The URL can be used to link to this page

pln20070084.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER rnr 1ggv In the Matter of the Application of Ron and Susan Hilliard For a Variance. NO. V-2007-84 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR SUMMARY OF DECISION The request for two variances from the street setback standard of the RS-20 zone is GRANTED, subject to conditions. SUMMARY OF RECORD Request: Ron and Susan Hilliard (Applicant) requested two variances from the 25-foot street setback standard of the RS-20 zone to construct a single-family residence ten feet from 758, Place West and ten feet from 1560` Street SW. The subject property is located at 15515 75t' Place West, Edmonds, Washington (Tax Parcel Number 00500900000101). Hearing Date: The City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner conducted an open record hearing on the request, and viewed the site, on February 7, 2008. Testimony: At the open record hearing the following individuals presented testimony under oath: 1. Gina Coccia, Planner, City of Edmonds 2. Ron Hilliard, Owner/Applicant 3. Alvin Rutledge Exhibits: At the open record hearing the following exhibits were admitted into the record: 1. Staff Report dated January 29, 2008 2. Vicinity Map 3. Variance Application filed October 23, 2007 4. Applicant's Criteria Statement, with aerial photograph 5. Site Plan dated January 4, 2008 6. Building Elevations (six pages total) 7. Traffic Impact Analysis Work Sheet, approved by Engineering January 3, 2008 Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds Hilliard Variance, No. V-2007-84 Page 1 of 9 Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan 8. Notice of Application and Hearing Examiner Hearing dated January 17, 2008, Notice of Development Application dated November 13, 2007, and Affidavits of Publication, Mailing, and Posting 9. Hilliard Lot Line Adjustment Map (LL-2007-69) 10. Hearing Examiner's Decision for File V-2006-52/53 (2006) 11. Map of properties along 75 h Place West that have received variance approval 12. Memorandum from Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager, dated November 1, 2007 13. Email from Steven Barnes to Ron Hilliard dated February 7, 2008, with Site Plan Survey dated January 4, 2008 Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted at the open record hearing, the Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions: FINDINGS 1. The Applicant requested two variances from the 25-foot street setback standard of the RS-20 zone to construct a single-family residence ten feet from 75 h Place West and ten feet from 156h Street SW. The subject property is located at 15515 75a` Place West, Edmonds, Washington (Tax Parcel Number 00500900000101). Exhibit 1, page 1; Exhibits 3, 4, and 5. The Applicant received City approval of the requested street setback variances and a height variance on July 13, 2006 (V-06-52 and V-06-53), but those approvals have expired. The Applicant has re -designed the residence to avoid the need for the height variance. The requested variances arc from the required street setbacks only. Exhibit 1, page 2; Exhibit 10; Testimony of Mr. Hilliard. 3. The Comprehensive Plan designation of the subject property is Single Family — Resource. City staff identified the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies as being applicable to the proposal: Residential Development Section, Goal B: High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic considerations, in accordance with the following policies: B.1. Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. B.3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds Hilliard Variance, No. V-2007-84 Page 2 of 9 E • B.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of the slope, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage. Soils and Topography Section, Goal B: Future development in areas of steep slope and potentially hazardous soil conditions should be based on site development which preserves the natural site characteristics in accordance with the following policies: B. 1. Large lots or flexible subdivision procedures, such as PRDs, should be used in these areas to preserve the site and reduce impervious surfaces, cuts and fills. C.2.a. Buildings on slopes of 15% or greater shall be designed to cause minimum disruption to the natural topography. Vegetation and Wildlife Section, Goal B: The city should ensure that its woodlands, marshes and other areas containing natural vegetation are preserved, in accordance with the following policies: B.2. Removal of trees should be minimized particularly when they are located on steep slopes or hazardous soils. Subdivision layouts, buildings and roads should be designed so that the existing trees are preserved. B.4. Grading should be restricted to the building pads and roads only. Vegetation outside these areas should be preserved. Exhibit 1, pages 3-4. 4. The subject property is zoned Single -Family Residential, minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet (RS-20). The minimum street setback in the RS-20 zone is 25 feet. The minimum side yard setback in the RS-20 zone is ten feet, provided the side yards total 35 feet. Exhibit 1, page 4. 5. The subject property is a 0.33-acre (14,228-square-foot) corner lot, with 75a' Place West serving as its west property line and 156t` Street SW serving as its south property line. The subject property is currently undeveloped. Exhibit 1, page 2; Exhibits 2 and 5. 6. The northern and eastern portions of the subject property contain a steep slope. The elevation change from the toe of the slope to the northeast property corner is 100 feet, and the slope gradient is 123 percent. The slope is classified as a geologically hazardous area. Exhibit 1, page 3; Exhibit 5. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds Hilliard Variance, No. V 2007-84 Page 3 of 9 7. The Applicant proposes to construct a single-family residence in the southwest corner of the subject property, at the only location that is unencumbered by the slope. The proposed residence would have a main floor footprint of approximately 2,000 square feet, and a total living area of approximately 3,700 square feet. The scale of the proposed residence is modest as compared to other newer residences in the neighborhood, which range in floor area from approximately 3,000 to 6,000 square feet. t Exhibit 5; Testimony of Mr. Hilliard; Testimony of Ms. Coccia; Exhibit 10, Page 7, Finding No. 11. The Applicant would be required to demonstrate compliance with the City's critical areas regulations prior to issuance of a building permit. These regulations require a buffer and building setback from the toe of a slope, but allow these to be reduced with the concurrence of a geotechnical report. The Applicant proposes to place the residence adjacent to the toe of the slope, and will submit the required geotechnical report. Due to the extent of the slope on the property, it would be impossible for the Applicant to construct a residence entirely outside of the buffer and setback areas. Testimony of Ms. Coccia. To mitigate the effects of the reduced street setbacks, the residence has been designed to reduce the appearance of building mass as viewed from the street. For example, the residence has a stepped -back design, with the building height increasing from front to rear. To further reduce building mass, the roof has a low slope. The overall height of the residence would comply with City standards. The residence would not adversely impact any views. Exhibit 13; Exhibit 6; Testimony of Mr. Hilliard; Testimony of Ms. Coccia. 10. The 15601 Street SW right-of-way has not been developed into a public street. The right- of-way contains only an asphalt driveway serving a single-family residence. Due to a steep slope to the north, the City has no plans to develop a street in that location. The proposed residence would be set back a minimum of ten feet from the north edge of the right-of-way, and 41 feet from the residence located on the south side of the right-of-way. Exhibit 4; Exhibit 13; Testimony of Mr. Hilliard; Testimony of Ms. Coccia. 11. The reduced setback from 75th Place West would not adversely affect traffic safety. North of 156`h Street SW, 750' Place West provides access only to the subject property and one other lot. The street is barricaded a short distance north of the subject property to prevent public access into Meadowdale Beach County Park. The traffic volume on 75'h Place West in the vicinity of the subject property is therefore low. Exhibits 4 and 5; Testimony of Ms. Coccia. 12. The City Engineering Division reviewed the variance application and recommended approval, subject to a condition that the Applicant provide a minimum 20-foot driveway depth to allow for parking without encroaching into City right-of-way. Exhibit 12. The Applicant proposes a 20-foot driveway, although the driveway appears shorter on the Site t For example, a residence across the street from the subject property, within was built in 1995, has a floor area of 4,985 square feet and an attached garage of 1,010 square feet. Fxhibit 10, Page 7, Finding No, 11; Testimony of Ms. Coccia. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds Hilliard Variance, No. V-2007-84 Page 4 of 9 • • Plan because a portion is covered by deck overhang. Exhibit 13; Testimony of Mr. Hilliard. 13. With the current lot configuration, the proposed building footprint does not satisfy the side yard setback standard of the RS-20 zone because the distance between the residence and the north property line and the distance between the residence and the south property line would total less than 35 feet (the north property line is a side yard, even though the south property line is a street). The Applicant owns the undeveloped parcel immediately north of the subject property, and has obtained City approval of a lot line adjustment that would provide the necessary side yard area on the subject property. The adjacent parcel is completely undevelopable due to steep slopes. The Applicant has not yet recorded the lot line adjustment. Exhibit 5; Exhibit 9; Exhibit 1, pages 4, 5, and 8. 14. The City Planning Division recommended approval of the variance application, subject to conditions. One of the recommended conditions was that the Applicant install a five-foot walkway along the subject property's 75t' Place West frontage. This condition was based on engineering requirements identified in conjunction with the 2006 variance approval. The Engineering Division did not request a five-foot walkway in its comments on this variance application. No evidence regarding the need for the condition was presented at the hearing. However, the Applicant provided credible testimony that the Engineering Division is considering installing a walkway along the entire length of the road and is seeping a financial contribution from the Applicant rather than actual improvements. Exhibit 1, page 9; Exhibits 10 and 12; Testimony of Ms. Coccia; Testimony of Mr. Hilliard. 15. Notice of the open record hearing was published in The Herald on January 18, 2008, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site on January 17, 2008, and posted on site. Exhibit 1, page 2; Exhibit 8. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction: The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide variance requests pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.100.010(B). Criteria for Review: Pursuant to ECDC 20.85.010, the Hearing Examiner may not grant a variance unless the following findings can be made: A. Special Circumstances. That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 1. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds Hilliard Variance, No. V-2007-84 Page 5 of 9 uses as set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats. 2. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property; B. Special Privilege. That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; C. Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan; D. Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located; E. Not Detrimental. That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone; F. Minimum Variance. That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Conclusions Based on Findings: 1. Due to special circumstances relating to the topography of the subject property, strict enforcement of the street setback requirements would deprive the owner of rights and privileges (i.e., a reasonable building envelope for a single-family residence) permitted to other properties in the vicinity and within the RS-20 zone. Findings 5, 6, 7, and 8. 2. Approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege. The variance would only provide the Applicant with a reasonable building envelope for a single-family residence, consistent with surrounding land uses. Findings 4, 5, 6, and 7. 3. With conditions of approval, the variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed residence would harmonize with its surroundings, and would cause minimal disruption of the site topography. Conditions are needed to ensure that trees are preserved outside of the development area. Findings 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9. 4. With conditions of approval, the variance would be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance. One of the purposes of the zoning ordinance is to protect the character of residential uses within the City by regulating individual parcels of land to prevent Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds Hilliard Variance, No. V-2007--84 Page 6 of 9 unreasonable detrimental effects. ECDC 16.00.010(B)(3). One of the purposes of the residential zones is to preserve views. ECDC 16.10.000. The variance would be consistent with these purposes because it would maintain the existing residential character of the neighborhood, would not have detrimental effects on surrounding properties, and would preserve views. The setbacks resulting from the variance would be the same as permitted for side yards. The south property line (156 b Street SW) is similar to a side yard because the right-of-way is not developable. Findings 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10. With conditions requiring a 20-foot-long driveway and compliance with the City's critical areas standards, the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and within the RS-20 zone. Insufficient evidence was presented at the hearing to warrant a condition requiring a walkway or similar mitigation. However, the Applicant will be required to comply with any engineering standards identified during the building permit process. Findings 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 14. 6. The variance would be the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties. The scale of the proposed residence is reasonable, and compatible with other residences in the neighborhood. The residence has been carefully designed to reduce the building mass as viewed from the street. The Site Plan depicts that only small portions of the residence would be exactly ten feet from the streets; in most areas the setbacks would be greater. The steep slope on the subject property prevents the Applicant from moving the residence to the north or east. Findings Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9. DECISION Based on the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request for two variances from the 25-foot street setback standard of the RS-20 zone to construct a single-family residence ten feet from 75th Place West and ten feet from 156th Street SW at 15515 75th Place West is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval authorizes the street setback variances as depicted on the Site Plan dated January 4, 2008. Development of the subject property is subject to all other applicable requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code. No building height variance is authorized by this approval. 2. No concrete slabs or structures shall be placed within City right-of-way. 3. Side setbacks to the north and east property lines must add up to a total of 35 feet from added to the street setback opposite them. To ensure the minimum side setbacks are achieved, the Applicant shall do one of the following: a. Record approved Lot Line Adjustment No. LL-2007-69, or b. Apply for a lot combination to combine Tax Parcel Numbers 00500900000101 and 00500900000400 into a single lot. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds Hilliard Variance, No. V-2007-84 Page 7 of 9 0 • 4. Approval of this variance does not imply compliance with the City's regulations for environmentally critical areas (Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 of the Edmonds Community Development Code). To ensure compliance with these regulations, the Applicant shall do the following prior to building permit issuance: a. Submit a geotechnical report demonstrating the project's compliance with the Landslide Hazard requirements of Chapter 23.80 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. b. Submit a tree cutting and clearing plan, for compliance with the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation requirements of Chapter 23.90 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Tree cutting and clearing of native vegetation shall be limited to the development footprint. 5. The minimum depth of the driveway from the garage to the property line shall be 20 feet from the most restrictive point. 6. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to commencing development of the site. 7. This variance shall be transferable. 8. The owner must act on the approved variance within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and become null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of time before the expiration date, and the City approves the application. Only one one-year extension is permitted. DECIDED this 21 st day of February 2008. Toweill Rice Taylor, LLC Hearing Examiners for the City of Edmonds By: �.�L �i 1 •_��• �. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing requests for reconsideration and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a request for reconsideration or an appeal should contact the Planning Division of the Development Services Department for further procedural information. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds Hilliard Variance, No. V 2007-84 Page 8 of 9 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Section 20.100.010(G) of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) requires the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his or her decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony, or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. APPEALS Chapter 20.105 of the ECDC contains the appeal procedures for Hearing Examiner decisions. Pursuant to Section 20.105.040(A), persons entitled to appeal include (1) the applicant; (2) anyone who has submitted a written document to the City of Edmonds concerning the application prior to or at the hearing; or (3) anyone testifying on the application at the hearing. Sections 20.105.020(A) requires appeals to be in writing, and state (1) the decision being appealed, the name of the project applicant, and the date of the decision; (2) the name and address of the person (or group) appealing the decision, and his or her interest in the matter; and (3) the reasons why the person appealing believes the decision to be wrong. Pursuant to Section 20.105.020(B), the appeal must be filed with the Director of the Development Services Department within 14 calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. The appeal must be accompanied by any required appeal fee. TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeal run concurrently. If a request for reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his or her decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request is filed on day five of the appeal period, an individual would have nine more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.85.020(C) of the ECDC states, "The approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of time before the expiration and the city approves the application." NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may, as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner, request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for City of Edmonds Hilliard Variance, No. V 2007-84 Page 9 of 9 • CITY OF EDMONDS • 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER lnc.1S9v In the Matter of the Application of ) Ron and Susan Hilliard ) For a Variance. ) NO. V-2007-84 GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR DECLARATION OF SERVICE DECLARATION 1, LeAnna C. Toweill, the undersigned, do hereby declare: 1. That I am a partner in the firm of Toweill Rice Taylor LLC, which maintains a professional services agreement with the City of Edmonds, Washington for the provision of Hearing Examiner services, and make this declaration in that capacity; 2. That I am now and at all times herein mentioned have been a citizen of the United States, a resident of the State of Idaho, over the age of eighteen (18), and competent to be a witness and make service herein; 3. That on February 21, 2008, I did serve a copy of the decision in the case V-2007-84 upon the following individuals at the addresses stated and in the manner indicated: I. Ron and Susan Hilliard 20831 23rd Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036 2. City of Edmonds Development Services Dept, Attn: Diane Cunningham 121 - 5 h Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 3. Edmonds City Council 121 - 5 h Avenue North —1" Floor Edmonds, WA 98020 4. Alvin Rutledge 7101 Lake Ballinger Way Edmonds, WA 98026 Service was made to each party above by: ❑ By facsimile transmission. ❑ By electronic transmission (e-mail). By mailing to the person named at the address of service via US 1st Class Mail. • Incorporated August I1, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Idaho that the foregoing is true and correct: DATED THIS day of , 2008 at Boise, Idaho. Y LeAnna C. Toweill Toweill Rice Taylor LLC Serving as Hearing Examiner for Edmonds, Washington FXC14Z 9 HEARING EXAMINER February 7, 2008 Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Ave. North 3:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Public Hearings A. FILE NO. V-07-84: Application by ftn Hilliard for two street setback variances: (1) to reduce the required 25 foot street setback along 156tt, Street SW to 10 feet; and, (2) . to reduce the required 25 foot street setback along 75t" Place West to 10 feet in order to construct a new single family residence. The applicant received approval for these variance requests in 2006, but the application has since expired. This project is located at 15515 75th Place West (Parcel 00500900000101) in the Single -Family Residential (RS-20) zone. B. FILE NO. V-07-96: Application by Joseph M. Mucci for Clare and Steve Long for a height variance for an addition to an existing single-family residence to allow a portion of roof ridge to exceed the required 25-foot height maximum. The project is located at 20024 Maplewood Drive in the Single Family Residential (RS-12) zone. 3. Adjournment PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE ACCESSIBLE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (Contact the City Clerk at 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations) fhc 1$°)13 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98= • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwb.edmonds.wa-us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR PLANNING DIVISION REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Project: File Number: Date of Report: Planner: Ron & Susan Hilliard Street Setback Variances January 29, 2008 Gina Coccia Public Hearing: February 7, 2008 at 3:00 P.M. Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers 250 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION: The applicant plans to build a home on a vacant lot in North Edmonds. Because the property is encumbered by a steep slope (critical area) to the north and east, the applicant has proposed to locate the house as far south and west as possible to stay away from the toe of the slope. This results in their request for two street setback variances to allow their proposed home to be 10 feet from the south and west property lines, where 25 feet is required. The following is staff's analysis of the project. II. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Request: Two street setback variances, a reduction from the required 25 feet to ten feet from 75th Place West and 1561h Street SW (Exhibits 4 and 5). 2. Review Process: Variance — the Hearing Examiner conducts a public hearing and makes the final decision. 3. Major Issues: a. Compliance with ECDC 16.20.030 (Single -Family Residential Site Development Standards). b. Compliance with ECDC 20.85 (Variances). c. Compliance with ECDC 23 (Critical Areas). Exhibit 1 V-2007-84 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan •d Street Setback Variances File Number: V-2007-84 4. Owner/Applicant: Ron & Susan Hilliard (Exhibit 3). S. Tax Parcel Number: 00500900000101. 6. Location: 15515 75' Place West, Edmonds (Exhibit 2). 7. Zoning: Single -Family Residential (RS-20). 8. AcreageSquare Footage: 0.33 Acres (14,228 square feet). The owner also owns the vacant property to the north (which is completely encumbered by a steep slope) and he has applied for a Lot Line Adjustment under file LL-2007-69, received approval from staff, but it has not yet been recorded (Exhibit 9). 9. Proposed Use: One single family home consistent with the zoning designation (Exhibit 6). 10. Existing _Use: Vacant. III. HISTORY / BACKGROUND: The applicant owns this parcel, and also the vacant parcel to the north. A lot line adjustment application was submitted and approved under file LL-2007-69, but it has not been recorded. The applicant had received variance approval for the proposed street setback variances and also a height variance in the past (files V-2006-52 and V-2006-53), however the application expired and the home was re -designed to remain under the required 25 foot height limit. IV. SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review (WAC 197-11- 800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080). A variance alone does not require SEPA review. Therefore, the applicant and the City have complied with the requirements of ECDC 20.15.A.1 V. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE: A "Notice of Application" and a "Notice of Hearing" were published in the Herald Newspaper, posted at the subject site, as well as the Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and the Library. All notices were also mailed to residents within 300 feet of the site. The City has complied with the noticing provisions of ECDC 20.91 (Public Hearings and Notice). An Affidavit of Mailing and Posting are included as attachments to this report (Exhibit 8). VI. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE: This application was reviewed and evaluated by the City's Fire Department, Engineering Division, Parks and Recreation Department, and the Public Works Department. The Public Works Director has added a condition: "Do not build any concrete slabs or structures within the city right-of-way." No work is proposed within the right-of-way. The Engineering Division submitted a memo related to minimum driveway depth (Exhibit 12). At this time, specific grading calculations for the construction of the residence have not been completed. This is information that will need to be submitted at the time of the building permit application for the residence. If the grading calculations determine that grading for the construction of the residence will be required in excess of 500 cubic yards, then an environmental checklist (SEPA) review will be required. The ultimate review of the construction permit for the residence will ensure that the applicant and City have complied with SEPA regulations. Page 2 of 9 Hd Street Setback Variances File Number: V-2007-84 VII. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: 1. Topography: The applicant's site plan shows that the site contains a steep slope (Exhibit 5). 2. Soils: According to the Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington, this neighborhood consists of 'Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes"(Map Unit Symbol 1), 'Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes"(Map Unit Symbol 3) and 'Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 25 to 70 percent slopes"(Map Unit Symbol 4). 3. Critical Areas: A Critical Areas Checklist was submitted under file number CRA-2006-58 and it was determined that there is a slope on the property, therefore a study (geotechnical report) will be required with the building permit to ensure that the project meets the requirements of ECDC 23.80 (geologically hazardous areas). 4. Wildlife: Typical of a residential environment, likely more woodland critters reside in the forest to the northeast which is not proposed to be disturbed. S. Vegetation: The existing vegetation is typical of a single-family residence, including a wooded slope. VIII. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: This site is located in a single-family neighborhood in the northern most portion of Edmonds that is a mix of older and newer homes. Many homes along 75th Place West appear to have a view of Puget Sound. All of the adjacent zoning is Single -Family Residential (RS-20). IX. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is "Single Family - Resource." This property, and the property to the north (under the same ownership) are among the northern most residential parcels on 75`h Place West in the City of Edmonds, A park lies to the north. 75th Place West is considered a "Collector Street" that provides access to the site. The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan has a vision for residential development, and to achieve this vision the applicable excerpts are shown below: Residential Development III/ A WA TA �� ■i I/,WA W RIZ I TA _ �., WA l� �►� /I rram, g�� II'II/'1 r Nis /I ►I /, ,/yrsi � ►ar.,�. III- • 4 /� ►/ WA 11. F.-►,�►, %III/ 1012201 Ri fall B. Goal. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing to all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic considerations, in accordance with the following policies: B.1. Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. 8.3. Minimize encroachment of view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. Page 3 of 9 • d Street Setback Variances File Number: V-2007-84 8.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of the slope, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage. Soils and Topography B. Goal. Future development in areas of steep slope and potentially hazardous soil conditions should be based on site development which preserves the natural site characteristics in accordance with the following policies. B.1. Large lots or flexible subdivision procedures, such as PRDs, should be used in these areas to preserve the site and reduce impervious surfaces, cuts and fills. C.Z.a. Buildings on slopes of 15% orgreatershall be designed to cause minimum disruption to the natural topography. Vegetation and Wildlife B. Goal. The city should ensure that its woodlands, marshes and other areas containing natural vegetation are preserved, in accordance with the following policies: B.Z. Removal of trees should be minimized particularly when they are located on steep slopes or hazardous soils. Subdivision layouts, buildings and roads should be designed so that the existing trees are preserved. 8.4. Grading should be restricted to the building pads and roads only. Vegetation outside these areas should be preserved. (2006 Comprehensive Plan, pages 53-54, 63-64, and 66) X. PUBLIC CONCERNS: To date, no public comments have been received. XI. APPLICABLE CODES: 1. ECDC 16.20 fRS — Single -Family Residential A. Development standards in the RS-20 zone are as follows, pursuant to ECDC 16.20.030: Sub Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Maximum Maximum Minimum District Lot Area Lot Street Side Rear Height Coverage Parking (St. Ft.) Width Setback Setback Setback a ( /o) Spaces RS-20 20,000 100, 25' 35' & 10' 25' 25' 35% 2 S. The only deviation from the development standards are the requested street setback variances. The minimum distance a structure can be located from the street property lines (to the south and west) is 25 feet — the applicant is requesting a reduction of street setbacks and proposes to build the new home 10 feet from these property lines. C. Development standards for the RS-20 zone require 25-foot street setbacks from all property lines adjacent to City Rights -of -Way regardless of whether or not they are developed as streets. 156th Street SW, to the south of the property, is undeveloped. 75th Place west, to the west of the property, serves to access property to the west. D. This is a "corner" lot, which means it has two "street" setbacks and two "side" setbacks. Page 4 of 9 10 ad Street Setback Variances File Number: V-2007-84 E. The combined "side" setbacks in the RS-20 zone must be at least 35 feet. The proposed lot line adjustment was submitted to remedy this issue. F. The applicant has re -designed the project so that a height variance is no longer necessary. G. The applicant must prove that all development standards are met through the building permit process. 2. ECDC 18.45 (Land Clearina and Tree Cutting A. ECDC 18.45.020.6 states, "trees shall be retained to the maximum extent feasible. " B. The applicant is attempting to retain as many trees as he can, and in doing so, is requesting two street setback variances. 3. ECDC 23.40, 23.80, and 23.90 jCritical Areas C. ECDC 23.40.280 requires buildings and structures to be set back a distance of 15 feet from the edges of all critical area buffers, or from the edge of all critical areas (if no buffers are required). D. ECDC 23.80.070.A.2 allows for the alteration of a landslide hazard area, if a hazards analysis by a qualified professional (geotechnical engineer) is submitted that certifies that the project can be accomplished safely and pursuant to ECDC 23.80.070.A.2 and 3. E. ECDC 23.90.040.0 requires the retention native vegetation (30 percent minimum) for properties in the RS-20 zone; a vegetation management plan is required, which will provide increased protection of wildlife habitat throughout the Edmonds jurisdiction. F. The applicant will need to submit a vegetation management plan and a geotechnical report by a qualified professional with the building permit application to ensure compliance with the Critical Areas Ordinance (ECDC Chapter 23). 4. ECDC 20.85 (Variances) ECDC 20.85 states that an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC 20.85. This chapter also sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the code may be varied on a case -by -case basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship. ECDC 20.85.010 contains the findings that must be made in order for a Variance application to be approved. According to the aforementioned code section, "No variance may be approved unless all of the findings in this section can be made. " The findings are as follows: 0 Special Circumstances. That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning, 1 Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats; 1 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 Page 5 of 9 • Hfird Street Setback Variances File Number: V-2007-84 more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property; 10 Special Privilege. That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; 0 Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan; 0 Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located; 0 Not Detrimental. That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone; • 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. A. The Applicant has submitted a Criteria Statement explaining why they believe they should be granted the proposed variances (Exhibit 4) and staff agrees with these arguments. B. The applicant has already once received variance approval for this application, which has since expired and is what has necessitated this application (Exhibit 10). C. There have been variances approved for several other properties along 75t" Place West, and many of these were approved for the same reason (slope and right-of-way width) (Exhibit 11). D. There is a steep slope on the property, and the new house is proposed at the toe of the slope. E. The design of the proposed house is shown on the elevation drawings (Exhibit 6). F. No views are known to be blocked by this proposal, due to the location of this house at the toe of the slope and on the east side of 75t" Place West. G. On July 13, 2006, the Edmonds Hearing Examiner approved the two street setback variances with the following conditions (Exhibit 10, pages 11-12 ): 1. "The setback variances of ten feet to 7.5°'' Place West and ten feet to 15e Street SW are approved. The applicant should maintain a greater than ten -foot setback to the streets if it can safely be allowed given any geotechnical considerations. " 2. "Side setbacks to the north and east property lines must add up to a total of .35 feet when added to the street setback opposite them. " 3. 'Approval of this variance does not imply compliance with the Environmentally Critical Areas Chapters, Edmonds Community Development Code Chapters 23.40 to 23 90. The applicants shall meet the requirements of the Environmentally Critical Areas Chapters by doing the following: a. A geotechnical report is required to demonstrate how the proposed development complies with the Landslide Hazard requirements of Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 23.80. b. To meet the requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area in ECOC 23.90, the applicant shall submit a tree cutting and clearing plan with any development permit. Tree cutting and clearing of native vegetation shall be limited to the footprint of development. " 4. "Meet the Engineering Division Requirements, including: Page 6 of 9 • *d Street Setback Variances File Number: V-2007-84 a. The minimum depth of the driveway from garage to the property line must be 20 feet from the most restrictive point to allow for parking without encroaching into City right-of-way. b. The minimum driveway slope shall not exceed 14 percent. c. Install a five-foot walkway along the frontage of the property. " 5. "This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. " 6. "The applicant must obtain a building permit " 7. "The applicant must comply with all the terms of future permits. " 8. "The permit is transferable. " 9. "The owner must act on the approved variance within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and become null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of time before the expiration and the city approves the application. Only one one-year extension is possible. " H. A lot line adjustment has been filed with the City and approved, however it has not yet been recorded (Exhibit 9). The lot line adjustment would ensure that the minimum side setbacks are met for the RS-20 zone (a total of 35 feet combined for a corner lot). 1. One other way for the applicant to meet the 35-foot combined setback rule is file a "lot combination" application with the City of Edmonds which would dissolve the interior (northern) northern property line. J. Nothing has changed since the original approval of the variance (except that the applicant reduced the height of the proposed new home). K. In the past, it was concluded that the proposed home is of modest size compared to other homes in the neighborhood (Exhibit 10, page 7 items 10 and 11). L. Staff agrees with all of the previous conclusions made for this project (Exhibit 10). M. No public comments have been received to date. XII. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Special Circumstances— Special circumstances exist on the property, specifically the steep and wooded slope that encumbers most of the north and eastern portion of the property providing a very small building envelope at the toe of the slope (subject to a geotechnical engineer's review and approval). 2. Special Privilege — The applicant has received variance approval for this same project in the past, which required that he prove that all six variance criteria were met. This is an example of how granting a variance would not be a grant of special privilege. Also, several street setback variances (for similar reasons) have been approved along 75th Place West in North Edmonds. 3. Comprehensive Plan — See Section IX of this report for a discussion on consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Edmonds. Specifically, the retention of trees is encouraged, minimizing grading is encouraged, and the preservation of views is encouraged. This proposal is consistent with several of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Page 7 of 9 • HQd Street Setback Variances File Number: V-2007-84 4. Zoning Ordinance— See Section XI of this report for a discussion on consistency with the criteria given the Zoning Code of the City of Edmonds. If the proposed Variance is approved, then the use will be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. S. Not Detrimental— Staff feels that this proposal does not appear to be detrimental, and in fact, it provides for an overall better design of the site. No views appear to be blocked, and the project is sited as far away from the toe of the slope as possible. 6. Minimum Variance— Staff feels that the street setback variances are the minimum necessary to site a new single-family home on this property, while keeping as far back from the toe of the slope as possible, and to comply with other codes. Also, this home appears to be small in scale compared to other homes in the neighborhood. 7. The proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding zoning and development if a lot line adjustment were recorded (Exhibit 9) or a lot combination was completed. 8. Because nothing has changed since the original approval, staff feels that the original conditions of approval should be upheld (Exhibit 10, pages 11-12). 9. This application for two street setback variances must stand on their own and are reviewed on their own merits; however, the previous approval and analysis should be reviewed and taken into consideration because nothing has changed since the original approval (Exhibit 10). XIII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the analysis and attachments to this report, staff recommends APPROVAL of both of the street setback variances with the following conditions: 1. The street setback variances apply to the current proposal. Z. Concrete slabs or structures are not permitted within city right-of-way. 3. The applicant should maintain a greater than ten -foot setback to the streets if it can safely be allowed given any geotechnical considerations. 4. Side setbacks to the north and east property lines must add up to a total of 35 feet when added to the street setback opposite them. To do this, either: , a. Record the approved lot line adjustment map (file LL-2007-69), or b. Apply for a lot combination to combine both of your parcels into one large lot. S. Approval of this variance does not imply compliance with the Environmentally Critical Areas Chapters, Edmonds Community Development Code Chapters 23.40 to 23.90. The applicants shall meet the requirements of the Environmentally Critical Areas Chapters by doing the following: a. A geotechnical report is required to demonstrate how the proposed development complies with the Landslide Hazard requirements of Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 23.80. b. To meet the requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area in ECDC 23.90, the applicant shall submit a tree cutting and clearing plan with any development permit. Tree cutting and clearing of native vegetation shall be limited to the footprint of development. 6. Meet the Engineering Division Requirements, including: Page 8 of 9 • A Street Setback Variances File Number: V-2007-84 a. The minimum depth of the driveway from garage to the property line must be 20 feet from the most restrictive point to allow for parking without encroaching into City right-of- way. b. The minimum driveway slope shall not exceed 14 percent. c. Install a five-foot walkway along the frontage of the property. 7. 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. S. The applicant must obtain a building permit. 9. The applicant must comply with all the terms of future permits. 10. The permit shall be transferable. 11. The owner must act on the approved variance within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and become null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of time before the expiration and the city approves the application. Only one one-year extension is possible. XIV. PARTIES OF RECORD: Ron & Susan Hilliard Planning Division 20831 23`d Avenue West Public Works Department Lynnwood WA 98036 XV. EXHIBITS: 1. Staff Report 2. Zoning & Vicinity Map 3. Land Use Application 4. Criteria Statement S. Site Plan 6. Building Elevations 7. Traffic Impact Analysis 8. Public Notices and Affidavits 9. Lot Line Adjustment Map (LL-2007-69) 10. Hearing Examiner's Decision for file V-2006-52/53 (2006) 11. Map of properties along 751h Place West that have received variance approval 12. Memo from the Engineering Division Page 9 of 9 ►A*A*A A r*z* !..5- tee AA 14*A AA ***r %S-1 A. . Ron Hilliard: Street Setback Variances :°nf "A,, Exhibit Z (previous approval expired) Vicinity Map File Number V-2007-84 0 50 100 Feet 15515 75th Place West (RS-20 Zone) J890 _ ,qw° I I I city of edmonds land use application Q ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 0 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMT;NT 0 CONDITIONAL USE PERAo' .` FILE # PL.N 'O'+- 8�I' ZONE R-5 — 7--0 ❑ HOME OCCUPATION DATE �3J-'� REC'D BY GIL Q FORMAL SUBDIVISION FEE'$L *)110 0 O ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION _. RECEIPT # Q LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE i7 7:V - Z O 0 S 0 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT )(HE 0 STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB 0 CC ❑ STREET VACATION 0 REZONE IS ' S u1 trGV1 a rg 0 SHORELINE PERMIT VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION s o S o— G11 J vi p d7 j '• n 9 ❑ OTHER: t L i 5 5 — va yrj a n C P+ PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION LSS l c:� 1 Di u FPL . W . _ PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) PROPERTY OWNER IJ30KJE IS PHONE # ADDRESS . O E-MAIL ADDRESS ge.QmrALcIQC'_orvLQsA inn FAX# TAX ACCOUNT4 Cy QQCA 000nCW t d� ► SEC. 5 TwP. ZT KI RNG. Ac F— DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE APPLICANT Q �A t t k t4P—f) PHONE # ADDRESS E-. hi,}. E-MAIL ADDRESS 8 y-c'motI C nD;t „ . _ _._ FAX # 42 ri 28,&9 CONTACT PF-RSON/AGEN'T PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL ADDRESS FAX # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibit herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file ap ' a on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANTlAGENT DATE Property Owner's Authorization By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permiss' p lic officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of i ecti p sting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE This application form was revised on 1/2V00. To verify whether it is still current, call (425) 771-0220. Exhibit 3 V-2oo7-84 LaLBRARYVI-ANNINGNFarms & HandouLsVublic HandautsNland Use Application.doc • • 11, PG$ Ina t QuaMy Service W CmaM Sohti October 15, 2007 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES Lot 1, Lund's Meadowdale Tracts Tax Parcel Number 00 5009 000 001 01 Owners: Ron and Susan Hilliard Hilliard # Lunds Gulch Meadowdale Building Site BACKGROUND: Lot 1 is located in the northeast corner of the intersection of Lund's Gulch Road (75� Place W) and 156t' St SW (an unimproved Right of Way). While the Lot area is 16,553 square feet, only the southwesterly 5,850 +l- square feet is usable for house construction, the balance being steep slope rising to the east. VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. Front yard setback from 1560 St. SW from 25' to 10' 2. Front yard setback from 75"' Place W from 25' to 10' Responses to the six criteria for variance approvals: Special Circumstances Set back from 156 h St_ - This Street has been abandoned west of 75"' (Ord. 3204) and cannot be improved to the east because of the steep slope. The requested 10' set back would establish a building separation from the existing structure to the south of 41' which exceeds the required 35'. Set back from 75'h Place W. - North of 156"' St SW, 75�' Place W is used for access to this lot and one other on the west side and for maintenance access to Meadowdale Beach County Park and therefore has a very low traffic volume, more as a drive than a street. The required right of way width of 75(' Pi. W south of 156'" has been reduced from sixty (60) feet to forty (40) feet (Ord. 2799 and 2957) limiting any major future improvements of the existing roadway. The requested set back would allow a clearance of approximately 25' from the face of the garage to the traveled way of 75t'. Special Privilege Granting the requested variances would not call for special privilege as there are many homes in the area with setback and height variances necessitated by similar topographical constraints that limit usable buildable area. Comprehensive Plan Approval of the requested variances would allow conformance with the Comprehensive plan by permitting construction of a single family residence on a large lot similar to those existing in the neighborhood. Exhibit 4 V-2007-84 PGS, Inc. 6608 21e SL SW, Suite 304, Mountalke Terrace, WA 98043, Ph:(425)778-5629 Fax:(425)775-2849 Hilliard # Lunds Gulch PGs, Inc Qu* Servm ;W Ueatw Ste„ s Meadowdale Building Site Zoning Ordinance These requests meet the purposes of the zoning ordinance by establishing adequate setbacks from adjacent structures and street traveled way and allowing a similar size residence to existing in the area without impacting any views. Not Detrimental Granting these requests will not be detrimental to surrounding properties as no traffic safety, building separation or views will be impacted. A well designed and constructed home will add value to the neighborhood and the community. Minimum Variance As mentioned above, the requested variances are the minimum required due to a building area approximating a RS-6 zoned lot in a RS-20 zone with the associated large homes in the neighborhood. PGS, Inc. 6608 21 a St. SW, Suite 304, Mountalke Terrace, WA 98043, Ph:(425)778-5620 Fax:(425)775-2849 `,`§$.'x`' •.fir I ,�' - � ��- �- .3. E G°''• ._ �'t> ��'� � . ?_� *� r r er. i +• sk . .�- '-'�. ,E�9 J��k i�l=A ', � • 's ° - �-' �s`'k' e`�i''R-'. '� 1 �s .'e`l�M°-a's� " _`•� r�_ ?�5u '� ,� .s g'-f, h' CS. 'dt'l.r t �'' 1`! +!f` - - •9 1_ s..i Tom. � -Y ` ^.. t,; �.��- i'8,k,1 � Cr � � yy ri }-�d,�Fr �i`"_ w'�''• � i� +r'" ," r ' sk s. -. �= _` s'+.. is�,`'.i.°`° 'a-` .rtra �. .� C 3 x�Yt iy�« $ra�� 1`; •� F3x�. a.. �h •.Jfil��4' �� . � _ `, '3i'� ^ - "•aWs � t r i' •+•4 - +. ' i -"�i� . s a. ne J 3a � _ ''d' r-'ram ri.-"it�i• - �._ '� s r � * • ': r;• � 1.' -.�-•`' .��,:•��'�' _:.� �- - Rf-'ems`^-`-.- �i ''" ^••.r.• ;•�.. -"� *-'xE�-- �'`. _ _ �' E ' a;'�'i��~' 'rr`'��?,�'-�-"'" s'1I l • yip;"T'�, ' �y ;_ '�«' . - � _ r � IF �..� �,ag, 'ti'- �� -• �_��,:� I•_ µ F`r:yYN t;�5 � : ��p,'+� f' , �� ,,., +4�j=max � Z=�`. Oz t , `' +�%b .•f.SY_ ti[ a r ; F. r C .i � r 's -` ,ge. _�_ �_''' ; �{. .-w�.w- M -,� r � �?maµ �_ "��iA. �� vr•. . fi ,i a ��",L !# `:.'�E. "� .r!-.. s';`--=ti*� - •i �' .��s,.� .. Yrr. r *. �ti. %u:a l�;ro t-s_ • � Y .,�. i- a .�•Fi.{'��`. "• � .s"` s�.'r� - E '� '� • ♦.tta's' Tb -'s_ ° s 4 PE�ty'.��•A�``i �"-.`'•M{`l ., ��;� i �'�� `.r g '.�w;- �yi,R �� Ufa FZ �_ �:'� ,. -. ,� � . „ r� d •� r. ikk xt ;' � v` �. f ., Y_s,,t V . _'y� `� �` ��(" .� x: "' � 't".`� '1 •r +3> s .4. �L 'y: b� �`�". w;•r s. tom. �-_ P-- •"f r.:.L€1". �«: , �T �:4x•' �y.,��„'3 `�'-.'ir�r '�'�. - ii-r �_ �`�"'+ ' d �r� ^`�.�.J'' x t{t �''" . r � `r.� s +�, • YY. � � s � ' ��,.3 � �� +C �•f , �� ` . 'j ��L tom,„-'.' ..�_ �-�.a�'1 j� �- ��'`: �rr { - w p,•r,. � � � . ' '�' • t^•J'_-r, i'u ! � - ., .""'ca< s+'� �`-=.:; � :r.•.";' E ', _?4 x ,# ` ate-, _ .. ems•. 3•+�:+`�.. +f ysie E'• A ' 7 -"-a:•yn+R ., .3 � ' r��gg'�n��r�:�- ° r`, q,, ,•,;i � � -� f<< � �„ ^`,��.��a�._., •� ,,-z'6 i'� ��''��-�i3? - ��`-•`„-,; 1._ir"'-` 't'erx"+� _ � ;s ��,y�*sa rr � :_�'+'�S fi'i `� � _ 7 ° ..,r=`mt,�''k � �r"�yy r�.y_...• ' �, _y: �� ,,, .. - ram. r-F - s �_- �� r"+ ...v.,t,� = - Ls: - i ` i �� 1di rt � i�� fi., : �+ �4 s-x. " I•' i,� ��.5 a' - `,9'�7 �, �' �ax i ` i-� is :.= •. '� - ;�� }� '� , _ t .3° .w� aaw .�f �.� _`r�%�.. �r s . s� � ? � + � ,'•�+. = rt t.- aA,��A'ihlY�lk� �.�i' `0 do QvP� W W o: z U U a ¢ • M �o ,-. O r F a r _Z=ZO �•. �OOOoW wOWN0 WOON+ rnOWJ.0. OZZ � *mQUWQ� Zd''=w� @ OON KNZ� -aQD"3 o oow0Z0 rnooQzwN003 vn To o o zo o Coi Zo • O AwJ Z¢�JQ QUaO Oi¢NO�W=¢ V) W FCt�w�-W W J O wa0VVW QzOa _ �❑zz 13wcn 0 �¢wm-O<oa Z O W Q N W Z z O J ��In2N3Ww, Q��wi-W OZ=Q O�OJWOrn Ux C � W yVIK Ow�0WOU0 I� Jli �❑Q�= J�qp_ F O N Z w F ;, 3 0 � O a& Z W ¢ S w z w z o o¢ �, O �wFOFo�zJ� ly woow,zozmo S zamF- ❑o,q_z J QUq W UWw t^ JQl W x 7mxOxx v1 QOfn H(1JQH JI-F- Z r o N a w F W O v a w ~ Q I N y / O W O U Q 3 H �j W m U 'o p W M Q yy-� W V)W K� > 0 0 0 0 0 �f1 �" ¢ J9Noo o'er w �0 W I ow> Y U N N N 3 � W M M h Y Z z E0333�< p Vl N �IIwOW , JO \ J WPM QN r r Z 3 In g V) oQ . ❑NWa • D=Q�o 0o;Zm m o x WUQO �L Q--rn (� O Wa W0 Z W m z >z U N OWU Z a 30 W` Oc�yy 4 m M Z > N 0. Nw:DoUp �l OWOJ W Q O- mW of r O041 =� m Ho Ozo zioQ < w.0 Z M O II ,01 XF W q M m E- r 2 a z W N � a w a �[ N ~ C7 O z O O U U M �w ro O zZ az ❑ z o mo =oo v �U� 3�z U x 0 2 N Y U_ x Q ~Z O �' Z U 6 0 0 r Q U N z �NU {aN{a11M� 300 J zrz a V)Wz p$ oX 3 N w Owx W U V I U p �0 Q Z O } W W p p O M�Z z iQz s o�� ❑l? O z¢ n w w U .-. Q JAW - a2 g�01 W U Z Q a q w Jx za~ Q O >pM <o M Q o 0 wpm O z ^ U W z ; . O J O �oQ /`mil QN `�. U e'] W>W O ZZ QJp 'wQ N ❑ Z � Q ¢ FO �0Z �.K V10 OE� �¢o v 4¢ pw adz =w? W as otit z<q WO, OO.T L N o w a_ Z a a w W W J W Q _ � Q a a w J o z W a x o F o U ¢ O w ¢ U O w VI ~ Z w W p w d N q N W w OZ w cwj Q a J a o ❑ z m p `U 0 Ow 2 Q w W x VI U W x W Z z W Q Q N O r rn ? a m a N n 3 0 cI I w hi a m W O x z = a O ti w cc J I Z W ¢> (Z_n WI W o f W J 0 > W o o m Vr U U a a z Q< z z r W w Z w r Wi Z ow 3 3 m u 0 w 0 a � � a La (D ED Z M 0 'E9 0 N OlS a op4lisIX3 I� 9S N N E 0 N? W W o Cn �0 O X �c dl N N I I I I z I ILU 00 u F w0 L� N y, �_ o Q o i N c �� W; To- 3 o N O Z J m LL: W O Z c m m 0 > m Y S 0 W N F p .. Q z ` o z t J w W, z G F U O Z O Q O 2 p -1 ❑ O b0 pa 0� x Exhibit 6 V-2007-84 0 0 • 0 CITY OF EDMONDS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Name of Proposed Project: Owner/Applicant: Name Street/Mailing Address LyNshlloonn WA City State Zip Telephone: _ g �S - —?—I l -„© WORK SHEET SO it 61407 MOAT, cooweR Applicant Contact Person: �N�N�ERkI'll � Name Street/Mailing City "- State Zip Telephone: Traffic Engineer who prepared the Traffic Impact Analysis: Firm Name I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Contact Name a. Street address (if known). l S C5 ( Tu . M` Telephone (Attach a vicinity map and site plan.) c. Specify existing land use: VAe is n I-T `7A RCX= L _ d. Specify proposed type and size of development: LE _ ti CY e. When will the project begin construction and when will it be completed? f. Define proposed access locations: T g. Define proposed sight distance at site egress locations: t+ Exhibit 7 V-2007-84 Five Years After Opening LOS: With Project: Without Project: Note any assumptions/variations to standard analysis default values and justifications: 7. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS State recommended measures and fees required to mitigate project specific traffic impacts. Traffic impact fee shall be calculated from the Edmonds Road Impact Fee Rate Study Table 4 (attached) and as identified in ECDC 18.82.120, except as otherwise provided for independent fee calculations in ECDC 18.82.130. 'ltT I GAT%C'-1k) �GG P-`r,P I&,r-i c t_ AM u i_, *icy L L i •� OD �o XN WCU CO 0� cu o � V � o LL •O z (a O U Qcu � a 0 •U Z z > LO c d Y O N p CS R L ¢ Q CL 00 6i .y Y/ U O y a •p M c a 0 Z Z u u. 0 cn c 0 0 0 0 0 0 .2 �� c « d .a ++ � : o, ° : i E : O _ w q, •w V : • O U D 0 .� CCL 16 .� a d a 3 '3 +' a u E 2o s a n rc o cc a M l lz93 3c u Q o O W da • ar •: L. ° �, zv a+ p M o 'Cs cs _�CL 06 0 _ p o S C•v a O W O D 'd .« �"� o to n� di V a c a R. Q c 3�3ja £.M Cdrq Q oz 0 o c W �J«irt.0 d•cm �'� ti 00 1M a 'O f a IM " v ¢ a rr W$10 CS OP A& v _ ._ -o o 41 c In 16. O tj o Q c N 16 Q0 0 0 0 0 d = 3 0z °-ra w> y v O u U mayy+ LL d d Q1 W v a is a ° o ° d 0 N Exhibit 8 Z a a s o a a o V-2007-84 N u C _Q v N 3a► u = a N ,w d C N Q o c c a c� c 0 o .2 ,� � m C F 7 u I= U c 0 0 0 i 0 0 O E �� L O a �Cc V 0 O @ C a) `� o CL cr} E a U) c o CL L U a� iri `a o ca co a 'o Li c L Z c�� Q � a �� o CD o Q MOND (D V 0 Y r �� o Q) v vet,; .o o .o ar z am O d dAM •M 16 O � `- � � 0 � i " ,cu c (Z �;❑ o a+ Sip•=+o+~ c ai Q O �' d 'a • `a z n !• 3 �. i L 3 c Z .M O O V w^= v N N O C *' p 2 ago a ' a C O H m a ;s d a m iA 16 F .:. 16 v O O aMva.a•« 0 0 0 0 0 .� Q c o co a o o m U 0 a a G�j U C Q Q C1 0 CL CDO Q w Q E 2 E a o Z M 0 U cL 0. 0 Ll Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTO,N, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH S.S. NOTICE OF OAS W Aon NAIV!FIpIIC�� FILE NO.: V-07-84 PROJECT LOCATION: 15515 75th Piave West PROJECT DESCRIPTION: "cation for two street Seftbbaack variances (1) re- duce the squired 28 foot setback along ISM St. SW to 10 feet; and, (2) re- duce Me required 25 foot setback along 75th PI. W. to 10 feet in order to con, stnrct a single taftly resi. dance. The applk;ant m calved approval for Mesa variance reagpu�Jests in 2000, acaton has sin This rolect but expired. p is located in the Sinlg1e- Family Residential (RS30) Zane. CITY CONTACT: Gina Coccia Published: November 13, 2007. RECEIVED Nov 16 2W MOMS CITY CLERK Account Name: City of Edmonds The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice Notice of Development Application Ron Hillard File No: V-07-84 a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplenlent form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: November 13, 2007 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. Subscribed and swum to before me this 13th Account Number: 101416 Order Number: 0001551968 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH D NOTICE OF } ATf6Ts`, ' HEa��r�j Name of scant Ron Hffliard Pm' Number. f Y 07-84 Proiect Location: 15515 75th Place Wfor @st Praiappcl!t Description: s�etbaek variancesro sreet duce the lorequired back an 155th st. $ hi 10': and, F2) reduce the qutred 25' setback, 7sth PI. W. to 14Y irl g to construct a nail r1 dance. The applicontllra+ ceived approval fort h variance m 2006, t>;d lication has si red. This site is 'aX''.one Engle Family Reddbh Con[ad: rl�� ,sty i Gina Coccia, Planrrer II; r Time: , 3:00 P.m, ; -- Location: Council Chai Public Safety F061 E 250 5th Ave. N. E�m I Published January 18, Amount EerL CET'VED 'JAN 2 9 '2008 Affidavit of Publication S.S. The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice Nonce of Develo ment Application and Notice of Hearing Examiner Hearing Ron Hillard_ Project No. V-07-84 a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published to said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: January 18, 2008 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its suhscribers during all of said period. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 181h r A day of January, 2008 &-U -, I �e I Nota P blic in and for the State of Washington, r sidin at ERA not County. _ ry_1?_j,01 OF wp,:5, Account Number 101416 order Number: 0001565334 EDMONDS CITY CLERK FILE NO.: V-07-84 APPLICANT: HILLIARD NOTICE OF APPLICATION & HEARING AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) I, Diane M. Cunningham, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That on the 17th day of January 2008, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed as required to adjacent property owners, the names of which were provided by the applicant. Signed ti�. Ll Subscribed and sworn to before me this —% day of d0 ��,�ttltt�ytF{' A J. y 11f �`��\tttV1W ll /1 19 9t\1t``�� Notary is 0 and for t State of Washington. Residing at :C Lz • 7 File Number: V-07-84 Applicant Hilliard NOTICE OF DECISION AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) I, Diane M. Cunningham, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That on the 13th day of November 2007, the attached Notice of Development Application was mailed as required to adjacent property owners, the names of which were provided by the applicant. Signed _a& Subscribed and sworn to before me this day ofAL /mm . J Ro rr4 c�calO N 01 AEz IQ� �O Nf A �c, Jz = N bli in and for State of Washington. UB� -O LC� �11111 11111111\\\\\�� of wA" Residing at � FILE NO.: V-07-84 APPLICANT: HILLIARD NOTICE OF DECISION AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) I, Gina Coccia, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That on the 13th day of November 2007, the attached Notice of Application was posted as prescribed by Ordinance, and in any event, in the Civic Center and the Library, and where applicable on or near the subject property. Subscribed and sworn to before me this--f-1L- day of oil , oo �=o� No ub 'C in and for tate of Washington. 1OF WASN��: Residing at �P u I I g � Q �� • . ' ' �34` ppp ppi ee •Fg � tj z = r _ I (Maseo swU I� \ Rif � , 8 S �d,: I p , I •�� RECEIVED AUG 2 12V PERMIT COUNTER Exhibit 9 V-2007-84 r-�c.18cly CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH "ENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) T71-0226 • FAX (425) T71-MI HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: Ron Hilliard (sbe Exhibit A, Attachment 2). CASE NOS.: V-06-52 & V-06-53 GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR LOCATION: 15515 — 750' Place W. (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). APPLICATION: A variance to reduce the required 25-foot street setback to 10 feet along 75 h Place W. and 156h Street SW and a variance to increase the allowed height from 25 feet to 34.5 feet for a new single-family residence (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 through 4). REVIEW PROCESS: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.40 and 80 (ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS GENERAL PROVISIONS and GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Approve setback variance with conditions Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve both variances with conditions PUBLIC HEARING• After reviewing the official file, which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report, and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the Hilliard Exhibit 10 V-Z007-84 Incorporated August 1I, 1890 • Sicfor Cite, - Hokinnn .(anan Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V4O6-53 Page 2 application. The hearing on the application was opened at 3:00 pm, July 6, 2006, in the City Council Chambers, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 3:09 pm. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. -A verbatim_ recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. HEARING CONMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City: Meg Gruwell, Senior Planner, entered the staff report into the record and noted that no new information had been received since the staff report had been prepared. From the Applicant: Ron Hilliard, Applicant, said: • The only issue where staff did not agree with his request is that staff did not feel the request for a height variance was the minimum variance necessary. • His proposal would not take up as much square footage on the lot as it would if the house were to be reduced in height, but still have the same overall square footage. • The house to the south has no parking and the owners of the house now use the unopened right-of-way for parking. He said they use a small part of his property for vehicle turnaround and if he were to build a lower house with a larger footprint it would reduce the space his neighbors have for vehicle turnaround. • He and his wife are proposing a 3,400 square foot house and that is a small house compared to the other new houses in the neighborhood, • Staff has acknowledged that the proposed house would not impact any views. • The first and second stories would be the same size and the third floor would be smaller. • All of the conditions recommended by staff are acceptable. From the Community: No one from the general public attended the public hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS: A. INTRODUCTION 1. History: a) Facts: (1) The site is a vacant lot at the end of 75`h Place W., just before the service/disabled entrance to Meadowdale Beach County Park r - Wearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V-06-53 Page 3 (2) Between this lot and the existing house at 15605 — 75'h Place W. is an unimproved road right-of-way that serves in part as the driveway to 15605 — 75'h Place W. (3) The right-of-way and the subject property have been used. for parking of cars, trailers and other goods. (4) The height variance requested by the applicant was to have the pitch of his roof at elevation 256, with an average grade of 221.7 (see Attachment 4). This would allow the house to be 34.3 feet, instead of the allowed 25 feet. (4) Staff rounded the numbers to 34.5 feet since the proposal was not based on actual construction plans. (5) The 34.5 number was placed on the agenda, and ran with the newspaper legal notice. (6) The mailed and posted notice contained a typographical error, which stated the height variance requested was 34.15. (7) No letters of opposition to the proposed height variance were received. b) Conclusion: It does not appear that a 34.15-foot variance was of great concern to the neighbors who received the mailed notice or read the posted notice. Though 34.5 feet would not be very much higher, staff reverted to the requested 34.3-foot variance request, which is considerably closer to the 34.15 variance request stated in the mailed and posted notice. B. SM DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Size and Access: The subject property is approximately 16,553 square feet, with approximately 100 feet of frontage on 75'h Place W., and approximately 150 feet of frontage on 156'' Street SW (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). (2) Land Use: The site is undeveloped (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). (3) Zonin : The subject property is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-20) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). (4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject site rises uX approximately ten feet from 75is Place W. to a small bench at the comer of 75 Place W. and 156`h Street SW. There is a steep slope up beyond that, which the city's LIDAR map shows having an approximately 140-foot elevation change (see Exhibit A, Attachment 7). The vegetation on the site consists primarily of maple and alder trees on the steep slope, as seen from below. The lower bench has been mowed and has grass on it, and the drop down to 75`' Place W. primarily has blackberries growing on it (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). *.Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V-06-53 Page 4 b) Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) The property to the north is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-20) and is developed with the Meadowdale Beach County Park (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). (2) The properties to the east, south and west are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-20) and are developed with single-family residences (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) 1. Facts: a) Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review (WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080). 2. Conclusion: The application complies with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act. The following sections determine how the proposal meets the requirements of City codes. D. EDMONDS. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. Critical Areas Compliance a) Facts: (1) This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 23.40 (Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions). (2) The applicant submitted a Critical Areas Checklist (CA-2006-58) and a "study required" was issued to study the Landslide Hazard (slope) area (see Exhibit A, Attachment 6). This site qualifies as a Landslide Hazard area both because of the steep slopes on the site, and because it lies in the historic landslide hazard area identified in the 1979 Robert Lowe Associates report. The site is also in a mapped Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation area. (3) Landslide hazard areas are subject to Chapter 23.80 (Geologically Hazardous Areas.) (4) Section 23.80.070.A.1.a of that chapter requires a buffer from the toe of the slope that is equal to the height of the slope existing within the project area or 50 feet, whichever is greater. Subsection Lb allows the buffer to be reduced to ten feet when a qualified professional demonstrates that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development, adjacent developments and uses and the subject critical area. Alterations to the landslide hazard area and its buffer may be allowed if it can be certified that they meet the conditions in ECDC 23,80.070.A.2. Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V_ -06-53 Page 5 (5) The slope within the project area appears to be over 100 feet in height, but no survey of the site has yet been submitted. (6) Edmonds Community Development Code Section 23.40.280 requires that buildings and other structures be set back a distance of 15-feet from the edges of all critical area buffers. It does allow for building overhangs no more than 30 inches in the setback area, as well as landscaping and uncovered decks. (7) The width of the bench at the bottom of the slope within the subject property ranges from 27 feet to 75 feet. (8) The proposed house is set roughly at a five-foot setback to the toe of the slope. (9) No geotechnical report has been submitted with this application. (10) The applicants have stated that they realized they needed some relief from the street setbacks, and wanted to determine how far they could move the house away from the slope, before they worked with a geotechnical consultant. (l 1) A condition of development should be provide the required geotechnical report and to comply with the requirements for development in Landslide Hazard areas. (12) Since the site is within a mapped fish and wildlife habitat conservation area (subject to ECDC 23.90), the City would like to preserve as much of the native vegetation as possible. The applicant must submit a clearing/tree cutting plan with any development permit_ Tree cutting and clearing of native vegetation shall be limited to the footprint of development. b) Conclusion: Most of the site is steep and wooded. The bench at the bottom of the slope seems like the most logical place for a home -site, but a geotechnical engineer must be consulted to determine if the proposed location can meet the requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code. If qualified consultants can assure that the proposal will meet the requirements of the Environmentally Critical Areas Chapters, then the requirements of these Chapters will be met. 2. Compliance with Single -Family Residential (RS-20) Zoning Standards a) Fact: The fundamental site development standards pertaining -to Residential development in the Single -Family Residential zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030 and include the following for locating structures: RS-20 Street Setback: 25 feet Rear Setback: 25 feet Side Setbacks (to all other property lines): 35/10 feet* Maximum Height: 25 feet Lot Coverage: 35% * Thirty-five feet total of both sides, 10 feet minimum on either side. 16 Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V-06-53 Page 6 b) Conclusion: The proposal requires variances to height and street setbacks to be approved before it complies with the requirements of the RS-20 zoning standards. 3. Compliance with Requirements for a Variance a) Facts: (1) Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a case -by -case basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship. The criteria are as follows: (a) SRE.gial Circumstances:. That because of special circumstances relating to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance .would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property. (b) S ial PJDile e: That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. (c) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the zoning district in which the property is located. (d) Not Detrimental: That the variance, as approved or conditionally approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone. (e) Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. (2) The applicant has submitted declarations with their submittal, which address the decisional criteria and they are found in Exhibit A, Attachment 3. The applicant has also submitted a site plan and aerial photograph of the site (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). (3) The applicant is requesting three variances. The two setback variances are to allow the house to be pushed closer to the streets and away from the steep slope_ Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V4o6-53 Page 7 The height variance is to allow the house to be built up taller, since it does not have as much room to spread: out. (4) Even though 156" Street SW is not developed, a street setback is required from it. Therefore, 25-foot street setbacks are required from both 75'h Place W. and 156s Street SW. Note that 73d Avenue W, to the east of this site has been vacated, so it does not require a street setback. (5) This site is considered to be a corner lot, and therefore the north and east property lines are side setbacks, requiring a minimum of ten feet and a total of 35 feet. Normally since the street property line setback is already required to be 25 feet, the side setbacks would only be required to be ten feet. If the applicants were to be granted a street setback variance to ten feet, then the side setback would have to be -25--feet to make the total'of35 feet. (6) The City's Engineering Division is requiring the minimum depth of the driveway from the garage to the property line to be 20 feet from the most restrictive point to allow for parking without encroaching into City right-of-way (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5). (7) The city's access database shows several approved variance requests along 75'h Place W. Several setback and height variances have been granted, based on topography and the location of the road compared to the site. Many of these variances are on the west side of 75a' Place W. (8) Views in the area are to the west of Puget Sound and the mountains. (9) SoiIs as given on the Soil Conservation Service map for this site include Alderwood-Everett gravelly, sandy loams at a 25 to 70 percent slope, Alderwood gravelly, sandy loams at a 15 to 25 percent slopes, and Alderwood-Urban land complex, with 2 to 8 percent slopes. (10) The area of the proposed house is roughly 55 by 25 feet or 1,375 square feet. Two floors would provide 2,750 square feet of floor area, and three floors would provide 4,125 square feet of floor area. The elevation provided does show the house stair stepping in so that the upper levels likely would have less floor area than the •Tower levels. The garage area is in addition. (11) Sizes of houses vary in the neighborhood, with older homes generally being smaller, and newer homes being larger. Across the street at 15220 — 75'h Place W., a home built in 1995 has a floor area of 4,985 square feet with an attached garage of 1,010 square feet, according to Snohomish County Assessor's records. Next door at 15605 -- 75(' Place W. is a home built in 1948, which has a finished area of 2,080 square feet, with an additional 1520 unfinished basement for a total of.3,600 square feet. (12) The city calculates height by shrinking a rectangle around the footprint of the house and taking the existing elevations at the four corners of that rectangle. As the applicant has proposed the house, and as the house may have to sit if it were to maintain a larger setback from the slope, the height rectangle has three points on Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V-06-53 Page 8 the level bench, with the fourth point down the slope towards 751s Place W. This lowers. the height allowed compared to having all the corners of the rectangle on the bench, -or having one -comer of the -rectangle going'up'the slope. b) Contusions Regarding Setback Variances: (1) Sneeial Circumstances: Most of the site is extremely steep. Though it is a large lot and a rectangular shape, very little of the site is useable area. Though no geotechnical report has been provided yet, it seems reasonable to assume that building on the lower bench would be preferable to trying to build on the steeper hill, particularly since the soils include sand and loam. Maintaining the required 25-foot street setbacks to both streets forces the building back into the steep slope with a triangular•building pad, -Though projects. in critical areas often start with the recommendation of a geotechnical engineer to maintain a certain distance from a slope, and the setbacks required from the property lines flow from that, it is not unreasonable to presume some sort of minimal setback will be required from the slope. Therefore, the site has a special circumstance which if the setbacks were strictly enforced would result in the deprivation of the property owner being able to construct a house of a size permitted to other properties in the same vicinity, or would increase the risk of construction by forcing it into the steep slope. (2) Special Privilege: Other properties on 75h Place W. have received variances to setbacks to allow them to build closer to the road due to topography issues. Therefore, the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. (3) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The approval of the setback variance is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The variances would have to be approved for the proposed residence to be in compliance with the zoning ordinance. (4) Not Detrimental: Views in this area are to the west. With the reduced setbacks the proposed .house will not block, western views -because the houses to the east are over 100 feet higher in elevation. The proposed house will be closer. to the existing house to the south, which is already quite close to 156h Street SW. The site plan shows the garage at 15605 --15`h Place W at a ten -foot setback to 156s Street SW. Due to the steep slopes, it is not likely that 156's Street SW will be opened, so it will likely still continue to function as a turnaround and driveway area for the two houses, with its 20 feet of width providing some buffering between the two houses. Therefore the proposal should not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. (5) Minimum Variance: The site plan has been drawn to show the house extending to the 10-foot setback from 156 h Street SW, but maintaining a 15-foot setback to 75" Place W. - The applicant has stated that he would like the 10-foot variance to provide some flexibility depending on what the geotechnical consultant • Hearing F.xauniner Decision Case Nos. V-W52 & V-06-53 Page 9 determines the location of the house should be. Because the City doesn't have a recommendation by.a geotechnical consultant, it is difficult to determine what the minimum, variance should be.. The house: as proposed_ perches on the bench, and avoids not only the steep slope above, but also avoids to a large extent the ten -foot drop down to 75'h Place W_ It is possible that the geotechtiical engineer will recommend maintaining this layout, but it seems equally likely that the geotechnical engineer may suggest a larger setback from the toe of the sloe, which would tilt the house so the northwestern corner swings closer to 75 Place W. than currently shown. In that case, the 10-foot variance could very. likely be the minimum variance. Therefore, the Examiner concludes a minimum of a ten - foot variance should be allowed from both streets, but also.. concludes that as large a setback from both sheets as is practicable should be maintained to comply with the geotechnical study, which needs to be completed. c) Conclusions Regarding Height Variance: (1) S cial Circumstances: The slope on the lot reduces the buildable area available. Though several smaller homes are within the neighborhood, most new construction here has floor area of around 4,000 square feet. Most of the lots on the street face some constraints in slope, but this lot seems to have a larger area of its site encumbered with the slope. By the same token, the slope allows the neighbors to the east to be above the top of the roof even with a proposed variance. If the home were to be restricted to the 25-foot height limit, normally a two-story house above a garage, with a living area of2,750 square feet would be easy to fit on the lot_ Because of the height calculations required, it appears that to gettwo stories above a garage might not fit within the 25-foot height limit, as shown on the elevation (see Attachment 4). It might also require digging further into the bench, which may not be recommended by the geotechnical consultant. This lot has special circumstances 1n the slope that makes necessary to have a variance to have rights permitted to other properties with the same zoning. (2) Special_ Privilege: Several variances have been granted to other homes along 75's Place W due to topography- (3) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The approval -of the height variance is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the variance was approved, the proposed residence would be in compliance with the zoning ordinance. (4) Not Detrimental: The additional height for the house will not block views due to the slope behind them. It will appear taller than most houses on the street, since the height variances are generally on the downhill side of 75`h Place W., which present their shorter elevation to the street The stair -stepping shown on the elevation is a good way to break up the bulk of the building. and help it to fit into the street. The proposed height should notbe detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone. (5) Minimum Variance: The applicant is requesting to be able to construct a three- story house above a garage to be able to have a similar floor area to new houses in 0 Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V4o6-53 Page 10 the vicinity. The house is proposed in the given location in order to stay away from the steep slope, have a driveway and garage at street level, and have the nest of the house perch on the bench. No'geotechnical report has been provided to require this location, but it seems a logical way to layout the house, given the constraints. The applicant appears to be using a flat roof on the house, so the variance is the minimum in that respect. The elevation shown in Exhibit A, Attachment 4 has a smaller top floor than the other floors. The site also has some very limited ground area that could be used to expand the footprint of the house. The applicant explained at the hearing that the proposed house would be smaller than most of the newer houses in the neighborhood and that he wants to keep the footprint on the site as small as is possible. He noted that if the height variance is granted he would be able to stay with the smaller footprint and that the height variance is the minimum variance needed. The Examiner concurs with the applicant's request and reasoning and concludes that the height variance as conditioned below would be the minimum necessary variance, which would allow the applicant to enjoy the rights experienced by other property owners of newer homes in the vicinity with the same zoning- E. TECHNICAL COMMTI"I EE 1. Review by City Departments a) Fact: The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire Department, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, and the Parks and Recreation Department. The only comments received were from the Engineering Division (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5). b) Conclusion: The applicant should meet the requirements of the Engineering Division. F. PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the general public attended the public hearing and no one from the general public submitted any written comments on the proposal. G. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) 1. Comprehensive Plan Designation a) Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family — Resource_" b) Conclusion: Single-family residential development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. 2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies a) Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and -policies, which relate to this proposal. Specific goals and policies are discussed below. Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V4o6-53 Page 11 (1) Residential Development Policy B.1. states, `.Encourage those building custom homes to design.and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the. surroundings,. adding:to :the community identity and desirability.'° (2) Residential Development Policy B.3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures." (3) Residential Development Policy B.6. states, "Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage." . b) Conclusion: The proposed house as shown on the elevation will look different from the house. acrossi 1.56`s Street SW 'and some of the other lower level pitched roof houses that were built in the 1940s or 1950s. The newer houses on the street are more eclectic and include several modern designs with flatter roofs. The new house proposes to avoid the steep slope and perch on the bench at the bottom of the slope, so it is more compatible with the natural constraints of the slopes and geology. Due to the steep slope behind it, it will minimize encroachment on view of the existing homes. Therefore, the proposal is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan DECISION: Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a; • Height Variance is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. A height variance of 34.3 feet is approved. 2. The applicant shall stair -step the house similar to that shown in the elevation Exhibit A, Attachment 4) to help break up the bulk of the building as viewed from 75 Place W. • Setback Variances are approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. ',Me setback variances of ten feet to 751h Place W. and ten feet to 156`s Street SW are approved. The applicant should maintain a greater than ten -foot -setback to the streets if it can safely be allowed given any geotechnical considerations. 2. Side setbacks to the north and east property lines must add up to a total of 35 feet when added to the street setback opposite them. 3. Approval of this variance does not imply compliance with the Environmentally Critical Areas Chapters, Edmonds Community Development Code Chapters 23.40 to 23.90. The applicants shall meet the requirements of the Environmentally Critical Areas Chapters by doing the following. a) A geotechnical report is required to demonstrate how the proposed development complies with the Landslide Hazard requirements of Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 23.80. *Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V-06.53 Page 12 b) To meet the requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area in ECDC 23.90, the applicant shall submit a tree cutting and clearing plan with any development permit. Tree 'cutting "and clearing 'of native vegetation shall be limited to the footprint of development. 4. Meet the Engineering Division requirements, including: a) The minimum depth of the driveway from garage to the property line must be 20 feet from the most restrictive point to allow for parking without encroaching into City right-of-way. b) The maximum driveway slope shall not exceed 14 percent. c) Install a five-foot Avalkway along the frontage of the. property. 5. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 6. The applicant must obtain a building permit. 7. The applicant must comply with all the terms of any future permits. S. The permit is transferable. 9. The owner must act on the approved variance within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration and the city approves the application. Only one one-year extension is possible. Entered this 13th day of July 2006 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. veo.� jco--4�� Ran McConnell, FAI Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL: The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration and appeal. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: Section 20.100.010.G. allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the • Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V406-53 Page 13 initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of .land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed APPEALS: Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. TIME LIlVII'i'S FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL: The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed.. Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request is filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request. LAPSE OF APPROVAL: Section 20.05.020.0 states'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR: The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. Mull-.3VIS The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with 7 attachments PARTIES of RECORD: Ron Hilliard Edmonds Planning Division 2083123`d Ave. W Edmonds Engineering Division Lynnwood, WA 98036 , ,.sit+�x��r r.,� �.,�'�$ .A�y�"'i�!' `R f:: • : ' •, a' , •� r �'. a ' - .. e,J. ,• " a`^ . a ' 1e �'. - L.,S r1�r. � � •T�_�w i4 `�� 'rrn,.�{''.. r `�.-i�� r'. t�' .x �+nj F: � ' � - ' r � ski• 1 �p� ,�,� o .. _ - � i_ Ar � # w -<,•• � "�''n'�Y°"4,',;'�.,A.' `' � y`= •t'`j i T i a � � 'f� a ' '�,,� . �`-.r?, r `� • ��, ,^°'•:r.-^�-::: Yr�+i }� `�~^'^" � .il.:.."t�� 9 "l�i�: [ a� �� a�( ��r r�. �A • y, �� L �• (y " �.� n• "-d-`q , C� >0.•,r�`� _'� "y �(�- R r - a,� � �`�� ,d� ter{ �, i I. an a'��rl� •fit ��'J�'��-4 6 It ` d ^,�, "� i`r S - >kxN :.:'S' s L 4-i � -' � *•yam .'Alp qr } 3 sr fit. �-r r,^ _t"� n r •S- _ f - _ .1 4�- � +i i _-i' h� � tin' ��+* 4{]�ij NV �''�� i:c '` •�5.: a ,ax,5.-�"'•� -�.' � 7 ' '�y� E$'S.-N i r ' '3` .f.� y � � 1 YA� ' 1' Oyu - :: , • ri,.• • �..-'� r ;�v i .t•, tip! 'a j" !f t71"f r�,�! r� �".t •`r$' . s �`E: j1,�}ri.�^r;�� '��ti. � �1 �1 J-'!. x r •� -..�' ✓',n - -+•, ,-s-. ��/j. kf �'`��fi5 �x '' ;� ,,�^�" i4j" r `t •'• �' ram: �3.. f >.i �„•s.'C}"ir : �-.,�Y�I'�, i �� ,� Si 1.��-,. �y7 ".'S�y .�° �. .�f� �•ri{f�.Y ��)� ' f - � �, w'"l' �r 'st-a w � tr 1 ,' fir- r .l.rn � p .� < - '- nj & "!S}.. i+H' r " 9, • i�.N.+.V' 'I�;aR nSr �- F• ?'r ;f �_ .t� _ ii�. �j .:. s+ '+.�. }�y �:�" � "r.,�r;: ?t.. 3 3`�;" s•:U:, k'� i'{3:., Y" -'4: " ;,r� lar�L+q''fjY� � '+rpr -`L"- ;.r _.•3 F �r✓t �Y- ,,44r ii wS; Jy'.�' y, �j yyZt�,.. Sri ew< f Ti Wr�^` •Y4l " Y r ^r `• � �.,y�yy ('� n• y . r �_ -r. • !~ Iw '�'x. VL ',k+•.�I^I. J�ee if t` x .h �• i9 ,f-!�Y r Y! s"'� � ,�J• �r F�, •,�T h� � f ..'.-,�, r 'b' r - rt• �("y^(-�`V t,ri- .. J ��e _ `� i -±'ni' ��' f 1 7Er �•�• k �, e f` �1'` �! il-Ft 'ff^1• -may -1 Y' :i 's % p { ... j„ .+ - _y } �fF✓,_ ^.4=. �; ,LF�,R�'ir,��',�•-V �y-;T;'�'��. ,�r��.1�. ycy.R'�� tz ri �r '7t` '��--1•�` Y.y 't•iw�p,Ru-��Y1 .�.. �:. 1. V4, - ,. L'_ a �, 5 F '.'r;'i 4:� ,i.:,2. y.sJ*'"�'!�� +'F „r, :Yr�/""f.• '• � }'r'�: � � '..S, ' �'�) , .� �k 'fix .a,n; i•�, ,�, ti � � ' _ •M • 3> e'�f- �� . n: r 3 li.. � ' �I ,� -e a r F r t_ "" �`� Yb. _ :` �� '� �r � f;r`�' ,R7��l� a�r ��y •. - d� 4 y .,, +�•ri� .g,Efk�;�' L -, i '� •rY . ��''.�,� '� � �� li�a. �, ai"y!.,a'y'�..�r �,�«- � r'.'•.y .tl.` _ "."s 5'ti i +4~ "�^ _-{-1 •w 1 -�.' ??T '".!<^��31�.�. I�� Ix� �i'�r,S- � Sy .}, l �� ii �1 I �•yti�- 1 �;:` MEMORANDUM Date: November 1, 2007 To: Gina Coccia, Planner From: Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Subject: PLN20070084 (Variance) — Hilliard — 15515 75" PI W Engineering has reviewed the subject application and finds the request for variance to reduce setbacks acceptable with the following condition: The minimum depth of the driveway from the face of the garage to the property line must be 20 feet from the most restrictive point to allow for parking without encroaching into the City right-of-way. The applicant will be required to meet all engineering requirements at the time of building permit submittal. Thank you, Jeanie City of Edmonds Exhibit 12 V-2007-84 Ron Hilliard From: Steven Barnes [sbarnes@cornerstonearch.com] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 11A6 AM To: Ron Hilliard Subject: Hilliard Residence Variance Ron, Here are arguments you can take to the hearing with you. Due to the small buildable area on the site we have requested a variance to allow the building to be constructed closer to the street. This provides us with some architectural and aesthetic opportunities that we don't always have with larger setbacks. 1. We will still maintain the 20 foot deep driveway but the garage doors are hidden below a deck that covers about 12 feet of the drive. As a result you cannot see the garage doors from the street, just a 20 foot wide opening below the deck. So even cars parked in front of the garage are hidden below the deck. 2. As you approach the house from the south you can see the entry to the house which is set at an angle to the road. This created an opportunity to build terraced planters with a stair (broken into 8 step sections) gradually cascading from the entry (which is one floor above the road) down to the street. This creates the best view of the house and allows us to hide the garage doors as described above. 3. Since we have built closer to the street the house has been designed to gradually get taller as it steps back away from the street. The garage level is a daylight basement type design and is dug into the hillside. This reduces the overall building height since most of the garage level is below grade. 4. To further keep down the building massing and be sure we don't exceed height limits the house has a low slope roof. This allows the house to maintain a human scale from the street. 5. Access from the living level, which is on the second floor, is directly to grade on 3 sides of the house with the deck over the driveway on the street side. This allows for extensive outdoor space even though the allowable footprint for development is quite small. Ron, if you have any information regarding the fact that the foot print for your house will be smaller than other properties it would apparently be helpful. Bring copies of this in case you need to give them to Gina for her file. Steve Barnes Cornerstone Architectural Group 1904 Third Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101 Statement of Confidentiality The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for addressee. The information may also be legally privileged. This transmission is sent intrust, for the sole purpose of delivery to the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. It you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail or phone and delete this message and its attachments, if any. Exhibit 13 V-2007-84 • 0 w O a Z d W 0' w J J Z O W J W a Z a II r w aO N Z U a 0-X a Z O O Z W J w O Qi y N O K O U Q 3 wp a Q N Q vwi w ��♦♦ W a o ° w U d o o Z u N w V OU. K 0 Y N s a a' Z cr aa oZ T m 00 0 0 0) w z rn 00 a ° z /� w m 0 a m a 3 U a D o Zo z o O 0 0.. m o m N w -W x r '��1 (n o m XO aNd <njw a x (n0 o L IL (7 O �o o^ p=3M x� r w� Z ZY 0 m aZ000 Or IZ w J N W O Z O T Y = 'Z- ooa azm o or a� m w z Z w r m ^) � m m O O N �» N N Z r p Z Z F>¢ N N O J J Q w m Y= N o 0o zNa3� N moo jmo >o. o zo m U m a a ��i �y J W u 3 00 oom 3zmQa a oom 30� z w x 3 a xi ¢ a 1 z �1 0 o NNa zw'On N Ux =°m r w o w r z w> i 7 s .. 0 z m 00 Zw On N aN> OWa 0 0 0 Q 2' J a a J J 0 Soo ooa �znzv v�0z =�3 Z W 3 3 m s F �n zzr a`zmzN O r°O 3- W p z ZO aW0 �0o>y Z Ux0 0> (�' w vi o rrr UKNJ" Q0U O r a p ~ W rNZ wMOS ®®BAo- 9m0® al {} m coo O J�� WZU Z Z_ O J at0X �Wx E < o Y W Q r(.1r 0 0 Nw W Q J = 0Z Q~ N F a a� O Oa vW Q Z O 7 0 Z X w O o mm Y �W O Nz °z= m Q d? ),CAKr\ N a- Sar N a N ynl� U Z O ma UOUw 1 z wo 00 Zrr p�z I UO rn w 0 N a- U a U O a N > F = QOOoz' < w� J�w aZrn N W O ui Naw��m¢oa U� caw QOo cn Van /'/^� ZNYNEZ 0) QQ OdH >Wp NONZ I I V UN c) V I O O m W H w 0 2 N O 0M ¢ w W p Q 0 N I U Y N Y z? W N !m}o z>rn �N�a 3 W 3 �r 4Q u) J� W r alrw�U 2 J a ti Wa' F O N g W °O 4I NOE 44'' rr»wd-OUo O U �F �Nz N0 O �V .G CC W LL U 1�L14 w�0¢>JJa0 �o a�N 0ao F �1'U �Uoci 3 FON ZZ,w ¢NO Q z� firOW 3z m x U vV LLJ W 20UH��0p0w0a a ozz �Wo o� ,OZ"� ,OZ �� Wwn� rw !r U W O; oo mo N To U U� L�i,1 '0ooJ FZ� �? avWi SY�a �swzw ¢Ooa O F �z 3otr N I cz N (Z) r g v O opwIo=�zoz,o O m ¢ a oo Egg �o w 3a `'' rrwAA c� Z Z Z� I =)'- Z- a w 4 � Z S W d N O M W V W m Ohm OOr z Q O W ra XS U� w > Nm Z Q p O W W, rxz ¢> C9 �Fw. oaN 0°°° W z¢ I a'^a+ V Qa co0= JNraUawUww 41 a Ja >O1 °3 �r Mw I� .� a m a mwxomSOSS J ao a3 -M°! U I O �0o �Vi aONr Nar Jrr U a D ON Z 0 " z< `CIA a F m Q' ' a N �� N N w ° — ' 1 GL=3dolS N t- a ti a a N \`1l .3AI IlVHdS 1 �5N f� LO w a 0 3 N, m Wi a w917,- U V tr m �.\o �o `-� N I O wa \� \\Y1_ N /� I _ _ O co b0 Q� W pa mo �N N `„\\\�\N \ I I., .O£ -�N �'�d� Q �o ¢ O N 11``\ r 6 m V O s N y woai��o� >-z .OZ \ 1 \ r'�'' �W� II roNzo V m-N000 w n K° I \ Cn Y I NZ p II U Ij . m y W pMMMYm F () O CJ� >.-. J a \ w i ow II o> d \ \\�\�� O� iqj gym(° Z \�e �Uo V}XMMM>'O ZO dLJ O�\ \_\\\ \\\\\\p�,]� d'=I I �i VlKwmw_ J��, a 3 ��w MMMw2 O \ S \�\�\ \` CL w 6 1rVl \\\\ I 3 y o W W J O W \` J\\\\\ ' N N 1 1 �(1 O Z N O 1! w � � ZI V, zm wN zm O I0M O o rJ zUNO c� r Z ci a \\�\\g\ \� e O oN m N 4�1 a3osaf Q aw ��'�� V A I �i\�� \ ��o 3�zz c� m m V) > o> < �l Worn ¢ A \.A\��\\\ �� z I o o a a 3 O N�aam �\ \ \ �� V �•�` V � 11�11 pm�0 m M w m \�� Opt6 w °o° va o Q o o z V)vv< m N a Of m T000< a W PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY BELOW YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND ZIP CODE IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THI5 ITEM OR TO BE NOTIFIED OF FUTURE HEARINGS ON THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU. FILE NO.: V-07-94 RON HILLIARD O •� o cco X N W r. cU CO ai (p O •o z 4- O •{.� 1 Q O U z ° .. cd a 0 o . o 0 s 0 N V H a w c o ti Q a y. O Ew ad .� cv c V o 0 z` z` u u% u N o fi 0 0 0 0 fi 2 M a A �� E M o� mo i CCL . .Q : E : : E a ,E M i E i v° o W a ° E a s a 'o c o v 9 'O ,C O •� 3 -. d a ui -O 'b o o °c.a � �° moo° 3o u fl d o c u d . % ca a ' N M �Nt 06 y a • o o �N o c =h V O O aVCL a _O W O �j p 'd x '» �"� ° m d wO u A 3 0? i h '' M & 'M E s�. pcl o N N tf ^ a C ~' C A to Q a ° Y r �± y M 3 c O¢ CS M1 _ d d •/�� Q y "..Ch C p OO jM = � F- a'p=V c O c o r 0 i oo N cV YOC -c m ,bOo Q o • � O u. c '0 E � w ° ° � Q V aLL E 31 3 o •M o c o za ca°' a CL j a`o a 9 • ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list. V PERM,, C(AMAER On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties located within 300 feet of the subject property. atur f p icanto r pl i rit',&R entative Subscribed and sworn to before me this ± oQ.a�cYf Notary Public in and for the .l Residing at �'w of Washington AP0.doc1E._ITctM\forms Easy Peel Labels i A See Instruction Sheet i NSN Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 !Feed Paper" for Easy Peel Feature! A� ®5160® i 1 Ronnie & Susan Hilliard 'Thomas & Marilyn Degan Kenneth Miller 20831 23rd Ave W 19208 Ridgefield Rd NW 19911 89th Pi W Lynnwood, WA 98036 Seattle, WA 98177 Edmonds, WA 98026 Rick & Mary Mezich William Jessberger 7215 156th St SW 15508 72rrd Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Yong & Keesoon Namkung Richard F:aks 15516 72nd Ave W 15524 72nd Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Snohomish Co Prop Mgmt Dr. John & Heldridge 3000 Rocke ler Ave #M 40 930 Glen St Everett, WA 98201 Edmonds, WA 98020 Dr. John & ldridge "I'iffany & Scott Ilansen 930 Gle t 15615 75th PI W Edm s, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98026 Chris & Karyn Hammond Michael & Betty Rusnak 15605 75th PI W 15620 72nd Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98020 Marvin Dyson Seabest 15610 72nd Ave W l5 4 P Edmonds, WA 98026 Ed 98026 Ursula Schluter Michael & Bett Rusnak 15620 75th Pl. W 15620 72n ve W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmo WA 98026 ttiquettes faclles h peler A Utilisez le gabarit AVERYO 51600 Sens de chargetnent Alnashir & Nina Alibhai 15514 72nd Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Ronnie &Sus Hilliard 20831 23 ve W !_ynn od, WA 98036 Dr. John & eldridge 930 Gl St Ed nds, WA 98020 Kyie & Juliana Ray 15625 754h PI W Fdmonds, WA 98026 Harold Wayne Nathan 7222 156th St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Scabest 15604 7 PI W Edn ds, WA 98026 Joanne Spiro 15631 75th PI W Edmonds, WA 98026 Consuitez la feuille d'instruction www.averycom 1-800-GO-AVERY FILE NO.: V-07-84 APPLICANT: HILLIARD NOTICE OF APPLICATION & HEARING AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) I, Diane M. Cunningham, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That on the 17th day of January 2008, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed as required to adjacent property owners, the names of which were provided by the applicant. Signed 1 Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of �Q ��,•.watitittiitt 80 / 9. 9"i ,\G<O�� i Notaryis 0 and for V State of Washington. Residing at t OW AM%6 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH D NOTICE OF ATM F— HEA Name of pp Ron Hilliard PeNumber: 0al 7-84 Proieecctt Location: P1l 15 75th Place West roject Description: Application for two street setback variances: (f ra duce the retired 29 back alongg t5tWtd 10', and, l2) reduce the re- gqtired 25' setback clangg' 75th Pt. W. to t0' in oz to construct a new rest dance. The applicsnt re ceived approval for ihip variance in 2006, but'thd apPlicatlon has sin_eg, --p€red. This 61te is coned' Singgla-Family Rasidentkk (RS-20). City Contact: Gina Coccia, Planner Comments Due By: Februa 7,2008 R1 INFORMA . U e ruary Time: 3:00 P.M. Location: Council Chambers„ Ptblc $slayCmlox 20thq m:ds Published: January 18, 2006: Account RI�y 'JAN 2 g '1008 Affidavit of Publication 1,=l The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice Nottce of Development Application and Notice of Hearing Examiner Hearing Ron Hillard. Project No. V-07-84 a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: 18, 2008 ind that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. Subscribed and swom to before me this day of January,2008 Nota P blic in and for the State of Washington, Account Number 101416 AT, Order Number: 0001565334 EDMQNDS CITY CLERK Inc.3S90 January 8, 2008 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771.0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Websile: wwwxi,edmondsma us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering Ran Hilliard 20831 23`d Avenue West Lynnwood WA 98036 RE: HEARING SCHEDULED (V-2007-84). GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR Dear Applicant, You have submitted an application for two street setback variances for the property at 15515 75"' Place West, which is located in the Single Family Residential (RS-20) zone. A public hearing for your requests have been scheduled at the time and place listed below. s Application by Ron Hilliard for two street setback variances: (1) to reduce the required 25 foot street setback along 1566 Street SW to 10 feet; and, (2) Action:to reduce the required 25 foot street setback along 75`s Place West to 10 feet in order to construct a new single family residence. This project is located at 15515 75's Place West (Parcel 00500900000 10 1 ) in the Single - Family Residential (RS-20) zone. File Number: V-2007-84 Dare of Meeting: Thursday February 7, 2008 Time of Meeting: 3:00 PM Public Safety Complex: City Council Chambers Place: 250 5`s Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 i 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 further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 425.771,0220, extension 1778. Thank you for your interest in development in the City of Edmonds — I look forward to working with you on this project. Sincerely, Cl - G. Gina Coccia Planner CC. File V-2007.84 • Incorporated August 1I, 1890 • Page I of I CITY OF EDMONDS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Name of Proposed Project: Owner/Applicant: Name 0 Z Street/Mailing Address City State Zip WORK SHEET Applicant Contact Person: Name Street/Mailing Addrese---" , City Telephone: �51 ©(a� (� Telephone: Traffic Engineer who prepared the Traffic Impact Analysis: Firm Name 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Contact Name a. Street address (if known): t T!t b. Location: M A Ur. D A c c. Specify existing land use: L Itr ��lvf.'D OCI 2 VERO' J013tA R State Zip Telephone (Attach a vicinity map and site plan.) d. Specify proposed type and size of development: �FI m!:k LT-- PA M I t_Y RE5_l ,Or— lU C-E e. When will the project begin construction and when will it be completed? Co%ZOOP,+ �uznoll( f. Define proposed access locations: TN 1+ g. Define proposed sight distance at site egress locations: Pape 1 2. TRIP GENERATION a. Existing Site Trip Generation Table: PM Peak -Hour Trips Land Use Daily (ADT) IN OUT b. Proposed Project Trip Generation Table: PM Peak -Hour Trips Land Use Daily (ADT) IN OUT c. Net New Project Trip Generation Table: PM Peak -Hour Trips Land Use Daily (ADT)PM OUT d_ State assumptions and methodology for internal, link -diverted or passby trips: DaaP • 0 3. TRIP DISTRIBUTION Prepare and attach a graphic showing project trip distribution percentages and assignments. 4. SITE ACCESS ROADWAY/DRIVEWAYS AND SAFETY a. Have sight distance requirements at egress location been met per AASHTO requirements? b. Intersection Level of Service Analysis; • Existing Conditions LOS Delays • Year of Opening LOS Delays • Five Years Beyond Change of Land Use LOS . Delays (Intersections to be evaluated shall he determined by the City of Edmonds Traffic Engineer.) c. Describe channelization warrants: d. Vehicle Storage/Queuing Analysis (calculate 50% and 95 % queuing lengths): 50% • Existing Conditions • Year of Opening • Five Years Beyond Change of Land Use e. If appropriate, state stop sign and signal warrants: f. Summarize local accident history: (Attach striping plan.) 95% Pape 3 5. TRAFFIC VOLUMES a. Describe existing ADT and peak -hour counts, including turning movements, on street adjacent to and directly impacted by the project. b. Describe the estimated ADT and peak -hour counts, including turning movements, the year the project is fully open (with and without project traffic). c. Describe the estimated ADT and peals -hour counts, including turning movements, five years after the project has been fully open (with and without project traffic). d. State annual background traffic growth factor and source: 6. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Summarize Level of Service Analysis below and attach supporting LOS analysis documentation. Provide the following documentation for each arterial street or arterial intersection impacted by ten or more peak - hour trips. Other City -planned developments must also be factored into the LOS calculations. Existin LOS: Existing Condition: Year of O enin LOS: With Project: Without Project: Pace 4 ,1 • Ll Five Years After Ovenine LOS: With Project: Without Project: Note any assumptions/variations to standard analysis default values and justifications: 7. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS State recommended measures and fees required to mitigate project specific traffic impacts_ Traffic impact fee shall he calculated from the Edmonds Road Impact Fee Rate Study Table 4 (attached) and as identified in ECDC 18.82,120, except as otherwise provided for independent fee calculations in ECDC 18.82.130. MiT r aA-0--1'Z- PER- `T--A Z I JE _....__ _. SAENGR DameMCay FmircuMA Gui&hnolTnRTmAmlvWmk 9X4 doc Pape 5 I 3i W Z N 3 9= ,ia 0 I i Y •i T- O Ll RECEIVED AUG 1 12V PERMIT COUNTER T- O Ll RECEIVED AUG 1 12V PERMIT COUNTER O �s 0 r. P' 4ww 4r w Q� U U ¢ ¢ M M W oo� by '1- Q u � zo ww 0o� ¢ o nno 0 Z O New v 1 p .. O^ Z S 3 M z Q y o0aq ¢zm Z O O mmN Nw N> pW> O3OOQ 0 0ooZ O m00¢w z NO^ Ozm ZZ z o oaZN o }vO H UWN O N J Z ¢ ¢ Q ¢ m O<¢ N O F W w _ � J w�¢aw ww O w a 0 U w¢ Z u o = QOz 113wNa O N¢ W m Z 0¢ O¢ Z Zw¢NZZZp} OK!NT zwW ~ O W f- WOxti w Oj0}JWpN05 Y j O W O w O V 0 INK}F 40 Do FONOW>F'QcnO o w0 w 001 0 1 0~ N" WW D a LiVi jW aF-z O.�OWI=-ODU� acOwm�xpz�a}Z � QONr-N¢,J�� Z r o N F w 0 N a z -- F o < N L() O W O `u ¢ 3 O r m N 1Z¢_ m - W p Q W m N c Nwj�mOUm OU 111 ,q: JONOo T oow M >0 03 \ w W N 0 0 0 w M U ~�I�pMMMmYg Il aw1�wii c„>�rnnn3z� wXo a. 0MM Z ' F zo0aaa>z w Z �03330¢ WSF NVIA W r I Z 02 ' V ^/ > I > pcnao xz¢dlo 0 o N w N 23o No Zoo N ZwFO 7 WUm II 3 nz� C9 0o waQ0 �0, ,0 /Z wmz� w > WZ VIh Ow � KJ <�0�� aw mhpZ> Q 1, N OMv�m Q oz�� V p m�,Wm 6 Q w w z VI m I ZM0< < o ro F O a W N W > x z z a U d o x 0 � o x U M o �w o co > c, Z z ¢� p z N 3 N N UO SO Wo ¢N} o I Uw< K Z U N N Z z�N0 wM0 JZi W-O O N x W Z w N O O,. > Z a V �v0 ¢ZO z V W f p ¢ ¢ Z Z M o ow 0m 0— Z<w .,z0 U O ¢ ww F O a U J N w Qw Q Z m U00 ¢ ¢ y W a1x- ¢ >pwo O 0M z Q00 OUa1n00 z^ ^.>- Zj� O ~ 0 I < a3z l Q N W> W ¢ J p wN Zo} =00 w ill ¢ 0 0 rz� O m 0 �ffz 000.0 3�0- Q Wp ffl W V ar w w Z F a D aw = O ¢ N wow O rn J ao �a3 Omrn w o a_ Z a a w a m w W J W ¢ J ¢ a a W 1n z0 z w a x Z O F O m U ¢ w 0 W Q O O w F ~ Z W A W p W a < N Q N W W O W U Q a a O W } Ow 0 O Y N F K ww Z � VI U w rn Z m a m< o N 3 0*— W m u a m a O x a 0 Z cr W I N w 3 o w Q> < N o Jo 0 > O t� O m } U (xJ a a Z w w x 3 7 z 0¢ a m z J Y 3 f m 3 3 w c¢.� v¢i w a O 3 � a ®® X o®O 0 0 — U O O N z < N`I Q _ W O� �� o0 o v1 :DCD � N O Lu V) p Z O m J w F, OZ O O m } �j JW > z w o ~ W I m Z a E Z O a 'yo�� o y m F a o �d��yfs oE4`'y a pP w 9 Inc. 18�� December 10, 2007 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771.0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Websile: www.d.edmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering Ron Hilliard 20831 23`" Avenue West Lynnwood WA 98036 GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR RE: STREET SETBACK VARIANCE REQUESTS AT 15515 75TH PLACE WEST (V-2007-84). Dear Applicant: You have submitted an application for two street setback variances for the property at 15515 75`s Place West, which is located in the Single Family Residential (RS-20) zone. Please. provide the fallowing additional information so review can continue: I. Site Plan: Please provide a site plan that is to scale that shows the property lines, the proposed structure, and the proposed distances to the structure. I found a topography map in the file, but it did not show your proposed setback distances — I wasn't sure if this is the map that you wanted to use. I also found a large size plan, which does show the proposed setbacks and all information clearly, but no reduced size copy. Please submit a clear reduced -size copy ( I I xl7 or smaller) for the file. 12110107. Thank you far submitting a new site plan. However, this site plan does not clearly show the entire extent of the parcel and the setback distances requested to the proposed new structure. Because the Hearing Examiner will be reviewing and potentially approving your request, we need to be able to establish a very clear record Please turn in the new map at your earliest convenience so a public hearing can be scheduled. 2. Driveway Depth: Please seethe attached memo from the Engineering Division regarding driveway depth. If you have any questions, please contact Jeanie McConnell at 425.771.0220, extension 1338. 12110107. Did you have any questions about the above memo? 3. Lot Line Adjustment: I see in the system that you submitted an application for a Lot Line Adjustment over the summer. Did you record the Lot Line Adjustment? If so, please submit three recorded copies for the file. If not, what is the status of the project? I am the Planner assigned to your project. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 425,771.0220, extension 1778. Thank you for your interest in development in the City of Edmonds — I look forward to working with you on this project. Sincerely, • 04"w to"U"'01`0 Gina Coccia Planner CC: File V-2007-84 Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sistar Citu - Hpkinan .lanan Page I of I c O Co �0 0 Q N ci QL _ � 00 O Eo O 0Z > 9 U W Z LL OO 'V ❑ Z • i N d Y c a oc N a. d c o u N C = a �Y Qi1 o r* cc c m c v o A .2 4. A 0 A > > v r= a 0 0 0 0 0 0 .E E o � c E � +� a� •� ' aai c N E Q o a v. w aco Z c O 5, � 0 � o U cr C w� Yo v" faro ~ � d d N •r�±'/1�e� o , M 2cr U aI M C M N « 16 o M 3 z0 cam O I" C 0 a 3 i3Y;v z E O 0` A. p n O N d a �oo3a,=a v d '� C . e+�' o a = o N v a N M s �+ ai i N v c :r = A. 2 ;� o s� =vYv~M�d �, r• p ... O O ; O. •` A _ U �+ aavo2�« go o � a4 c° O O � CL 0 0 0 0 0 Q w c o � ❑ U m Q Q Q U =_ V O O N O Q Q (D N U y 4: 0 z O O a a 0 Q Easy Peel Labels A See Instruction Sheet Use Avery®iE PLATE 57600 jFe aper for Easy Peel Featurei SAVERYOsuo(D 1 Ronnie & Susan billiard Thomas & Marilyn Degan Kenneth Miller 20831 23rd Ave W 18208 Ridgefield Rd NW 19911 89th P1 W Lynnwood, WA 98036 Seattle, WA 98177 Edmonds, WA 98026 Rick & Mary Mezich William Jessberger 7215 156th St SW 15508 72nd Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Yong & Keesoon Namkung Richard Eaks 15516 72nd Ave W 15524 72nd Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Snohomish Co Prop Mgmt Dr. John & Heldridge 3000 Rockefeller Ave #M 40 930 Glen St Everett, 98201 Edmonds, WA 98020 Dr. John ldridge Tiffany & Scott Hansen & 930 Gle t 15615 75th PI W Edm s, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98026 Chris & Karyn Hammond Michael & Betty Rusnak 15605 75th PI W 15620 72nd Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Marvin Dyson Seabest 15610 72nd Ave W 15 4 h Edmonds, WA 98026 Ed 98026 Ursula Schluter Michael & Be Rusnak 15620 75th PI W 15620 72n ve W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmo WA 98026 Alnashir & Nina Alibhai 15514 72nd Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Ronnie & Sus Hilliard 20831 23 ve W Lynn od, WA 98036 Dr. John & eldridge 930 GI t Ed nds, WA 98020 Kyle & Juliana Ray 15625 75th P1 W Edmonds, WA 98026 Harold Wayne Nathan 7222 156th St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Seabest 15604 7 PI W Edn pg6ds, WA 98026 Joanne Spiro 15631 75th PI W Edmonds, WA 98026 ttiquettes faciles A peler A Consultez la feuille www.avery.com Utilisez le gabarit AVERYO 51600 Sens de chargement d'instnrction "00-GO-AVERY r • • ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list. pc� 3107 PERM'j �O�N-��R On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties located within 300 feet of the subject property. o �+gnatur"T-Appucant or jppi3canv&t{ entative a fii 6 t, . , ; Subscribed and sworn to before me this 'Gail.da 'df 0 fj Notary Public In and for the State of Washington Residing at AP0.doc1LATeunplfonns FILE NO.: V-07-84 APPLICANT: HILLIARD NOTICE OF DECISION AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) I, Gina Coccia, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That on the 13th day of November 2007, the attached Notice of Application was posted as prescribed by Ordinance, and in any event, in the Civic Center and the Library, and where applicable on or near the subject property. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of LO e./ A2. , .9-60% �y W i0 hStS� ��i 1 � QV � C115 �CY WASN'c��• No ub)'c in and for tate of Washington. Residing at 2 ,.z �, /� File Number: V-07-84 Applicant Hilliard NOTICE OF DECISION AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) I, Diane M. Cunningham, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That on the 1 3th day of November 2007, the attached Notice of Development Application was mailed as required to adjacent property owners, the names of which were provided by the applicant. Signed _ V C� Mkz - LAUnna� Subscribed and sworn to before me this �day of4 dem �. Qp, s. Ro +y,/ `y01 AR `p AUs`�c ; o ` Nn bli in and for State of Washington. 9_ '� )11w Residing at Ank wiw Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH S.S. D NOT T NAME Ron Hilliard FILE NO.: V-07-84 PROJECT LOCATION: 15615 75th Place West PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Application for two street setback variances: (1) re. duce the required 25 foot setback along 156th St. SW to 10 feet, and, (2) re- duce the required 25 foot setback along 75th Pl. W. to 10 feet In order to con- struct a single family resi- denoa. The applicant re• caNed approval for these vansncO requests 2006, but the Wplication has since expired. This pproject is located in the Smgle- Family Residential (RS-20) Zone. CITY CONTACT: Gina Comia Published: November 13, 2007. RECEIVED Nov 16 '! EDMONDS CITY CLERK Account Name: City of Edmonds The undersigned, being first duly swom on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice Notice of Development..Application Ron Hillard File No.: V-07-84 a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: November 13, 2007 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. Subscribed and swom to before me this 13th Account Number: 101416 Order Number: 0001551968 114 C. 18 c)" November 7, 2007 0 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.d.edmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering Ron Hilliard 20831 23`d Avenue West Lynnwood WA 98036 GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR RE: STREET SETBACK VARIANCE REQUESTS AT 15515 75r" PLACE WEST (V-2007-84). Dear Applicant: You have submitted an application for two street setback variances for the property at 15515 75t1' Place West, which is located in the Single Family Residential (RS-20) zone. ease provide the o owen;? additions! i„ ,,n(ormation so review can continue: 1. Site Plan: Please provide a site plan that is to scale that shows the property lines, the proposed structure, and the proposed distances to the structure. I found a topography map in the file, but it did not show your proposed setback distances — I wasn't sure if this is the map that you wanted to use. I also found a large size plan, which does show the proposed setbacks and all information clearly, but no reduced size copy. Please submit a clear reduced -size copy (I Ix 17 or smaller) for the file. 2. Driveway Depth: Please see the attached memo from the Engineering Division regarding driveway depth. If you have any questions, please contact Jeanie McConnell at 425.771.0220, extension 1338, 3. SEPA: Please note that due to grading quantities anticipated (333 cubic yards of cut, 510 cubic yards of foundation cut, and 303 cubic yards of fill) an Environmental (SEPA) Determination will need to me made prior to building permit issuance Gust something to keep in mind — it is not a requirement with this variance application). I am the Planner assigned to your project. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 425.771.0220, extension 1779. Thank you for your interest in development in the City of Edmonds —1 look forward to working with you on this project. Sincerely, Gina Coccia Planner CC: File V-2007-94 Enc. Memo from the Engineering Division Note: if srafj"finds that additional information is needed, we will note you in writing that additional information is needed While this information -request is pending, the 120-day clock jar processing the application will stop running, When the additional information is submitted, staff will review it to insure that it responds fully to the information request. When the request for additional information has been satisfied, the 170-day clock will start running again. Page 1 of 1 • Incorporated August I1, 1890 Cicfor:'ihz - t-tolrinan .tanan l V • Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM November 1, 2007 Gina Coccia, Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager PLN20070084 (Variance) — Hilliard —15515 75" PI W Engineering has reviewed the subject application and finds the request for variance to reduce setbacks acceptable with the following condition: The minimum depth of the driveway from the face of the garage to the property line must be 20 feet from the most restrictive point to allow for parking without encroaching into the City right-of-way. The applicant will be required to meet all engineering requirements at the time of building permit submittal. Thank you, Jeanie City of Edmonds Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM November 1, 2007 Gina Coccia, Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager PLN20070084 (Variance) — Hilliard —15515 75`h PI W Engineering has reviewed the subject application and finds the request for variance to reduce setbacks acceptable with the following condition: The minimum depth of the driveway from the face of the garage to the property line must be 20 feet from the most restrictive point to allow for parking without encroaching into the City right-of-way. The applicant will be required to meet all engineering requirements at the time of building permit submittal. Thank you, Jeanie City of Edmonds CITY OF EDMONDS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Name of Proposed Project: Owner/Applicant: Name 2oP, 2, � n A 1 _ Street/Mailing Address City State Zip Telephone: 16t ZCj - Z"11 - 0 (621 L. WORK SHEET Applicant Contact Person: my - Name Street/Mailing Address City Telephone: Traffic Engineer who prepared the Traffic Impact Analysis: Firm Name 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Contact Name a. Street address (if known): ( `j TU 0,1000.0 p'.T 29 VAR c00V% WWI State Zip Telephone (Attach a vicinity map and site plan.) c. Specify existing land use: L. d. Specify proposed type and size of development: LEA M I LY EZ I DG N e. When will the project begin construction and when will it be completed? G zz(bQp /Uzoolt f. Define proposed access locations: p T N g.. Define proposed sight distance at site egress locations: Mo '+ Page I 2. TRIP GENERATION a. Existing Site Trip Generation Table: Land Use Daily (ADT) PM Peak -Hour Trips IN OUT b. Proposed Project Trip Generation Table: Land Use Daily (ADT) PM Peak -Hour Trips IN OUT c. Net New Project Trip Generation Table: Land Use Daily (ADT) PM Peak -Hour Trips IN OUT d. State assumptions and methodology for internal, link -diverted or passby trips: Page 2 3. TRIP DISTRIBUTION Prepare and attach a graphic showing project trip distribution percentages and assignments. 4. SITE ACCESS ROADWAY/DRIVEWAYS AND SAFETY a. Have sight distance requirements at egress location been met per AASHTO requirements? b. Intersection Level of Service .Analysis:, • Existing Conditions LOS Delays • Year of Opening LOS Delays • Five Years Beyond Change of Land Use LOS . Delays (Intersections to be evaluated shall be determined by the City of Edmonds Traffic Engineer.) c. Describe channelization warrants: d. Vehicle Storage/Queuing Analysis (calculate 50% and 95 % queuing lengths): 50% • Existing Conditions • Year of Opening • Five Years Beyond Change of Land Use e. If appropriate, state stop sign and signal warrants: f. Summarize local accident history: (Attach striping plan.) 95% Page 3 5. TRAFFIC VOLUMES a. Describe existing ADT and peak -hour counts, including turning movements, on street adjacent to and directly impacted by the project. b. Describe the estimated ADT and peak -hour counts, including turning movements, the year the project is fully open (with and without project traffic). c. Describe the estimated ADT and peak -hour counts, including turning movements, five years after the project has been fully open (with and without project traffic). d. State annual background traffic growth factor and source: 6. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Summarize Level of Service Analysis below and attach supporting LOS analysis documentation. Provide the following documentation for each arterial street or arterial intersection impacted by ten or more peak - hour trips. Other City -planned developments must also be factored into the LOS calculations. Existing LOS: Existing Condition: Year -of Opening LOS: With Project: Without Project: Page 4 Five Years After Opening LOS: With Project: Without Project: Note any assumptions/variations to standard analysis default values and justifications: 7. NIITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS State recommended measures and fees required to mitigate project specific traffic impacts. Traffic impact fee shall be calculated from the Edmonds Road Impact Fee Rate Study Table 4 (attached) and as identified in ECDC 18.82.120, except as otherwise provided for independent fee calculations in ECDC 18.82.130. SAEN3GRU)=d lC4y Projc u=AL Guide ineffraOmpAnalyWork 9-04,doc Page 5