V-99-76CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
�S t. 1 B9v
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPLICANT: Kristin Hanson
CASE NO.: V 99-76
LOCATION: 1217 111h Place West
APPLICATION: Front Setback Variance reducing the front setback along 11 `h Place
West from 25 feet to 16 feet to construct an addition to an existing
single-family residence. Side Setback Variance along the north
property line reducing the side setback from 10 feet to 0 feet (See
Exhibit A, Attachments 2, 3, and 4). The side setback is from an
access easement, not the actual side property line.
REVIEW PROCESS: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts a public hearing and makes
final decision.
MAJOR ISSUES:
(1) Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
Section 16.20.030 (Single -Family Residential - Site Development
Standards).
(2) Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
Section 20.15B.170. (Variances).
(3) Compliance with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions
Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions
PUBLIC HEARING:
After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and
after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The
hearing on the application was opened at 9:48 a.m., June 3, 1999, in the City Hall, Edmonds,
Washington, and closed at 9:52 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered
and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the
Planning Division.
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 99-76
Page 2
HEARING COMMENTS:
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.
From the City:
Kate Galloway, Project Planner, entered the staff advisory report into the record.
From the Applicant:
Kristin Hanson, Applicant, said she agreed with the staff report and had no problem with
the recommended conditions.
From the Community:
No one from the general public spoke at the public hearing.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
1. Site Development and Zoning:
a) Facts•
(1) Lot Size: The subject property is a 9,973 square foot rectangular lot (see Exhibit
A, Attachment 1).
(2) Land Use: The subject property currently contains a 2,804 square foot single-
family residence (Exhibit A, Attachment 4).
(3) Zoning: The subject parcel is within a Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone
(see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
(4) Terrain and Vegetation: Based on site inspection, the site has a gentle slope
from the east property line to the west property line of less than 10 feet; the
residence includes a daylight basement. The landscaping consists of a mature
lawn, shrubs, flowerbeds and landscaping common of a single-family residence.
2. Neighboring Development and Zoning:
a) Facts•
(1) The subject parcel is completely surrounded by properties zoned RS-12 (see
Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
(2) The surrounding parcels are developed with single-family residences.
B. HISTORY:
The house was built in 1957 and the site was annexed into the City in 1956. The City of
Edmonds did not adopt its first zoning ordinance until 1964. The 1964 zoning code
established the minimum front setback at 25 feet for developments within the RS-12 zone.
C. CONSISTENCY
REVIEW)
a) Facts
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 99-76
Page 3
WITH ECDC CHAPTER 20.15A (ENVIRONMENTAL
(1) Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review,
unless they are identified on the City's Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Map
(WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080).
(2) The site is not illustrated as a sensitive area on the ESA Map.
D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE
1. Compliance with ECDC 16.10 (Single -Family Residential) Zoning Standards
a) Facts•
(1) The site development standards pertaining to single-family residential
developments in the RS-12 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030. The
standards include the following:
(a)
Street Setback:
25 feet minimum
(b)
Rear Setback:
25 feet minimum
(c)
Side Setbacks:
10 foot minimum
(d)
Lot Area:
12,000 square foot minimum
(e)
Lot Width:
80 feet minimum
(2) Maximum height in the RS-12 zone is 25 feet from the average grade.
(3) Lot coverage is not to exceed 35 percent.
b) Conclusions•
(1) The existing lot and residence do not meet several of the minimum lot
requirements of the Single -Family Residence (RS-12) zone. In addition to the
non -conforming features of the lot and existing residence, there is a 30-foot access
easement along the north property line. The City views the edges of any vehicular
access easements as the property line; therefore, the north side setback is taken
from the south edge of the 30-foot access easement instead of the actual property
line (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4).
The non -conforming features of the lot and existing residence include the
following:
Required
Existing
Lot Area
12,000 square feet
9,973 square feet
Front Setback
25 feet
15.7 feet
Side Setback
10 feet
North: 0 feet from
the access
easement
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 99-76
Page 4
(1) The proposed addition and patio will make the structure more non -conforming
as defined in the Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 17.40.
The proposed additions will not extend any of the exterior walls further into
the setbacks than the most protruding portions of the existing structure
(Nonconforming Uses, Buildings, Signs and Lots).
(2) The proposed addition will not exceed 25 feet above grade, the total lot
coverage will not exceed 35-percent, and the remaining side and rear setbacks
meet the minimum requirement of the RS-12 zone.
2. Compliance with ECDC 20.15B (Critical Areas)
a) Facts•
(1) This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.15.B (Critical
Areas Ordinance).
(2) The applicant submitted a Critical Areas Checklist (CA-99-). A waiver was
issued on May 25, 1999.
b) Conclusion: The applicant has met the requirements of the Critical Areas
Ordinance.
3. Compliance with ECDC 20.85 (Variances)
a) Facts•
(1) ECDC Chapter 20.85 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. The criteria are as
follows:
(a) Special Circumstances: That because of special circumstances
relating to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings of the property, 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
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.
