21830 93RD AVE W.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
250 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
St. 189 IV Zo
FINDINGS� CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION APR 9 1996
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER PLAMVjtjG DFPr.
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPLICANT: San Kim Hay
CASE NO.: V-96-22
LOCATION: 21830 03rd Avenue West (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
APPLICATION: A variance to reduce the required rear setback on the west side of
the lot from 15-feet to 5%-feet to allow the enclosure of the space
under an existing deck to be used as a shop area (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 2).
REVIEWPROCESS: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes
final decision.
MAJOR ISSUES:
1. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards).
2. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES).
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions
Hearing Exan-dner 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 Hay application was opened at 9:08 a.m., 1996, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds
Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:18 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.
9 Incorporated August 11, 1890 0
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-96-22
Page 2
HEARING COMMENTS:
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.
From the City:
Steve Bullock, Project Planner, reviewed the staff reporL He noted the existing deck was
consistent with Snohomish County regulations at the time it was constructed. He also
noted that the property was annexed into the City in 1992 and he said the City setback
requirements are different than the County. He recommended approval with conditions.
From the Applicant:
San Kim Hay, Applicant, said he built the house in 1987, built the retaining wall in 1988
and now just wants a small covered shop. He concurred with the staff report.
From the Community:
James Dzama said he has known the applicant for many years and is familiar with the
property. He felt the retaining wall is sound and at the end of the house where the shop is
to be located there is not much difference in elevation between the Hay property and the
Smith property. He didn't feel there would be any problem with the addition requested.
Response from the City:
Steve Bullock concurred that the retaining wall is highest at the north end of the property
and the retaining wall is 2 or 3 railroad ties high at the south end of the property by the
proposed expansion.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Larry and Ardie Smith wrote a letter which requested that the variance be denied (Exhibit
B). They expressed concern about he stability of the retaining wall on the applicant's
property. They felt that any added weight related to the addition will jeopardize the
permanence of the wall and eventually the safety of their property and home. They
included six photographs along with their letter.
DESCRIPTION OF
PROPOSAL:
Tile applicant owns a home at 21830 93rd Ave. W that has since been annexed into tile
City of Edmonds within the last five years. Prior to the property being annexed into the
City, the owner built a deck on his house that conformed to Snohomish County's setback
requirements by staying 51h-feet from the rear property line when 5-feet is required. This
was done with the hope that at some future time he would be able to enclose the area
under the deck for use as a shop. Upon annexation into the City of Edmonds, the rear
setback requirement changed from 5-feet to 15-feet effectively disallowing the owners
plan to enclose the area under the deck.
Unaware of the change to setback requirements upon annexation to the City, the owner
began construction of the enclosed area under the existing deck. The fact the construction
was commenced without a permit was brought to the attention of the Building Division
M
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-96-22
Page 3
and a stop work notice was posted. At this point the owners was informed that his plans
would not be allowed unless a variance was approved which would allow him to encroach
the rear setback.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
1. Site Development And Zoning:
a. Facts:
1. Size: The subject property is approximately 9,000 square feet in area, and is
roughly rectangular in shape with approximately 100-feet of street frontage along
93rd Ave W to the east (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4).
2. Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with a single family house.
3. Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Residential Single-Farnily - 8,000
sq. ft. lots (RS-8) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). Single -Family homes are a
permitted primary use in this zone.
4. Terrain and Vegetation: 'Me subject property is relatively flat with ornamental
vegetation.
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a. Fact: The adjacent properties on all sides are currently zoned under the same RS-8
zone (see Exhibit A, Attachments 1). These properties are also developed with single-
family homes.
B. HISTORY
1. In 1992, the Johnston/Askland annexation was approved by the Edmonds City Council
and the subject property became a part of the City of Edmonds. This annexation adopted
comparable zoning which is RS-8. ne RS-8 zone in the City of Edmonds requires a 15-
foot rear setback while the R-8400 zone in the county requires only a 5-foot rear setback.
2. In January 1996, the Building Division was notified of some construction taking place at
21830 93rd Ave W without a permit. Upon verification of this, a stop work notice was
posted at the site until all the property permits were granted. Because of the
encroachment of the addition into the rear setback, a variance is required.
C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE
1. Critical Areas Compliance
a. Facts:
1. This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.15.B (Critical Areas
Ordinance).
2. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Checklist, and the city has issued a
Waiver from the requirement to prepare a Critical Areas.
E
C,
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-96-22
Page 4
b. Conclusion: Ile applicant has complied with the requirements of the City's
Critical Areas Ordinance.
2. Compliance with RS-8 Zoning Standards
a. Facts:
1. The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development
in the RS-8 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030. These include the following
for creating a lot:
a) Minimum Lot size: 8,000 square feet
b) Minimum Lot width: 70 feet
and the following for locating structures:
a) Street Setback: 25 feet
b) Rear Setback: 15 feet (5 feet for detached structures)
0 Side Setbacks: 7.5 feet
d) Maximum Height: 25 feet
e) Lot Coverage: 35%
2. The required rear setback for the subject property when it was under Snohomish
County's jurisdiction was 5-feet.
3. Construction of a 2nd story deck and plans for enclosing the area under the deck
were completed prior to the subject property's annexation into the City of
Edmonds and in accordance with Snohomish County requirements (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 3).
3. 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 hi an unusual and unreasonable hardship (see Exhibit A, Attachments 3).
a. Fact: 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; the proposal is consistent with the
Zoning Code.
b. Conclusions:
1. Special circumstances exist on this property in that construction of a 2nd story
deck and plans for enclosing the area under the deck were completed prior to the
subject property's annexation into the City of Edmonds and in accordance with
Snohomish County requirements (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3).
2. No special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that the
applicant has submitted names and addresses for 4 other lots in the general vicinity
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-96-22
Page 5
that have sheds and shops.within the 15-foot rear setback do to the different
setback requirements of Snohomish County (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3).
3. Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the continued development of
the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the
Comprehensive Plan designation of the site.
4. Approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare. The location of the addition on the subject property is not believed to
create any type of safety hazard for the adjoining property. If the existing retaining
wall, shown on photos submitted with Exhibit B, was constructed without permits
the applicant may be in violation with the building code with respect to the
retaining wall. That issue is beyond the scope of this hearing, however, and should
be addressed separately.
5. Approval of the requested variance appears to be the minimum required to allow
for the reasonable development of the subject property. The variance would allow
the applicant to enjoy the ability of many of the property owners in the area due to
the development of their homes under Snohomish County's development
regulations (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3).
6. As conditioned, the requested variance would be consistent with these review
criteria.
D. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
1. Review by City Departments
a. Fact: No comments were made by other City departments.
b. Conclusion: Other City departments have no initial concerns.
D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC)
1. Comprehensive Plan Designation
a. Fact: The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as Low Density
Residential.
b. Conclusion: The proposed project is consistent with the Low Density
Residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan.
11) XOM3 (
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is approved, subject
to the following conditions.
1. This variance is to allow the enclosure of the space under the existing 2nd story deck
within the setbacks as shown on the proposed site plan (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4).
This addition will encroach the setback 9.5-ft. for a distance of 20-ft. in width. Any other
structures, additions or remodels would have to conform with the typical setbacks for the
zone or obtain another variance.
R
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-96-22
Page 6
2. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds
Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure
compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances.
3. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to any further construction.
4. The permit is transferable.
Entered this 8th day of April, 1996, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
7�� ht 0-t'4�
Ron McConnell
Hearing Examiner
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS:
'Me following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and
appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the
Planning Department for further procedural information.
A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION:
Section 20.100.010.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 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.
''F HEY
JARBA9A,FA'
MAYOR
1-0
'4206)771. 226'� (206' 221�-
26OWN AVENUi N6Rik'i; EDMONDS, WA 98020, - 0
J.,
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Public,,Works.e�.Platining-*:Parks,and Recrebti(in E6gineer1ng',,:,.,
of Tra 'thifflAt
Letter n
A 61 k 1,996:
Ron McConnell,
Hea6n-q Exarniner,.
�8ubjjqc
l earing xaminer Meetingof 4/4/96
ra tri
:Sign up sheet for A 6-26, V-!96-19,Vm*- 6-2Z A CU.�96 w3
P79 9
F I -,XX'
OrYo r n ormation:'
U
s vou requested:
For your file.
