V-08-71 Hearing Examiner Decision - Updated.pdfrbc is9\3
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
APPLICANT }
Lisa Henthorn }
}
}
For a Variance )
1, Sharon A. Rice, the undersigned, do hereby declare:
Case No. V-2008-71
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
ft�nry
.
-14A, .r
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
1. That I am a partner in the firm of Toweill Rice Taylor LLC, which maintains a professional
services agreement with the City of Edmonds, Washington for the provision of Hearing Examiner
services, and make this declaration in that capacity;
2. That I am now and at all times herein mentioned have been a citizen of the United States, a
resident of the State of Washington, over the age of eighteen (18), and competent to be a witness
and make service herein;
3. On January 20, 2009, I served a copy of the decision on all parties of record but one, who
was omitted by error. Because the deadline for decision issuance has not passed, the
decision is beim reissued to afford an parties the code -rewired appeal and reconsideration
timelines. On January 23, 2009 I did serve a copy of the decision in case V-200871 upon the
following individuals at the addresses below by first class US Mail.
Lisa Henthorn
610 Alder Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
Clerk of the Edmonds City Council
121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
City of Edmonds Planning Division
121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
Herb Hess
1109-4 th Street
Mukilteo, WA 98275
The Klemms
407 — 6" Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020
Lynda Rosi
14723 - 65'h Avenue W
Edmonds, WA 98026
I hereby declare under penalty of per ury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is
true and correct:
DATED THIS 2 day of 2009 a Washington.
Sharon A. Rice
Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
Serving as, Hearing Examiner for Edmonds, Washington
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
rnC.18913
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
In the Matter of the Application of
Lisa Henthorn
For a Variance
NO. V-2008-71
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND DECISION
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
SUMMARY OF DECISION
The request for a variance from the street and rear yard setback standards of the RS -6 zone is
GRANTED, subject to conditions.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Request:
Lisa Henthorn (Applicant) requested a variance from the 20 -foot street setback standard and the
15 -foot rear yard setback standard of the RS -6 zone to construct a second story addition to an
existing single-family residence that would be 19.5 feet from the fronting street (Alder Street)
and nine feet from the rear property line. The subject property is located at 610 Alder Street,
Edmonds, Washington.
_Hearing Date:
The City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner conducted an open record hearing on the request on
January 15, 2009.
Testimony'
At the open record hearing the following individuals presented testimony under oath:
1. Jen Machuga, Planner, City of Edmonds
2. Lisa Henthorn, Owner/Applicant
3. Herb Hess
Exhibits:
At the open record hearing the following exhibits were admitted into the record:
L Staff Report dated January 6, 2009, with the following attachments:
1. Land Use Application filed November 14, 2008
2. Zoning & Vicinity Map
3. Applicant's Criteria Statement received December 23, 2008
4. Site Plan received December 23, 2008
5. Email from Applicant, dated January 5, 2009
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Henthorn Variance, No. V-2008-71
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
page 1 of 7
6. Proposed North Elevation received January 5, 2009
7. Proposed East Elevation received November 14, 2008
8. Proposed Cross -Section Looking West received December 23, 2008
9. Proposed Roof Plan received January 5, 2009
10. Fire Department Review Comments dated December 29, 2008
11. Public Works Department Review Comments dated January 5, 2009
12. Engineering Division Review Comments
13. Parks & Recreation Department Comments dated December 29, 2009
14. Anonymous Comment Letter Received December 3, 2008
15. Anonymous Comment Letter Received December 16, 2008
16. Comment Letter from Lynda Rosi Received December 16, 2008
17. Survey of Subject Site (Snohomish County AFN 200811145001)
18. Photos (4) of Existing Residence
19. Site Plan of 407 — 6" Ave. S (Permit No. BLD -2006-0614)
20. Public Notice of Development Application; Affidavits of Publication and Posting of
Notice of Development Application; Revised Notice of Application and Hearing
Examiner Hearing; and Affidavits of Posting and Mailing of Revised Notice of
Application and Hearing Examiner Tearing
21. Aerial Photograph
2. Affidavit of Publication
3. First Floor Plan received January 13, 2009
4. Comment Letter from Rick and Sue Klemm
Upon consideration of the testimony.and exhibits submitted at the open record hearing, the
Hearing Examiner enters the following findings and conclusions:
FINDINGS
I . The Applicant requested a variance from the 20 -foot street yard setback standard and the
15 -foot rear yard setback standard of the RS -6 zone to construct a second story addition
to an existing single-family residence that would be 19.5 feet from the fronting street.
(Alder Street) and nine feet from the rear property line. The subject property is located at
610 Alder Street, Edmonds, Washington! The variance would allow expansion of a
legally nonconforming single-family residence. Exhibit 1, pages 1-2; Exhibit 1,
Attachments], 3, and 4.
2. The Comprehensive Plan designations of the subject property are Single Family — Urban
T and Downtown Activity Center. City Staff identified the following Comprehensive
Plan goals and policies as being applicable to the proposal:
Residential Development Section, Goal B:
High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle
of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted The options available
to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be
' The subject property is mown as Tax Parcel Number 00434209400301. Exhibit 1, page 2.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Henthorn Variance, No. V-2008-71
page 2 of 7
approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic considerations, in
accordance with the following policies:
B.2. Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing
buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures in the area
B.3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new
construction or additions to existing structures.
B.4. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within
Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible.
Exhibit 1, page 4
3. The subject property is zoned Single -Family Residential, minimum lot area of 6,000
square feet (RS -6). The minimum street setback in the RS -6 zone is 20 feet, the
minimum rear yard setback is 15 feet, and the maximum building coverage is 35 percent.
Exhibit 1, page 5, Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.20.030.
4. The subject property is 3,300 square feet in area and is developed with a one-story, 508 -
square -foot single-family residence. The residence is set back 19.5 feet from Alder Street
and nine feet from the rear property line. Exhibit 1, pages 1 and 4; Exhibit 1,
Attachments 4, 17, and 18.
5. The City considers the subject property to be a "nonconforming lot" pursuant to
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 17.40.030 because it is smaller than
the minimum required lot area in the RS -6 zone, is not under common ownership with an
adjacent lot, and has been developed with a single-family residence since 1952. Section
17.40.030(B) of the ECDC allows nonconforming lots to be developed as long as the
development complies with all applicable use and development standards or variances
from the standards are obtained. Exhibit 1, page 6.
6. The existing residence is a "nonconforming building" pursuant to ECDC 17.40.020
because it fails to comply with current street and rear yard setback standards, but was
constructed prior to the City's adoption of the setback standards. The residence was
constructed in 1952, and the City adapted its first zoning code in 1956. Section
17.40.020 of the ECDC allows a nonconforming building to be maintained or continued
as long as it is not altered in any manner that increases the degree of nonconformity.
ECDC 17.40.020; Exhibit 1, page 6.
7. The Applicant proposes to add a second story addition to the residence and expand the
building slightly to the west. Because the second story addition would align with the
existing building footprint, it would intrude into the street and rear yard setbacks to the
same degree as the existing building. Consequently, a variance is required for the second
story addition. The addition to the west of the existing residence, which would add only
166 square feet to each floor, would not intrude into any setbacks. The footprint of the
finished residence would be 674 square feet, and the gross floor area would be 1,348
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Henthorn Variance, No. V-2008-71
page 3 of 7
square feet. The lot coverage after development is complete would be approximately 20
percent. Exhibit 1, pages 4-5; Exhibit 1, Attachments 4, S, 6, 7, and 8.
8. The AppIicant's lot is one of the smallest in the neighborhood; nearly all of the lots in the
vicinity are twice the size of the Applicant's or larger. As evidenced from the submitted
site photos (Exhibit 1, Attachment 18) and aerial photograph (Exhibit 1, Attachment 21),
the Applicant's house is also one of the smallest in the neighborhood. The RS -6 building
setback requirements as applied to the subject property result in a developable area that is
only 20 feet wide. Exhibit 1, Attachments 2, 4, 18, and 21.
9. The proposed addition would result in a building area that is proportional to the area of
the lot and that is comparable to development on similarly sized lots. The lot to the west
of the subject property is one of the few in the neighborhood with an area of 3,300 square
feet, yet it contains a 981 -square -foot residence and a 180 -square -foot garage. With the
proposed addition, the residence on the subject property would have a slightly larger floor
area than the adjacent residence and garage, but would still have a smaller building
footprint. The building coverage, at approximately 20 percent, would be significantly
less than the maximum allowed in the RS -6 zone. Exhibit 1, pages 7-8; Exhibit 1,
Attachment 1.
10. In public comment on the application, a general concern was raised that allowing owners
to maximize development of their lots would result in minimal yards, reduced privacy
and diminished neighborhood charm. In this case, however, the portion of the
development, necessitating a variance (the second floor addition) would not change the
existing setbacks. The total remodel would add only 166 square feet to the building
footprint. Nearly 80 percent of the lot would remain as open space. In addition, based on
the submitted site photos and building elevations, the proposed remodel would result in a
residence that better harmonizes with other residences in the neighborhood Exhibit 1,
Attachments S, 6, 7, 16, and 18, Exhibit 1, pages 5 and 9.
11. The neighbors residing immediately south of the subject property (407 — Ob Avenue
South), closest to the reduced rear yard setback, support the variance application. The
portion of their residence closest to the proposed development consists of a garage and
bonus room The neighbors submitted that the proposed addition would not adversely
affect their views or have any other negative effects. Exhibit 4, Exhibit 1, Attachment 19.
12. Although the common property line between the subject property and the adjacent parcel
to the south is a `gear" property line for the Applicant, it is a "side" property line for the
neighbors to the south. This is due to the unusual orientation of the lots; normally,
common property lines carry the same designation. The setback applicable to the
residence to the south is only five feet from the common property line, and the actual
setback is seven feet. The reduced rear yard setback on the subject property (nine feet) is
compatible with the setback on the adjacent property. Exhibit 1, page 8; Exhibit 1,
Attachment 19, Testimony ofMs Machuga.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Henthorn Variance, No. V-2008-71
page 4 of 7
13. Based on the topography of the neighborhood in the vicinity of the subject property, City
staff submitted that the development would not adversely affect views of Puget Sound.
No evidence was submitted to the contrary. Exhibit 1, pages 8 and 9.
14. Since 1984, four setback variances have been granted in the vicinity of the subject
property. Exhibit 1, page 9.
15. Representatives of the City Fire, Public Works, Engineering, and Parks Departments
reviewed the variance application and did not have any comments. Exhibit 1,
Attachments 10, 11, 12, and 13-
16. The proposal is exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act. Exhibit
1, page 3, WAC 19711-800.
17. Notice of the open record hearing was mailed to adjacent property owners on December
11, 2008, posted on site on December 26, 2008, and published in The Herald on
December 26, 2005. Exhibit 1, Attachment 20, Exhibit 2.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction:
The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide variance requests pursuant to
Edmonds Community Development Code 20.100.010(B).
Criteria for Review:
Pursuant to ECDC 20.85.010, the Hearing Examiner may not grant a variance unless the
following findings can be made:
A. 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.
1. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and
uses as set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as
vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats.
2. 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,
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Henthorn Yariawe, No. V-2008-71
page 5 of 7
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. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with
the comprehensive plan;
D. Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with
the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is
located;
E. 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;
F. Minimum Variance. That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to
allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the
same zoning.
Conclusions Based on Findings:
1. Due to special circumstances relating to the size of the subject property, strict
enforcement of the street and rear yard setback requirements would deprive the owner of
rights and privileges (i.e., a reasonable building area) permitted to other properties in the
vicinity and within the RS -6 zone. The RS -6 setback standards encumber the subject
property to a greater extent than the larger lots in the vicinity. Findings Nos. 3, 4, 5, and
8.
2. Approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege. The variance would
only allow the Applicant to remodel an existing residence to provide a reasonable amount
of living space, consistent with the scale of surrounding residential development.
Findings Nos 7, 8, 9, 10, and 14.
3. The variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The remodeled
residence would harmonize with its surroundings and would not diminish the views from
surrounding residences. Findings Nos. 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13.
4. The variance would be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance. One of the
purposes of the zoning ordinance is to protect the character of residential uses within the
City by regulating individual parcels of land to prevent unreasonable detrimental effects.
ECDC 16.00. 010(B)(3). One of the purposes of the residential zones is to preserve
views. ECDC 16.10.000. The variance would be consistent with these purposes because
it would maintain the existing residential character of the neighborhood, would not have
detrimental effects on surrounding properties, and would preserve views. The setbacks
resulting from the variance would be the same as the setbacks of the existing residence,
which was constructed in 1952. Although the existing residence is only nine feet from
the south property line, the south property line functions as a side property line to the
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Henthorn Variance, No. V-2008-71
page 6 of 7
neighbors to the south. The nine -foot setback exceeds the side yard setback standard.
Findings Nos 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13.
5. The variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and within the RS -6 zone. Findings
Nos. 7, 11, and 15.
6. The variance would be the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by
other property owners. The size of the remodeled residence would be proportional to the
lot and would be compatible with other residences in the neighborhood. Requiring the
second story addition to comply with the RS -6 building setback standards would result in
an unusually narrow second floor and diminished living space. Findings Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8,
9, and 10.
DECISION
Based on the preceding findings and conclusions, the request for a variance from street and rear
yard setback standards of the RS -6 zone to construct a second story addition to an existing
single-family residence that would be 19.5 feet from Alder Street and nine feet from the rear
property line is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. This approval authorizes the setback variances as generally depicted on the Site Plan
received December 23, 2008. Development of the site is subject to all other applicable
requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the Applicant's
responsibility to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these
ordinances.
2. The Applicant must obtain all applicable permits for the proposed addition, and the
Applicant must comply with all the terms of any future permits.
DECIDED this 2e day of January 2009.
Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiners
By:
Sharon A. Rice
Findings, Conciusions, and Decision
City ofEdmonds Hearing Examiner
Henthorn Variance, No. V-2008-71
page 7 of 7
' *I C. 1891-3
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing requests for reconsideration and
appeals. Any person wishing to file or res nd to a r uest for reconsideration or an Weal should
contact the Planning Division of the Development Services Damrtment for further rocedural
information.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Section 20.100.010(G) of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) requires the Hearing
Examiner to reconsider his or her 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.
APPEALS
Chapter 20.105 of the ECDC contains the appeal procedures for Hearing Examiner decisions. Pursuant to
Section 20.105.040(A), persons entitled to appeal include (1) the Applicant; (2) anyone who has
submitted a written document to the City of Edmonds concerning the application prior to or at the
hearing; or (3) anyone testifying on the application at the hearing. Sections 20.105.020(A) requires
appeals to be in writing, and state (1) the decision being appealed, the name of the project applicant, and
the date of the decision; (2) the name and address of the person (or group) appealing the decision, and his
or her interest in the matter; and (3) the reasons why the person appealing believes the decision to be
wrong. Pursuant to Section 20.105.020(B), the appeal must be filed with the Director of the Development
Services Department within 14 calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. The appeal
must be accompanied by any required appeal fee.
TIME LllVIITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeal run concurrently. if a request for reconsideration is filed
before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for filing an appeal is stopped until a
decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his or her
decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it was
stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request is filed on day five of the appeal period, an individual
would have nine more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on
the reconsideration request.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 20.85.020(C) of the ECDC states, "[t]he approved variance must be acted on by the owner within
one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be dull and void, unless the owner files
an application for an extension of time before the expiration and the city approves the application."
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may, as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner, request a change
in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office.
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan