Loading...
16008 75TH PL W (3).pdfU 0' 0; w z; APPLICANT: Al and Batoul Ansari _j1-11 w U. CASE NO.: V 97-67 2 Q LOCATION: 16008 - 75th Place W. APPLICATION: A variance to increase the maximum permitted height for a single - A 11--; family residence from 25-feet to 30-feet to allow the construction r o of a new two-story single-family residence (see Exhibit A, Lu W. Attachments 2 through 4). va cn REVIEW PROCESS: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and mattes o final decision. i �. E_ F MAJOR ISSUES: LL 0' v W; a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) ram-° Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site z Development Standards). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Deny Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions Oil PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the application was opened at 9:19 a.m., July 3, 1997, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:28 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the ® exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 0 A- F'4 P From the Applicant: Jim Jameson, Attorney for the Applicant, said: • The applicants have made a substantial effort to reduce the height. • The home will be located in an area of mostly two story homes. • The proposal is for a flat roof house which will only be approximately 10 feet higher than the street level. • Several other height variances have been approved in the area. • A separate garage would create additional expense and many other homes in the area have attached garages. • Several neighbors objected to the previous variance, but no neighbors attended this public hearing and no neighbors submitted letters regarding this variance. From the Community: No one from the general public spoke at the public hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a. Facts: 1) Size: The subject property is 14,738 square feet, with 100.5 feet of frontage along 75th Place W. (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). g 2) Land Use: The subject property is undeveloped. 3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS- 12) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). 4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject site slopes from east to west with the greatest slope closest to the west property line. Vegetation consists of several trees and native grasses (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a. Facts: 1) The property to the north is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-12) and is undeveloped (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). A variance was Z r: us uJ! U 0-1 4t:� iv _ Z Qr Z L N 3 i `l searing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-67 Page 3 recently approved which will allow a home 30 feet in height to be constructed on the lot. 2) The property to the south is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-12) and is developed with a single-family home (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). 3) The properties to the east are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-20) and are developed with single-family homes (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). 4) To the west is the Burlington Northern Railroad right of way and further west of that is an area zoned Commercial Waterfront (CW) which is undeveloped (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). B. HISTORY In 1996, the owner applied for a variance (File V-96-119) to allow the height to be increased from 25 feet to 37 feet for the construction of a single-family residence. That variance was denied. As part of the testimony for that variance, the adjacent property owner at 16010 - 75th Place W. stated that they had constructed their home without a variance. That property had the advantage of being able to gain access from the southwest corner of their lot, while the lot in question gains access only from 75th Place W. Several other property owners in the area stated that the proposed residence would be in their viewshed and that the proposed variance would be detrimental to their view. The Hearing Examiner's decision on that case is included as Exhibit A, Attachment 6. C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) 1. Fact: Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review (WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080). D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. Critical Areas Compliance a. Facts: 1) This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.153 (Critical Areas Ordinance). 2) The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Checklist (CA-96-8) and a waiver was granted to the critical areas study requirement. b. Conclusion: The applicant has complied with the requirements of the City's Critical Areas Ordinance. 2. Compliance with RS-6 Zoning Standards a. Fact: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development in the RS-12 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030. These include the following for locating structures: 1) Street Setback: 25 feet 0 2) Rear Setback: 25 feet (5 feet for detached structures < 600 sq. ft.) 3) Side Setbacks: 10 feet 4) Maximum Height:25 feet 5) Lot Coverage: 35% b. Conclusion: The proposal complies with the requirements of the zoning ordinance except for the portion for which the variance is applied for. 3. Compliance with Requirements for a Variance a. Facts: 1) Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a case -by -case basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship. The criteria are as follows: a) Special Circumstances: That because of special circumstances relating to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, not any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property. b) Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. c) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the zoning district in which the property is located. d) Not Detrimental: That the variance, as approved or conditionally approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone. e) Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the t ' minimum necessaryto allow the owner rights en o enjoyed b other J Y Y , properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. , w 2) The applicant has submitted declarations with their submittal which address the decisional criteria as follows (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3): T x z_ w D U 0 0 w a r U. ui U 0 Z 0 4 earing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-67 Page 5 a) The applicants point to the slope of the site, which is approximately 25 percent slope, and the availability of access only from 75th Place W. as the need for the variance. The applicants state they have changed their earlier application to lower the height of the house by shortening the deck, placing the home deeper into the slope and lowering the ceiling height. The applicants also point out that the house will be less than 10 feet above street level as proposed. b) The proposal is for a two-story home (with garage below) which the applicants submit is normal for this region. They feel that the proposal follows the topography of the site. The design concept is relatively common, with the upper floor providing the bedrooms, the main floor with the living areas, and a basement with the garage. They also point out the numerous variances in the area as reasons why this request will not be a grant of special privilege. c) The applicants state that the proposal complies with the comprehensive plan in that it is a single-family residence, and the revised proposal minimizes any view encroachment. d) The applicants give several reasons why they feel their proposal meets the zoning ordinance, except for the requested variance. e) The applicants state that their proposal will not be detrimental as the height of the house above the street is less than 10 feet and the home is set back from the side property lines more than is required. f) The applicants believe this is the minimum variance needed, as they have already lowered the main floor of the home and lowered the ceiling heights and have a flat roof instead of a pitched roof. They feel the proposal is the minimum necessary to have a home similar to ones in the area, many of which received variances. b. Conclusions: 1) The site is unique in the slope from the street down to railroad right-of- way. 2) Several height variances have been granted along 75th Place W., so granting the variance would not constitute a special privilege. However, many of these variances have been granted for lots which are only 45 feet in width, while the subject parcel has 100 feet of frontage along 75th Place W. 3) Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the continued development of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation, but it would not be in accordance with the comprehensive plan policies (see also Section F below). M } r . .�-.�. .. , a,:;, ,..,,, ..:. .,.-,.,I}a...a� h �tiii.:aYi:,C. S rovrt .u>'il I .eu0. x,'- a *`t✓ t'n pcs r k ., ru...x wo r, .. ..... ,......,... v.:„i...b r,„...u.....,.ea..ruX;..„...4.a,•V...aS....»,.n.'ui ns.%....,23+r....Y,a. Y.i.�.:1°a§.:U#1c'dY.. .`a.ae,:�. t<+±,n - .. k-hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-67 Page 6 4) The proposed house will be visible to most of the neighbors, and in that respect it will impact their view. However, the owner has a right z to construct a house on the property within the allowed development _j standards, even if it affect views. v+ 5) The earlier variance (File V-96-119) was determined not to be a a Q' minimum variance since the applicant had not explored the W i possibilities of relocating the garage, reducing the height of the X! J �-i residence, or moving the house further west and constructing a to U.LU detached garage. The applicants have lowered the height of the g ceilings and set the house slightly more into the hillside with this proposal, which drops the height of the proposed house approximately N# 6 or 7 feet more than was proposed in the original variance application. CJ- Therefore, it is believed a substantial attempt has been made to comply z ti with the regulations and it is further believed the request represents the z ® minimum variance necessary. w wi M.. E. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE F1. Review by City Departments 0 z a. Fact: The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated b � PP Y the W t- Fire Department, Public Works Division, Engineering Division, and the - zl Parks and Recreation Division. The only comments received were from LU v' the Engineering Division, and those comments are included as Exhibit A, o Attachment 5. z b. Conclusion: The applicant will need to comply with the terms of any future permits, as required by the Engineering Division. F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) 1. Comprehensive Plan Designation �- a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Residential." b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing ® Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. 2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies a. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies which relate to "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below. ® 1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted...:' 2) Policy B.3. states: "Minimize encroachment on view: of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. " 0 . ... .,.,... _._..,.,.,..................._....,s,L:ii..,.are,...,.,.:.r";i.,r,...S..z,...a....".��G;wf7�':"T«'2�FSi�✓"YF,«!,,..t:lYta...wSL":k�.�t7rvs^.z., xu:r.7wn+KxvS+:Y<,rv_s zk...-i+,....,..,..,.... ... �.r.�►... _....._... `_. searing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-67 Page 7 3) Page 31, subsection B.5.0 states, "Stable property values must not be j threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments." b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the above x adopted goals and policies of the City except for the height variance, which slightly encroaches on the view of existing homes. L)c a; rn LU; DECISION Lu wLL p� Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is approved, g j subject to the following conditions; J 1. The height of the residence shall be no taller than 30 feet above average grade, _ as shown in the building elevations and on the site plan height calculations z (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). PP 2. This application is subject to the applicable requirements uirements contained in the z j q 2: D, Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these U fA' t o ordinances. i U, 3. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to any construction. � z 4. The applicant will need to comply with all the terms of any future permits. LU UM) '; 5. The permit is transferable. o ~ z Entered this 9th day of July, 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Ron McConnell ® Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's ® and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. . _. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION l `� Section 20.100,010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision s �` 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 z r-: F- O: �. I--', u, wi C3 = L) u. p —z v(A or z E 0 k. _....._: 1,3--Iearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-67 Page 8 , the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. APPEALS Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project applicant and the date of the decision, the name and address of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.85.020.0 states "The approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration and the city approves the application." NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. EXHIBIT: The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report PARTIES of RECORD: Al and Batoul Ansari 9304 Olympic View Dr. Edmonds, WA 98020 Jim Jameson 19707 440' Ave. W, Suite 219 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Edmonds Planning Division Edmonds Engineering Division 0 z F- - S R Uj W' �a ca crsi o �v wa _Z o� z 0 Cl AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION ON CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE HAWLEY-MCCORKLE REZONE, NO. R-1-90, FROM RS-20 (SINGLE FAMILY--20,000 SQUARE FEET) AND CW (COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT) TO RS-12 (SINGLE FAMILY- -12,000 SQUARE FEET); AUTHORIZING EXECUTION -OF A CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning Board at a public hearing considered the following amendments to the Official Zoning Map and made their findings and recommendations which were forwarded to the City Council, and WHEREAS, the City Council after a public hearing reviewed the recommendations of the Planning Board and determined that the proposed amendment and agreement should be approved and adopted the Findings and Conclusions of its Planning Board; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS; Section 1. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Edmonds, as adopted. by Section 17.00.010 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, is hereby amended by changing the Zoning classification of certain property hereinafter described from RS- 20 (single family residential--20,000 square feet) and CW (Commercial Waterfront), respectively, to RS-12 (single family paragraph 4 thereof states the City's agreement to vacate public right-of-way. Since such action can only be taken after public hearing and due deliberation, the Council has directed that this rezone ordinance be placed on its calendar only after and in conjunction with such vacation approval. Section 2. The Planning Director is hereby instructed to effectuate the necessary amendments to the Official Zoning Map of the City of Edmonds pursuant to this ordinance. Section 3. The Mayor is hereby authorized to executes and the City Clerk to attest to that certain document entitled "Concomitant Zoning Agreement Hawley-McCorkle Rezone," attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. *The City Clerk is further directed to record said Concomitant Zoning Agreement with the Snohomish County Auditor as a covenant running with the land. The cost of said recordation shall be paid by the owners. Section 4•. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after WSS526390 -2_ t`f t t passage and publication of the ordinance or a summary thereof consisting of the title. z APPROVED: w LU u Npl , S NAUGHTEN in wi UJ F ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: cn o Uj r . C'POLERK, J INE G. PARRE u_� a APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: LU ® Q BY rz F' � t v FILED WITH THE C TV CLERK: October 10, 1990 o t PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: October 16, 1990 Uj PUBLISHED: October 28, 1990 of EFFECTIVE DATE: November 2, 1990 — Z ORDINANCE NO. 2800 ui tfi; O � z �Y 5 J 0. 1 ry Y _M 4 1 t c WSS526390 _3„ .. =:o��>fmy wt : t�: , {fir k 3 ki € x f m ,Ar Gh :.r r CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT HAWLEY-MCCORKLE REZONE W o THIS AGREEMENT is made this date between Fred J. Hawley, Mary E. Hawley, Roger G. McCorkie and Ardeth J. McCorkle, also known as Hewley-McCorkle, a Vnerai p/s, hereafter U. seat referred to a Twners", and the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereafter referred to as 11ty". 0 WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, a non -charter code city, under the laws of zI.- j o the, SW of Washington (Chapter 35A.63 RCW and Article 11, Section I i of the Washington State ar Constitution) has authority to meet laws and enter into agreements to promote the health, safety and i welfare of its citizens a� thereby control the use and development of property within its LIM " — Z;! jurisdiction;and w v,: WHEREAS, the Owners own certain real property located in the City of Edmonds and more z , } particularly described as set forth herein, and WHEREAS, the Owners have applied for a change in the zoning claaatfication of the subject 1 property from Single -Family Residence 20,000 sq.ft. (RS 20) and Waterfront Commercial (CW) toSingle-Family Residence 12,000sq.ft. (RS 12) and WHEREAS, the City has caused the application in its entirety to be reviewed by its planning © and Engineering Departments and its planning Board and has fully considered their recommendation made after such review and the recommendotions which the City finds to be appropriate are set forth herein, and WHEREAS, the Owners are willing to Implement the following conditions In the course of the roposad develo meat and have #ands p p red Chia contract to the City, 166w, therefore, In consideration of the mutual benellts and conditions hereinefter contained, the Owner agrees that, In the event the City reclassittes the property described herein from RS 20 and CW to M NA RS 12, and for so long as the property remains so classified, Owners covenant and agree to be bound by the terms, conditions and agreements set forth as follows: 1. Owners are owners of that certain parcel of real property hereafter referred to as "subject property", situate in the City of Edmonds, Washington, and legally described as set forth on Exhibit A. 2. The Owners agree to dedicate the existing lots 8,9 and 10, Block 59 of the property to the City of Edmonds. The City will provide driveway access to the owners for the remaining property (lots 1 thru 7) through the northwest portion of lot 8 or from 75th Ave. W., (also known as Seaside Ave.). 3. The City agrees to dedicate the existing vacated westerly 30 ft. of 75th P1. West, edjoi ni ng the easterl y boundary of tots 1 thru 7, Block 59 of the property, to the Owners. 4. Notwithstanding any other provisions of the Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code, as now or may hereafter be amended or ree dified, the Owners agree to limit we of the above described property (Lots 1 thru 7, Block 59, including vacated roads) to four (4) Single family residential building lots. S. Amendments to this agreement may be mode by the Owners or the City upon application filed in the same menner as a rezone application; provided, however, no application shall be made by the Owners or the City to amend this agreement for a period of two (2) years from the date of this agreement. Thereafter, neither the Owners or the City may, upon application, apply to amend or terminate the provisions and covenants of the agreement or to change the zoning on the subject property or any portion thereof. Said application shall be heard in the normal manner at appropriate public hearings as any other application for a rezone of property in the City of Edmonds. 6. The City shall be under no obligation to issue to Owners or their sucasors or assigns building permits, occupancy permits, or other permits or approvals for improvements on or use of the subject property unless such improvements or uses are consistent with the terms of this —2— t agreement and the applicable City ordinances at the time of any application for such permit or approval. 7. This agreement, and each part of it, shall be considered a covenant running with the land covered hereby and shall be binding upon the Owners, their successors and assigns, and the City. This agreement shell be recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor in the Grantor/Grantee index, with the Owners being listed as Grantors and the City as Grantee. All costs of such recordation and recordation of the transfer of Deeds to lots 0,9 and 10 and to the vacated road shall be paid by Owners. Such recordation and payments of costs shall be a condition precedent to the Owners exercising any rights under the terms of this agreement. S. Nothing in this agreement shell be construed to restrict the authority of the City to exercise its police powero. 9. in the event any section, paragraph, sentence, term or clause of this agreement conflicts with applicable few, such conflict shell not affect otter sections, paragraphs, sentences, terms or clauses of this agreement which can be given effect without the conflicting provision and to this end the terms of this agreement shell be deemed to be severable. 10. in addition to any other remedies provided by law, the City or the Owners may at thei r discretion maintain a lawsuit to compel specific performance of the terms and conditions of this agreement or to otherwise enforce its provisions through injunctive or other remedies, and whichever party prevails in such action, it shalt be entitled to recover all costs of enforcement, including reasonable attornegs'fees. 11 . in the event any section, paragraph, sentence, term or clause of this agreement is found to conflict with applicable law, the City shall have the right to bring the proposed development Wore the City Council for further review and imposition of appropriate conditions to assure that the purposes for which this agreement is ordered into are in fact accomplished. DATED this day of ;1990. 3- 10 rzl LU 2 M U 0 0 LU U_ z Z. i", T, , S? Dated JG day of %&nudrij 1990. CITY OF EDYQNDS MAYOR, RV NPGTEN ATTEST" zc CVTY MERK HAWLEY-McCORRLE p S By FRED J. HlfdT;EY General Partner BY MIARY E HirliLE Genera. Partner B ROGER G. McCORKIX General Partner By 0 J. NeCORKLE, General Partner AR J�By DAM By WILLIAM R. CHILDS STATE OF .1*ASINGTON- COUNTY OF ByRATREE CHILES On this day personally appearded before me Fred J. Hawley, Mary E. Hawley, Roger G. McCorkle and,Ardeth J. McCorkle, to me known to be the individuals described in and who executed the within and fore- going instrument, and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes tberin mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this Lik:` day of karg 1990. 4 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at -4- i t - -- — - — - -W ar 158 TH ST S.-W. - o `Z F— W NOT OPEN # U 0' � + t 31 °z Gl 32 SUP P 5 Id G4 � i �`Y 6 o �aa77 T r J� z r. e70, t 7 7 34 !!! Z Or t $ at S-t2 65 w w _ (w 35�}, c� ur m e10l 60 6o = 10 ca• o g � �- Area proposed for Rezone " !- r> z � _. to RS-12 (Contract) 4 5 ® 01 JJj (L h 52 Z � . LaJ OF d M-SAD so w CAI Z 4 E81 r- e� 3 m" V 1 . 67 2 I ( 10 t (yf+ y. v iN r t u r, Yr ✓ � ......_. .,...._.......`....:.«..u..,..,w+rmi.erw.waxLx..r -uutlxt.WisOYdW� D!�{4�q ;••S � •. • .1—.. '. f APPLICANT: Ansad I aj NOTICE OF HEARING o AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) } COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) N' o 3 wt I, Meg Gruwell, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: c.� r That on the 24th day of June, 1997, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted zi as prescribed by Ordinance, and in any event, in the Civic Center and the Library, and S _ where applicable on or near the subject property. i ' Signed Subscribed and sworn to before me this today of. 19 `�' 7. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. Residing at N*kxv Puble >x State of Washh;r,n , >, M BOCK WAppotntnentEwest. ;!1^2001 ArSi riX3 C. u I LAJ cl ui U. tii z ul 0, U LU �. LU J U U O N0 w wS J F v_) u. w LJ- O, L Q! va M i a. :C z rs— �-o LULU �a 0 ur. �-! 11J Lui �w LLO —z UJm L) Oh z ❑s r EDMO"S HEEARIN EXAMINE MEETING AGENDA JULY 3,1997 AT 9:0o A.M. Plaza Room - Edmonds Library 650 Main Street 1. Call to Order 2. Public Hearings a. FILE NO. P-97-65. Application by Classico Homes, Inc. for a Preliminary Subdivision of approximately 2 acres (87,171 square feet) into 6 single-f unity buildings sites, Leh with a minimum lot area of 12,000 square feet. Additionally, the applicant has requested a modification of Edmonds Community Development Code requirement for the installation of sidewalks within the private road tract; and, a modification of the required street improvements along Maplewood Drive. The proposed subdivision will retain the existing single-family residence located adjacent to Maplewood Drive and include the development of private road to access the remaining 5 building; sites from 88th Avenue West. The proposed private road will located adjacent to the north property line. The subject, property is located at 20605 Maplewood Drive and is zoned RS-12. 1 b. FILE NO. V-97-67; Application by Al & Batoul Ansari for a Variance to increase the maximum permitted height for a single-family residence from 25-feet to 30-feet to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family residence. The subject property is located at 16008 75th Place West and is zoned RS-12. C. FILE NO. AP-97-75; Appeal by John & Sue Waldburger of a Planning Division Staff. interpretation of the application of the "Nonconforming Lots" regulations pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 17.40.030 related to a request to develop two adjoining single- family buildings sites, under common ownership, located in an RS-6 zone, each with a lot width of less than the 60-foot lot width requirement for the RS-6 zone. The subject properties affected by this appeal are located 307 2nd Avenue North and are zoned RS-6. 3. Administrative Reports - No Reports. 4. Adjournment ff i Ex RN !b CITY OF EDMONDS 250 STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS,WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner From: M.E. Meibrdwell Project Planner Date: JUNE 26,1997 File: V-97-67 AL & BATOUL ANSARI Hearing Date, Time, And Place: July 3,1997, At 9:00 AM, Plaza Room Edmonds Library 650 Main Street TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 2 A. APPLICATION ............................................................................................................................................... 2 B. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 2 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................... 2 A. SITE DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................................... 2 B. HISTORY ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) ............................................................................................ 3 D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE ........................................................3 E. TEcHNicALCommrrTEE .............................................................................................................................. 5 F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) .................................................................................................................. 5 III. RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS .......................................................................... 6 A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ............................................................................................................... 6 B. APPEALS ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL ........................................................................................................ 6 V. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR ............................................................................ 7 VI. APPENDICES ....................................................................... i ................................................. 7 VIL PARTIES OF RECORD ...................................................... ............. 1 .7, V-97-67.DOC i June 26,1997 i Staff Report 0 A. Application 1. Applicant: Aland Batoul Ansari (see Attachment 2). 2. Site Location: I6008 - 75th Place W. (see Attachment 1). 3. Request: A variance to increase the maximum permitted height for a single-family residence from 25-feet to 30-feet to allow the construction of anew two-story single-family residence (see Attachments 2 through 4). 4. Review Process: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. 5. Maior issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards), b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). B. Recommendations Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend DENIAL of this application. However, if approval of the application is the final decision, we recommend the following conditions: I- The height of the residence shall be no taller than 30 feet above average grade, as shown in the building elevations and on the site plan height calculations (see Attachment 4). 2. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 3. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to any construction. 4. The applicant will need to comply with all the terms of any future permits. 5. The permit should be transferable, II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. 0 Ak Site Description 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Size: The subject property is 14,738 square feet, with 100.5 feet of frontage along 75th Place W. (see Attachment 4). (2) Land Use: The subject property is undeveloped. (3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-12) (see Attachment 1). (4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject site slopes from east to west with the greatest slope closest to the west property line. Vegetation consists of several trees and native' grasses (see Attachment 4). V-97-67.WC / June 26, 1997 / Staff Report I a Z_ "- l— 0 Z V to QL_ LLc �2 wu o" Z `0 Al and Batoul Ansari > ste Ptor V-97-67 Page 3 of 7 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) The property to the north is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-12) and is undeveloped (see Attachment 1). (2) The property to the south is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-12) and is developed with a single-family home (see Attachment 1). (3) The properties to the east are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-20) and are developed with single-family homes (see Attachment 1). (4) To the west is the Burlington Northern Railroad. right of way and further west of that is an area zoned Commercial Waterfront (CW) which is undeveloped (see Attachment 1). B. history In 1996, the owner applied for a variance (File V-96-119) to allow the height to be increased from 25 feet to 37 feet for the construction of a single-family residence. That variance was denied. As part of the testimony for that variance, the adjacent property owner at 16010 - 75th Place W. stated that they had constructed their home without a variance. That property had the advantage of being able to gain access from the southwest corner of their lot, while the lot in question gains access only from 75th Place W. Several other property owners in the area stated that the proposed residence would be in their viewshed and that the proposed variance would be detrimental to their view. The Hearing Examiner's decision is included as Attachment 6. C. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) 1. Fact: Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review (WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080). D. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance 1. Critical Areas Compliance a) Facts: (1) This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.15.E (Critical Areas Ordinance). (2) The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Checklist (CA-96-8) and a waiver was granted to the critical areas study requirement. b) Conclusion: The applicant has complied with the requirements of the City's Critical Areas Ordinance. 2. Compliance with RS-6 Zoning Standards a) Fact: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development in the RS-12 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030. These include the following for locating structures: (1) Street Setback: 25 feet ■7 (2) Rear Setback: 25 feet (5 feet for detached structures < 600 sq. ft.) (3) Side Setbacks: 10 feet (4) Maximum Height: 25 feet (5) Lot Coverage: 35% F x Z F F O Z W Lrr `L Q U W, = U u. p —Z Uz O F Z FE File No. V-97.67 Page 4 of 7 b) Conclusion: The proposal complies with the requirements of the zoning ordinance except for the portion for which the variance is applied for. 3. Compliance with Requirements for a Variance a) Facts' (1) Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a case -by -case basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship. The criteria are as follows: (a) Special Circumstances: That because of special circumstances relating to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, not any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property. (b) Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. (c) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the zoning district in which the property is located. (d) Not Detrimental: That the variance, as approved or conditionally approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone. (e) Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. (2) The applicant has submitted declarations with their submittal which address the decisional criteria as follows (see Attachment 3): (a) The applicants point to the slope of the site, which is approximately 25 percent slope, and the availability of access only from 75th Place W. as the need for the variance. The applicants state they have changed their earlier application to lower the height of the house by shortening the deck, placing the home deeper into the slope and lowering the ceiling height. The applicants also point out that the house will be less than 10 feet above street level as proposed. (b) The proposal is for a two-story home (with garage below) which the 1' b al f th' app rcants su mrt rs norm ar rs region. They feel that the proposal follows the topography of the site. The design concept is relatively common, with the upper floor providing the bedrooms, the main floor with the living areas, and a basement with the garage. They also point out the numerous variances in the area as reasons why this request will not be a grant of special privilege. a Z w. M U O A ut t— a LL _! S2O r Z I— F- O w to �O 0 — 0 i VI � h �- O —Z LU to V= ar Z r HI ' At and Batoal Ansad File No. V-97-67 Page 5 of 7 (c) The applicants state that the proposal complies with the comprehensive plan in that it is a single-family residence, and the revised proposal minimizes any view encroachment. (d) The applicants give several reasons why they feel their proposal meets the zoning ordinance, except for the requested variance. (e) The applicants state that their proposal will not be detrimental as the height of the house above the street is less than 10 feet and the home is set back from the side property lines more than is required. (f) The applicants believe this is the minimum variance needed, as they have already lowered the main floor of the home and lowered the ceiling heights and have a flat roof instead of a pitched roof. They feel the proposal is the minimum necessary to have a home similar to ones in the area, many of which received variances. b) Conclusions• (1) The site is unique in the slope from the street down to railroad right-of-way. (2) Several height variances have been granted along 75th Place W., so granting the variance would not constitute a special privilege. However, many of these variances have been granted for lots which are only 45 feet in width, while the subject parcel has 100 feet of frontage along 75th Place W. (3) Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the continued development of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation, but it would not be in accordance with the comprehensive plan policies (see also Section F below). t (4) The proposed house will be visible to most of the neighbors, and in that respect it will impact their view. However, the owner has a right to construct a house on the property within the allowed development standards, even if it affect views. (5) The earlier variance (File V-96-119) was determined not to be a minimum variance since the applicant had not explored the possibilities of relocating the garage, reducing the height of the residence, or moving the house further west and constructing a detached garage. The applicants have lowered the height of the ceilings and set the house slightly more into the hillside with this proposal, which drops the height of the proposed house approximately 6 feet more than was proposed in the original variance application. However, the applicants are still placing the garages underneath the house, necessitating the house be higher than if the garage were detached or at a different level within the house. Although the requested variance may be the minimum necessary to allow this design, it appears to be possible to construct a two-story house with detached or attached garage on the site without a variance. E. Technical Committee 1. Review by City Departments a) Fact: The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire Department, Public Works Division, Engineering Division, and the Parks and Recreation Division. The only comments received were from the Engineering Division, and those comments are included as Attachment 5. b) Conclusion: The applicant will need to comply with the terms of any future permits, as required by the Engineering Division. V-97-67.DOC / Jane 26,1997 / Staff Report M Al and Batoul Ansari File No. V-97-67 Page 6 of 7 F. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) 1. Comprehensive Plan Designation a) Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Residential." = Z b) Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive w Plan Land Use designation for the site. o Z. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 0 � w a) Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and Uj F=- policies which relate to "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and to LLO 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 u maintained and promoted.... " 2 d' (2) Policy B.3. states: "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new ZNw construction or additions to existing structures." �- O (3) Page 31, subsection B.S.0 states, "Stable property values must not be threatened by W w view, traffic, or land use encroachments." �n b) Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the above adopted goals and 0 U)j policies of the City except for the height variance, which moderately encroaches on the p F-1 view of existing homes. F- III. RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any UJ U s person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department Fi for further procedural information. z } A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20.100.010.E allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the .�� subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific 1y references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. D B. Appeals Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project applicant and the date of the decision, the name and address of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the C3 decision being appealed. IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.85.020.0 states "The approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration and the city approves the application." V-97-67.DOC / June 26,1997 / Staff Report r" y I 1*1 D1 0, AlMW'6WUj AnSafi Rkkm V-97.67 hp?47 V. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearingin nerre4uesta-chan the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office.. VI. APPENDICES Attachments 1 through 6 are attached. 1. Vicinity / Zoning Map 2. Application 3. Declarations of the Applicant 4. Site Plan & Elevations S. Memorandum from Gordy Hyde, dated May, 19, 1997 6. Hearing Examiner's Decision on FileV-96-119 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD Al and Batoul Ansari Engineering Division 9304 Olympic View Dr. Edmonds, WA 98020 V-97-67DW/rune 26. IM/Staffftpw mow. Attachment 1 File# V-97-67 11 city of �)monds RMdivE land use application MAY -61997 0 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD 0 COMP PLAN AMENDMENT 0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 0 HOME OCCUPATION 0 FORMAL SUBDIVISION 0 SHORT SUBDIVISION 0 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT El PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 0 OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT / STREET VACATION 0 REZONE O SHORELINE PERMIT 14 VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION 0 OTHER FILE # V - GI �i G�� ZONE DA `"- �� REC'D BY L-L'CC kG FEI2JZ RECEIPT#'LZ�� HEARING DATE 0 STAFF 0 PB 0 ADB 0 CC TAKEN: 0 APPROVED O DENIED 0 APPEALED APPEAL# Applicant Al & Batoul Ansari Phone 775-9011 Address 9304 Olympic View Drive , Edmonds, WA 98020 Property Address or Location 16008 75th Place W, Edmonds, WA 98020 Property Owner Al & Batoul Ansari_ Phone 775-901 Address 9304 Olympic View drive, Edmronds, WA 98020 Agent James J. Jameson, Attorney at Law Phone (425) 774-6311 Address 19707 - 44th Ave. W., Suite 219, Lynnwood, WA 98036 Tax Acc Sec. _5 Twp. 27 N Rng. 4 E_� Legal Description Lot 1, McCorkle Short Plat Details of Project or Proposed Use _Owners propose to place a two story single famiiy residence on this lot. The difficulty of the existing slope on the site has made i neraasga•av trs rc Yies{- a hpiahtyarianrn of S, fep-, i-hh Aafa;tc�nf which are cofi forth in the attached request for height variance The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staff t Attachment 2 ,o enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendantjt,�o this appli File# V.97 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT__ A RECEIVED REQUEST FOR HEIGHT VARIANCE MAY-4fjgq? PERMIT COUNTF� MAY 6, 1997 OWNER: Al & Batoul Ansari SITE ADDRESS: 16008 75TH Place W., Edmonds, WA 98020 VARIANCE REQUEST: A 5-FOOT VARIANCE TO THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION Height Calculation: NW Corner 58 NE 74 SW 58.5 SE 71 TOTAL 261.5 DIVIDE BY 4: AVERAGE GRADE 65.375 ALLOWABLE HEIGHT 25 PROPOSED MAX. HEIGHT 30 MAX. ALLOWABLE HEIGHT 90.375 PROPOSED MAX. ELEVATION 95.375 Prior Request for variance - File # V-96-119 APPLICATION DECLARATIONS 1. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES: The site for this home has a slope from the front to the rear of the site which has made it impossible to design the home to stay within the height restriction and satisfy the home owners' requirements. The site has a 25% slope down the center of the site. From the face of our proposed house to the centerline of the street there is a 27% slope. Site access is difficult and further complicates the siting of the home. Access to the site is from the street above only. The severe slope of the property dictates the location of the 0 home. The previous request for a 12 Foot height variance was an effort to build a home commensurate with the homes in the area. A new Architect has been retained and the following changes have been made: A. A deck was shortened changing the height calculations of the corners somewhat. B. The home will be placed somewhat deeper into the slope causing the elevation of the main floor to be 1.16 feet lower than the original plan. Height Variance Req. Attachment 3 File#V.97-67 I LPN' C. The ceiling height has been lowered to make up the additional height savings. It should be noted that the topography of the lot is such that most of the height of the home will be below street level, as the lot slopes deeply down and away from street level. Street level has been calculated at 86 feet, therefore the home will be less than 10 feet above street level, considerably lower than the height of a one story home, with a pitched roof on flat terrain. 07 a LU X It is submitted that were it not for the method used by the 1--� City to calculate height restrictions, this home is well below any o1height restriction from street level and the view of neighboring properties. 0 A- 2. SPECIAL PRIVILEGE: Most homes in the metropolitan region are two-story homes. If we were to comply with the height restriction, we would be allowed to build a main floor and a very limited daylight basement. The upper floor living area would not be allowed. To provide for adequate living area, it was decided to build an upper floor that would house the bedrooms. If you examine the cross section of the home, you will see that the Architect has tried to reduce the height and to follow the slope of the site. The design of the home is essentially a split level home: on the uphill section there is a main floor and an upper floor on the lower part of the site there is a daylight basement and a section of the main floor The lower floor or basement is the garage of the home. To reduce the height of the home, the upper part of the house has a flat roof. The owners have worked to reduce the bulk of the home and would prefer to have the bedrooms on the upper floor. This is a normal arrangement for the region. Allowing them to build this two-story home that slopes down the hillside does not constitute a special privilege. Furthermore, 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 this site. (V2990, V590, V96-91, V93-11,V96-90 in City files). It is not believed that the owners' desire to build a two-story residence would be granting a special privilege as all recent construction on the West side of 75 Place West has been two-story homes. Finally, the property directly to the North of the subject property has recently received a 5 Foot height variance, exactly the same as is being requested by the owners herein. 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The comprehensive plan is for single-family development. The owners, herein, are building a single-family Height Variance Req. - 2 0 residence which complies with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan residential development section. Z i I ct The proposal of the owners is for a high -quality residence I rZ, which attempts to balance both the aesthetic and economic realities r UA, 2 of land costs in the area. The revised design will minimize any view encroachment and have no negative impact on property values. a; LU 3:i 4. ZONING ORDINANCE. The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to .0 _J regulate land use, the bulk of the structures and to create n LL _01 appropriate uses adjacent to each other. This single-family home is proposed to be built in a single-family neighborhood. The elevation of the home from street level will be less than 10 feet in height. on both the North and South property lines (the side W yards) the house is set back more than the minimum, creating larger W* corridors to the water view for passing motorists and pedestrians. zX Z�_ The Architects have worked with the topography of the site to slope 0 the home to match the site. It is only due to the impact of the Z E- two low corners on the sloping site that makes it necessary for the W W owners to seek a variance. cn 0 ;7 5. NOT DETRIMENTAL. This variance would not be detrimental to 0-1 the surrounding properties, cause a loss of property values, obstruct scenic views or limit the use of surrounding properties. As mentioned earlier, the front of the home is less than 10 feet Z. above street level. This should have the least impact possible on views of properties on the East side of 75th Street West. The neighbors to the North and South will not be adversely affected by zthe height of this home as their views are to the West. Furthermore, the home is set back from the side property lines more than required, further minimizing the impact on neighboring views. 6. MINIMUM VARIANCE. The Steep slope on this site creates a difficult challenge to build a two-story home commensurate with other homes in the area. All recent construction of new residences Ji on the West side of 75th Place West have been two-story homes. By r__ lowering the main floor of the home and lowering ceiling heights the owners are doing all they can to meet the variance criteria and still respond to the special circumstances of the site. 0 Furthermore, to reduce the height of the home the owners have elected to go with a flat roof rather than a pitched roof. The circumstances of this site are far more restrictive than is typical for this zone and the design accommodates all restrictions except one. There is no way to satisfy the maximum height restrictions, as calculated by the City's formula, while still allowing for a reasonable use which is an appropriate economic and aesthetic response typical to other new homes in the area. Again, if this site were flat, the homel's design would easily fit within the 10 height restrictions. Height variance Req. - 3 J'�✓�,fiYl t r iEc'[ isi t f •. h, >r `� r it rM ��..'a 1.. � ,�Cs`�^.,�J ft ° 5 t17[ F� r{ i '� � 5�, ,��e 1 P - L'a �ai+�t r i }[ r i .: n .k :. � 1 L 4 5 1 i . n� .:.n.. A 1 ,.,� .. fx ..:: . !U .u.•Y}t . .: �. ....o, i :�. 1,. ± � Y�`.,�� � G ".J � The, revised design requires only a 5 Foot height variance, a < variance that has been granted to several other properties in the Q ,} area, including the property directly to the North of this site. 2 t Thank you for your attention to this matter. "®} Submitted By:. w o, .------- _... Uj J. JAMESON 4a At orney for the Owners zt U,,i to 5 . 0 O �1 Uj FS- L1; ui F= _ Z j I 0. A Height Variance Req. 4 k Y xh }?+t R°TVla ` �.. ti yt+'".- }«`}t ',��k_ gdn� "�i� n - � `"ti `F•: c vFx 3"1�[+`3I�' n w eti s�tr i�, �. 7� k Cae sr% h"! s- p.�' t r y,i iA.h"�!s' 2 ,��4'-srrs s An't Y.t r j 5 c r � < tcP ar•'iS J ''tit" � Ek K,X L {T i it� (r,S �� .. h r _ ,rye _._�..._W •W........a '.`....:.....:3:Sa�"�,-(�� y i ,�c aKr'; F .�tk r `,.,t'.''t , ' rr.: �`i it�i�fz{i r r� ,: z, i� ag ZV{ c� Date. May 19, 1997 t/9 WUj � To; Planning Division LU I From. Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinatar9 U. cn Subject. Variance for Ansad (16008 - 75th Pl. ZU (V-97-67) c The application has been reviewed by the Engineering Division. The W � Engineering Division has no requirements to impose at this time. The applicant ' will need to comply with all the terms of any future permits. The application is v considered complete at this time. o� CH'l7t oB EDMONW ALtaCnMOM 0. . ENGD Ito nYMox File# V-97-67 V470G7.DOC O5 _ryk 1*1 r'st. ls9v FINDINGS, CONCLIUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: CASE NO.: LOCATION: APPLICATION: REVIEW PROCESS: MAJOR ISSUES: Al Ansari V 96-119 16008 75`h Place West RECEIVED Nov 2 2 1996 PLANNING D&T. Variance to increase the maximum permitted building height from 25-feet above average grade level to 37-feet for the construction of a new single-family residence (see Exhibit A, Attachments 3 and 4). Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. 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: Deny Hearing Examiner Decision: Deny PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and ® after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the Ansari application was opened at 9:20 a.m., November 7, 1996, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 10:08 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. Attachment 6 • Incorporated August 11, I890 • File# V-97.67 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan r 4 , .. ,_._ ..._..._.,...,...........,.�,.............._.......—,.-..__...........,.v-».-,«,.,«.aa.w,.w......:ua.m..�..<..aswem+a..w�*v+,�..A.,.,...„....,.,......._.._...._.u_�._:.y,. .__. _._.._.. ... �. } 1 l :1 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-119 Page 2 HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. _ Us From the City: Kirk Vinish, Project Planner, reviewed the staff advisory report and recommended denial 01 of the request. He noted that one option would be to relocate the garage and he discussed � other options which the applicant could explore which would not require a 12 foot height LU J variance. V) U. w ® From the Applicant: Barbara Pickens, Architect, said: w a{ of • She did not design the home, but was familiar with it. rx. z I-;, • The house would only be 12 I/2 to 18 feet above street Ievel. She submitted z Exhibit G to show the height of the proposed house above the road. w w; o, • The structural engineer and the geotechnical engineer both agreed the site should anot be dug into, but rather should be disturbed as little as possible due to the slide ° UJ potential which exists in the Meadowdale area. c� zj • The house was designed to step down and stay with the natural contours of the x: site. • • The height of the house stays within approximately 25 feet of the site as it steps z down the hill. • In order to avoid cutting into the hill, the house was designed to rest on stilts. • The house will also be designed to have a jacking system to accommodate differential settlement on the site should it occur. • Access to the street is difficult. The main entrance to the house will be at elevation 77' and the street is at approximately 88'. Therefore, a complicated © driveway is necessary. • A bridge structure would need to be built if the house is moved further to the west. Therefore, if the house were to be located further to the west a variance would be needed to have a structure in the setback area. ® • The dominant character of the neighborhood is two story homes and Exhibit H shows where all the two story homes in the area are located. • There is some fill on the site and the soils report (Exhibit J) is a compelling reason for the design proposed. z i w h �5 i i df� 1 t ... ..... �., «�.._ ._....�...a....r«...ww..�.�...�......�.�.t..:��. .... war.be.hwY+M+4r+rM.w...wewava f TIN Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-119 Page 3 Al Ansari, Applicant, said: • There are a number of trees on the site which will be removed to allow for construction of the house. Therefore, views from neighboring properties will be improved. From the Community: Philip Ruggiero, Owner of Adjacent Property, said: • The fact that this property is hard to build on is not a surprise. • The house he is now constructing was designed with the height restriction in mind. • He had to excavate and construct a retaining wall at great expense. • He too used a geotechnical engineer. • There are options which can be considered in order to build a house on the Ansari site. The options may be difficult and may be expensive, but there is no reason for a variance. • This is not an unbuildable situation. • The proposed house will dwarf his house. There have been other houses in the area which were built with long driveways. Robert Anderson, neighbor, said: • It appears this house was not designed for this site, but was appropriated from somewhere else. ` • He believes approval of the requested variance would create an adverse impact on neighbors. O • The neighbors will reap the benefit of tree removal with any house that goes on the site. Therefore, that should not be viewed as a special benefit and the house should meet the height requirements. • The depth of fill before native soil is reached is unknown. Therefore, an application for a 12 foot height variance is premature. Phyllis Wiggins, neighbor, said: • The DNS was misnomer which got her attention. w LL U 0 z : .IIIU* :.1 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-119 Page 4 • The neighborhood while diverse is compatible and this proposal will be out of sync with the neighborhood. Kathleen Johnson, neighbor, said: • The house was not designed for this site. • The design would result in a three story structure next to the public trail. 1 • She thinks other houses which have been granted height variances were for less than 12 feet. Frank Bonipart, neighbor, said: • He had to excavate to build his house and it was expensive. • This proposal will impact his view. • The Ansari site is not easy to build on, but neither was his site. Response from the Applicant: t Barbara Pickens responded that: • She does not believe the proposed foundation is cheap, but she believed it will do the least environmental damage. Al Ansari responded that: • The house was designed for the site and the project architect was at the site many times. • The height issue is due to the way the City calculates height. CORRESPONDENCE: Philip Ruggiero wrote in Exhibit B: "I am presently constructing a single family resident at 16010 75rh Place West, Edmonds, which is directly adjacent and south of the property where the proponent is requesting the variance. 0 It is inconceivable to me that plans have been produced and submitted to the Cityfar permit, knowing that the 25foot height maximum is part of the city ordinance for building in this area. There is no logical reason why a variance should be approved based on the size and configuration of the lot in question. Surely there are many alternatives for designing a very nice single family residence on this lot without violating the neighborhood height restriction. Id did it with substantial personal financial sacrifices because I have a great deal of respect for the theme and culture of the surrounding area and I believe anybody building on the west side of that street should be required to stay within the confines of the 25 foot maximum height restriction. That's why these ordinances are in existence. It's only fair, it only makes good sense. As concerned citizens, I feel we all have a responsibility to respect other people's view of i environmental issues as they relate to the esthetics of an area and the possible blocking of view properties, etc. To allow the construction of a "white elephant" would destroy the integrity and 'feel" of the neighborhood and would adversely impact surrounding vie s and resale values. w b As I mentioned earlier, this is not a case of property that is 'unbuildable' without some kind ! of variance. This is simply a complete disregard for the rules without regard to any other consideration and I feel strongly that this is wrong and should not be tolerated.U. " rn d Robert and Joann Anderson wrote in Exhibit C: Z E- o;' "We strongly object to the determination of non -significance made by Jeffrey Wilson w wi granting a variance of 12 feet above the allowable 25 foot maximum height limitation for a :3 0i single family residence at 16008 76" Place West in Meadowdale. l o tJ It is impossible to tell without a surveyor's level the effective height impact of the decision, LU i �jj1, but it appears to us in the neighborhood that 37 feet from the average of four corners of a Ibuilding footprint at the east edge of that lot would extend well above the level of the street, z , significantly impacting in a negative way the northwesterly views from the homes to the southeast on the eastside of 75`h Place West, on the east side of 74`h Place West within the ~o Lorian Woods development and homes south of the Lorian Woods development. It would z likewise very significantly damage the southwesterly views from homes northeast of the lot in question on the east side of 75`h Place West, north of North Meadowdale Road. Part of the object of the 25 foot height limitation is the protection of the amenity of view which is a determinant of both land values and the rights of pleasant enjoyment in any given situation. Further, a 37 foot height structure located on an already much higher lot, would monstrously dominate the houses to the north, creating a very unpleasant community 0 disparity. The view from this waterfront lot is totally unobstructed and would not improve no matter l what height is allowed. Therefore, there is no advantage to the property developer other than hislher own convenience in determination of preference of design. 'There is no hardship involved. " Phyllis Wiggins wrote in Exhibit D: "The Determination ofNon-Significant I received struck me immediately as a misnomer.. to me it should more aptly have read "Determination of Great Significance"... I realize that ti Determination dealt entirely with environmental issues but the impact of this proposed dwelling would have Great Significance to the entire neighborhood. Et 77 44 In so C Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-119 Page 6 As a home owner, we were careful to check the possible codes and zoning that might impact our purchases, and at that time we learned of the 25foot height restriction for future building across the street. I have to believe that Mr. Ansari also confirmed before purchase what rights and limitations applied to this building site. Either tiie house is inappropriate for this site or the property is wrong for the house he wants to build.. whichever has greater priority. Item S of the variance application asks, 'Will the portion of your proposal for which you seek a variance case a loss of property value, scenic view, or use in surrounding properties?' I find it hard to believe Mr. Ansari I can say with a straight face, and with integrity, that he honestly believes he can answer 'No'. Twenty-one feet above street level would have a major impact. In a neighborhood of diversity and compatibility, the proposed building would appear to me to be a glaring and conspicuous exception. 1 do hope you will suggest that Mr. Ansarifind a more suitable building plan that would not require this variance. " Frank and Marion Bonipart wrote in Exhibit E: "We are concerned about the 12' height variance requested by the property owners at 16008 7P Place West, Edmonds, WA. This is a significant addition to the height of a building and would definitely affect our view of the sound. All other houses in the area are in compliance with the height standard. Unless there is a significant hardship connected with the building site which would dictate the height variance we are opposed to the granting of the request " 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 14,738 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: The subject property slopes from the east to west with the greatest slope closest to the west property line. The soils report submitted by the applicant (Exhibit J) reviews soil conditions on the site and provides several conclusions and recommendations. 5) Vegetation: Vegetation consists of several trees and native grasses n jt 5 C t � tr t i .__r.-+....`r..r......::. _.rrw.+a....+v..6wti�wvavWsrwxuwanw...rw •. � ••• .;:• •. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a. Facts: 1) The adjacent properties to the north, south, and west and 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 COMIVIMTY 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 height variance, the existing development conforms to all RS-12 requirements (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). b. Conclusion: The proposal complies with the development standards for the RS-12 zone as set forth in Chapter 16.30, with the exception of the 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. All variance criteria must be met before a variance can be granted. 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 steep slopes on the property make construction of a driveway difficult, and that special circumstances exist because, "From the face of the proposed house to the centerline of the street there is a 27% slope. Site access is difficult and further complicates the siting of a home." t t � jf Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-119 Page 8 4) The applicant states that that two-story homes are typical for this area of Edmonds and reducing a home to one-story with a daylight basement is inconsistent with other homes in the vicinity and therefore iapproval , of their proposal is not a granting of a special privilege. 5) The applicant has stated that the proposal is consistent with the & Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance (see also section "D" of L) Exhibit A for additional discussion of compliance with the N W Comprehensive Plan). W Ln U. 6) The applicant states that the proposal is not detrimental in that the LU residence will be less than 16-feet above the street and neighbors to the 2 east are above the street therefore they will not be affected by the U. a height variance. 7} The applicant states that the Proposal is the minimum necessary in that Z they are utilizing a flat roof, reduced the bulk of the structure and are OR! following the topography to the extent possible. 2 pi 8) Driveways may not exceed 14% slope without approval from the Ni Engineering Division. o r b. Conclusions:LU x 1) Special Circumstances U. oZ; The subject property has steep slopes, which may exceed 27% in some LU places. Driveways may not exceed 14% slope without approval from s the Engineering Division. The City prefers all other options to be explored before allowing a driveway to exceed 14%. The home's only street access is via 75th Place West, therefore, other access options do not exist. Some provision for locating a residence on the lot should be provided. One option the applicant could consider is relocation of the garage which could mitigate the need for additional height. Nevertheless, it appears that special circumstances exist due to ..� topography. However, there was no basis found in the soils report to s support the magnitude of the height variance requested. 2) Special Privilege 8 A special privilege would be demonstrated if this variance were to be granted in that no evidence was provided which documents the granting of any previous variance of this magnitude in the vicinity. 3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan In this case, approval of this variance would not be consistent with the provisions of ECDC Section 16.10.000.B which states in part: Any growth or development should strive to preserve for itself and its neighbors the following values: 3. Views, open spaces, shorelines, and other natural features. The Examiner believes that an applicant has the right to construct a building which complies with the code requirements even if it impacts 0 z 1--11 0 w ui, U (D 0-1 a t:; �o "z U= 0r z C C^ } Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-119 Page 9 views from neighboring properties, however, views should be considered and preserved when an applicant is asking for a variance from the code. The proposed 12 foot height variance would result in some impact to views from neighboring properties and from 75`t' Place West and therefore, is not consistent with the intent of the above noted provision of the Code. 4) Not Detrimental As inferred above, it is believed that approval of a 12 foot height variance would impact views and therefore would be detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity. 5) Minimum Required The proposal does not appear to be the minimum required in that, as the applicant notes in Attachment 2 to Exhibit A, a one-story residence with a daylight basement could be constructed. Also, the applicant could relocate the garage and thereby create additional living space; he could reduce the height of the residence; or he could move the house further west and provide a full daylight basement effectively allowing a two-story residence with a detached garage. C. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE 1. Review by City Departments a. Fact: No comments were submitted by other departments. D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) 1. a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Large Lot". b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. 2. a. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies which relate to "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below. (1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in accordance with the fallowing 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. " E Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 9b• 119 Page 10 b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City for the development of residential property in the City. DECISION Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is denied. w LL o Entered this 21st day of November, 1996, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. La d� s uh z r C z �! Ron McConnell u+ su: Hearing Examiner j of Q z U RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS p; The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and zii ' appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the ui m• Planning Department for further procedural information. 0 z 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. Section 20.105A20.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. w c,a 0 a w z U. W v 0 z a it a Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-119 Page 11 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 exhibit were offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report, dated 10/30/96, with 4 attachments B. Letter from Philip Ruggiero, dated 11/6/96 C. Letter from Robert Anderson, dated 10/18/96 D. Letter from Phyllis Wiggins, dated 10/28/96 E. Letter from Frank and Marion Bonipart, dated I ln196 F. Map showing sites that have received height variances G. Drawing showing relationship of house to street H. Map with: Red dots = 2 story houses; green dots = Vacant lots I. Soils report letter, by Neil TweIker, dated 10n196 PARTIES of RECORD: Al Ansari Barbara Pickens, AIA 9304 Olympia View Drive 9950 Lake Washington blvd. N.E. Edmonds, WA 98020 Bellevue, WA 98004 Philip J. Ruggiero 612614& Court N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 Phyllis Wiggins 16012 70 Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 Kathleen Johanson 7309 North Meadowdale Road Edmonds, WA 98026 Planning Division Engineering Division Robert A. and Joann Anderson 160 73d Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 Frank and Marion Bonipart 7429 North Meadowdale Road Edmonds, WA 98026 Jeanie Anderson 16727 70 Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 Fire Department Parks Department Public Works Department �� 0 +• *'at rg90 199 0 City of Edmonds Critical Areas Checklist tj N The Critical Areas Checklist contained on p this form is to be filled out by any person �! preparing a Development Permit Q , Application for the City of Edmonds prior U.U, to His/her submittal of a development permit to the City. z �- z o The purpose of the Checklist is to enable UJ UJ: City staff to determine whether any :3 O� potential Critical Areas are or may be opresent on the subject property. The LU U j information needed to complete the � Checklist should be easily available from U- observations of the site or data available at LU v, City Hail (Critical Areas inventories, maps, o or soil surveys). Z An applicant, or his/her representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, 0 0 51 JAN - g las COMMUNITY 4� n' VIUS 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: 41 A60R l !` 8 46ut. Mo o s#yg6ss Name R3oy 66- Iat% tIt'cw Q.v Street Address Applicant Representative: Name '15 0'{ Street Address C-Ame,nd1, WA- 19020 775,-go11 `�-4{VV%1-1,act.S' w y c L "yla-`icN City, State, Z Phone City, State, ZIP Phone Signature Date Stgnature Date r STATE Or WASIMOTON. I. s❑ I- Affidavit of Publication i i r - "F-CEiVED JUN 2 5 1997 EDMONDS C17Y CLEM The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of -Everett. County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior i Court of Snohomish County and that the notice ........................................ Public Hearin & DevelopmenC Application " Classico Homes, Inc. File No.: P-97-65 a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: June 20, 1997 t said newspaper was regu ar distr' to its subscribers Lag all of said period. Principal Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this.........2Qth day.......June.....................jSt.-­ for„ Notary Public in a residing at Everett, Snohy. c°V40TA y " G 9J` 5-t9.9B ��f FOR WAS�t?a rMA OR K�l; m, 01 7 F c t F t f `p ti fi� t 4 i man, \; " !IV GITY OF rA F— >MG7NDS iicnetAnn, l-lav Yn 'Af, 't= .t' eMAY0f1 r`t'•'�• 'f 200 aTN AVCNYQ N6fITH • 20MON04. WA 00020 • III00I 79}Kf220 ►A% IaOaf a7/W22} COMMUNITY SIiRVICAS OHPARTMRNT Public Works • Ptannin0 + Parks and Recreation • Hnolnesring a'r. SS4 , r1ML-E�COP1ER GGVEtit. P^C910 T4: �• +j F—Y W � MATE TRANSMITTEC7• ` - (inCluCfin¢ Cover Papo) Recipients ToteooplNumbarn _ �.%�•G+� •=�� FA081Mt1_E E41.f1PME1V'f': Autamstic//r3rcup tl (2.3 mins.i: �rclup tIt FRCIMs tYfnre arw un prot:i1ams - +. fyurinp tranamlission or documents are r®aalvad - incomplmta, please call - C209) 771-0 20 anti risk or Send elecoplar Nurnl:ier: (206) T71-0221 an, bi\b\Wereaatal}aflPerm- i •. lntorooratod Auftltusr 22, tB40 a alstar Cities international — M.kinan, Japan ' TRANSMISSION REPORT THIS DOCUMENT (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE) WAS SENT desk COUNT sk�tc # 2 *** SEND *** NO REMOTE STATION I.D. START TIME DURATION #PAQES COMMENT 1 12063393049 6-17-97 3:14PM 1'25" 2 TOTAL 0:01'25" 2 XEROX,TELECOPIER 7020 Are CITY OF EDMOIeDS I a+ �d BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 99020 1205> 771-0220 FAX 12051 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT `St: 159� Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering TELECOPIER COVER PAGE TO:DATE TRANSMITTED: NUMBER OF PAGES;_ (including Cover Page) Recipients Telecopier Number: FACSIMILE EQUIPMENT: Automatic/Group It (2,3 mins.); Group III FROM: if there are any problems during transmission or documents are received incomplete, please call (206) 771-0220 and ask for Number: (206) 771-0221 9 cn i 1-1 C7 THIS IS A LEGALADVEflEMENT AND SHOULD BE BILLED TO -C.) PLANNING DEPARTMENT HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Name of Applicant: Classico Homes, Inc. File No.: P-97-65 Project location: 20605 Maplewood Dr., Edmonds Project Description: Preliminary Subdivision of approximately 2 acres (87,171 square feet) into 6 single- family buildings sites, each with a minimum lot area of 12,000 square feet. Additionally, the applicant has requested a modification of Edmonds Community Development Code requirement for the installation of sidewalks within the private road tract; and, a modification of the required street improvements along Maplewood Drive. The proposed subdivision will retain the existing single-family residence located adjacent to Maplewood Drive and include the development of private road to access the remaining 5 building sites from 88th Avenue West. The proposed private road will located adjacent to the north property line. The subject property is zoned RS-12. City Contact: John Bissell Public Comment Period Due By: 7/3/97 Name of Applicant: Al & Batoul Ansad File No.: V-97-67 Project Location: 16008 75th Pl. W., Edmonds Project Description: Variance to increase the maximum permitted height for a single-family residence from 25-feet to 30-feet to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family residence. The subject property is zoned RS-12. City Contact: Meg Gruwell Public Comment Period Due By: 7/3/97 Name of Applicant: John & Sue Waldburger File No.: AP-97-75 Project Location: 307 2nd Ave. N., Edmonds Project Description: Appeal of a Planning Division Staff interpretation of the application of the 'Nonconforming Lots" regulations pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 17A0.030 related to a request to develop two adjoining single-family buildings sites, under common ownership, located in an RS-6 zone, each with a lot width of less than the 60-foot lot width requirement for the RS-6 zone. The subject property affected by this appeal are zoned RS-6. City Contact: Jeff Wilson Public Comment Period Due By: 7/3/97 PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION TIME: 9:00 AM DATE: July 3,1997 LOCATION: Plaza Meeting Room - 650 Main St., Edmonds r Notice of Development Application & Hearing Examiner Public Hearing - Date of Notice: June 19, 1997 File # V-97-67 I Applicant Information Permit Information r Name of Applicant.......... AI&Batoul Ansad Requested Permute Variance , and Approvals:............... r Date of Application:........ May 6, 1997 Other Required Permits Unknown Date Application June 3,1997 not yet applied for (if -� 1 Complete: ....................... known):.......................... Project location: ............ 16008 75th Pi. W., Edmonds Project Description:........ Variance to increase the maximum permitted height for a single-family residence from 25-feet to 304eet to allow the construction of a new two-story residence. The subject property is zoned RS-12. Public Comments due July 3, 1997 by: . - ..........................:.... Public Hearn Date: July 3, 1997 Time: 9:00 A.M. Required Studies related Unknown to the project: ............ Related Environmental Critical Areas Checklist Documents:.-..... City Contact: .................. Meg Gruwell g Information q Place: Plaza Meeting Room - 650 Main St., Edmonds Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Community Services Department, 250 Sth Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020. (425) 771-0220. Public comments should also be sent to this address. The decision on this development application will be made- within 120days ofthe date ofthe Letter of Completeness, with allowances madeforstadi'es and additional information requests. Note that ability to appeal a decision Is contingent -po>tparticipah in th¢permrtdectstonpro<ess. The removal,mutilation, destruction, orconcealment of this This notice may be removed Warning! notice before the hearing date is a misdemeanor punishable by after: July 3,1997 fine and imprisonment ....... ..... . .. l -- 0 0 7904-000-010-0000 Derry William E 16107 74th PL W Edmonds, WA 98026 7904-000-003-0009 Chung Seung 5508154th PL SW Edmonds,' WA 98026 5131-029-009-0001 Bernstein Gerald 6653 NE Windermere rd Seattle, WA 98115 5131-029-011-0007 Elliott Paul & Linda 16000 75th PL W Edmonds, WA 98026 5131-030-009-0009 Bonipa t Frank 7429 N Meadowdale RD Edmonds, WA 98026 5131-058-001-0008 Wiggins Phyllis 16012 74th PL W Edmonds, WA 98026 7904.000.004-000& Anderson Robert & Joann 16010 73rd PL W Edmonds, WA 98026 5131-058.006-6003 Williams Paul & Guardian Estate of Janeway Mary 6324 181st PL SW Lynnwood, WA 98037 5131-058-011-0006 Washington Mut SIB Young Sandra PO BOX 91006 SAS 0701 Seattle, WA 98111 PE ON THIS SIDE 'WITHIN BOXES 5131-058-004-0005 Imamura Ejgene 5707 244th SW Moundake Terrace, WA 98043 5131-058-005-0004 Ebert M E 1603175th W Edmonds, WA 98026 5131-058-008-0100 Mr'lls Sherman 16115 75th PI W Edmonds, WA 98020 5131-058-009-000 S 16115 th PL W WA 98020 5131-059.001-0006 Edmonds Family Mod Clinic 11906 Marine Yew DR Edmonds, WA 98026 5131-059-004-0003 Ruggiero Philip 6126140th Cr N E Redmond, WA 98052 5131-059-006-0001 McCorlde Roger PO BOX 7178 Seattle, WA•98133 5131-058-008-0209 W & Guardian Estate Janeway Mary 632 16 PL SW Lynnwood, WA 98037 -059-008 Of 250 511VAMe N 98020 9. W 1 a w Y 0 z Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of � 19 �.o Notary Ptiblic in and for the State of Washington Coo i Residing at . � r r Tt#t r 5 r z rkx ,h yxsjtr 4-fi-. '` ¢i 'r i '� { f - •a En k F n ; t5y„ r� tr t�` tiAl ez h ir3 i N W_ s C , v �J k4F r r> a s� 71� 4i1 j}fir r gnu -� r.4 z 4 !3 K: �, ti �r rr1 of xT a* t ��r v t'4 t '. � •tey` t r A r �x t .+n,.wii:tteam.akfn2iLau,..+5t..Y &G' s ,M„ - FILE NO.: V-97=67 I APPLICANT: Ansan i �t NOTICE OF HEARING LU AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING -o � STATE OF WASHINGTON .r } u. 4 COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH } X 01 w wi I, DIANE M. CUNNINGHAM, sworn on oath, depose and say: Lai That on the 19th day of June, 1997, the attached Notice of Hearing was mailed as �- 0} required to adjacent property owners, the names of which were provided by the Z_. applicant. o z Signed Subscribed and sworn to before me this l day of , 19 97 4: 1 i Notary Public in and for State of Washington. r O Residing at j,,1,44-o (mot�. _ J Y iy dr}U TiOCUritdiCi , 5^`,�+"a4Tjo Yes sr �� Q rh C. 1,8 9 13 f x 1 f.� '..w.T (7 CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771.0220 - FAX (206) 771.0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works - Planning - Parks and Recreation • Engineering $E June 3,1997 w ((n ht AI and Batoul Ansari Ln UJI p 9304 Olympic View Dr. � Edmonds, WA 98020 L Subject: ASSIGNMENT OF HEARING DATE F TO Z t-, Dear Mn and Mrs. Ansari: t- Q w W Your application is now complete and has been scheduled for public hearing at the time and place 2 al listed below. ca m n L Action: Variance w w File No. Assigned: V-97-67 U. bi Date of Hearing: July 3.1997 Ui Z!, Time: 9:00 A.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. )-f Place: Plaza Room Edmonds Library 650 Main Street Hearing Body: Hearing Examiner Please be aware that your presence at the hearing is highly advisable. If an applicant or his representative is not present, the item may be moved to the end of the agenda. Items not reached by the end of the hearing will be continued to the following month's agenda. i If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 771-0220. ' Sincerely, ® Community Services Department - Planning Division `�1zf7 j c Meg Gruweli Planner cc: Mr. James Jameson File No. V 97-67 Compmrxvoc • Incorporated August I1, 1890 + Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan rn c,18913 11 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 STH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771.0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering ni May 27,1997 h ° Al and Batoul Ansari 9304 Olympic View Dr. 0 Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO COMPLETE co o YOUR VARIANCE APPLICATION, FILE NO. V-97-67 _ 3 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Ansari: Q} w uui I have reviewed your application packet for a height variance for your proposed = o home at 16008 - 75th Place W., which has provided most of the information we need. :3 however, I need some more information before I can continue processing your a application: 1. Your signature must be added to the application form. U. _ z: 2. Also please clarify if the garage(s) will be under the two-story house, and if the area further to the west underneath the two story house will be used for I-, any purpose, or is strictly a crawl space. 0 Z Please respond to the above b 5:00 m. June 2 1997 so that our application may P y P• � � e Y PP � Y be processed in an expedient manner. Also please note that we have five McCorkle short plats, so the legal description you provided is not adequate. I have determined which one you were referring to, and have copied the legal description from that short plat, so I am not requiring you to provide that. If you have any questions, please contact me at 771-0220. Sincerely, ® Meg ruwell Planner 61 cc: Mr. James Jameson � .! • Incorporated August 11, 1890 e Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan jf'�- t sl .t� 1 1, �? t4' T ;�Li3 1�•f4. ft'1 � 1 i A_�� 2.� A x �{ L P ♦ ...•�www�.:,fi.. i....i:ir+y.swt�svx.�,.,�.u�i f...'f...w..�+.ww,..a.,.n 1 i;'S,r. �. ) '( - i i i' Ask,,, t # got,, ' r nli .,^�!� �►..� I �1 it!++c dF " 1 r ��� oY!ac.t ts..,�vcnry tN W M� ..�acslT.re U. z . u�, ?., ..L, �,+.�• `U U. 01 W W!. .� �j :. IT a ., _ .. Gq p..ti,'yr... ,,... , �7r. Oliiyts�A/•a, , .. _ _. _ .:: .... . . .. ..:.. .. ,... ., e $r i `j' ,. t# — LP,ri tf |\� 51 r A m P. Om m m , na > 0 > to > lop m r > 10 32XIII 25X cam' mho �O Fw' z� mm$Om ?'3 �m-�'zmmm °So�� ��o2x wo °.»0o m m m wn�2a o Q _ag rm- g f o m m m m m m 0 O D m O 0= =u� m 2 0 o m'c zZ_^u�"im m 0 o` mo O_ o N mm S9°iR'°99 ZaH rom 'OA mm ems, Z �,om�m 0OD 4Im m N<nm Hn O•mm.0 O- m.m E.�m=; mm�< T �° 8 i pD mR-Hoo' Fa&2 on Ha °—Om^o o�°' c3 om Y°m36mdg ,Z m�m Q $ V 3 i 6R.. t° PH N m 0 O 7 xi o m 0- m ° ��"�fn m QQ 85. � o pO WOmWm .O '°'O (11m op' Gm m m Qmmom! O�Zm��33 �ioa mo f_fooCi �.n>mtvOam g°'m3o.F norm �mm3 v ?m mD m ro QOOfp �'j �1 O VQ6> m �5 Om >O o ,�m�ro Qm O.mmy H N= moo59=S5sZ maammoioal� HvIDP4 SO mm my I i o a�mmmNm-Zim m'� ���mm �»~ oma gmi�oS �Cmm3m3 m6Z) mm �Z4 my o.o ...Awmmom0 5.�m nmox ma; Qor W Z�'m+m ° d w romoo ao gg m I'M. 5o goa-omao z 30 QN�v SyN Sn Oj.y On�pm<j LCQ Wm UIS ymmm.m m�o�mmmt(m(t�p�O'm �Sp�-mN o'mmF m�^n' O..im0 mO.m3 jp tn D0. m2Za o?zgm_ pcm ;0 fpt3 z o p m 0�. 3.0m..o OSmm cn mQ �O 'HJV° m?ro- PWm fil m � m F:g., Za,- :ta 'Zs'» m9 gam Omx'°13 mf o:m� mop, OR o? Qm°im`z �m8 jc- g g Zp m �m �oRQR �o.om�sim" °o o'o- giro pNa2 Q3o gro 060 33m n?».m o44mm 92 Q3 o �m m Sim 0OS'3m 6m O.mdvni Nd a mC�a t[b 32XICl cm ^�p om�mm f-`Om zO i mva°ma .._ aA m< m y .am2 i $comm mNm�m ? m -..n�� mm°�_.. ��ya maA_m Z o z oo zz v o°bgrt ®.. > mC6Z°°OZ m�Ommmga °m Spz4c�o'�NmgO NiI�IiIam��oo aaOi, mo° aa m ° a g =4 0 M-4 `nma:O m3�3omC nmcg9fii �Vdg^ &=oO'. smO g�Sa_N.°9�y- �cmsm0m SRpmmaa0O 3 O o -O.WyvOn ' O®2O �`mmaO "g ; Onm0 °maOcyWn OOo ' ommKm�E- . Om ofs� N owao z 0O��m mmmpm^cj � �m m Z O OqO.- m-gy0gmy^o Ozmmf_=��sma-. Wm��pm°m o5 mg S m@a.mm o. ^' m Cn I o. ZWGmajim�' �my...��oo-° zm�m.mom�`�m°m m�+» O og °� y2 m7`L7 H c mm3�s am -zoam -nmm� _ � �mmydaSSS'm°�o ^mmy o m ".. N 3ro »E mmmf'o Nm o, iaa oa mm 3 °' 'I"U13a°'m Via. za.m a ma£ H o o g��»® mm Kom" a �3'� mm°o:m� g '# gmm m'am mgmq; _§n"¢ H o mmSN�-' oO�mna 2jm0 'mom �o �. m mma S�Np S.gm» �.O94. m ro'oa$o $� - cif a lmi. < oc'm 2m °gmamy� S 4j(OmN _� d'o'.3.' °b� O Nt�n mz om �i 5 m 0_ O a S g 3 -,0� pmmgg o j0 ao3 m0� z zv°i w Ami m m=.d (hmmm m ttOO a- V V mm � g O- Nm m Z m m mm m,m? m a r m o'om2m=imago- mm+0oog d '. m aoao,�, a.RN F3 ° 3mm B'9 mo r°-� mo Wig' 3 Q m � o $' Gm'�m$8. a »"l z3°ri'�" $ a °Zo, > mom ma. aaa .. o. o�•e �Sm o:3ao8 ¢mm m �$$$$ g 0 z U \R�/VVGTnpN oY� v i!DEFT. E5o vG DN u Ilk ac R w; 6" �., 7 CI C7 R3 , ®•� .. '' m Zls� ni Rr { ^$n m b �o N I `C �`�- eo ''�' �FZW-^ a, •7> 8 6ta� b \ Z \ `�\ 0.4 70Rto \5. 'or N cmMCI co pW alit N r° z >3<p m0 Nylmm x v— f lR i � m *omy U <m m O Y42 \ n of n _I 9 o_ Z0'<N i o m O A Ys6r` +. �a�n p 0 C n-u N Z In Frox o i; l 0 9 D D rG1 I I A -4 7p1 � N w Z �uJ x l O a w i m " S •' I 32XID 25XI zZ —w wU J V jo V)n C/)LU w� J f- Lf)LL O W Q J w D �0 __ z f-- ,= o z 1— ww v o- 4 � W wi _ L, F �a —z :� N U_ o~ z APPLICATIONROUTING FORM FILE: V=97-67 AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING i? A..,. '��1JyF�.R �r ROUTED TO: RETURNED lNG Engitt,7 Engineering_ Flre 5/8/97 Fire Public Works 5/8/97 Public Works Parks ex Rec. 5/8/97 Parks ex Rec. Staff Comments: 5& cxzaol *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 AL 8z SATOUL ANSARI • Property Address 16008 75TH PL. W. • Date of Application 5/6/97 • Type VARIANCE • Hearing Required: Yes X No Date of Hearing (if known) X Application X Fee X APO List Title Report X Vicinity Map X Elevations Petition (Official Street Map) X Critical Areas Determination 0 j. c } MEMORANDUM 31 U 04 W i Date: May 19, 1997 tz LL To: Planning Division -Q From: Gordy Hyde, Engineering Goordinator9clo Subject: Variance for Ansari (16008 - 75th PI. W.1(V-97-67) z Q The application has been reviewed by the Engineering Division. The ED LU' Engineering Division has no requirements to impose at this time. The applicant c will need to comply with all the terms of any future permits. The application is v considered complete at this time. W x LY d)!' o~ z :7 CITY OF EDMONDS ENGROMI SIG DIVI.9ION V97067.DOC 7M i r w i i� _z �z W sg L� U i; o U) W LU �- U) U_ �0 W Q J LL �a LLJ. z� �_0 z �- W W �o U to a _ �) �o —z L� c) _ o rS z 0 7 FILE V-97-E7 FROM: PLANNING: .8Sco tf" RETURNED Engineering IBLIC WORKS DFF't Firr' Public Works Parks 8t Rec. APPLICATION ROUTING FORM AND CHECKLIST ROUTED M: Engineering 5/8/97 Fire : 5J8/97 P blipgM,gl(11 * M12111' "V" Pafk V Stec ' 518/97 Staff *PER WHAT SECT101M OF THE CODE? *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL. NOT BE CONSIDERED *Additional Information Required for Complete Application *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review • Owner AL tit BATOUL ANSARI • Property Address 16008 75TH PL. W. • Date of Application 5/6/97 • Type VARIANCE • Hearing Required: Yes X No Date of Hearing (if known) X Application X Fee X APO List Title Report X Vicinity Map X Elevations Petition (Official Street Map) X Critical Areas Determination Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11) X Site Plan (1 i x 17) X Legals (E)isting & Proposed) - Environmental Assessment Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) X Declarations (variance) Environmental Cheddist ! no iZ z x <� J U JO ;n fl LU LIJ_ J F- J)a W } Q LL wa z F- , a z �- ww U uti p ih w s V � h "--O z ui tn v_= ar z G tE i APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE: V-97-67 AND CHECKLIST ` FROM: PLANNING k S R E Criv/ ROUTED TO: RETURNED MAY ii'V/jA%7,- Engineering 5/8/97 Engineering �QMON()S _FIRE rtFp'T,,,,--„ L-_Fire7 �✓ ;-? Public Works5/8I97 Public Wfdrks Parks rat Rec. 5/8/97 Parks 8t Rec. Staff Comments: V/�& 1 *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE? *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WALL NOT RB CONSIDERED *Additional Information Required for Complete Application *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review • Owner AL tat BATOUL ANSARI • Property Address 16008 75TH PL. W. • Date of Application 5/6/97 Type VARIANCE • Hearing Required: Yes X No Date of Hearing (if known) X Application X Fee X APO list Title Report X Vicinity Map X Elevations Petition (Official Street Map) X Critical Areas Determination Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11) __A_Site Plan (11 x 17) X Legals (Existing & Proposed) Environmental Assessment Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) X Declarations (Variance) Environmental Checklist O 12 =z � —W J O ..i o nW J H LO o w Q J LL j. z_ �— !- O z �- W W 2=) jo U o- o 1--, W W$ =U ` F- u- O z LU Lp U� O~ z 11 E RECEjvjW APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE: V-97-67MAY ILG l AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING PARKS&R M:CRFA 01 ROUTED TO: RETURNED Engineering 5/8/97 Englneerin Fire 5/8/97 Fire Public Works 5/8/97 Public Works "% Parks8l;I er.,r` 8/974 Parks at Rec. Staff Comments: *PER WHAT SECTION 4F THE CODE? *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED *Additional information Required for Complete Application *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review • Owner AL 8t BATOUL ANSARI + Property Address 16008 75TH PL. W. • Date of Application 5/6/97 • Type VARIANCE • Hearing Required: Yes X No Date of Hearing (if known) X Application X Fee X APO List Title Report X Mcinity Map X Elevations Petition (Official Street Map) X Critical Areas Determination P Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11)� X Site Plan (11 x 17) X Legats (Existing & Proposed) Environmental Assessment Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) X Declarations (Variance) Environmental Checklist In APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE: 9767:' AND CHECKLIST FAOM':,. PLANNING ROUTED TO: RETURNED Engineering 5/8/97 Engineering Fire- 5/8/97 Public Works 5/8/97 Public Works Parks ex Rec. 5/8/97 < Parks ex k6c... Staff Comments: *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE? *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL. NOT BE,CONSIDERED *Addiflonal Infiormation Required for Complete Application *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review • Owner AL U BATOUL ANSARI • Property Address 16008 75TH PL. W. Date of Application--- 5/6/97 Type VARIANCE Hearing Required: Yes�_ X No Date of Hearing (if known)---- X _Application X Fee X -APO list Title Report X Vicinity Map X -Elevafions Petition (Official Street Map) X Critical Areas Determination F] ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD e ❑ COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # �I -�� - �'I ZONE ❑ HOME OCCUPATION j� G�^7 ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION DA�� ``— �— REC'D BY�__ ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FE�� �J�. RECEIPT# %L� ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HEARING DATE ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT / ,�,(�� STREET VACATION 9-HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ACTION TAKEN: q1 VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED ❑ OTHER ' APPEAL# Applicant Al & Batoul Ansari Phone 775-9011 Address 9304 Olympic View Drive', Edmonds, WA 98020 Property Address or Location 16008 75th Place W, Edmonds, WA 98020 Property Owner Al & Batoul Ansari Phone 775-,g().11_.__ Address- 9304 Olympic View drive, Edmonds, WA 98020 Agent James J. Jameson, Attorney at Iaw phone (425) 774-6311 Address 19707 - 44th Ave. W., Suite 219, Lynnwood, WA 98036 Tax Acc #_5131 059 003 00o4 Sec. 5 Twp. 27 N Rng. 4 E Legal Description Lot 1 , McCorkle Short Plat Details of Project or Proposed Use _Owners propose to place a two story single family residence on this lot. The difficulty of the existing slope on the site has made i npcpsGary to r ipat a hei gbt variance of 5 feet,, the deg ails of which are aaf- forth in the attached request for height variance. The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon False, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SEGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT I A 1 RECEIVIEC) MAY -4' 1997 REQUEST FOR HEIGHT VARIANCE PERMIT COUNTER MAY 6, 1997 OWNER: Al & Batoul Ansari SITE ADDRESS: 16008 75TH Place W., Edmonds, WA 98020 n U& VARIANCE REQUEST: A 5-FOOT VARIANCE TO THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION LU Height Calculation: NW Corner 58 NE 74 Lo SW 58.5 Uil X, SE 71 TOTAL 261.5 DIVIDE BY 4: AVERAGE GRADE 65.375 LU LU 2:3� ALLOWABLE HEIGHT 25 PROPOSED MAX. HEIGHT 30 0 MAX. ALLOWABLE HEIGHT 90.375 ot PROPOSED MAX. ELEVATION 95.375 UJ Lul 0 Z Prior Request for Variance - File # V-96-119 LU CM0,11 APPLICATION DECLARATIONS 0 z 1. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES: The site for this home has a slope from the front to the rear of the site which has made it impossible to design the home to stay within the height restriction and satisfy the home owners' requirements. The site has a 25% slope down the center of the site. From the face of our proposed house to the centerline of the street there is a 27% slope. site access is difficult and further complicates the siting of the home. Access to the site is from the street above only. The severe slope of the property dictates the location of the 0 home. The previous request for a 12 Foot height variance was an effort to build a home commensurate with the homes in the area. A new Architect has been retained and the following changes have been made: A. A deck was shortened changing the height calculations of the corners somewhat. B. The home will be placed somewhat deeper into the slope causing the elevation of the main floor to be 1.16 feet lower than the original plan. Height Variance Req. - 1 N . ......... 0 C. The ceiling height has been lowered to make up the additional height savings. It should be noted that the topography of the lot is such that most of the height of the home will be below street level, as the r z lot slopes deeply down and away from street level. Street level LU r has been calculated at 86 feet, therefore the home will be less :r than 10 feet above street level, considerably lower than the height .0 JO of a one story home, with a pitched roof on flat terrain. Q UJ X It is submitted that were it not for the method used by the .0 _J �­ City to calculate height restrictions, this home is well below any 01 height restriction from street level and the view of neighboring U 1 properties. LL< 2. SPECIAL PRIVILEGE: Most homes in the metropolitan region are in BI two-story homes. If we were to comply with the height restriction, X Ue, we would be allowed to build a main floor and a very limited Z X daylight basement. The upper floor living area would not be f_ 0 allowed. To provide for adequate living area, it was decided to Z 1­ build an upper floor that would house the bedrooms. If you examine W LU the cross section of the home, you will see that the Architect has tried to reduce the height and to follow the slope of the site. 0 ;:1 The design of the home is essentially a split level home: 0- on the uphill section there is a main floor and an upper floor LL 0 Z on the lower part of the site there is a daylight basement LU 0) and a section of the main floor 0 The lower floor or basement is the garage of the home. To reduce Z the height of the home, the upper part of the house has a flat roof. The owners have worked to reduce the bulk of the home and would prefer to have the bedrooms on the upper floor. This is a normal arrangement for the region. Allowing them to build this two-story home that slopes down the hillside does not constitute a special privilege. Furthermore, 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 this site. (V2990, V590, V96-91, 0 V93-11,V96-90 in city files). It is not believed that the owners# desire to build a two-story residence would be granting a special privilege as all recent construction on the West side of 75 Place West has been two-story homes. Finally, the property directly to the North of the subject property has recently received a 5 Foot height variance, exactly 0 the same as is being requested by the owners herein. 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The comprehensive plan is for single-family development. The owners, herein, are building a single-family Height Variance Req. - 2 residence which complies with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan residential development section. The proposal of the owners is for a high -quality residence which attempts to balance both the aesthetic and economic realities of land costs in the area. The revised design will minimize any view encroachment and have no negative impact on property values. E6LU X LU 4. ZONING ORDINANCE- The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to regulate land use, the bulk of the structures and to create U) LL; 0:, appropriate uses adjacent to each other. This single-family home L, is proposed to be built in a single-family neighborhood. The elevation of the home from street level will be less than 10 feet LL <i in height. On both the North and South property lines (the side (n a, yards) the house is set back more than the minimum, creating larger 3: Uj-, corridors to the water view for passing motorists and pedestrians. �- M Z I- The Architects have worked with the topography of the site to slope 0 the home to match the site. It is only due to the impact of the wI- two low corners on the sloping site that makes it necessary for the UJ owners to seek a variance. 0- ti- 5. NOT DETRIMENTAL. This variance would not be detrimental to 0 UJ W the surrounding properties, cause a loss of property values, 6 obstruct scenic views or limit the use of surrounding properties. o. As mentioned earlier, the front of the home is less than 10 feet Z above street level. This should have the least impact possible on UJ Cn views of properties on the East side of 75th Street West. The neighbors to the North and South will not be adversely affected by 0 the height of this home as their views are to the West. Furthermore, the home is set back from the side property lines more than required, further minimizing the impact on neighboring views. 6- MINIMUM VARIANCE. The steep slope on this site creates a difficult challenge to build a two-story home commensurate with other homes in the area. All recent construction of new residences i on the West side of 75th Place West have been two-story homes. By r-v lowering the main floor of the home and lowering ceiling heights the owners are doing all they can to meet the variance criteria and still respond to the special circumstances of the site. 0 Furthermore, to reduce the height of the home the owners have elected to go with a flat roof rather than a pitched roof. The circumstances of this site are far more restrictive than is typical for this zone and the design accommodates all restrictions except one. There is no way to satisfy the maximum height restrictions, as calculated by the City0s formula, while still allowing for a reasonable use which is an appropriate economic and aesthetic 0 response typical to other new homes in the area. Again, if this site were flat, the home's design would easily fit within the height restrictions. Height Variance Req. - 3 0 10 G7 Height Variance Req. - 4 R k 'w�. d, t5"• �`�' }�,x�Tx t?F' i 9 , a 7. ''* SY�k))Nt Y4 +. },k�?rpR,tR.