Decision.pdf`ho.1S9
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
FEARING EXAMINER
In the Matter of the Application of ) NO. V-2007-84
Ron and Susan Hilliard ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND DECISION
For a Variance. )
GARY NAAKENSON
MAYOR
SUMMARY OF DECISION
The request for two variances from the street setback standard of the RS -20 zone is GRANTED,
subject to conditions.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Request:
Ron and Susan Hilliard (Applicant) requested two variances from the 25 -foot street setback
standard of the RS -20 zone to construct a single-family residence ten feet from 75d'Place West
and ten feet from 156th Street SW. The subject property is located at 15515 751' Place West,
Edmonds, Washington (Tax Parcel Number 00500900000101).
Hearing Date:
The City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner conducted an open record hearing on the request, and
viewed the site, on February 7, 2008.
Testimo :
At the open record hearing the following individuals presented testimony under oath:
1. Gina Coccia, Planner, City of Edmonds
2. Ron Hilliard, Owner/Applicant
3. Alvin Rutledge
Exhibits:
At the open record hearing the following exhibits were admitted into the record:
1. Staff Report dated January 29, 2008
2. Vicinity Map
3. Variance Application filed October 23, 2007
4. Applicant's Criteria Statement, with aerial photograph
5. Site Plan dated January 4, 2008
6. Building Elevations (six pages total)
7. Traffic Impact Analysis Work Sheet, approved by Engineering January 3, 2008
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds
Hilliard Variance, No. V-2007-84 Page 1 of
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister City Hekinan, Japan
8. Notice of Application and Hearing Examiner Hearing dated January 17, 2008, Notice of
Development Application dated November 13, 2007, and Affidavits of Publication,
Mailing, and Posting
9. Hilliard Lot Line Adjustment Map (LL -2007-69)
10. Hearing Examiner's Decision for File V-2006-52153 (2006)
11. Map of properties along 75th Place West that have received variance approval
12. Memorandum from Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager, dated November
1, 2007
13. Email from Steven Barnes to Ron Hilliard dated February 7, 2008, with Site Plan Survey
dated January 4, 2008
Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted at the open record hearing, the
Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions:
LW1�11TkII 1."
1. The Applicant requested two variances from the 25 -foot street setback standard of the
RS -20 zone to construct a single-family residence ten feet from 75th Place West and ten
feet from 156th Street SW. The subject property is located at 15515 75th Place West,
Edmonds, Washington (Tax Parcel Number 00500900000101). Exhibit 1, page 1;
Exhibits 3, 4, and 5.
2. The Applicant received City approval of the requested street setback variances and a
height variance on July 13, 2006 (V-06-52 and V-06-53), but those approvals have
expired. The Applicant has re -designed the residence to avoid the need for the height
variance. The requested variances are from the required street setbacks only. Exhibit 1,
page 2; Exhibit 10; Testimony of Mr. Hilliard.
3. The Comprehensive Plan designation of the subject property is Single Family ---
Resource. 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
approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic considerations, in
accordance with the following policies:
B.1. Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct
homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize
with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and
desirability.
B.3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new
construction or additions to existing structures.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds
Hilliard Variance, No. V-2007-84 Page 2 of 9
B.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the
natural constraints of the slope, soils, geology, vegetation and
drainage.
Soils and Topography Section, Goal B:
Future development in areas of steep slope and potentially hazardous soil
conditions should be based on site development which preserves the natural site
characteristics in accordance with the following policies:
B.I. Large lots or flexible subdivision procedures, such as PRDs,
should be used in these areas to preserve the site and reduce
impervious surfaces, cuts and fills.
C.2.a. Buildings on slopes of 15% or greater shall be designed to cause
minimum disruption to the natural topography.
Vegetation and Wildlife Section, Goal B:
The city should ensure that its woodlands, marshes and other areas containing
natural vegetation are preserved, in accordance with the following policies:
B.2. Removal of trees should be minimized particularly when they are
located on steep slopes or hazardous soils. Subdivision layouts,
buildings and roads should be designed so that the existing trees
are preserved.
B.4. Grading should be restricted to the building pads and roads only.
Vegetation outside these areas should be preserved.
Exhibit 1, pages 3-4.
4. The subject property is zoned Single -Family Residential, minimum lot area of 20,000
square feet (RS -20). The minimum street setback in the RS -20 zone is 25 feet. The
minimum side yard setback in the RS -20 zone is ten feet, provided the side yards total 35
feet. Exhibit 1, page 4.
5. The subject property is a 0.33 -acre (14,22$ -square -foot) corner lot, with 75th Place. West
serving as its west property line and 156' Street SW serving as its south property line.
The subject property is currently undeveloped. Exhibit 1, page 2, Exhibits 2 and 5.
6. The northern and eastern portions of the subject property contain a steep slope. The
elevation change from the toe of the slope to the northeast property corner is 100 feet,
and the slope gradient is 123 percent. The slope is classified as a geologically hazardous
area. Exhibit 1, page 3; Exhibit 5.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds
Hilliard Variance, No. V-2007-84 Page 3 of 9
i
7. The Applicant proposes to construct a single-family residence in the southwest corner of
the subject property, at the only location that is unencumbered by the slope. The proposed
residence would have a main floor footprint of approximately 2,000 square feet, and a
total living area of approximately 3,700 square feet. The scale of the proposed residence
is modest as compared to other newer residences in the neighborhood, which range in
floor area from approximately 3,000 to 6,000 square feet,' Exhibit 5; Testimony of Mr.
Hilliard; Testimony of Ms. Caccia; Exhibit 10, Page 7, Finding No. 11.
S. The Applicant would be required to demonstrate compliance with the City's critical areas
regulations prior to issuance of a building permit. These regulations require a buffer and
building setback from the toe of a slope, but allow these to be reduced with the
concurrence of a geotechnical report. The Applicant proposes to place the residence
adjacent to the toe of the slope, and will submit the required geotechnical report. Due to
the extent of the slope on the property, it would be impossible for the Applicant to
construct a residence entirely outside of the buffer and setback areas. Testimony of Ms.
Coccia.
9. To mitigate the effects of the reduced street setbacks, the residence has been designed to
reduce the appearance of building mass as viewed from the street. For example, the
residence has a stepped -back design, with the building height increasing from front to
rear. To further reduce building mass, the roof has a low slope. The overall height of the
residence would comply with City standards. The residence would not adversely impact
any views. Exhibit 13; Exhibit 6; Testimony of Mr. Hilliard; Testimony of Ms. Caccia.
10. The 156th Street SW right-of-way has not been developed into a public street. Thexight-
of way contains only an asphalt driveway serving a single-family residence. Due to a
steep slope to the north, the City has no plans to develop a street in that location. The
proposed residence would be set back a minimum of ten feet from the north edge of the
right-of-way, and 41 feet from the residence located on the south side of the right-of-way.
Exhibit 4; Exhibit 13; Testimony of Mr. Hilliard, Testimony of Ms. Coccia.
11. The reduced setback from 75d' Place West would not adversely affect traffic safety. North
of 156th Street SW, 75th Place West provides access only to the subject property and one
other lot. The street is barricaded a short distance north of the subject property to prevent
public access into Meadowdale Beach County Park. The traffic volume on 75th Place
West in the vicinity of the subject property is therefore low. Exhibits 4 and 5; Testimony
of Ms. Coccia.
12. The City Engineering Division reviewed the variance application and recommended
approval, subject to a condition that the Applicant provide a minimum 20 -foot driveway
depth to allow for parking without encroaching into City right-of-way. Exhibit 12. The
Applicant proposes a 20 -foot driveway, although the driveway appears shorter on the Site
'For example, a residence across the street from the subject property, within was built in 1995, has a floor area of
4,985 square feet and an attached garage of 1,010 square feet. Exhibit 10, Page 7, Finding No. 11; Testimony of Ms.
Coccia.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds
Hilliard Variance, No. V-2007-84
Page 4 of 9
Plan because a portion is covered by deck overhang. Exhibit 13; Testimony of Mr.
Hilliard
13. With the current lot configuration, the proposed building footprint does not satisfy the
side yard setback standard of the RS -20 zone because the.distance between the residence
and the north property line and the distance between the residence and the south property
line would total less than 35 feet (the north property line is a side yard, even though the
south property line is a street). The Applicant owns the undeveloped parcel immediately
north of the subject property, and has obtained City approval of a lot line adjustment that
would provide the necessary side yard area on the subject property. The adjacent parcel is
completely undevelopable due to steep slopes. The Applicant has not yet recorded the lot
line adjustment. Exhibit 5; Exhibit 9; Exhibit 1, pages 4, 5, and 8.
14. The City Planning Division recommended approval of the variance application, subject to
conditions. One of the recommended conditions was that the Applicant install a five-foot
walkway along the subject property's 75'h Place West frontage. This condition was based
on engineering requirements identified in conjunction with the 2006 variance approval.
The Engineering Division did not request a five-foot walkway in its comments on this
variance application. No evidence regarding the need for the condition was presented at
the hearing. However, the Applicant provided credible testimony that the Engineering
Division is considering installing a walkway along the entire length of the road and is
seeking a financial contribution from the Applicant rather than actual improvements.
