Reconsideration-RequestAndDecision.pdfShaun C. Leiser
SCL Enterprises, LLC
PO Box 60216
Shoreline, Washington 98160
December 26, 2007
Ms. Rice
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, Washington 98020
JtF
r`
®F -C 2 7 2407
PlEaull 0oU13TCR
RE: Variance Request for Reconsideration - 24110 84" Avenue West Dated December 18, 2007
Dear Ms. Rice,
This letter is to request reconsideration for variance number V-2007-81. Applied variances were
for reduction of 15' setback to a 10' setback on two street frontages both 80 Ave. West and SR
104.
One variance is to allow a 10' setback instead of a 15' setback along 80 Ave. W. This variance
is to allow the preservation of mature trees on site. Please note that this variance was at the
request of the Architectural Design Review Board in which I concurred with. The original site
plan submitted to the ADB did not preserve the trees. The original provided parking fit within
the 15' setback (original site plan is attached). The variance is in the best interest of the
comprehensive plan adopted by the city to maintain mature trees and vegetation. On page 54 of
the City of Edmonds Comprehensive plan it states....
Residential Development
C. Goal. A broad range of housing types and densities should be encouraged in order that a
choice of housing will be available to all Edmonds Residents, in accordance withwthe following
policies:
C.2. Multiple. The city's development policies encourage high .quality site and building design to
promote coordinated development and to.preserve the trees, topography and other natural
features of the site. Stereo ed bcLxy multiple unit residential buildings are too avoided.
Also on page 66.
Vegetation and Wildlife
B. Goal. The city should ensure that its woodlands, marshes, and other areas containing natural
vegetation are preserved, in accordance with the following policies:
B.2.The removal of trees should be minimized particularly when they are located on steep slopes
or hazardous soils. Subdivision layouts, buildings and roads should be designed so that existing
trees are preserved.
In response to the "Conclusions based on findings" I am going to break the two variances apart
and speak on each one separately. In response to:
B. You state that it is not clear why no rear lot line was identified and, why no 15' setback was
required. The ECDC 16.30.040 Site development exceptions E.Corner Lots. States... "Corner lots
Shall have no rear setback, all setbacks other than street setbacks shall be side setbacks"
Minimum side yard setback for a RM 2.4 zone is 10'.- The site has been classified as a corner lot
with two street frontages but in my case three street frntages. Secondly you state that "the sites
mature trees are not unique in the neighborhood." The Comprehensive plan does not state that
trees to be preserved should be unique in character for them to be preserved it states that mature
trees should be preserved. It is my understanding that Edmonds does not have a tree ordinance
but generally trees larger than 8" at breast height is considered mature. The trees that are in
question are 18" to 28" fir trees.
The second variance is to reduce the street setback along SR 104 from 15' to 10'. This variance
is also in the best interest of the comprehensive plan and the Growth Management Act for many
reasons. The state goals of the growth management act state that:
Urban Growth: Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and
services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner
A. Reduce Sprawl: Reduce the jggppro riate conversion of underdeveloped land into
s raw.fip& low density development.
Also on pg.21 of the comprehensive plan it states that:
"The ciy should consider using incentives to achieve redevelopment and infill goals and zonin
incentives or other measures to ensure that land adjacent to infrastructure facilities is utilized to
maximize the economic benefits of that infrastructure". The only way to achieve the true
economic maximization of the infrastructure is by maximizing the zoning potential. For instance
in the zone of RM2.4 we are allowed to build a total of 5.5 units, a true maximization would
allow for the construction of up to six units but we are proposing to build 5. We already have
unit and or land shrinkage due to the non -construction or development of the half unit. Under
developing properties even more in general would only increase sprawling, the costs of land, and
housing which once again the growth management act and the comprehensive plan frowns on.
Again on pg. 104 andl 05 of the comprehensive plan it states:
Land use Strategies:
Infill Development. "The city's principle policy direction is aimed at encouraging infill
development consistent with its neighboirhoods and community character. This overall plan
direction has been termed "designed infill" and can be seen in the city's emphasis and continued
work on streamlining permitting, revising codes to pLovide more flexible standards and
uMroving its design guidelines:'
This variance meets the criteria for a variance approval. The special circumstances criteria
include the shape and location of the property. The property in question has five sides or
property lines thus creating the unique shape of the property. Most all properties are square or
rectangular shaped having four sides' front, back and two side yards. In some instances these
parcels may sit on a corner or an intersection creating a corner property which changes the front,
back, and side yard designations. In the case of a corner property you have no rear yard setback
as stated in the ECDC 16.30.040
Site Development exceptions.