£ stJ a r i SY yvlta� 4 tJe _ . ...-...r.nr+au.uui.ea+-.+.._... Wiovw.+u�w.��'W� r�..........u. ....��....s....-._�_... } ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIScc 21 z I+ 111 Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list. ca Lj c On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties located within 300 feet of the subject property. E s: r 0V i 1� z w Luj Signature of A licant or Applicants Representative 0 Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 19 7 Z � iLU 041Xt o Notary P blic in and for the State of Washington i Residing at if;'•,"� UB0Go>�= ���eOF i{ rF ! it 1 1 ._. ..... . ,._,...,. ,+.r. ..-IFIy«4 �., VivGdi�.iv#ear•`�a'SK4i+dG'tr'u!lQi'fYwDcx^'"rutwawnrrlunalc+w n..._.. .. r �--,_ .. _.......� awv.�er+.rvuoe...�.... .....,..._...........:.. .... _,.. I t. PE OM THIS SIDE WITHIN Stl S 7904-000-010-0000 Si31-058.004-0005 lmaaauraEjgeae Al & Satoul Ansari Derry William E 5707 244th SW 9304 Olympic View Dr. 16107 74th PL W Edmonds, MonmlalmTerrace, WA98043 Edmonds, WA 98020 cc 7904-000-003.0009 5131-058-005-0004 z} Chung Stung EbertME James 3. Jameson of 5508154th PL SW 1603175th W 19707 44th Ave. W., Suite 219 Lynnwood, WA 98036 d Ed nonds; WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 u� Uj u, 0 5131-029-009-0001 5131-053-008-0100 Bernstein Gerald Mills Sherman 6653 NE Windermere rd 16115 ?Stir Pl W � Seattle, WA 98115 Edmonds, WA 98020 H y z ~' 5131-029-011-0007 5131-058.009.000 E_ . Elliott Pant & Linda S 16115 th PL W LU LW 2 16000 75th PL W WA 99020 :D cl; Edmonds, WA 98026 T Z w 5131-030-009-M k 5131-059-001.0006 BonFrank Edmonds Family Mai Clinic ; LL pi —, 7429 N �e RDEdmondsA 11906 Marine View DR ! Edmonds, WA 98026 WA 98026 ! h }� z 5131-058-001-0008 513� 1-0-0d4-Da03 Mfiggins Phyllis ggiero PhiliP 16012 74th PL W 6126140th Cr N E Edmonds, WA 98026 Redmond, WA 98052 7904-000-004 8 5131-059-006-Ml �1 Anderson Robert & Joann McCorlde Roger 16010 73rd PL W PO BOX 7178 Edmonds, WA 98026 Seattle, WA 98133 5131-058-006-0003 5131-058-008-0209 Williams Paul & Guardian W ui & Guardian: Estate of Janeway Mary Estate Janeway Mary 6324 181st PL SW 632 16 PL SW Lynnwood, WA 98037 Lynnwood, WA 98031 ® 1-059-008 9 1 5131-058-011-0006 Edm Washington Mut SB Sandra 2505 N Young PO BOX 91006 SAS 0701 98020 `c Seattle, WA 98111 �. .. riy{•... rE, cif Y. r. ,i %:.,,. � 9 .. A . 4 .. i .. �*,:'. zr h O �a cs cnj 0 1 W UAI S U, h � u. p z v= 0h z sc ALE T L 9� Ay . d 1 tl71 EPP F /N6° 3it / �/� 1 1• �� +O BASIS OF BEARINGS:. ROS - V. 18/PP 102-103 AluCONTOURS PER AERIAL/lr• y V SURVEY 3/16/8r { �o kpp AN1 C'PP ;2 1 36/ 3' t '" a..,40, Q 0 10 - L1 t e � 1 f W LIGNT ' SANITARY SEWER $,.� SS- STORM $eWBR �4 \ 13 UTILITIES PER AERIAL SURVEY & CITY OF EDMONDS UTILITY f�(�DRAWINGS NOTE: CORNERS TO BE —SET AFTIER SHORT PLAT APPROVAL. f n28 G.L.4, Sec. 5, T. 27 ., R.4 E-, W. a, r McCORKLE SHORT PLAT IJ o� ° 16030 Juanita-WoodJnville Way NE l Bothell, Washington 98011 (206)775-4581 - (206)362-4244 • FAX(208)362-281 i t SURVEYING ENGINEERING t ljG MANAGMEH t)j m I WAWH BY RC 11/12M MOCKID %YJZ 11/12190 ArAMM BY JZ 84 -4008 ra IN �, f' 10, Telephone 284 2410 Nei I H. Twelker and Associates, Inc. Consulting Soils Engineers avv Pf1/ Q 6 fya� PLf' Wit4,,Q tp 610 Wheeler St., No. 404 Seattle, Washington 98199 April 23, 1996 Al Ansari 9304 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, Washington 98020 I boob Re: Proposed SFR Construction at ISM 76th Place W., Edmonds, WA. Dear Mr. Ansari: At your request we have investigated the circumstances of proposed SFR at 16031 76th Place W., in Edmonds, Washington. We present herewith a report of our findings, conclusions and recommendations. Site DescriAtion The property is a parallelogram -shaped tract having a frontage on 76th Place W of 100 feet, and a depth of approximately 155 feet. it is bounded on the west by a street right-of-way, beyond which lies the right-of-way of the Burlington Northern Railroad, and on the north and south by private property. The site slopes with moderate declivity from east to west, through a topographic relief of 40 feet. The site is presently undeveloped, and covered with native brush. Soil exposures are of random dumped fill and colluvium consisting of silt and silty sand. Subsurface Exploration in order to ascertain the nature of the soil units which comprise the site, we conducted a subsurface exploration consisting of two borings made with a hollow -stem power auger, at the locations shown on Fig. 1, attached. Samples of the soils encountered were taken at intervals of 5 feet, using the Standard Penetration Test, in which a 2-inch OD split - spoon sampler is driven into the undisturbed formation at the bottom of the boring with repeated blows of a 140-lb hammer failing 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the $ sampler a given distances provides an indication of the consistency of the soil RIECE1VED MAY - 5 1997 PERMIT COULTER AI Ansari April 23,1996 Pgge 2 n i i ng The logs of the test borings have been combined with topographic information to z produce a geologic cross-section through the site, also shown in Figure 1, attached. input from a i z number of explorations performed previously in the immediate vicinity by other engineers has w also been reviewed, although not reproduced here. Six soil units have been identified from the exploratory effort which has been performed: these are described as (1) an upper unit of more 0 or less discontinuous, miscellaneous fill having a thickness of 3 to 6 feet; (2) an underlying unit w of loose fine sand (found only at the top of the hill) having a thickness of approximately 7 feet; LU a (3) a unit of firm dark gray silt with a thickness of approximately 15 feet; (4) a unit of dense v_a U_; coarse sand with a thickness of 7 feet; (5) a unit of hard silt1clay with a known thickness of 10 feet (at the downhill side of the site, but not entirely penetrated at the uphill side); and (6) a tv lowermost unit very dense fine to medium sand, with a thickness in excess of 25 feet at the u <I downhill side. D dE tom- s" Groundwater Table The test borings at the site (which were performed in July of 1994) z }' encountered the groundwater table at Elev. 48t (at the upper end of the site) and Elev. 2 (at the z oi- lower end). LULU o , Proposed Construction We understand that the site is be developed with a three-story, split o `7 level, single family residential structure having a footprint of approximately 3000 sq. ft. The n r], building will be centered between the side property lines, and located near the upper part of the X0i lot. The building site Is to be prepared with moderate excavations of up to seven or eight feet LL o -Z below existing grade. Cn U The Meadowdale "Slide Area" Information on the geologic and recent history of the Meadowdale o �s area, as well as prognostications for the continued stability of the various parts of the area, ,is Z available in a report prepared by Roger Lowe and Associates, Inc., for the City of Edmonds, dated Oct. 16, 1979. The slide area has a length variously estimated at 2100 to 3400 feet (depending on topographic interpretations), and a width of 400 to 600 feet. The project is located near the southerly quarter point of the slide area, a short distance from the lower (westerly) margin. The history as related in the Lowe report refers to principal episodes of slide activity in the winter of 1946-47, and the winter of 1955-56. Minor or local episodes are also reported from 1948, the 1960's, and in the winter of 1970-71. Failure modes described in the Lowe report consist of (1) slumps, (2) debris slides, (3) debris avalanches, and (4) debris flows. A "slump" is defined (usually) as a mass of material which moves downward on a slope, with a 0 backward rotation. A more common term for this phenomenon is "rotational slip" (or slide). The failure modes to which the term "debris" has been applied involve (presumably) masses of earth which have been loosened by previous slumping (or rendered vulnerable in some other way). Most of the "debris" events have taken place on the steep slope which forms the head scarp of the slide area, located several hundred from the subject property. The Lowe report expresses the opinion that the slide was precipitated initially by shoreline ® erosion and reactivated from time to time by the infiltration of surface water. We are inclined to the opinion that subsurface hydrostatic pressures (which could be fed from distant recharge areas) may also contribute heavily to deep-seated failures. The Lowe report predicts the area of this project to have a 95 per cent chance of undergoing "ground failure in previously failed material" within a twenty five year period. The expression "ground failure in previously failed '01 # ��' AI_Ansari _ - Aorii 23. 1 material*. is taken to mean movement of a mass of material which has moved on one or more z 11 previous occasions (i.e., reactivation of a rotational slide). gConclusions and Recommendations On the basis of our review of the circumstances of q construction at this site, we draw the following principal conclusions: -J 0 1. Project excavations will probably extend to the overconsolidated native soil units, w = although some possibility exists that the preferrerd bearing units may lie several feet LL; below the prepared bearing surface. Where bearing surfaces are prepared In material w o1 which can be identified as fill, we recommend that the excavation continue until the fill has been removed. Foundations would then be constructed on the underlying native soil LL Q or on structural fill (reasonably clean sand, gravelly sand, or sandy gravel). (n 0i x W» 2. Contact pressures of 1000 psf may be used in the design of spread foundations. All Z r footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches. Inasmuch as the weight removed in �. o the making of the excavation will greatly exceed the weight of the house, excellent w W vertical support will be assured. ate, v �l 3. Possibility of Renewed Slide Activity Although the soils which will be encountered a F- i will provide adequate vertical support for the proposed structure, the fact that the site Is _ LU1 located on a mass of earth which could conceivably shift Its position at some future date o ` means that the house could be displaced from a level position. We note that improve- - z ments in surface water management and subsurface drainage have apparently been w 0 v -. effective in preventing a recurrence of ground movement. The area has survived a �n number of severe water years (including the one just past) without significant damage. z ' At this point it is difficult to say whether or not further ground movement (i.e., rota- tional sliding or block sliding) in the Immediate area could occur. On the other hand, we are able to state that slides of the debris or avalanche type are extremely unlikely at this location. 4. Precautions Against Ground Movement On a number of occasions rotational movement has been known to occur in the Meadowdale area, leaving houses tilted noticeably off -level. The releveling of a large house can be a very awkward and expensive operation; however, a number of inexpensive provisions at the time of construction can minimize the difficulty and expense of the corrective effort. We recommend that the © peripheral foundations be provided with a double footing, whose purpose Is to provide a reaction for the jacking forces needed to relevel the house. The interior independent columns can be releveled by the provision of a simple detail to allow disconnection of the column from the footing, followed by reconnection after the adjustment has been made. Additional precautions would consist of flexible utility connections and strengthening of the peripheral foundation walls. We should point out that if block movement were to O occur here, the entire structure, together with Its foundation elements would move as a single entity; consequently, no benefit would accrue from the use of a pile foundation. The presence of a piling foundation would, on the other hand, greatly complicate the task of releveling the structure. P 7 F1 t V S. Springs or seeps encountered during the site preparation should be provided with positive drainage exits. These may be constructed by digging directly into the discharge area as far as possible, and inserting a filter -wrapped perforated pipe, followed by the backfiiling of the annular space with coarse washed sand (not open -void gravel). 6. Structures which are to support lateral earth pressures may be designed to support an equivalent fluid having a density of 35 pcf for level backfill. 7. Base friction may be calculated from a Coefficient of Friction of 0.6 (ultimate). 8. Backfill of earth -retaining structures should be made with reasonably clean granular material, except for the top two feet, which may be made with native impervious materials. 9. All below grade spaces (including retaining walls) should be provided with seepage protection in the form of filter -wrapped perforated pipes. The amount of water to be collected in the subdrainage system will be very small, it may be allowed to discharge at any convenient surface location. 10. All surface water (roof, driveway, patios, etc.) should be led to an approved point of discharge; under no circumstances should surface water be led into foundation drains, infiltration pits or dry wells. 11. We anticipate that the necessary excavations can be made with near -vertical slopes. They should, however, be backfilied as soon as possible. Permanent cuts should be no steeper than 1 vertical to 1 horizontal, up to a height of 5 feet. Cuts greater than 5 feet in height should be made 1 vertical to 1.75 horizontal. 12. Fills should be dressed to a permanent slope of 1 vertical to 2 horizontal. We have reviewed the design drawing prepared by Howe Engineering and find them to be in conformance with the recommendations contained herein. We shall be pleased to provide such additional Information or advice as you may request in the balance of the design phase of this project, and to assist in the resolution of unforeseen difficulties at the time of construction. inci: Fig.1 NHT:nt VU T.Ws. EXPRE S 3I131 1 Very truly yours. NEIL H. TWELKER AND ASSOC.. INC. OV Neil H. Twelker, Pres. DO