Loading...
16006 75TH PL W (2).pdfY L:: CA to Order Z. Public Hearings a., FILE NO. CU-97-31 Application by Butterfield Design Group fora' Conditional se Permit to allow the construction of an approximate 8,775 square foot, 2-story office building with underground parking, in an Multiple Residential Zone. The subject property is located at 250 4th venue South and is zoned RM-1.5. b., FILE NO. V-97-69; Application by Mark Reiff for a Variance to reduce the required street Setback adjacent to 244th Place Southwest from 25-feet to 7.5 feet to allow the construction of an approximately 1344 square foot detached garage for an existing single-family residence, The subject property is located at 10102 243rd Place Southwest and is zoned RS-8. c. FILE NO. SM-9748; Application by Michael George, Architect, on behalf of Robert Cole and Jeri n Merritt for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to undertake site grading (approximately 700 cubic yards of cut and 1,000 cubic yards of fill) for the construction of a new single -far uly residence. The subject property is located at 16006 75th Place West and is zoned U-12. d. FILE NO. SM-97-66 Application b BERGER/ABAM y Engineers, Inc. on bebM of Washington State Ferries for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to allow the iusWiation of new steel pile dolphins to replace the existing north outer floating dolphin, north inner timber clusur' pile dolphins and the installation of new intermediate steel pile dolphins to accommodate an upgrade to the terminal facility for a broader range of existing vessels. Ile subject property is located at 71 West Main Street. 3. Administrative Reports - No Reports. 4. Adjournment ss PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE ACCESSIBLE FI PERSONS WITH DISABILITIE§:.' (Contact the City Clerk at 771-0245 with 24 hours a&ance notleefor SPeC'a1a;C0MMa*#ft00 061"IMOCAGMAM z Sz W Q M. w t,) Ln Lu L N. U) U. Lu :314 LL t x W �x z LU Lu �a v in Lu w u- O' _ Lu z; N ca s o ~' z C*7 C.V: a .:. ....�: ,.: „e. ..vJ. 1.,�a...�...'sY�,.55.Y. pt�✓.a �... .....l+,�.. .�1.1... ....:........}JL.".'EY, [i..AY.. L':,):Tht5HC .. 59T.k.�uN k.hY .her a.w �s. c.............. ...-..... u.:... .._... ,.. _..:.,.,...-..,.. �.... w...s, MICHAEL A. GECRGE ARC"-,trECT P.S. roe • 1024 First Street Suite307 SHEET Ho. A OF SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON 98290 CALCULATED BY DATE (206) 568.1331 moommcl ,DLLYOY.K CHECKED BY DATE 1 Z Q � �uj Lu J V V 0LLJ Lu S J N u-i Lu 0' i J LL D'i d' �Lu` Z� ww �o U to O "! iv �_P LLa _Z uj Cl) vx 0 Z C U -yt. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Pj, vjUj1VU OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: Michael George for Robert Cale and Jeri Merritt CASE NO.: V 97-2 LOCATION: 16006 75th Place West (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). APPLICATION: Variance to increase the maximum permitted building height from 25-feet above average grade level to 30-feet for the construction of a new single-family residence (see Exhibit A, Attachments 3 and 4). REVIEW PROCESS: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance width Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85.010 (VARIANCE). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the application was opened at 9:00 a.m. February 20, 1997, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:37 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan c HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City: Steve Bullock, Project Planner, reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of the request, with conditions. He also noted that: • The entire garage is under the 25 foot height limit. • The remainder of the structure is within 5 feet of the height limit. • Special construction techniques will be used to reduce the bulk of the structure. From the Applicant: Mike George, Architect, said: • Previously, an 8 foot height variance had been requested and the plans have been redone so that a 5 foot height variance is now requested. • The site is a difficult site to build on, but the house has been adapted to the site. Previously, the main floor was proposed to be at elevation 70' 5" and now the main floor is proposed to be at elevation 66' and elevation 67' 6". • The driveway slope will have between a 14% & 18% slope, but that allows the garage to be within the height limit. • The site is constrained with steep slopes, sensitive soils and a pedestrianwalkway which bisects the property . • A 7 foot to 9 foot retaining wall will be necessary to allow the house proposed. • He did not feel this variance would grant a special privilege as other 2 story homes have been granted height variances in the immediate area. • They have gone as far as they canto minimize view impact. He referred to the cross-section (included in Attachment 4 to Exhibit A) and said he did not believe there would be any significant view impact if the variance is approved. • The houses to the north and south across 750' are higher and won't have views significantly impacted. • He couldn't see how the request could be for less height and still have a house consistent with the neighborhood. It 0 LU able to build the proposed home to maintain value in the neighborhood. �` • The City should reward good architecture such as this. u I Lee Appleton, Builder, said: t. ; z • He has built a number of homes in the area and this will be consistent with the us' other homes in the area. • All of the other homes he has built in the area are 2 story homes. From the Community: Paul Elliott, neighbor, said: • The applicant's lot is impacted by a utility easement and a pedestrian path. • He is delighted the applicant will access the property from above rather than try 0 to extend vehicular access along the pedestrian path below the house. • He does not want vehicles on the pedestrian path. • It appears the applicant has done everything possible to comply with the code and he recommended approval. Phyllis Wiggins, neighbor, said: s This proposal takes 5 feet of view from her house. • When the ridge poles were installed for the previous proposai which was 3L feet higher, they were very visible from her house. Z L) LU UJ U) LL; UJ Oi+ 2 � I gm LL < 51 Ln a Z � 0 Z I-- LLJ L" L) ca 0 23;:'1 LU UJ LL 0i Zi LU (ni 0 Z "Ilearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-2 Page 4 • This proposal won't have much less impact. • She wants to protect her property values and her view. Response from the Applicant: Michael George responded to concerns and objections expressed by neighbors. He said: • He disagrees with the contention by Phyllis Wiggins that the proposed house will affect her view. He referred to the view analysis which showed her house to be significantly above the proposed house. • In response to Mr. Ruggeiro's comments: • A variance is an accepted process to use in the zoning ordinance. • Mr. Ruggeiro had to obtain an access easement from a vacated right- of- wy to get access to his house from below, rather than take access from 75 Place West as the applicant is proposing. • The Anderson's view will not be impacted by this proposal. The proposed house will not even be seen from the Anderson house. CORRESPONDENCE: Correspondence from the general public was submitted by: Phyllis Wiggins, (Exhibit B) who wrote in part: 0 A restriction on building heights seems reasonable to safeguard neighborhoods from unreasonable, unorthodox or inappropriate structures. 0 Five feet of building height takes a great deal of Puget Sound out of my view. 0 0 This proposed house will have unrestricted views from every floor, yet they ask all their neighbors to restrict their outlooks. 0 If this is the only house they are willing to consider, then they need to find a different lot for it. If the lot is their priority, then they can find a way to comply 0 with the City's restrictions on heights. Phillip Ruggiero, (Exhibit C) who wrote in part: • I am again voicing my objection to granting of any height variince for all the same reasons outlined in my initial letter of December 15, 1996. 0 F- z z w D 0 0 0 w S H c� r 0 z C U R ...w....l .. ..•w.1LKa:'MA Y ..inn wn... �...i_ .. ... Hearing • The rules are very clear... twenty five (25) feet is the height li area.. • This variance will impact other people's views and there is abs for, granting a height variance of this magnitude. + The buyers and/or the architect knew the limitations of the lot and rules before they decided to design a multiple story home • There is no precedent for this type of height variance and we d now. Robert Anderson, (Exhibit D) who wrote in part: • • All previous comments on the record regarding the matter of the 8 foot height variance, now appealed at 5 feet, are generally and specifically still valid. We do not view the three foot change as substantive, but token perhaps squeak by the zoning ordinance in the meaning rather statute. I should have much preferred that the appeal reduce the request feet or less. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS: A. SITE DESCRIPTION 2. Site Development And Zoning: a. Facts: 1) Size: The total size of the subject property is 21,496 2) Land Use: The subject property is cufrer surrounding development consists of single fami Exhibit A, Attachments 3 and 4). 3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned RS-12 (single with a minimum 12,000 square foot lot size require: A, Attachment 1). ti. �eUU1.A1.v(rtsdeyrtmKt�, wN<iMq.YF'.W,'4 in^i.:SV�YY t+.t l-�..t:t•., •: Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-2 Page 5 mitation in this olutely no reason and the restrictions on this lot. on't want to start - just enough to than the letter of the ! r ad variance to 3 4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property slopes from the east to west with the greatest slope closest to the west property line. The average slope on the site exceeds 25% with a total elevation change of 41.13-feet from the east property line to the west property line. Vegetation consists of several trees and native grasses. 0 z P < p,:2 , = w. ac g; w U' J Q "n V) UJ L U J i— N WLU 9 Q' LL z urn }- x z I- H 0 ww U M 0 LUm =u L0 Z; u; (n' U !E ~o f " z r' 0 i) the aalacent properties to me norm, soum, ana west ana are currently zoned as single-family (RS-12) (see Exhibit A, Attachments 1). Properties to the east are zoned RS-20. 2) The adjacent properties to the east are currently developed as single- family homes. West of the property is the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and all remaining adjacent properties are undeveloped. B. HISTORY 1. On October 29, 1996 the applicant applied for variance to increase the maximum permitted building height from 25-feet above average grade level to 33-feet for the construction of a new single-family residence (File No. V-96- 130). 2. On January 6, 1997 the Hearing Examiner denied the variance. The Hearing Examiner noted the following in his decision (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5): a) "It appears that special circumstances exist on the site and the applicant should be provided some relief from the height requirements of the ECDC " b) "It does not appear that any special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that other properties in the same zone with similar circumstances have qualified for a height variance." c) "The Examiner believes that an applicant has the right to construct a building which complies with the code requirements even if it impacts views of neighboring properties. However, views should be considered and preserved to the greatest extent possible when an applicant is requesting a variance from the code. " d) "As proposed, approval of the height variance may be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare in that other properties in the immediate vicinity (particularly houses across 75th Pl. W to the north and south) could have their views affected. " e) "The house will be supported on piles and nothing in the geotechnical engineering report specified that the house could not be safely constructed if it were depressed two or three feet more than proposed by the applicant. " C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. Facts: a. The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development in a RS-12 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030. . IN Li":1 z j <� ..J %I U � N O LU J F— U) LLI — 01 LL r LL pi x w� zr �:n z w ua' a; o T a rI S U � F LLo _z LU(1) U� O~ z C#7 IK 2. Conclusion: The proposal complies with the development standards for the RS-12 zone as set forth in Chapter 16.30, with the exception of the height setbacks. 3. Compliance with requirement for a Variance ECDC Chapter 20.15B.180.A, states an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances). Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a case -by -case basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). a. Facts: 1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These criteria include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted; the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum necessary. 2) Variances may be used to modify bulk standards. They may not be used to modify use or procedural requirements. 3) The applicant states in his declarations that special circumstances exist due to three conditions on the site a) Steep slopes which average 25% across the site; b) Sensitive soil conditions, which dictate minimizing to the extent possible the amount of excavation of water sensitive and slide -prone soils typical of the Meadowdale Beach area; and c) The intrusion of the City easement of an eight foot wide walking path. The walking path bisects the site and reduces the buildable area available and restricts the ability of the applicant to locate the house further to the west. 4) The applicant states that two-story homes are typical for this area of Edmonds and reducing a home to one-story residence is inconsistent with other homes in the vicinity. Additionally, other residences north of the site have been granted height variances (City of Edmonds files V-90-6, V-90-5, V-90-2), so he believes that approving the variance would not be a grant of special privilege. 5) The applicant has stated that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance (see also section "E" of this report for additional discussion of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan). He also states that he has reduced to the extent possible the Z LM LU 2 t-% =)� 5 U fni UA U1 L) L L 0 Z LU U) 0 Z M* 101 LUIIUULIL VI VIUW IIIJFtWL UJ SUUUUIIUIIIV 11VIgnOUTS UY ULIIIZIUg NUUK- framing techniques which allow for a lower residence than would be typically seen. 6) The applicant states that the proposal is not detrimental in that the two homes to the east, which likely would have the greatest potential for view impact, are elevated substantially from the street and would not have their view affected. The applicant also states that to a certain extent they will improve their neighbor's view by removing trees which currently block a portion of their view. 7) The applicant states that the proposal is the minimum necessary in that there are a number of physical constraints placed on the property which are beyond the applicants control. In order to enjoy benefits similar to other properties in the vicinity, namely a two story residence, the owner is proposing a two story residence with sloped roofs, with the second story portion of the building pushed as far west as the physical constraints permit. The applicant has previously applied for a height variance of 8-feet and was denied. Working in conjunction with his geotechnical engineer he is now requesting a variance of 5-feet. The geotechnical engineer recommends, "Excavations in the building area [should be] limited to as shallow a depth as practical."(see Exhibit A, Attachment 2, Exhibit 10). 8) Driveways may not exceed 14% slope Without approval from the Engineering Division. The applicant is proposing a driveway between 14% and 18%. b. Conclusions: 1. Special Circumstances The applicants property has steep slopes, which exceed 25% in some places. Driveways may not exceed 14% slope without approval from the Engineering Division. There is an easement for a walking path on the western portion of the property. The proposed residence is in the Meadowdale area of town which is slide prone and therefore minimal soil disturbance would be required for the construction of any home on the site. Therefore it appears that special circumstances exist on the site and the applicant should be provided some relief from the height requirements of the ECDC. 2. Special Privilege It does not appear that any special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that other properties in, the same zone with similar circumstances have qualified for a height variance (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). 3. Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan The proposed development has minimized viewencroachment on surrounding properties by: ... ... 771, 0 V- b) t11G FV1UV71 V1 11ACr All U%AU10 Vy cul QUUlUVilal { 3-feet. Therefore, approval of the proposed height variance would I{ allow for the continued development of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). Intrusion into the views of surrounding residences appears to have been kept to the absolute minimum necessary to construct a home consistent with other homes in the immediate vicinity. 4. Not Detrimental After a review of the view analysis and a visit to the site, the Examiner believes the current proposal will not be detrimental to nearby properites. The proposed development has minimized view encroachment on surrounding properties by: a) Locating the residence as far west on the property as physical constraints allow; b) Utilizing stick -framing techniques which allow for a lower residence than would be typically seen; c) Depressing the garage below the required 25-foot height limitation, and; d) depressing the residence portion of the structure by an additional 3-feet. Therefore, approval of the height variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare in that other properties in the immediate vicinity do not appear to be significantly adversely affected by the proposal. The proposal should not be detrimental to other residences in that while the home will be seen by surrounding properties the impact will be the minimum necessary to construct a single family residence. 5. Minimum Required The architect has attempted to reduce the bulk of the residence by utilizing construction methods which will reduce the size of the roof line and still allow a two story residence to be constructed. He has used a sloped roof and located the residence as far west on the property as the physical constraints allow. According to the geotechnical engineer the residence should be limited to as shallow a depth as practical. In response to the Hearing Examiners previous comments and the geotechnical engineer's direction the architect has lowered the. garage below the 25-foot height limit and the main residence by 3-feet. 0 W i • vvaraa a+a+aaa.a.va a sa a aia aa. ly va.. v� "Single 1.. a. Fact: The subject property is designated as Family Large � < `f' Lot„ d' b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the zh} existing Comprehensive lan Land Use designation for the site. E- 0, 2. a. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, UJ w identifies goals and policies which relate to "Residential �! Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies are ca us discussed in detail below. 0 L 1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality WIi residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle o Edmonds residents should be maintained and `—` romted• The options available to the City to influence LU � the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic ; consideration, in accordance with the following policies:" z 2) Policy B.I. states, "Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. " 3) Policy B.3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. " 4) Page 31, subsection B.5.0 states, "Stable property values ©� must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments. " b. Conclusion: The proposed development will minimize view encroachment on existing homes to the extent possible and the home will be constructed with architectural lines which will enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. The proposed development is ® consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City. for the development of residential property in the City, 0 II M. M Q Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a height variance is approved, s w, subject to the following conditions: oI. This variance is to allow the proposal in the location and configuration as specifically 0 related to the requested variance identified on the proposed site plan (see Exhibit A, w = Attachment 4). Any other structures, additions or remodels would have to conform -' E" with the typical setbacks or height requirements for the zone or obtain another un LLI w 0 variance. 2. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds LL < j Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure s a compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. y z 3. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction. r Q LU w 4. The permit should be transferable to future property owners. Entered this 6th day of March, 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner = i'.1 under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. LL 0; - Z W U) V 2 z FRontcConnell Hearing Examiner = I,, - VA W 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.E 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 j 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. EXHIBITS: The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with 5 attachments B. Letter from Phyllis Wiggins, dated 2/13/97 C. Letter from Phillip Ruggiero, dated 2/19/97 D. Letter from Robert Anderson, dated 2/20/97 PARTIES of RECORD: Robert Cole/Jeri Merritt 16628 7& Pl. W. Lynnwood, WA 98037 Phyllis Wiggins 16012-7&h Pl. W., Lynnwood, WA 98037 Lee Atherton 20225 20 NW Shoreline, WA 98177 Robert Anderson, M.D. 16010 73`d Place West Edmonds, WA 98026-4552 Planning Department Engineering Department Michael George, A.I.A. 1024 First St.. Ste. 307 Snohomish, WA 98290 Virginia Deaver 6129-188'h St. SW Lynnwood, WA 98037 Philip Ruggiero 6126 14& Court NE Redmond, WA 98052 Paul Elliott 16000 75'h Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 FESRUARY 20JA7 PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND ZIP CODE BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM V-97-2 . ROBERT COLE / JERI MERRITT / MICHAEL GEORI RD tG- E E /*N t+ -7-- z � N� U, u u. Oj Z u SI O � j1 �J t yk i,y� E CC U .u:ti;Y�._,:.�„S.f!il`✓rA'xuvwa.,.;:.:.,: �-...... ._,�_; ...::..::.W.�::..:...,...;.WRY+m.au+.v+.avaaxwnm.am...s*n.ue...+..wsxv.w....,.«,.....,..�............._..�.: _�__.. .. .__.....-....,_ ILL No.12Ubb4'1b013 Feb 19o9e 15:4b NO.U1( N.U1 Wip John Nora - e126 140th Own hF: 11w1Ua4nx1 WV44tytivn'Mid 206 Oki (WO F&bruary 19.1997 Hearing Rzarminer Sent Vita FAX Cityy of ]Edmonds 2S0 - Sth Avenue North : e Edmonds. WA 98020 FE13 Re: City of Edmonds f 4T File No. V-97-2 ``` PERMIT COUNTER Unfomtrtatety t win the unable W attend the hearing regarding thin application for the approval of a height variance from 25 foci to 301'cim r attendc4 and testiftod at the 4lrst heating for a height variance on this some prupvtty wimteh waa denied (and rigattfutiy so) by the hearing examiner. I am again voleing my objection for the granting of any height vadarce for all the same reasons outlined in my initial letter of Aeccrnber t9.1�896. 71he applicants and their architect are now simply asking for a five foot height variance instead of an eight foot variance. I'd like to reiterate that the lutes are very clear.... twenty five 25) feet is the height limitation in this area and whether it's five (S) to or eight (Rfeet really doesn't t change the city's ordinance. ThN variance will Impact other people's views and there is absolutely no reason for granting a height variance of this mlagtaltode. Potential buyers and benders of hRAies in dais area have a re tbility m act with due d1U when thk of home on tints lot. lot ttlmpiy does root supper this type of etnmcunre based am a myriad of ci.umces. How about building a one story hoacte? There is teem pzlacedent for this typo of height varianco and we don't want to start now. piea%�e crrefuu review my letter of L)ecember 15th alai you will find that none of the circumstances have changed. 'lints is simply a case where somebody doesn't feel they . have to follow the rules. And. unfortunately, it is at the expense of oil=. y 0 _z �z w D rV L3 O cn a ui w -H (n w. w O, J N 3N z h F— 0 z W w U t/), w wl �- O z wLI) v= o� z r- 1*1 L 111 Fa M I I z w cc W� -J (-)o U)D w LU —J h u-' w O w Z 'I; Dd L. z t— ro ww 0 p F� w w1 _ U �o �z wN U� o~ z U 250 STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner . V From: Kirk J. V' Ish, AICP Project Planner February 20, 1997, At 9:00 AM, Plaza Room -Edmonds Library 650 Main Street TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page; I. INTRODUCTION.............................:................................. ......... ........ ..:.......... ............ 2 A. Application .............,................................... ........: ......... ......... .......:: ................ 2 B. Recommendations .......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......::............... 2 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ...... ......... ......... ......... .............................. 2 A. Site Description ................................ ......... ............... ... ......... .........................2 B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance ................... ............... 3 . C. Technical Committee ..................... ......... ......... ......... ........ ........: ......::........ 5 D. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) ........ ......... .................... .......:. I ...................... 5 IIL RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS ......................... .............. 6 A. Request for Reconsideration 6 B. Appeals ........................................... ......... ............... 6 ; IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL ................. :::...:... .......... .. 6 V. APPENDICES ................................................ ....:.:. ............ .:: :.. ......:::..:... 7, . VI. PARTIES OF RECORD, ..........: ........... ......... ............. ......... .......... 7 V97-2.DOC / February 5.19971 Staff Report ' ., li i i Date: FEBRUARY 5, 1997 File: V-97-2 MICHAEL GEORGE Dearing Date, Time, And Place: E M E. Michael George', Ftk'.No. ,V-47-2 Pe&;Of7l I. INTRODUCTION A Application 1. Apaellant. Michael George (see Attachment 2). 2. Site Location: 16006 75th Place West (see Attachment 1). 3. Request Variance to increase the maximum permitted building height from 25-feet above average grade level to 30-feet for the construction of a new single-family residence (see, Attachments 3 and 4). 4. Review Process: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes. final decision. 5- Maior Issues: a. Compliance width Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85,010 (VARIANCE). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development, Code (ECDC),Section 16.20.030", (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, - Site Development Standards). B. Recommendations Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend Approval of this application subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is to allow the proposal in the location and configuration as specifically related to the requested variance identified on the proposed site plan (see Attachment 4). Any other structures, additions or remodels would have to conform with the typical setbacks or height requirements for the zone or obtain another variance. Ill Z Z LU, LU 0 rj) LLJ LLJ 0 LU O. 3: Z � 0 Z �- LU Ui cn, 0 LU UJI LL 0 ZI LU U) 0 Z La Ge MIC orge File.No,V-97-2 Page 3 of 7 2.:: Neighboring Development And Zoning: Facts: (1) The adjacent properties to the north, south, and west and are currently zoned as single-family (RS-12) (see Attachments 1). Properties to the east are zoned RS-20. (2) The adjacent properties to the east are currently developed as single-family homes. West of the property is the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and all remaining adjacent properties are undeveloped. B. Iflstory 1, On October 29, 1996 the applicant applied for variance to increase the maximum. -permitted building height from 25-feet above average grade level to B-feet for the construction of a new single-family residence (File No. V-96-130). 2. On January 6, 1997 the Hearing Examiner denied the variance: The Hearing'Examiner noted the following in his decision (see Attachment 5): a) "It appears that special circumstances exist on the site and the applicant should be provided some relieffrom the height requirements of the ECDC, b) "It does not appear that any special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that other properties in the same zone with similar circumstances have qualifledfor a height variance." c) "The Examiner believes that an applicant has the right to construct a building which complies with the code requirements even if it impacts views of neighboring properties. However, views should be considered and preserved to the greatest extent possible when an applicant is requesting a variance from the code. d) As proposed, approval of the height variance may be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare in that other properties in the immediate vicinity (particularly houses across 75th Pl. W to the north and south) could have their views affected. e) "The house will be supported on piles and nothing in the geotechnical engineering. report specified that the house could not be safely constructed if it were depressed two or three feet more than proposed by the applicant. C. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliancie 1. a) Facts: (1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development, in a RS- 12 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030. (2) Except for the requested height variance, the existing developinent,confomis,-to..'all ' RS- 12 requirements (see Attachment 4). b) Conclusion: The proposal complies with the development standards, for the kS- 12 zone; as set forth in Chapter 16.30, with the exception of the height setbacksi 2. Compliance with requirement for a Variance ECDC Chapter 20.15B.180.A, states an applicant may request a variance from the standards , of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85. (Variances)' . Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code''may be varied on a case -by -case basis if the application of the provision would result ji 'an, unusual and unreasonable hardship (see Attachment 2). V97-2MOC/FebnmiyS, 1997 4 Staff 0 ( ' s 4 Michael George File No: V-97-2 Page 4 of7 a) Facts: (1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a'variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These criteria z include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted; the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the cc proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum necessary. aU (2) Variances may be used to modify bulk standards. They may not be used to modify, L) 0 use or procedural requirements. V) Lu� (3) The applicant states in his declarations that special circumstances exist due to three f- conditions on the site a) Steep slopes which average 25% across the site; b) sensitive p soil conditions, which dictate minimizing to the extent possible the amount of "' excavation of water sensitive and slide -prone soils typical of the Meadowdale Beach q{ area; and c) the intrusion of the City easement of an eight foot wide walking path. LL d The walking path bisects the site and reduces the buidable area available and restricts cn �? the ability of the applicant to locate the house further to the west. Z�' (4) The applicant states that two-story homes are typical for this area of Edmonds and reducing a home to one-story residence is inconsistent with other homes in the Z O vicinity. Additionally, other residences north of the site have been granted height, w = variances (City of Edmonds files V-90-6, V-90-5, V-90-2), so he believes that. p approving the variance would not be a grant of special privilege. 0 -1 (5) The applicant has stated that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance (see also section "D" of this report for additional discussion of iI = two+ compliance with the Comprehensive Plan). He also states that he has reduced to the F_ F i extent possible the amount of view impact to surrounding neighbors by utilizing zstick -framing techniques which allow for a lower residence than would be typically ui in U = seen. O F (6) The applicant states that the proposal is not detrimental in that the two homes to the x east, which likely would have the greatest potential for view impact, are elevated substantially from the street and would not have their view affected. The applicant also states that to a certain extent they will improve their neighbor's view by . removing trees which currently block a portion of their view. (7) The applicant states that the proposal is the minimum necessary in that there are a number of physical constraints placed on the property which are beyond the applicants control. In order to enjoy benefits similar to other properties in the vicinity, namely a two story residence, the owner is proposing a two story residence with sloped roofs, with the second story portion of the building pushed as far west as the physical constraints permit. The applicant has previously applied for a height variance of 8-feet and was denied. Working in conjunction with his geotechnical © engineer he is now requesting a variance of 5-feet. The geotechnical engineer recommends, `Excavations in the building area [should be] limited to as shallow a depth as practical "(see Attachment 2, Exhibit 10). (8) Driveways may not exceed 14% slope without .approval from the Engineering Division. The applicant is proposing a driveway. between 14% and 19%. b) Conclusions' (1) Special Circumstances The applicants property has steep slopes, which exceed 25% in some places.; Driveways may not exceed 14% slope without approval from the Engineering Division. There is an easement for a walking path on the western portion of the property. The proposed residence is in the Meadowdale area of town which is slide 9 prone and therefore minimal soil disturbance would be required for the construction i t V97-2.DOC i Febmary 5, 1997 / Staff Report " t10 Z LU! LU L) 0 V) O. U) LU LLJ Lf) LL! — 0!, LLJ LL. :C UJI Z F- M 0 Z I— LLI U.1 0 a LU Lul X (j t__ P u6_ 0 .. Z, LU to O. Z M 141 . . . . . . . . . . . Michael Georp File No. V- -2 Page 5 of of any home on the site. Therefore it appears that special circumstances exist on the site and the applicant should be provided some relief from the height requirements of the ECDC. (2)' Special Privilege It does not appear that any special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that other properties in the same zone with similar circumstances have qualified for a height variance (see Attachment 2). (3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan The proposed development has minimized view encroachment on surrounding properties by a) utilizing stick -framing techniques which allow for a lower residence than would be typically seen; b) by depressing the garage below the required 25-foo t height limitation, and; c) depressing the residence portion of the structure by an additional Meet. Therefore, approval of the proposed height 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 of the site (see Attachment 2). Intrusion into the views of surrounding residences appears to have been kept to the absolute minimum necessary to construct a home consistent with other homes in the immediate vicinity. Not Detrimental The proposed development has minimized view encroachment on surrounding properties by a) locating the residence as far west on the property as physical constraints allow; b) utilizing stick -framing techniques which allow for a lower residence than would be typically seen; c) depressing the garage below the required 25-foot height limitation, and; d) depressing the residence portion of the structure by an additional Meet. Therefore, approval of the height variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare in that other properties in the immediate vicinity do not appear to be significantly adversely affected by the proposal. The proposal should not be detrimental to other residences in that while the home will be seen by surrounding properties the impact will be the minimum necessary to construct a single family residence. (5) Minimum Required The architect has attempted to reduce the bulk of the residence by utilizing construction methods which will reduce the size of the roof line and still allow a two story residence to be constructed. He has used a sloped roof and located the residence as far west on the property as the physical constraints allow. According to the geotechnical engineer the residence should be limited to as shallow a depth as practical. In response to the Hearing Examiners previous comments and the geotechnical engineer's direction the architect has lowered the garage below the 25- foot height limit and the main residence by Meet. Therefore, the proposal appears to be the minimum necessary for construction of a single-family residence. D. Technical Committee 1. Review by City Departments a) Fact: No comments were submitted by other departments. 21 Lfr'l Michael George File No. V-97-2 Page 6 of 7 2. a. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies which relate to "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below. (1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in accordance with the following policies: (2) Policy B.I. states, "Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. (3) Policy B.3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes, by new construction or additions to existing structures. (4) Page 31, subsection B.5.0 states, "Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments. b. Conclusion: The proposed development will minimize view encroachment on existing homes to the extent possible and the home will be constructed with architectural lines which will enable, them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. , The proposed development is consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City for the development of residential property in the City. III, RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeA& Any, person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20. 100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific: references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. B. Appeals Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed., V97-2.DOC L FebrU* 5,1997c/Staff to Z LLI _j L) 0, Uj LL 01 Uj LL 31 z 0 Uj LU U to LU LU Z; LU to 0 z 147, 101 w6bie orp Fite No..V-974 'Page 7 of7. 1V 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 ofapproval,the conditional. use, permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the 0 wner files an application for an extension of the time,. before the expiration date.' V. APPENDICES Attachments 1 through 5 are attached. i. Vicinity Zoning Map 2. Applicant declarations 3. Application 4. Site Plan and Elevations 5. Hearing Examiner decision re: V-96 130" vi.:PARTIES OF RECORD Applicant . ........ Planning Division Engineering Division v - J:­ �5 rY ® 17 Vinctonity and Zoning Map v W 0 (n a' z z ui Lu� U 0 ui ttj M; Wp Lu cn 0 z E OWNERS: 'Robert Cole/Jeri Merritt. 16628 70th Pl. W. Lynnwood, WA 98037 (206) 525-2614 Wk. Architect (206) 742-6305 Bm. AJ.A., P.S. (360) 568-1331 ARCHITECT:. Michael A. George A.I.A. F2x (360) 568-1930 1024 First St., Ste. 307 Snohomish, WA 98290 (360) 568-1331 . Suite 307 Mart .Building 1024 Fiat Street Snohomish, WA 9 8 2 9 0 4 Akk , ®' 1. S3�R�IA?• ACES* The special circumstances of this site include steep slope, sensitive soil conditions, excessive building z setbacks, and the intrusion of a City easement for X an 8' walking/jogging path. r- wI The City maintains walkway and utility easements UQ through our site that were once the rights -of -way o for 75th Ave. W., 75th Pl. W., and North Meadowdale emu,;_ Rd. These easements have increased our building `_�� setbacks at all but the south property lines. (nO1 w The west building setback line (BSBL) should be 25' as required in an RS-12 zone, but in fact, due to U. ¢f the easements maintained by the City, is 40' at the DO southwest corner to 75' at the northwest corner. The north BSBL should be 10' but is 15' at the Z I- minimum and expands as it intersects with the pi easement at the west. The east BSBL should be 25' z a'! but becomes 30' due to the easement along 's M', 75th Pl. W. 5 cl, o The City of Edmonds also has a pedestrian easement (8' asphalt path) beginning at the northeast corner X UJI LY of our site which bisects our site as it continues LL to the southwest. ZI v c The enlarged setback requirements in conjunction' with the need to maintain a reasonable driveway slope (14% to 18%) on this site, which has an average slope of 25% with some slopes up to 40%, combine to dictate the house location. The massing and configuration of the house, with the basement projecting out in front (to the west) under the main floor deck, is a response to the steep slope and the need to minimize the amount of excavation of the water -sensitive and slide -prone soils typical of the Meadowdale'Beach area.Our previous request for an 8' height variance was an effort to. minimize the requirement for soils excavation, (as noted in the soils report), which is needed to set the house at a lower elevation. In an effort to reduce any view impact, we have now depressed the floor elevations by 31, which translates to our request for a 5' height variance. (See Exhibits 1, 3, and 5.) w. 0 U C n L4 2., SPECIAL PRtyrLSQg: The granting of thi would not be a special privilege as there other height variances granted in the RS the north of our site (V2990, V590, V96-9 V96-90 in City files).We do not feel that desire to build a 2-story residence would granting a special privilege as all the r construction on the west side of 75th Pl. been 2 stories. 3. 4. RI CQNp$EHENSIVE PLAN The comprehensive plan is for single family development. We are building a single family residence which complies with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan Residential Development section. As section "D" states, we are p a high- quality residence which is attemp balance both the aesthetic and economic r of land costs in this area. Our revised d lowering the floor elevations by three ad feet and reducing the slope of the garage will minimize any view encroachment and negative property value impacts. s variance have been zones to 1,V93-11, our be ecent W. has roposing Ling to ealities esign, of diti.onal roof, have no ZONI13G ORDINBNM$;_ Our site is zoned RS-12. development standards for the RS-12 zone are intended to allow consistent development which would include 2-story residences. Our residence is located as dictated by sE requirements that are far more restrictiv( called for in the RS-12 development stand: height variance from 25' to 30' would be c with the development standards designed tc a 2-story single family residential consti (See Exhibit 7.) Our design efforts have been directed at n the overall impact of the building height 'In order to do everything we can to conform with the intent of the zoning ordinances, minimize vie impact, and still respond to the existing special circumstances of our site, we have set the main floor elevation at 671-611, which results in a 51 height variance 5. MEREULt This 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 two residences behind us east of 75th Pl. W. These are elevated substantially from the street and will not be impacted by the proposed heiaht, variance In fact, we have improved their views by removing some trees that had partially restricted their view corridor. Our revised proposal sets the house 31 lower than our first which will minimize any impact on residences to the north and south of our site across 75th PL. W. (See Exhibits 4,5 and 8.) MINIMUM VARIANCE: The steep slope of the site, ,the increased setbacks, the pedestrian path, the sensitive soils necessitating minimal site excavation all combine to define the location and 'configuration of the residence. Our design sets the garage at the 70'elevation so that we will not exceed a 14% and 18% driveway slope. The house will set 21-611 below the garage at the 671-61 elevation. Setting the main floor elevation any lower would create a very steep and dificult transition from driveway grade to the entry grade. We have reduced the plate height and the slope of the roof at the garage so that it will nn* ga-vrgamA +hg% mm-4-- ict u-4—u& i4—z� E All recent construction of new residences on the west side of 75th Pl. W. have been two-story using sloped roofs as is consistent with the RS-12 zone. By depressing the main house 3' and lowering the overall height of the garage, so that it does not exceed the maximum 25' height limit, we are doing all we can to comply with the RS-12 standards, meet the variance criteria, and still respond to the special circumstances of this site. The circumstances of this site are far more restrictive than is typical for this zone and our design accommodates all except one. We are not able to satisfy the maximum height of 25' in the design of our house, on this site, while still allowing for a reasonable use which is an appropriate economic and aesthetic response typical to other new home owners in this area. If_our setbacks were consistent with the RS-12 zoning and the City did not have a path and sewer line through the site we could move the house forward and lower the overall height approximately T 101. We feel our revised design is a request for a minimum 5' height variance that simultaneously responds to all the special circumstances of the site. We appreciate your consideration of this matter. I � � z T TT/"+TWTTrr"T.T ' I A' A 773 C M -OCT 2 8.1996 S f�e4 2 F i O '' I CM1 r/; i i f r / 0 l uwio k *'71 T i I � 1 l / r . �`� 5i;�.ouy FtmR/htreR�N i � / � " Ga .MEt�tU'tf IZEs / fiowex rtsaa.rwW i�� 3 0 '® 32X O 25, U F O 2 ,. min I w is Na ` �e — o! z Wev� �-WN.sIWnWP+'. w. t=J N Zj Zlo— xfigSJ . "" na.rb faAve — — -- _ EXHIBli 5 " GRCSE>-->EGTtOhi �F Rr4aU6sp RF..51&y.Ht vA"yA 0: td CtaXW�exm) " .. fOLB/MBvsKrtt' RE�toetl[e .. 1 .'.v �Lo SO wl OEM= y. i r . city of edmonds development information z =Z UJ a, w = a Summary of Site Development Standards z rY wr OSINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ° o¢c a I d' MAXIMUM w' MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM LOT MINIMUM z LOT AREA MINIMUM STREET SIDE REAR MAXIMUM COVERAGE PARKING O ZONE (Sq. Ft.) LOT WIDTH SETBACK SETBACK SETBACK HEIGHT {%) SPACES(1)_ a w w �,: RS-20 20 000 100' 25' 35`l10.° 2 25' 25' 35% 1 O —� RS-12 12,000 80 2 ' a F-1 RSW-12 1 , • LU _ l�; RS-8 8,000 70' 25' 7-1/2' 15' 25' �- F- RS-6 6 O00 60' 20' 5' 15' 25' 35% 1' Z' 6:14: a1,4i(o 1i o 3015 To to AO.To7(0. 2q •10fy, ,5t% ! � 0 z rto ... MaieF- Mow_, A s' MAC.. HI✓IC HT fi_. _.. ___ _ _......._.�.._ _ ...,.............___ ._.... .:._.. _ _._ _ _. _ (1) See Chapter 17.50 of Community Development Code for specific parking requirements. (2) 35' total of both sides; 10' minimum on either side. (3) Lots must have frontage on the ordinary highwater line and a public street or access ® easement approved by the Hearing Examiner. (h) Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of h" in 12" or greater. 1 (5) See Chapter. 17.50 for specific parking requirements. Parking may not be located in required street setback: (6) RS-6 setbacks may be_used for sin9ie family. residences ron lgts ,of. 10,000 square feet . I _. 'or less... ' _ . .. EXHIBIT..7 wee : A.LG Vie" %VxL: .r E. tax. WEF1& z r=- SCALE: VLn u.0i ^ s =sue'• ® PROPOSED RESIDENCE 1• COLS/MERRITT.RES. t U 0 z Na PROPOSED COLEIM'ERR17T RESIDENCE November 12, 1996 Subsurface Exoloration and Description Two test borings were drilled with a trailer -mounted drill rig to a maxir below existing grades at the locations shown on the Site Plan, Plate 3. logged and sampled by the undersigned registered civil engineer during tl test boring logs arc attached to this report. iteeovered soil samgles were testing consisting of moisture content determinations, sieve gradation an• Test results and field density information are summarized on the attach plates. Although there may very well be some variation in the subsurface and/o apparent from the ground surface, we expect the following subsurfa essentially correct: Under the brushy ground surface, the site is immediately underlai silty gravelly sand, to sand with some silt and gravel. The sandy and vary in depth. On the uphill side of the building site, the sand) feet deep. As the topography drops to the west, the sand layer be,, with upproxitnately six to eight feet of sand underlying the site n edge of the building site. Underlying the loose surficial sand is a nine feet of fractured silt/clay. Near elevation 48 feet, oe encountered a stiff to very stiff massive highly -plastic clay. Gi measured in Test Boring No. 1 at 26 feet below existing grades. The final test boring logs attached to this report represents our interpretat laboratory tests. The relative densities and moisture descriptions on t descriptions based on observed conditions during excavation. The logs specific subsurface information at each location tested. Conclusions and Recommendations General The following general geoteehnical conclusions can be drawn from our 1 data: 1) The surficial sandy soils are loose. Our analysis indicates provide adequate foundation support. 2) We recommend the new structure and floor slabs be supj piles. 3) We. recotntnend excavations in the building area be limited practical. Job Number 6095 Page 2 um depth of 41.5 feet The test borings were drilling process. The subjected to laboratory Atterberg Limit tests. d test boring logs and conditions not readily interpretation to be with variable )ils are loose, near eighteen omes thinner, Lr the western )und seven to test borings mdwater was of the field data and .ogs are interpretive uld be reviewed for and laboratory test sandy soils cannot ted on deep augercast as shallow a depth as EXHIBIT 10 0 i0l". Lot r. . . . . . . . . . . . . --Toss tz S A jr �z 3. Ili!trj . AAEA- 173 SF 3 w -.1 .105, j3EARINP4 '"` 1 ��J f I ��l i �;L,• :fin• 44 -RO-5 ,'o QRq-:PlaFi- Ait-RIA I 1 16. 25,' .'-UTILITIES. PER, CIT, 0 FU 3 PA t --e �T0S-sl QTF Nor a31 7T �10 Z� Lii (n� 0 z b Pb6 93,3.04 PF f it 196C i,"OrO5'4AwW f : 1, r +•.ir A ti 10, qp P. 7X---'. sNB. L--B4A1RM$p�-46K. LINE U. AT-Sz2- ''ORK vnvrl*iC; MA-0 -1 RC 3A so 7'*liT. Or. ca. ,Fl p . D.,/ UTF1 L 1. Site Address/Location: L� Ai f .5-� at 1430 L-W. i P- McAd,Du'a At Ka. 2. Property Tax Account Number. 85191 054 Aoi 000t0 — - 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet):. 2t g 4iP S RECEIVED 4. Is this site currently developed? yes; V no. If yes; how is site developed? O C T 2 9 1996 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. PERMIT COUNTER Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling. slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10 feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). ' Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: Ag_ ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: V 3 ; Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway W o floodplain V10 of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year- round? Wo Flows are seasonal? _ (What time of year? (►o )• 10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow �; shrubs v*" ; mixed ; urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: 1i0 For City Staff Use Only .I:'`�:.:Saeis Zones? _ 12 �- r 2 •. ".. . • .. 2: mapped soil tylie(s). _,&' 3rWetland inventory or C.A. map indicates wetland present on site?, 4 *� :Critii al'.Ai=s inventory'or C.A %nap'ind-acates•Criticat Area on site? 5 w .xrs C`w tisin'designatbd earth sit ' ,iddiice•landslid� hazard area? Sttt des�gnated'on''the Eriviroi inter ' ly'Sdisitive Areas Map? 4- ' :DETERMINATION.`: .'•>< � ::';<;;..�n n .F. _ I' t k< x � STUDY REQUIRED , .v ` r <'' • > •: �' .^2' `•��• -CONDMNAL WAIVER''' :w WAIVER y ..'. Revtevirtii by. ... l •;.� linnet •. ..., °:;,:. ;, Date' •. ... ^� a ttti.ouwtsa ��101 LL! J _N LL w0 �Q U)CI F_ z ►- Ha �o o0 — �_ HL UJu o� z F Project Description: non -project specific A site inspection and review of the submitted survey map has revealed a slope of 40% or more with a vertical gain of 20 feet or more within the 40% slope on and adjacent to the subject property. This slope is a Critical Area. The critical area is found near the western property line and the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. The surveyed map indicates the top of the critical area slope is the 42 foot contour, and the bottom is the 20 foot contour line. Based on the above findings, it is determined that there is a steep slope critical area on or adjacent to the site. A Critical Areas Study prepared by a licensed land surveyor locating the critical area is normally required. In this case the surveyed map submitted at the time of application for Critical Area Review completes the required Critical Area Study with the top of the critical area being the 42 foot contour line, and the bottom of the critical area being the 20 foot contour line. ' The steep slope critical area requires a 50 foot buffer, -which may be reduced to 10 feet if a Licensed Geotechnical Engineer prepares a study which clearly demonstrates that that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon the site, the public or any private Pay (ECDC 20.15B.110). If the property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which they feel would not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may submit their proposal to the Planning Department for review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Areas or its buffers, a conditional waiver may be issued on a project by project basis. John Bissell October 29, 1996 Name _ -signature Date LL 0 Iii v 0 z 1*1 E MRk oft aEOSCIENOES INC. Post Office Box 6966 Bellevue, WA 98008-0966 Telephone (206) 867-3297 Facsimile (206) 887-8641 Bob Cole and Jeri A. Merritt cjo Lakeside Seawood Group 7500 212th S.W., Suite 210 Edmonds, wA 98020 Subject: Buffer Reductior"tical Areas Checkli t Letter Cole/Merritt Residence SWC 75th Place west & Meadowdale Road Edmonds, Washington Bear Client: I This letter presents some of our geotechnical engineering conclusions for the proposed Cole/Merritt Residence to be constructed on the southwest corner of 75th Place west and Meadowdale Road in Edmonds, Washington. Our conclusions are based on the work completed to date. We have supervised the drilling of two test borings on the property and reviewed laboratory tests consisting of sieve gradation t studies and moisture content tests. In addition, we have measured the standing groundwater table in a slotted PVC standpipe which was installed during drilling activities. Our geotechnical engineering report summarizing bur testing, engineering analysis and conclusions will be available next week. In general, the site is covered with a mantle of loose sand overlying firm to stiff silty clay. we measured !;'groundwater table at 26 feet (t elevation 46 feet) below existing grades. Based on our testing,l analysis, and review of the main floorJsite plan which was faxed to us by the architect, it is our opinion the buffer on this property for this specific development can be safely reduced to ten feet. The proposed development keeps cuts into the slope to a practical minimum. Our analysis indicates the structure have to be founded on piling. If there are any questions, please contact the undersigned at (206) 827-1084 MICD/wd EXPIRES Mark K. r z C.) 0 0 UJ 0 i Di di 0 z CIF 101 city of e& bonds land use application E3 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD E) COMP PLAN AMENDMENT Q CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 0 HOME OCCUPATION Q FORMAL SUBDIVISION 13 SHORT SUBDIVISION Q LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Q PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT C) OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT STREET VACATION El REZONE L3 SHORELINE PERMIT VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION 0 OTHER FILE # - 21 ZONE P5 -1Z DATE 1;r REC'D BY K 11. FEE 4 13 Z. -RECEIPT# - Z.2 -Z.5a HEARING DATE Ef HE El STAFF El PB El ADB C) CC ON TAKEN: (Applicant ROAk&[ A. 6"<- AS A- _Phone 360 -S&Ab — t25 3 ( I Property Addres I Property Owner 2z6- 6245- Ztdti twtO Address 16to745 :Zo4h. Fle-W— (4AwWt IWA -1&M - Agent Phone SLio —ry,2z— (5.) Address- 6ee, x6", Tax Acc# SVPL C151 C01, 0001p Sec. Twp. _ Rng. j Legal Description 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/ her/ its agents or employees. CY) The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staff of the Citv of Edmond.; M enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to thi Attachment; 3 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT �JLo File No. -97-2 Z 1 sZ f" Uj cc Lu -j V U O" U) 0 w. J F- U) U.. _o �a sLU rX zI-- �-a wW �p U U) a F- LU - ,LL � —z L; U) �=F o~ z 1E Exhibit A, Attachment 2). j CASE NO.: V-96-130 f LOCATION: 16006 75th Place West (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). APPLICATION: Variance to increase the maximum permitted building height from 25-feet above average grade level to 33-feet for the construction of jj a new single-family residence (see Exhibit A, Attachments 3 and i 4) REVIEW PROCESS: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision: MAJOR ISSUES - a. Compliance width Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85.010 (VARIANCE). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community ,Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Hearing Examiner Decision: PUBLIC HEARING: Approve with conditions Deny After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and O after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the Cole j Merritt application was opened at 9:30 a.m. December 19, 1996, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 10:30 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. a Attachment 5 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan L*j X • The applicants should have been aware of the requirements. • The design is for a house with two stories with a partially finished basement, not just a two story house. • No variances have been approved for the two lots to the south of the subject lot. 0 ALLB J d M a L*1 0 disallow this request for an eight foot height variance. Howard GIazer, neighbor, said he has lived in the area since 1967 and the variances submitted by the applicant are not comparable to the ones previously requested. He said: • His view will be impacted if this variance is approved. If he loses it he won't get it back. • The applicant should be able to build on his property, but not when it affects others. • He felt that allowing a variance would violate Criteria A and B for a variance. Kathleen Johanson, neighbor, said: • If this is approved, it will set a dangerous precedent. • The architectural design doesn't fit the site. • What public good will be achieved if this is allowed? • The proposal will affect views. Phyllis Wiggins,. neighbor submitted Exhibit K and said: • When they bought their house they thought City restrictions would protect their view. • If the proposed house were to be set lower on the lot it could be an enhancement to the area rather than a conspicuous addition. z i O ® O Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V96130 Page 4 Frank Bonipan, neighbor, submitted Exhibit C and said: • There would be a significant impact on views if this is approved. • When someone buys property in this area they most be aware that the property is difficult, but not impossible to build on. • A different design is necessary, not a variance. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning. a. Facts• 1) S ige: The total size of the subject property is 21,496 square feet. 2) Land Use: The subject property is currently undeveloped, surrounding development consists of single family dwellings (see Exhibit A, Attachments 3 and 4). 3) Zonina: The subject property is zoned RS-12 (single residential family with a minimum 12,000 square foot tot size requirement) (see Exhibit A, Attachment I). 4) Terrain and Venetation: The subject property slopes from the cast to west with the greatest slope closest to the west property It... Vegetation consists of several trees and native grasses. 2.. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a. Facts' .. 1) The adjacent properties to the north, south, and west are currently zoned as single-fee amily (RS-12) (sExhibit A, Attachments 1). Properties to the cast are zoned RS-20 2) The adjacent properties to the cast are currently developed as single- family homes. West of the property is the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and all remaining adjacent properties are undeveloped. B. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE L.. Facts: 1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development in a RS-12 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030. 2) Except for the requested height variance, the existing development conforms to all RS-12 requirements (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). [ 0 i. tr Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V96-130 Page 5 b. Conclusion: The proposal complies with the development standards for the RS-12 zone as set forth in Chapter 16.30, with the exception of the z i ! height setbacks. 2. Compliance with requirement for a Variance o'. ECDC Chapter 20.15B.180.A, states an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances). Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a case -by -case �i basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual and a unreasonable hardship (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). a. Facts: z it 1) ECDC Section 20.85,010 establishes the decisional criteria with which — o- a variance request mostcomply in order to be granted by the Hearing w w' E-m r. These criteria include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted; the proposal is consistent with the A Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the proposal will not be o detrimental and is the minimum necessary. I'm-'� 2) Variances may be used to modify bulk standards. They may not be used to modify use or procedural requirements. z3) The applicant states in his decimations that special circumstances exist due to three conditions of the site a) Steep slopes which average 25% across me site; b) sensitive soil conditions, which dictate minimizing to the extent possible the amount of excavation of water sensitive and slide -prone soils typical of the Meadowdale Beach area; and c) the intrusion of the City easement for an eight foot wide walking path and utilities. The walking path and utilities bisects the site and reduces the Jbuildable area available area and restricts the ability of the applicant to - locate the house further to the west. 4) The applicant states that two-story homes are typical for this area of Edmonds and reducing a home to one story residence is inconsistent O with other homes in the vicinity. Additionally, other residences north of the site have been granted height variances (City of Edmonds files V-90-6, V-90-5, V-90-2), so he believes that approving the variance would not be a grant of special privilege. 5) The applicant has stated that the proposal is consistent with the O Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance (see also section 'D" of this report for Wits]l discussion of compliance with the r also Comprehens ve Plan). He also states that he has reduced m them tent possible the amount of impact to surrounding neighbors by utilizing stick -framing techniques which allow for a lower residence p- than would be typically seen. j W Z I.- 0: LLI LW U (n, 0O H i US ZI Lu rn� 0 Z 6) The applicant states that the proposal is not detrimental in that the two homes to the east, which likely would have the greatest potential for view impact, are elevated substantially from the street and would not have their view affected. The applicant also states that to a certain extent they will improve their neighbors view by removing trees which currently block a portion of their view. 7) The applicant states that the proposal is the minimum necessary in that there are a number of physical constraints placed on the property which are beyond the applicants control. In order to enjoy benefits similar to other properties in the vicinity, namely a two story residence, the owner is proposing a two story residence with sloped roofs, with the second story portion of the building pushed as far west as the physical constraints permit. 8) Driveways may not exceed 14% slope without approval from the Engineering Division. The applicant is proposing a driveway between 14% and 17%. b. Conclusions: 1) Special Circumstances The applicants property has steep slopes, which may exceed 25% in some places. Driveways may not exceed 14% slope without approval from the Engineering Division. There is an easement for a walking path on the western portion of the property. The proposed residence is in the Meadowdale area of town which is slide prone and therefore minimal soil disturbance would be desirable for the construction of any home on the site; however the entire structure will need to be placed on piling. Therefore it appears that special circumstances exist on the site and the applicant should be provided some relief from the height requirements of the ECDC. 2) Special Privilege It does not appear that a special privilege will be demonstrated in granting some variance for this site in that other properties in the same zone with similar circumstances have qualified for a height variance (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). 3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan In this case, approval of this variance would not be consistent with the provisions of ECDC Section 16. 10.000.B which states in part: "Any growth or development should strive to preserve for itself and its neighbors the following values: 3. Views, open spaces, shorelines, and other natural features." The Examiner believes that an applicant has the right to construct a building which complies with the code requirements even if it impacts views from neighboring properties. However, views should be E 147� Hearing Exami ner Decision Case No. V 96-130 Page 7 considered and preserved to the greatest extent possible when an applicant is requesting a variance from the code.- The proposed eight foot height variance would result in some impact to views from neighboring properties and from 75th Place West and therefore, is not consistent with the intent of the above noted provision of the Code. 4) Not Detrimental As proposed, approval of the height variance may be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare in that other properties in the immediate vicinity( particularly houses across 75th Pl. W to the north and south) could have their views affected by the proposal. 5) Minimum Reguire The architect has attempted to reduce the bulk of the residence by utilizing construction methods which will reduce the size of the roof line and still allow a two story residence to be constructed. He has used a sloped roof and located the residence as far west on the property as the physical constraints allow. However, while a 10 and 12 pitch is desired by the applicant, a different roof pitch or architectural style could be used to reduce the height of both the house and the garage. Furthermore, the garage does not have to be at the same level as the house. The house and garage could be at slightly different levels and connected by a walkway or steps. The house will be supported on piles and nothing in the geotechnical engineering report (Exhibit D) specified that the house could not be safely constructed if it were depressed two or three feet more than proposed by the applicant., Therefore, it is believed the applicant has not met the burden of proof to show that the request is the minimum required. C. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE 1. Review by City Departments a. Fact: No comments were submitted by other departments. D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) 1. a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family. Large LOCI. b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the: site. 2. a. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section,. identifies goals and policies which relate to "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below. (1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High.quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached 0 J� M Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-130 Page $ realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in accordance with the following policies: " y (2) Policy B.1. states, "Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. " (3) Policy B.3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. " (4) Page 31, subsection B.S.0 states, "Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments. " b. Conclusion: The proposed development is generally consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City for the development of residential property in the City; however the extent of the height variance it will adversely impact views within the area. DECISION Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is denied. Entered this 6th day of January, 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Robert . Burke, AIA, AICP Hearing Examiner, Pro Tem RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific t .:77 3 ��� . 1.i15G 1V V. Y 7V-1JV Page 9 references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. z i Z' : B. APPEAL Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or UJU recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the N o: decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name ' (n _ of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the s LL j appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community o; Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. ,,, LAPSE OF APPROVAL u �; uD a; . Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is F = required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the z t- conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for z ® an extension of the time before the expiration date.' Q N1 EXHIBITS: a t:l i 61 The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report, dated 12/12/96, with 4 attachments" UJ cn� B. Letter from Philip J Ruggiero, dated 12/15/96 ~o r' C. Letter from Frank & Marion Bonipart, dated 12/11/96 z D. Geotechnical Engineering Report, dated 11/12/96 E. Neighborhood Site Plan showing views from three houses across 75th Pl. W. F. Hearing Examiner report for Case No. V- 96-91 G. Hearing Examiner report for Case No. V-6-90 H. Hearing Examiner report for Case No. V-96-90 I. Hearing Examiner report for Case No. V-5-90 ® J. Hearing Examiner report for Case No. V-93-11 K. Letter from Phyllis Wiggins, dated 12/11/96 1 PARTIES of RECORD: " Q Robert Cole / Jeri Merritt Michael A. George, AIA 16628 70th Pl. W. 1024 First St., Ste. 307 Lynnwood, WA 98037 Snohomish, WA 98290 ;r xt xti rlyrt CITY OF EDMONDS. BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 6TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771.0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering jnC.18qz February 4, 1997 Michael George, AIA 1624 1st St. Ste. 307 Snohomish, WA 98290 Subject: ASSIGNMENT OF HEARING DATE Dear Mr. George: . Your application is now complete and has been scheduled for public hearing at the time and place listed below. Action: Hearing to consider a Variance. File No. Assigned: V-97-2 i Date of Hearing: _ Felsruary 20.199? Time: 9:00 A.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible. Place: Plaza Room, Edmonds Library 650 Main Street Hearing Body: Hearing Examiner 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 hearing will be continued to the following month's agenda. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 771-0220. Sincerely, Community Department - Planning Division Val- Kirkervices Vinish, AICP Project Planner pc: File No. V-97-2 Jeff Wilson, Planning Division Supervisor a ;z • r ^CMPLUMDOC + Incorporated August 11, 1890 + 02ffl4M.00RRMHRNanCE Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan: 4 � 7777 �N T .� . Notice of Development Application & Public Hearing Date of Notice: February 6, 1997 File # v-97-2 Applicant Information, Permit Information Name of Applicants............ Robert Cole/ Jeri McMftl Michael George Requested Permits 9 Variance Date of Application:......... * January 10, 1997 and Approvals:............... Date Application complete: Z February 4, 1997 Other Required Permits Z Buildingnot yet applied for (if Project Location: Z) 1600675th PI. W. known): ...................... Project Description:........... Variance to increase the maximum height Required Studies related Unknown in the RS-12 zone, by 5-feet, from 25- to the project: ................_ feet to 30-feet to allow the construction of a new single-family residents. Related Environmental Critical Areas Checklist Public Comments due by:.. February 20, 1997 Documents:.... .......... City Contact for project:.... Kirk Vinish Public Hearing Information Date: February 20, 1997 Time: 9:00 A.M. Place: Plaza Meeting Room - 650 Main St., Edmonds Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Community Services Department, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020. (206) 771-0220, Public comments should also be sent to this address. The decision on this development application will be made within 120days fthe date of the Letter of Completeness, with allowances made for studies and ' addittonaI information requests. Note that ability t appeal adecisron h contingent uponparocipafion in thepermit d cisionprac The removal, mutilation destruction, o conceatment of this This notice may be removed Warning! notice before the hearing date Ise udidern ea norpunishableby after: Februarv20 1997 fine and lmpnsonment. 0— ® 10 a 32XID 25XI 4 5131 029 009 0001 5131 059 003 0004 5131059 006 0001 " Gerald Bernstein Abollossein Ansari Roger McCorkle 6653 NE Windermere Rd. 9304 Olympic View Dr. PO Box 7178 Seattle, WA 98115 Edmonds, WA 98020 Seattle, WA 98133"; ¢` LUj 7904 000 0010001 7904 000 002 0000 7904 000 003 0009• cc 2! Dennis & Susan Chiavelli Lorian Estates LP Scung & Heyoung Chung 724 Las Canoas Pl. 16010 73rd Pl. W. 5508 154th Pl. SW U o! Santa Barbara, CA 93105' Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 en w 7904 000 005 0007 7904 000 006 0006 79M 000 W9 0003 w O Oliver FA i 23 W C n 3 Lorian Estates -family LI 16010 73rd PI. W. Ed 98020 S A 125 Edmonds, WA 98026 LL ={ ". ft� 0. 5131 029 007 0003 7904 000 004 0008 7904 000 007 0005 z Thomas & Deborah Falk Joann & Robert Anderson Mary Neering Z 400 Dayton St. #A 16010 73rd Pl. W. 6807 164th Pl. SW w w Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 c cn o r � 5131 058 0010008 7904 000 010 0000• 7904 000 008 0004 t w wjj Phyllis Wiggins William Derry Stephen & Joan Johnson uI 16012 74ih Pl. W. 16I07 74th Pl. W. 16121 74th Pl. W. LL Z � Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 w (n! 0 �-, 5131 029 006 0004 5131 030 007 0001 5131 030 008 0000 .' Jon Becker Richard Hankinson Mrs. Howard Glazer 15908 75th Pl. W. 15925 75th Pl. W. 15927 75th Pl. W. ,. a Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds. WA 98026 5131 029 011 0007 5131 059 004 0003 5131 058 004 0005 Paul & Linda Elliott Philip Ruggiero Eugene Imamura 16000 75th Pl. W. 6126 140th Ct. NE 5707 244th St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Redmond, WA 98052 :.Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 O 5131 058 005 0004 5131 058 006 0003 5131 058 009 0000 M. E. Ebert Paul Guardian Williams J. Sherman Mills 16031 75th Pl. W. 6324 181st Pl. SW 16115 75th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Lynnwood, WA 98037 Edmonds, WA 98026 5133 000 035 0206 5131 030 009 0009 5131 058 008 0100 3 Kathleen Johanson Frank Bonipart J. Sherman Mills 7309 N. Meadowdale Rd. 7429 N. Meadowdale Rd. 16115 75th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA M26 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 5131 058 008 0209 Paul Guardian Williams 3 6324 181st Pl. SW Lynnwood, WA 98037 OCT 2 8 1996 t ADJACENT PROPERTY Attach this notarized declaration to the adj; On my oath, I certify that the names located within 300 feet of the sub3ei w = V1 LL e�,oe�tte tsi� Signature of App i ca t App t c rant s Representative W �}4r Subscr' e,?6. before me this of 79 . ..d � i� {ay Ni1 • •` s i LL `3► �"� PUBUC.���:4O� Nota b t for t e Sta a of Washington z �,: 'oo p�.: •.... `�C:�.` Residin at A _ Z d ss�id ,WAs�`o�� . W W; C3 La Q t= . W Wi x u; zi di cn z 01 . :. .,..... ..,..,,.._.,....au.a>axa5m.ow....�.,.n.................�__: �..___._.._ " t..�." k.•a�e,.. 4i+ti.HwncCx4.st�.,e.�nnn,n,ca ..�.� F— z LLI 2 M c.i 0 Q W N LL tdA V O Z u 2 e C STATE or WASHINGTON, COUNTY Or SNOHOMISH. 8-2-T Ei" 9 12 iS97 ED Affidavit of 066lication MortDs CITY OLE11K 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 ..................................::.... Development Application Robert Cole/Jeri Merritt/Michael Geare File No.: V-97-2 a printed copy of which is hereunto 'attached, was published in said newspaper, proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition "of said paper on the following days and times, "namely: February 6, 1997 .............. .............................................................. ...... . t at said newspaper was r larly distributed to its subscribers all of said period. ........... ... .... ........... . rinclpal Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me ttus.....6th ............... P ......... February 29.97 ............. ................ .......... ......... ....:............... :...... Notary Public in and for the Late f Washington, residing at Everett, Snoho h C ty. ®la J 4 � ON 00TAlt j,''' E NO REMOTE STATION I.D. START TIME DURATION #PAGES COMMENT 1 206 339 3049 2- 4-97 12:05AM 1'1.1" 2 E cl* all t THIS IS A LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT AND SHOULD BE BILLED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING and NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION zi ¢ i 0j Name of Applicant: Robert Cole / Jeri Merritt t Michael George File No.: V-97-2 CC a 5 Project Location: 16006 75th Place West ;' 0' Project Description: Variance to increase the maximum permitted height In the RS-12 zone by 5-feet, from o 25-feet to 30-feet to allow the construction of anew single-family residence. w =i City Contact: Kirk Vinish -' Public Comment Period Due By: 3t6t97 (nLL —Q 0 LU - Q. LL _ LLh PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Time: 9:00 AM z o Date: February, 20,1997 W LW 2 m Location: Plaza Meeting Room - 650 Main St., Edmonds 5 0; c) UJ „~', Sandy Chase, City Clerk x cz _ Publish: February 6,1997 . Zi cu'} U)i z a� 0 wi M Aft i wow "1F�` +: rMEM �lr d� V lri ' �j tai o. Date: January 16, 1997 W s U. oa To: Planning Division From: Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator qcp a s sabject: Variance for Coie/Merritt/Michael A. George z x` PI. (16006 - 75th W.) (V-97-002) The application has been reviewed by the Engineering Division. The U ° Engineering Division has no comments regarding this proposal. The proposed a r driveway slope of up to 18% requires a waiver be approved by the City Engineer. W I The applicant will need to comply with all the terms of any future permits.. The Wapplication is considered complete at this time. ZI w U) o ter. z c= OF EDMONDS. ENGDMFJ NG DIVISION V97002.DOc 1� 7'r _z �- w s u U U O CnCn w J I- Lr)LL U W CJ W �a Lu. z� �-o zF- wLU �o U cn o— o �. ,` 0 —z ui E) U = O� z Q IC TAPPLICATION ROUTING FORM :' FILE"" ;V-9 2 AND CHECKLIST FROM:: ` PLANNING �11j 3 N .1997 ROUTED T0: RETURNED Engineering 1 /13/97 Engineerin ' Bt-tC WORKS DEPt Fire "�� Fire Public Works ,. Parks 8r"iiec. 1 / 13JQ7 Parks ex ltec�— ,9 Staff Comments: j s *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODES *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED k *Additional Information Required for Complete Application t *Additional. Studies Required to Complete Review' A X Application Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.6 x 11) . X Fee __X_Site Plan (11 x 17) X APO List X ` Legals'(E)dsting &Proposed) , Title Report Environmental Assessment ` X Vicinity Map Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) , X Elevations X ` Declarations (Varian(;e & C. U P ) Petition (Official Street Map) X " 'Environmental Checklist . 96-221 Critical Areas Determination a C • t� 101 0 • owner— • Property ± Date of ) Mo = Z to x � 4 w V J 0 U Q W wS J F— L u- O LQ F-: 4 � Lj �a z� t— 0 z1-- ww �S SC (? V} O " w w. S U �0 _z w cn U = 0 z r- .L 101 X Application Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11) X - Fee X Site Pian (11 x 17) X APO List X `Cegals (Existing &'Proposed) Title Report Environmental Assessment X _ unity Map Proof of 2-Year Occupancy.(ADUj , X Elevations X ' 'Declarations (Variance & C. U.P.) '+ Petition (Official Street Map) X - • Environmental Checklist. 96-221 Critical Areas Determination` i f y f a. o g z LU u ,io LLJ A t'2 LL LL, 7' 0 uj > D n -LJ LLJ r L) 0 z U) z Michael APPLICANT DECLARATIONS GeA. orge for s 2' dwi VARTp�AY(";E APPLICATION i � l vUrn J jam—' Cn U. City of Edmonds (Meadowdale Beach Area) U- Dd sUk z i- ' W w; o p OWNERS: Robert Cole/Jeri Merritt` ,y UJI 16628 70th Pl. W. F, Lynnwood, WA 98037 (206) 525-2614 Wk. Wzj Architect (206) 742-6305 Hm. A.I.A., P.S. (360) 568-1331 Z ARCHITECT: Michael A. George A.I.A. Pax 1024 First St., Ste. -307 (360)56&1930 „Snohomish, WA 98290 (360) 568-1331 - SITE LOCATION: Directly southwest of the intersection of 75th P1. W. and N. Meadowdale Rd. TAX ACCT. NO.: 5131 059 001 0006 D' ZONE: RS-12 PURPOSE:. Variance to increase maximum height'of. 25' above an average height, as defined by the City of Edmonds, by 5'' to a maximum of 301. Suite 30T- Marks Building . 1024 First Street Snohomish, WA 9 8 2 9 0 i,.- ,., t Apik Jul 1. SPECIAL CIRC STA Ego The special circumstances of this site include steep slope, sensitive soil conditions, excessive building Z setbacks, and the intrusion of a City easement for Wj an 8' walking/jogging path. The City maintains walkway and utility easements pLy s through our site that were once the rights -of -way © for 75th Ave. W., 75th Pl. W., and North Meadowdale Rd. These easements have increased our building setbacks at all but the south property lines. cn a LU The west building setback line (BSBL) should be 25' as required in an RS-12 zone, but in fact, due to u-a the easements maintained by the City, is 40' at the N southwest corner to 75' at the northwest corner. uP' The north BSBL should be 10' but is 15' at the x` zt-! minimum and expands as it intersects with the t- easement at the west. The east BSBL should be 25' but becomes 30' due to the easement along 75th Pl. W. c) us o r The City of Edmonds also has a pedestrian easement w LU (8' asphalt path) beginning at the northeast corner of our site which bisects our site as it continues us O� to the southwest.. The enlarged setback requirements in conjunction with the need to maintain a reasonable driveway z slope (14% to 18%) on this site, which has an average slope of 25% with some slopes up to 40%, combine to dictate the house location. The massing and configuration of the house, with the basement projecting out in front (to the west) under the main floor deck, is a response to the steep slope and the need to minimize the amount of excavation of the water -sensitive and slide -prone soils typical of the Meadowdale Beach area.our previous ` request for an 8' height variance was an effort to minimize the requirement for soils excavation, (as noted in the soils report), which is needed to set the house at a lower elevation. In an effort to reduce any view impact, we have now depressed the floor elevations by 31, which translates to our request for a 5' height variance. (See Exhibits 1, 3, and 5.) In �t1I) Q+y Ri' y iS F�A3�1 1. 9 �i. M 3. 4. N SPECIAL PRIVILEGE—* The granting of this variance would not be a special privilege as there have been other height variances granted in the RS zones to the north of our site (V2990, v590, V96-91,V93-11, V96-90 in City files).We do not feel that our desire to build a 2-story residence would be granting a special privilege as all the recent construction on the west side of 75th Pl. W. has been 2 stories. COMPRRHRNSTVR PLAN: The comprehensive plan is for single family development. We are building a single family residence which complies with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan Residential Development section. As section "B" states, we are proposing a high- quality residence which is attempting to balance both the aesthetic and economic realities of land costs in this area. Our revised design, of lowering the floor elevations by three additional feet and reducing the slope of the garage roof, will minimize any view encroachment and have no negative property value impacts. zoNiNG oRDjmKWj&*. our site is zoned RS-12. The development standards for the RS-12 zone are intended to allow consistent development which would include 2-story residences. Our residence is located as dictated by setback requirements that are far more restrictive than called for in the RS-12 development standards. A height variance from 251 to 301 would be consistent with the development standards designed to include a 2-story single family residential construction. (See Exhibit 7.) Our design efforts have been directed at minimizing the overall impact of the building height by using stick -framing techniques enabling us to use the area within the roof for our second floor. Conventional framing methods of stacking two walls and placing trusses on top would make the house taller than our proposed structure and would still exceed the maximum 251 height.The 10/12 roof pitch is necessary to provide the space for the second floor. (See Exhibit 6.) 0 W T D U 0 a LU W JIBI In order to do everything we can to conform with the intent of the zoning ordinances, minimize view impact, and still respond to the existing special circumstances of our site, we have set the main floor elevation at 671-611, which results in a 51 height variance 5. KM DETRIMENTAL: This 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 two residences behind us east of 75th Pl. W. These are elevated substantially from the street and will not be impacted by the proposed height variance. In fact, we have improved their views by removing some trees that had partially restricted their view corridor. Our revised proposal sets the house 31 lower than our first which will minimize any impact on residences to the north and south of our site across 75th PL. W. (See Exhibits 4,5 and 8.) 6. MINT The steep slope of the site, the increased setbacks, the pedestrian path, the sensitive soils necessitating minimal site excavation all combine to define the location and configuration of the residence. Our design sets the garage at the 70'elevation so that we will not exceed a 14% and 18% driveway slope. The house will set 21-611 below the garage at the 671-61 elevation. Setting the main floor elevation any lower would create a very steep and dificult transition from driveway grade to the entry grade. We have reduced the plate height and the slope of the roof at the garage so that it will not exceed the maximum 251 height limit of 88'-1 1/211. The main roof of the house begins at the second floor line. This will be done to create the minimum variance we need to allow a second floor. The 10/12 pitch of this roof is necessary to create headroom as quickly as possible for the upper floor spaces. No other portion of the house will exceed the main roof height. Stacking two walls and using a low sloped roof would have a greater height impact.(See Exhibits 4, 5, and 6.) --------- -- �E Uj X F- LL 0 in znxa area. If our setbacks were consistent with the RS-12 zoning and the City did not have a path and sewer line through the site we could move the house forward and lower the overall height approximately. 101. We feel our revised design is a request for a minimum 51 height variance that simultaneously responds to all the special circumstances of the site. 141 LL O 2 F- F- Oi Z ¢W LU' G 5 u c»; C3Lu �- = V F- LL O z Lu (n tJ = ~O~ Z El VICINITY MAP MEADOWDALE —L-174 BEACH PARK PUGET SOUND e mJ 4 4� T r� v �) SITE �jJ �F,IQp� s d' .? N h NTS MEADOWDALE PLAYFIELDS 168TH ST SW A-3036\ISS MOt8 MO LSP-VP1 03 1996 10,09,I5 i r (0 FM9 Vt 0 U cn H 0 ►0 z i g1-iT 1 0 F 1 z F- F_ A' Z � O �O. a t= H u- O z iu U1 Va O~ z 1*1 .. .. .i,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,_�_-........-........kaw{r.rtw.uax.auk>:.�k%.Slcx,3T:.2i*..}��`G:S��°.'.'C�`;,.,'.:+,,;t»«�.ab'ri`�'3..:J.ei'.�': tk8ifiu?'ti..n4r1t.,.,�ni.a.u.•K.xh�s.*ritaaw+tvax�•c:ain.'s.rnR vo..0 ..,sr+.. ra,e,�..., ... Aft dxl� t.J� .;•b°.si.a+.. �+. >. � .��al� 1��jr �;��'f��'�',7 •ty`� �,�,t,y y'�y i ti ." .,,.�.• s o,.7• n Commitment ito. 027398 EXHIBIT R That portion of Lots f acCordifl 2 and 2re , Bloc Meadowdale Beach i 36, reccerdsoofhSnohomisheCountrecord°d'in Volume 5 Y. Washington. of Plats, page 1.. TOCF.T}{ER WITH a Me0dowdale Portion of abutting 1Seh Avenue W, F RCad as vacated by Cit And recorded ,7une y Of Edmonds Orlin North PortialOf 75th Pi 19, 1979 under Recording2073 recorded acetbst as vamtod under No. 7yoGi90310, whale December 7, 1940 under Recording t Na. 2799, and a being more part'ieulau Y described a.Na� 9012070096, the CommencingSotht the ND follows: THENCE 7" West corner of said b 12.16 feet to72 20 27�� West along the Northerly block and the Wea Westerly line of rtheriY line thereof City of Edmonds Vacatianaord;Hance NO a Easterly to fget of said beginning; of 75eh Place W., as establ#shed ly THENCE South 26• . „ 2799, being the point of margin 171.S6 feat 17 West along said Westerly tine THCNCE North 9feat to„inters the Sout and road Intersect 43 WOst along h lion of said Lot 2; Avenue W. the WOaterly mar is Of said South line 153.52 feet Iles Northa75a Pone on tho n Of vacated . eL• to 34 48 West a curve from°wt?On Of 7Sth THE14CE Northerly aloe 5298.8o feet hit.h the canter left throw 9 said Haste distant; foot 9h a central nngle es rly�margin and said to intersect that certain 1 17 o8', an arc curve to the lo, 19a6 and recorded undo line ostabiiBhed b°ngth of 117.94y reeoro, °! said Count ; Auditnr,s File Y daed dated may 'ingloE SOuth 8ll� , S NO. 8GJ91oad d, angla paint thereon431, Fast along THENCE North 6 • , g Baid line 54.gtf feat to an Easterly2 02 f t East alon .said Citerminus of that cartain.roA6 vacation established THENCE South 16monds Ordinance it°,1 feet to the parallel With said Noce 2073; by West alonq Bald of 15.00 foot to terly margin of 7GehePlac�terminus, ;f THENCE Hart h 72• intersect the Northarl • 1 di.^.tance 1 t0 the point of ho 17 East along Bald Y lino 01' nale. Block 59; ginning. NOtehorly line 36.47 feet Situ - 'a In the Cou-Ity of snohamish, Sr.ar. e Or Washington. C T . ' 9012280451 r OCT281996 vot. 24 0-1PAGE21 G6 J ._ ® V'w �� a z i,- ►_ 0 Z �- UJ LU 0— 0 LU LLi X �L_ C z LM Cf. Or z It7 1*1 0 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD El COMP PLAN AMENDMENT C E3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE ZONE —17- F' E E3 HOME OCCUPATION T E DATE E3 FORMAL SUBDIVISION DATE REC'D BY L3 SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE RECEIPT# 2,2 FEE2 E L3 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Q PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HEARING DATE HEARING DATE EA 0 OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT / H E STAFF STREET VACATION d HE 0 STAFF 13 PB 0 ADB Q CC El REZONE Q SHORELINE PERMIT ACTION TAKEN: )R,VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION 13 APPROVED E3 DENIED c3 APPEALED Q OTHER APPEAL# Applicant AT- A- Phone 360 -SbG — k'33 Address.1 0o-7 S00MVJ14 IN& !I�PZAQ I Property Address or Location V ZrWA�- I V.- v Property Owner Ltnle,/301 MCfit� —Phone 2z6- J52,5- zut-t (w) Address. 10 -70A. El, W. 14AW604 (Wfic 99OS-1 Agent (64-6M 4t61',,-_AJ4 A6 Phone S(ap, i Address. 6e'e_"1 x6ve' Tax Acc; # S 1421, 051 Q01 000(p Sec. Twp. _ Rng. Legal Description Ste. A16,W, Details of Project or Proposed Use i 4469& 12MIA 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/ her/ its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ 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 attendant to this a plication Z_hW IGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OW!AGENT GENTk S)— O e 4,�/"./ a �f' i l asor I a; / bz'�'. Road �_ ,•} // ' io 20• j$ i lEX / / YO• -.; ' x f.: !I I I ''���__� y_ 3 e/�v NSW �� � ' l a ,' ' ,�• o Q• 11 se Me '}LyAMCh/WAYE,r(SSE,IfENT.70 �' / OP 40 , ©i Zi X-1i x w � / 1 Aso•; '� ) � `.' 1 y,y$� ! r,h 'h e" a Ir. X. tz` h40 _ °s. _ .li _ - ,. ��� , P `� � 1 1 A+M1� i Zar'. 1 •�70. n w• ,� � r.� " r .. k '`Pa EX f1'RCP. B641 .. j :� / � a c� / ,e° t-�,e'w= ' i It ;�P;• ( ��'� ! ; -M.?6 12' 715J5 1 EXHIBIT 2 , P/I D 21 I .7. O17 Jp 3q /l1 h'b hw `�', �', b0' 6M1 0A bb bg td 1ti 1A 95 1g bp! 0M1, ba , }p ad. a1 A — :32 X 113 25 X 44P Nf W , MEFO /. +a. ` � d7 '• �aa/ j/ / of s Q+so•lrml h' UQ fX. 18'�PkG (, / 01WWA� E ,(IENr,✓O !,Y / / �!, o A + z r i 1 a/tx 1 /r f/: P APBoa9s lN' l ,1�, 2t x zo - MW / kk WT BG I1CP ce nr .26 11 /E--BB.ZB lZ"LONG S.E Ti5Jsr IEhIT F7..04�IrZ/SrlMFL I:I a ti I eaEaXHIpB�IT 3.. 4'AP 11 ' •'111� v tl h w 8 b / d c.'� Summary of Site Development Standards SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MAXIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM LOT MINIMUM LOT AREA MINIMUM STREET SIDE REAR MAXIMUM COVERAGE PARKING ZONE (Sq Ft) LOT WIDTH SETBACK SETBACK SETBACK HEIGHT (�) SPACES(1) RS-20 20,000 ---.. 100' 25' 35'/10'(2) 25' 25' 35% 1 _ RS-8 8,000 70' 25` 7-1/2' 15' 25' .35% 1 RS-6 6,000 60' 20' S' 15' 251 t 35% 1 bUrz.. 21 I411(p 119), 30 ° 15 To -to 4o to 70 . 2q -1o'/y _j IT i5 To 5t' PioR.�... Mo1�lE Mo1�, 1rZti05;T., A G MAK. HM1GHT (1) See Chapter 17.50 of Community Development Code for specific parking requirements. (2) 35' total of both sides; 10' minimum on either side. (3) Lots must have frontage on the ordinary highwater line and a public street or access easement approved by the Hearing Examiner. (4) Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the t roof above the stated height limit have a slope of 4" in 12" or greater. (5) See Chapter• 17.50 for specific parking requirements. Parking may not be located in f required street setback; (6) RS-6 setbacks maybe used for singie family residencesron lots,of.10,000 square feet _. or less.,.. __......... :.. _ .. EXHIBIT '7 i 's J* Wm: �.LL Vim/ w VVILL, Plp.� evtj7l -n4r-- -ror e7F 11-jr- wsw mmF- 09iotAk- VIM*A5. WMF45 M10M. Z 3: �- ul Li L) 0! Ul LU: NORTH cn LLJ 0 uj ol LU Lu z us 0 lz 1-1 A �l 6ITF, SCALE: 5 4 '1 115 Z10000, hW.-,AF,AI iv kwm) L Ll CP 0 J* Wm: �.LL Vim/ w VVILL, Plp.� evtj7l -n4r-- -ror e7F 11-jr- wsw mmF- 09iotAk- VIM*A5. WMF45 M10M. Z 3: �- ul Li L) 0! Ul LU: NORTH cn LLJ 0 uj ol LU Lu z us 0 lz 1-1 A �l 6ITF, SCALE: 5 4 '1 115 Z10000, hW.-,AF,AI iv kwm) L Ll CP 0 VICINITY UN' PUGET 8 r� SOUND SV Zi �O r: ti z I-- E- o z F- WLU -i s H� u. p —z o z T- .I H PROPOSED COLF/MERR17T RESIDENCE November 1 Z 1996 Job .Number 6095 Page 2 Subsurface Exploration and Description Two test borings were drilled with a trailer -mounted drill rig to a maximum depth of 41.5 feet below existing grades at the locations shown on the Site Plan, Plate 3. The test borings were logged and sampled by the undersigned registered civil engineer during the drilling process. The test boring logs are attached to this report. Recovered soil samples were subjected to laboratory testing consisting of moisture content determinations, sieve gradation and Atterberg Limit tests. Test results and field density information are summarized on the attached test boring logs and plates. Although there may very well be some variation in the subsurface and/or conditions not readily apparent from the ground surface, we expect the following subsurface interpretation to be essentially correct: Under the brushy ground surface, the site is immediately underlain with variable silty gravelly sand, to sand with some silt and gravel. The sandy soils are loose, and vary in depth. On the uphill side of the building site, the sand'is near eighteen feet deep. As the topography drops to the west, the sand layer becomes thinner, with approxitnately six to eight feet of sand underlying the site near the western edge of the building site. Underlying the loose surficial sand is around seven to nine feet of fractured siltJclay. Near elevation 48 feet, our test borings encountered a stiff to very stiff massive highly -plastic clay. Groundwater was measured in 1 est Boring No. 1 at 26 feet below existing grades. The final test boring logs attached to this report represents our interpretation of the field data and laboratory tests. The relative densities and moisture descriptions on the logs are interpretive descriptions based on observed conditions during excavation. The logs should be reviewed for specific subsurface information at each location tested. Conclusions and Recommendations General The following general geotechnieal conclusions can be drawn from our field and laboratory test data: 1) The surficial sandy soils are loose. Our analysis indicates these sandy soils cannot provide adequate foundation support. 2) We recommend the new structure and floor slabs be supported on deep augercast piles. 3) We. recommend excavations in the building area be limited to as shallow a depth as practical. EXHIBIT 10 0 am HE CA FILE NO. &Atical Areas Checklist 4 CIA - f(. - Site Information (s4DiIS/tOpogmphy/hydrology/veget2tiOn) I46,04 1. Site Address/Emation: Lik- K Jos 41% Fj- w. 2. Property Tax Account Number. 00 0 (a 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or squarefeet):RiCEIVED 4. is this site currently developed? —yes; V10 no. - if yes; how is site developed? OCT 2 9 1996 S. Describe the general site topography. Check 311 that apply- PERM 'T COUNTER Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire Site- Rolling- slopes on site generally ten than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-fed over a horizontal distance of 66-fed). Hilly. slopes present. on site of more than 15% and less than 30% 1 (a Vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: _JW--; Approx- Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water. M Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway M flo0d.plain -M - Of a water course- 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are Year- round? M - Flows are seasonal? _jj2_ (What time of year9 ho 10. Site is primarily: forested ;meadow _; shrubs V" mixed urban landscaped (lawn,sbrubs etc) it. obvious wetland is present on site: AV -For City Staff Use Only t6'is'Znned? C 2.,- il. S -6mapped : soil type(s)? K::-.,:-,:WMaod inventory orC.A. map indicates Welland present on site?.. A/D 4�;�.,-A,':Critical . Aten inventory,or C.A., map-indimtes Critical Area an site? A W `earth subsidence Landslidefiazird area? desighatid'on'the firivironintatally"Sijsiti4e'Areas Map?' DE t;RMYNATIIQN RE00ilth CONDITIONAL WAIVER{ Z7 7 Date i W U 0 io w o� M1 0 s„r z� ro z w ui 0 i LU, �- P U_o _z is o~ z le9t1-L8%q .r City of Edmon& Critical Areas Checklist The Critical Areas Checiist 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 Hall (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. With a signed copy of this form, the applicant should also submit a vicinity map or plot plan for individual lots of the parcel with enough detail that City staff can find and identify the subject parcei(s). In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (eg. site plan, topography neap, 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 Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below). Owner / Applicant: ae Naine Ik b ID 16 F_L- %J x Street Address w , %* g9037 C , State, ZIP Phone Uxf (fie Io 2,91 q, a(u . Date R Applicant Representative: Alalhe Street Address •� I$M Phone Signature r ate :. `. ..... .....,,,_.waix•...,;�,a,�:...c__xr.•-9n}.n,+xasgzt4aw,aKea.�r7iixiD+n..S'�. City of Edmonds.. Critical Areas Determination s ? Applicant: Robert Cole Determination M CA-96-221 Lut Q, Project Name: Permit Number: uj' -J V) UL Site Location: 16006 75th PL W Property Tax Acet #: 5131-059.001-0006 9 -J Project Description: non -project specific U. d A site inspection and review of the submitted survey map has revealed a slope of 40% or more �Y with a vertical gain of 20 feet or more within the 40% slope on and adjacent to the subject o property. This slope is a Critical Area. The critical area is found near the western property line w L,, and the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. The surveyed map indicates the top of the critical a area slope is the 42 foot contour, and the bottom is the 20 foot contour line. C3 Based on the above findings, it is determined that there is a steep slope critical area on or w adjacent to the site. A Critical Areas Study prepared by a licensed land surveyor locating the critical area is normally required. In this case the surveyed map submitted at the time of U. o' application for Critical Area Review completes the required Critical Area Study with the III �i top of the critical area being the 42 foot contour line, and the bottom of the critical area being the 20 foot contour line. X!. z The steep slope critical area requires a 50 foot buffer, which may be reduced to 10 feet if a Licensed Geotechnical Engineer prepares a study which clearly demonstrates that that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon the site, the public or any private party (ECDC 20.15B.110). If the property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which they feel would not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may submit their proposal to the Planning T Department for review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed development permit ' will not adversely impact a Critical Areas or its buffers, a conditional waiver may be issued on a project by project basis. John Bissell _--`'"":' `-'�-' October 291996 Name Signature - Date r1 } F ? y 4 P t tt ¢S . „�nrny>n..,>. 1. • top» i% r ;. QEQSCI£NCIS INC. _ Post offlcelBox 6966 Bellevue, WA 98008-0966 Telephone e206) 867-3297 Facsimile 1206) 88I-8647 Bob Cole and Teri A. Merritt Job Number 6W5 Lui % Lakeside Seawood Group October 31,1996 ¢ 7500 212th S.W., Suite 210 & Edmonds, WA 98020 U w zi Subject: Buffer Reduction/Critical Areas Checklist Letter _J 1- Cole/Menitt Residence 01 SWC 75th Place West & Meadowdale Road g Edmonds, Washington U_ �} <n Dear Client a Up This letter presents some of our geotechnical engineering conclusions for the proposed z I--- Cole/Merritt Residence to be constructed on the southwest corner of 75th Place West and z o; Meadowdali Road in Edmonds, Washington. ww o Our conclusions are based on the work completed to date. We have supervised the drilling of 5 two test bdrings on the property and reviewed laboratory tests consisting of sieve gradation o La studies and, moisture content tests. In addition, we have measured the standing groundwater ' sU table in a slotted PVC standpipe which was installed during drilling activities. ~ 0, �- Our eotechnical engineering report summarimn our testing, engineering analysis and g � g po g g �. g Y zf conclusions will be available next week. In general, the site is covered with a mantle of loose sand overlying farm to stiff silty clay. We measured the groundwater table at 26 feet (t elevation 46 feet) below existing grades. z Based on our testing, analysis, and review of the main floor/site plan which was faxed to us by the architect, it is our opinion the buffer on this property for this specific development can be safely reduced to ten feet. The proposed development keeps cuts into the slope to a practical minimum. Our analysis indicates the structure will have to be founded on piling. j i If there are any questions, please contact the undersigned at (206) 827-1084. =.1 Do DD fences Inc. ® w p 2zsa EX�IRErS Mark K. Dodds, .E. MKD/wd t i r 1*1 M ME CITY OJT', EDMONDS E"OCHECKLIST VC (.,D�1��< Purpose of Checklist. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all.governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making dccisions.'i An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information'to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal: Governmental agencies use this 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 kpown. or give the hest description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer, the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply". complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the ,governmental agencies can assist you. 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 land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be an%wered "does not apply.', IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROIECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the yvords "project," 'applicant," and "property or site should be read as "proposer,' and "affected geographic area.' respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed prgp--ct, if applicable: 2. Nameofapplieant: s—"r� c�lt9 YhWort� 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contal person: MOM- 'oaq � t r • r i• 63L.21 r 4. ! r �7/ 81996 , 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): _�P _ Uj!, u; (STAFF COMMENTS) Lnw � j 9. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this ` w C7l proposal? if yes, explain. Ko cn � w= 1 z r (STAFF COMMENTS) r z W W' S, . . List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly orelated to this proposal. = UJI �, eZe A r 1.� /moo •�' — z, wm � z F- (STAFF COMMENTS) z 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 COMMENTS) O 10, List any , overnment approvals or permits that will he needed for your proposal, if known. t 4 (STAFF COMMENTS) Psga 2 of 22 cuKLTn**5-4I,MA=-R -v z f- iu. LUua U d. U)W (0 i- f 01,, LU LL �I a =a z f- i- ` z F- LU W v— —z w to La = O F z n C 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, -including the proposed uses Ana sm of fne pru'us uHu ailw— There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. 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. N 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 r asonably 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 (STAFF C010101TS) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle tine): Flat, rolling, hilly steep slopes mountainous, other. (STAFF COMMENTS) _ g b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? t (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What general types of snits are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel; peat, muck)? : If you_. know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. 0.CT s 1996 Page 3 of 22 077 u m MEN", MILIUA (STAFFCOhihENTS)*'-' d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If SO, dewribe. S r- -'Zj-,7 . . . ........ (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any tilling or grading proposed. Indicatesource or fill, '10 IAJ— (STAFF COMMENTS) Could erosion occur as a result orchm-tring, construction, or use! irlso, genernilydescribe. 4IP-5 — r-44AAAZU-IIIA 'A le� e- 'C4A'l 1*1 (STAPFCOMMORTIS) 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 appr ima(e q antilies if known _ . T 1 -1 - - -- .- - 1, � , '..-[ -I.- (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Are there any off -site sources or emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, ,generally describe. 0 (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 3. WATER 2. Surface: (1) Is there any surrace water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and sewsonal %trutms,s:dt%vt(er, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, st.ye what stream or river it flows into. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 5 or22 OCT 2 81996 M Lu eta US o~ z ❑C 0 CIIMT/10.2-S 3d1te4MR 0 (2) Will the prelject require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If ' yes, please describe and attach available plans. N® . (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 fin material. MOM-, (4) (5) (6) (STAFF COMMENTS) Will the proposal require surface water uithdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. ' (STAFF COROWNTS) Doers the propowl lie within a i 00, year fioodpl: in? If so, note location on the site plan. %fl _ (STAFF COMMENTS) Doe's the proposml in any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. (STAFF COMMENTS) Pagb 6 arm r r - r .y E s x , ; r s.,ca.:w• .marts.s.<f2�n�a?,%�i�a..ar..t,ems^aa,;,fi..ii..R�ctv.,w >?....i.,.r.,fi♦ .„r. b. Ground: (1) Will ground water he withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give j general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. N'--'+ V cc LU c.a � w =( (STAFF COMMENTS) J F-; to U. Waj LL ¢ d (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, • if • 'Domes (n • any (for example: -tic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; ngticultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the z F; number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the o; number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. m C: 9 t w Lq H F I (STAFF COMMENTS) u. p z` LU o Z C. 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 wi11 this water flow? Will this eater now int other waters? r,if so, d wcrihe. ` • `tile—AIJ ! �A1/�t� Q (STAFF COMMENTS) r_ (2) ' Could haste materials enter•ground or surface waters? if so; generally describe. �. ry (STAFF COMMENTS)' j2 v OCT 28. Nee 7 of 23Ism ; { (STAFF COMM 4. Plants a. Check or circle type; of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder maple, pen, other: evergreen tree: tfir, cedar, pine, other. shrubs _..__._UL grLss pasture crop or grin wet soil'plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrusl►, skunk cabbage, other. I i ► water plants: water lily, eelgr.Lss, milfoil, other. tither types of vL getation: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What kind uqd am aunt of vegetation will he removed or altered.► �JCAictaX Luce 1 ® (STAFF COMMENTS) C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. iriotne' - (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plant-;, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Page 8 of 22 COKLi110.25•93.MAIM + ®7�-:- t� z F- CC: 0: V) a V) LU LU (D LLJ 01 E mammals: deer, hear, elk, heaver, other: fish: bass, tmo trou herrin shet Gsh other: 1P, JA'A' Socuk (STAFF COMMENTS) b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Is the site part or a migration ro6te. Ifso, explain. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: tune -- (STAFF COMMENTS) 6. Energy and Natural Resources Page 9 of22 OCT 2 81996 Q LLI o (STAFF COrIhVNTS) V) En W' - J h, En w U ( b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar enemy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. ul- s` z E- z w ua. o . (STAFF COMMENTS) v o7 UJ _ U. C. What kinds of energy conservation features ure included in the'plans of this proposal?. List other P proposed measuress• to reduce or co t of energy impacts, if any: v � o~ z (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Environmental Heath a. Are there any environmental health hazards, 'includingexposure to tgxic chemicals, risk of fire and a 0 explosion, spill, or i arurdous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. "10 I. s _, 3 N (STAFF COMMEWS) b. Noise (I) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? V1.OV�r_ ., (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) What type and leveis of noise would he created by or associated with the project on a short -teem or a long-term hams (for example: traffic, comtraction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would co ►e f ►m the site. V6V-lo 0 M t 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent,prope rtie! Ui p (STAFF COMMENTS) cn ®" en w u, b. Has the site been used for agriculture. Ifso, de caibe. wU. w �( s (STAFF COMMENTS) O! Z w w' C. Describe any structures on the site. O — e i Lul u. Z W N; to. a NS (STAFF COAIAIENTS) z d. Will any structures he demolished? If so. Nrhat? Ylr's _ • (STAFF COMMENTS) e. What is the current cluscitiexe itm of tjie site? fxoning \ UA1. (STAFF COA' W ENTS) x A Page 12 of 22 cia:tsirasva.esnsrcrt rr l*J 0 ...... _ ... , ,..... ,,,ww..,,ms, aw,<a4T. ux ltlna'� ..RJC'-.:� ". Y:S.a...';%kf?.7. ..n'�.�'4. S`^;L I,a-,... T'.'�._ h„Y,+.,++F.0 �..''ILi'i'Y.;1'S .•X�x PSC�,i"».4. .. r.Je F`mu X .a,-ii .. , ✓ ..� .i ..n. .. r f. What is the current co reliensbve plan dcsig tion of the site? 1_5 t I� (STAFF COMMENTS) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Has any part of the site been classified as: in e virtmmentally sem-chive area? Csn, specify. GVi � � G: irilt3� (STAFF COMMENTS) i. Appro im::tely how many people would reside lULILI r work in the completed project? i (STAFF COMMENTS) Approximately how many would the III displace? r. 3 j. people co:i:pleted project (STAFF COMMENTS) OCT 2 81996 * ' Page 13 of122 Page 14 of CJIKLT/16343.W4A.M-R ❑x 0 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? t t l 1 (STAFF CORMEN M b. What views in the immediate vicinity would he altered or obstructed? i (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impuc��s, it any (STAFF COMMENTS) it. Light .rod Glare a. What type or ught or glare will the propo.-d produce? Mquit time*or day would it mainly occur? (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Could light or glare from the finished project he a surety hantrd or interfere witl views? (STAFF COAIAIENTS) s rnpv 15 002 OCT 2 81996 I { . .._. ....__.. .. _..... .+.. m.ama,,,�„m�•..Eas;a7say..a.�_.a3/.7..3,,.n..,...n.:st;'�Y,'.t+31?:?;1L7.."-L18.'.wr("ta?.'.�xrY>.Yr�?..,Sx_sS:.1a„+t3s.t,...415i�'.-'F.AU.,a'.?'�,.rPs6.,.F.nt,titc��.,.,:�.,,,.rv. ...�., .., C. What existing offAite sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? I- W i (STAFF COMMENTS) a 0' v � d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: UJ to LL _ 0 LL = — a w" (STAFF COMM I NTS) Z t-' H- O W w 12. Recreation U 01 a. What ile.4goated un '►lfa nal recreational opportunities ure in the immediate vicinity? a _ Ly a Z: W N! O~ (STAFFCOA1AlENTS) Z h. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation useP if so, describe. i (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recretttion, including recreation opportunities to be i provided by the prq,itct or applicant, if any; a �aa ' (STAFF COMMENTS) ` „► 4h € z Page 16 of 22 {i CI(MTtta•2tgi,MA.WER f =' T• k " .. ... '-.....:�..............w..,cw.w+w.u'+..Wssn,.+vs:�RtGY.i?T;tiS:.GiiA^.t�?.WtGtifsM.RUFssYISC6.Xv9L'fatGi'�^L+`.MRlilWs2k<i*YY.tln.mi»+.i�mr.�aw'•Nawn.n✓in..ue+ ..¢e.an.:A+w +......_ :. '. '.:. 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 he on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. h ` w; 4 V 0' 0; En U) i' (STAFF COMMENTS) Ui a F, N LL� w 0' b. Generally describe any landmarks fir evidence or historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural _s ! importance known to he on or next to the site. H= Z F: F Q Z w wi ®i (STAFF COMMENTS) - W WI a t y C. Proposed mem 4;ures to reduce or control impacts, it any: �- Z Woi - /ui Uy' +iF4� O Z (STAFF COMMENTS) 14. Transportation a. Identify public Streets and lu +hwa s serving. the site,,and describe proposed access to the existing street system,. Show on site if any. �p�l_ans, 0 (STAFF COMMENTS) - • i j b. Is site currently served by public traMit? If no, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? .t YSC •r OCT 2 81996 * Page 17 of 32 Z e—� I.- ow Z �- LU Lu U (a 0 0 LU W X z Ui U) 0 z H L01 (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) wAter, rail, or air transportation? if so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) r. How many vehicular trips per day would he generated by the Completed project? it known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. V (STAFF COMMENTS) Page It or xt CUMT1142S-91MASTCR �h n.w�.,.�.mwaa .vn3ttro cec.ra:eta`.u�tfu'..re2:u=wxaF=x,...':�+ciTf:sT„n�'f�rMEta9cerscmwz aw.atanrrit�Nu'�3�,ivc r_rxwru��n+,.,s,..w:�,,...�rv..,,,..�,:. ... — LL 01" g 15. Public Services LL } a. !Would the project, result in an increased need far public services (for example: fire protection, police 0 ; protection, lwjlth cure, schools, other)" it so, generally describe. r wO Z I-- Ui W., a i_- (STAFF COAMENTS) w wI =U Zi b. Proposed me:csurc-s ter reduce or cerntrol direct impacts on public services, if any: O �. z (STAFF CONIAIENTS) 16. Utilitim a. Circle utilities currently available at the site electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, ® ganitary se vcr septic system, other: ' (STAFF COMMENTS) OCT 2 Tic r Page 19 or22 "PW.. ace, find the general , the utility.providing (lie servi 1pose b. Dcs�he the utilities that Are Pr( d for the project, immediate vicinity which Wight be needed- %.itles an the site or in the construction activities i LU: OU-11 C. F-; 2. Nov would the proposal he likely to uffiect plant-;, animals, feds, or marine life?. Proposed tneasurcq to protect or conserve plants, animals, rish, or marine lire are: 3. Now would the propo.sal he likely to deplete energry or natural resourc&? 4. How would the proposal he likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? z d F. F- W d� 0! Proposed measures to protect such resources or avoid or reduce impacts are: Ca; us LU ti: a U. i. N W Qa Q S. How would the proposal he likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with LNistin;; pl.uns'.> (n s Z_F F O z Lu w U to o t , Proposed mc-Lsureq to avoid or reduce shoreline and land .use impacts are: w w S U• u. 0' ci.i to OFi; z 6. How would the proptis:tl he likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measurLw to reduce or re.%pond to such demand(%) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may.connict witli jocal, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. $it CIALT/1U•3.93.MAVCR ,._..,.,..,_,.•.......� t'n;:!''"fit—� � r- gg ,. ,; '.•aV4Wk`9fiF0.5.'G:'S^.�+�'�i3.�nkVi�P11K+Srv`:+�tli:f �L, � " ditT.fXc'�s�f.�R�a'$#r]R.�"F}�'i6'..fikrA?9mtil3mytSK.Aa3:,u..:;: 5131 029 009 0001 5131 059 003 0004 5131 659 006 0001 Gerald Bernstein Abollossein Ansari Roger McCorkle 6653 NE Windermere Rd. 9304 Olympic View Dr. PO Box 7178 Seattle, WA 98115 Edmonds, WA 98020 Seattle, WA 98133 z Lu! 7904 000 0010001 7904 000 002 0000 7904 000 003 0009 d �! Dennis & Susan Chiavelli Lorian Estates LP Seung & Heyoung Chung o ; 724 Las Canoas P1. 16010 73rd Pl. W. WA 98026 5508 154th Pl. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Q Santa Barbara, CA 93105' Edmonds, C cn W a CO p 7904 000 005 0007 7904 000 006 0006. 7904 000 009 0003 W Oliver Finnigan III Chun & Ui Pak NE 100th St. Lorian Estates*,Family LI 16010 73rd Pl. W. 23004 107th Pl. W 3828 u. _� cn Edmonds, WA 98020 Seattle, WA 98125 Edmonds, WA 98026 d, z Z 5131 029 007 0003 7904 000 004 0008 7904 000 007 0005 o Thomas & Deborah Falk Joann & Robert Anderson Mary Neering w w 400 Dayton St. #A 16010 73rd Pl. W. 6807 164th Pl. SW 2 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 c� Cn; w LU 5131 058 0010008 7904 000 010 0009 7904 000 008 0004 = Uiii Phyllis Wiggins William Derry Stephen & Joan Johnson LL o+ 16012 74th P1. W. 16107 74th Pl. W. 16121 74th Pl. W. zi Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 LU cos! f Z 5131 029 006 0004 . 5131 030 007 0001 5131 030 008 OOOb Jon Becker Richard Hankinson Mrs. Howard Glazer 15908 75th Pl. W. 15925 75th PI, W. 15927 75th PI. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 5131 029 0110007 5131 059 004 0003 ' 5131 058 004 0005 Paul & Linda Elliott Philip Ruggiero Eugene Imamura 16000 75th Pl. W. 6126 140th Ct. NE 5707 244th St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Redmond, WA 98052 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 5131 058 005 0004 5131 058 006 0003 5131 058 009 0000 k M. E. Ebert Paul Guardian Williams J. Sherman Mills 16031 75th Pl. W. 6324 181st Pl. SW 16115 75th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Lynnwood, WA 98037 Edmonds, WA 98026 j { ® 5133 000 035 0206 5131 030 009 0009 5131.058 008.0100 'k Kathleen Johanson Frank Bonipart J. Sherman, Mills 7309 N. Meadowdale Rd. 7429 N. Meadowdale Rd. 1611575th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 5131 058 008 0209 Paul Guardian Williams 6324 181st Pl. SW OCT 2 8 1996 Lynnwood, WA 98037 1 _. �y,F,UBLtC m Notar Lbt i�M"2Cfi"d for the State of Washi ngton Residin at `�p,OF�INAs�ap t f :j � y OCT 2 8 1996 777 t i l Z S Z LU -i (-) 0 Zn Lu ED (/) LL W Qi LL =ci � Lu h �' Z F- H0 z �o o w wi = U u. pl Z V S 0 Z C7 CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 260 6TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 96020 • (206) 771.0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER M f.ti STt. !,!, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: Robert Hoffman CASE NO.: V-96-90 LOCATION: 20625 88th Avenue West i APPLICATION: Variance to reduce the required street setback from 25-feet to 5- feet and to increase the maximum permitted building height from 25-feet above average grade level to 31.7-feet for the construction of a new single=family residence. • I REVIEW PROCESS: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes i final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance width Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85.010 (VARIANCE). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 • (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Hearing Examiner Decision: PUBLIC HEARING: Partial approval with conditions Partial approval with conditions After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The . hearing on the Hoffman application was opened at 9:04, August 15, 1996, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:38 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan ....:_... '.':. _ ..:..,,:. ,,, .,...:�;:: ...,,v.... .a.... _.n..; vr_a. .,,:. qt ,.:tc,.::: r.:.aat-.,:rvz.,rn<..:iiv_trr.,.e�x•.rar...ca _.s eta ..c a, _r, .:::- r., ..,,-+: �, .,». ra,,. ,, ... <:< } - Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-90 Page 2 HEARING COMMENTS: z w, The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. ar �. < v From the City: o' Kirk Vinish, AICP, Project PIanner, reviewed the staff advisory report (Exhibit A) and N W recommended partial approval of the request, with conditions. o': From the Applicant: W Dean Read, Architect for the Applicant, said the variance was requested because of the topography of the property. He agreed with the staff report and the recommended "- conditions of approval. He said the variance would allow the house to be built to a height X_ of 22 feet above the level of the street. He noted that other houses in the neighborhood z are up to 25 feet above the street in height. _o w w From the Community: a Robert King, Neighbor, said he was concerned about preserving the neighborhood theme v cni a and asked if alternatives had been explored. He said it looked like the house could be t tt-j placed further back on the lot. He was concerned that the house would set forward on the W z v lot and not conform with others in the neighborhood. He was also concerned that this F: — could set a precedent to allow other variances along 88 h Avenue West. He said he z understands this particular lot is steep, but he said the owner know that when he bought LU _, the property and then subdivided it. o ~' z Response from the Applicant: Paul Stomme, Agent for the Applicant, said that Mr. King is focusing on lot 2 and this request is for lot 1. He said alternatives were considered but access can only safely be . achieved from 207`h and then with a variance. This house will be part of the 207`h St. S.W. streetscape, and there will be no access on 88th Avenue West. He also said there is no similarity between these lots and lots to the north along 88th Avenue West. Dean Read said that each variance must meet specific criteria so this will not set a precedent. CORRESPONDENCE: Two letters were submitted and both objected to the request for a variance. One letter opposed both the height and setback variance requests, expressed concerns about possible encroachment on the city right-of-way, and felt the home if built and proposed would represent a definite degeneration to the esthetics of their lots as well as to the 881" Avenue corridor (see Exhibit A, Attachment 7). The other letter focused on the project description in the public notification (see Exhibit B). Note: Two applications were submitted. However, the City acknowledged that file number V 96-91 was improperly noticed and therefore no hearing was held on that application. The hearing was only held on file number V 96-90, which was -given proper notice. 0 �10 t 14, q Hearing. Examiner Decision ;. . Case No. V 96-90 Page 3 .. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS Z i S A. SITE DESCRIPTION rUJ 1. Site Development And Zoning: LU tNo a. Facts: UJ 1) Size: The.total size of the subject property is 13,331. � LU 2) Land Use: The subject property is currently undeveloped, surrounding development consists of single family dwellings (see Exhibit A, Attachments 3 and 4). 3) Zoning: The is D 01 - subject property zoned RS-12 (single residential rX, family with a minimum 12,000 square foot lot size requirement) (see ? 1.- Exhibit A, Attachment 1). z ®' u, L,,, 4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property slopes from the west to east with the greatest slope closest to the west property line. c� rn Vegetation consists of several trees and native grasses. , 0h LAJ 6u c� 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: W zip a. Facts: co} 1) The adjacent properties to the north, south, east, and west and are LWJ' zi currently zoned as single-family (RS-12) (see Exhibit A, Attachments 1)• 2) The adjacent properties to the east,. north, and south are currently developed as single-family homes. 3. History a. Facts: r l) The following is a chronological account of the development of Mr: property. 0Hoffman's a) September 22, 1995. Robert Hoffman applies for a 4-lot short plat b) November 3, 1995. Staff conducts a public hearing on the proposed 4-tot short plat. The Hearing Officer approved the short plat with the conditions from the Engineering Division noted on 1 , Exhibit A, Attachment 5 of the Preliminary Review. of the Proposed, ® Short Subdivision.. s c) December 4, 1995. Mr. Hoffman rescinds his application fora 4- 4, lot short plat (see ExhibitA, Attachment 2)-,', {% t d) December 12,1995. Mr. Hoffman applies fora 4-10t'short plat, with modifications for lots 1 and 2. ...r �.-�4 �' z',p,yeL'k'CF'"'tt si r V .... _.,:, ._. �•....__�.,,......».._...,...............u.,.,m..e.«,.u1enuaa wit_roc;++tare.tre,]VOssa»s^avfitikAS�aivar'xSnrw:S.ACWw+;n zmumt3�'.oYtM:.s..xo-.:r..w...v.,,.,n....,.,.,...,........ ....... ... . Hearing Examiner Decision I _ Case No. V 96-90 Page 4 e) February 29, 1996. Mr. Hoffman appeals the hearing officers decision. rw f) April 15, 1996. The Hearing Examiner denies the appeal. CC 2, 9) April 24,1996. Mr, Hoffman requests a reconsideration of the Hearing Examiners decision. Uml U 0, h) May 1, 1996 The Hearing Examiner denies the request for cn W:. reconsideration. J rz.: B. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE I . a. Facts: a { 1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential oy �# development in a RS-12 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20,030. 2) Except for the requested street and height setback alterations, the existing development conforms to all RS-12 requirements (see Exhibit z A, Attachment 4). LL W' b. Conclusion: The proposal complies with the development standards for �{ the RS-12 zone as set forth in Chapter 16.30, with the exception of the ` LU Lu,� street and height setbacks. - LL o I 2. Compliance with requirement for a Variance LM �' �— ECDC Chapter 20.15B.180.A, states an applicant may request a variance from i the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the z procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances). Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a case -by -case basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). a. Facts: 1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These criteria include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted; the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum necessary. 2) Variances may be used to modify bulk standards. They may not be used to modify use or procedural requirements. 3) The standard width for bike paths is eight feet. 4) The adjacent right-of-way is on the ComprehensivaBikeway Plan. 5) The applicant states in his declarations that steep slopes on the property make construction of a driveway difficult, and that special circumstances exist because the improved portion of the right of way is between 20 and 25 feet from the street property line for lot L The t t _ .... ...... ... .. ......_..._........._.............�..,...✓.a.r.wv.vsrwauaN^nivaaaTdkWds%`te�Y!sMs�Rtp...v^.""..ptaCST'..n96.CSfi`AS4:3bL+661{�IYiSN.YkbLR+se'¢4SSM.^.el.V."ec MMx'S+iItlYr.M2s.scw:^svwrwy�.....»........_..._._... Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-90 t Page 5 applicant also states that other property owners in the area have z I setbacks from the improved roadway of 25 to 30 feet Q �} u,; 6) The applicant states that the home would be below the existing street cc _1 which creates a hardship which other properties in the vicinity do not have. a cn w; 7) The applicant has stated that the proposal meets the minimum variance � criteria because it will reduce the driveway slopes to a safe grade. U. 8) If the applicant is granted a height variance it does not appear that the residence will impact neighboring views or cast shadows on U- Q j neighboring properties. cn _ b. Conclusions: z 1- 1) Special Circumstances �-z (a) Street Setback request: The applicants property Yhas steep slopes, which may exceed 35% in some places. Driveways may not exceed. 14% slope without approval from the Engineering Division. The City o{ prefers all other options to be explored before allowing a driveway to r LU exceed 14%. The most reasonable access would be on 80th Avenue West it intersects where with 207th Place Southwest. Additionally, LL zi locating the home in this area will preserve existing trees, which is LU ur, consistent with objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, it appears that special circumstances exist due to topography and tree z preservation, and therefore the applicant should be provided some relief from the setback requirements of the ECDC. b) Maximum Height request: The applicants property has steep slopes, which exceed 35% in some places. The applicant will be taking access off of 207th Place Southwest. Homes along 207th Place Southwest are two stories and the applicants request is consistent with development along that street. Therefore, it appears that special circumstances exist due to topography, and therefore the applicant should be provided some relief from the setback requirements of the 0 ECDC. 2. Special Privilege (a) Street Setback request: It does not appear that any special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that other properties in the same zone with similar circumstances would also qualify for a variance (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). b) Maximum Height request: It does not appear that any special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that other ` properties in the same zone with similar circumstances would also qualify for a variance (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). t :Y . e BAR t '.... .,...,._ j.. t .. '.':.._.._,...�.....,.......ti.....�.........ww„avancmracvi NV'arz.Cd1•A:i'Syd?::,,.5.si,E�'tl.'�s.dra':tiiflCYtrri;.^A+-f:J.Yia",a`i,:A*Xe'4'Y!L}:f4nTiarlu",tue� +Ftlit�F trams.ufys.um+,µan»+:+a.,..,w.•...,...�..-.-. ...-..,_.... . , Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-90 Page 6 Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan z (a) Street Setback request: Approval of the proposed subdivision s modification would allow for the continued development of the site in arc g a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the JM'. Comprehensive PIan designation of the site (see Exhibit A, u a; Attachment 2). w F. (b) Maximum Height request: Approval of the proposed subdivision Cn LL modification would allow for the continued development of the site in LU 0 a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). x w! 3. Not Detrimental Z M (a) Street Setback request: As proposed approval of the street setback o variance would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare w w' (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2) because the City may choose to locate a D. bicycle path in the right-of-way and a home situated 5-feet from the o Ln property line may pose a safety hazard to the home owners and .1 cyclists. However, if the setback were expanded to 8-feet then s c"'.,iI sufficient distance between autos and bicyclists would exist. `—` Z (b) Maximum Height request: The variance as conditionally approved, LU vs' will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and ; o f-s welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and z the same zone. 4. Minimum Required (a) Street Setback request: If the setback were expanded to 8-feet then the variance would be the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. �— - (b) Maximum Height request: The variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. O C. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE 1. Review by City Departments i a. Fact: No comments were submitted by other departments. O D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) a 1. a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Large Lot". b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing s Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. 2. a. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, it identifies goals and policies which relate to "Residential Development"- in the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below. r 0 . z Z S Z' w � J 0 U0 (n w. a H. u art z_ ww v (ni 0- 0 w LL►1 �v z cu to C) O h' Z J 1*1 (1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing far all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in accordance with the following policies: " (2) Policy B.1. states, "Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. " (3) Policy B.2. states, "Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures. " (4) Policy B.3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. " (2) Page 31, subsection B.5.0 states, "Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments. " b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City for the development of residential property in the City. DECISION Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, this application is partially approved and shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is to allow the proposal in the location identified on the proposed site plan (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4), however the residence must be set back from the street 8- feet. Any other structures, additions or remodels would have to conform with the typical setbacks or height requirements for the zone or obtain another variance. All trees east of the house shall be retained to the extent possible. 2. The residence shall not exceed 31.7 feet in height as measured from average grade. 3. 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. 4. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction. 5.. The permit is transferable. Z Q W U W. (n LLI Q (, Wrt M' z_ z W UJ U tA' O P = 4,1 LL O. Tz U U): z l,- -- U 0 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.E 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. -,.a 1r..r_3wca;,y,s:.sh� . yaa'+w=➢� <rt� CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY .i .. MAYOR 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA S6020 • 1206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION S1 �' 6 fa i OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ��,+?=r� f� y6 CITY OF EDMONDS APPELLANT: Robert Hoffman CASE NO.: V 96-91 LOCATION: 20623 88th Avenue West (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). APPLICATION: Variance to reduce the required street setback from 25-feet to 5- feet and to increase the maximum permitted building height from 25-feet above average grade level to 36-feet for the construction of a new single-family residence. REVIEW PROCESS: Variance, Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: ' a. Compliance width Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85.010 (VARIANCE). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Hearing Examiner Decision: PUBLIC HEARING: Denial Partial approval with conditions After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the application was opened at 9:15 a.m., August 28, 1996, in the Plaza Room, O Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:45 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Si§ter Cities International — Hekinan. Janan 0 HEARING. COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. - From the City: Steve Bullock, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report (Exhibit A). He noted that there were steep slopes on the western slope and that there was a hammerhead at the end of 207th. It was noted that the hammerhead is located on the west side of the right-of-way. He noted that a variance had been granted for a reduction of setback and increased height on Lot 1 immediately adjacent to this lot. He indicated that Lot 2 can get access from 88th from the access easement serving lot 3. Therefore, Staff recommended denial of the request. From the Applicant: Dean Read, Architect, representing the applicant stated that they felt the request was justified for the following reasons: • The house built without a variance will not be compatible with the adjacent neighborhood or the house on the adjacent lot which received a variance. • From 207th you will only see the upper part of the roof. He noted that because of the topography of the site, the roof of this building with the height variance would be lower than that approved on Lot 1. • The driveway from the easement from 88th will be awkward and difficult to enter and exit due to the double slopes. • More large evergreen trees will need to be removed. j I Paul Stromme, Stromme Construction, who will be building these homes indicated that he felt the two homes would be more compatible built with access from 207 and with the same relationship to the cul-de-sac. He noted that there had been no neighborhood opposition From the Community: No Comments were received. • FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a. Facts: - 1) Size: The total size of the subject property is 12,621. 2) Land Use: The subject property is currently undeveloped, surrounding development consists of single family dwellings (see Exhibit A, Attachments 1 and 3). Z Z LU LW 0 C3 TL ui Z LU (n 0 Z N L91 r nu 'Lw' m Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-91 Page 3 3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned RS-12 (single residential family with a minimum 12,000 square foot lot size requirement) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). 4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property slopes from the west to east with the greatest slope closest to the west property line. Vegetation consists of several trees and native grasses. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a. Fact: 1) The adjacent properties to the north, south, east, and west are currently zoned as single-family (RS-12) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). 2) The adjacent properties ,to the east, north, and south are currently developed as single-family homes. 3. History* a. Facts: 1) The following is a chronological account of the development of Mr. Hoffman property. • September 22, 1995. Robert Hoffman applies for a 4-lot short plat. • November 3, 1995. Staff conducts a public hearing on the proposed 4-lot short plat. The Hearing Officer approved the short plat with the conditions from the Engineering Division noted on Exhibit A, Attachment 5 of the Preliminary Review of the Proposed Short Subdivision.. • December 4,1995. Mn Hoffman rescinds his application for a 4- lot short plat (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). • December 12, 1995. Mr. Hoffman applies far a 4-lot short plat, with modifications for lots I and 2. • February 29, 1996. Mr. Hoffman appeals the hearing officers decision., * April]5,1996. The Hearing Examiner denies the appeal • April 24, 1996. Mr. Hoffinan requests a reconsideration of the Hearing Examiners decision. • May 1, 1996. The Hearing Examiner denies the request for reconsideration. B. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. a. Facts: 1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development in a RS-12 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030. . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 4 y. . ,F, iw..cS Xi �".:,*l,°„".ti,�i'`.`.`ani.,.w.�?4,at'..F,Yo%'!w5.1?..,.&wau.4N:i.A,.l.?i31. •.. .t?',°Ci .4. , ,. ,_ .,,:4,.z,.., rw'Y .U"`....wk:.•*,.r;r .. . o+ „ Hearing Examiner Decision = Case No. V 96-91 Page 4 2) Except for the requested street and height setback alterations, the a ? "' existing development conforms to all RS-12 requirements (see Exhibit r A, Attachment 3). ¢ b. Conclusion: The proposal complies with the development standards for LU a the RS-12 zone as set forth in Chapter 16.30, with the exception of the LO V) w street and height setbacks. J N; LO of 2. Compliance with requirement for a Variance 2 ECDC Chapter 20.15B. 1 80.A, states an applicant may request a variance from p the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC UL } Chapter 20.85 (Variances). Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the u� x w mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a case -by -case z basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). LU o a. Facts: o N' 1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which t CI a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the HearingUJI Lull Examiner. These criteria include: a special circumstance must exist; o! no special privilege is granted; the proposal is consistent with the Z. W Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the proposal will not be ca is detrimental and is the minimum necessary. z 2) Variances may be used to modify bulk standards. They may not be used to modify use or procedural requirements. 3) The standard width for bike paths is eight feet. 4) The adjacent right-of-way is on the Comprehensive Bikeway Plan. J5) The applicant is requesting a 5-foot street setback and a maximum p height of 36-feet. 6) The applicant states in his declarations that steep slopes on the property make construction of a driveway difficult, and that special ® circumstances exist because the improved portion of the right of way is between 20 and 25 feet from the street property line for lot 2. The applicant also states that other property owners in the area have setbacks from the improved roadway of 25 to 30 feet. 7) The applicant also states that the home would be below the existing street which creates a hardship which other properties in the vicinity do not have (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). 8) The applicant has stated that the proposal meets the minimum variance z, criteria because it will reduce the driveway slopes to a safe grade (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). }K } } It Z F- a: w =' U 8' U3 U!j � N w O; LL �d F� d 31 (n d. T e; Z P. 1-0 , Z ww U N Q yr LL o z! ui N' o ~' Z tu) neign[ variance request: Although the applicant could take access off 88th Avenue West, homes along 207a' Place Southwest are two stories and the applicant's request is consistent with development along that street and the adjacent home on Lot 1. Therefore, it appears that special circumstances exist due to topography, and therefore the applicant should be provided some relief from the setback requirements of the ECDC. 2) Special Privilege (a) Street Setback request: Although other property owners on 88th Avenue West or 207th Place Southwest do not have setbacks of less than 25 feet from.the property lines as the applicant has proposed, they do not have the situation of a hammerhead which is located on the opposite side of the right of way. It does not appear that any special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that other properties in the same zone with similar street circumstances would also qualify for a variance (See Exhibit A, Attachment 2). (b) Height Variance request: It does not appears that any special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that other properties in the same zone with similar circumstances would also qualify for a variance (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2), 3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan (a) Street Setback request: Approval of the 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 of the site (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). The Comprehensive Plan supports the retention of existing trees and the applicant would have a greater opportunity to do so if the application were approved. (b) Height Variance request: Approval of the variance would allow for the continued development of the site in a manner consistent with , Hearing Exi C, the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive F of the site. 4) Not Detrimental (a) Street Setback request: As proposed, approval of tl would potentially be detrimental to the public health, sa (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2) since the City may choos bicycle path in the right-of-way and a home situated 54 property line may pose a safety hazard to the home own cyclists. However, if the setback were increased to 8 fei sufficient distance between autos and bicyclists would e (b) Height Variance request: Approval of the height va appear to be detrimental to surrounding property owners public. 5) Minimum Required (a) Street Setback request: If the setback were expandej then the variance would be the minimum necessary to al rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the (b) Maximum Height request: The variance is the minis necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other pro vicinity with the same zoning. C. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE 1. Review by City Departments a. Fact: No comments were submitted by other departments.' D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) 1. a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Large Lot". b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. 2. a. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies which relate to "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below. (1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in accordance with the following policies: " µ �I f r Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-91 Page '7 (2) _ Policy B.1, states, "Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural s z lines which enable them to harmonize with the 2 surroundings, adding to the community identity and ¢ �desirability.LU " o (3) Policy B.2. states, "Protect neighborhoods from N LU' incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not J harmonize with existing structures.- wo{ (4) Policy B.3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view of Ui 0: existing homes by new construction or additions to existing J structures. " �# (5) Page 31, subsection B.5.0 states, "Stable property values s � must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use r encroachments. " z E- �, o (6) Soils and Topography section C.3.b. Erosion Control states, w w. "Natural vegetation should be preserved wherever possible 2 g to reduce erosion and stabilize slopes, particularly on the . downhill property line. " o F� b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the above adopted yip goals and policies of the City for the development of residential property in the City. _Z DECISION. o Z Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is partially approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is to allow the proposal in the location identified on the proposed site plan for Lot 2 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4), however the residence must be set back from the �j street at least 8-feet. Any other structures, additions or remodels would have to conform �..-- with the typical setbacks or height requirements for the zone or obtain another variance. All trees around the house and in the right-of-way shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. D 2. The residence shall not exceed 36.4 feet in height as measured from average grade. 3. 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. 4. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction. 3 5. The permit is transferable. z Z LIJ LLJ L) 10 U) W LIJ LL! 0 UJ LL Ln 3: W, 0 Z H W LU —1 0 a tj W UJI U- 01 .. Z, ul 0 U --F 0 F- F-, z Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-91 Page 8 Entered this 12th day of September, 1996, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. RoberRM Burke Hearing Examiner Pro Tem RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. Section 20.100.010.E allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends'the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. B. APPEALS Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. 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. Lt < � DECISION: The variances are granted subject to conditions listed. F_ X:, z F_ z INTRODUCTION Jean Riggle, 15714 75th Place W, Edmonds, Washington 98020, 0—1 01=] (hereinafter referred to as Applicant), requested approval of a WLUl variance in order to exceed the permitted height limit for a pro- L) X posed addition on property located at 15714 - 75th Place W, Edmonds,L Washington. In addition, the Applicant requested variances for a ..Z! reduction- of the street and side yard setbacks for the proposed LU (n addition. P 0 z A hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds, Washington, on March 22, 1990. At the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence: Duane Bowman Vince 0jala [a LOA Planning Dept. . 310 - 1st Street S City of Edmonds Suite 332 Edmonds, WA 98020 Seattle, WA 98104 Jean Riggle 15714 - 75th Place W Edmonds, WA 98020 Harrison Jewell 5535 Seaview Ave NW Seattle, WA 98107 Jes S. Jessen 15722 - 75th Pl W Edmonds,WA 98020 At the hearing the following exhibits were submitted and were admitted as part of the'official,record,of this proceeding: Exhibit 1 - Staff Report 2 - Application/Declarations. 3 - Plot Plan/Cross-Section .HEARING EXAMINER DECISION V-6-90 4/4/P^ Page 2 After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Applicant, and evidence elicited during the public hearing, the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions constitute the basis of the deci- sion of the Hearing Examiner. En k FINDINGS OF FACTS LU 0 The application is for the approval of a variance of 5 feet LL from the permitted height limit in order to construct an addition on D a I a building at 15714 - 75th Place W, Edmonds, Washington. The :CLU,! Applicant also seeks a 5 foot side yard setback and a 0 foot street zM; i--, setback for the building. ; 0 Z �-� 2. The subject property is a small, narrow lot in the North LU Lu� :E=) Meadowdale area of the City of Edmonds. It is located on the west 0 side of 75th Place W, and on site is a small residence. 0 w1 LU 3. The subject property is zoned RS-20, and is a.1§0 foot by 45 :r Ly foot wide lot. 4. in order for the Applicant to maketheaddition, a variance ..Z wcn, from the required side yard setbacks for RS-20 zones must be ob-. tained. The Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.20.030 Z establishes a 10 foot side yard setback and a 25 foot street setback for RS-20 zoned property. The Applicant seeks variances for a 5 foot side setback and a 0 foot street setback. 5. In order for variances to be granted within L the City of Edmonds, the criteria as set forth in ECDC 20.85.010 must exist. Those criteria include: A. Because of the special circumstances relating.to the property, the strict enforcement. of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and 0 privileges permitted to other properties 'in the vicinity with the same zoning. B. The approval of the variances would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 0 C. The 'approval of the variances will,be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds. xV z s z. LU V U � U) L, N L J F_ N 0I Ui _ & = uaa zIs i— 0 z LU LU U N� a -i LU LLI LL 0 Lu N' U =, O z l HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: v-6-90 4/41 Page 3 j D. The approval of the variances will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located. E. The variances as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone. F. The requested variances is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. (ECDC) 6. The subject property is a small, narrow lot that has a severe slope on the west end. Because of the steep slope and its limited utility, the Applicant has opted to add onto the existing struc- ture and thereby exceed the permitted height standards for the City of Edmonds. 7. The City submitted that although the lots are steeply sloped, they can be utilized for expansion. Further, the City submitted that the grant of the height variance would be the grant of a special privilege, but that the grant of the setback and street variances would not be the grant of a special privilege to the Applicant. 8. The Comprehensive Policy Plan Map of the City of Edmonds designates the subject property.as low density residential. 9. A property owner to the north of the subject property (Jewell) testified that the variances would have no impact on his property. (It is noted that the witness is seeking a similar variance for his property.) 10. The property owner to the south of the subject property (lessen) indicated that the property lines have not been ade- quately established. The witness was informed that the variance does not result in any determination of the property lines. Establishment of property lines and ownership of the property is in the jurisdiction of the Superior Court. 11: The requested variance does not appear to pose any signifi cant impact to the public nor to private properties and improve- ments. Z �M' LLJ U) (n w. LU X cn 01 UJ :2 �J D 01 Z H0 Z I- LLJ LU, 0-1 at LU Lug L1_ 0: Z W Z 12. The Planning Department submitted that they cannot support the variance because not all the criteria of ECDC 20.85.010, as they interpret it, have been satisfied. 13. The development of the property and the intrusion into the height standards will not block any views in the area. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Applicant requested approval of a variance to exceed the permitted height limits of the RS-20 zone by 5 feet, for a pro- posed addition on property located at 15714 - 75th Place W, Edmonds, Washington. In addition, the Applicant seeks variances from the street and side yard setback standards for the develop- ment of the subject property. 2. in order for variances to be granted within the City of Edmonds the criteria of ECDC 20.85.010 must be satisfied. The application satisfies these criteria. 3. Special circumstances exist for the grant of the variances. Because of the steep slope of the subject property and the intent of the Applicant to stay off the steep slopes because of stability issues, the variances are warranted. 4. Special circumstances exist for the grant of variances for the street and side yard.setbacks. The steep slopes limit the location of the structure on site. 5. The grant of the variances is consistent with the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan designation of low density residential. It allows the property to be developed in a manner that will be 0 conducive to residential development throughout the area. 6. The requested variances are consistent with the purposes of the RS-20 zoning designation because it will provide for single family use in a dwelling suited for that particular zone. 7. The requested variances do not pose a significant impact to 0 the public nor to nearby private properties and improvements. The variances will not restrict views in the area. 8.* The requested variances are minimum variance requests. _0 t HEARING EXAMINER DECISION , RE: V-6-90 4/41 Page 5 ) s ~ w DECISION 03 leaBased upon the preceding Findings of Facts and Conclusions, the testimony and evidence submitted at the � the impressions of the Hearing Examinerbatcahsitenview,iditpis NLLf hereby ordered that the requested variances to exceed the mitted height limit and to reduce the required street and side —0 yard setbacks for a proposed addition on property located at 15714 - 75th Place W, Edmonds, Washington, are granted sub'ect to Q following conditions: 7 the LL �o x LUx 1• The height variance granted shall not exceed 5 feet above the - permitted height standard for RS-20 zone property. Zt-; z o: 2• The w wi feetside yard setback variance shall be for 5"additional . 3• The Applicant shall obtain a building permit from the T LU A H� Building Division and comply with all permit re u' �lE q lrements . L L 4• The property is located in the Meadowdale landslide hazard " o; area. No building permits will be issued until all requirements Cd of ECDC 19.05 have been satisfied.. Should the Applicant fail to satisfy these requirements, the grant of the variances shall be z r null and void. S. The variances must be acted upon within one (1) year or the variances shall expire and be null and void. An extension mabe granted prior to the expiration date. y 6• In lieu of dedication of 10 feet as required by the official street map, the Applicant shall file a conditional deed, approved as to form by the City Attorney. The deed shall be filed with the Snohomish County Auditor, stating that the 10 feet of right-of-way along 75th Place W shall be dedicated'to the City of Edmonds at A' the time of,filing of a resolution of the City Council requiring the widening of said road. Entered this 5th day of April, 1990, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearing Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Comm Development Code of the City of Edmonds. eanity, f J S X.;DRISCOLL Wring Examiner r fl CITY OF F—®M O N O rm LARRY S. NAUGHTEN ' . MAYOR "•':^fit'"'m,&s?w�a� 258 5!h AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WASHlNGTON 98020 • (206) 771•3202 " f HEARING EXAMINER 'FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FILE: V-5-90 OF HARRISON JEWELL FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE DECISION: The variance is granted subject to conditions listed. INTRODUCTION Harrison Jewell, 5535 Seaview Avenue NW, Seattle, Washington.98107, ' (hereinafter referred to as Applicant), requested approval of variances for an increase in the permitted height limit on property located at 15706 - 75th Place W, Edmonds, Washington. The specific variances are for an increase of an additional 4 feet of height on a proposed garage, and an increase of 17.75 feet of height on the residence on site. A hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds, Washington, on March 22, 1990. At the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence: Duane Bowman Harrison Jewell Planning Dept. 5535 Seaview Ave NW City of Edmonds Seattle, WA 98107 Edmonds, WA 98020 Vince Ojala 310 First Avenue Suite 332 Seattle, WA 98104 At the hearing the following exhibits were.submitted and were admitted as part of the official record of this proceedings .. y Exhibit 1 - Staff Report " 2 - Application/Declarations " 3 - Plot Plan/Cross Section "£ `,a z 1, J t ___� .0 Z ZLU� LLJ _J U 0 W a LU U) Lu 3: _J F_' U) 0 U.1 LU 2 , 1-1 After due consideration of the evidence presented by I the Applicant, and evidence elicited during the public hearing, the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions constitute the basis of the deci- sion of the Hearing Examiner. FINDINGS OF FACTS 1. The application is for the approval of a variance for the permitted height limit for the construction of a garage on property located at 15706 - 75th Place W, Edmonds, Washington. The specific request is to allow the residence to exceed the permitted height limit of 25 feet by an additional 17.75 feet, and for the garage on site to exceed the permitted height by an additional 4 feet. 2. The subject property is located on the west side of 75th Place W., immediately north of 158th Street SW. The property is located in the North Meadowdale area of the City of Edmonds. 3. The subject property is a lot that consists of 1,496 square feet. The lot is narrow, and slopes steeply to the west, away from 75th Place W. On site is an existing residence. 4. The residence on site is located near the front of the lot. This placement effectively avoids the steep slopes within the area. 5. It is the intent.of the Applicant to place an -addition on the existing structure and to construct a garage. Rather than expand into the steep sloped portion of the lot, the Applicant has proposed that the addition be placed on top of the existing structure. A variance is required from the height limitations of the City of Edmonds. 6. The subject property is zoned RS-20. 7. The Comprehensive Policy Plan Map of the City of designates the subject property as low density, residential. 8. In order for a variance to be granted within the City ,of Edmonds, the criteria as set forth in ECDC 20.85.010 must exist. Those criteria include: A. Because of the special circumstances relating to the prcperty, the strict enforcement of the zoningordinancewould deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. F U, HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: V-5-90 4/5/90 Page 3 1 B. The approval of the Variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. C. The approval of the variance will be consistent. with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds. D. The approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located. E. The variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone. F. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. (ECDC) 9. The lot depth of the property is approximately 490 feet. The western third of the lot is steep sloped, with possible soil insta- bility. The Applicant seeks a variance in order to avoid expanding the property into this area. 10. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds did not support the variance request. The Department contended that the residence can be constructed on the property in compliance with the height standards. 11. No specific views will be impacted with the grant of the variance. The properties to the east of the subject property on the other side of 75th Place W are developed at a significantly higher elevation. No view corridors will be impacted. 12. The variance does not pose significant impact to the public, nor to nearby private properties or improvements. 13. The Applicant submitted that the subject property is in an environmentally sensitive piece of property. He submitted that he desires to stay away from the street, and dces not want to construct within the street setbacks. ............... E z i' wi d -1 0, � Q. cn w LU F � U__ _! = ui» z r=-' �_o z LL! LU o F- wwi I of z W (n V �t o F- z 0 ,...iaw t,nruntitr.tc Lt'+t,.lblUlY � , RE: V-5-90 4/5/90 Page 4 14. The Applicant submitted that the existing house is located on the flattest portion of the subject property. 15. The City submitted that, although the property may be environ- mentally sensitive, it has not been designated as such by the City of Edmonds. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Applicant requested approval of variances from the per- mitted height standards for property located at 15706 - 75th Place W, Edmonds, Washington. The variances requested are for the allow- ance of an addition to an existing house to exceed the 25 foot height limit by an additional 17.75 feet, and to allow a garage to exceed the height limit by an additional 4 feet. 2. In order for a variance to be granted within the City of t Edmonds the criteria of ECDC 20.85.010 must be satisfied. The application satisfies these criteria. 3. Special circumstances exist for the grant of the variances. Those circumstances include the steep slope on the western edge of the site. Although these slopes could be developed, there is no need to because of their steepness and the stability issues in- volved.. 4. The grant of the variances will not be the grant of a special privilege to the Applicant. 5. The requested variances•will not conflict with the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds. It will be an addition to a single family home in this low density designated area. 6. The requested variances will not conflict with the purposes of the RS-20 zoning designation as set forth in ECDC 16.20.000 because it will provide an addition to a single family structure allowed in this particular zone. 7. The requested variances do not pose a significant impact to the public nor to nearby private properties and improvements. No views will be impacted by the grant of the variances. No view corridors for future developments will be impacted. 0 nr. fn1al ,.L ..46..&.P.s - nZAx1NG EXAMINER DECISION RE: V-5-90 4/5/90 Page 5 i z UJ; 8. The requested variances do not appear to represent minimum LU variance requests. J d. - V) �' � �_ DECISION w 01 Based upon the preceding Findings of Facts and Conclusions, the g testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing, and upon the impressions of the Hearing Examiner at a site view, it is h�reby u-�ii' ordered.that the requested variance for an increase tothe permitted tee! height limits on property located at 15706 - 75th PI ace I.-¢ Washington, is granted subject to the following conditions: Edmonds, z 1• The height on the proposed residence may exceed the wUJ! height limit of 25 feet by an additional 17.75 feet. permitted i :) ac_nj 2. The height of the garage may exceed the permitted height limit c�t_1E of 25 feet by an additional 4 feet. ' _�� , i- �, 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit from the Building U-0 Division and comply with all permit requirements. _ z U 3!i 4• The property is located in the North Meadowdale landslide hazard area. No building permits will be issued until all require- 0 meets of ECDC 19.05 have been satisfied. Failure to satisfy these requirements will render these variances null and void. 5• The variances must be acted upon -within one (1) year or they shall be expire and be null and void. An extension may be granted prior to the expiration date. 6• The structures shall be built similar to those as shown on is °~ Exhibit 3, the plan/cross designs shall be reviewed bythe Planning Departmenttand,ionfroifnithese sary, by the Hearing Examiner. aces- 7• In lieu of dedication of 10 feet as required by the Official Street Map, the Applicant shall file a conditional deed approved as to form by the City Attorney. The deed shall be filed with the Snohomish County Auditor and shall state the 10 feet of right -of time of filing of a resolution of the City Council requi-way along 75th Place W shall be dedicated to the City of Edmonds at the ring the 4 widening of said road. 777 ,� o CITY OF EDMONDS LAURAM.HALL MAYOR 260 - 6TH AVE. N. EDMONOS; WA 98020 + 1206) 771-0220 FAX 1206) 771.0221 HEARING EXAMINER 890.19ti �! FINDINGS AND DECISION U; OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE i CITY OF EDMONDS Ll IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FILE: V-93-11 OF URSULA SCHLUTER FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE u" _ DECISION: The.variance is granted subject to 'conditions listed. D, D, INTRODUCTION » Ursula Schluter, 21701 - 80th Avenue West, #4, Edmonds, Washington t u198026 (hereinafter referred to as applicant) , requested approval of a variance for an increase in the maximum permitted height allowed LY -: for a structure in an RS�20 zone and a variance from the setback ZE standards for RS-20 zoned property. The request for the variances is for the property at 15620 - 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington. A hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds, Washington, on April 1, 1993. At the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence: STEPHEN BULLOCK PHILLIP BROWN Planning Dept. 15010 N.E. 9th Place City of Edmonds Bellevue, WA 98007 Edmonds, Wn 98620 At the hearing the following exhibits were submitted and were admitted as part of the official record of this proceeding: Exhibit 1 - Staff Report with*the following attachments: A. Vicinity/Zoning Map B. Application C. Site Plan D. Elevation and floor plans 4 E. Critical areas checklist G. Environmental memorandumE H. Environmental checklist'' I. Environmental determination J. Comments from Engineering Department K. Comments from•Fire Department' L. Comments from Parks Department . Incorporated August 11, 1890 . ,_ ®nl ... ... V fit _ i 0 M. Comments from Public Works Department. After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Applicant, and evidence elicited during the public hearing, the following Findings of. Fact and Conclusions constitute the basis of the decision of the Hearing Examiner. FINDINGS OF_FACTS 1. The applicant is the owner, of the property at 15620. 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington. She seeks variances from the maximum height standards for structures on the property and from the setback standards. 2. The subject property is zoned RS-20. It has a land use designation as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan as low -density residential. The lot is located in the middle of the area of the City of Edmonds. 3. It is the intent of the applicant to develop a residence on the property. Because of the slope conditions of the lot the requested variances are needed. 4. It is the intent of the applicant to develop a bridge and driveway off 75th Place West. Because it will be considered -a structure attached to the house, it is subject to the zoning standards of RS-20 zoned property. As a result, it is necessary for the applicant to secure a variance from the street setback standards. The applicant seeks a zero foot setback. 5. The Meadowdale area contains steep and unstable slopes. The subject property has a steep slope between 75th Place West (which it fronts) and the Burlington Northern Railroad right of way immediately to the west. As a result of the steep slopes, it is necessary for the applicant to develop the property as close to the 75th Place West right of way as possible. As a result, the applicant needs a setback variance to access the house via a driveway bridge to the garage. In addition, a height variance is needed to reduce the slope of the driveway bridge from the property line to the garage. 6. In order for a variance to be granted within the City of Edmonds, the criteria of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.85.010 must be satisfied. These criteria include: 0 M Z Z W cc LU _J 0 L) Cf) (n W LU _J Cl) U. LU al :C Z F_ 0 �i �_ LIJ LU M (y h P. "_L 0 Z; LU U) 0 Z V" Ef 21 A. Because of the special circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. B. The approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. C. - The approval of the variance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds. D. The approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located. E. The variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in� the vicinity and same zone. F. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. (ECDC) 7. A twenty-five foot street setback is required for RS-20 zoned properties. This requirement is pursuant to the provisions of ECDC 16.20.030. S. The subject property is undeveloped. -However, because of the steep and unstable slopes and the limitation of development on the west end of the site, there is a need for a variance from the street setbacks. 9. The single family residence can be developed to all other setbacks of RS-20 zoned properties. However, the proposed bridge that will provide access from the garage to the house must be developed within the setback.* Without the setback variance, access to the structure will be limited. 10. ECDC 16.20.030 establishes the maximum height of twenty-five feet for the primary structure on site. This height standard is established by measuring from the average existing grade of the proposed building footprint. Because of the slopes of the site, the average grade is significantly lower than if the property were a 0 A rf] L 191 11. The residence will have, the �garage on the top floor of the structure. The structure will' have a flat roof and will be approximately one foot below the street level of 75th Place West. However, a variance of an additional three feet in height is needed in order to provide an accessible, driveway and garage at a slope that is within the code. 12. Special circumstances that exist on the subject property to necessitate the grant of the variance from the setback standards and the height standards include the steep slope of the site. The severity of the slope creates limitations on the development of the site and restricts access to the site by car. With the use of the setback variances and the height' variances this access can be achieved. 13. The grant of the variance will not be a grant of a special privilege. It is allowance of l the applicant to develop the property in a manner similar to other properties that have been developed in the area. The other properties in the area also have severe slope issues. i 14. The grant of the variances will not be contrary to the intent of the zoning code or the Comprehensive Plan. The variances will allow the site to be developed with a single family structure consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of low -density residential. i 15. The requested variances will not be detrimental to other properties in the area. it wi4 not block views and will not create disruptions for the enjoyment of other properties. 16. The requested variances appear to be a minimum variance request. 17. No adverse testimony was received at the public hearing. 18. The applicant indicated that special engineering will be required to develop the site. These will include piers/pilings. 19. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds recommended approval of the variances subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report (a'dmitted as exhibit 'one). 20. The subject property is designated as part of the critical areas of the City of Edmonds and is subject to the review of ECDC'. 20.15(b). The applicant submitte&a critical areas checklist and In, HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: V-93 -11 4/14193 Page 5 ¢ ~ cr �� the City issued a waiver from the requirements to prepare a critical areas study. As a result, the applicant has satisfied the Uo' critical areas review requirements. wi 21. The City of Edmonds was designated the lead agency for the -rF- environmental review of the proposal. A determination of w p( nonsignificance was issued by the City on March 23, 1993. As the date of the hearing, no appeal had been filed of the DNS. LL d, CONCLUSIONS s LLe z 1. The application is for the approval of variances from the F_ 0 setback standards and height standards for RS-20 zone for the ,z,y development of a residence at 15620 - 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington. The requested variances are for a increase in the maximum height in the structure from twenty-five feet to twenty- 0 �~' eight feet and a allowance of a construction within the street r w W(� setback. The street setback variance requested is zero. - o' 2. In order for a variance to be granted within the City of zI Edmonds, the criteria of ECDC 20.85.010 must be satisfied. These U criteria have been identified in the Findings of this document and f... r the manner in which they are satisfied has also been addressed. Z The Findings relating to the manner in which the criteria are satisfied are hereby adopted as the Conclusions in support of the variances. 3. The Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds has jurisdictional authority to hold a hearing and to issue a decision based on the j authority granted in ECDC 20.100.010(b). DECISION 0 Based upon the preceding Findings of Facts and Conclusions, the testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing, and upon the impressions of the Hearing Examiner at a site view, it is hereby ordered that the requested variances for the development of the property at 15620 - 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington are granted subject to the following conditions: p 1. The height variance for the development of a single family residence on site is granted. The height of the structure shall not exceed twenty-eight feet. 2. The street setback for the development of the subject property is reduced to zero feet. The street setback shall be for the development of the driveway/bridge to provide r 5 a .....»_»».......,... .....r.+4�rrr...ara..w%sns..aCabtG'a:.Ys+a4h....43`_*3�u trc�"`.`,L�SY'.,c.,,Furkl�/+e4't*fzn;u�.J'uu^htwo.v3',o11a":'.�t!.,u'£�i•'zYStl'riS'�\,�"+A',.,Y;'fanYtk.,�:3a..ec,..Y�fisx?'^,,.,S�4t.•2 ,!;'�•.^J...: r HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: V-93-11 4j14j93 Page e LUI X 21 access off 75th Place West. The actual residence on the ,d,,,subject property shall not be developed within the street v o setback. cn a h. 3. This application is subject to the applicable (nLL requirements contained in the"ECDC. It is the responsibility W n� of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. Attachments 9 through 12 are provided in this report to familiarize the � applicant with some of the additional development regulations. These attachments 'do not include all of the additional �. regulations. z t-•; z �! 4. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to W W construction. o N' S. The permit should be transferable. w L+Ii Entered this 14th of April, 1993, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearing Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Lzl Development Code of the City of Edmonds. I v =; o Z 6J S M. DRISCOLL ring Examiner NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL JWritten appeals alleging specific error of fact or other grounds T—. for appeal may be filed with the Planning Department, City of Edmonds, Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington 98020, within fourteen (14) days of the date -of the Hearing Examiner's final action. In this matter.any appeal must be received by the Department prior.' to 5:00 p.m. on April 28, 1993. t a _. }� w . r. 17 Bob Cole & Jeri A. Merritt Job Number 6095 c/o Lakeside Seawood Group November 12, 1996 7500- 212th S.W., Suite 210 Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: A. Lee Atherton Subject: Geoteehnieal Engineering Report Proposed Cole/Merritt Residence SWC 75th Place West & Meadowdale Road Edmonds, Washington Dear Client: We are pleased to present this Geotechnical Engineering Report for the proposed new Cole/Merritt single-family residence to be constructed on the undeveloped property at the southwest corner of 75th Place West and Meadowdale Road in Edmonds, Washington. The purposes of our work were to professionally evaluate subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, discuss grading and excavation recommendations, and provide a reasonable foundation method with design guidelines. The scope of our services included: 1) Logging and sampling two test borings drilled to a maximum depth of 41.5 feet below existing grades. The test borings were drilled with a trailer -mounted drill rig and logged by the undersigned geotechnnical engineer. Selected samples were taken of subsurface soils. 2) Reviewing collected soil samples in our office and assigning moisture content and sieve gradation analysis tests. At the conclusion of the testing program, laboratory results were analyzed and compared with field notes and logs. 3) Preparation of this summary report in accordance with our understanding of project requirements and generally recognized geotechnical engineering practices in general accordance with our Proposal No. 6023. No other warranty is expressed or implied. Plate 1, attached, provides the guidelines in the use of this report. General Site Conditions - Surface The proposed residence will be constructed on the undeveloped property at the southwest corner of 75th Place West and Meadowdale Road in Edmonds, Washington. The general vicinity of the site is shown on Plate 2, Vicinity Map. At the time of our fieldwork, the proposed building area had been cleared and covered with hog fuel. There was no evidence of previous construction activities other than this clearing. The property has a moderate slope to the west and northwest. There is a shallow, apparently seasonal stream which runs downhill near the southern property boundary. According to the topographic map, the overall vertical relief across the approximate building site is about twenty feet. 0 Two test borings were drilled with a trailer -mounted drill rig to a maximum depth of 41.5 feet below existing grades at the locations shown on the Site Plan, Plate 3. The test borings were logged and sampled by the undersigned registered civil engineer during the drilling process. The test boring logs are attached to this report. Recovered soil samples were subjected to laboratory testing consisting of moisture content determinations, sieve gradation and Atterberg Limit tests. Test results and field density information are summarized on the attached test boring logs and plates. Although there may very well be some variation in the subsurface and/or conditions not readily apparent from the ground surface, we expect the following subsurface interpretation to be essentially correct: Under the brushy ground surface, the site is immediately underlain with variable silty gravelly sand, to sand with some silt and gravel. The sandy soils are loose, and vary in depth. On the uphill side of the building site, the sand is near eighteen feet deep. As the topography drops to the west, die sand layer becomes thinner, with approximately six to eight feet of sand underlying the site near the western edge of the building site. Underlying the loose surficial sand is around seven to nine feet of fractured silt/clay. Near elevation 48 feet, our test borings encountered a stiff to very'stiff massive highly -plastic clay. Groundwater was measured in Test Boring No. 1 at 26 feet below existing grades. The final test boring logs attached to this report represents our interpretation of the field data and laboratory tests. The relative densities and moisture descriptions on the logs are interpretive descriptions based on observed conditions during excavation. The logs should be reviewed for specific subsurface information at each location tested. Conclusions and Recommendations General T7ie following general geotechnical conclusions can be drawn from our field and laboratory test data: 1) T7ie surficial sandy soils are loose. Our analysis indicates these sandy soils cannot provide adequate foundation support. 2) We recommend the new structure and floor slabs be supported on deep augercast piles. 3) We recommend excavations in the building area be limited to as shallow a depth as practical. C z �z r u,. w ca 0 U)Q w wx _! F-. (n u.l — 0i o� _J' a. h =� zH r- 0 ww w w uE 0, _ z U =: 0 Z 21 [a PROPOSED COLEIMERRITT RESIDENCE Job Number 6095 November 1 Z 1996 Page 3 3) Temporary excavations may be sloped to a maximum of 1: 1 (Horizontal:Vertical). 4) Soils with a high percentage of silt and/or clay (>15%) are moisture sensitive and difficult to impossible to utilize as structural fill if the soil is more than two to three percent wetter than the optimum moisture content at the time of compaction. The near surface soils at this site do have some silt. We anticipate these soils will be unusable as structural fill if they become too wet. Foundations The proposed structure and floors may be supported on a steel -reinforced concrete pier foundation. The foundation should consist of minimum sixteen -inch -diameter piers firmly embedded into the underlying massive clay beginning at about elevation 48.0 feet. The piers should be tied together with a steel -reinforced grade beam. We recommend the owner plan on installing the piers with continuous flight hollow -stem augers. The augercast method involves drilling the hole with the auger equipment, and then continuously pumping concrete through the center of the hollow -stem auger during auger extraction. Steel reinforcement is then placed into the concrete -filled hole., A head of concrete must be maintained above the auger tip to ensure an intact column of concrete has filled the drilled hole after the auger is removed. This can be achieved by withdrawing the auger slowly while maintaining a suitably high pump pressure. As a general rule, the rate of auger withdrawal should not exceed about ten feet per minute, and the pressure at the concrete grout pump should be in the range of 150 to 250 pounds per square inch (psi), depending upon the length of feeder hose. The pump should be equipped with a calibrated stroke counter so that concrete grout volumes may be calculated. Sixteen -inch -diameter piers embedded a minimum of ten feet into the underlying stiff to very stiff clay may be assumed to have a vertical capacity of fifteen tons. If this is not enough capacity, the pier diameter can be increased. Piers should be placed no closer together than three pier diameters, center to center. For transient loads, such as seismic and wind gusts, the allowable load may be increased by one-third. We can provide design criteria for different pier diameters and embedment lengths, if required. Based on our study, we expect piers to be about twenty-five to forty feet deep. A lateral capacity of one ton per pile may be assumed. Additional lateral capacity may be available from the embedded grade beam. We estimate that the total measured settlement of single piers will be about one-half inch. Measured differential settlements between pier caps are expected to be approximately one-half to three-quarters of an inch. As concrete piers cannot be inspected after installation (except by load testing), it is important that a geotechnical engineer be present during installation. This allows us: 1) to confirm that the encountered subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, 2) to evaluate whether foundation construction activities comply with the intent of contract plans and specifications, 3) to provide recommendations for design changes in the event unanticipated subsurface conditions are encountered. We would be delighted to provide these construction observation services, however it must be understood that we will not supervise the contractor during his operations, nor are we responsible for job and site safety during construction. t M ow l f 9 Ln a, E M The site is classified as seismic zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code. We recommend the designer utilize site soil coefficient %. in their analysis. Utilizing the topographic map provided by others and the results of our testing, computer slope stability analyses during design earthquake loading using pseudo -static techniques was conducted. The results of that analysis indicated the existing slope will remain stable during the design earthquake. Plate 10 summarizes two critical slip circle results of that analysis. Slabs -on -Grade Reinforced slab -on -grade floors are not recommended for this structure. All floors should be pile supported. Site Drainage The site should be graded so that surface water is directed away from the construction area. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where the fo undations, pavements, or slabs.are to be constructed. Final site grades adjacent to the buildings should be sloped away from the structure. Roof and surface water drains should discharge to an appropriate facility. 0 f M, PROPOSED COLEIMERRITT RESIDENCE Job Number 6095 November 1 Z 1996 Page 5 Foundation Walls �' Foundation walls supported on piers must be designed to support the lateral earth pressures ecommendattiions �: which abutting soils will imposThe following are for foundation walls LO o; ` which are less than twelve feet high where equivalent fluid pressures are appropriate: cn 1ei L }z- . S Design wo Parameter Value 2 � 1 Active Earth Pressure* 45 pef Q Passive Earth Pressure** 300 cf Unit Weight Soil 125 pef of s w Coefficient of Friction 0.35 z t- z The active earth pressure recommended assumes the wall can deflect at least g o 0.002 times the wall height. If this assumption is incorrect, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred psf should be added to the active earth pressure. ` U Ed '€ f **Starting at 1.5 feet below finish grades. The values recommended above are ultimate values, and should be reduced by an appropriate e+ chi ' 1 safety factor. As a guideline, we recommend a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 for overturning and slidine. The resultant force from the soil (neglecting the passive pressure force can be o calculated by taking moments about the toe of the wall. The resultant force should pass through z the middle third of the footing. Thte above design values do not include hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads are placed above, or near the walls. Design values can also be exceeded if heavy construction equipment is allowed within a prism defined by a 1:1 (H:V) line extending up to the soil surface from the back end of the retaining wall footing. If any of these conditions exist, then the above design values should be augmented by appropriate additional ' pressures. If walls higher than twelve feet or sloping wall backfills are required for this project, i please contact our office for supplemental recommendations. 0 Foundation walls should be waterproofed and backfilled with clean compacted, free -draining granular soil. This will prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures. The wall backfill should contain no more than five percent silt or clay, no organics, and no cobbles greater in diameter than four inches. The percentage of sand (From the #4 sieve to the #200 sieve) should range from 25 to 95 percent. Thus free -draining backfill should be allowed to seep into the foundation $ drain. During compaction of wall backfill, care should be taken to not damage the wall. The top one to two feet of wall backfill should consist of a relatively impermeable soil or topsoil. 0 z y t u, 5 r � e .-S __ 0 elm k 'i z sZ uw: w V. Uo LOa W -J 0- En LL, w o; 2 ra d{ Uri z F- F0 w =. U u)l oP a, Uj a ca u~- p z; w Vs z ;.- 1%] November 1 Z 1996 Page 6 Excavations and Slopes Temporary and permanent excavations and slopes for this project must meet all applicable government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of four feet may be attempted vertical, j although they may not hold for extended periods of time. Excavation slopes greater than four feet in depth should be cut no steeper than 1:1 (H: V) through the sandy silty soils. Flatter slopes may also be required depending upon the groundwater table elevation and local variations in soil conditions. Contractors working in excavations should anticipate caving of the side slopes. Permanent cut and fill slopes should not exceed 2:1 (H:V). General Earthwork and Structural Fill Site construction should begin by stripping and clearing the building area of all vegetation, organic topsoil, and any other deleterious material. Stripped materials may have to be removed from tiie site. The contractor should anticipate, and be prepared to accommodate moderate seepage into even shallow excavations. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed below structures, including slabs, where the fill soils would need to support loads without unacceptable deflections or shearing. Structural fill should be placed above unyielding site soils in maximum eight -inch -thick loose lifts and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of Modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557). Soil is typically difficult to place and compact as structural fill if more than three percent from the optimum moisture content at the time of compaction. During wet weather or under wet conditions, structural fill should consist of a granular soil having less that five percent silt or clay (measured on that portion which passes the 3/4-inch sieve). During drier weather, water may have to be added to the soils to achieve the required compacted density. Wet Weather Construction If the site is developed during extended periods of wet weather/winter, the following are reasonable costs/changes which should be anticipated: 1) Excavated slopes and fill piles will have to be protected with plastic. 2) Excavations may require over -excavation (on the order to six inches to one foot), and replacement with "clean" structural fill or crushed rock. 3) Numerous site visits will be required by this office to evaluate site conditions, confer with the contractor, and make recommendations as conditions became exposed or change. 4) The project may suffer some time delays due to inclement weather, regardless of the mitigation measures which are adopted. 5) Costs of maintaining tite site and cleaning adjacent streets/property will increase. E t J; t rL'y It is also recommended that we be retained to provide professional geotechtucal consultation, and observation services during design and construction. This allows us to: 1) conf rin that design conforms to specific subsurface requirements; 2) confom that subsurface conditions exposed during construction are consistent with those indicated by this report; 3) evaluate whether earthwork, shoring, and foundation construction activities conform to the intent of the contract specifications and plans, and; 4) provide recotnmendations for design changes in the event of changed conditions. While on the site during construction, we will not direct or supervise the contractor or the work, nor we will be responsible for maintaining or providing for on -site safety or dimensional measurements during construction activities. It has been a pleasure providing you with our professional services. If there are any questions, please call me directly at (206) 827-1084. Sincerely: DODDS Geosciences Inc. N The findings and recommendations contained in this report are based upon the limited services which you requested. Geotechnical engineering requires the application of professional judgment, as no study can completely quantify subsurface conditions. The owner should seriously consider any recommendations for additional work contained in the report, as it is then our professional opinion that this additional work is necessary to augment and/or fulfill site specific requirements. uIm This report is an informational document, and is not to be used for contractual purposes. Any interpretation of subsurface conditions in the report including the test boring logs, and/or text rp P S S S+ izX o` discussions are based upon our testing, analysis, experience, and judgment. There is no warranty z w� that these subsurface interpretations represent subsurface conditions other than that which LU 2 M; occurred at the exact locations tested at the time the fieldwork was conducted by this firm. :D 01,Groundwater levels can be especially sensitive to seasonal changes. This firm is not responsible O — for interpretations others make using this report. o h-�_ O, The conclusions and recommendations in this report assume that the field tests that were conducted accurately represent subsurface conditions of the site. If, during construction, — Z) significantly different subsurface conditions are encountered from those described in this report, u3 to! our firm should be notified at once to review these conditions and revise our recommendations as necessary. Also, if there is a significant lapse of time between this report submittal and the start �= of work at the site, our fire should be allowed to review and verify site conditions. z Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered during excavation and construction, and simply cannot be fully anticipated by periodic soil and/or rock sampling at widely spaced testing locations. The owner should be prepared to accommodate potential extra costs through the development of a contingency fund. This firn cannot be responsible for any deviation from the intent of this report including, but not limited to the nature of the project, the construction timetable, and any construction methods discussed in the report. The recommendations contained in the report are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as may be specifically described in the report. This firm will not be responsible for any construction activity on this ®; site, nor are we responsible if others attempt to apply this report to other sites. fob Number 6095 —Plate 1.1 Guidelines `",Cole/Merritt Residence , 75th Place West Meaowdale, Washington :. U. 0 [*E IVA �7�i F- z Uj 0 a uj U- LLI z 1 n DESCRIPTION SOIL GRAPHIC a SLOWS REMARKS TYPE LOG IFt. :,uiface - Brush. ML Chown Gtavelly Sandy Slit, very moist, loose. lotiy Silly Sand with some Gravel, wet, loose. SM with lenses of small Gravel.. - i;pd-br-0wn Silty Send. very moist, loose. Sid liecumes Drown colored: with lenses of Gravel. Gray Clayey Silt to Silty Clay with lenses of Silt, wet, firm. Heavily CL ltArluieo. '!slut fiacturing. ii,jy Silt, Clay, wet, stilt to very stiff. CH 0- 2- 3- 4- 9 6 4 T 9 10 i2 13 14 15 18 7 17 18 19 20 21 10 22 23 24 25 28 it 27 28 29 30 31ff19 32 33 34 356 23 37 38 39 40 41 30 , Hnl Iola of Boring 1. Groundwater table at 26.0 feet below grades on " +Dubber It. I990. DODOS Geosctences Inc. PAGE IOFI BORING LOG Z 1,—; O� � 1,—: LU UJ: Q 0 LU LU LL 0 z LU U) 0 z . 1A 4 Hole No. B-2 PROJECT: Cole/Merritt SFR DATE DRILLED: 9/24/98 DRILL RIG: Trailer -Mounted LOGGED BY: Mark K. Dodds, P.E. HOLE DIA: 8 In. SAMPLER:SPT INITIAL WATER DEPTH: ft. HOLE ELEV: 1 65 MSL FINAL WATER DEPTH: ft. TOTAL DEPTH: 24.5 ft. U) a DESCRIPTION SOIL GRAPHIC TYPE LOB BLOWS REMARKS /Ft. U) witlace - Cleared 6t iv Silly Sand with some Gravel, wet, loose, mfit lenses of small Gravel. SM i... vi k1jjoy Silt to Silly Clay with lenses of Silt. wet. firma Moderately CL Cantor Uartinutq. Flai Silly bay, wet, stiff to very stiff. CH V 2 — 3 4- 5 7 8-1 9 4 10 It — 12 13- 14-15 17 18 19 17 21 22 23 24 33 BORING LOG SCREEN a" lz ACCUM- ACCUM- Nfzzyai rZAC viT RETAINED RETAINED (Grams) PERCENT PASSZVG 2.0' 100.0. 3/411 20.1 5.6. 94.4, 318" ---- 5'i6 94.4 #4 26.8" 7.5 92.5 #10 36.0 10.1 89.9 #40 61.6 17.2 $2.8 #100 159.4 44.6 55.4 #200 201.7 56.5' 43.5 0 4, F: a, ;G SCREEN SIZE ACCUM- WEIGHT RETAINED (Grams) ACCUM- PERCENT RETAINED PERCENT PASSING 2.0 100.0 374" 100.0 3l8" 14.4 4.1' 95.9 #4 22.7 6.5 93.5 #10 43.0 12.2 87.8 . #40 144.3 41.0 59.0 #100 248.9 70.8 29.2 #200 264.7 75.3 24.7 z z LU W! 0 LU .1 V is i5i z Uj U) z E 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 50 100 Liquid Unit Symbol Test Hole Depth (ft.) L. L. P. I. USCS B-1 201-21.51 23.,0 1.0 B-1 301-31.5 60.7 37.6 CH Liquid Limit Symbol Test Hole Depth (ft.) LoLo— P.I. USCS • B-2 231-24.5, 53,9. 36.9- CH 0 E C HORIZONTAL DISTANCE DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC I 777