Exhibit 1, page 9; Exhibits 10 and 12; Testimony of Ms. Coccia; Testimony of Mr.
Hilliard.
15. Notice of the open record hearing was published in The Herald on January 18, 2008;
mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site on January 17, 2008, and posted on
site. Exhibit 1, page 2; Exhibit 8.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction:
The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide variance requests pursuant to
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 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, locations or
surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds
Hilliard Variance, No. V-2007-84
Page 5 of 9
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;
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 topography of the subject property, strict
enforcement of the street setback requirements would deprive the owner of rights and
privileges (i.e., a reasonable building envelope for a single-family residence) permitted to
other properties in the vicinity and within the RS -20 zone. Findings 5, 6, 7, and 8.
2. Approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege. The variance would
only provide the Applicant with a reasonable building envelope for a single-family
residence, consistent with surrounding land uses. Findings 4, S, 6, and 7.
3. With conditions of approval, the variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. The proposed residence would harmonize with its surroundings, and would cause
minimal disruption of the site topography. Conditions are needed to ensure that trees are
preserved outside of the development area. Findings 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
4. With conditions of approval, 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
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City ofEdmonds
Hilliard Variance, No. V-2007-84 Page 6 of 9
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 permitted for side yards. The south property line (156`h Street SW) is similar
to a side yard because the right-of-way is not developable. Findings 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10.
5. With conditions requiring a 20 -foot -long driveway and compliance with the City's
critical areas standards, 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 -20
zone. Insufficient evidence was presented at the hearing to warrant a condition requiring
a walkway or similar mitigation. However, the Applicant will be required to comply with
any engineering standards identified during the building permit process. Findings 6, 8,
10, 11, 12, and 14.
6. The variance would be the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by
other properties. The scale of the proposed residence is reasonable, and compatible with
other residences in the neighborhood. The residence has been carefully designed to
reduce the building mass as viewed from the street. The Site Plan depicts that only small
portions of the residence would be exactly ten feet from the streets; in most areas the
setbacks would be greater. The steep slope on the subject property prevents the Applicant
from moving the residence to the north or east. Findings Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
DECISION
Based on the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request for two variances from the 25 -foot
street setback standard of the RS -20 zone to construct a single-family residence ten feet from 75th
Place West and ten feet from 156' Street SW at 15515 75d' Place West is GRANTED, subject to
the following conditions:
1. This approval authorizes the street setback variances as depicted on the Site Plan dated
January 4, 2008. Development of the subject property -is subject to all other applicable
requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code. No building height
variance is authorized by this approval.
2. No concrete slabs or structures shall be placed within City right-of-way.
3. Side setbacks to the north and east property lines must add up to a total of 35 feet from
added to the street setback opposite them. To ensure the minimum side setbacks are
achieved, the Applicant shall do one of the following:
a. Record approved Lot Line Adjustment No. LL -2007-69, or
b. Apply for a lot combination to combine Tax Parcel Numbers 00500900000101
and 00500900000400 into a single lot.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds
Hilliard Variance, No. V-2007-84
Page 7 of 9
4. Approval of this variance does not imply compliance with the City's regulations for
environmentally critical areas (Chapters 23.40 through 2390 of the Edmonds Community
Development Code). To ensure compliance with these regulations, the Applicant shall do
the following prior to building permit issuance:
a. Submit a geotechnical report demonstrating the project's compliance with the
Landslide Hazard requirements of Chapter 23.80 of the Edmonds Community
Development Code.
b. Submit a tree cutting and clearing plan, for compliance with the Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation requirements of Chapter 23.90 of the Edmonds Community
Development Code. Tree cutting and clearing of native vegetation shall be limited
to the development footprint.
5. The minimum depth of the driveway from the garage to the property line shall be 20 feet
from the most restrictive point.
6. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to commencing development of the
site.
7. This variance shall be transferable.
8. The owner must act on the approved variance within one year from the date of approval
or the variance shall expire and become null and void, unless the owner files an
application for an extension of time before the expiration date, and the City approves the
application. Only one one-year extension is permitted.
DECIDED this 21St day of February 2008.
Toweill Rice Taylor, LLC
Hearing Examiners for the City of Edmonds
By:
71 % /f l�, P)OU49
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 respond to a request for
reconsideration or an appeal should contact the Planning Division of the Development Services
Department for further procedural information.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner far City of Edmonds .
Hilliard Variance, No. V-2007-84 Page 8 of 9
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
20.105A20(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 LIMITS 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, "The approved variance must be acted on by the
owner within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null 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.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds
Hilliard Variance, No. V-2007-84
Page 9 of 9