V-00-42 HE decision.pdfT F EDMONDSGARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 90020. (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
rn C • 1 QFINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPLICANT: Burt 011estad
CASE NO.: V 2000-42
LOCATION: 15722 75'4 Place West
APPLICATION: Variance to reduce the street setback from 25 feet to 10 feet;
reduce the side setback from 10 feet to 6 feet and reduce the
combined side setbacks from 35 feet to 26 feet for the construction
of a 2 car garage.
REVIEW PROCESS: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes
final decision.
MAJOR ISSUES:
(1) Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RS -20).
(2) Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
Section 20.85 (VARIANCES).
C1111111105 F111`Li7�t�DCK1 ►L U l l: l 1 1 i1L�7f.'I[�ll�
Staff Recommendation:
Hearing Examiner Decision
Approve with conditions
Approve with conditions
After reviewing the official file, which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and
after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The
hearing on the 011estad application was opened at 10:17 a.m., April 20, 2000, in the City Hall,
Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 10:25 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the
exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is
available in the Planning Division.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 2000-42
Page 2
D ►�$�_r i r11►fI K'�
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.
From the City:
Karissa Kawamoto reviewed the history of the project: i.e. all requested variance requests
had been previously approved, but the permit for the garage had expired. All aspects of
the project are unchanged, with the exception of the garage being scaled down and moved
a little further back onto the property.
From the Applicant:
Burt 011estad spoke briefly, essentially confirming the information provided by staff.
From the Community:
No comments received.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Site Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Land Use: The primary residence is currently undergoing a major
remodel and addition project. There is a detached, one -car garage that
encroaches into the City right-of-way.
(2) Zoning: The subject property is located within the Single Family
Residential (RS -20) zone.
(3) Terrain and Vegetation: The garage is located on a small flat portion
of the lot off of 75th Place West. From the garage, the lot drops steeply
to the house. Beyond the house the topography drops to the west at an
approximate 2H: IV (Horizontal:Vertical) toward the railroad right-of-
way.
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a) Fact:
(1) The area is primarily developed with single family residences and is
zoned RS -20.
a) Facts:
(t) A previous owner of the property applied for similar variances in 1997
(See site plan and staff report — Exhibit A, Attachment 4, File No. V-
97-27). Street setback, side setback and combined side setback
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 2000-42
Page 3
reduction requests were approved. A height variance request was
denied.
(2) Variance approval was extended upon request by the current property
owner on July 28, 1998.
(3) Building permits for the home only (not the garage) were issued and
work is in progress. The variance approvals pertaining to the garage
expired on July 28, 1999 because permits were never applied for.
(4) The owner is requesting variance approvals for a smaller garage (2 car
verses a 3 car) than what originally was proposed.
C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE
1. Compliance with Residential (RS -20) Zoning Standards
a) Facts: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to
development in the Single Family Residential (RS -20) zone is set forth in
Chapter 16.20.030.
Street Setback: 25 feet
Rear Setback: 25 feet per the geotechnical engineer
Side Setbacks: minimum of 10 feet, combined setback of 35 feet
Height: 25 feet
b) Conclusion: The subject property is legally nonconforming in regards to
lot width. The standard requirement is a minimum of 100 feet in width, the
011estad lot is only 50 feet wide. With the combined side setback
requirement, a structure would be limited to 15 feet in width. Except for
the requested setback variances, all other zoning standards will be in
compliance.
3. Compliance with Requirements for a Variance
a) Facts: Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby the
following finding and criteria to grant a Variance must be met. The criteria
are as follows:
(1) Special Circumstance: Because of special circumstances
applicable to the subject property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings or of the property, the strict
application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the subject
property use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in
the vicinity with the same zoning.
(2) Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would
not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 2000-42
Page 4
with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the
same zoning
(3) Comprehensive Plan: That the approval of the variance
will be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(4) Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will
be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the
zone district in which the property is located.
(5) Non Detrimental: That the variance as approved or
conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the
public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or
improvements in the vicinity and same zone.
(6) Minimum Necessary: That the approved variance is the
minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
(2) The applicant has submitted a letter to support the variance requests
(see Exhibit A, Attachment 5). A summary is provided below:
(a) (Applicant Response) "...a previous variance for setback
reduction for a house/garage had been approved, (Variance #
V-97-27), but had expired during the course of house
construction and since the garage permit had not yet been
issued..."
(b) (Applicant Response) "...the setbacks being sought now are
for less reduction of setbacks than that approved in the original
variance."
(c) (Applicant Response) "...two residences to the north were
granted similar setback reduction variances for their garages."
b) Conclusions:
(1) The shape and topography are the special circumstances evident on the
subject property. At 50 feet in width and a combined side setback of
35 feet, the buildable area is very limited. The location of the existing
residence further reduces the space for a garage. The existing garage
currently encroaches into the City right-of-way. The new garage
would eliminate that problem, but would still be located 15 feet within
the 25 foot setback requirement; i.e. 10 feet from the front property
line.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 2000-42
Page 5
The property is also within the Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area.
The topography is very steep with the exception of the proposed
garage. The lot is so narrow that there is no room to drive along side
the house and the lot is so steep that it is not possible to locate a garage
in another location on the lot.
(2) There is evidence to support the applicant's claim that neighbors on
either side have received variance approval to locate structures within
the street and side setbacks (File nos. V-80-38, V-86-31, V-85-30, V-
86-17, V-89-38). There appears to be no practical space to construct a
garage without requesting variances. All of the immediate neighbors
have 2 -car (or more) garages.
(3) A detached garage is a permitted use within the Comprehensive plan
and zoning district of the subject property.
(4) The applicant is proposing to eliminate the encroachment of the
existing garage into the right-of-way. The variances would not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Homes on the
opposite side of 75th Place West are uphill. The applicant has not
demonstrated whether the 10 -foot street setback will negatively impact
any views. The garage itself is not as wide as the existing house. The
height of the garage will comply with the 15 -foot accessory structure
limit.
(7)The eastern portion of the site is generally level and the most
appropriate location for a garage since it is adjacent to 75th Place West.
The 2 -car garage is shorter than the 3 -car garage that was previously
approved. There does not appear to be other available locations on the
property for a garage and the proposal appears to be the minimum
necessary for the proposed use.
4. Technical Committee
a) Review by City Departments
(1) Fact: The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated
by the Fire Department, Public Works Division, Engineering Division,
and the Parks and Recreation Division. No comments were received.
D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC)
1. Comprehensive Plan Designation
a) Fact: The subject property is designated as Residential Single Family
Large Lot on the comprehensive plan.
b) Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing
Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 2000-42
Page 6
2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
a) Fact: The Comprehensive Plan Residential Development -section identifies
goals and policies for the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in
detail below.
(1) High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse
lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted.
(2) Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction
or additions to existing structures..
b) Conclusion: The documentation provided for the variance is consistent
with the above adopted goals and policies of the City.
E. COMMENTS
1. No letters were received.
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is approved, subject
to the following conditions:
1. The applicant must obtain all necessary permits prior to any construction.
2. This approval is for the construction of a detached garage only. All other structures,
additions or remodels to the primary building must conform to the requirements in place at
the time or obtain another variance.
3. The permit will be transferable and run with the land.
Entered this 28th day of April, 2000, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
Donald B. Largen,
Hearing Examiner Pro Tem
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.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 2000-42
Page 7
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 applicant and the date of the decision,
the name and address of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter,
and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with
the Community Development Director within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the
decision being appealed.
TIME FRAME
The time limits for Reconsiderations and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a
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.
Section 20.85.020.0 states "The approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one
year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner
files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration and the city approves the
application."
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 exhibit was offered and entered into the record.
A. Planning Division Advisory Report
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 2000-42
Page 8
Burt 011estad Edmonds Planning Division
15722 75cn Place West
Edmonds, WA 98020