HE decision V-97-27 .pdfCITY F EDMONDS
BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
250 57H AVENUE NORTH m EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (2W 771-0220 ® FAX (206) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
�S r 18 9 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPLICANT: Walt Pisco
CASE NO.: V 97-27
LOCATION: 15722 - 75th Place W.
APPLICATION: Multiple variances to:
1) reduce the cumulative required side setbacks (north and south
property lines) from 35 feet to 12.5 feet;
2) reduce the minimum side setback requirements (south
property) from 10 feet to 5 feet;
3) reduce the minimum side setback requirements (north property)
from 10 feet to 7.5 feet;
4) reduce the minimum required street setback (east property line)
from 25 feet to 10 feet; and,
5) increase the maximum permitted height of 25 feet to 30 feet
above the average grade level for the peak of a garage roof
attached to a residence.
The requested variances have been sought to allow additions to an
existing residence including a new attached garage (see Exhibit A,
Attachments 2 through 4).
REVIEW PROCESS: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes
final decision.
MAJOR ISSUES:
a. Complianloe with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SITE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS).
Incomoruted August 11, 1890
.ryI stet Cities International — Hekinan. Javan
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Staff Recommendation:
Hearing Examiner Decision:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-97-27
Page 2
Partial approval with conditions
Partial approval with conditions
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 9:01 a.m., May 1, 1997, in the Plaza Room of the
Edmonds Library and at 9:03 a.m. was continued to June 5, 1997. The hearing was reopened at
9:14 a.m., June 5, 1997, in the Community Services Conference Room, 250 5th Ave. N.,
Edmonds, Washington, and was closed at 9:25 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.
HEARING COMMENTS:
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.
From the City:
Meg Gruwell, Project Planner, reviewed the staff report and noted that:
• Two surveys have been prepared and the one which is most restrictive is the one
which will be used.
• The garage would be allowed at the proposed height if it were a detached rather
than an attached garage, however, in that case, the house would need a 7 foot
height variance.
• The new garage will be much longer along 75th Place W. than the existing garage.
• The new garage may restrict some views because of its additional length and the
fact that it will be approximately 2 feet higher than the existing garage.
• The proposal is consistent with the variance criteria, except for the height
variance.
From the Applicant:
Vince Ojala, Architect, said:
• Everything is within the height limit, except the garage.
• The pitch on the garage roof will allow for drainage.
• He didn't see where there would be any impact to views.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-97-27
Page 3
J. David Smith, Attorney, said:
• The biggest concern expressed by staff is view impact.
• The architect is proposing a structure which is consistent with other structures in
the vicinity, which he also designed.
• There have been several other height variance approvals in this area.
• The house is designed to be consistent with the site.
• The garage is only a little over 2 feet higher than the existing garage.
• If there is any view impact, it would be an impact to the view of the railroad
tracks.
Walt Pisco, Applicant, said:
• All issues from the prior submittal have been addressed with the neighbor who
opposed the prior submittal.
• He is not proposing to add onto the deck as he did on the last application.
• The house is being designed to minimize impacts on views.
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) Size: The subject property is approximately 8,500 square
feet in area, with a 50 -foot width along 75th Place W. (see
Exhibit A, Attachment 4). Previously, the lot was 45 -feet
wide,% but the applicants have submitted information
showing that on October 3, 1996, title in the strip of land
south of the subject lot and approximately 5 feet in width,
from 75th Place W. to the southwest corner of the Pisco's
house was quieted in Walter Pisco. Though the court has
declared this strip of land to belong to the Piscos, no lot
line adjustment has been done yet. The lot size is further
complicated because two surveys done show different
locations of the property lines, so this application has been
revised to reflect the most restrictive survey.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-97-27
Page 4
(2) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed
with a detached single-family residence.
(3) Zoning: The subject property is located in a single-family
residential zone (RS -20); (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
(4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property slopes from
east to west with portions of the site exceeding 25010 slope.
Landscaping includes grass, shrubs, and trees.
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) The lots on the north, south and east sides of the subject
property are developed with detached single-family
residences, and zoned RS -20 (see Exhibit A, Attachment
1).
(2) To the west is the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-
way and tracks and the Puget Sound (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 1).
b) Conclusion: The proposed development would be consistent
with the surrounding zoning and development.
3. History of Variances in the Neighborhood and on the Site:
a) Facts:
(1) In 1985, Jean Riggle at 15714 - 75th Place W. (the
property directly north) requested a variance to reduce the
side setback (file V-30-85). The variance was approved,
but was not acted upon within the required one year. In
1986, Jean Riggle requested a variance to the required
street setback (V-17-86) to allow a carport at the same
setback as is currently being requested in this proposal.
This request was approved, but not acted upon. In 1990,
Ms. Riggle requested a variance to the street and side
setbacks and to the height limit to allow her current home
(V-6-90). Staff recommended approval of the street and
side setback variances, and recommended denial of the
height, variance. The Hearing Examiner approved all of
the requested variances.
(2) In 1989, Gail and Harrison Jewell at 15706 - 75th Place
W. (two properties to the north of the subject parcel)
requested a variance to the required street and side
setbacks (V-38-89). This variance was approved. In
1990, the Jewells requested a height variance for both
their house and garage (V-5-90), which was also
approved. In this case also the staff recommended
approval of the setback variances, but recommended
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-97-27
Page 5
denial of the height variance. The Hearing Examiner
approved all of the requested variances.
(3) In 1993, Ursula Schluter at 15620 - 75th Place W. (several
properties to the north of the subject parcel) requested a
variance to the required street setback and height limit
(V-93-11) to allow a driveway/bridge from the road to a
garage on the top of her proposed house. These variances
were approved.
(4) In 1996, Walter Pisco, owner of the subject property at
15772 - 75th Place W., requested a height variance from
25 feet to 33 feet to allow him to reconstruct the roof on
his existing house at a steeper pitch in order to make
maintenance easier. This variance was denied. Reasons
given for the denial include that it was not the minimum
variance needed, as the roof could be replaced in the same
configuration, and that the height variance could impact
the views of surrounding property and therefore be
detrimental to them.
B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)
1. Fact: Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt
from SEPA review (WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC
20.15A.080).
2. Conclusion: Where special circumstances are shown to exist, the
requirements of ECDC 20.15A have been met.
C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC)
COMPLIANCE
1. a) Facts: The basic site development standards pertaining to
single-family development in an RS -20 zone are set forth in
ECDC Section 16.20.030.
(1) Minimum setbacks are 25 feet to the street property line,
25 feet to the rear property line, 10 feet to the side
property lines, and the side setbacks added together must
total at least 35 feet.
(2) The baximum allowed height for primary structures is 25
feet. Maximum allowed height for accessory structures is
15 feet. Height calculations are based on an average
grade, taken from original, undisturbed soil.
b) Conclusion: Except for the many variances requested, the
proposal complies with the requirements of the zoning
ordinance.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-97-27
Page 6
2. 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, not
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 and Zoning Ordinance: That the
approval of the variance will be consistent with the intent
of 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 property or improvements 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 zoning.
(2) The applicant has presented declarations to respond to all of
the required criteria as follows (see Exhibit A, Attachment
4).
(a) Side Setbacks: The applicant points out that with only a
50 -foot maximum lot width, the requirement of a 35 -foot
combined side setback would leave only a 15 -foot
building area over the existing house, which they feel
leaves an impractical living area. The applicant also
states that a poor survey, not of his doing, created the
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-97-27
Page 7
close proximity to the side of his property. There are also
two surveys which have been done, and the two surveys
do not agree, so the applicant is using the survey which
shows him with the least area in requesting the 7.5 foot
side setback.
Street Setback: Due to the steep slope, the applicant
states they meet the requirement for special circumstance,
since meeting the 25 -foot setback would require a steeply
sloped driveway and more disturbance of the soil. The
applicant notes that owners to the north were both granted
exceptions to the front setback requirement for the
construction of their garages for similar reasons.
Height Limit: The applicant would like to construct a
sloped roof, and believes that the owners to the north were
granted exceptions to the allowable height for the
construction of their garages.
(b) The applicant states that this proposal is not a grant of
special privilege because other property owners have
received variances for similar reasons.
(c) The applicant states that this proposal will be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan because it will be
improving and adding a garage to an existing single-
family residence.
(d) The applicant states that this request is similar to other
variances which have been approved, and if no variances
are granted the zoning ordinance would curtail
construction due to the narrow lot width.
(e) The applicant states that the proposal will not be
detrimental to the surrounding area. The variance to
setbacks they state will allow for standard construction,
and the house will be 2 feet under the allowable height.
The construction of a new garage will remove the old
garage, which was partly in road right-of-way, and will
only exceed the height of the existing garage by 2 feet, but
since the garage will be 12 feet further west, they feel the
visual impact of the new garage would be minimal.
(f) The applicant states that this proposal is the minimum
necessary for a practical remodel and alteration to the
owner's property to allow them to have a residence similar
in size and appearance to ones those to the north where
variances were granted.
(3) The applicant applied for a height variance to allow a new
roof to be added to his home at this same address under file
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-97-27
Page 8
number V-96-139. That variance was to allow the maximum
allowed height to be increased from 25 feet to 33 feet. That
variance was denied as it was not the minimum variance
required, and could potentially affect the neighbor's view.
b) Conclusions:
(1) For most of the proposed variances, the proposal meets the
special circumstances criteria due to the narrow width of the
property and steep slope from the street. Because of the
narrow width, a requirement of a 35 -foot combined side
setback would severely limit the building area available.
Also because of the steep slope from the road, it is
reasonable to place the garage at the top of the hill in the
street setback. The applicant also mentions a survey which
he did not do which was in error as a special circumstance,
but this would be considered an action of past owners or their
agents.
The applicants have indicated that they would like to have
the height variance in order to allow a pitched roof on their
garage, similar to what their neighbors have. The proposal to
have a pitched roof on the garage is predicated on a personal
desire of the applicant. Reasonable use of the land could be
achieved if a flat roofed garage were to be constructed. An
earlier submittal shows that a detached garage could maintain
the required 15 -foot height limit for accessory structures, so
the slope on the site does not prevent them from having a
garage with a pitched roof. However, if the garage were
detached, the house as proposed would require a height
variance of approximately 7 feet.
(2) The approval of this variance request will not be a grant of
special privilege as the two lots to the north leave also
received side and street setback variances andN height
variances.
(3) Approval of the proposed variances would allow for the
continued use of the site in a manner consistent with the
intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance
designation of the site.
(4) Approval of the variances would not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare, but the proposed garage with
a height variance would block more views than the existing
garage. The applicant states that the proposed height of the
garage will be two feet taller than the existing garage, but
will be further west. Although having the garage further
west may reduce some impact, the new orientation of the
garage with its length along 75th Place W. results in more
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-97-27
Page 9
mass blocking the view from the street and from properties
across the street. The increased height of the proposed roof
of the house compared with the existing roof will also restrict
some views in the area.
(5) Approval of the requested street setback variance appears to
be the minimum required to allow the owners to have a
garage near the level of the street. Approval of the requested
side setback appears to be the minimum to add a second
story over an existing foundation on this narrow lot.
The height variance has been stated as needed to allow a
pitched roof on the garage, yet an earlier plan and elevation
showing the garage as a separate structure shows that the
garage could meet the height limit for an accessory structure
(15 feet) with a pitched roof. If the garage was treated as a
detached structure, then the house would need a height
variance as designed. A variance to allow a lower house
proposal was already denied by the Hearing Examiner as not
being the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity.
D. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
1. Fact: The Variance Application has been reviewed and evaluated by
other Departments/Divisions of the City (i.e. Fire Department,
Public Works Division, Engineering Division, and the Parks &
Recreation Division). Both the Engineering Division and the Public
Works Division had comments.
a. Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator, commented that the
Engineering Division will support the reduction of the street
setback to ten feet in light of the requirements imposed upon
the applicant's neighbors. However, he noted that the
property appears to need a lot line adjustment, and the terms
and conditions of all future permits must be met. (See
Exhibit A, Attachment 5)
b. The Public Works Division commented "Note on sewer
modification required" (see Exhibit A, Attachment 6),
presumaoly because the addition is proposed to be placed
over the` sewer line.
E. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC)
1. a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family
Residential".
b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with
The existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for
the site.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-97-27
Page 10
2. a. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development
section, identifies goals and policies which 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) Policy B.2. states: "Protect neighborhoods from
incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not
harmonize with existing structures in the area. "
(3) Policy B.3. states: "Minimize encroachment on view of
existing homes by new construction or additions to
existing structures. "
(3) Page 31, subsection B.5.0 states, "Stable property
values must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land
use encroachments. "
b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with
the above adopted goals and policies of the City except for
the height variance, which encroaches on the view of existing
homes.
DECISION:
A. Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the following variance requests are
APPROVED:
• the request for a side setback variance from the required cumulative 35
feet to 12.5 feet,
• the request of the side setback variance (south property line) from 10
feet to 5 feet,
• the request of the side setback variance (north property line) from 10
feet to 7.5 feet, and
• the request for the reduction of the front yard setback from 25 feet to
10 feet,
WITH the following conditions:
1. This application issubject 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.
2. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction.
3. The permit is transferable.
4. The approved variances must be acted on by the owner within one year
from the date of approval or the variances shall expire and be null and
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-97-27
Page 11
void, unless the owner files an application for extension of time before
the expiration and the City approves the application. (ECDC
20.85.020.C)
5. The side setbacks and street setback variances are approved as shown
on the site plan (Exhibit A, Attachment 4).
6. A lot line adjustment is required, prior to building permit application.
B. Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, the request for a
variance to allow an increase in height from 25 feet to 30 feet is DENIED.
Entered this 19th day of June, 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of.Edmonds.
Ron McConnell
Hearing Examiner
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing
reconsiderations and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a
recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for
further procedural information.
' 1 � ': ' � it •,, � ,,
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 holding an
ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or
recommendation. The };consideration request must cite specific references
to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the
type of application being reviewed.
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
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-97-27
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.
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.
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.'
EXHIBIT:
The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record.
A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with attachments.
PARTIES of RECORD:
Walter Pisco
1577275 th Place West
Edmonds, WA 98020
David Smith
2204 1h Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Vince Ojala
7703 33rd N.E.
Seattle, WA 98115
Edmonds Planning Division
Edmonds Public Works Division
Edmonds Engineering Division
Edmonds Parks & Recreation Division
Edmonds Fire Department
Page 12
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To: Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner
From: q.,.
M.E. M6g Gruwell
Project Planner
Date: MAY 22, 1997
File: V_97.27
WALT PISCO
Hearing Date, Time, And Place: June 5, 1997, At 9:00 AM,
Community Services Conference Room
250 5th Ave. N., Edmonds
Section Page
M 11110 1 LOW
A. Application..............................................................................................................................2
B. Recommendations....................................................................................................................2
Wmrw Ili l] i►`[I YI7 ii i/_�i11 I\►1 ZK17►C�11lily [17►G
A. Site Description....................................................................................................................... 3
B. SEPA.......................................................................................................................................4
C. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance ....................................... 4
D. Technical Committee..............................................................................................................7
E. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC)................................................................................................ 8
III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS...................................................................................... 8
A. Request for Reconsideration.................................................................................................. 8
B. Appeals..................................................................................................................................... 9
IV NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSSSOR............................................................................................... 9
V. LAPSE OF APPROVAL................................................................................................................... 9
VI. APPENDICES................................................................................................................................... 9
Walter Pisco
File No. V-97-27
Page 2 of 9
Applicant: Wait Pisco (see Attachment 2).
2. Site Location: 15722 - 75th Place W. (see Attachment 1).
3. Request: Multiple variances to: 1) reduce the cumulative required side setbacks (north
and south property lines) from 35 feet to 12.5 feet; 2) reduce the minimum side setback
requirements (south property) from 10 feet to 5 feet; 3) reduce the minimum side setback
requirements (north property) from 10 feet to 7.5 feet; 4) reduce the minimum required
street setback (east property line) from 25 feet to 10 feet; and, 5) increase the maximum
permitted height of 25 feet to 30 feet above the average grade level for the peak of a garage
roof attached to a residence. The requested variances have been sought to allow additions
to an existing residence including a new attached garage (see Attachments 2 through 4).
