Loading...
revised Council appeal decision V-92-67 & V-92-67.pdfCIT''( CLF, 2092X32 9 CIVIC CENTER EDMONDS. WA 98020 07/01/92 JDW/naa R:07/31/92WSS/naa REVISED 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. Chapter 20.105, 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 YOI.2G"e"(3FAGE04 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 and porch/entryway to the residence to be located in the easterly portion of the building pad area, which garage structures 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. 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 structures 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 a garage structure not restricted in height 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. From the foregoing Findings, the City Council makes the following: Findings - 2 - JDW24033.1X/0006.15061 VOL. t!21 6 PAGE040 2 Z0.923032 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. A covenant running with the land and in favor of appellants limiting construction in the setback area to 15 feet in height is appropriate. 8. 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. 9. The variance as modified meets the criteria of section 20.85.020 of the ECDC. Findings - 3 - JDu24033.1X/0006.15061 VOL. 2 6 4 b PAGE O 4 Of 923032 9 10. The proposed settlement includes withdrawal of a street vacation request previously submitted by the applicant. 11. 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 garage structure and porch/entryway connecting the garage to the main residential 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 structures shall be located generally in the vicinity 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. No building permit shall be issued and this variance shall not be effective until a covenant running with the land binding the applicant's subject site and running in favor of appellants' parcels, limiting construction in the set back area to 15 feet above existing grade is recorded of record in Snohomish County, Washington, and proof of such recording is presented to the building official of the City of Edmonds. The garage structure shall not be designed nor used for human habitation. 12. Findings and Conclusions approved July 7, 1992, do not accurately reflect the decision of the City Council incorporating the Settlement Agreement of the applicant and neighbor principally affected and are accordingly modified as set forth herein. 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, porch/entryway connecting the garage to the main residential structure and such other minor portions of the main residential structure as are the minimum necessary to orient the residential structure to the lot. Said structures may be located generally in the vicinity shown on Exhibit A to the City Council Agenda memorandum to be located up to 15 feet into the required setback area from 156th Street S. W. in the building envelope as depicted on Exhibit 4 attached to these Findings, Conclusions and Decision, provided that said structures shall not be more than one story and shall not exceed 15 feet in total height above existing grade. No building permit shall be issued, and this variance shall not be effective, until a covenant running with the land binding the applicant's subject site, running in favor of appellants' parcels and limiting construction in the set back area to 15 feet Findings - 4 - JDN24033.1X/0006.15061 VOL. 6 PAGE 0 4 v -1 above existing grade is recorded of record in Snohomish County, Washington,. Proof of such recording shall be presented to the building official of the City of Edmonds prior to the issuance of any permit for the area of variance. The garage structure shall not be designed nor used for human habitation. 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. Withdrawal of applicant's street vacation request is hereby accepted. THIS REVISION PASSED by a majority of the City Council this 4th day of August , 1992. CITY OF EDMONDS ay r Laura M. Hall ATTEST/AUTHENTIC'A ED: C'ty Clerk, E onda J. March Findings JDW24033.1X/0006.15061 - 5 - yot.. 2G2�),PAa04A )' ® v- 1s. I +ut N . I ! 1s. I +ut N . CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON MID -YEAR FINANCIAL REPORT (Continued from Julv 7. 1992) Art Housler, Administrative Services Director, reviewed with the Mayor and Council, the Reve- nue/Expenditure History v. 1992 Actual to Budget Graph; Cash Flow Statement; Comparative Cash Flow Statement; Council Contingency Fund Activity Report; and Revenue Indicators. eG" Mr. Housler said the economy in general is very fragile, and reviewed the Sales Tax Equalization .^ Revenues which the City received in July, 1992. Mr. Housler said the City received 84% of what I Oft hwas budgeted, which indicated to Mr. Housler said the economy in the State of Washington is quite strong, however, said the Country is clearly in a slow growth pattern. Councilmember Petruzzi inquired on Municipal Court collections. Mr. Housler said the Court Admin- istrator is in the process of training new staff, and will be approximately two months until the Court is able to concentrate on collections. Councilmember Petruzzi asked Mr. Housler what his general advise is to the Council with regards to City spending, keeping in mind the economic conditions. Mr. Housler recommended caution in spending. Mr. Housler said the Council should perceive on the prospect that revenues for 1993 would not increase more approximately 2-1/2% over 1992. Mr. Housler said one of the major con- cerns he has going into the 1993 budget is the City did some one time cuts for replacement of funding from other sources for the general fund, which will have to be dealt with. The amount of the one time items total $390,000. Councilmember Petruzzi said in essence, the City is going into the 1993 Budget Process with a shortfall of $390,000. Mr. Housler said this is true in es- sence, however, stated there are items that could be discussed by the Council which would lessen this amount. Councilmember Earling said the Salary Review Committee's report, which will presented to the Council in a couple weeks, will provide the Council with good information and will answer many questions relating to 1993 budgeting. OF (FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECI- Councilmember Kasper stated he would abstain from the discussion, as he was not present at the Council Meeting in which this item was discussed. City Attorney Scott Snyder said on July 7, 1992, the City Council adopted Findings, Conclusions and Decisions regarding appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision on a variance request by Craig Summers for property located at 7222 156th St. S.W. On July 24, 1992, he received a letter from Beth Clark, attorney for Craig Summers requesting some corrections in the Findings, Conclusions and Decision adopted by the Council. Ms. Clark believes that the adopted Findings Conclusions, and Decision do not reflect the Council's resolution of the appeals based on a mutual agreement reached by the appellants. Mr. Snyder agreed and said the revised Findings, Conclusions and Decisions are attached for Council review and adoption. COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, TO ADOPT THE REVISED FINDINGS, OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING VARIANCE AT 7222 156TH STREET S.W. (APPELLANT: RICK WURDEMAN, ET AL/APPLICANT: CRAIG SUMMERS/FILE NOS. AP -92- 67/V-92-4 AND APPELLANT/APPLICANT: CRAIG SUMMERS/FILE NOS. AP -92-68 AND V-92-4). MOTION CARRIED. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR JOB DESCRIPTION Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager, reported the position has been advertised, and thus far, the City has received 46 applications. Mr. Hunter noted 96 applications have been requested. d'It was the consensus of the Council that the Community Services Director position is one of the most significant and important position the City has. The Council said it is imperative that the 311 City utilizes a very careful selection process when filling the position. Councilmember Nordquist asked Mayor Hall if an exit interview was conducted with the former Commu- nity Services Director, and if so, was any of that information used to evaluate the position that is being advertised. Mayor Hall said an extensive exit interview was conducted and said she feels the job description for the Community Services Director adequately fits the duties. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, FOR APPROVAL OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR JOB DESCRIPTION. MOTION CARRIED. FINAL APPROVED COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2 August 4, 1992