Hearing Examiner Decision V0747.pdffhc. 189"
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-4221
HEARING EXAMINER
In the Matter of the Application of )
DANIEL & SUZANNE MUNRO )
For a Variance from Street Setbacks. )
NO. V-2007-47
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND DECISION
SUMMARY OF DECISION
The request for a variance from the 25 foot street setback requirement of the Single -Family
Residential (RS -12) zoning district to 16 feet 4 inches on a portion of the subject property's
border with 174 Street SW is GRANTED, subject to conditions.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Request:
Daniel and Suzanne Munro (Applicants) requested a variance from the 25 foot street setback
requirement of the RS -12 zoning district. The requested variance would reduce a portion of the
170 Street SW setback to 16 feet 4 inches in order to accommodate the construction of an
addition to an existing single-family residence. The subject property is located at 7115 — 170
Street SW, Edmonds, Washington.
Hearing Date:
An open record hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner of the City of
Edmonds on August 2, 2007.
Testimony:
At the open record hearing the following individuals presented testimony under oath:
1. Gina Coccia, Planner, City of Edmonds
2. Daniel Munro, Applicant
Exhibits:
At the open record hearing the following exhibits were admitted into the record:
A. Staff Report dated July 26, 2007, with the following attachments:
1. Land Use Application, dated June 14, 2007
2. Vicinity Map
3. Applicant's Criteria Statement. and Addendum, dated May 24, 2007 and June 14,
2007
4. Site Plan
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner -
City of Edmonds
Munro Variance, No. V-2007-47 Page 1 of 9
• Incorporated August 11, I890 •
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
5. Building Elevation/Design (front view)
6. Official Deeds Map
7. Vicinity Survey, dated October 11, 1904
8. Quarter Section Map ---• SW -8-27-04
9. Aerial Photograph
10. Short Plat, S-6-1979
11. Affidavit of Notice — Mailing and Posting, dated June 26, 2007
B. Agency Comments — City of Edmonds Engineering Division, dated July 30, 2007
Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted at the open record hearing, the
Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions:
FINDINGS
1. The Applicants requested a variance from the 25 foot street setback requirement of the
RS -12 zone along the property's southern border with 1740' Street SW.t The variance
request is based on the Applicants' proposal to construct a 1,350 square foot addition on
to an existing 760 square foot residence, which will also be remodeled. The proposed
addition would be located along the western side of the single-family residence. Exhibit
A, Staff Report, Page 2; Exhibit A, Attachments 1, 4 and 5; Testimony of Ms. Coccia.
2. The requested variance would reduce a portion of the 174' Street SW setback from 25
feet to 16 feet 4 inches. The encroachment would be due to the Applicants' desire to
architecturally align the proposed addition with the existing structure. The existing
footprint and height of the residence would be altered. Lot coverage would also be
impacted. Exhibit A, Staff Report, Pages 2-3; Exhibit A, Attachment 4, Site Plan; Exhibit
A, Attachment 5, Architectural Draining; Testimony of Ms. Coccia.
3. The subject property is zoned Residential Single Family -- 12,000 square feet (RS -12).
The purpose of the RS -12 zone, in addition to the general purposes for residential zones2,
is to reserve and regulate areas primarily for family living in single-family dwellings
while providing for non-residential uses which complement and are compatible with
single-family dwelling use. ECDC 16.20.000.
4. Site development standards for the RS -12 zone include a minimum lot area per dwelling
unit of 12,000 square feet, minimum setbacks of 25 feet (street), 10 feet (side), and 25
(rear), height limitation of 25 feet, and maximum impervious coverage of 35 percent.
With the exception of the street setback, all other development standards would be
satisfied. ECDC 16.20.030, Table of Development Standards; Exhibit A, Attachment 4,
Site Plan, Exhibit A, Attachment 3, Applicants' Narrative-
' Snohomish County Tax Parcel No. 00513100013804. Exhibit A, Attachment 1, Land Use Application
2 The general purposes for residential zones are stated in ECDC 16.00.010 and 16.10.000 and include consideration
of the public health and safety, comprehensive plan policies, and community values.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds
Munro Variance, No. V-200747
7
Page 2 of 9
5. Surrounding properties to the north and west/southwest are zoned RS -12. Properties to
the east are zoned RS -12 and RS -20. Property to the south is zoned RS -8. The
surrounding area is developed with single-family residences, some of which also
encroach into the required setback. Exhibit A, Staff Report, Page 4; Exhibit A,
Attachment 2, Vicinity Map.
