The URL can be used to link to this page

PLN20120047 - 49 Staff report with attachments 1-4.pdf'4c. I s9" TY U OF E iii V IIII 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 e Fax: 425.771.0221 ® Web: w eda r"n utt s am. py DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ® PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING O REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Project: Olson Variances File Numbers: PLN20120047, PLN20120048 & PLN20120049 Date of Report: Feflfua 7,�O13 , From: i �� Mike Clugston, Associate Planner Public bearing: February 14, 2013 at 3:00 P.M. Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers 250 - 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 James Thomas, Architect, is requesting three variances for the proposed Olson single- family residence at 15500 75th Place West. PLN20120047 proposes to reduce the regular required 25' street setback to 0' to allow for the construction of a bridge/driveway approach from 75th Place West to the residence and steps down from the driveway to the residence's front door. PLN20120048 proposes to increase the maximum allowed height for the single-family residence from 25' to 28' to allow for a 5:12 pitched roof. PLN20120049 proposes to reduce the minimum required north side setback to allow for the construction of a bump -out on that side of the house which would project 3' into the required setback. Mr. Thomas applied for a building permit to construct a house and related site improvements on the subject lot on August 23, 2012 (BLD20120858), and the building permit application was determined to be complete on October 1, 2012 (project plans from the building permit application are included as Attachment 1). During the initial review period, the Planning Division determined that the proposed bridge/driveway structure and steps did not comply with the required street setback for the zone (Attachment 2). To resolve this concern, the driveway approach would either have to be redesigned to be code -compliant or a variance would have to be obtained to reduce the regularly required 25' street setback for the RS-20 zone. The Applicant applied for a variance (PLN20120047) on December 21, 2012 to reduce the regularly required 25' PLN20120047 — PLN20120049, Olson Variances Staff Report Page 1 of 14 street setback to allow construction of the bridge/driveway and steps as proposed in the building plans from August 23, 2012 (Attachment 3). Along with the bridge/driveway variance request, however, the Applicant included two additional variance requests which were not part of the building permit application submitted on August 23, 2012. PLN20120048 seeks to increase the maximum allowed height for the single-family residence from 25' to 28' to allow for the construction of roof with a greater pitch and upper floor ceiling height than was originally proposed (Attachments 4). At the same time, PLN20120049 seeks to reduce the minimum required northern side setback by 3' to allow for the creation of a lower level bump -out which was not shown on' the August 23, 2012 plans (Attachments 5). 1. Applicant/Owner: James Thomas, Architect, representing George and Virginia Olson - 2. Location: 15500 75th Place West 3. Tax Parcel Number: 00500900000103 4. Zo ine: Single -Family Residential RS-20 5. Request: As noted above, the Applicant is requesting three variances. 6. Review Process: Pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.85.020.A, the Hearing Examiner reviews the variances as a Type III- B decisions in accordance with provisions of Chapter 20.06. 7. Major Issues: County Park y; roi 156TH ST SW n.q. 0 , f T7Yli9:W uW A� 13 -12 RS-i b A S-20 rX'< City of Edmonds Zoning Map, December 30, 2011 a. Compliance with ECDC 16.20 Single -Family Residential b. Compliance with ECDC 20.85 Variances 8. Lot Size: Approximately 20,064 square feet. 9. Existing Use: The site is currently vacant. 10. Proposed Use: A single-family residence and related improvements have been proposed separately (BLD20120858). PLN20120047 — PLN20120049, Olson Variances Staff Report Page 2 of 14 III. SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review (WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080). IV. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT A critical area determination for the subject property was made under File No. CRA20110001 (Attachment 6). The parcel slopes steeply down from 75th Place on the east to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe tracks and Puget Sound on the west. The eastern portion of the site is somewhat less steep, where the proposed residence is to be located (Attachment 1a). Because the site is located within the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area (ESLHA), geotechnical peer review of the building permit materials BLD20120858 was required (Attachment 7). The Applicant submitted a cover letter indicating the mitigation sequencing analysis undertaken as part of the variance proposal in accordance with ECDC 23.40.120 (Attachment 8). V. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS The vacant site is the northernmost parcel on 75th Place West, immediately adjacent to Meadowdale Beach Park. The surrounding neighborhood is zoned for large lots (RS-20 and RS-12) due to the widespread presence of critical areas in the vicinity. While there are still some vacant parcels along this length of 75th Place, most lots are developed with single-family residences. VI. PUBLIC NOTICE A letter of complete application was sent to the Applicant on January 17, 2013. A "Notice of Application and Public Hearing" was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site as well as published in the Everett Herald and posted in the required locations on January 31, 2013 (Attachment 9). The City of Edmonds has complied with the noticing provisions of ECDC 20.03.002 and 20.03.003. VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS As of the date of this staff report, one public comment had been received (Attachment 10). Thomas J. Degan, 15520 75th Place West, expressed several concerns including: a possible adverse possession dispute with his neighbor to the north at 15500 75th (the subject parcel), slope stability, and stormwater run-off. Staff response: Regarding the possible adverse possession dispute, the location of the property line between the Olson's Ad Mr. Degan's parcel has been established by surveys of both parcels (Attachments 13 & 14). Mr. Degan's house at 15520 was approved through building permit BLD19940288, applying setbacks that were determined in PLN19900033. In addition to a reduced street setback of 12.5', a 5' side setback was established from the north property line for that permit which was confirmed at inspection. There now appears to be some landscaping features and the like that have PLN20120047 — PLN20120049, Olson Variances Staff Report Page 3 of 14 been installed in the setback area and apparently over the established property line between the Olson's and Mr. Degan. The possession and maintenance of these features is a civil matter between the two parties and not relevant to the subject variance requests by the Olsons. As far as slope stability, specific slope and soil stabilization methods will be addressed with the associated building permit. Because the house is located within the mapped Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area, geotechnical studies are required for all development proposals., These studies are peer -reviewed (Attachment 7) and special inspections by the geotechnical engineer -of -record are also required during construction to ensure compliance with approved plans. With respect to the street setback variance request, the idea of siting the proposed house further to the east and away from the steeper portions of the slope is an effective best management practice for minimizing soil and slope impacts. Regarding the stormwater run-off from 75t" Place West, this will also be addressed with the associated building permit (BLD20120858) and must meet the requirements in Chapter 18.30 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. All stormwater generated from newly created impervious surfaces and any run-on flows, such as the run-off from 75t" Place West, will have to be detained onsite and then tight -lined to the bottom of the slope adjacent to the railroad tracks. The existing building permit plans are available for review at the Development Services Department on the second floor of City Hall. Permit status can also be tracked online by address or permit number at: 5. 1 r�._,.......� �ds,wa usl/ :i z� ri,/ e tutSearch.aQ�.�x. im :...peun its.ec��ud mo....w::....._._......._.......`:..........d_....._.....":..m.............�u o Vitfo.lf?�.".L..............._....................._...._._.._.f..u..0 ■l •i,lll IFI This application was reviewed and evaluated by Fire District #1, the Engineering Division, as well as the Public Works and Parks & Recreation Departments (Attachment 11). No substantive comments were received about the variance requests themselves. However, with the exception of the Parks Department, each of these groups has also reviewed and commented on the building permit associated with these variance requests, BLD20120858, and each will have to approve the building permit before it can be issued. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is "Single Family— Resource." The City of Edmonds has a vision for residential development and for minimizing disturbance to B' soils and topography during development. The applicable residential goals related to this project are identified starting on page 71 of the Plan, while goals for soils and topography are found on pages 81 and 82: PLN20120047 ® PLN20120049, Olson Variances Staff Report Page 4 of 14 Residential Development B. Goal. 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 to all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic considerations, in accordance with the following policies: B.1. 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. 8.3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions. to existing structures. 8.5. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful control of other types of development and expansion based upon the following principles: 8.5.a. Residential privacy is a fundamental protection to be upheld by local government. 8.5.b. Traffic not directly accessing residences in a neighborhood must be discouraged. 8.5.c. Stable property values must not -be threatened by view, traffic or land use encroachments. 8.5.d. Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc. B.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage. Soils and Topography C. Goal. Development on steep slopes or hazardous soil conditions should preserve the natural features of the site, in accordance with the following policies: C.1. Grading and Filling. C.1.a. Grading, filling, and tree cutting shall be restricted to building pads, driveways, access ways and other impervious surfaces. C.1.b. AGrading shall not jeopardize the stability of any slope, or of an adjacent property. C.1.c. Only minimal amounts of cut and fill on hillsides exceeding 15% slope should be permitted so that the natural topography can be preserved. Fill shall not be used to create a yard on steeply sloped property. PLN20120047 — PLN20120049, Olson Variances Staff Report Page 5 of 14 C.1.d. Fill and excavated dirt shall not be pushed down the slope. C.2. Building Construction. C.2.a. Buildings on slopes of 15% or greater shall be designed to cause minimum disruption to the natural topography. C.2.b. Retaining walls are discouraged on steep slopes. If they are used they should be small and should not support construction of improvements which do not conform to the topography. C.2.c. Water detention devices shall be used to maintain the velocity of runoff at predevelopment levels. C.3. Erosion Control. C.3.a. Temporary measures shall betaken to reduce erosion during construction. C.3.b. Natural vegetation should be preserved wherever possible to reduce erosion and stabilize slopes, particularly on the downhill property line. C.3.c. Slopes should be stabilized with deep rooted vegetation and mulch, or other materials to prevent erosion and siltation of drainage ways. X. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODES 1. ECDC 16.20 IRS — Single -Family Residential A. Development standards in the RS-20 zone are as follows, pursuant to ECDC 16.20.030: Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Maximum Minimum Sub Lot Area Street Side Rear Maximum Coverage Parking District Height (Sq. Ft.) Setback Setback Setback N Spaces RS-20 20,000 25' 35i3&10' 25' 25' 35% 2 3 Thirty-five feet total of both sides, 10 feet minimum on either side. B. Related site development exceptions include: 1. "Eaves anokchimneys may project into a required setback not more than 30 inches." [ECDC 16.20.040.13] 2. "Uncovered and unenclosed porches steps, patios, and decks may project into a required setback not more than one-third of the required setback, or four feet, whichever is less; provided that they are no more than 30 inches above ground level at any point." [ECDC 16.20.040.C] PLN20120047 — PLN20120049, Olson Variances Staff Report Page 6 of 14 C. ECDC 21.10.040 defines 'building' as "any structure having a roof, excluding all forms of vehicles. even though immobilized." D. ECDC 21.90.020 defines 'setback' as "the minimum distance that buildings/structures or uses must be setback from a lot line, excluding up to 30 inches of eaves." E. ECDC 21.90.150 defines 'structure' as "a combination of materials constructed and erected permanently on the ground or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground. Not included are residential fences less than six feet in height, retaining walls, rockeries, and similar improvements of minor characterless than three feet in height." 2. ECDC 20.85 Variances A. An applicant may request a variance from any requirement of the zoning ordinance (ECDC Titles 16 and 17), except use and procedural requirements, pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC 20.85. ECDC 20.85.010 contains the findings that must be made in order for a variance application to be approved. According to the referenced code, "No variance may be approved unless all of the findings in this section can be made." The findings include: A. Special Circumstances. That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the 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 include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats; 2. 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; B. Specia'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. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan; PLN20120047 — PLN20120049, Olson Variances Staff Report Page 7 of 14 D. Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located; E. 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 same zone; F. 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. B. The Applicant submitted narrative statements and supporting materials explaining why he believes the proposed variance requests meet the criteria in ECDC 20.85 and should therefore be granted (Attachments 3 — 5). C. The following is staffs analysis of how the proposed variances satisfy the criteria of ECDC 20.85: 1. Special Circumstances: L PLN20120047 —There are special circumstances and environmental constraints on the parcel that would support the granting of a street setback variance for the bridge/driveway and steps. The lot is steeply sloped and situated within the mapped Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area. While a code -compliant driveway approach could be created for the site (Attachment 3d), it Would result in pushing the proposed house closer to the steeper western portion of the parcel as well as requiring more extensive grading. Constructing the proposed bridge/driveway and steps would minimize the impact to the slope and soils at the site (Attachments 1a, 1c and 1f). This variance request seems to meet the special circumstance criterion in ECDC 20.85.010.A. PLN20120048 — There appear to be no special circumstances or environmental constraints on the parcel that would support the granting of a variance for an extra 3' of height. While the original building permit application showed a roof pitch that could meet the regular 25' height criteria (Attachment 1b), the proposed height variance simply asks for 'something extra' in order to build a taller house and make more profitable use of the property. This variance does not appear to meet the special circumstance criterion in ECDC 20.85.010.A. iii. PLN20120049 — There appear to be no special circumstances or environmental constraints on the parcel that would support the granting a 3' side setback variance for a bump -out on the north side of the house. The original building permit application showed a house that could meet the regular side setback criteria (Attachments 1a and 1d), the proposed PLN20120047 — PLN20120049, Olson Variances Staff Report Page 8 of 14 variance simply asks for 'something extra' in order to build a larger sewing room and make more profitable use of the property. This variance does not appear to meet the special circumstance criterion in ECDC 20.85.010.A. 2. Special Privilege: PLN20120047 — In this case, the approval of a variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property. This site faces similar limitations and topographic constraints found on many of the parcels west of 75th Place West north of 158th Street SW (Attachment 12). Most of the parcels west of 75th Place in this location fall off more or less steeply toward Puget Sound and all are.located within the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area. Of those five parcels that are developed west of 75th Place and north of 158th Street, each one was granted'a street setback exception for access or a garage. 15520 75th Place W PLN19900033 —12.5' 15620 75th Place W PLN 19930011— 0' 15706 75th Place W PLN 19890038 — 0' 15714 75th Place W PLN19860017 — 0' 15722 75th Place W PLN20000042 —10' As a result, the subject variance appears to meet the special privilege criterion in ECDC 20.85.010.13. PLN20120048 — Approval of the request would grant special privilege to the Applicant. It was shown in the associated building permit application that a house meeting the regular height criterion for the RS-20 zone could be constructed (Attachment 1b). This variance does not appear to meet the special privilege criterion in ECDC 20.85.010.B. iii. PLN20120049 — Approval of the request would grant special privilege to the Applicant. It was shown in the associated building permit application that a house meeting the regular side setback criterion for the RS-20 zone could be constructed (Attachments 1a and 1d). This variance does not appear to meet the special privilege criterion in ECDC 20.85.010.13. 3. Comprehensive Plan: PLN20120047 — As noted previously, the Comprehensive Plan identifies various goals and policies for residential development as well as the protection of soils and slopes. Construction of the custom residence PLN20120047 — PLN20120049, Olson Variances Staff Report Page 9 of 14 proposed in the associated building permit (BLD20120858) is clearly in keeping with the Plan's goals and policies for residential development. At the same time, while constructing a code -compliant driveway approach could be created for the site (Attachment 3d), such a design would result in pushing the proposed house closer to the steeper western portion of the parcel in addition to requiring more extensive grading. Constructing the bridge/driveway as proposed would minimize the impact to the slopes and soils on the site (Attachments 1a, 1c and 1f). As a result, approval of this variance would appear to be consistent with ECDC 20.85.010.0 and the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan for residential development, soils and topography. PLN20120048 —The Comprehensive Plan discusses minimizing view encroachment in the goals and policies for residential development. It is arguable whether an extra 3' of height would impact views in the area, particularly since there is only one house to the east which could really be impacted (Attachments 4e and 4f). The proposed house will be located lower, topographically, than the house to the east and the amount of view encroachment from constructing a 25' house versus a 28' house would seem to be fairly negligible in this particular location. This variance request appears to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as required in ECDC 20.85.010.C. iii. PLN20120049 — As above, the Comprehensive Plan discusses minimizing view encroachment in the goals and policies for residential development. It is again arguable whether a 3' encroachment into the northern side setback would impact views in the area, particularly since Meadowdale Beach Park lies to the north of the subject site and there will never be development in the park (Attachments 1b and 1c, 5g and 5h). This variance request appears to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as required in ECDC 20.85.010.C. 4. Zoning Ordinance: PLN20120047 —The RS-20 zone where the project is located requires a 25' setback from the street property line for all buildings and structures, unless specifically excepted. The bridge/driveway and steps were found not to be code -compliant as proposed during the initial review of the associated building permit (BLD20120858). To resolve this, the driveway approd h had to either be redesigned or a variance obtained pursuant to ECDC 20.85.- The Applicant applied for a street setback variance on December 21, 2012; this proposed request appears to meet the zoning criterion in ECDC 20.85.010.D. ii. PLN20120048 —The RS-20 zone where the project is located limits building height to a maximum of 25' unless a variance is obtained. The PLN20120047 — PLN20120049, Olson Variances Staff Report Page 10 of 14 house, as. originally proposed on August 23, 2012, appeared to meet the regularly required height limit (Attachment 1b). However, the Applicant has applied for a variance per ECDC 20.85 for an extra 3' in height to design a roof form with slightly greater pitch and upper level height (Attachment 4f). The proposed request appears to meet the zoning criterion in ECDC 20.85.010.D. iii. PLN20120049 —The RS-20 zone where the project is located requires side property line setbacks of 35' total for both sides, one side having at least a 10' minimum, unless a variance is obtained. As originally proposed on August 23, 2012, the house appeared to meet the regularly required side setback requirements for the zone (Attachment 1a). However, the Applicant has applied for a variance per ECDC 20.85 to allow a 3' projection on the lower level into the north side setback (Attachment 5d). The proposed request seems to meet the zoning criterion in ECDC 20.85.010. D. 5. Not Detrimental: PLN20120047 — As described previously, there are environmental constraints on the subject parcel that would support the granting of a street setback variance for the bridge/driveway and steps. The lot is steeply sloped and situated in the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area. Constructing the proposed bridge/driveway, in accordance with an approved building permit, would minimize the impact to the site and would therefore not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare nor be injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone. This variance seems to meet the not detrimental criterion in ECDC 20.85.010.E. ii. PLN20120048 — It does not appear that the proposed height variance would be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the vicinity and same zone. The extra 3' of height would allow for the construction of a roof with a slightly greater pitch and upper floor ceiling height. Due to the location of the proposed house on the slope and its location relative to the park, this variance appears to be consistent with ECDC 20.85.010.E. iii. PLN2020049 — It does not appear that the proposed side setback variance would be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the vicinity and same zone. The 3' of encroachment into the north side setback would not be easily seen due to the location of the proposed house adjacent to Meadowdale Beach Park. This variance appears to be consistent with ECDC 20.85.010.E. PLN20120047 — PLN20120049, Olson Variances Staff Report Page 11 of 14 6. Minimum Variance: PLN20120047 —There are special circumstances and environmental constraints on the parcel that would support the granting of a street setback variance for the bridge/driveway and steps. The lot is steeply sloped and situated in the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area. While a code -compliant driveway approach could be created for the site (Attachment 3d), it would result in greater impact to the soils and slopes at the site than the alternative bridge/driveway. Reducing the street setback to 0' in this case is the minimum necessary to construct the bridge/driveway and steps (Attachment 1a). This variance appears to meet the minimum variance criterion in ECDC 20.85.010.F. PLN20120048—The original building permit proposal submitted on August 23, 2012, showed a residence that could meet the regularly required 25' maximum height for the zone (Attachment 1b). Any additional height would not appear to meet the minimum variance criterion in ECDC 20.85.010.F. iii. PLN20120049 —The original building permit proposal submitted on August 23, 2012, showed a residence that could meet the regularly required side setback for the RS-20 zone (Attachment 1a). Any additional encroachment would not appear to meet the minimum variance criterion in ECDC 20.85.010.F. XI. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis and attachments included in this report, staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner: 1. GRANT variance request PLN20120047 to reduce the required RS-20 street setback from 25' to 0' because it satisfies all of the six decision criteria in ECDC 20.85. The following condition should be included: a. The subject 0' street setback variance applies only to the bridge/driveway structure and entry steps as proposed in the building permit plans for BLD20120858 submitted on August 23, 2012 (Attachment 1). All other RS-20 zoning requirements apply. All future buildings and structures proposed in the vicinity east of the house at 15500 75t" Place must meet the zoning setbacks in place at the time of building permit, unless a variance is first obtained. DENY variance request PLN20120048 because it does not satisfy all of the six decision criteria in ECDC 20.85. 3. DENY variance request PLN20120049 because it does not satisfy all of the six decision criteria in ECDC 20.85. PLN20120047 - PLN20120049, Olson Variances Staff Report Page 12 of 14 XI1. PARTIES OF RECORD James Thomas, Architect George and Ginger Olson City of Edmonds 2221 Everett Ave. #101 3528 102nd Place Planning Division Everett, WA 98201 Everett, WA 98208 Thomas J. Degan 15520 75th Place West Edmonds, WA XIII. ATTACHMENTS 1. Selected plan sheets for BLD20120858, submitted August 23, 2012 a. Site plan (SP1.0) b. Front/rear elevation (A1.0) c. Left/right (south/north) elevation (A1.1) d. Main floor plan (A2.0) e. Upper floor plan.(A2.1) f. Foundation plan (A3.0) 2. Planning comment letter for BLD20120858, dated November 20, 2012 3. Application materials for street setback variance (PLN20120047) a. Land use application b. Applicant's cover letter describing compliance with variance criteria for reduced street setback c. Site plan showing building impact area d. Site plan showing potentially code -compliant access design e. Modified site plan (SP1.0), received December 21, 2012 f. Excerpt report from Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. (dated July 15, 2011) g. Aerial photo ovicinity 4. Application materials for height variance (PLN20120048) a. Land use application b. Applicant's cover letter describing compliance with variance criteria for increased height PLN20120047 — PLN20120049, Olson Variances Staff Report Page 13 of 14 c. Site plan showing building impact area d. Modified site plan (SP1.0) e. Modified east elevation (similar to BLD20120858, Attachment 1b) f. Modified east elevation showing proposed additional 3' height g. Aerial showing nearby height and critical area variances h. Aerial photo of vicinity 5. Application materials for north side setback variance (PLN20120049) a. Land use application b. Applicant's cover letter describing compliance with variance criteria for side setback alteration c. Site plan showing building impact area d. Modified site plan (SP1.0) e. Tree preservation plan (1-2.0 — modified from BLD20120858) f. Landscaping plan (1-1.0 — modified from BLD20120858) g. Modified east elevation (similar to BLD20120858, Attachment 1b) h. Modified north elevation (similar to BLD20120858, Attachment 1c) 6. Critical area determination (CRA20110001) 7. Geotechnical peer review of associated building permit application (BLD20120858) 8. Applicant's critical area mitigation sequencing cover letter 9. Letter of complete application and noticing materials 10. Comment letter from Thomas Degan 11. Technical comments 12. Aerial photo of vicinity with 10' topography lines 13. Survey of 15500 75t" Place West 14. Survey of 15520 75t" Place West PLN20120047 — PLN20120049, Olson Variances Staff Report Page 14 of 14 NYld 3115 3ON301031d NOS 10 En Attachment l a PLN20120047, PLN20120048 & PLN20120049 =8ayo NOLLVAgA 30N30IS3LNOST10gins'31N0213ILE55 BoF� r I NI I j I I I I I I i s I I I I I I I I jl d7 Attachment 1 b PLN20120047,PLN20120048 & PLN20120049 NOLLVA313 3JN34IS321 NOSIO f 1HJI21 81331 uns:A afnn.99aGwa9 i m O �:. a� w�:.� ccss �ee��x e=s I I I I I 1 I l I I I I I I wl I �I �' I I I 1 11 3%111E3'Ik'fNWS � 'r:-4 j I I I I i 94 � I I k \ I i 41 i 11 I I I 11 I11 IIk I II Q it ------------------------ I -------------- l I I \ I \ I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 y \ \ I I I I I I 11\ i I I I R I I D6 1 ICY„ � 8yrc I�- -� II . I dl I 1 I 1 !II I III I 11 I I I I � I I - I � gl II I I I h3 �CIJ I �I I I I I IP.w CS D8 I I I I I I — .d �I =1 u R Attachment lc PLN20120047, PLN20120048 & PLN20120049 $gs Rill ON "�j ,��$ Ndld 21001� NItIW 3�N3OIS321 NOQSIO (�J V / Ufa �GE55BYN'e��Bzw :n)adpatlruu W�E°k -'i' a� �6y yrr Attachment 1 d PLN20120047,PLN20120048 & PLN20120049 mau v vt e = Ntlld ilOOld N3ddn 3JN34I531 1 NOSIO u N a t I I I l i B, _ }r L1 P£ sd 1n [-Z o�tl-b R i Tn SS lF MYdIICS t' �I o� yi T � m r 11 — —� H g c � � N , 2�fk 4 llsiiZ I � b 1 n H - � b ' � o� � •11 51�6 I � 1 Jrflqo I o "J + g � 1 BZ o ZAPBI TJI Z-2 L12-Z .td P9, 1 1 1 1 i Attachment 1 E PLN20120047, PLN2( & PLN2012004 )120048 9 5`- f;+Ma�85ao OI1NflOj NVId NdO 3JN3OI53i1 NOSlO O �1�1403'! c g e o V g �'086+1n 9 efiwa9 .t N 9� �Jo wm m 1 U per` 9 w w 2N Z m W 3E� = gawN W W p J ;gc _ �SM. N i e��zjz wyE �zoa w=W S�g� mad m3 m a<Fwrc amaw Joo >Q oo�o3 d ®N000a W3�pmw'�vwi53wrca 4 a w _ a q� : d J W I IF ir mel_r r -i —— �T 3 { ( �IgC131&I9f11'G3?Y� e --- ° ----- -- — i _—_-_—_— -4_-1 1_ W-- oC Imo' 1 wl --jlia I � b s I ' w o iL t _ __ _ _ __ n ___ 1 -_r� - _ _ _ _ ��- _ _ - n _ -1 iia I I id '.I r Lti k!ffi Xfi 70 k5 N�" II I I I O-i C. a — — ---- ------ - - - - ------ - -- - ------------ — - - - ll Attachment 1f PLN20120047,PLN20120048 & PLN20120049 CITY OF EDMONDS • 121 5" AVENUE NORTH ® EDMONDS, WA 98020 PHONE: 425.771.0220 • FAX: 425.771.0221 • WEB: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ® BUILDING November 20, 2012 James Thomas, Architect jthomas@arch-design.net RE: PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS FOR PLAN CHECK # 2012-0858 NEW SFR AT 15500 75TH PLACE WEST Dear Mr. Thomas, have reviewed the above building permit application for the Planning Division. Before I can sign off on the permit, however, the following information needs to be clarified in a written response: 1. Driveway/bridge: The proposed driveway/bridge approach is greater than 3' above original grade within the required 25' street setback. Unfortunately, this design is not code -compliant. Structures may not be taller than 3' within a required setback unless excepted in ECDC 16.20.040 or 21.90.150. There are two options for moving forward: applying for a variance to reduce the 25' street setback to allow placement of the bridge as proposed, or redesigning the project to accommodate a code -compliant driveway approach. See ECDC 20.75 for code requirements about variances and or ECDC 18.80.060 for further requirements for driveways. Redesigning or relocating the driveway and residence may result in changes throughout the site; keep in mind the critical area mitigation sequencing criteria in ECDC 23.40.120 as you consider any changes. When resubmitting (or with the variance application, as appropriate), please include a cover letter describing how the mitigation sequencing criteria were evaluated relative to the selected design. Finally, any changes would have to be addressed by the geotechnical engineer. Below are additional comments which should be considered during the redesign of the project. f Grading: Because a pbrtion of the project site is within 200' of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of Puget Sound, the Shoreline Master Program of Chapter 23.10 ECDC applies. The site is designated Suburban Residential I in the code. A single family residence in this area is exempt from a Substantial Development Permit if the unit is owner -built in accordance with WAC 173.27.040(g); however, grading for Attachment 2 PLN20120047, PLN20120048 & PLN20120049 appurtenances in excess of 250 cubic yards would be subject to permit if it occurs within 200' of the OHWM. As proposed, grading is shown to be 740 cy of cut and 370 cy of fill. It is unknown if the grading will be inside or outside the 200' boundary of the OHWM and if it would be for the main house or appurtenances. As a result, please update the site plan (SP1.0) and the related engineering plans (Sheet Cl) to show the 200' distance from the OHWM. Call out the amount of grading occurring both inside and outside the 200' boundary on the engineering plans and describe whether the purpose of the grading is for the house or the garage, driveway, decks, utilities, or fences, etc. 3. Structural lot coverage: On the site plan, please provide a structural lot coverage calculation for the proposal, breaking out the individual items contained in the calculation. ECDC 21.15.110, "[c]overage means the total ground coverage of all buildings or structures on a site measured from the outside of external walls or supporting members or from a point two and one-half feet in from the outside edge of a cantilevered roof, whichever covers the greatest area." 4. Height calculations: Please move corners B and C of the height rectangle slightly to the west to enclose the dining room bump out. Make any adjustments necessary to the height calculations on the site plan as well as the building plan elevation sheets (A1.0 and A1.1). Also on the elevations, please show the lines of average original grade, proposed elevation, and maximum allowed height for the project. 5. Setback encroachments: Two proposed setback encroachments do not appear to meet code requirements: a small section of eave at the northeast corner of the house and the eastern steps and entry area. For eaves, according to ECDC 16.20.040.13, "eaves and chimneys may project into a required setback not more than 30 inches." The eave at the northeast corner of the house appears to project into the setback more than 30 inches. For porches, ECDC 16.20.040.0 states, "Uncovered and unenclosed porches, steps,, patios, and decks may project into a required setback not more than one-third of the required setback, or four feet, whichever is less; provided, that they are no more than 30 inches above ground level at any point." The eastern steps and entry are within the required 25' street setback area. As a result, the steps and porch may only encroach 4' into the setback (using the lesser of 4' and 8.3'). Please verify and revise the site and building plans accordingly. If the variance course is chosen for the driveway/bridge, these encroaching features could also be included, 6. Tree retention and mitigation plan: Trees 347, 349 and 385 appear to be on the property line with County Park adjacent to the north. Please submit signed confirmation from Snohomish County that removal of these three trees is acceptable and whether any specific replacement is required. b. ' Tree 320 is identified as to be removed on Sheet L2.0. However, the tree matrix on the same sheet indicates that the tree has good vigor and average structure, despite having co -dominant leaders. It would seem that this tree might be a good candidate for retention with appropriate maintenance and/or bracing. c. It is assumed that those living and dead trees to be removed from within the identified clearing limits will be removed from the site. Tree 381 is dead but falls outside the clearing limit. Confirm whether this tree will be left onsite or removed in accordance with ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b.iii. d. Sheet 1-1.0 shows 21 replacement trees as opposed to the 22 described in the mitigation calculations. Geotechnical setbacks: On the site plan, please show the top of slope and the setbacks as determined by Nelson Geotechnical Associates on page 8 of their July 15, 2011 report. It should be noted that separate buffer and setback distances are required in accordance with ECDC 23.80.070 (buffers) and ECDC 23.40.280 (setbacks), unless otherwise provided. 8. Clearing limits: The clearing limits shown on Sheets C1 and L2.0 do not match. Please update the limits on L2.0 to show the location of the proposed drainage pipe. All referenced code sections are available at the following website: http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/Edmondsnt.html. Please submit three copies of your updated site plan (one being reduced size of 11 x 17 or smaller) and two sets of any updated sheets of the building plans. Please make all submittals to a Permit Coordinator, Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 4:30 pm. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 771-0220. Sincerely, Mike Clugston, AICP Associate Planner City of Edmonds Land Use Application i ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 0 ' 0 • ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT /�� ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # � L>t.)" 0Dl1a b ZONE ❑ HOME OCCUPATION DATE REC'D BY@✓ ✓�-� ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FEA Is-LI RECEIPT # ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ❑ STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER: • PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORNIATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 15500 75''�' QL. WPC 0MOODS WA . 78026- PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE r7LS1�N ��S/O 1Gtt/GI✓ PROPERTY OWNER 6&D t61N6EIQ 06SOII/ PHONEp#py 4i'7r- 33 I` - d 46 ADDRESS 3s Z}?' lOZ NA/I(.' LVF-It67T, ` 0!d4- 2-F E-MAIL 'T V rlrvA 17 co MCa.rl'-.')et FAX# NA v TAX ACCOUNT # ®Os` rp fly ,00103 SEC. !%S TwP. 274/ RNG. A i E DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) 2 - sY-ory d';nrle l�itm%/y /'CST%GiehCN. DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEE S APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) ot0!'4 a �'bM fvryaa- "n I A& - h a /,/,It h,14 a A. a r h P I/ 1,4-t"ANGC FAt 9-:AoORy 6A1&F_ `Mllttr>t6 ;` sT,shts Wnl*r.r"A44 C APPLICANT V 4A467S* 7NVJ&f+A47 hAMMCr PHONE# 42.6 a_r7-O%6/ ADDRESS 22 Z l G V 6P— 9JT 14ycc ,* /A ;` eve ITT, WA - I O ZO I E-MAIL T RM A's' 9 0-1-Mf FAX # N4 CONTACT PERSON/AGENT Xn Al? Pr a 6lidE PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL FAX # 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 APPLICANT/AGENT --_ �✓Gl1i` - DATE I Z -17- Proper /Owner's Authoriza n �. U 1 J o r certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and gr t my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes f inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER a � DATI Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. Attaehme PI Ngn120047, PLN20120048 & PLN20120049 Revised on 8122,112 B - Land Use Application nt 3a RECEIVED DEC 21 2012 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, PS 12-17-2012 City of Edmonds Community Development 121 5th Ave.N, Edmonds, WA. 98020 Project Name: Olson Variance Narrative Criteria for Entry Drive ands Stairs In front setback APPLICATION # 1 Plan Check No. BLD20120858 Dear Sir or Ms., Pursuant to our 12-17-2012 applications for 3 separate variances concerning the property at 15500 75th PI W., Edmonds, WA. 98026, Please find below the Narrative for each of the required Criteria for this first variance request. 