18117 80TH AVE W.pdfi5i Lw
Lu
U) U.
0
Lu
LL
Z I--
j..0
Z �-�
Lu LLS,
Ln,
0
of--
LU Ld
X
LL 0
Z
L . u (n
0
Z
I
ME
CASE NO.: V-96-115
LOCATION: 18117 80'h Avenue W
REQUEST: Application to reduce the required rear setback from 25-feet to 18-
feet, to allow a single story addition to an existing single family
residence (see Exhibit A).
REVIEW PROCESS: 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: Approve with conditions.
Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions.
PUBLIC HEARING:
After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and
after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The
hearing on the Wallace application was opened at 9:15 am, November 7, 1996, in the Plaza
Room, Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:19 am. 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 -T7
F,
Hearing Examiner Decision
File No. V-96-115
Page 2
HEARING COMMENTS:
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.
From the City:
Kirk Vinisb reviewed the Planning Division Advisory Report and recommended approval
of the request with four conditions.
From the Applicant:
William Wallace concurred with the staff report and said the existing house has an
eighteen (18) foot rear yard setback and this addition would match the existing roofline
and rear yard setback.
From the Community:
No one from the general public spoke at the hearing.
Written Comments:
One neighbor, Jean Thompson, wrote a letter in support of the application
(see Exhibit B).
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Site Description
1. Site Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Size: The subject property is approximately 12,160 square feet in area
(see Exhibit A, Attachment 4).
(2) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Single -Family
Residential (RS-12).
(3) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property gently slopes downward
from the south property line to the north property line, with all open
areas landscaped (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4).
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(i) North: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned
RS- 12 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3).
(2) South: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned
RS-12 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3).
(3) East: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned
RS-12 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3).
"K ,
0
'JW
-j
0
LU
LU
-j
Cl) LL
LU 01
2 �
02 §
Ll- <
T
Z F-,
;7- 0
Z F-
LU Uj
0
0
U1
jz
F-
Z
UA (n
0
Z
7--
0 1
to
x 11��'�r?��Z"�-"z",' i-�'
Hearing Examiner Decision
File No. V-96-115
Page 3
(4) West: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned
RS-12 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3).
b) Conclusion: The proposed development would be, consistent with the
surrounding zoning and development.
B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
1. Compliance with RS-12 Zoning Standards
a) Facts:
(1) The fundamental site development standards in a RS-12 zone are set
forth in Chapter 16.20.030.
(2) Minimum rear setback in the RS- 12 zone is 25-feet.
b) Conclusion: Except for the requested side setback variance, the applicant
is proposing to build a structure which conforms to the RS-12
development standards for locating structures on a lot.
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).
a) Facts:
(i) 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) Permits for the original construction of the home cannot be found and
therefore how the residence achieved the existing setbacks cannot be
determined. In 1975 a the greenhouse and patio cover addition was
added to the home. The Planning division at that time determined that
the setbacks were as follows: front 39-feet; side 19-feet; and rear 43-
feet (see Exhibit A, Attachment 6). The 43-foot rear setback for the
home, by current methodology, appears to be in error, it should be
called out on the permit as 18-feet. It is unclear why the City did not
Mom
O�
oi:
W C LU:
n
LU
0
LL <
X UJI
Z
I.- of
Z �-
LU Uj!
0
a ��
LU
LL 0
Z
LU U)
0
Z
originally built or when the patio addition was made.
(4) According to the applicant other residences in the immediate vicinity
have similar rear yard setbacks as the applicant currently has (see
Exhibit A, Attachments 7 and 8).
(5) If the residence were built today, the home would be required to
comply with existing setbacks and the addition would not need a
variance (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5).
b) Conclusions:
(1) Special Circumstances
Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings of the property and public necessity for public structures.
Special circumstances appear to exist due to limited options available
to the applicant for an addition to the residence. Additionally, the
applicants circumstances are not the result of their actions or illegal
actions on the part of a previous property owner. Finally, the
applicants were relying on previously issued permits (Permit No.
750264) from the City to give them direction for construction of their
addition, and the previous method for determining required rear
setback requirements appear to be different from the method for
determining rear setbacks today.
(2) Special Privilege
It does not appear that any special privilege will be demonstrated in
granting this variance in that other properties in the same zone with
similar circumstances would also qualify for a variance (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 2).
(3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan
Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the continued
development of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the
Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site (see
Exhibit A, Attachment 2).
(4) Not Detrimental
Approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare in that the encroachment will not exceed any more
than that which already exists on the site (see Exhibit A, Attachment
2).
0 U
Hearing Examiner Decision
File No. V-96-115
Page 5
(5) Minimum Required
The request appears to be the minimum necessary for accommodation
of the addition as the applicant is not seeking to encroach any further
:C Z
than that which already exists (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 and 4).
U
<
C. Technical Committee
U)
I . Fact: No comments were submitted by other departments.
U LU
LU
D. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC)
(n LL
—01
LU
1 . a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family
2 �
Residential".
g ti,
U-
b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the
D
existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site.
UJ,
2. a. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section,
Z
identifies goals and policies which relate to "Residential
�- 0
Z
Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed
UJ UJ
in detail below.
(1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality
0—
residential development which is appropriate to the diverse
0
lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and
UJ
3:
promoted...
LL 0
(2) Section B.2 states as a policy of the City that: "Protect
Z,
neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing
LU Co
buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures in
P
0
the area.
Z
b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the
above adopted goals and policies of the City for the development
of residential property in the City.
DECISION:
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is approved,
subject to the conditions listed below:
1. This variance is to allow the proposal in the location identified on the proposed site plan
0
(see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). Any other structures, additions or remodels would have to
conform with the typical setbacks or height requirements for the zone or obtain another
variance.
2. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds
Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure
compliance with the various provision contained in these ordinances.
3. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction.
4. The permit is transferable.
0
'a,
.9
Cn LL
0
UJ
LL
Z 1-
1-01
Z �-i
LU LLJ�
2 M�
D
0
LU Lul
z
UJ U)
z
�iv
t 0
C
A
Hearing Examiner Decision
File No. V-96-115
Page 6
Entered this IP day of November, 1996, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings
Examiner under dCha er 20. 100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
Ron McConnell
Hearing Examiner
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
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name
of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the
appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community
Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is
required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the
conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for
an extension of the time before the expiration date.'
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a
change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office.
M
Ni.
0
10
'i 'S
"A t
... .. .....
Hearing Examiner Decision
File No. V-96-115
Page 7
EXHIBITS:
The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record.
iz
A. Planning Division Advisory'Report
Lui
B. Letter from Jean Thompson, dated 10/26/96
Uj t j!
Q!
PARTIES OF RECORD
Cn W1
ME
William and Jackie Wallace Jean Thompson
Ui
18117 80'h Avenue W 18111 80'h Ave W
(n LL
—0
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
LL <
Planning Division
La Cc$
M Lur
Engineering Division
L
Fire Department
z
01
Parks Department
LU,
Public Works Department
LU
Qj
0
Uj
3: U.
U.
zi
U
0
z
'A
0
t 0
LU
w
-i
U) LL
LAJ 0
:3
LL
z
�- C
Z I-
LU LIJ
0-
01-
LU U
3: L
F-
�L- c
LLJ
F-
0
z
t 0
.. ........
EXHIBITS LIST
FME NO. V-96-115
(Submitted as of November 7, 1996)
A.
Planning Division Staff Advisory Report (prepared 10/282M.
13.
Letter from Jean Thompson, dated 10/26/96.
E.
F.
G.
H.
J.
K.
M.
N.
0.
P.
R.
V
(YR)-(#)E)U(DATE).REPORISWAFF%"HIORS
Z
:C
Z*
LU
LU
Ln
tn LU
LU X
_J �_
(n LL
0,
LU
<
LL < 1
:) 1
a
U,
3:
Z �-
�_ 0
Z �-
LU Ui
0
0 �_,
LU UJI
X L)
Z
W En
0
Z
= 71
Z 0
EDMONDS HEARING EXAMINER
MEETINGAGENDA
NOVEMBER 7,1996 AT 9:00 A.M.
Plaza Room - Edmonds Library
650 Nfain Street
1. Call to Order
2. Public Hearings
a. CONTINUED HEARING FROM OCTOBER 17,1996, MEETING DATE
FILE NO. LQU�,96-93 Application by Bracht & Jarnes, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a
Daycare/Preschool in the BC zone on the property located at 22805 100th Avenue West.
b.
M_Y_N_DV-96-ll5; Application by Williarn & Jackie Wallace for a Variance to reduce the required
rear setback from 25-feet to 18-fiwt to allow a single -story addition to an existing single-fiunily
residence. The subject property is located at 18117 80th Avenue West and is zoned RS-12.
C. FILE NO. V-96-119- Application by Al Ansari for a Variance to increase the maximum permitted
height in the RS-12 zone from 25-feet to 37-feet to allow the construction of a new single-fmily
residence. Ile subject property is located at 16008 75th Place West and is zoned RS-12.
3. Adininistrative Reports - No Reports.
4. Adjourrunent
PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE ACCESSIBLE FOR PERSONS WITH WSABELITIES
(Contact the City Clerk at 771-024S with 24 hours adVance noticefor special accommdations)
11079&DOCAGENDASM
'�7_71�77 - :7 �
0
10
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 5TH "ENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To: Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner
From: Al � fz"'�J-
kirk J.Tinish, AICP
Planner
Date: OCTOBER 28,1996
File: V-96-115
WILLIAM & JACKIE WALLACE
Hearing Date, Time, And Place: November 7.1996, At 9:00 AM.
Plaza Room - Edmonds Library
650 Main Street
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... I .............................. 2
A. Application .................................................................................... ................................. 2
B. Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 2
11. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................... 2
A. Site Description ................................ 2
B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance ................................... 3
C. Technical Committee ...................................................................................................... 4
D. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) ......................................................................................... 4
111. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS ................................................................................ 5
A. Request for Reconsideration ............................................................................................ 5
B. Appeals ............................................................................................................................ 5
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL ........................................................................................................... 5
V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR .......................................................................................
VI. APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... 5
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD ..................................... I ..................................................................... 6
V96-1 ISMOC /October 28,1996 StaffReport
FW'= Mo 77
0 0
10
L INTRODUCTION
A. Application
1. Aolicants: William & Jackie Wallace (see Attachment 1).
2. Site Location: 18117 80th Avenue West (see Attachments I and 4).
3. Reques: Application to reduce the required rear setback from 25-feet to 18-feet, to allow
a single story addition to an existing single family residence (see Attachment 1).
4. Review Process: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final
decision.
5. MWgLlum:
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).
B. Recommendations
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend
Approval of this application subject to the following conditions:
1. This variance is to allow the proposal in the location identified on the proposed site plan (see
Attachment 4). Any other structures, additions or remodels would have to conform with the
typical setbacks or height requirements for the zone or obtain another variance.
11, s app cat on is subJeCL to me plic le requirements contained in me Edmonds
Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance
with the various provisions contained in these ordinances.
3. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction.
4. The permit should be transferable.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Site Description
1. Site Development And Zoning:
a) Fmls:
(1) Size: The subject property is approximately 12,160 square feet in area (see
Attachment 4).
(2) Zqjling: The zoning of the subject property is Single -Family Residential (RS-12).
(3) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property gently slopes downward from the
south property line to the north property line, with all open areas landscaped (see
Attachment 4).
t
X Z
I-- Uj
cc 2
<
LU
0
cn LIJ
LU
U) LL I
LU 0
LL <
31
D a,
W
3:
Z
1.— 0
Z 1--
LU LU
T,
0
0 l—'
LU uj!
3:
LL 0
Z
LU (n
0
Z
am
ME
William & Jackie Wallace
File No. V-96-115
Page 3 of6
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
(1) NDAh: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned RS-12 (see
Attachment 3).
(2) Sqjd: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned RS-12 (see
Attachment 3).
(3) Fag: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned RS-12 (see
Attachment 3).
(4) -)Y&9: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned RS-12 (see
Attachment 3).
b) Conclusion: The proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding
zoning and development.
B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
1. Compliance with RS-12 Zoning Standards
a) FAda:
(1) The fundamental site development standards in a RS-12 zone are set forth in Chapter
16.20.030.
(2) Minimum rear setback in the RS-12 zone is 25-feet.
b) Conclusion: Except for the requested side setback variance, the applicant is proposing to
build a structure which conforms to the RS-12 development standards for locating
structures on a lot.
2. Compliance with requirement for a Variance
ECDC Chapter 20.15B. I 80.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 Attachment 2).
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) Perin its for the original construction of the home cannot be found and therefore how
the residence achieved the existing setbacks cannot be determined. In 1975 a the
greenhouse and patio cover addition was added to the home. The Planning division
at that time determined that the setbacks were as follows: front 39-feet; side 19-feet;
and rear 43-fect (see Attachment 6). The 43-foot rear setback for the home, by
current methodology, appears to be in error, it should be called out on the permit as
18-feet. It is unclear why the City did not apply the same methodology as is used
today, when the house was originally built or when the patio addition was made.
V96-1 I SDOC October 28,1996 /Staff Report
K
E
=z-
�- UJ
cc
U1
-J
UO
U) a
U)
LIJ
-J
Cn LL I
LLJ 0
:E �:J
gg�
U-
T) cj�
z l'-
l.- 0
Z 1--
LU LU
0
a
LU W!
3:(.)
F-
z
UJ U)
L)
0
z
MUM
DE
William & Jackie Wallace
FilcNo.V-96-115
Page 4 of 6
(4) According to the applicant other residences in the immediate vicinity have similar
rear yard setbacks as the applicant currently has (see Attachments 7 and 8).
(5) If the residence were built today, the home would be required to comply with
existing setbacks and the addition would not need a variance (see Attachment 5).
b) Conclusion :
(1) Special Circumstamm
Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings
of the property and public necessity for public structures.
Special circumstances appear to exist due to limited options available to the
applicant for an addition to the residence. Additionally, the applicants circumstances
are not the result of their actions or illegal actions on the part of a previous property
owner. Finally, the applicants were relying on previously issued permits (Permit No.
750264) from the City to give them direction for construction of their addition, and
the previous method for determining required rear setback requirements appear to be
different from the method for determining rear setbacks today.
(2) Special Privileg
It does not appear that any special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this
variance in that other properties in the same zone with similar circumstances would
also qualify for a variance (see Attachment 2).
(3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan
Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the continued development of
the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the
Comprehensive Plan designation of the site (see Attachment 2).
(4) NQLD&tEWignM
Approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare in that the encroachment will not exceed any more than that which already
exists on the site (see Attachment 2).
(5) Minimum Required
The request appears to be the minimum necessary for accommodation of the
addition as the applicant is not seeking to encroach any further than that which
already exists (see Attachments 2 and 4).
C. Technical Commiftee
1. Fgd: No comments were submitted by other departments.
D. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC)
1. a. fhd: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Residential"
b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing
Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site.
2. a. EKU: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifles
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
develonmeni which is ann—n-ate to the diverse -r
residents should be maintained andpromoted....
V96-1 15-DOC October 28, 1996 Staff1i-,P-r*t
M
al
-4.1.-
Z.
LU
LU
U)
U) LU
ELI
-J
(J) LL i
0
LU
LL
Z
�- 0
Z I--
LU Lu
L) u)
0-1
a 1—�
LU UJI
U- 0
Z
U.; U)
0
Z
0*
ma
William& Jackie Wallace
File No. V-96-1 IS
Page 5 of 6
(2) Section B.2 states as a policy of the City that: "Protect neighborhoods
from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize
with existing structures in the area. "
b. Conclusion: The proposed development is 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 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial
decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or
presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the
subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific
references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of
application being reviewed.
B. Appeals
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
decision being appealed along with the name of the project 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.'
V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in
the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office.
VI. APPENDICES
Attachments 1 through 8 are attached.
I . Application
2. Declarations of the Applicant
3. Vicinity Map
4. Site Plan
5. Excerpt from subdivision file no. S-25-70
6. Building Permit 750264
7. Applicants vicinity Map
8. Photos submitted by applicant
V96-115.DOC October 28, 1996 Staff Iteport
I
-01
0) 0.
cn I
Lu
u.
:u 0
0
T
Lij.
z
�— 0�
Z �—'
LLJ all
cn!
0—
a �—
LU Ul
z
LLI (j)
u
0
z
J
o �
c 0
z-
UJ
r,c
LU
LU
Lu
-1
LU
<
x
L'L <
D)
z F-
1.- 0
Z I—
LU LU
LU LLJ1
P
LL 0
z
UJ Cl)
L)
0
z
ME
city of e6i. Aonds
land use application
0 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
13 COMP PLAN AMENDMENT
13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
13 HOME OCCUPATION
0 FORMAL SUBDIVISION
L3 SHORT SUBDIVISION
Q LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
13 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
E3 OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT
STREET VACATION
0 REZONE
Q SHORELINE PERMIT
0 VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE
EXCEPTION
13 OTHER
FILE# �r_cyo-��5 ZONE Rs- it
DATE —5'7 '7
FEE -q71 - �/� REC-D BY r-.V-
i-4- RECEIPT#
HEARING DATE
13 HE 13 STAFF El PB 0 ADB 13 CC
ON TAKEN:
0 APPROVED Ll DENIED 0 APPEALED
Applicant William & Jackie Wallace —Phone - 206-672-8373
Address 18117 80th Ave. West Edmonds, WA 98026
Property Address or Location 18117 80th Ave. W. '�Edmonds, WA 98026
Property Owner William & Jackie Wallace Phone 206-672-8373 Evenings
Address 18117 80th Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 206-322-8900 Days
Agent None Phone
Acc# 3708-007-005-0309 Sec. _ Twp. _ Rng.
Legal Description � qpe attacheti T.agal Ilenerlptinn
Details of Project or Proposed Use Request for variance for a back yard setback of
18 feet as current structure is currently built.
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 fumished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or
employees. I
The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the sf--
enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this i
ATTACHMENT I
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT ao..,A' File No. V-96-115
0
A
Z.,
Uj
U
-j U�
UO
U) a
rj)
(n LL
0
Ui
LL
LU,
Z I--
�- 0
Z I--
LM LU
U U),
0-1
Uj
Uzi
�L- 0
Z
LU (n
0
Z
01
KI-A
41N
September 16,1996
4919S
Planning Division
City of Edmonds Planning Department
250 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Request for Variance for:
William N. and Jackie J. Wallace
18117 80th Avenue West
Edmonds, WA 98026
We are requesting a variance to the current RS-12 zoning of our property which would
allow an eighteen (18) foot rear setback, rather than the required tvienty-five (25) feet.
This would allow for the addition of a bath room and third car garage'to.the south and
west side of our property (see copy of plan submitted with this Request for Variance).
On October 20, 1970, at the City of Edmonds Planning Commission Regular Meeting, a
"three lot subdivision on 80th Ave. W. in the vicinity of 180th Street S.W." (S-25-70)
was approved and zoned RS-12 (Exhibit 1). This property is still zoned RS-12 and there
have been no changes in the zoning since 1970.
In 1972, a Building Permit was issued by the City of Edmonds to build a house on Lot B
(18 117 80th Ave. W.) of the above -referenced subdivision. At that time, the setbacks in
effect were the same as those that are in effect today. They are 25 foot front setback, 25
foot rear setback, and 10 foot left and right side setbacks.
This house was built and approved by the City of Edmonds with the following setbacks:
25 feet on the west boundary (front setback), over 25 feet on the east boundary (rear
setback), 10 feet on the south boundary (side setback), and 10 feet on the north boundary
(side boundary). In 1975, a second Building Permit was issued on this property for a
deck cover and addition (storage room/greenhouse) using the same setbacks as the
original Building Permit (Exhibit 2).
The City of Edmonds Planning Department now interprets the setbacks opposite of the
previous interpretations. The City now designates the side yards as front and back, and
the front and back yards as the side, even though the two previous Building Permits
designated the opposite interpretation.
ATTACHMENT 2
File No. V-96-115
0
Z
2. SPECI , PREVILEGE.
This.current interpretation of the setback rules deprives us of the rights already given to
this property twice before and deprives us of the rights given to every other property
owner that has built on the south boundary line of this property with less than a 25 foot
setback. Those properties are (Exhibit 3):
18119 80th Ave. W.
18111 80th Ave. W.
7913 182nd Pl. S.W.
7919 182nd Pl. S.W.
7925 182nd Pl. S.W.
By making this unilateral decision, the City of Edmonds is depriving us of property rights
that have been granted numerous times in the past. Granting us this variance for an 18
foot setback only gives us the same property rights that have been given historically to
many other property owners, specifically those listed above, including the subject
property.
3. COMPREHENSM P
Our proposed variance would not have any adverseeffiect on the goals and guidelines
outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to promote
health, safety, and the general welfare of existing and future residents. Our proposed
variance addresses these key components by providing a consistent setback for the entire
neighborhood and does not cause any new encroachment into the established setback
areas.
9 0 0 0 Mirk I I Z refs) R. 1) � I Z M U"
The curTent code states a variance will be approved if it is consistent * with the purpose of
the zoning ordinances within the zone district of the property. In the RS-12 zone, the
front yard setback is twenty-five feet and the back yard setback is twenty-five feet. The
proposed addition will not encroach into the setback (as it now exists) any further than
the City believes the current structure does. In fact, the footprint of the house would
remain exactly the same as it currently is. The only difference would be a 10 foot section
of wall built to enclose the entire area in (Exhibit 4), and another 15 feet along the same
line which would represent the back wall of the garage.
One fact remains -- there is no zoning violation on the subject property as long as the
setbacks are interpreted as they interpreted in 1970 and 1975.
'0
(/) -1
U) UJI
LU X!
-J �-J
(n LL
W 0
LL
LU;
z P:
z
LU W�
M
0
UJ
z
LU U)
U -+
15 �-.
z
/7N
Q,
.J.
C))
The applicant must prove that the approval of a variance will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, and welfare or cause injury to the properties or improvements in the
immediate vicinity. The reduction of the back yard setback will not cause any harm to
the neighboring residents or properties. Even if the City's interpretation is viewed as
correct, the entire structure is currently on an 18 foot'rear setback and, with the new
improvements, the setback would remain at the current 18 foot setback with no new
encroachment. This improvement uses the same lines the existing walls follow, which
are along the current setback of the structure and will not put the structure any closer to
other structures on the back setback. Also, the improvement does not limit access or have
any detrimental effect since it change& nothing that is currently there.
i
The variance being sought must prove to be the very minimum necessary to allow the
property owner to have the same rights enjoyed by others in the vicinity. We are not
asking for something that has not already been granted by the City of Edmonds many
times before, including twice on the subject property. The proposed variance (depending
on your interpretation of the setbacks) is only asking to extend the side or back,
whichever is your view point, of the house parallel with the existing setback at the same
distance.
The issue here is strictly interpreta#on of setbacks and what "front" and "rear" involves.
If the Planning Department would have interpreted the setbacks as before, we would not
need a variance now.
As requested by the City, we are providing the following items for your review of this
Application:
1 Critical Areas Determination (Waiver);
1 Appl ication Form;
I Ownership List (within 300 feet of site);
I Legal Description for Existing Site;
I Short Plat Map;
I Photo of Site;
Exhibits Nos. I through 4; and
1 Application Fee.
Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this matter. We hope that you
would see it appropriate to grant ourrequest for a variance.
0
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT_LS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.__
A
a
E3,
SSW
soft
FAIL
N
0
:3
-i
'fib
ANDO%;tR St-
82ND AVE W 7
�J;
SISTAVEW
V-7 I
A i
Ja
F
7
�9TH pt w
79THAVE��
�vk p
m
Em
a
152.00 feet
South 90-0-0 West
n >
Z
z >
9 0
to
0) m
(n Li.
10
:C UJ
I— =
z
;7-
z
Uj LU
L) Cn
0—
a t
LU LL
U: C
2
LU rj
0
2
A
j
CHECK rmaNICURINC MQUIREMENT' G
C
L-'jt�!U!- LA VIS IONS
ThomDson. W. V . File No. S-25-70
I;Jte October 20, 1970
kight-of-way Uimnwnts, and D,, d i ca r i, In
None
2. Tu�'Around:
Required per city standards
3. Access Easenklits:
201 Minimum required
181 Paving width required
UTI1,ITTES AND CASEMENTS
Water Mains:
None required
Install service lines from.axisting mains to each lot
2. Utility Easements:
M,�.z 1.
required per development plans jg,� tf
'--submit certlifild
C�opyo rv�wded easemen�, wit
n 9
's
Y
3. Sewers or Septic Tanks:
connection to iewers required d Yv,�*
provide sewer lateral to lot "B"
4. D
rainage: Instdll all necessary SCOM Newers and drainage facilities per
drainage plan. Where drainage is across adjacent privati
i a property, allparties
having any ownership ititerest in the lands. being platted shall provide. as a
restriction on the plat running with the land, that the City of Edmonds shall
be held harmlesu,fram any and all claims for damages which may be occasioned
to adjacent lafid by reason of the constru.:tion and operation of the drainage
system, unless, relt.ase.s of damages andfi;r drainage easements are obtained from
the other property owner,, affected by said drainage. Any drainage problems creared
by change of contour during plat development must bn, correpted prior to plat
1,,.pproval or reloare f plat bond. Final approval of plat (or release of plat
bond) will be withhuld until actual drainage as installed has been inspected by
the City Eng#ecr.
GENERAL NOTCE,
Underground wiring required per Ordinance 1387.
C,
BUILDING DEPARTMENT APPUtrw 7502
PERMIT APPLICATION Inside Heavy unes' jus
NAME f0a MINUS) ADORE42
re 7, WI-7-- / / VV
.. ........... ^—VAI,
LOT co 'Or
PRoWAR I(EIGUT
N "Al"No V10
QIHZ/17 �?674 e4e, )IV-
C4 t-.7 0_ I/ —
CITY
E)CISTING A;hx= a1W -----FT. DEFICIENCY THLB PROPERTY
COUP. PLAN ST. It lw ------
0 NEW
I Lj --SIDENTLIL�
La-0,
[D GAB
LINE
!3 YES axlY
At
0 BrON
DXUOLISR
EXTAI NO
WALL
Ri
ALTZIC
"CAVATO
rENCE
0 OR rZI.L
.....
PRE-UOVE
omm
IV
0 , op.
POOL
NURBER Up g—r-dri—lkw. .0—.-srRZ—p—
DWELLING
UNITS
11RE 07 11,
Pleu, Ch,.k Wa_
BUILDING,
FLVUBING
I'll" PLAN 41-dim.
.11 lot MDACN'. 'b.ttft 't""'
;;;T . GAB LINE
mvcr
SIGN
tIIETArNING
*AU.
.4
BVIT1611111 0 POOL
DEACOL
,R.OVL INSPECTION
EXCAVATION OR FILL
h-r.br that I he. .14 lot, polle.tte.; Mat the to.
TOTAL AStOUNT DUE
,11 on vvtft to Corlett: ead that I — to .... r. or to$ duty "thot.
Ilea agent of the ce'al, I.#... to "covir Ith CRY "a At&%* law. "CO.
latins =st,ottlon: ." L. alog the — authorized Lbabr. a- parom
ATTEN77ON
"Ill —pl.yld to ".l.tIon Of - L-b"' C
to -do of too St'%b of Wublo&"*
ystattal; to WarkmWo compooeatin tamirock,
TIUS PZKmrr
NOTE: Permit Limit one year (Except Ezx0LjTlO..;3 htch
AMORIZES
ONLY Titz
"It be UMPI#ttd [A AMOY day.: 3IOVED.IK ZVELDINUS 0=1 be Vuel.
woni�n=v
011114 1. lo M.U..)
AA T, 151.71z,�
P4
INSPECTION
I)CPARTUMM
al;
ctry or
NOTE: APPlinint Subject to Plan Cbecfi Fet
r
EDMONDS
Thl. r—f. vo—,Work to ke dw& a. ptl ta6MI�yno,,
�
775-2525
too derual, 'Maa:a
rea.1.111- ok V.1,11. 61a ZIS elooky
'oe"t—a. Mr.) .11 Matra arVerato or JSJO�
"a,
ri) Lul
UJ xi
_J �_;
0) LL
LU 0
:3
U. <
0
LU!,
Z
�_ Oi
Z �-i
LU LU,
M :D1
50�
U
LU
LL 0
Z
W
0
Z
NU
—6-1- k1Y-Q d Map, QCSCrLDeG tne Location
of the building and Shell Creek, He -said if the house was removed the property
could hold li apartment units. He recommended denial for two reasons: (1) it
would tend to extend the useful life of a very modest structure of questionable
value on lot 1; and (2) it would tend to make development of the proposed lot 2
more difficult because of the reduced useable area caused by the presence of
Shell Creek running diagonally across this lot. Mr. Allen said the only engineer-
ing requirement was maintenance of the stream.
Mr. Clark said he would like to move a building on the property and develop it
for more income. A discussion concerned the necessity of dividing the property
to put another building on it, and it was pointed out this addiiibnal building
would be governed by the single family criteria. However, there is only 10,000
sq. ft. in the second lot.
Mr. Dailey moved that the Planning Com-�Ission approve S-24-70. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Larson. On call for the question, the motion carried 5 to 2.
Ave. W. in the vicinity of
'1890r tree
t
W. S 12 Zons)'.,
=�W.� ME -
Mr. Dickson reviewed the file. Mr. Logan projected a map and recommended approv-
al since the requesit involved no problems. Mr. Allen explained the tngineering
requirements of Paving. and underground wiring.
-------------
Mrs. Thompson discussed a sewer easement and where she falt it should be located.
Mr. Slaba�ugh said a bond would be necessary for the road when a building permit
it applied for.
Mr., Ma*wall.moyed that S-25- ' 70 be approv4�d �ubject to submission of the necessary
..sewer easements wi I
f�e_Ej��_ -yt 90 days. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gustayson.
OtL
unanimously.
Discussion on the proper zoning for steep slope areas (letter from Mr. Den Box
dated April 1970
A discussion concerned setting a specific date for hearing on this matter. Mrs.
Shippen moved the heari:ng be set for the November meeting. Hr. Murphy suggested
that this be set for December and Mrs, Shippen concurred. Mr. Dailey seconded
the motion.
Mr. Maxwell asked If the hearing could be on the concept, and Mr. Dickson said be
believed this was what Mr. Box was talking about. Mr. Maxwell said he didn't
believe there should be a hearing on rezoning of the property without considera-
tion of the concept.
Mr. Dickson said a motion was made setting the hearing for December to discus�s
the concept of steep slope zoning. On call for the question, the motion passed
unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
Order No. Customer No. Volume 42— Paqe 41-11�
Plat
Quarter/Quarter section Township________.;Range_
Lot (s) Portion of Lot (s) Block__.,/
Lot size commencing on the North line
Lo�s w*tAA\
v
181st PL. S.
izl
4f.
Va
NOVEMBER 7. JQ9-6
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY YOUR NAME, ADDRES so ZIP
CODE AND PHONE NUMBER BELOW IF YOU WISH TO
SPEAK ON THIS ITEM
uji
cr-
V-96-115 WILLIAM A JACKIE WALLACE
01
(n
uji
lit
d
U.
Lu
ti
LL
Lui
3:
op
z F-
ol
uj Lui
LU Lu
LL 0
zi
tg''
SN' K4
October 26, 1996
Oct
City of Edmonds 2,9
Community Services Department P44
250 5th Avenue North
Edmonds WA 98020
RE: File #V-96-115
William & Jackie Wallace
18117 80th Ave. V
I have reviewed the proposed construction and setback with Mr. Wallace,
and feel it would not impact any of the adjoining properties adversely.
Mr. Wallace and I share ownership of a private drive which serves our
properties as well as one other which owns an easement an the drive.
All properties are at a considerable distance from a public street, and
in such an instance, historically, setbacks have been loosely defined in
Edmonds. For seven years, in the 1960's, I was secretary to the
Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment in Edmonds, and know that in
all cases -setbacks on private roads were a matter of individual
interpretation.
The property directly adjoining the proposed construction, fronting an
192nd, does not itself have 251 from the edge of its deck to the
property line abutting that of Mr. and Mrs. Wallace and myself. It has
never presented a problem.
Finally, the proposed construction would simply continue in line with an
existing setback for a previous addition for which a permit was
obtained. To interpret the setback requirement for front and rear for
this property as facing on the private drive is not consistent with the
original interpretation given to the construction of this house in about
1972, or for the addition some time later. There is a setback of at
least 251 on the east and west sides of the house, the west side facing
toward 80th Ave. V. The lot itself is 801 wide, north/south, and to
require 501 of setback on the north and south sides is illogical.
I propose that this variance be granted.
W'��
ThoN
N
ean hom
pson
18111 80th Ave. W.
Edmonds, VA 98026
0
0
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
E IT 15 DUE TO THE QUAL
_THIS NOTICE- lTYOF THE DOCUMENT. man
0
4i
Vll.
131
CA)
C3
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE Jjj�S DUE TO THE ��HE DOCUMENT.
0
NOTICE: IF THE DOW IN LESS CLEAR TFIA
0
DMEPIT
THE DOCUMENT.--
DE TO TLja�
0
071
0
Ito
Notice of Development Application & Public Hearing
DateolfNotice: Octobel
File # V-96-115
Applicant Informadon
'Pennit Information
Namerof Applicant ................ William & JnaRk, Walla.
Requested permits Variance & Building Permit
D.Ic.fAppIi..fi.n: ........... 9/17/96
and Approvals: ...............
Det—pplicatue, Complete: 10114196
Other Required permits Unknown
not yet applied for (if
Project Location: .................... :D 18117 80th Ave, W.
torment: ....................
Project Dexeription: ............... Variance to roduce the required mar setback
Required Studies related Unknown
from 25-feet to 18-feet to allow a singlo-It",
addition to an existing single-family
to 'he project: ..... ............
maklance.
Public Comments do, by: Novembet-7,1996
Related Environmental Critical Areas Checklist
Documents: ...................
City Contact for project: Kirk Vinish
Public Hearing Information
Data: November7,1996 Time: 9:00 AM Place; Plaza meeting Room 650 Main St., Edmonds
Information on this development application can be vi—d or obtained at the City of Edmonds Community Servicas Department,
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020. (206) 771-022G. Public comments should also be sent to Us address.
Tb, neelsion - thi, derelaynocul cipli-dow will be mad, within 120 chow ofthe date ofthe Letter ofCoutplenemes, with allommatur seadefir inelms eand,
.oldfino—Ibitbrovaroomquooft N.Ilhtbiltyioappealadecisionis�tingeniuponp�lkipationinthepermildeciionpr�es,,
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: November 7. IS96
fine and Imprisonment.
0
32 25X
3708-001-014-00
1827-041-034-00
'3708-001-015-00
Gloria Lafond
John Hall
Resident
18227 80th Ave. W.
18218 80th Ave. W.
18213 80th Ave. w.
z
Edmonds, WA 98206
Edmonds, WA 98026
Edmonds, WA 98026
LU
< =)�
1827-041-036-00
3708-001-007-02
3708-001-015-0o
0!
Betty Smith
Katherine Morley
Arne Goedecke
18208 80th Ave. W.
18203 80th Ave. W.
18213 80th Ave. W.
tn LU�
Yj X,
Edmonds, WA 98026
Edmonds, WA 98026
Edmonds, WA .98026
F-i
C/) LL
Uj 0
2
3708-001-005-02
3708-001-004-02
3708-0 -004-02
I I--,
C2
William Cronau
Wilma Thompson
WI-_V
lmraAl ompson
I !
LL
18119 80th Ave. W.
18111 80th Ave. W
181 Oth Ave. W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Edmonds, WA 98026
Edm6nds, WA 98026
:C UJO
X!
Z
-01
!�r ��
3708-001-010-00
4582-000-001-00
4582-000-002-00
M Lui
I Han Park
Marilyn Holden
Ronald Ekdahj
2 mi
Qj
18408 79th Pl. W.
18017 80th Ave. W.
18025 80th Ave W.
C&
Edmonds, WA 98026
Edmonds, WA 98026
Edmonds, WA 98026
0
LM
U
4582-000-004-00
4582-000-005-00
4582-000-003-00
Darrell Halgrimson
Erik Roeder
Lynda Hughes
Z!
18029 80th Ave. W.
181,03 80th Ave. W.
18105 80th Ave. W.
Ui
U
Edmonds, Wa 98026
Edmonds, WA 989026
Edmonds, WA 98026*
z
3708-001-001-03
7294-000-003-00
7294-000-010-00
Helge Drivenes
Joseph Kindell
John Quick-
18107 80th Ave W.
7913 182nd Pl. S.W.
7914 182nd Pl. S.W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Edmonds, WA 98026
Edmonds, WA 98026
7294-000-002-00
7294-000-001-00
3708-002-001-00
Michael Matheny
Arnold Seppi
Barbara Gold
7919 182nd Pl. S.W.
7925 182 Pl. S.W.
18000 76th Ave W.
Edmonds, WA 98026.
Edmonds, wA. 98026
Edmonds, WA 98026
0
3708-002-003-00
3708-002-004-00
4306-600-007-00
Julie Jackson
William Pontious
Chris Hammond
18028 76th Ave. W.
18104 76th Ave. W.
8010 181st Pl. S.W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Edmonds, WA 98026
Edmonds, WA 98026
7294-000-006-00
7294-000-007-00
7294-000-008-00
Roland Brown
Ddvid Johnson
Lar J Im
7809 182nd Pl. S.W.
7810 182nd Pl. S.W.
85 S.W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Edmonds, WA 98026
Effs!,!E 98026
wo
6i LU I
LU X!i�
U-
10
2 ?� , :
g ti.
LL
LU
z I
W Uj!
U
0
0!=
LU LU
ZI
z
ILI
7294-000-008-00 7294-000-005-00 7294-000-004-00
Resident Kathleen O'Bryan Terry Copeland
7816 182nd Pl. S.W. 7817 182nd Pl. S.W. 7821 182nd Pl. S.W.
Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds,W& 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026
7294-000-009-00 6387-000-001-00 6387-000-006-00
Wallace Danielson Laurel Manley Eugene Starwich
7822 182nd Pl. S.W. 8005 180th Pl. S.W. 8006 180th Pl. S.W.
Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026
6387-000-002-00 6387-000-005-00 3708-001-002-01
Gordon Warren Steven Chancellor John Dines
8011 180th Pl. S.W. 8012 180th Pl. S.W. 7918 180th St. S.W.
Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds,WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026
3708-001-002-02 4306-000-008-00 3708-002-006-00
E.L. Walton Edith Broughton Thomas Belt
7922 180th St. S.W. 8006 181st Pl. S.W. 917 9th Ave. S
Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 9802r, Edmonds, WA 98020
3708j-OOj2-006-00 3708-002--Q05-00 3708-002-002 00
ThomWBelt t' ous j k
No SAe Address 1 Ave. W. 181 el W.
9 E
Edmofidb, WA 98026 Nond-s-, WA 8026 on"dsW 98026
3708-001-001-00 3708-�?O)/001-00 3708-0-0-1-001-04
Darrel Halgrismon DarrT.W Halgrismson John;)t an
A
18029 80th Ave. W. No Sitt�, Address Address
Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmoiids), WA. 98026
-'Mohds, WA 98026
7-- 3708-001-001-04
3708-001-001-02
3708-001-001-02
John Teehan
Resident
Lyn Felker
20825 53rd Ave W
18030 Olympic View D.
7806 Olympic
View D
0 Lynwood, WA 98036
Edmonds, WA 98026
Edmonds, WA.
98026
3708-001-009-00
H
William & Jackie Wallace
IV View D.
18117 80th Ave. W.
E onds,,I-4WA.c98026
Edmonds, WA 98026
Mw: