StaffReport_V-2007-47.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To: ]-Tearing Examiner
4
From:V W
Gina Coccia
Planner
Date: JULY 26, 2007
File: V-2007-47
DANIEL & SUZANNE MUNRO --- S"IREET SETBACK VARIANCE
Hearing Date, Time, and Place; AUGUST 2 2007 — 3:00 P.M.
Council Chambers, Public Safety Building
250 -- 5'1' Avenue North
Edmonds Washington 98020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................2
A. APPLICATION.....................................................................................................................................2
B. RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................-............................................... 3
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS...............................................................3
A. INTRODUCTION...................................................................... . 3
B. SITZ; DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................................................4
C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT(SEPA)..................................................................................4
D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVEL,OPMEN-r CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE..............................................4
E. COMPRI.i1 n:NSIVE PLAN- ................................................................. .................................................. 7
F. PUBLIC COMMENTS........................................................................................................................... 8
G. TECHNICAL COMMITTE:E....................................................................................................I............... 9
III. RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS.....................................................................9
A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION...................................................................................................... 9
B. APPEALS.................................................................................................9
C. TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS ............................... ,........................... 9
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL...................................................................................................9
V. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR.....................................................................9
VI. ATTACI-IMENTS............................................................................................................10
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD.................................................................................................10
Daniel & Suzanne Munro: Street Setback Variance
File No. V-2007-47
Page 2 of 10
I. INTRODUCTION
Daniel and Suzanne Munro have applied for a setback variance for the property located at 7115 174'x' Street
SW. The application is to allow a 16'4" (street) setback where a 25 foot setback is required. They plan to
build an addition to their existing 760 square foot home on a lot in North Edmonds, This site is
encumbered by a steep slope along the northern
portion of the property, so the applicant is proposing
to create a new addition towards the southern portion
of the property that aligns flush with the existing front ? ,r
elevation — at about 16'4" fi-om the existing street
property line. Also, the addition is not proposed any
closer to the steep slope than the existing detached
accessory structure (however, a geotechnical report
would still be required with the building permit to 3
ensure that the slope would not be harmed).
The site plan shows that the distance from the south
property line to the existing house is 16.4 feet. The -<
applicant is requesting a south setback distance of 16-s
feet 4 inches (or 16.33 feet). The intent is to have the
proposed new addition align flush with the existing house — which is likely at 16.4 feet from the property
line, because the applicant has indicated that the site plan is a portion of a survey and this is the label on the
site plan. However, in the event that the distance from the existing house to the south property line is
actually 16 feet 4 inches (or 16.33 feet), the applicant would like propose a variance request of 16 feet 4
inches (because that allows for a slight amount of wiggle -room in the event that the label was a mistake).
So, the variance request is for the addition to be able to be aligned with the existing front (south) elevation
as shown on the site plan (Attachment 4).
Attachment 1 is the land use application, which outlines the variance request and the contact information,
Attachment 2 is the zoning and vicinity map. Attachment 3 is the applicant's criteria statement, which
outlines why the variance is being requested and how the applicant feels they meet all of the variance
criteria. Included in Attachment 3 is some further clarification provided by the applicant regarding the
request. Attachment 4 is the site plan, which shows the specific request in relation to the rest of the site.
Attachment 5 is the proposed front elevation view for the project. Attachment 6 is the Official Deeds Map,
which illustrates where there was previously a small southern right-of-way dedication, which makes the
existing house non -conforming. Attachment 7 was provided by the applicant --- it is a portion of what
appears to be the original plat map or survey from 1902 — this site is a portion of old lot # 138 (circled),
Attachment 8 is the Snohomish County Assessor's Quarter Section Map, which illustrates the size of
properties in the vicinity in relation to the planned streets. Attachment 9 is an aerial photo of the site, which
illustrates how the existing house "feels" like it is set back about 50 feet from the street (because of where
the asphalt ends and the yard begins), where in reality it is set back approximately 16'4" from the south
property line. Attachment 10 is the short plat map and legal description for this site, parcel number three,
showing how this lot was legally created. Attachment 11 includes the affidavits of mailing and posting, in
accordance with the City of Edmonds land use code.
