Loading...
643 9TH AVE N (2).PDF111111111111 9879 643 9TH AVE N JUN-19-97 THU 12:53 f '* P. 01 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE WORTH o EDMONDS. WA 98020 - (2061771-0220 1 FAX (206) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER wt FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONN AiNV JV ',1011J Of THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS BAR13ARA FAHEY MAYOR APPLICANT; Randy and Debbie Johnson CASE NO.: V 97-64 LOCATION- 643 - 9th Avenue N. (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). APPLICATION: A variance to increase the maximum allowed hedge height from 6 feet to 12-1/2 feet along the south and east property lines of a single-family residence in the RS-12 zone (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 ftough 4). REVIEW PROCESS Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. MAJOR ISSUES.' a. Compliance with Ednionds Community Devc1opment Code (ECDC) Section 17.3000 and 11.30.010 (FENCES AND HEDGES — Oeneral and Special Height Restrictions). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARJANCES). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION. Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions Hearing Examiner Decision: Deny PUBLIC 111EARING; After reviewing tho official file whicb included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and aFter visitins the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing oh the application. The hearing on the application was opened at'9:29 a.m., June 5, 1997, in the Community Services Conference Room, 250 Sn' Ave. N., Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9;59 a,m. ParficipdnB at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this repoil. A verbalim recording of the heating is available in the Planning Division. * Incorporated Augusl 11, 1890 0 Sister Cities International -- - Hekinan, Japan JUN-19-97 THU 12:53 P,02 1 0 Hearing Examiner Decision case No. V 97-64 Page 2, DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The applicants are requesting this variance to R110w their existing hedge to contintie at its sanIc heigilt, The Iledge was planted to screen hcadlights and noise from traffic coming down 9Lh Avenue N, after a tree was removed which had provided this function, but had also dropped needles on tile sidewalk which had been a slipping hazard to joggers (see Exhibit A, AllaChrlient fiEARING COMMENTS: The followingis a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City' Meg GTuwell reviewed the staff repOrt. Sbe noted that: The applicants don't want lights from cars in their house, and want tile variance to allow a hcdge high enough to block those lights. Hedge heights are, measured from the lowest grade and are allowed to be 6 feet in height, The existing hedge is on a hill and is appT*oximatcly 9 feet high from the uphill side and approximately 121/2 feet tall at the lowest grade. many neighbors. have hedges over 6 feet in height, however, no height vadimces for hedges have bccn granted in this neighborhood, It is believed most of tile hedges whio are over 6 feet in height were there before the hedge height limit was adopted and are now nonconfonning. From the Applicant' Debbie Johnson, applicant, said,. A livge cedar ticc was located where the hedge is 11ow. The. tree encroached ovcr thesidewalk and was very tnessy. It waS their respom4ibilitY Lo keep the sidewalk clean. The cedar tree and another tree which was located 0), the back of theii, Property blocked the view of tile water from Mrs- Mfflrill's hOUSC. from the con-u-nunity: I , said: Janice Brown, daughter of Bonnie Merrill Mrs. Merrill has owned the house since 1959, When 9th Avenue was widened, 5 feet was, supposed to come fron) the Merrill side and 15 fcct was supposed to come from the Johnson side. Actually, all of tile property for the widening c-,une from die Merrill side an ' d thore is mom of a problem with headlights on the Merrillside than on the John -Am side. JUN-119-97 THU 12:54 P.03 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-64 Page 3 She understail& why the Johnsons wanted to take the tree down, but before the hedge was installed her mother had a view and now the hedge blocks it so she would like the hudge to be trimmed, Bolinie Merr ill, neighbor, said: Eighteen feetWas taken off her property for thest,-eet widening and rione was taken off the Johnson property. There is a 6 foot bigh limit on hedges and she doe-sn't know why it neods to be higher, 0 She does not object to a 6 foot high hedge. 0 only two rooms from the Johnson house face the road, a bedroorn and the. kitchen. 0 The bcdgc is only planted in half of the JohnsoBs front yard, but it blocks the view from her master bedrouni. The hedge is flewbefe-mar wbefe the tree was, Jane Jacobson, Edmonds resident, asked how much time was spent I in tlie rnastcr bedroom looking at the view. Response from the ApplicanC Debbie Johnson said: The hedge was planted where the tree was taken out, An Engliph Laurel hedge is planted below the house which blocks headlights coming from the other direction. They could have planted a QIump of trees instead of the hedge and accornplished the sanie, thing in that the trees would also block the lights from carg and 0-ie code does not regulate the height of trees. CORRF,SPONDENCE; from members of the rneral publj One letter was received c on this issue- Bonnie Merrill submitted Exhibit B in which she objected to a variance which would allow the hedge to he 12 feet high as she feels it will affect her property value and block a view corridor. JUN-19-97 THU 12:55 F.04 Hearing Bxarniner Dcci5ion Case No. V 97-64 Page 4 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a. Facts: plar in 1) Size: The, subjcot property is 12,000 square feet in area, rectnn6 shape with 110 feet of frontage- along 9th Avenue N. und a depth of 120 feet (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). An access easennent runs along the northern 20 feet of the lot.. 2) Land Use The subject property is developed with a single-fainilY residence. 3) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Single -Family Reside,T)tial (RS-12) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). 4) Terrain and Vegetation; The subject sito slopes down to the west, and is landscaped with trees and shrubs. The high point of the property is along 9th Avenue N., and particularly along die southeast corner. The hedge is growing along 9th Avenue N. and the south property line on a slope to the wegt. 2. Neighboring Development And Zooing. 1) The pToperties to the north, south and east aTe zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-12) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1) and are deveioped with single-family residences. 