HE decision V-05-108.pdf-t11 C.
19 () \')
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - Edmonds, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
Ir 11o' , -1 X 11 r I I " 1,11 F 11) � " "In N
Q 0 L R I JIM
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
APPLICANT: Kristin Hanson for David and Kathy Roper (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 2).
CASE NO.: V-05-108
LOCATION: 23823 — l0l't Avenue W. (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
APPLICATION: A variance to reduce the required 25 -foot street setback to 7.25 feet
on 100th Avenue W. and to 18.0 feet on 101st Avenue W. for a new
garage (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 through 4).
RE, VIEW PROCESS: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes
final decision.
NMJOR 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).
Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions
Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve 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 Roper application was opened at 3:03 pm. October 20, 2005, in the City
Council Chambers, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 3:13 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.
H, 1(�'i'90
Q�;'Itlll rli4.1 T. I '. I Y"-.. -
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No.V-05-108
Page 2
HEARING COMMENTS:
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.
From the City:
Meg Gruwell entered the staff advisory report into the record as Exhibit A.
From the Applicant:
Kristin Hanson and David Roper asked questions relative to the possibility of moving an
existing boat shelter to another location on the property. After staff indicated the code would
not allow the boat shelter to remain in addition to the proposed garage, they agreed with the
recommended conditions of approval.
From the Community:
No one from the general public spoke at the public hearing.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. INTRODUCTION
1. History:
a) Facts:
(1) According to Snohomish County Assessor, the house was constructed in 1989.
(2) This area was annexed in 1995 to the City of Edmonds.
E. SITE DESCRIPTION
1. Site Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Size and Access: The subject property is 8,276.4 square feet, with 192.5 feet of
frontage on 101St Avenue W., and 175.5 feet of frontage on 100th Avenue W. (see
Exhibit A, Attachment 4).
(2) Land Use: The site has a home with a garage on the ground floor, facing south
(see Exhibit A, Attachment 4).
(3) Zonin : The subject property is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS -8) (see
Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
(4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject site is quite level with a low wall dropping
down from I 00th Avenue W. to the back yard of the house. The vegetation on the
site consists of lawn, some shrubs, and on the right-of-way side of the fence by
100th Avenue W. are some large trees.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No.V-05-108
Page 3
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) The properties to the north, south and west are zoned Single -Family Residential
(RS -8) and are developed with single-family residences (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 1).
(2) The property to the east is zoned Neighborhood Business (BN) and is developed
with City Transmission and Automotive and Carmen's Latte stand (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 1).
C. S'L'ATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)
1. Fact: Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review
(WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080).
2. Conclusion: 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.
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 -2005-137) 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 of the Environmentally
Critical Areas Chapter.
2. Compliance with LLS -8 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
and include the following for locating structures:
RS -8
Street Setback:
25 feet
Rear Setback:
15 feet
Side Setbacks (to all other property lines):
7.5 feet
Maximum Height:
25 feet
Lot Coverage:
35%
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No.V-05-108
Page 4
b) Conclusion: The proposal requires variances to street setbacks to both streets to
be approved before it complies with the requirements of the RS -8 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 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.
(2) 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.
(3) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance
will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan, the zoning
ordinance, and the zoning district in which the property is located.
(4) 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.
(5) 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 their submittal, which address the
decisional criteria and these are in Exhibit A, Attachment 3. The applicant has
also submitted a site plan showing the current required setbacks, and an elevation
of the house with the proposed garage (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). Note that
the original site plan measured the distance between the proposed garage and
100a' Avenue W. in a line parallel with the garage, which shows a distance of 7.5
feet. Staff requested that this distance be represented by a line perpendicular to
100"' Avenue W, which would be the shortest distance between the garage and the
property line. The revised drawing (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5) shows the
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No.V-05-108
Page 5
actual requested distance to be 7 feet 3 inches, or 7.25 feet. Whenever the
description describes 7.5 feet, it is assumed to be actually the revised 7.25 feet
(3) The applicant is requesting two variances. Partly this is to allow a rectangular
building on a triangular (roughly) lot. Primarily it is because as shown on the site
plan in Exhibit A, Attachment 4, there is no place on the site for a new garage
given the existing required setbacks.
(4) The house to the north appears to be very close to their fence line, approximately
two feet away from the apparent property line along 100th Avenue W. (see aerial
photograph in Exhibit A, Attachment 6).
