20625 88TH AVE W.pdfLul
0
Z I--
Lu LU
C3
0
a
LU
LL 0
Z
0
Z
XA
NCAMINU CAAMINLK
4Z S t so") 4&,
A44.ij'�. 0 '? ':� 1*11 ' '�' .5
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION ",9Sq
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPLICANT: Robert Hoffman
CASE NO.: V-96-90
LOCATION: 20625 88th Avenue West
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 31.7-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:
Partial approval with conditions
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 Hoffman application was opened at 9:04, August 15, 1996, in the Plaza Room,
Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:38 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.
e Incorporated August 11, 1890 9
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
a
0
U) LL
UJ 0
M�l
C2 -J,
LL.
Ln
0
Z �-
UJ Ui
M =)
5 a!
U cn,
0-
0 �-
LJJ LU
3:
Z�
UJ Cl)
0
z
I
t 0
(J'-
HEARING COMMENTS:
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 96-90
Page 2
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.
From the City:
Kirk Vinish, A1CP, Project Planner, reviewed the staff advisory report (Exhibit A) and
recommended partial approval of the request, with conditions.
From the Applicant:
Dean Read, Architect for the Applicant, said the variance was requested because of the
topography of the property. He agreed with the staff report and the recommended
conditions of approval. He said the variance would allow the house to be built to a height
of 22 feet above the level of the street. He noted that other houses in the neighborhood
are up to 25 feet above the street in height.
From the Community:
Robert King, Neighbor, said he was concerned about preserving the neighborhood theme
and asked if alternatives had been explored. He said it looked like the house could be
placed further back on the lot. Ile was concerned that the house would set forward on the
lot and not conform with others in the neighborhood. He was also concerned that this
could set a precedent to allow other variances along 88th Avenue West. He said he
understands this particular lot is steep, but he said the owner know that when he bought
the property and then subdivided it.
Response from the Applicant:
Paul Stomme, Agent for the Applicant, said that Mr. Ying is focusing on lot 2 and this
request is for lot 1. 1h He said alternatives were considered but access can only safely be
achieved from 207 and then with a variance. This house will be part of the 207'h St.
S.W. streetscape, and there will be no access on 88 1h Avenue West. He also said there is
no similarity between these lots and lots to the north along 88h Avenue West.
Dean Read said that each variance must meet specific criteria so this will not set a
precedent.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Two letters were submitted and both objected to the request for a variance. One letter
opposed both the height and setback variance requests, expressed concerns about possible
encroachment on the city right-of-way, and felt the home if built and proposed would
represent a definite degeneration to the esthetics of their lots as well as to the 88th Avenue
corridor (see Exhibit A, Attachment 7).
The other letter focused on the project description in the public notification (see Exhibit B).
Note: Two applications were submitted. However, the City acknowledged that file
number V 96-91 was improperly noticed and therefore no hearing was held on that
application. The hearing was only held on file number V 96-90, which was given proper
notice.
0
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 96-90
Page 3
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
I. Site Development And Zoning:
a. Facts:
1) Size: The total size of the subject property is 13,33 1.
2) Land Use: The subject property is currently undeveloped, surrounding
development consists of single fan-dly dwellings (see Exhibit A,
Attachments 3 and 4).
3) Zoning: - The subject property is zoned RS-12 (sinile residential
family with a minimum 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. Facts:
1) The adjacent properties to the north, south, east, and west and are
currently zoned as single-family (RS-12) (see Exhibit A, Attachments
1).
2) The adjacent properties to the east, north, and south are currently
developed as single-family homes.
3. History
a. Facts:
1) The following is a chronological account of the development of Mr.
Hoffman's property.
a) September 22, 1995. Robert Hoffinan appliesfor a 4-lot short plat.
b) November 3, 1995. Staff conducts a public hearing on the
proposed 4-lot shortplat. The Hearing Officer approved the short
plat with the conditionsfrom the Engineering Division noted on
Exhibit A, Attachment 5 of the Preliminary Review of the Proposed
Short Subdivision..
c) December 4, 1995. Mr. Hoffinan rescinds his applicationfor a 4-
lot short plat (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2).
d) December lZ 1995. Mr. Hojfinan appliesf
or a 4-lot short plat,
with modiftcationsfor lots I and 2.
Z
F-
U) -�
y) LU,
LU
U) LL
W 0
2 �
a
LL
LD
X UJ
�- 3:
Z �-,
;7
Z
LU UJ
U)i
0 ;7-
a
W UJI
Z
LU U)
Uy
0
Z
to
. . . . . . . . ..
C.?
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 96-90
Page 4
e) February 29, 1996. Mr. Hoffinan appeals the hearing officers
decision.
J) April 15, 1996. The Hearing Examiner denies the appeal.
g) April 24, 1996. Mr. Hoffinan requests a reconsideration of the
Hearing Examiners decision.
h) May 1, 1996. The Hearing Examiner denies the requestfor
reconsideration.
B. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE
1. a. Facts:
1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential
development in a RS-12 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030.
2) Except for the requested street and height setback alterations, the
existing development conforms to all RS-12 requirements (see Exhibit
A, Attachment 4).
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. 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 Exhibit A, Attachment 2).
a. Facts:
1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which
a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing
Examiner. These criteria include: a special circumstance must exist;
no special privilege is granted; the proposal is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the proposal will not be
detrimental and is the minimum necessary.
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 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 1. 'The
0
-J
C/)
U) uj�
LL;
VJ Lt. I
LLJ 0
LL
LU LU
0)
0
a �-
UJ LLA
z
LU (n
0
z
01
12
1: -1 #U
4FF Cant SO Mama at o er property owners in me area nave
setbacks from the improved roadway of 25 to 30 feet
6) The applicant states that the home would be below the existing street
which creates a hardship which other properties in the vicinity do not
have.
7) The applicant has stated that the proposal meets the minimum variance
criteria because it will reduce the driveway slopes to a safe grade.
8) If the applicant is granted a height variance it does not appear that the
residence will impact neighboring views or cast shadows on
neighboring properties.
b. Conclusions:
1) Special Circumstances
(a) Street Setback request: The applicants property has steep slopes,
which may exceed 35% in some places. Driveways may not exceed
14% slope without approval from the Engineering Division. The City
prefers all other options to be explored before allowing a driveway to
exceed 14%. The most reasonable access would be on 80th Avenue
West where it intersects with 207th Place Southwest. Additionally,
locating the home in this area will preserve existing trees, which is
consistent with objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, it
appears that special circumstances exist due to topography and tree
preservation, and therefore the applicant should be provided some
relief from the setback requirements of the ECDC.
b) Maximum Height request: The applicants property has steep
slopes, which exceed 35% in some places. The applicant will be
taking access off of 207th Place Southwest. Homes along 207th Place
Southwest are two stories and the applicants request is consistent with
development along that street. 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: It does not appear that any special
privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that other
properties in the same zone with similar circumstances would also
qualify for a variance (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2).
b) Maximum Height request: It does not appear that any special
privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that other
properties in the same zone with similar circumstances would also
qualify for a variance (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2).
-7,3
C",
Uase No. V 96-9U
Page 6
Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan
(a) Street Setback request: Approval of the proposed subdivision
Z
<
modification would allow for the continued development of the site in
X
a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the
CC
< :D,
Comprehensive Plan designation of the site (see Exhibit A,
UJ L);
01
Attachment 2).
0:
,n Lu;..:
V)
(b) Maximum Height request: Approval of the proposed subdivision
LU
_J
modification would allow for the continued development of the site in
U) U.
LU 0
a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the
2 �
Comprehensive Plan designation of the site (see Exhibit A,
C2
Attachment 2).
LL
T)
3. Not Detrimental
Lu�
(a) Street Setback request: As proposed approval of the street setback
Z
variance would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare
�- 0
Z
(see Exhibit A, Attachment 2) because the City may choose to locate a
bicycle path in the right-of-way and a home situated 5-feet from the
0
property line may pose a safety hazard to the home owners and
0
a F-
cyclists. However, if the setback were expanded to 8-feet then
LU Lu�
sufficient distance between autos and bicyclists would exist.
1: Ly
LL 8�;
(b) Maximum Height request: The variance as conditionally approved,
Z
will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and
01
the same zone.
Z
4. 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.
0
C. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
1. Review by City Departments
a. Fact: No comments were submitted by other departments.
D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC)
0
1. a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Large Lot".
b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing
Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site.
2. a. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section,
identifies goals and policies which relate to "Residential Development" in
the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below.
0
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 96-90
Page 7
(1)
Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality
residential development which is appropriate to the diverse
Z
lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and
ZA
prom oted. The options available to the City to influence
LU.
the quality of housingfor all citizens should be approached
realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic
LU
-J
U01
consideration, in accordance with the following policies:
(n 0i
U) LU
(2)
Policy B.I. states, "Encourage those building custom
X'11�
homes to design and construct homes with architectural
rn LL
lines which enable them to harmonize with the
W 0
surroundings, adding to the community identity and
M �
desirability.
a -J
U. <
(3)
Policy B.2. states, "Protect neighborhoods from
T Of
incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not
= W.
�- X:
harmonize with existing structures.
Z
(4)
Policy B.3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view of
Z
existing homes by new construction or additions to existing
Ui UJ!
structures.
(2)
Page 31, subsection B.5.0 states, "Stable property values
0—.
a L.
must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use
LU
encroachments.
b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the above adopted
Z;;
goals and policies of the City for the development of residential property in the
di
city.
0
Z
DECISION
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, this application is partially approved and
shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. This variance is to allow the proposal in the location identified on the proposed site plan
(see Exhibit A, Attachment 4), however the residence must be set back from the street 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 east of
the house shall be retained to the extent possible.
0
2. The residence shall not exceed 31.7 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.
to 4. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction.
5. The permit is transferable.
0
F-
Z
LU
<
LU
—J
W
LU
-J
0
LU
LL <
31
C)
LIJ.
F- 3:
0
Z �-
LU UJ
Q
UJ
z
LLJ U)
0
z
ME
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 96-90
Page 8
Entered this 21st day of August, 1996, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
under Chapter 20. 100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
Ron McConnell
Hearing Examiner
RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and
appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should
contact the Planning Department for further procedural information.
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.
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 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.
a
0 0
..... . ......
4
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 96-90
Page 9
EXHIBITS:
Z
The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record.