2) The property to the west is zoned Singlc-Farnily Residential (R.S-12) and i& undeveloped (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). B. MSTORY The applicants have stated that wben t1hey puTchased their home, a 120 foot high tp by 35 foot wide Ubanon or diadora cedar tree was growing in their frorit yard. After they were iaformcd that somcono had slipped on the needler, the tree dropped on the sidewalk, and that it was their responsibility to kccp the sidowalk clean. they cut the tree down (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5). Becau.se 9th Avenue N. slope& down steeply from the south, the headlights shine at the applilcanLs' house where the tree used to stand, and the noise from traffic Was also greater after the trco was mmoved. The applicants planted the hedge to block the he,adhgbts and noise from cars along 9th-Avcnue N. In Octobu-r 1995 the Planning Department received a complaint about the height of the hedge, stating that the hedge blocked the complainant's view of Puget Sound (Exhibit A, Attachment 6). Due toataff turnover and heavy workloads, the complaint was not reseaTched until February 1997. At that tirne the hedge meaqured approximately 9 JUN-10-07 THU 12:66 P. 06 0 0 is 0 Hcaring F-xarniner Decision Case No. V 97-64 Page, 5 feet from the uphill side. A letter was simt to thr, property owners informing thern of the hedge height limit. The owners have chosen to request it variance to allow thern to keep their hedge at the, height it is now. C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) 1. Facts.. variances granted based on special circumstances are exenipt fruni SEPA review (WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.090), D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEvELOPMtNT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. Critical Areas Compliance a. F—actst 0. 15, B 1) Tills proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chi'Ptc't 2 (Critical Areas Ordinaricc). 2) The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Checklist (CA-97-65) and the, city has imaed a Conditional Waiver to the Critical Areas Study requirement. This is because the site has an Erosion Hazard Area, so any alteration must meet conditions designed to rcducc crosion, including an erosion control plan, timing of the Project and trec cloaxing permits for slopes exceeding 25 pe.rcent. b. EgadniWa: The proposal coinPlies with the requirements of Lhe City's Critical Areas Ordinarce. Compliance with Chapter 17.30 -- Feoces and Hedges a. Fact: Regulations regarding hedges in all zones are set foTLh in Chapter 17.30. 1) ECDC 17.30,000.0 States that 'Unless a vanance is fllrst obt,,ijiled, no fence or hedge shall be more than six feet in height as measured frorn the top of tho fence to the jowe.gt original grade." 2) F-CDC 17.30.010.A gives special height re.strictiorls for strects and corners. '114sight shall normally be limited to thrcz feet Within 10 fect of any strect right-of-way or at,=ss easeinent or 30 feet of any corner, unless an exception is approvc-d," 3) BCDC 17.30.010.8 gives the exception criteria: 'qf t1le city engineer finds that no hazard to usf,-fs of the streat or to nearbY property will be created, the city ellgifieer may approve a f6rice or hedge of up to Six feet in height." 4)- The Engineering Division has stated in a nicinoranduni froni Gordy Hyde, Engin.cering Coordinator, Illat no hazards are created by the current hedge height (seesection H.E.I.a.). b. _ConcltLsion: The city engineer, through his designee, has approved tile proposed height, so if the variance criteria are -Met, the proposal will col-nply with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. JUN-19-97 THU 12:66 P.06 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-64 Page 6 I Compliance witb Requirements for a Virianct 1) Cbapter 20.85 of the BCDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may be Y&ried on a case -by -case- basii; if the. application of the provision would result in an unuSICKLI and urveasouable hardship. The criteria areas follows: a) Special Circumstances: That because of special circurnstancei relating to the property such as size., shape, topography, loc�iiion or surroundings of the property, strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and. privileges pennittcd to other properties in the vicinity with the same Yoning. Special circumstances should not be prcdi(;a(cd upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning orriinance, the ability to secure a scenic view. tile ability to mike more profitable use of the property, not any factor resulting frorn tho action of the owner or any past owner of the same property. b) S2eciai Privilege: T hat the approval of the vari ance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the, saine zoning. c) oning Ordinanc : That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprchcrisive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the zoning disLfict in which the property is located. d) Not Detrimental: That the variance, as approved or condidonally approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the propexty or i InProveme" ts ill the vicinity and the same zone. e) Minirrium Varia=: That the approved variince is the minimum recessary to allow die owner rights enjoyed by other properties in ttle vicinity with the same zoning. 2) The applicant has submitted declarations with their submittal which address the decisional criteria as follows (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3): a) The special cii-curnstances the applicants nictition include the increased traffi c on 9th Avenue N. cau5ing more noise and los% of privacy. Also because the cars come downhill frorn abovc them the headlights shine in their windows. b) The applicants point out that the city widened 9th Avenue N. in 1970 andsince then many neigbbors have planted hedge.; that JUN-19-97 THU 12:57 0 F. 07 Hearing Exal-niner ]Decision Case No. V 97-64 Page 7 are over the 6 foot limit, so the approval would not be a grant of special privilege. r,) Approval will allow.for a single-family use, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. d) The applicants state they are trying to protect their single- f�nWy home from the glare and noise of 9th Avolluc N. e) The applicant:3 feel that the hedge is a benefit to the neighborhood over the 120-foot tree which had been in that location, since the treve blocked more views than the hedge does. and because the tree had dropped needles oil the sidewalk, which was a safety hazard to pedestrians. f) The applicants feel this is the minit-nurri. variance needed, as it -is the proper height to block the headlights of cars coming down 9th Avt�nue N. ard is just in the area left when the, tree was cut down. 3) Traffic volumes On this segment of 9th Avenue N. are about 6300 vehicles per day, according to Gordy Hyde, Engineeting Coordhwtor. 4) The ordinance which set a limit on hedge heights was passed in 1978, eight years after the widening of 9th Avenue N. mentioned above. b. Qneluslon . 1) The traffic along 9th Avenue N. and the slope down die hill LOWards this house provide no more In the way of spc6al circumstances then exist on many other hills in Edmonds, If the City Council imended to exempt properties on hills from the hedge height requirements it is believed that they would have specified so in the ordinance. The Examiner believes, howrYer, that the Council intended the hedge height regulation to be i1nplemented throughout the city, especitilly in areas where there are hills in order to protect vWws. 2) Several property owners along 9th Avonue have hedges which are over 6 feet in height so granting the variance would not appcar to be a ,qpccial privilege. However, it is unknown when these other hedges were planted, Staff thinks they were planted in the 1970s and could have been over 6 feet in height before the hedge heiglit regulation,,; were arioptcd. Therefore, they would be legal nonconforming hedges and should not be used as a basis for granting a variance under the present regulatioris, If they were planted after the hedge height regulation was adopted, they are in violation of the regulation and again should not be used as a b-mis for granting approval of a variance. Rather, a violation i.% the baiis for code enforcement lction� Stuff indicated at the hearing that no other hcdgr, height Yaritinces have been JUN-19-97 THU 12:57 P. 08 0 * Is 0 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No, V 97-64 Page 8 granted in this area. Therefore, the approval of a variance to allow a 121A foot WSh hedge would be a grant of special privilege. 3) Approval of the proposed variance would not change the use of tile property, which is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site (see also Section F below). 4) The complaint which was received (see Exhibit A. Attachment 6) states that the hedge blocks a view of the PUgeL Sound, but the applicant and the former owner boch assen that thc removal of the tree which the hedge is replacing actually improved views in tile area, and that the current hedge blocks views less than the tree did (see Exbibit A, Attachment 5), The reason for replacing the tree wilb the hedge was that the trez was droppiog needles which were a hazard to the health of joggers who slipped on them, so the hedge is an improvement in that respect. In sum, it appears that tile replacement of the tree with the hedgge is an improvement for public safety and a benefit for properties in the area. 5) The applicants have been trimming the hedge at the height it is now ,and intend to keep it that height, because it is the height needed to keep headlights from shining in their windows. On a level lot, a 6-foot high hedge would be adequate to keep headlights from shining in ground - level windows. In this case, a 6-foot high hedge which is trimmed parallel to the ground should also provide some relief from car headlights E. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE 1. Review by City Departments a. Fact: The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire Department, Public Works Division, Engineering DivisioD, and the Parkg and Recreation Division. The only comi-nents; received were from the Engineering Division, who commented, "The Engineering Division has no requirements to impose at Lhis time. The sight distance restriction in this case is not created by the height of the hedge, The hedge should not be allowed to grow out into the public right- of-way. The applicant will necd to comply with all the terms of ft,'Y future, permits. )I b. Conclurion.- The requirements of the Engineering Division should be rne,t. JUN-19-97 THU 12:58 0 0 * 0 P. 09 ;F. ComPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) Hearing Examiner DecisiOn Case No. V 97-64 Page 9 1. Comprehensive Plan Designation a. Fitett. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as Single fan-dly -Largo Lot within the Dt)wntown Activity CenLer - b. Conclusiop.- The proposed project is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan designation for the site. 7,. CADmprehensive Plan Policies a. Fact: The Reside-ritial Development section of the Comprehensive Plan identify goals and policies wbich relate to '-Residential Development" in the City, specific goals and policics include: 1) Section B states, "Ifigh quality residential development which is appropriato to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should bc maintained and promoted..." 2) Section B.3 states, "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures." b. Conclusion; The hedge is not an addition or new construction. so it is not restricted by the above adopted goals and policies of the City for tile development of residential property. No goals or policic:i VocifictillY address hedges. DECISION Before a variance can be approved, it must Meet all of the adopted criteria, Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, this raquast does not meet all of Lhe criteria, and therefore, the request for a variance, to increase the.1naximurn allowed hedge height frorn 6 feet to 12 V2 fe�t is denied. The top of the hedge may be parallel with the ground und the hedge height shall not exceed an average of 6 feet above the ground, If the applicants desirc the top of the hedge to be level then the he-dge shall be limited to a he . ight of 6 feet from the lowest point of the slope. Entcred this 19th day of June, 1997, pursuant to the auLhority granted the Hearings, Examiner under Chapter 10. 100 of the, Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner JUN-19-97 THU 12:58 F. 10 Hearing Examiner Dccision Case No. V 97-64 Page 10 RECONSEDERATION'S AND APPEALS The following is a sunarnary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration. and appeals. Any person wishing to file orrespond to arecommendation or appealshould conlact the Planning Department for further procedural inforrnation. REQUE ST FOR RECONSIDERATION Section 20.imolo.G allows for the Hearing Exarninr,�r to reconsidcr his docision or recommendation if a written request is filed w.1thin ten (10) work.ing days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/o * r present& te0imony or by any parson holding an ownership interest in a tract of Jurd which is the subject of such decision or recommendation, The reconsideration request must cite spL�-Cific references to the findings and/or the critcria rontaired in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. APPEALS Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Exarniner deckion or recommendation shrall be made. The appeal sb.all 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 n 11110 of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in ihe 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 appoaled. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.85.020,C states "Thc approved variancc must be acted on by'the owner within one year from the cUte of approval or the varlmce sliall expfte and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the thue before the expiration and the city approves the application." NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a rcsult of the decision rondered by the Heuring Examiner reque�',t a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohornish County Assessors Office. EXHIBITS: The following exhibits were offered and emered into the rocord. A. Planning Division Advisory Report B. Letter from Bonnie Merrill, dwed June 4, 1997 C. Deodara cedar tree needles sarnple D, PhotoSraphs of stump of Deodara cedar tree and cross section of sturnp ,JUN-19-97 THU 12:59 F.Ii Hoaring Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-64 Page I I E. Photograph looking west from where Deodara tree stood PARMS OF RECORD: R—andy and Debbie Johnson 643 - 9tb Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 99020-3039 Edmonds Planning Division Edmonds Engineering Division Ronnie Merrill 604 9"' Avenue Edmonds, WA 98020 Janice Brown 521 South 5 1" Court Renton, WA 98052 JUL-10-97 THU 13:16 F. 01 0 .0 0 0 CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 260 5TH AVENUE NORTH 0 EDMONDS, WA'98020 0 (206) 771-0220 - FAX (2061 771-02 21 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS� CONCLUSIONS AND RECONSIDERATION Dr, CISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANTS: Randy and Debbie Johnson CASE NO.: V 91-64 LOCATION: 643 - VIM Avenue N FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. The applicant filed a request for reconsideration dated June 27.1997 (Reconsideration Exhibit A). B. City of Edmonds staff did not respond to the request for mronsideraEion C. The. following represents the Examiner's response to each major point raised in the. request for reconsideration: ParagMh 1: There are many hedges in Edmonds planted after 1978 which are over the allowed height. Response As pointed out in Conclusion D.3.b.2) on page 7 of the June 19, 1997 Hearing Exanflner report, hedges planted in violation of the hedge height regulations are in violation of the regulations and should not be used as a basis for gmnting approval of a variance application, Rather, a violation is the basis for code enforcement action. Paragraph 2 The tree which was removed was a public safety hazard. Ninth Street is an urban arterial and with the tree removed, living along the stiect is like living in a fish bowl. The applicnnt's should not be penalized for removing a public safety hazard. Response,,. There is no intcnt to penalizc the applicdnt's for.rernQving a public safety hazard. Conclusion D,3.b.4) on page 8 of the June 19,1997 Hearing Examiner report said "it appears that the replacement of the tree with the hedge is an improvement for Public safety and a benefit for properties in the area." Incorporated AuvUSL 11, 1890 0 Siste:Cities Interniational — Hekinan, Japan JUL-10-97 THU 18:17 0 0 0 0 P. 02 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-64 (Reconsideration) Page 2 Paragra A six foot high hedge will r)ot provide relief from car lights leaving Olen Street or tile neighbor's driveway. Respon5 A reduction in the height of the hedge will probably not provide much relief frorri car liy,hts leaviDg Glen Street, particularly if they turn north due to the d1f('crcncc in clevatioii between Glen Street and the applicant's home. Glen Street is a short, clead-eildArect which serveq a relatively small number of homes. howevar, the Exaflilner did 1101 consider lights from any Cars CCrning from Glen Street when the original decision was mil(le. Paragraph 4: Staff informed the applicants that view was not an issue so no view defense wm, pin-lued. There was no view from the Merrill home, before the hedge was planted due to the, large tree which existed in front and a large. fir tree and cherry trees which exis(ed in back of the applicant's house. EUP-0 B 56 .1 Conclusion D.3 b.4) on page 8 of the June 19, 1997 Hearing Examiner report cone luded that based on assertions from the applicant and the forTner owner of the house currently occupied by the applicant that the current hedge, blocks views less than the old cedar tree in front and the old fir tree in back did, View blockage by the current hedge was not a significant issue in the Examiner's decision. Paragnap 5- Several points were raised: An average of 10 feet was taken from the, applicant's property in 1970. There are four roorM in the front of the applicant's home. The hedge was planted whcrc tho tree existed. It seems crazy to cut down the hedge if a compromise, can't be reac,hed and then replace it with lots of large trees and bushes. Respons All of the points raised above are acknowledged. However, beforca variance call be granted, an application for a variance must meet all of the criteria found in Chapter 20.95, In this case, the Examiner originally concluded that the special CirCLIinstance test Was nat met, and the Examiner was not colivinced that a 12Y2 foot higii hedge is the minimurn necessary to allow the applicants rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity where the zoning roquirements have bacri met. In reconsidering this case, the Exatniner now JUL-10-97 THU 13:17 - P.03 L Hearing Examiner Decision Case No.-V 97-64 (Recoil s ideration) Page 3 concurs that a 5pecial circum5tance does exist due to the potenti a] for car I ight-q froill Glen Street, however, the Examiner still belicycs a hcdge height of over 12 feet ib excessive -n nor and is not the mininiurn necessary. After further review of this case, the Exai i believes a hedge height of 8 feet would provide reasonable relief From car lights from Glen Street and the original, decision should be modified to allow an 8 foot high hedge, RECONSIDERATION DECISION The decision of the Hearing Examiner Report dated Junc 19, 1997 is hereby modified to road: After reconsideration, the request to increase the height or the hedge, to 12 �i feet is denied, however, a hedge height of 8 feet shall be allowed. if the applicants desire the top or the hedge to be level, then Lhe hedgeshall be hipited to a height of 8 feet from the lowest Point or the slope. Otherwise, the top of tile hcdgc� may be parallel with Lhe ground and the hedge 11cight sliall n0t exceed an average of 5 feet above the ground, Entered this 10th day of, July 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Ediliond.s. 7601n Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and,procedures for filing appeals. Any person wishing to file an appeal should contact the Planning DeparLment for furthor procedural information. Section 20.105.020.A & B descfibe how appoalg of a Heating Exan-iiner decision Of recornmendation shall be made. The appeal shall bo made in writing, and shall illcItide the decision being appealed -,Ilong with the name, of the project and the date of (lie deciiion. Ule name of the individual or group appealing thr, decision, their interest in the niatter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal MUst be filed with the Community Duvelopincnt Director within ten (10) working days after the data of the decision being appealed. JUL-10-97 THU 13:18 4 : is 0 P. 04 1* 0 LAPSE OF APPROVAL Hearing Examiner Dvei.6on Case No. V 97-64 (Rec ons iderat ion) Page 4 Section 20,05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required. substantially commences the use allowed wiLhin one year from the date of approval, [lie conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the timo before the expiration date.' NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the NearinS Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Asue:isors Office. RECONSIDERATION EXHIBIT: The following reconsideration exhibit was offered and entered into the record. A. Request for reconsideration submitted by, dated 6/27/97. PARTEES OF RECORD: Randy and Dcbbic Johnson 643 91h Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020-3039 Bonnie Merrill 604 9d'Avenur, N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds Planning, Division Edmunds Engincering Diyision Janice Brown 521 South 5 1 " Court Renton, WA 98055 -5 Z 0 U 0 Z 0 LU V) U W 0 CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEET HLE RIGHT -OF -WAY CONSTRUCTION PERar I- A. *Address or vc' nity of Construction 9 A 643 V North Plat 162-067,003 Owner: Washington Natural C-as Co Name 805 156 AV NE Mailing Address Bellevue, Washingtm 98007 City, State, Zip Code 0 Contractor: sam -A—s Name Mailing Address Permit No. 9-10 — I 10 Issue Date /I /=31 1370 0 Permit Issued To: 9 Type of Work to be Done: Install New Service • Work in Connection With: 0 Sub or Plat R Single Family 0 Comml. / Ind. 0 Apt. Condo. • Pavement Cut: 0 Yes 0 No State License Number City, State, Zip Code Telephone Number * * NO WORK TO BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE * * B. APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN INDEMITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any injuries, damages, of claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of it's departments or employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense, costs, court costs, and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. Upon issuance of this permit, the contractor is responsible for workmanship and materials for a period of one year following the final inspection and acceptance of the restoration by the Engineering Division. Funds held from the Security Deposit (estimated restoration fee) will be held until the final street patch is completed, at which time a debit or credit will be processed for issuance to the applicant. Work is to be inspected. Restoration to be in accordance with City Code. Traffic Control to be in accordance with Traffic Section of City Code. Street to be kept clean at all times. A 24 - hour notice is required for inspection by Engineering. Call 775-2525, extension 220. 1* It I understand that this Signature: Owner or ble aVe i 0 oses at all times tt Date — Oct 27, 1980 THIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED AT THE JOB SIT FOR INSPECTION PURPOSES CALL DIAL - DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK C. Issued By: Time Authorized: Vold after days Special Conditions: Ammendments: Permit Fee: Security Deposit: Receipt No.: Fund III Fee: Street Cut Dimensions X * * NO WORK TO BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE * * Eng. Div. December 1978 APPLICATION FILE for The City of Edmonds SIDE SEWER PERMIT EASEMENT No . .......................................... NEW CONSTRUCTION C] REPAIRS 0 116-o4goo OWNER ............ E i nmo, A. S. CONTRACTOR ...................................................................... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- PERMIT No . ...................... X&DRESS ....... ----------------------------------------------------------- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT No . .............................................. BLOCK No . ............. ............................... NAMEOF ADDITION ......................................................................................................................................... Ae 0 0 DYE TESTED ON SEWER, 1972 Approved: DATE................................................ By ...................................................................... 'A k q lz qsl� 41 -H 7,,6 97 .,,Oe #,/ . 1v :. - Z- .0,= Alcw 72V .5 el:;� 7-.?7M AF 00 "5y 'o N __r— eAS, 7- 4 1�- Its- K) �4 Di5C t'o (oq /0 .5141vl;,A-lvv APPROVAL OF THIS SKORT SUBDIVISION IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS FOUND IN CITY OF EDMONDS FILE #S-26-81. - - -45 40,qA1,lVA(','-dE 4E, eF",--A17 - 404260226 lv000 061,37"1 L07- Z-IAIE- 3 1A101CA 7W--5 17113 417-11-17-Y --,5"7.- 'IN &I A.10 EXHIBIT "All' ICITY CLERK 0*1,e "0b?frfWs, Washingto 7- 1�1 -7 .1 '10/v/s/o/v 0,4- ;r/--//,5 101,90, E-R7-)" ",6UAE-(f 7- 7-0 7?�� CO,41,01 7-10A1,5 IWC177' /F---coloeto - ol--- k = 1, lViVk Ott 0� cc k 0 Lq z u e�T" 77. L ,U0- A/001* 06 11-5� 7 "lov LEgS DESCRIPTIONS S-26-8?0 'ROW FOR WILLIAM KASPER PAGE 1 or 3 -CITY CLERK 0vic Cente, nonds, Washingtory THE SOUTH HALF Or THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24., TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH., RANGE 3 EAST2 W.M.., EYCEPT THE SOUTH 220.00 FEET THEREOF, AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF`EDMOlJDS BY DEED RECORDED ITIZER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 21118909 IN VOLUT-IE 348 OF OFFICIAL RECORD's., PAnE 384" RECORDS OF SlJOHOJ,lISH COTR4TY, WASHINGTON. SUBJECT TO EASEIMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. LOT 1: THE EAST 132*00 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION-24j, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH$ RANGE 3 11STS W.M.$ MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Z W Ld LLI Z Lu Z LL LL) 0 a. F- Lj lz Li im < a: x Lu w cr C011MENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 24s THENCE- N.85�45`12`WEST, ALONG THE NO-RTH'LINE OF THE SOUTH IIALF OF THE SOUTHEAST qllpj'VTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SIX-TION 24 FOR 9*00 FEET TO THE TRITE POINT OP BEGINNING- ., THENCE COlpINUING ALONG SAID NORTH LI14E N. 0045'12"Ns -4�400rEE:r; THENCE. S. elZ&'E., 19.50 FEE?; THENCE S 893045"12"'E PARAT-Ill WITH THE NORTH LIM OF -SAID SOUTH HALF 3.50 FEET; THENCE s. 564,25"lo"'w, 8.98 FEE, I MORE OR LESS., TO AN INTERSECTION OF A LINE WHICH IS 132,00 Fl-j'1-,,T W]f'ST Or, SAID EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF- THENCE S. e12 .1 00*E.2 PARALLEL WITH SAID EAST LINE, 89.32 "FEET. MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 220.00 FELT OF T11E SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST.QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUAKT1,11 OF THE NTORTIA-MT QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 24'; THENCE S-89%7 4- 16*E., ALONG THE NORTH LITTE OF SAID SOUTH 220,00 FEET., 121.00 FEET, TIORE OR LESS., TO THE WEST LINE OF TH9P PORTION CONVEYE� TO -THE ciTy OF EDT4OT-.lDS BY DEED RECORDED ITT.TDim ANDITORIS FILE No. 2111890., IN VOLT.RiE 348 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 384, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COTJNTY3 WASHINGTON; THE14CE N. e5O"3eE.j 113.75 rm If �, 110 RE OR LES S TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGDINING. SUBJECT TO AN EASE14ENT FOR INGRESS AIM EGRESS OVER THE SOUTH 15,00 FEET OF THE NORTH 19,50. FEET OYTHE.-ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL9 ANDS SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR.THE INSTALLATION � OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A WATER LINE OVER, ACROSS2 THROUGH, UNDER AND UPON THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: S,AID EASEITENT TO BE 5.00 FEK IN WIDTH, 2.50 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE F011,0WING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE ' : A LINE 7 ' .00 FEEr NORTH OF AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE NORTH 11040 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24,j TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 FAST, W.M. FOR A DISTA14CE OF 180.00 FEET, THEN AT.A SOUTHWESTERLY ANGLE TO THE SOUTHERLY PROPERTY LINE AT A POINT 203.00 FEEr FROM THE EASTA%ffi*114ZED RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 2o44321. FOR SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS., RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. RECORDING CITY OF EDMONDS LOT 2 By Page Of 4e, THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTIVEST QUARTER OF SECTION 242 TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH., RA14GE 3 EAST) 11.111's EXCEPT THE SOUTH 220.00 FEET THEREOF AND EXCEPT THE 'VEST 4-U.99 FEEr., AM 8404260226 EXCEPT THE FOLL40WING DESCRIBED PARCEM LD C0111MENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF* THE SOUTH HALF OF E SOUTHEAST QUARTER .TH OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24 NORTH .0 TOWNSHIP 27 RANGE 3 FAST., W.M.; THENCE N. 0*45'lt W., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF 9.00 FEET TO T�E 7RUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THMICE CONTINUING ALONG SAID N-4 NORTH LINE N. 89P45 10W.,q 11900 FEET- THENCE S. ovizoeE.$ 19-50 FEIU,- THENCE .-i 0 cm s. 89'45"12"E., PARALLEL ' WITH THE NORTH LINE.OF SAID SOUTH HALF 3-5c) FEET; THENCE s. 56*25'10"w.., 8.98 FEET., MORE OR LESS TO AN INTERSECTION OF A LINE WHICH IS 132,00 FEET WEST OF.THE! FAST LINE OF SAID SOUTH 11LF; THENCE S. e12'001E.2 PARALLEL WITH SAID IAST LINE ' 89,32; FEETt NORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTH L114B OF ........... (7)171T) nArF 2 ..... EXHIBIT "B" CITY CLERK C!vIc center LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS S-26-81 Edmonds, Washington CONT ID. LOT 2 (CONTID) THE SOUTH.220,00 FP -Er OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF TTTE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE S. W47`leE., ALONG TI-TE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH 220.00 FEIU2 121.00 FEETS NDRE OR LESS , TO THE WEST LINE OF THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS BY DEED RECORDED UNDER AUDITORIS FILE NO. 2111890., IN VOLUME 348 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 384., RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY., WASHINGTON; THENCE No O'-50'30�E., 113.75 FEET� 110RE OR LESS,, TO THE TRUE POINT OFBEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESSqEISRESS AND UTILITIES OVER THE SOUTH 15,00 FEET OF THE TIORTH 19.50 FEET OF THE YCILLOUTING DESCRIBED PARCE14: COT-111ENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOT.'H* H&LF OF THE SOUTHEAST- QUARTER Ol� THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, OF: SA±D.-�ECTION 2-4,; 'THENCE N.89 45 12- W.., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF sAIDSECTION 24 FOR 9.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF RECYINNING; ITIENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTH LINE No 89*45'12*w,, 3.19900 FEET; THMICE So 0 22: 3.1 E.2 19-50 FELT; THENCE So 89045'lt E*j PAR&= WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF 3.5o FEET; THRICE So 56'025"lo w.,, 8.98 FEET 14ORE OR LESS, TO AN INTERSECTION OF A LINE WHICH IS 132oOO FEEr WEST OF SAID EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTH 11ALFj THENCE So O'p 12 . 00 16 E.9 PARALLEL WITH SAID FAST LINE, 89*32 'FEET MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 220.00 FEIM7 OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 24j THENCE S. 89%7'16"E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH 220,00 FEET) 121,00 FEET MORE OR LESS, TO THE WEST LINE OF THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS BY DEED RECORDED ITNIIER AUDITOR'S FILE NO.21118900 IN VOLTlE 348 2F OFFICIAL RECORDS9 PAGE 384., RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY., WASHINGTON; THENCE No 0 50"3eE., 3.13.75 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNINGt�.AND,. TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO AN EA9EMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION$ OPERATION A0 MAINTENANCE OF A WATER LINE OVER� ACROSS.. THROUGH., UNDER AND UPON THE, FOLLDTING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: SAM EASE2ENT TO BE 5.00 FEET IN WIDTH$ 2,50 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: A LINE 7.00 FEEr NORTH OF kTD PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY, OF THE NORTH 3-lOoOO FM, OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE, SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTIR OF SECTION 24j, T014NSHIP 27 NORTH., RANGE 3 EAST., W.M.., FOR A DIST.um OF 180,00 FEET, THEN AT A SOUTHWESTERLY ANGLE TO THE SOUTHERLY PROPFRTY LIN;E AT A POINT 203oO0 FEET FROM THE EAST BOUNDARY.9 RECORDED UNDER AUDITORS FILE NO, 2044321, -§U-�T TO'" EjFSE-MT-f0—RfffijT-Iff"l"—EET FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCELt CO)OIENCIN . 0 AT THE NORTHEAST CCRNER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER Of THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NCRTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE N.89 45'32':W.p ALONG THE NCRTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 24 FOR 3.49.46 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE N.8� 45 12 w ALONG SAID NORTH I LINE 10.54 FEET; THENCE N.o6b6'37'*W-, PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 24 A DISTANCE OF 153.84 FEEr. MORE OR LESSp TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 180.00 FEET OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUART*ER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE s.89%3**OeE., ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 10,54 FEET; THENCE S-e06`374*E.,0 PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SEICTION 24, A DISTANCE OF 153.83 FEET, MORE OR LESSq TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SUBJECT TO EASEMTSS RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD, AUTHORIZED FOR RECORDING CITY OF EDMONDS By zo-z-77- Page -5� 0 f 8404260226 CITY OF EDMOND9 P.W. DEPT. ENGINEERING DIV� .EXAMINED BY D A T Ej=& REMARK VOL 1840PAGE 19 `7 Ll AUTHORIZED EXHIBIT 111311 ' C&r- -RK AGE 3 OF 3 Mo er 01 Ed wag ,ton FOR ing CITY OF EDMONDS P. W. DEPT. ENGINEERING DW RECORDING EXAMINED CITY OF EDMONDS LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS S-26-81 BY 4�_ �//DATE_16� By (35NT 155- - Page 4'e' Of - 4� TIM I TIM-OMERLY 262',99 FEET OF THE WESTERLY 412*99 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTHs RANGE 3 FASTS W.M. EXCEPT THE SOUTH 220,00 FEET THEREOF, TOGETHER WITH A DRAINAGE EASEWT OVER AND UNDER THE EAST 125.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 10,00 FELT OF THE WEST 15000 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24s TWSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 LASTS W.Mq2 MDO TOGETHER WITH AN EASDIENT POR,INGRESS, EGRESS AND TITILITIES OVER, UNDER AIM ACROSS THE POLL(Y.-TING DESCRIBED PARCEL; SAID EASSM4T TO BE 30,00 FM IN WIDTH, FIFTEEN (15). FEET ON EACH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINEs CO�IIMICING AT -THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOTJTHF,AST'QU,LrLTEB-.QF THE NORTHWEST. QUARTFR OF SECTION 24 TOWNSHIP 97. NORTH,RANGE ' )k 3 EAST W.T1-;--TM,'Ct'9."85,P,45 3.2 W-.S* ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LAID SOUTH RAMFS .34-1-83 FEa TO THE� TRU9 POINT bF.BEG.DMING; TM40E N.. W 48YE.' 153,,.95 FE 19 1 MORE OR LESS., TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE'NORTH 180,00 FEET OP, THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST -41JARTER OF THE SOUT.HFAST QUARTEEL OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 24., AND THE TER14INUS OF SAID LINE DESCRIPTION. SUBJECT TO EASE14ENTS3 RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. LOT 4t THE WEST 150,00 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24., TDR-ISHIP 2-7 NORTHS RANGE 3 EASTSWIM11 EXCEPT THE'SOUTH 220o,00 FEET THERBOF. TOGETHER WITH AN EASE1,1ENT FOR INGRESS AND'EGRESS OVER THE WEST 20,00 FEET OF THE NORTH _UO.00 FEkT OF THE SOUTH 220,00 FELT OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24S TaRITSHIP 27 NORTH) RANGE 3 FASTS W.M.S UNDER AUDITORIS FILE NO. 8logolo2O3, AND, SUBJECT TO AN EASUMN'T FOR DRAINAGE OVER AND U1,MER THE EAST 125.0c) FEET Or, THE NORTH 10 00 FEET OF THE WEST 15o.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST (�IJARTER OF THE S;UTHEAST QUARTER OF THE TIORTM-TEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2`4 TOWNSHIP 27 140IRTH., TIANGE 3 FASTS WOMOS AND.$ SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR UTILXTIES OVER., UMIER AM ACROSS ME WEST 50-00 FEET OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCELRECORDED UNDER AUDITORIS FILE NO. 8108040269. SUBJECT TO EAS=SS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. William J. asper, i i vii dual Adelaide C. Hofto William J. Kasper attorney in fact VOL 1840PAG� 19SS STATE OF WASHINGTON, SS. counly;afil", day of lqd��' before me personally appeared to me known to be the individual described in and who executed thb Jori5gc6ng 1�.Rrym,' f or self and also as Attorney in fact for gnitaktil�wfeftedihat'rhe signed and sealed the same as -r free and voluntary act and deed ?0121"X.107. 'self and dls�p-- free and voluntary act and deed as Attorney in Fact for said principal for the uses and �itned, and on oath stated that the Power of Attorney authorizing the execution of this instrument p \wpoys.$WeM men 0 "�voked and that the said principal is now living and is not insane. has.not bpW"r Given under my hand and official seal the day and year lVe written. 84.04260226 ............................... . ............................................. ACKNOWLEDGMENT, Notary Public in nd for the State of Washington, INDIVIDUAL AND AS ATTORNEY IN FACT. residing at j VOL "i �-Vv, V W --,'-;CAFI1LE NO.,----n--.