(5) City Transmission and Automotive's building seems to be about ten feet from
100th Avenue W. when viewed on the ground. Street setbacks required for this
site (in the Neighborhood Business — BN zone) are 20 feet. The aerial photograph
appears to show the automotive building across the property line. The property
lines on this map are not taken from surveyed points, but are the property lines
overlaid on aerial photographs as closely as possible.
(6) Many of the ranch -style houses on this street do not have garages. The house at
23828 —101St Avenue W. has a carport at the front of the house, which appears to
be approximately ten feet from the street.
(7) Further south the homes have one and two -car garages.
(8) The applicant states the lot size is 8,276.4 square feet, and it is clear from the site
plan (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4) that it is long and narrow and slightly
triangular in shape.
(9) The proposed garage is 25 by 36 feet, or 900 square feet. The site plan shows it
will be a three -car garage.
(10) Jennifer Readwin, Edmonds Residential Plans Examiner, states that there is no
minimum size for a garage required by code. A standard size garage, she points
out, is 24 feet by 24 feet for a two -car garage.
(11) Visually, the garage will be screened by the trees and fence along 100th Avenue
W. The nearest neighbor is City Transmission and Carmen's Latte across 100th
Avenue W.
(12) Vehicle drivers driving south on 101St Avenue W. from 238th Street SW are
routed on a dogleg to the west onto 100th Avenue W. There is a stop sign on 101st
Avenue W. as it reaches 100th Avenue W. The most obtrusive obstacle in the
driver's line of sight from 101" Avenue W. to 100th Avenue W. is the six-foot tall
fence around the subject parcel. Traffic is prevented from entering 101st Avenue
W. off of 100th Avenue W.
(13) The area where the proposed garage will go is primarily the driveway to the
existing garage, and lawn.
(14) The City's Engineering Division requires 18 feet between garage doors and
property lines.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-05-108
Page 6
(15) The city's access database does not show any variances approved in this
neighborhood, though most of these homes were constructed before 1995 in
unincorporated Snohomish County.
(16) Views in the area are local.
(17) The Snohomish County Assessor's data base shows the existing house to have
1,036 square feet of floor area on the upper level, and 440 finished square feet of
area on the lower level, with a 484 square foot attached garage. This adds to
1,960 square feet of total area in the existing house.
(18) In a nearby new development, a randomly chosen house at 9916 — 236th Place
SW had 2,554 square feet of livable area and 720 square feet of garage.
(19) Some items have been seen on the subject property, which are not shown on the
site plan. These include a second -story deck to the east of the house,
approximately in the portion of the triangular area that meets setbacks. In
addition, the subject property has a small shed and a temporary boat shelter that
are directly up against the fence on the eastern side of the lot, near where the
garage is proposed to go.
b) Conclusions:
(1) Special Circumstances: It is quite obvious from the site plan (Exhibit A,
Attachment 4) that following all currently required setbacks would not provide
any area on the site to construct even a small 20 by 20 garage, let alone a house.
Given that the existing house takes up most of the triangle available for building
there does not appear to be anywhere on the site where even a single -car garage
could be constructed without intruding into the required setbacks. Any room -
sized addition to the house would require relief from the required setbacks.
Therefore, the shape of the lot and the required setbacks along the streets that run
on three sides of the lot provide a special circumstance. 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.
(2) Special Privilege: The adjacent property to the north, and the property across
100th Avenue W. also do not appear to be meeting their currently required
setbacks from 100th Avenue W. Also, the house on the subject property, and a
nearby carport do not meet the required 25 foot setback to 101St Avenue W., so
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.
(3) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The approval of the setback
variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, The variance would have to
be approved for the garage to be in compliance with the zoning ordinance.
(4) Not Detrimental: A major concern when structures are closer to the street than
normally allowed is the ability of drivers to see around them. With a 7.25 foot
setback to the street property line along 100th Avenue W., the proposed structure
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No.V-05-108
Page 7
should not block a driver's vision as they pull onto 100'h Avenue W. As noted
above, the six-foot fence is more problematic for driver's of small cars since it
more immediately blocks their view. However, it appeared that at this corner,
there is adequate area to stop at the stop sign and be able to see oncoming traffic
on 100th Avenue W. The existing house is closer to 101St Avenue W. than the
proposed garage, so visibility will not be changed for that street. The design of
the proposed garage is adequately coordinated with the design of the existing
structure. Having a shed and boat shelter on the site against the fence adds to
visual clutter. It is assumed that some of the items in these structures will be
stored in the garage, once it is constructed. A condition of approval shall be that
the shed shall be removed, or moved so that it meets setbacks, and the temporary
boat shelter shall be removed. The proposal should not.be significantly
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the property or
improvements in the vicinity if it is well screened.
(5) Minimum Variance: For new construction within the city of Edmonds, a garage
for at least two cars is the norm. As noted, in this block there are a number of
houses that have no garage. It can be argued that the house on the subject
property already has a garage and therefore does not need a variance to create a
garage. Presumably the proposed garage is being created so that the existing
garage can be converted into livable space. The existing house is slightly larger
than its neighbors in that it has two stories, but it is small by comparison to most
new construction in Edmonds. One option for this request would be to determine
that a two -car garage is the minimum necessary to allow this owner rights enjoyed
by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. That would only require
a 24 by 24 -foot structure and an approximately 9 -foot setback. The difference
between the two seems so minor, that it appears the applicant has endeavored to
find the minimum necessary with the 7.25 foot setback. Though the garage seems
fairly large, at 900 square feet, given the size of the house at 1,960 square feet, the
garage will provide for additional storage room that can't be provided for in the
house. The total area of the house plus proposed garage is slightly smaller than
the standard new construction cited above, at 2,860 square feet, versus 3,274
square feet. The proposed variance is the minimum necessary to allow for a
three -car garage of the size proposed that can maintain an 18 -foot setback from
101St Avenue W. as required by the Engineering Division. Therefore, the
minimum necessary is found to be the 7.25 foot setback.
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.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No.V-05-108
Page 8
F. PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Letters Received.
No comment letters were received from the general public.
G. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC)
1. Comprehensive Plan Designation
a) Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family — Urban 1."
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) Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals
and policies which relate to this proposal. Specific goals and policies are discussed
below.
(1) Residential Development Policy B.2. states, "Protect neighborhoods from
incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing
structures in the area."
b) Conclusion: The horizontal lap siding of the proposed garage coordinates with the
existing horizontal lap siding of -the existing house. It appears that the pitched roof of
the proposed garage harmonizes with the existing pitched roof of the house.
Therefore, the proposal meets the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan.
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a street setback variance
is approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. The street setback variances of 18 feet to 101St Avenue W. and 7.25 feet to 100th Avenue
W., as shown on the site plan in Attachment 4, are approved.
2. The shed against the eastern fence shall be removed, or moved so that it meets setbacks,
and the temporary boat shelter against the same fence shall be removed.
3. 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.
4. The applicant must obtain a building permit for the garage.
5. The applicant must comply with all the terms of any future permits.
6. The permit is transferable.
7. The approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year from the date of
approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No.V-05-108
Page 9
application for an extension of the time before the expiration and the city approves the
application. Only one one-year extension is possible.
Entered this 28a' day of October 2005 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
�_� �14' `0�
Ron McConnell, F ICP
Hearing Examiner
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration and
appeal. Any person wishing to rile or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact
the Planning Department for further procedural information.
� � ��'� � III ►. �,
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.
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the
name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and
reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with
the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the
decision being appealed.
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
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No.V-05-108
Page 10
more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the
reconsideration request.
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.'
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 exhibit was offered and entered into the record.
A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with 6 attachments
Kristin Hanson David & Kathy Roper
652 Alder St. 23823 —101St Ave. W.
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds Planning Division
117 C. 1,8 o 0
E D M 0 L")
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH > EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: wwwdedmonds.wa,us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building ® Engineering
To: David & Kathy Roper
23823 10 1't Ave. W.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: V-05-108
As you requested:
For your file:
Comment:
Note attachments: X
Cc: Kristin Hanson
9SEM
lncoq)(au�ud Au,'qus( / 1, 18M)
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
��X�� �� K�U��� �
CITY vvu� °""^^."���`u�w
1%1'5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONBS`WA98U2O
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To: Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner
From:
Meg dru/well
Senior Planner
File: \7-0y5'108
KRISDNDANSON FOR DAVID AND KATHY ROPER
Hearing Date, Time, And Place:
Council Chambers, pob|iu Safety Building
250-5t" Avenue N.
Edmonds, Washington
Section Page
A.
AprucxTxm--------------------------------------------2
B.
RECOMMENDATIONS ----------------------------------------2
H. FINDINGS O8rFACT AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................... 2
A.
INTRODUCTION ... ............................ ...... ........................................... ............................................... 2
B.
SITE DESCRIPTION ...................... ............................................................ ......................................... j
C.
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL YuucYACT (0BPA).................................................................................. ]
D.
BomomouComuuumITYDEveLorMemTCouu(ECDC)Comroamcc---------------. 3
E.
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ................................................................ ................................................... 7
F.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ..................................................................................... ..................................... 7
G.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (6CDC)............. .......... —........................... —........ ....................... ........... '8
111. RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS ..................................................................... 0
A.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ........................................................................... .......................... U
B.
APPEALS ................................. ......... ...... ..................... ...... ............................................................ 8
v-05-/0x.doc/October u.z00 /Smon^mx
tin mm^mfor David * Kathy Roper
File No. v-05'mx
Page zo/v
|. : Kristin Hanson for David and Kathy Roper (see Attachment 2).
2. Site Location: 23823—|0)*Avenue YV.(see Attachment \).
3. Req!es : Avariance toreduce the required 25-0/o{street setback to725feet on 100 t
Avenue W. and to 18.0 feet on 101" Avenue W. for anew garage (see Attachments 2
through 4).
4. Review Process:Vorlauoe: Hearing Bxornionr oondoo\m public hearing and nnakoa Ono|
decision.
5. Maicir Issues:
o. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (BCDC) Section
}620.O30(8DNOLB'FAMILyRESIDENTIAL ' Site Development Standards).
h. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (BCDC)Chapter 28.85
(VARIANCES).
Based oil statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend
APPROVAL ufthe street setback variances with the following conditions:
|. The street * scfbyckvorann�wof|8{�utk, |0l Avenue VV.and 72 d
5f�<o 100m Avenue
YY.,uoshown nothe site plan ioAttachment 4,are approved.
2. The shed against the eastern fence ahnU he removed` or moved so that itmco\a setbacks,
and the temporary boat shelter against the same fence shall boremoved.
2. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds
Cononoouiiy Development Code. U is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure
000up|iaooc with the various provisions contained in these ordinances.
4. The applicant must obtain obuilding permit for the garage,
5. The applicant must comply with all the terms ofany future permits.
6. The permit should hetransferable.
7. The approved variance must be acted uo by the uvvnur within one year from the date of
approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void' unless the owner H|ca all
application for onextension o[the time before the expiration and the city approves the
application. Only one one-year extension is possible.
11 �01 MIT
a) Facts:
(l) According ioSnohomish County Assessor, the house was constructed io 1989,
(2) This area was annexed io 1995 tothe City o[Edmonds.
v-05/0o,doe/October w.zno / Staff Report
,tin Hanson for David & Kathy Roper
File No, V-05-108
Page 3 of 9
a) Facts:
(1) Size and Access: The subject property is 8,276.4 square feet, with 192.5 feet of
frontage on 101" Avenue W., and 175.5 feet of frontage on 100"' Avenue W.
(see Attachment 4).
(2) Land Use: The site has a home with a garage on the ground floor, facing south
(see Attachment 4).
(3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS -8) (see
Attachment 1).
(4) Terrain and Veetation: The subject site is quite level with a low wall
g_
dropping down from 100'1' Avenue W. to the back yard of the house. The
vegetation on the site consists of lawn, some shrubs, and on the right-of-way side
of the fence by 100"' Avenue W. are some large trees.
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) The properties to the north, south and west are zoned Single -Family Residential
(RS -8) and are developed with single-family residences (see Attachment 1).
(2) The property to the east is zoned Neighborhood Business (13N) and is developed
with City Transmission and Automotive and Carmen's Latte stand (see
Attachment 1).
C. State Environmental Polic KO, t '11 0, '
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).
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.
F-III)MINMO 11111pil I M ==
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 -2005-137) 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 of the Environmentally
Critical Areas Chapter.
V-05-108.doc / October 14, 2005 1 Staff Report
�tin Hanson for David & Kathy Roper
File No, V-05-108
Page 4 of 9
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
and include the following for locating structures:
RS -8
(1)
Street Setback:
25 feet
(2)
Rear Setback:
15 feet
(3)
Side Setbacks (to all other property lines):
7.5 feet
(4)
Maximum Height:
25 feet
(5)
Lot Coverage:
35%
b) Conclusion: The proposal requires variances to street setbacks to both streets to
be approved before it complies with the requirements of the RS -8 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 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.
(c) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the
variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan,
the zoning ordinance, and the zoning district in which the property is
located.
(d) Not Detrimental: That the variance, as approved or conditionally
approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the
vicinity and the same zone.
V-05-108,doc / October 14, 2005 / Staff Report
,tin Hanson for David & Kathy Roper
File No. V-05-108
Page 5 of 9
(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 their submittal which address the
decisional criteria and these are in Attachment 3. The applicant has also
submitted a site plan showing the current required setbacks, and an elevation of
the house with the proposed garage (see Attachment 4). Note that the original
site plan measured the distance between the proposed garage and 100'" Avenue
W. in a line parallel with the garage, which shows a distance of 7.5 feet. Staff
requested that this distance be represented by a line perpendicular to 1.00t1i
Avenue W. which would be the shortest distance between the garage and the
property line. The revised drawing (see Attachment 5) shows the actual
requested distance to be 7 feet 3 inches, or 7.25 feet. Whenever the description
describes 7.5 feet, it is assumed to be actually the revised 7.25 feet
(3) The applicant is requesting two variances. Partly this is to allow a rectangular
building on a triangular (roughly) lot. Primarily it is because as shown on the
site plan in Attachment 4, there is no place on the site for a new garage given the
existing required setbacks.
(4) The house to the north appears to be very close to their fence line, approximately
two feet away from the apparent property line along 100'" Avenue W. (see aerial
photograph in Attachment 6).
(5) City Transmission and Automotive's building seems to be about ten feet from
100'" Avenue W. when viewed on the ground. Street setbacks required for this
site (in the Neighborhood Business — BN zone) are 20 feet. The aerial
photograph appears to show the automotive building across the property line.
The property lines on this map are not taken from surveyed points, but are the
property lines overlaid on aerial photographs as closely as possible.
(6) Many of the ranch -style houses on this street do not have garages. The house at
23828 — 101" Avenue W. has a carport at the front of the house, which appears
to be approximately ten feet from the street.
(7) Further south the homes have one and two -car garages.
(8) The applicant states the lot size is 8,276.4 square feet, and it is clear from the site
plan (see Attachment 4) that it is long and narrow and slightly triangular in
shape.
(9) The proposed garage is 25 by 36 feet, or 900 square feet. The site plan shows it
will be a three -car garage.
(10)Jennifer Readwin, Edmonds Residential Plans Examiner, states that there is no
minimum size for a garage required by code. A standard size garage, she points
out, is 24 feet by 24 feet for a two -car garage.
(11)Visually, the garage will be screened by the trees and fence along 100"' Avenue
W. The nearest neighbor is City Transmission and Carmen's Latte across 1.00`"
Avenue W.
(12)Vehicle drivers driving south on 101'a Avenue W. from 238'" Street SW are
routed on a dogleg to the west onto 100'" Avenue W. There is a stop sign oil
101" Avenue W. as it reaches 100t" Avenue W. The most obtrusive obstacle in
the driver's Line of sight from 101st Avenue W. to 100"' Avenue W. is the six
V-05-108.doc / October 14, 2005 l Staff Report
Min Hanson for David & Kathy Roper
File No. V-05-108
Page 6 of 9
foot tall fence around the subject parcel. Traffic is prevented from entering 101s`
Avenue W. off of 100"' Avenue W.
(13)The area where the proposed garage will go is primarily the driveway to the
existing garage, and lawn.
(14)The City's Engineering Division requires 18 feet between garage doors and
property lines.
(I 5)The city's access database does not show any variances approved in this
neighborhood, though most of these homes were constructed before 1995 in
unincorporated Snohomish County.
(I 6)Views in the area are local.
(17)The Snohomish County Assessor's data base shows the existing house to have
1,036 square feet of floor area on the upper level, and 440 finished square feet of
area on the lower level, with a 484 square foot attached garage. This adds to
1,960 square feet of total area in the existing house.
(18)In a nearby new development, a randomly chosen house at 9916 — 236"' Place
SW had 2,554 square feet of livable area and 720 square feet of garage.
(19)Some items have been seen on the subject property which are not shown on the
site plan. These include a second -story deck to the east of the house,
approximately in the portion of the triangular area that meets setbacks. In
addition, the subject property has a small shed and a temporary boat shelter that
are directly up against the fence on the eastern side of the lot, near where the
garage is proposed to go.
b) Conclusions:
(1) Special Circumstances: It is quite obvious from the site plan (Attachment 4) that
following all currently required setbacks would not provide any area on the site
to construct even a small 20 by 20 garage, let alone a house. Given that the
existing house takes up most of the triangle available for building there does not
appeal- to be anywhere oil the site where even a single -car garage could be
constructed without intruding into the required setbacks. Any room -sized
addition to the house would require relief from the required setbacks. Therefore,
the shape of the lot and the required setbacks along the streets that run on three
sides of the lot provide a special circurnstance. Strict enforcement of the zoning
ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to
other properties in tile vicinity with the same zoning.
(2) Special PrivilM: The adjacent property to the north, and the property across
100"' Avenue W. also do not appeal- to be meeting their currently required
setbacks from 100"' Avenue W. Also, the house oil the subject property, and a
nearby carport do not meet the required 25 foot setback to 101s' Avenue W., so
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.
(3) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The approval of the setback
variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The variance would have to
be approved for the garage to be in compliance with the zoning ordinance.
(4) Not Detrimental: A major concern when structures are closer to the street than
normally allowed is the ability of drivers to see around them. With a 7.25 foot
setback to the street property line along I Hill Avenue W., the proposed structure
V-05- I 08,doc / October 14, 2005 / Staff Report
„tin Hanson for David & Kathy Roper
File No. V-05-108
Page 7 of 9
should not block a driver's vision as they Pull onto 100”' Avenue W. As noted
above, the six-foot fence is more problematic for driver's of small cars since it
more immediately blocks their view. However, it appeared that at this corner,
there is adequate area to stop at the stop sign and be able to see oncoming traffic
on 100`1' Avenue W. The existing house is closer to 101" Avenue W. than the
proposed garage, so visibility will not be changed for that street. The design of
the proposed garage is adequately coordinated with the design of the existing
structure. Having a shed and boat shelter on the site against the fence adds to
visual clutter. It is assumed that some of the items in these structures will be
stored in the garage, once it is constructed. A condition of approval shall be that
the shed shall be removed, or moved so that it meets setbacks, and the temporary
boat shelter shall be removed. The proposal should not be significantly
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the property
or improvements in the vicinity if it is well screened.
(5) Minimum Variance: For new construction within the city of Edmonds, a garage
for at least two cars is the norm. As noted, in this block there are a number of
houses that have no garage. It can be argued that the house oil the subject
property already has a garage and therefore does not need a variance to create a
garage. Presumably the proposed garage is being created so that the existing
garage can be converted into livable space. The existing house is slightly larger
than its neighbors in that it has two stories, but it is small by comparison to most
new construction in Edmonds. One option for this request would be to
determine that a two -car garage is the minimum necessary to allow this owner
rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. That
would only require a 24- by 24 -foot structure and an approximately 9 -foot
setback. The difference between the two seerns so minor, that it appears the
applicant has endeavored to find the minimum necessary with the 7.25 foot
setback. Though the garage seems fairly large, at 900 square feet, given the size
of the house at 1,960 square feet, the garage will provide for additional storage
room that can't be provided for in the house. The total area of the house plus
proposed garage is slightly smaller than the standard new construction cited
above, at 2,860 square feet, versus 3,274 square feet. The proposed variance is
the minimum necessary to allow for a three -car garage of the size proposed that
can maintain an 18 -foot setback from 101" Avenue W. as required by the
Engineering Division. Therefore, the minimum necessary is found to be the 7.25
foot setback.
Mmnwmnrllslj.)�,�
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.
1. Letters Received
As of the date of this report, the City has not received any comment letters.
V-05-108.doc / October 14, 2005 / Staff Report
stir Hanson for David & Kathy Roper
File No. V-05- 108
Page 8 of 9
G. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC)
1. Comprehensive Plan Designation
a) Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family — Urban I."
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) Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals
and policies which relate to this proposal. Specific goals and policies are discussed
below.
(1) Residential Development Policy B.2. states, "Protect neighborhoods from
incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing
structures in the area."
b) Conclusion: The horizontal lap siding of the proposed garage coordinates with the
existing horizontal lap siding of the existing house. It appears that the pitched roof
of the proposed garage harmonizes with the existing pitched roof of the house.
Therefore, the proposal meets the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan.
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals.
Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning
Department for further procedural information.
Section 20.100.010.E allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
recommendation if a written request is filed within tell (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.
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 applicant and the date of the
decision, the name and address of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest
in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal
must be filed with the Community Development Director within fourteen (14) calendar days
after the date of the decision being appealed.
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals
The time limits for Reconsideration's and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a
reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time "clock"
for filing all 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 all appeal continued for the point it was stopped. For example, if a request is
V-05-108.doc / October 14, 2005 / Staff Report
,rtiji Hanson for David & Kathy Roper
File No, V-05-108
Page 9 of 9
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.
Section 20.85.020.0 states "The approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year
from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an
application for an extension of the time before the expiration and the city approves the application."
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.
1. Vicinity / Zoning Map
2. Application
3. Applicant's Declarations
4. Site Plan and Elevation
5. Revised plat map and letter showing distance to be 73"
6. Aerial Photograph of Neighborhood
Kristin Hanson David & Kathy Roper Planning Division
652 Alder St. 23823 — 101s` Ave. W.
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
V-05-108.doc / October 14, 2005 / Staff Report
Zoning Vicinity Map
I RS -20 _j, RS -6 RM -3 i BP CG2
RS -12 RM -2.4 RSW-12 BN CW M MU
RS -10 RS -MP RM -1.5 BC mP' Ul P
RS -6„/ OS
,ffliq C C'
Rezones
PRD
File 'V--05--108 Attachrrient 1
M
city of edmonds
land use application
• ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
• COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
C3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -1 FILE # I ZONE
0 HOME OCCUPATION vP�01
15 DATE 21 RECD By 2).-&'tA'L-0
n FORMAL SUBDIVISION150
0 SHORT SUBDIVISION FE �77
CA 1-;,5- 1
0 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 145x7— HEARING DATE
:1 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Q HE 0 STAFF :1 PB Q ADB QCC
--I OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT
:1 STREET VACATION
Q REZONE Oci - ( 37
F-1 SHORELINE PERMIT
VARIANCE 11 REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION
0 OTHER:
PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION
PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE)
PROPERTY OWNER DAV (D KAIrgy Ropr-$?- PHONE# O&OCO
-
ADDRESS ANE eD.
E-MAIL ADDRESS FAx #
TAX ACCOUNT # 006(g5tQ00001j4:20 SEC. 10 TWP. '-7 RNG.
15 Lk)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE
yAucF- tz-op. �-rgeg--r D -z ie-a-c-:5AtK- To
pA
Ke
APPLICANT 710f4 PHONE # A -71 ?-
ADDRESS —VV� ALOM ED. ItOZO -
E-MAIL ADDRESS FAx# 424-711 '51S2 --
CONTACT PERSON/AGENT K%5 -mL PHONE#
ADDRESS
E-MAIL ADDRESS FAx
The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application
agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including
reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading,
inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees.
By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT"e�plbu'-)h-�DATEa
Property Owner's Authorization
By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use
application, and grant my per -mission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject
property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER 6 J DATE
This application form was revised on 1/27/00. To verify whether it is still current, earl �622b.
L;\LIBRARYTLANNING\Forms & Handouts\Pubhc Handouts%Land Use Application,doc
ATTACHMENT 2
AT A
ARIANCE REOUEST. AUGUST 24,2005
for
ROPER RESIDENCE.
23823, ` S
SCOPE OF PROJECT:
REQUEST AN ADDITION OF 3 -CAR ATTACHED GARAGE (900 SQ. FT)
TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. ZONE RS -8. HOME BUILT IN 1989 UNDER
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, BECAME PART OF EDMONDS IN 1995.
.. �
1. ALLOW FRONT SET -BACK ON 100TH AVE WEST TO BE REDUCED TO T-6'%
OR NORMAL SIDE SETBACK.
2. REDUCE FRONT SETBACK ON 1011T AVE WEST TO 18 FEET FROM THE
NORMAL 25 FEET.
1. SPECT ,CIRCU STANCES:
HOUSE WAS BUILT IN, 1989 UNDER SNOHOMISH COUNTY RULES,
ALLOWING THE `FRONT' OF THE HOUSE TO BE THE DOG -LEG OF 101ST AVE
WEST AS IT MEETS 100TH AVE WEST. THIS ALLOWED THE PLACEMENT OF
THE STRUCTURE CLOSE TO THE NORTH AND WEST PROPERTY LINES.
UNDER EDMONDS RS -8 ZONING RULES THE PROPERTY HAS (2)'
FRONT OR STREET SETBACKS (101ST AVE WEST AND 100TH AVE WEST) OF 25
FEET EACH AND (2) SIDE SETBACKS OF 7.5 FT EACH. THIS LEAVES 794 SQ.
FT. BUILDING SPACE ON AN 8,276 SQ. FT. PROPERTY.. SEE ATTACHED SITE
PLAN.
WE BELIEVE THIS TO BEA HARDSHIP FOR THE OWNERS, DENYING
THEM USE OF MOST OF THEIR PROPERTY. STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE
RS -8 RULES WOULD DENY THEM PRIVILEDGES NEIGHBORING HOME
OWNERS ENJOY. THERE ARE NO PUBLIC SAFETY, .TOPOGRAPHY, STREAMS
OR LOT SLOPE ISSUES RELEVATNT TO THIS VARIANCE REQUEST.
SPECIAL2.
PRIVILEDGE TOINCREASE SIZE OF ,
AND VALUE OF ONE'S P 'ROPERTY. THE REQUEST IS, FOR A COMMON
ADDITION OF AN ATTACHED GARAGE
COMMON
THE VARIANCE NOTHING AT ALL COULD BE BUILT ON THE ..e• •
ATTACHMENT 3
3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE:
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THE
PROPOSAL IS WITHIN THE PLAN AND IS NEITHER AN EXCESSIVE NOR
UNUSUAL ADDITION. IT IS -WITHIN NORMAL USE, COVERAGE, HEIGHT AND
ACCESS OF THE ZONE.
. CONSISTANT WITH ZONING INANCES:
THE ZONE IS RS -8. LOT COVERAGE WITH THE NEW GARAGE WOULD
BE 1,936 SQ.FT. OR 23.4% COVERAGE. (35% MAX ALLOWED). AN ATTACHED
3 -CAR GARAGE WITH WITHIN NORMAL USE FOR -THIS ZONE. HEIGHT AND
IMPERVIOUS REQUIRMENTS WOULD BE MET.
5. NOT E NAL:
THE GRANTING OF THESE REQUESTS WOULD NOT BE
DETREMENTAL TO THE PROPERTY NOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT IS NOT
DANGEROUS OR UNUSUAL. NO VIEWS WILL BE DESTROYED. IT WILL NOT
MAKE THE HOME STRANGE, LESS VALUABLE, NOR IS THIS AN
ARCHITECTURAL WHIM OF THE CURRENT HOME OWNER.
THE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN ON 101ST AVE WEST.
NO ACCESS IS REQUESTED FROM ,100TH AVE WEST. THE LOCATION OF THE
PROPOSED GARAGE WILL LEAVE 18 FEET OF'DRIVEWAY ON THE
PROPERTY. NO `SIGHT -LINE' DILEMMAS WILL BE CREATED.
FRONT6. MINIMUM VARIANCE:
THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY OVERLAID WITH THE 'EDMONDS
RS -8 ZONING ALLOWS FOR NO BUILDING. THIS REQUEST IS FOR A CHANGE
IN THE OFF 100'AVE•
REDUCED TO 7'-6". THIS, IS THE NORMAL SIDE SETBACK OF THIS ZONE.
THE FRONT SETBACK ON 1 OOTH 'AVE WEST WOULD BE REDUCED TO 18
FROM •
THE DRIVEWAY WOULD BE 18 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO
THE NEW GARAGE,WHICH WOULD BE LONGER.
DRIVEWAY.
A
WE BELIEVE THESE TO BE THE MINIMUM VARIANCE REQUESTS
NEEDED TO ALLOW THE BUILDING AND IMPROVEMENTS ON THIS
PROPERTY.
KATHY & DAVID ROPER, owners '425- 542 - 8606.
KRISTIN HANSON, designer. 425-774-7129.
isam aAV .
,slOT CZ8Cz * UMIO-a
0
652 ALDER STREET, EDMONDS. WA 08020 426 771 3152 fax
425 774 7129 volce
710.
MEG GR Ll
N
KRISTIN HANSON
Fam
425 7710221
Pawn:
COVER +1
Ptmnoc Dotec 9/2812005
ptat ROPER VARIANCE CC:
0 urgent For RwA&w 0 Pleaes C*nwrwnt Pkmwe Roft 0 Plea" Racycle
HEM IS THE SfTlE PLAN WIITH ftWED DWENSIONS FOR THE RQW, VAMARM
RECIAJEST. V -W106.
THE ANGLED DIMENSION IS 7'- 3" 80 1 SUPPOSE WE COULD REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE
NEW GARAGE BY 6 INCHES SO IT WILL FrT INTO THE CORRECT SPACE ON THE LOT.
PERHAPS THIS CHANGE COULD BE DEALT WITH AT THE VARIANCE HEARING OR DO I
NEED TO REWSE EVERYTHING NOW?
THANKSI.,
If R VIN±- k"
HANSON DESIGN.
ATTACHMENT 5
s /
f
Ger✓� � � =ID'��
KO
23�z3 joj�AVE w