Loading...
HE decision PLN-2006-0116.pdfC' El"W')NI'DOS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - Edmonds, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER N I WR Pti 101N *AF -1105 1101 ffi t N'� APPLICANT: Dennis Walcker (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). CASE NO.: V-06-116 LOCATION: 742 Daley Street (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR APPLICATION: A reasonable use exception to allow construction of a single- family residence and driveway within a stream buffer and on or adjacent to a steep slope in the RS -6 zone (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 through 4). RE VIEW PROCESS: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.40, 80, and 90 (ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS GENERAL PROVISIONS, GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS, AND FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions Approve with conditions Incorporated Augusl H, 1890 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-06-116 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the official file, which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report, and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the application was opened at 3:06 p.m., October 19, 2006, in the City Council Chambers, Edmonds, Washington, and closed for oral comments at 4:17 p.m. The hearing was held open administratively until close of business on November 16, 2006 to allow the applicant time to submit information from the State of Washington. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City: Meg Gruwell, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff advisory report and entered it into the record as Exhibit A. From the Applicant: Dennis Walcker said: • He has been working on the plan for a year. • The proposal would not be detrimental to the critical area. • He wants to keep the natural setting and he is setting the house as far back in the Southwest corner of the property as possible. • The driveway will be constructed with a permeable surface and will be the maximum grade allowed by code up to a pad in front of the garage. • The building will be 22' wide in front to allow a 2 -car garage and will step back along the 109' elevation contour to a maximum width of 27'. • No lawn is proposed, which will keep grading to a minimum. • Retaining walls will be installed instead of rockeries to lessen the impact on the site. • Access to the house will be via a wood walkway with open slats. • Native plants will be planted around the entire site. • The footprint of the building will be 1,048 square feet, and the size was largely determined by the structural engineer to allow for adequate sheer strength for the three story building. • The lot has a good southern exposure and he plans to install solar panels on the roof for energy conservation. • The house will be built into the hillside so it will be warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer. He will be using a number of green building ideas to lessen impact on the total environment. • The stream corridor will be enhanced. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-06-116 Page 3 Sacha Maxwell, Landau Associates Staff Scientist, said: • The reduction of buffer width will result in no net loss of function due to the buffer enhancements being proposed. • The stream is fish bearing below the site, but no fish have been observed above the site. • Non-native plants will be removed and will be replaced with native species. 23 different native species will be planted on the site and the plantings will consist of 27 trees, 51 shrubs, and 90 ground cover plants. From the Community: Roger Hertrich said: • The Edmonds Shoreline Inventory expressed concerns about a number of issues impacting streams including fertilizers draining into the streams and loss of canopy near the streams. • The Pentac July 2002 study indicated there was no evidence of spawning activity, but that salmon carcasses were observed downstream from Caspar Street along this stream, • When a stream has the potential of salmon habitat it should be viewed as salmon habitat. • Residents around Daley Street have not seen salmon recently, but the potential is there if there is continued stream enhancement. • He believes the 75' buffer should remain and should not be allowed to be reduced as requested. Finis Tupper said: • He feels this is a self-created hardship. This was part of the original plat of Edmonds with 30' by 100' lots and alleys. This property was sold to the applicant after the previous owners got the alley immediately south of the subject lot vacated. • Those same owners sold lots to the south and southwest, which have since been developed and have access on the alley. • He has seen eagles landing on trees on the subject property and there are raccoons, coyotes and Cooper Hawks in the area. • He appreciates what the applicant has done to minimize impact on the site, but he is opposed to the driveway and feels the applicant should take access from the remaining 7.5' wide access to the alley. • Variances can't be granted for self created hardships especially when wildlife may be impacted. Sandy Zickuher said: • She lives in one of the properties to the south that were subdivided. • She has access from the alley, but it is very narrow and it is a very dangerous situation. • No more access to the alley should be allowed. Dave Arnim said: • He is not a scientist, but he believes this proposal will enhance the neighborhood. • It looks as if the applicant has met all of the criteria for approval. • He does not see a problem with the proposal. Response from the Applicant: Sacha Maxwell responded that: 0 Water storage in the upper watershed is provided primarily by wetlands. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-06-116 Page 4 • The proposed house will not be in any wetlands, but rather on a steep hill. • Runoff from the developed portion of the site will be directed into the storm system. Dennis Walcker responded that: • The alley was vacated before he vacated the property. • Even if the alley right-of-way still existed, he couldn't get access to his property due to the topography. CORRESPONDENCE: Two letters were received from the general public (Exhibits B & C). The letters expressed several concerns including the following: • The stream should be considered to be potentially salmon inhabited. • The proposed driveway is very close to the stream. Oil or other petroleum-based by- products could leach from the driveway into the stream. • The geologically hazardous terrain and the closeness of the stream dictate prudence in granting variances from the codes. • The Developer is planning to remove all of the trees, fauna and flora to build a home. He indicates he will re -landscape with natural plants. Unfortunately, the natural environment will be ruined. The Applicant submitted a letter and a technical memorandum during the administrative continuance (Exhibits I & J). They included the following: • An amended easement has been negotiated with Eaglewood Homes to provide necessary turn around for ingress/egress to the subject site (Exhibit I, Attachment 1). • The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) database does not indicate the presence of any wildlife that could be disturbed by the proposed project. With the exception of resident cutthroat trout (a WDFW priority species), no other ESA -listed species or priority habitats and/or species are present within the vicinity (within at least 0.25 mile) of the subject property (Exhibit J). • The Buffer Mitigation Plan includes a buffer enhancement plan that is designed to increase in -stream and riparian habitat functions, and is specifically designed to result in no net -loss of water quality, water quantity, or habitat functions for fish and wildlife (Exhibit J). FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS: A. INTRODUCTION 1. History: a) Facts: (1) The site has access from Daley Street. It originally had an alley along the south side of the property, but a portion of the alley was vacated so that now the alley only extends from 7a' Avenue N. to the western edge of this property. That gives this site only 7.5 feet of frontage along the alley. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-06-116 Page 5 (2) Driveways require a 12 -foot travel lane within the right-of-way. Therefore the 7.5 -foot alley access is not considered wide enough to take access from. (3) The site is a vacant lot with a stream across the northeast corner, and a steep slope along the southwest half of the property. (4) In the Buffer Mitigation Plan (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5) the consultant points out that the owner of the lot to the west at 730 Daley Street has entered into an agreement to pay for up to $1,000 for plant material for stream buffer enhancement that will be done entirely on the subject property at 742 Daley Street. b) Conclusion: The site is subject to the critical areas ordinance due to the slope and stream. Also, access must be taken from Daley Street, since the frontage along the alley is not wide enough for a driveway. B. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Size and Access: The subject property is approximately 10,450 square feet, with approximately 90 feet of frontage on Daley Street and approximately 7.5 feet of frontage on the alley running parallel to and between Daley Street and Sprague Street (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). (2) Land Use: The site is undeveloped (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). It does have the beginning of a culvert for Shell Creek and a fish ladder (as described by the Public Works Director) that continues under Daley Street. On top of this a deck and arbor over the deck have been constructed. Also a small tree house/fort in the southwest corner of the lot, as well as a wall constructed of leftover concrete slabs. (3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS -6) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). (4) Terrain and Vegetation: The site is fairly level along the creek, then slopes fairly steeply upward to the southwest corner which is approximately 30 feet higher than the stream valley (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5). The vegetation on the site includes a lot of invasive species along the stream bank, including non- native blackberries, and grasses and some native trees, including alders cedar, and Douglas fir. Along the slope is more native vegetation, including Douglas firs, hemlocks, alders, cedars, maples, and shrubs including Oregon grape, thimbleberry and huckleberry. The slope also includes invasive species along the edge, including ivy and holly (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5). 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Facts: Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-06-116 Page 6 (1) The properties to the north, south, east and west are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS -6) and are developed with single-family residences (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). Further north is the Holy Rosary Church and School in the Single -Family Residential (RS -12) zone. C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) 1. Facts: a) Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review (WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080). 2. Conclusion: The application complies with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Acta The following sections determine how the proposal meets the requirements of City codes. D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. Critical Areas Compliance a) Facts: (1) This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 23.40 (Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions). (2) The applicant submitted a Critical Areas Checklist (CA -2005-162) and a "study required" was issued to study the Landslide Hazard (slope) area, stream and wetland. A band along the stream is also a mapped Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation area. (3) Landslide hazard areas are subject to Chapter 23.80 (Geologically Hazardous Areas.) (4) Section 23.80.070.A. La of that chapter requires a buffer from the toe of the slope that is equal to the height of the slope existing within the project area or 50 feet, whichever is greater. Subsection Lb allows the buffer to be reduced to ten feet when a qualified professionals demonstrates that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development, adjacent developments and uses and the subject critical area. Alterations to the landslide hazard area and its buffer may be allowed if it can be certified that they meet the conditions in ECDC 23,80.070.A.2. (5) The slope within the project area is roughly 30 feet in height and has slopes over 40 percent, as shown by an unsigned survey performed by Tri -County Land Surveying Company. (6) Edmonds Community Development Code Section 23.40.280 requires that buildings and other structures be set back a distance of 15 feet from the edges of all critical area buffers. It does allow for building overhangs no more than 30 inches in the setback area, as well as landscaping and uncovered decks. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-06-116 Page 7 (7) The applicants have submitted a geotechnical report by Dennis M. Bruce, dated July 28, 2006 (Exhibit A, Attachment 6). His conclusion is that the site is geotechnically approved for the proposed new residence with conditions. The report was submitted with this application. (8) A condition of development should be to comply with the requirements of the geotechnical report and the requirements for development in Landslide Hazard areas. (9) Landau Associates performed a critical areas site reconnaissance and issued a report on August 2, 2005, stating that Shell Creek runs through the property and confirmed that salmon were restricted from entering this leg of the creek due to barriers around Caspers Street: They classified the creek as a Type F nonanadromous fish bearing stream, requiring a 75 foot buffer from ordinary high water. Exhibit A, Attachment 4 shows the 75 -foot buffer extending to within 21 feet of the southwest corner of the lot. Landau Associates also submitted a technical memorandum on November 6, 2006, which addressed neighbors' concerns about wildlife and habitat on the site (Exhibit J). (10) Two options for reducing a stream buffer include reducing the buffer width by no more than 50 percent through a buffer enhancement plan, or buffer averaging. Exhibit A, Attachment 4 also shows the 50 percent buffer width of 37.5 feet. That proposal still leaves very little room for a house, and not adequate room for a driveway. (11) In Exhibit A, Attachment 4, the wavy line shows how the narrower 37.5 foot stream buffer has been averaged to allow for a driveway on the west side of the property, and to allow for a more rectangular building pad. (12) The intent of the critical areas ordinance is to not reduce the buffer below 50 percent of the required buffer. Therefore, a reasonable use exception and variance is required if a single-family house is to be allowed on the site. (13) The Landau Report has stated that there are no wetlands on site. Verbal communication with the Landau staff have indicated that any potential wetland off-site would not require a buffer any larger than that already required by Shell Creek. (14) The Landau Technical Memorandum (Exhibit J) indicates wildlife would not be disturbed by the proposed development on the site. b) Conclusion: The proposal must meet the requirements of the geotechnical report to comply with the requirements of the landslide hazard areas section of the code. A reasonable use exception and variance are required to allow the house as proposed. No additional setbacks are required for potential wetlands adjacent to this site, since they would already be encompassed within the Shell Creek buffer. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-06-116 Page 8 2. Compliance with Requirements for a Reasonable Use Exception b) Facts: a) Section 23.40.210 of the ECDC provides a mechanism to allow variances to the Environmentally Critical Areas regulations. Subsection A.2 is the portion dealing with reasonable use exceptions. The process to be used is the one set forth in Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES), but the criteria to be used are given in 23.40.210. b) A variance from the standard of this title may be authorized if the applicant demonstrates that the application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use (as defined in 23.40.320) of the subject property. A reasonable use exception may be authorized as a variance only if an applicant demonstrates that: a. The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use of a property or subject parcel; b. No other reasonable economic use of the property consistent with the underlying zoning and the city comprehensive plan has less impact on the critical area; c. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property; d. The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title or its predecessor; e. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; f. The proposal minimizes net loss of critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science; and g. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. c) Reasonable economic use(s)" means the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of substantive due process. "Reasonable economic use" shall be liberally construed to protect the constitutional property rights of the applicant. For example, the minimum reasonable use of a residential lot, which meets or exceeds minimum bulk requirements is use for one single-family residential structure. Determination of "reasonable economic use" shall not include consideration of factors personal to the owner such as a desire to make a more profitable use of the site. d) The applicant has submitted declarations with their submittal which address the decisional criteria and these are in Exhibit A, Attachment 3. Note that the applicant addressed the standard variance criteria in addition to the specific criteria for the reasonable use exception and critical area variance. In considering compliance with the critical areas regulations, only the more specific conditions need to be addressed. ' Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-06-116 Page 9 e) Figure 2 (Exhibit A, Attachment 4) shows that the 75 -foot stream buffer takes up the entire buildable portion of the lot. It also shows that even with buffer averaging, only a 5.5 foot strip is available for a driveway, which is not adequate for a driveway. Also, standard buffer averaging will not work for the applicants, since the area after the averaging is to be the same as the standard buffer, and only about 400 square feet are outside the standard stream buffer. Therefore, neither buffer reduction through enhancement, nor buffer averaging will allow the construction of a house and driveway. f) Standard building footprints within Edmonds range from under 1,000 square feet for smaller, older, houses in the downtown area to around 2,000 square feet for newer homes on larger lots. g) The applicants are showing their proposed houses as meeting all required setbacks for the RS -6 zone, though the proposed decks are not allowed to extend into setbacks as far as shown. h) The city's access database show setback variances have been approved in the 600 block of Daley Street, but not in this block. No reasonable use exception variances have been granted along Daley Street. i) It is noted that diagonally across Daley Street a house has been constructed straddling Shell Creek. j) Views in the general area are to the northwest of Puget Sound. Houses further west down the alley enjoy views of Puget Sound, but this site and the houses to the north and east only enjoy local views. k) Edmonds Community Development Code Section 23.40.210.D. allows for conditions to be placed on variances that are granted. (b) Conclusions: (1) Reasonable Use: Based on the maps provided, this site would not be able to accommodate a single-family house and driveway on it if the requirements of the environmentally critical areas regulations were followed. A single-family house has been determined to be the reasonable economic use of a residential lot, which meets or exceeds minimum bulk requirements. A driveway and off-street parking is a requirement in the single-family residential zone. Therefore, this application meets this requirement. (2) No Other Use with Less Impact: The use on this lot will be a single-family residence. No other allowed use would have less impact, except open space, but there are no plans by the city or any other entity to provide open space at this location. Therefore, the single-family use is the use with the least impact. (3) Minimum Necessary: It is always difficult to determine what is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property. The proposed house appears to respect the 37.5 -foot buffer, with only the driveway and parking area intruding closer to the creek. The driveway appears to be the minimum 12 -foot wide as required by the Engineering Division. Because the Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-06-116 Page 10 Engineering Division also requires the driveway to be limited in slope, some room is being allowed on the west edge of the property for a retaining wall for the driveway. Also, some area is being allowed in front of the driveway for cars to turnaround on-site, so that they are not backing into the street (the Engineering Division requires this). Also, pedestrian access to the house will be in the buffer (in the form of steps from the driveway to the front door on the east side of the house). The proposed location of the house is a reasonable proposal to allow a single-family home on this lot. (4) Not Required as a Result of the Applicant: The applicant was not responsible for the subdivision of the property, which was legally done prior to the adoption of the critical areas ordinance. (5) Not an Unreasonable Threat: The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to public health, safety, and welfare on and off the development proposal site. The site will need to be developed in compliance with the conditions of the geotechnical engineer, and erosion control measures will be required to prevent sediment entering the creek. (6) Minimizes Net Loss: Because of the native vegetation on the slope, a considerable amount of planting of native species plants will be required to make up for the critical area functions and values. The proposed new plantings will be closer to the creek, and will replace invasive species. The Buffer Mitigation Plan aims at improving several critical area functions, consistent with best available science. (7) Consistent with Other Regulations: The proposal appears to be consistent with the zoning standards, Engineering requirements and the Geologically Hazardous standards. 3. Compliance with Requirements for a Critical Areas Variance a) Facts: (1) Edmonds Community Development Code Section 23.40.210.B gives specific variance criteria for variances to the critical areas chapters. A variance may be granted if the applicant demonstrates that the requested action conforms to all of the following specific criteria: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, the lot, or something inherent in the land, and that are not applicable to other lands in the same district; 2. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; 3. A literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of all reasonable economic uses and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone of the subject property under the terms of this title, and the variance requested is the minimum necessary to provide the applicant with such rights; Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-06-116 Page 11 4. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this title to other lands, structures, or buildings under similar circumstances; 5. The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this title, and will not further degrade the functions or values of the associated critical areas or otherwise be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the subject property; and 6. The decision to grant the variance is based upon the best available science and gives special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish habitat. b) Conclusions: (1) Special Circumstances: The site has a number of special circumstances, including the steep slopes and the stream on site. Though this is not completely unique in this area, this site is more impacted than most. Therefore the site has special circumstances. (2) Not Actions of Applicant: As noted above, the applicants purchased a legal lot, which was created prior to the adoption of the critical areas ordinance. The applicant did not create the stream, slope, or the lots. (3) Deprive Economic Use of Land: Strict interpretation of the code would restrict the buildable area so that it would not be adequate for a single-family residence and driveway, and therefore would deprive the applicant of all reasonable economic uses of the land. (4) Special Privilege: All property owners have the ability to request a reasonable use exception if their property is so restricted that it would otherwise be unbuildable. Therefore, this variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this title to other lands under similar circumstances. (5) Consistent with this Title: The construction of a house on this site will have an impact — either to the existing native vegetation on the slope, or to the more disturbed creek area. By replanting within the creek area, this proposal attempts to be consistent with the general purpose and intent of this title. (6) Best Available Science: The Buffer Mitigation Plan states that it is based on best available science and that they have given special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish habitat. Currently fish barriers downstream keep anadromous fish from this stretch of Shell Creek. 4. Compliance with Single -Family Residential (RS -6) Zoning Standards a) Fact: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development in the Single -Family Residential zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030 and include the following for locating structures: (1) Street Setback: (2) Rear Setback: (3) Side Setbacks (to all other property lines) (4) Maximum Height: (5) Lot Coverage: Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-06-116 Page 12 RS -6 20 feet 15 feet 5 feet 25 feet 35% B) Conclusion: The proposal as shown on the drawings provided (Exhibit A, Attachments 6 & 7) meets the required height, setbacks, and lot coverage requirements. E. TECHNICAL COMMErTEE 1. Review by City Departments a) Fact: The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire Department, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, and the Parks and Recreation Department. Noel Miller, Public Works Director commented "My impression is that the fish ladder underneath Daley Street was built to provide fish passage for salmon. The Engineering Division commented "Applicant shall meet all future engineering requirements at time of building permit. Detention system shall connect to Daley Street. b) Conclusion: As noted in the critical areas report, barriers downstream currently prevent access to fish swimming upstream. If those barriers are removed in the future, this stretch of Shell Creek would be able to accommodate salmon. The applicant should meet the requirements of the Engineering Division. F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) 1. Comprehensive Plan Designation a) Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family — Urban 1." b) Conclusion: Single-family residential development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. 2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies a) Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies, which relate to this proposal. Specific goals and policies are discussed below. (1) Residential Development Policy B.1. states, "Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability." Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-06-116 Page 13 (2) Residential Development Policy B.3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures." (3) Residential Development Policy B.6. states, "Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage." b) Conclusion: The proposed house as shown on the elevations (Exhibit A, Attachment 7) will be similar to the new houses constructed to the west along the alley. It will be taller than other houses to the north and east, as seen from those directions, but will have some trees along the stream to screen the house from the east and northeast. The pitched roof is common in this neighborhood and nothing else about the house would make it look out of place. Therefore, the proposal is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. DECISION: Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a reasonable use exception and variance is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Buffer Mitigation Plan prepared by Laudau Associates, dated October 5, 2006, (Exhibit A, Attachment 5) shall be followed. 2. A bid for the cost of installing the Mitigation Planting plan, maintenance and monitoring shall be provided (per page 5-3 of Exhibit A, Attachment 5. It was not included in the Buffer Mitigation Plan). Financial guarantees shall be provided as required by code. The conditions of the geotechnical evaluation (Exhibit A, Attachment 6) shall be met. 4. 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. The applicant must obtain a building permit. 6. The applicant must comply with all the terms of any future permits. 7. The permit is transferable. 8. The owner must act on the approved variance within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration and the city approves the application. Only one one-year extension is possible. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-06-116 Page 14 Entered this 28'' day of November 2006 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Ron McConnell, FAICP 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 RECONSIDERATION: Section 20, 100.0 10.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. APPEALS: Section 20.105:020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. TE"E LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL: The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock 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 continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request is filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-06-116 Page 15 LAPSE OF APPROVAL: Section 20.05.020. C states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR: The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. faa iInm The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with 7 attachments B. Letter from Greg and Cindy Olson, dated 10/17/06 C. Letter from Kirsten Hayford, dated 10/19/06 D. Architectural Plans E. Structural Plans F. Grading Plans G. Edmonds Stream Inventory and Assessment, draft report by Pentec Environmental 2002 H. Survey of site I. Letter from Dennis Walcker, dated 10/27/06, with 3 attachments J. Technical Memorandum from Sacha Maxwell and Shannon Moore, dated 11/6/06 PARTIES of RECORD: Dennis Walcker Sacha Maxwell and Shannon Moore P.O. Box 996 Landau Associates Lynnwood, WA 98046 130 2' Ave. S Edmonds, WA 98020 Greg & Cindy Olson Kirsten Hayford 725 Sprague Street 727 Sprague Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Roger Hertrich Finis Tupper 1020 Puget Drive 711 Daley Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Sandy Zickuher Dave Arnim 721 Sprague Street 755 Daley Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Planning Division Engineering Division Public Works Director