The proposed plans indicate that the studio space will have a
vaulted ceiling with a total exterior height of 18.75 feet. As noted previously in
this report, the request is for a height considerably below the 25 -foot height limit
that would be allowed if the applicant were to connect the subject structure to the
existing house via a covered walkway. The vaulted ceiling results in a pitched
roof, which is consistent with the architecture of the applicant's house and the
house immediately to the south. The Examiner believes the request is reasonable
and that the minimum variance criterion has been met.
Also, by allowing an addition on top of the. existing garage, less of the site will be
covered by imperious surface.
E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC)
1. Comprehensive Plan Designation
a) Fact: The subject property is designated "Single Family —Resource."
b) Conclusion: Single-family residential development is consistent with the existing
Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-05-18 & V-05-19
Page 12
2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
a) Facts:
(1) The Comprehensive Plan Residential Development section identifies goals and
policies that relate to this proposal. Specific goals and policies are discussed
below. Specifically, Goal B states "High quality residential development which
is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained
and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of
housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic
and aesthetic considerations, in accordance with the following policies: "
B.2. Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings
that do not harmonize with existing structures in the area.
B.3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or
additions to existing structures.
B.4. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds
whenever it is economically feasible. '
B.5.c Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use
encroachments
(7)The proposal has been designed with a pitched roof (instead of a flat roof) in an
attempt to harmonize with the surrounding neighborhood (Exhibit A, Attachment
d).
(8) The proposal is to construct a new addition ("art studio") to a modest -sized
existing detached garage.
(9) The proposal does not appear to block any views (Exhibit A, Attachment 8).
(10) The proposal is to retain an existing accessory building.
(11) The Comprehensive Plan Soils and Topography section identifies goals and
policies that relate to this proposal. Specific goals and policies are discussed
below. Specifically, Goal C states "Development on steep slopes or hazardous
soil conditions should preserve the natural features of the site, in accordance with
the following policies: "
C.I.c. Only minimal amounts of cut and fill on hillsides exceeding a 15% slope
should be permitted so that the natural topography can be preserved Fill
shall not be used to create a yard on a steeply sloped property.
C. 2. aBuildings on slopes of 15% or greater shall be designed to cause minimum
disruption to the natural topography.
C.3. bNatural vegetation should be preserved wherever possible to reduce erosion
and stabilize slopes, particularly on the downhill property line.
(12) The proposal is to make use of the existing structure and not create an entirely
new structure. The proposal does not require any grading.
Hearing Examiner Decision.
Case No. V-06-18 & V-06-19
Page 13
(13) The property is on a slope (Exhibit A, Attachment 7).
(14) The proposal should not disrupt any natural vegetation because the project will
make use of the existing structure instead of adding a new structure somewhere
else on the property.
(15) The Comprehensive Plan Vegetation and Wildlife section identifies goals and
policies that relate to this proposal. Specific goals and policies are discussed
below. Specifically, Goal B states "The city should ensure that its woodlands,
marshes and other areas containing natural vegetation should be preserved, in
accordance with the following pol icier: "
B.2. The removal of trees should be minimized' particularly when they are
located on steep slopes or hazardous soils. Subdivision layouts, buildings
and roads should be designed so that existing trees are preserved.
(16) This project will preserve existing trees.
b) Conclusion:
(1) Because the current proposal is to add a second floor to an existing building
instead of building an entirely new building with all of the associated clearing and
grading, the proposed project complies with the identified goals and policies of
the Comprehensive Plan.
F. CORRESPONDENCE
1. The City received no comment letters from neighbors.
G. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
1. Review by City Departments
a) Fact: 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 of the above
City departments.
DECISION:
Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions:
• The rear setback variance (V-2006-19) as depicted in the Attachments 6 and 9 to Exhibit A is
DENIED (the cantilevered addition is not allowed); and
• The height variance (V-2006-18) as depicted in the north and south elevations of Attachment
6 to Exhibit A (with the exception of the proposed cantilevered addition) is APPROVED,
subject to 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.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-06-18 & V-06-19
Page 14
2. The attached shed roof on the east side of the garage should be removed. If denied, this
matter should be forwarded to the Code Enforcement Officer.
3. The applicant must record a "Statement on Accessory Dwelling Units" with the County.
4. The applicant must label the second floor an "Art Studio' on the floor plan.
5. The applicant must remove the attached roof structure labeled "covered storage" as
shown on the Topographic Survey (Exhibit A, Attachment 7).
6. The applicant must obtain a building permit for the proposed addition.
7. The applicant must comply with all the terms of any future permits.
S. The permit is transferable.
Entered this 27h day of April 2005 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
under Chapter 20,100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
Ron McConnell, FAkP
Hearing Examiner
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 RECONSIDERATION:
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the
initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance
register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of
land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request
must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances
governing the type of application being reviewed.
APPEALS:
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
decision being appealed along with the name of the project. 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
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-06-18 & V-06-19
Page 15
the. Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the
decision being appealed.
TIME LEWES FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL:
The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a 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, if a
reconsideration request is filed on day 5 of the 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.
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.'
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.
The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record.
A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with 11 attachments
B. Excerpts from the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
C. Aerial photo of the subject site and thesurrounding area
D. Photo of the front yard of the subject property
E. Five photos of the surrounding area
F. Applicant's responses to special privilege and minimum necessary criteria
G. Snohomish County Assessor's information on the subject property
H. Snohomish County Assessor's information on two nearby properties
I. Aerial photo showing with arrow identifying the subject site
PARTIES of RECORD:
Peter Knowles & Barbara Wyatt
17627 Talbot Road
Edmonds WA 98026
Darla Reese & John Bissell
Higa Burkholder Associates, LLC
1721 Hewitt Avenue, Suite 401
Everett WA 98201
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-06-18 & V-06-19
Page 16
Fire Department
Public Works Department
Parks & Recreation Department
Planning Division
Engineering Division