E. Corner Lots. Corner lots shall have no rear setback; all setbacks other than street setbacks
shall be side setbacks.
In an RM2.4 zone setbacks are as follows: Street setbacks 15', Side setback 10', Rear setback
15'. In the case of this property being held to three street setbacks of which two of the three
cannot be accessed and two side setbacks limits the maximization use of the property for design,
tree preservation, unit count, and also utilizing the economic benefits of existing infrastructure.
The granting of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege; other properties in general
do not have five property lines.
The approval of this variance is very much consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The approval of this variance is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the
zone district.
The variance as 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. As stated at
the hearing there is a geotechnical engineer of record for the project. The soil classification and
stability of the soils are in the report submitted to the city. I have included with this letter a
secondary letter from the geotechnical engineer of record stating and supporting the stability of
the soils, and steep slopes. The soils are stable and there are no issues with constructing buildings
within the 10' setback.
The approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
This variance is the minimum necessary to allow this site to be developed. The factor that
necessitates variance approval is the engineering requirements of access, parking and turn around
minimum widths and depths. The Edmonds community development code states that on pg. 18-
43 and 18-44 the minimum drive aisle with is 24' with a stall depth of 18' and a minimum fire
turn -around of a 30' radius. These lengths or distances are the minimums. If you refer to the site
plan you can see the drive isle with of 24' (the minimum) the 30' radius (the minimum). To see
the garage stall depth you need to refer to the building plans on page A3. You can see on pg.A3
that all of the garage depths are at the minimums, 18'on average. The outside dimension is 20'
but when subtract wall thickness and the room needed for garbage, furnace and hot tanks you
have a distance of 18'or even a little less. Being as that many people drive SUVs 18' doesn't cut
it. I myself drive a dodge truck that is 21' long, even with considering longer vehicles as a norm
we still designed to the minimums. If you add all the required engineering distances together you
can see from the site plan that we have designed to the minimum standards. This variance is the
minimum necessary to achieve all the goals of engineering, zoning, the comprehensive plan, and
the growth management act.
In conclusion we believe this request is reasonable for several reasons. Requiring a 15' setback
along the southwest sides of the lot would severely limit the development potential of the site,
requiring either fewer units or a smaller parking court. As designed the parking court is just
large enough to provide for the convenient maneuvering of cars in and out of garages, and for the
required 30' diameter access for fire trucks. The 19' depth of the garages is, likewise, only as
large as necessary to provide for cars of average size. Furnaces and water heaters are located in
the garages so each two car garage can accommodate one car that is 19' long and one car that is
17' long. Building fewer units would fail to maximize the number of homes that this site is
zoned to accommodate. While this site has no minimum density, the zoning for five units helps
achieve the goals of the Growth Management Act.
Also, there is a sloping buffer of native vegetation between the sidewalk along the highway to
the property line that varies in width from 29' to 60' and greatly increases the apparent depth of
the 10' setback. We have carefully sited the buildings to retain several mature trees. Increasing
the setback along the SW sides of the property from 10' to 15' will very likely require the
removal of some of these trees. Finally, this site is unusual in its relationship to surrounding
streets, existing trees, topography and zoning. We feel that our design helps achieve the City's
goal of increasing housing in a way that is sensitive to the unique characteristics of the site and
the scale of surrounding development. We hope you will look favorably on our request for these
two variances.
In addition I would like the variances to be treated as separate variances if at all favorable_
Sincerely,
Z7��'
Shaun Leiser
V
m
0
TTt
L"d� p1p����DDvva ���11a ppT:igro Ry'ziotr
6Ou
tl If 2V 1140
0q —(�g.Zgm v au u -yy
A� O qdl� p 'L
YZo61 g pY- u -
11 O➢(i
n m km_t w arm
yRYyRS$tE�72�pp yyy 7y�z gyN n
9y
d oom
oNDV1x
GnP _
R9 A •-P Pi
m 14 ss"
am S p9 Y$� �
'A HER � � ip$�nCU���anY
y 2A y<Y
DPn i,- #n .� �-z PiD
$AY�3 oo Yati_� nd�+D g
Off` RS ;
'iYYq
6P�D VO o D z
Ao
p x r 5)p rys
O V�0 z11 pu y
<. v
`i U
�T^' —1, a$ n
Pp �O*y m„Ci z.51 i iRyr
gony�--?Oagn_S)aflt+ w
v
Y�@Tp[[DD �Yvi m�m°z 3ZyzpyzY nO� ;
�_��$r YxaD
z 3'.
yn�
67E N
�Z fn N np wlly�Y1a'�
$�prr9
� 4"
Pz 3Y n3r x• NO16YPP I'
F I- y. .. a -go,
W
uuu�3(((pppO��� � (('g �
wm
x �>-
s o
It O PYA
Wig- "
8 �a1n�tl
Am � N RPUZrDi a
I VY cP k1� p5h,
�{¢m Uxx „ D fin+-�'Dr �10P Qj�
�rre0 a gp{1 aYVp W
crs
F
7$�O
;Rxz-
m
�2 DR�Ro z pz4i
=Y; 7aD3> T_p
a ,yp
vO=p k a y
z_z P
u
a�m$�o j�$6�
q �m��
'o�"uR���g€P�2r
'"Nis
:r 9.-FgD
& $�
N
�
n7
NotD o
m
�
/O
�0
aO A /
a u- Oyiz�08./ f //CL�ia
o
a
z
o
e
4
O n ¢• c e
7 y 7
p t a
}
b
♦
V
p
>
O
A
6
o
W
A
1A
4
g
♦
-` x
Wig- "
rn
a -0
/
�/
6F pn Z�
�n� m y
n7
/, �
2.
/ 84th Avenue VII
n
V
r
>
O
A
6
Y
- v"!• r
o
W
A
1A
4
g
co
a -0
a
6F pn Z�
�n� m y
n7
�
a
u u u
asu
oaa CD�+a
�Yr
o
>
�17�
n
�m
Y u u
9�
n
Juni
A hiiec#
X
a• rtxce
6.14'08:- W 99.49'
I
z
I
r yy
Q
o P
a s
a
-
'
a+ ac _u 4 wm zp r m YDra a or a 1•a
c p $n dam`A Qz�� yown v C z
m
Y
- v"!• r
a U
T
co
a -0
a
6F pn Z�
�n� m y
n7
�
a
u u u
asu
oaa CD�+a
�Yr
o
u
�17�
n
�m
Y u u
9�
n
Juni
A hiiec#
FRomr,T. 24110 - 84th Avenue W Jerry I'm,, rc
EG�+ds. VIA 4114 Pnilswy ^— N E—Wa Yi4 '18103 -
o1M42R. SM ENTEVRiSW Cm1xt Shau" L9IW re$opho and Fd 206-515-150Q
xio-xxsxeW�.�_ _acvmeveomu 9�rrv.sa.+..«^s...... �,�••
-FROM .JERRY JUTTING FAX N0. :205-545-1.500 Dec. 25 2007 04:35PM P1
lorry jutting Architect
Jerry Juttin& AIA
4114 Phinney Avenue North
Seattle, Washington 98103
Tel. & Fax: 206-545-150D
24 December 2007
Shaun Leiser
SGL Enterprises, LLC.
17921 Linden Avenue N
Shoreline, WA 98133
Job # 0323
24110 - 80 Avenue W
Edmonds, WA
Dear Ms. Rice,
1.00
This is a fetter of request for reconsideration regarding requested variances for the
construction of five new homes at 24110 -- Se Ave W, Edmonds, WA. We are
requesting two variances for this project for reduction in the front yard setbacks along
8e Ave W and State Route 104.
Please note that Shaun Leiser was informed by the Cita of Edmonds planning
department that there would not be a required rear yard setback for this property
because of the irregular shape of this lot and the'loWtion of streets on three sides.
Please refer to "Report and Recommendation to the Hearing Examiner" dated
11 r27/2007, page 7, item U.
One variance is to allow a reduction in the front yard setback along State Route 104
from 15' to 10'. This lot has an irregular shape with 5 sides. Three of these sides
abut streets but because of the toMraph.tthe only side that provides access to the
erty
site is the south east propline along 84 Ave W. Driveway access is provided
from this side and the required width of the driveway is 24`. (See above referenced
report page 7. item C)
We believe this request is reasonable for several reasons- Requiring a 15' setback
along the southwest sides of the lot would severely limit the development potential of
the site, requiring either fewer units or a smaller parking court As designed the
parking court just large enough to provide for the Convenient maneuvering of cam in
and out of garages, and for the required 30' diameter access for fire trucks. The 19'
depth of the garages is, likewise, only as large as necessary to pnwide for cars of
average size- Furnaces and water treaters are looted in the garages so each two
car garage can accommodate one car that is 19' long and one car that is 17' long.
Building fewer units would fail to maximize the number of homes that this site is
zoned to accommodate. While this site has no minimum density, the zoning for five
units helps achieve the goals of the Growth Management Act. This variance request
is the minimum necessary to allow this site to be developed given the requirements of
access, parking, and density- (See above referenced report, page 7, items D and O)
Also, there is -a a sloping buffer of native vegetation between the sidewalk along the
highway to the property line that varies in width from 29' to 64' and greatly -increases
the apparent depth of the 10' setbaolk. !Finally, we have carefully sited the buildings to
retain several mature trees. increasing the setback along the SW sides of the
property from 10' to 16 will very likely require the removal of some of hese trees.
`FROM :JERRY JUTTING FAX NO. :206-545-1500 Dec. 25 2007 04:36PM P2
The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan states, "The City's development policies
encourage high quality site and building design tea promote coordinated development
to preserve trees, topography, and other natural features of the site. Stereotyped,
boxy multiple unit resWential buildings are to be avoided_`
The second variance would allow required parking to extend into the front yard
setback along 84!' Ave W at the SW comer of the sae. Parking, as designed, has a
minimum 19 setback from this property One. Again, we have based this design on
the desire to retain existing trees, and the recommendations of the Edmonds
Architectural Design Board. (See above referenced report, page 7, fiern 1)
This site is unusual in its relationship to surrounding streets, existing trees,
topography, and zoning. We feel that our design helps achieve the City's goal of
increasing housing in a way that is sensitive to the unique charadAeristics of the site
and the scale of surrounding development_ We hope you will look favorably on our
request for these two variances.
Sf rely,
i a(
cry Juni .AIA �j
LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Engineering Geology Earth Science
December 26, 2007
Mr. Shaun Leiser
SCL Enterprises, LLC
1.7923 Linden Avenue North
Shoreline, WA 98177
Dear Mr. Leiser:
Subject: Slope Stability Evaluation and Building Setback Recommendations
Townhome Buildings
24110 — 84th Avenue West
Edmonds, Washington
L&A Job No. 7A013
INTRODUCTION
We previously performed a geotechnical engineering study for the subject project with our
f ndings and recommendations presented in our geotechnical report dated February 3, 2007. We
understand that there is a concern by City of Edmonds about the impact from the development of
the subject project on the stability of the slope between the subject project site and Edmonds
Way (SR 104) which bounds the southeast side of the site. Presented in this report are our
evaluation of the stability of this slope and our recommendations for the setback of the proposed
townhome buildings from the property lines and the top of this slope.
SLOPE STABILITY
The slope between Edmonds Way and the subject project site stands at about 57% grade at the
steepest, and the closest point of the top of this slope is at about 6 feet from the southeast .
boundary lines of the subject project site. This slope has a well established vegetation cover. We
understand that this slope was created by cutting below the original ground from grading of the
19213 Kenlake Place NE - Kenmore, Washington 98028
Phone (425) 483-9134 - Fax (425) 486-2746
December 26, 2007
Mr. Shaun Leiser/SCL Enterprises, LLC
L&A Job No. 7AO13
Page 2
adjacent Edmonds Way. Therefore, the slope is composed of native soils and most likely is free
of fill.
As presented in our 2/3/2007 geotechnical report, according to the Geologic Map of the Edmonds
East and Part of Edmonds West Quadran les Washington, by James P. Minard, published by U.
S. Geological Survey, the surficial soil unit underlying the site is mapped as Vashon Till
The fresh. Vashon Till soils, normally lies at about 2 to 4 feet below ground surface, are
composed of very -dense, weakly -cemented, gravelly, silty sand with occasional cobble. The
fresh till soils are of very -high strength and can stand in vertical slopes or cuts for a long period.
The fresh Vashon Till soils were also encountered at about 3.0 to 4.0 feet below ground surface
by all three test pits excavated on the site. The steep slope between the subject project site and
Edmonds Way is most likely cut into the fresh till soils. Consequently, this slope, standing at
about 2H: IV slope with a well established vegetation, should be quite stable. Therefore, it is our
opinion that the development of the proposed townhome project will have little impact on this
slope as long as the vegetation'cover on the slope is maintained, fill is not pushed over the slope
and concentrated storm runoff is not discharged onto the slope.
BUILDING SETBACK
Our evaluation of the geologic hazards of the subject project site, including landslide, erosion
and seismic hazards, was also presented in our 2/3/2007 geotechnical report. Because the site is
underlain at shallow depth by till soils of very -high shear strength, we concluded that the
potential of geologic hazards for the site would be minimal and that the site should be quite
stable.
The purpose of building setback from the top or toe or an overly steep portion of a slope is to
establish a safe buffer such that if a slope failure should occur the stability of the structure can be
LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC.
December 26, 2007
Mr. Shaun Leiser/SCL Enterprises, LLC
L&A Job No. 7A013
Page 3
maintained and damages to the structure minimized. The steep slope between the subject project
site and Edmonds Way is composed of till soils of very -high shear strength. To maintain
stability of the proposed townhome buildings, we recommend that they be set back at least 10
feet from the crest of the slope of 40% or steeper grade, or about 5 feet from the southeast
boundary lines of the. site. To maintain long-term stability of the townhome buildings, their
footing foundations within 25 feet of the crest of steep slope should be embedded at least one
foot into the undisturbed, very -dense, fresh till soils.
CLOSURE
We are pleased to be of service to you. Please call if you have any questions.
01�1 G S.
9 �-- WAS& �C
( Zo0
_ 27589 1.
EXPIRES 71171
Yours very truly,
LISSOCIA ,INC.
anJ.
Liu, Ph.D., P.E.
Consulting Geotechnical Engineer
LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC.
-'PC. 18913
CITY -OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
In the Matter of the Application of }
Shaun Leiser }
)
)
For a Variance }
)
NO. V-2007-81
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
ORDER ON REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
REQUEST
On December 18, 2007, the Edmonds Hearing Examiner issued a decision denying the request
for a variance from the fifteen -foot minimum street setback requirement of the Multiple
Residential zone. If approved, the variance would allow placement of structures within 10 feet
of one street and placement of off-street parking spaces within ten feet of two streets, on a site
located at 24110 — 84" Avenue W, in Edmonds, Washington. The Applicant filed a request for
reconsideration of the examiner's decision, which the City received December 27, 2007.
The request for reconsideration assigns error to Finding No. 7 and Conclusion No. Lb regarding
rear yard setback requirements. Other than rear setback issues, the reconsideration request does
not assign specific error to the December 18, 2007 decision but rather reasserts the Applicant's
request for variance approval and seeks to submit additional evidence in the record.
STANDARD
Pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.100.010(G), the hearing
examiner shall reconsider a decision if a written request is filed within 10 working days of the
date of the initial decision by any person holding an ownership interest in the subject property.
Reconsideration requests must cite specific references to the findings and/or to the criteria for
review of the underlying decision. If the examiner believes that an error or omission is
significant and may alter his or her decision, he or she may at his or her discretion amend the
decision to incorporate any omitted material and/or fact or to correct the error.
DISCUSSION
The Applicant's request for reconsideration was timely filed, pursuant to ECDC 20.100.010(G),
and the Applicant has standing to file the request.
1. Assignment of error to Finding No. 7 and to Conclusion No. Lb
Finding No. 7 and Conclusion Lb both note that the record fails to address the fact that no rear
yard setback was applied to the site plan. See December 18, 2007 Decision, pages 3 and 7. In
Order on Reconsideration
Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds
Leiser Variance, No. V-2007-81 page 1 of 4
• Incorporated August 1I, 1890 •
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
the request for reconsideration, the Applicant provides a citation to ECDC 16.30.040.D, which
states: "Corner lots shall have no rear setback; all setbacks other than street setbacks shall be side
setbacks."
2. Additional Evidence Offered.
On reconsideration, the Applicant offers evidence that was not admitted before the close of the
record. The Applicant attached a letter from geotechnical engineers, dated December 26, 2007,
addressing the stability of the adjacent steep slope. The Applicant also offers a letter, dated
December 24, 2007, from an architect responding to the December 18, 2007 variance decision.
At the opening of the December 6, 2007 land use hearing calendar, the parties were informed
that the examiner is restricted to consideration of evidence that is offered before the close of the
record. At the outset of the hearing in matter number V-2007-81, the examiner read highlights of
the exhibit list into the record and called attention to the exhibit list in the Staff Report, which the
Applicant received in advance of the hearing. At hearing, the Applicant was informed that the
record could be held open for additional information and was informed of his burden of proof to
offer all necessary exhibits prior to the close of the record. After a discussion about the
possibility of holding the record open for submission of geotechnical information, the Applicant
requested that the record not be held open. Instead, pursuant to arrangements made on the record
at hearing, Staff submitted a recommended condition of approval addressing geotechnical
review. The record in the matter closed December 6, 2007.
In the reconsideration request, the Applicant did not argue, and there is no basis for finding, that
the information in the letters from the architect and the engineer was not available at time of
hearing. The record cannot be reopened to admit the information.
3. Grounds for Reconsideration
On reconsideration, the Applicant reasserts that the variances requested are the minimum
necessary to allow development of the subject property. As at the hearing, the Applicant cites
Comprehensive Plan policies that mention tree retention and the general Growth Management
Act goal of reducing urban sprawl in support of his assertion that he is entitled to the maximum
density allowed on-site. Request for Reconsideration, pages 1-2.
The Applicant states:
This variance is the minimum necessary to allow this site to be developed.
...Building fewer units would fail to maximize the number of homes that this
site is zoned to accommodate. While this site has no minimum density, the
zoning for five units helps achieve the goals of the Growth Management Act.
Requestfor Reconsideration, page 3.
Order on ,Reconsideration
Hearing Examiner for City of Edmondv
Leiser Variance, No. V-2007-81
page 2 of 4
In Edmonds, variance applications are required to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
(ECDC 20.85A10.C) but they are also required to be consistent with the "the zone district in
which the property is located" (ECDC 20.85.010.13).
Courts in Washington have held that specific zoning ordinances prevail over inconsistent
comprehensive plan policies. Lakeside Industries v. Thurston County, 119 Wn. App. 886, 894
(2004); citing Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce County, 124 Wn.2d 26, 43 (1.994). Because a
comprehensive plan is a guide and not a document designed for making specific land use
decisions, conflicts concerning a proposed use are resolved in favor of the more specific zoning
regulations. Lakeside Industries v. Thurston County, at 894, citing Citizens for Mount Vernon v
City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 86I (1997). Where the zoning code itself expressly requires
that a proposed use comply with a comprehensive plan, the proposed use must satisfy both the
zoning code and the comprehensive plan. Cingular Wireless v Thurston County, 131 Wn. App.
756, 770 (2006).
The Edmonds zoning code requires 15 -foot setbacks from streets. ECDC 16.30.030,
Table A. In order to obtain a variance from the required street setbacks, an applicant
must demonstrate compliance with all six criteria for variance approval. The sixth
criterion requires that the requested variance be "the minimum necessary to allow the
owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning".
ECDD 20.85. 010. F.
Single-family development is allowed in the underlying zoning district. ECDC
16.30. 01 O.A. 1. There is no minimum density requirement in the district. ECDC
16.30.030, Table A. A single-family residence represents the minimum necessary
development to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with
the same zoning. The site is already developed with a single-family residence, which is
consistent with the requirements of both the zoning code and the comprehensive plan.
It is the Applicant's proposal to develop the site with five dwelling units that necessitates
variance approval. A different site plan with fewer units could be proposed that would
not require variance approval. General Comprehensive Plan policies regarding infill and
urban sprawl prevention cannot be relied on to avoid the specific requirements of the
zoning district or the explicit requirements of the ECDC's variance criteria.
It is unfortunate that the variance has returned for review and approval, having been allowed to
expire. The Applicant might consider exploring with the Planning Division whether there are
other means of retaining City permission to develop the site consistent with the existing,
approved building permits, but the record does not support variance approval. As explained at
the hearing, the examiner does not have jurisdiction to render "no harm, no foul" equitable relief.
Order on Reconsideration
Hearing Fxaminer for City of -Edmonds
Leiser Variance, No. V-2007-81 page 3 of 4
ORDER
The December 18, 2007 decision in the matter of V-2007-81 is amended consistent with the
following:
1. Finding No. 7 is amended to read:
The property abuts SR 104 near its intersection with Highway 99.
Because the property's side lot lines abut two rights-of-way, "street
setbacks" (rather than side setbacks) apply along both SR 104 and 80
Avenue W. Exhibit 1, page 3.
2, Conclusion No. l .b is amended to read:
Fifteen -foot setbacks are required from streets in the RM -2.4 district. The
site's mature trees are not unique in the neighborhood. Although the city
code and comprehensive plan place emphasis on tree retention, the site's
mature trees do not constitute special circumstances inherent in the land
that distinguish the site from surrounding parcels in the RM -2.4 zone.
Nothing in the record supports an assertion that residential development of
the site cannot comply with all bulk and dimensional standards of the RM -
2.4 zone. It is the proposed site design, not the circumstances of the
property, which necessitates variance approval. Findings Nos 4, 7, 19,
and I — 21.
3. The rest of the decision remains as issued on December 18, 2007. Reconsideration is
denied. This order on reconsideration shall be appended to the decision in the City's
official record.
DECIDED this 31" day of December 2007.
Order on Reconsidera#on
Hearing Examiner for City ofEdmonds
Leiser Variance No. V-2007-81
Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiners
By:
Sharon A. Rice
page 4of4
1PC, 1$gv
CITY OF EDM®NDS GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing requests for reconsideration and
appeals. Agy person wishing to file or res and to a r nest far reconsideration or an 4p2eal should
contact
Planning Division of the Development _Services Department for _fuir er,procedural
information.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Section 20.100.010(G) of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) requires the Hearing
Examiner to reconsider his or her 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
Chapter 20.105 of the ECDC contains the appeal procedures for Hearing Examiner decisions. Pursuant to
Section 20.105.040(A), persons entitled to appeal include (1) the Applicant; (2) anyone who has
submitted a written document to the City of Edmonds concerning the application prior to or at the
hearing; or (3) anyone testifying on the application at the hearing. Sections 20.105.020(A) requires
appeals to be in writing, and state (1) the decision being appealed, the name of the project applicant, and
the date of the decision; (2) the name and address of the person (or group) appealing the decision, and his
or her interest in the matter; and (3) the reasons why the person appealing believes the decision to be
wrong. Pursuant to Section 20.105.020(B), the appeal must be filed with the Director of the Development
Services Department within 14 calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. The appeal
must be accompanied by any required appeal fee.
TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeal 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 or her
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 five of the appeal period, an individual
would have nine more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on
the reconsideration request.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 20.85.020(0) of the ECDC states, "[t]he 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 time before the expiration and the city approves the application."
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.
Incorporated August II, I890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
rnr'.1S9v
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-4220 • FAX (425) 771.0221
HEARING EXAMINER
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXA WgER
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
APPLICANT, }
ShaunLeiser )
_ 3
For a Variance }
Order on Reconsideration
I, Sharon A. Rice, the undersigned, do hereby declare:
Case No. V-2007-81
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
1. That I am a partner in the firm of Toweill Rice Taylor LLC, which maintains a professional
services agreement with the City of Edmonds, Washington for the provision of Hearing Examiner
services, and make this declaration in that capacity;
2. That I am now and at all tunes herein mentioned have been -a citizen of the United States, a
resident of the State of Washington, over the age of eighteen (18), and competent to be a witness
and make service herein;
3. That on December 29, 2007, I did serve a copy of the order on reconsideration in case V-2007-
8 1
2007-
81 upon the following individuals at the addresses below by first class US Mail.
Shaw:: Leiser, Applicant
PO Box 6021.6
Shoreline, WA 98160
Clerk of Edmonds City Council
C/O City ofEdmonds, Planning Division
121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
City of Edmonds, Planning Division
121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
Aurin Rutledge
7101 Lake Ballinger Way
Edmonds, WA 98026
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is
true and correct:
DATED THIS day of __vn , 2007 at Washington.
-f;
Sharon A. Rice
Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
Serving as Hearing Examiner for Edmonds, Washington
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan