Loading...
16008 75TH PLACE W.pdf7T U z U a a W F^ LL ISf i c' t T y t\ X s "" i y .� � -A !t�.SN J,. if p�'t#i''ty�t °''P'3,� r1'r�y l N� +ita sa a t 1.LL l+1i�lss/-.� � ft j `1t. d• k}.fj y"1t � .: f � '43r C"ir 7 ,: s;�+.k 44 S7" • 3�v xy� „� �'` oi:: ai 1-m Poi_ fia aanumy 21,1997 r. Mti mvidsh of&3moudt P4uxmd% WA 98020 Dm W. V wo wow Lilco to wi wr oaur appeal fi= GSty cow+ andon. We intend to i�avisa our aide plan and r+c Wy oogn in dw aeon futm. Thak you for a dift nce in this Mtbar. sk=VIy, • { ew- 'DirMawW Madwrw M1 4 � ., ..t,><q �ci.kuiiiiaiiN,iraurk,�t��c�,7,Sx:y��a?Jf=kd,1.K�xua-«s,..,....�...,.seraraxfiXxek+Yx�xkrG&.uxhFt&sdkcYu'iriM[ik,7vz.tx'x�. `clrtca,d.+wR..«.�.,,.�.wMaionatfe:a�t�'Yxistltn7'��ki�i,�t:'A^.£s�:w�.d"s'�"'r"''IJ... �;;.'st� •.� NOVEIIABER 7.1 19116 PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, ZIP CODE AND PHONE NUMBER BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM V-96-119 AL ANSARI t0 ✓��JI%lfy V ! /VL t" -J'J jOV JrZ V 10 ti76A r�.fdlta�.c r.K �7 N• ot�.cB (2 (o gAxders a< c3 D 73rt( P/ u/ ds go(+ piiI- •. c L qr 6Q2-,,l e4AI1& 4Ae' R1©61 1 &7.)-7 t� i R 1 )6 t 0 °'st. 1sq, CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER RECEIVED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION NOV 1 Z IS% OF THE HEARING EXAMINER PLANNING DEPT. CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: CASE NO.: LOCATION: APPLICATION: REVIEW PROCESS: MAJOR ISSUES: Al Ansari V 96-119 16008 75h Place West 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. Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan V. t 1/ 1 ,t, o-.a U..N .;a lt.� 3t_..,:...a,�k.:.'.'`.�.�.:T+e`...r str•ii�o:G�,S.+.?'.vzi.a...*.'�odii..�i'!v':.Mi,'5.:�'r'J u'uv'irr ft+?burro,.✓m•#nurmnx+wu,..,.;;..,.,......_,w.«,....m.,. Asan,.e rr+crtz. x.yvna"r. _. >"n .,._.. 'j t Nearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-119 Page 2 HEARING COMMENTS: z i Z� The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. Wi From the City: of Kirk Vinish, Project Planner, reviewed the staff advisory report and recommended denial w' of the request. He noted that one option would be to relocate the garage and he discussed LU X other options which the applicant could explore which would not require a 12 foot height cn o variance. w} 1- From the Applicant: LL j Barbara Pickens, Architect, said: "—'� ; h ='' • She did not design the home, but was familiar with it. zP z • The house would only be 12 Iz to 18 feet above street level. She submitted Lu1 Exhibit G to show the height of the proposed house above the road. a o• The structural engineer and the geotechnical engineer both agreed the site should not be dug into, but rather should be disturbed as little as possible due to the slide L)� potential which exists in the Meadowdale area. u. ZI Cd The house was designed to step down and stay with the natural contours of the _ site. o z e The height of the house stays within approximately 25 feet of the site as it steps down the hill. • In order to avoid cutting into the hill, the house was designed to rest on stilts. j• The house will also be designed to have a jacking system to accommodate v differential settlement on the site should it occur. • Access to the street is difficult. The main entrance to the house will be at 0 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 r 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 b' for the design proposed.�,a i J yJ `Y�'�'���x Case No. V 96-119 Page 3 Al Ansari, Applicant, said: z 4( z �`` •here u e T are a number of trees on the site, which will be removed to allow for � w cc g; construction of the house. Therefore, views from neighboring properties will be 3 MI improved. U ai � u,� From the Community: � �--I Adjp rty, said: Philip Ruggiero, J Ru iero Owner of Adjacent Property, cn u.UJ • The fact that this property is hard to build on is not asurprise. U. • The house he is now constructing was designed with the height restriction in LU mind. 0� • He had to excavate and construct a retaining wall at great expense.UJ m z � i 2 a • He too used a geotechnical engineer. �' • There are options which can be considered in order to build a house on the y Ansari site. The options may be difficult and may be expensive, but there is �I no reason for a variance. — z� w Ni • This is not an unbuildable situation. ~ ~ z • 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. • 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 t ®,: application for a 12 foot height variance is premature. r Phyllis Wiggins, neighbor, said: = , • The DNS was misnomer which got her attention. xt �: y.: ' xI. W`4ty�*`qkt c3�dn r5 7 4:.Yr Y VjY C1 iILYl.id.i. � !4 MARTIN 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:. i • The house was not designed for this site. j • The design would result in a three story structure next to the public trail. ' • 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: 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: "1 am presently constructing a single family resident at 16010 75"' Place West, Edmonds, which is directly adjacent and south of the property where the proponent is requesting the variance. It is inconceivable to me that plans have been produced and submitted to the Cityfor permit, knowing that the 25 foot 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 t nice single family residence on this lot without violating the neighborhood height restriction. ti 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 t` x Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-119 Page 5 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 z _� good sense. ►- w a: 2' - vi As concerned citizens, I feel we all have a responsibility to respect other people's view of environmental issues as they relate to the esthetics of an area and the possible blocking of (n o view properties, etc. To allow the construction of a "white elephant" would destroy the '. J X integrity and "feel" of the neighborhood and would adversely impact surrounding vie s and "' LL resale values. o As I is `unbuildable' mentioned earlier, this not a case of property that is without some kind a of variance. This is simply a complete disregard for the rules without regard to any other cn d consideration and 1 feel strongly that this is wrong and should not be tolerated. " z ou ZN Robert and Joann Anderson wrote in Exhibit C: 0 w w; "We strongly object to the determination of non -significance made by Jeffrey Wilson a; granting a variance of 12 feet above the allowable 25 foot maximum height limitation for a p �.; single family residence at 16008 76"' Place West in Meadowdale. o � It is impossible to tell without a surveyor's level the effective height impact of the decision, LL but it appears to us in the neighborhood that 37 feet from the average of four corners of a building footprint at the east edge of that lot would extend well above the level of the street, significantly impacting in a negative way the northwesterly views from the homes to the p southeast on the eastside of 75"' Place West, on the east side of 74"' Place West within the Z Lorian Woods development and homes south of the Lorian Woods development. It would . likewise very significantly damage the southwesterly views from homes northeast of the lot in question on the east side of 75rr' 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 a - = situation. Further, a 37 foot height structure located on an already much higher lot, would p monstrously dominate the houses to the north, creating a very unpleasant community disparity. The view from this waterfront lot is totally unobstructed and would not improve no matter what height is allowed. Therefore, there is no advantage to the property developer other than his/her own convenience in determination of preference of design. There is no hardship t involved. " Phyllis Wiggins wrote in Exhibit D: "The Determination of Non -Significant I received struck me immediately as a misnomer.. to me it should more aptly have read "Determination of Great Significance "... I realize that Determination dealt entirely with environmental issues but the impact of this proposed dwelling would have Great Significance to the entire neighborhood. t 1 1 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 Z J our purchases, and at that time we learned of the 25 foot height restriction for future = F ' building across the street. 1 have to believe that Mn Ansari also confirmed before purchase w' what rights and limitations applied to this building site. Either the house is inappropriate for } this site or the property is wrong for the house he wants to build.. whichever has greater pi priority. 0 j 1 :g w Xi Item 5 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 UJ find it hard to believe Mr. Ansari I can say with a straight face, and with integrity, that he J honestly believes he can answer `No'. Twenty-one feet above street level would have a major impact �a i=- a' In a neighborhood of diversity and compatibility, the proposed building would appear to me ? to be a glaring and conspicuous exception. I do hope you will suggest that Mr. Ansari find a Z �� more suitable building plan that would not require this variance. " w w; a# Frank and Marion Bonipart wrote in Exhibit E: U U9' O -1= w w "We are concerned about the 12' height variance requested by the property owners at 16008 X cif 75 h Place West, Edmonds, WA. This is a significant addition to the height of a building and L ZI, 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 o ~ significant hardship connected with the building site which would dictate the height variance Z we are opposed to the granting of the request. " FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCR PTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: ""N` 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 t ® 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 thex, i site and provides several conclusions and recommendations.' }' . 5) Vegetation: Vegetation consists of several trees and native grasses.` ..7777 77 6i to i -J i- I co o� LU g (D d = w' Z t- f- a Z � W W!; V N� = LU U, LLp Z LUCn o E-; Z K] Z_r { tI + 1 01 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 COMMUMTF 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 e 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 x, and further complicates the siting of a home." S 2 I ,fir ;fit W LL 3: Z I­ � P LU UJ U Cn 0— C3 a W LU U LU U. 81- Z 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 approval 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 "U' of Exhibit A for additional discussion of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan). 6) The applicant states that the proposal is not detrimental in that the residence will be less than 16-feet above the street and neighbors to the east are above the street therefore they will not be affected by the height variance. 7) The applicant states that the proposal is the minimum necessary in that they are utilizing a flat roof, reduced the bulk of the structure and are following the topography to the extent possible. 8) Driveways may not exceed 14% slope without approval from the Engineering Division. b. Conclusions: 1) Special Circumstances The subject property has steep slopes, which may exceed 27% in some places. Driveways may not exceed 14% slope without approval from the Engineering Division. The City prefers all other options to be explored before allowing a driveway to exceed 14%. The 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 round in the soils report to support the magnitude of the height variance requested. 0 2) Special Privilege 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 0 provisions of ECDC Section 16.10.0003 which states in part: Any growth or development should strive to preserve for itself and its neighbors the fallowing 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 'F g" 4�5 R 0 �4 NO M n! !RK, 40 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 75th 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. TECMUCAL CONWTTEE 1. Review by City Departments a. Fact: No comments were submitted by other departments. D. COMPREHENSWE PLAN (ECDC) 1. a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Large Lot'. b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. 2. a. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies which relate to "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below. (1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in accordance with the following policies: (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. x w 0 LU x: z t- ,� o z uU Uj:. v— o �-i LU = v� _z L.i N o~ z to Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. i• ^ s • s 11 Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. APPEALS Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. i i 0 e 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 11/7/96 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 Twelker, dated 10/7/96 ART of ORD. Al Ansari Barbara Pickens AIA 9304 Olympia View Drive 9950 Lake Washington blvd. N.E. Edmonds, WA 98020 Bellevue, WA 98004 Philip I Ruggiero Robert A. and Joann Anderson 6126 140`h Court N.E. 160 73rd Place West Redmond, WA 98052 Edmonds, WA 98026 Phyllis Wiggins Frank and Marion Bonipart 16012 70 Place West 7429 North Meadowdale Road Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Kathleen Johanson Jeanie Anderson 7309 North Meadowdale Road 16727 74th Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Planning Division Fire Department Engineering Division Parks Department j MIS 4, ...... RECEIVED Affidavit. of %61ica;tion OCT 2 91996 STATE Or WASHINGTON, EDMONDS CITY CLERK COUNTY OF SNOB Ell B-2-1 The undersigned, 'being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County. of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper Is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the, Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice: ......... ............. Public Hearing & Development Application ................................. — .......................................... Application William & Jackie Wallace ...................................................................... ................. I ............................... File No. : V-96-115 ............................................................. ........ ............................................................ a printed copy of which is hereuntoattachect.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: .October Ii .1996..... ..................................... ..................................... ......... ............ ...... ......................... .................................................... .......................... ....... d t t aid newspaper was regul distributed to its subscribers duri g all of said period. ... .. . .. ............................... Principal Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this ... 2.3.r.d .......... ....... qF.tO 2L .... ...... z d f. ..... .......... aiiii. ............... . 19.96. .. ... .... ...... ........... .............. (?Notary Public -in Washington, residing at Evere Snohqfidsh-Alinty. E J Ole ON 44.* A U SL P IN NO REMOTE STATION I.D. START TIME DURATION' #PAGES _ COMMENT 1 206 339 3049 10-21-98 1 15PM V13". 2 ;� ?�,k i <" `(' ib "�r °,�7,i 'v crrr fi'✓ i d a 7 �, v' i _��s r.7 � t t ...._..,...._nriw_..btw.urnwu.e.-.w.,.w...u..—'-c..,.......�.._...':, ..a..,_,_.�,�'..,V..i.,.,.. I»..:,.:.......,r...r'nea.o-"syauwwmtixweamee-ivwrw.ri+.m.�:: ,., •.1, t iimitvawarrctnx��mre<Jk. r>. THIS IS A LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT AND SHOULD BE BILLED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING and NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION z x 2' Name of Applicant: William & Jackie Wallace L cull File No.: V-96-1,15 U'm Project Location: 18117 80th Ave. W. Cn wi Project Description: Variance to reduce the required rear setback from 25-feet to 18-feet to allow a single -story addition to an existing single-family residence. Lo c City Contact: Kirk Vinish LU Public Comment Period Due By: 11/7/96 U. a <n C7 Name of Applicant: Al Ansari LU File No.: V-96419 z t-Project Location: _16008 75th Pi. W. z of Project Description: Variance to increase the maximum permitted height in the RS-12 zone from 25- w =I! feet to 37-feet to allow the construction of a new single-family residence. M o! City Contact: Kirk Vinish o _ Public Comment Period Due By: 11/7/96 = U. LL 0� - - Z U S. o PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION z Time: 9:00 AM Date: November 7,1996 Location: Plaza Meeting Room - 650 Main St., Edmonds { Sandy Chase, City Clerk ^4 Publish: October 23,1996 i h Z h Z w D U 0 0 w x u.i U 0 Z Et® i t TEL No.12066416623 November 6,1996 J=ry Wilson Piarntingg Supervisor City of Edmonds 250 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 99020 Re. City of Edmonds File No. V-96.119 Dear Mr. Wilson. Pursuant to our telephone conversation on'1'uesday, November 51h, I am writing le voice my opposition to approval of the height limitation vadance. y I am presently constructing a single family residence at 16010 T 5th Place West, Edmonds, which is directly adjacent and South of the property where the proponent is requesting the e variance. i It is inconceivable to me that plans have been produced and submitted to the City for knowing that the 25 foot height maximum is part of the city ordinance for building permit 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 t very nice single family residence on this lot without violating the neighborhood height restriction. l did it with substantial personal financial sacrifices because i have a great deal x of respect for the theme and culture of the surrounding area and I believe anybody building that street should be required to stay within the confines of the 25 foot on the West side of 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 issues they relate to the esthetics of an area and the possible blocking of } environmental as 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 views and resale values. As mentioned earlier, this is not a case of a property that is "on -buildable' 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. 1 am lookin forward to participating in the hearing on Thursday, November ?th. I will pursue whatever individual or class action remedies that are available to me and others wno are effected should this variance be approved. I strongly urge you and your committee to disallow this request. 4.inly, uggicm 'rt r i a t REe��V� t� PtA r 3 1996 Z. HNJc fir, October 28, 1996 Lai cc X. Planning Division City of Edmonds of 250 Fifth Ave—N. (n UJf Edmonds, WA. 98020 -J �i Ln O RE: File #V-96-119 LU Gentlemen: U. Q 9 d The Determination of Non -Significance I received struck me F w. immediately as a misnomer... to me it should more aptly have z rj read "Determination of Great Significance% , I realize thatt. Determination dealt' entirely with environmental issues but z �; the impact of this proposed_dwellin would have Great Si LUUJ icance to the entire neighborhood. g - I p U)',. As a home owner we were careful to check the possible codes F-; and zoning that might impact our purchase, and at that time LU _ �"j we learned of the 25 foot height restriction for future ~ F=i buildings across the street. I have to believe that Mr. `—` Zi Ansari also confirmed before purchase what rights and limit- ations applied to this building site. Either the house is ri inappropriate for this site or the property is wrong for the z house he wants to build.... whichever has greater priority. Item 5 of the Variw)ce application asks "Will the portion of your, proposal for which you seek a variaanne`_emse a loss of property value, scenic view, or use of surrounding properties?" I find it hard to believe Yr. Ansari can say with a straight S face, and with integrity, that he honestly believes he can answer "No". Twenty-one feet above street level would have a 77 _r 1 major impact. In a neighborhood of diversity and compatability the proposed A building would appear to me to be a glaring and conspicuous exception. I do hope you will suggest that Mr. Ansari find a more suitable building plan that would not require this variance. Thank you for your thoughtfulness and attention. V L4 iggins 4th FI..W. Edmonds, WA 98026 r. r ' J PA 1 3 ' '� 'a�: �1-... J 4 fY T4. t r nl� 4 ! l 1ya�Ff �filq "�"L:Cdrot,S�SainU`�.��w�ti;;edtw :YW-.,?�� �;., �x„'�e.............�+.}w�.��o.aiau:.nv4aii' . � ., t .s p r ..i: _: t y � 7� 7 � .C�e+. :..ls1:.�'Wi it CITY OF EDMONDS` BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 96020 • f206) M-0220 • FAX 1206) 771.0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Z 4. t 89O Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering 1 �a LU is Letter of Transmittal J O t cn Date: October 31,1996 J r C U) V. iJ i Q '{ - To: Barbara Pickens, AIA U. a F` y 9950 LakeWashington Blvd. NE cn d Bellevue, WA 98004 w , z Subject: V-96-119 Lu of Transmitting Agenda & Staff Report cu cnl 0-1 For Your Information: XX U- °z As you requested: r' For your file: 0 Comment: Note attachments: Sincerely, ® - Diane Cunningham, Administrative Secretary cc: Mr. & Mrs. Ansad t® ) i a Incorporated August 11, 1890 • j Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan zz �UJ w� �a U a N LU LLu _J H U) LL LU 0 2} Fca J- LL Na = L,J z r- �-o z LL, w �o c3 cn o� iLLJ LL z LLI cJ O� z t0 LU z i-- F- 0 Z �- W LW 2-1 0— a f- LU LU Ul U- 0 z Uj to 0 z to I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. ........................... * 2 A. Application, .. ................................... ......... I ................. I .............................. 2 B. Recommendations ................................ I ................................................................ .......... 2,, II: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:.::2 ............................................................... A. Site Description..... ...................................................... I .................. I ............... ........... .... B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance ..... .............................. 2 C. Technical Committee .............................................. .......... .................................... D. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) ......................... ................................ ...... ........... ............ 4 III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS ......... .............. .................................. 5 A. Request for Reconsideration .......................................... .................. .5 ........... ..... . B. Appeals ............................................ .............................. L..... ............ ... .. ........ ................................................. ..... IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL..........: .................... .V. APPENDICES ......................................... ............................................... ........... -6 V1. PARTIES OF RECORD... ............................................ .......... ........................ ........ V916-1 30,i 1990 Stiff Rep0rU- X� ke Al Anna File No. V-9&1 19 Page 2 of 6 I. INTRODUCTION A. Application 1. AppedllhanWt: Al Ansari (see Attachment 2). 2. Site Location: 16008 75th Place West (see Attachment 1). 3. Reques : Variance to increase the maximum permitted building height from,25-feet above average grade level to 37-feet for the construction: of a new singlii-flunily residence (see Attachments 3 and 4). 4. Review Process: Variance; Heating Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. 5. MAjor Issues: a. L Compliance width Edinondi Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85.010 (VARIANCE). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code,(ECDC) Section 16.20.630 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards). B. Recommendations Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report wexecommend denial of this application. 11. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A Site Description 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) FJW&: (1) $in: 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 Attachments 3 and 4). (3) Zonin : The subject property is zoned RS-12 (single residential family with `a minimum 12,000 square f6ot lot size requirement) (see Attachment 1). (4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property slopes from the east to west with the greatest slope closest to the west property line. Vegetation consists of several trees and native grasses. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) The adjacent properties to the north, south and west and are currently zonedas single-family (RS- 12) (see Attachments 1). Properties to the east are zoned RS-20. (2) The L adjacent properties to the east are 'currently developed as single-family homes.. West of the property, is the Burlington Northern Railroa'd.tracks, and e alfr6lnanhig', adjacent properties are undeveloped.' V96-1 19DOC I (jeto ii�ji*L36,� 199618tiff Report 11 g 0 .......... I�M U A] Misarl File No, V-96-119 Page 3 of 6 B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance (1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development in a RS-12 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030. (2) Except for the requested height variance, the existing development conforms to all RS-12 requirements (see Attachment 4). 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 Attachment 2). a) FAqu: (1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These'criteria include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted; the proposal is consistent with. the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum necessary. (2) Variances may be used to modify bulk standards. They may not be used to modify, use or procedural requirements. (3) The applicant states in his declarations that 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." (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 approval 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 "U' of this report for additional discussion of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan). (6) The applicant states that the proposal is not detrimental in that the residence will be less than 16-feet above the street and neighbors to the east are above the street therefore they will not be affected by the height variance. (7) The applicant states that the proposal is the minimum ' necessary in, that they are utilizing a flat roof, reduced the bulk of the, structure and are fiffl6wing the topography to the extent possible. (8) Driveways may not exceed 14% slope without approval'. from the' Engineering' Division. V96-119. C ctob e , t.. 0', Do 9 X �.0 to Cl, At Ansad File No, V-96-119 Page 4 of6, b) Conclusions: (1) Special Circumstances The applicants property has steep slopes, which may exceed 27% in some places. Driveways may not exceed 14% slope without approval from the Engineering Division. The City prefers all other options to be explored before allowing a driveway to exceed 14%. The 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, and therefore the applicant should be provided some relief from the height requirements of the ECDC. (2) Special Privilege It does not appear that any special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that other properties in the same zone with similar circumstances would also qualify for some type of height variance (see Attachment 2). (3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan Approval of the proposed height variance would allow for the continued development of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site (see Attachment 2). (4) Not Detrimenta As proposed approval of the street setback variance Would not be detrimental to the, public health, safety or welfare in that other properties in the immediate vicinity do not appear to be adversely affected by the proposal. (5) Minimum Required The proposal does not appear to be the minimum required in that, as the applicant notes, a one-story residence with a daylight basement could be constructed or. Alternatively, the applicant could consider relocating the garage and thereby creating additional living space and reducing the height of the residence or excavating further to provide for a two-story residence within the existing height limitation or moving the house further west and proving a full daylight basement eflectively giving the applicant a two-story residence. C. Technical Committee 1. Review by City Departments a) Egg: No comments were submitted by other departments. A Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) 1. 8. EgM: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Large Lof'. 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 proinoted, The options avaiila'blei ,to the City to influence the quality of housing for all cifizeni� should.,b'e V96-119DOC October 36;1* i stiff Report "Ji Al Ansad File No. V-96-119 Page 5 of 6 approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in accordance with thefollowing policies:" (2) Policy B. 1. states, "Encourage those building custom homes to design z �! ' and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to ! harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and 2 desireabilhy. V (3) Policy B.3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes c) 0 by new construction or additions to existing structures. " w_ (4) Page 31, subsection B.5.0 states, "Stable property values must not be' -� 1— threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments. " :n V-� 0 ii. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the above adopted goals and policies 2 of the City for the development of residential property in the City. U. Q' o I: III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS 1— _ The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any Z person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department Z 1-- for further procedural information. A. Request for Reconsideration O Section 20.100.010.E allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or w LU recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial r' decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or LL presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the z, subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific U = references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. z B. Appeals Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the ' decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community p: _ Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed: IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL © Section 20.05.020.0 states'Uniess 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: V. APPENDICES ® Attachments 1 through 4 are attached. 1. Vicinity/ Zoning Map 2. Applicant declarations 3. Application 4. Site Plan and Elevations V96-119.DOC t October 30, 1996 % Staff Report yy1771 3 t r :,. ;: ••• _: .....,...: ..—�.�.:.: vxw.>+.4. ". 'fr s.K.l�—t2Cesw4;:As.+ui.-`%ifws�.,(�+vrz'wfr�..N.!r4`NnY rw:. AI Ansari - i Fftc No'V-9lrt19 Page 60 6 VI ` PARTIES OF RECORD z f z ,Applicant �— w' Planning Division °C Engineering Division V James & Martine Allen A W a) LU S w OJc x w S uii h z F, zr w w! N' O W 1P u- ZI Oil V OF z i t, y : d 7, V96 119 DOC I pqt jber3p 1996l StafFRepott"' e p t t. .t qun ��m'2j t r s Vicinity and Zoning► Map ........ ....... DECLARATION REQUEST FOR HEIGHT VARIANCE Page 1 of 2 September 20,1996 OWNER: AL ANSARI SITE ADDRESS: 16008 76th Place W., Edmonds, WA 98020 Z VARIANCE REQUEST: A 12-FOOT VARIANCE TO THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION Z UJI Height Calculation: NW CORNER 66 NE 74 UO 0 SW 58 U*) LU SE 70 U) LL TOTAL 258 DIVIDE BY 4: UJ O AVERAGE GRADE 64.5 _J ALLOWABLE HEIGHT 25 n2 U_ PROPOSED MAX. HEIGHT 37 Ln O MAX. ALLOWABLE HEIGHT 89.5 PROPOSED MAX. ELEVATION 101.5 Z t-- i__ 0 APPLICATION DECLARATIONS Z ir- UJ UJ 1. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES: The site for this home has a slope from the front to the rear of the site o which has made it impossible to design the home to stay within the height restriction and satisfy the (n 0- home owners' requirements. The site has a 25% slope down the center of the site. From the face of o 1­_ our proposed house to the centerline of the street there is a 27% slope. Site access is difficult and LU LL XL further complicates the siting of the home. Access to the site is from the street above only. C 2 2. SPECIAL PRIVILEGE: Most homes in the metropolitan region are two-story homes. If we were to UJ U 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 0 was decided to build an upper floor that would house the bedrooms. If you examine the cross section Z 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. 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: In the comprehensive plan the lot is designated to be a single-family home lot and the owners propose to use it as such. 4. ZONING ORDINANCE: The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to regulate land use, the bulk of structures and to create 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 the street will be less than 25 feet tall. On both the north and south property lines, the side yards, the home is set back more than the minimum. This will create larger corridors to the water view for passing motorist and pedestrians. Measuring the length of the home and studying the 62-foot side elevations of the home, there is only a small wedge that exceeds 25 feet in height. That Is a triangle that has the horizontal leg 32 feet long and goes from 0 to 9 feet tall. The architect has worked with the topography of the site to slope the home to match the site. It is only due to the Impact of the two low comers on this sloping site that makes it necessary for the owners to seek a variance. ATTACHMENT 2 File No. V-96-1 19 a 0 90 t ! N}c t 7 S7 fi. �t y � t if of s i 7 f 70 t d t F t r .. 7 ...w.co...o...•,....,... ._... ... ...........� a�..,:ynwhx. ^z+. 'ii.w...i.... ...i, � z.—.«, wwr...,« ........•,. .......... 'DECLARATION REQbEST FOR HEIGHT VARIANCE Page 2 Of 2 September 20, 1996 i SITE ADDRESS: 16008 75th Place W., Edmonds, WA 98020 5. NOT (DETRIMENTAL: This proposal will not adversely effect the neighbors on any side of the site. As mentioned earlier, the front of the house is less than 25 feet above the front property line and less than 16 feet above the street edge. This should have the least impact possible on the uphill g neighbors. The neighbors to the north and south will not be adversely effected by the height of this �j home; their views are all to the west. The home is set back from the side property lines more than o, required. This should relieve any effects of the short section of home that is higher than the 25 foot W W limit. LU W U. 6. MINIMUM VARIANCE: To construct this home, we will need a twelve -foot variance from the height w o restriction. The rule that only allows 25 feet above the average grade will limit construction on this site .. , to a one-story home with a partial "daylight" basement To reduce the height, the owners have _+ elected to build a flat roof home. They have minimized their expectations and reduced the size of the LL home to accommodate the sloping lot and to minimize the bulk of the home. To make this home a shorter home, would reduce the building to a daylighttambier, which is not in keeping with the x t— =j standards for home design commonly used throughout the area. Given the site's slope, it Is Z Fr necessary to request this height restriction, if this site were flat, the home's design would have fit Z �- within the height restriction. W Lul - - 01 U oil PREPARED BY: a Barbara Pickens, Architect, AIA t 451-1161 = v; U. p� Z ui to t7 Z js { t jt ^i 7hS0 j(tis1'�� 1%.,..(.... ,.:.: )>~i.r♦-`} t ,�i^>�3", 3.. ��'',.�.t'41 .r`A�b1tL.15,ti(��rCi: x t® city of -6, )onds -� land use application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ❑ COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ! STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER FILE# '��'i�� ZONE DATE REC'D BY FEE /32'"" RECEIPT# HEARING DATE ❑ HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ACTION TAKEN; ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED Applicant Barbara Pickens, AIA - Architect Phone 451-1161 Address 9950 Lake Washington Blvd N.E., Bellevue, WA 98004 Property Address or Location 16008 - 75th Place W. , Edmonds, WA 98020 Property Owner Mr. & Mrs. Al Ansari Phone 296-5718 Address 9304 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, WA 98020 Agent Barbara Pickens, AIA Phone 451-1161 Address same as above Tax Acc # 5131 059 003 0004 Sec 5 Twp. 27N Rng. 4E Legal Description Lot 1, McCorkle short Plat Details of Project or Proposed Use single family residence is to be built on this lot. The difficulty of the existing sloping site have brought us to request a 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 atofF of +ho r`cn, .,f enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to thi: SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT ATTACHMENT 3 File No. V-96-119 U 2 g Z '`® 0 z U F- O 2 L Q ' ': i.:' .... ..:........ �.� ... ..... ..-.. ..., .r .darA..aN. ._ :...U.: i. ... i 'e. :. .: ,...,.n.. . i. ♦w .., ._.....-....._ ... ... ._.... "... „v nv .• ... bu AF800! °'��/ �� • 1' Ali lrp/?Ta i CIO I lir // i U) UJ LU / 1N84 364 1�N 1 Ln � 1 �� /l1 ilk' �-1 / u. � � � � f � � BASIS OF BEARINGS:. I ROS - V. 181PP 102-103 W = �l �� ! .� �� �► CONTouRs PER AERIAL 3/ o f / r If ���R� �,► l �q l 1te u, V SURVEY 16/85 UO UTILITIES PER AERIAL. 0r t SURVEY & CITY OF = u,'. fl t B'8 �. 1 �`� Cj�� t EDMONDS UTILITY (DRAWINGS U Nf O' / _ PP NOTE: CORNERS TO BE �t SET AFTER SHORT o �- j • t/o .13,20 Sj �g l PLAT APPROVAL. z� / � . ac [�par 47G LA Spec. a, T. 27N., R. 4 E., W°M. ® -.QQ, /0 N �,� MCCORKLE SHORT PLAT r ORROUP .FOUR,Inc• . j J C) J �. 'Z 16030 Juanita -Woodinville Way NE i y Bothell, Washington g8077 (206)775-4581 . (206)362-4244 • FAX(206)362-3675 SURVEYING ENGINEERING PLANNh}G MANAGEMENT W SANITARY SEINER GHT m � onlkwd by RC IV12190 0MCK0 aYJZ 11/12M WiOVW BY 4Z pp� SS 84 -4008 STORMSF.wER Gu 1~1 ... im""nr"rm■r- e%,,. ` id •"^ ,1 uG, , rk t"' Z (. LU RECEIVED 610 Wheeler St., No. 404 U O' OCT 2 5 1996 Seattle, Washington 98199 W =' PERMIT COUNTER (n LL EXHIBIT..._. o tober 7, 1996 FILE NO. �1- 96 iicr LL <' (na. Uj 1- Z F- Z w w'. M. 2. r rAl Ansari LL z, 9304 Olympic View Drive w cn' Edmonds, Washington 98020 Us ~ Re: Proposed SFR Construction at 16008 75th Place W., Edmonds, WA. z Dear Mr. Ansari: At your request we have investigated the circumstances of proposed SFR at 16008 75th Place W., in Edmonds, Washington. We present herewith a report of our findings, conclusions and - " recommendations. site Description The property is a parallelogram -shaped tract having a frontage on 75th Place . W of 100 feet, and a depth of approximately 155 feet. It is bounded on the west by a vacated © 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 t 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 S F- Z w _J vi o W LU _J cn LLLU a. w= Na, s W, Z i-- t_ o h w Ui: 0- o— o �- o _Z U= o� z to Al Ansad {\ ( October 71996 Paae 2 blows of a 140-lb hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler a given distances provides an indication of the consistency of the soil. Soil Conditions The logs of the test borings have been combined with topographic information to produce a geologic cross-section through the site, also shown in Figure 1, attached. Input from a number of explorations performed previously in the immediate vicinity by other engineers has 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 or less discontinuous, miscellaneous fill having a thickness of 3 to 6 feet; (2) an underlying unit of loose fine sand (found only at the top of the hill) having a thickness of approximately 7 feet; (3) a unit of firm dark gray silt with a thickness of approximately 15 feet; (4) a unit of dense coarse sand with a thickness of 7 feet; (5) a unit of hard silt/clay 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 lowermost unit very dense fine to medium sand, with a thickness in excess of 25 feet at the downhill side. groundwater Table The test borings at the site (which were performed in July of 1994) encountered the groundwater table at Elev. 48t (at the upper end of the site) and Elev. 2 (at the lower end). Proposed Construction We understand that the site is be developed with a three-story, split level, single family residential structure having a footprint of approximately 3000 sq ft. The building will be centered between the side property lines, and located near the upper part of the lot. The building site is to be prepared with moderate excavations of up to seven or eight feet below existing grade. The Meadowdale "Slide Area" Information on the geologic and recent history of the Meadowdale area, as well as prognostications for the continued stability of the various parts of the area, is 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 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 0 ®1 FJS w J U) LL� d; w} 9LL Q 1 cn d , H y.. ZM F_ O; z ww M. v cn' o �-1 ULM LL Q _ Z. U S o ~; Z t0 u Al Ansar_ October 71996 Page 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 material' is taken to mean movement of a mass of material which has moved on one or more previous occasions (i.e., reactivation of a rotational slide). Conclusions and Recommendations On the basis of our review of the circumstances of construction at this site, we draw the following principal conclusions: 1. Project excavations will probably extend to the overconsolidated native soil units, —. although some possibility exists that the preferred bearing units may lie several feet below the prepared bearing surface. Where bearing surfaces are prepared in material 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 or on structural fill (reasonably clean sand, gravelly sand, or sandy gravel). 2. Contact pressures of 1000 psf may be used in the design of spread foundations. All footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches. Inasmuch as the weight removed in the making of the excavation will greatly exceed the weight of the house, excellent vertical support will be assured. 3. Possibility of Renewed Slide Activity Although the soils which will be encountered will provide adequate vertical support for the proposed structure, the fact that the site is located on a mass of earth which could conceivably shift its position at some future date means that the house could be displaced from a level position. We note that improve- ments in surface water management and subsurface drainage have apparently been effective in preventing a recurrence of ground movement. The area has survived a number of severe water years (including the one just past) without significant damage. 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 move- ment has been known to occur in the Meadowdale area, leaving houses tilted and notice- ably 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 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. _Z W. LU J V u o N W _J1 (no W� LLQ �M id F- to Z iz- t- 0 w' �o uN a1­_ �F �o —z Ui_ o~ z L*] X0 At Ansari ` October 71996 Paae 4 5. 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 backfilling 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. x 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 backfilled 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 con - formalness with the recommendations contained herein. We believe that the project shown in the Contract Drawings can be accomplished in accordance with the recommendations set forth in this report, subject to the conditions contained herein, with minimal risk of instability on this site or on adjacent properties. The precautions recommended in the foregoing paragraphs are intended to minimize the cost of releveling in the event of a major earth slip of the kind which has been known to occur in this area. These precautions (which consist primarily of an extra set of spread footings) can have no adverse influence whatever on the stability of this or other properties. We also point out that the features of this project which relate to work to be done in the siting or in substructure construction (e.g., regrading, earth retainage, landscaping, surface water management, etc.) will be of distinct benefit to local stability. Nothing which can be done locally, however, can be guaranteed (or even expected) to prevent the kind of major earth slip which the Meadowdale area has been known to have experienced. We are aware that many or most of the recommendations for the improvement of stability which were presented in the Roger Lowe report have been executed, thereby greatly reducing the possibility of a 0 .., W J H V1 O 0 &i T UJ! z I— z g U till 0-1 vLU ~i U- 0 z' W Cn U 0 z t0 CSt. 189, 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 October 22, 1996 Barbara Pickens, AIA - Architect 9950 Lake Washington Blvd. NE Bellevue, WA 98004 Subject: ASSIGNMENT OF HEARING DATE Dear Ms. Pickens: Your application is now complete and has been scheduled for public hearing at the time and place listed below. However, should an appeal of the Environmental Determination for your�proposal be filed in a timely fashion, the hearing on your permit application will be continued to a future dated to allow for the resolution of the SEPA appeal. ; Action: Variance File No. Assigned: V-96-119 Date of Hearing: _ November 7,1996 Time: 9:00 A.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. Place: Plaza Room, Edmonds Library 650 Main Street Hearing Body: Hearing Examiner Please be aware that your presence at the hearing is highly advisable. If an applicant or his representative is not present, the item may be moved to the end of the agenda. Items not reached by the end of the hearing will be continued to the fallowing month's agenda. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Kirk Vinish, Project Planner at 771- 0220. Sincerely, ity Services Department - Planning Division J S. Wilson, AICP Current Planning Supervisor pc: File No. V-96.119 Kirk Vinish, Project Planner Mr. & Mrs. Al Ansari, 9304 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, WA 98020 9&119H1.UDC + Incorporated August 11, 1890 lWnftCORReMManCR Sister Cities international — Hekiinan, Japan { 44 Y i5: W S F- Ld = W' Z Fx-' z O W LU N a V cni p F-' u. O _z cWi z L'UIIIUIIUai r141HU11r "Uparlment 250 5th Ave, N. Edmonds WA 98020 Dear Mr. Chave: We strongly object to the determination of non -significance made by Jeffrey Wilson granting a variance of 12 feet above the allowable 25-font maximum height limitation for a single family residence at 16008 76th Place West in Meadowdale. It is impossible to tell without a surveyor's level the effective height impact of the decision, but it appears to us in the neighborhood that 37 feet from the average of four corners of a building footprint at the east edge of that lot would extend well above the level of the street, significantly impacting in a negative way the northwesterly views from the homes to the southeast on the east side of 75th Place W, on the east side of 74th Place W within the Lorian Woods development and homes south of the Lorian Woods development. It would likewise very significantly damage the southwesterly views from homes northeast of the lot in question on the east side of 75th Place West, north of North Meadowdale Road. Part of the objective 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 disparity. r The view from this waterfront lot is totally unobstructed and would not improve no matter what height is allowed. Therefore there is no advantage to the property developer other than his/her own convenience in determination of preference of 0 design. There is no hardship involved Again, we strongly object to the disruptive impact on a developing neighborhood which would inevitably result from this decision, should it be allowed to stand. I F Applicant Information ce a . 2 ,o .. . S2 Name afApplicant:................ Z Al Aread 0 Date of Application: ............... * 9124/96 C Dole application Complete: * 10122/96 Z Project Location: .................. * 16008 75th Pl. W. . or Project Description: .. ........... Variance, to increase the maximum permitted height in the R&12 zone from 25-feet to 37- feet to allow the construction of a new single. family residence. Public Comments due by: Noomber7,1996 City Contact for Project: Zt KirkVirlsh Requested permits Variance & Building Permit and Appiorvals:... Other Required Perenits, Z Unknown not yet applied for (if known): ................... Required Studies related * Unknown to the project: Related Environmental * SEPA & Critical Areas Checklist Documents: 0 Public Hearing Information, a n Date. November 7, 1996 Theo: 9:00 AM piece: Plaza meeting Room - 650 Main St., Edmonds Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Community Services Department, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020. (206) 771-0220. Public creareasents should also be sent to this address. The obehriew on this acwt1cpstrat oppliefino will be mardi twuhle.hit j Meade, �ftha'Labr" additional information g"ses. Anne that ability to appeal decis i1b1fT"-' '91? Ile I The removal, mutilation, destruction, or concealment of this This notice may be removed YVarningl notice before the hearing date is a misdemeanor punishable by after. November 7.1926 fine and imprisonment, 7904-000-003-0009 Chung Seung 5509154th PL SW Edmonds, WA 98026 5131-029-009-Ml 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 Bonipart Frank 7429 N Meadowdale RD Edmonds, WA 98026 5131-058-001-0008 Wiggins Phyllis 16012 74th PL W Edmonds, WA 98026 7904-000-004-0008 Anderson Robert & Joann 16010 73rd PL W Edmonds, WA 98026 5131-058-006-0003 Williams Paul & Guardian Estate of Janeway Mary 6324181st PL SW Lynnwood, WA 98037 5131-058-011-0006 Washington Mut SIB Young Sandra PO BOX 91006 SAS 0701 Seattle, WA 98111 5131-0584040005 Imamura Ejgene 5707 244th SW Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 5131-058-005-0004 Ebert M E 1603175th W Edmonds, WA 98026 5131-058-008-0100 Mills Sherman 16115 75th PI W Edmonds, WA 98020 5131-058-009-M 16�S 15 th PL N ds,WA 98020 5131-059-001-0006 Edmonds Family Med Clinic 11906 Marine View DR Edmonds, WA 98026 5131-059-004-0003 Ruggiero Philip 6126 140th Cr N E Redmond, WA 98052 5131-059-006-0001 McCorkle Roger PO BOX 7178 Seattle, WA 98133 5131-058-008-0209 W' ' ut &Guardian Estate)kfJaneway Mary 632 16 PL SW Lynnwood, WA 98037 1-059-008 9 Edm Of 250 5 e N nds, 98020 U) LL LU 0 Ls- D LU z l- ip uj LLI 0- a LU F- LL. c LU U u 3 81- z 4v ftrt i4 4V}F)�'i}li ���y�'t}.,�} �)iS�Ysi\7•fi {-},i� { .. ,=1 1 rjt S' �.�"i'�y'V'1Y3}}}(i�'... 7f i, (�,lN,, .... tvj'✓4 k z tt,�t Ft �j '74 qyS 1pt. f r.:t zZ S}Fitti"�rtW (t Sid �'r .�+ 1 ,G i AA.' ., � F �d zr' .ti z 7 i •tF`�L7il v 7 x t 1 i2 �� f� '. r .4 i f� `!*Ah r � t S 1 zn J a t ; j } FILE NO.:V-96-119 z i APPLICANT: Ansari CC h W QLU c� NOTICE OF HEARING Cn Cn W LU �J - - W fl AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING W - aSTATE OF WASHINGTONU. ) m� ) T W COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) z o� w wi 2 'i Ni 1, Kirk Vinish, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: 0 o F. - W W LL o That on the 24th'day of October, 1996, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was z� posted as prescribed by Ordinance, and in any event, in the Civic Center and the =1 Library, and where applicable on or near the subject property. loh IZ Signed Subscribed and sworn to before'me this day of Notary Public in and for th to of Washington. j© /tz Residing at �® DocumcnO S Z. ►— W cc g w V' U � U) W; J h: LI) L.� WO a ' U. �W S z F- F_ 0 Z W LU U tA' o F-LLJ ' S tWj !L o _z L Li o~ z to Al Ansari 9304 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, Washington 98020 Re: Proposed SFR Construction at 16008 75th Place W., Edmonds, WA. Dear Mr. Ansarl: At your request we have investigated the circumstances of proposed SFR at 16008 75th Place W., in Edmonds, Washington. We present herewith a report of our findings, conclusions and recommendations. Site Description The property is a parallelogram -shaped tract having a frontage on 75th Place W of 100 feet, and a depth of approximately 155 feet. It is bounded on the west by a vacated 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 0 blows of a 140-lb hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler a given distances provides an indication of the consistency of the soil. z li W : Soil Conditions The logs of the test borings have been combined with topographic information to produce a geologic cross-section through the site, also shown in Figure 1, attached. Input from a cc 2, < 5 number of explorations performed previously in the immediate vicinity by other engineers has o also been reviewed, although not reproduced here. Six soil units have been identified from the Y) W exploratory effort which has been performed: these are described as (1) an upper unit of more Cn LU or less discontinuous, miscellaneous fill having a thickness of 3 to 6 feet; (2) an underlying unit u, at of loose fine sand (found only at the top of the hill) having a thickness of approximately 7 feet; U (3) a unit of firm dark gray silt with a thickness of approximately 15 feet; (4) a unit of dense thickness 10 coarse sand with a thickness of 7 feet; (5) a unit of hard silt/clay with a known of a feet (at the downhill side of the site, but not entirely penetrated at the uphill side); and (6) a An0, lowermost unit very dense fine to medium sand, with a thickness in excess of 25 feet at the MWI downhill side. z1­_ o z Groundwater Table The test borings at the site (which were performed in July of 1994) w UJ encountered the groundwater table at Elev. 48t (at the upper end of the site) and Elev. 2 (at the a lower end). U v} d h-t: Proposed Construction We understand that the site is be developed with athree-story, split _LU{, level, single family residential structure having a footprint of approximately 3000 sq ft. The a' building will be centered between the side property lines, and located near the upper part of the z lot. The building site is to be prepared with moderate excavations of up to seven or eight feet Lu s below existing grade. o z The Meadowdale "Slide Area" Information on the geologic and recent history of the Meadowdale area, as well as prognostications for the continued stability of the various parts of the area, is 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. j 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 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. t0 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 u w� I- w, W� U 0 V) 0 V) w' J H. V) LLI w0 21 � 9 J U. Ln o. �w Zh -o z i-: �o — 0 o i-� F LL o - Z W UN U = o ~, Z it C*7 to Al Ansad October 7.1996 Page 3 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 material" is taken to mean movement of a mass of material which has moved on one or more previous occasions (i.e., reactivation of a rotational slide). Conclusions and Recommendations On the basis of our review of the circumstances of construction at this site, we draw the following principal conclusions: 1. Project excavations will probably extend to the overconsolidated native soil units, although some possibility exists that the preferred bearing units may lie several feet below the prepared bearing surface. Where bearing surfaces are prepared in material 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 or on structural fill (reasonably clean sand, gravelly sand, or sandy gravel). 2. Contact pressures of 1000 psf may be used in the design of spread foundations. All footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches. Inasmuch as the weight removed in the making of the excavation will greatly exceed the weight of the house, excellent vertical support will be assured. 3. Possibility of Renewed Slide Activity Although the soils which will be encountered will provide adequate vertical support for the proposed structure, the fact that the site is located on a mass of earth which could conceivably shift its position at some future date means that the house could be displaced from a level position. We note that improve- ments in surface water management and subsurface drainage have apparently been effective in preventing a recurrence of ground movement. The area has survived a number of severe water years (including the one just past) without significant damage. 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 move- ment has been known to occur in the Meadowdale area, leaving houses tilted and notice- ably 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 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. yZ tr LU _J 00. W O. Lw U (n of W Q �D _a sW z_ I- N o' z WW U to OH r� u. O _Z w� U= o~ Z t® 0 Al Ansad October 71996 Page 4 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 backfiliing 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 backfilled 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 con - formalness with the recommendations contained herein. We believe that the project shown in the Contract Drawings can be accomplished in accordance with the recommendations set forth in this report, subject to the conditions contained herein, with minimal risk of instability on this site or on adjacent properties. The precautions recommended in the foregoing paragraphs are intended to minimize the cost of releveling in the event of a major earth slip of the kind which has been known to occur in this area. These precautions (which consist primarily of an extra set of spread footings) can have no adverse influence whatever on the stability of this or other properties. We also point out that the features of this project which relate to work to be done in the siting or in substructure construction (e.g., regrading, earth retainage, landscaping, surface water management, etc.) will be of distinct benefit to local stability. Nothing which can be done locally, however, can be guaranteed (or even expected) to prevent the kind of major earth slip which the Meadowdaie area has been known to have experienced. We are aware that many or most of the recommendations for the improvement of stability which were presented in the Roger Lowe report have been executed, thereby greatly reducing the possibility of a 9 w x u- U F= 0 z CITE OF EDMONbs BARBARA FAHEY- .2, MAYOR 260 6TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 99020 • 1206) 771-0220 •FAX 1206y 771•0221' k COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Fst• Public Works • Planning •Parks and Recreation • Engineering t 189� Letter of Transmittal j 3 Date: October 14,1996 _ To Environmental Review Section Department of Ecology PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 ' Subject: V-96-119 Transmitting, Determination of Nonsignificance & Environmental Checklist For Your Information: XX As you, requested: For your file: : Commento Note attachments: Sincerely, Diane M. Cunningham, Administrative Assistant cc: Al Ansari i i 3 ;i a • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan; Japan ,,.1 P.i ri'WJ c`�t i y t� . .'.... ... .... ...... C .. ..c ... ... ...<,�.�N.._ < t. Ada tit MEMORANDUM CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING DIVISION 250 STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 Q{ r ooj TO: FILE NO. V-96-119 c� in LLI � LU h FROM: 9 • �� w o Kirk Vinish Project Planner J .. `n . .. ... d DATE: October 14 1996 Z t— z o� SUBJECT: VARIANCE TO EXTEND 12 FEET ABOVE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT w w LIMIT OF 25 FEET FOR A TOTAL HEIGHT OF 37 FEET FOR THE oI CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. u, I'have had the opportunity to review the proposed ordinance and the environmental checklist, X U ' and all pertinent environmental information currently available. A copy of which are filed in the U. o� _ official file for this ordinance (See File No. V-96-119). z� Based on my, review of all available information and adopted policies of the City; I recommend that a Determination of Nonsignificance should be issued z Should you have any questions concerning the information in this memo,. please feel free to contact me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Review by Responsible Official: 7-7 1 concur I do not concur Q Comments: y-�^------` [ t g6 J S: ilson, AICP ate ®: Responsible Official Attachments - pc: V-96-119 Page lof i ENWEMO.DOC { hm CITY OF EDMONDS R CC E 1V'!E D OCT 0 9 1996 �... ' l ny ate ,,, « .1 Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). chapter 43.21C RCW. requires all.goventmental agencies to c0cWder the environmental impacts of a proposal before rasping decisions. An envitonnentid impact stalemeat (EiS) awst be prepared for all proposals with probable significant advise impacts on the quality of the eaviraamart. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (arc! so reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal. if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. " � j! Isstrmcdons for AppHoonts: N d, h = This environmental c►eekiist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this Z H checklist to determine whether the environm rml impacxs of your proposal are significant. requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer O the questions briefly, with the most precise information keown. or give the hest description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to o. answer die questions from your own observations or project plans without thv aced to hire experts. elf you really do not know the p answer. or if a question does not apply to your proposal. write 'do awn know' or doer not apply'. complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. up u,u t_m Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning. shoreline, and landmark designations. Arrester these questions u. p, if you can. if you have problem tea governmental agencies can assist you. _Z ui cn' The checklist questions apply to all parts of your mil. even if you plan to do than of err s paiod of time or on different parods ca g of land. Attach any additional infornmtion that will help describe your proposal or its environmental e1%ets. The agency to which z you submit this checklist may adc you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonpmjeex pro mods, even though questions may be antiwered "does not apply.' IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions. the references in the checklist to the words 'project.' 'applicant.' and 'property or site should be read as �• 'proposer," and 'affected geographic area.' respectively. + h A. BACKGROUND m ® hh ,t I. Name of proposed project, if applicable: % R�� J. r w1 &�, r_(�-AA D,-V it P�t¢N G2(j AA Awe.4q% &-raui- W anaggess 2. Name of applicant: i iRe5 r ® 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: AR944•4 Pit tkEAr'S /11 4 u i s,att t A 5-1-11101 J30 14 0ty At eIt_ Vj jy4 � t- 1) ev®5.TWA 1 9V Z0 Arf 77r- 9a it t 4. Date checklist prepared: AmStl it qb t ® (n LL Ljj 0 2 � C2 -i LL 9 Ln a z 0 uj ul 2 =) :D U LU uUi LL LU cr S. 6. 7. a. 9. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 2or22 AP:1 t0 9 (STAFF commEMs) 12. Locntim of the proposal. Give sufficient iafomtation for a person to andeustand the precise location of your proper prR$ed. including a street address, if a#% and section, Www4hip, and range, N known. 9 a proposal would omw over a range of arto, provide range or boundaries of the ). Provide ksd option, site Plan' vicinity map, and topagraphie map, if r =OMMly avagnuble. While year should submit any plans regained by the agex74 you are rat required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with czy permit applications related to this checklist. �� A A i�.,�-r-Q-Sa`.io—\i1� \fe,�►.e....�11.Ci_fu4a b.�.� . GAS ni0 S 2 4 tr . Et;0000 -"1P07 AA,-,- tK/ (STAFF CONK MM -r w - TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B- ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle am): Flat, suing, ill OEiio mountainews, other. T �t1Q! �JlC� elf �e• t A dffi41 tea, 8/ -zrs.{s---.r. (STAFF COAltiiENTS) b. What is the steepe-st slope on the site (approximate peme nt slope)? Lid d/ - i t:u (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What general types of soils are found an the site (for example, day, sand, grovel, peat, muck)? If you _ know the classification of agricultural snits, specify than and note any prince farmland. �xa d. [-A r. It of eo z, i k fA& aad= 2-- WAFF COMMENIM nn Are them surface indications or history of unslaMesolls in the immadiaft vi~ ffso, deseribe. t Z6 IF (STAFF COMMENTS) Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any rdft or grading proposed. Indicate source of rill. rk'4, WIU.. W IMpy)eIW UMP6" IMLLA,' F�( 126—JaCaQ 14AC 1UA9 OFWAW'-'�f (STAFF COMMENTS) Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or toe? Ir so, generally describe. fto-soo r--P&MMd W" M cbg� 0O6bAWWd 42M '0 IOAW Otg2JW (STAFF COMMENTS) About what percent of the site will he covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for exaniple, asphalt or buildinps)? 14-to R 5WO 44, (STAFF COMMENTS) PsEe 4 of22 uj oc w L) U pi Lp W� J N LU o U- = w' Z f- F- 0 z W W; � d V N' Q HI = UI F- F w p —z v= o� z (STAFF CONINIEN M b. Are there any Mate sources of unission or odor that may d%d your propasah? if s0. ge�erauy describe. V (STAFF COmmEml) C. IPta►pO.sed measures to reduce or control Missions or other impacts to the, if any: (STAFF CONINIENTS) I WATER a. Surface: (1) Is there any saarface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and smsonal streams, salhvater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide n mes. If appropriate, state wh at stream or river it flows into. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Will The prQW reqjfk* any work over. K 4Wa4*W to (within 200 fa* the described wafts? If M plan describe and allKb available plans. (STAFF CONMEMM 0) firm surface water or wetlands and indicate the am of the site that vmdd be affected. bwkme the sown or fell material. W (STAFF COMMERM (4) Will the pnwoW require surface water withdrawals or diversimis?. Give, gam -A description, purpose, and approxanate quantities if known. (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Dom the proimmal lie within a 100-year floix1plaia?. Ifso, note location enthe site plan. (STAFF COMMEMS) (6) Dies the pnqx*W involve any discharges of wage materiab to surface waters? If so, describe the type of wale and anticipated volume of discharge. A40 I (1) (2) W'" grand water be wkbdmvn% or will warm be dischavla to ground WSW Give 9w"a' description, Purpos% and appradmitate quantities If knowm (STAFF CONfM&?M Describe waste niaterial that will be &oehaigM into the gmad f"m SCI&C tanks or slier 9041"Ces- if MAY (for mmwlc Domestic nwftq indistrial, Containfin the lidlowim dmndml&..; agricultural; etc.). Describethe Zem-m she at the system, the momber of socit sygons, the Ownher of houses to be sewed (of applicable), or the Milliliter Of animals or humans the symmW are ftvecw to Une. (STAFF COr.Ij%jENM C. Water Runaff (includingsturin water): DagOille the source of runaff (including storm water) and method of collection and 651mml, if UPY (include qw4mities, if known). where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. (STAFF CORIM ENTS) (2) e»ter Rrnund Or surface watem., irso, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) LL 0 1. (1) d. Proposed measom to redwx orcoftrd surface, ground, &ad (STAFF 4. Plants Check or circle types Or vegetation found an the site _,�,,, deoiduoas tare: at : maple, aspen. other: l � To 2 A tc�,r evergreen tree: fir pine, X shrubs (MIQ pasture crop or grain — wet sail plants: cattail, hattemp, butrusk skunk cabbage, other — water plants: water lily, eekrw4 miWailo other, — other types or vegetation: (STAFF COMMENTS) What kind and suntsunt of vegetation wilt heremoved or altered? 4& 4 104246A (STAFF COMMENTS} c. List threatened or endangered species known to he an or near the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. proPosed l2ndw*og, we of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, it any: Pace 8 of 22 AILIL, a. b. :A 4 F— LU "' O �a w J h t_A LA. w0 �2 LL N d Hw S Z_ H Fi F Z wu � C tJ U. Or rF LL LU U OF z Y A� 1 J • •:, !t -' 2rnS .t'vfbs4X✓S Sid :�.1$?. "M.YStt...YaJ.t:Yr w^.�ItGr�`. r+Mwu.. S. Animals a. b. (STAFFCOM U NM Check or code any hir+ds aad aaimak which have hem ohskrred an or near the site or are known to be on or near the site-- (STAFF COMMENTS) C. is the site part of a migration mute If say explain. d. Proposed measures to premve or enhance wildlife, if any: �' i wa UJ z z w Uj mn 0— LLJ U 0 z to a. What MINIS Of "sera (dedrk natural M A wood gave, w" vM be and to meet the completed FRIOWSenemy neW. Daffibe whether it will be used for beaft, wasnuffiadwing, etc. 192 (STAFF COMMENTS) ry b. Would your project affect the patenti*l we of solar awV by rop adjuent pmif so w , genendly describ. e (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What kind,* of enemy OWwwation features am included in the plans of this proposal? IAA other proposed momwo% to redum or control enemy impacts, if any: &W-&9MA&kr-, Walk 61UW. ZMEJ WMA&A-403 1. (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hamrds, induding exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or lazardow; %Msfc, that could occur as a result of ibis proposal? Irso describe. cn 0 LU z z Ui LU 0— a LU LL LL C UUJ (I 3 t 0 (1) Describe special emagency services that aftft be required. (STAFF COMMENTS) (Z) Proposed mawxvs to reduce or control eaviovamened bedth hanrds, if *or. ILlag (STAFFCOMMENTS) b. Noise (1) What types of wise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: trafrk, equipment, operation. other)? !9,9 Ms'IrvaA tta-I-S P-Als SAxr.% ((,—rc) T., A (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) What types and levels of noise would be cnmted by or ammiated with the project an a I short-term or a long-term bads (for v=nple. traffic, corxWvcIim4 operation, other)? Indicate What lumm noise would come from the site. anlr 40.tt amaUih% dL 15%;6Jg (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, it any: 1& 6 (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. VapplicaW v&d is thecunvrA dweline muster plan desknation ofthe site? (STAFF COMMENTS} b. Has any part of the site been Ouvirsed as on "environmentally sensiliW area? if so, vecify. (STAFF COMMENTS) i. Approximately twnv many people would reside or work in the completed pmjW. (STAFF COMMENTS) j. Appooximately hou- nuiny people would the completed pnijed displum? nm (STAFF COMMENTS) Dxi H- D a X LU �- z I-- :r t- 0 I-- W Z LU 0- a t-- UJ uj LL z Uj Cr z L11 to 9. L Proposed measum to ensure the pmpad is c Tatible with existing and prqfected land terms and plans, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) Housing A. Approximately bow many units would be provided, if any? Indicate vAmAber bigb, mkkUe, or Iow4ncome howing. W- (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Appmximately how many units, if any would tie eliminated? Indicate wbeOw lftb, middle, or low- income bowing. its r 10. Aesthetics a. What is the ftWA Ld& of any proposed atnrcture(s), not indudiag antes vAM is the priradpie eactes for building aratarWO pr ciposed'' d (! f%:64— =_A jfffl Phil .e— " t-_f5 b►dll�Wtai hz`UJI CC � 01 o iIV (STAFF CONIM MM cars UJ! J Ln <L O W b. What views in the komediale vidnity "wild be altered or obstructed' g `f! 39C SM Wild, ':MP— 1,40101 4—.A W N *Ae d _ tarJ. �'ti_¢ollr e� Nkw)E �yu�- ° tEtlocl2 7tlaa z (STAFF COMMENTS) W W: :D 0( c� Ln; O ":: p C. Proposal memium to reduce or conind aedhetic impacts, if any: )afig W Z U = F- F z (STAFF COMMENTS) TS) 11. Ught and Glare S a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of dray would it mainly occur? `%.area 1:11A.��� Ar• rS���� �j/�.`n.tty ��.. } R--r� OAiu 8Sr O (STAFF COMAI EMiS) h. Could light or glare from the finished project he a safety hazard or interfere with views3 (STAFF COMMENTS) j�, w, tV j it 1y�i J"t 5 �'t�, ?k �g�r ls`231! � �� -� �} i3zY}•f 11 (nLU O 2} C Q L d Xw z r- z to w U tI7 p F- h� u• C U t/ o� z C. What existing eff-site MUmcm of light or glare may affect your propm' (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed nummes to reduce or control light and glary impacts, if aema Wo-- (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Recreation a. What designated and inrornsal rrecreatinnul opportunities are in the asnnediste vicinity? S (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Would the prolmmd project &Mace any Cxisting, re+.•rextion uste If -a, dwAxibe. IL n a. Are there any Places or okjads Mded m4 or proposed for, maon4 sLige, or I"d pruemtion regwa known to bean or nod to tine die.+ If sc6 ge a ally demgm '� pi (STAFFCOMMENTS) w =1 la H� W LL O h. Cenerail describe w y any taadenarks Or evidence of hi:tasic, arelnaneologiral, st3entific, or oWtuhet 2 importance known to he on or next to the site � a _ iv A[ moo. = w' x' Z� ; a' w emu (STAFF COAIAiENTS) caN ' to w w C. Praptesed weawres to reduce or control itnpacts, if any: U =, Q ~ Z (STAFF COAIAIENTS) 14. Transportation i Identify public a-treets and hilthways serving the site, and describe pnepired access to the existing street - system. Slow on site plans, it any. ! 0.f i (STAFF COAIAIENFS) E ® b. Is site currently served by public transit? If no, what is the approximate distance to the nesnst transit step? Alm . _ '� S.ti tS ) �a � nn ;� �, L�:e,� dt i-d n• �ry„ e,�Q '�.�- ,s�`.Y�34''`L�{6�t'N..lV?�Y.. ,J4r1 ,IFgN�.At �-8 A d. M (STAFFCOMMENTS) How many pari ft spaors would the oonnpieted pugject leave? Hawn wAm would the etimioate? a .a (STAFF COMMENTS) Will the proposal require any new roads or sbva% or impnwosneota to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? if so, generally dawribe (indicate w briber politic or private). 5 j (STAFF COMMENTS) "a Will the prided use (or oonm in the immediate vicinity oft water, rail, or air transportation? If so, gentrrally describe. t t Ra S� wll1 ip �C' SAu tjj rA$ O' lr,&j f O RMRH t�iL bAfni,%jac Jog, (STAFF COMMENTS) How many vehicular trips per day would he generated by the compieted pmjed? if known, indicate when peak vuluenes would occur. f S r ti e: 17y� r c i t i t� 4 t I j ✓I 4 �7 ) 5 i +. ... b .. '.,exn wv �. �......_ ..»., ... ., r...__�...u..»......wsN.'iK4M�•(0.44atX+.ULSNb.`Abe^Rt'IW�'.klLYli�Ntl'C4bS4JSnMJbttNANtiYf�.+u•.uut.�... u.+av:h+nrwS.C�eHainik-0L�SYY. rJRVY'll�!Mb Nktni...iry'rt- I �. PnWased mamma to reduce or cwtrod OMOPOUtim impacts. if aar: �- Uj. g$ <c J v (S]CAFFC014tt►9ENCS) is to ,u LU N LL — W IS. Public Serrias da. Wadd Ow pa�q)ect nwAt in as it awed need for pt"c muvices (far example: Eire protection, police D pmtw"% bmllb au% wW*o . other)? If so, genwWlr dewihe. . SaS-, b.+ a n Ck t'h t11t�r�s u . � SS a lE:..� � l� j6 +�+ s : n il'.60-St HQI �R..�..1 4 H1 W UJI c3i 01 (STAFF COMMENTS) 0 o � f=, b. Propwad mnre ewres to duce or a►ntrol direct impicts oa public aervkx% if any: LL o ~' z (STAFF COMMENTS) 16. Utilities I . a. Cirde utititiee currently uraifaMe at the site: t tural a. Water, ust sere �. i Wn,Iary aewer tit systam, tither: i (STAFF COMMENTS) c•. pig[ icy- . r V Vt v�f pal O ti�r�iCn.ael4�,."M,!'�,Is tt t t s K•r 7C'a a1) .rX4�it 710 i s} . ••.� ..�......_....».._..� ..�.+... � ... ,�.,......�.r.....ar.ww.aJM�MiYifA{kNSR.4YbMRWA�i��YtiLiMlKY�ld�nc..w?.'«5,f ...,�� } �:+N�.v.uwi�n+•i.'�rOWw.wrtMrrlia!e�^'Mwsm•+w.n., (,r b. Describe the uMit8att that are ptaipond for the prdeck. the i9ft.Providing the lwww . and the gttataa: constn echo adiritiea ea the th site or la e %masdrit�te drble�t R be neealed. tot it tl�t a►l\ thty a�ce:�lat t� z�Q Lut (STAR: Col► omm CC - 01 uJ Uj C. SIGNATURE cn U. t" Tice above answm are true and cort mote to the best of my krAwledX& l untlerstabd that the lead agemy is tdying an them to make its decision. Uw z F- O� Signature of Proponent Data Subtnittad w wl s m` U N� 0 Z V LL p ..Z t'ti tA: t= r{ 'O Z f i PW 20 of 22 'i i Now would the proposal he likely to use or affect. environmentally sensitive arm or urns designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wildeeness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endenaaed specks habitat, histork or adiuml sites, wetlands, tloodphains► or prime farmlands? w: 2` Proposed measures to protest such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: w HaL Q S. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline woe, including whew it would allow or encoeuage land `z or shoreline ws ine mpatible with ekkting plans? ry.i' _e .% _ 8 A I _ _ yJL z ►= C7t z W W; g :)! D' v wit p 1'1r Vosed measures to avoid or redone-alxareiine and land me impacts are: W w; LL 01 ZI W ej} V =' z 6. How would the proposal beikelelincrease to incrse demands on transportation or public services and utilities? !t2 �„Ss,1,, sAvJ: �� r.�..d !�- ., s ^,..a�da....t:,�g,, waGl ®mar► s r•' . Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) era:: IL Pelt ?. Identify, if passiltle, whether the pnaposal may conflict ehth local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the envininment. t."a 4 iw Page 22 of 22 ` awLTno. s .aAaER �r u sz -1 UC V) C LL w2 J F We w? L c w C � u i— _ z_ 1- HI- z wu C U � o� Uc Wk t0 s t (} Telephone 284 2410 Nei I H. TWelker and Associates, Inc. Consulting Soils Engineers 610 Wheeler St., No. 404 QCJ 1 4 110 Seattle, Washington 98199 t'ERMIT COUNTER April 23, 1996 Al Ansari 9304 Olympic View Drive 0 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Re: Proposed SFR Construction at 1600676th 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 Description 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 coiluvium 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 falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler a given distances provides an indication of the consistency of the soil. ayy; t s z` �LU wU J UO �o w J (n o U. �� �d H z F- r o z ww �a o I_ UJ hi u- p _z U o~ z L® 0 Al Ansari April 231996 Pace 2 Soil Conditions The logs of the test borings have been combined with topographic information to produce a geologic cross-section through the site, also shown in Figure 1, attached. input from a number of explorations performed previously in the immediate vicinity by other engineers has 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 or less discontinuous, miscellaneous fill having a thickness of 3 to 6 feet; (2) an underlying unit of loose fine sand (found only at the top of the hill) having a thickness of approximately 7 feet; (3) a unit of firm dark gray silt with a thickness of approximately 15 feet; (4) a unit of dense coarse sand with a thickness of 7 feet; (5) a unit of hard silt/clay 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 lowermost unit very dense fine to medium sand, with a thickness in excess of 25 feet at the downhill side. Groundwater Table The test borings at the site (which were performed in July of 1994) encountered the groundwater table at Elev. 48t (at the upper end of the site) and Elev. 2 (at the lower end). Proposed Construction We understand that the site is be developed with a three-story, split level, single family residential structure having a footprint of approximately 3000 sq ft. The building will be centered between the side property lines, and located near the upper part of the tot. The building site is to be prepared with moderate excavations of up to seven or eight feet below existing grade. The Meadowdale "Slide Area" Information on the geologic and recent history of the Meadowdale area, as well as prognostications for the continued stability of the various parts of the area, is 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 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 W TZ t-- LU CC d j' LUU U0 U)LU J }- (n of w} J LL �a x LU Z� t- p LU LU �a o- 0 �- i tLU� t- F. Ua Z LU c� _ o� Z C, At Ansad Aril 23, 1996 Pace 3 material" is taken to mean movement of a mass of material which has moved on one or more previous occasions (i.e., reactivation of a rotational slide). Conclusions and Recommendations On the basis of our review of the circumstances of construction at this site, we draw the following principal conclusions: 1. Project excavations will probably extend to the overconsolidated native soil units, although some possibility exists that the preferrerd bearing units may lie several feet below the prepared bearing surface. Where bearing surfaces are prepared in material 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 or on structural fill (reasonably clean sand, gravelly sand, or sandy gravel). 2. Contact pressures of 1000 psf may be used in the design of spread foundations. All footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches. Inasmuch as the weight removed in the making of the excavation will greatly exceed the weight of the house, excellent vertical support will be assured. 3. Possibility of Renewed Slide Activity Although the soils which will be encountered will provide adequate vertical support for the proposed structure, the fact that the site is located on a mass of earth which could conceivably shift its position at some future date means that the house could be displaced from a level position. We note that improve- ments in surface water management and subsurface drainage have apparently been effective in preventing a recurrence of ground movement. The area has survived a number of severe water years (including the one just past) without significant damage. 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 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. M LL Wd X W F- Z Z UA LU U (n off Uj hh LL C LU U. Z 13 ME, rl" Al Ansarl April 23. 1996 Page 4 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 backfilling 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 bacidill. 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 backfilled as soon as possible. Permanent cuts should be no steeper than I 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. EXPIp-r-... 31131 Very truly yours. NEIL H. TWELKER AND ASSOC.. INC. by Neil H. Twelker, Pres. Z UJ cc LU U -j U 0 U4) a Lt) LLJ LU r -j V) LL 0 LU LL T) LU z I-- 0 Z LAI LLJ L) to L'3 LLJ LLJ IL 0 z LU in Or z IX L*] 4A I J",. 2hj�2 QC4 i PEfWhA'T'SK4f8N' ~CIJD ' *COMMENTS, WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT: BE, CONSIDERED. *Additional Information Required for Complete Application *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review 77, j, • Owner AL ANSAR1 a Properry Address--L69D-tZ5TH PLACE WEST ± Date of Application 9/24/06 o Type VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT • Hearing Required:Yes--X-- No Date of Hearing (if known). X —Application Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8Z x 11) X Fe Fee �Site Plan (I I:x 17) X APO List . X Legals (Existing Proposed), Title Report —Environmental Assessment Vicinity Map --___Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (AJDU) X —Elevations Declarations (variance & C..U. P.), Petition (Official Street Map) NEED En I yironmenta'Checklist 96-8 Critical Areas Determination 10 =z w U iO U 0 V)LU w = � H V) U. LUO Q J w �a z t- F- O z E' LULU 0 - 0 �- LU S V H u- O Z LU O ~' Z i U m r I Qj-: �- W ¢� w U JO U V) 0 w J F- V)o w � J w LnO =W _z F- h- O0 Z w iu � O O O U <n o� _LJJ � ~h u- O Z ui cn V T o~ z C0 i APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE: V-96-119 -' AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING ROUTED TO: 7�'' S0 199E RETURNED EP Engineering 9/25/96 Engineering `3IJBLIC WORKS DEP i Fire. W.Flr ri�� ' Public. Works Parks 8t C. Parks 8t Rec`. Staff Comments: Fiio U44 �99a III( *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE? 3 *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED *Additional Information Required for Complete Application *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review 0 Owner AL ANSART • Property Address__._16008 75TH PLACE'WEST Date of Application 9/24/96 _• Tym VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT • Hearing Required:Yes—_X__ No Date of Hearing (if known) X Application Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11) X Fee X Site Plan (11 x 17) X APO List X Legals (Existing'& Proposed) Title Report Envltonmentai Assessment . Vicinity Map Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADLI) X Elevations Declarations (Variance & C. U P.) Petition (Official Street Map) NEED `_ Environmental Checklist,, .; 96.8 Critical Areas Determination �' 0 I S Z• �W LUL) - U U V W -wi F- `� o W a� �a x u, zF- 1— o W �o U {q p f- F- i- WC az W U: U= O~ z to I i APPLICATION ROUTIt FORME AND CHECKLIST "FROM. PL ANNiNGl� 5 1996 ROUTED.TO: RETURNED 'ENGINJEPHINe p� �"1, � ...... -- i'sngineerine` Fire 9 �._::..._ Fire Public Works 9125196 '-� Public Works 4'6 ° Parks et Rec. 9/25/96 Parks 8t Rec. Staff Comments: 44 *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE.CODE2 *COMMENTS. WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED' *Additional Information Required for Complete Application ., t� *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review ---- • Owner._ ALANSARI Property Address 16008 75TH PLACE WEST • Date of Application-9/24a6 • Type VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT • Hearing Required:Yes--X— No Date of Hearing,(If known) X Application Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 X Fee X . Site Plan (11 x'.17) X APO List X Legals (Existing & Proposed) Title Report Environmental Assessment ` Vicinity Map Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU} X Elevations Declarations Petition (Official Street Map) NEED ° Enwronmental'666k6st 96-8 Critical Areas Determination 77 ,r 0 Date: September 27, 1996 To:. Planning Division From: Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator .subject: Variance for Ansad PI, W.l(V-96419) The application has been reviewed by the Engineering Division. The Engineering Division has no requirements to impose at this time. The applicant will need to comply with all the terms of any future permits. It should be noted that maximum driveway slope allowed is 14% and an on -site turnaround is required. The application is considered complete at this time. z =z w x� Q � w U c-) o U)w wS J h- (n LL �O w Cc Q; o S w h S Z E- h- O Z F- uj Lu � O O— p F- _ u; LL O Z w to U = O� Z U = z' E- w w .J U Q, � w. _J F- O, wBI U. Q i d, F w z� 1.-o W w sL = � 0 U tn' 0 H LU _ z'. LU N. U = O~ z city of et honds > �- land use application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ❑ COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT / STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER � FILE# ZONE 1"z DATE` G REC'D BY FEE l32 RECEIPT# HEARING DATE ❑ HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED O DENIED ❑ APPEALED Barbara Pickens, AIA - Architect Phone 451-1161 9950 Lake Washington Blvd N.E., Bellevue, WA 98004 Property Address or Location 16008 - 75th Place W. , Edmonds, WA 98020 Property Owner Mr. & Mrs. Al Ansari Phone 296-5718 Address 9304 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, WA 98020 Agent Barbara Pickens, AIA Phone 451-1161 Address same as above Tax Acc # 5131 059 003 0004 Sec. 5 Twp. 27N Rng 4E Legal Description Lot 1, McCorkle Short Plat Details of Project or Proposed Use Single family residence is to be built on this lot. The difficulty of the existing sloping site have brought us to request a height variance. The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of t application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part up false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information fumished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this application. 1 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT r September 20,1996 OWNER: AL ANSARI SITE ADDRESS: 16008 75th Place W., Edmonds, WA 98020 VARIANCE REQUEST: A 12-FOOT VARIANCE TO THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION Height Calculation: NW CORNER 56 U NE 74 0 SW 58 UJ SE 70 F_ MEN tG TOTAL 258 DIVIDE BY 4: AVERAGE GRADE 64.5 ALLOWABLE HEIGHT 25 PROPOSED MAX. HEIGHT 37 MAX. ALLOWABLE HEIGHT 89.5 PROPOSED MAX. ELEVATION 101.5 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. 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. 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: In the comprehensive plan the lot is designated to be a single-family home lot and the owners propose to use it as such. 4. ZONING ORDINANCE: The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to regulate land use, the bulk of structures and to create 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 the street will be less than 25 feet tall. On both the north and south property lines, the side yards, the home is set back more than the minimum. This will create larger corridors to the water view for passing motorist and pedestrians. Measuring the length of the home and studying the 62-foot side elevations of the home, there is only a small wedge that exceeds 25 feet in height. That is a triangle that has the horizontal leg 32 feet long and goes from 0 to 9 feet tall. The architect has worked with the topography of the site to slope the home to match the site. It is only due to the impact of the two low corners on this sloping site that makes it necessary for the owners to seek a variance. It <T r f` W>T r ti DECLARATION RI FOR HEIGHT VARIANCE Page 2 of 2 September 20, 1996 SITE ADDRESS: 16008 75th Place W., Edmonds, WA 98020 'i 5. NOT DETRIMENTAL: This proposal will not adversely effect the neighbors on any side of the site. .. As mentioned earlier, the front of the house is less than 25 feet above the front property line and less than 16 feet above the street edge. This should have the least impact possible on the uphill neighbors: The neighbors to the north and south will not be adversely effected by the height of this j. home; their views are all to the west. The home is set back from the side property lines more than required. This should relieve any effects of the short section of home that is higher than the 25 foot limit. 6. MINIMUM VARIANCE: To construct this home, we will need a twelve -foot variance from the height restriction. The rule that only allows 25 feet above the average grade will limit construction on this site to a one-story home with a partial "daylight" basement. To reduce the height, the owners have elected to build a fiat roof home. They have minimized their expectations and reduced the size of the home to accommodate the sloping lot and to minimize the bulk of the home, To make this home a shorter home, would reduce the building to a daylight rambler, which is not in keeping with the standards for home design commonly used throughout the area. Given the site's slope, it is necessary to request this height restriction. If this site were flat, the home's design would have fit within the height restriction. PREPARED BY: t Barbara Pickens; Architect, AIA 451-1161 l Mfi tww3•aP Gr -}. 2� MAK-. rPACIFIC BAY HOUSE- _ SITE PLAN a.c2d ; n-1 10 Ig ¢ O a o Ysa P lfl - m a W W (! W N> P,ev- m��I W a,. 6 010 Z OP ¢rod w> Z oFwFa Mo >W FW Q t• %'Jf _. $So P. i '1,. ° c > N mpLn o h`: �TF •dory ,}g Lam. .oz .-z <``e` Iy I W � i� i ° .°N, � � z ~) \`\\\ o �o°�' of � �„ i �' "76pfZz`f��W'° --... -mac �'•' I ii f G y � � \ os` �� to �_ 'j'LL � �G.�`"yy�y9�ww i --f"_ '�� �� `"..a`.�•c. V . 4a555 OV Mr to N fV �j = o Rat/pn} V p \ 'ten y N p 1 G N I N �M7v NOn .. .,,... r ; 0 ❑ 32 x I0 25 X 1 m 7904-000-010-W00 5131-058-004-0OOi Derry Will-E Imemma Ejgene Barbara Pickens, ALA 1610774th PLW 1707244W SW 9950 Lake WiIO. Blvd NE mo Ed.6,WA98026 Momaake Terr4m,WA98043 Bellevue, WA 98004 7904-OW-003-0009 5131-058-005-0004 Chung Seung E0e'ME Mr. &Mrs. Al Ansari 5508154th PL SW 16031751hW 9304 Olympic View Or. Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmo�s, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98020 51314129-009-0W 1 5131-058-00"loo Be.'ein Gerald Mies Sherman 6653NEWinde—id 1611575thRW Smile, WA 98115 Edmonds WA98020 5131-0294I1-0W7 51314)58-0094100 Elliott Paul&Linda Mi S 16000750 PLW 16115 WPLW Edmonds, WA98026 8n20 51314i304094iX9 5131-059-001-0n06 Briar- Frsk Edmonds Fandy Med Clinic 7429 N Meadowdale RD 11906 Marine View DR Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 5131-058-001-0008 5131-059-004-0n03 Wiggins PLyRis Ruggiero Philip 16012741h PLW 61261,10111 CT NE Edmonds, WA 98026 Redmond, WA 98052 7904-000-004-0008 5131-0594M164k101 Audi— Rabe'&Joann McCod'e Roger - IM1073WMW POBOX7178 Edmond;WA98026 S.01 , WA 98133 51314i58-006-0003 51314I58-008-0209 Williams Paul&Gumdian W" &Guardian E'ateofJ7"Mary Estate Javeway Mary 6324181st PLSW 632 b PL BW LYm�woad, WA98037 L WA9803] 5I314)58-0II4i006 i-059-008 9 Mul B. Yomg Sand. 2505 N 98 PO BOg 91 AS PO BOX 91006 SAS 070I Sift WA 98111 nds, 98020 ; r. AWMENT PROPERTYOWNFR 1�r Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list wl j'i 9 p - On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all .properties S + located within 300 feet of the subject property. Signature of Applicant orApplicaurs Representative NSubscribed and swum to before me this _ day ofLZLt . ig�. r' /Notary Public in and for the State of WashingtoruANET M. MITCHELL 2 Residing at 0 APO:dbcV,:\Temp\f,—