Loading...
17003 72ND PL W.pdft ' Y , a '. • vv �SS,w.r+�.:M:IA.G4S:w.2A:IW#w.xnWw...—.wr+r`N'�NssW,uw.Ea'h3P95taYA 1 . %t isFYkIY......awwra�LL�HIAy.1�`vi�4Sf7$kiE'Vi$.'�i�e.��+�`irc'�'ie ".ids.—.'�SY, <�.}::./..:`4 CITY OF EDM©NDS BARaARA 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 Q S 2' cc Letter of Transmittal 5! 0 01 Date: September 3,1996 Cl) o To: WA State Dept. of Ecology a Environmental Review Section cn d PO Box 47703 F �+! Si Olympia, WA 98504-7703 z r; Z o{ Subject: 17003 72nd Pl. W., Edmonds w uil o0' Transmitting Adoption of Existing Environmental Document o f- a s cLu � } For Your Information: XX U. _o z � .. w c� As you requested: For your file: a Comment: Note attachments: Sincerely, Kirk Vinish,'Planner 0 4 t i 1 t,i, fi e7 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 •� Sister Cities International - Hekinan, Japan ,. t•` La V'. -, cy w; � to O w� � ai �w z_ F-. 1- Z w LW 2 =); Na, U tn' h u. O z tw.) O~ z t0 . .,:..,.,- ..._....;.w...�._........,...,..,..ae,..,xs. :w-.,t •.rrsx x..,,. ��as,-.. .. .- ..euaaw x.;� ,:.fixri.sen �' ..�, r ..-. Part Eleven--197-11-960 SEPA Rules RCW 197-11-960 Adoption notice, ADOPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Adoption for (check appropriate box) l/ DNS ❑ EIS ❑ other Description of current proposal The expansion of an existing de k o i ntrud approxi matel y 240 square feet (or ten feet) into the "steep slope" critical area 1 Proponent 06fidMbr$ohl Location of current proposal 17003 72nd Place West 1 Edmonds, WA 98020 Title of document being adopted DNS Agency that prepared document being adopted City of EdffiondS Date adopted document was prepared 3-15-81 p { portion) being adopted DNS Description of document or g p re: 12 unit planned residential development If the document being adopted has been challenged (197-11-630), please describe: The document is available to be read at (place/time) Citv of Edmonds Planning Division 9:00 - 5 00pm We have identified and adopted this document as being appropriate for this proposal after independent review. The document meets our environmental review needs for the current proposal and will accompany the proposal to the decisionmaker. Name of agency adopting document City of Edmonds Contact person, if other than responsible official Kirk Vi ni sh Phone (206) 771-0220 Responsible official Jeffrey Wilson Position/title SEPA Responsible Official Phone(206) 771-0220 Address 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98270 Date 8-21-96 Signatui (C6.197-It RCW—p 521 (1983 Laws) F- Cr LU L) -.1 V 0: O! U) w LU to ,L LU O' CRQ to d wLU z 1s- F- O, w w, g � O B': U tri' O— t7 H u, w tl O', Z' V N P h O Z Part Eleven-197-11-960 SEPA Rules RCW 197-11-960 Adoption notice. ADOPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Adoption for (check appropriate box) 1]S DNS 0 EIS 0 other Description of current proposal The expansion of an existing deck to intrudes- approximately 240 square feet (or ten feet) into the "steep slope° critical area. Proponent Q5hn"Th6r `oh" ^ Location of current proposal_.: 17003 72nd Place West Edmonds, WA 98020 f � l Title of document being adopted DNS , 1 Agency that prepared document being adopted City of Edmonds Date adopted document was prepared 3-15-81 t Description of document (or portion) being adopted DNS iy re: 12 unit planned residential development I If the document being adopted has been challenged (197-11-630), please describe: The document is available to be read at (place/time) City of Edmonds Pl anni na Division l 9:00 - 5400pm We have identified and adopted this document as being appropriate for this proposal after independent review. The document meets our environmental review needs for the current proposal and will accompany the proposal to the decisionmaker. Name of agency adopting document City of Edmonds Contact person, if other than responsible official Kirk Vi ni sh Phone_(206) 771-0220 Responsible official Jeffrey Wilson Position/title SEPA Responsible Official Phone (206) 771-0220 j Address 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98270 Date 8-21-96 Signatur fT lCh. 197-11 RCW—p 52) (I483 taws) S F: F- w', Cr -LL.I �: V Q, Lu' U) LL dw0 LLQ T a z u1 Z r, I- O z Lu uw cs cn! ~� Z U, LL 0' _ Z Lu (n v= o z t® CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • 1206) 771.0220 • FAX (206) 771.0221 HEARING EXAMINER < St. 189v FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION S J f r. j y� OF THE HEARING EXAMINER : gi-vh,y;y .,. S CITY OF EDMONDS �ws�r�s�nwe�d i®iu�w n�o�� APPLICANT: John Thoresen CASE NO.:. V-95-97 LOCATION: 17003 72nd Place West (see Exhibit A, Attachments 1 and 3). APPLICATION: A variance and reasonable use exception to allow the expansion of an existing deck to intrude approximately 10-feet into the "steep slope" critical area, covering approximately 240 square feet in area. REVIEW PROCESS: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.15B.170 (VARIANCE). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.15B.050.0 (Reasonable Use Exception). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the application was opened at 9:00 a.m., August 28, 1996, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:10 am. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are Iisted in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. a Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan z' W: 2 D U O' O; w U) LL ©{ w} J� LL � d S w', z� i:- O' z F—: ww =y U - o F1 4U WI N tia —z ui N o~ z contained in a larger parcel of land to protect open space within the steeply sloped site. He noted that the deck was the only flat, recreation area on the site. Staff recommended approval with conditions. From the Applicant: John Thoresen noted that he concurred with the staff report. He noted that when they began to repair the deck they found it was not constructed in a safe manner. Since they were essentially rebuilding the deck, they decided to expand it since, due to the steepness of the slope, this is their only recreation space. From the Community: Phil Holrayd, a neighbor, spoke in favor of the application and stated it would have not impact on the community. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a. Facts: 1) Size: The subject property is approximately 3,920 square feet in area. The proposed deck is located in the north east portion of the property approximately 7-feet from the north property line (see Exhibit A, Attachments 1 and 3). 2) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Single Family Residential (RS-12), and is part of an approved Planned Residential Development (File No. PRD 1-8 1). 3) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property is steep with slopes exceeding 65 % and has been identified as a critical area steep slope. The entire property is either within a steep slope critical area or a critical area buffer. Some ornamental landscaping is located along the south portion of the property (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3). 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a. Facts: 1) North: Undeveloped and zoned RS-12 (PRD 1-81). 2) South: Developed with detached single-family residences, and zoned RS-12 (PRD-1-81). t 0 v" Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 95-97 Page 3 3) East: Developed with detached single-family residences, and zoned RS-12 (PRD-1-81). 4) West: Developed with detached single-family residences, and zoned RS-12 (PRD-1-81). B. HISTORY La. Fact: The subject property is in a Planned Residential Development that was approved and developed prior to the enactment of the City's Critical Areas Ordinance. b. Fact: January 1996. Mr. Thoresen begins construction of the proposed deck without building permits or planning approval. Fact: March 11, 1996. The Planning Division waived the requirements for a critical area study for the deck addition. Fact: March 22, 1996. The Planning Division informed Mr. Thoresen that a Critical Area Variance and Reasonable Use Exception will still be required before a building permit can be issued. Fact: July 22, 1996. Mr. Thoresen applies for a Critical Area Variance and Reasonable Use Exception. C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. Critical Areas Compliance a. Facts: 1) This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.15.13 (Critical Areas Ordinance). 2) The review of the critical areas checklist and on -site visit resulted in the issuance of a Waiver of the study requirements for this project. 3) The applicant has provided the City with a topographical map which shows the extent of the critical area and the applicant's proposal to modify the critical area. (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). 4) ECDC Section 20.15B. 180 requires the location of the buffers and setbacks to be recorded on the property. The City has not required the recording of the buffers and setbacks since the entire parcel lies within a critical area and therefore there are no associated buffers or setbacks. If the Hearing Examiner were to approve the application as proposed, it would not be necessary to record the location of buffers and buffer setbacks, because there would be none. b. Conclusion: The applicant has complied with the requirements of ECDC Section 20.15B. 180 to the extent possible at this time. AM 0 I � eo', R C. d. e. LU LL O� w} � F- LL N d, = w zI-- z0 w w' M, V S Ui u. p —z U o~ z 0 M 2. Compliance with RS-12 Zoning Standards a. Facts: 1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development in the RS-12 zone are set forth in ECDC Chapter 16.20. 2) The proposed development conforms to all RS-12 requirements. b. Conclusion: The proposal complies with the development standards for RS-12 zones as set forth in Chapter 16.20. 3. Compliance with requirement for a Variance ECDC Chapter 20.15B.180.A, states an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances). Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a case -by -case basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). a. Facts: 1) ECDC Section 20.1513.180 establishes the decisional criteria with which a Critical Areas Variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner.' These criteria include, Special Circumstance, and that the granting of the variance is the minimum variance necessary to accommodate the development proposal. The applicant must show that the proposal meets all of the criteria. If the variance is denied then the applicant would be eligible to apply for a reasonable use exception. In this case the applicant is making a simultaneous application for variance and reasonable use exception. 2) ECDC Section 20.15B.040(C) establishes the decisional criteria with which a Reasonable Use Exception request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. There are seven criteria, which include that the Hearing Examiner was unable to approve the request based on the criteria found ECDC Section 20.15B.180. The applicant must show that the proposal meets all of the criteria. 3) The applicant has addressed the Critical Areas Variance Criteria in Exhibit A, Attachment 3. A summary of the Applicant's Declarations follows: a) Special Circumstances: The applicant states that the proposal meets the special circumstances criteria due to the topography of the lot and nature of the critical area. The Applicant states that the only recreational space outside of the structure itself is the deck. The applicant also states that, "It is not possible to access or construct a deck that is attached to the house under any acceptable construction method other than the one that was used." M -'A Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 95-97 Page 5 b) Minimum variance not materia I detrimental to the Public: There are no locations on the Property for a deck which will not intrude upon the critical area. The applicant has planted ground cover and a tree under the deck to stabilize the slope. 4) The applicant has addressed the Reasonable Use Exception Criteria in Exhibit A, Attachment I A summary of the Applicant's Declarations follows: a) Denial of Reason Use: The applicant states that the strict application of the Critical Areas Ordinance would deny reasonable use of the Property as intended by the planned residential development. 1 b) No other reasonable use consistent with zonin ble: states t The applicant �4�Ssi that all surround1ng PrOPertY owners have developed the land with single family houses and decks. The applicant also states that failure to grant the variance would deny the property owner the rights enjoyed by adjoining Property owners. Other Property owners in the PRD have constructed similar decks, although they were constructed prior to the adoption of the Critical Areas Ordinance. c) No unreasonable threat to ublic: The applicant states that the Proposed alteration will not have any detrimental affects to the adjoining public and private improvements or steep slope critical area (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3). d) Minimum reduction of critical area to allow for reasonable The Proposed development protects as much of the steep slope critical area as Possible, while allowing reasonable use consistent with the development potential of the underlying zoning. e) Com fiance with all other State and Federal laws: The applicant states that the Proposal will comply with the intent of SEPA, the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, and the Growth Management Act. f) Re uested Reasonable Use Exce tion is not due to an current orprevious owners action: The applicant states that the inability to derive reasonable economic use of the property is t the result of actions by the applicant or Predecessor in title. b. Conclusions: 1) The applicant has shown that this proposal is the minimum v i is not possible to have reasonable use of the P ar roperty and not affect the ance, it steep slope. The entire site is a critical area therefore, unless development were completely Precluded in the critical area it is necessary to allow reasonable use of the property. 2) The applicant has shown that the proposal will meet the criteria of both the Critical Areas Variance or the Reasonable Use Exception. 0 5, 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.2. states, "Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures. " 4) Policy B.3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. " 5) Page 31, subsection B.5.0 states, "Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments. " 6) Soils and Topography section C.3.b. Erosion Control states, "Natural vegetation should be preserved wherever possible to reduce erosion and stabilize slopes, particularly on the downhill property line." b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City for the development of residential property in the City. 0 W 2 D L) a 0 U) LLi w O' g a `L _,, i d. E... w Z� F- 0 w�- w �o a ti S LU U F- F. LL_ Q Z w N L) :F o Z ME t Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 95-97 Page 7 DECISION Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the requests for a variance and reasonable use exception are approved, subject to the following conditions; j L 1. This variance is to allow the proposal in the location identified on the proposed site plan (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3). Any other structures, additions or remodels would have to conform with the typical setbacks or height requirements for the zone or obtain another reasonable use exception. 2. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 3. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction. 4. The applicant shall have an inspection of the deck by a structural engineer and supply the City Building Official of copy of his findings. 5. The applicant shall record with the Snohomish County Auditors office a notice that the entire property is located within a steep slope Critical Area. 6. The permit should be transferable. Entered this 12th day of September, 1996, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Gz4y* Robert G. Burke Hearing Examiner Pro Tem RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Section 20.100.010.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. s� V)ti w0 M�: U-a a Ln a, uj z_ I-� � o; w w 15 =qry; U tn! o Fhl, 0 z. v z ~' MA Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 95-97 Page 8 B. APPEALS Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the I decision being appealed. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. EXHIBIT: The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with attachments PARTIES OF RECORD: John E. Thoreson 17003 72"d Place West Edmonds, WA 98020 Planning Division Engineering Division Fire Department Parks Department Public Works Department Phil Holrayd No address provided r y yg a , 2 `� y, t 1 .: f f �f ✓ i . `n(r't�7d�„ x[ 4 t r a } { � �r 2 � 1 } r ) } t f ; � a Y SEPTEMBER 5.1996 PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, ZIP CODE AND PHONE NUMBER` BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM V 96.97 JOHN THORESON Ll a LU ��NyLfa "7%SG.V o: Ci CnQI cn w1 J F- p )�) ! 1+ tt i70 Cn LL LLUU 0, - LL (nd. zr w LLu W UJ F v. LL p z1 w s», o _ z E 4 j.e 7 � � if r Rill -7 a.:,.,-.,f , �•_ mti ;Y+�` - - �L _ [, L EDMONYiS HEARING EXAMINER ER MEETING AGENDA SEPTEMEER 5,1996 AT 9:00 A.M. Plaza Room - Edmonds Library 650 Main Street 1. Call to Order 2. Public Hearings a. FILE NO. V 96-97; Application by John Thoreson for a Critical Areas Variance and Reasonable Use Exception to allow the expansion of an existing deck to intrude approximately 10-feet into the "steep slope" critical area, covering approximately 240 square feet in area. The subject property is located at 17003 72nd Place West and is zoned RS-12 with a Planned Residential Development overlay. b. FILE NO, V-96-91; Application by Robert Roffman for a Variance to reduce the required street i setback from 25-feet to 5-feet and to increase the maximum permitted building height from 25-feet above average grade level to 36-feet for the construction of a new single-family residence. The subject property is located at 20623 and is zoned RS-12. 3. Administrative Reports - No Reports. 4. Adjournment PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE ACCESSIBLE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (Contact the City Clerk at 771-024S with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations) asnMDOCAGMASWE ■ia�rr r i���r, �rti iru � Y� t. W W � U U O Nn wut tit 2 � F- w }O' � J) LL DI =w F- 2 z 1- �-o z �— Ww U to 0 H-, u- O z U O~ z TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION....................................................................:..............:....:.....................:.:...:...:.:...........2 A. Application.................................................................................................................:................2 B. Recommendations..................:..............................................................:.....:.....:...::...:.........:......2 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................2 A. Site Description...........................................................................................................................2 B. History ................................................................. ...............3 ......................................................... C. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance...............................................4 D. TechnicaI Committee................................................................................:.................................6 E. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC)......................................................................................................6 III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS............:..........................:....,....:.....:..................:.......:..........7 A. Request for Reconsideration.......................................................................................................7 B. Appeals........................................................................................................................................7 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL.................................:.....................::........:..:...............:......::..:.........:.....:...:...J V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR......................................................................................:.....:.....:..:.8 VI. APPENDICES.................................................................................... :.....:.: ..:.. ::.:.:......:........8 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD..........................................................:.... ........:......:......::..............::8 V96.97.DM / Aug=30,19961 StaffReport John Thomsen File No. V-96.97 Page 2 of 8 I. INTRODUCTION I; A. Application z rW - 1. AMU=: John Thoresen (see Attachment 1). ¢ 2. Site Location: 17003 72nd Place West (see Attachments I and 3). wV U 0 3. RzD=: A variance and reasonable use exception to allow the expansion of W w an existing deck to intrude approximately 10-feet into the "steep slope" -J � critical area, covering approximately 240 square feet in area. cn u. LU 4. Review Process: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and J� makes final decision. N 5. Mjor Issue a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) z Chapter 20.15B.I7O (VARIANCE). z o b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) UJ o Chapter 20.15B.050.0 (Reasonable Use Exception). oD B. RecommendationsLU ' _ ��. Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend LL _ Approval of this application subject to the following conditions: z U a)Attachment 1. This variance is to allow the proposal in the Iocation identified on the proposed site plan (see 3). Any other structures, additions or remodels would have to conform with the U typical setbacks or height requirements for the zone or obtain another reasonable use z t exception. 2. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 3. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction. j 4. 'The applicant shall have an inspection of the deck by a structural engineer and supply the City Building Official of copy of his findings. 5. The applicant shall record with the Snohomish County Auditors office a notice that the entire property is located within a steep slope Critical Area. ® 6. The permit should be transferable. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Site Description 1. Site Development And Zoning: c 0 a) Facts: (1) Sin: The subject property is approximately 3,920 square feet in area. The proposed deck is located in the north east portion of the property V96-97.DOC / August 30,1996 / Staff Report = z' �- W Cr w= J 00 cn a w UJ W u. a — o LU d; H LU. Z� �o w= U CA}}} C3 H LU U �o _a L Li i z ME f \ John noresen File No. V-96.97 Page 3 of 8 approximately 7-feet from the north property line (see Attachments 1 and 3). (2) ZdMing: The zoning of the 'subject property is Single Family Residential (RS-12), and is part of an approved Planned Residential Development (File No. PRD 1-81). (3) Terrain and Veg to ation: The subject property is steep with slopes exceeding 65and has been identified as a critical area steep slope. The entire property is either within a steep slope critical area or a critical area buffer. Some ornamental landscaping is located along the south portion of the property (see Attachment 3). 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) : (1) N-Qhh: Undeveloped and zoned RS-12 (PRD 1-81). (2) Sollth: Developed with detached single-family residences, and zoned RS-12 (PRD-1-81). (3) Fit: Developed with detached single-family residences, and zoned RS-12 (PRD-1-81). (4) -fit: Developed with detached single-family residences, and zoned RS-12 (PRD-1-81). B. History (1) F Ad: The subject property is in a Planned Residential Development that was approved and developed prior to the enactment of the City's Critical Areas Ordinance. (2) Ems: January 1996. Mr. Thoresen begins construction of the proposed deck without building permits or planning approval. (3) Eft: March 11, 1996. The Planning Divison waived the requirements for a critical area study for the deck addition. (4) ljt: March 22, 1996. The Planning Division informed Mr. Thoresen that a Critical Area Variance and Reasonable Use Exception will still be required before a building permit can be issued. (5) FAd: July 22, 1996. Mr. Thoresen applies for a Critical Area Variance and Reasonable Use Exception. V9&971= / AugW 36,19%/StaffRepon. Ys IFE tQ John Thomen File No. V-96-97 Page 4 of 8 C. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance 1. Critical Areas Compliance a) Ems: (1) This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.15.8 (Critical Areas Ordinance). (2) The review of the critical areas checklist and on -site visit resulted in the issuance of a Waiver of the study requirements for this project. (3) The applicant has provided the City with a topographical map which shows the extent of the critical area and the applicant's proposal to modify the critical area. (see Attachment 4). (4) ECDC Section 20.1513.180 requires the location of the buffers and setbacks to be recorded on the property. The City has not required the recording of the buffers and setbacks since the. entire parcel Iies within a critical area and therefore there are no associated buffers or setbacks. If the Hearing Examiner were to approve the application as proposed, it would not be necessary to record the location of buffers and buffer setbacks, because there would be none. b) Conclusion: The applicant has complied with the requirements of ECDC Section 20.15B.180 to the extent possible at this time. 2. Compliance with RS-12 Zoning Standards a) Facts: (1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Commercial development in the RS-12 zone are set forth in ECDC Chapter 16.20. (2) The proposed development conforms to all RS-12 requirements. b) Conclusion: The proposal complies with the development standards for RS-12 zones as set forth in Chapter 16.20. 3. Compliance with requirement for a Variance ECDC Chapter 20.15B.I 80.A, states an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances). Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a case -by -case basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship (see Attachment 2). a) Facts: (1) ECDC Section 20.1513.180 establishes the decisional criteria with which a Critical Areas Variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These criteria include, Special V96-971= / August 30,1996 /StaffRgvti f. S Z cc 2 f— w W� J U U � w w= J 1— (nLL w0 J LL< �d =w h _z tz- NQ z 1- ao U o— ~h LLC —z Ui m Uz o� z 9E J C) John Thomsen File No. V•96-97 Page 5 0178 Circumstance, and that the granting of the variance is the minimum variance necessary to accommodate the development proposal. The applicant must show that the proposal meets all of the criteria. If the variance is denied then the applicant would be eligible to apply for a reasonable use exception. In this case the applicant is making a simultaneous application for variance and reasonable use exception. (2) ECDC Section 20.15B.040(C) establishes the decisional criteria with which a Reasonable Use Exception request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. There are seven criteria, which include that the Hearing Examiner was unable to approve the request based on the criteria found ECDC Section 20.15B.180. The applicant must show that the proposal meets all of the criteria. (3) The applicant has addressed the Critical Areas Variance Criteria in Attachment 3. A summary of the Applicant's Declarations follows: (a) Special Circumstances: The applicant states that the proposal meets the special circumstances criteria due to the topography of the lot and nature of the critical area. The Applicant states that the only recreational space outside of the structure itself is the deck. The applicant also states that, "It is not possible to access or construct a deck that is attached to the house raider any acceptable construction method other than the one that was used." (b) Minunum vgyjance. not materially detrimental to the Public: There are no locations on the property for a deck which will not intrude upon the critical area. Tha applicant has planted ground cover and a tree under the deck to stabilize the slope. (4) The applicant has addressed the Reasonable Use Exception Criteria in Attachment 3. A summary of the Applicant's Declarations follows: (a) Denial of Reasonable Use: The applicant states that the strict application of the Critical Areas Ordinance would deny reasonable use of the property as intended by the planned residential development. (b) No other reasonable use consistent with zoning possible: The applicant states that all surrounding property owners have developed the land with single family houses and decks. The applicant also states that failure to grant the variance would deny the property owner the rights enjoyed by adjoining property owners. Other property owners in the PRD have constructed similar decks, although they were constructed prior to the adoption of the Critical Areas Ordinance. (c) No unreasonable threat to public: The applicant states that the proposed alteration will not have any detrimental affects to the adjoining public and private improvements or steep slope critical area (see Attachment 3). (d) Minimum reduction of critical area to allow for re so able use• The proposed development protects as much of the steep slope zz r w LU J V c� Q mm w � F mLL _Q w} J L.La ma S w z i- 1.-o z LULU �o U- a l- ww LL C Z LU u: U= o~ z !0 K*7 John Thomsen Pile No. V-96-97 Page 6 of 8 critical area as possible, while allowing reasonable use consistent with the development potential of the underlying zoning. (e) Compliance with all o h r tat and Federal 1^.... The applicant states that the proposal will comply with the intent of SEPA, the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, and the Growth Management Act. (fl Requested Reacnna i i k � >;, c.�e E.x�etio_n is not dL�� to any current or previous owners action• The applicant states that the inability to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant or predecessor in title. b) Conc_ i_ aqM: (1) The applicant has shown that this proposal is the minimum variance. It is not possible to have reasonable use of the property and not affect the steep slope. The entire site is a critical area, therefore, unless development were completely precluded in the critical area it is necessary to allow reasonable use of the property. (2) The applicant has shown that the proposal will meet the criteria of both the Critical Areas Variance or the Reasonable Use Exception. D. Technical Committee a) Em2: No comments were submitted by other departments. E. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) 1. a. FAO: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Large Lot". b. Concl minn: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. 2. a. Fac : The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies which relate to "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below. (1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in accordance with the following policies: " (2) Policy B.I. states, "Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desireability. " (3) Policy B.2. states, "Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures. " (4) Policy B.3. states, "I'nimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existiniz structures." John Thoresen File No. V-96.97 Page 7 of 8 (5) Page 31, subsection BS.0 states, "Stable property values must i not be threatened by view, traic, or land use encroachments. " (6) Soils and Topography section C.3.b. Erosion Control states, 1! "Natural vegetation should be preserved whereever possible to reduce erosion and stabilize slopes, particularly on the downhill "' property line. " Jv b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the above Q adopted goals and policies of the City for the development of residential N Cn = property in the City. w J U. p, w III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS 2 The followingis a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and m � # appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact = the Planning Department for further procedural information. o A. Request for Reconsideration wr w Section 20.100.010.E allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or �a recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of o N the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the 4 �1' attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership = U. interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The ,- o reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria .. z contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. LU En B. Appeals 01 z 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. l IV. 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.'. t0 V96.97XK)C / August 30,1996 / Sta RepotE a s i Y 9 W. cc wV J O Uo N W - F (n LLI w Q+ LL =a W z i- 1_o z W UJ Q U rn a �- LU = U u_ p -z U o~ z SE city of et"nonds -� land use armlication ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ❑ COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ❑ HOME OCCUPATION (3 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 # V —%- 9f DATE ? 42Z1( REC'D BY FEE 14 l3Z •`A RECEIPT# 15 (, HEARING DATE ❑ HE CJ STAFF O PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED APPEAL# Applicant Phone Address /7vo 3 ZE. ,-..) P /,L) Property Address or Location c —r' i U M3 "'1 Zh & QL Property Owner Phone Address �Sr>xE Agent Phone Address �,J Sec. Twp.._.._.._.....----Rng. TeX Acc # �" r •'�/'- G� CSC, - �l {,r } -.. �i �y .....�)G Legal Description Details of Project or Proposed Use _ i �-�,c' . ` 42 S 9 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 9amages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon `alse, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or employees. the undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to Inter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this al 00, ATTACHMENT 1 3IGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT_ %f File No. V-96-97 _, r to July 16, 1996 Mr. Kirk Vinish Planning Department City of Edmonds 250 5th Ave Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Kirk: I apologize for the delay in submitting this material. I wish to apply for a variancetreasonable use exception for the repair and extension of my deck. I have already received a conditional waiver on the Critical Areas Determination #CA 96-37. I have enclosed the application and adjacent property owners list I obtained from County records. The following are my declarations: 1. Special circumstances exist on my property along with every other property (lot) in the Eagles Crest PRD. The lots are very small (4000 - 5000) square feet, on generally steep slopes, with views to the west toward the sound and mountains. The development is a zero lot line development. The only space for recreation outside the structure itself is the deck. Every deck in the PRD is on posts and is over 30" off the ground. There is no possible way to access or construct a deck that is attached to my house under any acceptable construction method other than the one that was used. 2. This is not a grant of special privilege as indicated above. Every deck and house in the development is located in or next to a critical area or critical area buffer. 3. This is a zero lot line development and PRD that was approved by the City of Edmonds. 4. The zoning is single family and my house complies. 5. This proposal is not detrimental. In fact, The repair of the deck was done to assure better safety as a number of posts of the repaired deck were not constructed properly. The removal of those post and the extension of the deck were completed with special care given to both the slope and safety. Ground cover was planted under the deck to stabilize the slope and a tree was also planted. 6. The project is the minimum variance. The projected is located within my lot boundaries, is consistent with other decks in the development, and could not be accommodated, repaired, or expanded in any other manner. The deck does not obstruct any views of any property owners in the development, and in fact many of the property owners in the development visit and use the deck. Only 10 feet was added to the deck that was built with the house. This resulted in an additional 200 square feet of deck. Since the old posts had to be removed for safety anyway and, new posts had to be constructed, it was easy to simple add 10 feet to the existing deck. I hope this answers your questions satisfactorily. Please call if you have any questions. Best re ds, o . Thoresen ATTACHMENT 2 File No. V-96-97 an e 4 t ©,r _ ' NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE 1T IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.__ IN, o 0 co m wz w 0 tq 0 a Cl V v w V (CL Go co C7 = pti1 PQ ATTACHMENT 4 File No. V-96-97 ' Shake roof or better. / ✓ �`��� `\ `..�.,• `"•<. �^�� .�. Cedar siding-g i k OK I �� �;.-----.,,,`_ \ "•�` ���. �.. -CoopatihlexxtecaoFco•'7Z- Architecture control cahmittee i —"�.` \ \ \ �.. •�, .� '�.� Each purchaser to sprinkler and 1. d age ar6und ow tot and to confomarm to a tandsca� p nA M.O, mate. for intenance of a co on a ed estimated at approx. $30.00/Mo / 35'/��.,,` `= Each purchaser to put in an .0ti \ \ \ \ �-.— `I light at the.front of thei r�� t. : Final approval to be t51 tfi t Edmonds as to confor ty a eight-� confit i 4hin armY wth plat`` y., I � _ ter• / �t— I i � �1'= }F( / e� � � !� G, . ! ��;Y , �, laai• � i \ 1 I �, �7 � �� i � t 1 ! 25x0 1. O y �' N �i'-- EbSTNG EWLONY.a. L EXISTPY DECK LWE S, Wp y U S V' Fr �\ z 3 1x6 RAN. Iud[.L z r �•U'I�A�O�MAiGFi �p1 ................ D9STN6 / / / / / ••-••/ .e SIDED 3G WALL o s • g GLASS . �.. ..._. 2uL1 a crrPi 3 ._ C ® l; NOTICE: IF THE y THIS NOTICE ry ,a ;p _ 1`! 3 f•- �xm i• I(gpQQq��1 N r ( l w � € � , tM bO F.L V.- oa fF ....- -_-.-_- ,Y ni X — ® a . 0 t N X f x Vl w Q� � w S z r, Fo o tvit su LLz ~ z OP •4 CIRCLE TIES e 4'0&. a TOP . 6 RADIAL •4 VVW r- tlb 6' FN7OKe PTG S6 MP IMP s r 6 [ ® L WALL f DECK t o5rs - GULUMN FTG. ' `� tJx � t•-0' t I-� na. '. .. _ _ . i a•, _ 1.—. .. aMTNI OWN t® Your application is now complete and has been scheduled for public hearing at the time and place listed below. Action: Hearing to consider variance request File No. Assigned: V-96-97 Date of Hearing: September 19.1996 Time: 9:00 A.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. Placer Plaza Room, Edmonds Library 650 Main Street Hearing Body: Hearing Examiner Please be aware that your presence at the hearing is highly advisable. If an applicant or his representative is not present, the item may be moved to the end of the agenda, items not reached by the end of the hearing will be continued to the following month's agenda. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Kirk J. Vinish, Project Planner at 771-0220. Sincerely, Community Services Department - Planning Division Jeffrey A /Is,4n, AICP Current Planning Supervisor pc: File No. V-96-97 Kirk J. Vinish, Project Planner T&IFLETE.DOC 0M V 96.CORRESINRNOTICE Y Incorporated August 11, 1890 e Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan { ©. STATE Or WASMKQTOX. COUNTY or SXOHOMSN, N The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says a. 00 to 'Vi!0! bove a RM0042 that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper Irk Vinish an, 21 5on ,v10 s-: printed and published In the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of Critical areas 1, . 0 :Xce Ion I n x1s, desk to I It Into a steep sbpe erhaW.area: general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper Kirk In K. t 6 r has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior A OL Court of Snohomish County and that the notice.... .................................... 0:0 rzw Pleas P 11 as0 lAaIn at. EdmonOs S. AS ctwo Notice of Development Application sh 19 ....................................................7.............. .. . . .................................. .... ................ Robert Roffman ................................... I ............................................................................................. ..File No.: V-96-91 .................................................................................................................................... a Printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: .................................................................................... ............. ................................................ I ..... I .... ...................... .......................... an t said newspaper was regul 1 distrib to its subscribers . ng of said period. ..... .... .... . .. . .. .... ........... . . .. ..... ..... I ............................. Principal Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this. ...... 22t!l djay August ...... . .. . 19.-M t. h to t ***.-** *t y .6r t 0 f Everett, Sri. w a O, 0. U) w a to O LLI R U) d Lti i Z h' h� Z ww a � h� h tL � Z W U) U � t7 ~ Z L® It there are ar rma durltg t>snIor Cl ants are recewed Incomplete. ,(206771-0220 ask to, 8ancler'aTelecopler. Titxnt�,er. (206) 771-022Y FtE- CAti�WeNdaiaVaaronn. - .. • i. 11'.P' atwd AueWt 21. 1800 Sister Cities.International — Makirian. Japan TRANSMISSION REPORT THIS DOCUMENT WAS SENT ** COUNT # 3 *** SEND *** (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE) NO REMOTE STATION I.D. START TIME DURATION #PAGES COMMENT 1 2083393O49 8-22-98 1.50PM 1 1'38" 3 TOTAL 0:01'36" 3 XEROX TELECOPIER 7020 V7 LL wQ �2 J U. =�T zw z t- z 0i ww � n aUj �I u- o _z ujN o~ z Sender's Telecopier Number: (206) 771-0221 t® dm D.%D%Worddata%FaxForrn- incomplete, please can (206) 771-0220 and ask for •, Incorporated August I1, 1890 i Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan f b 1� I r �,!e'} f t ` i t 1 1� F THIS IS A LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT AND SHOULD BE BILLED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING and NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Lui Name of Applicant: Robert Hoffman 5 File No.: V-96-91 Project Location: 20623 88th Ave. W. U n' Project Description: Variance to reduce the required street setback from 25-feet to 5-feet & to I W=' increase the maximum permitted height from 25-feet above average grade level i H I to 36-feet. CD o City Contact: Kirk Vinish g Public Comment Period Due By: 9/5/96 a� U. Name of Applicant: Johp Thoreson LU z File No.: U 96s97 _ w 01 Project Location: 17003 72nd PI. W. z tiF Project Description: Critical areas variance & reasonable use exception to allow the expansion of an a� existing deck to intrude approx. 10-feet into the steep slope critical area, a{ covering approx. 240 square feet. o `� City Contact: Kirk Vinish s n ~' Public Comment Period Due By: 9/5/96 "' w z PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION ui cn: o r Time: 9:00 AM z Date: September 5,1996- Place: Plaza Meeting Room - 650 Main St., Edmonds . - - - ..,.E , s -. -e Sandy Chase, City Clerk ® Publish: August 25,1995 Vk t t .... .... ..r .a. .uftYGY:IiYYdawavaVu.w.tw.... ... �... _..«u_ sum'nyy, � � �• S Y SiC t r. _ FI DI THIS IS A LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT AND SHOULD BE BILLED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION sName of Applicant: Richard & Lois Passey UJ; File No.: LL-96-98 cc 2' Project Location: 825 Bell St. a v; Project Description: Lot Line Adjustment between lot with a house & adjoining vacant lot, which of , would increase the lot area of the lot with the house & move Iodine to include to W' portion of a concrete driveway and the house which were constructed across a ui �; lot line. Cn o Ui City Contact: Meg Gruwell Public Comment Period Due By: 9/5196 �a d _ LU?, z 1- 0i wt— w Sandy Chase, City Clerk a� Publish: August 25,1996 �. 0, w Cni c� z; o~ z ORR7 - 'mn m Notice of Development Application & Public Hearing Date of Notice: August 22, 1996 File # V-96-97 Applicant Information Permit Information Name of Applicants........... Z John Thomson Requested Permits 9 Variance & Building and Approvals ......... > Date of Application:.......... 7122196 Other Required Permits not 9 Unknown ICJate application Completer M 8/22196 yet applied for (ifknown):. Project Location :................ * 1700372nd Place West Required Studies related * Unknown ........... Project Description:Critical areas variance & reasonsabie use to the project: .......... exception to allow the expansion of an tal Related EnvironmenCritical Areas Checklist existing deck to intrude approx. 10-feet imp Documents:........ , the steep slope critical area, covering approx. ...tal....... 240 square feet in ame. Public Comments due by:.. * September 5, 1996 City Contact forprolect..... * Kirk Vinish Public Hearing Information Data: September 5, 1996 Time: 9:00 AM Place: Plaza Meeting Room, 650 Main St., Edmonds Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Community Services Department, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020. (206) 771-0220. Public comments should also be sent to this address. The decision on thrsdevelopment application will be made- within 120doysbfthe date ofthe Letter ofCompteteness, with allowances made forstudies and additional information requests. Note that obility to appeal a decision is contingent upon participation in the permit d monprocess. The removal, mutilation, destruction, or concealment of this This notice may be removed Warning! notice before the hearing date Is a misdemeanor punishable by after: September 5. 1996 fine and imprisonment. .... I -o—— ' ❑' „, 32 x' ❑ 25X113 j6 0 ei VbE ON THIS SIDE WITHIN 130 'S 5598-000-001-006 7417-000-006-0006 Arlene Harrison.: Ron Savage 7002 Meadawdale beach Rd. 17008 72nd P1 W. Edmonds, VW 99026 Edmonds, WA 98026 5598-000-002-0005 7417-000-007-0005 Helene Beaver Ralph Huizinga 17226'Meadowdale Beach Rd. 17012 72nd Pl W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 5131-000-123-0607 7417-000-009-0003 Jack Patera Mike Grabowski 7305 172nd St. SW 17104 72nd P1 W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 5131-000-125-0805 i 7417-7000-011-0009 Kenneth Astrof Resident -7311% 172nd St SW 17110 72nd P1 W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 7417-000-001-0001 7417-000-012-0008 Jon McKenney Phil Holroyd e 17122 72nd Ave W 17101 72nd Ave W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 7417-000-004-0008 7417-000-010-0000 Triple E Construction Craig Cooke P.O. Box 82601 17106 72nd Pl W. Kenmore, WA 98028 Edmonds, WA 98026 7417-000-005-0007 '-'p 7417-000-002-0000 e E Cons ple E Cons ion C Michael Chong P. Box 8260 ox 8 2 60 17120 72nd Ave W. re, WA 8028 Edmonds, WA 98026 0 0 0 74117- 008-0004 Tr' e E truction e n ruc E st tj John Thoresen P . Box 82 1 0 x 1 17003 72nd P1. W. r , W re, =A 028 Edmonds, WA 98026 EG APO.doc\L-\Temp\forms 1 , x F �V }. .., wr+uuniwi.. a -_. S_...�.,..w _. __ .w.m+wLm viw+awrw+wrwww.lynwiWmAwieaulNFMIrNbWawiw..r.�....'_.'..1. r _. .1rr16mr+riwwMtnkt" FILE NO.: V-96-97 APPLICANT: THORESON F— W! _ Qcc tII V c NOTICE OF HEARING rn w (no AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING aSTATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) z P o{ w w, 1, DIANE M. CUNNINGHAM, sworn on oath, depose and say: 0ri That on the 22ND day of AUGUST, 1996, the attached Notice of Hearing was mailed as z required to adjacent property owners, the names of which were provided by the m, applicant. X' 0 z Signed AA, lh���Ah Subscribed and sworn to before me this4944—day of , 19 %L Notary Public in and for h State of Washington. Residing a �a s � Dmument2 t, Document3 to j APPLICATION ROUTING FORM AND CHECKLIST ROUTED TO: Engineering ;Flm"°- Public Works, 7/23/96` Parks ex Rec. 7/23/96 Staff C, Vo 9 t *Additional Information Required for Complete Application *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review FILE: V-96-97 FROM: PLANNING RETURNED Engineering, ­ Fir -77ZO 47,6' RR its EVC E- I V EVE - D Public W&ECEID Parks ex Rec. ?logo ft. .4nn P "nND9 FIRr ml—" • Owner. 1OHN THORESEN • Property Address 17003 72ND Pl. W ± Date of Application 7/22/96 2 Type REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION FOR EXISTING DECK * 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 ------t egals (Existing & Proposed) - Title Report Environmental Assessment X ficinity Map -----Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) X -Elevations Declarations (Variance & C. U. P.) Petition (Official Street Map) Environmental Checklist 96-37 -Critical Areas Determination OTHER COMMENTS 10, 0 t-g APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE: V-96-97�i, "Qkl AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLA N! 63 r i F' ROUTED TO: RETURNED�'2 W PARKS & gWA �+ c � Engineering 7/23196 Engineering-ggxl�_ Fire 7/23/96 Fire i; a Public Works 7123196 Public Works _ U) W PaHcs �[ Rec 7l23196 - Parks at Rec. � w aC to 0 Staff Comments: w} � 1 U- � }4 - o ` *Additional Information Required for Complete Application x z r- 1.- o Z g LU *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review :Da U cn, 0 —I LL 0 Z w m Owner, ]OHN THORESEN v= z _ Property Address_ 17003 72ND PL W • Date of Application 7/22/96 Type REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION FOB EXISTING DECK • 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 egals (Existing & Proposed) Title Report Environmental Assessment X Vcmity Map Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) X Elevations Declarations (Variance & C. U. P.) p Petition (Official Street Map) Environmental Checklist g6-37 Crifical Areas Determination j OTHER COMMENTS �t10, z ¢� F-- W LUU -� t) 4 Q w wz _J F (f)LL _O LU a� N �I _ d zW ~ T Z F- F-O Z wUj �cl 0 FI ww z U f- F u. p Z wN L_ o~ z O I 0 APPLICATION ROUTING FORM AND CHECKLIST ROUTED TO: Engineering: Fire Public Works 7/23/96 Parks ex Rec. 7123/96 Staff FILE: V-96-97/'� FROM: PLANNINGVZV JUL 2 3 1�Ar RETURNED ENGINEERING Engineering Fire Public Works Parks et Rec. *Additional information Required for Complete Application *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review o Owner_ IOHN_THORESEN • Property Address___�7003 72ND PL W • Date of Application-7/22/96 • Type REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION FOR EXISTING DECK Hearing Required:Yes--X_ No Date of Hearing (if known) X Application X Fee X APO List Title Report X Vicinity Map X Elevations Petition (Official Street Map) 96-37 Critical Areas Determination OTHER COMMENTS Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11) X Site Plan (11 x 17) Legals (Existing & Proposed) Environmental Assessment Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) Declarations (Variance & C. U. P.) Environmental Checklist lJ 0 APPLICATION ROUTING FORM AND CHECKLIST V-96-97 PLANNING ,ram--� --- ROUTED TO: RETURNED 1995 Engineering _7/23/96 Engineerin Fire 7/23/96 Fire 19LIC WORKS DEP' PUbtic Wa"rks 7/23/96' Public Works 24 %, Parks'st kt c:' 7/23/96 Parks 81 Rec. Staff *Additional Information Required for Complete *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review 12S Mb • Owner-OHN THORESEN Property Address 17003 72ND PI. W • Date of Application__7/22/96 • Type REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION FOR EXISTING DECK _ Hearing Required:Yes- X No Date of Hearing (if known) X Application X Fee X APO List Title Report X Vicinity Map X Elevations Petition (Official Street Map) Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11) X Site Plan (11 x 17) Legais (Existing & Proposed) Environmental Assessment Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) Declarations (Variance & C. U. P.) Environmental Checklist F- W wV �0 U 0 Nw w = �H 0 LU LL _; =w t-- z l=- 1.-0 W? �0 U U7 in ) yv i,- i= w0 —z wE) cs g 0 �" z ma APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE: V-96-97 AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING ROUTED TO: RETURNED Engineering 7/23/96 Engineering Fire 7/23/96 Fire Public Works 7/23/96 Public Works Parks 8t Rec. 7123/96 Parks 8L Rec. Staff Comments: *Additional Information Required for Complete Application 3 U *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review • Owner. JOHN THORESEN wt 6u1- ;y r' 6 u ('~� • Property Address 17003 72ND PL W - o Date of Application _ 7/22/96 I/l3 - i Al _ Type REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION FOR EXISTING DECK • Hearing Required:Yes X No Date of Hearing (if known) X Application X Fee X APO List Title Report X Vicinity Map X Elevations Petition (Official Street Map) 96-37 Critical Areas Determination OTHER COMMENTS Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11) X Site Plan (11 x 17) Legals (Existing & Proposed) Environmental Assessment Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) Declarations (Variance & C. U. P.) Environmental Checklist �w cc LU .J L)oU)Cn a' J H, N LL l oUJ 2� gti D 9) d, rLu z t- �_ o 2 LU LU �0 U U) oUJ u._0 z ui U) c� z o ~, z t® F of CCU=r10ndsd use application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD M . • ❑ COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # ZONE PEA •':�4-j ❑ HOME OCCUPATION --- ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION DATE 7AMIY6 REC'D BY ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE 13Z • RECEIPT# I � (fl ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HEARING DATE ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT! STREET VACATION ❑ HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADS ❑ CC ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ACTION TAKEN: VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED ❑ OTHER APPEAL# Applicant-1.A/n4y opz .S" =,y Phone Address 7,? ) s''/. /J Property Address or Location 11 n3 Zr1d P� �% Property Owner 6_ Phone Address Agent Phone Address Tax Acc # '1�1�7- C� OCR Ci 03 - G) U —Gjc% Sec. Twp. Rng. Legal Description Details of Project or Proposed Use � , �ii�' 2 00 SI' FT The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT July 16, 1996 Mr. Kirk Vinish Planning Department City of Edmonds 250 5th Ave Edmonds, WA 98020 I apologize for the delay in submitting this material. I wish to apply for a variancetreasonable use exception for the repair and extension of my deck. I have already received a conditional waiver on the Critical Areas Determination #CA 96-37. I have enclosed the application and adjacent property owners list I obtained from County records. The following are my declarations: 1. Special circumstances exist on my property along with every other property (lot) in the Eagles Crest PRD. The lots are very small (4000 - 5000) square feet, on generally steep slopes, with views to the west toward the sound and mountains. The development is a zero lot line development. The only space for recreation outside the structure itself is the deck. Every deck in the PRD is on posts and is over 30" offthe ground. There is no possible way to access or construct a deck that is attached to my house under any acceptable construction method other than the one that was used. 2. This is not a grant of special privilege as indicated above. Every deck and house in the development is located in or next to a critical area or critical area buffer. 3. This is a zero lot line development and PRD that was approved by the City of Edmonds. 4. The zoning is single family and my house complies. 5. This proposal is not detrimental. In fact, The repair of the deck was done to assure better safety as a number of posts of the repaired deck were not constructed properly. The removal of those post and the extension of the deck were completed with special care given to both the slope and safety. Ground cover was planted under the deck to stabilize the slope and a tree was also planted. 6. The project is the minimum variance. The projected is located within my lot boundaries, is consistent with other decks in the development, and could not be accommodated, repaired, or expanded in any other manner. The deck does not obstruct any views of any property owners in the development, and in fact many of the property owners in the development visit and use the deck. Only 10 feet was added to the deck that was built with the house. This resulted in an additional 200 square feet of deck. Since the old posts had to be removed for safety anyway and, new posts had to be constructed, it was easy to simple add 10 feet to the existing deck. I hope this answers your questions satisfactorily. Please call if you have any questions. L® Best ds, o . Thoresen Z w. COVENANTS_._ Shake roof or better •��`� ��.._ �� \•'�- ���'•`\•� `\ Ced ng 8 ck OR / �•-"�.,,,`�5 \� ��_� l.ompatible—taru-co ��k I Architecture control c ittee. Each purchaser to sprinklerlandsca p and !a d aifn:'around ow e lt and to conform to a a o � '''''�•,,_\� �\ \�•'�„``_ F w H.. asn, sfor maintenance of a I' co on a ��• \� \ \ \\ �\ z r da' esDtimated at approx. $30.00/Mo / as J o. Each purchaser to put in an mti wr' tight at the .front of th:ir�� t.1 jo I ( .Final pproval to be Wth t itk f Edmonds as to conformity a eig z-/ f�• )y 'o' \ \ \� \ o `� conformity within th plat f /zs• k;.. \\�\\\ ....�\ \ 3 •�2 iPAY •r4,'JE-400— 71 Pie. /�/ //' / /.r,4 ,w , / / / • L .15 rg ///�/ / ✓ ��j'" / '/ / T}�er}.. �ti p�i tj51 wp(kway td p0 /MeaO da}'e goal �el w'1¢t M. I . �` 1❑ �32x10 25x1 Oyy ��� j 00, 0/. op ,0,7, or I--, �-r-�' -/' '� i' r ;� Te r e 7"s Aj 11 v 0 sto s. V U iY i; 1 1 A'-- G 91 ows _ LINc LME / EXISTMG DECK LWE M fl 36- MGM SIO U6 R41L WALL . 5f4" avm I wor, 5TAH 4R PANT TO MATOII tt,, vy ............... EMBTN6 ..�.... / / S . / / m BIDED M IL WALL ffi3 Ci s._ a'_s z o TErwtDRED GLASS RAIL PAWLS . ..�. ..� (TYP/ 3 i ■ NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT I'. THIS NOTICE IT I$ DUE TO. ® o n "n YY 1> 3 z ck F - - © 0 f N (fl X Q 1 1 t U N � _ N O� wO Fw 2 p'. tvt U a F _ 5Wp5CN C6b F F. ~o ~ W W CIRCLE TIES . «a-o.C.. rap . 6 RADIAL •d VERT V 6• ROOK- MI. Ol d BA WA7 O 36 SIOEO J' PMK POSTS t L IUKL OM SOIL COLUMN FTCv. �" oTP, t }$ s, BOA . E ON THIS SIDE WITHIN 5598-000-001-006 ', 7417-000-006-0006 Arlene Harrison > = Ron Savage 7002 Meadowdaleubeach Rd. 17008 72nd P1 W. Edmonds, Wk.988V6 . Edmonds, WA 98026 5598-000-002-0005 7417-000-007-0005 Helene Beaver Ralph Huizinga 17226-Meadowdale Beach Rd. 17012 72nd P1 W. Edmonds, WA 98026 ends, WA 98026 5: 5131-000-123-0607 7417-000-009-0003 Jack Patera Mike Grabowski 7305 172nd St. SW 17104 72nd P1 W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 53000-128051 .3- 7417-000-011-0009 a , Kenneth Astrof Resident 7311,172nd St 61 17110 72nd Pl W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 7417-000-001-0001 �7417-000-012-0008 Jon McKenney Phil Holroyd 17122 72nd Ave W 17101 72nd Ave W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 7417-000-004-0008 7417-000-010-0000 Triple E Construction Craig Cooke P.O. Box 82601 17106 72nd P1 W. Kenmore, WA 98028 Edmonds, WA 98026 7417-000-005-0007 7417-000-002-0000 rl� Ete ple E Cons P. Box 8260 re, WA 8028 7417- 0 008-0004 Tr' e E nstruc P . Box 82 1 re." WA 028 Michael Chong 17120 72nd Ave W. Edmonds, WA 98026 r John Thoresen 17003 72nd P1. W. Edmonds, WA 98026