6. The subject property is approximately 12,023 square feet in area (approximately 90 feet
wide by 134 feet deep). Two structures are located on the property - a 760 square foot
single family residence is centrally located on the southern portion of the site and a
garage/storage shed is located to the west of the existing residence. The shed will be
demolished to accommodate the proposed addition. Exhibit A, Staff Report, Page 2;
Exhibit A, Attachment 4, Site Plan, Exhibit A, Attachment 9, Aerial Photograph.
7. The southern portion of the site is relatively flat with the northern one-third encumbered
by a steep slope. The northern portion of the site slopes downward 40-46 percent and is
vegetated with several mature evergreens trees. City Staff prepared a critical areas
checklist, performed a reconnaissance of the site, and determined that the site is
encumbered by two types of geologically hazardous areas - an Erosion Hazard Area
(EHA) and a Landslide Hazard Area (LHA). Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.320, critical areas
for the City of Edmonds include geologically hazardous areas and require a structure be
setback at least 15 feet (see ECDC 23.40.280). Exhibit A, Staff Report, Page 4, Exhibit
A, Attachment 4, Site Plan; Exhibit A, Attachment 9, Aerial Photograph.
8. ECDC 23.80.050 requires that the Applicants prepare a geotechnical report that meets the
requirements of ECDC 23.40.090, ECDC 23.80.050, and Chapters 18.30 and 19.10
ECDC, as applicable. Any addition setback requirement (other than the required 15 feet)
will be contained in the geotechnical report. From the submitted site plan, it appears that
the existing and proposed addition will be setback the 15 foot minimum required
distance. If the geotechnical report recommends a greater setback, further review and
modification of this proposal will be required. Exhibit A, Staff Report, Page 4; Exhibit A,
Attachment 4, Site Plan; Exhibit A, Attachment 9, Aerial Photograph.
9. The 760 square foot single-family residence was constructed in 1947, prior to the
annexation of the area3 and prior to the City adopting its zoning code. A portion of the
eastern side of the existing residence encroaches into the required street setback. The
structure is considered a legally nonconforming lot because it was created before the
City's zoning standards were applied to the property at the time of annexation.4 The
eastern point of the residence is what the Applicants wish to align the proposed addition
with. Nothing in the record denotes which percentage of the existing residence currently
encroaches into the setback. Exhibit A, Staff Report, Page 2; Exhibit A, Attachment 3,
Criteria Statement.
3 The site was annexed to the City of Edmonds in 1963. Exhibit A, Staff Report, Page 3.
4 ECDC 17.40.020(A) provides that a "nonconforming building is one which once met bulls zoning standards and
the site development standards applicable to its construction, but which no longer conforms to such standards due to
the enactment of amendment of the zoning ordinance of the City of Edmonds or the application of such ordinance in
the case of a structure annexed to the City."
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner far City of Edmonds
Munro Variance, No. V-2007-47
Page 3of9
10. ECDC 17.40.20 requires that all new development — whether replacement of or addition
to existing structures — must comply with current zoning standards, including street
setbacks. However, the City permits the continuation of non -conforming structures so
long as the structures are not changed or altered in any manner which increases the
degree of nonconformity without approval of variance. ECDC 17.40.020. Here, the
Applicants propose to increase the degree of nonconformity by constructing an addition
that further encroaches into the street setback. The Applicants allege two reasons for
this: (1) a desire to align the proposed addition flush with that portion of the existing
structure which encroaches into the setback and (2) relocation of the structure further
north would encroach into the critical areas (geological hazardous area) setback. Exhibit
A, Staff Report, Page 6; Exhibit A, Attachment 3, Criteria Statement, Testimony of Mr.
Munro.