(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 within the same zoning.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 99-76
Page 5
(c) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the
variance will be consistent with the intent if the comprehensive plan, the
zoning ordinance, and the zoning district in which the property is located.
(d) 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 properties in the vicinity and the same zone.
(e) 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 zone.
(2) The applicant has submitted the following declarations with her
submittal which addresses the decisional criteria (see Attachment 4):
(a) Special Circumstances: The residence was built in 1957, however,
the area was not zoned RS-12 until 1963. The existing zone
requirements place an unfair burden on the homeowner for
improvements to an existing residence. Not only does the existing
residence not meet minimum setback requirements; the lot itself is
smaller than the RS-12 zone requirement of 12,000 square feet.
The property owner should be able to enjoy the same privileges as
the neighbors and use more of the lot as part of their residence.
(b) Special Privileges: The house was built six years prior to the RS-12
zone designation being place on the site. Other residences along
the street are in newer and were constructed in conformance with
the existing regulations. This existing home was built prior to the
current regulations being in place.
(c) Comprehensive Plan: The addition will improve the look of the
single family residence and make the existing home more
functional.
(d) Zonin : The Vicari's house is a single-family residence within a
single-family zone. They do not wish to tear down their home and
they do not feel it would be fair of the City to make them tear down
their residence to comply with a zoning ordinance that was adopted
after their home was built. The proposed additions will not
increase the lot coverage above the allowed 35 percent.
(e) Not Detrimental: Granting this variance will not cause any loss of
property value, scenic view, street hazard or line -of -sight problems.
The additions are also consistent with the homeowner's covenants.
(f) Minimum Variance: The variance is necessary due to the current
setback requirements. . The proposed plan will improve the
property, enhance accessibility, not offend the neighbors, and
improve the neighborhood.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 99-76
Page 6
(2) Other Factors:
(a) ECDC 16.10.000.A states the general purpose of the residential (R)
zones is to provide for areas of residential uses at a range of
densities consistent with public health and safety and the adopted
comprehensive plan.
(b) ECDC 16.20.000.A states the specific purpose of the RS zone is to
reserve and regulate areas primarily for family living in single-
family dwellings.
b) Conclusions•
(1) The existing structure was built prior to the city adopting its original
zoning code. The variance is necessary for the addition to an existing
structure. The structures will not further encroach into the front or side
setback requirements of the RS-12 zone than the existing exterior
walls.
(2) Granting of the subject variance will not be a grant of special privilege
to the subject property in comparison with the limitations that are
placed upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
Setback variances have been approved along 12"' Avenue North and
Viewland Way.
(3) Approval of this application will not allow development of the site in a
manner inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan and the Edmonds Community Development
Code.
(4) Approval of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare. By granting the variance the applicant will be able
to expand and improve the existing residence and further promote the
overall aesthetics of the neighborhood.
(5) The variance requested is the minimum necessary to construct a new
entrance and patio to the existing residence.
E. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
1. Review by City Departments
a) Fact: The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by the
Fire Department, Public Works Division, Engineering Division, and the
Parks and Recreation Division.
b) Conclusion: No comments were received.
F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC)
1. Comprehensive Plan Designation
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 99-76
Page 7
a) Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family" residential
on the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Concept Map.
b) Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing
Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site.
2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
a) Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section,
identifies goals and policies that relate to 'Residential Development" in
the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below.
(1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential
development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds
residents should be maintained and promoted...."
(2) B.2 states "Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to
existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures in the
areas."
(3) BA states "Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within
Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible."
b) Conclusions:
(1) The requested variance is consistent with the above adopted goals and
policies of the City.
(2) The proposed addition will be an extension of the existing residence in
form and material.
(3) Approval of the proposed variance will allow the retention of an
existing residence.
G. COMMENTS
1. No letters were received.
DECISION
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is approved,
subject to the following conditions:
(1) The applicant shall construct the addition and patio as illustrated on Exhibit A,
Attachments 4, 5 and 6 (date stamped April 8, 1999).
(2) This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds
Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure
compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances.
(3) The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any construction.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 99-76
Page 8
(4) The applicant shall comply with all the terms of any future permits.
(5) The permit is transferable to future property owners of the site.
(6) The approved variance shall be acted on within one year of approval or the variance will
become null and void, unless the owner files for an extension prior to the expiration of
the approved variance.
Entered this 8th day of June 1999, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under
Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
on cConnell
Hearing Examiner
RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and
appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should
contact the Planning Department for further procedural information.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his 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
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the
name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and
reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with
the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the
decision being appealed.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 99-76
Page 9
LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is
required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval,
the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an
application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.'
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.
EXHIBIT:
The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record.
A. Planning Division Advisory Report with attachments
PARTIES of RECORD:
Kristin Hanson Edmonds Planning Division
652 Alder Street
Edmonds, WA 98020