StaffReport_V-06-81.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To: Ron McConnell, FAICP — Hearing Examiner
From:
Gina Coccia
Planner
Date: SEPTEMBER 28, 2006
File: V-2006-0081 (GARY TRUNKHILL CARPORT SETBACK VARIANCE)
Hearing Date, Time, and Place: OCTOBER 5 2006 — 3:00 P.M.
Council Chambers, Public Safety Building
250 — 5`s Avenue North
Edmonds Washington 98020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 2
A. APPLICATION...................................................................................
B. RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................................3
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS...............................................................3
A.
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 3
B.
SITE DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................................................
4
C.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)............................................
4
D.
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE ..............................................
5
E.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC)........................................................................................................
8
F.
PUBLIC COMMENTS...........................................................................................................................
9
G.
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE....................................................................................................................
9
III. RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS...................................................................10
A.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION....................................................................................................
10
B.
APPEALS..........................................................................................................................................
10
C.
TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS........................................................................
10
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL.................................................................................................10
V. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR...................................................................10
VI. ATTACHMENTS............................................................................................................11
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD................................................................................................. 11
Gary Trunkhill Carport Setback Variance
File V-2006-0081
Page 2 of I I
I. INTRODUCTION
The applicant has constructed a carport structure without applying for and receiving approval for a building
permit. Once an Order to Stop Work was Issued by the Building Division, the applicant decided to pursue a
variance as opposed to relocating or demolishing the carport.
Along with the variance application, the applicant has submitted a survey (Attachment 4) that shows that the
carport was constructed well into both the south street setback and the east side setback. The property is
located in the RS -12 zone, which requires a minimum street setback of 25 feet and a minimum side setback
of 10 feet. The survey shows that the carport, excluding eaves, is located a distance of 18.2 feet from the
street property line and 2.2 feet from the side property line. If approved, the proposed setback variance
would allow the carport to remain where it was constructed. If the variance is not approved, the applicant
will work with the Building Official to either move or demolish the structure.
A zoning and vicinity map is included as Attachment 1. The applicant's land use application, which
outlines their request, is Attachment 2. The applicant's declarations on how they feel they meet the
variance criteria is included as Attachment 3. A survey of the site that shows the location of the new carport
and new circular concrete driveway has been provided by the applicant — this is included as Attachment 4.
The applicant provided stamped and signed elevations (not to scale) that indicate how the carport was
constructed. Photographs of the new driveway and carport, as well as their location next to the existing
house, are depicted in Attachment 6. The plat map of Charlotte Gardens, which this lot is a part of is
Attachment 7 — note the stream and the open space tract to the east of this site. An aerial
photolparcel/LIDAR map is Attachment 8, which shows the approximate topographical constraints of the
site. The following is the Edmonds Planning Division's analysis and recommendation of the applicant's
submittal.
A. Application
1. Applicant: Gary Trunkhill (Attachment 2).
2. Site Location: 7707 (AKA 7621) 171" Street SW (Attachment 1).
3. R_ eguest: A variance request in order to allow a recently built carport to remain in the
location that it was constructed: a distance of 18.2 feet from the street (south) property line
and 2.2 feet from the side (east) property line (Attachment 4).
4. Review Process: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts a public hearing and makes the final
decision.
5. Maior Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 23
(CRITICAL AREAS).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20
(SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards).
c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.35
(PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT "PRD").
d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85
(VARIANCES).
StaftRepori V-06-8 Ldoc / September 28, 2006
Gary Trunkhill Carport Setback Variance
File V-2006-0081
Page 3 of 11
B. Recommendations
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend.
• DENIAL of the south street setback variance as depicted in the attached survey; and
• DENIAL of the east side setback variance as depicted in the attached survey.
However, if the Hearing Examiner should decide to approve one or more of the requested
setback variances City staff would recommend conditions as follows:
1. 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 obtain a building permit for the carport and also all necessary permits
for the new slab and new driveway.
3. If it is found that the carport exceeds the 15 -foot height limit, then (another) variance
would need to be approved — or the carport would either need to be reduced in size to
meet this requirement or it would need to be removed.
4. The applicant must remove any leftover construction debris from the top of the slope.
5. The applicant must alter the carport in the area that is as close three feet from the side
property line to comply with International Residential Code R302.
6. The applicant must comply with all the terms of any future permits.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Introduction
1. History:
a) Facts:
(1) There is an existing single-family residence on the property that was constructed
in 1949, according to the Snohomish County Assessor's records.
