Loading...
StaffReport+Attachments_PLN20100040.pdf CITY OF EDMONDS th 121 5 Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Project: Soros Roof Pitch Variance File Number: PLN20100040 Date of Report: August 5, 2010 From: ____________________________ Gina Coccia, Associate Planner Public Hearing: August 19, 2010 at 3:00 P.M. Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers th 250 5 Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 I.SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION AND BACKGROUND This is a post-construction variance application. Design review and building permit review was th completed for two triplex buildings at 23707/23709 84 Avenue West under PLN20050100, BLD20090210 and BLD20090211 (formerly approved under expired building permits BLD20060572 and BLD20060573). Through the design review process, a roof with a pitch of 4/12 was proposed so that the roof structure could be created between 25 and 30 feet. Building plans were approved that showed compliance with the height limit and roof-pitch requirement. There were subsequent changes to the roofline, however, because (apparently) the contractors did not start below grade as anticipated, which threw off the height of the building and the resulting structures were found to be well over the 30’ height limit. The roof was removed and reconstructed and eventually determined to be just under 30 feet. Normally, this change would require a “revision” to their plans that would be reviewed by the Planning Division. The problem lies in the fact that they eventually passed their height inspection as the roof was amended to meet the height limit. Unfortunately, what the temporary building inspector did not know was that there is also a footnote in the zoning code that say that the only way an RM-zoned building would be permitted to go over 25 feet up to a maximum of 30 feet is if “… all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of four inches in 12 inches or greater.” So, the building inspector signed off on the new roof and the building construction continued. Years later, the Planning Division was called to conduct a final inspection – at this point, we visit the site to ensure that the required landscaping is installed and that the elevations generally match what was agreed upon during the design review and building review stages (colors, materials, etc.). When the planner arrived at the site, he noticed to his dismay that the buildings did not look like the approved plans – the roof looked different. EXHIBIT 1 PLN20100040 Soros Roof Pitch Variance File Number: PLN20100040 The property ownership has changed hands several times and Mr. Soros received the unfortunate notice that his almost complete buildings were out of compliance because the roof pitch did not appear to meet code. It turns out that the roof meets the 30’ height limit, but the area between 25 and 30 feet is not at a 4/12 pitch as required under Section 16.20.030 ECDC, footnote 1. The roof pitch, instead, is 2.5/12 (a difference of around 12%). Even through the building inspector mistakenly signed off at the height and framing inspections and mistakenly did not require the previous owner to submit “revisions” into the City for review and approval, the City Attorney confirmed that the building does need to be brought into compliance to meet zoning, even though the City had mistakenly approved the height at the previous inspections. The new owner could bring the project into compliance by one of two ways: by either removing and rebuilding the roofs of the two buildings for the second time (which would not yield much livable space, as the walls would be very short) or apply for and obtain a variance. Alternatively, both of the buildings could be substantially demolished and the project would need to start over. Elevations depicting the approved plans are shown in ATTACHMENT 5 while elevations depicting what was actually constructed is shown in ATTACHMENT 4. The Applicant has outlined several reasons why they feel the roof is appropriate in the proposed configuration and feels that the proposal meets all of the variance criteria (ATTACHMENT 3). The following is staff’s analysis of the project. II.GENERAL INFORMATION 1.Request: A variance to allow the roof to remain as built with a 2.5/12 pitch. : 2.Review ProcessVariance – the Hearing Examiner conducts a public hearing and makes the final decision. : 3.Major Issues Compliance with ECDC 16.30.030 (Multiple Residential – Site Development Standards). A. Compliance with Chapter 20.85 ECDC (Variances). B. 4.Owner/Applicant: Mitch Soros (ATTACHMENT 2). 5.Tax Parcel Number: 00451900101202 (ATTACHMENT 2). th 6.Location: 23707/23709 84 Avenue West, Edmonds (ATTACHMENT 1). th 7.Access: The site is accessed via 84 Avenue West. 8.Zoning: Multiple Residential (RM-1.5). 9.Size: 0.21 acres. 10.Proposed Use: Multiple Residential (two habitable triplex buildings, six units total). 11.Existing Use: Two vacant triplex buildings. III.