Exhibit A - Staff Report.pdfPLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To: Don Largen, Healing Examiner Pro Tem
From:
Meg' 'bruwell
Planner
Date: JANUARY 8, 2004
File: CTJ-03-182/l/-03-183
MoGpAWDOCTOR'S OFFICE
Hearing Date, Time, And Place: January 15, 2004, At 9:30 AM,
Third Floor Meeting Room, #304
I}dozooda City Hall
121-5m Avenue N.
TABLE {FCONTENTS
l
INTRODUCTION ..~.............................................~..~~.........................%
A. APPLICATION ............... ......... .... —.............. --- ...... ............ .............................. ............... —............ 2
B. ------------------------------------------2
I[
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................-..........,~......2
A. SITE DESCRIPTION ............................... --- ............ ............................................ ... ........ ...... .............. 2
B. 8oMommuCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (BCDC)COMPLIANCE ........... —..................... —... --- 3
C. BoMonoe COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE ... ---- ....... ........ —......... ...................................... 6
D. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE —.......... —.......................... .......... —........ ............................................... ... 7
E. PUBLIC CnMMemr---.................. ..................... ............ ...... ........................ ................................... 7
yKU
AND APPEALS........ ~...-.....................................................0
A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION .................. —................................................. .................................. 8
B. APPEALS ............... —......................... .............. ...... ... —.......... ........... ........ .... .......... .... —...... ..... 8
V1. ATTACHMENTS -.~.~...~~...~~.~..~~....~.~~.~_.~-..~~~..~-~..~.~..~~.~.~~~~._0
co-0s-/oo.DOC/January 8,zuu4/Staff Report
McGraw Doctor's Office
File Nos. CU -03-182 / V-03-183
Page 2 of 8
1. Applicant: Thomas and Yvorine McGraw (see Attachment 2).
2. Site Location: 20120 — 76"' Avenue W. (see Attachment 1).
3. Request: An application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an office in a Multiple
Residential zone, and a Variance to allow parking at 13 feet to 76`x' Avenue W., within the 15 -
foot required street setback. The subject property is zoned Multiple Residential (RM -3). Note
that compliance with the City's Architectural Design Review design criteria has been
processed separately, as file number ADB -03-181.
4. Review Process: The Hearing Examiner conducts a public hearing and makes a final decision
on Conditional Use Permit and Variance Request.
Major Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.30
(MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.05
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS).
c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85
(VARIANCES).
d. Compliance with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
FM
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend
APPROVAL of this Conditional Use Permit to allow an office in the Multiple Residential (RM -3)
zone, and APPROVAL of the Variance to allow parking at 13 feet to the property line, instead of
the required 15 feet in the RM -3 zone with the following conditions:
I This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC). It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure
compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances.
2. The 13 foot area between the parking lot and 7011 Avenue W. must be landscaped as
shown in the Landscape Plan, or as modified and approved by Planning staff.
3. The permit shall be transferable to other property owners.
4. The project shall comply with the requirements of the Engineering Division, Building
Division, Public Works Department and the Fire Department.
5. The project must obtain Architectural Design Board approval separately from this permit.
E
[MIL131111,1172111=111 _017"FIVIL I
a) Facts:
(1) Size: The subject property is a rectangular corner lot with an area of approximately
8,200 square feet (see Affaclurfents I and 3).
(2) Land Use: The property is currently developed with a single-family residence.
2 CU-03-182.DOC /January 8, 2004 / Staff Report
McGraw Doctor's Office
File Nos. CU -03-182 / V-03-183
Page 3 of 9
(3) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Multiple Residential (RM -3) (see
Attachment 1).
(4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property is quite level, with a small retaining
wall holding up a two -to -three-foot drop to the neighboring property to the north (see
Attachment 3). The site was landscaped before and the applicants have already done
some landscaping work, with the landscaping consisting of trees, shrubs, and lawn.
a) Facts:
(1) Lorth: This property is currently zoned Multiple Residential (RM -3) and is
developed with a multi -family development of condominiums (see Attachment 1).
(2) South and West: These areas are currently zoned Multiple Residential (RM -3) and
are developed with single-family homes (see Attachment 1). Note that the Multiple
Residential zone runs along 76th Avenue W., and that three to four lots away from
76"' Avenue W., the zoning is Single-Fanlily Residential (RS -8).
(3) East: This area is within the City of Lynnwood is zoned Single -Family Residential
(RS -8) and is developed with single-family residences (see Attachment 1).
1111111 1 i I 11111111 11111111 11111111 IN I I III III III
a) Facts:
(1) ECDC Section 20.05 contains the review and approval criteria for Conditional Use
Perinits. According to the aforementioned code section, "No Conditional Use Permit
may be approved unless all the findings in this section can be made." The findings
are as follows:
CoWrchensive Plan - The proposed use is compatible with the Comprehensive
Plan.
0 Zoning Ordinance - That the proposed use, and its location, is consistent with the
purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the zone district in which
the use is to be located, and that the proposed use will meet all the applicable
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Not Detrimental - That the use, as approved or conditionally approved, will not
be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and to
nearby private property or improvements unless the use is a public necessity.
Transferability - The Hearing Examiner shall determine whether the conditional
use permit shall run with the land or shall be personal,
(2) This site is designated Multi Fan -lily — Medium Density residential on the Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan. Further regulations are discussed in section C below.
(3) The proposed use is more typically found in large multi -family complexes, and is a
primary use allowed with a conditional use permit in this zone.
(4) Other sections of this report outline how the proposal meets the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance with the exception of the parking in the street setback.
(5) Architectural Design Review is being provided separately from this review.
(6) One comment letter has been received (see Attachment 4 and Section ME, below),
CU..03-182.DOC / JarlUary 8, 2001 / Staff Report
McGraw Doctor's Office
File Nos. CU -03-182 / V-03-183
Page 4 of 8
b) Conclusions:
(1) See Section II.C. of this report for a discussion on how this proposal is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Edmonds,
(2) The proposal appears to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance and the
purposes of the zone district except for needing the conditional use permit for the
office use, and the variance to allow parking within the required street setback.
(3) The doctor's office as conditioned will not be significantly detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare, and to nearby private property or improvements.
(4) It appears that a different type of office might also be appropriate for this site, so the
conditional use permit should run with the land.
2. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.15A (Environmental Review)
a) Facts:
(1) The changes proposed by the conditional use permit, which include a seven lot
parking lot and change of use permit, do not trigger SEPA review.
(2) Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review
(WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080).
b) Conclusion: The applicant and the City have complied with the requirements of ECDC
20.15A.
I)TWOMMU�', 1 16 � (
a) Facts:
(1) The property owner submitted a Critical Areas Checklist (CA -02-154) and received a
Determination as required prior to the issuance of any permit.
(2) The Critical Areas Determination waived the requirement for farther Critical Area
studies.
b) Conclusion: The applicant and the City have complied with the requirements of ECDC
20.1513,
a) Facts:
(1) Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of time
Code may be varied on a case-by-case basis if the application of the provision would
result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship. The criteria are as follows:
(a) Special Circumstances: That because of special circumstances relating to the
property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the
property, strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of
use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the
same zoning. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor
personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be
necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic
view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor
resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property.
4 CU-03-182.DOC / January 8, 2004 / Staff Report
McGraw Doctor's Office
File Nos. CU -03-182 / V-03-183
Page 5 of 8
(b) Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of
special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
(c) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance
will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan, the zoning
ordinance, and the zoning district in which the property is located.
(d) Not Detrimental: That the variance, as approved or conditionally approved, will
not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone.
(e) Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to
allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same
zoning.
(2) The applicant has submitted declarations with their submittal which state why they
feel they should be granted the variance (see Attachment 3).
(3) The applicants are required to provide seven parking stalls for their 1320 square foot
building. This assumes the rate for medical offices, which is one parking stall for
ever 200 square feet gross floor area.
(4) Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the applicants are required to
provide one handicapped -accessible parking stall. This stall must have a five-foot
walkway adjacent to it, with a total width of 13 feet.
(5) A parking stall is required to be 8.5 feet wide in ECDC Chapter 18.95. That chapter
also requires a stall to be 16.5 feet minimum length, though an 18 foot stall is shown
in another detail.
(6) The lot width is 82 feet.
(7) Edmonds Cornmunity Development Code section 16.30.030,0 states that no parking
spaces may be located within the street setback.
(8) The street setback required in the RM -3 zone is 15 feet.
(9) Edmonds Community Development Code section 20.12 025.A requires a minimum
five-foot planting strip around the perimeter of all parking lots and where a driveway
abuts a property line.
(10) The following equation deducts the combined width of all the required items from the
available lot width:
82 feet Total Lot Width
-5 West Property Line Required Landscape Buffer
-13 Handicapped Accessible Parking Stall Width
-6(8.5) Six Standard Parking Stall Widtlis
-15 Required Setback to Street Proper Line
= -2 Net Available is Negative
(11) Other options for places to place the parking stalls include the front yard along 202"d
Street SW. The house maintains a 27 to 28 foot setback to the street property line
along 202"d Street SW.
CU-03-182,DOC / January 8, 2004 / Staff' Report
McGraw Doctor's Office
File Nos. CU -03-182 / V-03-183
Page 6 of 8
(12)Tlie Existing City of Edmonds Functional Classification of Roadways map, dated
September 2002, in the Comprehensive Plan shows 76`h Avenue W. as a minor
arterial.
(13)Reviewing the city's permit database revealed a variance approved in 1985 to allow
parking facilities within street facilities, file V-1985-23, for 20110 — 76"' Avenue W.
b) Conclusions:
(1) With the location of this site on a comer lot, the City requires both street property
lines to maintain setbacks and prohibits parking within these setbacks. The
comprehensive plan also does not want to see parking between the building and
street. The size of the house is existing and has not been changed by the applicants.
The parking requirements are based on the doctor's office use and standardized
requirements for parking stalls. This lot is two feet short of providing for all those
requirements. Therefore, the applicants face special circumstances.
(2) It appears from the data base that another site in the vicinity has had a variance
approved for parking, so this does not appear to be a special privilege.
(3) The Comprehensive Plan encourages parking to be provided at the side or rear of a
building, as discussed under section C below. The applicants have met these
requirements by placing the, parking to the north of the building. The existing main
door to the house faces 202nd Street SW, so this means the parking is located at the
rear of the house and not on the comer. Also this design will leave most of the front
of the house along 202nd Street SW available for landscaping, as well as providing 13
feet of landscaping along 76`h Avenue W. The approval of the variance is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, and if approved, the proposed addition would be in
compliance with the zoning ordinance.
(4) The proposed parking configuration will allow the single-family residence to the west
to have a full five-foot vegetative buffer to the parking lot. It will also provide 13
feet of landscaping adjacent to 76t" Avenue W. It does not appear that the proposal
would be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone.
(5) Given the lot width and the code requirements for parking and landscaping, this
proposal is the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
116 1 �i 111111111111
a) Fact: The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan has few goals and policies stated in
the Land Use Element, under Residential Development which relate to the subject
proposal.
(1) The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property "Multi Family — Medium
Density" residential,
(2) Goal C.2.b.i. states "RM developments should preserve the privacy and view of
surrounding buildings, wherever feasible."
(3) Goal C.2.c.i. states "The nonstructural elements of the building (such as decks, lights,
rails, doors, windows and window easements[sic], materials, textures and colors)
should be coordinated to carry out a unified design concept."
CU-03-182.DOC /January 8, 2004 / Staff Report
McGraw Doctor's Office
File Nos. CU -03-182 / V-03-183
Page 7 of'9
(4) Goal C.2.c.ii continues, "Site and building plans should be designed to preserve the
natural features (trees, streams, topography, etc.) of the site rather than forcing the
site to meet the needs of the imposed plan."
(5) No change to the building is proposed that would change the view of surroundings.
(6) The rear yard of the former residence will be converted to a parking lot, which could
potentially intrude on the privacy of the adjoining neighbors. This is not an issue
with the neighbor to the north, because the proposed parking lot is adjacent to the
parking lot, refuse area, and landscape strip of the adjacent condominiums. The
actual condominium buildings are adjacent to the lot to the west of this lot. The
neighbor to the west has their garage and shed on the east side of their property,
which will help to minimize privacy concerns.
(7) The design of the proposed site seems to have been coordinated so that the colors,
lighting, landscaping, and sign all reflect the garden theme that the owners have
chosen.
(8) The site does not have striking natural features, but the applicants have worked hard
to reuse the landscaping from the site, and they are even preserving the short drop
held up by the retaining wall.
(9) According to the urban design guidelines which are an adopted element of the
Comprehensive Plan, a non-residential use in a residential zone should be designed
according to the neighborhood business guidelines and the guidelines for the district
where the use is situated. This site is in the multiple family residential zone, so
should also follow those guidelines.
(10)In the multiple family residential guidelines, parking is to be located behind or
underneath buildings, and should not be placed between the street and the building.
Neighborhood oriented commercial also calls for the parking to be behind,
underneath or next to the buildings. Comer parking lots should be avoided.
b) Conclusion: The proposed use is located in the Multi Family — Medium Density
residential area on the Comprehensive Plan and it appears the proposed use and site
design is consistent with that goals for that land use designation. In particular, this
proposal helps to avoid placing the parking between the building and the street, and
instead places it in a screened rear area.
1. The proposed Conditional Use Permit has been reviewed and evaluated by
other Departments/Divisions of the City. The following comments have been
received:
a) The Public Works Department commented: "Require sidewalk to be replaced if existing
condition warrants it."
b) The Engineering Division has worked with the applicant on the drainage for the site. The
applicant will be required to comply with conditions of all future permits.
1. One comment letter has been received (see Attachment 4) from a neighbor one block south of
this proposal on the Lynnwood side of 7011 Avenue W. They object to the proposal because
they feel the use would be to intense for this small lot and they notice vacant space in existing
commercial buildings, but a lack of affordable homes.
CU -03-1 82.DOC / January 8, 2004 / Staff' Report
McGraw Doctor's Office
File Nos. CU -03-182 / V-03-183
Page 8 of 9
2. Unlike the Lynnwood side of the street which is zoned single-family residential, the Edmonds
side of the street is multiple residential. Edmonds has committed to a more intense use of
these properties that the nearby single-family residential sites. This proposal will not create a
large multi -family building, as could be allowed in the zone, but will retain the existing
building of a single-family home, so should be a good neighbor to the adjacent properties.
The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and does not feel it will create traffic
problems as proposed.
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any
person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department
for ftir-ther 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.
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 four -teen (14) calendar days after the date of the decision being
appealed.
l�L�iLillrellilm! illf's
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in
the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office.
Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building perinit, 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.'
1. Vicinity and Zoning Map
2. Application
3, Site Plan etc.
4. Comment Letter
8 CU-01-182MOC / January 8, 2004 / Staff Report
McGraw Doctor's Office
File Nos. CU -03-182 / V-03-183
Page 9 of 9
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD
Thomas & Yvonne McGraw Planning Division Susan Shofstall
20305 —73 rd Avenue W. Public Works Division 7107 — 230" St SW
Lynnwood, WA 98036 Engineering Division Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
(.,U-03-182. DOC /January 8, 2004 / Staff Report
Vicinity nZoning Map
I_A A-Mo3 I ail A k s
city of edmonds
land use li ti®n
6 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
0 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
u HOME OCCUPATION • i yip
0 FORMAL SUBDIVISION N �3 • ®® —
0 -SHORT SUBDIVISION
0 LoT LINE ADJUSTMENT 1 1 (-05
0 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
c�
0 OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT
0 STREET VACATION
0 REZONE
® SHORELINE PERMIT
0 VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE ExCEmoN
0 OTHER:
no
0
FILE # ZONE �-
DATE 1 1— 1 a-® REC'D BY
®® RECEIPT #
NEARING DATE
_0PB a ADB a CC
CA2— Icb,44 =
PROPERTYOWNER_Irtlnrm�,+iii I/ _ 2 .
ADDRESS
ACCOUNT r_1WQ r/,Q �CSEC. Twp. '
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE
.-IVWA
Ls I\1.WOUPJOWR
CONTACT PERSON/AGENT
ADDRESS M2E a_,.
E-MAIL ADDRESS
o
The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on 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 part upon false, misleading,
inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees.
By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that I am authorized to file this appliciition on the behalf of the owner as listed below.
Property Owner's Authorization
By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use
application, and grant my percussion for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject
property for the purposes ofLpection and posting attendant to this application. ,7
SIGNATURE OF OWN DATE
This a on form was revised on 1/27/00. To verify whether it is still current call (425) 771-0220.
L ED311ARYW ANNINWorvns & Handouts\PubliC HandoutAund Use Application.do® ATTACHMENT
city of edmonds
land use application
0 ARCHITECTURAL DEsiGN RBVIBW
0COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
0 HOME OCCUPATION
0 FORMAL SUBDIVISION
0 SHORT SUBDMSION
0 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
0 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
0 OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT
0 STREET VACATION
0 REZONE
0 SHORELINE PERMIT
0 VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION
0 OTHER:
N00V i of 2003
PERMIT COUNTER
FILE # V Zoxa
DATE IIIA /o 3 RECD BY v
FEE I I SS, RECEIPT # Z 314 3
HEARING DATE
0 HE 0 STAFF 0 PB 0 ADB 0 CC
PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION
PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE)
PROPERTY OWNER PHONE #
ADDRESS
E-MAIL ADDRESS FAX #
TAX ACCOUNT #
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE
°— -" '
APPLICANT
ADDRESS
E-MAIL ADDRESS
SEC. TWP. RNO.
PHONE #
FAX #
CONTACT PERSON/AGENT PHONE #
ADDRESS
E-MAIL ADDRESS
LM111
The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on 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 part upon false, misleading,
inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees.
By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANVAOEN / DATE !1 D
1
PropertyOwner's Authorization
13y my signatUm, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use
application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject
property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE /,) A-1 lit '.)
This applicad8ifform was revised on 1/27/00, 'Po verify whether it is stitl current call (425) 771-0220
L'\LIBRARYU'LANN1N0XF & H outaftblic HendoutsU.nnd Use Appticetlwn.doc
G.Thomas
x1p CSC
Edmonds Medical & Professional Center
7631212` Street South West Building C-111
Edmonds, Washington 98026-7565
(425)-774®6060 Fax (425)®712-1287
November 1, 2003
City of Edmonds
Planning Division
1215 Ave N.
Edmonds, Washington 98026
: Setback variance for doctor's office at
20120 76' Ave W.
Edmonds, WASH 98026
Dr, Thomas G and Yvonne McGraw (owners)
To Whom It _ May Concern:
NUOV '2'0`4133
KEV5:5 GT ("."'O N i E
This letter respectfully requests we be granted a 13 food setback variance from 7e
Ave. rather than the 15 foot requirement for our parking lot we hope to build on the
above stated props
The reason for this request is that we feel that (as shown in the plan) the required 5'
setback on the west side of the property is a far more important buffer for our
neighbor from a landowner's perspective than a busy arterial such as 76M Ave. We
presume having landscape abut one's yard is preferable to a parking lot.
Also we intend to landscape the whole 13' setback instead of the required 101. This
will help to maintain the look of a neighborhood by blocking the view of the parking
lot.
Finally, as best we can find, there appears to be no detriment to safety, health and
welfare or injuries to our property or other properties contiguous to our property
this variance may cause.
o asG. McGraw, .C., C.C.S.P.9 S.C.S.C®
Yvonne McGraw
Thomas
DCC SP, CSCS
G. McGraw, 1
Edmonds Medical & Professional Center
7631212 Street South West Building C-111
Edmonds, Washington 98026-7565
(425)-774-6060 Fax (425)-712-1287
December 18, 2003
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
Meg Gruwell Senior Planner
RE: File Number: ADE-03-181/CLT-03-182NAR-03-183
Dear Meg,
In response to your letter (enclosed) dated December 16, 2003 you asked for information
on 5 questions.
Question number 1, with this letter I will be coming in to sign the variance. Sorry
Question number 2a, the height of the top of the sign force the ground level up is 4' 6"
The height of the top of the Arbor from ground level up is 6' 8".
Regarding question 2b, with this letter I will be corning in to place the sign on the site
plan.
Regarding 2c & d, I have spoken to several people about the Arbor with the sign hanging
from it. When I spoke to Don Fiene, P.E. at the counter one day, he went in back to
check on some specifics and came back out to explain that he was right in his thinking
about how it could work with the codes and explained to me that the Arbor is considered
as a fence and can be in the setbacks because of that, He also said, other businesses like
apartment complexes with fences within the setbacks and sign codes are allowed to place
there business sign on them; therefore, he said we could.
Also 1`: @ separate day when at the counter1. and I checked into all the new sign11,::
about and signand you also found we could.
Arborhome we came up with the - idea and so have
all the people I have talked to about the idea including several of the staff in your office.
If we scale down the arborto the sign hanging from i 1 s• small drivers
by could n• 1 it would detract from the landscapng becausepeople Is• not build
arbors that size in there gardens and it would look like an unreadable sign then. An
simpleArbor in the garden is far more neighborhood looking to the scale we have drawn it to be.
We also feel the sign and arbor are appropriately scaled to each other and, the materials
and the shape of the sign itself is stiff in a garden like style, keeping it clean lined,
and r into a garden
Question number 3, the public entrance length of the building from east to west on the
north side of the house is 54" 5 %"
Question number 4, the trees by the driveway and the west side of the parking lot are not
existing plants. All plants in the backyard area where the parking lot is going into have
not been placed yet. Therefore no tree will be buried in soil. The only plant in the back
yard to remain is the Lilac located in the north west corner of the lot. It is actually partly
in the way of the retaining wall. We are going to try and lift it with the trench digger
during excavating for the wall on the north property line and then place it in its location
according to the landscape design taking into consideration its elevation also. If we can
not accomplish this we then will place a new Lilac in its place.
Also note that currently we have placed the dafneadora plants in the back yard along the
back side of the house almost in there place on the plans. These plants were in the front
yard and have temporarily been placed in the back yard yet out of the way of the
construction in an existing planter bed. They may need to be height adjusted also and it
will be done as such when doing the planting around the parking lot after the parking lot
has been completed.
Question number 5, this question was brought up in the preliminary meeting that you
were not able to be at. My response below was satisfactory to them and yet they didn't
say we needed to put it in writing. As in our previous conversations with you, one at the
counter and one on the phone we addressed the landscaping required 5 feet along the
north property line as such. As per the allowable code for the reduction of landscaping
on the north property line. We have compensated by planting more than is required in
landscaping with quantity and quality.
vonne cCrraw
Office Manager
Edmonds Medical & Professional Center
163i 212 t 6uw south wen BuAding i, -i i i
Edmonds, Washington 98026-7565
(425)-774-6060 Fax (425�712-1287
City of Edmonds
Planning Department
RE: Thomas & Yvonne McGraw
20120 76' Ave West
Edmonds, Washington 98026
To Whom It May Concern:
2. ? 2003
PERMIT COUNTER
This letter is an agreement concerning a 3 foot in height fence which stands on the
eastside property line of Patrick Daily, who is the owner of said 3 foot fence, and
westside property line of Thomas and Yvonne McGraw.
In this agreement Patrick Daily agrees to allow Thomas and Yvonne McGraw to remove
an 8 foot section of the northern most section of said 3 foot fence and replace it with a 6
foot in height fence section.
This will be done by replacing the southern most 3 foot post with a 6 foot post and
replace the 3 foot slats with 6 foot slats and (2) 2"x4" frame boards. The northern most
post of the 8 foot section is pre-existing at 6 foot in height.
The finished side will face westerly to benefit Patrick Daily's view point and will match
existing fence style and color.
Patrick Daily Thomas & Yvonne McGraw
7608 202"d St SW 20120 76h Ave West
Edmon Washington 98026 Edmonds, WashWin on 98,026
7
o 7t9F
Phone 5-672-3180 Ph 5-771-884
Y/
4/44-c—
I
I
I'm
Ql-
owl
N
2 r
z
LU
TV
LU
- — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — I
0<1
m
:3.LVG 101d
fi 3/V 434E mZi�i
�o
80rnaaaran
:C[3>103HOnvdausmaN
:NMVU(l
:,:,3SIA3u :31v(]
a0d
:'ON 133HS
N
2 r
z
LU
TV
LU
- — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — I
0<1
m
VI
:31VG 101d
tl.c
os , �� , , ., _. —I �n, g,
SNOl1VA212 MBN
:'ON 1301'1
Of'
0 3-1-1-H 0 U V
"
-40
_03)t03H0
d�K�
3137
7
t-I
:NMV)3cl
�t=i MRN
:a--
3sl,A38 :31VG
N0,1 DINI -TO MEIN 7
NV7,t
:'ON i39HS
J z 0
s,
00
0 > z le
:Ws
HN.
ID
fig5
50
id
i
jiif
mg
iN UP E4h; L
1 jig Aq PRO
5 !"15fi. it, S, i i R,�g g1p la'gra !I I h;
p! 4 Tt�
'2492, V� RO -90�p 4
gaaq -Ni h(ff- R
hl" PON, tg ;
RiE
i nlg 12 9 5. 1 i .
M N Thu 5i
R i , -
H, H!, 1 11 i I . § R�
11 T U
ENE 0
2 OR I
d0fi 3H
115 i: m i L 42 6 W I M 2 X -H H
-ij
1%
M
H XR62
ij -1
pie
A 3 'nj
W�
-7 , I
-M 3nN3AV H19G
N d
-'-----o----------- - -----------
-------------- --- -- ------------------------------------ ------------------- ? ------
- --- -------- -- ------
7� -- - ----------------
5
C,
---------------------- i C
--------- -----------------
g
T1
- -----------
- ----- ----
4m V
i .2
21 -1-1-1--3 Civ
J 09 Im, SoNonc3 N,',' , I--
OOZ 3LIAS IAaLS ',3nvf I Z V,, -'A V H 19 L
V�', J'
�NO ILA3�
2
6 E
a t7,
f
E.
LL
— - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — -
7 71 z
2
V
E
co
7D
— - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — -
MN 0 5 2o04
1,`�i=