(2) The City's Annexation Map indicates the site was annexed into the City of
Edmonds on August 23, 1961.
(3) The applicant began with one large lot which he platted through the Planned
Residential Development (PRD) process — it is now seven single-family lots with
an open space tract to the East and a Native Growth Protection Easement (NPGE)
towards the Northwest portion of the site. The property requesting a variance is
"Lot 1" of the Charlotte Gardens Plat[PR.D (Attachment 7).
(4) The existing house did not have a garage or carport until recently, when a carport
was constructed prior to applying for and obtaining a building permit. The
Building Official gave the applicant the option of either: (1) demolishing the
carport, (2) applying for a building permit to move the carport to meet the
required setbacks, or (3) apply for and obtain a variance to allow the carport to
remain in its current location. The applicant has chosen to apply for a variance to
allow the carport to remain where it was constructed.
(5) The applicant has applied for a front yard setback variance and a side yard
setback variance to allow the carport to remain in its current location (Attachment
4).
Staf Report_V-06-8 Ldoc 1 September 28, 2006
Gary Trunkhill Carport Setback Variance
File V-2006-0081
Page 4 of 11
B. Site Description
1. Site Development and Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Size and Access: The subject property is 9,552 square feet in area (Attachment
4). The minimum lot size in the RS -12 zone is 12,000 square feet (however, this .
site was subdivided and is now known as "Lot 1" of the Charlotte Gardens
Planned Residential Development—this lot contains the original single family
home that was on the property prior to the subdivision — see Attachment 7).
There is an open space tract to the east of this property. The site gains access
through 171" Street SW. The Engineering Division has commented on the site's
access (see item II.G.I .a of this report).
(2) Land Use: The site is developed with a single-family home and now also a
carport (Attachment 4).
(3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS -12)
(Attachment 1) and is also Lot 1 of the Charlotte Gardens Planned Residential
Development (PRD -2004-0010).
(4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject site fronts on 17155 Street SW and is across
from Sealawn Drive. There is a 3,717 square foot open space tract, which acts as
a stream buffer, located adjacent to this site on the East side of the property. This
site is on or adjacent to a steep slope and a stream buffer. The front/southern
portion of the property has a mild slope, while the back/northern portion has a
significant slope down towards the stream. The house and the carport are sited on
the flat portion of the property. There is a small pile of construction debris on the
north side of the carport near the top of the slope which staff feels may be in
jeopardy of eventually making its way down into the ravine.
2. Neighboring Development and Zoning:
a) Fact:
(1) The properties to the North, East, and West are part of the Charlotte Gardens
Planned Residential Development (PRD -2004-0010) and the underlying zoning is
single-family residential (RS -12). Specifically, the properties to the North and
West are in the process of having new single-family homes being built on them.
The property to the East ("Tract 996" shown on Attachment 7) is an open space
tract which acts as a stream buffer — this property to the east is not a buildable lot.
The properties across the street to the south are zoned RS -12 and are developed
with single-family homes.
C. Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
1. Fact: Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review
{WAC 197-11-800(6)(6) and ECDC 20.15A.080),
2. Conclusion: The application complies with the requirements of the State Environmental
Policy Act. The following sections determine how the proposal meets the requirements of
City codes.
StafiReport_V-06-81.doc / September 28, 2006
��
Gary Trunkhill Carport Setback Variance
File V-2006-0081
Page 5 of 11
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
1. Critical Areas Compliance (ECDC Chapter 23)
a) Facts:
(1) This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 23.40 (Environmentally
Critical Areas General Provisions).
(2) A Critical Areas Checklist was submitted with the platting and PRD process
(CRA -2001-0059) and it was determined that a study would be required due to a
(1) steep slope, (2) stream, and (3) wetland that are on or adjacent to the property.
However, this was for the large parcel of land that was later subdivided — there is
only a steep slope on or adjacent to this property. The stream and the wetland
some distance away from this property.
(3) ECDC Chapter 23.40.220.0.1 lists the allowed activities for permit requests
subsequent to previous critical areas review:
ECDC 23.40.220.C. Allowed Activities. The following activities are allowed:
1. Permit Requests Subsequent to Previous Critical Areas Review. Development
permits and approvals that involve both discretionary land use approvals (such as
subdivisions, rezones, or conditional use permits) and construction approvals
(such as building permits) if all of the following conditions have been met:
a. The provisions of this title have been previously addressed as part of another
approval;
b. There have been no material changes in the potential impact to the critical area
or buffer since the prior review;
c. The permit or approval has not expired or, if no expiration date, no more than
five years have elapsed since the issuance of that permit or approval; and
d. Compliance with any standards or conditions placed upon the prior permit or
approval has been achieved or secured;
(4) This project meets the above-mentioned conditions.
(5) The original PRD approval required a geotechnical report to establish footing
design for buildings next to the steep slope areas.
b) Conclusion -
(1) During building permit review, a geotechnical report will be required. Once
geotechnical conditions are met, then the proposal will have met the requirements
of the Critical Areas Chapter.
StaftReport_V-06-81.doe / September 28, 2006
Gary Trunkhill Carport Setback Variance
File V-2006-0081
Page 6 of I 1
2. Compliance with (RS -12) Zoning Standards (ECDC Chapter 16.20)
a) Facts:
(1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential
development in the Single -Family Residential zone (RS -12) are set forth in
Chapter 16.20.030.
(2) The PRD process allowed the reduction of the typical RS -12 setbacks. The
required and proposed setbacks for this site are as follows:
(3) All existing structures on site appear to meet the minimum setback requirements
for the RS-12/PRD zone except the carport.
(4) ECDC 16.20.050.13, regarding accessory buildings, states, "Height shall be
limited to 15 feet, except for amateur radio transmitting antennas and their
supporting structures."
(5) The height of the carport is unknown but it is assumed to be under 15 foot height
limit (Attachment 6) and the applicant has not applied for a height variance.
b) Conclusions:
(1) This proposal requires an approved variance to allow a structure encroach into
both the street setback and side setback before it complies with the requirements
of the RS-12/PRD zoning standards.
(2) If the height of the carport exceeds 15 feet, then the applicant would need to
reduce the height or apply for a variance to have an accessory structure of this
size on site (or it would need to be removed).
3. Planned Residential Development Compliance (ECDC Chapter 20.35)
a) Facts:
(1) This site is known as "Lot i" of the Charlotte Gardens Planned Residential
Development (PRD).
(2) ECDC 20.35.040.A states that, "... PRDs shall be compatible with surrounding
properties," and "in the following respects: ... Architectural design of buildings
and harmonious use of materials as determined by the ADB... "
(3) All structures on the PRD (with the exception of the original existing house on
Lot 1) went through extensive design review prior to approval. The Architectural
Design Board reviewed the preliminary plans prior to plat and then staff
administratively reviewed the plans that were submitted with the building permits.
(4) The carport did not go through any design review process.
StaftReport_V-06-81.doc 1 September 28, 2006
North (rear)
,South (street)
East (side)
West (side)
Standard RS -12
25'
25'
10'
10'
Setbacks
Reduced PRD
25'
25'
5'
5'
Setbacks
Carport Location
(NIA)
18.2'
2.2'
{NIA)
(3) All existing structures on site appear to meet the minimum setback requirements
for the RS-12/PRD zone except the carport.
(4) ECDC 16.20.050.13, regarding accessory buildings, states, "Height shall be
limited to 15 feet, except for amateur radio transmitting antennas and their
supporting structures."
(5) The height of the carport is unknown but it is assumed to be under 15 foot height
limit (Attachment 6) and the applicant has not applied for a height variance.
b) Conclusions:
(1) This proposal requires an approved variance to allow a structure encroach into
both the street setback and side setback before it complies with the requirements
of the RS-12/PRD zoning standards.
(2) If the height of the carport exceeds 15 feet, then the applicant would need to
reduce the height or apply for a variance to have an accessory structure of this
size on site (or it would need to be removed).
3. Planned Residential Development Compliance (ECDC Chapter 20.35)
a) Facts:
(1) This site is known as "Lot i" of the Charlotte Gardens Planned Residential
Development (PRD).
(2) ECDC 20.35.040.A states that, "... PRDs shall be compatible with surrounding
properties," and "in the following respects: ... Architectural design of buildings
and harmonious use of materials as determined by the ADB... "
(3) All structures on the PRD (with the exception of the original existing house on
Lot 1) went through extensive design review prior to approval. The Architectural
Design Board reviewed the preliminary plans prior to plat and then staff
administratively reviewed the plans that were submitted with the building permits.
(4) The carport did not go through any design review process.
StaftReport_V-06-81.doc 1 September 28, 2006
Gary Trunkh ill Carport Setback Variance
File V-2006-0081
Page 7 of 11
(5) The existing single-family house is painted reddish -brown with green trim and
appears to have wood siding. The carport has a reddish -brown roof, which
appears to be metal, and has green trim. The two buildings currently match in
color but not materials.
b) Conclusion:
(1) Staff feels that the design of the buildings on this lot is generally consistent and
meets the intent of the PRD Chapter.
4. Compliance with Requirements for a Variance (ECDC 20.85)
a) Facts:
(1) Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the
Code may be varied on a case-by-case basis if the application of the provision
would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship. The criteria are as follows:
(a) Special Circumstances: That because of special circumstances relating to
the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of
the property, strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the
owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the
vicinity with the same zoning, Special circumstances should not be
predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability,
extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance,
the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of
the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any
past owner of the same property.
(b) Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of
special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon
other properties in the vicinity 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 submitted declarations with their submittal that address the
decision criteria (Attachment 3).
(3) The applicant is requesting two setback variances. The street setback variance is
to allow the carport to be located as close as 18.2 feet from the south street
property line, where the minimum setback of 25 feet is required for all structures.
The side setback variance is to allow the carport to be located as close as 2.2 feet
from the east side property line, where the minimum side setback is 10 feet.
(Attachment 4).
(d) The eastern property line is adjacent to a non -buildable open space tract.
(5) There are other places that a carport could be placed on the property that would
comply with setbacks. The applicant chose to locate the carport on the same
angle as the existing house. If they turned the carport to be parallel with the street
instead and also moved it over west, staff feels that they could have completed the
project without applying for a variance from standards.
StaffReport_V-06-8l.doc / September 28, 2006
Gary Trunkhill Carport Setback Variance
File V-2006-0081
Page 8 of I 1
b) Conclusions:
(1) Special Circumstances: Because of the topography and its location next to an
open space tract, staff concludes that Special Circumstances exist on the site that
justify the consideration of a setback variance. Although, those special
circumstances to not impact the ability of the applicant to locate the proposed
carport in compliance with the required street and side setbacks.
(2) Special Privilege: Because a carport could be sited at a different angle and set
closer to the house, staff believes that if the proposed setback variance was
approved, it would be a grant of special privilege.
(3) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: Based on the facts identified above
and in section II.E.2 of this report, it appears that the approval of the setback
variance is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The variances would
have to be approved for the proposed addition to comply with the zoning
ordinance, as shown in section II.D.2 of this report.
(4) Not Detrimental: Because the proposed setback variance does not appear to
create any new impacts on views or privacy, staff concludes that the proposed
setback variance will not be detrimental.
(5) Minimum Variance: Because there are places on the site that could accommodate
an accessory building of the size that the applicant is proposing (576 square feet),
without needing a variance, staff concludes that the setback variance proposal is
not the minimum necessary. Adding a carport of a similar size oriented parallel to
the street would not require a variance and would be allowed by the City.
(6) The requested variances should be denied because it does not meet all of the
variance criteria.
E. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC)
1. Comprehensive Plan Designation
a) Fact: The subject property is designated "Single Family — Resource."
b) Conclusion: Single-family residential development is consistent with the existing
Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site,
2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
a) Facts:
(1) The Comprehensive Plan Residential Development section identifies goals and
policies that relate to this proposal. Specific goals and policies are discussed
below. Specifically, Goal B states "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 far all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic
and aesthetic considerations, in accordance with the following policies: "
B.2. Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that
do not harmonize with existing structures in the area.
B.3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or
additions to existing structures.
B.4. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds
whenever it is economically feasible.
B.S.c Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use
encroachments.
StaffReport_V-06-81.doc / September 28, 2006
Gary Trunkhill Carport Setback Variance
File V-2006-0081
Page 9 of 11
B.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural
constraints of the slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage.
(2) With respect to color, the carport harmonizes with the existing single-family
house on site.
(3) The carport is an average -sized two -car carport (24 feet wide by 24 feet deep).
(4) The carport is open and due to the topography and the curvature of the road, it
does not appear to block any views.
(5) A carport would be an enhancement to the existing home, which did not have a
garage or a carport.
(6) The carport was built on the flat portion of the lot, which is compatible with the
natural constraints of the slope.
b) Conclusion:
(1) Because the current proposal is to approve a carport on a lot which did not (until
recently) have a carport, the proposed project complies with the identified goals
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
F. Public Comments
1. Letters Received
As of the date of this report, the City has not received any comment letters.
G. Technical Committee
1. Review by City Departments
a) Fact: The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire
Department, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, Building Division, and the
Parks and Recreation Department. Two comments were received, as follows:
(1) The Engineering Division read the applicant's declarations and would like to
make a response. The Engineering Division states: "Engineering did not request
the applicant to provide a circular driveway to lessen the safety impact on 171st.
They were to limit the vegetation on the corner within the sight triangle, " This is
specifically in response to items 91 and 46 of the applicant's Decision Criteria
(Attachment 3).
(2) The Building Division states: "Per the International Residential Code R302
exterior walls closer than 3 feet to the property line shall have a minimum one-
hour fire -resistive rating with exposure from both sides. No openings shall be
permitted in this area and eaves can be no larger than 4 inches. " They would
have to have solid walls in the area closer than three feet to the property line and
reduce the eaves in this area from 18 inches (Attachment 5) to 4 inches in order to
meet code.
b) Conclusions:
(1) The Engineering Division did not request or require the applicant to construct a
circular driveway, however there is nothing in the code that would prohibit a
second driveway cut (which would be addressed during building permit review).
(2) As shown, the proposal does not appear to meet the requirements of the above
City departments. If the variance was approved, the applicant would be required
by the Building Division to enclose the part of the carport that extends closer than
three feet to the property line and the eaves would also need to be reduced to a
maximum of four inches.
StafkReport_V-06-81.doc / September 28, 2006
Gary Trunkhill Carport Setback Variance
File V-2006-0081
Page 10 of 11
IIL RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals, Any
person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department
for further procedural information.
A. Request for Reconsideration
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial
decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or
presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the
subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific
references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of
application being reviewed.
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 applicant and the date of the decision,
the name and address 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 fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the
decision being appealed.
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals
The time limits for Reconsideration's and Appeals 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 decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing
an appeal continued for the point it was stopped. For example, if a request is filed on day 5 of the
appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing
Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request.
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 20.85.020.0 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 the time before the expiration and the city approves the application."
V. NOTICE TO THE 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.
Staf#Report_V-06-81.doc i September 28, 2006
Gary Trunkh ill Carport Setback Variance
File V-2006-0081
Page l 1 of i 1
VI. ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Land Use Application
3. Decision Criteria.
4. Survey.
5. .Elevations.
6. Photographs.
7. Charlotte Gardens Plat Map (AFN 200510145249).
8. L1DAR Map.
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD
Gary Trunkhill Fire Department
8221 53`d Avenue West Public Works Department
Mukilteo, WA 98275 Parks & Recreation Department
Planning Division
Engineering Division
Building Division
StaffReport_V-06-81.doc 1 September 28, 2006
=a w ■
R
N Gary Trunkhill 4°F LD"'o�
Vicinity Map Street & Side Setback Variance
300 150 0 7707 (AKA 7621) 171st Street SW
Feet File PLN -2006-0081 fhc. 589
:Attachment 1
Vicinity Map
city of edmonds
land use application
❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN RFvIMk1
❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
❑ CONDITIONAL USE. PFWIT
Cl HOME OCCUPATION
❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION
❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION
❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAi, DEVELOPMENT
❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT
❑ STREET VACATION
❑ REZONE
❑ SHORELINE PERMIT
VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION
❑ OTHER:
'71, L— i
PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION} ST St �] = wt.n-DOS
PROJECT NAME (IF AfPKICABLE)
PROPERTY OWNERti!'�ry`�_R+?JkNI�� PHONE# ZUO 3�` <t"6 qSf
ADDRESS _ -7-707 [-11 S T S LD (-D ✓ti to r s Os ) uJ_A -t1-a-C iv
F -MAIL ADDRESS�P�vIK ver �i�i �1 a0, Cowes FAX # 1`}257-79,1
TAX ACCOUNT # �' 2-70q 100 t-1 b p '2 SEC. Twp. RNG.
DESCRtfPTION OF PROJECTOR PROPOSED USE
Ya, JP�GLJ '� 51 dG $G 1p t S Lti
S�blxc�---
APPLICANT l9f 1 --�e0V.,�' ,` k PHONE# ZOto�3c1J- T`+-5-1
ADDRESS Z z l 53
E-MAIL ADDRESS ��v �G. 1 \� a�noo. co t� FAY # -5 7 Z - I t�{g
CONTACT PERSON/AGENT Q PHONE #
ADDRESS
F -MAIL ADDRESS FAX #
The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application
agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including
reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading,
inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/hcrlits agents or employees,
By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF APPL1C.aNT/AcENTT r. DATE
Property Owner's Authorization
By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above AppiicantlAgcnt to apply for the subject land use
application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject
property for (he purposes ofi peetion and os ng attendant to this application. rr
SIGNATURE OF OWNER T DATE
This application form was revised an 1127100. To verify %Vhethcr it is still current, call (425) 771-0220.
t;SLIRRARYSPLANNING1For s & HandoutsVuhlic Handoul$kUnd usa Applicatian.doc
Attachment 2
Land Use Application
Z�C
N I
��
vAeo
VARIANCE SUBMITTAL SLA a Zoos
1) At the request of the city of Edmonds a circular driveway was installed to lessen tpPP7-
safety impact while accesing 171't sw from the driveway in question.
2) Due to the existing homes location on the lot and the odd shape of the lot and the fact
that it has always been our intention to preserve the houses original style and charm, there
was really no other location to site a carport. The house has been a part of the community
for over 60 years.
3) This is not a grant for special privilege as it is the only home in the area that does not
have covered parking for vehicles of any kind.
4) The structure does meet the requirement of non -detrimental. The east corner of the
structure encroaches the set back on the east property line. The east property butts up to a
lot that is not build able and is part of the Charlotte project open usable space. The
structure does not affect or decorate any surrounding properties values. As the structure is
a carport the south encroachment does not affect any line of sight around corner. In
addition the existing house falls further into this setback.
5) The carport structure was designed and engineered as small as possible to be a
fimctional two -car carport.
6) If the carport was to be re- designed and the integrity of the original surroundings
maintained, it would be most likely that there would be no safe " in and or out" driveway
use applied and thus may cause unsafe impact while entering onto 171 st .
Attachment 3
Decision Criteria
/ --------------------N90'ODOD'E 9Mlw
L=7.92, --------------- / \
l A1p
0 \
,
frf 5,046 S.F. , �,, Non
115
, l Q ij 1
P11
IN
9,668 S.F.
•' HOUSE I
,
, I
� I
I
EAS'
_ I
Ex1571NG d
\ i 'CARPORT 22J,
�e CONCRETTEE D
aDRIVE
1
d d�
,� ST
V. $L
�� Prt •4�j
4 �
7 ,
1" = 20,
cr�s✓or D 40
B,S.B,L. = BUILDING SETBACK LINE
SE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 SEC. 7
GROUP FOUR, Inc.
IBM 111AlIITA4YYdCOWR1.EWAYNE
80MMI-WA${OMMM9l91!
fQWM rM ' POWAS&O" ' 1rn "
,TWP. 27 N ,RGE. 4 E X.M.
CARPORT LOCATION
IAT 1, COMA= GARDENS
Off OF ]=OMS WASMGTON
8131M.1 OF 1 I 7018 110:06-w"
2006,
P
Attachment 4
Survey
�y- -Fa
ZZ9 G4 1�Q7� 56L zasxa
i
Ir ;
_ _ UN I S IPP6
pl.�hrNrNr, DEpr
J r }• •- - -- GAtSx a Fj
�f
r... x (0
...... .... ...
>r -K i
- --.
VV
2'
l
- ---- - - 7 r
.
lbN Y1 r3 Alkb
goof s f rel j� � UN f S2671),
�- 4 Attachment 5
Elevations
r�. T-
a
Al 56
-
v3y<'
Own'-
4K
r a a x
`•=4P+ sa ih
jam,"$�
�.��,
3 L
Q F
x
s a r 'eg
v
4
"�� ✓ � � 1, �Y X k
i ]
b i• �
r� u
r `b ! '
f r X
S
5{ F
3 �3r�
, 04
ARMIN
VOM
VO
4 I F't"J ON
.. a `v -. ,:�•rS' '' y ; 4 ' ti ,C'4,•
gm
fir
r
i' Sy
i�`F` Attachment `,
}�,,
IV Al
£ f
l I I
S
MIMI, 00d', p
n�+p3
S �
�
! III
14 Mgt
i
00,
V
Imago
�i
1
I t
j�
lo
•
Fi
"ydnow?
-
u
�q
BOB
y
•£ -
i_,,3X
WEEK
i
IA h:•
gm W
ky
pm
-20
{ 3
ti hqvish
s'
❑
J
}
i"Actr
: }
4y.i }
r'
r
r
.t
•1
.5
CHARLOTTE GARDENS '
A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
SE1/4, NEI/4, SEG. 7, TWP. 27 N., RGE. 4 E., W.M. ;
'.s
P-2004-9 & PRD 2004-10
CITY OF EDMONDS. WASHINGTON
FND. 1/Y RERAR k CAP •: •:::
Tl>FG r_G9,_cF�-CG` Oi FND. 1. dD. IRON '
lsj RM 1] 6]2 2532'E % a��_�;_fdPSE 1.25 % 1.24'N' t •S
12 d32'k OF NW PROP, COR- f 1
2-21-05 OF SW PROP. CDR. '. •'.
211.97 ".c 2 -21 -OS
--------------------- __ I I N90m'OD'W JIM 7, Gw.G '. ,• ,
6I.S' 4' r,OD'vl Fr ISR9Y ___________ O F END 3' 0.6'S -,X
C-4-4 5
o t FrNCE i 4 FENCE 0.6'5•% ORN
U 4�. END 4' HD x ` E OF SA' PROP.GOPHER `
'•i ��- FENCE 61.3'E % Z6'S 3 3' C rmK FENCE r , I�G�i' D '
T�iIO%-.TJr-OrP-✓' I'� - .�Oi, DF NW PFDP. Cd311ER ,_-y� O
CR S..,
,,R '
_ _ --- - LIN£'I9.2-*OF$N' '
;.S!.REI. RGE• RANGE
TRACT 9971 ` - - _ _ PROPERTY CDRNM �`; SHORT RJ.T
"i.•.3E)": .e.
4 N. F� 3' D[—!w. SEC SECTION
OPEN SPACE',. EENCE',49.T'H.% O.B:W 5 SE,NE. SOUTHEAST, Ro�mEwsr.
w - ` 'eE SW -PROP. ['ARNER '',•% , NW,SW' NORTHWEST. SOUTHNEST
SOUTH, NCRW, EASI, WEST
~� --I-p is iJ. rF cl R, TRACT 983 /r. OS 5. END ]' CHAMUR)I %
.'S.F. , SQUARE FEET
I ig 21,710 SF. / FEXCt 56.6'N %•y. E :' nyp. , TONNSHW
bl_ OF Sw ARDP. CORl![!E
9 1.rE NGPA \ ? '.UTILITY
°s� EbGE , I ENr
N9oE•oE -y OF ASPHPLr. w[ wuLAmEM NE
w
t52OSSE9, PRDPERix :•Z• .a. SUBDIVISION CORNER FOUND
ys ` le]B.B'N eF sw ' �' T /
I �' I•+`�Qi -1 4'E I,n I PRbPEIZTY. CDRfIEFd�' .f EXISTING MONUMENI AS N07M
4 0� 6 O N. SND 3 CHA MUN FENCE E%ISTING RERAR OR IRON PIPE AS NOTED
5,320 S.F. JB h S C. C HO 'E r.F�Lr''Ci,'' • SLIT
STANDARD CITY OF EDMUNDS
` - E TL v: y c I 9 ,` ^ • I YN %:2 3•E 6t SW PROP. MDNUMENI/CASE r 8RASS CAP W/
amm•l I I £, I ��'� r ••• r`CR y. ` )C4p �',1� y PUNCJt MMK-Ne. 3045D
Pnn1r �2.5'E j W �c r: J EDGE 0n' ASPHALT'. 0 SET 1/2- % 24' REBAR WITH
�ry \ CRO9 PRDPI PLASTIC
CAP. LS ND. 30450
NGP V SF UNE• 156N SW (P)
PLA OF SEA LAWN TERRACE DIV. A
\\ �� 2.5'E ],153A •3I I • trti • FPR PERTY CORNER CALL CALCNATED DISTANCE
i. -,.s✓.' -f✓.' -u': T-',.' r \ _3.1'E_:' �I I • +-.s.TL�::I•;: •O !• HOCIWRE FENLE
CRUSSES PROPERTY
1190'pp 00'E . °j fi B6< SF. :r .1 n ,' c•�/F^nJ•• I: UNE 70 I'S OF NW
1 OECD" [IDEAL •' ! °� 2 vi : /1 PROPERTY GCRNEft
'+-4.0•E ? -- 'h n Jb 5 �f �U 6- CHAINJNK FENCE RUNS x, &
r 'L �2 3t.0C'I 128.00' 1
4' HIX:wRE FENCE RVNs S.
3.1'E B/.D0' 1 / 1].Op o m V C0.2'S I D -8'W OF NW PROPERTY
1 NET
<' 11.^.G'•nr,E ''-EN:E b 66'' o n N D,d1•N' �' •,'• n % 6' 0-021LRIK FENCE RUNS N_
�3.O'E n _]B 35'... $'1 a S_ hW. h 4' HOGWIRE FENCE
I E F OS % 1.Yw OF Nw
_N409000 E nlm jf�Y•11 PROPERTY CORNER
8 6ZTA' - a 12 4' HOOW1flI FENCE w o mT. 4'%4' SNC. MON.
i n
1r UNE IES POF HIM lwnl 2' BRA55 d5N W/
i Ir_ t-P'E o <,T9 s. p UNE l.Ys OF NW '%' DN. e.6' IN CASC
V PROPERTY CORNER 2 -F4 -O5
13 AN Pd NT HOSE 1 5
16� >f -----Mn .9CIW0'w .6 --IS 1.61'GF--------
..... �I
S E.1!
PROPERTY VE
1.5'E n I ` , '
4.887 ]8:02
J I.D'E dy+I} h Z
4.554 S.F'' W
FND- 1/2' REAR
L$/ ME1hNN0 262r DN
IN ASPHALT HOLE O ,`\ 4E / \ : $ - N90titS:00'E •F B0.1P".i T�CeO= CC'/-Oh1-0✓
INF. TALBOT RD. h 17157 <\ - h'b •• q.
ST 2-14-0.5 �• M19 ('C -' '1 ,FNO. 4-%4' CONC NO
\ 3 \ <r1 �:I xITN 2' 0EIRV I. CAS W/
l "'IfhC' Y 1 2 0.6' !rc CAS[
U.24' FAS: 0' SECnON
2 UNE 2 -SA -05
,Sx off^ 4 P.
9.665 SF.
C' 7j D-
o:r,'` j is e.,azsr I O
,.nti�r:'sl' .� R:y7z .•7s -_ � J a.7E'
25 Dp
f:' '1. f. �?OD29• I4�8T17'10' 1I
.'d, f•'' s/ �\ r.r8' Lt36.69' N 90'0O'OO' E 312.90' DEED
1 T.. '`r•I' .%� sJi ` \ �zz28P¢pl
-.': 'yI ,ti ••.•• �v` o_ •, .._ rT_ B JrP� [;__--e.6B'� 0
N8451'26'E 3IZ95'3129fi CALL 70 PC I n_
N OOTlO'00 E 312.4!{P;
DETIL
Irr a
J'2v Izi '•' n
i DETAIL -A` I
FIND. 4714 GONG. MCN. of
N1TH 2' BRASS 01SK W/
X, ON. 0,6' IN CASE Fir
2 -14 -DS I [Yy,
'r 19
31,226' iC BOUNDARY
S•CliL 1 n = 40' - N69'Si'26'E ST 2.96' CA_C TO PL GROUP
FOUR,
�� C-
N ODVDOv F 312.91{Py 10"� \'<,}'.", IjO Gn U
1 40':'I D 40' BD• „F O ;P WAa9 Q•;a ri`/^�LJJ/j�+��SURVEYING- ENGINEERING- PLANNING- MANAGEMEM
••.(', S/ ` J6030 JUANRA-WOODINVILLE WAY NE
•' 7,, : ' s 80THELL, WASHINGTgN 96Bk1
• INSTRUMENT DATA: LEI2A TCR 793 AUTO '
} '.BASIS OF BEARINGS AND SUBDIVISION: ;t' DII READING 7HEODOL17C M H E.D.M) x4 1426)7714661-{2o6126zazaa'PAx[zNfi}26za91s
o.
''PER RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER S� . NexW%yST' - - -
............._..._..-....
•.AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 9R32285001,RECORDS PRECISION OF CONTROL TRAVERSF IS AT HIGHER NAL Lhlro
'.OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY. WASHINGTON_ LEVEL THAN MINIMUM STANDARDS REQUIRED TAH -1 TE Attachment 7
:THE BEAR I4G OF THE EAST I ME OF THE BY WAC. 332-130-D90. -
.NE I/4 OF SECTION 15 N 1. 11',5' E
Charlotte Gardens Plat Map
Attachment S
LIDAR Map