Loading...
StaffReport_V-2008-12.pdf PLANNING DIVISION REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Project: Ratchford Side Setback Variance File Number: V-2008-12 Date of Report: April 16, 2008 From: ____________________________ Gina Coccia, Associate Planner Public Hearing: May 1, 2008 at 3:00 P.M. Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers th 250 5 Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 I.SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION: The applicant desires to build an approximate 300 square foot deck on their property, which is th Street SW in the Single-Family Residential (RS-12) zone. The property is located at 7815 175 encumbered by two slopes – one in the front yard (south) and one in the back yard (north), as well as stream channels at the base of the slopes. The applicant is requesting to build the proposed deck within five feet of the eastern side property line, where a ten foot setback is required. The following is staff’s analysis of the project. II.GENERAL INFORMATION: 1.Request: A side setback variance: a reduction from the required ten feet from the eastern property line to five feet (Exhibits 4, 5, and 8). 2.Review Process: Variance – the Hearing Examiner conducts a public hearing and makes the final decision. 3.Major Issues: a. Compliance with ECDC 16.20.030 (Single-Family Residential). b. Compliance with ECDC 20.85 (Variances). c. Compliance with ECDC 23 (Critical Areas). 4.Owner/Applicant: James & Birgitt Ratchford (Exhibit 3). Exhibit 1 V-2008-12 Ratchford Side Setback Variance File Number: V-2008-12 5.Tax Parcel Number: 00679200000700. th 6.Location: 7815 175 Street SW, Edmonds (Exhibit 2). th 7.Access: The site is accessed from 175 Street SW, which is considered a “Local Street.” 8.Zoning: Single-Family Residential (RS-12). 9.Size: 0.63 Acres / 27,515 square feet. 10.Proposed Use: One new deck attached to an existing single family home (Exhibit 8). 11.Existing Use: Single family. III.HISTORY / BACKGROUND: As mentioned in the criteria statement (Exhibit4), the applicant added on to an existing deck 1 . After researching the variance process and the criteria for without an approved building permit approval, the applicant submitted a variance application on February 19, 2008. IV.SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review (WAC 197-11- 800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080). A variance alone does not require SEPA review. 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 a “Notice of Hearing” were published in the Herald Newspaper, posted at the subject site, as well as the Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and the Library. All notices were also mailed to residents within 300 feet of the site. The City has complied with the noticing provisions of ECDC 20.91 (Public Hearings and Notice). An Affidavit of Mailing and Posting are included as attachments to this report (Exhibit 9). 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. No comments were received. VII.NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: 1 Staff has searched the system and found that the original building permit for the house, file BLD-2002-0619, does not indicate an approved deck of any size; therefore, a building permit for a deck is required (Exhibit 7). Page 2 of 8 Ratchford Side Setback Variance File Number: V-2008-12 1.Topography: The applicant’s site plan shows that the site contains two steep slopes – one in the front yard and one in the back yard (Exhibit 7). 2.Soils: According to the Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington, this neighborhood consists of “Everett gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes” (Map Unit Symbol 19),. 3.Critical Areas: A Critical Areas Checklist was submitted under file number CRA-2000-0133 and it was determined that there is a slope on the property. A Geotechnical Report was submitted for the review of the single family residence in 2002. See section XI.2 of this report for further discussion on critical areas. 4.Wildlife: Typical of a residential environment. 5.Vegetation: The existing vegetation is typical of a single-family residence, as well as to vegetated slopes. VIII.NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: This site is located in a single-family neighborhood in northern Edmonds. Many homes along th Street SW, which is a dead-end street, appear to have a view of Puget Sound. All of the 175 adjacent zoning is Single-Family Residential (RS-12). IX.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is “Single Family - Resource.” The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan has a vision for residential development, and to achieve this vision the applicable excerpts are shown below: Residential Development B. Goal. 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 to all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic considerations, in accordance with the following policies: B.1. Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. B.3. Minimize encroachment of view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. B.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of the slope, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage. Soils and Topography Page 3 of 8 Ratchford Side Setback Variance File Number: V-2008-12 B. Goal. Future development in areas of steep slope and potentially hazardous soil conditions should be based on site development which preserves the natural site characteristics in accordance with the following policies: C.2.a. Buildings on slopes of 15% or greater shall be designed to cause minimum disruption to the natural topography. (2006 Comprehensive Plan, pages 53-54, 63-64, and 66) The proposed deck is relatively small at approximately 300 square feet and does not appear to encroach upon any views. Also, the way that it was constructed appears to have little impact on the natural topography of the site. X.PUBLIC CONCERNS: To date, no public comments have been received. However, the applicant submitted several ). letters from neighbors in support of his proposal with his application (Exhibit 4 XI.APPLICABLE CODES: 1. ECDC 16.20 (RS – Single-Family Residential) A. Development standards in the RS-12 zone are as follows, pursuant to ECDC 16.20.030: Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Maximum Minimum SubMinimum Maximum Lot Area Street SideRearCoverageParking DistrictLot Width Height (St. Ft.) Setback Setback Setback (%)Spaces RS-1212,00080’25’10’25’25’35%2 B. The only deviation from the development standard is the requested side setback variance. The minimum distance a structure can be located from the side (eastern) property line is ten feet – the applicant is requesting a reduction of the standard side setback to five feet. C. The maximum lot coverage is 35% or 9,630 square feet on a 27,515 square foot lot. The existing coverage is 3,648, which is shown on the site plan for the existing house (Exhibit ) 7. When the proposed 29’x10’ deck is added, the lot coverage is increased to 3,938 square feet, which remains under the maximum 35% at about 14%. D. ECDC 16.20.040.C states, “Uncovered and unenclosed porches, steps, patios, and decks may project into a required setback not more than one-third of the required setback, or four feet, whichever is less; provided, that they are no more than 30 inches above ground level at any point.” Based upon the applicant’s description of the deck that was built previously, it may have been utelizing this portion of the code, because the southern-most portion of the deck appears to be less than three feet in height above grade. The northern-most portion of the deck is quite tall, due to the change in topography. As proposed, the deck does not meet the above exemption due to its height above grade. E. The applicant must prove that all development standards are met through the building permit process. 2. ECDC 23.40, 23.80, and 23.90 (Critical Areas) Page 4 of 8 Ratchford Side Setback Variance File Number: V-2008-12 A. The site contains a geologically hazardous area. The slope in the back yard and front yard are just under the 40% slope threshold (instead of being designated “landslide hazard areas” they are designated “erosion hazard areas”). ECDC 23.80.050.F.4 states, “For any development proposal on a site containing an erosion hazard area, an erosion and sediment control plan shall be required. The erosion and sediment control plan shall be prepared in compliance with requirements set forth in Chapter 18.30 ECDC.” An erosion and sediment control plan would be required with the building permit. B. The site contains a stream. ECDC 23.90.020 requires special studies for projects proposed near streams. In this case, we know where the stream is located, but the buffer has changed since 2002. If staff believes that the deck is near or within a stream buffer, then a report by a qualified biologist would be required with the building permit to establish the minimum buffer distance and to ensure that the functions and values of stream habitat are maintained. 3. 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; . That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the zoning Zoning Ordinance 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 5 of 8 Ratchford Side Setback Variance File Number: V-2008-12 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 (Exhibits 4 & 5). B. There are slopes on the property, and the deck addition is proposed at the top of the northern slope. These slopes, per the survey, are just under 40% (rise/run) and are therefore not considered “landslide hazard areas” but “erosion hazard areas” – both of which are types of “geologically hazardous (critical) areas” and subject to the provisions in ECDC 23.40 and ECDC 23.80. C. There is a stream on the property (at the toe of the slopes), which is subject to the provisions in ECDC 23.40 and ECDC 23.90.The classification and buffer width of this stream is unknown. D.. The design of the proposed deck is described on Exhibits 4 and 5 E. There are northwestern views of Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains in this neighborhood; however, it does not appear that any views would be blocked by the deck addition, which protrudes to the east. F. There are no other decks on the property. The applicant would like to enjoy one 300 square foot deck. G. The City’s permit database shows very few approved setback variance requests between th Street SW as summarized in the table below: 1980-1990 in the vicinity along 175 File Number AddressRequestDecision To reduce the site (side?) and street th V-1984-247700 175 Street SW Unknown setback th V-1990-137812 175 Street SW To reduce the side setback Approved To reduce the required front yard th V-1980-97821 175 Street SW Approved setback H. The applicant states that in 2002, the original home was built with a small 14.5’x10’ deck. The applicant has since added on an additional 14.5’x10’ deck – both of which encroach into the minimum 10’ side setback by about five feet. I. Staff did not find any evidence of an approved deck (Exhibit 7), so any deck on site would require building permit review. J. If the deck were uncovered, unenclosed, and under three feet in height, then it could potentially project up to 3.33’ into the required ten foot side setback (located as close as 6.67’ from the east property line). However, the proposed deck is both enclosed (railing) and over three feet in height, so the exception in ECDC 16.20.040.C does not apply. K. Staff sees no reason why this proposal should be transferable. L. No public comments have been received to date. XII.CONCLUSIONS: 1. – Special Circumstances Special circumstances exist on the property, specifically the slope in both the front and back yards. There is also a stream at the bottom of the ravines that Page 6 of 8 Ratchford Side Setback Variance File Number: V-2008-12 further impacts the development potential of this site. The property is quite large at 27,515 square feet – more than twice the legal lot size for properties in the RS-12 zone, but the streams and slopes constrict the building envelope. 2. – Special PrivilegeThe database shows that only two setback variances have been approved th along 175 Street SW (V-1990-13 and V-1980-9). 3. – Comprehensive PlanSee Section IX of this report for a discussion on consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Edmonds. Specifically, minimizing grading and the preservation of views are encouraged. This proposal is consistent with several of the goals of 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, ) several neighbors have submitted letters in support of the setback variance (Exhibit 4. No views appear to be blocked by the addition of the deck. 6. – Minimum Variance Staff feels that the side setback variance is not the minimum necessary to construct a modest sized deck on this property. Staff feels that a deck that meets setbacks is the minimum necessary to enjoy a deck on this property, which would either (1) result in a deck that is approximately 30’ x 7’ (210 square feet), which would mean keeping the length of the deck but reducing the width to meet setbacks, or (2) constructing a deck that meets the exception criteria in ECDC 16.20.040.C so that it is at least 6.67’ from the east property line and about 14’ in length (an approximately 140 square foot deck) before the slope pushes it over three feet in height. Also, with qualified professionals involved, the applicant could come up with a deck design that meets the eastern side setback, but that wraps around the northern portion of the house – this would result in more deck area than the above two scenarios, but may be more expensive to construct. In any event, the applicant could choose to construct a deck at varying sizes and heights that meets setbacks and/or the setback exemption in ECDC 16.20.040.C. Therefore, staff feels that the proposed deck is not the minimum necessary to enjoy a deck on this property. XIII.RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL of the side Based on the analysis and attachments to this report, staff recommends setback variance, because it is not evident that all six variance criteria are met. Staff does not find that the application of setbacks would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship. XIV.PARTIES OF RECORD: James & Birgitt Ratchford Saeed Daniali thth 7815 175 Street SW 7821 175 Street SW Page 7 of 8 Ratchford Side Setback Variance File Number: V-2008-12 Edmonds WA 98026 Edmonds WA 98026 Paul & Karen Johnson Craig Nakashima thth 7819 175 Street SW 7711 175 Street SW Edmonds WA 98026 Edmonds WA 98026 Ralph Puchalski & Kristen Foote th 7810 175 Street SW Edmonds WA 98026 Planning Division Don Corwin Building Division PO Box 1451 Edmonds WA 98020 XV.EXHIBITS: 1. Staff Report 2. Zoning & Vicinity Map 3. Land Use Application 4. Criteria Statement, including letters from neighbors, photos, and maps (2/19/2008) 5. Supplemental Information (4/5/2008) 6. Geotechnical Report for Existing House (3/21/2002) 7. Site Plan – Existing (File BLD-2002-0619) 8. Site Plan – Proposed Deck Addition 9. Public Notices and Affidavits Page 8 of 8