Loading...
20020980.pdfDAT C IVED 7 1PERMIT EXPI U11F p 1�)j "q PERMIT CITY OF EDMONDS NUMBER CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB SUITE/APT# ADDRESS �7,1 OWNER NAMIVIVAME OF BUSINESS C(aA PUT NAMPISUBDiVISION NO. LOT NO, 1ID NO, MAILING ADDRESS LID FEE S Fi PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP ruc, Irr—re 1409 MPA dace- 6VJ CITY EXISTING — PROPOSED— Irnoos"Int"', 11 .... r­.d 13 REQUIRED DEDICATION— FT uour's".4 yns�,,­oa 0 NAME METER SIZE I LINE P BY REQUIRED Is h I A YE E3 No E3 3 ADDRESS REMARKS 1 OWNERICONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE CITY ZIP ITELEPHONE Ak i�JA -5elf Con.+LAJed ADDRESS b� Prior owm_r j . 198�- CITY ZIP STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION 0 N EW RESIDENTIAL rj PLUMBINGIMECH ADDITION COMMERCIAL COMM C MPLIANCE OR L CHANGE OF USE REMODEL rl MULTIFAMILY El SIGN REPAIR f-I GRADING FENCE l — X_FT) DEMOLISH TANK OTHER GARAGE CARPORT RETAINING WALL ROCKERY FIR SPRINKLER FIRE ALARM Usil EXPLAIN: FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE J ov Is POSTEI 0 1.11 * -02--112-113YE'S No SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA It IGHT COMPL,VE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PH POSED (V I _XP 11 LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS P PROPOS D S TBACKS (Fr.) ALLOWED PROPOSED FRO, SIDE BEAR FRONT UR SIDE A R NA 04 10' IVA 5, -7, PARKING I LOT AR 1.1,11N. REVIEWED BY DATE RE Pphcv,.�. GT 1 1 A41A -,13,1- a F6\j(f,+q_ ijecir _whoml — us e— DO c CHECKED 'BY ITY) u a UMBER F CIITIIAP� C 64_Z 0 V P P , DWELL HIS AREAS S ECIAUNSPECTIO U 4 _cDf N-T'QRu.`.' "N TS 0 RIA NUMHERC4—z,0DO- 5D REQUIRED YES DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE K. REMARKS 4 P.O.. PROGRE.S.N. Us5fz No. AV-i5ZO01-310 s q6 14T Description FEE Description FEE Plan Check State Surcharge �/, 707 H:�WJXE LOT SLOPE % n 14�, gL Building Permit CitySurcharge PLAN CHECK NO: 0" Plumbing V1144 TIW THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO Mechanical 1: 8 DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC a Grading DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS MARQUEES* ETC iLLREQUIRE .,W SEPAaxrEPERMiSStoN. 2 - Engr. Review PE MITAPPLICATION: I...AYS PERMIT LIMIM I YEAR - PROVID D WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 100 DAYS Engr. Inspection SEE SACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION 'A PLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS File Review PlanChk.D.posit IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD iARMLESS THE C' OF - a EDMONDS WASHINGTON OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES. AND AGENTS FROM ANY IND N 0 n Fire Inspection R 'a sp 0`0 Receipt Al ALL CURAii FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY `Y FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT IIIALL NOT BE BE DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE 0 Landscapeinsp. Tota Amt. Due REDUCE ANY 1EQLR1EMENT OF A NY CITY ORDINANCE C, NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CIIYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.- N * G I HEREBY ACKNOWLE GE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION: THAT THE INFORMATION APPLICATION APPROVAL GIVEN IS CORRECT, AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY A THORIZED AGENT OF HE OWNER T - IAGRE1 TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTAUC. flneS CALL This application is not a Farhat until signed by the D , . TION; AND IN DING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. NO PERS N WILL BE EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF THE LABO CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION Building Official of hathhor Deputy: and Fees are paid, and receipt Is acla—loug,d I, space preo,lded. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27. OFFICIALS SIGNATURE DATE DATE SIGNED (425) , (),�C'Q & 771-0220 :y?LEr..Y AVENTION V e' Off 1333 DATE IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 PINK�OWNER � GOLD-ASGESSOR 04102 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 5 COPIES GREEN - ACCOUNTING z =Pii 55 M MO 0 0 C in M Z 0 -4 C Z E: 0 -n 'n ITT in 065 0 0 C r C9 FBI 0 Z X z --I z 0 4 0 In ZONE $MCM. APPIR OVED BY PLANNNG FRO......... Rin Uj REAR OTHER w i-f HEIGHT 5' ca 7k 5 1 6 141 'J:. HORIZONTAL DATUM ASSUMED RM OF BEAR04G: PLAT OF BALUNGER SHORES Source: Rold Middisfon 2001 A watlandboundary 0 —rum.rt i. FIGURE 2 wW.rdb46— 0 mlondflqq,.�.wd 0 45� 'ptlevau- WIETLAND FLAG LOCATION App—imia Swl. i. Fee ..pjptoll—r— 6— h. COX -LAKE BALLINGER 1011026 SHAPIRO IF % 5 6 -4 �4 i HONZOWALDAMM ASPA*D mmomom "McMumms"Dw $Kvft.-R*ldMkkffmW200l w4m bwAoy 0 mmwwincft FIGURE 2 7 bwavg" x 133"o *$A VAIIAND kAG LOCATION Eox.!LAUWNM S H WL GARY HAAKENSON CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR 121 STH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 9M - (425) 771,02M FAX (426) 771-0221 Websb: �.dxdmondsmaxs DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning Building Engineering .4c. December 19,2002 Jz z Jolene and Murl Cox 7409— 242nd place SW — -1 n Edmonds, WA 98026 V; Subject: DOCK AT 7409 — 242NDPLACE SW a rn ITIO Dear Mr. and Mrs. Cox: C 131 By now you will have received a letter from the Department ofEcology (DOE), signed by C 7 Jeannie Suminerhays and dated Decernber 18, 2002. The letter from Ms. Summerhays adds conditions to the Shoreline Substantial Development/Variance Permit. I am writing this letter to avoid any confusion about what permits and conditions apply to your situation. 0 -n The Department of Ecology has responsibility for the Shoreline Management Act. Under the ni M Washington Annotated Code (WAC) section 173-27-200 it states that after the local government to the Departt ent ofEcology for the n 0 0 � ermi approves a variance P t, they shall submit the permit a department's approval, approval with conditions, or denial. The Department ofEcologY is go, M 0 supposed to transmit its final decision within thirty days of the date of subm ittal by local government. Because DOE's comments and conditions were not received prior to issuance of ;a the city's building permit, they were sent by DOE under separate cover. This letter is to make clear to you that the Department ofEcology's conditions must be adhered Z to in addition to the conditions attached to the city's dock building permit #2002-0980 (please refer to the attached DOE letter, which you should have also received). z It is particularly important to note that in order to comply with DOE's conditions, you will need ITI to obtain a city demolition permit and remove the portion of the dock referenced in the DOE letter within two years of the letter's transmittal date, which would be two years from December 18,2002.The removal of the dock will also require a hydraulics permit approval from the Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife. They will be able to determine the best method to remove the dock so as to have the least harm to aquati c life. I would recommend contacting Fish and Wildlife as soon as possible in order to get the process underway. No additional shoreline permit will be required. I have spoken to Ms. Joan Velkkanje ofDOE about the appeal procedure for their decision, and she tells me that their decision can be appealed to the Shoreline Hearings Board with in twenty - Intorporated August 11, 1890 .;Iqtpr 0h, - I'l-ki— I Jolene and Murl Cox December 20, 2002 Page 2 one days of the date of transmittal. if you are interested in pursuing this alternative, you can reach the Shoreline Hearing Board at (360) 459-6328, or www,eho.wa.p-ov (abbreviation of Frivironinental Hearings Office). z On a related matter, we understand that Mrs. Cox was asked to sign the upland owners dock 0, r9� j permit when she was in the office to pick up your dock peradt and that she refused to do so. The Hearing Examiner's decision in file AP-2001-36 stated that the responsibility for signing the "The Vi ;I north pier building permit was the Cox's. In his reconsideration decision he states that a in Cox's are, therefore, directed to participate in the upland Property owners, permitting efforts as ca� in 0 signators on ly. ..." We need you to sign the northern (Curl's) dock permit by February 12, -4 0 2003, in order to meet the Hearing Examinees requirement that the Curls obtain a building permit within six months of his decision on file V-02-109, 110 and I 11. m M Z z if you have any finther questions, please call Meg Grmvell on Monday, Tuesday (afternoon) or Thursday at (425) 771-0220. Sincerely, 0 -n zi Devel'opment services D artment - Planni'll Division 9 m m 0 0 Meg Gmwell, AICP r C ca� m 0 Senior Planner z cc: File No. BE-99-135 -A Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Jeannine Graf, Building Official z Rob Chave, Planning Manager 65 Zachary Lell, City Attorney Mr. Scott M. Missall Short Cressman. & Burgess, PLLC in 999 Yhird Ave., Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98104-4088 Ruth Curt 7531-242 dpl. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 A GARY HAAKENSON CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR 121 ITH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WAND20 (426) 771-0220 FAX (42S) 771-0221 Websft �.declrnondsmams DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning Building Engineering O�, January 9, 2003 I -n� Mrs. Ruth Curl 65 7531 242nd Place Southwest C Edmonds, Washington 98026 0, 0 C Im m RE: Upland Dock 10 Z Dear Mrs. Curl: As you are aware, the Hearing Examiner required that the Cox's participate as a signator B5 0 n' -n with the upland owners' dock permit application. Mr. & Mrs. Cox have provided a letter m M to the City satisfying the Hearing Examiners' condition. In order for the City to proceed in processing the upland dock permit application please 0 0 provide a letter signed by all upland dock homeowners that states that you are the 0 authorized agent to sign the actual permit application. Then at your earliest convenience please come to City Hall and sign the application on behalf of the upland owners. Our Senior Permit Coordinator Marie Harrison will assist you in signing the permit application. Z If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220. CO) Sincerely, Z 0 0 m Jeannine L. Graf Building Official Cc: Meg Gruwell, Senior Planner Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Heldnan, Japan STATE OF WASHINGTON '114%'6" 4279 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY APO) - Northwest Regional Office 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 (425) 649-7000 December 18,2002 Meg Gruwe 11 1 certify that I mailed a copy of this City of Edmonds document to the persons and addresses 121 Fifth Ave N listed thereon, postage prepaid, in a Edmonds, WA 98020 receptacle for United States mail in Z Bellevue, Washin 1 AZ�1�2, 200 0 Murl and Jolene Cox 7409 242" Place SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Ms. Gruwell and Mr. and Ms. Cox: a t Re: City of Edmonds Permit #SM-02-112 M 0 0 Murl and Jolene Cox - Applicants C Shoreline Substantial Development(Variance Permit #2002-NW-30080 Z The Department of Ecology has reviewed the above -referenced shoreline permit to retain an existing A private -use dock on Lake Ballinger. The dock consists ofan L-shaped pier at the shoreline edge with a C > 30-foot by 8-foot 3 Y2-inch float attached to the pier. The pier section that is perpendicular to the lake edge (in line with the attached float) measures 8-fect by 20 feet 3 1/2-inches. The portion of the pier Vi 0'r measures 8 feet by 24 feet and is connected along the north side of the perpendicular portion of the pier 12 feet 2 V4-inches out from where the perpendicular portion is attached to the upland. We concur that the proposal, as conditioned by the City of Edmonds, meets the intent ofthe master m In a program and the criteria set forth in WAC 173-27-170 for granting a variance with the addition of the 0 0 rn following conditions: C Co 9 co 1. To provide consistency with the goals and policies for preservation and restoration of shoreline IT resources under the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) and the Edmonds Community Development Code Conservation Goals and Policies (ECDC 23.10.85) and in "No support of the 1989 Presidential Order for Net Loss of Wetlands," the applicant shall remove, within two years from the transmittal date of this approval letter, the 8- by 24-foot Z section of the 'V' portion of the pier located immediately parallel along the shoreline (see Attachment A). 0) Following completioii of the removal of the pier section, photographs documenting the site shall Z be forwarded to the City of Edmonds and to Ec, ology at the following address: Attn: Shoreline 0 permitting, Washington Department of Ecology, 3190 160'h Avenue SE, Bellevue, WA 98008. In 2. Upon future reconstruction or repair of the remaining pier and/or float, the applicant shall obtain appropriate permits and adhere to current Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) design standards so as to minimize impacts to wetland functions and fish resources. 3. The applicant hereby authorizes Ecology staff and their designees to have access to the suVject property for the purposes of compliance inspection and monitoring. Such right of access shall begin from the date of the receipt of this letter, during construction and extend for a period of MICRORI-M 'OPY0 Meg Gruwell Murl and Jolene Cox December 18, 2002 Page 2 five years following project completion. Ecology staff must provide reasonable verbal notice to IR" the applicant or their designee prior to coming onto the property. The permit is hereby approved. This approval is given pursuant to requirements of the Shoreline Z Management Act of 197 1. Other federal, state, or local approvals may be required. 01 developments and activities authorized by the subject permit may not begin until twenty-one (21) -4 0 m V days after the transmittal date of this approval letter, or until conclusion ofany review proceeding (appeal) initiated within the twenty-one day period. The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you by letter if this permit is appealed. If you have any questions on the above action, please contact Joan Velikarje at 425/6494253. C 0 Sincerely, m m Z, Jeannie Surrunerhays, Section SuperlKsor '0 Shorelands, and Environmental Assistance Program s v i j 0 Attachments "n cc: David Brock WDFW m m 0 0 Fn, Z:, m �q SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT Application No. SM-2002-112 Administrative Agency L/3_/02 Date Received 6 Approved.XXX- Denied— z 0 J_O2 Date IPP3 0 In pursuant to RCW 90.511, a permit is hem* granted to Co 010 C (NxwdAppkW) C m rn lt't 74 242nd PI SW Edmonds WA 98020 (Add—) >CZ to undertake the following development Nvelopment Permit for an e)d AnLy2te use dock on L-2—ke—B—Ahir'Me—r- HShomunesubstantial mm upon the following pmpertY: 0 0 242nd Pl. SW Edmon C: M6 within jLgkMe Ball! thin shorelines of statewide _ggmgLr- andfor Its associated wetlands. The project will be wi 90-58.030). The will be located within a shoreline significance (RCW project _Sub-uL8—n.Res'denfl8I1V designation. The following master program provisions are applicable to this development: 23. I'D . 11.0 (State the master program sections or page numbers: If a conditional use or variance, also ldentKY the CA z portion of the mater program which provides that the proposed use may be a conditional use, or that -04 0 portion of the master program being varied,) m c:SHOREPT.DOC TOTAL P.02 ATTACHMENT A - V SHORELINE PERMIT #2002-NW-30080 CONDITIONS: 1. To provide consistency with the goals and policies for preservation and restoration of shoreline resources under the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) and the Edmonds Community Development Code Conservation Goals and Policies (ECDC 23.10.85) and in Z� support ofthe 1989 Presidential Order for "No Net Loss ofWetlands," the applicant shall remove, within two years from the transmittal date of this approval letter, the 8- by 24-foot section of the "U'portion of the pier located immediately parallel along the shoreline (see Attachment A). Following completion of the removal of the pier section, photographs documenting the site shall as �, 11 1 N, be forwarded to the City ofEdmonds and to Ecology at the following address: Attn: Shoreline m —m V, permi tting, Washington Department of Ecology, 3190 160' Avenue SE, Bellevue, WA 98008. 0 2. Upon future reconstruction or repair of the remaining pier and/or float, the applicant shall obtain 0, 0C appropriate permits and adhere to current Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (VIDFW) M MZ design standards so as to minimize impacts to wetland functions and fish resources. Q..+ 3. The applicant hereby authorizes Ecology staff and their designees to have access to the subject C property for the purposes ofcompliancc inspection and monitoring. Such right of access shall begin from the date ofthe receipt ofthis letter, during construction and extend for a period offive year,, following project completion. Ecology staff must provide reasonable verbal notice to the 0 -n n � applicant or their designee prior to coming onto the property. - J 3: m M Vj 0 0 Fn C,) M Z 0 Z, Z m CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 21 5TH AVENUE NORTH. Ed—ft, WA 98M (425) 7'714YZ -FAX (425) 771-Mi HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS Z" _APPLICANTS: Jolene and Murl Cox (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2), _CASEN0__ SM-02-112, V-02-113 to 116 0 M C LOCATIQN_, 7409 — 242d Place SW (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). In 0 0 80 dock M APPLICATIM: Acquisition of all required permits for an existing private use ITI on Lake Ballinger as per decision in Hearing Examiner Case No. 0 AP-2001-36. These permits are for the southern dock, and they include: a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SM-02- M (a 112), Shoreline Variance for setbacks (V-02-113), a Critical Areas 0 Variance (V-2002-114) and Reasonable Use Exception (V-2002- -n 115) to allow a dock to be built within a wetland, and variances for M M the length, area, width and setbacks of the dock (V-02-116) (see 0 V; Exhibit A, Attachments 2 through 4). 0 0 REVI PROCESS: Variances and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit: Hearing To Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. _MAJORISSUES- a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code z (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code z 01 (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). 0 c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code M (ECDC) Chapter 20.15B (CRMCAL AREAS). d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 23.10 (SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM). e. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.55 (SHORELINE PERMITS). f. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.100.010 (HEARING EXAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW). Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM-02-112, V-02-113 to 116 Page 2 SUM XY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISIQN. staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions PUBLIC HEAREG—g- After reviewing the official file, which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report, Z� 01 and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. M The hearing on the Cox application was opened at 9:35 a.m., October 3, 2002, in the City Hall, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:38 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the n exiiibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. C M M 0 HEARING COMMNTS: 0 C The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. M 10 From the City: Meg Gruwell entered the staff advisory report into the record as Exhibit A, and noted that recommended condition #4 should be modified to read "six months from the date of the 'rather "priorto 0 _n Hearing Examiner decision' than construction2l -4 From the Applicant: M M Jolene Cox said she concurred with the staff advisory report and had no other comments. 0 0 Fn From the Community: c: ca No one from the general public spoke at the public hearing. Q 0 Z FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUS12NS: A. SITE DESCREMON Z 1. Site Development And Zoning. - a) Lack* Z Im (1)&g: The subject property is approxi ately33,100 square feet, with 0 -4 0 approximately 50 feet of frontage on the cul-de-sac of 24V' Place SW, and M approximately 70 feet of frontage along Lake Ballinger (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). (2) Land Us : The site is developed with a single-family residence and two private docks. (3) Zoninp/Shoreline Environment Designation The subject property is zoned Single -Family Residential RSW- 12 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). It has a shoreline designation of Suburban Residential IV in the Edmonds Shoreline Master Program. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM-02-112, V-02-113 to 116 Page 3 (4) Terrain an Vegetation: The subject site slopes gently down to the east from 242nT lace SW to Lake Ballinger (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). The vegetation on the site consists of lawn, shrubs and trees, and wetland vegetation near the lake (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5). 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Eim Z (1) The properties to the north and south are zoned Single -Family Residential (RSW- rp 12) and are developed with single-family residences (see Exhibit A, Attachment I -49 (2) To the east is Lake Ballinger� C M (3) The property to the west is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-8) and is mo� 80 !�. developed with a single-family residence. C B. HISTORY in The subje�t property currently has two docks on it. In response to a complaint by the property owner, the City researched the site and determined that nei ther dock had received the proper permits and since City code only allows one dock per property that one dock 0 -n -2001-36) and the Heani should be removed. The applicant appealed this decision (file AP ng Examiner determined that both docks could remain, but they would both have to obtain m m prope r pennits'(see Exhibit A, Attachment 9). The easement dock owners applied for permits under files V-02-109 through I 11. This current application is the property o wners' 0 0 application for proper permits. C STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) M 0 Z I. En—ets. M -4 a) Though the construction involved is relatively minor, WAC197-1 1-800(l)(b) (adopted by ECDC 20.15A.080) states that when construction is undertaken wholly or Z partly on lands covered by water it is not exempL b) The applicant submitted an Environmental Checklist, and staff made a Determination Z of Nonsignificance on August 15, 2002 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 8). The deadline for appeals was August 29, 2002, and no. appeals were received. in 2. go_nclusiow. The application complies with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. Critical Areas Compliance - Variance a) Eacts* (1) This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.15.11 (Critical Areas Ordinance). Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM-02-112, V-02-113 to 116 Page 4 (2) The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Checklist (CA-2000-90) and a critical areas study was required (see Exhibit A, Attachment 6). The study was to determine the location of the wetland associated with Lake Ballinger and to determine by survey where the 100-foot buffer would be. (3) The applicant participated in a three -party contract where the City hired Shapiro and Associates, Inc. to determine the edge of the wetland. That study is included as Exhibit A, Attac hment 5. The study found that the wetland hugged the banks Z 0 of Lake Ballinger, but both docks were in either the wetland or Lake, or in the 0 buffer. (4) ECDC Section 20.15B. I 70.A allows variances from the standards of the Critical Areas chapter if the Hearing Examiner finds the following criteria have been met: (a) Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including a in C in 0 size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, -or the size or nature of the 0 critical area, the strict application of this title would deprive the subject property owner all reasonable use of the property. M in Z (b) The granting of the variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the C: 2 development proposal and will not be materially detrimental to the public > welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated, or contrary to the goals and purposes of this 0.n chapter. -n (5) The applicant has addressed these criteria in Exhibit A, Attachment 3. m in (6) The buffer for a Category I wetland is 100 feet, with a 15-foot building setback in 0 0 Fn, addition. As shown on the survey in Exhibit A, Attachment 5, the lot still has a C 0) buildable area where it NAridens, and this is the portion of the lot where the existing C co M 0 house has been constructed. Z (7) The dock has been in existence since approximately 1982, at a site that has a house and a lawn down to the wetland edge, with some landscaping of trees and shrubs. (8) Ile City's Critical Areas Ordinance does not have an open water class, which X Lake Ballinger would logically be in. Instead, the city regulates it as a Class I Z wedand. 9 (9) Edmonds Community Development Code Section 20.1 5B. 130.A. 1. states "No 0 m alteration to Category I wetlands shall be authorized unless the city grants an exemption or exception pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.040 or a variance is granted pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.170." There is no explicit exception for docks. (10) Edmonds Community Development Code Section 16.20.010.B.7. allows "private residential docks or piers" as a permitted secondary use in all Single - Family Residential zones. (11) Moorage structures and facilities are also addressed in Edmonds Shoreline Master Program and are permitted with a shoreline substantial development Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM-02-112, V-02-113 to 116 Page 5 permit in the Urban Mixed 1. and 2 Shoreline Environments, as well as Suburban Residential IV (Lake Ballinger) Shoreline Environment, and with a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit in the Conservancy I and 11 Shoreline Environments. (12) The code provisions in the single-family residential and shoreline sections 1 regarding docks conflict with the critical areas ordinance prohibiting alteration in a Category I wetland unless an exemption or exception is granted. (13) Many, though not all, lots along Lake Ballinger have docks on them. b) _Conclusiow It appears to be an oversight in the critical areas chapter that no provisions have been made for docks. Whether there should be a separate class for open water, or whether docks should be allowed in wetlands could be argued. It does appear that the city intended to allow docks, since they are given as a permitted secondary use in single-family residential zones and moorage structures are permitted in this shoreline designation under shoreline regulations. Allowing them on Lake Ballinger where there are currently many docks seems logical. Therefore, though a strict reading of the first criteria for variances in critical areas could be construed to conclude that a lot with a house on it already had reasonable use of the property, it appears appropriate to conclude that lots with waterfront access could reasonably expect to have docks or piers, which are allowed uses in these zones, if they were able to meet all other shoreline and zoning requirements. The dock currently under review has been constructed on a previously disturbed site. The methods of construction and materi�s used appear to have minimized harm to the Lake and associated wetlands. 2. Critical Areas Compliance - Reasonable Use Exception a) (1) ECDC Section 20. 1 SB.040.0 allows for development to be allowed by the Hearing Examiner on a property when application of the Critical Areas chapter requirements would otherwise deny all reasonable use of the property� if the development is consistent with the general purposes of the chapter and the public interest and after a public hearing it can be found that: (a) This chapter would otherwise deny all reasonable use of the property, (b) There is no other reasonable use consistent with the underlying zoning with less impact on the critical area or its buffer, (c) The proposed development does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the property; (d) Any proposed alteration of the critical area or its buffer is minimized to the extent possible to allow for reasonable use of the property, (e) The proposed activity complies with all state, local, and federal laws including those related to sediment control, pollution control, floodplain restrictions, and on -site wastewater disposal; (1) The inability to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant or a predecessor in title in segregating or Z 0 4 m C m 0 -q 0 0 C 4 C X M m Z 0 -n In m 05 — a 0 0 C M M -4 Z Z 9 0 m Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM-02-112, V-02-113 to 116 Page 6 dividing the property and creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, and (g) The applicant may only apply for a reasonable use exception under this subsection if the applicant has also applied for a variance pursuant to ECDC 20.15B. 170(A). (h) The applicant has provided responses to each of these findings in Exhibit A, Attachment 3. (i) As stated above, the code allows docks in the single-family residential zone and the shoreline master program, but does not consider them in the critical areas ordinance. The proposed dock meets all requirements of the single-family residential zone and the shoreline master program for docks, except the aspects for which variances are being sought. (k) The length of the dock is needed to get the users to deep water. b) Conclusions: (1) As stated above, a strict reading of the criteria could determine that having an existing house on the site was a reasonable use of the property. Because the site, is on the waterfront and because other city codes anticipate that docks will be constructed in this zone, and because there are already a proliferation of docks on Lake Ballinger, it appears reasonable to assume that a dock is a reasonable use of the property. The proposed dock appears to minimize impacts to the wetland and buffer. (2) Prior to having a building permit issued, the proposal will be checked to meet all state, local and federal laws, as required in criteria five. (3) This lot wad�'&eated prior to the passage of the Critical Areas ordinance, so the sixth criteria are met (4) A variance to the critical areas requirements has been applied for but since a portion of the dock is in the wetland and notjust the buffer, then a reasonable use exception is also required. 3. Compliance with RSW-12 Zoning Standards a) Fagg- (1) Edmonds Community Development Code in Section 16.20.040.F gives site development exceptions that relate to docks, piers, and floats. These include the following: (a) Height: Shall not =ceed five feet above the ordinary high water ma& The height of attendant pilings shall not exceed five feet above the ordinary high water mark or that height necessary to provide for temporary emergency protection of floating docks. (b) Length: Shall not exceed the lesser of 35 feet or the average length of existing decks (sic] or piers within 300 feet of the subject dock or pier. Z 0 am C Ma 0 80 C m Z V) 0 m m I- 0 CO 0 Fn C 0) C 0) 1 1 M 0 Z Z Cf) Z m Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM-02-112, V-02-113 to 116 Page 7 (c) Width: Shall not exceed 25 percent of the lot width when measured parallel to the shoreline. (d) Setbacks: Docks shall observe a minimum 10-foot side yard setback from a property line or a storm drainage outfall. (e) Number: No lot shall have more than one dock or pier or portion thereof located on the lot. I(f) Size: No residential dock or pier shall exceed 400 square fed. Floats: Off shore recreational floats are prohibited. 9) (h) Covered Buildings: No covered building shall be allowed on any.residential dock or pier. (2)� The sketch provided shows the dock to be a maximum of 22 inches above the water level as of the date of the sketch, which was during a low water time. (3) The length of the dock is given as approximately 50 feet. A variance to the length requirement has been applied for and is addressed below. (4) The lot measured parallel to the shoreline is approximately 70 feet Twenty-five i percent of that is 17.5 feet. This lot currently has two docks on it. This dock measures approximately 32 feet wide along the shore, which is 46 percent of the lot width. This requires a variance, which is addressed below. The adjacent dock to the north has a float, which is 16 feet wide, which is approximately 23 percent of the lot width. Together the docks cover approximately 69 percent of the shoreline. (5) The sketch of the dock shows 5.75-foot setback to the south property line, which requires a variance. The setback to the north property line is well over ten fed. (6) This lot has two docks. These were approved by the Hearing Examiner under file AP-2001-36 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 9) providing that they both obtained permits. (7) The size of this dock is a total of approximately $92 square feet. This cannot be allowed without a variance, which is addressed below. (8) The float is attached to the shore and is not an offshore recreational float (9) No covered buildings are on the dock. b) C2adMILoW (1) The Hearing Examiner has made the determination that the two docks can remain on this one lot (2) Because the Hearing Examiner has allowed the two docks to remain, each dock will be allowed 25 percent of the width of the shoreline for this lot and each dock will be allowed to be 400 square feet in size. (3) The proposal complies with the requirements of the RSW-12 zoning standards only if the variances are approved. Z 0 =I; , '' 0 m m ii! 0 0, 0 C m mZI 10-4 Z 1 0 -n I -n M m 1 0 1 0 0 Fn C 0) Z V) . I M 0 Z Z Z m Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM-02-112, V-02-113 to 116 Page 8 4. Compliance with Requirements for a Variance t a) Facts: (1) 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. The criteria are as follows: (a) Special Circumstances: That because of special circumstances relating to the Z property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the m property, strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any Vi -4 0 X factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which C in M may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a -40 scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any 0 factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same -4 X in property. m Z 10 -1 (b) Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other g; properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. o n Za (c) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan, the zoning m m 0 Vi ordinance, and the zoning district in which the property is located. 0 owl (d) Not Detrimental: That the variance, as approved or �onditionally approved, C cn co) will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or in 0 injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone. (e) Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the Z same zoning. (2) The applicant has submitted declarations with their submittal, which address the Z decisional criteria and these are in Exhibit A, Attachment 3. . 0 (3) The length of docks in the area varies, with some being longer and others shorter 0 in that the subject dock. Most of them appear to be stretching out until they find deep enough water for their purposes. (4) Ile portion of the pier that provides access to the shore is part of the dock that only maintains a 5.75-foot setback. This portion of the pier is shown by the diagrams to be supported only at the sides of the pier and not in the center of the pier. The pier leading out to the float is 8-feet wide. An attempt to remove 4.25 feet from the pier appears to require the driving of five piles in approximately the middle of the existing pier. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM-02-112, V-02-113 to 116 Page 9 b) Conclusions Regarding Length Variance: (1) The site has a special circumstance in that the water near the shore is shallow and not suitable for boating or swimming. (2) Several docks in the area have docks as long or longer than the 50-foot dock, so the length is not a special privilege. (3) :Me approval of the variance is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and if approved, the dock would be in compliance with the zoning ordinance. (4) The proposal does not block access to any other dock, and has been in existence since 1982. It does not appear to be detrimental to allow the additional length. (5) This is the minimum variance to allow the applicant access to the deep water. c) Conclusions Regarding Width Variance: (1) The design of the dock includes the ability to tether the float to the stationary pier, which likely is a driver in the length of the stationary pier. Because the deep i water is not near shore, the float for the dock has to be fairly long. The site has a special circumstance that the water near the shore is shallow and not suitable for boating or swimming. (2) Regarding special privilege, the applicants cite several docks that have fixed piers on the order of 20 by 15 feet or larger. They do not note any piers that are wider than 30 feet, so a width of 32 feet wide is wider than all of those noted. It would be desirable to reduce the width of the dock. (3) The approval of the variance is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and if approved, the dock would be in compliance With the zoning ordinanc�. (4) The proposal does not block access to any other dock, and has been in existence since- 1982. If it were rebuilt, it would be desirable to reduce the width. However, it seems preferable at this point to minimize the disturbance to the Lake. (5) This is the minimum variance to allow the applicants to keep their dock as it currently exists. If the dock were to be rebuilt, it would be desirable to reduce the width, but at this point it is desirable to reduce the disturbance to Lake Ballinger. d) Conclusions Regarding Setback Variance: (1) It appears that the major reason the applicants are requesting a variance to the setbacks is because the dock has been constructed in the location it was, and not because it could not have been constructed 4.25 feet to the north if the former owners chose to do that when they constructed it. Looking at the site plan, there appears to be no reason that it could not have been constructed 4.25 feet further north. However, the dock has been constructed, and unlike development on upland sites, the removal and reconstruction of the dock fiu*er to the north would directly impact the Lake water quality, in a way that allowing the dock to remain where it is would not. Given that the dock was constructed about 20 years ago Z 0 4 0� 0 m C M 0 80 C m m Z 0-4 T 0 M m 0 0 6 Fn C 0) C ri) M 0 Z Z 0 m Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM-02-112, V-02-113 to 116 Page 10 and by different owners, this does not appear to be an instance of property owners finding it easier to obtain forgiveness rather than permission. Given the special circurnstances of this particular dock, it is preferred to have it remain at this setback rather than to try to move it. However, if the dock is ever rebuilt, it would be preferable to move the dock to conform with the required 10-foot setback so as not to infitinge on the rights of the neighboring property owners who in the future may find a need to move their dock. (2)!. The applicants do not mention any other dock with a small setback, so any new dock construction at this setback should be considered a special privilege. (3) The approval of the variance is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and if approved, the dock would be in compliance with the zoning ordinance. (4) In general the narrower setback is detrimental to the neighboring property owner because it reduces their options for dock placement In this instance, with the I neighboring dock within 20 feet of the dock to the south, as the applicants have stated, the dock is not detrimental. If it should be rebuilt, it should maintain the i required ten -foot setback. (5) This is the minimum variance to allow the applicants to retain their dock in its current configuration. If the dock were to be rebuilt, the required ten -foot setback to the property line should be maintained. However, at this point it is desirable to reduce the disturbance to Lake Ballinger. e) Conclusions Regarding Size Variance: (1) The site has a special circumstance that the water near the shore is shallow and not suitable for boating or s%%iniming. This necessitates a longer dock. However, as can be seen by the dock to the north, it is certainly possible to construct a dock that will reach deep water and keep within the area requirements. Making the dock narrower also has the potential of reducing the area of the dock and making. it possible to meet the setback requirements. As noted above, it is -desirable to not disturb the lake any more than need be. (2) The applicants note several large docks in the area, so it appears that larger docks are not always a special privilege. (3) The approval of the variance is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and if approved, the dock would be in compliance with the zoning ordinance. (4) Ile size of the dock does not appear to block access to any other dock. It may restrict the habitat available along the shoreline, and if the dock were to be rebuilt, it would be preferable to have it be smaller and meet the size requirement However, it is less detrimental to the habitat at this point to not require any construction on the dock. (5) This is the minimum variance to allow the applicants to retain their dock in its current configuration. If the dock were to be rebuilt, the new dock should Hearing Examiner De cision Case No. SM-02-112, V-02-113 to 116 Page I I conform to the size requirement. However, at this point it is desirable to reduce the disturbance to Lake Ballinger. E. TECHNICAL COMMIT`ITE 1. Review by City Departments a) La_ct. Ile variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire Department, Z Public Works Department, Engineering Division, Building Division, and the Parks and Recreation Department The Engineering Division commented that the applicant 0 will be required to obtain a right-of-way permit with their normal permit and must comply with all permit requirements. The dock is located over a sanitary sewer 755 :0 casement. The Building Division has commented that the applicant must obtain 0 M building permits for dock construction. Building permits have been applied for, but C in a 0 not approved yet. 0 b) —Co—ne-1—usim. The applicant will need to obtain building permits and right-of-way permits, and must m 0--l' C — z 2 comply with all permit requirements. F. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 6 -n No public comments were received. G. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) M m 0 1. Comprehensive Plan Designation 0 Fn C 0) a) _Fact. mo� Ile subject property is designated as "Single Family Residential." b). Conclusion The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land z Use designation for the site. 2. Comprehensive Plan Gosh and Policies z a) Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section and Significant M Areas section, identifies goals and policies, which relate to this proposal. Specific goals and policies are discussed below. (1) Residential Development Policy B.6. states, "Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage." (2) Significant Areas Goal E. 1. states, "Encourage public access to significant recreational areas." Goal E.2. states, "Significant recreational areas would Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM-02-112, V-02-113 to 116 Page 12 include, but not be limited to: Puget Sound Shorelines, Lake Ballinger, University Properties, Lund's Gulch, etc." b�) Conclusion: The dock is compatible with natural constraints, and allows the Zement owners access to the water, so it appears to meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. H. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Z 1. Shoreline Master Program (ECDC 23.10) a F_acts' (1) Section 23.10.035 of the Edmonds Community Development Code refers to ECDC 20.55 and 20.100 for the procedures for shoreline substantial development a permits and'shoreline variances. M (21 ECDC Section 20.55.030 sets forth the procedural standards for review of all 0 -40 0 C I Shoreline Substantial Development Permit applications. Specifically, it provides m that in addition to the procedures set forth in ECDC 20. 100.0 10, review of all M Z -4 Shoreline Permit applications shall use the criteria and standards established in the 10 C 2 City's Shoreline Master Program (revised to be Chapter-23.10) and WAC 173-14- F- :0 150, which has been amended to be WAC 173-27-140 and 150. 65 (3) Section 20.55.040 ECDC addresses shoreline variances and states that they shall 0 -n n id be reviewed using the additional criteria contained in the shoreline master M in program (which has since been revised and no longer contains any reference to variance criteria) and the criteria of WAC 173-14-150 which has been amended to 0 0 be WAC 173-27-140 and 170. C r co (4) ECDC Section 20.100.010 stipulates the procedures to be used by the Hearing M 0 Z Examiner in the review of all Shoreline Permit applications. (5) Pursuant to ECDC Section 20.55.060, "No construction authorization by an approved shoreline permit may begin until 30 days after the final City decision on Z the proposal. This restriction shall be stated on the permit" (6) Pursuant to ECDC Section 23.10.105.B.4, the subject property is designated as a ca Z "Suburban Residential PP' shoreline environment (7) ECDC Section 23.10.060 sets forth the "Goals and Policies" bywhich all m Shoreline Substantial Development Permits are to be reviewed. (8) ECDC Section 23.10,160 gives use regulations for Moorage structures and facilities. (9) Moorage structures and facilities are allowed with a shorelitit substantial development permit in the suburban residential IV environment (10) The applicants have addressed the criteria in their documents (see Exhibit A, Attachments 3 and 4). Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM-02-112, V-02-113 to 116 Page 13 (11) The dock as it was constructed in the 1980s does not meet the required setback from ECDC 23.10.160.F.3.a.iii. which requires a side property line setback.of 10 feet. (12) The applicants provided a bid from WT Services Company (see Exhibit A, Attachment 7) that shows the value of the dock for both materials and labor to be $9,650 if it were to be constructed today. Final valuation of construction is the responsibility of the Building Official, but it appears that the dock's market value is below the exemption level in RCW 90.58.030.3.e.vii which exempts construction of a dock in fresh waters if the fair market value does not exceed ten thousand dollars. That would normally mean that a shoreline substantial development permit would not be required. However, the processing section in ECDC 20.55.040 implies that a variance permit is bundled with a shoreline substantial development permit, and since it does not require any additional processing time and the cost is included in our fee schedule, a shoreline substantial development permit is being processed for this project. b) Qonclusion. The proposed project and use of the site appear to be consistent with the "Suburban Residential IV" shoreline environment designation and the use regulations for Moorage structures and facilities, except for the setback to the side property line. This requires a shoreline variance and is addressed below. 2. Shoreline Management Act (SMA) a) Facts: (1) Chapter 90.58 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) contains the adopted Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (SMA). (2) RCW 90.58.020 provides the "Legislative findings -- State policy enunciated — and Use preference" related to development in areas which fall under the jurisdiction of the SMA. The following are taken from this section. (a) "It is the policy of the state to provide for the management of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to insure the development of these -shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto." (b) "In the implementation of this policy the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the. people generally. To this end uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of z am C ma 0 C in M z a C_ 0 m m 0 in z 0 .q z V) z 9 0 m Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM-02-112, V-02-113 to 116 Page 14 damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single family residences and their appurtenant structures, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their Z location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the 0 RI shorelines of the state . ..... b) Conclusions: The policies above seem to support the idea of allowing docks, but -i 'n limiting their extent. They also appear to support retaining the existing dock in its a in current configuration in order to reduce disturbance to the shorelines, while requiring m 0 it to meet shoreline regulations in the event that it is proposed to be rebuilt C 2. State Shoreline Regulations (Chapter 173-27 WAQ in a) Eamts-. C > Z E: fl (1) Chapter 173-27 ofthe Washington Annotated Code (WAC) contains the CA Shoreline Management Permit and Enforcement Procedures. 0 (2) WAC 173-27-140 provides review criteria for all development and WAC 173-27- -4 in 150 provides review criteria for substantial development permits. RCW 90.58.020 in provides the "Legislative findings -- State policy enunciated -- and Use 0 0 Fn preference related to development in areas which fall under the jurisdiction ofthe C to SMA. M ca I mo (3) Shoreline variances are also subject to the review criteria for variance permits given in WAC 173-27-170. For development that will be located waterward of M the ordinary high water mark or within any wetland the applicant must demonstrate all of the following (some are paraphrased): Z (a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the Z property, (b) That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under subsection 0 in (2)(b) through (f) of this section, which are: I That the hardship due to the strict application of the buk dimensional or performance standards is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from dced restrictions or the applicant's own actions; That the desi gn of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM-02-112, V-02-113 to 116 Page 15 comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment; That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area; 4 That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and 5 That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; and, 6 That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. z (c) In granting all variance permits, the cumulative impact of additional requests 0 shall be considered. (4) The applicants have addressed these criteria in their submittah; (see Exhibit A, - Attachment 3 and 4). co a m (5) The existing dock is 5.75 feet fTom the side property line (see Exhibit A, C m 0 Attachment 4). 0 C: b) Conclusions: A strict reading of the above conditions leads staff that the proposed in variance cannot meet the criteria. However, a denial of the variance would lead to removal of at least the portion of the pier closest to the property line, and because ,0 C: > there is not central support fbi'that pier, it would lead to the driving of five piles to :� support the pier, and perhaps other work to withstand chaining the float at a different 0 location. At this point, a denial of the variance would have more impact on the shorelines of the state, than approval. The approval shall be conditioned to provide in in that any future reconstruction of the dock meet the Shoreline Master Program C) requirements or any future variances proposed must meet a strict reading of the 0 0 criteria in the Washington Annotated Code. DECISION: in 0 Z Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a wetland critical areas variance, reasonable use exception, shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline variance, z and variances in dock length, width, area and setbacks is approved, subject to the following conditions: z 1. The dock shall be kept in its current configuration with no further disruption of the Lake, 0 =j 0 associated wetland or buffer. If any disruption of the Lake is required in order to obtain a m building permit then the applicant will obtain recommendations from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife as to how to minimize impacts to the Lake and wetland, and shall follow all Edmonds and state code requirements. 2. Any future reconstruction of the dock shall meet all shoreline regulations and requirements of the single-family residential chapter or new variances shall be obtained. Ile approval of these variances shall not be construed to encourage approval of any future proposed variances. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM-02-112, V-02-113 to 116 Page 16 3. 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. 4. The applicant must obtain a building permit within six months of the date of this decision. 5. The applicant must obtain a right-of-way permit as required by the Engineering Division. 6. The applicant must comply with all the terms of any future permits. 7. The permit is transferable, but only to allow continuance of the existing dock. 8. The applicants shall ensure that the proposed development complies with all state, local, and federal laws including those related to sediment control, pollution control, floodplain restrictions, and on -site wastewater disposal. 9. Construction authorization shall not be given by the City until a minimum of 30 days after final City approval of the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Entered this 9th day of October 2002 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter, 20. 100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Ron -McConnell, FAI6� Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL: The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration and appeal. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATTON.- Section 20.100.01 0.0'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. 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 Z 0 Om C m OC m m 10 C= 0 'n La m 0 0 ,C Z Z 9 0 m Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM-02-112, V-02-113 to 116 Page 17 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 in atter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wron g. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS: The time limits for Reconsideration's and Appeals nin concurrently. If a request for a z 01 reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time "clock" 0 for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continued for the point it was stopped. For example, if a request is filed day 5 co X on of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an 0 appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration requesL m LAPSE OF APPROVAL: 80 Section 20.05.020.0 states Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is -4 K in in Z 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.' 55 'NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR: 0 n The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request �mm 0 a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. 0 0 M, LiMBIT. 0) C co �To The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record. W, A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with 9 attachments LARTIES OF RECORD: z Murl & Jolene Cox Robin McPherson & Engineering Division 7409 — 242nd Pl. SW Scott Missall CD z 9 Building Division Edmonds, WA 98026 Short Cressman & Burgess Planning Division 0 m 999 — Third Ave., Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98104-4088 Jerry and Ruth Curl 7531 — 242nd Pl. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 IN NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. RECORD OF INSPECTIONS INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED SETBACKS FOUNDATION: Footing .............. Wall .............. ........... Pier/Porch ........... z Retaining Wall ........... IT! Slab Insulation .......... PLUMBING: -4 Underground I'D C M 0 Rough -in ............ Commercial Final x ITI IT z HEATING: jo-A Gas Test ............... Gas Piping ................. 0 -n Equipment .......... n Commercial Final M ITI, EXTERIOR SHEATHING 0 0 NAILING a (j) (50 FRAMING ........................ mo� Z FIRST FLOOR FRAMING INSULATION ................. Floor Insulation z Wall Insulation ........... Ceiling Insulation z SHEETROCK NAILING M SPECIAL INSPECTION MISCELLANEOUS FINAL APPROVAL FOR OCCUPANCY ...............