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. Page 2 of 8 Soros Roof Pitch Variance File Number: PLN20100040 IV.PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A “Notice of Application and Hearing” was mailed to owners within 300 feet of the site as well published in the Everett Herald and posted in the required locations (on site, at City Hall, in the Pubic Safety Complex, and at the Library). Compliance with Chapter 20.03 (Public Notice) has been satisfied with the assistance of the Planning Division (ATTACHMENT 7). V.TECHNICAL COMMITTEE This application was reviewed and evaluated by the City’s Fire District, Engineering Division, Parks and Recreation Department, and the Public Works Department. No issues or concerns were raised by the above reviewing bodies. In fact, the Building Division even noted that “all prior Building Division inspections, including height check and framing, have been signed off.” The Building Division submitted a memo outlining the inspection status – refer to ATTACHMENT 6. VI.NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 1.Neighborhood Characteristics: The site is located in south Edmonds in between Highway 99 and SR-104. The neighborhood is a mix of commercial, multi-family, and older residential homes. The adjacent zoning is both commercial (CG, where the maximum height is 60 feet) along Highway 99 (“Aurora Marketplace”) and Multiple Residential (RM-1.5). Across the street to the west is a single family zoned neighborhood (RS-8) where the maximum height is 25 feet. There are two large properties in the immediate vicinity that contain churches – and even though they are zoned RS-8, the Community Facilities chapter (17.100 ECDC) allows churches to potentially build higher than 25 feet (up to 35 or 50, depending, with an approved Conditional Use permit). The property is immediately adjacent to a large (1.80 acre) parcel zoned RM-1.5. The two triplex buildings under review are located north of two six-unit condominium buildings that were constructed in 2000. 2.Topography: The site is completely flat and, according to the City’s LiDAR dataset, only has a maximum 2’ slope across the entire site. 3.Soils: According to the USDA Soils map, this neighborhood consists of “Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 2-8 percent slopes” (Map Unit Symbol 5). 4.Critical Areas: A Critical Areas Checklist was submitted under file number CRA20050101 and it was determined that there are no critical areas on or adjacent to the property. Therefore, a “waiver” from Title 23 ECDC (the City’s critical areas ordinance) was issued. 5.Wildlife: None noted upon site visit. 6.Vegetation: The site was recently landscaped as required through the design review process. VII.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is “Corridor Development.” The area designated as Corridor Development lies along Highway 99 and the commercial zone along Highway 99 that corresponds to this designation is General Commercial (CG/CG2). The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan has a vision for corridor development, and to achieve this vision the applicable excerpts are provided: Medical/Highway 99 Activity center and Highway 99 Corridor Page 3 of 8 Soros Roof Pitch Variance File Number: PLN20100040 Highway 99 is characterized by a corridor of generally commercial development with less intense uses or designed transitions serving as a buffer between adjacent neighborhoods… Highway 99 occupies a narrow strip of retail and commercial uses bounded by residential neighborhoods. Historically, the corridor has developed in a patchwork of uses, without a clear focus or direction… Encourage a variety of uses and building types. A variety of uses and building types is appropriate to take advantage of different opportunities and conditions. For example, a tall hotel or large scale retail development may be an excellent addition to the south of the corridor while some small restaurants and convenience shops might cater to hospital employees, trail users and local residents near 216th Street SW. Where needed, the City should consider zoning changes to encourage mixed use or taller development to occur. B.4.New development should be high-quality and varied – not generic – and include amenities for pedestrians and patrons. B.5. Protect residential qualities and connect businesses with the local community. Pedestrian connections should be made available as part of new development to connect residents to appropriate retail and service uses. B.6. New development should be allowed and encouraged to develop to the fullest extent possible while assuring that the design quality and amenities provided contribute to the overall character and quality of the corridor. Where intense development adjoins residential areas, site design (including buffers, landscaping, and the arrangement of uses) and building design should be used to minimize adverse impacts on residentially-zoned properties. (2009 Comprehensive Plan, pages 59-64) The area is a mix of commercial and residential in this area and both single family and multi- family developments are present. The buildings, at 30’, are an excellent transition between the 60-foot height limit of the General Commercial zone to the east and the 25-foot height limit of the RS-8 zone to the west. The construction is new and certainly not generic – the roof is custom. There are no views at stake, so the development protects residential qualities. VIII.PUBLIC CONCERNS To date, no public comments have been received. One lady who identified herself as a neighbor living in the condos adjacent to the south casually mentioned that she thought the design of the buildings were quite nice and said that she would be concerned if the site sat vacant any longer because the occasional transient could find the site inviting. I urged her to call the police if she had any concerns and told her that the Applicant would appreciate it if she submitted her public comments and/or testified at the public hearing. IX.FINDINGS & ANALYSIS 1. Chapter 16.30 ECDC (RM – Multiple Residential) Page 4 of 8 Soros Roof Pitch Variance File Number: PLN20100040 A. Development standards in the RM-1.5 zone are as follows, pursuant to ECDC 16.30.030: Minimum Lot Area Minimum MinimumMinimumMinimumMaximum SubPerMaximumParking Street SideRearCoverage District DwellingHeight(Spaces SetbackSetbackSetback(%) Unit Per Unit) (St. Ft.) 1, 5 RM-1.51,50015’10’15’25’45%2 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. 5 -- Maximum height for accessory structures of 15 feet. B. One deviation from the development standards in Chapter 16.30 is requested: footnote 1, which states, “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.” The proposal does not meet this requirement (ATTACHMENT 4). C. The proposal, as designed, did meet this requirement (ATTACHMENT 5) and was subsequently approved by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) under file PLN20050100. The plans submitted during the building permit review phase matched closely with what the ADB approved, including the 4/12 pitched roof requirement. D. Due to a series of errors on both the part of the original contractor and the inspectors, the building was completed to meet the 25+5’ height limit, but does not meet the 4/12 pitch rule. 2. Chapter 20.85 ECDC (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: A. Required Findings: 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; Page 5 of 8 Soros Roof Pitch Variance File Number: PLN20100040 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; 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. B. The Applicant has submitted a Criteria Statement explaining why they believe they should be granted the proposed variance (ATTACHMENT 3.). C. Staff’s Variance Findings & Conclusions: 1. Special Circumstances. There are indeed special circumstances related to this property. A whole series of events occurred several years ago that now lead us to this point. Typically, an owner is involved from start to finish, and in this case the ownership changed hands before the project was completed. Also, the building inspector who “signed off” was a temporary worker and did not understand the implications of not requiring the past owner to submit a revision of the building permit application for staff to review. If that had happened, the Planning Division would have noticed that the roof was no longer 4/12 above 25 feet and the problem could have been resolved. Instead, the mistake was caught after the carpet was installed and the units were about to receive a certificate of occupancy by the Building Division – it is certainly a special circumstance that a compliance issue is brought up so late in the process. Unfortunately, the code specifically says that special circumstances don’t include “… any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owners of the same property.” The owner is ultimately responsible. Staff struggles with this criteria, because even though that “excuse” is not relevant to the variance criteria, the fact that the building inspector made a mistake would be considered a special circumstance. It is unclear whether the special circumstances involving this property actually “count” as special circumstances in the variance criteria. 2. Special Privilege. It is unclear if allowing the roof to remain is a grant of special privilege. Staff feels that most other variance criteria have been achieved, which typically that means that it would not be a grant of special privilege. However, in this case we know that the buildings could have been constructed to meet the roof- pitch requirement, but after an unfortunate series of events by folks who are no longer involved with the City nor the property owner, two buildings remain out of compliance. Other solutions involve removal of both roofs and likely the demolition of both buildings. It is unclear to staff whether allowing the buildings to remain as built would be a grant of special privilege. 3. Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages unique design in these transitional neighborhoods. This project proposes a roof with a unique design. There are no views in the vicinity, and the Comprehensive Plan admits that this area was Page 6 of 8 Soros Roof Pitch Variance File Number: PLN20100040 developed in a “patchwork” of uses without clear focus or direction. By modeling the multi-family buildings to the south, this project seeks to add direction to the neighborhood. In these ways, the project complies with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Zoning Ordinance. The “25+5” rule, as it’s known, is proposed in almost all instances in order to achieve useable space in a top third floor. Other than the footnote in the table of Section 16.30.030(A), the project complies with the zoning ordinance. 