� -'Critidal Areas Ch" Mist ec Site InforniAtion-'�(SoP�/top6grEiohy/hydrology/vegeetation') /Lo� 'A-i c, N Site Address onk 2-10 V7, 2. Property Tax Account Ntimber:.�'. 2--103' 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or i44aie t 41 A�� 4. Is this site currently devildped? yes; no. If yes; how is.site developed? 'N 0 r�u, 0.*\A' W�Y�C:" S. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply., Tlat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rollin* * — ­ 1 11 —: !. g: slopes on site generally less than IS% (a vertical rise of .10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% a vertical rise I of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe):* tj 6. Site contains are'as"of 7ear-7rquina's-t'ah"ding water: A 1) � . � �. . - ­ _1 ­ . ) _.;. pprox. epth.: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway floodplain of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year- round? Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? 10. Site is primarily: forested meadow ;shrubs mixed urban landscaped Oawn,shrubs etc) Y�, 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: 4 9' Cit*'U EcIffi''o, has, ST h 'k W-t c . - �, ,Mrea The Critical Ara'i th�61dist 11 V d— b -an su mit'it to the City-.:.� The, City win this form is to be filled out by any person reiriew the chwkliA� `mA6- a-pr'e6drsory" site--* preparing a Development Permit. visit; and make a determination of. the - Application for the City of Edmonds 'prior subsequent steps necessag, to c omplete a'; to histher submittal of a development t permit applicati66. permit to the City. With a sighed of this form, the The purpose of the Checklist is to enable copy applicant should also submit a vicinity map City staff to determine whether any or plot plan for individual lots of the ��cel potential Critical Areas are or may be with enough detail that City staff can find present on the subject property. The and identify, the st�bject.parcej(s),,_�n n information 'e6ded to cornp, ete the addition, the applicant shall include.-", Checklist should bee easily availabl�fjom observations of the site or data available at to an, pography map,' etc.) or studies in City EWI (Critical Areas inventories, maps, coglunction with this Checklist to assist or soil surveys). staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. - I An applicant, or his/her representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, 6 I have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below). Owner / Applicant: I�A6 LE, Jo ylsw\ Nam 6 45 - 01 ku e, Street Addrew , - .: . A a n, Applicant Representative: Name Street Addrew W YI*. VY City, State, ZIP Phone City, State UP Thone Signatum '.Date Elate Signature u kity of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination Applicant: Debbie Johnson Determination CA-97-65 Project Name: I Non -Project Specific Permit Number: I Site Location: [�437-_9th Avenue N. Property Tax Acct [2427 032 210 00 00 Project Description: Non -Project Specific Determination: Conditional Waiver: During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site contains an Erosion Hazard Area pursuant to Chapter 20.15B of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Waiver Criteria (all criteria must be found to apply): X There will be no alteration of the Critical Area or its required buffers pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 20.15B; X The development proposalwill not impact the Critical Area in a manner contrary to the goals, purposes, objectives and requirements of the Critical Areas ordinance; X The development proposal meets the minimum standards of t he Critical Areas ordinance; X The above findings are based on the foll . owing conditions of approval: 1. Alterations within identified Erosion Hazard Areas shall not be authorized without an approved erosion control plan pursuant to ECDC Chapter 18.30, which includes staged clearing, where appropriate. The erosion control . plan must be approved by the City of Edmonds Engineering Department. 2. Clearing or disruption of the soils within an Erosion Hazard Area shall be kept at the minimum necessary to provide reasonable use of the site. 3. Any project shall be constructed in compliance with the City of Edmonds approved plans and code requirements. 4. A Tree Clearing Permit shall be required for trees proposed to be cut on any portion of the lot that. has slopes exceeding 25 percent. Based on the above findings and conditions, the requirement for a Critical Areas Study associated with this development permit is hereby Waived, as authorized by Chapter 20.15B.150 (B) of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Meg Gruwell 5/1/97 Name Signatae Date F---� G E )L 0 z 8 1 -- I uu F! > 04 iA7F- L -8 00 ALOHA ST-j I�E 8 71 7 1 JF5,E-' L- Z 7 6 �71 LL �8 6 818, -1140010 L L F'� . 64L7-j 1 SHT 8 SEC.24 8 0 .j 6 .45 52 520 52.0 - L�L 1.J UJ Sl 0 > 514 509 50� %MM rl*ft r**ft Lo DALEY %� Min ST 70 R 01 vp dof 1w Lu AL� OHA� qs SECTION 24qT.27N.vR.3E.,W.M. > � I ol CITY or- EDMONDS SNOHOMISH C UNT.Y.WASHINGTON 'Q EVA [a&wmvd 4 v to q rAsT ser_ll.0 a. _Subo"ISIoI,I Uwe b LANO SURVEVOR'S 0 ------ CERTIFICATE NOTE I HEREBY CERTIFY MW IRIS PLAT OF "AICHN't IS 'SUWEY AND SMIVISION OF BASED UPON AN AICTIJAL FOR COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 0 SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, 5 V w SEE AUDITOR'S FILE NO. RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH Cou _y W.M., AS RE7JIRED IN SMATE SrATUTES; THAT 7HE �Z sHow ampE= COURSES, ANIGIM AND DISTANCES AY 'THERECIN; THAT THE P113MUZENTS SHAIL HE SET AND IHE Tv IOT, BI= AND TRACT CORNERS SHAM HE SIAIFED ODM== ON THE MMM AS CON==ON IS 0 ALOHA STREET-..-- OOMPIETED, AND THAT I HhVE =Y COMFI= WITH ....... PROMIONS OF THE 9= AND IOCAL SIATUTES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING PIATTING. u erl t - a " a I 25.1.1 521.�el 13,0_0� - 1, 4111 W. 7. GERALD W. IJOVELL LLI PRO. LAND SURVEYM CERTIF`ICATE NO. 9891 D. wl z Ld �_z L A� T T E D a"w CAROL '01?al Lan WAY OD od LEGAL OESCRIPTIOr*J ALOHA 'c.ST EET! 2S.. L�_�. Z20SI, - C PARCEL r --- ------- ----- - ----- -- ---- 00 THE SOUTH BAIF OF THE SOUrMMST QUARTEIR OF MM SCUTHEAST 0 1 * e R c� WARTER OF THE NORTHW=, q-20"M OF SECTIOK 24, TONNSHIE' 3 E-X C E P T 10 N q 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W M.; H 3 0 lo "9 ol EKCEPr 'THE SWIR 220.00 FEETI THEREOF; AM, -ss-ss- r [ IIA. . o" cr b LLj mocm THAT PORTION ccNvEym m mm CITY ol, Emoucis By CEED RECORDED MUM AUDITOR'S FTI NO. =890, IN VOUZZ 348 OF OFFICIAL RECIMM, ON PACE 384, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH 30; Let x W'� 33 94 'q LLJ CEPTION z COUNTY, WASHINGTO!f; AND, 10. U... w 0 01A — — — J:l 16 1 -- EKcE:;T wr 1 OF mmm suw sumvIsiam No. s-26-81 As 4 -��Nvw 5q-s3--SS. I- 1.0.0� _j j If ' - S'00' THE SAM IS PECORI3ED UNDER. AMrTCR'S FU NO. 8404260226, SCALE711-a moo RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH Cl=?IY, WASH]ENSITION. '0' 6 'i TOGETHER WTrH A PER101UM EASEMENT FM INGPESS, EIGFeSS AND N RG. ' C - Ur=rl:ES OVER THE SO= 15-00 FEET OF THE NORTH 19.50 3 FEET OP IOT 1 OF M40NM SHORT SUBDIVESION NO. S-26-81 AS THEL SAME IS RECOREM tRMER AUDITOR'S M NO. 8404260226, SET5�c. 2 All RECORDS OF SNOFUESH COLNlY, WASHINGICN; AM, o' LUES 0- j'I 5 TYPIc— . I 10 TOGETHER WITH A FUMUM EASEMENT FUR INGRESS, EGRESS, 1 o .0 --t T I AND UTILETIES AS CONVEYED L]NDER AUDITOR'S F= NO. lb C., 8109010203, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COLWIY, NASHINGION. --- f ----- LEGENO 5 ­SUT (IR WO. S�oloz s 3 EXISr3NG BRASS PIATE L GX. SO' UTILITY EASIZ"GUT Wo. 8,06�02,,q) ��-_§00 FEET OF MM SaM 75 FEET 01, THE NORTH SUP ) - - o 0 - -1 OF 'THE SO?niElIM 91ARIER OF THE SCIUMMAST VIMM OF THE EaSTING CASM MONUMENT 6 1 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE q I U N P L A� -r T E: D .