V-00-133 staff report.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To: Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner
From:
Kathleenylor
Planner
Date: FEBRUARY 6, 2001
File: V-2000-133
BURT OLLESTAD
Hearing Date, Time, And Place: February 15, 2001, At 9:30 AM,
Third Floor, Room 304
Edmonds City Hall, 121 — 5th Avenue N.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................2
A. APPLICATION................................................................................................................................................... 2
B. RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................................................2
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................2
A. SITE DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................................ 2
B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)................................................................................................ 2
C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE............................................................ 3
D. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE..................................................................................................................................4
III. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS.........................................................................4
A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION.................................................................................................................... 4
B. APPEALS.......................................................................................................................................................... 4
C. TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS........................................................................................ 5
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL...................................................................................................5
V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR...............................................................................5
VI. APPENDICES....................................................................................................................5
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD...................................................................................................5
V-2000-133SR.doc / February 8, 2001 / Staff Report
011estad
File No. V-2000-133
Page 2 of 5
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Application
1. Applicant: Burt 011estad (See Attachment 2.)
2. Site Location: 15722 75th Place West (See Attachment 1.)
Request: To increase the allowable height of a detached garage from 15 feet to 19 feet. The
garage will be set 10 feet from the property line, as approved by Variance file number V-
2000-42.
3. Review Process: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision.
4. Major Issues:
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 (ECDC) Chapter 20.85
(VARIANCES).
B. Recommendations
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, we recommend
DENIAL of the requested height variance for a detached garage. The proposal does not meet
the minimum necessary.
II. 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 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 Attachment 1)
(4) Terrain: The site is sloped from the east to the west, with slopes exceeding 25%
grade.
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 Attachment 10.) The appeal period ended January 26th. No appeals were
received.
V-2000-133SR.doc /February 8, 2001 /Staff Report
011estad
File No. V-2000-133
Page 3 of 5
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.
(1) Applicant's responses
Refer to the applicant's responses in Attachment 4.
(2) Staff responses and additional information:
a. A height variance request at this address was denied in January 1997. See file
number V-96-139, Attachment 6.
b. A variance was granted at 15730 75`h 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 75`h Pl W. See
file number V-15-91, Attachment 7.
c. Height variances were similarly granted to 15714 and 15706 75`h PI W. See file
numbers V-6-90 and V-5-90, Attachments 8 & 9. These lots are just north of
15722 75`h PI W.
c. A memo was received from the Building Official addressing the height of a
garage.
d. No public comments were received to date.
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
V-2000-133SR.doc / February 8, 2001 / Staff Report
011estad
File No. V-2000-133
Page 4 of 5
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.
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." There is potential for the proposal to
encroach upon views.
(4) Not Detrimental
The proposed variance does not appear to be detrimental to neighboring property
owners, except that it could potentially encroach upon views of neighboring
properties.
(5) Minimum Required
The requested variance does not appear to be the minimum necessary. 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 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 Attachment 11.
tai �.�.xK�7`►�.�i 1 _�I Y [�7�/: ► 1 ' ' D _�iE�
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
V-2000-133SR.doc / February 8, 2001 / Staff Report
011estad
File No. V-2000-133
Page 5 of 5
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.
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals
The time limits for Reconsideration 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 continues
from the point it was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration 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 20.05.020.0 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 variance shall
expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the
expiration date.'
V. 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 Assessor's Office
VI. APPENDICES
Attachments 1 through 5:
1. Vicinity and Zoning Map
2. Application
3. Site Plan and Elevations
4. Photos illustrating existing conditions
5. Applicant's response to variance criteria
6. Hearing Examiner Decision and Findings V-96-139
7. Hearing Examiner Decision and Findings V-15-91
8. Hearing Examiner Decision and Findings V-6-90
9. Hearing Examiner Decision and Findings V-5-90
10. Determination of Non -Significance
11. Memo from Building Official dated February 7`h
LTA I = ANE0 1e'
Burt 011estad
15722 75`h PI W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Engineering Division Public Works Division
Fire Department Planning Division
Parks & Recreation
V-2000-133SR.doc /February 8, 2001 /Staff Report
c 4w
! "A
2EMM=!,
❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # . v -CD ONE S-
❑ HOME OCCUPATION DATE 0'> RECD BY Aln±k
❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION LP
FEE > 0 r� �s�RECEIPT # I `J 8
❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION
❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE
❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC
❑ STREET VACATION
❑ REZONE
(3 SHORELINE PERMIT R E C E 1� j E L)
VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION
❑ OTHER: n NOV - 9 2000
PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 1 , '�St-h p L. (� DEVELOPMENT
of FI,Stpddp, CTR.
PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) 1 ( '
PROPERTY OWNER lrl-�i-t ' 11PS 1 G A PHONE # �t2 SF `f
5
ADDRESS 1y�/ th 0 L . La � — ECib l c4e 5 , ( A i A - Gi iS 0 2t%O
E-MAIL ADDRESS FAX #
TAX ACCOUNT # 5 B I - 028 - UU fb •– 0 n D b SEC. 5 TWP. 2-9— RNG. y
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTOR PROPOSED USE Y
AarAne Ah PXi tnC c
'CSL-� �e -{�� nn rtx� m uv►� (�qa 1�—�l ��d'lt b v� -Fa Uv
APPLICANT fA m e a& C- 1 h- tr PHONE #
ADDRESS
E-MAIL ADDRESS FAX #
CONTACT PERSON/AGENT SCWI P 6S aJ h Eat! PHONE #
ADDRESS
E-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/her/its 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 a this a plicat' on the behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT G� DATE
Property Owner's Authorization
By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent 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 the purpose specti n and posting attendant to this application.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE (< ' 0I e -T,00 U .
This application form was revised on 1/27/00. To verify whether it is still current, call (425) 771-0220.
LALIBRARY\PLANNINGTorms & Handouts\Public HandoutslLand Use Applicationn.dot Aft
C
Q
®Lr
��.LI.6b.e•N �,--
MIA
�i
i
I
I
Attachment 31
V
I
W
kg
W
II
Q r -D 0
d
i
I
I
Attachment 31
. ..........
w
>
C.
C=
wzu
LLI
'fin
S
DO
. ..........
mirm=
rAl
W
i
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
In applying for this variance I believe there to be several
special circumstances that are involved.
The 50 foot width of the lot dictates that the only way a garage
can be built practically is to have the doors facing the street as
north or south end doors would be impossible to negotiate.
I have applied for and received a variance to reduce the side
setback from 10 feet to 6 feet, the combined side setback from 35
feet to 26 feet and the street setback from 25 feet to 10 feet to
facilitate construction of a 2 car garage - (# V 2000-42). The
Hearing Examiner therefor has already approved a variance that
allowed what he believed to be a 24x22 foot garage with a 15 foot
maximum height roof at this location.
The front of the garage will also be as close to the street as is
allowed by the setback and the topography of the lot is such that
the only feasible way for the garage to be constructed, given the
setback from the street, is for the back end,(west side), of the
structure to be built over .the.bank and have a footing on .an
existing grade that is approximately 8 feet lower than the footing
on the street side, (east side). This lowers the average grade that
the maximum height is calculated from by approximately 4 feet
which brings the allowable height to I 1 feet rather than the 15 feet
allowed by code on a flat grade.
Lowering_ of . garage--
workable alternative as the slope from the street to the garage do
opening would b' too steep forto
use withoutbottoming
X
SPECIAL PR1VILEGE
Recelv6o
NOV - 0 2000
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
CITY OF EDMONDS
I do not believe my request to be a special privilege as both of
my neighbors to the north requested and received variances,
including ones for height, that were granted.
In 1990 Jean Riggle at 15714 — 75th Place West (the property directly north) requested a
variance to the street and side setbacks and to the height limit to allow her current home
(V-6-90). The Hearing Examiner approved all of the requested variances.
In 1989, Gail and Harrison Jewel at 15706 — 75h Place West (two properties to the north
of my property) requested a variance to the required street and side setbacks (V-38-
89), which was approved. In 1990, the Jewels requested a height variance for both house
and garage (V-5-90) which was also approved.
The garage I want to build would be similar in design to the ones
built by these neighbors.
The variance would also allow me to build the garage with a
pitched roof and design similar to the main house as both of these
neighbors were able to do.
I would also like to note that other than the fact that there will be
a taller back wall on the proposed garage, the actual. height from
the street front will be 15 feet from the floor to the peak, creating
the exact same view impact as if it were on a completely flat grade.
It will also be in keeping with the intent of the height -code to limit_
view impact on neighboring residences to 15 feet or less.
I believe that this variance would be consistent with the
Comprehensive because be improving and adding
usable garage to an existingsingle-family
V
M
PI
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
I believe this variance to be consistent with the purposes of the
zoning ordinance and. the zone district in which. the property is
located.
•
I believe that this variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property -or
improvements in the vicinity and the same zone. It will also be no
more detrimental to views than the garage that was approved' by
the Hearing -Examine with Variance # V 2000®42.
i
I believe that this variance is the minimum necessary for
practical construction of this garage on this site that will also .allow
me the rights granted to other properties in the vicinity with the
same circumstances and zoning.
�St.18()v
CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
250 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
FINDINGS,1 DECISION
OF ''
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPLICANT: Walter Pisco
CASE NO.: V 96-139
LOCATION: 15772 75th Place West (see Exhibit A, Attachments 1 and 4).
APPLICATION: A variance to increase the maximum allowed height from 25 -feet
to 33 -feet for the installation of a new roof (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 2).
REVIEW PROCESS: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes
final decision.
MAJOR ISSUES:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section
16.20.030 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development
Standards).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter
20.85 (VARIANCES).
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Staff Recommendation: Denial
Hearing Examiner Decision: Denial
PUBLIC HEARING:
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 10:30 a.m. December 19th, 1996, in the Plaza Room,
Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 11:00 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.
® Incorporated August 11, 1890
Attachment 16""'
victor (itioc lntornatinnal — 1-lol�inan .lanae
A
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 96-139
Page 2
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.
From the City:
Kirk J. Vinish, AICP, Project Planner reviewed the staff report which recommended
denial. When the applicant clarified that the roof area to be covered was restricted to the
smaller upper roof, Mr. Vinish indicated that the staff recommendation would not change
since it did not substantially change the potential impact of the roof as proposed.
The Hearing Examiner asked a clarification of the 28 foot height measurement used on
the applicant's drawings. Mr. Vinish indicated that it was his understanding that the 28
feet on the section represented the average 25 foot height allowed in the district.
From the Applicant:
Walter J. Pisco provided an aerial photograph of the property (Exhibit Q. He indicated
that he wanted to replace the existing roof which is hard to maintain because some of it is
virtually flat. In addition he is proposing to turn the peak of the roof by 90 degrees and
increase the pitch to 12 / 12. He noted that the peak of the current roof is below the
allowed height, but no specific figure was documented.
In response to the question raised by Mr. Riggle it was clarified that the intent is to
replace the roof over only the upper roofed portion of the house, not that portion which is
a roof deck next to the spa.
Vince Ojala, Architect, noted that turning the roof would reduce the height at the side
walls thereby minimizing the potential impact on views of adjacent neighbors. The
steeper roof would increase the volume within the house, but won't increase the size of
the floor area. He noted that variances for height had been granted for both properties to
the north.
From the Community:
A letter was received from Jean C. Riggle (Exhibit B), north of the applicant's property,
objecting to the granting of a height variance due to view obstruction.
Jim Riggle noted that the increase in height will significantly impact their view. He also
questioned if the applicant's drawings were correct in that the area of the new roof is
shown to be extending over the existing deck, well beyond the current roofed area.
A letter of support from Mr. & Mrs. Gil Thiry was received on the date of the hearing, but
was not available to staff at the public hearing.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 96-139
Page 3
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
1. Site Development And Zoning:
a. Facts:
1) Size: The subject property is approximately 7,109 square feet in area (see
Exhibit A, Attachment 4).
2) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is single family residential (RS -
20) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
3) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property slopes from east to west with
portions of the site exceeding 25% slope (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3).
b. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
1) Facts:
a) North: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned RS -
20 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3).
b) South: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned RS -
20 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3).
c) East: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned RS -20
(see Exhibit A, Attachment 3).
d) West: Developed with Burlington Northern Railroad and the Puget Sound
(see Exhibit A, Attachment 3).
2) Conclusion: The proposed development would be consistent with the
surrounding zoning and development.
1. Compliance with RS -20 Zoning Standards
a) Fact: The fundamental site development standards in a RS -20 zone are set forth in
Chapter 16.20.030.
b) Conclusion: Except for the requested height variance, the applicant is proposing to
build a structure which conforms to the RS -20 development standards for locating
structures on a lot.
2. Compliance with requirement for a Variance
ECDC Chapter 20.15B.180.A, states an applicant may request a variance from the
standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85
(Variances). 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 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2).
a. Facts:
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 96-139
Page 4
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.
2) Variances may be used to modify bulk standards. They may not be used to
modify use or procedural requirements.
3) The applicant states that special circumstances exist on the site due to steep slopes
on the site.
4) The applicant states that no special privilege will be granted if this variance is
approved in that other residences in the vicinity have been granted height
variances and his proposed improvements are consistent with development in the
immediate vicinity.
5) The applicant states that his proposal is consistent with the intent of the zoning
code and comprehensive plan.
6) The applicant states that his proposal is not detrimental to surrounding property
owners in that the roof has been oriented 90 -degrees from its original
configuration and this orientation presents a smaller profile and therefore is less
obtrusive to views. Additionally, the proposed height of the roof is 2 -feet below
75th Place West and therefore the possibility of the proposal affecting the views
of neighbors is negligible.
7) The applicant states that the proposal is the minimum required to accommodate
the newly proposed roof design.
8) Staff analysis of surrounding properties in relation to the proposal by the applicant
shows that at least one property owner will have their view adversely affected by
the proposed height variance (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5).
b. Conclusions:
1) Special Circumstances
The applicants property has steep slopes, which may exceed 25% in some places.
The applicant presently appears to have reasonable use of his property since the
existing residence is still functional with the existing roof configuration which is
somewhat below the maximum height currently allowed. Therefore, based on the
information provided, Special Circumstances do not exist in that the applicant
could replace the existing roof in the same or a similar configuration to that
proposed, but at a lesser pitch and still comply with the existing height standards
(see Exhibit A, Attachment 2).
2) Special Privilege
It does not appear that approval would be granting a special privilege in that other
properties in the same zone have qualified for a height variance (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 2).
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 96-139
Page 5
3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan
The proposal is not consistent with the height provisions of the Zoning Code. The
proposal to upgrade the property is generally consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan; however it would potentially impact the view of the adjacent property to the
north which is not consistent with one of the objectives of the plan (see Section
"D" of this report).
4) Not Detrimental
Approval of the variance would not be significantly detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, although the neighbor to the north will potentially have
their view affected.
5) Minimum Required
The request is not the minimum necessary for accommodation of the new roof in
that the applicant could replace the existing roof with the proposed configuration
at a lesser pitch to the roof and still comply with the height limitation for that
zone.
C. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
1. Review by City Departments
a. Fact: The Engineering Division commented that if the applicant wished to
modify the existing garage further scrutiny of the proposal would be necessary.
D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC)
1. a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Large Lot".
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. The options available to the City to influence the
quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing
economic and aesthetic consideration, in accordance with the following
policies: "
2) Policy B.1. states, "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. "
3) Policy B.3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new
construction or additions to existing structures. "
4) 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 generally consistent with the above
adopted goals and policies of the City for the development of residential
property in the City. It does potentially encroach into the view of the adjacent
property owner.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 96-139
Page 6
DECISION
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is denied.
Entered this 6th day of January, 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
GL6�A-4-
62YM�Z-
Robert G. Burke
Hearing Examiner Pro Tem
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.
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 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.
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.'
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 96-139
Page 7
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.
The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record.
A. Planning Division Advisory Report
B. Letter, Jean C. Riggle dated December 18, 1996
C. Aerial Photograph of Applicant's Site from West.
D. Letter, Mr. & Mrs. Gil Thiry
PARTIES of RECORD:
Walter J. Pisco
15772 75th Pl. W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Jean C. Riggle
15714 75th Pl. W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Vince Ojala
7703 33rd Ave. NE
Seattle, WA. 98115
Planning Division
Engineering Division
Fire Department
Parks Department
Public Works Department
Mr. & Mrs. Gil Thiry
15810 - 75th Place West
Edmonds, WA. 98026
Jim Riggle
17503 NE 152nd St.
Woodinville, WA. 98072
Jeanie Anderson
16727 74th Pl. W.
Edmonds, WA. 98026
Y 890 1 9 9 -
A
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 - 5TH AVE. N. ® EDMONDS, WA 98020 ® (206) 771-3202
HEARING EXAMINER
FINDINGS AND DECISION
IF THE HEARING EXAMINER •
CITY OF EDMONDS
LARRY S. NAUGHTEN
MAYOR
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FILE: V-15-91;
OF RAINCASTLE/HELLSETH FOR
APPROVAL OF VARIANCES
DECISION: The variances are granted subject to conditions listed.
Raincastle/Hellseth, 21712 - 21st Avenue W, Brier, Washington
98036, (hereinafter referred to as Applicant), requested approval
of variances to reduce the side yard setback to 0 feet on the north
property line, to allow a 5 foot street setback, and to allow
building elevation calculations to be the average of the two
eastern corners of the proposed house on property located at 15730
- 75th Place W, Edmonds, Washington.
A hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner of
the City of Edmonds, Washington, on September 5, 1991, and on
September 19, 1991.
At the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence:
JEFFREY S. WILSON
Planning Dept.
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, WA 98020
NORM NELSON
15729 - 75th Place W
Edmonds, WA 98020
TERRY WALKER
21712 - 21st Ave W
Brier, WA 98036
DELMAR H. CARYL
15701 - 75th Place W
Edmonds, WA 98020
At the hearing the following exhibits were submitted and were
admitted as part of the official record of this proceeding:
Incorporated August 11, 1890Attach on el I
A
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: V-15-91 10/2/91
Page 2
11
"
2
- Vicinity Map
to
3
- Application
It
4
- Site Plan
to
5
- Topographic Map
to
6
- Map depicting existing
houses on site
of
7
- Side views of grade
It
8
- Side view of proposed residence
9
- Side view of grade & proposed residence
10
- Access easements
11
- Routing form and checklist from
Departments within the City of Edmonds
12
- Planning & Staff Report, 12/3/87
13
- Hearing Examiner Decision, 1/15/88
14
- Development Standards for property
15
- Addendum to Staff Report 9/12/91
After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Applicant,
and evidence elicited during the public hearing, the following
Findings of Fact and Conclusions constitute the basis of the
decision of the Hearing Examiner.
FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. The application is for the approval of variances for the
development of property at 15730 - 75th Place W, Edmonds,
Washington. The requested variances include a reduction of the
side yard setback to 0 feet on the north property line, a 5 foot
street setback, and to allow building elevation calculations to be
the average of the two eastern corners of the proposed residence to
be developed on site.
2. The subject property is zoned RS -20. The Edmonds Community
Development Code (ECDC) 16.20.030 establishes a minimum street
setback of 25 feet for RS -20 zoned property. The minimum side yard
setbacks for RS -20 zoned property are 35 feet and 10 feet (one must
be 35 feet); and the maximum height is established of 25 feet. The
Applicant seeks variances from the setback standards, and also
seeks a variance from the method used to calculate the height of
the subject property.
3
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: V-15-91 10/2/91
Page 3
3. The subject property is an
and is an irregularly shaped lot.
45 by 190 feet.
14
4. At one time the property was developed. Remaining on site is
a detached, single family residential structure which is in very
poor shape. The structure straddles the south property line of the
subject property and a portion of it is located on a 158th Street
SW right-of-way.
5. The subject property slopes in a steep, stair -stepped fashion
from the east to the west property lines. There is a relatively
level long area located west of the existing house. The remainder
of the house slopes downward to the Burlington Northern Railroad
tracks to the west. The property does have a view of the Puget
Sound.
6. The properties to the north, south, east and west are zoned
RS -20. The properties to the north, east and west are developed
with detached, single family residences. The property to the south
consists of the unopened right-of-way of 158th Street SW.
7. A variance was granted for the development of the property in
1981, but was allowed to lapse in 1986. Another variance was
granted to reduce the street setbacks for the property. This
variance also lapsed.
8. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) the
requested variances were not subject to a SEPA review (WAC 197 -11-
800(6)(B)).
97 -11-
800(6)(B)).
9. In order for a variance to be granted within the City of
Edmonds, the criteria as set forth in ECDC 20.85.010 must exist.
Those criteria include:
A. Because of the 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.
B . 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.
A
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: V-15-91 10/2/91
Page 4
C. The approval of the variance will be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds.
D. 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. 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. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to allow
the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity with the same zoning.
(ECDC)
Street setback variance
10. The Applicant has. requested a street setback variance of 5
feet if a 10 foot right-of-way dedication along 75th Place W is
required. If the right-of-way dedication is not required, the
Applicant seeks a 15 foot setback variance.
11. Street setbacks in the City of Edmonds are measured from the
ultimate right-of-way of the City. 75th Place W is depicted on the
City street maps as a 60 foot right-of-way. Currently the portion
of the street that fronts the subject property is a 50 foot right
of way. The City recommends a dedication of 10 feet of right-of-
way along 75th Place W.
12. The City submitted that the Applicant has not provided speci-
fic information detailing how the lot would be adversely effected
if the setback requirements were not varied. Further, the City
stated that approval of the requested variances would result in the
proposed residence being at a higher elevation on site.
13. Because of the terrain of the property and the narrowness of
the lot, special circumstances exist for the allowance of a vari-
znce for reduction of the setback to 5 feet. Such a variance would
Create less construction on the steep slope and provide a more
stable building pad.
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: V-15-91 10/2/91
Page 5
14. The grant of the variance would not be the grant of a special
privilege to the Applicant. Other properties in the area have been
developed similarly.
15. The requested variance is consistent with the Comprehensive
Policy Plan designation of the subject property as single family
residential. It will allow a single family residence to be
developed on site.
16. The grant of the variance will be consistent with the purposes
of the zoning ordinance because it will provide for a single family
residence in a manner consistent with the standards for development
within the City of Edmonds.
17. The variance for the reduction of the setbacks is the minimum
variance needed to properly develop the property.
18. Access to the site from the right-of-way of 75th Place W, and
the necessity for providing safe access warrant the grant of the
variance.
19. The Applicant requested a side yard setback of 0 feet from the
site's south property line adjacent to the 158th Street SW right-
of-way. According to the Applicant, the purpose of this request is
to take advantage of the narrowness of the lot and to construct the
proposed house as far from the north property line as possible. It
should be noted that the house on the north property line does
straddle the line and is a non -conforming structure.
20. The Engineering Department of the City of Edmonds indicated
that a street vacation of 158th Street SW would be reasonable.
According to the Planning Department, if the street is vacated, the
setback requirements for the south property line could be a minimum
of 10 feet. Without the vacation and with the variance, the
setback would be 0.
21. The Applicant indicated that there would be no request for a
vacation of 158th Street SW right-of-way. According to the
Applicant, this riht-of-way provides pedestrian access for the
neighborhood to the Puget Sound. Members of the neighborhood also
testified that they do not desire to have 158th Street SW vacated
because it would destroy their access.
C Aar
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: V-15-91 10/2/91
Page 6
22. The City of Edmonds submitted that the variance to the south
property line should only be granted only if the City Council
denied vacation.
23. Special circumstances exist for the grant of the 0 setback,
including the steep topography of the site and the narrowness of
the lot. With the use of the setback variance, the lot can be
developed at a distance from the structure on the lot immediately
north of the subject property.
Further, special circumstances exist for the grant of the 0 foot
setback. Because of the public use of 158th Street SW as public
access to the Puget Sound, the Applicant should not be required to
seek a vacation of the right-of-way and the use of this public
right-of-way should remain with the public. Thus, the Applicant is
limited in the development of the lot because of the restrictions
on the right-of-way south of the property and the location of the
residence immediately to the north.
24. The grant of this variance would not be the grant of a special
privilege to the Applicant. It is a grant for the purpose of
allowing the public to continue to enjoy access to the Puget Sound.
25. The requested variance is not detrimental to the public, nor
to nearby private properties or improvements.
26. The requested variance is consistent with the purposes of the
single family residences zoning ordinances, and is also consistent
with the low density residential designation as set forth in the
Comprehensive Policy Plan of the City of Edmonds.
27. The requested variance is the minimum variance request.
28. The revised building elevations that the Applicant submitted
result in the proposed residence being constructed to a maximum
height elevation of 130 feet, or 20 feet above the 75th Street
elevation.
29. The Applicant indicated that if the usual method of
calculating building heights were used (the average elevaton
measured from four corners of the residence) an unbuildable
structure would be proposed. As a result, the Applicant requests
C
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: V-15-91 10/2/91
Page 7
that the building elevations be calculated by adding the elevations
of the two eastern corners of the proposed structure.
30. Special circumstances exist for the grant of the variance for
calculating, including the steep terrain and the extreme
differences between the elevation calculations of the four corners.
A more reasonable approach is to allow a variance based on the
calculations of the eastern corners of the building.
31. The grant of the variance will not be the grant of a special
privilege to the Applicant. It will allow the house to be
developed in a manner similar to other structures in the area.
32. The requested variance is not detrimental to the public, nor
to nearby private properties or improvements.
33. The requested variance is consistent with the purposes of the
zoning code and of the low density residential designation of the
subject property.
34. The height of the structure is proposed to be approximately
130 feet, or approximately 20 feet above 75th Place W. The maximum
height for the structure is due to the location of a garage off
75th Place W that has a design that effectively creates an
impression of an approximate 20 foot structure. The Applicant
indicated that this design was necessary in order to allow the
attached garage to remain on site and to provide a living space
above the garage.
35. The City supported the variance request, but stated that the
20 foot height is extreme. The City supported a 15 foot height.
1. The Applicant requested approval of variances to reduce the
side yard setbacks to 0 feet on the north property line, to allow
a 5 foot street setback, and to allow building elevation
calculations to be the average of the two eastern corners of the
proposed house on property located at 15730 - 75th Place W,
Edmonds, Washington. The exact variances requests have been
addressed in the Findings of this document.
order for variances to be granted within the City of
Edmonds - criteria
A
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: V-15-91 10/2/91
Page 8
3. The request for a reduction of the street setback to 5 feet
has been reviewed pursuant to the provisions of ECDC 25.85.010.
These criteria are satisfied and have been addressed in the
Findings of this document.
4. The requested variance for a side yard setback of 0 feet have
been reviewed pursuant to the provisions of ECDC 25.85.010. These
criteria are satisfied and have been addressed in the Findings of
this document.
5. Review of the criteria (as it pertains to this request) of the
variance from the calculation methods for the height of the
structure on site has been made. Those criteria are satisfied,
with the exception that the variance is not a minimum variance
request.
6. The requested variance for the reduction of height calcu-
lations does not appear to be a minimum variance request because
the structure can be redesigned in a manner that the garage can be
attached at a lower height than that as proposed by the Applicant.
7. The Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds has jurisdictional
authority to hold a hearing and to issue a decision based on the
authority granted in ECDC 20.100.010.
Based upon the preceding Findings of Facts and Conclusions, the
testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing, and upon
the impressions of the Hearing Examiner at a site view, it is
hereby ordered that the following variances for property located at
15730 - 75th Place W, in the city of Edmonds, Washington, are
granted:
A. A 5 foot street setback for the development of the
residence on site.
B. A 0 foot south side yard setback for the development of
the residence on site.
C. A variance from the method of calculating the building
height for the structure to be developed on site.
E
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: V-15-91 10/2/91
Page 9
These variances are granted subject to the following conditions:
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 conditions contained in these provisions. Attachments 15
through 17 of the Staff Report, dated August 29, 1991, are to be
considered to familiarize the Applicant with some of the additional
development regulations. These regulations do not include all of
the regulations as required by the City of Edmonds.
2. The Applicant must obtain a building permit prior to the
commencement of any work on site.
3. As part of the application for a building permit, the
Applicant must submit an environmental checklist for the
development of the subject property and submit a permit application
addressing the requirements listed in the Meadowdale Drainage Area
Packet. Conformance to the requirements contained in this packet
must be required.
4. As part of the variance for the height calculations, the
Applicant must submit a new site plan that will eliminate the peak
roof on the garage and provide either a flat roof, or another
design. The exact height of the garage shall not exceed 18 feet
above the existing grade along the street setbacks on 75th Place W.
5. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the Applicant
shall dedicate a 10 foot strip of property on the east property
line, adjacent to the 75th Place W right-of-way.
6. A 5 foot minimum street setback from the required dedicated
right-of-way for the east property line shall be granted.
COMMENTS
These variances have been reviewed after lengthy hearings and after
resubmittals by the Applicant. The three variances will allow the
property to be developed in a manner similar to other properties in
the area. It appears from the testimony presented at the hearing
that the neighborhood is not adverse to the variances, but desires
to maintain views of the Sound. The reduction of the street
setback and the side yard setback will not be detrimental to this
A
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: V-15-91 10/2/91
Page 10
desire. These variances will allow the lot to be developed in a
manner non -disruptive to any of the surrounding properties and will
also allow the pedestrian access on 158th Street SW to be retained.
The variance from the method of calculating heights will allow the
structure as it fronts on 75th Place W to be at least 18 feet in
height. Although this may diminish some of the views of the
properties on the other side of 75th Place W, it will also allow
the retention of significant amount of views. The Applicant will
be required to reduce the peak on the proposed garage to the 18
foot maximum. This reduction will protect the views while at the
same time allow the Applicant to develop the garage as a workable
adjunct to the structure on the subject property.
Entered this 2nd day of October, 1991, pursuant
granted the Hearing Examiner under Chapter 20.100
Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
to the authority
of the Community
Written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other grounds
for appeal may be filed with the Planning Department, City of
Edmonds, Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington 98020, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of the Hearing Examiner's final action.
In this matter any appeal must be received by the Department prior
to 5:00 p.m. on October 16, 1991.
ai 4
CITY OF EDMOP40B
250 51h AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 ® (206) 771.3202
HEARING EXAMINER
FINDINGS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE
CITY OF EDMONDS
LARRY S. NAUGHTEN
MAYOR
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FILE: V-6-90
OF JEAN RIGGLE FOR APPROVAL
OF VARIANCES
DECISION: The variances are granted subject to conditions listed.
INTRODUCTION
Jean Riggle, 15714 - 75th Place W, Edmonds, Washington 98020,
(hereinafter referred to as Applicant), requested approval of a
variance in order to exceed the permitted height limit for a pro-
posed addition on property located at 15714 - 75th Place W, Edmonds,
Washington. In addition, the Applicant requested variances for a
reduction of the street and side yard setbacks for the proposed
addition.
A hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner of the
City of Edmonds, Washington, on March 22, 1990.
At the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence:
Duane Bowman
Planning Dept.
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, WA 98020
Jean Riggle
15714 - 75th Place W
Edmonds, WA 98020
Harrison Jewell
5535 Seaview Ave NW
Seattle, WA 98107
Vince Ojala
310 - 1st Street S
Suite 332
Seattle, WA 98104
Jes S. Jessen
15722 - 75th P1 W
Edmonds, WA 98020
At the hearing the following exhibits were submitted and were
admitted as part of the official record of this proceeding:
Exhibit 1 - Staff Report
11 2 - Application/Declarations
of 3 - Plot Plan/Cross-Section
� � 11 LLa1�11�\7 LJA iIl'd11\dJ 1� LiJ li 11J1 V1\
GREs V-6-90 4/4/'
Page 2
F1
After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Applicant,
and evidence elicited during the public hearing, the following
Findings of Fact and Conclusions constitute the basis of the deci-
sion of the Hearing Examiner.
FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. The application is for the approval of a variance of 5 feet
from the permitted height limit in order to construct an addition on
a building located at 15714 - 75th Place W, Edmonds, Washington. The
Applicant also seeks a 5 foot side yard setback and a 0 foot street
setback for the building.
2. The subject property is a small, narrow lot in the North
Meadowdale area of the City of Edmonds. It is located on the west
side of 75th Place W, and on site is a small residence.
3. The subject property is zoned RS -20, and is a 190 foot by 45
foot wide lot.
4. In order for the Applicant to make the addition, a variance
from the required side yard setbacks for RS -20 zones must be ob-
tained. The Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.20.030
establishes a 10 foot side yard setback and a 25 foot street setback
for RS -20 zoned property. The Applicant seeks variances for a 5
foot side setback and a 0 foot street setback.
5. In order for variances to be granted within the City of
Edmonds, the criteria as set forth in ECDC 20.85.010 must exist.
Those criteria includes
A. Because of the 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.
B. The approval of the variances 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. The approval of the variances will be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds.
.HEARING EXAMINER 'DECISION
RE: V-6-90 4/4,
Page 3
D. The approval of the variances will be consistent
with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone
district in which the property is located.
E. The variances 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. The requested variances is the minimum necessary to
allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties
in the vicinity with the same zoning.
(ECDC)
6. The subject property is a small, narrow lot that has a severe
slope on the west end. Because of the steep slope and its limited
utility, the Applicant has opted to add onto the existing struc-
ture and thereby exceed the permitted height standards for the
City of Edmonds.
7. The City submitted that although the lots are steeply sloped,
they can be utilized for expansion. Further, the City submitted
that the grant of the height variance would be the grant of a
special privilege, but that the grant of the setback and street
variances would not be the grant of a special privilege to the
Applicant.
8. The Comprehensive Policy Plan Map of the City of Edmonds
designates the subject property as low density residential.
9. A property owner to the north of the subject property
(Jewell) testified that the variances would have no impact on his
property. (It is noted that the witness is seeking a similar
variance for his property.)
10. The property owner to the south of the subject property
(Jessen) indicated that the property lines have not been ade-
quately established. The witness was informed that the variance
does not result in any determination of the property lines.
Establishment of property lines and ownership of the property is
in the jurisdiction of the Superior Court.
11. The requested variance does not appear to pose any signifi-
cant impact to the public nor to private properties and improve-
ments.
HE,ARING EXAMINER " �CISION
RE: V-6-90 4/4
Page 4 iw
71
12. The Planning Department submitted that they cannot support
the variance because not all the criteria of ECDC 20.85.010, as
they interpret it, have been satisfied.
13. The development of the property and the intrusion into the
height standards will not block any views in the area.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Applicant requested approval of a variance to exceed the
permitted height limits of the RS -20 zone by 5 feet, for a pro-
posed addition on property located at 15714 - 75th Place W,
Edmonds, Washington. In addition, the Applicant seeks variances
from the street and side yard setback standards for the develop-
ment of the subject property.
2. In order for variances to be granted within the City of
Edmonds the criteria of ECDC 20.85.010 must be satisfied. The
application satisfies these criteria.
3. Special circumstances exist for the grant of the variances.
Because of the steep slope of the subject property and the intent
of the Applicant to stay off the steep slopes because of stability
issues, the variances are warranted.
4. Special circumstances exist for the grant of variances for
the street and side yard setbacks. The steep slopes limit the
location of the structure on site.
5. The grant of the variances is consistent with the purposes of
the Comprehensive Plan designation of low density residential. It
allows the property to be developed in a manner that will be
conducive to residential development throughout the area.
6. The requested variances are consistent with the purposes of
the RS -20 zoning designation because it will provide for single
family use in a dwelling suited for that particular zone.
7. The requested variances do not pose a significant impact to
the public nor to nearby private properties and improvements. The
variances will not restrict views in the area.
8. The requested variances are minimum variance requests.
-HEhRING EXAMINER �CISION
RE: V-6-90 4/4
10
Page 5 it
nFrrgrnN
Based upon the preceding Findings of Facts and Conclusions, the
testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing, and upon
the impressions of the Hearing Examiner at a site view, it is
hereby ordered that the requested variances to exceed the per-
mitted height limit and to reduce the required street and side
yard setbacks for a proposed addition on property located at 15714
75th Place W, Edmonds, Washington, are granted subject to the
following conditions:
1. The height variance granted shall not exceed 5 feet above the
permitted height standard for RS -20 zone property.
2. The side yard setback variance shall be for 5 additional
feet.
3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit from the
Building Division and comply with all permit requirements.
4. The property is located in the Meadowdale landslide hazard
area. No building permits will be issued until all requirements
of ECDC 19.05 have been satisfied. Should the Applicant fail to
satisfy these requirements, the grant of the variances shall be
null and void.
5. The variances must be acted upon within one (1) year or the
variances shall expire and be null and void. An extension may be
granted prior to the expiration date.
6. In lieu of dedication of 10 feet as required by the official
street map, the Applicant shall file a conditional deed, approved
as to form by the City Attorney. The deed shall be filed with the
Snohomish County Auditor, stating that the 10 feet of right-of-way
along 75th Place W shall be dedicated to the City of Edmonds at
the time of filing of a resolution of the City Council requiring
the widening of said road.
Entered this 5th day of April, 1990, pursuant to the authority
granted the Hearing Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community
Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
iiia DRISCOLL
' Hr;AK1N(9 �XHM1Nr;K ll"�C:151VN
RE: V-6-90 4/4/1
Page 6
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other grounds
for appeal may be filed with the Planning Department, City of
Edmonds, Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington 98020, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of the Hearing Examiner's final action.
In this matter any appeal must be received by the Department prior
to 5:00 p.m. on April 19, 1990.
J ,A
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 5th AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771.3202
HEARING EXAMINER
FINDINGS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE
CITY OF EDMONDS
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF HARRISON JEWELL FOR APPROVAL
OF A VARIANCE
LARRY S. NAUGHTEN
MAYOR
FILE: V-5-90
DECISION: The variance is granted subject to conditions listed.
INTRODUCTION
Harrison Jewell, 5535 Seaview Avenue NW, Seattle, Washington 98107,
(hereinafter referred to as Applicant), requested approval of
variances for an increase in the permitted height limit on property
located at 15706 - 75th Place W, Edmonds, Washington. The specific
variances are for an increase of an additional 4 feet of height on a
proposed garage, and an increase of 17.75 feet of height on the
residence on site.
A hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner of the
City of Edmonds, Washington, on March 22, 1990.
At the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence:
Duane Bowman
Planning Dept.
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, WA 98020
Vince Ojala
310 First Avenue
Suite 332
Seattle, WA 98104
Harrison Jewell
5535 Seaview Ave NW
Seattle, WA 98107
At the hearing the following exhibits were submitted and were
admitted as part of the official record of this proceeding:
Exhibit 1 - Staff Report
" 2 - Application/Declarations
" 3 - Plot Plan/Cross Section
' !]
RE: V-5-90 4/5/"'
Page 2
r]
After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Applicant,
and evidence elicited during the public hearing, the following
Findings of Fact and Conclusions constitute the basis of the deci-
sion of the Hearing Examiner.
FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. The application is for the approval of a variance for the
permitted height limit for the construction of a garage on property
located at 15706 - 75th Place W, Edmonds, Washington. The specific
request is to allow the residence to exceed the permitted height
limit of 25 feet by an additional 17.75 feet, and for the garage on
site to exceed the permitted height by an additional 4 feet.
2. The subject property is located on the west side of 75th Place
W., immediately north of 158th Street SW. The property is located
in the North Meadowdale area of the City of Edmonds.
3. The subject property is a lot that consists of 1,496 square
feet. The lot is narrow, and slopes steeply to the west, away from
75th Place W. On site is an existing residence.
4. The residence on site is located near the front of the lot.
This placement effectively avoids the steep slopes within the area.
5. It is the intent of the Applicant to place an addition on the
existing structure and to construct a garage. Rather than expand
into the steep sloped portion of the lot, the Applicant has proposed
that the addition be placed on top of the existing structure. A
variance is required from the height limitations of the City of
Edmonds.
6. The subject property is zoned RS -20.
7. The Comprehensive Policy Plan Map of the City of designates the
subject property as low density, residential.
8. In order for a variance to be granted within the City of
Edmonds, the criteria as set forth in ECDC 20.85.010 must exist.
Those criteria include:
A. Because of the special circumstances relating to the
prcperty, 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.
RE: V-5-90 4/5/0"
Page 3 NO
B. 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. The approval of the variance will be consistent. with
the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds.
D. The approval of the variance will be ccnsistent with
the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district
in which the property is located.
E. 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. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to
allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in
the vicinity with the same zoning.
(ECDC)
9. The lot depth of the property is approximately 490 feet. The
western third of the lot is steep sloped, with possible soil insta-
bility. The Applicant seeks a variance in order to avoid expanding
the property into this area.
10. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds did not support
the variance request. The Department contended that the residence
can be constructed on the property in compliance with the height
standards.
11. No specific views will be impacted with the grant of the
variance. The properties to the east of the subject property on the
other side of 75th Place W are developed at a significantly higher
elevation. No view corridors will be impacted.
12. The variance does not pose significant impact to the public,
nor to nearby private properties or improvements.
13. The Applicant submitted that the subject property is in an
environmentally sensitive piece of property. He submitted that he
desires to stay away from the street, and rices not want to construct
within the street setbacks.
ttC�: V-S-yU 4/:3 U
Page 4 '
14. The Applicant submitted that the existing house is located on
the flattest portion of the subject property.
15. The City submitted that, although the property may be environ-
mentally sensitive, it has not been designated as such by the City
of Edmonds.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Applicant requested approval of variances from the per-
mitted height standards for property located at 15706 - 75th Place
W, Edmonds, Washington. The variances requested are for the allow-
ance of an addition to an existing house to exceed the 25 foot
height limit by an additional 17.75 feet, and to allow a garage to
exceed the height limit by an additional 4 feet.
2. In order for a variance to be granted within the City of
Edmonds the criteria of ECDC 20.85.010 must be satisfied. The
application satisfies these criteria.
3. Special circumstances exist for the grant of the variances.
Those circumstances include the steep slope on the western edge of
the site. Although these slopes could be developed, there is no
need to because of their steepness and the stability issues in-
volved.
4. The grant of the variances will not be the grant of a special
privilege to the Applicant.
5. The requested variances will not conflict with the purposes of
the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds. It will be an
addition to a single family home in this low density designated
area.
6. The requested variances will not conflict with the purposes of
the RS -20 zoning designation as set forth in ECDC 16.20.000 because
it will provide an addition to a single family structure allowed in
this particular zone.
7. The requested variances do not pose a significant impact to the
public nor to nearby private properties and improvements. No views
will be impacted by the grant of the variances. No view corridors
for future developments will be impacted.
At: v-5-90 4/-/90
Page 5 40
71
8. The requested variances do not appear to represent minimum
variance requests.
DECISION
Based upon the preceding Findings of Facts and Conclusions, the
testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing, and upon the
impressions of the Hearing Examiner at a site view, it is hereby
ordered that the requested variance for an increase to the permitted
height limits on property located at 15706 - 75th Place W, Edmonds,
Washington, is granted subject to the following conditions:
1. The height on the proposed residence may exceed the permitted
height limit of 25 feet by an additional 17.75 feet.
2. The height of the garage may exceed the permitted height limit
of 25 feet by an additional 4 feet.
3. The Applicant shall obtain a buildin
e permit from the Building
Division and comply with all
permit requirements.
4• The property is located in the North Meadowdale landslide
hazard area. No building permits will be issued until all require-
ments of ECDC 19.05 have been satisfied. Failure to satisfy these
requirements will render these variances null and void.
5. The variances must be acted upon within one (1) year or they
shall be expire and be null and void. An extension may be granted
prior to the expiration date.
6. The structures shall be built similar to those as shown on
Exhibit 3, the plot plan/cross section. Any deviation from these
designs shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and, if neces-
sary, by the Hearing Examiner.
7. In lieu of dedication of 10 feet as required by the Official
Street Map, the Applicant shall file a conditional deed approved as
to form by the City Attorney. The deed shall be filed with the
Snohomish County Auditor and shall state the 10 feet of right-of-way
along 75th Place W shall be dedicated to the City of Edmonds at the
time of filing of a resolution of the City Council requiring the
widening of said road.
M: V -5-9U 4/5190
Page 6 tj
Entered this 5th day of April, 1990, pursuant to the authority
granted the Hearing Examiner under Chanter 20.100 of the Community
Development Code of the City of Edmoryds
v a'd ® LZ\1 NlrVL
ing Examiner
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other grounds for
appeal may be filed with the Planning Department, City of Edmonds,
Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington 98020, within fourteen (14) days
of the date of the Hearing Examiner's final action.
In this matter any appeal must be received by the Department prior
to 5000 p.m. on April 19, 1990.
A of EDM
v OCITY OF EDMONDS
CG
U N
1215TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS - WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220
httpV/www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS)
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of proposal: Construction of a garage
Proponent: Burt Mestad
Location of proposal, including street address if any: 15722 75`x' Place W
Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the
environment. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c). This decision was
made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This
information is available to the public on request.
There is no comment period for this DNS.
X This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from
the date below. Comments must be submitted by January 26, 2001.
Responsible Official:
Position/Title:
Phone:
Address:
Rob Chave
Planning Manager
425-771-0220
City of Edmonds
121 - 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Date: / o Signature:
XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North,
Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than January 26, 2001, by filing a written appeal citing the specific
factual reasons for the appeal. The appeal submittal must also include the required fees and mailing
list. Please contact the Planning Division for specific submittal requirements.
XX Posted on January 12, 2001, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building,
and the Edmonds Post Office.
XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist.
Page 1 of 2
OLLESTADDNS.DS.DOC o--hment U
CREATED ON I/01 11:40 AM
Date: February 7, 2001
To: Kathleen Taylor, Planner
From: Jeannine L. Graf, Building Official AIV
Subject Garage Height as Regulated by the Uniform Building Code
For your information, the Uniform Building Code regulates garage ceiling height in apartments,
motels and hotels at 7 feet minimum. Garage ceiling height in a single family residence is not
regulated by code however, a typical single family garage is designed for 8 feet of clearance.
This is because most garage doors are manufactured at 7 feet 6 inches.
Flat roofs are permitted on all garage structures however, due to our rainy climate most people
prefer a sloped roof at a minimum of 3:12 pitch. A typical detached single family garage with 8
feet of clearance and a 3:12 roof pitch would have an overall height of 11 feet. A 7 foot garage
ceiling height with a flat roof could have an overall height of 8 feet.
City of Edmonds caq Development Services Department
w
a�
b Z
dS o +�
b
CD
Q
(1) ® o E®
0 CM
co c cn o ro � r
c
E fa Q =3N _
� a E� .E 0 U-
ta =3 c L W Iq s N a L
O > m U(n w m Y M a N
® ii i fa 0 0 0LLa 0
}+ +� Zh o
M Cd
>+ �,.R)4
cnE
o v
U
Q.- c�a m 0 W `ti a •
E C c g w o tom' d
cn (D o 0
E= 0 U) w o / �t
a. io a d C
v > >+
o 'o a o w cn ,a� u �? ca
L a� E a
cn Q 0 o e a O U `ti o R L
cn �- -� N Q c O 4-- 4) d O
cr ca -
W coo O cco �� �� CU v e>'N v
WJ a +�.. o o d d
�14 ''®
® o E _ o c
ON o� vac
U4- 4-1 � N `dna
> Q) Ln U �® ° oc 4)
®cn O C -o to � w E r
M ®-c �- o :o � �_ 0 d
0 0 caooa-►� �w o0
Efo
d
+J L Ln � c a� H v :_,
cn o N Ln o +•'
+ ® E L- N u m 0
U m 0 Ln aUoa.� En o
® Q r, ,-+ .� to cd
0 0 0 L ®w
o o
o �Z ®�
CU cu
o
c o
Q LM
a .v ® v cu Q �- � v,
ZQ M< ®U a- d® Q cv
TYPE 6H THIS SIDE WITHIN BUXTS
LOTS i AND 2 LOTE 3 AND 4 LOT 5,
SM -028- 001-0001 513 -02 Ap IQ 5131-028-005-0106
0
URGULA SCHULTER R �,"TZ HARRISON JEWELL
8 h
E
15620 75th PL W 18 h E 15706 75th PL. W
Et a
A T�E. 9815
EDMONOSi WA 98026 SEA TLE, 98155 EDMONDS, WA 98026
Ofs
ND LOT 7
5131-028-007-0005
51!1-028-005-0205
AAN UGGLE GRADY HELSETH
1674 76th PL W 14204 64th AVE W
EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020
LOT 2
5131-029-00,:4009 5131-009-002-0008
GILBERT JANET THIRY GILBERT Und JANET THIRY
I
D B
5821 * rth PL W 15821 75th PI W
EZ
sj WA 4A 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020
-tbtt 3 AND 4 LOT 1
501-029403-0007 5131-030-001-0007
RICHARD VAN SALIN (JOHN E PECK
7715 173rd ST OW 300.2nd AVE N
tOMONDSi WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020
LOTSAnd 4
50-030-002-0006
GLADYS NORTHFIELD
16821 l5rh PL W
tDMONDSi WA 98020
77LdT25
1:9-133-000-025-0208
CARYL
.,%701 76th PL W
EDMONDSo WA 98020
-and 32_...-._..._
111ill
WA and PAUL C� BEERS
TRUSTEES FAMILY TRUST
.;t7324 i58th ST SW
EDMONDSWA 98026
LOTS 25 and 26
5133-000-025-0109
MICHEAL RUSNAK
15620 72nd AVE W
EDMONDS, WA 98020
LOT 25
5133-000-025-0307
10fall/t)-c" rL w
EDMONDS, WA 98020
LOT 32
5233-000-032-0100
�DONNA E. PAUL
12947 SW ORchard HILL PL :1
LAKE OSWEGO,('OR 97035
Burt 011estad
15722 75th
Edmonds, WA 98026
Affidavit of Publication
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
COUNTY OF SNOHOD61SH, M
February 1, 2001
............................... I ...................... .................... ........... I ...... ......................
...d -� fleet ...- )said ...... .... newspaper .......... . .....was .. --reg-ul .... 1; -distributed ... to ... its subscribers
>nn
/I
du rink all of said period.
.......... ........... ......
Principal Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ....................1 s t
-day' .. . .... Fe - b r - u - a - y z ................... 20- 0 - 1'..
............... ** ............
otary V the St te of Washington,
1 Tniqh, 'ountv.
FEB U7 W11
a-2-1
EDMONDS
The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says
N -011.91 -IDE
ff--.,AFflNQ EXAM Ell I
--i-rAUMC,
that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper
pL-VLrj.Q. LIM ,,r7JAVr1,PPL,,,,,,QN-
L _Lt�.-'-0llqqtad
Annie of Appficant::"Eturt
printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish,
."elect Number V-2000.133
p'Zct i.ocation:
and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of
15722 751h Pl. W., Edmonds
project Description: Application
general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper
for a height variance to
increase the allowable hei ht
detached from Y5-
has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior
of a garame
feet to 19 -feet. is site is
zoned (RS -20) single Family
Court of Snohomish County and that the notice........................................
Residential.
Ci% Conrad: Kathleen'raylor
PuicCommentsDt
5,200,.00--"-
GlNF0AA''.
earin
earinxaminer Hearin
otice * of Hearin
Notice... ...................
Examiner
gFebmar
'' ' ' ' '...* ' * '' ' '-' ..
LANV
Da
Notice of Development Ap1ication
Tin
Location: City Miall - 3rd Floor
Burt 011estad ................. ................................... ..........
Mtg. ri ..... N304, 121 5th Ave.
...................
Edmonds
Project #V-2000-133
..................... ...... .................... .............................. ........ ........... ................................
a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said
newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and
entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely:
February 1, 2001
............................... I ...................... .................... ........... I ...... ......................
...d -� fleet ...- )said ...... .... newspaper .......... . .....was .. --reg-ul .... 1; -distributed ... to ... its subscribers
>nn
/I
du rink all of said period.
.......... ........... ......
Principal Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ....................1 s t
-day' .. . .... Fe - b r - u - a - y z ................... 20- 0 - 1'..
............... ** ............
otary V the St te of Washington,
1 Tniqh, 'ountv.
FEB U7 W11
a-2-1
EDMONDS
*************** -COMM. 3 .AL- ****************** DATE JAN -26-200 a** TIME 14:51 *** P.01
MODE = MEMORY TRANSMISSION START=JAN-26 14:50 END=JAN-26 14:51
FILE NO.= 109
STN NO. COM ABBR NO. STATION NAME/TEL.NO. PAGES DURATION
001 OK <05> HERALD 003/003 00:00'44"
-CITY OF EDMONDS -
************************************ -DEU SERU DEPT - ***** - 425?710221- *********
121 5" Ave. N. Ph. 425.771.0220
Edmonds, WA 98020 Fx. 425,771.0221
=tA
To: Laresa KnoWles. The Herald From: Planning
Fax: 425 339-3049 Pages: 3
P pate: 01/26/01
Re: Legal Notice CC:
ra0 1009'
D Urgent ® For Re%4oW O Please Comment 0 PI®ase Reply ❑ Please Recycle
e Comments: Please publish the attached legal notices. Thanks.
THIS IS A LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT AND SHOULD BE BILLED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Name of Applicant:
Project Number:
Project Location:
Project Description:
City Contact:
Public Comments Due By
Burt 011estad
V-2000-133
15722 75t" Pl. W., Edmonds
Application for a height variance to increase the
allowable height of a detached garage from 15 -feet to
19 -feet. The site is zoned (RS -20) Single Family
Residential.
Kathleen Taylor
February 15, 2001; 9:00 a.m.
HEARING INFORMATION
Date: February 15, 2001
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Location: City Hall - 3rd Floor Mtg. Rm., #304, 121 5t" Ave. N.,
Edmonds
Please publish on 2/1/2001