StaffReport_V-06-102.pdf
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(ADDENDUM TO 09/15/2006 STAFF REPORT)
To:
Hearing Examiner
From
:
Gina Coccia
Planner
Date:
JULY 12, 2007
File:
V-2006-102 (DR. BOGAERT NORTH & SOUTH SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES)
Hearing Date, Time, and Place: JULY 19, 2007 – 3:00 P.M.
Council Chambers, Public Safety Building
th
250 – 5 Avenue North
Edmonds Washington 98020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SectionPage
I.INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................2
A.A.....................................................................................................................................3
PPLICATION
B.R..........................................................................................................................3
ECOMMENDATIONS
II.FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................4
A.SD.............................................................................................................................4
ITEESCRIPTION
B.SEPA(SEPA)..................................................................................4
TATENVIRONMENTALOLICYCT
C.ECDC(ECDC)C..............................................4
DMONDSOMMUNITYEVELOPMENTODEOMPLIANCE
D.CP(ECDC)........................................................................................................5
OMPREHENSIVELAN
E.PC...........................................................................................................................5
UBLICOMMENTS
F.TC....................................................................................................................6
ECHNICALOMMITTEE
III.RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS.......................................................................6
A.RR......................................................................................................6
EQUEST FOR ECONSIDERATION
B.A............................................................................................................................................6
PPEALS
C.TLRA..........................................................................7
IMEIMITS FOR ECONSIDERATION AND PPEALS
IV.LAPSE OF APPROVAL...................................................................................................7
V.NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR......................................................................7
VI.ATTACHMENTS..............................................................................................................7
VII.PARTIES OF RECORD...................................................................................................8
Dr. Bogaert Side Setback Variances
File V-2006-102
Page 2 of 8
I.INTRODUCTION
This is an application by Christopher L. Thayer on behalf of Dr. Raymond Bogaert has applied for setback
variances at the property located at 18600 Sound View Place in the Single-Family Residential (RS-12)
zone. These variances will reduce the required north side setback for a new single-family house from 10-
feet to 8-feet; reduce the required north side setback from 10-feet to 5-feet to accommodate a garage; and
to reduce the required south side setback from 10-feet to 8-feet for the house. In addition, this request is to
include the standard 30” eave encroachment into the setback area.
The staff report composed by (former) Senior Planner Meg Gruwell, AICP, dated 09/15/2006 (Attachment
1), made findings and conclusions based upon the initial variance request for 5-foot side setbacks along the
north and south sides of the property. She recommended denial of both variance requests, because she felt
that the applicant did not prove that they met all of the six variance criteria. An applicant must prove that
they meet all six variance criteria in order for staff to make a recommendation of approval. The public
hearing was scheduled for 09/21/2006 and at the request of the applicant it was continued until 10/05/2006.
On this date, the hearing was postponed until a later date to be determined. In the mean time, the applicant
has been working on a solution that he feels would adequately address the concerns of his neighbors. The
applicant has revised the original application (Attachments 2, 3, 4, and 5) and staff’s analysis is contained
in this report. Staff agrees with the findings and conclusions made in the initial staff report. Because the
variance application has been revised and because new information has been submitted, this staff report is
considered an addendum to the initial staff report.
The applicant has requested that although they have revised their variance application so that it intrudes
less into the setbacks than the original request, they would still appreciate it if the original request (5-foot
setbacks) could also be reviewed for approval. This is their first choice. Their second choice would be the
approval of 8-foot setbacks for the single-family home and a northern 5-foot setback for the garage.
Attachment 1 is the original staff report dated 09/15/2006, as well as the original attachments. This staff
report analyzed the initial 5-foot side setback requests. This addendum to the original staff report took into
consideration the revised variance materials submitted.
Attachment 2 is the revised criteria statement submitted 04/10/2007, along with several attachments
including photographs and copies of variances they feel are applicable to their case.
Attachment 3 consists of several revised site plans. One is titled “new residence and garage” and shows
their revised variance request. It also has arrows leading off the decks of the neighboring properties, which
shows how the applicant feels that the neighbors will still be able to enjoy the same views. The next site
plan is titled “existing vegetation and buildings” and it shows the existing vegetation as it relates to the
neighbor’s views. The last site plan is titled “buildable footprint based on lot coverage” and shows what
the applicant could propose without a variance request. In the applicant’s criteria statement, they also
mention that they feel that they could build on this property, but they feel that the added bulk, height, and
impacts would be greater if a variance were not approved.
Attachment 4 shows the site sections – it is an illustration of the maximum buildable volume (without a
variance) compared to what the applicant would like to do with the proposed variance. It appears that the
applicant has tried to create shorter and less-bulky alternative (which does, however, encroach into the side
setbacks slightly).
Attachment 5 shows the preferred floor plan with a proposed 34-feet wide (as opposed to the required 30-
feet wide) building envelope.
Attachment 6 is a rare find – coincidentally, a neighbor just down the street from the subject site has
applied for a building permit (BLD-2007-0699). Their property is also approximately 50-feet wide and
they have proposed a design that appears to meet the required 10-foot side setbacks for the zone. This
permit has not been approved, it has only been recently applied for, but it serves to show that the property
can probably be developed with a new 30-foot wide single-family house without the need for a variance.
Also, the garage that was proposed is a two-car, not a three-car garage. The two-car garage fits on the
property and is accessed directly from the east without the need for the larger turn-around area.
Attachment 7 is the affidavit of posting and mailing, which shows that the required notice has been
provided for the public hearing.
StaffReport_V-06-102.doc / July 12, 2007
Dr. Bogaert Side Setback Variances
File V-2006-102
Page 3 of 8
Attachment 8 is the two comment letters received between the date that the (initial) staff report was
composed and today.
The following is the Edmonds Planning Division’s analysis and recommendation of the applicant’s
submittal.
A.Application
-- See page 2 of Attachment 1.
B.Recommendations
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend
DENIAL
of both setback variances.
If the Hearing Examiner wished to approve the setback variances, we would recommend the
following conditions:
1.The setback variance to allow an eight-foot setback to the north (northeast) side property line
for the single-family residence is approved as shown on the site plan (Attachment 3 – “site
plan: new residence and garage”).
2.The setback variance to allow a five-foot setback to the north (northeast) side property line
for the garage is approved as shown on the site plan (Attachment 3 – “site plan: new
residence and garage”).
3.The applicant must meet the Engineering Division requirements. Specifically, meeting the
maximum driveway slope requirements as identified in the Edmonds Community
Development Code.
4.The applicant must meet the Fire Department requirements. Specifically,
The dwelling will require the installation of a fire sprinkler system in accordance with
pamphlet NFPA13D, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One and Two-
Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes., or other approved and recognized
standard; and,
The dwelling sprinkler system will require a separate permit for approval and
installation; and,
Sprinkler systems require periodic maintenance to remain viable. A covenant will be
required for this purpose to maintain the viability of the automatic sprinkler system. The
covenant will apply to all future property owners and successors.
5.As noted by the Public Works Department, the city’s easement cannot be encroached upon.
6.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.
7.The applicant must obtain a building permit.
8.Typographical errors must be removed from the geotechnical report and all conditions in
ECDC 23.80.070.A.1.b must be directly addressed.
9.The applicant must comply with all of the terms of any future permits.
10.The variance shall be transferable.
11.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 time before the expiration and the city approves the
application. Only one one-year extension is possible.
StaffReport_V-06-102.doc / July 12, 2007
Dr. Bogaert Side Setback Variances
File V-2006-102
Page 4 of 8
II.FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A.Site Description
1.Site Development and Zoning:
-- See page 3 of Attachment 1.
2.Neighboring Development and Zoning:
-- See page 3 of Attachment 1.
B.State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
-- See page 3 of Attachment 1.
C.Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
1.Critical Areas Compliance (ECDC Chapter 23)
-- See pages 3-4 of Attachment 1.
2.Compliance with (RS-12) Zoning Standards (ECDC Chapter 16.20)
a)Facts:
-- See page 5 of Attachment 1.
(1)The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development
in the Single-Family Residential zone (RS-12) are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030.
(2)When setbacks are applied to the subject property, which is approximately 50-feet
wide, the result is a narrow rectangular lot with a building envelope 30 feet wide
(Attachment 3).
(3)The applicant has revised their variance request as shown in Attachment 3. Initially,
they had requested that the 10-foot side setback be reduced to 5 feet along both the
north and the south property lines.
(4)The applicant now shows the new house set back a distance of 8 feet from the north
and south side property lines (Attachment 3).
(5)The applicant still shows the new garage set back a distance of 5 feet from the north
side property line (Attachment 3).
(6)Coincidentally, the city has recently received a building permit application for a
property in the general vicinity at 18720 Sound View Place (BLD-2007-0699). This
property is also approximately 50-feet wide. They are also proposing a new single-
family residence along the western portion of their property. They are also
proposing a new detached garage. Attachment 6 shows how they have attempted to
design their project to meet the 10-foot side setbacks.
b)Conclusions:
-- See page 5 of Attachment 1.
(1)The applicant would need a variance to construct the house and garage as shown on
Attachment 3.
(2)Based on a recent building permit application (Attachment 6), it appears to be
possible to construct a 30-foot wide home on a 50-foot wide lot and still meet the
required 10-foot side setbacks for the RS-12 zone.
StaffReport_V-06-102.doc / July 12, 2007
Dr. Bogaert Side Setback Variances
File V-2006-102
Page 5 of 8
3.Compliance with Requirements for a Variance (ECDC 20.85)
a)Facts:
-- See pages 5 through 7 of Attachment 1.
(1)Attachment 4 shows that the new house and garage, as proposed, will not be as tall
as the height limit would allow.
(2)Attachments 3 and 4 show that the new house and garage, as proposed, will be less
bulky than the maximum lot coverage would allow.
(3)Attachment 3 “Site plan: existing vegetation and buildings” argues that the
neighbors views are currently impacted by the existing vegetation.
(4)Attachment 6 shows that a property of this size can probably be developed with a
30-foot wide single family home and a detached two-car garage.
(5)The applicant has stated that if the variance were not approved, then they would
likely build the site to the fullest potential possible as shown in Attachments 3 and 4.
b)Conclusions:
(1)Special Circumstances:-- See page 7 of Attachment 1.
(2)Special Privilege:-- See page 7 of Attachment 1.
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance:-- See page 7 of Attachment 1.
(3)
(4)Not Detrimental:-- See page 7 of Attachment 1.
(5)Minimum Variance:-- See page 7 of Attachment 1.
D.Comprehensive Plan (ECDC)
-- See page 9 of Attachment 1.
E.Public Comments
1.Letters Received
-- See page 9 of Attachment 1.
a)Public Comment Letters (Attachment 8)
(1)Paul Lippert submitted an email to former Senior Planner Meg Gruwell, AICP,
on 09/20/2006. He lives down the street and generally opposes the application
because he feels that narrow lot width is not a “good enough” reason for a
variance.
(2)Richard E. Gifford, PLLC, submitted a letter on 09/21/2006 on behalf of his
client, Vicki Haynes, who is the adjacent neighbor to the south. They wish to be
official parties of record for this project and to be notified of all proceedings.
b)Sign-In Sheet 09/21/2006 (Attachment 8)
(1)Jim Wilkinson – 612 Sunset Avenue North.
(2)Joan Swift – 18520 Sound View Place.
c)Sign-In Sheet 10/05/2006 (Attachment 8)
(1)Alvin Rutledge: 7101 Lake Ballinger Way.
StaffReport_V-06-102.doc / July 12, 2007
Dr. Bogaert Side Setback Variances
File V-2006-102
Page 6 of 8
F.Technical Committee
1.Review by City Departments
a)Facts:
The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire
Department, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, and the Parks and
Recreation Department.
(1)The Engineering Division noted that the applicant will be required to meet all
Engineering requirements at building permit application. This includes, but is not
limited to, meeting the maximum driveway slope requirements as identified in the
Edmonds Community Development Code.
(2)The Fire Department reviewed the proposal, especially as it relates to firefighting
capability and the bridge on the property and noted the following:
The dwelling will require the installation of a fire sprinkler system in
accordance with pamphlet NFPA13D, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler
Systems in One and Two-Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes., or other
approved and recognized standard; and,
The dwelling sprinkler system will require a separate permit for approval and
installation; and,
Sprinkler systems require periodic maintenance to remain viable. A covenant
will be required for this purpose to maintain the viability of the automatic
sprinkler system. The covenant will apply to all future property owners and
successors.
(3)The Public Works Department notes, “No permanent structures are to be built in the
city’s utility easements.”
b)Conclusion:
(1)If the variance is approved, then the applicant would need to address the above-
mentioned concerns of the various City Departments.
III.RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any
person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department
for further procedural information.
A.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.
B.Appeals
StaffReport_V-06-102.doc / July 12, 2007
Dr. Bogaert Side Setback Variances
File V-2006-102
Page 7 of 8
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
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 continued for the point it was stopped. For example, if a request is 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.
IV.LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 20.85.020.C 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.”
V.NOTICE TO THE 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.
VI.ATTACHMENTS
1.Staff Report and original attachments (09/15/2006).
2.Revised criteria statement and attachments.
3.Revised site plans: “new residence and garage”, “existing vegetation and buildings”, and “buildable
footprint based on lot coverage.”
4.Site sections: “buildable volume”, “new building massing” and “site sections at each neighboring
building.”
5.Upper and lower floor plans (received 04/10/2007).
6.Neighbor’s proposed site plan (BLD-2007-0699).
7.Affidavit of posting and mailing.
8.Comment letters and parties of record.
StaffReport_V-06-102.doc / July 12, 2007
Dr. Bogaert Side Setback Variances
File V-2006-102
Page 8 of 8
VII.PARTIES OF RECORD
Christopher L. Thayer Planning Division
Larson Hart & Shepherd, PLLC Engineering Division
600 University Street – Ste. 1730 Parks & Recreation Department
Seattle WA 98101 Fire Department
Public Works Department
Stephen R. Rising Charles M. Greenberg
TCA Architecture-Planning Triad Law Group, P.S.C.
6211 Roosevelt Way NE 126 Third Avenue South – Ste. 101
Seattle WA 98115 Edmonds WA 98020-8402
Paul Lippert Vicki Haynes
th
1520 9 Avenue North 18602 Sound View Place
Edmonds WA 98020 Edmonds WA 98020
Dr. & Mrs. William Williamson Richard R. Gifford, PLLC
18518 Sound View Place 600 Main Street – Ste. E
Edmonds WA 98020 Edmonds WA 98020
Joan Swift Alvin Rutledge
18520 Sound View Place 7101 Lake Ballinger Way
Edmonds WA 98020 Edmonds WA 98026
Jim Wilkinson Dr. Raymond Bogaert
612 Sunset Avenue North 18600 Sound View Place
Edmonds WA 98020 Edmonds WA 98020
Dana Knutson
18720 Sound View Place
Edmonds WA 98020
StaffReport_V-06-102.doc / July 12, 2007