StaffReport_V-2007-81.pdf
PLANNING DIVISION
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
th
Project:
Shaun Leiser Setback Variances for the “84 Avenue Townhomes”
File Number:
V-2007-81
Date of Report:
November 27, 2007
Planner:
____________________________
Gina Coccia
Public Hearing:
December 6, 2007 at 3:00 P.M.
Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers
th
250 5 Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
I.SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION:
th
The proposal is for a new five-unit multi-family development (in four buildings) at 24110 84 Avenue
West in the Multiple Residential (RM-2.4) zone. Three of these buildings will be single-family detached
units and one of the buildings will contain two dwelling units (duplex).The units face toward the center of
th
Avenue West. Each building has garage
the site and the drive aisle that accesses the site is from 84
parking and there are two surface parking stalls proposed (Exhibit 9).
On May 4, 2004, Shaun Leiser applied for a consolidated Architectural Design Board (ADB) design
review and street setback variance application for this project. On July 7, 2004, the ADB reviewed the
design and recommended approval of the design to the Hearing Examiner, with conditions (ADB-2004-
54). One of the conditions was that the applicant apply for another variance – because it was discovered
th
that the two surface parking stalls intrude into the street setback along 84 Avenue West (which is not
permitted in RM zones). On August 5, 2004, the Hearing Examiner heard the two street setback variance
requests and also reviewed the ADB’s recommendation on the design of the project. The Hearing
Examiner made the decision to approve the design and the variances (V-2004-55 / V-2004-85) with
conditions on August 6, 2004. Design review decisions are valid for 18 months, and variance decisions are
valid for one year.
The applicant applied for and received a one year extension for the design approval, which originally was
set to expire on February 6, 2006 but it was extended by staff until February 6, 2007. The Building
Division has determined that the applicant made a complete building permit application on February 6,
2007. The current building permits are, however, “on hold” until the applicant receives approval for two
street setback variances proposed (that had lapsed). In addition, the building permits are due to expire one
year from the date of submittal, which is February 6, 2008 – if the building permit expires, the applicant
would have to go through the ADB process again. The following is staff’s analysis of the project.
Exhibit 1
Staff Report
Shaun Leiser – Setback Variances
File Number: V-2007-81
II.GENERAL INFORMATION:
1.Owner:
Shaun C. Leiser (Exhibit 3).
2.Applicant:
Shaun C. Leiser.
3.
Tax Parcel Number:
00463302400203.
th
4.Location:
24110 84 Avenue West, Edmonds (Exhibit 2).
5.Zoning:
Multiple Residential (RM-2.4).
6.Acreage / Square Footage:
0.30 Acres (approximately 13,201 square feet).
7.Proposed Use:
Five townhouse-style dwelling units, approximately 1,500 square feet per unit, each
with two-car garages (Exhibits 9 and 10).
8.Existing Use:
One single-family home built in 1947 according to the Snohomish County Assessor’s
website.
III.HISTORY / BACKGROUND:
The application was submitted on September 21, 2007 and was determined to be “incomplete” on
September 21, 2007. The applicant submitted the required material and the application was then
determined to be “complete” on October 2, 2007.
The applicant turned in several “complete” building permit applications for this project on February 6,
2007, the day the design (extension) approval was due to expire. The applicant’s building permits are set
to expire one year from the date of submittal, which is February 6, 2008. In the mean time, the applicant
has (re)applied for two street setback variances.
IV.SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION:
A variance alone does not require SEPA review. However, the applicant submitted an environmental
checklist for review because the proposed building required SEPA review (5 dwelling units proposed,
along with approximately 1,500 cubic yards of grading). On June 6, 2004, the City issued a Mitigated
Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) for the project. The project has not changed since the
original variance application and the original MDNS, which still stands. The mitigating measure included
in the SEPA determination was to collect a traffic impact fee. Since the MDNS was issued, the code has
changed to include traffic impact fees (so SEPA is no longer used to require the applicant to pay for traffic
impact fees, because it is now required by code). Therefore, the applicant and the City have complied with
the requirements of ECDC 20.15.A.
V.PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE:
A “Notice of Application and Hearing” was published in the Herald Newspaper, posted at the subject site,
as well as the Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and at the Library on
October 23, 2007. This notice was also mailed to residents within 300 feet of the site on October 23, 2007.
The City has complied with the noticing provisions of ECDC 20.91 (Public Hearings and Notice). An
Affidavit of Publication, an Affidavit of Mailing, and an Affidavit of Posting are included as attachments
to this report (Exhibit 11).
Page 2 of 9
Shaun Leiser – Setback Variances
File Number: V-2007-81
VI.TECHNICAL COMMITTEE:
This application was reviewed and evaluated by the City’s Fire Department, Engineering Division, Parks
and Recreation Department, and the Public Works Department.
The Engineering Program Manager has submitted a memo regarding this project (Exhibit 7). They require
a condition that “All utility easements shall be maintained and no structures shall be located within the
easement area.”
VII.NATURAL ENVIRONMENT:
1.Topography:
The City’s LiDAR data shows that the site is relatively flat with a slight slope. Then,
off site, the slope begins to drop at about 50% slope towards Edmonds Way (Exhibit 4).
2.Soils:
According to the Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington, this site consists of
“Alderwood-Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes” (Map Unit Symbol 5) and possibly some
“Alderwood-Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes” (Map Unit Symbol 6).
3.Critical Areas:
A Critical Areas Checklist was submitted under file number CRA-2004-67, and a
“waiver” from critical areas requirements was issued, because it was determined that there were no
critical areas on or adjacent to the subject property. The Applicant and the City have complied with
the requirements of ECDC 23.40.
4.Wildlife:
Typical of an urban/residential environment (occasional songbirds and squirrels are
assumed, however none were observed during the site visit).
5.Vegetation:
The existing vegetation is typical of a single-family residence. The landscaping that was
approved with the Architectural Design Board file is typical of a multi-family development (Exhibit
16). With the building permit, a landscaping plan will be required to ensure that the project complies
with ECDC 20.13 (Landscaping). There are several large mature evergreens on site, and the reason
th
that the applicant is requesting one of the street setback variances (along 84 Avenue West) is so that
the parking can be arranged on site to preserve these trees. And because parking is not permitted
within the street setback, a variance must first be approved.
VIII.NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS:
This site is located in a neighborhood that is a mix of
multi-family, single-family, and commercial
development. The site is located at the end of a cul-de-
th
sac (84 Avenue West) and it sits quite a distance up in
elevation from Edmonds Way (the site cannot be
accessed from Edmonds Way, however, because the
property line is adjacent to this street, a street setback
must be applied). All of the adjacent zoning is Multiple-
Residential (RM-2.4).
IX.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is “Edmonds Way Corridor.” The City of Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan has a vision for residential development, and to achieve this vision the applicable
excerpts are shown below:
C. Goal. A broad range of housing types and densities should be encouraged in order that a choice
of housing will be available to all Edmonds residents, in accordance with the following policies:
Page 3 of 9
Shaun Leiser – Setback Variances
File Number: V-2007-81
C.2. Multiple. The City’s development policies encourage high quality site and building design to
promote coordinated development and to preserve the trees, topography and other natural
features of the site. Stereotyped, boxy multiple unit
(RM) buildings are to be avoided.
C.2.a.i. RM uses should be located near arterial or
collector streets.
C.2.b.i. RM developments should preserve the
privacy and view of surrounding buildings,
wherever feasible.
C.2.c.i. The nonstructural elements of the building
(such as decks, lights, rails, doors, windows
and window easements) should be
coordinated to carry out a unified design
concept.
C.2.c.ii. Site and building plans should be designed to preserve the natural features (trees,
streams, topography, etc.) of the site rather than forcing the site to meet the needs of the
imposed plan.
(2006 Comprehensive Plan, pages 54-55)
th
84 Avenue West is considered a “Collector Street” that dead-ends in front of the proposed site. Edmonds
Way, in contrast, is considered a “Principal Arterial” and is a major State Route (SR-104). However, there
will be no traffic generated from Edmonds Way, as there is no possible access to Edmonds Way due to the
change in elevation. The way this site is situated on the slope will also allow for some privacy.
th
The ADB had recommended approval of the design of the proposed “84 Avenue Townhomes,” because
they felt it was consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
X.PUBLIC CONCERNS:
To date, no public comments have been received.
XI.APPLICABLE CODES:
1.
ECDC 16.30 (RM – Multiple Residential)
A.
ECDC 16.30.030.C (Location of Parking) states, “No parking spaces may be located within the
street setback.” The site plan (Exhibit 9) shows a portion of two parking is provided within the
15-foot street setback; however it cannot be counted towards the required parking (without an
approved variance).
B.
Development standards in the RM zone are as follows, pursuant to ECDC 16.30.030.A:
Minimum Lot Area Minimum
Minimum Street Minimum Side Minimum Rear Maximum Height Maximum Lot
4
ZonePer Dwelling Unit# Parking
2221,5
Setback Setback Setback Coverage
3
(Sq. Ft.) Spaces
2221,5
RM-1.5 1,50015’ 10’ 15’ 25’ 45%Footnote3
2225, 6, 7
RM-EW 1,50015’ 10’ 15’ 25’ 45%Footnote3
2221,5
RM-2.4 2,40015’10’15’25’45% Footnote 3
2221,5
RM-3 3,00015’ 15’ 15’ 25’ 45%Footnote3
Applicable Footnotes:
1
Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of four inches in 12 inches or greater.
2
RS-6 setbacks may be used for single-family homes on lots of 10,000 square feet or less in all RM zones.
5
Maximum height for accessory structures of 15 feet.
C.
Footnote #2 refers to RS-6 setbacks, and the minimum side setback in the RS-6 zone is 5 feet.
This lot is over 10,000 square feet, so the footnote is not applicable.
Page 4 of 9
Shaun Leiser – Setback Variances
File Number: V-2007-81
D.
The only deviation from standards are the requested street setback variances, one of which is to
allow parking spaces within the street setback, which is not permitted according to ECDC
16.30.030.C.
E.
The applicant will prove that all development standards are met through the building permit
process.
2.
ECDC 17.50 (Off Street Parking Regulations)
A.
Multi-family parking requirements are based upon the number of dwelling units and the number
of bedrooms per dwelling unit, pursuant to ECDC 17.50.020.A.1.b and the table below:
B.
Preliminary floor plans indicate that there will
Type of multiple Required parking spaces
be five three-bedroom units, which yields ten
dwelling unit per dwelling unit
parking spaces required.
Studio1.2
C.
The number of parking spaces shown on the site
1 bedroom 1.5
plan is 8 in the garages plus two accessible stalls
2 bedrooms 1.8
on the surface (but also located within the street
setback).
3 or more bedrooms 2.0
D.
With 10 parking spaces, the project will meet the minimum requirements.
E.
If the street setback variance is approved to allow parking within the street setback area, then the
project will comply with the requirements of ECDC 17.50.020.A.1.b.
F.
If the street setback variance is not approved to allow parking within the street setback area, then
the applicant will need to either (1) reduce the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit so that the
total required parking is eight (garage) spaces, or (2) increase the width of the garages to
accommodate the additional two vehicle, or (3) some other design alteration that meets the
requirements of ECDC 17.50.
3.ECDC 18.45 (Land Clearing and Tree Cutting)
A.
ECDC 18.45.020.B states, “trees shall be retained to the maximum extent feasible.”
B.
The applicant is attempting to retain as many trees as he can, and in doing so, is requesting two
street setback variances.
4.
ADB Approval (ADB-2004-54) / Hearing Examiner’s Decision (V-2004-55 & V-2004-85)
Review by the ADB was required for this multi-family project. The ADB reviewed and recommend
approval (with conditions) to the Hearing Examiner (Exhibit 13).
On August 6, 2004, the Hearing Examiner approved the design of the project and the two street
setback variances with the following conditions (Exhibits 14 and 15):
A.
ADB-2004-54 (Design Review):
1.
The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to include as many of the existing significant
and healthy trees on site as is feasible.Certain proposed plants may be omitted from the
landscape plan where their placement would be precluded by the retention of existing trees on
the site.
2.
With submittal of the building permit application, the landscape plan for the site should show
the specific plants to be used rather than general categories of plants. Staff shall review to
ensure that appropriate types are used in specific locations and that diversity is maintained
within the plan.
Page 5 of 9
Shaun Leiser – Setback Variances
File Number: V-2007-81
3.
The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show more detailed landscaping for the
th
currently unimproved 84 Avenue right-of-way immediately adjacent to the site. The plan
should show the retention of existing vegetation in this area, if appropriate, and the
supplementation of existing vegetation with shrubs and groundcover. This should be
coordinated with any improvements required by the Engineering Division.
B.
V-2004-55 (Street setback variance along Edmonds Way from 15’ to 10’):
1.
The variance applies to the current proposal.
2.
The applicant must obtain necessary building permits.
3.
This application is subject to the applicable requirements in the Edmonds Community
Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the
various provisions contained in these ordinances.
th
C.
V-2004-85 (Street setback variance along 84 Avenue West from 15’ to 10’):
1.
The variance applies to the current proposal.
2.
The applicant must obtain necessary building permits.
3.
This application is subject to the applicable requirements in the Edmonds Community
Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the
various provisions contained in these ordinances.
5.
ECDC 20.85 (Variances)
ECDC 20.85 states that an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this chapter
pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC 20.85. This chapter also 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. ECDC 20.85.010 contains the
findings that must be made in order for a Variance application to be approved. According to the
aforementioned code section, “No variance may be approved unless all of the findings in this section
can be made.” The findings are as follows:
Special Circumstances. That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the 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 include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the
property, public necessity as of public structures and uses set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and
environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats;
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 from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same
property;
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;
Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive
plan;
Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the zoning ordinance
and the zone district in which the property is located;
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 same zone;
Page 6 of 9
Shaun Leiser – Setback Variances
File Number: V-2007-81
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.
A.
The Applicant has submitted a Criteria Statement explaining why they believe they should be
granted the proposed variances (Exhibit 6) and staff generally agrees with these arguments.
th
B.
This site has an irregular and unusual shape and is fronted by two streets (Edmonds Way and 84
Avenue West), making it a “corner” lot having two “street” setbacks (15 feet) and two “side”
setbacks (10 feet).
C.
The application of a standard 15-foot “street” setback along Edmonds Way is still required (unless
a variance is approved), even though the property cannot be accessed from Edmonds Way and it
does not function as a typical street setback. Public right-of-way borders three of the five
property lines.
D.
There is a wide expanse between the edge of the developed portion of Edmonds Way right-of-way
and the west / southwest property lines, which the 2004 staff report argued “seems to reduce the
need for a 15’ street setback from these property lines” (Exhibit 14, page 5).
E.
The applicant has already once received variance approval for this application, which has since
expired and is what has necessitated this application (Exhibit 15).
F.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this site and surrounding neighborhood as “Edmonds Way
Corridor,” and RM zones are listed as compatible zoning designations (Comprehensive Plan,
page 16).
G.
The use will continue to be multi-family.
H.
The ten-foot setbacks requested are consistent with the typical “side” setbacks in the RM-2.4
zone.
I.
The ADB recommended approval of the design of the project if the applicant were to apply for a
th
street setback variance along 84 Avenue West in order to preserve some existing fir trees and in
order to have two surface parking stalls located within the street setback area.
J.
The preservation of trees is a comprehensive plan policy that is encouraged.
K.
Parking spaces within the street setback are not permitted in the RM zone, unless a variance is
first approved.
L.
No views are known to be blocked by this proposal.
th
M.
The street setback variance along 84 Avenue West allows for the preservation of trees and for
two surface parking stalls.
N.
The street setback variance along Edmonds Way allows for the preservation of many of the large
mature trees.
O.
The 2004 staff report argues that the buildings are located right at the edge of 10’ side-setbacks
along the north and south property lines. The buildings are arranged around a parking court that
is required to have a width for a fire truck to safely enter and exit the site (Exhibit 14, page 6).
