The URL can be used to link to this page

204 SUNSET AVE.pdf�-- j EXHIBIT 2 FILEY.4 DATE 2- 1�1/ CITY OF EDMONDS FEE.. � IZ6(50 HEARING EXAMINER REC' k APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE APO'S HEARING DATE: APPLICANT 41/l/C/In /'�7 J(1LV ADDRESS_-:�&Z CITY & ZIP _Z PHO' NE_ #?7 INDICATE TYPE OR DEGREE OF INTEREST IN PROPERTY LOCATION OR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY L)tl q S,�/41J,:-T AV5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY L)T /I &Ztx- - // /*' & e,,- " --,,I " - L,,j T (� PIA —IC IAC-1-�.)6 V��C VARIANCE REQUESTED: RF1110ile A1a1V-N)1VFVjzJ0,11A1& AJiL,,AL1 f/j"t,yl IL-21� -J'*;'V1:-,F---1- FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: USE ZONE: ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: 20' Release/Hold Harmless Agreement The undersigned applicant, his heirs and assigns, in consideration for the City processing the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages and/or claims for damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from any action or inaction is based in whole or in part upon false, misleading or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his agents or employees. Permission to Enter Subject Property The undersigned applicant grants his, her or 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 attenda t t this application. )I at u-, Sianature o��/p plj5�tnt, Owner or Representative t Staff Report V-5-87 Page 3 Staff does not oppose the approval of V-5-87. Should the Hearing Examiner grant the variance, it should be subject to the following conditions: 1. The height of the roof on the addition should be no higher than the existing house and garage. 2. The addition should be designed to match the existing residence. 3. Approval of the variance shall be only for the design submitted with the variance application. 4. obtain Building Permits for all work done on the site. q. k 1 KA LA 5. DECLARATIONS OF APPLICANT Please answer all questions What are the physical characteristics, (i.e. topography, shape of lot, etc.) which create a hardship for you in regard to development of your property? How does your property differ from other property in the same vininitv? will tnis variance L)e UCLI�U'1111�� '- -..- r ----- - other property or improvements in the vicinity? L ZL,�-e, L h, What hardships will result to you if the variance is not granted? Will these hardships have been caused by your own action9 mmira �Pncznn;;'hle use of vour property wirnouL LLIC v-`-"--' r el %�� *ALO JeA? W f d 1 4 I �t EXHIBIT 3 &�N Fp,i?bC-'[D 4: p 1� �jli 9 G,:7 �)Ol 0' (=o o 0 Go .4 Cl 4'. e, Q. cti J-1 e�b-4 50 4- Ic;)'71, ;2 5) 1 r 17 tl�l I" � r t -r� Fr-1 li it I C.4 i I LW,!!J Mq MIN jp� �,j V CINITY.-MAP00) E X H I B I T 5 OCZ -5--.87 6 /0 60 10 N 0 6 6 C) I 4�d C-� - - -*. /.q---� 10 \V ) -r. L-0-r -47.50 Ac. cv V* 1-059 0 -f .0-9 0 P I T I E C 13o . .1 .1 1 ZV... ONO.. 4-0 ma 51 51 6 08!) 4-067 to 4.08, 1.08 D 0 60 D�YTON 175 z 4 033 oin we. I? I! 3RC clj [ - ST. u AC� UNIT5 Lj LLL 11 222 > w > 4-035 its PLAN OF JASPER CW 4-031- Ila 127 WTI , Coil In z r.3 76 C! I IVY 156 4-065 -i-I ps ui 1 7 2"D 4-096 4-C > 221 < 114, P14. P32 cl 11 222 v i;4�068 4- 4-1,3 -- F— ,.1,7 114-177 r A. L 970 Rt F in kL I p 6� d aL 0// 00") 060 On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties located within 80 feet of the subject property. (2 -9-i-gnature of ApplicanOr AW i -nt's Representative Subscribed and sworn t�oore me thi ay of 4 IqL- Notary of Washington Residing at 77- 7 777 I d Ln w 4-3 4J C: S. 0 C) -0 , C:) C� to C) CA C) 0 CD LX C) 4(L) C) a (V CVJ (1) o4b.Vm C`VJ1 Cobol mo CNJ C%J (D (1) C%j = C=) :3 C) u: C) 'ell C) C� CD r co Immom. c 00 L) 000 L) 00 (1) CO C: co >) CCO 0 a) >1 a) cn rmbboo aj M v) ai M m4mm) W M 0 C) M a) C) cn J= a) C3) So. > > Soo. > c > 1= > goom... > > a) d< u ct u to loom. czc 4-3 c:t so-mmm 9:4 a) VT V) cc (n ON <C cc 0 CC > S. CC .0 ommV3 4m.) :3: Qj m4mml M 4J :3: ommmob m4mg) 3: mou to Ln oa n: (0 go 3: p I V) a a) co CJ3; a C) to (ii c tm� x (0 C b, C: tn Ln Lou 0 rgggg� 0 Vo 0 C U) L) tA 0 0 L) In I L) =3 C: Ln >1 :3 -0 S. (11-0 S. co ba �z (11 -0 La d) ba mou ma L13 :3 moc Sm. Lot) a 0 Cobb) = 0 c L/I C: Ln r. V) C ri 4mm) 0 0 mma ag) 0 'gmmo 0 > 0 slm. C) E E foomb tD E u Icr u C) immom. E c: Ln ra C) -0 urbommO S- wa vmmV M go CY) ma gomoV . S. C) mou 43J rmmmbo� "0 robb-, LLJ smmmm LLJ >0 CL LLJ Lt. c\j LLJ (mri C%J LLI X: CSJ LLJ CM LLJ C%j LLJ IV .... ... .. .... It ....... ..... ft ....... ........ V. "T ... I ..... mom, ......... .... It ....... ........... 14 ...... . ... . ........ .... .............. t I .............. . .......... uj Lo" �7.-.'.Vggm.� . ..... Amm; *we I ........... :.6 V` Oom&0*44'em .......... p q it b ... 4.6.9.6= o; ...... I .... .. V.v. ...o R ...... go ...... t... .......... VV* . ...... 4 me 1 4�1' d .9 p . . . be . I . . . ........... bbb. m ....... It vir 1%on"Vot'.5.0 ... ... m1km ..... .... ".ou w ............ .. 8.4 - . 11 1..., ; ................... V-ZV ..q ..... .. go. to I .. .... IVA 'Al. .%goV. . IV . .... .... 4 1 go �A- V I' %. I 16 ......... 4.O.Al v . I . I . I . . . . . I . . ........... ..me .... k ........ I mbbm� O.O.%.1-mb. .... ........ A'. . I . g. I.. ........ ....... 14g. . u 4% 1 to ......... mob"big obb I g, w . . ......... ... mg ........ 0... . .... lull ....... ... . ...... 17, 0 ..... I fig." ..... 11 ....... . .. .......... IV-.m@.mm-VV.m; ..... ;F ......... I ...... ......... Vj1 .0.1- k I V0.7m. . % Orr NIX tt "o 64, 1 ........... Vmb:� .... ... In.. mmgm I# A ............. P: GV*m*V%'VO.'.'Vt r **be . 44 ...... m.-q. I kL go low. 1. "go" goo' .1.1 ... Im ..... .... go ..... . ... . Zm`44* im, I J. mg�, ......... W, ............. Pj�mbwf Z .6 go .% ..... ohm Yom., ...... M ... :4 1 �::A. I ..... F Jto I m, .,-,/ .,..% ...... .... I..j -11 1.4 .. .... ....... 0 ...... & lb-136, Ob, . .., ... I ..... .......... I :.V.7.7 6.6 .16.k oV, ............. mm, ............ t ........ .......... nV. .......... 11 ........ fj .... ; . ........ to Is ... Am., .1 ...... I log . q1- N.M. ... f ... .... X ... . ... .... . d ... Imm ... .... ......... I:, 1:oVY 1 Vt . - .1 1.., . . '.4.4 L,W..Vp .... Ill. . ..... .... . " ...b ..... 0 T.* ....... ..... ty 4se".": .-09� ...... m*-t I .... ... I ... ...... I .. . ... . . a to Aa:. mom RXV * .. . I ............ 4 . p Vt ...... ......... ; . .. , 6 16v W, I-. ob. em'. go. 11 . .......... I ............... IV., .... 11 momot . I .......... ............... ...... . . "I'll' I me . ..... ....... VV.- at ...... two of V, I I/ ........ ''.6 1.64 1... 0 .......... m N %I. Vio low If 01 . 7g, I ..... I ......... T.*gV..%6. oot 16.04t.4.9.04; 1. 011.0 ..... ... ....... I I` ..I) d v .... . ..... ..... .. ..... 6: .0 .... ..... I I ...... It., .... ow -MI, I't ....... . m It.. 1 -.6 .... V AX %mg., .1..X mot ... I .... ... VA.. - e.."'I .............. I .. I ... % b". t ...... .. IV .... ........ 4 .1.4. me ... 95 1 . I W141 ... It ...... I .'..ols V. 11b... I b ... 'Vt 11. mg p ...... . I .... I ....... my ... .. ..... W., ...... . ..... I ....... I ....... IV .. .... .1 . ..... I., ........ I.. r.g. R.t.- ..* ...... ... ... a..0 NIF I.ot by .... v b,X ........ m.b.)".. ( ....... . ......... I I .... 11�c ....... .. .... .. .... % . . .......... my h .... ..... ............ g, it "I m ..... be IV ........ ..... 40 1 1 M.f . ......... .......... .1.1 1 ...... I Y. 111 .............. .. ..... to. I.. I mg 4 11 00 ... .., t V. .11%.Wboi, . �4%.% VI.Im "o- Am. t, ........ VIVO 1 .1. 1 .... ... 6 It %w ....... 4 ..' ET. "w!m 1 01 t. "It ....... I .... 1.4 6 1 0 lip 61 1 .1 ... mob 0 T. ....... I qL .... ... :r.7 ..... ....... 1. q,f,tIVw14. . ..... .%A NO A m m .......... .... I lj.)u **go 647m wl ... 1.11. 1 Im ...... I.. m I ............. 4 .. ..... 011. ".. W.- 9 1, 1 go If. -1 .... ...... pm' ow 0 ff W 6.mI.M.." I I ... .1 ... 1..., .1.1 A q..% Vt * ...* I I , .......... ... g . .......... "s .. IV ..... . ..; ......... m. ............ m im, IL, ............. ............... I .. .......... 11. 1. . ....... . .. ... ... lot ............... mg ....... r-4 .... 10 ....... I gm ............. .... .. ...... . .......... It ........ .. .. .............. I IT. 4 ... .. ..... ..... ............. .. Fm VX. .1.1.. t� .......... .. et L,g I.Y N.. I . 1". rrj ......... ... t '. ............... -mg .......... I .......... I. .............. ....... It P., ......... to 61.1 ...... 1..41 jVjV*,6Vq' . .............. ........ IV. t ; I .... Imoo. ........... I ml mrm,VWmffimgV gVVI, .. . . L 191. . ....... b..mg.. 16 y a ft w XqO1119 14..4 In 111.1 .1 ON16.661 Im. I met A City of Edmonds Gary McComas Fire M. RRESPONDENCE Bobby Mills P.W. Dan-Smith/Jer.ry Hauth - Eng. Duane Bowman DATE 2/4/87 TO FROM SUBJECT V-5-87 VARIANCE TO REDUCE REQUIRED STREET SETBACK ALONG BELL STREET FROM CODE REQUIRED 201 TO 9' FOR RESIDENCE AT 204 SUNSET AVE. (.RS-6) HEARING DATE: MARCH 5, 1987 PLEASE RESPOND WITH YOUR COMMENTS NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY 23, 1987. THANKS. it E C; E D FEB 0 5 1987 EDMONDS FIRE DEJRL V�2aq 6-74:� 6ZI D C) F—agO rZr-- t�A Cr— 4,91,V ',96, City of Edmonds Gary McComas Fire M. NTER-OFFICE CORRESPON .Bobby Mills P.W. C, - Dan Smith/Jerry Hauth Eng:/ TO FROM Duane Bowman DATE 2/4/87 SUBJECT -5-87 V VARIANCE TO REDUCE REQUrRED STREET SETBACK ALONG BELL STREET FROM CODE REQUIRED 20- TO 91 FOR RESIDENCE AT 204 SUNSET AVE. (.RS-6) HEARING DATE: MARCH 5, 1987 PLEASE RESPOND WITH YOUR COMMENTS NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY 23, 1987. THANKS. a CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING F %,Ofvmoo —WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING '19 ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: APROPERTY ADDRESS AND LOCATION— *\/Fw4VI ZONE DISTRICT 4P 0 THE HEARING WILL BEGIN AT I I wAse !F- M., IN THE PLAZA MEETING ROOM, LIBRARY BUILDING, 650 MAIN STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT ON THIS PROPOSAL, YOU MAY COME TO THE HEARING AND SPEAK. YOU MAY ALSO WRITE A LETTER STATING YOUR VIEWS WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING. PLEASE ADDRESS THE LETTER TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND INCLUDE THE ABOVE FILE NUMBER. IF THE ITEM IS CONTINUED TO ANOTHER HEARING BECAUSE THE AGENDA IS NOT COMPLETED, OR FURTHER INFORMATION IS NEEDED,THE DATE OFTHE CONTINUED HEARING WILL BE ANNOUNCED ONLY AT THE MEETING. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 250 FIFTH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS (PHONE 771-3202, EXTENSION 252). THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR CONCEALMENT OF THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE WARNING OF THE HEARING IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT. THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOVED AFTER IAAR44 YcEOR3 "' "&� ��O 7 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) Duane Bowman and says: FILE NO. V-5-87 APPLICANT Marie Jol AFFIDAVIT OF POSTER being first duly sworn, on oath, deposes That on the 23rd day of February , 19 87 'the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted as prescribed by Ordinance, and in any event, in the Frances Anderson Center and Civic Center, and where applicable on or near the subject property. Signed Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19 4 k Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. Residing at Iff C6MMISSION EXPIRES'6.16.89. FILE NO. APPLICANT AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH V-5-87 Marie Jolly Susan Paintpr -being first duly sworn, on oath deposes and says: That on the 23rd day of February 19 87 the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed as required to adjacent property owners, the names of which were provided by the applicant. signed Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19 t� i Notary Public in and for State of Washington. Residing at My COMMISSION EXPIRE' 13 I EXHIBIT 1 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER FILE: V-5-87 HEARING DATE: March 5, 1987 I. REQUESTED ACTION: Variance to reduce the required 201 street setback to 91 along Bell Street to allow an addition onto the existing residence at 204 Bell Street, Edmonds. II. APPLICANT/OWNER: Marie Jolly 204 Sunset Avenue Edmonds, WA 98020 III. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Exhibit 2 IV. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: A. Description of the Subject Property and Surrounding Area The subject property is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Bell Street and Sunset Avenue. The lot contains approximtely 7,200 sq. ft. of area. There is an existing older home located on the property. A detached two car garage is located east of the home, with access off the alley to the east of the property. The Applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the required 201 street setback from Bell Street to allow an addition onto the rear of the existing residence. Surrounding development is entirely single family residential. B. official Street Map Proposed R/W Existing R/W West - Sunset Avenue East - Alley South - Bell Street C. Conformance to Chapter 20.85.010 60' 60' 16' 16' 60' 60' Staff Report V-5-87 1 7 Page 2 a Special Circumstances The existing residence was constructed nine feet from Bell Street. In order to do the addition, a variance is needed. The subject lot is a corner lot. Other than that, no unique circumstances exist. 2. Special Privilege The proposed variance does not appear to represent a grant of special privilege. Other homes in the area have similar setbacks. 3. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Policy Plan map designates the subject property as Low Density Residential, as are the adjacent properties. The proposed variance does not appear to conflict with the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Zoninq ordinance The subject propertyf as well as the surrounding properties to the north and south, is zoned RS-6. To the east is RM zoning zoning. The proposed variance does not appear to conflict with the purposes of the zoning ordinance or the RS-6 zone district. 5. Not Detrimental If conditioned, the proposed variance does not appear to pose any significant impact to the public or to any near by private property or improvement. 6. Minimum Variance The requested variance does not appear to represent a minimum variance request. V. STAFF REcommENDATION: The proposed variance presents a typical case of a home owner of a nonconforming residence attempting to improve his home and being thwarted by the limitation of the amount of improvements as set forth in Chapter 17.40 of the ECDC. The only way to around this is to seek a variance. Unfortunatell y in this particular case, it does not appear that all the variance criteria can be met. 0 IV ED .C=, QE EDMONDS LON SLCYC- q- 6C' Lqns T WC-T 0�-�s AtJb CU0,50 AT?Wu--t> Nw-wa,, 10 CONVY"NWAj WLN -A-tJ Zt-AVCI� OtAtN bjoot�b P-cbromc-00 C,�Clm oo WS�7 N ('r tuouu) U Mc, (Zal ry vi-Afj 'be �Cbotn-, 060( luk, fJLU - fCULL WA - 2 bb t EXHIBIT 10 M E M 0 R A N D U M March 13, 1987 TO: James M. Driscoll Hearing Examiner FROM: Duane V. Bowman Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Response to Exhibit 9 Roof Pitch #V-5-87 I reviewed tile letter from Ron Johnson, representing the Jolly s, regarding the roof pitch on their residence. In Mr. Johnson's letter, he explains that the existing roof pitch has a slope of 3" in 12". He also states that the Uniform Building Code, 1985 edition, allows shake roofs on such a slope with the approval of the Biulding Official. I spoke with Hal Reeves, Building Official, who confirmed the information contained in Mr. Johnson's letter. A 3" in 12" pitched roof may have shakes with the approval of the Building official. Mr. Reeves indicated that he would advise against such a request, but would, with a written request from a property owner, allow to place shakes on such a roof. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please call me at 771-3202, ext. 254. i PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM AND/OR WISH TO RECEIVE A COPY OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OF FACT V-5-87 MARIE JOLLY Variance to reduce the required street setback from 20' to 91 to allow an addition to the residence at 204 Sunset Avenue. NAME ADDRESS A Ly- 711 V, 7�- <: 1, - CITY OF EDMONDS 250 51h AVE. N - EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020 - (206) 771-3202 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS LAR RY S. NAUGHTEN H L u r- I Vigol) CITY OF EDMONDS. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF FILE: V-5-87 MARIE JOLLY FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE: DECISION: The variance is denied. INTRODUCTION Marie Jolly, 204 Sunset Avenue, Edmonds, Washington, 98020, (hereinafter referred to as Applicant) has requested approval of a variance for the reduction of the setback on Bell Street. The requested variance is for a reduction or the required 20-foot street setback to a 9-foot street setback and is sought for the purpose of building an addition to an existing residence on the subject property. A hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner or the City of Edmonds, Washington, on March 5, 1987. At the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence: Duane Bowman Planning Dept. City of Edmonds Edmonds, WA 98020 Ralph Larrabee 200 - 2nd Ave. No. i102 Edmonds, WA 98020 Marie Jolly 204 Sunset Avenue Edmonds, WA 98020 Victor Schoch 135 - 2nd Ave. No. Edmonds, WA 98020 Marion Larrabee 200 - 2nd Ave. No. 4102 Edmondso, WA 98020 At the hearing the following exhibits were submitted and admi-ttt-d as part of the official record of this proceeding: Exhibit I - Staff Reoort it 2 - Application/Declarations 3 - Plot Plan 4 - Building Elevations INCORPORATED AUGUST 11, 1 SSO HEARING EXAMINER RE: V-5-B7 Exhibit 5 - Vicinity Map 6 - Photographs 7 - Halbert Letter 8 - Petition of Schoch and Others 9 - Letter from Ronald Johnson Re: Roof Pitches ' 10 - Response of the City to Johnson Letter After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Applicant; evidence elicited during the public hearing; and, as a result of the personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding areas by the Hearing Examiner, the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions constitute the basis of the decision of the Hearing Examiner. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Applicant has requested approval of a variance for the reduction of the street setback at 204 Sunset Avenue, Edmonds, Washington. It is the intent of the Applicant to reduce the street setback for the subject property that fronts Bell Street. The required street setback is 20 feet and the Applicant desires to reduce the setback to 9 feet. (Staff report.) 2. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Bell Street and Sunset Avenue in the City of Edmonds, Washington. It is a 7,200 square foot lot on which there is an existing residence. The existing residence is nonconforming in that it is constructed within 9 feet of Bell Street and does not adhere to the street setback standards of the City of Edmonds. The residence was constructed prior to the zoninq beinq established for the subject propertv. (Bowman testimony.) 3. The subject property is zoned RS-6. (Staff report.) 4. The Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.20.030 establishes the minimum street setback for RS-6 zones as 20 feet. The Applicant seeks a variance to allow a setback of 9 feet in order to construct an addition to the nonconforming structure on site. (Staff report, Bowman testimony and ECDC.) 5. In order for a variance to be granted within the City of Edmonds the criteria as set forth in ECDC 20.85.010 must be satisfied. These criteria include: A. Because of special.circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. B. The approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the Eva 3 I 7, T7, HEARING EXAMINER RE: V-5-87 I limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. C. The approval of the variance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds. D. The approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located. E. The variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone. F. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. (ECDC. ) 6. The subject property is a corner lot. It is the intent of the Applicant to upgrade the house on the lot by enclosing a porch and making an addition on the east side of the existing residence. Because of the nonconforming status of the structure, the Applicant is limited to the amount of improvements that can be made on a yearly basis. (ECDC Chapter 17.40 and Jolly testimony.) 7. The Applicant testified that the existing residence is assessed at $43,000 and that according to ECDC 17.40 she could make improvements over a three-year period. However, she indicated that such improvements would be disruptive to the neighborhood and would serve no legitimate purpose. (Jolly testimony.) B. If the variance is granted the size of the setback from the residence to Bell Street will not be decreased. The existing structure is 9 feet from Bell Street and only a small portion of the proposed addition will be 9 feet from Bell Street. The remainder of the addition will be a significant distance from Bell Street. (Exhibit 3.) 9. The subject property is a corner lot. As a resultr it has two street setbacks but no rear setback. (ECDC 16.20.040.) A corner lot is not a special circumstance criterion for variances. (ECDC 20.85.010.) 10. Other properties in the area have setbacks of similar size. However, all variances must be judged on the merit of each individual case. (Administrative Finding.) -3- HEARING EXAMINER RE: '-5-87 11. The Comprehensive Policy Plan designates the subject property as Low Density Residential. (Staff report.) 12. The requested variance would not pose a significant impact to the public nor to nearby private properties or improvements. The proposed addition would be an improvement to the structure and would not impact views in the neighborhood. (Jolly testimony and Staff report.) 13. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds has recommended the following: "The proposed variance presents a typical case of a home owner of a nonconforming residence attempting to improve his home and being thwarted by the limitation of the amount of improvements as set forth in Chapter 17.40 of the ECDC. The only way around this is to seek a variance. Unfortunately in this particular case, it does not appear that all the variance criteria can be met. "Staff does not oppose the approval of V-5-87. Should the Hearing Examiner grant the variance, it should be subject to the following conditions: 111. The height of the roof on the addition should be no higher than the existing house and garage. "2. The addition should be designed to match the existing residence. "3. Approval of the variance shall be only for the design submitted with the variance application. 114. obtain Building Permits for all work done on the site." (Staff report.) 14. The Applicant submitted that recommended Condition Number I is prohibitive because a shake roof would not be able to be used on the new addition. According to the Applicant's representativer the Uniform Building Coder Section 3203(h) recommends the roof pitch of 4:12, but the roofs with wood shakes must be installed on a slope not less than 3:12. The Applicant's representative submitted that they would not recommend using wood shakes on a roof that was less than 4:12 pitch. (Exhibit 9.) 15. The existing roof pitch of the Applicant's residence is a slope of 3" in 12". The City submitted that it would approve shakes with the approval of a Building official for a 3" in 12" pitc ' hed roof, but would advise against such a request. (Exhibit 10.) -4- q M HEARING EXAMINER RE: V-5-87. 16. Witnesses objected to the issuance of the variance on the grounds that the roofline of the addition will cut off views east of the subject property. With the reduction of views, according to witnessest the values of properties, especially condominiums east of the site, will be depreciated. (Schoch and Larrabee testimonies. CONCLUSIONS 1. The application is for the approval of a reduction of street setbacks on property located at 204 Sunset Avenuer Edmonds, Washington. The requested street setback reduction is from the required 20-foot setback to a 9-foot setback along Bell Street. The subject property is a corner lot at the intersection of Bell Street and Sunset Avenuef Edmonds, Washington. 2. In order for a variance to be granted within the City of Edmonds the criteria as set forth in ECDC 20.85.010 must be satisfied. The Applicant has failed to satisfy one of the criteriont special circumstances relating to the property. 3. The granting of a variance would not be the grant of a special privilege to the Applicant. The property would be improved and, because of its location in a highly visible portion of town, it would improve the aesthetic value of the City. 4. The requested variance is consistent with the comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds in that it is a high -quality residential unit which harmonizes with the surrounding areas, adds to the community identity and protects the neighborhood from incompatible additions. Furtherr it is the retention and rehabilitation of an older house in the neighborhood that would be beneficial to the City. 5. The requested variance is consistent with the purposes of the RS-6 zoning in that it regulates areas primarily for family living in single-family dwellingst it complements and is compatible with other single-family dwelling units in the area. 6. The requested variance would not be detrimental to other proper- ties in the area. It does not appear that the proposed addition would impact views. 7. The requested variance is the minimum variance request. 8. No special circumstances exist for the granting of a variance. More specifically, none of the circumstances as set forth in ECDC 20.85.010(A)(1) exist in this case. 9. The Planning Department's recommendation is set forth in Finding #13. -5- A W HEARING EXAMINER RE: V-5-87 DECISION Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions; the testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing; and, upon the impressions of the Hearing Examiner at a site view, it is hereby ordered that the requested variance for a.reduction of a street setback from 20 feet to 9 feet along Bell Street for the property that is located at 204 Sunset Avenue is denied. COMMENTS This variance has been denied because the Applicant is unable to satisfy all the criteria for the granting of a variance as set forth in ECDC 20.85.010. No variance may be approved in the City of Edmonds unless all of the criteria of ECDC 20.85.010 can be satisfied. This was a very difficult decision to make. From the testimony submitted and from the exhibits presented it is apparent that the proposal of the Applicant is a well -designed and reasonable addition to the residence that exists at 204 Sunset Avenue, Edmonds, Washington. The addition would upgrade the existing residence on site and would be beneficial to the neighborhood. Howevert upon a review of the testimony presented at the public hearing and all the exhibits submitted in the public record, it is impossible to determine what special circumstances exist for the subject property that warrant the grant of a variance. As noted in the City's recommendation,'the Applicant is limited for the improvement of the residence because of the provisions of ECDC 17.40 et seq. Because the residence is a nonconforming structure the cost in any one-year period of maintaining or altering allowed by this subsection may not be more than 25 percent of the fair market value of the nonconforming building. Thus, without the variance, the Applicant is restricted to making the improvements on a piecemeal basis over three years. This is a difficult process and does not appear to be beneficial to the City of Edmonds, but it is the requirement of ECDC Chapter 17.40. Further, with the restrictive criteria of ECDC 20.85.010 for variances, the Applicant appears to be limited. Entered this 27th day of March, 1987, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearing Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. I 0 V. . �.% � " � ring Examiner Ir-2 V