Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
15910 72ND AVE W.pdf
t 1 y.. .. . , ...,. ..,M... ,..,r ..7t<.,�r,,.yxa,kn�,t.se.. ra„�..,,r�z�,..'�.�'�u,L u�i�o w.?l�dSf:96tz?cf�r.'�. 4ft..w.h...w'-l:�:x.wc.'.�:�v.rrmor,.��,•e:..—,..,.,.�.,.-nx:5rx�_. 4';r.�, re t CITY OF EDMONDS' 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH + EDMONDS, WA 96020 • (206) 771.0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER BARBARA FAHEY. MAYOR c S t' 189, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS. APPLICANT: Michael George for Barbara Glantz and Paula Harb CASE NO.: V 97-147 am F' LOCATION: 15910 - 72nd Avenue W. (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). U. 00 APPLICATION: A variance to increase the maximum permitted height for a single- j' family residence from 25-feet to 29-feet 6-inches to allow the z iOR existing two-story residence to be remodeled with some additions, and a sloped roof added to the house (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 Uj wi pi through 4). a o r REVIEW PROCESS: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes �+. w final decision. z c�. �- MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) z Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site !' Development Standards). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.85 (VARIANCES). c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.1513 (CRITICAL AREAS). 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 Glantz/Harb application was opened at 11:46 a.m., January 15, 1998, in the City Hall, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 12:20 p.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. i Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 Sister Cities international — Hekinan,.Japan OX-111i.' � 5rwi r t ... i ,.v rv.[ 1 iraz- \i,.Yn.�4.N,t..,fx4.,£n �5'«ti�tx�n:.'sL'w��tµ.uFart,].ti,.x Lll.Yh2i:t"Y:i,.niaSR ..... iN.lw''su;'L_'LrG)LiFV a✓X :`i.,Y1.5.TfL k:4avr,..+... t.,.W,'.'s.. ni.Yr+rhh .t .. v.ae s.,.,.n...,.,i. ,.. w., )'Tearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-147 Page 2 HEARING COMMENTS: f.:l The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. rZ UJI < a. From the City: vo; Meg Gruwell, Project Planner, reviewed the staff advisory report (Exhibit A) and entered N c3i it into the record: fn Lui U1� � From the Applicant: w O Michael George, Architect for the applicants, explained the proposal and said: e-J • The existing house is in need of remodeling and they are trying to upgrade and update u� o} the house with minimal impacts to the site and surrounding properties. _- r =. Z r . • He hoped John Bissell would rewrite and clarify his second condition in the Critical Z Areas Determination (Attachment 6 to Exhibit A). w w, �, • There is one house behind the subject house which would be affected by the proposal. oHe noted that the house owned by Cheryl Chrysler has a small view through the existing breezeway of the house to be remodeled and said the breezeway will be i r enclosed with glass during the remodel.. He also noted that no variance would be LL or needed for the work to be done on the breezeway or the garage. Only the second story Z of the house would need a height variance and that is for the roof pitch. He said they are trying to keep the pitch at a minimum slope and the roof on the second story of the r house will not impact any views from the Chrysler residence. z From the Community: Cheryl Chrysler, neighbor, submitted Exhibits B & C and spoke at the hearing. Her concerns included the following: • The proposal will take away the western light she now has and any view that remains. • The value of her property will be negatively affected by the proposal. © M. K. Bingham, neighbor, spoke in favor of the request. He said: • He couldn't see how they have put up with the flat roof as long as they have. • He didn't feel his property would be impacted at all by the request and he thought the proposal will enhance the neighborhood. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. HISTORY The single-family residence was constructed on this site under Building Permit b f: 740637, and the County Assessor's records show it to have been completed in t 0 LoLL w_ U1 1975. The building permit shows that the permissible height at the time was 35 feet, with the proposed height at 21 feet 5 inches. B. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a. Facts: 1) Slze: The subject property 1s approximately 52,724 square feet, according to the applicant, with approximately 240 feet of frontage along unopened 72nd Avenue W. (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). 2) Land Use: The subject property is developed with a single-family residence and separate garage which is attached to the house by a roof. 3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS- 20) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). 4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject site has a level area where the house currently sits, and from there it slopes up steeply to the north and slopes down to the west gently across their yard then down in a steep drop. The site is landscaped with shrubs and lawn, with native vegetation on the slopes to the north, and a large number of blackberry vines on the slope to the west (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a. Facts: 1) The property to the north is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-20) and is developed with a single-family residence (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). 2) The property to the south is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-20) and is developed with a single-family home (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). 3) The properties to the east are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-20) and are developed with single-family homes (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). 4) The property to the west is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-20) and is undeveloped (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) 1. Fact: This site is shown on the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map as having a slope environment, therefore SEPA review is required (ECDC 20.15A.280.A.) 2. Fact: A Determination of Nonsignificanee was issued for this project on December 16, 1997. The deadline for appeals was January 5, 1998, and no appeals have been received. 3. Compliance with Requirements for a Variance a. Facts: 1. Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a case -by -case basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship. 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 i j r Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-147 Page 5 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. LU b) Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would not LO U. be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison LU with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with ti the same zoning. LL z.� c) Corngrehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: That the approval z of the variance will be consistent with the intent of the of comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the zoning Ui UJ; district in which the property is located. as d) Not Detrimental: That the variance, as approved or r conditionally approved, will not be significantly detrimental to i "' the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property � o or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone. e) Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the z minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 2. The applicant has submitted declarations with their submittal which address the decisional criteria as follows (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3): a) The applicants point to the slope of the site, which forced the house to be located where it is. They are attempting to provide the addition over the main floor of the existing residence, and to add ® new spaces on the main floor only where they are set back from the critical areas as much as possible. b) The proposal is for a two-story home with a pitched roof, which the applicants point out is normal for this area. The only flat roof ? 0 nearby is away from trees, while their roof is near some trees. The applicants also point out that other variances have been granted in single-family zones. n1 N > c) The applicants state that the complies with the �w proposal r comprehensive plan because it accommodates high quality single- familyrz' residential construction without removing any trees or, 0 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-147 Page 6 changing the topography of the site, and the sloping roof will insure that the house will not prematurely deteriorate. d) The applicants point out that their proposal meets the lot coverage and zone required setbacks. The height restriction is the only one they need to modify in order to provide a sloped roof over the existing house and addition. e) The applicants state that their proposal will not be detrimental as the houses that are or will be constructed on the bluff to the east of {" the site are quite high above them so the proposed additional height LO C1 will not block their view. Their house does impact the view of one house to the east, but the existing house currently blocks that house's view of Puget Sound. w cui g a' a f) The applicants believe this is the minimum variance needed, as PP a they have lowered the framed main floor levels to the elevation of the main floor slab, plan to use the existing 7'-91/2" walls instead Fu of higher walls, and plan to use a 4/12 sloped roof. All of these LL o actions will keep the proposed overall height less than the tallest Z roof on the existing residence. U sn f= � z 3. Ann Bullis, Plans Examiner, confirmed that a 4/12 or 5/12 pitch is a very common rambler -style roof pitch. A 2/12 pitch roof would typically be a tarred roof. b. Conclusions: 1) Although the site is quite large, it has some severe constraints with regards to slope. 2) Several height variances have been granted nearby along 75th Place W., mostly on narrow lots, so granting the variance would not ® necessarily constitute a special privilege. Because this site is limited by the slopes and the constraints that the Critical Areas Ordinance places on steep slopes, and because it is desirable to keep the native vegetation on the slope to the north, the effective footprint available is reduced. Furthermore, in order to protect the "peek-a-boo" view between the garage and the house of the neighbor to the southeast, the 0 area for development is further limited. A pitched roof is very common in most single-family residential neighborhoods, so allowing a pitched roof is not a special privilege. ' 3) Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the continued development of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation (see also Section F below). LU LL w� J = w' �- x z J- z0 w uw. �aJ U U) a ¢- w ua' ti La _Z U� o~ Z El r,u"C'�.:,�.'•'Gr,".m Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-147 Page 7 4) The additional height of the house will not impact the view of the houses to the northeast, as they are considerably higher than this house on the bluff above. However, the house to the southeast will have its view somewhat impacted. The major view for the house to the southeast is a "peek-a-boo" view through the current breezeway between the house and the garage on the subject site. The applicants are proposing to enclose this breezeway with glass, presumably to have it considered attached for purposes of the height on the garage, while having the minimum impact on their neighbor's view. The remodeling of the breezeway and garage will not require a variance as the heights proposed for both the breezeway and the connected garage comply with the zoning requirements. Only the main portion of the house where the second story will be located will require a variance and that will not impact views from the house to the southeast. 5) The applicants have described several steps they have taken to reduce the height of the house, while still using the original structure and allowing for a pitched roof. Therefore, it appears to be the minimum variance necessary. 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. The only comments received were from the Engineering Division, and those comments are included as Attachment 5. b. Conclusion: The applicant will need to comply with the terms of any future permits, as required by the Engineering Division. Any building permit which will result in a total of 2000 square feet being made impervious since 1979 will require installation of a storm water detention facility. F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) 1. Comprehensive Plan Designation 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. 2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 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. 0 L9 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-147 Page 8 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.3. states: "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures." 3) Policy BA. states "Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible." 4) Page 31, subsection B.S.0 states, "Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments." b. Conclusion: The proposed height variance request is consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City. DECISION Based upon the foregoing Endings and conclusions, the request for a variance is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The height of the residence shall be no taller than 29 feet 6 inches above average grade, as shown in the building elevations and on the site plan height calculations (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). 2. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 3. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to any construction. 4. The applicant will need to comply with all the terms of any future permits. Issuance of a building permit will require installation of a storm water detention facility if over 2000 square feet of surface has been made impervious since 1979. 5. The conditions of the Critical Area Conditional Waiver must be followed (see Exhibit A, Attachment 6). 6. The permit is transferable. Entered this 2& day of January, 1998, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. iq Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner 0 �; s F- z N z w 0 U 0 0 w x U- di ca 0 z F1 A 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. 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. The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report B. Letter from Cheryl Chrysler, dated 1/7/98. C. Note from Cheryl Chrysler, submitted at the hearing. D. Six 35 mm slides of the subject property, submitted by the applicants. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No.,V 97447 Page 10 PARTIES of RECORD: Michael George Edmonds Planning Division 922 Is' Street Edmonds Engineering Division Snohomish, WA 08290: Barbara Glantz/Paula Harb Cheryl Chrysler 163rd place SW 15917 72n' Ave. W" Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 M. K. Binham 15805 72n Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME i } { t t t 1 .. �- FI-A M U 0 a ui x I- L. 0 z CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY 121 STH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (426) 771.0220 • FAX (426) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works e Planning/Building e Parks and Recreation • En-Ineering • Wastewater Treatment Plant c. Letter of Transmittal Date: January 14,1998 To: Mr. Michael George Fax: (360) 568-1930, From: Meg Gruwell, AICP Planner Subject: Variance File V-97-147 Transmitting: Letter in Opposition to V-97-147, dated January 7,1998 For Your Information: As you requested: XX For your file: Comment: Our Facilities Maintenance Supervisor has said he will have the maintenance crew deliver a slide projector for the hearing, so one should be available for you to use. If you have any _questions, please call me at (425)771-0220. Note attachments: • Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS Ufi�Llly OF THE EPC�, NoicTEm-is-PV9..TP-TKP--- -PgqVM- — ti ii ui c� �- r 0 z t _::- i ®' �i3 i�,. �� K- EJM0N1DS HEA1UNO tXAMINEX. _t 1V�EEETTJE T c�GENDA J'ANUARY `15,1998 AT 9:30 A.M. Z City Hail - 3rd ]Floor Meeting Room, No. 304 Z 1215th Avenue North Ui Q� t s• a e� i yr+rwe LU U 1. Call to Order w LU 2. Public Hearin . N Q Ui a. FILE NOS. ADB-91-129 & CU 97-130 Consolidated permit applications Wy Western Wireless �,' Corporation:'for compliance with ,the City Architectural Design Board. site design, cri#eria and a I w M `C Conditional; Use Permit, application . for the , development of a 120-foot tall monopole cellular a communication tower. the subject property. is located 8505 Bowdoin Way and is zoned both ".P - "RM-2.4 Public" and - Multifamily." i Z o b. FILE NO: V-97-145: Application by Dennis O Leary fora Critical Areas Variance and Reasonable . UJ � Use Exception to allow the construction of a new single-family residence to intrude into the require] n a � 50 foot critical areas buffer fora, "geologically hazardous" critical area and the eiunuiation of the i o required 15-foot building setback from the required buffer. The subject property is located at 8432 � r, i `�t Olympic "Single -Family 9, , Ol is View Drive and is zonedResidential - RS-12 i LL P c. FILE NO. V 97-14.7; Application by Michael George as ' agent for Barbara Glantz and Paula Harb Z , for a Variance to increase the maximum permitted height in a single-family zone from 254eet to 29- Lu =1 feet 6-inches to allow a remodel of and addition to an existing single-finily residence with a change o ►— from a flat roof to a,4112 pitched roof. The subject propertyis located at 15910 72nd Avenue West . F Z and is zoned `.`Single -Family Residential - RS-20." 3. Administrative Reports - No Reports. 4. Adjournment rr 1 o j PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE ACCESSIBLE FOR PERSONS. WITH DISABII.it W (Contact the City Clerk at 771-024S with 24 hoars advance notice for special accommodations) 0119&DOaeiosrmasv;s _W �U ;o �n a �W W= J F- Ln U. Lo � J LLj cn C7 _ _. zr '0 zF- wLU �Q 0- a r- W LL, = c.., �o -z w� U = o~ z 0 M.E. M Gruweil Project Planner Date: DECEMBER 31, 1997 File: V-97-147 MICHAEL GEORGE FOR BARBARA GLANTZ AND PAULA HARB . Bearing Date, Time, And Place: January 15, 1991L At 9:30 AM, Third FIoor, Room 304 Edmonds City Hall . 121 - 5th Avenue N. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION ............................................ ......... ......... ......... ......... ..................2 A. APPLICATION...............................................................................................................................................2 B. RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................................................2 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS......................................................................2 A. HISTORY................................................................................ ............ ...... ......... .....I... .........2 B. SITE DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................................................2 C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) .................. ...... ........ ..... D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE........................................I...............3 E. TECHNICALCOMMITTEE..............................................................................................................................6 F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC)..................................................................................................................6 III. RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS.......................................................................... 6 A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION...........................................................................»:.................................6 B. APPEALS...................................................................................................................................:..................7 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL.................................................................... ......... .................7 . V. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR .................. ......... ......... ........ .................7 VI. ATTACHMENTS.................................................................. ... ...... ......... ..................7 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD .................. .......... ............. ............7 V-97-147.DOC ! December 31,1997 7 Staff Report _~ �z w s w = _, U `3 o 0 w w S .J (nLL w } 4 a? �a _. Z F- r— 0 ZF- ww 0 o_ o H: w w =V wp Z iu L C) _ O~ Z Batbarn GlanWPaali Ha& File WN-97-147 Page 2 or7 I. INTRODUCTION A. Application 1. ' Applicant: Michael George as agent for Barbara Glantz and Paula Harb (see Attachment 2). 2. Site Location: 15910 - 72nd Avenue W. (see Attachment 1). 3. Request: A variance to increase the maximum' permitted height for a single-family residence from 25-feet to 29-feet 6-inches to allow the existing two-story residence to be remodeled with some additions, and a slopedroof added to the house ,(see Attachments 2 through 4). 4. " Review Process: Variance: Hearing Examiner, conducts public hearing and makesfinal decision. 5. Maior Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community, Development Code (ECDC)'Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.85 (VARIANCES). c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.15B (CRITICAL AREAS). B. Recommendations Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend APPROVAL of this application with the following conditions: 1. The height of the residence shall be no taller than 29 feet 6 inches above average grade, as shown in the building elevations and on the site plan height calculations (see Attachment 4). 2. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 3. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to any construction. 4. The applicant will need to comply with all the terms of any future permits. Issuance of a building permit will require installation of a storm water detention facility if over 2000 square feet of surface has been made impervious since 1979. 5. The conditions of the Critical Area Conditional Waiver must be followed (see Attachment 6). 6. The permit should be transferable. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. History The single-family residence was constructed on this site under Building Permit 740637, and the County Assessor's records show it to have been completed in 1975. The building permit shows that the permissible height at the time was 35 feet, with the proposed height.at 21 feet 5 inches. B. Site Description 1. Site Development And Zoning: AL E BatbamGlantz/Paula Harb .—File No. V,97-147, Page 4 of -(2), Rear Setback: .25 feet (5 feet for detached structures < 600 sq. ft.) (3) Side Setbacks:. 35 feef total of both'sides,.mininium 10 feet on either side .(4) Maximum Height: 25 feet Z 'r (5): Lot Coverage: 35% Z LU cc b) Conclusion: 110 proposal complies with the requirements'of the zoning ordinance: < except for the portion for which the variance is applied for. LU UO & Complian dance ce with Riquiremints for a Va' UJ LU TZ -J H a) Facts: LO U. 0 (1): Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth'the mechanistriviiefeby a 'provision of the UJ Z> Code maybe varied on a case -by -case basis if the application of the provision would < Zi Cr result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship. The criteria areas follows: LL < D LJ) a Special Circumstances: That because of special circumstances relating to UJ. the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the Z property, strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the 0 Z owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the LU W vicinity with the same, zoning. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to die 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 LU Lu; the property, not any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any, past owner of the same property. LL. 0 Z (b) Special Privilege That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of LU Cn speci al privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon U T. other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 0 Z (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. 0 (2) The applicant has submitted declarations with their submittal which address the decisional criteria as follows (see Attachment 3): (a) The applicants point to the slope of the site, which forced the house to be located where it is. They are attempting to provide the addition over the main floor of the existing residence,and to add new spaces on the main 0 floor only where they are set back from the critical areas as much as possible. (b) The proposal is for a two-story home with a pitched roof, which the applicants point out is normal fo r this area. The only flat roof nearby, is away from trees, while their roof is near some trees. The applicants also.,� point out that other variances have been granted in single-family zones.. V-97-147DOC/December 3l, 1991 Staff Rtp6n_ 0 X Barbam GlafitzfflaulA Harti Re No. V-97-147 Pap 5 of 7 (c) The applicants state that the proposal complies with the comprehensive plan because it accommodates high quality single-family residential construction without removing any trees or changing the topography of the site, and the sloping roof will insure that the house will not prematurely deteriorate., (d) The applicants point out that their proposal meets the lot coverage and zone required setbacks. The height restriction is the only one they need to modify in order to provide, a sloped roof over the existing house and addition. (e) The applicants state that their proposal will not be detrimental as the houses that are or will be constructed on the bluff to the east of the site are quite high above them so the proposed additional height will not block their view. Their house does impact the view of one house to the east, but the existing house currently blocks that house's view of Puget Sound. (f) The applicants believe this is the minimum variance needed, as they have lowered the framed main floor levels to the elevation of the main floor slab, plan to use the existing T-9 IM walls instead of higher walls, and plan to use a 4/12 sloped roof, All of these actions will keep the proposed overall height less than the tallest roof on the existing residence. (3) Ann Bullis, Plans Examiner, confirmed that a 4/12 or 5/12 pitch is a very common rambler -style roof pitch. A 2/12 pitch roof would typically be a tarred roof. b) Conclusions: (1) Although the site is quite large, it has some severe constraints, with regards to slope. (2) Several height variances have been granted nearby along 75th Place W., mostly on narrow lots, so granting the variance would not necessarily constitute a special privilege. Because this site is limited by the slopes and the constraints that the Critical Areas Ordinance places on steep slopes, and because it is desirable to keep the native vegetation on the slope to the north, the effective footprint available is reduced. Furthermore, in order to protect the "peek-a-boo" view between the garage and the house of the neighbor to the southeast, the area for development is further limited. A pitched roof is very common in most single-family residential neighborhoods, so allowing a pitched roof is not a special privilege. (3) Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the continued development of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation (see also Section F below). (4) The additional height of the house will not impact the view of the houses to the northeast, as they are considerably higher than this house on the bluff above. However, the house to the southeast will have its view somewhat impacted. The major view for the house to the southeast is a "peek-a-bool' view through the current breezeway between the house and the garage on the subject site. The applicants are proposing to enclose this breezeway with glass, presumably to have it considered attached for purposes of the height on the garage, while having the minimum impact on their neighbor's view. The applicants have pointed out in conversations that they could construct a solid wall between the garage and house without violating any zoning requirements. The proposed glassed -in breezeway will be less detrimental to, the southeast neighbors than a solid wall would be. (5) The applicants have described several steps they have taken to reduce the height of. the house, while still using the original structure and allowing for a pitched roof. Therefore, it appears to be the minimum variance necessary. V-97-147.DOC becember 3 1,� 1997 /Staff Re port 1�3 Barbara GIanVJPaula Harb File No. V-97-147' Page 6 of 7 E. Technical Committee 1. Review by. City Departments a) Fact: The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by.the Fire s Department, Public Works Division, Engineering Division, and the Parks and Recreation _ w Division. The only comments received were from the Engineering Division, and those comments are included as Attachment 5. Ob) Conclusion: The applicant will need to comply with the terms of any future.permits, . N a as required by the Engineering Division. Any building permit which will result in a total U) 2 LU of 2000 square feet being made impervious since 1979 will require installation of a storm H water detention facility. u c2LU > F. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) LL ? 1. Comprehensive Plan Designation d w� a) Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Residential." � z ~ b) Conclusion:, The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive O Plan Land Use designation for the site. z ww j p 2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies o a) Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and o policies which relate to "Residential -Development" in the City:. Specific goals and - = L)' policies are discussed in detail below. (1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential development Z. which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be " L) _. maintained and promoted...:' ~O F-1 (2) Policy B.3. states: "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new Z t construction or additions to existing structures." (3) Policy B.4. states "Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible." (4) Page 31, subsection B.S.0 states, "Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments:" ' b) Conclusion: The proposed height variance request is consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City. III. RECONSIDERATION'S 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 i A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20.100.010.E allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or 0 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 i 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-97-147.130C I December 31,1997I Staff Repoit NJ =ty and Zoning Map m qq z zZ F- UJ w� .J rJ V 0 U)w J F- Ln Lo' W l ; atU. zr F" a. z w u.r a w u1r u Z LLi (p$ L) = 1_ z Fcity of edr�-))nds Ian'd use application n ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ❑ COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ❑ !HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION 13 SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CI PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT! STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT W� VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE FILE #'_6tl 14-1 ---ZONE L -2-a DATE Ir q7 REC'D BY _�� FEE `b RECEIPT# 7RING DATE E ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB Q CC ACTION TAKEN: EXCEPTION ❑ APPROVED ❑ OTHER IAPPEAL#— ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED j�Phona 3ta0 '565� — 1'53.t r • •r1.i,��'fi!AA - WM4w�.ATiTi•]' Property Owner Address _ Tax Acc # Legal Des Sec. S" Twp.17 N Rng. E wM fly The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnity, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all darnages, including reasonable attomay's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or Incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ 'Its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ herl its permission for. public officials and the staff' of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting geodant to is application. Attachment 2 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT! OWNER/ AGENT . . . . . ...... .. .... . ... . . . R:L »i Y G":F1 ..c`AN�. XY� 4(F1��4� ,�Pq �p 11�.. r��T }. �J Lt 'r� h r�S.L}�}4t i tSit �lN fj M:'b f ( j5✓�� r[, t �tl i f �; Sr Michael A APPLICANT DECLARATIONS z George � ' for cc w v! VARIANCE APPLICATION Cn i city of EdMonds w U. (Meadowdale Beach Area) QLL U) =F OWNERS: Paula Barb z t-,, Barbara Glantz Z 04 6919 163rd PL S.W. w w Edmonds, WA 98026 2 p? (425) 745-8386 Lo t w ~ ARCHITECT: Mich ael StreetA.I.A. 922First U. Snohomish, WA 98290 Architect 360 568-1331 �w� A.LA , P.S.(360 j 568-1930 fax p (360) 568.1331 Z (360) 568.1930 Fax SITE LOCATION: 15910 72nd Ave. W Edmonds, WA 98026 TAX ACCT. NO.: 5+3-3-006-434-0-146 5133 000 032 0209 51-3 ---00 022 .^.:. a te ZONE: RS-20` O PURPOSE: variance to increase maximum height of 25, above an average height, as defined j by the City of Edmonds, by 4'-611, to a maximum of 29'-611. PROJECT: Remodel & addition to a 24 year old house:remove existing flat roofs, utilize { existing walls to install a new 4/12 sloped roof over existing and new spaces. 922 First Street Snohomish, WA Attachment 3 9 8 2 9 0 H` V 1. 2. 3. The location of the existing residence as well as the location of our proposed additions are a direct result of the special circumstances of this site. Although our site area is more than twice the minimum required in the RS-20 zone, the majority is too steep to be considered a suitable building site. Our actual available building area is approximately 17% of the overall site. The existing, and relatively level building pad, is surrounded on three sides by steep and heavily forested slopes of up to 60% that are considered to be " Critical Areas ". As a result, the proposed additions are planned to be over the main floor of the existing residence. At the main floor level, the new spaces are setback from the critical areas as much as possible. (see attached site plan) The approval of this variance would not constitute a special privilege as there have been other height variances granted in the RS zones. (V690, V590, V96-91,V972, V96-90 in City files). In addition, with the exception of one flat roofed house on 75th Pl. W, which is situated well away from any trees, all recent construction in the area has been two- story structures with sloped roofs. It is our belief that installing a sloping roof, in order to protect a newly remodeled residence would not be considered a special privilege. The existing flat roof is not an appropriate roofing technique when so many trees are SO Close. A sloping roof is the most common and correct residential roofing technology throughout the Meadowdale Beach Area as well as the entire northwest. (see attached approved variances) The comprehensive plan calls for high quality single-family development. Our proposed remodel of the existing 24 year old residence is consistent with that development standard. In addition, the comprehensive plan discourages the removal of trees or altering the existing topography to accommodate construction. Our height variance request, which is needed to replace the flat roofs with sloping roofs, will insure that this project will not prematurely deteriorate, and will allow us to have a minimum impact on the topography and trees as is consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan. 0 J A ®, 4. ZONING ORDYNwcg: Our site is zoned RS-20 and is more than twice the {, minimum lot width of 1001called for by the development standards is this zone. The site area is approximately 52,724 s.f. which is also more LUI than twice the minimum 20,000 s.f. required by the RS-20 zone. The RS-20 zone specifies a maximum of of 35% impervious surfaces. Our proposed remodel, �i including the additional house, deck and garage areas, will only cover 17% of the total site area. U. In addition, our proposed addition/remodel will not 01 encroach on any of the RS-20 defined front, side or t# rear setbacks. LL a Our design goals were to make use of the existing x building pad and structure in order to minimize the impact on the critical slopes present at our site. Z Unfortunately, due to the necessity to protect the o proposed remodel by installing a minimum 4/12 sloping roof over the existing and additional areas j o we will exceed the maximum 25' height as specified o m by the RS-20 development standards by approximately o tl 4'-6". However, this added height will not have any i v impact to surrounding views. Consequently, we feel r this proposal to remodel an existing two story z' residence and install a sloping roof is consistent U with the intent of the RS-20 zone. (see site plan & development standards) o Z 5. TOT DETRIUNTAL: 7 This request for a 4'-6" height variance would not be detrimental to surrounding properties, cause a loss of property value, obstruct scenic views, limit use of surrounding properties, or harm any person on our property or on any other property. There are some houses that are being constructed (or will be) on the bluff to the east of our site, 01 but they are so far above us that there will be zero impact to any existing or future views. The one single family residence that is located behind us is southeast of our proposal and would not be impacted by the 4'-6" height variance. Our existing residence is located to the north of the home behind us and the forested slope to our north eliminates any view in that direction. At present there is no existing significant view from the house behind us. LL 0 c--4 F- Z. W U 0 W F- LL U 0 z U 0 The location of our proposed addition that would exceed the maximum height, is to the north of any view that might be achieved if a second story were to be added to the home behind us. One of the design parameters for this project was to minimize the height of any new construction that would be in front of this residence to a level that was well below the maximum height allowed in the RS-20 zone. The proposed roof over the existing breeze -way is almost 9' below the maximum allowed height and the proposed roof over the existing garage is approximately 5'-6" below the maximum allowed height. It is our position that the portion of the remodel that would require a height variance does not have an impact on any existing or future views to the home behind our proposal. (see site plan & section, elevations, photographs) The existing house has been repaired several times since the home was constructed 24 years ago. As we have previously stated a flat roof is not an appropriate roofing solution given the significant number of trees around this house. Our proposal will have a minimum impact to this site as we are not encroaching into the critical areas and are adding over the existing main floor to increase the second floor area. The following structural alterations will be made to the existing residence to insure that we only require a minimum variance: We are lowering all the framed main floor levels to the elevation of the main floor slab. This will drop the highest main floor by 1'-10". We will also continue the existing second floor level at the second floor additions. After the existing flat roof has been removed, we would propose to use the existing walls, which are at 7'-9 1/2"above the second floor, as the bearing walls for the proposed 4/12 sloping roof. All new second floor exterior walls would also be at this height. By utilizing the existing 7'-9 1/2" stud height, which would be considered short by present day design standards, we can }seep the overall height to a minimum. The resulting maximum new roof height would still be less that the tallest roof on the existing residence. i 'i f s 3 �' J 'Myl�K�WI( f. T g '3 _ .. �` 0 CD / S V �� > _- 12.F-te' `foP op FJCKT4 KOCF �E+as''f 6 HotKe/ - I Iq' 1'/Y'I ' L. a Of Mk -1 GWAW &AMA&Z IM h '6I4H i eneR v r=P I it • 117_-11 /z Is- ds -rop oP Nmw FXF fu'e ilyt. o; 11. µ- _ dw oabr�m TaP e4 a0 in .... PillN 5S G17�1z' S/'MNDOV.S,� r ib 't'"�f + ME.- i . {��, OF rC) z yNI%maxBAPCTiOF1 .. o� LiNe'+ RF--1 oF.E+g71'iNty RBMaYE Au. Ftn-�- KWFi d� LryMFl� Ar HCW GPR4rsB - USF Q:.. � M HF-IbHT (7-H'h' 14-ry :' _ �• � .POP- 4/Iz RDowZ can=PRu+c R ram) . --: u.russr xsw w 'oror t3 Vn s. r4oF ..: __. : _ W '.�7Lfor NI ROW \'IDFaF ` -~ tz-•=,. NEW K6oF � _— Ii: h �k U5E pgcT' FL $ Pt TV T.O.P. .,..:"xapesi3lers5 '=4CIz K•w.. 3 _•H� _. i�':.1'/q" . zIMAY— — �• a �. w-Ic O :. t. W4 /wP 2WP rt.00R, wN C � �• �� �s :EJJS�y ZNC puz,� 'GD�vER ALI PRN'fr.9 HAW LF .1 -fLDDR$ •Ib E4WA.TfOIJ of t 4v PLI . •.LE{�677i IF EKI"W6, HOUSE LAVL�$jr �.cbF gt . ; � . ��G.(-{�,MA47'IU ��' 'LTO�'•� � [GbIG�llb %�P:Ci'i� �_MA,'T9G-£�.•'T'lOF3 �LDDIgNb �Y�'� K� MEMORANDUM #011 Date: November 21',1997 To: Planning Division From: Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator Subject: Variance for QIgntz/Harb/George (159-10-72ndAve .W.)qe*f— (V.97-147) The application has been reviewed by the Engineering Division. The applicant will need to comply with all the terms of any future permits. Issuance of a building permit will require installation of a storm water detention facility if over 2000 sq. ft. of surface has been made impervious since 1979. The application is complete at this time. s 2 S f �..+:nw..6�rwwn..arma�ra�maaw.xrrim:�.e•.no...w�RAse..-.yorr�vl��.x'-- City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination Applicant: Barbara GIantz Determination #: CA-97-201 g� Paula Harb pj a Project Name: Permit Number:E::== U. O Site Location: 159I0 72nd Ave W Property Tax Acct #: 5133-000.034-4148 CI Project Description: Remodel of the existing buildings on site The applicant has requested a conditional waiver from the requirements of completing a Critical Areas Study for the above referenced project. The applicant has submitted a partial survey of the site which shows the contour lines within 65 feet of the existing buildings. These contour lines indicate that the existing buildings are constructed within existing critical area buffers. ECDC section 20.15B.040.A.2 states "Remodeling, reconstruction or replacement of legal structures and improvements that do not meet the requirements of this chapter but which are in existence on the date the ordinance codified in this chapter becomes effective; provided, that such activity does not increase the potential impact to critical areas or their buffers; or, in the case of an existing structure or improvement in geologically hazardous areas, does not create the potential of soil, movement or risk of harm or damage to existing uses or development, or to the public safety." Based on the above referenced code section, the requested critical areas conditional waiver is approved with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must provide the City with a geotechnical report which complies with the requirements of the Building official for the Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area (ECDC section 19.05) and which states that the proposed addition/remodel will not create the potential of soil movement or risk of harm or damage to existing uses or development, or to the public safety. 2. The proposed addition/remodel may not exceed the location of existing buildings and impervious surfaces. dohnSBsell, Senior Planner Date Affachmenf S STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY Or SKOHOKISH, UP17M V) z ReceiVED JAN -2 Wo Affidavit of Publication EDMONDS CITY CLERK 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 ........................................ Public Hearing & Development Application ..................... ...................... __ ...................................................... ............... ......... Western ... Fi.re.l.e.s.s ... CO.U., .................................... ..... .. .... .. .. _Project No.: ADB097-129/CU-97-130 — ........................................... I— ....................... I .......... 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: December 31. 1997 ........... I .................................................. and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. .............................. Principal Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this ............. 3Ist December ..... ............... jqjZ... Notary Public in and for the residing at Everett, Snohomi CORRECTED Notice of Development Application & HearingExaminer Board Public Hearing Date of Notice: January 5, 1998 File # V-97-147 Applicant {nformation Permit Information Name of Applicant:...... Michael George For Barbara Requested Permits - Glantz/Paula Harb and Approvals: Variance Date of Application:..... November 11, 1997 Other Required Permits t, Date Application not yet applied for (if known): . ..................... Unknown , Complete: December 16, 1997 Required Studies related Project Location:.......... 15910 72nd Ave. W. to the project: ................ Unknown Project Description ..... Variance to increase the Related Environmental Critical Areas Checklist &State maximum permitted height of a Documents: .................... Environmental Policy Act - remodeled house addition from 25' to 29' 6' ; zoned RS-20. Public Comments Due:.. January 15, 1998; By 9:30 AM City Contact: ............ Meg Gruwell Public Hearing Information 0 Date: Jan. 15, 1998 Time: 9:30 AM Place: City Hall, Mtg. Room No.304,121 5th Ave N., Edmonds Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Community Services Department, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020. (425) 771-0220. Public comments should also be sent to this address. O The decision on this development application will be made within 120d�. ojihe data oftheLeaer g(Cmettimeness, whh allowances made for nultes and,' i - additional f jdr'mation requests. Note that abild} to appsal adegistan is cataingent neon parficiimu n to"tits pgrmg The removal, mutilation, destruction, or concealment of this This notice may be removed Warning! notice before the hearing date is a misdemeanor punishable by after. Jan. 15, 1998 One and imprisonment. ff rt t y. P yi .ti i•• ��'Y�,4'"'�.Fgar�'�2`i`i'# � zj�°rat �. �� i�tt X., � % s;rr - ���tH .�;<j��F� s K it �a+.e�,c ys`�? t'�'�.,iytp y �. J L ✓ °4 1 �- � 5131 030 001 0007 5131030" 002 0006 7olut Peck5131 030 .' 005 4003 ' Gladys Irene Northfield 300 2nd Ave N Mh Donald Henderson Edmonds, WA 98024 158217Sth PI W , 15825 75th PI W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 48026 5131 030 007 0001 5131 030 008 0000 513i 030 009 0009 Richard Hankinson Mrs. Howard GI$zer 15925 75th PI W 15927 75th PI W Frank Bonipart z 7429 N Meadowdale Rd Edmonds, WA 98426 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 dok 5133 000 027- 0008 5133 00 027 0008 5133 0 027 400�3 Norman & Doris Nelson a No oris Nelson N Norman Doris Nelson �i 15?29 75th PI W 15729 7 t Pi W Edmonds, WA 98026 15729 5 PI W cn ur Edmo A 98026 Edmonds, A 98026 w� 5133 000 031 0002 5133 000 032 0100 5133 000 032 0209 U. W R & Paule Beers Donna Paul GLAN 1Z 1NVES'I IvR?NTS LP 7324 258th St SW D 2947 Orchard Hill PI PO Box 330 Cy. Edmonds, WA 98026 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Lynnwood, WA 98046 z rz`a� 5133 000 033 0000 5133 000 034 0108 "'5133 000 034 0207. � Gary & Yvonne Kols ky Barbara Rae Glantz Dennis Kunkel 21 172nd PI SW PO Box 330 I Kailas, HI aoh6 124t) AupapaolSt te O Bothell, WA 98012 Lynnwood, WA 98046 a 6734 x W U. 5133 000 035 0107 5133 000 035 0206 5133 000 036 0304 G M Loboudger Kathleen Johanson Robert Koronko V (1 15920 72nd Ave W 7309 N Meadowdale Rd , 15814 76th Ave W r Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA. 98026 z 5133 000 036 0403 5133 000 036 0502 5133X 036 0601 Harwood Bingham Macwo ngham Manvogham 15805 72nd Ave W 15805 7 d Ave W 15805 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmon , WA 98026 Ed8 A 98426 5133 000 036 0700 5133 436 0809 ' Cheryl Chrysler Manvao in ham 15917 72nd Ave W g MiehaelAAGeorge, Architect 15805 . d Ave W 922 i st Si.t Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmo s, A 9802E Snohomish, WA 9$294 { y { r ?u }^ia i4 3 43t r`` ,.Ct,�' a% ra ry Rt ( tM N S•S #.� C a�!, Wa& t r r -, fA �s t 41k1x � r c� � ya�,t . 5 S#i ~' `��.$l �t F � tSu �a ''t,r, "�.�, { A ✓ 1'" 'S tr r. � Yt [t � r r f t k Z ^r a. FILE NO::V 97-147 z ,{ NOTICE OF HEARING L40 J. tJ U W W AFFIDAVIT OF'POSTING W STATE OF WASHINGTON ) "—' COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) L W! cc I, Karissa Kawamoto, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: Q �1 w That on the 5th day of January, 1998, he attached Notice of ,Public Hearing was posted as prescribed by Ordinance, and in any event, in the Civic Center and the Uj, � Library.; z Signed 1-7 Subscribed and sworn to before me this J day o Y _ 01 i Notary Public in and forte to of Washington: Residing atlo/i�x- f �, NOTICE OF HEARING AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) I, Diane M. Cunningham, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That on the 5th day of January, 1998,.the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed as required to adjacent property owners, the names of which were provided by the applicant. ,1; Notice of Development Application & HearingExaminer Board Public Hearing Date of Notice: December 31, 1997 File # V-97-147 o Applicant Information Name of Applicant:...... Michael George For Barbara o �) Glantz/Paula Herb u. p Date of Application: ..... November 11, 1997 m N Date Application ,�-. T i Complete: December 16, 1997 . Project location:.......... 15910-72nd Ave. W. Project Description:..... - Variance to increase the maximum permitted height of a remodeled house addition from 7- 25' to 29' 6'; zoned RS-20. C Public Hearin / l Date: Jan. 15, 1998 Time: 9:30 PM Permit Information Public Comments Due:.. January 15, 1998; By 9:30 AM City Contact: ....... . ......... Meg Gruwell Requested Permits and Approvals ......... Variance , Other Required Permits not yet applied for (if known): .......................... Unknown Required Studies related '.. to the project ................ Unknown Related Environmental Critical Areas Checklist &State Documents: ........... Environmental Policy Act g Information Place: City Hall, Mtg. Room No.304,121-5th Ave N., Edmonds Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Community Services Department, 121 Sth Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020. (425) 771-0220. Public comments should also be sent to this address. The decision on this development application will be made within 120 days ofthe date ofthe tetterofCampleteness. with allowances made fonsgaltes and add t coal tnformanon requests. Note thatabilily io appeal a decision is coniin t; po pmtrcipation n the permit7f i n process:" , The removal, mutilation, destruction, or concealment of this This notice may be removed Warning! notice before the hearing date is a misdemeanor punishable by after. Jan. 15, 1998 fine and imprisonment. _..__ 0 25? 4 f t IM r}WtS rams �t'�y4 i3 't;„t:i;?o t x•'t`lt? e zx.�f }4 t.{ u .(( r,F,. r x .;<y T� fr, r� t�'`x' Y .�. J•'�"4; r �°t r�S�Yi ' tw>.r'r$t-' -4 `, 5 ..�53 �•xi t�-h, ,. t r / 7 y .r r y+ � 'rr.,yti trt a 7 e S 2x`# ..,...,..,..,...,,........bv.....,,.L�, T £ XZ. f�& oi=•"...�rirtt.t.4 I i r`+, i x �.:' i y„� . '''t ''t" qi' t irr ° t w ,. y8,r t + qI,. 't ,p 5131 030 001 0007 sy 5131 030,005 0003 ,- 513103p 002 0006 John Peck Gladys Irene Northfield Donald Henderson 300 2nd Ave N 43h I582175th PI W 1582515th PI W Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 5131 030.007 0001 5131 030-008 0000 5131 030 009 0009 Z Richard Hankinson Mrs. Howard GlAzerFrank Bonipart 15925 75th PI W p es 15927 75th PI W 7429 N Meedowdale Rd x Edmonds, WA 98026 fjj Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Vt 110 5133 000 027- 0008 5133 000 027 0008 a 5133 p 027 0008 va ( Norman &Doris Nelson Norm or' Nelson Norman Doris Nelson UJ 15729 75th PI W 15729Norm 7 Pl W Edmonds, WA 98026 15729 5ki W Cl)U.Edmo s, A 98026 EdmondsA 98026 5133 000 031 0002 5133 000 032 0100 U- = W R & Paule Beers Donna Paul 5133 000 032 0209 LA C 7324158th St SW GLANTZ INVESTMENTS LP 2947 Orchard Hill PI PO Box 330 I Edmonds, WA 98026 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 L wood Z t- Lynnwood, WA 98046 Ulf � � 5133 000 034 0108 5133 000 033 0000 p� Gary & Yvonne Koisky Barbara Rae Glantz 5 Dennis3 000 034 0207 ct W 11172nd PI SW enKunkel a M- PO Box 330 1290 Aupapaolie St Bothell, WA 98012 Lynnwood, WA 98046 Kailua, HI 96734 SW F- �-a 5133 000 035 0107 5133 000,035 0206 5133 000 036 0304 G M Loboudger Kathleen Johanson Robert V Koronko 15920 72nd Ave W 7309 N Meadowdale Rd 15814 70th Ave W O F- Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 y ti 5133 000 036 0403 5133 p00 036 0502 5133 0 036 0601 Marwood Bingham Marwo n am g 15805 72nd Ave W 15805 7 d A W 15805,7A ingham Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmon , WA 98026 Edmo s, A 98026 5133 000 036 0700 5133 VW 036 0809 Cheryl Chrysler Marwoo ingham Michae]AA. George, Architect 15917 72nd Ave W 15805 7 d Ave W 922 1 St St ® Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmo s, A 98026 Snohomish, CIA 98290 i FA Sig Subscribed and sworn to before me this day DEC-29-97 04:25 PM MICHAEL A GEORGE AIA MICHAEL A. GEORGE A—""'ITECT AIA PS 922 First Street SNOHOMIsH, WASHINGTON 98290 (360) 560-1331 FAX (360) 668-1930 TO 360 568 1930 P.01 > WE ARE SENDING YOU nAttached C3 Under separate cover vla -.,,._the following items! 0 Shop drawins-.1 0 Prints C-1 Plans rj Samples 0 specifications E3 Copy of letter 0 Mange order 0---- 7" =WIN THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: Kror approval n Approved as submitted 0 Resubmit —.— copies for approval 5/For your use C] Approved as noted 13 Submit — copies for distribution XAs recitinsted 0 Returned for corrections U Return — corrected prints * For raujow and comment m * FOR BIDS DUE 19 REMARKS— DPW-yn tw n PRINTS IIFTURNM ArTER LOAN TO US COPY TO SIGNED{ld If —&/ON— *r# *10104 fiatod, kindly noft to at onm A DEC-29-97 04:26 PM MICHAEL A GEORGE AIA 360 568 1930 P.02. Post office ltx 2383 - KIMandP, WA 98083 Fecsl ileR(423) 88 9443 Paula Herb J'ob Numbrr 7108 6919 -1630 Place Southwest Deaermber 29, 1997 Edmonds, WA 08026 Attention: Mike George, Architect Subject: Geoteehnical Engineering Reconnaissance Mart Remodel 13910 — 72' d Avenue West Edmonds, Washington Dear Ms. Harb: The undersigned registered professional engineer conducted a reconnaissance of your property at 15910 — 72n° Avenue West in Edmonds, Washington. The purpose of our work was to assess the impact of the proposed deck which was proposed within ten feet of the base of the slope. The scope of our work consisted of our site visit where we observed surticial features. No subsurface testing was conducted for this letter. No warranty is expressed or implied. In our opinion„ the proposed deck construction will not create the potential of soil movement or risk of harm or damage to the existing uses or developnient, or to the public &&Eery. Please contact the undersigned directly if there are any questions. Thank You: DODDS G coscienocs Inc. Tll-dw. cor Gov't. -Loty 05 cn in— Ous 4 T7 LL z Lu Wr IKS 0 -1 a F LU LUWUJ x J, 3 LIU U- Z .. CAD -11 4 LU Ca u = 5 5 P 0 29 30, z 6 6 cc -�-7 — 7 -11 8 -t7 /0 CD, GOO Lot n Car Gov't. Lot 4 X— A _—--- Z Xow r A 5 02 0/ 03 rtM 1 ei Rle lleavy A'IDes NAME l01 TAME F H IN8/8&� �/ ..'Aor O ADDt:r.J9 ^— G j T�oNE uMa"i'a— "DRESS' JOB ADDRESS LOTCv S E 7 �.1/ ACT A y WWW 1.0'f WVEHAOI'� ;tJ IAT COVERAGE =I L.G , PER.V Sdi- ACT{I}J t� E c 3°` (G�k 34t 33 GT%6 L S �-APutX V t EOUIRED YAROh P.Q. SANBS FRONT StOF REAR FIKiNY' SIDE REAR 5 /�. A 3v' `10, &'54 LEGAL LOT VA IfEANCE OR COA110- AL —US. 0 YES ❑ NO PERMIT NtWHER � 7 .✓wlvvJ� W' � clrt 25 'c/ rP �. DE}RCIENCY Cy NAa1E _ ' I u�t/ / /-�•�•-- /mot EXISTING STREET R{Ci .;.5! 7R18 PROPERTY PLAN ET. R/W .!3F�1. _.._/F_:.FD. COMP. ' eel - - nI ADDttEs9 REMARKS Driveway BZopes not to exceed those indicated Standard Dug. N.ZO3 r°. ' / ! pI I ✓/��r on M _ -1 ,t A CITY �s � rO/ TELEPEONE N UBLlt CtiECKw J3Y I win j I I �a3-al- -(40.a I 6— K( ¢ /-/— O y e 7.- ENEN � RESIDENTIALJF� LINE � NON-RESIDENTIAL El SIGN ADD ❑ DEMOLISH WALL MNO ALTER ❑ ORCFII.LTE FENCx...._...Ft.) REPAIR Ej I. SP. PRE.M0VE ❑ POOL 'UMBER UP fiTORt};S NUMBEtt Ot' .:..+•�"'� DNELLINO G� UNITS © ATURE OF WOILK TO BE DONE YES .Y Irl" Check No....».._.._.„.... BUILDING PLUMBING HEAT A GAS LINE PENCE SIC" N RETAINING WALL SWIMMING POOL DEMOLITION PRE -MOVE INSPECTION EXCAVATION OR FILL hereby athnawlldre that I hove rend "" "I'"c"tan: flat eels In• TOTAL AMOUNT DUE Alvin Se correct; and thnt I —the owner• or the duly author- nt o/ the owner. I axree to —1,17 with el!y and mote 1— roan- canatruetlon; and lb 4"19 the work aulbbmild thereby, no Den+nemployed ATTENTION In vlolatloo of the Labr Code of the State or Wuhtrrtrn THIS PERMIT toWorkmen's Compensation Imurmee. AtrrifolUzza lit Limit On Year [extent DEMOLITION' w•idch LE ONLY Tit.d t +nosey Y. n10 .D•I QILDIxOs A. bo tom tVNOTED .)N' R A ) DATE 9la INSPECTION �� DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS NOTE: Applicant Subject to Plan Ciieck Fee This Permit e,vrn work to be done en Prtrate pnpeety ONLY. 775-21525 .try tonelrueNon on the Publ11 dnmaln (curb., eidtwdke, driveways, muraute., Mr.) will "nl,o ..Dante Perm11.1on. 04, AYES 13 NO ROUP T D IN THE CITY )CAL SALES TAX •Qo 1 /9t- I( APPLICATION APPROVAL This application is not a permit until signed by tho Building Official or his Dep- uty; and fees are paid, and receipt Is ae- 1moarledged In space provided. i = ur 0: CITY Y OF EDMO DS BARBARA FAHEY 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771.0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 MAYOR: COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning/Building • Parks and Recreation . Engineering • Wastewater Treatment Plant jnc.1$°IV Transmittal Date: December 17, 1997 To: Environmental Review Section Department of Ecology PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject:. 15910 72nd Ave. W., Edmonds Transmitting Determination of Nonsignificance & Environmental Checklist For Your Information: X As you requested: For your file: Comment: Note attachments: Sincerely, Diane Cunningham, Administrative Assistant cc: Michael A. George Barbara Glantz/Paula Harb + Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan fj r r r ..,�4 r 2 i : t E � �tiy ,{'k* z 1 � >• - Y Of bU,y 0 O CITY -MOND S F$1 1190 121- STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771.0220 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) g DETERMINATION OF NONSICNIFICANCE (Ji Description of proposal:. Remodeling and adding an addition to a single-family residence and garage including a Ai Height Variance to allow a pitched roof on the house to exceed the height limit of 25 feet by 4 feet 6 inches (City of =i Edmonds File V-97-147). p Proponent: Barbara Glantz and Paula Harb gLocation of proposal, including street address if any: 15910 - 72nd Avenue W., Edmonds, Washington U. LO Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS sz t—I The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the OEenvironment. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c). This decision was 11 I wl made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This 2 M information is available to the public on request. U VS GF- X There is no comment period for this DNS. UJ This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from u. O the date below. Comments must be submitted by _z V c Responsible Official: Jeffrey S. Wilson h 2 Position/Tide: Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Services - Planning Division Phone: (425)771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 Date: _fit- 6A 7 Signature• XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 - 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than am. 5 1912 by filing a written appeal citing g the reasons. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Jeffrey S. Wilson to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on _ V _ 1 99 % , at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist. Page i of 2 v97.147D.rr0c IVISMSEPA I'm M CI 0 CITY OF ]ED1VIONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST UJ Purpose of Checklist: U LO w. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the w S environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all w'' U ` proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide U. information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it g � ' can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. 9J LL }4 Instructions for Applicants: N a! u, This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this Z checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer ' the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. w w You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer a the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or U ca if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply". complete answers to the questions now may a h� avoid unnecessary delays later. NU Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions LLF- if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. �' La in ' The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of U = land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you O r submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if z there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project." "applicant," and "property or site should be read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. Name of proposed project, if, applicable:-- �C'>Dt-r-tDtJ Name of applicant: _i�C (.aL�ciJTZP^ij (, LA,f Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: tAow k y WA us M 0, 2 M U O a w x U. v O Z 4. Date cbecklist prepared: t �� S. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): eDl! iA (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. (STAFF COMMENTS) S. List any environmental information youknowabout that.has been prepared,'or will be prepared; directly: related (STAFF COMMENTS) ' O` 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. (STAFF COMMENDS) Paget of24 CHKLTMWI-xaw93 MAMMSPF.A .. 11. Fr" v - (STAFF COMMENTS) Y an�v, u r �td�d� aAs.o Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal.. You do not need to repeat those WAers on this page. 1 (STAFF COMMENTS) Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist Page 3 of24 CHMT.D=I-N0VA3 MA=MSPFA a. b. C. rim CNKttOMI-NOV eI MASIEMPEA General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, �stcepjslopumountainous, other. (STAFF COMMENTS) What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? % (STAFF COMMENTS) What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the,classification of agricultural soil, specify them and note any prime farmland. Page 4 of24 ❑>F 0 (STAFF COMMENTS) f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. I INA I (STAFF COMMENTS) g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? l7. (o la (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Proposed mMures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 2. AIR --. a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if.knoTn CIIKLMDOW-NOV--93 MAST MPEA (STAFF COMMENTS) Page S ef24 t ;. t t y r 1h k t i .••••,- .,...-n. I.V�,y...r.n..waa+�xw.vra'wtiffeo'ctb:Rt�uewr.�wwueluYuxaKfnb:?R4n�uxAllA4vHdW.I'dsnRMMtAWN4ttRWDCntEvveRJaW.'dM[nsSroWhiM+Mkrviw.v...t��Y'.'.'i1'?.°P�`d'.}4Lxi,.n :�-.. .. ... b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. z (STAFF COMMENTS) �t J ta1 L) 01 C. Proposed measures'to reduce or control emissions or other Impacts to the, if any: Ah JJJ1' AD J LL W g (STAFF COMMENTS) LL 3. WATER z N� 0 a. Surface: Z F w uJ!: (1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and U o streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If a seasonal appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. e LU Uj n0 V O H (STAFF COMMENTS) z (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Y�0 (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material *that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of rill material. (STAFF COMMENTS) 7 Page 6 d24 S CHUT.DMI-NOW91 • - MASMSPRA - -:6 ...Y.. O - - . .. .n ., +. .. ...... ....._.'.. ..... '`..... ., •st 4L rf,. 4y t!x G G 3tr - e. O,r (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Hie (STAFF COMMENTS) Water Runoff (including storm water): (1) ]Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow knto other waters? If so, describe. , r (STAFF COMMENTS) z: i (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. l� (STAFF COMMENTS) ©;. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 9 of24 Sit 1 � 1 r V n 1 L i 4 ^� f s,. r .. .•--•, ...u...,k,,.,, w..,av,.•,...rsw,...oirr,v.:irtsttr,as'firiiiie:asuaaermwianmsruvj'.v�i�iao ?.r �f ' utwts-.:Yuer..adGrtB'J�etl:,kAVrd�i�':"�4%AX13`:". "�.''tt�;"'..�.,,7„ 4. Plants IL: Check or circle types of vegetation —found on the site: z { deciduous tre alder, magi aspen, other: sr eve �j rgreen tree: fir, cedar, ine, other: cc M shrubs v a` grass U wI w �! pasture ~' N C crop or grain Uj wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: :3 water plants: water lily, eelgrrass, milfoit, other: U- 2 d other types of vegetation: z I--- {. (STAFF COMMENTS) E- Q` z w wt o w Lu c> t— rs "' Z b. What kindandamount of vegetation will be _removed or altered? v L1a6Nd?. OVVtA�l vyWu% o � r �ui�uaairwrxt+n�[' of 4tA� AS+� z - (STAFF COMMENTS) ® C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site — (STAFF COMMENTS) "j t Page 9 of24 CIm DMI-ROVAI MASIERWRA d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: hr�f— �l .PJfiA/111IL (STAFF COMMENTS) S. Animals a. Check or circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagi songbirds Cher: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. List any threatened or endangered specie known.to be on or near the site...;:, C. cHUT.DWi•xov ss MAMR%SPEA (STAFF COMMENTS) Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. V1�O (STAFF COMMENTS) Psoo 20 of24 d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: hOlke, (STAFF COMMENTS) 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. Wbat kinds of energy (electri aturat ga ,oil, wood stove, solar} will be used to meet the completed project s energy eeds. nbe fret er it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties?, U so, 'generally describe. h,c) C. (STAFF COMMENTS) What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reducj¢ or control energy impacts, if any: It". n3- AJ-� Di-JuAD w U 0 a Lu z U. W ca H O Z r ��Lekrr t✓ I r 5 i i y r d 9 } ti r 4� ji�R� d r i 4S 4. 4 3f 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health -hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe., (STAFF COMMENTS) (1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. i n (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) proposed measures to reduce or control environmental, health hazards, if any. - (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: .traffic, equipment, operation, other)? LOU _ (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 12 af24 CHKLTJWI.NOV." MASMSPEA '- :' 3 ✓ t Sr'3 �+xx= ^y Y'� +fit, win �}3�( rdL y�' • �: � ' • ...'_t _ .; � '. �.. ._ .., .. v.h»_... .. .� .. . _ . .... .. .,t. i .. ._ ... �..�.� _ a\, ��'1 �i.c"Y,rx"Y r.'� t,v. �i � 1L..�nt[��:'.\, k .�'', s'N e t ^sz 7 t i T Py i M What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come fro the site. r(' (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Proposed erasures to reduce or controlnoiseimpacts, if any: w y( f (STAFF COMMENTS) $. band and Shoreline Use a. What is the eurrent.0 of th site and adj cent ��nnropgroes? wu� r��irtt�tat b. CMT.nWt•xOv s3 v (STAFF COMMENTS) Has the site been used for agriculture? N so, describe. _V�o (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 13 of 24 C. Describe any structures on I (STAFF COMMENTS) E What is -61 (STAFF COMMENTS) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the a site? ` site? t. C VI z z W 0 a W U. IJJ F— z h. Has partof the I► as an "environmentally y ' . i (STAFF COMMENTS) 56M i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? (STAFF COMMENTS) (STAFF COMMENTS) 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any' n L' i✓ _ 1 i• S .. i csr , (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 1S otV CHKLTDMI•NOV-93 MASMRISKA r Y "l .7 E (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle. exterior building material(s) proposed? (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 16 of24 CHKLUMI-NOV-93 MAMR%SPFA 0 tau T t!? w C* C7 C. CHUTMMI NOVA" MASfER1SPFA C� (STAFF COMMENTS) (STAFF COMMENTS) What existing off -site sources of light or glarg may affect yopr proposal? (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 17 of24 E+• ti ' t � yY f \ 1 ff 'i ?t S'�I rti"i� i 4 N Yj �' t( � 1; t i r,f l 1 '• t S _ tal} ......_:1..,,.t...xaa.nak+.. cavesy+i..evc..tmSN»sVt,"aTvaxs,`�a3 e4:'wW�olrYfrm.am�w�w+.v��:.t�.• •4Sc•.: N.. �' uuui` 4�..cs.+aaaWuw++�-- KAGSk�,5{OPC.,4,.J..;�,f«?4t2l, .t'A �. .'�,,, ,'' d. Proposedmeasures to.reduce or control li t and are Impacts, If any: 4� r F- U� J$ (STAFF COMMENTS) v O�� v3 i. i M 12. Recreation cn w O a. What designated and inform recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? U. 3 Z !--s 0� Z 0 (STAFF' COMMENTS)... r W UJ i t3. U. U C b. Would.the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. h d�vC3 Z 1 i (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: a� `a t (STAFF COMMENTS) . Sri >u 3 Ant, t ((k r+a 1 tyit }:�}•��1j Page 18 of24 �g CHUMDOCU-NOV 93 i MASMSPEA - T,S X 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next.to the site?- If so, generally describe. KO (STAFF COMMENTS) s U. < b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural LO 1 0 importance known to be on or next to the site. LJ111 Inn IN z LU UJI LJ) 0 LU LWU (STAFF COMMENTS) LL z .. LU U) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, If any: z (STAFF COMMENTS) 14. Transportation 0 a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 19 Of24 CHUMD0LM-NOV-93 MAMR%SPEA 71, E+• D� 1 S '�-. -• • ` .,_�tl.awv:,.3.ta4r vx�iazsY..tlpr.GKGSi3SNitlk&6_ e.�-, (.•: �:'i .��;ypY'.:..` Y''�` •.: [ .'.e � xia ,aw�o-o-+iAatsv�earaw�n�i,vaoaewune.nr '=f.: �.K'�Via'i'. A5'2�'+�.".ii✓�'1' �f:','M.i.�!` '� - 1 ', b. is site currently served by public transit? of no, what is the Approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? LJ�1.tyhn C. M e. (STAFF COMMENTS) How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? (STAFF COMMENTS) Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to>existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, ,generally describe (indicate whether public or, private). nib (STAFF COMMENTS) Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page20 of24 ®L J I— Z t— Z w 2 U O 13 w S h- w ui V H O z E How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. (STAFF COMMENTS) g. Proposed measures to reduce grcontroI :transportation impacts, if any:. _.. . (STAFF COMMENTS) 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. KO (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 21 of24 CIMMIDMI-NOV 9i1 MASIERISPEA a L. i'x Y. 7s, 1 t yl s :S is L i Y i t i s a !ts[ L ....+..]..r veHi w y.u�m�nA+l'Y.a �ra�w�•.: �urwm+x.�wW�.wrww � w`lYXiTW.xi I6. Utilities a. Zoitairy nMees currently available at the site: electrici natural g ,,)'w' ate refuse v c QrIepo .) septic system, other:, . --- -� - (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. G.1 MA VICINITY MAP N.T.S. LEGAL DESCRIPTION ALL THAT PORTION OF -TRACTS. 