StaffReport_V-06-139.doc
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To:
Ron McConnell, FAICP – Hearing Examiner
From
:
Gina Coccia
Planner
Date:
DECEMBER 28, 2006
File:
V-2006-139 (LOWELL CHASE CARPORT SETBACK VARIANCE)
Hearing Date, Time, and Place:
JANUARY 4, 2007 – 3:00 P.M.
Council Chambers, Public Safety Building
th
250 – 5 Avenue North
Edmonds Washington 98020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
I.INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 2
A.A ............................................................................................................................... 2
PPLICATION
B.R .................................................................................................................... 3
ECOMMENDATIONS
II.FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................. 3
A.I ............................................................................................................................ 3
NTRODUCTION
B.SD ....................................................................................................................... 3
ITE ESCRIPTION
C.CSEPA(SEPA) .......................................... 4
OMPLIANCE WITH THE TATE NVIRONMENTAL OLICY CT
D.ECDC(ECDC)C ............................................. 4
DMONDS OMMUNITY EVELOPMENT ODE OMPLIANCE
E.CP(ECDC) ................................................................................................... 7
OMPREHENSIVE LAN
F.PC ...................................................................................................................... 7
UBLIC OMMENTS
G.TC .............................................................................................................. 8
ECHNICAL OMMITTEE
III.RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS ................................................................... 8
A.RR ................................................................................................. 8
EQUEST FOR ECONSIDERATION
B.A ...................................................................................................................................... 8
PPEALS
C.TLRA ....................................................................... 8
IME IMITS FOR ECONSIDERATION AND PPEALS
IV.LAPSE OF APPROVAL ............................................................................................... 8
V.NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR ................................................................... 9
VI.ATTACHMENTS .......................................................................................................... 9
Lowell Chase Carport Setback Variance
File V-2006-139
Page 2 of 9
VII.PARTIES OF RECORD ............................................................................................... 9
I.INTRODUCTION
th
The applicant has constructed a carport with loft storage at 7915 200 Street SW in the Single-Family
Residential (RS-8) zone without first applying for and receiving approval for a building permit. Once an
order to stop work was issued by the Building Division, the applicant decided to pursue a variance as
opposed to relocating or demolishing the structure. The variance request is for the reduction of the
th
minimum 25-foot street setback along 200 Street SW - the applicant is requesting 11 feet 9.5 inches
(11.79 feet) while our review of the site plan indicates a need for 10.58 feet (Attachments 3 and 5).
The carport structure is located within the 25-foot street setback area. In the RS-8 zone, structures cannot
be located in this area without an approved variance. When the applicant was notified that this structure
requires an approved building permit, he removed a small middle section of the carport and essentially
created two small carport structures. He figured that if the structures were each under 120 square feet,
then he would be able to avoid the building permit process. However, staff explained that all structures
need to meet building setbacks, even if they are under the threshold for requiring a building permit.
Instead of removing the carport structure, the applicant has decided to pursue a variance because he
believes he meets all of the variance criteria.
Although there is no survey provided, the applicant has created a site plan (Attachment 3) that shows the
location of the structure in relation to the property lines. The applicant has stated in a follow-up letter
that the variance request is for a distance of 11.79 feet to the property line, however it also looks like it
could be interpreted as 10.58 feet from the property line (Attachment 3). In any event, the variance
request is to allow the carport structure to remain “as is” on the property at a distance of somewhere
between 10.58 and 11.79 feet from the property line. If approved, the proposed setback variance would
allow the carport to remain where it was constructed. If the variance is not approved, the applicant will
need to work with the Building Official to either move or demolish the structure.
The applicant’s land use application, which outlines their request, is included as Attachment 1. A zoning
and vicinity map is included as Attachment 2. The site plan is included as Attachment 3. The applicant’s
declarations are included as Attachment 4. Staff had asked the applicant to clarify the variance request (to
provide a distance from the structure to the property line) and the applicant’s response is included as
Attachment 5. The applicant provided a book of supporting documents with items ranging from
topographical maps to photos of other similar structures to photos and elevations of the existing carport –
these supporting documents are included as Attachment 5. The following is the Edmonds Planning
Division’s analysis and recommendation of the applicant’s submittal.