P.
No public comments have been received to date.
XII.CONCLUSIONS:
1.
Special Circumstances – Special circumstances exist on the property, including the shape of the
property, the existing large mature vegetation, and the fact that the “street” (Edmonds Way) is
separated by the site through the height of the slope, plus this road does not have access to the site.
Page 7 of 9
Shaun Leiser – Setback Variances
File Number: V-2007-81
2.
Special Privilege – The applicant has received variance approval for this same project in the past,
which required that he prove that all six variance criteria were met. This is an example of how
granting a variance would not be a grant of special privilege.
3.
Comprehensive Plan – See Section IX of this report for a discussion on consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan for the City of Edmonds. Specifically, there is a development policy that
encourages the preservation of trees on multiple-residential sites. This proposal would encourage the
preservation of trees, therefore it is consistent with one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and
also ECDC 18.45.020.B. The design of the proposal was approved by the ADB, and in doing so, they
found that it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
4.
Zoning Ordinance – See Section XI of this report for a discussion on consistency with the criteria
given the Zoning Code of the City of Edmonds. If the proposed Variance is approved, then the use
will be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance.
5.
Not Detrimental – Staff feels that this proposal does not appear to be detrimental, and in fact, it
provides for an overall better design of the site.
6.
Minimum Variance – Staff feels that the street setback variances are the minimum necessary to both
preserve the existing trees and to comply with other codes.
7.
The proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding zoning and development.
8.
Because nothing has changed since the original approval, staff feels that the original conditions of
approval (ADB-2004-54 / V-2004-55 / V-2004-85) should be upheld (Exhibit 15, pages 6 and 7).
9.
This application for two street setback variances must stand on their own and are reviewed on their
own merits, however the previous approval and analysis should be reviewed and taken into
consideration because nothing has changed since the original approval (Exhibits 12, 13, 14, and 15).
XIII.RECOMMENDATIONS:
APPROVAL
Based on the analysis and attachments to this report, staff recommends of both of the setback
variances with the following conditions:
1.
The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to include as many of the existing significant and healthy
trees on site as is feasible. Certain proposed plants may be omitted from the landscape plan where
their placement would be precluded by the retention of existing trees on the site.
2.
With submittal of the building permit application, the landscape plan for the site should show the
specific plants to be used rather than general categories of plants. Staff shall review to ensure that
appropriate types are used in specific locations and that diversity is maintained within the plan.
3.
The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show more detailed landscaping for the currently
th
unimproved 84 Avenue right-of-way immediately adjacent to the site. The plan should show the
retention of existing vegetation in this area, if appropriate, and the supplementation of existing
vegetation with shrubs and groundcover. This should be coordinated with any improvements required
by the Engineering Division.
4.
The street setback variances apply to the current proposal.
5.
The applicant must apply for and obtain necessary building permits.
6.
This application is subject to the applicable requirements 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.
Per the requirements of the Engineering Division (Exhibit 7), all utility easements shall be maintained
and no structures shall be located in the easement area.
Page 8 of 9
Shaun Leiser – Setback Variances
File Number: V-2007-81
XIV.PARTIES OF RECORD:
Shaun C. Leiser Planning Division
PO Box 60216 Engineering Division
Shoreline WA 98160
XV.EXHIBITS:
1.
Staff Report
2.
Zoning & Vicinity Map
3.
Land Use Application
4.
LiDAR / Aerial Photo Map
5.
Quarter Section Map
6.
Criteria Statement
7.
Engineering Division Memo
8.
SEPA Determination and Traffic Impact Analysis (2004)
9.
Site Plan
10.
Elevations and Floor Plans
11.
Public Notices (Notice of Application and Hearing, including affidavits of Publication in the Herald,
and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting)
12.
Staff Report to the ADB (2004)
13.
ADB Meeting Minutes – pages 1, and 10-12 (2004)
14.
Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner (2004)
15.
Hearing Examiner’s Decision for files ADB-2004-54 / V-2004-55 / V-2004-85 (2004)
16.
Conceptual Landscape Plan (2004)
Page 9 of 9