- . _: _.- - - o SET CASED MOIRDIENT 0 . 3 EAST, W.M. 0 . .. ... EX. 120 ACCESS AUD UTILITIES -0 tj C j 'I A.R Uo. eloqolozoa) W= r T 1 .11-; U. u Tr�l ZGsQM.ulU 0 ( 'I � " u S"lt±_a� _r- Tim Nofaw75 f3mT OP no swm iso Fm OF THE NORTH HALF U A.F. UO. 1310q01020S) - — — — — — — — OF -me scufFmpsr qjp= of-m SammAsT qmmm OF. mm 'Nbiamcmi 91ARTEFL CIF -,;EQMCN i4, TaeMaP 27 NORTH, RANGE- 3 FAST, W.M,;_ W L.EGIEN 2 -']AD FEET THIT05F; W;� .R 0� E.- k. > C-0 EXI�EFT 71� EAST UUL' W.E. = WATER EASEMENT (CITY OF EDMONDS) MMEi�r qq NORTH745 lmft�'oglfli�WEST 5Dk:F=.THER0OF; AND, 0 .... ... U.E. - UTILITY EASEMENT (CITY OF EDMONDS) E=T nw Pcgrxcfi' Comm= . To- �� criy OF OmNDs By I REXZEMED ONDER AUDJ:TMI§ FlIZ 4e. 8109010902., RECORDS W. & S.S.E. = WATER AND SAXIMIM SEWER EASEMENT (CITY OF EDMONDS) OF SNai3141SH axw4,VASH:UVWff:- - LOVELL- BA*U IERL AND AND ASSOCIATES,INC. BHsr=v I-erp 2 300 ALOHA SECTION 24,T.27NwvRm3EwxW.Mm CITY OF EDMONDS SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHI NGTO N oao.IClj%*jlafr4 APPROVALS KNOW ALL -14EN BY 'THESE PRESENT95THAT WE THEL-UNDERSiGNED, EXAMINED AND APPROVED THISI -3 DAY OF t 1987. OWNERS A FEE -:SIMPLE_-AfiD MORTaAQEE-_OF--kfiE 0MD HEREBY PLATTED, EFO_ HEREBY -DEaLARE THLB-PLAT AN6 DEDICATE T6--THE USE OF THE PUBLIC FOREVER, A4L-6-�REET§-AND EASEMENTS QP-4(RATEVER 'AND.-TqiE-TJSE PUBLIC PROPEiTY--T`HERE7_iS SHOf& ON. THIS PbLT AITY ENGINEER THEREOF FOR ANY AND ALT,-POhLIC PUkZROS�kq, :AMb-.THf RIGHT 'TQ MAKE ALL NECESSARY SI;6PES FOR ZUtS OR XILLS UPON THE LOTT% EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF ILI I IA,,U 1987. AND TRACTS SHOWN HEREON, I4f-fHE REASORNBLE GRADING,"6FL_.AhT,-. STREETS SHOWN HEREON ALS(S-THE RICRI` tlF ACCESS OVER. -THE LOTS TO THE UTILITY EA;EMENTS AT,-ICNY TIMT;.-,fdx--Tlm--3TAiSP - ONPIA 64AL) PURPOSES. EDMONDSIPIANNING DIRECTOR IN WITNZ9;S WHEREOF, WE HEREUN�O -§ET OUR. 0-16NATURES SEALS EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS 3 DAY OF TLJIJ� 1987. THIS?.&'��*_ DAY OF APRIL, 1987. C�TYbOF EDMONDS 'CLERK .7 WILLIM M I PER GERALDINE. A. KASMR ACKNOWLEOGEMENTS STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) SS. COUNTY OF SnohAftl�&) ON THlS__4?_n4_�_DAY OF APRIL, 1987, BEFORE HE PERSONALLY APPEARED MARK A. McNAUGHTON AND MARTIN J. SPADAFORA, TO ME KNOWN TO BE THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY, RESPECTIVELY, OF HOMELAND HOMES, INC., THE CORPORATION THAT EXECUTED THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT, AND ACKNOWLEDGED THE SAID INSTRU14ENT TO BE THE FREE AND VOLUNTARY ACT AND DEED OF SAID CORPORATION, FOR THE USES AND PURPOSES THEREIN MENTIONED, AND ON OATH STATED THAT THEY WERE AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THE SAID INSTRUMENT. WITNESS MY HAND AND'OFFICIAL SEAL HERETO AFFIXED THE DAY AND YEAR FIRST ABOVE WRITTEN. NOTARY BLIC IN AND FOR THE - --------- HOMELAND HOMES, INC. STATE OF WASHINGTO COVlrmN7ArNT RESIDING AT COMMISSION EXPIRES 9-15-Itl OWNE AND' -ALL PERSONS AS HAVING ANY PRESENT OR SUBSEQUENT MARK A. McNAUGH /jAARTIV. SPAqKFORA P5019RSH11- -ZN'TF.RESV IN THESF,- LANDS, AND THE SUCCESSORS AND An PRESIDENT SECRE $J34 -ASSIdSS OF OWNERa,-OR OTHER -PARTIES HAVING ANY SAID INTEREST FAMILY SAVINGS AND LIDAN ASSOCIATION 'MARrWN LJMENDOLA ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT ACKNOWLEOGEMENT STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) SS. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) ON THIS DAY PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME WILLIAM J. KASPER AND GERALDINE A. KASPER, HIS WIFE, TO ME KNOWN TO BE THE INDIVIDUALS DESCRIBED IN AND WHO EXECUTED THE WITHIN AND FOREGOING INSTRUMENT, AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY SIGNED THE SAME -AS THEIR FREE AND VOLUNTARY ACT AND DEED, FOR THE USES AND PURPOSES THEREIN MENTIONED. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS 22nj DAY Of APRIL, 19a7. NOTARY PUBL1 Aft-2 M IWAND FOR THE— STATE OF WASH.InGTONI RESIDING AT_bdmj�m4s I HERETii AGREE.THAT TtTE_-CITY OF EDMOVDS SHALL BE HELD HARMLESS STATE OF WASHINGTON) %-IN ALL RESPECTS, VAOM ANY ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FOR C��j SS. -AND INJUlSCTfVE -RELIEF WHI(Z)I-- MAY BE OCCASIONED NOW OR IN THE COUNTY OF !'UTCRE - _TO-_ADJACE�T.- LAND OR IMPROVEMENTS BY REASON OF THE ON THIS PERSONALLY OF APRIL, 1987, BEFORE ME CONSTRUCTION, DPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—CE THE DRAINAGE _2,Zrdj__DAY SYSTEM, A�ND-Ff'EREBY WAIVE AND RELEAsr.-ThE ClT-1 OF EDMONDS APPEARED MARILYN LaMENDOLA, TO ME KNOWN TO BE THE ASSISTANT FROM ANY*'AND ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES-,- EXCLUDING DAMAGE CAUSED VICE PRESIDENT OF FAMILY SAVINGS AND DDAN ASSOCIATION, THE SOLELY BY AN ACT OR OMISSION--6F SAID CITY AND _:ENJUN CTIVE CORPORATION THAT EXECUTED THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT, AND RELIEF WHICH THE OWNERS DR -THEIR SUCCESSORS OR ASSI:GNS, MAY ACKNOWLEDGED THE SAID INSTRUMENT TO BE THE FREE AND THEMSELVES RAVE NOW-Dic IN THF,_-PU'!URE Bi REASON' OF THE VOLUNTARY ACT AND DEED OF SAID CORPORATION, FOR THE USES AND CONSTRUCTION,- KAI.NTkNANCE J�tW­OPERATIOlt--bF SAIQ-�DRAINAGE PURPOSES THEREIN MENTIONED, AND ON OATH STATED THAT SHE WAS SYSTEM. AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THE SAID INSTRUMENT. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL HERETO AFFIXED THE DAY AND YEAR FIRST.ABOVE WRITTEN. BAsr=mrmr-JT PROV193IJdNS C. & EASEMENTS ARE HEREBY RESERVED FOR'AND GFaNT26-T-O THE CITY Oj? NOTARYL?UBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON EDMONDS, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, --PUBLIC UT l_sTRf6i-' 4ZESIDING AT Unnam4 NO. I OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, GENERAL Tfl�PMM?E-T= OF THE CQMMISSION EXPIRES__jj- NORTHWEST, INC., WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS COf4PANY, - AND... CHAMBERS CABLE OF EDMONDS, THEIR RESPECTIVE PVCCESSOR9 AND ASSIGNS, UNDER AND UPON THE EXTERIOR TEN (10) : FEET PARALLEL WITH AND ADJOINING THE PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGfL_OF Aft --DOTS, WITHIN WHICH TO INSTALL, LAY, CONSTRUCT, RENEW; -OPERATE ANa. MAINTAIN UNDERGROUND CONDUITS, CABLES, PIPE, AND 'QT-REm&-W-lnf_ NECESSARY FACILITIES AND OTHER EQUIPMENT FOR THE PURPOSES O.F-.- SERVING THIS SUBDIVISION AND OTHER PROPERTY WITH ELECTPZC rz SERVICE, GAS SERVICE, TELEPHONE SERVICE AND OTHER A) 13 SF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT TO ENTER UPOU_ THE IOTS AT ALL TIMES FOR THE PURPOSES STATED. �'5 0 �6 3 Z-Ut;o Riswbo ING'UERTIFICATE vr-�E'D FOR RECORD AVTHE REQErEST OF Yo-eJdtKJ Af.�ts, Apr-__J_L.-tfINUTF-9-�AST-q.e.M.-Nrs. !? DAY OF -71 w oe 19s7, ANQ_RE7coRDED IN-VOURO -,5Z 7 -qF PLATS, PAGES.Z,3�4. TREASURER'S CERTIFICATE INCLUSIVE; RECQJR15S OF SNOOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL STATE AND COUNTY TAXES HERETOFORE LEVIED AGAINST THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, ACCORDING TO A-n- THE BOOKS AND RECORDS 011 MY OFFICE, HAVE BEEN FULLY PAID AND ';�_.10.,S. UNT-Y..Wl TOR.-% ED N DISCHARG INCLUDI G8 'tAXES. L BY: Is COMMISSION EXPIRES TREASURER, SNOHOMISH COU11TY DEPUTT-SNOHOMISH COUNTY-Aljq!!!�R d �L 41�� LOVELL-SAUERLAN 11 A68OCIATrms.mc. -%.sm"Ir 2..DFr 2 �moo .. . .. . ..... . ......