Loading...
pln200600053-10856.PDFW In $gQ CITY OF EDMONDS 121 STH 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: Ron Hilliard (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). CASE NOS.: V-06-52 & V-06-53 LOCATION: 15515 — 75' Place W. (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR APPLICATION: A variance to reduce the required 25-foot street setback to 10 feet along 75'�` Place W. and 156 b Street SW and a variance to increase the allowed height from 25 feet to 34.5 feet for a new single-family residence (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 through 4). REVIEW PROCESS: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.40 and 80 (ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS GENERAL PROVISIONS and GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Approve setback variance with conditions Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve both variances 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 Hilliard Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V-0&53 Page 2 application. The hearing on the application was opened at 3:00 pm, July 6, 2006, in the City Council Chambers, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 3:09 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. HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City: Meg Gruwell, Senior Planner, entered the staff report into the record and noted that no new information had been received since the staff report had been prepared. From the Applicant: Ron Hilliard, Applicant, said: • The only issue where staff did not agree with his request is that staff did not feel the request for a height variance was the minimum variance necessary. • His proposal would not take up as much square footage on the lot as it would if the house were to be reduced in height, but still have the same overall square footage. • The house to the south has no parking and the owners of the house now use the unopened right-of-way for parking. He said they use a small part of his property for vehicle turnaround and if he were to build a lower house with a larger footprint it would reduce the space his neighbors have for vehicle turnaround. • He and his wife are proposing a 3,400 square foot house and that is a small house compared to the other new houses in the neighborhood. • Staff has acknowledged that the proposed house would not impact any views. • The first and second stories would be the same size and the third floor would be smaller. • All of the conditions recommended by staff are acceptable. From the Community: No one from the general public attended the public hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS: A. INTRODUCTION 1. History: a) Facts: (1) The site is a vacant lot at the end of75Ih Place W., just before the serviceldisabled entrance to Meadowdale Beach County Park. Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V-06-53 Page 3 (2) Between this lot and the existing house at 15605 — 75a` Place W. is an unimproved road right-of-way that serves in part as the driveway to 15605 — 75 h Place W. (3) The right-of-way and the subject property have been used for parking of cars, trailers and other goods. (4) The height variance requested by the applicant was to have the pitch of his roof at elevation 256, with an average grade of 221.7 (see Attachment 4). This would allow the house to be 34.3 feet, instead of the allowed 25 feet. (4) Staff rounded the numbers to 34.5 feet since the proposal was not based on actual construction plans. (5) The 34.5 number was placed on the agenda, and ran with the newspaper legal notice. (6) The mailed and posted notice contained a typographical error, which stated the height variance requested was 34.15. (7) No letters of opposition to the proposed height variance were received. b) Conclusion: It does not appear that a 34.15-foot variance was of great concern to the neighbors who received the mailed notice or read the posted notice. Though 34.5 feet would not be very much higher, staff reverted to the requested 34.3-foot variance request, which is considerably closer to the 34.15 variance request stated in the mailed and posted notice. B. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Size and Access: The subject property is approximately 16,553 square feet, with approximately 100 feet of frontage on 75" Place W., and approximately 150 feet of frontage on 156b Street SW (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). (2) Land Use: The site is undeveloped (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). (3) Zonin : The subject property is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-20) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). (4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject site rises u approximately ten feet from 75 Place W. to a small bench at the comer of 75 Place W. and 156" Street SW. There is a steep slope up beyond that, which the city's LIDAR map shows having an approximately 140-foot elevation change (see Exhibit A, Attachment 7). The vegetation on the site consists primarily of maple and alder trees on the steep slope, as seen from below. The lower bench has been mowed and has grass on it, and the drop down to 75m Place W. primarily has blackberries growing on it (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V-06-53 Page 4 b) Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) The property to the north is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-20) and is developed with the Meadowdale Beach County Park (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). (2) The properties to the east, south and west are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-20) and are developed with single-family residences (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) 1. Facts: a) Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review (WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080). 2. Conclusion: The application complies with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy 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) The applicant submitted a Critical Areas Checklist (CA-2006-58) and a "study required" was issued to study the Landslide Hazard (slope) area (see Exhibit A, Attachment 6). This site qualifies as a Landslide Hazard area both because of the steep slopes on the site, and because it lies in the historic landslide hazard area identified in the 1979 Robert Lowe Associates report. The site is also in a mapped Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation area (3) Landslide hazard areas are subject to Chapter 23.80 (Geologically Hazardous Areas.) (4) Section 23.80.070.A. La of that chapter requires a buffer from the toe of the slope that is equal to the height of the slope existing within the project area or 50 feet, whichever is greater. Subsection Lb allows the buffer to be reduced to ten feet when a qualified professional demonstrates that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development, adjacent developments and uses and the subject critical area. Alterations to the landslide hazard area and its buffer may be allowed if it can be certified that they meet the conditions in ECDC 23,80.070.A.2. �Aw Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V 06-52 & V4)&53 Page 5 (5) The slope within the project area appears to be over 100 feet in height, but no survey of the site has yet been submitted. (6) Edmonds Community Development Code Section 23.40.280 requires that buildings and other structures be set back a distance of 15 feet from the edges of all critical area buffers. It does allow for building overhangs no more than 30 inches in the setback area, as well as landscaping and uncovered decks. (7) The width of the bench at the bottom of the slope within the subject property ranges from 27 feet to 75 feet. (8) The proposed house is set roughly at a five-foot setback to the toe of the slope. (9) No geotechnical report has been submitted with this application. (10) The applicants have stated that they realized they needed some relief from the street setbacks, and wanted to determine how far they could move the house away from the slope, before they worked with a geotechnical consultant. (11) A condition of development should be provide the required geotechnical report and to comply with the requirements for development in Landslide Hazard areas. (12) Since the site is within a mapped fish and wildlife habitat conservation area (subject to ECDC 23.90), the City would like to preserve as much of the native vegetation as possible. The applicant must submit a clearing/tree cutting plan with any development permit. Tree cutting and clearing of native vegetation shall be limited to the footprint of development. b) Conclusion: Most of the site is steep and wooded. The bench at the bottom of the slope seems like the most logical place for a home -site, but a geotechnical engineer must be consulted to determine if the proposed location can meet the requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code. If qualified consultants can assure that the proposal will meet the requirements of the Environmentally Critical Areas Chapters, then the requirements of these Chapters will be met. 2. Compliance with Single -Family Residential (RS-20) Zoning Standards a) Fact: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development in the Single -Family Residential zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030 and include the following for locating structures: RS-20 Street Setback: 25 feet Rear Setback: 25 feet Side Setbacks (to all other property lines): 35/10 feet* Maximum Height: 25 feet Lot Coverage: 35% * Thirty-five feet total of both sides, 10 feet minimum on either side. Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V-06-53 Page 6 b) Conclusion: The proposal requires variances to height and street setbacks to be approved before it complies with the requirements of the RS-20 zoning standards. 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) SRgcial 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) Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. (c) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance:, That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the zoning district in which the property is located. (d) Not Detrimental: That the variance, as approved or conditionally approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone. (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 and they are found in Exhibit A, Attachment 3. The applicant has also submitted a site plan and aerial photograph of the site (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). (3) The applicant is requesting three variances. The two setback variances are to allow the house to be pushed closer to the streets and away from the steep slope. Ln Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V4)&52 & V-06-53 Page 7 The height variance is to allow the house to be built up taller, since it does not have as much room to spread out. (4) Even though 156a' Street SW is not developed, a street setback is required from it. Therefore, 25-foot street setbacks are required from both 75" Place W. and 156s' Street SW. Note that 73'd Avenue W. to the east of this site has been vacated, so it does not require a street setback. (5) This site is considered to be a comer lot, and therefore the north and east property lines are side setbacks, requiring a minimum of ten feet and a total of 35 feet. Normally since the street property line setback is already required to be 25 feet, the side setbacks would only be required to be ten feet. If the applicants were to be granted a street setback variance to ten feet, then the side setback would have to be 25 feet to make the total of 35 feet. (6) The City's Engineering Division is requiring the minimum depth of the driveway from the garage to the property line to be 20 feet from the most restrictive point to allow for parking without encroaching into City right-of-way (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5). (7) The city's access database shows several approved variance requests along 75th Place W. Several setback and height variances have been granted, based on topography and the location of the road compared to the site. Many of these variances are on the west side of 75ffi Place W. (8) Views in the area are to the west of Puget Sound and the mountains. (9) Soils as given on the Soil Conservation Service map for this site include Alderwood-Everett gravelly, sandy loams at a 25 to 70 percent slope, Alderwood gravelly, sandy loams at a 15 to 25 percent slopes, and Alderwood-Urban land complex, with 2 to 8 percent slopes. (10) The area of the proposed house is roughly 55 by 25 feet or 1,375 square feet Two floors would provide 2,750 square feet of floor area, and three floors would provide 4,125 square feet of floor area. The elevation provided does show the house stair stepping in so that the upper levels likely would have less floor area than the lower levels. The garage area is in addition. (11) Sizes of houses vary in the neighborhood, with older homes generally being smaller, and newer homes being larger. Across the street at 15220 — 75a` Place W., a home built in 1995 has a floor area of 4,985 square feet with an attached garage of 1,010 square feet, according to Snohomish County Assessor's records. Next door at 15605 — 75 h Place W. is a home built in 1948, which has a finished area of 2,080 square feet, with an additional 1520 unfinished basement for a total of 3,600 square feet (12) The city calculates height by shrinking a rectangle around the footprint of the house and taking the existing elevations at the four comers of that rectangle. As the applicant has proposed the house, and as the house may have to sit if it were to maintain a larger setback from the slope, the height rectangle has three points on M �Mmw Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V4o6-52 & V-06-53 Page 8 the level bench, with the fourth point down the slope towards 75 b Place W. This lowers the height allowed compared to having all the corners of the rectangle on the bench, or having one comer of the rectangle going up the slope. b) Conclusions Regarding Setback Variances: (1) Syecial Circumstances: Most of the site is extremely steep. Though it is a large lot and a rectangular shape, very little of the site is useable area. Though no geotechnical report has been provided yet, it seems reasonable to assume that building on the lower bench would be preferable to trying to build on the steeper hill, particularly since the soils include sand and loam. Maintaining the required 25-foot street setbacks to both streets forces the building back into the steep slope with a triangular building pad. Though projects.in critical areas often start with the recommendation of a geotechnical engineer to maintain a certain distance from a slope, and the setbacks required from the property lines flow from that, it is not unreasonable to presume some sort of minimal setback will be required from the slope. Therefore, the site has a special circumstance which if the setbacks were strictly enforced would result in the deprivation of the property owner being able to construct a house of a size permitted to other properties in the same vicinity, or would increase the risk of construction by forcing it into the steep slope. (2) Spqcial Privilege: Other properties on 75h Place W. have received variances to setbacks to allow them to build closer to the road due to topography issues. 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 residence to be in compliance with the zoning ordinance. (4) Not Detrimental: Views in this area are to the west. With the reduced setbacks the proposed house will not block western views because the houses to the east are over 100 feet higher in elevation. The proposed house will be closer to the existing house to the south, which is already quite close to 156's Street SW. The site plan shows the garage at 15605 — 75'' Place W at a ten -foot setback to 156Ih Street SW. Due to the steep slopes, it is not likely that 15e Street SW will be opened, so it will likely still continue to function as a turnaround and driveway area for the two houses, with its 20 feet of width providing some buffering between the two houses. Therefore the proposal should not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. (5) Minimum Variance: The site plan has been drawn to show the house extending to the 10-foot setback from 156t' Street SW, but maintaining a 15-foot setback to 75" Place W. The applicant has stated that he would like the 10-foot variance to provide some flexibility depending on what the geotechnical consultant �Mw Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V4o6-52 & V4)&53 Page 9 determines the location of the house should be. Because the City doesn't have a recommendation by a geotechnical consultant, it is difficult to determine what the minimum variance should be. The house as proposed perches on the bench, and avoids not only the steep slope above, but also avoids to a large extent the ten -foot drop down to 75m Place W. It is possible that the geotechnical engineer will recommend maintaining this layout, but it seems equally likely that the geotechnical engineer may suggest a larger setback from the toe of the sloe, which would tilt the house so the northwestern corner swings closer to 75 Place W. than currently shown. In that case, the 10-foot variance could very likely be the minimum variance. Therefore, the Examiner concludes a minimum of a ten - foot variance should be allowed from both streets, but also concludes that as large a setback from both streets as is practicable should be maintained to comply with the geotechnical study, which needs to be completed. c) Conclusions Regarding Height Variance: (1) SMcial Circumstances: The slope on the lot reduces the buildable area available. Though several smaller homes are within the neighborhood, most new construction here has floor area of around 4,000 square feet. Most of the lots on the street face some constraints in slope, but this lot seems to have a larger area of its site encumbered with the slope. By the same token, the slope allows the neighbors to the east to be above the top of the roof even with a proposed variance. If the home were to be restricted to the 25-foot height limit, normally a two-story house above a garage, with a living area of 2,750 square feet would be easy to fit on the lot. Because of the height calculations required, it appears that to get two stories above a garage might not fit within the 25-foot height limit, as shown on the elevation (see Attachment 4). It might also require digging further into the bench, which may not be recommended by the geotechnical consultant. This lot has special circumstances in the slope that makes necessary to have a variance to have rights permitted to other properties with the same zoning. (2) Special Privilege: Several variances have been granted to other homes along 75'h Place W due to topography. (3) Com hensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The approval of the height variance is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the variances was approved, the proposed residence would be in compliance with the zoning ordinance. (4) Not Detrimental: The additional height for the house will not block views due to the slope behind them. It will appear taller than most houses on the street, since the height variances are generally on the downhill side of 750'Place W., which present their shorter elevation to the street The stair -stepping shown on the elevation is a good way to break up the bulk of the building and help it to fit into the street. The proposed height should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone. (5) Minimum Variance: The applicant is requesting to be able to constrict a three- story house above a garage to be able to have a similar floor area to new houses in L VW Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V4o6-52 & V-06-53 Page 10 the vicinity. The house is proposed in the given location in order to stay away from the steep slope, have a driveway and garage at street level, and have the rest of the house perch on the bench. No geotechnical report has been provided to require this location, but it seems a logical way to layout the house, given the constraints. The applicant appears to be using a flat roof on the house, so the variance is the minimum in that respect. The elevation shown in Exhibit A, Attachment 4 has a smaller top floor than the other floors. The site also has some very limited ground area that could be used to expand the footprint of the house. The applicant explained at the hearing that the proposed house would be smaller than most of the newer houses in the neighborhood and that he wants to keep the footprint on the site as small as is possible. He noted that if the height variance is granted he would be able to stay with the smaller footprint and that the height variance is the minimum variance needed The Examiner concurs with the applicant's request and reasoning and concludes that the height variance as conditioned below would be the minimum necessary variance, which would allow the applicant to enjoy the rights experienced by other property owners of newer homes in the vicinity with the same zoning. E. TECHNICAL CONEVHTTEE 2. 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. The only comments received were from the Engineering Division (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5). b) Conclusion: The applicant should meet the requirements of the Engineering Division. F. PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the general public attended the public hearing and no one from the general public submitted any written comments on the proposal. G. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) I. Comprehensive Plan Designation a) Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family — Resource." b) Conclusion: Single-family residential development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. 2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies a) Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies, which relate to this proposal. Specific goals and policies are discussed below. Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V-06-53 Page 11 (1) Residential Development Policy B.1. states, "Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability." (2) Residential Development Policy B.3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures." (3) Residential Development Policy B.6. states, "Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage." b) Conclusion: The proposed house as shown on the elevation will look different from the house across 156s Street SW and some of the other lower level pitched roof houses that were built in the 1940s or 1950s. The newer houses on the street are more eclectic and include several modem designs with flatter roofs. The new house proposes to avoid the steep slope and perch on the bench at the bottom of the slope, so it is more compatible with the natural constraints of the slopes and geology. Due to the steep slope behind it, it will minimize encroachment on view of the existing homes. Therefore, the proposal is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. DECISION: Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a; • Height Variance is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. A height variance of 34.3 feet is approved 2. The applicant shall stair -step the house similar to that shown in the elevation Txhibit A, Attachment 4) to help break up the bulk of the building as viewed from 75 Place W. • Setback Variances are approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The setback variances of ten feet to 75tb Place W. and ten feet to 156h Street SW are approved. The applicant should maintain a greater than ten -foot setback to the streets if it can safely be allowed given any geotechnical considerations. 2. Side setbacks to the north and east property lines must add up to a total of 35 feet when added to the street setback opposite them. 3. Approval of this variance does not imply compliance with the Environmentally Critical Areas Chapters, Edmonds Community Development Code Chapters 23.40 to 23.90. The applicants shall meet the requirements of the Environmentally Critical Areas Chapters by doing the following: a) A geotechnical report is required to demonstrate how the proposed development complies with the Landslide Hazard requirements of Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 23.80. Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V-0&53 Page 12 b) To meet the requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area in ECDC 23.90, the applicant shall submit a tree cutting and clearing plan with any development permit. Tree cutting and clearing of native vegetation shall be limited to the footprint of development. 4. Meet the Engineering Division requirements, including: a) The minimum depth of the driveway from garage to the property line must be 20 feet from the most restrictive point to allow for parking without encroaching into City right-of-way. b) The maximum driveway slope shall not exceed 14 percent. c) Install a five-foot walkway along the frontage of the property. 5. 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. 6. The applicant must obtain a building permit. 7. The applicant must comply with all the terms of any future permits. 8. The permit is transferable. 9. The owner must act on the approved variance within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration and the city approves the application. Only one one-year extension is possible. Entered this 13th day of July 2006 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. 7C a.,.. �, I Co. A Ron McConnell, FAIbP Hearing Exammer 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. REOUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: Section 20. 100.01O.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 Con '1 Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V-0&53 Page 13 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 LEMHS 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. EXHIBIT: The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with 7 attachments PARTIES of RECORD: Ron Hilliard Edmonds Planning Division 2083123'd Ave. W Edmonds Engineering Division Lynnwood, WA 98036 Recely ,, ED PLANNIIVC EPr ra ON CITY OF EDMONDS 121 - STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner From: Meg ba6well Senior Planner Date: JUNE 30, 2006 File: V-06-52 AND V-06-53 RON HILLIARD Hearing Date, Time, And Place: JULY 6. 2006, 3:00 P.M. Council Cumbers, Public Safety Building 250 --- 5a' Avenue N. Edmonds, Washington Section Page I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................2 A. APPLICATION..................................................................................................................................... 2 B. RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................................... 2 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS...............................................................3 A. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 3 B. SITE DESCRipnoN............................................................................................................................. 4 C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA).................................................................................. 4 D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE .............................................. 4 E. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE.................................................................................................................. 11 F. PUBLIC COMMENTS......................................................................................................................... l 1 G. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN(ECDC)..................................................................................................... I I III. RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS...................................................................11 A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION.................................................................................................... 12 B. APPEALS.......................................................................................................................................... 12 C. TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS........................................................................ 12 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL..................................................................................................12 V. NOTICE' TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR...................................................................12 VI. ATTACHMENTS............................................................................................................12 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD.................................................................................................13 V-06-52 and 53.doe / June 30, 2006 / Staff Report Ron Hilliard File No. V-06-52/53 Page 2 of 13 I. INTRODUCTION A. Application 1. Aft; Ron Hilliard (see Attachment 2). 2. Site Location: 15515 — 75s' Place W.(see Attachment 1). 3. Req_ue: A variance to reduce the required 25-foot street setback to 10 feet along 75'b Place W. and 156'h Street SW and a variance to increase the allowed height from 25 feet to 34.5 feet for a new single-family residence (see Attachments 2 through 4). 4. Review Process: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. 5. Major Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.40 and 80 (ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS GENERAL PROVISIONS and GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS). B. Recommendations Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend: • DENIAL of the height variance; and • APPROVAL of the setback variances with the following conditions: 1. The setback variances of ten feet to 75'h Place W. and ten feet to 156' Street SW are approved. The applicant should maintain a greater than ten -foot setback to the streets if it can safely be allowed given any geotechnical considerations. 2. Side setbacks to the north and east property lines must add up to a total of 35 feet when added to the street setback opposite them. 3. Approval of this variance does not imply compliance with the Environmentally Critical Areas Chapters, Edmonds Community Development Code Chapters 23.40 to 23.90. The applicants shall meet the requirements of the Environmentally Critical Areas Chapters by doing the following: a) A geotechnical report is required to demonstrate how the proposed development complies with the Landslide Hazard requirements of Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 23.80. b) To meet the requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area in ECDC 23.90, the applicant shall submit a tree cutting and clearing plan with any development permit. Tree cutting and clearing of native vegetation shall be limited to the footprint of development. 4. Meet the Engineering Division requirements, including: a) The minimum depth of the driveway from garage to the property line must be 20 feet from the most restrictive point to allow for parking without encroaching into City right-of-way. V-06-52 and 53.doc 1 June 30, 20061 staff Report Ron Hilliard File No. V-06-52153 Page 3 of 13 b) The maximum driveway slope shall not exceed 14 percent. c) Install a five-foot walkway along the frontage of the property. 5. 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. 6. The applicant must obtain a building permit. 7. The applicant must comply with all the terms of any future permits. 8. The permit should be transferable. . 9. 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. Only one one-year extension is possible. If the Hearing Examiner wished to approve the height variance, we would recommend the following additional conditions: 1. The height variance of 34.3 feet is approved. 2. The applicant shall stair -step the house as shown in the elevation to help break up the bulk of the building as viewed from 75`b Place W. H. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Introduction 1. History: a) Facts: (1) The site is a vacant lot at the end of 750' Place W., just before the service/disabled entrance to Meadowdale Beach County Park. (2) Between this lot and the existing house at 15605 — 75s' Place W. is an unimproved road right-of-way that serves in part as the driveway to 15605 — 75t` Place W. (3) The right-of-way and the subject property have been used for parking of cars, trailers and Other goods. (4) The height variance requested by the applicant was to have the pitch of his roof at elevation 256, with an average grade of 221.7 (see Attachment 4). This would allow the house to be 34.3 feet, instead of the allowed 25 feet. (5) Staff rounded the numbers to 34.5 feet since the proposal was not based on actual construction plans. (6) The 34.5 number was placed on the agenda, and ran with the newspaper legal notice. (7) The mailed and posted notice contained a typographical error, which stated the height variance requested. was 34.15. (8) No letters of opposition to the proposed height variance have been received. b) Concl It does not appear that a 34.15 foot variance was of great concern to the neighbors who received the mailed notice or read the posted notice. Though 34.5 feet would not be very much higher, staff will revert to the requested 34.3 foot V {I6-52 and 53.doe / June 30, 2006 / Staff Report 51 ION Ron Hilliard File No. V-06-52153 Page 4 of 13 variance request, which is considerably closer to the 34.15 variance request stated in the mailed and posted notice. B. Site Description 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Size and Access. The subject property is approximately 16,553 square feet, with approximately 100 feet of frontage on 75s' Place W., and approximately 150 feet of frontage on 1566 Street SW (see Attachment 4). (2) Lan Use: The site is undeveloped (see Attachment 4). (3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-20) (see Attachment 1). (4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject site rises up approximately ten feet from 75 Place W. to a small bench at the corner of 75s' Place W. and 156'h Street SW. There is a steep slope up beyond that, which the city's L1DAR map shows having an approximately 140-foot elevation change (see Attachment 7). The vegetation on the site consists, primarily of maple and alder trees on the steep slope, as seen from below. The lower bench has been mowed and has grass on it, and the drop down to 75 h Place W. primarily has blackberries growing on it (see Attachment 4). 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) The property to the north is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-20) and is developed with the Meadowdale Beach County Park (see Attachment 1). (2) The properties to the east, south and west are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-20) and are developed with single-family residences (see Attachment 1). C. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) 1. Facts: a) Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review (WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080). 2. Conclusion: The application complies with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy 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) The applicant submitted a Critical Areas Checklist (CA-2006-58) and a "study required" was issued to study the Landslide Hazard (slope) area (see Attachment 6). This site qualifies as a Landslide Hazard area both because of the steep V-06-52 and 53.doc / June 30, 2006 / Staff Report Ron Hilliard File No. V-06-52/53 Page 5 of 13 slopes on the site, and because it lies in the historic landslide hazard area identified in the 1979 Robert Lowe Associates report. The site is also in a mapped Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation area. (3) Landslide hazard areas are subject to Chapter 23.80 (Geologically Hazardous Areas.) (4) Section 23.80.070.A.1.a of that chapter requires a buffer from the toe of the slope that is equal to the height of the slope existing within the project area or 50 feet, whichever is greater. Subsection Lb allows the buffer to be reduced to ten feet when a qualified professionals demonstrates that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development, adjacent developments and uses and the subject critical area, Alterations to the landslide hazard area and its buffer may. be allowed if it can be certified that they meet the conditions in ECDC 23,80,070.A.2. (5) The slope within the project area appears to be over 100 feet in height, but no survey of the site has yet been submitted. (6) Edmonds Community Development Code Section 23.40.280 requires that buildings and other structures be set back a distance of 15 feet from the edges of all critical area buffers. It does allow for building overhangs no more than 30 inches in the setback area, as well as landscaping and uncovered decks. (7) The width of the bench at the bottom of the slope within the subject property ranges from 27 feet to 75 feet. (8) The proposed house is set roughly at a five-foot setback to the toe of the slope. (9) No geotechnical report has been submitted with this application. (10)The applicants have stated that they realized they needed some relief from the street setbacks, and wanted to determine how far they could move the house away from the slope, before they worked with a geotechnical consultant. (I I)A condition of development should be provide the required geotechnical report and to comply with the requirements for development in Landslide Hazard areas. (12)Since the site is within a mapped fish and wildlife habitat conservation area (subject to ECDC 23.90), the City would like to preserve as much of the native vegetation as possible. The applicant must submit a clearing/tree cutting plan with any development permit. Tree cutting and clearing of native vegetation shall be limited to the footprint of development. b) Conclusion: Most of the site is steep and wooded. The bench at the bottom of the slope seems like the most logical place for a home -site, but a geotechnical engineer must be consulted to determine if the proposed location can meet the requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code. If qualified consultants can assure that the proposal will meet the requirements of the Environmentally Critical Areas Chapters, then the requirements of these Chapters will be met. 2. Compliance with Single -Family Residential (RS-20) Zoning Standards a) Fact: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development in the Single -Family Residential zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030 and include the following,for locating structures: RS-20 V-06-52 and 53.doc / June 30, 2006 / Staff Report ra Ron Hilliard File No, V-06-52/53 Page 6 of 13 (1) Street Setback: 25 feet (2) Rear Setback: 25 feet (3) Side Setbacks (to all other property lines): 35/10 feet* (4) Maximum Height: 25 feet (5) Lot Coverage: 35% " Thirty-five feet total of both sides, 10 feet minimum on either side. b) Conclusion: The proposal requires variances to height and street setbacks to be approved before it complies with the requirements of the RS-20 zoning standards. 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 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) S egciai Privilgge: 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. V-06-52 and 53.dGe / June 30, 2006 / Staff Report 00� AN Ron Hilliard File No. V-06-52/53 Page 7 of 13 (2) The applicant has submitted declarations with their submittal which address the decisional criteria and these are in Attachment 3. The applicant has also submitted a site plan and aerial photograph of the site (see Attachment 4). (3) The applicant is requesting three variances. The two setback variances are to allow the house to be pushed closer to the streets and, away from the steep slope. The height variance is to allow the house to be built up taller, since it does not have as much room to spread out. (4) Even though 156s' Street SW is not developed, a street setback is required from it. Therefore, 25-foot street setbacks are required from both 75"' Place W. and Be Street SW. Note that 73`' Avenue W. to the east of this site has been vacated, so it does not require a street setback. (5) This site is considered to be'a corner lot, and therefore the north and east property lines are side setbacks, requiring a minimum of ten feet and a total of 35 feet. Normally since the street property line setback is already required to be 25 feet, the side setbacks would only be required to be ten feet. If the applicants are granted a street setback variance to ten feet, then the side setback would have to be 25 feet to make the total of 35 feet. (6) The City's Engineering Division is requiring the minimum depth of the driveway from the garage to the property line to be 20 feet from the most restrictive point to allow for parking without encroaching into City right-of-way (see Attachment 5). (7) The cty's access database shows several approved variance requests along 756' Place W. Several setback and height variances have been granted, based on topography and the location of the road compared to the site. Many of these variances are on the west side of 75`h Place W. (8) Views in the area are to the west of Puget Sound and the mountains. (9) Soils as given on the Soil Conservation Service map for this site include Alderwood-Everett gravelly, sandy loams at a 25 to 70 percent slope, Alderwood gravelly, sandy loams at a 15 to 25 percent slopes, and Alderwood-Urban land complex, with 2 to 8 percent slopes. (10)The area of the proposed house is roughly 55 by 25 feet or 1,375 square feet. Two floors would provide 2,750 square feet of floor area, and three floors would provide 4,125 square feet of floor area. The elevation provided does show the house stair -stepping in so that the upper levels likely would have less floor area than the lower levels. The garage area is in addition. (I I)Sizes of houses vary in the neighborhood, with older homes generally being smaller, and newer homes being larger. Across the street at 15220 — 75,' Place W., a home built in 1995 has a floor area of 4,985 square feet with an attached garage of 1,010 square feet, according to Snohomish County Assessor's records. Next door at 15605 — 75th Place W. is a home built in 1948, which has a finished area of 2,080 square feet, with an additional 1520 unfinished basement for a total of 3,600 square feet. (12)The city calculates height by shrinking a rectangle around the footprint of the house and taking the existing elevations at the four corners of that rectangle. As the applicant has proposed the house, and as the house may have to sit if it were to maintain a larger setback from the slope, the height rectangle has three points on the level bench, with the fourth point down the slope towards 75'h Place W. V-06-52 and 53.doc / June 30, 2006 / Staff Report Ron Hilliard File No. V-06-52/53 Page 8 of 13 This lowers the height allowed compared to having all the corners of the rectangle on the bench, or having one corner of the rectangle going up the slope. V-06-52 and 53.doc / June 30, 2006 / Staff Report Ron Hilliard File No, V-06-52/53 Page 9 of 13 b) Conclusions Regarding Setback Variances: (1) Special Circtlms ces: Most of the site is extremely steep. Though it is a large lot and a rectangular shape, very little of the site is useable area. Though no geotechnical report has been provided yet, it seems reasonable to assume that building on the lower bench would be preferable to trying to build on the steeper hill, particularly since the soils include sand and loam. Maintaining the required 25-foot street setbacks to both streets forces the building back into the steep slope with a triangular building pad. Though projects in critical areas often start with the recommendation of a geotechnical engineer to maintain a certain distance from a slope, and the setbacks required from the property lines flow from that, it is not unreasonable to presume some sort of minimal setback will be required from the slope. Therefore, the site has a special circumstance which if the setbacks were strictly enforced would result in the deprivation of the property owner being able to construct a house of a size permitted to other properties in the same vicinity, or would increase the risk of construction by forcing it into the steep slope. (2) Special Privil2u: Other properties on 75s' Place W. have received variances to setbacks to allow them to build closer to the road due to topography issues. 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) Qamprehensiye 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 residence to be in compliance with the zoning ordinance. (4) Not Detrimental: Views in this area are to the west. With the reduced setbacks the proposed house will not block western views because the houses to the east are over 100 feet higher in elevation. The proposed house will be closer to the existing house to the south, which is already quite close to 156' Street SW. The site plan shows the garage at 15605 — 7511' Place W at a ten foot setback to 156s` Street SW. Due to the steep slopes, it is not likely that 156" Street SW will be opened, so it will likely still continue to function as a turnaround and driveway area for the two houses, with its 20 feet of width providing some buffering between the two houses. Therefore the proposal should not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. (5) Minimum Variance: The site plan has been drawn to show the house extending to the 104pot setback from 1560' Street SW, but maintaining a 15-foot setback to 75th Place W. The applicant has stated that he would like the 10-foot variance to provide some flexibility depending on what the geotechnical consultant determines the location of the house should be. Because we don't have a recommendation by a geotechnical consultant, it is difficult to determine what the minimum variance is. The house as proposed perches on the bench, and avoids not only the steep slope above, but also avoids to a large extent the ten - foot drop down to 75m Place W. It is possible that the geotechnical engineer will recommend maintaining this layout, but it seems equally likely that they may suggest a larger setback from the toe of the slope, which would tilt the house so the northwestern comer swings closer to 75a` Place W. than currently shown. In that case, the 10-foot variance could very likely be the minimum variance. Staff recommends a minimum of a ten -foot variance to both streets, but maintaining as V-06-52 and 53.doe / June 30, 2006/ Staff Report Ron Hilliard File No, V-06-52153 Page 10 of 13 large a setback to the street as can safely be allowed given any geotechnical considerations. c) Conclusions Regarding Height Variance: (1) SR9ciaI Circumstances: The slope on the lot reduces the buildable area available. Though several smaller homes are within the neighborhood, most new construction here has floor area of around 4,000 square feet. Most of the lots on the street face some constraints in slope, but this lot seems to have a larger area of its site encumbered with the slope. By the same token, the slope allows the neighbors to the east to be above the top of the roof even with a proposed variance. If the home were to be restricted to the 25-foot height limit, normally a two-story house above a garage, with a living area of 2,750 square feet would be easy to fit on the lot. Because of the height calculations required, it appears that to get two stories above a garage might not fit within the 25-foot height limit, as shown on the elevation (see Attachment 4). It might also require digging further into the bench, which may not be recommended by the geotechnical consultant. This lot has special circumstances in the slope that makes necessary to have a variance to have rights permitted to other properties with the same zoning, (2) Special Privilege: Several variances have been granted to other homes along 75t` Place W due to topography. (3) Comprehgogive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The approval of the height variance is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the variance was approved, the proposed residence would be in compliance with the zoning ordinance. (4) Not Detrimental: The additional height for the house will not block views due to the slope behind them. It will appear taller than most houses on the street, since the height variances are generally on the downhill side of 75h Place W., which present their shorter elevation to the street. The stair -stepping shown on the elevation is a good way to break up the bulk of the building and help it to fit into the street. The proposed height should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone. (5) Minimum Variance: The applicant is requesting to be able to construct a three- story house above a garage to be able to have a similar floor area to new houses in the vicinity. The house is proposed in the given location in order to stay away from the steep slope, have a driveway and garage at street level, and have the rest of the house perch on the bench. No geotechnical report has been provided to require this location, but it seems a logical way to lay out the house, given the constraints. The applicant appears to be using a flat roof on the house, so the variance is the minimum in that respect. The elevation shown in Attachment 4 has a smaller top floor than the other floors. The site also has some very limited ground area that could be used to expand the footprint of the house. The applicant has not shown exactly why the area proposed for the topmost floor could not be provided by slightly expanding the area of the other floors, Therefore, it cannot be determined that the height variance is the minimum variance to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. V-06-52 and 53.doo / June 30, 2006 / Staff Report ? Ron Hilliard File No. V-06-52/53 Page 11 of 13 E. 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. The only comments received were from the Engineering Division (see Attachment 5). b) Conclusion: The applicant should meet the requirements of the Engineering Division. F. Public Comments 1. Letters Received As of the date of this report, the City has not received any comment letters. G. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) 1. Comprehensive Plan Designation a) Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family — Resource." b) Conclusion: Single-family residential development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. 2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies a) Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies which relate to this proposal. Specific goals and policies are discussed below. (1) Residential Development Policy B.1. states, "Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability." (2) Residential Development Policy B.3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures." (3) Residential Development Policy B.6. states, "Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage." b) Conclusion. The pro 90.sed house as shown on the elevation will look different from the house across 156 Street SW and some of the other lower level pitched roof houses that were built in the 1940s or 1950s. The newer houses on the street are more eclectic and include several modern designs with flatter roofs. The new house proposes to avoid the steep slope and perch on the bench at the bottom of the slope, so it is more compatible with the natural constraints of the slopes and geology. Due to the steep slope behind it, it will minimize encroachment on view of the existing homes. Therefore, the proposal is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 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. V-06-52 and 53.doc / June 30, 20061 Staff Report Ron Hilliard File No. V-06-52/53 Page 12 of 13 A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. B. Appeals Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project 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 whir 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 a reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time "clock" for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal 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 / Zoning Map 2. Application 3. Applicant's Declarations 4. Site Plan, Elevation and Aerial Photograph 5. Memo from Lyle Chrisman, Engineering Program Manager, dated May 22, 2006 6. Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report dated May 22, 2006 7. Aerial Photograph of Subject Parcel with LIDAR topography lines V-06-52 and 53.doc / June 30, 2006 1 Staff Report Ron Hilliard File No. V-06-52/53 Page 13 of 13 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD Ron and Susan Hilliard 20831 — 2P Ave. W. Lynnwood, WA 98036 Engineering Division Planning Division V-06-52 and 53.doc / June 30, 2006/ Staff Report 0^ AWW* A. SUBJECTPRQPER� A *1 Al, A- RS-il- 0 R& A Zoning Vicinity Map RS-20 RS-6 RM-3 BP CG2 k\\ RS-12 LPSW-12 RM-2.4 BN Cw mu RS-10 V RS-MP RM-1-5 BC Mpi p RS-8 CG SM MP2 OS 156TH ST SW AL A N Rezones PRD File V-06-52/53 Attachent 1 city*,r t,,jedmonds �,;Aft land use application` e ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW e COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT e CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, e HOME OCCUPATION e FORMAL SUBDIVISION e SHORT SUBDIVISION e LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT e PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT e OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT e STREET VACATION e REZONE 9 SHORELINE PERMIT PVARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION OTHER; FILE V-- `L ZONE Rs-20 DATE 5Z21j= REC-D BY Ile,,- FEE Ai Q r I RECEIPT# _'--A067-tea - _ ___- HEARING DATE 9 HE a STAFF a PB a ADB a CC Vt+c,t,.ac.e• �xaj a 1� Ito R C�tV �D PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 15 5 1 =. t -7 C�-T L, PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) [r C1N PROPERTY OWNERS MAN _Hu.-LlA-CZ PHONE # - O ADDRESS 2-02iZI _ z-�tmA%,lr- id L%twt.3W=n, WA_ - g50.24- E-MAIL ADDRESS FAX # TAX ACCOUNT #bd 6064 QW00 0!t IQ I SEC, - - -S -- TWP, 21 hi RNG, 4 E DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE APPLICANT Q wl N 1 LL1 A2h PHONE # —0 !;03 ADDRESS_ 09,:11 7-1 -17% AUK W. LYMW WQp, ►A1 gS3&— E-MAILADDRESS �'� 't✓�6Syeriz�n.tn�t FAx# 4US 777-zpAs CONTACT PERSON/AGENT -(L - w..0 . 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 fi] s a 1' n the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIONATURE 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 tublic JDMcials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspect ' endanr to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE This application form was revised on 1/27/00, To verify whether it is still current, call (425) 771-0220. L:%LIBRARY\PLANN1Nt71Fotms A HandoutsTublic HandouWiAfid Use Applicadan.dac ATTACHMENT 2 2 pGa f &MM 0 e"am saufs May 4, 2006 APPUCA71ON FOR -VARIANCES Lot 1, Lund's Meadowdale Tracts Tax Parcel Number 00 5009 000 00101 Owners: Ron and Susan Hilliard Hifliard//Lunds Gulch Meadowdale Building Site Rece,VeD MAY 0 8 2666 DEVaqfUENY CrTY of gU0V C0 S VTR. BACKGROUND: Lot 1 is located in the northeast comer of the intersection of Lund's Gulch Road (75"' Place W) and 156"' St SW (an unimproved Right of Way). While the Lot area is 16,553 square feet, only the southwesterly 5,850 +l- square feet is usable for house construction, the balance being steep slope rising to the east. VARIANCES REQUESTED. 1. Front yard setback from 156' St. SW from 25' to 10' 2. Front yard setback from 75"' Place W from 25' to 10' 3. Maximum building height from 25' to 36' (main level to roof peak with the garage 9' below the main level) Responses to the six criteria for variance approvals: Special Circumstances Set back from 1 W" St. - This Street has been abandoned west of 75"' (Ord. 3204) and cannot be improved to the east because of the steep slope. The requested 10' set back would establish a building separation from the existing structure to the south of 41' which exceeds the required 35'. Set back from 7e Place W. - North of 156"' St SW, 7e Place W is used for access to this lot and one other on the west side and for maintenance access to Meadowdale Beach County Park and therefore has a very low traffic volume, more as a drive than a street. The required right of way width of 75"' PI. W south of 151P has been reduced from sixty (60) feet io forty (40) feet (Ord. 2799 and 2957) limiting any major future improvements of the existing roadway. The requested set back would allow a clearance of approximately 25' from the face of the garage to the traveled way of 75"'. Maximum building height — with the small usable area of this lot and even with the requested reduction of setbacks, a three story living area is necessary to attain a comparable square footage to other homes in the area. The additional height will not obstruct any adjacent property views as the slope to the east elevates those landward properties approximately 100' above this lot. Special Privilege Granting the requested variances would not call for special privilege as there are many homes in the area with setback and height variances necessitated by similar topographical constraints that limit usable buildable area. PGS, Inc. 6W8 21e St SW, Suite 304, Mountalke Terrace, WA 98043, Ph:(425)778-SM Faz(425)715-�W ATTACHMENT 3 Hilliard I/ Lunds Gulch PGS, kx Y ;W Meadowdale Building Site Comprehensive Plan Approval of the requested variances would allow conformance with the Comprehensive plan by permitting construction of a single family residence on a large lot similar to those existing in the neighborhood. Zoning Ordinance These requests meet the purposes of the zoning ordinance by establishing adequate setbacks from adjacent structures and street traveled way and allowing a similar size residence to existing in the area without impacting any views. Not Detrimental Granting these requests will not be detrimental to surrounding properties as no traffic safety, building separation or views will be impacted. A well designed and constructed home will add value to the neighborhood and the community. Minimum Variance As mentioned above, the requested variances are the minimum required due to a building area approximating a RS-6 zoned lot in a RS-20 zone with the associated large homes in the neighborhood. PGS, Inc. 6608 21e St. SW, Suite 304, Mountalke Terrace, WA 98043, Ph:(425)778-5620 Fax:(425)775-2849 �1 1 Y ' MS 1S 99{ 03N3dONn 1 Ii Nova s AI a3sodoad t— _ \�N I N III n \ \ \\\ sf+ Vk i I III 30010 a W LLJ w = = N U O O N N a II N r >, m z J Z o �Q o p N � 0 0 W 5 N �o D cm p zg CN to a Z p� a m = U L)cn Z= UD U, W Z0 0 cn �oo0 N 0 a. _ J 63 X 0 Wa _ W �Z 0 a Z Q cy- U 00 0 Cc CD yCo gQ� 0a)e yr U 5 uj RS 06 U) v g �x� 0of M .2 WLL W Co~ CM �� �Z, NZI" a dream home source Front Rendering Plan #6767 V9 CEEIVED 1 u N It 3 2006 PERMIT COUNTER PbSEa �"a E1„nC. VA T` Z. SCa ` %'T Order online or call now to purchase your dream home plan! 1.800.447-0027 3275 West Ina Road, Suite 260, Tucson, AZ 85741 9 J co h NN Q U OSN�rl N v N(^O' a M M N N W N C9 N NNNN = II II II II U 0,0 a a w =¢mvo Q�da la 3 r I� o m � N W � LL O - Y p v' dZN ? y W = O2Q9 co N- I �J II w U N O N D Iq. ¢ z Ej I = II maw W w J ~ 00 Z ' M o of Y o M V ¢ Z O M O I L] N O a H N I ? 0 Q I = Z N ZZ []=Q� 02 V) 0 I dm=� OS I -J U U d Q I o3�o Z� W ONZ ¢QoQoo NC.9 I p xw W 2 2 J W I O Zo I o o Q I � I � 5 .0-6 �cl M '4 F E 1rV 5w�8 M CO rn U v c co m d O� "Er v~i~tea uj V Chi 2Y�y C1« m�co a �� fV Z _ CO l0 V� ,0C a MEMORANDUMN�N �oQs Date: 22 May 06 To: Meg Gruwell, Senior Planner From: Lyle Chrisman, Engineering Program Manager Subject: Hilliard Variance at 15515 75" PL W. We do not see any comments with regard to the height variance, however, there is some concern with regard to the setback request. Due to the location of the site, perpendicular access from the road will be difficult based on the plan submitted. In order for Engineering to support the setback variance, the following conditions must be placed on the variance. 1. The minimum depth of the driveway from garage to the property line must be 20' from the most restrictive point to allow for parking without encroaching into City right-of- way. 2. The maximum driveway shope shall not exceed 14%. Please advise the applicant they will be required to meet all engineering requirements when the single family building permit is submitted, including the installation of a 5'walkway along the frontage of the property. City of Edmonds S.\ENGR\PRiVATE DEVELOMEM PROIECTSWEVIEVALAND USMVAR106-52 hilliard var.DOC ATTACHMENT 5 #P20 CA File No: Critical Areas Checklist Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation) 1. Site Address/Location ��1 'ITT }fit_, W,i�1�1t3rt3b� 2. Property Tax Account Number. _�p�'�q n dd I (n i 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 4_ Is this site currently developed? _ yes; —X no. If yes; how is site developed? 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling. slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-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). X 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: : Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: ; Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway floodplain of a water course. R. Site contains 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 ; mixed X___-; urban landscaped (lawn, shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: For City Staff Use Only UM-Q -- 1. Plan Check Number, if applicable? 2. Site is Zoned? M - 20 3. SCS mapped soil type(s)? 4 - .Ala- n-a - f4ft t* t rwsr,,, s•�It. ( 2i - 7� % t cep y 4. Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area on site? Ycs--a,►/lh �; H� S� erst�ar� 6*-WA ;, t w,l t, 6-ba:►a - 5. Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? Yes DETERMINATION STUDY REQUIRED WAIVER Reviewed bv: Date: Griticat Areas Checklisd3.25.2a(34 ATTACHMENT 6 �4w1. #P20 Of EDQ City of Edmonds '" Development Services Department Planning Division Phone: 425.771.0220 ♦4� 1$90 Fax: 425.771.0221 The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person 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 may be, 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). R ,C JFj V 5 D MA`S 0 8 2006 �4 . Date Received: City Receipt #: Critical Areas File #: =;ZG06 -00 Critical Areas Checklist Fee: $135.00 Date Mailed to Aonlicant: 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 trap, along with the signed copy of this form to assist City staff in finding 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 applidlh3ti4Rt'3'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 a ibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to filoks-WAAA on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPMANTIAGENT %' `� DATE ) —C7 4 - O 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 postings#W4ftWtq6is application. Owner/Applicant: Name -Ws3► Z-2SRZ1� - - -- Street Address City State Zip Telephone: 421-2� 3-71-O(A (c ._-- Applicant Representative: I� :�'�i I Street Address City State Zip Telephone: Email address (optional): 1�5 A �CSIQ�IQ, ►12oIJ.rx 1 Address (optional): CITY OF EDMONDS CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT Site Location: 15515 — 7e Place W. Tax Acct. Number: 5009 000 001 01 Determination: Study Required Determination #: CA-06-58 Applicant: Ron Hilliard Owner: Ron Hilliard CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT: STUDY REQUIRED CA-06-58 During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site may contain critical areas, including Geologically Hazardous areas and Wildlife Habitat pursuant to Chapter 23.40 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). 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 specific 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 - LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to a Landslide Hazard Area. • 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 (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). 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. STUDY REQUIREMENT — FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT Since the sight is within a mapped wildlife habitat area, the City would like to preserve as much of the native vegetation as possible. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ON A SITE WITH WILDLIFE HABITAT The applicant must submit a clearing/tree cutting plan with any development permit. Tree cutting and clearing of native vegetation shall be limited to the footprint of development. 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. Name nature 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. 2 rf.. 04 '; _ 0 �w Flo U SOU 6 J EC 23770O ._.. A, R$ 4- Zoning Vicinity Map © RS-20 Q RS-8 RM-3 ® BP M CG2 RS-12 1 RSW-12 ® RM-2.4 BN M OW MU RS-10 V RS-MP RM-1.5 SCES MP1 ® P RS-8 CG ® MP2 OS A 156TH ST SW M Rezones CD PRD File V-06-52/53 Attachent 1 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASMNGTON, ___) - COUNTY OF SNOHOhHSH ' - - - NQTICE OF v£9ECOPFdENr AppEMATrONT ROTICE - EA1iiNt�~- Name of scant: Ron Hilliard PNumber: 7152 and V-W53 Pro Location: 15515 - 75th Place W. Project Description: Variance Applications to reduce the re- gwred 25-foot street setback to 10 feet along both 75th Piece W. and 156M Sheet SW and to allow a single- . �arnly Melderoe to be con - ad at 34.5 feet Instead of the maximum allowed 25- loot twr in the Single 'Family Residential (RS-2E1) zone. it; Contact: Meg Gruwall Pubblic Comments pus By: July 6. 2006 HEARING INF RMATION ;meta: e: 3. p.m. ' Council Chambers. Public Selety Complex `250 5th Ava. N. E ds pubkished: June 22, 2006. RECEIVED JUN 26 = EDMONDS CITY CLERK Account Name: City of Edmonds The undersigned, being first duly sworn on o9th 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 Ron Hilliard Project Number. V-W52 and V-W53 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: June 22, 2006 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. Subscribed and swam to before me this 22nd day of Jane, 2006 Notary Public for tllE State of Washington, residing at County. / Accamt Number: 101416 L. STAMq n+OrA1,Y N t3� 9-17-2008 �2 WASW Order Number- L s C(0 N X N O W N , .L c N _ 0 Z > O Q} (L) f.• U. CLo a) Z Z a N A C *A `r Q .'i. 00 " .0 o 0 w * cc 0 0 0 0 0 0 a ° E c C • w o a N �a � WN � � U V 4 Cad e tm a Q « C ~ cc 0— p � � « rr► O � ¢ � R, o BIAS 0 � •�6 A C ~ •w CL 00 M 0 3 � C CL Of V OC �Q. �•k CL 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. 4, &�7 .. Signatu f 10icant or Applicant's Representative Subscribed and sworn to before me this NOTE Y PUBUC 44azo`1a ors , S4day of AA aUZOOCP. Notary Public in(ah06r the7StiWof Residing at G(% APO DOC 00 5009 000 00101 00 5009 000 00102 00 5009 000 00103 Ronnie & Susan Hilliard Thomas & Marilyn Degan Kenneth Miller 20831 23`d Ave. W 18208 Ridgefield Rd NW 19911 89th PI W Lynnwood, WA 98036 Seattle, WA 98177 Edmonds.WA 98026 00 5009 000 002 00 00 5009 000 002 01 00 5009 000 003 02 Rick & Mary Mezich William & Helen Jessberger Yong & Keesoon Namkung 7215 156th StSW 15508 72nd Ave W 15516 72nd Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 00 5009 000 003 03 00 5009 000 004 00 00 5009 000 005 00 Richard Eaks Ronnie & Sus ' iard Snohomish Co Prop Mgmt 15524 72nd Ave W 2083 Ave W 3000 Rockefeller Ave #M 40 Edmonds, WA 98026 joyfinwood.WA 98036 Everett, WA 98201 00 5009 000 006 01 00 5009 P&w.-ge 07 00 00 5009 000 008 00 Dr. John &Mrs. Heldridge Dr. John dridge Snohomish C gmt 930 Glen St 930 3000 efeller Ave #M 40 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 PKren, WA 98201 00 5009 000 010 00 00 5131000 024 01 00 5131 000 024 02 Dr. John & e dridge Tiffany & Scott Hansen Kyle & Juliann Ray 930 t 15615 75th PI W 15625 75th Pi W monds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 00 5131 000 024 04 00 5131000 024 06 00 5131000 024 07 Chris & Karyn Hammond Michael & Betty Rusnak Linda Summers Trust 15605 75th PI W 15620 72nd Ave W 1201 3rd Ave #4800 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Seattle, WA 98101 00 5131 000 024 08 00 5131000 024 09 00 51�000024Marvin Dyson SPonds, Seab15610 72nd Ave W 15 Edmonds, WA 98026 A 98026 monds, WA 98026 00 5131 028 00100 00 5133 000 025 01 00 5133 000 025 03 Ursula Schluter Michael & Betty Rusnak Joanne Spiro 15620 75th P1 W 15 620.72nd Ave W 1563175th PI W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026