Loading...
18006 KAIREZ DR:,�Uessage Pagel of2 Westfall, John From: Westfall, John Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 10:20 AM TO: 'Mike@ironfiredesign.com' Cc: 'perotl @aol.com'; Umbaugh, Theresa Subject: RE: Vista del Mar Gate Thank you, Mike -I'll do this today. John ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Gaidos [mailto:mike@ironfiredesign.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:07 PM To: Westfall, John Cc: Umbaugh, Theresa; perotl@aol.com Subject: RE: Vista del Mar Gate John, and Theresa, I have attached copies of the minutes approving the gate by the HOA, as well as a letter from the HOA stating their approval. The primary emergency activation trigger will be a strobe system as required by the City of Edmonds. Placement of that strobe will be above the south brick column next to the gate, or if required at a location of the City's option. There will be a battery backup system that will be programmed to fully open the gates and keep them open in the event of a main power outage. If this information is not sufficient, or you need me to appear at the City offices regarding this proposal, please let me know. Thank you Mike Gaidos Project Manager Ironfire Design & Fabrication Office: 425.820.5455 Cell: 206.240.0014 Fax: 425.820.5457 www.ironfiredesign.com From: Westfall, John [mailto:Westfall@ci.edmonds.wa.us] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 7:07 PM To: Mike@ironfiredesign.com; perotl@aol.com Cc: Umbaugh, Theresa Subject: RE: Vista del Mar Gate Mike: Sorry about that. Here are the attachments. John ----- Original Message ----- 11/29/2007 )dessage Page 2 of 2 From: Mike Gaidos [ma ilto: mike@ ironfireclesig n.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:39 PM To: Westfall, John; perotl@aol.com Cc: Umbaugh, Theresa Subject: RE: Vista del Mar Gate John, I had nothing attached to this email Mike Gaidos Project Manager Ironfire Design & Fabrication Office: 425.820.5455 Cell: 206.240.0014 Fax: 425.820.5457 www.ironfiredesign.com From: Westfall, John [mailto:Westfall@ci.edmonds.wa.us] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:15 PM To: perotl@aol.com; mike@ironfiredesign.com Cc: Umbaugh, Theresa Subject: Vista del Mar Gate Mr. Gaidos & Mr. Marturano Attached are corrections for the plans and a copy of the gate standards. I need approval record of HOA in form of minutes, etc... as legal authority for the properties. Trigger operation and electrical fail -opens may be added in general notes as part of plans for evaluation and approval. Thank you, John Westfall Edmonds Fire Marshal (425) 771-0213 ofc (425) 775-7721 fax 11/29/2007 '3 Al 7-1 COAq 7CI Ipzoapip,e De !'�kptmcAuor) Inc APPROVED BY PLANNING , a a M� � �, 41 ?/07 11000*1- 1001- 1�,(k-oxlcall Permit from Statc- & Industries Fence. ?cr=� over CITY OF EDMONDS BUILDING DEPARTMENT woRK C--7o.4(— ADDRE33 140cu- )� "VV A "�Ik;; FOWNER N14A-ck- 1)41 VIA" 1--V)pkt-c� APPROVED DATE —/41 -V7 BLDG, OFFICIAL PERMIT HUME ER L J APIDROVED AS NOTED BY ENGINEERING Date: -2121. Zan *oPt jZ19SA*J6I8Lr- Fog PROvItnt-J61 .4ccesc -rd el-rq PUSUC WWW5 R09 AcciF,557 -150 AAiaw c- tL-n u-nj s ."o-TVIAS. H*'Am ;,&ivfer a,.,k jetw, Drawing is not on scale and only reflects the design. C<>pyright 2-007 lrc>mFirt-- C)4--siqr-% & Fabricatic>n Ir-ic. .All Ri4ghts Roes�er\o,4--cl I *W-41'0 ALL NEW9 EXTENDED, RE -BUILT OR RELOCATED ELECTRICAL UTILITY ANDIOR SERVICE SHALL BE PLACE UNDERGROUND COLOR: BLACK Wommoomm— of Edmonds Building Department Im PLAN CITY COPY Signature Designed forVista Del Mar August 2007 RECEIVED NOV 0 9 2007 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF Munmn.1z rec.e:ir& wAr� i�, r-ekAfw +--awf 5; y Iq je44.,6 C� AwV- i e-, V &.,o 0%% V!� 44 COK c, e 5 j-e& 33 17� -Z- '4a flLl Al ON Ar ent 4,/,, 5z." /-,.t c -e '9D tityof Edmond%- ?ILANi ED Nov 9 2007 BUILDING,, DEPARTMEN' . CITy (j\F EDMONDS C;11_001 - I � 4�- November 19, 2007 Theresa Umbaugh City of Edmonds 121 -50' Ave North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Vista Del Mar Entry Gate RECEIVED NoV 2 7 2007 SUILDINr ., DEPARTMENT r .AV OF EDMONDS This letter is to confirm that the Homeowners of the Vista del Mar Homeowners Association have approved the commissioning and construction of an entry gate into the Vista Del Mar development. The project was approved and funds appropriated by a ballot vote at our Homeowners Association meeting which was held on April 23, 2007. Sincerely, Jim Wegner President Vista Del Mar Homeowner's Association 17907 Kairez Drive Edmonds, WA 98026 Phone: 206-399-8758 Cc: Mike Hostermann Maggie Peterson Ross Marturano Page I of 2 From: Perotl@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 1:25 PM To: Mike@ironfiredesign.com Cc: mhosterman@clearpoint.com; rolft@trautmannmaher.com; jim.wegner@darigold.com; jim.wegner@wesffarm.com Subject: Re: gate Attachments: ­AVG certification—.txt Mike Included with this correspondence are the minutes of the meeting in April when we voted to install the gate. The homeowners have already been accessed and are eagerly awaiting the construction start. We also met with the town (an engineer, planning supervisor and a third person, title unsure) they gave us the information and forms/approvals that I provided you. They indicated that when all the information was supplied, we could move forward. Is there someone we can speak with? Entire building plans get approved in less.than six months. You had indicated that the planning and arqhitecture department had approved and we were awaiting traffic and safety. These queries do not appear to be traffic and safety questions, just exactly what is going on? Frankly, we are passed being patient and the association is about to get involved. One of our members is an associate of the Police Chief. We are pondering having a meeting. Please advise me ASAP. Regards, Ross Vista Del Mar Homeowners Association Minutes May 21, 2007 Present: Louis, Lynn, Bonnie, Rolf, Jim, Maggie, Rocky, Mike, Lynne, Ross, Gayle, Ted, Theresa Motion to approve April 23 meeting minutes. Approved. Treasurer Report: Annual dues were received from lots I I and 3. Lot 15 dues are in arrears. No checks have been written. All dues have been paid for the year except for Lot 15. Two notices have been sent. Maggie will call Stephen Conroy to set up an appointment to pick up check for gate payment. CC&R committee:. Rocky and Louis have met twice and will meet again with Rolf on May 30th. The expectation is that the committee will be ready to present the recommended changes by early fall. Doug Rich from Automated Gates presented his proposal for the gate. They have been in business for over 27 years. He explained what the gate would look like and how it would work. Questions raised by the homeowners were answered by Doug. Masonry work is estimated to be $1,00043,000 per column. Jim asked if we could see any neighborhoods in the area. Doug will get back to Jim with some addresses for us to go look at their work. Automated Gates is 12-14 weeks out at this time. Once project starts, the process should take 2-3 weeks. fileWC:\Documents and Settings4estfalhLocal Settings\Temporaty Internet Files\OLK9... 11/28/2007 Page 2 of 2 Mike Gaidos from IronFire Design and Fabrication made his gate presentation. The company has been in business since 2003. Columns and electrical work are included in the proposal. Normal construction installation will.be about 3-4 weeks. Construction can begin immediately upon approval from the City of Edmonds. After proposal discussion: There is about a $6,000 difference in the estimates from the two companies. Ross noted that IronFire's price is lower and they give you more. Ted feels that there will be less work on the homeowner's part if we use IronFire. Ross handed out the permit and requirement information from the City of Edmonds. Bonnie noted that the two major cost differences on each proposal are for the same product. Maggie moves that the association vote on which vendor to hire. Ted seconded. Unanimous vote in favor of fronFire Design & Fabrication. Ross and Rolf will communicate our acceptance to IronFire and request a contract, timeline, and deposit amount. Louis suggested that we pay only for the design for permit purposes and pay 50% after the permit is issued. Scott has been removed from the gate committee as the CC&R's state that only property owners may serve on committees. No replacement was named. Mailbox update: There is a company in Mukilteo that will install new mailboxes for about $1,120. Ross will find out what installation would cost. Ross will also work with Perrinville Post Office to find out what the requirements are. Street Name Change update: Rolf will speak with his contact at the City with regards to the name change (Vista Del Mar). As it is, the city will approve changing the name back to 92"d Place W. Lynn reminded everybody that the city considers any other name a safety hazard as emergency vehicles may have trouble finding a different street name and the city is familiar with 92nd Place W. Next Meeting date: Monday, July 9, 7-9 pm Peterson Residence Thank you Ross and Gayle for your hospitality. A very special thank you to Gayle for the wonderful melt -in -your mouth cheese -cake. See what's new at AOL.corn and Make AOL Your Hornepage. file://C:\Documents and SettinQs\westfall\Local Settingffemporary Intemet Files\OLK9... 11/28/2007 City of Edmonds Plan Review Corrections Plan Check # 70C) It42— Date 1 /2 7 107 Project Name/. t 015- t744 / 1800r, 'Ok. JAR. 01270c� Contact Person/Address Department: Building F-I Engineering Planning Fire Public Works[] A. Reviewer 10 M.......... Submit 2 sets of revised plans/documents to the Permit Coordinator. Corrections may be made by red lining plans/documents on rile with the City. DATE FAXED (Attach fax transmittal) PAGE OF Page I of I Westfall, John From: Perotl@aol.com Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 10:24 AM To: Westfall, John Cc: doug@dpmillerconstruction.com Subject: Gated Impairments John/Doug Thank you for the information and correspondence on the gated impairments. We are having a home owners meeting this evening and will be discussing these. I am forwarding them to the association members and will be sharing the documents provided at the Edmonds town meeting. The two prospective gate construction bidders will be attending portions of the meeting as well. If the town engineer or Fire Marshal would like participate they are welcome to do so. Please let me know and I will provide meeting time and location. Regards, Ross Marturano 206-617-4211 See what's free at AOL.com. 6/27/2007 November 19,2007 Theresa Umbaugh City of Edmonds 121-5"' Ave North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Vista Del Mar Entry Gate This letter is to confirm that the Homeowners of the Vista del Mar Homeowners Association have approved the commissioning and construction of an entry gate into the Vista Del Mar development. The project was approved and funds appropriated by a ballot vote at our Homeowners Association meeting which was held on April 23, 2007. Sincerely, Jim Wegner President Vista Del Mar Homeowner's Association 17907 Kairez Drive Edmonds, WA 98026 Phone: 206-399-8758 Cc: Mike Hostermann Maggie Peterson Ross Marturano Vista Del Mar Homeowners Association Minutes May 21, 2007 Present: Louis, Lynn, Bonnie, Rolf, Jim, Maggie, Rocky, Mike, Lynne, Ross,, Gayle, Ted, Theresa Motion to approve April 23 meeting minutes. Approved. Treasurer Report: Annual dues were received from lots 11 and 3. Lot 15 dues are in arrears. No checks have been written. All dues have been paid for the year except for Lot 15. Two notices have been sent. Maggie will call Stephen Conroy to set up an appointment to pick up check for gate payment. CC&R committee: Rocky and Louis have met twice and will meet again with Rolf on May 30th. The expectation is that the committee will be ready to present the recommended changes by early fall. Doug Rich from Automated Gates presented his proposal for the gate. They have been in business for over 27 years. He explained what the gate would look like and how it would work. Questions raised by the homeowners were answered by Doug. Masonry work is estimated to be $1,00043,000 per column. Jim asked if we could see any neighborhoods in the area. Doug will get back to Jim with some addresses for us to go look at their work. Automated Gates is 12-14 weeks out at this time. Once project starts, the process should take 2-3 weeks. Mike Gaidos from IronFire Design and Fabrication made his gate presentation. The company has been in business since 2003. Columns and electrical work are included in the proposal. Normal construction installation will be about 3-4 weeks. Construction can begin immediately upon approval from the City of Edmonds. After proposal discussion: There is about a $6,000 difference in the estimates from the two companies. Ross noted that IronFire's price is lower and they give you more. Ted feels that there will be less work on the homeowner's part if we use IronFire. Ross handed out the permit and requirement information from the City of Edmonds. Bonnie noted that the two major cost differences on each proposal are for the same product. Maggie moves that the association vote on which vendor to hire. Ted seconded. Unanimous vote in favor of IronFire Design & Fabrication. Ross and Rolf will communicate our acceptance to IronFire and request a contract, timeline, and deposit amount. Louis suggested that we pay only for the design for permit purposes and pay 50% after the permit is issued. Scott has been removed from the gate committee as the CC&R's state that only property owners may serve on committees. No replacement was named. Mailbox update: There is a company in Mukilteo that will install new mailboxes for about $1,120. Ross will find out what installation would cost. Ross will also work with Perrinville Post Office to find out what the requirements are. Street Name Change update: Rolf will speak with his contact at the City with regards to the name change (Vista Del Mar). As it is, the city will approve changing the name back to 92dPlace W. Lynn reminded everybody that the city considers any other name a safety hazard as emergency vehicles may have trouble finding a different street name and the city is familiar with 92dPlace W. Next Meeting date: Monday, July 9, 7-9 pm Peterson Residence Thank you Ross and Gayle for your hospitality. A very special thank you to Gayle for the wonderful melt -in -your mouth cheese -cake. Vista Del Mar Homeowners Association Meeting Minutes April 23, 2007 Present: Ross, Jim, Lynne, Mike, Louis, Rock, Maggie, Doug, B.K., Call to order. Last month's meeting minutes approved. Old Business: Treasurer's Report: No additional payments. 3 lots have not paid. Maggie will re -send invoices. No checks have been written. Louis has set up our profit and loss statements. Balance sheet attached. Jim asked for clarification with regards to voting and expenses for 178ffi Place S.W. and Kairez Drive. Louis, Rocky and Rolf will be working on that when they revise the CC&R's. Vote for gate proposal: Passed Ross spoke to both companies that have provided proposals. They are both willing to come out and make a presentation and answer any questions the homeowners may have. Doug and Ross will go to the city and get an initial approval and make sure we can move forward with the plan. Louis suggested that homeowners review their closing records to see if they paid $500.00 dues to the LLC. Maggie spoke with Stephen Conroy and got a verbal agreement to put $10,000 toward the gate. Maggie will be sending a letter to request this payment. Petersons reported that they received their deck roofing permit and should begin building in June. The Chen's have had some problems with their ceiling, but are working on fixing it. They expect a move -in date sometime in June. Ross volunteered to look into getting new mail boxes because there are so many problems with the old one. Doug suggested that the box also be moved if it is to be replaced. Ross suggested that the mailboxes be moved to the strip of land along Kairez Drive (Tract Q. Neighborhood clean-up: Doug will be taking out the wood from the tree that he cut down. Scott will be cleaning up his lot tomorrow. Every lot owner is responsible to keep their lot free of weeds and debris. Please refer to the CC&R's, section 3.5.2 for more information. This applies to undeveloped lots as well as lots with homes on them. Letters will be coming out to individuals from the board if lots are not cleaned up by May 30th. Rocky, Rolf and Louis will be working on the amendments to the CC&R's. They will be presenting their proposed changes at the next scheduled homeowner's meeting. Next Meeting Date: May 21, 2007 at the Marturano Residence — 7pm Meeting adjourned Vista Del Mar Homeowners Association meeting March 12, 2007 At the home of Jim and Marilyn Wegner Present: Mike Hosterman, Scott Schrieber, Doug Miller, B.K. Chen, Bonnie and Rolf Trautmann, Ted and Theresa Kirschbaum, Jim and Marilyn Wegner, Ross Marturano, Rock and Maggie Peterson, Louis and Lynn Meyer, Tricia Guinnaire. Minutes from last meeting approved. A few lots have not paid their dues yet: Lot 3, Lot 5, Lot 11 (Maggie to send note to Irinka), Lot 15. Tricia to get information to Maggie to send notice. Total of $12,560.00 in checking account. No checks have been written. Moved to old business: Tricia presented gate proposals from Automated Gates and Ironfire Design. A vote on the gate concept will be held on: April 23, 2007. It was decided that the gate would cost no more than $30,000. If you can't come to the meeting, please notify Jim by e-mail of whether you want to move ahead with a gate or not. Only property owners may vote. Tricia is trying to rent Lot 11. This lot will not be listed for sale at this time. Architectural committee approved the deck re -design for Lot 15. Common Area: Should landscape architect come in to beautify the circle on Kairez? Lynn reminded us that we would wait until all the building is done. Bonnie suggested that the fountain area be leveled and have it planted instead. Edmonds Landscaping could include this in a general common area proposal. Bonnie makes a motion that the fountain be leveled. Doug seconded. Lynn would like to amend that 2 levels of brick be left. Theresa seconded Lynn's amendment. Vote failed 6-5. On the vote to get rid of it completely; failed 4-7. Mike moves to get proposal from Edmonds Landscaping for entire public area re -landscaping (including 178th Pl.) Doug seconded. Unanimously approved. Nomination of new officers: Secretary and Vice President Maggie Peterson re -nominated for Secretary — term expires November 2009 Louis Meyer Vice President — term expires November 2009 Theresa nominated Rolf to replace her on the Landscaping/gate committee. Approved. Ross volunteered to replace Mike on the Landscaping/gate committee. Approved. Lot Update: Scott is getting lot 12 cleaned up. Changing name of Kariez Drive to 92 d Place West: Lynn researched issue found that city can do it but and all homeowners have to agree. She also asked the city to have the street revert back to the city. The question was asked if we could then put a gate on a city owned street. Lynn will find out if a gate is possible. Jim asked to see if we can change the name of the street, but still keep it private if we choose. Some homeowners expressed interest in naming re -naming Kairez Drive to Vista Del Mar. Lynn will have this information for us before the April 23rd meeting. Ted moved that Kairez Drive be renamed Vista Del Mar. Bonnie seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Louis brought to attention that, according to the current CC&Rs, lots cannot be subdivided if the structure is removed. A spirited discussion followed. Bonnie suggested that an attorney be contacted to find out what guidelines we need to follow to amend CC&Rs. Rock will look into that. Maggie made a motion that the homeowners call a special session to amend the CC&Rs in May. Lynn seconded. Committee will be: Louis, Rolf, Rocky. Louis will be putting financial statements on Quick -books, per the CC&Rs. Meeting adjourned. Template: Memo fonn Page I of 2 ;i� Westfall, John From: Westfall, John Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 1:44 PM To: Chief Tomberg Cc: Correira, Mark; Smith, Mike Subject: Gated Fire Access Impairments Chief - Duane, Dave & I met with a representative group for the homeowners at Vista Del Mar development that is George Kairez'project off of OVD. They are "unanimously" after a gate to secure the neighborhood off of Kairez Drive (92nd PI W) for 12 homes. I've developed a standard for this and future projects and inquiries, taken much from the McNaughton formal subdivision on 80th Ave. Yes, chief, lFC identifies YOU as the approving authority for these. And that makes sense to me. John MEMORANDUM Date: May 11, 2007 To: Fire Code Interpretations, Rules and Regulations From: FM Westfall Subject: GATED FIRE ACCESS IMPAIRMENTS Fire department modifications and code interpretations shall be maintained in writing so as to aid in conformance and uniform application to the intent of ruling fire and life safety related codes, ordinances, and standards. ECDC 19.25.045 & /FC 104. 1. REF: IFC 503.6 SECURITY GATES DISCUSSION: No installation of security gates or traffic obstructions ever meets the urgency of immediate unfettered emergency response for the protection of life, property, and the environment or law enforcement. The Fire Department is obligated to meeting the immediate emergency needs for every property taxpayer and tenant on public and private property. Standards developed to acknowledge and accommodate the unanimous, political, or legal choice these stakeholders have to slow emergency responses to their property should not be construed as fire department concurrence for the installation of security gates or obstructions to normal traffic flow. Standards are listed to meet minimum level of requirements to address the reasonable expectation of public services that are funded and provided for every citizen. All installations shall be approved by the Fire Chief. Unanimous approval by affected property taxpayers and tenants, or approval by the legal representative group responsible to the affected property owners and tenants (e.g. city council, howeowner's associations, etc ... ). Minimum fire access gate width requirement of 20'and vertical clearance of 13'6" when open (24' clear width is Engineering requirement for roadways with 2-way traffic). Approved primary activation trigger for opening gate, such as Opticorn light signal from mobile -mounted equipment inherent to all local public safety vehicles and apparatus. 5/11/2007 Ir Template: Memo fonn Page 2 of 2 ;�x 0 Electric security closure feature failing in the "open" position during power outage events. Fire Department lockbox mounted in approved location with keys, keycodes or other secondary means to open gate as backup to primary activation trigger. All systems, equipment, activation, and operations will be tested on a minimum annual basis. A report of proper operation will be provided to Edmonds Fire Prevention Division. Additional city Engineering and Building Division requirements may apply for installation, such as encroachment permits and/or fence permits. 5/11/2007 v pzl-r4� �Ccct P-O,-b - fb-C,67 P60-t (7- z 6n-t-51�--O KA L 4-% -&�� k-,&- L 0 pn Pi- MEMORANDUM DATE - REPORTED BY OF SUBJECT ADDRESS: 0 L"I 2, CONCERNS/ HAZARDS: f >t4nv SIGNED FOLLOW-UP: k"Y 446_� 011- c Hours Expended: $ 0-1 SIGNED City of Edmonds Sb Fire Prevention Division CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: Ron onne , Hea E miner From: Ste Bullock Project Planner Date: OCTOBER 12,2000 File: V-00-103 Saul/Braun setback variance Hearing Date, Time, And Place: October I 91h , At 9:30 AMI 3'd Floor Meeting Room Edmonds City Hall 1215 1h Avenue North TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ I A. Application ....................................................................................................................................... 2 B. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 2 11. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................... 2 A. Site Description ................................................................................................................................. 2 B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance ...................................................... 3 111. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS ............................................................................ 4 A. Request for Reconsideration ............................................................................................................. 4 B. Appeals ............................................................................................................................................. 4 C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals .................................................................................... 5 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL ...................................................................................................... 5 V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR ................................................................................... 5 VI. APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................... 5 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD ...................................................................................................... 5 1. INTRODUCTION Ms. Lynn Braun is the owner of a small single family home located on the private road called Maple Manor Road just off of Olympic View Drive. This is an older community that in the early to mid 1900's was likely a weekend/vacation home community. Because of this, the homes and lots were small and a separate lot was created for parking for the last five lots. In the 1940's, a structure was built that provided garages for three of those lots and the last two lots continued to park outside. 00103sr.doc / October 12, 2000 / Staff Report J Ukich / Saul Variance File No. V-00-103 Page 2 of 5 In the early 1980's, the previous owner of Ms. Braun's property, Mr. and Mrs. Saul, built an addition to the garage building that provided one additional garage space for their lot. This construction was done without the benefit of a building permit, and since that was a requirement in the 1980's, the addition was illegal. A complaint was filed with the city in early 2000, and after an investigation of the site, the current property owner was notified that they had an illegal structure that would need to be removed or have permits granted. Because the lot created for parking was so small no addition to the garage building could be made without neccessitating a variance. So, the applicant is proposing a variance that would allow this garage addition to the legal nonconforming garage building built in the 40's. If approved, the applicant will move ahead with a building permit application to legitimize the entire building. The following is the Edmonds Planning Division's analysis and recommendation of the applicant's submittal. A. Application 1. Applican: Mr. and Mrs. Saul for Ms. Braun. 2. Site Location: 9207 Olympic View Drive (see Attachments I and 4). 3. Reques A street setback Variance (see Attachments 2 and 3). 4. Review Process: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. 5. Maior Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Conunimity Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.20 (RS- SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). B. Recommendations Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend Approval of the setback variance with the following conditions: 1. The setback variance will be limited to the site plan submitted. 2. A building permit must be applied for and approved. 11. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Site Description 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Residential Single Family (RS-12). (2) Existing and Proposed Development: The site is currently developed with a four car garage. (3) Terrain and Vegetation: The existing topography is relatively flat. The site is so small there is relatively no vegetation 00 1 03sr.doc / October 12, 2000 / Staff Report Ukich / Saul Variance File No. V-00-103 Page 3 of 5 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) North, West, South and East: The properties are zoned and developed or being developed under the RS-12 standards. (2) The formal plat under construction to the east provided a buffer tract to provide separation from the Plat road and the subject garage. b) Conclusion: The proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding zoning and development. B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance 1. Zoning Standards a) Facts: (1) The fundamental site development standards in an RS-12 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20. They include a 25 foot street setback, 10-foot side setbacks and a 25 foot rear setback. Because the site is so small and because it is surrounded on three sides by streets the entire site is constrained by setbacks. b) Conclusion: The proposal complies with the development standards for RS-12 zone as set forth in Chapter 16.20 with the approval of the subject variance. 2. Compliance with requirement for a Variance ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances) states an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85. Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC also 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. a) Facts: (1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These criteria include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted; the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum necessary. (2) Applicant's responses (see Attachment 2): (a) The size of the lot that the house is on is so small that it does not allow for room to park. Therefore, the original developers provided a separate lot to park on. This lot is extremely small as well and is entirely covered with required setbacks. (b) It is not a grant of special privilege in that four other adjacent property owners already have the same thing. (c) The applicant states that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that this is a residential area and a residential use is proposed. (d) The applicant states that the proposal is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance in that it is a residential use in a residential zone. (e) The applicant states that the proposal will not be detrimental in that it will not reduce any property values or create any hazards. 00 1 03ST.doc / October 12, 2000 / Staff Report Ukich / Saul Variance File No. V-00-103 Page 4 of 5 The applicant states that this is the minimum variance in that the lot is quite small and there is nowhere else to put it. (3) Staff responses and additional information: (a) Staff agrees with the applicant about how the project meets the variance criteria. b) Conclusions: (1) Special Circumstances Special circumstances exist in the shape of the property. (2) Special Privilege No special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that it will allow an addition to consistent with existing structures. (3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the development of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site. (4) Not Detrimental The proposed variance should not be detrimental or injurious to adjacent property owners. (5) Minimum Required The requested variances appears to be the minimum necessary. Since the applicant appears to meet all the criteria for a variance, the setback variances should be approved with the condition that it is for the existing building. 111. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideratioWs 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. B. Appeals Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. 00 1 03sr.doc / October 12, 2000 / Staff Report Ukich / Saul Variance File No. V-00- 103 Page 5 of 5 C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the tirne clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request is filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request. 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 variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' V. 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 Assessor's Office VI. APPENDICES Attachments I through 5: 1 . Vicinity and Zoning Map 2. Declarations for Setback Variance Requests 3. Site Map 4. Site Plan 5. Photographs VII. PARTIES OF RECORD Charles and Sue Saul Lynn Braun / Ukich 5715 128h St. SW PO Box 222 Mukilteo, WA 98275 Port Gamble, WA 98364 Engineering Division Fire Department Parks & Recreation Division Public Works Division Planning Division 00 1 03sr.doc / October 12, 2000 / Staff Report OF Zoning and Vicinity Map Attachment 1 File No. V-2000-103 August 27, 2000 City of Edmonds 121 5'h Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: �&. Stephen F. Bullock, AICP Dear Mr. Bullock, vlelo 06", 4 G'b Pursuant to the Adverse Possession Claim submitted in our letter dated 02/02/2000, you have advised us that Mr. George Kairez has proposed a Lot Line Adjustment to allow additional footage behind the existing garage structure servicing 5 households in Maple Manor. Currently this is under review and you indicated you would contact us when a decision has been made by the City. At this point in time, we felt it necessary to submit the Variance Application and move forward in this process. Our Application is attached Please note that we are not the homeowners anymore; the property is actually owned by Lynn Braun of whom has directed us to resolve the property line issue. The adjoining property owners, within 300 feet of this property are: George Kairez, 9117 Olympic View D�IvelEdmonds, WA 98020 Mark Nirschl, 2327 Cedar StreetlEverett, WA 98201 Mary Lou Marquardt, 9213 Olympic View DrivelEdmonds, WA 98020 Mr. &Mrs. Carson Graves, 9211 Olympic View DrivelEdmonds, WA 98020 Alan & Elidne Yard, 9209 Olympic View DrivelEdmonds, WA 98020 Afary 2bb, 9205 Olympic View DriveEdmonds, WA 98020 0' / '.' 'JY'Q'n In order for the Hearing Examiner to approve this request, we will attempt to answer the following six questions as follows: How does the proposal meet the Special Circumstance Criteria? What special cimumstances such as lot size, shape, topography, stream location, wetland location, or other unusual problems are causing an impact, which would require a variance? An existing garage structure, originally built in the 1940's is in existence for 4 homeowners. The 5 th garage was to have been included in the original construction but fundi% ran out. A concrete pad was poured and a sign was erected to allow privileged parking for the 5 stall. The homeowners in Maple Manor do not have attached garages or carports on their homes, which are located directly on the bluff side of the single lane private road servicing these homes. Therefore the homeowners need parking adjacent to their homes, on the east side of the private one lane road The lots in existence are approximately 50 feet wide and there is no parking available. It would create a dire hardship on the homeowners to not have anywhere to park their vehicles due to lot size. Denial of the variance for this 5 1b garage would deprive the existing homeowner of current use rights that have been in existence for decades (an Adverse Possession Claim has been filed). The other 4 property owners have, and have had, this right for decades as well. Explain why the proposal is not a Grant of Special Privilege. Is the proposal something that is allowed to other property owners in the vicinity, but would be disallowed on your property if the variance is denied? This definitely is not a Grant of Special Privilege for the reasons quoted above, mainly due to the fact that the other roperty owners have the same identical garages (4) which are aligned in a strip fashion with the 5 garage attached on the northern most end. The 4 property owners that have Aftachment 2 File No. V-2000-103 0 0 . 41 had the existing garages have been using them since the 1940's, over 50 years. The denial of the 5th garage would be a hardship for the property owner and against the same rights given to those other 4 properties. Explain how the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. While we do not retain a copy of the Comprehensive Plan for this property, it is residential in nature solely. A granting of the Variance Request would not be personal to the homeowner (due to age, disability, special ability to secure a scenic view or to make the property more profitable) and would be in accordance with the existing residential use of the property in supplying the same parking abilities already granted to the other homeowners. 4. Explain how the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and with the Zone district in which the property is located. This property is currently zoned residential. This proposal will allow one parking garage for the homeowner (as is already the right of 4 additional homeowners) and not alter the zoning of the property - Explain how this proposal meets the criteria of Not Detrimental. Will the portion of your proposal for which you seek a variance cause a loss of property value, scenic view, or use of surrounding properties? Will the portion of the project for which you seek a variance be physically injurious or harmful to any person on your property or surrounding properties? There will be no loss of property value to the adjoining properties but it will cause a hardship to the existi�j homeowner due to lack of parking facilities. There are currently 4 garages in existence plus this 5 one. It is not physically injurious or harmful to any person or any surrounding property, as is the case with the other 4 garages. 6. Explain how the proposed variance is the Minimum Variance needed to accommodate the proposed project, or why there is not alternative other than a variance in order to complete this projecL The variance would allow a setback from the property line to accommodate the 5* garage stall. There is no other place to build a garage of this small size, this is where it was intended to be built and this would be the mini*murn necessary to accommodate the size of the garage. It is only a one stall garage of approximately 100 square feet. It is not excessive in size or stature. It is of the same size of the other 4 garages that service the homeowners. Again, there is no other place to build a garage due to the small lot sizes involved and the single lane private roacL A copy of our letter dated 2/2/2000 is attached for your informed review. It should also be pointed out that if the garage structures were tom down, the existing homeowners would have nowhere to park and it would definitely cause an undue hardship for those concerned in Maple Manor. Please favor us with a grant of the Variance for a setback adjustment Sincerely yours, Susan K Pocock -Saul & Charles D. Saul, IV ell 10.00 (92nd PL -------- Wt PRtVATE ROAD) -n =r COD Apr-uz-uu uJ;z Opm "Tract'. 1 011 0 i32703-1-Oli-0006 I . A% -S 8-2'@ 14 1 �j logo lop gr MMM Oki r 7.6, 809 ................... cv :,moo .99 Aftachment 4 File No. V-2000-103