I-- jBi
A. Planning Division Advisory Report
LU U1
I. Vicinity Zoning Map
U 0!
2. Applicant declarations
(n
tn wi
3. Application
LU X!
4. Site Plan and Elevations
Ln U0
5. Photo's of site and surrounding properties
6. Hearing Examiners Decision, dated 4/15/96
7. Letter from James & Martine Allen, dated 8n196
U.
W CO
B. Letter from Heinz Gassert, dated 8/14/96
W
Z
PARTIES oF RECORD:
Z
LU Ujt
7L
2 M1
Robert Hoffman James and Martine Allen
", ��": ,
5
0 ;7-
2525 186'h Place S.E. 473181" Place S.W.
a
Bothell, WA 98012 Mukilteo, WA 98275
Uj Uj
L.L
Paul Stromme Dean Read
Z
9623 8h Avenue N.E. 8004 S.E. 30'h
Seattle, WA 98115 Mercer Island, WA 98040
0
Z
Heinz Gassert Planning Division
1947 N.W. 95"' Engineering Division
Seattle, WA 98117 Fire Department
Parks Department
Public Works Department
0
Z
UJ
cc
-J
0
(n LU
LU
(n L.L
0.
LLJ
LL
T)
Lu.
Z
�- 0
Z �-
LU W
L)
0—
U11
L)
Z
LU (1)
L)
Z
1'0
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
DVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Td. Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner
From: e'l'.-d
Kirk J. Viffish, AICP
Project Planner
Date: AUGUST 9,1996
File: V-96-90
ROBERT HOFFMAN
Hearing Date, Time, And Place: Augustl5,l996,At9:00AhJ
Plaza Room - Edmonds Library
650 Main Street
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION ........................... : ............................................................................................ 2
A. Application ...................................................................................................................... 2
B. Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 2
11. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................. I ......................... 2
A. Site Description ............................................................................................................... 2
B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance ................................... 3
C. Technical Committee .............................................................. I ........................................ 5
D. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) ......................................................................................... 5
111. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS ................................................ I ........... i .................... 6
A. Request for Reconsideration ........................................................................................... 6
B. Appeals ............................................................................................................................ 6
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL ............................................................. ............................................. 6
V. APPENDICES .................................................. .......................................................................... 7
VI. PARTIES OF RECORD ................................................................... ............... .................... 7
V96-90.DOC /August 9. 1996/StaffReport
0
L3
I b:"
R,
�: A�� "�""
-4. F-
=Z-
�— UJ
LU
-J
U 0
W
V)
W
.-I
(n LLi
01
LU
cc
LL
Cn
—0,
LU
Z 1--
�- 0
Z 1--
W LU
U
0-1
LUI
U
LL 0
Z
LU tn
0
Z
Z 0
Robert Hoffrnan
File No. V-96-90
Page 2 of 7
I. INTRODUCTION
A. ADDlication
B.
A.
1. Appell : Robert Hoffinan (see Attachment 2).
2. Site Location: 20614 - 20628 86th Place West (see Attachment 1).
3. Reguest: 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
31.7-feet for the construction of a new single-family residence
4. Review Process: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final
decision.
5. 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).
Recommendations
Based on statements of Fact Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend partial
approval of this appeal.
1. This variance is to allow the proposal in the location identified on the proposed site plan (see
Attachment 4), however the residence must be setback from the street 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 east of the house shall be
retained to the extent possible.
2. The residence shall not exceed 31.7 feet in height as measured from average grade.
3. Ibis 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.
4. The permit should be transferable.
H. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
Site Description
1. Site Development And Zoning:
a) FACU:
(1) 51a: The total size of the subject property is 13,331.
(2) Land Us : The subject property is currently undeveloped, surrounding development
. consists of single family dwellings (see Attachments 3 and 4).
(3) Zoning: - The subject property is zoned RS-12 (single residential family with a
minimum 12,000 square foot lot size requirement) (see Attachment 1).
a
177-
4
Robert Hoffman
File No. V-96-90
Page 3 of 7
(4) Isrrain and Vegetati n: The subject property slopes from the west to east with the
i
greatest slope closest to the west property line. Vegetation consists of several trees
and native grasses.
Z !I
< i.-:
I
M Z-
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
LU
cc
a) Eack:
0
a
(1) The adjacent properties to the north, south, east� and west and are currently zoned as
Cn LU
single-family (RS- 12) (see Attachments 1).
U)
LU
(2) The adjacent properties to the east, north, and south are currently developed as
Cn LL!
Ui 01
single-family homes.
3. History
LL <
a.) Facts:
(1) The following is a chronological account of the development of Mr. Hoffinan's
Z i--
property.
1-0
Z 1--
(a) September 22, 1995. Robert Hoffman appliesfor a 4-Iot short plat.
W LU
(b) November3,1995. Staff conducts a public hearing on the proposed 4-Iot short
plat The Hearing Officer approved the shortplat with the conditionsfroin the
0
Engineering Division noted on Attachment 5 ofthe Preliminary Review of the
0
LU
Proposed Short Subdivision..
(c) December 4, 1995. Mr. Hoffman rescinds his applicationfor a 4-Iot shortplat
LL 0
(see Attachment 2).
Z
UJ a)
(d) December IZ 1995. Mr. Hoffman appliesfor a 4-Iot short plat, with
modificationsfor lots I and Z
0
(e) February 29, 1996. Mr. Hoffman appeals the hearing officers decision.
Z
69 April 15, 1996. The Hearing Examiner denies the appeal.
(g) April 24, 1996. Mr. Hoffman requests a reconsideration ofthe Hearing
Examiners decision.
(h) May 1, 1996 The Hearing Examiner denies the requestfor reconsideration.
B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
a) FAck:
(1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development
in a RS-12 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030.
0
(2) Except for the requested street and height setback alterations, the' existing
development conforms to all RS-12 requirements (see Attachment 4).
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
t 0
ECDC Chapter 20.15B.180.A, states an applicant may request a variance from the standards
of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances).
Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may
be varied on a case -by -case basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual
and unreasonable hardship (see Attachment 2).
Robert Hoffman
File No. V-96-90
Page 4 of 7
8) East:
(1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance
z it
request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These criteria
<
Z"
include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted; the
UJ
proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the
cc 2
proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum necessary.
UJ
-J
U 0
(2) Variances may be used to modify bulk standards. They may not be used to modify
U) 0
use or procedural requirements.
(n LU
LU X
-J �-
(3) 'Me standard width for bike paths is eight feet.
Cn LL�
(4) The adjacent right-of-way is on the Comprehensive Bikeway Plan.
LU
2
(5) The applicant states in his declarations that steep slopes on the property make
X
construction of a driveway difficult, and that special circumstances exist because the
L,
D
improved portion of the right of way is between 20 and 25 feet from the street
:C LU
property line for lot 1. The applicant also states that other property owners in the
J:
area have setbacks from the improved roadway of 25 to 30 feet
z F-
1.- 0
(6) The applicant states that the home would be below the existing street which creates a
z
UJ UJ
hardship which other properties in the vicinity do not have.
2 D
0
(7) The applicant has stated that the proposal meets the minimum variance criteria
in,
because it will reduce the driveway slopes to a safe grade.
F-
(8) If the applicant is granted a height variance it does not appear that the residence will
impact neighboring views or cast shadows on neighboring properties.
!L- 0
b) Conclusion
z
LU (n
U y
(1) Special !Circumstances
Iz-
(a) Street Setback request: The applicants property has steep slopes, which may
0
exceed M in some placet. Driveways may not exceed 14% slope without approval
from the Engineering Division. The City prefers all other options to be explored
before allowing a driveway to exceed 14%. The most reasonable access would be
on 80th Avenue West where it intersects with 207th Place Southwest. Additionally,
locating the home in this area w ill preserve existing trees, which is consistent with
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, it appears that special
circumstances exist due to topography and tree preservation, and therefore the
applicant should be provided some relief from the setback requirements of the
ECDC.
b) MaximumHeight request: The applicants property has steep slopes, which
exceed 35% in some places. The applicant will be taking access off of 207th Place
Southwest. Homes along 207th Place Southwest are two stories and the applicants
request is consistent with development along that street. 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) SU=kLEdy&U
(a) Street Setback request: It does not appear that any special privilege will be
to
demonstrated in granting this variance in that other properties in the same zone with
similar circumstances would also qualify for a variance (see Attachment 2).
b) Maximum Height request: It does not appear that any special privilege will be
demonstrated in granting this variance in that other properties in the same zone with
similar circumstances would also qualify for a variance (see Attachment 2).
V96-90.DOC August 9,1996 StalfReport
--. i.-
=Z-
I-- LU
Cr
<:D
LU
-J
U 0
Cn 0
Cn W
LU
_J
U) L.L
0
LU
LL
DI
Z 1--
�— 0
Z I--
UJ W
U in
LLJ Lul
LL 0
Z
LU Cl)
L) :F
�— i.—,
0
Z
t 0
C/
Robert Hoffinan
file No. V-96-90
Page 5 of7
Z ninLr Code and the Comprehensive Plan
(a) Street Setback request: Approval of the proposed subdivision modification
would allow for the continued development of the site in a manner consistent with
the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site
(see Attachment 2).
(b) Maximum Height request: Approval of the proposed subdivision modification
would allow for the continued development of the site in a manner consistent with
the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site
(see Attachment 2).
(3) Not Detrimental
(a) Street Setback request: As proposed approval of the street setback variance
would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare (see Attachment 2)
because 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 expanded to 8-fect then sufficient
distance between autos and bicyclists would exist.
(b) Maximum Height request: The variance as conditionally approved, will not be
significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone.
(4) Minimum Required
(a) Street Setback request: If the setback were expaned 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) FaSl: No comments were submitted by other departments.
D. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC)
a. F=: Ile subject property is designated as "Single Family Large Loe'.
b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing
Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site.
2. a. E=: 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 lifesoe of Edmonds
residents should be maintained and promoted The options available
to the City to influence the quality of housingfor all citizens should be
approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic
consideration, in accordance with thefollowingpolicies:
(2) Policy B. 1. states, "Encourage those building custom homes to design
and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to
V96-90.DOC/ August 9,1996 StWiteport
--. i.—
X Z.
LLJ
cr-
LU
-J
U 0
U) CI
En UJ
LU
(n LL i
0
LU
LL
Di
x LU
l— X
Z F-
F- 0
Z 1--
LU LU
tn
LU LUI
X U
�— r—
Lk- 0
Z
Lu cn
U H!
F-
0
Z
K 0
Robert Hoffinan
File No. V-96-90
Page 6 of 7
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
structurez
(4) Policy B.3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view ofexisting homes
by new construction or additions to existing structures. -
(2) Page 3 1, subsection B.S.0 states, "Stable property values must not be
threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments. "
b. Concluglion: The proposed development is consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of
the City for the development of residential property in the City.
III. RECONSEDERATIONS 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 ftirther 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.
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.'
M.
U) LL.
0
LU -
Lb a;
LL,
z
�- 0
Z �-
LU LU,
0
a ;7-1
LLJ li
u
U- 0
z
LU
0
z
m
nos
XXT
, Vicinity Map
2cc
OR
W
84
M-24
July 30, 1996 Dean Read Architects TAt # I
8004 SE 3e
Mercer Island, WA 98040
z
RECEIVED
:C z-
Planning Division
�- UJ
Cc 2
City of Edmonds, Planning Department JUL � 1 11998
<
LU L)
0
250 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020 PERWIT COUNTER
U) a
U) LU
W :C -
_J �- �
RE: A Request for a Variance for the Hoffinan Short Plat Located at the Intersection of
(n U.,
8e Avenue West & 207'h Place SW, Edmonds, Washington.
w0i
Triad Associates Job No. 83-152
Short Subdivision S-95-160.
T a
X W
Dear Planning Division:
3:
z �-
�_ 0
On behalf of our client, Mr. Robert Hoffman, Dean Read Architects is formally submit-
Z �-
ting a request for a variance for Lot 1 of a 4-lot residential plat in the city of Edmonds,
Washington. A Short Subdivision, S-95-160, was initially prepared and approved on the
0 f
above mentioned property. We are seeking a variance to reduce the front yard setback
;.
01
for Lot I to five feet, and a residential height modification to be twenty-five feet above
La
the adjacent street curb at the center line of the residence as facing the existing street.
U_ 0
The following information supports this variance proposal which we feel will provide a
.. z
safer alternative for the future residents, and to be more "streetscape" compatible with
UJ U)
207'h Place SW, which is the "knly' access neighborhood street to this property.
0
z
The front yard setback for property within the RS-12 Zone is twenty-five feet, respect-
fully. Lots land 2 of the short plat will have direct access onto 88h Avenue West at the
eastside of the street. Originally, 880'Avenue West was to be sixty feet wide and connect
to Main Street to the south. However, Public Works has agreed that 88th Avenue West
will most likely not be connected through to Main Street, thus not requiring any addi-
tional improvements. Therefore, part of the easterly half of the street dedication would
be used to satisfy the building setback requirements for this development. The
"streetscape" would be consistent with the existing conditions of the neighborhood and
reduce the impacts to the site. See enclosed plans and sheet No. 3, for the graphic illus-
0
tration of this point.
As stated in the city codes, a variance shall only be approved if a property owner can
prove undue hardship will result if strict interpretation of the codes is required. We feel
our situation does apply to these circumstances and have outlined the following informa-
tion on specific issues requested by the city which will be used to approve a variance ap-
t 0
plication.
J.
1. Special Circumstance. Lots I and 2 of the short plat will have direct access from
88th Avenue West which is within Local Improvements District No. 214 (LID 214). At
this time, 88h Avenue West does not continue south to Main Street (sight distance is a
ATTACHMENT 2
File No. V-96-90
Z-
LU
LJ D
_J U
U 0
to 0
Cn LU
LU
_J
Ln
LU
D
:C
Z
UJ
:E
D
LU
LL
LU
F_
0
Z
Ir
9
M
a
LLJ
0
R
LU
L01
1E
factor). Rattler, the road is terminated at two tum-a-round points within the right-of-way
and is the culmination of the neighborhood street of 207'b Place SW, and serves as a
hammerhead tum-a-round for police and fire vehicles. Along the street alignment, the
topography slopes approximately 5 to 8 percent from east to west, becoming gradually
steeper, 15 to 20 percent, moving easterly. Because of this condition, the terminus was
constructed mostly within the western half of the right-of-way to minimize grading im-
pacts to the area. Twenty-two feet of the easterly half of the right of way was left unde-
veloped.
The City has indicated the road will likely remain in its current state with no future right-
of-way improvements. The steep slope along the easterly portion of the road is a major
factor in their planning decision. Lots I and 2 will have direct access of the eastside of
88th Avenue West. In doing so, our client would like to follow the lead of the city and
reduce the grading impacts by pushing the development fill-ther west and the front yard
setback to five feet. The undeveloped twenty-two feet of the easterly half of the right-of-
way would be part of the front yard setback and would be consistent with the streetscape
of the existing neighborhood. In addition, by moving the development further west, a
greater portion of the existing trees may be able to remain upon completion of this devel-
opment. Please see the enclosed plans and sections of our proposal. The five foot set-
back is proposed to be identical "streetscape-wise" to the adjoining neighborhood on
207th Place SW. 207"h Place SW. was allowed to be a forty foot wide street. This, to-
gether with twenty-five foot front yard setbacks, is what we are asking to be approved for
our variance proposal. The height modification of twenty-five feet maximum height
above the existing 8e Avenue West Street as measured at the center of the house to the
adjacent curb is also not a special privilege in comparison to the other properties on 207'h
Place SW. in that those properties do not have severe slopes away from the street and
therefore they are all allowed to be twenty-five feet or higher, depending on the property
above the street.
As part of our variance request, we realize that public improvements, such as a bike trail
could possibly be built in the "front yar&' area of this residence in the legal street right of
way. We think that if a "bike7truil was built in this area, it would be built adjacent to the
existing street because of the existing topography. This street does have an existing
walking path adjacert to the opposite side of the street. However, we propose that some
warning language such as the following be attached "legally" to this lot and its deed.
WARNING: This lot has a five foot front yard setback and the area from the street to
street property line is subject to public improvement projects such as trails, sidewalks,
and other public right of way improvements.
Also as part of the conditions of approval, Public Works is requesting the developer to
construct driveways with slopes of less than 14 percent, with an absolute maximum of 20
percent (proper authorization required). In consideration of the filture residents, a 20
percent driveway is not an ideal situation and does require extensive grading. Because
the slopes are considerably less severe (5-8%) within the right-of-way, the driveways
would be constructed with less slope, thus provide a safer alternative for access to the
lots. Public safety will be improved because both police and fire vehicles will be able to
enter the property under easier circumstances.
z
As illustrated on the enclosed plan and section drawing sheets, No.'s 1, 2, and 4, fourteen
per cent driveways are difficult, if not impossible to accomplish with the now required
twenty-five foot front yard setback, especially on Lot 2, without requiring the garages to
< :D
LU
be above the existing natural grade elevations of the lots. On Lot 1, the garage would be
_J
U 0
a
6.58 feet below the street level and on the street side about 1.5 feet above the existing
Cn
U) LU
M
grade, and at the rear of the garage, approximately 3.5 to 6.0 feet above the existing
LU
_J �-
grade. The residence's main floor, assuming it is at the garage level would be at the
U) LL�
0
street side about 3.0 to 5.0 feet above grade and at the rear, approximately 9.0 to 11.0 feet
LU
2 �
above the existing grades. For Lot 1, this is not significantly different than if the resi-
9
dence was allowed to be located at the 5.0 foot asked for front yard set back, except for
LL
the approximate 7.0 feet below the street for the garage and main floor elevation, which
T
LU
would not be keeping with the streetscape of the adjoining neighborhood on 207a, Place
z
SW. Main floor views towards the street would be severely restricted, with the street
�_ 0
being approximately 7.0 feet higher. Driveways would be longer, and at 14 percent to
Z �-
LU LU
possibly 20 percent, difficult to park and drive on. Parking and turn around spaces would
require extensive retaining walls, and front entry walks become difficult. These condi-
C) ;f
tions become a hardship topographical situation compared to the neighborhood proper-
0 —
ties.
LU Lu�,
U
U_ 0
These extreme topographical elevations also necessitate a variance for the maximum
.. z
twenty-five foot height restriction to be modified. We are asking for the maximum
Ui (n
T
twenty-five foot height restrictions to be established from the existing curb of the adJa-
F-
0
cent street at the center -line of the proposed residence(s). We have enclosed calculations
z
that show the necessity of this modification due to the extreme topography at the rear of
these lots.
Lot I has a eighty-five foot width on the street and generally slopes from the street to-
wards the rear of the lot and also slopes towards the northeast causing about a four foot
difference in elevation from north to south at the street. Ten foot side yard setbacks al-
low a sixty-five foot building width facing the street. Of this width, the proposed three
car garage occupies thi�rtytwo feet of this width, and leaves thirty-three feet for the living
area of the residence's street side. A two car garage could add ten feet to the residence's
0,
street facade but would increase parking on 88'h Ave. West because of the reduced
driveway parking area. Most of the properties on 207th Place SW. have existing three car
garages and these garages do keep automobile parking off the streets and promotes safety
for this neighborhood.
Geometrically, single family residences, because of the necessity for windows for light,
C 0
ventilation and fire exit safety are normally twenty-four to forty feet approximately in
depth, depending upon the design layout of the rooms, the allowable street building
width, and the topography of the residential lot. We are proposing a thirty six foot width
for the main body of this proposed residence, and this gives us a main floor building area
of approximately fourteen hundred and fifty square feet, plus a garage area of approxi-
Llil
mately seven hundred and fifty square feet. Geometrically, this area could be increased if
a simple rectangular shape residence was built in this area of approximately forty feet in
depth across the allowable building width of sixty-five feet. This total area would be
z
twenty-six hundred square feet, and less a garage of approximately seven hundred and
z
fifty square feet, would allow a rambler residence main floor of appr6ximately eighteen
F_ LU
hundred square feet. However, aesthetically, and geometrically, the residence and it's
LU
interior rooms would suffer dramatically in comparison to the other residences in this
_J
U 0
a
existing neighborhood. This additional three hundred and fifty square feet of main floor
(n
(n LU
area would not be enough are to allow a geometrical and aesthetic design for a residence
LU X
_J �_
to eriJoy the same design privileges, or to be compatible to the other existing residences
en LLI
LU 0
in this neighborhood. In fact, most of the existing residences in this neighborhood are
2 �__
two-story residences, and complex geometrical forms.
LA- -3J
3
cc)
Therefore, because of the above information and the extreme topography of this lot, we
W,
J
are asking for a height modification to allow a two-story residence to be a maximum
3:
F-
height of twenty-five feet above the adjacent street curb at the center of the proposed
0
Z �-
street facade of the proposed residence. For Lot 1, this would be approximately a devia-
Ui Ui
u
tion of six feet, eight inches above the allowable height calculations for this proposed
2 =)
:) 0
residence. The smaller footprint of a two-story residence would also have less impact on,
0 Cn
0 'n
the land.
0
X U�
The existing topography of Lot 1, slopes approximately 1:6 to 1:3 as you travel easterly
IL 0
into the lot from the street. This is an existing grade of 16 per cent to 40 per cent, which
z
is too steep to allow a driveway to transverse at 14 per cent down into the lot to a garage
and parking area and turn -a -round area without extensive retaining walls for the drives
0
and turn -a -rounds. (See enclosed plans Sheet No. 4.,) for a demonstration of the grade
z
elevations above the garage and main floor of a possible residence for this lot.
MI
2. Special Privilege. An approval of a variance would be granted if the property owner
can prove there is no special privilege in comparison to other properties in the vicinity
under the same zone. Again, in our discussion with the City Public Works Department,
88th Avenue West will likely never be improved to the full right-of-way width because of
sight distance and the existing topography. If a variance is granted for a five foot front
yard setback, the existing streetscape would appear the same compared to neighboring
properties in the same zone because of the twenty-two undeveloped right-of-way of 88h
Avenue West The future residence will be constructed on the property in a manner to
reduce the impacts of the land, thus reducing the visual impacts to the neighborhood, and
repeating the existing "streetscape',
The neighborhood access street 207'h Place SW, is a forty foot wide street and the only
automobile access street to these two lots of this short subdivision. Please see enclosed
sheet No. 3 for a graphic illustration of this fact, and a dimensional comparison to 881h
Avenue West. If we reduced ge Street West to a forty foot width starting at the west-
erly boundary; and allowed a five foot front yard setback, together with the excess 20
foot street dedication, we would have a'twenty-five foot setback that would duplicate the
207'h Place SW Street almost exactly with the placement location of the residences in
relationship to the street. 207'h Place SW Street has twenty-four feet of pavineand 88'h
Avenue West has thirty feet -six inches of paving, with 207'h Place SW's sidewalks of five
Z
feet -six inches being the difference.
M Z
�- LU
cc
The maximuni twenty-five foot height modification to the height restriction is necessary
<
LU
to allow a two story residence to be built on these two lots. This is not a special privilege
_j 0
0
as the existing neighborhood has several two story residences in existence. The twenty-
LU
five foot height restriction allows two story residences to be normally built on all the ad-
LU 2: :
_j �_ i
jacent lots in this neighborhood on 207"' Place SW. The extreme topography on these
U) wi
0.
two lots as you traverse east from the street is the hardship that necessitates this variance
Ui
:E �:!
modification for two story residences. This, therefore, if our variance proposal is
I M �
granted, would not be a special privilege in comparison to the properties on 207'h Place
Lj_ < i
Mi
SW.
Ln a r,
LU,
M
LE �-
It can be argued that the 207'h Place SW residential lots that were created with the forty
�_ 0
foot street were given a special privilege in comparison with the Hoffman Short Subdivi-
Z I- ;
LU W
-f
sion sixty oot street width. The Hoffinan Short Subdivision street width actually allows
police and vehicles turn -a -round "requirements" for the 207'h Place SW properties. Our
(n
variance proposal is asking for the same consideration that was allowed to the 207"' Place
SW'properties in'the -use of their land. The RS-12 zoning is identical for these two par-
LU Uj
cels of land.
U_ 0
.. Z
lf our variance proposal is approved, the streetscape of 207'b Place SW and 88h Ave,
LU
U
West, will be identical for the actual physical placement of the residences on these two
� 0
closed, dead-end streets. This, therefore, if our variance proposal is granted would not be
Z_
a special privilege in comparison to other properties on 2070'Place SW.
3. Comprehensive Plan. The approval of a variance is contingent on being consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. Our proposal -would not have any adverse affect on the
goalsand guidelines outlined -in the Comprehensive Plan. The-intentof aComprehen-
sive Plan is to promote public health, safety, and general welfare of existing and future
residents. Our proposal addresses these key components by providing a safer alternative
(i.e. less sloping access) for the future residents and for those providing fire and protec-
tion services.
0
4. Zoning Ordinance. The code states a variance will be approved if it is consistent
with the purposes of the zoning ordinances within the zone district of the property. In the
RS- 12 zone, the front yard setback is twenty-five feet, respectfully, from a public -right-
of-way. In this situation, there would be a building setback -of twenty-seven feet from
8e Avenue West edge of curb which would meet the "streetscape'minimum front yard
requirement of this zone. Again, the Public Works Department intentions for 8e Ave-
nue West is to permanently maintain the existing improvements in their current state.
Thus, the additional right-of-way will not be necessary and could be used as a permanent
setback and driveway location for these two lots.
0
10'
Cn U.
0
LU
2 �
C2 _J
L' <
D
T Ot
UJ:
z
0
LU LU
U W
0
LU
F_
U_
z
i
N
to
6
5. Not Detrimental. The applicant must prove that the approval of a variance will not
be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or cause injury to the properties or
improvements in the immediate vicinity. The reduction of the front yard setback re-
quirement will not cause any harm to the neighboring residents or properties. Rather, if a
reduction is not allowed, access by the future residents and emergency vehicles to the
residences may be impaired by steep driveways causing a worserung condition which
may bring increased harm to the neighborhood. Again, the appearance of a 25-foot set-
back will be met since 8e Avenue West will not be improved as a full right-of-way to
the city standards. The property value of adjacent properties will not be adversely ef-
fected by this action as development will be consistent to the neighborhood. The modi-
fied height restriction would allow two story residences on the street similar to the exist-
ing streetscape and will not be detrimental to the properties in the area.
6. NEnimum Variance. The variance being sought must prove to be the very minimum
necessary to allow the property owner to the same rights being enjoyed by other proper-
ties within the vicinity. The variance request is fbr a front yard setback that would pro-
vide improved access to LI of this short plat, and for a modified height restriction to al-
low a two-story residence on the street side. The topographical situation on this particu-
lar site is more extreme then the surrounding properties. Thus, we are seeking to provide
the same type of safe access to the lot. By reducing the front yard requirement to five
feet the grading and access impacts will be reduced dramatically. As previously stated, a
five feet requirement would be the minimum to provide the best possible situation from a
public welfare standpoint. To meet the requirements of a twenty-five foot setback from
the property line, driveways would be in a minimum of 14-20 percent slopes, with ex-
tensive retaining walls and guard rails on the driveways and walks, and the residence
main floor and garage would be seven feet to ten feet below the street level.
As requested by the city, we are providing the following items for your review of this ap-
plication:
I CritiW Areas Determination (Waiver)
1 Application Form
I Ownership List (within 300 feet of the site)
I Legal Description for Existing Lots
5 Short Plat Map and Architectural Sheets No. 1,2,3,&4.
1 Photo package of the Site
I Application Fee (To be determined)
We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing this material. If there are questions,
please feel free to contact me at (206) 232-4255.
Sincerely,
Dean Read, Architects
8004 SE 30th
Mercer Island, WA. 98040
0
z
=Z-
�- UJ
cc
W
_J
U 0
(n 0
Cn LIJ
UJ
_J
cn LLi
0'
LLJ
LL
D,
Ln a
z
�_ 0
Z F-
LLJ W
U U)
LM W!
z
LU U)
F-
0
z
to
I,]
L3 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Q COMP PLAN AMENDMENT
0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LI HOME OCCUPATION
Q FORMAL SUBDIVISION
E3 SHORT SUBDIVISION
Q LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
C3 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
13 OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT
STREET VACATION
El REZONE
E3 SHORELINE PERMIT
0 VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE
EXCEPTION
L3 OTHER
FILE# \b%-CID ZONE -9S-1Z
DATE-7-t-L6 REC'DBY I V
FEE A (3z RECEIPT# '7 1
HEARING DATE
HE 0 STAFF 13 P13 Q ADB Q CC
ACTION TAKEN:
Q APPROVED Q DENIED 13 APPEALED
APPEAL#
Applicant gobnrf- goffman Phone (206) 488-2727
Address 2525 186th PL. SE., Bothell, WA. 98012
1206.-IZ-1-4-15 %*4,\ GU_� LA-)
Property Address or Location The Edmo
Property Owner Robert Hof fman Phone (206) 672-8663
Address 2525 186th PL. SE., Bothell, WA. 98012
Agent Dean Rear] Arnhii7cm-Cf--S, noan Read PhoneL2_0.6..) 232-4255
Address 8004 SE. 30th, Mercer Island, WA, 98040
TaxAcc# 5446-000-009-0101:_olo-000g Sec. 19 Twp. 27 Rng.4
Legal Description (Please see attached legal description)
L' -P I
Details of Projector Proposed Use Request for a variance for front yard
setback to five feet on Lot 1 and Lot 2, and a modification to
to the maximum height to be twenty-five feet above the street
cu b adjacent to the center line of the residence.
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 fumished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or
employees.
The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for
enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and F
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT
and the staff of the City of Edmonds
it to thi;,
ATTACHMENT 3
,WA
d 0
cp
Z co
—1 G s— so I
w Go
"A, m.
< Z
'o. DRA". —1— TI—L . V
LEGEND
C.". I—T�Ulls2
<
o—
. 1=
L
To A.—, ..A —1 IT
ES N �63,84-,—Q�DNP 10. 21 1—
%
RECEIVED
JUL 4 1
so �l -Iol—
—F— No.
:RSON LANE
ca I so
.1 Lo To:
r
,150.50
- so - 66,111
0
_j
.. ...............
� I �x :Z-Z.:t—tq
- . . .
30�
1� - 1
L, sGGA
207TH ST. SdW.
sET
To- loo.,
To. GRA.. —c- .1 11 RA.AoE EA.- W/.IA-
--T RE. I. Vo—s R—I.G 10. 84D22W258
<
GENERAL NOTES
. .. . .... ..... lAs-,
ol
EMMA,-
-32,x 25XIII
0
Ete
1�0
22
TL
Wll