Loading...
2024-04-25 Hearing Examiner PacketOF EDA' v ti Agenda Edmonds Hearing Examiner REGULAR MEETING BRACKETT ROOM 121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL- 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020 APRIL 25, 2024, 3:00 PM MEETING INFORMATION This meeting is Hybrid per ECDC ECDC 10.35.010(F) and is located at the Edmonds City Hall 121 5th Ave N, 3rd Floor Brackett Room Zoom Link Meeting Info: https://edmondswa- gov.zoom. us/j/82688031743?pwd=U EROW k5 hd U5 DN 1d RK1V3 M kR2 WTRSdzO9 Passcode: 308007 Or join by phone: 253 215 8782 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 8545 : Lawrence Setback Variance (PLN2024-0008) 3. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Hearing Examiner Agenda April 25, 2024 Page 1 Hearing Examiner Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/25/2024 Lawrence Setback Variance (PLN2024-0008) Staff Lead: Amber Brokenshire Department: Planning & Development Prepared By: Amber Brokenshire Background/History H2D Architecture and Design is requesting a variance to reduce the regularly required 10-foot north side setback to 0' to construct an addition over an existing deck and lower -level garage structure at the Lawrence residence at 1217 - 11th Place North. The lower level garage structure and deck were legally constructed within the north side setback after receiving a variance to reduce the side setback to 0' in 1999. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner APPROVE the variance request in PLN2024-0008 to reduce the required RS-12 side setback from 10' to 0' because staff believes the proposal satisfies all of the six decision criteria in ECDC 20.85. Narrative The Staff Report and Attachments 1-10 provide an analysis of the project proposal and staff recommendation. Attachments: Staff Report Attachment 1. Land Use Application (PLN2024-0008) Attachment 2. Cover Letter Attachment 3. Project Narrative Attachment 4. Preliminary Project Drawings Attachment 5. Zoning and Vicinity Map Attachment 6. V-99-76: 1999 Variance Attachment 7. Engineering Memorandum of Approval Attachment 8. Public Comment - Christine Foster Attachment 9. Public Comment - David Shneidman Attachments: 1. Land Use Application 2. Cover Letter 3. Project -Narrative 4. Preliminary Project Drawings 5. Zoning & Vicinity Map Packet Pg. 2 6. V-99-76 HE Decision 7. Engineering Memorandum of Approval 8. Public Comment Christine Foster 9. Public Comment David Shneidman PLN2024-0008 Variance Staff Report Packet Pg. 3 Attach a CITY OF EDMONDS MyBuildingPermit.com Land Use Application #1437476 - LAWRENCE VARIANCE Applicant First Name Last Name Company Name Heidi Helqeson H2D Architecture & Design Number Street Apartment or Suite Number E-mail Address 23020 Edmonds Way 113 heidi(o-)_h2darchitects.com City State Zip Phone Number Extension Edmonds WA 98020 (206) 542-3734 Contractor Company Name Number Street City State License Number Project Location State Zip License Expiration Date Number Street 1217 11TH PL N City Zip Code EDMONDS 98020 Associated Building Permit Number BLD2023-0473 Additional Information (i.e. equipment location or special instructions). Work Location Property Owner Apartment or Suite Number Phone Number Extension UBI # E-mail Address County Parcel Number 00606600000800 Tenant Name Floor Number Suite or Room Number First Name Last Name or Company Name Alan Edward & Warinner-Kent Chele Lawrence Number Street Apartment or Suite Number 1217 11TH PL N City State Zip EDMONDS WA 98290 Certification Statement - The applicant states: certify that I am the owner of this property or the owner's authorized agent. If acting as an authorized agent, I further certify that I have full power and authority to file this application and to perform, on behalf of the owner, all acts required to enable the jurisdiction to process and review such application. have furnished true and correct information. I will comply with all provisions of law and ordinance governing this type of application. If the scope of work requires a licensed contractor to perform the work, the information will be provided prior to permit issuance. Date Submitted: 2/2/2024 Submitted By: Heidi Helgeson 00 CD CD 0 v N O N Z J a N t� C R •L R V R w d co N v c m L 3 c� C O Q a Q m N C f4 J r y.i c m E t V ca Q Packet Pg. 4 Page 1 of 2 Attach a CITY OF EDMONDS MyBuildingPermit.com Land Use Application #1437476 - LAWRENCE VARIANCE Project Contact Company Name: H2D Architecture & Design Name: Sarah Thompson Email: sarah@h2darchitects.com Address: 23020 Edmonds Way 113 Phone #: (206) 542-3734 Edmonds WA 98020 Project Type Activity Type Scope of Work New Deviations, Modifications, Variances, or Waivers Variance Project Name: LAWRENCE VARIANCE Description of Work: Variance request to reduce side (North) setback from 10' off shared driveway easement to 0'. Project Details Development Type Variance co 0 0 0 Iq N O N z J a d c •L m Cn d U C d L 3 J C O v Q Q Q d N D C J r C d E t V O Q Packet Pg. 5 Page 2 of 2 Attach February 2nd,2024 City of Edmonds Planning Division Re: Variance Request for Side (North) Setback reduction at 1217 111h P1 N (APN#606600000800); Narrative per ECDC 20.85.010; Property owners: Alan & Chelea Lawrence Legal Description: VIEWLAND HEIGHTS BLK 000 D-00 - LOT 8 To Whom it May Concern, H0 architecture + design On behalf of the property owners at the address listed above, we are requesting a variance of the side (North) setback from the required dimensions as outlined in the Edmonds City Development Code. Regulated side setback dimension for RS-12 zone properties is 10'-0", measured adjacent to — and not concurrently with — shared driveway easements. In this case, the subject property has an existing 30'-0" shared driveway easement along the north property line, resulting in a 40'-0" side setback from the north property line. The property owners wish to build an addition over an existing waterproof deck and lower -level garage structure, extending the addition to the north structural wall of the garage. This wall (and deck) is currently located within the designated north side setback through a previous variance granted in 1999 (V-99-76). Please see Narrative dated 2-2-24 explaining how this proposal satisfies the applicable standards as outlined in ECDC 20.85.10. Also submitted is a draft site plan and drawing set describing the proposed addition in more detail (to be submitted in a separate building permit application). Please note that part of the building permit application will request the use of Average Front Setback to allow the proposed addition to be located flush with the existing east exterior building wall (previously approved under 1999 variance mentioned above). Regards, 1 �' Sarah Thompson Project Architect H2D Architecture + Design 4) w Z J L_ d O U N C d E s �a 23020 Edmonds Way, #113, Edmonds, WA 98020 I p. 206.542.3734 I e. sarah@h2darchitects.com w. h2darchitects.com Packet Pg. 6 Attach February 2nd, 2024 City of Edmonds Planning Division Re: Variance Request for Side (North) Setback reduction at 1217 111h P1 N (APN#606600000800); Narrative per ECDC 20.85.010; Property owners: architecture + design Alan & Chelea Lawrence A. Special Circumstances: Due to current zoning regulations for Zone RS-12 being adopted after the structure was originally built in 1957, the structure and the lot itself immediately became legally non -conforming based on the original lot size and the structure's position on the lot. Additionally, since a 30'-0" shared driveway easement was established at the north of the property — and, more importantly, due to the fact that setbacks are measured from a driveway easement, not the property line — the usable lot width building envelope is severely reduced from a typical lot in this zone. These cumulative lot restrictions impose unfair burdens on the homeowners regarding the ability to develop their existing home and property the same as their neighbors and other typical homes in the RS-12 zone. B. Special Privilege: Since the primary existing burden in this case is the shared driveway easement with the neighbor to the north, and since the vast majority of SFR properties in the RS-12 zone do not have this same burden, allowing this request would not impose any special privilege to this lot beyond what is commonly allowed for lots in this zone. If the variance is granted, the resulting "setback", which would be equal to the width of the 30' driveway easement, would still be three times a typical side setback for other properties in this zone. C. Comprehensive Plan: By approving this variance request, the proposed addition would allow the homeowners to increase the value and usefulness of their current single-family home, furthering in their small way the overall goals of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. The proposed addition will be in keeping with the existing architectural style and level of quality befitting the neighborhood and will not increase density or hazards to the surrounding area. D. Zoning Ordinance: This lot is currently zoned single family residential, and the proposed work and variance request will not change or impede this use. The proposed addition will not increase the existing building height or the existing lot coverage (since it will be built over the existing garage and deck structure), both of which conform to current zoning regulations. The homeowners will be requesting the use of Average Front Setback (per ECDC 16.20.040.A) as part of their associated building permit application to allow the proposed addition to be located flush with their existing eastern footprint, which is non -conforming to the current 25'-0" front setback for this zone [re: V-99-76 variance request from 1999 which allowed this previous development]. E. Not Detrimental: The 30' shared driveway easement on the subject property plus the additional 15' of this same easement on the property to the north (for a total of 45'-0") will mean that — even allowing this variance to build up to the easement — the separation between these two structures will always be at least more than twice the minimum side setbacks for any other typical adjacent properties in this same zone. Fire separation distance, therefore, will not be a hazard, and visual distance between building masses will still be in keeping with the neighborhood. Additionally, since critical areas are present on the property limiting the homeowners' ability to expand safely in other directions, being allowed to build over the existing garage structure will mitigate potential effects of construction on the sloped and hazardous portions of the lot. Finally, the proposed expansion of the existing building to the north will not impede views of the eastern neighbors across the street due to their elevated building pads and the fact that the addition will not exceed the existing ridge height. F. Minimum Variance: The homeowners' proposed addition, and the variance requested to allow it, will be limited to only the existing building & deck footprint. This will grant them the ability to expand their living space by an amount typically enjoyed by other homeowners in the RS-12 zone who aren't burdened by cumulative setbacks such as shared driveway easements. No other variance for lot coverage, building height, etc. are being requested as the homeowners understand and embrace the idea of maintaining the existing character and scale of the neighborhood. Authorized applicant: Sarah Thompson Project Architect H2D Architecture + Design 23020 Edmonds Way, #113, Edmonds, WA 98020 I p. 206.542.3734 I e. sarah@h2darchitects.com w. h2darchitects.com Packet Pg. 7 Attach d li I I , I i t I I I I I I I I I APPROX. AREA OF LANDSLIDE HAZARD/ xLu i `1.N89_53'58"W_:73' i I• So'-o" / l I I I I STEEP SLOPE (PER EDMONDS Gi5 I I I I MAPPING, SHADED AREA, TYP.) I I II I *VARIANCE REQUEST: REDUCE // I I I I EX ASPHALT / o NORTH SiPE SETBACK TO 30' (TO / o x EX CONC. DRIVEWAY—__./ Lu SHARED DRIVEWAY EASEMENT / o DRIVEWAY / I I Qw / i I o(n Q EX LOW CONC. I/ o w Z W PLANTER WALL I �'` w I I I I I EXTENDED ROOF OVER PROPOSED c) � I E� PLANTER l��c� o � / / I II I I I I ADDITION (TO MATCH HEIGHT & Lu w > I I APPROX. PROPOSED _cz I SLOPE OF EAl, T)1 G ROOF), O.H. I o iMFERViOUS SURFACE / II I I NOT TO EXCEED 30" INTO SETBACK (O.H. OVER PLANTER) / I / / EX PLANTER 5.4 5 ft I I • _ I I / HATCH: PROPOSED / —I Q Q ADDITION (HEATED SPACE &COVERED I�IFn X 20'-0" / uj I U) DECK OVER EX Q Flo / EX GRASS / r 1— GARAGE & WP DECK) I I7 i YARD I **REDUCED FRONT I / I I I/ I SETBACK FOR I I I I I 25'-0" � I i / +/-16-0 ADDiTiON TO BE I I I MiN. REAR SE BACK I I R P ED APPITiON REQUESTED W/ ASSOC. BLDG. I I EpIo I I I IF OW 5ETBACK** Io �o // I :1LINE _ PERMIT PER ECDC I�I I I I EX GRASS I OF I I _ I I 25-0 Io r 16.20.040 (NOT 1N SCOPE OF VARIANCE I I I I I YARD I I EXISTING I IiN. F1 ONT SETBACK* � REQUEST, DiMS TO I� I I I I ROOF O.H. I i 4-- J I I i= BE VERIFIED BY I Io I I I I I I J--- +/-10' 31/8" o SURVEY) I NOTE: CONTOURS ARE I I I I I / I EX F ONT I I Id I I I AFPROXiMATE BASED ON I I I 1 I SET ACK o I I I I I EDMONDS Gi5 MAPPING I 1 // I I I Z I \L — — — - CH EX CpNC. W I I I I 1 L__ j I I I I I I I I i\ I i I I I EX DECK 11217 I I I I I I I I I 11th PL N I \ I I I EDMONDS, WA 95026 II—IIj l I I I I I II i I I I I I I I I \ I \ I i iIX \ GRA55 \EX i I I I II I \ I YARD I I I I I j I I I\I> \ I — I I I \ � I\ \ I I I \ L � -� \� I \ I I �/ I i EXDCK I\ \ \ \\ Lu _._._._._N \-__ 89°53'58 91973'_ _._._\ SITE PLAN SCALE:1" =10' LJ I I I I I I r1 J LJ 5 I I I I EX 1�LANTER I I I I I / I PROJECT INFORMATION 1.I_ I PROJECT OWNER: ALAN AND CHELEA LAWRENCE / I 121711TH PL N / I I EDMONDS WA 98020 / I I i / I PROJECT ARCHITECT: HEiDi HELGESON / I PROJECT DESIGNER: SARAH THOMPSON I H21) ARCHITECTURE + DESIGN 23020 EDMONDS WAY, #113 EDMONDS, WA 96020 206-542-3734 i i I STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: PHiLiP HAREZLAK, P.E. HAREZLAK ENGINEERING I 11745 87TH AVE S. i SEATTLE, WA 98178 360-224-0627 II i i I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: REMODEL & ADDITION TO EX15TiNG S.F.R. I .I I PROJECT ADDRESS: 121711TH PL N 20'-0" II it TAX LOT NUMBER: 00606600000800 107 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: VIEWLAND HEIGHTS BLK 000 D-00 - LOT 8 ILAND USE CODE COMPLIANCE STATISTICS I ZONE: R5-12 EXISTING LOT AREA: 10,018.80 5F REQ'D SETBACKS: FRONT (EAST)* 25' PROPOSED FRONT (EAST) 16' REAR (WEST) 25' SiDE (NORTH)* 10' (OFF 30' E5MT.) PROPOSED SiPE (NORTH) O' (OFF 30' ESMT.) SiDE (SOUTH) 10, *FRONT SETBACK REQUESTED TO BE REDUCED ViA AVERAGE FRONT SETBACK PER ECDC 16.20.040; SiPE (NORTH) SETBACK REQUESTED TO BE REDUCED ViA VARIANCE REQUEST. PARKING: 2 PARKING SPACES BUILDING HEIGHT INFORMATION: BUILDING HEIGHT LiMiT: 25' REFER TO SHEETS A2.0 & A2.1 FOR DETAILED HEIGHT INFORMATION (ADDITION ROOF SHALL NOT EXCEED EXISTING RIDGE HEIGHT) LOT COVERAGE: FROF05EDLOT COVERAGE**: 35% MAiN FLOOR ADDITION & COVERED DECK**: 0 SF EXISTING LOT COVERAGE: 3,022.0 SF TOTAL PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE: 3,022.0 SF 30% **NO CHANGE TO EXISTING LOT COVERAGE PROPOSED AS ADDITION SHALL BE BUILT ENTIRELY OVER EXISTING GARAGE & UPPER DECK WiTH OVERHANGS LESS THAN 30". PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA: FROF05ED GROSS FLOOR AREA: ADDITION ROOF OVERHANGS: PROPOSED MAiN FLOOR CONDITIONED AREA: EXISTING MAiNG FLOOR CONDITIONED AREA: EXISTING LOWER FLOOR CONDITIONED AREA: TOTAL PROPOSED CONDITIONED AREA: EXISTING LOWER FLOOR UNCONDITIONED AREA (GARAGE): ALSO GROSS FLOOR AREA TABLE ON FLOOR PLAN SHEET Al. SHEET INDEX 35.4 5F 465.5 SF 1,511.0 SF 1,455.6 SF 3,431.9 SF 366.3 SF 01 PROJECT INFO, SiTE PLAN, LAND USE CODE, VICINITY MAP, & AS -BUILT PLANS AM MAiN FLOOR PLAN & DEMO PLAN A1.2 LOWER FLOOR PLAN, BUILDING SECTION, & RENDERINGS A2.0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A2.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PUGET DR.kk PUGET DR, NORTHSTREgM _ — — LLi— Q Z U � � = Z J ~ ul O Q EDMONDS ELEM. N ViEWLAND WAY VIEWLAND WAY SiTE 121711TH FL. N 9TH ST. SW N Lu C z Lu O CN z c) v) LIJ _j d) a L.L � S LIJ p (- z z N O LIJ Q E v E m s R w - - a H 2 D A R C H I T E C T U R E D E S I G N 23020 EDMONDS WAY, #113 EDMONDS, WA 98020 P.206.542.3734 www.h2darchitects.com DATE: 2/1 /2024 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT INFO, SITE PLAN, LAND USE CODE, VICINITY MAP, & AS -BUILT PLANS AS BUILT - LOWER FLOOR 5CALE:10' = 1'-0" AS BUILT - MAIN FLOOR SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" I1 VICINITY MAP (NTS 01 Packet Pg. 8 15'-01/2" 7-91/4" 7-31/4" n n Attach d N MAIN FLOOR DEMOLITION PLAN a SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" DOOR SCHEDULE ID R.O. DIMENSIONS *SEE NOTE 1 DOOR LEAF DIMENSIONS TYPE THICK AREA (SF) WIDTH HEIGHT W HT MAiN FLOOR 01 6'-2" 6-101/2" 6'-0" 6'-61 O'-13/8" 0.00 02 6'-2" 6-101/2" 6'-0" 6'-8" 0'-13/8" 0.00 03 3'-2" 6-101/2'' 3'-0" 6'-8" 0'-13/81, 0.00 04 2'-1011 6-101/2'' 2'-8" 6'-61 0'-13/81, 0.00 05 2'-10" 6-101/2'' 2'-8" 6'-8" O'-13/8" 0.00 0.00 A A1.2 DN NEW WINDOWS WiTHiN EX WALL OPENINGS UNCOVERED DECK TRAFFIC MEMBRANE (EX) NEW WINDOWS WiTHiN EX WALL OPENINGS MAIN FLOOR PLAN SCALE:1/4" = TO'' 0 EXISTING WALLS ® NEW WALLS (2x6 EXT, 2X4 iNT. U.N.O.) it NEW P05T & BEAMS II ABV. PER 5TRUCT. II II II II II II LL COVERED DECK Lu TRAFFIC MEMBRANE (EX TO REMAIN OR PATCH/REPAIR TO MATCH EX) EX TOILET & TUB/TUB DECK TO REMAIN (NEW TiLE FiNiSH) EX TOILET & TUB/TUB DECK TO REMAIN (NEW TiLE FiNiSH) II I I 01 IDA NEW 2X4 HALF WALL 9 TOILET (TO BE BUILT ON EX TUB DECK), TiLE FiNiSH, 42" FiN. HT. 04 REMOVE EX DOOR & iNFiLL WALL TO MATCH EXISTING EXTENDED LIVING ROOM WOOD (NEW/REFINISH) I I I I I I I I PRIMARYBEDROOM W60P (VAULTED CLG) I REMOVE EX WINDOW & iNFiLL WAIL TO MATCH EXISTING (NEW GWB & PAINT Fil I*) NEW GA5 F.P. W.I.C. WOOD 3'-7 3/4" N w A2 I -/-2'-9 3/4' 33'-2� x NEW TiLE EX. S.L. T� , Cad LOW REMAIN L WALL PR. BATH NEW TILED TiLE SHOWER CURB EX DBL. VAN. TO REMAIN NEW GAS F.P. F_E,3�9XN5 BRSiKWINE ROOM .WOOD (NEW/REFINISH) I I L — — — — — — J RELOCATE ATTIC ACCE 9 I� I 02 EXPOSE & REFINISH EXISTING NEW METAL HARDWOOD FLOOR OR INSTALL NEW BALUSTER TO MATCH EXi5TiNG iN LiViNG ROOM; GUARDRAIL PATCH TRANSITION AREAS m LIVING ROOM WOOD (EX) DINING ROOM WOOD (EX) COVERED DECK TRAFFIC MEMBRANE WINDOW SCHEDULE ID ROUGH OPENING *SEE NOTE 1 ROUGH HEAD FROM SUBFLR. TYPE OPER AREA (SF) NOTES WIDTH HEIGHT MAiN FLOOR 01 4'-6" 5'-0" 6-101/2" P 0.00 02 4'-6" 5'-0" 6-101/2" P 0.00 03 4'-6" 5'-0" 6-101/2" P 0.00 04 4'-6" 5'-0" 6-101/2" P 0.00 05 1'-11/2" 6'-9" 6-91/2" P 0.00 06 1'-11/2" 6'-9" 6-91/2" P 0.00 07 2'-6" 2'-0" 6-101/2" C 0.00 RE -USE EXISTING FROM MASTER BATH; GANG WiTH #08 08 2'-611 2'-0" 6-101/2" C 0.00 RE -USE EXISTING FROM MASTER BATH; GANG WiTH #07 09 5'-6" 21-8" 6-101/2" P 0.00 INTERIOR 0.00 KITCHEN WOOD F- I I I I L J POWDER TiLE (EX) POSS. NEW SOLATU13E ENTRY DN WOOD (EX) 191 GROSS FLOOR AREA (MEASURED FROM INSIDE OF EXTERIOR WALLS) EXISTING MAiN FLOOR AREA 1,511.0 SF PROPOSED MAiN FLOOR AREA: 465.3 SF TOTAL MAiN FLOOR AREA: 1,976.3 5F 19 w CU z Lu NO - z � vJ �..�..� _j T_ � a L.L S W � Q C) ti z z N O w LLI E Iq E as s R w =-I Q H 2 D A R C H I T E C T U R E D E S I G N 23020 EDMONDS WAY, #113 EDMONDS, WA 98020 P.206.542.3734 www.h2darchitects.com DATE: 2/l /2024 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT MAIN FLOOR PLAN & DEMO PLAN Al .1 Packet Pg. 9 Attach d A -A BUILDING SECTION SCALE:1/4" = T-0" 11 _ � V Note: All 3D renderings are schematic and for visualization purposes only. The 3D views are not to be used for construction. The 3D images are not a true representation of the materials or finishes. Refer to the drawings, specification list, and/or manufacturer's information for more specific detail. j LOWER FLOOR PLAN SCALE:1/4" = T-0" 0 EXISTING WALLS ® NEW WALLS A A1.2 L--J L--J W U Z W N Z � (n W J CF) >Q ry W U) Q U ti Z Z N O � W � � Qw Q J 00 CZ 0 I* N O N Z J a _ O � O C0 Q_ L ((//��O _ 3 �a L r c,> 4)_ O L. a H 2 D A R C H I T E CT U R E D E S I G N 23020 EDMONDS WAY, #113 EDMONDS, WA 98020 N P.206 . 542 . 3734 www.h2darchitects.com DATE: 2/1 /2024 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT LOWER FLOOR PLAN, BUILDING SECTION & RENDERINGS A1.2 L E Iq Packet Pg. 10 Attach d NORTH ELEVATION SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" EX ROOF EL = 23'-71/2"+/- (T.O. EXISTING RIDGE) (EL = X'-X"+/-) J,EX MAiN FLOOR PLATE EL=17'-0"+/- (T.O. EXISTING PLATE) (EL = X'-X"+/-) EX MAiN FLOOR EL = 8'-11 1/8"+/- (T.O. EXISTING 5UBFLOOR) '-X'W-) EX LOWER FLOOR PLATE EL = 8'-1 1/8""+/- (T.O. EXISTING PLATE) (EL = X'-X"+/-) JEX LOWER FLOOR EL = 0'-0"+/- (T.O. EXISTING SLAB) (EL = X'-X"+/-) VL VI l/111/ \VLV I l/1\ / \VVI I I\/I Y. 1 LI\ .J I I\VV 1. n lrui nnnr /`I nnr nrn�r I Irr�1 Ir EX ROOF EL = 23'-71/2"+/- (T.O. EXISTING RIDGE) (EL = X'-X"+/-) EX MAiN FLOOR PLATE EL=17'-0"+/- (T.O. EXISTING PLATE) (EL = X'-X"+/-) EX MAiN FLOOR EL = 8'-11 1/8"+/- (T.O. EXISTING SUBFLOOR) '-X"+/-) EX LOWER FLOOR PLATE EL = 8'-1 1/8""+/- (T.O. EXISTING PLATE) (EL = X'-X"+/-) I I I I I I EX LOWER FLOOR EL = 0'-0"+/- L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---—----------------- - - - - -- — - - -J (T.O.EXISTING SLAB) (EL = X'-X"+/-) EAST (FRONT) ELEVATION SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" w CU Z W 9 U) LU 10L w U Z w Q J 0 N Z 00 U) r) ti Z O r) w E IL` v tiE m s w - - a H 2 D A R C H IT E C T U R E D E S I G N 23020 EDMONDS WAY, #113 EDMONDS, WA 98020 P.206.542.3734 www.h2darchitects.com DATE: 2/1 /2024 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A2.0 Packet Pg. 11 Attach d SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" A B-1A1 nnnr- l I /I K?T nifl/"1- I I7-r/ l 1T WEST ELEVATION SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" NO CHANGES PROPOSED EX ROOF EL = 23'-71/2"+/- (T.O. EXISTING RIDGE) (EL = X'-X"+/-) ,`EX MAiN FLOOR PLATE EL=17'-0"+/- (T.O. EXISTING PLATE) (EL = X'-X"+/-) EX MAiN FLOOR EL = 8'-11 1/8"+/- (T.O. EXISTING SUBFLOOR) '-X"+/-) EX LOWER FLOOR PLATE EL = 8'-1 1/8""+/- (T.O. EXISTING PLATE) (EL = X'-X"+/-) ,`EX LOWER FLOOR EL = 0'-0"+/- (T.O. EXISTING SLAB) (EL = X'-X"+/-) (EL = X'-X"+/-) w CU Z W 9 U) Lu 10L w U Z w Q J 0 N Z 00 U) r) ti Z O r) w E IL` v tiE m s R w - - Q H 2 D A R C H IT E C T U R E D E S I G N 23020 EDMONDS WAY, #113 EDMONDS, WA 98020 P.206.542.3734 www.h2darchitects.com DATE: 2/1 /2024 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A2.1 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment 5 e City of Edmonds PLN2024-0008 �N 224 ,R1��, �- ,Il � � ` y�ue t � � lai "AVV lk\\\1'!\, 0 223.83 447.7 Feet 333.3 This ma is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for 4,��� p B p pp B reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, WGS_1984_Web-Mercator _Auxiliary -Sphere current, or otherwise reliable. © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION Legend ReZones PRD RoW Zoning . RS-6 RS-8 RS-10 RS-12 © RSW-12 RS-20 RS-MP RM-3 ■ RM-2.4 ■ RM-1.5 RM-EW 13131 BD2 BD3 13134 BD5 OR WMU ® BP BN ® FVMU BC Notes VARIANCE 1217-11THPLN Packet Pg. 13 1 CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER CS t. 1 B9v FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: Kristin Hanson CASE NO.: V 99-76 LOCATION: 1217 111h Place West APPLICATION: Front Setback Variance reducing the front setback along 11`h Place West from 25 feet to 16 feet to construct an addition to an existing single-family residence. Side Setback Variance along the north property line reducing the side setback from 10 feet to 0 feet (See Exhibit A, Attachments 2, 3, and 4). The side setback is from an access easement, not the actual side property line. REVIEW PROCESS: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts a public hearing and makes final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: (1) Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (Single -Family Residential - Site Development Standards). (2) Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.15B.170. (Variances). (3) Compliance with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions 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 9:48 a.m., June 3, 1999, in the City Hall, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:52 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 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan Packet Pg. 14 Attach f Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 99-76 Page 2 HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City: Kate Galloway, Project Planner, entered the staff advisory report into the record. From the Applicant: Kristin Hanson, Applicant, said she agreed with the staff report and had no problem with the recommended conditions. 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) Lot Size: The subject property is a 9,973 square foot rectangular lot (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). (2) Land Use: The subject property currently contains a 2,804 square foot single- family residence (Exhibit A, Attachment 4). (3) Zoning : The subject parcel is within a Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). (4) Terrain and Vegetation: Based on site inspection, the site has a gentle slope from the east property line to the west property line of less than 10 feet; the residence includes a daylight basement. The landscaping consists of a mature lawn, shrubs, flowerbeds and landscaping common of a single-family residence. 2. Neighboring Development and Zoning: a) Facts (1) The subject parcel is completely surrounded by properties zoned RS-12 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). (2) The surrounding parcels are developed with single-family residences. B. HISTORY: The house was built in 1957 and the site was annexed into the City in 1956. The City of Edmonds did not adopt its first zoning ordinance until 1964. The 1964 zoning code established the minimum front setback at 25 feet for developments within the RS-12 zone. Packet Pg. 15 C. CONSISTENCY REVIEW) a) Facts Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 99-76 Page 3 WITH ECDC CHAPTER 20.15A (ENVIRONMENTAL (1) Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review, unless they are identified on the City's Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Map (WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080). (2) The site is not illustrated as a sensitive area on the ESA Map. D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. Compliance with ECDC 16.10 (Single -Family Residential) Zoning Standards a) Facts• (1) The site development standards pertaining to single-family residential developments in the RS-12 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030. The standards include the following: (a) Street Setback: 25 feet minimum (b) Rear Setback: 25 feet minimum (c) Side Setbacks: 10 foot minimum (d) Lot Area: 12,000 square foot minimum (e) Lot Width: 80 feet minimum (2) Maximum height in the RS-12 zone is 25 feet from the average grade. (3) Lot coverage is not to exceed 35 percent. b) Conclusions• (1) The existing lot and residence do not meet several of the minimum lot requirements of the Single -Family Residence (RS-12) zone. In addition to the non -conforming features of the lot and existing residence, there is a 30-foot access easement along the north property line. The City views the edges of any vehicular access easements as the property line; therefore, the north side setback is taken from the south edge of the 30-foot access easement instead of the actual property line (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). The non -conforming features of the lot and existing residence include the following: Required Existing Lot Area 12,000 square feet 9,973 square feet Front Setback 25 feet 15.7 feet Side Setback 10 feet North: 0 feet from the access easement Packet Pg. 16 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 99-76 Page 4 (1) The proposed addition and patio will make the structure more non -conforming as defined in the Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 17.40. The proposed additions will not extend any of the exterior walls further into the setbacks than the most protruding portions of the existing structure (Nonconforming Uses, Buildings, Signs and Lots). (2) The proposed addition will not exceed 25 feet above grade, the total lot coverage will not exceed 35-percent, and the remaining side and rear setbacks meet the minimum requirement of the RS-12 zone. 2. Compliance with ECDC 20.15B (Critical Areas) a) Facts• (1) This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.15.B (Critical Areas Ordinance). (2) The applicant submitted a Critical Areas Checklist (CA-99-). A waiver was issued on May 25, 1999. b) Conclusion: The applicant has met the requirements of the Critical Areas Ordinance. 3. Compliance with ECDC 20.85 (Variances) 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, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property. (b) Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity within the same zoning. Packet Pg. 17 Attach f Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 99-76 Page 5 (c) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the intent if 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 properties 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 zone. (2) The applicant has submitted the following declarations with her submittal which addresses the decisional criteria (see Attachment 4): (a) Special Circumstances: The residence was built in 1957, however, the area was not zoned RS-12 until 1963. The existing zone requirements place an unfair burden on the homeowner for improvements to an existing residence. Not only does the existing residence not meet minimum setback requirements; the lot itself is smaller than the RS-12 zone requirement of 12,000 square feet. The property owner should be able to enjoy the same privileges as the neighbors and use more of the lot as part of their residence. (b) Special Privileges: The house was built six years prior to the RS-12 zone designation being place on the site. Other residences along the street are in newer and were constructed in conformance with the existing regulations. This existing home was built prior to the current regulations being in place. (c) Comprehensive Plan: The addition will improve the look of the single family residence and make the existing home more functional. (d) Zoning : The Vicari's house is a single-family residence within a single-family zone. They do not wish to tear down their home and they do not feel it would be fair of the City to make them tear down their residence to comply with a zoning ordinance that was adopted after their home was built. The proposed additions will not increase the lot coverage above the allowed 35 percent. (e) Not Detrimental: Granting this variance will not cause any loss of property value, scenic view, street hazard or line -of -sight problems. The additions are also consistent with the homeowner's covenants. (f) Minimum Variance: The variance is necessary due to the current setback requirements. The proposed plan will improve the property, enhance accessibility, not offend the neighbors, and improve the neighborhood. Packet Pg. 18 Attach Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 99-76 Page 6 (2) Other Factors: (a) ECDC 16.10.000.A states the general purpose of the residential (R) zones is to provide for areas of residential uses at a range of densities consistent with public health and safety and the adopted comprehensive plan. (b) ECDC 16.20.000.A states the specific purpose of the RS zone is to reserve and regulate areas primarily for family living in single- family dwellings. b) Conclusions: (1) The existing structure was built prior to the city adopting its original zoning code. The variance is necessary for the addition to an existing structure. The structures will not further encroach into the front or side setback requirements of the RS-12 zone than the existing exterior walls. (2) Granting of the subject variance will not be a grant of special privilege to the subject property in comparison with the limitations that are placed upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Setback variances have been approved along 12"' Avenue North and Viewland Way. (3) Approval of this application will not allow development of the site in a manner inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and the Edmonds Community Development Code. (4) Approval of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. By granting the variance the applicant will be able to expand and improve the existing residence and further promote the overall aesthetics of the neighborhood. (5) The variance requested is the minimum necessary to construct a new entrance and patio to the existing residence. E. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE 1. Review by City Departments a) Fact: The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire Department, Public Works Division, Engineering Division, and the Parks and Recreation Division. b) Conclusion: No comments were received. F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) 1. Comprehensive Plan Designation Packet Pg. 19 Attach Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 99-76 Page 7 a) Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family" residential on the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Concept Map. 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) Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies that 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) B.2 states "Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures in the areas." (3) BA states "Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible." b) Conclusions: (1) The requested variance is consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City. (2) The proposed addition will be an extension of the existing residence in form and material. (3) Approval of the proposed variance will allow the retention of an existing residence. G. COMMENTS 1. No letters were received. DECISION Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is approved, subject to the following conditions: (1) The applicant shall construct the addition and patio as illustrated on Exhibit A, Attachments 4, 5 and 6 (date stamped April 8, 1999). (2) This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. (3) The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any construction. Packet Pg. 20 Attach Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 99-76 Page 8 (4) The applicant shall comply with all the terms of any future permits. (5) The permit is transferable to future property owners of the site. (6) The approved variance shall be acted on within one year of approval or the variance will become null and void, unless the owner files for an extension prior to the expiration of the approved variance. Entered this 8th day of June 1999, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. "alp on cconnell Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. APPEALS Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. Packet Pg. 21 Attach Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 99-76 Page 9 LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. EXHIBIT: The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report with attachments PARTIES of RECORD: Kristin Hanson Edmonds Planning Division 652 Alder Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Packet Pg. 22 Attach g MEMORANDUM Date: March 19, 2024 To: Amber Brokenshire, Planning From: Jennifer Lambert, Engineering Subject: PLN2024-0008 — Setback Variance Lawrence —1217 111h PI N Engineering has reviewed the subject application and found the information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards. Compliance with Engineering codes and construction standards will be reviewed with any future building permit application for development on the site. Thank you. City of Edmonds Packet Pg. 23 Attach ffc= Brokenshire, Amber From: Christine Foster <Christine@fosterlawpc.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 1:43 PM To: Brokenshire, Amber Cc: Christine Foster Subject: PLN 2024-0008 1217 11th PI. N -- Land Use App # 1437476 You don't often get email from christine@fosterlawpc.com. Learn why this is important00 0 CD Hi Amber, 0 V N O I have been on the city's website to learn more about the Lawrence Variance. I was able to J access the application and understand the owners are seeking a variance to the north setback a from 10" to 0" This is in addition to a previous variance requested in 1999 that enabled them to expand its east exterior wall. This seems like a lot of variance for a small lot — especially on a critical slope. Ms. Thompson's February 2, 2024 letter in support of the variance request represents this n variance will not be detrimental and "will not impede views of the eastern neighbors across the street due to their elevated building pads..." This is not true as the addition will impede my view at 12 14 1 It' Pl. N. and result in an unsightly expansion of the roofline to 0 setback, where J there is currently no roof that is visible there. L I could not find a place on the website to comment on the variance request. And, I could not find the date for public hearing on this matter. Could you assist me with a link or otherwise keep me informed about how I make my opposition to this variance known and heard. I appreciate your assistance. U 2 a Christine A. Foster a� E a Packet Pg. 24 Attach h ® FOSTER LAW Pc "0'# l # # #44 , . 8204 Green Lake Drive North Seattle, WA 98103 p. (206) 682-3436 f. (206) 682-3362 email: Christine(cDFosterLawPC.com www.FosterLawPC.com 00 21 Packet Pg. 25 Attach i Brokenshire, Amber From: David Shneidman <davidsh@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:32 PM To: Brokenshire, Amber Subject: Public comment 1217 11th place North You don't often get email from davidsh@gmail.com. Learn why this is important This is in regard to application PLN 2024-0008 00 c 0 Dear Ms Brokensire: v N 0 N Z I own the property at 1218 Olympic Avenue, and write this letter in response as a public comment to the above zoning a variance application submitted by Sarah Thompson of H2D Architecture and Design. _ ca Thank you for this opportunity. The hill and backyard of my property is immediately adjacent to and west of the backyard of the applicant's property line. M property sits well below the applicant's property and includes a steep slope that is designated as "Landslide Yp p Y pp p p Y p p g m Hazard/Steep Slope" per Edmonds GIS mapping. a� Please understand that while I have no objection to my neighbor asking for a variance to add an addition to his property, 3 1 do have concern about the potential increase in water run off into the steep slope and into my hillside. J In this regard, there have been several alterations to the applicant's property over the years including what I believe to _ be the addition of a French drainage system. These past alterations have caused a noticeable increase in water diverted -0 away from the main drain that was and is there to what is now in addition a generalized broad run off down through the c hill which causes significant puddling and standing water over a wide area at the base of the slope. U) Of course, this wide spread diversion might well impact the slope stability and that's my main concern. p Based on the above and my experience of owning this property since the 1980s I am concerned that the approval of this variance might worsen the water run off situation. Accordingly, I would suggest that as part of the variance approval c that the City requires the applicant to provide reasonable and verifiable assurance that no additional water will be V diverted generally into steep slope. 2 3 a In fact, given the landslide hazard designation, would it not be prudent to ask the applicant to take the extra step to 6 address his drainage system to reduce the current pattern of wide based water run off through this steep slope? c m E Thank you again for this chance to comment on this process. ca Sincerely, Q David Shneidman My legal address is 17356 Beach Dr NE Lake Forest Park, Wa 98155-4513 Packet Pg. 26 'nC. 1 S9M CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Project: Lawrence Setback Variance File Numbers: PLN2024-0008 Date of Report: Ap 18 2024 From: Amber Brokenshire, Associate Planner Public Hearing: Thursday, April 25, 2023 at 3:00 P.M. Edmonds City Hall, 121— 51h Ave N, 3,d Floor, Brackett Room. Online participation is also available via the following Zoom link: https://edmondswa- Rov.zoom.us/I/82688031743?pwd=U EROWk5hdU5DN 1dRK1V3MkR2WTRSdz09 Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782 Meeting ID: 826 8803 1743 Password 308007 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND PROCESS H2D Architecture and Design is requesting a variance to reduce the regularly required 10-foot north side setback to 0 feet to construct an addition over an existing deck and lower -level garage structure at the Lawrence residence at 1217 — 11th Place North. The lower -level garage structure and deck were legally constructed within the north side setback after receiving a variance to reduce the side setback to 0 feet in 1999 (V-99-76, Attachment 6). The subject site was annexed into the City in 1956 and the single-family residence was built in 1957. Edmonds adopted its first zoning ordinance in 1959, which established side setbacks of 10 feet for the RS-12 zone. The applicant also applied for a building permit to construct the addition on the subject lot on March 4, 2024 (BLD2024-0295). The building permit cannot be approved by staff as proposed unless the variance application is approved by the Hearing Examiner. The Packet Pg. 27 File PLN 2024-0008 Lawrence Variance variance application requires public notice prior to a public hearing and decision by the Hearing Examiner (Type III-B decision according to Section 20.01.003 of the Edmonds Community Development Code [ECDC]). II. ATTACHMENTS Land Use Application (PLN2024-0008) Cover Letter 3. Project Narrative 4. Preliminary Project Drawings 5. Zoning and Vicinity Map 6. V-99-76 — 1999 Variance 7. Engineering Memorandum of Approval 8. Public Comment — Christine Foster 9. Public Comment — David Shneidman III. APPLICATION MATERIALS The subject application was submitted on February 13, 2024. Initial submittal materials included a land use application form, cover letter, project narrative, and project plans (Attachments 1-4). The application was determined to be complete pursuant to ECDC 20.02.002 on March 8, 2024. A Notice of Application was posted at the subject site, Public Safety Complex, and the Planning and Development Department on April 3, 2024. The notice was also published in the Herald Newspaper and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site on April 3, 2024. IV. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A Notice of Public Hearing was posted at the subject site, Public Safety Complex, and Planning and Development Department on April 9, 2024. The notice was also published in the Herald Newspaper and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site on April 9, 2024. The City of Edmonds has complied with the noticing provisions of ECDC 20.03.002 and 20.03.003. V. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODES 1. ECDC 16.20 RS — Single -Family Residential A. The subject site is located within the RS-12 zone and is subject to the zoning requirements of ECDC Chapter 16.20. B. Pursuant to ECDC 16.20.030, side setbacks for the RS-12 zone are 10 feet. Page 2 of 8 Packet Pg. 28 File PLN 2024-0008 Lawrence Variance C. The subject site is encumbered by a 30' access easement benefitting the lot to the north. Pursuant to the definitions of "lot line" and "lot area", the 10' side setback is taken from this access easement. D. Related development definitions include: 1. ECDC 21.90.120 defines 'setback' as "the minimum distance that buildings/structures or uses must be set back from a lot line, excluding up to 30 inches of eaves." 2. ECDC 21.55.050 defines 'lot line' as "any line enclosing the lot area." 3. ECDC 21.90.150 defines 'lot area' as "the total horizontal area within the boundary lines of a lot. Lot area shall normally exclude any street rights-cf- way and access easements." 2. ECDC 20.85 Variances A. An applicant may request a variance from any requirement of the zoning ordinance (ECDC Titles 16 and 17), except use and procedural requirements, pursuant to the procedures outlined in ECDC 20.85. ECDC 20.85.010 contains the findings that must be made for a variance application to be approved. According to the referenced code, "No variance may be approved unless all of the findings in this section can be made." The findings include: A. Special Circumstances. That, because of 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 some zoning, 1. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses set forth in ECDC 17.00.030, and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds, and wildlife habitats, 2. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the some 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; Page 3 of 8 Packet Pg. 29 File PLN 2024-0008 Lawrence Variance C. Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan; D. Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located; E. 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 same zone; F. 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. B. The Applicant submitted narrative statements and supporting materials explaining why they believe the proposed variance request meets the criteria in ECDC 20.85 and should therefore be granted (Attachments 2-3). C. The following is staff's analysis of how the proposed variance satisfies the criteria of ECDC 20.85: 1. Special Circumstances: There are special circumstances on the property. First, there is an access and utility easement across the northern 30 feet of the subject parcel benefiting the lot to the north at 1225 11th Place. It is unknown why the easement is 30 feet since the subject property at 1217 11th Place only has only a 15 feet easement over the property to the north at 1225 11th Place. Regardless, the anticipated addition at 1217 11th Place would clearly meet the 10-foot side setback from the north property line, but it would not from the access easement. Since no structures or buildings can be constructed within the access easement, that area serves as a de facto 30-foot setback by itself. Second, the City previously approved a variance to reduce the north side setback from the edge of the access easement at 1217 11th Place from 10 feet to 0 feet for the 1999 addition through file V-99-76. The current variance proposal would be consistent with that precedent. As a result, the proposed setback variance appears to meet the special circumstance criterion. 2. Special Privilege: Approval of the variance would not be granting of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties within the same zoning. The primary existing burden in this case is the shared Page 4 of 8 Packet Pg. 30 File PLN 2024-0008 Lawrence Variance 30' driveway easement with the neighbor to the north. The applicant is proposing an addition that is 0 feet from the existing access easement, resulting in a side setback that is 30 feet to the adjacent parcel to the north. It would be possible for owners of 1217 and 1225 11t" Place to reduce the width of the access easement across one or both properties, but the City cannot compel that. If that did happen and the easement width was reduced at 1217 11t" Place from 30 feet to 20 feet, a setback variance would not be required and the regular RS-12 setback of 10 feet from the access easement could be achieved. As a result, the subject variance appears to meet the special privilege criterion in ECDC 20.85.010.13. 3. Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is located within the Single Family — Resource designation. The Comprehensive Plan discusses minimizing view encroachment in the goals and policies for residential development. It is arguable whether the 10 feet addition will impact views in the area, particularly since the addition does not extend to the maximum 25 feet height limit and there is only one house to the east which could really be impacted (Attachment 4). The proposed addition is located lower, topographically, than the house to the east and the amount of view encroachment from constructing a 20 feet house versus a 25 feet house (maximum height) would seem to be fairly negligible in this particular location. This variance request appears to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as required in ECDC 20.85.010.C. 4. Zoning Ordinance: The RS-12 zone where the project is located requires side setbacks of 10 feet from the access easement unless a variance is obtained. The current 10-foot setback from the 30-foot access easement results in an actual side setback of 40 feet from the northern property line. The variance is requesting a 0-foot side setback from the 30-foot access easement. Apart from the requested setback variance, the proposed addition in BLD2024-0295 would appear to meet all other standards related to the RS-12 zone as detailed in Chapter 16.20 ECDC. The proposed request seems to meet the zoning criterion in ECDC 20.85.010.D. 5. Not Detrimental: It does not appear that the proposed side setback variance would be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the vicinity and same zone. The 10 feet of encroachment into the north side setback would not be Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 31 File PLN 2024-0008 Lawrence Variance imposing due to the additional 30-foot access easement. This variance appears to be consistent with ECDC 20.85.010.E. 6. Minimum Variance: The applicant's project narrative in Attachment 3 provides a detailed explanation of why the proposal meets the minimum variance criteria and staff generally concurs. The proposed addition is limited to the existing building and deck footprint. The addition will expand the living space by 466 square feet. Reducing the side setback to 0 feet in this case is the minimum necessary to construct a small residential addition. This variance appears to meet the minimum variance criterion in ECDC 20.85.010. F. VI. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE This application was reviewed and evaluated by Snohomish County Fire District No. 1, the Building Division, and the Engineering Division. Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 and the Building Division approved the proposal. Additional reviews and/or inspections would occur with the associated building permit. The Engineering Division preliminarily approved the design of the proposed development noting the information provided is consistent with the Engineering standards of Title 18 ECDC. Compliance with Engineering Division standards will be verified during the building permit process (Attachment 7). VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS As of the date of this staff report, two public comments have been received. Christine Foster, 1214 11th Place North expressed concern about the extent of the anticipated addition in relation to an adjacent steep slope, and how the proposed height of the addition will impact their view (Attachment 8). Staff response: The height of the proposed addition is the same as already exists with the single-family house. This height is 5 feet less than the zoning maximum of 25 feet (Attachment 4). Nothing in the Edmonds Community Development Code requires existing views to be maintained and it does not appear that there is a private view easement burdening the subject parcel. The height of the project will be reviewed and verified as part of the building permit process. David Shneidman at 1218 Olympic Avenue expressed concern about increased water runoff onto the steep slope between his property and the subject property to the east due to the proposed addition and improvements. Mr. Shneidman requested improved Page 6 of 8 Packet Pg. 32 File PLN 2024-0008 Lawrence Variance drainage to reduce the current pattern of water runoff onto this steep slope (Attachment 9). Staff response: The proposed addition would be built over an existing deck and garage structure and therefore will not create additional impervious surface on the site. That said, the new construction must meet current stormwater standards, which will likely lead to reduced runoff due to improved stormwater management techniques since the previous addition was built in 1999. Stormwater management, runoff, and drainage will be reviewed as part of the building permit (BLD2024-0295) and must comply with the requirements of ECDC 18.30 — Stormwater Management. VIII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis and attachments included in this report, staff believes the proposal is consistent with the variance criteria of ECDC 20.85 and recommends that the Hearing Examiner: 1. APPROVE the variance request PLN2024-0008 to reduce the required RS-12 side setback from 10 feet to 0 feet because it satisfies all of the six decision criteria in ECDC 20.85. The following condition should be included: The subject 0-foot side setback variance applies only to the addition and deck structures as proposed in the building permit plans for BLD2024-0295 submitted on March 7, 2024. All other RS-12 zoning requirements apply. All future redevelopment at 1217 11t" Place North must meet the zoning setbacks in place at the time of building permit unless a variance is first obtained. IX. RECONSIDERATION According to ECDC 20.06.140, a party of record may request the Hearing Examiner reconsider the permit decision within 10 days of the issuance of the decision if they believe there are errors of procedure, law/fact, or judgement, or if new evidence is discovered that was not known and could not have been discovered previously. X. APPEALS Pursuant to ECDC 20.06.020, a party of record may submit an appeal of a Type III-B decision within 14 days after the date of issuance of the decision. The appeal must be made in writing and include the required information stated in ECDC 20.06.030 as well as the applicable appeal fee. The appeal would be heard at a closed -record hearing before the City Council according to the requirements of ECDC Chapter 20.06. Page 7 of 8 Packet Pg. 33 XI XII. File PLN 2024-0008 Lawrence Variance PERMIT VALIDITY AND EXTENSION ECDC 20.85.020 describes the time limits for variance approval. An 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 applies for an extension of time before the expiration and the city approves the application. An application for an extension of time shall be reviewed by the community development director as a Type II decision (staff decision — notice required). PARTIES OF RECORD City of Edmonds Alan Lawrence and Chele Warinner-Kent 121— 5th Avenue North 1217 — 11th Place N Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 1-12D Architecture and Design David Shneidman 23020 Edmonds Way 17356 Beach Dr NE Suite 113 Lake Forest Park, WA 98155- 4513 Edmonds, WA 98020 Christine Foster 1214 — 111h Place N Edmonds, WA 98020 Packet Pg. 34