The URL can be used to link to this page

2007.09.04 CC Agenda PacketAGENDA Edmonds City Council Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds September 4, 2007 Call to Order and Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2• Consent Agenda Items A. Roll Call B. AM-1151 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 28, 2007. C. AM-1154 Approval of claim checks #98630 through #98782 for August 30, 2007 in the amount of $662,225.46. D. AM-1148 Authorization to advertise for Statements of Qualifications from consultants for the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update. E. AM-1149 Authorization for Mayor to sign Addendum No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Gray and Osborne, Inc. for the 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway and 162nd Street SW Park projects. F. AM-1155 Authorization for the Mayor to sign a Second Addendum to the Interlocal Agreement for vehicle maintenance services between the City of Edmonds and the Town of Woodway. G. AM-1157 Report on bids opened on August 28, 2007 for the MCC feeder installation at the WWTP and award to Ewing Electric, Inc. for the amount of $30,582, including sales tax. 3. AM-1156 Introduction of Student Representative Hilary Scheibert from Edmonds Woodway High School. (5 Min) 4. AM-1152 Presentation regarding the Military Family Friendly Employer Program, and proposed resolution (30 Min) declaring Edmonds to be military family friendly and encouraging area businesses to become a military family friendly employment partner. 5. AM-1153 Reconsideration: July 17, 2007 Public Hearing regarding the proposed vacation of a portion of the (30 Min) public right-of-way adjacent to 17008 - 77th Place West, Edmonds. 6. AM-1158 Closed Record Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's denial of a side yard setback variance at 18600 Sound (45 Min) View Pl. Appellant and Applicant: Dr. Raymond Bogaert (File Nos. V-2006-102 & AP-2007-4). 7. Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person) 8. (5 Min) Mayor's Comments 9. (15 Min) Council Comments 10. Adjourn Packet Page 1 of 357 AM-1151 2.B. Approval of 08-28-07 City Council Minutes Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 09/04/2007 Submitted By: Sandy Chase Time: Consent Department: City Clerk's Office Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 28, 2007. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. Link: Draft Minutes for 8/28/07 Fiscal Impact S ffarhmanfe Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/29/2007 11:24 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/29/2007 11:59 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/29/2007 03:28 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Started On: 08/29/2007 11:07 Chase AM Final Approval Date: 08/29/2007 Packet Page 2 of 357 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES August 28, 2007 Following a Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding pending litigation, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Peggy Pritchard Olson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Mauri Moore, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Acting Police Chief Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Scott Snyder, City Attorney Bio Park, Ogden Murphy Wallace Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder Mayor Haakenson advised Agenda Item 3 (Presentation regarding the Military Family Friendly Employer Program, and Proposed Resolution Declaring Edmonds to be Military Family Friendly and Encouraging Area Businesses to Become a Military Family Friendly Employment Partner) and Consent Agenda Item E (Authorization for the Mayor to Sign a Second Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for Vehicle Maintenance Services between the City of Edmonds and the Town of Woodway, Decreasing the Vehicle Shop Rate) would be removed from tonight's agenda and rescheduled for a future meeting. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 20, 2007 C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #98471 THROUGH #98629 FOR AUGUST 23, 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $500,868.04. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #45390 THROUGH #45489 FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 1 THROUGH AUGUST 15, 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $828,834.25 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 1 Packet Page 3 of 357 D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM PATRICIA TULLER (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED) AND PATRICIA DZEIMA (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). 3. PRESENTATION REGARDING THE MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY EMPLOYER PROGRAM, AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION DECLARING EDMONDS TO BE MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY AND ENCOURAGING AREA BUSINESSES TO BECOME A MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY EMPLOYMENT PARTNER This item was removed from the agenda and will be rescheduled for a later date. 4. PRESENTATION BY PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ON THE UPDATED GROWTH STRATEGY AND POLICIES Norman Abbott, PSRC Director of Growth Management Planning, recalled approximately one year ago four growth alternatives were presented; a preferred alternative has been selected and the Draft Vision 2040 document prepared. He enumerated the documents provided to the Council including the draft Vision 2040, EIS and Supplemental EIS, and the Regional View that serves as an Executive Summary. He provided a video narrated by Mike Lonergan, Chair of the PSRC Growth Management Policy Board (GMPB), describing Vision 2040 which updates the long range vision for the Central Puget Sound area. Mr. Lonergan described the membership of PSRC, King County, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap Counties, 71 cities and towns, and four port districts, transit agencies and tribes, explaining the PSRC worked on issues related to transportation, land use and economic development. PSRC distributes approximately $160 million per year in federal funds throughout the region for transportation improvements. He explained Vision 2040 was the over -arching, long range growth management, economic and transportation strategy for the region. Vision 2040 is supported by PSRC's functional plans including Destination 2030 for transportation and the Regional Economic Strategy. The primary purpose of Vision 2040 is to help local jurisdictions identify and accomplish regional objectives by providing broad direction for the future. Vision 2040 consists of four parts, an environmental framework, a regional growth strategy, multi -county planning policies, and actions and measures to implement the vision. He explained the primary reason for updating the vision was anticipated population and employment growth, estimated to be 1.7 million more people and 1.2 million more jobs in the region by 2040, bringing the population in the region to nearly 5 million by 2020. He reviewed the update process including the development of several possible growth scenarios which were reduced to four alternative growth patterns that were analyzed in a draft EIS. Following an extensive public comment period, the GMPB selected a preferred growth alternative which was analyzed in a supplement to the draft EIS. Both the supplement and Vision 2040 will now undergo another widespread review process and written public comment period. He described elements of the current vision carried forward in Vision 2040 including urban growth boundaries, rural areas remain and natural resource lands. Vision 2040 focuses growth in urban areas particularly compact centers where services exist and calls for designated industrial and manufacturing centers where intensive land uses accommodate present and future employment growth. The current vision also includes an efficient transportation system that connects the centers. He described the environmental framework of Vision 2040 and displayed a chart illustrating how the regional growth strategy distributed each county's share of the population growth by regional geography, noting the goal Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 2 Packet Page 4 of 357 was to concentrate much of the growth into metropolitan and core cities. He summarized on analysis, the regional growth strategy performed better than current local plans. He explained the multi -county planning policies provided direction for implementing the regional growth strategy, embody the policy framework for Destination 2030 and Regional Economic Strategy and establish a common framework for all levels of government. The policies cover five topics - environment, development patterns, economy, transportation and public services. He commented on the new environmental section that addresses the possible impacts of climate change and calls for coordinated regional environmental planning. He explained Vision 2040 benefited local government by providing decision -makers with a regional context for making local decisions, helps local government work together to bend growth trends, addresses issues that are difficult to resolve at the individual jurisdiction level. He described the outreach effort regarding Vision 2040 to solicit public comment. He provided PSRC's website, psrc.org that contained links to the document. He reviewed the timeline for review of Vision 2040: PSRC Boards review public comments and make final edits and PSRC prepare final draft Vision 2040 and final EIS this fall, GMPB conducts a public hearing and recommend the final Vision 2040 to the Executive Board this winter, and in April 2008 the Executive Board will take the recommended Vision 2040 to the general assembly for action. He encouraged jurisdictions and the public to provide comment through September 7, 2007 via letter, a comment form available on the PSRC website or via email. Councilmember Moore asked what PSRC was seeking from local jurisdictions to add to Vision 2040. Mr. Abbott answered they were seeking in a comment letter about the vision in the draft Vision 2040 and how it fit with the city's vision. 5. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 5.60, GRAFFITI; DECLARING GRAFFITI A PUBLIC NUISANCE; PROHIBITING DEFACEMENT OF PROPERTY WITH GRAFFITI AND POSSESSION OF GRAFFITI IMPLEMENTS; IMPOSING CRIMINAL PENALTIES, REOUIRING THE REMOVAL OF GRAFFITI; AND ESTABLISHING AN APPEALS PROCESS Bio Park, Ogden Murphy Wallace, was present to advise the Council during this item. Councilmember Dawson explained the Public Safety Committee has discussed graffiti numerous times and agreed to present a very broad ordinance to provide the public a range of what other jurisdictions have done to combat graffiti. She noted studies have shown the most effective way to combat graffiti in a community prompt removal and if it was removed within 24 hours three times, the chances of it reoccurring were virtually nil. Therefore, one of the objectives of the ordinance was to assist with the prompt removal of graffiti. She acknowledged it could be difficult and expensive to remove graffiti. She pointed out the Committee did not support the requirement in the ordinance for businesses to keep graffiti implements behind the counter, check identification and not sell graffiti implements to minors. She noted the current code contained a provision declaring graffiti a nuisance; however, an improved definition of graffiti was necessary to assist with abatement. Councilmember Plunkett explained another goal of the ordinance was to prevent graffiti. The code currently required that an officer observe a person in the act of graffiti; the proposed ordinance would allow an officer to stop a person possessing graffiti implements with the intent to commit graffiti. Councilmember Dawson pointed out the ordinance was only part of the battle against graffiti but would not be enough to combat graffiti; community involvement and vigilance was also required. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 3 Packet Page 5 of 357 Acting Police Chief Al Compaan explained Seattle was one of the first cities in the Puget Sound area to adopt a graffiti ordinance in 1996. He recalled a high level of tagging/graffiti was experienced in the Puget Sound area during that era; graffiti had waned for awhile and was now reoccurring. He noted the ordinance was intended to provide options for a multi -pronged approach - education to inform the public regarding the importance of removing graffiti on their property, criminal enforcement, and civil sanctions imposed via an abatement process for property owners unwilling to remove graffiti. He referred to the provision in the ordinance regarding possession of graffiti implements with intent to commit a crime, citing possession of burglary tools or drug paraphernalia as similar possession with intent to commit a crime offense. He acknowledged vandalism was difficult for the Police Department to address; the proposed multi -prong approach would provide some assistance. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about statistics regarding increase in graffiti. Chief Compaan answered to date this year there had been 120 reported incidents of graffiti, although he noted many other incidents were unreported. As graffiti was reported under vandalism and malicious mischief, it was difficult to extract statistics for prior years. Anecdotally he acknowledged there was an increase in graffiti on buildings, parks and signs. Councilmember Marin asked how the trust fund in the ordinance would be funded. Chief Compaan responded it would be funded via civil penalties assessed through the abatement process. He clarified the Police Department would address criminal enforcement; Development Services would address abatement and any civil penalties. Councilmember Marin observed each department's budget was currently used to address the cost of graffiti removal; the trust fund proposed in the ordinance would provide a mechanism for funding removal. Chief Compaan advised the ordinance allowed Council discretion regarding the use of those funds. Councilmember Dawson acknowledged it was very expensive to remove graffiti. She asked Chief Compaan to comment on graffiti related to gang activity. Chief Compaan answered the majority of graffiti/tagging in the City was non -gang related. He acknowledged some may view graffiti as art, others view it as defacement. Councilmember Dawson commented the difference between art and graffiti was permission. Councilmember Dawson asked whether the Police Department had seen an increase in gang activity in Edmonds in the past year. Chief Compaan acknowledged there had been some gang activity; the Police Department worked closely with the schools and other Police Departments. Councilmember Dawson noted her discussions with Edmonds School District indicated they are also concerned with graffiti on district property. Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained Development Services currently reacted to graffiti by complaint or Police report and Code Enforcement Officer Mike Thies began an enforcement action. He explained this typically begins with a letter to the property owner informing them of the situation and requesting a schedule for removing graffiti. If the property owner ignores the letter, an Order to Correct is issued. If the Order to Correct is ignored, a Notice of Violation is issued which includes fines of $100/day, each day a separate offense. He could not recall an incident that reached that level. The ordinance as currently structured followed that same process although the timeframes were much shorter - five business days. He suggested that that timeframe may be too short. Mr. Bowman suggested language from the Seattle ordinance be incorporated that allowed for no monetary penalties to be assessed and listed factors that could be considered such as whether the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 4 Packet Page 6 of 357 responsible party cooperated with efforts to abate the graffiti nuisance, whether the responsible party failed to appear at the hearing, whether the responsible party made substantial progress in abating the graffiti nuisance and any other relative factors. Councilmember Dawson agreed with Mr. Bowman's suggestion. She suggested including language to address the time period such as unless waived by the Director for good cause. Mr. Bowman agreed language that allowed staff to work with the property owner would be appropriate. Councilmember Dawson noted Snohomish County had a Voluntary Correction Agreement that allowed property owners to enter into an agreement to avoid delays in removing graffiti. She asked whether the code currently contained language regarding a Voluntary Correction Agreement language. Mr. Bowman advised it did not, explaining once staff sent a letter and the property owner responded with a proposal for removal, staff considered whether it was reasonable and if so, that became an informal agreement. If the property owner failed to act, staff proceeded with an Order to Correct and Notice of Violation. Councilmember Dawson noted there currently were two levels of civil violation for nuisances in the code, $100/day and $250/day; the ordinance proposes $250/day. She asked whether the $100/day fine would be more appropriate. Mr. Bowman acknowledged the $100/day fine was sufficient to get people's attention. Councilmember Moore asked for a copy of the Seattle code. She sympathized with businesses that were victimized by graffiti and then must undergo a process of being fined. She asked whether there had been businesses/property owners who did not react promptly. Mr. Bowman answered no, there had been relatively good response to graffiti removal. He noted the most common issue was the timeframe for removal. He agreed with Councilmember Dawson's statement that prompt removal was key. Councilmember Moore asked whether five days for removal was too restrictive. Mr. Bowman answered that timeline could be reflected in the ordinance along with language allowing development of a schedule as approved by the Director. Councilmember Marin commented on graffiti experienced by the church he attends and the difficulty they had removing it. He noted one of the messages the second time the church was hit with graffiti was more graffiti if it was removed. He supported Mr. Bowman's suggestion to provide staff some leeway to work with the property owner on the timeline for removal rather than further victimizing the property owner via the timetable for removal. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Swan Seaburg, Edmonds, expressed concern with placing the responsibility for graffiti removal on the property owner victimized by graffiti. He suggested working with the schools to change youths' attitude regarding graffiti. Remarking Edmonds was a retirement community, he questioned how seniors could be expected to remove graffiti. He was offended by the approach proposed in the ordinance that penalized the property owner, preferring the focus be on prevention and/or apprehending the offenders. Mike Mestres, Edmonds, posed several questions including who did the graffiti/tagging, what they were hoping to accomplish, why did they did it, when they did it, and where they did it. He recalled living a higher crime neighborhood in St. Louis where generally the offenders lived in the neighborhood. He anticipated the youth doing graffiti lived in Edmonds. Steve Waite, Edmonds, suggested providing information to graffiti victims regarding methods for removal such as via a handout at Development Services. He explained repairs generally were made via covering the graffiti or removing it, although covering the graffiti was often unsightly such as on the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 5 Packet Page 7 of 357 SR104 overpass. He noted it was possible to remove graffiti particularly if done within three days. He commented on the importance of analysis prior to removal on historic structures or buildings with delicate surfaces. He asked whether a citizen could apprehend a person in the act of graffiti. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Plunkett read a letter from Karen Wiggins, the owner of a commercial building in downtown Edmonds, expressing her objection to punishing the victim with fines for failure to removing graffiti in a timely manner. Although she had been able to remove graffiti on her building quickly, she noted circumstances could prevent a property owner from prompt removal. Chief Compaan emphasized the ordinance contained a range of options and was intended a plan of action and to provide tools to address graffiti the most important of which were public education and the ability for an officer to apprehend someone in possession of graffiti implements with the intent to commit a crime. With regard to who was doing graffiti, he anticipated the majority were juveniles from the age of 13- 16 years of age. With regard to when, he anticipated most of it occurred in the evening hours when businesses were closed and parks were empty. He agreed most of the offenders lived in the area. With regard to why, he envisioned it was "just because," noting graffiti was gaining popularity again. He agreed neither an ordinance or police enforcement would solve the problem, it required parental and school involvement. With regard to Mr. Waite's question about apprehending some in the act of graffiti, Chief Compaan cautioned against apprehending someone committing a misdemeanor/gross misdemeanor crime. He noted there were specific statutes that allowed a retailer to retain a shoplifter and citizens could make a citizen's arrest of a person committing a felony. He preferred a citizen to be a witness and allow the Police Department to make the arrest. Councilmember Moore asked whether anyone painting graffiti had been apprehended. Chief Compaan answered a few had been apprehended. If it was a first offense, it would be referred to Juvenile Court and the offender would be entitled to diversion, probationary type adjudication versus jail time. Councilmember Moore asked whether he had had the opportunity to talk to an offender or their parents. Chief Compaan answered in nuisance and problematic juvenile crime in general, the youth was usually unable to give a logical reason why they committed the offense, not understanding the impact of their crime to the community. The parental reaction differed, sometimes very supportive of the Police Department and other times not supportive. Councilmember Moore expressed concern with a property owner who was victimized by graffiti receiving a notice that they would be required to pay fines if it was not removed, essentially victimizing them again. She used an analogy of a property owner cleaning up after a fire. Mr. Bowman answered in that instance, staff worked with the property owner who was typically also working with their insurance company. The situation was usually resolved quickly; however, if it was not and became an unsafe situation, an abatement process would begin. He could not recall an instance that reached the level where fines were imposed. Councilmember Moore asked whether there was vandalism insurance. Mr. Bowman was uncertain, noting the City repaired the vandalism they experienced themselves. He explained under the current process, fines were not immediately imposed. Staff requested a schedule of when the graffiti would be addressed; it was only if the property owner ignored staff s contact that the process proceeded. He noted Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 6 Packet Page 8 of 357 the Notice to Correct did not assess fines; it notified the property owner of the situation. If the Notice to Correct was ignored, the Notice of Violation imposed a $100/day fine. Councilmember Moore asked whether there was a specific timetable now. Mr. Bowman answered staff worked with the property owner who provided an estimate of when they planned to remove the graffiti. Staff typically agreed if their proposed timeline reasonable. He summarized that process was currently workable. With regard to the timetable, Bio Park, Ogden Murphy Wallace, advised the Public Safety Committee asked for a timeline that would be acceptable to the court for abating the nuisance; the minimum time was five days, the Council had the option to extend that time period. He referred to the provision in the ordinance for parental liability for fines, noting parents could not be held liable for criminal activity, but could be held liable for fines. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson reiterated the ordinance was very broad and the Council could narrow the focus. Council President Olson inquired about the incidents on public versus public property. Mr. Bowman answered graffiti on public property was addressed by the appropriate City department; Development Services only responded to private property complaints. Council President Olson asked whether most incidents were on residential property or commercial property. Mr. Bowman answered both although the majority occurred on businesses. Mayor Haakenson advised most occurred on City park property, then commercial and residential property such as fences, mailboxes, etc. Mr. Bowman offered to provide the Council a copy of the graffiti handout Mr. Thies developed that he provides to victims of graffiti. Councilmember Dawson commented the initial contact proposed by the ordinance was not a letter imposing fines, but a letter describing why it was important to remove graffiti promptly and provided information and resources regarding removal. Mr. Bowman answered it was similar to what staff did now although staff currently asked for a schedule for removal. Councilmember Dawson referred to an effort at the Snohomish County level to coordinate a team of experts to develop best practices for graffiti removal as well as a brochure and graffiti removal kits. She advised there was a countywide planning meeting on graffiti removal tomorrow. Councilmember Dawson asked on what other issues the City pursued code enforcement. Mr. Bowman answered junk vehicles, trash/debris in a yard, etc. Councilmember Wambolt referred to citizens expressing concern with penalizing property owners who had been victimized, questioning who else could be accountable for cleanup. Mr. Bowman acknowledged unfortunately the property owner was responsible for removal. He pointed out the suggestions to allow a property owner to work with staff on a schedule for removal and giving consideration to the property owner's effort in the assessment of fines. Councilmember Wambolt noted the five days began after the property owner received a letter, not five days after the graffiti occurred. Councilmember Moore referred to the process staff currently followed and asked if the only difference in the proposed ordinance was the imposition of a fine. Councilmember Dawson answered the code currently identified graffiti as a nuisance and assessed a $100/day fine; the difference was the ordinance defined graffiti and suggested a minimum timeline for removal due to the importance of prompt removal. She agreed with the suggestion to allow the Director the ability to work with a property owner on the timeline for removal. She noted the proposed ordinance also contained criminal penalties for the possession of graffiti implements with intent to commit graffiti as well as a provision for parental Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 7 Packet Page 9 of 357 responsibility for restitution. She noted a homeowner's policy would typically cover graffiti removal depending on the cost of removal. Councilmember Dawson suggested seeking feedback from local businesses and the Chamber of Commerce and returning the ordinance with the suggestions that have been made for further discussion by the Council. Although he was not opposed to seeking further input, Councilmember Plunkett assured the merchants had been notified repeatedly of tonight's presentation. Councilmember Marin expressed support for the concept of removing graffiti. He suggested the trust fund identified in the ordinance be allowed to be used to provide money to a property owner that was financially unable to remove the graffiti. He also agreed with allowing the Director the ability to work with a property owner on a schedule for removal. Councilmember Moore agreed with the suggestion to provide the property owner recommendations on graffiti removal and allowing the flexibility to negotiate a reasonable schedule for removal. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether Councilmember Marin's suggestion regarding providing funds to assist with removal would be a gift of public funds. Mr. Park answered the only method would be to loan the funds with a recovery of the funds. Councilmember Plunkett suggested removing Section 5.60.040, Display and Storage of Graffiti Implements, that required a merchant not display graffiti implements, prohibited the sale of graffiti implements to minors, and required the display of signage regarding these prohibitions. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO REMOVE PARAGRAPHS A, B AND C FROM SECTION 5.60.040. Councilmember Dawson advised the Public Safety Committee and staff recommended eliminating Section 5.60.040 and 5.60.030(C), Furnishing to Minors, recognizing those provisions were not necessary in Edmonds at this time. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Plunkett recommended a property owner who was tagged receive a strong letter from the City that provided information and encouraged them to remove the graffiti within 5-10 days. He recommended removing the fines from the ordinance, recognizing the current process Mr. Bowman described had been sufficient and fines had not been required. He agreed the fines appeared to victimize the victim. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO REMOVE THE FINES AND REPLACE THEM WITH A STRONG LETTER OF ENCOURAGEMENT Councilmember Dawson commented the reason no one had been fined was staff worked with property owners but there was the threat of a fine if they did not comply. She pointed out the City's code currently provided for a fine for all nuisances if not abated after action was sought including graffiti. She did not support the motion, finding it importance for staff to retain the existing tools to ensure abatement including the existing fine. She envisioned the removal of fines would weaken the effort against graffiti. Recognizing the trust fund identified in the ordinance would contain revenue from the payment of fines, Councilmember Marin asked whether the funds could be used to assist with removal. He also asked Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 8 Packet Page 10 of 357 whether the trust fund could include contributions from community or service organizations. He noted without fines, there would be no revenue for the fund to assist with removal. Mr. Park answered fines were a revenue source for the City which constituted public funds and by constitutional prohibition could not be used to improve private property without something in return. A separate fund could be established for contributions managed by another organization. Councilmember Dawson commented if graffiti was a public nuisance, abatement of the public nuisance was in the public's interest and using the funds for cleanup of a public nuisance was a public interest and may not be a gift of public funds. She suggested further analysis be done on that issue, explaining the intent of declaring graffiti a public nuisance was to allow the trust fund to be used to assist in cleanup efforts. She noted Snohomish County allowed leftover paint to be used by the public for cleanup. Mayor Haakenson noted the trust fund language allowed the Council to direct the expenditure of the funds for removal of graffiti as well as payment of rewards for information leading to the conviction of violation, cost of administering the ordinance, etc. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out even if the fines were removed the ordinance allowed criminal enforcement based on intent which provided the Police Department the ability to prevent graffiti. MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, MOORE AND ORVIS IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT, MARIN AND DAWSON OPPOSED. Councilmember Dawson advised tomorrow there would be a continuation of the Snohomish County graffiti summit that would include discussion regarding the graffiti paint -out event planned for October 6 as well as efforts to combat graffiti countywide. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO INCLUDE IN SECTION 5.60.060, NOTICE OF GRAFFITI, THAT WHEN THE CITY NOTIFIES THE PARTIES RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPERTY AND SENDS THE PARTIES AN INFORMATIONAL LETTER DESCRIBING THE NATURE AND LOCATION OF GRAFFITI AND REQUESTING THE GRAFFITI BE REMOVED PROMPTLY, INFORMATION BE INCLUDED REGARDING THE PROPER WAYS TO REMOVE GRAFFITI FROM SURFACES. Councilmember Dawson explained the intent was to include a brochure regarding methods for proper removal, referring to language in the section that the letter would describe resources available to aid in graffiti removal, identify any graffiti removal assistance programs available through the City or any private graffiti removal contractors. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson advised the ordinance would be returned to the Council in a revised draft form. He declared a brief recess. 6. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW ON AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S APPROVAL OF A 27-LOT PRELIMINARY PLAT (WOODWAY PLAT) LOCATED AT 23700 104TH AVENUE WEST. (APPELLANT: LORA PETSO / APPLICANT: BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION / FILE NO. P-07-17 AND PRD-07-18) Mayor Haakenson relayed staff and his recommendation to take oral argument from the appellant and the applicant and continue the matter to a date certain to allow the City Council to fully review the extensive record. Council President Olson advised the matter would be continued to September 18. City Attorney Scott Snyder asked whether the date was within the statutory period. Mr. Bowman answered it was Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 9 Packet Page 11 of 357 outside the statutory period but the applicant was agreeable to continuing the matter to September 18. Mayor Haakenson confirmed with the applicant and the appellant that September 18 was acceptable. Mayor Haakenson explained on June 21, 2007, the Hearing Examiner conducted an open record hearing on the application of Burnstead Construction for a 27 lot Planned Residential Development (PRD)/Preliminary Subdivision, along with hearings on the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) appeals of Lora Petso and Heather Marks/Cliff Sanderlin. The Hearing Examiner issued a decision on the PRD/Preliminary Plat and SEPA appeals on July 20, 2007. Requests for reconsideration were filed by Lora Petso and Heather Marks on August 2, 2007 and August 3, 2007. The Hearing Examiner issued decisions on August 8, 2007 reaffirming the July 20, 2007 decision and denying the reconsideration request. He explained the record on this matter was extensive. The City Council was only able to consider the Hearing Examiner's decision on the preliminary plat and had no authority to review the matters relating to the SEPA appeals or the PRD decision. Those matters were subject to appeal to superior court. As this was a quasi judicial matter, under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, Mayor Haakenson asked whether any Councilmember had any conflicts of ex parte communications to disclose. Councilmember Plunkett advised he had worked closely with Mr. Sanderlin and Ms. Marks on political matters in the past and had also worked with Ms. Petso in the past. Mayor Haakenson asked whether he could make a fair decision in this matter. Councilmember Plunkett advised he could. Councilmember Orvis reported Mr. Sanderlin and Ms. Marks have contributed to his current campaign and assisted with a recent fundraiser and he had worked with Ms. Petso in the past. Mayor Haakenson asked whether he could make a fair decision in this matter. Councilmember Orvis answered he could. Councilmember Moore advised she had spoke with Mr. Sanderlin and Ms. Marks in regard to political matters and the Burnstead property development. Mayor Haakenson asked whether she could make a fair decision in this matter. Councilmember Moore answered she could. Councilmember Dawson advised one of the parties of record, Finis Tupper, had contributed to her political campaign as had Ms. Petso. She advised their contributions would not affect her ability to make a fair decision in this matter. Mayor Haakenson asked if there were any objections to any Councilmembers' participation. There were no objections voiced and he advised all Councilmembers were approved for participation. Mayor Haakenson advised the applicant raised the issue of who may participate in the closed record review. The City Attorney recommends the Council consider his objection, the response of the appellant and at least one party of record and enter a ruling prior to arguments. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the applicant's representative, Mr. Lutz, provided a brief that cites the City's appeal procedures which refer to participation at this review proceeding of parties to the appeal, a term that is not defined. He referred to the memo he provided to the parties and the Council which indicates there are logical arguments for that position in the RCW 36.70.B and 36.70C. The memo also explains that while not defined, that provision has been uniformly applied by the City to permit parties of record to participate. Parties of record under RCW 36.70B.130, is a person who may participate is someone who presents at the open record hearing in oral or written testimony or requests in writing notice of further proceedings. He advised the sign -in sheet at the Hearing Examiner indicates the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 10 Packet Page 12 of 357 person wishes to speak or request further notice. As a result anyone who presented testimony or requested notice of the proceeding was a party of record under the definition the City has uniformly applied in these proceedings. He noted a logical conundrum was if only the appellant can speak and the applicant was the appellant, only the applicant could speak at a review proceeding before the Council. He suggested the Council address this procedural issue before proceeding. Councilmember Orvis advised Mr. Hertrich, a party of record, had also contributed to his current campaign. Councilmember Dawson advised Mr. Hertrich had also contributed to her campaign. Councilmember Wambolt advised Mr. Hertrich also contributed to his campaign. Mayor Haakenson asked whether there were any objections to Councilmembers Orvis, Wambolt, or Dawson's participation. There were no objections voiced. Jerry Lutz, representing applicant Burnstead Construction, advised the procedural issue they raised was an attempt to bring as much structure as possible to this process. The City's appeal process for the Burnstead application which includes a preliminary plat applicant and a preliminary PRD and SEPA review with different appeal procedures that applied to each process was complex enough that it would be helpful to the process if the code language were fairly construed that the parties to the appeal meant Ms. Petso, the applicant and the City and limit discussion to those parties. He was sympathetic to the arguments against this position articulated by Mr. Snyder, primarily past precedent, as well as the concept of allowing parties an opportunity to speak, however, the parties who spoke at the hearing primarily addressed PRD and SEPA issues. The preliminary plat issues were very minor and although there was extensive discussion before the Hearing Examiner hearing regarding preexisting neighborhood drainage issues, that was a SEPA and PRD issue, not a subdivision issue. He summarized for the protection of this process and from a practical perspective because most of the issues parties of record would address were irrelevant, it was preferable to limit discussion before the Council to Ms. Petso, the applicant and the City. Appellant Lora Petso, Edmonds, recommended the City continue with its past practice of allowing all parties to speak which allows for better decision -making. She noted the ordinance language was permissive, not exclusive, and did not state only parties to the appeal were allowed to participate. The language states the parties to the appeal may submit timely written statements or arguments. She noted when she submitted her original appeal on a quick deadline, she was grateful for that language as it allowed her to submit additional written information later. She agreed with Mr. Snyder's logical conundrum if the language were construed too strictly, she would not be allowed to speak. With regard to the statement that this proceeding was limited to issues that were SEPA or otherwise unrelated, she pointed out the subdivision law required compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, public interest, etc. She expressed concern with the potential for interruptions when those issues were raised in her presentation. Mayor Haakenson assured there would be a process for parties to voice objections. Ms. Petso concluded the Council had a great deal of discretion in balancing the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and other issues. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, advised he was a party of record and a number of the comments made by Ms. Petso reflected his comments/ideas. Thus eliminating him as a party of record would eliminate a portion of the record. He recommended the Council continue to follow its tradition of allow parties of record to participate. He agreed many of the plat issues were intertwined with the PRD. Heather Marks, Edmonds, recommended parties of records be allowed to participate. She pointed out the notice the City issued stated the public was invited to attend although it was not a public hearing. The notice stated it was a closed record review and State law required that no public testimony be permitted except from parties of record. She had postponed her vacation to be able to attend tonight. She suggested Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 11 Packet Page 13 of 357 if parties of record were not allowed to participate, the closed record review be postponed and a new notice provided. She noted both the SEPA and preliminary plat were considered by the Hearing Examiner. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO THAT ALL PARTIES OF RECORD BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Snyder explained information provided to the Council tonight was argument based on the record and no new testimony was allowed. Mayor Haakenson would describe a process whereby parties could voice objections to information at the conclusion of presentations and provide an opportunity to provide citations of the record. With regard to the evidentiary issue Ms. Petso raised, he concurred that to the extent that evidence in the record applied to subdivision criteria, it could be provided. Mr. Snyder explained Regulatory Reform was intended to eliminate multiple appeals of the same issue. RCW 36.70B.160 requires cities to utilize consolidated permit application processes. He noted due to procedural reasons contained in the record, a remand and a re -notice, issues related to the PRD were out of sync with these issues. He recommended to the Council that to the extent evidence in the record related to subdivision criteria it was appropriate and relevant. To the extent argument was made that the Council lacked authority to rule on a subdivision plat because an issue related to another decision -making process remained, that should be rejected and considered not relevant to tonight's decision. Otherwise the Council risked being seen in a review process as having held multiple hearings on the same subject. For example, the Council did not have jurisdiction over the PRD or SEPA issues and denying a plat based on concerns over which the Council did not have jurisdiction would be problematic. Mayor Haakenson established a 15 minute time limit for the appellant and applicant, advising the applicant, Ms. Petso may wish to reserve time for rebuttal. A 3-minute time limit was established for comments by parties of record. Due to the extensive record, Mayor Haakenson explained it was impossible for the Council to determine whether argument provided was contained the record. Therefore if either party had objections to the argument of the other based on the argument being outside the record or any other reason, objections would be voiced at the close of the other party's presentation. The party whose argument was objected to would be given an opportunity to cite where that information appeared in the record and the Council would determine whether the information should be excluded from consideration as outside the record. Mr. Lutz questioned the order of presentation, requesting he be allowed to speak after the parties of record. Mayor Haakenson advised typically the order of presentation was the appellant, applicant and parties of record but the order could be modified if the Council wished. Mr. Lutz asked if that order was retained he be allowed to briefly address issues raised by parties of record. Mr. Snyder explained the rationale for the order of presentation was issues were limited to the record and issues raised by Ms. Petso in her appeal; no other issues were relevant. Therefore, he should not be surprised by any comments and because the appellant had the burden or persuasion, she was given an opportunity for rebuttal. He noted the applicant and/or appellant could also object to argument outside the record provided by parties of record. Appellant Ms. Petso reserved two minutes for rebuttal. Ms. Petso advised she purchased a copy of the tapes of the Hearing Examiner hearing and would submit corrections to the transcript. She displayed an aerial map identifying the existing ballfields where the subdivision would be located, an existing drainage ditch, and a fish and wildlife conservation habitat conservation area. She advised only two of the lots were close to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 12 Packet Page 14 of 357 the size of the existing lots; the small lot size combined with the reduced side setbacks produced a gutter - to -gutter or continuous wall effect that she asserted would be more appropriate in the BC zone than this south Edmonds neighborhood. She pointed out the large backyards of the existing subdivision to the west which contrast sharply with the proposal. She noted all citizens would be direct neighbors to this project as it was adjacent to City park land. Ms. Petso explained under subdivision laws, the proposal must be consistent with purposes of the subdivision chapter, all subdivision requirements, the Comprehensive Plan, be in the public interest and meet all requirements of the zoning ordinance. Under the court cases where the plat contains clear zoning violations, the subdivision could not be approved. In this instance the plat did not comply with the 35% lot coverage requirement; therefore, it could not be approved. The drainage report shows the roof area alone equates to 35% of the lot area; after subtracting required driveways and walkways, the subdivision would not comply with the 35% requirement. Ms. Petso pointed out the plat was based on four home designs and the project narrative states an intent to avoid rows of identical homes; however, there was only one lot that could accommodate the largest home under the 35% requirement and only if buffers, walkways and driveways were ignored. The Hearing Examiner has indicated the applicant would not be permitted to ignore walkways, buffers and driveways. Nineteen of the lots could only accommodate the smallest of the four home designs, assuming required buffers, walkways and driveways are ignored. She summarized 19 of the 27 homes would be identical under this proposal. Ms. Petso reiterated the subdivision law states if there were clear zoning violations, the subdivision could not be approved. In this instance, the plat is required to have 8,000 square foot lots, but did not. She assumed there would be argument made that the 8,000 square foot requirement was waived due to the PRD. Because the Hearing Examiner found the plat did not comply with the PRD ordinance, Ms. Petso argued the subdivision could not be approved because the lots were not 8,000 square feet and did have an approved PRD. She displayed a plat map, pointing out the Hearing Examiner found no perimeter buffer had been provided. The Hearing Examiner is requesting a buffer along on the west and south sides of the proposal; if such buffer is provided, it would not buffer the park property. The city's ordinance requires a greater buffer along a public way and the Comprehensive Plan identifies a park is a public way. She acknowledged the Council could not decide the buffer issue; however, it was important information because if the plat as conditioned could not meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance, the subdivision could not be approved. Ms. Petso explained adequate storm drainage was required under subdivision law. She identified the wetland/drainage ditch that presently holds, infiltrates and naturally disposes of a portion of the stormwater on the site and from an offsite tributary north of the site. The applicant proposes to fill this facility although there is already flooding of the homes to the west at whose request the ditch was installed approximately 25 years ago and to the south as drainage runs in that direction. Ms. Petso referred to comments by ADB Member Schaefer who identified other drainage issues related to the subdivision and urged the Councilmembers to read the ADB minutes. She noted Mr. Schaefer appeared to have personal knowledge of the drainage system, observed that infiltration capacity would be reduced over time, suggested heightened maintenance to prevent the reduction, and expressed concern when informed the homeowners association would be charged with maintenance. He was also concerned that Tract C in the plat was too small for the necessary drainage facility and wanted to avoid a situation where it was later determined a larger facility was needed. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 13 Packet Page 15 of 357 Ms. Petso concluded the burden was on the applicant to illustrate that the drainage would work which he had not done. Of the six drainage test pits dug, none were on Tract C where the drainage facility was proposed to be located; vault testing occurred offsite and produced a recommended infiltration rate of only 3 inches per hour. It was subsequently stated that rate could be increased with point drains but there was no onfite testing done. She pointed out nothing in the record identified the infiltration testing results from test site EP2, the site closest to Tract C. Ms. Petso referred to the subdivision law that states where environmental resources exist, the proposal must minimize impacts. She noted this proposal fills the drainage ditch and cuts 46% of the trees in the wooded portion of the site which did not represent minimizing the impacts. She referred to the aerial view, pointing out the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area extended beyond the wildlife corridor and provided an ideal perch for birds of prey adjacent to the park. She noted bald eagles had recently been observed perched in the trees. She explained habitat in the trees including downed logs and a varied understory made it an exceptionally valuable habitat. She displayed a photograph of the area where the applicant planned to cut trees and construct the retaining wall to accommodate Lot 17. She displayed a photograph from the vantage of the City's park property, commenting even if only the four trees on the end were cut to accommodate Lot 18, the backdrop to the City's park was reduced considerably. Ms. Petso pointed out the subdivision ordinance also required minimizing grading. The site is already 95% level and the only grading that would be required would be to fill the drainage ditch or grade the wooded area. She concluded neither filling the drainage ditch nor cutting the trees and building a retaining wall minimized grading. Ms. Petso explained the Comprehensive Plan provides that subdivision layouts, buildings and roads should be designed so that the existing trees were preserved as well as contains other stronger language. She urged the Council to refer to the Comprehensive Plan references in the written materials. She explained Comprehensive Plans were generally policy documents; however, the courts have held that where development regulations require compliance with the Comprehensive Plan as the City's does, then both the regulations and the Comprehensive Plan must be complied with. She pointed out the City's Comprehensive Plan covered drainage; critical area; parks, open space, and playfields; natural vegetation and topography and compatibility of subdivisions; this proposal fails to meet any of the established levels of service for drainage or playfields and makes no effort to protect critical areas, eliminating one and seriously damaging another. The Hearing Examiner noted Edmonds had chosen a policy of infill in preference to rezone, but Ms. Petso found this proposal was more rezone than infill. She commented isolated problems in a subdivision could generally be addressed via conditions, such as eliminating Lot 17 or 18 to protecting the trees and requiring the undergrounding of utilities. She requested the Council reject the subdivision as there were massive compliance failures that could not be conditioned - houses would not fit on lots, existing neighborhoods would be flooded, and the lots must be 8,000 square feet or comply with the PRD ordinance and this proposal does neither. Mr. Lutz raised no objection to Ms. Petso's presentation. Applicant Mr. Lutz explained there was a proceeding for the SEPA review for the preliminary plat application and PRD. The purpose of the PRD was to modify for public benefit development terms that might otherwise apply because of a strict application of the subdivision code in a manner that would make the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 14 Packet Page 16 of 357 development more attractive. He explained there were aspects of Burnstead's proposal that differed in modest ways from the strict application of the code with the intent and Burnstead believes has met the intent, of providing a better overall product. He acknowledged it was difficult in that context to have a discussion of the closed record subdivision appeal when the majority of issues pertained to the PRD. With regard to drainage, he explained drainage engineering for the plat was not complete as preliminary engineering that supports the concept of the plat was done as part of preliminary plat approval. If the preliminary plat and PRD were approved, final engineering would be done and staff would impose conditions and approve the final engineering. He concluded what Ms. Petso was contesting was a failure to have a final drainage design for the plat and PRD when it was not expected by the code. Mr. Lutz explained the PRD would address drainage, open space and recreation, and the incorrectly identified fish and wildlife habitat on a corner of the property. He noted the record reflected that issue was considered and rejected by staff. He recalled the City had a map indicating there was a fish and wildlife habitat area on the property that was later determined to be incorrect. He noted that was an issue on remand from the Hearing Examiner as she wanted to ensure that issue was properly documented in the file. He noted there was a hearing on Friday where there would be limited testimony on two remand issues before the final PRD decision was issued. He summarized these were PRD, not subdivision issues. He noted the Council could only consider subdivision issues and could not make a ruling based on issues that were to be determined by the Hearing Examiner and appealed to Superior Court. He urged the Council to respect the distinction between the processes. Mr. Lutz referred to assertions made by Ms. Petso that were not supported by facts such as that there was a wetland on the site. The report and testimony in the record states there was a drainage ditch on the site and that there was no wetland that would be disturbed or destroyed by this development. There was also testimony in the record that there was no fish and wildlife habitat corridor on the property although that was an issue on remand. With regard to drainage, it has been addressed professionally at a preliminary stage and further engineering would occur before the plat was built. He assured the drainage had been professional designed and the record reflected that the drainage designed for the site specific conditions would be adequate to protect the surround area from any impacts from this development. He acknowledged Burnstead was not designing a system that would fix preexisting offsite drainage issues. As the engineers testified in the record, the proposed system would provide better drainage control than currently exists. The proposed system would fully control and meet City requirements to prevent offsite drainage impacts from the development. Mr. Lutz advised traffic impacts would not be a problem. Mr. Lutz provided supplemental information which was distributed to the Council. Mr. Snyder advised Ms. Petso could review the materials and raise any objections to material that was outside the record. Mr. Lutz indicated he had tried to explain in the materials and the Hearing Examiner had also made a point of it in her response to the request for reconsideration, that Ms. Petso's argument regarding lot coverage was a misunderstanding of how lot coverage was calculated. He explained lot coverage was determined via the amount of roof area on a lot; the buffer area and setbacks were not subtracted. He referred to page 7 of 9 of the Hearing Examiner's order on reconsideration, advising the Hearing Examiner conditioned lot coverage to be met at building permit approval as lot coverage was determined in the building permit application process. Burnstead would know the size of each lot after final plat approved as it was conceivable that the lot sizes could be altered between now and final approval. He noted Ms. Petso's argument was based on subdivision requirements of an 8,000 square foot lot rather than the proposed PRD. He concluded compliance with lot coverage was determined at the time of building permit application and approval; therefore, arguing about lot coverage at this point was premature. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 15 Packet Page 17 of 357 Mr. Lutz explained they presented the housing types to the ADB; however, those were schematic street view representations of the houses Burnstead typically builds, not proposed buildings for each lot. Specific designs would be proposed during the building permit process and approved as part of the building permit application. He encouraged the Council to read the Hearing Examiner's decision, finding it incredibly thorough and addressing the issues Ms. Petso raised. Mr. Lutz pointed out Ms. Petso had arguments in her conclusions but were not arguments based on the facts, but a characterization of facts in a manner that she believed supported an argument but the Hearing Examiner's response indicated her arguments mischaracterized facts and reached to suggest there was a legal problem that did not exist. With regard to a procedural issue Ms. Petso raised, her assertion that the Hearing Examiner not viewing the property before she held the hearing and viewing the property after the hearing was a fatal flaw that justified the Council rejecting the plat. He explained the Hearing Examiner made the point that she believed she better understood the arguments and issues having heard the testimony first and then viewing the property before writing her report. He acknowledged it could be argued that was not what City code required - City code requires the Hearing Examiner view the property prior to the hearing. He noted City code also states any issue that was a procedural defect that did not prejudice anyone should penalize the parties. He asserted the Hearing Examiner looked at the property, listened to testimony and any error in the order was harmless error that did not justify rejection of the plat. He encouraged the Council to study the record, particularly the Hearing Examiner's report which outlined why the plat should be approved. Mayor Haakenson asked for objections to Mr. Lutz's presentation. Ms. Petso commented that while she felt she was prohibited to arguing PRD issues such as whether the monument sign area was usable open space, Mr. Lutz identified several issues that were addressed in the PRD; if she was unable to address PRD issues that did not meet the requirements, Mr. Lutz also should not be able address PRD he felt met the requirements. Mr. Snyder suggested this could be addressed by the Council in its decision -making process. Ms. Petso argues that the PRD plat does not comply due to several factors; Mr. Lutz correctly notes those factors were development regulation alterations made via the PRD process. With regard to Mr. Lutz's argument, Mr. Snyder noted there was nothing in the record about a hearing on Friday. Although the remand was referenced in the Hearing Examiner's decision, the date was not relevant to the Council's decision. Parties of Record Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, identified the factors to be considered, character, compliance and compatibility, which address how the project and the neighborhood relate. With regard to compatibility, he pointed out the lots were close together and the ADB had reduced the front yard setback from 25 feet to 15 feet which he asserted was not compatible with the neighborhood. He concluded the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan were not satisfied. With regard to whether there was a fish and wildlife habitat area on the site, he noted if there was, it was a critical area and was not allowed to be used as open space. This would require additional open space areas, changing the configuration of the project and reducing the buildable area. He referred to testimony by a biologist Mr. Enenhisa (page 60 and 61 of the transcript) who associated fish and wildlife habitat with streams and disputed there was a habitat area on the site. The applicant later had a biologist visit the site who found some habitat and some wildlife and there was testimony by local citizens regarding wildlife in the wildlife habitat area. He noted the biologist only spent 40 minutes looking at the area and Mr. Enenhisa did not take any soil samples. He also asserted the City's critical area reconnaissance report was deficient. Heather Marks, Edmonds, urged the Council to read her earlier testimony regarding traffic, drainage and that the plat that indicates there would be an offsite pond/vault, yet at the hearing the applicant denied that was planned, acknowledging it could happen if worked out with the City. She pointed out there were Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 16 Packet Page 18 of 357 no credentials listed for any of the consultants. With regard to the fish and wildlife habitat she advised it met the fish and wildlife definition in the Edmonds Municipal Code Section 23.90.010.A.1.10. She recalled two years ago mentioning at a Council meeting the presence of pileated woodpeckers on the site, commenting there were a pair of pileated woodpeckers on the site now. She commented the Hearing Examiner was wrong about Tract E where the trees and open space were located. She noted under Section 21.75.090, the City could require the applicant during the plat process to provide park land or pay a fee. She questioned why that had not been required and whether it could be required as part of this hearing. She pointed out open space on Tract E would only be available to residents of the plat. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, found it appropriate for the Council to hold this hearing as plats and subdivisions were was a legislative rather than an administrative decision. He envisioned when the plat was built, the average person would find it more appropriate in the RS-6 zone than the RS-8 zone. He referred to turnover in the Planning Department, commenting the proposed plat was an example of a ministerial mistake. He objected to the applicant's representative's reference to the Friday meeting and the revised plat which was not a part of this record. He displayed the plat map, pointing out the absence of a 15-foot perimeter buffer. He referred to the variance granted at the ADB, questioning whether the ADB had that legislative power and whether the Council was willing to give up that power. He urged the Council to consider the development on the adjacent lots constructed in the 1980s, pointing out the importance of considering the character and compatibility of neighborhoods. He pointed out the fish and wildlife habitat area exists on the City's critical area map; however, the applicant indicated it was in error. He questioned how and when that was determined to be in error. He recommended the Council review the map and consider why that critical area was included as usable open space when the code prohibited it. Colin Southcote-Want, Edmonds, recommended the Council deny the proposed subdivision, requesting the Council apply the City's rules and regulations. He displayed the plat map, advising a 15-foot buffer was required around the development. A bigger issue was the 25-foot buffer adjacent to the park land which was not reflected on the plat map. He concluded there were only two ways the Council could approve the subdivision, 1) if all the lots sizes were 8,000 square feet or greater, or 2) it met the PRD requirements. Because the plat did not include the 15-foot perimeter buffer, nor the 25-foot buffer adjacent to the park, it failed the PRD test. Mayor Haakenson asked for objections to the comments by parties of record. Ms. Petso had no objections. Tiffany Brown, Burnstead Construction, acknowledged it was difficult to keep the issues separate. With regard to Mr. Hertrich's comments about wildlife, drainage, wetland and lot coverage, she noted this was a preliminary plat for which preliminary engineering was done; full engineering was not required nor was a code citation made where it was required for the preliminary plat. Mr. Snyder advised the applicant was not permitted rebuttal, only objection to information provided that was outside the record. Ms. Brown objected to Mr. Hertrich's comment about the 40 minute their wildlife biologist was on site. She advised that occurred at the Hearing Examiner's request for the PRD hearing that was not part of this proceeding. If the PRD hearing could not be mentioned, she did not believe the extensive wildlife study done after the Hearing Examiner's decision should be cited as it was not part of the record. She also did not find in the record Ms. Marks' comments regarding pileated woodpeckers on the site. She also objected to issues raised that were not part of Ms. Petso's appeal such as the argument regarding payment of park fees in lieu of park land dedicated in the plat. She did not find any reference in the record to the 25-foot buffer adjacent to park land. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 17 Packet Page 19 of 357 With regard to the reference regarding the Friday meeting, Mr. Snyder suggested the Council not consider that comment in their deliberations. Mayor Haakenson asked how Ms. Brown's objections would be addressed. Mr. Snyder suggested establishing a period of time the parties could provide written citation to the portion of the record where these items appear. Rebuttal Ms. Petso advised lot coverage was not an issue to be addressed later; the subdivision ordinance stated lots should contain a usable building area, if the building area would be difficult to develop, the lot should be redesigned or eliminated. She urged the Council not to approve a subdivision that could not be built or the result would tiny lots rather than ADB approved glorious houses. She pointed out drainage was also not an issue to be addressed later. As Mr. Schaefer pointed out at the ADB meeting, if Tract C were available for a drainage facility and it was not large enough and the overflow was channeled into the Woodway Meadows system that floods Mr. Park's house regularly and likely others with the overflow, that was not an issue to be decided later. She argued there would be no room if it was determined later the drainage was not engineered well enough now. Ms. Petso explained the site visit was prejudicial because, 1) the demolition fencing was installed the day of the hearing so the Hearing Examiner could not access the property after she missed the pre -hearing site visit, and 2) the Hearing Examiner stated the reason for missing the pre -hearing site visit was she had decided, based on information she told Ms. Petso she would not use to prejudice the proceeding, not to do the visit before the hearing. She had knowledge from the Growth Management Hearings Board that convinced her not to do the site visit when she was supposed to. Ms. Petso argued she was prejudiced by this in two ways, 1) the Hearing Examiner was unable to access the site and 2) the reason she did not attend the pre -hearing site visit was she was improperly using information she was not supposed to have and that she told Ms. Petso would not bias her decision. With regard to the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area, Ms. Petso pointed out the critical areas map was Exhibit 2 and the area was defined in the Critical Areas Ordinance as urban open space. With regard to wetlands, she noted because the biologist did not find a stream did not mean it was not a wetland. The Critical Areas Ordinance defined a wetland as and area with wetland vegetation and was frequently saturated which the drainage ditch was. She referred to photographs she and others provided of wetland vegetation. Ms. Petso pointed out the Hearing Examiner found the PRD did not have a buffer and therefore she did not approve it. Ms. Petso concluded without a PRD approval, there could not be a subdivision approval. Mayor Haakenson asked for objections to Ms. Petso's rebuttal. Mr. Lutz objected to Ms. Petso alleging the Hearing Examiner spoke to her outside the record and did something inappropriate due to work she had done with the Growth Management Hearings Board. He observed there was discussion on the record where the Hearing Examiner acknowledged she had worked for the Growth Management Hearings Board and heard an appeal brought by Ms. Petso but felt she could be objective. He concluded there was nothing in the record to suggest the Hearing Examiner acted improperly. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 40 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Snyder suggested parties be allowed until the close of business on September 13 to provide written citations for items that were objected to. He identified the objections to be 1) the 40 minute remark, 2) pileated woodpeckers, 3) appeals items outside the record, 4) paying park fees or dedicating park land, 5) 25-foot buffer, and 6) Ms. Petso's allegations regarding the Hearing Examiner's comments. Ms. Petso Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 18 Packet Page 20 of 357 requested the list be provided in writing. Mr. Snyder suggested the Council include that requirement in the motion to continue the proceeding. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO CONTINUE THE CLOSED RECORD PROCEEDING TO SEPTEMBER 18, 2007, AND ALLOW PARTIES UNTIL 5:00 P.M. ON SEPTEMBER 13 TO PROVIDE WRITTEN CITATIONS FOR ITEMS THAT WERE OBJECTED TO. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Councilmember Plunkett asked how the Council would consider whether or not the Hearing Examiner was prejudice as that issue was not one of the tests under the review of subdivisions. Mr. Snyder suggested consulting Ms. Petso's appeal to determine whether that was an issue raised on appeal. He recalled it was not, therefore, an issue outside the appeal was not relevant to this proceeding. Assuming that it was not outside the appeal, Councilmember Plunkett pointed out a prejudice Hearing Examiner was not one of the tests of the subdivision code. Mr. Snyder requested an opportunity to research that issue and respond to the Council and parties by September 13. For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Snyder explained the appellant had the burden of persuasion and must persuade the Council by a preponderance of the evidence in the record. Councilmember Plunkett commented the Council could take into account a layperson's testimony regarding what they observed and determine whether it was persuasive. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting the testimony would also need to be balanced against other evidence in the record. Mr. Snyder encouraged Councilmembers to ask any questions now; once the Council entered its deliberative phase, there would not be opportunity to ask questions. He cautioned the Council not to ask for new testimony and only to ask for clarification of a point in the argument. Councilmember Plunkett commented the record contains questions Ms. Petso asked of the Hearing Examiner and reference was made to an additional conversation Ms. Petso had with the Hearing Examiner. He asked Ms. Petso whether that was contained in the record. Ms. Petso advised the second comment was in the Hearing Examiner's decision. She read in the Hearing Examiner's decision information that caused her to believe it was offered as an explanation for not making the site visit. Councilmember Plunkett asked if a point was addressed in the record but not addressed by the parties was he free to consider it in his decision. Mr. Snyder answered yes as far as evidence. He cautioned the statements of decision -makers were not evidence. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether comments by the Hearing Examiner that did not pertain to either party was something he could rely upon and draw a conclusion. Mr. Snyder answered typically not unless the Hearing Examiner was taking official notice of a City document. A hearing body could take official notice of documents but could not add or inject evidence into a proceeding. Councilmember Plunkett asked what would happen if Mr. Snyder concluded the Hearing Examiner being prejudice could be considered and if the Council questioned whether comments of the Hearing Examiner were prejudice. Mr. Snyder reiterated that was not an issue he had encountered before and requested an opportunity to research it and provide the parties an opinion. Councilmember Plunkett clarified he wanted to know whether he could rely on the Hearing Examiner's comments with regard to whether she was prejudice. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 19 Packet Page 21 of 357 Clarifying that she was asking for details of why the project did/did not comply with the PRD ordinance or how that would ultimately be resolved, Councilmember Dawson stated her understanding was Mr. Lutz's argument was it need not strictly comply with the subdivision ordinance because it was either PRD or subdivision. She asked Mr. Lutz's opinion regarding the ramifications of the Council upholding the approval of the subdivision of the plat if the PRD were not approved. Mr. Lutz clarified the question was if the applicant had an approved plat supported by a PRD application and the PRD application was denied. He answered if the PRD application was denied they would be unable to develop the subdivision without the PRD approval because without the PRD approval some of the things they asked for would not be consistent with the code. Councilmember Moore asked for a copy of Ms. Petso's PowerPoint. Councilmember Dawson pointed out all the information was contained in the record. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO CONTINUE THE CLOSED RECORD PROCEEDING TO SEPTEMBER 18, 2007, AND Mr. SNYDER TO PROVIDE FROM THE MINUTES A COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS NOTED AND THE PARTIES WOULD BE ALLOWED UNTIL 5:00 P.M. ON SEPTEMBER 13 TO PROVIDE WRITTEN CITATIONS FOR ITEMS THAT WERE OBJECTED TO. Ms. Petso pointed out the record provided to the Council was not the entire record. Mayor Haakenson advised the remainder of the records were available for review in the City Council office. The volume of records was the reason two additional weeks were provided for the Council to conduct their review. A requirement for parties to provide the materials they presented tonight including Ms. Petso's PowerPoint was added to the motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Snyder advised the Council could not discuss this matter nor could it be discussed at the podium pending the Council's decision. When the Council again considered this matter, they would be asked to disclose any ex parte comments. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Stephen Andrews, LaRouche Political Campaign, referred to the current collapse of the financial system nationally as well as on a worldwide level. He explained this took the form of foreclosure rates doubling from 2006 to 2007 and the collapse of the sub -prime mortgage market. This led to inflation and was a systemic problem; the real estate market was a symptom of the functioning policies. He noted this began with the deregulation in the 1970s and Greenspan's decision and policies. He provided legislation based on a solution President Franklin Roosevelt passed when he was in office. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, asked whether Mayor Haakenson was still bound by the non -disclosure agreement with regard to the Waterfront Redevelopment. Mayor Haakenson answered there was no longer a non -disclosure agreement. Mr. Hertrich questioned how the City tracked staff's comp time and learned no list was maintained, each Department Head was on the honor system including the Mayor. He recommended the City establish a system for tracking comp time. Shirley Wambolt, Edmonds, commented her husband, Councilmember Wambolt, spent every day except Sunday as a Councilmember, reading, and reading. She announced she would become a U.S. Citizen on September 6, 2007. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 20 Packet Page 22 of 357 8. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE SEASHORE TRANSPORTATION FORUM AGREEMENT Council President Olson advised Councilmember Marin and she were members of the SeaShore Forum. Over the past year they had been working on a new agreement. Cities in King County wanted Snohomish County cities to participate in the Forum but because they voted on projects in Snohomish County, did not feel should not vote on projects at the SeaShore forum. She read language Councilmember Marin developed that states no jurisdiction shall cast a vote for funding recommendations of federal funding allocated by the Puget Sound Regional Council in more than one forum or recommending body. Snohomish County cities shall not have voting rights at SeaShore for voting rights for allocations in King County. Councilmember Marin agreed funding recommendations had been a thorny issue for some time; there was a great opportunity for many cities to participate in the SeaShore Forum and provide input on transportation issues. The proposed language would address the conflict regarding funding recommendations. Councilmember Dawson advised she was in Washington DC last week with a team from Snohomish County on coordinated transportation planning, SNOTRAC, Snohomish County Special Needs Transportation Coalition, who serves a purpose similar to SeaShore by voting on projects that receive federal funding. One of the things they worked on in Washington DC was how to make SNOTRAC more relevant as well as updating the statement of executive sponsorship that had not been updated since 2003. She noted Edmonds as well as other Snohomish County cities could benefit from participating in SNOTRAC as the group has been under underutilized and under -recognized in Snohomish County. She offered to provide further information on coordinated transportation planning in Snohomish County. She noted one of the focuses of the Washington DC trip was unmet transportation needs for veterans. Council President Olson commented she was excited to learn about SNOTRAC as it had appeared Snohomish County did not have an organization comparable to SeaShore that provided education to cities. Councilmember Moore was also excited about SNOTRAC as a way to increase Snohomish County's advocacy with regard to transportation. The proposed agreement was acceptable to the Council. 9. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEEBOARD MEETINGS Mayor Haakenson reported he attended the SnoCom Board meeting in Councilmember Dawson's absence and voted in favor of the annual budget which included a 4% increase. Council President Olson reported she attended two Community Technology Advisory Committee meetings; they were making a lot of great progress and were working with Edmonds and Everett Community Colleges. She emphasized this was a potential revenue source for the City. Councilmember Wambolt advised most of the items discussed at the August 13 Port meeting had been reported in the press. At the August 27 Port meeting, Commissioners received a report by Bob Drewel from PSRC regarding accomplishment of 16 of the 18 objectives for 2006. Another interesting statistic Mr. Drewel provided was the four -county area used the most engineers per capita of any place in the United States but was 34th in producing engineers, revealing the need for more educational institutions in Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 21 Packet Page 23 of 357 this area. The Port also reviewed their second quarter performance and gross profits which were up 19% from 2006. Councilmember Marin reported he MC'd the groundbreaking of the Mukilteo Sounder station today. Edmonds has been fortunate to have a stop in Edmonds since 2003 and it was unfortunate it had taken this long for Mukilteo to have a stop. He noted once the interim Mukilteo station was completed next spring, the Edmonds project could proceed. Councilmember Moore reported the Edmonds Community College annual Board retreat included discussion regarding the importance of recruitment and retention of students, issues they would be focusing on over the coming year. Councilmember Dawson commented SnoCom had been seeking funding for an interconnect between SnoCom and SnoPak. Although it was originally believed funding they applied for would not be realized, they had received $300,000 for the interconnect. Mayor Haakenson advised the concept of forming a Public Safety Technology Committee was also discussed at the SnoCom meeting. Councilmember Dawson explained the intent of the committee was to form a group of technical people throughout the cities and agencies in Snohomish County. Discussion has been ongoing regarding the role of the committee such as who they would answered to, who the members would be and whether they would be appointed by the cities or comm centers, what the technology needs of public safety personnel are, etc. and ensuring decision -makers are able to participate in decisions regarding technology before projects are underway. Mayor Haakenson commented although the idea of that committee was good, he suggested consideration be given to consolidating some of the committees rather than creating more committees. Councilmember Dawson summarized the cities could not work in isolation with regard to public safety issues and a great deal of work was occurring at SERS, SnoPac, SnoCom, etc. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Wambolt read a guest column that would appear in this week's Edmonds Beacon regarding misleading and incomplete campaign rhetoric during the past several weeks about the City's financial situation." Councilmember Moore objected; Mr. Snyder advised the column did not name names and addressed the City's financial situation. Councilmember Wambolt continued that as a member of the City Council's Finance Committee, he felt obligated to communicate the real financial outlook for the City. He highlighted initiatives that have eliminated significant amounts of the City's revenue, pointing out that because the City did not have a mall or gambling, it was critical to identify new sources of revenue. He described several revenue sources being pursued including, 1) the Hwy. 99 Task Force's report that in 1-2 years a $90 million Walgreens development will begin at 220'h and Hwy. 99, 2) the Harbor Square and Antique Mall redevelopment effort, 3) the Community Technology Advisory Committee was optimistic about the revenue broadband would provide, 4) progress will soon resume on neighborhood commercial centers, and 5) as a result of sales tax sourcing sales tax would be paid at the point of destination versus the current point of sale which will benefit Edmonds. He summarized it was too soon to estimate how much revenue would be realized from these sources. His point was that Councilmembers, the Mayor, City staff and volunteer citizens continued to work on these initiatives to increase revenue so that City services could be retained. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 22 Packet Page 24 of 357 Councilmember Marin advised last week each Councilmember received a 3-ring binder containing information about the work being done on the Harbor Square/Antique Mall redevelopment. He commented it was exciting that the group had not given up and was still pursuing redevelopment that would be an amenity for the community. He expressed his appreciation for the deliberative process that was occurring. Councilmember Marin recognized the wonderful job that was done on the 164th Street walkway project. Mayor Haakenson explained the contractor did a great job and was very conscientious, even sleeping in his truck on site to ensure his work was not disturbed. Neighbors brought the contractor food and a birthday cake on his birthday. Councilmember Moore announced the Running of the Balls on Saturday, September 8, a non-profit event that supported the Sno-King Youth Club. She encouraged the public to attend the event that would move 5,000 balls down Main Street and include activities, celebrities, and entertainment. As it appeared a contract rezone would be requested for Harbor Square, Councilmember Plunkett asked when the Council should discontinue talking about it. Mr. Snyder answered when the application was submitted. He cited the difference between the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine regarding things outside the record and pre judgmental bias. He cautioned a Councilmembers could lose their right to vote by statements indicating their mind was so firmly made up it could not be changed. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:47 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 23 Packet Page 25 of 357 AM-1154 2.C. Approval of Claim Checks Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 09/04/2007 Submitted By: Debbie Karber Submitted For: Dan Clements Time: Consent Department: Administrative Services Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #98630 through #98782 for August 30, 2007 in the amount of $662,225.46. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approval of claim checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: 2007 Revenue: Expenditure: $662,225.46 Fiscal Impact: Claim Cks $662,225.46 At+a.-hmanic Link: Claim cks 8-30-07 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox 1 Admin Services 2 City Clerk 3 Mayor 4 Final Approval Form Started By: Debbie Karber Approved By Date Status Kathleen Junglov 08/29/2007 03:27 PM APRV Sandy Chase 08/29/2007 03:28 PM APRV Gary Haakenson 08/29/2007 03:30 PM APRV Sandy Chase 08/29/2007 03:45 PM APRV Started On: 08/29/2007 03:00 PM Packet Page 26 of 357 Final Approval Date: 08/29/2007 Packet Page 27 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98630 8/30/2007 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 245034 1-13992 PEST CONTROL 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 57.50 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 5.12 Total : 62.62 98631 8/30/2007 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES 07-326 JANITORIAL SERVICE JANITORIAL SERVICE 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 334.00 07-327 FLOOR MAINTENANCE FLOOR MAINTENANCE 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 273.33 Total : 607.33 98632 8/30/2007 071820 AHBL INC 64111 MUSEUM PROJECT - PROF SVC - I MUSEUM PROJECT - PROF SVC - 1 116.000.651.519.920.410.00 90.00 Total : 90.00 98633 8/30/2007 001030 ALLIED SYSTEMS PRODUCTS INC IN091074 INV# IN091074 EDMONDS PD 2008 FILE LABELS 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 83.65 Freight 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 5.38 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 7.92 Total : 96.95 98634 8/30/2007 065568 ALLWATER INC 082307043 COEWASTE DRINKING WATER 411.000.656.538.800.310.11 31.75 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.11 0.62 Total : 32.37 Page: 1 Packet Page 28 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98635 8/30/2007 001430 AMERICAN RED CROSS 2502 LIFEGUARDING SUPPLIES LIFEGUARDING BOOKS AND MASI• 001.000.640.575.510.310.00 395.00 Total : 395.00 98636 8/30/2007 001634 AQUA QUIP 513257 08239 CHLORINE TABLETS 411.000.656.538.800.310.11 116.99 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.11 10.41 Total : 127.40 98637 8/30/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3944956 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SE 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 33.76 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 3.00 Total : 36.76 98638 8/30/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3944958 18386001 UNIFORMS 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 93.54 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.33 Total : 101.87 98639 8/30/2007 070251 ASHBROOK SIMON-HARTLEY 81214 BFP ROLLER BFP ROLLER 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4,800.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 595.88 Total : 5,395.88 98640 8/30/2007 071120 ASHLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICALS 2500039058 113009/0702 POLYMER 411.000.656.538.800.310.51 1,937.50 Page: 2 Packet Page 29 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98640 8/30/2007 071120 071120 ASHLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICALS (Continued) Total : 1,937.50 98641 8/30/2007 001699 ASSOC OF WA CITIES IVC000956 ADMIN MISC salary survey 001.000.510.522.100.490.00 85.00 Total : 85.00 98642 8/30/2007 064343 AT&T 730386050200 425-744-6057 PUBLIC WORKS Public Works Fax Line 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 3.06 Public Works Fax Line 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 11.64 Public Works Fax Line 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 11.64 Public Works Fax Line 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 11.64 Public Works Fax Line 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 11.64 Public Works Fax Line 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 11.63 Total : 61.25 98643 8/30/2007 064343 AT&T 425-771-0152 STATION #16 FAX STATION #16 FAX 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 34.98 Total : 34.98 98644 8/30/2007 064341 AT&T MOBILITY 206-660-2168 C/A 129795740 Cell phone Gene - final bill 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 200.20 Total : 200.20 98645 8/30/2007 063547 ATCO INTERNATIONAL I0179726 981656 STEEL 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 176.85 Total : 176.85 Page: 3 Packet Page 30 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98646 8/30/2007 071862 AZUSA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY AZUSA0828 SCHOLARSHIP SCHOLARSHIP FOR:- 117.300.640.573.100.410.00 1,500.00 Total : 1,500.00 98647 8/30/2007 002343 BILL HATCH SPORTING GOODS 113632 SOFTBALLS USSSA SOFTBALLS FOR LEAGUE 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 423.50 Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 37.69 Total : 461.19 98648 8/30/2007 069698 BLAZE CONE COMPANY INC 16747 INV#16747 EDMONDS PD 18" 3 LB CONES W/6" BANDS 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 228.75 Freight 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 30.00 Total : 258.75 98649 8/30/2007 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 611253 INV#611253 EDMONDS PD - TRAN, TRANZPORT HOODS 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 49.50 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 4.41 Total : 53.91 98650 8/30/2007 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 1460909 C-249 PROCESS CONTROL IMPRC C-249 PROCESS CONTROL IMPRC 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 1,126.55 Total : 1,126.55 98651 8/30/2007 071360 CASCADE INDUSTRIES NW INC 2259 C-261 CLARIFIER REPAIR C-261 CLARIFIER REPAIR 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 71,760.00 Sales Tax 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 6,386.64 Page: 4 Packet Page 31 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 98651 8/30/2007 071360 071360 CASCADE INDUSTRIES NW INC (Continued) 98652 8/30/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 110790 98653 8/30/2007 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460701590 460701591 460702629 460702648 Description/Account Amount Total : 78,146.64 WELDING SUPPLIES OXYGEN 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 17.23 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.54 Total : 18.77 UNIFORMS Volunteers 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 46.36 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 4.12 UNIFORMS Stn. 16 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 89.44 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 7.95 UNIFORMS Stn 17 - ALS 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 92.40 Stn 17 - Ops 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 92.40 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 8.22 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.22 OPS UNIFORMS Stn. 20 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 132.66 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 11.80 Page: 5 Packet Page 32 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98653 8/30/2007 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION (Continued) 460706820 UNIFORMS Volunteers 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 46.36 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 4.12 460706821 OPS UNIFORMS Stn. 16 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 89.44 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 7.95 Total : 641.44 98654 8/30/2007 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 5431 MAINT/ OPERATIONS SEWER - AU MAINT/ OPERATIONS SEWER - AU 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 13,800.83 Total : 13,800.83 98655 8/30/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1827269 CLEANING SUPPLIES BREAK-UP CLEANER 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 270.07 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 24.04 Total : 294.11 98656 8/30/2007 071308 COLELLA, TERESA COLELLA0831 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT- 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 624.00 Total : 624.00 98657 8/30/2007 004595 CONKLIN APPLIANCE P080819 PS - ICE MAKER KIT PS - ICE MAKER KIT 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 99.00 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.81 Total : 107.81 Page: 6 Packet Page 33 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98658 8/30/2007 069848 CRAM, KATHERINE CRAM8441 IRISH DANCE CLASSES IRISH DANCE 13+- 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 168.00 IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #8437 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 201.60 Total : 369.60 98659 8/30/2007 066368 CRYSTAL AND SIERRA SPRINGS 0807 2989771 5374044 INV# 0807 2989771 5374044 EDMOI 5 GALLON BOTTLES DRINKING H2 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 69.90 HOT/COLD DISPENSER RENTAL 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 10.00 ENERGY SURCHARGE 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 1.96 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 0.89 Total : 82.75 98660 8/30/2007 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3194828 E7AC.RFQ SR99/76th Improvement: E7AC.RFQ SR99/76th Improvement: 112.200.630.595.330.650.00 213.50 Total : 213.50 98661 8/30/2007 070862 DALTON, RYAN DALTON0820 OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL ATTENDP OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL ATTENDP 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 144.00 Total : 144.00 98662 8/30/2007 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 07-2782 MINUTE TAKING 8/7 & 8/20 Council Minutes 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 252.00 Total : 252.00 98663 8/30/2007 060933 DYNAMIC LANGUAGE CENTER 207003 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 62.28 Page: 7 Packet Page 34 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98663 8/30/2007 060933 DYNAMIC LANGUAGE CENTER (Continued) 207004 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 107.28 Total : 169.56 98664 8/30/2007 068357 EARTH TECH 92358-15-421158 ESFG.Services thru 07/27/07 ESFG.Services thru 07/27/07 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 3,094.32 Total : 3,094.32 98665 8/30/2007 071596 EBORALL, STEVE EBORALL8511 ART DAZE ART DAZE #8511 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 162.50 Total : 162.50 98666 8/30/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 85020 SUPPLIES CORE TOOL, FASTENERS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.60 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.50 Total : 6.10 98667 8/30/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 85024 2000 ELECTRICAL FITTINGS 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 66.23 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 5.89 Total : 72.12 98668 8/30/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 85318 OPS SUPPLIES Epoxy - Stn. supplies 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 4.05 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 0.36 Total : 4.41 Page: 8 Packet Page 35 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98669 8/30/2007 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CHAMBER0820 REFUND REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 1,500.00 Total : 1,500.00 98670 8/30/2007 008550 EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT #15 9676 SISTER CITY PRINTING PRINTING JOB FOR SISTER CITY 623.200.210.557.210.490.00 59.00 Sales Tax 623.200.210.557.210.490.00 5.25 Total : 64.25 98671 8/30/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00575 CITY PARK CITY PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 315.79 1-00825 BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROON BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROON 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 712.18 1-00875 SPRINKLER SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.72 1-02125 CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 59.58 1-03900 SPRINKLER SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 48.96 1-05125 SPRINKLER SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 47.19 1-05285 GAZEBO IRRIGATION GAZEBO IRRIGATION 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 22.41 1-05340 CORNER PARK CORNER PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 47.19 Page: 9 Packet Page 36 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98671 8/30/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 1-05650 EDMONDS CITY PARK EDMONDS CITY PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.64 1-05675 PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 668.50 1-05700 EDMONDS CITY PARK EDMONDS CITY PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 116.23 1-09650 CORNER PARK CORNER PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 47.19 1-09800 SW CORNER SPRINKLER SW CORNER SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 63.12 1-10780 PLANTER PLANTER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 57.81 1-16130 CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 50.73 1-16300 CORNER PARKS CORNER PARKS 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 54.27 1-16450 CITY HALL TRIANGLE CITY HALL TRIANGLE 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 164.60 1-16630 6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX 6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 52.50 1-17475 5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER 5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 40.11 Page: 10 Packet Page 37 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98671 8/30/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 1-19950 PINE STREE PLAYFIELD PINE STREE PLAYFIELD 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 42.58 1-36255 WATER 1141 9TH AVE S 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 40.11 2-25150 9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTE 9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTE 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 36.57 2-25175 9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTEF 9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTEF 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 54.27 2-28275 SPRINKLER SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 43.65 2-37180 MINI PARK MINI PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.06 7-05276 WATER 820 15TH ST SW 130.000.640.536.500.470.00 92.69 8-40000 STORM DRAIN 23700 104TH AVE W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 3,240.01 Total : 6,195.66 98672 8/30/2007 069055 EHS INTERNATIONAL INC. 24358 ESMC.Services thru February 2007 ESMC.Services thru February 2007 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 2,693.00 24470 ESMC.Services thru July 2007 ESMC.Services thru July 2007 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 10,964.55 Total : 13,657.55 98673 8/30/2007 071857 EKREM, JANA EKREM0821 REFUND Page: 11 Packet Page 38 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98673 8/30/2007 071857 EKREM, JANA (Continued) REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 365.00 Total : 365.00 98674 8/30/2007 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 027161 ADMIN MAINT copier maint 001.000.510.522.100.480.00 67.73 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.100.480.00 6.03 Total : 73.76 98675 8/30/2007 071858 ENNIS, CATHERINE ENNIS0822 REFUND CLASS REFUND 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 80.00 Total : 80.00 98676 8/30/2007 063953 EVERGREEN STATE HEAT & A/C 4195 FS 16 & CH - SERVICE AND REPAII FS 16 & CH - SERVICE AND REPAII 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 1,790.00 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 159.31 Total : 1,949.31 98677 8/30/2007 071859 EVISTON, SUZANNE P 8/8/07 INV #8/8/07 EDMONDS PD - ROCK) BOARD FOR ROCKY - 6 DAYS 001.000.410.521.260.410.00 150.00 Total : 150.00 98678 8/30/2007 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU11053 SUPPLIES ALUMINUM SLEEVES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 27.07 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.41 Page: 12 Packet Page 39 of 357 vchlist 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 13 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98678 8/30/2007 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY (Continued) WAMOU11070 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 28.34 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.52 Total : 60.34 98679 8/30/2007 009880 FEDEX 2-210-89378 Transportation Charges - Bldg Div Transportation Charges - Bldg Div 001.000.620.524.100.420.00 16.13 Total : 16.13 98680 8/30/2007 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0922145 17983 PIPE FITTING1 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 155.31 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 20.28 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 15.62 Total : 191.21 98681 8/30/2007 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0878724 37355 PVC CEMENT 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 27.95 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2.49 Total : 30.44 98682 8/30/2007 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0113701 SEWER INVENTORY - — Page: 13 Packet Page 40 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 14 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98682 8/30/2007 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC (Continued) SEWER INVENTORY - - 411.000.000.141.150.310.00 60.72 S-TEEPVC-08-010 411.000.000.141.150.310.00 100.71 S-BENDPVC-06-010 411.000.000.141.150.310.00 34.67 S-P I PEPVC-08-030 411.000.000.141.150.310.00 111.41 Sales Tax 411.000.000.141.150.310.00 27.37 Total : 334.88 98683 8/30/2007 069469 FLINT TRADING INC 87498 STREET - BD 6" WHITE LINE - STREET - BD 6" WHITE LINE- 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 1,863.54 18" DO NOT BLOCK 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 299.88 Freight 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 292.06 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 218.54 Total : 2,674.02 98684 8/30/2007 011480 GAYDOS, KEN CONFERENCE INTERN'L CONF/POLICE CHAPLAII` AIR FARE/K.GAYDOS- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 561.00 LODGING/K.GAYDOS- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 339.00 REG I STRATI O N/K. GAYDOS- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 145.00 Total : 1,045.00 98685 8/30/2007 071845 GENERAL PACIFIC INC 1083322-01 WATER METER INVENTORY - - WATER METER INVENTORY - - 411.000.000.141.170.310.00 2,150.00 Page: 14 Packet Page 41 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98685 8/30/2007 071845 071845 GENERAL PACIFIC INC (Continued) Total : 2,150.00 98686 8/30/2007 067232 GERRISH BEARING COMPANY 2074168-01 2074168-01 BEARINGS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 228.20 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 20.31 Total : 248.51 98687 8/30/2007 018495 GLACIER NORTHWEST 90204132 STREET - CEMENT STREET -CEMENT 111.000.653.542.610.310.00 432.90 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.610.310.00 38.53 Total : 471.43 98688 8/30/2007 012199 GRAINGER 9437538219 SUPPLIES DUCT TAPE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 100.32 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.93 Total : 109.25 98689 8/30/2007 012560 HACH COMPANY 5256914 112830-000 NITRIFICATION INHIBITOR/PIPET/F 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 277.89 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 25.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 26.65 Total : 329.54 98690 8/30/2007 070515 HARLEY DAVIDSON OF SEATTLE 132093 UNIT 100 - SERVICE UNIT 100 - SERVICE 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 45.92 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 4.08 Page: 15 Packet Page 42 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98690 8/30/2007 070515 HARLEY DAVIDSON OF SEATTLE (Continued) 140238 UNIT 621 - BRAKE PARTS UNIT 621 - BRAKE PARTS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 412.48 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 36.70 140239 UNIT 621 - PARTS UNIT 621 - PARTS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 46.40 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.14 140240 UNIT 124 - CLAMPS UNIT 124 - CLAMPS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 27.20 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.42 149886 UNIT 100 - MT 90 FRONT AND REA UNIT 100 - MT 90 FRONT AND REA 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 219.12 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.49 150571 UNIT 621 - CLUTCH PARTS UNIT 621 - CLUTCH PARTS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 201.36 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 17.91 150572 UNIT 621 -OIL UNIT 621 -OIL 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 95.52 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.50 150835 UNIT 621 - PISTONS UNIT 621 - PISTONS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 99.04 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.82 Page: 16 Packet Page 43 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98690 8/30/2007 070515 HARLEY DAVIDSON OF SEATTLE (Continued) 151864 UNIT 100 - REPAIRS UNIT 100 - REPAIRS 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 35.70 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 3.18 151865 UNIT 100 - BRAKE REPAIRS UNIT 100 - BRAKE REPAIRS 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 134.70 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 12.00 152920 UNIT 100 - REPAIRS - UNIT 100 - REPAIRS- 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 61.52 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 9.93 166667 UNIT 124 - BATTERY UNIT 124 - BATTERY 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 83.96 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.48 Total : 1,597.57 98691 8/30/2007 060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 00789648 036570 CPVC PIPE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 94.20 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 8.38 Total : 102.58 98692 8/30/2007 068988 HAWKINS, JAIME Overtime Pay Overtime Pay-8/15 thru 8/31 Overtime Pay-8/15 thru 8/31 001.000.620.532.200.120.00 325.71 Total : 325.71 98693 8/30/2007 071417 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD 5323327 WATER - 3/4" EXTRACTING TOOL Page: 17 Packet Page 44 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 18 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98693 8/30/2007 071417 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD (Continued) WATER - 3/4" EXTRACTING TOOL 411.000.654.534.800.350.00 238.48 WATER - 1" EXTRACTING TOOL 411.000.654.534.800.350.00 251.45 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.350.00 41.64 Total: 531.57 98694 8/30/2007 070864 IDEARC MEDIA CORP S/P3337719 CUSTOMER # S114983 8/2007 Web Server Hosting for Interr 001.000.390.528.800.420.00 69.90 Total : 69.90 98695 8/30/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 74115929 COPIER LEASE COPIER LEASE 001.000.640.574.100.450.00 812.53 Total : 812.53 98696 8/30/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 74087641 INV#74087641 ACCT#467070-COME COPIER RENTAL 8/13-9/12/07 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 821.73 ADDITIONAL COPIES 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 447.23 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 112.95 Total : 1,381.91 98697 8/30/2007 069179 INTERWEST CONSTRUCTION INC ESFF.Ret Release ESFF.Retainage Release ESFF.Retainage Release 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 7,502.52 ESJA.Pmt 4 ESJA.Pmt 4 thru 07/31/07 ESJA.Pmt 4 thru 07/31/07 412.100.630.594.320.650.00 387,859.87 ESJA.Retainage 4 412.100.000.223.400.000.00 -17, 808.08 Page: 18 Packet Page 45 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98697 8/30/2007 069179 069179 INTERWEST CONSTRUCTION INC (Continued) Total : 377,554.31 98698 8/30/2007 069264 J & K ASSOCIATES 173133 STREET - CRACK SEALER STREET - CRACK SEALER 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 2,762.16 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 234.78 Total : 2,996.94 98699 8/30/2007 071860 JONES, CYNTHIA ANN 131210 REFUND #131210 - SPAY/NEUTER SPAY/NEUTER REF. IMP. #6927 001.000.000.343.930.000.00 50.00 Total : 50.00 98700 8/30/2007 016600 KROESENS INC 79581 OPS UNIFORMS Allison work boots, etc. 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 151.10 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 13.45 Total : 164.55 98701 8/30/2007 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 323164-001 Survey Vest - Jeanie Survey Vest - Jeanie 001.000.620.532.200.240.00 79.75 Sales Tax 001.000.620.532.200.240.00 7.10 324446-001 Survey Vest - Jennifer Survey Vest - Jennifer 001.000.620.532.200.240.00 108.00 Sales Tax 001.000.620.532.200.240.00 9.61 Total : 204.46 98702 8/30/2007 065791 LEIRA L.CLARKE 2007 LEIRA CONFERENCE - L.CLAI REG I STRATI O N/L. CLARKE- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 210.00 Page: 19 Packet Page 46 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98702 8/30/2007 065791 065791 LEIRA (Continued) Total : 210.00 98703 8/30/2007 067631 LODESTAR COMPANY INC 15972 2795 HVAC REPAIRS 411.000.656.538.800.480.21 224.35 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.480.21 19.97 Total : 244.32 98704 8/30/2007 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 526297 UNIT 467 - ACETONE UNIT 467 - ACETONE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.10 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.88 526359 UNIT 100 - CHROME UNIT 100 - CHROME 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.09 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.54 526360 UNTI 100 -CLEANING SUPPLIES UNTI 100 -CLEANING SUPPLIES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 22.87 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.04 526418 UNIT 116 - SUPPLIES UNIT 116 - SUPPLIES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.50 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.11 526597 UNTI 476 - SUPPORT UNTI 476 - SUPPORT 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.11 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.88 Page: 20 Packet Page 47 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98704 8/30/2007 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC (Continued) 526876 UNIT 31 - FAN UNIT 31 - FAN 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 34.88 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.10 526878 UNIT 46 - SUPPLIES UNIT 46 - SUPPLIES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.58 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.76 527137 UNIT 55 - BELTS UNIT 55 - BELTS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 34.41 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.06 527519 UNIT 495 - MIRROR UNIT 495 - MIRROR 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 60.27 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.36 527522 UNIT 99 - WIPER BLADES UNIT 99 - WIPER BLADES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 17.18 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.53 527631 UNIT EQ01WR - HOSE, SUPPLIES UNIT EQ01WR - HOSE, SUPPLIES 511.100.657.548.680.310.00 23.72 Sales Tax 511.100.657.548.680.310.00 2.11 527709 UNIT 130 - BATTERY TERMINALS UNIT 130 - BATTERY TERMINALS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 44.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.92 Page: 21 Packet Page 48 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98704 8/30/2007 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC (Continued) 527710 UNIT 31 - RETURNED FAN UNIT 31 - RETURNED FAN 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -34.88 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -3.10 527744 UNIT 485 UNIT 485 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.56 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.14 527745 UNIT 485 - MARK LAMP UNIT 485 - MARK LAMP 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.89 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.52 527858 UNIT EQ23FM - REAR CRS VIEW A UNIT EQ23FM - REAR CRS VIEW A 511.100.657.548.680.310.00 93.95 Sales Tax 511.100.657.548.680.310.00 8.36 528086 UNIT EQ01WR - FUSE UNIT EQ01WR - FUSE 511.100.657.548.680.310.00 2.20 Sales Tax 511.100.657.548.680.310.00 0.20 528243 UNIT 11 - OIL FILTER UNIT 11 - OIL FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.54 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.29 528297 UNIT 11 - FUEL FILTER UNIT 11 - FUEL FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.26 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.09 Page: 22 Packet Page 49 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98704 8/30/2007 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC (Continued) 528491 UNIT 96 - ADAPTERS, SEAL UNIT 96 - ADAPTERS, SEAL 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.05 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.16 528507 UNIT 96 - HALIGON BULBS, FITTIN UNIT 96 - HALIGON BULBS, FITTIN 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 26.42 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.35 Total : 481.00 98705 8/30/2007 018970 LYNNWOOD DODGE 246873 UNIT 126 - REPAIRS UNIT 126 - REPAIRS 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 1,651.97 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 147.02 Total : 1,798.99 98706 8/30/2007 061900 MARC 0338062-1N 00-0902224 DE-LIMER 411.000.656.538.800.310.59 794.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.59 70.67 Total : 864.67 98707 8/30/2007 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 3179 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 45.00 3180 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 45.00 3181 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.501.410.01 45.00 Page: 23 Packet Page 50 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98707 8/30/2007 069362 MARSHALL, CITA (Continued) 3184 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 45.00 3186 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 135.00 3189 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.501.410.01 105.00 Total : 420.00 98708 8/30/2007 065829 MARTINSON, LINDA MARTINSON8387 BELLY DANCE CLASSES BELLY DANCE CLASS #8387 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 154.00 Total : 154.00 98709 8/30/2007 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 70133816 123106800 NYLON ROPE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 43.97 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.08 70135370 123106800 PIPE FITTING 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 37.24 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 8.60 70495681 123106800 CHEMICAL SPRAYER 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 76.26 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 12.47 Total : 183.62 98710 8/30/2007 069285 MERCER MD, JAMES 1007-007 ALS PROF SERVICES Page: 24 Packet Page 51 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98710 8/30/2007 069285 MERCER MD, JAMES (Continued) July Med Prgm Dir 001.000.510.526.100.410.00 1,644.75 Total : 1,644.75 98711 8/30/2007 069592 METROCALL Q0298897H INV#Q0298897H 0298897-0 EDMON PAGER SERVICE 8/27-9/26/07 001.000.410.521.100.420.00 79.97 Total : 79.97 98712 8/30/2007 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 53476 17967 PROPANE GAS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 15.90 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1.42 Total : 17.32 98713 8/30/2007 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 53786 CITY HALL - GLASS CARRIER - REI CITY HALL - GLASS CARRIER - REI 001.000.651.519.920.450.00 48.00 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.450.00 4.27 Total : 52.27 98714 8/30/2007 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0206261-IN WATER/SEWER - SQWINCHER CC WATER/SEWER - SQWINCHER CC 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 33.85 WATER/SEWER - SQWINCHER CC 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 33.85 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3.01 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 3.01 Total : 73.72 98715 8/30/2007 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0343706-IN FLEET INVENTORY - BULK OIL Page: 25 Packet Page 52 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98715 8/30/2007 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM (Continued) FLEET INVENTORY - BULK OIL 511.000.657.548.680.340.21 1,692.90 ENV FEES 511.000.657.548.680.340.21 15.24 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.21 146.90 Total : 1,855.04 98716 8/30/2007 024600 NEUERT, L L 73 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 331.35 Total : 331.35 98717 8/30/2007 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 832127721-034 INV#832127721-034 EDMONDS PD MOTOROLA IC502 PHONES 001.000.410.521.220.350.00 119.98 CELL PHONE SERVICE 7/18-8/17/0' 001.000.410.521.220.420.00 1,320.12 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.350.00 10.68 Total : 1,450.78 98718 8/30/2007 023800 NFPA 3931235Y OPS SUPPLIES MC ordered Halloween bags 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 91.80 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 7.95 Total : 99.75 98719 8/30/2007 071861 NOISE BLANKETS AND MORE 072707 SKATE PARK NOISE BLANKETS NOISE BLANKETS FOR CIVIC SKA- 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 3,705.00 Total : 3,705.00 98720 8/30/2007 063034 NORTH CENTRAL LABORATORIES 222038 13465 Page: 26 Packet Page 53 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98720 8/30/2007 063034 NORTH CENTRAL LABORATORIES (Continued) BOD STANDARD 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 258.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 10.91 Total : 268.91 98721 8/30/2007 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 0081914 SODIUM BISULFITE SODIUM BISULFITE 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 1,020.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 90.78 Total : 1,110.78 98722 8/30/2007 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 0546494 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:- 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 98.02 0547799 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:- 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 180.29 0556786 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:- 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 92.20 0556787 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:- 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 98.02 0559622 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:- 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 98.02 Total : 566.55 98723 8/30/2007 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 496 Verbatim Transcripts (P-07-17, AP 0, Verbatim Transcripts (P-07-17, AP 0� 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 1,020.00 Total : 1,020.00 Page: 27 Packet Page 54 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 28 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98724 8/30/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 341564 Desk - Jeanie Desk - Jeanie 001.000.620.532.200.350.00 925.53 Sales Tax 001.000.620.532.200.350.00 82.37 Total : 1,007.90 98725 8/30/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 079669 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 183.81 337779 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.500.310.00 94.03 438857 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 319.81 675676 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.500.310.00 3.15 Total : 600.80 98726 8/30/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 020670 OFFICE SUPPLIES LABELS, SHEET PROTECTORS 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 60.97 Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 5.42 967370 OFFICE SUPPLIES LABELS 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 22.44 INKJET CARTRIDGES, TAPE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 61.79 Sales Tax 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 2.00 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.49 Page: 28 Packet Page 55 of 357 vchlist 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 29 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98726 8/30/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC (Continued) 988073 OFFICE SUPPLIES TAPE, PENS, ENVELOPES, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 111.03 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.77 Total : 278.91 98727 8/30/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 249456 520437 LEGAL PADS 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 26.77 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 2.39 Total : 29.16 98728 8/30/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 199150 Office Supplies - DSD Office Supplies - DSD 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 27.42 433315 Office Supplies DSD Office Supplies DSD 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 488.05 Total : 515.47 98729 8/30/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 456639 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 132.29 Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 11.78 Total : 144.07 98730 8/30/2007 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00046238 STORM - SEWER HOSE Page: 29 Packet Page 56 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 30 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98730 8/30/2007 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY (Continued) STORM - SEWER HOSE 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 1,396.71 Freight 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 52.38 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 128.97 Total : 1,578.06 98731 8/30/2007 066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM 9836878 ADMIN LEASE Copy machine lease 001.000.510.522.100.450.00 137.06 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.100.450.00 12.20 Total : 149.26 98732 8/30/2007 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC. 598005 MCH - PAINT SUPPLIES MCH - PAINT SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 71.12 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.33 Total : 77.45 98733 8/30/2007 027280 PATRICKS PRINTING 35815 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 430.49 Total : 430.49 98734 8/30/2007 070003 PAXTON, LAUREL PAXTON8200 SUMMER THEATRE CAMP SUMMER THEATRE CAMP #8200 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 3,262.00 Total : 3,262.00 98735 8/30/2007 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH PECK8072 WIGGLES & GIGGLES WIGGLES & GIGGLES #8072 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 201.60 Page: 30 Packet Page 57 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 31 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98735 8/30/2007 069944 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH (Continued) Total : 201.60 98736 8/30/2007 007800 PETTY CASH tc petty parking -Waters parking -Waters 001.000.310.518.880.430.00 2.00 sno cnty records-Storm/sewer liens 001.000.250.514.300.490.00 50.00 coffee-DS 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 42.48 rubbing alcohol -for copier 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 2.79 pastires for comm outreach meeting 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 28.85 jury duty -mileage reimb-Bob Delisle 001.000.651.519.920.430.00 11.64 sno cnty & cities meeting-Marin 08/1 E 001.000.110.511.100.490.00 35.00 sno cnty & cities meeting-Haakenson 001.000.210.513.100.490.00 70.00 coffee-DS 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 37.12 parking -meeting at county-chesterfiel 001.000.620.532.200.430.00 3.00 SCCFOA meeting 001.000.250.514.300.490.00 10.00 recording-Sno Cnty 001.000.250.514.300.490.00 104.00 mileage reimb-Carl scc dinner 001.000.210.513.100.430.00 9.89 Total : 406.77 98737 8/30/2007 008475 PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS 07/30-08/23/07 PW - MILEAGE FOR C RAYMOND C Page: 31 Packet Page 58 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 32 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 98737 8/30/2007 008475 PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS 98738 8/30/2007 065105 PORT SUPPLY Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) PW - MILEAGE FOR C RAYMOND C 001.000.650.519.910.430.00 15.52 STORM - VCR TAPES 411.000.652.542.900.310.00 5.64 WATER - UNIFORM JEANS FOR - 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 60.76 WATER - CELL PHONE CASES FOI 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 32.64 WATER - GAS FOR UNIT 117 411.000.654.534.800.320.00 5.00 WATER- PORTABLE CALCULATOR 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 20.66 WATER- VINEGAR FOR WATER TE 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 39.48 SEWER - TELEMETRY PRINTER RI 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 7.61 UNIT 234,235,236,237,238,239 LICE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 127.50 Total : 314.81 1046 UNIT 489 - FUSE SUPPLIES UNIT 489 - FUSE SUPPLIES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 54.38 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.84 1375 UNIT M16 - PAINT BRUSH SUPPLIE UNIT M16 - PAINT BRUSH SUPPLIE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.58 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.23 1385 UNIT M16 - GEAR LUBE UNIT M16 - GEAR LUBE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 25.77 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.28 Page: 32 Packet Page 59 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 33 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98738 8/30/2007 065105 PORT SUPPLY (Continued) 2803 UNIT 64 - FUSE SUPPLIES UNIT 64 - FUSE SUPPLIES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 28.08 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.50 3169 UNIT 64 - RETURNED FUSE SUPPL UNIT 64 - RETURNED FUSE SUPPL 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -28.08 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -2.50 328 UNIT 97 - HANDRAIL UNIT 97 - HANDRAIL 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 106.36 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.47 424 UNIT 476 - GROMET KITS UNIT 476 - GROMET KITS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.78 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.04 8963 UNIT 95 - FLORESCENT LITE UNIT 95 - FLORESCENT LITE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 50.49 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.49 Total : 273.71 98739 8/30/2007 071184 PROCOM 2007-1193 08/07 PROF SERV FIBER OPTIC PF 08/07 Prof Sery Fiber Optic Proj 001.000.390.528.200.410.00 3,732.98 Total : 3,732.98 98740 8/30/2007 071373 PROSOURCE ONE 2725717 GARDENING SUPPLIES Page: 33 Packet Page 60 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 34 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98740 8/30/2007 071373 PROSOURCE ONE (Continued) ROUNDUP, CASORON 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 650.00 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 57.20 Total : 707.20 98741 8/30/2007 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 7918807004 YOST POOL YOST POOL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 6,777.85 Total : 6,777.85 98742 8/30/2007 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC 0707163 E6DB.Services thru 07/20/07 E6DB.Services thru 07/20/07 112.200.630.595.330.650.00 8,265.28 Total : 8,265.28 98743 8/30/2007 068337 RIDDELL, SHIVA RIDDELL0822 REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT FOR ZOO ADMI; 623.200.210.557.210.490.00 287.50 Total : 287.50 98744 8/30/2007 067447 RILEY, CHARLES H. 72 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 150.00 Total : 150.00 98745 8/30/2007 069593 SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC 01804-215865 UNIT 113 - WINDSHIELD REPAIR UNIT 113 - WINDSHIELD REPAIR 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 29.95 Total : 29.95 98746 8/30/2007 033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL 2180610 STREET - ASPHALT Page: 34 Packet Page 61 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 35 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98746 8/30/2007 033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL (Continued) STREET - ASPHALT 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 1,375.00 Freight 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 75.00 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 129.05 Total : 1,579.05 98747 8/30/2007 064628 SANDERSON SAFETY SUPPLY CO 1199628-01 METER ACCESSORIES METER ACCESSORIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 34.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 9.22 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 3.85 1199628-02 METER ACCESSORIES METER ACCESSORIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 10.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.18 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1.53 1201484-01 GAS METER GAS METER 411.000.656.538.800.310.12 253.97 GAS METER 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 253.96 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.12 7.19 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.19 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.12 23.25 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 23.24 Page: 35 Packet Page 62 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 36 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98747 8/30/2007 064628 064628 SANDERSON SAFETY SUPPLY CO (Continued) Total : 634.58 98748 8/30/2007 071007 SAWDON, MANDY SAWDON0825 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR PLAZA ROOM MONITOR- 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 345.00 Total : 345.00 98749 8/30/2007 061482 SEA -WESTERN INC 118085 OPS REPAIRS & MAINT MSA ultraelite parts & accessories 001.000.510.522.200.480.00 2,166.54 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.480.00 192.82 Total : 2,359.36 98750 8/30/2007 071847 SHELDON'S CUSTOM CABINETS LTD 080807 PS - PD LOCKERS - PS - PD LOCKERS- 001.000.410.521.220.350.00 3,780.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.350.00 336.42 Total : 4,116.42 98751 8/30/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2060028723 YOST PARK POOL YOST PARK POOL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 2,123.12 3110774142 UTILITY BILLING 23202 EDMONDS WAY 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 91.94 5680012803 BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 28.28 Total : 2,243.34 98752 8/30/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 517015142 958-001-000-8 WWTP ELECTRICITY 411.000.656.538.800.471.61 20,343.91 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.471.61 1,220.63 Page: 36 Packet Page 63 of 357 vchlist 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 37 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98752 8/30/2007 037375 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) Total : 21,564.54 98753 8/30/2007 038700 SO SNO CO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 19776 Membership dues 9/1/07-9/1/08 Membership dues 9/1/07-9/1/08 001.000.390.519.900.490.00 600.00 Total : 600.00 98754 8/30/2007 069997 SRI TECHNOLOGIES INC 77467 E7CA.Roberts thru 08/10/07 E7CA.Roberts thru 08/10/07 125.100.620.595.300.650.00 1,592.50 E1 DB.Roberts thru 08/10/07 125.100.620.595.300.650.00 130.00 ESJA.Roberts thru 08/10/07 412.100.630.594.320.650.00 130.00 ESMC.Roberts thru 08/10/107 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 260.00 E1CC.Roberts thru 08/10/07 112.200.630.595.330.650.00 130.00 77681 E7CA.Roberts thru 08/17/07 E7CA.Roberts thru 08/17/07 125.100.620.595.300.650.00 2,080.00 Total : 4,322.50 98755 8/30/2007 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO September 2007 SEPTEMBER 2007 STANDARD INSI September 2007 Insurance Premium 811.000.000.231.550.000.00 18,358.18 Total : 18,358.18 98756 8/30/2007 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 2558614 To correctr credit taken 8/16/07 Ck Page: 37 Packet Page 64 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 38 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98756 8/30/2007 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC (Continued) To correctr credit taken 8/16/07 Ck 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 12.65 To correctr credit taken 8/16/07 Ck 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 12.64 2001 SNO. CO. TAX RATE 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1.09 2001 SNO. CO. TAX RATE 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1.08 Total : 27.46 98757 8/30/2007 067148 STERNBERG LANTERNS INC 00112023 STREET - LARGE GASLITE POST STREET - LARGE GASLITE POST 111.000.653.542.630.310.00 2,604.00 Total : 2,604.00 98758 8/30/2007 040250 STEUBER DISTRIBUTING 139714 CITY WIDE BEAUTIFICATION PRO MIX, PERLITE, ETC., FOR CIT 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 355.26 Sales Tax 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 30.20 141047 CITY WIDE BEAUTIFICATION PRO MIX, ALFALFA MEAL, DEADLII 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 395.11 Sales Tax 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 33.58 142452 CITY WIDE BEAUTIFICATION PEAT MOSS, FERTILIZER, ETC. FC 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 349.70 Sales Tax 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 29.72 Total : 1,193.57 98759 8/30/2007 060801 SUBURBAN PROPANE 138247 STREET - BULK TANK RENT 1 YEA Page: 38 Packet Page 65 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 39 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98759 8/30/2007 060801 SUBURBAN PROPANE (Continued) STREET - BULK TANK RENT 1 YEA 111.000.653.542.310.450.00 60.00 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.450.00 5.34 Total : 65.34 98760 8/30/2007 061912 SUN SUPPLY 00660160-IN STORM - WHITE PVC BOARD FOR STORM - WHITE PVC BOARD FOR 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 26.09 Total : 26.09 98761 8/30/2007 071723 SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC EM4418 INV#4418 - A.GREENMUN/EDMONC REGISTRATION/GREENMUN- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 129.00 LATE REGISTRATION FEE- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 25.00 Total : 154.00 98762 8/30/2007 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10572222 SUPPLIES PUSHNUTS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 29.02 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.58 10574003 SUPPLIES PUSHNUTS, NYLONE ROPE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 171.81 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 10.30 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 16.21 Page: 39 Packet Page 66 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 40 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98762 8/30/2007 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC (Continued) 10575117 SUPPLIES FENDER WASHERS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 32.50 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.22 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.27 Total : 269.91 98763 8/30/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1528619 E7AC.RFQ SR99/76th Improvement: E7AC.RFQ SR99/76th Improvement: 112.200.630.595.330.650.00 100.80 Total : 100.80 98764 8/30/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1528174 NEWSPAPER AD Hearing Re: 77th PI W 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 109.36 1528230 NEWSPAPER AD Hearing re:Graffiti 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 40.32 1528232 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3657 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 25.92 1530064 NEWSPAPER AD Closed Record (Petso/Burnstead) 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 128.64 1531145 NEWSPAPER AD Closed Record (Bogaert) 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 38.88 Total : 343.12 98765 8/30/2007 067636 TIFCO INDUSTRIES 70382859 SHOP SUPPLIES - WELDING SHIEI Page: 40 Packet Page 67 of 357 vchlist 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 41 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98765 8/30/2007 067636 TIFCO INDUSTRIES (Continued) SHOP SUPPLIES - WELDING SHIEI 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 128.74 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.97 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.69 Total : 153.40 98766 8/30/2007 070898 TITAN SALES GROUP 2007-2048 UNIT 98 - NOZZELS, ROOT CUTTEI UNIT 98 - NOZZELS, ROOT CUTTEI 511.100.657.548.680.350.00 5,938.00 Freight 511.100.657.548.680.350.00 58.68 Sales Tax 511.100.657.548.680.350.00 533.70 Total : 6,530.38 98767 8/30/2007 070037 TRIMAXX CONSTRUCTION INC 130906 HYDRANT PERMIT DEPOSIT REFU HYDRANT PERMIT DEPOSIT REFU 411.000.000.245.110.000.00 950.00 Total : 950.00 98768 8/30/2007 068225 TRUCK BUILDERS LLC 17793 UNIT EQ23FM - SPRAY ON UNIT EQ23FM - SPRAY ON 511.100.657.548.680.350.00 700.00 Sales Tax 511.100.657.548.680.350.00 62.30 Total : 762.30 98769 8/30/2007 065934 TUNE TALES TUNETALES8432 TUNE TALE CLASSES Page: 41 Packet Page 68 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 42 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98769 8/30/2007 065934 TUNE TALES (Continued) PAYMENT 2 OF 2- 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 445.90 TUNE TALES MUSIC SUMMER #84, 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 401.45 TUNE TALES MUSIC SUMMER- 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 531.65 Total : 1,379.00 98770 8/30/2007 063939 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC INV0111477 UB-Import new serivice locations UB-Import new serivice locations 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 1,500.00 UB-Import new serivice locations 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 1,500.00 Total : 3,000.00 98771 8/30/2007 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 7618714 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES IRRIGATION SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 509.70 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.93 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 46.15 7618997 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES RAINBIRD PC/FC ROTOR 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 393.00 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.37 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 35.41 Total : 1,002.56 98772 8/30/2007 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 7606594 WATER INVENTORY - 3" COMPOUI Page: 42 Packet Page 69 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 43 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98772 8/30/2007 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY (Continued) WATER INVENTORY - 3" COMPOUI 411.000.000.141.170.310.00 1,596.40 Sales Tax 411.000.000.141.170.310.00 140.49 Total : 1,736.89 98773 8/30/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-AB8-1176 CITY PARK T1 LINE City Park T1 Line 8/16-9/16/07 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 407.57 Total : 407.57 98774 8/30/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-NW4-3726 FRAME RELAY FOR FS #20 & SNO, FRAME RELAY FOR FS #20 & SNO, 001.000.510.528.600.420.00 247.00 Total : 247.00 98775 8/30/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 464229910-1 206-999-9374 sewer lead cell phone 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 68.05 469985965-1 425-870-0617 Cell phone -Jim Waite 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 61.98 Cell phone -Jim Waite 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 61.97 Total : 192.00 98776 8/30/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0580108628 Bldg official Cell 7-19 to 8-18-2007 Bldg official Cell 7-19 to 8-18-2007 001.000.620.524.100.420.00 60.03 Total : 60.03 98777 8/30/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0579210937 INV# 0579210937 ACCT#764226609 SWAT BUS PHONE 001.000.410.521.220.420.00 1.90 Total : 1.90 Page: 43 Packet Page 70 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 44 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98778 8/30/2007 070264 WASHINGTON OAKES RETIREMENT 74 Assisted Living Care - Jim Martin Assisted Living Care - Jim Martin 009.000.390.517.370.290.00 3,815.00 Total : 3,815.00 98779 8/30/2007 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL M.GREENE TRAIN THE TRAINER - M.GREENE/ REGISTRATION/M.GREENE- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 40.00 Total : 40.00 98780 8/30/2007 045912 WASPC 70136 ELECTRONIC MONITORING SERVI ELECTRONIC MONITORING SERVI 001.000.230.523.200.510.00 402.50 Total : 402.50 98781 8/30/2007 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 256 AUGUST 07 MONTHLY RETAINER Aug-07 Monthly Retainer 001.000.360.515.230.410.00 6,000.00 Total : 6,000.00 98782 8/30/2007 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 0116258 STREET - 60X36.080 ALUM BLANK! STREET - 60X36.080 ALUM BLANK! 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 207.45 Freight 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 20.98 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 20.10 Total : 248.53 153 Vouchers for bank code : front Bank total : 662,225.46 153 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 662,225.46 Page: 44 Packet Page 71 of 357 vchlist Voucher List Page: 45 08/29/2007 2:51:50PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount Page: 45 Packet Page 72 of 357 AM-1148 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 09/04/2007 Submitted By: Conni Curtis Submitted For: Dave Gebert Time: Consent Department: Engineering Type: Action Review Committee: A etinn Infnrmntinn 2.D. Subject Title Authorization to advertise for Statements of Qualifications from consultants for the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council authorize Staff to advertise for Statements of Qualifications from consultants for the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The City of Edmonds is currently in the process of updating the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Under the Growth Management Act, the City is required to perform a major update to the plan every six to ten years. Our last major update was done in 2002. The plan lists all the existing transportation conditions for all users (drivers, pedestrians, bikers and transit) as well as possible improvements. The main objective of the Comprehensive Plan is to identify improvements necessary to provide a system for all modes of transportation that will function safely and efficiently through the year 2028. The adopted 2007-2008 Fund 112 budget includes funding in 2008 for the Comprehensive Transportation Plan update. Staff plans to select a consultant for award of a contract by December 2007, and for the consultant to begin work in January 2008. Fiscal Impact AttnehmPntc No files) attached. Route Seq Inbox Engineering Form Routing/Status Approved By Date Status Dave Gebert 08/24/2007 11:08 AM APRV Packet Page 73 of 357 2 Development Services Duane Bowman 08/24/2007 11:11 AM APRV 3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/27/2007 09:07 AM APRV 4 Mayor 5 Final Approval Form Started By: Conni Curtis Final Approval Date: 08/27/2007 Gary Haakenson 08/27/2007 01:00 PM APRV Sandy Chase 08/27/2007 02:06 PM APRV Started On: 08/24/2007 10:18 AM Packet Page 74 of 357 AM-1149 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway-4 62nd Street Park Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 09/04/2007 Submitted By: Conni Curtis Submitted For: Don Fiene Time: Consent Department: Engineering Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title 2.E. Authorization for Mayor to sign Addendum No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Gray and Osborne, Inc. for the 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway and 162nd Street SW Park projects. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council authorize the Mayor to sign Addendum No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Gray and Osborne, Inc. in the amount not to exceed $157,000 for Phase 2/17inal Design of the 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway project ($109,160) and the 162nd Street SW Park project ($47,840). Previous Council Action On September 25, 2006, Council authorized the Mayor to sign the Professional Services Agreement with Gray and Osborne, Inc. On June 5, 2007, Staff and the Consultant gave a presentation regarding the recommended alternatives for the Walkway and Park projects. Narrative Gray and Osborne, Inc. was selected for the design of this project. The Consultant and Staff agreed that the project be split into a preliminary design and design phase due to the complexity of the project and the need to look at several alternative solutions. The 76 th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway and the 162nd Street SW Park projects are both budgeted for 2007-2008. The initial contract award was for the Alternatives Analysis and the Preliminary Design (Phase 1) of the project in the amount of $112,600. The Consultant and Staff (Engineering Division & Parks Department) looked at different alternatives for walkway design/alignment/construction techniques, as well a couple of park design alternatives. A public meeting was held regarding the proposed walkway and park on April 26, 2007. Gray and Osborne has now completed the Preliminary Design report. The recommended alternative for the walkway was presented to Council on June 5, 2007. The proposed plan is to build the walkway on the east side of 76th Avenue West/ 75th Place West, from Meadowdale Beach Road to 162nd Street SW, and on the west side of 75th Place West along the frontage of the proposed 162nd Street SW Park. Phase 2 is the final design for the Walkway and Park projects. Staff and Gray and Osborne have now agreed upon a scope and budget for Addendum No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement Packet Page 75 of 357 for the final design of the projects. Fiscal Impact A �1 n nh m nr� is Link: G & O Addendum 1 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Dave Gebert 08/27/2007 07:40 AM APRV 2 Development Services Duane Bowman 08/27/2007 08:52 AM APRV 3 Parks and Recreation Brian McIntosh 08/27/2007 10:02 AM APRV 4 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/27/2007 02:06 PM APRV 5 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/27/2007 02:08 PM APRV 6 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/28/2007 02:43 PM APRV Form Started By: Conni Curtis Started On: 08/24/2007 12:23 PM Final Approval Date: 08/28/2007 Packet Page 76 of 357 roc 1 S 9 v Original Contract No. 03877 Addendum No.1 Reference No. CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH + EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwb-edmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building *Engineering GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR ADDENDUM NUMBER I TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT 76"' Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and Gray & Osborne, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant", entered into an underlying agreement for design and other engineering and consulting services with respect to a project known as 76"' Avenue West/75t11 Place West Walkway Project, dated September 29, 2006; and WHEREAS, the preliminary design (Phase 1) is now complete and a scope for final design, geotechnical investigation, right-of-way acquisition assistance, preparation of construction documents and permitting assistance (Phase 2) has been identified and budget for these services has now been completed; NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties thereto as follows: 1. The underlying Agreement of September 29, 2006 between the parties, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth, is amended in, but only in, the following respects: 1.1 Scope of Work. The Scope of Work set forth in the underlying agreement shall be amended to include the additional services and material necessary to accomplish the stated objectives as outlined in the attached Exhibit A incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 1.2 The $112,600 amount set forth in paragraph 2A of the underlying Agreement and stated as an amount which shall not be exceeded, is hereby amended to include an additional "Do Not Exceed" sum of $157,000 for the additional scope of work identified in Exhibit B to this addendum. As a result of this addendum, the total contract amount is increased to a new total not -to -exceed amount of $269,600 ($112,60.0 plus $157 000 . 1.3 Exhibit B to the underlying agreement consisting of the rate and cost reimbursement schedule is hereby amended to include the form set forth on the attached Exhibit B to this addendum, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 2. In all other respects, the underlying agreement between the parties shall remain in full force and effect, amended as set forth herein, but only as set forth herein. Packet Page 77 of 357 Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan DONE this day of CITY OF EDMONDS By: Mayor Gary Haakenson ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: W. Scott Snyder STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) 20 GRAY & OSBORNE, INC. By: _ Title: On this day of , 20 , before me, the under -signed, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: &8&k k&afift7t1%9f-NSSMy DocumentslEngsec\PROJEC951E61)A.75th.76th WalkwaylO & O.Addendum Ldoc EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES CITY OF EDMONDS 76Tn AVENUE WEST/75TH PLACE WEST WALKWAY PROJECT PHASE 2 — FINAL DESIGN SERVICES INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Contract is for Gray & Osborne, Inc. (G&O) and its subconsultants to provide engineering, and related professional services resulting in the preparation of final design documents for the 76'h Avenue West/75"' Place West Walkway Project. Work will include preparation of bid/construction documents to include final plans, specifications, and cost estimates (PS&E) for the construction of: Pedestrian walkway improvements in and along the public .rights -of -way in the 76"' Avenue West and 75th Place West corridor, from the existing walkway located near Meadowdale Beach Road to North Meadowdale Road County Park, a distance of approximately 2,750 lineal feet; two pullouts north of North Meadowdale Road; and walkway improvements for a 100-foot-long section on the west side of 75'h Place West immediately south of 158"' Street SW; and 2. A small park/lookout to be located on City property abutting the intersection of 75"' Place West and 162nd Street SW (northwest corner of intersection), along with shoulder/parking/turnaround improvements on 75'h Avenue West (immediately west of said park). This scope of work is the second phase of this Project. Phase I work, which has been completed, included the preparation of a predesign report, including an alternatives analysis, and a public involvement process. This Phase 2 portion of the Project will result in the preparation of bid/construction documents for both the walkway and park. The City, at its option, may wish to further direct the consultant to bid only a portion of the Project depending on various factors such as right-of-way constraints, subsurface conditions, financial constraints, schedule, etc. It is anticipated that, at the completion of Phase 2, a separate and detailed scope of work and budget will be prepared for the construction management phase (Phase 3) for the City's further evaluation and possible approval. The City desires to now complete Phase 2 to facilitate a summer 2008 construction schedule. cs:o #467 1 3 Page I of 17 Packet Page 79 of 357 Our detailed scope of work, as shown below, has been segregated into two separate schedules of work. Schedule 2A is for the pedestrian improvements on 76`t' Avenue West and 75tt' Place West, and Schedule 2B is for "park" related work. SCHEDULE 2A: WALKWAY IMPROVEMENTS Task I -- Project Management Objective: To provide overall project management ofG&O resources, provide subconsultant management, monitor and manage budget, manage and oversee the schedule of deliverables, manage quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program, and provide client contact. Consultant Responsibilities l . Contract execution, internal accounting, and auditing. 2. Internal resource management and prioritization of resources. 3. Oversee QA/QC review(s) of engineering products to include constructability review, risk management assessment, and identification and pursuit of critical path items. 4. Subconsultant coordination and their contract administration. 5. Preparation of monthly progress reports (to be submitted with monthly invoices). 6. Manage and oversee the "schedule of deliverables." 7_ Provide project coordination with utility purveyors known to provide service in the area as well. as City Project Manager. 8. Prepare draft outline of preliminary design/alternative analysis format and contracts for City review, comment, and approval. Assumptions 1. G&O will provide standard "G&O" formatted invoices identifying personnel, hours, direct and indirect labor rates/costs, fees, subconsultant costs (with itemized bills), and direct costs (mileage, printing, etc.). Invoices will be provided on a monthly basis. 2. Timesheets will be made available f6r City review upon request. G&O #06713 Page 2 of 17 Packet Page 80 of 357 3_ QA/QC will occur at 50 percent and 90 percent levels (see Task 5). City staff will be invited to participate. City Responsibilities Review and process monthly invoices in a timely fashion. Deliverables l . Monthly reports of major work completed during invoice period, percentage of major tasks completed to date, and identification of impacts to schedules of deliverables, scope, and budget. 2_ Monthly invoices. I Original and/or courtesy copies of electronic email, letters; photos, etc., applicable to the development of the Project. Task 2 -- Geotechnical Objective: To provide the services of a qualified geotechnical engineer(s) to provide limited geotechnical services to aid in the development of final design documents. Subconsultant (HWA GeoSciences) Responsibilities 1. Drill eight to ten hand borings in and along the Project corridor, and four truck -mounted drill rig borings in and along the Project corridor (three along proposed retaining wall locatiohs and one at the Park). IIWA will request utility locates prior to the drilling. 2. Provide soils testing, observations, etc., and prepare soil logs and a geotechnical report with an assessment of current conditions and suspected geotechnical/geological conditions with recommendations for wall construction, pile driving, pavement design, walkway design, trench excavation and backfill, and park grading. 3. HWA to participate in a .65 percent QA/QC meeting with key design team members and City Project Manager and staff to provide input and comments on walkway construction methods and materials as proposed by the design team. Consultant Responsibilities Review and comment on draft geotechnical report. c&olt067t3 Page 3 of 17 Packet Page 81 of 357 2. Review final report. Incorporate recommendations into design documents as may be applicable. City Responsibilities I . City will provide timely review and comment on geotechnical engineer's written report as may be applicable. 2. City will attend (as may be desired) the QA/QC meeting with geotechnical subconsultant. Deliverables l . Stamped and signed (by licensed engineer) geotechnical report — two copies. Task 3 — Legal Descriptions for Right -of -Way Acquisition/Temporary Construction Easement Boilerplate Objective: Assist City with right-of-way and easement acquisition necessary for the construction of the project. Consultant Responsibilities 1. Procure one title report, prepare one legal description and exhibit for the purpose of right-of-way acquisition_ 2. Prepare a boilerplate Temporary Construction Easement (TCE) form for the City's use in obtaining temporary construction easements. 3. Stake the right-of-way "take" for visual observation by the City's right-of-way agent and individual property owner. Assumptions 1. The development and recording of a "Record of Survey" is not required nor included in this scope of work. 2. No legal descriptions are required for preparation of the TCEs. City Responsibilities 1. City will provide all other right-of-way acquisition/appraisal services, not specifically mentioned herein. c&o #06713 Page 4 of 17 Packet Page 82 of 357 2. City will obtain temporary construction easements. Deliverables Copy of legal descriptions, exhibits, and temporary construction easement boilerplate. 2. Hard copy of the title reports for right-of-way acquisition_ Task 4 — Utility Relocation Coordination Objective: Meet with private utility companies to coordinate any utility relocation needed. Consultant Responsibilities 1 _ Provide 65 percent and 90 percent plans to the utility companies identifying utilities that need to be relocated. Assumptions No utility meetings. If a meeting with the utilities is required, it will be preapproved by the City under the "Management Reserve." City Responsibilities Provide a meeting area and attend utility meetings. Task 5 — Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimates Objective: To use information generated in Phase 1 of this project, along with the information generated in Tasks I through 4 to develop for the walkway construction for the City's review and approval_ Consultant Responsibilities 1_ Develop 22" x 34" full size plans for the walkway improvements. Plan/profile sheets will be at a scale of 1 "=20' horizontal and 1 "-5' vertical. Plans will include plan/profile sheets, detail sheets, and cross -sections. Plans will be prepared in compliance with applicable WSDOT standards, City standards, the MUTCD, DOE (stormwater) standards, and AASHTO Standards. Plans will include, but not be limited to, pavement widening, curbs, gutters, walkways, pile supported structures, landscaping, stornn drainage, retaining walls, driveway regrading, and channelization. c&o #06713 Page 5 of 17 Packet Page 83 of 357 2. Integrate walkway into proposed park improvements (see Schedule 2B scope of work). Coordinate with subconsultant (SB&A) regarding integration of park and pedestrian improvements. 3. Develop specifications for the walkway and park improvements. The specifications will follow the City's boilerplate (WSDOT format and reference the 2006 WSDOT Standard Specifications). Specifications will consist of Call for Bids, Bidder's Checklist, WSDOT Amendments to the Standard Specifications, Prevailing Wage Rates (state and federal), Special Provisions, Traffic Control Details, Structural Details, Permits (as applicable and as provided by the City), Soil logs (from geotechnical investigation), Bid Proposal, Subcontractor List, Proposal, Contract, Performance and Payment Bond. 4. Develop detailed cost estimates of the walkway for City review and comment. 5. Prepare a storm drainage Technical Information Report for the project to address collection, and detention requirements. No storm treatment is anticipated since there are no new pollution generating surfaces. 6. Perform QA/QC reviews at 50 percent, and 90 percent levels. Reviews will be conducted with key design team members, City staff (as desired), and oversight provided by Principal -in -Charge (see Task 1). QA/QC will include review/input regarding alignment, constructability issues, proposed design/construction elements, risk management issues, utility impacts, right-of-way/easement issues, schedule, budget, and quality of deliverables. Assumptions The City will prepare the SEPA checklist. 2. A shoreline permit may be required for this walkway portion of the Project. While the walkway portion of the project appears to be more than 200 feet from the shoreline, the park portion of the Project is within 200 feet of the shoreline (see scope of work Phase 2B). Additionally, storm improvements associated with the walkway portion of the Project may be routed to and join the park "system" prior to discharge to Puget Sound, and as such, we recommend only one shoreline permit be processed. Our Schedule 2B hours reflect same. 3. A historical and cultural investigation/report is not required. c&o 1106713 Page 6 of 17 Packet Page 84 of 357 4. Our scope of work (see Item 5 above) does not include stormwater treatment per City direction. City Responsibilities 1. Provide timely review (and comment) of products generated for this task. 2. Prepare and process SEPA checklist. 3. Prepare a shoreline permit in conjunction with the park portion of this design scope (see 213), as may be required for the walkway drainage. 4. Acquire all other permits as may be required and not otherwise specifically mentioned herein. Deliverables I . Three copies of the 65 percent and 90 percent "preliminary" PIans, Specifications, and Cost Estimates. 2. Three copies of the final Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimates. Electronic copies (word for the specifications) and ACAD drawing files for the Plans. One set of original reproducible, full-size, stamped and signed plans/drawings. Task 6 — Public Involvement Objective: To attend a public hearing/information meeting for the public and to coordinate any driveway regrading and landscaping with the property owners adjacent to the project. Consultant Responsibilities 1. Stake the back of walkway along the project corridor, to enable adjacent property owners to visually identify the location of the proposed walkway. Assume up to 15 separate parcels total to be staked at approximate 50-foot intervals (does not include staking property lines). 2. 3. 4. G&O 406713 Packet Page 85 of 357 Provide powerpoint presentation for public hearing/information meeting. Attend premeeting with City regarding coordination of public meeting, preparation of agenda and format of presentation material. Attend and participate at one at public hearing/information meeting. Page 7 of 17 5. Meet one on one with individual property owners abutting the project, to discuss driveway regrading, landscaping, etc. (Scope assumes a maximum of 2 meetings.) Assumptions Individual property owner meetings (2 meetings total are budgeted) will be scheduled by the City, to include location and time. 2. Individual "on -site" meetings will be a maximum of 2 hours. 3_ The limits of the proposed improvements will be staked one time only and staking will be accomplished in an efficient manner (continuous -- not piecemeal). City Responsibilities 1. City will schedule property owner meetings. 2. City will participate in property owner meetings. Task 7 — Bid/Award Phase Consultant Responsibilities 1. Prepare and submit to the City, 25 "final" sets of bid documents, including plans and specifications. Twenty plan sets will include full-size drawings and five sets will include hall -size drawings. The City will advertise the project, sell bid documents, maintain Planholder's List, and conduct bid opening. 2. Coordinate bid phase activities with the City to include assisting the City in answering bid inquiries, preparing addenda (as applicable), and providing design interpretation and/or clarification. 3. Assist the City (as may be desired by the City) in evaluating bids tendered, checking references, preparing and distributing bid summary, and preparing Engineers Recommendation for Award (letter). Task 8 — Additional Services (not included in scope) Objective: To provide limited additional services as may be desired by the City, but unanticipated at this time. This work may include additional geotechnical, survey, utility meetings, public involvement, etc. o&0#06713 Page 8 of 17 Packet Page 86 of 357 Consultant Responsibilities I. Provide additional services as may be desired at a not -to -exceed cost as reviewed and approved (in writing) by the City. Assumptions 1. An allowance has been included in the project budget for additional services as may be desired and authorized by the City. 2_ The Consultant shall not incur costs or utilize any portion of these funds without specific and further authorization of the City. City Responsibilities 1. Additional services or scope changes shall be requested by the City in written format. 2. The City will provide written authorization to proceed with additional work under this task item before work shall commence. Deliverables I . As may be applicable and as negotiated and approved by the City, depending on additional work performed. Scheduie Objective: To establish mutually agreeable timeline for Consultant deliverables and major milestones. 1. Consultant Receives Authorization to Proceed 2. Geotechnical Investigation and Draft Report 3_ 50 percent PSE 4. Prepare and submit storm TIR and ROW take legal descriptions. Meet with utility purveyors 5. Community Meetings (as directed by City) On or Before August 29, 2007 September 17, 2007 November 1, 2007 December 1, 2007 January 10, 2008 G&o.#os713 Page 9 of 17 Packet Page 87 of 357 6. 90 percent PSE and Final Geotechnical Report, and January 30, 2008 Final SEPA 7_ Final PSE, Advertise Project March 1, 2008 8. Complete Bid/Award Phase (assumes right-of-way is May 10, 2008 acquired) 9. Construction Phase {window) May to September 2008 SCHEDULE 2B: PARK IMPROVEMENTS Task 1— Project Management Objective: To provide overall project management of G&O resources, provide subconsultant management, monitor and manage budget, manage and oversee the schedule of deliverables, manage quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program, and provide client contact. Consultant Responsibilities 1. Contract execution, internal accounting, and auditing. 2. Internal resource management and prioritization of resources. 3. Oversee QA/QC review(s) of engineering products to include constructability review, risk management assessment, and identification and pursuit of critical path items. 4. Subconsultant coordination and their contract administration. 5. Preparation of monthly progress reports (to be submitted with monthly invoices). 6. Manage and oversee the "schedule of deliverables." 7. Provide project coordination with utility purveyors known to provide service in the area as well as City Project Manager. 8. Prepare draft outline of preliminary design/alternative analysis format and contracts for City review, comment, and approval. c&o 06713 Page 10 of 17 Packet Page 88 of 357 Subconsultant (SBA) Responsibilities Administrate and coordinate subconsultant project deliverables with G&O and Edmonds' Parks Department. Assumptions I . G&O will provide standard "G&O" formatted invoices identifying personnel, hours, direct and indirect labor rates/costs, fees, subconsultant costs (with itemized bills), and direct costs (mileage, printing, etc.). Invoices will be provided on a monthly basis. 2. Timesheets will be made available for City review upon request. 3. QA/QC will occur at 5 percent (kickoff), 50 percent, and 90 percent levels (see Task 4). City staff will be invited to participate. City Responsibilities Review and process monthly invoices in a timely fashion. Deliverables 1. Monthly reports of major work completed during invoice period, percentage of major tasks completed to date, and identification of impacts to schedules of deliverables, scope, and budget. 2. Monthly invoices. 3. Original and/or courtesy copies of electronic email, letters, photos, etc., applicable to the development of the Project_ Task 2 — Schematic Design Objective: Finalize SBA schematic design (plan view) of park improvements. 1. Coordinate and integrate final schematic design to include review of fill materials that may be available for the "Park portion" of the Project as may be excavated during the construction of the walkway portion of the Project; integration of park and walkway amenities at "edge" of abutting street and park improvements; Iocation of public parking within and/or adjacent to public rights -of -way (75th Place); location of park access; location of boardwalk/walkway; location of public drinking fountain; and interpretive overlook, and park amenities. G&O406713 Page l l of 17 Packet Page 89 of 357 2. Determine final permitting requirements for grading, shorelines, and drainage facilities_ 3. Prepare final plan view sections for review by engineering team, parks department, and planning department (permit acquisition)_ Assumptions I. . Gray & Osborne will provide street walkway drawings, frontage improvement drawings, geotechnical information, and other pertinent information obtained in preliminary and final design phase of walkway portion of Project to subconsultant (SBA) for their use in developing their Park design/bid/construction documents. 2. City will review deliverables in a timely manner and provide pertinent review comments and information to G&O and its subconsultant, SBA. City Responsibilities i . City (Park Department) will review submittals and provide timely comments thereto as may be applicable. Deliverables SBA will prepare and deliver schematic plans, cost estimates, and permitting identification and submittal outline. Task 3 — Permit Submittals Objective: To assist the Parks Department in developing and applying for all required permits for the development of the Park (including parking facilities). 1. Develop permit documents required for the construction of this project. It is assumed a SEPA checklist and grading permit is required. A building permit may be required for interpretive overlook structure and the play structures. A shorelines permit is required due to the location of the park portion of the Project and its close proximity to the Puget Sound. 2. Submit final permits to both the City and applicable regulatory agencies_ Assumptions 1. City will act as lead agency for all permits. 2. City will prepare and process SEPA as applicable c&o #06713 Page 12 of 17 Packet Page 90 of 357 3. City will pay Cost of all permit reviews, publications, processing, fees, etc. 4. No additional survey or engineering as may be triggered by permit acquisition, beyond that specifically mentioned within this scope of work, is included in this scope of work. If additional survey or engineering is required, it will be negotiated as an "extra." City Responsibilities I. City will provide timely input to assist in development and processing of Permits. 2. City will prepare and process SEPA checklist as required. 3. City will pay cost of permitting reviews, approvals, and fees related thereto. Deliverables 1. Applicable permits. Task 4 --- Public Involvement Objective. Assist the City and Consultant team in providing public information and a public involvement process. 1. Provide PowerPoint presentation for community presentation. 2. Attend premeeting with City Parks Department and consultant team regarding the coordination of the public meeting, preparation of agenda, and format of presentation material. 3. Attend and participate at one public meeting. 4. Summarize meeting minutes in written format_ Assumptions 1. PowerPoint presentation is acceptable format for meeting. City Responsibilities 1. Provide suitable meeting place for public meeting. 0&0P06713 Page 13 of 17 Packet Page 91 of 357 2. Attend and participate at public meeting. Deliverables 1. Copy of PowerPoint presentation, 2. Copy of meeting minutes. Task 5 — Landscape Design/Design. Development (65 Percent Complete) Objective: To prepare preliminary set of bid/construction documents for consultant team and City review. Prepare preliminary design (development level) plan sheets, and resolve material questions, Prepare site plans, demolition plans, TESC notes, staging/stockpiling notes, grading.plan, drainage plan, layout plan (trails, planting areas, special features, etc.), planting plan, plant list and details, construction details (walls, play surfacing, slide, swings, etc.), architectural design for boat play structure and sailing fleet, interpretive overlook details, handrail details, and public drinking fountain. 2. Prepare specifications. 3. Prepare cost estimates. 4. Meet with Owner (up to three meetings) to review progress, resolve issues and questions, review product, answer questions, etc. Prime Consultant Work (Gray & Osborne) 5. Provide CAD drafting for all grading plans, drainage plans, layout plans (trails, planting areas, facilities, etc.). Provide water service design/details and connection, per City Standards, for public drinking fountain. Provide structural review of walls. Assumptions 1. City will provide timely direction and review of products. 2. Illumination is not included in the project. 3. Water service connection (for drinking fountain) will be made on water main fronting the Park property. G&o #06713 Page 14 of 17 Packet Page 92 of 357 City Responsibilities 1. City to provide timely review and direction to prime and/or subconsultants, as applicable. Deliverables i . Three copies of Draft Plan Set, including all sheets for special products to be provided to City Parks for their review/distribution. Task 6 — Landscape Construction Document Finalization Objective: To prepare final bid/construction documents suitable for public bid. Subconsultant (SBA) Tasks 1. Prepare 90 percent submittal for final coordination meeting, then produce and deliver 100 percent set of construction documents for "Park portion" of Project. These documents include: • Site Plan • Layout Plan (trails, planting areas, features, etc.) • Irrigation Plan and Details + Planting Plan (including plant list and details) • Construction Details (walls, playing surfacing, slide, swings) + Architectural Design features for boat play structure and sailing fleet • Interpretation Overlook Details • Handrail Details • Water Fountain Details 2. Final Specifications. 3. Final Cost Estimate. Prime Consultant (G&O) Work 4. Prepare CAD drawings for final grading plans; drainage plans, water service (drinking fountain). Assumptions 1. City will provide 90 percent submittal review in timely fashion. c&o W6713 Page 15 of 17 Packet Page 93 of 357 2. Project will be bid in its entirety (not bid separately from "walkway" portion of the Project). City Responsibilities I . City to provide timely direction and review comments on 90 percent submittal_ Deliverables l . Twenty-five paper copy sets of documents, one CD of bid/construction documents, and a copy of all cost structures. 2. City will pay cost of permitting reviews and approvals. Task 7 — Bidding Services Objective: To assist the City in soliciting competitive public bids for this Project. l . Assist City in responding to RFIs. 2. Prepare addenda as may be required. 3. Assist City in review of bids submitted and provide recommendation for award. Assumptions 1. Project will be publicly bid. 2_ Addenda will not be issued less than 2 days before scheduled bid opening. City Responsibilities l . Assist consultant team in providing timely response to consultant. 2. Provide public place for bid opening. 3. Prepare a bid summary for distribution. 4_ Prepare Council agenda packet for City Council consideration of award. o&O #06713 Page 16 of 17 Packet Page 94 of 357 Deliverables 1. Copies of addenda as may be applicable. 2. Copies of any written responses to Contractor submitted RF1. G&O406713 Page 17 of 17 Packet Page 95 of 357 19 � L � N U d d W V M 69 Cn u O oofn h W N L 6R 6. E,9 s9 tC C N Oo � n O N 00 O� N a � L W V a o � a 00I� w „ h L Cp N •'� C N tt O ao � � N U "� Nth m W C Qy O L �•�.• °O N N -cr rr-n tD CO GO0 � ONi AL c shy n Oz p; t U � c kn M •K tn O •a rr U d o 19 m ��o♦♦ y0y . 6 m o •U U � t6 U O O ,� .. D w W .� � :3 x °3 73 o a Lo� ^ N S'•1 i m W Q o r r dzw m oO ^N1=V n00 oO N O sy its I sy sy ! ray (19 va l 01) -u ad 1. >� O a a=_ a a e� d U r.Z • � W tea U Y o C.1 v rn � x sy 1p N Q �'• U rl V ry3ryrr \ W V y E U sr U 47 j.y c d En Packet Page 96 of 357 � L o0 0 N ^ oO 4 n M � y L C � .-. yj {� iii L u G�7 O C.C:) O, ^' ��1 GM9 G R .uy V •C tD C2! CO oo M U '._' t N 69 d 64 L i 5 L d V Q ' d G O W C u M is7 W d u � � w baD br9 �v � fv U � btl � L cc 0. r C O N Vl kn M M N .Uo. O 669 69 C i1e O Y v p. 0 U � U f— M. C- cep * amp N ttl �t 4u N W U � •O � p N l�O. J] iri O U Ui w O ll O 43 'a tq O U l 7 A., m W +� M .-.� 4A Cl. CL .-� ,� CQ O E u ^ N M V _i O V1 .n M — O N %D N CO W] M -�r M 69 6R 169 "I E6 69 69 U � O cn o O Q Y Q u � 5 n ti E _ a v Vt QLa x y C> n C4 O F3\ o ^ br o a � RT o x O 0 O O 0 i] C'O CI] CL En Cn 0 H9 49 Packet Page 97 of 357 AM-1155 2.F. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE INTER -LOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN OF WOODWAY Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 09/04/2007 Submitted By: Kim Karas Submitted For: Noel Miller Time: Consent Department: Public Works Type: Action Review Committee: Finance Action: Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title Authorization for the Mayor to sign a Second Addendum to the Interlocal Agreement for vehicle maintenance services between the City of Edmonds and the Town of Woodway. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Authorize the Mayor to sign the Second Addendum to the Interlocal Agreement with the Town of Woodway. Previous Council Action Previously the Council authorized the Mayor to sign the original agreement on June 6, 2001 and the first addendum was authorized on November 5, 2003. Narrative The Town of Woodway has requested the City of Edmonds to continue the ongoing maintenance of their police patrol vehicle. This Second Addendum continues the Agreement until such time that either party elects to give a notice of termination. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Original Agreement Link: 1 st Addendum Link: 2nd Addendum Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 08/30/2007 09:16 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/30/2007 09:20 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 08/30/2007 12:04 PM APRV Form Started By: Kim Started On: 08/29/2007 03:17 Karas PM Final Approval Date: 08/30/2007 Packet Page 98 of 357 Packet Page 99 of 357 Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SERVICES between �, , f THE CITY OF EDMONDS ' and THE TOWN OF WOODVJ.AY JUN 0 8 2001 OFFICE OF THE WYOR THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (hereinafter, "the Agreement" � is entered into under the authority of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 39.34 RCW, bdtween the City of Edmonds (hereinafter "Edmonds"), a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington, and the Town of Woodway (Hereinafter "Woodway"), a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington (collectively "the Parties"), to provide for the periodic servicing and maintenance of vehicles owned by Woodway, and to define the Parties' respective rights, obligations, costs and liabilities regarding this undertaking. Wl-IEREAS, Chapter 39.34 RCW authorizes two or more political subdi sions or units of local government of the State of Washington to cooperate on a basis of mute& advantage to provide for services and facilities; and WHEREAS, the Parties mutually desire to establish a formal arrangement under which Edmonds will provide periodic automotive maintenance services for vehicles owned by Woodway; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into this Agreement for the purpose of defining their respective rights, obligations, costs and liabilities regarding this undertaking; and WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Woodway has taken appropriate action to approve Woodway's entry into this Interlocal Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edmonds has taken appropriate action to approve Edmonds' entry into this Interlocal. Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions and covenants contained herein, or attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, the Parties agree as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a formal arrangement under which Edmonds will provide periodic automotive maintenance services for vehicles owned by Woodway. The terms, conditions, and covenants of this Agreement shall accordingly be interpreted to advance this purpose. This Agreement further seeks to allocate and define the Parties' respective rights, obligations, costs and Iiabilities concerning the establishment, operatiori and maintenance of this undertaking. Section 2. Term. This Agreement shall be effective upon May 1, 2001 after execution by the Parties hereto. Unless terminated in accordance with Section 3, this Agreement shall remain effective until December 31, 2006, when it shall expire automatically. The Parties may at their option renew this Agreement for a mutually agreed upon term by a writing signed by both Parties. � ]ZL4713B4.DOC; I IO0006.9001751) Packet Page 100 of 357 Section 3. Termination, Either Party may terminate this Agreement with or without cause by providing the other Party with 30 days written notice of its intent to terminate. Termination shall not alter Woodway's payment obligations under Section 6 for services already rendered and shall not alter the Parties' respective obligations under Section 11 of this Agreement. Section 4. Obligations of Edmonds. Edmonds agrees to: A. Provide periodic automotive maintenance services for Woodway vehicles upon Woodway's request. Such maintenance services may include, but are not limited to, oil changing, engine tuning, tire rotation, replacement and pressure adjustment, and other services as requested by Woodway and expressly agreed to by Edmonds. Edmonds' obligation to service Woodway vehicles is limited by Section 8 of this Agreement. B. Inform Woodway upon receiving each vehicle to be serviced of the probable date and time of completion for any automotive maintenance services project; notify Woodway upon completion of any such project; and provide reasonable advance notice to Woodway in the event of Edmonds' inability to meet a previously indicated completion date. C. Inform Woodway upon receiving each vehicle to be serviced of the estimated time and cost of the services to be rendered. If further inspection of the vehicle reveals that the time and cost of the necessary services will exceed the original estimate by 30% or more, Edmonds shall notify Woodway of the increased estimate and shall not perform any increased work until receiving Woodway's consent to the revised estimate. D. Provide Woodway with a separate invoice for each vehicle serviced pursuant to this Agreement itemizing all services performed. E. Charge Woodway for all services performed pursuant to this Agreement in accordance with Section 6. Section 5. ObIigations of Woodway. Woodway agrees to: A. Provide Edmonds with 7 days advance notice of each request for automotive maintenance services. Edmonds may at its sole discretion accept Woodway vehicles upon lesser notice. B. Transport each Woodway vehicle to be serviced under this Agreement to and from Edmonds' Fleet Maintenance Facility, Iocated at 7110 210`' Street SW in Edmonds. C. Retrieve each Woodway vehicle from the Edmonds Fleet Maintenance Facility within 24 hours of receiving notification by Edmonds that such vehicle has been serviced and/or is tendered for Woodway's retrieval. IJZLA71384.DOC;1 /00006.9001751] 2 Packet Page 101 of 357 D. Provide written warning to Edmonds at the time any Woodway vehicle is submitted for servicing if the vehicle is in any unusually dangerous condition. E. Pay Edmonds in accordance with Section 6 of this Agreement for all automotive maintenance services performed by Edmonds. Section 6. Payment Schedule. The Parties agree to the following billing and payment schedule: A. Edmonds shall charge Woodway a fee of $48.00 per hour, exclusive of replacement parts and materials, for routine automotive maintenance services performed under this Agreement, said amount roughly approximating the actual cost of providing such services. Replacement of automotive parts and necessary materials, including but not limited to oil, tires and various vehicle fluids, shall be billed separately to Woodway at cost plus any procurement expense incurred by Edmonds. Any disposal fee incurred by Edmonds in disposing automotive parts and materials from Woodway vehicles, including but not limited any hazardous waste disposal charge, shall likewise be billed separately to Woodway at cost. B. Within 14 days after completing an automotive servicing project on a Woodway vehicle pursuant to this Agreement, Edmonds shall submit an itemized invoice to Woodway listing the tasks completed, the hours expended, the automotive parts replaced and the total charge to Woodway. C. Within 14 days of receiving an invoice pursuant to subsection B above, Woodway shall tender full payment to Edmonds for the full amount due under said invoice. Section 7. Ownership and Disposition of Property- Any automotive part on a Woodway vehicle removed and/or replaced by Edmonds pursuant to this Agreement other than oil filters, air filters, windshield wiper blades and tires shall remain the legal property of Woodway and shall be retained, discarded or otherwise disposed of by Edmonds only with the consent of Woodway. Section S. Priority of Vehicle Servicing: No Exclusive Service Arrangement Created. The Parties understand that, notwithstanding this Agreement, the highest priority of the Edmonds Fleet Maintenance Facility is and will remain the servicing and maintenance of vehicles owned and operated by the City of Edmonds. In the event that Edmonds may from time to time lack the capacity to expeditiously provide automotive maintenance services to Woodway requested pursuant to this Agreement, Edmonds shall as soon as practicable notify Woodway of its present inability to service Woodway vehicles and shall inform Woodway of the estimated time of delay in servicing. Any such delay shall not constitute a breach of this Agreement. Upon receipt of such notice from Edmonds, Woodway may at its discretion utilize another service provider for the purpose of obtaining automotive maintenance services for Woodway vehicles. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as requiring Edmonds to service any Woodway vehicle within (JZ L471384.DOC;1 /00006.900175/ 1 3 Packet Page 102 of 357 any particular time, or to establish Edmonds as the exclusive provider of automotive maintenance services for Woodway vehicles. Section 9. Liability for Vehicle Damage. Woodway shall exclusively bear all risk of loss or damage to any vehicle submitted to Edmonds for maintenance servicing pursuant to this Agreement while such vehicle is (a) in transit to and from the Edmonds Fleet Maintenance Facility, or (b) stored at the Edmonds Fleet Maintenance Facility after 24 hours subsequent to notification by Edmonds that the vehicle is ready for retrieval by Woodway. Liability for vehicle damage occurring after Woodway submits and Edmonds accepts a vehicle for servicing but before 24 hours have lapsed after Edmonds has directed Woodway to retrieve the vehicle shall be allocated as provided in Section I I of this Agreement. Section 10. Administration; No Separate Entity Created. No separate legal entity is formed by this Agreement. Section 11. Release. Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement. A. Edmonds agrees to protect, indemnify and save Woodway harmless from and against any and all injury or damage to Woodway or its property, and also from and against all claims, demands, and causes of action of every kind and character arising directly or indirectly, or in any way incident to, in connection with, or arising out of work performed under the terms hereof, caused by the fault of the Edmonds, its agents, employees, representatives or subcontractors. Edmonds specifically promises to indemnify Woodway against claims or suits brought under Title 51 RCW by Edmonds' employees or subcontractors and waives any immunity that Edmonds may have under that title with respect to, but only to, the limited extent accessary to indemnify Woodway. Edmonds shall also indemnify and hold Woodway harmless from any wage, overtime or benefit claim of any Edmonds employee, agent, representative or subcontractor performing services under this Agreement. Edmonds further agrees to fully indemnify Woodway from and against any and all costs of defending any such claim or demand to the end that Woodway is held harmless therefrom. Tlus paragraph shall not apply to damages or claims resulting from the sole negligence of Woodway. In situations involving the sole negligence of Woodway or its employees, the Parties' respective Iiabilities shall be as defined by the law of the State of Washington. B. Woodway agrees to protect, indemnify and save Edmonds harmless from and against any and all injury or damage to Edmonds or its property, and also from and against all claims, demands, and causes of action of every kind and character arising directly or indirectly, or in any way incident to, in connection with, or arising out of work performed under the terms hereof, caused by the fault of Woodway, its agents, employees, representatives or subcontractors. Woodway specifically promises to indemnify Edmonds against claims or suits brought under Title 51 RCW by Woodway's employees or subcontractors and waives any immunity that Woodway may have under that title with respect to, but only to, the limited extent necessary to indemnify Edmonds. Woodway shall also indemnify { JZL4713 B4. DOC;1 /00006.900175/ 1 4 Packet Page 103 of 357 and hold Edmonds harmless from any wage, overtime or benefit claim of any Woodway employee, agent, representative or subcontractor performing services under this Agreement. Woodway further agrees to fully indemnify Edmonds from and against any and all costs of defending any such claim or demand to the end that Edmonds is held harmless therefrom. This paragraph shall not apply to damages or claims resulting from the sole negligence of Edmonds. In situations involving the sole negligence of Edmonds or its employees, the Parties' respective liabilities shall be as defined by the law of the State of Washington. Section 12. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. Any action arising out of this Agreement shall be brought in Snohomish County Superior Court. Section I3. No Employment Relationship Created. The Parties agree that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create an employment relationship between Edmonds and any employee, agent, representative or contractor of Woodway, or between Woodway and any employee, agent, representative or contractor of Edmonds. Section 14. Notices. Notices to Edmonds shall be sent to the following address: City of Edmonds Director, Public Works Department 711.0 210t1i Street SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Notices to Woodway shall be sent to the following address: Town of Woodway Chief of Police 23920 113th Place W. Woodway WA 98020 Section 15. Duty to File Agreement With County Auditor. Woodway shall, after this Agreement is executed by both Parties but before the effective date provided in Section 2, file this Agreement with the Snohomish County Auditor. Section 16. Integration. This document constitutes the entire embodiment of the Agreement between the Parties, and, unless modified in writing by an amendment to this Interlocal Agreement signed by the Parties hereto, shall be implemented as described above. CITE' OF EDMONDS rvGary H�aakenson, Mayor Date: TO VF WOOD W)A By: _ Carla NIchoIs, Mayor Date: (]ZL471384.DOC; 1100006.9M E 751} Packet Page 104 of 357 FIRST ADDENDUM to Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for VESICLE MAINTENANCE SERVICES between THE CITY OF EDMONDS and THE TOWN OF WOODWAY This First Addendum to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Vehicle Maintenance Services ("Agreement") between the City of Edmonds ("Edmonds") and the Town of Woodway ("Woodway") is entered into by and between Edmonds and Woodway as of the date indicated helnw_ L RECITALS WHEREAS, Edmonds and Woodway (collectively, "tile Parties") entered into the Agreement on June 6, 2001 for the purpose of establishing a formal arrangement udder wlvch Edmonds would provide periodic automotive maintenance sen=ices for vehicles owned by Woodway; and WHEREAS, the Agreement required Woodway to reimburse Edmonds for said services at the rate of $48.00/llr., exclusive of, inter alia, replacement automotive parts and materials, procurement expenses, and disposal charges; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to preserve the framework. of their contractual relationship under the Agreement, but establish a new reimbursement rate for services rendered pursuant thereto; and WHEREAS, the governing bodies of both Parties have taken appropriate action to approve the Parties' respective execution of this First Addendum; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the teens and conditions contained herein. or attached said incorporated and made a part hereof, the Parties mutually agree as follows: IT. TERMS Section 1. Amendment of Section 6(A) of the Agreement. Section 6(A) of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide in its entirety as follows: A. Edmonds shall charge Woodway a fee of $77.82 per hour, exclusive of replacement parts and materials, for routine automotive maintenance services performed under this ( JZra5434G.DOC;1100006,9001751) 1 Packet Page 105 of 357 Agreement, said amotu-it roughly approximating the actual cost of providing such services. Replacement of automotive parts and necessary materials, including but not limited to oil, tires and various vehicle fluids, small be billed separately to Woodway at cost plus any procurement expense incurred by Edmonds. Any disposal fee incurred by Edmonds in disposing automotive parts and materials from Woodway vehicles, including but not Iimited to any hazardous waste disposal charge, shall hicewise be billed separately to Woodway at cost. Section 2. Other Terms not Su erceded. This First Addendum modifies, but does not super -cede, the Agreement, Except as specifically statcd in this First Addendum, cach and every term, covenant and condition of the Agreement shall remain in effect as if this Fist Addendum did not exist and shall govern the modified terms contained in this Addendum. If the terms of this First Addendum conflict with the terms of the Agreement, the terms of this First Addendum shall control. Section 3. Filing. Within 10 days of the execution of this First Addendum by both Parties, Woodway shall file a copy of the executed First Addendum with the Snohomish County Auditor. IN WITNESS HEREOF, the Parties have executed this First Addendumn as of the last date written below. DONE this day of , 2003. CITY OF EDMONDS Mayor Gary Ilaakenson ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED : Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE O THE C;fEY ATTORNEY: -2V W. Scott Sn , er (IZU54346.DOC;I/0000G.9001751) 2 Packet Page 106 of 357 By: ATTEST/AUTHENTICATION: By. Lorraine Taylor, City Clerk OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: By: 1 �— WOODWAY Is Zu 5,4346. fD 0 C,1 f0000 G.000175i ] Packet Page 107 of 357 SECOND ADDENDUM to Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SERVICES Between THE CITY OF EDMONDS A n d THE TOWN OF WOODWAY This Second Addendum to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Vehicle Maintenance Services ("Agreement") between the City of Edmonds ("Edmonds") and the Town of Woodway ("Woodway") is entered into by and between Edmonds and Woodway as of the date indicated below. I. RECITALS WHEREAS, Edmonds and Woodway (collectively, "the Parties") entered into the Agreement on June 6, 2001 for the purpose of establishing a formal arrangement under which Edmonds would provide periodic automotive maintenance services for vehicles owned by Woodway; and WHEREAS, the Agreement required Woodway to reimburse Edmonds for said services at the rate of $48.00/hr., exclusive of, inter alia, replacement automotive parts and materials, procurement expenses, and disposal charges; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to preserve the framework of their contractual relationship under the Agreement, but revise the duration provisions and establish a new reimbursement rate for services rendered pursuant thereto and filing options; and WHEREAS, the governing bodies of both Parties have taken appropriate action to approve the Parties' respective execution of this Second Addendum; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein, or attached and incorporated and made a part hereof, the Parties mutually agree as follows: II TERMS SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF SECTION 2 - TERM OF THE AGREEMENT. The Term of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide in its entirety as follows: Section 2. Term: The Agreement and this Second Addendum shall be effective upon full execution of the Parties hereto. This agreement shall remain in effect for one year and shall automatically renew for continuous one year periods of time unless terminated in accordance with Section 3 of the original agreement or revised by a writing signed by both Parties. SECTION 2. AMENDMENT OF SECTION 6(A) OF THE AGREEMENT. PW ADMINISTPATION\Town Of Woodway-FLT\Edmonds.Town of Woodway Addendum 2 revised.doe Page 1 of 3 Packet Page 108 of 357 Section 6(A) of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide in its entirety as follows: A. Edmonds shall charge Woodway a fee of $77.00 per hour, exclusive of replacement parts and materials, for routine automotive maintenance services performed under this Agreement, said amount roughly approximating the actual cost of providing such services. Replacement of automotive parts and necessary materials, including but not limited to oil, tires and various vehicle fluids, shall be billed separately to Woodway at cost plus any procurement expense incurred by Edmonds. Any disposal fee incurred by Edmonds in disposing automotive parts and materials from Woodway vehicles, including but not limited to any hazardous waste disposal charge, shall likewise be billed separately to Woodway at cost. SECTION 3. OTHER TERMS NOT SUPERSEDED: This Second Addendum modifies, but does not supersede, the Agreement. Except as specifically stated in this Second Addendum, each and every term, covenant and condition of the Agreement shall remain in effect as if this Second Addendum did not exist and shall govern the modified terms contained in this Addendum. If the terms of this Second Addendum conflict with the terms of the Agreement, the terms of this Second Addendum shall control. SECTION 4. FILING. Pursuant to RCW 39.34.040 Within 10 days of the execution of this Second Addendum by both Parties, Woodway shall file a copy of the executed Second Addendum with the Snohomish County Auditor. or in the alternative this Second Addendum, may be listed by subject on the Woodway or Edmonds City web site or other electronically retrievable public source. IN WITNESS HEREOF, the Parties have fully executed this Second Addendum as of the last date written below. DONE this day of , 2007. CITY OF EDMONDS By: Mayor Gary Haakenson PW ADMINISTPATION\Town Of Woodway-FLT\Edmonds.Town of Woodway Addendum 2 revised.doc Page 2 of 3 Packet Page 109 of 357 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: IRA Grant K. Weed, Special Counsel to Edmonds ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: LIZA City Attorney 01[oil,N0us] aL"W1Z1] 1]LIM By: Mayor Carla Nichols PW ADMINISTPATION\Town Of Woodway-FLT\Edmonds.Town of Woodway Addendum 2 revised.doc Page 3 of 3 Packet Page 110 of 357 AM-1157 2.G. Electrical installation project at the WWTP Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 09/04/2007 Submitted By: Steve Koho Time: Consent Department: Wastewater Treatment Plant Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title Report on bids opened on August 28, 2007 for the MCC feeder installation at the WWTP and award to Ewing Electric, Inc. for the amount of $30,582, including sales tax. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Authorization to award contract for the MCC Feeder Installation project to Ewing Electric, Inc for the amount of $30,582, including sales tax. Previous Council Action None Narrative New electrical cables need to be installed at the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) in order to provide adequate electrical supply to a motor control center. The current cables and breakers in the Influent Building would be over their rated capacity in a peak storm situation. New cables need to be provided and installed between the plant's incoming power station and the Influent Building. This project must be completed before new power breakers are installed at the incoming power switchgear in mid -September. Staff used the small works foster to obtain competitive quotes. Five firms were contacted, and three provided bids. The low bid was from Ewing Electric, Inc. in the amount of $30,231. An additional $351.00 was required to be added for bonding purposes, bringing the total to $30,582. The expense will be charged to Capital Fund 414, which is the dedicated improvement fund for the Treatment Plant in which other agencies pay their proportionate shares (approximately 50% of capital expenditures). Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: MCC Feeder bid tab Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Public Works Approved By Date Status Noel Miller 08/30/2007 10:56 AM APRV Packet Page 111 of 357 City Clerk Linda Hynd 08/30/2007 12:05 PM APRV Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/30/2007 01:05 PM APRV Final Approval Linda Hynd 08/30/2007 02:29 PM APRV Form Started By: Steve Koho Final Approval Date: 08/30/2007 Started On: 08/30/2007 10:09 AM Packet Page 112 of 357 MCC Feeder Installation BID TAB Bids opened August 28, 2007 Ewing Electric Dutton Electric Company Burke Electric Crawford Electric Main Street Electric No Bid Received No Bid Received Subtotal $27,760 Subtotal $27,843 Subtotal $29,053 Subtotal $ Subtotal $ 8.9 % Tax $2,471 8.9 % Tax $2,478 8.9 % Tax $2,586 8.9 % Tax $ 8.9 % Tax $ TOTAL $30,231 TOTAL $30,321 TOTAL $31,639 TOTAL $ TOTAL $ Packet Page 113 of 357 AM-1156 Introduction of Student Representative Hilary Scheibert from Edmonds Woodway High School Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 09/04/2007 Submitted By: Jana Spellman Submitted For: Council President Pritchard Olson Time: 5 Minutes Department: City Council Type: Information Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Introduction of Student Representative Hilary Scheibert from Edmonds Woodway High School. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff N/A Previous Council Action N/A 3. Narrative Council President Pritchard Olson will introduce Hilary Scheibert the new Student Representative from Edmonds Woodway High School. Fiscal Impact Attachments No files) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 08/30/2007 09:49 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/30/2007 11:27 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 08/30/2007 12:04 PM APRV Form Started By: Jana Started On: 08/30/2007 09:30 Spellman AM Final Approval Date: 08/30/2007 Packet Page 114 of 357 AM-1152 Military Family Friendly Employer Program Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: Submitted By: Submitted For: Department: Review Committee: A rtinn 09/04/2007 Sandy Chase Councilmember Deanna Dawson City Clerk's Office infnrmatinn Time: 30 Minutes Type: Action EN Subject Title Presentation regarding the Military Family Friendly Employer Program, and proposed resolution declaring Edmonds to be military family friendly and encouraging area businesses to become a military family friendly employment partner. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Adopt the attached resolution. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Caldie Rogers, Chamber President with the Greater Marysville Tulalip Chamber of Commerce, will give a presentation on the Military Family Friendly Employer Program. Ms. Rogers provided a briefing packet which is attached as Exhibit 1. A proposed resolution for the City Council's consideration declaring Edmonds to be military family friendly and encouraging area businesses to become a military family friendly employment partner is attached as Exhibit 2. Link: Exhibit 1 - Briefing Packet Link: Exhibit 2 - Resolution Fiscal Impact AttarhmPntc Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/29/2007 11:24 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/29/2007 11:59 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/29/2007 03:28 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Started On: 08/29/2007 11:11 Chase AM Final Approval Date: 08/29/2007 Packet Page 115 of 357 Packet Page 116 of 357 Marysville Military Family Friendly Employment Partnership Initiative Packet Page 117 of 357 Military Family -Friendly Employment Partnership A win -win -win for Snohomish County Situation Hiring the family members of our military forces is now cited by top military officials as the second greatest concern facing today's U.S. military both here and abroad — second only to the threat posed by payday loan operations. This bias is based on the perception that military families move frequently and are less reliable and less skilled than other workers. Yet family members of military personnel are well educated, skilled and highly trained to be top -performing employees in any number of industry sectors. "As a former military spouse, I have personally experienced the reluctance of employers to hire military spouses throughout this country. Although equipped with degrees in psychology and marketing, employment doors in those fields remained closed to me one duty station after another. Frustrated, I finally dared a landscape contractor to hire me. Convincing him that he did not have to pay for my health insurance, he accepted my dare. Putting in sprinkler systems, spas, swimming pools and landscaping for four years was not what I had expected to do with my college degree," reports Melissa West, Military Affairs Chairman for The Greater Marysville Tulalip Chamber of Commerce — Carlson Wagonlit Travel, Marysville. Proposal The Greater Marysville Tulalip Chamber's Military Affairs Division is spearheading a county -wide coalition to ensure Snohomish County remains "military friendly," asking employers throughout the county to participate in a Snohomish County Military Family -Friendly Employment Partnership. Colleges; chambers of commerce; municipal, county, tribal and state governments; as well as military and civilian agencies and the media will be asked to reach out to the entire county's business community. The goal of the partnership initiative is to help military spouses and family members attain financial security and achieve employment goals, while corporate partners have access to a readily available, diverse and talented pool of candidates. Employers will be educated on the many advantages of hiring military family members, with a request to sign a non -binding partnership agreement affirming their support of this new workforce. This non -binding partnership pledge confirms an employer's intent to work toward increased employment and career opportunities for military family members, who represent a vast array of education and experience. Anticipated Result As the partnership grows, so will the scope and actions of this county -wide initiative. Military spouses will be gainfully employed, Snohomish County and its employers will benefit from a versatile, experienced workforce, and ultimately, a successful role model for use by other military communities across the state, the nation and around the world will have been established. We believe that Snohomish County's growing employment opportunities makes the Snohomish County Military Family -Friendly Employment Partnership Initiative a win -win -win partnership. 2 Packet Page 118 of 357 Greater Marysville Tulalip Military Affairs Mission Statement Military Family Friendly Employment Partnership Initiative To serve as an employment resource linking employers throughout Snohomish County to the talented workforce represented by the families of the Puget Sound Military forces who have, are, and/or will be relocating to Snohomish County. Action Steps • Educate and inspire Snohomish County employers to tap into the talented employee pool represented by the families of relocating Military personnel. • Conduct Editorial Boards gaining support from all area media to participate in a coordinated media blitz. • Gain formal resolutions of support from all municipal, tribal and county councils. • Formalize Snohomish County employers' support through individual non -binding partnership agreements affirming their support of this new workforce that represents such a vast array of education and experience, and to pledge their best efforts to increase employment and career opportunities to military spouses and family members. • Develop and distribute Military Family Friendly Employer logo identifiers. • Identify and coordinate services offered by all private and/or public Snohomish County employment resources. • Identify and coordinate support services that will assist Military family members both in their employment search and their successful engagement of employment. • Launch a www.militgaspousejobsearch.org as an association page to the Department of Labor's America's Job Bank that will provide military spouses a portal for their resumes and allow MFFEP partners the opportunity to post jobs on the site and view spouse resumes. • Pursue partnership development and new partner recruitment thus strengthening local relationships, and working on partner best practices and strategic communication plans. • Provide entrepreneurial development support to Military family members interested in new business start-ups. • Serve as a gateway to community volunteer opportunities and programs 3 Packet Page 119 of 357 Snohomish County Military Family Friendly Employer Partnership Agreement I affirm my organization's support of Snohomish County's highly skilled workforce comprised of military family members who represent a vast array of education, talent and experience. I pledge our company's best efforts to increase employment and career opportunities to military spouses and children relocating to Snohomish County. With this agreement, I understand that I can attract talent comparable to a nation-wide search, without the costly burden of advertising or relocation costs, commissions or similar costs associated with commercial recruiting firms by posting our company's job openings through Naval Station Everett, the Military Spouses' Career Network, and the Department of Labor's America Job Bank. Signature Date Print Name Title Company Name Phone Address Fax Address E-Mail Yes, please link to my site Website Current # of Employees Type of business/industry/organization Jobs your company offers: El El Li El Return to: Snohomish County Military Family Friendly Employment Partnership Initiative c/o The Greater Marysville Tulalip Chamber of Commerce 8825 34' AVE NE, Suite C, Tulalip, WA 98271. (360) 659-7700 * Fax (360) 653-7539 * E-mail Services@MarysvilleTulalipChamber.com 4 Packet Page 120 of 357 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS DECLARING EDMONDS TO BE MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY AND ENCOURAGING AREA BUSINESSES TO BECOME A MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY EMPLOYMENT PARTNER WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds hosts a vast number of military families who are either permanently or temporarily stationed in the area; and WHEREAS, military spouses and family members are often faced with employer bias because of stereotypes such as availability and potential length of employment; and WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds has and wishes to continue to experience economic development and the creation of family wage jobs; and WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds supports strongly a diverse and inclusive qualified workforce; and WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds supports fully our troops and their families; and WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds is an equal opportunity employer; and WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds hereby makes the following finding of fact: A. Today's employers are faced with an unprecedented challenge of meeting their staffing needs in today's high-technology, service -oriented economy. The demand for motivated, qualified personnel has outstripped supply in many industries. Without new sources of talent, growth, productivity and profits will be constrained by shortages in the labor market. B. Military family members provide an advantage to employers searching for high levels of talent, training, and unique skills cultivated by the rigors of military family life. C. Military family members are highly educated and trained in a variety of disciplines. More than one -fifth of spouses have earned a baccalaureate degree and one in twenty holds one or more graduate or professional degrees. Many more are licensed or certified in skilled trades or professional fields. D. The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average job tenure of employees has been on a steady decline over the past decade. Across all industries, the average tenure is between three and four years. The median tour of duty for military personnel is 3 years, suggesting that their accompanying spouses are likely to be employed for an "average" period, if they find employment shortly upon arrival. E. Approximately 6500 sailors and civil service persons are assigned to Naval Station Everett with an estimated 10,000 family members. Of this number there are about 5% per month that rotates in and out. This means about 825 sailors plus family members, per month, are coming into and out of Naval Station Everett. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: THE CITY OF EDMONDS IS A MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY PARTNER AND ENCOURAGES AREA BUSINESSES TO JOIN THE MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE 5 Packet Page 121 of 357 Tap the Resource! Today's Staffing Climate Unemployment is at its Lowest Point in Over 26 Years ... Today's employers are faced with an unprecedented challenge of meeting their staffing needs in today's high-technology, service -oriented economy. The demand for motivated, qualified personnel has outstripped supply in many industries. Without new sources of talent, growth, productivity and profits will be constrained by shortages in the labor market. Lifelong Employees are No Longer the Norm ... Some employees are taking advantage of the strong economy and changing jobs-- moving to positions that offer greater compensation, a more compatible quality of life, more flexibility, or professional advancement. Downsizing from a decade ago continues to haunt the labor force; many have surrendered ideas of a single -employer career and are instead, looking to find stability and advancement on their own terms. Where once companies were populated with individuals who had risen through the ranks, today's employees have the lowest average tenure with their company than at almost any point in history. Companies have to look outside their ranks to sustain their continued existence and growth. Employers Need Ways to Maintain Flexibility in Staffing, Yet Still Attract Dedicated, Highly - Skilled Employees ... But despite the strength of today's economy, you know that factors change-- in today's global economy, things are more volatile than ever before. Profits, and in some cases survival, are predicated upon an organization's ability to respond quickly and decisively. Maintaining a labor force with the flexibility and agility to respond to evolving forces in a timely manner remains a challenge. Some companies have turned to the temporary labor industry to provide this flexibility. That flexibility comes at price-- commissions on top of salaries, as well as a workforce that is fundamentally unstable. Temporary employees may come and go as they receive more "permanent" positions from your competitors. How to balance your need for flexibility and prospective employees' desires for stability? The Employer's Advantage Today's Military Spouses are the Solution to the Shortage of Dedicated, High -Quality Employees ...Traditionally overlooked as a viable source of talent, today's military spouses are proving their advantage to employers. Combining talent, training, and unique skills cultivated by the rigors of military family life, military spouses are the solution to your staffing challenges. Military spouses are educated, highly -skilled, and trained in a variety of disciplines ... Whatever your needs, chances are there is a military spouse who is perfectly suited to them! Over half of all military spouses have some college training. More than one -fifth has earned a baccalaureate degree. One in twenty holds one or more graduate or professional degrees. Many are licensed or certified in skilled trades or professional fields, with experience in a variety of different types and sizes of organizations, and invariably in different parts of the country-- or even the world. If you're looking for an employee who is bilingual, or one who has proven their ability to "hit the ground running"-- look no further than the military spouses in your community. Chances are there is one who possesses the skills and abilities you seek. Packet Page 122 of 357 Military Spouses are Change Masters ... The unique nature of military family life demands that spouses remain ready to adapt and adjust to change. Accordingly, military spouses develop coping mechanisms for dealing with and adapting to change. These skills are an asset in the workplace. It is said that in business today, the only constant is change. Those who have developed within themselves the capacity to function in the midst of change are the employees on whom you can depend during turbulent times. Change, instability, ambiguity-- they can turn an organization upside down and create chaos. But those who can continue to function, those who thrive on change --they produce and they can lead, as they adapt and adjust to accommodate the changing environment. Military spouses are change masters! Military Spouses are Multi -Skilled ... Largely as a result of their geographic mobility, military spouses have garnered experience in a variety of organizations and in a variety of settings. Part of adapting to change entails the development of new skills appropriate to the novel situation. While the resumes of some military spouses may appear "unfocused" or disjointed as a result of their need to make the most of whatever opportunities may have existed in a given location, the fact is, those resumes demonstrate a variety of skills, experience in a multitude of settings, and the adaptability to be able to leverage their existing knowledge and experience to learn the new skills needed to tackle the demands of a each new job. Military Spouse has Diverse, Applicable Experience ... Unlike employees who have spent much of their career within the same organization; military spouses often have diverse experience within their career field. Having seen and done things in more than one way, they can bring that experience of lessons learned to new positions, bringing to bear the best practices gleaned from exposure to many different settings. Organizations in search of "new blood" may find military spouses to be a major infusion of new ideas, best practices, strategic knowledge and a worldly view that exists in no other applicant population. Military Spouses can Bring to Bear Inter- and Intra-Industry Experience ... As is typical of the diversity of their experience; some military spouses' careers have combined experience in their field across industries, along with different positions within a single industry. This unique breadth of knowledge and exposure enables them to see things from a much more complete perspective. This cross - perspective orientation is similar to the strategy employed in leading managerial development programs- - because it is the kind of diverse experience that is essential to competent, well-rounded leaders. Military Spouses can Impart a Fresh Perspective and Renewed Energy in Your Organization ... If there's one place you're not likely to find a military spouse, it's in a rut! Their periodic mobility ensures that. It also ensures that military spouses will usually be in a fresh and energized state-- striving to demonstrate how quickly they learn their new job and contribute to the success of your organization, or working to sustain that same high level of commitment, recognizing that your assessment of them as an employee matters in their upcoming job search. Military spouses never have the opportunity to become "dead wood"...! The Military Family Lifestyle Encourages Military Spouses to Become Goal -Oriented, and to Strive for Immediate and Continuous Results ... When it comes to the accomplishment of goals, most employees who do set goals recognize that they have a lifetime to accomplish them. For the military spouse who knows he/she may be moving on in a few years, there is an impetus to make significant progress in the near -term. Procrastination doesn't pay-- and military spouses know that a change is always inevitable. Transfers become milestones for military spouses-- and the continuing necessity to sum up what they've accomplished for your organization, as for those before, serves to reinforce a results -driven orientation. VA Packet Page 123 of 357 Military Spouses can Act in the Long -Term Interests of the Organization ... That same labor force flexibility that you seek as an employer is an ominous threat to employees. As your organization strives to stay ahead of the competition, your employees strive to ensure attainment of their own personal goals. For many, a goal of self-preservation, even to the detriment of the organization's long- term needs, exists. Employees may act in a manner that justifies their continued employment, instead of in a way that may increase the efficiency of your operations, eventually eliminating their job. Lacking a long-term motive for self-preservation, military spouses can assist in developing and implementing improved business practices that may reduce your labor costs in the long -run. Bureau of Labor Statistics Figures Indicate that Military Spouses are No Less "Stable" than their Counterparts ... The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average job tenure of employees has been on a steady decline over the past decade. Across all industries, the average tenure is between three and four years. The median tour of duty for military personnel is 3 years, suggesting that their accompanying spouses are likely to be employed for an "average" period, if they find employment shortly upon arrival. Military "Homebasing" Will Add to Spouses' Employment Stability ... In an effort to reduce its own relocation expenses, the Department of Defense and Coast Guard have sought to reduce the frequency of geographic transfers of military personnel and their families. Additionally, the Base Realignment and Closure Act resulted in the consolidation of many military facilities, reducing the need for some transfers. Extensions to tours of duty and coordination enabling sequential tours in the same geographical location have become more common, and assisted the armed forces in reducing their costs- -while at the same time, promoting increased stability of the military spouse workforce. Military spouses may remain in an area for three, four, or even six years-- something quite uncommon previously. Spouses who are employed are also far more likely to remain in the geographic area to continue their employment when the military member deploys or is ordered on an unaccompanied tour to an overseas location. This promotes increased stability for the local economy, which directly benefits local employers. Turnover Among Military Spouses is More Predictable Than Among Their Counterparts ... Although military spouses and their counterparts are likely to stay with an employer for the same length of time on average, compared to others; there is less variability in the tenure of military spouses. This translates to greater predictability and makes it easier for organizations to manage their turnover rate effectively. Employers who demonstrate an open willingness and commitment to hire military spouses also tend to cultivate a more trusting environment-- working together, military spouses and their employers can plan for impending transfers, providing ample time to hire and train replacements-- rather than the minimal notice to the employer afforded by typical employees, which often leaves the employer undermanned. Staffing shortages generate animosity among those who must pick up additional responsibilities and the overtime costs and disruption to operations can grow rapidly; chronic shortages can increase turnover among other employees, creating a vicious cycle. Predictable, well -managed turnover sustains organizational performance, controls recruiting costs, and maintains workforce morale. Military Spouses Can Take Advantage of Free and Low -Cost Career Development and Training Resources ... Recognizing the unique demands placed on military families, the Department of Defense and its components have developed training programs for military family members that help develop essential life skills-- from anger management, to team building, to leadership and health and wellness issues. Many of these programs have direct applicability to employees' success and value in the workplace. In addition, some military installations offer a variety of classes in career development, computer skills, foreign languages, and other employment topics-- including some commercially - Packet Page 124 of 357 available training programs that your own employees have benefited from. Using their collective numbers, the military family service organizations have been able to offer such training opportunities to military spouses at reduced cost, compared to individual training paid for by employers. When they avail themselves of these resources, your military spouse employees can help you stretch your training dollars while they continue to improve their skills to the benefit of your organization. Military Spouses Understand the Importance of a Drug -Free Lifestyle ... Few topics are more controversial that drug testing in the workplace and in many states the practice is strictly curtailed or prohibited. Employee drug use has been shown to negatively impact job performance and to impair safety in some industries-- yet the legal issues surrounding testing programs are a strong deterrent for even conscientious employers who want to retain the most able workforce. The military's much - publicized "zero tolerance" policy on illicit drug use and possession and its rigorous random testing program has led to drug use figures which are significantly below those of other segments of society. The severity of sanctions for the possession or use of drugs on military property, including in government -owned housing, coupled with a social culture that severely discourages illicit drug use, impacts military spouses. While it may not provide the same level of assurance as an employee drug testing program, this social influence on military spouses likely reduces the need for such testing-- and comes at no cost to employers. Advertising Job Openings Through Your Local Military Installation Costs You Nothing ... Most military installations operate job placement offices for military spouses, and will gladly refer qualified applicants to you for consideration. Some will even allow you to post jobs anonymously and pre-screen applicants based on criteria that you provide. Your local military installation can advise you of the services they offer employers, and how to take advantage of them. Employers seeking to fill full- or part-time positions at multiple locations may elect to advertise free at the MSCN web site. Installation newspapers are another excellent source for reaching prospective military spouse employees in the local area. As some are operated on a cost -recovery basis or by commercial enterprises, nominal advertising fees may apply; however, such fees are generally more cost-effective than other types of print advertising and are particularly effective for targeting military spouses already living in the local area. You Will Have Access to Military Spouses and Retiring/Transitioning Service Members, All of Whom Offer Outstanding Training and Experience ... Your local military installation's job placement office can assist you in finding well -qualified applicants. In addition to military spouses (some of whom have prior military service themselves), the transition assistance coordinator can help put you in contact with service members who are retiring or leaving active duty. These individuals often have militarily -unique skills and experience that defense contractors seek, and the leadership skills, outstanding work ethic, dedication, and other valuable attributes that all employers search for. You may even find a husband/wife team that is ideally suited for the positions you seek to fill. You Can Attract Talent Comparable to a Nation -Wide Search, Without the Costly Burden of Relocation Expenses ... Because the government pays most relocation expenses of military families moving to your area, you can attract talent comparable to a nationwide search of job candidates, without the high cost of paying them to relocate. Coupled with the lack of commissions and similar costs associated with commercial recruiting firms, hiring military spouses through your local military installation or the Military Spouses' Career Network can greatly reduce your company's recruiting costs! The Military Spouse Advantage Is the Employer's Advantage Packet Page 125 of 357 WE RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS DECLARING EDMONDS TO BE MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY AND ENCOURAGING AREA BUSINESSES TO BECOME A MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY EMPLOYMENT PARTNER WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds hosts a vast number of military families who are either permanently or temporarily stationed in the area; and WHEREAS, military spouses and family members are often faced with employer bias because of stereotypes such as availability and potential length of employment; and WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds has and wishes to continue to experience economic development and the creation of family wage jobs; and WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds supports strongly a diverse and inclusive qualified workforce; and WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds supports fully our troops and their families; and WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds is an equal opportunity employer; and WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds hereby makes the following finding of fact: A. Today's employers are faced with an unprecedented challenge of meeting their staffing needs in today's high-technology, service -oriented economy. The demand for motivated, qualified personnel has outstripped supply in many industries. Without new sources of talent, growth, productivity and profits will be constrained by shortages in the labor market. B. Military family members provide an advantage to employers searching for high levels of talent, training, and unique skills cultivated by the rigors of military family life. C. Military family members are highly educated and trained in a variety of disciplines. More than one -fifth of spouses have earned a baccalaureate degree and one in twenty holds one or more graduate or professional degrees. Many more are licensed or certified in skilled trades or professional fields. D. The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average job tenure of employees has been on a steady decline over the past decade. Across all industries, the average tenure is between three and four years. The median tour of duty for military personnel is 3 years, suggesting that their accompanying spouses are likely to be employed for an "average" period, if they find employment shortly upon arrival. -I- Packet Page 126 of 357 E. Approximately 6500 sailors and civil service persons are assigned to Naval Station Everett with an estimated 10,000 family members. Of this number there are about 5% per month that rotates in and out. This means about 825 sailors plus family members, per month, are coming into and out of Naval Station Everett. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: THE CITY OF EDMONDS IS A MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY PARTNER AND ENCOURAGES AREA BUSINESSES TO JOIN THE MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE. RESOLVED this day of , 2007. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. APPROVED: MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON -2- Packet Page 127 of 357 AM-1153 Reconsideration: Proposed vacation of a portion of right-of-way adjacent to 17008 - 77th PL West. Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 09/04/2007 Submitted By: Rob Chave Submitted For: Rob Chave Time: Department: Planning Type: Review Committee: Action: Information 30 Minutes Action 5. Subject Title Reconsideration: July 17, 2007 Public Hearing regarding the proposed vacation of a portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to 17008 - 77th Place West, Edmonds. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff None required; this is a Council reconsideration deliberation. Previous Council Action City Council held a public hearing on the proposed street vacation on July 17, 2007, and voted to approve the vacation subject to the payment of the required compensation ($1,400) to the City. The final ordinance completing the vacation was on the August 7, 2007, Council consent agenda, but was deferred pending Council reconsideration on September 4, 2007. Narrative This is a Council reconsideration of the action approved by Council on July 17, 2007. The proposed ordinance from the August 7, 2007, Council consent agenda is attached as Exhibit 1. Approval of this ordinance would complete the Council action of July 17, 2007. The Council minutes are attached as Exhibit 2. The original agenda memo from July 17, 2007, is attached as Exhibit 3 (without attachments). Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Proposed Ordinance Link: Exhibit 2: Council minutes 7/17/2007 Link: Exhibit 3: Council agenda memo 7/17/2007 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/29/2007 03:28 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/29/2007 03:30 PM APRV Packet Page 128 of 357 Final Approval Sandy Chase Form Started By: Rob Chave Final Approval Date: 08/29/2007 08/29/2007 03:45 PM APRV Started On: 08/29/2007 02:28 PM Packet Page 129 of 357 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 7/23/07 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, VACATING CERTAIN UNOPENED STREET RIGHT OF WAY OF 77TH PLACE WEST LOCATED ADJACENT TO 17008 - 77TH PLACE WEST AS DESCRIBED HEREIN; ESTABLISHING THE TERMS OF VACATION, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on July 17, 2007; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said public hearing, the Edmonds City Council determined that: A. Certain unopened street right of way located at 17008 - 77th Place West, Edmonds, Washington, shown on the attached Exhibit A is surplus to the needs of the City; B. That the sum of One Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($1,400.00) represents an appropriate compensation to the public for the said right of way is approximately one-half of the fair market value and is an amount offered to buy the applicant as consideration for the vacation; C. Said sum, while in excess of one-half of the appraisal provided in the record is, in light of factors personal to the owner and the assessed valuation of the property, a better indication of the fair market value of the tract to be vacated; and D. No property will be landlocked by said vacation or otherwise deprived of access, NOW, THEREFORE, IWSS668831.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - I - Packet Page 130 of 357 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Certain unopened right of way of 77th Place West, located adjacent to 17008 - 77th Place West, Edmonds, Washington, is hereby vacated. The tract to be vacated is shown on the attached Exhibit A incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. Section 2. In consideration for said vacation, the applicant has paid the sum of One Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($1,400.00) to the City, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged. The City Clerk is accordingly authorized to record a copy of this ordinance of vacation in the land records of Snohomish County. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: 1'"'! W. SCOTT SNYDER APPROVED: I►t_� • ._ :: _ _.::__._ IS _ • 1 IWSS668831.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 - Packet Page 131 of 357 FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. IWSS668831.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 - Packet Page 132 of 357 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2007, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, VACATING CERTAIN UNOPENED STREET RIGHT OF WAY OF 77TH PLACE WEST LOCATED ADJACENT TO 17008 - 77TH PLACE WEST AS DESCRIBED HEREIN; ESTABLISHING THE TERMS OF VACATION, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of 92007. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE {wss668831.Doc;1i00006.900000i}- 4 - Packet Page 133 of 357 0 O Oi LO X Area to be vacated. Oi Exhibit A - 3.i'E 81.00' 17.00 6.68 Q 0 -3.0'E M 1 00 N 9Ob0'00"E - 62.14' 56 ft i � oL7 w loft " N9000 00 E o -A_SPH,4Z T Q .---6. %'E 1.5'E 4,887 S.F. . ©E,"� Ali .©0 rrr r { � 1 . f � tea, ��* - r �> ,� r r \�� " � r � r • Packet Page 134 of 357 Ord# 3654 F. ORDINANCE NO. 3654 — AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC 21.40.030 HEIGHT, Repeal ECDC 1.40.030(C)(1) (C) HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS TO REPEAL SUBSECTION (1) RELATED TO A NONEXISTENT ZONE. Lodging Tax 3. CONFIRMATION OF CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF JOE MCIALWAIN TO LODGING Advisory Committee TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Appointment Mayor Haakenson advised the Council interviewed Mr. McIalwain prior to tonight's meeting. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO APPROVE MAYOR HAAKENSON'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPOINT JOE MCIALWAIN TO THE LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Councilmember Marin commented Mr. McIalwain was very qualified and had put his heart and soul into the community. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ublic Facilities 4. APPOINTMENT OF EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD MEMBER TO FILL istrict Board VACANCY. ppomtment Edmonds Center for the Arts Executive Director Joe McIalwain explained two of the original members of the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board, Kay Mahaffey and Jan Conner, recently stepped down from their positions. Each played an important role of the development of the PFD and saw the project through the renovation and grand opening of the Center. The PFD accepted applications and conducted interviews of several qualified candidates and recommended the appointment of Bob Rinehart. Mr. McIalwain described Mr. Rinehart's background. Mr. Rinehart commented he came to Edmonds wanting to be a part of the community. He viewed serving on the PFD Board as an honor. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO ACCEPT THE NOMINATION OF BOB RINEHART TO THE EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD. Councilmember Moore commented Mr. Rinehart "hit the ground running" when he moved to Edmonds, was a leader in the community and was very well suited to serving on the PFD Board. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Vacate Portion 5 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PROPOSED VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE of Right -of - Way Adjacent PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 17008 - 77TH PLACE WEST, EDMONDS. 0 17008 - 77th l W Councilmember Plunkett asked whether a vacation was a legislative action. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered yes, explaining there were certain limitations on the amount the Council could require if the vacated property was originally dedicated by the party now requesting the vacation but that was not applicable in this case. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this was an application to vacate public right-of-way within a recently approved Planned Residential Development (PRD). The owners of Lot 7 were interested in a vacation of an area on the northern boundary of their property to allow expansion of their footprint and build a deck which they would be unable to accomplish without the vacation. He explained the public Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 17, 2007 Page 2 Packet Page 135 of 357 right-of-way contained two on -street parking spaces. He relayed Engineering's finding that they anticipated no potential use of this property. Mr. Chave explained the property appraisal used a very different method and arrived at a much lower valuation; typically a per square foot value was developed and applied to the property. Staff contacted the appraiser who verified it was an appropriate appraisal. Councilmember Wambolt asked who paid the cost of the appraisal. Mr. Chave answered the applicant. Councilmember Wambolt referred to the ordinance that states the maximum compensation that could be required was one half the appraised value, inquiring whether that practice was always followed. Mr. Snyder advised that was the limit under State statute. Councilmember Wambolt asked whether the Council had any latitude with regard to how the property was appraised. Mr. Snyder answered the Council would need to make a finding that the value was properly established. Mr. Chave advised staff included two other appraisals in the packet as examples. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Don Wills, Edmonds, the proponent of the request, explained when staff instructed them to have the property appraised, he researched appraisers via the internet and selected one located in Bothell. With regard to the City's usual method of a square footage valuation, he pointed out the amount of land was 560 square feet, an amount commonly referred to as an uneconomic remainder. He noted the discrepancy in the valuation was due to the limited amount of land available. He inquired about the process if the Council determined their appraisal was incorrect and whether there was any ability to negotiate. Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Moore asked staff to clarify the process. Mr. Snyder answered the Council was required to make a finding that the vacation was in the public's interest. Typically there were two considerations, whether the City needed the property for another purpose and whether citizens received a reasonable benefit from the vacation. The Council was free to negotiate if they did not feel the appraisal fairly represented the fair market value of the property. Councilmember Dawson commented it appeared this was the first time this issue had arisen as appraisals were typically done in the manner Mr. Chave described. She asked whether consideration had been given to establishing a policy for future dedications regarding how appraisals would be done. Mr. Chave stated typically appraisers utilized the square footage method versus this method which resulted in a much lower value. He referred to the appraisal examples in the packet, noting the Council often reduced the property value. He agreed it may be appropriate to establish a standard appraisal methodology. Councilmember Dawson observed if the Council rejected the appraisal, the options were to require the applicant to have a second appraisal done or for the City to have their own appraisal done. If the Council wanted a second appraisal, Mr. Chave suggested the City have their own appraisal done. Councilmember Dawson asked the approximate cost of an appraisal. Mr. Chave relayed Mr. Wills' comment that the estimates they received were $400 - $1200, they paid $400 for this appraisal. Mr. Chave commented most appraisals were more expensive than that. Councilmember Dawson asked the difference between the appraisals. Mr. Chave answered appraisals of similar property ranged from $4 to $11 per square foot. He noted another concern with this appraisal was it referenced property outside the area that he did not feel was comparable. Councilmember Marin observed the applicant appeared to have followed the City's process. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 17, 2007 Page 3 Packet Page 136 of 357 Mr. Wills stated the reason they were requesting the vacation was the City determined a window seat on the back of the house encroached into the setback. He noted they already removed the deck and French doors from the house and were told at final inspection for occupancy they had to remove the window seat. He explained they had approved plans for all the changes that were made and they had been inspected; however, on November 16, 2006 the Planning Department determined there was an encroachment. He noted this was the first knowledge they had of it, acknowledging the builder may have been aware. Mr. Snyder explained property was usually vacated when the City identified unusable right-of-way and wanted to eliminate the City's liability for that property and return the property to the tax rolls. What was unusual about this appraisal was, although it provides a square foot value, it used unimproved property which does not determine fair market value. He noted the unique value of the right-of-way to this property tended to skew how fair market value was determined. The Council had discretion to negotiate, determine it was not in the public's best interest to proceed, or send it back procedurally. He commented likely what would be gained by another appraisal would be lost in the price paid for the property. Mayor Haakenson commented the Wills had already paid the City $1525 for the street vacation. For Councilmember Dawson, Mr. Chave advised the initial appraisal was revised to be slightly higher at $3 per square foot for a total appraised value of $1680 and Council could require payment of half that amount. Mr. Snyder explained the Council could determine fair market value; the appraisal was to provide a basis for the public benefit. If the Council felt the value was higher, the Council could make that determination. Councilmember Dawson summarized the Council could find the property was worth more than the appraisal indicated. She noted the property owner had offered to pay $1400 and asked whether the Council could make a finding that the value was $3000 and require payment of $1400. Mr. Chave agreed that would be appropriate. Mr. Chave agreed the vacation would add value to the property and result in additional taxes for the City. Councilmember Moore referred to the applicant's indication that the plans were approved and then later an encroachment was identified. Mr. Chave recalled the building permit was approved when the plans showed it as a chimney which was allowed to encroach into the setback. When the structure was finished and inspected, it was no longer a chimney but livable space which was when the issue of encroachment arose. Councilmember Moore asked the difference between a vacation request and an encroachment permit. Mr. Chave answered the City would never allow part of a building to encroach, only things that were easily removable and would not be a hindrance should the City decide to develop the right-of-way. Mr. Snyder explained an encroachment permit was for something in the right-of-way, this was for encroachment into the setback. He noted a variance would not be permitted as it was due to the action of the owner/builder. Councilmember Wambolt pointed out this was an example of a builder putting too much home on too little land; there was no room for a deck on three sides of the home. Although the vacation was a small piece of land, 540 square feet, it represented more than 10% of the 4,792 square foot lot. He noted for tax purposes the property was appraised at $300,000 or $62.60 per square foot. This property was far more valuable to the buyer than the City and would significantly enhance the value of the property to the buyer. Mayor Haakenson remanded to Council for action. Councilmember Dawson found the vacation was in the best interest of the public. She also found based on the record that the value of the property was at least $3,000 and the property owner had offered to pay $1400. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO VACATE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ACCEPT THE OFFER OF $1400 FOR THE VACATED LAND. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 17, 2007 Page 4 Packet Page 137 of 357 Councilmember Wambolt spoke against the motion, finding it was not a fair return to the City and was a windfall for the property owner. He preferred to develop a fair market value using the usual method. Councilmember Dawson commented the City did not have a standard appraisal method. If the City obtained a second appraisal, the cost likely would exceed the amount the property owner would pay. She found it was not in the city's best interest to seek a second appraisal. She noted in the past the City has vacated property for substantially less than the appraised value; in one example property was appraised for $8,000 and the Council accepted payment of $1500. Councilmember Marin spoke against the motion, preferring to accept half the value determined by the appraisal due to the property owner acting in good faith. Council President Olson commented the proposed solution was win -win for the property owner and the City. Councilmember Wambolt commented this would motivate builders to continue building substandard PRDs and then wait for the City to bail them out. He pointed out this home would be far more expensive on a larger parcel. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT AND MARIN OPPOSED. Mayor Haakenson commented this was the first time an appraisal had been submitted using this methodology; all others had used the other method. He asked whether the Council could direct staff to require that methodology. Mr. Snyder advised staff could establish parameters for appraisals. He explained the appraisal was intended to provide a piece of evidence for the Council's decision; prior to requiring appraisals, the Council used a square footage percentage of assessed valuation. It was the consensus of the Council to have staff develop language regarding a standard appraisal practice. Mayor Haakenson urged the Wills to take action against their builder as the plans were approved for one thing and he built something else. end Code 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF Definitions: Fowl Domestic FEDMONDS CITY CODE, SECTION 5.05.010, DEFINITIONS, (M) RELATED TO DOMESTIC FOWL, AND THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 17.35.040. Councilmember Wambolt recalled the ordinance regarding cats was precipitated by cats attacking a neighbor's quail. A question then arose why quail were not included in the definition of domestic fowl which he recalled City Attorney Scott Snyder indicated was an oversight. A decision was made to hold a public hearing to invite public comment on the addition of quail to the definition of domestic fowl. For Councilmember Dawson, Mr. Snyder stated the definition of fowl had been in the ordinance for many years. Apparently the definition was developed using the most common domestic fowl, chickens, and did not include others. Councilmember Dawson asked what change was proposed to the ordinance. Mr. Snyder explained this type of ordinance was typically directed toward animals raised for food and kept in backyard coops versus an indoor animal. The definition of poultry was domestic fowl normally raised for eggs or meat and includes chickens, turkeys, ducks and geese, an inclusive rather than exclusive list. Councilmember Moore commented on her experience working on a ranch in Texas where they raised quail, turkeys, pheasants, chuckers, other fowl used for food and hunting. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 17, 2007 Page 5 Packet Page 138 of 357 AM-1090 5. Proposed Vacation: Portion of Right -of -Way Adjacent to 17008 - 77th PL W Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 07/17/2007 Submitted By: Rob Chave Time: 20 Minutes Department: Planning Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Public Hearing regarding the proposed vacation of a portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to 17008 - 77th Place West, Edmonds, Washington. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council to determine (1) whether the right-of-way should be vacated, and if so, (2) what the dollar amount paid to the City should be. Previous Council Action Council approved a resolution setting this hearing date. This lot is part of the Charlotte Gardens PRD which was approved by the City in 2005. Narrative The applicants, Donald & Teresa Wills, are requesting that the City vacate a portion of the right-of-way located adjacent to their lot, which is Lot 7 of the Charlotte Gardens PRD. The property is being sought to "increase my lot in a way that ... [would] release my property from a setback violation & allow deck construction." The property proposed for vacation is approximately 56 feet long and 10 feet deep running parallel to the the northern boundary of Lot 7. (See Exhibit 1 for vicinity maps and Exhibit 2 for application materials from the applicants.) Wick & Associates has submitted an appraisal of the property to be vacated. The initial appraisal, dated February 15, 2007, set a value of $2.50 per square foot for the property or a total of $1,350 for the 540 sq. ft. that the appraisal was based on. The applicants indicated that they were willing to pay the $1,400 that a vacation of 560 sq. ft. would require (see page 2 of Exhibit 2). Responding to questions from City staff, Wick & Associates submitted a supplemental letter increasing the appraisal to $3.00 per sq. ft., raising the value for the 540 sq. ft. vacation to $1,620 (this would in turn raise the valuation for the 560 sq. ft. requested by the applicant to $1,680). The original appraisal is attached as Exhibit 3, with the appraisal supplement included as Exhibit 4. The approach taken in the Wick appraisal differs from the approach staff has seen used in previous appraisals (see Exhibits 5 and 6 for examples). Here, the appraisal is based on the differential values of similarly sized and valued properties, calculating the appraised value based on the incremental difference in property valuations. Previous appraisals have first calculated the value of land on a per -square -foot basis, with that factor then applied to the specific parcel in question to arrive at a value. As already noted, the appraisal came up with a final valuation of $3.00 per sq. ft. Packet Page 139 of 357 If the appraisal had been done similar to other appraisals we have seen, the value could have been substantially higher (for example, $26-34 per sq. ft. based on the three comparables used in the initial appraisal). Nonetheless, even if the appraisal in the current case were to be higher, in the past the City Council has elected to reduce the price the City receives for a street vacation from an appraised amount. Note for example the ordinance passed by Council for the Pratt/Koon street vacation (File # ST-2004-103; see Exhibit 6). The Engineering Division reviewed the proposed street vacation and offered no objections (see memo in Exhibit 7). It remains for the Council to determine (1) whether the right-of-way should be vacated, and if so, (2) what the dollar amount paid to the City should be. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Vicinity Maps Link: Exhibit 2: Wills Application Link: Exhibit 3: Wick Appraisal Link: Exhibit 4: Wick Appraisal - Supplement Link: Exhibit 5: Appraisal Example 1 Link: Exhibit 6: Appraisal Example 2 w/ Ordinance Link: Exhibit 7: Engineering Memo Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/13/2007 08:12 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/13/2007 08:16 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/13/2007 08:25 AM APRV Form Started By: Rob Chave Final Approval Date: 07/13/2007 Started On: 07/11/2007 04:09 PM Packet Page 140 of 357 AM-1158 6. Closed Record Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's denial of a variance at 18600 Sound View Pl. Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 09/04/2007 Submitted By: Gina Coccia Submitted For: Gina Coccia Time: Department: Planning Type: Review Committee: Action: Information 45 Minutes Action Subject Title Closed Record Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's denial of a side yard setback variance at 18600 Sound View Pl. Appellant and Applicant: Dr. Raymond Bogaert (File Nos. V-2006-102 & AP-2007-4). Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Uphold the decision of the Hearing Examiner to deny the variance. Previous Council Action None. Narrative Christopher L. Thayer, on behalf of Dr. Raymond Bogaert, applied for variances to reduce the required north and south side setback for the construction of a new house from 10' to 8' and to reduce the required north side setback from 10' to 5' for the construction of a new 3-car garage (File V-2006-102). The variances were to also allow for the standard 30" eave encroachment into the setbacks. The property is located at 18600 Sound View Place in the Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone. A public hearing was held on July 19, 2007 and staff recommended denial of the variance request. The Hearing Examiner has denied the variance request, and the Applicant has appealed this decision to the City Council (File APL-2007-4). Exhibit 1 is the Applicant's appeal letter. Exhibit 2 is the verbatim transcript of the public hearing. Exhibit 3 is the Hearing Examiner's decision. Exhibit 4 is the staff report and attachments. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Appeal Letter Link: Exhibit 2: Verbatim Transcript Link: Exhibit 3: Hearing Examiner Decision Link: Exhibit 4: Staff Report & Attachments Form Routing/Status Packet Page 141 of 357 Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status City Clerk Linda Hynd 08/30/2007 03:26 PM APRV Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/30/2007 04:14 PM APRV Final Approval Linda Hynd 08/30/2007 04:47 PM APRV Form Started By: Gina Started On: 08/30/2007 10:43 Coccia AM Final Approval Date: 08/30/2007 Packet Page 142 of 357 1 2 3 4 5 6 71 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Christopher L. Thayer Larson, Hart & Shepherd, PLLC 600 University Street, Suite 1730 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel (206) 340-2008 Fax (206) 340-1962 Email: CT'hayer@L-H-S.com CITY OF EDMONDS i In Re: I The Matter of the Application of Dr. Raymond Bogaert (by and through counsel Christopher L. Thayer) For a Variance NO. V-2006-102 APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION (ECDC 20.105.020) Property: 18600 Soundview Place Edmonds, WA 98020 PURSUANT TO ECDC 20.105.020, Applicant Raymond Bogaert hereby appeals the Hearing Examiner's decision in the above -referenced matter, as follows: 20.105.020(A)(1): Decision appealed - Findings, Conclusions and Decision denying variance request Name of project applicant - Dr. Raymond Bogaert Date of decision - 8/2/07 (copy attached) 20.105.020(A)(2): Person appealing -- Dr. Raymond Bogaert Status - applicant PAc et Pa �e` T43,f- 4RING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON VARIA1�tCE REQUEST -1 Larson. Hart & Shepherd Aeon y+e k Law PLL% ONE UNION SQUARE 600 UNIVERSITY STREET. SUITE 1730 SEATTLE, WA 98101 TEL 206.340.2008 FAX 206.340.1962 INFO@L-H-S.COM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 20.105.020(A)(3): Reasons for appeal - decision is inconsistent with City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and applicant satisfied Elements required for granting of variance under ECDC 20.85.010 as more fully set forth below 20.105(A)(4): Persons to be notified - consistent with public hearing held on 7/19/07 BASES FOR APPEAL A. Grant or denial of applications for variance are determined by the six factors set forth in ECDC 20.85.010. Applicant respectfully directs the Council to Christopher L. Thayer's letter of April 9, 2007 which sets forth in detail Applicant's variance request and how Applicant satisfies the requirements of ECDC 20.85.010. B. Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Hearing Examiner's Conclusions. The Hearing Examiner issued three conclusions in her Findings, Conclusions and Decision (8/2/07), Applicant respectfully submits the Hearing Examiner erred as follows (as provided for in the Findings, Conclusion and Decision page 8): 1. The requested variance would be consistent with the zoning ordinance in light of the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. The Hearing Examiner concluded (conclusion #1) that Applicant's request would be inconsistent with the applicable zoning ordinance and its policy of phasing out nonconforming uses. The very basis for authorizing variances is in Larson Hart & Shepherd Att.—aya at Law PLLC ONE UNION SQUARE 600 UNIVERSITY STREET, SUITE 1730 'I%6L10FFo ARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON SEATTLE, WA 98101 FAX 206.340.1962 VARIANCE REQUEST - 2 NFO@11L-H S COM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 recognition that certain properties should be granted exceptions to the applicable zoning ordinance - so long as the property satisfies the 6-part test of ECDC 20.85.010 - because of the unusual features or circumstances of the specific properties. The Hearing Examiner in this matter appears to suggest by her conclusion that any granting of variance to a zoning ordinance "would in effect constitute a rezone." Presumably this argument could be made as to any variance request and would render the variance application process entirely moot. The underlying property is nonconforming for an RS 12 zoned lot. It is only 50 feet wide, instead of the minimum 80 feet wide. The intended ten foot side yard variance envisioned for a standard RS 12 lot, was not designed or crafted with a 50 foot wide lot in mind (resulting in a 30 foot wide buildable area). Applicant is not requesting a rezone, he is merely asking for an exception to a rule that was imposed on his nonconforming lot so that he can enjoy the same rights and uses as other landowners in the neighborhood. ECDC 16.10.010 defines the purpose of RS zones and provides - The general purposes of the residential, or R, zones are: A. To provide for areas of residential uses at a range of densities consistent with public hearth and safety and the adopted comprehensive plan; AryVA&Qf BRING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON VARIANCE REQUEST - 3 Larson Hart & Shepherd i Attomeys at Law PLLC ONE UNION SQUARE 600 UNIVERSITY STREET, SUITE 1730 SEATTLE, WA 98101 TEL 206.340.2008 FAX 206.340.1962 INFO@L-H-S.COM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 B- Any growth or development should strive to preserve for itself and its neighbors the following values: 1. Light (including direct sunlight), 2. Privacy, 3. Views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features, 4. Freedom from air, water, noise and visual pollution.. . ECDC 16.10.000. A review of the plans and elevations submitted by Applicant demonstrate that all of these values will be honored and retained by the proposed structure and will be best served by granting the proposed variance. The proposed design includes extensive use of glass and Plexiglas and/or near transparent rail systems (including the deck area), to preserve natural light. The existing yard is actually quite dark and shady, given the extensive overgrown vegetation and large fir trees. The proposed design will allow more sunlight, while preserving the natural feel of the property. The neighbors' privacy will not be noticeably impacted. The current vegetation and layout of the properties makes for a very private setting. This will be preserved or replaced with equivalent vegetation by the proposed construction. Views of the neighbors will not be impacted as the neighbors views to the north and south are currently obstructed by existing vegetation. r..FjW�.RING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON VARIANCE REQUEST - 4 Larson Hari & Shepherd i Attorneys at Law PLLC ONE UNION SQUARE 600 UNIVERSITY STREET, SUITE 1730 SEATTLE, WA 981o1 TEL 206.340.2008 FAX 206.340.1962 INFO@L-H-S.COM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 The proposed development will not have any known material impact on air, water, noise or visual pollution. Applicant respectfully submits that the Hearing Examiner unfairly placed too much emphasis on ECDC 17.40.020(F), which would require (absent a variance) the Bogaerts to build a conforming structure in the event their existing structure were destroyed. This argument completely sidesteps the variance application process and ignores the reasoning behind Applicant's request. The Hearing Examiner notes that "[a]pproval of the requested variance based on surrounding nonconforming development would frustrate the City Council's purpose in enacting the current zoning ordinance. . . ." Again, with all due respect, the Hearing Examiner's conclusion is in error and based upon flawed logic. The RS 12 zoning restrictions were designed for conforming lots of a certain size. To restrict a property owner from reasonably developing his or her property, in a manner that is otherwise entirely consistent with the imposed zoning restrictions, merely because it seeks very minor variances necessary as a result of a nonconforming lot size, would constitute an unfair and unreasonable restriction on the property owner's use and enjoyment of his or her property. Applicant respectfully submits that this is not the intended purpose or goal of the City of Edmonds zoning ordinances. f%%ln,KARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON VARRI CE REQUEST - 5 Larson Hart & Shepherd : AtL.=n.Y at L,- PLLC ONE UNION SQUARE 600 UNIVERSITY STREET, SUITE 1130 SEATTLE, WA 98101 TEL 206.340.2008 FAX 206.340.1962 INFOt�t-N-S.COM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2. A variance is necessary in order to allouj Applicant to enjoy the same rights as other property ou?ners in the neighborhood. The Hearing Examiner (conclusion #2) concluded that Applicant and his neighbors have the right to either retain their existing nonconforming (encroaching) structures, or build new structures in compliance with the RS 12 restrictions. The Hearing Examiner concluded that, because Applicant's neighbors face the same restrictions on development, the existence of nonconforming structures on neighboring properties does not constitute a basis for granting a variance. This is not true, as the majority of the other property owners in Applicant's neighborhood do not have nonconforming (specifically narrow) lots. It is this very feature which constrains and restricts Applicant's ability to use and develop his property in a reasonable and unobtrusive manner. The Hearing Examiner chose to disregard the prior decisions on similar variance requests which were submitted with the Sogaerts' application. Applicant respectfully submits that the Hearing Examiner erred by not considering these prior decisions. While these prior decisions may not constitute binding authority, at a bare minimum they are at least persuasive authority and should be considered as guidance as to how variance applications and code enforcement have been historically treated. Certainly a property owner should be able to rely on consistent enforcement and avoid arbitrary denials of routine variance requests. A review of ,AF �A� Qg fflg ►RING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON VARIANCE REQUEST - 6 FH Shepherd Hart & Shepher Attorneys at Law PLLC ONE UNION SQUARE 600 UNIVERSITY STREET,.SUITE 1730 SEATTLE, WA 98101 TEL 206.340.2008 FAX:206.340.1962 INFO@L-H-S.COM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 the prior Hearing Examiner decisions submitted with the Bogaerts' variance request, makes it abundantly clear that it is very common, if not the norm, for Hearing Examiners to take into consideration whether neighboring properties have encroachments into the setbacks in determining whether a requested setback variance is warranted in a particular situation. This includes additions to existing structures that require new variances on nonconforming properties. Applicant submits that the Hearing Examiner erred when she declined to consider the prior hearing examiner rulings in reaching her decision. It is respectfully submitted that the Hearing Examiner also erred when she concluded that the Comprehensive Plan "favors" retaining the existing nonconforming structures. Under the heading "Residential Development", Section B, the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan provides in part: "Goal. High quality residential development which his appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted." Section 131 expressly provides: Encourage those building custom home to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. Section B3 also requires that new construction "minimize encroachment" of 18 11 the views of existing structures. Far from discouraging development (and therefore 19 II removal of existing structures), the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan actually 20 11 encourages new development so long as it advances the goals set forth in the Plan. 21 Larson Hart & Sheplierd i Atto-ys at I,— PLLC ONE UNION SQUARE 600 UNIVERSITY STREET, SUITE 1730 l' .iQY .RING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON SEATTLE, WA 98101 TEL 206.340.2008 FAX 206.390.1962 VARIANCE REQUEST - 7 INFO@L.H-S.coM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Applicant respectfully submits that his proposal is the minimum variance which will allow Applicant to enjoy the same rights and uses as his neighbors, especially given the fact that Applicant's property is a nonconforming lot under RS 12 and the zoning restrictions imposed thereby. 3. The variance request satisfies the requirements of ECDC 20.85.010 and the code and Comprehensive Plan do alloza consideration of aesthetic features. The Hearing Examiner concluded that Applicant "does not satisfy all criteria established in ECDC 20.85.010". For the reasons set forth above, and as set forth in the underlying application materials, Applicant disagrees and believes that the Hearing Examiner erred in reaching this sweeping conclusion. Moreover, the Hearing Examiner stated that she could not "grant variances for the purpose of achieving more aesthetically pleasing development." With all due respect, this conclusion is in error. The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan specifically promotes residential development which includes "architectural lines which harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and development." Comprehensive Plan, B1- In addition, Applicant's proposed structure preserves the goals of the RS 12 zoning as set forth above (sunlight, views, etc.) - which are all aesthetic features. Applicant respectfully submits that aesthetic features must be considered in conjunction with a variance requests - otherwise a significant purpose of the zoning code would be entirely frustrated. Moreover, Applicant's proposed structure is not only more aesthetically pleasing it is also JiY5BRING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON REQUEST - 8 Larson. Hart & Shepherd Attorneys at Lam PLLC ONE UNION SQUARE 800 UNIVERSITY STREET, SUITE 1730 SEATTLE, WA 98101 TEL 206.340.2008 FAX 206.340.1962 INFO@L-H-S.COM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 reduces the "massing" of the structure in the potential building envelope in an effort to accommodate Applicant's neighbors. CONCLUSION Applicant is proposing to build a new residence that will require only very nominal variances of the side setback requirements. These variances will allow Applicant to construct a residence that is consistent with the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and which will preserve and honor the values set forth in the applicable zoning code. Applicant's property is a nonconforming lot under RS 12. Applicant's neighbors all currently have structures which intrude into the setback. Applicant is merely seeking the ability to enjoy and use his property in the same manner afforded to his neighbors. Applicant submits that the proposed variance is the minimum variance necessary when all of the various circumstances are considered and respectfully requests that the Council reverse the Hearing Examiner's findings and, jd conclusions and grant the requested variances. DATED this / day of August, 2007. N ULNRI& SHEPIiERD, PLLC t` Christopher L. `$hayerWVSBA #: Counsel for Applicant Raymond XFA' Qf &I RING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON VARIANCE REQUEST - 9 L Larson Hart & Acp6erd pAttomeys at Law PLLC ONE UNION SQUARE 600 UNIVERSITY STREET, SUITE 1730 SEATTLE, WA 98101 TEL 206.340.2008 FAX 206.340.1962 W FO@L-H-S.COM CITY OF EDODS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 99020 - (425) 771-0220 -.FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER In the Matter of the Application of ) Christopher Thayer, on behalf of ) Dr. Raymond Bogaert ) For a Variance ) NO. V-2006-102 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR SUMMARY OF DECISION The request for a variance from the side yard setback requirements of the RS-12 zone to accommodate a new single-family residence and a new detached. garage on the subject property at 18600 Sound View Place, in Edmonds, Washington is DENIED. SUMMARY OF RECORD Request: Christopher Thayer, on behalf of Dr. Raymond Bogaert (Applicant), requested a variance from the side' yard setback requirements of the RS-12 zone to allow construction of a new single- family residence. The requested variance would reduce portions of the north and south side yard setbacks from the required ten to eight feet to accommodate the residence and a portion of the a portion of the south side yard setback from ten feet to five feet to accommodate a detached garage. The subject property is located at 18600 Sound View Place, in Edmonds, Washington. Hearing Date: The City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner held an open record hearing on the request on July 19, 2007. The Hearing Examiner conducted a site view prior to the hearing. Testimony: At the open record hearing the following individuals presented testimony under oath: 1. Gina Coccia, Planner, City of Edmonds 2. Kathleen Taylor, Associate Planner, City of Edmonds 3. Christopher Thayer, Applicant Representative, Larson Hart & Shepherd 4. Steve Rising, Applicant Representative, TCA Architecture 5. 6_ Bill Wilson Vicki Haynes 7. Walter Yeager 8. .roan Swift 9. Ron Nations 10. Charles Greenberg, Attorney for Bill and Nicole Wilson ORIG, Findings, Conclusions and Decision Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds Bogaert Variance, No. V-2006-102 page 1 of 8 Packet Page 152 of 357 Exhibits: The following exhibits were admitted into the record: A. Staff Report dated July 12, 2007, with the following attachments: 1. City of Edmonds Planning Division Staff Report dated September 15, 2006, with attachments: a. Zoning vicinity map b. Land use application, dated received August 3, 2006 c. Applicant Declarations, dated August 2, 2006 d. Site Section and elevations (graphics), prepared by TCA Architecture e. Topography: graphic, prepared by TCA Architecture f. Aerial photograph g. Letter submitted by Charles Greenberg, Attorney, on behalf of Bill and Nicole Wilson, dated September 14, 2006 2. Applicant revised submittal letter, dated April 9, 2007, with attachments: a. Thirteen black/white copies of 8x11 photographs of existing development one --site and of existing neighboring structures b. V-02-253, City of Edmonds Findings, Conclusions, and Decision c. V-02-150, City of Edmonds Findings, Conclusions, and Decision d. V-2000-42, City of Edmonds Findings, Conclusions, and Decision e. V-2000-92, City of Edmonds Findings, Conclusions, and Decision f. V-01-57, City of Edmonds Findings, Conclusions, and Decision g. V-00-0141, City of Edmonds Findings, Conclusions, and Decision h. V-02-235/V-02-236, City of Edmonds Findings, Conclusions, and Decision 3. Revised Site Plans, prepared by TCA Architecture, dated received May 8, 2007 4. Site Sections, prepared by TCA Architecture, dated received May 8, 2007 5. Revised upper/lower floor plans, prepared by TCA Architecture 6. Proposed site plan from application BLD-2007-0699, at 18720 Sound View Place 7. Affidavit of posting and mailing, dated July 5, 2007 8. Comment letters: a. Letter from Richard Gifford, Attorney, on behalf of Vicki Haynes, dated ` September 20, 2006 b. Email from Paul Lippert, dated September 20, 2006 9. Robblee Letter, dated July 13, 2007 10. Greenberg letter, dated July 17, 2007 Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds ,4t ,r,ar0 #o- V-2006--102 Page 2 of 8 11. Vicki Haynes submissions, including: a. Haynes .letter, dated July 17, 2007 b. Haynes letter, dated September 13, 2006 c. Letter to Vicki Haynes from Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc., Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting, dated September 20, 2006 Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted in the record, the Hearing Examiner enters the following findings and conclusions: FINDINGS The Applicant requested a variance from the side yard setback requirements of the RS-12 zone to allow construction of a new single-family residence. The requested variance would reduce portions of the north and south side yard setbacks from the required ten feet to eight feet to accommodate the residence and a portion of the north side yard setback from ten feet to five feet to accommodate a detached garage. The subject property is located at 18600 Sound View Place, in Edmonds, Washington.' Exhibit A, Attachments 2, Testimony of Mr. Thayer. 2. The Comprehensive Plan designation of the subject property is Single Family -- Resource. City staff and the Applicant identified the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies as being applicable to the proposal: Residential Development Section, Goal B: B.I. 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. B.2. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additional to existing structures. B.3. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible. BA Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation, and drainage. Exhibit A, Attachment 1, page 9. ' The legal description of the subject property is a portion of Section 13, Township 27 North; Range 3 East, W.M.; the property is also known as Tax Account # 00434600201701 and 00434600201000. Exhibit A Attachment 1. b Land Use Application. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing &arninerfor City of Edmonds Bogaert Variance, No. V-2006--102 page 3 of Packet Page 154 of 357 3. The subject property is located in the Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone. Exhibit A, page 2. The general purposes of the residential zones are to provide for areas of residential uses at a range of densities consistent with public health and safety and the adopted comprehensive plan and to regulate development to preserve for itself and its neighbors light (including direct sunlight), privacy, views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features, and freedom from air, water, noise and visual pollution. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.00.010. The RS-12 zone requires a minimum lot width of 80 feet. The minimum required street and rear yard .setbacks are 25 feet, and the minimum side yard setbacks are 10 feet. The maximum structure height is 25 feet. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.20.030. 4. The subject property is 15,737 square feet in area. It is 50 feet wide (north to south) by approximately 315 feet long (east to west), with 50 feet of frontage on Sound View Place.' It is considered a legally nonconforming lot because it was created before the City's zoning standards were applied to the property at the time of annexation in 1961.3 In addition to being 30 feet narrower than the minimum lot width required by the RS-12 zone, the subject property is encumbered by a required setback from a steep slope. The approximately 32-1oot slope, adjacent to the west, meets the City's. definition of landslide hazard area and is regulated by the City'. s Environmentally Critical Areas ordinance (ECDC Chapter 23.40). Exhibit A, Attachment 1, pages 3-4, Attachment 2, Revised Submittal, page 2, Attachment Le. 5. The subject property slopes gently downward to the west from Sound View Place. It contains a fairly level yard, which drops abruptly down to the west near the steep slope. The site is vegetated with mature evergreen trees, fruit and ornamental trees, a large shrub or hedge in the west of the existing rear yard, and other landscaping typical of residential development. Existing development on -site includes a single-family residence set back 5.4 feet from the north property line and 8.5 feet from the south property line. An existing detached carport is located directly on the south property fine. These structures are considered legally nonconforming because they were built prior to annexation.' Exhibit A, Attachment Le; Testimony of Mr. Thayer. z The subject property fronts Sound View Place on its southeastern boundary and faces Puget Sound with its northwestern boundary. Exhibit A, Attachment Le. For ease of discussion, this decision will refer to the Sound View Place frontage as the east property line or boundary, the end nearest Puget Sound as the west boundary, and the long property lines as "north" and south" instead of "northeastern" and "southwestern". ' A nonconforming lot is one which met applicable zoning ordinance standards as to size, width, depth and other dimensional regulations at the date on which it was created but which, due to the passage of a zoning ordinance, the amendment thereof, or the annexation of property to the City, no longer conforms to the current provisions of the zoning ordinance. ECDC 17.40.030.A. ' A nonconforming building is one which once met bulk zoning standards and the site developmentstandards applicable to its.construcdon, but which no longer conforms to such standards due to the enactment or amendment of the zoning ordinance of the city of Edmonds or the application of such ordinance in the case of a structure annexed to the city. ECDC I Z40.020.A. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds V 2006-102 page 4 of 8 6. Surrounding development consists of similarly legally nonconforming single-family residential development. Many of the surrounding lots are narrower than the 80-foot minimum required by the current zoning standards. The residences abutting the subject property to the north and south both have structures that encroach into the I Moot side yard setbacks adjacent to the Applicant's property. Exhibit A, Attachment 1. e; Testimony of Mr. Thayer. 7. The application originally filed in August 2006 requested a five-foot reduction in the north side yard setback for construction of the residence and detached garage and a two - foot reduction in the south side yard setback for the residence. Exhibit A, Attachment 1. b, Application. Planning Staff recommended denial of the variance request and the Applicant's neighbors opposed the proposal. Exhibit A, Attachment 1; Attachment Lg; Attachment 8, Comment letters. Based on these responses, the Applicant revised the proposal such that the five-foot reduction request only applied to the detached garage and the requested reduction for the residence was two feet to either side, leaving an eight -foot setback from both the north and south property lines. Testimony of Mr. Thayer; Exhibit A, Attachments 2 and 3. At hearing, the Applicant requested that the original variance request of August 2006 be approved, and in the alternative requested that the revised request be approved. Testimony of Mr. Thayer; Exhibit A, page 2. 8. The Applicant proposes to remove the existing structures on -site and replace them with a new single-family residence and a new detached three -car garage located closer to the west end of the parcel.5 The Applicant retained an architectural firm to design, and subsequently to revise, the proposed residence such that it would be set partially into the hillside in order to reduce the overall mass of the structures, particularly the garage. The proposed design is the intended to reduce the visual impact of the new structures on the views of neighbors. The proposal includes the use of glass and near transparent rail systems for decking to preserve natural light. Much of the existing vegetation would be preserved or replaced to maintain current levels of privacy between closely placed homes. Exhibit A, Attachment 2, Revised submittal; Testimony of Mr Rising, Testimony of Mr. Thayer 9. By way of demonstrating the limited impact the proposed structures could have, the Applicant submitted visual depictions of the structure that could be built on -site without a variance. Exhibit 1, Attachment 4, Site Sections. The Applicant conceded that no variance is required to allow residential development of the site, but argued that the proposed design incorporating the requested variance would be more aesthetically pleasing, would be more compatible with new development in the vicinity, and would be consistent with the surrounding legally nonconforming buildings. Exhibit A, Attachment 2, page 11; Testimony of Mr Thayer, Testimony of Mr. Rising. The Applicant argues that variance approval would simply afford him the -same privileges enjoyed neighbors. whose structures encroach into the required side yard setbacks_ Exhibit A, Attachment 2, s One neighbor contends that the Applicant intends to retain the existing two -car carport for use in addition to the . proposed three -gar garage. Exhibit A, Attachment Ila, page 3. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds Bogaert Variance, No. V-2006-102 page S of 8 . Packet Page 156 of 357 page 9. The Applicant offered several previous hearing examiner approvals of variances from side yard setbacks. Exhibit A, Attachments 2. b - 2. h. . 10. City staff reviewed the variance application and recommended denial. The recommendation was based on Staffs analysis that if the application fails to meet one of the variance criteria, no variance can be granted. In Staff's opinion, the application does not satisfy the last criterion because the minimum variance necessary to allow the Applicant the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning is no variance at all. Staff offers in support of its analysis a building permit application for a new single-family residence at 18720 Sound View Place, which is also a legally nonconforming lot only 50 feet wide. The proposed residence would be built without a variance from the 10-foot side yard setbacks required by the RS-12 zone. In addition, Staff noted that a two -car garage would be consistent with existing garages in the neighborhood and could be designed such that it would not require the five-foot reduction in the side yard setback. Testimony of Ms Coccia; Exhibit A, page 3; Exhibit A, Attachment 6. 11. The open record public hearing on the requested variance was advertised consistent with the requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Exhibit A, Attachment 7, Testimony of Ms Coccia. The City received several public comments both for and against the requested variance_ Those in favor of the requested variance cited the narrowness of the lot and the prevalence of reduced side yard setbacks on surrounding lots. Exhibit A, Attachment 9; Testimony of Ms Swift. Comments opposing the requested variance cited adverse impacts to light, privacy,. view, and the use of space on adjoining properties, and concerns that the design of the home would not be consistent with the more traditional designs of existing homes in the area. Exhibit A, Attachment 8, Lippert Email and Gifford letter; Attachment 10, Greenberg letter; Attachment H, Haynes submittal; Testimony of Mr. Wilson; Testimony of Ms Haynes; Testimony of Mr Yeager; Testimony of Mr. Nations, • Testimony of Mr Greenberg. 12. The Applicant offered a visual depiction of views that would be retained by adjoining residences if the requested variance were granted and the proposed structures built according to the submitted plans. Exhibit A, Attachment 3, Revised Site Plans— see view arrows. Public comment included testimony objecting to the credibility of the retained views depicted in the Applicant's submittal. However, much the view -related opposition testimony pertained to the Applicant's intention to relocate the residence closer to the west end of the site, which is not relevant to the variance application Testimony of Mr. Wilson, Testimony of Ms Haynes, Testimony of Mr. Yeager, Testimony of Mr. Nations. 13. If the Applicant choseto remodel the existing residence and carport, the current nonconforming setbacks could be maintained. However, all new development — whether replacement of or addition to existing structures — is required to comply with current zoning standards, including side yard setbacks. Testimony of Ms. Taylor; Testimony of Ms. Coccia; ECDC 17.40.020. F. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds Ao aert Variance, No. V-2006-102 c et Page 157 of 357 page 6 of 8 CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction: The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide variance requests pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.100.010(B). Criteria. for Variance Review: Pursuant to ECDC 20.85.010, the Hearing Examiner may not grant a variance unless all of the following findings can be made: 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. 1. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses as 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. 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 PIan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan; D. Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of 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 the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds Bogaert Variance, No. V-2006--102 page 7 of 8 Packet Page 158 of 357 Conclusions Based on Findings l . Approval of the requested variance would not be consistent with the zoning ordinance. The existing nonconforming setbacks enjoyed by the structures on the subject property and on surrounding properties predate annexation of the neighborhood to the City of Edmonds. The zoning ordinance expressly establishes a policy of phasing out nonconforming uses. Pursuant to the zoning code, if a nonconforming building is destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal to 50 percent or more of its replacement cost at the. time of destruction, said building shall not be reconstructed except in the conformance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. ECDC 17.40.02aF. If the Applicant lost the existing residence to natural disaster, he would still be required to rebuild consistent with current zoning standards. ,Approval of the requested variance based on surrounding nonconforming development would frustrate the City Council's purpose in enacting the current zoning ordinance and would in effect constitute a rezone. The application does not satisfy the variance criterion established in ECDC 20.85.01 O.D. Findings Nos. 3, 5, 8, and 13. 2. No variance is necessary to allow the Applicant to enjoy the same rights as those that would be afforded to surrounding properties. The Applicant and all neighbors in the RS-12 zone enjoy the options of retaining existing nonconforming structures, a course favored by the Comprehensive Phan, or redeveloping their properties consistent with the zoning code. Previous variance decisions do not constitute evidence or precedent in the consideration of the current application. Legal nonconformity is not a property right to which new development is entitled. The minimum variance necessary to allow the Applicant to enjoy a new home on his property is no variance_ The application does not satisfy the variance criterion established in ECDC 20.85.010.F. Findings Nos. 9, 10, and 13. 3. Because the application does not satisfy all criteria established in ECDC 20.85.010, the variance must be denied. The zoning code does not confer discretion on the Examiner to grant variances for the purpose of achieving more aesthetically pleasing development. ECED 17:40.020; 20.85.010. DECISION Based on the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request for a variance to reduce portions of the north and south side yard setbacks at 18500 Sound View Place, in Edmonds, Washington is DENIED. DECIDED this 2nd day of August 2007. Toweill Rice Taylor LLC City of Edmonds Hearing Examiners B: Sharon A. Rice Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examinerfor City of Edmonds Fa°gePagFAP V-2006-102 page 8 of 8 CITY OF EDMONDS VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS OF HEARING EXAMINER HEARING File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2007 Ms. Rice: If you haven't already; and you would like a copy of the decision, make sure you've signed at the sign in sheet. Great. Good afternoon, thanks everyone for being here. My name is Sharon Rice, I'm a member of the firm, Cole, Rice, Taylor. Our firm has been appointed by the Edmonds City Council to provide land use hearing examiner services for land use applications and appeals in the City. As a presiding official today, I have jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter on today's agenda pursuant to the City's code and State statutes. Ms. Rice: Before we begin, I just want to go over some procedures to make sure we all understand our mutual rights and responsibilities, myself included. First, the number one thing to remember in all land use applications is that the applicant bears the burden of proof. And this is a legal term that means it is the applicant's responsibility to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the application satisfies the criteria for approval under City code. And today, we are hearing a variance application, and those criteria are in the Edmonds Community Development at Chapter 20.85. We'll go over those in detail in the course of the hearing. Ms. Rice: The second thing to remember is that as examiner, I am limited in my findings to the universe of evidence that's offered into the record. I literally can't go outside the record to rely on any facts or evidence at all. And my conclusions and decisions and decision have to flow from my findings, and that means that all evidence I can rely on has to be offered before the record closes. Typically, the record closes at the end of the hearing, and I expect that to happen today. So if there's something that's not here that you think I need, you need to bring it to my attention before I close the hearing today. That's important because, generally, no new evidence is admitted on appeal, at any level. Just keep that in mind. Ms. Rice: Another important thing to know is that I will not issue a decision in this matter today. State law and City code require my decision to be issued in writing. It's going to be issued in the format called findings of fact and conclusions of law; it's very orderly and detailed. And by reading the document you will be able to see what facts I believe are relevant to the application, what facts I believe lead to the conclusions that are necessary by applying those facts to the criteria, and my decision should make sense following that format. By City code, I have 10 working days after close of the record to issue that decision. So if the record closes today, you can expect a decision on August 2"d. If it doesn't close today, it will close 10 days after the close of the record, I'm sorry. The decision will be issued 10 days after the close of the record, whatever date that is. Ms. Rice: And today, as far as order of presentation, I will hear from the City staff first, and they will present their analysis of whether or not the application satisfies criteria for approval. After that, we will hear from the applicant, again, who has the burden, and the applicant will have an opportunity to correct, amend, contradict, suggest, agree, with anything that's been said by the City. After that, we will hear from members of the public. Everyone whose here will have a chance to testify if they wish, so please keep in mind your turn is coming. And please do afford the current speaker the same courtesy you wish to be afforded when it is your turn. Ms. Rice: Also, testimony at land use hearings is given under oath, and so at this time I'm going to administer a group oath. This is for the purpose of enhancing the credibility of the record, you know, anybody whose thinking about sitting, this will scare you into telling the truth. If at this time you would please raise your right hand if you intend to testify. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony given here today will be true? If so, say I do. Thank you very much, and the record will reflect that they are all under oath. Packet Page 160 of 357 Ms. Rice: Okay, are there any questions on the procedures I have laid out? Pretty standard stuff. I will now call to order the public land use hearing on File Number V-2006-102, which is the application of Christopher Thayer on behalf of Dr. Randy Bogart, for variances to reduce the required north side setback for a house from 10 to 8 feet. And the required north, hum, that this says, but I know we're talking about north and south side setbacks. So one from 10 to 8 and one from 10 to 5. Oh, there it is, and also one from 10 to 8, the south setback. And also to allow the 30-inch ease encroachment that is standard and to the setbacks as reduced. Property located at 18600 Sound View Place in Edmonds. That parcel is zoned single-family residential RS-12. We have an applicant representative. If I could at this point have the applicant representative and applicant introduce themselves, and then the staff introduce themselves, and then we'll clarify who this other person is sitting over here. Mr. Thayer: My name is Chris Thayer. I'm here on behalf of Dr. Bogart. Ms. Rice: I'm sorry. Thank you for standing, but if could have you seated and speak into the microphone because we are recording everything today. Mr. Rising: My name is Steve Rising. I'm the Bogart's architect for the proposed project. Ms. Rice: You're all together? Yeah. You're not some stranger who's just moved up to the front of the room. And for the City we have... Ms. Coccia: I'm Gina Coccia, I'm a planner in the Planning Division. Ms. Rice: Great. Ms. Taylor: Kathleen Taylor, associated planner. Ms. Rice: Okay. I think just before we start, I want to make note that in advance of the hearing I was given a packet of information. It involves a staff report dated July 12, 2007. Attached to the staff report are 8 attachments. Those include a staff report from a previous hearing on a similar or related application dated 9/15/2006, and then various revised statements from the applicant, revised site plans, some site sections, upper and lower floor plans, neighbor's proposed site plan regarding the application BLD-2007-0699, and affidavit of posting, and also some comment letters. Those are attached to the existing staff report, numbered 1 through 8. In advance of the hearing, Ms. Coccia offered additional letters. Did you say there are three? Ms. Coccia: That's correct. Ms Rice: So what I'm going to do with those letters, I'm going to introduce them by names. Everything else is listed by name in the staff report on Page 7, but right now, I have three new letters, and 1 will number them. Exhibit 1, Attachment 9, will be the July 13th letter from Neil and Jeannie Robblee. Exhibit 1, Attachment 10, will be a letter from Triad Law Group signed by Charles Greenberg and dated July 17th. And Attachment 11 to Exhibit 1 will be a letter dated July 17th from Vicky Haynes, and it has also attached to it a letter dated September 13, 2006 and another letter dated September 20, 2006. All of those will be Attachment 11 to the staff report, which is Exhibit 1. Before we go any further, are there any objections from the parties to anything that's been offered as exhibits? Mr. Thayer: I know I've never seen them before. Ms. Rice: Okay, do we have copies for the applicant? Ms. Coccia: Sure there's one copy available right now, and she just handed to me 10 minutes ago. Ms. Rice: If you have additional copies, we should provide one to the applicant. And actually, just for the general rule, when you come to hearings, try to bring three copies of everything because there's one for the official record, one for the examiner to mark up and then one for the other party. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Packet Page 161 of 357 Ms Haynes: Excuse me, I made three copies, and I have some additional ones if that would be helpful. Ms. Rice: Okay, so we have ... The applicant has a copy, and the examiner has a copy, and does City staff have copy. Ms. Coccia: Yes. Ms. Rice: So you've got them all. You, in fact, brought extras. Excellent. Well, if you'd like, you can pass your letter around or you can put it over there by the sign in sheet as people can read it as well. Is that the Haynes letter? Ms. Coccia: Yes. Ms. Rice: Okay great. So that's Attachment 11 to Exhibit 1. Any objections to the exhibits are offered? I see Mr. Thayer is reviewing the letter quickly. It is a public hearing, and public comment is allowed, so as far as admissibility, I don't know if you would have any objection to it. You might want to respond to it during your presentation, and that would be fine. Mr. Thayer: No objection. Ms. Rice: Great, then we will admit them all. And we'll start with staff presentation. Ms. Coccia: I'm Gina Coccia, I'm a planner in the Planning Division. Next to me is associated planner, Kathleen Taylor, she is currently a consultant for the Planning Division, but she's worked here for many years and she's processed many variance applications, so I'd like to have her here today in case there's some questions that maybe she could field. Ms. Coccia: First, the staff report was mailed out as noted. We received three public comment letters, and they were all entered into the record. I will provide a brief introduction on this project because I know the applicant would like to make a more thorough presentation. We're going to try to hook up his lap top later. So let me make sure the site plan is up on the overhead so everyone knows where we're talking about. The property is located at 18600 Sound View Place in an RS-12 zone, and the applicant has applied for a variance to reduce the normally 10-foot side setback along the north and south property lines to a distance of either 5 or 8 feet. The original request was for a 5-foot side setback on both of these property lines. The revised request is for an 8-foot setback on the south property line for the new house and an 8-foot setback along the north property line for the new house. And also a 5-foot setback along the north property line for the new detached garage. Also, eves are typically permitted to be repeated in the setback area a distance of two 30 inches, and they have asked that the eves also be permitted in the setback area. Ms. Coccia: Staff has made a recommendation to deny the original variance application, which requested 5-foot setbacks. At the applicant's request, the hearing was continued to a later date so that he could work with the neighbors on a solution that would more adequately address their concerns. The applicant revised the application and has submitted several graphics which illustrate what they could with and without a variance. I'm going to put up the elevations that show the new sketches. The applicant would still like the hearing examiner to consider the original 5-foot setback variance request. Staff originally recommended denial of the variance, and even with the revised application, staff still recommends denial of the variance. Ms. Coccia: A variance is a method by which citizens are granted modifications from the strict application of specific provisions in the zoning code due to a hardship beyond the control of the applicant. In this case, the applicant has requested a reduction of the regular 10-foot side setback that's required for all structures in the RS-12 zone. Pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code, Chapter 20.85 for variances, note it says no variance may be approved unless all of the following findings can be made. There are six, and I'll go through all of them. Ms. Coccia: Special circumstances. It says that because of special circumstances related 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 in public structures. And this is set forth in ECDC Chapter 17.000.030. And environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats. 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 zoning Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Packet Page 162 of 357 ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make a more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property. So staff agrees that due to the slope and the narrow lot width of 50 feet, an argument could be made that special circumstances may exist on the property. Ms. Coccia: Next criteria is special privilege. That the approval of a variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations of the other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. So basically, if you can meet all of the other criteria, this one takes care of itself in that it wouldn't be a special privilege. But since staff didn't feel that this project met all of the other variance criteria, then they couldn't have met this one. This is an area that was annexed into the City of Edmonds in 1961. The zoning code was established in 1956, so this explains why some of the homes in the area appear to be located close to property lines. Ms. Coccia: Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This needs to be found. The original staff report notes that one of the comprehensive plan policies encourages those building custom homes to design and construct custom homes that harmonize with the surroundings. And another policy that they encroachment of views should be minimized. The applicant will argue that the views will remain the same, and then they have some illustrations that I've included as attachments. So they can go over these. Ms. Coccia: Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of a variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located. This just means that the variance would have to be approved for the proposed residence to be in compliance with the zoning ordinance, setbacks. Ms. Coccia: Number 5. Not detrimental. That the variance as approved or conditionally approved would not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or ?? to the property or improves in the vicinity in the same zone. The staff report notes that the views that the neighbors currently enjoy would be compromised, and staff felt that would be detrimental. Ms. Coccia: Minimum variance. This says that the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. I'm going to put up a picture of a lot down the street. It came in as a development application, coincidentally, and you can see that it's of similar size and shape to this lot. I apologize if that's out of focus a little. I still have my glasses on, that's why. I think that this is the main point that is missed, and again, if it's found that one of the six variance criteria is missed, then you miss all of them. The staff report argues that the minimum variance is no variance, because the owners could build a long, skinny house. Co coincidentally, the neighbor just down the street has applied for this building permit, and their property is also approximately 50 feet wide. And they have proposed a design that appears to meet the required 10-foot side setbacks for the zone. This permit has not been approved; it's only been recently applied for. But it serves to show that the property can probably be developed with a 30-foot wide single-family house, without the need for a variance. Ms. Coccia: Also, the garage that was proposed is a 2-car garage down the street her; not a 3-car garage as the applicant is requesting. So the 2-car garage fits on the property and is accessed directly from the east, without the need for a larger turnaround area like the applicant is proposing. They are proposing a 30-foot wide house, which appears to meet setbacks without a variance, so staff concludes that the project is not the minimum necessary. Ms. Coccia: In conclusion, staff recommends denial of both setback variances. However, if the hearing examiner wishes to approve the setback variances, staff recommended some conditions which are included in the staff report. So, I would be happy to answer any questions. Ms. Rice: So do I understand you correctly, Ms. Coccia, that the primary criterion that staff feels this application does not satisfy is the last criteria. Ms. Coccia: Correct. Ms. Rice: So you spoke briefly about the fact that some of the other lots in the area have narrower setbacks from structure to property line than 10 feet, and you said this had to do with when the zoning was established. Could you go over that again? Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Packet Page 163 of 357 Ms. Coccia: Sure. A lot of these lots were created prior to 1956, which is when we adopted our first zoning ordinance. We didn't have setbacks prior to then so you could build your house, you know, I suppose, wherever it was permitted. But then in 1961 when this area was annexed into the City of Edmonds, that's when you would have to apply for a building permit and meet the required setbacks. So anything prior to 1956 and also prior to 1961 we'd have to look at real carefully. Ms. Rice: Do you know... In the course of your review did you determine whether there are homes in this neighborhood with reduced setbacks that came into being through some other method than they predate the zoning? Ms. Coccia: The applicant did a lot of research and dug up several variances that were approved by the City. However, I didn't make note of them because I thought it was kind of like comparing apples to oranges because a lot of the time, it was for like a garage or something like that. So there are variances that have been approved, and also denied, in the vicinity. Ms. Rice: Okay. My understanding is that the minimum width currently in effect in the zone is bigger than 50 feet. Is that right? Ms. Coccia: Right. Ms. Rice: And so that is, what is the minimum lot width allowed? Ms. Coccia: I believe it's 80 feet. Ms. Rice: Thanks. Ms. Coccia: In an RS-12 zone, the minimum lot width is 80 feet. That means if you had a property in the RS-12 zone and you wanted to subdivide the property, one of the development standards that your surveyor would have to show on your map is that each new lot is at least 80 feet wide and can ?? an 80-foot diameter circle on each new lot. Ms. Rice: Okay. So the current lot, the subject property, is legally non -conforming? Ms. Coccia: Yes. Ms. Rice: My understanding is that... Well, I viewed the site before the hearing, and there is a house on the site. My understanding is that the current setbacks are less than 10 feet. Is that correct? Ms. Coccia: Yes. I'll put up the site plan that the applicant prepared. It looks like it shows an existing 5'/z-foot side yard setback to the north. And it's about 8 feet 73/4 inches to the south. And it looks like the existing carport is pretty much right on the south property line. Ms. Rice: If the applicant chose to remodel the existing house without demolishing it, would they be required to somehow alter or make the existing non -conforming setbacks into conforming setbacks? Ms. Coccia: No, they would have to show that all new additions meet the current required setbacks for the zone. Ms. Rice: But they could keep the current non -conforming setbacks. Ms. Coccia: As long as they're not touching. Kathleen might have something to add. Ms. Taylor: Only for that portion of the building that's already constructed. So if it was one level and they wanted to add a second level, the second level would have to meet the code. Ms. Rice: Okay. Could you go over again the department's interpretation of the special privilege criteria? Ms. Coccia: Sure. The special privilege criteria says that the approval of a variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparisons to the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. So it's my Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Packet Page 164 of 357 understanding that if you can meet all of the other variance criteria, all of the other five, then it wouldn't be a grant of special privilege because we would approve a variance because you've proven that you meet all the other ones. So if someone else with the same circumstances came along and was requesting something similar, it's my understanding that they would meet the special privilege criteria, if these folks met it. Ms. Taylor: So the special privilege relates to the circumstances of the lot. For example, it wouldn't be a special privilege if there were two lots that had the same width and the same critical areas restriction. Do you see what I'm saying? Ms. Rice: No. Ms. Taylor: I'm not being very clear. Ms. Rice: Well, I'm just trying to establish why their special privilege relates to existing development in the area or whether it relates to existing lots in the area, I guess is really what I'm trying to show. Ms. Taylor: I'm not sure I'm following your comment exactly, but the way I will answer is that in the past, if the applicant can demonstrate that other people are in a similar situation and have been granted something similar, then for them to be granted this would not be a special privilege because other people before them have been granted it. Ms. Rice: Okay. And so this similar situation relates to restrictions on the lot, right? Ms. Taylor: Now how do you mean lot versus development? Ms. Rice: Well, I'm saying that there are other homes in the neighborhood that have reduced setbacks. Ms. Taylor: Right. Ms. Rice: And those lots, whether they're 50-feet wide or 80-feet wide or 120-feet wide, they still have this less than 10-foot setback. So does the criteria... Does the standard for development on the subject property then become other houses in the property have reduced setbacks, or in the neighborhood have reduced setbacks. And so, therefore, our house should also be allowed to have a reduced setback. So that relates to the development on a lot, or does it more relate to the fact that this other 50-foot lot also has a reduced setback or does not have a reduced setback? Ms. Taylor: So if this lot that's 50-feet in width. So if there were other lots that were 50-feet in width versus their lots are 60-feet, 70-feet, but they still got some setback relief or they are constructed closer to the property line. In the past, that has been left up to the hearing examiner for interpretation, and I have seen cases where the applicant has argued that it didn't matter the size of the lot. It's just that similar situation on neighboring lots. Ms. Rice: Okay, that answers my question. Sorry, I don't know why I'm having a hard time being clear about that. Ms. Rice: And then, Ms. Coccia, could you just briefly expand on what you said. The applicant has submitted previously approved variances and evidence, and I did see there's a stack of them, there's at least seven of them in here, I think. And I trust the applicant will speak to those. But what I want to ask you is you said you didn't really look at them because that would be like comparing apples to oranges. Can you expand on that? Ms. Coccia: I did look at them, but I didn't feel there was a case in there that was similar enough to what they are proposing to speak to it. Ms. Rice: So the facts ought to distinguish. Ms. Coccia: But the applicant's more than welcome to go through why they felt that those were important ones Ms. Rice: Okay. Then we will turn to the applicant. Mr. Thayer. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Packet Page 165 of 357 Mr. Thayer: Thanks your honor. Let me say, I'm having technical difficulty. I have a power point presentation, which will make every thing easier for everybody if I can get it to work. I'm having trouble with my projector, so I ask that we take a 5- minute break so I can transfer that or hook up my laptop to use the projector's that here. Or 1 will call my technical assistance guy so he can tell me what I'm doing wrong. Ms. Rice: Tell me this. Can you tell me this? Can you give us an idea how long your power point presentation is? Mr. Thayer: It's just going to be used to facilitate my presentation to you. I have the photographs that are in the materials already. I have some blow ups of some of the plans, and it would be easy to point at things so that you will be able to follow me. Ms. Rice: I agree. 20 minutes? Mr. Thayer: I don't know how long the presentation will take. Ms. Rice: It will depend on how many questions I have. All right. Mr. Thayer: My presentation might take five minutes. Ms. Rice: Great. Yeah, let's take a 5-minute break and see if you can get that set up. Mr. Thayer: Thank you very much. Ms. Rice: Are we ready? Great. Then we will go back on the record, if I can have everybody take their seats, we'll get back underway. Mr. Thayer: Thank you very much. This is Chris Thayer here again, on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Rice: I'm sorry. Just one second. Could everyone please have a seat so we can hear what is being said for the record? Thank you very much. Mr. Thayer go ahead Mr. Thayer: Thanks very much. I'll do a brief introduction, and I'm going to have Mr. Steve Rising, the Bogart's architect, kind of walk through some of the plans and outline what we are proposing and how we've come to what we're proposing now, because it differs from what we had initially proposed. One thing I wanted to point out to the court is that there is existing, in terms of the existing encroachments on the Bogart property, in terms of the existing structures that encroach beyond the required setback. Along the north side there's 12 feet 6 inches that extend into the setback approximately 5'/z feet. 5'/z feet from the property. Ms. Rice: And what structure is that? Mr. Thayer: The house. Ms. Rice: The house. On the north side. Mr. Thayer: Correct. Ms. Rice: Is 5.5 feet. Mr. Thayer: And then the south side, there is 49%2 that extends as close as 4 feet then there's another 6 feet that's between 4 and 7 feet. Ms. Rice: Okay, just to clarify. What you're saying is there's 49.5 feet of house length that is only 4 feet from the south property line? Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Packet Page 166 of 357 Mr. Thayer: It varies between 4 and 7. Ms. Rice: Okay, as close as 4 and as far as 7 feet. Mr. Thayer: The majority is over 43'h feet from the property line. Ms. Rice: And that's the existing residence on site? Mr. Thayer: The existing residences on site, plus the carport, which is on the south property line. It's 18 feet 2 inches. So adding all that up, approximately 80 linear feet of existing structures encroach fairly substantially into the setbacks, and that is because the residence was constructed at a time that setbacks were not required. Ms. Rice: Do you know what the year is, of construction? Mr. Thayer: We don't, but it's a pretty old house. Ms. Rice: Okay. Mr. Thayer: And there'll be more evidence presented later. The properties of the neighbors to the north and neighbors to the south, they also encroach into the 10-foot setbacks on their property. For at least these three houses, the house immediately to the south owned by the Haynes, my client's house, the Bogart's house, and the house to the north, the Wilsons. All of those properties encroach into the 10-foot setback. Ms. Rice: Got it. Mr. Thayer: A quick look around the neighborhood indicates this is quite common, but we know for a fact that for these three properties, that they do. And just to keep in mind when we go through the rest of this is that the proposed structure will have 93 linear feet that will encroach into setback. However, they will encroach at a much lesser amount. 22'/z feet will only encroach 2 feet in the setback, and the other 35 feet will only encroach 2 feet into the setback, so leaving an 8-foot setback. And then the proposed garage will be five feet from the property line. And that's 43 feet. So the total linear feet is pretty similar. The amount of the encroachment into the setback in terms of depth is less. I think it kind of helps to get the big picture of what we're talking about. Mr. Thayer: Mr. Steve Rising is the architect on this project. We're going to have him walk through things. Any time you have questions, please ask Mr. Rising and either he or I will attempt to clarify. The first slide we're looking at here is the initial plan that was prepared after consultation with the City and Planning Department. There was an impression that, through a basic background discussion, that what was being proposed wasn't going to be a problem. This is the initial drawing, and this is the initial application form. It includes a longer section to the north and to the south that protruded into the setback. There's 70 linear feet on the north and I'm not quite sure what it is on the south. I'll review this briefly, and you'll see that in response to the safety concerns and the neighbor's concerns, we've come up with a new plan that we think does a really good job of addressing everybody's concerns here. So, Steve, could you explain this a little bit for them. Ms. Rice: My first question for Mr. Rising, is how do you spell your last name? Mr. Rising: R I S I N G. Ms. Rice: Thank you. Mr. Rising: So this is the initial proposal, as Chris said, and it came directly from our being told by Meg Gruwell that a variance shouldn't be any kind of a problem. All of the property was ??. We talked about what that was. Subsequent to that conservation and to the submittal of the variance application, one of the guys in my office went down and talked to two planners, I don't know their names, to get a feel for what this proposal, what their reaction would be. In both cases, they said, it looks good, it looks great, submit it. So we were a little surprised and disappointed to find out that there was objection. So what this shows, as Chris said, is 5 feet from the north property line with a chimney, and closer projection to the south, the Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Packet Page 167 of 357 garage and carport are similar. So what we did is took a big step back before the hearing and went, wow, we thought there was no issue. Let's take a look. Let's solicit feedback from the neighbors and from the City about what might be more sort of settling. Mr. Rising: The next slide here is the buildable footprint, based on lot coverage. So this is the 10-foot setback and sort of we're allowed to build a long, skinny house that's this large. And that's still leaving the existing carport. Ms. Rice: Just to clarify. Buildable footprint based on coverage. So this has 10-foot setbacks on the sides. Do you mean this is the maximum 35% lot coverage within those setbacks. Ms. Rising: Yeah. Ms. Rice: Okay. What is the length? Mr. Rising: Respecting the setbacks and pushing it ... Ms. Rice: What would the length of that overall structure be? Did you happen to note that? Mr. Rising: I do not happen to know that. It looks like it's 100's of feet, but no, I don't know that. We would never build this... Mr. Thayer: This was to show what we could build and also ... They're somewhat theoretical because we had to take an arbitrary point. But their viewpoint from the neighbors to the north and south, as you can see, if a neighbor were standing in that position on that deck of the property to the north, the Wilson's property, the views and the fact that they effectively wouldn't be obstructed. And then when you look to the south, you can see the existing views are not obstructed. In a kind of lighter color there, you can see the existing vegetation. The purpose of this is to show here is where we could build. Ms. Rice: I'm sorry, can we go back? This site is oriented with north sort of up in the upper left corner of the screen. Show me... Can you point to or tell me where the critical areas setback is in relation to this maximum allowed coverage depiction? Mr. Thayer: It would be to the far left. Ms. Rice: And so is this coverage area, the hypothetically allowed coverage area, abutted up against the critical area setback line. Mr. Thayer: It is like 30 feet back. Ms. Rice: From the critical areas setback line? Mr. Thayer: Yes. Ms. Rice: Okay. Mr. Thayer: There's the railroad trains cut through there, and I believe this is up to 25 to 30 feet back from the grade. Ms. Rice: It was just hypothetical. I just wanted to be oriented. Okay. Thanks. Go ahead. Mr. Thayer: So it's actually 25 feet back. There's a little connection at the upper left, and that's ... So what this is is just basically saying, here's the setbacks, here's the lot coverage, this is what we can do. There are a couple of, in reality, of course, we would be pulling that as required from the bluff. Actually, I don't know if that's true. We're 25 feet, that's what this diagram shows. Ms. Rice: Okay. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Packet Page 168 of 357 Mr. Rising: This is the initial proposal and then the outline of the buildable envelope. It's similarly now looking at the allowable height, and then the diagram, the lower diagram, begins to describe the massing of the proposed structure. Ms. Rice: Okay, so there are two images on the slide. The upper one is the hypothetical allowable development envelope and vertical orientation from grade up. Then below that is the depiction of what's proposed. Mr. Rising: Yes. Ms. Rice: Great. Mr. Rising: And that's to give an idea of the massing. Ms. Rice: And this is an overhead view of the same thing? Mr. Rising: This is a section view. So the dashed line... so this would be cutting sidewalks through the width of the site. And this shows the proposed mass and the dashed line shows the buildable. So on the upper image, you can see the 2-foot projection proposed. You can both see that it's a little lighter than, right, the setback volume, and it's also substantially lower than the setback volume, which will take you further. But that was a deliberate decision to not block light that we could otherwise block to the adjacent properties. So there are images here. One is at the wider western portion of the home and the lower one is at the narrower eastern, we'll call it half, of the home where to the left is the beef of this house. Having literally pulled that back to create more landscape buffer, so that 17 feet is pulled back where we skinnied it up deliberately where we could within the program of the house and then retaining the 10-foot setbacks on the north. Mr. Thayer: To make this a little more clear, here's our revised proposal. And Steve can talk about what he's trying to accomplish here with this design. Mr. Rising: So the revised proposal was redesigned, it's a redesigned product after talking to the City and getting information that we could from the neighbors. There were objections to the proposed variance. We were actually, as I said, surprised, so we took a step back and said, okay, where can we make this smaller and work with, you know, and still get the width of the building to work. So to the north, that's the projection which was shortened up quite a bit, we pulled the majority of the north fagade back 10 feet. In south we actually moved it further north to where it's proposed now at 8 feet. The garage stayed essentially the same. Mr. Thayer: Why don't you explain a little bit about why you designed the garage the way you have in an effort to minimize impacts on ... Mr. Rising: We did a deliberate sort of choice here to avoid, and I thought it was in keeping with the comprehensive plan goals, to actually provide more view and light through the property by trying to turn the mass of the garage sideways and sort of burying it into the hillside. And so we deliberately avoided making a 30 foot high by 30 feet wide garage mass, which the building permit proposal previously refers to for a two -car garage. It wasn't a full 30 feet wide. So we were actually trying to preserve sight lines through the property by turning the thing and reducing its mass and block of view. Unfortunately, the only way to do that is to, and Gina had checked this with engineering, in order to get a car out, we really had no alternative but to push the garage into the north setback. (Inaudible) ..to deep for a garage, and the 20-foot turnaround so the apron in front of the garage, which is essentially a minimum to comfortably get a car turned around there. Mr. Thayer: If I may, there won't be any points for drawing, but the proposed garage is in line with the house. If we were to build a 3-car garage that did not require a variance to setbacks, it would be like this. But the result is this would be how high... Mr. Rising: Well if you have 30 feet. The difficulty with that is that in order, we have a sloped approach, Gina had brought up, or there's reference in the report to maintaining a work of a legal sort of driveway maximum slope, and in order to get the apron, in order to get in the garage, what we have to do is build up a platform, we've still got to put a bridge on that. You Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Packet Page 169 of 357 know, we never really designed this because we really thought that this would be the highest impact of the garage on the site and the neighborhood. But I'm guessing it would be about 30 feet from where the front garage doors are. Mr. Thayer: The idea is that the impact on the neighbors to the east looking to the west, if you put a 3-car garage there, which there's no dispute it could be done without a variance, but if we put a 3-car garage there, it's going to be less attractive, less aesthetically pleasing. It's going to impact the neighbors' view, light and enjoyment of the area. And the Bogarts are trying to do everything as much as possible to be consistent with the goals and ideals of the comprehensive plan and local zoning. I think we can actually accomplish more of that by getting really a pretty small variance. Mr. Rising: And this allowed us to carry the north wall to the hill, literally. I mean, literally it excavated, I can't remember the exact dimension, but five six feet for the retaining wall, and it seemed like it was within the character of the neighborhood. It seemed like everybody had carports and garages that were closer than 10 feet to the property line. That includes the neighbor to the north, as well. Ms. Rising: Well I think there is another issue here. We really were trying to articulate the mass to be less of a block. And the reason one does that is it tends to, and this I guess would be subjective, it's done in architecture all the time, it tends to reduce your perception of the sizes of the map by articulating the fagade. We did that both on the left, we tried to project the deck to the left, purposefully, it's pretty thin to, I mean, I don't think the property itself really looks through there anyway because of the existing hedge, but the idea is to allow the most light towards the north and to the south through the structure. We actually did not put the house as far west as we could. Both concerns of what's acceptable to the geotechnical and the buffer reduction, and so right, so what we were really trying to do in both cases, on the north and south side, was to maintain as much vegetation as we could. The idea on the bottom right corner of the house was that there would be a courtyard. Those steps go down into a courtyard, intending to preserve a landscaped or provide for more landscaped area there. That, to me, is beneficial to the neighbor to the south. You know, it's yeah, anything that I've missed. Mr. Thayer: Just so that we're clear. What I'm drawing here now, getting a little bit better at this, those are the only sections requiring a 2-foot variance. And then all along the northern end of the garage, this area here, that's where I'm talking about a variance. This is another look at... This is the revised layout elevation, again showing the potential buildable mass and then what is actually being constructed. Mr. Rising: You know, it's particularly, one view of this is to look at garage massing here. Because, you know, you can see, I hope, what we were trying to achieve by really holding that low. And again, we were operating still on the premise that that seemed to consistent with what had been done elsewhere in the neighborhood. Mr. Thayer: This is the garage. Ms. Rice: Yeah. I've found the slide you're now showing in my record as Attachment 4 Mr. Thayer: Okay. Mr. Rising: So this is the lower floor plan, and this is included really just to show what the width of the building that we're trying to work with is. The tight spot across here is, you know, it's the width of the bedroom and the width of an exercise room. So those are of variable standards, I suppose, in architecture, but in a property and home of this size or this location, which is waterfront Edmonds, those spaces are none too big. It's more of a factor in the upper floor, where you know, again, it's not like we're trying to design huge spaces that push in. The dimension that most concerns me, Chris has circled the living room, which is actually big enough to put a seating group into and walk around and then get a dining to the south of it. The kitchen, again, I truly wish we had a width of the original proposal because it would make a huge difference to the living room, or excuse me, to the kitchen. That's in reality, again, by the standards of homes this size and this location, those are none too large. Ms. Rice: Question. When I read in advance, there was some discussion of the chimneys extending another 2'/z feet into the setback, but as I'm looking at your upper floor plan and your lower floor plan, they don't appear to do that. Mr. Thayer: We took that out of the revised proposal. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Packet Page 170 of 357 Ms. Rice: Okay. So the chimney only sticks out maybe a few inches. Mr. Thayer: Pardon me. Ms. Rice: I'm looking at the lower floor plan, and it looks like the chimney barely extends past the house at all. Mr. Thayer: That's correct. Mr. Rising: We pulled it back. So what we had done with the original projection is that there's a pretty normal allowable projection of the chimney. Then we realized that issues were brought up, and we simply pulled it in. However, that actually takes dimension out of the interior. When you pull the chimney in, you are in essence, perceptually moving the wall into the room. Mr. Thayer: The slide we're looking at now gives you another look at the massing. It also shows the encroaching structure from the neighbors, which I'll detail eventually when I get into my slides. But we have encroachment in the setback on the north and on the south. Also this up here on the Wilson's property. This shows sight lines with the buildable mass; I think this is a good comparison and I can push back and forth. Here's our proposal; there's potential. We could build a long, skinny house there; here's what we're proposing. Mr. Rising: So what we were trying to do is avoid ... We've never contended that you couldn't build a 30-foot wide building. It seemed consistent that there were encroachments into setbacks. And what we were trying to do is not do a 3- stories without a ??. With 30 feet wide, it... Mr. Thayer: The other property Mr. Rising's referring to, I think, is Attachment 6 to the City's report, which is her ?? for another narrow RS built lot. They were proposing to build a 3-story, tall, skinny townhouse. Mr. Rice: Got it. Mr. Thayer: Steve's saying he didn't think that a 3-story skinny town house is consistent with the houses in the neighborhood. Is it technically feasible, yes. Mr. Rising: That's not important. Yes, It's technically feasible to build a house with 30 feet width, but it's certainly arguable that it's more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Thayer: This is a shot of the existing vegetation and the sight lines. And I'll bring this up again when I talk more. Steve, why don't you tell me what you were trying to show, here. Mr. Rising: So this is a diagram presenting what appears, right, to be the cut off angles of the view from the neighbors' properties. Because that's something that's been brought up as why the project, as proposed, why our proposal is detrimental. The weakness of that argument, from my perspective, really is whether the variance, right, the two feet, is at all additionally detrimental. Obviously Mr. Bogart has the right to, we have the buildable footprint, which, and the setbacks are dashed here. So what we're doing is sort of showing that the dashed line is what we're sort of by setback allowed to build to anyway. And these are simply the preexisting view angles. The vegetation was actually, that's pretty accurate. Just to be clear here, what we're discounting is the tall trunks, you know, because those are actually, you seen underneath those. Of the two trees on the north property. Mr. Thayer: These here. These are large fir trees. Mr. Rising: Yeah, and that's really not part of the argument at all. What we're really talking about is the existing vegetation that are essentially hedges by practicality. Ms. Rice: Okay. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Packet Page 171 of 357 Mr. Thayer: Here's just a couple of quick illustrations showing what the proposed house would look like and how it would be built into the hill and how Mr. Rising has designed in various features to break up the mass. Although there are streamlined, it does have a pitched roof, and Steve can talk briefly about the design features that we're used to make this a less imposing structure. Mr. Rising: So what we were trying to do is actually, well again, on the left side is to keep that whole deck area as thin across the view angles to the north and south. You know, the steps in both the north and south side, and actually the left side are all intended to reduce your perception of mass. We were trying to bring the roof line down towards the existing grade as you go east, so we're trying actually to keep roof lines and in many respects, we're really trying to get the feel more sensitively sited to the slope of the land. You know, we didn't want to do a giant excavation or build a 3-story house. We were actually trying to keep it low where we could. The heights that are shown in other diagrams are essentially high points within this design. For instance, the main house, in other words, we're showing a diagram of heights, its maximum heights. It's not the lower point and roof pitch. You can see the slope of the garage roof is intended to drop is intended to drop as low as we can get it on the north side. You can see how on the right side of the garage, we're building into the hillside to try to reduce the mass of it. In both this configuration, but also in comparison to the alternative building 30 feet across, we're trying to maintain light through the property as we kept the view angles. So by keeping it low and breaking up the mass. Mr. Thayer: One second. This shows the location of the Bogart property. I blew this up as much as we could. You'll see a wide variety of sizes and shapes for the lots in the area, but you will notice that their lot is the exception and not the rule. There are other long, skinny lots. Some of those long, skinny lots I believe to be jointly owned by the same parties. But nonetheless, there are other long, skinny lots in Edmonds. However, they are the exception and not the rule. In part because of the unusual features of the Bogart's property that they are forced to request a variance. Mr. Thayer: I'd like to go through some photographs. These are attached to our submission, which was attached to the City's report, but just to give you some perspective. This is the existing house, looking more or less west, looking from the driveway down into the house. This is the existing carport looking southwest at this point. This is standing in the driveway looking north and west. This is a structure owned by the Wilsons that encroaching into the setback. This is the view from the Bogart's current residence, looking out more or less west out onto Puget Sound. There's another picture; you'll get an idea that the existing house is set quite far back from the water. Why the original owners built the house so far back from the water, I don't know. Certainly, it does not take full advantage of the spectacular views that are available at this wonderful piece of property. This is looking to the north and west. That's the Haynes, pardon me, the Wilson house that you can see through the existing vegetation. Again, a good portion of that is encroaching onto the boundary line setback. Ms. Rice: Got it. Mr. Thayer: This is the Haynes residence as seen from the Bogart's property. Again, this would be looking approximately southwest, mainly south. This is part of their residence encroaches onto the 10-foot setback. This is the Wilson residence seen from the Bogart property. You can see the deck. This is the Haynes' deck to the south, encroaching. This is looking directly back at the Bogart residence to the left and basically north would be the Wilson's residence. To the right, more or less south, would be the Haynes' residence. You see the intense vegetation and the two large fir trees. From a better angle, here, you can see the Bogart residence on the right. You see the Wilson residence on the left, and you can see the cedar trees and rhododendrons and other shrubs that extend almost all the way out to the bluff. This is a giant laurel hedge on the southern boundary between the Bogart property and the Haynes residence. You can see the edge of their deck sticking out. This is just a shot looking down the western edge of the Bogart property onto the Burlington Northern right-of-way. It's actually a pretty steep slope there but it doesn't show on the picture. Mr. Thayer: This is another residence on Sound View Place as I was leaving the Bogart residence. There was some comment by Meg Gruwell in her initial report about the proposed structure not being in conformity with other houses in the neighborhood. This is just an example, this is a much more flat sided, slab, modern looking home than what the Bogarts are proposing. And this is just to show that there are more modern looking houses in the neighborhood. They do all have pitched roofs. I don't think that's a major point of contention. Ms. Rice: I also don't think it relevant to the variance per say. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Packet Page 172 of 357 Mr. Thayer: It was referenced in Ms. Gruwell's report in terms of whether or not the proposed residence was consistent with the neighborhood. So I will go on. This is the existing residence, kind of showing the existing vegetation, showing the sight lines, and we've already been through this a bit. But we have encroachment here. The Bogart's garage is basically on the property line. There's encroachment into the setback here. There's encroachment into the setback here. There's encroachment all along here. Mr. Rising: I'm going to interject here. So Gina has brought up this image to show that setback. The survey will actually show that there's a raised portion, that 4 feet that we referenced earlier on the right, and so in fact, this is for vegetation. It doesn't show the full existing encroachment into the variance on that last. The survey will clearly show that. Mr. Thayer: But just so we have an idea here. The property to the north has substantial encroachments into the setback requirement. The property to the south has substantial encroachments into the setback requirement. The existing structures on the Bogart property have encroachments into the setback. Ms. Rice: I don't want to be cutting you off, but we do have a large audience that would like to testify. So could you not repeat things that you've already said. Justo to help us stay on ... Mr. Thayer: Sure. Ms. Rice: Thank you. Mr. Thayer: We'll go to the factors to be considered for the granting of variance. Ms. Rice: Great. Mr. Thayer: Special circumstances. Hopefully, you've had the opportunity or will have the opportunity to review my letter dated April 9, 2007, where I detailed this at greater length. But as to the special circumstances, this is a long, narrow lot. It's 50-feet wide and doesn't conform for the RS-12 zone, which requires 80-foot wide lots. Given the 10-foot setbacks, that leaves a 30-foot buildable corridor. The topography is also a little unusual in that it's on a significant slope. There's a railroad right-of-way to the immediately west, which also has an associated critical area with the steep slope. There's another requirement under the code, 28.05.010, with regard to special circumstances. These special circumstances are not personal to the Bogarts. This is a feature of the property. It's not something that exists as a result of anything specific to the Bogarts, themselves. Mr. Thayer: Looking at the other variance application files that I reviewed, the non -conforming size appeared to me to be, as a general matter, accepted as a special circumstance. If you have a piece of property that does not conform to the zoning requirements, that was, effectively considered a special circumstance. Ms. Rice: I'm going to just say now. I noted that there were several previous variances and the staff reports that go with those decisions in the record. I haven't read them. I will read them. But every application for variance is decided on its own merits, and I have discretion to consider what has been done in the past. But this application won't be decided on what has been done in the past. It will be based on its own merits. Mr. Thayer: I understand. I didn't believe they constituted any kind of precedent, but I thought them illustrative of what has been done in the past and perhaps will provide you with some guidance with what other hearing examiners have considered to be special circumstances. Ms. Rice: Sure. No, I appreciate it. I just wanted to have that stated for the record. Mr. Thayer: Thank you. No special privilege, and that goes to whether or not the requested variance would give the applicant some sort of special or unusual privilege. I think the way to consider that is to look at the fact that the existing improvements on the Bogart's property encroach. The neighbors to the north and south have encroachments into the setbacks. Ms. Gruwell's report acknowledges approval of setback variances for seven properties on Sound View Place. We have examples of a number of hearing examiner findings where variances were granted. I would point out that, I think the Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Packet Page 173 of 357 Wilson's argued that those all related to depth and garages, but that is not correct. I think the Dahls had also included an addition to a home. But respecting the hearing examiners prior comment, I'm not going to belabor the point. Basically, we're not asking for a special privilege. We're asking for the same rights that are afforded to the other neighbors, not just the neighbors to the north and south, but the neighbors in the immediate neighborhood. The Bogarts want to be able to develop their property in a reasonable and respectful manner. They're not asking for some sort of special privilege. They've gone to great lengths and not an insignificant expense to come up with a proposal that would be least impactful on their neighbors and on the neighborhood. They're not asking to build a McMansion here. They're asking to build a very modest, nice house, which is consistent with waterfront property in the Puget Sound area. Mr. Thayer: Furthermore, the application is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan promotes high -quality residential development. The proposal harmonizes with the surroundings. Mr. Risings gone to great length to design a home to allow free flow of light and to break up the hard, long, straight lines so that it would be less imposing. It will be an aesthetically pleasing home and will fit in with the nice homes in the area. There is anticipated to be some testimony from the neighbors to the north and to the south who've made some sort of vague reference to an impact upon their views. As I've shown you on the slides, the views of the neighbors to the north and south are primarily, if not exclusively, essentially directed to the west out to the Puget Sound. The proposed construction and the very slight variance, and the only variance could even be argued to impact their view is a 2-foot variance for a modest section up north and a 2-foot variance for another modest section along the southern edge. So what the neighbors are effectively arguing is that that extra two feet is somehow materially adversely impacting their views. When you look at the existing vegetation, they don't have any views to the north or to the south. Moreover, the Bogarts have a right to build on their property if they had to within the 30-foot setback requirement. Ms. Rice: Understood. Mr. Thayer: A house that would block their views even more than what is being promoted. Ms. Rice: Got it. Mr. Thayer: We don't want to do that. And that gets to the last point, which is the alternative construction if there was no variance would actually be more impactful on the neighbors. They will have a greater mass. They will have the potential to block more view, but no variance would be required. We're actually, effectively, trying to do a favor to the neighbors to the north and south. Mr. Thayer: Zoning ordinance, 16.10.100. It encourages the preservation of light, including sunlight, the privacy of neighbors, the views of neighbors, shorelines and other natural features, air, water, noise and additional pollution. We believe that the proposed structure accomplishes all of that. That the alternative structure can be a 3-story, long, skinny house, we'd be more likely to have an adverse impact on the values than the proposed structure. And that goes for the garage, as well. I see the hearing examiner nodding so ... Ms. Rice: I do understand. Mr. Thayer: So I won't raise that point. Not detrimental. The Bogarts are asking for the same privileges afforded to their neighbors, and that is the neighbors have existing encroachments. They also have houses that are built further west on their properties. They more fully take advantage of the spectacular views of Puget Sound. For whatever reason, the prior owner of this property the Bogarts now have built their house way far back away from the water, and they really can't take advantage of the waterfront view for this beautiful piece of property. They just want the same rights to build a house, a reasonable house, that will afford them the same rights as their neighbors have. Mr. Thayer: We've gone to great lengths to address the concerns of the neighbors. My office specifically encouraged and attempted to solicit proposals from the neighbors, through their counsel, to see if there was some compromise or something that could be worked out. Despite repeated offers that a proposal would be forthcoming, no proposal was ever made, so we just brought this back for hearing. We thought we would just go ahead and present it as is. Ms. Rice: Okay. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Packet Page 174 of 357 Mr. Thayer: And it's not for lack of effort. This proposal will be more aesthetically pleasing and have less massing than the alternative. The alternative is a tall, skinny house, which as I said, is most likely to be more objectionable by the neighbors and it won't be as aesthetically pleasing nor really consistent with the surrounding houses in the area. But they wouldn't require a variance. And I think one of the things to focus on is we're only talking about, for the most part, is a few foot encroachment with regard to the residence. And I would submit that the actual impact on the neighbors to the north and south is dimenimous at most. Ms. Rice: Okay. Mr. Thayer: And that their views would be retained. I would submit that there's no impact, but if there's any impact, it would be negligible compared to the impact that there would be if no variance were granted. Mr. Thayer: And that gets to the last topic. The City noted that a neighbor is proposing to build a 30-foot wide, 3-story town house style house on a similar lot. The Bogarts have never contended that this is impossible. They just believe that it is not desirable. It's not only not desirable for them, but we believe it's less desirable for the neighborhood, less desirable for the neighbors to the north and south, and less desirable for the neighbors to the east who would like to retain their views to the west. We also believe that the tall, skinny townhouses, which living in Seattle, myself, you can't go three blocks without seeing one, we would submit that those are incongruous with development in the City of Edmonds and not consistent with the character of the houses there. The Bogarts believe the house that they've proposed is a modest, reasonable house that is consistent with the development and use of this type of property at the waterfront in Edmonds. Mr. Thayer: So we submit that the request variance is in fact the minimum variance. I'm not here to say that a house can't be built with no variance. What we are saying is a house built with no variance would have a more negative impact on the neighbors in the neighborhood than allowing a very minor variance we're asking for. Ms. Rice: Okay. Mr. Thayer: Thank you. Ms. Rice: Thank you. Can we have the lights up? And then I will now take public comment. Now that we can sort of see each other. Show of hands, please, who would like to ... Sir, please come forward to the podium. That podium right there. And if you could speak into the microphone and give us your name and address for the record. Go ahead and, there you go. Mr. Wilson: My name is Bill Wilson. Nicole, my wife, and I live at 18518 Sound View Place. It's the property immediately to the north of the proposed building site. We purchased in 2002 and have lived there since 2003. I will try to keep this brief because I think we only have the room until 5:00 and there are a lot of people who want to speak. We've loved living in the University Colony area, not only because of the spectacular views but because of the character and style of the community. In our immediate area, each home has retained the spectacular views over the years despite remodels and building, due to the layout of the homes, in my opinion. Alternative property, or adjacent properties have been laid out with homes either placed low and forward on the property or high and back on the property so that the widespread views can be enjoyed by all. The properties set back at a considerably higher altitude look over the forward placed properties, pretty much with an unobstructed view, other than maybe some trees which are on some properties, including the proposed Bogart site. Mr. Wilson: It is true that some of the oldest houses, and in this case ours included, have portions that extend near the property lines into the setback areas. In the case of our house, it was built in three sections. The initial section was placed in 1919, and that is the southern most portion of our house, which abuts the, nearly abuts the property line of Dr. Bogart. So that was placed decades before there was any building code in the City of Edmonds. Since then, the house had been added on again in the 1930's and finally the final addition in the 1960's to the north. Mr. Wilson: Traditionally, and is currently the case, the forward set homes are considerably lower in elevation on the slope, which allows the upper back set homes to have the views over the top. The other homes also have unobstructed views across their own properties, as well. This staggering affect of the adjacent homes has really been key to all the homes in the area being able to enjoy the beautiful views and privacy, which is a huge part of the character of the University Colony area, Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Packet Page 175 of 357 where the homes are not wall to wall, as a more urban type setting would typically be. For example, starting from the south in our immediate area, the house owned by the Haynes, which is immediately south of the Bogart property is placed forward and at a low elevation. Going to the north, the Bogart property is placed back at a considerably higher elevation that looks over the top of both adjacent homes. Just to the north of that, the Neudorfer property is back and at an elevation where they look over the top of our home, with no obstruction in their view. And just to the north of us are the Yeagers, which are placed forward, etc. Mr. Wilson: Indeed, many of these homes, especially those built long ago, extend into the now required side setbacks. Because of this, the staggering of the homes has been essential. Of the previously mentioned properties, I know that the Haynes property extends into the side setbacks. The Bogart property extends into the side setbacks, and our property does as well, as explained thoroughly by Mr. Rising. The very fact that the Haynes property is within the northern setback, just south of the Bogart property, and our property sits within its southern side setback just to the north of the Bogart property, is precisely why it is not a prudent idea to insert what some might think is a disproportionately large house into that narrow space where the homes are very tightly placed already. It is true that the current Bogart house does extend into the side setbacks, as well, but because of the staggered effect and the fact that it's placed back, there's still extreme privacy to all involved, which certainly would not be the case with this current proposal. Certainly, to grant a variance of the side setbacks in a situation where a large home is being placed between two homes which already extend into the side setback would seem incongruent with the intent of the building code, in my opinion. Mr. Wilson: I don't want to be redundant at all, but ... Although the existing 2-story house on the Bogart property extends into the side setbacks to some degree, it and I believe the other homes, are not at all obtrusive, in that each property's afforded scenic views, as well as considerable privacy, again, because of the traditional neighborhood layout of forward and rear placed homes. So in summary, my wife and I have to oppose the request for a side setback variance. It seems that that opinion is also shared by the City planning committee. Just to touch on a couple of points, I think the fact that it is a long, narrow lot, I think the factor that it's a narrow lot, not that it's long, is not really a unique feature. There are other properties in the area, which are very similar, almost identical. The Haynes, which is immediately to the south, is almost identical dimensions and topography to the Bogart property. In the Planning Department's summary they looked at an example of another home with similar dimensions with construction which complies to the required setbacks and building code. Mr. Wilson: I think, finally, in summary, placing a large structure between two already tightly spaced homes would be a mistake. To grant a variance to the side setbacks would further worsen the effect, in my opinion. Personally, I think the views are affected. The view lines that were shown by Mr. Thayer were actually, especially the line that was more oblique, was actually to the west, and the other one is a little bit more to the northwest. So the sun sets right now sort of between where the two lines are. During the winter, the sun is below the lower sight line. The foliage or the vegetation that Mr. Thayer referred to is to some degree more obstructive, depending on the season. During the winter, we're able to see the winter sunsets, and that would certainly no longer be the case with this structure as proposed on the Bogart property. Mr. Wilson: Finally, I just was a little ... I just wanted to ... Perhaps this is a question, but I was a little confused because if the letter from Mr. Thayer, and also again stated, they refer to the revised proposal, but I believe, is it correct that you're also asking that the original proposal be considered, as well? Ms. Rice: Yeah, my understanding is that the first request is that the original 5-foot reduction be honored. But in the event that that's rejected, the revised proposal is offered as an alternative. Mr. Wilson: Okay. So we, just still on the record, oppose each of the proposals. Thank you. Ms. Rice: Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson. Anyone else who would like to speak? Please. Someone from the audience tried to address the hearing examiner, but the comments were not audible. Ms. Rice: Could I have comments from anybody else who doesn't represent the Wilson's first because the Wilson's already did have a chance? Okay, please go ahead. Your name and address for the record. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Packet Page 176 of 357 Ms. Haynes: My name is Vicky Haynes. I live at 18602 Sound View Place, immediately to the south of the Bogarts. In the letter that I submitted to you... Ms. Rice: Attachment I I? Ms. Haynes: Attachment 11. In Attachment 11 I talk about some thing that I'll just mention briefly. I fell in love with my University Colony in 1971 and bought my home in 1992. Yes, the view was certainly one of the endearing reasons for wanting that piece of property, but it was more than that. There is tremendous privacy. There is a tremendous sense of space. There is tremendous character. It is a part of Edmonds that is unique. It is like no other part. And just as we imagine the ?? of America, we are dangerously approaching the same with Edmonds. Ms. Haynes: Dr. Wilson talked about the staggered houses and the affect of that. The affect of that is to preserve character and space and light and privacy. And while it could be argued that I still will have a magnificent view, and I will, those other factors are deeply important. I think it's also important to reemphasize that we're talking here, when we talk encroachments, which indeed, there are encroachments on all sides, that we're talking historically. We are not talking in the moment. We're talking about a colony that was begun approximately 1916 — 1919, and homes that were begun at that same time. (Inaudible) ... that's where they felt they could best be placed to preserve the character. Indeed, beyond the historical encroachments that have nothing to do with the present, nor present intent, on either the Wilson's or my part. Beyond that, the hardship that is faced here by the long, narrow, I share. And it was a hardship that I incurred when I bought the property. It came with the territory. I too, if I were to ask to have something done to my home, would have to face the problems of the current variances. A Ms. Haynes: As far as the garage sight lines are concerned, please note that the homes to the east, the immediate east, are elevated, and they would not be looking directly at the garage. They would be looking over the garage for the most part. I also want you to imagine, if you will, that currently with the staggered house, we have where are located a continuous yard. It's as if there are no fences because there are none, and it's as if, in a sense, all of our property, in a way, belongs to all of that. And if we try and squeeze a home between these two homes, which indeed do violate the current setbacks, that's all going to change. Ms. Haynes: I really urge you, thought these are extra legal matters, to think not only in terms of what is being presently asked, which I also ask you to deny, but also to think about unique and very special nature of the neighborhood. Something will indeed be lost, which if it is lost, can never be regained. Thank you. Ms. Rice: Thank you Mrs. Haynes. I do want to hear from additional members of the public, but before we do go forward, I just want to remind everybody, the only issue that's up for discussion is whether or not the new home can encroach into setbacks. The Bogarts are free to build a home inside the setbacks at anyplace on their property. Just so we're clear, we're just talking about encroachments. So, since we are running short on time, if I could ask you to address comments specifically to the issue of the encroachment that would be most relevant. So please. And could I have your name and address, please? Mr. Yeager: My name is Walter Yeager, and the address is 18504 Olympic View Drive. It's the second property north of the Bogart's proposed construction. I was going to speak just to substantiate the staggered nature, both vertically and horizontally of the homes and the variety. But you did ask a question, I could add some to your question. You asked when the home was built, owned by the Wilsons. I first looked at the property in 1958, and the house was there and had been for a long time, and the southern part of the house was where it is now. But in those days, that house was a 50-foot lot. When they extended to the north, towards my house, why they purchased a 50-foot long, narrow lot to add to their 50-foot long, narrow lot. So there is a question of, you know, trying to abide by variances in past history. Ms. Rice: Okay, thank you. Other persons wishing to give comments please. Yes, please go ahead now. Ms. Swift: My name is Joan Swift, 18520 Sound View Place. That is not adjacent to the Bogart property as it might seem. We're across the street. The City gave us the wrong house number, and it's been that way for 33 years. I have lived there for 33 years, so I've seen many, many changes in this neighborhood. I guess, I don't want to repeat anything that's been said here about the history of the colony and the mixed up lot lines and all the encroachments and that sort of thing, because that's Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Packet Page 177 of 357 been said before. When my house was built in 1972, I guess that area had been in the City for what, about 20 years, 19 years, whatever you said, 1951, it was in the 50's sometime Ms. Coccia: 1961 is when it was annexed. Ms. Swift: 61, I thought it was the 60's. That's my ears. I think the builder got very, and I'm glad of this, got lots of privileges. The house was built on a 50-foot lot. I was in California at the time and had nothing to do with this. He was given a 2-foot variance to the north, a 2-foot variance to the west, and a 2-foot variance to the south, plus a variance for building on a substandard lot. These variances enabled the house to not look like a square rectangular, not square rectangular, excuse me, a rectangular box. Although it does not have the detail that a custom designed house would have. He then went and built on the 50-foot lot next door, which he had the opportunity of combining with the other 50-foot lot and making 100-foot lot, but he didn't. He built another house with an 8-foot variance into the front setback. Both of these houses represent, I think, special privilege. Maybe that did not exist in 1972 as one of the criteria, I don't know. But I think that the 2-foot variances that Mr. Bogart is asking for, Dr. Bogart, excuse me, is asking for are no different. Ms. Swift: Dr. Wilson spoke of the staggering of the homes, and the first thing that struck me is this house on Astrala Hill's property, deceased Astrala Hill, 18720 Sound View Place. That appears to be, from the drawing up here and here, and 3- story house, very, very close to the edge of the bank. There is no staggering nor attempt to stagger, and I probably should say that the houses that Vicky Haynes and Bill and Nicole Wilson are living in are charming and have parts that were built decades and decades ago and will eventually probably maybe next year, maybe not by these owners, but by some other owner, be torn down and they may want variances of the same. They will, of course, have to move away from the encroachments they're occupying that they're occupying now. But they may still want variances, and that's something maybe these people should be thinking about. I don't think that 2-feet, 5-feet is over the top, I think, but I'm not speaking to the garage. I'm speaking of the original drawing submitted in 2006, with 5-foot variance, 5-foot into the setback. I think that was too much, but I don't think that 2-feet is going to make that much different in as much as he will go ahead and build in the legal area anyway, and it will not be as attractive. Thank you. Ms. Rice: Thank you. Others. Yes please. Mr. Nations: My name is Ron Nations. I live at 18602 Sound View Place. Vicky and I have lived there for 15 years, and in that 15 years, I've watched the neighborhood lose some of its quality already, and I'm deeply concerned to put a halt to that trend; to slow that trend or stop that trend. I'd love to reverse the trend if it were possible. One of the reasons we moved there was a sense of wildlife, of trees, of unsettled open spaces. I still remember how it used to feel when I would come driving home, and as I came up Sound View, I would see all the trees running up and down Sound View Place, and it was a sense. .. I like to go camping; I'm a camper and an outdoor kind of guy. When I come home from work to see all those trees and to hear the birds singing, it's like really coming home in a special sense, in a spiritual sense, and a deeply meaningful sense. And I treasure that feeling tremendously. It broke my heart to watch forests get knocked. I mean small forests knocked down to put up big houses all along Sound View Place, and it's happened many, many times since we have lived there. I can count from Wharf Street moving northward to where our house is and two or three lots north, when we first moved in there, there were five houses in a space that's now occupied by 10 houses. And the houses that have been recently constructed are far larger than the houses that were there before. So the effect of an increased sense of crowding is even more intense than it would have been had they all been the same size. Mr. Nation: That is really the core of the problem with the Bogart's plan. Regardless of what their attorney says about how they've been so careful and so sensitive, this is a very large house in comparison with the houses that immediately surround it. If you look carefully at those diagrams, and I don't have a little jazzy computer set up to put all the things on the screen, but if you were to look at those, you would see that the most comparable structures in that diagram in that immediate vicinity is our house and their proposed garage in terms of square footage. Ms. Nation: If you look at it, they're approximately the same size. Their house dwarf s the surrounding houses, and that to be wedged in between two houses, it's as though where Vicky's sitting over here and where I'm sitting is a way that the Wilson's house in her case, and in my case, our house are situation. The slope would be, or rather the cliff bank, would be where these rails are. There is a huge open space. When we stop outside onto our deck, especially during the summer months, we use the northern side of our deck. Our deck is around the west side our house and the north side of our house Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Packet Page 178 of 357 approximately. Our house is actually not oriented perfectly to the compass. Anyway, the Wilson's house would sit like this, our house would sit like this, and here's the cliff. We look out this way, but when I step out onto my deck, and in the southern months I want to be on the northern part of my deck, I look straight north, and I don't see anything in there. The Wilson's house is back, and then I see two, three, four lots north. It's an unobstructed view that's tremendously valuable in terms of privacy, in terms of sense of being in nature, a sense of having fresh air, and sense of having contact with the birds and the squirrels, the raccoons that move around. Mr. Nation: If you put a very large structure, and do not make the mistake of believing these guys that this is not a very large structure, especially relative to its immediately context. You put a huge structure in there, and we lose all of that. And I think the real problem with the Bogart's plan is that they want to come so far down the slope, and they keep scratching their heads and saying, it's such a mystery why that other house is built so far off the slope; it exactly conforms the pattern of the neighborhood. It's no mystery. The house was built up there so it wouldn't be directly looking in the windows of the neighbor's house. If one doesn't like to step outside one's door and immediately find themselves in the neighbor's front yard. Or rather looking in their kitchen window, and that's what the Bogart's plan is is to wedge their house in between our house and the Wilson's, obstructing all this view, and making it so we're all going to be in each other's kitchens every time we come outside the door. To me, that's a very poor plan. Mr. Nation: I believe at one point, correct me if I'm wrong, it was offered to the Bogarts they could have whatever setbacks they wanted if they'd stay upon the western part of the slope, or pardon me, upon the eastern part of the slope, which is up high, and then they could build a larger house. But they've insisted on bringing this entire structure and carport and pavement leading up to the garage, shifting it our way and down the slope. It wipes out a lot of natural setting, and it destroys an awful lot of views. It is not true, regardless of what their attorney says, I do not step outside my door and stare only westward. I step outside and enjoy the view to the north, the south and the east. And to put a great big structure right there, very close to me, is going to be a tremendous impediment to my enjoyment of that. I'm wanting us to get back to the concept that nature is good, trees are good, birds are good, fresh air is good, space is good. Wedging houses in, consider the model of Woodway and the way they've preserved their trees and spacing, and the example of Ballard, where it's, I don't know if there's a tree left in Ballard. I used to live in Ballard 30 years ago, and I loved it. But you know, places become urban wastelands when you take out all the trees and wedge the houses in shoulder to shoulder to shoulder. We have the advantage here, we have a lot that's 285 feet deep, so is the Bogarts, 285 feet. So if one house is at the west end of that and one is at the east end of that, it's practically like we're not even neighbors. I don't even see the Bogarts when I step outside my house. The first people I would see would be the Wilsons, and I have to work to see them. Mr. Nation: This question about the shrubbery blocking their views, the shrubbery is there because we value privacy. We've attempted to construct privacy around our homes by having shrubbery. There is one big laurel hedge, but it's not a very long laurel hedge, and most of what's around us are low trees like holly trees, is the predominant thing right near our house, and a couple of mountain ash and a hawthorne tree, and then some low azaleas and rhododendrons. We see around the those and through those and over those in a way we would not see around or through or over a big slab of a structure sitting there. So it would be a big blockage of views. While you have the shrubbery there, that's a very nice sense of privacy that you have, and a sense of nature. Plugging in a big house in between the two defeats all that. Ms. Rice: Again, we're not talking about where on the lot, east to west, the house can go. We're just talking about where on the lot the setbacks... Mr. Nation: Except there was a key point that we said they could have their variances if they'd stay up higher on the slope. Ms. Rice: Did you want to speak to the encroachment into the setback? Mr. Nation: Is that not relevant, is that not the encroachment, itself, that I'm speaking to? Ms. Rice: No, you were talking about east to west, where the house is going to go on the lot. What we want to focus on is whether or not they should be allowed encroach into the 10-foot side yard setback. Mr. Nation: I feel you are not understanding my point. If they were to stay upon the upper part of the lot, we would happily say, go ahead and have your encroachments. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Packet Page 179 of 357 Ms. Rice: That's not relevant to the application. Mr. Nation: That's not? Ms. Rice: No. Mr. Nation: One last point. Our encroachment on their space, to my knowledge, is our deck. Ms. Rice: Did anyone else want to testify specifically about the encroachment issue? Please. Mr. Greenberg: My name is Charlie Greenberg and I ... Ms. Rice: Could I get you to say it into the Microphone. Mr. Greenberg: Sure, Charles Greenberg, and I'm working with the Wilsons. Obviously, I don't have a heck of a lot of time, but I thought I'd just mention a couple of features. You obviously, in the interest of time, are wanting to know how this, it's the variance, you know the strict application of the variance. Ms. Rice: That's all I'm deciding is the variance. Mr. Greenberg: Right, right. In preparing a letter that I submitted on behalf of the Wilsons that you have undoubtedly had a chance to take a look at, I went through what I thought were the elements. In large part, I think on behalf of the Wilson's we drew on many of the conclusion that have been drawn by the staff for the City of Edmonds. I think that's, we tried to hit on, you know, the relevant issues. I haven't seen case law that would militate one way or the other. The bottom line is the Wilsons are in a house that predates the building code, and I believe it's the same case with Haynes. So now the issue is, you know, do we allow the Bogarts... I mean, I heard counsel, and I think I heard Mr. Rising speak multiple times about they want to enjoy what the neighbors to the north and the south enjoy, which is a reduction in setback. And it seems to me and important distinction factor is that the Wilsons and Haynes have been there for years and predating the code, so I think it's a distinguishing feature. I would anticipate that if the Haynes or Wilsons build in the future, it would be a different set of circumstances. So it seems to me not terribly appropriate to just, you know, draw the bare bones analogy, you know if Haynes can do it, Wilsons can do it, then we can do it. Mr. Greenberg: A couple of other just brief items. I for one, found the development code instructive, and this was something that the City had made mention of, and that is Section 16.10.000, where we talk about preserving not only for the subject property, itself, but for the neighbors, light, privacy, views, open spaces. One might argue, you know, whether it's 5- feet reduction in setback or 2-feet reduction in setback, given the circumstances that are associated with these properties, it seems to me that it is a violation of this section of the code to grant the variance, whether it's 2 or 5 feet. Mr. Greenberg: As far as special circumstances, I think the City said it best. If there's somebody else building, despite the character of the house or the height of the house, because view, as you noted, we're not here to determine those factors. We only know that under very similar circumstances, the same width of lot and same setback rules, somebody's able to build and basically give credence to the setback rules, which obviously were allowing the rules to do what they were designed to do when you do that. So I found that really quite instructive when I was made aware of this building permit application that is in place. Mr. Greenberg: The same thing with the comprehensive plan's goals and policies. If you take a look at specific elements in the plan's goals and policies, encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identify and desirability. I guess in light of what we have here, you know, in a different time and a different place, it may have made sense, but given the situation we have here, I don't think what is being proposed is consistent with these plans, goals and policies. So in closing, on behalf of the Wilsons, and having listened to the input today, like I said, variances are designed to accomplish a goal, and it seems to me, the issue is not whether it is 2 feet or 5 feet because in this case, any reduction in variance, given the locale of the various homes and the scenarios that we're looking at, I just don't think it's appropriate. Thank you. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Packet Page 180 of 357 Ms. Rice: Thank you. All right. It's 5:00, and I'm not positive that everybody who wants speak has spoken. We're supposed to be kicked out of the room, here, at 5:00. Is that correct? Do we happen to know if there is somebody coming in? Ms. Coccia: We don't know, so you need to... How many more minutes do you think you need? Ms. Rice: Well, I want to hear from the applicant, again, and then I want to hear from the City in response to public comments. So are there other members of the public who wish to testify? I don't see any other members of the public that wish to testify, so I don't know if the applicant feels like maybe we should just... I don't want to continue this to another date. Just sort of, if we could make our final comments and then if somebody comes in, we'll just kind of ignore them for a few minutes. Ms. Coccia: Kathleen's going to be checking Ms. Rice: Thank you. Mr. Thayer: I can wrap up. Ms. Rice: Okay, thanks Mr. Thayer. Mr. Thayer: Thank you. Very quickly. I think the major focus needs to be, really for the most part on what is effectively a 2-foot variance on the north and south sides. We didn't hear hardly any testimony or discussion about the effect of the garage. They were just focusing on the 2-foot variance they requested to the north and to the south. I didn't hear any testimony as to the material or even the minimus impact that the actual variance would have, the granting of the variance. I heard a lot of complaining about having a house built further west on the lot, so that it would be between the Haynes' house and the Wilson's house. I understand why they may not want that, but that is not, as you point out, relevant to whether or not my client should get the variance. If they don't get the variance, they're going to build a house to the west that, to be honest, is going to be most likely impact their values to their light, view, etc. more than this very small variance would. Mr. Thayer: I just want to point out again, I don't recall any testimony as to how the 2-foot variance, north and south, was going to impact either properties, or any of the properties. I heard people who are not excited about a new home being built. I heard people who are not excited about neighborhoods changing because of new development. I understand those concerns, but they're not relevant to my client's variance application. Mr. Thayer: Lastly, I guess I would, two quick things. One is what have you admitted into evidence, and do we need to cover anything else to get it admitted evidence. Do you have sufficient things to consider? I assume you've admitted the packet submitted by the City, which includes my submission. Is that correct? Ms. Rice: That's correct. I identified at the beginning of the hearing, we have Exhibit 1, which is the staff report dated July 12`h, and it has 8 attachments. Amongst those 8 attachments, I have this from the applicant, which involves letters from you and the previous variance decisions and planning staff reports. And then I also have Attachments 3, is a revised site plan. Attachment 4, site sections. Attachment 5, revised upper and lower floor plans. Attachment 6, neighbors' proposed site plan. Mr. Thayer: Do you have all the attachments for my submission, the photographs, the drawings... Ms. Rice: I do, I have, let me compliment you. These are excellent black and white photographs. These are great. Not that the photographs, themselves are great, I mean they are, they're lovely. But I mean the copy quality is better than usual. I can actually see them; they're nice. No thank you. Mr. Thayer: It sounds like you have everything you need. The only other thing that I would say, if you have any questions that either 1, Dr. Bogart, or Mr. Rising can answer at this time, while we're here. Ms. Rice: I don't believe I have any further questions for the applicant. Thank you. In addition to the 8 attachments that were attached to Exhibit 1 before the hearing, we now have also Attachment 9, 10 and 11, which were the comment letters Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Packet Page 181 of 357 from the Robley's, from Mr. Greenberg on behalf of the Wilsons and from Ms. Haynes. So those are all admitted. Okay. It looks like we have a couple of minutes. Ms. Coccia, do you want to speak to public comment, please? Ms. Coccia: Sure, I just wanted to clarify a few items. The minimum rear setback in the RS-12 zone is 25 feet, so that illustration that showed the maximum building coverage showed it to a 25-foot rear setback. I'm not sure if that took into consideration the slope involved in the property. That's always sorted out with the building permit. Typically, our code says, in Chapters 23.40 and 23.80 that if someone were to build on a property that has a steep slope, that is a slope over 40%, there would be a 50-foot buffer from the top of that slope and then a 15-foot building setback. So it's a total of 65 feet. However, if they want to get a geotechnical engineer involved, the geotechnical engineer might find that they can be sited much closer to the steep slope. So I just wanted to clear that up. And that's always determined with the building permit. Ms. Rice: You mean the actual required setback is determined at time of building permit. Ms. Coccia: Right. For critical areas that is correct. Ms. Rice: Thank you. Ms. Coccia: Also, they mentioned, I think he might maybe have just misspoke, but you said that the neighbor's building permit application had a 30-foot garage, and I think you said 30-foot height, but that's incorrect. The maximum height of all detached accessory structures is 15 feet, and that's measured from average original grade. Also with the building permit that just came in being reviewed, there's several errors that I just noticed, you know, on the site plan that will need to be corrected, obviously. Ms. Rice: The point of admitting or offering Attachment 6 is to show that somebody else did design a house on a narrow lot that honors the 10-foot setbacks. It's not being offered for any other purpose. Ms. Coccia: Great. Thank you. Also, I wanted to point out there was mention of a 3-car garage, and everyone that's building these new homes has a 3-car garage. But I review building permits as part of my job, and I noticed that there are also a lot of 2-car garages that come in with building permits, as well. So I'm not really sure if a 3-car garage is the minimum necessary or if the 2-car garage would be the minimum necessary. Ms. Coccia: Let's see, I think that's about all I had to speak on. Thank you. Ms. Rice: Could you explain or expand a little bit on what the 3 versus 2-car garage has to do with the variance. Ms. Coccia: Sure. If the applicant wanted to propose a 2-car garage, they could. The driveway would come in from the east, and you would just have to pull straight back out onto Sound View Place. Or they could orient it where there's a turn around in the driveway. If you orient it so there's a turnaround in the driveway so you can back out and then go straight onto Sound View Place, then you'll need to push that structure further north or further south, however you design it. And that's why they're asking for a variance. But I did want to also mention that they are showing that the garage they're proposing is taking into consideration the topography, and they are building into the slope. And they'd like to do that to reduce the bulk of it, which I thought was nice. However, it doesn't meet setbacks. Ms. Rice: Okay. Mr. Thayer: If I could make one last comment on the garage. Ms. Rice: Yes. Mr. Thayer: One of the people who spoke indicated that the properties to the east are elevated so that if a garage had to be built facing with the garage door east within the setback which we have submitted, would be a taller, more obtrusive structure. People who spoke indicated that people to the east are elevated and you can see over. I don't think our point is whether or not you can see over it or not, it's what you see when you look at the road. What you're going to see when you look at the road with the proposed design is going to be a garage that's sunk into the hill that's very unobtrusive. The home Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Packet Page 182 of 357 is sunk into the hill, as well, so it will blend and be aesthetically pleasing. If they had to turn that garage 180 degrees and squeeze it in within the setback requirements, it's going to be the first thing you see from the road is this big garage. And with the limitations on how it can be designed within the space and with the layout, then it will be more opposing and less attractive, less aesthetically pleasing. Sure it would be functional, but I don't think anybody in the neighborhood would be happy with it as compared to the wonderful design Mr. Rising has come up with. Ms. Rice: Okay. Well, I appreciate that for all people who are here today, you've taken a lot of time to be here. Obviously, it's because this is very important to you, and I appreciate that on behalf of everybody. It is difficult when next door changes, and I understand that this is personal. I will reviewing all of the information that has been submitted. I will be applying the facts in the record to the criteria for variance approval, and I will only be looking at the variance from the side yard setback in making my decision. It's the only thing I have jurisdiction to consider. So just keep in mind I'm going to be focusing on the facts that you have all presented and on the criteria for approval. I believe that I have everything. So we're going to close the record and adjourn the hearing. Again, because the record is closing today, you can look for the decision on or before August 2°d. Thanks very much for being here; I appreciate everyone's testimony. I TESTIFY THAT THESE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS ARE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY TO TRANSCRIBE THE PROCEEDINGS. Karin Noyes, Transcriber Date Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Packet Page 183 of 357 CITY OF E D M O N D S GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 HEARING EXAMINER roc igc4v In the Matter of the Application of } NO. V-2006-102 } Christopher Thayer, on behalf of } Dr. Raymond Bognert } FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, } AND DECISION For a Variance ) SUMMARY OF DECISION The request for a variance from the side yard setback requirements of the RS-12 zone to accommodate a new single-family residence and a new detached garage on the subject property at 18600 Sound View Place, in Edmonds, Washington is DENIED. SUMMARY OF RECORD Reauest: Christopher Thayer, on behalf of Dr. Raymond Bogaert (Applicant), requested a variance from the side yard setback requirements of the RS-12 zone to allow construction of a new single- family residence. The requested variance would reduce portions of the north and south side yard setbacks from the required ten to eight feet to accommodate the residence and. a portion of the a portion of the south side yard setback from ten feet to five feet to accommodate a detached garage. The subject property is located at 18600 Sound View Place, in Edmonds, Washington Hearin: The City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner held an open record hearing on the request on July 19, 2007. The Hearing Examiner conducted a site view prior to the hearing. Testimony: At the open record hearing the following individuals presented testimony under oath: 1. Gina Coccia, Planner, City of Edmonds 2. Kathleen Taylor, Associate Planner, City of Edmonds 3. Christopher Thayer, Applicant Representative, Larson Hart & Shepherd 4. Steve Rising, Applicant Representative, TCA Architecture 5. Bill Wilson 6. Vicki Haynes 7. Walter Yeager 8. Joan Swift 9. Ron Nations 10. Charles Greenberg, Attorney for Bill and Nicole Wilson Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds Bogaert Variance, No. i' 2006-102 page 1 of 8 Packet Page 184 of 357 Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Exhibits: The following exhibits were admitted into the record: A. Staff Report dated July 12, 2007, with the following attachments: 1. City of Edmonds Planning Division Staff Report dated September 15, 2006, with attachments: a. Zoning vicinity map b. Land use application, dated received August 3, 2006 c. Applicant Declarations, dated August 2, 2006 d. Site Section and elevations (graphics), prepared by TCA Architecture e. Topography graphic, prepared by TCA Architecture f Aerial photograph g. Letter submitted by Charles Greenberg, Attorney, on behalf of Bill and Nicole Wilson, dated September 14, 2006 2. Applicant revised submittal letter, dated April9, 2007, with attachments: a. Thirteen black/white copies of 8x11 photographs of existing development on -site and of existing neighboring structures b. V-02-253, City of Edmonds Findings, Conclusions, and Decision c. V-02-150, City of Edmonds Findings, Conclusions, and Decision d. V-2000-42, City of Edmonds Findings, Conclusions, and Decision e. V-2000-92, City of Edmonds Findings, Conclusions, and Decision f V-01-57, City of Edmonds Findings, Conclusions, and Decision g. V-00-0141, City of Edmonds Findings, Conclusions, and Decision h. V-02-235/V-02-236, City of Edmonds Findings, Conclusions, and Decision 3. Revised Site Plans, prepared by TCA Architecture, dated received May 8, 2007 4. Site Sections, prepared by TCA Architecture, dated :received May 8, 2007 5. Revised upper/lower floor plans, prepared by TCA Architecture 6. Proposed site plan from application BLD-2007-0699, at 18720 Sound View Place 7. Affidavit of posting and mailing, dated July 5, 2007 8. Comment letters: a. Letter from Richard Gifford, Attorney, on behalf of Vicki Haynes, dated September 20, 2006 b. Email from Paul Lippert, dated September 20, 2006 9. Robblee Letter, dated July 13, 2007 10. Greenberg letter, dated July 17, 2007 Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds Bogaert Variance, No. V-2006-102 page 2 of 8 Packet Page 185 of 357 11. Vicki Haynes submissions, including: a. Haynes letter, dated July 17, 2007 b. Haynes letter, dated September 13, 2006 c. Letter to Vicki Haynes from Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc., Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting, dated September 20, 2006 Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted in the record, the Hearing Examiner enters the following findings and conclusions: FINDINGS 1. The Applicant requested a variance from the side yard setback requirements of the RS-12 zone to allow construction of a new single-family residence. The requested variance would reduce portions of the north and south side yard setbacks from the required ten feet to eight feet to accommodate the residence and a portion of the north side yard setback from ten feet to five feet to accommodate a detached garage. The subject property is located at 18600 Sound View Place, in Edmonds, Washington. Exhibit A, Attachments 2; Testimony of Mr. Thayer. 2. The Comprehensive Plan designation of the subject property is Single Family — Resource. City staff and the Applicant identified the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies as being applicable to the proposal: Residential Development Section, Goal B: 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. B.2. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additional to existing structures. B.3. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible. BA. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation, and drainage. Exhibit A, Attachment 1, page 9. 1 The legal description of the subject property is a portion of Section 13, Township 27 North, Range 3 East, W.M.; the property is also known as Tax Account # 00434600201701 and 00434600201000. Exhibit A, Attachment 1. b, Land Use Application. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds Bogaert Variance, No. V-2006--102 page 3 of S Packet Page 186 of 357 3. The subject property is located in the Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone. Exhibit A, page 2. The general purposes of the residential zones are to provide for areas of residential uses at a range of densities consistent with public health and safety and the adopted comprehensive plan and to regulate development to preserve for itself and its neighbors light (including direct sunlight), privacy, views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features, and freedom from air, water, noise and visual pollution. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16. 00.010. The RS-12 zone requires a minimum lot width of 80 feet. The minimum required street and rear yard setbacks are 25 feet, and the minimum side yard setbacks are 10 feet. The maximum structure height is 25 feet. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.20.030. 4. The subject property is 15,737 square feet in area. It is 50 feet wide (north to south) by approximately 315 feet long (east to west), with 50 feet of frontage on Sound View Place.' It is considered a legally nonconforming lot because it was created before the City's zoning standards were applied to the property at the time of annexation in 1961.3 In addition to being 30 feet narrower than the minimum lot width required by the RS-12 zone, the subject property is encumbered by a required setback from a steep slope. The approximately 32-foot slope, adjacent to the west, meets the City's definition of landslide hazard area and is regulated by the City's Environmentally Critical Areas ordinance (ECDC Chapter 23.40). Exhibit A, Attachment 1, pages 3-4; Attachment 2, Revised Submittal, page 2; Attachment 1. e. 5. The subject property slopes gently downward to the west from Sound View Place. It contains a fairly level yard, which drops abruptly down to the west near the steep slope. The site is vegetated with mature evergreen trees, fruit and ornamental trees, a large shrub or hedge in the west of the existing rear yard, and other landscaping typical of residential development. Existing development on -site includes a single-family residence set back 5.4 feet from the north property line and 8.5 feet from the south property line. An existing detached carport is located directly on the south property line. These structures are considered legally nonconforming because they were built prior to annexation.' Exhibit A, Attachment 1. e; Testimony of Mr. Thayer. z The subject property fronts Sound View Place on its southeastern boundary and faces Puget Sound with its northwestern boundary. Exhibit A, Attachment Le. For ease of discussion, this decision will refer to the Sound View Place frontage as the east property line or boundary, the end nearest Puget Sound as the west boundary, and the long property lines as " north" and south" instead of "northeastern" and "southwestern". 3 A nonconforming lot is one which met applicable zoning ordinance standards as to size, width, depth and other dimensional regulations at the date on which it was created but which, due to the passage of a zoning ordinance, the amendment thereof, or the annexation of property to the city, no longer conforms to the current provisions of the zoning ordinance. ECDC 17.40.030.A. 4 A nonconforming building is one which once met bulk zoning standards and the site development standards applicable to its construction, but which no longer conforms to such standards due to the enactment or amendment of the zoning ordinance of the city of Edmonds or the application of such ordinance in the case of a structure annexed to the city. ECDC 17.40.020.A. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds Bogaert Variance, No. V 2006-102 page 4 of 8 Packet Page 187 of 357 6. Surrounding development consists of similarly legally nonconforming single-family residential development. Many of the surrounding lots are narrower than the 80-foot minimum required by the current zoning standards. The residences abutting the subject property to the north and south both have structures that encroach into the 10-foot side yard setbacks adjacent to the Applicant's property. Exhibit A, Attachment Le; Testimony of Mr. Thayer. 7. The application originally filed in August 2006 requested a five-foot reduction in the north side yard setback for construction of the residence and detached garage and a two - foot reduction in the south side yard setback for the residence. Exhibit A, Attachment T b, Application. Planning Staff recommended denial of the variance request and the Applicant's neighbors opposed the proposal. Exhibit A, Attachment 1; Attachment Lg; Attachment 8, Comment letters. Based on these responses, the Applicant revised the proposal such that the five-foot reduction request only applied to the detached garage and the requested reduction for the residence was two feet to either side, leaving an eight -foot setback from both the north and south property lines. Testimony of Mr. Thayer; Exhibit A, Attachments 2 and 3. At hearing, the Applicant requested that the original variance request of August 2006 be approved, and in the alternative requested that the revised request be approved. Testimony of Mf . Thayer, Exhibit A, page 2. 8. The Applicant proposes to remove the existing structures on -site and replace them with a new single-family residence and a new detached three -car garage located closer to the west end of the parcel.5 The Applicant retained an architectural firm to design, and subsequently to revise, the proposed residence such that it would be set partially into the hillside in order to reduce the overall mass of the structures, particularly the garage. The proposed design is the intended to reduce the visual impact of the new structures on the views of neighbors. The proposal includes the use of glass and near transparent rail systems for decking to preserve natural light. Much of the existing vegetation would be preserved or replaced to maintain current levels of privacy between closely placed homes. Exhibit A, Attachment 2, Revised submittal, Testimony of Mr. Rising; Testimony of Mr. Thayer. 9. By way of demonstrating the limited impact the proposed structures could have, the Applicant submitted visual depictions of the structure that could be built on -site without a variance. Exhibit 1, Attachment 4, Site Sections. The Applicant conceded that no variance is required to allow residential development of the site, but argued that the proposed design incorporating the requested variance would be more aesthetically pleasing, would be more compatible with new development in the vicinity, and would be consistent with the surrounding legally nonconforming buildings. Exhibit A, Attachment 2, page 11; Testimony of Mr. Thayer; Testimony of Mr. Rising. The Applicant argues that variance approval would simply afford him the same privileges enjoyed neighbors whose structures encroach into the required side yard setbacks. Exhibit A, Attachment 2, 5 One neighbor contends that the Applicant intends to retain the existing two -car carport for use in addition to the proposed three -car garage. Exhibit A, Attachment I M, page 3. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner- for City of Edmonds Bogaert Variance, No. V-2006-10.2 page 5 of 8 Packet Page 188 of 357 page 9. The Applicant offered several previous hearing examiner approvals of variances from side yard setbacks. Exhibit A, Attachments 2.b — 2.h. 10. City staff reviewed the variance application and recommended denial. The recommendation was based on Staf 's analysis that if the application fails to meet one of the variance criteria, no variance can be granted. In Staffs opinion, the application does not satisfy the last criterion because the minimum variance necessary to allow the Applicant the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning is no variance at all. Staff offers in support of its analysis a building permit application for a new single-family residence at 18720 Sound View Place, which is also a legally nonconforming lot only 50 feet wide. The proposed residence would be built without a variance from the 10-foot side yard setbacks required by the RS-12 zone. In addition, Staff noted that a two -car garage would be consistent with existing garages in the neighborhood and could be designed such that it would not require the five-foot reduction in the side yard setback. Testimony ofMs. Coccia; Exhibit A, page 3; Exhibit A, Attachment 6. 11, The open record public hearing on the requested variance was advertised consistent with the requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code, Exhibit A, Attachment 7, Testimony ofMs. Coccia. The City received several public comments both for and against the requested variance. Those in favor of the requested variance cited the narrowness of the lot and the prevalence of reduced side yard setbacks on surrounding lots. Exhibit A, Attachment 9; Testimony ofMs. Swift. Comments opposing the requested variance cited adverse impacts to light, privacy, view, and the use of space on adjoining properties, and concerns that the design of the home would not be consistent with the more traditional designs of existing homes in the area. Exhibit A, Attachment 8, Lippert Email and Gifford letter, Attachment 10, Greenberg letter; Attachment 11, Haynes submittal; Testimony of Mr. Wilson; Testimony of Ms Haynes, Testimony of Mr Yeager, Testimony of Mr Nations; Testimony of Mr. Greenberg. 12. The Applicant offered a visual depiction of views that would be retained by adjoining residences if the requested variance were granted and the proposed structures built according to the submitted plans. Exhibit A, Attachment 3, Revised Site Plans — see view arrows. Public comment included testimony objecting to the credibility of the retained views depicted in the Applicant's submittal. However, much the view -related opposition testimony pertained to the Applicant's intention to relocate the residence closer to the west end of the site, which is not relevant to the variance application. Testimony of Mr. Wilson; Testimony of Ms. Haynes; Testimony of Mr. Yeager; Testimony of Mr. Nations. 13. If the Applicant chose to remodel the existing residence and carport, the current nonconforming setbacks could be maintained. However, all new development --- whether replacement of or addition to existing structures — is required to comply with current zoning standards, including side yard setbacks. Testimony ofMs. Taylor; Testimony of Ms. Coccia; ECDC 17.40.020. F. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds Bogaert Variance, No. V 2006-102 page 6 of 8 Packet Page 189 of 357 CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction: The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide variance requests pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.100.010(B). Criteria for Variance Review: Pursuant to ECDC 20.85.010, the Hearing Examiner may not grant a variance unless all of the following findings can be made: 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. 1. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses as 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. 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. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan; D. Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of 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 the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Nearing Examiner for City of Edmonds Bogaert Variance, No. V 2006--102 page 7 of 8 Packet Page 190 of 357 Conclusions Based on Findings: 1. Approval of the requested variance would not be consistent with the zoning ordinance. The existing nonconforming setbacks enjoyed by the structures on the subject property and on surrounding properties predate annexation of the neighborhood to the City of Edmonds. The zoning ordinance expressly establishes a policy of phasing out nonconforming uses. Pursuant to the zoning code, if a nonconforming building is destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal to 50 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, said building shall not be reconstructed except in the conformance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. ECDC 17.40.020.F. If the Applicant lost the existing residence to natural disaster, he would still be required to rebuild consistent with current zoning standards. Approval of the requested variance based on surrounding nonconforming development would frustrate the City Council's purpose in enacting the current zoning ordinance and would in effect constitute a rezone. The application does not satisfy the variance criterion established in ECDC 20.85.010.D. Findings Nos 3, 5, 8, and 13. 2. No variance is necessary to allow the Applicant to enjoy the same rights as those that would be afforded to surrounding properties. The Applicant and all neighbors in the RS-12 zone enjoy the options of retaining existing nonconforming structures, a course favored by the Comprehensive Plan, or redeveloping their properties consistent with the zoning code. Previous variance decisions do not constitute evidence or precedent in the consideration of the current application. Legal nonconformity is not a property right to which new development is entitled. The minimum variance necessary to allow the Applicant to enjoy a new home on his property is no variance. The application does not satisfy the variance criterion established in ECDC 20.85.01 O.F. Findings Nos. 9, 10, and 13. 3. Because the application does not satisfy all criteria established in ECDC 20.85.010, the variance must be denied. The zoning code does not confer discretion on the Examiner to grant variances for the purpose of achieving more aesthetically pleasing. development. ECED I Z 40.020, 2a85.010. DECISION Based on the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request for a variance to reduce portions of the north and south side yard setbacks at 18500 Sound View Place, in Edmonds, Washington is DENIED. DECIDED this 2nd day of August 2007. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds Bogaert Variance, No. V-2006-102 Toweill Rice Taylor LLC City of Edmonds Hearing Examiners B: Sharon A. Rice page 8 of 8 Packet Page 191 of 357 CITY OF E D M O N D S GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing requests for reconsideration and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a request for reconsideration or an appeal should contact the Planning Division of the Develo went Services DqVartment for further procedural information. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Section 20.100A10(G) of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) requires the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his or her 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 speck references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. APPEALS Chapter 20.105 of the ECDC contains the appeal procedures for Hearing Examiner decisions. Pursuant to Section 20.105.040(A), persons entitled to appeal include (1) the Applicant; (2) anyone who has submitted a written document to the City of Edmonds concerning the application prior to or at the hearing; or (3) anyone testifying on the application at the hearing. Sections 20.105.020(A) requires appeals to be in writing, and state (1) the decision being appealed, the name of the project applicant, and the date of the decision; (2) the name and address of the person (or group) appealing the decision, and his or her interest in the matter; and (3) the reasons why the person appealing believes the decision to be wrong. Pursuant to Section 20.105.020(B), the appeal must be filer/ with the Director of the Development Services Department within 14 calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. The appeal must be accompanied by any required appeal fee. MM LEWTS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeal run concurrently. If a request for reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an 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 or her 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 five of the appeal period, an individual would have nine more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.85.020(C) of the ECDC states, "[t]he 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 time before the expiration and the city approves the application." NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may, as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner, request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. Packet Page 192 of 357 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan ncc.1Fi91' CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 ^ (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON APPLICANT, } } Christopher Thayer, on behalf of } Case No. V-2006-102 Dr. Raymond Bogaert } } DECLARATION OF SERVICE For a Variance ; . I, Sharon A. Rice, the undersigned, do hereby declare: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 1. That I am a partner in the firm of Toweill Rice Taylor LLC, which maintains a professional services agreement with the City of Edmonds, Washington for the provision of Hearing Examiner services, and make this declaration in that capacity; 2. That I am now and at all times herein mentioned have been a citizen of the United States, a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of eighteen (18), and competent to be a witness and make service herein; 3. That on July 31, 2007, I did serve a copy of the decision in case V-2006-102 upon the following individuals at the addresses below by first class US Mail. Christopher L. Thayer Larson Hart & Shepherd, PLLC 600 University Street, Suite 1730 Seattle, WA 98101 Dr, Raymond Bogaert 18600 Sound View Place Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds City Council 121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor Edmonds, WA 99020 Gina Coccia, Planner City of Edmonds Planning, 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Rob Chave, Planning Manager City of Edmonds 121— 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Packet Page 193 of 357 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Stephen R Rising TCA Architecture 6211 Roosevelt Way NE Seattle, WA 98115 Paul Li ert 1520 9 Avenue North Edmonds, WA 90020 Dr. & Mrs. William Williamson ./ 185IS Sound View Place Edmonds, WA 98020 Joan Swift 18520 Sound View Place V Edmonds, WA 98020 Jim Wilkinson 612 Sunset Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Dana Knutson 18720 Sound View Place Edmonds, WA 98020 Charles M. Greenberg Triad Law Group PSC 126 Third Avenue South, Ste. 101 Edmonds, WA 98020 Vicki Haynes and Ron Nations _ 18602 Sound View Place V Edmonds, WA 98020 Richard Gifford, PLLC 600 Main Street, Ste. E Edmonds, WA 98020 Alvin Rutledge 7101 Lake Ballinger Way Edmonds, WA 98026 Walter & Barbara Yeager V/ 18504 Sound View Place Edmonds, WA 98020 I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct: DATED THIS -6t day of 2007 atQ) S , Washington. Sbrdn A. Rice Toweill Rice Taylor LLC Serving as Hearing Examiner for Edmonds, Washington Packet Page 194 of 357 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ADDENDUM TO 0911512006 STAFFREPORT) To: Hearing Examiner From: ' Gina Coccia Planner Date: 1ULY 12, 2007 File: V-2006-102 (DR. BOGAERT NORTH & SOUTH SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES) Hearing Date, Time, and Place: ; ; DULY 19, 2007 — 3:00 P.M. Council Chambers, Public Safety Building 250 — 5"' Avenue North Edmonds Washington 98020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................2 A. APPLICATION..................................................................................................................................... 3 B. RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................................3 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS...............................................................4 A. SITE DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................................................4 B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)..................................................................................4 C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE .............................................. 4 D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC)........................................................................................................ 5 E. PUBLIC COMMENTS........................................................................................................................... 5 F. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE.................................................................................................................... 6 III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS......................................................................6 A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION...................................................................................................... 6 B. APPEALS............................................................................................................................................7 C. TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS.......................................................................... 7 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL...................................................................................................7 V. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR.....................................................................7 VI. ATTACHMENTS..............................................................................................................7 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD................................................................................................... 8 Packet Page 195 of 357 Dr. Bogaert Side Setback Variances File V-2006-102 Page 2 of 8 I. INTRODUCTION This is an application by Christopher L. Thayer on behalf of Dr. Raymond Bogaert has applied for setback variances at the property located at 18600 Sound View Place in the Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone. These variances will reduce the required north side setback for a new single-family house from 10- feet to 8-feet; reduce the required north side setback from 10-feet to 5-feet to accommodate a garage; and to reduce the required south side setback from l 0-feet to 8-feet for the house. In addition, this request is to include the standard 30" eave encroachment into the setback area. The staff report composed by (former) Senior Planner Meg Gruwell, AICP, dated 09/15/2006 (Attachment 1), made findings and conclusions based upon the initial variance request for 5-foot side setbacks along the north and south sides of the property. She recommended denial of both variance requests, because she felt that the applicant did not prove that they met all of the six variance criteria. An applicant must prove that they meet all six variance criteria in order for staff to make a recommendation of approval. The public hearing was scheduled for 09/21/2006 and at the request of the applicant it was continued until 10/05/2006. On this date, the hearing was postponed until a later date to be determined. In the mean time, the applicant has been working on a solution that he feels would adequately address the concerns of his neighbors. The applicant has revised the original application (Attachments 2, 3, 4, and 5) and staffs analysis is contained in this report. Staff agrees with the findings and conclusions made in the initial staff report. Because the variance application has been revised and because new information has been submitted, this staff report is considered an addendum to the initial staff report. The applicant has requested that although they have revised their variance application so that it intrudes less into the setbacks than the original request, they would still appreciate it if the original request (5-foot setbacks) could also be reviewed for approval. This is their first choice. Their second choice would be the approval of 8-foot setbacks for the single-family home and a northern 5-foot setback for the garage. Attachment I is the original staff report dated 09/15/2006, as well as the original attachments. This staff report analyzed the initial 5-foot side setback requests. This addendum to the original staff report took into consideration the revised variance materials submitted. Attachment 2 is the revised criteria statement submitted 04/10/2007, along with several attachments including photographs and copies of variances they feel are applicable to their case. Attachment 3 consists of several revised site plans. One is titled "new residence and garage" and shows their revised variance request. It also has arrows leading off the decks of the neighboring properties, which shows how the applicant feels that the neighbors will still be able to enjoy the same views. The next site plan is titled "existing vegetation and buildings" and it shows the existing vegetation as it relates to the neighbor's views. The last site plan is titled "buildable footprint based on lot coverage" and shows what the applicant could propose without a variance request. In the applicant's criteria statement, they also mention that they feel that they could build on this property, but they feel that the added bulk, height, and impacts would be greater if a variance were not approved. Attachment 4 shows the site sections — it is an illustration of the maximum buildable volume (without a variance) compared to what the applicant would like to do with the proposed variance. It appears that the applicant has tried to create shorter and less -bulky alternative (which does, however, encroach into the side setbacks slightly). Attachment 5 shows the preferred floor plan with a proposed 34-feet wide (as opposed to the required 30- feet wide) building envelope. Attachment 6 is a rare find — coincidentally, a neighbor just down the street from the subject site has applied for a building permit (BLD-2007-0699). Their property is also approximately 50-feet wide and they have proposed a design that appears to meet the required 10-foot side setbacks for the zone. This permit has not been approved, it has only been recently applied for, but it serves to show that the property can probably be developed with a new 30-foot wide single-family house without the need for a variance. Also, the garage that was proposed is a two -car, not a three -car garage. The two -car garage fits on the property and is accessed directly from the east without the need for the larger turn -around area. Attachment 7 is the affidavit of posting and mailing, which shows that the required notice has been provided for the public hearing. StaflReport_V-06-102.doc / July 12, 2007 Packet Page 196 of 357 Dr. Bogaert Side Setback Variances File V-2006-102 Page 3 of 8 Attachment 8 is the two comment letters received between the date that the (initial) staff report was composed and today. The following is the Edmonds Planning Division's analysis and recommendation of the applicant's submittal. A. Application -- Seepage 2 of Attachment 1. B. Recommendations Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend DENIAL of both setback variances. If the Hearing Examiner wished to approve the setback variances, we would recommend the following conditions: 1. The setback variance to allow an eight foot setback to the north (northeast) side property line for the single-family residence is approved as shown on the site plan (Attachment 3 — "site plan: new residence and garage'). 2. The setback variance to allow a five foot setback to the north (northeast) side property line for the garage is approved as shown on the site plan (Attachment 3 —"site plan: new residence and garage'). 3. The applicant must meet the Engineering Division requirements. Specifically, meeting the maximum driveway slope requirements as identified in the Edmonds Community Development Code. 9. The applicant must meet the Fire Department requirements. Specifically, • The dwelling will require the installation of afire sprinkler system in accordance with pamphlet NFPAI3D, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One and Two - Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes., or other approved and recognized standard; and, • The dwelling sprinkler system will require a separate permit for approval and installation; and, Sprinkler systems require periodic maintenance to remain viable. A covenant will be required for this purpose to maintain the viability of the automatic sprinkler system. The covenant will apply to all future property owners and successors. 5. As noted by the Public Works Department, the city's easement cannot be encroached upon. 6. 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. 7. The applicant must obtain a building permit. 8. Typographical errors must be removed from the geotechnical report and all conditions in ECDC 23.80.070.A.I.b must be directly addressed 9. The applicant must comply with all of the terms of any future permits. 10. The variance shall be transferable. 11. 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 time before the expiration and the city approves the application. Only one one-year extension is possible. StaffReport_V-06-102.doe /July 12, 2007 Packet Page 197 of 357 Dr. Bogaert Side Setback Variances File V-2006-102 Page 4 of 8 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Site Description 1. Site Development and Zoning: -- Seepage 3 of Attachment 1. 2. Neighboring Development and Zoning: -- Seepage 3 of Attachment 1. B. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) -- Seepage 3 of Attachment 1. C. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance 1. Critical Areas Compliance (ECDC Chapter 23) -- Seepages 3-4 of Attachment 1. 2. Compliance with (RS-12) Zoning Standards (ECDC Chapter 16,20) a) Facts: -- Seepage 5 of Attachment 1. (1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development in the Single -Family Residential zone (RS-12) are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030. (2) When setbacks are applied to the subject property, which is approximately 50-feet wide, the result is a narrow rectangular lot with a building envelope 30 feet wide (Attachment 3). (3) The applicant has revised their variance request as shown in Attachment 3. Initially, they had requested that the 10-foot side setback be reduced to 5 feet along both the north and the south property lines. (4) The applicant now shows the new house set back a distance of 8 feet from the north and south side property lines (Attachment 3). (5) The applicant still shows the new garage set back a distance of 5 feet from the north . side property line (Attachment 3). (6) CoincidentalIy, the city has recently received a building permit application for a property in the general vicinity at 18720 Sound View Place (BLD-2007-0699). This property is also approximately 50-feet wide. They are also proposing a new single- family residence along the western portion of their property. They are also proposing a new detached garage. Attachment 6 shows how they have attempted to design their project to meet the 10-foot side setbacks. b) Conclusions: -- Seepage 5 of Attachment 1. (1) The applicant would need a variance to construct the house and garage as shown on Attachment 3. (2) Based on a recent building permit application (Attachment 6), it appears to be possible to construct a 30-foot wide home on a 50-foot wide lot and still meet the required 10-foot side setbacks for the RS-12 zone. StaffReport_V-06-102.doc / July 12, 2007 Packet Page 198 of 357 Dr. Bogaert Side Setback Variances File V-2006-102 Page 5 of 8 3. Compliance with Requirements for a Variance (ECDC 20.85) a) Facts: -- Seepages S through 7 of Attachment 1. (1) Attachment 4 shows that the new house and garage, as proposed, will not be as tall as the height limit would allow. (2) Attachments 3 and 4 show that the new house and garage, as proposed, will be less bulky than the maximum lot coverage would allow. (3) Attachment 3 "Site plan: existing vegetation and buildings" argues that the neighbors views are currently impacted by the existing vegetation. (4) Attachment 6 shows that a property of this size can probably be developed with a 30- foot wide single family home and a detached two -car garage. (5) The applicant has stated that if the variance were not approved, then they would likely build the site to the fullest potential possible as shown in Attachments 3 and 4. b) Conclusions: (1) Special Circumstances: -- Seepage 7 of Attachment 1. (2) Special Privilege: -- See page 7 ofAttachment 1. (3) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: -- See page 7 of Attachment 1. (4) Not Detrimental: -- Seepage 7 of.4ttachment 1. (5) Minimum Variance: -- Seepage 7 of Attachment 1. D. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) -- Seepage 9 of Attachment 1. E. Public Comments L Letters Received -- ,See page 9 of Attachment 1. a) Public Comment Letters (Attachment 8) (1) Paul Lippert submitted an email to former Senior Planner Meg Gruwell, AICP, on 09/20/2006. He lives down the street and generally opposes the application because he feels that narrow lot width is not a "good enough" reason for a variance. (2) Richard E. Gifford, PLLC, submitted a letter on 09/21/2006 on behalf of his client, Vicki Haynes, who is the adjacent neighbor to the south. They wish to be official parties of record for this project and to be notified of all proceedings. b) Sign -In Sheet 09/21/2006 (Attachment 8) (1) Jim Wilkinson — 612 Sunset Avenue North. (2) Joan Swift — 18520 Sound View Place. c) Sign -In Sheet 10/05/2006 (Attachment 8) (1) Alvin Rutledge: 7101 Lake Ballinger Way. Packet Page 199 of 357 StaflReport_V-06-102.doc I July 12, 2007 Dr. Bogaert Side Setback Variances File V-2006-102 Page 6 of 8 F. Technical Committee 1. Review by City Departments a) Facts: The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire Department, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, and the Parks and Recreation Department. (1) The Engineering Division noted that the applicant will be required to meet all Engineering requirements at building permit application. This includes, but is not limited to, meeting the maximum driveway slope requirements as identified in the Edmonds Community Development Code. (2) The Fire Department reviewed the proposal, especially as it relates to firefighting capability and the bridge on the property and noted the following: • The dwelling will require the installation of a fire sprinkler system in accordance with pamphlet NFPAI3D, Standard for the Installation of S rip nkler stems in One and Two -Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes., or other approved and recognized standard; and, • The dwelling sprinkler system will require a separate permit for approval and installation; and, • Sprinkler systems require periodic maintenance to remain viable. A covenant will be required for this purpose to maintain the viability of the automatic sprinkler system. The covenant will apply to all future property owners and successors. (3) The Public Works Department notes, "No permanent structures are to be built in the city's utility easements. " b) Conclusion: (1) If the variance is approved, then the applicant would need to address the above - mentioned concerns of the various City Departments. III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20,100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. Staf Report_V-06-102.doc / July 12, 2007 Packet Page 200 of 357 Dr, Bogaert Side Setback Variances File V-2006-102 Page 7 of 8 S. Appeals Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project 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 Appeals The time limits for Reconsideration's and Appeals run concurrently, If a request for reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an 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. IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL 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 ides an application for an extension of the time before the expiration and the city approves the application." V. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may, as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner, request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. VI. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Report and original attachments (09/15/2006). 2. Revised criteria statement and attachments. 3. Revised site plans: "new residence and garage ", "existing vegetation and buildings ", and "buildable footprint based on lot coverage. " 4. Site sections. "buildable volume", "new building massing" and "site sections at each neighboring building. " 5. Upper and lower floor plans (received 04/10/2007). 6. Neighbor's proposed site plan (BLD-2007-0699). 7. Affidavit of posting and mailing. 8. Comment letters and parties of record. StaftReport_V-06-102,doc / July 12, 2007 Packet Page 201 of 357 Dr. Bogaert Side Setback Variances File V-2006-102 Page 8 of 8 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD Christopher L. Thayer Planning Division Larson Hart & Shepherd, PLLC Engineering Division 600 University Street — Ste. 1730 Parks & Recreation Department Seattle WA 98101 Fire Department Public Works Department Stephen R. Rising Charles M. Greenberg TCA Architecture -Planning Triad Law Group, P.S.C. 6211 Roosevelt Way NE 126 Third Avenue South —Ste. 101 Seattle WA 98115 Edmonds WA 98020-8402 Paul Lippert Vicki Haynes 1520 O' Avenue North 18602 Sound View Place Edmonds WA 98020 Edmonds WA 98020 Dr. & Mrs. William Williamson Richard R. Gifford, PLLC 18518 Sound View Place 600 Main Street — Ste. E Edmonds WA 98020 Edmonds WA 98020 Joan Swift Alvin Rutledge 18520 Sound View Place 7101 Lake Ballinger Way Edmonds WA 98020 Edmonds WA 98026 .Tim Wilkinson Dr. Raymond Bogaert 612 Sunset Avenue North 18600 Sound View Place Edmonds WA 98020 Edmonds WA 98020 Dana Knutson 18720 Sound View Place Edmonds WA 98020 StaflReport_V-06-102.doc / July 12, 2007 Packet Page 202 of 357 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner From: Me nxwell Senior Planner Date: SEPTEMBER 15, 2006 File: V-06-102 RAYMOND BOGAERT Hearing Date, Time, And Place: SEPTEMBER 21. 2006, 3:00 P.M. Council Chambers, Public Safety Building 250 — 5"' Avenue N. Edmonds, Washington Section Page I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................2 A. APPLICATION........................................................................................................................_............ 2 B. RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................................2 H. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS...............................................................3 A. SrrE DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................. 3 B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT(SEPA)..................................................................................3 C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE..............................................3 D. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE........................................................—.............................._......................... 8 E. PUBLIC COMMENTS........................................................................................................................... 9 F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC)........................................................................................................ 9 IIL RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS................................................................... IO A. REQUEST FOR RECONsI DERATION.................................................................................................... 10 B. APPEALS......................................................................................................................................I... 10 C. TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS........................................................................ 10 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL.................................................................................................10 V. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR...................................................................10 VI. ATTACHMENTS............................................................................................................10 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD.................................................................................................11 Attachment 1 Staff report & attachments (09115106) Packet Page 203 of 357 _ - Raymond Bogaert File No. V-06-102 Page 2 of t 1 L INTRODUCTION A. Application 1. Applicant: Morgan Hougland of TCA Architecture for Raymond Bogaert (see Attachment 2). 2. Site Location: 18600 Sound View Place (see Attachment 1). 3. Request: A variance to reduce the required 10-foot side setback to 5 feet along the north property line and to 8 feet along the south property line (see Attachments 2 through 4). 4. Review Process: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. 5. 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). c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.40 and 80 (ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS GENERAL PROVISIONS and GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS). S. Recommendations Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend DENIAL of the both setback variances. If the Hearing Examiner wished to approve the setback variances, we would recommend the following conditions. L The setback variance to allow a five-foot setback to the north (northeast )side property line is approved as shown on the site plan in Attachment 4. 2. The setback of variance to allow an eight foot setback to the south (southwest) side property line is approved as shown on the site plan in Attachment 4. 3. The applicants must meet the Fire Department requirements. 4. The city's easement cannot be encroached upon. 5. 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. 6. The applicant must obtain a buildingpermit. 7. Typographical errors must be removed from the geotechnical report and all conditions in ECDC 23.80.0 70.A. 1. b. must be directly addressed. 8. The applicant must comply with all the terms of any future permits. 9. The permit should be transferable. 10. 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. Only one one-year extension is possible. V-06-102.doc / September 15, 2006 / Staff Report Packet Page 204 of 357 Raymond Bogaert File No. V-06-102 Page 3 of I l II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Site Description 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Size and Access: The subject property is 15,737 square feet, with approximately 50 feet of frontage on Sound View Place (see Attachment 4). (2) Land Use: The site is developed with an existing single-family residence and carport (see Attachment 5). (3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-12) (see Attachment 1). (4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject site drops down from Sound View Place in rolling hills and has a fairly level rear yard before it drops abruptly down to the Burlington Northern right-of-way (see Attachment 5). According to the topography submitted, the steep slope is on the railroad right-of-way. The vegetation on the site includes very tall evergreen trees, most of which have been topped and have tall leaders. Other vegetation includes fruit and ornamental trees, ferns, roses, other shrubs, and lawn (see Attachments 5). 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Assuming that the Puget Sound is "west", the properties to the north, south and east are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-12) and are developed with single- family residences (see Attachment 1). (2) Directly west of the property is the railroad right-of-way which does not have a zone associated with it and is developed with the Burlington Northern railroad lines. Further west is land zoned Single -Family Residential (RSW-12) and the Puget Sound, which also does not have a zone associated with it. That area is "developed" with the Puget Sound and a narrow beach (see Attachments i and 6). B. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) 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: if the variance can meet the criteria and is approved, then the application complies with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act. The following sections determine how the proposal addresses the requirements of City codes. C. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance 1. Critical Areas Compliance a) Facts: (1) This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 23.40 (Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions). V-06-102.doc / September 15, 20061 Staff Report Packet Page 205 of 357 Raymond Bogaert File No. V-06-102 Page 4 of 11 (2) A Critical Areas Checklist has been submitted for the site under file CRA20060114, which required a study due to the Landslide Hazard (slope) area and Erosion Hazard area. (3) Landslide hazard areas and erosion hazard areas are subject to Chapter 23.80 (Geologically Hazardous Areas.) (4) Section 23.80.070.A.I.a of that chapter requires a buffer from the toe of the slope that is equal to the height of the slope existing within the project area or 50 feet, whichever is greater. Subsection Lb allows the buffer to be reduced to ten feet when a qualified professionals demonstrates that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development, adjacent developments and uses and the subject critical area. Alterations to the landslide hazard area and its buffer may be allowed if it can be certified that they meet the conditions in ECDC 23.80.070.A.2. (5) The topography map given in Attachment 5 shows an approximately 32-foot high slope along the railroad tracks adjacent to this site. (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. (7) The applicants have submitted a Geotechnical Engineering Study of the site by Geotech Consultants, dated August 11, 2006. In the conclusions and recommendations given on page 3 of that report they state: "Based on our site explorations and our nearby explorations, it is apparent that. the core of the steep slope west of the subject property is comprised of very competent, native glacial till soil. We did not observe indications of slope stability [sic] during our site visits. Because of these reasons, and because the slope is only about 35 feet in height, it is our opinion that the buffer can be reduced to 10 feet, resulting in a total minimum building setback of 25 feet from the top of the western slope. The site plan provided to us shows the proposed residence to be set back at least 35 feet from the top of the existing slope. Thus, the proposed house location is very acceptable in our opinion." (8) The site plan submitted shows the house at a 39-foot setback to the top of the slope, and the decks maintaining a 30-foot setback. (9) Neighbors have mentioned to staff that eagles perch in the trees on this site. (IO)Trees that eagles use to nest in are protected, and development near them is regulated by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. However trees that eagles use to perch in are not afforded the same protection. b) Conclusion: This site has or is adjacent to critical areas that are regulated by the city. A geotechnical engineer has reviewed the site and the proposed development and has stated that it appears to be acceptable. Staff will require with the building permit that the typographical errors be removed from the geotechnical report and all conditions directly addressed. The proposal meets the requirements of the Environmentally Critical Areas Chapters. V-06-102.doc / September 15, 20061 Staff Report Packet Page 206 of 357 Raymond Sogaert File No. V-06-102 Page 5 of 1 1 2. Compliance with Single -Family Residential (RS-20) Zoning Standards a) Facts: (1) 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-12 (a) Street Setback: 25 feet (b) Rear Setback: 25 feet (c) Side Setbacks (to all other property lines): 10 feet (d) Maximum Height: 25 feet (e) Lot Coverage: 35% (2) Edmonds Community Development Code section 16.20.040.13 states "Eaves and chimneys may project into a required setback not more than 30 inches." (3) The proposed site plan shows chimneys protruding into the setbacks on both the north and south sides of the proposed house 2.5 feet, or 30 inches. b) Conclusion: The proposal requires variances to both side setbacks to be approved before it complies with the requirements of the RS-12 zoning standards. 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. (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. V-06-102_doc / September 15, 2006 / Staff Report Packet Page 207 of 357 Raymond Bogaert Pile No, V-06-102 Page 6 of I 1 (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. The applicant has also submitted a site plan, cross section, and elevations and perspective drawings of the proposed residence (see Attachment 4). (3) The applicant is requesting two variances. One is to allow the north side setback to be 5 feet instead of the required 10 feet, and the second is to allow the south setback to be 8 feet, instead of the required I 0-foot setback. (4) The width of the lot is approximately 50 feet wide. (5) Meeting the required side yard setbacks would result in a house that was 30 feet wide. (6) On the north side of the house where the chimney is, only 2.5 feet is allowed to pass between the property line and the chimney. If a fence is added within the property line, that width will shrink even more. (7) The city's database shows seven approved variance requests in this block of Sound View Place. Some appear to be due to the narrow, or odd shaped lots along this street. (8) Views in the area are to the west (actually northwest) of Puget Sound. (9) The houses to the east are on a slight rise above Sound View Place as seen by the topography lines on Attachment 6. (10)Goals for residential zones as given in Edmonds Community Development Code section 16.10.000 include subsection B, below: B. Any growth or development should strive to preserve for itself and its neighbors the following values: 1. Light (including direct sunlight), 2. Privacy, 3. Views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features, 4. Freedom from air, water, noise and visual pollution; (1 I)Widths of houses as seen from Sound View Place vary in the neighborhood, with older homes generally being smaller and narrower, and newer homes being larger and wider. (I2)Homes built in the last five years. include the home at 18608 Sound View Place, which is on a 100-foot wide lot, and is approximately 70-feet wide. Also the home at 18614 Sound View Place on a 99.5 foot wide lot is 64 feet wide. (13)The applicants are showing on their cross section that their proposed residence will meet the 25-foot height limit. Confirmation of this will be required with a building permit application. V-06-102.doc / September 15, 2006 / Staff Report Packet Page 208 of 357 Raymond Bogaert Pile No. V-06-102 Page 7 of 1 l (14)The length of the lot is approximately 280 feet. That leaves an area 230 feet in length after the setbacks have been taken off_ b) Conclusions Regarding Setback Variances: (1) Special Circumstances: The lot is quite narrow for the RS-12 zone since it is only 50-feet wide. Observing the setbacks would result in a building pad that would be 30-feet wide. This is narrower than most of the new houses being constructed. Though the site is not very wide, it is quite long, so overall area of the house could be made up in the length to attain a house with similar area as other new homes. Therefore, it is not clear that the special circumstance of the lot would result in the deprivation of the property owner being able to construct a house of a size permitted to other properties in the same vicinity if setbacks were strictly enforced. (2) Special Privilege: Other properties on Sound View Place have received variances to setbacks and some construction likely predates the zoning code. The applicants have pointed out that the house to the north has only a 4-foot 9- 3/4 inch setback to the south property line, and the house to the south has a 5- foot 1-inch setback to an existing shed. Sheds are also required to meet side setbacks. Therefore, 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. (3) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: As noted below, denying the variance would make the proposal more in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The variances would have to be approved for the proposed residence to be in compliance with the zoning ordinance. (4) Not Detrimental: Views in this area are to the west (actually the northwest). On the cross section, is shows the peak of the proposed house is below the street level. Since the houses to the east are above street level, the proposed additional width should not be significantly detrimental to their view. The houses to the north and south have long enjoyed a view across the yard of the existing house, since the current house is set much closer to the street than the proposed house will be. The applicants have a right to place a home on their property within the required setbacks and one that meets the landslide hazard area conditions. The only issue being discussed with this variance is whether the reduction of side setbacks meets the variance criteria and can be approved, if the proposed house was modified to meet the required setbacks from the south property line it would obscure the northern views of the house to the south, as much as the proposal does. Therefore the proposed south -side yard reduction is not detrimental to the views from the south. On the north side of the proposed house, if the proposed house met the required ten -foot setback instead of the proposed five-foot setback, it would very moderately improve the view of the house to the north. An attorney for the neighbors to the north has written a letter (see Attachment 7) stating that the project will have a profound adverse impact on his client's property. Another potential way the project could be detrimental is due to the massing of the project. City codes require even retaining walls to be less than three feet within the setbacks because we don't want to have the neighbors to have to look at a towering retaining wall close to their property line. Setbacks in a zone help to make houses look in proportion on their site, and help to preserve light, privacy and open spaces for each house. Though it is true that the existing house V-06-102.doe 1 September 15, 20061 Staff Report Packet Page 209 of 357 Raymond Bogaert File No. V-06-102 Page 8 of I 1 has a 5-foot 5-1/4 inch setback to the north property line, this is only for a 9-foot long section of the house, and the rest of the house (with the exception of a 5- foot section with a 9-foot setback) meet the required 10-foot north side setback. Meanwhile, the house to the north has a 4-foot 9-3/4 inch setback for only 24 feet. The proposed 5-foot setback on the subject site is for a wall that extends over 70 feet in length. On the south side, the proposed 35-foot section within the setbacks matches the existing 35-foot section within the setbacks and has a similar setback. The neighbor to the south only has a 13-foot wide shed within the required 10-foot setback, and a portion of a deck. On the subject site, the mass of the existing building is less of an issue since it is staggered relative to the buildings on the north and south. The proposed setbacks place a large structure closer to property lines than is allowed by current setbacks. While the neighbors to the north and south have been able to enjoy the open space in the back yard so that any house in that area might be thought to be detrimental, a house that presses out, limiting the open space between the houses can be thought to be more detrimental than a house at the required setback. Finally, the applicants have proposed to place a chimney within the proposed five-foot setback, thereby making the distance between the property Iine and chimney 2.5 feet. If any fence is placed along the property line that distance could be reduced to two feet or less. In the event that firefighters carrying equipment needed to pass by that side of the building, it would be more difficult with only two feet of width. Also any ladders required for accessing the fireplace for cleaning it would have very little room to maneuver. Therefore it cannot be said that the proposal will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. (5) Minimum Variance: This criteria requires that the variance be the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Other property owners in the vicinity have constructed large houses that are 64 or more feet wide, but they have done this on lots that are twice as wide as the subject site. Other property owners have constructed houses at reduced setbacks, though often these were smaller structures or on more constrained lots. Denying both variances would mean that instead of a proposed 37-foot wide house, the resulting house could only be 30-feet wide. Because of the length of the property, the owners could still develop a sizable house, even though it was not as wide. Therefore, staff concludes that the minimum variance is no variance. D. Technical Committee 1. Review by City Departments 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 only comments received were from the Public Works and Fire Department. The Public Works Department want to make sure that the easements are not encroached upon. The site plan shows the easement at the western end of the property, with no development on it. The Fire Department has commented, "APPROVED/SIZE OF HOUSE, AVAILABLE WATER (HYDRANTS) AND DRIVE SLOPE MAY TRIGGER ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: I3D FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AND OR OTHER." V-06-102.doe I September 15, 2006 I Staff Report Packet Page 210 of 357 Raymond Bogaert File No. V-06-102 Page 9 of 11 b) Conclusion: The applicant must make sure that the city's easement is not encroached upon, and shall meet the requirements of the Fire Department. E. Public Comments 1. Letters Received The city has received a letter from Charles Greenberg, attorney for Dr. William and Mrs. Nicole Wilson who live at 18518 Sound View Place, to the north of the subject parcel (see Attachment 7). The letter is addressed to Dr. Raymond Bogaert and. states it is a "request for voluntary changes." In it Mr. Greenberg discusses that the application has a profound adverse impact on his client's property. After pointing out various aspects of the application and the city requirements, Mr. Greenberg asks Dr. Bogaert to contact him is he is interested in discussing a compromise. F. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) 1. Comprehensive Plan Designation a) Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family — Resource." 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.I. 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 B3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures." (3) Residential Development Policy B.4 states "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: This proposal does not retain the existing house on the site. The proposed house as shown on the elevations looks different from other houses in the area that have more traditional pitched roofs. Though this house shows a pitched roof, the pitch is lower in the middle of the house. Perhaps the architect can explain how the proposed architectural lines are intended to harmonize with the surroundings. Though the encroachment on view with the proposed setback is minimal, it can be reduced by not granting the variance. The applicants are proposing to maintain more than the required 25-foot setback to the top of the slope that has been recommended by their geotechnical engineer, so their proposal should be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils and geology. Therefore, the proposal would be in greater compliance with the Comprehensive Plan if the variances were not approved. V-06-102.doc / September 15, 2006 / Staff Report Packet Page 211 of 357 Raymond Bogaert File No. V-06402 Page tO of 11 III. RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. B. Appeals Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project 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 Appeals The time limits for Reconsideration's and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an 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. IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL 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." V. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. . VI. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity / Zoning Map 2. Application 3. Applicant's Declarations 4. Site Plan and Elevations 5. Survey with Topography V-06-102-doc / September 15, 2006 / Staff Report Packet Page 212 of 357 Raymond Bogaert File No. V-06-102 Page I I of I I 6. Aerial Photograph with LIDAR topography overlaid 7. Letters: From Charles M. Greenberg, Triad Law Group, received September 14, 2006 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD Raymond Bogaert Morgan Hougland Charles Greenberg I800 Sound View Place TCA Architecture Triad Law Group Edmonds, WA 98020 6211 Roosevelt Way NE 126 Third Ave. S., Suite 101 Seattle, WA 98115 Edmonds, WA 98020 Planning Division Public Works Department Fire Department V-06-102.doc I September 15, 2006 I Staff Report Packet Page 213 of 357 L xim 116%, LILNhh, city of edmonds land use application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERN,RECEEVED FILE ll?"-Ob - 1 01" ZONE ❑ HOME OCCUPATION DATE _0 D31 0'17 REC'D BY 6 I 0 A, ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION AUG -- 3 2006 4S5 do ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE RECEIPT # ❑ L07 LINE ADJUSTMENT PERMIT COUNTER HEARING DATE © PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT © OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT E ❑STAFF ❑ PB El ADB ©CC ❑ STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT GjiAl'fil/LA-VGS E 35' Gt�i �'1C`tGt 1 X VARIANCE / REASONABLE t3SEEXCEPTION 6jj8Y% P0471-4VLq a ka © OTHER' $ ills" VA,rtcLrlr.2. PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 175(2CX > : ,QVtyL V l);4 PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) PROPERTY OWNER.Y N�ytN�? T;,,�y;l PHONE # 4 Z - - A- 0 L ADDRESS )6600 �ZoVtaD �IEv1 �'L L , _� NMO 11992220 &MAIL ADDRESS FAX # TAX ACCOUNT # 00434IoO07 P I -10, J , SEC. 1_ TWP. 2:7 t4 RNG.. 3 l; 00 4'34 6 007-0 1 aoo DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTOR PROPOSED USE �Wl�- 3%oC OA1L4* fr12 le-001a41-4 &g g&;srItA h TWA &&K 51 t:L.6 Ly RF%.1Agtk/� ht4t> !�Lo Stt-kLg- ; 7-f-"tL rtli J a1J 10E AgE kitA fX F�oz .h VWW-6 fkpt-S A le,,- 0 SiDEyhgp ��CF�[.K T'`S-o' lj7e `(per �p1=`7�L.l�K aaa --,46 NowaTki 511 'Vita- LeTI At s}]AiLBAVG C�c�a c 4rIRelQ�`fARP APPLICANT aV PHONE # Z,6G �/ ADDRESS �1"�i1?c Atl €��-{'�G' y 621] 7zooseVfG� VJN ��,C 4SI15 S �o E-MAIL ADDRESS �Sot3 fo.Cld 'tea. t n , �_��+1 FAX # Z�6— 7ZZ' Z.4f..G CONTACT PERSON/AGENT _ �!hj,r-- Ah AMw4- AI PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL ADDRESS 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 n the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANTIAGENT DATE �- ZS OG Property Owner's Authorization By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpos s o to ection and posting attendant to this application. �} SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE This application fo was revise on 1/27100. To verify whether it is still current, call (425) 771-0220. ATTACHMENT 2 . tim )" r. L:ILIBRARYIPLANNING\Fortis & HandoutsTublic HandcuIs\Land Use Applica6on.doc Packet Page 215 of 357 MCI_7 architecture . planning MEMORANDUM To: City of Edmonds Planning Department Date: August 2nd, 2006 City of Edmonds, Washington Project: The Bogaert Residence Project No. 06-15 Attn: Meg Gruwell or Steve Bullock From: Morgan Hougland Senior Planners Subject. Variance — Applicant Declarations Project: The Bogaert Residence RECEIVED 18600 Sound View Place AUG 3 2006 Edmonds, WA 98020 Tax ID #'s: 00434600201000, 00434600201701 PERMIT GOUNTEP, Variance Proposal We are asking for a variance to the current RS-12 zoning side yard setback of 10'-0" for the north-east and south- west property lines of the above mentioned property (see attached site plan). We are asking to reduce these side yard setbacks from the current 10'-0" to 5-0" on the north-east property line and 8'-0" on the south-west property line. We would also like to maintain the 30" eave overhang and chimney side yard encroachments along these setbacks. Variance — Applicant Declarations 1. The proposal meets the Special Circumstance Criteria due to the narrow lot dimensions. The lot as it exists is 50'-0" wide by approximately 315'-0" (15,737 s_f_ or 0.36 acres). The lot is within the RS-12 zoning development area. The minimum lot width for this zone is 80'-0". With the minimum side yard setbacks of 10'-0" this creates a lot with a maximum 30'-0" buildable width for this lot, vs. the 60'-0" buildable width of an 80'-0" wide lot. 2. The proposal will not be a Grant of Special Privilege based on the fact that the current existing house on this property (to be demolished), as well as the two adjacent properties (north and south) have been allowed to utilize a 5'-0" side yard building setback. 3. The proposal will not alter the current Comprehensive Plan consistency which is designated as —"Single Family — Resource", which includes the zoning classification "RS-12" with a maximum density of 3.7 Dwelling Units ! Acre. The proposal will allow for one Single family Residence on the lot (3.7 DU*0.36 acres=1.3 DU) ATTACHMENT 3 6211 Roosevelt Way Northeast `Seottle. WA • 98115 Voice: (206).522-3830 • Fox: (206) 522-2456 + E-mail: hougiand@fca-inc.com • Web* www.tca-inc._corn Packet Page 216 of 357 - z.�,��A��N3�i5gvnm-soaa-memoe�oen.veoewxm+«a.dac - 4. The proposal asks for a variance on the north-east side yard setback from 10'-0" to 5'-0" and on the south- west side yard setback from 10'-0" to 8'-0". The proposed side yard setbacks will approximately duplicate the existing side yard setbacks of the existing house on the lot. Otherwise the property will maintain the consistency with all of the other RS-12 zoning ordinances_ 5. The proposal is Not Detrimental to the adjacent properties and its vicinity as it is consistent with each existing neighbor's and the existing house's setbacks. The proposal will not cause a loss of property value since the proposed variance change already is occurring on the two adjacent properties and on the existing house_ The proposal will not cause a loss in scenic view for the adjacent properties or properties above since the primary view is directly to the west, to Puget Sound, and not to the north or south (where existing trees and vegetation along the adjacent property lines create visual impediments). The proposal wilt not .prevent any use of the surrounding properties. The proposed variance will not create any potential physically injurious conditions on the property or the surrounding properties. All improvements to the property based on this proposal will meet or exceed the requirements for safety found within the 2003 Residential International Building Code. 6. This proposed variance is asking for the minimum variance needed to accommodate the proposed project_ The proposed project is only asking for a variance to the north-east and south-west side yard setbacks. This will keep the proposed residence as far to the north as possible in order to maintain a safe distance from the drip line of the existing row of trees found on this property and on the adjacent property to the south. The proposed variance will also allow for the proposed detached garage structure to have an adequate turning radius on the driveway for the cars turning into it. Ali other zoning ordinances shall be met for this proposed project. Both adjacent properties to the north and south have 5'-G" side yard setbacks abutting this property, therefore, this proposal would allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 6211 Roosevelt Way Northeast • Seattle, WA • 98115 Voice: {206) 522-3830 • fax: (206) 522 2456 • . E-mail: hougland@tca-inc_com • Web: www-tcainc.com Packet Page 217 of 357 E) S r IIIIIIlllllllilll' 11 41 4 i l l 11 I, l 1111� YARD-0 K t i 14 l l I I l I I l l l l l 1 .•-0- �L FN� ERI, � I fii4lillllllllll�� ro 'F { lllllillll111111� � 1 � �t � � �i 4iIlIllllllllllil � I 1 �, ilI14i4llllllllll � I OLITLINE f ISANITARY SEY�R LINE AND o .z FA5EF¢Nf m m EXIST. DEOk EX15T. DECK • FJa5T.:1g75f vu��Jl m EXIST. COW-. WALK PROPOSEDVHO 5FORY I N \ 25•.O•• \�N tbY N 6ROA40 FL °s \ PROPOSEd TFiR; BRIDOF d ? oY - r +2 � • h AHED "' Q EXfS. HOUSE 1 SITE / PLOT PLAN - TAX 10 # 00434600201000 0043460C SCALE: 1' = 30'-0' 25-0• HAX. EWILDNS HE$644f--------------- 2 SITE SECTION - SHOWING APPROXIMATE BUILDING MASSING SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE APPLICATION RAYK SEE DRAWIN65 FOR 5GALE Packet Page 218 of 357 Bogaert Residence - Schematic South Elevation - nts .Bogaert Residence - Schematic North Elevation - nts Bogaert Residence - Variance Application Supplemental Documents Date: 7-31.-06 -18600 Sound View Place, Edmonds, WA -Tax ID #'s:00434600201000, 004346C Packet Page 219 of 357 Bogaert Residence - Variance Application Supplemental. Documents Date: 7-31-06 -18600 Sound View Place, Edmonds, WA - Tax ID #s:00434600201000, 0043460021 Packet Page 220 of 357 EX: ssm / 5Is a3 (GTR- bianME4}2 / ! ! ! s� \ 12) yM1' °k• 1 m' QTY of > 0.0.0$ _ S4NITART/STOA EIS ENT -. .. .°h x. VECN` -.� e•y a yo i•r, .6 r ' lI `• r `.`-P°..�vP 4 / " Cx. NWSE .`�y ,�yT � aonoco 1; 64 Ex. HousE \ T�`Y �� 00+34fi00y0' ep-' arc _ GpVNI INV. 56.23 \ {CNa. CHRNNEI] / E% CRSEO CONMW Nd1UMENT MTk y LEMa h JAO TRIAD LAW GROUP, Po S. Cs September 14, 2006 Dr. Raymond Bogaert 18600 Soundview Pl. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re. Variance Application V-06-1.02 Request for voluntary changes Dear Dr. Bogaert: This firm represents Dr. William and Mrs. Nicole Wilson ("Wilson.") SEP 14 2006 PERMIT COUNTER My clients have consulted with me regarding the application for variance that you filed on August 2, 2006. As you might expect, my clients are very concerned regarding a number of aspects of your application for a variance. Your application As you know, you recently requested a variance for the current RS-12 zoning side yard set -back of 10'-0" for the north-east and south-west property lines of your property. According to your application, you requested to reduce the side -yard set -back from 10'-0" to 5'-0" on the northeast property line and 8'-0" on the south-west property line. Finally, you noted as follows: "We would also like to maintain the 30 inch cave overhang and chimney side yard encroachments along these setbacks." Summary Needless to say, your application has a profound adverse impact on my client's property. Indeed, I have studied your application and I disagree with many aspects of your application- I understand that your neighbors to the south also disagree with many of the contentions in your request, as well. I would expect a spirited opposition from them. Rather than getting into what may be a long and protracted dispute a series of inherently unpleasant exchanges that might occur between neighbors, I was hoping that you will. consider some proposals to compromise as contained in this letter and perhaps modify your approach. Variance consideration 126 Third Avenue South, Suite 101, Edmond, WA 98020-8402 - Phone- 425-774-0138 Fax: 425-672-7867 triad@triadlawgroup_com. ATTAOHMENT 7 Packet Page 223 of 357 As you know, the hearing examiner may approve -where appropriate -variances when literal and strict interpretation of the zoning ordinance would cause undue or unnecessary hardship_ mote the brochure issued by the City of Edmonds which provides the following admonition: "A hardship is not a problem that you create yourself_ For instance, if you build your house in such a manner that you cannot expand your living room without encroaching on a required side yard, you have created that situation." Also note the black letter admonition that "no variance may be approved unless you establish special circumstances and that the variance will not be detrimental to your neighbor." Analysis Clearly, the action that you propose serves your immediate interest at the expense of both of your neighbors. Allowing such a variance would be highly injurious to my client's property and to the neighbors_ Of course, if it becomes necessary to do so, my clients will make this argument to the hearing examiner. Regarding special circumstances you note that the proposal meets this requirement because of the narrow lot dimensions_ The lot is 50' wide whereas the minimum width is 80.' In reality, this is not a special circumstance; Regarding special privilege, you argue that this is not a grant of special privilege because the subject homes and adjacent homes have been allowed to utilize a 5'-0" side yard building set -back. Most importantly, you note as follows: "The proposal is not detrimental to the adjacent properties and its vicinity as to be consistent with each existing house's setbacks." Remarkably you note as follows: "The proposal will not cause a loss in scenic view for the adjacent properties or properties above, since the primary view is directlyto the west, to Puget Sound." You are attempting to insert your current setbacks/dimensions into the new area between two existing homes_ Quite frankly, 10 foot side setbacks are even more necessary due to the proximity of adjacent residences being less than 5' to the north. Said differently, it is relatively plain to see that your application does not meet a number of the requirements necessary to successfully apply for a variance. 126 Third Avenue South, Suite 101, Edmond, WA 98020-8402 -Phone-, 425-774-0138 Fax: 425-672-7867 triad@triadlawgroup.com. Packet Page 224 of 357 Pr---roposal I have discussed the issue with my clients. They are willing to discuss some compromise that might make your application something that trey clients can live with. If discussing any of these kinds of idea is of interest to you, please let me know. If you have any other questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, '0 A Charles A Greenberg Cc: client City of Edmonds -Land Use Hearings Examiner 126 Third Avenue South, Suite 101, Edmond, WA 98020-8402 -Phone: 425-774-0138 Fax: 425-672-7867 triad@triadlawgroup.com. Packet Page 225 of 357 One Union Square 600 University Street Suite 1730 Seattle, WA 98101 tel 206.340.2008 fax 206.340.1962 Larson Hart msAttomeys At Law PLLC VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL & Shepherd April 9, 2007 Stephen F. Bullock, AICP Development Services Department - Planning Division City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Applicant: Dr. Raymond Bogaert Request for Variance Property: 18600 Soundview Pl. Edmonds, WA 98020 Your file #: V-06-102 Dear Mr. Bullock: WWW L-H-S.com Christopher L_ Thayer Attorney at Law CThayer@L-H-S.eom As you likely recall from our meeting at the end of December, this firm represents Dr. Ray Bogaert in his efforts to obtain a setback variance for the construction of a new residence on the referenced property. As your files should reflect, Dr. Bogaert originally submitted a variance/reasonable use application on August 3, 2006, proposing to demolish an existing two story single family residence on the property and to construct a new two story single family residence and garage on the property. This initial request sought a variance in the side setbacks: reducing the 10 foot setback on the north side of the lot to 5 feet, and reducing the 10 foot setback on the south side to 8 feet. Former Edmonds City Senior Planner, Meg Gruwell, issued an Advisory Report on September 15, 2006 recommending that Dr. Bogaert's application be denied. This came as a bit of a surprise as in prior meetings with Ms. Gruwell she had indicated the there should be no problem with the variance request. This matter was put on hold while Dr. Bogaert attempted to resolve the concerns expressed by some of his neighbors and to address the issues raised in Ms. Gruwell's report. As discussed in our meeting, Dr. Bogaert is now submitting a revised application, which includes new architectural plans for a modified structure that will allow for a reduced setback variance as follows: (1) reduce the 10 foot setback on the Attachment 2 Revised criteria statement & attachments Packet Page 226 of 357 April 9, 2007 Page 2 of 12 north side of the lot to 8 feet for the side yard, (2) reduce the 10 foot setback on the north side to 5 feet for the proposed garage; (3) reduce the 10 foot setback on the southern side of the property from 10 feet to 8 feet; and (4) the standard allowance for a 30" overhang on the eaves. Enclosed are revised plans, including elevations,. showing the proposed structure and requested variances. (Exhibit A). This revised proposal has been prepared in an effort to address the concerns expressed by Ms. Gruwell and also to show that the proposed structure has less impact on Dr. Bogaert's neighbors. This letter will address each of the issues considered by Meg Gruwell and by Dr. Bogaeres neighbors, and will establish that these matters have been adequately addressed in the revised plans. To the extent possible and feasible, the Bogaerts would also Like you to reconsider their original proposed variance request, in Light of the facts, material and arguments set forth herein. The Bogaerts would prefer to have their initial variance request granted, but are submitting this revised variance request in a good faith effort to address previously expressed concerns. Unique Features of Properboackground The Bogaert property has some relatively unique features that make it challenging for any proposed construction. It is both narrow and quite "long" east to west. It is also located on a significant slope. The lot is approximately 50' wide and 315' long (15,737 square feet; .36 acres). It is located in the RS-12 zone, which provides for a minimum lot width of 80' and is therefore nonconforming. Given the narrowness of the lot, and the current RS-12 side -setback requirements (10'), this effectively leaves the Bogaerts with the option of constructing a residence that is only 30' wide if no variance were allowed. The current structures on the Bogaert property, and the structures on properties to the immediate north and south, already intrude on the 10 foot setback. The existing residence on the Bogaert property extends to within approximately 5 feet of the northern boundary of the lot, and within about 8 and a half feet of the southern boundary. The existing carport on the Bogaert property is basically flush with the southern boundary (with no setback at all). The residence for the neighbor to the north of the Bogaert property (Wilsons) is built to within less than 5 feet of boundary line, and also includes a carport which is approximately the same distance of the boundary. The neighbor to the south (Haynes) has a deck and a shed which are within approximately 5 feet of the boundary. It is understood that these variances were previously approved by the city. Thus, all three properties in this neighborhood include existing encroachments on the 10 foot setback requirement. Packet Page 227 of 357 April 9, 2007 Page 3 of 12 DISCUSSION Compliance with the Edmonds Community Development Code. ECDC Chapter 23.40 (Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions) The Bogaert property has or is adjacent to critical areas. The proposed construction would retain a 39-foot setback from the top of the slope (critical area), and a 30-foot setback from the edge of the deck. Dr. Bogaert previously provided a report from a geotechnical. engineer (Geotech Consultants), affirming the proposed development as sound and safe from a geotechnical standpoint. The findings of this report have not been challenged or questioned and it is understood that this is not an issue with regards to the proposed development. Should the City have any questions about the geotechnical report, please advise and l will endeavor to respond to any questions and to provide supplemental information. ECDC Chapter 20.85.010 - Findings Required for Variance In order to have a variance approved under the ECDC a party must satisfy the requirements of ECDC Chapter 20.85.010. Special Circumstances ECDC 20.85.010(A) provides: 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. 1. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses as set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats. Packet Page 228 of 357 April 9, 2007 Page 4 of 12 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, The Bogaert Property has several features which qualify under the "special circumstances" requirement under ECDC 20.$5.010(A), especially when considered in light of the spirit of the code provision to ensure that a property owner is allowed exercise the same "rights and privileges" granted to property owners in the same neighborhood. Size/Shape. This is a long and narrow lot. Without the granting of any variance, the Bogaerts would be required to build an unusually long, tall and skinny (30' wide or less) house. The Bogaerts do not want to build a 30' wide and 100' long house on their lot as this is neither practical nor consistent with the surrounding architecture. Moreover, such house would have greater "mass" and would be less aesthetically pleasing and would cause a greater impact on the Bogaerts' neighbors. A review of houses in the neighborhood, including recent construction, reveals that nearby landowners are not building long, tall, skinny houses. Although there are other long narrow lots in Edmonds, the Bogaert property is definitely the exception, and not the rule, in terms of size and shape. Topography. The property also has a significant slope. This feature further restricts the development and use options for the Bogaerts and requires that any proposed structure not only take into account the slope from an engineering standpoint, but also from the standpoint architectural appeal and conformity with the neighborhood. Certainly there are many lots in the City of Edmonds that are partially or completely on a grade, however, taken in conjunction with the unusual shape and size of the Bogaerts' lot, the significant grade further differentiates this property from the average residential lot in the same community. Location/surroundings. The property is located immediately east of the Burlington Northern Railway right of way and railroad tracks. (See Exhibit #_). The westernmost portion of the Bogaert Property is on a very steep slope that drops off down to the tracks. As a result of this slope, and the attendant noise from the rail road, the Bogaerts' ability to develop their property is further restricted on their western boundary. This is further evidenced by the fact that the property is in a designated "Critical Area" under ECDC 23.40. Packet Page 229 of 357 April 9, 2007 Page 5 of 12 The referenced special circumstances are not predicated upon any factor that is personal to the Bogaerts. They are not seeking a variance due to any personal disability or limitation. The variance is sought merely to accommodate unique features of the property and to allow them to develop their property in a manner consistent with the surrounding properties. As discussed in more detail below, it is also 'important to note that the requested variance would merely permit the Bogaerts the same privileges granted their neighbors. Both the neighbors to the north and south have structures that encroach significantly into their respective setbacks. No Special Privilege ECDC 20.85.010(B).provides: 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, As noted in Ms. Gruwell's prior staff report, other properties on Sound View Place have previously received setback variances. Moreover, the properties to the immediate north and south of the Bogaert Property effectively encroach to within approximately 5 feet of their respective property lines. A recent review of files provided by the City of Edmonds concerning requests for setback variances, revealed that such requests are routinely granted so long as the owner can demonstrate compliance with EDC 20.85.010. Attached as Exhibit C are copies of selected Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusions and Decisions relating to setback variance requests in the past several years. Dahl. Mr. Dahl requested a setback variance to construct a garage on his property (side setback reduced to 5 feet and front setback reduced from 25 to 20 feet). In granting Mr. Dahl's variance, the hearing examiner noted that there were many garages in his neighborhood that were set within 5-6 feet of their respective property lines (dust as the Bogaerts' neighbors have structures that encroach into the setbacks). Packet Page 230 of 357 April 9, 2007 Page 6 of 12 Burnside. Mr. Burnside applied for and received a setback variance to allow for a deck extension on his property located on Talbot Road (a sloping, west facing property, similar to the Bogaert lot). Again noting that Mr. Burnside's neighbors' houses were constructed closer than the allowed 10 foot setback, the hearing examiner allowed the requested variance. 011estad. Mr. 011estad, the owner of a 50 foot wide lot located on 7511, Place West, applied for and received a variance for the side setbacks in order to construct a 2 car garage on his lot. Mr. 011estad's lot also include a steep slope (similar though admittedly likely steeper than the Bogaert lot). The hearing examiner approved the variance, noting that, without a variance for the setback requirements, Mr. 011estad would be limited to a structure 15 feet wide. Emerson. The Emersons (on Talbot Road) were granted a variance on side and street setbacks (reducing side setback from 10 to 6 feet, and street setback from 25 to 21 feet) in order to remove an existing carport and construct a garage. The hearing examiner, in granting the request, noted that 2-3 car garages were standard for houses in the area and that "there are several other houses in the area that do not meet the required setbacks of the zone." The property is zoned RS-12 - just like the Bogaert property, and is also nonconforming with regards to lot size (only 70 feet wide, instead of the required 80). The above are just representative examples of setback variance applications that have been previously approved by the City. A consistent theme in reviewing these and other files is the City's recognition that pre-existing encroachments into the setback requirement are common in Edmonds' neighborhoods and that so long as new construction is not inconsistent with existing homes in the surrounding neighborhood. Attached as Exhibit D 1 - 11 are photographs of the Bogaert property and the neighboring properties to the immediate north and south. These photographs reveal the unique features associated with the property, as well as the existing encroachments by the neighbors' structures. 1 - Bogaert residence as seen from Soundview Place (looking west) 2 - Bogaert residence w/ existing carport (looking west) 3 - Wilson' encroaching fence and carport (looking northwest from existing driveway) Packet Page 231 of 357 April 9, 2007 Page 7 of 12 4 - View west from current residence on Bogaert property (shows existing vegetation on northern and southern boundaries, which effectively partially block neighbors' views north/south) 5 - Wilsons' residence and associated vegetation as seen from Bogaert property (looking northwest) 5 - Wilsons' residence and associated vegetation as seen from Bogaert property (looking northeast) 7 - Wilsons' residence and encroaching deck as seen from Bogaert property (looking northeast) 8 - Haynes' encroaching shed as seen from Bogaert property (looking southwest) 9 - Haynes' encroaching deck as seen from Bogaert property (looking south) 10 - Haynes' deck and vegetation as seen from Bogaert property (looking south) 11 - Bogaert house (looking east from western edge of property) 12 - steep slope on western edge of Bogaert property and BN railway (looking west) 13 - residence at 19017 Soundview Place (similar in certain respects to architectural design of the Bogaert proposed residence) The requested variance is not a "special privilege" in comparison to the surrounding properties. Other properties in the area, including the Bogaerts immediate neighbors, include intrusions into the setbacks. The Bogaerts are asking for very limited variances to the setback requirements in order to construct a new residence on their property so that they can enjoy their property more fully and exercise the same rights and privileges afforded others in their neighborhood with regards to the use of their property. C. Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Under the heading "Residential Development", Section B, the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan provides in part: "Goal. High quality residential development which his appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted." Section B1 provides: Packet Page 232 of 357 April 9, 2007 Page 8 of 12 Encourage those building custom home to design and construct homes with architectural Iines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. Section B3 also requires that new construction "minimize encroachment" of the views of existing structures. The proposed Bogaert residence has been designed to be pleasing to the eye from the exterior and interior. It will be set partially into the hillside, thereby blending in with the surrounding terrain and vegetation, and minimizing the impact on the views of the neighbors to the north and south. The design is also intended to reduce the overall "mass" of the structure, this is especially true regarding the design of the garage. As can be seen from the attached photographs and drawings, the views from the neighbors' properties (both to the north and south) are currently obstructed by existing vegetation (large overgrown hedges and trees). (Exhibits B and C) Some of this vegetation will be retained with the proposed construction. It is anticipated that any impact on the neighbors' views will be minimal at most. Their spectacular views of the Puget Sound will not be lost or affected in any measurable manner. The Bogaerts will simply be allowed to build a residence closer to the western edge of their property that will afford them the same views as their neighbors, with essentially no adverse impact. D. Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located. Goals for residential zones in the City of Edmonds are included in EDC 16.10.000 subsection B, which provides that any growth or development should strive to "preserve for itself and its neighbors the following values: (1) light (including direct sunlight), (2) privacy, (3) views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features, and (4) freedom from air, water, noise and visual pollution. A review of the plans and elevations prepared by TCA architecture (Exhibits A & B) demonstrate that all of these values will be honored and retained by the proposed structure. The proposed residence and garage will be built into the hillside, thereby decreasing the overall "massing" of the structure and contributing to its natural and aesthetically pleasing design. Packet Page 233 of 357 April 9, 2007 Page 9 of 12 The proposed design includes extensive use of glass and Plexiglas and/or near transparent rail systems (including the deck area), to preserve natural light. The existing yard is actually quite dark and shady, given the extensive overgrown vegetation and large fir trees. The proposed design will allow more sunlight, while preserving the natural feel of the property. The neighbors' privacy will not be noticeably impacted.. The current vegetation and layout of the properties makes for a very private setting. This will be preserved or replaced with equivalent vegetation by the proposed construction. Views of the neighbors will not be impacted as the neighbors views to the north and south are currently obstructed by existing vegetation. Moreover, it should be noted that, in the event the requested variances are not granted, the Bogaerts will be forced to construct a taller and narrower residence - one that will likely be less acceptable to their neighbors and have more of an impact upon their views, as it will be constructed further to the west. See, Exhibit B. The proposed development will not have any known material impact on air, water, noise or visual pollution. 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. The proposed construction will not be injurious or detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to the neighboring properties. The Bogaerts are simply asking for the same privileges afforded their neighbors who each have encroachments into their respective setbacks. The Bogaerts are aware of "objections" raised by their neighbors to the immediate north and south of their property. Attorney Charles Greenberg on behalf of the Wilsons (the neighbors to the north) has submitted a letter dated September 14, 2006, voicing concerns over the prior proposed construction. Attorney Rick Gifford, representing the Haynes (the neighbors to the south) has also contacted the Bogaerts with concerns, but has not filed any formal "objection" to the prior application. I have been in contact with Mr. Greenberg and Mr. Gifford in an effort to accommodate their clients' issues. They agreed that the best solution was for them to come up with a joint proposal for the Bogaerts consideration. Despite multiple promises over the course of Packet Page 234 of 357 April 9, 2007 Page.10 of 12 many months, such a proposal has never been forthcoming. After making all reasonable efforts to try to work with his neighbors to address their vague concerns, including extensive delays made in an effort to allow there to provide a proposal, Dr. Bogaert is left with no choice but to proceed with his current proposal which is believed to reasonably address and take into account any possible valid objection by either the Haynes or the Wilson. Of note, Mr. Greenberg's letter of September 14th is, with all due respect, a study in vagaries. In it, he claims that the proposed construction will have a "profound adverse impact" on his client. However, with all due respect to Mr. Greenberg, he fails to define what this impact is and why such impact is a legally protected right. The impact of the proposed project on his clients will be minimal at most. Moreover, the code does not protect or seek to prevent all impacts arising from development, it only seeks to minimize these impacts and keep them reasonable. His "analysis" boils down to a simple argument that, because his clients are already encroaching into their setback, it is all the more important to hold the Bogaerts to a different standard and preclude them from enjoying the same privilege as his clients. Again, with all due respect, this argument makes no sense and is not consistent with the goals and purposes of the zoning code. Property owners are to be treated equally. Development and construction of new structures always comes with some impact on the environment and the surrounding neighborhood. The goal of the zoning provisions is to promote development that is reasonable and minimizes these impacts, while striving to allow property owners the same rights, privileges and advantages enjoyed by their neighbors. Mr. Gifford has not elucidated any specific concerns about the prior proposal, other than indicating his clients believe that the prior proposal will materially affect his clients' property. He has not specified any particular objections, other than mentioning some geotechnical concern, which are believed to have been satisfactorily addressed by Bogaerts' geotech report previously submitted. It is believed that the Haynes have concerns similar to those voiced, if rather vaguely, in Mr. Greenberg's letter on behalf of the Wilsons. The same arguments apply. As demonstrated by the attached photographs and drawings, the existing Bogaert residence is situated on a long narrow lot, which is bordered by overgrown vegetation and large evergreen trees. (Exhibits B & Q. This vegetation effectively blocks the Haynes' view to the north. The proposed revised structure will not materially impact their view to the north in any manner. Both the Haynes and the Wilsons will retain their views of the Puget Sound to the west. Both of their houses are located closer to their western boundaries than the Bogaerts existing residence, which is set back significantly from its western boundary. Packet Page 235 of 357 April 9, 2007 Page 11 of 12 The Bogaerts seek to take advantage of their beautiful property and construct a residence that will grant them improved views of the Puget Sound, while minimizing the impact on their neighbors. The proposed revised plans have attempted to take into account the neighbors' vaguely stated concerns (as well as the City's) by incorporating design elements that will ensure that the structure is aesthetically pleasing and consistent with surrounding neighborhood development. See, Exhibit B. F. Minimum Variance. That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. The Bogaerts' neighbors to the immediate north and south both have structures that substantially encroach into the required setback. The Bogaerts have gone to great pains to revise their initial proposal to minimize the variances requested and to attempt to accommodate the perceived concerns of their neighbors. As pointed out previously, it is at least physically possible for the Bogaerts to construct a residence that would not require any variances (i.e., 30' wide), however, for the Bogaerts to obtain the desired square footage, this design is not reasonably practical or desirable for them, their neighbors or the community because: 1. It would result in a tall, narrow and long structure that would not be aesthetically pleasing. 2. It would result in a structure that would have more "mass" (further west) and therefore be more imposing and be more likely to negatively impact natural sunlight open spaces and privacy. 3. The garage would have to be relocated such that the access to the house would be negatively impacted, and neighbors' views through the property would be more interrupted. 4. A tall and skinny house would be incongruous with the majority of the development along the Edmonds waterfront (residents are not building 30' wide houses in this neighborhood). 5. The structure would be more likely "to intrude upon the neighbors' views to the north and south. Packet Page 236 of 357 April 9, 2007 Page 12 of 12 See, Exhibits A & B. Given these factors, the Bogaerts believe that the requested revised variance is the "minimum variance" required in order to construct a new residence on their unusual property. Sincerely, Enclosures cc: Clients Steve rising Packet Page 237 of 357 # � '9 $ if x 1 . s• v . 0,, 77 i s§ F � § jf P� v n Y ' as yge sa ,Nr 70 d v h n ' s v I s z Nam. _. E ,' � /'... • � .Y. 6 a „_ .. . x . � I � - "� 2�' ” -. ��'�: - . . - , -..' - " '�',-� �" . � . . . . . '.u�' ' """': :;, , ,,,, . . " I . . ... � ; -." I ' ��. . . .- . . ' � I I" 3- '��"'� ::,: -,,- " . . . . . .� I . �jl. 11 . . . . . : � , . , ' I '�;'�"�`��: ; .'. , ., -11 ,--.- .. .. ... - - - - , -- 0 - . ;'i -"'---'��$t�f��;- , -, , _ _ .. ..,:, - - - . - -. .-.., - ,- - - - .,,-wa - - _ _ - -.- - - _ ".:_.. \� DNS :. ` • .3. .. it ' x �'� _ k x' '��-��", .�V. �, -�'1�i-�--""'',-I1 -�"I"'I�-�=-��"�I,f";";� �''--''-1 ��l�1-l-"-�I�'t"' ��>�',I�.".-ll� .., '.- I.,1I��"---'' '-- "''-'�'r�Ag' -,�I1 -."��".-"XR�", -- 5 Ks. —.'."1�.��.I.-;�,,-'"'�"A1 ��A4"''��-4�',�-:i.....I-.1-1..I'�."�""'-�'',�, i�11,�;2M''..",�"-;�5.. -'.It,,- ':- �,)'I,T'- -� l��,-,,-q.'�1�j II " -II .,. .. _ . > s-.:.'..- .: 3 :. -- ., _ . . " „ ., ;: .. . ,- .f:, -- '., st , a.c L - - .. ..a. .. :- _ ,-. ' 9 . -- .. f_t -_ - - y �..5��—"''"�'�� - , 0—V1�I�11),�',��-.1 "'1�"�"I ' .: ..., - ..-, 'S 9 ylq^'- �E f -i ..' . -..,. :. . ,. y 3 4 - ., — . _ - ,.. _ - �_ .. - n. .e. - ,.. a `' 9a 3, _ s k :: S , Ertl' aC a- H '> ' `!! r . g' i v # ,' '.r m S i s a, 4 k. ,'S€6-,3, u+gd..Ms j may, = '3' ", -t i' , '.,l- 3 is 1*'. 4e k, _ ;a Via"' sE- a- " Vyt " "'"��%l��"�!�. 1.,,..7,]�",�'-�-"4g ' "�"77;�,"4'�vli'i,, �i� ��.'-'�.�''��,"`!'PQ'�"',�4�"-:' 'L,-I:"0� -L"''-�:I;,,- �;'-��.,�.�"��.',,_ -'.-.; :''�'',��--t' !'�;�-T:'�� - "-�-�- �-1,;::-' -.'-,""' '�}". i 5 �.y A." 8 9 � 77"". 4 's h . a �� l ` i ..f d -:. ` _ 3�„ ` '` - 1 .fir s } a; �-".' -_ , 4= 4 ; r ,rr - �'t - - '�$f-), + �i r+ ' ' §� q � n r �4 a * y ^",p _ -.^- �, `.. ,din ` .- "" - v "�+.. r �" 1 , .r. _' pa I ggeyJl x. -- .. :. sxx _ y, h �; # - i r j � J :'. - 'e t w i a . _ f 4.. ` ,gk :tx�' ' `-z lid _�"""�-"s�k��1--�mi�,�,: . _ --. .. r a - _ i . - �, -� -:� _ � , , ., 1 x g� -'� `. _ ^ s T: ,,, s. - § - - , J ��- z ,��- .� .-::.�'- , :�-:1..�I li- �'. .�-.I��:�L' l-'I,Im11 .."-'&�.I. -j.�-.::,v-:�"�In-.I'l ..IjII , .I ";�'�1I:�I,.-A'0�n �..7��'��4-,'�..- ." �....-' "-��SI-�.�II- -I :1=.I,,IM'�.I.11��.W, '1�'!.:'. ,..'�-.T !7l-.1 ..-��IU.�. -;�:�1...I�'.�..j-�"",1-,.�.�-'... �1-��.'.I'., :....1. ';�.. .' 1,�,-�1� l;r�1.. ...�.I.'.��-��l- �1� ,j5 '�, "r' ".1":..I � '"�1�.f!.. '7',';,- '..'1.1 .."� .�"1'. . �'1!-I'',�.'�-'-- ':�....:"'j� �""',�',. -' ..�%,'- -"i:1",.,'-jI. - �4'�-7� ,,.'I". -��,;��7'"o�, .I ..�-,� I" m , . . 1��."'�!;� I,� II �".�gI .-.I,,,.. :, �.�'"...":'-..... " �l ---'c�',�', 1....-I..iI��;"'-;l1-'' . .. ..�'�'x��, 5-1 ��...= --r' �!7,'"i., . ,_ . 5' " - #' I ' p I - - - - 'r�rrr :. :abesxi . . , ,- _ . - r. ... - ... - - - - . s;:r r , - ,': .'I---1'�- -..%.��-II��"L ..'.�'%� , .--�1:- _�' .�-.I-...7'1- ..11'" -I., I,L '. ..* " � : .",.'. -'� .n�J. --� ....� I.I , . - ,!-, ;-fI l,. ..=...-.-: ' '- , .-:�.. � . I 1,L .I' .- ;1,�:�- ,' . 1, '��.4 ..' .� ....'I.�-� .' -a - .- � '....ft. ,', ''. ��'-I .W:-.. ".:I'r..�. I.��-.:�"..', ..--", -1",'.., �-III �-"��. ' -I --, -- -n. -"�.:.." -.I �"I�1-....� �'-.'.-�...;.,.�,,- �I'.Cw'-I.'��;. . ��, I - I .',-..� --.� . I a -.-I -. ,.�. ,,'I'� �I : .. 4 �.,," ";7P.. : -f:.'.. �I�'"m-1. -- .I '. . �I c'.�`'�'-V ..,' �-.. ' - ' '- .I .. ...! .-f��: , .I.',o;. ,- l� ..�-. , w1-.., --'*- � .:".I-I-��,...- ; -I ,.-,--*..��.. "' - . ;."-.1�.�� .�-, I...-�, 1". 1-��!1'- .;. �"�.; '. � .�s -.. , . '�_. ,..",.. 7, ...\."�..I1�InI.." �, '.-w'.,��..... : �..4-.1'. I.. �,�..', -I � .,..-7. "- . :�.,,-�I .-., - .... I...I "..1.- .,1�"'-.. ..,' � --�. ''-'.� I,-._. I'�.�--..,..�---"I . '. 1." ....-f� .'-.'."., � - .I�7 .. ''. �I-....�. II'�- -...I-: -, .. ..� '-."- :�;, '-...'', ' - .I�.r'i . - jI .:.�. "n-� . I- � ,' �. ..�.., �' ..�.�I -- .. . ...VI..�;�I�"'�...-�-- � "..� " .'.�I;:,'L ,I" ' . ,�, , � '-. I. z-4��'"" �. ..I*.'i.� ;a..-� ...4-. -o�;-1�'-1III�:.1 ,�.I '-.,.. I�",i'.I.7,-... '� � ...I."."�-4sY�- .., 2 -..."�4) .1 , '. � ""I�- , .',1.. .. --��.....-."j� 1-.�.'� , ' I-'11�.�,.1",�'", a N --. : '"' ° g - ""'° t ,�..:- °rat n} : j 1ywt hz- �: f . gOlqIK- 1..a �. �. ,,y� ' ,ice +, .� v -`""' xa r e c.:. ,- tie, —aft ... <a a a - --- �Aak--Vfl, f CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • 1,dmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 NEARING EXAMINER 1,I)e.1S9v 4 kll FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS �,9 APPLICANT: Dean and Amy Whitehouse CASE NO.: V-02-150 LOCATION: 8810 236" St. SW (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). APPLICATION: A Variance to reduce the required east side setback from 10 feet to 8.25 feet (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 and 4) to allow for a two - car carport. REVIEW PROCESS: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision.. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.20 (RS-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Approve %ith conditions Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the official file, which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report, amd after- visiting the site: the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The bearing (in the Whitehouse application was opened at 9:30 a_rn., November 7, 2002- in the Cit.; lla''_ Edinonds, Washington. and closed at 9:34 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Packet Page 251 of 357 .,faring Examiner Decision Case No. V-02-150 Page 2 the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is. available in the Planning Division. HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City: Starr Campbell, Assistant Planner, entered the staff advisory report into the record. From the Applicant: Dean Whitehouse said he concurred with the staff report and the recommended conditions. From the Community: No one from the general public spoke at the public hearing. INTRODUCTION: The applicants, Dean and Amy Whitehouse, live at 8810 2361h St. SW and have constructed a carport that does not meet the required setbacks from the north and east property lines. The applicants are requesting a variance to reduce the the required 10' east side yard setback to 8.25. The variance would allow the carport to maintain its current setback from the east property line. However, the applicants would reconstruct the carport so that it would meet the required setback from the north property line. The site is zoned RM-1.5, which requires minimum side setbacks of 10 feet (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS: A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Zonin : The zoning of the subject property is Multi -family Residential (RM-1.5) (2) Existing and Proposed Development: The site is currently developed with a single-family house. (3) Terrain and Vegetation: The site is generally flat with the exception of small bank that slopes steeply up to the east property line. The site is vegetated with lawn and ornamental landscaping. Packet Page 252 of 357 _.eanng Examiner Decision Case No_ V-02-150 Page 3 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) North_ The properties to the north are within unincorporated Snohomish County (See gray portion of map, Exhibit A, Attachment 2) and developed with single- family houses. (2) West: The property directly to the west is zoned Multi -family Residential (RM- 1.5). This is actually a narrow strip that provides access to the lot to the south (and is part of the lot to the south). This lot is developed with an apartment complex_ The properties farther to the west are zoned Neighborhood Business (BN). (3) South: The property to the south is zoned Multi -family Residential (RM-1.5) and is developed with an apartment complex. (4) East: The property directly to the east is zoned Multi -family Residential (RM- 1.5) and is developed with a single-family residence. Farther east than the adjacent lot, the properties are zone Single Family Residential (RS-8) and are developed with single-family residences. b) Conclusion: The proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding zoning and development- B. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE I. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 1.6.30, Standards for Multi -family Residential Development. a) Facts: (1) The fundamental site development standards in an RM-1.5 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.30. They include a 15-foot street setback, 10-foot side setbacks and a 15- foot rear setback. However, a single-family residence on a lot less than 10,000 square feet in this zone may choose to use RS-6 setbacks_ These setbacks include a 20-foot street setback, 5--foot street setback, and a 15-foot rear setback. b) Conclusion: The applicants have chosen to use the standard setbacks for the RM-1.5 zone. The proposal complies with the development standards for RM-1.5 zone as set forth in Chapter 16.30 with the approval of the subject variance and the reconstruction of the garage to meet the required 15' street setback. 2. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.85, Variances. ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances) states that an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85. Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC also 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. Packet Page 253 of 357 ricaring Examiner Decision Case No. V-02-150 Page 4 a) Facts: (1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner_ These criteria include; a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted; the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum necessary. b) Anal sis: (I) Applicants' Declarations Refer to the applicant declarations in Exhibit A, Attachment 4. (2) The applicants state as part of their application (See Exhibit A, Attachment 4) that labor and cost to alter the structure is a reason for the Variance. (3) The Variance Chapter (ECDC Chapter 20.85) states that extra expense that may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance should not be considered a special circumstance. (4) In addressing the special circumstance criterion, the applicants state that their house is a single-family house in a multi -family zone (See Exhibit A, Attachment 4). (5) A single-family residence is an allowed primary use within a multi -family zone- (6) The house was built in 1958 when the lot was within unincorporated Snohomish County. (7) The area where the house is located was annexed into the City of Edmonds in 1994. (8) The house was built without anticipation of the setbacks that would be imposed on the property when it became incorporated into the City of Edmonds- (9) The house was built at a time when two -car garages or carports were not standard for many single-family houses. (IO)A two -car garage or carport is now considered to be a typical feature of even a modest single-family residence. (I I)As a single-family house located in a multi -family zone, there are two sets of setbacks available from which to choose. See the above Section B. I _ (12)The applicants have chosen to use the standard set of setbacks for the RM-1.5 zone. These setbacks require the carport to be placed 10 feet from the side yard and 15 feet from the front yard. The RS-6 setbacks allow the carport to be located only 5 feet from the side yard property line but require a setback of 20 feet from the street property line. (I3)lfthe carport was placed to meet a 20 foot setback from the street property line, it would be only 13 feet deep, too short for a typical carport_ The placement of the Packet Page 254 of 357 ILearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-02-150 Page 5 carport 15 feet froftr the street property line allows the carport to be 18 feet, a depth suitable for a standard carport. (14)The use of this set of setbacks also requires the least amount of setback reduction (or variance from the setbacks) for the placement of the carport. This is because use of the RS-6 setbacks would require a 5-foot reduction of the 20-foot street setback. However, the use of the RM-1.5 setbacks requires the reduction of the 10-foot side setback to 8.25 feet. (15)The location of the carport appears to be the most logical placement for the carport on the lot, taking into consideration the location of the existing access to the lot and the orientation of the house on the lot. (16)If the carport were moved farther to the west to meet the setback from the east property line, it would at least partially cover the only large window on the front of the house. This can be seen by looking at the photographs, Attachment 5. If the carport was moved farther west so that it would be even with the west side of the house (but still project toward the street), the location of the access to the carport would need to be moved. This also would not seem to be a logical placement for a carport since the current location of the carport is in front of the existing garage. (17)If the carport were placed at the rear of the house, access to the carport would need to be through either of the side yards of the house_ Access to the rear of the house through the east side yard is precluded by a steep bank as shown by the site plan and photographs (Exhibit A, Attachments 3 and 5). Access to the rear of the house through the west side yard would require the relocation of the current access driveway to the house. (18)The applicants state that the homes across the street are in Snohomish County and that the homes across the street and to the east are in the City of Edmonds and zoned as single-family lots and thus have different setback requirements. (19)The applicant's state that the homes in Snohomish County may build 5 feet from the property line and the homes in the City zoned as single-family may build 7.5 feet from their property line_ They feel that what they want to do is consistent with what surrounding single-family homes can do. (20)The photographs of the constructed carport (Exhibit A, Attachment 5) appear to show a carport that is well constructed and that does not appear to be detrimental to surrounding property owners. (21)The applicants state that the use of the carport is for covered parking for their two vehicles and that they would like to keep the current width of the carport so that it remains usable for two vehicles_ Packet Page 255 of 357 = clearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-02-150 Page 6 c) Conclusions: (1) Special Circumstances The expense necessary to bring the carport into compliance with the required setbacks cannot be considered to be a special circumstance. The fact that the home is a single-family residence in a multi -family zone should not be considered a special circumstance since this use is consistent with what the zone allows. However, a special circumstance exists on the property in that the home was constructed prior to annexation to the City of Edmonds and was thus built with different setbacks in effect. -This means that the house was not constructed to anticipate the placement of a carport addition that would meet the current zoning setbacks. (2) Special Privilege No special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that it will allow the property to have a carport with setbacks that are consistent with the required setbacks 'for other homes in the surrounding neighborhood. (3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the continued development of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site. (4) Not Detrimental The proposed variance should not be detrimental or injurious to adjacent property owners. (5) Minimum Required The carport appears to be a modest size; especially considering the dimensions of the carport after it is reconstructed to bring it into conformance with the street setback. The requested variance appears to be the minimum necessary. (6) Since the applicant meets all the criteria for a variance, the setback variance should be approved with the condition that it is for the project and setbacks that have been specifically requested for the existing carport. DECISION: Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is approved, subject to the following conditions: I. The setback variance will be limited to the existing carport as identified on the proposed site plan with the exception that what is shown as the side setback of the carport will Packet Page 256 of 357= ;wring Examiner Decision Case No. V-02-150 Page 7 actually be the requested 825 feet. Any other structures, additions or remodels shall conform to the typical setbacks for the zone or obtain another variance. 2. 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. 3. The applicant must obtain a building permit for the carport. Entered this 13`f' day of November 2002 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Ron McCoWnell, FA P Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL: 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. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. APPEALS; Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. Packet Page 257 of 357 fearing Examiner Decision Case No_ V-02-150 Page 8 TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL: The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals ran concurrently. If a request for reconsideration is filed before the time limit for fling an 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 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_ LAPSE OF APPROVAL: Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR: The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. EXHIBIT: The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report PARTIES of RECORD: Dean and Amy Whitehouse Edmonds Planning Division 8810 236`1' St_ SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Packet Page 258 of 357° CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: Ron McConnell, He ri9g ExalT�iner _ "7 i From: ,�1l��r; Project Planner Date: APRIL 12, 2000 File: V-2000-42 BURT OLLESTAD Hearing Date, Time, And Place: April 20, 2000, At 9.30 AM City Hall - Third Floor Meeting Room 121 5"' Ave N. Table of Contents Section LINTRODUCTION..............................................................................................•--.....................2 A. APPLICATION.............................................................. ------------------------------------------------------------ .--.- ............... 2 B- RECOMMENDATIONS----------------------------------------------------------------•-------------•---............-----------•------------------- ....2 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................2 A. SITE DEscwpTioN ----------------------------------------------------------------------- .------------ ................................................. 2 B. HISTORY..-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -•----------------------- C- EDMONDS COMMUNIr Y DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE-------------------------------------------------------- 3 D- COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC----•---•------ -----•-------------------------•-------................. ----.-------------------------------5 III. RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS ......... ..........................................................5 A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION------------•............................................................................................. 5 B- APPEALS ----------- ---- ---------------------------------------- --- ------------------------------------------------------- ............. ...--------- 6 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL.........................................................................................................6 V. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR.............................................................................6 VI. ATTACHMENTS....................................................................................................................6 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD.......................................................................................................6 V-2000-42 up-doc I Apn1 12, 2000 I Staff Report Packet Page 259 of 357 Burt GElestad Setback Variances File No_ V-2000-42 Page 2 of 6 I. INTRODUCTION A. Application i _ Applicant: Burt 011estad (see Attachment 2)_ 2_ Site Location: 15722 75,h Place West (see Attachment 1). 3_ Request: A variance to reduce the street setback from 25 feet down to 10, a variance to decrease the required side setback from 10 feet down to 6. feet and a variance to reduce the combined side setback from 35 feet down to 26 for the construction of a 2 car; detached garage (see Attachment 3)_ 4- Review Process: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. 5_ Major Issues: (1) Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RS-20)_ (2) Compliance with Edmonds Community`De'velopment Code (ECDC) Section 20.85 ( VARIANCES). B. Recommendations Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report staff recommends APPROVAL of all 3 variances as presented on Attachment 3 (site plan) subject to the following conditions: (2) The applicant must obtain all necessary permits prior to any construction. (3) This approval is for the construction of a detached garage only. All other structures, additions or remodels to the primary building must conform to the requirements in place at the time or obtain another variance. (4) The permit should be transferable. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Site Description 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Land Use: The primary residence is currently undergoing a major remodel and addition project. There is a detached, one -car garage that encroaches into the City right -of way_ (2) Zonine: The subject property is located within the Single Family Residential (RS- 20) zone- (3) Terrain and Vegetation: The garage is located on a small flat portion of the lot off of 75d` Place West. From the garage, the lot drops steeply to the house. Beyond the house the topography drops to the west at an approximate 2H_ 1 V (Horizontal:Vertical) toward the railroad right-of-way. V-200042 srp.dee / April 12, 2000 / Staff Report Packet Page 260 of 35T Burt 011estad Setback Variances File No_ V-2000-42 Page 3 of 6 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Fact: (1) The area is primarily developed with single farnily.residences and is zoned RS-20. B. History a) Facts: (1) A previous owner of the property applied for similar variances in 1997 (See site plan and staff report — Attachment 4, File No. V-97-27)_ Street setback, side setback and combined side setback reduction requests were approved. A height variance request was denied. (2) Variance approval was extended upon request by the current property owner on July 28, 1998. ` (3) Building permits for the home only (not the garage) were issued and work is in progress_ The variance approvals pertaining to the garage expired on July 28, 1999 because permits were never applied for- (4) The owner is requesting variance approvals ibr a smaller garage (2 car verses a 3 car) than what originally was proposed. C. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance 1. Compliance with Residential (RS-20) Zoning Standards a) Facts: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to development in the Single Fancily Residential (RS-20) zone is set forth in Chapter 16.20.030- Street Setback 25 feet Rear Setback: 25 feet per the geotechnical engineer Side Setbacks: minimum of 10 feet, combined setback of 35 feet Height: 25 feet b) Conclusion: The subject property is legally nonconforming in regards to lot width. The standard requirement is a minimum of 100 feet in width, the 011estad lot is only 50 feet wide. With the combined side setback requirement, a structure would be limited to 15 feet in width. Except for the requested setback variances, all other zoning standards will be in compliance. 3. Compliance with Requirements for a Variance a) . Facts: Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby the following finding and criteria to grant a Variance must be met_ The criteria are as follows: {1) Special Circumstance: Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings or of the property, the strict. application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the subject property use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. (2) 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 (3) Comprehensive Plan: That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan. V-2000-42 srp_doc / April 12, 2000 / Staff Report Packet Page 261 of 357- Burt 011estad Setback Vanances File No. V-2000-42 Page 4 of6 (4) Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in whigj the property is located- (5) Non 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_ (6) Minimum Necessary: That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning- (2) The applicant has submitted a letter to support the variance requests (see Attachment 5). A summary is provided below: (a) (Applicant Response) "__.a previous variance for setbackreduction for a house/garage had been approved, (Variance ff V-97-27), but had expired during the course of house construction and since the garage permit had not yet been issued..." (b) (Applicant Response) --the setbacks being sought now are for less reduction of setbacks than that approved in the original variance." (c) (Applicant Response) "_ _ _two residences to the north were granted similar setback reduction variances for their garages." b) Conclusions- Staff Responses to the Variance Criteria (1) The shape and topography are the special circumstances evident on the subject property_ At 50 feet in width and a combined side setback of 35 feet, the buildable area is very limited. The location of the existing residence further reduces the space for a garage. The existing garage currently encroaches into the City right -of -way - The new garage would eliminate that problem but still be within the 25 foot setback requirement_ The property is also within the Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area_ The topography is very steep with the exception of the proposed garage_ The lot is so narrow that there is no room to drive along side the house and the lot is so steep that it is not possible to locate a garage in another location on the lot. (2) Staff concurs with the applicant's claim that neighbors on either side have received variance approval to locate structures within the street and side setbacks (File nos. V- 80-38, V-86-31, V-85-30, V-86-17, V-89-38). There is no space to construct a garage without requesting variances. All of the immediate neighbors have 2-car (or more) garages. (3) A detached garage is a permitted use within the Comprehensive plan and zoning . district of the subject property. (4) The applicant is proposing to eliminate the encroachment of the existing garage into the right-of-way. The variances would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Homes on the opposite side of 756' Place West are uphill. The applicant has not demonstrated whether the 10-foot street setback will negatively impact any views_ The garage itself is not as wide as the existing house_ The height of the garage will comply with the 15-foot accessory structure limit. (7) The eastern portion of the site is generally level and the most appropriate location for a garage since it is adjacent to 75 ' Place West The 2-car garage is shorter than the 3-car garage that was previously approved. There is no other available place for a V-200042 stp_doc / April 12, 20001 Staff Report Packet Page 262 of 357 Burt 011estad Setback Variances File No. V-2000-42 Page 5 of 6 garage and the proposal appears to be the minimum necessary to allow a garage on the property. 4_ Technical Committee a) Review by City Departments (1) Fact: The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire Department, Public Works Division, Engineering Division, and the Parks and Recreation Division. No comments were received- D. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) 1. Comprehensive Plan Designation a) Fact- The subject property is designated as Residential Single Family Large Lot on the comprehensive plan_ R ti b) Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Ilan Land Use designation for the site. 2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies a) Fact: The Comprehensive Plan Residential Development section identifies goals and .policies for the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below_ (1) High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. (2) Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures_. b) Conclusion: The documentation provided for the variance is consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City. E. Comments 1. No letters were received. IIL RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed_ V-2000-42 srp.doc / April 12, 2000 / staff Report Packet Page 263 of 35T_- i `4 t a SUBJECT SITE V-2000-42-1 40 Vicinity Map Burt 011estadt 15722 75th Place West Setback Variances i Packet Page 264 of 357 -, Attachment I CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH •Edmonds, WA 98020 • (n25) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER roc 1 gyu FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: Burt 011estad GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR CASE NO.: V 2000-42 LOCATION: 15722 75`h Place West APPLICATION: , Variance to reduce the street setback from 25 feet to 10 feet; reduce the side setback from 110 feet to 6 feet and reduce the combined side setbacks from 35 feet to 26 feet for the construction of a 2 car garage. REVIEW PROCESS: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: (1) Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RS-20)_ (2) Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.85 (VARIANCES). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Hearing Examiner Decision: PUBLIC HEARING: Approve with conditions Approve 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 011estad application was opened at 10:17 a-m., April 20, 2000, in the City Hall, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 10:25 a-m- Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report_ A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. • incorporated August 11, 1890 • Packet Page 265 of 357 HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the continents offered at the public hearing - From the City_ Karissa Kawamoto reviewed the history of the project: i.e_ all requested variance requests had been previously approved, but .the pemut for the garage had expired. All aspects of the project are unchanged, with the exception of the garage being scaled down and moved a little further back onto the property_ From the Applicant: Burt 011estad spoke briefly, essentially confirming the information provided by staff - From the Community: No comments received. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION L Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Land Use: The primary residence is currently undergoing a major remodel and addition project. There is a detached, one -car garage that encroaches into the City right-of-way. (2) Zo_ ninQ: The subject property is located within the Single Family Residential (RS-20) zone. (3) Terrain and Vegetation: The garage is located on a small flat portion of the lot off o€7S`h Place West. From the garage, the lot drops steeply to the how. Beyond the house the topography drops to the west at an approximate 2H:1 V (Horizontal:Vertical) toward the railroad right -of way. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Fact: (1) The area is primarily developed with single family residences and is zoned RS-20. B. HISTORY a) Facts: (1) A previous owner of the property applied for similar variances in 1997 (See site plan and staff report — Exhibit A, Attachment 4, File No. V- 97-24 Street setback, side setback and combined side setback Packet Page 266 of 357 - _ .eanng Examiner Decision Case No_ V 2000-42 Page 3 reduction requests were approved_ A height variance request was denied. (2) Variance approval was extended upon request by the current property owner on July 28, 1998_ (3) Building permits for the borne only (not the garage) were issued and work is in progress. The variance approvals pertaining to the garage expired on July 28, 1999 because permits were never applied for- (4) The owner is requesting variance approvals for a smaller garage (2 car verses a 3 car) than what originally was proposed. C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY TY DEVELOPMENT ENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. Compliance with Residential (RS-20) Zoning Standards a) Facts: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to development in the Single Family Residential (RS-20) zone is set forth in Chapter 16.20.030- Street Setback: 25 feet Rear Setback: 25 feet per the geotechnical engineer Side Setbacks: minimum of 10 feet, combined setback of 35 feet Height: 25 feet b) Conclusion: The subject property is legally nonconforming in regards to Iot width. The standard requirement is a minimum of 100 feet in width, the 011estad lot is only 50 feet wide. With the combined side setback requirement, a structure would be limited to 15 feet in width_ Except for the requested setback variances, all other zoning standards will be in compliance. 3. Compliance with Requirements fora Variance a) Facts: Chapter 20.85 of the I;CDC sets forth the mechanism whereby the following finding and criteria to. grant a Variance must be met_ The criteria are as follows- (1) Special Circumstance: Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings or of the property, the strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the subject property use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning- (2) Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison Packet Page 267 of 357 A.tearing Examiner Decision Case No_ V 2000-42 Page 4 wittfthe lianitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning (3) Comprehensive Plan: That the approval of the variance with be consistent with the comprehensive plan- (4) Zoning Ordinance- That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located- (5) Non 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. (6) Minimum Necessary: '"Mat the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. (2) The applicant has submitted a letter to support the variance requests (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5)_ A summary is provided below: (a) (Applicant Response) "_ --a previous variance for setback reduction for a house/garage had been approved, (Variance # V-97-27), but had expired during the course of house construction and since the garage permit had not yet been issued_ _ _" (b) (Applicant Response) "...the setbacks being sought now are for less reduction of setbacks than that approved mi the original variance_" (c) (Applicant Response) "---two residues to the north were granted similar setback reduction variances for their garages." b) Conclusions- (1). The shape and topography are the special circumstances evident on the subject property. At 50 feet W width and a combined side setback of 35 feet, the buildable area is very limited. The location of the existing residence further reduces the space for a garage_ The existing garage currently encroaches into the City right-of-way. The new garage would eliminate that problem, but would stiff be located IS feet within the 25 foot, setback requirement; i-e_ 10 feet from the front property line. Packet Page 268 of 357_, -caring Examiner Decision Case No_ V 2000-42 Page 5 The property is also within the Meadowdate Landslide Hazard Area. The topography is very steep with the exception of the proposed garage. The lot is so narrow that there is no room to drive along side the house and the lot is so steep that it is not possible to locate a garage in another location on the lot. (2) There is evidence to support the applicant's claim that neighbors on either side have received variance approval to locate structures within the street and side setbacks (File nos. V-80-38, V-86-31, V-85-30, V- 86-17, V-89-38).. There appears to be no practical space to construct a garage without requesting variances. All of the immediate neighbors have 2-4= (or more) garages- (3) A detached garage is a permitted use within the Comprehensive plan and zoning district of the subject property- (4) The applicant is proposing to eliminate the encroachment of the existing garage into the right-of-way. The variances would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Homes on the opposite side of 75'h Place West are uphill. The applicant has not demonstrated whether the 10-foot street setback will negatively impact any views_ The garage itself is not as wide as the existing house. The height of the garage will comply with the 15-foot accessory structure limit- (7)The eastern portion of the site is generally level and the most appropriate location for a garage since it is adjacent to 75d' Place West. The 2-car garage is shorter than the 3-car garage that was previously approved. There does not appear to be other available locations on the property for a garage and the proposal appears to be the minimum necessary for the proposed use_ 4. Technical: Committee a) Review by City Departments (1) F-at: The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire Department, Public Works Division, Engineering Division, and the Parks and Recreation Division_ No comments were received. D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) i. Comprehensive Plan Designation a) Fact: The subject property is designated as Residential Single Family Large Lot on the comprehensive plan_ b) Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site_ Packet Page 269 of 357_` tearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 2000-42 Page 6 2. CornprehensiVe Plan Goals and Policies a) Fact: The- Comprehensive Plan Residential Development -section identifies goals and policies for the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below. (1) High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted- (2) Minirnize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures._ b) Conclusion: The documentation provided for the variance is consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City. E. COMMENTS 1. No letters were received. DECISION Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is approved, subject to the .following conditions: 1 _ The applicant must obtain all necessary permits prior to any construction- 2- This approval is for the construction of a detached garage only_ All other structures, additions or remodels to the primary building must conform to the requirements in place at the time or obtain another variance. 3. The permit will be transferable and run with the land. Entered this 28th day of April, 2000, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. . -) z 1�) C/ -�_MJQ( Donald B_ Largen, Hearing Examiner Pro Tern RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL 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. Packet Page 270 of 357_ nearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 2000-42 Page 7 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 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 atterfdance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. APPEALS Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shah be made_ The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the 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 - TIME FRAME The time limits for Reconsiderations and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an 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 tirne 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. LAPSE OF APPROVAL 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." NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office_ EXHIBIT: The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report Packet Page 271 of 357-- Hearing Examiner Decision Case No_ V 2000-42 Page 8 PARTIES o.F_RECORD: Burt 011estad Edmonds Planning. Division 15722 756 Place West Edmonds, WA 98020 t Packet Page 272 of 357 "I 'I c j gp}ll CITY OF EDMONDS 121 SM AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-=1 -HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: Greg Burnside (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). CAST: NO.: V-2000-92 GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR LOCATION: 8127 Talbot Road (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). t � APPLICATION: A variance to reduce the required side setback of 10 feet to 8 feet to the south property line with the total required side setbacks of 35 feet being reduced to 15 feet 8 inches to extend a deck in line with an existing deck (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 through 4). REVIEW PIZOCESS: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public liear"rig and snakes final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SINIGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards). b_ Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 17.40-020 (Nonconforming Buildings). c. Compliance with Edmonds -Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES) - SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Deny Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the official file, which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and after viewing the photographs attached to the staff report, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the application was opened at 9:30 a.m_, November 2, 2000, in the City Hall, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:39 a.m. Participants at the public; hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the healing is available in the Planning Division. Packet Page 273 of 357 = Incorporated August 11, 1890 ' Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-00-92 Page 2 HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing_ Prom the City: Meg Gruwell entered the staff advisory report into the record. She said she believes there are other locations on the site on which to locate a deck, but she wouldn't have known this was a new deck addition if she wasn't told it was. From the Applicant: Greg Burnside said: • He did not know he needed a permit to construct the deck and felt he could extend the new section of the deck along the same alignment as the existing deck. • He met with the neighbor to the south prior to construction and felt the neighbor to the south had no concerns with the deck extension_ • He has now applied for a building permit and the permit is ready to be picked up if the variance is granted. • There is only 10 square feet of deck at issue in this case. Kathie Burnside said she was present when her husband met with the neighbor to the south and she felt he agreed with the deck extension that was constructed. From the Community: No one from the community spoke at the public hearing_ FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Size: The subject property is very roughly 21,000 square feet plus tidelands and is roughly rectangular in shape with approximately 70 feet of frontage along Talbot Road (see Exhibit A, Attachments 1 and 4)_ (2) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with a detached single- family residence. (3) Zo_ nine: The subject property is located in a single-family residential zone and is zoned RS-20 (see Exhibit A. Attachment 1). (4) Terrain and Vegetation: The site slopes gently down to the northwest from Talbot Road to the fence at the top of the bank above the railroad tracks. From there it slopes steeply down to the Burlington Northern railroad tracks. The site is landscaped with trees, lawn and shrubs. Packet Page 274 of 357 , rearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-00-92 Page 3 2. Neighboring Development:And Zoning: a) Fact: The properties to the north, south, and east are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-20) and are developed with single-family homes (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). b) Fact: The property to the west of the house is developed with the Burlington Northern railroad and like other rights of way in the City it shows no zoning. Further to the west, the tidelands are zoned Single-family Residential (RSW-12). B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) 1. Facts: a) Variances granted based on special circumstances are normally exempt from SEPA review (WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15,A.080). However, ECDC 20.15A.280.A states that within areas designated in an environmentally sensitive area on the city's Environmentally Sensitive Areas map, no exemption shall be applicable for that area. b) A SEPA determination of nonsignificance was made for this project. The appeal period expires on October 31, 2000. To date no appeals have been received. 2. Conclusion: This application complies with SEPA requirements. C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. Critical Areas Compliance a) Facts: (1) This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.15.B (Critical Areas Ordinance). (2) The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Checklist (CA-2000-135) and a waiver was granted to the critical areas study requirement. b) Conclusion: The applicant has met the requirements of the Critical Areas Ordinance. 2. Compliance with RS 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. These include the following for locating structures: RS-20 (1) Street Setback: 25 feet (2) Rear Setback: 25 feet Packet Page 275 of 357 (3) Side Setbacks (to all other property lines): (4) Maximum Height: (5) Lot Coverage: clearing Examiner Decision '- Case No. V-00-92 Page 4 10 feet minimum either side, 35 feet total of both sides 25 feet 35% b) Conclusion: The proposal complies with the requirements of the RS-20 zoning standards except for all of the variances being requested. If the variance is not approved, the proposal will not meet the zoning standards. 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- (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 as follows (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3): Packet Page 276 of 357 , t-learing Examiner Decision Case No_ V-00-92 Page 5 (a) The applicant slates the lot is quite narrow for this zone, and the house and original deck were constructed when setbacks were narrower than they are now. (b) The applicant discusses how the houses to the north and south extend, or are in line, to the west. (c) The applicant points out that the width of the lot does not meet the large lot definition for width, which is why they are applying for a variance. (d) The applicant states theyAo not want a change to their existing side setbacks, but only a variance to extend by 5 feet an existing deck, so they feel that their proposal does not adversely affect the Zoning Ordinance. (e) As discussed in (b) above, the applicants feel that since the extension is not substantially further west than the existingihouses and decks that granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone. Also it will not cause a loss of property value, scenic view or use of the surrounding properties, they state. (f) The applicant states "The minimum variance would put our deck no further in front of the house directly north and would be approximately 5' behind the end of the deck directly south. The other properties in the vicinity are totally unaffected by the 5' extension of the existing deck." (3) The views from this property are to the northwest, in line with the property lines. (4) Because of the way the setbacks are calculated, even if the deck were removed the total combined side setbacks would not be any smaller than 15 feet 8 inches because of where the existing house and deck sit. (5) It appears that the houses to the north and south of this house have been constructed closer than 10 feet to the property line. b) Conclusions: .(1) The applicants are correct that their lot is narrower than is anticipated with a lot in the RS-20 zone. This makes it more challenging to meet the side lot setbacks, especially the requirement that the total of both side setbacks be 35 feet or more. While the area of the deck that is lost by meeting the ten -foot setback could be made up to either the north or west, the overall deck would have an illogical shape. (2) Many of the houses in the immediate vicinity appear to have been constructed with the previously required side setbacks. Therefore, the narrower side setback is not a special privilege. (3) The approval of the variance can be considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, since it harmonizes with the existing structure and supports retention of existing housing. The privacy of the neighbors to the south would not be Packet Page 277 of 357 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-00-92 Page 6 significantly affected- if the deck extension were allowed to have an 8-foot side setback. If approved, " the proposed extension would be in compliance with the zoning ordinance. (4) The deck extension has the most impact on the neighbors to the south, who also have a deck, which is probably nearer the property line than current setbacks would allow_ The proposed deck will not impact their view, which is to the northwest and is not impeded by the subject deck extension_ The 10 square feet of deck that is the issue of this hearing and this report is smaller in area than that of a typical office desk. In this case, due to its location that 10-square feet of decking is considered to have a de minimis impact on the neighboring property- (5) The proposed setback is the minimum variance necessary to allow the deck to follow the alignment of the previously existing deck. Because the total side setback of the existing house and deck is 15 feet 8 inches, that is considered a legal nonconforming setback. A property owner would not be required to demolish a portion of their house to make any new deck meet the required 35-foot total -both - sides -setback. D. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE 1. Review by City Departments a) Fact: The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire Department, Public Works Division, Engineering Division, and the Parks and Recreation Division. No comments have been generated. b) Conclusion: The applicant appears to be meeting the requirements of city codes except for the Planning Division. Even if no comments have been made, the applicant must comply with all city codes. E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) I. Comprehensive Plan Designation a) Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Residential — Large Lot." b) Conclusion: The proposed 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 "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below. (1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted...." Packet Page 278 of 357 gearing Examiner Decision Case No_ V-00-92 Page 7 (2) Policy 13.2 reads "Iiiotect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures in the area_" (3) Policy B.3. states "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures_" (4) Policy B.4 states "Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible." (5) Policy B_5.d_ states "Residential privacy is a fundamental protection to be upheld by local government." b) Conclusion: The applicant appears to be making an addition that harmonizes with the existing building and supports retention of existing housing_ The privacy of his neighbors would not be significantly affected if the deck extension met the minimum 10-foot side setback instead of the 8-foot side setback DECISION Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is approved, subject to the following conditions: i. The deck shall maintain a minimum eight -foot side setback as shown on Exhibit A, Attachment 4. 2.. 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. 3. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to any construction. 4_ The permit is transferable. 5. The owner must- act on the approved variance 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 9th day of November 2000, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner Packet Page 279 of 357 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-00-92 Page 8 RECONSIDERATIONS AND, -APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals- Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. ` N APPEALS Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong_ The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date-' NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. EXHIBIT: The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record. A- Planning Division Advisory Report PARTIES of RECORD: Greg and Kathie Burnside 8127 Talbot Rd. Edmonds, WA 98026 Planning Division Engineering Division Packet Page 280 of 357 V-2000-92,.dbcOctober 24, iOE! Staff Report Packet Page 285 of 357 ward and'J ' bE ib le [4 2..£r4 thy, 10 P. I)veg�rt3en# D�ector 1 de-OWn # ng appealed !nC- tSgv CITY OF EDMONDS GARYI-IAAKENSON MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning - Building - Engineering FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: Mr. and Mrs. Davis CASE NO.: V-01-57 LOCATION: 8226 187'b St. SW APPLICATION: A Street Setback and both Side Setback Variances REVIEW PROCESS: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: l) Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16-20 (RS-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)- 2) Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20-85 (VARIANCES). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Hearing Examiner Decision: PUBLIC HEARING: Approve with conditions Approve 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 Evans application was opened at 9.40 a.m., June 7, 2001, in the City Hall, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:45 a.m- Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City: Steve Bullock, Project Planner: reviewed the staff report and recommendations, noting that the remodeled areas would encroach no further than already exists. Packet Page 289 of 357 ' Incorporated August 1.1, 1890 • Davis variance r File No_ V-01-57 Page 2of5 From the Applicant: Michael -Dodd, Architect: 'explained that the proposed additions have been designed to a human scale to minimize appearnee of bulk and height. From the Community: No comments received. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Site Description A. Site Development And Zoning: FACTS: Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Residential Single Family (RS-12)- Existing and Proposed Development: The site is currently developed with a single family house. Terrain and Vegetation: The existing topography is relatively flat. Vegetation on the site is primarily ornamental landscaping with some large existing trees. Neighboring Development And Zoning: FACTS: North, West. South and East: The properties are zoned and developed under the RS-12 standards. CONCLUSION: The proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding zoning and development. 2. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance Zoning Standards FACTS' I. The fundamental site development standards in an RS-12 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20. They include a 25 foot street setback, I0-foot side setbacks and a 25 foot rear setback. Because the existing house is already built into both east and west side setbacks, additions for this house may have limited places to go and still Meet the City's setback requirements. 2. The applicants variance request covers the discrepancies between the proposed site plan and the RS-12 setback requirements. -hose are a requested Street Setback of 23'8", an east Side Setback of 6'4" and a west Side Setback of 8'0" (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 & 3). CoNcLustoN: The proposal complies with the development standards for RS-12 zone as set forth in Chapter 16.20 with the approval of the subject variance. Compliance with requirement for a Variance ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances) states an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85. Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC also 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. Packet Page 290 of 357 Davis Variance File No_ V-01-57 Page 3 of 5 FACTS: 1. ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance request trust comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These criteria include: a special circumstance roust exist; no special privilege is granted; the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the proposal will not be detrimental and is the minunum necessary. 2. A licant's res aces see Exhibit A, Attachment 3 a. The applicant states that special circumstances exist due to the fact that there are several mature trees the applicant would like to retain. Positioning additions on the house to retain these tress results in the additions being located in the proposed setback encroachment areas. b. The applicant states that the proposal would not be a grant of special privilege because of the existing buildings encroachment into the setback areas and the fact that other homes in the neighborhood are built in the setbacks or have had variances granted to allow them to build in the setbacks. c. The applicant states that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that this is a residential area and a residential development is proposed and the lifespan of the existing house would be enhanced. d. The applicant states that the proposal is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance in that it is a residential use in a residential zone and all bulk standards will be adhered to with the approval of the requested variances. e_ The applicant states that the proposal will not be detrimental in that it will not reduce any property values or create any hazards. Also, no views will be obstructed. £ The applicant states that this is the minimum variance in that both the garage and the master bedroom have been designed to be the minimum needed to meet the functions of those rooms. They were also located to ensure that windows and light to existing rooms would not be blocked_ Stan responses and additional information: Staff has indicated agreement with all of the points made by the applicant. CONCLUSIONS: Special Circumstances Special circumstances exist on the property in the form of existing mature trees and the configuration of the existing nonconforming building. Special Privil e No special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that it will allow an addition to the house to be built consistent with existing homes in the neighborhood. Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the development of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site. Not Detrimental The proposed variance will not be. detrimental or injurious to adjacent property owners_ Packet Page 291 of 357 Minimum Required The requested variances appears to be the minimum necessary_ DECISION Davis Variance File No. V-01-57 Page 4 of 5 Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is approved, subject to the following conditions: i _ The setback variance will be limited to the proposed additions and roof remodel as shown on the submitted plans. Entered this 20th day of June, 2001, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. onald B. Largen, Hearing Examiner Pro Tern RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. Req est 11or Reconsideration Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. Appeals Section 20.105.020.A &. B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made_ The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. Time Limits forReeonsideration and Appeals The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently_ If a request for a reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for Packet Page 292 of 357 . Davis Variance File No_ V-O 157 Page 5 Of 5 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 froni 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. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date' NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office EXHIBITS A. Planning Divison Advisory Report PARTIES OF RECORD Mr_ and Mrs_ Davis 8226 1876 St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Michael Dodd — Architect 4122 Wallingford Ave. N. Seattle, WA 98103 Engineering Division Fire Department Parks & Recreation Division Public Works Division Planning Division Packet Page 293 of 357=_ June 7, 2001 PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND ZIP -CODE BELOW IF -YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM FILE NO. V-2001-57 Davis Packet Page 294 of 357 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH A)I ENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: Don gen, Heari Ex finer From_ Stev ullock Project Planner Date: JUNE 1, 2001 File: V-01-57 Davis Setback Variances, Street, West Side and East Side Hearing Date, Time, And Place: June 7t'', At 9:30 AM, 3rd Floor Meeting Room Edmonds City Hall 121 5th Avenue North TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION -------------------------------------------------------------------------- .......................... ----- __1 A. Application -------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ._......--------- •--2 B. Recommendations ---------------------------------------------------- ............ _.----------------------------------------------------------- Z II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS-------------------------------------------------------------------2 A. Site Description ................................. .................... ------------------------------------------------------------- .---------- ---Z B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance---=-------------------------------------------------- 2 III. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS ................................... ......................................... 4 A_ Request for Reconsideration..-• .......... ----------------------------------- ------ _......................... ------------------------4 B_ Appeals-------------------------------------------------------------------------•----------_-------------------------------------------- ...........4 C_ Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals ------------------- •.............................. ____ ----------------------- 5 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL ............... -.......................................... -............................... ---------.5 V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR ................ ----------------...............................................5 VI. APPENDICES.------•.....................................................................--------------..........._....-----.....5 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD .................................... ......................................... ............... 5 I. INTRODUCTION The applicant, Mr. and Mrs. Davis, are proposing two new additions and a replacement of the roof over the existing home. One addition, the garage, is located on the northwest_ corner of the house and would encroach into the street setback 1'4" and west side setback 2'0". The master bedroom addition will be located in the rear yard on the southeast comer of the existing house. It will project into the east side setback by 3'8". The replacement of the existing shallow pitched roof with a 5:12 pitch roof over the entire home will increase the bulk of the existing building in both side setbacks_ 01057sr.doc / June 1, 2001 /StafReport Packet Page 295 of 357`. Davis Variance File No. V-01-57 Page 2 of 5 The following is the Edmonds Planning Division's analysis and recommendation of the applicant's submittal. A. --Application 1 _ Applicant: Mr. and Mrs_ Davis. 2. Site Location: 8226 187`t' St- SW (see Attachment 1)_ 3. Re uest: A Street Setback and both Side Setback Variances (see Attachments 2 and 3)_ 4. Review Process: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision- 5- Major Issues: a_ Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.20 (RS- SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). B. Recommendations Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend Approval of all the requested setback variances, Street Setback -- 23'-8", West Side Setback — 8"-0" and East Side Setback — 6'4", with the following conditions: 1. The setback variance will be limited to the proposed pool and intrusions shown with the proposed site plan - II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Site Description 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Residential Single Family (RS-12)_ (2) Existing; and Proposed Development: The site is currently developed with a single family house. (3) Terrain and Vegetation: The existing topography is relatively flat. Vegetation on the site is primarily ornamental landscaping with some large existing trees. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) North,West South and East: The properties are zoned and developed under the RS-12 standards. b) Conclusion: The proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding zoning and development- B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance 1. Zoning Standards a) Facts: 01057sr doc / June 1, 2001 / Staff Report Packet Page 296 of 357 Davis Variance Fife No. V-01-57 Page 3 of 5 (1) The fundamental site development standards in an RS-12 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20. They include a 25 foot street setback, 10-foot side setbacks and a 25 foot rear setback_ Because the existing house is already built into both east and west side setbacks, additions for this house may have limited places to go and still meet the City's setback requirements_ (2) The applicants variance request covers the discrepancies between the proposed site plan and the RS-12 setback requirements. Those are a requested Street Setback of 23'8", an east Side Setback of 6'4" and a west Side Setback of 8'0" (see Attachments 2 & 3)_ b) Conclusion: The proposal complies with the development standards for RS-I2 zone as set forth in Chapter 16.20 with the approval of the subject variance_ 2. Compliance with requirement for a Variance ECDC Chapter 20,85 (Variances) states an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85. Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC also 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_ a) Facts: (1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner_ These criteria include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted; the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum necessary. (2) Applicant's responses (see Attachment 3): (a) The applicant states that special circumstances exist due to the fact that there are several mature trees the applicant would Re to retain_ Positioning additions on the house to retain these trees results in the additions being located in the proposed setback encroachment areas. (b) The applicant states that the proposal would not be a grant of special privilege because of the existing buildings encroachment into the setback areas and the fact that other homes in the neighborhood are built in the setbacks or have had variances granted to allow them to build in the setbacks. (c) The applicant states that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that this is a residential area and a residential development is proposed and the lifespan of the existing house would be enhanced. (d) The applicant states that the proposal is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance in that it is a residential use in a residential zone and all bulk standards will be adhered to with the approval of the requested variances. (e) The applicant states that the proposal will not be detrimental in that it will not reduce any property values or create any hazards_ Also, no views will be obstructed. (f) The applicant states that this is the tninimum variance in that both the garage and the master bedroom have been designed to be the minimum needed to meet the functions of those rooms_ They were also located to ensure that windows and light to existing rooms would not be blocked. 01057srAoc I June 1, 2001 1 Staff Report Packet Page 297 of 357'_ Davis Variance File No_ V-01-57 Page 4 of5 (3) Staff responses and additional information: (a) Staff agrees with all of the points made by the applicant_ b) Conclusions. (1) Special Circumstances Special circumstances exist on the property in the form of existing mature trees and the configuration of the existing nonconforming building. (2) Special Privilege No special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that it will allow an addition to the house to be built consistent with existing homes in the neighborhood- (3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the development of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site. (4) Not Detrimental The proposed variance should not be detrimental or injurious to adjacent property owners. (5) Minimum Required The requested variances appears to be the minimum necessary. Since the applicant appears to meet all the criteria for a variance, the setback variances should be approved with the condition that it is for the project and setbacks shown in the plans III. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals- Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation. or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information_ A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation_ The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. B. Appeals Section 20-105.020-A & D 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- 0 1 057sr.doe / June 1, 2001 / Staff Report Packet Page 298 of 357.. Davis Variance File No. V-01-57 Page 5 of 5 C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals The time limits for Reeonsideration and Appeals run concurrently, if a request for a reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for fling anappeal 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. IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.05-020-C 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 variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office VL APPENDICES Attachments 1 through 3: 1_ Vicinity and Zoning Map 2, Site Plan 3. Declarations for Setback Variance Requests VII. PARTIES OF RECORD Mr- and Mrs. Davis 8226 1871, St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Michael Dodd — Architect 4122 Wallingford Ave. N. Seattle, WA 98103 Engineering Division Fire Department Parks & Recreation Division Public Works Division Planning Division Packet Page 299 of 357 01057sr.doc / June 1, 20011 Staff Report 18527 1 8209 iw co C,4 00ems- CIq 4N C� CO CN 00 CV OD tO M nE 03 90 C%4 CIq C\I 04 CI4 CO GO CC) CO eq co ...t Q) C\1 CN C\j p. CO co C* CO CNF O N C\I OD Go 03 CO THr-7 8214 821.4 8128 d 18818 Zoning and Vicinity Map Attachment I File No- V-2001-57 Packet Page 300 of 357 ��Ja rJlaal 1 �: 4L LI3bb33.7A.J3 r . LUULWnLrI Cl. L► �71}f ys�f S11' TE PLAN /^ %": S rt Au! n "Sr- t�nrG nACt fin: afOS1.13s�15E] LQfCUNAPR A4UWV- 4,Mir. Mg&»,!O W I�jl.($1CRACY FpDl U7FCOMMGtMaJC :' � OASt.KRa1[AW AOmgkknO(XAaA<s� VS �. rrsr.(ti►rts0aa» ... 5r.(= OXW 3)665)1. M1 ) taAc AiaaArrx "5r C � T flM Packet Page 301 of 357 Attachment 2 V-2001-57 Variance Application Declarations Property Address: 8226 187'r' SW Owners: Diane & Dwight Davis R Ek—_`VE PERMIT 'COUNTER Variance Request: To allow for construction of a garage to be built in a 2 foot portion of the required 10 foot side yard setback and 1 foot 4 inches of the street setback. To allow for construction of a master bedroom suite be built in 3 foot 8 inches of a portion of the required 10-foot side yard setback. In both cases the proposed new construction would continue the existing facade along the east and west ends of the house (refer to attached site plan). Also a new roof structure is proposed to be added that will increase the height of the roof ridge from 10 feet 4 inches above the floor line to 14 feet 4 inches. The existing roof overhang of a typical 2 feet zero inches is to be retained. (refer to attached site plan) Criteria 1. Special Circumstances. In both the front and rear yards of the property there area number of mature and possibly original growth trees. These trees along with other mature trees in the neighborhood make this neighborhood a special place to live in. Therefore the expansion of the house has been designed in locations that allow for retention of most of the trees and landscaping on this property. This is both a special circumstance for this property as well as for the neighborhood. 2. Special Privilege. There are several houses in the neighborhood that infringe into the currently required 10' side yard setback. We believe that the houses in the neighborhood were built in a time when the side yard setbacks were not as restrictive as they are now. In addition there was a variance recently allowed for a request similar to ours at 8323 187' Street SW_ Therefore no special privilege would be granted with our variance. 3. Comprehensive Plan. In keeping with the comprehensive plan the variance would continue the use of the house as a single-family residence on a large lot. Also the proposed addition would improve the usability of the house and thus improve the lifespan of the house. 4. Zoning Ordinance: The property is located in a RS-12 zone and will be in compliance with the following restrictions: Maximum height: 25 feet Maximum lot coverage: 35% (.35 x 13,504 = 4726 sq. ft.) 5_ Not Detrimental: The variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of the neighboring property and the neighborhood in general. There are no existing views of waterways or terrain. Typical views from living rooms, dining rooms or kitchens of the houses in the neighborhood are of the nicely landscaped yards including the mature trees common to the neighborhood. The proposed garage at the west side of the property and the master bedroom suite at the east side of the property do not eliminate views, by being located in a portion of the side yard_ Attachment 3 V 2001 57 Packet Page 302 of 357 LJ 6. Minimum Variance: The location of the garage t ardin a pas wellrtion of the as the ide yard was reqL ocat on of wi dow. due to the location of existing trees in the Y doors in the existing adjacent living room, dining room and bedroom. The location of ti., mast er bedroom suite in a portion of the side yard setback is due to locatnt of eAsting trees as well as the location of windows and doors of the existing adjacent and mastkitchen, living room and storage room. The size of both the proposed garage bedroom suite is designed to a minimum for the functions and requirements for these rooms. In closing, the granting of this variance would allow the property owner to have the property rights common to the general vicinity. This isbecause ted on their ll constructior milar tc many of the houses and subsequent additions have this. proposal. Ai4iane Davis 8226 187' Street SW Edmonds, Washington x fight is 8226 187 Street SW Edmonds, Washington Packet Page 303 of 357 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 -HEARING EXAMINER me 1$�jv FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: CASE NO.: LOCATION: :lames Dahl V -00-01 9218 224`h St. SW GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR APPLICATION, Reduce the side and front setbacks to construct a garage addition, which would result in a 3-car garage- more specifically, to reduce the side setback from 7.5 feet to 5 feet and to reduce the front setback from 25 feet to 20 feet. REVIEW PROCESS: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing; ;- nd makes final decision- MAJOR ISSUES; a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20-050 (SINGLE-FAMILY. RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards — Accessory Buildings). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Approve the front setback request. Deny the side setback request. Hearing Examiner Decision. Approve both front and side setback requests. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the official file. which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report, and after visiling the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the Dahl application was opened at 9:31 a.m., April 5, 2001, in the City Hall, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:39 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the bearing is available in the Planning Division - Packet Page 304 of 357=, • I ncarporoted August 11, 1890 • rlearing Examiner Decision Case No_ V-2000-141 Page 2 HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City: Kathleen Taylor reviewed the staff advisory report and entered it into the record as Exhibit A_ She noted that Mr_ Dahl has submitted a request for a building permit. From the Applicant: .lames Dahl explained his need for the variance and submitted a set of plans for the proposed addition (Exhibit B), and submitted eleven photographs that show neighboring properties that have side setbacks of less than 7.5 feet (Exhibit C). From the Community: No one from the general public spoke at the public hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS: A. SITE DESCRIPTION L Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Size: The subject property is approximately 7,350 square feet_ (See Exhibit A, Attachment 3) (2) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with a single-family house and attached 2-car garage. (3) Zo.__ nine: The subject property is zoned RS-S. (See Exhibit A, Attachment 1) (4) Terrain: The site is relatively flat. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Fact: Most of the neighboring properties along 2241h Street SW are developed with single family homes and are zoned RS-8. Properties east of 92"d Avenue are located within Unincorporated Snohomish County, and do not fall within the City of Edmonds limits. b) Conclusion: Construction of a garage addition is consistent with the single family development, although a 3-car garage is not common to the surrounding neighborhood. Since the proposed garage addition encroaches into the setback, it requires a variance. B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) a) Fact: The proposal does not require SEPA review. b) Conclusion: The applicant has complied with SEPA regulations. Packet Page 305 of 357., .fearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-2000-141 Page 3 C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY{ DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. Zoning Standards a) Facts: ECDC 16_20.030 states the development standards for RS-8 zoning. The minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet. The required side setback is 7.5 feet, and the required front setback is 25 feet. b) Conclusion: The lot is substandard. At 7,350 square feet, it does not meet the minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet. The applicant is requesting a variance in order to reduce the side and front setbacks. 2. Compliance with requirement for a Side Setback Variance ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances) states an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85. Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC also 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. a) Facts: (1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These criteria include the following: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege may be granted; the proposal must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; and the proposal can not be detrimental; and it must be the minimum necessary. (2) Applicant's responses Refer to the applicant's responses in Exhibit A, Attachment 4, and photos in Exhibit A, Attachment 5 and Exhibit C. (3) Staff responses and additional information: a. The single-family houses in the vicinity were constructed under Snohomish County Code. It is possible that some of the homes are five feet from the property line, but it is difficult to determine without sufficient documentation. b. No variances have been submitted along 2241h Street SW. c. The existing house at 9218 224" St SW was constructed in 1989 and has an existing two -car garage. d. No public comments were received. Packet Page 306 of 357 Bearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-2000-141 Page 4 b) Conclusions- (1) Special Circumstances Special circumstances exist in the size of the lot_ The lot is 7,350 square feet, which is considerably less than 8,000 square feet required by the zone, and is therefore a non -conforming lot per ECDC 17.40.030. (2) Special Privil e The applicant submitted Exhibit C, which shows a number of garages that are 5 or 6 feet from the side property. line. This is very likely since most homes in this area were constructed under Snohomish County Code and that code required a 5-foot sideyard setback_ Therefore, no special privilege would be granted to the applicant if a 5-foot sideyard setback were to be approved. (3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan Approval of the proposed variance would allow for site development consistent with the intent of the zoning code. The lot is zoned single family, and construction of a garage addition is consistent with single-family development. The property is designated single family -small lot on the comprehensive plan. Construction of a garage addition is consistent with single-family development. The elevation drawing (Exhibit A, Attachment 3) illustrates consistency with Policy B.2. of the residential development section. It states, "Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings.__" (4) Not Detrimental The proposed variance request does not appear detrimental. The adjacent house to the west that would be most affected by the proposal has no living spaces, but rather a garage with no window on the side adjacent to the proposed addition- (5) Minimum Required The requested variance for a side yard setback meets the minimum necessary criteria. If the garage addition were required to meet the side setback requirements slightly over 8 feet of space would be available between the door trim of the existing two -car garage and the exterior wall of the proposed garage addition. That would allow for only a very narrow garage addition and would not allow space along the wall for storage that is so common in garages. Therefore, it is believed that the request for the 2-5-foot sideyard setback variance is the minimum required to allow for a reasonable one stall addition to the existing garage. In order to provide adequate turnaround, the applicant could construct a paved turnaround adjacent to his driveway. See Engineering Comments, Exhibit A, Attachment 6. A paved turnaround would be allowed within the setback area per Interpretation File 94-1. See Exhibit A, Attachment 7. Packet Page 307 of 357 jearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-2000-141 Page 5 3. Compliance with requirement for a Front Setback Variance ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances) states an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85. Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC also 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_ a) Facts: (1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These criteria include the following: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege may be granted; the proposal must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; and the proposal can not be detrimental; and it must be the minimum necessary. (2) Applicant's responses Refer to the applicant's responses in Exhibit A, Attachment 4A and photos in Exhibit A, Attachment 5 and Exhibit C. (3) Staff responses and additional information: a. The single-family houses in the vicinity were constructed under Snohomish County Code, development standards and zoning requirements were different prior to annexation to the City of Edmonds. b. No variances have been submitted along 224"' Street SW. c. No public comments were received. b) Conclusions: (1) Special Circumstances Special circumstances exist in the size of the lot. The lot is 7,350 square feet, which is considerably less than 8,000 square feet required by the zone, and is therefore a non -conforming lot per ECDC 17.40.030_ (2) Special Privilege It appears that several of the residences in the neighborhood are approximately 20 feet from the front property line. Approval of this variance should not constitute special privilege to the applicant. (3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan Approval of the proposed variance would allow for site development consistent with the intent of the zoning code. The lot is zoned single family, and construction of a garage addition is consistent with single-family development. Packet Page 308 of 357' Nearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-2000-141 Page 6 The property is designated single family -small lot on the comprehensive plan. - Construction of a garage addition is consistent with single-family development_ The elevation drawing (Exhibit A, Attachment 3) illustrates consistency with Policy B.2. of the residential development section. It states, "Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings.... (4) Not Detrimental The proposed variance request does not appear detrimental. (5) Minimum Required The requested variance does appear to be the minimum necessary. The applicant is only requesting to reduce the front setback so the addition will align with the existing residence and many of the other residences in the neighborhood. D. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE Review by City Departments: The application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire Department, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, and the Parks Department. Comments were received from the Engineering Division. Refer to Exhibit A, Attachment 6_ DECISION: Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the requested front and side setback variances are approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must obtain proper building permits prior to construction_ 2. 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. Entered this 11 "' day of April 2001 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds_ Ron McConnell, F ICP Hearing Examiner Packet Page 309 of 357 . _fearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-2000-141 Page 7 RECONSIDERATIONS ANO APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for fling reconsideration's and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who atterids the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances .governing the type of application being reviewed_ APPEALS Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be trade 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 trust be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.05.020.0 states `Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. EXHIBITS: The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report B. Plans for the proposed addition C. Eleven photographs on three sheets Packet Page 310 of 357 r4eanng Examiner Decision Case No. V-2000-141 Page 8 PARTIES of RECORD: James Dahl Edmonds Planning Division 9218 224 h St. SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Packet Page 311 of 357_ CITY OF EDMONDS 121 - STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner From Kathleen4Kaylor Planner Date: MARCH 28, 2001 File: V-2000-141 JAMES DAHL Hearing Date, Time, And Place: March 1.5, 2001, At 9:30 AM, Third Floor, Room 304 Edmonds City Hall, 121 — 5th Avenue N. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................2 A_ APPLICATION ...... -.................................................................... ....- 2 B_ RECOMMENDATIONS.-----•----•----•-------•-------•--_----•-•----------------------- 2 Il. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................2 A. SITE DESCRIPTION------ ........... ------------------------------ — ---------- 2 B_ STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)------------------------------------------------ .--------------------------------------------- -_ 3 C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE --------------------------------------------------- ......... 3 D_ TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ............ .......................... ..------------------------------------------ .............. — 5 IIL RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS.........................................................................5 A_ REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION --------- ........................ ........ .------------------------------- 5 B. APPEALS ................. ............. _............................... ' ' 6 C. TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS ------------------------------------------------- ...------------------------------------ 6 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL...................................................................................................6 V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR................................................................•--............6 VI. APPENDICES....................................................................................................................6 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD...................................................................................................6 V-2000-14I SR-doc / March 28, 2001 / Staff Report Packet Page 312 of 357 Dahl File No. V-2000-141 Page 2 of 6 I. INTRODUCTION A. Application I _ Applicant: James Dahl (See Attachment 2.) 2- Site location: 9218 224 h St SW (See Attachment 1 _) Requests: To reduce the side and front setbacks to construct a garage addition which would result in a 3-car garage; more specifically to reduce the side setback from 7.5 feet to 5 feet and to reduce the front setback from 25 feet to 20 feet. 3- Review Process: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision- 4- Maior Issues: a- Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.050 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards — Accessory Buildings). b- Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES)- B. Recommendations Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, we recommend DENIAL of the requested side setback variance for construction of a garage. The proposal does not meet the "minimum. necessary" criterion for a variance. Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, we recommend APPROVAL of the requested front setback variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must obtain proper building permits prior to construction. 2- 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. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Site Description 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Size: The subject property is approximately 7,350 square feet. (See Attachment 3) (2) Land Use:. The subject property is currently developed with a single family house and attached 2-car garage. (3) Zonin>r: The subject property is zoned RS-8_ (See Attachment 1) (4) Terrain: The site is relatively flat. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Fact: Most of the neighboring properties along 224 h Street SW are developed with single family homes and are zoned RS-8. Properties east of 92ad Avenue are located within Unincorporated Snohomish County, and do not fall within the City of Edmonds limits. b) Conclusion: Construction of a garage addition is consistent with the single family development, although a 3-car garage is not common to the surrounding neighborhood. Since the proposed garage addition encroaches into the setback, it requires a variance. V 2000-141 SR.doc / March 28, 2001 / Staff Report Packet Page 313 of 357 _ Dahl File No. V-2000-141 Page 3 of 6 B. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) 1 _ Fact: The proposal does not require SEPA review_ 2. Conclusion: The applicant has complied with SEPA regulations- C. Edmonds Community Development. Code (ECDC) Compliance 1. Zoning Standards a) Facts- ECDC 16.20.030 states the development standards for RS-8 zoning. The minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet_ The required side setback is 7-5 feet, and the required front setback is 25 feet_ t>> Conclusion: The lot is substandard. At 7,350 square feet, it does not meet the minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet. The applicant is requesting a variance in order to reduce the side and front setbacks. 2. Compliance with requirement for a Side Setback Variance ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances) states an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85. Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC also 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. a) Facts: (1) ECDC Section 20-85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner_ These criteria include the following: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege may be granted; the proposal must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; and the proposal can not be detrimental; and it must be the minimum necessary_ (1) Applicant's responses Refer to the applicant's responses in Attachment 4 and photos in Attachment 5_ {2) Staff responses and additional information: a. The single-family houses in the vicinity were constructed under Snohomish County Code. it is possible that some of the homes are five feet from the property line, but it is difficult to determine without sufficient documentation. b- No variances have been submitted along 224r' Street SW. c. The existing house at 9218 224a' St SW was constructed in 1989 and has an existing two -car garage- d- To date no public comments have been received. b) Conclusions: (1) Special Circumstances Special circumstances exist in the size of the lot. The lot is less than 8,000 square feet as required by the zone, and is therefore a non -conforming lot per ECDC 17.40.030. V-2000-141SR.doc 1 March 28, 2001 1 Staff Report Packet Page 314 of 357 Dahl File No. V-2000-141 Page 4 of 6 (2) Special Privilege It is difficult to determine if granting of this variance would grant special privilege to the applicant. The applicant claims residences in the vicinity are five feet from the property line- This is very likely -since most homes were constructed . under Snohomish County Code- However, I was unable to confirm via a site visit. A survey or copies of Snohomish County building permits should confirm actual setbacks of neighboring properties- (3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan Approval of the proposed variance would allow for site development consistent with the intent of the zoning code. The lot is zoned single family, and construction of a garage addition is consistent with single family development - The property is designated single family —small lot on the comprehensive plan. Construction of a garage addition is consistent with single family development. The elevation drawing (Attachment 3) illustrates consistency with Policy B-2, of the residential development section- It states, "Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings..." (4) Not Detrimental The proposed variance request does not appear detrimental. (5) Minimum Required The requested variance does not meet the minimum necessary criteria- In order to provide adequate turnaround, the applicant could construct a paved turnaround adjacent to his driveway. See Engineering Comments, Attachment 6- A paved turnaround would be allowed within the setback area per Interpretation File 94-1. See Attachment 7- 3. Compliance with requirement for a Front Setback Variance ECDC Chapter 20-85 (Variances) states an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85. Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC also 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. a) Facts- (1) ECDC Section 20-85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These criteria include the following: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege may be granted; the proposal must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; and the proposal can not be detrimental; and it must be the minimum necessary. (2) Applicant's responses Refer to the applicant's responses in Attachment 4A and photos in Attachment 5. (3) Staff responses and additional information: a- The single-family houses in the vicinity were constructed under Snohomish County Code, development standards and zoning requirements were different prior to annexation to the City of Edmonds. b. No variances have been submitted along 224, Street SW_ c_ To date no public comments have been received. V-2000-141 SR-doc / March 28, 2001 / Staff Report - Packet Page 315 of 357 - Dahl File No. V-2000-141 Page 5 of 6 b) Conclusions; - (1) Special Circumstances Special circumstances exist in the size of the lot. The lot is less than 8,000 square feet as required by the zone, and is therefore a non -conforming lot per ECDC 17-40.030. (2) Special Privileg It appears that several of the residences in the neighborhood are approximately 20 feet from the front property line. Approval of this variance should not constitute special privilege to the applicant. (3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan Approval of the proposed variance would allow for site development consistent with the intent of the zoning code. The lot is zoned single family, and construction of a garage addition is consistent with single family development_ The property is designated single family ----small lot on the comprehensive plan. Construction of a garage addition is consistent with single family development. The elevation drawing (Attachment .3) illustrates consistency with Policy B.2. of the residential development section. It states, "Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings_._" (4) Not Detrimental The proposed variance request does not appear detrimental- (5) Minimum Required The requested variance does appear to be the minimum necessary. The applicant is only requesting to reduce the front setback so the addition will align with the existing residence. D. Technical Committee Review by City Departments: The application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire Department, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, and the Parks Department. Comments were received from the Engineering Division_ Refer to Attachment 6. III. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information - A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. V-2WO-141 SR.doc ! March 28, 2001 / Staff Report Packet Page 316 of 357 Dahl file No. V-2000-141 Page 6 of 6 B. Appeals Section 20.105.020.A_ & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or --recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong_ The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed- C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals 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 for fling 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. IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building pen -nit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office VI. APPENDICES Attachments 1 through 7: 1. Vicinity and Zoning Map 2. Application 3. Site Plan and Elevation 4. Applicant's response to variance criteria for side setback reduction 4A. Applicant's response to variance criteria for front setback reduction 5. Photos illustrating existing view of 2240' from driveway 6_ Engineering Comments dated 3/6/01 7. Interpretation File 94-1 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD James Dahl 9218 224s St SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Engineering Division Public Works Division Fire Department Planning Division Parks & Recreation Packet Page 317 of 357 . V-2000-141 SR_doc I March 28, 2001 / Staff Report 22208 22220 22304 22314 C% CO I N CO rn rn ST SW 22404 22408 22416 22420 22506 22209 22208 22221 22220 22307 22306 2 22311 2312 22318 9222 9218 921s 22408 22413 22416 22411 22420 22507 22510 22511 22514 22575. 22510 22512 .zz�16 '2213 22206 �--- 22213 22221 22 22227 22301 22229 22332 22310 22312 22316 N o a rn m Cn 2407 9104 N 0 22408 2425 22412 2241 22405 2242$ 2242 22505 22436 22431 22512 22515 22437 22520 22415 2523 010p, � Zoning and Vicinity Map Attachment I File No. v 2000-141 Packet Page 318 of 357 _ roe_ �89" CITY OF EDMONDS 121 STH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 - (425) T71-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 +1EARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: .Cohn and Beverly Emerson_ CASE NO.: V-02-235 / V-02-236 LOCATION: 17004 Talbot (see Exhibit A, Attachment I) - GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR APPLICATION: A Variance to reduce the required north side setback from 10 feet to 6 feet and a Variance to reduce the required east street setback from 25 feet to 21 feet (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 and 4). REVIEW PROCESS: Variance; Hearing Examiiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: a_ Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.20 (RS-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 17.40, Section 020, Nonconforming Buildings_ c_ Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 17.40, Section 030, Nonconforming Lots. d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES)_ INTRODUCTION The applicants, John and Beverly Emerson, live at 17004 Talbot Road and would like to remove the carport and add an attached two -car garage to their house_ The existing house is currently located 6 feet from the north.(side) property line and 25 feet from the east (street) property line. The site is zoned RS-12 (see Attachment 1), which requires minimum street setbacks of 25 feet and minimum side setbacks of 10 feet_ The proposed Variance would allow the garage addition to encroach 4 feet into the north side -yard setback and 4 feet'into the east street setback. Please refer, throughout. the report, to the attached site plan, elevation sketch and pictures of the existing residence (Attachments 2, 4, and 6)_ Packet Page 319 of 357 Incorporated August 11, 1890 • .,earing Examiner Decision Case No. V-02-235 / V-02-236 Page 2 The following is the Edmonds Punning Division's analysis and recommendation of the applicants' submittal. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the official file, which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report, and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the application was opened at 10:06 a.m., February 20, 2003, in the City Hall, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 10:07 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this reportA verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City_ Star Campbell, Project Planner, entered the staff advisory report into the record. From the Applicant: John Emerson, Applicant, said he concurred with the staff advisory report. From the Community: No one from the general public spoke at the public hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS: A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Zoning The zoning of the subject property is Residential Single Family (RS-12). (2) Existing and Proposed Development: The site is currently developed with a single-family house. (3) Terrain and Vegetation: The topography of the site is varied. It is relatively flat in the immediate vicinity of the house. The topography then slopes gently down to the west and moderately up to the east from the house to a flat parking strip to Packet Page 320 of 357 wring Examiner Decision Case No. V-02-235 / V-02-236 Page 3 the west of Talbot Road. The site is largely vegetated with ornamental -landscaping and lawn. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Facts; (1) North, West, South and East: The properties are zoned Single Family Residential (RS-12)_ The properties to the north, west and east (across Talbot Rd.) are developed with single-family houses. The property to the south is developed with a multi -family apartment building. b) Conclusion: The proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding zoning and development. 3. Critical Areas: a) Fact: There has been a Critical Areas Determination of Waiver (CA-2001-148) issued for the property indicating that no critical areas are believed to exist on the property. b) Conclusion: The city and the applicant have complied with the Critical Areas regulations. B. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 16.20, Standards for Single Family Residential Development. a) Facts: (1) The fundamental site development standards in an RS-12 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20. They include a 25-foot street setback, 10-foot side setbacks and a 25- foot rear setback- (2) The subject property has an access easement directly adjacent to the south side property line. Because this easement provides access to at least five lots it is, by definition, a street. A street setback is then required from the south side property line. Lots that have two street setbacks have side setbacks from all other property lines and no rear setbacks. The subject property has two street setbacks (from the east and south property lines) and two side setbacks (from the north and west property lines). (3) The existing house is considered to be nonconforming and does not meet the required south street setback or the north side setback of the zone (See below Section B_2 of the Staff Report)_ (4) Any addition must meet the current development standards for the RS-12 zone unless a Variance is obtained. Packet Page 321 of 357 x fearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-02-235 / V-02-236 Page 4 b) Conclusion_ The proposal complies with the development standards for RS-12 zone as set forth in Chapter 1620 with the approval of the subject variance. 2. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 17.40, Section 020, Nonconforming Buildings. a) Facts: (1) This section defines a nonconforming building as a building that once met bulk - zoning standards and site development standards applicable to its construction, but that no longer conforms to zoning standards. (2) The existing house encroaches 10 feet into the required 25-foot street setback from the south property line. It also encroaches 4 feet into the required 10-foot side setback from the north property line. (3) A nonconforming building may be continued and maintained, but may not be changed or altered in a way that increases the degree of non -conformity of the building. (4) Alterations otherwise conforming to the provisions of the zoning ordinance, its site development and bulk standards, and do not expand any nonconforming aspect of the building are permitted. b) Conclusion: The existing house is nonconforming with respect to setbacks. The proposed addition would expand the area of the house that encroaches into the north side setback and thus increase a non -conforming aspect of the house_ This would not be permitted without the granting of a Variance. With the Variance, the proposal complies with Chapter 17.40. 3. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 17.40, Section 030, Nonconforming Lots a) Facts: (1) This section defines a nonconforming lot as a lot that once met applicable zoning ordinance standards as to size, width, depth and other dimensional requirement, but that no longer conforms to the current provisions of the zoning ordinance. (2) This section also states that a nonconforming lot may be developed as allowed by the zone even though the lot does not meet certain dimensional requirements, as long as all other applicable site use and development standards are met or a variance has been obtained. (3) The subject property is located in the RS-12 zone. The RS-12 zone requires a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 80 feet. (4) The lot area of the subject property, as shown by the site plan (Exhibit A, Attachment 2) is 11,550 square feet and the width of the lot is 70 feet. (5) The lot is non -conforming with respect to area and width_ Packet Page 322 of 357 caring Examiner Decision Case No. V-02-235 / V-02-236 Page 5 b) C©nclusion: An jaddition to the existing house on the subject property is allowed as long as the setbacks. and other development standards are met or a Variance has been obtained_ 4. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.85, Variances. ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances) states that an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85. Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC also 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. a) Facts: (1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These criteria include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted; the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum necessary. b) Analysis: (1) The applicant has addressed the Variance criteria in an Applicant Declarations letter (Exhibit A, Attachment 5). (2) Staff generally agrees with the applicant declarations. (3) In addressing the special circumstance criterion the applicant states that, because of the size and shape of the. house, the only location a garage could be built is in the location of the existing carport. (4) A garage could perhaps be built at the rear of the house. However, this would require reconfiguration of the existing driveway and possibly the need to seek permission to obtain access over the private access casement to the south of the property. (5) The lot is nonconforming with respect to minimum lot size and lot width as addressed in Section B.3. of the Report above. (6) In addressing the special circumstance criterion, the applicants point out that a two- to three -car garage is standard for homes in the surrounding area. They state that without the Variance, they would be denied the ability to have a home that fits in with the neighborhood. (7) The applicants also mention, in addressing the special circumstance criterion, that it appears that there are several other houses in the area that do not meet the required setbacks of the zone. Packet Page 323 of 357 riearing Examiner Decision Case No_ V-02-235 I V-02-236 Page 6 (8) Staff research of permit records indicates that several setback Variances have been approved for homes along Talbot Road to the north and south (in close proximity) of the subject property. (9) The applicant addressed the comprehensive plan criterion by citing several policies of the Residential Development section of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element. Refer to applicant declarations in Exhibit A, Attachment 5 and Comprehensive Plan Section -- Exhibit A, Attachment 7. These focus on the retention and rehabilitation of older housing and the construction of additions that harmonize with the surroundings and minimize the encroachment on views of existing homes. 00)The applicants state that the addition will not be detrimental to the property or surrounding properties but should actually increase the value of the home and, in turn, the neighborhood. (I I)The applicants address the Minimum Variance criterion by stating that they are proposing a two -car garage when two and three -car garages are standard in their neighborhood. Also, they state that a 24-foot wide garage allows two cars to park in the garage while still being able to access the vehicles and open the car doors. c) Conclusions: (1) Special Circumstances Special circumstances exist on the property in that the lot is nonconforming with respect to lot size and lot width- (2) Special Privilege No special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that it will allow an addition to the house to be built that is consistent with existing homes in the neighborhood. (3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the continued development of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site- (4) Not Detrimental The proposed variance should not.be detrimental or injurious to adjacent property owners. (5) Minimum Required The requested variances appear to be the minimum necessary. (6) Since the applicant appears to meet all the criteria for a variance, the setback variance should be approved with the condition that it is for the project and setbacks shown in the attached site plan and elevation. Packet Page 324 of 357 - .wring Examiner Decision Case No. V-02-235 / V-02-236 Page 7 DECISION: Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for two variances is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The setback variance will be limited to the proposed single-family addition as identified on the proposed site plan and elevation sketch (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 and 4)_ Any other structures, additions or remodels shall conform to the typical setbacks for the zone or obtain another variance. 2 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. 3_ The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction. Entered this 24th day of February 2003 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20. 100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. rc..... a,,.-V �� Ron McConnell, FAICP Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL: 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. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: 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. APPEALS: Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the Packet Page 325 of 357 . rearing Examiner Decision Case No_ V-02-235 / V-02-236 Page 8 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. TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL: 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 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_ LAPSE OF APPROVAL: Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR: The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. EXHIBIT: The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record_ A. Planning Division Advisory Report PARTIES OF RECORD: John and Beverly Emerson 17004 Talbot Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds Planning Division Packet Page 326 of 357 70 0 M CZ, ' • m rOiT f O d ii ti m 3 O O p Iv O _=Z prn cs+ rn C� y pop- of Y TO �n � .(li bb' 3Yri Al2Ad0�3d 1 / -[ A J A . �r7fRj, - •� . ' -- n� /oy c N I N o 6-0 o / '-I O A � IIO'-O 4'4 3/4' � I xO i �Pib t _ 23'-0' o 1 / I , f n O a n or�mav rn 3y mv'rn a+0 cnzP ODpN 3 � � 2 �a x Cr y T � z W Ip 3 D p C m➢ p D j 1 IP D l p drn D N O q D m W 4' O' 0 & - N f I =1 r D 20 -0 I- Lam+ r7i I+ 45•-O- .i i 510E YARD + 5ET13ACK I A r I /4 la -0• O SIDE YARD T5E BPLK � rg a•-� aw• I Ex15r. SIDE / �' Yva YARD U 5'-5 r/4' Exi 5ETBE YARD 5ET&4CK J /m tE i I( E* / I / /r I a6 i ab / Attachment 3 Revised site plans PROPERTY ME - Packet Page 327 of 357 so-- or BANK ;-ram.- i ce r C1 s i n / o SIDE 5ETBA6 M!"I'll"WRIM.", ", oy Packet Page 328 of 357 —5'-5 1/4-' EX15T. SIDE YARP S AGK T O d a� Flo 4 `sut.,p N a m a Fq m n v m rn O 3 A ana7AA m X rn n L C11 _ A rn mG w�na rA... ro s y G Z � N A A O A a A a n b G m LO X A A r z ;m O� D Cj)pp D ro q z b O a 'n ➢ d A_ r r C� J Y-T 9/4" EXE5T. sloe o YARD SETBP.C.K ' i 5'-5 !/4" 2Yd5T.SIDE YAiED SETBACK 61 iz l L4 l �o /l i� O ! PROPERTY LENT � .9 ' m Packet Page 329 of 357 Rrr urn _ rz I J zs — l— `i 1V f a Packet Page 330 of 357 PROPERTY 1 T o y 0 Nrn O Packet Page 331 of 357 9� �w PROF. EII4E � b — PROP. LIFE 0 0 I I I OM7tlafiABj � � MIX Mzvr�xe•! I 1 I{ Oit r----------------- ---- 7 ' m L � j et�1 I e 1 au ceoa� - 4,_0"' MxaFlxa) � r� I❑ I ax 1 oIBS j " to i — MM 1 i ' - --- --- -- _- Er- ox PAxIRY f>�. �ppL Cz Fffi RM zM 00W 25'-0" SO r o _ I I I I sr I I 12'-0"' 1 I N O i Q i �- _ it E .Y.3t DOW FUMJ UPPER FLOOR PLAN (2013 5.F) AND PARTIAL GARAC� PLAN (880 5.F) - (398i TOTAL 5.P. NOT INCLUDING GARAC5E) q- AA 006AERT RE51PNGE 'Op 12/05/0f7 Iwhitecture alannina Attachment 5 Revised upper/lower floor plans Packet Page 332 of 357 zoo? 0 � 1. day LONER FLOOR PLAN (M68 5.F) TOTAL HOU5E AREA (3g81 5.F) US" = r-0'. BOSAERT RE5IDNGE �o�(\�`[/��\f /} T A 12/05/06 'V architecture planning Packet Page 333 of 357 _ y l V A C AI ------------- - if ... _— -- --- ----- - — ----+ — o F- H _ ru , O b ro' 1 CD1 .Z] L-_ OD COLD N O z Go p N R d®r , Z _ N 1 N�0 I = o m z 1 P 0 CD CD � _ r•I o I _ "_'. _• w- m C7 to o I { , 1 cn ru M --J C,-,o ry IC,ov x ti � is Cam. :1 1 i I I� I I cc ro��-C lo w-000OO O S QNCOCD t i 14 4 F N i — Attachment 6 39'E8'00' 50.00' y — _� Neighbor's proposed site plan ` (BLD-2007-0699) Packet Page 334 of 357 11 SOUND VIEW PLACE FILE NO.: V-06-102 APPLICANT: BOGAERT NOTICE OF APPLICATION & HEARING AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) I, Gina Coccia, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That on the 5th day of duly 2007, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted as prescribed by Ordinance, and in any event, in the Civic Center and the Library, and where applicable on or near the subject property. - • Jill, 111 1111111111, Subscribed and sworn to before me this S:m day of 4/ 007 F Not ubli"c in and fort State of Washington. !q Residing at�'� �Y Attachment 7 Affidavit of posting & mailing Packet Page 335 of 357 FILE NO.: V-06-102 APPLICANT: BOGAERT NOTICE OF APPLICATION & HEARING AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) I, Diane M. Cunningham, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That on the 3rd day of July 2007, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed as required to adjacent property owners, the names of which were provided by the applicant. Signed I Gt M . Subscribed and sworn to before me this - } T day of . • U �.. . guy C4 Not Pu lic in and fo5jhe State of Washington. Residing at Packet Page 336 of 357 Gruwell, Meg From: Paul Lippert [paul@talltunes.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 11:50 AM To: Gruwell, Meg Subject: File # V-06-102, 18600 Soundview PI Meg Gruwell Senior Planner City of Edmonds Dear Ms. Gruwell, S have lived for ten years at 1520 9th Ave N, , down the street from 18600 Soundview Place. x am writing to voice my concern about the application for side yard setback variances for a new house at 18600 Soundview Pl_ The building of large houses that sit close to the property lines has challenged the special character of this particular area in Edmonds (the University Colony area) . The entire neighborhood (extending south to Puget Drive and east to Olympic view) has witnessed a number of recent building projects that "push the envelope" in terms of height restrictions, lot coverage, setbacks, and architectural features (e.g. flat roofs) that, taken together, represent significant abuses of what I believe was the spirit and intent of the RS-12 zoning. 1 oppose any variance without good reason. "Because the lot is too narrow for the house we would like to build" is, in my opinion, not good enough. Sincerely, Paul Lippert 1520 9th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 425-771-8877 Attachment 8 Comment letters/parties of record 1 Packet Page 337 of 357 RICHARD E. GIFFORD PLLC SfP � r �p September 20, 2006 Richard E. Gifford Email• rlch2?rgi&ord12wcom Ms. Meg Gruwell Senior Planner City of Edmonds 121 — 5`t' Ave. North Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: V 06-102; Raymond Bogaert, Applicant Variance request for residential construction project at 18600 Sound View Place, Edmonds ("Project") —Request for Notice Dear Ms- Gruwell: I represent Vicki Haynes, the owner of property at 18602 Soundview Place in Edmonds that adjoins the above -referenced Project site. I was informed by the Project architect, Stephen Rising, yesterday, that the public hearing on the proposed variances has been postponed from September 21, 2006 to a date to be determined_ You have confirmed this information to me at my request. I understand that if the matter goes to hearing, it will on the next regularly scheduled hearing date, October 5, 2006, or later, depending on the applicant's determinations about the Project. This letter serves as confirmation of the above information and also as an appearance on my client's behalf in these proceedings, and any related or future proceedings, so that she and I are parties of record and will receive any and all notices from the City. For these purposes, please use the address and contact information for me shown on this letterhead. For Ms. Haynes, please use her home address, as follows: Vicki Haynes 18602 Sound View Place Edmonds, WA 98020 Thank you for your attention to these requests. Very 1 , Richard E. ord CC' Vicki Haynes 600 MAIN STREET, SUITE E - EDMONDS, WASHINGTON • 98020 PHONE. (425) 673-9591 • FAX: (425) 673-0631 Packet Page 338 of 357 PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY BELOW YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND ZIP CODE IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM OR TO BE NOTIFIED OF FUTURE HEARINGS ON THI5 PROJECT. THANK YOU, FILE NO.: V-06-102 BOGAERT 1 k nr+,r. 4. (4" Z-5 ) % -%/. - Packet Page 339 of 357 October ••• e PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY BELOW YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND ZIP CODE IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM OR TO BE NOTIFIED OF FUTURE HEARINGS ON THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU. FILE NO.: V-06-102 BOGAERT D }-vtl Packet Page 340 of 357 Neil & Jeannie Robblee 18610 Olympic View Dr Edmonds, WA 98020 (425)673-0752 July 13, 2007 City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: File #V-2006-102 Project location: 18600 Sound View Pl., Edmonds Dear Sir or Madam: We are neighbors who support this variance. We feel it is important to allow some adjustment to the normal- setbacks for a thin lot like this, so that the owner can make usable, high quality improvements in keeping with the quality of the surrounding houses. We believe that granting this variance would result in the enhancement of our neighborhood. Sincerely, Robblee Jeannie Robblee CC.' Dr. Raymond Bogaert 18600 Sound View Pl. Edmonds, WA 98020 Exhibit 9 V-O6402 Packet Page 341 of 357 TRLkD LAW GROUP, P. S. G. July 17, 2007 Hearing Examiner Development Services Department -Planning Division City of Edmonds 1215'Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Dr_ Raymond Bogaert Request for Variance Property Address_ 18600 Soundview Pl_, Edmonds, WA File #_ V-06-102 To whom it may concern_ RECEIVED JUL 18 2007 PERMIT COUNTER This firm represents Dr. William and Nicole Wilson C Vilsons") who own real property at Soundview Place in Edmonds_ The'GVilson's property is to the immediate north ofthe above -referenced applicant's property. Brief History As you know, in late 2006 Dr_ Bogaert sought a side setback variance at the subject property. In form, that variance application is virtually identical to the variance which is now being sought_ Regarding the earlier such variance, the City of Edmonds Planning Department issued a written report in which it recommended that the application be denied. Dr. Bogaert has again applied for a variance -again reducing side setbacks to the north and south boundaries of his property_ Dr_ Bogaert's current application contains two requests. 1 _) 8' side yard setbacks on the north and south sides of his home, and in the alternative 2.) Consideration of his original request, for 5' side yard setbacks_ The City recommended as follows in its' September, 2006 report_. `Based on the statements of facts. conclusions and attachments in this report we recommend denial ofboth setback variances_" In its' most recent report dated July 12, 2007, the City's Piarining Division agami indicated that it "recommends DENIAL of both setback variances." Wilson's Position The Wilsons oppose the variance application for reasons which are outlined in this letter_ Exhibit 10 V-06-102 126 Third Suite Ins ua 10VA 8020-84f}2 - Pu 425-774-0,138 Fax: 425-672-7857 txia�tx iadlawg[a�ep_cozp. Packet Page 342 of 357 Among other thugs -we will analyze, and respond to the issues raised in the letter submitted by Dr. Bogaert's counsel, Christopher Thayer. Wilson's Reasoning Regarding the first application, it seems clear that a number of the requirements/goals for qualifying for a variance were not met- Because the basic reasoning found in the second side yard variance request is virtually identical to the first, it is not surprising to note that the legal standards have not been met in the updated request either_ Needless to say, both the original request and this latest application, if granted, would be detrimental to the interests of the Wilson and presumably to Ms_ Haynes (who is Dr. Bogaert's neighbor to the south-) Nature of Variance Requests A review of each of Dr. Bogaert's requests reveals that Dr. Bogaert intends to demolish the existing home which is on the castern half ofhis property- Instead, he intends to build a new home on the westernmost portion of the property. {Recall that in his initial application, Dr. Bogaert previously requested larger side setback reductions on both the northern and southern portions of his property_ As Mr_ Thayer correctly notes in his letter, Meg Gruwell, then with the City Planning Department, recommended that the first Bogaert application be denied for many of the same reasons that the Wilson's are now so opposed.) Because of the layout and proximity of their property to the Bogaert property, the Wilson have no request choice but to oppose the issuance of this variance irrespective of which version of the variance request is considered_ The Wilson's reasoning is as follows. the spacing between the subject properties is extremely tight as it is. To have the Bogaert property which would be a multiple story rather imposing structure -impinge on the Wilson's space, privacy, view, and ultimately their use of their space would be.in contravention ofthe Code_ This would be inappropriate under the goals that are defined in the Edmonds Community Code. Notably, the Wiisons argue that although Dr. Bogaert has limited space, it is ample to build a nice home that does not impinge on the neighbor's space_ Edmonds Co Development Code Originally, goals for residential zones -as provided in the Edmonds Community Development Code, section 16.10.000 are, in pertinent part, as follows: B. Any growth or development should strive to preserve for itself and its neighbors the following values: 1. Light (including direct sunlight), 2. Privacy, 3. Views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features, 4_ Freedom from air, water, noise and visual pollution:" 126 Third Avenue Saud-, Suite 101, Edmond, WA 98020-9402 - Phone_ 425-774-0138 Fare_ 425-672-7867 tviad@ riadlawgroup_com Packet Page 343 of 357 What Dr_ Bogaert is proposing clearly contravenes these goals, particularly those aspects of the code that address light, privacy, views. Special Circumstances On page 3 of his Ietter, Ms_ Thayer addresses special circumstances and indicates that "Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings ofthe property..." Sirnilarly on, page 2, of his letter, W Thayer he describes what he believes are the unique features of the Bogaert property as follows. "_ _ _ .The property is narrow, long and on a slope-" In response to Dr. Bogaert's first request, the City had this to say about the "special circumstances" prong of the statute: "(1) Special Circumstances: The lot is quite narrow for the RS-12 zone since it is only 50 feet wide. Observing the setbacks would result in a building pad that would be 30feet wide. This is narrower than most of the new houses being constructed_ Though the site is not very wide, it is quite long, so overall area of the house could be made up in the length to attain a house with similar area as other new homes. Therefore, it is not clear that the special_ circumstance of the lot would result in the deprivation of the property owner bgWg able to construct a house of size pernfitted to other properties in the same vicizrit if setbacks were strictly enforced." Emphasis added_ The Wilson's also argue that this lot is not terribly unique and, quite frankly, the circumstances are not special. A number of properties to the north and south are 'long narrow and on a slope." Indeed, the Haynes property which is to the immediate south of Dr_ Bogaert is similarly sized and situated. In its July report the City notes that there is another property just down the street from the subject site which is long also and narrow. This property is also approximately 50' wide and also is subject to the 10' side yard setback provision_ There a building permit is being sought without making any variance requests_ What is really happening here is that Dr_ Bogaert is trying to put an oversized house on the lot. The Wilson argue that this is not the kind of special circumstance -which is envisioned in the statutes_ In his letter, Mr. Thayer motes that if a variance is not granted, Dr. Bogaert would be "forced" to build a residence which is only 30' wide_ Notably the other nearby home has similar dimensions and 126 Third Aveuue South, suite 101,Edmond, WA98020-M2 -Phone: 425-774-0139 Fax:425-672-7867 triad(c)triadlawgroup.com Packet Page 344 of 357 characteristics and will be built on a 50' wide lot. This property will be fully conforming to the current versions of the standards without any variance request_ Again, Dr_ Bogae t is trying to place a very large home on a relatively narrow piece of property. Essentially, he is stretching the limits by building a home that is as wide as possible at the clear expense of the.neighbors and their view, the space, their light, etc_) As noted above, the Nilsons argue that this not only does not meet the special circumstances, requirement, it violates the other measures. Comprehensive Plan Also, please consider the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. The applicant's variance conforms with/is at variance with this plan. Also, at Page 9 of 11, item f 2(a) and (b) provide as follows- Z. "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- (1) Residential Development Policy B_ I 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 B3. states, ' Mnimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures." (3) Residential Development Policy BA states "Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible" (d) Residential Development Policy B_6_ states, "Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage." The City previously recommended as follows: "(3) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: As noted below, denying the variance would make the proposal more in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. "(5) Minimum Variance: This criteria requires that the variance be the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning_ Other property 125 T ird Avenue Soutk Suite 101, Edmond, WA 98020-8402 -Phone: 425 774-0138 Fax: 425-672-7867 triad@Viadtawgmup_com, Packet Page 345 of 357 owners in the vicinity have constructed large houses that are 64 or more feet wide, but they have done this on lots that are twice as wide as the subject site. Other property owners have constructed houses at reduced setbacks, though often these were smaller structures or on more constrained lots_ Deng both variances would mean that instead of a prMosed.. 37-foot wide house the resulting house could only be 30 feet wide_ Because of the length of the roe the owners could still develop a sizable house even though it was not as -wide. Therefore staff concludes that the minimum variance is no variance_" Note that the staff appears to conclude that the minimum variance is no variance. Also, recall the neighboring property owner at 18720 Soundview Place that is building a 30' home and is respectful of the 10' side setbacks_ After quoting the above referenced policies under the Comprehensive Plan, the City provides as follows in section F.2.b. of its findings: b) Conclusion_ This proposal does not retain the existing house on the site_ The proposed house as shown on the elevations looks different from other houses in the area that have more traditional pitched roofs. Though this house shows a pitched roof the pitch is lower in the middle of the house_ Perhaps the architect can explain hove the proposed architectural; lines are intended to harmonize with the surroundings. Though the encroachment on view with the proposed setback is minimal, it can be reduced by not granting the variance." Variance Histo See attachment 1 which provides summary of the prior variances which have been granted and which are referenced in Mr. Thayer's letter_ Particularly striking is the notion that in each ofthe above -referenced cases, the subject ofthe requests were garages and/or decks and there appears to have been no opposition to the requests. This suggests that there were no sezious issues in those matters_ Presumably, this lack of opposition means that the other variance requests did not result in a situation that was deleterious to the neighbors ofthe applicant. Here, unlike those other applications, the staff concludes that the "minimum variance is no variance." Conclusions The Wilsons are not unreasonable people. They only oppose this application because of consequences they perceive to be highly adverse_ Dr. Bogaert is attempting to exploit literally every inch of available space to his advantage_ 126 Third Avenue South, Suite 101, F,dmond, WA 98020-8402 - Pbone_ 425-7774-0138 Fax_ 425-672-7867 triad@friadiawgroup_com Packet Page 346 of 357 Unfortunately, this comes at the direct expense of his neig-bbors to both the immediate north and south; Indeed, this is why the code and variance rules were developed - Clearly, these rules are violated. Needless to say, this is why the City recommends that the application be rejected. Overshadowing this application is the notion that a nearby owner is able to build 30' wide home under identical circumstance and not obtain a variance. Those conditions suggest that the correct thing to do is reject this application. If you have any questions please fell free to contact me. Sincerely, C" )?!/"' Charles M. Greenberg CMGlsp cc: Mr. and Mrs. Wilson Enclosure- 6 126 7Third Avenue Saute, Suite 101, �c#mo�xi, �FiA, 98[124-8id2 - P�Soxze: #25-774-OI38 'fax: 425�i72-7867 triad@a adiawgroug.cam Packet Page 347 of 357 Date Name Application variance City Special Major Issues decision circumstances 3/28/01 James Dahl Reduce the side ECDC Approve Compliance with and front 16.20.030 both front ECDC, Section setbacks to states the and side 1620.050 and construct a development setback 20.85 garage addition, standards for requests which would RS-8 zoning. result in a 3-car The minimum garage; more lot size is 8,000 specifically; to sq_' The . reduce the side required side setback from setback is 7.5 7.5' and to feet, and the reduce the front required from setback from setback is 25 25' to 20' feet 4/12/00 Burt Variance to The subject Approved Because of special 1) Compliance 011estad reduce the street property is with circumstances with Edmonds setback from located with conditions applicable to the Community 25' to 10% the Single subject property, Development Code reduce the side Family including size, (ECDC) Section setback from Residential shape, topography, 16,20,030 10' to 6' and (RS-20) zone. location or (SINGLE reduce the surroundings or the FAMILY combined side property, the strict RESWEN lAL setbacks froze application of the RS-20). 35' to 26' for zoning ordinance 2) Compliance the construction would deprave the with Edmonds of a 2 car garage subject property use Community rights and privileges: Development Code permitted to other (ECDC) Section properties in the 20.85 vicinity with the (VARIANCES). same zoning 10/25/00 Greg A variance to The subject Approved Compliance with Burnside reduce the property is very with ECDC section required side roughly 21,000 conditions 16.20.030, setback of 10' to sq.' plus 17.40.020 and 8' to the south tidelands and is 20.85 property line roughly with the total rectangular in required side shape with setbacks of 35' approximately being reduced to 70 feet of 15'8" to extend frontage along a deck in line Talbot Road with an existing Is zoned RS-20 deck (Dee Exhibit A - Attachments 2-4 John and A variance to The Compliance with Beverly reduce the request ECDC, Chapter Emerson required north two 16.20, 17.40, side setback variances section 020; 17.40, Packet Page 348 of 357 from 10' to 6' is Section 030 and and a variance approved 20.85 to reduce the required east street set back from 25' to 21' Dean and A Variance to Approved The expense Amy reduce the with necessary to bring Whitehouse required east candidons the carport into side setback compliance with from 10 'to 8_2' the required __to allow for a setbacks is a two -car carport single-family residence in a multifamily zone should not be considered a special circumstance since this use is consistent with what the zone allows. However, a special circumstance exists on the property in that the home was constructed prior to annexation the City of Edmonds and was thus build with different setbacks in effect_ This means that the house was not constructed to anticipate the placement of a carport addition that would meet the current zoning setbacks 06/01/01 Mr. and A street Setback Approved with Compliance with Mrs. Davis and both conditions ECDC, Chapter Sideback s16.20 and 20.85 Variances Packet Page 349 of 357 Vicki Haynes 18602 Soundview Place Edmonds, WA 98020 July 17, 20007 Hearing Examiner Development Services Department -Planning Division City of Edmonds 121 5t' Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 RECEIVE Re: Dr. Raymond Bogaert Request for Variance JUL g Z�Q7 Property Address: 18600 Soundview Pl., Edmonds, WA File #: V-06-102 PERMIT COUNTER To Whom It May Concern: I own the real property to the immediate south of the above -referenced applicant's property. I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the variances requested by the applicant, Dr. Raymond Bogaert. My reasons for opposing the requested variances parallel those set forth by City planner Gina Coccia in her July 12, 2007 Staff Report recommending denial and in the letter submitted on behalf of my neighbors to the north of Dr. Bogaert's property, Dr. William and Nicole Wilson by their attorney, Charles Greenberg. I will summarize my own views and will refer you to the materials submitted by these other parties. I do believe that the application clearly fails to satisfy the necessary criteria for a variance as set out in the Edmonds development and land use code. Specifically, I join City Planning staff and the Wilsons in requesting DENIAL of Dr. Bogaert's request for 8' side yard setbacks on the north and south sides of his [proposed) home, as well as, a "consideration of his [Dr. Bogaert's] original request, for 5' side yard setbacks." The proposal and the site plan for the proposed redevelopment of the subject property is only nominally different from a proposal initially submitted by Dr. Bogaert for his property last year. That proposal was the subject of a City of Edmonds Planning Division Staff Report recommending denial authored by then Senior City Planner Meg Gruwell. The current plan differs only in degree and, for largely the same reasons clearly outlined in Mr. Gruwells' recommendation of denial (updated and reiterated in Ms. Coccia's current recommendation of denial), the proposal clearly fails to satisfy the variance criteria justifying deviation from the applicable development standards. I am asking that, at the very least, the minimum variance of 10' side yard setbacks be used in conformance with current law. Brief History My property, the Bogaert, and Wilson properties are a part of an area in Edmonds known as University Colony. University Colony is a historical and unique neighborhood that was established in 1919 as a summer retreat for Seattle (University District) businessmen. The summer cottages were built in a staggered fashion to afford maximum privacy, light, and space for their owners. Currently, all three homes are sited as they were originally. Exh v-06-102 Packet Page 350 of 357 In 19921 purchased my home. It is situated on a 50' lot, much like the Bogaert's lot. In 1992, my home was out of conformance with the current 10' side yard setback requirements, because it was built prior to the 10' side yard setback requirement, which did not become law until approximately 1957. My Position I oppose Dr. Bogaert's application for side yard variance for the following reasons: I oppose the request for variance because a home could be built on Dr. Bogaert's 50' wide lot in conformance with the 10' side yard setback requirements. Just such a home will be going in on a lot that is about a block away. Though not preferable, from my standpoint, nor, I suspect, Dr. Bogaert's standpoint, it is possible. I oppose the request for variance because our neighborhood, University Colony, will be adversely impacted. While the neighborhood is no longer a summer retreat, I suspect our portion of the neighborhood has some of the same feeling it did historically. There is no doubt that our portion of the ...Colony remains unique, but the neighborhood's uniqueness has been rapidly eroding (See my attached letter dated 09/13/2006 to The Edmonds Historical Commission.) To grant a side yard setback variance to Dr. Bogart moves from the City's code of minimum protection to collusion with the erosion of a historically valuable and irreplaceable Edmond's asset. The criteria that must be met (and it is the applicant's burden to show that he has met each of them) to allow departure from the City's regulatory standards for residential development on this site simply do not exist here. Dr. Bogacrt and his attorney have failed to show that the necessary criteria are satisfied, as both City planning staff and the Wilsons have demonstrated in their written submittals. Without repeating all of the evidence and arguments, the criteria and the problems with this proposal are summarized briefly as follows: a. Special Circumstances. This proposal does not involve special circumstances. Other lots in the City and in the immediate vicinity of the subject site have been developed within the required 10' side yard setbacks. The new building permit submittal for a conforming residence just a block away confirms that no special circumstances exist. More is required than preference, convenience, or financial advantage. b. Special Privilege. There are other developments that have been granted side yard setback variances. The adjoining properties actually encroach over much smaller segments into the side setback areas, but these intrusions predated the City's 10' setback rules. The older cottages as placed, were pare -existing, not new developments under the City's current code, as is the Bogaert proposal. Moreover, the Bogaert proposal involves a much larger structure and an accessory structure, both of which involve more extensive, longer penetrations into the setback zones. C. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. As staff has noted, denial of the proposed variances would make the proposal more compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. Without the variances, the current proposal, as was the case with the initial proposal, violates the zoning ordinance. d. Not Detrimental. This has been quite thoroughly discussed in the initial staff report from September 2006, and again in the current materials. The intrusion into the setbacks along much of the length of the new residence on both sides, will impair views, light, privacy, and existing neighborhood conditions. The impacts will be most adverse in the vicinity of existing'residences, and will undermine the aesthetics and the use of these properties. The fact that both adjoining owners oppose the requested variances verifies the detrimental impact Packet Page 351 of 357 of the proposal to them, their properties, and the neighborhood character. The size, placement, length, and massing of the structure impose detriments on adjoining land owners. One thing that has been brought to Dr. Bogaert's and his architect's attention, is a request by the neighbors that he not place the proposed three car garage on the lot line, but that he turn it to face the street, thus eliminating the need for the large paved turnaround area and additional driveway. In fact, it would seem that a two -car garage would suffice. There is an existing two -vehicle car port that Dr. Bogaert proposes to retain, in addition to the proposed three -car garage proposed to be located needlessly close to the Wilson property and inside the setback. Conclusion I ask that you, our hearing examiner, support the codes that were designed to provide minimal protection to property owners in the City of Edmonds and deny Dr. Bogaerts' request for the side yard setback variances. Further, acknowledging that the history and uniqueness of the properties in question is extra -legal, I appreciate your willingness to understand a bit of the context of the request before you. Attachments My letter to Michael Plunkett and The Edmonds Historical Commission dated 09/13/06 supplying additional information about the unique history and special qualities of the surrounding University Colony neighborhood. A Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. report reviewing a geotechnical report dated 08/11/06 that Dr. Bogaert had prepared for The City of Edmonds Planning Department as part of planning materials he submitted to the City. The purpose of the original report was to assess the slope stability of the Bogaert property. I asked Zipper Zeman. to do a peer review because I am concerned about slope stability for both Dr. Bogaert's property and mine, as related to any major construction. The fwm of Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. is a highly respected geotechnical and environmental consulting firm that has worked extensively in and with the City of Edmonds on various projects. In reviewing the geotechnical report dated 08/11/06, Zipper Zeman concluded that, because of a history of landslides along various parts of Edmonds' western bluff, "this history warrants that further, more detailed analysis regarding the potential for slope instability and the recommended buffer reduction." be undertaken for the proposed project. While this report is not specifically germane to the present hearing, it does provide additional information that may be of some use. Thank you for your time, attention, and stewardship. Sincerely r Vicki Haynes Packet Page 352 of 357 Vicki Haynes 18602 Sound View Place Edmonds, WA 98020 September 13, 2006 The Edmonds Historical Commission Attention: Michael Plunkett Dear Mr. Plunkett: It has come to my attention that The Edmonds Historical Commission and The Edmonds City Council are discussing the possibility of creating an "historical overlay" that might be used as a template to guide the development of some individual Edmonds properties and streets in order to preserve their unique character. The intention of this letter is to urge the creation of an "historical overlay" that includes neighborhoods beginning with University Colony, a neighborhood that contributes to Edmond's uniqueness. University Colony, which occupies a portion of Sound View Place that intersects with Wharf Street, was established in 1919 as a summer retreat for University District business people and their families. The Colony evolved into a collection of cottages nestled in beautiful forested land that afforded lovely views, abundant fresh air, and a deep connection with nature. Over the years some of the cottages were replaced with more substantial homes, but the neighborhood retained much of its early flavor. The cottages coexisted with more substantial homes creating an unusual harmony. The yards along the bluff facing the Sound were continuous, as if all of the homes shared a single yard; fences were an anomaly in the Colony. Homes were staggered so a variety of views were possible and homes had light and space and privacy. Eagles perched on top of tall firs; abundant birds nested in abundant trees; small wildlife reminded residents that coexistence has many complex components. I fell in love with University Colony in 1971. Sometimes when I drove from Richmond Beach to Meadowdale High School, where I taught English, I would drive into the Colony to or from school. I always thought the same thing, "This is such a beautiful neighborhood; this is such a unique neighborhood; I want to live here someday." I realized my dream when I bought one of the original cottages in 1992. Since 1992 there has been an inexorable assault on the character of the neighborhood. Many trees are gone and there are plans in the works for many others to disappear. Hillsides have been stripped of vegetation and left to go to weeds. Lots have been subdivided and enormous homes built, leaving little or no land, little or no vegetation. Cheek by jowl oversized houses are beginning to overtake more reasonably sized homes. One by one the cottages are disappearing. Soon residents along the bluff will have tunnel views and little or no privacy. Soon residents Packet Page 353 of 357 l will be wondering why the place they live is called University Colony. A unique Edmonds asset will be lost. University Colony is well on its way to becoming characterless. Soon it will look like any other overbuilt view neighborhood. Square feet, asphalt, fences, and crowding will have replaced a unique, charming, magical Edmonds neighborhood. I hope The Edmonds Historical Society and The Edmonds City Council will move forward quickly with the idea of an "historical overlay" that includes individual properties, streets, and historical neighborhoods including Sunset and University Colony - before they disappear. Current and future Edmonds residents will benefit from your vision; your intelligent and sensitive stewardship of what in Edmonds is unique and important. Sincerely, A�� Alx�e- Vicki Haynes Packet Page 354 of 357 " Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting A 1krramn Company 81065167 September 20, 2006 Vicki Haynes 18602 Sound View Place Edmonds, Washington Subject: Review of Geotechnical Report Proposed Bogaert Residence 18600 Sound View Place Edmonds, Washington The purpose of this letter is to provide you with our review comments regarding a geotechnical report prepared by Geotech Consultants Inc. The report (Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Bogaert Residence, 18600 Sound View Place, Edmonds. 8/11/06) provided geotechnical recommendations for a proposed single-family home. Based on our conversations with you, we understand that you own the property which borders the property proposed for development to the south. We understand you are somewhat concerned that the geotechnical report prepared for the project may not adequately address all possible geotechnical concerns for the project. As a result, you have authorized us to complete a review of the report. Our comments regarding the geotechnical report are provided below. Slope Stability The west property line of the subject property is located approximately five feet from a 35 foot high, steep slope that inclines downward from the property line at about 45 degrees. The steep slope is identified by the City of Edmonds as a Landslide Hazard Area. The City of Edmonds Municipal Code (the Code) requires that a minimum 50 foot development buffer be established between a Landslide Hazard Area and any proposed development. The Code also requires buildings be setback from the buffer a minimum of 15 feet. The Code indicates that "The Buffer maybe reduced to a minimum of 10 feet when a qualified professional demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development, adjacent developments, and uses and the subject critical area". Based on our review of the geotechnical report for the project, one geotechnical test boring was completed near the top of the slope. The boring was terminated at 10 feet below the existing ground surface due to practical drilling refusal with the equipment used. The report provides a conclusion that the slope is adequately stable and the buffer could be reduced to 10 feet (minimum allowed by the Code). It is our opinion that the 10 foot boring does not provide adequate information to appropriately address the stability of the slope, and therefore adequate information to support the recommended buffer reduction. It is our opinion that an additional, deeper boring should be completed and a slope stability analysis should be completed. The stability analysis should address both static and seismic conditions. Additionally, we recommend the report include a section discussing a geologic reconnaissance of the steep slope 18905 331 Avenue West #117, Lynnwood, WA 98036 (425) 771-3304 Fax.- (425) 771-3549 Packet Page 355 of 357 Bogaert Report Review 81065167 September 20, 2006 Page 2 to the west of the property. The geologic reconnaissance should provide particular emphasis on indications of past slope instability or ground movement. Code Requirements for Landslide Hazard Area Reports The Code outlines specific Technical Information Requirements which geotechnicaI reports must include. It is our opinion that the geotechnical report prepared for the project does not include the information required by the Code. Although this letter is not intended to be a "code compliance review", some examples of Technical Report Requirements that are not included in the report are as follows: • An estimate of the bluff retreat rate that recognizes and reflects potential catastrophic events such as seismic activity or a one hundred -year storm event; • An estimate of slope stability and the effect construction and placement of structures will have on the slope over the estimated life of the structure. Specifically, the Code requires that the site have a minimum pre -development factor of safety of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for seismic conditions. • The location of springs, seeps, or other surface expressions of ground water on or within two hundred (200) feet of the project area or that have potential to be affected by the proposal. F1na1 Comments The slopes above the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way in the Edmonds area have a long history of instability. Based on our review of a U.S. Geological Survey Report (USGS Open -File Report 2005-1063), the vast majority of slides that occur in this area are shallow. The USGS report states that: "Shallow landslides commonly occur in weathered glacial deposits and slope deposits (colluvium) on the bluffs after periods of relatively heavy rainfall or snowmelt. Lack of significant runoff from natural (unpaved) slopes during rainfall indicates that water enters the slopes by direct infiltration. Within the bluffs, water also flows laterally through sandy layers that rest on less permeable layers of silt or clay as indicated by the presence of seeps and springs." Although the majority of landslides documented have been shallow, at least two deep- seated landslides have been documented in the area including the 1997 Woodway landslide and the historic Meadowdale landslide. It is our opinion that this history warrants that further, more detailed analysis regarding the potential for slope instability and the recommended buffer reduction. We trust that this letter meets your present needs. If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please call. NASTAMRob RosAZZATroject Files1.2006 Twacon Jobsl$1065167 Bogaert Res Peer Reviewlletter.doc Packet Page 356 of 357 1 Respectfully submitted, Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Robert A. Ross, P.E. Senior Project Engineer cc: Richard Gifford Bogaert Report Review 81065167 September 20, 2006 Page 3 John E. Zipper, P.E. President MSTAFMob Ross1ZZATrojcct Files12006 Temawn 1obs181065167 Bogaert lies Peer ReviewUetter,doc Packet Page 357 of 357