pln200500162-10784.PDFCITY OF EDMONDS
V-05 -162
Ray @ 15625 75t' Pl W
ncC.1S9v
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPLICANT: Kyle and Juliann Ray
CASE NO.: V-05-162
LOCATION: 15625 75'h Place West
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
APPLICATION: Request for a variance to reduce the required 25-foot (west) street
setback to 15.5 feet (5.5 feet from the planned right-of-way line)
and a variance to reduce the required 10foot (south) side setback to
6.6 feet (Exhibit A, Attachments 5 & 6).
REVIEW PROCESS: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts a 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).
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions
Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions
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 3:00 pm. March 16, 2006, in the City Council
Chambers, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 3:04 pm. 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.
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No.: V-05-162
Page 2
HEARING COMMENTS:
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.
From the City:
Gina Coccia, Project Planner, reviewed the staff advisory report and noted that there had
been no public comments submitted prior to the hearing.
From the Applicant:
Kyle Ray, Applicant, said he would comply with the recommended conditions of approval.
From the Community:
Al Rutledge said he supported the variance request.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. INTRODUCTION
1. History:
a) Facts:
(1) The applicant applied for a building permit to construct a second story addition
that is currently in for review.
(2) The applicant was made aware that the project, as submitted, would require a
variance due to the location of the addition in relation to the south and west
property lines.
(3) The applicant has applied for these two setback variances to allow the addition in
the location as proposed on their building permit application.
(4) The City's Annexation Map indicates the site was annexed into the City of
Edmonds on August 1, 1963.
(5) The Snohomish County Assessor's website indicates that the existing structure
was built in 1954, prior to annexation.
(6) Due to a history of landslides and unstable soils in the area of the annexation, the
city of Edmonds zoned the area RS-20. This zoning classification required lots
with a minimum size of 20,000 sq ft and limited development on the unstable
slopes In this area.
(7) The subject lot was legally created and developed while it was still in the county.
It is roughly 10,000 sq ft and the home was built closer to both the street lot line
and side lot line than the RS-20 zone would allow. The property and the existing
home are substantially nonconforming.
B. SITE DESCRIPTION
1. Site Development and Zoning:
a) Facts:
1%W Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No.: V-05-162
Page 3
(1) Size and Access: The subject property is approximately 9,840 square feet in area,
with approximately 92 feet of frontage on 751' Place West (Exhibit A, Attachment
5). The minimum lot size in the RS-20 zone is 20,000 square feet. This site is
less than half the minimum lot size for the zone.
(2) Land Use: The site has a home with attached carport (Exhibit A, Attachment 8).
(3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-20) as
shown on the map below.
(4) Terrain and Vegetation.: The subject site slopes down to the west (Exhibit A,
Attachments 4 and 5). The eastern 1/3 of the property is considered a steep slope
pursuant to the Critical Areas chapter of the Edmonds Community Development
Code (ECDC 23.80 -- Geologically Hazardous Areas). Mature trees are present
on the slope towards the eastern portion of the property.
2. Neighboring Development and Zoning:
b) Facts:
(1) The properties to the north, south, east, and west are zoned Single -Family
Residential (RS-20) and are developed with single-family residences.
(2) in 1991, a Lot Line Adjustment was completed (Exhibit A, Attachment 7) to
adjust the property line between this site and the property to the south. It states
that the sites are noted for steep topography, and due to long standing platting
errors, the house straddled the southern property line.
C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)
a) Fact: Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA
review (WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080).
b) Conclusion: The application complies with the requirements of the State
Environmental Policy Act. 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) A Critical Areas Checklist has been submitted (CA-2005-0189) and it was
determined that a study would be required as critical areas (steep slope) were
found on or adjacent to the site — more specifically, located on the eastern portion
of the property (Exhibit A, Attachment 4).
b) Conclusion: During building permit review, a geotechnical report may be
required from the Building Division, and once geotechnical conditions are met, then
tir Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No.: V-05-162
Page 4
proposal will have met the requirements of the Environmentally Critical Areas
Chapter.
2. Compliance with (RS-20) Zoning Standards
a) Facts:
(1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential
development in the Single -Family Residential zone (RS-20) are set forth in
Chapter 16.20.030. The table below illustrates the required setbacks for the RS-
20 zone, the existing setbacks to the house, and the proposed setbacks to construct
the new addition.
WEST
(Street)
NORTH
SOUTH
EAST
"75'h Place
(Side Se tbacks1)
(Rear)
West"
Required Setbacks
25 feet
35/10 feet
35/10
feet
25
feet
18.1 feet
— 3 feet
Existing Setbacks
pl45
anned Right-
(to
5 feet
feet
of -Way)
age)
Proposed Setbacks
15.5 feet
(5.5 from
47.6 feet
45
To New Addition
Planned Right-
g
(to new
addition)
6.5 feet
feet
of -Way)_
(2) The existing setbacks (street and both sides) do not meet the minimum code
requirements for the RS-20 zone.
(3) The south (side) setback to the new proposed addition would be greater than the
setback to the existing house.
(4) The west (street) setback to the proposed addition would be 2.9 feet closer to the
street than the existing house.
(5) ECDC 21.90.130 states the definition of Street Lot Line. It describes how street
setbacks must be measured from proposed Right -of -Way lines where the
proposed and existing right-of-way lines are not the same. In this case, the City's
Official Street Map is showing that an additional 10 feet of right-of-way may be
required or purchased from the Ray's across the frontage of their lot. This also
further exacerbates the nonconformity of the existing house and the proposed
addition (Exhibit A, Attachment 9).
1 "35/10" means 35 feet combined with a minimum of 10 feet on each side.
Itaw �4w Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No.: V-05-162
Page 5
(6) A lot line adjustment (Exhibit A, Attachment 7) was conducted in 1991 to correct
the fact that the existing house straddled the south (side) property line.
(7) The lot line adjustment staff report summarizes the variance criteria that staff felt
met in order to approve the modification request (Exhibit A, Attachment 7).
(8) The Snohomish County Assessor's records indicate that the existing house was
constructed in 1954 (1 story with basement).
b) Conclusions:
(1) The proposal requires variances to the street and side setback to be approved
before it complies with the requirements of the RS-20 zoning standards.
(2) The existing lot and house are substantially nonconforming. The lot is
nonconforming in area and the house is nonconforming in both street and side
setbacks.
3. Compliance with Requirements for a Variance
a) Facts:
(1) Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the
Code may be varied on a case -by -case basis if the application of the provision
would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship. The criteria are as follows:
(a) Spqcial Circumstances: That because of special circumstances relating to the
property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of 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) Spgcial 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.
(e) Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to
allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the
same zoning.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No.: V-05-162
Page 6
(2) The applicant has submitted declarations with their submittal, which address the
decisional criteria (Exhibit A, Attachment 3). The applicant has also submitted
photographs of the site and of the existing structure (Exhibit A, Attachment 8).
(3) The applicant is requesting two variances. The two setback variances are to allow
the proposed addition to be placed further away from the south side property line
than the existing building (which does not meet setbacks), and to be placed above
the existing structure (which does not meet setbacks) but for a small portion to be
located further west than the existing structure.
(4) The City's access database shows several approved variance requests in the
vicinity along 75`'Place West, and several in particular that were for adjacent
properties to the north and to the south of the subject site (Exhibit A, Attachment
9).
(5) City staff generally agreed with the declarations of the applicant in regards to
compliance with the variance criteria. The Examiner concurs with staff.
(6) The site is very small with less than half the required lot area for the zone. Not
only is it small, but it also is encumbered by a steep slope on the eastern 1/3 of the
property, which results in a constricted building envelope
(7) The steep slope is not going to be disturbed with this proposal, nor do any views
appear to be blocked. Further, the proposed variance would not be detrimental to
the public health safety and welfare in that it will protect a steep slope hazard area
in a greater fashion than asking for a variance to the Critical Areas provisions of
our case.
(8) Exhibit A, Attachment 5 shows where the Steep Slope Hazard Critical Area is
located on the property and the relationship between the slope and the
existing/proposed structure.
(9) Exhibit A, Attachment 5 reveals how little property is left for a potential building
after applying all the applicable setback regulations. It also shows the applicant's
requested reduction of the street and side setbacks from the proposed building
footprint.
(10) The proposed site plan and floor plans appear to be a moderately sized house for
this area.
b) Conclusions ReaardW2 Setback Variances:
(1) Special Circumstances: Special Circumstances exist on the site related to: the size
of the property, the slope located on the property and the location of the existing
home that was legally established on the property, that justify the approval of a
variance.
(2) SMial Privilege: There have been several approved setback variances in the
vicinity (Exhibit A, Attachment 9). Therefore, 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.
1Ow
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No.: V-05-162
Page 7
(3) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The approval of the setback
variance is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The variances would
have to be approved for the proposed addition to be in compliance with the zoning
ordinance.
(4) Not Detrimental: Because the steep slope is not going to be disturbed with this
proposal and no views appear to be blocked staff concludes that the proposed
variances will not be detrimental.
(5) Minimum Variance: Based on the facts identified above, staff concludes that the
project is the minimum necessary.
E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC)
1. Comprehensive Plan Designation
a) Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family -- Resource."
b) Conclusion; Single-family residential development and is consistent with the
existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site.
2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
a) Facts:
(1) The. Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section identifies goals and
policies which relate to this proposal. Specific goals and policies are discussed
below. Specifically, it states that Goal B is: "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 cittzens should be approached realistically
in balancing economic and aesthetic considerations, in accordance with the
following policies: "
B.I. 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.
B.2. Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings
that do not harmonize with existing structures in the area.
B.3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or
additions to existing structures.
B.4. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds
whenever it is economically feasible.
B.6 Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural
constraints of the slopes, soils, geology, vegetation, and drainage-
(2) The proposed new addition makes use of architectural lines in an attempt to
harmonize with the surrounding neighborhood (Exhibit A, Attachment 6).
(3) The proposal is to construct a new addition to a modest -sized older home.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No.: V-05-162
Page 8
(4) The proposal does not appear to block any views.
(5) The proposal is to retain and rehabilitate an existing older home.
(6) The proposed new addition is located on the site as far away from the natural
constraints of eth slopes as possible.
b) Conclusion:
(1) The proposed project complies with the identified goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
F. CORRESPONDENCE
The City received no public comment letters on this application.
G. TECHNICAL CONEVHTTEE
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. No comments were received.
b) Conclusion: As shown, the proposal appears to meet the requirements of the
above City departments.
DECISION•
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the requested street setback variance and the
requested side setback variance (as depicted in the site plan (Exhibit A, Attachment 5) are both
approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. 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_
2. The applicant must obtain a building permit for the proposed addition.
3. The applicant must comply with all the terms of any future permits.
4. The permit should be transferable.
Entered this 24`h day of March 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
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No.: V-05-162
Page 9
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 20.100.010.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
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 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.
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 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.
M
EXHIBIT:
The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record.
A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with 10 attachments
PARTIES oiF RECORD:
Kyle & Juliann Ray
15625 75'b Place West
Edmonds WA 98026
Planning Division
Al Rutledge
7101 Ballinger Way
Edmonds, WA 98026
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No.: V-05-162
Page 10
rnc.IS()O
Date:
whw
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.dedmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning • Building • Engineering
Letter of Transmittal
March 10, 2006
To: Kyle & Julian Ray
15625 75th Pl. W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Subject: V-05-162
Transmitting Hearing Examiner Agenda and Staff Report
For Your Information: X
As you requested:
For your file:
Comment:
Note attachments: X
Sincerely,
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
Diane Cunningham, Administrative Assistant
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
i�
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To: Ron McConnell, FAICP — Hearing Examiner
From: eyw'— VweAV.
Gina Coccia
Project Planner
Date: MARCH 9, 2006
File: V-05-162
KYLE & JULIANN RAY — SETBACK VARIANCE
Hearing Date, Time, and Place: MARCH 16T" 2006 — 3:00 P.M.
Council Chambers, Public Safety Building
250 — 5d' Avenue North
Edmonds Washington 98020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................2
A. APPLICATION.................................................................................................................................... 2
B. RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................. 2
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS...............................................................3
A. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ 3
B. SITE DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................ 3
C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT(SEPA)..................................................................................4
D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE .............................................. 4
E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC)....................................................................................................... 7
F. PUBLIC COMMENTS........................................................................................................................... 8
G. TECHNICAL COMMn-rEE.................................................................................................................... 8
III. RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS.....................................................................8
A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION...................................................................................................... 8
B. APPEALS............................................................................................................................................9
C. TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS.......................................................................... 9
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL...................................................................................................9
V. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR.....................................................................9
VI. ATTACHMENTS..............................................................................................................9
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD...................................................................................................9
Kyle & Juliann Ray
�41W File No. V-05-162
Page 2 of 9
I. INTRODUCTION
The applicant plans to build an addition to their home on a lot in North Edmonds. Because of the
nonconforming status of the Ray's house and property and the fact that the property is encumbered by a
Steep Slope Critical Area to the east, a variance is required for the addition the applicants are proposing. In
an attempt to minimize any impact they might have on the Steep Slope Hazard area on the east side of their
property the applicant has proposed to construct a second story addition that, for the most part, is on top of
their existing house. Because the footprint of their building will not increase towards that Steep Slope area
they will not need any Critical Areas permits. However, because their current lot is so small and the existing
house is nonconforming in relation to both the street and side setbacks, the proposed second story addition
will be an expansion of the nonconformity. This is not allowed unless a variance is approved. This results
in their request for both a Street and Side Setback Variance. The Street Setback Variance would allow their
proposed addition to be 15.5 feet from their current street property line on the west side of the property (5.5
from the planned right-of-way line were setbacks are required to be measured from) where 18 feet is
existing and 25 feet is required (only 8 feet is provided from the existing structure to the planned right-of-
way line). The Side Setback Variance would allow the proposed addition to be 6.6 feet from the south side
property line where 5 feet is existing and 10 feet is required. A lot line adjustment was filed in 1991 to
adjust the south property Iine to its existing location (Attachment 7).
The following is the Edmonds Planning Division's analysis and recommendation of the applicant's
submittal.
A. Application
1. Applicant: Kyle & Juliann Ray (Attachment 2).
2. Site Location: 15625 750i Place West
(Attachment 1).
3. Re uest: A variance to reduce the
required 25-foot (west) street setback to 15.5
feet (5.5 from the planned right-of-way line)
and a variance to reduce the required 10 foot
(south) side setback to 6.6 feet.
(Attachments 5 and 6).
4. Review Process: Variance: Hearing
Examiner conducts public hearing and makes
final decision.
5. Major Issues:
Subject
Site
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).
B. Recommendations
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend:
• APPROVAL of the street setback variance as depicted in the attached site plan and floor
plans; and
• APPROVAL of the side setback variance as depicted in the attached site plan and floor plans;
and
1. 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.
2. The applicant must obtain a building permit for the proposed addition.
StafiReport_V-05-162.doc / March 9, 2006
Kyle & Juliann Ray
File No. V-05-162
Page 3of9
3. The applicant must comply with all the terms of any future permits.
4. The permit should be transferable.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Introduction
1. History:
a) Facts:
(1) The applicant applied for a building permit to construct a second story addition that
is currently in for review.
(2) The applicant was made aware that the project, as submitted, would require a
variance due to the location of the addition in relation to the south and west property
lines.
(3) The applicant has applied for these two setback variances to allow the addition in the
location as proposed on their building permit application.
(4) The City's Annexation Map indicates the site was annexed into the City of Edmonds
on August 1, 1963.
(5) The Snohomish County Assessor's website indicates that the existing structure was
built in 1954, prior to annexation.
(6) Due to a history of landslides and unstable soils in the area of the annexation, the city
of Edmonds zoned the area RS-20. This zoning classification required lots with a
minimum size of 20,000 sq ft and limited development on the unstable slopes in this
area.
(7) The subject lot was legally created and developed while it was still in the county. It is
roughly 10,000 sq ft and the home was built closer to both the street lot line and side
lot line than the RS-20 zone would allow. The property and the existing home are
substantially nonconforming.
B. Site Description
1, Site Development and Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Size and Access: The subject property is approximately 9,840 square feet in area,
with approximately 92 feet of frontage on 75th Place West (Attachment 5). The
minimum lot size in the RS-20 zone is 20,000 square feet. This site is less than half
the minimum lot size for the zone.
(2) La1W Use: The site has a home with attached carport (Attachment 8).
(3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-20) as shown
on the map below.
(4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject site slopes down to the west (Attachments 4
and 5). The eastern 1/3 of the property is considered a steep slope pursuant to the
Critical Areas chapter of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC 23.80
— Geologically Hazardous Areas). Mature trees are present on the slope towards the
eastern portion of the property.
Stafftport_V-05-162.doc / March 9, 2006
M
Kyle & Juliann Ray
File No. V-05-162
Page 4 of 9
C.
2. Neighboring Development and Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) The properties to the
north, south, east, and
west are zoned Single -
Family Residential (RS-
20) and are developed
with single-family
residences.
(2) In 1991, a Lot Line
Adjustment was
completed (Attachment
7) to adjust the property
line between this site and
the property to the south.
1t states that the sites are
SITE 1,
�- rv,f
_ ,771 ;=a
R52Q
noted for steep topography, and due to long standing platting errors, the house
straddled the southern property line.
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
1. Fact: 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 Act. The following sections determine how the proposal meets the requirements of
City codes.
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) A Critical Areas Checklist has been submitted (CA-2005-0189) and it was
determined that a study would be required as critical areas (steep slope) were found
on or adjacent to the site — more specifically, located on the eastern portion of the
property (Attachment 4).
b) Conclusion: During building permit review, a geotechnical report may be required
from the Building Division, and once geotechnical conditions are met, then proposal will
have met the requirements of the Environmentally Critical Areas Chapter.
2. Compliance with (RS-20) Zoning Standards
a) Facts:
(1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development
in the Single -Family Residential zone (RS-20) are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030.
The table below illustrates the required setbacks for the RS 20 zone, the existing
setbacks to the house, and the proposed setbacks to construct the new addition.
5taflReport_V-05-162.doc 1 March 9, 2006
Kyle & Juliann Ray
File No. V-05-162
Page 5 of 9
WEST
NORTH
(Street)
SOUTH
EAST
"75'' Place West"
(Side Setbacks)
(Rear)
Required Setbacks
25 feet
35/10 feet
35110 feet
25 feet
18.1 feet
— 3 feet
Existing Setbacks
(8.1 from Planned
5 feet
45 feet
Right -of -Way)
(to garage)
Proposed Setbacks
15.5 feet
47.6 feet
(5.5 from Planned
(to new
6.5 feet
45 feet
To New Addition
Right -of -Way)
addition
(2) The existing setbacks (street and both sides) do not meet the minimum code
requirements for the RS-20 zone.
(3) The south (side) setback to the new proposed addition would be greater than the
setback to the existing house.
(4) The west (street) setback to the proposed addition would be 2.9 feet closer to the
street than the existing house.
(5) ECDC 21.90.130 states the definition of Street Lot Line. It describes how street
setbacks must be measured from proposed Right -of -Way lines where the proposed
and existing right-of-way lines are not the same. In this case, the City's Official Street
Map is showing that an additional 10 feet of right-of-way may be required or
purchased from the Ray's across the frontage of their lot. This also further
exacerbates the nonconformity of the existing house and the proposed addition
(Attachment 9).
(6) A lot line adjustment (Attachment 7) was conducted in 1991 to correct the fact that
the existing house straddled the south (side) property line.
(7) The lot line adjustment staff report summarizes the variance criteria that staff felt met
in order to approve the modification request (Attachment 7).
(8) The Snohomish County Assessor's records indicate that the existing house was
constructed in 1954 (1 story with basement).
b) Conclusions:
(1) The proposal requires variances to the street and side setback to be approved before
it complies with the requirements of the RS-20 zoning standards.
(2) The existing lot and house are substantially nonconforming. The lot is
nonconforming in area and the house is nonconforming in both street and side
setbacks.
1 "35/10" means 35 feet combined with a minimum of 10 feet on each side.
5taftReport_V-05-162.doc / March 9, 2006
Kyle & Juliann Ray
File No. V-05-162
Page 6 of 9
3. Compliance with Requirements for a Variance
a) Facts:
(1) Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the
Code may be varied on a case -by -case basis if the application of the provision would
result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship. The criteria are as follows:
(a) Special Circumstances: That because of special circumstances relating to
the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of
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 arty 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 arty 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 Zonin 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.
(e) Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the minimum necessary
to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the
same zoning.
(2) The applicant has submitted declarations with their submittal which address the
decisional criteria (Attachment 3). The applicant has also submitted photographs of
the site and of the existing structure (Attachment 8).
(3) The applicant is requesting two variances. The two setback variances are to allow
the proposed addition to be placed further away from the south side property line
than the existing building (which does not meet setbacks), and to be placed above the
existing structure (which does not meet setbacks) but for a small portion to be located
further west than the existing structure.
(4) The City's access database shows several approved variance requests in the vicinity
along 75`h Place West, and several in particular that were for adjacent properties to
the north and to the south of the subject site (Attachment 9).
(5) City staff generally agrees with the declarations of the applicant in regards to
compliance with the variance criteria.
(6) The site is very small with less than half the required lot area for the zone. Not only
is it small, but it also is encumbered by a steep slope on the eastern 1 /3 of the
property, which results in a constricted building envelope
(7) The steep slope is not going to be disturbed with this proposal, nor do any views
appear to be blocked. Further, the proposed variance would not be detrimental to the
public health safety and welfare in that it will protect a steep slope hazard area in a
greater fashion than asking for a variance to the Critical Areas provisions of our
code.
StaffReport_V-05-162.doc / March 9, 2006
Kyle & Juliann Ray
File No. V-05-162
Page 7 of 9
(8) Attachment 5 shows where the Steep Slope Hazard Critical Area is located on the
property and the relationship between the slope and the existing/proposed structure.
(9) Attachment 5 reveals how little property is left: for a potential building after applying
all the applicable setback regulations. It also shows the applicant's requested
reduction of the street and side setbacks from their proposed building footprint.
(10)The proposed site plan and floor plans appear to be a moderately sized house for this
area.
b) Conclusions Regarding Setback Variances:
(1) Special Circumstances: Special Circumstances exist on the site related to: the size of
the property, the slope located on the property and the location of the existing home
that was legally established on the property, that justify the approval of a variance.
(2) Special Privilege: There have been several approved setback variances in the
vicinity (Attachment 9). Therefore, 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.
(3) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The approval of the setback variance is
not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The variances would have to be
approved for the proposed addition to be in compliance with the zoning ordinance.
(4) Not Detrimental: Because the steep slope is not going to be disturbed with this
proposal and no views appear to be blocked staff concludes that the proposed
variances will not be detrimental.
(5) Minimum Variance: Based on the facts identified above, staff concludes that the
project is the minimum necessary.
E. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC)
1. Comprehensive Plan Designation
a) Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family— Resource."
b) Conclusion: Single-family residential development and is consistent with the existing
Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site.
2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
a) Facts:
(1) The Comprehensive Plan,
Residential Development
section identifies goals and
policies which relate to
this proposal. Specific
goals and policies are
discussed below.
Specifically, it states that
Goal B is: "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
SITE
5taftReport_V-05-162.doc / March 9, 2006
Kyle & Juliann Ray
File No. V-05-162
Page 8 of 9
should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic
considerations, in accordance with the following policies: "
A 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.
B.2. Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that
do not harmonize with existing structures in the area.
B.3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or
additions to existing structures.
B.4. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds
whenever it is economically feasible.
B.6 Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural
constraints of the slopes, soils, geology, vegetation, and drainage.
(2) The proposed new addition makes use of architectural lines in an attempt to
harmonize with the surrounding neighborhood (Attachment 6).
(3) The proposal is to construct a new addition to a modest -sized older home.
(4) The proposal does not appear to block any views.
(5) The proposal is to retain and rehabilitate an existing older home.
(6) The proposed new addition is located on the site as far away from the natural
constraints of eth slopes as possible.
b) Conclusion:
(1) The proposed project complies with the identified goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
F. Public Comments
1. Letters Received
As of the date of this report, the City has not received any comment letters.
G. Technical Committee
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. No comments were received.
b) Conclusion: As shown, the proposal appears to meet the requirements of the above
City departments.
III. RECONSIDERATION'S 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
Stafteport_V-05-162.doc ! March 9, 2006
Kyle & Juliann Ray
File No. V-05-162
Page 9 of 9
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 applicant and the date of the decision,
the name and address 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 fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the
decision being appealed.
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals
The time limits for Reconsideration's 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 continued for the point it was stopped. For example, if a 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 "The approved variance must be acted on by the owner 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."
V. NOTICE TO THE 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.
VI. ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2, Land Use Application
3. Decision Criteria — Letter from the applicant
4. Critical AreaAIDAR Map
5. Site Plan/Topographical Survey
6. Elevation Plans
7. Lot Line Adjustment Staff Report, file number S-3-1991
8. Photos of the existing house
9. Access Database Excerpt
10. Excerpt from the Official Street Map
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD
Kyle & Juliann Ray Fire Department Planning Division
15625 75s' Place West Public Works Department Engineering Division
Edmonds WA 98026 Parks & Recreation Department
StaftReport_V-05-162,doc / MarO 9, 2006
soppi
Vicinity
Map
N
Ray Variance
15625 75th Place West
f EDH
500 250
of'et
File V-05-162
o)
Attachment 1
i
city of edmonds RECEIVED
land use application NOV -8 2005
PERMIT COUNTER
Q ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REviFw FOR OFFICIAL USE ON LY
❑ COMPREHENSIVEPLANAMENDMENT Jri
❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT t I FILE # V�5- foL �j� ZONE �-, c�
❑ HOME OCCUPATION Ijd5a5 DATE OeS REC'D BYLt-L%C
❑ FOR-MALSU13DIVISION 1150
D S14ORTSU13DIVISION t 5 FEE S RECEIPT#
Q LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OfcrHEAWNG DATE
Q PLANNeD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT AbE Q STAFF Q PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC
Q STREET VACATION
Q REZONE
Q SHORELINE PERMIT
0 VARIANCE J REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION
❑ OTHER:
PROPERTY ADDRESSOR LOCATION 1 75(oZS %S `
PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) II
PROPERTY OWNER Y-I�I.P- AL_ J1 A LLLI O y) y� PHONE #ZG�r�YO,] O
ADDRESS IS�AZ5 -7�` 0. W I t 1YU/YI! � � oyZ�a_,._4
E-MAIL ADDRESS 6I)IYIOAI a h M FAX #
TAx ACCOUNT # my '-3100 a04 0"I � o7rim SEC.. �I- , Turn. _�7WRNG. --
DESCRJPTIONOFPROnCTORPROPOSED �USE S120DE S� (114+ UfStI1,,
5f rLInAff°.
APPLICANT 6414 and JLfU ilr',j1 yl !u PHONE#t/W- /'-12� '1IVS
ADDRESS _ 1 SDZi-_ -%f p }-_p 1 •/ W/� _# fYtD+V uA GI �2C0
E-MAILADDRESS eL1ij7/ IAilI151GUi/�QhG� rpm FAXr#
CONTACT PERSONIACENT (5airyl P 11 PHONE # l
ADDRESS
E-MAIL ADDRESS FAX #
The undersigned applicant, and hi"crfits 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/herlils agents or employees,
By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are live and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that 1 am authorized to file this apphcatio behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANTIAGENT
Property Owner's Authorization
By my signature, I certify that f have authorized the above ApplicanVAgent 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 of inspection and 7 attendant to this application.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER - _ DATE n,�
r
This application form was revis ! o verify whether it is still current, call (425) 771-0220.
L iVBRAR"LANNINMPa & K.Md Ullk&x H*,,dIN11f%wJ UKAWkadm ix
Attachment 2
M
RECEIVE s
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE NOV — 8 2005
Residential property: Kyle and Juliann Ray (owners) pERMiT COUNTER
75�Place West
Edmonds, WA 98026
We are applying for setback variances for the South and West sides of our property.
South and West setback variance application:
Responses to the six special criteria statements.
1. Special Circumstances
A. West Side Setback - Our lot is an approximately 9,840 square foot lot and is almost '/z the lot
size typically required for a RS-20 zoned lot. When applying typical RS-20 setback requirements to a
9,840 square foot lot our buildable area is substantially impacted. In addition, one-third of that 9,940
square feet is an unbuildable steep slope on the eastern side of the lot which pushes the developable space
toward the west side of the lot, further reducing our buildable space down to approximately 6,560 square
feet. Our existing house is built on the forward portion of the lot because of the steep slope. The closest
portion of the existing structure to the street is l8. t feet from the west side (street side) of the lot and we are
remodeling within the existing structures foot print. We would like to add a bay window on our existing
kitchen that would extend 2 '/2 feet onto the current deck. Above the existing deck/kitchen we would like to
add a small deck on the upper floor addition that would extend approximately six feet. Hence, this deck
addition/bay window would not alter our 18.1 current Westside setback because that portion of the existing
structure is further from the street. With the upper floor deck addition we are asking for a 22.1 foot West
side setback, this is located on the part of the existing structure that is approximately 10 feet finther from
the street side. Since our buildable space is approximately 6,500 square feet our lot is closer to the size of a
RS-6 zoned lot, which requires a 20 foot setback putting us in that range.
Furthermore, the public right of way line is currently 40 feet wide. However, the city states they
may, at some point in the future, increase the ROW to 60 feet. This requires that we measure our West Side
Setback by the edge of the future ROW line and not the current ROW line. The future ROW line
encroaches ten more feet in front further reducing our buildable space an additional ten feet.
B. South Side Setback - We are asking for a variance on a five foot side yard setback. Our
existing structure was built in 1956 with an addition added sometime in the early 70's. Due to previous
platting errors resulting in lot line adjustments as well as a previous variance granted to the property
immediately south, our existing structure is five feet from the property line. The proposed second story
addition would be directly on top of the existing structure's footprint. As mentioned above, this setback
would be in accordance with a lot zoned RS-6 which our lot more closely resembles.
2. Special Privilege
Granting the above variance will not call for special privilege. Approximately 75% of the lots on
our street do not meet the 20,000 square foot zoning requirement and several, including our immediate
neighbors to the north and south, have been granted different variances for new construction or additions.
3. Comprehensive Plan
We have a complete, professionally designed and engineered plan for our proposed remodel. This
proposed plan will add considerable value to our property as well as benefit the city of Edmonds.
4. Zoning Ordinance
The city zoning ordinance calls for residential development in our district. Our proposed remodel
will greatly improve our existing residential structure. Due to the fact that our lot was originally developed
way before the current zoning regulations, and before it was annexed into the city of Edmonds, we are
asking for a variance for the setbacks in order to comply with the new zoning for the area.
Attachment 3
5. Not Detrimental
Considering that we will be remodeling within the current footprint of the existing structure, save
for the sic foot upper deck and kitchen bay window, we see the remodel as only benefiting our
neighborhood and will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the public or property within
the vicinity and same zone. Furthermore, no views would be blocked and the addition will not reduce the
privacy of our neighbors.
6. Minimum Variance
Due to our lot size, location and buildable space we believe we are not asking for extenuating
circumstances in granting the setback variance. By reviewing the proposed footprint for our planned
addition we are asking to add a small upper level deck and kitchen bay window that will not extend the
lower current deck which was built when there were no lot size and setback requirements. Because of this,
our property, as well as many other properties in our neighborhood are not 20,000 square feet. Many
variances have been granted to our neighbors, including our neighbors to the immediate north and south, to
accommodate the smaller lot size. These granted variances have greatly improved the property values of
many homes in our Edmonds neighborhood.
In summary, we are requesting the following setback variances:
1. A variance for a 22.1 foot setback on the street side of our property for a deck addition on the
second story remodel.
2. A variance for a five foot side yard setback on the south side of our property for a second story
addition within the existing structure's footprint.
Please find included with this written submittal:
A. Photos of all sides of the existing structure in relation to the property lines.
B. The revised plans for our proposed addition
2®
t
8
y� w
•
R
�c
� c
C4
u yM
0 o
c
C� c
no Q
4- S
0
N
W 2
�
f
i�
(91itlY.� atl SE1p) 9.Ct,wzpy
—_ _
—lip" —�'�
A4 'a,?n/d NOSL
l
n
v
ea
r.+
r.+
in CC Q
LU LLI
v :E
o0
Al
,%Wl
E
2O
gi
CITY OF EDMONDS �
PLANNING DIVISION
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
File # S-3-91 Address: 15631 75th P1. W.
APPLICANT: David & Joanne Spiro
ANALYSIS OF DESIGN
1. Lot sizes and Dimensions:
a. Areas and setbacks:Lot areas on both lots are smaller than permitted for
the RS-20 zone. A modification of the lot area as permitted by Section
20.75.075 is discussed below. The existing lot sizes are not being
reduced by the proposed lot line adjustment. lot area for Parcel A is
15,080 sq. ft., and lot area for Parcel B is 9821. sq. ft. Setbacks need
to be shown on the final recording papers.
b. Lot width: Adequate for RS-20 zone.
c. Corner Lots: None.
2. Lot arrangement to topography: Satisfactory
3. Flag lot determination: None
4. Consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ord.? Yes, with approval of the
setback variance.
CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
I. Conforms to the policies of the Comp. Plan? Yes
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1. Environmentally Sensitive Area? Yes. 2. Shoreline Permit? N/A
3. Env. Cklist Req'd? Yes. 4. Negative Declaration? Yes.
5. EIS Req'd? No 6. Env. Assessment Form? Yes.
REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS AND DEDICATIONS
1. See City Engineer's Report.
2. Parks or other facilities? None.
3. Special requirements or conditions: See conditions below.
Witness Testimony
Bruce Oneil, Joanne and David Spiro, Dick Haden, L. Brian Shepherd, and Norman
Nelson attended the hearings on this application. Questions were raised about the
street improvements and dedications required by the Engineering Department, and
about the lot areas of the lots in question.
DECISION:
Approve proposed 2-lot lot line adjustment subject to the Engineering Department
requirements and the conditions listed below.
8 DATE: 4/17/91
Attachment 7
�r
..fir Page 2
NOTICE OF APPEAL
WRITTEN APPEALS ALLEGING SPECIFIC ERROR OF FACT OR OTHER GROUNDS FOR APPEAL MAY BE
FILED WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITHIN TEN WORKING DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS
DECISION. IN THIS MATTER, ANY APPEAL MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO
5:00 P.M.Q.
EXHIBIT 1
MODIFICATION OF LOT AREA
Section 20.75.075 sets forth provisions for Modifications to the requirements for
subdivisions. The modification may be approved only if.all of the required findings
set forth in Chapter 20.85 (Variances) can be made.
I. REQUESTED ACTION:
The proposal is adjust the lot lines between two lots and provide less than
the required 20,000 sq. ft. of lot area. The proposed lot area for Parcel A
is 15,080 sq. ft., and the proposed lot area for Parcel B is 9821 sq. ft.
II. LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Extensive legal, see file.
III. APPLICANT:
David and Joanne Spiro
7711 171st St. S.W..
Edmonds, WA 98020
IV. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. Description of the Subject Property and Surrounding Area
The subject properties are located in the North Meadowdale area of north
Edmonds, and are on the east side of 75th P1. a half block east of the
shoreline of Puget Sound. The sites are noted for steep topography and
potentially unstable soils. Due to long standing platting errors, the house
on the north lot straddled onto the south property. In addition, the lot area
of the south lot when it was short platted in 1972, (file S-25-72) was shown
as 20,087 sq. ft., with 200.87 ft. of depth, where the present survey shows it
to be 15,080 sq. ft. with 150.82 ft. of depth.
The site is zoned RS 20.
Surrounding development is primarily single family residential.
B. Official Street Map
Proposed R/W Existing R/W
West - 75th Pl. W. 50' 40'
C. Conformance to Chapter 20.85.010
1. Special Circumstances
� %W Page 3
The long standing platting errors that have occurred in this area, and the
location of the existing residence on the site provides special circumstances
that make approval of the proposed lot area variance justified.
2. Special Privilege
Other lots in the area are under sized, and have encroachments due to the past
platting errors. The proposed lot sizes will therefore not change a developed
platting pattern in the area. The proposed building pad and setbacks will
provide a building site similar in size to that of many other properties in
the area. Since the sites in question have a steep embankment at the rear of
the site that restricts development in that area, the lot size will not be
readily distinguishable as undersized from other surrounding properties. It
is concluded that the proposal will not be a grant of special privilege or
detrimental to other properties in the area.
3. Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Policy Plan map designates the subject property as Low
Density Residential.
As proposed, the variance does not conflict with the purposes of the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Zoning Ordinance
The subject property is zoned RS-20
The proposed variance does not conflict with the purposes of the zoning
ordinance and the RS-20 zone district.
5. Not Detrimental
The proposed variance does not pose any significant impact to the public or to
any near by private property or improvement.
6. Minimum Variance
Based on the circumstances, the proposed lot sizes do represent a minimum
variance request.
V. STAFF DECISION:
It is concluded that the variance criteria is satisfied, and the proposed lot
areas are approved.
PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FILE NO. S-3-91
CONDITIONS
1. All Engineering Division conditions listed on Exhibit 2 shall be followed.
2. The existing and proposed lot areas need to be provided, and the proposed
lot areas and approved setbacks need to be shown on the plat map.
%W7
Page 4
3. The final recording papers shall be prepared, signed and notarized by the
applicant, approved for recording by the Engineering Department and the
City Planner, and recorded with the Snohomish County Recorder.
+ Qif'l.0
� 1�DYE
t
2D
y
O
�h
i!/."°Df'49'"le
C -w. 82
�r
fdSTUNf Df LDT 2.5
�Ylf�tOd�l/Ll.�lEt�E.4GfJ
�UP�'E/l?fiYTdL f�L4l
3,8D.7B
v i
Zd"
1 `\
OTE
rn vr� ay a,�P,4W.IW.rWc.
14Zzup419 "4.3"/1/
� �t7rfX/SllrJNli!%/!
JB.P.4Sf .i3'.sE.�/E•P
AUTH0ffl2ttrE
FOR REOGMMOv.
CITY OF EDMONDS
lwo-.Aarl /.?s_ 9/s
s� Le-&llbr lNr&aPr
a -a 9/-A x
d7'
ELL 0
r �4
IN
. 1
0
%W'
ACCESS DATABASE SEARCH
The following table summarizes Variances on 751h Place West in the Vicinity of the Subject Site.
Highlighted rows represent properties adjacent to the subject site at 15625 75th Place West.
15931 75th Place West is located directly SOUTH of the subject property and
15615 75th Place West is located directly NORTH of the subject property.
Building
Street:
Suffix:
Dir:
Year:
A# P
Type:
Applicant's Name:
Decision:
Description:
16024
75th
PL
W
1966
239
V
Imamura, Eugene
Approved
Side Yard Setback
15931
75th
PL
W
1967
28
V
Glazer, H B
Approved
Side, Rear Yard Setback
15931
75th
PL
W
19681
30
V
Alm kerk 1 Glazer
Approved
Min. Lot Coverage
15706
75th
PL
W
19771
13
V
Quinlan, Patrick
Approved
Variance
15825
75th
PL
W
1977
64
V
Sullivan, George &
Cecilia
Variance
15730
75th
PL
W
1980
38
V
Jenkins, Malcolm
Approved
Required Front & Side Yard
Setbacks
15615
75th
PL
W
1981
21
V
Lewicki, Peter
Approved
Required Allowable
Improvements
15714
75th
PL
W
1985
30
V
Riggle, Jean
Approved
Reduce Side Setback
15714
75th
PL
W
1986
17
V
Riggle, Jean
Approved
Reduce Street Setback
15730
75th
PL
W
1986
31
V
Hofto Homes, Inc.
Approved
Reduce Side Setbacks
15730
75th
PL
W
1987
32
V
Hofto Homes, Inc.
Approved
Height & Setbacks
16340
75th
PL
W
19891
28
V
JGogert & Sons, Inc.
Approved
Setbacks
15706
75th
PL
W
1989
38
V
Jewell, Harrison &
Gail
Approved
Reduce Street Setback
15929
75th
PL
W
1990
14
V
Bonipart, Frank
Approved
Reduce 2 Street Setback
15631
75th
PL
W
1990
29
V
Spiro, David &
Joanne
Approved
Height
15631
I
75th
PL
W
1991
5
I
V
Spiro, David &
Joanne
Approved
Reduce setbacks
15730
75th
PL
W
1991
15
V lHellseth
Approved
Height & setback
15620
75th
PL
W
19931
11
V ISchluter,
Ursula
Approved
Height
15927
75th
PL
W
19931
85
V JGlazer,
Howard B
Approved
0' Setback variance
15910
75th
PL
W
1994
91
V lJohnson,
Ronald
Approved
Reduce side setback
15631
75th
PL
W
1995
43
V JSpiro,
David
W/Draw
Reasonable use exception
15824
75th
PL
W
1975
18
V
Crawford, Patrick
Approved
8' Side Setback
16131
75th
PL 1W
1996
13
V
Young, Sandra
Approved
Remodel
15722
75th
PL
W
1997
27
V
Pisco, Walt
Approved
Reduce side setbacks
15615
75th
PL
W
1999
119
V
Hansen, Scott &
Tiffany
Approved
Variances
15722
75th
PL
W
2000
42
V
011estad, Burt
Approved
Reduce side yard setback
15625
75th
PL
W
2005
162
V
Ray, Kyle and
Juliann
Pending
2nd story addition
Attachment 9
-Tr
to
lirb
so 4
dQ
1Ol 4Q 10
4W.
c iA
A -0
�ow
op S 1 Te
1 t
(D
i
?
1
;r
c .2957 27
MEADOW DALE
>
8E_
-�-�
► 158
T H ST S.W.
sL
� "4
NOT OPEN
t t
31
�
C�
t
32
tip,.
S D P
29 30
33
ce
'
t
34
r.
r e
to
D
-'
At Wilt
4
5
March 16, 20OG
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY BELOW YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND ZIP CODE IF
YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM OR TO BE NOTIFIED OF FUTURE
HEARINGS ON THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU.
FILE NO.: V-05-162 RAY
fir�l,EVA
O
L
E
L
N
rA
2r
d
Ic
a
20
►L
a
c
a
j�
V
O
a
z
z
V
u
i
i
a
s
0
0
0
0
0
In
V
N
�
M
3
w
d
0
0
0
c
0.2 M
c$
p•'"v
CO h O
3+
� oy
�
9C
,c Q
w
M
ao
F
a
0
10
H
vNe
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 property.
C --
Si natur of Applicant or Ap icant's presentative
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of Uovcm
1
in and&f the State of Washington
Residing at'�'
s . eoA
N
y`r oTARY F`n
PUB'-'G Z
�j. 1-10-2007
C9
OFWAS`r`�
APO.doc\L-kTecnpl#bxms
Jam and Smudge Free Printing
Use Ai eryO TEMPLATE 51600
00500900DOlYM 8/120D5
MEZICH RICK W & MARY L or RESIDENT
7215 156TH ST SW
EDMONDS, WA 98020
00500900000102 er1no05
DEGAN THOMAS J & MARIL or RESIDENT
15520 75TH PL W
EDMONDS, WA 98026
DD51310D002402
RAY KYLE or RESIDENT
15625 75TH PL W
EDMONDS, WA 98026
www.averycom AVER® 51601D
1-800-GO-AVERY ►�
OD5133ODDD2503 811/2005 00513300002700 &V2005
SPIRO JOANNE or RESIDENT NELSON NORMAN E & DORI or RESIDENT
16631 75TH PL W 15729 75TH PLACE WEST
EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020
00SOD900000103 811/2005
MILLER KENNETH E or RESIDENT
19911 89TH PL W
EDMONDS, WA 98026
811/2005 D0513100002404 &1/2005
HAMMOND CHRIS A & KARY or RESIDENT
15605 75TH PL W
EDMONDS, WA 98026
00513100002407 8/1f2W5
SUMMERS CRAIG MD or RESIDENT
7222 156TH ST SW
EDMONDS, WA 98026
00513102BW501 8/1/2005
JEWELL HARRISON or RESIDENT
15706 75TH PL W
EDMONDS, WA 98026
005133OM2501 3/1 r2005
RUSNAK MICHAEL & BETTY or RESIDENT
15620 72ND AVE W
EDMONDS, WA 98026
00513100DO2409 8/1/2005
CHEUNG CALVIN TRUSTEE or RESIDENT
735 N 185TH ST
SHORELINE, WA 98133
00513100002408 &1/20D5
DYSON MARVIN or RESIDENT
15610 72ND AVE W
EDMONDS, WA 98026
005131028OD502 811/2005
DRESSLER LAURIE JIQUAS or RESIDENT
15714 75TH PL W
EDMONDS, WA 98026
0Q513300002502 8/l/2005
CARYL FAMILY LIVING TR or RESIDENT
15701 75TH PL W
EDMONDS, WA 98026
0051310OW2410 &112005
CHEUNG CALVIN TRUSTEE or RESIDENT
735 N 185TH ST
SHORELINE, WA 98133
0D513100002401 &1/2005
HANSEN SCOTT & TIFFANY or RESIDENT
15615 75TH PL W
EDMONDS, WA 98026
00513100002406 8/1/2005
RUSNAK MICHAEL & BETTY or RESIDENT
15620 72ND AVE W
EDMONDS, WA 98026
00613102500100 8!1/2005
SCHLUTER URSULA or RESIDENT
15620 75TH PL W
EDMONDS, WA 98026
00513102800600 8/1/2005
WAJDA JEFFERY & DEBORA or RESIDENT
15722 75TH PL W
EDMONDS, WA 98026
00500900000101 8/ 112005
HILLIARD RONNIE G & SU or RESIDENT
20831 23RD AVE W
LYNNWOOD, WA 98036
00513102800300 811 r2005
MARCU CORNELL & VIRGIN or RESIDENT
19511 23RD AVE NW
SHORELINE, WA 98177
AH3AV-O"WL 009LS -tuege6 al zeslim
009LS 0"3AV >luortiane•nnnnnn apidej a6ey>9s g ta a6eLnogi�ue uoissaldtui
�W'
FILE NO.: V-05-162
APPLICANT: Ray
NOTICE OF APPLICATION & HEARING
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH)
I, Gina Coccia, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say:
That on the 7th day of February 2006, 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.
I
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1-�L-- day of
'114' `' ` ` - Notary Public in and for the State of ashington.
i-Mb
-_'"IS&O , FXP!?E3 Residing at ...
FILE NO.: V-05-162
APPLICANT: Ray
NOTICE OF APPLICATION & HEARING
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH)
1, Diane M. Cunningham, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say:
That on the 7th day of February 2006, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was
mailed as required to adjacent property owners, the names of which were provided
by the applicant.
Sign
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ---IV day of
# '�; r,vi vh:S;GN LX iRE
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington.
Residing at
"1111111im-
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
COUNTY OF SNOHONUSH
NOTICE DEVELOPMENTAPPLICATION IW
Name of Appfican-t:Nyfe ufiann Hay
P ct Number: V-05-162
P7t Llumber: 15626 75th Place bleat, Edmonds
P peacrtpflon: Variance ap ncatton for a reduction Br:
the minimum'elde and street setback requkements fof;
the conatlUction of a prpppa aecond ataxy addlbon ark
Is zoned Slnple Fert+Ry Reelden6a! tR9-281.
City Contact: Glna Coccia
Comments Due Byy: March 16, 2000
NEAAING INFpRMATIQN
Daife: Match 16. 2006
tone: 3:00 p.m. '.
Location: Connell Chambers. PubSie Safety Complex,
250 5th Ave. N. Edmonds
Published: February 7, 2006.
Account Name: City of Edmonds
RECEIVED
M 13 2006
EDMONDS WY CLERK
Affidavit of Publication
S.S.
The undersigned, being first duly sworn 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 Hearing
Kyle & Juliann Ray
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:
February 07, 2006
and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period.
/! (/
Frinctpal Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
7th
day of February, 2006
OgBE J
•�I
17 •' - S401y' +
Notary ubl' in and for the State of Washin
n idili �vw�ett. $n
County.
: U m i
PUBW
•_�
itfl 9•••'•s 19-06 .
� cam„_••.......
AccounlNumber. 101416
er 72356
«************** -Comm. %two,4AL- ********** ** **** DATE FEB-01-20TIME 15:36 *** P.01
MODE = MEMORY TRANSMISSION START-FEB-01 15:35 END=FEB-01 15:36
FILE NO.= 023
5TN NO. COM ABBR NO. STATION NAME/TEL.NO. PAGES DURATION
001 OK a 94252525613 002/002 00:00'34"
121 rAve, N. Ph.425.771.0220
Edmonds. WA 9W20 FX 425.771=1
i'oC. 1 agv
To: Jody Knoblich, The Herald From: Planning
Fax: 425 252-5613 Pages: 2
Phone: Date: 02/01/06
Re: Legal Notices CC:
❑ urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment❑ Please Reply13 Please Recycle
a Comments: Please publish the attached legal notice for V-05-162 on February 7,
2006 (Tuesday). Thanks.
THIS IS A LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT & SHOULD BE BILLED TO PLANNING DEPART.
NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION &
NOTICE OF HEARING EXAMINER HEARING
Name of Applicant: Kyle & Juliann Ray
Project Number: V-05-162
Project Location: 15625 75th Place West, Edmonds
Project Description: Variance application for a reduction in the minimum
side and street setback requirements for the
construction of a proposed second -story addition
and is zoned Single Family Residential (RS-20).
City Contact: Gina Coccia
Comments Due By: March 16, 2006
HEARING INFORMATION
Date: March 16, 2006
Time: 3:00 p.m.
Location: Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex,
250 5th Ave. N. Edmonds
Please publish on February 7, 2006
** **** * * -COMM. PL- ******* *** **** DATE FEE-01-20OF�** TIME 15-.55 *** P.01
0
MODE - MEMORY TRANSMISSION START=FEB-01 15:54 END=FEB-01 15:55
FILE NO.= 025
STN NO. COM ABBR NO. STATION NAME/TEL.NO. PAGES DURATION
001 OK CO3> QUICK SIGN 002402 00.00'54"
121 5" Ave. N. Ph. 425171.0220
Edmunds, WA 98020 Fx 425.771.0221
s
`,7c. I %9�
To: WkSigns t Seattle Commercial Signs From: Edmonds Planning Di+irsion
fad+ 206.223.4908 pages: 2
Ptwne:206.223.4907 oat« 2l112006
1tr. Posting for Fk 0 V 2005-182 CC:
Reference /: _ V-2005-1B2
Number of Signs:
Posting Data: Malloy February 6 . 2006 _-
4bestlon of signs: �_ %25 75" PI�WesUEdmonds-lSee attached Mao) _
Date of Removal: _ _ - Ttwrsda�, Rpn113n2SZOfi.
Called Per Utility bastes? (1.800.42"355): ® 6028484
Staff contact and phone number. Gina Coccia. (4251771-MO, ESL 1778
Commoets: Ease place sign at _15625 75* Pk= West. wherever boks Nkeiv Prefer to
9 chid map). The titity Locate will beg2nd2cied y midnig" HdaY. Febnory 3rd. dank you!
121 5°i Ave. N. Ph. 425.771.0220
Edmonds, WA 98020 Fx. 425.771.0221
r4C. 1 $9„
To: QuikSigns 1 Seattle Commercial Signs From: Edmonds Planning Division
Fax: 206.223.4908 Pages: 2
Phone: 206,223.4907 Date: 2/1/2006
Re: Posting for File # V 2005-162 CC:
Reference #: V-2005-162
Number of Signs: 1
Posting Date: Monday. February e. 2006
Location of signs: 15625 75" Place West, Edmonds (See attached)
Date of Removal: Thursday, April 13th, 2006.
Called for Utility locates? (1.80042-5555): 0 6028484
Stan contact and phone number: Gina Coccia., (425) 771-0220, Qq. 1778
Comments: Please place sign at 16625 75th Place West, wherever looks likely (reefer to
attached map). The Utility Locate will be conducted by midnight on Friday. February3rd. Thank You!
' ' I
s
P
16518
ea /�
1552E
15515
7215
1S00s
7111
7107 17101 7031
7008
,.,...
159THSI SwV
posj-
7222`
15Ga2
7124
�. _..
7100
YF
. 15801
Bill 8�
8817
15815
7a2s
'°
h�re
15004
�
71W
711E
15021
BB18
6s15
�..
Sso2
1561E
Z
-
z
�
7020
7019
IS031
6s12
sell
1682E
7112
7117
_
15831
1S715
ism
157a3
15705
�1
15700
1S520
S
Y
1570s
15701
15719
IS712
Q
~
15709
15707
BBOi
e60e „
1S714
ism
15721
157M
1$724
�
-
1573E
46725
15729
w
�
1572E
15730
Ism
1,
Isola
40D
._ ..
7324
Isola
1500E
ism
1
. -
150"
75814
. ..
15812 IS921
IS911
15914
Isola 15010
. '.
46824
46815
15915
15621
1S027
1r 26 15628
-
Ism
15M 1s80`
15804
- -
75910 A Isom
15917
15010
15M
1-11 1-1 IS
—
ism
1 2
15915
6907 ism 1590E
16012
Is917
.
7309
15920
7420
15em
8921
0908
Geis
,
1800E
4y
IS931
8
16,23 16121
+
,p
lam 10012 ® ,@
Isom 1001E
0910
082E
M032
7220
6970
'
ti
,8m 10024
�'i(�.
1s119 18115
691E
8B1s
16094
§
.
16091
lolls
/8020
696E
.
Isola
6920
lamism
..,....;.-,*
off
^OFMtJ,
Islas
181M
Islas
;✓
tOIOG mob,
tl
ISM 8503
•.•�•
'
5
�18
., 11014E
�� V8�
1612E
0
6912
Gees
18115 ,� ,�q
6
1s11i
6804
E 14721
16172
1g1�
7813!
1�41
lolls
lam
18
10209
10109
50214
8 6
18216
��
7s?20
1823E
+C
0 4022E
q
10221
Mal
fills
t923s
/`
lam
�Opp
1p11 7212
!ay
ism
10915
ig46
^
"
3 '
\�1em
16319
loafs 1032E
-
ism � `
1o3f9
7314
M919
3
8awl1
674E
r.
a
716E
j. 10029 19922
10321
18404
p
8
M414
19411 7404
7317
O
a
O
7114
732D
7110 7D40 7030
7014
-
16420 16429
P1. S1H
10449
� ?
low@
16431
7408
7914
a
R'
7010
gull
f0423
lags
702E
Isola
seal meadowdA
1051E
18510 1650E
Communr
fgr.1oz
January 24, 2006
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 STH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA SW20 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.ci,edmondsma.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning • Building - Engineering
Kyle & Juliann Ray
15625 75'„ Place West
Edmonds WA 98026
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
SUBJECT: COMPLETE APPLICATION AND ASSIGNMENT OF HEARING DATE.
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Ray:
Your application for a street and side setback variance for the construction of a second -story
addition at 15625 75" Place West in the RS-20 zone has been determined to be COMPLETE
and has been scheduled for a public hearing at the time and place listed below.
Variance for the reduction of the
Action: minimum street (west) and side (south)
_ setbacks in the RS-20 zone.
File Number: V-2005-162
Date ofMeetin.e: March 16.2006
Time of Meeting: 3:00 PM (or as soon thereafter as
Dosslble)
Council Chambers
Place: Public Safety Complex — 250 5'h
Avenue North
Examiner
Please also provide the following additional information to better support your proposal. in
order to incorporate this information into the staff report, I would need the following
clarifications submitted to me by February Ioh.
I . On the elevation views for the proposed addition, it would be helpful to clearly
understand which part is existing and which part is proposed. For example, you could
draw clouds around the new addition to show the relative impact of the proposal.
V:IVarianceslV-2005-162_Ray\CompleteLetter.doc
Incorporated August 11, 1890
2. On the site plan, it would be helpful to provide clarification on the setback dimensions (to
illustrate the setback to the existing structure, the proposed setbacks, and the minimum
setback requirements).
3. On the site plan, it would be helpful to provide the existing area of the residence (in
square feet) and the proposed new area to show the relative impact of the proposal.
4. On the site plan, it would be helpful to provide the existing and proposed lot coverage.
Included in lot coverage calculations are buildings (the footprint of anything covered by a
roof) as well as second story decks (structures greater than 3-feet in height).
Please be aware that your presence at the hearing is highly advisable. If an applicant or his
representative is not present, the item may be moved to the end of the agenda. Items not reached
by the end of the hearing will be continued to the following month's agenda. If you have further
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 425.771.0220, extension 1778. Thank you for
your interest in development in the City of Edmonds — I look forward to working with you on
this project.
Sincerely,
Gina Coccia
Project Planner
CC: File V-2005-162.
V:1VarianceslV-2005-162_Ray\CompleteLetter.doc
Inc. 1S9v
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS. WA98020 • (425) 771-02W - FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: wwwdedmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning • Building • Engineering
December 13, 2005
Kyle & Juliann Ray
15625 75t' Place West
Edmonds WA 98026
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
RE: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO COMPLETE YOUR VARIANCE
APPLICATION (FILE NO. V-2005-162).
Dear Kyle & Juliann:
Thank you for submitting an application on November 8`h, 2005, for a south (side) and west
(street) setback variance in order to construct a proposed second -story addition for the property
located at 15625 75'h Place West. When you submitted your application at the counter, Senior
Planner Steve Bullock, AICP, requested the missing application materials (listed below) and it
was understood that you would submit them in order for review to begin. I have reviewed your
application and determined that it is considered incomplete until the following materials are
submitted:
1. Site Plan: One copy - required when a variance is requested for a building or portion of a
building (see enclosed handout for a sample site plan). Please show existing and
proposed building footprints along with dimensioned setbacks.
2. Elevation Drawings: One copy - required when a variance is requested for a building or
portion of a building. If your elevation plans are larger than 11 x 17, please also provide
one reduced copy.
3. Critical Areas Checklist -- I have checked our system and have no record of a Critical
Areas Determination for the above -mentioned property (also, please submit the required
S135.00 fee made payable to the City of Edmonds).
Please respond at your earliest convenience so that your application may be processed in an
expedient manner. I am the Planner assigned to your project, so if you have any questions about
the City's application review process and/or the schedule for your application, please don't
hesitate to contact me at 425.771.0220, extension 1778. Thank you for your interest in land use
and development in Edmonds.
Sincerely,
KVA4v
CITY OF EDMONDS
Gina Coccia, Planner
cc: File V-2005-162
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE: V-05-162
AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING
ROUTED TO:
Engineering 01/09/06
Fire 01/09/06
PW 01/09/06
Parks & Rec. 01/09/06
Building N/A
Community Svcs N/A
RETURNED
Engineering,/6 /- Z0_0&
Fire'
Public Works
Parks & Rec.
Building _ 6,
�:.
Community Svcs
Staff Comments: NO .6
ya 11 T ���J 2d� C� _►y tutu L4,06i In)ricmyr%- 4g' R.
*Additional Information Required for Complete Application
• Owner/Applicant: RAY. KYLE & JULIANN
• Property Address: 15625 75th Pl. W.
• Date of Application: 11/8/05
• Type; Second story addition
• Meeting Required: Yes X No Date of Meeting
• Planning Contact: Gina Coccia
X
Application
X
Fee
X
APO List
EUC Form
0$-189 Critical Areas Determination
X
Vicinity Map
Rezone Agreement
Geotechnical Study
Height Calcs,
X
Elevations
Site Plan
Site Plan/Floor Plan
Legals (Existing & Proposed)
Title Report
Parking Plan
Landscape Plan
Traffic Impact Analysis
Drainage Plan
SEPA Checklist
APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE: V-05-162
AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING
ROUTED TO: RETURNED
Engineering 01/09/06 Engineering;
Fire 01/09/06 Fire
PW 01/09/06 � � Public Works f
Parks & Rec. 01/09/06 Parks & Rec. #'
Building N/A Building
Community Svcs N/A Community Svcs 4 ;,.
Staff Comments: c� pr
*Additional Information Required for Complete Application
• Owner/Applicant: RAY KYLE ,& JULIANN
• Property Address: 15625 751h PI. W.
• Date of Application: 11/8/05
• Type: Second story addition
• Meeting Required: Yes X No Date of Meeting
• Planning Contact: Gina Coccia
X
Application
X
Fee
X
APO List
EUC Form
05-189 Critical Areas Determination
X
Vicinity Map
Rezone Agreement
Geotechnical Study
Height Calcs.
X
Elevations
Site Plan
Site Plan/Floor Plan
Legals (Existing & Proposed)
Title Report
Parking Plan
Landscape Plan
Traffic Impact Analysis
Drainage Plan
SEPA Checklist
I APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE: V-05-162 I
AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING �r
ROUTED TO:
Engineering 01/09/06
Fire 01/09/06
PW 01/09/06
Parks & Rec. 01/09/06
Building N/A
Community Svcs N/A
RETURNED 141V 1 -o
Engineering ply -,a�6
Fire
Public Works �T
Parks & Rec. I�1
Building
Community Svcs
Staff Comments:
*Additional Information Required for Complete Applicati
• Owner/Applicant: RAY KYLE ,& JULIANN
• Property Address: 15625 751h PI. W.
• Date of Application: 11/8/05
• Type:_ Second story addition
• Meeting Required: Yes X No Date of Meeting
• Planning Contact: Gina Coccia
X
Application
X
Fee
X
APO List
EUC Form
05-189 Critical Areas Determination
X
Vicinity Map
Rezone Agreement
Ceotechnical Study
Height Calcs.
X
Elevations
Site Plan
Site Plan/Floor Plan
Legols (Existing & Proposed)
Title Report
Parking Plan
Landscape Plan
Traffic Impact Analysis
Drainage Plan
SEPA Checklist
APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE : V-05-162
AND CHECKLIST FROM. PLANNING
ROUTED TO:
Engineering 01/09/06
Fire 01/09/06
PW 01/09/06
Parks & Rec. 01/09/06
Building N/A
Community Svcs N/A
Staff Comments: NZAeC
RETURNED
Engineering
Fire I i Lr,�
Public Works r '
Parks & Rec.
Building
Community Svcs
r�
.« .,Y1-i "/:h_
1.
*Additional Information Required for Complete Application
• Owner/Applicant: RAY, KYLE & JULIANN
• Property Address: 15625 75" PI. W.
• Date of Application: 11/8/05
• Type: Second story addition
• Meeting Required: Yes X No Date of Meeting
• Planning Contact: Gina Coccia
X Application
X Fee
_APO List
EUC Form
05489 Critical Areas Determination
X Vicinity Map
Rezone Agreement
Geotechnical Study
Height Calcs.
X Elevations
Site Plan
Site Plan/Floor Plan
Legals (Existing & Proposed)
Title Report
Parking Plan
Landscape Plan
Traffic Impact Analysis
Drainage Plan
SEPA Checklist
APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE : V-05-162
AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING
ROUTED TO:
Engineering 01/09/06
Fire 01/09/06
PW 01/09/06
Parks & Rec. 01/09/06
Building N/A
Community Svcs N/A
Staff Comments:
RETURNED
Engineering
Fire Di / 1140(P
Public Works
Parks & Rec._,aLtj k2 jj0(0
Building
Community Svcs
*Additional Information Required for Complete Application
• Owner/Applicant: RAY, KYLE A JULIANN
• Property Address: 15625 75" PI. W.
• Date of Application: 11/8/05
• Type: Second story addition
• Meeting Required: Yes X No Date of Meeting
• Planning Contact: Gina Coccia
X Application
X Fee
__APO list
EUC Form
Q-21-Critical Areas Aetermination
X Vicinity Map
Rezone Agreement
6eotechnical Study
Height Calcs,
X Elevations
Site Plan
Site Plan/Floor Plan
t.egals (Existing do Proposed)
Title Report
Parking Plan
Landscape Plan
Traffic Impact Analysis
Drainage Plan
SEPA Checklist
me 1Sgv
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TN AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.d.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning • Building - Engineering
December 13, 2005
Kyle & Juliann Ray
15625 75 h Place West
Edmonds WA 98026
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
RE: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO COMPLETE YOUR VARIANCE
APPLICATION (FILE NO. V-2005-162).
Dear Kyle & Juliann:
Thank you for submitting an application on November 81h, 2005, for a south (side) and west
(street) setback variance in order to construct a proposed second -story addition for the property
located at 15625 75th Place West. When you submitted your application at the counter, Senior
Planner Steve Bullock, AICP, requested the missing application materials (listed below) and it
was understood that you would submit them in order for review to begin. I have reviewed your
application and determined that it is considered incomplete until the following materials are
submitted:
1. Site Plan: One copy - required when a variance is requested for a building or portion of a
building (see enclosed handout for a sample site plan). Please show existing and
proposed building footprints along with dimensioned setbacks.
2. Elevation Drawings: One copy - required when a variance is requested for a building or
portion of a building. If your elevation plans are larger than 11 x 17, please also provide
one reduced copy.
3. Critical Areas Checklist — I have checked our system and have no record of a Critical
Areas Determination for the above -mentioned property (also, please submit the required
$135.00 fee made payable to the City of Edmonds).
Please respond at your earliest convenience so that your application may be processed in an
expedient manner. I am the Planner assigned to your project, so if you have any questions about
the City's application review process and/or the schedule for your application, please don't
hesitate to contact me at 425.771,0220, extension 1778. Thank you for your interest in land use
and development in Edmonds.
Sincerely,
CITY OF EDMONDS
Gina Coccia, Planner
cc: File V-2005-162
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
city of edmonds RECEIVED
land use application Nov -8 2005
PERMIT COUNTER
❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT `r n
O CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT t 1 FILE # V-05 - Kp i ZONE -0
❑ HOME OCCUPATION 11 `J -5 DATE 7 O U- REC'D BY A, 12 t 00f—
O FORMAL SUBDIVISION 115 C7
0 SHORT SUBDIVISION 1 S FEE RECEIPT # 27� 3r
❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE
El PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVEI✓OPMENT �/
❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT (AHE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB 0 CC
0 STREET VACATION
❑ REZONE
❑ SHORELINE PERMIT
J9 VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION
❑ OTHER:
PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION
PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE)
� ,Q I /r 7 -7 �7 /� �- �/
PROPERTY OWNER F-� L �-atry.`{it l�! u I''1(1II � }�l � PHONE # "{ CAS - I � L 4QJ Q
ADDRESS I S7o Za 7�` [ • W n- MPM 0--5, 1/I4 �1 9VZ CO
E-MAIL ADDRESS 66I'1 OOD5^Gl!/!�(�,6 CUO hQi9 COM FAX # �/
TAX ACCOUNT # �'I ,DIl/(!P� Or) SEC. � - _ TWP. �11 RNG.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE S�t-I� Ill I� S-OIt t' a ! on PX i S� ✓7�1
r
APPLICANT.6AI.P ORd yutlG(Y)i) ILLC,IA PHONE # 48S-
2q2
ADDRESS . -i SlO ZS -75414- 121, -�- L ORS (�S , _ loI A �%
E-MAILADDRESS edaWK&W(I�S��ahDa0-OMoa0-0M FAX#
CONTACT PERSON/AGENT PHONE #
ADDRESS
E-MAIL ADDRESS FAX #
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 this application ehalf of the owner aslisted below,
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE ��"- t211- 2Q
73
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 staffof the City of Edmonds to enter the subject
property for the purposes of inspection and attendant to this application.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER - DATE �b , Oro
This application form was revise �1- o verify whether it is still current, call (425) 771-0220.
L:\LIBRARYPLANNING\Fomn & Handmts\Public HandoutsV.and Use Applicarion.doc
CITY OF EDMONDS 27933
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES fr
DATE:;
Receivedof: J LkLA cL" Y1
Address:
Phone: 4os 9
Project Name/Location: 1 950 ?15 --T5TH P 1• w
Check No. ash Total Received
$ a
Water Meter Size:
Water Connection Fee
Sewer Permit/Re air
Sewer Connection/LID Fee
Storm System Develo ment Charge
Disruption Fee (Street / Sidewalk / Parking / Alley) Circle One
Engineering Review Fees
Engineering Inspection Fees
Engineering Plans/Specs
ROW / Street Use / Encroachment Permit
Street Cut/Restoration Fee
Traffic Impact Fee
Fire Inspection Fee
Fire Plan Check Fee
Building Permit Fee - Type:
Plan Check Fee
Reimbursable Consulting Fees
Critic s
� b
SEPA Review Fee
Shoreline Permit Fee
Zoning Application Fee - Type:
ADB Administration Fee
Sign Installation -
Maps/Books
Photocopies
Recording Fee
Cit Surchar e
State Surcharge 622 Fund
Received by: 0dm/ An _ Permit No.
RECF0V
Date: November 8, 2005
NOV - 8 665
To: The City of Edmonds PERMIT COUNTED
From: Kyle and Juliann Ray
Re: Plan Check # 05-177
Project: Ray Addition
Project Address: 15625 75te Pl. W
Enclosed please find a request for a variance for the west and south setbacks on our proposed
addition/remodel, the required declarations regarding this request, the adjacent property owners list, photos
of all sides of the existing structure in relation to the,groperty lines, a topographical survey, the footprint of
our proposed addition, and a check for � 01 o
If any additional information or plans are needed please let us know, we would be happy to provide them.
Sincerely,
�Y"le aJuliann Ray
M
�ks'
RECEIVE!`
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE NOV — 8 2005
Residential property: Kyle and Juliann Ray (owners)
15625 75 h Place West PERMIT COUNTER
Edmonds, WA 98026
We are applying for setback variances for the South and West sides of our property.
South and West setback variance application:
Responses to the six special criteria statements.
Special Circumstances
A. West Side Setback - Our lot is an approximately 9,840 square foot lot and is ahnost'/2 the lot
size typically required for a RS-20 zoned lot. When applying typical RS-20 setback requirements to a
9,840 square foot lot our buildable area is substantially impacted. In addition, one-third of that 9,840
square feet is an unbuildable steep slope on the eastern side of the lot which pushes the developable space
toward the west side of the lot, further reducing our buildable space down to approximately 6,560 square
feet. Our existing house is built on the forward portion of the lot because of the steep slope. The closest
portion of the existing structure to the street is IS. I feet from the west side (street side) of the lot and we are
remodeling within the existing structures foot print. We would like to add a bay window on our existing
kitchen that would extend 2 % feet onto the current deck. Above the existing deck/kitchen we would like to
add a small deck on the upper floor addition that would extend approximately six feet. Hence, this deck
addition/bay window would not alter our IS.1 current Westside setback because that portion of the existing
structure is further from the street. With the upper floor deck addition we are asking for a 22.1 foot West
side setback, this is located on the part of the existing structure that is approximately 10 feet further from
the street side. Since our buildable space is approximately 6,500 square feet our lot is closer to the size of a
RS-6 zoned lot, which requires a 20 foot setback putting us in that range.
Furthermore, the public right of way line is currently 40 feet wide. However, the city states they
may, at some point in the future, increase the ROW to 60 feet. This requires that we measure our West Side
Setback by the edge of the f ftm ROW line and not the current ROW line. The future ROW line
encroaches ten more feet in front further reducing our buildable space an additional ten feet.
B. South Side Setback - We are asking for a variance on a five foot side yard setback. Our
existing structure was built in 1956 with an addition added sometime in the early 70's. Due to previous
platting errors resulting in lot line adjustments as well as a previous variance granted to the property
immediately south, our existing structure is five feet from the property line. The proposed second story
addition would be directly on top of the existing structure's footprint. As mentioned above, this setback
would be in accordance with a lot zoned RS-6 which our lot more closely resembles.
2. Special Privilege
Granting the above variance will not call for special privilege. Approximately 75% of the lots on
our street do not meet the 20,000 square foot zoning requirement and several, including our immediate
neighbors to the north and south, have been granted different variances for new construction or additions.
3. Comprehensive Plan
We have a complete, professionally designed and engineered plan for our proposed remodel. This
proposed plan will add considerable value to our property as well as benefit the city of Edmonds.
4. Zoning Ordinance
The city zoning ordinance calls for residential development in our district. Our proposed remodel
will greatly improve our existing residential structure. Due to the fact that our lot was originally developed
way before the current zoning regulations, and before it was annexed into the city of Edmonds, we are
asking for a variance for the setbacks in order to comply with the new zoning for the area.
5. Not Detrimental
Considering that we will be remodeling within the current footprint of the existing structure, save
for the six foot upper deck and kitchen bay window, we see the remodel as only benefiting our
neighborhood and will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the public or property within
the vicinity and same zone. Furthermore, no views would be blocked and the addition will not reduce the
privacy of our neighbors.
6. Minimum Variance
Due to our lot size, location and buildable space we believe we are not asking for extenuating
circumstances in granting the setback variance. By reviewing the proposed footprint for our planned
addition we are asking to add a small upper level deck and kitchen bay window that will not extend the
lower current deck which was built when there were no lot size and setback requirements. Because of this,
our property, as well as many other properties in our neighborhood are not 20,000 square feet. Many
variances have been granted to our neighbors, including our neighbors to the immediate north and south, to
accommodate the smaller lot size. These granted variances have greatly improved the property values of
many homes in our Edmonds neighborhood.
In summary, we are requesting the following setback variances:
1. A variance for a 22.1 foot setback on the street side of our property for a deck addition on the
second story remodel.
2. A variance for a five foot side yard setback on the south side of our property for a second story
addition within the existing structure's footprint.
Please find included with this written submittal:
A. Photos of all sides of the existing structure in relation to the property lines.
B. The revised plans for our proposed addition
� y\`9
a \ x, � �;
#P20
City oiEdmonds
Development Servic
Planning Division
Phone: 425.771.0220 DEC 2 3 2005
Fax: 425.771.0221
The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to
be filled out by any pin preparing a Development
Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to
his/her submittal of the application to the City.
The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to
determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or
maybe, present on the subject property. The information
needed to complete the Checklist should be easily
available from observations of the site or data available at
City Hall (Critical areas inventories, maps, or soil
`surveys).
Date Received: 1-2-1 201 [ 2,00
City Receipt #: Z 3
Critical Areas File #:_ �r9.7.o0 5.01 $'q
Critical Areas Checklist Fee: _ $135.00
Date Mailed to Applicant:
A property owner, or his/her authorized representative,
must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it
to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a
precursory site visit, and make a determination of the
subsequent steps necessary to complete a development
permit application.
Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy
of this form to assist City staff in fording and locating the
specific piece of property described on this form. In
addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent
information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or
studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assistant staff
in completing their preliminary assessment of the site.
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 this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE of APPLICANT/AGENT 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 of inspection and posting attendant to tjd&Applicatiom
Owner/Applicant-
-U. Li- Q
Name
Street Address
City State Zip
Telephone: ZS" _ 2DO
DATE l� 22
Applicant Representative:
Name
Street Address
City State Zip
Telephone:
Email address (optional): Email Address (optional):
#P20 CAFileNo•. 05 — I !
Critical Areas Checklist
Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation)
1. Site Address/Location Co a2 - 7 5' f l CAJ
2. Property Tax Account Number. Qn!5 j-,,1>1_ L?0_D_ Q 2--+b_ Z
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet):
4. , Is this site currently developed?,?"* yes; no.
If yes; how is site developed? __i v i (e- '�w• ; �, y'e T tQ _
5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply.
Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site.
l
Rolling. slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal
distance of fib -feet).
Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% (a vertical rise of 10-feet
over. a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet).
Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal
distance of less than 33-feet).
Other (please describe):
6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water. �N ; Approx. Depth:
7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: IV O ; Approx. Depth:
What season(s) of the year?
8. Site is in the floodwayC? floodplain % o of a water course.
9. Site con a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows_ are year-round?
Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? ).
10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow �� shrubs mined
urban landscaped (lawn, shrubs etc)
11. Obvious wetland is present on site:
For City Staff Use Only .-- P. 5 b r'
1 fUMAteek Number, if applicable? V '" 7r D 0'9j' —1 CO 1 .
2. Site is Zoned?5
3. SCS mapped soil M*s)? 3 " � de►vWoad -� -_, r v � 5 a-nd-j..�am t 5 - �-s `J � •
N�Ad6IUW0QQI - t oo6mao 7-5 -:�I• SW 5 �=
4. Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area on site?
& i�vo yi rn� tta Za,►•at ayr"6, (6a ipt h i dt, of pro PziLtj -)-
5. Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? y
DETERMINATION
X STUDY REQUERED WAIVER
Reviewed bv: r 0141 1 ov GoC c i a..o v Date:—L3. J b 0/ q U 5 _,_- ..
-
%10� CITY OF EDMONDS �Ww
CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT
Site Location: 15625 75"' Place West Tax Acct. Number: 00613100002402
Determination: Study Required Determination #: CA-2005-0189
Applicant: Kyle & Juliann Ray Owner: Kyle & Juliann Ray
CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT: STUDY REQUIRED (CA-2005-0189)
During review and inspection of the subject site on December 30, 2005, it was found that the
site may contain or be adjacent to critical areas, including Erosion Hazard and Landslide
Hazard Areas pursuant to Chapter 23.40 of the Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC). The site is within the designated Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area, however
the steep slope appears to be generally on the eastern portion of the site — the rest of the site is
flat/rolling (see attached map).
GENERAL CRITICAL AREAS REPORT REQUIREMENTS
Critical Areas Reports identify, classify and delineate any areas on or adjacent to the subject
property that may qualify as critical areas. They also assess these areas and identify any
potential impacts resulting from your speck development proposal. If a specific development
proposal results in an alteration to a critical area the critical areas report will also contain a
mitigation plan. You have the option of completing the portion of the study that classifies and
delineates the critical areas and waiting until you have a specific development proposal to
complete the study. You may also choose submit the entire study with your specific
development application.
• Please review the minimum report requirements for all types of Critical Areas which are
listed in ECDC 23.40.090.D. There are additional report requirements for different types of
critical areas (see below).
• Note that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional as defined
in the ordinance. There are options on how to complete a critical areas study and an
approved list of consultants that you may choose from. You may contact the Planning
Division for more information.
• General Mitigation Requirements for all Critical Areas are discussed in ECDC 23.40.110
through 23.40.140.
STUDY REQUIREMENT — EROSION HAZARD AREA
It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to an Erosion Hazard Area.
• Erosion Hazard areas include Alderwood and Everett series soils on slopes of 15 percent or
greater. among others.
• Landslide Hazard Areas are further defined in ECDC 23.80.020.A.
• In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas reports referenced above, specific
Critical Area report requirements for Erosion Hazard Areas (which are one of the
Geologically Hazardous Areas) are provided in ECDC 23.80.050.
• Note that Stable Erosion Hazard Areas may have limited report requirements at the
director's discretion. At a minimum an erosion and sediment control plan prepared in
compliance with the requirements in ECDC Chapter 18.30 shall be required.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ASSOCIATED WITH EROSION HAZARD AREAS
Development is restricted within an Erosion Hazard Area.
• Projects that will intrude into these areas will require a report by a licensed Geotechnical
Engineer or other qualified professional.
• Development standards are -given in ECDC 23.80.060 and 23.80.070.
STUDY REQUIREMENT— LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA
It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to a Landslide Hazard Area.
• A Landslide Hazard Area is any area with a slope of forty percent (40%) or steeper and with
a vertical relief of ten (10) or more feet (except areas composed of consolidated bedrock).
• Landslide Hazard Areas are further defined and illustrated in ECDC 23.80.020.B.
• In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas reports referenced above, specific
Critical Area report requirements for Landslide Hazard Areas are provided in ECDC
23.80.050.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ASSOCIATED WITH LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS
Development is restricted within a Landslide Hazard Area and its buffer.
• Projects that will intrude into these areas will require a report by a licensed Geotechnical
Engineer.
• The criteria that are applied depend on the amount that the buffer is reduced.
• The buffer can be reduced to a minimum of ten (10) feet (with an additional 15' building
setback per ECDC 23.40.280) if a report is prepared that meets the standards listed in
ECDC 23.80.050). The alteration must also meet the requirements listed ECDC 23.80.060.
• In addition, proposals to reduce the buffer to less than ten (10) feet must comply with the
design standards listed in ECDC 23.80.070.A.3.
ALLOWED ACTIVITIES
Certain activities are allowed in or near critical area buffers as specified in ECDC 23.40.20, If
you have any questions about whether your proposed development qualifies as an allowed
activity, please contact a Planner for more information.
EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
Certain development proposals may be exempt from Critical Areas Requirements (ECDC
23.40.230). If you think that a specific development proposal may be exempt, contact a
Planner for more information.
Gina Coccia, Planner December 30, 2005 _
Name, Title V Signature Date
NOTE: Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found on
the City of Edmonds website at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us.
N
6!