PLN200400032-10503.PDFcity of edmonds
land use application
0 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
9 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
^
J HOME OCCUPATION. CAvpi1- 1 t 4�
e FORMAL SUBDMSION ",Pa- 160.
0 SHORT SUBDIVISION { �_
6 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
e PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
9 OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT
6 STREET VACATION
e REZONE
�T=E PERMIT
11 VARIAN REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION
Adak
RECEIVED 231MM
MAR l 2004 W2 —
FILE # V'b4 - 3 7 ZONE
DATE 2 LV O REC'D BY S- IVL L-OC 9-
FEE [ J t O . RECEIPT #
HEARING DATE
e STAFF e PB 9 ADB a CC
PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 451 /S 7 5-7 - P I t✓ IF6 vM O n L &J
PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE)
PROPERTY OWNER Sro7T Ti .Lh' An,, Psun PHONE # JZt ^ 7*3 ^ 2d 83
ADDRESS iSI /f 71- r` Pl w S W,4- Y9026
E-MAIL ADDRESSW5 f7 3 ge ,%�CY1'1-, FAX # 'XIS - % �S- _�} O 7 -
TAX ACCOUNT # rl
ev 5131 66o o24o
CloZ SEC. TWP. RNG.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE ADD A4AS%r 6 elyyao- d b.f rk
'I
Coo
APPLICANT SAmt 'tS AAbo"'t PHONE# �ZS" -- 7'f3 —,X 0J?7
ADDRESS S 4 rn C
E-MAIL ADDRESS
FAX #
CONTACT PERSON/AGENT 5C,.7T OfT• M., 14rrSr� PHONE #
ADDRESS SA rv, f-
E-MAIL ADDRESS SAS t FAX # 54 rn
The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application
agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including
reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading,
inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees.
By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that I am authorized to file thi&siMlication on the behalf of he owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANVAGENT _ DATE
Property Owner's Authorization
By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use
application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject
property for the purposes oMm'n and posting, atten to this application.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE /Z -
This application form was revised on 1/27100. To verify whether it is still current, call (425) 771-0220.
LALMRARYIPLANNING\Fmw & Handouts\Public Handoutsland Use ApplicsNen.doc
1Z) C. 1 S911
iw` 114�
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 9W20 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
RFC;FjyE!n
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION MAY 13 2004
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER PLANNING D pL
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPLICANT: Scott & Tiffany Hansen
CASE NO.: V-2004-32
LOCATION: 15615 75 h Place West (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
APPLICATION: A request for a critical area variance to allow an addition to an
existing home, a portion of which is located in a steep slope buffer.
REVIEW PROCESS: Hearing Examiner conducts a public hearing and makes final
decision.
MAJOR ISSUES: Compliance with the following:
1) ECDC Chapter 16.20.030, Single Family Residential - Site
Development Standards.
2) ECDC Chapter 20.1513, Critical Areas Regulations.
3) ECDC Chapter 20.100, Hearing Examiner Review.
SUNEVIARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Staff Recommendation:
Hearing Examiner Decision:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Approve with conditions
Approve with conditions
After reviewing the official rile, 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 Hansen application was opened at 3:14 p.m., May 6, 2004, in the City Hall,
Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 3:21 p.m. 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 CONIMENTS:
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
From the City:
Star Campbell, Planner: Reviewed the specifics of the case, noting that lot size, lot
slope and the location of the existing residence were special circumstances of the site.
Ms. Campbell also noted that the existing home received a critical area variance in 1999
and that the addition would not further encroach into the steep slope buffer. Ms.
Campbell also provided staffs review and recommendation (see Exhibit A)
From the Applicant:
Tiffany Hansen: When asked by the Hearing Examiner regarding current
geotechnical review she indicated that engineer who performed the analysis has indicated
that the existing structure is sufficient to safely accommodate the proposed addition. She
stated that his letter and the original geotechnical analysis had been submitted to the City.
From the Community:
No comments received.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION
1. The Facts presented in the Site Description on page 3 in Exhibit A, Planning Division
Advisory Report, April 29, 2004, accurately reflects the site circumstances, zoning
requirements and land use, and are hereby adopted by reference.
2. The Fact regarding compliance with SEPA review on page 3 in Exhibit A, Planning
Division Advisory Report, April 29, is accurate and hereby adopted by reference.
3. The Facts and Conclusion regarding compliance with Edmonds Community
Development Code Chapter 16.20 on pages 3 and 4 in Exhibit A, Planning Division
Advisory Report, April 29, are accurate and are hereby adopted by reference.
4. The Facts and Conclusions regarding compliance with the Edmonds Community
Development Code Chapter 20.15B on pages 4 and 5 in Exhibit A, Planning Division
Advisory Report, April 29, are accurate and are hereby adopted by reference.
5. The Facts and Conclusions regarding compliance with Edmonds Comprehensive Plan on
pages 5 and 6 in Exhibit A, Planning Division Advisory Report, April 29, are accurate
and are hereby adopted by reference.
DECISION
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a critical area variance is
approved, subject to the recommended conditions on page 2 of Exhibit A, Planning Division
Advisory Report, April 29, 2004.
Entered this 13th day of May, 2004, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
2
.W lq�
/)��d D
OF�
onald B. Largen,
Hearing Examiner Pro Tem
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any
person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department
for further procedural information.
Request for Reconsideration
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider. his decision or
recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial
decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or
presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership intcrest 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.
Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals
The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a
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.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required,
substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the variance 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 Assessor's Office.
EXITS
A. Planning Division Advisory Report dated April 29, 2004.
PARTIES OF RECORD
Scott & Tiffany Hansen
Planning Division
Parks & Recreation
15615 75'h Pl. W
Public Works
Fire Department
Edmonds, WA 98026
Engineering Division
Fr.W
vfQpx AGENDA
"Nwt. EDMONDS HEARING EXAMINER
T May 6, 2004
City Hall - 3rd Floor Brackett Room, No. 304
121 51h Ave. North
3:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Public Hearings
A. FILE NO. V-04-32: Application by Scott and Tiffany Hansen for a Critical Areas
Variance to allow for the construction of a second story addition to their
residence. The site is located at 15615 75th PI. W. and is zoned Single-family
Residential (RS-20).
B. FIILE NO, CU-04-29: Application by Geraldine Morris for a Conditional Use
Permit to allow a new drive through espresso stand. The site is located at 109
Dayton Street and is zoned Community Business (BC).
3. Adjournment
PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE ACCESSIBLE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
(Contact the City Clerk at 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations)
n
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 - STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To: Don Largen, Hearing Examiner
From: QZ".P)'n. o
Star Campbell, Planner
Date: APRIL 29, 2004
File: V-2004-32
HANSEN CRITICAL AREAS VARIANCE —15615 75" �I PL. W.
Hearing Date, Time, And Place: May 6. 2004, At 3:00 PM,
Third Floor, Room 304
Edmonds City Hall
121 — 5`I' Avenue N.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................2
A.
APPLICATION...................................................................................................................................................2
B.
RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................................................2
II.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................3
A.
SUE DFscRIPTIoN............................................................................................................................................3
B.
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)................................................................................................ 3
C.
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE............................................................. 3
D.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN....................................................................................................................................6
E.
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE..................................................................................................................................5
III.
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS.........................................................................7
A.
MuESTFOR RECONSIDERATION....................................................................................................................7
B.
APPEALS.......................................................................................................................................................... 7
C.
TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS........................................................................................ 7
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL...................................................................................................7
V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR...............................................................................7
VI. APPENDICES....................................................................................................................7
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD...................................................................................................8
StafiReportV-04-32 / April 29, 20041 Staff Report
Scott and Tiffany Hansen
File No. V-2004-32
Page 2 of 9
INTRODUCTION
The applicants, Scott and Tiffany Hansen, have applied for a Critical Areas Variance to allow for an
addition to their single-family residence at 15615 75`h Pl. W. The site contains a critical area consisting of
what is defined by the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) as a steep slope hazard area. The
property is also a small, non -conforming lot located in the RS-20 zone. The applicants received setback
and critical areas variances when they did an addition in 1999. The applicants have recently realized that
they need more space in their home and would like to make their house more comparable in size to other
houses in the neighborhood. The proposed addition involves converting one of the three bedrooms into a
recreational room and adding a master bedroom and bath. The applicants must obtain a Critical Areas
Variance in order to allow for the construction of the addition since it is within the buffer of the Steep Slope
Hazard Area.
A. Application
1. Applicants: Scott and Tiffany Hansen
2. Site Location: 15615 75th Pl. W (see Attachment 1),
3. Request: A Critical Areas Variance to allow encroachment into the steep slope buffer in
order to build an addition to an existing Single -Family Residence at 15615 75th Pl. W. (See
Attachments 2 through 4)
4. Review Process: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision.
5. Mayor Issues:
a) Compliance with SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards
(ECDC Section 16.20.030).
b) Compliance with CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS (ECDC Chapter 20.15B)
c) Compliance with HEARING EXAMINER REVIEW (ECDC Chapter 20.100)
B. Recommendations
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report staff recommends
APPROVAL of the Critical Areas Variance with the following conditions:
1. The variance is for the addition as shown on the attached plans.
2. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds
Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance
with the various provisions contained in these ordinances.
3. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to any construction.
4. The applicant will need to comply with all the terms of any future permits.
5. The approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year from the date of
approval or they shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for
an extension of time before the expiration period. Only one one-year extension is possible.
6. The applicant must comply with all recommendations made by the geotechnical consultant.
StafiReportV-04-32 / April 29, 2004 / Staff Report
Scott and Tiffany Hansen
File No. V-2004-32
Page 3 of 8
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Site Description
1. Site Development And Zoning:
a) Size: The subject property is approximately 7,200 square feet in area. It is rectangular in
shape and 76'b Ave. W. borders the property's west side. (See Attachment 4).
b) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with a single-family residence.
(See attachment 2).
e) Zoning: The subject property is zoned single family residential (RS-20). (See
Attachment 1).
d) Terrain and Veaetation: The site is fairly flat on the western half of the property, but
then rises sharply to the east. The eastern half of the property is covered with natural
vegetation and the western half with a typical urban residential landscape.
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a) Fact: The surrounding properties are zoned and developed under the RS-20 standards.
b) Conclusion: The proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding
zoning and development.
B. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
1. SEPA Requirements:
a) Fact: The proposed development is for an addition to a single-family house that does not
require at least 500 cubic yards of grading. This is categorically exempt from SEPA
review per WAC 197-11-800.
b) Conclusion: The applicant and City have complied with SEPA regulations.
C. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
1. Compliance with Single Family Development Standards (ECDC 16.20)
a) Facts:
(1) The site is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-20). The RS-20 zone has a 25'
street setback, 10' minimum side setbacks with a total of 35' for both sides, and a 25'
rear setback.
(2) The existing house has received setback variances (V-99-119) for a 1999 addition. It
has a 10 foot street setback, a north side setback of 8 feet and a south side setback of
8 feet.
(3) The house's setbacks are considered existing, non -conforming and the new addition
maintains a setback of 14.5' from the south side property line. This does not expand
any non -conformity of the existing setbacks and is thus considered adequate.
(4) The height limit for the RS-20 zone is 25'.
(5) The addition will match the existing ridgeline of the house and not change the
house's height.
StaffReportV-04-32 / April 29, 2004 1 Staff Report
Scott and Tiffany Hansen
File No. V-2004-32
Page 4 of 8
b) Conclusion;
(1) The addition will allow the continued development of the lot consistent with its RS-
20 zone designation. The proposed addition will be required to obtain a building
permit prior to construction. The building permit application will be reviewed to
ensure that the proposal complies with the development standards for the RS-20
zone.
2. Compliance with Critical Areas Variance Criteria
ECDC Chapter 20.15E (Critical Areas) states variances from the standards of this title may be
authorized by the Hearing Examiner in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter
20.85 ECDC. In granting such a variance, the hearing examiner shall find:
1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, or the size or nature of the critical areas, the strict
application of this title would deprive the subject property all reasonable use of the
property.
2. The granting of the variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the 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 chapter.
a) Facts:
(a) Pursuant to the Critical Areas Ordinance and Staff administrative rules,
development that encroaches into a critical area buffer requires a Critical Areas
Variance.
(b) ECDC Section 20.15B establishes the decistion criteria with which a variance
request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner (stated
above).
(c) See the applicant's response to the Critical Areas Variance criteria in Attachment
3.
(d) The site is located in the RS-20 zone where the iniminium lot area is 20,000
square feet in area. The subject property is a legally created 7,200 square foot
lot. The mimimum lot width in this zone is 100' and the subject lot is only 60'
wide. (See site plan — Attachment 2).
(e) The property has a steep slope on the eastern portion of the site. The toe of the
steep slope Hazard area is at the 106' contour as shown on the site plan
(Attachment 2).
(f) The Critical Areas Chapter of the ECDC requires a 50-foot buffer from the top
and toe of any Steep Slope Hazard Areas.
(g) The closest in distance the wall of the addition is from the toe of the slope is 2.5'
so the proposed development encroaches into the steep slope buffer. See site
plan (Attachment 2). The addition will be separated from the toe of the slope by
a engineered retaining wall that was legally constructed in 1999.
(h) The applicants have stated that the engineer that designed the retaining wall has
confmned that the addition will not compromise the stability of the retaining
wall. (See applicant letters — Attachment 3).
(i) A geotechnical engineer will need to ultimately review and approve plans that
insure that the addition will not compromise the stability of the property or
adjacent properties.
(j) The addition maintains the line of the east side of the existing house and does not
encroach beyond the retaining wall. There does not seem to be a more
reasonable location on the property for an addition.
StafiReportV-04-32 / April 29, 20041 Staff Report
N1.61. Scott and Tiffany Hansen
File No. V-2004-32
Page 5 of 8
(k) It does not appear that the addition will affect any views from surrounding
properties.
(1) This variance should not be a grant of special privelage since the property
obtained a similar variance in the past.
(2) Conclusions:
(a) The property has special circumstances related to its size and the underlying
zoning as well as a documented Steep Slope Hazard Area on the eastern half of
the property.
(b) The requested variance appears to be the minimum necessary.
(c) The variance should not be a grant of special privelage.
(d) The addition should not be detrimental or injurious if the final plans are
approved by a licensed engineer. Review of the project by an engineer will also
ensure that the project is ultimately constructed in a way that is consistent with
the goals and purposes of the Critical Areas chapter.
D. Comprehensive Plan
1. Comprehensive Plan Designation
a) Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family" residential on the
comprehensive plan.
b) Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing
Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site.
2. Comprehensive Platt Goals and Policies
a) Fact: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and
policies that relate to "Residential Development" in the city. Specific goals and policies
are discussed in detail below.
(1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential
development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds
residents should be maintained and promoted..."
(2) B.1. "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."
(3) B.5.d. "Private property must be protected from adverse environmental
impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc."
(4) B.6. "Require that new residential development be compatible with the
natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage."
b) Fact: The Comprehensive Plan, Soils and Topography section, addresses future
development in the remaining undeveloped areas of the city that characterized by ravines
and steep slopes. This section identifies the following goals and policies that relate to
future development in areas of steep slopes and potentially hazardous soil conditions:
(1) Section B states as a goal that future development in areas of steep slope
and potentially hazardous soil conditions should be based on site
development which preserves the natural site characteristics.
(2) B.1 "Streets and access ways should be designed to conform to the natural
topography, reduce runoff and minimize grading of the hillside."
StaffRepottV-04-32 I April 29, 20041 Staff Report
Scott and Tiffany Hansen
File No. V-2004-32
Page 6 of 8
(3) Section C states as a goal that development on steep slopes or hazardous
soil conditions should preserve the natural features of the site.
(4) C.1.a. "Grading, filling, and tree cutting shall be restricted to building pads,
driveways, access ways and other impervious surfaces"
(5) C.1.15. "Grading shall not jeopardize the stability of any slope, or of an
adjacent property."
(6) C.1.c. "Only minimal amounts of cut and rill on hillsides exceeding 16- slope
should be permitted so that the natural topography can be preserved. Fill
shall not be used to create a yard on steeply sloped property."
(7) C.2.a. "Buildings on slopes of 15% or greater shall be designed to cause
minimum disruption to the natural topography."
(8) C.2.b. "Retaining walls are discouraged on steep slopes. If they are used
they should be small and should not support construction of improvements
which do not conform to the topography"
(9) C.3.a. "Temporary measures shall be taken to reduce erosion during
construction."
(1 O)C.3.b. "Natural vegetation should be preserved wherever possible to reduce
erosion and stabilize slopes, particularly on the downhill property line.
(11)C.3.c. "Slopes should be stabilized with deep rooted vegetation and mulch,
or other materials to prevent erosion and siltation of drainage ways."
c) Staff Response and Additional Information:
(1) The proposed addition will allow the continued development of a home that
consistent with the surrounding high quality residential development in the
neighborhood.
(2) The placement of the addition will not require cutting into the slope. The addition
will actually be separated from the slope itself by an engineered retaining wall. The
plans indicate that no grading will be done.
(3) The location for the addition provides for a minimum encroachment into the critical
area buffer while allowing for a reasonably sized addition.
d) Conclusion:
(1) The proposed plans show that the addition for which the Critical Areas Variance is
sought is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
(2) The approval of this project, with the associated Conditions of Approval, will ensure
that the project is ultimately designed and constructed in a manner which is
consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
E. Technical Committee
Review by City Departments:
The application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire Department, Public Works
Department, Engineering Division, and the Parks Department.
StaffReponV-04-32 / April 29, 2004 / Staff Report
Scott and Tiffany Hansen
File No. V-2004-32
Page 7 of 8
III. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any
person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department
for further procedural information.
A. Request for Reconsideration
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial
decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or
presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the
subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific
references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of
application being reviewed.
B. Appeals
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name
of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the
appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community
Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed.
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals
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.
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 20.85.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required,
substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the variance shall
expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the
expiration date.'
V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in
the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office
VI. APPENDICES
Attachments 1 through 4 :
1. Vicinity and Zoning Map
2. Site Plan
I Applicant Letters
4. Elevation Drawings
StafiReportV-04-32 / April 29, 2004 / Staff Report
Scott and Tiffany Hansen
File No. V-2004-32
Page 8 of 8
VIL PARTIES OF RECORD
Scott and Tiffany Hansen Engineering Division
15615 75'' Pl. W. Fire Department
Edmonds, WA 98026
Parks & Recreation
Division
Public Works Division
Planning Division
StaffReportV-04-32 / April 29, 2004 / Staff Report
GULCH
PARKIIII
a
15518 h
15515
7105
15516
15517
il
71
Sub'e ct
Pr 1.95508
o O,
p Y
7111
7107
15615 75th PI. W.
7222
�15604
i5606
7124
7100
15610
7120
7110
5620
15$i5 1
15620
7197
7119
06
15631
15701
15702
III
15701
15792
15721 15729
15725
'11 58TH ST SW
7400
it
15821 7324
15812
"
15524
15825
I�i 'III 15908
jj
15925
15910
15912
15927
15917
7309 95920
16000
16012
15931 16123
Zoning and Vicinity Map
Attachment 1
File No. V-04-32
ATTACHMENT 2
RECEIVED
MAR 1 1 2UlW u -a y
1-6 tvhay�q rJ- i'hl -�Crwi� OE"EOpMEgT smvicES
` F
V% 5� Sr
��-�- Scolq G�elp?
UC�v lob �Qlzs Sp�ct� Gvdu�rr�'G�i�i6�s !XCCcu� a�
-elf .Ilan �5a Cyea%�- (.cs 5
I�1,Lc�R�j?.�.5%%kC2. � �1�tiY °v Jti°L�Il�to� CC 1/�vl.� nCG
Cl eClr�.sir�
0 �4, S/, C/
$r c✓ a� � v ia� � w�'-� WAS e��i ru-u�
04� �Zco-241h
Si3�,
/I
ATTACHMENT 3
Syr —ter..._ N
RECEIVED
MAR IQ W
PERMIT COUNTER
bcto c/
,'� G' -� ,�t''C• �'r"lam/ S 0 664 64
4-w /,7 ,%-7�) -Z)-' Wt, �o Ltj k�t
Syr a t,,7'1 Gry? -� f'l�C tl t�' 1 / �� /Y4 /0//4
�uh i e%;0� rwv4ll,,� l G� l r� fie. ��. -� 1 � -r �, � cf ! S f► ate
. � a I
,�Y�c: r rlt�cui��S�-� pis
INYV
t1v q,(-Z .
rIO41lii (,owl,
'e".x{�:. hK ° •1 - ,. 'p' M . � t y;�5 � 1'_k +�: � fir, r r= �- y -
x�j n
LAJ
h"9
72
t IFg: F ✓- �' � ; ? `" F ... .1Y•k ` t .9 `� S #C f � �f" "`
��eti• y K I , _ e _ � psi`, �.'�'r� ' i � +a '�j�' a �.�.
� s t.§ fff '� } l : � I � i '� � yt i#jt r i �' x > _ � s•. �• r
r
�¢�
Y.4h_, vi"m o-4..,.,
E.'k',s A.
May 6, 2004
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND ZIP
CODE BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM
FILE N : V- 04-32 Hansen
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH
NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT HEARING EXAMINER APPLICATION NOTICE OF
HEARING
Name of Applicant: Scott and Tiffany Hanson
Project Number: V-04-32
prcreaLocatiiow 1561675th PI. W., Edmonds
Protect Description. Application for a Critical Areas Variance
to allow for the construction of a second
story addition. The site 'ts zoned Single-
family Residential (RS-20)
City Contact: staryr Campbell
Comments Due gH2
EAR1NG1N INFORMATION
Date: May 6, 2004
Time: 3:00 p m.
Location" City !-tall - 3rd Floor Mtg Rm., #304, 121 5th
Ave. N„ Edmonds
Published, April 22, 2004
RECEIVED
APR 3 0 2004
EDMONDS CITY CLERK
Affidavit of Publication
S.S.
The undersigned, being first duly swom on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk
of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of
Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general
circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal
newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice
Notice of Development Application
Notice of Hearing Examiner (tearing
Scott and Tiffany Hanson; V-04-32
a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not
in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and
times, namely:
April 22, 2004
and that Said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
day of April, 2004
`4
Notary Public in and for the Ste of
County.
Account Name: City Of Edmonds Account Number: 101416
22nd
y '7
+11ttop
Order Number, '0001158068
m
c
E
w
x
w
CC)
CD.-gr
cc
0 CN cli
C\I
C?
0 C?
>
ca (1)
0.0
0
CLZ
4-
< o
-&a 0
. r &..-
cu
00
E
0-
0
0
z
w
V
C
0
O
C
C
ci
w
c
A
A
16
c
c
a
0
0
ii
0
0
0
LL
eq
76
E
VAim
2:3
o
CO
E
L cc
>
E
-moo
t7
Cf)
E
co
CL
0
0.7n,
Cr
r_r
0
0
c
WT
_
�
ty
ry
0
0
E
co CL
<
m CL
<
m
Wb •
a Ell
I,:
c
0
t,
W 25
ED c
0
Co
E
c
0 N
V
ul
0 0
a
c
P
son
CL
o V
0
0
eq
0
0
a)
(D 0
'E
T Na}
ei
a.
a-
zs
0 a
a
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list.
On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties
located within 300 feet of the subject prop rty.
I
1 71�
, '4-Mll i r4-t---
Signature of plicant or Applicant's Representative
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ' day of %%lam CA2
� 0) r
a
Nat blie in and f e fate of Washington
ear' li r�`-'tiya
°�•........esiding at��r'4�%�S, %vim
APO.doc%ATe MW0r=
O(OL,,$bOR 06b bot �2
TO-el1
Pi v
00 oo Z
bo561 wo 02Ao'1
'1222 +tj
TN ON THIS SIDE WITHIN BOMwf
b 5i oom 02 04
� Chet.
6o i31 0 ao t oo
try
t�taZo
oa 51 D �250 o 5131 v
���� +moo
00 3 boo 62,(5 bL
l 5I a 175tti p�t,J
t
00 5 tat °w vz4tg
(5�, (o -7 fiv LL)
4'ULr V [!'10'4 6cw1
eo 5133 oc° azsv I
(5�ZD IZndAi 14
NkZAA Q vk, aid;
00 5131 000 024 01
V-04-04 Scott & Tiffany Hansen
15615 75th Pi. W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
00 5131000 024 04
Chris Hammond
15605 75th PI. W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
00 5133 000 025 03
David SpirolResident
1563175th PI. W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
00 5133 000 025 02
Caryl Family Living Trust
15701 751h PI, W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
00 5133 000 025 01
Michael Rusnak
15620 72rw Ave. W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
00 5131028 00100
Ursula Shluter
15620 75th PI. W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
00 5131028 005 01
Hanson Jewell
15206 75th PI. W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
00 5131000 024 07
Craig Summers
7222 156thSt. SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
00 5009 000 00102
Tom Degan
15520 750 PI. W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
00 5131000 024 02
Kyle Ray
15625 75th PI. W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Vacant Lot
00 5131000 024 08
Marvin Dyson
15610 72m Ave. W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
M
FILE NO.: V-04-32
APPLICANT: Hansen
NOTICE OF APPLICATION & HEARING
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH)
I, Star Campbell, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say:
That on the 22nd day of April 2004, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was
posted as prescribed by Ordinance, and in any event, in the Civic Center and the
Library, and where applicable on or near the subject property.
Signed"Q '
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , ;d�Z/.
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COMMISSION EXPIRES
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington.
Residing at %,�!G�:.�iL�P►
ift,F
FILE NO.: V-04-32
APPLICANT: Hansen
NOTICE OF APPLICATION & HEARING
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH)
I, Diane M. Cunningham, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say:
That on the 22nd day of April 2004, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was
mailed as required to adjacent property owners, the names of which were provided
by the applicant.
Signed L4V'i
Subscribed and sworn to before me this da'yof
of
co IS
RY m. DIE&PIRES
a"
NOTARY
STAFF OF V►dANotary Public in and for the State of Washington.
COMMISSION 9
Residing at �l1�Q