Loading...
16121 N MEADOWDALE RD (2).pdfNOTICE: This property contains one or more critical areas or. theirbuffers as defined by Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 20.15B. The property was the subject of a development proposal for Reasonable Use Exception/tTariance (typeotpermit) application # V-97-91 filed on IuI 7 1997 . Restrictions on (date) use or alteration of the critical areas or their buffers may exist due to natural conditions of the property and resulting regulations. Review of the above application has provided information on the location of the critical area(s) or critical area buffers and restrictions on their use through setback areas. A copy of the plan showing such critical area(s), buffers, and setback areas is attached hereto. Property Owner Signature: srG�(, t;f Bate: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) :P I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that _ _ ( YIA r; U r°« yK 6 1-0 signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be his/her free and voluntary act for the u�'rid� purposes mentioned in this instrument. Notary's pressure seals must be smudged. Dated: Signature of Not Public: : C Residing at: _ A) G1 MY Appointment Expires: LS3 0 C -r 0 CITY CLERK 4002040110 OffY of EDMONDS 121 STH AVENUE NO. 02/04/99 10:26 EDMONDS, WA 98020 p.0001 Recorded -Snohomish County CRITICAL AREA AND/OR CRITICAL AREA BUFFER NOTICE Tom, Property Address: 16121 N. Meadowdale Rd. Edmonds, Washington 98026 Legal Descripti E FA Z su U O O w g U. di U 0 Z CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 280 STH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 1206) 771.0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER s t FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE BEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS Applicant: Brian E. Moll, P.E., S.E. Case No. V-97-91 Location: 16121 North Meadowdale Road (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). Application: A Critical Areas Variance/Reasonable Use Exception to allow a single-family residence to be located entirely within a critical area. and to allow the driveway to be located in the critical area and its buffer; and a Variance to allow an increase in the maximum permitted height for a single-family residence from 25 -feet to 38 - feet above average grade to allow the construction of a spire and to 31 -feet above average grade for the roof of a new single-family residence (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 hrough 4). Review Process: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and :Hakes Or final decision. Major Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development. Standards). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.15B (CRITICAL AREAS }. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: 0 Staff Recommendation: Hearing Examiner Decision: PUBLIC BEARING: After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report with attachments; and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the application was opened at 9:06 a.m., September 18, 1997, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:30 a.m. Participants at 1 • Incorporated August 11,1890 a Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan K PUBLIC BEARING: After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report with attachments; and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the application was opened at 9:06 a.m., September 18, 1997, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:30 a.m. Participants at 1 • Incorporated August 11,1890 a Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan f:t f 1� . ... a,.,, l.i f.r..:� } r.w:..Js,c?h.s..r.K.«:u(U.Itab{,�i'UrC.. a1., 1r .a. r.arw 7r,4.27..a�X� ursix'h��}.'3..sli !{�wS f�.�:i s7��o�t{, .14 :.�Di.K ��F$.h 41<:l�t+.•.'. ffr�iT..}ti ., rXit�.._ +"2.4; A cFu' 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. z FEARING COMMENTS. LUJ The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. af From the City: � W i Meg Gruwell, Project Planner, reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of -J 1- the 6' variance for roof height and the reasonable use exception with certain conditions; LL LU and to deny the request for a 13' height variance for the tower and spire (see Exhibit A, page 2, Recommendations). LL Q LL NM From the Applicant: PP Brain E. Moll, the following: applicant, stated • That he would remove the arrow on top of the spire, thus reducing its height. Z o, • That the Uniform Building Code exempts spires from height measurements. That a similar tower/spire located on a nearby residence was approved by a previous UJ hearing examiner. The applicant submitted photos of the referenced property (Exhibit Oil U C). i N o �= From the community: LU 0, Keith Van Meter, neighbor, submitted a letter dated September 13, 1997 and stated the u. o following at the hearing: w z1,, That he had no issue with the height of the tower and spire. Us? • That he had concerns about the slope, i.e. that since the geotechnical study was j oz performed in 1994 was it still valid as to site circumstances? « That he was concerned how the project would treat the mature trees located in the slopes. That these trees contributed significantly to the neighborhood character and contributed to slope stability. Dan Oliver, community resident, stated that he felt the drainage plans for the applicant's project should be coordinated with the drainage plan for the project on an adjacent Y property (16123 N Meadowdale Road) so that the systems are compatible and do not cause adverse impacts on neighboring properties. From the Applicant: 0 Brain E. Moll, applicant, stated the following: « That the only trees to be removed were those necessary to construct the house and that the trees on the upper slope would be retained. « That he would be consulting with project proponents on the adjacent property under development to discuss and coordinate drainage issues. • That his consulting engineers would be submitting a Tetter substantiating the original geotechnical report. s - _1 th, F1j �,. Staff was requested to supply the hearing examiner decision relative to spire height referenced by rE�f the applicant. zf -'� �. ii. n .. ., .. `, . ., ., - ..._ ';,, wr rt ...,, . ':. •>: r.,_ A�.,.:. � ,. +..,..,w �" ._ State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) ® Facts: Variances granted based on special circumstances are normally exempt from SEPA review (WAC 197- 11-800(6)(6) and ECDC 20.15A.080). However, ECDC Section 20.15A..280.A states that "For each environmentally sensitive area, no exemption within WAC 197-11-800 shall be applicable for that area." This site is located within a slope environment on the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map, so the variance is subject to SEPA review. The applicant submitted an Environmental Checklist, and staff made a Determination of Nonsignificance on August 1, 1997. The deadline for appeals was September 2, 1997 and no appeals or comments were received. Conclusion: The applicant has complied with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act. 3 ® ,_! ; :�`•� s w .' �s ,,, ' t ti ..r{ a c�3' ���tF nk t a- �'S§�`� t�`r.i+�n �3'�y 0 Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance YF. Critical Areas Compliance - Variance 'L + Facts: Q n k This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.15.8 (Critical Areas Ordinance). Q = The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Checklist (CA -93-245) and a conditional waiver was Ui granted to the critical areas study requirement. One of the requirements of the conditional waiver ; J was to submit a survey with steep slopes delineated. If the survey showed that the lot would be n w; unbuildable when the buffers and setbacks were considered, then the conditional waiver stated that H a Reasonable Use Exception or a Variance must be received before any construction not exempted vy can be approved. W O The applicant has submitted a topographical map which shows that the steep slope critical area extends over the whole lot except for the access strip. The map also shows the applicant's proposal to LL a modify the critical area (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). WC 2 U1 ECDC Section 20.15B.160.B requires that any owner of property subject to the provisions of the f Critical Areas chapter shall record with Snohomish County a notice of the presence of critical Z t --; a' areas on the property and the limitations that the Critical Areas chapter places on the property. Z LU �: ECDC Section 20.15B.170.A allows variances from the standards of the Critical Areas chapter if the 2 ai following criteria have been met: v N 1) Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, t pF- topography, location or surroundings, or the size or nature of the critical area, the strict LU ui application of this title would deprive the subject property owner all reasonable use of the H? property; and, "- Qf 2) The granting of the variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the development w Z1i proposal and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated, or O t -s'' contrary to the goals and purposes in the referenced chapter. Z The applicant has addressed these criteria in his responses to the Variance criteria and the Reasonable Use Exception items (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3). To summarize, the lot was legally created for residential purposes, is oddly shaped, and the entire buildable portion is either in the steep slope critical area or its buffer. The topographical map provided by the applicant (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4) shows that the entire site, except for the access strip and a 20 -foot wide strip near the access, are in the steep slope hazard area. The buffer for this area is required to be 50 feet, with a 15 -foot building setback in addition, unless a geotechnical engineer determines that a 10 -foot buffer is adequate (the 15 -foot building setback must still be added). Allowing a variance to reduce the buffers and building setbacks to zero feet would allow a building pad only 10 feet by 40 feet, unless the 10 -foot ® property line setbacks were also reduced. In the middle of that 10 feet by 40 foot area is an existing well house, which is to be preserved according to the plans. Conclusion: The applicant has met the first criteria for permitting a variance; however, no variance to the buffer or setback requirements will be adequate to allow the construction of a house on this site. Thus, a Reasonable Use Exception is also required. p Critical Areas Compliance - Reasonable Use Exception Facts: t } ECDC Section 20.15B.040.0 allows for development to be allowed by the Hearing Examiner on a °> ? property when application of the Critical Areas chapter requirements would otherwise deny. all d; 4 is Z tr rf. -71 t R N 51 reasonable use of the property, if the development is consistent with the general purposes of the chapter and the public interest and after a public hearing it can be found that: 1) The provisions of the chapter would otherwise deny all reasonable use of the property; 2) 'Mere is no other reasonable use consistent with the underlying zoning with less impact on the critical area or its buffer; 3) The proposed development does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the property; 4) Any proposed alteration of the critical area or its buffer is minimized to the extent possible to allow for reasonable use of the property; 5) The proposed activity complies with all state, local, and federal laws including those related to sediment control, pollution control, floodplain restrictions, and on-site wastewater disposal; 6) The inability to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant or a predecessor in title in segregating or dividing the property and creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter; and 7) The applicant may only apply for a reasonable use exception under this subsection if the applicant has also applied for a variance pursuant to ECDC 20.15B. 170(A). The applicant has provided responses to each of these findings (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3). To summarize, the lot had been approved under the Falk short plat as developable for a single-family residence, and is still zoned and proposed to be used for that purpose. The house has been designed around the existing trees and to sit in an area that had been a terraced garden. The project has been reviewed by a registered Geotechnical Engineer and a registered Structural Engineer and is designed to City of Edmonds Engineering Design standards and the Uniform Building Code. The topographical map provided by the applicant (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4) shows that the entire site, except for the access strip and a 20 -foot wide strip near the access, are located within the steep slope hazard area (40 percent slope). The applicant also submitted a Geotechnical Engineering Report by DODDS Geosciences, Inc., dated March 1, 1994, with the building permit application. This report concludes that "the site is currently stable and will remain so during and after construction provided the recommendations presented in this report are adopted." A letter dated September 17, 1997 form DODDS Geosciences, Inc. substantiates that the March 1, 1994 report is still valid by indicating that there is less than a 30% chance of a slide on the subject property over the next twenty-five years. A rockery greater than three feet in height is shown to the west of the proposed house which will support the construction of the house. Rockeries supporting fill (rather than supporting a cut) taller than three feet must meet setbacks unless a variance is obtained. The rockery is shown as 2 feet from the required side setback at the north end, and approximately 7 feet from the required side setback at the south end. The size of the footprint for Phase I is approximately 825 square feet, for Phase 11 is 215 square feet, and for Phase III is 635 square feet, for a total of approximately 1675 square feet. Ann Bullis, Plans Examiner, has confirmed that 1500 square feet is a fairly standard footprint size in Edmonds, often with a 400 to 600 square foot garage in addition. She says in her review of single-family home plans that a 1000 -square -foot size footprint is small for Edmonds, and she rarely sees a footprint size less than 1000 square feet in size. Conclusions: The applicant meets the first two criteria, as the critical areas chapter would deny all reasonable use of the property if it had to be met, and in a single-fan-dly residential zone, there is no primary use allowed except residential. i S' The Geotechnical Engineering Report and supplemental analysis gives assurance that proposed development does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety or welfareon or off the property if the recommendations in their report are followed. It appears that allowing a 1000 square foot footprint on the site would be a small house, and that t allowing a structure with a footprint closer to 1500 square feet would be a more standard size t—y home, particularly in the large lot RS-20 zone. Therefore the size of home proposed is considered a reasonable use of the property. Given the shape of the property and the slope of the site, moving Uj Uy the southwest corner of the house further west, towards the property fine, would require more fill t� for that corner because it pulls it away from the slope. Moving the entire house further west and (a wi` into the setbacks would still require disturbance of the critical area, and would move the I I— construction closer to the neighbor to the west, reducing their privacy and increasing earth N disturbance near them. Because the property narrows towards the access strip the home cannot w � easily be moved to the south. The existing well house also prevents construction in the southern area. Therefore, the alteration of the critical area and its buffer, though significant, has been minimized to the extent possible to allow for reasonable use of the property. Prior to having a building permit issued, the proposal will be checked to meet all state, local and federal laws, as required in criteria five. h x; Z i—. The application for the short subdivision was submitted prior to the passage of the Critical Areas ordinance, so it vested under before these regulations went into effect. Therefore, the sixth criteria LU uta is met. 2 D: A variance to the critical areas requirements has been applied for but will not entirely provide for 0— reasonable use of the property. "'0 Compliance with RS-20 Zoning Standards LL Fact: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development in the RS-20 tnl zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030. These include the following for dimensions of structures: y. Maximum Height: 25 feet O Z Conclusion: The proposal complies with the requirements of the RS-20 zoning standards except for the height. Compliance with Requirements for a Variance Facts: 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: 1) 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 = =Y of the property, not any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past ® owner of the same property. �c , 2} Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special t, t privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in r i the vicinity with the same zoning. f 0 �t ry}, r` .. .. ..., :'"!.. e:=::... .„n...:.mxs:,4 ✓4.':....iau .n .ua+r...:......�....._...:.... ..« uuyn....9aa u. «.,.,5 ..:-. .'t*.L......1fi,...E u'th., fl:: ��.wi;. 1 .,�,Y ...�., ter. �?i.. � �.'^C 4,r>. P_, ...:'3. > ,s. .1 .. ... 3) 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. 4) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be Qconsistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the zoning district in which the property is located. cc 1 S) Not Detrimental; That the variance, as approved or conditionally approved, will not UJ v'; be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the CJ0 property or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone. w; NLL The applicant has submitted declarations with their submittal which address the decisional criteria as Q follows (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3): The applicants to the odd elongated shape of the site and the slope, which force the U point d' house to rise vertically on a very small footprint. �� N c LU The applicant feels that since church steeples are allowed above the height limit, and his tower spire is basically analogous it should also be allowed to go above height limits. Z 1—t O� r The applicant states that low density residential RS -20 impact is negligible. 2 W' The applicant points out that the proposal meets the setback and height restrictions for RS -20 0t except for the tower spire (and the roof of the structure until Phase 3). The rear of the property, the applicant states, is above the height of the tower spire due to the Q F ua � slope. Therefore no views are obstructed b the proposed spire. The applicant also F -� Y P P P F t? points to the trees and brush which block all views through the property. He also feels it may add to the property value as it is an architectural design feature. w �; The applicant states the visual impact of the spire above the height limit is small because it is a U S thin architectural element. He also refers to a UBC 1994 excerpt on height p ~ restriction exceptions. Z The ECDC Section 21.40.030 defines the height of a structure as being measured to the highest point of the structure, excluding only church steeples, elevator penthouses, chimneys, vent pipes, and standpipes. } Conclusions: As to the variance criteria the following conclusions shall apply: 1) SPECIALC[RCUMSTANCES: The subject lot has an extremely unusual shape and is located entirely in a regulated slope. Due to the potential sensitive nature of the steep slopes on the site, it is reasonable from a public safety standpoint to construct the house in the area of least grade near the access strip. The steep slope conditions supporta minimum variance to allow the roof proper, which is a necessary structural element, to exceed the 25' height limit by 6'. However, these same conditions do not support the request for a purely architectural feature (i.e. the spire) to exceed the underlying height limit. 2) SPECIAL PRIVILEGE: Currently the only items allowed above the 25 -foot required height for residences are chimneys, vent pipes, and standpipes, so allowing the spire above the required height would be a special privilege compared to other properties in the vicinity. The applicant's contention that it is analogous to a church steeple and, thus, should be allowed ignores the fact that the height exception for steeples (spires) is based on such features being a fJ. normal appurtenance to a church, i.e. a different use. The example supplied by the applicant41� a' t 1Z of a nearby residence being allowed a similar spire is not compelling. First, the height requested for that spire is less than what is being requested by the applicant. Second, the spire is X d , - ;i v - _ is a purely architectural feature unrelated to enclosed, habitable space and is a design element predicated by actions of the applicant. The proposed house is restricted by the steep slope, so the granting of the roof to go 6' above Z the allowed height because of the restrictions on the buildable area would not be a special `t privilege. cc W ai 3) MiNtMuM VARIANCE: The height proposed for the roof of the house appears to be the minimum variance necessary in order to construct a reasonable residence under the topographical and hydrological circumstances of the site. G N UJ The additional height requested for the spire does not constitute a minimum variance since the - H1 house can be designed and constructed without that feature and not lose any other of the to LL functional or design aspects of the overall project. 1 do not agree with the conclusion by the w hearing examiner on the example cited by the applicant as to that spire being the minimum necessary for the project. The hearing examiner in that case failed to view the minimum LL necessary criteria in the context of the project as a whole, but instead isolated his review to the spire specifically; i.e. the residence in that example could have been developed without violating the height limit and without compromising the development objectives of the overall project. 1 Z tom-' h- 0! 4) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE: Approval of the proposed variance W w would allow for the continued development of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of Mi the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation and policies. 2 U L 5) NOTDEMIMENTAL: Because of the steep slope, the house will be below the homes to the peast of it, so the impact on those properties will be small. The house will be quite visible to LU the neighbors to the south and west, but will not be in their viewsheds. Allowing the house to f=.' go higher instead of the further intruding into the steep slope will make the project less U-0 detrimental to the area and immediately adjacent properties. Technical Committee z Review by City Departments Fact: The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire Department, Public Works Division, Engineering Division, and the Parks and Recreation Division. The only substantive comments received were from the Engineering Division, and those comments are included as Attachment 5. Conclusion: The applicant will need to comply with the terms of any future permits, as required by the Engineering Division. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) A Comprehensive Plan Designation E. The subject property is designated as "Single Family Residential." Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies ® 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. ; r: a �, �3NC Z I FR Z I E 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.... 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." Policy BA states: "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures." Page 31, subsection B.5.0 states, "Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments." Conclusion The design of the proposed house is compatible with surrounding development. However, the tower/spire adds a design element that is new to the immediate neighborhood. Because of the slope of the lot, impacts on views will be minimized. DECISION Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the following decisions are rendered: A. DENIAL of the requested variance for the spire. B. APPROVA L of the 6 -foot variance for the roof and the Reasonable Use Exception with the following conditions: 1. The height of the residence, including the tower, shall be no taller than 31 feet above average grade, as shown in the building elevations.and on the site plan height calculations as depicted in Exhibit A, Attachments 3 and 4. 2. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to any construction. 3. The applicant will need to comply with all the terms of any future permits. 4. The permit should be transferable. 5. The applicant shall record with the Snohomish County Auditors office a notice, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, that the entire property is located within a steep slope Critical Area or buffer and point out the limitations the Critical Areas Ordinance places on the property, and shall provide a copy of that notice (with a recording number or with the appropriate fees so the city can record it) to the Planning Division. 6. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Report by DODDS Geosciences Inc., dated March 1, 1994. 7. The applicant shall ensure that the proposed development complies with all state local, and federal laws including those related to sediment control, pollution control, floodplain restrictions, and on-site wastewater disposal. 8. The applicant shall retain the significant trees and other mature vegetation in the upper slope areas of his property and will limit tree removal to the minimum necessary for development of the residence. 9y iii t �1 9. The applicant shall coordinated on and off site drainage control measures with the project being developed on the adjacent property at 15123 North Meadowdale Road. z Entered this 2nd day of October, 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner UJI under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. LU V O! G� J I.- Loo o d B. Larg Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS y The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's z I.-„ and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal z should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. W 04 Request for Reconsideration Q L Section 20.100.010.E allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision `T UJ LU or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the ,~U ot date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs zs, the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an LU U s ownership interest in a tract of -land which is the subject of such decision or o recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the z findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. i 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 D 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. 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 r>' and the city approves the application." 5 ti 10 z w g 0 U 0 LLAr LL v 0 z M1 ,.,s..-.�.,t._.�,.s. .t.1,�:7 :c�,.',�':.�,:.rev,'✓~-h,�.a:%a�i,',.�.a,,,....._.._:,... �._._` ...� ..:i,..,..,ur;.o..,a::+ur,;r.,. sr«ilr�?u�s:+sud^mkm�,""r�Ti;,�'P£..+�`�s�' rJ+ux,iwua,e ±i'�"ki5�.2"t13��'.2kh a�.#�Fs..::�s'"s'....`".�'f�.S.... .. r,n_a .. 3,�"�� NOTICE TO THE iCOUNTY 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 followingexhibit was ' offered red into the record. o and ente A. Planning Division Advisory Report B. Letter from Keith Van Meter, September 13, 1997 C. Photographs of Case No. V-29-90 D. Letter from DODDS Geosciences, July 18, 1997: ` E. Hearing Examiner decision for V-29-90 (Spiro, .1563175th Pl. W.) F. Letter from DODDS Geosciences, September 17,'1997 PARTIES of RECORD: Brian E. Moll Edmonds Planning Division 16121 North Meadowdale Road `' Edmonds Engineering Division 1 Edmonds, WA 98026 Keith Van Meter Dan Oliver 16115 North`Meadowdale Road 15926 70th Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 rt a Lc .rti. � h r �' w x ti u. ui v 0 2 A . ..xi...r....Ja^.Cm:atinxe.:s*.uxxxluxxbrwra ��..r. y� -: +t t :,?o-', Y s ?.''.. ,.., x ", z.. 3 c'i.: e'.,:y � iir 8,0 5 ?11�� x+ o -f � .•,. £" CITY OF EDMONDS $AflBARA. FAHEY 121 STH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 68020 • (425) 771.0220 • FAX (425)' 771.0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning/Building • Parks and Recreation • Engineering •Wastewater Treatment Plant z . jnC as9a Letter of Transmittal LU Lou+{{ l Date: September 19,1997 U) U. uJ To: Mr. Brian Moll a 10115 Holip Drive, #0102 cn d . Everett, WA 98204 iLd ©� From: Meg Gruweil, AICP. Planner Lu ,~,—i Subject: Variance Report for 15631- 75th Piece W. U. c i w uzii Transmitting: Hearing Examiner Decision for V-29.90 {Spiro Variance} U� 0 z For Your Information; As you requested: XX For your file: Comment: Please note that i did not copy all the floor, pians, elevations, and construction details available with the Spiro Variance. If you want more information on that, please let me know. if you have any questions, please call me at (425) 771.0220. Note attachments: ®': h• l Incorporated August 11, "1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 00/19/97 12:40 12206 407 8441 WJA WJA WIMLEY JACORM jAn A&SOCUTES ARCHMe" I INGRGERS I PLANNERS 1218 TWW Avmm% Sift 306 SmUlf, WA 911181 Tdcouc M* fizi-mi In: Q" 467.8441 c. 4; ±A-CSIMILE I MEMO TRANSMISSION It trunwismon is not complds pi"" call (208) 023-0331 PROJECT.tJL*WJA PROJECT NO. TO: DATE: COMPANY: QEFAX 0 FROM: IA. -- OCG ATTACHMENTS: REGARDING: NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: COMMENTS: W W4VAX)U o s t / 4 ' .amu. ...o -.w _..'Car T.YY.ii':w1`.li.icab'.iLi'ra:rr %vbAnnrss.. �. .._.. . ..,.....,,,--.r....+...rr•ewv.es•r 09/19/97 12:40 -0208 407 8441 WJA 0 002 01/2511994 06:48' 206 a*,}641 DODDS GEOSCI PAGE 01 Asst ®ifce sew 2388 xar�laand, W4 VOM Tssa rte 1425) SAM 1084 �. sarnaae (4-05) M-9443 �' urian Ndoll Go WJA pob Number 40C)a o 1218 Third Avemtq Su lte 306 SC1961 1M 17, 1947 same. Washington 98101 I J' cn LL Subject Addendum #1— Yuan Review '! Proposed Molt Residence d 16121 N. Mwdowdale Road U. Edmonds, Washington 3:LJ.Dear Client: z�F Z a( hk accordance with the requtrementt of the City of Edmonds, further analyses were LU uJI conducted by our item The purpose of our additional work was to tbtfil the city's 5 of regrdrlements regarding analysis ofpossible landslides over the am 2S year period, o - LU Our analyse$ indicate there is less than a thirty percent (a0*10) probabilitl, of a landslide on this property over the next 25 years. The pwpossd on-site improvements increase the LL 0stability _0 of the site by providing slope reinforcement via walls and controlled do nage. In ourjudgment the plans and specification prepared by the structural engineer confirm to the recommendations in our geoteciintcal report sad the rials ofdamage to the proposed development or to adjacent properties is minimal subject to the conditions set forth in the report, The proposed development dors int Increase the potential for slope movement. Please contact me directly if there are any -questions. Thank You: DODDS Geosciences Inc.t „ -', "_. ,2., '. `1 3. - y F Ti y -i Jl 9 !V t 7 7 c r •. Lt t - < �'f h ] s'1. f 4 September 1919 PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY YO11R NAME; ADDRESS AND ZIP COM..B ELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS STENT ------------ - --- - --------------------- - - - - - ------ V-97-91 BRIAN MOLL U a1? lf1NpL( - Lul 2 � i _ Gve98204- 8L04- U. z r' _� i 7 S WA (?O', gLuus � '.DVYIGN 2. t� � O LuLl C 1, — Gzw .ti -cr+ ct Aso oke �.. LL z ` z zi z� W i r2' 0 4 W U. LU 0 z September 13,1997 City of Edmonds Community Services Department Attention: Meg Gruwell 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Ms. Gruwell: My wife and I are writing this letter to express our concerns about the Variance/ Reasonable Use Exception applied for by Brian Moll for 16121 N. Meadowdale Road in Edmonds, file # V-97-91. We reside at 16115 N. Meadowdale Road that borders this property. It is our understanding that Mr. Moll has only applied for a height variance at this time, but we are interested in how his planned building will sit on the property and how it may impact our own view and sense of privacy our property has given us. We also have concerns on how the property is to be developed with respect to the slope. We and other neighbors are concerned about which trees might be targeted in this building project. The slope has many beautiful mature trees which undoubtedly contribute largely to the stability of this slope. As evidenced by last years slides in this very neighborhood, we are fearful that the slope will be disturbed to the point of destabilizing the land and putting our own house in extraordinary risk of future slides and resulting structural damage. I am planning on attending the hearing this Thursday at 9:00 a.m. as described in the flyer to further express these concerns. I phoned the city last week and I was told by Jason that there was nothing else I could do at this time. If this information is not correct, please contact me at home at (425) 743-3883 or at work at (360) 794-2405 so that I may follow through before this meeting. We are very concerned about this building project and look forward to being able to voice these concerns to the city so that all parties might be satisfied. Thank you for your time and I will see you Thursday. Respectfully, Keith Van Meter Alice Van Meter 3 EDMdaiVDS EAG EXAMINER MEETINGAGENDA SEPTEMBER 189 1997 AT 9100 A.M. Plaza Room • Edmonds Library j 650 Mdn Street 1. ;Can to Order 2. Public Hearings a. FILE NO. CU -97-89; Application by Uta Evans fora Conditional Use permit for an "Accessory Dwelling Unit" in an existing single-family residence located at 21702 98th Avenue West. The subject property is zoned U-12: b. MX NO. V-97-91; Application by Brian Mon for a Critical Areas Variance/Reasonable Use Exception to allow a single-family residence to be located entirely within a critical area and to allow the driveway to be located in the critical area and it's buffer; and a Variance to allow an increase in the maximum pennitted height of 12 -feet (from 25 -feet above average grade to 37 -feet) for the construction of spire and to 30 -feet above average grade for the roof of a new single-family residence. The subject property is located at 16121 North Meadowdale Road and is zoned RS -20. c. FILE NO. V-97-98; Application by V. Joseph Schmidt and Elnora Hill for a Variance to reduce the r required rear yard setback from the required 15-fect in an RS -8 zone and 25 -feet inanRS-12 zone to 5 -feet to allow the replacement of the existing flat roof with a new 4/12 pitch roof with eaves, on an existing single-family residence. The subject property is located at 6908174th Street Southwest and is split zoned with both the RS -8 and RS -12 designations. 3. Administrative Reports - No Reports. 4. Adjournment PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE ACCESSIBLE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABMITIES (Contact the City Clerk at 971-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accgmmodatio&) 0018W.00cAaOM CITY OF EDMONDS 250 STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION = z ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS J 0' j w To: Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner w S tt) U. ti Fi0il1' o I w M.E. Mej Gruwell Project Planner Gj Date: SEPTEMBER 11, 1997 z W File: V-97-91 Z BRIAN MOLL Hearing Date, Time, And Place:_ September 18, 1997, At 9:00 AM, W Lu Plaza Room (nEdmonds Library a I- 650 Main Street ' uJ i o TABLE OF CONTENTS Z;, Section _ Page oF` I. INTRODUCTION ......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ................. ..................... 2 Z A. APPLICATION ................... 2 ............. tl B. RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. I...t .............2 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS.. ` A. SITE DESCRIPTION......................................................... ......... ................................... ... ..................3 B. HISTORY........................................................... ... ..... .. ... .3 C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA).......... ......... ......... 3 D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE... E. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ............................. .. .. ............................. F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN(ECDC)..................................... ..8 © ILL RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS ............................................... .. ................ 9 A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION...............................................................................;...I...........................9 B. Molt + File No. V-97-91 Pop 2of9 I. INTRODUCTION A. Application 1. Aonlicant: Brian E. Moll, P.E., S.E. (see Attachment 2). 2. Site Location: 16121 North Meadowdale Road (see Attachment 1). 3. Request A Critical Areas Variance/Reasonable Use Exception to allow a single-family residence to be located entirely within a critical area and to allow the driveway to be located in the critical area and its buffer; and a Variance to allow an increase in the maximum permitted height for a single-family residence from 25 -feet to 38 -feet above average grade to allow the construction of a spire and to 31 -feet above average grade for the roof of a new single-family residence (see Attachments 2 through 4). 4. Review Process: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. S. Maior Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL- Site Development Standards). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.15E (CRITICAL AREAS). B. Recommendations ' Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend DENIAL of the requested 13 -foot variance for the tower and spire, and APPROVAL of the 6 -foot variance for the roof and the Reasonable Use Exception with the following conditions: I. The height of the residence shall be no taller than 31 feet above average grade, as shown in the building elevations and on the site plan height calculations (see Attachments 3 and 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 applicant will need to comply with all the terms of any future permits: 5. The permit should be transferable. 6. The applicant shall record with the Snohomish County Auditors office a notice, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, that the entire property is located within a steep slope Critical Area or buffer and point out the limitations the Critical Areas Ordinance places on the property, and shall provide a copy of that notice (with a recording number or with the appropriate fees so the city can record it) to the Planning Division, 7. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Report by DODDS Geosciences Inc., dated March 1, 1994. 8. The applicant shall ensure that the proposed development complies with all state, local, and: federal laws including those related to sediment. control, pollution control, floodplain restrictions, and on-site wastewater disposal. V-97-91DOC J September 11 1997 J Buff Report r !g �1 LL & W» i- S Z 1_ rO z LU LU � ~I _ Cw.► �p —Z t'L.l O ~' Z 0 0 Brian E. Molt File No. V-97-91 Page 3 of 9 U. l'INDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Site Description 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Size: The subject property is 23,617 square feet gross (20,372: square feet without the access strip included), with 20.04 feet of frontage, along North Meadowdale Road (see Attachment 4). (2) Land Use: The site is undeveloped. i (3) Zoning; The subject property is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS -20) (see Attachment 1). (4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject site slopes steeply down from east to west and starts to level out in the access strip leading to North Meadowdale Road. Vegetation consists of a stand of coniferous trees on the steeply sloped bank on the east, and young alders, blackberries and grasses to the west (see Attachment 4). 2, Neighboring Development And Zoning: a} Facts. _ (1) The property to the northwest is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS -20) and is , undeveloped (see Attachment 1). (2) The property to the northeast is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS -12) and is undeveloped (see Attachment 1). (3) The properties to the south are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS -20) and are developed with single-family homes (see Attachment 1). , (4) The properties to the east are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS -20) and are developed with single-family homes (see Attachment 1). (5) The property to the west is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS -20) and a single- family residence is being constructed on it (see Attachment 1). B. History This parcel was created by a short subdivision (S-13-91), the application for which was filed on July 12, 1991. This caused it to vest prior to the Critical Areas Ordinance being passed, in 1992. C. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) 1. Faets: a) Variances granted based on special circumstances are normally exempt from SEPA review (WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.480). However, ECDC Section 20.15A.280.A states that "For each environmentally sensitive area, no exemption within WAC 197-11-800 shall be applicable for that area." This site is located within a slope , environment on the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map, so the variance is subject to SEPA review. b) The applicant submitted an Environmental Checklist, and staff made a Determination of Nonsignificance on August 1, 1997. The deadline for appeals was September 2; 1997,and . no appeals or comments were received. V-97 91.DOC 1 September 11,1997 /;Staff Repot. 2. Conclusion: The application complies with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act. D. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance z _ 1. Critical Areas Compliance - Variance _ L„ a) facts. ! O (1) This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.15.8 (Critical Areas a, Ordinance). LU; (2) The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Checklist , (CA -93-245) and a to LLconditional waiver was granted to the critical areas study requirement. One of the LU �� requirements of the conditional waiver L was to submit a survey with steep slopes j delineated. If the survey showed that the lot would be unbuildable when the buffers and setbacks were considered, then the conditional waiver stated that Reasonable U. j Use Exception or a Variance must be received before any construction not exempted n i ur9 can be approved. (3) The applicant has submitted a topographical map which shows that the steep slope F-0 critical area extends over the whole lot except for the access strip. The map also Z W', shows the applicant's proposal to modify the critical area (see Attachment 4). (4) ECDC Section 20.158.160.8 requires that any owner of property subject to the V (vyl provisions of the Critical Areas chapter shall record with Snohomish County a notice 1 o h of the presence of critical areas on the property and the limitations that the Critical LU uj Areas chapter places on the property. LL! (5) ECDC Section 20.15B.170.A allows variances from the standards of the Critical Areas chapter if the Hearing Examiner finds the following criteria have been met: L) (a) Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, rty, —= including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, or the size or Z nature of the critical area, the strict application of this title would deprive the subject property owner all reasonable use of the property. (b) The granting of the variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the development proposal and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated, or contrary to the goals and purposes of this chapter. •} (6) The applicant has essentially addressed these criteria in his responses to the Variance" - criteria and the Reasonable Use Exception items (see Attachment 3).. To summarize, the lot was legally created for residential purposes, is oddly shaped, and the entire buildable portion is either in the steep slope critical area or its buffer. 0 (7) The topographical map provided by the applicant (see Attachment 4) shows that the entire site, except for the access strip and a 20 -foot wide strip near the access, are in the steep slope hazard area. The buffer for this area is required to be 50 feet, with a I5 -foot building setback in addition, unless a geotechnical engineer determines that a 10 -foot buffer is adequate (the 15 -foot building setback must still be added). Allowing a variance to reduce the buffers and building setbacks to zero feet would allow a building pad only 10 feet by 40 feet, unless the 10 -foot property line setbacks were also reduced. In the middle of that 10 feet by 40 foot area is an existing well house, which is to be preserved according to the plans. am N1 . .. .... .... . . .. . .. ....... E. Moll File No. V-97-91 Page 5 of 9 2. Critical Areas Compliance - Reasonable Use Exception a) Lacts. (1) ECDC Section 20,15B.040.0 allows for development to be allowed by the Hearing Examiner on a property when application of the Critical Areas chapter requirements would otherwise deny all reasonable use of the property, if the development is consistent with the general purposes of the chapter and the public interest an I d after a public hearing it can be found that: (a) This chapter would otherwise deny all reasonable use of the property; (b) There is no other reasonable use consistent with the underlying zoning with less impact on the critical area or its buffer; (c) The proposed development does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the property; (d) Any proposed alteration of the critical area or its buffer is minimized to the extent possible to allow for reasonable use of the property; (e) The proposed activity complies with all state, local, and federal laws including those related to sediment control, pollution control, floodplain restrictions, and on-site wastewater disposal; (f) The inability to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant or a predecessor in title in segregating or dividing the property and creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter; and (g) The applicant may only apply for a reasonable use exception under this subsection if the applicant has also applied for a variance pursuant to ECDC 20.15B. 170(A). (2) The applicant has provided responses to each of these findings (see Attachment 3). To summarize, the lot had been approved under the Falk short plat as developable for a single-family residence, and is still zoned and proposed to be used for that purpose. The house has been designed around the existing trees and to sit in an area that had been a terraced garden. The project has been reviewed by a registered Geotechnical Engineer and a registered Structural Engineer and is designed to City of Edmonds Engineering Design standards and the Uniform Building Code. (3) The topographical map provided by the applicant (see Attachment 4) shows that the entire site, except for the access strip and a 20 -foot wide strip near the access, are in the steep slope hazard area (40 percent slope or more). (4) The applicant also submitted a Geotechnical Engineering Report by DODDS Geosciences Inc., dated March 1, 1994, with the building permit application. This report concludes that "the site is currently stable and will remain so during and after construction provided the recommendations presented in this report are adopted." (5) A rookery greater than three feet in height is shown to the west of the proposed house which will support the construction of the house. Rookeries supporting fill (rather than supporting a cut) taller than three feet must meet setbacks unless a variance is obtained. The rookery is shown as 2 feet from the required side setback at the north end, and approximately 7 feet from the required side setback at the south end. (6) The size of the footprint for Phase I is approximately 825 square feet, for Phase JI is 215 square feet, and for Phase III is 635 square feet, fora total of approximately 1675 square feet. Ann Bullis, Plans Examiner, has confirmed that 1500 square feet is, a fairly standard footprint size in Edmonds, often with a 400 to 600 square foot garage in addition. She says in her review of single-family home plans that a,1000 square -foot size footprint is small for Edmonds, and she rarely sees a footprint size less than 1000 square feet in size. V-97-91.1)OC / September llA997/.Staff Report' : 0 Z l— l- 2— O' LU LU d U, w � v' u- p Z U= O~ Z E, C t{ Brian E. Moll ..t Fite No. V-97-91 Page 6 of 9 b) Conclusions: (1) The applicant meets the first two criteria, as the critical areas chapter would deny all reasonable use of the property if it had to be met, and in a single-family residential zone, there is no primary use allowed except residential. (2) The Geotechnical Engineering Report gives assurance that proposed development does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the property if the recommendations in their report are followed. (3) It appears that allowing a 1400 square foot footprint on the site would be a small house, and that allowing a structure with a footprint closer to 1500 square feet would be a more standard size home, particularly in the large lot RS -20 zone. Therefore the size of home proposed is considered a reasonable use of the property. Given the shape of the property and the slope of the site, moving the southwest corner of the house further west, towards the property line, would require more fill for that corner because it pulls it away from the slope. Moving the entire house further west and into the setbacks would still require disturbance of the critical area, and would move the construction closer to the neighbor to the west, reducing their privacy and increasing earth disturbance near them. Because the property narrows towards the access strip the home cannot easily be moved to the south. The existing well house also prevents constriction in the southern area. Therefore, the alteration of the critical area and its buffer, though significant, has been minimized to the extent possible to allow for reasonable use of the property. (4) Prior to having a building permit issued, the proposal will be checked to meet all state, local and federal laws, as required in criteria five. (5) The application for the short subdivision was submitted prior to the passage of the Critical Areas ordinance, so it vested under before these regulations went into effect. Therefore, the sixth criteria is met. (6) A variance to the critical areas requirements has been applied for but will not entirely provide for reasonable use of the property. 3. Compliance with RS -20 Zoning Standards a) E. The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development in the RS -20 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030. These include the following for dimensions of structures: (1) Maximum Height: 25 feet b) Conclusion: The proposal complies with the requirements of the RS -20 zoning standards except for the height, and if the variance is approved it would allow that. Q. Compliance with Requirements for a Variance' a) Facts: (1) Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanists 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 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; V-97-91 -Doc 1 September 11, 1997 !Staff Report - y 0 Brion R. Moll ' File No. V-97-91 Page? of 9 f the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, not any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any . past owner of the same property. (b) Special Priviteee: 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 I variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the zoning district in which the property is located. i (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 Attachment 3): (a) The applicants point to the odd elongated shape of the site and the slope, which force the house to rise vertically on a very small footprint. (b) The applicant feels that since church steeples are allowed above the height limit, and his tower spire is basically analogous it should also be allowed to go above height limits. (c) The applicant states that low density residential RS -20 impact isnegligible. (d) The applicant points out that the proposal meets the setback and height restrictions for RS -20 except for the tower spire [and the roof of the structure until Phase 3]. (e) The rear of the property, the applicant states, is above the height of the tower spire due to the slope. Therefore no views are obstructed by the proposed spire. The applicant also points to the trees and brush which block all views through the property. He also feels it may add to the property value as it is an architectural design feature. (f) The applicant states the visual impact of the spire above the height limit is small because it is a thin architectural element. He also refers to a UBC 1994 excerpt on height restriction exceptions. 0j The ECDC Section 21.40,030 defines the height of a structure as being measured to the highest point of the structure, excluding only church steeples, elevator penthouses, chimneys, vent pipes, and standpipes. b) Conclusions• (1) The site is uniquely shaped. 'Due to the steep slope, it is desirable to keep the house close to the access strip in the less steep area and protect the existing trees on the steep slope. (2) Only two variances have, been granted in the surrounding "block" area, and one of those was for subdividing the lot. Currently the only items allowed above the 25=foot required height for residences are chimneys, vent pipes, and standpipes, so allowing a tower and steeple above the required height would be a specialprivilege compared to V-97-91.DOCY September,i Y 1997 F/I.S Report 0 C j lry Brian E. Moll {> File No. V-97-91 Page a of 9 r other properties in the vicinity. The proposed house is restricted by the steep slope, so the granting of the roof above the allowed height because of the restrictions on the buildable area would not be a special privilege. (3) 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 and policies (see also Section F below). (4) Because of the steep slope, the house will be below the homes to the east of it, so the impact on those properties will be small. The house .will be quite visible to the neighbors to the south and west, but will not be in their viewsheds. Allowing the house to go higher instead of the further intruding into the steep slope will make the project less detrimental to the area. (5) The height proposed for the roof of the house appears to be the minimum variance necessary to fit the home in, while trying to avoid the steep slope. The additional height requested for the tower and spire is not a right enjoyed by otherproperties in the vicinity, so it does not appear to be the minimum variance necessary. Therefore, the 6 -foot variance above allowable height is considered the minimum variance. E. 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. The only substantive comments received .were from the Engineering Division, y and those comments are included as Attachment 5. ' b) Conclusion: The applicant will need to comply with the terms of any, future petmits, as required by the Engineering Division. F. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) 1. Comprehensive flan Designation a) Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Residential." 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...:' (2) Policy B.1. states: "Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability." ' (3) Policy B.3. states: "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes, by new construction or additions to existing structures." (4) Page 31, subsection B.5.0 states; "Stable property values must not be threatened by; , view, traffic, or land use encroachments:' v-97-91.DOC7 September 1,1 I99? iStabReport e -^- - — t 1 f •moi. .. . .- ..P..._ . .. ..... .. .... .. .... ... .. .. ...:::..-i . :.... Brian B. moll - File No. V-97-91 " Pap 9 of 9 b) Conclusion: The design of the proposed house is compatible with surrounding development, though the tower is definitely a new elementin design for this neighborhood. Because of the slope of the lot, impacts on views will be minimized. Z! III. RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS z uJ' 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 0" for further procedural information. v � w =, A. Request for Reconsideration J F. to u.j Section 20.100.1010.0 allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his - decision or W t j recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial b. decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or LL <# presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the The subject of such decision or recommendation. reconsideration request must cite specific 2references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of H _ application being reviewed. ZH. zo' B. Appeals W a, 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 pts 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, = U, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with F' the Community Development Director within fourteen (14) calendar days L after the date of the W Oi Zi+ - - decision being appealed. d; IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Z 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 i3 1. Vicinity ! Zoning Map 2. Application 3. Declarations of the Applicant 4. Site Plan & Elevations 5. Memorandum from Gordy Hyde, dated July 10, 1997 VII. PARTIES OF RECORi! Mr. Brian E. Moll, PE, SE Engineering Division 10115 Holly Drive, #D102 - Everett, WA 98204 V-97-91.DW l September t t 1997 L Staff Report Vicinit and Zonin Map r(f y 9 A tachment 1 File# V-99-91 city of e6,"onds land use application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ❑ COMP PLAN AMENDMENT t- of z ww go U Ln 0— LU a w d u. Q z U_ o~ z C UL 2 FILE # ZONE DATE �lq.1 REC'D BY FEE 664 RECEIPT# JOIN HEARING DATE 100 7 tr HE O STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED APPEAL# Applicant 1skiA Q f +" , i iaLL tra sc� Phone (47-1-) 3M-6612- Address M-6, f2Address lolls P4LL!g 1112, *1g,2— E,),/(--P—F--Tr. UJA 592c337 Property Address or Location j L PA N ME�A4) SW LF' %b, Nl �,)Zy,-\ ) (Aid Property Owner_ NT Phone Phone Address Tax Ace # i ' 4W -- 04-9 -- O (01 Sec. Twp. Rng. Legal Description az La -r a or ram ;fay -r- ^P�r U0 S 13 - !) I Details of Project or Proposed Use The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this application. Attachment 2 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT �[;t } ('�' r/od/ h -r C; 4-2-709-7 o �. 'V -- ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ❑ HOME OCCUPATION g ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ca' ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT / STREET VACATION of ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT X VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE'' EXCEPTION E:164T U M rr 01 ❑ OTHER t- of z ww go U Ln 0— LU a w d u. Q z U_ o~ z C UL 2 FILE # ZONE DATE �lq.1 REC'D BY FEE 664 RECEIPT# JOIN HEARING DATE 100 7 tr HE O STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED APPEAL# Applicant 1skiA Q f +" , i iaLL tra sc� Phone (47-1-) 3M-6612- Address M-6, f2Address lolls P4LL!g 1112, *1g,2— E,),/(--P—F--Tr. UJA 592c337 Property Address or Location j L PA N ME�A4) SW LF' %b, Nl �,)Zy,-\ ) (Aid Property Owner_ NT Phone Phone Address Tax Ace # i ' 4W -- 04-9 -- O (01 Sec. Twp. Rng. Legal Description az La -r a or ram ;fay -r- ^P�r U0 S 13 - !) I Details of Project or Proposed Use The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this application. Attachment 2 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT �[;t } ('�' r/od/ h -r C; 4-2-709-7 o �. 'V -- vvf vw ui uu: 14 -BZVV 407 5441 , .HJA Ptarc cherit # �r-l9r Wt: 27 IM 1991 "d Ng M/AdbW-. MOB Rtadenct ` 16121 N. MIidffdala Rd Coact l?e►=/A&eZ-. Brim E. MOA PE,SE lolls HOBy Dr #Diol EYerCtt wA 9s24o4 vartM c'rttftU-Hetht ROMA a � Statement Of va lawe 1tqusted: &M consider my rcqucst far a var&= Which wauUdN the spire and its attaehcd ftntai,(crow" the tower `1 : . desf W fur M' kMd to extend to eie7*10 290. Tki is 32.2 feet above avec Oft jmk, {when co LU a,. the eonq leiiopt of aB 3 phases) The 3yire is quite titin and ram not obstruct any views: ?he mtutinder of the pause o fags within the the 25' haYht restrieifM {when cans the caVlettan of idI 3 phases.} see the table bttow f rr the varia�uxs rtguired dw O eoustmctton MRS of thts pra ject. U. Phase I Phase tt Phase III Main Roof Peak V-5" 5'-4' Qf, a Tower Spire W4, }„ a o i a sincer:'ty, . O Brian E. MOB PE, t 01 r • r4 �a �d t - ♦ .. �7 4, i 1. Pian Check # 0-191 � . MR Date: 27)unr 1997 Project Name/Address: Mon Residence ` 16121 N. �Meadowdale.Rd. Contact Person/Addrtss: Met MohhPE,SE 10115 Hohly Dr #Di02 Everett,WA 98204 Rrfurem Variance Criteria = attached _ j e �! Rcspanse to Variance Criteria Renu: ` itesy= to tiem h The odd elongated Shupe of the site and the slope force the house to rtse.verttcaIly on'a very smash footprint. Reponse to item 2i wdCnown, church uQ steeples are alfowtd this privihege....the tower spire fs bastcaIIy analogous., See ube 1994 deerpts Olt height restrictions attached. A . Responu to item s: Low. Density residential Rs2o impact is rughigibhe. z w;� Response to item 4: the proposal meets the Setback and height resMcttons for Rs2o e�tce t at, ire. p Sy a wt i Response to item 5: The rear of the proptrtybeeause of the scope, is above the height of the tower spire. No views are obstructed by the a spire. 1n addition the property is so hegvihy wooded that the"frees and brush block aIl views through the property. it may add to the _Us property vahue as it is an architectural' design feature. �—, Response to Item 6: The Allah impact of the spire above the height Itmit is Ad, it, is a thin archittc4iraI ehenunt.Sec UBC 1994 °z excerpt an height restriction exceptions. - Sincerely E. Brian E. Moi P.E., S.E. 0'' � k n \, X ' ',. +, �r1 j " c .-:ref •. Do. 4 1 1� R iiWIg -5, I'M v i}- `�7`L hsk v. N�,6' k.GI sAfiT P •� 5 t ,..., �, t L r"'. •� t� .s . S ..._fir .}� san'mvei .. ,� _ ...�.,. _..__. CI� sg ul z w� FF No I OI �) C• 1 -' EL 300 F HA E I PHASE SII =" •-. •--• •--. EL 290 y .HOUSE EL 280 u 2 ! I FUN E — _ — _ - � — — EL DO •" :. REINF. GONG. -__• RETA "No — _ _. — - — 2 E%ISTI GRADE SHOWN C) DASHE THIS REGION EL 260 PROPOSED FINISH GRADEf REINF. C RETAINING .i _ ;. FLOOR SHOWN SOLD THIS WAI= SEE XT SAF.t _ REGION R m..- - - -- - _ -_ --_ --_ -- `�- -" - EL 250 j BENCH EXIST GRADE KEY INTO NEW STRUCT, — _ ✓ FILL PER GEOTECH RE�ORT •• - •—" •— '—'— _ — EL 240 EL 230 SITE SECTION D -D 1FBI ROCKIEST NS ] SEE SHTEE FOR ROCKERY CONSTRUCTIONLEVA SCALE: 1 =10'." fi P Y ` I z; + o- f � NTED G . OR L. TYP i Quji# CC Lu Vi o U) a; (n LYi, N} 2 J (n U. i Y ` I I I DI C Q NTED G . OR L. TYP � MFR BY CULTURED STONE WEST ELEVATION � o BLK INFILL- . PER MFR �LEDGESTONE MFR BY ) STONE PHASE I 17A—SEill 41 ------------ 0- 1ST FLOOR EL 0.0 ISO ---- - - - - - (A) - i.-------------- BLK INFILL- . PER MFR �LEDGESTONE MFR BY ) STONE PHASE I 17A—SEill 41 ------------ 1ST FLOOR EL 0.0 ISO ---- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - i.-------------- -- - — - - - ---l'�{ i. ALL GRIDLINES ARE LOCATED 0 THE WALL, EXCEPT GL 2 WHICH IS CENTEF 2. THE TOP OF ROUGH OPENING FOR At SHALL BE 0 7* -4* ABV FIN FLR UNO 3. WOOD SIDING NOTES: a. USE STAINLESS STEEL RING OR S SOUTH ELEVATION DIAMOND OR BLUTIP AILS. NA NOT OVERDRIVEN,NT NAICG NOF T&G }y}{jj( rf �ir �R. �{�i i�i� 4tlt; y��t Yi'� 21 ���-1�i�J *7�i p�'r,■ c. MOISTURE CONTENT OF SIDING SH 1 OF INSTALLATION. WOOD SHALL BE !i- .�: CONTENT LESS THAN 191 d. PRIMING/PREFINISHING THE SIDING END, AND BACKSIDES) SHALL BE HAS REACHED ITS CLIMATIC BAI-Af e. USE LATEX SILICONE BLEND, POL' CAULKS ONLY, MERE SIDING ABU 1ST FLOOR EL 0.0 ISO i.-------------- ELEVA-RON NOTES: i. ALL GRIDLINES ARE LOCATED 0 THE WALL, EXCEPT GL 2 WHICH IS CENTEF 2. THE TOP OF ROUGH OPENING FOR At SHALL BE 0 7* -4* ABV FIN FLR UNO 3. WOOD SIDING NOTES: a. USE STAINLESS STEEL RING OR S SOUTH ELEVATION DIAMOND OR BLUTIP AILS. NA NOT OVERDRIVEN,NT NAICG NOF T&G PER MFR, BUT SHALL MINIMALLY I� b. BLKG BEHIND PLYIND SHALL BE 0 ATTACHMENT. c. MOISTURE CONTENT OF SIDING SH LOCAL CLIMATE AS CLOSELY AS F OF INSTALLATION. WOOD SHALL BE CONTENT LESS THAN 191 d. PRIMING/PREFINISHING THE SIDING END, AND BACKSIDES) SHALL BE HAS REACHED ITS CLIMATIC BAI-Af e. USE LATEX SILICONE BLEND, POL' CAULKS ONLY, MERE SIDING ABU Lw �;o UA z r O 2 Al < A f s , 09/04/97 00.11 0208 487 8441 WJA 1&008,1, WJA- oftwo: r JOB 1627 s� /Stn wrar uo,. or oAi auurm By.. Dare ��►3r: -07 CHOOOD BY ScAa DATE a u v ^^t D Etcv = 24+'-0" 1006.43 A/G Gxi%T GutM NOti PIJAGQ 1,= M - 2yj Mix HF.JGR 'Vhkn ots 'PNA9zz Aw*txlSr + VAIUA E rorL WiN trot= 5r_ gu V?j4!ANG,. FCfltr AY �.QY—wRMl� S_E T + T-INAM Z CONTT. A'I~ = $z Et.t=V = 243 = a" QZV tr F—Lmv = 244' --Ori AvG scrr `GRr+pi .RyrL 2§2- g" 09/04/97 09:14 10200 467 $441 "WJA 003, pk deck DAL*: 27JM, 1997 B OS:14 208 487 8441 .. WJA 09J04/97 , '®' �i�OOd oQ28rS7 14:24 2 487 8441 WJA �o0i aaa ACTIVITY REPORT rOt. as««a#aa#aa##asaa«eaaaa«aaa TRANSXISSION OX TX/RX NO. 8357 TEL 9P7710E21. CoCONNECTION W or Ki CONNECTION ID �tqx uoltiNb )44Ai19YV START_TIME 08/28 14:22 XeK # USAGE TIME 01 so G `"H i PAGES g y P RESULT OH. nt'/1RZ t RECEIVE® SEP 10 1997 Affidavit of Publication EDMONDS CITY CLERK STATE Or WASHINGTON, } COUNTY Or SNOHONSISH. J} The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD; a daily newspaper gprinted and published in the City of-Everett, County of Snohomish, -NCE and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of w,. general .circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper �. hasbeen approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice....................... .......... Public Hearin & Develo mens A . lication $..... P .... .PP 4 EN O : 4' _ °Laeta Evans ....... ........................................................ Project No CU-97-89 t01 ........ ....................... ......... ......... ......... ........ a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said cuz � •' t , newspaper proper and not in. supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: I'M Ia September 4, 1997 .... ......... ......... .... �si'g�_v d hat d newspaper was regal ly dur ll of said period. distribute Its subscribers a n 3 � +r } ..., ..... ._.... _.......___.. _.4.-_ .i,.._...__ii � �_:..... _._.::...._..._ ......_,ISS....,..,....,,..�......,....,,......... _. ii ilr cwf Ec3i17Y>Acmas Gnanly' nfcy. c-rvAeatis Ai-pwra »sent '-•"-- null aAAng-PAannins-Unehaoarinu 12 9 -Sth s*-vonus IN4*rth ® 2nd Floor Aidmands, W^ V0020 020 PhcllnFe: (425177-1-0220 MAX: (423) 771-0221 PAX GClN/FS Its. PAt=^ E �..�. • Toe 4c� Ya�y>�taca From: c7 .int _ Cate 7ransmitte+d: � �� No- of Paces.- (including cover Paz*.) Reectplen is Fax Yo: 3 g FaanalmHe Equipment: *,ut4*m=tW43rcup 11 (2,3 mina.); Group Ill. it there am any problems during tranomlaalon or dooumerna are rscelvd incomplat a, please ~ call (200) 771»0220 and oak for: o:nsoaPdonyanavflaxahoat.Coo - . t TRANSMISSION REPORT THIS DOCUMENT WAS SENT ** COUNT # 2 *** SEND *** VO REMOTE STATION I.D. START TIME DURATION #PAGES COMMENT 1 206 339 3049 9- 2-97 11:56AM 1'16" 2 �zl C1, GO of Edmond Community Services Department Buildijig-Pianning-Engineering 121 -S th Avenue North 9 2nd Floor Edmonds, WA 98020 Phone: (425) 771-0220 FAX: (425) 771-0221 FAX COVER PAGE To: &Mo,,411rlol� From: -- Date Transmitted: C) No. of Pages: I (including cover page.) Recipient's Fax No: 5,519 �jqq Facsimile Equipment: Automatic/Group 11 (2,3 mins.); Group Ill. If there are any problems during transmission or documents are received incomplete, please call (206) 771-0220 and ask for: I Re: x • THIS IS A LEGAL ADVE .;kMENT AND SHOULD BE BILLED TO TPLANNING DEPARTMENT { NOTICE OF HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING 8, NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Name of Applicant: Laeta Evans Project Number: CU-97-89 Project Location: 21702 98th Ave. W., Edmonds X 21Project Description: Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit in an existing single -family =I F residence. The property is zoned RS-12. i 01 City Contact: Meg Gruwell C W. Public Comment Period Due By: 9/18/97 LU cn W Name of Applicant: Brian Moll w C Project Number. V-97-91 Project Location: 16121 N. Meadowdale Rd., Edmonds Q Project Description: Critical Areas Variance/Reasonable Use Exception to allow a single -family residence and driveway to be located in a critical area; and a Variance to allow an increase in the maximum permitted height of 12-feet for a total of 37-feet above Z' t-j average grade. The property is zoned RS-20. o` City Contact: Meg Gruwell LU Lui Public Comment Period Due By: 9/18/97 cin Name of Applicant: V. Joseph Schmidt and Elnora Hili o`r Project Number V-97-98 W> W Project Location: 6908174th St. SW., Edmonds E . Project Description: Variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 15-feet In a RS-8 zone and 25-feet in — Z a RS-12 zone to 5-feet to replace the existing flat roof with a 4/12 pitch roof with U v_s eaves. The property is zoned both RS-8 and RS-12. City Contact: Meg Gruwell Public Comment Period Due By: 9/18/97 PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION DATE: September 18, 1997 TIME: 9:00 A.M. LOCATION: Plaza Meeting Room - 650 Main St., Edmonds 0. Sandy Chase; City Clerk Publish: September 4,1997 , �i �C rr Applicant Information Permit Ifformatwn777 Name otApplicant................ Brian Moll Requested Permits Variance/Reasonable Use Date of Application :................ July 7,1997 and Approvals ......... Exception Data Application Complete:.... August 1, 1997 Other Required Permits Unknown not yet applied for (if (} Project Location:................. 16121 N. Meadowdale Rd., Edmonds known):.......................... Project Description:--.......... Critical Areas Vadance/Reasonabie Use Required Studies related Unknown Exception to allow a single -family to the project :..........:...... residence and driveway to be located in a critical area; and a Variance to allow anDocuments'. Related Environmental State Environmental Policy Act 8 increase in the maximum permitted height Documents :.................... Critical Areas Checklist Of 13 feet far a total of 38-feet above average grade, The property is zoned RS- Public Comments Due:.- Sept. 18, 1997 by 9:00 A.M. �C rr Notary Public in a d for h tate of Washington . r. APO.dOd%LATemplfoms LU t - u ui c� 0 z P, APO.doc\L.lTempiforms : ,,. : .'.:':�. .:::�.;.:. .. �' .. ...... ,r �., z. _'. .. .... ._ ... � .�Sp�J��;V�.x U jP.,,4rt�T✓li�S.:tSX�'yr;.:fi e J n L'O Brian E Moll Greg S Casper Greg S Casper -' 16105 N Meadowdale Rd 16100 N Meadowdale Rd , - 00 w LLo Edmonds, WA 98026-4547 Edmonds, WA 98026-4547 arc aw S cn O f GrS Casper Greg C er Charitable Johnson N , -0 0 16100&,WA eadowdale Rd 16122 72nd Ave W Edm 98026-4547 Edmonds, WA 98026-4517 O' LU ua ` Fred B Bates Jack H Linge Richard Wittman a- 6960160th St SW 6970160th St SW' 15902 70th Ave W ? w w Edmonds, WA 98026-4537 Edmonds, WA 98026-4537 Edmonds, WA 98026-4513 W D O 'ver M Jane Lamoureux E B& Diane M Lockhart �- 1592 7 h Ave W 16008 70th Ave W 16010 70th Ave W z Edmo , WA 98026-4513 Edmonds, WA 98026-4512 Edmonds, WA 98026-4512 Dan & Shari Mataya Mar a oodBingham Marwood K Bingham 16020 70th Ave W 15805 nd Ave W 15805 72nd Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026-4512 Edm , WA 98026-4516 Edmonds, WA 980264516 z Cheryl A Chrysler G M Loboudger Tony J Demore O 15917 72nd Ave W 15920 72nd Ave W - 1593172nd Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026-4515 Edmonds, WA 98026-4515 - Edmonds, WA 98026-4515 Constance Johnson James Alan & Kelly Jean Kathryn Saldin 13812 68th Ave W Satterlee 16109 N Meadowdale Rd ® Edmonds, WA 98026-3232 16019 N Meadowdale Rd Edmonds, WA 980264547 Edmonds, WA 98026-4544 Keith William Van Meter John P & Linda L Young Kelly E & Christine Vaughn 16115 N Meadowdale Rd 9423 224th St SW 840818th Ave W 0105 Edmonds, WA 98026-4547 Edmonds, WA 98020-4567 Everett, WA 98204-1575 Eugene J Hills 16215 N Meadoivdale Rd.' I Edmonds, WA 98026-4927, MJ 0 OLID REkBLIC TITLE k ESCROW Seattle Property Information 1201 3rd Ave 111410 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone (206)521-8530 Fax (206) 689-8548 Q i °i - a z �; _ WS Brian Moll � VVhitley Jacobsen and Assoc W = 1218 Third Ave Ste 306 LO U- Seattle, Wa 98101 U. Date 07/10/97 Prepared By LO il F- x� Z i-; oi' Fax Number { ) Number of Pages z LU w ©: w W * SEARCH PARAMETERS x u. ##################### L.�I ui v = ITEMS SELECTED INDEX USED ######*###########################################*################## O� z # * 5133 000 050 03 Parcel Number * 5133 000 050 02 # * 5133 000 050 O1 #' * 5133 000 036 16 # * 5133 000 036 15 # * 5133 000 036 13 # * 5133 000 036 12 # r, # 5133 000 036 11 # * 5133 000 036 10 # * 5133 000 036 09 p * 5133 000 036 08 # * 5133 000 036 07 # * 5133 000 036 06 # * 5133 000 035 01 # * 5131 000 046 01 # * 5131 000 046 04 # * 5131 000 046 10 # ® * 5131 000 046 11 # * 5131 000 051 05 # * 5131 000 051 04 # * 5131 000 051 03 # * 5131 000 051 02 # F 0 'M Z R O`er C N PRO 'P A P 8 R T Y' A R T • Snohomish (WA) County z * ITEMS SELECTED INDEX USED WI. 5131 000,049 01 v * 5131 000 049 00 5131 000 048 02 A V, F * 5131 000 048 01 * 5131 000 048 00 p * 5131 '000 053 '00 LU Order U. # of Parcels Found 28 Property Sort ffi Site Address v� d p, Comments: LU UJI Mo a ww X �p -Z LD 1= T. O Z 1 ,t` c� �u E6 EU! z 1--, zR LU Uj; M L) Ni mLU 0 LU cn F - z 1*1 E. WHITELEYJACOBSEN AND ASSOC14TES Aicinmcis I ENGINEERS i P"KNUU 1216 TWO Avenue, Sulto 306 seethe, WA 98101 TfIePhOuc (206) 623-0331 Fax: (206) 46748{41 FACSIMILE I MEMO TRANSMISSION Ittransmission is not ccwnploW please call (206)623-0331 PROJECT- NiaLL 0� TO: ----cc&!—kVmmmL-- COMPANY: mh FROM: SRi.9pi PRQLL REGARDING: c4KWAM NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET. COMMENTS: WJA PROJECT NO: 27 DATE: FAX t. ATTACHMENTS: I. Mc, A?opt--,r 7v�- r -.&A- -A t-0 ^L.. .1 . ft - I Val COPYTO: Worm== IN WAFAXYLS — wilt N if ISM ST. SW Y -__ "- �,-L ; _��:: �:� ==per;-� , �, °t :.,..• n1 � � :� a e2 1 os ' y f'°9D\ t rr i { S ` s• tlto4l � 1 i f ' N .t 02 — wW. Pt ae °' cT Z j -Bd e� at z \„ 4T 3i . OF40OWD4tF Ri06i ...00076967 ro' oa i•D o U it_. r....=....t...:__ .s.__. _.................. 7}D3IJ 0265 ` ^ p ` w�aDOWDacEMOW • _ t 0 a of r 9 5 6 ,•® 'OfY.. P Z\ }, \ t NE/GNT p BF 3 649* : Er J I v V Comments: - Sr n et_'L OV GNU fof s 6 ov�- lP 17 "k 4'4c.18gv . CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY 210 STN AVBNUQ NCRTN + !lpMONCi, WA BSdPo • (248) 7f1-0220 '• FAX {200) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES OEPeARTMENT Public Wotke • Planning • Parke and Recreation • Ingineeting July 3. 1997 Mr. Brian E. Moh, P.E., S.E. ' 10113 Holly Dr., #D102 Rverett, '%'.A 98204 via fax: (206) 467-3441 No. pages: 4 Subject: INCOMPLISTE APPLICATIONS Dear Mr. Moll: This letter is in regards to an application for a reasonable use exception which you have submitted with your building permit for a single family residence at 16121 N. Meadowdele Road, and a separate application for a height variance for the same address. Those applications cannot be considered complete at this time. To complete the applications so that we may begin to process them you will need to submit the following: 1. The applicable fee which is: $132.00 ReasonableaUse Exception 264.00 Total 2. A notarized statement regarding the Adjacent Property Owner List (see attached form). Please note that the map drawn by the Old Republic Title company makes it appear that they did not k -row the shape of the lot, as they do not show that they went 300 feet around the flagpole portion of the lot (see attached - theirmap with my dashed line showing your property boundaries) . Before you sign the statement that the is correct, you may want to check. with them to see if they .lk`new tho shape .11st and went 300 feet atour�d the fla$pale portion of thr last 3. To satisfy the conditions of the conditional waiver of a critical areas study, you must submit a topographic survey statnfed by a licensed land surveyor. The map should show the portion of the lot which is a steep slope hazard area (over 40 percent slope), the 50 -foot buffer to the toe of the slope, and the 15 -foot building setback from the edge of the buffer. Please show, or include a statement explaining, that all of the house construction will be within the steep slope hazard area, and the driveway will also -be within' the steep slope hazard area and the required buffer. 4. A statement explaining how much of a variance is requested (i.e,: if the proposed top of spire height is 29D.0 feet and the average grade is calculated at 257.8 feet, e Tnrnrranrated Auaust 11. 1890 r 0 ®. =,:- M LOLL 0 Uj � 0, �j d- Uj wil LU Lul F- u. 0 z LU Cn 0 z El Ell C. OLD REPUBLIC TITLE &ESCROW Seattle Property Information 1201 3rd Ave #1410 Seattle, Wa 98101 Parcel' :5133 000 050 03 05-P BldgId No: Total AV:$60,000 Owner! :YOUNG JOHN P;LINDA L Land AV:$60,000 CoOwne r: Strct AV: Site :16123 N MEADOWDALE RD EDMONDS 98026 %-Improvd: Mail :9423 224TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98020 LevyCode:00217 Phone, Flooring : 1997 Tax:$732.98 Zoning :RS -20000 Sr. Tax : ZoningR: Exempt : ActlUse: Easement: Use :91000 VACANT,UNDEVELOPED,UNUSED LAND R -S -T -Q :04E -27N -05 -SW Legal :BLK 000 D-03 LOT 3 CITY OF ED SP V01:5 Page:42 Sauna' :S-13-91 REC AF NO 9203310033 BEING Map Grid:435 B7 Spa :A PTN OF LOT 50 EXST PLAT Nbrhd Cd:520 Plat :MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT Census :502.00 :1 Bedrooms : 1st Floor SqFt: Lot Acres :.46 Bath Full: 2nd Floor SqFt: Lot SqFt :20,038 Bath 31/4 : 3rd Floor SqFt: Year Built : Bath 1/2 : 4th Floor SqFt: Eff YearBlt: BathTotal: AboveGrnd SqFt: Bldg Type : Flooring : Bsmnt Fin SqFt: Roof Type : Fireplace: Bsmnt UnFin SF: Roof Shape : Heat type: Bsmnt Total SF: Siding Garage Loft SqFt Foundation : Units! Building SqFt Constructn : Sauna' Balcony SqFt Bldg Qlty : Spa Deck SqFt Bldg Cond : Stories Patio SqFt Bsmnt Type : Porch SqFt Bsmnt Grade: Garage SqFt BUILT-INS UTILITIES ......... Range/Oven: ......... Hood/Fan: ........... ElectSrvce :POLE Dishwasher: Vacuum : Wtr Source :PUBLIC Microwave : Intercom: Sewer Type :SEWER Gk ! bge Disp: OTHER INFORMATION ................ Elevator . ................ Waterfront Type : Fire Sprinklers: Waterfront Qlty : School District:015 Lowlands Street Type :BLACKTOP Tidelands Street Access :YES Topography Sidewalk Topography Prob Development View Quality Sale Date :12/26/95 E Tax#:19441 Previous Sale: Document #:237 Loan :$48,750 Previous $ : Sale Price:$65,000 FULL Type :CONVENTIONAL Seller:WILLIS MARK S/PEGGY Deed Type :WARRANTY Lender:WASHINGTON MUTUAL The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. - t , OLID JTRIEP LIC 'TITL'jvLlj + "Au-14SCRONV Seattle Property Information 1201 3rd Ave /#1410 Seattle, Wa 98101 Parcel :5131 000 053 00 07-P B1dgld No: Total AV:$300 z x Owner :JOHNSON CHARITABLE TRUST Land AV:$300 CoOwner: Strct AV: x 2; Site :*NO SITE ADDRESS* %Improvd: Q =�' LU Mail :16122 72ND AVE W EDMONDS WA 98026 LevyCode:00217 %oU o, Phone :206-743-2902 1997 Tax:$3.66 V)�. Zoning :RS -20000} {.�/ I Sr. Tax ZoningR: �% i� Sr. � �: {e �, L / Exempt .T ActlUse: V) �� Easement: o Use :94000 MISC,OPEN SPACE,GENERAL Lkyl" " R -S -T -Q :04E -27N -05 -SW Legal :ELK 000 D-00 - LOT 53 & N112 LOT 52 Vol:5 Page:38 4� ti :TGW TH PTN OF S1/2 SD LOT 52 LY NLY Map Grid:435 B7 LL §( :OF LN BAA,P ON E LN LOT 52 THAT I... Nbrhd Cd:520 z C, Plat :MEADOWDALE BEACH Census z H Bedrooms : 1st Floor SgFt: Lot Acres :3.18 O.' Bath Full: 2nd Floor SgFt: Lot SgFt :138,521 W W; Bath 3/4 : 3rd Floor SgFt: Year Built a Bath 1j2 4th Floor SgFt: Eff YearBlt: (JU)' BathTotal: AboveGrnd SgFt: Bldg Type . o p Flooring Bsmnt Fin SgFt: Roof Type . ,,,,W Fireplace: Bsmnt UnFin SF: Roof Shape : ti Heat Type: Bsmnt Total SF: Siding u p! — Garage Loft SgFt Foundation : zj W N Units Building SgFt : Constructn : Sauna Balcony SgFt Bldg Qlt . Spa Deck SgFt Bldg Cond . z Stories . Patio SgFt Bsmnt Type : Porch SgFt Bsmnt Grade: Garage SgFt BUILT-INS UTILITIES II . RangejOven: Hood/Fan: ElectSrvice:POLE .t Dishwasher: Vacuum . Wtr Source :PUBLIC Microwave Intercom: Sewer Type :SEWER Grbge Disp: OTHER INFORMATION .. .......... ......... Elevator Waterfront Type . Fire Sprinklers: Waterfront Qlty : School District:015 Lowlands Street Type :BLACKTOP Tidelands Street Access :YES Topography :STEEP`WET Sidewalk Topography Prob ® Development View Quality :AVG Sale Date E Tax# : Previous Sale: ;;;... Document #: Loan Previous $ ; Sale Price: Type Seller: Deed Type : Lender: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed.. '. 1 a o'; c _ -- . . m yLLl i a 7�31 _ MEADOWOALE iBE4CH SUPlY ENT io ol �� 158th. n. /5133/ 'rz 4gLo� S.W. os I ov I .x I 1 a (1 a F-T LTI 04 -4, 4 s a or .2 cz. ,g i 11C3 J a ~~�__ ) I 08 _. ---__ tfi� tiL� zI F � o, 081 � _ 55 07 14, 10 OR qN STI` o cr i 160th. ST S.W s � 711 as I j °9 i oq I' 3z 1 r__J �MF —W---- 63 DiyDq 45 g i q +• -, Lf� L S i <F \ ----q O2 pb ' O s n6 0904) : � \ Pot. 4' 7 r q -� L'F 1., ,, 02. Crr 3qo cq of o, 7 °r az s, 46- c 5 37 os lop o?, 14.14 DO WDA L.E RID, L? 3 '� c, 9'... LTJ r ryoanozss `� --x76961 WE TMONI' 66 00 4 \`. s 6 <.. rO Vp MEADOWDA 1.E Tr q 0 !�C m e Property Information Center,1201 Third Ave #1410, Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 521-8530 Fax: (206) 689-8548 File Name: moil The information provided is deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed. 7 IRW OLID REPUBLIC Prospecting List * TITLE AND ESCROW d * * Parcel Number Owner Name Site Address Assess Val Phone Number 5133 000 036 15 Daniel J Oliver *No Site Address* WA $55,800 5133 000 036 12 Daniel & Caria Oliver *No Site Address* WA $56,800 5133 000 036 10 Daniel Oliver *No Site Address* WA $10,000 5131000 049 01 Brian E Moll *No Site Address* WA $54,000 5131 000 05102 Greg S Casper *No Site Address* WA $48,200 5131 000 05103 Greg S Casper *No Site Address* WA $69,600 5131 000 05104 Greg S Casper *No Site Address* WA $184,500 5131 000 05105 Greg S Casper *No Site Address* WA $600 5131 000 053 00 Charitable Johnson *No Site Address* WA $300 206-743-2902 5131 000 046 01 Fred B Bates 6960 160th St SW Edmonds WA 98026 $308,600 5131 000 046 04 Jack H Linge 6970 160th St SW Edmonds WA 98026 $313,700 206-743-1117 5133 000 036 11 Richard Wittman 15902 70th Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 $306,300 206-745-0654 5133 000 036 09 D Oliver 15926 70th Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 $248,400 5131 000 049 00 M Jane Lamoureux 16008 70th Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 $246,900 206-745-8110 5131 000 046 11 E B & Diane M Lockhart 16010 70th Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 $234,200 5131 000 046 10 Dan & Shari Malaya 16020 70th Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 $288,400 206-742-2704 5133 000 036 08 Marwood K Bingham 15805 72nd Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 $77,200 t 206-745-8390 5133 000 036 06 Marwood K Bingham 15805 72nd Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 $402,600 206-745-8390 5133 000 036 07 Cheryl A Chrysler 15917 72nd Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 $131,400 t 5133 000 035 01 G M Loboudger 15920 72nd Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 $258,000 206-743-6551 5133 000 036 16 Tony J Demote N Meadowdale Rd Edmonds WA 98026 $138,300 5133 000 036 13 Constance Johnson 16009 N Meadowdale Rd Edmonds WA 98026 $162,500 206-743-9027 5133 000 050 01 James Alan & Kelly Jean Satterlee 16019 N Meadowdale Rd Edmonds WA 98026 $119,000 5131 000 048 02 Kathryn Saldin I6105 N Meadowdale Rd Edmonds WA 98026 $68,100 5133 000 050 02 Keith William Van Meter 16105 N Meadowdale Rd Edmonds WA 98026 $230,400 5133 000 050 03 John P & Linda L Young 16123 N Meadowdale Rd Edmonds WA 98026 $60,000 5131 000 048 01 Kelly E & Christine Vaughn 16209 N Meadowdale Rd Edmonds WA 98026' $238,000 5131 000 048 00 Eugene J Hills 16215 N Meadowdale Rd Edmonds WA 98026 $200,000 206-742-4203 Property Information Center,1201 Third Ave #1410, Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 521-8530 Fax: (206) 689-8548 File Name: moil The information provided is deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed. 7 A xi ~ F �E CITY OF EDS'+Q1•DS BARBARA FAHEY 121 STH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (425) 771.0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 MAYOR' COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works a PlanninglBuilding •Parks and Recreation .• Engineering •Wastewater Treatment Plant �nc.18q� August 1, 1997 Mr. Brian E. Moll 10115 Holly Drive, #D102 Everett, WA 98204 Subject: ASSIGNMENT OF HEARING DATE Dear Mr. Moll: Your application is now complete and has been scheduled for public hearing at the time and place listed below. ; Action: Variance File No. Assigned: V-97-91` Date of Hearing September 18,1997 Time: 9:00 A.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible. Place: Plaza Room Edmonds Library 650 Main Street Hearing Body: Hearing Examiner Please be aware that your presence at the hearing is highly'advisable. If an applicant or his representative is not present, the item may be moved to the end of the agenda. Items not reached by the end of the hearing will be continued to the following month's agenda. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (425) 771-0220. 1 ,t 'ft. Win iai r, ..�lyf jtt tT f t 4 of EDMEMORANDU ,11 z LU Q �r al Date: July 31, 1997 0 iLU to To: File No. V-97-91 (Reasonable Use Exception/Variance) S2 U- From: M.E. Meg Gruwell ` jJC Via: Rob Chave, Responsible Official U. Q d Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FOR MOLL REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION, VARIANCE,SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND GRADING; F— FILE NO. V-97-91 Q? g Lul I have had the opportunity to visit the site, review the environmental checklist, review the materials Q` submitted' with the variance application and the building permit application (including a geotechnical 0 h report), which have been prepared for the project. A copy of these are filed in the official file for this permit and with the building permit application, currently file PC -97-191. 3 u U- i= Based on my review of all available information and adopted policies of the City, I have determined that an . Zi environmental determination of nonsignificance should be issued for the project. U Yb The issues I have looked at in more detail include the steep slope, trees and height. The steep slope issues 0 will be dealt with both during the reasonable use excepdon/variance process, where conditions can be added, and during the building permit process, where the building department will require that they meet the requirements of Chapter 19.05. No conditions are needed beyond those processes. Only one evergreen tree is proposed to be removed, which is under the footprint of the future expansion area, with the rest of the mature evergreen trees planned to be retained. Due to the steepness of the slope, added height will not have a significant adverse environmental impact. Review by Responsible Offici 1 4! t I concur: _ I do not concur: Comments: i Rokehave, Responsible Official Date ri ®' Attachments #' pc: File No. V-97-91 File No. PC -97-191 ,x �s City of Edmonds cza Planning Division V•97.91C.DQC 07/31/97. 9 r . ; ; � .. iJ ri � 'f� {'� {art t . ° ! - ti J I "fit f '�, e� JJ (��� J � �"x i - ' •,t V EDA, I TY OF EDM+ NODS tisr..1 a99 - 250 ME AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) 771-0220 - - RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) Z ¢ ` DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFYCANCE cc �# Description of proposal: Construction of a single-family residence which requires a Reasonable Use C3 00; Exception/Variance to allow the residence to be constructed on a steep slope, Height Variance to allow a tower on vii UJ 01 the house to exceed the height limit of 25 feet, a Building Permit for the single-family residence and associated J �; grading on the site of more than 500 cubic yards of materials. (City of Edmonds File V-97-91 and PC -97-191). ( 0LU Proponent: Brian E. Moll -+ Location of proposal, including street address if any: 16121 North Meadowdale Road, Edmonds, Washington U. Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS Z"}'' The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c). This decision was Ui _ made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This L1� information is available to the public on request. ca U) COs F There is no comment period for this DNS. X This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by 4 Zl k' /9 7 HResponsible Official: Jeffrey S. Wilson O z PositiowTide: Current Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Services - Planning Division Phone: (425)771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds, 121 - 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 Date: Signature:. I1 XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 - 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than -5 r. 7— ,1997, by filing a written appeal. citing the reasons. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Jeffrey S. Wilson to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on�8. 1997, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services i.�. Building, and th�— } e 1?'dmPost Office. onds 3 J+ XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist. x �� I �t v-97-9:D.00c Page 1 of 2 713:ro7.seeA�" r Y - Mailed, to the following along with the Environmental Checklist: XX Environmental Review Section Department.of Ecology P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 - 7fR Applicant: . Brian E. Moll L 10115 Holly Dr., #DI02 Everett, WA 98204 � ppf nG`, pc: File No. V-97-91 3n3 s File No. PC-97-191 .t- SEPA Notebook' nU. zN E- o �1 a L `U ua trn? v :�c z { -a Pop2of2,; _-V.97-91D,DOC 7131/97.9EPA 1 E W� El Purpose of Checklist. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants. This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply". complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which YOU submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SKEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant" and "property or site" should be read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: !46-L P<r—r 2. Name of applicant: BIUAW L �JoLk- T.n S,F- I 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: CMT.VWI-NOV-50 MASMRWPA Page I of24 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): "Noq fz ii. ' J^pr 0y t'T{a'�.ji�;.,. 315. lilac-. (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Do you "have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? N yes, explain. am 77Rj t'" t k ULTs K 4 Trf. t to AM& S43 FT` 1� u PH nk- (STAFF COMMENTS) 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. --- -%t_DA—T -- - ,14A,� Usti hr�^,�;r_ (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. NO N t 1 + s 5: 1 t \ Y 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. f il. t (STAFF COMMENTS) At t�+o.beru�b�. w;e d3ctn�nsn.�✓%�^1:a rr �s' Cnt4rrtrti+thrn^� uf1 U 0' ;4a* 56. yep H.cl- 6c^, hryay A/1ro to I. tl) W - 0 11. - Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and size of the project and site. U2 r -i There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects'of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. C 1J , IP, 4, ?,.(' T 1 O - `i~TtiG it to leliJ i tiles fiii���r .DRi? til' Ff Z r Qi' z H�, LU 0, W W U. p(STAFF COMMENTS) V =T O �r 2 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide legal description, site plan, j vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the =•d agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. ctnuao=I-Nov-" I YY ....... . . ...... .. 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Fla ollin hilly, qeepslope mountainous, other: T ;-a CrUTVAL Allr� ALPYAAL AIj_Tr-tj .� (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? T" (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, day, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? if you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. tit L r-1 - M's (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Nth A A Pap 4 of24 CHXLTMoMt-XoV-" MAcnmwu 0 e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. NLL C"-IL63' R UJI .0 (STAFF COMMENTS) 5 /a 0! Lui .0 LO U.1 f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? U so, generally describe. —0 LU Te-1tq-- 'J -b-"Fu wc Co u�rrwa 5';711 A .tj t Ar--7TZR— To *m F - z (STAFF COMMENTS) O'' tu LW g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for j, 0 example, asphalt or buildings)? a < 4559 LU Uj X U U. z P r (STAFF COMMENTS) 0 Z It. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other Impacts to the earth, if any: i�'"' ma Gp-a')Nz 41 R Pa) 1"M "t; -41 (STAFF COMMENTS) 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. A -UTO Koi�i k S., Okam A� M rs (STAFF COMMENTS) CMUMI-NOV43 Page 5 of24 MAMMSPEA g , g 77 E. M (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: AtHs-A-z -ri Bor-w %iusc (STAFF COMMENTS) 3. WATER a. Surface: (1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. N appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. U0 (2) (3) (STAFF COMMENTS) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. (STAFF COMMENTS) F t- S.Z . � z (4) < Will the proposal require surface water withdrawalsor diversions. Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. mo Z # t 011 co (STAFF COMMENTS) tg— tO W Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. L Q �1L� z a- t- c, LU Lu (STAFF COMMENTS) a _ (6} Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the U-type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. z ILIA iW �= x 0 z' (STAFF COMMENTS) i b. Ground: (1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. ® h�1 C) (STAFl? COMMENTS) i G , Pao 7 of 24 CHUT.00 WOV-tn > Sf 7 1 r »b< (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: ' Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc,). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. To cc 13�U U 0in r cn w,: a (STAFF COMMENTS) W U. to C, C. Water Runoff (including storm water): - .. Z�(1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and Odisposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this LU LUI water flow into other waters? If so, describe. a� ' iTn M i ,) 67r- taJj t_ — t t°13C.i,P---'Ti -t a lY.7t4 j o N-,f n, Fa>'r i jr 1kAt) A Am/-\ CA*rLj4 F ogi ix : Lh IN At IAubLU LU tzl 0 r (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) t t ( �r d. ]Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: �sC:4'. �.�r��J�iS r.. �1 Ja �.. , (f } ,� `�1/ �• ten, t r 1 Y'r �F (STAFF COMMENTS)" hp (X24 MA51 MSPS NOVAS t xttr i 5 '- �'� l ;; . ; . � , , : �' s' � �^ i . u,....ri, i, . ..::` ,. a'�S ::x„.,. '. Jt s':;. ,": u�t?�Fw"=3 ; ",,�+s�aa'. < ;cr U x� �� � :4 ��,t�^'�''.���"�,,'j���rk��4'�s•��,e�-' i�r+�� k y 1, A c y r F 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: _ w1 shrubs j C� i'i grass n w` pasture J n u.' crop or grain i wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: cn,d. other types of vegetation: _ i , L JAC, 4F �.R.:(� 3l? lJ t ; 1,1C, t t - M I'S' �' � kjd� HLi Z t- - (STAFF COMMENTS) t- 01 Z- L" Ujt Of ®Uj t - w 11 z( b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? j =' ° 1 �r..>�tr" 7'✓2..P'fi f�tl'� L. �',r~- h"u:Yyx' R �R.. 1�.M���'h WILL � �"�F�` 1J t'%Stj, . TIdr (STAFF COMMENTS) C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 9 of24 CHKMOMI-NOVrs MAarMP&i k ea s l{�i K Y V • • Y � v � �a 5s t { � �i it { iY � t ..: .. _ _,.. ... . v. ..f...:....,..-.,:...�..w.....:..,w.«�...�..............:: .. .. ....:.{. . ,. ..�.i fi �.: a..__.:...::._.�......-....++r.+.':.ww.wi+iwilwyfaA+utuu ._.. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: is t�C_MfJi It l.Il; NATiVr. F'tAkm W LL fir_ i s -S� r 101 Ull' (STAFF COMMENTS) ;n LU U. 5. Animals rn a. Check or circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on 7C or near the site: x Z E—: ) birds: hawk, heron, eaglef,46ugbirds other: 2s mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver,other. Uj LU, �l 0 fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: 0 F_ (STAFF COMMENTS) UJ UA N N, U. pz1 _ b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. z �lJa til i (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. a s, (STAFF COMMENTS). Page 10 of 24h� CNKLTL10G11•NOVA3 MAMIRWRA J { j , 4 ` ......:.., .. ..,.....-:. .......... ... .. ` ..._.........w...a....onmry+wwenx wrt.r.Y4YaeltAc'W4Lb]:aYwzau.naaYufwwm�I+..rK-_wr+w+w.aw..... �.•--:..�.... r., 'r .... y �r" .>-............ ; .--�.�.,....«.—�-,-s. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: NiF_Tt.-i 1'u?t���,,. u tti= G/U+,.i'�!-�.�fi )�.t._y�►'T5' (tJ i^'t� � i Tei r.t�:i V. "rf 1`�� Fr• (.)/' r1 �t't^� � ri�if" U3 ril�f'f {(11nir Z z , A9:)rP .r., J,?tt'iir_'au i -J v' L) �i (STAFF COMMENTS) vl f � F V, o W 6. Energy and Natural Resources �a d a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed X ul� project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. 55 UJI a a� UJ ui (STAFF COMMENTS) Ul UJW ob. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally z describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) A. C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: " (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKLTAGt.'1I•NOV 93 Page it of24 MASMXSPBA s T A7 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. V tJi�::Nc�W nJ (STAFF COMMENTS) (1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. i) tJic:1J{ aJ3�.1 (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: () W<Vj0tA_1Jti1 b. CMKMOMI-NOV,93 MASTER MA �•} I - v �? � t t t �� i� CYt 2]� 3` r i � 4 1 - t� a�' }4 1 yk, �i)Y+�M �i Jt.. g i`s.r i i 1 i t f 2`..»-...` ..... _._ - ._..... ..........:.. ... .._._�.... .. w^x:�,.m.N.ww.`�s..eo-.,.,.+:w.w.w« '.��....:.....,._ ..:.._, i.... '.:4.. _..'.. ......,.:.......... .e...__. ._. ... (2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Q ,� �j�JryT'Siwi.>��.�rhP�- � 1�`��r5; ��{�i'J�$M T,� �=i'c'Y'iQ►�'+ �—.:�f � Y.:J/I � ► lC'' t 1)t..lQ.'F11 K�Tti • hJ �,......R..if4i' Uzi (STAFF' COMMENTS) cn, a w (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: zP-: C•;»►�t'"�'rzs�c^7',r,i�s�s 1,1t' iRPc� t-�rcS 01. w w. ai. 0— (STAFF COMMENTS) UJ z z L p, 8. Land and Shoreline Use _ a. What is the current use the adjacent ¢�— of site and properties? 2� f (STAFF COMMENTS) t�. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) 4 Page 13 of 24 CHKLT.0WI-XOV 93 . MARM%SPEA .. LU u. iti 0 Z Pap 14 of24 CnnT.D=I.NOV43 MASrgRWU z LU 2 D U 0 O W x tL I1! V Q z CHUTMWI-Novas Pap 15 d24 MASMSPBA HE t Y ,..i. n,. ,. ... � l '�� a.w.w+...olmr.rv..wn..rww.�• t..........:.«.:..i.. ` .� � A_..,..:.._t 1t r.'`_ '... _."_ b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? fife ,FAQR..:nT:J I a'/iy7pLLr- y�f� ►�i�!(%.7p,, 1'ISJ�T l'...t�r+v �. li}� t%iti%iI�'` i iii' T�1.li`i�i �'Pt3±�' {T 1`Jdtill: d C3 V �,J OI (STAFF COMMENTS) o i V) UJ� J F-� UJ C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: H LL t q 3 ��Q1 A�' i�i�' t`.'c..�' �` 't �.17i� t � t� A NJ1 ARs7oNt z r Q; (STAFF COMMENTS) LU Wu G 11. Light and Glare r W W a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? U. til cn: t� g, o� (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? s Vx (STAFF COMMENTS) �a P417 OM MAMMA �• �1i .. .... .......:...,.7. , r. � ., , f .:, , . , � t 5! . �.t..:1,.,. ?:, 4a2��.�incS' ®+�. $....:t � 51..4-!•r. ?`�.t����r,Q?�2�.irT�?�s�v iPi,?au�9�si niitr��.E� d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: C Ii (STAFF COMMENTS) n n+' 12. Recreation n u. U a. What designated and informal recreational opptortu(n`iitiiess are in the immediate vicinity? URz z.j, LU wl a(STAFF COMMENTS)' ua us t elF- cn b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. O~ �� Z _ r.. eft ,z+ r � � i f C Y� (�3.174S 11 `Z,f wavKrif4wamti.0 t11Y+YLY:Wh1�LtNNAhRtIRtlWVaLd'YeM�Wn W'wiaia+m' .,i }: r .1....'S h�a'................ ,.•n -'. .:• 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation . a. Are there any places or objects fisted on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS), i b. Generally 'describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be, on or next to the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) I G Proposed measures to n or control impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENT'S) 14. Transportation a Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access4o the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. t ---,AM {N D C nT.OW1-N0V-z MA61$RMA LU S h LL., LU F - p Z N r 41 .. - [: i •-' ' g, i ',rk � Gtr r f�h >,. .si � Y x f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? u known, indicate when peak volumes would occur, z F- J �` L)01 WLU Z� (I). U. (STAFF COMMENTS) U- 0 (n Z t-j, g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:; g�J' TRAjk-rhTotJ itiUMAt. J., wf o to LU UJ (STAFF COMMENTS) iii 0 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? H so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: n.11� 4 ®' (STAFF COMMENTS) �. 4 i Pap 'ZI of 24 CMT.=I Hovis F MASMWRA b D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to *read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the cc environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the .0 0 proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented., Respond �i briefly and in general terms. o� � M± 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of LO - toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? OU LU z zt 01 ty Proposal measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: W Wj D Q; U e a F- W LU U. Oj 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? v 0 s i Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? i } j f Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: z }R°C Page 23 of24 cMroocu-riovAs� MMASTEMSPBA IN n c_�".+..♦IT"T>:..- ... ,! `+ a a' .1 .2 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplain, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: S. now would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to Increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requiriments for the protection of the environment U Page 24 of74 CMT.D=I-?40V-93 MAMR*SPZA W", RT - N R, 17T 5. PUGEf MA BFi- C.weTH tM5 5 }�&1rvwAsrsw > �e PE �w am �tW xIPE 1 1\ NORM Encw a .flaw msT ujrx ePl swsw N�.x a N s'EI NORMA 8EgACH fl 'tE SOUND � FISHERI'"iq ,r � `qg w s T . €fir va w } - _ w s31E3Ro Sr3 tsRNo3 € a are : a C iSExR - `r �vx6 P i ' 1 Project a P sw 1 �?31ssn SiteSxTI W gt MEADO �Tsw;a 3 °qKR 333 �3snx 'ssry sr3 �g �.sni Ilrvm s�3nlsrl E=1 sr [AEW(7CAE TLF i� �uf 13 -$i Wnsw ¢rJ Pte 3=5W ___ �o.l ',.,'.i.gwrx�a.:S i WaI o3 KEELERu — —.—JA �Ea rE sv� 'OR Nip 1 3 ROE ■ i e 3 3 s i 3 3 3 a 1 T i a 164TH ST SW x PL R Q SW ( W^GHQ ( €IMFRTHA tgKE j �eeEr m I�, � 9 � 168TH ST � SW e 6 •-- .N J 'w t>z o oi11e 172ND n 8e s 1 3 'Q s �ST.T. sw I o _ LOCAUTY MAP: d tlt��lands/MM eadowdals SCALE: NTS r Or 'se rT u EL 300 feY'y___. PHASE I PHASE IN ._.- -- EL 290•' J' HOUSE N _--, ' M.- - - - - - EL "280 ! FUTU E REINF. DGYD RETA ING - — + _ _ — _ — _ EL 279 E%isilGRADE DASHE .WALL SHOWN THIS REGION — — — _ f PROPOSED filiSH GRADE/ REINF. ..RETAINING "-"' } — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _' EL 260 REGION FLOOR SHOWN SOLD' THIS _ WALL SEE T SA2T ib EL 250 BENCH EXIST GRADE TIpS KEY INTO i. NEW STRUCT! FILL PER CEOiECH: RE�ORTi" - —' — _ -- — —• — — — — — — : — — _ EL 240 -' ---- -- - - - - EL 230 SITE SECTION D-D SECTION 5 FORR ROOKERY ELEVATIONS NCETEVT SCAIE:. T'=10' CISHFOR ti. CITY ®F E. hONDS 10075 COMMUNITY SERVICES' _ DATE: Received of: Address: Pro ect Location: Phone: Check o.. Cash Total Received Water MeterAmount Size: . Water Connection Fee Sewer PermiURe air Tn nk Cha e Sewer Connection/L113 Fee R/W Construction Pee it Fee , Street Cut/Restoration Fee 820 Fund S#reet 1)1i il''11,13 ion Fee 011 Fun En Ineerin 2.2% Inspection Fee a En ineerin S ecs & Plans Fee t Storm Drainage Fee Street Use Permit Buildin Permit Fee Plan Check Fee Stale Surch�ar a IR22 Fund) { inninn a ii u - t s I T" n T_5 WJA WHITELEY JACOBSEN AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS / ENGINEERS / PLANNERS 1218 Third Avenue 3" Seattle Tower Seattle WA 98101 Telephone (206) 623-0331 Fax (206) 467-8441 z City of Edmonds Lu SUBJECT: Edmonds Plan Review 21 260 5th Ave N. =y Reasonable use statement & clarifying topo C1 -2.A U Edmonds, WA 98020 0 Approved as noted ❑ uj Zi M As requested U. 0 WE ARE SENDING YOU: ATTACHED Return _ corrected prints El Review and rj Shop Drawings Prints u1i Copy of Letter Change Order Z, E 0 pot A LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE: 11 -Jul -97 [JOB NO. 1627 ATTENTION: Meg Gruwell SUBJECT: Edmonds Plan Review Moll Residence Revised adjacent property owner list per your comments 1 Orig Reasonable use statement & clarifying topo C1 -2.A 1 orig UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: JUL 15 1,097 Plans safflolfibsk � Specifications PERMITCOUNTER COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 Orig Notarized Statement For Adjacent Property owner list 1069 Revised adjacent property owner list per your comments 1 Orig Reasonable use statement & clarifying topo C1 -2.A 1 orig Variance Statement per your request. For your use Approved as noted ❑ Submit _ copies for distribution M As requested Returned for corrections THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below., I ' M For Approval Approved as submitted Resubmit _ copies for approval P9 For your use Approved as noted ❑ Submit _ copies for distribution M As requested Returned for corrections Return _ corrected prints El Review and Prints returned after FOR BIDS DUE..119L_ comment loan to us REMARKS: Meg, Please toss the original adjacent proprty owner list and use the attached in its place. Please attach the Reasonable Use exception statement w/ prior submitted items Please attach the Height Variance statement w/ prior related items Thanks COPY TO: SIGNED: jewo P.E.,S.E. If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us. As' ap- mialty -ite in J AD*... �; � :r� .r. ® y ` Ln r bX". 11 g} ltect ral $ nUh 6ta Work =A ' Staatsburg, New York 12580 - Z Specializin in Finial s Fax (914) 889-8350 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT from AD*... �; FABRICATION & SUPPLY CO. 309 Hollow Road, Dept. TB =A ' Staatsburg, New York 12580 =' „24.3 (914) 889-8390 Fax (914) 889-8350 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT tti Krk * MOCK-UP PROTOTYPE & PRODUCTION `" = ,14, • REPRODUCTION, RESTORATION M -fiMun • MODEL & MOLDMAKING METALS, SHEET, & CAST WOOD, PLASTICS, COMPOSITES; - FLEXIBLE, OR RIGID. WRITE IN NO. 7440 Sz rg wa o V)a [n LU LU V)Q w Na z F - H0 Z �— w= �a a U o !-j LU ujl = Ls H F- 0 W (j) U y O~ z E u a { w' .r r _APPLICATION ROUTING FORM :, ',,'FILE : 1C-9i=Ji AND CHECKLIST:,FFIOM. PLANNING R F `l� ROUTED TO: RETUfiNED EnIfIneerin Fire 7/9/97 Firs , Public Warks 7/9/97 Public 1Narirs Parrs at Rec. 7/3/97 Parks ex Rec. ; Staff Comments:,%fl LZ °44X i .1 *PEP. U'S AIA SECT" Rom OF THE CODE? { *COHt SOTS US11117i OtiliT r-OF11S�a S C"SE il, ' i E COD SIDERED Additional Information Rewired for Complete Application 'Additional Studies Required to Complete Review • Owner -BRIAN E. BOLL Property Address 1 S l 2 ti ISI. PIEADOVV©ALE RD. a • ©ate of Application 7/7/97 • Type VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT at REASONABLE USE EXCEPT 014 • Hearing Required: Yes X� No Date of Hearing (if known) X Application Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8,5 x 11) X Fee Site Plan (31 x 17) s X' APO List Le als (Existing & Proposed) rUe Report `Environmental Assessment X unity Map Proof of 2 -Year mccupaney {ADU) X Elevations X Declarations {Variance) Petition (Official Street Map) , X Environments! ChecklistL. F '., X Critical Areas Determination ` r i t h 4 5 F y. r 1 MEMORANDUM Date: July 10, 1997 To: Planning Division From: Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator q .Subject: Variance for Moll (16121 N. Meadowdaie Rd.) (V-97-91) The application has been reviewed by the Engineering Division. The Engineering Division has no requirements to impose at this time. The applicant should be aware that if over 2000 square feet of impervious surface is created, storm water detention will be required. R condition of the building permit will be to pave the driveway and construct a vehicle turnaround on the site. The applicant will need to comply with all the terms of any future permits. The application is considered complete at this time. Z _w x y = � U O LU LU Lx J f- V)o W� ¢r D, _, z� ,- o �W �n U o— a �—j W u,! z L, "- O "z u; N U= o� z 10 i 4PPL.ICATIOKROUTING,FORM " FILE ';' W97:91 kb CHECKLIST GROIN' .t*LANNIN#3 Jlli- t u t��7 ROUTED TO: ' . PUBLIG ORKS DEPT RETURNED Engineering 7/9!97 q Engineed j Fire`719/97 Fire t ` ,,r ' 'Public-' r Parks'8t Rec. 7/9797 Parks et Rec. 't At, Staff Staf Comments: 77 * PER WHAT SEC. I'll OF 'ME CODE, *COMM ENTS WITHOUT 4 WILL' -NOT BEC+®1tsHSIDE1tED .Additional information Required for Complete Application : "Additional Studies Required #o Complete Review • Cswo#er . BRIAN E. MOLL i a • Property Address l 6 i 2 t N. ME OW ltD. * Date of Appiieadon 7/7/97lr a • Type VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT lit REASONABLE IISE EXCEPTIfJN . .' e Hearing Req#aired. Yes X Na Date ofHearing {If known? X Application 5de Plan for.ShortSUb(JfVlSion (8.5 x 11) X Fee Site an (11 is X APO Ust Eage ts (Existing & Pmpgsed} r� Title Report�Environmenta! Assessment . X Vicinity Map Proof of 2 -Year Occupancy (A66j X Elevations X Declarations {Variance) Petition (Official Street Map) X 'Environmental Chackiisi X Critical Areas Determination U `i Vii 'r 1 ' 1 i T t!1 o 0� -APPLFC ATiOt+ A00TtNG FORM FILE V 97;91 AI'�I®'CHECtE1.IST OROM. #"iVN1N ROUTED T0: REi ItRNED 1 FIRE DEPT. ' �'.� ,ir Engineering 7/9/97 Engineers M.. Fire : ---- Pabsic worsts 7/9/97 Pubssc Parks tai Rec: 7!9/97 Part i3z Ric. ' l> Staff Comments: *PER WHAT'SECTION OF THE C IaEZ { *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATION W[LLlNQT-. Bt CONSIDER'E® t 'hditional Information Required for Complete Applica#ion r "Addt%nal Studies Required to Complete Review i ( ( • Owner BRIAN E. MOLL • Property Address 16121 N.tEAbOWDALE RD'. i • Date of Application 7/7!97 e Type O/ARIANCE FOR WEIGHT 6t REASONABLE USE.EXG�PTION • Hearing Required: Yes X No Date of.-.earsn9 (if knodv n} r fl X Application Sita`Pian for Short Subdivision (8.5 x'11). X Fee Site Plan (11 x 17) F P {A. X APO list I.agats (Existing &Proposed) Title Report Environmental Assessment ry X Yidnity Map Proof of 2 YearAccupancy (AbUj X Elevations X tdare tions (Variance) Petition (Official Street Map), X ; ` Enuironmental .Cheditt ' X Critical Areas Determination �r r I;i h f l k1 y r .-,.. . s.., *. x t i,. i �.. 1.Tw .� G • .d W (j' :. t 0 ~ V— m m , =d�PPLt Ai'10N.62OUTINiG FORM eNDt;F6tri:Kti^.�1' ; FI2Ci�l. ,iP&��idi'�Ri>!C d �Lv F RQUTED TO: RETURNED z LU Engineering 7/9/97 Engineering Fire 719/7 Fire. o U Public Worlcs 719/97 Pubiit Works ` o : LU Parlts at Rec. 719/97 Partts �t i�ec 7 0 uj Staff Comments: J _? L , A PER �111K.] I Sr ° flaD� GE, 0,71a c L CCDt� � ti Ho�i� s llw �i � �� i ��� i� ® o*Additional Information Required for Complete Application 5LU r *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review Z �f 1. 0 z ®. Owner BRIAW E: MOLL . Property Address 16121 N. MEADOWDALE Rb iz date of Application 7/7/97 ® • Type VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT ex REASONABLE I.JS8 EXCEPTION s Hearing lzeciuired: . Yes X Nc date ail" Hea0ng (.i Icnov�t) ' C2 X Application Sde Pdan for Short Subdivision (8.; X, Pee ; site Ptan�(11 x 17}': X APO list Legals (Existing tx Proposed rifle Report Environmentat Assessment: X . Vicinity Map Praof of 2 -Year Oceupancy.4ADuj X Elevations : X Declarations (us,rtance} Petition (Otficiat Street Map);- X Environmental Cttectcf�st X' Critical Areas Oeterminatlon 0 0 city of ec�onds land use arnflication Z 0 Z �-� W LU to UJ LU L) LL z UJ (n o z _'f� B U I'L DJ N 6 U L - 2 11997 FILE _q_[—ZONE DATE -1-1-9-1 REC'D BY FEE�U64 RECEIPT# IvN ft - !y 100 7 HEADING DATE HE 13 STAFF 13 PB 13 ADB 0 CC TAKEN: L3 APPROVED L3 DENIED (3 APPEALED Applicant 'RklAQ C. M(3LL r,,C' Phone (425'1 Address 1011S HO-LLLi Lr,, 4b1o2 Evs,!LEJTUJA 58 f) Property Address or Location 16121 W, !JEADOW WLJ Q Qb. 1vJE-A-boLJZ(1- tj Jj5 Property Owner S(Irz APF iCAN-T Phone Address Agent —Phone Address Tax Acc #. S i 1- ow Z0113 - 0103 Sec. Twp. _ Rng. Legal Description SE.F. LO -172- OFF ALK 2t4cCr PLAT- 43. Details of Project or Proposed Use L TAAS 11,19 SOFSMMA1_ 9, kE _'A Qf4C-:0Q_,kT The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds tc enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT.`k/k&AJ �-- 7Z�E 0 L1 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD 13 COMP PLAN AMENDMENT 0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UA: 0 HOME OCCUPATION 13 FORMAL SUBDIVISION 0i E3 SHORT SUBDIVISION 0; 13 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 0 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT U.1 0 OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT 01 STREET VACATION �:i El REZONE M C3 SHORELINE PERMIT <' X VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION I(,HT U­4rr s. Q OTHER Z 0 Z �-� W LU to UJ LU L) LL z UJ (n o z _'f� B U I'L DJ N 6 U L - 2 11997 FILE _q_[—ZONE DATE -1-1-9-1 REC'D BY FEE�U64 RECEIPT# IvN ft - !y 100 7 HEADING DATE HE 13 STAFF 13 PB 13 ADB 0 CC TAKEN: L3 APPROVED L3 DENIED (3 APPEALED Applicant 'RklAQ C. M(3LL r,,C' Phone (425'1 Address 1011S HO-LLLi Lr,, 4b1o2 Evs,!LEJTUJA 58 f) Property Address or Location 16121 W, !JEADOW WLJ Q Qb. 1vJE-A-boLJZ(1- tj Jj5 Property Owner S(Irz APF iCAN-T Phone Address Agent —Phone Address Tax Acc #. S i 1- ow Z0113 - 0103 Sec. Twp. _ Rng. Legal Description SE.F. LO -172- OFF ALK 2t4cCr PLAT- 43. Details of Project or Proposed Use L TAAS 11,19 SOFSMMA1_ 9, kE _'A Qf4C-:0Q_,kT The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds tc enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT.`k/k&AJ �-- 7Z�E 0 Applicant_ 1�11-(AM Q. MOLL Phone NZ5)'24-8-66i2- Address 10115 HOLL> 4 bR- * NQ -1— E\F--M-Ti WA R264 - Property Address or Location PAEAbiXJ&)1X-- 12-b , KGAb T)ALM WA Property Owner 1QEF— MuMm7- —Phone Address Agent Phone Address Tax Acc 000- (3:12 - 41 0� Sec. Twp. Rng. Legal Description Q� LOT 2 OF FqL—Y' SHnfa PLA -t NO, S -R-31 Details of Project or Proposed Use 0 CR5rCK_U4�,7 The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the 0 application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information fumished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF APP' CANT1 OWNER/ AGENT PC 'qx: 177237,77,1-7, 0 �i .... b4 ,-. ,....._..::;.....,.w...+u�,.�:....�_..._.�'.'.1 ?._... ..—_...._...... _...:....,_..__.....•...,.,:::...........:......::,+.....,«._::::r ..�.i . :: �. _ ..,.....,...-..+,..«Mora �� i„V t is S = • lark cob + t � q iNi,tale�s�a1e distributors Of Building 111lliat�rials F 89th Avenue South • Kent. Washington 98064-5370 19809 '7332 FAX: i-800-32 Ira AMWi-80- � CARO BERGLUND � `t Commercial Specialist ° r, LU r -_: tp DATE 9 155 JOR....:� ta�L,. `cSL�C�.LE. _.. _ . - - -- 601 _. �.� ;�__ J N �. i..Li'-.LL� r , to 0 '/» .{'+.tit tAl `�M � . ..,....._. �M..+Y.'w.•� �.1J` I .. r ' _,-------^s' +-,-,_._"_'•„'-'.�.... �,.,.,. M 776 U. O y ul i 1 T j -AV�IU-BGG._ Gt ISS NGs , z j ?a.V.►L.�lN.0 F• t,s O Ai. iISE s z OVY &.PATIO DOORS FOR: CO CIAL.& �sT�TI' ;ANI>ERSENO PERMA•SHIELD® $ ' t• Q o� Pin check # 97-191 C, Dater 22 Jane 1997 Prqect Name/Address: moll Residence, 16121 N. meadowilkle Rd. Contact Person/Address: Brian E. MOB PESE 10115 HOBy Dr #D102 EVfmttWA'020+. Puffrence: Reasonable Use EWyllon Criteria -attached usc.:Ectpttoii stens: My= to ft I: The property was purchased with t he intent of budding a sf H&k family residence th ere. II is currently zoned for residential. Reyonse to Item 2: it is zoned RS20for slig1cfmily residential. Response to Item 3: The slope is at 25.6 Degrees, which is less than the angle of repose of sands which range from 26 deg. to 33 D% The angle Of repose is the maximum slope at which the soil is stable. The site and project have been ev"ted it %Utire4 Geotechnical Engineer and a registered Structural Engineer. My= to Item 4: The house was designed armul the existing trees and terraced into the side of the 4e, toward the west side of the yroverty which is oyen. This area had previously been it terracedgardm. Response to Itm5: The project isdestpilto the city of Edmods'ElgWeering Design standards and The untfomBuddinscode. Response to Item 6: The project was purchased from Falk short ylat as develOphlifor single jantily ralme, andreviewedlYthec4of, Edmonds October 1993 for critical areas detemifutfon. Response to item 7. The process for a reasonable use efteytton variance was Initiated and submitted to city With SEPA on 23 June, 1997. sincerely V'9a4L-' 4r. 1W � Sp - Brian E. MOB P.E, S.E. 0 x "Ima I - VI rcl �I W o) EL 300 JI J� �"-PHASE t PHASE III _ _ _ �' EL 290 HOUSE �I QI I11N- w 280 >. I ' SET, INF. CONIC RET "NO WALL ENISTI GRADE- SHOWN _ _ _ _ " - •. DASH THIS. REGION _ _: ._. -:777 _. .� _. _. _ _. ._ _. EL 260 'PROPOSED FINISH CRADEl -' REINF CONC. WALL SEE RETAINING HT. SA2.1 i -- : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FLOOR SHOWN SOLID1Mi5 REGION ' I R M -O- _ _._ ._ _ _ _: _. _ _.._ _ _ •- EL 250 F 8ENCH EXIST GRADETO KEY INTO NEW STRUC T' - 0 FILL PER GEOTECHRETjoRT - ; _ _ _ _ _ _—• _.._. ._ _. _. ._ _. _ —. EL 240 -- — ------C^-- ". -- ---- --- EL 230 ♦1 _S�I HT C1.5 FOR ROOKERY ELEVAMNS G SECTION D -D 7 SEE SHTECI FOR ROCKERY CO STRUMN , CALE: 1 =IO'::: t �2. ;, W 0 Z w 0 0 LU x u3 cs 0 Z J C. 1;8`10 July 3, 1997 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 STH AVENUE NORTH > EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (2061771-0220 • FAX (206) 771.0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering Mr. Brian E. Moll, P.E., S.E. 10 115 Holly Dr., #D 102 Everett, WA 98204 via fax: (206) 467-8441 INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS III: No: pages: 4 BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR in regards to an application for a reasonable use exception which you have th your building permit for a single family residence at 16121 N. Road, and a separate application for a height variance for the same address. ations cannot be considered complete at this time. the applications so that we may begin to process them you will need to flowing: 1. The applicable fee which is: $132.00 Reasonable Use Exception $132.00 Height Variance $264.00 Total 2.; A notarized statement regarding the Adjacent Property Owner List (see attached form). Please note that the map drawn by the Old Republic Title company makes it appear that they did not know the shape of the lot, as they do not show that they went 300 feet around the flagpole portion of the lot (see attached - their map with my dashed line showing your property boundaries) . Before you sign the statement that the list is correct, you may want to check with them to see if they knew the shape of the lot and went 300 feet around the flagpole portion of the lot. 3. To satisfy the conditions of the conditional waiver of a critical areas study, you must submit a topographic survey stamped by a licensed land surveyor. The map should show the portion of the lot which is a steep slope hazard area (over 40 percent slope), the 50 -foot buffer to the toe of the slope, and the 15 -foot building setback from the edge of the buffer. Please show, or include a statement explaining, that all of the house construction will be within the steep slope hazard area, and the driveway will also be within the steep slope hazard area and the required buffer. 4. A statement explaining how much of a variance is requested (i.e.: if the proposed top of spire height is 290.0 feet and the average grade is calculated at 257.8 feet, 0 i " • Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan t, �n 2x11 ®;; Mr. Brian E. Moll July 3, 1997 Page 2 ou would request a variance to Y q allow a home and attached spire to to 32.2. feet C9 go feet). instead of the maximum allowed 2S18 0'' Your',application` for the reasonable use exception' and height variance will not be o processed until the above are received. if you have any questions, please contact me at a ,M- 771-0220. o Sincerely, Meg Gruwell d` Planner PrC UJII Z F Encs: 0 - 0 Z . z LWJ T' O. Z t i . 2x11 ®;; P z_ t—i W Wi �i u N z0 u- O z Uj to t.v g o� z E Ell 4✓� WJA WHITELEY JACOBSEN AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS / ENGINEERS / PLANNERS 1218 Third Avenue 306 Seattle Tower Seattle WA 98101 Telephone (206) 623-0331 Fax (206) 4674441 City of Edmonds 250 5th Ave N. Edmonds, VILA 98020 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL, DATE: '— 3 -Jul -97 JOB NO. 1627 ATTENTION: Meg Cruwell SUBJECT: Edmonds Plan Review Moll Residence ;� . ® For your use jAW —01 7. WE ARE SENDING YOU: ® ATTACHED For Approval UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA Approved as submitted ® For your use FOR BIDS DUE 19_ _ THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: Shop Drawings Prints Returned for corrections Plans Samples Review and Copy of Letter Change Order Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 Orig check for 264.00 reqd for variances 1 Orig Revised Reasonable use w/ Clarifying info per your request 1 Ong - 1 orig - THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: M For Approval Submit copies for distribution Approved as submitted ® For your use FOR BIDS DUE 19_ _ Approved as noted As requested Returned for corrections Review and Prints returned after comment loan to us REMARKS: If enclosures are not as noted, Idndly notify us. }ry. N n. �. Resubmit copies for approval Submit copies for distribution Return corrected prints FOR BIDS DUE 19_ _ If enclosures are not as noted, Idndly notify us. }ry. N n. �. h f:l r.4 z W O Cl O a LU s LL z 18 p�,�C ,i i . � • Ca iI ��]Ed[ua�antdS �'� Critical Areas Checklist The Critical Areas ClimMist contained on An applicant; or bislher vpae=fttive; must this forms to, be filled out by any person till out the chsign and date it, mtd , pseparang v.Dmdopment Permit Submmititto the City. The: City will re:viewl Application for the City of ]Edmonds prior the checklist; maks aprecursory site visit, to hislher submittal of a development -permit and maloa a deterrnfination of the subsegma to the City. steps necessary to complete a development pmt application. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staifto deteamine whether any potential Critical Arras we or maybe present on the sQ icer proprdy. The information need to complete the C hwMist should be casaly avaulable from observations of the site or data available at City Mall (Critical Areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). With asigna ed oopy of this fora, the applicant shodddm scbmitavicinity map ofthe pared with enough detail that City staff can find and identify the sulbject parcel(s). In addition, the applicant is encouraged to incht& any other pertinent information or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assist staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. I have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of nay knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below). Owner/Applicant:- -- wneriApplicant: Nance STR,1Lr--t ?ALtM—=F-R Title Street Address EVER -F -Ir WA %20 q- 348-66il City, State, ZIP Phone > r • Pt' �3•�.7 • �9 Signature Date Applicapt Representafivc: --SiMr— AS OWNER. Name Street Address City, State, ZIP Phone Signature Date Site Information Project Name:�ber SiieIacatian: tG3A Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): r�G2t^ Have you filled out a Critical Areas Checklist for a project on this site before? General Site Conditions 1. Has the site been cleared or logged? f'i mate of most recent action: j Soils i Topography /�( vtTwooP a w � (i�v Uxul zs `f' tWCOC"lf L+�tzt✓ sNr�l� tsa►rt e�: Z6' 's, 2. In the Snohomish County Soil Survey, what is the mapped soil type(s)? _ i 3. Describe the general site topography Check all that apply. Flat: Iess than 5 feet elevation change over entii+e site. X Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10 feet over a horizontal distance of 66 fcet.) Hilly. slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10 feet of horizontal distance) ?r _Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site. Comments 31_6!)#CATF J)PJy+-%A;4 (c' RELXnUQ=j4 FLr4T lcEMRJtt4'��1• or Nt;=M Hydrology/Vegetation 4. Site contains areas of year-round standing water. 5. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water. N 0 Approx. DeptIc 11A_ 6. Site is in the floodway NO floodplain N t'} of a water course. 7. Site contains a crock or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? NC- flows are year-round? IA—Flows are seasonal? 8. Site is primarily: forested : meadow ; shrubs _;mixed �HRt►S� ' 9. Obvious wetland is present on site: 10. Wctland inventory or map indicates wetland present on site: t 11. Critical Areas inventory or map indicates any Critical Area on site. 0 LL n z UJ v a 0 LU x LL v 0 Z u 0 C3 CJ City of Edmonds Critical Argas Determination Applicant: Brian E. Moll Determination #: CA -93-245 Project Name: Permit Number: Site Location:[ 16121 N. Meadowdale Rd Property Tax Acct #: 5131-000-049-0103 Project Description: Single Family Residence Waiver Criteria (all criteria must be found to apply): XXX There will be no alteration of the Critical Area or its required buffers; XXX The development proposal will not impact the Critical Area in a manner contrary to the goals, purposes, objectives and requirements of the Critical Areas ordinance; XXX The development proposal meets the minimum standards of the Critical Areas ordinance; XXX The above findings are based on the following conditions of approval: 1. Before any permit application may be applied for, submit to the Planning Department a topographic survey prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor delineating Steep Slope Hazard Areas. Any slope over 30% with more than 10 feet of rise will be classified as a Steep Slope Hazard Area. A 50 foot buffer is required from both the top and toe of the slope. A 15 foot building setback is required from the 50 foot buffer. 2. If the results of the above survey determine the lot unbuildable, any development which is not identified as an exception per ECDC Chapter 20.15E must receive a Reasonable Use Exception or a Variance pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.180A and 20.15B.040C). 3. All proposed development of the subject lot must meet the requirements of Chapter 19.05 of the EdmondsCommunityCommunity Development Code. Name Signature Da e .. • LL n z UJ v a 0 LU x LL v 0 Z u 0 C3 CJ City of Edmonds Critical Argas Determination Applicant: Brian E. Moll Determination #: CA -93-245 Project Name: Permit Number: Site Location:[ 16121 N. Meadowdale Rd Property Tax Acct #: 5131-000-049-0103 Project Description: Single Family Residence Waiver Criteria (all criteria must be found to apply): XXX There will be no alteration of the Critical Area or its required buffers; XXX The development proposal will not impact the Critical Area in a manner contrary to the goals, purposes, objectives and requirements of the Critical Areas ordinance; XXX The development proposal meets the minimum standards of the Critical Areas ordinance; XXX The above findings are based on the following conditions of approval: 1. Before any permit application may be applied for, submit to the Planning Department a topographic survey prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor delineating Steep Slope Hazard Areas. Any slope over 30% with more than 10 feet of rise will be classified as a Steep Slope Hazard Area. A 50 foot buffer is required from both the top and toe of the slope. A 15 foot building setback is required from the 50 foot buffer. 2. If the results of the above survey determine the lot unbuildable, any development which is not identified as an exception per ECDC Chapter 20.15E must receive a Reasonable Use Exception or a Variance pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.180A and 20.15B.040C). 3. All proposed development of the subject lot must meet the requirements of Chapter 19.05 of the EdmondsCommunityCommunity Development Code. Name Signature Da e .. F. 20.158.050 �s 4. Existing and ongoing agriculture as defined in ECDC 20.15B.020(R). Such activi- ties shall not allow critical areas or their buff- ers which are not currently under agricultural use to be converted to agricultural use. Normal and routine maintenance of existing irrigation and drainage ditches shall be exempt except for those ditches used by salmonids; or 5. An application for a building permit for a lot within a development for which criti- cal areas study had previously been prepared; provided, that the previous study contemplated and evaluated the type of development pro- posed to occur on the lot. This exemption does not preclude city staff from conditioning a land division permit pursuant to the requirements of this chapter to require subsequent individual building permit review on specific lots within a subdivision or short plat. B. Public Agency or Utility Exception. If the application of this chapter would prohibit a development proposal essential to its ability to provide service by a public agency or public utility, the agency or utility may apply for an exception pursuant to this section. After hold- ing a public hearing pursuant to ECDC 20.100.010, the hearing examiner may approve the exception if the hearing examiner finds that there is no other feasible alternative to the proposed development with less impact on critical areas, and the proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas. Any decision of the hearing examiner is final unless appealed pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.170(C). Proposals approved for an exception by this section shall be constructed using best management prac- tices as defined within ECDC 20.15B.020(C). C. Reasonable Use Exception. If the appli- cation of this chapter would deny all reason- able use of the property, development may be allowed which is consistent with the general purposes of this chapter and the public interest; provided, that the hearing examiner, after a public hearing, finds: 1. This chapter would otherwise deny all reasonable use of the property; (Revised 8196) 20-30 2. There is no other reasonable use con- sistent with the underlying zoning with less impact on the critical area or its buffer; 3. The proposed development does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the property; 4. Any proposed alteration of the critical area or its buffer is minimized to the extent pos- sible to allow for reasonable use of the prop- erty; 5. The proposed activity complies with all state, local, and federal laws including those related to sediment control, pollution control, floodplain restrictions, and on-site wastewater disposal; 6. The inability to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant or a predecessor in title in segregating or dividing the property and creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter; and 7. The applicant may only apply for a reasonable use exception under this subsection if the applicant has also applied for a variance pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.170(A). Any decision of the hearing examiner regarding this reasonable use exception shall be final unless appealed to the city council pur- suant to ECDC 20.15B.170(C). [Ord. 3087 § 2,1996]. 20.158.050 Sequence of actions. When an application for a development pro- posal, as defined by this title, is made, the fol- lowing sequence of actions will be required of the applicant and city staff prior to issuance of any development permit. Details of the full sequence of actions will be contained in the administrative procedures for this title. A. Applicant completes and submits a crit- ical areas checklist, as provided in the admin- istrative procedures for this chapter, to planning staff; B. Staff reviews the checklist and deter- mines any requirement for detailed critical area study"within two weeks of receipt of the .. WJA LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL WHITELEY JACOBSEN AND ASSOCIATES ARCHYPECPS l ENGINEERS t PLANNERS 1218 TWA Avenue 306 Seattle Tower Seattle WA 98101 Telephone (206) 623-0331 Fax (206) 467-8441 City of Edmonds 250 5th Ave N. Edmonds, WA 99020 DATE:.._ 1 -Jul -97 JOB NO. 1627 -_ ATTENTION: Lara Knaak SUBJECT: < Edmonds Plan Review Moll Residence Response to Variance Criteria items 1 Orig THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: Shop Drawings WE ARE SENDING YOU: ATTACHED 1 Orig UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA 1 Odg Response to Variance Criteria items 1 Orig THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: Shop Drawings Prints Plans Samples Q Copy of letter ❑ Change Order loan to us Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 Orig City of Edmonds Variance form ' 1 Odg Response to Variance Criteria items 1 Orig Site Section 1 orig 1994 UBC Height exceptions comment loan to us REMARKS: THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below. For Approval Approved as submitted Resubmit copies for approval ® Far your use ❑ Approved as noted Q Submit copies for distribution J As requestedReturned for corrections Return corrected prints r Review and Prints returned after FOR BIDS DUE V9 comment loan to us REMARKS: Lara, Thanks COPY TO: SIGNED: P.E-S.E. i. If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us. 4 F17.47'y' tY� z Lu 2 C.1 0 0 w Z r LL U h - O Z `f. JGWtvli YVi. PNr Aa SE(7DN 506 -- MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF BUILDI, AND INCREASES The maximum height and number of stories of buildings shalt be dependent on the character of the occupancy and the type of construction and shall not exceed the limits set forth in Table 5-B. except as provided in this section and as specified in Section 302.1 for mixed occupancy buildings. EXCEPTIONS: 1. Towers, spites and steeples erected as pact of a building and not used for habitation or storage arc limited as to height only by structural design if completely of noncombustible materials, or may extend not to exceed 20 feet (6096 mm) above the height limit in Table 5-8 if of combustiblematerials. 2. The height of one-story aircraft hangars shall not be limited if the building is provided with automatic sprinkler systems throughout as specified in Chapter 9 and is entirely surrounded by public ways or yards not Iess in width than one and one-half times the height of the building. The story limits set forth in Table 5-B may be increased by one story if the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system throughout. The increase in the number of stories for automatic sprinkler systems shall not apply when the automatic sprinkler systems throughout are installed under the following provisions: TABLE S -B -BASIC ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHTS AND BASIC ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA FOR BUILDINGS ONB STnAV m1 umnuTl R-3 H Ul. 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 A I Unlimited S-4 See Tabic 3-H Us H A See Chapter 3 n-ounurng area to square tees. N -No requirements for fire resistance. H -Building height in number of stories. FR. -Fire resistive. H.T.-Heavy timber. UL-Untimited. NP -Not permitted. I For multistory buildings, see Section 504.2. '--For limitations and exceptions, see Section 303.2. 3For open parking garages, see Section 311.9. 4See Section 306.3. SSee Sections 307 and 412. hSee Section 308.2.1 for exception to the allowable area and number of stories in hospitals and nursing homes. 7See Section 312.2.2. $For agricultural buildings. see also Appendix Chapter 3. 9For limitations and exceptions, see Section 310.2. 9 to TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION I a In 1 N I V M F.R. on"our N Onsuoar N N.T. Orw ltntrr N TYPE OF CON= UL (48788 mm) (to in) (1878 mm) {1981122mm) (1BTaOmm) (188Zmm) Its 2M mm) (12192 min) use a" mmm x QAaa9 Tor A-1 H UL 4 A UL 29.900 Not Permitted A-2.2.12 H UL 4 2 NP 2 NP 22 NP A UL 29,900 13,500 NP 13,500 NP 13,500t14.000 ,500 NP A-3,42 H UL 12 2 1 2 1 22 C A UL 29.900 13500 91100 13.500 91100 13.500500 6.100 B.F-1, M.S-i, H UL 12 4 2 4 2 43 2 S -3.S-5 A UL 39.900 18,000 12.000 18,000 12,000 18,000382 T1000 I,2, 34 H UL 4 2 1 2 1 22 1 A UL 45,200 20.200 (3500 20-100 13500 20.200.700 9.100 F-2, S-23 H UL 12 4 2 4 2 4 3 2 A UL 59.900 27,000 18,000 27,000 18.000 27,000 21.000 12,000 H-15 H) ( I ) A 15.000 12.400 5,600 3.700 Not Permitted H-25 H UL 2 1 1 1 1 11 1 A 15.000 12.400 5,600 3,700 5.600 3,700 5.600 4.400 2.500 H-3.4.53 H UL 5 2 1 2 1 2 2 A UL 24,800 11-100 7,500 11,200 7,500 11.200 8.800 1 5.100 H-6.7 H 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 A UL 39.900 18.000 12.000 18.000 12.000 18.000 14,000 8.000 1-1.16.1.2 H UL 3 1 NP I NP I I 1 NP A UL 15.100 6,800 NP 6.800 NP 6.800 5,200 NP 1-2 H UL 3 2 NP 2 NP 2 2 NP A UL 15.100 6.800 NP 6.800 NP 6,800 5,200 NP I-3 H UL 2 A UL 15.100 Not Pertnitted7 R-1 HUL i2 4 24 4 29 5 3 24 A UL 29,900 13.500 9.1004 13500 9.1009 13,500 10.500 6,0009 R-3 H Ul. 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 A I Unlimited S-4 See Tabic 3-H Us H A See Chapter 3 n-ounurng area to square tees. N -No requirements for fire resistance. H -Building height in number of stories. FR. -Fire resistive. H.T.-Heavy timber. UL-Untimited. NP -Not permitted. I For multistory buildings, see Section 504.2. '--For limitations and exceptions, see Section 303.2. 3For open parking garages, see Section 311.9. 4See Section 306.3. SSee Sections 307 and 412. hSee Section 308.2.1 for exception to the allowable area and number of stories in hospitals and nursing homes. 7See Section 312.2.2. $For agricultural buildings. see also Appendix Chapter 3. 9For limitations and exceptions, see Section 310.2. 9 to i P ®;, a � I c3 rf a a r t ......... .:: ... ..,..^.... .... .. •: ....._...:...._.:�....'n:.umwsanata4uuew+w.uw+arw�aw.w..:i:.... ...... - OLD AR'Ej TITYD w OES� O Seattle Property Information 1201 3rd Ave #1410 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone(206)521-8530 Fax (206) 689-8548 s ■ Brian Moll 10115 Holly Dr #D102 �! Everett Wa 98204 0 Date 06/27/97 Prepared By a Tr• zF-t Fax Number ( ) Number of Pages � of w uj U to 0t- * SEARCH PARAMETERS s u N �7 LL (,�� 'klk'fYfirtir**ktkit+ktt**tkIlrlFtktk9k9ktYttlk*'tFsYietit4ekiM*it9k"k'*ait9Ftk*tYirtkvktt'k9t11r1Ftktk�lr*tlr91ttY91ttkt�rtktA*tkktkirtktk * ITEMS SELECTED INDEX USED w N U X. o~ * Z * 5131 000 048 02 Parcel Number * 5131 000 048 01 * 5131 000 048 00 *` * 5131 000 051 OS * 5131 000 051 04 *. * 5131 000 051 03 * 5131 000 051 02 * 5131 000 049 01 * 5131 000 049 00 * 5131 000 046 11 * 5131 000 046 10 ® * 5133 000 036 13 * 5133 000 036 07 * 5133 000 036 16 * 5133 000 036 15 * 5133 000 036 12 * 5133 000 036 11 * - * 5133 000 036 10 * 5133 000 036 09 * 5133 000 036 0$ # of Parcels Found 20 Property Sort Order = Site Address'. ,$ ry, .. ® a'_d`7�'A�'+y 4 .'ti lz llgP fi� 4 LS L tl v Pbf .it�zT vt i b 4S A tY ti epi h 7t'#4 l.i i4 f7 r. a• ,t t k �.ii^pchtflai` °9t y ..: i ,. i ,. „ �. }tt;, ts' J)a : .^� lx Y .,i .,_,.j, f'S nYo�J.4.'r'i•'ti! b.. y.. f4 a1.Yi1}k'»kip tSw?Av.i�..3 11 .' 1�.Nn*:ft.irl:C:/81 1 1®