Exhibit 1 StaffReport_V-2007-96.pdf
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
Project:
Long Height Variance
File Number:
V-2007-96
Date of Report:
January 29, 2008
Planner:
____________________________
Mike Clugston, AICP
Public Hearing:
February 7, 2008 at 3:00 P.M.
Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers
th
250 5 Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
I.SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION:
The project involves a two story addition to the rear of an existing single family residence. The variance
request is to allow a portion of the added roof ridge to exceed the required 25 foot height limit by
approximately 20 inches to align with the existing ridge.
II.GENERAL INFORMATION:
1.Owner: Clare and Steve Long.
Site
2.Applicant: Joseph Mucci, Mucci/Trucksess Architecture.
3.Tax Parcel Number: 00506700001501.
4.Location: 20024 Maplewood Drive.
5.Zoning: Single Family Residential, RS-12 (see inset).
6.Acreage / Square Footage: Approximately 35,284 square feet.
7.Proposed Use: Single family residence.
8.Existing Use: Single family residence.
III.HISTORY / BACKGROUND:
City of Edmonds Zoning Map, December 14, 2007
This application was submitted on December 18, 2007 and was
determined to be complete at that time.
IV.SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION:
Variances granted based on special circumstances are typically exempt from SEPA review (WAC 197-11-
800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15.A.080). A SEPA determination was not required for this proposal.
Exhibit 1
Staff Report
Long Height Variance
File Number: V-2007-96
V.PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE:
A Notice of Application and Hearing was published in the Herald Newspaper, posted at the subject site,
as well as the Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and at the Library on January
10, 2008. Notice was also mailed to residents within 300 feet of the site on January 10, 2008. The City has
complied with the noticing provisions of ECDC 20.91 (Public Hearings and Notice). An Affidavit of
Publication, an Affidavit of Mailing, and an Affidavit of Posting are included as attachments to this report
(Exhibit 5).
VI.TECHNICAL COMMITTEE:
This application was reviewed and evaluated by the Citys Fire Department, Engineering Division, Parks
and Recreation Department, and the Public Works Department. No comments were received.
VII.NATURAL ENVIRONMENT:
1.Topography: The subject property is essentially flat.
2.Soils: According to the USDA Soil Survey, soils on the parcel are comprised of the Alderwood urban
land complex (2-8% slope).
3.Critical Areas: A Critical Areas Determination was conducted for this site (CRA-1994-0168) and a
waiver from further study was granted.
4.Wildlife: Typical of an urban/residential environment (songbirds, squirrels, etc. are assumed).
5.Vegetation: The area surrounding the subject parcel is landscaped with typical urban vegetation and
grass.
VIII.NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS:
The neighborhood is developed almost entirely with single-
family residences. The subject parcel and those
immediately surrounding it are zoned RS-12 (see Zoning
inset on previous page). There are RS-8 zoned parcels on
th
the northeast corner of Maplewood Drive and 200 Street
SW.
IX.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as
Single Family Resource (see inset at right). The existing
zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
designation.
X.PUBLIC COMMENTS:
To date, no public comments have been received.
XI.APPLICABLE CODES:
ECDC 16.20 (Single Family Residential - RS)
1.
A. Structures are subject to the bulk regulations of
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Map, December 2006
the Single Family Residential zone for setbacks
and height. Maximum height of structures in
the RS zone is 25 feet above average original grade (ECDC 16.20.030). Structures proposed to be
built above the 25-foot maximum height require an approved variance.
Page 2 of 4
Long Height Variance
File Number: V-2007-96
ECDC 17.40 (Nonconforming Uses, Buildings, Signs and Lots)
2.
A.Nonconforming buildings are regulated in Section ECDC 17.40.020. By definition, a
nonconforming building is one which once met bulk zoning standards and the site development
standards applicable to its construction, but which no longer conforms to such standards due to the
enactment or amendment of the zoning ordinance of the city of Edmonds or the application of such
ordinance in the case of a structure annexed to the city. Such building may be maintained and
continued but it may not be changed or altered in any manner which increases the degree of
nonconformity of the building. Ordinary maintenance and repair is permitted as are alterations
which otherwise conform to the provisions of the zoning ordinance, its site development and bulk
standards, and which do not expand any nonconforming aspects of the building.
ECDC 20.85 (Variances)
3.
An applicant may request a variance from the standards of ECDC 16.20.030 pursuant to the procedures
set forth in ECDC 20.85. This chapter also 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. ECDC 20.85.010 contains the findings that must be made in order for a
Variance application to be approved. According to the referenced code section, No variance may be
approved unless all of the findings in this section can be made. The findings are as follows:
Special Circumstances. That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the
strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and
privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning;
Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of
the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses set forth in ECDC
17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife
habitats;
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;
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;
Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the
comprehensive plan;
Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the zoning
ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located;
Not Detrimental. That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be
significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property
or improvements in the vicinity and same zone;
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.
A.The Applicant has submitted Declarations explaining how they believe they comply with the
variance criteria listed above (Exhibit 4).
XII.CONCLUSIONS:
1.Special Circumstances No special circumstances appear to exist on the property. While the existing
house was built before the propertys annexation to the City, nothing on the site would preclude the
applicant from building the proposed addition to comply with the height limit.
Page 3 of 4
Long Height Variance
File Number: V-2007-96
2.Special Privilege Since there are no particular special circumstances on the property, this variance
would grant special privilege to the property. The 25-foot height maximum applies equally throughout
all single family zoning districts. The approval of this variance could lead others in the area to seek
similar approvals. After checking the Citys records, it appears that no height variances have been
approved along Maplewood Drive in at least 20 years.
3.Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan strongly advocates retaining and rehabilitating the
existing housing stock within the City. However, nowhere does the Plan state that zoning requirements
may be waived or altered as a design choice in an attempt to retain and rehabilitate that stock,
particularly when it is understood that the zoning ordinance is intended to implement the
comprehensive plan. In this case, the existing house, an attractive example of Farmhouse Gothic style
is proposed to be rehabilitated by adding additional floor space. The design of the proposed addition
will match what exists. To the extent that can be done while complying with traditional height and
bulk standards such a design is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan.
4.Zoning Ordinance The existing residence is a legal, non-conforming structure regulated by the codes
found in ECDC 17.40.020. According to the Snohomish County Assessors Office, the house was
constructed in 1944. The parcel was then annexed into the City of Edmonds in 1963.
Height calculations for the existing structure and addition prepared according to City requirements
were not provided as part of the variance application. However, according to the site plan provided
(Exhibit 3), an approximately 5 portion of the additions roof would extend over the existing
residence. As a result, this portion of roof would appear to expand the nonconforming height aspect of
the existing building.
5.Not Detrimental It does not appear that this proposal would be detrimental to the public health, safety
and welfare, nor injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone.
6.Minimum Variance While the roof of the proposed addition may relate better to the existing structure
from an aesthetic perspective if the pitch were the same as the existing roof (i.e. the argument for
granting the variance), a flat roof or less pitched roof that meets code would be possible, functional
designs for the addition (see Exhibit 4, Criteria 6).
XIII.RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the analysis and attachments to this report, staff recommends DENIAL of the height variance.
XIV.PARTIES OF RECORD:
Clare and Steve Long Planning Division
20024 Maplewood Drive
Edmonds, WA 98026
Joseph M. Mucci, AIA
Mucci / Trucksess Architecture
1949 Ninth Avenue West
Seattle, WA 98119
XV.EXHIBITS:
1.Staff Report dated January 29, 2008
2.Land Use Application
3.Site Plan and Floor Plan
4.Applicant Declarations
5.Public Notices (Notices of Application and Hearing and Affidavits of Mailing and Posting)
Page 4 of 4