C omment:,
Note attachments:'
S ce
in rely,
Diane M. Cunningham, Planning Secretary
W orporaW August 11, 1890:10:::
S r FlekinanJa pan
iste �Cifies International,
iz
several years ago Mr. Hay constructed a retaining wall across the entire length of our
property line. The base of this wall begins midway up an already steep and questionably stable
hillside. The north end of this wall is eleven railroad ties high and is seriously bulging already.
Shouldn't a building permit also be required for this type of construction?
We are very concerned that the wall's stability is already in question and any added
weight of not only the building materials but of shop equipment within the addition will ftu-ther
jeopardize the permanence of the wall and the hillside and eventually the safety of our property
and home.
We sincerely request that the Hearing Examiner deny Mr. Hay's variance request.
Sincerelyl
Larry L. Smith
Ardie A. Smith
6F Ebm S
_N0RTH,*'EDM0NDS,WA,98
250 SW AVENUE 020
ADVISORY, REPORT`�
��49 AND RECO
._-.�,�:,'f]MDINGSXQNCLUSI0 NS"
ColmPI
T6! ner
C, parhy,Exami
From.,
en,
Prqject P anner
MARCH 19, -1996
fffe::� V-�96-22'
j Timat, And P AP614,1996,At9:00)
He�ri te lace:
Plaza Room - Edmonds Library
650 Main Street
TABLE CONIENTS
Section Page
j]INTRODUCTTON'. ...... .................................... ............. I ................ ............................ 2.
A. ation ............. ...........................................
Applic i: ......................... ........................................ . .......
B. Description of Proposal ................................................................................... .................. I ................... 2'
C. Recommendations ................................ I ................................... ; ................................................................... 2
11. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ........ ............................ .................................. 3
A. Site Description ..................................................... ................................................................................ 3
B. History ...................................................................................................................... . ................................ 1_
C. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance .............. ................ ................................
D. Technical Comm ................................... ............................
ittee .............................................................. I
E. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) ........................................................................................................ ........ ... 5
III. RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS ......................................... I .................................. I
A. Request for Reconsideration ................................ I ..................... i ............................... ......................... ......... 5
I
B. Appeals ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL ........................................................................................................... 5
V. APPENDICES ..................................................................................... ....................................... 6
VI. PARTIES OF RECORD ............................................................... ......................... I ................. *..6_
mg�cliig' 1096 s
V_ tiff
96-22.DOC'/ ��Cpo�
Unaware of the change to setback requirements upon annexation to the City, the owner began
construction of the enclosed area under the existing deck.- The fact the construction was
commenced without a permit was brought to the attention of the Building Division and a stop work
notice was posted. At this point the owners was informed that his plans would not be allowed
unless a variance was approved which would allow him to encroach the rear setback.
Recommendations
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend approval
of this application subject to the following conditions:
I . This variance is to allow the enclosure of the space under the existing 2nd story deck within
the setbacks as shown on the proposed site plan (see Attachment 4). This addition will
encroach the setback 9.5-ft. for a distance of 20-ft. in width. Any other structures, additions or
remodels would have to conform with the typical setbacks 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 provisions contained in these ordinances.
3. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to any further construction.
4. The permit should be transferable.
''SanKi
M ay
Ffle'No.'V-�96-22
p4ge 4 46 —
'2., Como umc with
M ' e RS 8 Zoning Standards
at) Eacts.,
Q) The fundamental site development standards'pertainin'g to Resi,de.ntial development,
in the RS-8 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030. These include the fol.lowingfor
creating a lot:
a) Minimum Lot size: 8,000 square feet
b) Minimum Lot width: 70 feet
And the following for locating structures:
a) Street Setback: 25 feet
Rear Setback: 15 feet (5 feet for detached structures)
c) Side.Setbacks: 7.5 feet
d) Maximum Height: 25 feet
e) Lot C verage: 35%
0
(2) The required rear setback for the subject property when it was.under Snohomish
County's jurisdiction was 5-feet.
(3) Construction of a 2nd story deck and plans for enclosing the area under die, deck
were completed prior to the subject property's annexation into the City of Edmonds
and in accordance with Snohomish County requirements (see Attachment 3).
