Loading...
V-00-133 HE decision.pdfnc�.lBgv CITY u` E ,. N ) " GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH m Edmonds, WA 98020 ® (425) 771-0220 ® FAX (425) 771.0221 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, S, CONCL SIONS AND DECISION OFTHE HEARING EXAMINER :I'I'I' OF EDMONDS ,xPlILICANT. Burt Gllestad (See Exhibit A, Attachment 2) CASE NO.. V-2000-133 LOCATION: 15722 75"', Place West (See Exhibit A, Attachment 1) _,fkPPI,llS;A1`R) , TO increase the Lillwvabl(: heigi-it of a ,Detached garage from 15 feet t:o 19 feet. The g._rage will be set 10 feet- frorn the property line, a.s approw.d ��,y Variance file number `v'-2000-,4':. PRO iEs"S) -kanpg conduct s public hearing and. makes final deci io .. J_ MAJOR .l_SYU `H;S; a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.050 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards — Accessory Buildings). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECC) Ckapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). SUMMARYOF REC'G1Ei'� NIENDATION AND DECISION. Staff Recommendation: Deny Hearing Examiri.er Decision: Approve with conditions After_ reviewing the official file, which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report, and after visiting tile Site, tiie Herring Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on llxe applicaiiori vias opened at 9:30 a.m., February 15, 2001, in the City Hall, Edni.onds, Wa.shingtori, and closed at 9:40 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits ollered and entered are listed in this report. A vcrbatini recording of the hearing is available in tine Plan nirg l►i ✓is.iori. _11, 1890 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-2000--133 Page 2 HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City: Kathleen Taylor, Project Planner, reviewed the staff advisory report and entered it into the record as Exhibit A. She felt the request met all of the criteria, except that the request was not the minimum necessary and therefore, she recommended denial of the request. She noted that the two properties to the north and the property to the south of the subject lot have received height variances to construct garages, however, no garage was actually constructed on the lot to the south. From the Applicant: Burt 011estad, Applicant, said he could build an eleven foot high garage, but said he would like to build a garage that has a roof with a 5/12 pitch that is architecturally consistent with the roof of his house. He also noted that his neighbors in the adjacent houses were granted height variances for their garages and he would just like to be able to do what his neighbors were allowed to do. He also said he would like to build a garage that is at street grade with a level driveway. He noted that his neighbor that would be most affected by the garage (Mr. Nelson) has no objections to the request. He submitted Exhibit B, which shows the two garages to the north of his house that have received height variances. From the Community: Norm Nelson, said he lives across the street from the proposed garage and after asking a couple of questions about the proposed garage said he had no objections to the proposed height variance. I. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Size: The subject property is approximately 9,000 square feet. (See Exhibit A, Attachment 3) (2) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with a single-family house. (3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned RS -20. (See Exhibit A, Attachment 1) (4) Terrain: The site is sloped from the east to the west, with slopes exceeding 25% grade. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-2000--133 Page 3 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Fact: Most of the neighboring properties along 75th Place West are developed with single-family homes, with the exception of a few vacant properties. All properties along 75th Place are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS -20) and are view properties. b) Conclusion: Construction of a garage is consistent with the surrounding zoning and development, but requires a height variance. B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) 1. Fact: On the adopted Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map, the property falls within the water environment and slope environment areas. Therefore, the proposal requires SEPA review. 2. Conclusion: On January 12, 2001, a Determination of Non -Significance was issued for the proposal. (Refer to Exhibit A, Attachment 10.) The appeal period ended January 26th. No appeals were received. C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. Zoning Standards a) Facts: ECDC 16.20.050 states the height requirements for an accessory structure. It shall be limited to 15 feet. b) Conclusion: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a two -car detached garage to be 19 feet high. 2. Compliance with requirement for a Setback Variance ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances) states an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85. Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC also 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. a) Facts: (1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These criteria include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted; the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum necessary. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-2000-433 Page 4 (2) Applicant's responses Refer to the applicant's responses in Exhibit A, Attachment 4. (3) Staff responses and additional information: a. A height variance request at this address was denied in January 1997. See file number V-96-139, Exhibit A, Attachment 6. b. A variance was granted at 15730 75th PI W to allow for a height variance of 18 feet from the street level and a variance to reduce the street setback from 25 feet to 5 feet. However, the applicant would be required to dedicate 10 feet to public right of way, so essentially a structure would be permitted 15 feet from the street and 18 feet high from street level. Although the variance was granted in 1991, a building permit was never submitted. 15730 is south of 15722 75th PI W. See file number V-15-91, Attachment 7. c. Height variances were similarly granted to 15714 and 15706 75th Pl W. See file numbers V-6-90 and V-5-90, Exhibit A, Attachments 8 & 9. These lots are just north of 15722 75th PI W. c. A memo was received from the Building Official addressing the height of a garage. d. No public comments were received prior to the hearing. b) Conclusions: (1) Special Circumstances Special circumstances exist in the topography of the lot and the non- conformity of the lot. The lot is steeply sloped towards the west, and it does not meet the minimum lot size or the minimum lot width as required by the zone. As previously stated, the lot is approximately 9,000 square feet, much less than the 20,000 square feet required by the zone. In addition, the lot is 50 feet wide; and the zone requires a minimum lot width of 100 feet. (2) Special Privilege No special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance. As stated in the factual information, similar variances have been granted to adjacent properties. (3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan Approval of the proposed variance would allow for site development consistent with the intent of the zoning code. The lot is zoned single family, and construction of a garage is consistent with single-family development. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-2000--133 Page 5 The property is designated single-family large lot on the comprehensive plan. Construction of a garage is consistent with single-family development. However, specific comprehensive plan policies address view encroachment. Policy B.3. of the Residential Development section of the Comprehensive Plan states, "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures." Subsection B.5.0 states, "Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments." The garage will be oriented in an east/west direction, which will minimize view impacts to properties to the east. (4) Not Detrimental The proposed variance does not appear to be detrimental to neighboring property owners. It will be oriented in an east/west direction that will minimize view impacts from the neighbor to the east (who appeared at the hearing and indicated he had no objections to the requested variance). (5) Minimum Required The requested variance appears to be the minimum necessary to allow the applicant the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Without the height variance, the average grade would allow the applicant to construct a garage eleven feet high at street level. This is adequate for a garage as stated in a memo from the Building Official. See Exhibit A, Attachment 11. However, Exhibit B clearly shows that adjacent properties (which have been granted variances in the past) have garages similar in height to that proposed by the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant has asked for a variance that will allow him to have the same 5/12 roof pitch as currently exists for his house instead of a 3/12 pitch roof or flat roof as suggested by the Building Official in Exhibit A, Attachment 11. D. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE Review by City Departments: The application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire Department, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, the Building Division, and the Parks Department. Comments were received from the Building Division. Refer to Exhibit A, Attachment 11. II. DECISION Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is for the requested garage height variance only. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-2000--133 Page 6 2. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 3. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to any construction. 4. The variance is transferable. 5. Variances must be acted upon within 1 year of approval or they become null and void unless an extension is applied for and granted prior to expiration. Entered this 20th day of February 2001 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Ron McConnell, FAI P Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. APPEALS Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-2000--133 Page 7 LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. EXHIBITS: The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report. B. Photo of the two garages to the north of the subject lot. PARTIES of RECORD: Burt 011estad 15722 75th Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 Planning Division Norm Nelson 1572975 1h Place West Edmonds, WA 98026