Loading...
V-92-4 HE decision.pdf.. 8 g 0_ l q 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF OF CRAIG SUMMERS OF A VARIANCE DECISION: FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS THE APPLICATION FILE: FOR APPROVAL LAURA M. HALL MAYOR V-92-4 The variance is granted, consistent with the recommen- dation of the Planning Department of the City of Edmonds. INTRODUCTION Craig Summers, 16228 - 70th Place W, Edmonds, Washington 98026, (hereinafter referred to as Applicant), requested approval of a variance to reduce the front setback for property at 7522 - 156th Street SW, on the south side of 156th Street SW, approximately 120 feet west of 72nd Avenue W, Edmonds, Washington. The request was for a reduction of the setback from 25 feet to 10 feet in order to construct a new single family residence and detached garage on site. A hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds, Washington, on February 20, 1992. At the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence: JEFFREY S. WILSON Planning Dept. City of Edmonds Edmonds, WA 98020 Beth Clark FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN 1111 Third Avenue, #1600 Seattle, WA 98101 MICHAEL HOUNSHELL 7111 - 156th St SW Edmonds, WA 98020 LESA BARNES Planning Intern City of Edmonds Edmonds, WA 98020 CRAIG SUMMERS 16228 - 70th Place W Edmonds, WA 98020 DR. RICK KENT 15515 - 72nd W Edmonds, WA 98020 Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: V-92-4 3/6/92 Page 2 JAN PHILLIPS 7100 - 156th St. SW Edmonds, WA 98020 DAVE FERRIS 620 - 112th St. SE Suite #130 Everett, WA 98208 At the hearing the following exhibits were submitted and were admitted as part of the official record of this proceeding: Exhibit 1 - Staff Report " 2 - Vicinity/Zoning Map of 3 - Application 4 - Proposed Site Plan 5 - Current Land Use; Topography Map 6 - Environmental Checklist 7 - Geotechnical Report 8 - Environmental Review Memorandum If - Environmental Determination of Non -Significance If 10 - Declaration of Applicant If 11 - Site Plan showing various setback options it 12 - Comments from Engineering Division to 13 - Comments from Public Works Division If 14 - Comments from Fire Department It 15 - Comments from Parks & Recreation Division go 16 - Letter from Applicant detailing proposal In addition, the following exhibits were submitted: Exhibit A it B _ if C - Anderson letter to Wilson, 2/13/92 of D - Applicant's Hearing Memorandum if E _ if F _ After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Applicant, and evidence elicited during the public hearing, the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions constitute the basis of the decision of the Hearing Examiner. FINDINGS OF FACTS 1. The application is for the approval of a variance to reduce the front setback for property at 7522 - 156th Street SW, on the HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: V-92-4 3/6/92 Page 3 south side of 156th Street SW, approximately 120 feet west of 72nd Avenue W, Edmonds, Washington. The requested variance is for a reduction of the required 25 foot setback to a 10 foot setback as part of the development of the subject property with a new single family residence and a detached garage. 2. The subject property is a 47,700 square foot parcel of land, rectangular in shape. The property is currently developed with a covered mobile home, which will be removed with development of the site. 3. The subject property has a zoning designation of single family residential, RS -20. 4. The Comprehensive Policy Plan Map of the City of Edmonds designates the subject property as low density residential. The single family residence to be developed on site will be consistent with this designation. 5. The properties to the north, south, east and west are zoned RS -20. The property to the north is developed with a single family residence, as are the properties to the south and east. The property to the west is at a lower elevation than the subject property, which is on the top of bluff slopes. 6. The northeast corner of the site is flat and can accommodate a building envelope. However, other portions of the site on the south and west include steep ravines and bluff slopes. The area of the site that can accommodate construction of a single family residence is approximately 11,225 square feet on the north side of the property near 156th Street SW. 7. The Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.20.020 establishes 25 feet as the minimum front yard setback for RS -20 zoned property. It is from this standard that the Applicant seeks a variance. 8. In order for a variance to be granted within the City of Edmonds, the criteria as set forth in ECDC 20.85.010 must exist. Those criteria include: A. Because of the 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. HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: V-92-4 3/6/92 Page 4 B. 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. The approval of the variance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds. D. 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. 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. The requested variance is the owner the rights enjoyed vicinity with the same zoning. (ECDC) the minimum necessary to allow by other properties in the 9. The requested variance is exempt from State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. 10. Recently the Applicant applied for a street vacation on 156th Street SW. Recommendations to the City Council by the Hearing Examiner call for denial of the request. The City Council has not yet acted upon said request. 11. At the point where the subject property fronts 156th Street SW, the right-of-way is undeveloped. Some residents of the neighborhood in which the property is located testified that the undeveloped right-of-way is used for pedestrian purposes and provides a view corridor to other properties in the area. 12. The topography of the site creates limitations for develop- ment. The sheer precipice that is located on the western portion of the site, and the steep ravine along the southern and eastern boundaries, limit the developable area of the site to approximately twenty-five (25%) per cent of the total area of the subject property. HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: V-92-4 3/6/92 Page 5 13. Other properties in the area have been developed with medium to large scale, single family residences. However, no evidence was submitted at the hearing that any of the development in the area will exceed the 6,160 square feet, as proposed by the Applicant to be the building envelope for the site. 14. With the exception of the setback, the proposed development of the site satisfies all of the zoning standards for RS -20 zoned property. 15. The location of the structure on site could impact view corridors from properties on the other side of 156th Street SW. This blockage of the view corridor was testified to by residents in the neighborhood as being injurious to their property and detrimental to the area. 16. The Applicant submitted that the large building envelope and the variance are needed in order to have a site design that will aesthetically accommodate a detached garage and provide access to a garage that has sufficient depth for storage and parking space. 17. The Applicant submitted that 156th Street SW does not satisfy the definition of street as set forth in the ECDC. According to the Applicant, because 156th Street SW only provides access to two residences, the Applicant's and a neighbor's, it is not a street, but a private driveway. If it is a private driveway, the Applicant can develop the site with a 10 foot setback instead of the required 25 foot setback. The 10 foot setback would be considered a side yard setback instead of a street setback. 18. The City submitted that, at no time prior to the hearing had the Applicant objected to the administrative determination of 156th Street SW as a street. The City also contended that the Applicant has made no appeals on the administrative decision and that the issue is not germane to the variance request. 19. The Applicant's architect submitted a letter pursuant to an order that the Hearing Examiner issued at the hearing. The architect contended in the letter that, because of the limited space on site, a setback is needed to properly design the garage. Without the setback, according to the architect, the depth of the garage will be greatly reduced and will not be the standard 22' to HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: V-92-4 3/6/92 Page 6 24' foot deep structure. Further, the architect contended that a setback of 20' feet would result in a reduced depth of garage. 20. The City of Edmonds Planning Department recommended approval of the variance, subject to conditions. One of the conditions was that the granted variance be a reduction of 5' feet from the 25' foot standard, thus resulting in a 20' foot street setback. The Applicant opposed this recommendation. 21. Public testimony was received at the hearing. A summary of the testimony is as follows: A. Michael Hounshell. The witness objected to the variance, contending that no plans or footprints have been presented and that it was premature for the grant of the variance. In addition, the witness contended that a 25' foot setback as required by code will preserve view corridors. The witness also contended that other neighborhood views from residences will be eliminated if the variance is granted. B. Dr. Rick Kent. The witness opposed the variance. He contended that there is sufficient area in the flat portion of the site to develop a house and garage without the use of a setback variance. He contended that, through design of the structure, views will be preserved while accommodating the needs of the Applicant. He further submitted that the variance would be injurious to his property and other properties in the area and that any impairment of views must be considered in reviewing the variance request. C. Jan Phillip. The witness opposed the variance, stating that the residents in the area will be able to have as good a view with the setback variance as can be had without it. D. In rid Klumpp. The witness opposed the variance. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Applicant requested approval of a variance to reduce the front setback for property at 7522 - 156th Street SW, on the south side of 156th Street SW, approximately 120 feet west of 72nd Avenue W, Edmonds, Washington. The variance requested is a reduction from HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: V-92-4 3/6/92 Page 7 the required 25 foot street setback for RS 20 zoned properties, to a 10 foot setback in order to construct a new single family residence and detached garage on site. 2. The Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds has jurisdictional authority to hold a hearing and to issue a decision based on the authority granted in ECDC 20.100.010. 3. In order for a variance to be granted within the City of Edmonds the criteria of ECDC 20.85.010 must be satisfied. 4. Special circumstances relating to the topography of the site exist. The lot is large and the building envelope on site is adequate to develop a single family house that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code standards for RS 20 zone lots. However, the building area of the lot is less than 20,000 square feet (11,000+) which necessitates the grant of a variance. 5. The grant of the variance will not be the grant of a special privilege to the property in comparison with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. 6. The grant of the variance for a 10' foot setback as requested would be detrimental to the neighborhood, and would be injurious to other properties in the area because it would effectively block a view corridor and impact the views of residents within the area. 7. The requested variance is not the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. A reduced variance is reasonable in light of the blockage of the view corridor, the amount of property on site, and the size of the structure as proposed by the Applicant. DECISION Based upon the preceding Findings of Facts 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 a variance is granted for a street setback reduction for property at 7522 - 156th Street SW, on the south side of 156th Street SW, approximately 120 feet west of 72nd Avenue W, Edmonds, Washington. The variance is granted subject to the following conditions: HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: V-92-4 3/6/92 Page 8 1. The Applicant must comply with all requirements as set forth in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It will be the responsibility of the Applicant to ensure that compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances is met. The Applicant is referred to attachments 12 - 15 of the Staff Report which sets forth some, but not necessarily all, of the additional development regulations. 2. The requested variance shall not exceed a reduction of 5' feet of the street setback. A minimum of 20' foot street setback must be adhered to. 3. A building permit must be obtained prior to commencement of any work on site. 4. Prior to any building permit being issued, the Applicant shall demolish and remove all existing structures on site. 5. The Applicant shall at a minimum adhere to the setback recommendations in the Geotech report which was reviewed and incorporated as Exhibit 6 to the hearing. COMMENTS At the hearing, the Applicant submitted that the subject property should not be required to have a street setback because 156th Street SW did not fall within the definition of "street" as set forth in the ECDC. The Applicant is correct in his interpretation that this portion of the street does not satisfy the definition of street as set forth in ECDC 21.90.120. In that section, "street" is defined as follows: "The public or private right-of-way, or access easement, which provides vehicle access to more than three lots." The street in question provides access only to the Applicant's property and to a neighbor's property. Thus, if ECDC 21.90.120 were the only controlling section, no street setback would be required. However, ECDC 21.90.130 defines street lot line. The first sentence of this definition is: "Street lot line means, the line or lines along the edge of a street or access right-of-way or easement." (Emphasis added.) HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: V-92-4 3/6/92 Page 9 Even though 156th Street SW may not be considered a street in a literal interpretation of ECDC 21.90.120, it definitely is covered in ECDC 20.90.130 as an "access right-of-way." In ECDC 21.90.140, street setbacks are defined as: "The minimum distance required by this code for buildings to be set back from the street lot line." (Emphasis added.) Clearly, street lot lines are measured, not only from the edge of streets but also from the edge of access right-of-ways. Thus, the street setback is applicable with this case. In the review of ECDC 20.85.010, all of the criteria must be satisfied. The one criterion that was difficult to review, and which the Applicant did not totally satisfy, was ECDC 20.85.010(F), which refers to minimum variance. The structure on site will have a building envelope of over 6,000 square feet. The area that can be developed on site is over 11,000 square feet. Even though there are limitations for development on the remainder of the lot, the area can be developed in an manner that will not be detrimental to other properties in the area. To allow the variance as requested by the Applicant could detract from the view corridors of other residences in the area. Thus, it would appear that it is not a minimum variance. However, with a reduction of the street setback to 20' feet and through design and utilization of the available space on site, it appears that a detached garage and residence can be developed. This may result in a smaller house in order to accommodate the needed room for the garage. However, the smaller house will still be consistent with the design of houses in the area. Further, it will preserve view corridors. Accordingly, the variance is granted, consistent with the recommendation of the Planning Department of the City of Edmonds. Entered this day of March, 1992, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearing Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City o_t monds. .% 0" S M. DRISCOL Baring Examiner HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: V-92-4 3/6/92 Page 10 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 March 23, 1992.