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).
ot
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 Attachments 3).
a) Fact: 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; the proposal is consistent with the
Zonin- Code.
C,
b) Conclusions:
(1) Special circumstances exist on this property in that construction of a 2nd story deck
and plans for enclosing the area under the deck were completed prior to the subject
property's annexation into the City of Edmonds and in accordance with Snohomish
County requirements (see Attachment 3).
(2) No special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that the
applicant has subn-dtted names and addresses for 4 other lots in the general vicinity
that have sheds and shops within the 15-foot rear setback do to the different setback
requirements of Snohomish County (see Attachment 3).
(3) Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the continued development of the
site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive
Plan designation of the site.
(4) Approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare.
III* RECONSIDERNfIONYS AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any
Re or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department
person wishing to fl
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.'
'77�7 -7,7,7777�
.. .. ...
Asion
ivis.lon
I �F�..Iv��Vv I --F FH I
I I I I IT 4 �
Din rL. ovv I '1� p I I I I 1 11
I I--- 1 1 1 '1 '1 '1 '1 1 1 1 '1 '1 '1 1 '1 '1 lw K I I 1 11
CL
W
21 9TH ST SW cr.
cq
LO
p 1"220TH T sw 7-7
act 13 013LML�
city of e6 ' ' ')onds
land use application
El ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
El COMP PLAN AMENDMENT
0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
13 HOME OCCUPATION
13 FORMAL SUBDIVISION
El SHORT SUBDIVISION
Q LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
0 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Q OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT
STREET VACATION
13 REZONE
Q SHORELINE PERMIT
AL VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE
EXCEPTION
C3 OTHER
FEB 2 1 119-1,16
PERMIT COUNTER
FILE# VOACe ZONE'
DATE 2--?-1-1(- RECDBY )�V
FEE -$'I 3z- RECEIPT# ZO Thel
HEARING DATE
HE L3 STAFF El PB L3 ADB L3 CC
TAKEN:
0 APPROVED Q DENIED 13 APPEALED
APPEAL#
Applicant AN 19,01 il Phone
Address gual-c" to . -P, /I--(
Property Address or Location "5 A mi P
Property Owner com e. Phone
Address aw e..
Agent Phone
Address
Tax Acc 0 Sec. _ Twp. _ Rng.
Legal Description Dio'Et feecs h) IDE-4
Q
Details of Project or Proposed Use
The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the
application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all
damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon
false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information fumished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or
employees.
The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to
enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this application.
Attachment 2
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT
C,
CEIVED
FEB2 1 1996
PERMIT COUNTER
ANSWERS TO VARIANCE QUESTIONS
1 In 1989 we obtained permits and built a roof structure over our
back decks at a cost of $7,500, with plans of enclosing the lower deck
as a shop area in the future. At that time the permits were obtained
through Snohomish County.
The property has now been annexed by the City of Edmonds and the
set back requirements have changed. In 1989 when we received
the permits we were told that we would be able to enclose our lower
deck as an unheated shop area. A variance is now needed with the
new set back requirements.
The setback for the enclosed room is 10" shorter than the upper
existing deck floor. The setback for the enclosed room is also 2'4"
shorter than the existing roof (see pictures on page 2 & 3).
2. This would not be a special privilege because there are many houses in
the vicinity with shops and storage sheds built within the fifteen feet
set back. Here are four of the addresses of the people in our
neighborhood with storage sheds and car port built within the fifteen
feet set back:
1. Neal W. Johnson 2. Arthur Vandersys
21821 93rd AVE W. 21811 93rd AVE W.
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
3. Debra Rollevson 4. John & Mary Storm
21801 92nd AVE W. 21812 93rd AVE W.
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
3. The comprehensive plan designates the property as "Single Family,"
the use as single family will continue. Therefore, the proposal is
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
4. This is in residentially zoned area and is only intended for use as a
personal shop area.
Attachment 3,
property value. There are tall evergreen trees and batilboo trees
behind with no view. The neighboring lot has a steep slope, so it
will not inhibit their use at all. There will still be a 56*' setback with a
3' concrete walkwav and a retaining wall, so it will not be hazardous.
The setback for the enclosed roorn is 10" shorter than the existing
Lipper deck floor. I'lle setback is also 2WI shorter than the Lipper
-cs oil page 2 & 3).
existing roof bUilt in 1989 (see pictut C7
6. This is tile minimum variance needed due to tile roof Sti-LICture built
over the back decks in 1989, I'lle new shop is incorporated into tile
original existing structure, which is IF shorter than tile existing upper
z� 417
deck floor and it is also 2�4" shorter than tile Upper roof ( see pictures
oil pa-e 2&.')).
34'
54AI I(RY
73AmE
LWOW$
74
w 914Drr MOP,
4Ar(
oc
.K E: A R E LE V
CITY OF EDMONDS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINJ
THE HEARING EXAMINER WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING
THURS. APRIL 4,
FILE NO. V-96-22
19 96 , ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION:
APPLICATION BY SAN KIM HAY FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED REAR SETBACK FROM 15-
FEET TO 5.5-FEET TO ALLOW THE ENCLOSURE OF THE SPACE UNDER AN EXISTING DECK TO BE USED
AS UNHEATED SHOP AREA ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. THIS*SPACE
WOULD ENCROACH INTO TH REQUIRED SETBACK 9.5-FEET DEEP AND 20-FOOT WIDE.
PROPERTY ADDRESS AND LOCATION
21830 93rd AVENUE -WEST -
ZONE DISTRIC RS-8
THE HEARING WILL BEGIN AT 000 -- M., IN THE PLAZA MEETING ROOM, LIBRARY
BUILDING, 650 MAIN STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT ON THIS PROPOSAL,
YOU MAY COME TO THE HEARING AND SPEAK. YOU MAY ALSO WRITE A LETTER STATING YOUR VIEWS
WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING. PLEASE ADDRESS THE LETTER TO THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT AND INCLUDE THE ABOVE FILE NUMBER.
IF THE ITEM IS CONTINUED TO ANOTHER HEARING BECAUSE THE AGENDA IS NOT COMPLETED, OR
FURTHER INFORMATION IS NEEDED, THE DATE OF THE CONTINUED HEARING WILL BE ANNOUNCED ONLY
AT THE MEETING.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONjJJ4
BEE OBTAINED AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 250 FIFTH AVENUE
.0
NORTH, EDMONDS (PHONIM ENSIONOW.
ML E THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR
omm CONCEALMENT OF THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE
B]IN EGI
WA R 1 I'll a OF THE HEARING IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE
BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.
94
THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOVED AFTER
I
I
Ralph Sweet Paul & Gale Houvener Robert Pahlman
9315 220th St SW PO Box 2461 9301 220th St SW
Edmonds, WA 98020-4551 Lynnwood, WA 98036-2461 Edmonds, WA 98020-45!
Mohammad Eghtedarzadeh Steven Lundstedt Donn Lange
9307 220th St SW 207 Williams Ave N 21902 93rd Ave W
Edmonds, WA 98020-4551 Renton, WA 98055-1643 Edmondsj WA 98020-39,
San Hay L L Smith John & Mary Storm
.21915 93rd Pl W 21812 93rd Ave W
21830 93rd Ave W Edmonds, WA 98020-39:
Edmonds, WA 98020-3939 Edmonds, WA 98020-3912
Joan Fredell
Arthur Vandersys 13417 Biola Ave Arnold & Margaret Joy(
21811 93rd Ave W La Mirada, CA 777 Maple St
Edmonds, WA 98020-3939 90638-2954 Edmonds, WA 98020-34:
DWoald 2700
tj Pq Ae 98104-7016
le
Harry Peterson
21909 93rd Ave W
Edmonds, WA 98020-3941
Dennis Ickson
L 'OW
$219 W
Edmono, WA 980*26-7048
Robert Wikstrom
9205 220th St SW
Edmonds, WA 98020-4549
Etta Cormack
21802 92nd Ave W
Edmonds, WA 98020-3972
ZIONS MTG CO
PO Box 26416
Salt Lake City, UT
84126-0416
John & Leah Day
21908 92nd Ave W
Edmonds, WA 98020-39'
Catherine Palsha
21724 92nd Ave W
Edmonds, WA 98020-39
Debra Rollevson
21801 93rd W
'Edmonds, WA 98020
Real Johnston
21821,93rd AVe W
Edmonds, WA 98020-3939
Lessene Hart Neal'& KatJa*Yn Johnstor
21822 92nd Ave W 21821 93rd AVe W
Edmonds, WA 98020-3972 Edmonds, WA 98020-393c-
Lucille Hudson WORN THUESEN INC
21832 92nd Ave W 555 Dayton St #F
Edmonds, WA 98020-3972 Edmonds, WA 98020-3476
Paule I tte Druxman Dave & Colleen Bitterman
21826 93rd P1 W 21900 93rd Pl W
Edmonds, WA 98020-3911 Edmonds, WA 98020-3912
Jeffrey a Wanitta Voltz
21920 93rd P1 W
Edmonds, WA 98020-3912
Kenneth Monfore Jr.