1. Special Circumstances. Explain how special circumstances related to the property would deprive the owner of the ri hots and privi/e ec�s permitted to other properties in the vicinity. What special circumstances such as lot size, shape , topography, stream location, wetland location or other unusual problem are causing an impact, which would Require a variance? This property is located within the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Zone. Slopes within the site are steep to moderately sloped. The majority of the lot is also subject to Shoreline Master Program and a 200' setback from the ordinary high water mark. See Figure 1. which shows the minimum impact building area. Although Owner built residences are exempt from a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, grading activities within the 200'setback are limited for appurtenances to assist protection of the nearby Puget Sound. These circumstances, not necessarily present on properties built in the even recent past, formulated the current design concept which will require a variance for the portions of the stairs and driveway structures within the front 25' setback. Additionally, this property lies on the northern property line next the County Park which remains in it's primarily natural state which reduces the impact on neighboring residential occupants. See criteria # 6 for a further explanation of this last point. The driveway approach to the site is from the south only, due to the steep slope at the north end of thdroperty which at the road side is 45-60%. This approach would require the rebuilding of an existing 6-7' ECOblock wall and subsequent construction of a 5-6' retaining wall on the down slope side of a new driveway. Also, 75th PI W is a narrow, infrequently traveled road which would disallow a left hand turn at the north end due it's 12-14' width, too narrow to make the turnaround and head south, the only way out of this area. Since the southern approach is less steep, a conventional 20' radius descending driveway could be built to a garage at the north end of the lot. We tried this first .See - Attachment 3b 2221 EVERETT AVENUE SUITE #201 - EVERETT,WA98201 PLN20120047, PLN20120048 Phone: (425) 259-0661 - Fax: (425) 252-6911 - www.arch-c & PLN20120049 Figure 2. However this driveway approach would require the Owners to back out up the 20% grade to 75th PL W. Backing up a driveway turning at 20% grade would create an unsafe condition, particularly for guests at night unfamiliar with the driveway. A turnaround area as shown in Figure 2 would avoid backing up the length of the driveway but would require a 5'-7'cut for a retaining wall. This conventional approach would require about 70 yards of cut and fill from the natural grade, as these walls require a 4' min cut behind the wall to place the wall plus 2' of structural fill ( quarry spalls ) to support the foundation, driveway and turnaround area. See Figure 3, a portion of the original design soils report from Nelson Geotechnical Associates describing the requirements for this wall. Additionally, this approach exposes the unstable soils to an increased erosion hazard during construction particularly. These facts lead this firm to re-evaluate the approach to the site in an effort to create a lowered impact design that would reduce the exposure of the site to potentially increased erosion hazard, rather than the typical cut -fill approach. The current design is of an elevated ( above the dropping grade but essentially level with the adjacent roadway ) straight bridge driveway supported by piers below. See Figure 2a.This also makes it significantly less dangerous to enter and exit the parking area which is a privilege permitted to other properties as regulated by the engineering requirements of the City of Edmonds. These special circumstances created the current design which allows normal parking and access. The current design also protects this portion of the site from excess cut and fill placement and exposure to potential additional landslides during construction while maintaining the natural integrity of site to highest degree possible. As Nelson Geotechnical Associates have stated in their report, the soils on this site should have a low to moderate hazard for erosion ( and consequently less likely to fail ) in areas that are not disturbed and where the vegetative cover is not removed. The elevated driveway achieves this goal. Architectural Design Associates as made this minimum disturbance the primary goal when designing the current driveway approach, placement of the residence on the site and the foundation design. It is the opinion of Architectural Design Associates these special circumstances on this property actually assisted the creation of this better design which requires a variance for the portions of the driveway and stairs structures that are within the setback. 2. Special Privilege. Explain why the proposal is not a grant of special privilege. Is the proposal something that is allowed to other property owners In the vicinity, but would be disallowed on your property? If the variance is denied? This proposal is an effort to provide a safe and simple driveway approach without damaging any more of the vulnerable site to excess cut and fill activities as described in the Geotechnicareport. Many homes in the area, in the past, have been faced with burden of driving safely in and out of down sloping properties. The 25'setback itself does not preclude a safe approach and driveway. This variance request is particular to this site with it's unique and challenging P 10 1 01 2221 EVERETT AVENUE SUITE #201 - EVERETTWA98201 Phone: (425) 259-0661 - Fax: (425) 252-6911 - www.arch-design.net a guardrail that is very rational and thoughtful but requires a variance in the front setback In light of the recent advances and awareness in ecological management practices as highlighted by the adoption of Shoreline Master Program, it is the responsibility of design professionals to make every attempt to create minimum impacts in their designs, particularly on highly sensitive properties such this. Although there is a alternate method of accessing the garage and parking, as described above that was more common for development such as this in the past, granting this variance is not a special privilege but rather a sincere effort to allow a safe and simple parking and driveway with minimum impact to the site using a portion of front setback for this function only. 3. Comprehensive Plan Explain how the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan designation is residential -resource. This proposed development meets the historic development patterns used to formulate the basis for the City of Edmonds first Comprehensive Plan of 1995. Since that time, the City has developed a comprehensive plan that included the addition of regulations governing development in critical areas such as and including this property within the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area and the Shoreline Master Program. At this time, we have submitted an application for building permit which is currently under review after being deemed complete by the City of Edmonds and Landau and Associates. We are currently revising our plans and reports per the comments and corrections required by the City of Edmonds. .4A�/ We have completed and have submitted plans ate reports that also address the Goal for high quality residential development as follows: B.I.I. This is a custom home similar to other custom homes in the neighborhood. B.2. This custom home is compatible to existing buildings B.3. Since this development lies next to the county park and is mostly well below the the road level ( as will be displayed in variance application ##2 for a 3'-0" height increase ) as well as fact that there is only one neighbor to the south and a portion of a neighbor view across the street. See Figure 4. B.4. NA B.S. This proposed residential development and subsequent variance approvals maintains privacy, does not affect traffic other than that of 1 added SFR, maintains stable property values by not aversely affecting view, traffic or land use encroachments as is argued in the body of each variance. B.S. As part of our building department submittal, proper Geotechnical, Civil engineering ( drainage, erosion control) reports have been done and reviewed. We are currently working on a re -submittal addressing comments from the City of Edmonds. We do not feel any added noise or traffic beyond a normal SFR will be encountered other than normal construction activities once building begins. B.f. As previous explained in paragraphs above, this development has at it's core concept too build within the mimimum impact building area and with all required standards as set forth in the policy and review requirements of the City of Edmonds ESLHA procedures. Included in the building application, an arborist report and plan drawings have been completed pursuant to ECDC 18.45.050 B to properly address the requirements of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan B.2. removal of trees and subsequent review of ECDC 23.40.220.c.7.b. 2221 EVERETT AVENUE SUITE #201 - EVERETT, WA 98201 Phone: (425) 259-0661 - Fax: (425) 252-6911 - www.arch-design.net 4. Zoninca Ordinance Explain how the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance with the Zone District in which the property is located. Residential development is allowed on this as a Permitted Primary Use per ECDC 16.20.010. The property is zoned RS-20 and the proposed residence meets the development standards as per ECDC Table 16.20.030 except for the variances for which we are currently submitting. This application for variance is for allowing the proposed driveway and entry stairs to be within the 25' front setback. Under separate applications, we are also applying for 2. A variance to allow the proposed maximum height to be 3'-0" above the allowed 25' from average grade and 3. A variance to'allow a 3'-0" floor area within the required 25' north side setback. S. Not Detrimental Explain how the proposal is not detrimental. Will the portion of your proposal for which you seek a variance cause a loss of property value, scenic view or use of the surrounding properties? Will The portion of the project for which you seek a variance be physically injurious or harmful to any person on your property or surrounding properties ? This proposed variance will cause no harm or be detrimental to either the people or property. Firstly, the purpose of this variance is to provide a safe and simple driveway for access to the garage and parking as defined in the criteria regarding Special Circumstances above. The gently sloped, guardrail protected, elevated driveway allows for easy access and avoids the curves and steep slopes of the alternative driveway we explored and have shown in Figure 2. The driveway and stairs are both protected by a sturdy metal guardrail built to last and per building code requirements. We feel this safe and simple driveway will actually increase the value of this property as it appeals to those of limited mobility. The driveway is a gentle slope and the stairs have 2 intermediate landings which is beyond code requirements. Secondly, as has been stated before, the concept driving this proposal is to also do our best to help maintain public health and welfare by keeping the residence within the low impact building zone which assists the overall protection of both the site and theresidential occupants of the proposed residence. The proposed residence has little affect on scenic view as the neighbor to the north is the county park, the neighbor to the south's view is not affected and the neighbor to the east's floor and deck area are well upslope and only partially in sight, see Figure #4. 6. Minimum Variance Explain how the proposed variance is the minimum needed to accommodate the proposed project, Mote why there is no alternative other than a variance in order to complete this project. This proposed variance, as explained in the text of Criteria #1 Special Circumstances, is requested to provide a safe and simple driveway and parking area for the occupants and guests of the proposed residence. Although another way to provide a curving and steep driveway can be accomplished, it is our opinion this steep & curving driveway takes to great a toll on the site and is less safe. 2221 EVERETT AVENUE SUITE #201 • EVERETT, WA98201 Phone: (425) 259-0661 - Fax: (425) 252-6911 - www.arch-design.net Given that fact this site is extremely sensitive both in terms of the ultimate safety to the occupants and the greater issues of the surrounding environment, we feel this minimum encroachment into the front setback is why this variance helps to mitigate, in particular, the hazards and potential for a landslide occurring during construction and throughout the life of the residence. Respectfully submitted, James A. Thomas, Architect Architectural Design Associates, Ps 2221 Everett Ave # 101, Everett , WA. 98201 0:425-259-0661 C:425-681-7731 I 2221 EVERETT AVENUE SUITE #201 • EVERETT, WA 98201 Phone: (425) 259-0661 - Fax: (425) 252-6911 , - www.arch-design_net VIG UR-E I 31 r Iy w adoa Ho-ino saNm �- ,. " 11S .� x0cryou INK . A4youEMS AAO f %�S 0 — qsg Attachment 3c PLN20120047,PLN20120048 �� & PLN20120049 FIGU" ? ORIGINAL DRIVEWAY DESIGN i U W uu,, o �7{$ Kp ilpy 7 $W o OV08 H0'lno SONni �p _ u 83 001�, b ON 4.SM- dSMF fli _08 _ t F�J<G yq� Co - ----�_ �OB. C'.,J t � � J t a+�_f 08 - o£ _ 0 Attachment 3d PLN20120047,PLN20120048 & PLN20120049 Vqld _311S 3DNIGRI3� K Cl. t f !2 I mn LD ILL Mpg ul 1 I H 0 1 H! wd" LL 'nub ER L_�, 12 Ea Y ��Ja 112 'lot T ag I tR 1 8 p� T4oa "0' 0, --------------------- le AAA gl 1111111111 till Iffill U111 __J I libiLL-u-mul LL Attachment 3e mill H 11 FI—FF-Tr- I I FF7 I I[-FFTF-7i vi ii PLN20120047, PLN201200AR HII IIII & PLN201200, Lo FIGURE Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence 15500 — 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 NGA File No. 8342B I 1 Page 13 RETAINING WALLS STRUCTURAL FILL FOUNDATION SUPPORT M M DEVELOPMENT SERVICES review all plans for grading on this project. We do not recommend grading on steep slopes, or placing irrigation systems near the slopes. Foundation Support Current plans indicate that the entire residence will be supported on 16- to 24-inch reinforced concrete Piers, extending a .minimum of 25 feet below existing ground surface. An open -hole drilling method will likely be feasible based on our field observations, however, if caving conditions are encountered, pile casing will be required. The holes should be cleaned of any slough or water prior to pouring concrete. We recommend that the concrete be readily available on site at the time of drilling. The holes should not be left open for any extended period of time, as sloughing debris and/or groundwater seepage into the excavations may hamper pier installation. For piers installed successfully as described above, we recommend using a design axial compression capacity of 25 and 40 tons for 16- and 24-inch piers, respectively. Lateral resistance on the piers could be calculated based on an equivalent fluid density of 200 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) applied to two pile diameters. The upper 15 feet should be neglected for the purpose of calculating the lateral resistance. Structural Fill General: Fill placed beneath foundations, pavements, and other settlement -sensitive structures, or behind retaining walls should be placed as structural fill. Structural fill, by definition, is placed in accordance with prescribed methods and standards and is monitored by an experienced geotechnical professional or soils technician. Field monitoring procedures would include the performance of a representative number of in -place density tests to document the attainment of the desired degree of relative compaction. The area to receive the fill should be prepared as outlined in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection of this report. Sloping areas to receive fill should be benched prior to fin placement. The benches should be level and at least four feet wide. Materials: Structural fill shouldconsist of a good quality, granular soil, free of organics and other deleterious material and be well graded to a maximum size of about three inches. All-weather fill should contain no more than five -percent fines (soil finer than. U.S. No. 200 sieve, based on that fraction passing NELSONGEOTECH Attachment Y PLN20120047, PLN20120048 & PLN20120049 Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence 15500 — 75a` Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 NGA File No. 8342B 1 l Page 14 the U.S. 3/4-inch sieve). We do not anticipate placement of significant volumes of structural fill for this project. The on -site soils consist of moisture -sensitive silty materials and slide debris. We recommend that the on -site material not be used as structural fill. We should be retained to evaluate the suitability of proposed structural fill materials at the time of construction. Fill Placement: Following subgrade preparation, placement of structural fill may proceed. All filling should be accomplished in uniform., lifts up to eight inches thick. Each lift should be spread evenly and be thoroughly compacted prior to placement of subsequent lifts. .All structural fill underlying building areas and pavement subgrade should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density. Maximum dry density, in this report, refers to that density as determined by the .ASTM D-1557 Compaction Test procedure. The moisture content of the soils to be compacted should be within about two percent of optimum so that a readily compactable condition exists. It may be necessary to over - excavate and remove wet soils in cases where drying to a compactable condition is not feasible. All compaction should be accomplished by equipment of a type and size sufficient to attain the desired degree of compaction. Retaining Walls We understand that retaining walls up to nine feet high will be incorporated into project plans. We recommend that retaining walls be kept as short as possible'. The lateral pressure acting on subsurface retaining walls is dependent on the nature and density of the soil behind the wall, the amount of lateral wall movement which can occur as backfill is placed, wall drainage conditions, the inclination of the backfill, and other possible surcharge loads. For walls that are free to yield at the top at least one thousandth of the height of the wall (active condition), soil pressures will be less than if movement is limited by such factors as wall stiffness or bracing (at -rest condition). We recommend that walls supporting horizontal baemll and not subjected to hydrostatic forces be designed using a triangular earth presre distribution equivalent to that exerted by a fluid with a density of 40 pcf for yielding (active condition) walls, and 60 pcf for non -yielding (at -rest condition) walls. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence 15500 — 75s' Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 NGA File No. 8342E I I Page 17 of the piles. .A. 50 percent reduction of this value can be applied for the purpose of designing the wall lagging. The passive resistance could be calculated based on a 100 pcf equivalent fluid density acting on two effective pile diameters below the base of the exposed portion of the wall. This value incorporates a factor of safety of 2. The below -grade portion of the wall should not be shorter than twice the wall stick- up height. The soldier pile wall should be installed by a shoring contractor experienced with this type of system. Although we anticipate that an open -hole drilling method will be adequate for installing the soldier piles in the on -site soils, the shoring contractor should be capable of casing the holes as sloughing and/or water seepage may be encountered. It might be prudent to perform one or more "test" holes to confirm installation conditions prior to finalizing work plans. Any sloughing or water that may collect in the drilled holes should be removed prior to pouring grout. Grout should be readily available on site at the time the holes are drilled. The holes should not be left open for any length of time, as that may increase the potential for caving and water seepage to impact wall installation. If groundwater seepage is encountered, we recommend that the concrete be tremied from the bottom of the excavations to displace the groundwater to the surface. Extra Portland Cement may also be placed in the bottom of the excavations to reduce the effects of seepage. The spoils from, the soldier pile excavations are expected to be moisture -sensitive materials and should be removed from the site. We should be retained to monitor on site activities during the soldier pile wall installation on a full -tune basis. The wall should be lagged using pressure -treated timber or concrete panels. Adequate gaps should be maintained between the lagging elements to allow water flow through the face of the wall. Also, all wall backfill should consist of 2-inch clean drain rock. It is imperative that water not be allowed to pool behind the wall, therefore extreme care should be taken not to contaminate the drain rock with silt or organics. In wet conditions, it might be necessary to use a filter fabric along the back of the drainage layer. ® Pavement Subgrade Pavement subgrade preparation should be completed as recommended in the Site Preparation and Grading and Structural Pill subsections of this report. Depending on the tolerance to pavement NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence 15500 — 75h Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 NGA File No. 8342B 11 Page 18 cracking, we recommend that the upper two feet of the existing material be removed and replaced with structural fill. The pavement subgrade should be Proof -rolled with a heavy, rubber -tired piece of equipment, to identify soft or yielding areas that may require repair prior to placing any structural fill and prior to placing the pavement base course. We should be retained to observe the proof -rolling and recommend repairs prior to placement of the asphalt or hard surfaces. If the existing soil is left in place, the pavement section should be thickened to further reduce the effects of settlement. Repairs of Recent Landslide For the landslide that was recently experienced on the steep slope on the property, we recommended that the exposed soil be covered with heavy duty erosion control matting such as Tensar C350 Turf Reinforcement Mat, or equivalent. Prior to placing the matting, any areas of loose soils should be removed to expose dense native soil. The matting should be staked at the top of the slope with two to three rows of two- to three-foot long metal rebar that is either bent at the end or has a metal "T" welded to the end. The mat should be laid flush to the slope and staked to the exposed soil on the slope a minimum of every five feet. The slide debris that accumulated behind the small retaining wall should be cleaned out. After the matting netting is placed, we recommended that deep-rooted vegetation be planted on the slope and grass seed be planted to re-establish vegetation growth. All surface water flow should be permanently directed away from the slide area. We should be retained to monitor the repairs of the landslide. Site Drainage Surface Drainage: The finished ground surface should be graded such that stormwater is directed to an appropriate stormwater collection system. Water should not be allowed to collect in any area where footings, slabs, or retaining walls are to be constructed. Final site grades should allow for drainage away from the structure and away from the steep slopes. We suggest that the finished ground be sloped at a minimum gradient of three percent, for a distance of at least 10 feet away from the structure and slopes. Surface water should be col*cted by permanent catch basins and drain lines, and be discharged into an appropriate discharge system.. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the site slopes or excavation walls. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. LeiMMMIZMD Note: A new residence has been built on this lot since the map was ere. Source; Snohomish County SCa -W- ---- -- Attachment 3g PLN20120047, PLN20120048 & PLN20120049 City of Edmonds Land Use Application , 1 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ® ° ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE# g6ZONE [ 1 HOME OCCUPATION DATE to "� j— �' REC'D BY Q rnpin ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION F SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE -. -Q RECEIPT # I LOT LiNE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE 1 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ' ! FIE 1 STAFF PB 7ADB t i CC U STREET VACATION Fj REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION I J OTHER: e PLEASE NOTE T#ATALL /NFORNIATION CONTAINED IVITNIN TIIE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION I -UV19 '79-'6' AGt_Q FOMPW S1, A. MOZ-0- PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE)pp'' (�GT dN A&V IO S&GE PROPERTY OWNERy� � 6/ 5t15A cz r pPPHONE# 42•S S 33%— $D¢� 70 ADDRESS lD®Z�BpG. L V �/jg. 2Cp E-MAIL /cV d1,r0,j Q lcS7` h�1`' FAX# NA TAX ACCOUNT# �QS®®7U� /O SEC. 05- TWP. 2-7V RNG. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) DESCRIB7.!'t)W'i'HE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) � VA� .gg *�g�i4��irit7/VA/�- 3`-®" MRX' ffE/dttTq" APPLICANT ✓A1"E5 MAS, Qii%G/7/�L� PHONE# ADDRESSEICTI—/�, /�®� E-MAIL �� ar'Gh-de.-71C17-,42t FAX# IVA CONTACT'PERSON/AGENT S' !' R V11P PHONE# ADDRESS E-MAIL FAX # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indeimufy, 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 th owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AtiENT DATE / Proper y Owner's Author, tion I, VqG (pJ ( A K as"— certify under the penalty of perjury trader the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: 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 o inspection and posting , endant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE _ Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. AttachME PI rnl?n120047, PLN20120048 & PLN20120049 Revised on N 22 /2 B - Land l Ise Application lnt 4a DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, PS 12-17-2012 City of Edmonds Community Development 121 51h Ave.N, Edmonds, WA. 98020 Project Name: Olson Variance Narrative Criteria for an increase of 3'-0" Above the 25' height limit from average grade to EL. 122.0 APPLICATION # 2 Plan Check No. BLD20120858 Dear Sir or Ms., Pursuant to our 12-17-2012 applications for 3 separate variances concerning the property at 15500 Vh PI W., Edmonds, WA. 98026, Please find below the Narrative for each of the required Criteria for this second variance request. 1. Special Circumstances, EX lain how special circumstances related to the property would deprive the owner of the rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity What special circumstances such as lot size, shape topography stream location we land location or other unusual problem are causing an impact which would Require a variance? This property is located within the (North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Zone. Slopes within the site are steep to moderately sloped. The majority of the lot is also subject to Shoreline Master Program and a 200' setback from the ordinary high water mark. The slope of this property places the main floor of the buildable area with the minimum impact about 8- 11' below the grade of the adjacent roadway at 75th PI. W. when situated on the front setback. See Figure (2) 1 and Figure (2) 2. Because of the lot topography, this house sits down in a hole, essentially. Consequently, the code allowed height limit places the ridge of the allowed roof approximately 8-11' above the road, giving it a single story appearance form the road. See Figure (2) 3 showing the pre -variance relationship to 75thPl W. It is the intent of this residential development to seek a minimum impact concerning the placer lent of the house on the site by staying within the minimum impact building area•of figure (2) 1. The special circumstances of the topography, as average grade calculations reveal, allow only a maximum ridge ht. of just under EL. 119.0. We have designed a narrow house, 25' wide, to stay within the minimum impact area between the front setback and the 200' shoreline setback. This minimizes the width a roof would span, keeping the ridge height of the house as low as possible. However, to provide a main floor height of 9'-0" which is common with custom homes, particularly with a scenic Attachment 4b u_ 2221 EVERETT AVENUE SUITE #201 - EVERETT,WA98201 PLN20120047, PLN20120048 Phone: (425) 259-0661 - Fax: (425) 252-6911 - www.arch-desk & PLN20120049 view, results in a low upper floor height of 7'-9" and a roof slope of just over 3:12. A 3:12 roof with composition shingles is not desired as most manufacturer's recommendations and warrantees require 4:12 minimum pitch. Shingles with lower pitchs tend to drain poorly, possibly allowing for water intrusion. Therefore we feel it is the special circumstances of the slope and the subsequent height calculations that predicate the use of this low sloped roof and force the lower ceiling height at the upper floor to be substandard. This firm entertained using a flat roof but felt this did not function well in the rainy environment and was not an esthetically desirable solution, as people driving or walking on 75th PI. W could see what is a not too pleasing flat roof, nor would a fiat roof be consistent with most of the development in the neighborhood. These are the reasons for seeking this variance of 3'-0" above the allowed height above natural grade. 2. Special Privilege. Explain why the proposal is not a grant of special privilege. Is the proposal something that is allowed to other property owners in the vicinity, but would be disallowed on your property? If the variance is denied. This proposal is a modest request of 3' added height to essentially allow a normal roof pitch which is typically allowed on many other residences. Case in point would be an upslope condition where the roadside building elevation could be over 35', depending on the steepness of the lot, using average grade calculations. A downslope lot, like this one, creates the condition where the front of the house must be a single story or similar and often determines the ultimate roof pitch. Height variances of a similar nature have been granted in the past, See Figure (2) 5, in this neighborhood ranging between 3.5 and 10 feet. Therefore we do not feel this increase of 3'-0" would be granting a special privilege. 3. Comprehensive Plan Explain how the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designation is residential -resource. This proposed development meets the historic development patterns used to formulate the basis for the City of Edmonds first Comprehensive Plan of 1995. Since that time, the City has developed a comprehensive plan that included the addition of regulations governing development in critical areas such as and including this property within the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area and the Shoreline Master Program. At this time, we have submitted an application for building permit which is currently under review after being deemed complete by the City of Edmonds and Landau and Associates. We are currently revising our plans and reports per the comments and corrections required by the City of Edmonds. .We have completed and have submitted plans and reports that also address the Comprehensive Plan Goal for high quality residential development as follows: B.I.I. This is a custom home similar to other custom homes in the neighborhood. 0.2. This custom home is compatible to existing buildings B.3. Since this development lies next to the county park and is mostly well below the the road level as well as fact that there is only one neighbor to the south and a portion of a neighbor view across the street. See Figure (2) 5. 2221 EVERETT AVENUE SUITE #201 - EVERETT, WA 98201 Phone: (425) 259-0661 - Fax: (425) 252-6911 - www.arch-design.net B.4. NA B.S. This proposed residential development and subsequent variance approvals maintains privacy, does not affect traffic other than that of I added SFR, maintains stable property values by not aversely affecting view, traffic or land use encroachments as is argued in the body of each variance. B.S. As part of our building department submittal, proper Geotechnical, Civil engineering ( drainage, erosion control) reports have been done and reviewed. We are currently working on a re -submittal addressing comments from the City of Edmonds. We do not feel any added noise or traffic beyond a normal SFR will be encountered other than normal construction activities once building begins. B.6. As previous explained in paragraphs above, this development has at it's core concept to build within the minimum impact building area and with all required standards as set forth in the policy and review requirements of the City of Edmonds ESLHA procedures. Included in the building application, an arborist report and plan drawings have been completed pursuant to ECDC 18.45.050 B to properly address the requirements of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan B.2. removal of trees and subsequent review of ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b. 4. Zoning Ordinance Explain how the proposal is consistent with the Purposes of the Zoning Ordinance with the Zone District In which the property is located, Residential development is allowed on this as a Permitted Primary Use per ECDC 16.20.010. The property is zoned RS-20 and the proposed residence meets the development standards as per ECDC Table 16.20.030 except for the variances for which we are currently submitting. This application for variance is to allow a 3'-0" height increase in the allowed height of 25'from average grade to an elevation of EL 122.0'. Under separate applications, we are also applying for 1. An elevated driveway and entry stairs be allowed within the front 25'setback. 3. A variance to allow a 3'-0" floor area within the required 25' north side setback. S. Not Detrimental Explain how the proposal is not detrimental. Will the portion of your proposal for which you seek a variance cause a /055 of property value, scenic view or use of the surrounding properties? Will The portion of the project for which you seek a variance be physically injurious or harmful to any person on your property or surrounding properties ? This proposed variance will cause no harm or be detrimental to either the people or property. Firstly, the purpose of this variance is to provide a reasonable solution to the substandard roof pitch and upper floor ceiling height. Secondly, as has bedn stated before, the concept driving this proposal is to also do our best to help maintain public health and welfare by keeping the residence within the low impact building zone which assists the overall protection of both the site and the occupants of the proposed residence. The proposed increase in the height by T-O" residence has little affect on scenic view as the neighbor to the north is the county park, the neighbor to the south's view 2221 EVERETT AVENUE SUITE #201 - EVERETT, WA 98201 Phone: (425) 259-0661 - Fax: (425) 252-6911 - www.arch-design.net is not affected and the neighbor to the east's floor and deck area are well upslope and only partially in sight, see Figure (2) 6 and (2) 4.. 6. Minimum Variance Explain how the proposed variance is the minimum needed to accommodate the proposed Project, or why there is no alternative other than a variance in order to complete this project. This proposed modest variance to increase the height by 3'-0" is the minimum required to provide a reasonable ceiling height of 8'-0" on the upper floor and a properly functioning and draining of the storm water off the roof. We chose 5 : 12 as the best slope, according to manufacturer's specifications for architectural 40 yr. composition shingles. This is about 6-8" above a minimum pitched roof for normal 3 tab composition roofing which we feel would be a substandard roofing solution in this area of custom homes. As explained earlier, there is an alternatives to this variance that being an undesirable flat roof inconsistent with the neighborhood and the type that is prone to dangerous water or snow accumulation as well as being unattractive on this site, particularly with it's close adjacency to the road. It seems to this office the impact of this 3'-0" height increase will be minimized on this lot in particular as there are no neighbors affected due to the site's location, down in a "hole" and at the end of 75thPl W with the park to the north. Respectfully submitted, James A. Thomas, Architect Architectural Design Associates, PS 2221 Everett Ave # 101, Everett , WA. 98201 0:425-259-0661 C:425-681-7731 2221 EVERETT AVENUE SUITE #201 , EVERETT, WA 98201 Phone: (425) 259-0661 - Fax: (425) 252-6911 - www.arch-design.net 60 .f . G 4 tz �.. � try •i+f ap ,� Ali � 1S3}4 rii�3}V 3 �lEet �bOt�h � - ��AR9 iaf �I !.! i I' i i Vitl N i ,tiu w r T —!+l RECElVFp:: DEC 21 2012 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Attachment 4c PLN20120047, PLN20120048 & PLN20120049 (L-� 111, W143 "finMIT i�� I J 9 .1-9 -4 IF is �—A LIU Id i i TE Nil Awl Mv 110 110 . .................. '10 � 3: 0 jD 6 ti OR Attachment 4d . I . . . . fill, i PLN20120047, PLN20120048 & PLN20120049 h.k I Cb 1 I I I C I Ii I I t a1+ I I t I I I I f vo I � � i M _ _ o r I I w PW 0 w25 �N I N (- I o I I I I I I g ! I I E Attachment 4e PLN20120047, PLN20120048 �- m�--- I I�-1------�� & PLN20120049 J w v ICV R w AU CJ AU a o w 4 Attachment 4f PLN20120047,PLN20120048 & PLN20120049 FIGURE (2) 5 1 97-'14 ]Addro�-, Permit it Variane. ab (---------- Welbsito, not 1Co"inty 1cl ncl rigo4m9o) 15515 7-151h PI W V-06-53 liefght v3dar430: 0.5 it Approved - Staff 3,400 recommericki denial for not minimum W V-0-1-32 driticat Area Variance. Granted for setback from sleep s!epo �15820 75111 PI W3075 1�6305th m W V-29-W FFaitlht Variance, 7 ft'Approved 16OW 75-th PI :NV-9C 3-1 �O Height Varkincol a it benied � Impact to surfoundiriqviews, Sluffrecointrieridej appro,00l. V-97-2 Height Variaric-0: 5 A Appr9wid IC09P 751h pivi V Ix, . 119 Height Variance, 12 it Denied - Blocking �4vws' not minariurn necessary V-91-6-1 Height Variance: 5 Rt Approwed, Blatt 4,13A 5 recommended denial for not minimum necessary 759h Pf IN V-91Q1 Height Vafirmo: 611 Approw:d 6,372 MW4 Milli P! W V-99-179 Reasonablo Use Vrrhanco: 8,G95 sq ft. 4 i5la Ill wetlands drained, 15917 ?4th PI W 460 115910,72nd Aye W V-01.147 Heigfit Writ �nco: 4,5 It Approved ii�w IN 72nd Ago V- I 54,N) - Height Varlanco: 3 P, on garage. Denied by 3052 AP-15-00 Hearing Examiner, subsequently ippro%ed by city Council on appeal. 7212 1i54jh St SW V-4343 Rex-onable Use: RUV granted for setback isio Itor" sleep slopes 7220 N Meado=lale fad V-01 -10 Height Variance: 10 it Approved W04 16121 N MeaWf ale, He V-97-01 Reasonable Use Vnri��r.ce): RUV granted for 1967 setback from s(C'ejo slopes Haight Varisrxn): 611 Approved Nearby Height 0 100200 400 600 800 Feet and Critical Area Variances Attachment 4g PLN20120047, PLN20120048 & PLN20120049 V SITE LLCM OLSON REK G has been built le map was created sh County SCOPI ment 4h PLN20120048 10120049