The URL can be used to link to this page

20623 88TH AVE W (2).PDF8480 20623 88TH AVE W October 16, 1096 Mr. Paul Stromme . Stromme Construction 9623 - 8th Avenue N.E. Seattle, WA 98115 RE: Ho an Short Plat, S-95-197 ffin Dear Mr. Stromme: You intend to construct homes on three contiguous lots in Edmonds. The site is in the vicinity of 20618 - 88th Avenue West. Two of the lots are on a shared moderate slope and thl- third is below the slope and ielativellyflai. Attached as page 3 of this letter is a partial, scale-altereci site and topo plan prepared by Dean Read, architect. You have a long familiar -it), with the connibined properties and ,A,ere aware that foundation conditions were unfavorable for conventional shallow foundation support oil Lot 3. For this reasoia and io head off a--k)y future quesr'Jons about slope or foundation support for Lots I and 2, you asked me to inspect and prepare ' his letter. At.my su ggestion, you arranged for the services of a backboe at the time of my inspection last week. Three test holes were dug; their locations are shown on page 3. A sunimary of conditions found is presented on page 4. The stratigraphically deepest soil type is glacial till, found at location three. Locations one and two are iii an ancient swale which first collected sandy sediment then organic silt and peat. Grade has belan raised about 5 feet with fili. You can expect that there might be intermittent groundwater presence at 2 to 3 yards depth at Lot 3, though none was observed during test digging. Soil conditions are bighly favorable for developing Lots I and 2. The glacial till there is a hardpan at a depth of roughly one yard. I recommend that all parts of your foundation system be dug sufficiently deep to bear on the hardpan. Because of the unusually high strength of the tiffl, slope stability is not an issue. Conditions are not favorable for conventional foundation sipport on Lot 3. 1 recommend that the house there be supported on small-diam,�ter steel piles. The piles would be between 2 and 4 inch diameter and of iengtbs determined by driving performance. The piles would be driven to practical refusal as defined by the procedure and' equipment employed. Below is a summary of size -capacity options. Higher capacities or different sizes Might be allowed subject to load testing or other justification. JAMES EATON, PE d-b GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES (206) 682-6942 1 W_ Box 126 * Hobart, WA 98025 Mr. Paul Stromme October 16, 1996 Page 2 Pile Type Driven By 2" Schedule 80 90 psi pneumatic hammer 3" '11"Cbedule 40 350 lb. hydraulic hammer 4" Schedule 40 350 lb. hydraulic hammer Nominal Allowable Capacity 4 to 5 K 12 K 16+ K Tbe substance of this information was verbally passed to Clark Johnson Assoc., your structural engineers. At that time the garage floor options were briefly discussed. With less than a full structural slab there is some risk of slab settlement. You can minimize the effects of s-ettlement in ways short of pile %upport. The choice mmy reduce to a practical and economic one and will be discussed WiLh you and your design team. Conditions beneath Lot 3 are no' so adverse as to require special recommendations for utilities or for incidental improvenents, such as the driveway or sidewalks. Please see that I am provided with coples of the foundation plans when available. Yours very'tiruly, James Eaton, PE 62-8791 N. WA Cr 11917 411 ISTE At - cc: Dean Read, Architect Clark Johnson, Structural Engineir EXPIRES S H SSMH S %,%t N89' 116'50"W 1`� 2 .3 90m CONC Ou r -7 SETBACK P 4b LINE %12 to yp 1p W-41 1804 8. sq. '80 T ui[)pol em4. CSo C."r, '5 ew N84 P1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V1, UJI 0 lop sq. f a co 0 TEST PIT LOGS #1 09 5.0'-5.3' Variable silty sand and sandy silt fill (soft/loose) 7.1'-7.4' (Var.) Medium to dark brown organic silt with peat (soft) Gray firm sand with some coarse (medium to dense) 10.3' Completed and backfilled 10-8-96; no groundwater encountered #2 09 5.4' Variable silty sand and sandy silt fill (soft/loose) 7.2'-7.4' Medium to dark brown organic silt with peat (soft) Gray firm sand (medium to dense) 9.5' Completed and backfilled 10-8-96; no groundwater encountered #3 Medium brown silty sand with gravel (glacial till, gradational 3.4' weathered and with roots) Light to medium brown silty sand with gravel (glacial till hardpan) 6.5' Completed and backfilled 10-8-96; no groundwater encountered PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME:-5TRO /77 1WInF C11-0 PROJECT ADDRESS:Ao�,,R3- 0,6", X06-6j, PLAN CHECK#: �?;7— 91 RECEIPT DATE:-/- -7- L� 7 REVIEW 0 BY:jInitial/Date) PLAN. WATER COMMENTS Plot: gal - Setbacks/Variance/Setback Adjustment Conditional Use Permit . . . . . . . . . . . . . -X0. ADB Requirements ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - Other Zoning Requirements ....... Underground Wiring Required - - ...... ...... 5 Lot Slope IS% 6 SEPA Environmental Checklist/Hydraulics Permit . . . . . . 7 .. Tree Cutting Plan Plat/Subdivision. Requirements 8 9. Legal Description Verification to Quit Claim/Street Dedications ........ .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. "N" .. Easements - Public/Private Engineering Storm Drain Review Fee c_-::, .......... Engineering 2.2 Inspection Fee .1.3 14 Drainage Plan (On -Site) Setback - Top of Bank, Stream, Water Courses . . . . . . 1 5 Setback - Storm Drain Line . . . 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Open Ditch - Existing . ....... AS-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Culvert Required 19' Culvert Size . . . . . . . . ... ..... Shoulder Drainage/Shale Open Runoff - - - - - - ------------- - - - - - - - Catch Basin Required Driveway Slope & Vehicle Access,�—' (it Sidewalk Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Curb & Gutter Required 24—::' Curb Cut For Driveway Required . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Street Paving Required Right -Of -Way Construction Permit Required X ........ . 28:�: Street Name Sign Required . . . . . . . . . Other Signing Required Bond Required For Public Improvements M FEMA Map Check/Water Table .. ........... . . .... 31 Side Sewer Availability Calculate Sewer Connection Fee If No LID # Create Street File 34 Existing Water Main Size 12 6. Water Meter Size Service Line Size Water Meter Charge Required 3 75. Hydrant Required .. ....... Hydrant Size Existing 40': A .. " Fire Line Charge Required - Sprinkler 1'41 Street Cut --�l Miscellaneous .... ..... 44;:: Reviewed By: FIRE PLANNING Po ENGI�EERIN PUBLIC WORKS R E C 0 R D OF C 0 N T A C T S 21 2 22 3 23 4 24 5 25 6 26 7 27 8 28 RW PERMIT DATE ISSUED RECEIPT # 9 29 10 30 11 31 12 32 13 PAID $ RECEIPT # DATE 33 SS PERMIT -ISSU D ATE ED =[-�- ECEIPT # 14- PAID $ RECEIPT # DATE 34 15 35 16 36 17 37 1 MELER SIZEI-l' PAID DATE RECEIPT 18 38 A Av 19 39 �v 360 t,4 S. /-// fh 20 40 CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER PERMIT 11 8 9 0 1 9 FIERMIT'N2 83,55 EDM NOS TM Address of Construction: �14 7TR EONT PLANT J Prope rty Legal Description* (Include all easements): 15 wiliLI(ii; VIVORKS Owner and/or Contractor: State License No' Building Permit No.. ql�7) e5�ngle Family 1:1 Multi -Family (No. of Units-) El Commercial El Public Invasion into City Right -of -Way: O/No El Yes RW Construction Permit Npe N Cross other Private Property: ;/No El Yes Attach legal description an I d copy of recorded easement I certify that * -Ilhave read and shall comply witFall city requirements as indicated on the back of the Permit Card. X,7 Date CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION" OFFICE USE ONLY FORINSPECTION CALL PUBLIC ORKS DEPT. -77/ �04Q36""` Permit Fee- &0 0 0 Issued By Trunk Charge Date Issued: Assessment ee: Receipt No.: Lid No.: - Partial Inspection: (Date -initial' Comments Reason Rejected: Date Initial- i Final Inspection Approved: Date66212 lnitial�� PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE White Copy; File. Gre,tmn Copy; Inspector Buff Copy; Applicant Revised 3!90 The City of Edmonds Side Sewer Drawing EASEMENT NO . ............................................ NEW CONSTRUCTION C�/ REPAIRS E] LID NO . .................. ASMT. No . .................. OWNER................................................................ ........................... CONTRACTOR Fe'S-:S;— Iril ................... PERMIT NO.( .................... JOB ADDRESS .... ... . .... V.6> —! W i ... ... .. ...... ..... .... 4W-0001-1 1/75 (REVA 1/78) 6 4j, V. it t V� % LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO . ...................................... BLOCK NO . .................................... ........................................................................ ---------- EI)MOW-)S---- TREATMENT PLA NAME OF ADDITION ...................... Approved: DATE ..... ... B,2 ... .......... y ---------------------- ------------------------------------- NOTICE: . N W' nN— o--- -ar-ra Y ... OT The information 'shown on the attached map(s) was c0m.pHed for use by the City Of ds- its Employees and Consultants. Edmon j ot . warrant the Th,..e City of Edmonds does- n these accuracy of anything set for.th on map(s�. An I y person or entity *requesting a copy should conduct an independent arding th-e inform-ation shown on inquiry reg ffi�� -map(s); including, but not limited to, the lo�,-ation of any sewer stub shown. Sucl- sewer stubs may or may, not exist. and may at the location shown. or may not exist its Neither the City of Edmonds nor empl-o-yee-s o*r offi-ce-rs -sh-all be 11a-b-l--e for the information giVen' on this map(s), nor for e representation provided based any on upon said map(s) The City of Edmonds Water Service Drawing EASEMENT NO . ............................................ NEW CONSTRUCTION 5R" REPAIRS Fj LID NO . .................. ASMT. NO . .................. OWNER................................................ ............................................... CONTRACTOR .................................................................................... PERMIT NO. "rN JOB ADDRESS ..294,23.7-1 ......... Allf ...... P� . ................... LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT, NO . ..................... ................ BLOCK NO . .................................... 89 Tif Approved: I Co 7# r000 /,y y /cc ��Z: PWW-0001-11175 (REV.11/78) DATE ... ..................... By*W4,; k4 .. ..... ............. ................ 16, 1996 Mr. Paul Stromme - Stromme Construction 9623 - 8th Avenue N.E. Seattle, WA 98115 RE: Hoffman Short Plat, S-95-197 Dear Mr. Stromme: FILE You intend to construct homes on three contiguous lots in Edmonds. The site is in the vicinity of 20618 - 88th Avenue West. Two.of tche lots. are on a shared moderate slope and th-- third is below the slope and ielattively flat Attached as page 3 of this letter is a partial, scale -altered site and topo plan prepare J. by Dean Read, architect. You have a long familiarity wit� 1 .1 tile corabined properties and were aware that foundation conditions were unfavorable for conventional shallow foundation support oil Lot 3. For this reason and to head off any future questions about slope or foundation support for Lots 1 and 2, you asked me to inspect and prepare this lette. At.my suggestion, you arranged for the services of a backboe at the time of my inspection last week. Tbree test holes were dug; their locations are shown on page 3. A summary of conditions found is presented on page 4. TheStTatigraphically deepest soil type is glacial till, found at location three. Locations one and two are iii an ancient swale which first collected sandy sediment then organic silt and peat. Grade has Le%"n raised about 5 feet with fill. You can expect that there might be intermittent groundwater preseia-re at 2 to 3 yards depth at Lot 3, though none was o. bserved during test digging. Soil conditions are bighly favorable for developing Lots 1 and 2*-. Tle glacial till there is a hardpan at a depth of roughly one yard. I recornmend that all parts of your foundation system be dug sufficiently deep to bear on the hardpan.. Because of the unusually high strength of the tiffl, slope stability is not an issue. Conditions are not favorable for conventional foundation support on Lot 3. 1 recommend that the housc there be supported on small -diameter steel piles. The piles would be between 2 and 4 inch diameter and of lengths determined by driving performance. The piles would be driven to practical refusal as defined by the procedure and' equipment employed. Below is a summary of size -capacity options. Higher capacities or different sizes ibight be allowed subject' to load testing or -other justification. JAMES EATON, PE d-b GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES (206)682-6942 f W_ Box 12 *6 9 Hobart, WA 98025 Mr. Paul Stromme October 16, 1996 Page 2 Pile Type Drive:a By Nom.:nal Allowable Capacity 2" Schedule 80 90 Psi pneumatic 4to5K hammer 3 Z'chedule 40 350 lb. hydraulic 12 K hammer 4" Schedule 40 350 lb. hydraulic hammer. 16+ K The substance of this information was -verbally passed to Clark Johnson Assoc., your A structural engineers. At that time.the garage floor options were briefly discussed. With less than a full structural slab there is' Some risk.of slab settlement. You can minimize the effects of settlement in ways short of pile Support. The choice may reduce to a practical and ec . onomic one and will be discussed with you and your design team. Conditions beneath Lot 3 are no* , so adverse as to require special recommendations for utilities or for incidental improvements such as the driveway or sidewalks. Please see that I am provided with copies of the foundation plans when available. Yours very truly, James Eaton, PE 62-8791 N. c� WAS O-A VV br 1117 0 TE A�- cc: Dean Read, Architect Clark Johnson, Structural Engine[L— EXPIRES :E3 SS H. SSMH N89;*16050P*W r--% S s 0 9-16 0 -8".. CONC OU I lb LIN.E 12 sq. 0 C) too 18 8. InT 80 T-MIOPOI C�44. CAIP P-m— ---wmm LWAJ a 4. ul `50-W (7) 41 40. ILI, CN Ld 0 I 'ft. S4(4. -a co TEST PIT LOGS #1 5.0'-5.3' Variable silty sand and sandy silt fill (soft/loose) Medium to dark brown organic silt with peat . (soft) 7. 1'-7.4' (Var.) Gray firm sand with some coarse (medium to dense) 10.3' Completed and backfilled 10-8-96; no groundwater encountered #2 09 5-.4' 7.2'-7.4' 9.5' #3 OP 3.4' 6.5' Variable silty sand and.sandy silt fill (soft/loose) Medium to dark brown'organic silt with peat (soft) Gray firm sand (medium to dense) Completed and backfilled 10-8-96; nogroundw'ater encountered Medium brown silty sand with -gravel (glacial till, gradational weathered and with roots) Light to medium brown silty sand with gravel (glacial till hardpan) Completed and backfilled 10-8-96; no groundwater encountered ,a- imam=, — _�A CA FILE NO. 6(5- )S55 Critical Areas Checklist Site Ipf�qjr;nation (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation) -34-83 And 1.1, 'Sifte Wddr, Lot 2, City of Edmonds Short Plat No. S Ifttion: 10 the- P i e7 Ridge - Short'Plat 0 s r. -1 0 S 9& of in :jf1Ak,W"ax Account Number: 5446-000-009-0101 / 544 i-000-01 0:-:060-4 9b 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 1.46 ac 5446-000-009-2.000 (g�5o,\ d-ve- 4. Is this site currently developed? _yes; X no - If yes; how is site developed? 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. X Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). X Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round stand ing water: No Approx. Depth: N/A 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: No Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway No floodplain No of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows.across the grounds surface? Flows are year- round? No Flows are seasonal? No (What time of year? N/A 10. Site is primarily: forested ;meadow _;shrubs mixed urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) X 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: No For City Staff Use Only is Zoned? 2'.., SCS rnapped soil type(s)? 6,eet :3.. Wetland inventory or C.A. map indicates wetland present on site? /6,10 4. Critical'Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area on site? /1,0 5. Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? Site designated on the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map? RcVOI/M4 090 -199- City of Edmon& Critical Areas Checklist The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of a development permit to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are or may be present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical Areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). An applicant, or his/her representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, RECRIvED AUG 2 9 1995 Maw couMER and submit it to the City. Ile City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. W'ith a signed copy of this form, the applicant should also submit a vicinity map or plot plan for individual lots of the parcel with enough detail that City staff can find and identify the subject parcel(s). In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assist staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. I have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below). Owner I Applicant: Robert Hoffman Name 2525 186th Place Southeast Street Address hothell, WA.98012 (206)488-2727 Cli VState, ZIP Phone 6S4igntuire Applicant Representative: Triad Associates/Phil Kitzes Nam 11814 115th Avenue Northeast Street Address Kirkland,WA.98034 (206)821-8448 City, State, ZIP Phone 8. 2.4.5'S 9SiturCe44---- Date CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221 7 1 rg�� HEARING EXAMINER -s- t FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPELLANT: Robert Hoffman CASE NO.: V 96-91 LOCATION: . : 20623 88th Avenue West (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). APPLICATION: Variance to reduce the required street 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. REVIEW PROCESS: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance width Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85.010 (VARIANCE). b. Compliance with Edmonds. Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation Hearing Examiner Decision: PUBLIC HEARING: Denial Partial approval with conditions 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 9:15 a.m., August 28, 1996, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and * closed at 9:45 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the 'hearing is available in the Planning Division. Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-91 Page 2 HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City: Steve Bullock, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report (Exhibit A). He noted that there were steep slopes on the western slope and that there was a hammerhead at the end of 207th. It was noted that the hammerhead is located on the west side of the right-of-way. He noted that a variance had been granted for a reduction of setback and increased height on Lot I immediately adjacent to this lot. He indicated that Lot 2 can get access from 88th from the access easement serving lot 3. Therefore, Staff recommended denial of the request.. From the Applicant: Dean Read, Architect, representing the applicant stated that they felt the request was justified for the following reasons: The house built without a variance will not be compatible with the adjacent neighborhood or the house on the adjacent lot which received a variance. • From 207th you will only see the upper part of the roof. He noted that because of the topography of the site, the roof of this building with the height variance would be lower than that approved on Lot 1. • The driveway from the easement from 88th will be awkward and difficult to enter and exit due to the double slopes. More large evergreen trees will need to be removed. Paul Stromme, Stromme Construction, who will be building these homes indicated that he felt the two homes would be more compatible built with access from 267 and with the same relationship to the cul-de-sac. He noted that there had been no neighborhood opposition From the Community: No Comments were received. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a. Facts: 1) Size: The total size of the subject property is 12,621. 2) Land Use: The subject property is currently undeveloped, surrounding development consists of single family dwellings (see Exhibit A, Attachments I and 3). Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-91 Page 3 3) Zoning: - The subject property is zoned RS-12 (single residential family with a mi n-imum 12,000 square foot lot size requirement) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). 4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property slopes from the west to east with the greatest slope closest to the west property line. Vegetation consists of several trees and native grasses. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a. Fact: 1) The adjacent properties to the north, south, east, and west are currently zoned as single-family (RS-12) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). 2) The adjacent properties to the east, north, and south are currently developed as single-family homes. t 3. History a. Facts: 1) The following is a chronological account of the development of Mr. Hoffmans property. • September 22, 1995. Robert Hoffinan appliesfor a 4-lot short plat. • November 3, 1995. Staff conducts a public hearing on the proposed 4!- lot short plat. The Hearing Officer approved the short plat with the conditionsfirom, the Engineering Division noted on Exhibit A, Attachment 5 of the Preliminary Review of the Proposed Short Subdivision.. December 4, 1995. Mr. Hoffinan rescinds his applicationfor a 4- lot short plat (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). e December 12, 1995. Mr. Hoffinan appliesfor a 4-lot short plat, with modifications for lots 1 and 2. @ February 29, 1996 Mr. Hoffinan appeals the hearing officers decision. * April 15, 1996. The Hearing Examiner denies the appeal. * April 24, 1996. Mr. HQffinan requests a reconsideration of the Hearing Examiners decision. * May 1, 1996. The Hearing Examiner denies the requestfor reconsideration. B. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE - a. Facts: 1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development in a RS- 12 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-91 Page 4 2) Except for the requested street and height setback alterations, the existing development conforms to all RS-12 requirements (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3). b. Conclusion: The proposal complies with the development standards for the RS-12 zone as set forth in Chapter 16.30, with the exception of the street and height setbacks. 2. Compliance with requirement for a Variance ECDC Chapter 20.15B. 1 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 Exhibit A, Attachment 2). a. Facts: 1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These criteria include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted; the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; I the proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum necessary. 2) Variances may be used to modify bulk standards. They may not be used to modify use or procedural requirements. 3) The standard width for bike paths is eight feet. 4) The adjacent right-of-way is on the Comprehensive Bikeway Plan. 5) The applicant is requesting a 5-foot street setback and a maximum height of 36-feet. 6) The applicant states in his declarations that steep slopes on the property make construction of a driveway difficult, and that special circumstances exist because the improved portion of the right of way is between 20 and 25 feet from the street property line for lot 2. The applicant also states that other property owners in the area have setbacks from the improved roadway of 25 to 30 feet. 7) The applicant also states that the home would be below the existing street which creates a hardship which other properties in the vicinity do' not have (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). 8) The applicant has stated that the proposal meets the minimum variance criteria because it will reduce the driveway slopes to a safe grade (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2).. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-91 Page 5 ' b. Conclusions: 1) Special Circumstances (a) Street Setback request: The applicant's property has steep slopes which mayexceed 35% in some places. Although the applicant could take access off the easement from 88th Avenue West, the double slope of the easement and the driveway will make safe access problematic. The driveway also may still exceed 14% which is inconsistent with City standards. Locating the home in this area will preserve existing trees, which is consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. It appears that special circumstances exist due to topography, compatibility with the neighborhood and adjacent home,' and tree preservation, and therefore the applicant should be provided some relief from the setback requirements of the ECDC. (b) Height Variance request: Although the applicant could take access off 88th Avenue West, homes along 207'h Place Southwest are two stories and the applicant's request is consistent with development along that street and the adjacent home on Lot 1. ' Therefore, it appears that special circumstances exist due to topography, and therefore the applicant should be provided some relief from the setback requirements of the ECDC. 2) Special Privilege (a) Street Setback request: Although other property owners on 88th Avenue West or 207th Place Southwest do not have setbacks of less than 25 feet from the property lines as the applicant has proposed, they do not have the situation of a hammerhead which is located on the opposite side of the right of way. It does not appear that any special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this * variance in that other properties in the same zone with similar street circumstances would also qualify for a variance (See Exhibit A, Attachment 2). (b) Height Variance request: It does not appears that any special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that other properties in the same zone with similar circumstances would also qualify for a variance (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). 3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan (a) Street Setback request: Approval of the variance would allow for the continued development of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the * Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). The Comprehensive Plan supports the retention of existing trees and the applicant would have a greater opportunity to do so if the application were approved. (b). Height Variance request: Approval of the variance would allow for the continued development of the site in a manner consistent with Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-91 Page 6 the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site. 4) Not Detrimental (a) Street Setback request: As proposed, approval of the street setback would potentially be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2) since the City may choose to locate a bicycle path in the right-of-way and a home situated 5-feet from the property line may pose a safety hazard to the home owners and cyclists. However, if the setback were increased to 8 feet, then sufficient distance between autos and bicyclists would exist. (b) Height Variance request: Approval of the height variance does -not appear to be detrimental to surrounding property owners or the general public. 5) Minimum Required (a) Street Setback request: If the setback were expanded to 8 feet, then the variance would be the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.. (b) Maximum Height request: The variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. C. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE 1. Review by City Departments a. Fact: No comments were submitted by other departments. D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) - I . a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Large Lot". b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. 2. a. ' Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Developme . nt 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 approa . ched realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in accordance with, the following policies:" Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-91 Page 7 (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. DECISION Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is partially approved, subject to the following conditions: I . This variance is to allow the proposal in the location identified on the proposed site plan for Lot 2 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4), however the residence must be set back from the street at least 8-feet. Any other structures, additions or remodels would have to conform with the typical setbacks or height requirements for the zone or obtain another variance. All trees around the house and in the right-of-way shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. 2. The residence shall not exceed 36.0 feet in height as measured from average grade. 3. 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. 4. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction. 5. The pem-iit is transferable. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-91 Page 8 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. Rob4AV ert Burke Hearing Examiner Pro Tern 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. 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. 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 shalt 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. 0 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-91 Page 9 EXB11BITS: The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with attachments B. Copies of viewfoils utilized by applicant to illustrate testimony PARTIEES OF RECORD: Dean Read Paul Stromme Planning Division Dean Read Architects Stromme Construction Engineering Division 8004 S.E. 30th 9623 - 84 Avenue N.E. Fire Department Mercer Island, WA 98040 Seattle, WA 98115 Parks Department Public Works Department PLANNING DATA NAME:- C-ad/5 -r. SITE ADDRESS: 766 7 L-,j DATE: ?,-4(-1 -7 ZONING: k5 PLAN CHK#:— PROJECT DESCRIPTION: :5 CORNERLOT A10 (Yes/No) SETBACKS: Required Setbacks: Front: 8"' Left Side: 10 Right Side: 10 Rear: ?- Actual Setbacks: Front: Y' LeftSide: Z1r RightSide: /0 Rear: 51'-)� Street map checked for additional setback required? y (Yes/No) LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED (Y/N) LOT COVERAGE: Maximum Allowed: -3 rfo Actual: BUILDING HEIGHT: Maximum Allowed: Actual Height: 36 Datum Point: Datum Elevation: 7-0 SUBDIVISION: CRITICAL AREAS #: SEPA DETERMINATION: LOT AREA: r7, A4.- 5ee- OTHER:. V - fe- -9t Plan Review By: 0 �O\ APPROV By �e�' 7 LANNING ex'RE T FILE IRA. f PRO, IL 144W e-l-OeMp" -7:F 4617 .5 A 5; ((Wl- 7 C� A4 CV --GP !,S7 741\ z2v "Now- 7V >0000 ®r, .0 N ENGINEERING ROUTETO On Back i 115/q-\Add? Total Days ---Nailed RESUB #1 ON TO Back Add? Total Days_____Mailed RESUB #2 ON TO Back Add? —Total Days_____Nai1ed 1. SitelDrainage Plan &.Calcs- OK Corrections Required Received 2. Grading Plan/Calcs/CYG SEPA? 0 K 6 3, Driveway Slope % 13 Profile 4. Truck Route Plan .OK--,----- -r, 5. Street Dedication?— IVA FEET 6. EasementAe--jType,#0—,,,AwA6e olc,� OTHER COMMENTS: 511T / 71-ull;o 5,yok, 7-,sl�47- 4. 5. (5 5- - t,!� 3-' PW REVIEW Date Sent 07 Back FIRE REVIEW Date Sent Back PLANNING REVIEW TIME TOTAL DAYS *** ENG REVIEW TIME TOTAL DAYS FIRE DEPT REVIEW TIME TOTAL DAYS*** PW REVIEW BUILDING DEPT REVIEW TIME: In -House Outside . TOTAL DAYS TOTAL DAYS ORDINANCE COMPLETION DATE COMPLETION DATE TOTAL REVIEW TIME DAYS I I PERMIT# ISSUE DATE *CONTACT PERSON STATEMENT* BY SIGNING TEIIS FORM I UNDERSTAND THAT I AM THE ACKNOWLEDGED CONTACT PERSON FOR THIS PROJECT. IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO COORDINATE ALL SUBMITTALS WrM THE CITY AND ONLY I CAN -MAKE INQUIRIES ON THE STATUS OF TBE PERMIT. I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE IN ADVANCE OF PERMIT SUBMITTAL ANY DISCRETIONARY PERMITS THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO TIIIS PROJECT. I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT TO THE BEST OF My ABILITY I HAVE SUBMITTED ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION IN ORDER TO MAKE A COMMETE APPLICATION. . - '094 / & ?.7 S464---�- Date Maiting Address dontact Person (Print Clearly) Phone Number FAX Number R0U7ED001/reMpA3ld91Forxns-5/96 PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMETa-S TPrI711 To: Applicant S, From: Jamal.Mahmoud, Engineering Inspector Owner: rO vli C-OK SJ - Plan Check No:q-J— Address:--:;2 z A.- �2 Date: L-i / 9 : L21- - ----- : ---- -9- -- - — ---- ---------- -------- After review of the subject permit application, the following requirements must be met: 1. Construction hours are: WEEKDAYS - 7:00 A.rvL-10:00 P.rvL;WEEKENDS/HOLEI)AYS - 10:00 A-ryt-6:00 PAL 2. A separate RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT is required for all work on public property. (ECDC 18.60) 3. Truck haul route plan must be submitted and approved prior to permit issuance. 4. Builder/owner is responsible for containing all temporary runoff and erosion control on site (ECDC 18.30.030d). 5. NO WORK SHALL BE DONE WITHIN 15 FEET OF STREAMS OR 10 FEET FROM ANY CLOSED DRAINAGE FACILITY. BUILDER/OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IDENTIFYING CONDITIONS ON THE DRAWING. (ECDC 18.30.50G) 6. FILTER FABRIC FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO CLEARING AND CONSTRUCTION. (ECDC 18.30) 7. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED ON STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, TIGHTLINES AND CATCH BASIN INSTALLATION. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. (ECDC 18.30) 8. Repair or replace all defective existing curb, gutter and sidewalk adjacent to the property. If an intersection is involved, a handicap ramp may be required. Contractor shall meet with the City Engineering staff to determine the extent of repair prior to issuance of the permit. (ECDC 18.90) 9. Driveway slope shall not exceed 14% without a waiver. Every attempt should be made to keep the slope below 14%. Waiver granted to (ECDC 18.80.960D) .5 �LeAcltc� " lul- clilx C l 0. Driveways must be paved from' property fine to City RIGHT-OF-WAY. A separate permit is required. (ECDC 18.80.060C) 11. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED ON DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS PRIOR TO AND AFTER POURING. (ECDC 18.30) 12. No burning of construction refuse without a permit from the Fire Department. 13. Connection to City water system is required. There is a separate charge for the water meter (ECDC 7.20). 14. A back water valve is required if downstaiis plumbing is below the elevation of upstream manhole. (ECDC 7.20) 15. Water and sewer main lines should be separated by 10 feet minimum. (ECDC 18.10) 16. Connection to the City sanitary system is required. A separate permit is required. LID# Fees paid: Yes— No Charge (ECDC 18.10) 17. Underground wiring is required on all new construction, and for additions, alterations, and repairs that exceed 50% of the total assessed value of the structure. (ECDC 18.90) 18. A FINAL ENGINEERING INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE BUILDING DIVISION GRANTING OCCUPANCY OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. (ECDC 18.90) PR?.ffAPP.DM k. NI�P 11 all I I ..... ..... ....... . . . . . 123 -x Matti -no -11 . . . . . . . . . . Mc",, 0 goo.'m to BE 77 T: "'7 4�,i ism .1 PON, leter Size MUM V-, ru . 00 QUO R4A4w-4bpv4p4F%p Ab" 2P vxAg V f1r.- p R.Pope—, in rip Ire Fk, So! ok ;i -37(21" -0 --- ft u -,,IV /,pop 41 Z7 137 Y,(W'+ Z;7'+I&r) I I&C-1w -3-72! 44, -3-7 :=4- YP�% NO .7D rAd, "cu F Z -r spaeur 54 c;-e c.&,LzuLA-tTcr.-js o%�tov, 4 Fi Le A vx� 'Pewoftim.4") e- 76;2�c� + 2.7 20AA-tu-)I� S E C T 10 N .(4) WK i s 'Ae ^T Cr- Z7 74, 11P91 MZP. Wl-M M-ekrTW--,(-` AV6) & cm P-Kl4GTtC- Air-pftot.T - 40e.Aeaff MA4q 00 X: Doc, a@ IL S E C T 10 N 'cia S. E- C T 10 N is, x S5 1 ACeA OWOKAM) = 2-3-[a, CF eot.w-, t:-c&. llaA-mll (24-"Prv. W w'C*) w ZCf Y,0,9'+ 14:4'47142) = 6+6f: -roTbtL ""V( V7 I YES. ON rmVF"=rr: 13�-55 'e-to"YP-G' 6H.-. Pp.-Opo=ly cFp pevrWaY'. f;&A-4j4,Yvs r9cpvwxy.' Z5,64irxct t.bCM;?JOF, OFILL-�'A-r P�WMWAf 9544WA&ATZON5 F2 [Lt." Ff,04 FCcf, L498 U7 6*CA64 'o 10'X ='X 5 cmr 00 e-F i(F-i(-L Fle.OM FW, L.41,,* 'M arpWr: =I y, 2z'K o, var6W.) -A 11,462. OF jWl3t4OX-"FlLV'1&A4AC^F-: 2f-'X-!v.OlX7,5'6wmme-)= Tor,c4- RF-tu-sK at-i rmfel?-ry.l 4-,4.ob c-r- z 1 414, YP5 OFF ffa-q—"M'qr OCUT" &AW,6,91cZ*wl- PKW" AitMk - * I' K z z� 9 J'pEwp 6Wa'.) - (otSZ e-r-Z7 cu Vps. effE Pgopene-tY'. jCo.2jr7 �E!�4�Cr vxcvp-MAFtLe Ar Itf-ILL" Fleem PgcfWeaY WHY TO &AZA1,9 JVY, 12 .76, -CP OFILU4 peom ppom=y Ums To, '�Twes-r"* I zly% zp"A S'(P ir 717 -2 C F INIMOM "r-lLL"/&A-e-W: ='K IZ'X 6 �= at It 2 CIP Fr-rAL I oN pgqweiy 2-,T a4- er- —.' z -1 -v 1 5; cm - Y05�, Otrf PgcPgw--4Y 5-7 & CP -J; Z 2- �S A4, rpS, Ctfr" CALLWA-nOW6 61E� CJA. YC>S, 9 1 V Ae-.GrA: -53K I Z' X I'C6KP 0 4 2-7 = 1.4,6(, ew. ypr, eA4 s YC;!�; e*4 Er'ofmp-Tyl 1-95.1-7614.yp; N Tor :0 �P'WAWC U 144 9 [IV I- qkw- Tit 03 Mr. -Of WAIN allaimpmE IAI fir WAS A-!., oreLA - w Aw-m-m OIL- 0�1 ; or__- 2ULSM—si a%= zw. P—j %=I dip UK t 7�_ITY�710F EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION a: W G ADDRESS Z All A)I;' 0 3 CITY ZIP TELEPH!ONE NUMBER d1f ADDR E SS CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER 9.2 ADDRESS ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER CITY ZIP 41e,14 �el"f e' EXPIRAT ON DATE STATE LICENSE NUMBER 'pt . of Prop inZrude all easement Legal Descriptioon OT vroperty - 10I USE PERMIT BER ori-0 t.-rb JOB M: 19V APT ADDRESS .20& Z3 47ar LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHECKTSUBDIVISION NO. ID NO. ZoT 7-' - 1-275-174 PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP. TESCP Approved 0 RW Permit Required. 13 EXISTING - RE.UIRED DEDICATION Street Use Permit Req'd 11 Inspection Required PROPOSED Sidewalk Required X0 cc W ME:j:Ej:6 SIZE 1.11 :,:11ZE NO. OF F �IES 1, PRVeE UIRED JQ , 114 31AI 1. (116;1 1 Y!A NC� 0 REMA KS — ) 1, L) V I' , L-q ( rd Propeny Tax Account I IV - Parcel No._* 10RESIDENTIAL 900pLUMBINGIMECH Lt!fNEW ADDITION COMMERCIAL", COMPLIANCE OR CHANGE OF USE E] REMODEL APT. BLDG. SIGN EIREPAIR CYDS. FENCE I_ x _FT) WOODSTOVE DEMOLISH INSERT SWIM POOL HOT TUB/SPA ARAGE RETAINING WALL/ RENEWAL GA"FoRip ROCKERY (TYPE OF USE. SINESS OFyACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: F NUMBER NUMBER OF OF 011) DWELLING 0��AREAS CRITICAL KII IKARIPP STORIES Woe— UNITS L DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PL N) rx. �� av Z-2- T . SIGN AREA SEPA REVIEW ADB NO. ALLOWED PROPOI COMPLETE EXEMPT I SHORELINE N EXP VARIANCE OR CU PLANNING REVIEW BY xl� DATE V- 56 - cil `(-f SETBACKS — FEET HEIGHT COVERAGE FRONT SIDE 0 REAR r I -30/ 1LOT il-71 BY JTYPE OF CONSTKUUIIVT4 , SPECIAL INSPECTOR I cc LIPAN L REQUIRED %-/ IOAD REMARKS . - 0 PROGRESS INSPECTIONS 108 POW ZV FINAL INSPECTION REOUIRED VALUATION PLAN CHECK FEE BUILDING GLAZING % PLUMBING 'I Plan CheCk No. IF ONLY. This Permit covers wor tb be done on private property ONLY. RADINGIFILL G . , Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sidewelks, ------- driveways, . marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. STATESURCHARGE Permit Application: 180 Days STORM ID RAINAGE FEE Permit Limit: I Year - Provided Work Is Started Within 180 Days .. FEE "Applicant of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and ENG. INSPECT -ION successors in interest, agrees to indemnity, defend and hold Edmonds, Washington, its Officials, harmless the city of employees, and agents from a,ny and all claims for damages of indirectly from the Issuance Zzu-4 (r e, arising directly or whatever natur of this permit shall not be deemed to PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT of this permit. issuance modify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance nor lim it in any way the City's ability)to enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE provision." I hereb this application; thiVthe.. y acknowlepAe I have'reab ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL' islcdrrrcl�and that I am the owner, or th i d ly 4' 1 information given 1. authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with cl . THIS PERMIT This application is not a permit until' state laws regulating construction; and in doing the work aut, rl - be employed Oiviblation of the Labor AUTHORIZES ONLY THE signed by the Building Official or his/her Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is ed thereby, no person will Code of the State of Washington relating 0 Wwkmen's Compensa- WORK NOTED acknowledged in space provided. tion Insurance and RCW 18.27- — DATE 51 INSPECTION DEPARTMENT. ' S VFIE DA E 7;/ 1 17,7 CITY OF OFFICI 1)7A EDMONDS I CALL FOR R E D ATTENTION INSPECTION IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR 771-0220 ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspector UNTIL A FINAL A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor SECTION 109 102-07