The following is the Edmonds Planning Division's analysis and recommendation of the applicant's
submittal.
A. Application
1. applicant: Daniel & Suzanne Munro (Attachment 1),
2. Site Location: 7115 170' Street SW (Attachment 2).
3. Request: A variance to reduce the required 25 -foot (south) street setback to 16'4" as
shown in Attachment 4.
4. Review Process: Variance — the Hearing Examiner conducts a public hearing and makes the
final decision.
StaffReport_V-2007-47,doc / July 26, 2007
Daniel & Suzanne Munro: Street Setback Variance
File No. V-2007-47
Page 3 of 10
5. Major Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030
(SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (E -CDC) 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. 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.
2. The applicant must obtain a building permit for the proposed addition, and the applicant
must comply with all the terms of any future permits.
3. The permit should be transferable.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Introduction
1. History:
a) Facts:
(1) The applicant was made aware that the project, as proposed, would require a variance
due to the location of the addition in relation to the south property line.
(2) The applicant has applied for this south street setback variance to allow the addition
in the location as proposed on the site plan. They have stated that they have modified
their plans because originally the addition was proposed too near the west side
property line.
(3) The Snohomish County Assessor's website indicates that the existing structure was
built in 1947 (a single story), prior to annexation. The subject lot was legally created
and developed while it was still in the county. It is roughly 12,023 square feet and the
home was built closer to the street (in 1947) than the current RS -12 zone would
allow,
(4) The City's Annexation Map indicates the site was annexed into the City of Edmonds
on August 1, 1963.
(5) The property was originally platted in 1902 (Attachment 7) and subsequently short -
platted in 1979 under City of Edmonds file number S-6-1979 (Attachment 10). Note
that the legal description of this site, parcel three, excludes a 15 -foot southern portion
of the property.
(6) A 15' wide portion of the original property was granted to the City of Edmonds
(under file number 587454), which is shown in Attachment 6 and helps explain why
the applicant is applying for a variance.
S1affRcport_V-2007-47.doc / July 26, 2007
Daniel & Suzanne Munro: Street Setback Variance
File No. V-2007-47
Page 4 of 10
B. Site Description
1. Site Development and Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Size and Access: The subject property is rectangular and approximately 12,023
square feet in area (90.03' x 133.55'), with approximately 90 feet of frontage on
174'r' Street SW (Attachments 4 and 10).
(2) Land Use: The site has a home with a detached accessory structure (Attachment 4),
(3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS -12) as shown
on Attachment 2.
(4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject site slopes down to the north at approximately
40-46% according to the City's LiDAR topographic map. The northern 113 of the
property is considered both an Erosion Hazard Area and a Landslide Hazard Area,
pursuant to the Critical Areas chapter of the Edmonds Community Development
Code (ECDC 23.80 — Geologically Hazardous Areas), Mature trees are present on
the property — the steep slope contains many mature evergreen trees.
2. Neighboring Development and Zoning:
a) Fact: The properties to the north and west are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS -12)
and all are developed with single-family residences. The properties to the south are
zoned RS -8 and are developed with single-family residences. The properties to the east
are zoned RS -20 and are developed with single-family residences.
C. 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
a) Facts:
(1) This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 23.40 (Environmentally
Critical Areas General Provisions) and 23.80 (Geologically Hazardous Areas).
(2) A Critical Areas Checklist has been submitted (CRA -2007-0039) and staff
reconnaissance determined that a study would be required as critical areas
(geologically hazardous area: Erosion 1-lazard Area & Landslide Hazard Area) were
found on or adjacent to the site - more specifically, located on the northern 113 of the
property (Attachment 4). The slope has been estimated at approximately 40-46%,
which qualifies for both an Erosion Hazard Area and a Landslide Hazard Area. The
southern portion of the site is relatively flat, and no streams or wetlands were
observed.
b) Conclusion: During building permit review, a geotechnical report will be required,
and once geotechnical conditions are met, then proposal will have met the requirements of
the Environmentally Critical Areas Chapter.
StaffReport_V-2007-47.doe 1 July 26, 2007
Daniel & Suzanne Munro: Street Setback Variance
File No. V-2007-47
Page 5 of 10
2. Compliance with (RS -12) Zoning Standards
a) Facts:
(1) The maximum lot coverage in all single family zones is 35% of the total lot size. If
the existing house is approximately 760 square feet and the proposed addition is
approximately 1,350 square feet (estimate), then the proposed lot coverage is
approximately 17% - which would meet this development standard.
(2) 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.
The table below illustrates the required setbacks for the RS -12 zone, the existing
setbacks to the house, and the proposed setbacks to construct the new addition.
(3) The street setback to the existing house does not meet the minimum code
requirements for the RS -12 zone,
(4) The applicant states that the south (street) setback to the proposed addition would not
be any closer to the street than to the existing house. It is unclear if this distance is
16.4' or 16'4" — but the applicant is requesting review of a 16'4" variance because
this is the more conservative of the two possible figures.
(5) The Official Deeds Map (Attachment 6) and the Quarter Section Map (Attachment 8)
illustrate how the original plans for the location of the right-of-way have changed
over the years. The Deeds Map shows how eventually a portion of the property had
been dedicated to the City of Edmonds (file number 587454).
b) Conclusions.,
(1) The proposal requires a variance to the street setback to be approved before it
complies with the requirements of the RS -12 zoning standards.
(2) The existing house is nonconforming with respect to the south street setback.
' This means the minimum rear setback for the RS -12 zone and does not take into consideration any additional
setbacks from the steep slope that may also be required.
2 The applicant states that the west side setback to the proposed addition will be 10' l" or greater (Attachment 3).
Initially the addition would have encroached on the side setback; however the applicant has altered their plans in
order to meet this requirement.
StaffReport_V-2007-47.doc / Juiy 26, 2007
SOUTH
EAST & WEST
NORTH'
(Street)
(Side Setbacks)
(Rear
Required
25 feet
10 feet
10 feet
25 feet
Setbacks
Existin16.4
feet
Setbacks
(Approximately 49'8" from
25.5 feet
13.4 feet
66 feet
the cd c of the as halt
Proposer!
16'4"
Setbacks to
(Approximately 49'8" from
25.5 feet
] 0 Fee t2
66 feet
New Addition
the edge of the asphalt)
(3) The street setback to the existing house does not meet the minimum code
requirements for the RS -12 zone,
(4) The applicant states that the south (street) setback to the proposed addition would not
be any closer to the street than to the existing house. It is unclear if this distance is
16.4' or 16'4" — but the applicant is requesting review of a 16'4" variance because
this is the more conservative of the two possible figures.
(5) The Official Deeds Map (Attachment 6) and the Quarter Section Map (Attachment 8)
illustrate how the original plans for the location of the right-of-way have changed
over the years. The Deeds Map shows how eventually a portion of the property had
been dedicated to the City of Edmonds (file number 587454).
b) Conclusions.,
(1) The proposal requires a variance to the street setback to be approved before it
complies with the requirements of the RS -12 zoning standards.
(2) The existing house is nonconforming with respect to the south street setback.
' This means the minimum rear setback for the RS -12 zone and does not take into consideration any additional
setbacks from the steep slope that may also be required.
2 The applicant states that the west side setback to the proposed addition will be 10' l" or greater (Attachment 3).
Initially the addition would have encroached on the side setback; however the applicant has altered their plans in
order to meet this requirement.
StaffReport_V-2007-47.doc / Juiy 26, 2007
Daniel & SUMMIC Munro: Street Setback Variance
File No. V-2007-47
Page 6 of l0
3. Compliance with Requirements for a Variance
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 ofspecial 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 ordinance,
the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of
the property, nor any factor resulting f •om 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 which address the
decision criteria (Attachment 3) and staff generally agrees with the declarations of the
applicant in regards to compliance with the variance criteria.
(3) The applicant is requesting one variance. The street setback variance is to allow the
proposed addition to be placed in line with the existing building (which does not
meet setbacks).
(4) The site is encumbered by a steep slope on the northern 113 of the property, which
results in a constricted building envelope
(5) The steep slope is not going to be disturbed with this proposal (which will be
confirmed by a geotechnical engineer with the building pen -nit review), Further, the
proposed variance would not be detrimental to the public health safety and welfare in
that it will protect a steep slope hazard area in a greater fashion than asking for a
variance to the Critical Areas provisions of our code.
(6) There do not appear to be any scenic views from the subject property or from any
surrounding properties.
(7) Attachment 4 shows topography contours and the approximate location of the top of
the slope (where the Steep Slope Hazard Critical Area is located on the property) and
the relationship between the slope and the existing/proposed structure.
Staf Report_V-2007-47.doc ! July 26, 2007
Daniel & Suzanne Monro: Street Setback Variance
File No. V-2007-47
Page 7 of 10
(8) The City's permit database shows several approved variance requests in the vicinity
along 174"' Street SW, and several in particular that were for street setback variances
along this block:
File Number Arlrlress Request Decision
-�
V-2001 119
6907 174"' Street S W
Reduce the street
Approved
and side setbacks
V-1992-161
6909 174"' Street SW
Reduce the front
Approved
and rear setbacks
V-1989.5
6821 174"' Street SW
Reduce the street
Approved
setback
(9) The maximum lot coverage for this site is 35% of 12,023 square feet, which is 4,208
square feet of building footprint. The proposed project appears to be less than 2,110
square feet, which is approximately 17% lot coverage (about half the permitted
amount).
(10)The proposed site plan and elevations appear to reflect a moderately sized house for
this area. The existing single -story home would get a face-lift, and the proposed
addition would include a garage with one story above it (Attachments 4 and 5).
b) Conclusions Repardina Setback Variances:
(1) Special Circumstances: Special Circumstances exist on the site related to: the size of
the property, former surveying complications related to the location of the right-of-
way, the slope located on the property and the location of the existing home that was
legally established on the property, that justify the approval of a variance.
(2) Special Privilege: There have been several approved setback variances in the
vicinity, especially along 174"' Street SW. Therefore, 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.
(3) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The approval of the setback variance is
not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan (see section ILE of this report). The
variance would have to be approved for the proposed addition to be in compliance
with the zoning ordinance. .
(4) Not Detrimental: Because the proposed addition is not closer to the steep slope than
the existing accessory building, because no views appear to be blocked, and because
it would appear that the proposed addition is set back approximately twice the
required distance from the street, staff concludes that the proposed variance will not
be detrimental.
(5) Minimum Variance: Based on the facts identified above, staff concludes that the
project is the minimum necessary,
E. Comprehensive Plan
1. Comprehensive Plan Designation
a) Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family --- Resource."
b) Conclusion: Single-family residential development and is consistent with the existing
Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site.
StaffReport V-2007-47.doe I Rdy 26, 2007
Daniel & Suzanne Munro: Street Setback Variance
Pile No. V-2007-47
Page 8 of 10
2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
a) Facts:
(1) The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section identifies goals and
policies which relate to this proposal. Specific goals and policies are discussed
below. Specifically, it states that Goal B is; "Nigh 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: "
13.1. Encourage those building custom horses to design and construct homes with
architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings,
adding to the community identity and desirability.
B, 2. Protect neighborhoods frons incompatible additions to existing buildings that
do not harmonize with existing structures in the area.
13.3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or
additions to existing structures.
8.4. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds
whenever it is economically feasible.
B. S. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful
control of other types of development and expansion based upon the following
principles:
B.5. a. Residential privacy is a fundamental protection to be upheld by local
government.
13.5. b Traffic not directly accessing residences in a neighborhood must be
discouraged
B.5. c. Stable property values inust not be threatened by view, traffic, or
land use encroachments.
B.5. d. Private property must be prolected fr•orn adverse environmental
impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc.
B.6 Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural
constraints of the slopes, soils, geology, vegetation, and drainage.
(2) The proposed new addition makes use of architectural lines in an attempt to
harmonize with the surrounding neighborhood (Attachment 5).
(3) The proposal is to construct a new addition to a modest -sized older home.
(4) The proposal does not appear to block any views.
(5) The proposal is to retain and rehabilitate an existing older home,
(6) The proposed new addition is located on the site as far away from the natural
constraints of the slope as possible.
b) Conclusion:
(1) The proposed project complies with the identified 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.
Stafflteport_V-2007-47.doc / duly 20, 2007
Daniel & Suzanne Munro: Street Setback Variance
Dile No. V-2007-47
Page 9 of 10
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.
b) Conclusion: As shown, the proposal appears to meet the requirements of the above
City departments.
11I. 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 (1 d) 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
Ilearing 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 20.85.020.0 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
'File 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.
StaffReport_V-2007-47.doe 1 July 26, 2007
VI. ATTACHMENTS
1, land Use Application
2. Vicinity Map
3. Applicant's Criteria Statement & Addendum
4. Site Plan
5. Front Elevation
6. Official Deeds Map
7. Old Survey
8. Quarter Section Map
9. Aerial Photo
10. Short Plat S-6-1979
11. Affidavits of Mailing & Posting
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD
Daniel & Suzanne Munro Planning Division
7115 174`1i Street SW Engineering Division
Edmonds WA 98026
Daniel & Suzanne Munro: Street Setback Variance
Pile No. V-2007-47
Page 10 of 10
StaffReport_V-2007-47.doc / hily 26, 2007
F
ity of edmonds
nd use application
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW HIMERIMMM
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FILE # V -01ZONE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT h (�
HOME OCCUPATION DATE Z� k)� REC'D BY M P
FORMAL SUBDIVISION FEF 13X RECEIPT# 3 b 3
SHORT SUBDIVISION HEARING DATE
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HE STAFF PB ADB CC
OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT
STREET VACATION
REZONE
SHORELINE PERMIT
VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION
OTHER: {{
PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION
PROJECT NAIV F OF APPLICABLE)
PROPERTYOWNER Murirn PHONE #_ A;Z5-QS 3;ZA0
ADDRESS 1A+1- rYld G)S02.
E-MAIL ADDRESS ei- FAX # 4 ZS ,3Q 2 , S Z
TAX ACCOUNT # 5 l 31 ^ 600 - 1 �j $„ : O —SEC. TWA. RNG.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTOR PROPOSED USE e(J + ki o srt lore ' e fX
APPLICANT "e VSE'_ �kLtn'-. PHONE # 4ZS• Z 18 .3Z4ca
ADDRESS 15,a e -
E -MAIL ADDRESS _ 1rY1 LtV1 Co �'ykCaS i r►E T FAX # 6ZS--qFF2, 5320
CONTACT PERSON/AGENT PHONE #
ADDRESS
E-MAIL ADDRESS FAX #
The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application
agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including
reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading,
inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees.
By my signature, T certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE
Property Owner's Authorization
By my signature, I certify that 1 have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use
application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject
property for the purposes o£ ' ection and posting attendant to this application.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE
This application form was revised on 1/27100. To verify whether it is still current, call (425) 771-0220.
I.:1LiBRARY0,ANNTNGTorms & HardoutslP61ic HaMot%AU snd Use Applieation.doe
Attachment 1
Land Use Application
Daniel : Suzanne Munro,
Street Setback Variance
File Number V-,2007-47
7115 174th Street SW V
(RS -12 Zone)
,r ; 0 Attachment 2
Vicinity Map
0 100 200 Feet
V I li -i
Daniel and Suzanne Munro
71.15 1.74"' Street S.W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
City of Edmonds Planning
121 5th Avenue North - 2nd Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Application for Variance
To Whom It May Concern:
Itticel
viel)
Mqr
? 4 200.7 May 24, 2007
PERMr coovrE
R
You will find this Application for a Variance to the 25' front setback of our home to be a text -book case
of why Variances are granted. We wish to create an addition alongside and renovate our 60 year-old,
760 square foot home — technically we're shy 7'8". The finished project will compliment the
neighborhood, improve home values, raise tax revenues and in no way appear to be unique to the code
requirements... all this without actually changing anything that is not already occurring on the property
and has never been considered detrimental.
1. Special Circumstances You are probably aware a survey error made in 1902 left many tortured lines
on the map of this area. In 1938 a 30' easement was granted and a road was created. In 1946 our house
was built assuming the property line went up to the road; indeed all utilities have been installed as
though that were the case. Eventually, the survey error was corrected and a portion of our front yard
became road easement. Today it is the westerly end of a road that never was and most of the adjoining
easement has been vacated since the 1970's_ We investigated applying for Vacation but were told
"There is no way Engineering will sign -off on this unless you get your neighbors to vacate as well
because it will create pockets of right-of-way and we'd want to clean up the map"
2. Special Privilege. Not only would this not grant special privilege it would eliminate unintended
consequences of the regulation.
3. Comprehensive Plan: It will make the ugliest, oldest home on the block one of the nicest and increase
tax revenue to the City of Edmonds.
4. Zoning Ordinance: Clearly consistent with zoning. Were the existing structures to be moved back
7'8" to accommodate the front setback it would then be encroaching on The Landslide and Erosion
Hazard Area at the rear of the lot.
5. Not Detrimental: The neighbors are all supportive and see our plans as a net plus to their property.
6. Minimum Variance: The existing and proposed setback exceeds the minimum requirement and will
remain almost fifty feet from the road.
We respectfully request that you take prompt action to approve our application.
Sincerely,
Dan Munro
Attachment 3
Criteria Statement & Addendum
Daniel and Suzanne Munro
7115 174'x' Street S.W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Gina Coccia
City of Edmonds Development Services
121 5th Avenue North - 2nd Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Munro Setback Variance (V-2207-47)
Dear Miss Coccia,
REcLrj
2007JUN 14
DEVao"tjsVr SiFRVICE
S
June 14, 2007
Thank you for your prompt work on our letter of completeness. I have addressed your four questions
with four answers and hopefully satisfied your requirements for additional information:
1.) The revised site plan is attached. Our plans would leave the driveway where it is presently, in
the front of the existing garage/shed which will be replaced with the new addition which includes
a new garage.
2.) Land Use Application, properly signed is attached.
3.) 1 apologize for being unclear. The proposed addition would (as the existing structure is) be
16'4" from the property line. The 7'8" is the distance the addition would be past the setback
limits. The completed structure would be no closer to the property line than is the current
structure; which is 48'+.
4.) The side setback will be 10' i" or greater. I had the surveyor set a stake along the West property
line in the approximate location of the side of the proposed addition. Initially the addition would
have imposed on the side -setback. We simply altered our construction plans, moving the
addition to the East, specifically so that we would not be asking for a variance on the West. 1
don't believe that a request for a variance on the side would have met the criteria as we had
options to remedy the problem. Unlike our request for variance on the South because we have
no alternative.
