2004-10-21 Hearing Examiner MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS OF HEARING EXAMINER HEARING
Hearing Examiner: Don Largen
Applicant: Grant Tenhoff
File Number V-04-100
October 21.) 2004
Mr. Bullock: Does everyone in the audience have a staff report for this item? We'll get some put back there. Is Mr.
Tenhoff in attendance? You can go ahead a grab a seat at this table if you would like.
Mr. Tenhoff: David Thompson, my architect, is here, too.
Mr. Tenhoff: Okay. Let the record show that the hearing for Case Number V-2004-100 opened at 3:10 p.m.
Mr. Bullock: For those of you in the audience, my name is Steve Bullock. I am a senior planner here with the City of
Edmonds and the staff person that has reviewed this variance request for the City. Real briefly, the property is located off of
74r' Place West, excuse me, 174' Place West, no 74r''. It is a piece of property that is somewhat unique in that it has got
some steep slopes in the southern portion of the site, and then also, 74t1i kind of starts across the northwestern portion of the
property and then heads north away from the property so that the northeastern half of the property is what we consider to be a
side property, but not a street property.
Mr. Bullock: If I can call everyone's attention to Attachment 4 in the Staff Report, I think I will walk through these last
three attachments that kind of give everybody an idea of why the applicant has requested the variance request that they have.
First of all, in Attachment 4 we are looking at the subject property and just applying the standard required setbacks that are
needed in this zone for building on a property. The property is required to identify a street property line, which is in the
northwest portion of the property. By code, that is all those property lines that are adjacent to a public right-of-way or
something that meets our definition of a street, and then those property lines have to maintain a 25-foot setback from those
property lines. And that's what's indicated by that pinkish area. When you have identified your street property lines, the
property lines that are opposite that are considered the rear property lines. So that's why the south property line is identified
as the rear property line, and the rear setback in the RS-20 zone is also 25 feet. The remaining property lines are all identified
as side property lines, and they have a minimum side setback requirement of ten feet, and that's indicated by those blue areas.
Mr. Bullock: The next attachment, Attachment 5, takes into account another set of regulations that our code requires for
properties that have environmentally critical areas, in this case, a steep slope area. The steep slope area is identified by kind
of the salmon colored area, so it covers pretty much the south and the southeastern portion of the site. And the very
minimum buffer and setback that is required from a steep slope hazardous area is a 10-foot buffer with a 15-foot building
setback, so a total of 25 feet is as close as you could build to a steep slope hazard area.
Mr. Bullock: When you put those together, as you will see on the final attachment, Attachment 6, you will see that there is a
fairly limited portion of the site that will qualify for potentially building a home, and it is fairly narrow. What the applicant is
proposing is in trying to keep away from having to apply for a critical areas variance to build closer to the slope. He is
requesting for a street setback variance to allow his house to be a little bit closer to the street property line, but allowing them
to, again, maintain at least the minimum buffer and setback required from a steep slope hazard area. So that is kind of the
gist of what the application is.
Mr. Bullock: Attachment 2 shows the applicant's site plan, as well as an elevation and a couple of floor plans of the home
that they plan to put on the property. On Page 3 and 4 of the Staff Report, I have kind of gone through what the variance
criteria area and how the proposed project complies with those criteria. Real briefly, those criteria are related to the fact that
there has to be some special circumstances related to the physical characteristics of the property that is leading somebody to
make the request. If somebody has a fairly flat piece of property and the option to put their house anywhere on that property,
it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to get a variance approved. Because that criteria is specifically related to the
physical characteristics of the property, typically, what we are looking for is a stream corridor, or a wetland, or in this case, a
steep slope that covers a fairly substantial part of the site. So this property does qualify or comply with the special
circumstances criteria.
Mr. Bullock: The second is that the proposal would not be a grant of special privilege. When we look at that, we are
looking at or considering the fact that if there was other properties that had similar circumstances, would we also approve a
variance in their case or have their been other properties with similar circumstances where variances have been denied or an
applicant has figured out a way to put a house on the property without needing a variance. And if we felt that was the case,
we would say this would be a grant of special privilege, and therefore, should be denied. In this case, we find that it is not a
grant of special privilege. If somebody came in with similar circumstances, we would definitely be willing to consider a
similar type of variance, and feel like it is reasonable and justified in this situation.