A.Application
1. Applicant: Lowell Chase (Attachment 1).
th
2. Site Location: 7915 200 Street SW, Edmonds (Attachment 2).
3. Request: A variance request for the reduction of the minimum 25-foot street setback
th
along 200 Street SW due to the construction of a carport with loft storage that did not first
obtain building permit approval. The site is located in the Single-Family Residential (RS-8)
zone. The applicant is requesting 11 feet 9.5 inches (11.79 feet) while our review of the site
plan indicates a need for 10.58 feet (Attachments 3 and 5).
4. Review Process: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts a public hearing and makes the
final decision.
5. Major Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 23
(CRITICAL AREAS).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20
(SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards).
StaffReport_V-06-139 / December 28, 2006
Lowell Chase Carport Setback Variance
File V-2006-139
Page 3 of 9
c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85
(VARIANCES).
B.Recommendations
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend:
APPROVAL
of the street setback variance as depicted in the attached site plan with the
following conditions.
1. The applicant will need to apply for and obtain building permit approval for the carport
structure.
2. 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.
3. If it is found that the carport exceeds the 15-foot height limit, then (another) variance
would need to be approved – or the carport would either need to be reduced in size to
meet this requirement or it would need to be removed.
4. The applicant must comply with all the terms of any future permits.
II.FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A.Introduction
1.History:
a) Facts:
(1) There is an existing single-family residence on the property that was constructed in
1958 with no garage or carport, according to the Snohomish County Assessor’s
records.
(2) The City’s Annexation Map indicates the site was annexed into the City of
Edmonds on August 1, 1963.
(3) The existing house did not have a garage or carport until recently, when a carport
was constructed prior to applying for and obtaining a building permit. The
Building Official gave the applicant the option of either: (1) demolishing the
carport, (2) applying for a building permit to move the carport to meet the required
setbacks, or (3) apply for and obtain a variance to allow the carport to remain in its
current location. The applicant has chosen to apply for a variance to allow the
carport to remain where it was constructed.
(4) It appears that the carport structure is under the 15-foot height limit for accessory
structures (Attachment 5 – Elevations & Photos), however this will be confirmed
through building permit review. If it is found that the structure is over 15 feet in
height, then the applicant would need to reduce it in height or apply for and receive
a height variance.
(5) The applicant has applied for a street setback variance to allow the carport to
remain in its current location (Attachment 3).
B.Site Description
1.Site Development and Zoning:
a) Facts:
Size and Access
(1) : The subject property is approximately .20 acres/8,712 square feet
in area (Attachment 3). The minimum lot size in the RS-8 zone is 8,000 square
StaffReport_V-06-139 / December 28, 2006
Lowell Chase Carport Setback Variance
File V-2006-139
Page 4 of 9
th
feet. The site gains access from 200 Street SW and there appear to be two
driveways – one is circular (where the carport is located) and the other is along the
west side of the property and appears to be used for RV storage.
Land Use
(2) : The site is developed with a single-family home and now also a carport
with loft storage (Attachment 3).
Zoning
(3) : The subject property is zoned Single-Family Residential (RS-8)
(Attachment 2).
th
Terrain and Vegetation
(4) : The subject site fronts on 200 Street SW. The
landscaping is typical residential landscaping with several trees and bushes in the
front yard. The applicant has noted that the carport was actually constructed
around several tress in order to preserve them (several photos illustrate this in
Attachment 5). The house is on the flat portion of the site, which slops down
th
slightly from south to north. Also, 200 Street SW slopes down from east to west
(Attachment 5 – topographical maps). The site has been given “waiver” status
which means staff did not find evidence of critical areas, including geologically
hazardous areas, on or adjacent to the property (CRA-2006-0153).
2.Neighboring Development and Zoning:
a) Fact:
(1) All of the surrounding properties are zoned single-family residential (RS-8) and are
developed with single-family homes (Attachment 2).