Thank you for time and attention_
Sincerely, Pe
Dan Munro
VP 3 !ECT
ER w000O FENCE
W LINE OF
90' OF w 218' of
CRACT 133
S. gine
`Cr a c; -t 1316
LS .35878 (TYCAL)
N LWE OF S 146.5 FlrE`T
OF TRACT 138
S88' 1100 "E 90.0,3'
6' WAU
*WO 2 s r.5 of
a 10L
o (aor
Mman
13.4'
*. ;►
FADI/Si
1'w 139
FM RM
FN 997454
lb''4 18.4'
$88'1 1'00"E
15' 90.03'
rr
Mail box41
i
f -K IST I NCC,
u"r'U-TiEs
PHONE
F I8 E R
h&a Attachment 4
WXTSite Plata
151 err
10' WMAAL
AFN 23M7
M
wEOX0
10' ww
AST
DRIV EM
us�in�
enCit
t
SAreet Vaca4ion
Ord. 2014
Attachment 5
Vont Elevation
', 246 0
i
1
COLOR,
a
of MEANIN
,,. .
MWM
I RiYW dy di atedplaIt. to (BLUEq city under
R/W dedicated to city under ��„�`�° Al
�e�e oar,�
plat development. (YELO � '�, ;, 12
�r
fi
R/W grni t d to city by, prop,
owner. QB
1 �
2375268
R/W vacated by City (PURPLE)
N Da T
. ( City property (GREEN) ; -'
� o
STATE PROPERTY (WHITE)
td+ 00*0 A' 50e6 t'
14301! 7 ✓ fi "•
!3 9
SOUND VIEW..._.,� 79cd, neo' (10I rr�
13
8-x-76
__..- 4 4
HEIGHTS
587454 (30) 81!03100160 C
014 24 3
W ° 77,0420020
d pw. PELLEN
0 r
�7 8 � � I'
311, 4
�.
OC77 MA
Cb �1
P w� l
78µCbM
ERIa
a
p 1 OR 0. 220
_.. �C.' ”' g
VIE, DI
TRA TS,
d8 17 Pia �
1 14 12_ i1
l r"
0-2-
9 2 a°
PLAT
OF
N
OWN,
IV
G i
Qfficial Deeds Map
AN
��
� r � ;4 Sit h � K1 � � N �• h � � ',
r h n r
•F.r ,o• r r
o.f y'- - - - - - - 676' C' Co• '
CO6rn.x Gros'
op w'dF
y \ y \ V f 1
CO ko
r
•� i.11.-f" 6.}Y. S" SCS.
X.L. f J• 4• •i A
to
Pp
or
.� �lra' rras
3 Do..
-� ° _�'� nsee sk
Otficiaf ecands. CS 33 h
5 v. wl M-S, Cour► ,Aud
-------------
14 AA-
♦ y e t Qf - . 71.t rY4 f..lA ifl tlx '��w` 'C ' S �t'SOIL. a7 •s! -�.M F
u a -
�J-.,�_.� �. Vim• \- Y � �.. � I� 0 ) _
lw� 14
It
lb NQ
ro 4A
tj
fit 14
, . is
' ° -I Attachment 7 =
a �. �. �, i a Old Survey
s
- �� YS � C .•,- t� �i 'v, i' !'s to � h � � :;
SW
1.006 1,9
4-010
-010 ME
GTION A
804
M"
. .. .......... ... WS
N -27-04
MEK�DOC�ES
:, 4
2. 3 4
12 1#1 10
28 27 is
26
,6
29 16
_14
is
4 00
7 32 21 20 35 36
2718 717, --T—79�
GI
2
q-1
1 2 3
51483
2.
00 4
03 1
00
f4 7
001
{4
SW-
t -- _ i..,. - —
.... ....... I : ---� ---
t � 11,
NW -17-27-04
03 02
.......
E MONDSHEI
TS (?51,4)
9
4009
3 17
3
4
is
V4
0,"4-019
22
19
20 of
21 1 2.
RSR,
3 2
08
q
0
16 17,
(n
0
..........
3
0
7509,
10 - 11 i 141
T7—
yL . .....
06
144'
04
soujvD
IE SP,
F—
504bz
05 03i 02 I j-
61p'oti
i(6
4
10
EN 4-025
15 22
17 04 0
25
4
s.19
L
00 t7 0f_.0
23
62
i
to
... ..........
.........
'o 2
0
MEK�DOC�ES
:, 4
2. 3 4
12 1#1 10
28 27 is
26
,6
29 16
_14
is
4 00
7 32 21 20 35 36
2718 717, --T—79�
GI
2
q-1
1 2 3
51483
2.
00 4
03 1
00
f4 7
001
{4
SW-
t -- _ i..,. - —
.... ....... I : ---� ---
t � 11,
NW -17-27-04
03 02
.......
E MONDSHEI
TS (?51,4)
9
10
4
RSR,
3 2
08
q
0
(n
C.
3
0
7509,
d3 05!
08
yL . .....
06
144'
04
C o
05 03i 02 I j-
--7
i(6
10
15 22
17 04 0
25
4
s.19
L
02
w. 2
2
0
zol
LL'of
got
C,) 6
T1 BE
r.
19 17
F- 178TH P
Attachment 8
Quarter Section Map
"Ur jrot I
APPROVAL OF T1-lIS SUBDIVISION OF THIS PROPERTY SUBJECT TO AND
CONDITIONED UPON THOSE REQUIREMENTS AS STATED ON CITY OF EDMONDS
'RECORD OF SUBDIVISION FORM; FJLE.S-6--79.
9/Y1JE',( fON
v
jo,
O. ,PiC.-/'9RU
I -7 3 2
L_..... �. 7
1 i `r'r'y`f`r
20' LGLS rrIDN
— X. /o �a
.kuTj-[ORIZ
FOR
Ci"1'Y OC F,l)>`IONI)S
By .._
Paige _,A4 0€
`9050 9
--�--.---
Attachment 14
S-6-1979 Short Plat
Parcel Description.,-, nor Monty M0r)tg0TTICt'V ",hort I',kiIb(,jj.vi,3t0tj
NOV
LSA F"ile
I f;-330
*
PARCEL 3
The south 145.50 feet of the ea,>t go.c)()
or t!je wc�,,�t pIq
.00
f-"� of, j)j,-jtf;
MTeadowdale Beach, according to the Plat tOf "--'Ct herrof r(.,(.-or,]Qd in Volume 13 , or]
page 38, records of Snohomish Countv,
El"CEPT the south 15-00 feet thereof,
ury 0r- F-D'MN"
FXAMilti-D
PEMARI,�, O.f--e—
7
j
AUTHORIZED
FOR
DIN
RECORDING
CI-J'Y OF EDMONDS
By
paV5 ge ?go5 0 9 0-;) 9
,v, 1514 Pat 639
FILE NO.: V-07-47
APPLICANT: MUNRO
NOTICE OF APPLICATION & HEARING
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH)
I, Diane M. Cunningham, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say:
That on the 26th day of June 2007, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was
mailed as required to adjacent property owners, the names of which were provided
by the applicant.
Signed
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of _�„�G�/d/� 07
Attachment 11
Affidavits ofMailing & Posting
OF
ry public in andthe
State of Washington.
Residing at
Attachment 11
Affidavits ofMailing & Posting
FILE NO.: V -07-i`?
APPLICANT: MUNRO
NOTICE OF APPLICATION & HEARING
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH)
1, Gina Coccia, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say:
That on the 26th day of June 2007, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was
posted as prescribed by Ordinance, and in any event, in the Civic Center and the
Library, and where applicable on or near the subject property.
Signed
Subscribed and sworn to before me this c�)-&f'�
day of -Tu-IMF-
`"�-
P . blit in and fo he State of Washington.
Residing at -2 %
s
i
day of -Tu-IMF-
`"�-
P . blit in and fo he State of Washington.
Residing at -2 %