Mr. Bullock: The third and fourth criteria relate to the City's Comprehensive Plan and its Zoning Code. The
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code for this site are identified as single-family development, and aside from the
variance requested by the applicant, the project is what we want to see in this area. This area is reserved for single-family
homes, and again, aside from the street setback variance, it is complying with all of the single-family development
regulations that we have in our code for height, other setbacks, for critical areas, for lot coverage. All those things are going
to be maintained and complied with, and this is the one item where the City would be willing to consider any relief from that.
Mr. Bullock: The final two criteria are related to if the proposal is the minimum necessary. In looking at the floor plans that
are proposed and knowing the area and the homes that are being built in that area, we feel like it is the minimum necessary.
It still does maintain a fairly significant setback from the actual paved road, and therefore, we feel it is meeting the minimum
necessary criteria. I think with that, I would close my presentation for now and be happy to answer to any questions that you
might have, Mr. Examiner.
Mr. Largen: The one question I do have, and it is difficult to tell from Attachment 2, is you just made the comment that
there is still a significant setback from the actual paved portion of the street. Do you have a number for that?
Mr. Bullock: You know, I apologize; I do not have the number. I would just have to kind of guess. The setback they are
proposing is 10 feet and it appears like the road is approximately 20 more feet from the property line to the paved edge. You
can see the paved edge is included on that survey. So it appears to me like the house is going to end up being close to 30 feet
from the actual paved street.
Mr. Largen: Okay, Steve, I don't have any other questions for you at the moment. I take it the applicant is here? Just to let
you know, I have been by the site and have reviewed all of the materials that the staff has provided to me. If you have any
questions or clarifications you would like to make or go into some more detail of your proposal, now is the time to do it.
Mr. Tenhoff: This gentleman here summed it up pretty good for me.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-04-100
October 21, 2004 Page 2
Mr. Largen: Actually, I need to swear you in and get your name and address. Do you swear and attest that today's
testimony is the truth as you understand it?
Mr. Tenhoff: Yes.
Mr. Largen: And your name and address please.
Mr. Tenhoff: My name is Grant Tenhoff. It's P.O. Box 64, Mukilteo.
Mr. Largen: Okay. Go ahead.
Mr. Tenhoff: What he has said has pretty much summed it up. It makes the most sense rather than jeopardize the slope that
is there that's obviously been a problem in the past somewhere further down. So rather than trying to get a house in there on
a slope is never a good idea, I don't think. I propose to do this, which if you look at the site, it makes the sense.
Mr. Largen: The question for either the staff or the applicant. Has there been, or do you know of any history of slip or slide
or some subsidence in the general area around this site?
Mr. Bullock: There have been in that general area. Not on this particular site that I am aware of.
Mr. Largen: I don't have any other questions for you. Go ahead and clarify if you would like.
Mr. Tenhoff: It's just the way the whole area is designed. When I see it, it is a real nice piece of property, and it just was
odd that there was no way to build on it. So I searched and did a lot of figuring what I could do with it, and it made the most
sense. I was unaware that a 25-foot setback was required by the City of Edmonds because most cities are only 10, with 20
being the worst. So that's why I went this way as well. It just makes more sense all the way around to me. I can't really
make the house any more narrow. I made it as narrow as I can, and meet the square footage that is required to make it
marketable or even livable.
Mr. Thomas: Can I add a couple of things?
Mr. Largen: Absolutely. And do you attest and affirm that today's testimony is the truth as you understand it?
Mr. Thomas: Yes.
Mr. Largen: And your name and address.
Mr. Thomas: Jim Thomas. I am an architect.
Mr. Largen: Is that Thomas.
Mr. Thomas: Thomas. T h o m a s. The address is 2221 Everett Avenue, Everett.
Mr. Largen: What is the zip on that?
Mr. Thomas: 98201.
Mr. Largen: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Thomas: I just wanted to add a couple of things that are probably pretty self-evident to everyone here. First thing is I
just sort of quickly measured the distance from the garage to the paved area. The back of the house is scaled at 30 feet, so I
kind of used that as a guide. It looks like it's closer to 34 or 35 feet to the paved area from either of those corners. Secondly,
if you take the little area and shade it off that represents the difference between what he is asking for and 25-foot setbacks, it
represents maybe 20 to 25 percent of the total footprint of the house. Secondly, the side yard setback of 10 feet is only
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-04-100
October 21, 2004 Page 3
because of the configuration of that street is that 25-foot setback projected so far into the property. The majority of the home
is set near the 10-foot side setbacks. Lastly, the house is very modest. If you look at the drawing, it's only 1,500 square feet
on the lower floor. It is a relatively modest home, and he is using a two-story to take advantage of the smaller footprint. If
we try to project the footprint onto the existing setback, I think you can see it would be constrained to about 20 to 25 feet in
any direction, making it particularly difficult to get the garage in there and to get a covered parking place. I think if he is not
granted the variance he is going to suffer, like he said, in marketability, and also design of the home. The footprint would not
even be rectangular. It is going to become a pretty oddly -shaped footprint if we have to follow that 25-foot constraint.
That's about all I have to add to my evaluation of the project.
Mr. Largen: Okay. Thanks Jim. I appreciate it. Well, it looks like there are some folks who would like to speak to this
today, so there's no particular order. Come on up to the podium and we'll continue. Right there. Do you attest and affirm
that today's testimony is the truth?
Mr. Gaspers: I do.
Mr. Largen: And your name and address please.
Mr. Gaspers: Brett Gaspers.
Mr. Largen: Is that two T's or one?
Mr. Gaspers: Two.
Mr. Largen: Gaspers with a G?
Mr. Gaspers: Right.
Mr. Largen: And your address please?
Mr. Gaspers: 16623 — 74t' Place West.
Mr. Largen: And that would be here in Edmonds, I take it?
Mr. Gaspers: 98026.
Mr. Largen: Thanks. Go ahead.
Mr. Gaspers: A question I had for the applicant and Mr. Thomas is we had received a preliminary packet several weeks ago
and the footprint of the house, as laid out on the map, has apparently changed. But the floor plan of the house hasn't. Before,
it was a perfectly rectangular footprint on the house, and now it has these little cutouts on both the southeast and northwest
edges. I am kind of curious as to what that means in terms of, does this shape the foundation. Is it because... If you look at
the shape of what's on the map, it doesn't correspond to what's on these floor plans. The floor plans don't follow the shape
of what's on the map. So I just want to get some clarification on that.
Mr. Thomas: I can answer that.
Mr. Largen: Just a moment. Let me take a quick look here.
Mr. Thomas: Okay.
Mr. Gaspers: I can also show you what was submitted previously.
Mr. Bullock: Mr. Examiner, the site plan that he is referring to is not one that ended up in the report to you because we had
a more recent one submitted by the applicant. The most recent one.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-04-100
October 21, 2004 Page 4
Mr. Largen: Okay. Jim, go ahead
Mr. Thomas: I believe the drawing was submitted... Well, first of all, you know the footprint represents the perimeter of
the foundation and the perimeter of the home. And his submittal of the document described as the floor plans and elevations
here, represents the style of the home, rather than the actual ... I don't believe this is a design review meeting, so he was
representing the style of the home and the approximate size of the home he is trying to build. But the footprint that is shown
on the site plan is what would govern the construction. So that would represent the footprint foundation of the building. It
make appear a little bit different, but as far as I know, there are no design review requirements for this particularly home,
other than the zoning, you know, height limit, that kind of stuff.
Mr. Largen: Okay. Thanks Jim. Anyone else? Okay, do you swear and attest that today's testimony is the truth as you
understand it?
Mr. Stephens: Yes sir.
Mr. Largen: And if you could state your name and address please for me.
Mr. Stephens: Peter Stephens, 16703 — 74t' Place West, Edmonds, 98026
Mr. Largen: Yes, with a PH. Go ahead, Peter.
Mr. Stephens: Well, I have got a few different items here. My plan or my agenda has changed since I have been here. I
will go through about 11 different points. We will start with the variance application. Based on the earlier drawing that we
had, the applicant had not indicated the east/west location of the residence, other than by topography. But since we have a
new sketch, things have changed, I understand. We are past that one. The second item, the applicant, I state, has specifically
demonstrated why the topography deems that a public roadside setback variance is the most feasible way to utilize the
property. We have learned a little bit more during the past few minutes. So let me go on to the third.
Mr. Stephens: The lot has a, I originally understood, had a geotechnical survey performed, but it turned out to be just a
topographic survey. I was curious what the conclusions of that survey was, but since it doesn't exist, we can't work off that.
My question to you staff, though, is how close can a house be built on that lot to the steep slope if we are excavating up to 16
feet down for the first floor? It seems to me the footings are going to be close to the same elevation as the existing roadway
excavation on the south side, which being that as it may, it seems like the setbacks should be concurrent with the lower edge
of that excavation. Meaning that the house could be moved south up to 15 or 20 feet.
Mr. Stephens: Let's see. The next item here. Let's see, the plan as indicated would require the removal of four existing
mature evergreen trees on the north property line. And that is based on the plan to excavate, as I say, up to 16 feet of material
right adjacent to them. Okay. Number 5 refers to the slope between the road and the existing property as being fairly steep.
Originally, the applicant had a rockery in there, a 4-foot rockery going up as you start from the house and work your way
north, and then going back down to the street. I was wondering how staff looked at that as being necessary or creating an
unstable slope. But being that as it may, we have corrected the drawing before.
Mr. Stephens: Let's see, other houses on the street all maintain a 25-foot setback, in both inside corner and outside corner
locations and elsewhere. This house would be closer to the street visibility wise as you drive up the road. It would be close
to the house just above it, as you look up the road. Let's see, the front elevation, I know this isn't a design review, but I am
going to say it anyway. The front elevation is not consistent with other houses in the area. The first and foremost thing that
one notices is that there are no decks on this house, something you may want to take into consideration.
Mr. Stephens: Another item I had here, which probably, I have been straightened out on. Let me work forward. I stated the
applicant is not under any hardship for he is not the owner. The applicant has a purchase agreement, but he is still not the
owner. Based on the City of Edmonds development information handout, applicant does not seem entitled to finding of
special circumstances because he is not under any hardship.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-04-100
October 21, 2004 Page 5
Mr. Stephens: And then lastly, the predominantly available view on this lot is from the north property line, looking down
the street where the applicant has indicated he wants to build. This may perhaps the reason he is not examining building
further south. Per the previously mentioned handout, special circumstances, let me quote here, "special circumstances should
not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be required to
comply with the zoning ordinance, or the ability to secure a scenic view or the ability to make more profitable use of the
property." So if I may digress, I think we need to examine how much further south this house can be moved based on the
footing elevation. Thank you.
Mr. Largen: Thank you, Peter. Give me a half second to finish my notes, here. And Steve, a little bit of housekeeping,
Exhibit A will be the staff report, as submitted with attachments. Exhibit B will be a manila envelope submitted by Peter
Stephens that contains a list of items that he just spoke to and a number of photographs of the property and the immediate
adjacent properties.
Mr. Bullock: Thank you.
Mr. Largen: Anybody else? Certainly. Hang on here just a second. We are going to let the applicant respond to a couple
of comments.
Mr. Thomas: In regards to the foundation and its relative... Having done a number of projects in Edmonds, as well. The
Delmar the most recent down off of Olympic View, it is right down, right on the bottom. The relationship of the foundation
to the slope is important. However, it is mitigated by the type of drill pier or pin pile foundation you provide. So the drill
pier or pin pile foundation can actually move the building closer to the slope. However, I think one of the ideas behind this
house is that he is not going to have to spend $50,000 to $60,000 to $70,000 in the foundation to move it closer to the slope,
because that is probably the amount of money we are talking about because pin piles and drill piers, in particular, are you
know, quite expense. I don't know whether expense really enters into your argument. However, the 25-foot setback would
allow a more modest type foundation, probably pin pile foundation, even given poor soils. Since there is no geotech it is hard
to really have an idea of how far the house would have to be set back. If it was to be set at 10 feet, theoretically to the edge
of the slope, in my experience with 25 years of being an architect and doing a lot of residential construction, is that those
would probably be drilled piers, generally, 20 to 30 feet deep, full steep cage. They are quite expensive. Actually, the further
we set back from the slope, if we are talking about slope stability, that's why the huge setback is there, and that's why they
allow for a reduced setback with geotechnical so we will maintain slope stability. Pushing it closer to the slope is a
hazardous condition, and I think you would agree that 25 feet...
Mr. Largen: This isn't actually a debate, but you can come up and ask a question if you would like.
Mr. Stephens: Yeah, pin piles would be a good application, but drilled shaft would not. With my 20 years in pile driving, I
would say a drill shaft would probably blow out the side of a slope. But pin piles are definitely a viable option and would be
no where near $70,000.
Mr. Largen: Okay. I am going to stop this because let me give you a little background. The question before me today, and
the only question before me today, is one of whether or not this proposed home meets the criteria for allowing the setback
that is requested. As far as the various design items, I will grant that with proper engineering, you could probably locate this
house in a variety of different spots on the lot. That is not the question before me. Under the circumstances, this kind of
project does not require a design review in terms of aesthetics and that kind of thing, either. So I want to acknowledge that
there are opportunities, if you wanted to throw enough money in engineering at this project, that it could be located in other
spots on the lot. Steve, a question I have for you, and forgive me if I am getting jurisdictions' Comprehensive Plans mixed
up here. Isn't there a goal within your Comprehensive Plan that speaks to the protection of steep slopes and minimizing of
intrusions in them?
Mr. Bullock: Absolutely. That's also why the critical area regulations are adopted as they are in our City. We in the City of
Edmonds are a lot more strict about allowing encroachments into a critical area than some other jurisdictions are. It's fairly
typical for us to encourage an applicant or in talking over options with an applicant to say that we would prefer to have them
look at potentially requesting variances for both standards as opposed to going into the critical areas and requesting a critical
areas variance.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-04-100
October 21, 2004 Page 6
Mr. Largen: Okay. Would anyone else like to speak? Please come on up. Do you swear and affirm that today's testimony
is the truth as you understand it?
Mr. Kee: I do.
Mr. Largen: And you name and address for the record please.
Mr. Kee: Charles Kee, 16624 — 72nd Avenue West.
Mr. Largen: Thanks Charles.
Mr. Kee: My house is adjacent to the proposed construction area. Peter and Brett have covered just about all the items that
we wanted to cover except, the houses in our area, I don't know of any house that has taken any liberties with the setbacks.
The $60,000 or $70,000 that you refer to to do what is necessary to build a house that conforms to the ordinance of the City
of Edmonds... If this chap were building the house for himself, it would be something different, but this is a spec house.
From an east/west standpoint, this three-story building would create an existing environment in terms of the view from my
house. That's all I have. Thank you.
Mr. Largen: Thank you Charles. Would the applicant like to respond to any of the questions raised so far?
Mr. Tenhoff: To answer this gentleman's question about view, I looked and I don't see how that would affect your view at
all, where the house is proposed to go. Do you? First off, the house that will be put up will not even have a view, I mean
trees and maybe a couple of glimpses. Do you have a view?
Mr. Kee: It depends upon what you describe as a view.
Mr. Tenhoff: Right. Where you live, when you go up the road, are you to the left or are you down.
Mr. Kee: I am lower than the lot.
Mr. Tenhoff: Oh, down below.
Mr. Largen: He is just north of the gazebo.
Mr. Tenhoff: Right, up there to the left.
Mr. Kee: That lot joins my lot on the lower side.
Mr. Tenhoff: Right. Okay, I have to go back and refresh my memory, but I don't know of any view that would be ...
Mr. Kee: You would be taking 15-feet of liberty from the ordinance, and distance from the house to my house.
Mr. Largen: Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to speak today? Come on up. Just state your name is all.
Mr. Stephens: Peter Stephens. According to the rules of the variances, help me out, staff. If an individual has to spend
$20,000, $30,000, $40,000 for engineering or whatnot to be within the guidelines of the ordinance or to live up to the
ordinances, if he can do that and avoid a variance, is that not satisfactory? Does he deserve a variance?
Mr. Largen: The relative costs, cheap or expensive or otherwise, are not a variance consideration one way or another. I
mean, nobody can demonstrate hardship based on cost.
Mr. Stephens: Okay, that's what I was getting at.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-04-100
October 21, 2004 Page 7
Mr. Largen: Yeah, that's simply not part of the variance criteria. We don't consider that. What we try to do and what staff
tries to do when they submit recommendations to me is to balance the various provisions in both the Zoning Code and the
goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to arrive at whether or not a specific application, in this case a variance, can
actually meet those criteria. That's what we do. Costs or personal disabilities or things like that are not criteria that we can
take into consideration in terms of making decisions on variances. Does that answer your question?
Mr. Stephens: Yes. My point being, I am not so sure a few pin piles balances out with taking out four full-sized evergreen
trees that are right up against the property line.
Mr. Largen: Okay.
Mr. Stephens: Thank you.
Mr. Largen: I do not have any further questions of staff or applicant or any of the folks who have spoke so far. Again, if
anyone would like to say anything at this point, please feel free to do so.
Mr. Bullock: Mr. Examiner.
Mr. Largen: Steve.
Mr. Bullock: Just one thing, and I should have done this earlier. I apologize. I wanted to highlight what the conditions in
my recommendation were. Staff was recommending that the variance be approved, but one of the conditions is that they are
proposing a 25-foot buffer and setback from the steep slope hazard area. That's something that is only approved it a
geotechnical consultant approves the reduction of the buffer down to the minimum of 10 feet. The standard buffer for a steep
slope hazard area here in the City of Edmonds is 50 feet, but plus the 15-foot building setback, so 65 feet. Based upon the
letter of a geotech that states that the construction techniques used to build and condition of the slope warrant a reduction of
the buffer from 50 feet down to 10 feet, that can be done. That's typically done with the building permit. But this has to be
subject to them submitting a geotechnical report with their building permit that does authorize the reduction all the way down
to the minimum of 10 feet.
Mr. Largen: I am maybe missing something here, Steve. Has there been a request for a reduction in the steep slope buffer
and setback?
Mr. Bullock: Typically, these requests are done with the building permit. They submit their geotech report with their
building permit that shows what kind of foundation they are going to use. They have worked with the geotech to come up
with that. They are assuming that they are going to get that, with this request.
Mr. Largen: Then clarify for me, Steve, going back to Attachment 6, this green area. Give me the width of that one.
Mr. Bullock: That is shown as 25 feet, which continues to use their assumed reduced buffer size.
Mr. Largen: Okay, what I would be interested in is if there was no reduction in the steep slope buffer and building setback,
how much of the property would be occupied.
Mr. Bullock: That green band would increase from its current 25 feet up to 65 feet. So it would completely cover the entire
site.
Mr. Largen: So the entire site would be encumbered by that requirement.
Mr. Bullock: Yes.
Mr. Largen: Okay. All right. Okay, I don't have any further questions. You wanted to speak?
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-04-100
October 21, 2004 Page 8
Mr. Thomas: Well, I might be able to answer your question. I did have a geotech go out there and do some study. He
found some seepage at the bottom of the hill, and he was concerned further requirements for the steep slope potentially would
not be, because one of the criteria is if you do spend the money to go into that bank, it can't have any seepage, and it does
have seepage. That was one of their criteria. So that's when I decided, now wait a minute, either I have to stop spending
money or go for the other. These geotechs are expensive.
Mr. Largen: Okay. I do not have any further questions, nor do I require any further clarifications. Any other comments
before I close the hearing? Hearing none, let the record show that the application for a variance, File V-04-100 concluded at
3:46 p.m. I appreciate everyone's time and effort coming down here. Thank you.
I TESTIFY THAT THESE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS ARE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY
ABILITY TO TRANSCRIBE THE PROCEEDINGS.
Karin Noyes, Transcriber
Date
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-04-100
October 21, 2004 Page 9