Loading...
PLN200400108 Staff Report.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS 121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION To: File SQ004-1 From: Ste fe Bullock, AICP Senior Planner Date: April 8, 2005 File: S-2004-108 Applicant: Gil Thiry TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 2 A. Application.......................................................................................................................................2 B. Decision............................................................................................................................................ 2 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................3 A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance.................................................................................... 3 B. Analysis of Requested Modifications................................................................................................ 4 C. Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan......................................................................................... 5 D. Compliance with the Zoning Code.................................................................................................... 6 E. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions............................................................... 6 F. Environmental Assessment: ...................... ......... ............................................ ..................... .......... 6 G. Critical Areas Review: ...................................................................................................................... 6 H. Comments: ............................................................... ........................................................................ 7 III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS..........................................................................7 A. Request for 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 04108sr.DOC / January 12,2001 / Staff Report Gil Thiry File No. S-2004-108 Page 2 of 8 I. INTRODUCTION A. Application 1. Applicant: Gil Thiry 2. Site Location: 15810 75`h Pl. W. (see Attachment 1). 3. Request: To divide 2 lots with a total area of approximately 25,312 square feet into 2 lots. The application includes a lot width modification request for Lot 2, to allow a 50 foot wide lot were 80 feet is required. Because no new buildable lots will be created, this application is essentially a Lot Line Adjustment request. But lot width and setback modifications can not be approved through the Lot Line Adjustment process so the applicant is requesting the subdivision with modifications for lot width and reduced side setbacks between the two lots. 4. Review Process: Following the Comment Period, Planning Staff makes an administrative decision. Major Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030, site development standards for the RS-12 zone. b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Title 18, public works requirements. c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.1513, Critical Areas. d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.75, subdivision requirements. e. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.95, staff review requirements. B. Decision Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and Attachments submitted with the application and during the comment period, the following is the recommendation of the City of Edmonds Planning Division: The Subdivision with the proposed modifications should be APPROVED with the following conditions: 1. Prior to recording the applicant must complete the following requirements: a) Civil plans must be approved prior to recording. In completing the civil plans you must address the following: (1) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required prior to Recording" on Attachment 5. b) Submit copies of the recording documents to the City for approval. These documents shall have the following revisions made / information included: (1) Include on the plat all required information, including owner's certification, hold harmless agreement, and staff s approval block. (Applicants are now responsible for recording their own documents once they have been approved.) 2. After recording the plat, the applicant must complete the following: a) Provide the City Planning Division with two copies of the recorded plat, with the recording number written on them. b) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required with Building Permit" on Attachment 5. 04108sr.DOC / January 12,2001 / Staff Report Gil Thiry File No. S-2004-108 Page 3 of 8 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance 1. Lot and Street Layout a. This criteria requires staff to find that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance and also that the lots will each contain usable building areas. Based on a review of the project and the analysis in this section staff agrees that a two lot short -plat is a reasonable use of the property. b. Lot Area: Required Proposed Proposed Lot Area Net sq. ft' Gross sq. ft Lot 1 12,000 16,400 16,400 Lot 2 12,000 8,402 8,912 'The net lot area excludes the area of any access easement on the lot. C. Lot Width: The required lot width in the RS-12 zone is 80 feet. Lot 1 meets this requirement. Lot 2 is proposed at only 50 feet. A modification must be approved for lot 2 or the proposed lot will not comply with the code. d. Setbacks: Setbacks for the lots are proposed as follows: Lot 1: Street Setback (25 feet): From the east property line North Side Setback (10 feet): From the north property line South Side Setback (7.5 feet): From the south property line Rear Setback (25 feet): From the west property line Lot 2: Street Setback (25 feet): From the east property line South Side Setback (10 feet): From the south property line North Side Setback (7.5 feet): From the north property line Rear Setback (25 feet): From the west property line The proposed side setbacks between the two lots, of 7.5 feet, does not comply with code. Unless a modification is approved these setbacks are not allowed. e. Corner Lots: Neither of the lots are considered Corner Lots. f. Flag or Interior lot determination: Neither lot is considered an Interior lot. g. Lot Coverage of Existing Buildings on Proposed Lots: 1.) 35% maximum lot coverage is allowed in the RS-12 zone. 2.) Any buildings or structures on the new lots will be allowed to cover no more than 35% of the lot. 2. Dedications a. No dedications are required. 3. Improvements a. See Engineering Requirements (Attachment 3). 04108sr.DOC / January 12,2001 / Staff Report Gil Thiry File No. S-2004-108 Page 4 of 8 4. Flood Plain Management This project is not in a FEMA designated Flood Plain. B. Analysis of Requested Modifications The applicant requests four modifications related to this subdivision. First, that the lot area of Lot 2 be allowed to be reduced to 8,402 sq. ft.; Second, that the lot width of Lot 2 be allowed to be 50'; And that the side setbacks on and between Lots I and 2 be allowed to be 7.5 feet. The ability to request modifications is established by ECDC 20.75.075, which requires all criteria of a variance to be met if the requested modification is to be approved. The Criteria are as follows: a. Special Circumstances: That, because of special circumstances relating to the 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 factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property. 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 properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. C. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance and the zoning district in which the property is located. d. Not Detrimental: That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone. Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 2. Applicant Declarations: The applicant's representative has presented declarations as to how they feel the proposal meets these criteria (see Attachment 2). 3. Additional Findings: a. The City of Edmonds is able to accommodate additional growth through infill development. Certain lots are large enough to develop but, because of shape or orientation, require some modifications in order for the subdivision to be designed in a logical manner. b. The lot is large enough for two 12,000 sq ft lots each with their own access to 75`h Pl. W. with no modifications needed. The applicant has also submitted an alternative subdivision layout that shows how two lots could be configured to meet the 12,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size while retaining the existing house even though it results in rather odd shaped lots. C. The applicant would like to retain the existing house in its current configuration. d. The applicant owns two separate lots that each would have been considered to be buildable lots except for when their home was built, the walkway and one corner of the house actually crossed the property line. This created a situation where title on the vacant lot would have been considered to be clouded and made it difficult to impossible to sell or develop. 04108sr.DOC / January 12,2001 / Staff Report Gil Thiry File No. S-2004-108 Page 5 of 8 e. The proposed subdivision and modifications return the property to what the owner assumed they had all along, two buildable lots, with the exception that the vacant lot is smaller than before. f. Because the applicant wants to make the vacant lot as wide as possible they are requesting that they be allowed to have a 7.5 foot setback from the south side of the existing house to the proposed lot line. g. Because the vacant lot will still be relatively narrow even with the reduced setback on lot one, they are also requesting that the north side setback for lot 2 be allowed to be the same 7.5 feet. h. The applicant has demonstrated that it is possible to create two lots that meet the minimum lot area requirement by submitting an alternative layout with lots that are all at least 12,000 square feet in area. See Attachment 4. This layout, however, is less desirable than the proposed layout (Attachment 4) because it creates odd shaped lots. Lots shaped like this would create potentially unusable areas, areas that could cause confusion as to ownership, and would be inconsistent with the shapes of lots in the surrounding neighborhood. i. The City has approved modification requests in similar situations. 4. Conclusions: a. There are several special circumstances for this property: There have historically been two buildable lots here. The existing house on lot I was inadvertently located across the property line. The narrowness of the revised lot 2 is extreme, around 50 feet. b. Allowing the proposed lot layout would not be a special privilege for the property owner. As pointed out above, there is an alternative layout that could be used to subdivide the property into two lots. The City has approved modification requests in similar situations and would not hold a similar proposal to different standards in the future. C. The proposal will be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance. This is addressed in below sections II.B. and II.C, of the staff report. d. The modification will not be detrimental. It will allow the two lots that have historically been there to continue to be there. It will also allow the existing home to remain. The proposed modifications appear to be the minimum necessary. C. Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan 1. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: The Comprehensive Plan has a section that addresses residential development and the following goals and policies have been taken directly from that section: a. Goal. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in accordance with the following policies: 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. 2.) Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures in the area. 3.) Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. 04108sr.DOC / January 12,2001 / Staff Report Gil Thiry File No. S-2004-108 Page 6 of 8 4.) Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible. 5.) Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful control of other types of development and expansion based upon the following principles: 6.) Residential privacy is a fundamental protection to be upheld by local government. 7.) Traffic not directly accessing residences in a neighborhood must be discouraged. 8.) Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic or land use encroachments. 9.) Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc. 10.) Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage. 2. Compliance with the Residential Development goals and policies: There are not any aspects of the proposal that seem contrary to the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal will accommodate the continued development of the neighborhood in a manner that is consistent with its single-family, small lot designation. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan. D. Compliance with the Zoning Code 1. Staff finds this project to comply with the provisions of the Zoning Code, particularly the Subdivision regulations, and the development standards of the zone as detailed in section II.A.2.b. E. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions 1. The proposed project is not in a Flood Plain. F. Environmental Assessment: 1. Is this site identified on the City's Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map? No. 2. Is an Environmental Checklist Required for this application? If more than 500 cubic yards of grading will be required, an Environmental Checklist is required. At this point in time, the total amount of grading for the subdivision is not anticipated to exceed 500 cubic yards. If through the review of the civil plans, it is determined that more than 500 cubic yards of grading will be required, the City will require an Environmental Checklist to be submitted and issue an Environmental Determination. G. Critical Areas Review: 1. Critical Areas Review number: CA-2004-16. 2. Results of Critical Areas Review: The property does contain steep slopes and is in the Meadowdale Hazard area. A study will be required along with any building permit for a home on either of these lots. The lot line adjustment approves no development and the study may be deferred at this time. 04108sr.DOC / January 12,2001 / Staff Report Gil Thiry File No. S-2004-108 Page 7 of 8 H. Comments: One comment letter was received during the public comment period. They were generally supportive of the application. III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20.100.010.E allows for City staff to reconsider their decision if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the posting of the notice required by this section. 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 20.105.040 and 20.105.020 describes how appeals of a staff decision 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 fled with the Community Development Director within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals The time limits for Reconsiderations 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 staff has issued his/her decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continued from the point it was stopped. For example, if a request is fled on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the staff issues their decision on the reconsideration request. IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.075.100 states, "Approval of a preliminary plat or preliminary short plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of five years, unless the applicant has acquired final plat or final short plat approval within the five-year period." V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the staff request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office. VI. APPENDICES Attachments: 1. Vicinity / Zoning Map 2. Proposed Lot Layout 3. Applicant Letter 4. Alternative Lot Configuration 5. Engineering Requirements 6. Public Comment Letter 04108sr.DOC / January 12,2001 / Staff Report Gil Thiry File No. S-2004-108 Page 8 of 8 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD Gil Thiry Engineering Department 15810 75`h Pl. W Fire Department Edmonds, WA 98026 Parks Department Public Works Department Planning Department 04108sr.DOC / January 12,2001 / Staff Report ZoningandVicinity Map Attachment 1 File No. S-2004-108 •l� 3 � �� ip I •4 p �O 1 � h !$p - 19 his31 '� O h$ $ la k ti o o8 cg s o y 1Cgg �$ q�q 28 5 W Z N � s� � �� ��� � .. �� �� ° affix ���. �$ggg$ � � •�� o�<� Stri ------ h N —NEWR 3 HUI g d a i'd +_ n ppi a 3� L y b idle 19150 O ® ® X O roi © .str 1J-11 611,11, ' ' s �. x tnLn ag � d NU I e 7 O C4 U < Z ag 70- F� � {-jj� �� I I .ig �� =Ii �'I�• I. cno � � 2 t ffE l d ( T 1 !� o f W �J.Zy__-D�j< 1 d� i W aP � � 66•�_. .lUTI I � ��w �' �.= �-p-�yl/ �s�_ % � of; UO 4 � � i pi o se ; o s m lit REC 6'S I' _ FlVSD OCT 01 2004 PERMIT COUNTER Western. I Engineers Inc. SURVEYORS • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS 13000 Highway 99 South ® Everett, Washington 98204 (425) 356-2700 FAX (425) 356-2708 RE:CE September 29, 2004 �:J OCT The City of Edmonds, Planning Division Attn: Stephen Bullock, Senior Planner Co;' 121 5th Avenue Northr` r Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Proposed Short Plat for Gil Thiry, located at 15810 75th Place West, Lots 1 and 2, Block 29, Plat of Meadowdale Beach, Vol. 5, Pg. 38, Snohomish County, WA. Dear Stephen: This letter accompanies the formal submittal of the Gil Thiry Short Plat application. As part of that submittal, we are formally requesting modifications to the subdivision standards. Those modification requests, the reasons for them and the Criteria for review and approval are outlined below: Mr. Thiry owns lots 1 and 2 of Block 29, Plat of Meadowdale Beach. These lots, combined with a partial vacation of 158th Street adjacent to the north, contain an area of 25,312 square feet. When Mr. Thiry built his house on lot 1, a corner was inadvertently constructed across the lot line. This encroachment clouds the title of an otherwise legally created building lot. In many jurisdictions this situation would be resolved by means of a Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA). However, Edmonds City Code specifically prohibits the use of a BLA from creating or worsening a Non -Conforming situation. In this case, lot 2 has slightly less than the required minimum lot area of 12,000 SF. Any BLA correcting an encroachment would further reduce the lot area. Edmonds City Code does allow for the possibility of requesting modifications to lot standards as part of the Subdivision Process, thus providing another way to handle this situation. Under this process, it is possible that a short plat could be approved with an even smaller lot size than is currently proposed. For these Modification Requests to be approved, the following criteria must be met: 1. A special circumstance must exist. 2. No special privilege is granted. 3. The proposal is consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. 4. The proposal will not be detrimental. 5. The proposal is the minimum necessary. RAIDSERVER\DWG\86107B\ENG\THIRY REV MOD 100104 PAGE 1 OF 3 LAND USE CONSULTANTS ® CIVIL ENGINEERS ® LAND SURVEYORS ® ENGINEERING CORPORATION 1st Modification Request Special Circumstance: The special circumstances at work in this request are that Mr. Thiry owns two legally created lots. Second, he has sufficient area to provide for another lot. However, the existing house on site is located in approximately the north central portion of the site. This makes the creation of two comparable sized and shaped lots impossible. Because of this special circumstance, you requested that we demonstrate the ability to create a lot of sufficient area, regardless of shape, as an exhibit. If we were able to do this, the City would allow Mr. Thiry to subdivide his land and create a new lot. That new lot could then have less than the required 12,000 square feet necessary to meet the area requirements for the zone. Our proposed lot would contain 9,024 SF (gross) and 8,506 SF (net). Special Privilege: No special privilege is being granted. This "modification request" process is a part of both the Edmonds City subdivision procedure and Variance process. Is this proposal Consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code? This proposal is consistent with both of these documents. Will this proposal be detrimental? We do not believe that this proposal will in any way be detrimental to the site, the neighborhood or to the City as a whole. As will be demonstrated in our second request, Mr. Thiry is attempting to create a lot with a building envelope that will accommodate a reasonably sized house. This size of this proposed house is to be similar to the one existing on site. This existing house is the residence of Mr. Thiry. A review of the Assessors Map indicates the high likelihood of several properties in the immediate vicinity of this site that have less area than required by the zone. Some may even have less area than is proposed for lot 2. Is this proposal the minimum necessary? We believe that this modification request is the minimum needed to create a reasonably sized lot to support a reasonably sized house. To add additional area to this lot would create a truly odd shaped lot, which might create as many problems as it potentially could solve. 2nd Modification Request We request that the north -side building setback for lot 2 be reduced from the standard 10 feet to 7.5 feet. All other building setbacks would remain the same. Special Circumstance: The special circumstances involved are the same as in the 1st modification request; that is, the original construction of the Thiry residence crossed the lot line creating a non -conforming lot situation that can only be resolved through this modification request process. RAIDSERVER\DWG\86107B\ENG\THIRY REV MOD 100104 PAGE 2 OF 3 Special Privilege: No special privilege is being granted. This "modification request" process is a part of both the Edmonds City subdivision procedure and Variance process. Is this proposal Consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code? We believe that this proposal is consistent with both of these documents. Will this proposal be detrimental? We do not believe that the proposal will be detrimental to anyone. This proposal will rectify an existing situation. The only people in this neighborhood that will be affected by the substandard setbacks will be the Thiry's and the residents of the new house proposed for lot 2. They and they alone will be affected by the fact that the setback between the two houses is 15 feet, not 20 feet. Is this proposal the minimum necessary? We believe that this proposed modification is the minimum necessary to achieve a viable solution. The proposed new lot will approximate an east -west rectangle with an overall length of about 185.5 feet. The width varies from 44.90 feet at the east end of the lot to about 50 feet near the proposed western end of the conceptual building footprint. The existing house on site has a width of about 32 feet at its' western end. If this short plat is approved, the resulting shape of the new lot will create a building envelope that, without a modification, will result in a very narrow house. The granting of this modification request will improve the ability of the owner of this new lot to construct a house that is comparable in size and shape to the existing house on site. In other portions of the City, the side building setbacks are often 5 feet or less. In deference to his neighbors and City standards for this zone, Mr. Thiry has agreed that a building footprint, comparable in size to his existing house, is suitable for this site. Therefore, a reduction of only 2.5 feet in the side yard setback is requested. Thank you for your consideration of these requests. If you or any of your staff have any questions in regard to this submittal, do not hesitate to call me at 425.356.2700 to discuss this project. Sincerely, RAIDSERVER\DWG\86107B\ENG\THIRY REV MOD 100104 PAGE 3 OF 3 r� o � N � ;Ll96.ZON 00'Sl _ At 7c[ c� QN W � N 2 $yi 2 � I I ( I I I I I I X j I I I � I I I � o I I I E-i I � I W� I 0o I � I I a I Wo ro I to Wo I I x � I .o I ao I I o�h I I 6d_ U YI h Z n � W p P L G Name Appr hate M N/A Pla N/A Provide service to each lot. X Connect to public water system. I I X Provide new service to each lot I I X Connect to public sewer system X Provide storm sewer service to all proposed lots. X Construct storm detention system sized to provide adequate X capacity for proposed single family dwellings and access improvements in accordance with ECDC 18.30. Connect to Public Storms stem X 41. On -site drainage (plan per, Ord. 3013): Connect all new impervious surfaces to detention system. X 12, Underground wiring (per Ord.1387): Required for all new services X ' 13. ExcavAmi andgrading (per UBC, Chapter 70 Submit a grading plan as part of engineered site plan. X 14. Si na e (pei-City (per-CityEngineer): All signs shall be vinyl letters and to City Stds. No silk screen N/A signs will be permitted Provide "Private Access Ends" N/A Provide fire and aid address si na e X V:\dvnv\sp\04-108 thiry plt.doc N/A for all utility construction. X a) Plat showing lots, easements, legals, survey information X X b) Legal documents for each lot X c) Field stake lot corners (by professional engineer) X d) Clustered mailbox location per Postmaster el Maintenance aareements a) Storm drainage connection charge per lot ($428) X b) Sewer connection charge/LID fees to be paid in full. X c) Plat inspection fee: 2.2% of improvement costs $ X d) Plan review fee: $860 $ 860. X e) Traffic mitigation: $200 per pm peak trip $_ X ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER, CITY OF EDMONDS DATE The Engineering requirements; have been completed and the subdivision can be recorded Authorized for recording by: Date: V:\dvrw\sp\04-108 thiry plt.doc 01/23/05 Steve Bullock Development Services Department 121 5t' Ave. North Edmonds, WA 98020 JAN 2 4 2005 Development Application by Gil Thiry, 15810 75'h Pl WL Edmonds seeking; modifications of width and area on Lot 2. File # S-04-108 We were initially contacted in March of last year (2004) regarding a proposed rezone of several lots, including the Thiry lot. Although we had some reservations, in deference to our good neighbors, the Thiry's, we gave our support to the proposal. At that time we stated that we would oppose any future requests for a variance to reduce the RS-12 10' minimum side setback on the lot to the north of our home. As I read the Notice of Development Application, the reduced side setbacks requested are only between Lot 1 and Lot 2, not the south side of Lot 2. If that interpretation is correct we have no objection to the proposed modifications. Richard W. Van Saun Gaylee Van Saun 15812 75t` Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 425 743 4029