The URL can be used to link to this page

16006 75TH PL W.pdfU) U. 7,0 2� J LL W S zr �:a z ww U - p !_ LU �G u- C t u. of z `A t ®' �t r � 0 ® O ■[O DODDS- � aEOSC1ENCES INC. Post Ofrlce Box 6966 Belie vac, WA 98008-0966 Telex, one (206) 867-3297 Facslmlie (206) 881-8641 y Bob Cole & Jeri A. Merritt Job Number 6095 c/o Lakeside Seawood Group November 12, 1996 7500-212th S.W., Suite 210 a5 Comoncls, WA 98020 m Attention: A. Lee Atherton Subject: Gemachnical Engineering Report y uc Proposed Cole/Merritt Residence SWC 75th Place West & Mead —dal. Road Edmonds, Wasldngmn - m� Dear Client: Dui 2M We pleased to present this E-secl ical Engineering Report for the proposed new F Cale/Merritt single-famil dance to be contracted on the undevelo d y resi pe property et the w o southwest comer of 75th Place West and Meadowdale Road in Comonds, Washington. The purposes of our work ere to professionally evaluate subsurface soil d groundwater 2 a ondWere, discuss grading and a cavanon mconu endation, and provide n reasonable o t foundation method with design guidelines The scope of ourservices included: 11 1) Logging and smnpling two test borings drilled to a maximmn depth of 41.5 et below W i 'sting gmdn. The test borings were drilled with atrailer-mounted drill rig and togged by the undersigned geotechnical engineer. Selected samples were taken of subsurface oils. Y of 2) Reviewing collected soil samples in our office and assigning moisture content and sieve gradation analysis tens. At the conclusion of the testing progmm, laboratoryresults were analyzed and compared with field notes and logs. 3) Preparation of this smnmary repor in accordance with our undemanding of p jeer requirements and generally recognized geotechnical engineering pmetices in general cordmce with our Proposal No. 6023. No other warranty is expressed or implied. --- Plate 1, attached, provides the guidelines in the use of this report. Geneal Site Conditions - Surface O The proposed residence will be constructed on the undeveloped property at the southwest comer 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 b... leared and covered with hog fuel. There was no evidence of previous contmedon actives other than this clearing. The c propedy has a mademte slope to the west and northwest. Thera is a shallow, appam-dy seasonal stream which inns downhill near the southern proper boundary. According to the topographic map, the overall vertical relief across the approximate building site is about twenty feet. PROPOSED COLF/MERWTFRESIDENCE Job Number 6095 November 12, 1996 Page 2 Subsurface Exaloration and Descrintion Two ten borings were drilled with a trailer -mounted drill rig to a maximum depth of 41.5 feet below existing glades at the locations shown on the Site Plan, Plate 3. The rest borings were logged and smnpl d by the undersigned registered civil engineer during the drilling process. The rest baring logs are atached to tIll report. Recovered soil samples were subjected to laboratory testing consisting of moisture content derermination5, sieve gradation and Atterberg Limit tens. Test results and field density information me summarized on the attached ten boring logs and plates. Although there may very well be some variation in the subsurface and/or conditions not readily a eamiali from the ground surface, we expect the following subsurface interpretation to be y couree Under the brushy ground surface, the site is immediately underlain with variable ally gravelly sand, m sand with some silt and grovel. The sandy soils am levee, rid vary m depth. On the uphill side of the building sitF the sand is near eighteen feet deep. As the topography drops to the wen, the sand layer becomes [trimmer, with approximately six to eigh[ f t of sand underlying the site near the western edge of the building site. Underlying the loose su s_' sand is around seven to ,no feet f financed silt/clay. Nero elevation 48 Ice,; our ten borings —.,.ad 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 ten boring tags attached m this report represents our interpretation of the field data and laboratory tests. The relative densities and moisture descriptions cm the hip. are interpretive descriptions based on observed conditions during excavation. The logs shoo d be mviewed Tor specific subsurface information at each location tested. Conclusions and Recommendations General The following general geotechnical conclusions can be drawn from our field and laboratory test data: f) The sutfl,hd sandy soils are loose. Our analysis indicates these sandy soils cannot provide adequate foundation support. 2) We recommend the new stmonim and floor slabs be supported on deep augercest piles. 3) We recommend excavations in the building area be limited ton shallowa depth as practical O =Z UJ, U U0 V) 0: w _J� N Wi 0: W LL di L d1 �w z_ I— ,-, O! w w! U U)' o H, h l tL 0 _ Z U 2 o1 Z H E t® PROPOSED COLEIMERRITl RESIDENCE November 1 Z 1996 Job Number 6095 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 augereast method involves drilling the (tole with the auger equipment, and then continuously pumping concrete through the center of the hollow -stein 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. Tlis 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 geoteehnical 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. E -0 LLJ 2� i2 _J LL. T Z 1__' 0; Z 1--! LU W! U)i LLI LUI u. 0 Z ui U) y 1517 Z 11 P PROPOSED COLEIMERMT RESIDENCE Job Number 6095 November 1Z 1996 Page 4 Seismic Design (UBQ The site is classified as seismic zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code. We recommend the designer utilize site soil coefficient S, 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. Stabs -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. A Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where the foundations, 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. Footing drains should be anticipated for the all exterior sides of the structure and should consist of a slotted four -inch -diameter PVC pipe bedded iti, and covered with a minimum of six inches of drain rock. The invert of the pipe should be placed below the bottom of the adjacent crawl space. A non -woven geotextile fabric (Mrafl 140N, Supac 4NP or equivalent) should be wrapped around the outside of the drain rock. The PVC pipe should be sloped to drain, and may be connected to the roof and surface water discharge pipe downgradient and away from the structure. 1 i ., .✓:,n.,x.w. .wr....+. n¢+v a•.r..Ya•rv. rS.Hi.S:FYYS+,.Ail4f ti A'Pta9t.�1 1.1�M .n.CyY}.} `a,e+; 1_,.. .. tr _�':; a I S ' i PROPOSED COLEIMEh RESIDENCE .lob Number 6095 November 1 Z 1996 Page 5 z I l Foundation Walls Q 5 Foundation walls supported on piers must be designed to support the lateral earth pressures u, y; which abutting soils will itn3ose. The following recommendations are for foundation walls o' which are less than twelve feet high where equivalentupressures are appropriate: ` � Wi fluid s Lu H i' Design cn LLo ' Parameter Value Active Earth P essure* 45 pcf U- Q Passive Earth ressure** 300 cf Unit Weight of Soil 125 pcf h tLl d! Coefficient of b�riction 0.35 �. z x; t z i-1 z 0! *Tlte active earth pressure recommended assumes the wall can deflect at least Dw W i 0.002 times the wall height. If tlds assumption is incorrect, a uniform lateral o pressure of one hundred psf should be added the active earth pressure. o r" **Starting at 1.5 feet b low finish grades. =Uf I t- E-� LL Z! The values recommended aba a are ultimate values, and should be reduced by an appropriate ui N; safety factor. As a guideline, ive recommend a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 for overturning U M and sliding. The resultant force from the soil (neglecting the passive pressure farce) can be o t- calculated by taking moments about the toe of the wall. The resultant force should pass through z the middle third of the footing.11 `^ The above design values do not include hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that a no surcharge slopes or loads :ire placed above, or near the walls. Design values can also be exceeded if heavy constructions equipment is allowed within a prism defined by a 1:1 (H:V) line j extending up to the soil surfac from the back end of the retaining wall footing. If any of these conditions exist, then the abo a design values should be augmented by appropriate additional pressures. If walls higher than twelve feet or sloping wall backfills are required for this project, , please contact our office for supplemental recommendations. Foundation walls should be waterproofed and backfilled with clean compacted, free -draining Q granular soil. This will prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures. The wall backfill should i contain no more than five percent silt or clay, no organics, and no cobbles greater in diameter than four inches. Tlie percentage of sand (From the #4 sieve to the #200 sieve) should range from 25 to 75 percent. This free -draining backfill should be allowed to seep into the foundation 8 drain. During compaction of wall backfill, care should betaken to not damage the wall. The top one to two feet of wall backfill Iliould consist of a relatively impermeable soil or topsoil. } ti. r x 1 1, i y Y 77,13 Y°x'^X S'G!`i fi•'*3Z tit �� U) 0 U.u_ ¢ l � �d z ay z� t- O; Z t' w w! �p c, U W o �-i LU = U1 u p _z LUW U = o� z t; 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, 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 the 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 become 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 the site and cleaning adjacent streets/property will increase. PROPOSED COLE,IMERR17l RESIDENCE Job Number 6095 November 1 Z 1996 Page 7 j 5 Closure , It is recommended we be retained to review the final development plans to verify site specific subsurface requirements are met and our recommendations have been accurately interpreted in 3 the plans. It is also recommended that we be retained to provide professional geotechnical consultation, ,y and observation services during design and construction. This allows us to: 1) confirm that design conforms to specific subsurface requirements; 2) confirm 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 recommendations 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: <a DODDS Geosciences Inc. K. clod /t� 9� ....., - -rs Y �11 irAjT?,o srr �a a'4�iSQ.-` err• " \_ E-M.-RES YAf Mark K. bodcg, P.E. MKD/wd Enclosures: 10 Plates ,J t. q - f Q uyyti �4'k T z z w M U 0 0 w di w r 0 z DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. PLATE 1 GUIDELINES IN THE USE OF THIS REPORT �i This report for Job No. 0095 was prepared in accordance with local general �I c�. engineering principles and standards. No warranty is expressed or implied. 0" =1 The findings and recommendations contained in this report are based upon the limi t which you requested. Geoteclmical engineering requires the application of U. judgment, as no study can completely quantify subsurface conditions. The oN 0 seriously consider any recommendations for additional work contained in the report, our professional opinion that this additional work is necessary to augment and/o J i specific requirements. 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 discussions are based upon our testing, analysis, experience, and judgment. There is rto warranty that these subsurface interpretations represent subsurface conditions other than that which occurred at the exact locations tested at the time the fieldwork was conducted by this firm. Groundwater levels can be especially sensitive to seasonal changes. This firm is not responsible for interpretations others make using this report. The conclusions and recommendations in this report assume that the field tes conducted accurately represent subsurface conditions of the site. If, during significantly different subsurface conditions are encountered from those described i our firm should be notified at once to review these conditions and revise our recomn necessary. Also, if there is a significant lapse of time between this report submittal of work at the site, our firm should be allowed to review and verify site conditions. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered during excavation and i and simply cannot be fully anticipated by periodic soil and/or rock sampling at w testing locations. The owner should be prepared to accommodate potential extra c the development of a contingency fund. i This firm cannot be responsible for any deviation from the intent of this report inelu, ... limited to the nature of the project, the construction timetable, and any construct discussed in the report. Tie recommendations contained in the report are not inten+ the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as may be described in the report. This firm will not be responsible for any construction act €3 site, nor are we responsible if others attempt to apply this report to other sites. I I Job Number 60 Cole/Merritt 75th Pla Meadowdale, — Plate 1 ,.� w. �:: it� DODDS GEOSCIEVCtS INC. 8tZW. Ar.W ""72 i0o to. J-0"7j K' '90 p 10 'V". A r rA-ZA00WAV Alf, .go ZPAWS MIS Hole No.-1 PROJECT: Cole/Merritt SFR DATE DRILLED: 9/24/98 B DRILL RIG: Trailer -Mounted LOGGED BY: Mark K. Dodds, P.E. HOLE DIA: 8 In. SAMPLER:SPT INITIAL WATER DEPTH: ft. HOLE ELEV: t 75 MSL FINAL WATER DEPTH: 28.0 ft. TOTAL DEPTH: 41.5 ft. DESCRIPTION SOIL GRAPHIC BLOWS TYPE LOG /Ft. ML UlOwn 13tavelly Sandy Silt, very moist. loose. 61,11Y Still Sand with some Gravel, wet. loose. SNI 11-111 lellse" of sillall Gravel. lie-d All own Silty Sand, very moist, loose, SFI o� lberuln[)town colored: With tenses of Gravel. 61-n Clayey Silt to Silly Clay with lenses of Silt, wet, firm, Heavily CL liacturing. GrayClay, wet, still to very still. CH 0- 11 " 2 " 3- 4 5 6— 4 7 8 9- 10 12- 13- 14— Is —1 T IS -: 17- 18— to— ZO-1 21— 10 22 R3_ ?4— '5 It 26 )q 31-:1 19 32- 33- 3435 6 23 37I —39 :-40 411 30 1 !!"Isom - Boling I. Groundwater table at 26.0 feet below grades on lobef ll1906. DODDS Geosciences Inc. PAGE I OF I BORING LOG "K Hole No. B-2 PROJECT: Cole/Merritt SFR DATE DRILLED: 9/24/96 DRILL RIG: Trailer -Mounted LOGGED BY: Mark K. Dodds, P.E. HOLE DIA: 8 in. INITIAL WATER DEPTH: ft. SAMPLER:SPT HOLE ELEV: 1 65 MSL FINAL WATER DEPTH: ft. TOTAL DEPTH: 24.5 ft. z ED! I DESCRIPTION SOIL GRAPHIC TYPE LOGx & SLOWS /Ft. REMARKS U 0i U) 01 U) W , LU 'i 4 _j t 1 (D U. U.1 0 < LL D a U.1 X, z l h. C)l LU LUI Cali 0 LU LU zi tii (n, z K 11,0 111,1CL - Creared ')v Silly Sand with some Gravel, wet, loose. h lenses of small Gravel. Sm - X-Z 1-1 011YOV SIR 10 54til Clay with lenses of Slit, wet, film, mooefatety CL 61 flarluling. 1v tmly Clay, wet. still to very Still. CH U 2 3 4 5 6--j 7 8 9 4 10 12 3 — 14 9 15 to 17 18 19-117 20- 21 22 23 24:ff 33 00013S GeOsClences Inc. PAGE I OF I SPRING LOG 55 1 5 • S r _ r . �4r...a�,,....„uika�fes'`caXt4�,.3.,::.3.::t^.�5.,�.`4r':Y3�Rir.�It+K�ux„�a.«re,,..,d,.,...... �. .. .__ stx ._.� �,a,,.»,.,..�,»„a..,.,....�.duuamerr�laea�n,.a:aeSs�rsztnuR4nr.Ei�4_isS"U,4^:.�r.�tpe..Rztm�iweaux •u��.ra�w_..,.s ;n.� W LL O X ASTM C136 ASTM D1140 Job Number 6095 -:.Plane.? Sieve Analysis. ColelMerrtt Residence - 75th Place West Meadowdale' Washington _< r' , ty '�' Y i - i C' I 3.R14`+.r7i7%�+'",i •t yjY P.�Lr� + �,r ( 1 w} -d }a L{ f�' ri {.s, ro N"J JNy , �yt"i }q.tnt16 ��"t y J t t h i i r¢J ti *rtAr Y+h3 x x• y��t tV.. .:) aft r' nj t;l e i k - r �,..,�.(,w,��..?x.�'+as"'cu'-n��El.{.'3.�'.�+��"Si!�^'.3�tdk�'TIi2k�:moaner.Nttiavaawmexrw.+,�.a._.,.,,�..tW..::«�...:.........'+....:......-...,.�;ia.;..w,amwrM»�"..wevwwe` � .. ' es�styfutm�•nx¢ev:�ame�aawcwem:•ra5 , 1 DODDS'GEOSCIENCES INC. d { i 7.0. E w' 60 U OR WS } -1 F-� ', 50 . g)LL LU LL Plasticity40 x z O Index z �, tt 30 F Of w =l N! 20 pit F 10 LLp Z� w U) U St 0: • z 0 10 20 30 40 50 60, 70 80 96 100 Liquid Limit Symbol Test Hole Depth:(ft.) L. P..I.': USM: • B-1 20'-21.5' 23.0 l`.0.. ' : ML x B-1 :30'-31.5 60.7 37.6 CH 9 cn z t- z z w U 0 0 w x LL t11 U N 0 z Symbol Te t Hole Depth;. (ft.) `: L.L.., P`.I. USCS`.- e B'2 231-,24.5' 53:9 36.9 CH ,, 211 fA U. W0}. �a D)d z z E- r� z w uU �a U V7 OH LU HL u. C _. Z vu o� z WEI _ ", r x. SCALE: zF uj Fz-L z:Yti 4'yy}�f�ki., a 1t�µ7 A PROPOSED RESIDENCE EXHIBIT. FILE N0. CJLE/MERRI'TT RES. i 1 Wag r 6 KW V1E.V IMPACT N i • 4J0 VIEW navy. P : r> Wd . L VFW IMI'A6 r .. t_---- Ob a. R $ t i �XHIBIT .8_ 7n uj APPELLANT: Robert Hoffman 10 CASE NO.: V 96-91 LOCATION: 20623 88th Avenue West (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). Ln M w APPLICATION: Variance to reduce the required street setback from 25-feet to 5- z feet and to increase the maximum permitted building height from z O; 25-feet above average grade level to 36-feet for the construction of Lu Lu; a new single-family residence. c� us o—. REVIEW PROCESS: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes �+ final decision. uj LL a MAJOR ISSUES: _ ZI c"'� z' a. Compliance width Edmonds Community Development Code • (ECDC) o F-'. Chapter 20.85.010 (VARIANCE). Z b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL _ Site Development Standards). f SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: - Staff Recommendation: Denial Hearing Examiner Decision: Partial approval 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 publichearing on the application. The hearing on the application was opened at 9:15 a.m., August 28, 1996, in the Plaza Room, 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. EXHIBIT F FILE ISO._ _ S/- • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • - Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 'kx! uy W J I— 0o w} U T x W �x z i— ,� o z �o o— 0 F LL Q a w� U= O� z t0 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 1 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. i • 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. w Paul Stromme, Stromme Construction, who will be building these homes indicated that he a 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). 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. J. j � 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: (n LL 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). _a. _; 2) The adjacent properties to the east, north, and south are currently z t-; developed as single-family homes. UJ Wl 3. History. � of a. Facts: atL-=-; i V i 1) The following is a chronological account of the development of Mr. � wI Hoffmans property. 0 iu M « September 22, 1995. Robert Hoffman applies for a 4-lot short plat. ca �. o t- « November 3, 1995. Staff conducts a public hearing on the Z 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. Mr. Hoffman rescinds his application for a 4- lot short plat (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). « December 12, 1995. Mr. Hoffman applies for a 4-lot short plat, with modifications for lots 1 and 2. p « February 29,1996. Mn Hoffman appeals the hearing officers decision. « April 15,1996. 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. .a .... .. _. '. f 7 �. r' „w.6., . .. . saE.wi9'b;a, `, z s„ ��,lFsYr• Z' a h°4 h.!,r� zi Wi F• 2. Compliance with requirement for a Variance W LL ,;, O ECDC Chapter 20.15B. I 80.A, states an applicant may request a variance from 2 � U- ¢ 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 (n o mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a case -by -case = W' �- si basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual and z P. unreasonable hardship (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). � o W WI a. Facts: :D of 1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a ��, a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing LU W Examiner. These criteria include: a special circumstance must exist; �� no special privilege is granted; the proposal is consistent with the "_- zl Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the proposal will not be u; (0! detrimental and is the minimum necessary. o 2) Variances may be used to modify bulk standards. They may not be z 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. i 5) The applicant is requesting a 5-foot street setback and a maximum 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 criteria because it will reduce the driveway slopes to a safe grade. (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). ( J, 1 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-91 Page 5 b. Conclusions: z �j 1) Special Circumstances (a) Street Setback request: The applicant's property has steep slopes r Lai which may exceed 35% in some places. Although the applicant could U take access off the easement from 88th Avenue West, the double slope c� o of the easement and the driveway will make safe access problematic. WLU; The driveway also may still exceed 14% which is inconsistent with -J City standards. Locating the home in this area will preserve existing wU. trees, which is consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. It appears that special circumstances exist due to topography, =� compatibility with the neighborhood and adjacent home, and tree LL d preservation, and therefore the applicant should be provided some = u, !! relief from the setback requirements of the ECDC. z r; z or (b) Height Variance request: Although the applicant could take access u, w; off 88th Avenue West, homes along 207`h Place Southwest are two of stories and the applicant's request is consistent with development v v_� o along that street and the adjacent home on Lot 1. Therefore, it appears that special circumstances exist due to topography, and therefore the x c`u.� applicant should be provided some relief from the setback F- t= U- requirements of the ECDC. Z; u+ �� 2) Special Privilee o(a) Street Setback request: Although other property owners on 88th z 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 a opposite side of the right of way. It does not appear that any special 3 s privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that other l properties in the same zone with similar street circumstances would also qualify for a variance (See Exhibit A, Attachment 2). j (b) Height Variance request: It does not appears that any special E Q 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 C�addef - t ..55,, q �•3 3.1�i,41 fi 'i i. 4 'A'MIR S ti;, r'" W LL LU 0 LL. U) 0 LU Z LULU U rn 0- a H UJ UA Z' LU (1) 0 Z V -ill, . . . . . . . . . . Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-91 Page 6 the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site. 4) Not Detrimental (a) Street Setback request: As the proposed, approval of street setback would potentially be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2) since the City may choose to locate a bicycle path in the right-of-way and a home situated 5-feet from the property line may pose a safety hazard to the home owners and cyclists. However, if the setback we're increased to 8 feet, then sufficient distance between autos and bicyclists would exist. (b) Height Variance request: Approval of the height variance does not appear to be detrimental to surrounding property owners or the general public. 5) 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. 4 C. TECHNICAL COYAHTTEE 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. '.' } 4} Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-91 Page 7 (2) Policy B.I. states, "Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes z{ with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the W + dessurroundinirability. g"s, adding to the community identity and � � W $ (3) Policy B-2. states, "Protect neighborhoods incompatible additions to y U) wi existing buildings that do ot harmonize with existing structures.,, LU Hi U. (4) Policy B.3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view' of existing homes by new construction y 'j' or additions to existing structures. " U. U. d (5) Page 31, subsection B.S.0 states, "Stable property values _ d t not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments. Z (6) Soils and Topography section C.3.b. Erosion N o; Control states, Natural vegetation should be z Hi �i preserved wherever possible to reduce erosion and stabilize slopes, particularly t downhill property line.,, on the N' l b. Conclusion: The proposed development is w consistent with the above adopted and policies of the City for the development of residential f _ w: Citys property in the LL zi DECISION C? - z Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for 5 a variance is partially approved, subject to the following conditions: L 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 S must be set back from the 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 extent passible. maximum 2. The residence shall not exceed 36.0 feet ® in height as measured from averse a de g 3. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained h e s Community Development Code. d It is the responsibility of the applicant to enmonsure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 4. The applicant must obtain building a permit prior to construction. ' S. The permit is transferable. j :< Y f: f iT ty4i � ; ...' . _ O! .. i .."'• .. .1_. .. .. ,. , t . ,K.r;. _ 1 w: J !-- i. U. 1 J L j �a z w, s: zP I o', w LU Cni z di U _. o~ z to Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. (��)4AVtA Robed. Burke Hearing Examiner Pro Tem RECONSUDERATIONS AN The following is a summa appeals. Any person wi; contact the Planning Depai A. REQUEST FOR RE( APPEALS of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and ig to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should ent for further procedural information. 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. 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. CITY OF EDMONDS 250 51h AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 - (206) 771.3202 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF JEAN RIGGLE FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCES LARRY S. NALIGHTEN MAYOR FILE: V-6-90 DECISION: The variances are granted subject to co I nditions I listed. INTRODUCTION Jean Riggle, 15714 - 75th Place W, Edmonds, Washington 98020, (hereinafter referred to as Applicant), requested approval of a variance in order to exceed the permitted height limit for a pro- posed addition on property located at 15714 - 75th Place W, Edmonds, Washington. In addition, the Applicant requested variances for a reduction of the street and side yard setbacks for the proposed addition. 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 Ojala Planning Dept. 310 - 1st Street S City of Edmonds Suite 332 Edmonds, WA 98020 Seattle, WA 98104 Jean Riggle Jes S. Jessen 15714 - 75th Place W 15722 - 75th Pl W Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Harrison Jewell 5535 Seaview Ave NW Seattle, WA 98107 At the hearing the following exhibits were submitted and were admitted as part of the official record of this proceeding:, Exhibit 1 - Staff Report it 2 - Application/Declarations 3 - Plot Plan/Cross-Section EXHIBIT EXHIBIT-6 0. _(30 N0. V-?6" Z 1i Z: 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- 0! sion of the Hearing Examiner. at t U) U) W1 UJ _3 P11 FINDINGS OF FACTS U) 0LL LU 1. The application is for the approval of a variance of 5 feet ad M from the permitted height limit in order to construct an addition on LL = a building located at 15714 - 75th Place W, Edmonds, Washington. The Applicant also seeks a 5 foot side yard setback and a 0 foot street X us., 1, setback for the building. Z 1--� ; 0 �-! 2. The subject property is a small, narrow lot in the North LULU Meadowdale area of the City of Edmonds. It is located on the west side of 75th Place W, and on site is a small residence. a 3. The subject property is zoned RS-20, and is a 190 foot by 45 X foot wide lot. U..o, 4. In order for the Applicant to make the addition, a variance Z from the required side yard setbacks for RS-20 zones must be ob- s 3:1 tained. The Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.20.030 establishes a 10 foot side yard setback and a 25 foot street setback Z 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 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 privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity 0 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. C. The approval of the variances will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds. "777 A H1 BEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: V-6-90 4/4/ Page 3 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 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.) 0 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. K] 11. The requested variance does not appear to pose any signifi- cant impact to the public nor to private properties and improve- ments. L6 3 1 CONCLUSIONS U) 0 1. The Applicant requested approval of a variance to exceed the Z permitted height limits of the RS-20 zone by 5 feet, for a pro- Z O:i ! posed addition on property located at 15714 - 75th Place W, LULU11; 2 M;: Edmonds, Washington. In addition, the Applicant seeks variances from the street and side yard setback standards for the develop- ment of the subject property. LUW M L) 2. In order for variances to be granted within the City of Edmonds the criteria of ECDC 20.85.010 must be satisfied. The 1 application satisfies these criteria. Z Ui V) 3. Special circumstances exist for the grant of the variances. J=0 1 Because of the steep slope of the subject property and the intent �Z 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 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 T7, •' ,'HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: V-6-90 4/4/ I Page 5 DECISION Ui 5= Based upon the preceding Findings of Facts and Conclusions, the 0 testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing, and upon Wi the impressions of the Hearing Examiner at a site view, it is Xhereby ordered that the requested variances to exceed the per- LL mitted height limit and to reduce the required street and side yard setbacks for a proposed addition on property located at 15714 - 75th Place W, Edmonds, Washington, are granted subject to the following conditions: X d y w 1. The height variance g granted shall not exceed 5 feet above the �-X� permitted height standard for RS-20 zone property. Z 0-' z a} 2., The side yard setback variance shall be for 5 additional uw w? 5 feet. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit from the 0 r Building Division and comply with all permit requirements. w w (' LL 4. The property is located in the Meadowdale landslide hazard Z area. No building permits will be issued until all requirements w of ECDC 19.05 have been satisfied. Should the Applicant fail to N r satisfy these requirements, the grant of the variances shall be p null and void. Z 5. The variances must be acted upon within one (1) year or the variances shall expire and be null and void. An extension may be granted prior to the expiration date. 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 © 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 Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. b® x F- uj, oc i Lij U O' ai En cn w i J Ni to LL -o w� U. a�U) =w Z � o± w w! D 0-1 o �-�i F- LL p Z wN c3 = o Z to APPLICANT: Robert Hoffman CASE NO.: V-96-90 LOCATION: 20625 88th Avenue West 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. 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: 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 th' ,r vpr . W.regording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. EXHIBIT— FILE NO. k/- W' l30 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 0 `� r. .......... Hearing Examiner Decision j Case No. V 96-90 Page 2 HEARING COMMENTS: X The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. t- w; wFrom the City: U o Kirk Vinish, AICP, Project Planner, reviewed the staff advisory report (Exhibit A) and (n Qj W? recommended partial approval of the request, with conditions. W =;. cn 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 ia ' LU of 22 feet above the level of the street. He noted that other houses in the neighborhood Zare up to 25 feet above the street in height. z From the Community: g Robert King, Neighbor, said he was concerned about preserving the neighborhood theme Nj and asked if alternatives had been explored. He said it looked like the house could be a _ a�� placed further back on the lot. He was concerned that the house would set forward on the _ U� lot and not conform with others in the neighborhood. He was also concerned that this � Fj could set a precedent to allow other variances along 880' Avenue West. He said he — z understands this particular lot is steep, but he said the owner know that when he bought the property and then subdivided it. �- r 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 207t' and then with a variance. This house will be part of the 207'f' St. S.W. streetscape, and there will be no access on 88 h Avenue West. He also said there is jno similarity between these lots and lots to the north along 88t' Avenue West. Dean Read said that each variance must meet specific criteria so this will not set a precedent. 