16628 76TH AVE W.pdfd I
.INDICATE TYPE OR DEGREE OF INTEREST IN PROPERTY z
LOCATION OR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY _ 1 4�(O2'j f�.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY LQT Ac -es
VARIANCE REQUESTED: � l .� l-�t� l �--H `l+ J�j4t,.�Cle,
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: USE ZONE : -5—
ZONING ' ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
\J
Release/Hold Harmless Agreement
The undersigned applicant, his heirs and assigns.,' in for
the City processing the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and
hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages and/or claims for
damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from any action
or inaction is based in whole or in part upon false, misleading or incomplete
information furnished by the applicant, his agents or employees.
Permission to Enter Subject Property
The undersigned applicant grants his, her or its permission for public
officials and the staff of the City of Edm ds to enter the subject property
for the purpose of inspection and postingttendant to application.
SiC;nature of Ap licant, Owner or
Representative
i
.... .
... .,......._._.. ..._.._ .. .,. ,........., rya
�lX
EXHIBIT au,AV l irk y.yr;,�l
DECLARATIONS OF APPLICANT`'
pp
1A-
'
Please answer all questions �}•
1.
What are the characteristics physical (i.e. topography, shape r:
of lot, etc.) which create a hardship for you in regard -to'
development.of your property?
i c,r�e::r- G �'�aOr! r c- .
2.
How does your property differ from other ;property in the same
vicinity?
j )o D IEEc-e0c e LOT"
3.
Will this variance be detrimental to the'pubhic or damaging to
other property or improvements in the, vicinity?
O sj
9_.
4,.
What hardships will result to you if the variance is not granted?
Will these hardships have been caused by. your own action?
tutu RO t U2AtSLC—_
5.
Can you make reasonable use of your property without _.the. variance?
i
l'
I
;r
YL .•__. T �.�;jGa � 'e'tr./ �ii -i ':� _,.... - � / / ..��' s � ENERAL IVU Itb -
4
» ._ t kctro^OAr, tbJ - �_'.- /� �. ,•i � SSSC LOGR STRGET
4 • V � •t al .' _ _ ....� ". _ .r ��� ��'/ �� PHa7NL (Tax.) 174 •DZOS
1MMNOND. COLWER t WADI/tMW.STOHL JSSDCIATLS
4010 STOfLL WAY NORTH ".
°• . - ' O t 1 I ---_ -' j - AATTIL WASH. 76103 /H61! (TOL) 41246(ti.
TRAMS, 1101 AN0 TRACTS, a 1011, INCLLOAVL,
\ `� '/ / • • - GUXX T, PUT a A+LAOOPILNLE efhdf. StCT10N 7,.
__•Q._._ t R4L/ TilH,,W IA., SN01VMISH (q#ITY, YMLUNQTTON.
\ If.� '•a
KRG .6: 4.5: c2ee,1 Q sa.rr.)
�\ YRA4E UFT S1AVDw "-' _ WATER: UTY or Wro0Hp5.
SCE IATO.S.SIr0.T2 / - j0E- ./ fc"LR: Y.U.O. f191
\ \
3LV2R.' TY EDMOnO3.
h \• , `_ �/ /• ' / -. / tM - [f UTIYG TJ]NMfj : R.S. 12
Ua
M1 stO TONINGPLANRLD KmvfNTIAL DLVLOrMLNT.