11. City Staff testified that several variances for relief from the required street setback have
been granted along 174th Street SW over the past years creating non -conforming
structures. Permit numbers for variances were provided from 2001, 1992, and 1989.
The exact reduction in the setback for these permits was not known. Exhibit A, Staff
Report, Page 7, Testimony of Ms. Coccia.
12. The property was subject to previous right-of-way dedications and short platting, which
has been modified throughout the years. An Official Deeds Map denotes the site as part
of Lot 138 with the southern portion showing an unmeasured right-of-way granted to the
City by the property owner, not all of which is shown as being developed as a public
right-of-way. A map of a 1979 Short Plat denotes the subject property with 174' Street
SW in an east -west linear configuration and includes an exception of 15 feet in the
southern portion, but does not state why or to whom this 15 feet was conveyed. Exhibit
A, Attachment 6, Deeds Map; Exhibit A, Attachment 10, Short Plat, Testimony of Ms.
Coccia; Testimony ofMr. Munro.
13. City of Edmonds Engineering Division (Engineering) submitted comments on the
proposal. Engineering noted that the distance from the edge of the developed right-of-
way and the face of the garage would be approximately 49 feet 8 inches, well in excess of
the required 25 foot street setback when the City -owned undeveloped right-of-way is
included. Engineering further noted that the existing right-of-way is 30 feet wide with
dedications sought by the City along the southern edge in order to properly align this
segment of the roadway. Therefore, Engineering did not object to the proposed setback
reduction. Exhibit B, Engineering Comments; Exhibit A, Attachment 9, Aerial
Photograph.
14. The Comprehensive Plan designation of the subject property is "Single Family —
Resource." The design would compliment and be compatible with the architectural lines
of the current structure and surrounding residences. The proposed addition to the existing
structure would not impact views, prevents disturbance of the steep slope area, and seeks
to rehabilitate an older residence. The proposal is consistent with the following
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, in relevant part:
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds
Munro Variance, No. V-2007-47
Page 4 of 9
Residential Development --- Goals: High quality residential development which
is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained
and promoted ... balancing economic and aesthetic considerations, in
accordance with the following polices:
Policy 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.
Policy B.2: Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing
buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures.
Policy B.3: Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new
construction or additions to existing structures.
Policy B.4: Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within
Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible.
Policy B.5: Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through
the careful control of others types of development and
expansion ...
Policy B.6: Require that new residential development be compatible with
the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation,
and drainage.
Exhibit A, Staff Report, Pages 7-8, City of Edmonds, Comprehensive Plan, Pages 53-55.
15. City Stam reviewed the variance application and recommended approval, subject to three
(3) conditions pertaining to compliance with the ECDC and the transferable nature of the
variance permit. The Applicants concurred with the City's analysis. Exhibit A, Staff
Report, Page 3; Testimony of Ms. Coccia; Testimony of Mr. Munro_
16. No negative public comment was received on the proposed variance. The application
was submitted for review to the City's Fire Department, Public Works Department,
Engineering Division, and Parks and Recreation Department. Testimony of Ms. Coccia;
Exhibit A, Staff Report, Pages 8-9.
17. The City provided proper notice of the public hearing as required by ECDC 20.91.
Notice was mailed to adjacent property owners and posted on-site and at various public
locations (Civic Center, Library, etc) on lune 26, 2007. Exhibit A, Attachment 11.
18. Variance applications are categorically exempt from environmental review under the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C. WAC 197-11-800(6)(b), adopted
by reference with ECDC 20.15A. 080
CONCLUSIONS
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds
Munro Variance, No. V-2007-47
Page 5 of 9
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, location or
surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and
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 historic lot line and right-of-way
configuration of the subject property in addition to the geological hazardous areas
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner far City of Edmonds
Munro Variance, No. V-20117-47
Page 6 of 9
located within the northern portion, strict enforcement of the street setback
requirement would deprive the owner of rights and privileges permitted to other
properties in the vicinity and within the RS -12 zone. The rights and privileges of
property owners include a reasonable building envelope and the ability to make changes
to an existing structure with serve to increase property and aesthetic values of the site.
Due to the geological hazardous areas within the north portion of the site, the
modification to the residence that preserves architectural lines and utilizes existing
footprints could not occur without a variance. Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, and 13.
2. Approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege. The subject
property is uniquely situated with respect to application of the City's setback standards.
The single-family residence has been in place since 1947, and it is legally
nonconforming. The requested variance would only slightly increase encroachment by
the residence within the street setback at a single location which is currently developed
with a driveway. Several homes within the area have received variances from setback
requirements. The historic configuration of 174a' Street SW and right-of-way
dedication/vacations has "blurred" the property line, with undeveloped right-of-way
providing the appearance that the residence is setback from the edge of the paved
roadway farther than the required 25 -foot setback. Findings of Fact Nos. 3, 5, 6, 9, 10,
11, 12, and 13.
3. The variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Flan, The proposed
modifications would be compatible with other structures in the area, would not impact the
views of existing homes adjacent to the site, and would assist in rehabilitating the
residence. Key purposes of the City's Comprehensive plan include the promotion of the
general welfare, prosperity, and values of the community through coordinated
development which preserves and protects the high quality residential character of the
City. Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 14.
4. The variance would be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance.
Although the City seeks to abate non -conforming structures, the City has also stated that
some of the purposes of the zoning ordinance are to protect the character of residential
uses within the City by regulating individual parcels of land to prevent unreasonable
detrimental effects and encroachment by incompatible uses. ECDC 16.00.010. 1n
addition, the zoning ordinance seeks to preserve neighborhood privacy, views, and the
residential environment. 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, would not
impact views, and would improve neighborhood aesthetics through the remodel and
addition of the existing structure. Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13,
14, 15, 17, and 18.
5. 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 -12 zone.
Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 15, and 18.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City ofEdmonds
Munro Variance, No. V-2007--47
Page 7 of 9
6. The variance would be the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by
other properties. The proposed modification is modest in scale, providing limited
expansion of the single-family residence into the street setback and serves to protect the
geological hazardous area by preventing encroachment into this area. Although the
design of the proposed addition could be modified to prevent encroachment without
impacting the critical area (e.g. less square footage), due to the alignment history of 174th
Street SW and the City's Engineering Division's statements regard re -alignment via
properly acquisition along the southern edge of the roadway, the Hearing Examiner
concludes that the Applicants proposed is minimal. Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9,
12, 13, 15, and 16.
DECISION
Based on the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request for a variance for a portion of the
required 25 foot street setback of 170 Street SW to 16 feet 4 inches, as depicted on Exhibit A,
Attachment 4, is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall obtain City approval of a building permit for the proposed
addition and remodel. The building permit may contain additional conditions.
2. This approval is subject to compliance with all applicable requirements of the
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) including all development
standards for the RS -12 zoning district (except street setback). It is the responsibility
of the Applicant to ensure compliance with the provisions of the ECDC.
3. The construction project, including encroachment into the street setback, shall
substantially comply with the site plans submitted by the Applicants as Exhibit A,
Attachment 4.
4. The variance permit shall be transferable.
5. Due to the presence of two critical areas — Erosion Hazard Area and Landslide
Hazard Area — on the northern portion of the site, the Applicant shall prepare a
Geotechnical Report at the time of building permit review.
6. Approval of this variance is expressly limited to the following:
If the remodel of the existing 760 square foot single-family residence is
equal to or more than 50 percent of the structure's replacement cost at the
time of remodel, then all structures (existing and proposed addition) shall be
constructed in conformance with the provisions of the ECDC. Remodeling
of the existing structure based on a cost of less than 50 percent is permitted
so long as the building retains its former size, shape, and lot location and
construction is initiated within one year of building permit issuance.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds
Munro Variance, No. V-200747
Page 8 of 9
Toweill Rice Taylor, LLC
Hearing Examiners for the City of Edmonds
By:
uli worth -Taylor
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Hearing Examiner far City ofEdmonds
Munro Variance, No. Y-2007-47
Page 9 of 9
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.
.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
20.105.020(8), 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 LIIMTS 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 far City of Edmonds
Malott Variance, No. V-2006-150 Page ],of I