The URL can be used to link to this page

S-07-76 staff report with attachments.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS 121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION To: File S-07-76 From: ; Mike Clugston, P anner Date: November 27, 2007 File: S-07-76 Applicant: Eric B. Thuesen TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................2 A. Application........................................................................... B. Decision on Subdivision................................................................... .... ............2 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................... 3 A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance....................................................................................3 B. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan........................................................................................ 5 C. Analysis of Modification Request.....................................................................................................7 D. Compliance with the Zoning Code.................................................................................................... 7 E. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions............................................................... 7 F. Environmental Assessment............................................................................................................... 7 G. Critical Areas Review ..... ........ --......... ........ ...... .... ........ ........................ .......................................... 7 H. Comments-- .................................................................................................................................... 7 III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS..........................................................................8 A. Request for Reconsideration............................................................................................................. 8 B. Appeals......................................................................................................... ......... 8 C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals. ....... ........... ---- ....... ............................................. 8 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL.....................................................................................................8 V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR.................................................................................. 8 VI. APPENDICES ........................... ..........................................................................................8 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD......................................................................................................9 Thuesen Short Plat File No. S-07-76 Page 2 of 9 I. INTRODUCTION The applicant is proposing a three -lot short plat of a previously approved two -lot short plat at 509 9`t' Avenue North (Attachment 1). The site is located in a Single -Family Residential (RS -12) zone that allows lots with a minimum area of 12,000 square feet (Attachment 2). The proposed lot layout is shown on the subdivision map (Attachment 3), The existing residence and garage will remain on proposed Lot 1. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and Release (Attachment 4), the City is reviewing the current development application against the City of Edmonds Community Development Code as it existed at the vesting date of the original application on January 18, 2005. The current development application was determined to be complete on October 17, 2007. A. Application 1. Applicant: Eric B. Thuesen 2. Site Location: 509 9'h Avenue North 3. Request: To divide two lots with a total area of 45,037 square feet into three lots in a Single - Family Residential (RS -12) zone. 4. Review Process: following the Comment Period, Planning Staff makes an administrative decision. 5. Major Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030, site development standards for the RS -12 zone. b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Title 18, public works requirements. c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.75, subdivision requirements. d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.95, staff review requirements. Note: All code sections referenced in this report can be viewed via the City's website at www.c i,edmonds.wa.us, S. Decision on Subdivision Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and Attachments submitted with the application and during the comment period, the following is the decision of the City of Edmonds Planning Division: The subdivision as proposed is APPROVED with the following conditions: I. Prior to recording, the applicant must complete the following requirements: a) Civil plans must be approved or a bond must be posted for their completion, In completing the civil plans, the applicant must address the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required Prior to Recording" in Attachment 5. b) Make the following revisions to the plat: (1) Add to the face of the Plat: "Conditions of approval must be met and can be found in the final approval for the short subdivision located in File S-07-76 in the City of Edmonds Planning Division." (2) Include on the plat all required information, including owner's certification, hold harmless agreement, and staft's approval block. (3) If setbacks are to be included on the plat, add the following statement to the face of the plat: "Setbacks shown are for reference only and vest no right." c) Make sure all documents to be recorded meet the Snohomish County Auditor's requirements for recording, including all signatures in black ink. Thuesen Short Plat File No. S-07-76 Page 3 of 9 d) Submit two copies of the documents to be recorded for the Planning Division and Engineering Division's approval. Once approved, the applicant must record the documents with Snohomish County Auditor's office. e) Submit an updated copy of the title report (short plat certificate) with the documents proposed to be recorded. 2. After recording the plat, the applicant must complete the following: a) Provide the City Planning Division with three copies of the recorded plat, with the recording number written on them, The City will not consider the subdivision complete until this is done. b) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required with Building Permit" on Attachment 5, C. Decision on Modification Request Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and Attachments submitted with the application and during the comment period, the following is the decision of the City of Edmonds Planning Division: The Modification Request to reduce the minimum required eastern setback for proposed Lot I from 10 feet to 5 feet is DENIED. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance Introduction a. Settina: The subject property at 509 0 Avenue North is located in the Single -Family Residential (RS -12) zone and is surrounded by similarly zoned and developed lots on the north and east (Attachment 2), A church and its associated open space are adjacent to the subject property on the west. Parcels to the south are zoned RS -6 but developed similarly to the RS -12 areas due to local environmental constraints. Topography and Vegetation: The subject site is fairly flat on the eastern and western edges but slopes downward steeply from east to west in the middle of the parcel. Vegetation consists of typical urban -residential landscaping, including grass, trees and shrubs. C. Lot Layout: The proposed lot layout is shown on the preliminary plat map (Attachment 3). Proposed Lots I and 2 will be flag lots. Lot 3 will front on 8"' Avenue N. Lot 1 will gain access from 9"' Avenue N using an existing easement. Lots 2 and 3 will gain access via St" Avenue N and Lot 2 will have an access easement on Lot 3 (Attachment 6) 2. Environmental Criteria a. Section 20.75.085 of the Edmonds Community Development Code states that where environmental resources exist such as trees, streams, ravines or wildlife, the proposal shall be designed to minimize significant adverse impacts to the resources. The subject parcel contains several large trees, primarily on Lot 1. The applicant is encouraged to retain these. A small isolated wetland existed on proposed Lot 3 but was permitted to be filled through approval from the Washington State Department of Ecology (Attachment 10). b. The proposal shall be designed to minimize grading by using shared driveways and by relating street, house site and lot placement to the existing topography. The proposal minimizes grading by using a shared driveway for Lots 2 and 3. Lot placement generally follows topography and proposed house site placement does as well (Attachment 6). Thuesen short Plat File No. S-07-76 Page 4 of 9 C. A subdivision of hazardous land (flood plains, steep slopes, unstable soils or geologic conditions) shall be denied unless the condition can be permanently corrected. A steep slope hazard was identified on the site (Attachment 7). According to two geotechnical reports (Attachments 8 and 9), the slope is stable and buildable. The proposal shall minimize off-site impacts to drainage, views, and so forth. A drainage plan must be submitted to the Engineering Division prior to recording the short plat and/or when a building permit is applied for on this site. All proposed development on the site must be designed to meet current code in order to minimize off-site drainage impacts. Because of the sloping nature of the parcel, local views should not be greatly impacted when Lots 2 and 3 are developed. 3. Lot and Street Layout This criterion requires staff to examine whether the proposed subdivision is consistent with the dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance and that the lots would ultimately be buildable, Based on a review of the project and the analysis in this section, a three -lot short plat is a reasonable use of the property. Lot sizes and dimensions: Lot Area: Required Lot Area Proposed Gross sq. ft Proposed Nets . ft Lot 1 12,000 19,786 19,786 Lot 2 12,000 12,022 12,022 Lot 3 12,000 13,229 12,019 Lot Width: The required lot width in the RS -12 zone is 80 feet, The proposed lots appear to meet this requirement. 4. Setbacks and Lot Coverage In order to approve a subdivision, the proposal must meet all requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a modification must be approved. Based on the development standards for the RS -12 zone, setbacks for the lots should be as follows: Lot 1: All side setbacks (10 feet) Lot 2: All side setbacks (10 feet) I.,ot 3: Street Setback (25 feet) from the west property line adjacent to 8"' Avenue N Side Setback (10 feet) on north and south property lines Rear Setback (25 feet) from the east property line Existing Structures / Encroachments: The existing residence and garage on Lot I will remain. When approved in 2005 (BLD20050141) and as renewed in 2007 (BLD20070321), the garage on Lot I was sited with a reduced 5' rear (eastern) property line setback which is allowable for accessory structures covering less than 600 square feet, The previous subdivision application (S-05-09) made this structure non -conforming since Lot I is a flag with 10' property line setbacks. The modification request associated with this subdivision application is seeking to reduce the required 10' setback to 5' in order to make the garage a conforming structure. Corner Lots: Neither of the proposed lots are considered corner lots. b. Flag or Interior lot determination: Lots I and 2 are flag lots, C. Lot Coverage of Existing Buildings on Proposed Lots: The house and garage on Lot I will remain and cover approximately 16.5% of the lot. There are currently no structures on Thuesen Short Plat File No. S-07-76 Page 5 of 9 proposed Lots 2 and 3 and therefore they have zero lot coverage. Any future buildings or structures will be allowed to cover no more than 35% of either lot. s. Dedications a. No dedications were required for the proposed subdivision. 6. Improvements a. See Engineering Requirements (Attachment 5). 7. Flood Plain Management a, This project is not located in a FEMA designated Flood Plain. B. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan i. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: The Comprehensive Plan has the following stated goals and policies for Residential Development that apply to this project. Residential Development B. Goal, High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, 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. B.4. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible. B.5. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful control of other types of development and expansion based upon the following principles: B.5.d. Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc. B.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage. 2. Compliance with the Residential Development goals and policies: The proposal involves creating two new single family building lots, thereby increasing the potential amount of housing within the City. The development of the parcel must take into consideration the presence of the steep slope hazard area on the parcel. C. Analysis of Modification Request 1. The applicant has requested a modification to a required setback as allowed in ECDC 20.75.075, which requires all criteria of a variance to be met if the requested modification is to be approved. The Criteria are as follows: a. Special Circumstances: That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, strict enforcement of the Thuesen Short Plat Pile No. 5-07-76 Page 6 of 9 zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Special Circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property. b. Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. C, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance and the zoning district in which the property is located. d. Not Detrimental: That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone, e. Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 2. The Applicant has presented declarations as to the merits of his proposal (see Attachment 7). 3. Additional Findings: a. Prior to any subdivision at the subject address, the parcel was rectangular in shape and extended from 8th Avenue North approximately 410' to the eastern property line. When the house and garage were approved in 2005, the eastern property line setback was 25 feet. Twenty-five feet is the standard rear setback in the RS -12 zone. Because the garage was a detached accessory structure of less than 600 square feet, the 25' rear setback was reduced to 5' per ECDC 16.20.050.C. A two -lot subdivision was then proposed and approved. The portion of the original parcel that contained the house and garage were designed as a flag lot. Flag lots have all side setbacks — 10' in the RS -12 zone. The detached garage had previously been approved with a reduced 5' setback and through the process of subdivision, the setback became 10'. As a result, the garage became a non -conforming structure because it did not meet the setback requirement of the newly created lot. 4. Conclusions: a. The applicant does not have a special circumstance. The garage was originally approved with a reduced 5' rear setback from the eastern property line per ECDC 16.20.050.C. The applicant then created the non -conforming circumstance by himself when he sought a subdivision that resulted in a change to the entire eastern setback of Lot 1 to 10'. b. The applicant would be receiving special privilege if the modification request were approved. Reducing the entire eastern setback on Lot I to 5' is not in keeping with any other newly created lot (flag or otherwise) in the RS -12 zone, The only setbacks that may be reduced are rear setbacks and that is only for accessory structures covering less than 600 square feet. C. The Comprehensive Plan is largely silent regarding proposals of this nature. Generally speaking, creation and retention of single-family homes is encouraged while intrusion of views and privacy is discouraged. At the same time, the proposal is not consistent with the zoning ordinance. While the detached garage on Lot I is a non -conforming structure, it may be continued, maintained and even rebuilt in some circumstances according ECDC 17.40.020. Reducing an existing setback to make a non -conforming building into a conforming building is not the intent of the zoning ordinance. On the contrary, owners are usually required to bring such structures into compliance with the existing zoning code. 'T'huesen Short Plat File No. 5-07-75 Page 7 of 9 d. While somewhat uncertain, the proposed modification could be detrimental to property owners in the immediate vicinity. If granted the modification, the applicant could conceivably build a 25' residential structure to the 5' property line setback. This could be injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. Public health and safety would not be affected by the proposal. Reducing the entire property line setback of Lot 1 from 10' to 5' is not the minimum necessary to make the detached garage a conforming structure even if that were recommended or required by the zoning code. D. Compliance with the Zoning Code The proposed subdivision must comply with the provisions of the Zoning Code. See Sections II.A.3 and II.A.4 of this document. E. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions 1. The proposed project is not located in a Flood Plain. F. Environmental Assessment 1. Is this site within a shoreline area (within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Puget Sound)? No, 2. Is an Environmental Checklist Required for this application? No. If more than 500 cubic yards of grading will be required, an Environmental Checklist is required. At this point, the total amount of grading for the subdivision improvements is not anticipated to exceed 500 cubic yards. If through review of the civil plans, it is determined that more than 500 cubic yards of grading will be necessary, the City will require an Environmental Checklist to be submitted and will issue an Environmental Determination. G. Critical Areas Review 1. Critical Areas Review number: CA -01-67 (Attachment 7). Results of Critical Areas Review: This review was conducted under the Critical Areas code that existed prior to January 18, 2005. Critical Areas code was subsequently updated in March 2005. A critical areas study was required due to the presence of a possible steep slope hazard pursuant to ECDC Chapter 20.15 (the controlling critical areas code at the time). The applicant submitted two geotechnical reports (Attachments 8 and 9) describing the hazard. Both reports indicated that the slope and soils on the lot were stable and that home construction on the parcel was viable from a geotechnical standpoint. While not identified during the initial critical areas review, a small wetland was subsequently identified on the western portion of the subject parcel. This wetland was delineated, classified and mapped. Because of its size, the wetland was not regulated under the City's Critical Areas ordinance at the time of the initial subdivision application. The applicant eventually sought and received approval to fill the wetland from the Washington State Department of Ecology (Attachment 10). H. Comments One public comment letter was received during the review of this proposal which is included as Attachment 11. 1. Vivian Olson (503 9"' Avenue N) had concerns about the proposed modification request to reduce the entire eastern property line setback of proposed Lot 1 from 10 feet to 5 feet. Staff Response; See Staff's Decision on Modification Request (I.C.), As noted, the modification request sought by the applicant was denied. Thuesen Short Plat File No. S-07-76 Page 8 of 9 III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20.100.010.E allows for City staff to reconsider their decision if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the posting of the notice required by this section. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. B. Appeals Section 20.105.040 and 20.105.020 describes how appeals of a staff decision shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing and shall include: the decision being appealed along with the name of the project, 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 fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals The time limits for Reconsiderations and Appeals run concurrently. if a request for a reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time "clock" for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once staff has issued a decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a request is filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after staff issues a decision on the reconsideration request. IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.075.100 states, "Approval of a preliminary plat or preliminary short plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of five years, unless the applicant has acquired final plat or final short plat approval within the five-year period." V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may, as a result of the decision rendered by the staff, request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office. VI. APPENDICES 1. Land Use Application, dated August 31, 2007 2. Vicinity /Zoning Map 3. Preliminary Plat Map, received October 9, 2007 4, Settlement Agreement and Release, approved July 24, 2007 5, Engineering Requirements 6, Preliminary Grading, Drainage & Utilities Map, received August 31, 2007 7. Applicant's Statement for Modification Request 8. Critical Areas Determination (CA -01-67), dated May 1, 2001 9. Preliminary geotechnical evaluation by Dennis Bruce, PE, dated October 24, 2001 10. Geotechnical and drainage evaluation by Dennis Bruce, PE, dated January 13, 2005 11. Corps of Engineers letter to the applicant regarding the wetland, received August 17, 2007 12. Comment letter from Vivian Olson, dated November 8, 2007 Thuesen Short Plat File No. S-07-76 Page 9 of 9 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD Planning Division Eric Thuesen 509 91` Avenue North Engineering Division Edmonds, WA 98020 Parks and Recreation Public Works Fire Department Vivian Olson 503 9'h Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 city of edmonds{ land use application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AME n RECEIVE ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE 61!o ZONE f �S `� Z ID HOME OCCUPATION AUG 3 12007 DATE D';- RFC'D BY lav ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION 6 SHORT SUBDIVISION PERMIT COUNTER FEE 1 RECEIPT # 4 ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FIEARINO DATE ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (] HE STAFP Q PB ❑ADB C) CC 13 OFFICIAL, STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE$lar-SUV'0/10 Vie—S11pYt�lGI{- © SHORFTANEPERMIT -SIg1nPD5tYr1 ❑ VARIANCE/REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ��DI�_�,ytpdti�l(rQ�dY? ❑ OTHFR: PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION PRO,IEC'I' NAMF, (Ili APPLICAE3LE) PROPERTY OWNER n 5 C ,C.tA �'� _-- PHONE # '4, 12' �`y ADDRESS rrr�� Q 1V�a J IIIA W ,IIs �',yo2c7 la -MAIL ADDRESS C-�-� -- �-1-1e� — < c_� 1 FAX # TAX ACCOUNT # _ SEC. Twp, RNG, DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE � � � � } �� i .1-� ►moo d.i �. �'�, 1� APPI,rCANT L� �1 PHONE# -'?-7 ADDRESS E-MAIL ADDRESS �' ^'� �^ ^ e G"�" �� FAX # CONTACT PERSON/AGENT PHONF# ADDRESS E-MAIL ADDRESS FAX # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees, By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT Property Owner's Authorization q— (/-, '�r7�1 DATE By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF O\VNER Q-- DATE This application form was revised on 1/x7100. To verify whether it is still current, call (425) 771-0220. Attachment 1 I'ALIBRARWI,ANNINGWOrma & HandouOPUblic IlanclauLOand Use Applicatioil.doc 0 DALEY ST '� od f r//ij SP RAG ST i °° ALOHA ST J Pq r (; I "% G Q r/ " / / f ' "�z l , "41k,Di n I i CAROL WAY �%/ r/ ;/ �/ % /%/ / % 'i/j ///////%///%%%//i/ ///%%/�///�' '�/ O /if BELL ST � � .../,/ �� /..� ✓ ..., ��.. o.... ,. ....ria/ �... i ..:inn / C: NO/ , .;,� ,,,, ,,.. / � W r , / r ... i /, �./ ✓/ / %% /.."No"rani �✓ ;; ' „ , REMAIN, /�� f r„� // //i„//////�// /lir,%„iii., � , ,,, ✓iG,,,/cic„/„///iiilic� i, ,,, r,,, i / ,irio,,, U RS 2q ii RS 6 RM -3 / RP � �� CG2 Rezones RS -12 RSWV-12 RM 24 /f BNCWV MU PRD RS -10 RS -MP JJJ RM -t5 5 BC M P 1 (J(J(Q(jjw P Pike S-2007-76 RS -8 ii!/i CG �;�,,!I! MP2 �''��w:� QS Q '35 �7Q F`ct Attachment 2 / \\\}\ :pig � _ _ �/ \/ \ } } \\\ \/\\ � \\ �\ i /� }\� °§©/ \ 1 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Release (the "Settlement Agreement") is made and entered into this g (3 day of 141 2007, by and between ERIC THUESEN/ERIC THUESEN CUSTOM HOMES, LLC ("Petitioners"), and the CITY OF EDMONDS, including all elected officials, various department heads, and employees ("The City"). RECITALS A. Petitioners own property located in the City of Edmonds (the "Property='). On January 18, 2005, Petitioners filed an application with the City to subdivide the Property into two lots. B. On .February 17, 2005, the City issued Petitioners a written notice of completeness, confirming that the application had vested as of the date it was filed, on January 18, 2005. Thus, -the applicable critical areas regulations were those contained in the City's Old Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), at Ch. 20.15B of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). C. Consistent with the City Code, Petitioners were required to obtain, among other things, a wetland delineation and wetland survey of the property. D. The wetland delineation was performed by Pentec, which issued a report on May 1 17, 2005. The wetland survey was then completed by Lovell-Sauerland & Associates (LSA) on August 7, 2005, E. Under the City's Old CAO, the minimum threshold area for a regulated wetland was 2,500 square feet. Based upon the Pentec delineation and LSA survey, the wetland on Petitioners' property was measured as 2,291 square feet. Pentec issued an independent review letter on September 8; 2005. F. On or about September 14, 2005, Petitioners submitted a reprised application to the City to further subdivide the property into a total of three lots. A dispute arose between Petitioners and the City as to whether the revision was vested to the City's Old or New CAO. G. City Staff issued it$ decision on the Petitioners' short plat on April 12, 2006 ("Staffs Decision"). Among other things, the City imposed buffers and setbacks from the wetland pursuant to the general provisions of its former subdivision codi.` In addition, the City also determined that Petitioners could not revise. the short plat from 2 -lots to 34ots. H. Petitioners filed an administrative appeal of Staff's Decision.. The neighbors adjacent to the Property (the "Neighbors") joined in the appeal arguing, inter adia, that LSA's wetland survey was invalid, and that the wetland exceeded 2,500 square feet. After public hearing, the Hearing Examiner issued his written decision dated July 6, 2006. The Hearing Al— Settlement Agreement 1 of 8 Attachment 4 Examiner denied the Neighbors' appeals in part and Thuesen's appeal related to vesting of the third lat. The Hearing Examiner remanded the portion of the Neighbors' appeal relative to wedand/drainage issues for additional study. The Examiner concluded that if the wetland were determined to be less than 2,500 square feet in area after such additional study, then it should be treated as "unregulated" and all conditions recommended by Staff relative to the wetland should be "deleted." Id 1. Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's Decision. On July 25, 2005, the Hearing Examiner issued a second decision that clarified and confirmed his original. July 6, 2006 Decision. J. On or about August 4, 2006, Petitioners appealed the Hearing Examiner's Decision by filing a Land Use Petition per the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), RCW Ch. 36.70C, in the Superior Court for Snohomish County, Cause No. 06-2-10190.0 (hereinafter the "LUPA Petition"). Included within. the LUPA Petition were claims for monetary damages against the City per RCW Ch. 64.40 and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1953 (the "damage claims"). K. On April 25, 2007, after hearing, the Snohomish County Superior Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order on Land Use Petition. The Order remanded the matter back to the City Hearing Examiner with instructions for him to reopen the record for the purpose of verification of the Pentec wetland delineation and LSA survey. The Order also held that Petitioners' application for a third lot was vested under the Old CAO. L. The City appealed the Superior Court's Order to Division I of the Court of Appeals; and Petitioners cross -appealed the Superior Court's Order to Division I of the Court of Appeals. (See Cause No. 60055-9-1) The underlying action was not stayed pending appeal, but was remanded back to the Hearing Examiner for determination of the wetland issue. The City, however, has not waived its right to request a stay of proceedings per RCW 36.70C.100(1), with regard to whether Petitioners' application for a third lot was, or was not, vested under the Old CAO, M. After remand to the Hearing Examiner, by decision dated June 11, 2007, the Examiner found that the wetland survey had been sufficiently verified. He reinstated his .decision without requiring any additional survey of the wetland. The 21 -day deadline under the LUPA to appeal the Hearing Examiner's June 11, 2007, decision expired on Monday, July 2, .2007. Neither Petitioners nor the City are aware of appeal of this decision having been flied. N. The City herein expressly and unequivocally denies liability for any damages as alleged by Petitioners in the LUPA Petition and damage claims. O. The parties desire to enter into this Settlement Agreement in order to provide for the full settlement and discharge of all claims by the Petitioners which are or might have been made against the City in the LUPA Petition and damage claims and of the City's appeal, upon the terms and conditions set forth herein. Settlement Agreement 2 of 8 AGREEMENT The parties agree as follows: 1. Substantive Terms. A. Within five (5) business days of execution of this Agreement, the City of Edmonds (hereinafter the "City") shall dismiss its appeal the City has filed in the above -referenced lawsuit, with prejudice and without costs or fees. B. Within five (5) business days of receipt of payment identified in Section 4, below, Petitioners shall dismiss the lawsuit and cross-appeal filed in the above -referenced lawsuit, with prejudice and without costs or fees. C. Petitioners shall file an application or revision for a third lot on or before January 30, 2008, D. Upon receipt of the application or revision for a third lot, the City shall review the application on an expedited basis and issue a decision thereon subject to the conditions as set forth in the approval for File No. S-0509, and most recently decidedin the.Hearing. Examiner decision dated June 11, 2007. The term "expedited" shall include, but not be .limited to, review and action on a "first in line" basis. The Cityshall complete its review and issue a decision consistent with the 120 -day deadline (and exceptions thereto) established .in Edmonds Municipal Code ("EMC") 20,90,010(F) as enacted at the time of this Agreement. E. On an . expedited basis, the City shall review and issue a decision on any modifications to the engineering,. utility, and/or clear/grade .plans consistentwith the city's approval of the third lot. The term ."expedited" shall include, but not be .limited to; review and action on a "first in line" basis. F. Within 30 calendar days of execution of this. Agreement, Petitioners shall submit a modification for setbacks to 5 feet on the east side Lot 1. Subject to public notice. and comment, and all applicable provisions of the City Code and state law, the City shall review and issue a decision on such modification on an expedited basis. The term "expedited" shall include, but not be limited to, review and action on a "first in line" basis. G. Development of all lots, including building permits, shall be subject to the wetland determination reflected in the short plat approval as finally determined in the Hearing Examiner decision upon remand, dated June 11, 2007. Specifically, the City's jurisdiction over the wetland is limited to the provisions of the old Critical Areas Ordinance (EMC Chapter 20.15B), as set forth in the Hearing Examiner's decision dated July 6, 2006; confirmed by the Superior Court order dated April 27, 2007, and finally decided in the Hearing Examiner's decision upon remand, dated June 11, 2007. Settlement Agreement 3 of 8 H. The City shall not take any independent, affirmative action that would be adverse to any permit or approval that Petitioners may apply for from any state or federal agency, provided that this term shall not operate to restrict the City from responding to any request for information from any state or federal agency or otherwise complying with any state law. I. In the event of an appeal by any person or entity that is not a party to this Agreement, of any of the City's final permits or approvals related to the Property, the City shall defend the its final permits or approvals. 2. Release and Discharge. a. In consideration of the payment set forth in Section 6, below, Petitioners hereby release and forever discharge he City from any and all past, present, or future claims, demands, obligations, actions, causes of action, claims, rights, damages, costs, attorneys' fees, losses of services, expenses and compensation of any nature whatsoever, whether based on tort, contract, civil rights law, or other theory of recovery, including, but not limited to, claims under RCW Ch. 64.40, which the Petitioners now, have, or which may hereafter accrue or otherwise be acquired, which are, or might have been, the subject of the LUPA Petition and damage claims, including any fixture claim of Petitioners' representatives or heirs, which have resulted or may result from the alleged acts or omissions of the City in relation to the Hearing Examiner decisions dated July 6, 2006, and June 11, 2007. This release and discharge shall also apply to The City's past, present, and future officers, attorneys, agents, servants, representatives, employees, predecessors and successors, in. interest, and assigns, and all other persons, firms; or corporations .with whom any of the former have been, are now, or may hereafter be affiliated. b. This release and the terms of this Agreement are fully binding and constitute a complete settlement by the Petitioners and the City, their heirs, assigns, and successors. 3. Denial of Liability. It is understood and agreed to by the parties that this settlement is a compromise of a disputed claim, and the payment is not to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of the City, by whom liability is expressly denied. It is further agreed that any payment or other concessionkelease made in this Settlement Agreement shall not be construed or asserted as an admission of liability, wrongdoing, or fault by any party. 4. Payment. In consideration of the release and discharge set forth in Section 1, above, the City agrees to pay Petitioners the sum of $20,000.00, within ten (10) days of the effective date of this Settlement Agreement. Settlement Agreement 4 of 8 S. Attorneys' Fees. All parties hereto shall bear all attorneys' fees and costs incurred by them arising from the actions of their own counsel in connection with this claim, this Settlement Agreement; and the matters and documents referred to herein. 6. Governine Law: This Settlement Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington.' 7. Additional Documents. Allparties. agree to cooperate fully and execute any and all supplementary documents and to take all additional actions which may be necessary or appropriate to give full force _and effect to the basic terms and intent of this Settlement Agreement. 8., No Third -Party Beneficiaries. Except as may be expressly provided herein, this Settlement Agreement: is for the benefit of the parties hereto only and'is not intended to benefit any other person orentity; and no person or entity not a party to this Settlement Agreement shall have any third -party beneficiary or. other rights whatsoever hereunder, 9. Severability/Savings Clauses _ Should any part of this. Settlement Agreement. or any, -provision contained in .this Agreement: . be rendered or declared invalid, the invalidation ofsuch part: or: portion:ofthis Agreement shall; not, - invalidate the remaining portions thereof. The remaining parts and provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 10. Modifications by Written Agreement Univ. The obligations in this Settlement Agreement may be modified only by written agreement of the parties; signed by: duly authorized representatives of each of the settling parties. Any such modification shall not affect any other provision of this Settlement Agreement. 11. Entire Agreement, This Settlement Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. This Settlement Agreement is fully integrated and constitutes the complete and final agreement between the parties. All previous agreements, offers, counteroffers, and negotiations are merged herein. There are no other or further agreements which modify the terms of this Settlement Agreement, Settlement Agreement 5 of 8 This Settlement Agreement cannot be modified or amended in any way (except in writing as set 1 forth in Section 10, above). 12. Anthority to Bind. In executing this Settlement Agreement, each party acknowledges that the person or persons signing on, his/her/its behalf have authority to bind the party he/she/it represents. Each party further represents that the person or persons signing on his/her/its behalf are competent and of lawful age, have been fully advised by counsel in connection with the execution of this Agreement, and that such persons do so freely and voluntarily. 13. Obligation of Good, Faith and „Fair Dealing. The parties agree that each of the parties is giving up certain rights, claims, and defenses in executing this Settlement Agreement, and each party hereby agrees to act in good faith in carrying out their respective duties and obligations herein. 14. Headings Not Controlling. The paragraph headings included herein are for reference only and are not a part of this Settlement Agreement. The headings shall not control or alter the meaning of this Settlement Agreement as set forth in the text. 15. Eaua1: Partieivation in Draftine. The parties have each participated and had an equal opportunity to participate in the drafting .of this Settlement Agreement. No ambiguity shall be -construed against any party based: upon a claim that such party drafted the ambiguous language. 16. Effectiveness. This Settlement Agreement shall become effective immediately following execution by each of the parties. 17. Acknowledgement. The Petitioners and the City hereby acknowledge by their signature below that they have had the advice of counsel of their own choosing with regard to the meaning and intent of this Settlement Agreement, and that said counsel has explained the full legal import of this Settlement Agreement to them. 1/ // Settlement Agreement 6 of 8 DATED: CITY OF EDMONDS By Its DATED: d?�2za/07 DATED: QI o'Lo 7 STATE OF WASHIlNGTON ) COUNTY 04mk ) �) ss. CL 6 1=== Eric Thuesen Eric Thuesen, for Eric Thuesen Custom Homes, LLC I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Eric Thuesen is the person who appeared before zine, and that said person acknowledged signing this instrument as hislher free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: 'C) �gpsm FXV a �pTARY 1(J•5-20�� OF Vh1AY.�� _ - (Print Name) Notary Public Residing at My appointment expires: 1 b Settlement Agreement 7 of 8 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF.KfN,B- ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Eric Thuesen is the person who appeared before me and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the principal of Eric Thuesen Custom Homes, LLC, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: -7-?O—C>7 Notary Se \A rMEF8 0 P �OF�4;h�� e (Print Name) Notary Public Residing at --- My appointment expires: pg - Poo JACBerds A. -M - 2000Mtresen, Eric . Edmonds LUPA 2025-Mity Proposed SeWement Agreement - draft 7-1"7.doc Settlement Agreement 8 of 8 Signed this a ,,-4 day of July, 2007. CITY OF EDMONDS By: ary kenson Its: Mayo ATTESTED TO y: San Chase Its: City Clerk TO By: W. S(�tt)Snyder Its: Edmon s City Attorney Settlement Agreement 9 of 9 Wn 5P NMI s, HT, TH�,n 9th AVENUE N - — — — — — — --- — ---— -------- i------- Dl nN3nVa�,, LO CITY OF EDMONDS ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS FOR SHORT PLATS Name: Thuesen Custom Homes File No.: PLN20070076 Reviewed by: Jeanie McConnell Sept. 28 2007 Address: 509 9th Ave N Engineering Division Date REQ'D PRIOR TO REQ'D W EILDS COMPLETE RECORDI I PERMIT 1. Right -of Way Dedication for Public Streets X 2. Easements (City utilities, private access, other utilities): . a) Provide all easements as needed X b) Lot 1 shall take access off 91h Ave N X C) Provide one common shared access driveway for lots 2 & 3, taking X access from 8th Ave N. Access easement shall be 16' in width. 3. Public Street Improvements (ACP, curb, gutter and sidewalks): X 4. Private Access Improvements: a) Private access road serving lots 2 & 3 shall be paved to 12.0' in width, plus 18" asphalt thickened edge or 6" concrete extruded curb may be X used. !i) Slope of private access road and driveways shall not exceed 14% and shall be noted as such on the civils. X c) Gross slope of private access road shall not exceed 2% X 5. Street Turnaround: a) Provide on-site turnaround to City Standards. X 6. Street Liqhts: NIA 7. Planting Strip: N/A 8. Water System Improvements a) Provide new water service to each lot. b) Connect to public water system. T 9. Sanitary Sewer System Improvements a) Provide new 6" service lateral to development with 6" cleanout at property line. b) Provide new 4" side sewer to each lot c) Connect to public sewer system. 10. Storm Sewer System Improvements: pIn20070076 Thuesen SP Req's.xls X X X X X ro /0 Attachment 6 REq'D PRIOR TISI Req'o W/E3LDES I COMPLETE RECOROIr PERMIT a) Provide a Stormwater Management report and plan. Compliance with ECDC 18.30 and 1992 Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual is required. X b) Provide storm sewer service to all proposed lots. X b) C) Connect to public storm system; Shell Creek Diversion Pipeline. X X X 11. On-site Drainage Ian per Ord. 3013 c) Field stake lot corners (by professional surveyor) a) Connect all new impervious surfaces to public storm system; Shell Creek Diversion Pipeline. X X d) e) f) Field stake utility stubs at property lines Clustered mailbox location per Postmaster _...__......__..... __._..........._..---,..._.__....__.__ Maintenance agreements 12. Underground W -(per Ord. 1387:x_ :....- :,. a) Required for all new services. X X X 13. Excavation and Gradin(per IBC a) Submit a grading pian as part of engineered site plan. X X b) Submit grading pian for foundations with building permit. X a) Storm development charge (access tract) N/A X 14. Signage(per CRy Engineer): b) Storm system development charge a) Provide fire and aid address signage. X X 16. As -built Drawings(per City Engineer): a) Required for all street and utility improvements. Provide an AutoCAD electronic copy and a hard copy to City. I X X a) Plat showing lots, easements, legals, survey information X X b) Legal documents for each lot X c) Field stake lot corners (by professional surveyor) X d) e) f) Field stake utility stubs at property lines Clustered mailbox location per Postmaster _...__......__..... __._..........._..---,..._.__....__.__ Maintenance agreements X X X g) Traffic Impact Analysis X 18. Engineering Fees: a) Storm development charge (access tract) N/A X b) Storm system development charge $428.00 X c) Sewer connection fee $730.00 X d) Water connection fee $908.0(} X e) Water mater fee - 314" meter $550.00 X f) Traffic mitigation fee $840.72 X g) Short Plat review fee $860.00 X h) Inspection fee (2.2% of improvement costs) TBD X �easai��Ba�m�G Engineering Program Manager, CITY OF EDMONDS gWem44,28, 2007 Date p1n20070076 Thuesen SP Req's.xls 2 of 2 August 26, 2007 Planning Department City of Edmonds RECEIVED 1215"' Ave. N. Edmonds, Washington 98020 AUG 3 12007 Re: Short plat application for third lot on 5-05-09 PERMIT COUNTER Enclosed please find the completed short plat application for the parcel @ 509 9* Ave. N. 1. Site location 509 9fll Ave. N. & 5xx 8" Ave. N. 2. Request: Short Plat Application to subdivide 2 lot parcel 45,037 square feet into three lots. 3. Major Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.20, single family residential. b. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan c. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.15E d. Compliance with ECDC Section 20.75.075 Modification Request. e. Compliance with ECDC Section 20.75.085, Subdivision Requirements f Compliance with ECDC Section 20.15B110, Steep Slope Exemption. Analysis and Design 1. Lot sizes and dimensions: a. Proposed number of lots Gross Lot Sq. Ft. Net Lot Sq. (12,000) Req.) Lot width (70 Req.) b. Proposed Lot Area and Width Lot 1 19786.59 Sq. Ft. 19,786.59 Sq. Ft. 110.00 Lot 2 12,033.69 Sq. Ft. 12,033.69 Sq. Ft. 110.00 Lot 3 13,216.62 Sq. Ft. 12,000.00 Sq. Ft. 110.00 Attachment 7 c. Set Backs Lot 1 10' Front Set Backs 10' Side Set Backs 5'-10' Set Backs From West property line From South and North Property Line From East property line. Note; A legally permitted detached garage was constructed on lot 1 in the rear Set Back 5 feet from the East property line. Before subdividing the property into 2 lots Lot 1 was a single lot encompassing the whole parcel with a 25' front Set Back facing 8' Ave. N. and a 25' rear Set Back facing 9' Ave. N. The applicant is requesting a modification of the East Set Back from 10' to 5' around the gee in order to prevent the creation of a non conforming structure. Non conforming structure status would prevent the reconstruction of the garage if it was destroyed by fire. Lot 2 10' Side yard Set Backs Lot 3 25' Front and Rear Set Backs From South and North property line 10' Side Set Backs From East and West property line d. Corner Lots: There are no corner lots e. Flag lots: Lot 2 is a flag lot Lot arrangement to topography; Best use of topography. Zonning: The subject property is RS 12,000 (Residential Single Family). The net lot size of lot 1 is19,786.59 Sq. Ft. The net lot size of lot 2 is 12,033.69 Sq. Ft. The net lot size of lot 3 is 12,000 Sq. Ft. Critical Areas Review: CA 01-67 Critical Areas Determination: The property contains a steep slope and non regulated wetland. A wetland study was provided by Pentec and the wetland was determined to be less than 2,500 Sq. Ft. The wetland has been discharged. A Steep Slope Exemption request was submitted by Dennis Bruce PE_ and peer reviewed by Zipper Zeman Associates Inc. A Steep Slope Exemption was granted. Please review the file records for S-05-09. Special Circumstances: A preliminary lot configuration has been submitted which meets the zoning requirements. Special Privilege: Approval of the short plat request does not grant special privilege to the applicant. The applicant has demonstrated that the property can be subdivided into 3 lots. Comprehensive Plan: The proposal is consistent with the surrounding zoning and is consistent with comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. Not Detrimental: The proposed short plat is not detrimental. The neighborhood will not experience any impacts over and above those experienced in a short plat. The development of the third lot will not require more than 500 yds of grading. Drainage Plan: A waiver has been issued for directing storm water to the city diversion system on S'h Ave. N. Please advise if you have any questions. Eric B. Thuesen ph 425-772-9401 e --mail ericthuesen@comcast.net Enclosed Drawings: Attachment 1. Original Short Plat Proposal Attachment 2. Short Plat Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination Applicant: Dan Tomasek for Fred A. Determination #: CA -01 ;K -7 Wolgomatt (Owner) Project Name: Permit Number: Site Location: Lot directly west of 503 9th Property Tax Acct #: 2470 322 060 00 Ave. N. Project Description: Non -Project Specific Determination: Study Required: During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site appears to contain a critical area, including a Steep Slope Hazard Area pursuant to Chapter 20.15B of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Based on this finding, prior to submission of any development permit, you will be required satisfy the requirements of ECDC 20.15B by completing a Critical Areas Study consisting of the following: Steep Slope Hazard Area Delineation Requirements: To determine if a Steep Slope Hazard Area does exist, a topographic survey prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor delineating Steep Slope Hazard Areas must be completed. Any slope of 40% or more with at least 20 feet of rise will be classified as a Steep Slope Hazard Area- A 50 - foot buffer is required from both the top and toe of the slope. A 15 -foot building setback is required from the 50 -foot buffer. The top and toe of the slope as well as the buffer and building setbacks should be clearly identified on the survey. For development of any kind which is proposed within the critical area, 50 -foot buffer or 15 -foot buffer setback, it must be shown that the development will not adversely impact the Critical Area or its buffer, by doing one or possibly both of the following depending on the outcome of the study: 1. For development proposals which will occur within the 50 -foot buffer, but no closer than 10 feet from the top or toe of the slope, the 50 -foot buffer requirement maybe reduced to 10 feet if a study is completed by a licensed geologist or geotechnical engineer which clearly demonstrates that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon the site, the public or any private party. Attachment 8 2. If development must occur within the critical area, buffer, and/or buffer setback, and is not identified as exempt per ECDC Chapter 20.15B, a Reasonable Use Exception and Variance must be obtained pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.170A and 20.15B.040C. If the results of the Ci-iticat Areas Study determine that the lot may not be developed, the applicant may apply for a Reasonable Use Exception and Variance pursuant to ECDC 20.15B. I 70(A) and 20.15B.040(C)). If the property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which they feel would not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may submit their proposal to the Planning Department for review. if the Planning Department finds that the proposed development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Areas or its buffers, a conditional waiver may be issued on a project by project basis. Please call me at (425) 77I-0220 if you have any questions. L' Name —_ )tea - �;-� May 29, 2001 Signature Date Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found on the City of Edmonds website at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us. 0 Udnnis M. Bruce, P.E. AA.S.C.E_, M.B.A. Geotechnicat/tPA Engineer October 24, 2001 Mr_ & Mrs. Wolgamott 503 ? Ave_ N Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation 1 Wolgamatt Property 503 40 Ave, N, Edmonds„ Washington This engineering report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the Wolgamott property located at 503 9"' Ave_ N, Edmonds, Washington. This evaluation was made at the request of owners and real estate broker, Dan Tomasek REFERENCES: Property map and slope study by LSA dated May 23, 2001 • Site photographs - BACKGROUND: It is understood that the total overall property contains the existing Wolgamott residence (503 9"' Ave_ N) as well as a long, rectangular piece of property that runs westerly down slope to 8"` Ave. N (see photographs)_ It is understood that the existing residence is to remain, with three (3) future single-family residences to be built on the lower (westAY) praperty_ The lower piece of property (containing the future 3 new residencdi) it approximately 1'10 feet wide by approximately 400 feet long. Currently, this lower pieee of property contains a historic tennis court, small concrete access drive, and minor landscaping_ The remainder of the lower property contains mature trees, brush Wd grasl6s. The primary geotechnical feature affecting development is slopes. The southeast corner of the lower property contains a high point (elevation approximately 169). Tfie western edge of the property (abutting 81' Ave. N) contains a low spot (approximately elevation 93) - Sol, S 3). SOILS - FOUNDATIONS - SME DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERMrr - LEGAL P.O. Box 555o2 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX 54"V9 Attachment 9 October 24, 2001 Page 2 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION. This engineer performed an initial visual geotechnical evaluation of the property on August 18, 2001 and subsequent inspection using a hand soil probe on September 27,2001- Visual evaluation of the property revealed no evidence of any geotechnical distress: no slides, no sloughing, no soil tension cracks nor any evidence of significant erosional degradation. It is understood that one new proposed residence will occupy the portion of the property where the current tennis court exists. The tennis court reveals no evidence of any geotechnical distress (other than years of non-use and slight slab cracking)_ Obviously, the tennis court area provides a relatively flat house location site_ The use of a hand soil probe verified relatively shallow (less than 18 inches) dense, sub grade soils. It is understood that the remaining two future residences will be accessed through the bottom (off 8"' Ave. N). Walking / exploring the lower portions of the property did verify the topographic map indications of less steep topography towards 8th Ave. N. The use of a hand soil probe verified the presence of dense, native sub grade soils capable of providing a minimum of 2,000 p.s.f_ bearing capacity. CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the findings of this engineer's preliminary geotechnical evaluation and experience with nearby properties, the following are concluded and recommended: The proposed 3 -future single-family residences on the lower portion of the Wolgamott property are cg22 echnically viable. The slopes present do not pose adverse geotechnical impacts to the development of the proposed 3 houses. • Additional specific geotechnical investigations (test pits, soil analysis, foundation recommendations, etc.) are required to proceed with development of the proposed 3 houses. 48 This engineer observed no adverse drainage or water conditions precluding the proposed development of 3 new houses. [ REI "- D Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. .SAN 18 2005 M.S.C.F., M.B.A_ -- -Geotechnical ANTER January 13, 2005 City of Edmonds c/o Eric Thuesen Custom Homes 18333 851h Pl. W Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: Geotechnical and Drainage Evaluation — Design Criteria 509 9th Ave. N, Edmonds, Washington Proposed Two New Residences with Access This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the property at 509 9th Ave. N, Edmonds, Washington. This evaluation was required due to owner / contractor concerns, as well as City of Edmonds requirements for steep --slope development. REFERENCES: • Site Plan and Topographic Survey by LSA • Proposed Two New Resider nce anid Driveway Access Plans (furnished by developer) • Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation by D. Bruce, P.E. dated October 24, 200' • Site photographs BACKGROUND: The overall property at 509 91h Ave. N (formerly known as the Wolgamott property) is approximately 110 feet wide (along 9t" Ave. N), and approximately 500 feet deep. The existing residence at 503 91h Ave_ N (the Wolgamott residence) is to remain. It is understood that property developer (Eric Thuesen) proposes to construct two new single-family residences down-slope (westerly) of the existing residence. One new residence will be constructed ir, the area currently occupied by the historic tennis court. The other residence will be located westerly of the first residence. It is understood that driveway access will be from the north side of existing residence and allow access to each of the two new homes (see Project Plans). SOIL S - FOUNDA TIONS - SITE DFVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERMIT Attachment 10 P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, WA 98155 • (206) 546-9217 • FAX (206) 546-8442 City of Edmonds c/o Eric Thuesen Custom Homes January 13, 2005 Page 2 This engineer evaluated the overall property in 2001. Several prospective developers have looped at the property since that time. As stated in the October 24, 2001 preliminary report, the primary geotechnical feature affecting development are the slopes (see Topographic Map for specific slope declinations). Visual observation during 2001 (as well as the past 3-'/z years) has revealed no evidence of any geotechnical distress: no slides, no sloughing, no soil tension cracks, or any evidence of significant erosional degradation. This engineer understands that the lower portion of the overall property (adjacent 81" Ave. N) has been designated a wetland zone (see Project Site Plan). EVALUATION: In order to augment the existing site geotechnical information, 2 soil test pits were dug by backhoe on September 4, 2002. Recently, 4 soil test pits were dug by hand in the sloped portion of the property below proposed house No. 2. The recent test holes were dug to assess the viability of on-site storm water infiltration. The September 4, 2002 test pits were dug in the vicinity of House No. 1 (tennis court house) and revealed similar sub -grade conditions, namely: 0" to 6" Lawn, organics, roots, and organic silt 6" to 4' (bottom of pits) Very dense sands with gravels No water was encountered in either of these two test pits. All test pit walls remained vertical and stable. No sloughing or caving occurred. January 2005 test holes on slope. Five test holes were hand dug to approximately 3 -foot depths on the slope below proposed House No. 2. The findings of all 5 test holes revealed similar sub - grade conditions, namely: 0" to 6" Organics, roots, and forest duff 6" to 40" (bottom of holes) Dense sand. Relatively clean with fines (soil passing No. 200 sieve) estimated to be less than 10 percent City of Edmonds c/o Eric Thuesen Custom Homes January 13, 2005 Page 3 No water was encountered in any of the five test holes. All test hole walls remained vertical and stable. No sloughing or caving occurred. NOTE: See later section on drainage for results of infiltration test. CONCLUSIONS 1 RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in the area, the property at 509 9th Ave. N, Edmonds, Washington is geotechnically approved for the proposed 2 new residences, subject to the following: • Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing pressure: 2,000 p.s.f. Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer. • For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350 p.c.f. • NOTE: It is understood that the driveway access will require a reinforced concrete retaining wall to provide support for the driveway. It is essential that the retaining wall foundation be founded on dense native sub -grade soils as verified by geotechnical inspections. • Geotechnical inspections by this engineerrip or to any foundation concrete placement. The proposed structures can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above native soils. See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty --four (24) inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches below the lower adjacent finish ground surface. Depending on the final site grades, some over -excavation may be required below footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over excavated hole, the width of the over -excavation at the bottom must be at least as wide as the sum of two times the depth of the over -excavation and the footing width. For example, an over -excavation extending two feet below the bottom of a three-foot wide footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation. City of Edmonds c/o Eric Thuesen Custom Homes January 13, 2005 Page 4 Footings constructed according to the above recommendations may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of two thousand (2,000) pounds per square foot (p.s.f.). A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads_ For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent, native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one-half inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-quarter inch. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the foundations must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill placed around the outside of the foundation must be level structural fill_ We recommend the following design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: P2mmeter Design Value Coefficient of Friction 0.55 Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f. (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot. (2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the foundation's resistance to lateral loading. SLABS -ON -GRADE: Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these soils can be re -compacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel underneath the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. We also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6 -mil. plastic membrane beneath the slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes. PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS: Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following City of Edmonds c/o Eric Thuesen Custom Homes ,January 13, 2005 Page 5 recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height, which restrain level backfill: Parameter Active Earth Pressure* Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient of Friction Soil Unit Weight Where: Design Value 35 p.c.f. 350 p.c.f. 0.55 125 p.c.f. (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot (2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid densities. For restrained walls which cannot defect at least 0.002 times the wall height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be added to the active equivalent fluid pressure). The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding. The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, thea we will need to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. Placement and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated equipment. Retaining Wall Backfill Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater than City of Edmonds c/o Eric Thuesen Custom Homes January 13, 2005 Page 6 four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between twenty --five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their high silt content, if the native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite, such as Mirafi and Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. The purpose of these backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wail is not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall_ The subsection entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. EXCAVATION AND SLOPES: In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts may be modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 2HA V. It is important to note that sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made aware of this potential hazard. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS: Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of ane -inch -minus washed rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. No groundwater was observed in the September 2002 test pits or the January 2005 test holes. Seepaqe into the planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs during winter months, and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of drainage ditches, perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping City of Edmonds c/o Eric Thuesen Custom Homes January 13, 2005 Page 7 from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. The excavation of the site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building, except where the area adjacent to the building is paved. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL: The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent retaining or foundation wails, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation prior to placement of any structural fill. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case should the lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table presents recommended relative compaction for structural fill_ Location of Fill Placement Beneath footings, slabs or walkways Behind retaining walls Beneath pavements Minimum Relative Compaction 95% 90% 95% for upper 12 inches of Sub -grade, 90% below that level City of Edmonds c/o Eric Thuesen Custom Homes January 13, 2005 Page 8 Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). Use of On -Site Soils If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the sandy, on-site soils are very wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains and the potential need to import granular fill. The on-site soils are generally sandy and thus are not highly moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the moisture content of these soils greatly exceeds the optimum moisture content. Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and "pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than the optimum moisture content. Ideally, structural fill, which is to be placed in wet weather, should consist of a granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve. The use of "some" on-site soils for fill material may be acceptable if the upper organic materials are segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering inspection. DRAINAGE CONTROLS: No drainage problems were evident with the existing residence and the overall site. Surface runoff would flow westerly following the topographic slope. However, the extremely porous sub -grade sands allow for infiltration. This engineer performed an on-site infiltration test (complying with King County Surface Water Drainage Manual standard methodology). The 5 hand dug test holes were filled with water during saturated winter conditions. All 5 test holes drained very quickly at maximum infiltration rates. This maximum infiltration (greater than 24 inches in 20 minutes) is expected due to the presence relatively clean sands. Design Infiltration Rate: 15 inches per hour City of Edmonds c/o Eric Thuesen Custom Homes January 13, 2005 Page 9 This engineer recommends using 15 inches per hour as a design infiltration rate in conjunction with storm water control for the two proposed houses. Use standard infiltration trench designs attached. Geotechnical inspections required during installation of infiltration trenches. All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining wails, etc.) shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix. As stated, the driveway access will require a reinforced concrete wall and subsequent fill material. It is essential that base of driveway retaining wall be founded in dense, native sub -grade soils as verified by geotechnical inspections. Additionally, proper placement of approved fill material requires inspections. There are no geotechnical conditions limiting or restricting the location of the two new residences. The area proposed for infiltration is stable and will accommodate infiltration trenches designed in accordance with the criteria herein. The following items respond to City of Edmonds steep slope exemption criteria. ® The site will be stable following the permitted activity provided geotechnical inspections verify the recommendations in this report. ® The proposed development will occur on steep slope areas that qualify as advance outwash in accordance with the geological map of the Edmonds east and part of the Edmonds west quadrangles by James P. Nlinnard. 0 Fill material: Neither of the proposed 2 new residences will require fill. City of Edmonds clo Eric Thuesen Custom Homes January 13, 2005 Page 10 The access driveway will require a reinforced concrete retaining wall and approved structural fill. It is understood that this engineer will perform on-site geotechnical inspections to verify proper placement of approved fill materials. • None of the following conditions exist on the steep slope area: impermeable soils inter -bedded with granular soils, springs or groundwater seepage, significant visible evidence of groundwater seepage, previous land sliding or instability, or existing land slide deposits. • The thickness of organics, debris, weathered soils, colluvial soils or soils exhibiting loose conditions on or adjacent to the steep slope are less than 3 feet. • All excavations on the steep slopes will not extend below a 35 degree plane extended down from the property line. • All retaining structures on steep slopes shall be engineered structures conforming to the State Building Code, and subject to on-site geotechnical inspections by this engineer. No rockeries greater than 4 feet in height are proposed. • An undisturbed buffer of 15 feet shall be maintained from the proposed development to adjacent residential properties. • The proposed development (2 new residences and access driveway) will not decrease the stability of any adjacent property, subject to on-site geotechnical inspections by this engineer. INSPECTIONS: The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction: • Soil cuts • Foundation sub -grade verification • Retaining wall, or rockery placement • Any fill placement • Subsurface drainage installation • Infiltration trench placement • Temporary and final erosion control City of Edmonds c/o Eric Thuesen Custom Homes January 13, 2005 Page 11 SUMMARY: The proposed 2 new residences and access driveway at 509 91" Ave. N, Edmonds, Washington are geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with the recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and requirements, and key geotechnical inspections during construction. GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS: At the time of this investigation and report, final house plans were not available for review. As stated in this report, Eric Thuesen proposes to construct 2 now residences in accordance with the Site Plan with a north side access driveway. The dense native sands allow for standard foundation construction in accordance with the recommendations of this report. Additionally, the native sands allow for storm water infiltration west of the second house, subject to inspections. Prior to final permit issuance, this engineer should review the final house plans to verify compliance with the recommendations of this report. Upon satisfactory review, a "Statement Of Minimal Risk" will be issued. CLOSURE: The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the results of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between explored locations. if conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe the situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations. aft a4 If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call_ r Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical 7 Civil Engineer FT= F.1r EXPIR;s 1?1Z3/ ASST OF+ _ r_- �i 4claim sk Regulatory Branch Thuesen Custom Homes 17296 Talbot Road Edmonds, Washington 98026 Dear Mr. Thuesen: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124-3755 Reference: 17 2007 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES NWS -2006-1231 Thuesen, Eric We have reviewed your application to place fill in 0.05 acres of wetlands at Edmonds, Washington. Based on the information you provided to us, Nationwide Permit, (NWP) 18, [Minor Discharges] (Federal Register, March 12, 2007 Vol. 72, No. 47), authorizes your proposal as depicted on the enclosed drawings dated June 20, 2007.. In orderfor this NWP authorization to be valid, you must ensure that the work is performed in accordance with the enclosed Nationwide Permit 18, Terms and Conditions: The authorized work complies with the Washington State Department of Ecology's (Ecology) Water Quality Certification and the Coastal Zone Management Act requirements for this NWP. No further coordination with Ecology is required for these requirements. We have reviewed your project pursuant to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in regards to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). We have determined that this project complies with the requirements of NWP National General Condition regarding ESA and will not adversely affect EFH. Upon completing the authorized work, you must fill out and return the enclosed Certificate of Compliance with Department of the Army Permit form. Thank you for your cooperation during the permit process. We are interested in your experience with our Regulatory Program and encourage you to complete a customer service survey form. This form and information about our program is available on our website. Attachment 11 -2 - If you have any questions about this letter, please contact me at (206) 764-6914 or via email at John.L.Pell@,usace.army.mil. Sincerely, Jabell, Project Manager Regulatory Branch Enclosures zzm yoom�o , g C N A if o o m c M In' c cy n n N m m m n Z 7q, (A (q n �y zQ�x�� Aa' 004 C7 ssybaron`' yoo n� oaba.i — �— - X41 ZOCD O -Ni O��O 10 �Nf�R m2 �zAX f0 loC D oga m nz -� k� i I '1F •.(.: '{.• <,•E`y �� v Z w -I ' zqm c _sR 1� s"." p b rfl m O US y,`�}� \. " oli1X V, O WmmSf�1 Aa "` aC �C' I 1 4 `y�•?:V��<,\1 it b NA z o N.'PCZ nn y ym? `< •, r�,C ( `n' 1'r ryl rl Mx G]W O6 Z Aim I r }`., `..+•,+C i � Az o I Ih I v .: Y• �, 2zooo n FE Wnaolz nplh Imp o OOaZ zC P� "•h '.�• ::``C •�{YY .�-�N3�" 11 n 0C m 2ZZC Cy 'AyAO IA :U Z A NmmAO n \ n n o o i c a in -I �� z z a��m (O� -Z-lIor N N N=A A m lA+1 p O�O-IxA N� bD �� O c ZNS Z O N -ryryrL aG rL z o p~nrn�^ Z tea{k NAI N D Z M♦ ♦ `` `` ` 4[``//`//� +` g n N , J A Q ♦ \ _ �Ilo0 U2 M 1,1 mz m ttl O z z b 5 BTH AVE k W WAPf EW600 ort 88TH AVE w CD C W m E I o o N� � 7&TF! AVE W g � ; t `\• `+.z� h'h (n OV �A S n i � gmg Uj 0 m S Dz tll n m O A 0 a o c w m cn November 8, 2007 Subject: Land Use Application, File #5-07-76 dated 8/31/2007 To: Mike Clugston and others participating in the staff review of the above cited Land Use Application As the neighbor to the east of the petitioner's Lot#1, I hereby file my formal opposition to any shortening of his setbacks to the east (and therefore oppose the application's included modification for the change to a five to ten foot setback on his eastern property line). This setback modification request is a variance request. City Code 20.85.010 very clearly states that no variance may be approved unless all the findings (A -F) in said section can be made. As detailed below, all the findings can NOT be made and thus it is clear that this setback modification request should be rejected and the status quo preserved. Discussion of the findings given the specifics of this case: Finding A. Special circumstances [would have to exist]- No unusual size, shape, topography, location, surroundings, vegetative streams, ponds or wildlife are a factor in the vicinity of the old or newly requested east setbacks. In fact, the wetlands west of the applicant's house (cause for the original 2 plat subdivision versus the currently applied for 3 plat subdivision) have been alleviated as a special circumstance by the courts (which decided they were exempt from the critical areas ordinance based on size and deemed that land buildable). Note that even when the wetlands were still thought to be protected, this previous "special circumstance" of the property did not exist in the east setback area of Lot 1 being discussed here. The applicant's Lot 1 is 19,786 sq ft. The Plat Map shows Lot 2 to be 12,085 and Lot 3 to be 13,165 sq ft. Either the applicant's application is in error when he states that Lot 3 is 12000 sq ft. or his engineer is wrong. Regardless, the applicant's Lot 1 is larger than ours and larger than lots 2 and 3 by approximately 7000 square (translating to p1gn1y of room to build without needing a variance). According to Section 20.65.010 A 2 "Special Circumstances should not be predicated on... the ability to make more profitable use of the property..." Since the applicant has plenty of room to build as noted in the last paragraph, and since the fire statistics in this city for buildings that burn past the point of allowable reconstruction from fire are extremely low, and since the applicant has been progressing toward turning the above -the -garage -space into an apartment over the course of the project, we have surmised that the intent behind this request is to connect the detached garage to the main house, building a larger unit which will be a full-fledged accessory dwelling unit. With this variance granted, the applicant will not need to get a conditional use permit approved to make this change down the road and Finding B. Special Privilege to the property getting the variance compared to limitations of others in the same zoning must not result. Creation of the detached garage at the 5 foot setback was allowed as a variance only because the garage footprint was less than 600 square feet. Granting this setback modification to 5 feet on the eastern property line would afford the owner additional liberties to include (but not limited to) attaching it to the rest of the house, building onto it and raising the roofline to 25 Attachment 12 feet versus the current 15 feet that applies to the detached structure. No other RS -12 property owner would be granted the right to bring their home's footprint to 5 feet inside their property line, but in fact, the applicant, if approved for this setback modification, could do just this. This very clearly constitutes special privilege to the applicant. Finding C. Consistency, with the Comprehensive Pians. The Comprehensive Plan is replete with citations referring to building compatibility in the residential zones from both a density and design standpoint. Maintaining views and their connection to property values are important goals and are mentioned in the Land Use and Housing Elements. Some examples of goals in the Comprehensive Plan that apply here: B.3 Minimize encroachment on views of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing conditions B.Sa Residential privacy is a fundamental protection to be upheld by local government- we have already lost an enormous amount of privacy by the city having granting the applicant's previous request to waive the setback for his detached garage unit 5 feet from our property line, its actual construction 5 feet or less from our property line, and his request for change of use for the above -the -garage space (and the city's granting of that change) from finished storage to "artist's studio". Our most used living space (a patio and the family room which is open to the kitchen) is just 20 feet from our east property line in this corner of our lot. Note that at the north corner of our east property line, where he chose not to build, our house is setback another 30 feet. B.Sc Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic or land use encroachments. While having an apartment improves the applicant's property value, this escalation of his property value is at the expense of ours. It is definitely a negative for us to have an apartment on the border of our property so close to our living space. Finding D. Consistency with Zoning. Per the explanation in Finding B. above, this setback modification -request is not consistent with the city zoning plans. As mentioned in Finding B several paragraphs back, no other Zone RS -12 homeowner would be allowed to bring their home's footprint to 5 feet of their property line. As noted, the lot is 19,786 square feet. This is larger than many other lots in the same zoning and has no special circumstances. The applicant was certainly able to place the residence and garage on it easily without requesting a modification or variance to do it. The congestion at the southeast corner of Lot 1 and the southwest corner of our lot was created by his choice and further congestion must not be allowed by granting this setback modification. Finding E. Apnrovalmust not be significantly detrimental to .. or incurious to property or improvements_ in the vicinity or tate same zone. The latter part of this finding is most definitely not met in regards to our property, immediately to the east of the applicant's lot 1 and the property that adjoins the eastern property line to which the applicant is requesting the 5 foot setback modification. The applicant originally pitched the idea of space over the garage as "unfinished storage" that would provide "a buffer between the living spaces" (ours being our patio and family room and theirs being the east face of their house). it was submitted to and approved by the city based on plans for "unfinished storage". The foundation for the detached garage was poured almost to the day that the previous owner moved out and two months before we moved in. It measures closer than the minimum 5 feet and with the overhang from the roof; it virtually touches our property line. Further, a change was submitted such that the alleged finished storage "buffer" was changed to an "artist's studio" which had two main rooms (one with a closet) and a bathroom. This obviously brought their living spaces much closer to and more present in ours than it would have been with the house alone! We asked the city about our rights to stop this at this time; we were told that he could not put in a kitchen and that he would have to take out the closet (because it made the room a bedroom*) but that he was otherwise within his rights to proceed with the changes. In our opinion, even the conditions created prior to this setback modification request have been injurious to our property. F. Minimum Variance- variance approved must be the minimum to allow applicant the rights enioA by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Per above comments to Findings A-E, his rights would EXCEED those of other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning if this setback modification was approved. We are counting on the protections of our area's RS 12 zoning to keep that space from becoming a full- fledged apartment so close to our living space. Please do not remove the protections the codes are affording us by granting the applicant's east setback modification request. I believe I have shown exhaustively that not only does the applicant fail to meet all the findings required (A -F) for this east setback modification request, but that in fact he meets none of them... Sincerely, r Viv' n Olson On behalf of Greg and Vivian Olson Edmonds Homeowners, 503 9th Ave N *And that he had been given notice of this and they would make sure it was out before he was approved for final occupancy.