Loretta Monfore Jr.
910 Oak St
Yreka, CA 96097-2200
Matthew Case
9230 217th P1 SW
Edmonds, WA 98020-3964
Blaine Bottmer
9229 217th Pl SW
Edmonds, WA 98020-3964
Marvin Harrison
9317 217th Pl SW
Edmonds, WA 98020-3965
William Patterson
21821 95th Ave W
Edmonds, WA 98020-3914
William Sellers
9407 220th St SW
Edmonds, WA 98020-4553
Doug & Linda Nelson
21923 93rd Pl W
Edmonds, WA 98020-3912
Joseph & Bertha Loggia
21818 93rd P1 W
Edmonds, WA 98020-3911
James Irwin
21916 93rd Pl W
Edmonds, WA 98020-391;
. 0 1
Patrick & Joan Halcomb
21827 93rd P1 W
Edmonds, WA 98020-391:
Florence Kutrich
21805 93rd Pl W
Edmonds, WA 98020-3911
Robert Bee
9224 217th Pl SW
Edmonds, WA 98020-3964
Dale & Eileen Boschan
9301 217th P1 SW
Edmonds, WA 98020-3965
Paul Labossiere
Jacquelyn Labossiere
9325 217th P1 SW
Edmonds, WA 98020-3965
Janice Rosencrantz
9415 220th St SW
Edmonds, WA 98020-4553
Edmund & Judith Nelson
9413 220th St SW
Edmonds, WA 98020-4553
Gary & X JOY MCLaUrY
9304 217th Pl SW
Edmonds, WA 98020-396!
B Christensen
9223 217th P1 SW
Edmonds, WA 98020-396,
Ray Markham
9309 217th Pl Sw
Edmonds, WA 98020-396!
Edwin Heck
9331 218th Pl SW
Edmonds, WA 980201-3944
Tomas Trias Jr.
9417 220th St SW
Edmonds, WA 98020-455:
Robert Parker
Marcia Kelly
21823 95th Ave W
Edmonds, WA 98020-391,
9% rom *.a* Gif a P—"-- W
city of ecLionds k_.,7, ~1
FE82 1 119406
land use application PERMIT COUNTER4
L) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
L1 COMP PLAN AMENDMENT
L3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
L1 HOME OCCUPATION
L) FORMAL SUBDIVISION
0 SHORT SUBDIVISION
0 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
0 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
L3 OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT
STREET VACATION
[3 REZONE
L) SHORELINE PERMIT
PL VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE
EXCEPTION
El OTHER
FILE# VaKe ZONE
DATE 2-V—flb RECDBY
FEE J'I -lz- RECEIPT# -LO
HEARING DATE
�_L,HE Q STAFF L3 PB Q ADB Ell CC
ACTION TAKEN:
Applicant .15 Am 1910 :14 AL -Phone 4
Address ,2 )R8 0 Of --; 'P& - a 'i
Property Address or Location
Property Owner ergin e— Phone
Address QJAJ e.,
Agent —Phone
Address
Tax Acc; # il la OS 0 0 Sec. _ Twp. _ Rng.
Legal Descri i n
Pt 0 A M 0 0 7 D Q-5 S 1012'f a a hl 10 V a 119
LOL 0
41
Details of Project or Proposed Use
r,
M
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.
/ if% I /
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT