Loading...
HE Decision V200110.pdf�1nc.1B0 \3 " I"' ' )MONDSGARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH m Edmonds, WA 98020 a (425) 771-02.20 . FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING• CITY OF r_ ,kPPLICA T: Jennifer Mantooth (See Exhibit A, Attachn>em 2.) CASE NO.: V-2001-10 LOCATION: 7220 North Mea.dov,,daie Road (See Exhibit A.,, Attachment l.) APPLICATION, Originally the applicant requested a height variance to increase the allowable height from 25 feet to 35 feet far construction of a new singkl -i nniiy reside-fice. (See Exhibit A, Attachment ) That request was thea) modified by Exhibit Lt to request a height vaa-iarice tc; increase the allowable height to 29' S" for the new r`�c%id'nCe. i r�VII;iV PI���CL��SS: Hearing L.,xaminer conducts public hearing and makes final decision. a. Cora'p iance with p;dznonds Community Development Code E.C'i)i� r Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL _ Site Development Standards). 1). '-'oinplianct-.� lxith Edmonds Community Development Code 'I"CDC' Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES), " D,-kATIO AND DECISION. half Deny Hear'no, �';tia.rrtill: r (>e4. i;iOD: Appi°ovt: with conditions PIII�IIIC II 6,1a.WIN, G`' It"iC, r Viewiil.g thc, official .file, whi-0 i included the, ,'ianriing ,Division `it 1afA dv iS01i Report, aiac's �i.i~�e1/h"i"; iLr the site, -hr, Ilearilig E;"al-niner conducted a public hearing oti the application. The h<earing the �ti�,�7;;�iat application - as opened at 110:05 am,,- May r, 2011, in the Cita; 1laK, t=,dmoixcls, Wa:=liii).gton, and ar,. 10:07 a.m., wa continued to May 17, 2001. The hearing "Was i"(;opened at 9:;?' a.ni1_ i', 2001 and was closed at 10:03 a.m. Participants at the public Incorpmated August H, 1890 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-2001-10 Page 2 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: Kathleen Taylor reviewed the staff advisory report (See Exhibit A) and discussed the additional materials submitted by the applicant (See Exhibit B). She noted that the site has limited space on which to build due to the slope, the stream and the wetland present on the site. She also noted that the proposed construction would be consistent with the topography of the site, but she recommended denial of the application as she found the request (even as modified by Exhibit B) did not meet the minimum necessary requirement. From the Applicant: John Thorsen identified himself as the developer of the Sequoia Ridge plat, which includes the subject lot. He said • The development went through extensive environmental review and he noted that in addition to the stream and wetland setbacks there is also a required setback from the storm drainage easement that must be contended with. • The height of the roof and the heights of the interior ceilings have been reduced from the original application so the request is now for a 4' 6" variance instead of a 10' variance. • The proposed house will be located so as to minimize cuts into the slope. • The driveway will have a 16% or 17% slope and in order to keep the driveway from being even steeper, the garage will be pushed back as far to the west as possible. The garage location dictates the location of the house due to the slope of the lot. • The proposed Mantooth house will have approximately 3,000 square feet of living space and the other three houses in the Sequoia Ridge development have between 4,200 and 4,500 square feet of living space. Also, many of the houses in the adjacent Lorian Woods development are over 3,000 square feet in size. • In order to construct a house on this lot without a variance, a large portion of the main floor would be underground and a vertical cut of up to 15 feet would be required. The house as now designed would still need a 6' vertical cut on the south side of the house. • He believes the proposal is the minimum required due to the necessary location of the driveway and the other constraints of the lot. • There will not be a lot of windows on the north side of the house to mitigate for noise from North Meadowdale. Jennifer Mantooth said the variance would allow more daylight into the house. She said the lot is dark and without a variance the house would be very dark. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-2001-10 Page 3 From the Community: Jeanie Anderson said she was curious to see what was being proposed, but had no objections to the requested variance. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS: A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Size: The subject property is approximately 27,000 square feet and fronts along Meadowdale Road. (See Exhibit A, Attachment 6.). (2) Land Use: The subject property is currently vacant. (3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned RS -20. (See Exhibit A, Attachment 1). It is situated in the Sequoia Ridge four -lot short plat, file number 5-98-109. (4) Terrain: The property is located within the Meadowdale landslide hazard area. The site slopes steeply upwards in a southwesterly direction. The site contains both a stream and a wetland. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Fact: The entire subdivision of Sequoia Ridge is constrained by critical areas including steep slopes, wetlands, and a stream. The short plat was approved based on approval of variance file number V-98-108, which allows for development on the steep slopes. Sequoia Ridge is surrounded by single-family development. b) Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the surrounding zoning and development. B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) 1. Fact: The proposal does not require SEPA review. 2. Conclusion: The applicant and the City have complied with SEPA regulations. C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. Zoning Standards a) Facts: The site development standards for RS -20 zoning are set in ECDC 16.20.030. The maximum height is 25 feet from the average grade. ECDC 20.15A sets required buffers and building setbacks for streams and wetlands. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-2001-10 Page 4 b) Conclusion: The proposed single-family residence meets the required buffers and setbacks associated with the approved short plat per file number V-98-109, but it exceeds the maximum allowable height. The applicant is requesting a height variance. 2. Compliance with requirement for a Height Variance ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances) states an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85. Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC 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. a) Facts: ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. ' These criteria include the following: a special circumstance must exist; a special privilege shall not be granted; the proposal must be consistent with the comprehensive plan and the zoning code; the proposal will not be detrimental; and the request is the minimum necessary. (1) Applicant's response a. The applicant's response to the variance criteria is contained in Exhibit A, Attachment 3 and in Exhibit B. b. Photos of the existing conditions are contained in Exhibit A, Attachment 4. c. The elevations in Exhibit B illustrate the proposed residence with the revised height variance request c. Exhibit A, Attachment 5 details the amount of grading required by the original proposal with and without an approved height variance. It references the elevations in Exhibit A, Attachments 7 and 8. No new grading details were submitted with the revised variance request. However, Exhibit B did include a letter from the applicant's Engineering Geologist, which stated in part: It is the judgment of Geo Group Northwest that raising the height of the house on Lot 4 will eliminate a large cut and reduce the risk of potential soil movement associated with that cut. Raising the height of the house and regrading the lot by removing a portion of the ridge would further reduce potential risk to the proposed structure. (2) Staff responses and additional information: a. The property is located within the Meadowdale landslide area. b. Several height variances have been granted to properties within the Meadowdale landslide hazard area. Some examples include height variances Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-2001-10 Page 5 for residences at 15620 75" PI W, 15706 75" PI W, 15714 75th PI W, and 15730 75th PI W. Height variances range from two to fifteen feet. c. No written public comments were received. d. Although the lot is steeply sloped, the proposed development is allowed by approval of file numbers S-98-109 and V-98-109. b) Conclusions: (1) Special Circumstances Special circumstances exist in the lot's topography and location. The lot is steeply sloped and located within the Meadowdale landslide hazard area. The lot's buildable area is constrained by the locations of an existing stream, wetland, and storm drainage easement, and is therefore limited to development on the slope. See Exhibit A, Attachment 6, the site plan. (2) Special Privilege The development history indicates that variances in this area have been granted for height due to steep slopes. This was done in an attempt to build structures compatible with the existing terrain. It appears that a height variance may be justified on this site due to steep slopes on the property and the elimination of a need for a large cut into the steep slope if the revised variance is granted. Therefore, it is believed no special privilege would be granted. (3) Zoning Code Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the development of the site in a manner consistent with the Zoning Code. (4) Comprehensive Plan The subject property is designated as "Single Family -Large Lot" residential on the comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies that relate to residential development in the city. The design of the proposed residence meets Policy B.6. which states, "Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage." (5) Not Detrimental The proposed variance does not appear detrimental or injurious to adjacent property owners. Rather it should assist in maintaining slope stability, particularly if the variance is granted so that a large cut into the steep hillside would be eliminated. (6) Minimum Required The revised variance request of 4' 6" appears to be the minimum necessary. The applicant has designed a residence that steps upward with the slope as indicated in Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-2001-10 Page 6 the elevation drawings in Exhibit B. The residence illustration (without a variance) shown in Exhibit B meets the allowable height and appears to fit well with the existing slope of the property, however, much of the first floor would be below ground level. The applicant demonstrated in the residence illustration (with a variance) shown in Exhibit B why a 4' 6" variance is the minimum necessary. The illustration of the residence with a 4' 6" variance shows the first floor windows above the ground level. D. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE Review by City Departments: The application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire Department, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, and the Parks Department. Engineering has no objections, but stated that approval of a height variance does not constitute a variance from engineering requirements, which may be identified during building permit review. No comments were received from the other departments. DECISION: Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a 4' 6" height variance 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. 2. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to any construction. 3. The height variance is transferable. 4. Variances must be acted upon within 1 year of approval or they become null and void unless an extension is applied for and granted prior to expiration. Entered this 23rd day of May 2001 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Ron McConnell, FAICP Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-2001-10 Page 7 RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS 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. 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 the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. 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. EXHIBI'T'S: The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with 8 attachments B. Additional materials submitted by the applicant. 1. Letter from Geo Group, dated 5/16/01 2. Letter from Corbett Architects, dated 5/16/01 3. Proposed residence illustrations without a variance 4. Proposed residence illustrations with a 4/ 6" variance PARTIES of RECORD: Jennifer Mantooth PO Box 462 Edmonds, WA 98020 Jeannie Anderson 1672774 th Place W Edmonds, WA 98026 John Thorsen Sequoia Ridge Partners 15621 48th Place W Edmonds, WA 98026 Engineering Division Fire Department Public Works Division Planning Division Building Division Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-2001-10 Page 8