C.Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
1. Fact:
Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review
(WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080).
2. Conclusion:
The application complies with the requirements of the State Environmental
Policy Act. The following sections determine how the proposal meets the requirements of
City codes.
D.Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
1.Critical Areas Compliance (ECDC Chapter 23)
a) Facts:
(1) This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 23.40 (Environmentally
Critical Areas General Provisions).
(2) A Critical Areas Checklist was submitted (File CRA-2006-153) and staff
determined that there are no critical areas on or adjacent to this property, therefore
a “waiver” from critical areas study requirements was granted.
b) Conclusion:
(1) The proposal has met the requirements of the Critical Areas Chapter.
2.Compliance with (RS-8) Zoning Standards (ECDC Chapter 16.20)
a) Facts:
(1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development
in the Single-Family Residential zone (RS-8) are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030.
StaffReport_V-06-139 / December 28, 2006
Lowell Chase Carport Setback Variance
File V-2006-139
Page 5 of 9
North (rear) South (street) East (side) West (side)
Standard RS-8
15’ 25’ 7.5’ 7.5’
Setbacks
Carport Location
90’ 10.58’-11.79’ 19’ 26’
(Attachments 3 & 5)
(2) The applicant believes that the distance the carport is setback from the street (south)
property line is 11 feet 9.5 inches, or 11.79 feet (Attachment 5).
(3) Staff believes that the distance that the carport is setback from the street property
line is 10.58 feet (Attachment 3). Staff arrived at this calculation by taking the
distance shown from the carport to the “white line” (20 feet) and subtracting the
distance shown from the white line to the property line (9 feet 5 inches, or 9.42
feet).
(4) No survey has been submitted.
(5) The intent of the variance is to allow the carport to remain in it’s current location
(shown somewhere between 10.58 and 11.79 feet from the street (south) property
line.
(6) ECDC 16.20.050.B, regarding accessory buildings, states, “Height shall be limited
to 15 feet, except for amateur radio transmitting antennas and their supporting
structures.”
(7) The estimated height of the carport is shown at 10.79 feet and it is assumed to be
under 15 foot height limit (Attachment 5 – Elevations & Photos). The applicant
has not submitted formal height calculations, which will be required with a building
permit application, and the applicant has not applied for a height variance.
b) Conclusions:
(1) This proposal requires an approved variance to allow a structure encroach into both
the street setback before it complies with the requirements of the RS-8 zoning
standards.
(2) If the height of the carport exceeds 15 feet, then the applicant would need to reduce
the height or apply for a variance to have an accessory structure of this size on site
(or it would need to be removed).
3.Compliance with Requirements for a Variance (ECDC 20.85)
a) Facts:
(1) Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC 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. The criteria are as follows:
(a) Special Circumstances: That because of special circumstances relating to
the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of
the property, strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the
owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the
vicinity with the same zoning. Special circumstances should not be
predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability,
extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning
StaffReport_V-06-139 / December 28, 2006
Lowell Chase Carport Setback Variance
File V-2006-139
Page 6 of 9
ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more
profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of
the owner or any past owner of the same property.
(b) Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would not be a grant
of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon
other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
(c) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the
variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan, the
zoning ordinance, and the zoning district in which the property is located.
(d) Not Detrimental: That the variance, as approved or conditionally
approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety
and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity
and the same zone.
(e) Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the minimum necessary
to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with
the same zoning.
(2) The applicant has submitted declarations with their submittal that address the
decision criteria (Attachment 4).
(3) The applicant is requesting a street setback variance. The street setback variance is
to allow the carport to be located as close as 10.58’-11.79’ feet from the (south)
street property line, where the minimum setback of 25 feet is required for all
structures (Attachment 3).
(4) The location of the existing house is shown to be about 7 feet from the side property
lines (Attachment 3). There is not enough room for a driveway along the sides of
the property if the carport were to be located in the rear yard. The site plan
(Attachment 3) shows that the existing house is setback a distance of 34 feet from
the street property line. Taking into account a 25 foot street setback, this leaves a 9
foot wide area where a carport structure could be located in compliance with
setbacks.
(5) The width of the carport is shown to be 12 feet – if this same structure was moved
closer to the house it still would not meet setbacks.
(6) If the carport were attached to the existing house, then it would be a maximum of 9
feet wide.
(7) The applicant claims that the carport was built around the existing trees in order to
preserve the older vegetation onsite (Attachment 5).
(8) The applicant claims to have designed the carport in order to enhance the aesthetics
of the neighborhood and notes that it is partially camouflaged by the existing trees
that were left in tact.
(9) The applicant claims that 85 percent of the immediate neighbors have either
carports or garages.
b) Conclusions:
(1) Special Circumstances: Because of the location of the existing house relative to the
lot, staff concludes that Special Circumstances exist on the site that justify the
consideration of a setback variance.
(2) Special Privilege: Because a carport of this size could not be located elsewhere on
the property, staff believes that if the proposed setback variance were approved, it
would not be a grant of special privilege.
StaffReport_V-06-139 / December 28, 2006
Lowell Chase Carport Setback Variance
File V-2006-139
Page 7 of 9
(3) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: Based on the facts identified above
and in section II.E.2 of this report, it appears that the approval of the setback
variance is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The variances would
have to be approved for the proposed addition to comply with the zoning ordinance,
as shown in section II.D.2 of this report.
(4) Not Detrimental: Because the proposed setback variance does not appear to create
any new impacts on views or privacy, staff concludes that the proposed setback
variance will not be detrimental.
(5) Minimum Variance: Because the only place on site that could accommodate a
carport is in the front yard, staff concludes that the setback variance proposal is the
minimum necessary.
E.Comprehensive Plan (ECDC)
1.Comprehensive Plan Designation
a) Fact:
The subject property is designated “Single Family – Urban 1” on the
Comprehensive Plan Map.
b) Conclusion:
A carport is an building accessory to the single-family residential use and
is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site.
2.Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
a) Facts:
(1) The Comprehensive Plan Residential Development section identifies goals and
policies that relate to this proposal. Specific goals and policies are discussed below.
Specifically, Goal B states, “High quality residential development which is
appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and
promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for
all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic
considerations, in accordance with the following policies:”
B.3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or
additions to existing structures.
B.5.c Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use
encroachments.
B.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural
constraints of the slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage.
(2) The carport is open and due to the topography and the curvature of the road, it does
not appear to block any views.
(3) A carport would be an enhancement to the existing home, which did not have a
garage or a carport.
(4) The carport was built on the flat portion of the lot, which is compatible with the
natural constraints of the slope.
b) Conclusion:
(1) The proposal is not inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan.
F.Public Comments
1.Letters Received
As of the date of this report, the City has not received any comment letters.
StaffReport_V-06-139 / December 28, 2006
Lowell Chase Carport Setback Variance
File V-2006-139
Page 8 of 9
G.Technical Committee
1.Review by City Departments
a) Fact:
The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire
Department, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, and the Parks and
Recreation Department. No comments were received. However, the Building Official
has been working with the applicant for quite some time now in an attempt to resolve
this issue.
b) Conclusions:
(1) If the variance is approved, then the applicant would need to work with the
Building Official on obtaining a building permit for the carport.
(2) If the variance is denied, then the applicant would need to work with the Building
Official on obtaining a demolition permit for the carport.
III.RECONSIDERATION'S 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.
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
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
StaffReport_V-06-139 / December 28, 2006
Lowell Chase Carport Setback Variance
File V-2006-139
Page 9 of 9
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. Land Use Application.
2. Vicinity Map.
3. Site Plan.
4. Declarations.
5. Letter Regarding Distance.
6. Supporting Documents.
VII.PARTIES OF RECORD
Lowell Chase Planning Division
th
7915 200 Street SW Building Division
Edmonds WA 98026
StaffReport_V-06-139 / December 28, 2006