0 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 88`t' Avenue corridor (see Exhibit A, Attachment 7). c® 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. r■ Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-90 Page 3 z FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS J,. !' �� A. SITE DESCRIPTION cc 2+ 1. Site Development And Zoning: W 5 a. Facts: w =; 1) Size: The total size of the subject property is 13,331. (n ,Fig 2) Land Use: The subject property is currently undeveloped, surrounding � o development consists of single family dwellings (see Exhibit A, Attachments 3 and 4). N 3) Zoning: - The subject property is zoned RS-12 (single residential UJ; family with a minimum 12,000 square foot lot size requirement) (see z �i Exhibit A, Attachment 1). of 4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property slopes from the west to LU 2 �i east with the greatest slope closest to the west property line. j Vegetation consists of several trees and native grasses. w` 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a. Facts: LL of 1 di cn 1) The adjacent properties to the north, south, east, and west and are �! currently zoned as single-family (RS-12) (see Exhibit A, Attachments 0 1), z 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's property. j ©.. 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-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 E Short Subdivision.. c) December 4, 1995. Mr. Hoffman rescinds his application for a 4- lot short plat (see ExhibitA, Attachment 2). d) December 12,1995. Mr. Hoffman applies for a 4-lot short plat, with modificationsfor lots 1 arid 2. ;:. .nf:'. .. .t.. .. .�.. .: ¢... 7. .. ..,s'�.1k:�tYr\lySna+wl�r?k?i`..d„ti �d �UJ z t- r� z U to 0 H h� LL. Q WCr U� o� z Co 1 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-90 Page 4 1' e) February 29,1996. Mr. Hoffman appeals the hearing officers decision. f) April 15, 1996. The Hearing Examiner denies the appeal. g) April 24, 1996. Mr. Hoffman requests a reconsideration of the Hearing Examiners decision. h) 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. 2) Except for the requested street and height setback alterations, the existing development conforms to all RS-12 requirements (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). b. Conclusion: The proposal complies with the development standards for j the RS-12 zone as set forth in Chapter 16.30, with the exception of the ; street and height setbacks. 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 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 Comprehensive Bikeway PIan. 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 1. The i r rF f : Hearing Examiner Decision ! Case No. V 96-90 Page 5 applicant also states that other property owners in the area have setbacks from the improved roadway of 25 to 30 feet 6) The applicant states that the home would be below the existing street Lut which creates a hardship which other properties in the vicinity do not have. 0 7) The applicant has stated that the proposal meets the minimum variance criteria because it will reduce the driveway slopes to a safe grade. p 8) If the applicant is granted a height variance it does not appear that the residence will impact neighboring views or cast shadows on neighboring properties. b. Conclusions: 1) Special Circumstances (a) Street Setback request: The applicants property has steep slopes, which may exceed 35% in some places. Driveways may not exceed 14% slope without approval from the Engineering Division. The City prefers all other options to be explored before allowing a driveway to exceed 14%. The most reasonable access would be on 80th Avenue West where it intersects with 207th Place Southwest. Additionally, locating the home in this area will preserve existing trees, which is consistent with objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, it appears that special circumstances exist due to topography and tree 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 too a h d th f th 1' p gr p y, an ere ore a app scant should be provided some relief from the setback requirements of the 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). {{ `.; ® i -;r. ., . .... a Nx � :.�.� i„.r",maLt'3�`s ','rt ♦� N+, t- r'�s< U) LL 2 � LL = w' z� h 0i z F: uU to L) o N` w w� = cs. LL F; LLzl ui cn' F z t® --r--------- • _ - ••••• ••_•••�7•••••••,•• ••• ..av wa.. �ovv--".VAL L1, Attachment 2). 3. Not Detrimental (a) Street Setback request: As proposed approval of the street setback variance would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2) because the City may choose to locate a bicycle path in the right-of-way and a home situated 5-feet from the property line may pose a safety hazard to the home owners and cyclists. However, if the setback were expanded to 8-feet then sufficient distance between autos and bicyclists would exist. (b) Maximum Height request: The variance as conditionally approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone. 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. 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 PIan 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. MIS Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-90 (1) Section. B states as a Page 7 residential ate as a al Of the a City that. "High lifestyle o appropriate to the quality Promoted Edmonds residents should be maintained and The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be a realistically in balancing economic pproached consideration, in accordance with the followin d aesthetic olicies: (2) Policy B.1. states, d "En homes to design a;id those building" construct homes with architectural lines which l surroundings, enable them to adding to the communit nize with the desirability. " ty identity and (3) policystates rf ible Protect neighborhoods incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures " (4) Policy B.3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view of existingy new construction or a homes b structures. " dditions to existing (2) Page 31, subsection B.S.0 states must not be threatened b ' "Stable Property values encroachments.- y view, traffic, or land use b. Conclusion; The proposed development is consistent with the goals and policies of the City for the development of residential above adapted al Property in the DECISION Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions shall be subject to the following conditions: r this application is Partially approved and 1 • This variance is to allow the (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4), , oposalhowev m the location identii;ed on the ro feet. Any other structures, ad)d}itions or r the res d nce must have be set back fromo the site plan setbacks or height requirements for the zone or obtain another variance the street f the house shall be retained to the extent possible. conforms with the typical 2. The residence shall not exceed 31.7 feet in height as me All trees east of 3. This application is subject to the a measured from average grade. Community DevelopmentPPlicable requirements contained in compliance with the pantCoda. It is the responsibilitythe Edmonds various provisions contained in these rthe aPPlscant to ensure 4. The applicant must obtain a buildingances' Permit prior to construction. 5. The Permit ss transferable. I nearing axaminer iecision Case No. V 96-90 Page 8 Entered this 21st day of August, 1996, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner z T ! under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. �- w; CC J V, U �` JLU Ron McConnell (n LL Hearing Examiner w0 J N 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 z o! contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. w w; U REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION o �{r 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 _ zi and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land U _ which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must t- cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances zr governing the type of application being reviewed. APPEALS Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or j 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 ,r_, 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 4 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. +P9u'4h ` 0. CITY OF EOMONO8 LARRY S. NAUGHTEN 250 5th AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 - (206) 771.3202 MAYOR 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 ofthis proceeding: Exhibit 1 - Staff Report 11 2 - Application/Declarations 3 - Plot Plan/Cross Section FmiBrr FILE NO. i to 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. 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 J� 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 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. 0, 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 does not want to construct within the street setbacks. Cn 0LL LU 2 � C2 LL D NUJ oh LU Ljj u 2 U - Uj (r, d 81- Z t G 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. J 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 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 ccnflict 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. W � cJ1 _ LIJ Z P- F_ o! Z F; w wP o LU = U� u~. F - ZI � S Z t® DECISION Based upon the preceding Findings of Facts and Conclusions, the impressionsndoevidenceHsubmittedExaminerthe thepublic hearing, and s he the ordered that the requested variance for an increase to,Pethe e hereby height limits on property located at 15706 - 75th Place W rmitted Washington, is granted subject to the following conditions: Edmonds, 1• The height on the proposed residence may exceed the permitted height limit of 25 feet by an additional 17.75 feet. 2• The height of the garage may exceed the permitted height limit of 25 feet by an additional 4 feet. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building e permit from the Building Division and comply with all permit requirements, 4. The property is located in the North Meadowdale landslide hazard area. No building permits will be issued until all require- ments 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 the shall be expire and be null and void. An extension ma be Y prior to the expiration date. Y granted 6. The structures shall be built similar to those as shown on Exhibit 3, the plot plan/cross section. Any deviation from these designs shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and, if neces- sary, by the Hearing Examiner. 7. In lieu of dedication of l0 feet as required by the Official Street Map, the Applicant shall file a conditional deed approved to form by the City Attorney. The deed shall be filed with as the Snohomish County Auditor and shall state the 10 feet of right-of-wa along 75th Place W shall be dedicated to the City of Edmonds at they . time of filing of a resolution of the City Council requiring the widening of said road. 1tY ;.h"16 y r 4Y�'y(r 1 L i. 1 v�rff r+ r s tT�Y !� 1 i rrN`2 + z. ttr "y�FS „f.�rs �> r f �i, r i HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: V-5-90 4/5/90 Page 6 ! I !' Entered this 5th day of April, 1990, pursuant to the authority x2j granted the Hearing Examiner under Cha ter 20.100 of the Community Z5 VI Development Code of the City of Edmo s. d01 LUI J !—! cn J DRI C LL ring Examiner U. NOTICE OP RIGHT TO APPEAL ~ zf Written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other grounds for F, appeal may be filed with the Planning Department, City of Edmonds, z Q{ Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington 98020, within fourteen (14);days W LUf of the date of the Hearing Examiner's final action. � Ct 0cn( In this matter any appeal must be received by the Department prior, t o to 5:00 p.m. on April 19, 1990.' _ t- F ui vU. Zs O Z } r { t w) z I-; 0 z , w w: v Nk, o != w w N LL zI v U)! o z , -. i 890.19y . CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 57H AVE, N. - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - 1206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FILE: OF URSULA SCHLUTER FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE DECISION: The variance is granted subject to conditions INTRODUCTION Ursula Schluter, 21701 - 80th Avenue West, #4, Edmonds, Washington 98026 (hereinafter referred to as applicant), requested approval of a variance for an increase in the maximum permitted height allowed for a structure in an RS-20 zone and a variance from the -setback 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 f Planning Dept. 15010 N.E. 9th Place City of Edmonds Bellevue, WA 98007 �..= Edmonds, WA 98630 At the hearing the following exhibits were submitted and were admitted as part of the official record of this proceeding: f i Exhibit 1 - Staff Report with the following attachments: A. Vicinity/Zoning Map B. Application 1 C. Site Plan V Elevation and floor plans EXHIBIT E Critical areas checklist Environmental memorandum V'' Qt- FILE No,,_ t 5v H. Environmental checklist ' -------�. Environmental determination J. Comments from Engineering Department K. Comments from ,Fire Department r c L. Comments from Parks Department Incorporated August 11, 1890 • �_ x " Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan j c: ® HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: V-93-11 4/14/93 Page 2 Exhibits continued: W 0U J . M. Comments from Public Works Department. U LO LU V) 3: After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Applicant, LU _J �J and evidence elicited during the public hearing, the following Cn of Findings of, Fact and Conclusions constitute the basis of the M LU decision of the Hearing Examiner. LL U)M 0; ' FINDINGS OF FACTS LU, X Z I- 1 The applicant is the owner of the property at 15620 - 75th r 0 Place West, Edmonds, Washington. She seeks variances from the Z �- W LU, maximum height standards for structures on the property and from the setback standards. U U)i 0 2. The subject property is zoned RS-20. It has a land use designation as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan as low -density XL) residential. The lot is located in the middle of the area of the �P 0; City of Edmonds. Z: LU W: U _X 3. It is the intent of the applicant to develop a residence on Ji the property. Because of the slope conditions of the lot the requestzed 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 0 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 CB 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 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: V-93-11 4j14/93 Page 3 = zI 2' 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 L) oD. other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. J_JX B. The approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the .; w o property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. J� w C. The approval of the variance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City Edmonds. of �- x Z - o 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. � � `n' a E. The variance as approved or conditional) a Y approved will not be significantly detrimental w to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements the vicinity and same zone. in u. O. Z' U _ F. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by rt-a z � 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. 8. 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. Q 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. r® 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 K f HEARING EXAMINER DECISION (- RE: V-93-11 4/14/93 Page 4 z _ Z, �- Lu developed on level land. As a result, a variance is needed in order for the applicant to develop the structure. J v` No 11. The residence will have the garage on the top floor of the U) LU structure. The structure will have a flat roof and will be � �• approximately one foot below the street level of 75th Place West. o� However, a variance of an additional three feet in height is needed w in order to provide an accessible driveway and garage at a slope that is within the code. C2Q. d 12. Special circumstances that exist on the subject property to x W, necessitate the grant of the variance from the setback standards z and the height standards include the steep slope of the site. The severity of the slope creates limitations on the development of the z �! site and restricts access to the site by car. With the use of the LU W' setback variances and the height variances this access can be :D o; achieved. 0 �_{ a o ��f 13. The grant of the variance will not be a grant of a special _ W privilege. It is allowance of the applicant to develop the �- F- property in a manner similar to other properties that have been `-` Z developed in the area. The other properties in the area also have severe slope issues. �mr, ~ 14. The grant of the variances will not be contrary to the intent z 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. 15. The requested variances will not be detrimental to other c' j properties in the area. It will not block views and will not �.-. f 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 (admitted 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 submitted a critical areas checklist and 0 F i 1 i i { a HEARING: EXAMINER DECISION 3 RE: V-93-11 4/14/93 Page 5 a �{ LU the City issued a waiver from the requirements to prepare a oc� critical areas study. As a result, the applicant has satisfied the �`. critical areas review requirements. ao Ln w 21. The City of Edmonds was designated the lead agency for the ? J N: environmental review of the proposal. A determination of V)LL non significance was issued by the City on March 23, 1993. As the - o! date of the hearing, g, no appeal had been filed of the DNS. QLL ° CONCLUSIONS � z�; 1. The application is for the approval of variances from the setback standards and height standards for RS-20 zone for the z a development of a residence at 15620 - 75th Place West, Edmonds, w w Washington. The requested variances are for a increase in the o; maximum height in the structure from twenty-five feet to twenty- 0-1 eight feet and a allowance of a construction within the street � r setback. The street setback variance requested is zero, 2. In order for a variance to be granted within the City of o; Edmonds, the criteria of ECDC 20.85.010 must be satisfied. These L.Ucn criteria have been identified in the Findings of this document and v = the manner in which they are satisfied has also been addressed. The Findings relating to the manner in which the criteria are Z 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 S authority granted in ECDC 20.100.010(b). _j } DECISION ® 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: ;® 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 w lL �d =w z tz- �0 z W W v� ON 3� LL C 2 LU o" z HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: V-93-11 4/14/93 Page 6 access off 75th Place West. The actual residence on the subject property shall not be developed within the street setback. 3. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the ECDC. It is the responsibility 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. 4. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to construction. S. The permit should be transferable. Entered this 14th of April, 1993, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearing Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Qt,�IL�4 JAIMS M. DRISCOLL ring Examiner NOTICE OFRIGHT _TO APPEAL Written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other grounds for appeal may be filed with the Planning Department, City of Edmonds, Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington 98020, within fourteen (14) days of the datW of the Hearing Examiners final action. In this matter any appeal must be received by the Department prior to 5:00 p.m. on April 28, 1993. sea Uj z 0 U Cn 0— Q E- LIJ L&j LU (1, 0 z 13 FEB- 5-97 WED It: 18 P. 02 Heasin$ EXamIner Decis -ion Case No. V 96-130 Pap 10 Jeanie Anderson Howard Glazer 16727 74th PI W 15927 75th Fl. Edmonds; WA 98026 15dincinds, WA 98026, Robert Anderson Kaddeen Johanson 6010 73rd PI W 7309 N MeadoWdale Rd. Edmunds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026, Philip Ruggiero Frank & Marion Bonipart 6126 1 4oti, ct NE 7429 N. Meadowdale Rd. Redmond, WA 98052 Edmonds, WA 98026 Planning Division Phyllis Wiggins Engineering Division 16012 74th Pl. W Fire Department Edmonds WA 98026 Park$ Department Public Works Department D5LU J LO0 wLL Fd- jj 'h o l Z h- I... o Z �— w w' ao U Ni o NI Lu N� u. p _Z iu U) V2 O~ Z t® CITY OF EDMONDS 250 8TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 • 1206) 771.0220 - FAX (206) 771.0221 _ 1 ' A HEARING EXAMINER cst. 189v FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: Michael George on behalf of Robert Cole and Jeri Merritt (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). CASE NO.: V-96-130 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 a new single-family residence (see Exhibit A, Attachments 3 and 4). R 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 BEARING: Approve with conditions Deny After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and i. after visitin the site th H E d �" g , e eanng xaminer con ucted a public heanng on the application. The hearing on the Cole) 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. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 77 ✓, ti .... 0 .. E� XVrt .. y .� :�'�.�.:, tv .`k�r+.,iS.t'fx,. �r..i,»:.. �; Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-130 Page 2 HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments'offered at the public hearing. From the City: Kirk Vinish, Project Planner, reviewed the staff advisory report (Exhibit A) and recommended approval of the application, with three conditions. He emphasized the environmental constraints on the site, utility and walking path easements and previous variances for height in the immediate area. From the Applicants: Mike George, Architect for the Applicants, reviewed the request for a height variance, entered Exhibits D through J into the record, and said: I Site constraints require that a minimum amount of excavation can take place. No access is possible from below the house other than pedestrian access. The site was previously covered with maples and firs and views in the neighborhood will be improved with their removal. The house directly across the street will only see a foot or so of the roof of the house. ti The house has been designed to minimize the height by lowering the plate of the second floor roof and moving rooms to the center of the building. The site is constrained by the maximum allowed slope of the driveways which are currently at 14% and 17%. From the Community: Robert Anderson, neighbor, spoke in opposition to the request and said: • The fact that the site will be cleared of vegetation is not germane. • The view impact shown by the applicant is at the highest point along the street; there will be view impacts to homes on 74th. ME -v, W J h� (n lL wQ 2� J LL M{ D) di = Lw H =; z t- z o w wj 2 =): M C3i U cn o s �o iz wCl) U = O~ z to Philip Ruggiero, owner of adjacent property, read Exhibit B into the record. He objected to the approval of a height variance for the following reasons: • Exceptions to the rules and ordinances of the City of Edmonds tend to set dangerous precedents. he • Just because other homes in the area are two stories and the applicant "wants" a two story home doesn't mean this lot will support it. • Individuals who have specific needs and criteria in mind regarding the home they want to build should explore the possibility of building such a structure before they purchase the property. • There are other options for building an this lot. The design should take the City's rules into consideration. • He is in the process of constructing a home in this same area, and while he did not get what he wanted, he followed the rules. • He expects the City to protect his rights and the rights of others in the area and disallow this request for an eight foot height variance. Howard Glazer, 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. • f • _ {t' Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-130 Page 4 Frank Bonipart, 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 must 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) Size: 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) 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 east to west with the greatest slope closest to the west property line. 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-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. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE La. 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). R; Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-130 Page 5 b. Conclusion: The proposal complies with the development standards for A the RS-12 zone as set forth in Chapter 16.30, with the exception of the height setbacks. 2. Compliance with requirement for a Variance ECDC Chapter 20.15B. I 80.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: I 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 of 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 for an eight foot wide walking path and utilities. The walking path and utilities bisects the site and reduces the buildable 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 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 "D" of this report for additional discussion of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan). He also states that he has reduced to the extent possible the amount of view impact to surrounding neighbors by utilizing stick -framing techniques which allow for a lower residence than would be typically seen. 7, 7,77, 7 -.-777 7 7 �7_"'�� M 5 � 77777777'7777 77.'.� M Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-130 Page 6 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. Driveways may not eA%.-.V,A IA 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 fora 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 il, granting some variance for this site in that other properties in the same o 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 16.10.000.13 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 views from neighboring properties. However, views should b'6:,; .77 ;7 "0 SOR 7 -Nt,,v IS W, -M CM, Hearing Examiner 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 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. 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. oil 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, 0 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. 7he options available to the City to influence the quality of housingfor all citizens should be approached PT 2 f s ....... ..... ,. ..... ..... «. .. .-. ,......., ..... �.. .. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-130 Page 8 realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in accordance with the following policies: " z _ (2) Policy B.I. states, "Encourage those building custom R- w homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the '� surroundings, adding to the community identity and jv C desirability. " _ LU LL (3) Policy B.3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view of -, existing homes by new construction or additions to existing "—' c structures. " (4) Page 31, subsection B.5.0 states, "Stable property values 4 must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use N c encroachments. " 3 b. Conclusion: The proposed development is generally consistent with the above z r adopted goals and policies of the City for the development of residential property z F in the City; however the extent of the height variance it will adversely impact "' `-' �C views within the area. o F DECISION D. } Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is denied. Uc Entered this 6th day of January, 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner z under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. G�2 Robert G. Burke, AIA, AICP Hearing Examiner, Pro Tem R 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 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 tit 1 L,. 4 ti 4 0. J % Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-130 Page 9 references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. B. APPEAL 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.' EXHIBITS: The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report, dated 12/12/96, with 4 attachments B. Letter from Philip J Ruggiero, dated 12/15196 C. Letter from Frank & Marion Bonipart, dated 12/11/96 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 PARTIES of RECORD: Robert Cole / Jeri Merritt 16628 70th Pl. W. Lynnwood, WA 98037 Cl) O� CE a� Cl)LL C11 =w z E— �- o; z �! W W U rAr o S dW3� LL 0, �Q z UX o ~' z Q t Philip John Mom - —� — Deeembcr 13,199E 6196 141111, VOW NM: Rlvlmaml W*11411Llnil 91,11a: P.lN, Nk3 ttt:i:t RECEIVED DEC 1 5 1996 ' 'HERMIT COUNTER Kirk Vinirh, AICP t3ertt via FAX ProjttctPlamtcr City of Edmonds 2Str - 501 Avenge Nonh Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: City of Edmonds Fite No. V•9&130 Dam Mr. Vinish: I have extensively reviewed your advisory report date December 12,1996 relative to the proposed height variance applied for under We No. V-W130. Whole I will agree that the architect did a bate' job analysing tho probicme or building on uti* Particular lot, I nevertheless object to the approvtll ore height variance. 7h5W unnemm" exceptlons to the rates and ordinances of the City of Edmonds tend to act dangerous piw2daats which Can and may be used by others to simple gay," Well you did it for the other guy So you Mould (or must) do it for am." This then puts the City In a precarious position and seriously limits the rights of the surrounding neighbors. The application talks about building a two story heats on the lot. Or course. the applicant wants a two story home; but. just because other homes in the area are two stories grid the appliearu "wants" a two story building doesn't mean that this lot will support it (based an pararactas set by the City or Edmonds). . Individuals who havo specific WAS and eriterla to mind regarding the home they want to build should extort the possibility or building such a structure before dw�y purchase property. Bending the rules after the fact is simply not acceptable and should not be allowed. There are many neighborhoods that have a combination of one and twu atoiy home* in tho gams area That: is no law against building a ono stony home in the Madowdale discs. That tote applicant do Isn't want to do that is a different matter and hers nothing to do with the issue at hand. And, in fact, this Is the :ogre they are requesting a variance, because that is what they want, Ali the other rbetoric about not wanting to excavate deeper and not wanting to distoib the wnsitivo sells is simply a unoko corean. The facts are that they want to build a two story strvtltwrs on a tot that doesn't support that type of construction because or the City's rules and ordinvices. The issue of setbacks and casements again talks to an existing condition that was present what the property was purchased and should not come as a surprise during the design pbaso of the projeel. I strongly urge you and yotu committee to put a stop to Qua madlic" of extUDding 11015lt variances in this exclusive view orientated area. It is the buyers' responsibility and their EXHIBIT FILE N0. d � s 4 it h x�L v.i 2 cy t4 n ip 5 i.R W k t'S an�sJi `` .• �'f L� �4rw. �r d s. rt to y71 1 �' - 7 r �Y r� t{ TE�-No.12066416623 Dec 96 11:56 No.001 P.02 Z �. LU maponaibiiity atone to understand ttxs rules and the corrdtdons suraanding the property � No l pukUsmg PmIum to do Itat Amid not to any way inriraci vdwro. V 0 Kt cp in mind that regaMtess of the obstacles suspatod In the variance application, thane are N W l other options for banding on this IOt. 7%o design. thou, should tako the City's rules into LU h�-I eatstdcratkn N C As I have indicutcd to you pMviouriy, I am in the pfot.css of constructing a home in this soma ur arcs. I did not do go without gacrifica and great expense to get what I wanted, but, I followed the rulez as hard as that was at times. I expect the City of Edmonds to proWt my rights and the sights or others in them and disallow this request for an eight (S) fW height variance, tL rn CI I will be attending the hearing on 71urcday, December 191h to irunher express my strong objection. Z F— LU LUI o i�u t a- . ui w ; ~ U tL p _ Z O Z ir- z w F E 0 41:I1. 141111, Court NK Hrvtmuct+l %1ANhinKrNn 41101C. ;NN. M.10133 December 15. M Kirk VWA, AICP PVrojectPlanner City of Rdmouds Z3ir - Jth Avenue North tidmonds, WA 98020 Ra City of Edmonds File No. V-96-130 Deny Mt. Vtnish: I have oxtensively reviewed your advisory report data December 12,1996 tnlative to the proposed height variance applied for undof Me No. V-95-130. WhUe I will 89MO that the erchitoct did a better job anatyztng the probieme of buliding an Oita ptuticular it*, I noveriheless object to the approval of a height variance. 3hese unnecessary exeepttOU to the n IM and ordinances of the City of P imonds tend to act dangerous PwMents which Can and may be used by others to simple say." Well you did it for iM odw guy so you should (or mug) do it for me," 311is then puts the City in a praaari= position and seriously ]imps the rights of the surrounding nelghboss. The application Wks about building a two story home on the lot Of coneso,, the applicant wants a two a wy home, but just because other homes in the area are two stories and the applicant "wants" a two story building doesn't mean that this lot will support it (based an parameters set by the City of Edmonds). Individuals who have spaeft needs and crileria in mind regarding the home they want to built should oxplore the possibility of building such a structure before they purchase property, Bending ibe rules after the fact is simply not acceptable and should not be nllowod. There am many neighborhoods that have a combination of one and two story homea in the same ates. There is no law against building a ono story home in the Msadowdale area. That the applicant doesn't want to do that is a different matter and has nothing to do with the law at hand. And, in fact, this Is the reason they rue requesting a variance, Mmuse that is what they want. All the other rhetoria about not wanting to excavate deeper and not wanting to disturb the sensitive sons Is simply a smoko soreen. The frets are that they want to build a two story air must on a lot that doesn't support dvu typo of aonsimcdon because of tho City& rules and orrdinerw4m 'tiro issue of setbacks and casements again talks to an existing condition that was present when the prat ny was purchased and should not come as a surprise during the design pbsse of the project. I strongly urge you and your committee to put a stop to this madnoss of exu;n4 ng helglit variances in this exclusive view orientated area. It is tho buyers' rosponsibillty and their S14 t r- c TE No.12065416623 Dec 196 11:56 No.001 P.02 z Lul 'lsllity alone to understand the rules $Ad the eondldons ry mnding the roporty they are p g. FMIUM to do Inn stmutd not to any way impact vdwm cat p KCCir Lrt mind that regardless of the otrstacics anggcsted Ind* variance apglioadoa, dttue pre � other options for building on "lot The deaf . thou, should toles the city's rules into Nonnaldcratton w p AO I have Indicowd in you yrevicxdy, I am in the process of c=tructing a home in this same area. I did not do so without sacrifice and great expense to get what I wanted, but. I followed the rules as bard as that was at times. I expect the City of Edmonds to protect my rights and the rights of others In the area and disallow this request for an eight (8 foot height varlat►ce. �d I will be allending the hearing on Thursday, December 19th to Miter express my strong z H 1 objection. 2 0 W LU t / p N p� d , L RuggI Y = cUJ LL p _. Z L11 N! O Z i t a ) CIT F EL�1viQ 7-a .. NL/S p,ARWARA FA HHY i00 a7» AVONua N4n7M . a0M0NOa. WA a0020 � C2000 771O=a0... ,,,, (200) 771.Oa21 - MAYOR COMMUNITY eHRVtCBS OaPT ARTMQN �+ = . w3.w. A C Publio Works . Piannlnp Parke and Reorastlon . analnasrinp .. TEL-MCCIPIER OOVER PlAGiE .: TO:.__I t t Crn.nG C.�I 'ter r-�r r_. OATETRANSMITTE�D•„�,: !. 7.' -/ 3- !'+^tC . NUMBER OF PA43ES` Z. (including COver Page) Reclptenls Teleoopter Number: -t 34=p FAOSiMiI_E EQUIPMENT: - Automatic/group It (2.3 mine.}; Group Al FROM: M there are any during transmission cr is documents are received Incornp fete. pplease Dell to08) 771.0220 and ask Sender's-retacopiar Number: (208) 771-0221 REti/�w a • lm-orParotad August 11. 18.90 + atatar Cities Intarrtattanal -- flakinan, Japan _ THIS DOCUMENT (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE) WAS SENT rxc COUNT >lok�c SEND lklk>k NO REMOTE STATION ELD. START TIME DURATION #PAGES COMMENT 1 360 566 12-12-96 1,0:07PM T"37" 2 CITY ti )F EI)MC>NDS MARMARA FAHEY MAYOR +§O OTN AVNHUIS NORTH • aOMONOO. WA 111020 i IIIoal 771-0220 + PAX 41OW 771-0221 'COMMUNITY ORRVICE6 DEPARTMENT Public works a Planning a Parke and Recreation a Engineering 4' 9"ELECGtPtaR CSCWF-R PAGE i. ,... GATE TRANSMIT':'EO• tZ-mot'-'Y �' NUMBER OF PAC3ES• -'�-- *** SEND *** NO REMOTE STATION I.Q. I START TIME DURATION #PAGES COMMENT 1 360 568 1930 1 12-13-96 2:17AM V43" 2 . wOr CSt. 10, CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • i2061 771.0220 • 'FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering Ir EDMONDS HEARING EXAMINER MEETING AGENDA DECEMBER 19,1996 AT 9:00 A.M. Plaza Room - Edmonds Library 650 Main Street 1. Call to Order 2. Public Hearings a. FILE NO. CUH-96-126; Application by William F. Morton for. a Conditional Use Permit for a home occupation permit to operate a "Bed& Breakfikst!'and conduct on -site weddiAgsi Theweddingswould accommodate approximately 35 people, with approximately 8 weddings per year. All the proposed activities would be conducted within an existing singJe-fimfly residence. The subject property is located at 1030 "A!'Avenue and is zoned RS-6. b. FILE NO. V-96-130; Application by Robert Cole & Jeri Moffitt for a Variance to increase the maximum Permitted height in the RS-12. zone by 8-94 from 25-fed to 33-fect to allow the construction of a new single-family residence. The subject property is located at, 16006 75th Place West and is zoned RS-12. C. FILE NO. Y-96-139; Application by Walter Pisco for a Variance to increase the maximum permitted height from 25-fect to 33-fect for an existing single-family residence, to allow the installation of a now roof no subject property is located at 15772 75th Place West and is zoned RS-20. d. FILE NO, V-96-135; Application by Tartan Development, Inc. for a Variance to reduce the required sum setback from the cast property line from 25-feet to 7.5-feet to allow for the construction of a now single-family residence. The subject property is located at 18505 79th Place West and is zoned RS-12. C. FILE NO, —V=9-6--l-3-6, Application by Ronald and Calysta Peterson for a Variance to reduce the required street setback from the "planned -fine right-of-way" adjacent to the subject property's north property line from 25-fed to 20-feet to allow the construction of a second story addition above the. garage of an existing single-family residence. The subject property is located at 9824 Cherry heny Street and is zoned RS-12. 3. Administrative Reports - No Reports.a 4. Adjournment Nt PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE ACCESSIBLE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES i (Contact the City Clerk at 771-0245 with 24 hours ad -vane notice for special accomwodaiiona� 1219MMCAGENVASM 10 1 E7 5M i CITY OF EDMONDS 2SQ STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 z �{ Z' PLANNING DIVISION UJ _ ADVISORY REPORT W FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS J 0. U 0 w= To: Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner T U. W From•. g Kirk J. inish, AICP LL Dyy Project Planner Dates DECEMBER 12, 1996 z E— File: V-96-130 w w MICHAEL GEORGE 0: Hearing Date, Time, And Place: December 19- 1996,�19:00 AM. 0 �= Plaza Room - Edmonds Library + 0 650 Main Street ~_ 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page s� cZn o _ I. INTRODUCTION .... A. Application :2 B. Recommendations ...............................::::. ::...:.: ......::. ......::: .....::.. 2 " Il. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS .................... ............................ ................2 A. Site Description.......................................................: ...................................................2 . B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance...................................3 C. Technical Committee ................................................................................... ................5 i © D. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC).............................................:......:.. ............................5' IIl. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS....................................:......... ......::.................5 A. Request for Reconsideration...........................................................................................5 B. Appeals....... ..... 5 to IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL.. ..6 V. APPENDICES .............................:...................................... VI. PARTIES OF RECORD.:. . V96-130.DOC ! December 12, 199b i StdtrReport ,. Michael George - File No. V-96-130 Page 2 of 6 I. INTRODUCTION rI A. Application z = z, 1. ��: Michael George on behalf Robert Cole and Jeri Merritt (see Attachment 2). 2. Site Location: 16006 75th Place West (see Attachment 1). LU �, 3. Request: Variance to increase the maximum permitted building height from 25-feet above U p average grade level to 33-feet for the construction of a new single-family residence (see N w S Attachments 3 and 4). w "J ~ v_) u. j 4. Review Process: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final - IO, � decision. - 2 5. MAjor Issues: Q' #. a.Compliance width Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85.010 (VARIANCE). O I= b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section` 16.20.030 Z F- (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL- Site Development Standards).' B. Recommendations �o U Ni Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend O a} Approval of this application subject to the following conditions: Z U 1. This variance is to allow the proposal in the location identified on the proposed site plan (see LL i Attachment 4). Any other structures, additions or remodels would have to conform with the — O Z' typical setbacks or height requirements for the zone or obtain another variance. V =' 2. This application is subject' to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds o F Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance Z with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. .4.F XZ m w _I V 0 U W J h` Cn 2� LL = Zw h- Z Z H' F 0, W W 0 LU V N; o� = U u-_p Z w(J) U= Z 0 ma t Michael George ' File No. V-96-130 Page 3 of 6 2. , NeighboringDevelopment And Zoning: 8) `Facts: (1) The adjacent properties to the north, south, and west 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. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance 1. aj (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 Attachment 4). b) Conelmsion: 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. 2. Compliance with requirement for a Variance ECDC Chapter 2O.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 Attachment 2). a} Factc: (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 of 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 for an eight foot wide walking path and utilities. The walking path and utilities bisects the site and reduces the buidable " 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 with other homes in the vicinity. Additionally, other residences north of the site have been granted height - variances (City of Edmonds files V-90-61 V-90-5, V-90c2); 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; j and zoning ordinance (seealso section "D". of this report for additional discussion of V96-130.DOC [ December 12 1996 G Staff Report 0 Ln u- OLL LU d =w Z ts- 1.-o 4ZN W U— a 17- _UJI LLO Z U= O� Z t0 T tt Michael George. File No, V-96-130 Page 4 of 6 compliance with the Comprehensive Plan). He also states that he has reduced to the extent possible the amount of view impact to surrounding neighbors by utilizing stick -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 neighbors view by removing tines 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 ofthe 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) �9lL41t!&d4liS: (1) Saecial Circ nisluroc The applicants property has steep slopes; which may exceed 25"/o in same 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) Sneciat P_ rwlleve 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). p (3) _Zoning Code and the mm�r 6 m 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. (4) Not Detrimental rimental As proposed approval of the street setback 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 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 it will not block the view of any adjacent properties. (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: Therefore, V96-130.DOC / Deccmberl2, 1996/ Staff Report a 10 RE 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. 8. FAck: 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. 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.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. III. 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.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. V96-130.DOC December 12, 19961 Staff Report Lu U) UT 0 z m qq V Vicinity and Zoning Map ATTACHMENT 1 File No. V-96-130 re:#.wiiY 3' rR .�4 .' A��LiY`Mw'iS1rS�,:J`i"�Y`.f.'".�.�»'4:j��$�B.hiNkkXftnLYt.'YeW1.lYa.AaiOaux.vewM«aan.,..M.w..":.-.»Rri.e».FarveNies. 'BhtiStitRIrt1� .h4; R`i': hYa.%}.w.h'.n Michael APPLICANT DECLARATIONS George for VARIANCE APPLICATION City of Edmonds (Meadowdale Beach Area) OWNERS: Robert Cole/Jeri Merritt 16628 70th Pl. W. _ Lynnwood, WA 98037 (206) 525-2614 Wk. Architect (206) 742-6305 Hm. A.I.A., P.S. (360) 568&1331 ARCHITECT: Michael A. George A.I.A. Fax (360)568`1930 1024 First St.., Ste. 307 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 ZONE: RS-12 PURPOSE: Variance to increase maximum height of 25' above an average height, as defined by the City of ,Edmonds, by 8', to a_' maximum ,of 33 ' . Suite 307 Maaks DaUding 1024 %st Stteet Snohomish, WA 9 8 2 9 0 4 ATTACHMENT 2 File No. V-96-130 I 1. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES* The special circumstances of this site include steep slope, sensitive soil conditions, excessive building setbacks, and the intrusion of a City easement for an 8' walking/jogging path. The City maintains walkway and utility easements through our site that were once the rights -of -way for 75th Ave. W., 75th P1. W., and North Meadowdale Rd. These easements have increased our building setbacks at all but the south property lines. The west building setback line (BSBL) should be 25' as required in an RS-12 zone, but in fact, due to the easements maintained by the City, is 40' at the southwest corner to 75' at the northwest corner. The north BSBL should be 10' but is 15' at the minimum and expands as it intersects with the easement at the west. The east BSBL should be 25' but becomes 30' due to the easement along 75th Pl. W. The City of Edmonds also has a walking/jogging easement (8' asphalt path) beginning at the northeast corner of our site which bisects our site as it continues to the southwest. The enlarged setback requirements in conjunction with the need to maintain a reasonable driveway slope (14% to 17%) on this site, which has an average slope of 25%, 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 .Meadowdals Beach area. (See Exhibits 1, 3, and 5.) 2. 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 (V690, V2990, V590 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. 16 . 1 ._ vt.wN .a+iwca x,E:k:'i"aP.�Yu{�1�Y�+sOd'�m,(urua:�di�Y�.^� k�"itl:.v.#;5:...w&.'.'%:a,.?�.;s�''3�'".aYStY:*.a's�fi'C�rSStl.a..,.h.�..uia*a+m.rnarernai.a..w«,..,.u...»«....„,,........•.:.ew,n.uamc..mnirnwzwsra O) ` 1®� 6. MINIMUM VARIANCE: The steep slope of the site, the increased setbacks, the walking/jogging path, the z �I sensitive soils necessitating minimal site iexcavation all combine to define the location and W, configuration of the residence. a a'! All recent construction of new residences on the L) o; west side of 75th P1. W. have been two-story using w LUj sloped roofs as is consistent with the RS-12 zone. �E--' We are doing all we can to comply with the RS-12 wwi p standards. We are being held to standards far more restrictive than is typical for this zone and we doh are designing to accommodate them. However, we are u.<{ not able to satisfy the maximum height of 25' while W B1 still allowing for a reasonable use of this site. = w ;' Z M Our main roof begins at the second floor line. No h-O! other portion of the house will exceed the main Z F; w w; roof height. This will be done to create the M :i minimum variance we need to allow a second floor. v (See Exhibits 4, 5, and 6.) a �` t,rE If our setbacks were consistent with the RS-12 zoning and the City did not have a path and sewer a; line through the site we could move the house - ZI forward and lower the overall height approximately vN� 10'. We feel our design, with the as shown is a F` request for a minimum variance that simultaneously Z responds to all the special circumstances of the site. We appreciate your consideration of this matter. =z. E- W; ¢� -J t) 0 cn w LLI S .J F, to U.LLJ f o, LL cn d z t- �. 0 F- � 0 0-1 0 N1 0 H-; H� LLD z L± _ 0 �. z ME city of e&honds ' land use application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ❑ COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT / STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ -S ORELI PERMIT VARIANCE J EASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER FILE#y-ci�-1 ZONE PS /L DATE 2 J REC'D BY FEE K-&' -=V7f RECEIPT# 21�9A� HEARING DATE E ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED APPEAL# 44i, t A- ��f- A Z A" Phone 3(60 -56f5 — l3 , ( Aaaress t u-z,-r i&C ai Property Address or Location Property Owner 9064 cawE' A6,0 , u Agent_ vee.. Lttaa(i Phone 36o -5i2ff2- t3b t_ Address See,, 46 t , Tax Acc # ' a t12it C51 Cot aoo (p Sec. Twp. Rng. 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. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the etoff rnf fho rifir of Primnnria f� enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to thi; ATTACHMENT 3 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT File No. V-96-130 Ln it 8' O E 0 a sto O �Z rg;-rj EXH161T 3 i 11 m 0 z .t® LG1F✓MFRRii Feslof�NCE sT1uK•FRAP1161L tz'CnF t�'Ifriis5E5tmv+eawes) t l�e�r wnc a' �:„ewv _ Tar oP NalsF .An+eo qJ Hr WP �. NelE:1fC.TaP�P HXHIBIT6 'RnS.ilip Pp�t w Plsnlf- nwuWo �on�a. mn.ees lgne mwcc ABMs7y6 srtrn-e.+.+a,�lu�r Fsu..vnwN'Ilnf P• (Mex 4.') a� aH�iPK ¢wR�c� TfP EP.ISP 'feP RtitRtit� Wc. MVti AF bl.py„+ FFMILY IW. Po fo — Sq%e� M `(�1 �.�HEtNkiK-�ic41 vsi �:e° �'M�if iu-1 S�NEMhTiL 5E�7� u6:1.d 54f v T[arM�—r ..�-�W1Ri�ioPSiv� I�F).To EEG 1 city of edmonds development information Summary of Site Development Standards SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ka 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 E-- t�:- -8 8000 RS-6 6,000 %V/ iN 70' 25' 60' 20' iV NN 7-1/2' 15` 5' 15, LJ JJ.b 1 25' .35% 1. 25' 35% 1 To ft' Ao To 94, . "S2•fd-'z t 3 �s1T� 61410 To 151, �tp� MORF� MOICI% ilirt� M v{ Ma1C. HW&HT (1) See Chapter 17.50 of Community Development Code for specific parking requirements. (2) 35' total of both s1 des; 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 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 required street setback; (6) RS-6 setbacks may be used for single family residences,.on lgts,of.10,000 square feet, or less.,, EXHIBIT 7 ILs ®t® h�C:'te�rFSAD 50 100 iA-q, . /1/� ~� TEE HYD. � l PFW I / /,r 4 NCIRTH CAL.�.V= so: ,.. LLI 1 - _ LU 1 v J 1 nt��'►AY ' L-Q t LLI o z Wp. o. ... ) 1 LU us } ' l i. / l / / . rig 3�' w 1 _; :•BASIS .t�.� BEARING 2S� • ry i�1V7ClURSs.PEF •AER11 r- '' tJ'TfLI`i`IES:' I ER ,�►drR1iAL ' :•� ./;: • f; . `' '' �,, ,..a�Q �� y /� ` ` dITY OF Sun EDM8�It9S;,llT.iUTlt:.:. f FtlVEsPA t °�1 t DR:f `W11!IGS. .J �• 1�/,:t.;:) �� xv ►;`' ►;-- �_�. SC. \ � �` OTE:C�3R�tERS•:7tO�BI�.•.SE. :/••. N6'43 of t 'A�'j�!*FI:,SYIiQI,I'•'I� LAT. d4C.K'U: 43y204 PF rl � JiP 01 •sue: ,� - aa tf � t� % , ,__ _ ••r, i 759� .•,°i• �c4� .. ... . .. . . NO REMOTE STATION I.D. TART TIME DURATION �2-96 VAOES COMMENT 1 12083383049 12- 10:04PM 1139" 3 TOTAL 0:03'39" 3 XEROX TELECOPIER.7020 �� n ; _ .•AYE T' ,' ... .. ,ti w��tL yt. i �� t !yt k�? nS,t��6 n`"r�C �� t jit�� 22y �r,. �g'1nY?c5�4 N C ,�`� �-1;�. `� iv,: .. . �. .,:> .'.;, .`s ...j b r f•. x A!...�;^ t>>,rn> ll �i,*' }w �'°' �r�-'"�t��•lt4 �r Name of Applicant: File No.: Project Location: Project Description: iA LU' City Contact ,,, 01 Public Comment Period Due By: � 9 Name of Applicant: dI File No.: Z X; Project Location: Project description: of LU w! City Contact: Public Comment Period Due By: U tn� o ~ Name of Applicant: h; File No.: LL z' Project Location: .. Project Description: o City Contact: z Public Comment Period Due By: Name of Applicant: File No.: s Project Location: Project Description: City Contact: Public Comment Period Due By: M11 Name of Applicant: File No.: Project Location: Project Description: City Contact: Public Comment Period Due By: William F. Morton CUH-96-126 1030 "A" Avenue Conditional Use Permit for a home occupation permit to operate a "Bed & Breakfast" and conduct on -site weddings. The weddings would accommodate approximately 35 t people, with approx. 8 weddings per year. All the proposed activities would be conducted within an existing single-family residence. Kirk Vinish 12/19/96 Robert Cole & Jeri Merritt j V-96-130 16006 75th Place West Variance to increase the maximum permitted height in the RS-12 zone by from 25-feet to 33-feet to allow the construction of a new single-family residence. Kirk Vinish 12119/96 Walter Pisco V-96-139 15772 75th Place West Variance to increase the maximum permitted height from 25-feet to 33-feet for an existing single-family residence, to allow the installation of a new roof. Kirk Vinish 12/19/96 Tartan Development, Inc. V-96-135 18505 79th Place West Variance to reduce the required street setback from the east property line from 25-feet to 7.5-feet to allow for the construction of a new single-family residence. Steve Bullock 12/19/96 Ronald and Calysta Peterson V-96-136 9824 Cherry Street Variance to reduce the required street setback from the 'planned -line right-of-way" adjacent to the subject property's north property line from 25-feet to 20-feet to allow the construction of a second story addition above the garage of an existing single-family residence. Meg Gruweli 12/19/96 r PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Time: 9:00 A.M. Date: December 19,1996 Location: ' Plaza Meeting Room - 650 Main St.; Edmonds Z ¢ Sandy Chase, City. Clerk LU_ Publish: December'5,1996 cc mi x v 0� U) w LU U)o J LL = D d F- O W =I. .. Or O _ Uj u. Z�ui U);. yI F- ,O Z s 1. 0 Ste Applicant Information Permit Information Name of Applicant:....... Z Robert Cole & Jeri Merritt Requested Permits Z) Variance Date of Application: October 29, 1996 and Approvals: ............... Date Application Complete:.. November 26, 1996 Other Required Permits � Building .A"t not yet applied for (if �•f Project Location: ............ -.. �l) 16006 75th Place West known):......- ................ .. Project Descriptions........... Variance to increase the maximum Required Studies related �D Unknown permitted height in the RS-12 zone from to the project: ............ 25-feet to 33-feet to allow the construction of a new single-family Related Environmental Critical Areas Checklist residence. Documents: ............ Public Comments due by:., December 19,1996 City Contact for project:.... Kirk Vinish Public Nearing Information Date: December 19, 1996 Time: 9:00 A.M. Piece: 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 develop rent application will be made :within 120 days pfthe date ofthe:Letter of Completeness, with allo. tic's madefa7 studies and add nonta y rm t n regn—a. Note drat ability to appeal a deers o s contingent upon participdhox in the permit d rsron procees. The mannesi, mutilation destruction, or concealment ofthis This notice may be removed Warning! notice before the hearing date is a misdemeanor punishable by after: Decemberl9 1996 fine and imprisonment. i C`. Iv 5131 029 009 0001 Gerald Bernstein 6653 NE Windermere Rd. Seattle, WA 98115 7904 000 0010001 Dennis & Susan Chiavelli 724 Las Canoas Pl. Santa Barbara, CA 93105' u) o . 7904 000 005 Olive Fitl:4i 23 ' Edmon , W 98020 a. s w` Z r` 5131 029 007 0003 p Thomas & Deborah Falk z ~, 400 Dayton St. #A g Edmonds, WA 98020 U (t 0-1 ~�' 5131 058 001 0008 i tU ` Phyllis Wiggins ~ r1, 16012 74th Pl. W. LL z� Edmonds, WA 98026 ui uy U Z' r 5131 029 006 0004 z Jon Becker 15908 75th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 5131 029 0110007 Paul & Linda Elliott • 16000 75th Pl. W. ' Edmonds, WA 98026 ® 5131 058 005 0004 M. E. Ebert 16031 75th PI. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 5131059 003 0004 Abollossein Ansari 9304 Olympic View Dr. Edmonds, WA 98020 7904 000 002 0000 Lorian Estates LP 16010 73rd Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 •t� 1// /ls t://. 7904 000 004 0008 Joann & Robert Anderson 16010 73rd Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 7904 000 010 0000 William Deny 161C7 74th PI. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 5131 030 007 0001 Richard Hankinson 15925 75th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 5131 059 004 0003 Philip Ruggiero 6126 140th Ct. NE Redmond, WA 98052 5131 058 006 0003 Paul Guardian Williams 6324 181st Pl. SW Lynnwood, WA 98037 5131059 006 0001 Roger McCorkle PO Box 7178 Seattle, WA 98133 7904 000 003 0009 Seung & Heyoung Chung 5508 154th Pl. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 7904 000 009 0003 Lorian Estates Family LI 16010 73rd Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 7904 000 007 0005Y,, x Bering � 68 t � n s, W 8026 t � 5 7904 000 008 0004 Stephen & Joan Johnson 16121 74th PI. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 5131 030 008 0000 Mrs. Howard Glazer. 15927 75th Pl. W. a Edmonds, WA 98026 5131 058 004 0005 Eugene Imamura 5707 244th St. SW Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 5131 058 0090000 J. Sherman Mills 16115 75th PI. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 t 0 5133 000 035 0206 Kathleen Johanson 5131 030 009 0009 Frank Bonipart 080100 J. SMills 513hh;� 7309'N. Meadowdale Rd. 7429 N. Meadowdale Rd. 161h Pl. W-,. Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 5131 058 008 0209 Paul Guardian Williams Michael A. George, AIA Robert Cole / Jeri Merritt 6324 181st Pl. SW 1024 1st St., Suite 307 16628 70th P1. W. Lynnwood, WA 98037 Snohomish, WA 98290 Lynnwood, WA 98037 us 3 r Li .....?}Y.Rn drl{%s},r..irvLi: LL 0 li2i -.t Ft£ p.•ij aF t�{af�Yy�+^ raN7Mit ify 7 S Y N 4t f s.?�ii, .0 .J vr{l. x rct+� J"M ' � '� � Y i u„ �� r E' � � � £ i�yFt� t� rr 11 t� ' 1,1 Y s A �{ t li 7..1�}d« ..�,aLj'�� ,�,wr7,'k ,,✓•s j f r t 1 •��i�iAYi1/%hi4:iAQ'i11i9pCGY1 milk Adik ' .. A. APPLICANT DFCLARATI NHS z � George for VARIANCE APPLICATION �o City of Edmonds w (Meadowdale Beach Area) to tL Wo ti U. � us Uj z� z g � d �. OWNERS: 'Robert Cole/Jeri Merritt o w 16628 70th Pl. W. F U. Lynnwood, WA 98037 U. o (206) 525-2614 Wk. z (206) 742-6305 ' Hm. LU to Architect A.T.A., P.S. (360) 568.1331 z ARCHITECT: Michael A. George A.I.A. Pax 1024 First St., Ste. 307 (360)568-1930 Snohomish, WA 98290 (360) 568-1331 SITE LOCATION: Directly southwest of the intersection of 75th Pl. W. and N. Meadowdale Rd. TAX ACCT. NO.: 5131 059 001 0006 $i- ZONE: RS-12 PURPOSE: Variance to increase maximum height of 25' above an average height, as defined ® by the City of Edmonds, by 8',`to a maximum of 33' Suite 307 Marks Building 1024 First street Snohomish, WA 9 8 2 9 0 f ® , 1. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES: The special circumstances jj of this site include steep slope, sensitive soil 1 conditions, excessive building setbacks, and the _ intrusion of a City easement for an 8' t- W; walking/jogging path. v pj The City maintains walkway and utility easements ( oI through our site that were once the rights -of -way to =1 for 75th Ave. W., 75th P1. W., and North Meadowdale Rd. These easements have increased our building wp setbacks at all but the south property lines. The west building setback line (BSBL) should be 25' U.< as required in an RS-12 zone, but in fact, due to �S CO) the easements maintained by the City, is 40' at the X t W+ southwest corner to 75' at the northwest corner. Z I- The north BSBL should be 10' but is 15' at the F 0` minimum and expands as it intersects with the w m' easement at the west. The east BSBL should be 25' 2 Qi but becomes 30' due to the easement along v Ln 75th Pl. W. w The City of Edmonds also has a walking/jogging = v easement (8' asphalt path) beginning at the u�.p! northeast corner of our site which bisects our site Z as it continues to the southwest. The enlarged setback requirements in conjunction Z with the used to maintain a reasonable driveway slope (14% to 17%) on this site, which has an average slope of 2S%, combine to dictate the house location. The massing and configuration of the house, with the basement projecting out in front f (to the west) under the main floor deck, is a response to the steep slope and the need to _r ,i minimize the amount of excavation of the water - sensitive and slide -prone soils typical of the Meadowdale Beach area. (See Exhibits 1, 3, and 5.) Fp,; 2. 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 (V690, V2990, V590 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. {7 sf A, -77 T M.irk t ti' ,i riz 3!5 Slkln rt a k i .r�t "� `' ✓zi �k t fir(, �' °r i Sv., i " ti' i y a p4 L 4 1 4 i 1 ».. s.�r3.,av"�w`<krlo-{?yr`e�"isY.�E�'�+'£aLYvt&,t�ratt:txrahcs:�'at'�.'�"Y��Ms`�.$"'.�?till.,1-�i'lidk7UNdlirdt�X�ltu�ciatrwumruMaeaxreanez°e+. #fs'�?.4i 3. COMPREHENSIVE PT,g� The comprehensive plan is for single family development. We are building a ¢ single family residence. UAI 4. ZONING ORDINANCE: Our site is zoned RS-12. The development standards for the RS-12 zone are v p intended to allow consistent development which Wwould include 2-story residences. _j�_ Our residence is located as dictated by setback wO requirements that are far more restrictive than g called for in the RS-12 development standards. A 4� height variance from 25' to 33' would be consistent with the development standards designed to include C a 2-story single family residential construction. LU FE (See Exhibit 7.) Our design efforts have been directed at minimizing W Ul the overall impact of the building height by using stick -framing techniques enabling us to use the c� N area within the roof for our second floor. o Conventional framing methods of stacking two walls w W, and placing trusses on top would make the house �.� taller than our proposed structure and would still u.� exceed the maximum 25' height. (See Exhibit 6.) _z We believe we are doing everything we can to r-'' conform with the intent of the zoning ordinances and still respond to existing special circumstances that increase our setbacks and require us to minimize any soils excavation. S. NOT DETRIMENTAL: This variance would not be detrimental to surrounding properties, cause a lass 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 P1. W. These are elevated substantially from the street and will mnot be impacted by the proposed height variance. In fact, we will improve their views by removing some trees that presently partially restrict their view corridor. (See Exhibits 4,5 and 8.) r 4?•ilf {4 "+lt f qr 'Y�'y,{ !`t +,l }'4r1i k4 a .S f iY ;* :V S Alt ! f'fiRytf{ { .+ t f v dr. M1 �r jt f 1 ta. ft r 6. MINIMUM VARIANCE: The steep slope of the site, the increased setbacks, the walking/jogging path, the sensitive soils necessitating minimal site excavation all combine to define the location and configuration of the residence. 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. We are doing all we can to comply with the RS-12 standards. We are being held to standards far more restrictive than is typical for this zone and we are designing to accommodate them. However, we are not able to satisfy the maximum height of 25' while still allowing for a reasonable use of this site. Our main roof begins at the second floor line. No other portion of the house will exceed the main roof height. This will be done to create the minimum variance we need to allow a second floor. (See Exhibits 4, 5, and 6.) If our setbacks were consistent with the RS-12 zoning and the City did not have a path and sewer dine through the site we could move the house forward and lower the overall height approximately 10'. We feel our design, with the as shown is a request for a minimum variance that simultaneously responds to all the special circumstances of the site. We appreciate your consideration of this matter. Rsep ctfully, Michael A. George AIA O Mt0 • C� C? :oF rrni am w. — tfaR�F.AK:.: e T"-- St Gage �nt� F R�ims.MN�M1oF1 1 jde: Lod (4enW�lro NORTH) <. .� "iF REeZV65!' (�R 5�.,:HEfNif'_"�FWRE Gc'1.E/M�FL17f R�S�vE+JGE Q f-F 7 ' n � / � EXJauoeN cuR ® �� 36,q7 A00/ Fyn '62 go,.01 / ( J9'lJ SW.N��' I A6 ti. i / ,� / ZA'/ i YfY _. �(C- 9 i / T EBEB R ANO CAP 4 a ` A5A+. SU M1S i / i� IS1�� ! �� I �j •� YR, ranfCil I � / Tso( �� r ^fir m / A I � � it � ,t �� '! � I' ��w.�• ,r.� I ! l y�? / � � EX 11 • RCP. 6 t i fJ Ix. Ge iYPE/ qi 65aroirop S,E ;r � l 1 ,� lEx s urA� � (( �� EXHIBIT 3 __.. t , ' " (Wag7.97 ' "J S p�� i � F P N's I Y �� IYTf f,AP I -1 A G o a ,.,, . 1❑ 32x25XIQ S Z F- UJ cc Uj �. o. U 0 mCn w LU fz. m o� w Qi Ln& aw F- Z� �-o z �o N; o F. LU =U —Z Ls o H- Z M CA(- -NO. » 'Critical Areas Checklist CA - f Site Information (soils/topographylhydrology!vegetation) 1G �� ?5� �'G-• (�„.,�` 1. Site AddressJLocation: boT 11W&J, A-�1i4in 14 Pl. w. 1�• M tr.[� . 2. Property Tax Account Number: 513t O-1 601 Ooofo 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet):. St azKO z, 4. Is this site currently developed? yes; v,-" no. RECEIVED If yes; how is site developed? Q C T 2 9 1996 S. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. PERM"OUNTCR Flat: Iess 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 I0-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: U ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: IA,i'3 ; Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8. ' Site is in the floodway Wo flood'in M of a watercourse. 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? rw ' ). 10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow �; shivbs ✓ ; mixed ; urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: .-Ay For City Staff Use Only ' %1::;.>.' $ite'is' Zoned? • � �S- ! ✓L. .. .:: <' . .. • q 1'.l '''�g2taf/ YY15✓� /fil• G� "7U� 2:� `• .••SCS`mapped soil'tylie{sj? ��/i'�t'.tileYl � 3 ; ,VJetladd inventory or C.A. map indicates wetland present on- site?.... , XiL� 4 a �,,`:C&iM tlireas invedtory or C.A:'map•waioates'Ciiticat Area on site? '•:.,•::. • : •Y . 5 S:x Ste`within'designatld"earth su6'sidence landslide' tiazard'area? 5ite'desigi atecl "on`the tnvironinentally Sensitive Areas Map? DE7E1t1VIIIVATION:' :;•;: :', > "s.F; i" :'Q .......::. .. •Y:i'::k.•..sr_ :�k' :... .:.. .. :.. :i}t.• •+''rr• • � •Rivi#wta�bgs'��'••�`•; PAV 0V0494 0 ^:.COND17TONALVVAIVBR>.;. �> ry'•#r Y ' Y'! ` er , Date ' eo Im/.,G G , v w, cc g' a' wV J moo. U) a, (n wf LLI X':: UJ o� w} J L_ _, z �- ti o' z w w. a' U): o� w w� H U; U- d''. — Z, U 0) o ~' z t® 1 onds Qdtical Area's Checklist The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of a development permit to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are or may be present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City 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 parcel(s). In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (e.g. site Plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assist staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. I have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below). Owner / Applicant: Name Street Address wo�� w� %037 C , State, ZIP Phone eNi (eCe (a Z Date Applicant Representative; Name Street Addre s 144 , WK— Ci P r Phone Signature ate 0 I �o J vs p r� z I-- ro W W a� LL� _Z iv o� z l I 0 City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination Applicant:Robert Cole Determination #: CA-96-221 Project Name: j ( Permit Number: — �� Property Site Location: 16006 75th PL W Pr a Tax Acct #: 5131.859 0. 1.0006 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 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 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. P 'A'1.Y4+luluuiu.nu.�viacrlit(Ml xHi+^cisnNN p!wsAMF alb DODDS GEOSCIENCES Bob Cole and Jeri A. Merdtt C/o Lakeside Seawood Group 7500 212th S.W., Suite 210 Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Buffer Reduction/Critical Areas Checklist Letter . Cole/Merdtt Residence SWC 7Sth Plaao'Wmst 8c Meadowdale Road Edmonds, Washington Dear Client: ( 4 PAGE 01 ,Job Number 6095 October 31,19% This letter presents some of our geoteehnical engineaft conchWone for the Proposed Cole/Menitt Residence to be constructed on the southwest comer- of 75th Place Wait and Meadowdele Road in Edmonds, Washington. Our conclusions are based on the work completed to date. We hays supervised the dzilling; of two teat borings on the property and reviewed laboratory tests eon sung of sieve gradation studies and moisture content teats. In addition, we have teasured the standing groundwater table in a slotted PVC standpipe which was installed dudng ddlling activities. Our geotechnical engineering report summarizing our testing, �r148 analyaia and contusions will be available next week. In general, the site is coy with a mantle of loose sand overlying firm to stiff silty, clay. We measured the groundwater table at 26 feet (t elevation 46 feet) below existing glades. Based on our taadng, analysis, and review of the main floor/site ran which was faxed to us by the architect, it is our opinion the buil'er.on this for this o devel nt can be safely reduced to ten feet. The. proposed develops cuts I� the slope to a practical mirdrnum, Our analysis indicates the structure u� to be founded on piling. If there are any questions, please contact the undersigned at (206) 827-1084. DODDSy Cones AM MKD%wd Mark X Dodds; PA Cn LL wd Ud �d hW 2 z t- �. o z �n 0- aL- W LU u- C LUa o� z 5131 029 009 0001 Gerald Bernstein 6653 NE Windermere Rd. Seattle, WA 98115 7904 000 0010001 Dennis & Susan Chiavelli 724 Las Canoas Pl. Santa Barbara, CA 93105' 7904 000 005 0007 Oliver Finnigan III 23004 107th Pl. W Edmonds, WA 98020 5131 029 007 0003 Thomas & Deborah Falk 400 Dayton St. #A Edmonds, WA 98020 5131 058 0010008 Phyllis Wiggins 16012 74th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 5131 029 006 0004 Jon Becker 15908 75th PI. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 5131 029 0110007 Paul & Linda Elliott 16000 75th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 5131 058 005 0004 M. E. Ebert 16031 75th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 5133 000 035 0206 Kathleen Johanson 7309 N. Meadowdale Rd. Edmonds, WA 98026 5131 058 008 0209 } Paul Guardian Williams r, 6324 181st Pl. SW Lynnwood, WA 98037 5131 059 003 0004 Abollossein Ansari 9304 Olympic View Dr. Edmonds, WA 98020 7904 000 002 0000 Lorian Estates LP 16010 73rd PI. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 7904 000 006 0006 Chun & Ui Pak 3828 NE 100th St. Seattle, WA 98125 7904 000 004 0008 Joann & Robert Anderson 16010 73rd PI. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 7904 000 010 0000 William Derry 16107 74th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 5131 030 007 0001 Richard Hankinson 15925 75th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 5131 059 004 0003 Philip Ruggiero 6126 140th Ct. NE Redmond, WA 98052 5131 058 006 0003 Paul Guardian Williams 6324 181st Pl. SW Lynnwood, WA 98037 5131 030 009 0009 Frank Bonipart 7429 N. Meadowdale Rd. Edmonds, WA 98026 Michael A. George, AIA 1024 1st St., Suite 307 Snohomish, WA 98290 J. Sh Mills 161 th PI. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Robert Cole 1 Jeri M6rritt 1662870th Pl W. Lynnwood, WA 9803.7 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWERS LIST Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list. On ay oath, I certify that the names a addresses provided represent all properties located within 300 feet of the sub! c p p rt . ' A ?D"22* Signa ure o p ca App ic is Representative Subscr.4e icebefore me this of NOTARY / �1 w LLQ D F d, F— W Z F- 1— 0 Z w WL U 0 H Li- 0 Z Lu to U = O Z X] Lo //L,� !v 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 decisions. 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 forApplicants. 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, requiting preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information kpown, or give the best 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 expects. 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 he answered "does not apply.", IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROIECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," 'applicant,' and "property or site should be read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND I. Name of proposed project, if applicable: (s4��1"1 pt/Yi�GIAAGt�-� 2. Name of applicant: p .ef� c i✓✓✓ 1 . 3. Address and phone number of applicant and con tac person: -7 n -d . 1-W. �.t�l m= and �w itnoA 1,k ,+. <4-e 3o-1 5m►ao++4sk. Wh IMA6 (-3too 1t;06-__MI ) 4. Date checklist prepared: �n Page t of 22 C►1KLTl16.!5.g3.MA.5rCN (STAFF COMMENTS) 14. L'est approva�c or that ♦vil! he needed'for your proposal, if known. any overtunent permits i (STAFF COMMENTS) •r+ x 75 . � 1 � rlj h� Page 2 of 22 CtKLTnas-s3.MAMT-rt UJ cc J V; U 0' Wi J h- -o w} W Ud i- = j z H: z', w w: a �f U tAj � F F=- N LLa _z o~ z 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this eheddist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to thane answers on this page. t6IM44tin. W r► 'Lco S• _ IN e-iv i (STAFF C0114I1SIsN7 S) 12. JAWation of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your Proper Project, including a street address, if any, and section, townships and range, if known. 1f a proposal would occur over a range of area. provide range or boundaries of the srte(s). Provide legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not acquired to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this rherktice_ (STAFF COMMENTS) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth -- a. General description of the site (circle tone): Flat, rolling, hilly steep slopes) mountainous, other. Q (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What is time steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 2."? % (STAFF COMMENTS) c. What general types of soils 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. Page 3 of 22 CI IXGT/142193.MASTER01 - . a P i xy ii ,It CI 1f�`5*.0 yyd��4d 1'yf � £ 4T iy� f "I e. r. 9. CHKLTnOaS-".MASM Are them surface indications or history of unstable sails in the immmdiate vicinity? If SN describe. 2, c /x CIA&AdO LA, 4 &4,e Z16fekle.,ePt rA;R x 51Z �0 C Al (STAFF COMMENTS) Describe the purpose, type and a ate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source WML (STAFF CO)t MENTS) Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, ainstruction or use? If so, generally describe., C44 A 1AZeC-,117, a?:- S-.A je:r c-o �57 (n OI. mow} D' al x w'. Z F! t— O.' ZE. , w w a U Nt 0 Hi x UI NF Z u= a r, z C. Proposed measures to reduce or control ernissions or other impacts to the, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 3. WATER a, Surf ace: (1) Is there any surface water body tin or in the immediate vicinity of the site (ncluding year-round and seasonalstreams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. Ifappropriate, stale what stream or.river it Rows into. t® S q t i : (2) Will the proiect require any work over, in, or a4acent to (within 200 fed) the described waters? If Yes, please describe and attach available phuts. Z (STAFF COMMENTS) cc 2 Of. N w I (3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed fmm surface H (' water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill v_s u. material. w 1 U. Q Z N' (STAFF COMMENTS) h 0 Z h. w uak 0! 0 p! {d} Will the pn►pncai require surface water wwthdrrvralt or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. � O -- p y u. 01 — Z` n W NI (STAFF COM NIENTS) Z (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. ho ' (STAFF COMMENTS) O (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. (STAFF COMMENTS) -- 'r r. Pag26of2? r;ra CIULLTpTtiR -2"314AS '� is �Y i _.".j ors .?ay"t�$m',r: WI �1 b Gc aundi s (1) Will ground water he withdrawn, or mill`water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose. and apprmcanate quantities if known. . C. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Describe waste material that will be tfocharged: alto the ground from septic tanks or other sourcxs, if,ally (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; eta). Describe the general sane of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (f applicable), or the member of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Kk V1.L' (STAFF COMMENTS) Water Runoff (including; storm water): (1) De;nibe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and d►sposai, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will,this water flow? Will this ♦water flow.im other % ate'rs *� .if so, d wwibe.:, (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) ' Could waste materials enter ground or surface Avaters? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 7 of 22 rIIKI TIOM11.13i %4—ro ski M I LU S Z F— }- O Z LULU �n U cn OH H LL C. _ z Lii cf. U 3 d F' Z 0 d. Pro sneucures t rtduce or control s�ufame, ground, and runoii water i ds, if any: tF t` tr1 tJl (STAFF C011ibtENTS) Plants a. Check or ¢ircte types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder maple, pen, other. evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: shrubs grasc —� pasture crop or grain / wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrudy skunk cabbage, other: eater plants: hater lily, eelgr.Lcs, milfoil, other. other types of vegetation: (STAFF COMMEWS) b. What kind a d amount of vegetation t%iii tie rmi(ived ar'altered? i t....... 1. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. List threatened or endangered species known to he on or near the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other matec" to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Page 8 of22 CHKLT/10-2S-".MA CR 4. 103 Al, A 'AIA e�-duill m fish: fmmqs, hop trou lerrin shel oam-. Iw 4L (STAFF COMMENTS) b. List any threatened or end -Angered specie; known to be an or near the site. ha "O'j (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Isthe site part tifamigration route? If so, explain. (STAFF COMMENTS) t t Z. \ � g a. kinds Vdhathat knds Of eneW (electric, natural 1;as. sail, wood store, solar) will be used Pr'to .meet the completed g1! Describe whet . It will be used for heating, manufacturing, , , ; Gt < < r , 4 S: E w Uj (I (STAFF COAlMENm c� o, w? U w S;. h-{ b. Would cn our Pnrject afTcct the potential use Of 6y adjacentproperties?, M w p e solar energy If so, generally LL i w" zt�—� t w LUI m (STAFF COMMENTS) D QR o w What kinds of G rrxy conservation features w H : pn+ptned measures to are included in the''piairs of this prop�aj? other �V or C0 trot energy impacts, if any: _ O i Z di ! Or (STAFF COMMENTS) _ 7. Environmental Heaph ` . a. Are there any envinmmental health hamrdc 'indudi ex exPlosion, spill, or harrrdous P P u rv�rc ��ts, risk of fire and © wart that could occur as result of This e' proposal? !f sO describe. L •ti ® (STAFF` COMMENTS) A PagC JO ofi% swains+saa.tiusrae k 9Y { ...: 1��C (2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health lwzavds, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may. affect your project .(for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) What type; and levels of noise would he created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would CO fr ►m the site. t (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control n :se i1 acts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) Page I I of 22 CWLTl10-:5-93.MMMR .. ... ., .. . ,,._ .....,n , . �.,ru4fvrert>4�;s5.i��tt7`:t1`I'fi S. Im Land and Shordine Use 8. What is the cures CIOCUM-25-91MAVER Page 13 of 22 . CO U. W 0 LL WM C) U, �-:z z LULU 0— a F LU LL U- C U LU Cr, 0 z LN, H k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: WID Ids- 1. •Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatilile with existing and projected land uses and p lans, 9- 11almino 9. b. C. C1DCLT11Oa5-93A1A-VM (STAFF COMMENTS) Approxi m6tely howmany units would hk!.pro*idedj.ifany9= Indicate whetlier'MA middle ;iir low-income how-ung. (STAFF COMMENTS) Approximately how many units, if any would he eliminated? Indicate whetlw high, middle, or low- income howsingv. (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. Aesthetics a• What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), net including antennas; what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed? (STAFF COMMENTS) i 9 b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered orobstructed? 1 Nano `# (STAFF COMMENTS) _ C. Proposed meowrac to red ucelor control ao%thetic Impaq% a any, .. . h 1. Light and glare a. What type of light or glare still the .. V (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Could light or glare from the finished ps IAn ,...II I— t safety harard nr� a wit views? a a g r'i (STAFF COMMENTS) I _ S 12. Recreation a, Whitt designated an Wo al recreational opportuniti are in the immediate vicinity? (M1ti tV4► b. CI&U/f0a.%-93.MAnER I (STAFF COMMENTS) 1 Proposed me;►sarei to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, irany: :.. .,., : (STAFF COMMENTS) x t l; fi. Page 160f22 kip y 1. , W N LL W 0 LL = W Z_ H I- Q z W 2o U rn nLU LL H` LLC �2 U U OF Z to 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or oldeets listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be an or next to the site?. If so, generally describes (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Generally describe any landmarks 6r evidence of historic, arduteological, scientific, or cultural importanoe known to be on or next to the site. t'i.ElYlX_. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed me surer to reduce or control impacts, if any: V1x�6lX..- (STAFF COMMENTS) 14. Transportation a. OWLT11425.43.MAWC9 Identify public %Ireets and highways serving; the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any, t 'r%.� �1 d t t _ ( t �/�""..--, ; /1✓hl�S!-,�/�,, ; , t7�nti >� _ , ;� ...`� �o a. sty I LU z J.-O Z �- LU Lu C) Cn 0 a LU LLI LU (f, 0 z N't 0 J, (STAFF COMMENTS} d. Will the proposal require any new mods or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways?. irso, generally de-mbe (indicate WfMWNW public or private). (STAFF COMMENTS} e. Will the project use (or occur in the inunediate vicinity of) water, rail, or airtransportation? If So, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS} f. Now many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. LW 1AL-OrAl -.I Mit 0 (STAFF COMMENTS) IS. Public Services 2. Would the pntW moult in an increased need for public so -vices (for example: ram protection,I police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. WO (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Proposed ma surer to reduce or cunfrol direct impacts on public services, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 16. Utilities a. Circle utilitie; currently available at the site electricity, natural gas, water, refluse service, telephone, ititary sewer septic system, tither: Page. 19 of"' I LnLL _O I'l Aft b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the uh'lity-providing the =vice. and the general construction activities on the site or in: the immediate vicinity which rnigM 6e. needed. . C. ctaua110-25.91MASMK =z w cc L� J U UO w w S -jH: V)0 �t LU J^. =t _d =w zN F- O z F" LU LLJ �n U N. 0 t=. S Uj( L- O z w tN U = O z i APPLICATION ROUTINU FORM - FILE: V-96-130 ANO CHECKLI . FROM: PLANNING ROUTED TO: PAMi'S 4CncATiON RETURNED.: p,N�Y - Engineering 11 /4/96 Engineering `4li Fire 11 /4/96 Fire - jca3 Public Works 11 /4/9b Public Works ? 11ts'�f R�ec� ;� 9 � j�7� ; 3 � Parks at Rec. d�c/ Staff Comments: I *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE? *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CORiSIDERED *Additional Information Required for Complete Application j *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review • Owner ROBERT COLE I ]ERI MERRITT • Property Address 16006 75TH PL. W. • Date of Application 10/29/96 • Type VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT 3 • Hearing Required:Yes X No Date of Hearing (if known►) X Application Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11) X Fee X Site Plan (11 x 17) X APO list Legals (Existing & Proposed) Title Report Environmental Assessment X Vicinity Map Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) X Elevations X Declarations (Variance & C. U P.) Petition (Official Street Map) X Environmental Checklist '. 96-221 Critical Areas Determination 0 i i t 9 z = z' h- w LLJ = � U UO �a w J i- LL LLI ;D di _L' zr �o z LULU �d U a�-i , _ � Ufl z ui U = o~ z = 5' far • APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE: ' V-96430 a 'AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANWO f Nov 0 4 1999 ROUTED T0: RETURNED PUBLIC WORKS DEP7 Engineering 11 /4/96 Engineering' Fire 1 i 14/96 Fire t Pub}I+cV1Vaiks°� `1'1 ttl9b Public Works ` Parks at Rec. 11 /4/96 Parks et Rec. Npv E',d Staff Comments: ` 6 N *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE- N *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED: *Additional Information Required for Complete Application *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review 3 • Owner ROBERT COL / IERI MERRITT • Property Address _ 16006 75TH PL. W. ' _ • Date of Application 10/29/96 z _ Type VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT Hearing Requ€red:Yes X No Date of Hearing {€f known} ;.i ,i X Application Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11) X Fee X Site Plan (11'x 17) X APO List t egals (Existing & Proposed) I l Title Report Environmentat Assessment X _Vicinity Map Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) X Elevations X Declara6ans {Variance& C. U. P.} Petition (Official Street Map) X Environmental Checklist 98.221 Critical Areas Determination NOV k 1996 s'' ROUTED TO: ' RETURNED .. ENGINEERING-, ' w'�ErtirteIry971r14 2 Engineeringcc . :. Fire 11 /4/96 Fire o Public Works 11 /4/96 �Nbiic Works u) a Parks 8t Rec. 11 t4196 Parks & Rec. w y r-q gyp. UPS `r' o Staff Comments: je -c a c ,� v '"may Uj a ` *'iPER WHAT SECTION OF THE ICODE2 LU Z *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT, BE CONSIDERED:` z '%dditional Information Required for Complete Application WW �y Ua v7 *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review Z Ut61 u. 2 w to c� y o Z O ROBERT Ct71.E 1*1 a weer I IERI MERRi1[ Property Address --I 6006 75TH PL. W. • Date of Application _10/29/96 _ Type VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT { _ Hearing Required:Yes X _ No Date of Hearing (if known) X Application Site Plan for Short Subdivision (6.5 xi 1) X Fee X Site Plan (11 x 17) X APO List Legals (Existing & Proposed) g Title Report Environmental Assessment X Vicinity Map. Proof of 2-Year'Oc6upan6y (ADU) X Elevations X Declarations (Variance & C U P) Petition (Official Street Map) X Environmental Checklist 96-221 Critical Areas Determination Date: To: From: Subject: November 6, 1996 Planning Division Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator q Variance for Cole and liVlerritt (16006 75th P_ 1 l! (V-96-130) The application has been reviewed by the Engineering Division. The Engineering Division has no requirements to impose at this time. The applicant will need to comply with all the terms of any future permits. It should be noted that maximum driveway slope allowed is 14% and an on -site turnaround is required. The application is considered complete at this time. X Z Uj -j 0 U) LU ul -j U) LL 0 Uj 2�1 < cc z 1.- 0 Z �— LIJ W 0— Lul sv L 0 z LU CD 0 z to APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE:,'V-96-130 ANDCHECKLISTFROM PLANNING #tECEI V r. ROUTED NOV 0419% 1996 TO: RETURNED n M 414196— Ike R � FIRS trigineering FIre--j-LZ4 Co Works 11 /4196 Public' U orks—�- Parks ex Rec. 11 4/96 Parks' ex Rec. Staff,Comments: L)ne'a 00 + *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE. *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED *Additional Information Required for Complete Application *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review • Owner, ROBERT 141ERRIT 1 Property Address 16006 75TH PL. W. Date of Application 10/29/9�6 2 Type, -VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT 1 Hearing Required:Yes X No----.., Date of Hearing (if known) X Application Plan for Short, Subdivision (8.5 x 11) X Fee x SltePlan (11x17) X -APO List (E)dsfing & Proposed) Title Report _��Envlr6nmental Assessment X Vicinity Map Proof of 2-Ye6r Occupancy (ADU) X —Elevations x Declarations (YarianceA C. U. P.) Petition (Official Street Map) Virofi --X--: En menial Checklist 96-221 Critical Areas Determination v 0 Z LIJ 0 LU LU --I Ln LL LIJ < F- M -j I-L Ln z F- F- 0 Z F- LU LU 2 =) :D Cl U (n 0— F- Uj F- F- z LLI Ln 0 F7 z 00 APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE' V-964, 30, AND CHECKLIST FR P1 AKININt-Z ROUTED TO:RETURNED- Engineering 11/4/96 Engineering Fire` Public Works --jJL4L26_ Public Works Parks ex Rec. 11/4/96 Parks ax Rec., Staff Comments: *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE?: *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED *Additional Information Required for Complete Application *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review • Owner ROBERT COLE I JEF Property Address • Date of Application 10/29/96 I Type VARIANCE HEIGHT 2 Hearing Required:Yes, X No Date of Hearing, (If known) X Application Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11) X Fee X Site Plan (11 x 17) X APO List —Legals (Existing & Proposed) Title Report _Environmental Assessment X —Vicinity Map Proof of Mear Occupancy (AD6) X Elevations _K_Declarafions (Variance & C,U� Petition (Official Street Map) ',X ' Envlronmental Checklist 96-221 Critical Areas Determination =z �- w w� as V)i o. w Lu V) LL LU oII; L T al zw z N F- O w w' U — in F. =v w p _z wU) v= oh z ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ❑ COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT / STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE a,, RELI PERMIT ON EARRIIAN E / EASONABLE USE ❑ OTHER FILE # 1t A � - / 3D ZONE S )2 DATE /`/Z� R�C'D BY FEE 6C- 5*A ?/? RECEIPT# HEARING DATE 9-HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC i ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED APPEAL# Applicant R49.41 L A- G PtzA- Phone Address t 07,+ 54-: <.Ar '3o-1 soommist� Property Address or Location VLr Property Owner UP (21e,13Un VyOMt}" Phone Address _MeAb -70.AId4&WOwt C xd g c - -I Agent _ (:5ee— 6 wli-(� A� ot�e�� Phone Tax Acc # S t'fi t 05t cot boo (p Sec. I cno1 no- rrAminn Rng. The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration; of the processing of I application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part up false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the sta�f of the City of Edmonds enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT _Y/t(jy : f:n f ✓r-j A•t�' )---- t0N ` 1 `. |` �� ^�� _�K8�M}��U��U ��"«»~ K�K� } ' � , .' � `J SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL � MAXIMUM'^~ MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM LOT MINIMUM LOT AREA MINIMUM STREET SIDE REAR MAXIMUM COVERAGE PARKINGZONE (Sq._Ft.) LOT WIDTH SETBACK SETBACK SETBACK HEIGHT S ACESW ./ ^ ,r^ =c'/,m//oi nn' nc' 70' 25' 7-1/2' is, 25" ' / / / ' G! Z S. VI, ry SO � ` 1See Chapter D.50ofCommunity 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 highwnter 7ine 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 roof above the stated height limit have o slope of 4" in 121/ or greater. (5) See Chapter 17.5U for specific parking requirements. Parking may not be located in required street oetback.� ' [6RS-6 setbacks may _be used for single family i�ea1dences,o? Jmta.of.10,000sqL!are feet, or lass.' ` )liat'64Mwv,�meoaef�n,ne V''ICINITY MAP M£ADOWDALE BEACH PARK PUGET SOUND SITE yf400 V uo Q .r N NTS MEADOWDALE PLAYFIELDS 168TH ST SW U4 c�� a�, LL 0 _z 1i N o z 6-303OLSSYCS20tSTOM LS2-M { :03 1996 10,01Z t3 { .x� 1 . .^AN:'�4`:.tR .1w. '1Prn�..r• •in.ur+.....� d i 4 y 9h31iLitY9kHxXvswv4'KAe^C�k'#MMgj,W'YIiM✓.1ft�YKWMfM1M(go f 7� rn W �9 V 1 c {AV7 V z C 0 a z v� ,r t !:.., :., $ �1....r.u...�.:,.a�'4:i.�nv •,.,,9 i ,trS%. 4:�..:.;'zr �:, ..,,) .0 Rt. ..,24X'-'S7, a,P,t.NS7F, a. x.'..... ,... n -.. .. }' ...... .. '. ....ter+ w .. .±i 1 { fir• Commitment No. 027198 EXHIBIT A That portion of Lots 1 and 2, Block 59, Meadowdale Beach, according to the plat thereof recorded in volume 5 of plats ?' 98, records of Snohomish County, Washington. +page TOOF'1HER WIT" a portion of abutting 75th Avenue to. and North andMoadOwdalarecord Road as vacated by City of Edmonds Ordinance No, and recorded .Tune 19 ^, Portion of 75th place Fkst gender Recording No. 7+9UG190110, 2077 recorded December 7, tad under OtYlinat No, �'7y9, And a whole being more part'icularldor Recording Nu, 9012070096 e Y described as follaws- Commencing at the Northeast corner of said block; THENCE South ?2.20�1T+ West aloe 12.16 fast to the 11741Wl g the Northerly line thereof ; block and the Westerly marginnofo75theplaceeWly to f et established City ni Edmonds Vacatio» Ordi»onceq of said beginning; No. 2799, being theponta ty THc^NCE South 16.591171+ West along said Westerly lineh8ndoroado! a margin North feat to intersect the south line of said Lot 2 THENCE North 87•S5•��+� West aloe Intersect the Westerly margin ofgsaiddvsouth acatodlio� 151.52 feet to ' Avenue W. at A point on the th rr Iles North 75.941481+ Neat 5258.80 last discurve from tan of 7 en c o! a curio from which the center loft HENCE Northerly along said Waste 1 i h: t t rough a central an fZ Y margin and said curve to the feet to lntaraoct that ccitainlina7�Ostt an arc length of -117.99 10, 19UG and recorded under Auditnr+sapile No. by dood dated May ! , rocora.: of said County; F31e No. 8G08190452, THENCE South thereon; Fast along said line 54.48 feet to an a»g1e point thereon; THENCE North in.O1l00+� East along said line 102.61 fact to the Easterly terminus of that cartels road vacation established he said City of Edmonds Ordinance Na. oad Parallelby THFNcE outh withlsald,Wes+terly marnq said Easterly torminus, of 15.00 feet to intersect ythe rNortherl l in cf 75th Piacc N. THENCE North 72•2011711 Y line of nairtBiooka59;r to the East along said Northerly ling 36.47 feat Point o[ beginning. Situate in the County of Snohomish, Stat,o n Of Washington. '• 90122804,51 YOL. 24 UPAOI Gf; "gr,4 r ddM F