V-05-89 Hearing Examiner Decision.pdfGARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - Edmonds, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINE, R
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPLICANT: Phillip Decker for Roberta Sandberg (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2).
CASE NO.: V-05-89
LOCATION: 1020 Bell Street (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
APPLICATION: A variance to increase the allowed height from 25 feet to 40.625
feet for a new single-family residence (see Exhibit A, Attachments
2 through 4).
REVIEW PROCESS: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes
final decision.
MAJOR ISSUES:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL ® Site Development Standards).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES).
IN )III , I T'
Staff Recommendation:
Hearing Examiner Decision:
Modified approval with conditions
Modified approval with conditions
After reviewing the official file, which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report,
and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application.
The hearing on the Decker/Sandberg application was opened at 3:02 pm, October 6, 2005, in the
City Council Chambers, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 3:21 pm. Participants at the public
hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the
hearing is available in the Planning Division.
10 h'worE�aornlcd /1 t. 11, 0,,,"M "�,
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-05-89
Page 2
HEARING COMMENTS:
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.
From the City:
Meg Gruwell, Senior Planner, entered the staff advisory report into the record and noted that
no new information had been received since the staff report was prepared.
From the Applicant:
Kendall Gentry, Contract Purchaser, said the critical area issue could be addressed
administratively by staff and noted that this hearing was for the height variance only. He said
no views would be impacted and said the top of the house would be 18' above the centerline
of the street, which is 7' lower than a typical house in a normal street setting. He submitted a
petition signed by 8 neighbors supporting the variance (Exhibit B) and said he feels the
request is reasonable. He also submitted photos showing how the property looks now and
how it would look if the variance were to be approved (Exhibits C & D).
Rufus Rose, Agent for Roberta Sandberg, said Ms. Sanberg would like to see the variance
approved.
Philip Decker, Applicant, said he and his wife visited the neighbors and reviewed the
proposed plans with them. He said the neighbors were happy with the proposal.
From the Community:
No one from the general public spoke at the public hearing.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. INTRODUCTION
1. Existing Conditions:
a) Facts:
1) The site currently has a house on it that straddles over two legal building sites (see
Exhibit A, Attachment 5) and a garage.
2) The existing house received a building permit in 1958.
3) The City's Building Official condemned this house in February 2004.
4) The house has one story visible from the road, and a basement cut into to the
bank. Because of the drop-off, the foundation wall continues approximately six
feet below the basement level.
5) The garage is built on pilings to make it level with the road.
6) The garage is an accessory building of the original house, but lots 8 and 9 which
contain the garage are being sold as a separate building site from the subject
property, which are lots 6 and 7 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5).
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-05-89
Page 3
7) The house is setback from the street property line only 12.3 feet at its closest
point, and the garage only maintains a 14.4 foot setback (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 5).
1. Site Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
1) Size and Access: The subject property (lots 6 and 7 only) is approximately 6,602
square feet, with 60 feet of frontage on Bell Street (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4).
2) Land Use: The site currently has half of a condemned single-family house on it.
3) Zonin : The subject property is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS -6) (see
Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
4) 'Terrain and Vegetation: The subject site has a gentle slope from Bell Street to
the existing house, then slopes steeply down to the south (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 5). The slope in the rear yard is over 50 percent. The vegetation on
the site consists of numerous maple trees, some alder trees, and an old madrona
tree, in addition to weedy species of ivy and blackberries and the old lawn.
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
1) The properties to the north, south and east are zoned Single -Family Residential
(RS -6) and are developed with single-family residences (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 1 and 6).
2) The property to the west is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS -6) and is
undeveloped (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). The Critical Area study for this site
shows that the lot has a 60 percent slope from Bell Street down to a wetland
associated with Shell Creek. The edge of the wetland is shown as approximately
five feet from the southwest corner of this lot.
�. f
1. Fact: Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review
(WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080).
2. Conclusion: As modified, the application complies with the requirements of the State
Environmental Policy Act. The following sections determine how the proposal meets the
requirements of City codes.
1 11115 r1lik''1�111 J 111, 1 M
1. Critical Areas Compliance
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-05-89
Page 4
a) Facts:
1) This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 23.40 (Environmentally
Critical Areas General Provisions), 23.50 (Wetlands), 23.80 (Geologically
Hazardous Areas), and 23.90 (Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas).
2) The applicant submitted a Critical Areas Checklist (CA -2005-39) and a "study
required" was issued to study the Landslide Hazard (slope) area, and to update the
study of the wetlands that are found on an adjacent site. An earlier study was
done under the previous regulations.
3) Geotech Consultants, Inc., have provided a memorandum addressing the
geotechnical considerations on this steep slope (see Exhibit A, Attachment 10).
They report that the underlying soil is stable, though the surface soils will be
subject to soil creep. They recommend that the house be supported by piers,
drilled to a depth of 30 to 40 feet below the existing the grade. They also
recommend that no grading be done to the south of the house and no fill should be
placed there.
4) The applicants have also submitted a Critical Area Study prepared by B & A Inc.,
dated September 8, 2005, addressing the wetland on the adjacent property. This
report determined that the wetland is Category 3, based on the City rating form on
which he gave it a score of 34. Category 3 wetlands required a 50 -foot buffer
from the edge of the wetland. There is also a stream on the adjacent property,
which the consultant finds to be over 100 feet from the property. Though the
exact type of stream was not determined, the consultant points out that the buffer
will not be over 100 feet, and therefore the stream will be quite well protected
with only the wetland buffer on this property (see excerpts of this report in
Exhibit A, Attachment 7).
5) Wetland Resources, Inc. conducted a peer review of this Critical Area Study and
their letter is provided in Exhibit A, Attachment 8. That letter concurs that the
wetland category is 3, though it gives the wetland a score of 50 based on the City
of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form. A score of 30 to 50 corresponds to a
Category 3 wetland, while a score of 51 to 69 would be a Category 2 wetland
requiring a 100 -foot buffer.
6) Edmonds Community Development Code Section 23.40.280 requires that
buildings and other structures be set back a distance of 15 feet from the edges of
all critical area buffers. It does allow for building overhangs no more than 30
inches in the setback area, as well as landscaping and uncovered decks.
Therefore, a wall of a building must be 65 feet from the boundary of a Category 3
wetland.
7) The proposed house intrudes into the 50 foot buffer with the proposed
cantilevered deck, and into the 15 -foot building setback with the deck, eaves, and
foundation of the house (see Attachment 9). On the site plan, the double line is
the railing of the deck, the dashed line is the eave, and the solid line is the
foundation of the building.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-05-89
Page 5
8) Edmonds Community Development Code section 23.50.050.F.3. allows for buffer
width reductions through enhancement to be approved administratively if a
number of conditions can be met.
9) The following section, ECDC 23.50.050.F.4., allows wetland buffer width
averaging to be administratively approved when a qualified wetland scientist
demonstrates that the function an value of the wetlands and buffers will not be
reduced and a number of other conditions can be met.
10) Other opportunities to meet the requirements of the critical areas chapter would
be to request a setback variance to the street setback and move the house towards
the street, or to request a critical areas variance to allow the 15 -foot building
setback to be modified. Both of these choices would require a hearing before the
Hearing Examiner.
11) This lot has a wooded, sloping back yard that has been overgrown by ivy. The
site also has a mature madrona tree at the northwest corner of the existing house.
12) The applicants have stated that they prefer to leave the house at a 20 -foot setback
so that they can preserve the madrona in the front yard.
13) The property to the south of this site has a lawn in their rear yard.
14) The property to the west has been left largely undisturbed and contains the stream
and wetland.
15) A condition of development should be to meet the requirements for providing a
buffer and building setback to the wetlands and to comply with the Wetlands
chapter.
16) A second condition of development should be to comply with the requirements
for development in Landslide Hazard areas.
17) Since the site is within a mapped fish and wildlife habitat conservation area, the
City would like to preserve as much of the native vegetation as possible. The
applicant must submit a clearing/tree cutting plan with any development permit.
Tree cutting and clearing of native vegetation shall be limited to the footprint of
development.
b) Conclusion: The entire rear area of the lot is wooded, steeply sloped, and
overgrown by ivy. Removing invasive species and replacing them with native
species would enhance the area for wildlife habitat. Because of the slope, this area is
unlikely to be heavily used by the residents. The adjacent site to the west contains the
wetlands and stream, and the buffer on this site should be connected to this area as
closely as possible. The property to the south has been landscaped with lawn and the
low areas filled, so it is a much lower quality buffer. Staff is torn between the desire
to move the house away from the wetlands in the southwest corner, and the desire to
keep the house as it proposed to be in order to retain the madrona tree in the front
yard, since it would help to provide tree diversity. This site seems conceptually to be
a good candidate for buffer width averaging and/or buffer width reductions through
buffer enhancements to allow the entire rear yard to be preserved as a buffer and
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-05-89
Page 6
enhanced in exchange for the house to be retained in its current location. If qualified
consultants can assure that the proposal will meet the requirements of the
Environmentally Critical Areas Chapters, then the requirements of these Chapters
will be met.
2. Compliance with Single -Family Residential (RS -6) Zoning Standards
a) Fact: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential
development in the Single -Family Residential zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030
and include the following for locating structures:
RS -6
1) Street Setback:
2) Rear Setback:
20 feet
15 feet
3) Side Setbacks (to all other property lines): 5 feet
4) Maximum Height:
5) Lot Coverage:
25 feet
35%
b) Conclusion: The proposed structure is shown meeting setbacks, but requires a
variance to height requirements to be approved before it complies with the
requirements of the Single -Family Residential (RS -6) zoning standards. The
applicants calculate lot coverage as 33 percent.
3. Compliance with Requirements for a Variance
a) Facts:
1) Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the
Code may be varied on a case-by-case basis if the application of the provision
would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship. 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.
(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.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-05-89
Page 7
(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 applicants have submitted declarations with their submittal, which address
the decisional criteria and these are in Exhibit A, Attachment 3.
(3) The applicants are showing their proposed house as meeting all required setbacks
for the RS -6 zone.
(4) Reducing the front setback would help to bring the house up the hill and make the
house shorter, since the City uses an average grade to calculate height.
(5) The Engineering Division requires a minimum of 18 feet of driveway on private
property in front of a garage, to allow the parking of vehicles in the driveway off
the street right-of-way.
(6) Edmonds Community Development Code section 18.80.060.D states that
driveway slopes shall not exceed 14 percent unless authorized by the public works
director. The director may authorize driveways to exceed 14 percent, up to a
maximum of 20 percent if he or she determines that:
(a) The driveway is the only economically and environmentally reasonable
alternative;
(b) The driveway will not present a traffic, pedestrian, bicycle or safety hazard;
(c) The police and fire chief concur in allowing the increased driveway slope;
(d) The public health, safety and general welfare will not be adversely affected.
(7) Lyle Chrisman, Engineering Program Manager, has stated that the Engineering
Division typically wants to see a slope of 14 percent or less on a driveway, if it is
possible to redesign the layout of the site to allow for it. The Engineering
Division prefers not to approve steeper slopes.
(8) The elevations given in Attachment 4 show that the driveway is to be at elevation
262, with the elevation of the right-of-way in front of the house at 264 feet. The
two -foot drop in 20 feet of driveway result in a driveway slope of 10 percent.
(9) From the site plan, the face of the garage is 45 feet from the Bell Street paving,
which is at an average of 265 -foot elevation at this point. To maintain a 14
percent slope, the level of the garage floor could not be lower than 6.3 feet below
the road, or at 258.7 feet.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-05-89
Page 8
(10) Pitched roofs are common in this neighborhood, though the pitches on older
homes in the area are quite low. Photographs of adjacent homes taken from the
Snohomish County Assessor's records are shown in Exhibit A, Attachment 6.
(11) The city's access database shows two street setback variances granted in this
block of Bell Street at 1047 and 1007 Bell Street. No other variances for this
immediate area have been found.
(12) Views in the area are to the northwest of Puget Sound, and local views are of
the trees in the ravine.
(13) The house to the northwest has a roof that appears to be about level with the
street. The Puget Sound can be seen over their roof. Exhibit E shows the height
of the roofs of the other houses on the block. The heights of other houses on the
block range from an elevation of approximately 272' to 289'. The elevation of
the top of the roof of the proposed house, if approved as conditioned below,
would be approximately 273'.
(14) The depth of the subject lot is 110.03 feet.
(15) From a 2001 study of the property to the west, the adjacent wetland is located
approximately five feet from the southwest corner of this site. Setbacks
required to the wetlands are discussed above in the Critical Areas Section.
b) Conclusions:
(1) Special Circumstances: The site has a number of special circumstances, the most
obvious being the steep slope. This makes it difficult to gain access to a garage
that is set back the minimum 18 feet from the street (required by the Engineering
Division) or minimum 20 -foot setback, while still maintaining a driveway slope
of 14 percent or less. The lot also has some special circumstance in the wetland
adjacent to the site and the buffer required to protect it. Therefore the lot has
special circumstances.
(2) Special Privilege: The applicant states that all structures on this block of Bell
Street do not meet the current height or setback requirements. Staff was unable to
confirm this, though there are two approved variances on the block. Though the
applicants note that the average height of the house above the center of the street
is 14 feet, the house to the northwest is almost entirely below the road. Since it is
below the road, the rest of the neighborhood can enjoy a view of the Puget Sound
over its roof. Therefore, the higher windows of this proposed house would likely
enjoy a view of the Puget Sound. Most of the houses adjoining this house appear
to be single -story houses from the street, with the exception of the house to the
northeast, which appears two -stories high from the street, and the house to the
northwest, which appears to be below grade from the street. On average, a one-
story house as seen from the street is not a special privilege, but more than one-
story is harder to defend as not being a special privilege. Although the city's 25 -
foot height limit is designed to allow for two-story homes, the method of
calculating height is designed to keep them close to the topography. The
applicants have stepped the house down the slope to some extent, but this does
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-05-89
Page 9
not lower the height of the house based on the current method of calculating
height by the City. While some variance to the height limit to allow for the
construction of a safe driveway and a typical pitched roof on the garage would not
be a grant of special privilege, allowing for any more than that would be. No
variances for heights have been approved in the immediate area according to the
City's computer records, though some of the houses might predate the current
height limits.
(3) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The approval of the height variance
is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. By bringing the house closer to
street level and providing pitched roofs, the applicant is trying to make the
proposed house more consistent with adjacent development. Because of the
slope, the proposed house should not impact views in the area. If the variance
was approved, the house would be in compliance with the zoning ordinance.
(4) Not Detrimental: From the Bell Street side, this house will appear to be a low
level one -and -a -half story house, which should not impact views because it meets
the 20 -foot street setback and the houses to the southeast of it are lower than this
house and across the ravine. The lower the house is, the less it will impact views,
so the least detrimental variance is the minimum necessary that will still allow the
owner to have the house, driveway and garage.
(5) Minimum Variance: While staff can understand the need for a garage with a 14
percent maximum slope driveway set at the minimum setback and having a
standard pitched roof, anything higher than that does not seem necessary. Having
a varied roofline is an admirable goal, and the proposal certainly contains a lot of
interest in the rooflines. However, this goal could also be achieved by having the
western roof lower than the garage, which would require less of a variance. More
reasonable would be to keep the entry at the same level as the garage and make
that the top floor, so that this house too would seem to have a single -story as seen
from the street. It appears that this could reduce the variance needed by about six
feet. Also, the current driveway appears to have a 6.7 percent slope from Bell
Street, when a 14 percent slope is allowed. Dropping the garage by
approximately three feet would still provide for a maximum 14 percent slope
driveway, and therefore would be the minimum required variance. The
combination of the reduced garage level and the elimination of the half -story
above the garage will result in a total reduction of height of approximately 9 feet.
The minimum variance appears to be the minimum required to allow a garage to
have a driveway with a 14 percent slope and the house to have the minimally
pitched roof of 2:12. Therefore, the variance of 6.5 feet over the allowed 25 feet
height limit, for a total house height of 31.5 feet, is the minimum height variance
that would allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with
the same zoning.
1. Review by City Departments
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-05-89
Page 10
a) Fact: The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire
Department, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, and the Parks and
Recreation Department. The Engineering Division commented "No comment on
height variance. Applicant will be required to meet all Engineering requirements at
time of building permit." No other comments were received.
b) Conclusion: As shown, the proposal appears to meet the requirements of the
above City departments. The Engineering Division requirements will have to be met
to approve the building permit.
1. Letters Received
No comment letters were submitted, however, as noted in the summary of the Public
Hearing above, eight neighbors signed a petition in support of the proposal (Exhibit B).
1. Comprehensive flan Designation
a) Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family — Urban 1."
b) Conclusion: Single-family residential development is consistent with the existing
Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site.
2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
a) Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals
and policies which relate to this proposal. Specific goals and policies are discussed
below.
(1) Residential Development Policy B.1. states, "Encourage those building custom
homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them
to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and
desirability."
(2) Residential Development Policy B.3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view of
existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures."
(3) Residential Development Policy B.4. state, "Support retention and rehabilitation
of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible."
(4) Residential Development Policy B.6. states, "Require that new residential
development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology,
vegetation and drainage."
b) Conclusion: The existing home on the site has already been condemned, so
rehabilitation of it seems infeasible. The proposed low-pitched roof fits well into the
neighborhood. The bulk of the proposed house seems to be considerably larger than
other homes in the area. Views should not be considerably impacted based on the
slope so the southeast of the site. A final geotechnical report and further wetland
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-05-89
Page 11
study will be required to determine if the residential development is compatible with
the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage.
1
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, modified approval of the request for a height
variance is granted, subject to the following conditions:
1. The height variance may only be adequate to allow a 14 percent slope driveway and a
2:12 pitch roof, which is roughly calculated to be 6.5 feet above the allowed 25 feet
height limit for a maximum of 31.5 feet.
2. Approval of this variance does not imply compliance with the Environmentally Critical
Areas Chapters, Edmonds Community Development Code Chapters 23.40 to 23.90. The
applicants shall meet the requirements of the Environmentally Critical Areas Chapters by
doing the following:
a) A geotechnical report is required to demonstrate how the proposed development
complies with the Landslide Hazard requirements of Edmonds Community
Development Code Chapter 23.80.
b) The applicant must meet the requirements of the Wetland chapter in ECDC Chapter
23.50. Currently the deck is shown within the 50 -foot buffer, and the house is shown
within the required 15 -foot building setback to the buffer. Planning cannot approve
this plan as shown. The applicants have several options to meet the Wetland code,
with a combination of options likely to produce the best outcome. These options are
discussed in the body of this report and include:
1) Redesign the house to meet the required buffer and building setback;
2) Request a critical areas variance to reduce the required 15 -foot building setback,
and a portion of the 50 -foot buffer;
3) Request a street setback variance to move the house toward Bell Street;
4) Request administrative approval of Buffer Width Reduction Through Buffer
Enhancement (ECDC 23.50.040.F.3);
5) Request administrative approval of Wetland Buffer Width Averaging (ECDC
23.50.040.F.4).
3. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds
Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure
compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances.
4. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to any construction.
5. The applicant must comply with all the terms of any future permits, including
Engineering Division requirements.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-05-89
Page 12
6. The permit is transferable.
7. The approved variance must be acted on within one year from the date of approval or the
variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an
extension of the time before the expiration and the city approves the application. Only
one one-year extension is possible.
Entered this 13th day of October 2005 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
under Chapter 20. 100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
Ron McConnell,'FAICP
Hearing Examiner
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration and
appeal. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact
the Planning Department for further procedural information.
R031129111 1311 1 0
Section 20.100.010.E 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.
r'v1WMm"xW
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the
name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and
reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with
the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the
decision being appealed.
The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for
reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-05-89
Page 13
for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed.
Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time
clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a
reconsideration request is filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9
more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the
reconsideration request.
M Y91- IM -19-9 MIXIV-9
Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is
required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval,
the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an
application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.'
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner
request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office.
The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record.
A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with 10 attachments
B. Petition in support of the application, signed by 8 neighbors
C. Before photo
D. "After" photo
E. Height of neighboring houses
Phillip Decker
126 – 3rd Ave. N. #204
Edmonds, WA 98020
Roberta Sandberg
4214 S. Junco
Greenbank, WA 98253
Edmonds Planning Division
Edmonds Engineering Division
Kendall Gentry
Landed Gentry Dev. Inc.
504 E. Fairhaven
Burlington, WA 98233
Rufus Rose
Whidbey Pacific Realty
PO Box 804
Langley, WA 98260
1� C. 1 S () 11
I
C"
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning ® Building - Engineering
To: Phillip Decker
126 Third Ave. N. #204
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: V-05-89
w
As you requested:
For your file:
Comment:
Note attachments: X
Cc: Roberta Sandberg
Landed Gentry Dev. Inc.
Whidbey Pacific Realty
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
��K�� �� |�0��� �
CITY �v^� "��v'�x�v��^,m
l2l-5TH AVENUE NORTH, 00MMNDS,W/k98U%O
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To: IlouMcCoonell, Hearing Examiner
From:
Senior Planner
Date: SEPTEMBER 3V,2005
Film; \/-05-89
RO0ERI&SAN0BBRG
Hearing Date, Time, And Place:
Council Chambers, Public Safety Building
250-5"'Avenue N.
Edmonds, Washington
Section
Page
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 2
A.
APPLICATION .....................................................................................................................................
2
B.
RECOMMENDATIONS _________-_-----------------------------.Z
U&. FINDINGS OU7FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................... 3
A.
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................
..................... J
B.
SITE DESCRIPTION ...... ......................................................................................................
............... 3
C.
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (88PA).............................. ...................................................
4
D.
BomomoxCOMMUNITY DevcLormewlCoou(BCD[]COMPLIANCE
............................... .............. 4
B.
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ....................................................................................................................
Y
F.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ...........................................................................................................................
Y
G.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (BCD{)- ... ..................................... .......... ..............................................
i0
811, RE, CONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS ................................................................... 10
A.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ....................................................................................................
|O
B.
APPEALS ..........................................................................................................................................
l0
VK. ATTACHMENTS ....,.....,..........~....~,,...-,.,.-...,...,....,.....,..,..,.....~...,........................1U
u0j'xv.dom/September m.z00s/Stonx*pv
Roberta Sandberg
File No. V-05-89
Page 2 of 12
1. Applicant: Phillip Decker for Roberta Sandberg (see Attachment 2).
2. Site Location: 1020 Bell Street (see Attachment 1).
3. Request: A variance to increase the allowed height from 25 feet to 40,625 feet for a
new single-family residence (see Attachments 2 through 4).
4. Review Process: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes filial
decision.
5. Maior Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section
16.20.030 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85
(VARIANCES).
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend a
MODIFIED APPROVAL of the height variance with the following conditions:
1. The height variance may only be adequate to allow a 14 percent slope driveway and a
2:12 pitch roof, which is roughly calculated to be 6.5 feet above the allowed 25 feet
height limit for a maximum of 31.5 feet.
2. Approval of this variance does not imply compliance with the Environmentally Critical
Areas Chapters, Edmonds Community Development Code Chapters 23.40 to 23.90. The
applicants shall meet the requirements of the Environmentally Critical Areas Chapters by
doing the following:
a) A geotechnical report is required to demonstrate how the proposed development
complies with the Landslide Hazard requirements of Edmonds Community
Development Code Chapter 23.80.
b) The applicant must meet the requirements of the Wetland chapter in ECDC Chapter
23.50. Currently the deck is shown within the 50 -foot buffer, and the house is shown
within the required 15 -foot building setback to the buffer. Planning cannot approve
this plan as shown. The applicants have several options to meet the Wetland code,
with a combination of options likely to produce the best outcome. These options are
discussed in the body of this report and include:
I. Redesign the house to meet the required buffer and building setback;
2. Request a critical areas variance to reduce the required 15 -foot building setback,
and a portion of the 50 -foot buffer;
3. Request a street setback variance to move the house toward Bell Street;
4. Request administrative approval of Buffer Width Reduction Through Buffer
Enhancement (ECDC 23.50.040.F.3);
5. Request administrative approval of Wetland Buffer Width Averaging (ECDC
23.50.040.F.4).
3. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds
Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure
compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances.
V-05-89,doc / September 30, 2005 / Staft'Report
uobem Sandberg
File No. V-05-89
Page sofo
4. The applicant must obtain ubuilding permit prior(oany construction.
5. The applicant must comply with all the terms ofany future permits, including
Engineering Division requirements,
6. The permit should hutransferable.
7. The approved variance must bc acted on by the owner within one year from the date of
approval or the variance mhu|| expire and he null and void, unless the owner files an
application for an extension of the time before the expiration and the city approves the
application. Only one one-year extension is possible.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A Introduction
1. Existing Conditions:
a) Facts:
(l) ?be site currently has ubouso on kthat straddles over two buildable sites (see
Attachment j) and ogarage.
(2) The existing house received obuUding permit in 1958.
(3) This house was cuodcounod by the City's Building Official ioFebruary 2O04.
(4) The house has one story visible from the road, and u baacmco1 cut into to the
hank. Because ofthe dcmp-off,the foundation wall continues approximately six
feet below the basement level.
(5) The garage iybuilt oil pilings |omake i\level with the road.
(6) The garage iaonaccessory building ofthe original house, but lots V and 9which
contain the Aurogo are being sold as a separate building site from the subject
property, which are lots 6and 7(see Attachment 5).
(7) The house is setback from the ot/ce\ property line only 12.3 tee{ at its o|oyoot
point, and the garage only maintains o 14.4 foot setback (see Attachment 5).
B. Site Description
1~ Site Development And Zoning:
o) Facts:
(|) The subject property (lots 6 and 7 mUv) is approximately
6,602 square feet, with 60 feet of frontage on 0cU Street (see Attachment 4).
(2) Land Us : The site has half o[ucondemned single-family house oil it.
(3) Zoning: The aoNoct property is zoned Single-Fomi|y Residential (%B-6) (see
AMocbrneni l).
(4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject site has u gon||z slope from Bo|| Street to
the existing boumc` then slopes steeply down \uthe south (muu Attachment 5).
The slope in the rear yard is over 50 ycrueui The vegetation on the site consists
of numerous nuup|e trees, some alder trees, and all old mudronu bee, in addition
|oweedy species ofivy and blackberries and the old lawn.
v-05-89Jo / September ]0.z0(8/Staff Report
Roberta Sandberg
File No. V-05-89
Page 4 of 12
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) The properties to the north, south and east are zoned Single -Family Residential
(RS -6) and are developed with single-family residences (see Attachment I and
6).
(2) The property to the west is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS -6) and is
undeveloped (see Attachment I). The Critical Area study for this site shows that
the lot has a 60 percent slope from Bell Street down to a wetland associated with
Shell Creek, The edge of the wetland is shown as approximately five feet from
the southwest corner of this lot,
1. Facts:
a) Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review
(WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080).
2. Conclusion: As modified, the application complies with the requirements of the State
Environmental Policy Act. The following sections determine how the proposal meets the
requirements of City codes.
1. Critical Areas Compliance
a) Facts:
(1) This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 23.40 (Environmentally
Critical Areas General Provisions), 23.50 (Wetlands), 23.80 (Geologically
Hazardous Areas), and 23.90 (Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas).
(2) The applicant Submitted a Critical Areas Checklist (CA -2005-39) and a "study
required" was issued to study the Landslide Hazard (slope) area, and to update
the study of the wetlands that are found on an adjacent site. An earlier Study was
done under the previous regulations.
(3) Geotech Consultants, Inc., have provided a memorandum addressing the
geotechnical considerations on this steep slope (see Attachment 10). They report
that the underlying soil is stable, though the surface soils will be subject to soil
creep. They recommend that the house be supported by piers, drilled to a depth
of 30 to 40 feet below the existing the grade. They also recommend that no
grading be done to the south of the house and no fill should be placed there.
(4) The applicants have also Submitted a Critical Area Study prepared by B & A
Inc., dated September 8, 2005, addressing the wetland on the adjacent property.
This report determined that the wetland is Category 3, based on the City rating
form on which he gave it a score of 34. Category 3 wetlands required a 50 -foot
buffer from the edge of the wetland. There is also a stream on the adjacent
property, which the consultant finds to be over 100 feet from the property.
Though the exact type of stream was not determined, the consultant points out
that the buffer will not be over 100 feet, and therefore the stream will be quite
well protected with only the wetland buffer on this property (see excerpts of this
report in Attachment 7).
V-.05-89.doe / September 30, 2005 / Staff'Report
Roberta Sandberg
File No. v-05'ov
Page 5^co
(5)A peer review was done ofthis Critical Area Study by Wetland Resources, Inc.
and their letter iuprovided inAttachment 0. That letter concurs that the wetland
category is ], though it gives the "/cUaud n uonro of 50 based on the City of
Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form. A yuomz of 30 to 50 corresponds to y
Category ] wetland, while a score of 51 to 69 would be u Category 2 wetland
requiring ol00-fhotbuffer.
(6) Edmonds Community Development Code Section 23.40280 requires that
buildings and uUmr structures be yu1 back x distance of 15 feet from the edges of
all critical area buffers. |1does allow for building overhangs nomore than 30
inches in the setback area, as well as landscaping and uncovered decks.
?borehwrc, u wall of building must be 65 feet 6r000 the boundary of Category
]vveUuud.
(7) The proposed house intrudes into the 50 foot buffer with the proposed
cantilevered deck, and into the 15-too1 building setback with the deck, eaves,
and foundation ofthe house (see Attachment g). Unthe site plan, the double
line is the railing of the deck, the dashed line is the eave, and the solid line is the
foundation ofthe building.
(D) Edmonds Community Development Code meodou 33.50.050.y.3. n|\ov/m for
buffer width reductions through enhancement 1obc approved administratively if
unumber ofconditions can bcmet.
(9) The following section, BCDC 23.50.050.F.4.` u||o*y vvodond buffer width
averaging to be administratively approved when o qualified wetland scientist
demonstrates that the function anvalue ofthe wetlands and buffers will not be
reduced and nnumber ofother conditions can benuui
(10)Odhor opportunities to meet the requirements of the ordiou\ areas chapter would
be to request a setback variance to the street setback and move the house towards
the street, or to ruqucmt e u6{ioo\ 0000m variance |oallow the |5-foo(building
setback tobcouodifiod. Both ofthese choices would require uhearing before the
Hearing Examiner,
(]l)Tbim lot has uv/oodud, sloping back yard, that has been overgrown hy ivy. The
site also has anuaturu mudronntreo at the uodh*eai corner of the existing house.
(12)The applicants have stated that they prefer to leave the house at o2U-K»otsetback
oothat they can preserve the rnadconuinthe front yard.
(|3)?he property tothe south m[\hia site has o lawn intheir rear yard.
(14)The property to the vvea1 has been left largely undisturbed and contains the
a1rmonnand wetland.
(15)/\ condition ofdevelopment should be to meet the requirements for providing a
buffer and building oufhock to the woUunJy and to oonop|v with the VVcUooda
chapter.
(16)A second condition ufdevelopment should bc10comply with the requirements
for development inLandslide Hazard areas.
(17)Bince\be site iuwithin umapped fish and wildlife habitat conservation area, the
City would like to p,oaorvc as much of the native vogc(nhoo as possible. The
applicant must submit a clearing/tree cutting plan with any development permit.
T,e* cutting and clearing ofnative vegetation ohu|| bolimited tothe footprint of
development.
v4s-89,Jw/September 30,zo0/Staff mpvu
Roberta Sandberg
File No, V-05-89
Page 6 of 12
b) Conclusion: The entire real- area of the lot is wooded, steeply sloped, and
overgrown by ivy. Removing invasive species and replacing them with native
species would enhance the area for wildlife habitat. Because of the slope, this area is
unlikely to be heavily used by the residents. The adjacent site to the west contains
the wetlands and stream, and the buffer on this site should be connected to this area
as closely as possible. The property to the South has been landscaped with lawn and
the low areas filled, so it is a much lower quality buffer, Staff is torn between the
desire to move the house away from the wetlands in the Southwest corner, and the
desire to keep the house as it is proposed to be in order to retain the madrona tree in
the front yard, since it would help to provide tree diversity. This site seems
conceptually to be a good candidate for buffer width averaging and/or buffer width
reductions through buffer enhancements to allow the entire rear yard to be preserved
as a buffer and enhanced in exchange for the house to be retained in its current
location. If qualified consultants can assure that the proposal will meet the
requirements of the Environmentally Critical Areas Chapters, then the requirements
of these Chapters will be met.
2. Compliance with Single -Family Residential (RS -6) Zoning Standards
a) Fact: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential
development in the Single -Family Residential zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030
and include the following for locating structures:
RS -6
(1)
Street Setback:
20 feet
(2)
Rear Setback:
15 feet
(3)
Side Setbacks (to all other property lines):
5 feet
(4)
Maximum Height:
25 feet
(5)
Lot Coverage:
35%
b) Conclusion: The proposed structure is shown meeting setbacks, but requires a
variance to height requirements to be approved before it complies with the
requirements of the Single -Family Residential (RS -6) zoning standards. The
applicants calculate lot coverage as 33 percent,
a) Facts:
(1) Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the
Code may be varied on a case-by-case basis if the application of the provision
would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship. 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, not, any factor resulting from
the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property.
V-05-89.cloc / September 30, 1005 / Slaft'Reporl
Roberta Sandberg
File No, V-05-89
Page 7 of 12
(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 address the
decisional criteria and these are in Attachment 3.
(3) The applicants are showing their proposed house as meeting all required
setbacks for the RS -6 zone.
(4) Reducing the front setback would help to bring the house up the hill and make
the house shorter, since the City uses all average grade to calculate height.
(5) The Engineering Division requires a minimum of 18 feet of driveway on private
property in front of a garage, to allow the parking of vehicles in the driveway off
the street right-of-way.
(6) Edmonds Community Development Code section 18.80.060.D states that
driveway slopes shall not exceed 14 percent unless authorized by the public
works director. The director may authorize driveways to exceed 14 percent, up
to a maximum of 20 percent if he or she determines that:
(a) The driveway is the only economically and environmentally reasonable
alternative;
(b) The driveway will not present a traffic, pedestrian, bicycle or safety
hazard;
(c) The police and fire chief concur in allowing the increased driveway
slope;
(d) The public health, safety and general welfare will not be adversely
affected.
(7) Lyle Chrisman, Engineering Program Manager, has stated that the Engineering
Division typically wants to see a 14 percent or less slope on a driveway, if it is
possible to redesign the layout of the site to allow for it. They prefer not to
approve steeper slopes.
(8) The elevations given in Attachment 4 show that the driveway is to be at
elevation 262, with the elevation of the right-of-way in front of the house at 264
feet. The two foot drop in 20 feet of driveway result in a driveway slope of 10
percent.
V-0.5--89.doe / September 30, 2005 / Staff Report
Roberta Sandberg
File No. V-05-89
Page 8 of 12
(9) From the site plan, the face of the garage is 45 feet from the Bell Street paving,
which is at an average of 265 elevation at this point. To maintain a 14 percent
slope, the level of the garage floor could not be lower than 6.3 feet below the
road, or at 258.7 feet.
(IO)Pitched roofs are common in this neighborhood, though the pitches on older
homes in the area are quite low. Photographs of adjacent homes taken from the
Snohomish County Assessor's records are shown in Attachment 6.
(11)The city's access database shows two street setback variances granted in this
block of Bell Street at 1047 and 1007 Bell Street. No other variances for this
immediate area have been found.
(12)Views in the area are to the northwest of Puget Sound, and local views are of the
trees in the ravine.
(13)The house to the northwest has a roof that appears to be about level with the
street. The Puget Sound can be seen over their roof.
(14)The depth of the subject lot is 110.03 feet.
(15)From a 2001 study of the property to the west, the adjacent wetland is located
approximately five feet from the Southwest corner of this site. Setbacks required
to the wetlands are discussed above in the Critical Areas Section.
b) Conclusions:
(1) Special Circumstances: The site has a number of special circumstances, the
most obvious being the steep slope. This makes it difficult to gain access to a
garage that is set back the minimum 18 feet from the street (required by the
Engineering Division) or minimum 20 foot setback, while still maintaining a
driveway slope of 14 percent or less. The lot also has some special circumstance
in the wetland adjacent to the site and the buffer required to protect it. Therefore
the lot has special circumstances.
(2) Special Privilege: The applicant states that all structures on this block of Bell
Street do not meet the current height or setback requirements. Staff was unable
to confirm this, though there are two approved variances on the block. Though
the applicants note that the average height of the house above the center of the
street is 14 feet, the house to the northwest is almost entirely below the road.
Since it is below the road, the rest of the neighborhood can enjoy a view of the
Puget Sound over its roof. Therefore, the higher windows of this proposed
house would likely enjoy a view of the Puget Sound. Most of the houses
adjoining this house appeal- to be single -story houses from the street, with the
exception of the house to the northeast, which appears two -stories high from the
street, and the house to the northwest, which appears to be below grade from the
street. Oil average, a one-story house as seen from the street is not a special
privilege, but more than one-story is harder to defend as not being a special
privilege. Although the city's 25 -foot height limit is designed to allow for two-
story homes, the method of calculating height is designed to keep them close to
the topography. The applicants have stepped the house down the slope to some
extent, but this does not lower the height of the house based on the current
method of calculating height by the City. While some variance to the height
limit to allow for the construction of a safe driveway and a typical pitched roof
on the garage Would not be a grant of special privilege, allowing for any more
than that would be. No variances for heights have been approved in the
irninediate area according to the City's computer records, though some of the
houses might predate the current height limits.
V-05-89.doc / September 30, 2005 / Staff Report
Roberta Sandberg
File No, V-05-89
Page 9 of 12
(3) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The approval of the height
variance is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. By bringing the house
closer to street level and providing pitched roofs, the applicant is trying to make
the proposed house more consistent with adjacent development. Because of the
slope, the proposed house should not impact views in the area. If the variance
was approved, the house would be in compliance with the zoning ordinance.
(4) Not Detrimental: From the Bell Street side, this house will appear to be a low
level one -and -a -half story house, which should not impact views because it
meets the 20 -foot street setback and the houses to the southeast of it are lower
than this house and across the ravine. The lower the house is, the less it will
impact views, so the least detrimental variance is the minimum necessary that
will still allow the owner to have the house, driveway and garage.
(5) Minimum Variance: While staff can understand the need for a garage with a 14
percent maximum slope driveway set at the minimum setback and having a
standard pitched roof, anything higher than that does not seem necessary.
Having a varied roofline is an admirable goal, and the proposal certainly
contains a lot of interest in the rooflines. However, this goal Could also be
achieved by having the western roof lower than the gat -age, which would require
less of a variance. More reasonable would be to keep the entry at the same level
as the garage and make that the top floor, so that this house too would seem to
have a single -story as seen from the street. It appears that this could reduce the
variance needed by about six feet. Also, the Current driveway appears to have a
6.7 percent slope from Bell Street, when a 14 percent slope is allowed.
Dropping the garage by approximately three feet would still provide for a
maximum 14 percent slope driveway, and therefore would be the minimum
required variance. The combination of the reduced garage level and the
elimination of the half -story above the garage will result in a total reduction of
height of approximately 9 feet. The minimum variance appears to be the
minimum required to allow a garage to have a driveway with a 14 percent slope
and the house to have the minimally pitched roof of 2:12. Therefore, the
variance of 6.5 feet over the allowed 25 feet height limit, for a total house height
of 31.5 feet, is the minimum height variance that would allow the owner rights
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
E. Technical Committee
I iff"IM-ATES I I X
a) Fact: The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire
Department, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, and the Parks and
Recreation Department. The Engineering Division commented "No comment on
height variance. Applicant will be required to meet all Engineering requirements at
time of building permit." No other comments were received.
b) Conclusion: As shown, the proposal appears to meet the requirements of the
above City departments. The Engineering Division requirements will have to be met
to approve the building permit.
F. Public Comments
1. Letten Received
As of the date of this report, the City has received no comment letters.
V-05-89.doe / September 30, 2005 / Staff Report.
Roberta Sandberg
File No. V-05-89
Page 10 of 12
302MRIMEJ
a) Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family — Urban L"
b) Conclusion: Single-family residential development is consistent with the existing
Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site.
2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
a) Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals
and policies which relate to this proposal. Specific goals and policies are discussed
below.
(1) Residential Development Policy B.1. states, "Encourage those building custom
homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them
.to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and
desirability."
(2) Residential Development Policy 133. states, "Minimize encroachment on view of
existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures."
(3) Residential Development Policy B.4. state, "Support retention and rehabilitation
of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible."
(4) Residential Development Policy B.6. states, "Require that new residential
development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology,
vegetation and drainage."
b) Conclusion: The existing home on the site has already been condemned, so
rehabilitation of it seems infeasible. The proposed low pitched roof fits well into the
neighborhood. The bulk of the proposed house seems to be considerably larger than
other homes in the area. Views should not be considerably impacted based on the
slope so the Southeast of the site. A final geotechnical report and further wetland
study will be required to determine if the residential development is compatible with
the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage.
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals.
Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning
Department for further procedural information.
Section 20.100.010.E allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
recommendation if a written request is filed within tell (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 ]low appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
V-05-89.doc / September 30, 2005 / Staff Report
Roberta Sandberg
File No. V-05-89
Page I I of'12
decision being appealed along with the name of the project applicant and the date of the
decision, the name and address 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 fourteen (14) calendar days
after the date of the decision being appealed.
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and A,,=,
The time limits for Reconsideration's and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a
reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing all appeal has expired, the time "clock"
for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed.
Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time
clock for filing an appeal continued for the point it was stopped. For example, if a request is
filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an
appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request.
Section 20.85.020.0 states "The approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year
from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an
application for an extension of the time before the expiration and the city approves the application."
kTY�1L1J111V[[11'*0111J
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 Snohorrfish County Assessors Office.
1. Vicinity / Zoning Map
2. Application
3. Applicant's Declarations
4. Site Plan, Cross Sections, and Elevations
5. Survey of Existing Conditions, dated 8/24/04
6. Adjacent Horne Photographs from Snohomish County Assessor's Records
7. Excerpts from a Critical Area Study by B & A, Inc., dated September 8, 2005
8. Peer Review Letter from Wetland Resources, Inc., dated September 29, 2005
9. Site Plan with the Wetland Boundary, Buffer and Building Setback Shown
10, Geotech Consultants, Inc., Memorandum, dated September 13, 2005
ON I I I HZ�, 0 l ' �� �J i U E,
Phillip Decker Roberta Sandberg Landed Gentry Dev. Inc.
126 — 3rd Ave. N. #204 4214 S. Junco 504 E. Fairhaven
Edmonds, WA 98020 Greenbank, WA 98253 Burlington, WA 98233
Planning Division Engineering Division Rufus Rose
Whidbey Pacific Realty
P.O. Box 804
Langley, WA 98260
V-05-89.doc / September 30, 2005 / StaffReport
Roberta Sandberg
File No. V-05-89
Page 12 of 12
V-05-89.doc / September 30, 2005 / Staff Report
Vicinity 1� 1 1- 1
iF
1
city of _d ._•
land use applicatiol
e
AAcRmcTURAL DmuN RPvtEw
9
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
6
catrDmoN,%L Us6 PGRtwtr
F1LP
ZONE
IHOMB OCCUPATION
DATE
RECD B Y
9
FORMALSUaMVISION
9
SHORTSURDIVIMN
FEE
IUCSIPT4
9
I oT LING ADAISTAIENT
HEAmNO DATA
e
PLANNEDR•91ng"A.L DavKL0PMVNT
ONE a 9TAPF
a P8 ® ADB a cc
e
OFRCUL SMbT MAF AMENDMENT
A
SipaRT VACATION
WL®RAAY\➢LANNtNGkF— ®vo. AVOI;-d.�A..
909 Seventh Street Anacortes, WA 98221 Fax (360) 588-0581 Phone (360) 588-0471
City of Edmonds
Variance request to raise the allowable building height for a new single family residence
on a steeply sloped site on Bell Street. Parcel number: 00434204000600 for
Roberta Sandberg
4214 S Junco
Greenbank, WA 98253
Applicant Declarations:
1. How does the proposal meet the Special Circumstance Criteria? This site has a
downward slope in excess of 50% and the average grade calculation with
maximum allowable building height for a standard footprint only provides a height
of 3' above street level. This limit would eliminate all vehicular and pedestrian
access to buildings on the site, and therefore requires special consideration.
2. Explain why the proposal is not a Grant of Special Privilege. This entire street is
on a crown of a hill and a survey of ALL existing structures on this short dead
end street do not meet the current height or setback requirements. They ALL
have had to compensate for their sloped sites. The highest roof elevation is 22
feet above the center of the street, and the average is 14 feet. The additional
15.5 feet of height that we are requesting is consistent with the neighborhoods
residence elevations, and therefore we are not asking for special consideration
that the others already enjoy.
3. Explain how the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The
proposed structure is a single family residence in the Single Family — Urban 1
designation and therefore consistent with the plan.
4. Explain how the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning
Ordinance and the Zone district. The development is in the RS -6 zone requiring
a minimum of 6000 square foot parcel, this proposal is consistent with the zoning
with a single family residence on a 6600 square foot lot.
5. Explain how this proposal meets the criteria of not Detrimental. This proposal is
not detrimental to the surrounding properties because of its unique location. This
is the last property on a dead end street that abuts a steep open space to the
west and south. This property has no view past the dense forest of the adjoining
open spaces, and will not block any views from the existing surrounding
residences. This new residence will replace a non conforming residence on the
site that is a community eyesore. The existing structure has not been maintained
for years and the new structure will dramatically improve the area.
6. Explain how the proposed variance is the Minimum Variance needed to
accommodate the proposed project. This variance is needed to allow reasonable
access to the structure as stated above. The 15.5 foot extra height will allow for
level access from the driveway and accommodate a sloped roof that is consistent
with the neighborhood character. The varying roof line adds interest and
character. A single flat roof would not be in keeping with the neighborhood. We
are proposing a 2:12 pitched roof to minimize the request, and have sunk the
entry down %2 a flight to minimize the total height. Because of the way that the
average height is calculated, building out or down over the slope only makes the
maximum height worse, and the steepness of the site prevents a driveway to go
beyond the street yard setback line. We feel that this proposal will have a
minimum impact on the community that a variance requires, and still allow this
home to have character that will fit into its neighborhood.
z
F
0�
Z
cn
cc
C,
o
Ln
-Z
CL LLJ
�5
0
CD
CD
uj
CL Q�l
CD
j-
1
w
11
II
0w
NNNN
CD
CN
>
<
L -j
LL.
z
aa-
Je
ci
<
z
in00
CJI
C) w E
cl� 0 o(/,ry
a - c:
D n,�
4
v) u�
LJLJ LJ
m
cr, Z
o00
ui
C'L-1 Cx
D
W
<
0��
L.
:7, z
z
Of
< w
0-
m
<
-0
W,
<
Lf)
n
I ,
CD
0-
7-
z
F
0
ry
cn
C,
LU
Ln
-Z
CL LLJ
LL
ry
CL Q�l
L -j
-FQ
C o Ln c,
II
NNNN
LLj
�,j
<
L -j
cl� <
aa-
Je
ci
<
AQVEAS 6V3?,
�Icts 3 2 1 GO N +
/<
<
T T
7 Z-
4—
FT anOo ;N 1 1
LLJ
LLJ
ry
C9"
�,(E) 111 M E "�T
F
ry
cn
C,
LU
Ln
-Z
CL LLJ
LL
ry
CL Q�l
L -j
<<<
�,j
cl� <
<
0
cr
CL <
CJI
C) w E
cl� 0 o(/,ry
a - c:
D n,�
4
v) u�
LJLJ LJ
7 Z-
4—
FT anOo ;N 1 1
LLJ
LLJ
ry
C9"
�,(E) 111 M E "�T
ry
cn
C,
LU
Ln
0
W
LL
ry
aD
L -j
<<<
co
cl� <
Lj
0
C) w E
cl� 0 o(/,ry
D n,�
v) u�
LJLJ LJ
c�
o00
C'L-1 Cx
7 Z-
4—
FT anOo ;N 1 1
LLJ
LLJ
ry
C9"
�,(E) 111 M E "�T
Lu � ji,
0
7FD
w m
ff LD
R
uj
-775L
103
13
"EF�� 11 FT -7
E- C)
z 4
I
m
�cg
2 u A
'4 �1
:T; Z9
I
m
lnm
\N)
3
CIN
ATTACHMENT 6
1020 Bell St. (Two Parcels)q�
#0043204000600
#0043420000800 ""}-
PREPARED FOR:
Kendall Gentry
504 E. Fairhaven
Burlington, WA 98233
PHONE: 360-755-9021
FAX: 360-755-9029
PREPARED BY:
B&A INC.
330343 RD STREET NW
GIG HARBOR, WA 98335
PHONE: 253-858-7055
FAX 253-858-2534
EMAIL: ajb@wa.net
September 8, 2005
3303 43rd St. NW ® Gig Harbor, WA 98335, USA ® 253.858.7055 • Fax: 253.858.2534 ATTACHMENT 7
Tmflz•� •
This report follows section 23.40.090 of ECDC for requirements of critical
areas reports. The code sections are cited and responded to in the
paragraph below. A 2001 report of the wetland performed by Wetland
Resources, Inc. had access to the wetland and provides on-site details.
From what I observed the condition have not changed. This report follows
the new code and provides and updated rating of the wetland per code.
For a description of the wetland and surrounding areas please refer to the
previous report.
23.40.090D. Minimum Report Contents. At a minimum, the report
shall contain the following:
1. The name and contact information of the applicant, a
description of the proposal, and identification of the permit
requested;
Kendall Gentry
504 E. Fairhaven
Burlington, WA 98233
PHONE: 360-755-9021
FAX: 360-755-9029
The proposal is to construct a single family residence on each
of the two existing lots.
See the building application for a complete list of permits
requested.
2. A copy of the site plan for the development proposal
including:
a. A map to scale depicting critical areas, buffers, the
development proposal, and any areas to be cleared; and
The attached figure combines the wetland map from the
2001 Wetland Resources, Inc. Report of the wetland with the map
for the proposed houses.
b. A description of the proposed storm water management
plan for the development and consideration of impacts to drainage
alterations;
See the house plans. As this is single family lots the
stormwater is covered under that design.
3. The dates, names, and qualifications of the persons
preparing the report and documentation of any fieldwork performed
on the site;
AJ Bredberg evaluated the site on June 6, 2005. His resume is
at the end of the report. Data sheets accompany.
4. Identification and characterization of all critical areas,
wetlands, water bodies, shorelines, and buffers adjacent to the
proposed project area;
A single wetland and stream area off-site to the southwest.
The system is described in detail in the attached report from 2001
prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc. The conditions have not
changed from the report.
5. A description of reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation
sequencing pursuant to ECDC 23.40.120, Mitigation sequencing, to
avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to critical areas;
not applicable as all activities are outside the buffer and
wetland.
6. Report requirements specific to each critical area type as
indicated in the corresponding chapters of this title.
Following the special study requirements for Wetlands section.
23.50.030 Special study and report requirements ® Wetlands.
B. Critical areas report requirements for wetlands may be met in
"stages" or through multiple reports. The typical sequence of
potentially required reports that may in part or in combination fulfill
the requirements of this section include:
1. Wetland reconnaissance report documenting the existence
and general location of wetlands in the vicinity of a project area;
completed and copy attached
2. Wetland delineation report documenting the extent and
boundary of a jurisdictional wetland per RCW 36.70A.175;
The wetland is entirely off-site and covered in the attached
Wetland Resources report.
3. Wetland mitigation report documenting potential wetland
impacts and mitigation measures designed to retain or increase the
functions and values of a wetland in accordance with ECDC
23.50.050 and the general provisions of this title.
There will be no wetland or buffer impacts.
C. A wetland critical areas report may include one or more of the
above three report types, depending on the information required by
the director and the extent of potential wetland impacts. The field of
wetland science and with experience preparing wetland reports.
Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(A), applicants may choose one of the
qualified technical consultants on the city's approved list in
preparing critical areas reports for wetlands, or may utilize an
alternative consultant. Critical areas studies and reports developed
by an alternative consultant shall be subject to independent review
pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(B).
Edmonds development services director maintains the authority
and discretion to determine which report(s) alone or combined are
sufficient to meet the requirements outlined below and to waive
report requirements based upon site conditions and the potential for
project impacts.
If additional informatin is needed we will be pleased to provide it.
D. Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A critical area report
for wetlands shall be prepared by a qualified professional who is a
certified professional wetland scientist or a noncertified professional
wetland scientist with a minimum of five years of experience in the
AJ Bredberg is a Professional Wetland Scientist certification
#886 and on the list of approved City consultants.
E. Area Addressed in Critical Area Report. The following areas
3. All shoreline areas, water features, floodplains, and other
critical areas, and related buffers within 200 feet of the project area.
The location and extent of wetlands and other critical areas existing
outside of the project area or subject parcel boundary may be
shown in approximation as practical and necessary to provide an
assessment of potential project effects.
Locations of the off-site wetland and stream are shown. Shell
Creek is off-site within the wetland.
F. Wetland Analysis. In addition to the minimum required
contents of ECDC 23.40.090, Critical areas reports —
Requirements, a critical areas report for wetlands shall contain an
analysis of the wetlands, including the following site- and proposal -
related information at a minimum:
1. A written assessment and accompanying maps of the
wetlands and buffers within 200 feet of the project area, including
the following information at a minimum:
the following information is provided in the attached report and
found to be accurate.
a. Wetland delineation and required buffers;
see map of off-site wetland shall be addressed in a critical area
report for wetlands:
1. The project area of the proposed activity;
the project area is the two lots as shown on the accompanying
site plan.
2. All wetlands and recommended buffers within 200 feet of
the project area; and
a single wetland and stream are within 200 feet of the project
and the subject of this study.
b. Existing wetland acreage;
unknown as the wetland is off-site
c. Wetland category;
The wetland is Category 3 based on the City rating form.
The stream is 100 feet from the property and not fully
reviewed for a category. It is not a Category S or shoreline
of the state.
Category 3 wetlands have 50 foot buffers.
Since the stream is not a Type S it will not have a buffer over
100 feet and the stream is 100 feet from the property, plus
there is another 50 foot wetland buffer onto the site. Thus,
the stream is protected with the highest rating possible in the
city.
d. Vegetative, faunal, and hydrologic characteristics;
in the attached report
e. Soil and substrate conditions;
in the attached report
f. Topographic elevations, at two -foot contours; and
see map
g. A discussion of the water sources supplying the wetland
and documentation of hydrologic regime (locations of inlet and
outlet features, water depths throughout the wetland, and evidence
of recharge or discharge, evidence of water depths throughout the
year: drift lines, algal layers, moss lines, and sediment deposits).
The location, extent and analyses of wetlands not contiguous
with the subject parcel existing outside of the immediate project
area may be described in approximation as practical and necessary
to provide an assessment of potential project effects and
hydrologic/ecological connectivity to on-site wetlands and other
critical areas.
This above information is in the attached Wetland Resources
report.
2. A discussion of measures, including avoidance,
minimization, and mitigation, proposed to preserve existing
wetlands and restore any wetlands that were degraded prior to the
current proposed land use activity.
There will be no impacts to the wetlands, buffer or stream.
3. A habitat and native vegetation conservation strategy that
addresses methods to protect and enhance on-site habitat and
wetland functions.
The buffer will be maintained as natural area.
4. Functional evaluation for the wetland and adjacent buffer
using a local or state agency staff -recognized method and including
the reference of the method and all data sheets.
Attached is the WSDOT rating system
5. Proposed mitigation, if needed, including a written
assessment and accompanying maps of the mitigation area,
including the following information at a minimum:
not needed
6. A scale map of the development proposal site and adjacent
area. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will
protect wetlands after the project site has been developed,
including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs.
Attached map shows the areas
Buffers will be maintained as natural.
7. A bond estimate for the installation (including site
preparation, plant materials and installation, fertilizers, mulch, and
stakes) and the proposed monitoring and maintenance work for the
required number of years. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 20041.
Not applicable
l L�
ORY 2-
AN®
N
=30
- - "wry PHAL Tr,'ROAa - - - - - - N /n 4 L � TOP CENTER OF LID
OS USCO A5 BENCHMARK
ASSUMCO £L 267.J9
r -- N007.
J0.
-ROC
ENC
Cli
p _
?�rgnnn
a
0 of we r --I,
R
City of Edmonds
Wetland Field Data Form
Name of wetland (if known) J5ked l; %" `e-ek
Location: SEC TWNSHP RNGE 3 % (attach map of wetland to form)
Person(s) Rating Wetlan
t ytz�
Affiliation: ;Fae
Project Name/Description: 5�`� &t'
Date of Site Visit:
Category Based on Co7,v
d Total Score for Functions Assessments
I II III
Total Score for Water Quality Functions Assessment ell�
Total Score for Hydrologic Functions Assessment 16
Total Score for Habitat Functions Assessment 40
Combined Total Score for Functions Assessment
Determine wetland hydrogeomorphic class based upon criteria provided on page 2.
Complete water quality, hydrologic and habitat functions assessment as directed for the
class of wetland being rated and enter scores as indicated above. Final wetland category
is based upon a total (combined) score for functions assessment per the score criteria
provided above.
or
•R I i I I 111 111.. MM
I II Specific Criteria
wetland field data forin.doc/rev.2004.12.20 Page I
Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance 9505 19th AVAnUA S.E.
Suite 106
Everett, Washington 98208
(425) 337-3174
Fax (425) 337-3045
CRITICAL AREAS STUDY n`�
Wetland Resources, Inc. Project #01279
Prepared By:
Wetland Resources, Inc.
9505 19th Ave. SE
Suite 106
Everett, WA 98208
(425) 337-3174
For:
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
Planning Division
1215' Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
November 28,'2001
GRITIGAL AREAS STUE - AP
MICHEL PROPERTY — MAIN STREET N
SECTION 2.4, TOWNSHIP 27N, RANGE 3E, W.M. HTs.
a
Scale P n 30'
Pw.wu
O 15 30 45 00
GEGpt♦D
SHELL.CFM<: 4 crt
CATEGORY 2 STREAM
MAIN STMT
�.�� •e�.a:�. fir, ,
� r
CRITICAL AREAS STUDY MAP
MICHEL PROPERTY - MAIN STREET
CITY OF EDMONDS. WASHINGTON
Oty of Edi
0—w—t San�L— O p�. 5h t vI
Pltrvig OM ton Job a cra"
tM 5rh Ararua North Orono b/. S.A. Sdrti
Edm.AA WA 96020 Oote Nwembrr �.
WOA✓9W, /i1%ia
9609 �Mlnm.r 9E 9cim Yd0 N.uwx�tWealaym+86X:9
Ph. (425) 337-3174
Fax (425) 3.973045
E -ma resourc�9.com
STEEP SLOPE/
EROSION HAZARD
AREAS = GEOLOGICALLY�\
BE -L STA]
HAZARDOUS AREAS:
`
TOP OF SLOPE IS
\—All
LOCATED OFF-SITE
- -
(APPROXIMATE ON-SfTE
EXTENT SHOWN)
I ♦ ♦ ♦
JI
V Z-
GGA
2`,.
.t, ,i,
may`
TT
J-
3
i
PUBLICA
40
36
39 — i' 37
WETLAND
6�
38
9
L
SHELL CREEK AND
30
RIPARIAN WETLAND
EXTEND >100' OFF-SITE
GEGpt♦D
SHELL.CFM<: 4 crt
CATEGORY 2 STREAM
MAIN STMT
�.�� •e�.a:�. fir, ,
� r
CRITICAL AREAS STUDY MAP
MICHEL PROPERTY - MAIN STREET
CITY OF EDMONDS. WASHINGTON
Oty of Edi
0—w—t San�L— O p�. 5h t vI
Pltrvig OM ton Job a cra"
tM 5rh Ararua North Orono b/. S.A. Sdrti
Edm.AA WA 96020 Oote Nwembrr �.
WOA✓9W, /i1%ia
9609 �Mlnm.r 9E 9cim Yd0 N.uwx�tWealaym+86X:9
Ph. (425) 337-3174
Fax (425) 3.973045
E -ma resourc�9.com
wetlalfd 1�esow V6
t A/0" _
�j Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance 9505 19th Avenue S.E.
Suite 106
Everett, Washington 98208
(425)337-3174
Fax(425)337-3045
September 29, 2005
City of Edmonds Development Services Department
Attn. Meg Gruwelt
121 5th Avenue N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Sandberg Property at 1020 Bell Street. CA - 05 - 39.
Hello Meg:
On September 29, 2005, Wetland Resources, Inc. visited the 0.15 -acre site
located at 1020 Bell Street in the City of Edmonds. The purpose of this visit was
to determine the Category and subsequent buffer of the adjacent wetland
located off-site to the west. The City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form was
used to determine the wetland category (please see attached). Based on this
form, this wetland receives a score of 50 points. Wetlands receiving a score of
30 to 50 points in the City of Edmonds are Category 3 wetland. Category 3
wetlands typically receive a 50 -foot protective buffer.
Louis Emenhiser
Senior Wettand Ecologist
Wetland Resources, Inc.
Name of wetland (if known)
City of Edmonds
1
N orr K,vow^/
Location: SEC a' i T4VNSHP ;C7 RNGE 3 (attach map of wetland to form)
Person(s) Rating Wetland: Lpvrs E,41 eNa I ie�r
Affiliation.: Vk+l—d Re -Foye("' 11VL
Project Name/Description:. 2> Akcea pwypew6 (ozv t3ct1 sf, cA - os - 39, vIC t os371/
Date of Site Visit: 9.2-'7,95
Category Based on Combined Total Score for Functions Assessments
I II III IV
Total Score for Water Quality Functions Assessment 2-o
Total Score for Hydrologic Functions Assessment 1 6.
Total Score for Habitat Functions Assessment
Com6in,e* d Total Score for Functions assessment 60
Determine wetland hydrogeomorphic class based upon criteria. provided on page 2.
Cornplete water quality, hydrologic and habitat functions assessment as directed for the
class of wetland being rated and enter scores as indicated above, Final wetland category
is based upon a total (combined) score, for functions assessment per the score criteria
provided above.
0r
Category I or 11 Based,on Criteria in ECDC 20.50.010(B)
Specific
wetland field data form.doc/re-.2004.12. 20 Page l
j
OW
42
GR
PA
SI1
TO
LO
LO
Jus
A\
M/
PF
\ 60'-b° \
TER Of\ RIGHT OF WAY / \ \\ PF
CENTER --- / — ) \ PF
D \ DATUM PAINT / PF
BELL STREET/ +06 OF C/AS VAULT
i
I
SCALE 20' - I;I ATTACHMENT 9
N n 1!In' 20' 40'
8
S89D36' -1-1 '-E-
r
-00.00' � —
\
Q
Lj
(f)
ly-
of
\��\y o
\
10
_
23Q
1
\\+223I\
w N
DE f
— -----
\r
o
o
--��I
2 40
50 FOOT 'DILAF-FeF
PROP D
F,
\
'
,__i-----i—�`
RESIDENT
_
X230
\
I I
I
I
I\
25Q--=
r--------------
i-_
I
---
I Ti i L-Dwo
—
PROPOSED
I
I� \ ego
T
GARAGE I
I
-
(E) STRUCTURE \ - -I_I
+258.5
+252
TO BE REMOVED \\
EXISTING HOUSE
FF= 263.4 260 - - -
--
' —\2s
_
--
—
i 1 o
U
Q
�-
-_=
M
w
z
DRIVEWAY
i�
w
+263.5
+254
n
S89D36' 11" E 60.00'
j
OW
42
GR
PA
SI1
TO
LO
LO
Jus
A\
M/
PF
\ 60'-b° \
TER Of\ RIGHT OF WAY / \ \\ PF
CENTER --- / — ) \ PF
D \ DATUM PAINT / PF
BELL STREET/ +06 OF C/AS VAULT
i
I
SCALE 20' - I;I ATTACHMENT 9
N n 1!In' 20' 40'
13256 NE 1
1h Street, Sufte 16
Bellevue, WA x:11
(425) 747-5618 FAX ..
-8561
To: Kendall Gentry
company: Landed Gentry
JN: 05160
Rum James H. Strange, Jr.
FAX: (360) 755-9029 Date: September 13, 2005
Phone: (360) 755-9021 Wages: 1 of 2
RE: Preliminary Geotechnical Considerations
Proposed Residences
9020 Reil Street
Edmonds, Washington
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR,
CITY OF EDMONDS
We have completed our explorations at the site and are in the process of completing the full geotechnical study
for the site. We anticipate that the full report will be ready for distribution in one week. We are supplying this
memorandum to inform you of our preliminary findings. Based on the survey and proposed site plan for the
western lot (Sheet A1.1) provided by Underwood and Associates (dated July 14, 2005), we understand that a
single residence will be constructed on the northern portion of the two (60 -foot) lots. We assume that the plan
provided is typical of the two houses to be built. Based on the plan provided, the houses will be setback from the
street 20 feet and will have sideyard setbacks of approximately 5 feet. The structures will extend down the hill,
stepping as they go and will end approximately 44 feet from the southern property line. Cantilevered decks are
proposed off the southern side of the houses and no grading to the south of the residences is shown.
Four test borings were completed at the site on May 4, 2005. The two test borings on the downslope (southern)
side of the site revealed approximately 12 feet of loose to medium -dense fill and native weathered sand
overlying dense sand that became very dense at 15 to 17 feet. The very dense sands were encountered to the
bottom of these borings at 29 feet. The two borings on the upland (northern) portion of the site revealed about 5
feet of loose silty sand fill overlying loose to medium -dense native sands, that became medium -dense within 10
to 15 feet of the surface. The clean sands became dense at 20 feet and very dense at 30 feet. Very dense
sands were encountered to the base of the borings at 36 feet. No groundwater was encountered in the borings.
The site slopes moderately to steeply to the south and southwest. The slopes are relatively well vegetated, and
no evidence of recent large-scale slope instability was observed during our visits to the site. We did observe
evidence of shallow soil creep on the hillside. The loose soils on the slope will be subject to downslope creep,
but in our opinion, the dense and very dense native sands that form the core of the hillside are stable and will
remain stable if the recommendations in our report are followed.
Due to the loose soil conditions beneath the proposed houses and the slope, the proposed structures will need
to be supported by a deep foundation system to transfer the loads to the dense to very dense, native sands
encountered at approximately 12 to 20 feet below grade in the borings, The piers will likely be drilled with an
open hole drill or an augercast drill, and pier depths on the order of 30 to 40 feet below the existing grade would
be anticipated depending on the pier capacities necessary and the depth to the hard soils. Some additional
reinforcing will be necessary for the piers to make them resistant to the anticipated downslope creep. If some
potential for cracking is acceptable, the garage slabs may be constructed as reinforced slabs -on -grade over a
minimum of 1 foot of imported granular structural fill, but all living space slabs should be structural slabs
supported on the piling or framed floors over a crawlspace (especially the southern portion to avoid filling on the
slope).
Landed Gentry
September 13, 2005
JN 5160
Page 2
The loose, near surface sands will not stand vertically or in steep out slopes. Maximum 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical)
temporary cuts are recommended, and even more modest cuts are recommended near adjacent structures. If
these temporary slopes to the excavation cannot be maintained onsite or into negotiated temporary excavation
easements, excavation shoring will be required, We would recommend that the structures step up the hillside to
minimize the depths of the cuts into the slope,
All water from the development will need to be piped (tighlined) to the base of the slope, Discharging water onto
or above the slopes at the site is not recommended. No grading to the south of the structures should occur and
no fill should be placed on the slopes.
We trust this memo fulfills your needs at this time. The information in this memo should be considered
preliminary and should be checked with the stamped full report, Information in the full report will supersede the
information in this memorandum. Please call with any questions or if we can be of further service.
Sincerely,
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS INC.
James H. Strange, Jr., P.E.
Geotechnical Project Manager
JHS:jhs
v Page 2
Phillip and Kendra Decker have shared their plans to build a new
home at 1020 Bell Street with me/Lis. I/We support their application
for height variance.
Y3
64-4�
4.
"A
�.. >
5.
pid
6.
)/9-
7.
8.
w.
a
111111111
]AV Hi L L
,011
0
Lo
6'SZ
N N 9'l rn
o°
N o Zl'ZLZ=73
J 58l p
w I
L z
N t�'8l 0 ro
N N o
II
N I �
d-
N 8'61 Q) N Lo
II
L '61 W
t'L l
N
Z'Sl
9'SZ ro
a-
o Z"81 �x w
�n
6p
N N O N
W
CPO
o R
N
_ 'OOH ON
CU
£ 91 w o
w J 1
N D07 7 S 3JHN
M N 061 � � I
0
O i0d' J
c�
�(?9 £ Z
rpj s? W Lo
J
J
W
Intn
m
am
s�
os,
n
Is ,d
d
am
N
M
N
N
N
N
I
N
I
M
I
w
w
I
�
I
N
I
�
0
3AV HL
-,Oil
,OI!
rqj
, OlfII_F
N
( OM
N
o
6'SL
4]
n
0
ci b'at
p ^
q ZI'ZCZ=73
L O z w
WU
Q
a
W
S b!
b'bl
U
4
'^cY
Z
=o
Ozpa�
U
L'6!
4.
`.
�
¢
S'SZ
J �z
Z ah
2�R
Z �VaLI
i 2 W
U
U �W
� 40
Z WwT
O oQQOOO
I v t
U
Z'01 I
Cp
ro m
$
rv� e
I�
2�
4�
a. f
Z q Z
U
� 2
LU mOlt�tr3
I
007 7 S
as
!
3JNN
^1 ® r%
-------
o
O ®
Lt q aw
J W 2k
o¢H
�
2w�
Q h�UWl�2
Y,
(� � �W
W W4W0
(n NNW
� W� o
Q� tiv�2
L+J Ory1i22O
J NOJQU
0
3AV HL
-,Oil
,OI!
rqj
, OlfII_F
N
( OM
N
o
6'SL
n
0
ci b'at
p ^
q ZI'ZCZ=73
L O z w
Q
a
W
S b!
b'bl
U
U
4
ry
B"61
< M
I
0'Lt
N
^ ry
q
h
4
h
U
L'6!
4.
`.
ii
N W
q
¢
S'SZ
ro
"Ui a
z
ti
\
!'bZ
I v t
U
Z'01 I
Cp
ro m
$
rv� e
I�
s.9/
4�
a. f
O
MIN
�
3
I
I
007 7 S
as
!
3JNN
^1 ® r%
-------
0
c
6'8l
OJ;rb
U
W
o
M w,29�
f
� •7r N
W
c
M
m
m
O
,Oil
3AV HLOI
�
q I
.011
N
^
'
,011
0
3�
n a
� +•
7 D
o
h G„
U
W
Wzt V
w
U
i✓M W ^'
^1 ® r%
N r
0b-�4 Z..
c
W
o
� •7r N
W
c
q®qp
® yq
01i
w
U