Loading...
V-00-42 staff report.pdfU�K������ � CITY ~'"� "�^,^,"~�^`"^`^ lI15TH AVENUE NORTH, E0MOND3,WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: � floo McConnell, Hearing Examiner From: ' Project Planner Date: APRIL l2,2U00 ' File: \7-2000-42 8ORTOLLESTAD Hearing Date, Time, And Place; April City Hall -Third Floor Meeting Room 1215 m Ave N. Table wKContents Section Page K. INTRODUCTION ...............,.,.,..,.........,.,...,.,..,..,..~,.,.,.............,..,..........,....,.......,.........,......... 2 A.APPLICATION .......................................................................................................... .................................... 2 B.RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 2 UK.FINDINGS OX7FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................... 2 A.SITE DESCRIPTION .............. ........................................................................................................................ 2 B.HISTORY ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 C. EowommuCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (BCDC)COMPLIANCE ........................................................ 3 D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (BCDC) ................................................................................................................. 5 1DDRECONSIDERATION'S A7N0/AJPP0ALB................,....~...,..,..~..,...,.......,.....,,......,,..,,.,.,..5 /\. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ............................................................................................................... 5 B. APPEALS ................. .................................................................................................................................... 6 VI. ATTACHMENTS ,,,,,^,~,,,,,,,^,^,,^,,^,,,,^,^,,,,,^,,,,,,^,,,,~,,,,,,,,,,,,,^~,^,,,,,,,,,,,,^,,,,,,,,,^,,,,,~,,,,,,,,^,,,,,,,,6 V-2000-42 si-p.doc / April 12, 2000 / Staff Report Burt 011estad Setback Variances File No. V-2000-42 Page 2 of 6 1�@0 A. Application 1. Applicant: Burt 011estad (see Attachment 2). 2. Site Location: 15722 75`h Place West (see Attachment 1). 3. Request: A variance to reduce the street setback from 25 feet down to 10, a variance to decrease the required side setback from 10 feet down to 6 feet and a variance to reduce the combined side setback from 35 feet down to 26 for the construction of a 2 car; detached garage (see Attachment 3). 4. Review Process: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. 5. 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). B. Recommendations Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report staff recommends APPROVAL of all 3 variances as presented on Attachment 3 (site plan) subject to the following conditions: (2) The applicant must obtain all necessary permits prior to any construction. (3) 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. (4) The permit should be transferable. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Site Description 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 75`h 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:1 V (Horizontal:Vertical) toward the railroad right-of-way. V-2000-42 srp.doc / April 12, 2000 / Staff Report Burt 011estad Setback Variances File No. V-2000-42 Page 3 of 6 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Fact: (1) The area is primarily developed with single family residences and is zoned RS -20. B. History a) Facts: (1) A previous owner of the property applied for similar variances in 1997 (See site plan and staff report — Attachment 4, File No. V-97-27). Street setback, side setback and combined side setback 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 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. V-2000-42 srp.doc / April 12, 2000 / Staff Report Burt 011estad Setback Variances File No. V-2000-42 Page 4 of 6 (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 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: Staff Responses to the Variance Criteria (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 still be within the 25 foot setback requirement. 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) Staff concurs with 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 is no 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 75`h 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 75`h Place West. The 2 -car garage is shorter than the 3 -car garage that was previously approved. There is no other available place for a V-2000-42 srp.doc / April 12, 2000 / Staff Report Burt 011estad Setback Variances File No. V-2000-42 Page 5 of 6 garage and the proposal appears to be the minimum necessary to allow a garage on the property. 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. 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. III. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL 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. V-2000-42 srp.doc / April 12, 2000 / Staff Report Burt 011estad Setback Variances File No. V-2000-42 Page 6 of 6 B. Appeals Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project applicant and the date of the decision, the name and address of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. C. Time 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. IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.85.020.0 states "The approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration and the city approves the application." V. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. VI. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Application 3. Site Plan 4. Declaration 5. Previously approved site plan and HE report VII. PARTIES OF RECORD 1. Applicant 2. Staff V-2000-42 srp.doc / April 12, 2000 / Staff Report Vicinity •` Burt .• 15722 75th Place Wesi Setback Variances Attachment 1 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 to,�fikthis application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE 1 "I I..n1lIL 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 purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE This application form was revised on 1/27/00. To verify whether it is still current, call (425) 771-0220. C:\My Documents\Kate\1anduseapp2.dot 1ATTAC H M E NT v city of edmonds IV Q. development information >MA�0 rr" ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ® ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ❑CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # �Ob 7i ZONE �',,/� (3 HOMEOCCUPATION DATE REC'D BY Ki Z ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION E) SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE RECEIPT # -KI'5 ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ❑ STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE RECEIVE® ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT 0, VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION MAR 2 7 2000 ❑ OTHER: _ PERMIT COUNTER PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 1 L L- 1 r eS PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) PROPERTY OWNER h o rt G t ke r6- lad / C� PHONE #Cyd ADDRESSC��. (o q'2_C1- w ilCIP) -Z4, E-MAIL ADDRESS0 k_�_Cl� oscj� . net FAX # TAX ACCOUNT # 51 3 1 - bzt�� " Lj D (n - O SEC. TWP. 2' ' RNG. 1 4E DESCRIPTION OFPROJECTOR PROPOSED USE e U r jhihiryke r J-a=C1J<lc nyi 1r-tnh, 4+\e re ukr A im£ u i u ln+ ye ts,.:it 2 ( ee { l (n �ee t oh 4\-\e -'ht>� anA 20 "Feet ah � noOrik) / - 9_C�a Uysi tory- Mt'k\ VMuvY\ -'rnnT Vr_UpekA 6\e -,�ef back, re ucbcy\ e f 4-0 ( -beef. APPLICANT - S A MlE /k -!S n W Irl 2 - PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL ADDRESS FAX # CONTACT PERSON/AGENT © W )It Gr 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 to,�fikthis application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE 1 "I I..n1lIL 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 purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE This application form was revised on 1/27/00. To verify whether it is still current, call (425) 771-0220. C:\My Documents\Kate\1anduseapp2.dot 1ATTAC H M E NT .,, �11 N. 2' 48' i," E. ATTACHMENT 3 0 ECEIV'EC MAR 2 7 2000 rn6AJT (YOl lhlTr-Q M Letter Attachment to Variance Application for MAR 2 7 2000 Property at 15722 75th Place West PERMIT COUNTER To Whom It May Concern: I would like to call attention to the fact that 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, was deemed not able to be used for the garage permit by the Edmonds Planning Department. I would also like to note that the setbacks being sought now are for less reduction of setbacks than that approved in the original variance. Further, the two residences to the north were granted similar setback reduction variances for their garages. Sincerely, Burt 011estad Property Owner • as 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER S t 1 g 9 v FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: Walt Pisco CASE NO.: V 97-27 LOCATION: . 15722 - 75th Place W. APPLICATION: Multiple variances to: BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 1) reduce the cumulative required side setbacks (north and south property lines) from 35 feet to 12.5 feet; 2) reduce the minimum side setback requirements (south property) from 10 feet to 5 feet; 3) reduce the minimum side setback requirements (north property) from 10 feet to 7.5 feet; 4) reduce the minimum required street setback (east property line) from 25 feet to 10 feet; and, 5) increase the maximum permitted height of 25 feet to 30 feet above the average grade level for the peak of a garage roof attached to a residence. The requested variances have been sought to allow additions to an existing residence including a new attached garage (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 through 4). REVIEW PROCESS: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community. Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS). ® Incorporated August 11, 1890® q /� u R A N .qictor Citioc Intornatinnal — Hokinan .lanan !'l !'1 f l'V' V SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Hearing Examiner Decision: PUBLIC HEARING: Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 2 Partial approval with conditions Partial approval 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 application was opened at 9:01 a.m., May 1, 1997, in the Plaza Room of the Edmonds Library and at 9:03 a.m. was continued to June 5, 1997. The hearing was reopened at 9:14 a.m., June 5, 1997, in the Community Services Conference Room, 250 5th Ave. N., Edmonds, Washington, and was closed at 9:25 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 COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City: Meg Gruwell, Project Planner, reviewed the staff report and noted that: • Two surveys have been prepared and the one which is most restrictive is the one which will be used. • The garage would be allowed at the proposed height if it were a detached rather than an attached garage, however, in that case, the house would need a 7 foot height variance. • The new garage will be much longer along 75th Place W. than the existing garage. • The new garage may restrict some views because of its additional length and the fact that it will be approximately 2 feet higher than the existing garage. • The proposal is consistent with the variance criteria, except for the height variance. From the Applicant: Vince Ojala, Architect, said: • Everything is within the height limit, except the garage. • The pitch on the garage roof will allow for drainage. • He didn't see where there would be any impact to views. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 3 J. David Smith, Attorney, said: • The biggest concern expressed by staff is view impact. • The architect is proposing a structure which is consistent with other structures in the vicinity, which he also designed. • There have been several other height variance approvals in this area. • The house is designed to be consistent with the site. • The garage is only a little over 2 feet higher than the existing garage. • If there is any view impact, it would be an impact to the view of the railroad tracks. Walt Pisco, Applicant, said: • All issues from the prior submittal have been addressed with the neighbor who opposed the prior submittal. • He is not proposing to add onto the deck as he did on the last application. • The house is being designed to minimize impacts on views. From the Community: No one from the general public spoke at the public hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Size: The subject property is approximately 8,500 square feet in area, with a 50 -foot width along 75th Place W. (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). Previously, the lot was 45 -feet wide, but the applicants have submitted information showing that on October 3, 1996, title in the strip of land south of the subject lot and approximately 5 feet in width, from 75th Place W. to the southwest corner of the Pisco's house was quieted in Walter Pisco. Though the court has declared this strip of land to belong to the Piscos, no lot line adjustment has been done yet. The lot size is further complicated because two surveys done show different locations of the property lines, so this application has been revised to reflect the most restrictive survey. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 4 (2) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with a detached single-family residence. (3) Zoning: The subject property is located in a single-family residential zone (RS -20); (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). (4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property slopes from east to west with portions of the site exceeding 25% slope. Landscaping includes grass, shrubs, and trees. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) The lots on the north, south and east sides of the subject property are developed with detached single-family residences, and zoned RS -20 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). (2) To the west is the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of- way and tracks and the Puget Sound (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). b) Conclusion: The proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding zoning and development. 3. History of Variances in the Neighborhood and on the Site: a) Facts: (1) In 1985, Jean Riggle at 15714 - 75th Place W. (the property directly north) requested a variance to reduce the side setback (file V-30-85). The variance was approved, but was not acted upon within the required one year. In 1986, Jean Riggle requested a variance to the required street setback (V-17-86) to allow a carport at the same setback as is currently being requested in this proposal. This request was approved, but not acted upon. In 1990, Ms. Riggle requested a variance to the street and side setbacks and to the height limit to allow her current home (V-6-90). Staff recommended approval of the street and side setback variances, and recommended denial of the height variance. The Hearing Examiner approved all of the requested variances. (2) In 1989, Gail and Harrison Jewell at 15706 - 75th Place W. (two properties to the north of the subject parcel) requested a variance to the required street and side setbacks (V-38-89). This variance was approved. In 1990, the Jewells requested a height variance for both their house and garage (V-5-90), which was also approved. In this case also the staff recommended approval of the setback variances, but recommended Ell C. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 5 denial of the height variance. The Hearing Examiner approved all of the requested variances. (3) In 1993, Ursula Schluter at 15620 - 75th Place W. (several properties to the north of the subject parcel) requested a variance to the required street setback and height limit (V-93-11) to allow a driveway/bridge from the road to a garage on the top of her proposed house. These variances were approved. (4) In 1996, Walter Pisco, owner of the subject property at 15772 - 75th Place W., requested a height variance from 25 feet to 33 feet to allow him to reconstruct the roof on his existing house at a steeper pitch in order to make maintenance easier. This variance was denied. Reasons given for the denial include that it was not the minimum variance needed, as the roof could be replaced in the same configuration, and that the height variance could impact the views of surrounding property and therefore be detrimental to them. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) 1. Fact: Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review (WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080). 2. Conclusion: Where special circumstances are shown to exist, the requirements of ECDC 20.15A have been met. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. a) Facts: The basic site development standards pertaining to single-family development in an RS -20 zone are set forth in ECDC Section 16.20.030. (1) Minimum setbacks are 25 feet to the street property line, 25 feet to the rear property line, 10 feet to the side property lines, and the side setbacks added together must total at least 35 feet. (2) The maximum allowed height for primary structures is 25 feet. Maximum allowed height for accessory structures is 15 feet. Height calculations are based on an average grade, taken from original, undisturbed soil. b) Conclusion: Except for proposal complies with ordinance. the many variances requested, the the requirements of the zoning e Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 6 2. a) Facts: (1) ECDC Chapter 20.85 sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a case-by-case basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship. The criteria are as follows: (a) Special Circumstances: That because of special circumstances relating to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, not any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property. (b) Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. (c) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the zoning district in which the property is located. (d) Not Detrimental: That the variance, as approved or conditionally approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone. (e) Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. (2) The applicant has presented declarations to respond to all of the required criteria as follows (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). (a) Side Setbacks: The applicant points out that with only a 50 -foot maximum lot width, the requirement of a 35 -foot combined side setback would leave only a 15 -foot building area over the existing house, which they feel leaves an impractical living area. The applicant also states that a poor survey, not of his doing, created the Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 7 close proximity to the side of his property. There are also two surveys which have been done, and the two surveys do not agree, so the applicant is using the survey which shows him with the least area in requesting the 7.5 foot side setback. Street Setback: Due to the steep slope, the applicant states they meet the requirement for special circumstance, since meeting the 25 -foot setback would require a steeply sloped driveway and more disturbance of the soil. The applicant notes that owners to the north were both granted exceptions to the front setback requirement for the construction of their garages for similar reasons. Height Limit: The applicant would like to construct a sloped roof, and believes that the owners to the north were granted exceptions to the allowable height for the construction of their garages. (b) The applicant states that this proposal is not a grant of special privilege because other property owners have received variances for similar reasons. (c) The applicant states that this proposal will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it will be improving and adding a garage to an existing single- family residence. (d) The applicant states that this request is similar to other variances which have been approved, and if no variances are granted the zoning ordinance would curtail construction due to the narrow lot width. (e) The applicant states that the proposal will not be detrimental to the surrounding area. The variance to setbacks they state will allow for standard construction, and the house will be 2 feet under the allowable height. The construction of a new garage will remove the old garage, which was partly in road right-of-way, and will only exceed the height of the existing garage by 2 feet, but since the garage will be 12 feet further west, they feel the visual impact of the new garage would be minimal. (f) The applicant states that this proposal is the minimum necessary for a practical remodel and alteration to the owner's property to allow them to have a residence similar in size and appearance to ones those to the north where variances were granted. (3) The applicant applied for a height variance to allow a new roof to be added to his home at this same address under file Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 8 number V-96-139. That variance was to allow the maximum allowed height to be increased from 25 feet to 33 feet. That variance was denied as it was not the minimum variance required, and could potentially affect the neighbor's view. b) Conclusions: (1) For most of the proposed variances, the proposal meets the special circumstances criteria due to the narrow width of the property and steep slope from the street. Because of the narrow width, a requirement of a 35 -foot combined side setback would severely limit the building area available. Also because of the steep slope from the road, it is reasonable to place the garage at the top of the hill in the street setback. The applicant also mentions a survey which he did not do which was in error as a special circumstance, but this would be considered an action of past owners or their agents. The applicants have indicated that they would like to have the height variance in order to allow a pitched roof on their garage, similar to what their neighbors have. The proposal to have a pitched roof on the garage is predicated on a personal desire of the applicant. Reasonable use of the land could be achieved if a flat roofed garage were to be constructed. An earlier submittal shows that a detached garage could maintain the required 15 -foot height limit for accessory structures, so the slope on the site does not prevent them from having a garage with a pitched roof. However, if the garage were detached, the house as proposed would require a height variance of approximately 7 feet. (2) The approval of this variance request will not be a- grant of special privilege as the two lots to the north ave also received side and street setback variances ander height variances. (3) Approval of the proposed variances would allow for the continued use of the: site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance designation of the site. (4) Approval of the variances would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, but the proposed garage with a height variance would block more views than the existing garage. The applicant states that the proposed height of the garage will be two feet taller than the existing garage, but will be further west. Although having the garage further west may reduce some impact, the new orientation of the garage with its length along 75th Place W. results in more Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 9 mass blocking the view from the street and from properties across the street. The increased height of the proposed roof of the house compared with the existing roof will also restrict some views in the area. (5) Approval of the requested street setback variance appears to be the minimum required to allow the owners to have a garage near the level of the street. Approval of the requested side setback appears to be the minimum to add a second story over an existing foundation on this narrow lot. The height variance has been stated as needed to allow a pitched roof on the garage, yet an earlier plan and elevation showing the garage as a separate structure shows that the garage could meet the height limit for an accessory structure (15 feet) with a pitched roof. If the garage was treated as a detached structure, then the house would need a height variance as designed. A variance to allow a lower house proposal was already denied by the Hearing Examiner as not being the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. D. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE 1. Fact: The Variance Application has been reviewed and evaluated by other Departments/Divisions of the City (i.e. Fire Department, Public Works Division, Engineering Division, and the Parks & Recreation Division). Both the Engineering Division and the Public Works Division had comments. a. Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator, commented that the Engineering Division will support the reduction of the street setback to ten feet in light of the requirements imposed upon the applicant's neighbors. However, he noted that the property appears to need a lot line adjustment, and the terms and conditions of all future permits must be met. (See Exhibit A, Attachment 5) b. The Public Works Division commented "Note on sewer modification required" (see Exhibit A, Attachment 6), presumably because the addition is proposed to be placed over the sewer line. E. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) 1. a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Residential". b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 10 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.... " (2) Policy B.2. states: "Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures in the area. " (3) Policy B.3. states: "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. " (3) 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 consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City except for the height variance, which encroaches on the view of existing homes. DECISION: A. Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the following variance requests are APPROVED: • the request for a side setback variance from the required cumulative 35 feet to 12.5 feet, • the request of the side setback variance (south property line) from 10 feet to 5 feet, • the request of the side setback variance (north property line) from 10 feet to 7.5 feet, and • the request for the reduction of the front yard setback from 25 feet to 10 feet, WITH 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 provisions contained in these ordinances. 2. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction. 3. The permit is transferable. 4. The approved variances must be acted on by the owner within one year from the date of approval or the variances shall expire and be null and Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 Page 11 void, unless the owner files an application for extension of time before the expiration and the City approves the application. (ECDC 20.85.020.C) 5. The side setbacks and street setback variances are approved as shown on the site plan (Exhibit A, Attachment 4). 6. A lot line adjustment is required, prior to building permit application. B. Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, the request for a variance to allow an increase in height from 25 feet to 30 feet is DENIED. Entered this 19th day of June, 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of -Edmonds. Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations 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 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 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-97-27 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. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' EXHIBIT: The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with attachments. PARTIES of RECORD: Walter Pisco 1577275 th Place West Edmonds, WA 98020 David Smith 2204 th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Vince Ojala 7703 33rd N.E. Seattle, WA 98115 Edmonds Planning Division Edmonds Public Works Division Edmonds Engineering Division Edmonds Parks & Recreation Division Edmonds Fire Department Page 12 . I 11-1 1 I I I - - I - I - --- -„ .«.® 0 I IIJI- I- • VLIVLVJ j ligam VIICL 1-IQ'I. 1"t 1JJ1 V"- L.Jr I.1 rJ I� STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, EDMONDS HEARING EXAMINER APRIL 20.2000. ATMA.M. City H to I-loor meetin Hoorn, No. 3134 121 5th Avenuq%orth 1. Call to Order i7?uU—tcTFe`an—n V-2000-27: Application by Linda Krese and Michael Madden o convert an existing carport tp a gra Cand reduce the required 5 -foot rear and side yard se setbacks to 4 -feet to the alley and 2.5 -feet to the north side property line; The property is located at 1143 6th Avenue South and L is zoned ln�ko, iamilyResidengal(RS -6). B. FILE No. V-2000-25: Application by Lod Greenleaf Evans setback from side setbacks a 2 -car garage West and Is zi D. FILE NO. AP - ;n2 -1 ,n 'Mri 1 g L rd A, gnt 2000. 3� a single family residence. The Olympic View Drive and is It- by BurWilestad to reduce sit to 1 0 -feet, reduce the side ,at and reduce the combined 26 -feet for the construction of is located at 15722 75th Place 3J by Scott & Marcia Fleury of ng driveway slope locatedat The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice ........................................ Meeting Agenda .................................................. - .... ....... ................................................................... - Edmonds Hearing Examiner ........................ ...... — ................................... .............................................. ................. ............................................................... - ................................ .............................. I ..... 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: P—b-ished: April 5, 2000 ................................................ .................. I ............... .............................. .1 1 . ... ........................................................... I ..... ............. ....... **"* ......... *�' ...... * ...... *'**'*'** a that s d newspaper Tegu ._distrib ted to its/subscribers dur* all of said pepi6d. .... ........ .... ... ........ .......... .. .................. ri al Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this........... 5th................. April do ......... ... . ........ .............. ... ........ .. ......... ........... ... Notary Public in and for Notary Everett, Snob ...... ) 00 ............... 20.. iA R y So ,;�A PIJ13LIC ok 0, 1-1 Pit. I WAS 111100661411 O O C -0 CD W O c0 E (DC C O i � � CU O U U) i0 U CL CIO > O U > N Q V Cf)O C Q)O -O O LV N �- C U O' ia. � � Cll � O O = Q a) � N U .1 O cz E O CV cz E N p (n CC cz cn Cd C O ® V Y O O O U O _ CO -�e cd Q U O N h N - O `1� O O r — U) N U N Cll OCy N O C O O �' 0 O i E Cll E < Ca N Ef] r0 O. o O Z Q cz 0 U CL CL C CV OO cd CV co C U) m CD Q 0 0 0 0 O O C -0 CD W O c0 E (DC C O i � � CU O U U) i0 U CL CIO > O U > N Q V Cf)O C Q)O -O O LV N �- C U O' ia. � � Cll � O O = Q a) � N U .1 co .�� U O cz E O CV cz cz N p (n CC cz TS CD C O ® V Y O O O U O _ CO -�e cd Q U O N h N - O `1� O CL r — U) N U N Cll OCy N C O O U .fl- Cd O i •c— O Cll V < Ca N Ef] r0 O. E O Z Q C) 0 U CL co .�� U cz E O CV OCfl nO 'moi '1J U O (n CC cz TS CV C:) E ,- O Fr C O O EO Y O O O U O _ CO -�e Q U O Q N - O `1� O CU N Cn OU v`.- 0 Cv CD Q Cv H — U) N U N Cll OCy N LO CC CO Cy 11 L F E, LOTS I AND 2 5131-028- 001-0001 URSULA SCHULTER 15620 75th PL W EDMONDS, WA 98026 LOTS 5 AND 6 5131-028-005-0205 JEAN RIGGLE 15714 76th PL W EDMONDS WA 98020 TYPE 6N THIS SIDE WITHIN VVA�s LOTS 3 AND 4 LOT 5 5131-028-003-0009 5131-028-005-0106 ROGER M. LANTZ JR. HARRISON JEWELL 18225::47th PL NE 15706 75th PL W S I EATTLE, WA 98155 EDMONDS, WA 98026 LOT 7 5131-028-007-0005 GRADY HELSETH 14204 64th AVE W EDMONDS WA 98020 TOT 1 LOT 2 i. 5131-029-001-0009 5131-029-002-0008 GILBERT AND JANET THIRY GILBERT find JANET THIRY 15821 75th PL W 15821 75th PI W EDMONDS, WA 98020 1 EDMONDS, WA 98020 -TOTS 3 AND 4 LOT I' 5131-029403-9D% 5131-030-001-0007 R %R D 0' : JOHN E PECK 7 300.2nd AVE N E S, Wk- 98020 EDM@NDS, WA 98020 LOTS 2, 3 Ahd 4 LOTS 26 and 26 5131-030-002-0006 i 15133-000-025-0109 GLADYS NORTHFIELD ;;MICHEAL RUSNAK 15821 75Th PL W 72nd AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98020 115620 EDMONDS, WA 98020 "IbT25 LOT 25 5133-000-025-0208 5133-000-625-0307 D.H. CARYL JOANNE SPRIG LIVING TRUST 15701 75th PL W 15631 75th PL W EDMONDS, WA 98020 iEDMONDS, WA 98020 LOTS 31 and 32 LOT. 32 5133-000-31-0002 i5233-000-032-0100 WR and PAUL C. BEERS DONNA E. PAUL TRUSTEES FAMILY TRUST 2947 SW ORchard HILL PL 7324 158th ST SW LAKE OSWEGO,0OR 97035 ®EDM®NpS, WA 98026 • 6 . A :46456hy Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list. On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties located within 300 feet of the subject property. Signature of Applican or pplicant's Representative Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4L+'--day bs day of Ndfary Public in and for the State of Washington 5� NA, ,L- SPELtit YV�i Residing at AP®.doc\LATemp\forms • 1 _111 e ..r COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) I, Karissa Kawamoto, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That on the 5t" day of April, 2000, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted as prescribed by Ordinance, and in any event, in the Civic Center and the Library. Sign Subscribed and sworn to before me this da of Y t40T RY P'tJ LIC APRK. 9 200" '-Ja - L, Alit"I " Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. Residing at.. r INSIVILMA-V "' '41,19IFT1,241,10, STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) NO, N 0 W K -.- 0 1, Sharla Graham, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That on the 5th day of April 2000, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed as required to adjacent property owners, the names of which were provided by the applicant. Signed Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1!5 day of 04,Al).11 —, )�096 C,ONS'TAN(,'E M,-"djFJfi-,S NOTARY PUBI AC STATE OF WASHINGI ON COMMISS*N EXPIRES 'J -4!' R"', 91, 20M Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. 41 -- Residing at UASW& 6014