�\ \ \� '�-= ..� •!�+ / r ,. t - NUMBER OF UNITS AatONED' Vs
K ��\.. a •� NVMILR M M� \ : 12
b • 3 `_ NA.7N MfA. 155 ROAD]): 12 eY. t274, 20e 3Q.1T)
L ` _ TLAT Jr G.LAp.d DLLl SLaC I•
' QAT,.AI. CITt .i E,LY 51 ' 8LAr1-L;V-Jw YMTLR114 W)'
•\ .\ ` Y MH n,i ELtY ISL.7 •rT _• lT'..'NJL L 12rI+L
T •
BROOKACRES ESTATES aR- ;e TeAe N3
Yano :E� +]1 •tL• EACH WT
^ N SIOL YARD f •YL ( S ) -Lt- UCH LC'
SITE_ PL
- - ?H .• \ SCALE . J" r -IJ"
/' rw VARIANCE
MF9 A `ro POSE
D I_EGENa:
�_ _. JJti� •`\� IH=•��EJg\. --__ • 4:T L nE T] MKI, O• PAYING
9j-\• - '• TiJ, �tE�t • pANITARY SLWLR MGIN i 1MNNOLG
.. 1AwL
.14
,a ✓� •.. 3 ,A` 'Df 4f\ - —�. rl— . SA.a GRt StWCR rJRCL MNN.� MUKH
uHDFJt4OUCA E_ECTR'UL CAdt
;nCauOlNy U+SLL Tv CJND�IT ,A SM.t 1RUIfl1
A.T" "INS,P-RL t y. u
SLWLR CLLA14OUT
`- n i III G.aST rAru..us
tom'
,,.r:+D.f �tA.A••A�•a -f3w Asw HAMMOND, COLLIER & WADE-LIVINGSTONE CHELBaR6ER �.•.+n�A
1,r•
AS _
rM1on RR.+sw+S _- s*. 'T-t;.s us•. a Si ASSOCIATES. INC.
YlIL
� � • ,A -- �' v1._! .'. s Fr�JTAT E S 2 19 3
E.A astOn f M.1✓'O a.f ^i N. • r4n1 S nnft°p.�-��`•.�"�`E R��T - .
,.AN_NE��� rICjCONSULTING ENGINEERSA ,AL MELCPMENT
.......
—PLAN
i -
7- 45p!y-7W 7j T�
Y
':
PROPERTY ADDRESS AND LOCATION
ZONE DISTRICT
THE HEARING WILL BEGIN AT _ 2; 450 M. , IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS
OF THE EDMONDS CIVIC CENTER, 250 FIFTH AVENUE NORTH.
IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT ON THIS PROPOSAL, YOU MAY COME TO THE HEARING AND SPEAK. YOU
MAY ALSO WRITE A LETTER STATING YOUR VIEWS WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING.
PLEASE ADDRESS THE LETTER TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND INCLUDE THE
ABOVE FILE NUMBER.
IF THE ITEM IS CONTINUED TO ANOTHER HEARING BECAUSE THE AGENDA IS NOT COMPLETED, OR
FURTHER INFORMATION 1S NEEDED, THE DATE OF THE CONTINUED HEARING WILL BE ANNOUNCED
ONLY AT THE MEETING.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
505 BELL STREET, EDMONDS (PHONE 775-2525, EXT. 227).
THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR
CONCEALMENT OF THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE
WiARNINGul OF THE HEARING IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE
BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.
THIS NOTICE MAY BE
m
.... - ,. _ _. _ . _ 1. � t '� _..
}k`t t�i T'41,(.SYt �AFMS
1
'1
EXHIBIT 1
.
p1
STAFF REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER
FILE # V-4-81
s
HEARING DATE: April 2, 1981
I. REQUESTED ACTION::
'
Variance from the height requirement of twenty -five
-feet to thirty-one feet.
II. APPLICANT:
Ron Johnson
2160 N.W. 204th
Seattle, WA 98177
III. PROPERTY LOCATION:
16628 76th Avenue West
Edmonds, WA 98020
IV. LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 8, Replat of Brookacres
V. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. Description of Subject Property and Surrounding
Area
The subject property was created by the subdivision
of the Brookacres Planned
Residential Development (PRD-1-76). It is an irregularly
shaped lot that slopes
.to the south-southwest at an approximate 34% grade.
The lot is undeveloped and
has a'number of large.evergreens on it.
Of the twelve lots in the Brookacres Development, four have homes on them and two
have houses under construction. There is a thirty
foot, private easement road which
serves the development. Please refer to Exhibit 6
which shows the topography within
the Brookacres PRD.
B. Conformance to Chapter 20.85.010
1. Special Circumstance
Cnnr•i nl rni vvt}mctanr nc AA nv; et. in that- tha 1 nt
i c ctaanl v sl nnPd _ Fven with
V..
e
yT
!1 t
i
-MiVEzl �
Exhibit 1'/Staff Report/V-4-81
}'
Page 2
S
tl}4
3. Comprehensive Plan
f tE }
The Comprehensive Policy Plan map designates the subject property
r r: Mp
as ;low;
..density residential.
Generally, the building proposed is consistent with the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed yard area behind the house is not
(See Chapter 15.15.000 (C,l,c)
ry:
D. Zoning Ordinance
r
Existing Zoning - PRD/RS-12
Surrounding Zoning - North 'South East West
RS-12 RS-12 RS-12/ OS
RS-20
As proposed, this variance is generally consistent with.the zoning ordinance.
E. Not Detrimental
The granting of this variance should not be detrimental to the public
health,''
safety or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the
area.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the staff that V-4-81 -be approved in, that
it conforms.
to the criteria outlined in Chapter 20.85. Further, that the following conditions
be made part of the'variance- approval :,
1. A soils report be submitted to the Building Department
with building permit application.
2. No fill be placed to the rear of the house to create
a yard area, as that defeats the purpose of the common
open space provided in the PRD.
1
i
—s
''111it, I IlI lllltl�l.l {i� 1J II' t]. TOP
I,I,I _� ' t�
�W '1.1;. 1;��1 i'i I I Il l I --" 11:�111' ,� 1 T? T I(t r
�-
Cl[70DD000130
9,}
Y�
. 5 ,...�.
1 '
U-SI
,:..
EXHIBIT 6
e]Isr LraR.L.aax.aww• SECT, TZI1A K4E,W.M_
-
' - r
t ♦awT °r YLa°°w V♦LL aLwt•
ray c.lu +Y.L .n.w a..-.•.+aa ti - I
�MtYJD L-,3TM tLTN r•r•t et• � {Y PA•Jlt:,t •O [.r]T rl6
i 1 � �.f/ i rrataa t°a. . t',+R .•a.[. �. ) GY•.twn rM^Jtt
T ww ''tt �cc
1 r� �..— �=^� �- 1 � i�.fr�Y � { Y no 1'--Si'w"'•` _ .r �♦] ! rl`1 _ '�_�'�'. �-�.•/ Z /
T, •_�_\ .,'`may, Q . /„� .... • - ... ... _.. - i - -•__•• //.: �./. �;` L
�� "''•• / •" •'• i % '' C ENE_FJ�L NOTES
- ~�.. /_. f _• �� - ��..,I 1 �� /_ SSD naC>tn STRUT
- •., �` .' %. ;.. O / I; :: � � •-' i rati•n»t: www•OtD,mLNaRrr..pr,/awtwaa,DwLu]«Lan�
L ] � -� ? +.•, ••_ ' /�"/ •60 STTj•L ruT wpwTN
♦\ •'• Y .. .ti,J..... - / 1 / . •. / / / / [v 1..Ta)q nrxs ]l. rtny d ch'" ! ^CH. SLCPP. T.
W r.worwW COV ,.+%.waif[.
11wW1 YlT pwiu, ' f•J __ _ -�� �:'�/ • KRLKrS: G.il ti01J�0 W.i.)
r w . UTT d a0•wOwC9.
it
lC11•.1ft.-rLC wLNMMTL Car".O' NI.
tL '. � `�- ra•T Y cU C.w7att aut, �.a`]^•°{�lf1 rc.+Os-Tt •7. b-If. 30. a4 A)
BROOKACRES ESTATES
\ •��y \ \ SITE PLAN'
ytwal . 1• 9 .J•
afg \ t'ti '\ PtdP�SED YA0.IANC_ E
04
14
°`c
J
D
HAMMOND, COLLIER &WADE-LIVINGSTONE
..•.,....T•"
rr-: >.-s.�
�i
ASSOCIATES, INC.
' o > 1..
s
ot.
'7
ENGINEERS
�' .. ....+�! �, `'„
a.•a . �-
.CONSULTING
•��r_ ui
Yl
DwTI C. fD•+d••O�, bt..... wLR ,J.•MTulul.w)'
.. •ei L.Ly 41 A STa C• lT'.S.Ja Lr � •I.a
��f a �i- >ww.Tutr SC•.i.R ,ww•w 1 wwa•.paL
—�•r-- • 4•••i•.4t SLwU1 /�KLNNw ^U'Lw
l • LwOU V41••D [JGTw•C.•� Chad
• K4•}•t GA41 I. :J••0..,' • 1. w Yra wWf�
.� • .•t{I M•N! hK 1 • T.
Sr
ChcCBARGER
A P ANME RED' hT1ALWit E.LCPMF—(T
a�ITF F'L Atv
f
,tit py
Findings and Decision of -the Hearing Examiner
City of Edmonds
-81-V-05
Page 2
After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Applicant-)
evidence elicited during the pulbic hearing; and as a result
of the
personal inspection of the subject property and the surrounding
areas by the Hearing Examiner, the following Findings of
act and
Conclusions constitute the -basis of the decision of the
Hearing
«,
Examiner.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Applicant has requested approval of a variancefrom
the
heighth_ requirement of 25 "feet for nropertt located ir
an. RS12 .
zone at 16628 76th Ave. W, Edmonds; WA, and more particularly
described as set forth above.
2. The requested variance is from the current height re
uirement
of 25 feet to 31 feet.
3. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the subject property
is
low density residential.
4. The subject property was.created by a subdivision of
a Planned
Residential Development.. The lot is 'irregularly shaped
and
slopes to the South -Southwest at an approximate :3
% grade.
The lot is undeveloped and has a large number of a
ergre.en
trees on it.
5. In the City of Edmonds, WA, a land us,e variance may be
granted
only if the application meets the requirementsas set
forth in
Chapter 20.85 of the Edmonds Community Development.
Code.
According to this chapter the burden is upon the Applicant
to
show that special circumstances relating to the
property
exist requiring the need for a variance, that there
Ls a lack
of special privilege being accorded the Applicant
by the
issuance of the variance; that the variance
will be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City;
that the
variance will be consistent with the zoning codes of
the City;
that the variance would not be detrimental to the community;
and that the variance is the minimum needed to allow
the
rightful enjoyment of the parties.
6. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds sub
itted in
their report and testified that special circumstances
do exist
on the subject property warranting the need for a
variance.
The Planning Department testified that because of
the steep
slopes and the irregular topography on the subject
site the
minimal setbacks allowed in a PRD together with the calculated
average building heighth would result in a house that
is not.,
design -wise consistent with the other homes in the P
D.
2
Findings
and Decision of the Hearing Examiner. 1�
City
of Edmonds °r=
f,a'
HE- 81-V- 0 5 x
Page
r
3,,
r
x
7.
The Planning Department submitted that the granting: of this"
variance would not result in the granting of a'.spe,ci.al
privilege. They base this on the fact that another lot'
within the PRD which has a similar topographic constraintwas
c
granted the 5 foot height variance in October, 1980.
r`
8.
The Planning Department testified that the variance isr
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds.
9.
The Planning Department testified that the requested variance
is generally .consistent with the zoning ordinances of the City
of Edmonds and in particular RS-12 zones.
10.
The Planning Department testified that the granting of the
variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety
or welfare and would not be injurious to the property or
improvements within the area.
11.
The Applicant testified that the variance if granted would not:
result in a more scenic view or a more profitable use of the
property.
12.
The Planning Department and the Applicant testified that the>
variance was the minimum necessary to allow the Applicant the
rights enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity.''
13.
The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds recommended
that the variance be approved because it conforms to the t'
criteria listed in Chapter 20.85 of the Edmonds Community j
Development Code. The Planning Department conditioned
`
approval of the variance on the following:
1. A soils report be submitted to the Building Department
with the building permit application.
2. No fill be placed to the rear of the house ,to create a j
yard area as that defeats the purpose of the open space,
provided,in the PRD.
14. The Applicant testified to be in support of the
recommendations for the approval of the variance and also was
in support of the condition requiring a soils report be
submitted to the Building Department with the building permit
application. F
15. The Applicant did object to the condition that no fill be
placed to the rear of the house in order to create a yard
area. The Applicant testified that because of the limited,
space for construction in this area there will be some fill
that must be redistributed within the area or removed from the
site itself. The Applicant requested that he be allowed to
redistribute the soil. on his property so as to properly "
landscape the yard and avoid the necessity of removing the
extra fill.
91
i F
. \
Findings and Decision of the Hearing ExaminerF'<t
e !r
w
City of Edmonds
HE-81-V-01 n
Page 4.
t.
- 16. The Applicant testified that if allowed to redistribute the
l
y'
soil from the excavation he would redistribute it on his'
r`
property and would not .disturb, the open space provided in the..
{}..
PRD.
r�l �
17. There was no public testimony in support or opposition of this
variance request.
s
.
CONrLU NS
<
1. The application is for approval of a request for a variance`'
from the minimum height requirement of 25 feet for an 'RS-12
zone in order to allow a height of 31 feet.
2. The variance request is for property located at 16628 76th
Ave. W, Edmonds, WA, and more particularly described as, set
forth above.
3: The zoning classification of the subject property is RS-12 and
has a Comprehensive Plan designation of low density
residential.
4. Section 20.85.010 sets forth when a variance can be approved
in the City of Edmonds. This section reads as,follows:
20,85,010 2jNDINGS
No variance may be approved unless all of the Findings in this
section can be made.
1. Special circumstances include the size, sh.ape,.�
topography, location or suuroundings of the property,'
public necessity as of public structures and uses as
set forth in Section 17.000.030 and environmental
factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and
wildlife habitats.
2. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon
any factor personal to the owner such as age or
disability, extra expense which may be necessary to
comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to
secure a scenic view, the ability to make more
profitable use of the property, nor any factor
resulting from the action of the owner or any past;
owner of the same property.
0
C.
4
Special Privilege. That the approval of the variance'
would not be a grant of special privilege to th-e
property in comparison with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance
will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
r$ i(tyY{x4
Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner
City of Edmonds
HE--81-V-01
Page 5
D. Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of .the variance.,'
will be consy`:stent with the purposes of the zoning; l,r
ordinance and the zone district in which the property,
is located. �,•
E. Nat Detrimental. That the variance as approved or
conditionally approved will not be significantly
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare'
or injurious to the property of improvements in the
vicinity and same zone.'
F. Minimum Variance. That the approved variance is the. � •;'
minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the
same zoning.
5. Special circumstances exist for the granting of the variance
for the. subject property. These special circumstances include
the sizer shape, topography and location of the property.
6. These are no special circumstances predicated upon personal
factors that exist for the granting of this variance.
7. The granting of this variance will not result in special
privileges to the Applicant.
8. The variance appears to be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan of the City of Edmonds.
9. The variance appears to be consistent with the zoning
ordinances of the City of Edmond
s.
10. The variance if granted would not be detrimental' to the public
health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property and
improvements in the vicinity and in the same zone.
11. The variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the �.
rights enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity.
12. The Applicant has met the burden of proof by showing thatthe!.
requirements as set forth in Chapter 20.85.010 are satisfied.,
}
13. The Planning Department of the City •of Edmonds and the Public !
Works Department did not object to the issuance of the {'
variance request and in fact did recommend approval.
14. The Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds has authority to
make decisions on the variance request pursuant to section
20.10 .010 B.2. of the City of Edmonds Community Development
Code.
t
f A
l_ a
4'
E'
i
5
i
t �.�
'•' YP S
Y
Findings and Decision of`the Hearing Examiner;
n
City of Edmonds
HE-81—V— O1 e rift
t
1 t
Page 6
DECISION
Using the above findings and conclusions as the basis of� the'
decision, the Tearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds hereby orders'
that the variance request by Ron Johnson for a change,iri the height #
requirement from 25 feet to 31• feet in an RS-12 zone" for property`
located at 16628 76th Ave W, Edmonds, WA, be granted subject to the
following conditions:
1
1. At the time the Applicant applies for a building permit
application for the subject property he.must also submit a
soils report that is to be approved by the City of Edmonds
Planning Department or Engineering Department. The soils
report shall address that, but is not limited to, the
stability of the soils, the erosion control plans during
construction and erosion control plans after construction on
►' the subject property.
2. Soil from the excavation necessitated by the construction on
the subject property may be redistributed on the rear section
of the subject property but is not to be redistributed on any
of the open space provided in the Brookacres Planned
Residential Development. Further this redistribution of the
r soils shall conform with the erosion control plans that are to
be submitted by the Applicant with the building permit.
i.
Entered this IL day of April, 1981, pursuant to the authortiy
granted the Hearing Examiner under section 20.10 of the Community
Development Code of the City of Edmonds, Washington.
I
• 1
n ,i - Al
J 1ES M. DRISCOLL
H aring.Examiner
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to Section 20.10 .010 B., Edmonds Community Development
Code, written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other
grounds for appeal may be filed with the Department of Planning and
Community Development within fourteen (14) days of the date of the
Hearing Examiner's final action. In this matter, any appeal must
be received by the Department prior to 5:00 p.m., May 9, 1981.
6
roc �
F
777777
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
April 2, 1981
a
The Hearing Examiner, James M. Driscoll, called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. in
the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center.
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
James M. Driscoll, Hearing Examiner Duane Bowman, Associate Planner
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
Mr. Driscoll described the procedure of the meeting and stated that he is allowed ten
working days in which to submit a decision on each hearing, so no decisions would be
rendered this evening.
V-4-81 RON JOHNSON - Variance to height requirement of 25' to 31' at 16628 76th
fAve. W. RS-12)
Slides of the site were shown. This is a part of the Brookacres PRO and is
an irregularly shaped lot that slopes to the south/southwest at an approxi-
mate 34% grade. The lot is undeveloped and has a number of large evergreens
on it. Of the 12 lots in the Brookacres PRO, 4 have homes on them and 2
have houses under construction. A 30' private easement road serves the
development. Special circumstances exist in that the lot is steeply sloped.
Even with the minimal setbacks allowed in this PRO, and in calculating
average building height, the topography does not allow a house that design -
wise can be consistent to the other homes in the PRO. Stair -stepping the
house further down the bank to the south would encroach on the stream
flowing behind this lot. Granting of the variance would not be to grant
special privilege in that Lots 6, 7, and 8 of the PRD have similar topographic
problems and a 5' height variance has been granted on Lot 6. Generally,
the proposed building will be consistent with the policies of the Compre-
hensive Plan, which designates this property as low density/residential.
However, the proposed yard area behind the house is not consistent with
those policies. Surrounding zoning is RS-12 to the north and south, RS-12/
RS-20 to the east, and OS to the west. The variance would be generally
consistent with the zoning ordinance, and granting of the variance should
not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor should it
be inujurious to the property or improvements in the area. Drawings of the
north and west elevations were shown. Mr. Bowman recommended approval,
with the following conditions: (1) That a soils report be submitted to the
Building Department with the building permit application; and (2) That no
fill be placed to the rear of the house to create a yard area as that would
defeat the purpose of the common open space provided in the PRD and it
would not be consistent with the City's policies regarding filling and
grading. His reason for the soils report was to insure the type of founda-
tion they propose will be adequate there. Erosion will be addressed by the
required drainage plan. He identified the open space of the PRD.
The applicant said they want to maintain the character of the PRD and to be
sure the architecture of the house is compatible with the other homes in
the development. He said the topography makes it difficult to build a two-
story home without a variance. The proposed building will be only 30' wide
and the garage has been pushed forward. There is not sufficient area to
build the house all on one level. Mr. Johnson said the house on Lot 6 is
35' high and did get a 5' height variance, whereas Mr. Johnson will have to
have a 6' variance for 31' height because the Code has changed. Under the
old Code he would have needed only a 1' variance. He had obtained the
signatures of the owners of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12, stating no
objection to the variance, and during the meeting also obtained the signature
of the owner of Lot 2. He did not object to the required soils report.
Regarding the second condition of approval, he said the site is difficult
14
s
'Pr
,-_. .' ..� :. _ . .��; . � ;..., ... ... :� � .. ..� � '.:: .... ... _ .. _ . -.. .....__.. _ _.__. ._� �' .�..u^••..�.+w:.w:•�+'y 1-�«^�i+,s. Yari»-mh.svtt*+f�
i
■
on which to build and it is difficult to remove the excavated soil from the'
site, so the intent was to move the dirt behind the building pad, keeping
it on their lot. He said they would not bring any fill onto the site but
would redistribute what is there. He did not know how he could get the
excavated dirt off the site. He noted that the lot goes 10'- 15' beyond an
existing rockery and the dirt would be kept within the confines of•the lot.
He noted that on Lot 6 the dirt was just pushed down the side of the hill.
The signatures indicating no objection to the 6' height variance were
submitted as Applicant's Exhibit 1, and Mr. Driscoll admitted that as well
as the City's Exhibits 1-6 as a part of the record. He advised that his
decision would be rendered by April 16, 1981.
ST-1-81 HANCHETT WALCKER SEDERHOLM AND COCKRUM - Petition for vacation, of portion'
of alley right-of-way, located between Bth and 9th Ave. N., and Sprague and
Edmonds Sts.
The petitioners were Walcker Homes, Fredrick Sederholm, Beverly Cockrum,
and Kevin Hanchett, and they were represented by Kevin Hanchett. Slides of
the property were shown and it was noted that the portion of the alley
proposed to be vacated is a steep area. The area proposed to be vacated
was 90' x 15'. The Comprehensive Policy Plan map designates the area as
low density/residential. Mr. Bowman indicated the vacation request was
consistent with the goals and policies outlined in Chapter 15.25 of the
Community Development Code. The usefulness of the property was questionable
because of the topography, and the property is undeveloped. This is an
environmentally sensitive area because of the steep topography and Shell
Creek, and Mr. Bowman recommended reservation of a 5' wide easement for
pedestrians. He noted that it is City policy to require compensation for
vacated right-of-way unless the owners originally deeded the property to
the City. He recommended approval, subject to retention of a 5' pedestrian
easement and to the City's being compensated for the vacated right-of-way.
In answer to questions, he said no property will be landlocked by the
proposal and the portion of the alley not being vacated would remain right-
of-way. He noted that 8th Ave. potentially could be extended to the north
but it is very steep. He called attention to an error in Exhibit 5 in that
Lots 18-21 were omitted adjacent to 9th Ave. He said that drawing is being
corrected. Also, the pedestrian easement will need to be identified.
Kevin Hanchett had no objection to the conditions, but he said he would
like the walkway to be the northerly 5' of the vacated property because he
will use the alley for access to his property. He said this would allow
the setback to be moved and help create a better building pad. He also
said that, if required, he would be amenable to a hold harmless agreement
releasing the City from liability for injury to any pedestrian using the
walkway.
Mr. Driscoll admitted Exhibits 1-8 and said his recommendation to the
Council would be submitted by April 16, 1980.
There was no further business to cane before the Hearing Examiner, and the meeting
adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
Page 2 - April 2, 1981
PAR
Affidavit of Publication
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH,
B-,2-1