5. Not Detrimental.For several reasons, this proposal is not detrimental. There are no views in the vicinity. This is the main contention with the height limit and this was likely the reason why the roof-pitch footnote was established. The Building Division is ready to issue certificates of occupancy, so they do not find anything detrimental with the proposal. One woman, identifying herself as a neighbor, mentioned that it may be detrimental if the buildings were left vacant any longer and if the variance were not granted, because she feared the empty buildings may attract transient squatters who meander through the neighborhood from Highway 99. 6. Minimum Variance. The variance appears to be the minimum necessary. The roof pitched was changed from 4/12 (.33%) to 2.5/12 (0.21%) for that portion between 25- 30 feet (a difference of .12%). It was clearly the best pitch found to keep the project under 30’ while still trying to adhere to the original plans and maintain habitable floor area in the top story. On the other hand, it could be argued that the minimum necessary is no variance, because through the design review and building permit process, it was shown that no variance was necessary. Considering the initial error of the contractor not excavating and simply building up from original grade, the project was doomed to not meet the height limit. If the project were completely demolished and if the earth were excavated to a depth originally imagined, then the project could be built to code. But with taking all of the events into consideration, the existing pitch was the minimum necessary to achieve a pitched roof in a craftsman character and still remain under the height limit. D. Per Section 20.85.000 ECDC, a variance could be applied for to modify any of the requirements in the zoning code. The zoning code is found in ECDC Titles 16 and 17. The Applicant wishes to modify the footnote in Section 16.30.030.A ECDC. X.CONCLUSIONS 1. – Special Circumstances Special circumstances exist for this project, but it is unclear if these actually “count” as special circumstances pursuant to Section 20.85.010.A. – 2.It is unclear whether allowing the two roofs to remain would be a grant of Special Privilege special privilege. – 3.See Section VIII of this report for a discussion on consistency with Comprehensive Plan the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Edmonds. Staff feels that the project is compliant with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan as related to “Corridor Development.” – 4. See Section IX.1 of this report for a discussion on consistency with the Zoning Ordinance criteria given the zoning code of the City of Edmonds. Except for the roof-pitch footnote in Section 16.30.030.A, the project is compliant with the zoning ordinance. – 5. The proposal is not detrimental to the public’s health, safety, or welfare. Not Detrimental No views are obstructed by the slight variation of roof pitch. No negative public comments Page 7 of 8 Soros Roof Pitch Variance File Number: PLN20100040 have been received and no complaints have been voiced. In fact, unofficial comments have been verbally made stating that it would be detrimental to allow the buildings to remain vacant any longer. The fact that notice for a variance application was circulated and no comments were received speaks volumes. 6. – Minimum Variance Considering the circumstances, this design is the minimum necessary to enjoy a roof, living space, and remain under the 30’ height limit. The roof pitch is 12% less steep than it would have been required to be constructed, had anyone involved with the project been aware of this requirement. The project still makes use of a pitch to the best of its ability. Although the minimum variance necessary to build the project was “no variance” Staff feels that a 12% pitch difference for a portion of the roof that is out of compliance remains the minimum necessary to use the property. XI.RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis and attachments to this report, staff is required to recommend that the DENY the requested variance, because it is not clear that all six variance Hearing Examiner criteria are met. XII.PARTIES OF RECORD th 1. Mitch Soros – 11511 39 Avenue SE, Everett WA 98208. th 2. Edmonds Development Services Department – 121 5 Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020. XIII.ATTACHMENTS 1. Zoning & Vicinity Map 2. Land Use Application 3. Criteria Statement 4. As-Built Elevations 5. Elevations (File BLD20090210) 6. Building Division Comments 7. Public Notice & Publishing Page 8 of 8 001 214161 4 E 23419 2 34 25 23 50 6 842 3 235thSTSW 2 35 12 23 52 0 23 52 5 8423 85 05 236TH ST SW 23601 8522 04336 6111 8 8506 2 36 22 2 36 32 84 25 23 70 6 20 SITE 23639 20 24 2 37 13 84 27 2 37 20 2 37 25 2 37 15 26 28 23721 84 29 30 23725 32 81 01 2 238TH ST SW 23 80 8 80 24 23809 8100 8 0 23 83 2 23 81 4 8026 8 0 2 38 20 8 02 8 2 3 82 5 8104 280 38 28 8 03 0 2 3 90 4 23 90 1 2 39 04 2 39 05 23 9 8 02 9 23 91 2 2 38 21 23 9 23 91 6 8027 2 3 92 0 23922 23920 23 93 1 23 93 0 2 8439 2126 8025 23926 \] Attachment 1 Legend Soros Variance RS-8 Zoning/Vicinity Map File PLN20100040 BCRM-2.4 0100Feet200 23709 84th Ave W CGRM-1.5 SHOULDSAY: POSTED07/20 NOT07/21(GC)