Loading...
July 7 92 Council appeal decision V-92-67 & V-92-68.pdfRECEIVED 07/01/92 JUL 2 0 1992 JDW/naa PLANNING DEPT• FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING VARIANCE REQUEST FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7222 156TH STREET S. W. City File Nos. AP-92-67, V-92-4; AP-92-68, V-92-4 FINDINGS 1. This matter came on for hearing before the City Council at its regular meeting of June 16, 1992. The Hearing Examiner issued his decision on March 9, 1992. The applicant, Craig Summers, appealed the Hearing Examiner's decision, and residents in the vicinity of the subject property, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Hounshell and Mr. Kent, also appealed the Hearing Examiner's determination. 2. Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC, specifically section 20.85.010, specifies the criteria and findings that must be made with respect to the granting or denial of any requested variance. 3. Section 20.85.020 of the ECDC provides for appeal from the Hearing Examiner's decision to the City Council. 4. Chapter20.105, specifically section 20.105.040(C) (3) (a) , empowers the City Council to affirm, modify or reverse the action of the Hearing Examiner after holding a new public hearing on the proposal. 5. All required notices have been given. 6. The appeals filed have been filed in a timely manner. 7. Exhibits and material before the City Council include the findings, conclusion and decision of the Hearing Examiner and the respective Edmonds City Council agenda memos #7 and #8 for the meeting of June 16, 1992. In addition, four exhibits were submitted during public testimony. 8. There were no oral or written ex parte contacts by any member of the City Council. No member of the City Council was aware of any potential appearance of fairness doctrine violation. There were no challenges to any member of the City Council sitting in judgment on this matter based upon conflict of interest or appearance of fairness doctrine. Findings - 1 - JDW24033.1X/0006.15061 9. Councilmember Petruzzi revealed that his company has had legal representation by the law firm who represents appellant Summers. 10. Staff member Jeff Wilson described the background of the two appeals to the City Council. The requested variance by the applicant/appellant Summers was to be permitted to reduce the street setback adjacent to 156th Street S. W. right-of-way from 25 feet to 10 feet, to allow construction of a new single-family residence. The Hearing Examiner approved a reduction in the setback requirement from 25 feet to 20 feet. 11. All appellants, through their respective legal counsel, have submitted a letter dated June 11, 1992, which letter is a part of the record and requests a modification by the City Council of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. 12. Ms. Beth Clark, attorney for applicant/appellant Summers, testified that although the parcel of property was of substantial size, there was a steep ravine on the west, south and east sides as depicted in Exhibit 4 attached to the Edmonds City Council agenda memo, that when the setbacks from top of slope of the ravine were provided for, a relatively small building area existed, which was adjacent to 156th Street S. W. The applicant/appellant Summers was requesting permission to allow a detached garage structure to be located in the easterly portion of the building pad area, which garage structure would encroach up to 15 feet into the required 25 foot yard setback area in the vicinity of the northeast corner of the subject property. The applicant/appellant's representative in response to questioning specifically stated that the 15 foot variance request was for the garage structure only, and no variance would be required for the residence. 13. Mr. Mark Clark, attorney for the appellants Wilson, Kent and Hounshell, testified on behalf of his clients that they supported the requested modification to the Hearing Examiner's decision. He further testified that the garage in the setback area limited to one-story, not to exceed 15 feet in elevation above the existing grade as proposed in the June 11, 1992, letter, would not obstruct views of adjoining or vicinal properties. 14. Ms. Clark further testified the applicant/appellant had committed to withdrawal of a street vacation request in order to maintain the existing public access on the existing right-of-way of 156th Street S. W. 15. Neighbors testified that the garage structure would restrict views to some extent as a person walked down the 156th Street S. W. right-of-way. Other neighbors, not appellants, expressed their approval of the requested modification. Findings - 2 - JDW24033.1X/0006.15061 From the foregoing Findings, the City Council makes the following: CONCLUSIONS 1. The City Council has jurisdiction to hear this matter and has authority to modify the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. 2. The City Council finds and concludes that special circumstances relating to the property exist and that the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of reasonable use permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning in that the topographical features of the property, being surrounding essentially on three sides by steep ravines, and the requirements of the Codes of the City requiring substantial setbacks from the top of bank of said ravines result in a small irregular shaped building pad area. 3. Approval of a variance and modification of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation would not be a grant of special privilege in comparison with the limitations upon other properties, as the grant of such a modified variance will allow and provide for reasonable use of a parcel of property very substantial in size, but very limited in area available for construction of a residence and garage facility. 4. The approval of the variance will not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan which calls for single-family residential RS-20. The subject property is approximately 47,700 square feet, and only one single-family residence would be permitted to be built on the subject property due to the unusual and irregular terrain and topography. 5. The approval of a modification to the Hearing Examiner's recommendation will be consistent with the zoning ordinance for the reasons stated in the preceding conclusion. 6. There is no evidence in the record that the modified variance request will be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone. 7. The City Council concludes that the variance as modified is the minimum variance necessary to allow the owner reasonable rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 8. The variance as modified meets the criteria of section 20.85.020 of the ECDC. Findings - 3 - JDW24033.1X/0006.15061 9. The Hearing Examiner's recommendation should be modified to permit an intrusion of up to 15 feet into the 25 foot setback area from the adjacent right-of-way of 156th Street S. W. in the northeast corner for the purpose of construction of a detached garage structure which shall not be more than one story high, nor exceed 15 feet in elevation above the existing grade as represented and requested by the applicant/appellant Summers, said garage structure to be located generally in the vicinity as shown on Exhibit 4 to the Edmonds City Council agenda memo for this appeal, a copy of which Exhibit is attached hereto and incorporated in full by this reference. 10. Notwithstanding the depiction of a proposed residential structure on the above -identified Exhibit 4, no portion of the proposed residential structure shall be permitted to protrude into the required 25 foot setback from the right-of-way of 156th Street S. W. From the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the City Council enters the following: DECISION Pursuant to section 20.105.040 (C) (3) (a) the decision of the Hearing Examiner granting a variance to the applicant to permit residential structures to intrude up to 5 feet into the 25 foot setback requirement from 156th Street S. W. is hereby modified to permit a garage structure to be located up to 15 feet into the required setback area from 156th Street S. W. in the northeasterly portion of the building envelope as depicted on Exhibit 4 attached to these Findings, Conclusions and Decision, provided that said structure shall not be more than one story and shall not exceed 15 feet in total height above existing grade. No portion of the residential structure shall be permitted to intrude into the required setback area. All other requirements and conditions contained in the Hearing Examiner's decision of File No. V-92-4 issued March 6, 1992, shall remain in full force and effect, except to the extent they are inconsistent or less restrictive than the conditions imposed by the City Council in this decision. PASSED by a majority of the City Council this � day of 1992. CITY OF EDMOND ay�ou a 11 EST/AUTH CAED: 2 ty Clerk, Rhonda J. March Findings - 4 - JDW24033.1X/0006.15061 \�\ PPDPODED V.".r&D Row N 69•y1100'W (PLAT) t,1 h � r— t 101 .OrA YAAD _ 1 � � .01 09 alsc 3 ° AXE— N 69- W 69- 56'j9'W(M ® 51'ic PLAN N 1'•10' • «,:>-.> �m LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXIIIBIT "B" MEADOWDALE BEACH BLK 000 D-07 LOT 24 LY E OF CO RD LESS E 438 FT OF & 100 FT & LESS BEG SW COR TH PTN LY E OF CO RD TH N ALG E MGN CO RD TO N BDY SD TR TH E ALG N BDY 120 FT TH S PLT CO RD TO S 13DY SD TR TH W ALG S BDY TO POB ALSO LESS E 160 FT OF TR 24 LESS S 100 FT THOF