32, AND 33,_ MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 42, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 32; THENCE NORTH 89' 53' WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 32, 211.33 FEET THENCE SOUTH IN A STRAIGHT LINE TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 33, 230.29 FEET WEST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 33; THENCE NORTH 0' 12' EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACTS 32 AND 33, 236 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. OWNER BARBARA R. GLANTZ 15910 72ND AVE. W EDMONDS, WA. It" MIR ..... ..... . . . . . . . . . . .. . hi rn W5W L) tp U) rV, gy; 1" U) ui v UJ =! 7e Ln u.- M4 LL 0) IN Ait ZH,. . ..... REM z A R BARA GLANTZ/PAULA HARB W Lu Cli 15910 72NI) AV-E'7W u co 105 . u m 1:7 8 77 W li1., gn , if, ISM Vicinity and-f-Zoning Map =LU CITY OF EDMOlVDS BARBARA FAHEY 121 STH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (426) 771.0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 - MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT lnc,lgyv Public Works • Planning/Building a Parks and Recreation • Engineering •Wastewater Treatment Plant December 1611997 Mr. Michael A: George 922`-.1st Street Snohomish, WA 98290 Subject: ASSIGNMENT OF HEARING DATE Dear Mr. George: Z l 01 z Your application is now complete and has been scheduled for a public hearing at the time and place listed below. 0 Action: Variance L w x File No.. Assigned: V-97-147 — Date of Hearing : January I5,1997 z Time: 9:00 A.M. , or as soon_ thereafter as possible. Place: Third Floor Meeting Room Edmonds City Hall z 121- 5th Avenue N. Hearing Body: Hearing Examiner i Please be aware that your presence at the hearing is highly advisable. If an applicant or his representative is not present, the item may be moved to the end of the agenda. Items not reached by the end of the 1 hearing will be continued to the following month's agenda. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (425) 771-0220. Sincerely, Community Services Department - Planning Division Meg Grawell Planner cc: File No. V-97-147 Barbara Glantz/Paula Harb 6919 - 163rd Pl. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 COMPt.MDOc + Incorporated August 11, 1890 + - - - - Sister Cities International -- Hekinan, Japan 111 0 WE ARE SENDING YOU Attached C) Under separate cover Via the following Items: Cl SI10D drawings 0 Prints [3 Plans 171 Samples 0 specifications * Copy of letter C3 Criange order n SEEM THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: [I For approval 171 Approved as submitted [3 ror your use [3 Approved as noted U A* requasted C3 r4oturned for corrections rl For review and comment n n FOR BIDS DU 19 REMARKS 17, V rl/IV I 164& U&I A [A W A 154% tde,- 19 COPY TO N enclosures aro not as noted, kindly notffy us at once. T, M [a V7 *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE? *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT, BE CONSIDERED *Additional Information Required for Complete Application *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review • Owner Glantz/Harb/GeorLye • Property Address 15910 72nd Ave. W. • Date of Application 11/13/97 • Type Variance for Height • Hearing Required: Yes X No Date of Hearing (if known) X Application Site plan for Short Subdivision (8.6 x 11) X -Fee —Ji—site Plan (11 x 17) X APO List X Legals (Existing & Proposed) Title Report Environmental Assessment X Vicinity Map Proof of 2-Year Occupancy(ADU) Elevations X Declarations (Variance) Petition (Official Street Map) A_Environmental Checklist X Critical Areas Determination L01 z < =Z UJ cc 2 <:D U 0 LU -j (n U. LU 0 < -Z � -APPLICATION ROUTING F91V AND CHEck!-I§AT�,,�!.. 'E�t) k997 P S4CRPA?70N ROUTED TO: Engineering 11/19/97 Fire 11/19/97 Public Works 11/19/97 Tarks.eulkec11/1-9/97 Staff Comments: j FILV.-,-,�!-97-147 FWOM: PLANNING *V RETURNED A,0/ Engineering Fire N, Public Works 4)4 Parks at Rec. L.L < *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE? X z LU *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED 0 z *Additional Information Required for Complete Application Uj W 0 *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review U" Ll �L- 0 z LU 0 z ~ • Owner Glantz/Harb/George • Property Address 15910 72nd Ave. W. • Date of Application 11/13/97 e Type Variance for Height 9 Hearing Required: Yes X No Date of Hearing (if known) X Application Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11) X Fee Site Plan (11 x 17) X APO List X Legals (Existing & Proposed) Title Report Environmental Assessment 0 X Vicinity Map Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) Elevations ...-.X Declarations (Variance) Petition (Official Street Map) X Environmental Checklist. X Critical Areas Determination q 0 *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODES *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONISIDEREDZ, i *Additional Information Required for Complete Application F s *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review i i • Owner Glantz/Harb/George i • Property Address 15910 72nd Ave. W. • Date of Application 11 / 13/97 • Type Variance for Height • Hearing Required: Yes X No Date of Hearing (if known) ' X Application i Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11) X Fee _X _Site Plan (11 x 17) X APO List X t_egals (Existing & Proposed) Title Report Environmental Assessment X Vicinity Map Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) Elevations X Declarations (Variance) Petition (Official Street Map) X Environmental Checklist X Critical Areas Determination 0 ®� -APPLICATION ROUTING F OPMEIVIED .'FILE: V-97-1.47 AND CHECKLIST , FF201H: PLANNING NOV 199? ENGINEERINGy, ROUTED TO:RETURNED / Eng€neer€ng - .1,D6t 9r7 ',' Engineering Fire 11/19/97 Fire Public Works 11/19/97 Publlc Works ' ? Parks u Rec. 11/19/97 Parks 8 Rec. -` i Staff Comments:. < a � � i �t 147 'a *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE? - I *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED � *Additional Information Required for Complete Application i *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review � t i • Owner Glantz/Harb/Geor e f • Property Address 15910 72nd Ave. W. • Date of Application 11 /13/97 • TypeVariance for Hel&t t • Hearing Required: Yes X No Date of Hearing (if known) X Application Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8: x 11) X Fee X Site Plan (11 x 17) X APO List X Legals (Existing & Proposed) I Title Report Environmental Assessment X Vicinity Map Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU Elevations X Declarations (Variance) . Petition (Official Street Map) X Environmental Checklist X Critical Areas Determination 0 t ..i`s X ti��t '.l sr{F� •� � t ",+� �,n t.: `ss' 'U i�+r } �'a`�� £yt�r 1, `r dat t�� � Li;z� �_3,� 1i .� F � ts. � i •b' „w',.� b�, - f ti ,f. 3y„ S i ti l r s;; t z,.+fie r S ! }j: r r `• r `t ) ` :;. � �• „r � s,,.., e 4 � 4� ,� `��'��u'•+,. � ra E 1` �'�e.'S +.ywa 4fi ti'' r? �(i`�" � l . � $rL �) i r ; �K11, n ` lei MEMORANDUM f 1997 a c, rr �) �v. of Date: November 21, 1997 f!a W` J F, TO: Planning Division CO LU From: Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator U. o Subject: Variance for Glantz/Harb/George (15910 - 72nd Ave W.) cj z- UA (1/-97-947) -�; The application has been reviewed by the Engineering Division. The g LU applicant will need to comply with all the terms of any future permits. Issuance of a building permit will require installation of a storm water detention facility if over o 2000 sq. ft. of surface has been made impervious since 1979. The application is $ LU complete at this time. r LU `n o z j i 1 r Crff OF EDMONDS I ENGINEERING DIVISION 7147.DOC . -, �.... s�+., ,. �..} .,., �. ,. .., h..�_.. o.. .... �" 4i.'`., xs� .rla .:.. ,..'FSh..._� _.,._.i.tti'.$..._tw •f r.r '.µ.Hlir n�o'+sl. �� .y �m:i.`: xtde k; 4,+sr�i:.. tr z i— w; w� J � V O (n B. � LU J h c. w o, a �i LL d; W =} W- zr ►— fl z ww U cn1p i_ t`viI U- _ Z. V !E O h) z 0 RE city of edrC)nds 01 landuseapplication p n ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ❑ COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Q HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT STREET VACATION Cl REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT LEC VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER FILE # V -6P- 141 ZONE DATE t` ' �' �(7 REC'D BY FEE` RECEIPT# 4(,2 -7b2..____� ;'HE RING DATE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB GI ADB ® CC ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED CI DENIED ❑ APPEALED APPEAL# Applicantd0m,� A. Address Property Address or Location 72VQ —tkJ Property Owner fA Phone I / i WA Agent Phone Tax Acc # ��� © '� '� Sec. 5' Twp.27 N Rng.,tE wM Legal Details of Project or Proposed Use The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of 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 in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ hart `Its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staff of the City bf Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting a dant to is application. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT M i ; :.c � ,;, r�ri7}i�-.�--g..,'� 'nS. ��''� �� 'F r„r�ry� '.+�?n:'z'-�'sF�"r`•4;'�"; ra�'.':Tnaa-: n.�;.�i �jg�'�tbrr'3 �;�x,,�. _ia.��!�;��+f #,7;y.. l ,. _ s fwi +' x 'r�tt�•� �� .�".o�'-�?"�+'xr�Lt,,� t � ��,%. +.�`t '� `.,�x'rk ..��...�.�4 S '�'�'�, rac�s�, �.t�, ,yfs. tyt lr# 77� e t� �i"� �' .. �P�'E�-r.;¢ �t ' � `<'^a sc .-'`.' wY-,:.: .. t.'1��3�F ry- 7�,� ?.tT ,.'.. t.«; � � {� �i{ � S�F 1•r�`'li"«• ., t, Michael . z A. George APPLICANT DECLAIaATIONS for VARIANCE APPLICATION City of Edmond (Meadowdale Beach Area) LAa z ~ OWNERS: Paula Harb Barbara Glantz a: 6919 163rd PL .S.W. ; dZ us LU Edmonds, WA 98026 (425) 745-8386 w W ARCHITECT: Michael A. George A.I.A. 922 First Street u. Architect Snohomish, WA 98290 A.tA., P.S.(360) (360) 568 -1331 Lj 568-1930 fax O (360) 568.1331 z (360) 568.1930 Fax SITE LOCATION: 15910 72nd Ave. W Edmonds, WA 98026 TAX ACCT. .NO. : 5133 000 032 0209 _ a ZONE: RS-20 PURPOSE: variance to increase maximum height of 25' above an average height, as defined by the City of Edmonds, by 4'-611, to a maximum of 29'-611. PROJECT: Remodel &'addition to a 24 year old house:remove existing flat roofs, utilize existing walls to install a new'4/12 sloped roof over existing and new spaces. 922 i FIrst Street „i Snohomish, WA 9 8 2 9 0 ij _ 1. 2. 3. .'7 0 The location of the existing residence as well as the location of our proposed additions are a direct result of the special circumstances of this site. Although our site area is more than twice the minimum required in the RS-20 zone, the majority is too steep to be considered a suitable building site. Our actual available building area is approximately 17% of the overall site. The existing, and relatively level building pad, is surrounded on three sides by steep and heavily forested slopes of up to 60% that are considered to be " Critical Areas ". As a result, the proposed additions are planned to be over the main floor of the existing residence. At the main floor level, the new spaces are setback from the critical areas as much as possible. (see attached site plan) SPECIAL PRIVILM .- The approval of this variance would not constitute a special privilege as there have been other height variances granted in the RS zones. (V690, V590, V96-91,V972, V96-90 in City files). In addition, with the exception of one flat roofed house on 75th Pl. W, which is situated well away from any trees, all recent construction in the area has been two- story structures with sloped roofs. It is our belief that installing a sloping roof, in order to protect a newly remodeled residence would not be considered a special privilege. The existing flat roof is not an appropriate roofing technique when so many trees are so close. A sloping roof is the most common and correct residential roofing technology throughout the Meadowdale Reach Area as well as the entire northwest. (see attached approved variances) The comprehensive plan calls for high quality single-family development. Our proposed remodel of the existing 24 year old residence is consistent with that development standard. In addition, the comprehensive plan discourages the removal of trees or altering the existing topography to accommodate construction. our height variance request, which is needed to replace the flat roofs with sloping roofs, will insure that this project will not prematurely deteriorate, and will allow us to have a minimum impact on the topography and trees as is consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan. A 1®1 4. $Oi13NQ ��n__. xNWE: Our site is zoned RS-20 and is more than twice the minimum lot width of 1001called for by the development standards is this zone. The site area is approximately 52,724 s.f. which is also more than twice the minimum 20,000 s.f. required by the RS-20 zone. The RS-20 zone specifies a maximum of 35% impervious surfaces. Our proposed remodel, including the additional house, deck and garage areas, will only cover 17% of the total site area. In addition, our proposed addition/remodel will not encroach on any of the RS-20 defined front, side or rear setbacks. M gt Our design goals were to make use of the existing 'n 01 building pad and structure in order to minimize the F impact on the critical slopes present at our site. ?( Unfortunately, due to the necessity to protect the Z ® proposed remodel by installing a minimum 4/12 w W; sloping roof over the existing and additional areas a o we will exceed the maximum 25, height as specified by the RS-20 development standards by approximately a �- 4'-6". However, this added height will not have any W W impact to surrounding views. Consequently, we feel this proposal to remodel an existing two story u. residence and install a sloping roof is consistent Z N with the intent of the RS-20 zone. v (see site plan & development standards) z 5. NOT EDETRIMEHM: This request for a 41-6" height variance would not be detrimental to surrounding properties, cause a loss of property value, obstruct scenic views, limit use of surrounding properties, or harm any person on our property or on any other property. There are some houses that are being constructed (or will be) on the bluff to the east of our site, but they are so far above us that there will be ®_ zero impact to any existing or future views. The one single family residence that is located behind us is southeast of our proposal and would not be impacted by the 4'-6" height variance. Our existing residence is located to the north of the home behind us and the forested slope to our north eliminates any view in that direction. At present there is no existing significant view from the house behind us. C' The location of our proposed addition that would exceed the maximum height, is to the north of any view that might be achieved if a second story were to be added to the home behind us. One of the design parameters for this project was to minimize the height of any new construction that would be in front of this residence to a level that was well below the maximum height allowed in the RS-20 zone. The proposed roof over the existing breeze way is almost 9' below the maximum allowed height and the proposed roof over the existing garage is approximately 5'-6" below the maximum allowed height. It is our position that the portion of the remodel that would require a height variance does not have an impact on any existing or future views to the home behind our proposal. (see site plan & section, elevations, photographs) The existing house has been repaired several times since the home was constructed 24 years ago. As we have previously stated a flat roof is not an appropriate roofing solution given the significant number of trees around this house. our proposal will have a minimum impact to this site as we are not encroaching into the critical areas and are adding over the existing main floor to increase the second floor area. The following structural alterations will be made to the existing residence to insure that we only require a minimum variance: We are lowering all the framed main floor levels to the elevation of the main floor slab. This will drop the highest main floor by 1'-10". We will also continue the existing second floor level at the second floor additions. After the existing flat roof has been removed, we would propose to use the existing walls, which are at 7'-9 1/2"above the second floor, as the bearing walls for the proposed 4/12 sloping roof. All new second floor exterior walls would also be at this height. By utilizing the existing 7'-9 1/2" stud height, which would be considered short by present day design standards, we can keep the overall height to a minimum. The resulting maximum new roof height would still be less that the tallest roof on the existing residence. we believe using the exi that by usi h sting wall heights 'd roof *e'are.'- and,, pr6p6sing.a minimum 4/12°ilope requesting a minimum variance that willnot: impact; any surrounding properties., (see schematic sections &'elevations) -Ve appreciate your, consideration regarding this: request. RSepectfully Michael . George AIA, PS 1 0 0 L)Lu 9 z f. S.W.1/4; SEC. 5, T.27N., RAEMM. 200, BM 5200 Hit ST7 114 of 07 03 ' Z4 tj 1 12 02 r#Acr IM o—J---- of 06 20 If NO 9 p 07 S 4 2 1 If A a 4 1 11 IZ a4i 2 -86 'IKY Am? illEADOWCALE er SEXY 17 SUP ENT of ly =71-1 Z 1 t58 K 02 A 1 sp S-13-90 i� 31 o > 04 —7 01 , 3 cc lw r 4 ILJ of r It sp s U-se 01 06 14. it v s is Y low, 1 0? 10 to or Ito is "A It 4 a 1 1 07 0 2 06 pl, 3 t 8 lij 10 4 as r9041 L 01 0, 0 5 0 -j MEADOWDALE RlDr.- A r 04 w rl too 74 (51) 4 (76961 6.1 MEADOWDALE 0.01 4 5 6Vl 03 DIV. HEICH sil of 412 02 4 Ir sp S-8-87 5 is r bo 64 6 Is tl % pp 11 412 7 03 109 ST-, 511A rl I WESTMMr VIEW - DR. NO. 1 PLAT OF MEADOWDALE BEACH (5131) ics173; 114 S11 C., 'visromm ) ?"OTE. This Is "I .'.my. it Is a A37el .-p ROAD orsio LIMM md for Wc$tlm of P.1"lly ". v 'IRIS MAP DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW ALL HIGHWAYS, ROADS OR EASEMENTS AFFECTING SAID PROPERTY; NO LIABILITY IS ASSUMED FOR VARIATIONS IN DIMENSIONS MID LOCATIONS. ... ....... .. IKV] E / ff 1 .11 -7 VICINITY MAP N.I.S. LEGAL N ALL THAT PORTION OF TRACTS 32 AND 33, MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 42, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 32; THENCE NORTH 89* 53' WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 32, 211.33 FEET THENCE SOUTH IN A STRAIGHT LINE TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 33, 230.29 FEET WEST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 33; THENCE NORTH 0' 12' EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACTS 32 AND*33, 236�FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. OWNER * BARBARA R. GLA TZ 15910 72ND AVE. W EDMONDS, WA. Im tu et Im tu �!�, � 7�. � � � �'{,.. `., f , } •tom___ OI � _ � � (--'t'� �--' i� . = UJ U �' ;"�� fir d �4 a � 4 �+ 4 � �;' �` � �' ! 1.._ ._. L...._....._.. _._ ' __ ..._� .__•.L I 1 N Wy'I tr i`ji`P '1 �� `* d :� Sr ; ti• a rY E _'� 1 ; 1 i w S' fn u. w �•'7 Q � � t ! �x•y ifit k CI S.' V\� 4 �.�i,1G5 A}t4itt y 4•'i'�.� '1 � � M h4 �' i 1. 1 _r ti �t, � _.._.. _ __ LL di, � Y 3 M -tGt r Iht jy. c'S��,'{�aY'SJ-�5jk +G+� S •F4�{"`t :I �' +. �P� _.._ ... _... .. LLf'S tr s •} _ "l;. _ _ __ Z � ;t c •.i ty�l k?�Cµ'i".a't 4� lxT `�. A? ti �i�`.'�} f z� BARBARA GLANTZ/PAULA HARB LJ W 15910 72ND AVE !1V F^, +Ti y°y �•,r_:. s1T-x ,..a%',Tii y� u.t c t l':d —' r`_� !I i i\'• • `�i� .'`�� _ Lu .#'�?+, t ...... .._ U t1I Sj y'rt o J t i } d .YiazF (,.; i+ :. N \� }- F=„ �� , r � r^, 4 as the i}t 7„ � Irt .++` � �S' . X ... f y,,•: • • ' .t\ 4•^� O ah 4i » 4 7xyt P rx,r¢4v�y>6h rsy % X Res-iz - Vicinity and Zoo hing Map a tun 6 vo1T oN _ i s "ooi u'N6s Al A"": s o41 r� o FROFl� P.EA7�tu(s House. al-PAkF- AT HOUSE. 3.� GAR�+/m6 HM- JSe I Awr. PI- HoHt<7� n yu Yap or-easnuw. Swr7dfaF FOP, rw I, rkwpPl NLW - rec�sr SprW x fop OF NEW KXF y x,. III Z till w wl -' No o.Ho awe t:L.00rt -710 's.F" 1i[I FC=r - ' _ 2NV F1c7,4. SIutT.E ST sYxP - "CO VEi2 /ill- FPAMeg MAID Li —Kt - 0. - 3 (.T�1a L°o W of W%1"J, .. • ITN of t5>QSr;P6, YfOUW—.. - LNibE�df �^F/>F' Srfy.i r-"L"'C�i`� �tl�{L{tJb wcfi mf SGNENIA'fiL�..-K"c" ttotl (LwAgb V05r) .., v .S-e-Hr—!:4�c'1'Ir:^ G. .. ........ R. s` 'Nk 4 xxCy i ? ADJACENT PROPERTY DENIERS LIST Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners. list. On my, oath, I certify that the names and 'addresses provided I represent, all properfies located within 300 feet of the subject property. Signature of Applicant ot _Oplicant'.s Representative, Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of '19 Notary Pub in and for the State of Washington Residing at a" BAMMAM STATE OF WAMMM NOTARY—R= My Coirrrdssian Expires >#�1500 APO.docIATeMOOMS Z iY t ,Fl � jtCV\#k it N rt� T P� y3t� F' '5 4 Y tjj ftZ t4 ff4Yf. > t s 4 "XI 'F k t r .. y.r✓�1 j �'' t.� +}.un A •� A. .�, .'"1��;.\4EiATTY3fl1d+Flap3X6Tc�itl�KNtl�it� 1jWast?•14 �..., �.`t _F.: U NS.N.�...CG:2 nLrXyyy;,�..�. + t 5131 030 001 0007 5131030 002 0.006 5131 030 005 0003 John Peck Gladys Irene Northfield Donald Henderson 300 2nd Ave N #3h 1582175th PI W 15825 75th P1 W Edmonds, WA 98020 _ .._..Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 5131 030 007 0001 5131 030,008 0000 5131 030 009 0009 Richard Hankinson Mrs. Howard Glozer Frank Bonipart 15925 75th Pi W 15927 75th Pi W 7429 N Meadowdale Rd Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 5133 000'027" 0008 5133 000 027 0008 5133 0 027 0008 �. Norman &Doris Nelson NormX-1 oris Nelson Norman Doris Nelson 15729 75th PI W 157291 W 15729 5 PI W Edmonds, WA 98026 EdmoA 98026Edmonds, A 98026 5133 000 031 0002 5133 000 032 0100 5133 000 032 0209 W R & Paule Beers Donna Paul GLANTZ INVESTMENTS LP 7324 158th St SW 2947 Orchard Hill PI, PO Box 330 Edmonds, WA 98026 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Lynnwood, WA 98046 5133 000 033 0000 5133 000 034 0108 5133 000 034 0207 Gary & Yvonne Kolsky Barbara Rae Glantz Dennis Kunkel r 11 172nd PI SW PO Box 330 1290 Aupapaohe St Bothell, WA 98012 Lynnwood, WA 98046 Kailua, HI 46734 5133 000 035 0107 5133 000,035 0206 5133 000 036.0304 G M Loboudger Kathleen Johanson Robert Koronko 15920 72nd Ave W 7309 N Meadowdale Rd 15814 ?Oth Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 y 5133 000 036 0403 5133 000 036 0502 5133 fl 036 0601 Manvood Bingham Marwo d ngham Marwoo mgham 15905 72nd Ave W 15805 7 d Ave W 158057 Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmon s, WA 98026 Edmon s, A 98026 5133 000 036 0700 5133 036 0809 Cheryl Chrysler Marwoo ingham Mi chael AA. George, Architect 15917 72nd Ave W 15805 7 d Ave W 922 1st St. Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmo A 98026 Snohomish, WA 98290 - NZ01 W. f tl E E CA FILE NO q -'Critical Areas Checkhit ----------------------------------------------------- Site Informati0 n (soils/ topography/ hydrology/ vegetation)' DETERMiNkn6jq V w} L d� S2 O{ z �— f. 0 z w W 5La O +" 1 to U,i >L o _z U T o� z RECEIVEO City of Edmonds 0 C T 0 9 1997 COMMUNITY SERVICES CRITICAL AREAS CHECKLIST The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of a development permit to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas- are, or may be, present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Ha (Critical Areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). An applicant, or his/her representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. Please submit a vicinity map along with the signed copy of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the specific piece of property described on this form. In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (e.g., site plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assist staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site I have completed the attached Critical Areas Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below). Owner/Applicant: S:—v6ira 6�� Z %wta -&V6 Name Applicant Representative: j, Name Street Address Street Address City State Zip City State Zip Telephone Signature ✓r`� _-z- l� -��7 Date =ccoptionijanatcaddoc Date (over) I