Loading...
15772 75TH PL W.pdfT e t 1 x < t 4 7 f v t 7. t t 3 r +� v a 3 ay' i i 1; S 4r5 1 2 j j'4 , s. -� j d to r 4 5j9X t t} r t el �? ': Z ( i4o�i i fr t.. y4 • vt cc U Oi o u wl LL uj 5 ' + ,✓ :� r �.:a:ki i .�..,.. ,......,... k f..o. .i ... ,. ..... 4..:v�-... .. b yr y EXHIBrr FILE NO._ l_ { �T�t i-OF` �'TF ;, ;.' i�Y. !•� 'b= >f 'Nr+7ii#t'�Y tk°"'j, n £ `9' ��^a,5'°t',�".�yf.; -. ; �F _; �tl ' ' .F 44, now- aj r a d S ; .y,E. •°G�"r.�'` �,� r''�`�+ i �,�'+i'1� } is �„ -�y �' 3�� t :f � i :' #K � z f''s �'� 3� g"``- � 4t �. V �2"`ar k • yr )k� .t 4tlxy'saa,�� E }� �. >F�glj,,73 t i 0 z 14 a LU, December 18,1996 U. —J U 0; � w F' Mr. Ronald McConnell W0: Hearing Examiner EXHIBIT._.` LL city of Edmonds FllENO. V — g4 - t 39 505 LL Bell Street d 4 Edmonds, W.A, 98020 Z F; Re: Variance application of Walter Ptsco, Fide No. V 96-139for Property at I.- of 15772 75th Place West z w w o; Dear Mr. Hearing Examiner: U tA' O — off{ I live at 15714 75th Place West which is immediately north of the subject w ,,,� property seeking a variance. I will be substantially and adversely affected by the FL -proposed variance, Moreover, it is clear that the City's variance criteria are not met. I 'z urge you to adopt the staffrecornmendation and deny the variance. ui c! X The variance being sought is to increase the height of the roof on an existing z house from 25 feet to 33 feet. This height increase is requested because according to the applicant "a chalet look is desired" This increased height, coupled with the fact that the applicant's house is located much closer to the shore than mine, results in substantial view blockage to the south from my residence. As you can welt imagine, views are extremely important in this area, and without a doubt the increased roof height from the variance will block my views. — - - ` In terms of the variance criteria, the applicant claims that the special circumstance to justify a variance is the slope of the m P Property. However, as the staff report notes, the slope of the property has nothing to do with the extra roof height that is sought. The © existing house with its existing roof is already reasonable deve)opment of the property, and the slope is not a special circumstance justifying extra roof height. There is simply no property -related condition that requires eight more feet of roof height The variance application notes that there are irregular ceiling heights and small glass areas in the existing house design. To the extent the current owner thinks these are problems, they can be remedied through a remodel of the facade and interior without E extra height for a "chalet style" roof. The applicant's personal preferences for a particular house design are not special property -related circumstances that justify a variance, 1 � f 1 S 1 t � ( 1 L } J Mr. Ronald McConnell December 18,1996 z Page 2 Uy cc 21 Granting of the variance would extend a special privilege to the owner. Each v valiance must be assessed on its own merit based on the property,conditions of the 01 particular lot. Given that there are no unusual conditions on this applicant's lot that Cn W, justify extra roof height, the appmval of the variance would be a special privilege. LU W o ` As the staff report notes, the variance would cause a detrimental impact to me as , the adjaccut homeowner The roof will = have a smaller profile than the current condition, as viewed from my property. The new roof construction is definitely U. j incompatible with the neighborhood u) CJ FLUi I also agree wholeheartedly with the staff report that the roof variance does z NI not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan includes policies protective of views of o existing structures, and this variance violates those policies. It is also obvious that fife LLI Lui proposal is not the minimum required since other techniques for remodeling the house = 01 could accommodate any legitimate objections with the current design. U to o I appreciate your consideration of my comments. My view and the enjoyment of z v my property will be very negatively affected by the variance, and I urge you to deny the ovariance. _z sincerely, z Jean C. Riggle ry + ©. 0 j 17.1 C TOTAL P.03; JJ,1w64�'? �Jw}aBSi', 1 '.� ''�-* •s f�0 � x"^>c.�'�is�'F�. j dtFl ��� • Z Q F. H w U a' Cn a in W .W.i H' w a , J a, W; Z I- Z ►- i OLU H1 W � Z V S o�7 Z CS t. 189v CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 88020 • (206) 771.0220 • FAX (206) 771.0221 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: Walter Pisco CASE NO.: V 96-139 LOCATION: 15772 75th Place West (see Exhibit A, Attachments 1 and 4). APPLICATION: A variance to increase the maximum allowed height from 25-feet to 33-feet for the installation of a new roof (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). REVIEW PROCESS: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Denial Hearing Examiner Decision: Denial PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The* hearing on the application was opened at 10:30 a.m. December 19th, 1996, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 11:00 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing. is available in the Planning Division. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 0 ®:,'' .,_.. ,., .r.. .... .r _nr+.—..... -.-......_..w.,.u«.-n..etnl�:a}6ff.hn'd•d(4'Mx.`ittit:nl4 nu'q'rw+u+,ar reur«.�u...... ., ...__.� ...... ... ..� . Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-139 Page 2 HEARING COMMENTS: z = i; The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. �- L,, From the City: Vol Kirk J. Vinish, AICP, Project Planner reviewed the staff report which recommended N W; denial. When the applicant clarified that the roof area to be covered was restricted to the UJ smaller upper roof, Mr. Vinish indicated that the staff recommendation would not change wU. since it did not substantially change the potential impact of the roof as proposed. The Hearing Examiner asked a clarification of the 28 foot height measurement used on LL at the applicant's drawings. Mr. Vinish indicated that it was his understanding that the 28 = feet on the section represented the average 25 foot height allowed in the district. �z z o F-oI pp From the Applicant: z Walter J. Pisco provided an aerial photograph of the property (Exhibit Q. He indicated LU that he wanted to replace the existing roof which is hard to maintain because some of it is c� cn virtually flat. In addition he is proposing to turn the peak of the roof by 90 degrees and a increase the pitch to 12 / 12. He noted that the peak of the current roof is below the t = V, allowed height, but no specific figure was documented. Z In response to the question raised by Mr. Riggle it was clarified that the intent is to IL cnl replace the roof over only the upper roofed portion of the house, not that portion which is o a roof deck next to the spa. z Vince Ojala, Architect, noted that turning the roof would reduce the height at the side walls thereby minimizing the potential impact on views of adjacent neighbors. The steeper roof would increase the volume within the house, but won't increase the size of $ the floor area. He noted that variances for height had been granted for both properties to the north. -� T` From the Community: A letter was received from Jean C. Riggle (Exhibit B), north of the applicant's property, objecting to the granting of a height variance due to view obstruction. © Jim Riggle noted that the increase in height will significantly impact their view. He also questioned if the applicant's drawings were correct in that the area of the new roof is shown to be extending over the existing deck, well beyond the current roofed area. A letter of support from Mr. & Mrs. Gil Thiry was received on the date of the hearing, but E ® was not available to staff at the public hearing. til a } { OL Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-139 Page 3 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a. Facts: 1) Size: The subject property is approximately 7,109 square feet in area (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). 2) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is single family residential (RS- 20) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). 3) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property slopes from east to west with portions of the site exceeding 25% slope (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3). b. Neighboring Development And Zoning: 1) Facts: U toc a) North: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned RS- o 20 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3). UJ . r Q b) South: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned RS- �!- 0: 20 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3). v Uy c) East: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned RS-20 o (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3). Z d) West: Developed with Burlington Northern Railroad and the Puget Sound (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3). 2) Conclusion: The proposed development would be consistent with the i surrounding zoning and development. —.--- j B. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. Compliance with RS-20 Zoning Standards a) Fact: The fundamental site development standards in a RS-20 zone are set forth in D Chapter 16.20.030. b) Conclusion: Except for the requested height variance, the applicant is proposing to build a structure which conforms to the RS-20 development standards for locating structures on a lot. t ®: 2. Compliance with requirement for a Variance ECDC Chapter 20.15B.180.A, states an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures 'set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances). Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a` case -by -case basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). At Z Rj H W .' crs W: J H; (1) of U)d = W! Z r-: ;- o Z r; w w! 2 :)i :) a; L) �;J 0 H- UA Z Ys o~ Z to ....,... .,. .. ...:..,. e .a..n.�•... ie.�':. .._�.N.:_. 1... ..."�": :1Wt . a..,':: .t .S.th ',1f4'. .,. 1. e....,♦ .i.... w.. ... _... Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-139 Page 4 a. Facts: 1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These criteria include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted; the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum necessary. 2) Variances may be used to modify bulk standards. They may not be used to modify use or procedural requirements. 3) The applicant states that special circumstances exist on the site due to steep slopes on the site. 4) The applicant states that no special privilege will be granted if this variance is approved in that other residences in the vicinity have been granted height variances and his proposed improvements are consistent with development in the immediate vicinity. 5) The applicant states that his proposal is consistent with the intent of the zoning code and comprehensive plan. 6) The applicant states that his proposal is not detrimental to surrounding property owners in that the roof has been oriented 90-degrees from its original configuration and this orientation presents a smaller profile. and therefore is less obtrusive to views. Additionally, the proposed height of the roof is 2-feet below 75th Place West and therefore the possibility of the proposal affecting the views of neighbors is negligible. 7) The applicant states that the proposal is the minimum required to accommodate the newly proposed roof design. 8) Staff analysis of surrounding properties in relation to the proposal by the applicant shows that at least one property owner will have their view adversely affected by the proposed height variance (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5). b. Conclusions: 1) Special Circumstances The applicants property has steep slopes, which may exceed 25% in some places. The applicant presently appears to have reasonable use of his property since the existing residence is still functional with the existing roof configuration which is somewhat below the maximum height currently allowed. Therefore, based on the information provided, Special Circumstances do not exist in that the applicant could replace the existing roof in the same or a similar configuration to that proposed, but at a lesser pitch and still comply with the existing height standards (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). 2) Special Privilege It does not appear that approval would be granting a special privilege in that other properties in the same zone have qualified for a height variance (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-139 Page 5 3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan The proposal is not consistent with the height provisions of the Zoning Code. The � proposal to upgrade the property is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; however it would potentially impact the view of the adjacent property to the cc �! north which is not consistent with one of the objectives of the plan (see Section U a "D" of this report). Cn W ; 4) Not Detrimental -J 3:Approval of the variance would not be significantly detrimental to the public w o health, safety or welfare, although the neighbor to the north will potentially have i their view affected. U- d {{ d1 5) Minimum Required The request is not the minimum necessary for accommodation of the new roof in ►- _ that the applicant could replace the existing roof with the proposed configuration z I-- at a lesser pitch to the roof and still comply with the height limitation for that z zone. w w C. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE a 1. Review by City Departments UJ X �( a. Fact: The Engineering Division commented that if the applicant wished to �?- o modify the existing garage further scrutiny of the proposal would be necessary. z; wM U D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) Z 1. a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Large Lot". b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. 2. a. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies which relate to 'Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below. 1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential development F which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be J 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: " 2) Policy B.1. states, "Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. " 3) Policy B.3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. " 4) Page 31, subsection B.5.0 states, "Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments. " b. Conclusion: The proposed development is generally consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City for the development of residential property in the City. It does potentially encroach into the view of the adjacent property owner. .._..,.... ... ... ,_ _. .. .� it _....... Cs t® t 0 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-139 Page 6 Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is denied. Entered this 6th day of January, 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. G � e A 4 , 6B Robert G. Burke Hearing Examiner Pro Tem I RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS } The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. B. APPEALS i Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for x an extension of the time before the expiration date.' ' k ' t ti rrYr t x s t t 4 y 1 e S .�.rwr wn..+s�,.ntY.Mwwnv4uYeY+.•nur�...x.+..._�_. �i ' ,...._ ....�.�.,+..mmMwou�rawcWlrYMd YL'MM1411G�tChW[1t+imvuiwi.uwm...::�...w....�..:1:.f;,.,.�x1_1 r .. ..'.� Fr Q._ ' Hearing Examiner Decision - Case No. V 96-139 P 7 ' age NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a F - Lu change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. �W �I a1 EXHIBITS: tin w The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record. U) A. Planning Division Advisory Report w; - B. -Letter, Jean C. Riggle dated December 18, 1996LL C. Aerial Photograph of Applicant's Site from West. D. Letter, Mr. & Mrs. Gil Thiry �i z701 w LUI PARTIES of RECORD: o �' Walter J. Piseo Mr. & Mrs. Gil Thiry ~ 15772 75th Pl. W. 15810 - 75th Place West Uj _ U Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA. 98026 t— F �_' do Z Ln Jean C. Riggle Jim Riggle 15714 75th Pl. W. 17503 NE 152nd St. z Edmonds, WA 98026 Woodinville, WA. 98072 Vince Ojala Jeanie Anderson 7703 33rd Ave. NE 16727 74th Pl. W. Seattle, WA. 98115 Edmonds, WA. 98026 Planning Division -_ �► "' Engineering Division f Fire Department Parks Department F.' ® Public Works Department E® r MFM r fi _.....`._, ��y_.. :_ ._ ... k .�.. .t r.. t. rn•::$ F,Y,.1..;er_ r.. r,..t .4.fi $Mr iP�l' t 9`Sa-. �e'3i* P 15 <t��s�r,.���ry � NO REMOTE STATION I.D. START TIME DURATION .#PAeES COMMENT 1 1 206 486 0803 1-14-87 2:56AM 1'43" 2 z _Z W W J U U0 �a w Lu o w� L_ LA d W� z� �F Wj 0 0 — a wu N� LL _Z cw .1 5 oI- z fnC.18g'3 January 14, 1997 NO i CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • t206) 771.0220 '• FAX (206) 771.0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering a Walter Pisco 15722 75th Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 Re: Plan Check File No. 97-7 Dear Mr. Pisco: This morning I met with your architect Vince Ojala and discussed the options available to you regarding your roof. As you may recall in discussing your project with Steve Bullock of our offic you will need to address the side setback issues involved with this project, those issues needed to addressed regardless of any approved height variance. Your variance (File No. V-96-139) did not address in any way setbacks and the legal notices regarding the hearing didn't discuss setbacks an finally, the setback issues were not raised at the Hearing Examiners hearing. Evidence presented a City Council appeal meeting would be limited in scope to those issues raised at the Hearing Examiners hearing. I Should the City Council decide in favor of your height variance, the side setback issues would still need to be resolved. I recommended to Mr. Ojala that a variance application addressing the side setbacks be submitted as soon as possible. Mr. Ojala wanted to know how long it would be before the City Council could hear your appeal, in talking with the City Clerk's Office appeal hearings take place on the I st and 3rd meetings of every month, therefore it would take approximately four weeks to be heard. It generally takes approximately six weeks to eight weeks to get on a Hearing Examiners agenda when a complete application is submitted. If you.have any questions regarding this letter please feel free to send me a letter outlining your questions. Sincerely, 41-2-41- Mrk7. Vinish, AICP Planner cc: Vince Ojaia Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor Steve Bullock, Assistant Planner Plan Check File No. 97-7 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan e ;1 s q � x, J; r � �' F 1 A � ,s f ` � • j + +� , Y ,� Y i' � � / 1 y � � ,} P � 7 j r � l ♦ ♦ � / !� / r .. 1f� i I� G ,,. `�'. a'. / .r y 1 s y.. � 4 :: j ,, wE'E 41._ jE•� /� f � k .� / � s :4 r � ' y _� �2. ti i ter: �,� A. � ♦ ,-. r M : _„ �. � �- •."�iiI�YVM- Z cc do wo W LU Lu -J w U. 0 U. LU 0 at uJ U Lu y 0 z C. .7,gr Ziq T" -14 , I -M, ' CITY OF EDMONDS 'BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771.0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works a Planning a Parks and Recreation 9 Engineering Letter of Transmittal Date: December 13, 1996 To: Walter Pisco 15772 75thLPI. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: L Vr96-139 Transmitting L. Agenda & Staff Report For Your Information: XX As you requested: For your file: Comment: Note attachments: Sincerely, Diane'Cunningham, Administrative Secretar • Incorporated August 11, 18900 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan Z Lij < u -)0 no LU F- L. _u z — 0 z � LU LU 0 L) to Uj LU u LL z 0 z X3 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner From: Kirk J. Viffigh, AICP Project Planner Date: DECEMBER 13, 1996 File: V-96-139 Hearing Date, Time, And Place: December 19.1996. AtL9:00 AM. Plaza Room - Edmonds Library 650 Main Street TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page LINTRODUCTION ................................ .................................... I ...... I ................................ ........ L 2 A. Application ....................................................................................................... I ........... 2 B. Recommendations ............................................................... L ............................................. 2 11. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................. .......... ............. 2 A. Site Description ........................................ L ...................... I .................. ................................. 2 B. Edmonds Community Develo ment Code (ECDC) Compliance., .................................. 3 C. Technical Committee ............. ......................................................................................... 4 D. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) ............................................ I ...... 1. 1 ....... ........................... 4 III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS .............................. ........................................... 5 A. Request for Reconsideration ....................................... '5 ............................................. ....... B. Appeals.. ........... ......................... 5 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL ................................. ........................................................................... 5 V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR.... .................................................. ...................... 1.5 VI. APPENDICES .......... I ...................................................... ......................................................... Vii. PARTIES OF RECORD ............. ........................ I ............ L I ......... . ]��PortL: , V96-139.DOC i December 13, 1996fStaff 0 z = Z" FQ- w ui D. -j V U O' � O w J h- cA LLj 0i W ` Q� 3 T) d, h W. Z zh h0 W W 0— o �— ui z LU (n U = o r,, z to u Walter Pisco Pile No. V-96-139 + Page 3 of6 a B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance 1. Compliance with RS-20 Zoning Standards Z a) ELO: The fundamental site development standards in a RS-20 zone are set forth in t—�' = Z Chapter 16.20.030. L 2' b) Conclusion: Except for the requested height variance, the applicant is proposing to build JV a structure which conforms to the RS-20 development standards for locating structures cn 0 on a lot. W Compliance with requirement for a Variance O ECDC Chapter 20.15B.180.A, states an applicant may request a variance from the standards g of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances). Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may U. tt be varied on a case -by -case basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual d r' w and unreasonable hardship (see Attachment 2). Z F=— a) Facts: Z 0, (1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance w w request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These criteria p include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted; the U tni proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the R ` will not be detrimental and is the minimum necessary. proposal art• LU _ � (2) Variances may be used to modify bulk standards. They may not be used to modify LL0' use or procedural requirements. Z! (3) The applicant states that special circumstances exist on the site due to steep. slopes on U the site. O ~j Z (4) The applicant states that no special privilege will be granted if this variance is I approved in that other residences in the vicinity have been granted height variances and his proposed improvements are consistent with development in the immediate vicinity. (5) The applicant states that his proposal is consistent with the intent of the zoning code j and comprehensive plan. j (6) The applicant states that his proposal is not detrimental to surrounding property owners in that the roof has been oriented 90-degrees from its original configuration ' and this orientation presents a smaller profile and therefore is less obtrusive to views. '. Additionally, the proposed height of the roof is 2-feet below 75th Place West and ® therefore the possibility of the proposal affecting the views of neighbors is negligible. (7) The applicant states that the proposal is the minimum required to accommodate the newly proposed roof design. a (8) Analysis of surrounding properties in relation to the propsal bydie applicant shows that at least one property owner will have their, .view adversely, affected by the C ® proposed height variance (see Attachment 5): V96-139.DOC! December 13, I996 / Stafflteport r Walter oisco File No.' V-96-139 Page 4 of 6 b) Conclusions: (1) Special Circumstances }} The applicants property has steep slopes, which may .exceed 25% in some places. Z 4 However, the applicant presently has reasonable use of his property since the _ existing residence is still functional with the existing roof configuration. Therefore, ~ ur; it appears that Special Circumstances do not exist in that the applicant could replace ¢ the existing roof in the same or similar configuration and still comply with the Uv0 existing height standards (see Attachment 2). Via in LU (2) Special Privilege � It appears that approval would be granting a special privilege in that other properties to LL i in the same zone with similar circumstances would not qualify for a height, variance w 01 (see Attachment 2). (3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan The proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (see Section "D" of this N d report) or the Zoning Code: Z .. (4) Not Detrimental Approval of the variance would be detrimental to the public health, safety or z welfare. Specifically the neighbor to the north will have their views adversely w = affected, g o. U tn'' (5) Minimum Required O —4 The request is not the minimum necessary for accommodation of the new roof in' w that the applicant could replace the existing roof With the same or similar = v configuration and still comply with the height limitationfor that zone. U- O:, Z C. Technical Committee U = 1. Review by City Departments a Z a) fit: The Engineering Division commented that if the applicant wished to modify the existing garage further scrutiny of the proposal would be necessary.` D. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) i 1. a). Facet: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Large Lot". b). Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing f _ Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. 2. a). Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies ® goals and policies which relate to "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below. (1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. 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:_" (2) Policy B.1. states, "Encourage those building custom homes to design z :and construct homes with. architectural lines which enable them 'to: harmonize with the surroundings, adding,to the communio; identity'and desirability. v96-139.DOC / December 13 1996 t Staff Report z l F- UJ Q� J J O' c.� o � W. J t—. tN u- I wO u. Q I Cn = u., Z F--" h- O 2 W o� us Lul u. O _Z V= OF z 5 jj Walser Pisco File No. V-96-139 Page 5 of 6 (3) Policy B.3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. " (4) Page 31, subsection B.5.0 states, "Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments. " b}. Conclusion: The proposed development is not consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City for the development of residential property in the City. III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20. 100.0 10.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. B. Appeals Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. . IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, . substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date: c ;j .J ' . _' ? .. ` ) �I "I�1 :I :�1I. o: �. , I ' .'�' :. , Walter P' 11 :�'I' ��� File No V-96=139 . . "I: ;.I� IL� Page 6,ofb I ,I,( ' VII. PARTIES -OF RECORD . ' ' 1�,-I �'; - 1,�, .I I-I' Applicant ' j . Planning Division II d F! -II� ,' ,1... ;-. Engineering Division I w ' 1I I� ,I Fire Department . oc I� Parks Department , L ju: Public, Works Department ` II U o ` � Jiro Riggle I US W ' J N' W Q� LL U) d11 W LL - _ .- '_ i— i r .. z t—! � p W W ��1. i 0 U)� O� = V LL a' z tij V) U+ o ~�z l -.._.__....J f ^ '� E® s, ' �t ! i �',f � t t%. t ..,. ,_, V96 139 DOt f Deeem6er 13 1996 / Staff Report i . . .. , .. ✓ Fi 11" f u 0 Oft ., "' r` ' T'' ` .' © z dF xz CC w= J V U0 Cl)o V7 W J �- W oI W = w �x z h �a ww �o o� z Ui �L o —z U 2 o~ z .'7 to city of eu.nonds land use application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ❑ COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT / STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT 2- VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER CA-R(o-2.z77 FILE #_U'�t(p -�3� ZONE �S - &0 DATE1�-IY- �'` REC'D BY FEE Its z RECEIPT# Z 2 Cs 7 S- HEARING DATE ❑ HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED APPEAL# Applicant WALTER J. PISCO Phone - 486---1222 Address 15772 75TH PL. W EDMONDS WASHINGTON 98026 Property Address or Location 15772 75TH PL. W. Property Owner WALTER J. PISCO Phone 486-1232 Address 15772 75TH PL. W. I Agent Addre: Tax Acc# #5131-028-006-0006 Sec. Twp.25 Rng.5E Legal Description Ri QGK 028 n a Is�hptlWLIAL--6i�ACH S 30 FT OF LOT 6 PLUS VAC ST AND N 15 FT OF LOT 7 121 1aa uar cT Details of Project or Proposed Use CONSTRUCT A S I NGLE STORY, 3 CAR GARAGE I�DIlIy/dr��L .s O� ✓ elk /t1�E�cG1L. The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon False, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the etafF of tha rity of Frimnnr{a to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to ATTACHMENT 1 5tGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT File No. V-96-139 VARIANCE APPLICATION This Is an application for a variance as to the allowable height of average grade plus 25-0" (26-0" overall). The requested Increase Is for 5-C' over the allowable limit for an overall height of 35-0". ITEM #1. The special circumstances that apply to this proposal are that the existing house was sited and built on on extremely steep slope and that the existing building was constructed and since remodeled by the previous owner with Irregular height ceilings throughout. The resultant existing structure Is substandard In design and room height. The proposal is to upgrade the house as well as to eliminate leaks. The result of a new roof will make the house appear to be more contemporary and thus It will better match the newer construction In the neighborhood. ITEM #2. Other houses In the area have been constructed to exceed the allowable height byseveral feet and the affect to the view has been negllgable. The newer houses in the area are better able to take advantage of the spectacular view because of taller walls with large glass areas. The existing house Is built with short walls and small glass areas. The proposed new roof will make the existing house more compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. ITEM #3 The plan for the area Is to maintain a residential area. The newest construction contains large glass areas for taking advantage of the view. This proposal Includes elements of the newer construction and stays well within residential construction and scale. ITEM #4. The zone of the property Is PS 20. The existing lots are much smaller than the zoning advocates, but the scale arl' construction Is consistant with the residential planning Indicated for the zone. ATTACHMENT 2 File No. V-96-139 7': "gg iti"a -uA _ :t t ✓ "T�{ a�.,t ,� ,�'"iS. x��NrS �� a� �3}�At 't„ ,s � 1 �i < #y �,s -} t at s?o.rC r� rs4� �` t#�l�}1 f ad l F � 5.: - � ) M ors i,Kt � . } - ,� � i, � � h ii in t L� z � Ltis XC� � ♦ t +�' h t s � s sa <� n - i 1•F�i '�x° �, fl r . 4 :"phi ti ° t , r s � ?�t e :. nsik :�st r� i�� � t sz.: rc..,,,a„dtuiux.:v.;sY.w7aae.,,,;...�.._.,....:...�:.,`.._.._...._.t�::�..w�.�::.1:...moawrt4u 3�dtifL.R�h4L+N?6hg�iw.Xtxdiunun'm�.cGmiaww»u ..:...•...ik � �1t+..•.-v ,. _... _. ... .. ...... _... _... I Q ►- LU ITEM #5. The proposal Is not detrimental for two reasons: U c' i. The roof has been oriented 90 degrees from Its original conflguration. WLU This new orientation presents a smaller profile and therefore is less obstructive to views. w 2. The proposed height of the new roof Is 2'-C' below the level of the street Mth pl. w.) and as such, It is of minimal impact to those houses L- across the road which are sited higher than the road. W By being lower than the road, the proposed roof does little to z I f impair the views of the houses nearby and provides no Injurious or harmful z of condition to either people or property: W LU) cal us ITEM#ro. o The proposed variance is needed to accommodate the simplest X u roof profile desired by the owner. A chalet look is desired and cutting off �- z the roof at the allowable height would deter from the design. The overall LU Cn height that would be accomplished is no greater than the overall height of r other nearby buildings, but due to the pre-existing location of the house z on the lot, the desired design exceeds the height limitations. .ram. 0 F ,� , :y.,. • ,r,.>.:.. ,, .:.a._ :._...,,, .. .�,.:.. ..,......,,..4'$i�4uk'us`�hi;'_'1:>r7',°[4"�k.yr'.ierw'�.S.t'gY, Si. z =z cc F- w w L J V VO �a (nw J F U) LL —O w�: J LL j Na z !- �- O z ww �O �a tJ U). rL) �- O —z wfn c) s oh z 0 �- Vicinity and Zoning Map 41 ATTACHMENT 3 File No. V-96-139 h 1 2 3 4 5 6• 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 {s; copy SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY • W,AALTER J. PISCO, Plaintiff, VS. GRADY HELSETH and "JANE DOE" No. 96-2-02004-2 FINDINGS AND ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT HELSETH, and the marital community composed thereof, Defendants. THIS MATTER having come before the Honorable Paul D. Hansen, Presiding Judge, on the 19th day of September, 1996, upon the motion of Plaintiff for summary judgment; Plaintiff, Walter J. Pisco, appearing by and through his counsel of record, J. David Smith and Elizabeth Turner Smith; and Defendant, Grady Helseth, appearing by and through his counsel of record, David S. Carson; the Court having heard argument of counsel, having read the records and files herein, and in particular: 1. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, with attached Affidavit` of J. David Smith and exhibits; 2. Affidavit of Jess and Lisa Jessen; 3. Affidavit of Ann Whaton; 4. Affidavit of Jerome Krell; 5. Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Summary Judgment; LAW OFFICES OF . FINDINGS AND ORDER GRANTING BELL At INGRAM. P.S. PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1 • 1602 HEWITT AVENUE. SUITE 700 P.O. Box 1769 K\6IJ0\OOOIIPINDINGS EYERETT. WASNINGTON 98201 (2061 26E-6261 • 762.3623 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 6. Declaration of Grady Helseth; 7. Plaintiffs Reply Memorandum; and 8. Plaintiff's Reply Declaration and the Court being fully advised in the premises, now makes the following FINDINGS 1. Defendant admits. at Page 1, Lines 17-20 of his Memorandum that Plaintiff's property encroached upon and used a portion of Defendant's property along the bulkhead and fence. 2. Defendant admits at Page 5, Lines 407 of his Memorandum that Defendant does not object to any encroachment of the area where Plaintiff house and bulkhead are situated. No counterclaim was filed requesting removal of those encroachments and it is therefore stipulated that Plaintiff has adversely possessed those areas. The Court having entered its findings, and it appearing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to some of the issues here' and that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on those issues, the Court now es the following p.,�O.r+y t,1Wek cPP ty -fa .tG ORDER o -e-; Nr.7 eX z9�� G : -r. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted in part. Title in the strip of land the width of the bulkhead extending in a straight line West and terminating at the Southwest comer of Plaintiff's house, described in Exhibit A attached hereto, is hereby quieted in. Plaintiff, Walter J. Pisco. LAW OFFICES OF FINDINGS AND ORDER GRANTING SELL r)c INGRAM. F.S. PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT -2- 1602 HEWIIT AVENUE. Su1TE 700 Sa6110%0001VINDINGS R.O. SOX " 9 EVERETT, WASHINGTON 96201 (206) 256.6261 • 762.3623 r'. < i t } s:. q h gin., €F Y i"P.r'"`.I?•sr f} l� ,Y4 d�4 > ,xrW Y; t �} 4 53�, f V Air } ro-,s,ny i-�' ci A l pby hifs'u rf{t1`w ° C�yk k�yyi°Cjk �a; 1 �x� ti S �Lr4t ,i � r i i 3. ✓ tkiYa s��Rl :� J r' s 11 { _ ��j ��' y t � cr. �'L-t.r t + ,r ys t 2 4y `�T n , 1 DONE IN OPEN COURT this day -of, October, 1996. Z Uj x If 2 cc r1 Ld V 3 1, ar 4 PAUL D. HANSEN, Judge N Wt wi r i 5 w U. 6 Presented by: BELL & INGRAM, P.S. v1 a �Wi 8 r' _;. z r t- 0' 9 LU LLU David S. Carson WSBA# 13773 �G 10 Attorney for Defendant 0 x tL".�, 12 U. o? Copy received; approved as to form; Z13 notice of presentation waived: ►i,i u1, U T1 14 1 Z i } 15' 16 J. avid Smith WSBA# 8993 Attorney for Plaintiff 1? eg F,19 Elizabeth Turner Smith A# 24165 A.;':` 20 Attorney for Plaintiff F; , 21 ! 22 23 =4 24. ;,. 25 26 , LAW OPPICES Of .. FINDINGS AND ORDER GRANTING BELL t!< INGRAM,P.S. PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT -1- 1602 HEWITUAYENUE. SUITE 700 L.161101IMNDING3 P.O. SOX 1769 >' EVERETT. WASHING 98201' 120,61,260.6261 s 782.3623 z W U W W La u. N_ T z w 0 0 w T F- W ui f� O z f8 , 7 i < 1 5f f }NrSt yzr �,t LEGAL DESCRMUON FOR LU WALTFISCO :.i 04 ADVERSE POSSESSXOX AREA tL 0 dA. pardon of Lot 7, Block 28, Meadowdale Beach, as per plat recorded In Vel=e 5 ofPiat% a page 38, records of Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows: a Ui Beginning at the Southeast corner of the North 15.00 feet of said Lot 7; thence S2048'I7-W ~? along the East line of said Lot 4.85 feet, thence N88 °2V3"W 28.40 feer, thence N88409'43"W parallel with the; North line of said Lot 7 a distance of 77.68 feet; thence N1 ° 50' ME 5.01 feet to uJ the South line o£the North 15.00 feet of said Lot 7; thence S88.09'43"E along said Northliae of t06.16 feet to the point of'begianing. r � � (r1 _ - I ------------- ExISnNG 1915E k IL' N K a ------ ut r row h' d ........... ....................................................... .jo 40 .J A 0. U) r 0 Ij 0 Cc .j CL 0 X w 30 ATTACHMENT 5 File No. V-96-139 TRACKS - ---------- B.N.R.R. TRACKS r CORRECTED Notice of Development Application & Public Hearing Date of Notice: December 5, 1996 File #V-96-139 Applicant Information' Name of Applicant :............ Walter Pisco Date of Application:.......... November 15,1996 Date Application Z December 5,1996 complete: ............. ............. Permit Information Requested Permits Variance and Approvals: ............... Other Required Permits 9 Building not yet applied for (if known): .......................... Project Location :.......--... 1577275th Place West Required Studies related Unknown Project Description:........... Variance to increase the maximum to the project: permitted height from 25-feet to 33-feet for an existing single-family residence, to Related Environmental O Critical Areas Checklist allow the installation of a new roof. Documents: .............. Public Comments due by:.. December 19, 1996 City Contact for project:.... Kirk Vinish Public, Hearing Information Date: December 19, 1996 Time: 9:00 A.M. Place: Plaza Meeting Room .650 Main Street information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Community Services Department, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020. (206) 771-0220. Public comments should also be sent to this address. The decision this development elpoliocoloo Wil be made ithin 126 days fthe state fthe Laac,'ojCmhyricawcn, with .11invances madefo t d'es and addiamml ariblo at£on regaes£e. Note that ability to app al ddect r n rs contingent up n parti;7gru n of the pererlt dearsion process. The removal, mutilation, destruction, or concealment of this - This notice may be removed Warning! notice before the hearing date is a misdemeanor punishable by after: December 19 1996 fine and imprisonment 0 z z Uj cc 2 0 rn LU LU M LL Ui 0 U. LU z W LU Cn 0— a 1= Uj LU LLz LU cf. 0 z �a- 'V� �4 4 j" . .. ......... w"W V 5131-028-001-0001 5133-000-025-0109 Euell Hodge Mi a 2f ��6'Way 1 R s 1. W. O'd"j, Ri ordZmfa, CA 95670 910 Wd, M4196036 5131-028-003009 5133-000-025-0208 Roge Jr. 4 D.H. Caryl 15701 75th Place W. wAa/%82( 64 Edmonds, WA 98020 5131-028-005-0106 5133-000-025-0367 Harrison Jewell J S S 5535 Seaview Avenue NW 7 & et SW X A Seattle, WA 98107 E honds,4�69CO20 5131-028-005-0205 5133-000-31-0002 Jean Riggle Wm. Beers 15714 75th Place W 9264 46th Avenue SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Seattle, WA 98116 5131-028-007-0005 G a Hel 1 5133-000-03Z-0100 D E. P I A ",h, A 98290 es St. S 4Wegop CA 981017 5131-029-001-0009 Gilbert and Janet Thiry Walter Pisco 15821 75th Place W. 15772 75th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98026 5131-029-002-0008 Gilbe# _Ond Janet Thiry 15821 Yth Place W. Edmon4s,N WA 98020 5131-029-003-0007 rd V u u V 7 fa�� 7 ? W W-0 E! WZA 98020 5131-030-001-&007 J h, 22X W. Wa Pe$-race,WA M 98043 5131-030-002-0006 Gladys Northfield 15821 75th Place W. Edmonds, WA 08020 £ 4i Xjlj `- t FILE NO.: V796-139 APPLICANT: Pisco F UJ tL o) NOTICE OF HEARING c, - ca Cn L, LU AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING Wo STATE OF WASHINGTON ) U. - ) T W COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH } 01 z� I, DIANE M. CUNNINGHAM, sworn on oath, depose and say: t ��— That on the 5th day of December 1996, the attached Notice of Hearing was mailed as z required to adjacent property owners, the names of which were provided by the u cn applicant. E- x o� z Signed Subscribed and sworn to before me this &I day of a,—o'�/ Notary Public in and for the t e of Washington. Residing at_ - .aa' \ > ' -.�, J. .1.).' ttf' t: .t 4��y4i'yblf �}k, S1 Y �1 Document4 t EA j Fl!.LICATION FORM FILE:: AND CHECKLIST FRO FRO PLAN LAN PLANNING a°ray fit'` 'ROUTED TO: � RETURNED Engineering 11/18196 Z) Englneerinff VA,;- IN 96— Fire11118/96 Fire, Public Works --"/ 18/96 PublicWorks -4, 0 D (S saw0%47jfti' , Parks 81 Rec. Staff Comments 7— *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE? *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED *Additional Information Required for Complete Application. *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review • Owner WALTER- ISCO o Property Address . ... .. ...... JL5772 75TH PL. W. • Date of Application 11/15/96 A TypeVARIANCE FOR HEIGHT • Hearing Required: Yes X No Date of Hearing (if known) X Application Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11) X Fee Site Plan (11107) NEED APO List —Legals (Existing & Proposed) Title Report lEnvironmentzi sess ment Environmental Vicinity Map, Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) CY X Elevations D (Variance&C. W) I P. Petition (Official Street Map) � -L�nvironrnental'Checklist :, Critical Areas Determination '6 0 0 s Z 1J Z a VARIANCE APPLICATION ac g' -� �Y This is an application for a variance as to the allowable height of average L) grade plus 25-01" (28'-0" overall). The requested Increase Is for 5-0" W=! over the allowable limit for on overall height of 35-0". J i—I of w ITEM W. The special circumstances that apply to this proposal are that the s Lu�z existing house was sited and built on an extremely steep slope and that s z the existing building was constructed and since remodeled by the previous Z o; owner with Irregular height ceilings throughout. The resultant existing f W W structure Is substandard In design and room height. The proposal Is to N upgrade the house as well as to eliminate leaks. The result of a new roof o will make the house appear to be more contemporary and thus it will, a better match the newer construction In the neighborhood. di v2i! ITEM #2. U- Other houses In the area have been constructed to exceed the 4 z allowable height by several feet and the affect to the view has been negligible. The newer houses In the area are better able to take advantage of the spectacular view because of taller walls with large glass areas. The existing house Is built with short walls and small gloss areas. i The proposed new roof will make the existing house more compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. . ITEM #3 ® The plan for the area Is to maintain a residential area. The newest construction contains large gloss areas for taking advantage of the view. This proposal includes elements of the newer construction and stays well within residential construction and scale. ® ITEM #4. The zone ofthe property Is RS 20. The existing lots are much smaller than the zoning advocates, but the scale of construction is consistant with the residential planning Indicated for the zone,' t- } © i; ti i y t t-2 t c ny t I t Z :. r LUUJ ; ITEM #5. The proposal Is not detrimental for two reasons: U 0 1. The roof has been oriented g0 degrees from Its original configuration. W= This new orientation presents a smaller proflie and therefore Is less -' �- obstructive to views. WLL 0 2. The proposed height of the new roof is 2-0" below the level of the q street (`75th pi, w.) and as such, it Is of minimal Impact to those houses U. M across the rood which are sited higher than the road. X W By being lower than the road, the proposed roof does .IitHe to z r impair the views of the houses nearby and provides no injurious or harmful z condition to either people or property. LU LU g C=.3 N ITEM#05. c The proposed variance Is needed to accommodate the simplest LU W roof proflie desired by the owner. A chalet look Is desired and cutting off o the roof at the allowable height would deter from the design. The overall LU � height that would be accomplished Is no greater than the overall height of U T other nearby buildings, but due to the pre-existing location of the house z on the lot, the desired design exceeds the height limitations. t a� z t r r, Applicant information Name of Applicant :............ 9 Walter place Date of Application:.......... � November 15, 1996 Date Application O December 5, 1996 Complete :.__................... Project Location: ___. :) 1577275th Place West Project Description:........... Variance to increase the maximum permitted height from 25-feet to 334eet for an existing single-family residence, to allow the installation of a new roof. Public Comments due by:.. December 19,1996 Permit Information Requested Permits Variance - - and Approvals: OtherRequiredPermits Z Building not yet applied for (if known); .......................... . Required Studies related Z Unknown to the project% ................. Related Environmental p Critical Areas Checklist Documents: ition Community services Room - 250 5th Ave. N. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Community Services Department, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020. (206) 771-0220. Public comments should also be sent to this address. The dkision on the develprem appboalex tll be made within i2ii fthe dateaftli Letter afca Iahmass, atthallowancesmadefa sin d sand.'. additional information requests. Note that aSiho, to appeal a dec s o contingent up'x panic r omtn the pergrrt decision pros s . The removal, mutilation, de tructim, or concealment of this This notice may be removed Warning! notice before the headng date is a misdemeanor punishable by after' December 19.1996 fine and imprisonment. 77 City Contact for project:.... . Kirk Vinish Public Hearing Inf Date: December 19, 1996 Time: 9:00 A.M.. Place: 5131-028-001-0001 Euel<l Hodge 5133-000-025-0109 l:;l Michael Rusnal ' 2626 Cabernet Way. 21325 66th Ave. W. Ranch Cordova, CA 95670 Lynnwood, WA 98036 5131-028-003-0009 5133-000-025-0208 Roger.M. Lantz, Jr. D.H. Caryl 811 Glenning St. 15701 75th Place W. Z Lynden, WA 98264 Edmonds, WA 98020 F- wj V 5131-028-005-0106 5133-000-025-0307 Harrison Jewell Joanne Spiro V aE 5535 Seaview Avenue NW 7711 171st Street.SW Cn wi - Seattle, WA 98107 Edmonds, WA 98020 J F-S to a w} 5131-028-005-0205 5133-000-31-0002 J, Jean Riggle - Wm. Seers U.< 15714 75th Place W 9264 46th Avenue SW to d Edmonds, WA 98020 Seattle, WA 98116 2 W z ~ 5131-028-007-0005 5133-000-032-0100 Z Grady Helseth Donna E. Paul ux W' 7027 184th'St. 4421 Marseilles St. � p i Snohomish, WA 98290 San Diego, CA 98107` U) 5131-029-001-0009 S tW.� Gilbert and Janet Thiry Walter Pisco LL Oi 15821 75th Place W. 15772 75th P1. W: — Z Edmonds, wA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98026 w cn or Z 5131-029-002-0008 Gilbe nd Janet Thiry 15821 Nth Place W. EdmonSYs,N WA 98020 5131-029-003-0607 . Richard Van Saun r- 7715.173rd St. SW Edmonds, WA 98020 5131-030-001-0007 John E. Peck 22601 42nd Place W. Mountlake Terrace,WA 98043 t® 5131-030-002-0006 Gladys Northfield 15821 75th Place W. Edmonds, WA 98020 �.+ >.- i ,tC Y(_.Lm _ a. 1k4U�if���a .,edX4nt�ii �o _Ix . t +.. _... � •.. \ t .... ,r. .. _ . J 1` r, _ i.i.. 6.<)..i r£ jR i. ..aMth� A ..l..., z Lul C)l LU to U- LU LL Lul LU LU Cl 0 H. UJ UJ u. z uj fj) z I 13 Lwl 6.St. 18 C3 %1 CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA I FAHEY MAYOR 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONbS, WA 98020 - (206) 771.0220 0 FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works * Planning * Parks and Recreation e Engineering December 5, 1996 Mr. Walter Pisco, 15772 75th Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: ASSIGNMENT OF BEARING DATE Dear Mr. Pisco: Your application is now complete and has been scheduled for public hearing at the time and place fisted below. Action: Variance File No. Assigned: V-96-139 Date of Hearing: -December 19,1996 Time: 9:00 AX or as soon thereafter as possible. Place: Plaza Room, Edmonds Library 650 Main Street Hearing Body: Hearing Examiner Please be aware that your presence at the hearing is highly advisable. If an applicant or his representative is not present, the item may be moved to the end of the agenda. Items not reached by the end of the hearing will be continued to the following montWs agenda. K you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Kirk Vinish, Project Planner at 771- 0220. Sincerely, Community Services Department - Planning Division Jeyv . Wilson, AICP Current Planning Supervisor pc: File No. V-96-139 Kirk Vinish, Project Planner 9&13MIMOC * Incorporated August 11, 1890 * 1VnKcORRW4W0-flM Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan ® E0 *** SEND *** N4 REMOTE STATION I.D. I START TIME J DURATION #PAGES COMMENT 1 12083393049 12- 2-96 10:04PM 1'39" 1 3 !-- to cc dol o; N w i' U-o W U.Q v_a C sw z �I t- o �o 0- _z o~ z C THIS IS A LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT AND SHOULD BE BILLED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING and NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Name of Applicant: File No.: Project Location: Project Description: City Contact: Public Comment Period Due By: Name of Applicant: File No.: Project Location: Project Description: City Contact: Public Comment Period Due By: Name of Applicant: File No.: Project Location: Project Description: City Contact: Public Comment Period Due By: Name of Applicant: File No.: Project Location: Project Description: City Contact: Public Comment Period Due By: Name of Applicant: File No.: Project location: Project Description: City Contact: Public Comment Period Due By: William F. Morton CUH-96-126 1030 "A" Avenue Conditional Use Permit for a home occupation permit to operate a "Bed & Breakfast" and conduct on -site weddings. The weddings would accommodate approximately 35 people, with approx. 8 weddings per year. All the proposed activities would be conducted within an existing single-family residence. Kirk Vinish 12/19/96 Robert Cole & Jeri Merritt V-96-130 ; 16006 75th Place West Variance to increase the maximum permitted height in the RS-12 zone by from 25-feet to 33-feet to allow the construction of a new single-family residence. Kirk Vinish 12/19/96 3 Walter Pisco V-96-139 15772 75th Place West Variance to increase the maximum permitted height from 25-feet to 33-feet for an existing single-family residence, to allow the installation of a new roof. Kirk Vinish 12/19/96 Tartan Development, Inc. V-96-135 18505 79th Place West Variance to reduce the required street setback from the east property line from 25-feet to 7.5-feet to allow for the construction of a new single-family residence. Steve Bullock 12119/9$ '. Ronald and Calysta Peterson V-96-136 9824 Cherry Street Variance to reduce the required street setback from the "planned -line right-of-way" adjacent to the subject property's north property line from 25-feet to 20-feet to allow the construction of a second story addition above the garage of an existing single-family residence. Meg Gruweli 12/19/96 f ' •:::: w�lt��1'r s ?:t,::; r{t-.. in a. j yf-"t'at �y ,`�!r-Ltf'N", H1y�., a 'i•�l} a.' ;,. r tt ,, '; a yt �r, E .. f� s4 ; x:r''fi;i t t ,x�ut,r"ti� r u.' , z' t... �x 3 4i�i. hs�,ff ,t, { �'£,.. N. �� T } �{ r �7itu' .+.. ,e., �.' � i t ... lc ..ir 1.. S . �...4:.;+.w.c.mvzi�`. •NBkaNbU� 'w:'k_. .I �: . k c) S PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Time: 900A.M. Date: December 19,1996 Location: Plaza Meeting Room - 650 Main St„ Edmonds z i Sandy Chase, City Clerk r wI Publish: December 5,`1996 UI d U O G N W J F=-� (a U. Q Uj 4`. = U.Uj r = z C+ Q k. l Q LU U) r F-� Q Z R� ii , C® S.1 . : .:?r-i..s�.,T' .�.Si:LmJXtihY'uL44YlA4��N YMnNv�.ncrtxt.<_, z J, u, LU v o No N LU J (n L'I O QU W Q' T) di S u.t z t- t- 0, z w w' V N 0 �- TV H� u 0 z u, c/a c.i = a~ z rim 0,502 MALTBY ROAD WOOPINVILLE AA6HP2PA01alc SeRwagoaMML(200406-123ADANMOTURM ♦NG CORPORATION FAX 2) .063 FAXDOS oecemter 2 1996 NumboaOfPago$14Wudluzcmrshtd; 1 To., -ii_ ga Vinn sh _.1'h0310' // F��enx alloua: 771 0221 CC; Wait Disco Ahama�[Epd)gEd�12S3 ..�. All lltlo1le. 120a436.0803 iti>:14mml 13 urgont Q iror your m*w 13 ite{ y o ml d Plum Immm"t 0 g� MIC z X Z � UJ cc < LU -j (—)0 LU -jLLI co Uj < cc U. M LU F- z ,- 0 z r LU LU LU LUl z Uj U) 0 ri z Aft APPLICATION ROUTING FORM b FILE: V•96-13 AND CHECKLIST FROM. --'PLANNING 7' ROUTED TO. NOV20 1996 RETURNED Engineering I I /I a &IC WORKS pip Enginierin j 9 fire— 8126 11/1,- Fire C—C -W6 ga&,L�F-- ow i7- t — Public Works %/L# Parks ex Rec.- 11/18/96 Parks 81 Rec.'-: Fuyl -94J Staff Comments: *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE? COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WIiLL NOT BE CONSIDERED. *Additional Information Required for Complete Application *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review AIA Owner 3. Property Address__--15772 75TH PL. W. Date of Application 2 Type VARIANCE 11:011? 114FICU— I Hearing Required: Yes-X No Date of Hearing (if know ' ln) x Application _Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11) x Fee Site Plan (I I x 17) NEED APO List —Legals'(EAsting & Proposed). . . . ........ Title Report EnvironmentaLAssessment Vicinity Map _Proof of 2-Year bocupanq (ADU) —X Elevations x Declarations (variance & C. V. P;) Petition (Official Street Map) rriental ChecklistChecklist--Envirorl Critical Areas Determination APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE:L V-96-139 AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING ROUTED TO: RETURNED 4; Enj0n0ering— also %1, Au — re r Fire Public Works --JJLljVS6L� Public Wor 40 Parks &Rec. 11/18/96 Parks 8T ReC, 1/4 Staff Comments: ZW "1cl?4 *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE? *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED ED .4 C '�i5 fii kf. 1 1 S t t t g§ yytte. l 1 i r if tkt d 11 4 2 .i 3 i 1 raj MEMORANDUM *Ole ���►4 40 = Z1r a~c gj , 5 ; UU1 Date: November 25, 9996 LU F-i Planning Division u, u. g From: Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator Subject: Variance for Pisco (15772 75th Pl W 1 (V-96-'!39 X U,. �q ? ►�-� The application has been reviewed by the Engineering Division. The j Z o Engineering Division has no comments regarding a variance for roof height on g LW; the existing house at this time. The applicant will need to comply with all the u terms of any future permits. If the applicant intends to make any changes to the c - existing garage, further scrutiny of the project will be required. The application is _ v considered complete at this time if the action is for the residence only.. �. of i z W mf U rEl z t A _ t CITY OF EDMOND3 3r 1 40 ENGINERIUNG DIVISION V96139.DOC {r4ti sC3 r�Y k 3 4•..� � f 1 G: C i 1 :. i 1 ttt. � }J 't( l ',it�i t ,: z i ►- w w� UO Cl) o, (n w, J H w of LL �I Cn �I x Lu +' x 1 z t-; �_O z F: LU =1 �o 0-1 U N1 0 H1 = v u- O _z ui cn U= o~ z A t® city of e&nonds land use application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ❑ COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 0 HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ! STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT 2' VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER CA -q(o--2 -7 FILE#_Y-Ct -IBC ZONE RS - &0 DATE-1-17/1-- M REC'D BY to V FEE 4 13 Z� RECEIPT# _Z 2 0 7 S- HEARING DATE ❑ HE ❑ STAFF 0 PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ACTION TAKEN: 0 APPROVED 0 DENIED ❑ APPEALED Applicant WALTER J. PISCO Phone 486--12-32 Address 15772 75TH PL. W EDMONDS WASHINGTON 58026 Property Address or Location 15772 75TH PL. W Property Owner WALTER J. PISCO Phone 486-1232 Address 15772 75TH PL. W. Address Tax Acc#� #5131-028-006-0006 Sec. Twp.25 Rng.5E Legal Description_R, oa,� _0.28 n co mE DLiWDAI F BEACH S 30 FT OF LOT 6 PLUS VAC ST AND N 15 FT OF LOT 7 Details of Projector Proposed Use CONSTRUCT A SINGLE STORY, 3 CAR GARAGE F- The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this application_ I SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT El c� Y ` a $ +».rvw.u�.r�•.k.. w�mkJ.(kThYAaAH�1E8 LL+�hwWa.v�iu*.wumrNr�wn.awueu4w.1 + r Y : ,� '� Y M LIJI uj LL Lo t...: Y 71 — LU P; U f13� -�---•..._ t tL it 11)4 f _ `rr'? 1 �1. � ._ _��j � . �- � �K � ..._._-1.✓��_'V' ..=. ..' �}.; Mom! . - � � i � Alp .� { •.r�.. tts { f•� Z t`t t�i ' s ® � - '., r.�'", ', �Y � � r7 i.!•v u S y, U �J ry�'S t� a�'�17 C�� `+{�} G' �.._ _--- e.—.. •..a. _ � I > _ _, .., ,. ,..,-..n.Y«.. .�,Ydi �c �' A.�r�'3'.3>fk.le `.�iv#u4 u3�`�«�±aifL +�7�2<s.�,..,.�„_�,a .�,1. 1 t. -V. w4- 'IlIJIII I I � 1 I i- 0 88'09'43' (J V NOOD FENCE '— 189't _ N0� FENCE �OODI BULNHEPii t R�GKERY tV n.o �- EX lST (NG HOUSE (BASEMENT FLOOR EL = 473.13) ,. ROCKER4 ,.` PUNt ___ 1. N 88•D9'�2` W Ti1it yh is I f t } ✓ ," Sa ! i �. yt f � a 1,7V ri. f t f1 1 61 6 caki 1 ... • CC,P�, s I- w; 2 . cc 2i 01 3 N tul 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY 5 0 WALTER J. PISCO, No.. 96-2-02004-2 U. c Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND ORDER d 7 GRANTING PARTIAL LU z s vs. 5UM24ARY JUDGMENT ►_F; 0, 9 GRADY HELSETH and "JANE DOE" LU LU; 2 ci HELSETH, and the marital community U 0 14 composed thereof, 0 11 Defendants. = cui ~ Pi LL 12 z' THIS MATTER having come before the Honorable Paul D. Hansen, Presiding Judge, T/J c� y� 13 o r on the 19th day of September, 1996, upon the motion of Plaintiff for summary judgment; 14 z 15 Plaintiff, Walter J. Pisco, appearing by and through his counsel of record, J. David Smith and 16 Elizabeth Turner Smith; and Defendant, Grady Helseth, appearing by and through his counsel 17 of record, David S. Carson; the Court having heard argument of counsel, having read the �,. ,•.:y 18 records and files herein, and in particular: 19 1. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, with attached Affidavit of J. David 20 Smith and exhibits; 21 2. Affidavit of Jess and Lisa lessen; 22 3. Affidavit of Ann. Whaton; 23 t ® 4. Affidavit of Jerome Krell; 24 S. Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Summary Judgment; 25 26 LAW OFFICES OF FINDINGS AND ORDER GRANTING BELL8r INGRAM, P.S. 1662 HEWITT AVENUE. SUITE 700 PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - I - 061101000I1FINDINGS P.O. S1 ! EYEREiT. WASHIHINGTOTON 48201 j 1206) 268.6261• 762.3623 ., ti 6. Declaration of Grady Helseth; 7. Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum; and 8. Plaintiff's Reply Declaration and the Court being fully advised in the premises, now makes the following FINDINGS 1. Defendant admits. at Page 1, Lines 17-20 of his Memorandum that Plaintiff's property encroached upon and used a portion of Defendant's property along the bulkhead and fence. 2. Defendant admits at Page 5, Lines 407 of his Memorandum that Defendant does not object to any encroachment of the area where Plaintiff house and bulkhead are situated. No counterclaim was filed requesting removal of those encroachments and it is therefore stipulated that Plaintiff has adversely possessed those areas. The Court having entered its fmdings, and it appearing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to some of the issues here` ;es that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of Iaw on those issues, the Court now the followingp ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted in part. Title in the strip of land the width of the bulkhead extending in a straight line West and terminating at the Southwest corner of Plaintiff's house, described in Exhibit A attached hereto, is hereby quieted in Plaintiff, Walter J. Pisco. LAW OFFICES OF FINDINGS AND ORDER GRANTING BELL & INGRAM. P.S. PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2 - 1602 HEWITT AVENUE. SUITE 700 . )LAWIM00011FINDINGS P.C. BOX 1764' EVERETT, WASHINGTON 98201 (206) 265.6261. 762-3623 UO Cl) a U) LU Lu -i —0 LU U. UJ z 0 P- Uj LU (n ph LLJ X LL c LU (f. 0 z 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 a LEGAL DESCR=O LU FOR 2f WALT PISCO J 0! W LU ADVERSE POSSESSYON AREA Cn A portion ofLot 7, Block 28, bfmdczwdale Beach, as per plat recorded in Volume 5 offtts, U. cn d page 33, records of Snohomish County, Washington, descried as follows: i w z r 24nning at the Southeast corner ofthe North 15.00 feet of said Lot 7; thence S2°48'I?"G�i along the East line of said Lot 4.35 forty thence N88°29'23"W 28.40 feet, thence N88409'43"W Uiw parallel with the North line a£said Lot 7 a distance of 77.63 feet; thence N1450' 17"S 5.01 feet to CItha South line of the North 15.00 feet of said Lot 7; thence S88' 09'43'E along said North liae Q tod.16 feet to the pofi t ofbeginsing. _ o � w us _-Z ... " :., u' O~ Z - AT YI tr yi 1� Q. iA LOP APPLICATION ROUTING FORM. FILE. V-96-139� AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING ROUTED TO: RETURNED Engineering 11118/96 Englneerin 9 Fire— 11/18/96 Fire Public Works --JJLL8L26_ Public Works Parks ex Rec. 11/18/96 Parks. ex Rec Staff Comments: *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE? *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT.BE CONSIDERED *Additional Information Required for Complete Application 4L is *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review a -vat • Owner WALTER PISCO Property Address_ 772 75TH PL. W. s Date of ApPI1cadon—JJLL5L2-6--,' • Type VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT • Hearing Required: Yes-X— No— Date of Hearing (if known X Application Site Plan, for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11) X —Fee X Site, Plan (111 x 17) NEED APO List Legals (Existing & Proposed) Title Report Environmental,Assessment. Vicinity Map Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) X Elevations X Declarations (Variance& C. U. p.) Petition (Official Street Map) trivir6rimental Checklist - Critical Areas Determination is W1 ■ J Y „- ,513028-001-0001 s Eue�: Hodge 5133-000-025-0109 Michael Rusnal 2626,Cabernet Way 21325 66th Ave. W.. Ranch Cordova, CA 95670 Lynnwood, WA 98036 5131-028-003-0009 5133-000-025-0208 Roger M. Lantz, Jr. D.H. Caryl 811 Glenning St. 15701,75th Place W. Q Lynden, WA 98264 ,` Edmonds, WA 98020 UA {,.. '5131-028-005-0106 5133-000-025-0307 p Harrison Jewell Joanne Spiro (DO :' 5535 Seaview Avenue,,NTR 7711 171st Street SW in T Seattle, WA 98107 Edmonds, WA 98020 O w eft 5131-028-005--0205 aean'Riggle 5133-000-31-0002 Q _ Wm. Beers U. 15714 75th Place W ,9264 46th Avenue SW _ Edmonds, WA 98020 Seattle, WA 98116. w tJ 5131-028-007-0005 5133-000-032-0100 w w Grady Helseth Donna'E. Paul 702.7 184th St. 4421 Marseilles St, V Snohomish, WA 98290 San Diego, CA 98107 N w w 5131-029-001-0009 tZ- Gilbert and Janet Thiry Walter PiSCO" u. 15821 75th place W. 15772 75th P1.;'W. z Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds,.; WA 98026. ui to � O h' �: Z + 5131-029-002-0008 Gilbe nd Janet Thiry 158213 fth Place W. Edmon s, WA 98020 51317029-003-0007 >.<• Richard Van. Saun ' 7715 173rd St. SW �• Edmonds, WA 98020 5131-030-001-0007 John E. Peck 22601 42nd-Place W. Mountlake Terrace,WA 98043 5131-030-002-0006 Gladys Northfield 15821 75th Place W. Edmonds, WA 98020 - glg of � sti, t St,� ¢ x _ rrr Y ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS'LIST ,.. Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list. 1 On my oath, 1 certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties located within 300 feet of the subject property. F- W oe w • �� �" Signature of App nt or Applicant's Representative o - Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of �V v �/ , 19 cu u, W- ui y • Notary Public in and foState of Washington( Residing at l% 0 BLOCK 2-9 LOT'i 011bert � Janet Thlry 1582173th Pl. W. z cr. U Uq 0 Ul W} T) LU LL M LIJ Z Ha LU Lij 0; 0 LU LL U- c ..,2 LM z m : 3 1 g fi . {h. 4 it M r f11 ytB Jr Y ., : ����.:_., mwis»noa/nM+w..,.'u..wMu.M�sv��ma lvawukYalrY4beMwMvbaM�.w.vw t�. • ,.: "� � ... ....,.a...�.. ... ...... ....„....r...rwhewewr wwYaM.+...«...,...-.....,a��:.�..s....w,...._.�.:..................�a..w...».,....... , z MEADOWDALE SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT cone UJI oc g LOT 255133-000-025-0307 o; Joanne Spiro LUI 7711171st Street S.W. (a Edmonds, Washington 98020 U. �o a ©002 LOT 31 32 5133-000 31-U. o Wm. Beers r i 9264 405th Av. S.W. z �� Seattle, Washington 98116 0 US LU' LOT 32 5133-000-032-010Q c=i uoi Dgnna E. Paul a a Q427 Marseilles St. San. Diego, California 98107 LL U.i ._ �! FT or z i i I .i if o, ffti 7F� , ........,