4. Review Process: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final
decision,
5. Major Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85
(VARIANCES).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030
(SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS).
Based on Statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, we recommend
APPROVAL of the following:
a the request for a side setback variance from the required cumulative 35 feet to 12.5 feet,
® the request of the side setback variance (south property line) from 10 feet to 5 feet,
• the request of the side setback variance (north property line) from 10 feet to 7.5 feet,
and
• the request for the reduction of the front yard setback from 25 feet to 10 feet,
WITH the following conditions:
I. 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.
2. The applicant must qi�tain a building permit prior to construction.
3. The permit should be transferable,
4. 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 extension of time before the expiration and the City approves the
application. (ECDC 20.85.020.C)
V-97-27.DOC / May 30, 1997 / Staff Report
Walter Pisco
File No. V-97-27
Pa`e 3 of 9
5. The side setbacks and street setback variance is approved as shown on the site plan
(Attachment 4).
6. A lot line adjustment is required, prior to building permit application.
Based on Statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, we recommend
DENIAL of the following:
® the request for an increase in height from 25 feet to 30 feet.
1. Site Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Size: The subject property is approximately 5,500 square feet in area, with a 50 -
foot width along 75th Place W. (see Attachment 4). Previously, the lot was 45 -feet
wide, but the applicants have submitted information showing that on October 3,
1996, title in the strip of land south of the subject lot and approximately 5 feet in
width, from 75th Place W. to the southwest corner of the Pisco's house was
quieted in Walter Pisco. Though the court has declared this strip of land to
belong to the Piscos, no lot line adjustment has been done yet. The lot is further
complicated because two surveys done show different locations of the property
lines, so this application has been revised to reflect the most restrictive survey.
(2) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with a detached single-
family residence.
(3) Zoning: The subject property is located in a single-family residential zone (RS -
20); (see Attachment 1).
(4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property slopes from east to west with
portions of the site exceeding 25% slope. Landscaping includes grass, shrubs,
and trees.
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) The lots on the north, south and east sides of the subject property are developed
with detached single-family residences, and zoned RS -20 (see Attachment 1).
(2) To the westtis the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way and tracks and the
Puget Sound (see Attachment 1).
b) Conclusion: The proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding
zoning and development.
V-97-27.DOC / May 30, 1997 / Staff Report
Walter Pisco
File No. V-97-27
Page 4 of 9
3. History of Variances in the Neighborhood and on the Site:
a) Facts:
(1) In 1985, Jean Riggle at 15714 - 75th Place W. (the property directly north)
requested a variance to reduce the side setback (file V-30-85). The variance was
approved, but was not acted upon within the required one year. In 1986, Jean
Riggle requested a variance to the required street setback (V-17-86) to allow a
carport at the same setback as is currently being requested in this proposal. This
request was approved, but not acted upon. In 1990, Ms. Riggle requested a
variance to the street and side setbacks and to the height limit to allow her
current home (V-6-90). Staff recommended approval of the street and side
setback variances, and recommended denial of the height variance. The Hearing
Examiner approved all of the requested variances.
(2) In 1989,.Gail and Harrison Jewell at 15706 - 75th Place W. (two properties to the
north of the subject parcel) requested a variance to the required street and side
setbacks (V-38-89). This variance was approved. In 1990, the Jewells requested a
height variance for both their house and garage (V-5-90), which was also
approved. In this case also the staff recommended approval of the setback
variances, but recommended denial of the height variance. The Hearing
Examiner approved all of the requested variances.
(3) In 1993, Ursula Schluter at 15620 - 75th Place W. (several properties to the north
of the subject parcel) requested a variance to the required street setback and
height limit (V-93-11) to allow a driveway/bridge from the road to a garage on
the top of her proposed house. These variances were approved.
(4) In 1996, Walter Pisco, owner of the subject property at 15772 - 75th Place W.,
requested a height variance from 25 feet to 33 feet to allow him to reconstruct the
roof on his existing house at a steeper pitch in order to make maintenance easier.
This variance was denied. Reasons given for the denial include that it was not the
minimum variance needed, as the roof could be replaced in the same
configuration, and that the height variance could impact the views of surrounding
property and therefore be detrimental to them.
B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)
1. Fact: Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review (WAC
197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080).
2. Conclusion: Where special circumstances are shown to exist, the requirements of ECDC
20.15A have been met.
C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE
1. a) Facts: The basic site development standards pertaining to single-family development in
an RS -20 zone are set forth in ECDC Section 16.20.030.
(1) Minimum setbacks are 25 feet to the street property line, 25 feet to the rear
property line, 10 feet to the side property lines, and the side setbacks added
together must total at least 35 feet.
V-97-27.DOC / May 30, 1997 / Staff Report
Walter Pisco
File No. V-97-27
Page 5 of 9
(2) The maximum allowed height for primary structures is 25 feet. Maximum
allowed height for accessory structures is 15 feet. Height calculations are based
on an average grade, taken from original, undisturbed soil.
b) Conclusion: Except for the many variances requested, the proposal complies with the
requirements of the zoning ordinance.
2. 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, not 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 and Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance
will be consistent with the intent of 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 property or improvements 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
zoning.
(2) The applicant has presented declarations to respond to all of the required criteria as
follows (see Attachment 4).
(a) Side Setbacks: The applicant points out that with only a 50 -foot maximum lot
width, the requirement of a 35 -foot combined side setback would leave only a 15 -
foot buildiii`g area over the existing house, which they feel leaves an impractical
living area. The applicant also states that a poor survey, not of his doing, created
the close proximity to the side of his property. There are also two surveys which
have been done, and the two surveys do not agree, so the applicant is using the
survey which shows him with the least area in requesting the 7.5 foot side setback.
Street Setback: Due to the steep slope, the applicant states they meet the
requirement for special circumstance, since meeting the 25 -foot setback would
V-97-27.DOC / May 30, 1997 / Staff Report
Walter Pisco
File No. V-97-27
Page 6 of 9
require a steeply sloped driveway and more disturbance of the soil. The applicant
notes that owners to the north were both granted exceptions to the front setback
requirement for the construction of their garages for similar reasons.
Height Limit: The applicant would like to construct a sloped roof, and believes
that the owners to the north were granted exceptions to the allowable height for
the construction of their garages.
(b) The applicant states that this proposal is not a grant of special privilege because
other property owners have received variances for similar reasons.
(c) The applicant states that this proposal will be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan because it will be improving and adding a garage to an existing single-family
residence.
(d) The applicant states that this request is similar to other variances which have
been approved, and if no variances are granted the zoning ordinance would
curtail construction due to the narrow lot width.
(e) The applicant states that the proposal will not be detrimental to the surrounding
area. The variance to setbacks they state will allow for standard construction,
and the house will be 2 feet under the allowable height. The construction of a new
garage will remove the old garage, which was partly in road right-of-way, and
will only exceed the height of the existing garage by 2 feet, but since the garage
will be 12 feet further west, they feel the visual impact of the new garage would be
minimal.
(f) The applicant states that this proposal is the minimum necessary for a practical
remodel and alteration to the owner's property to allow them to have a residence
similar in size and appearance to ones those to the north where variances were
granted.
(3) The applicant applied for a height variance to allow a new roof to be added to his
home at this same address under file number V-96-139. That variance was to allow
the maximum allowed height to be increased from 25 feet to 33 feet. That variance
was denied as it was not the minimum variance required, and could potentially affect
the neighbor's view.
b) Conclusions:
(1) For most of the proposed variances, the proposal meets the special circumstances
criteria due to the narrow width of the property and steep slope from the street.
Because of the narrow width, a requirement of a 35 -foot combined side setback
would severely limit the building area available. Also because of the steep slope from
the road, it is reasonable to place the garage at the top of the hill in the street
setback. The''Applicant also mentions a survey which lie did not do which was in
error as a special circumstance, but this would be considered an action of past
owners or their agents.
The applicants have indicated that they would like to have the height variance in
order to allow a pitched roof on their garage, similar to what their neighbors have.
An earlier submittal shows that a detached garage could maintain the required 15 -
foot height limit for accessory structures, so the slope on the site does not prevent
V-97-27.DOC / May 30, 1997 / Staff Report
Walter Pisco
File No. V-97-27
Page 7 of 9
them from having a garage with a pitched roof, However, if the garage were
detached, the house as proposed would require a height variance of approximately 7
feet.
(2) The approval of this variance request will not be a grant of special privilege as the
two lots to the north have also received side and street setback variances and height
variances.
(3) Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the continued use of the site in a
manner consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance
designation of the site.
(4) Approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, but it will block more views than the existing configuration. The applicant
states that the proposed height of the garage will be two feet taller than the existing
garage, but will be further west. Although having the garage further west may
reduce some impact, the new orientation of the garage with its length along 75th
Place W. results in more mass blocking the view from the street. The increased
height of the proposed roof of the house compared with the existing roof will also
restrict some views in the area.
(5) Approval of the requested street setback variance appears to be the minimum
required to allow the owners to have a garage near the level of the street. Approval
of the requested side setback appears to be the minimum to add a second story over
an existing foundation on this narrow lot.
The height variance has been stated as needed to allow a pitched roof on the garage,
yet an earlier plan and elevation showing the garage as a separate structure shows
that the garage could meet the height limit for an accessory structure (15 feet) with a
pitched roof. If the garage was treated as a detached structure, then the house would
need a height variance as designed. A variance to allow a lower house proposal was
already denied by the Hearing Examiner as not being the minimum necessary to
allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity.
I1�1YDEN 1101[1\M030h51"'YW11�1r11
1. Fact: The Variance Application has been reviewed and evaluated by other
Departments/Divisions of the City (i.e. Fire Department, Public Works Division, Engineering
Division, and the Parks & Recreation Division). Both the Engineering Division and the
Public Works Division had comments.
a. Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator, commented that the Engineering Division
will support the reduction of the street setback to ten feet in light of the requirements
imposed upon the applicant's neighbors. However, he noted that the property
appears to need a lot line adjustment, and the terms and conditions of all future
permits must O� met. (See Attachment 5)
b. The Public Works Division commented "Note on sewer modification required" (see
Attachment 6), presumably because the addition is proposed to be placed over the
sewer line.
V-97-27.DOC / May 30, 1997 / Staff Report
Walter Pisco
File No. V-97-27
Page S of 9
a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Residential".
b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing
Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site.
2. a. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals
and policies which 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) Policy B.2. states: "Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to
existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures in the area."
(3) Policy B.3. states: "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new
construction or additions to existing structures. "
(3) Page 31, subsection B.5.0 states, "Stable property values must not be threatened
by view, traffic, or land use encroachments."
b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the above adopted goals
and policies of the City except for the height variance, which encroaches on the view
of existing homes.
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals.
Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning
Department for further procedural information.
A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Section 20.100.010.E 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 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.
B. 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,lk filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10)
working days after the date of the decision being appealed.
1►��f►[ITL1�[fl DSI.IEIZK1�11►11I�i�a�.Y.'��FY.YI7
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.
V-97-27BOC / May 30, 1997 / Staff Report
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.'
ATTACHMENTS 1 THROUGH 6 ARE ATTACHED.
1.
Vicinity / Zoning Map
2.
Application Form/Legal Description
3.
Declarations of Applicant
4.
Site Plan and Elevations
5.
Memorandum from Gordy Hyde
6.
Side Sewer Drawing
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD
Applicant
Agent: Vince Ojala, Architect
Planning Division
Walter Pisco
File No. V-97-27
Page 9 of 9
V-97-27.L70C / May 30, 1997 / Staff Report
Attachment 1
File No. V-97-27
city of e
land s application
❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
❑ COMP PLAN AMENDMENT
❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
❑ HOME OCCUPATION
❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION
❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION
❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT /
STREET VACATION
❑ REZONE
❑ SHORELINE PERMIT
VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE
EXCEPTION
❑ OTHER
yE,3
MAP,i ?
FILE # ZONE k±2r
DATE RECD BY 1
FEE RECEIPT#
HEARING DATE
-HE Q STAFF Ll PB Ll ADB Ll CC
ACTION TAKEN:
. . . . • . ■ii
Applicant W&ILT Ft 'S e- C�' Phone (p (-t 3 <
Address
Property Address or Location
Property Owner _ A.Lr «e- c> Phone 4 q5 ( (#Z S12
N•• -
Agent
Addre:
Tax Acc # ,t5' t I-., t - _!V2 ®® (!.0, ®'a Sec. Twp. Rng.
Legal Description Ity . ®®tAux>awc>A-bg
L01 1 -- Y", <,T
Details of Project or Proposed Use A-1 AKAA�AWW "�
The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the
application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all
damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon
false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or
employees.
The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staf Attachment 2
enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this apK File No. V-97-27
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
for
15722 75th Place West
Edmonds Washington
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The subject property is located in the I`leadowdole Beach area of
Edmonds Washington. The site is located adjacent and to the west of
75th Place West and Slopes downhill to the west where the site
borders the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks.
The existing house located on the site was encroaching onto the
property bordering at the South property line. The encroachment was of
a distance of approximately 2'-0" (Two feet). In order to rectify the
encroachment, on agreement was met between the property owners to
annex on additional five feet of the southerly property to the subject
property. This annexation allowed the owner of the subject property to
begin development of a remodel and alteration which would otherwise
have been disallowed by the City of Edmonds due to the "straddling" of
the south property line.
The existing house is located in a R5-20 zone. The setback
requirements of the zone are .35' cumulative side setbacks with a
minimum of 10' on a side; 25' front and rear setbacks.
The existing lot with the 5'-0" annexation is a total of 50' in width
for opproximatly 106' along the south property line. If the required side
setback is enforced;,. the allowable area for construction would be only 15'.
This is on impracticable dimension for the improvement of the existing
house.
The existing garage is now located partially within the right-of-way
of 75th Place West. A new garage is proposed as part of the renovation
of the existing property, and as new construction, it must be located 25'
from the property line in order to satisfy the front setback requirement.
The existing slope condition is such that any construction made to
adhere to the 25' requirement would have to be constructed on the
steep slope which might create on undesirable affect to the soils and
difficult access to the building.
The overall height allowance for the project is calculated to be at
elev. 515. Due to the steep slope of the site and the relative location of
the garage to the existing house; the garage roof will exceed the
calculated height using a minimum of 8' as a plate height for the garage.
The request for variance encompasses three issues.
155UE #1.
Relief from the 35'/10' side setback in order to remodel the
existing residence in a practical fashion.
ISSUE #2.
Relief from the 25' front setback in order to construct the garage
with a minimum impact to the steep slope.
ISSUE #3.
Relief from the calculated allowable height for the construction of
the garage
The proposed variance is as follows:
155UE #1.
We request that the minimum side setback be reduced from 10' to
a minimum of 5' at the South property line and we request that the
cumulative side set back be reduced to the existing conditions on the site
which are 5' at the South and 3' at the closest North portion of the
existing building for a total of 14'.
155UE #2.
We request a minimum of 10' front set bock from the front
property line. This would allow for the construction of a garage for the
project with a minimal impact to the existing slope.
ISSUE #3.
We request that the calculated maximum height be increased on
additional 5for the garage only in order to provide a practical slope for
drainage.
1. .SPECIAL GIRGUMSTANGES- Strict enforcement of the zoning
regulations would deprive the owner of the subject property of use rights
afforded others in the I" leadowdole beach area as follows:
ISSUE #1. The stricture of the side setbacks imposed on the
property would allow only for a 1S' wide addition to be constructed over
the existing house. This would create an impractical living area to the
existing house and it would also severely limit the livability of the house.
The neighbor to the north and the neighbor two lots to the north were
afforded relief from the side setback requirements for new construction
for the reasons heretofore mentioned. The owner of the subject property
doesn't have the flexibility of building anew, but rather is restricted by an
existing condition not of his doing which is a poor survey creating the
close proximity to the side of his property.
ISSUE #2. The limits of topography of the lot require that the
proposed garage be constructed on the most level portion of the site
that avails itself to the adjacent roadway. A 10' setback will afford a more
level access to the garage from the roadway as well as affording minimal
slope disturbance during construction. The absence of a sloped driveway
to the garage will also help alleviate unnecessary water collection and
drainage difficulties. The enforcement of a 25' front setback would cause
the garage to be constructed lower than the roadway which would
necessitate the need for a very steeply sloped driveway, conceivably
greater than 20516. A steep driveway would make access and egress
difficult and perhaps hazardous due to restricted sight lines. The owners
to the north were both granted exceptions to the front setback
requirement for the construction of their garages for reasons similar to
those given.
ISSUE #.3. The limits of topography which govern the allowable
maximum height create a condition that would allow only for a flat -roofed
garage. We are requesting that the height allowable be increased by a
distance of 5'. This;ncrease would afford the owner an opportunity to
build a sloped roof on the proposed garage. The two owners to the north
were granted exceptions to the allowable height requirement for the
construction of their garages.
2. 5PEGIAL PRIVILEGE-' Variances for the issues #1, #2, #3 do not
become special privilege because variances for the height and the side
and front setback requirements for neighboring properties have been
granted for reasons similar to those stated in item #1.
3. COMPREHEN51VE PLAN- The comprehensive plan for the
Meadowole Beach area indicates that single family residential are desired.
The improvement of an existing small residence and the addition of a
garage are in -keeping with the consistency of this planning concept.
4. ZONING ORDINANCES- The approval of the variances requested is
consistent with previous variances that have been granted to neighboring
properties for reasons similar to those given In this request. The zoning
requirements for setbacks severely limits and also curtails construction of
any type due to the existing narrow lots which in turn deprives the
property owners of improving or developing their land. A variance to the
requirements allows the properly owners to a reasonable course of
development.
5. NOT DETRIMENTAL- The proposed remodel and alteration will not
significantly and adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare. Further,
the proposed project will not be injurious to the property or improvements
in the immediate vicinity. The new garage would remove the existing
garage, a potential problem from the right-of-way. The proposed
improvements to the existing residence would increase the height of the
existing house, but the new ridge would be under the allowable height by a
distance of 5-0". (proposed ridge @ 512; allowable height @ 515) The
exception requested for height is for the garage only and the proposes
ridge of the new garage would exceed the height of the existing garage
by a distance of 2'-0". Because the location of the proposed garage is 12'
further toward the west, the visual impact of the new ridge would be
minimal. The variance to the setbacks would allow for standard
construction and practical, livable building dimensions and would not
adversely affect the *neighboring properties.
(5. MINIMUM VARIANCE- The requested variance would be the
minimum necessary for a practical remodel and alteration to the owner's
property. Previous surveys created on awkward building placement on
the site and the construction of the existing house for down slope limit
the extent of development. Granting of the requested variances would
allow the owner to have a residence in size and appearance to those
residences to the north where similar variances have been granted for
the reasons of steep slope and narrow lot dimension and vehicle access in
order to provide the opportunity of reasonable property development.
01
m
20
M
T
0
m
m
co
O
O
CD
Ty
FROM : VINCE 0JALA ARCHIT-'T PHONE NO. : 52718289 Apr. 14 1997 05:51PM P2
�_F_TTFEJR C)F: CLARIFICATI(-OM
roR
VARIANCE V-97-27
Thlo letter is being written. In reoponse +nto phone cr-11 received
from Jeff WII!5on, representing the City of Edmonds, regarding Gonf6!51on
sand lock, of understanding of the written and graphic material submitted in
request T'or o variance for 'v\/olt Pisco for h1s property it 17522 '?5th
Place Went, F-dmonds Washington. Thio area is. also referred to Lis
1%lendowdole 1380.CK
My coriverootlom with Jeff Wileorl entailed discussion a--; to how
there �rvoo no mention of the propoised gorag,-_ for the project os being
ATTACHE�E:) to the proposed addition In the origInal-submittal to the City
of FE'dmand-s. The graphic material occompnnying the Addendum indicated
cieerlytkoi- +kc hou-,c and +h(T propo--pcd garage wcre_- +o be phy.5icr-Illy
c-onnected by a bridge and therefor ATTACHED. Further conversation
lnrficn+ed thrit +ha infnrmotion shown woo notradequLite frir determining
whether or nol- the garage and the house would q uolffy o5 being ottoche--d
due to the flirt -that there wos not enough information for such o
determination, Jeff'Wiloor recorimen6eoi -14iot a f611 Set of construction
docurnerit5 gaol- showed the phy---ircl -orinectionot bath the house orad
the gauge would be rp-puired byhIm in order to determine the validity of
the cier^lnition of A7-TACH5tD ST RU . due to the fact thot +He
deadline for publicogtion is lee than 24- hours hence, it would be
to produce the required drowirtgc. and et III b* within the time deodline-r. ;6r -
the nex-rovcajlnble hearing do -re. This would cause greater delay thou
would be (:)Cceptable'
Drowing#1 E;hQwsp the propooed footprint cif -rhe remodel project
Son VIE�o�), In the &lrcled area the drawing shows frorn left to right-, the
exioting deck, Houee, +e propo:�ei od6tlon, and +he goroge.
As is shown and now written, the house and the garage are
ATTACHED by rneans of the 4:iddition. The houjsa_ and the prope:'_'r-ed
VIN :E.
0 j A L A
7703 33rd `E
Seattle, Washington
98115
206.527.8289
;.,its
A
PERU/4 �j cow--"
_s�
APPLIGATION FOR VARIANCE
for
WALT P15GO
15722 75th Place West
Edmonds Washington
Legal Description- Block 028 D-00 Meadowdole Beach
S. 30 ft. of lot 6 plus. vacated street
N. 15 ft. of lot 7 plus vacated street
Property Tax Account Parcel Number -
#5131 -028-006-0006
Owner- Walt Pisco
Architect- Vince Ojala
770.3 33rd Avenue N.E.
Seattle Washington -98115
(206) 527-8280
Attachment 3
File No. V-97-27
FROM : VINCE OJALH ARCHYT PHONE NO. ' 5278269 Apr. 14 1997 05:52PM P3
oddition a common wail and the garage sand the adclitlon
shore o common wall. The floor and roof planes of the Oddltk�,' phyolcolly
�54teria from +Hi? h6ue-e tea the goroge and are ATTACHED to etch
re.5pecflvely,
_q #2 is on enlarged drawing for the purpose of mokina clear
that the hour -e, -1+ie od6ltion sand i'me qoroVe are to be treo+ed ne tete
building. It is also hoped that the lorger drowIrg will ESUrvlVe the F�AX
pror,ess a bit be -ter and be more readable.
#3 lo a SGHF-t-IATIC- 0,'IT5 SE-GTICI'�,' and showr.
generally the proposed spoinl envelope of the proposed project. It is
bacouza the Jovelopmerit .4, -RA 8esign oria construction
do-cuments prior to the request for voriarce iF, imprudent and
lmpra&lnnble. The heavy (dark) ou-Hlneindlcotes the projected pornmeter�,
of the proposed project. The leoyy horizontol line indicate�o o ridge tHat Is
turned of 00 degrees to the other sniped roofs. This structure(one,
building) will exceed the maximum ollowoble height by 3 feet.
AMMENDE'D REFOUEST FOR VARIANCE V-97-27
We request -hiot the moximum height for I' -,hl -s project be raloed
from 515"to 5:20 z
I
FROM : VINCE OJALA ARCHITF- PHONE NO. : 52782e9 May. 14 1997 04:12PM P2
To- I -leg Oruell
Project Pli=rier
City of Edmonds
Re: File
r:)eor Hee,
The request for tatol 151cie �etb�ack !3hould be nriendLtbd to recd as
follows.
� Iultlple varionces to: 1)reduce the cumulative required !3id--
sethocko (north orad south property llne�) from thirty five feet(35') td12'-
0"; 2)reduce the minimum rpide ocilocick requirernerli-s (south property line)
from ten feet (10) to five feet (5): 3) reduce the rrilnlmum Side
requirernc&5 (north proper -t-y line) to reven feet-raix inches (7-rol: 4)
FZeduce the minimum required street setback from twenty five feet (2-51)
to ten feet (10): 5) increase the rna-i'murn permitted hei-ght of 2-5 feet to
30 fact obove the average grc:icie level for the peak of the garage roof
a1toched to o residence. The requested vorionces have been sought to
cilow cidditicmra to on existing residerc-L- including r-, new attached gnroge.
This is the proposed omendment to Item 3(Repuest) under A.
(Appllcan+ Informatlati) under L(INTRODUCTION) pcq* —') of the
PLANNINO [)N/IrNON AtDVISORY
CONCLUSIONS. AND REGOMM5NMATIONS dated April 2-5,19-97.
FROM : VINCE OJALA ARCHF ' PHONE NO. : 5278289
i
Apr. 14 1997 05:52PM P4
.,P -A
®r
Attachment 4
File No. V-97-27
0',r
JL
uj
Q
PINUI)e
.,P -A
®r
Attachment 4
File No. V-97-27
FROM ; VINCE OJRLH RRCHI- T PHONE NO. ; 5278289
Rpr. 14 1937 05.53PM F5
LLJ
L--
Si
Y5 0
Af
awbum—aff-4dwim —agool—som
—7
1 T3
LLJ
L--
FROM : VINCS UJRLR HRCHITF' HHIJNI= MU. : t>2 t828J May. 14 1 y)J ( U4: I )rPl F,5
t L.
FROM : VINCE UJHLH HHC;HIT--'-f PHUNE NU. ; 5;2 (U�Uy
LLI
CL
Hpr. 14 llzy( 05:5,JFPI F-16
(3
U7
LL
4 --
,T-
U
In
MEMORAND
V
Date: April 15, 1997k:
To: Planning Division
From: Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator.-,
Subject: Variance for Pisco at 15722 - 75th PI. W. (V-97-27)
The application has been re -analyzed by the Engineering Division. In light of
the requirements imposed upon the applicant's neighbors, the Engineering
Division supports the reduction of the setback to ten feet. The Division does not
have any comments regarding the request for height allowance, but still has the
following comments regarding this proposal:
1. It appears that a lot line adjustment is required to be completed on this
property
2. The terms and conditions of all future permits must be met.
The Engineering Division reserves the right to impose requirements on future
permit applications. The application is considered complete at this time.
CITY OF EDMONDS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
V97027A.DOC
Attachment 5
File No. V-97-2'7
r
! 1 IA A
Attachment 6
File No. V-97-27