V-16-85 setbacks.pdfE C E. J- y
FINDINGS 1iND DECISION A U 6' Y '1985
OF TIHE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY, OF 91�PkQNq4
CITY OF EDMONDS
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FILE: V-16-85
OF LEE AND MARJEAN TAUBENECK FOR
APPROVAL OF VARIANCES
DECISION: The variances are granted subject to
the conditions listed.
INTRODUCTION
Lee and Marjean Taubeneck, 18506 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds,
Washington, 98020, and hereinafter referred to as Applicants,
have requested approval of variances to allow the addition of
decks and a carport on their property. The specific variances
are to reduce the rear setback from 25 feet to four feet; to
reduce the street setback from 25 feet to zero feet; and to
exceed the permitted lot coverage of 35 percent to 40 percent.
The subject property is located at 18506 Olympic View Drive,
Edmonds, Washington, and more particularly described on
Exhibit 4 to the hearing which is enclosed in the file in this
matter.
A hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner
of the City of Edmonds on July 18, 1985.
At the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence:
Duane Bowman
Planning Dept.
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, WA 98020
Mal -jean Taubeneck
18506 Olympic View Dr.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Walter Yager
18504 Olympic View Dr.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Lee Taubeneck
18506 Olympic View Dr.
Edmonds, WA 98020
At the hearing the following exhibits were submitted and admitted
as part of the record:
Exhibit 1 - Staff Report
11 2 - Application/Declarations
It 3 - Site Plan
4 - Survey Map
5 - Setback Map
6 - Photographs
7 - Vicinity Map
8 - Deck Endering
9 - Applicants' plans
Findings and Decision of the
Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds
Re: V-106-85
Page 2
After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Applicant;
evidence elicited during the public hearing; and, as a result of
the personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding
areas by the Hearing Examiner, the following findings of fact and
conclusions constitute the basis of the decision of the Hearing
Examiner.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The application is for the approval of variances for property
located at 18506 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, Washington.
Specifically, the Applicants seek variances for a reduction
of the rear setback from 25 feet to 4 feet; a reduction of the
street setback from 25 feet to 0 feet; and, an expansion of the
lot coverage from 35 percent to 40 percent on the subject pro-
perty. The Applicants seek these variances for the purpose
of allowing the addition of decks and a carport to the
structure located on the subject property. (Staff report,
Bowman testimony and Taubeneck testimony.)
2. The subject property is a nonconforming lot with a nonconform-
ing structure. It is nonconforming because the setbacks do not
conform to the zoning standards and the lot area does not con-
form to the zoning standards. (Bowman testimony.)
3. The subject property is zoned RS -12 as set forth in the Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC). The Comprehensive Policy
Plan Map designates the subject property as low-density resi-
dential. (Bowman testimony.)
4. The house located on the subject property is west of Olympic
View Drive. It is serviced by a long narrow, private drive.
(Staff report.)
5. The subject property consists of a lot that is a trapezoid
shape containing approximately 7,690 square feet. The house
is located on the lot in a manner that creates a zero street
setback and a rear setback of eight feet. It is the intent
of the Applicants to reduce the rear setback to four feet and
maintain the street setback of zero. Further, the Applicants
desire to exceed the 35 percent lot coverage allowed for R-12
zoned property. (Bowman testimony.)
6. The surrounding properties are developed as single-family
residential uses. (Bowman testimony.)
7. In order for a variance to be granted in the City of Edmonds
the criteria as set forth in Section 20.85.010 of the ECDC
must be met. These criteria include:
Findings �ndings and Deci-_)n of the
Hearing Examiner of tyre City of Edmonds
Re: V-16-85
Page 3
A. Special circumstances relating to the property must
exist necessitating the variance;
B. The required variance must not result in a special
privilege being granted to the Applicant;
C. The variance must be consistent with the Comprehensive
Policy Plan Map of the City of Edmonds;
D. The variance must be consistent with the purposes of
the zone district in which the property is located;
L
E. The variance must not be significantly detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare, nor injurious
to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the
same zone; and,
F. The variance must be the minimum necessary to allow
the same rights enjoyed by other properties in the
same zone. (ECDC)
8. The Applicants do not have an area to develop as a typical
yard area. This is due to the location of the existing
house on the irregular-shaped lot. As a result the Applicants
do not have the same amenities as other RS -12 zoned properties.
(Taubeneck testimony.)
9. It is the intent of the Applicantsto develop the deck on the
site for the purpose of providing some area in which to
utilize the rear yard. The Applicants are limited in space
to do this because the area to the west of the residence is
encumbered with parking and driveway uses and the property
to the east is limited in size. (Bowman and Taubeneck testi-
mony.)
10. With the location of the expanded deck and carport the
Applicants will be able to utilize the site more efficiently.
(Taubeneck testimony.)
11. With the expansion of the carport and the deck the driveway
on the northwestern portion of the subject property will be
altered. Such an alteration will eliminate the need for
encroachment onto the property to the Porth for driveway
purposes. As a result, the Applicants access to their site
will be limited to their own property and not to neighboring
property. (Taubeneck testimony.)
12. The granting of the variances will not be a special privilege
in that they will be a reduction of use of other properties
in the vicinity and they will be a benefit to the community
in that there will be an improvement to the neighborhood.
(Bowman testimony.)
Find 4- and Deci-soz� aS tine
Hearing Examiner of L;ie City of i dinondd:;
Re: V-16-85
Page 4
13. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds recommended
approval of the variances but submitted the following
suggestion:
The staff would support the variance requests, if the decks
and carport could be redesigned to minimize encroachments
into required setbacks. Specifically, the carport does not
need to be as large as that shown on the Applicants' plan
and the area for the hot tub reduced.
14. The Applicant submitted, that the carport would be necessary
and would need to be as large as it is to provide room
to park vehicles in a manner that would not be disruptive
to other properties. The Applicant also submitted that the
area for the hot tub was tentative and may be redesigned.
(Taubeneck testimony.)
15. A Witness Yager was concerned about the uncovering of any
drainage pipes during the construction as proposed by the
Applicants. Specifically, the witness submitted that all
drainage pipes should be placed in a manner that will not
be detrimental to their property. (Yager testimony.)
16. The City of Edmonds submitted that if any drainage changes
are required during construction, the Applicants will be
required to adhere to the drainage ordinances for the City
of Edmonds. (Bowman testimony.)
17. No additional testimony was received in this matter.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The application is for the approval of variances for property
located at 18506 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, Washington.
Specifically, the variances are for a reduction of the rear
setback on the subject property from 25 feet to 4 feet; a
reduction of the street setback from 25 feet to 0 feet; and,
permission to exceed the 35 percent maximum lot coverage to
40 percent for the subject property.
2. In order for a variance to be granted within the City of
Edmonds the criteria as set forth in Section 20.85.010 of
the ECDC must be met. The Applicants have met these criteria.
3. Because of the shape of the subject lot and because of the
location of the house on the lot, the Applicants are limited
in the development of the property. Further, the Applicants
do not enjoy the amenities of a backyard and the proposed deck
will allow them to do so. As a result of this, special circum-
stances do exist for the granting of variances.
4. The granting of the variances will not be a special privilege
Findings and Decisiva of the
Bearing Examiner of the City of sdi..onds
Re: V-16-85
Page 5
to the Applicants. With the variances there will be a reduction
on the use of other neighbors'properties for access into the
subject property.
5. The requested variances are consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan of the City of Edmonds in that they adhere to the policy
for low-density residential development.
6. The variances are consistent with the RS -12 zoning standards
for the City of Edmonds.
7. The requested variances will not create a significant hazard
to the public nor to the adjacent properties.
8. The variances do appear to be the minimum necessary to properly
develop the subject property.
9. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds has recommended
approval of the variances.
n Ti P T g T n'NT
Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions; the
testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing; and, upon
the impressions of the Hearing Examiner at a site view, it is
hereby ordered that the requested variances be granted. The
specific requests are for a reduction of the rear setback from
25 feet to 4 feet; a reduction of the street setback from 25 feet
to 0 feet; and the permission to exceed the lot coverage of 35
percent to 40 percent for property located at 18506 Olympic View
Drive, Edmonds, Washington, and are granted subject to the following
conditions:
1. The Applicants are to comply with all building regulations of
the City of Edmonds and are to secure all 1.'r?e necessary permits.
2. The Applicants are to consult with the Department of Engineering
in the City of Edmonds prior to making any construction or
uncovering any drainage system. The Applicants will comply
with all City of Edmonds laws and regulations concerning
drainage.
3. The Applicants are to develop the site in a manner as presented
at the public hearing.
Entered this 2nd day of August,
1985, pursuant to
the authority
granted the Hearing Examiner under
Chapter
20.100
of the Community
Development Code of the City of
Edmonds.
JAJFS M. DRISC OLL
Hearing Examiner
Findings and Decision of the
Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds
Re: v-16-85
Page 6
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other grounds
for appeal may be filed with the Planning Department, City of
Edmonds, Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington, 98020, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of the Hearing Examiner's final action.
In this matter, any appeal must be received by the Department prior
to 5:00 p.m. on August 16, 1985.
STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
FILE: V-16-85
HEARING DATE: July 18, 1985
I. REQUESTED ACTION:
Variances to allow addition of decks and carport reducing
rear setback from 25' to 4'; reducing the street setback
from 25' to 0'; and exceeding the permitted lot lot
coverage of 35% to 40% at 18506 Olympic View Drive,
Edmonds, WA
Ii. APPLICANT/OWNER:
Lee & Marjean Taubeneck
18506 Olympic View Drive
Edmonds, WA 98020
III. LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
(See Exhibit 4 )
IV. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. Description of the Subject Property and Surrounding
Area
The Applicant is seeking a variances to allow adding
a combination deck and carport onto the existing
residence at 18506 Olympic View Drive. The existing
house and lot are nonconforming as to setbacks and
lot area.
The house is served by a long narrow, private drive
west of Olympic View Drive. The lot is a trapzoid shape
containing approximately 7,690 sq. ft.. The house is
situated in such a manner that the street setback is
presently 0' and the rear setback is 81. (See
Exhibit 4)
Surrounding development is all single family
residential uses.
B. Official Street Ma
Proposed R/W Existing R/W
East - Olympic View Dr. 60' 60'
Staff Report
V-1 6�-85
C. Conformance to Chapter 20.85.010
1. Special Circumstances
Page 2
Special circumstances do appear to exist in this
particular case. The existing house and lot are both
well below the minimum setback and area requirements.
The subject property does enjoy a typical yard area
as do normal lots in the RS -12 zone. There is no
rear yard to the property that can be used for
outdoor activity. The area to the west is also
encumbered with primarily parking and driveway uses.
2. Special Privilege
The proposed variance does not appear to represent a
grant of special privilege, based upon the
circumstances involved with the lot and house and
the other development in the vicinity.
3. Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Policy Plan map designates the
subject property as Low Density Residential, as
are the adjacent properties.
The proposed variance does not appear to conflict
with the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Zoning Ordinance
The subject property is zoned RS -12, as are the
adjacent properties.
The variance does not appear to conflict with the
purposes of the zoning code or the RS -12 zone.
5. Not Detrimental
The proposed variance does not appear to pose any
significant hazard to the public or nearby adjacent
properties.
6. Minimum Variance
The existing residence is within both the required
street and rear setbacks. The proposed plan does
not appear to reflect minimum variance requests.
Staff Report
V-16-85
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Page 3
The subject lot is well undersized and the house
is situated in such a manner, that to do any improvements,
will require some type of variance. The problem, with
the plan proposed by the Applicant, is that it does not
appear to reflect minimum variance requests.
Staff would support the variance requests, if the decks
and carport could be redesigned to minimize encroachments
into required setbacks. Specifically, the carport does
not need to be as large as that shown on the Applicants
plan and the area for the hot tub reduced.
EXHIBIT 2
CITY OF EDMONDS
HEARING EXAMINER
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
F
DATE-71,Pr-
FEE
,Oz�-��
RE C T
APO'S
HEARING DATE: 7
APPLICANT ADDRESS_,',,'
CITY & ZIP PHONE
INDICATE TYPE OR DEGREE OF INTEREST 114 PROPERTY ( ,,, o("
LOCATION OR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY k'
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: USE ZONE:
ZONING ORDINANCE
4174 lc:'- Ll-� E -5� Z
I
Release/Hold Harmless Agreement
The undersigned applicant, his heirs and assigns, in consideration for
the City processing the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and
hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages and/or claims for
damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from any action
or inaction is based in whole or in part upon false, misleading or incomplete
information furnished by the applicant, his agents or employees.
Permission to Enter Subject Property
The undersigned applicant grants his, her or its permission for public
0
officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject praperty
for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this application.
Signature of Applicant, Owner or
Representative
DECLARATIONS OF APPLICANT
Please answer allquestions
1. What are the physical characteristics, (i.e. topography, shape
of lot, etc.) which create a hardship for you in regard to
development of your property?
Steep driveway access & easements granted to neighbors have resulted
in a very small lot. Trapezoid shape with existing house not
conforming to the setbacks of R-12 zoning at the qarage.. The
proposed carport should be in front of gargage.
2. How does your property differ from other property in the same
vicinity?
Smaller usable space.
3. Will this variance be detrimental to the public or damaging to
other property or improvements in the vicinity?
NO. No neighbors views will be restricted by proposed construction.
The proposed rebuilt fence will enhance the steep driveway.
4. What hardships will result to you if the variance is not granted?
Will these hardships have been caused by your own action?
The property will essentially have no outside area for the family
besides the driveway.
These hardships will have not been caused by our own action.
5. Can you make reasonable use of your property without the variance?
No, there is a need for an outside family area.
Y
alA.:.
�eo L��
'l
CD
s
U o
G
O
r
s
•r � k
a
E11I
4
� I
1
r �.<.
a5c�....
J
,��.--�:,r,i.?`,.._,,.F .�:. �, .� �. � , �e, , -N- —
' ) j.
„t• + s �Y Grp �% �o,�,a ayes \,•\\
t,,'a p r r 6 LL ;�� : d /// r4 • i tt:i. .so Sry/vb j ti
s 2 (y / o- �\,1 \ �r v t
. ;tt> - ^ yr \ .Y. A''; / � �'d✓� rl.r�r-r":ct,.m x 6yry r�vy: a .. „
!! 4 la ✓7 �" \
+� r. w� ,.,A-, .-.: .:,,,-,. %. , , . - %'. \;-
ry i'"t.. a �. r /y + ) �- 1 ';� "{
�, tl
ie 1 i � �.:' t r 1. r..»�,+.: 0- 1 7 t ��"b�' ��i' Ti'• a L'� %) r; 4�,j� r L 'ii� ..
r .:�.1 d' a f 2 -- s%
0o- ra4 �s J':2 .rt'. ,.,,,, r,"'.r' ,' . i¢m,... �+ �� 'r . t -
2
^� . V` G City 8 I�•• S a ♦ r r t `� 4'
+ Ti.?ZY+ a ,. D y .Q.• -'i } . r r"r"°.�( } i'a'1" 4 zn r r \
..� _k 4), <. .I ' 4D :.� yam, A-a6%'P... l .<t _ r 4 r.<..t "' t N
<.a.. 9 O ♦•i�ro:d fid' 'y-. ,4m ;a 3
1.
c:+ *^ w;A-.-gig 'i ) rV�'2�.e1 �'�f. • s, 4� r
r
]--it".'� .. c4� V �< .. (11 �r1c' t 1 > a y' r r'4K ! W .a ti ryc' _�r„ytw, ri,,,,. ..*•...,,.,,, a. g,,,P s c. rl q
'.,.0 q tq '� Op n1• 'Sj � k y /' t1 r .� 4-' 1 r
4 a e y t
.1 4 t , / }1
` ` Z y " F_ a e . A
, . . � . , .:!:.,---. .�,J_ . , �,. ..,., . : . ,.� .,. � /,
L
r44 `~ t.4Y' r — -� ��, ... - 11 . - - � , ,:.-.-- �� ,,:_ - ,::,-, � , - . - /
a O Y. t.aY t: r t r L! r
r �� f h.�y :' f�,S - i s ,,fl a ^��I '
b It •r t ` r t r l
r ,4- ti[.'�,� , O t �'� d`f a' Y c v ' 1 r ' `l•�l
I.
�a7 7 l
I e
1I, r
9) .�y < i rt ''
:, 1 • `•
..._ . r
7 .. I - 5 {`'a t J 'n
! t ,i¢a I;•.•- `a, h Y - r. .t Orr xr ^ r ,� l�J . r . +�
rt Y 1
F
Q``\ ! 7' k
r rt 1 . 1 "G ' O t ! �4 ) 4�
^r r - e ,` !y'�'4 a �Yo.. 2. . ' b r i § t.: �0 t; t ! e \ r
, pr p ti `' y 1 a
> p
_ fi. e?D i e+ r w •.+ l <RPr i `+. .c , Sr . �, try.;'F.
1 �,� b i. 1 f Q�. _
r .... - 9 P
tie.. ):. `� rl j.i _'f::��, ,
,`r , G 1
- .
.0 ..
pp
.s
r. ..a.. __ ... ^.
EXHIBIT 7
VICINITY MAP
972,
� I
9//S a 1792
2� 1
-
PARK 9207 ?�
MIME 9109
M
9219
9217 o'VG
w3o� 9
5 m
Sao s®0 /0o 0 500 0 3
P
S[AL 1a XECT 9225
dab
9229pq
m
r RAJ S'
vc
NORTH
J�O
50 _ �� t$2�6 `C
7$2213
730 v 1'3310':
G� a� 18306 Q s 18372
o
1831$ coo 111332
., o I
!8319 � m � � o v oma.
189 or °� Tx St. S1✓•
►8330 � o !�
18404
18416 184o1 !8402 (8409 �3
J8420 10 1841 $ 18,403 18`115 ISAII j�il9
18522
(bot $ J8416 8 = 18423 1` 8925 X24 18425 18427
. 1sz7 —
18500 16430 18430 18431 4429 _ c.
!8500 a, o,
6510; 18515 _
yo�
8S// ® 1857 HUT-" PARK _ - m
18529 _,
T 1�
SBC\ Qv 3 18Go7 18620 M
01 i 8%Th
-e �o
01 01
M1
i86Z5 18624
Q���� g14.,y� gbtiQ ,` s�o� )8710 67OZ 1877" S T. SW
°A� RQ ABS 1870 187 )8701 - a n 8706 18707
7 oa Off, i� 18631 E,
18704 tu a� c o.
9J C� 18711 m 1(3716 > !117!4 187091$717 18719 s— 78730 197Z5 18726 °Z
{887" �
26 18903 ? ® 7La1r t8t4u
is 10 ,7S8oS 1880Y N ` v
1S8ri X09 18812 �8ve _ ld806 112&1 ° Q tt
8824 /\ 8tst378809 ���8 1 Satz-/Does,/Does' /8808 18615 16816 ` ` 1,
1 8823
t , k
cc
LAJ