The URL can be used to link to this page

2024-09-26 Hearing Examiner Packet41 OE LUMG do Agenda Edmonds Hearing Examiner REGULAR MEETING BRACKETT ROOM 121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL - 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020 SEPTEMBER 26, 2024, 3:00 PM MEETING INFORMATION This meeting is Hybrid per ECDC ECDC 10.35.010(F) and is located at the Edmonds City Hall 121 5th Ave N, 3rd Floor Brackett Room Zoom Link Meeting Info: https://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/j/82688031743?pwd=U EROWk5hdU5DN1dRK1V3MkR2WTRSdzO9 Passcode: 308007 Or join by phone: 253 215 8782 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MAYBERRY ZONING SETBACK VARIANCE Mayberry Setback Variance request to reduce 10th PI N street setback (PLN2024-0062) B. MATTSON CRITICAL AREA VARIANCE Mattson Reasonable Economic Use Variance at 963 Main St. (PLN2023-0013) 4. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Hearing Examiner Agenda September 26, 2024 Page 1 Hearing Examiner Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/26/2024 Mayberry Setback Variance request to reduce 10th PI N street setback (PLN2024-0062) Staff Lead: Rose Haas Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rose Haas Background/History The subject property is zoned RS-12 and the standard street setback in that zone is 25 feet. The property owner previously applied for an average front setback determination through file PLN2024-0022, which established the street setback for the parcel at 22.67 feet from the property line along 10th Ave. N. The subject variance request is to further reduce that street setback to 19 feet to accommodate an International Residential Code (IRC)-compliantentryway. The applicant proposes to remove the current unpermitted/nonconforming deck and replace it with an entryway that meets the minimum necessary requirements for ingress and egress. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner approve the variance request because it satisfies all six decision criteria in ECDC 20.85.010. Narrative The Staff Report and Attachments 1-14 provide an analysis of the project proposal, staff recommendation, and conditions. Attachments: PLN2024-0062 Variance Staff Report Attachments 1-14 Packet Pg. 2 'nC. t syv CITY OF EDMONDS 121 51" Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Project: Mayberry Setback Variance Address: 1402 1011 Pt N, Edmonds File Numbers: PLN2024-0062 Date of Report: September 19, 2024 From: Rose Haas, Planner Public Hearing: Thursday, September 26, 2024, at 3:00 P.M. Edmonds City Hall, 121 - 5" Ave N, 3rd Floor, Brackett Room. Online participation is also available via the following Zoom link: https://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/j/82688031743?pwd=UEROWk5hdU5DN1 dRK1V3MkR2WTRSd z09 Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782 Meeting ID: 826 8803 1743 Password 308007 I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND PROCESS Christopher Gerrick, the representative for property owner Ross Mayberry, is requesting a variance to reduce the street setback at 1402 10th Pl N. The subject property is zoned RS-12 and the standard street setback in that zone is 25 feet. The property owner previously applied for an average front setback determination through file PLN2024-0022, which established the street setback for the parcel at 22.67 feet. The subject variance request is to further reduce the street setback to 19 feet to accommodate an International Residential Code (IRC)- compliant entryway. The applicant proposes to remove the current unpermitted/nonconforming deck and replace it with an entryway that meets the minimum necessary requirements for ingress and egress. Packet Pg. 3 File PLN 2024-0062 Mayberry Variance A variance application is a Type III -B decision according to Section 20.01.003 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). A Type III-B application requires public notice prior to a public hearing and final decision by the Hearing Examiner. II. ATTACHMENTS 1. Photos of Unpermitted Work 2. Planning Comment Letter and Historic Site Plans 3. Code Enforcement Records 4. Property Survey 5. PLN2024-0022 —Average Front Setback Exception Determination 6. Variance Application 7. Applicant Narrative 8. Letter of Completeness and Corrections Required 9. Notice of Application Noticing Materials 10. Architectural Plans 11. Public Hearing Noticing Materials 12. Zoning and Vicinity Map 13. Engineering Compliance Memorandum 14. Public Comment — Ken Reidy III. BACKGROUND In 2022, the owner of the property expanded the entryway and constructed a front deck adjacent to 10' Pl North without a building permit. Upon review of the deck, it was discovered that the attached entryway in its present configuration was also unpermitted. Original construction plans from 1967 do not show the existing entry, and the building permit from 1996 does not indicate any structures within the previous 25-foot setback from 10t" Pl N. See Attachment 1 for photos that illustrate the progression of the unpermitted work. See Attachment 2 for Planning Division Comments with snips from previous building permits. On December 6, 2022, the City of Edmonds Code Enforcement Officer received a complaint that an unpermitted accessory dwelling unit had been developed onsite. A code enforcement case was opened under file number COD2022-0222 on December 8, 2022. On December 19, 2022, the property owner submitted a Conditional Use Permit application for the accessory dwelling unit under permit number PLN2022-0105. It was noted in the application materials that recent electrical and plumbing work had been completed without permits. Unpermitted work was also noted in the January 18, 2023, Building Division Memorandum from the Building Official to the Planner overseeing the application. Page 2 of 8 Packet Pg. 4 File PLN 2024-0062 Mayberry Variance On January 30, 2023, the property owner asked to withdraw the conditional use application and the Code Enforcement Officer sent a reminder to the property owner that a building permit would be required to address the unpermitted work On March 17, 2023, the property owner applied for a basement remodel permit to address unpermitted additions. During review of the application, the Building Inspector noted the unpermitted deck addition in his April 10, 2024, plan check. See Attachment 3 for code enforcement records. Through the application review, it was found that there was no previous permit for the deck nor for the current configuration of the attached entryway. It was also noted that the entryway was nonconforming in regard to the 25-foot street setback. A survey showing the front setbacks is Attachment 4. On March 12, 2024, the property owner applied for an average front setback determination to try to preserve portions of the unpermitted entryway and attached deck. Average front setback determination are a Type 1 staff decision that does not require public notice. The Planning Division determined that the street setback at 1402 101" Pl N could be reduced from 25 feet to 22.67 feet as allowed by ECDC 16.20.040(A). The staff decision is under file number PLN2024-0022 and is Attachment 5. Despite the reduction to the street setback, portions of the deck and attached entryway still encroach into the required setback. On July 31, 2024, Chris Gerrick, the applicant representing the property owner, applied for a variance to the zoning ordinance to reduce the 22.67-feet street setback to 19-feet. The setback reduction will allow for an entryway into the residence that meets the minimum International Residential Code (IRC) building requirements. IV. COMPLETENESS AND NOTICE OF APPLICATION The subject application was submitted on July 31, 2024, with additional information received on August 14, 2024. Initial submitted materials included a land use application form (Attachment 6), applicant narrative (Attachment 7), and initial architectural plans. The application was determined to be complete pursuant to ECDC 20.02.002 on August 26, 2024. A letter of completeness included departmental corrections (Attachment 8). A Notice of Application was posted at the subject site, Public Safety Complex, and the Planning and Development Department on August 28, 2024. The notice was also published in the Everett Herald and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site on August 28, 2024. Noticing materials are included as Attachment 9. In response to the corrections included in the letter of completeness, the applicant submitted updated architectural plans (Attachment 10). Page 3 of 8 Packet Pg. 5 File PLN 2024-0062 Mayberry Variance V. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A Notice of Public Hearing was posted at the subject site, Public Safety Complex, and Planning and Development Department on September 12, 2024 (Attachment 11). The notice was also published in the Everett Herald and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site on September 12, 2024. The City of Edmonds has complied with the noticing provisions of ECDC 20.03.002 and 20.03.003. VI. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODES 1. ECDC 16.20 RS—Single-Family Residential A. The subject site is located within the RS-12 zone and is subject to the zoning requirements of ECDC Chapter 16.20. See Attachment 12 for a Zoning and Vicinity Map. B. Pursuant to ECDC 16.20.030, setbacks forth e RS-12 zone are: Street: 25 feet Sides: 10 feet Rear: 25 feet C. The subject site is a `corner lot' defined as "a lot which has frontage on two or more streets where the streets meet" (ECDC 21.15.100). The two street are 1011 Pl N on the west side and Grandview St on the south side; a portion of 10t" Pl N is unopened City of Edmonds right-of-way and is not paved. Setbacks from both of the street property lines are 25 feet. The north and east sides have 10-foot setbacks. The property does not have a rear setback. D. The property owner applied for an average front setback determination, and the Planning Division determined that the street setback from the west property line at 1402 101" Pl N is reduced from 25 feet to 22.67 feet as allowed by ECDC 16.20.040(A). (Attachment 5) 2. ECDC 20.85 Variances A. An applicant may request a variance from any requirement of the zoning ordinance (ECDC Titles 16 and 17), except use and procedural requirements, pursuant to the procedures outlined in ECDC 20.85. ECDC 20.85.010 contains the findings that must be made for a variance application to be approved. According to the referenced code, "No variance maybe approved unless all of the findings in this section can be made." The findings include: A. Special Circumstances. That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights Page 4 of 8 Packet Pg. 6 File PLN 2024-0062 Mayberry Variance and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning, 1. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses set forth in ECDC 17.00.030, and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds, and wildlife habitats; 2. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which maybe 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. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan; D. Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located, E. 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 same zone; F. 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. B. The Applicant submitted narrative statements and supporting materials explaining why they believe the proposed variance request meets the criteria in ECDC 20.85 and should therefore be granted (Attachment 7). C. The following is staff's analysis of how the proposed variance satisfies the criteria of ECDC 20.85: 1) Special Circumstances There are special circumstances on the property. Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 7 File PLN 2024-0062 Mayberry Variance The configuration of the original entryway is not known and no longer exists in its original form. Concrete stairs found under the existing wood entryway may be original to the home (See Attachment 10), but do not meet current International Residential Code (IRC) requirements per R311, specifically minimum landingwidth and depth, and stair rise and run. In order to provide safe ingress and egress from the front entryway, the 101h Pl N setback must be reduced to 19 feet to accommodate a code -compliant stairway. The proposed setback variance meets the special circumstance criterion. 2) Special Privilege Approval of the variance would not grant special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties within the same zoning. Strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would not allow for required landing/width depth and stair rise/run of the entryway, which would deprive the owner safe ingress and egress from the front entry door. As a result, the subject variance meets the special privilege criterion in ECDC 20.85.010(B). 3) Comprehensive Plan The subject property is located within the Single Family— Resource designation. The Comprehensive Plan discusses protecting neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures in the area. Incompatible additions include additions that do not meet the development standards of the zoning code. While the unpermitted deck addition does not meet applicable RS-12 zoning standards as outlined by Chapter 16.20 ECDC, reducing the footprint of the entryway to the minimum allowed by the building code would remain in keeping with surrounding properties. The applicant indicates that the horizontal siding of the entry stairway will complement the existing residence. This variance request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as required in ECDC 20.85.010(C). 4) Zoning Ordinance The RS-12 zone where the project is located requires street setbacks of 25 feet from the street lot lines. The subject property is a corner lot and is subject to a street setback on the west and south property lines (10th Pl N. and Grandview St). An average front setback determination Page 6 of 8 Packet Pg. 8 File PLN 2024-0062 Mayberry Variance allowed for a 22.67-foot setback from 1011 Pl N. The current unpermitted additions result in an actual setback of 10.5 feet from the west property line. However, the proposal to reconstruct the entryway at the minimum required by the IRC would require a 19-foot setback from the 101h PIN property line. Per ECDC 16.20.040(C), uncovered unenclosed porches, steps, patios, and decks may project into a required setback no more than one-third or the required setback, or four feet, which ever is less; provided, that they are no more than 30 inches above ground level at any point. The submitted site plan (Attachment 10), shows compliance with ECDC 16.20.040(C). While the setback reduction does not meet the zoning criterion in ECDC 20.85.010(D), the proposal minimizes the amount of structure required to be in the 101h Pl N setback, greatly reducing the existing nonconformity. 5) Not Detrimental The variance request creates an IRC-compliant entrywaythat meets ingress/egress requirements. Therefore, the proposal meets the criterion in ECDC 20.85.010(E) and is not detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone. 6. Minimum Variance The proposed design is the minimum necessary required by the IRC to allow the owner right to ingress and egress from the front entry. VII. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE This application was reviewed and evaluated by South County Fire, the Building Division, and the Engineering Division. Additional reviews and inspections will be required for any associated building permit and/or potential demolition permit in order to bring the building into compliance with the Building Code and South County Fire standards. The Engineering Division found that the proposed development is consistent with the Engineering standards of Title 18 ECDC. An Engineering Memorandum is Attachment 13. Vill. PUBLIC COMMENTS As of the date of this staff report, one public comment has been received. Page 7 of 8 Packet Pg. 9 IX. X. XI. M File PLN 2024-0062 Mayberry Variance The commenter, Ken Reidy, had no concern with the proposal, but objects to the use of the Hearing Examiner system in the City of Edmonds (Attachment 14). CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis and attachments included in this report, staff finds that the proposal satisfies the variance criteria in ECDC 20.85 and recommends that the Hearing Examiner approve the variance request in file PLN2024-0062 to reduce the required setback from the 1011 Pl N street property line from 22.67 feet to 19 feet to accommodate an International Residential Code (IRC)-compliant entryway for safe ingress and egress from the residence. One condition is proposed: 1. Necessary building permits must be obtained for the removal and reconstruction of the deck/entry. RECONSIDERATION According to ECDC 20.06.140, a party of record may request the Hearing Examiner reconsider the permit decision within 10 days of the issuance of the decision if they believe there are errors of procedure, law/fact, or judgement, or if new evidence is discovered that was not known and could not have been discovered previously. APPEALS Pursuant to ECDC 20.06.020, a party of record may submit an appeal of a Type III-B decision within 14 days after the date of issuance of the decision. The appeal must be made in writing and include the required information stated in ECDC 20.06.030 as well as the applicable appeal fee. The appeal would be heard at a closed -record hearing before the City Council according to the requirements of ECDC Chapter 20.06. PARTIES OF RECORD City of Edmonds 121 —5t" Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Ross Mayberry rossmayberryphd@hotmail.com Christopher Gerrick chris@gerrickoffice.com Ken Reidy kenreidy(a)hotmail.com Page 8 of 8 Packet Pg. 10 Attachment 1 0 1402 101h PI Deck addition Photos of unpermitted entry/deck Real Estate photo from 2007 Packet Pg. 11 Attachment 1 0 Real Estate photos from 2015 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment 1 0 2022 Aerial from City of Edmonds GIS N 0 0 0 v N 0 N Z J a a� m a� L w Z FL 0 T <.i L Q W L V �L M 1 U w d L CM C T T V W Q I_ M 0 Q Packet Pg. 13 Attachment 1 0 August 24, 2024 Aerial from Google Earth N O O NT N O N Z J a a� m a� L W Z FL 0 m a� L Q W L V �L 1 U fC rr d Cn L C� C r r E V W Q E Q Packet Pg. 14 Attachment 2 0 'nC. 18`)\J CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION DATE: December 27, 2023 TO: Ross Mayberry FROM: Rose Haas, Planner (425) 771-0220, ext. 1239 rose.haas@edmondswa.gov RE: Planning Correspondence BLD2023-0339 1402 10th Place North Basement Remodel and Deck *COD* On behalf of the Planning Division, I have reviewed the above building permit application. During review, it was found that the following information, corrections, or clarifications need to be addressed. Please respond to the following items, so that review may continue: 1) Unpermitted Deck Additions: During review, staff identified a new deck that appears to have been constructed without a permit in 2022 or 2023 (based on a review of aerial photographs and county assessor records) adjacent to 10th Place North. It also appears that the previous deck that it replaced, as well as an existing stairway and arbor, were unpermitted. Original construction plans from 1967 do not show the replaced deck, and the the building permit from 1996 does not indicate any structures within the 25-foot setback from 10th Place North. Per Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030, setback requirements in the RS-12 zone (including for decks over 30" in height) are 25-feet from public streets (loth Place North and Grandview Street) and 10-feet from the north and east property lines, consistent with the submitted survey. Option 1: Please submit documentation that demonstrates that any structure within the required 25' setback adjacent to 10th PI North property line was legally built (e.g., a building permit). Such structures include the current or previous deck and current stairway adjacent to 10th Place North. Option 2: Please restore the portion of the building on the 10th PI North property line to the original legally permitted footprint as shown in the site plan from the original 1967 construction permit and the 1996 building permit. This includes removing all unpermitted structures within the 25' street setback, including the existing entry. See permits below: Packet Pg. 15 Attachment 2 0 Permit #1953 from 1967 showing the original constructed footprint. No structures are located within the 25' setback adjacent to 10th PI N 0 A : 499 g : +91 C _ +103 D: +101 xr-- --- i Snip of site plan from original construction permit #1953 from 1967 Average G'f&Je- =+100.5 MnzImum = -f 125,5 A c-tu p.t - a- 1 A3. 0 o /;C±'19 �6 Kl 43*,� C+ `�, u f 85r �v o B +99 1 Asp dt• C D♦ 101' A4 `9Y'PL"ING - 4d=t je;r", A r Datum Pf. Dro i^ (ov +100 Permit #960549 from 1996 showing an approved site plan. No structures are located within the 25'setback adjacent to 10th PI N 2 Packet Pg. 16 Attachment 2 0 Option 3: You may apply for a variance to the zoning ordinance (ECDC Titles 16 and 17). A variance is a Type III-B decision subject to review by the Hearing Examiner. Note: the Planning Department cannot recommend that the Hearing Examiner approve a variance to allow the unpermitted structures within setbacks per ECDC 20.85.010(A)(2) — there are no special circumstances that would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties with the same zoning. Please refer to ECDC Chapter 20.85 and the attached handout for the required variance criteria. To begin the variance through the MVBuildingPermit Portal, you will select: A) Application Type: Land Use B) Project Type: New C) Activity Type: Deviations, Modifications, Variances, or Waivers D) Scope of Work: Variance You will be required to submit a criteria statement demonstrating how the proposal meets the findings of ECDC 20.85.010 (listed as Criteria in the attached Variance Handout), and a legal description of the property. Code Enforcement will follow-up with a timeline to correct this issue as well as any other issues related to the initial complaint. 2) Unpermitted Arbor Structure: Please indicate the arbor over the driveway on the site plan and indicate its height and total square footage. If the arbor meets the criteria in ECDC Chapter 17.30, the structure will be allowed to remain. Packet Pg. 17 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • Fax: (425) 771-0221 www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT °e. 18y11 December 8, 2022 Ross Mayberry Revocable Living Trust 1402 10th Place N. Edmonds, WA 98020-2629 Case: # COD2022-0222 Subject property: 1402 10th Place N., Edmonds, WA. 98020 Dear Property Owner, Attachment 3 0 The City has received a complaint that an accessory dwelling unit has been developed at the subject property listed above without the required permits. This in effect creates a duplex (multi -family) dwelling in a single-family zone. Please take the corrective actions listed below to avoid any further code enforcement actions. The City has no record of a duplex or accessory dwelling unit being legally established at this location. According to Snohomish County Assessor records, the "use code" for this property is also a single-family residence. A duplex is not allowed to be developed in a single-family zone. An Accessory Dwelling Unit is allowed with a permit under specific criteria. Corrective actions required by December 20, 2022: • Please contact to respond to this letter and advise your compliance plan and schedule. If there is no response, an Order to Correct Violation Notice would be issued. • In any case, the building needs to be maintained as an unseparated single-family residence Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this letter at 425-771-0220. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance. If you want to discuss ADUs with a City of Edmonds planner, please call 425-771-0220 and ask for the planner on duty. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance. Sincerely, 'gar l00dg Dan Gooding Code Enforcement Officer dan.gooding@edmondswa.gov • Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City Kekinan, Japan Packet Pg. 18 Attachment 3 0 OF ED& MEMORANDUM td��90 Date: January 18, 2023 To: Rose Haas, Planner From: Leif Bjorback, Building Official Re: 1402 loth Pl. N. PLN2022-0105 Accessory Dwelling Unit The City of Edmonds Building Division has performed a preliminary building code review of the plans that were submitted under the referenced application number and have the following comments. 1. It was noted in the application materials that recent electrical and plumbing work has been completed, apparently without the required permits. Please indicate this work on the plans, as well as any other construction having been performed without permits. Please be aware that a building permit will be required for all construction associated with the creation of the accessory dwelling unit. 2. Please refer to the City handout for accessory dwelling units for information as to what elements to include on the plans that will be submitted for the building permit. In particular the current plans do not clearly show the location and size of the bedroom egress window, locations of utility shutoffs, the interconnectivity of the smoke alarms or any fire rated separation between the two dwelling units. Other features must be shown as well. Thank you. City of Edmonds cza Building Department Packet Pg. 19 Attachment 3 0 From: Ross Mayberry PhD To: Barson, Christina Subject: Cancel permit applications Date: Friday, January 27, 2023 3:33:35 PM Christina, As I just told you over the phone, I am withdrawing all applications related to an ADU/land use in my home. Thank you for tending to this matter. Ross Mayberry reply to rossmayberryphd@hotmail.com Ross L. Mayberry PhD 1402 - IOTH Place N Edmonds, WA 98020 (206) 735-9592 0 www.wanderingminds.com Packet Pg. 20 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • Fax: (425) 771-0221 www.edmondswa.gov PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT °e. 18y11 January 30, 2023 Attachment 3 0 On December 8, 2022, 1 sent you the below notice and on December 19, 2022, you applied for a Conditional Use Permit required to operate an accessory dwelling unit onsite. You have since requested that application be withdrawn, however it was noted in the application materials that recent electrical and plumbing work has been completed without the required permits. As of today's date, no building permit application has been received for the work completed. Please submit an application through the website listed below or call 425-771-0220 and ask for a Permit Coordinator and they will explain the permit process. Building Permit applications may be submitted at www.mybuildingpermit.com Please submit a complete application by February 9, 2023. Sincerely, Dan Gooding December 8, 2022 Ross Mayberry Revocable Living Trust 1402 10th Place N. Edmonds, WA 98020-2629 Case: # COD2022-0222 Subject property: 1402 10th Place N., Edmonds, WA. 98020 Dear Property Owner, The City has received a complaint that an accessory dwelling unit has been developed at the subject property listed above without the required permits. This in effect creates a duplex (multi -family) dwelling in a single-family zone. Please take the corrective actions listed below to avoid any further code enforcement actions. The City has no record of a duplex or accessory dwelling unit being legally established at this location. According to Snohomish County Assessor records, the "use code" for this property is also a single-family residence. A duplex is not allowed to be developed in a single-family zone. An Accessory Dwelling Unit is allowed with a permit under specific criteria. Corrective actions required by December 20, 2022: • Please contact to respond to this letter and advise your compliance plan and schedule. If there is no response, an Order to Correct Violation Notice would be issued. • In any case, the building needs to be maintained as an unseparated single-family residence • Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City Kekinan, Japan Packet Pg. 21 Attachment 3 0 Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this letter at 425-771-0220. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance. If you want to discuss ADUs with a City of Edmonds planner, please call 425-771-0220 and ask for the planner on duty. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance. Sincerely, (/aK �oada'a Dan Gooding Code Enforcement Officer dan.gooding@edmondswa.gov Packet Pg. 22 Attachment 3 0 �OV ED Vo City of Edmonds PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS BUILDING DIVISION Est. ig9a (425) 771-0220 DATE: 4/ 10/2023 TO: Applicant: MARCI KASTNER Owner: ROSS L T MAYBERRY FROM: ERIC CARTER RE: Plan Check: BLD2023-0339 Project Address: 1402 LOTH PL N Project: MAYBERRY-BASEMENT REMODEL, WORK ALREADY DONE *COD* During a review of the plans by the Building Division for compliance with the applicable building codes, it was found that the following information, clarifications, or changes are needed. Reviews by other divisions, such as Planning, Engineering, or Fire, may result in additional comments that require attention beyond the scope of this letter. Items that recur on this list appear in italics. MyBuildingPermit.com submittals: Please upload a complete new set of plans, calculations etc. to your application on https://mybuildingpennit.com/. A written response letter that is in itemized letter format is required. Indicate where the `clouded' or otherwise highlighted changes can be found on the revised architectural and structural plans. Note: Do NOT use clouding on civil plans. Upon receipt the re -submittal will be routed for review(s). General: During the plan review process, it was noted that a new deck appears to have been added to the front of the home. The city does not have any records of a new deck. Can you please confirm the new deck structure? If the deck is new, we will need you to add the construction details to the plans. Sheet A2: The provided plans indicate smoke detectors. It is unclear if these detectors are interconnected as required by R314.4. Please clarify and add notes to the plans. 2. The proposed bedroom appear to have windows. It is unclear, if one or all of the windows meet the egress requirements of R310.2.1 &310.2.2. Please clarify and indicate dimensions on the plans. Page I of 2 Packet Pg. 23 Attachment 3 0 3. The newly created closet for the W/D creates an issue for "make up air". The closet will require a minimum of a 100 square inch air transfer opening. Please indicate the means in which the make up will be provided on the plans. Thank you, ERIC CARTER City of Edmonds (425) 771-0220 Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 24 Attachment 4 0 C� woos S, RAILING - �� /0 (TYP.) i V Ap, A \ moo• � (BASIS OF POSITION) FOUND "X" IN 2' BRASS DOME IN CASED CONC. MONUMENT 1.2' DOWN \ S, 00 �6 9`s�S / O,c- 6 \ J 0 2 9 2 ,S' \ � 2p.0 � .01 tiS� °os b, All WOOD p�8Sp�00°0 o \ DECK HOUSE SS� CUT-OUT IN DECK TAX PARCEL 00595100000702 7 1402 10TH PL N EDMONDS WOOD STAIRS (TYP.) TAX PARCEL / 00595100000701 �S s 5 op, S38'34'00" TAX PARCEL 15.00' TAYLOR TRACTS / 00595100000500 VOL. 12, PG. 91 / 1019 RANDVI W ST EDMONDS Sj26+, Q`SS S8 OpO�� h 0 5 10 20 30 SCALE 1 " = 30' LEGEND 0 FOUND MONUMENTIN CASE ROS RECORD OF SURVEY A.F. NO. 200405265126 QJ FOUND 'X' IN 2' BRASS DOME IN CASED CONC. MONUMENT 0.2' DOWN \Ss. FOUND 'X' IN BRASS DOME IN CASED CONC. MONUMENT 0.2' DOWN 0.2' E. & 0.1' N. a TAX PARCEL 00595100000702 HORIZONTAL DATUM RECORD OF SURVEY A.F. NO. 200405265126 BASIS OF BEARINGS A BEARING OF S51'26'OOE" BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS IN CASES IN CENTERLINE OF EUCLID AVENUE INSTRUMENTATION INSTRUMENT USED: 5 SECOND TOTAL STATION. FIELD SURVEY WAS BY CLOSED TRAVERSE LOOPS, MINIMUM CLOSURE OF LOOPS WAS 1:22,000, IN ACCORDANCE WITH WAC 332-130-090. LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE NORTHWESTERLY 85 FEET OF LOT 7 OF PLAT OF TAYLOR TRACTS, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 91, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. .r Q Packet Pg. 25 Attachment 5 0 `nc. 199V CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION DATE: March 14, 2024 TO: Ross Mayberry FROM: Rose Haas, Planner rose.haas@edmondswa.gov (425) 771-0220, ext. 1239 RE: Average Front Setback Determination—PLN2024-0022 1402 10th Place N Deck *COD* BLD2023-0339 This staff decision is in response to the permit application received March 12, 2024, which requested the ability to use the average front setback exception in ECDC 16.20.040(A) to preserve portions of an unpermitted deck and entry addition to the existing residence located on the parcel addressed 1402 10th Place N. The subject parcel is zoned RS-12 and has a regularly required street setback of 25' from the 10th Pl. N property line. In accordance with ECDC 16.20.040(A), a survey from a land surveyor registered in the state of Washington was submitted to the City on March 12, 2024. The survey shows the street property line along the southeast side of 10th Pl N for the block on which the subject parcel is located along with the existing setback distances of all three existing residential buildings on the same side of this block (addressed 1402 10th Pl N, 1428 10th Pl N, and 1002 Euclid Ave). The average of these setbacks is 22.67.' Based on this information, the street setback for the parcel addressed 1402 101h Pl N is reduced from 25' to 22.67' as allowed by ECDC 16.20.040(A). This determination runs with the land, and any setback exceptions available in the code applicable to the RS-12 zone may be used together with the reduced setback. Packet Pg. 26 Attachment 5 0 CITY OF EDMONDS MyBuildingPermit.com Land Use Application #1456549 - Average Front Setback Application Applicant First Name Last Name Company Name Ross Mayberry Number Street Apartment or Suite Number E-mail Address 1402 10th PL N rossmayberry13(�Dgmail.com City State Zip Phone Number Extension Edmonds WA 98020 (206) 735-9592 Contractor Company Name Number Street City State License Number Project Location State Zip License Expiration Date UBI # Number Street 1402 10TH PL N City Zip Code County Parcel Number EDMONDS 98020 00595100000702 Associated Building Permit Number Tenant Name BLD2023-0039 Additional Information (i.e. equipment location or special instructions). Work Location Apartment or Suite Number Phone Number Extension E-mail Address Floor Number Suite or Room Number Q Property Owner r First Name Last Name or Company Name r Ross L Ttee Mayberry E Number Street Apartment or Suite Number t V 1402 10TH PL N City State Zip Q EDMONDS WA 98020 E Certification Statement - The applicant states: I certify that I am the owner of this property or the owner's authorized agent. If acting as an authorized agent, I further certify that I have full power and r authority to file this application and to perform, on behalf of the owner, all acts required to enable the jurisdiction to process and review such application. I Q have furnished true and correct information. I will comply with all provisions of law and ordinance governing this type of application. If the scope of work requires a licensed contractor to perform the work, the information will be provided prior to permit issuance. Date Submitted: 3/12/2024 Submitted By: Ross Mayberry Packet Pg. 27 Page 1 of 2 Attachment 5 0 CITY OF EDMONDS MyBuildingPermit.com Land Use Application #1456549 - Average Front Setback Application Project Contact Company Name: Name: Ross Mayberry Email: rossmayberry13@gmail.com Address: 1402 10th PL N Phone #: (206) 735-9592 Edmonds WA 98020 Project Type Activity Type Scope of Work New New Development Activity Project Approval Project Name: Average Front Setback Application Per 16.20.040, application is for Type I permit - Average Front setback in order to Description of Work: preserve portions of the front property, including deck and entryway and potentially the arbor. Project Details Development Type Land Use Q Packet Pg. 28 Page 2 of 2 Att�phment 5 0 MyBuildingPermit.com Jurisdiction: Edmonds Project Name: Average Front Setback Application Application ID: 1456549 Supplemental Name: Applicant Certification - Planning The 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. The property affected by the application is in the exclusive ownership of the applicant or that the application has been submitted with the consent of all owners of the affected property. I certify, under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, that the information and exhibits herewith submitte are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on behalf of the owner of the subje property. I do so certify. Packet Pg. 29 A%Phment 5 0 MyBuildingPermit.com Jurisdiction: Edmonds Project Name: Average Front Setback Application Application 1D: 1456549 Supplemental Name: Land Use Application If this is a new parcel or lot that does not yet have an address or a County tax account number, please describe the property and its location (otherwise, you may skip this question): Please describe the project and/or proposed use(s) you are seeking approval for with this application (you can upload a more detaile file/letter later in the application, as necessary): Per 16.20.040, application for average front setback to preserve portions of building on street property line including, deck, entryway, and potentially the arbor structure. Check the boxes indicating all of the related approvals you are seeking for this project (including this application). NOTE THAT A SEPARATE APPLICATION I; REQUIRED FOR EACH APPROVAL. Other (not listed) Packet Pg. 30 3.7 TAX PARCELS 00595100000702 00531904100100 00531904101800 HORIZONTAL DATUM RECORD OF SURVEY A.F. NO. 200405265126 BASIS OF BEARINGS A BEARING OF S51'26'OOE" BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS CASES IN CENTERLINE OF EUCLID AVENUE INSTRUMENTATION INSTRUMENT USED: 5 SECOND TOTAL STATION. FIELD SURVEY WAS BY CLOSED TRAVERSE LOOPS, MINIMI, CLOSURE OF LOOPS WAS 1:22,000, IN ACCORDANCE WITF WAC 332-130-090. LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 00595100000702 - PER DEED REC. NO. 202210 THE NORTHWESTERLY 85 FEET OF LOT 7 OF PLAT OF TA PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 91, SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF I OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. PARCEL 00531904100100 - PER DEED REC. NO. 201602,' LOTS 1 AND 2 AND THE NORTHWESTERLY 24.14 FEET OF BLOCK 41, ORIGINAL PLAT OF NORTH EDMONDS, ACCORDI THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, PAGE 75, f SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TOGETHER WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY 25 FEET OF VACAT ADJACENT TO SAID PREMISES AND, TOGETHER WITH ALL THE 10 FOOT VACATED ALLEY ADJAi PREMISES. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASF PARCEL 00531904101800 - PER DEED REC. NO. 202004: LOTS 19 AND 20, TOGETHER WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY ' 18, BLOCK 41, ORIGINAL PLAT OF NORTH EDMONDS, WASI ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME PAGES 75, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTC TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED EUCLID AVEf WHICH, UPON VACATION, ATTACHED TO SAID PROPERTY. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASF SETBACK EXHIBIT A PORTION OF THE SW 114 OF THE SE 114 OF SEC. 13, TWP. 27 N., RGE 03 E., W.M. SNOHOMISH COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON i\ Q 00°�_ / N38'34'00"E i / 25.00'� v\ \SS. (BASIS OF POSITION) FOUND Y IN 2' BRASS DOME IN CASED CONC. MONUMENT 1.2' DOWN 0 FOUND Y IN 2' BRASS DOME IN CASED CONC. MONUMENT 0.2' DOWN �15 FA 0 5 10 20 30 SCALE 1 " = 30' FOUND Y IN BRASS DOME IN CASED CONC. MONUMENT 0.2' DOWN 0.2' E. & 0.1' N. WOOD 8S TAX PARCEL o / DECK °O 00531904100300 / O� O RO• /� HOUSE / �":,% G °p 2QS, WOOD / Q� STAIRS (TYP.) / 0 o° CUT-OUT \ N51'2600W 5�� IN DECK r40.00' `' LOT 7 TAX PARCEL 00595100000702 15.00'\ 1402 10TH PL N \, EDMONDS TAX PARCEL / \ 00595100000701 TAYLOR TRACTS VOL. 12, PG. 91 LEGEND / LOT 5 FOUND MONUMENT IN CASE / S00595100000500 j. TAX PARCEL � ROS RECORD OF SURVEY A.F. NO. 200405265126 \ ��F� 1019 GRANDVIEW ST / \ EDMONDS \ 0 WOOD FENCE (WF) / PAVERS DECK S8 00 W J % % 2 Z m m N5= 0 a� y W �Z o WZ W UJ '_'^ yJ N W N W f� �W cc oV) �a 0 0 OV Z H W N U- O En Z z z O O ELW EL CL CL o w U U a 0 0 0 mean 0 _ 1 ,�1 uW i `� W CC T �d ® Q U LL Z Q co v, 1i� W U) cc JOB NO. 23587 DA TE 0210512024 SCALE 1 "=30' DESIGNED N/A DRAWN LGK CHECKED KMR APPROVED KMR SHEET 1 OF 1 CITY OF EDMONDS Land Use Application #1521604 - Mayberry Stair Applicant Attachment 6 0 MyBuitdingPermit.com First Name Last Name Company Name Christopher Gerrick Gerrick Office Number Street Apartment or Suite Number E-mail Address PO Box 75614 chris(gD_gerrickoffice.com City State Zip Phone Number Extension Seattle WA 98175 (206) 852-9763 Contractor Company Name Number Street Apartment or Suite Number City State Zip Phone Number Extension State License Number License Expiration Date UBI # E-mail Address Project Location Number Street Floor Number Suite or Room Number 1402 10TH PL N City Zip Code County Parcel Number EDMONDS 98020 00595100000702 Associated Building Permit Number Tenant Name Additional Information (i.e. equipment location or special instructions). Work Location Q Property Owner r First Name Last Name or Company Name r Ross L Ttee Mayberry E Number Street Apartment or Suite Number t V 1402 10TH PL N City State Zip Q EDMONDS WA 98020 E Certification Statement - The applicant states: I certify that I am the owner of this property or the owner's authorized agent. If acting as an authorized agent, I further certify that I have full power and r authority to file this application and to perform, on behalf of the owner, all acts required to enable the jurisdiction to process and review such application. I Q have furnished true and correct information. I will comply with all provisions of law and ordinance governing this type of application. If the scope of work requires a licensed contractor to perform the work, the information will be provided prior to permit issuance. Date Submitted: 7/30/2024 Submitted By: Christopher Gerrick Packet Pg. 32 Page 1 of 2 Attachment 6 0 �1► CITY OF EDMONDS Land Use Application #1521604 - Mayberry Stair Project Contact Company Name: Gerrick Office Name: Christopher Gerrick Email: chris@gerrickoffice.com Address: PO Box 75614 Phone #: (206) 852-9763 Seattle WA 98175 MyBuildingPermit.com Project Type Activity Type Scope of Work New Deviations, Modifications, Variances, or Waivers Variance Project Name: Mayberry Stair Description of Work: Demolition of existing deck and construction of new entry stair to comply with IRC requirements. Project Details Primary Use Single Family Residential Q Packet Pg. 33 Page 2 of 2 Attachment 7 0 July 30, 2024 City of Edmonds Permitting & Development Planning Division 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Land Use Variance Application PLN2024-0062 Property Owner: Ross Mayberry, PhD Address: 1402 101h Pl N, Edmonds, WA 98020-2629 Parcel #: 00595100000702 Zoning: RS-12 Legal Description: THE NORTHWESTERLY 85 FEET OF LOT 7 OF PLAT OF TAYLOR TRACTS, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 91, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTYAUDITOR; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. To whom it may concern, Attached please find the proposed design for new entry stair at 1402 10th Pl N, Edmonds, WA 98020-2629. This design would require a Land Use variance due to a portion of the stair design within the Front Setback as defined by PLN2024-0022, which revised the Front Setback to 22.67' instead of 25' per Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.20.040(A). To meet International Residential Code (IRC) requirements per R311, the proposed entry stair will require a revision to the Street Setback per PLN2024-022 from 22.67'to 19'. The proposed building code compliant stair will be constructed over the existing non -code compliant concrete stair. The following responses in RED address the criteria in ECDC, Section 20.85.010(A) through (F): (A) Special Circumstances. That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the 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. 1. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses asset forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as M vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats. The proposed design addresses Special Circumstances that require compliance with the IRC 311, specifically minimum landing width/depth and stair rise/run. To satisfy these requirements, the stair design will need to encroach in the Front Setback. r a� 2. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, s 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 Q owner of the same property,• a� The proposed design is the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights for ingress to and egress from the front entry. t (8) Special Privilege. That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison Q with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; The proposed stair design allows the property owner to create an IRC-compliant entry and egress stair. As this is required of residential properties per IRC R311, it is not a grant of special privilege to the property. (C) Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan; Packet Pg. 34 Attachment 7 0 The design seeks to comply with "Residential Development Goals and Policies" as defined in the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan through the following: 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. The proposed design features a low profile with horizontal siding that harmonizes with the existing residence and complies with ECDC Zoning regulations. A.2 Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures in the area. The proposed design features a low profile with horizontal siding that harmonizes with the existing residence and complies with ECDC Zoning regulations. A.3 Minimize Encroachment on View. The proposed design limits visibilityfrom the roadway by building onlythe minimum required by the IRC and complies with ECDC Zoning regulations. (D) Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located, The proposed design is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code as it minimizes the amount of structure required in the Front Setback, while building the minimum required to comply with the IRC. (F) 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 same zone; The proposed design will not be significantly detrimental to public health, safety and welfare as it creates an IRC compliant staircase to meet egress requirements. (F) Minimum Variance. That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. The proposed design is the minimum necessary required by the IRC to allow the Owner rights to ingress and egress from the front entry. Sincerely, Christopher Gerrick, AIA, LEED AP Gerrick Office chris gerrickoffice.com (206) 852-9763 Packet Pg. 35 Attachment 8 0 `nC. 199V CITY OF EDMONDS 121 511 Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION DATE: August 26, 2024 TO: Christopher Gerrick Ross Mayberry FROM: Rose Haas, Planner rose.haas@edmondswa.gov (425) 771-0220 (ext. 1239) RE: Complete Application — Corrections Required PLN2024-0062 1402 10t" Pt N RS-12 Variance The City of Edmonds has reviewed the application for the land use application above. Pursuant to Sections 20.02.002 and 20.85.010 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), the application meets the procedural submission requirements and therefore is complete in accordance with ECDC 20.02.003. The City will issue a Notice of Application pursuant to ECDC 20.03.002 within two weeks and request comments from adjacent property owners within a 300 ft radius of the subject property. The Notice will also be published in the Everett Herald and posted at the Edmonds Planning & Development Department and Public Safety Building. I will also install a small blue project notification sign onsite. Comments will be accepted for 14 calendar days from the date the Notice is published. While the application is procedurally complete, you must submit required additional information and clarifications prior to continued review of the application. Please respond to each of the comments in a cover letter and by providing updated plans or other materials as necessary. Staff will contact you as our review continues if additional information is necessary. Planning Division Comments: For the purpose of this variance request, the Planning Division has taken the attached Building Division comments into account. The Planning Division will allow the landing and stair width to exceed the door width as shown on Sheet A2.10 of the architectural plans to accommodate the existing concrete stairway. However, to decrease the level of non -conformity, the following correction is required: Packet Pg. 36 Attachment 8 0 1) Proposed handrails cannot increase the nonconformity of the stairway. Please update the proposal to show hand railing within the footprint (e.g., on top) of the existing concrete stairway. Building Division comments are attached and have informed the above correction. Please be aware that a complete response to this information request must be received within 90 days or the application will lapse for lack of information (ECDC 20.02.003(D)). Packet Pg. 37 Attachment 8 0 Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM August 14, 2024 Rose Haas Planning Division Leif Bjorback, Building Official Mayberry Stair Variance Request 1402 loth Pl W PLN2024-0062 The City of Edmonds Building Division has performed a preliminary building code review of the plans that were submitted under the referenced application number and have the following comments. 1. The proposed stair plan as shown on sheet A2.10 appears to meet the minimum requirements of the International Residential Code (IRC), and even exceed the code minimum as far as the width of the landing parallel to the door. The relevant code sections read as follows. R311.3 Floors and landings at exterior doors. There shall be a landing or floor on each side of each exterior door. The width of each landing shall be not less than the door served. Landings shall have a dimension of not less than 36 inches (914 mm) measured in the direction of travel. R311.3.1 Floor elevations at the required egress doors. Landings or finished floors at the required egress door shall be not more than 1-1 /2 inches (38 mm) lower than the top of the threshold. Exception: The landing or floor on the exterior side shall be not more than 7-314 inches (196 mm) below the top of the threshold provided that the door does not swing over the landing or floor. Thank you. City of Edmonds cza Building Department Packet Pg. 38 Attachment 9 0 CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND COMMENT PERIOD NAME OF APPLICANT: Christopher Gerrick DATE OF APPLICATION: 7/31/2024 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: 8/26/2024 DATE OF NOTICE: 8/28/2024 FILE NO.: PLN2024-0062 PROJECT LOCATION: 1402 10" PL N, Edmonds, WA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Application for Zoning Variance to reduce street setback from 22.67-feet, as established under permit number PLN2024-0022, to 19-feet to accommodate a building code compliant entryway. The applicant proposes to remove the current nonconforming deck. The site is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-12). REQUESTED PERMIT: Conditional Use Permit —Type III-B Hearing Examiner decision. Information on this development application can be obtained online at https://www.edmondswa.gov/developmentnotices under the development notice for application number PLN2024- 0062, by emailing the City contact listed below, or by calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Please refer to the application number for all inquiries. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: BUILDING PERMIT REQUIRED REQUIRED STUDIES: N/A EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: CRA2023-0099 COMMENT PERIOD: Comments due by 4:30pm on September 11, 2024. Once the Public Hearing is scheduled, a Notice of Public Hearing will be issued with an additional comment period. Any person has the right to comment on this application during the public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The city may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record pre - decision hearing, if any, or, if no open record pre -decision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.06.020 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. CITY CONTACT: Rose Haas, Planner rose.haas@edmondswa.gov PUBLISH: 8/28/2024 Packet Pg. 39 Attachment 9 0 File No.: PLN2024-0062 Applicant: Christopher Gerrick Notice of Application and Comment - Zoning Variance DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 28th day of August 2024, the attached Notice of Application was mailed by the City as prescribed by Ordinance to property owners within 300 feet of the site that is the subject of this application. I Heather Lakefish, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 28th day of August 2024, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: Packet Pg. 40 Attachment 9 0 Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Michael Gates being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDHI00153O PLN2O24-0062 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 08/28/2024 and ending on 08/28/2024 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The aniouA of the fee forgg such publication is $70.52. !1.... - LU Subscribed and sworn before me on this N�� E•••OS,p�ii � A,\ day of �S Q. o(�` p.20-2p +,p' C� = NOTAgy N N� m 'OV8t.1� art t O p�WA S N Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of r.dmonds Development Services 186031703 ROS( HAAS Packet Pg. 41 Attachment 9 0 Classified Proof CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND COMMENT PERIOD NAME OF APPLICANT: Christopher Garrick DATE OF APPLICATION: 7/31/2024 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: 8/26/2024 DATE OF NOTICE: 8/2812024 FILE NO.: PLN2024-0062 PROJECT LOCATION: 1402 101h PL N, Edmonds, WA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Application for Zoning Variance to reduce street setback from 22.67-feet, as established under permit number PLN2024-0022, to 19-feet to accommodate a building code compliant entryway. The applicant proposes to remove the current nonconforming deck. The site Is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-12). REQUESTED PERMIT: Conditional Use Permit — Type III-B Hearing Examiner decision. Information on this development application can be obtained onllne at hltps:/Avww_edmondswa.gov/developmentnotices under the development notice for application number PLN2024- 0062, by emaeing the City contact listed below, or by calling the City of Edmonds at 426-771-0220, Please refer to the application number for all Inquiries. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: BUILDING PERMIT REQUIRED REQUIRED STUDIES: N/A EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: CRA2023-0099 COMMENT PERIOD: Comments due by 4:30pm on September 11, 2024. Once the Public Hearing is scheduled, a Notice of Public Hearing will be issued with an additional comment period. Any person has the right to comment on this application during the public comment period, receive notice and participate In any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The city may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record pre -decision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.06.020 have standing to Initiate an administrative appeal. CITY CONTACT: Rose Haas, Planner rosehaas@edmondswa gov Published: August 28, 2024, EOH1001630 Proofed by Pospical, Randie, 08/28/2024 09:04:13 am Page: 2 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment 9 0 File No.: PLN2024-0062 Applicant: Christopher Gerrick, Zoning Variance DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 28th day of August 2024, the attached Notice of Application and Request for Public Comment was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall and Public Safety buildings. I, Rose Haas, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 28th day of August 2024, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: Rose Haas, Planner Packet Pg. 43 Attachment 10 0 SETBACK EXHIBIT A PORTION OF THE SW 114 OF THE SE 114 OF SEC. 13, TWP. 27 N., RGE 03 E., W.M. SNOHOMISH COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON z RECEIVED D5 March 12, 2024 SCALE 1" = 30' TAX PARCELS / M353000-E DOS 51D000O702 2Sar� \ CITY OF EDMONDS DOG 19041MIW / / \Sr, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT M31904101M s DEPARTMENT HORIZONTAL DATUM / RECORD OF SURVEY A.G. N0. 2GG405265126 (BASIS or, POSITON) FOUND 'X' IN BASIS OF BEARINGS 2' BRASS DOME IN CASED DEAD. A BEARING OF S5126'OM' BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS IN / /� .G MEN .0,T CASES IN CENTERLINE OF EUCUD AVENUE 1.2' DOWN INSTRUMENTATION INSTRUMENT USED 5 SECOND MEN. STATION. �C• HOUSE 'S� ?J. ROD SURVEY WAS BY CLOSED TRAVERSE LOOPS. MINIMUM / CLOSURE O LOOPS WAS 1:22,000. IN ACCORDANCE WAG 332-130-090. W000 DECK ? W LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL W595IM00702 - PER DEED REC. MO. 2022100ANK15 / RTO PARCEL 00531904101BOD F S4- THE NORTHWESTERLY 85 FEET OF LOT 7 OF PUT OF TAYLOR TRACTS, AS 4' ME 1002E EUCUD AW GOB Sfy PER PUT RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PUTS. PAGE 91, RECORDS OF / EDMONDS SMDIOEIISH COUNTY AUDITOR: SITUATE IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS. COUNTY 7fe, \ 44F \29j OF SNOIOAISH. STATE OF WASHINGTON. PARCEL W531901100100 - PER DEED REC. NO. 201602260523 BLLOTS 1 AND 2 AND THE NORTIWESLERLY 21.14 FEET OF LOT 3. ALL IN o OCK 41, ORIGINAL PI -AT OF NORM EDMONDS. ACCORDING TO TIE PLAT �S• �02. TIEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PUTS, PAGE 75. RECORDS OF SNDIOMISH COUNTY. WASHINGTON. TOGETHER MTH THE THE NORTHEASTERLY 25 FEET OF VACATED LAKE AVENUE ADJACENT TO SAID PROMISES 10S AND,(I, \^ 2' EX 'K D TOGETHER MT1 ALL TIE 10 FOOT VACATED ALLEY ADJACENT TO SAID EAVE • \ 2O BRA55 IN SITIAOME PREITE N TIE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH. STATE OF WASHINGTEA. �� (�) z'7 MONUMENTIN CASED CDIL PARCEL DOID 213, TOGET -PER 0® RED. 40. TE2001270FEE - ` NWSE \ �OO V MO DOWN LOTS 19 AMID 2O, TDOEIHER OF TIE NOU EDMONDS. WA HI FEET OF LOT AD BLOCK 11, ORIGINAL PLAT OF NORTH EOD IN WASHINGTOU, PAGES 75, 10 THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLA15, / �:' - ,' W00D OECN PAGES ]5, RECORDSTHAT OF MEHPORTION OF COUNTY, MSPCLO AVENUE 4 TOGETHER NTI VACATION. PORTION OF VACATED EUCUD AVENUE ADJOINING / .T WHICH, UPOU E COUNTY ATTACHED IS .STAID PROPERTY. 1 PAVER STATE IN TIE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH. STATE OF WASHINGTON. \ Subject Property DRIVEWAY \ 2 TAX PARCEL 00531904100100 1126 EDMONDS CE N� ,y� �8 iu ECU O',OS OF NOP F'OIINO X. IN r— — — — — / BRASS DOIAf N Cn / R.U.B ` .9� MEN LNL'. Refer to Detall Plans W'W IN DECK N51Z6'/ / [-..00' Oi 7 i 15.00'\ TAX PARCEL ON IODD007G2 1.2 1— PL N EDMONDS / \ iAx .7 T. / 00595100000Cf70' / TAVLOR TRACTS \ VOL. 12. PG. 91 / �8 00 95100000500 \1019S GRANDVIEW Si \ EDMONOS a Architect i G.O. Gerrick Office misun@gerrickoffice.com 206.369.8434 chris@gerrickoffice.com 206.852.9763 LEGEND B FOUNO MONUMENTIN CASE NOS RECORD OF SURVEY A.F. NO. 20D405265126 O HOOD FENCE (NF) PAVERS DECK ProjF 2024-08 Mayberry Stair 1402 10th Place N, Edmonds, WA 98020 PLN2024-0022 RECEIVED Mar 12 2024 Project # 2024-08 Phase Land Use Submittal W Eb �b �N ^� E CD © Q O I N 04 ci N L Z M ccCD W m cc ULL v A/A m W LIC 0 AN W n L 4) ci o M qA A r_1z 4 U S /\i fYi1$p�gqry 0 N ENu J, 3 � 2 3gg 3 UA�9 CU C C I:0 E �W v r _ r N C Survey E V W! Q JOB NO. 23587 DATE 02 05 2024 SCALE 130' DESIGNED NIA MAW LGK CHECKED KMR APPROVED KMR SHEET 1 OF 1 Not to Scale (Scaled to Fit Sheet) Date 7/30/2024 A1*00 Packet Pg. 44 Attachment 10 0 N Architect 0" 2f 4' 8' True Project North North 000 7 (E) Garage Existing Stair Plan Scale: 1/4" = T-0" Projc Project # Date Sheet 2024-08 7/30/2024 Gerrick Office misun@gerrickoffice.com chris@gerrickoffice.com Phase A2*00 Chris@gerrickoffice.com 2024-08 Mayberry Stair Land Use Submittal206.852.9763 1402 10th Place N, Edmonds, WA 98020 Packet Pg. 45 Attachment 10 0 1 0 (E) Driveway 15'-3" \ Outline of (E) conc. stair i below i A B 1 _Ile A3.00 c I N I 9'_0" cn I I I I 3, o„ I min.landin W - i 3 <\ I II Zo A3.00 —1 `Y� +0 1 1 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 +49" it I grade i i landing I I I I I II O up I I I bo K,- Guardrails I I 6'-0" 1 4 o relocated f 1 6T @ 12" / 7R A3.00 0 I I I II I - I I I I NiN -J I II -- I I I I I Edge of (E) — Continuous handrail at 36". lower deck Wood 1-1/2" dia. max. I --T--- Ends returned into posts. I 2 A3.00 I I I I I I I I 22'-8" i 1 (E) Street Setback per PLN2024-0022 i I I I I I II I 18'-81/2" j 3'-11 1/2" I LT (E) Se back Encroachment Limit I I I I 19'-0" I I Street Setback Variance I I — --------- L--------- I ---------- --- I I Setback Encroachment Limit Variance N Architect 0" 2f 4' 8' True Project North North 000 Gerrick Office misun@gerrickoffice.com 206.369.8434 chris@gerrickoffice.com 206.852.9763 Edge of (E) upperdeck \ d \ doors Edge of (E) upperdeck (E) Tree (E) Garage Proposed Stair Plan Scale: 1/4" =1'-0" Project # Date Sheet 2024-08 7/30/2024 Revision #3 9/4/2024 Phase A2*102024-08 Mayberry Stair Land Use Submittal 1402 10th Place N, Edmonds, WA 98020 Packet Pg. 46 Attachment 10 0 LEVEL 02 � 104'-1-1" conc. LEVEL 100'-0" Stair West Elevation Scale: 1/4" =1'-0" Architect Wood 2x gui frame at 36" rod infill. Ma; Continuous handrail at 3 4x4 support post, typ. Stair South Elevation Scale: 1/4" =1'-0" U c u E L U N U U U cc M — C co -0 O V) N C E A E N — N > I I p � I M E (E) concrete stair I I I (N) stair profile I I I I I Finish I r` I grade m I — —II III �. Stair Section Scale: 1/4" =1'-0" Gerrick Office misun@gerrickoffice.com 206.369.8434 chris@gerrickoffice.com 206.852.9763 Proje Area of stair above 30" shown shaded LEVEL 02 L 104'-1" \-r Io N LEVEL100'-0" 2024-08 Mayberry Stair 1402 10th Place N, Edmonds, WA 98020 od 2x guardri neat 36" with C, infill. Max. 4" q =VEL 02 104'-1" EVEL 01 j, 100'-0" Stair North Elevation Scale: 1/4" =1'-0" Elevations and Section Scale: 1/4" =1'-0" Project # Date Sheet 2024-08 7/30/2024 Revision #3 9/4/2024 Phase Land Use Submittal A3*00 Packet Pg. 47 Attachment 10 0 Pro oil 21 41 81 Architect G.O. Gerrick Office misun@gerrickoffice.com 206.369.8434 chris@gerrickoffice.com 206.852.9763 Existi 2024-08 Mayberry Stair 1402 10th Place N, Edmonds, WA 98020 Project # 2024-08 Phase Land Use Submittal Date 7/30/2024 View from northwest Not To Scale A3*10 Packet Pg. 48 Attachment 11 0 CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 1nC. l S9" NAME OF APPLICANT: Christopher Gerrick DATE OF APPLICATION: 7/31 /2024 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: 8/26/2024 DATE OF NOTICE: 9/12/2024 FILE NO.: PLN2024-0062 PROJECT LOCATION: 1402 101h PL N, Edmonds, WA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Application for Zoning Variance to reduce street setback from 22.67-feet, as established under permit number PLN2024-0022, to 19-feet to accommodate a building code compliant entryway. The applicant proposes to remove the current nonconforming deck. The site is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-12). REQUESTED PERMIT: Variance —Type III-B Hearing Examiner decision. Information on this development application can be obtained online at https://www.edmondswa.gov/deveLopmentnotices under the development notice for application number PLN2024-0062, by emailing the City contact listed below, or by calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Please refer to the application number for all inquiries. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: BUILDING PERMIT REQUIRED STUDIES: N/A EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: CRA2023-0099 PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: A hybrid public hearing will be held by the Hearing Examiner on Thursday, September 26, 2024, at 3:00 p.m. The physical location is Edmonds City Hall, 121 5th Avenue N, 3rd Floor, Brackett Room. Orjoin the Zoom meeting at: https://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/j/82688031743?pwd=UEROWk5hdU5DN1 dRK1 V3MkR2WTRSdz09 Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782 v Meeting ID: 826 8803 1743 r Password: 308007 c E Per ECDC 20.03, any person has the right to comment on this application during u public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request Q a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the E project permit. A copy of the staff report will be available at least seven days prior to the hearing Q date. CITY CONTACT: Rose Haas, Planner rose.haas@edmondswa.gov PUBLISH: 9/12/2024 Packet Pg. 49 Attachment 11 0 File No.: PLN2024-0062 Applicant: Christopher Gerrick Application for Zoning Variance DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 12th day of September 2024, the attached Notice of Application was mailed by the City as prescribed by Ordinance to property owners within 300 feet of the site that is the subject of this application. I, Heather Lakefish, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 12th day of September 2024, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: Packet Pg. 50 Attachment 11 0 Legal Invoice Sound Publishing, Inc. Unit Attn: A/R PO Box 930 Everett WA 98206-0930 Bill To: City of Edmonds Development Services Attn Debbie Rothfus 121 - 5th Ave N Edmonds WA 98020-3145 Legal Description: City Applications Desc: PLN2024-0062 Ordered By: Issues Ordered: 1 RECEIVED SEP 16 2024 '[-v--.OPPAENT SERVICES COUNTER Date: 09/12/2024 Everett Daily Herald Customer Account #: 86031703 Legal Description: EDH1002240 Legal #: EDH 1002240 Ad Cost: $ 82.56 Published: Everett Daily Herald Start Date: 09/12/2024 End Date: 09/12/2024 Due: $ 82.56 Please return this with payment. Questions? Call 1-800-485-4920 City of Edmonds Development Services Attn Debbie Rothfus 121 - 5th Ave N Edmonds WA 98020-3145 Account #: 86031703 Invoice #: EDH1002240 Due: $ 82.56 Q c m E �a a c m E M U 2 r Q Packet Pg. 51 Attachment 11 0 Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Michael Gates being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH I002240 PLN2024-0062 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 09/12/2024 and ending on 09/12/2024 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amo it of the fee fo such publication is $82.56. Subscribed and sworn before me on this \\\\\\�0\ tPt0///, day of S&W klae ' r Q�oi �.20,� -20,^. 9< W _ p10TARY N _ N' �co PUBLIC 1p Urn bet OP -WAS Notary Public in and for the State of j /IH�?�`�\ Washington. r,y or Ed,-n& nc d.j om s—,, ( seua not Packet Pg. 52 Attachment 11 0 Classified Proof CITY OF EDMONDS r NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING N NAME OF APPLICANT: Christopher Gemck O DATE OF APPLICATION: 7131 t2024 N DATE OF COMPLETENESS, 8/26/2024 DATE OF NOTICE. 9/12/2024 Z FILE NO.: PLN2024-0062 J PROJECT LOCATION: 1402 10th PL N, Edmonds, WA d PROJECT DESCRIPTION. Application for Zoning Variance to reduce street setback from 22 67-feet, as established under permit ,Y number PLN2024-0022, to 19-feet to accommodate a building V code compliant entryway. The applicant proposes to remove the current nonconforming deck. The site Is zoned Single,Famlly Residential IRS.12). }, REQUESTED PERMIT: Variance — Type 111-8 Hearing Examiner d decision Information on this development application can be N obtained online at }, Mips://www.ec1mondswa gov/developmentnotices under the development notice for application number PLN2024-0062, by emailing the City contact listed below, or by calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Please refer to the application number aL+ to for all inquiries. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITSBUILDING PERMIT Z REQUIRED STUDIES: NIA EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL d DOCUMENTS' CRA2023-0099 PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: A hybrid public hearing will be S held by the Hearing Examiner on Thursday, tp ember 26 2024, ++ -Se at 3.00 m. The physical location is Edmonds City Hall, 121 5th O ven, ue rd Floor, Brackett Room. Or join the Zoom meeting at: https,//edmondswagov.zoom us/j/82688031743?pw&UER0Wk5hd V U5DNidRK1V3MkR2WTRSdZ09 3 Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782 Meeting ID'. 826 8803 1743 d Password: 308007 L Per ECDC 20.03, any person has the right to comment on this O application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time }' prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predeclsion hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. a A copy of the staff report will be available at least seven days prior to the hearing dale. L CITY CONTACT. Rose Haas, Planner rose.haasae0mondswa.gov d Published: September 12, 2024 EDHI002240 V C M �.i 43 43 d L d C� C r r N C d E t C� a r E a Proofed by Pospical, Randie, 09/12/2024 08:49:32 am Pa1;�: 2 Packet Pg. 53 Attachment 11 0 File No.: PLN2024-0062 Applicant: Christopher Gerrick, Zoning Variance DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 12th day of September 2024, the attached Notice of Application and Request for Public Comment was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall and Public Safety buildings. I, Rose Haas, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 12th day of September 2024, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: Rose Haas, Planner Packet Pg. 54 L City of Edmonds PLN2024-0062 Vicinity Map `880 142� 1421� �! r. �'\1�41��j�, RS' 12 0� N, e 0 126.30 2S2.6 Feet 188.1 This ma is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for 2,257 P g P PP B reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise reliable. © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION 0 — 1 Legend ReZones & PRD RoW Zoning RS-6 RS-8 RS-10 RS-12 RSW-12 E] RS-20 RS-MP RM-3 ■ RM-2.4 . RM-1.5 RM-EW BD1 BD2 BD3 +\ BD4 BD5 +\ OR WMU BP BN ® FVMU BC Notes Packet Pg. 55 1 Attachment 13 0 Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM August 21, 2024 Rose Haas, Planner Jeff Whatmore, Engineering PLN2024-0062 — Setback Variance Mayberry —1402 loth PI N Engineering has reviewed the subject application and found the information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards. Compliance with Engineering codes and construction standards will be reviewed with the building permit application for development of the site. Approval of the design review phase of the project does not constitute approval of the improvements as shown on the submitted plans. Packet Pg. 56 Attachment 14 0 Haas, Rose From: Haas, Rose Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 8:37 AM To: Ken Reidy; Olson, Vivian Cc: Rosen, Mike; McConnell, Jeanie; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com Subject: RE: Public Comment PLN2024-0062 Mr. Reidy, Thank you for the comment regarding the Request for Variance (PLN2024-0062). You are now a party of record to the project, will receive a copy of my Staff Report, and the subsequent Hearing Examiner decision. You will have the right to appeal that decision if you find necessary. You will receive an additional notice for a hybrid public hearing that will take place in several weeks (date not yet determined). Thankyou, ov EUMRose Haas I Planner City Hall 1 121 5t" Ave N I Edmonds WA 98020 425.771.0220 ext. 1239 rose. haas0bedmondswa.gov Ig90 www.edmondswa.gov Working Hours: Monday- Thursday, 8am-6pm The Permit Center is open M-F 8:00am to 4:30pm for Telephone and Digital access. In -Person walk-in service is currently available M-F 8:30am-12:00pm and 1:00pm-2:00pm From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 5:59 AM To: Olson, Vivian <Vivian.Olson@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Rosen, Mike < Mike. Rosen@EdmondsWa.Gov>; Haas, Rose <Rose.Haas@Edmondswa.gov>; McConnell, Jeanie <jeanie.mcconnell@edmondswa.gov>; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com Subject: Fw: Public Comments for the September 7, 2021 City Council Meeting Dear City Council President Vivian Olson (Full Council, Planning Board, others blind cc'd), This morning while reviewing Public Notices on the City's website, I noticed an Application for a Zoning Variance to reduce a street setback. The requested permit is a Conditional Use Permit — a Type III-B Hearing Examiner decision. While looking at the City's GIS Map in the related vicinity, I noticed a building encroachment into an opened street right of way in the same neighborhood. Packet Pg. 57 Attachment 14 0 All of this reminds me that the City Council has yet to consider ending the use of the Hearing Examiner System. In theory, a Hearing Examiner System should work in Edmonds, but Edmonds history shows otherwise. Please see related discussion below in my Public Comments submitted for the September 7, 2021 City Council Meeting. Again, please end use of the Hearing Examiner System. Please do so before other citizens are harmed. Please add consideration of such to a future City Council Meeting Agenda so the related discussion takes place in an Open Public Meeting. Thank you. Ken Reidy Individual citizen of Edmonds From: Ken Reidy <kenreidv@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 6:56 AM To: PUBLICCOMMENTS@EDMONDSWA.GOV <PUBLICCOMMENTS@EDMONDSWA.GOV>; publiccomment@edmondswa.gov <publiccomment@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Michael Nelson <michael.nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Council@edmondswa.gov <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com <sharonrice@hearing- auaminar rnm�> Subject: Public Comments for the September 7, 2021 City Council Meeting Please ask yourself the following question as it relates to any easement area the City of Edmonds has never used and has no plans to ever use: Why would the owner of 100010 of the underlying fee title to that property EVER be denied an application for an Encroachment Permit? On page 14 of 16 of former Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice's Findings, Conclusions, and Order signed on February 19, 2010 (even though she declared the Order was mailed on February 18, 2010!), Ms. Rice stated the following: Had the Applicant applied for an encroachment permit, it would have been denied. Why did Ms. Rice say such a thing? Why did she speculate that an application for an Encroachment Permit would have been denied? Why did she incorporate her speculation into her Findings, Conclusions, and Order? Please look again at the attached document: November 17, 2009 Ann and Jeanie Meeting 2 Packet Pg. 58 Attachment 14 0 At the bottom of the notes, it clearly says: (3) Building permit for alteration of shed and to permit lean-to. *encroachment to be issued in conjunction with bldg permit. >clearly state encroachment permit VOID once easement is VOID Up above on the right-hand side of the notes, one can clearly see: >Reidy to submit (#3) at same time Please appreciate: Ann and Jeanie clearly knew that the Reidys could be issued an Encroachment Permit! So again - Why did an Edmonds Hearing Examiner speculate that an application for an Encroachment Permit would have been denied? Reidy was the owner of 100% of the underlying fee title to the property! Why did she incorporate her speculation into her Findings, Conclusions, and Order? This is yet another reason the Hearing Examiner System does not work in Edmonds. A system that allows for Hearing Examiner speculation while staff who know better sit by quietly - must be terminated. Please do so before other citizens are harmed! Please end use of the Hearing Examiner System in Edmonds at once. Another reason the Hearing Examiner System does not work for citizens of Edmonds is because history shows City Staff do not bring all Relevant Code Sections to the attention of the Hearing Examiner. a 3 Packet Pg. 59 Attachment 14 0 Please look again at the attached document: November 17, 2009 Ann and Jeanie Meeting The notes clearly state: "Setbacks will be grandfathered by Planning if, at minimum, a letter from neighbor states it was there prior to 1981 ." Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice was provided evidence during my hearing that my building had been seen as far back as 1968. What more should any citizen have to do? I followed the procedure — paid the appeal fee, provided the law and the evidence. Again, please end use of the Hearing Examiner System. 4 Packet Pg. 60 Hearing Examiner Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/26/2024 Mattson Reasonable Economic Use Variance at 963 Main St. (PLN2023-0013) Staff Lead: Tristan Sewell Department: Planning & Development Prepared By: Tristan Sewell Background/History Arne Gaenz, on behalf of Ken and Sharon Mattson, has applied for a critical areas reasonable economic use variance pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.40.210 to allow future development of the vacant 963 Main St. The variance request is for a single-family residence, carport, and driveway that would impact approximately 2,190 square feet of the critical area and buffer of Shell Creek and related wetlands. According to ECDC 23.40.005, reasonable economic use means "the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of substantive due process." Staff Recommendation Based on the analysis in the staff report and twelve attachments in Exhibit 1, staff recommends denial of the variance application because the request does not satisfy all the criteria for a reasonable economic use variance. The proposal exceeds minimum necessary disturbance, as previously established by the Hearing Examiner in the decisions on previous reasonable economic use variance applications in PLN2013-0044 and PLN2015-0052. Additionally, the proposed mitigation is only about 25% of the required wetland and stream buffer enhancement. By requesting more than the minimum necessary variance and proposing insufficient mitigation, any future work permitted on the site consistent with the variance would pose an unreasonable threat to public health and welfare, property, and the environment both on- and offsite. Granting this variance as proposed would confer the applicant with special privilege and be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of Title 23 ECDC. Narrative As noted in the critical area determination file for the site (CRA2022-0173) and confirmed by the critical areas report provided, critical areas and buffers associated with Shell Creek and its wetlands encumber the entire site. Developing a site that is otherwise undevelopable due to critical areas first requires a critical area reasonable economic use variance (ECDC 20.01.003(A)). This variance process serves to safeguard Edmonds' environmentally critical areas while affirming landowners' property rights as to avoid an unconstitutional taking. Packet Pg. 61 Attachments: Exhibit 1 - PLN2023-0013 Staff report and attachments Packet Pg. 62 f,7C. 10" CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION CRITICAL AREA VARIANCE STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Project: Ken Mattson — Variance File Number: PLN2023-0013 Date of Report: September 18, 2024 From: Tristan Sewell, Planner Proposal: Critical areas reasonable economic use variance I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION Arne Gaenz, on behalf of Ken and Sharon Mattson, applied for a critical areas reasonable economic use variance pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.40.210, to develop a single-family residence at 963 Main Street. As noted in the critical area determination file for the site (CRA2022-0173), critical areas and buffers associated with Shell Creek and its wetlands encumber the site entirely. Developing any site so impacted by critical areas or associated buffers that it would otherwise be undevelopable requires a critical area reasonable economic use variance (ECDC 20.01.003(A)). Reasonable economic use means "the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of substantive due process" (ECDC 23.40.005). The variance request is for a house, carport, and driveway that would impact approximately 2,190 square feet of critical area buffer area. The proposed residence itself has an impervious surface footprint of 985 square feet and structural footprint of about 785 square feet per the most recently submitted site plan. Based on the following analysis, staff recommends denial of the variance application because the request does not satisfy all the criteria for a reasonable economic use variance, specifically the minimum necessary criterion, as previously established by the Hearing Examiner in the decisions on previous reasonable economic use variance applications PLN2013-0044 and PLN2015-0052. II. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Owner: Ken and Sharon Mattson 2. Applicant: Arne Gaenz 3. Tax Parcel Number: 00434206702500 pa Packet Pg. 63 File No. PLN2023-0013 Critical Area Variance Mattson — Reasonable Economic Use 4. Location: 963 Main St. 5. Zoning: Single -Family Residential (RS-6) 6. Existing Use: The site is currently vacant, with no sign or history of prior development. 7. Proposed Use: The applicant proposes establishing a single-family residential use. 8. Review Process: A critical area variance is a Type III -A decision by the Hearing Examiner following a public hearing. III. APPLICATION MATERIALS The City received the variance application on April 12, 2023 (Attachment 1), and the application fee was paid on April 13, 2023. Staff deemed the application complete pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003 on April 13, 2023 (Attachment 2). Staff then requested additional information on May 15, 2023, which was then received August 31, 2023. Staff then requested further additional information on September 12, 2023. The applicant provided information to fulfill that request on March 12, 2024. Staff again requested additional information on May 24, 2024, receiving the applicant's response on May 29, 2024. IV. SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is not required with this application. WAC 197-11-800(6)(e) exempts land use decisions like variances, which are based on special circumstances with the property. V. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS The subject site and immediately surrounding properties are located within the Single - Family Residential — RS-6 zone, except south across Main St., which is zoned P — Public Use and developed as the Wade James Theatre. The lots north of Main St. immediately surrounding the subject parcel are all undeveloped and owned by the City of Edmonds. Some properties within 300 feet of the subject site are developed as single-family residences. Refer to the zoning and vicinity map (Attachment 3) for zoning designations within the vicinity of the site. VI. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City considered the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan when crafting the reasonable economic use regulations (ECDC 23.40.000(B)). The Comprehensive Plan designates this site "Single Family — Urban 1. " The Comprehensive Plan contains the following goals and policies applicable to this proposal: Residential Development Page 2 of 13 Packet Pg. 64 File No. PLN2023-0013 Critical Area Variance Mattson — Reasonable Economic Use Goal A. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic, social, aesthetic, and environmental considerations. A.5 Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful control of other types of development and expansion based on the following principles: A.S.a Residential privacy is a fundamental protection to be upheld by local government. A.S.b. Traffic not directly accessing residences in a neighborhood must be discouraged. A.5.c. Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic or land use encroachments. A.S.d. Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc. Staff Analysis: Zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-6), the proposed primary use accomplishes the intended purpose of the RS zone. Previous establishment of zoning and land uses in the vicinity demonstrates a pattern of compatible uses. The critical areas regulations of Title 23 protect adjacent properties from adverse environmental impacts, even under a reasonable economic use variance. Environmental Quality Goal C. Develop, monitor, and enforce critical areas regulations designed to enhance and protect environmentally sensitive areas within the city consistent with the best available science. C.1 Critical areas will be designated and protected using the best available science pursuant to RCW 36.70A.172. C.2 In addition to regulations, provide incentives that encourage environmental stewardship, resource conservation, and environmental enhancement during development activities. Staff Analysis: The City developed the Title 23 ECDC critical areas regulations in response to the Comprehensive Plan and State regulations. Reasonable economic use Page 3 of 13 Packet Pg. 65 File No. PLN2023-0013 Critical Area Variance Mattson — Reasonable Economic Use variances protect Edmonds' property owners from unconstitutional takings of real property while balancing the protection of the environment. If the City grants the variance, Title 23 would require mitigation to minimize impacts, protect critical areas, and enhance conditions onsite when reviewing the subsequent necessary permits for the proposed residence. Vegetation and Wildlife Goal A. The city should ensure that its woodlands, marshes and other areas containing natural vegetation are preserved, in accordance with the following policies: A.1 Critical areas will be designated and protected using the best available science (BAS). A.2 The removal of trees should be minimized, particularly when they are located on steep slopes or hazardous soils. Subdivision layouts, buildings and roads should be designed so that existing trees are preserved. A.3 Trees that are diseased, damaged, or unstable should be removed. A.4 Grading should be restricted to building pads and roads only. Vegetation outside these areas should be preserved. Staff Analysis: Title 23 ECDC incorporates these goals, and while a reasonable economic use variance would result in less preservation of natural areas, the City must balance property rights with environmental regulation. Pursuant ECDC 23.40.210, the City may only approve the minimum necessary variance to grant the property owner(s) the reasonable economic use enjoyed by other property owners in the same zone in the vicinity. Any impact would also need to be mitigated, with additional areas improved above the current onsite conditions, as required by ECDC 23.40.110-130, 23.50.050, and 23.90.030(C) in this case. VII. APPLICABLE CODES 1. ECDC 16.20 (Sinzle-Family Residential Zone) Section 16.20.000 of the Edmonds Community Development Code frames the review of development in single-family residential zones. The Single -Family Residential (RS) zone reserves and regulates areas primarily for single-family dwellings and provides limited additional complementary and compatible non-residential uses. ECDC 16.20.010(A)(1) allows single-family residences as a primary use within the RS zone. Staff would review the proposal for compliance with site development Page 4 of 13 Packet Pg. 66 File No. PLN2023-0013 Critical Area Variance Mattson — Reasonable Economic Use standards (ECDC 16.20.030) during the review of the subsequent building permit application for a single-family residence, should the applicant receive the requested reasonable economic use variance. 2. ECDC 17.50 (Parking) ECDC 17.50.020(A)(1) requires all single-family dwellings to provide a minimum of two off-street parking spaces. ECDC 18.95.020(A)(1)(a) codifies the minimum dimensional requirement for a parking stall as 8.5 feet wide by 16.5 feet long. Pursuant to ECDC 18.95.030(B), one tandem space may be provided to meet the minimum required parking on RS-zoned lots. Like the previous subsection, parking review would be undertaken for a subsequent application to develop the proposed single-family residence after issuance of a reasonable economic use variance. 3. ECDC 20.85 (Variances) Chapter 20.85 establishes the processes and procedures used to review a variance. Per ECDC 23.40.210(C), critical area variances are Type III -A permits reviewed by the Hearing Examiner following a public hearing in accordance with the permit table in ECDC 20.01.003. The following section addresses the criteria used when reviewing reasonable economic use variances instead of the criteria of ECDC 20.85.010. 4. ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2) (Critical Area Variance for Reasonable Economic Use) The critical areas code contains the specific criteria for reasonable economic use variances. An application for a reasonable economic use variance must demonstrate that the findings of the subject citation can be made. Furthermore, the proposal must meet all the criteria of ECDC 23.40.210(B). VIII. TECHNICAL REVIEW Applications for a reasonable economic use variance to the critical areas code of Title 23 ECDC must demonstrate compliance with all the findings in ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2). Such applications are further subject to the criteria of ECDC 23.40.210(B). 23.40.210(A)(2). The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use (see the definition of "reasonable economic use(s) " in ECDC 23.40.005) of the subject property. A reasonable use exception may be authorized as a variance only if an applicant demonstrates that: a. The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use of a property or subject parcel; Page 5 of 13 Packet Pg. 67 File No. PLN2023-0013 Critical Area Variance Mattson — Reasonable Economic Use The RS zone primarily intends to provide detached single-family housing, which the applicant proposes. Other permitted uses include churches, schools, local public facilities, and parks/open space. Due to the extent of critical areas and associated buffers on or adjacent to the site, the entire site could not otherwise accommodate development that constitutes reasonable economic use. Staff finds this criterion met. b. No other reasonable economic use of the property consistent with the underlying zoning and the city comprehensive plan has less impact on the critical area; While retaining the property as open space would impact the critical areas onsite less, such use offers little economic value to the property owners. Of the uses allowed in the RS zone, a residence provides the most evident and direct economic value to the applicant. Furthermore, the primary purpose of the RS zone and Single Family Urban 1 designation is single-family residential development. ECDC 16.20.010(A)(5) outright permits natural open spaces, but such use would be limited by ECDC 23.40.220, ECDC 23.50.040(G), ECDC 23.90.040(D), and 23.80.060 and 070 A due to the presence of wetlands, the associated buffer, Shell Creek's stream buffer, and erosion hazard areas. Retaining the lot as natural open space offers little economic value to its owners and is not the primary intent of the Single -Family Residential zones (ECDC 16.10.000(A)). Staff finds that this criterion is met after considering the primary intent of Edmonds' residential zones. c. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property; Based on previous critical area variance decisions (Attachments 11 and 12), the proposed house, carport, and driveway exceed the minimum necessary impact to the critical areas that would allow for reasonable economic use of the property. The proposal would disturb approximately 2,190 square feet of wetland buffer and approximately 883 square feet of the stream buffer. This exceeds the approximately 800 square feet of critical area/buffer disturbance previously permitted by the Dietz reasonable economic use variance (PLN2015-0052). Furthermore, the Schenk decision (PLN2013-0044) established the minimum necessary residential footprint for reasonable economic use to be 650 square feet. The later approved variance at the same address (PLN2015-0052 — Dietz) demonstrates that reasonable economic use can be achieved through a residence Page 6 of 13 Packet Pg. 68 File No. PLN2023-0013 Critical Area Variance Mattson — Reasonable Economic Use with a significantly smaller footprint; the residence built at 742 Daley Street has a footprint of only 336 square feet. The proposed residential footprint of 785 square feet exceeds the minimum threshold by more than 20%. The distribution and location of the footprint should also be considered, pursuant to applying the mitigation sequencing of ECDC 23.40.120. About 256 square feet of the residence's footprint would be within the stream buffer, the core of the residence (just under 500 square feet) would be in the 15' stream buffer setback, and the entire residence falls within the wetland buffer. This 135 square foot of impact beyond the established minimum also indicates a failure to apply mitigation sequencing. ECDC 23.40.120(B)(1) and (2) requires the prioritization of eliminating and then minimizing impacts via project redesign or relocation. Complete application of this sequence prioritizes downsizing the impact first, followed by relocating proposed impacts from the stream buffer into its 15' setback. Upon comparing the proposal to previously approved reasonable economic use variances and considering mitigation sequencing, staff finds that this criterion is not met. d. The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title or its predecessor; Staff identified no evidence that the applicant and owners undertook development activities onsite that resulted in the loss of reasonable economic use of the property. The inability to derive reasonable economic use is wholly attributable to the critical areas ordinance, which encumbers the entirety of the subject parcel with wetland and stream buffers. Staff finds that this criterion is met. e. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; As currently proposed, the project poses an unreasonable threat to public health, safety, and welfare because it exceeds the minimum necessary allowed for economic use of the site and lacks sufficient mitigation to abide by Title 23 ECDC. A smaller footprint and reduced area of impact could make the project reasonable. The subsequent application processes and requirements for the permits necessary to build a single-family residence otherwise safeguard the Page 7 of 13 Packet Pg. 69 File No. PLN2023-0013 Critical Area Variance Mattson — Reasonable Economic Use public from unreasonable threats to health, safety, and welfare both on- and offsite. The mitigations required by Title 23 must achieve equal or greater ecological function than prior to development (ECDC 23.40.110(A), 23.50.050, and 23.90.030). Find more discussion of mitigation immediately below. Staff finds that this criterion is not met. f. The proposal minimizes net loss of critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science; and The qualified professionals who authored the critical area report in Attachment 4 relied on the best available science in accordance with ECDC 23.40.000(E). However, the submitted critical areas report proposes mitigation measures insufficient to comply with the requirements of ECDC 23.40.110(A), 23.50.050, and 23.90.030. A 2,190 square foot buffer impact would require 17,520 square feet of enhancement as mitigation at an 8:1 ratio (ECDC 23.50.050(E)(1)). Though onsite mitigation is preferred (ECDC 23.50.050(C)), the applicant proposed no offsite mitigation to achieve the 13,120 square feet of mitigation required beyond the 4,400 square feet proposed. The applicant also did not propose creation, reestablishment, or rehabilitation in combination, as to reduce the total area of mitigation, pursuant to ECDC 23.50.050(EL and Q1 . When combined with restoration or creation, the enhancement ratio could be reduced to no more than 6:1 and no less than 3:1 (ECDC 23.50.050(F)(3)). Because equal or greater functions cannot be achieved by this proposal, staff finds that this criterion is not met. g. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards The application for the variance itself is only subject to the criteria discussed in this section. If the variance is approved, subsequent building permit applications standard to development of a new single-family residence will be required and reviewed to verify compliance with all relevant regulations and standards, as well as the reasonable economic use variance, if granted. Staff finds this criterion met, though subject to subsequent review if approved. B. Specific Variance Criteria. A variance may be granted if the applicant demonstrates that the requested action conforms to all of the following specific criteria: Page 8 of 13 Packet Pg. 70 File No. PLN2023-0013 Critical Area Variance Mattson — Reasonable Economic Use 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, the lot, or something inherent in the land, and that are not applicable to other lands in the same district; Critical areas or their associated buffers impact the entirety of the subject parcel. The course of Shell Creek and the wetlands associated with it are natural, dynamic features that presumably predate the incorporation of Edmonds. Shell Creek flows through many similar properties on its way into Puget Sound, though channelization from human intervention may have impacted the extent and location of associated wetlands. These natural features and the buffers required by Title 23 ECDC, while not entirely unique to this site, are atypical of RS zoned properties in Edmonds. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 2. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; The applicant and property owners acted in no way that created the circumstances which motivated their application for a reasonable economic use variance from the critical areas code. The Mattsons have owned the property since prior to the adoption of the present critical areas ordinance and the site shows no signs of development activity. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 3. A literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of all reasonable economic uses and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone of the subject property under the terms of this title, and the variance requested is the minimum necessary to provide the applicant with such rights; Literal interpretation of the critical areas ordinance would deprive the applicant of the use of the site for a single-family residence because of the extent of critical areas and their buffers onsite. Only use as natural open space, such as pedestrian trails or other passive outdoor activities (ECDC 23.40.220(C)(7) and 23.40.230(C)(3)), would have few to no impacts from the critical areas ordinance. These uses offer little economic value to the owners in contrast to a single-family residence. However, as noted previously, the variance requested exceeds the minimum necessary to achieve reasonable economic use of the site. Based on previous critical area variance decisions (Attachments 11 and 12), the proposed house, Page 9 of 13 Packet Pg. 71 File No. PLN2023-0013 Critical Area Variance Mattson — Reasonable Economic Use carport, and driveway are not the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property. The subject proposal would include approximately 2,190 square feet of disturbance to the wetland buffer area, almost 275% the disturbance permitted in the Dietz variance. Of this disturbance, 785 square feet would be the proposed residence. The Schenk variance decision identified 650 square feet as the minimum footprint for a single-family home. Due to the size of the buffer impact and proposed residence compared to prior precedent, staff finds that this criterion is not met. 4. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this title to other lands, structures, or buildings under similar circumstances; Granting the requested variance would confer special privilege to the applicant because the proposal exceeds the minimum variance needed to create a single- family development on the site, as previously mentioned above and established by the Schenk and Dietz variance decisions (PLN2013-0044 and PLN2015-0052). Staff finds that this criterion is not met. 5. The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this title, and will not further degrade the functions or values of the associated critical areas or otherwise be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the subject property; and Because the variance request exceeds the minimum necessary as previously established by the Hearing Examiner and the mitigation provided does not meet the 8:1 ratio required by ECDC 23.50.050(E)(1), the granting of the subject variance would not be consistent with the general purpose and intent of this title The applicant proposes mitigating the 2,190 square foot buffer impact with 4,400 square feet of buffer enhancement — well below the 17,520 square feet of enhancement required at an 8:1 ratio (ECDC 23.50.050(E I ). The applicant's implementation of the mitigation sequencing fails to follow the sequence at the first step — "Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action" (ECDC 23.40.120(B)(1)). The action that could have been avoided include the excess 135 square feet of building footprint, the extent of buffer disturbance around the proposed residence, and a reduction or elimination of the impact within the stream buffer by reconfiguring the layout. Page 10 of 13 Packet Pg. 72 File No. PLN2023-0013 Critical Area Variance Mattson — Reasonable Economic Use As such, the proposal would further degrade the functions and values of Shell Creek and its associated wetlands. Due to both the scale of the proposal and insufficient mitigation, the degradation of Shell Creek and its associated wetlands constitute material detriment to the public welfare and injury to the property and improvements in the vicinity. Staff finds that this criterion is not met. 6. The decision to grant the variance is based upon the best available science and gives special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish habitat. Shell Creek and the associated wetland were characterized in a manner consistent with best available science (Attachment 4). However, the submitted critical areas report does not provide special consideration to the conservation of anadromous fish habitat per ECDC 23.40.310(A) since the scope of the project is greater than the minimum necessary to establish a single-family use on the site. Title 23 ECDC clearly expresses that mitigation must result in critical areas functions that meet or exceed the pre -developed conditions. Mitigation sequencing in ECDC 23.40.120(B) first requires "[a]voiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action", followed by "[m]inimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action". The submitted critical areas report makes no attempt to avoid impacts to the buffers but rather justifies the subject proposal and the 2,190 square feet of buffer disturbance. A smaller impact would be possible by reducing the amount of and changing the location of the proposed disturbance, but the report does not address that possibility. Staff finds that this criterion is not met. IX. PUBLIC COMMENTS In accordance with ECDC 20.03, staff mailed a Notice of Application dated April 27, 2023, with a comment period ending on May 11, 2023, to property owners and taxpayers within 300 feet of the subject site. Staff posted copies of the Notice onsite, at the Public Safety Complex, Planning & Development Department, the Edmonds Library, and on the City website on April 27, 2023. The Everett Herald published the notice at staff s request on April 27, 2023. All public notice materials, including the notice of application, declarations of mailing and posting, and an affidavit of publication are included as Attachment 5. Staff received comments from fifteen parties. Primary concerns included degradation of the ecological functions of the stream and wetlands. More specifically, commenters Page 11 of 13 Packet Pg. 73 File No. PLN2023-0013 Critical Area Variance Mattson — Reasonable Economic Use expressed alarm at habitat loss for local fauna including salmon, ecosystem services like stormwater capacity, and degradation of soils via increased erosion and its impacts to the stream. Unrelated to this specific application, some commenters expressed frustration with the public notice methods prescribed by code for being insufficient. See Attachment 6 for unabridged public comments. All commenters are Parties of Record pursuant to ECDC 20.03.003(C (1� )(D); see Section XIII of this report. The public hearing for this project was originally scheduled for September 12, 2024. However, there was an error in the distribution of the notice of public hearing on August 29, 2024. As a result, the City issued a new Notice of Public Hearing on September 12 for a hearing on September 26, 2024, pursuant to ECDC 20.03.003. Staff posted the new notice onsite, at the Maxwell-McGinness Public Safety Complex and Planning & Development Department, and on the City website. The Everett Herald published the notice on September 12, 2024. Parties of record and property owners within 300' were notified by mail or email on September 12, 2024. X. CONCLUSION As proposed, the variance request for 2,190 square feet of stream/wetland buffer disturbance exceeds the minimum necessary to establish a single-family residence on the subject parcel. The submitted critical area report justifies the proposal but does not describe any other options for the site which would be more consistent with the critical areas ordinance. XI. RECOMMENDATION Based on the facts, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff recommends denial of the subject reasonable economic use variance to Edmonds' critical areas code under ECDC 23.40.210. XII. APPEALS Type III -A decisions are not administratively appealable. The Hearing Examiner's final decision on the application may be appealed by commencing a land use petition in Snohomish County superior court consistent with Chapter 36.70C RCW. [ECDC 20.06.150] XIII. PARTIES OF RECORD City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 Ken and Sharon Mattson Arne Gaenz PO Box 234 Kelli Homes Edmonds, WA 98020 1020 Bell St. Edmonds, WA 98020 Page 12 of 13 Packet Pg. 74 Tom Mayer 300 12th Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 Joe Scordino j oescordino (&,yahoo. com Nancy Johnson Jargen6986kgmail.com Barbara Steller bstellergbotmail.com Chris Ziobro 1007 Bell St. Edmonds, WA 98020 Michael Murdock mikmurAicloud.com Joan Bloom joanbloomghe. Jane O'Dell j.odell(a, 123mail.org Gordon Black Andrea Loeser Gordonblackl984(&,gmail.com daloeserAwhidbe. XIV. ATTACHMENTS 1. Application 2. Notice of Completeness 3. Zoning Vicinity Map 4. Critical Areas Report 5. Public Notice Materials 6. Public Comments 7. Critical Areas Determination (CRA2022-0173) 8. Criteria Compliance Narrative 9. Site Plan 10. Survey 11. Schenk Decision - 742 Daley St. (PLN2013-0044) 12. Dietz Decision - 742 Daley St. (PLN2015-0052) ME:] File No. PLN2023-0013 Critical Area Variance Mattson — Reasonable Economic Use Ray White 320 12th Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 Greg Ferguson gghhff(a),me.com Marjorie Fields mvfieldskme.com Ronald Eber ronaldeber(a),comcast.net Page 13 of 13 Packet Pg. 75 CITY OF EDMONDS Land Use Application #1288415 - 9xx Main St Applicant First Name Last Name Arne Gaenz Number Street Apartment or Suite Nur 1020 Bell St City State Zip Edmonds WA 98020 Contractor Company Name Number Street City State Zip State License Number License Expiration Date UBI # Project Location Number Street 0 City Zip Code Associated Building Permit Number Additional Information (i.e. equipment location or special instructions). Work Location Property Owner First Name Ken & Sharon Number Street PO BOX 234 MyBuitdingPermit.com Company Name Kelli Homes ar E-mail Address arne(d),kellihomes.com Phone Number Extension (425) 478-6057 County Parcel Number 00434206702500 Tenant Name Last Name or Company Name Mattson Apartment or Suite Number Phone Number Extension E-mail Address Floor Number Suite or Room Number 1 Apartment or Suite Number City State Zip EDMONDS WA 98020 Certification Statement - The applicant states: I certify that I am the owner of this property or the owner's authorized agent. If acting as an authorized agent, I further certify that I have full power and L authority to file this application and to perform, on behalf of the owner, all acts required to enable the jurisdiction to process and review such application. have furnished true and correct information. I will comply with all provisions of law and ordinance governing this type of application. If the scope of work requires a licensed contractor to perform the work, the information will be provided prior to permit issuance. Date Submitted: 3/24/2023 Submitted By: Arne Gaenz ; Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 76 Page 1 of 2 CITY OF EDMONDS Land Use Application #1288415 - 9xx Main St Project Contact Company Name: Kelli Homes Name: Arne Gaenz Email: arne@kellihomes.com Address: 1020 Bell St Phone #: (425) 478-6057 Edmonds WA 98020 MyBuildinBPermit.com Project Type Activity Type Scope of Work New New Development Activity Project Approval Project Name: 9xx Main St Description of Work: Reasonable Economic Use - Request To build a single-family residence on this parcel. Project Details Development Type Land Use Page 2 of 2 Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 77 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 511 Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION ''DC. 1891J April 13, 2023 Arne Gaenz Via email: ame&kellihomes.com SUBJECT: NOTICE OF COMPLETENESS FOR YOUR REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE CRITICAL AREAS VARIANCE APPLICATION LOCATED AT 963 — MAIN ST. FILE NO. PLN2023-0013 Dear Arne Gaenz: Your application (File No. PLN2023-0013) is now complete pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.02.002. Please accept this letter as the City's notice to the applicant that the application meets the procedural submission requirements and therefore is complete pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003. The City will issue a Notice of Application pursuant to ECDC 20.03.002 within two weeks and request comments from Adjacent Property Owners (APOs). The Notice will also be published in the Everett Herald and posted at City Hall and the Public Safety Building. I will also come out and install a small blue project notification sign onsite as well. Comments will be accepted for fourteen days from the date the Notice is published. Although staff determined the application meets the procedural submission requirements and is therefore complete, additional information may be needed as staff continues with review of the application. Staff will contact you as our review continues if additional information is necessary. I will be the main staff contact for your application. If you have questions at any point during the review process, you may reach me at 425-771-1332 or via email at tristan.sewellkedmondswa.gov. Sincerely, Tristan Sewell Planner Cc: File No. PLN2023-0013 Page 1 of 1 Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 78 1 City of Edmonds PLN2023-0013 77 C; 220 Ln N z W Q 2 =if�l MAIN ST • • w-Ons , Al r•] ► 1020 0 Md o c •lip �:1 11 LC1 N M �� O O O F171,664 O 0 138.68 277.4 Feet 206.5 This ma is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is 2,478 P � B P PP g reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accura WGS_1984_Web-Mercator _Auxiliary -Sphere current, or otherwise reliat © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTI( e Legend [3 ReZones PRD Ro W Zoning RS-6 RS-8 RS-10 RS-12 r7 RSW-12 E] RS-20 RS-MP RIM-3 ■ RIM-2.4 . RIM-1.5 RM-EW BD1 BD2 l: BD3 +\ BD4 BD5 +\ OR WMU BP BN ® FVMU BC Notes Vicinity Zoning 0 _ O v w m c� O fn M d _ O to R to _ d t V f4 M _ R O Q w M w M O O M N O N Z J a t X W w s c,s r Q Packet Pg. 79 AC;RF V ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS STUDY & MITIGATION PLAN FOR Kelli Homes, LLC — 963 Main Street Tax Parcel No. 00434206702500. Acre Project #22036 Prepared by: Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC. PO Box 55248 Shoreline, WA 98155 (206) 450-7746 For: Kelli Homes, LLC 1020 Bell Street Edmonds, WA 98020 June 22, 2023 Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 80 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE DESCRIPTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 COMPLIANCE WITH ECDC 23.40.120—MITIGATION SEQUENCING 3 COMPLIANCE WITH ECDC 23.40.210—VARIANCES 5 METHODOLOGIES OF CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION 9 BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FINDINGS 10 HABITAT ASSESSMENT 12 ECDC 23.40.280 (BUILDING SETBACKS) 13 EXISTING FUNCTIONS AND VALUES 14 WETLAND & BUFFER ENHANCEMENT 15 GRASS SEEDING 15 PLANTING NOTES 16 PROJECT SUCCESS AND COMPLIANCE 16 PROJECT MONITORING PROGRAM 18 MAINTENANCE 18 CONTINGENCY PLAN 19 FINANCIAL GUARANTEE 19 POST PROJECT FUNCTIONS AND VALUES 20 TERMS & CONDITIONS 21 REFERENCES 22 ATTACHMENTS: 1. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS (2 DATA POINTS ON -SITE) 2. WETLAND RATING FORM FOR WESTERN WASHINGTON: 2014 UPDATE (1 RATING FORM) 3. CRITICAL AREAS STUDY & MITIGATION MAP SHEET CA1.00 Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC June 22, 2023 ECA Study and Mitigation Plan for Kelli Homes, LLC — 963 Main Street Page 1 Edmonds, WA Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 81 SITE DESCRIPTION On April 27, 2022 Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC visited the approximate 0.15-acre site located at 963 Main Street in the City of Edmonds, Washington. The site is further located as a portion of Section 24, Township 27N, Range 3E, W.M. The parcel number for this property is 00434206702500. The purpose of this site visit was to locate and assess regulated critical areas on and adjacent to the subject site. Surrounding land use is comprised of forest land and single- family residential development. Access to this site is gained from the south via Main Street which runs along the southern border of the property. This undeveloped site is forested with a north aspect. Wetland A, a Category III wetland is located on the northern portion of the property and extends off -site to the north, east, and west. Wetland A received 6 points for Habitat Functions on the DOE Wetland Rating Form for Western Washington: 2014 Update. This wetland is associated with Shell Creek which is located north of the subject site and drains to the northwest. Shell Creek is designated by the City of Edmonds as a known anadromous fish bearing stream (Type F stream which contains fish habitat). In the City of Edmonds, Category III wetlands with moderate habitat scores (6 to 7 points) receive a 110-foot buffer measured from the delineated edge. Type F streams typically receive 100-foot buffers measured horizontally in a landward direction from the delineated ordinary high water mark (OHWM). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to construct one single-family home in the southern portion of the property; as far from the on -site wetland and Shell Creek as is possible. Because this entire property is encumbered with wetland and associated buffer, it is not possible to locate the proposed house outside of critical areas or comply with the standard provisions of Edmonds City Code Title 23. Therefore, the applicant is proposing to permit this house using ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(Reasonable Use Exception). Placement of this house along with a minimal building setback (three to five feet) will permanently impact a total of 2,190 square feet of the subject buffer which is currently dominated by scrub -shrub vegetation. As mitigation for the proposed buffer impact, the applicant is offering to enhance 3,700 square feet (the entire on -site portion) of Wetland A, and 700 square feet of buffer (the remaining buffer area) on the site. Wetland and buffer enhancement will consist of removing invasive species and planting native trees as described in the Wetland and Buffer Enhancement section of this plan. Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC June 22, 2023 ECA Study and Mitigation Plan for Kelli Homes, LLC — 963 Main Street Page 2 Edmonds, WA Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 82 To further protect Shell Creek and the subject wetland and increase the level of on -site functions and values, the applicant will install a two rail fence and a critical areas sign around the perimeter of the development as required by ECDC 23.40.250. The sign and fencing will serve to demarcate the limits of the development and discourage intrusion into the adjacent critical area. The proposed mitigation measures are expected to at a minimum, maintain the level of functions and values provided by the subject site and ensure that no significant adverse environmental impacts and no net loss of ecological functions occur as a result of this project. COMPLIANCE WITH ECDC 23.40.120 (MITIGATION SEQUENCING) Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.120, "Applicants shall demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas. When an alteration to a critical area is proposed, such alteration shall be avoided, minimized, or compensated for in the following sequential order of preference": Note. the City requirements are in italics while the applicants responses are in plain text: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; While the applicant has designed this project to avoid critical areas impacts to the greatest extent possible, given the requirements of the proposed building and the constraints unique to this site, it is not feasible to entirely avoid impacts to the subject buffer. All impacts have been limited to those required to accommodate the proposed house. It should be noted that the proposed house was specifically designed for this lot with the goal of minimizing impacts to the greatest extent possible in mind. 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts; As discussed above, the applicant has designed this project to avoid critical areas impacts to the greatest extent possible. To further reduce the impact of this project on the adjacent critical areas, all applicable general mitigation measures described in ECDC 23.50.040(F)(1)(f) will be implemented. Finally, the applicant will install a two rail fence and a critical areas sign around the perimeter of the development as required by ECDC 23.40.250. Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC June 22, 2023 ECA Study and Mitigation Plan for Kelli Homes, LLC — 963 Main Street Page 3 Edmonds, WA Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 83 3. Rectifying the impact to wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project; As mitigation for the proposed buffer impact, the applicant is offering to enhance 3,700 square feet (the entire on -site portion) of Wetland A, and 700 square feet of buffer (the remaining buffer area) on the site. To further protect Shell Creek and the subject wetland and increase the level of on -site functions and values, the applicant will install a two rail fence and a critical areas sign around the perimeter of the development as required by ECDC 23.40.250. The sign and fencing will serve to demarcate the limits of the development and discourage intrusion into the adjacent critical area. 4. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineering or other methods; The proposed house has been designed to have the smallest feasible footprint. Stormwater will be collected in gutters and routed via downspouts to splash blocks where it will infiltrate to the adjacent, native soil thereby, maintaining the existing hydrologic regime of the site. 5. Reducing or eliminating the impactor hazard overtime by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; Following the proposed buffer impact, the applicant will preserve and enhance the subject wetland and the remaining buffer on the site. This will serve to create a self- sustaining community of native vegetation that will provide increasing levels of functions and values overtime. Developing this site in the manner proposed will also provide a long term custodial presence that will ensure that the subject critical areas remain trash free and are not overrun by transients. 6. Compensating for the impact to wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and/or As discussed above, the applicant is proposing to provide wetland and buffer enhancement on the site. Furthermore, to discourage intrusion, the boundary of the subject critical areas will be demarcated with critical areas signs and fencing. Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC June 22, 2023 ECA Study and Mitigation Plan for Kelli Homes, LLC — 963 Main Street Page 4 Edmonds, WA Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 84 7. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. Following the successful installation of the proposed wetland and buffer enhancement, these aeras will be monitored for a period of five years to ensure the successful establishment of this mitigation as required by ECDC 23.40.130 (Mitigation Plan Requirements) Mitigation for individual actions may include a combination of the above measures. COMPLIANCE WITH ECDC 23.40.210 (VARIANCES) Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.210, "Variances from the standards of this title may be authorized through the process of hearing examiner review in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.85 ECDC only if an applicant demonstrates that the application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use of the subject property. A reasonable use exception may be authorized as a variance only if an applicant demonstrates that": Note. the City requirements are in italics while the applicants responses are in plain text: a) The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use of a property or subject parcel; Due to the extent and location of the on -site critical areas, if the required buffer were applied, no portion of this lot would be usable and all use of the site would be denied. b) No other reasonable economic use of the property consistent with the underlying zoning and the city comprehensive plan has less impact on the critical area; Placement of one single-family residence on this residential zoned property is the minimum use that would result in a reasonable use of the subject site. There is no other use that strikes a better balance between allowing the applicant a use of their property and protecting the on -site critical areas. c) The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property; The applicant is proposing to install one modest sized single-family residence in the southern portion of the property as far from on -site critical areas as possible. Impacts have been limited to the house, a building setback, and a driveway. The placement of one Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC June 22, 2023 ECA Study and Mitigation Plan for Kelli Homes, LLC — 963 Main Street Page 5 Edmonds, WA Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 85 single-family residence on the existing lot is in compliance with the underlying zoning and is the lowest density possible. Due to the constraints unique to this lot including the location of the on -site critical areas, there is no feasible on -site alternative that would allow a reasonable use with less adverse impacts to the on -site wetland buffer. d) The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title or its predecessor; The inability to derive reasonable economic use of this property without altering the standard buffer is due to the location and extent of the on -site wetland and buffer, and is not the result of any action taken by the applicant after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title or its predecessor. e) The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; The installation of one single-family home on this site does not or pose an unreasonable threat to public health, safety, or welfare on or off the site. Construction of one house on this site is commensurate with the existing, allowed land use in the area. Furthermore, by building a single-family home on this site in compliance with all applicable provisions of the City Code, as well as enhancing 3,700 square feet of wetland and 700 square feet of buffer, the proposed project is expected to at a minimum, maintain the functions of the on -site critical areas. f) The proposal minimizes net loss of critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science; and The applicant is proposing to construct a modest sized single-family house on this site located as far from the subject wetland as is possible. The proposed mitigation has been designed in accordance with the guidelines contained in the Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans, Version 1 March 2006 which represents the current best available science. g) The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. As designed, this proposal is consistent with all other applicable City of Edmonds regulations and standards. Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC June 22, 2023 ECA Study and Mitigation Plan for Kelli Homes, LLC — 963 Main Street Page 6 Edmonds, WA Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 86 Specific Variance Criteria. A variance may be granted if the applicant demonstrates that the requested action conforms to all of the following specific criteria: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, the lot, or something inherent in the land, and that are not applicable to other lands in the same district; Special conditions and circumstances inherent to this lot arise from the size of the lot and the location and extent of the on -site wetland and buffer. These conditions are unique to this property. 2. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; The special conditions and circumstances on this lot are due to the location and extent of the on -site wetland and buffer, and are not the result of any action by the applicant. 3. A literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of all reasonable economic uses and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone of the subject property under the terms of this title, and the variance requested is the minimum necessary to provide the applicant with such rights; Due to the extent and location of the on -site critical areas, if the required buffer were applied, no portion of this lot would be usable and all use of the site would be denied. Placement of one modest sized single-family residence on this property is the minimum use necessary to provide reasonable use of the subject site. There is no other use that strikes a better balance between allowing the applicant a use of their property and protecting the on -site critical areas. 4. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this title to other lands, structures, or buildings under similar circumstances, Granting the requested variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this title to other lands under similar circumstances; 5. The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this title, and will not further degrade the functions or values of the associated critical areas or otherwise be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the subject property; and The construction of one single-family home on this site meets all other requirements of this title. This project has been designed to minimize impacts to critical areas to the Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC June 22, 2023 ECA Study and Mitigation Plan for Kelli Homes, LLC — 963 Main Street Page 7 Edmonds, WA Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 87 greatest extent possible and with the accompanying wetland and buffer enhancement, is expected to maintain the existing level of functions and values provided by the subject critical areas (will not further degrade functions and values of the critical areas). The granting of this variance will not otherwise be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the subject property. Construction of one house on this site is commensurate with the existing, allowed land use in the area. 6. The decision to grant the variance is based upon the best available science and gives special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish habitat. The proposed mitigation has been designed in accordance with the guidelines contained in the Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans, Version 1 March 2006 which represents the current best available science. Candidate Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), and unlisted coastal Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) are known to utilize Shell Creek. However, no in water work will occur as a result of this project and no negative effect to the quality or quantity of water leaving this site will occur. As mitigation for the proposed buffer impact, the applicant is offering to enhance the entire on -site portion of Wetland A and the remaining buffer area on the site. To further protect Shell Creek and the subject wetland and increase the level of on -site functions and values, the applicant will install a two rail fence and a critical areas sign around the perimeter of the development. In addition to providing a future source of source of shade and large woody debris for Shell Creek, the proposed wetland and buffer enhancement will remove invasive species and increase vegetative species diversity and vegetative structure. This will increase wildlife habitat as well as water quality and stormwater storage functions, and is expected to at a minimum, maintain the overall level of functions and values provided by the subject site. The sign and fencing will serve to demarcate the limits of the development and discourage intrusion into the adjacent critical area. Therefore, this project has been designed in accordance with the current best available science with the intent of preserving and enhancing anadromous fish habitat. Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC June 22, 2023 ECA Study and Mitigation Plan for Kelli Homes, LLC — 963 Main Street Page 8 Edmonds, WA Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 88 METHODOLOGIES OF CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION On April 27, 2022 Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC conducted a site visit to locate wetlands and streams on and adjacent to the subject site. The methods used for delineating, classifying, and rating the critical areas in the project area are consistent with current Federal, State, and City of Edmonds requirements. At the time of our April 27, 2022 site investigation, the weather was sunny with a temperature of 51 degrees Fahrenheit. Wetlands were identified using the routine methodologies described in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual produced in 1987 and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region produced in May 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the Corps Regional Supplement"). The Corps Regional Supplement is designed for concurrent use with the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual and all subsequent versions. The 2010 Regional Supplement provides technical guidance and procedures for identifying and delineating wetlands that may be subject to regulatory jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Where differences in the two documents occur, the Corps Regional Supplement takes precedence over the Corps Manual for applications in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. According to the federal methodologies described above, identification of wetlands is based on a three -factor approach involving indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and the presence or evidence of persistent hydrology. Except where noted in the manuals, the three - factor approach discussed above requires positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology, to make a determination that an area is a regulated wetland. Using the aforementioned manuals, the procedure for making a wetland determination include the following: 1.) Examination of the site for hydrophytic vegetation (species present/percent cover); 2.) Examination for the presence of hydric soils in areas where hydrophytic vegetation is present; and 3.) The final step is determining if wetland hydrology exists in the area examined under the first two steps. Per industry standards, Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC examined the entire project site. Per current City of Edmonds requirements, Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC also assessed adjacent properties within 300 feet of the proposed project limits, to the maximum extent possible without entering adjacent properties. While a detailed assessment of Environmentally Critical Areas on adjacent properties was not possible due to the lack of legal access, Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC conducted a review of all available information to assess the presence of off -site Critical Areas within 300 feet of the subject site. This review is required by the City of Edmonds to determine if any regulated Critical Areas exist off -site which would cause associated protective Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC June 22, 2023 ECA Study and Mitigation Plan for Kelli Homes, LLC — 963 Main Street Page 9 Edmonds, WA Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 89 buffers to extend onto the property and affect the development proposal. In addition to on -site field reviews, Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC examined aerial photographs and topographical data on Snohomish County's PDS Map Portal map system. Critical areas information on the Edmonds GIS Maps, Web soil survey maps produced by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), SalmonScape fish distribution maps produced by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and StreamNet fish distribution maps produced by Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FINDINGS Wetlands and streams were classified according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Cowardin system Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al., 1979) and rated, by categories, according to the Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Rating Form for Western Washington: 2014 Update, as required by the Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code, Chapter 23.50 (Wetlands). Buffers are also determined by this chapter. Wetland A HGM Class: Slope Cowardin: Palustrine, Forested wetland, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded/Saturated (PF01E) Department of Ecology Rating: Category III City of Edmonds Rating: Category III, 110' Buffer This hydrogeomorphic (HGM) class slope wetland is located on the northern portion of the property and extends off -site to the north, east, and west. This wetland is associated with Shell Creek which is located north of the subject site and drains to the northwest. Wetland A received a total score for functions of 16 points (5 points for Water Quality Functions, 5 points for Hydrologic Functions, and 6 points for Habitat Functions) on the DOE Wetland Rating Form for Western Washington: 2014 Update. Wetlands with scores between 16 and 19 points for all functions are classified as Category III wetlands per EMC 23.50.040(F). In the City of Edmonds, Category III wetlands with moderate habitat scores (6 to 7 points) receive a 110-foot buffer measured from the delineated edge. The 110-foot buffer presumes that all applicable measures described in ECDC 23.50.040(F)(f) are implemented. Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC June 22, 2023 ECA Study and Mitigation Plan for Kelli Homes, LLC — 963 Main Street Page 10 Edmonds, WA Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 90 Vegetation in the subject wetland is represented by a canopy of red alder (Alnus rubra, Fac) with salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, Fac), red osier dogwood (Cornus alba, FacW), holly (Ilex aquifolium, FacU), lady fern (Athyrium filix femina, Fac), and yellowcress (Nasturtium officinale, Obl), common in the understory. Soils in this wetland have a Munsell color of very dark gray (10YR 3/1) with redoximorphic features of grayish brown (10YR 5/2), and a texture of loamy sand, from 0 to 18 inches below the surface. Soils in this wetland were saturated to the surface during our April 27, 2022 site visit. Shell Creek - Type F Stream Cowardin: Riverine, Upper Perennial, Streambed, Cobble Gravel (R3SB3) Snohomish County Rating: Type F stream, 150' Buffer Shell Creek drains to the northwest roughly 20 feet north of the northeastern corner of the subject site. This stream is designated by the City of Edmonds as a known anadromous fish bearing stream (Type F stream which contains fish habitat). The Salmonscape maps produced by WDFW show that this stream is utilized by candidate Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), and unlisted coastal Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki). In the City of Edmonds, Type F anadromous fish bearing streams adjacent to reaches with anadromous fish access typically receive 100-foot buffers measured horizontally in a landward direction from the delineated ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Non — Wetland Vegetation in the non -wetland portions of the property is represented by a canopy of big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FacU) with salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, Fac), English laurel (Prunus laurocerasus, Upl), holly (Ilex aquifolium, FacU), sword fern (Polystichum munitum, FacU), and English ivy (Hedera helix, Upl), in the understory. Typical soils in the non -wetland portion of the site have a Munsell color of dark brown (10 YR 3/3) with a texture of gravelly sandy loam from 0 to 18 inches below the surface. Soils were moist throughout the profile during our April 27, 2022 site investigation. NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE SOILS DESCRIPTION: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) mapped the subject property as being underlain by Alderwood-Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes. The NRCS describes Alderwood-Urban land complex as about 60 percent Alderwood gravelly sandy loam and about 25 percent urban land. Included in this unit are small areas of McKenna and Norma soils and Terric Medisaprists in depressional areas and drainageways on plains. Also included are small areas of soils that are very shallow over a hardpan; small areas of Everett, Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC June 22, 2023 ECA Study and Mitigation Plan for Kelli Homes, LLC — 963 Main Street Page 11 Edmonds, WA Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 91 Indianola, and Ragnar soils on terraces and outwash plains; and soils that have a stony and bouldery surface layer. Included areas make up about 15 percent of the total acreage. The Alderwood soil is moderately deep over a hardpan and is moderately well drained. It formed in glacial till. Typically the surface layer is very dark grayish brown gravelly sandy loam about 7 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil is dark yellowish brown and dark brown very gravelly sandy loam about 23 inches thick. A weakly cemented hardpan is at a depth of about 35 inches. Permeability of this soil is moderately rapid above the hardpan and very slow through it. Available water capacity is low. HABITAT ASSESSMENT Per ECDC 23.90.020(C), "A habitat assessment is an investigation of the project area to evaluate the potential presence or absence of designated critical fish or wildlife species or habitat." Based on a review of the PHS on the Web maps and the Salmonscape maps prepared by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Shell Creek is utilized by candidate Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and unlisted coastal Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki). As such, these species have a primary association with habitat on or adjacent to the project area. No disruptions or changes to the existing high or low stream flows will occur as a result of this proposal. Through the avoidance of any in -water work, the minimally invasive nature of the project (constructing one house within the wetland buffer), and the presence of established, native vegetation between the proposed work and Shell Creek, we do not anticipate that sediment or pollutants from the project site will enter surface waters. Therefore, we do not anticipate any water quality changes to surface waters surrounding the property. The proposed project will not block any habitat corridors for listed species. No large woody debris will be impacted. While a small area (2,190 square feet) of wetland and stream buffer dominated by scrub -shrub vegetation will be impacted for this project, the applicant is proposing to offset this impact using wetland and buffer enhancement and the installation of a two -rail fence and a critical areas sign. The proposed project will have no impact on any natural channel migration areas and bank stability will not be impacted in any way because the project is approximately 80 feet away from the nearest stream bank. No modifications will occur to any water body within the project area and no removal or changes in large woody debris (LWD) will occur. As a result, the proposed project will not result in any direct effects to fish species. Equipment used during the implementation of this project will produce temporarily elevated noise levels above the existing background sound levels. However, no terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (nests) of listed avian species are located within the project area and no listed terrestrial species are mapped as occurring within the project area. Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC June 22, 2023 ECA Study and Mitigation Plan for Kelli Homes, LLC — 963 Main Street Page 12 Edmonds, WA Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 92 Coho salmon do occur in the project area. However, because they are accustomed to the noisy, high energy environment of streams, the relatively low -intensity terrestrial noise generated by the project action when fish may be in the project area is not expected to have any harmful effects. Increases of sediment inputs to streams, particularly sediments that are 0.85 mm and smaller have been well documented to have a negative impact on fish and other aquatic life. However, due to the proposed implementation of applicable BMP erosion control measures and the distance of the work area from Shell Creek (approximately 80 feet at the nearest point), any sediment resultant from this project will not reach fish bearing waters. Although work for this project is proposed within the buffer of the subject wetland and stream, the distance of approximately 80 feet from the work area and Shell Creek (at the nearest point) and the lack of an above -ground surface connection alleviate the potential for negative impacts associated with the proposed project. This project will not result in any direct or indirect impacts to any species, and will generally maintain the existing condition of the site and the adjacent areas. Therefore, no impacts to designated critical fish or wildlife species or habitat are expected to occur. ECDC 23.40.280 (BUILDING SETBACKS) Except for geologically hazardous areas where setbacks are determined by a geotechnical report, buildings and other structures shall be set back a distance of 15 feet from the edges of all critical area buffers or from the edges of all critical areas, if no buffers are required. In addition to other allowances provided by this title, the following may be allowed in the building setback area: A. Landscaping; B. Uncovered decks; C. Building overhangs, if such overhangs do not extend more than 30 inches into the setback area; and D. Impervious ground surfaces, such as driveways and patios; provided, that such improvements may be subject to water quality regulations as adopted in the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC June 22, 2023 ECA Study and Mitigation Plan for Kelli Homes, LLC — 963 Main Street Page 13 Edmonds, WA Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 93 EXISTING FUNCTIONS AND VALUES The methodologies for this functions and values assessment are based on professional opinion developed through past field analyses and interpretation. This assessment pertains specifically to the on -site streams, wetlands, and associated buffer, but is typical for assessments of similar systems common to western Washington. The three main functions provided by wetlands include water quality, stormwater / hydrologic control, and wildlife habitat. Buffers serve to protect and support the functions of wetlands and streams as well as provide their own wildlife habitat, water quality, and erosion control functions. Overall, the subject wetland and associated buffers provide a moderate level of functions and values. Wetland A is a hydrogeomorphic class slope wetland and as such, has a limited ability to retain stormwater. Due to the sloped nature of this system, rather than being stored in this wetland, water is released relatively quickly to downstream systems. Therefore, this wetland provides limited stormwater storage functions. Wetlands in western Washington often contain necessary wildlife habitat resources such as food, water, thermal cover, and hiding cover in close proximity. The subject wetland and associated buffer provide protected habitat, which becomes increasingly important as areas become further populated with humans and habitat areas become fragmented. The subject wetland provides a moderate level of habitat for wildlife species as evidenced by Habitat Function scores on the Wetland Rating Form for Western Washington: 2014 Update of 6. Habitat functions in this wetland are limited by the prevalence of invasive species in the wetland and associated buffer, its urban location, and proximity to roads and residential development. Even so, the subject wetland and stream corridor provide an area of protected habitat that is utilized by a variety of species. During our site visit a black -capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus) and a bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus) were noted in the subject wetland and buffer. The dense vegetation within the wetland and associated buffers on this site serves to intercept rain fall before it strikes the soil, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality. The presence of adsorbent soils and the biological action of the wetland vegetation, serve to remove sediment and pollutants from the water. These materials are bound in the soil and plant material providing increased water quality to downstream systems. Shell Creek located north of the subject site provides important functions to the surrounding environment such as hydrological transport, transport of solids (suspended and dissolved), and important fish and wildlife habitat features, among other functions. The portions of the site adjacent to the stream (vegetated wetland and associated buffers, etc.) are increasingly important to manage appropriately as these areas aid in water quality and hydrologic control, resulting in cleaner water entering the stream's channel. Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC June 22, 2023 ECA Study and Mitigation Plan for Kelli Homes, LLC — 963 Main Street Page 14 Edmonds, WA Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 94 WETLAND & BUFFER ENHANCEMENT As mitigation for the 2,190 square feet of permanent buffer impacts, the applicant is offering to enhance 3,700 square feet (the entire on -site portion) of Wetland A, and 700 square feet of buffer (the remaining buffer area) on the site. Wetland and buffer enhancement will consist of removing invasive species and planting native trees throughout the enhancement areas. All proposed species are native to the Puget Sound region and have been selected for their benefits to wildlife and their proven success on past mitigation projects. The following native trees and shrubs will be installed within the wetland and buffer enhancement areas. Wetland Enhancement — 3,700 square feet Common Name Latin Name Size Spacing Quantity Western red cedar Thuja plicata 1 gallon 10, 13 Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis 1 gallon 10, 13 Pacific willow Salix lasiandra 1 gallon 10, 13 Buffer Enhancement Area — 700 square feet Common Name Latin Name Size Spacing Quantity Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 gallon 10, 4 Western red cedar Thuja plicata 1 gallon 10, 4 GRASS SEEDING Any disturbed soil in critical areas or buffers shall be seeded to the recommended grass seed mixtures below, or similar approved mixtures. Common Name Latin Name Ibs/1,000 sf Tall fescue Festuca arundinacea 0.4 Colonial bentgrass Agrostis tenuis 0.4 Annual ryegrass Lolium multiflorum 0.5 Red clover Trifolium protense 0.2 Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC June 22, 2023 ECA Study and Mitigation Plan for Kelli Homes, LLC — 963 Main Street Page 15 Edmonds, WA Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 95 PLANTING NOTES Wetland and buffer mitigation projects are typically more complex to install than can be described in plans. Careful monitoring by a professional wetland scientist for all portions of this project is strongly recommended. Timing and sequencing is important to the success of this type of project. Plant in the early spring or late fall. Order plants from a reputable nursery. Care and handling of plant materials is extremely important to the overall success of the project. All plant materials recommended in this plan should be available from local and regional sources, depending on seasonal demand. Some limited species substitution may be allowed, only with the agreement of the consulting wetland professional. The plants shall be arranged with the appropriate numbers, sizes, species, and distribution to achieve the required vegetation coverage. The actual placement of individual plants shall mimic natural, asymmetric vegetation patterns found on similar undisturbed sites in the area. Colored surveyors ribbon, or other approved marking device shall be placed next to each planted tree and shrub to assist in locating the plants while removing the competing non-native vegetation and to assist in monitoring the plantings. Wood chips or other suitable material shall be used for mulching in the planting areas. Any existing vegetation is to be removed from a two -foot diameter area at each planting site. Mulch is to be placed in this two -foot diameter area at a depth of three to four inches. A four -inch diameter ring around the base of each plant shall be kept free of mulch. Water should be provided during the dry season (July 1 through October 15) for the first two years after installation to insure plant survival and establishment. A temporary above ground irrigation system and/or water truck should provide water. Water should be applied at a rate of 1 inch of water twice per week for year one and 1 inch per week during year two. PROJECT SUCCESS AND COMPLIANCE Goals and Objectives of the Proposed Mitigation: The primary goals of the proposed mitigation are as follow: • Increase the water quality and habitat functions within the on -site wetland and buffer; • Increase vegetative structure within the on -site wetland and buffer; • Increase the quantity and diversity of native vegetation within the on -site wetland and buffer; and Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC June 22, 2023 ECA Study and Mitigation Plan for Kelli Homes, LLC — 963 Main Street Page 16 Edmonds, WA Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 96 a Allow for responsible development and associated infrastructure, while increasing the ecological functions provided by the subject site. Definition of Success: The planting areas shall meet the following performance standards: a) Year 1: 100 percent survival of newly planted species, b) Year 3: at least 80 percent survival of installed plant species, c) Year 5: at least 80 percent survival of installed plant species, This mitigation plan shall support at least 80% of the native plants set forth in the approved mitigation plan by the end of five years. The species mix should resemble that proposed in the planting plans, but strict adherence to obtaining all of the species shall not be a criterion for success. Performance Standards: Performance Standard 1: There shall be 100 percent survival of all the plantings after Year 1 or the installation contractor shall replace the material. At least 80 percent of the plant material installed shall survive in Year 5 after installation. Performance Standard 2: There shall be a minimum of 30 percent cover of woody species (shrub and tree canopy layers considered together) in the buffer after the first year post -installation; and a minimum of 50 percent cover by woody material after the third year post -installation; and a minimum of 80 percent cover by woody material after the fifth year post -installation. Naturally occurring, native plants shall be included in the calculation of vegetation coverage. Performance Standard 3: There shall be no more than 20 percent cover of weedy/invasive species in the mitigation areas at any time throughout the monitoring period. If the project meets all of the criteria for success at the end of the five-year monitoring period, no further action will be required and the financial guarantee will be returned to the applicant in full. If the definition of success is not met for any reason at the end of the five-year monitoring period, the maintenance and monitoring period will be extended for one year at a time until the site meets the stated performance standards. If the definitions of success and the accompanying performance standards are met in less than five years, the monitoring may be terminated and the bond released at that point. This mitigation plan and the accompanying maintenance and monitoring will not be considered fully complete until written confirmation is received from the City of Edmonds. Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC June 22, 2023 ECA Study and Mitigation Plan for Kelli Homes, LLC — 963 Main Street Page 17 Edmonds, WA Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 97 PROJECT MONITORING PROGRAM Requirements for monitoring project: 1. Initial compliance report 2. Annual site inspection (in the fall) for five years 3. Annual reports (One report submitted in the fall of each monitored year) Purpose of Monitoring: The purpose of monitoring this mitigation project is to evaluate the success of the mitigation plantings. Success will be determined if monitoring shows that at the end of five years the stated performance standards are being met. The property owner shall grant access to the site for inspection and maintenance to the contracted wetland specialist and to the City of Edmonds during the period of the bond or until the project is evaluated as successful. Inspection Schedule: Upon completion of the mitigation project, an inspection by a qualified wetland biologist will be made to determine plan compliance. An "As Built" report will be supplied to the City of Edmonds regarding the completeness of the project. Condition monitoring of the plantings will be done by a qualified wetland biologist in the fall annually for the five-year monitoring period. A written report describing the monitoring results will be submitted to the City of Edmonds shortly after the inspection of each monitored year. Final inspection will occur five years after completion of planting. The contracted wetland professional will prepare a final report as to the success of the project. MAINTENANCE The mitigation areas will require periodic maintenance to remove undesirable species and replace plant mortality. The planting areas should be maintained in spring and fall of each year for the five-year monitoring period. Maintenance may include, but will not be limited to, removal of competing grasses and invasive species (by hand if necessary), irrigation, replacement of plant mortality, and the replacement of mulch for each maintenance period. Following each monitoring visit, the project biologist will make recommendations for maintenance. Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC June 22, 2023 ECA Study and Mitigation Plan for Kelli Homes, LLC — 963 Main Street Page 18 Edmonds, WA Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 98 CONTINGENCY PLAN If 20% of the plants are severely stressed during any of the inspections, or it appears 20% may not survive, additional plantings of the same species may be added to the planting area. Elements of a contingency plan may include, but will not be limited to: more aggressive weed control, pest control, mulching, replanting with larger plant material, species substitution, fertilization, soil amendments, and/or irrigation. FINANCIAL GUARANTEE A mitigation bond or other security shall be provided to the City of Edmonds in a form and amount deemed acceptable by the City to ensure mitigation is fully functional. The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of the uncompleted actions or the estimated cost of restoring the functions and values of the critical area at risk, whichever is greater. The amount of the performance bond shall include a reasonable allocation for inflation based on the length of anticipated delay. Annual monitoring reports and seasonal maintenance will be required to assure the success of this mitigation plan. Bonds or other security devices shall remain in effect until the director determines, in writing, that the standards bonded for have been met. Bonds or other security shall be held by the City for a minimum of five years to ensure that the required mitigation had been fully implemented and demonstrated to function, and may be held for longer periods when necessary. The following is an estimate of plant materials and labor only. This does not represent a bid to install: QUANTITY OF ONE GALLON PLANTS @ $10.50 PER PLANT 47 ESTIMATED COST OF PLANT MATERIAL AND LABOR $493.50 ESTIMATED COST OF GRASS SEED $15.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS $508.50 TOTAL BOND AMOUNT (120% OF TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS) $610.20 Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC June 22, 2023 ECA Study and Mitigation Plan for Kelli Homes, LLC — 963 Main Street Page 19 Edmonds, WA Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 99 POST -PROJECT FUNCTIONS AND VALUES Although impacts within the on -site buffer are necessary to accommodate the proposed development, no net loss of ecological functions is expected to occur. Through careful site design, buffer impacts have been minimized to the greatest extent practical. In addition to providing a future source of source of shade and large woody debris for Shell Creek, the proposed wetland and buffer enhancement will remove invasive species and increase vegetative species diversity and vegetative structure within the subject wetland and buffer. This will increase wildlife habitat as well as water quality and stormwater storage functions, and is expected to generally increase the overall level of functions and values provided by the subject site. To further protect Shell Creek and the subject wetland and increase the level of on -site functions and values, the applicant will install a two rail fence and a critical areas sign around the perimeter of the development as required by ECC 23.40.250. The sign and fencing will serve to demarcate the limits of the development and discourage intrusion into the adjacent critical area. The proposed mitigation measures are expected to at a minimum, maintain the level of functions and values provided by the subject site and ensure that no significant adverse environmental impacts and no net loss of ecological functions occur as a result of this project. Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC June 22, 2023 ECA Study and Mitigation Plan for Kelli Homes, LLC — 963 Main Street Page 20 Edmonds, WA Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 100 TERMS & CONDITIONS The environmental consulting work conducted, including this Environmentally Critical Areas Study and Mitigation Plan (collectively the "Services") is supplied to Kelli Homes, LLC (the "Client") as a means of determining whether any wetlands, streams, and/or fish and wildlife habitats regulated by the City of Edmonds exist on, or adjacent to the site. The Services are provided in accordance with the following General Terms and Conditions (the "Terms"). In accepting the Services provided by Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC ("Acre"), the Client voluntarily enters into and agrees to the binding effect of the following Terms. This report is intended to provide information deemed relevant in the Client's attempt to comply with the regulations currently in effect. The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by professional ecologists in the Pacific Northwest. All other representations or warranties, whether express or implied, are hereby disclaimed concerning the work or this report. This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and, to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. If such conditions exist or arise, the information contained in this report may be rendered inaccurate or incomplete based upon those conditions. Acre acts solely as an independent contractor in providing the Services to the Client, and nothing in the provision of such Services shall be construed as creating an agency, partnership, joint venture or other similar legal relationship between Acre and the Client. The laws applicable to Critical Areas are subject to varying interpretations. While Acre observed professional industry standards when completing this review, the information included in this report does not guarantee approval by any federal, state, and/or local permitting agencies. Therefore, all work on this property should not commence until permits have been obtained from all applicable agencies. If there are any questions regarding this report, please contact me at 206.450.7746. Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC. Louis Emenhiser Principal Wetland Ecologist Professional Wetland Scientist #1680 Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC June 22, 2023 ECA Study and Mitigation Plan for Kelli Homes, LLC — 963 Main Street Page 21 Edmonds, WA Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 101 REFERENCES Cowardin, et al, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31. December 1979. Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code. Title 23 (Natural Resources). Edmonds, WA. Environmental Laboratory. (1987). "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State wetland rating system for western Washington — 2014 Update Publication #14-06-029. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology SalmonScape. Interactive Mapping website administered by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html. Website last visited on June 15, 2023. Snohomish County Planning and Development Services PDS Map Portal. http://gismaps.snoco.org/Html5Viewer/Index.html?viewer=pdsmapportal. Website last visited on June 15, 2023. StreamNet. Fish Data for the Northwest. Administered by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. http://www.streamnet.org/. Website last visited on June 15, 2023. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2010). "Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0)," ERDC/EL TR- 10-3, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2020. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.5. http://wetland- plants.usace.army.mil/ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper http://107.20.228.18/Wetlands/WetlandsMapper.html#. Website last visited on June 15, 2023. Web Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm. Website last visited on June 15, 2023. Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC June 22, 2023 ECA Study and Mitigation Plan for Kelli Homes, LLC — 963 Main Street Page 22 Edmonds, WA Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 102 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Kelli Homes, LLC - Main Street City/County: Edmonds / Snohomish Sampling Date: 04.27.2023 Applicant/Owner: Kelli Homes, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DP1 Investigator(s): Louis Emenhiser Section, Township, Range: S24, T27N, R3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 13% Subregion (LRR): LRR-A Lat: 47.810799 Long:-122.365225 Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood-Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes. NWI classification: PF01 E Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology _ _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _ ✓ _ No Are Vegetation Soil _ or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No— _ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes _ ✓ _ No _ ✓ within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Wetland A. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 meters ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 10 meters = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Rubus spectabilis 60 Y Fac Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Cornus alba 20 Y FacW Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3 Ilex aquifolium 10 N UPI OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2 = 5, FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = 90 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 meter ) UPL species x 5 = 1 Athyrium filix-femina 40 Y Fac Column Totals: (A) (B) 2 Nasturtium officinale 40 Y ON 3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ✓ Dominance Test is >50% 6. Prevalence Index is A3.0' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 7. 8. Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 9. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 10. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 11. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 80 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 Present? Yes ✓ No = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5 Remarks: Red alder is generally dominant in the wetland canopy, but not in the vicinity of the data point. Hita US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and 06M Packet Pg. 103 SOIL Sampling Point: DP1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loe Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 3/1 95 10YR 5/2 5 c m losa 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (All) ✓ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (All0) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (All 1) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (Al 2) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ✓ Surface Water (All) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 413) ✓ Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (1311) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Water Marks (131) Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (132) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (134) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (136) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches): 0 Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast I Packet Pg. 104 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Kelli Homes, LLC - Main Street City/County: Edmonds / Snohomish Sampling Date: 04.27.2023 Applicant/Owner: Kelli Homes, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DP2 Investigator(s): Louis Emenhiser Section, Township, Range: S24, T27N, R3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Subregion (LRR): LRR-A Lat: 47.810667 Long:-122.365211 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood-Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes. NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology _ _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _ ✓ _ No Are Vegetation Soil _ or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Slope 27% Datum SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No _ ✓ _ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes _ _ No _ ✓ ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No _ ✓ _ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Non -wetland in the southern part of the property (in the vicinity of the proposed house). VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 meters ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Acer macrophyllum 50 Y FacU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 4. 50 Percent of Dominant Species 10 meters = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 20 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Rubus spectabilis 50 Y Fac Prevalence Index worksheet: 2 Prunus laurocerasus 40 Y UPI Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3 Ilex aquifolium 10 N UPI OBL species 0 x 1= 0 4, FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 5. FAC species 50 x 3 = 150 100 = Total Cover FACU species 80 x 4 = 320 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 meter ) UPL species 60 x 5 = 300 1 Polystichum munitum 30 Y FacU Column Totals: 190 (A) 770 (B) 2 Hedera helix 20 Y UPI 3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.05 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. _ Dominance Test is >50% 6. Prevalence Index is A3.0' 7. Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 9. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 10. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 11. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 Present? Yes No ✓ = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5 Remarks: Hita US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and 06M Packet Pg. 105 SOIL Sampling Point: DP2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 3/3 100 grsal 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Redox (S5) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (Al 2) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (except MLRA _ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 413) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (1311) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Water Marks (61) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (132) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (134) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (65) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (136) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No _ _ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Atta US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and 66Packet Pg. 106 rim R a C C < 0 0 o; 1 Y Q Z ic L I! m � { Q VV n q � R n 6 5 y L om as a a g gas;�3i { v gill a F I n 0 5 o GG rK ja YI r�► O 0 O u000001� � N Iti�wr `G I r a � Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 107 t1 f � s `[ R CL T 2 pIL i bb' G V c� y 3 a b — S a o a � 3 's E� 5 t W M N O N z J CL Cn M d V _ to i m 2 O c 0 0 W 0 c� O d _ O y w �6 y C m t v ca _ O Q i w V/ CO) O O M N O N z J CL Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 108 �{ li— C L A N s C: `36 _ In T� L f f i D T r \f = 3 3 le S 4yA � N Q � � • P F a $' �' ,g V X i •ZY s�? t R i 3 3 �g l Z ri N c e � 3 = SL Y o � k a C& > a 3 � 6 3 E p R � a 3 ° O � r V O V N 0 sq � � oAy 4 � s 3 � b C C US t a Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 109 6a3aF o� g rr_7 Ei 3 � ■ * • 2 S �1a � r' n�1n � � ��7 �g��g�SSR � ,44, �•' �� a 5 �4 '�g � �6,, xi g q 3� A • i 6' S as •t — g g IL gill a O W N � D- N O r N♦ p 0 I 7 r l [flu, � i��v999f((( � f Q� � `•{ F n 2 R k-W 3 4 3 M s � A �a Z �< 3 3 � Y r1 a J 3 I I � Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 110 IE Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 111 u P w M M I r gig"-±:nao3 P 5a�S i w :I �•-d, SL � gni 2 ti � 1 T Y1 �v J I-A'It Iii m ��—a- � s� 5LI � +N}a� �a ajT jx k ' r � � D 7 C n IV C R C C r C v, tJ W ,J .� r \A J S V- S W N VI is 'n ✓f S LA 11 (.A ?t O _j O x Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 112 Wetland A Rating Unit Pollution generating ar`11 • .,. 1K r 77 CD ;�,• �. �. Q Z t4' r + I J • fn 11 1 71 LU M 3 7y M ilk- Y. (n j E •' ¢ /s :a 4 � �+ Snohomish County Information Technology Snohomish C ; PIe 0 RATING ANSWERS FOR WETLAND A u r S1.3 Dense, uncut, woody plants > 1/2 of the area of the unit. c S4.1 Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover < 90% of the area of the wetland. N S2.1 & S5.1 Greater than 10 percent of the area within 150' of the uphill side of c Wetland A is in land use that generates pollutants and excess runoff (-53%). w H1.1 & H1.4 The wetland contains forested vegetation. The forested class has s i 3 out of 5 strata that each cover 20% within the forested polygon; and moderate interspersion. SCALE 1" - 100' c H1.2 The wetland contains saturated only and permanently flowing stream s hydroperiods. o 100 2c C Acre y: Drawnn BBy: 036 PREPARED FOR: WETLAND RATING MAP PREPARED Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC � L. Emenhiser Kelll Homes, LLC KELLI HOMES - MAIN STREET PO Box 55248 RE Figure 1 of 1020 Bell Street EDMONDS, WA Shoreline, WA98155 Atta Date: 12.09.2022 Phone: (206) 450-7746PLN2 Packet Pg. 113 Rev#: Edmonds, WA 98020 TAX PARCEL NO. 00434206702500. Email: louis@acreenvironmental.com SUBJECT WETLANDS = HIGH INTENSITY LAND USE MODERATE, AND LOW INTENSITY LAND USE RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED LAND -- ONE KILOMETER POLYGON LINE Note: Land use definitions are derived from H2.0 Table 3 of the Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update This map was used to derive answers for questions H2.1, H2.2, and H2.3. N APPROX. SCALE 1" = 1,000' 1,000 2,1 U) M T M N O N z J d w t x w c d E s U M Q a 4� ECOLOGY ti;d(c ut ;`, dtihuihWn Legend Filter A Assessed Water/Sediment Water Category 5.303d Category 4C Category 48 Category 4A Category 2 40 Category 1 Sediment ® Category 5 - 303d Ngory 4C T NUasgory 1 Water QualityAtlas mp, ZOOM Tools b� Home 8, Add/Remove Map Data T FUter t * My Maps I5 Print 0 Share @ About ER Bing Imagery S3.1 The subject wetland does not drain directly (within 1 mile) of any water listed on the 303(d) list. S3.2 The subject wetland is located in a basin or sub -basin with an aquatic resource listed on the 303(d) list. 11 � s w W ry s Z < Q G S � [ s -j w� 0 L _ s J G J G W Y 11 N N 7 N N TL O O Atta 07 C M N PLN2 Packet Pg. 115 a _JM DEPARTMENT OF IWECOLOGY 7tdtc .! 7. J. ho�kr. Legend Filter Zoo A WO Improvement Projects 411110 Approved In Development A Water Resource Inventory Areas WRIA boundary A Subbasins (12 digit RUCs) l boundary Water Quality Atlas Map Tools tj� Home O Add/Remove Map Data T FiItl r �4 S3.3 Based on the Department of Ecology's Washington State Water Quality Atlas, no TMDL's are in development or approved for the basin in which the wetland rating units are found. ` My Maps Print 0 Share O About 1.Iola Bing Imagery , t. l AC r MAPLEWOOD, HILL M r IT- �. Plaguek`r �), �•S!�S0 ..: • Sth PI St'• l� � , ?. i '� � i t � :ir •. I: kiRI = Hof L'd ;r►,iu � IT 0 J L.L —J Q ui C s w°)-s E , Qoc� d _ < 1 (3)< d V t N N TL O O Atta 07 C N PLN2 Packet Pg. 116 a SHELL CREEK TYPE F STREAM 100' BUFFER 'i, 'iz 'iz 'iz 'iz 'iz 'iz li, z .J. PROPOSED HOUSE & CARPORT BUFFER IMPACT 2,190 SF MAIN ST WETLAND ---- BUFFER BUFFER IMPACT WETLAND RESTORATION BUFFER ENHANCEMENT DATA POINT (2 TOTAL) X X TWO -RAIL FENCE ■ CRITICAL AREA SIGN WETLAND A CATEGORY III 110" BUFFER WETLAND ENHANCEMENT 3,700 SF BUFFER ENHANCEMENT 700 SF PROPOSED DRIVEWAY M O O M N O N Z J a co M O O R d V _ tE •L tE a� M E 0 _ 0 w a� 0 c� m 0 �a N a� E w �a 0 CL co w M O O M N O N Z J a 's X w w a� E s r r a N SCALE 1" = 20' 0 20 40 Acre Job: 22036 PREPARED FOR: CRITICAL AREA STUDY & MITIGATION MAP PREPARED BY: Drawn By: L. Emenhiser Kelli Homes, LLC KELLI HOMES - 963 MAIN STREET Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC PO Box 55248 Date:06.22.2023 1020 Bell Street EDMONDS, WA Shoreline, WA98155 Edmonds, WA 98020 TAX PARCEL NO. 00434206702500. Phone: (206) 450-7746 Email: louis@acreenvironmental.com �REE-L, v\ MAP SHEET. Packet Pg. 117 1 CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AND COMMENT PERIOD NAME OF APPLICANT: Arne Gaenz DATE OF APPLICATION: 4/13/2023 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: 4/13/2023 DATE OF NOTICE: 4/27/2023 FILE NO.: PLN2023-0013 PROJECT LOCATION: 963 Main St., Edmonds, WA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Application for critical areas reasonable economic use variance. The site is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-6). REQUESTED PERMIT: Variance Permit - Type III-B hearing examiner decision. Information on this application can be viewed at the City of Edmonds Development Services Dept., 121 5tn Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020, or on the City's Online Permits website - permits.edmonds.wa.us/citizen. Search for PLN2023-0013. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: New Single -Family Residence REQUIRED STUDIES: Stream classification and wetland delineation (submitted) EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: Critical Areas Determination (CRA2022-0173) COMMENT PERIOD: Comments due by May 11, 2023. Any person has the right to comment on this application during the public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record pre -decision hearing, if any, or, if no open record pre -decision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.06.020 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. CITY CONTACT: Tristan Sewell, Planner (425) 771-0220, Tristan. Sewell@EdmondsWA.gov PUBLISH: 4/27/2023 Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 118 a *tp� City of Edmonds PLN2023-0013 23 31 951 MAIN ST ZOp I 950 1: 758 O 0 63.1 S 126.3 Feet 94.0 This ma is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for 1,128 P B P PP g reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, WGS_1984_Web-Mercator _Auxiliary -Sphere current, or otherwise reliable. (0 City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION Q • E O O LLI a) Legend Creeks vOj Seismic Hazard Areas ca d Earth Subsidence and Landslide = L ! Minimum Buffer Adjacent to Hi 0) Wetlands ca Wetlands Boundary Wetland Boundaries Not Complel +y+ C Wetland Known Extents E Floodplains v A ® AE ® VE _ R P X O Q DOH Wellhead Protection Area d L . 6 Month l4 . 1 Year 5 Year M 10 Year 0 Buffer Zone N Rezones O cV Z _ PRD J a RoW ' Contour Lines 10 X — 50; 100 W 1 .....1.1:..1.. L ---..I A...,. AnOl Notes s Critical Areas Reasonable Economic Use r Variance Q I Packet Pg. 119 1 TAXPRNAME TAXPRLINEI FARIS KAREN 215 10TH PL N KINNEY CAROL S 905 BELL ST PETRACCA FRANCES M/BLACK GORDON R 211 10TH PL N HERBERT MICHAEL 212 10TH PL N MATTSON KEN & SHARON PO BOX 234 MARSH SANDRA R 912 MAIN ST MCARTHUR SUSAN 1005 BELL ST ZIOBRO GRETCH EN/CH RISTOPHER 1007 BELL ST E SEBNEM ODEN TRUSTEE 9118 189TH PL SW SCHROTE ROBERTA 1010 MAIN ST NELSON GRANT 9710 WHARF ST NELSON GEOFFREY 9710 WHARF ST NELSON GRANT A 8317 SKIVIEW LANE NELSON GEOFFREY A 12131 NE 73RD ST NELSON GREGORY B 1139 S MILLS AVE TAXPRCITY TAXPRSTATE TAXPRZIP EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020-2907 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98026 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020-2363 EDMONDS WA 98020-2363 OLYMPIA WA 98512 KIRKLAND WA 98033 LODI CA 95242 Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 120 File No.: PLN2023-0013 Applicant: Arne Gaenz Variance DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 27th day of April 2023, the attached Notice of Application and Request for Public Comment was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall, and Public Safety buildings. I, Tristan Sewell, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 27th day of April 2023, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 121 File No.: PLN2023-0013 Applicant: Arne Gaenz Variance DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 27th day of April 2023, the attached Notice of Application was mailed by the City as prescribed by Ordinance to property owners within 300 feet of the site that is the subject of this application. I, Tristan Sewell, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 27th day of April 2023, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 122 From: Martin, Michelle To: Sewell, Tristan Subject: FW: [edh legals] Request to publish PLN2023-0013 April 27th, 2023 (APL#252004) Date: Friday, April 21, 2023 9:59:43 AM FYI From: Legal Advertising EDH <legals@heraldnet.com> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 9:32 AM To: Martin, Michelle <Michelle.Martin @edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: [edh legals] Request to publish PLN2023-0013 April 27th, 2023 (APL#252004) Michelle, I will schedule the notice to publish April 27, 2023. Thank you, Karen Herald Legals The Daily Herald 11800 41st Street, S-300 I Everett, WA 98203 425-339-3089 1 Ieoals(a)heraldnet.com I www.heraldnet.com IA W Map Media Kit Sound Info On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 9:17 AM Martin, Michelle <Michelle.Martin&edmondswa.gov> wrote: 7ff& e&e Uai of I Senior Administrative Assistant City of Edmonds Planning & Development 425-771-0220, ext 1335 Michelle.Martin(@edmondswa.gov The Development Services Permit Center is open M-F 8:OOam to 4:30pm for Telephone and Digital/Remote access. In -Person walk-in service is currently available M-F 10:OOam to 2:OO2m: appointments are encouraged. Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 123 For general service: Phone 1 425.771.0220 1 Email I Devserv.admin@edmondswa.gov Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 124 Legal Invoice Sound Publishing, Inc. Unit Attn: A/R PO Box 930 Everett WA 98206-0930 Bill To: City of Edmonds Development Services Attn Debbie Rothfus 121 - 5th Ave N Edmonds WA 98020-3145 Legal Description: City Applications Desc: PLN2023-0013 ARNE GAENZ Ordered By: MICHELLE MARTIN Issues Ordered: 1 �„�� m� :.,.rid 1 2D � MAY 01 2023 13FU'-1 G` sE:sd'DCc ! r •..; Customer Account #: 86031703 Legal Description: EDH975783 Legal #: EDH975783 Ad Cost: $ 63.64 Date: 04/27/2023 Everett Daily Herald Published: Everett Daily Herald Start Date: 04/27/2023 End Date: 04/27/2023 Due: $ 63.64 Please return this with payment. Questions? Call 1-800-485-4920 City of Edmonds Development Services Account #: 86031703 Attn Debbie Rothfus Invoice #: EDH975783 121 - 5th Ave N Edmonds WA 98020-3145 Due: $ 63.64 Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 125 Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Michael Gates being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six montlis prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH975783 ARNE GAENZ as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of I issue(s), such publication commencing on 04/27/2023 and ending on 04/27/2023 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount the fee for Ich publication is $63.64. &I(J. Subscribed and sworn day of be e me 4n this Nryfary Public in and for the State of Washington. 01y of Edownds MwI.1--i Smim 196031703 MIC'11WAX NIAMIN �_ _ Linda Phillips Notary Public State of Washington MY AppoinlmenlExpires 8/29/2025 Commission Number "17 6 Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 126 Classified Proof CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AND COMMENT PERIOD NAME OF APPLICANT: Arne Gaenz DATE OF APPLICATION: 4/13/2023 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: 4/13/2023 DATE OF NOTICE: 4/27/2023 FILE NO.: PLN2D23-0013 PROJECT LOCATION: 963 Main St., Edmonds, WA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Application for critical areas reasonable economic use variance. The site is zoned Single - Family Residential (RS-6). REQUESTED PERMIT: Variance Permit - Type III-B hearing exarniner decision. Information on this application can be viewed al the City of Edmonds Development Services Dept., 121 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020. or on the City's Online Permits website - permils.edmonds.wa.us/citizen. Search for PLN2023- 0013. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: New Single -Family Residence REQUIRED STUDIES: Stream classification and welland delineation (submitted) EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS. Critical Areas Determination (CRA2022-W 73) COMMENT PERIOD: Comments due by May 11_2023. Any person has the right to comment on this application during the public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any lime prior to the closing of the record of an open record pre -decision hearing, if any, or, it no open record pre -decision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Orgy parties of record as defined In ECDC 20.06.020 have standing to mlliate an administrative appeal. CITY CONTACT: Tristan Sewell, Planner (425) 771-0220, lristan.Sewell@EdmondsWA.gov Published: April 27, 2023- EOH975783 Proofed by Phillips, Linda, 04/27/2023 09:00:31 am Page: 2 Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 127 `nC. t 8y1 NAME OF APPLICANT: DATE OF APPLICATION: DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF NOTICE: FILE NO.: PROJECT LOCATION: CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 0' ... ........... Arne Gaenz April 13, 2023 September 26, 2024 September 12, 2024 PLN2023-0013 963 Main Street PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Application for reasonable economic use variance to the critical areas ordinance to build a single-family residence per Section 23.40.210 ECDC. The site is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-6). REQUESTED PERMIT: Variance - Type III -A decision by the Hearing Examiner. View application materials on the City's website by using the QR code above or at www.EdmondsWA.gov/DevelopmentNotices, or in person at the Planning & Development Dept., 121 5t" Ave. N. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: Single-family residence permits, if approved EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CRA2022-0173, critical areas report DOCUMENTS: PUBLIC HEARING: 3 pm on Thursday, September 26, 2024 Brackett Room, City Hall, 121 5th Ave. N Or join the Zoom meeting at: https://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/j/87322872194?pwd=WFdxTWJIQmxITG9LZkc3K0 huS014QT09 Or via phone by dialing (253) 205-0468 Meeting ID: 873 2287 2194 Password: 007978 CITY CONTACT: Tristan Sewell, Planner (425) 771-0220 Tristan. Sewell@EdmondsWA.gov PUBLISH: September 12, 2024 Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 128 a City of Edmonds L AYTO N ST F PLN2023-0013 1 MAIN ST 1020 0 0 e 7 NO O O L 1009 1 1 O O 0 o L1: 1,664 O 138.68 277.4 Feet 2,478 206.5 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accura SS_1984_Web-Mercator _Auxiliary -Sphere current, or otherwise reliab City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTIC 'i2 y Q I-� V o _ _ ' J C V W Legend 0 ReZones y PRD d Ro W = O Zoning +N, RS-6 10 RS-8 `— RS-10 RS-12 d E RSW-12 V E] RS-20 cc E] RS-MP = RIM-3 �a ■ RIM-2.4 C . RIM-1.5 C L RM-EW BD1 BD2 M BD3 O O +\ BD4 N O BD5 N Z +\ OR Jd WMU BP BN ® FVMU k W BC Notes 963 Main St. r-� Critical Areas Reasonable Economic Use Q Variance Packet Pg. 129 MCARTHUR SUSAN 1005 BELL ST EDMONDS, WA 98020 ZIOBRO GRETCHEN S & CHRISTOPHER D 1007 BELL ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-2903 CURRENT RESIDENT 1008 MAIN ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-2909 SCHROTE ROBERTA PETRACCA FRANCES M & BLACK HERBERT MICHAEL 1010 MAIN ST GORDON R 212 LOTH PL N EDMONDS, WA 98020 211 1 OTH PL N EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020-2901 FARIS KAREN 215 1OTH PL N EDMONDS, WA 98020 E SEBNEM ODEN TRUSTEE 9118 189TH PL SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 CURRENT RESIDENT 931 MAIN ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-2906 MATTSON KEN PO BOX 234 EDMONDS, WA 98020 Ray White 320 12th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 MATTSON KEN & SHARON 725 DALEY ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-3025 1008 STREET TRUST 9118 189TH PL SW EDMONDS, WA 98026-5932 CURRENT RESIDENT 950 MAIN ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-2907 Nancy Johnson 9411 216th St. SW Edmonds, WA 98020 KINNEY CAROL S 905 BELL ST EDMONDS, WA 98020 MARSH SANDRA R 912 MAIN ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-2907 NELSON ASSOCIATES AND FAMILY LLC 9710 WHARF ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-2363 Tom Mayer 300 12th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 130 File No.: PLN2023-0013 Applicant: Arne Gaenz Application for Reasonable Economic Use Variance DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 12th day of September 2024, the attached Notice of Application was mailed by the City as prescribed by Ordinance to property owners within 300 feet of the site that is the subject of this application. I, Heather Lakefish, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 12th day of September 2024, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 131 File No.: PLN2023-0013 Applicant: Arne Gaenz Reasonable Economic Use Variance DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 29th day of August 2024, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall, and Public Safety buildings. The Notice was also published on the City website. I, Tristan Sewell, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 29th day of August 2024, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 132 Legal Invoice Sound Publishing, Inc. Unit Attn: A/R PO Box 930 Everett WA 98206-0930 Bill To: City of Edmonds Development Services Attn Debbie Rothfus 121 - 5th Ave N Edmonds WA 98020-3145 Legal Description: City Applications Desc: PLN2023-0013 Ordered By: MICHELLE MARTIN Issues Ordered: 1 RECEIVE® SEP 16 2m DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER Date: 09/12/2024 Everett Daily Herald Customer Account #: 86031703 Legal Description: EDH I002193 Legal #: EDH 1002193 Ad Cost: $ 58.48 Published: Everett Daily Herald Start Date: 09/12/2024 End Date: 09/12/2024 Due: $ 58.48 Please return this with payment. Questions? Call 1-800-4854920 City of Edmonds Development Services Account #: 86031703 Attn Debbie Rothfus Invoice #: EDHI002193 121 - 5th Ave N Edmonds WA 98020-3145 Due: $ 58.48 Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 133 Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Michael Gates being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH I002193 PLN2023-0013 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 09/12/2024 and ending on 09/12/2024 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amour of the fee for such publication is $58.48. 11 h OS Subscribed and sworn before me on this��•'Xssion F • /C//�ii l day of �Qocc0ZO2p2j�9`'; G p10TARy '^ p o UBIIG M (P . ate. Q> OF�tWAS\A\ Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. Gry of Rd 6 D—Iopmem Smi"x 186031703 MICI IGLLF MARTIN Packet Pg. 134 Classified Proof CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NAME OF APPLICANT. Ame Gaenz DATE OF APPLICATION. April 13, 2023 DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: September 26, 2024 DATE OF NOTICESeptember 12, 2024 FILE NO.: PLN2023-0013 PROJECT LOCATION: 963 Main SI PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Application for reasonable economic use variance to the critical areas ordinance to build a single-family residence per Section 23.40.210 ECDC. The site Is zoned Single - Family Residential (RS-6). REQUESTED PERMIT Variance - Type III -A decision by the Hearing Examiner view application materials on the City's websde by using the OR code above or at www.EdmondsWA.govfDeveiopmenlNotices, or in person at the Planning & Development Dept, 121 5lh Ave. N. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: Single-family residence permits, II approved EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: CRA2022-0173, critical areas report PUBLIC HEARING: 3 pm on Thursday, September 26, 2024 Brackett Room, City Hall, 121 5lh Ave. N Or Join the Zoom meeting at: h1tps:aedniondswa- 9ov.zoom us41873228721947pwd=WFdxTWJIQmxlTG9LZkc3KOh uS0WQT09 Or via phone by dialing (253) 205-0468 Meeting ID: 873 2287 2194 Password:007976 CITY CONTACT: Tristan Sewell, Planner (425) 771-0220 1 ristan.Sewes@EdmondsWA.gov Published: September 12, 2024, EDHIOD2193 M N O N Z J a m. rr Proofed by Pospical, Randie, 09/12/2024 08:46:20 am Page: 2 Q Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 135 From: Tom Mayer To: Sewell, Tristan Cc: Jeanne Thorsen Subject: 963 Main St Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 10:57:19 AM Ms. Sewell, I am writing to object to the proposed construction of a single-family residence at 963 Main St. I am very concerned that the city would permit any construction in the middle of the green belt on Main St., one of the primary entrances to the city. In addition, the proposed house appears to be bordering closely on Shell Creek which should be protected from any nearby construction. Finally, I find it difficult to understand why the city would approve construction/habitat destruction at the very time that it is seeking to expand tree cover and parks. I look forward to hearing from you regarding my objections. Thank you. Tom Mayer 300 12th Ave N 425-478-2151 Sent from my Wad Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 136 From: rw To: Sewell, Tristan Cc: Tom Mayer; Jeanne Thorsen; ioe.scordino(cayahoo.com Subject: 963 Main St Date: Thursday, May 11, 2023 10:33:52 PM Dear Ms. Sewell, As a citizen of Edmonds and professional ecologist, I write in opposition to the proposed construction of a single-family residence at 963 Main St. Such a change in land use would mar natural beauty and destroy habitat for various wild animals. Moreover, by disrupting habitat connectivity, it would adversely affect the natural community of plants and animals which occupies that site and adjacent parts of the strip of wooded area where it lies. Such fragmentation of habitat prevents or hampers movement of organisms for necessary foraging, predator escape, population dispersal, and other processes. In particular, I am a research ecologist (and occasionally manager) of streams and their riparian zones, often including wetland matters. Maintaining connectivity for habitat use and other natural processes has become a major consideration in this field of science and management. During the last 34 years, I have often walked by and sometimes ventured into the wooded area of which the site is part. Some years ago, other citizens and I appeared at a hearing in opposition to a developer's plan to create building lots there. He then abandoned the idea, perhaps selling the land to the city. Now I have read some materials about the proposed land use, namely Critical Area Determination (CRA2022-0173) and the 12.09.2022 wetland delineation and analysis or assessment by Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC. The latter document contains the term "habitat has only vague meaning unless accompanied by the species of plant or animal involved. It appears that most any residential construction and subsequent use on the site would adversely affect the wetland. I understand that the city will study of the matter further. In doing that, please determine the species of amphibians, reptiles, fish, birds, and mammals — especially (but not exclusively) those which are of threatened, vulnerable, or otherwise sensitive status — that depend on habitat such as exists in this area's upland, wetland, and stream. Consider how the species would be affected in terms of the connectedness issue and in other ways. Sincerely, Ray J. White, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof. of Fishery Science, Montana State University (retired) 320 12th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 137 From: Tom Mayer To: Sewell, Tristan Cc: Jeanne Thorsen Subject: 963 Main St Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 10:57:19 AM Ms. Sewell, I am writing to object to the proposed construction of a single-family residence at 963 Main St. I am very concerned that the city would permit any construction in the middle of the green belt on Main St., one of the primary entrances to the city. In addition, the proposed house appears to be bordering closely on Shell Creek which should be protected from any nearby construction. Finally, I find it difficult to understand why the city would approve construction/habitat destruction at the very time that it is seeking to expand tree cover and parks. I look forward to hearing from you regarding my objections. Thank you. Tom Mayer 300 12th Ave N 425-478-2151 Sent from my Wad Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 138 From: area ferauson To: Sewell, Tristan Subject: 963 Main Street Critical Areas Variance, PLN2023-0013 Date: Thursday, May 11, 2023 5:49:43 PM This site includes steep slope and wetland critical areas. The only portion of the parcel not in the wetland is in the wetland buffer. According to Edmonds City Code: "Activities may only be permitted in a wetland buffer if the applicant can show that the proposed activity will not degrade the functions and functional performance of the wetland and other critical areas." (hiWs://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/#!/html/Edmonds23/Edmonds23 50.html) Construction of and occupancy of a home would clearly degrade the functional performance of the wetland. Please do not issue a critical area variance for this property. Cheers Greg Ferguson Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 139 From: Andrea Loeser To: Planning Cc: Sewell. Tristan Subject: building in Shell Creek Watershed Date: Friday, May 12, 2023 9:38:43 AM Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner Dear Mr. Olbrechts, There are so many reasons to deny an application to build on the site at 9th and Main St. It has two city -owned lots on either side to preserve habitat. Salmon habitat loss is beyond critical at this time due to negligent permits in favor of building; building may cause added debris in Shell Creek (again a habitat loss issue). There are many other issues regarding but I urge denial of this application. I live in Shoreline not Edmonds but since State Grant Funds for wildlife were used I feel justified in requesting you consider the environmental health of our area. Thank you for your consideration. Andrea Loeser Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 140 From: Marjorie Fields To: Sewell, Tristan Cc: McLaughlin. Susan; Feser, Angie Subject: Building on Shell Creek property Date: Thursday, May 11, 2023 3:26:38 PM I am shocked to learn about an application to build on this critical area on an erodible site above a fish bearing creek. The tree removal involved alone would be a disaster for the area. How has this been publicized? The public deserves to hear about something of this magnitude. I just heard that today is the deadline to comment, but didn't hear how to comment or to whom. I assume the permits for this environmental disaster will be denied. Marjie Fields Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 141 From: Levitan, David To: Sewell, Tristan Subject: FW: Application PLN2023-0013. Date: Friday, May 12, 2023 12:51:48 PM From: Ron Eber <ronaldeber@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2023 12:50 PM To: Planning <Planning@ci.edmonds.wa.us> Cc: Marjie Fields <mvfields@me.com> Subject: Application PLN2023-0013. I know the deadline for comments is past, however, I would like to request a copy of the Comment and Hearing Notice for this application (Application PLN2023-0013) as well as the application. I would also like to request a copy of whatever decision is made for this application whenever it is available. Thank you. Ron Eber Edmonds Sent from Mail for Windows Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 142 From: barbara steller To: Sewell, Tristan Subject: Fw: Building Application for Shell Creek Area Date: Thursday, May 11, 2023 9:52:29 PM Dear Sir, I mistyped your email, so here is another try. From: barbara steller Sent: Friday, May 12, 2023 12:48 AM To: planning@ci.edmonds.wa.us <planning@ci.edmonds.wa.us> Cc: tristan.sewell@edmonds.wa.gov <tristan.sewell@edmonds.wa.gov> Subject: Building Application for Shell Creek Area I just heard about an application to build on the property opposite the Wade James Theater on Main Street. If this is so, I wish to express my opinion that this is NOT a good idea. The proposed building would negatively impact the Shell Creek area. We need to do all we can to preserve these important fragile areas in our environment, especially around our streams. I am assisting at the Edmonds Environmental Youth Summit at the Edmonds Waterfront Center set for Friday, May 12th. How can this project be explained/justified to our children? Please deny this building application. If the owner wishes to sell, the city must purchase it and keep it as natural as possible. It is a treasure that cannot be damaged. Thank you for your time and consideration. Barbara Steller Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 143 From: Martin, Michelle To: Planning Work Grow Subject: Fwd: 963 Main Street Critical Areas Variance, PLN2023-0013 Date: Friday, May 12, 2023 7:50:10 AM Forwarding to all as an FYI although this project is assigned to Tristan currently. It's currently in the 1 st review stage and set for a second look at the file by 5/21. Have a great day. Thank you, ??l:cle& Xa zrw I Senior Administrative Assistant City of Edmonds Planning & Development 425-771-0220, ext 1335 Michelle.Martin(@edmondswa.gov From: greg ferguson <gghhff@me.com> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 6:01:16 PM To: Planning <Planning@ci.edmonds.wa.us> Subject: 963 Main Street Critical Areas Variance, PLN2023-0013 Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner, This site includes steep slope and wetland critical areas. The only portion of the parcel not in the wetland is in the wetland buffer. According to Edmonds City Code: "Activities may only be permitted in a wetland buffer if the applicant can show that the proposed activity will not degrade the functions and functional performance of the wetland and other critical areas."(htWs://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/#!/html/Edmonds23/Edmonds2350.html) Construction of and occupancy of a home would clearly degrade the functional performance of the wetland. Please do not issue a critical area variance for this property. Regards Greg Ferguson Edmonds Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 144 From: Nancy Johnson To: Planning; Sewell, Tristan Subject: Please DENY application for sale and construction in Shell Creek watershed - Application PLN2023-0013. Date: Thursday, May 11, 2023 9:16:23 PM To Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner Hello Mr Olbrechts, I'm very concerned to hear about the proposed sale and construction on a lot in the Shell Creek watershed, across from Wade James Theater. Erosion in the upper Shell Creek watershed already damages downstream salmon habitat. The proposed building will only exacerbate that problem. There is no mention of mitigation for the habitat damage onsite or downstream in the Application. Nor is there mention of mitigating the significant damage to the dense vegetation on the lot that currently absorbs rainfall, prevents erosion, and provides habitat for wildlife in this critical area. I just found out about this issue and that this is the last day before the decision - if there has been public notice, I believe it was insufficient. I hope you will deny this application and perhaps the City can consider purchasing this parcel to protect Shell Creek from now on. Thank you, Nancy Johnson 9411 216th St SW, Edmonds, WA 98020 206-371-5499 Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 145 From: j.odelI(ab123mail.org To: Plannina Cc: Sewell. Tristan Subject: PLN 2023-0013 Date: Thursday, May 11, 2023 11:13:38 PM This comment may be late but I thought it too important not to try to reach you with opposition to the requested permit referenced above. I am sorry to hear that what should be a protected riparian area would suddenly appear buildable; aside from the importance of protecting and restoring streams that provide habitat for salmon and other wildlife the proposed site is prone to erosion and instability. My tardy comment notwithstanding (I am currently out of the US and this just came to my attention) I hope you will agree that this application is misguided and should be denied. The applicant's economic hardship must be considered in the context of impact on the environment and if that hardship is extreme, may be otherwise addressed. Thank you. Jane O'Dell Edmonds, WA Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 146 From: Gordon Black To: Sewell, Tristan Subject: PLN 2023-0013 Date: Sunday, May 7, 2023 8:10:02 PM Dear Mr Sewell - I'm writing for clarification on the permit application for the 963 Main Street permit application. I have looked at the online filing and it does seem to indicate whether a sensitive area study has been required or completed. Given that the applicant is seeking to build a home adjacent to a delineated wetland and a salmon -bearing stream (historic; efforts underway to restore the salmon run), I would think that a sensitive area study would be mandatory. Would you let me know before the filing date of 5/11/23 where things stand regarding a study. Also, the online application file seems to include no information on lot lines, proximity to wet areas, the stream or other key information. Is it possible I missed such drawings? If nothing has been filed, how might I see the applicant's proposed use of the lot? Thanks for getting back to me. Regards, Gordon Black "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men / Gang aft a-gley." Robert Burns, poet, 1785 Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 147 From: Joan Bloom To: Planning Cc: tristan.sewel1@)edmonds.wa.aov Subject: Application PLN2023-0013 Date: Thursday, May 11, 2023 10:02:31 PM Mr. Olbrecht, I just learned of this application to build on this critical area on an erodible site above a fish bearing creek. This property is near steep slopes (critical area), directly above a creek (critical area) and on wetlands (critical area). Does the city intend to completely ignore our critical areas ordinance? How could development on this property possible occur without ignoring our CAO? This application should be denied because of the damage that would be done to the stream, the wetland and all of the wildlife that thrive there. The city of Edmonds has correctly viewed this property as unbuildable for many years. There is no reasonable explanation for this application to have been accepted, and for it to have made it to this point. Property owner hardship? Is this really something that the city wants to begin to consider in allowing further destruction of our critical areas? How can we trust anything our city does, when Edmonds planning dept continues to allow our critical areas to be abused? Respectfully, Joan Bloom Former Edmonds City Councilmember Joan Bloom Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 148 From: Chris Ziobro To: Sewell, Tristan Subject: PLN2023-0013 Comments Date: Saturday, May 6, 2023 9:54:54 AM Hi Tristan, I am writing in response to the Notice of Development letter for permit PLN2023-0013 that I received recently. I am not in favor of development at hat site for the following reasons: First and foremost, that green belt is a wildlife corridor that connects to Yost park. Resident owls hunt there daily, coyotes use it to get around, and the creek that runs through it, will hopefully one day host returning salmon again — we should be protecting these few remaining areas. I'd probably be more OK with a multi unit dwelling, but permitting a single family residence in this location doesn't seem like a good tradeoff. Thanks, Chris Ziobro 1007 Bell St, Edmonds, WA 98020 Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 149 From: Ron Eber To: Planning Cc: Mariie Fields Subject: Application PLN2023-0013. Date: Friday, May 12, 2023 12:50:03 PM I know the deadline for comments is past, however, I would like to request a copy of the Comment and Hearing Notice for this application (Application PLN2023-0013) as well as the application. I would also like to request a copy of whatever decision is made for this application whenever it is available. Thank you. Ron Eber Edmonds Sent from Mail for Windows Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 150 From: grea ferguson To: Planning Subject: 963 Main Street Critical Areas Variance, PLN2023-0013 Date: Thursday, May 11, 2023 6:01:23 PM Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner, This site includes steep slope and wetland critical areas. The only portion of the parcel not in the wetland is in the wetland buffer. According to Edmonds City Code: "Activities may only be permitted in a wetland buffer if the applicant can show that the proposed activity will not degrade the functions and functional performance of the wetland and other critical areas." (https://www.codel2ublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/#!/html/Edmonds23/Edmonds23 50.html) Construction of and occupancy of a home would clearly degrade the functional performance of the wetland. Please do not issue a critical area variance for this property. Regards Greg Ferguson Edmonds Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 151 From: Marjorie Fields To: Plannin Subject: Construction on a wetland buffer?? Date: Thursday, May 11, 2023 8:05:55 PM I am shocked to learn about an application to build on this critical area on an erodible site above a fish bearing creek. The tree removal involved alone would be a disaster for the area. How has this been publicized? The public deserves to hear about something of this magnitude. I just heard that today is the deadline to comment, but didn't hear how to comment or to whom. I assume the permits for this environmental disaster will be denied. Marjie Fields Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 152 From: Nancy Johnson To: Planning; Sewell, Tristan Subject: Please DENY application for sale and construction in Shell Creek watershed - Application PLN2023-0013. Date: Thursday, May 11, 2023 9:16:25 PM To Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner Hello Mr Olbrechts, I'm very concerned to hear about the proposed sale and construction on a lot in the Shell Creek watershed, across from Wade James Theater. Erosion in the upper Shell Creek watershed already damages downstream salmon habitat. The proposed building will only exacerbate that problem. There is no mention of mitigation for the habitat damage onsite or downstream in the Application. Nor is there mention of mitigating the significant damage to the dense vegetation on the lot that currently absorbs rainfall, prevents erosion, and provides habitat for wildlife in this critical area. I just found out about this issue and that this is the last day before the decision - if there has been public notice, I believe it was insufficient. I hope you will deny this application and perhaps the City can consider purchasing this parcel to protect Shell Creek from now on. Thank you, Nancy Johnson 9411 216th St SW, Edmonds, WA 98020 206-371-5499 Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 153 From: j.odelI(ab123mail.org To: Planning Cc: Sewell. Tristan Subject: PLN 2023-0013 Date: Thursday, May 11, 2023 11:13:37 PM This comment may be late but I thought it too important not to try to reach you with opposition to the requested permit referenced above. I am sorry to hear that what should be a protected riparian area would suddenly appear buildable; aside from the importance of protecting and restoring streams that provide habitat for salmon and other wildlife the proposed site is prone to erosion and instability. My tardy comment notwithstanding (I am currently out of the US and this just came to my attention) I hope you will agree that this application is misguided and should be denied. The applicant's economic hardship must be considered in the context of impact on the environment and if that hardship is extreme, may be otherwise addressed. Thank you. Jane O'Dell Edmonds, WA Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 154 From: barbara steller To: Planning Cc: tristan.sewellCcledmonds.wa.gov Subject: Building Application for Shell Creek Area Date: Thursday, May 11, 2023 9:48:47 PM I just heard about an application to build on the property opposite the Wade James Theater on Main Street. If this is so, I wish to express my opinion that this is NOT a good idea. The proposed building would negatively impact the Shell Creek area. We need to do all we can to preserve these important fragile areas in our environment, especially around our streams. I am assisting at the Edmonds Environmental Youth Summit at the Edmonds Waterfront Center set for Friday, May 12th. How can this project be explained/justified to our children? Please deny this building application. If the owner wishes to sell, the city must purchase it and keep it as natural as possible. It is a treasure that cannot be damaged. Thank you for your time and consideration. Barbara Steller Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 155 From: ioe scordino To: Sewell, Tristan Cc: Buckshnis, Diane; Teitzel, Dave; Theresa Hollis; Michael Murdock; CLINTON WRIGHT; oinnademme(o)windermere.com Subject: Public Comments on PLN2023-0013 Application for critical areas reasonable economic use variance at 963 main Street Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 4:58:52 PM Please consider and forward (to the Hearing Examiner) the following comments on Application PLN2023-0013. The application should be denied due to 1) the serious damage to the stream/wetland/wildlife that would result from the proposed building at this site, and 2) the lack of showing by the Property Owner (not a builder) of economic hardship and what, if any, other avenues of disposition of the property were pursued besides the proposed placement of a building on what has been viewed by the City as "unbuildable" for many, many years. It is noteworthy that the adjacent lots, both to the east and west, are owned by the City of Edmonds. The City purchased these lots with local and state grant funds to preserve a greenbelt/wildlife corridor along Shell Creek that starts in Yost Park. An obvious question for the Property Owner, that should be included in the background material for this Application, is whether there were any discussions with the City on the possibility of the City purchasing the property to address the Property Owners economic hardship (not a builders apparent desire to make a profit by building on this lot under a variance to necessary protective City Ordinances). We already have a problem with erosion in the upper Shell Creek watershed damaging downstream salmon habitat. The proposed building will only exasperate that problem. There is no mention of mitigation for the habitat damage onsite or downstream in the Application. Nor is there mention of mitigating the significant damage to the dense vegetation on the lot that currently absorbs rainfall, prevents erosion, and provides habitat for wildlife in this critical area. The City's Map (attached) is clear evidence of the "unbuildable" nature of this property. Please deny this Application on the basis of significant environmental damage and lack of evidence that the Property Owner has exhausted other avenues to address the Property Owner's economic hardship (not the builders desire to make a profit with unrestricted access to "unbuildable" property) - - such as selling the property to the City at purchase price plus investments (i.e., taxes over the years) and inflation. The City's PROS Plan recommends the City purchase additional open space to protect natural areas - so this lot "fits" that City priority perfectly (and the City could apply for grant funds as they did in past for the adjacent lot to reduce the burden on local taxpayers). Please include me in any notices of hearings or further actions on this Application. Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 156 I would appreciate a copy of the Critical Areas Determination (CRA2022-0173). Sincerely, /s/ Joe Scordino Project leader, Edmonds Stream Team Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 157 From: Michael Murdock To: Sewell, Tristan Cc: ice scordino Subject: Public Comments on PLN2023-0013 Application for Critical Areas Reasonable Economic Use Variance At 963 Main Street Date: Thursday, May 11, 2023 12:12:29 PM Good Afternoon, The name of applicant on city posted application for this property as Arne Gaenz is listed under Kelli Homes with license currently suspended. Thank you. hLtps:Hol2engovwa.com/labor-industries-contractor/KELLIHL849PJ Mike Murdock Sent from my iPhone Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 158 From: Sewell, Tristan To: "Tom Mayer" Subject: RE: 963 Main St Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 11:39:38 AM Attachments: HE Decision PLN20150052.odf HE Decision Reasonable Use and Variance -- Schenk.pdf Mr. Mayer, Thank you for your comment on PLN2023-0013. Please be aware that your comment will be included in the staff report to the hearing examiner for this variance application. You are thereby a party of record pursuant to ECDC 20.060.020.B.3. Edmonds Community and Development Code necessarily permits the minimum reasonable economic use on parcels with development potential otherwise eliminated by critical areas or their buffers. Property owners seeking reasonable economic use must apply for a variance (ECDC 23.40.00O.F). ECDC 23.440.0005 defines reasonable economic use as "the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of substantive due process." Prior hearing examiner decisions (attached) provide precedent for reasonable economic use variances to our critical areas code. This variance application remains under review (as described in Chapter 20.02) and is currently in the public comment period until at least May 1 lth. The City's hearing examiner must issue a decision within 120 days of the determination of application completeness. Currently, that is estimated to be by August 1 lth. An appeal period follows, open only to parties of record (see Ch. 20.06). The application for the variance must demonstrate the proposal fits the criteria of ECDC 20.85.010 and 23.40.210, as well as align with the prior decisions of the hearing examiner. The Schenk decision attached established the structural footprint threshold for reasonable economic use to be 625-650 square feet. Approval of the variance does not include final approval of construction. The applicant would still need to apply for new development of a single-family residence, which would be review for code compliance and alignment with any conditions issued by the hearing examiner. If the applicant fails to act in pursuit of the issued variance within one year, it expires (ECDC 20.85.020). I am happy to answer any further questions about this application, reasonable economic use in critical areas, variance applications, or any other topic relevant to this application. Please refer to Edmonds' code citations online at httt)s://www.codeDublishine.com/WA/Edmonds. Kind regards, Tristan Sewell I Planner Planning & Development Department City of Edmonds, WA Desk 425.771.0220, ext. 1332 1 Mobile 425.218.7991 The Development Services Permit Center is open M-F 8:OOam to 4:30pm for Telephone and Digital/Remote access. In -Person walk-in service is currently available M-F 10:00am to 2:OOpm; appointments are encouraged. For general service: Phone 1 425.771.0220 Email I devserv.admin@edmondswa.gov -----Original Message ----- From: Tom Mayer <tmayer43@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 10:57 AM To: Sewell, Tristan <tristan.sewell@EdmondsWA.gov> Cc: Jeanne Thorsen <jeannethorsen@gmail.com> Subject: 963 Main St Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 159 Ms. Sewell, I am writing to object to the proposed construction of a single-family residence at 963 Main St. I am very concerned that the city would permit any construction in the middle of the green belt on Main St., one of the primary entrances to the city. In addition, the proposed house appears to be bordering closely on Shell Creek which should be protected from any nearby construction. Finally, I find it difficult to understand why the city would approve construction/habitat destruction at the very time that it is seeking to expand tree cover and parks. I look forward to hearing from you regarding my objections. Thank you. Tom Mayer 300 12th Ave N 425-478-2151 Sent from my iPad Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 160 From: Joan Bloom To: Planning Cc: Sewell. Tristan Subject: Re: Application PLN2023-0013 Date: Thursday, May 11, 2023 10:05:34 PM Resending Joan Bloom On May 11, 2023, Joan Bloom <joanbloom@hey.com> wrote: Mr. Olbrecht, I just learned of this application to build on this critical area on an erodible site above a fish bearing creek. This property is near steep slopes (critical area), directly above a creek (critical area) and on wetlands (critical area). Does the city intend to completely ignore our critical areas ordinance? How could development on this property possible occur without ignoring our CAO? This application should be denied because of the damage that would be done to the stream, the wetland and all of the wildlife that thrive there. The city of Edmonds has correctly viewed this property as unbuildable for many years. There is no reasonable explanation for this application to have been accepted, and for it to have made it to this point. Property owner hardship? Is this really something that the city wants to begin to consider in allowing further destruction of our critical areas? How can we trust anything our city does, when Edmonds planning dept continues to allow our critical areas to be abused? Respectfully, Joan Bloom Former Edmonds City Councilmember Joan Bloom Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 161 From: Sewell, Tristan To: Gordon Black Subject: RE: PLN 2023-0013 Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 8:52:04 AM Attachments: P87 - Critical Areas Variance - Reasonable Economic Use coov.odf HE Decision PLN20150052.odf HE Decision Reasonable Use and Variance -- Schenk.odf Dear Mr. Black, The City website recently received an update that may have changed access. The application materials can be accessed here. It includes a critical areas report with both a wetland delineation and rating, and stream typing and buffer determination. The critical areas and associated buffers impact the entire site, which would normally eliminate any development potential. The applicant(s) seek(s) the reasonable economic use variance to Edmonds' critical areas ordinance per ECDC 23.40.210.A.2. The applicant(s) propose(s) a single-family residence. City staff will evaluate the application against the criteria of ECDC 20.85.010 and 23.40.210.A.2 and B, and then issue a recommendation to the hearing examiner. Issuance of the variance by the hearing examiner does not include approval for any subsequent required permits but enables the applicant to pursue the use proposed under any constraints included in the hearing examiner decision. I attached two prior hearing examiner decisions on reasonable economic use variances that will serve as precedent for this application. They establish the threshold for the minimum use required by ECDC 20.85.010.F and 23.40.210.A.2.c. Per ECDC 20.06.020.B.3, your comment establishes your standing to appeal the hearing examiner decision on PLN2023-0013. Your comment will also be included in the staff report to the hearing examiner. Please let me know if you have any further questions or comments. Kind regards, Tristan Sewell I Planner Planning & Development Department City of Edmonds, WA Desk 425.771.0220, ext. 1332 1 Mobile 425.218.7991 The Development Services Permit Center is open M-F 8:00am to 4:30pm for Telephone and Digital/Remote access. In -Person walk-in service is currently available M-F 10:00am to 2:OOpm: appointments are encouraged. For general service: Phone / 425.771.0220 Email / devserv.odmin(@edmondswo.gov Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 162 From: Gordon Black <gordonblack1984@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, May 7, 2023 8:10 PM To: Sewell, Tristan <tristan.sewell@edmondswa.gov> Subject: PLN 2023-0013 Dear Mr Sewell - I'm writing for clarification on the permit application for the 963 Main Street permit application. I have looked at the online filing and it does seem to indicate whether a sensitive area study has been required or completed. Given that the applicant is seeking to build a home adjacent to a delineated wetland and a salmon -bearing stream (historic; efforts underway to restore the salmon run), I would think that a sensitive area study would be mandatory. Would you let me know before the filing date of 5/11/23 where things stand regarding a study. Also, the online application file seems to include no information on lot lines, proximity to wet areas, the stream or other key information. Is it possible I missed such drawings? If nothing has been filed, how might I see the applicant's proposed use of the lot? Thanks for getting back to me. Regards, Gordon Black "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men / Gang aft a-gley." Robert Burns, poet, 1785 Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 163 From: Sewell, Tristan To: "Chris Ziobro" Subject: RE: PLN2023-0013 Comments Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 8:37:52 AM Attachments: P87 - Critical Areas Variance - Reasonable Economic Use coov.odf HE Decision PLN20150052.odf HE Decision Reasonable Use and Variance -- Schenk.odf Hello Chris, Thank you for your comment regarding the application for a reasonable economic use variance to Edmonds' critical areas ordinance (PLN2023-0013). ECDC Chapter 20.85 and ECDC 23.40.210 govern variances to the critical areas regulation, including the criteria used by City staff and the hearing examiner. The reasonable economic use variance protects landowners' minimum economic use entitlement under state and federal law to avoid a taking and/or violation of due process. You can also learn more about this type of variance from the attached handout. I also included two prior hearing examiner decisions that serve as precedent, establishing a threshold of minimum necessary variance and impact on the critical area(s) (ECDC 20.85.010.F and 23.40.210.A.2.c). Approval of a variance does not include approval of the subsequent necessary permits to pursue the desired use; receipt of the variance allows the applicant to apply to the requisite permits that otherwise would not be viable. Per ECDC 20.06.020.B.3, your comment establishes your standing to appeal the hearing examiner decision on PLN2023-0013. Your comment will also be included in the staff report to the hearing examiner. Please let me know if you have any further questions or comments. Kind regards, Tristan Sewell I Planner Planning & Development Department City of Edmonds, WA Desk 425.771.0220, ext. 1332 1 Mobile 425.218.7991 The Development Services Permit Center is open M-F 8:00am to 4:30pm for Telephone and Digital/Remote access. In -Person walk-in service is currently available M-F 10:00am to 2:00gm: appointments are encouraged. For general service: Phone / 425.771.0220 Email / devserv.admin(@edmondswa.gov From: Chris Ziobro <cziobro@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2023 9:55 AM To: Sewell, Tristan <tristan.sewell@edmondswa.gov> Subject: PLN2023-0013 Comments Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 164 Hi Tristan, I am writing in response to the Notice of Development letter for permit PLN2023-0013 that I received recently. I am not in favor of development at hat site for the following reasons: First and foremost, that green belt is a wildlife corridor that connects to Yost park. Resident owls hunt there daily, coyotes use it to get around, and the creek that runs through it, will hopefully one day host returning salmon again — we should be protecting these few remaining areas. I'd probably be more OK with a multi unit dwelling, but permitting a single family residence in this location doesn't seem like a good tradeoff. Thanks, Chris Ziobro 1007 Bell St, Edmonds, WA 98020 Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 165 From: Sewell, Tristan To: "ice scordino" Subject: RE: Public Comments on PLN2023-0013 Application for critical areas reasonable economic use variance at 963 main Street Date: Monday, May 15, 2023 10:20:25 AM Attachments: CRA2022-0173 uoload.odf PLN2023-0013+Critical Areas Report+3.24.2023 1.43.03 PM+3442069.pdf Mr. Scordino, Thank you for your comments on PLN2023-0013, which have been added to the public record and will be included in the Hearing Examiner meeting packet. The proposal is currently in the first round of staff review to determine compliance with the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) and other local, state and federal regulations, including the variance criteria in ECDC 23.40.210. In advance of the required Hearing Examiner public hearing, staff will be issuing a notice of public hearing. Because you commented on the notice of application, you will also receive the notice of public hearing and are considered a party of record. Please provide your mailing address if you would like that notice mailed to you or confirm that you would prefer to receive it by email. Please find CRA2023-0173 and the requisite report submitted for PLN2023-0013 attached. Kind regards, Tristan Sewell I Planner Planning & Development Department City of Edmonds, WA Desk 425.771.0220, ext. 1332 1 Mobile 425.218.7991 The Development Services Permit Center is open M-F 8:00am to 4:30pm for Telephone and Digital/Remote access. In -Person walk-in service is currently available M-F 10:OOam to 2:00pm: appointments are encouraged. For general service: Phone / 425.771.0220 Email / devserv.admin(@edmondswa,gov. From: joe scordino <joe.scordino@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 4:59 PM To: Sewell, Tristan <Tristan.Sewell@EdmondsWA.gov> Cc: Buckshnis, Diane<diane.buckshnis@edmondswa.gov>; Teitzel, Dave <david.teitzel@edmondswa.gov>; Theresa Hollis <theresahollis218@gmail.com>; Michael Murdock <mikmur@icloud.com>; CLINTON WRIGHT <clint_patwright@comcast.net>; ginnademme@windermere.com Subject: Public Comments on PLN2023-0013 Application for critical areas reasonable economic use variance at 963 main Street Please consider and forward (to the Hearing Examiner) the following comments on Application PLN2023-0013. Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 166 The application should be denied due to 1) the serious damage to the stream/wetland/wildlife that would result from the proposed building at this site, and 2) the lack of showing by the Property Owner (not a builder) of economic hardship and what, if any, other avenues of disposition of the property were pursued besides the proposed placement of a building on what has been viewed by the City as "unbuildable" for many, many years. It is noteworthy that the adjacent lots, both to the east and west, are owned by the City of Edmonds. The City purchased these lots with local and state grant funds to preserve a greenbelt/wildlife corridor along Shell Creek that starts in Yost Park. An obvious question for the Property Owner, that should be included in the background material for this Application, is whether there were any discussions with the City on the possibility of the City purchasing the property to address the Property Owners economic hardship (not a builders apparent desire to make a profit by building on this lot under a variance to necessary protective City Ordinances). We already have a problem with erosion in the upper Shell Creek watershed damaging downstream salmon habitat. The proposed building will only exasperate that problem. There is no mention of mitigation for the habitat damage onsite or downstream in the Application. Nor is there mention of mitigating the significant damage to the dense vegetation on the lot that currently absorbs rainfall, prevents erosion, and provides habitat for wildlife in this critical area. The City's Map (attached) is clear evidence of the "unbuildable" nature of this property. Please deny this Application on the basis of significant environmental damage and lack of evidence that the Property Owner has exhausted other avenues to address the Property Owner's economic hardship (not the builders desire to make a profit with unrestricted access to "unbuildable" property) - - such as selling the property to the City at purchase price plus investments (i.e., taxes over the years) and inflation. The City's PROS Plan recommends the City purchase additional open space to protect natural areas - so this lot "fits" that City priority perfectly (and the City could apply for grant funds as they did in past for the adjacent lot to reduce the burden on local taxpayers). Please include me in any notices of hearings or further actions on this Application. I would appreciate a copy of the Critical Areas Determination (CRA2022-0173). Sincerely, /s/ Joe Scordino Project leader, Edmonds Stream Team Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 167 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 511 Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION 'hC. t 8913 1/30/2023 MATTSON KEN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN Subject: Critical Areas Determination (CRA2022-0173) Site Address: UNKNOWN UNKNOWN Dear Applicant/Owner, Please find the enclosed critical area determination for the Critical Areas Checklist you submitted to the City of Edmonds Planning Division. The critical area determination for your property is "STUDY REQUIRED." Note that this determination is a site -specific determination and not a project -specific determination. If the critical area determination is "CRITICAL AREA PRESENT," additional critical areas information or critical areas specific studies may be required for development or alteration of your property depending on the location of the activity. "WAIVER" means no further critical area review is required for development or alteration of your property. If you have any questions regarding this critical area determination, please contact the planner on duty at 425.771.0220. Regards, TRISTAN SEWELL Planning Division Planning and Development Department Enc: Critical Area Determination Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 168 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 511 Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION 'nc. 18`1V Critical Area Determination (CRA2022-0173) Based on a review and inspection of the subject site, staff has determined that one or more critical areas are located on or near the site. Critical areas are ecologically sensitive or hazardous areas that are protected to maintain their functions and values. Site Location UNKNOWN UNKNOWN Tax Account Number 00434206702500 Property Owner MATTSON KEN Applicant KEN MATTSON Critical Area(s) Present ❑ Wetlands (ECDC 23.50): Yes ❑ Frequently Flooded Areas (ECDC 23.70): NA ❑ Geologically Hazardous Areas (ECDC 23.80) ❑ Erosion Hazard Areas: Yes ❑ Landslide Hazard Areas: NA ❑ Seismic Hazard Areas: NA ❑ Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (ECDC 23.90) ❑ Mapped Fish & Wildlife Habitat: Yes ❑ Streams: Yes Site Descriation The subject property is located north of Main St. between 9th Ave. N and Olympic Ave. and is currently undeveloped. The site slopes down from Main St. to the northeast corner. According to the Soil Survey of Snohomish County, soils on the subject site consist of Alderwood Urban land complex, 8-15% slopes and Alderwood Everett Gravelly sandy loams, 25-70% slopes in the northeast portion of the lot. Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 169 According to the City LiDAR data, portions of the site contain slopes greater than 15% are considered a potential erosion hazard. Furthermore, those erosion hazard areas in the Alderwood-Everett gravelly sand loam present severe risk. Any land disturbing activity within 50 feet of these areas will require a geotechnical report per requirements of ECDC 23.80, with specific reference to ECDC 23.80.060 and ECDC 23.80.070. Additionally, an Erosion and Sediment control plan compliant with chapter 18.30 ECDC may be required for development on a site containing an erosion hazard area which would be reviewed as part of a building permit. The site also contains critical areas, including a stream buffer and potential wetland. The stream runs through neighboring properties east and north of the subject parcel. Buffers from the stream and potential associated wetland could impact the subject site. A qualified professional will need to assess the area to determine the classifications of any potential stream and/or wetland on and adjacent to the site. Refer to ECDC 23.50.030 for wetland report requirements and 23.90.020 for streams. What does this mean? The critical area regulations are only triggered when an alteration is proposed to a critical area or its buffer. However, once an alteration in or near critical area is proposed, critical area studies and City review and approval may be required. What is an 'Alteration'? According to Section 23.40.005 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC): "Alteration" means any human -induced action which changes the existing conditions of a critical area or its buffer. Alterations include, but are not limited to: grading, filling; dredging; draining; channelizing; cutting, pruning, limbing or topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation; applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance; discharging pollutants; paving, construction, application of gravel; modifying for surface water management purposes; or any other human activity that changes the existing landforms, vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habitat value of critical areas. Unpermitted alteration of a critical area or buffer (including tree trimming or topping, dumping yard waste, or application of pesticides or fertilizers) can lead to enforcement action and fines. Before undertaking any work, please contact the City to verify whether critical area studies and City review is necessary. TRISTAN SEWELL Planner January 30, 2023 Page 1 2 Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 170 Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found at http.-Ilwww.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions (ECDC 23.40) Wetlands (ECDC 23.50) Frequently Flooded Areas (ECDC 23.70) Geologically Hazardous Areas (ECDC 23.80) Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (ECDC 23.90) Building permits — Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas (ECDC 19.10) City of Edmonds GIS map tool with approximate location of critical areas: http://maps.edmondswa.gov Page 1 3 Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 171 a �_— City of Edmonds CRA2022-0173 \\ MAIN ST 1:379 O 0 31.57 63.1 Feet 564 47.0 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, WGS_1984_Web-Mercator _Auxiliary -Sphere current, or otherwise reliable. (0 City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION Q • E O O LU a) Legend Creeks vOj Seismic Hazard Areas ca d Earth Subsidence and Landslide = L ! Minimum Buffer Adjacent to Hi 0) Wetlands ca Wetlands Boundary Wetland Boundaries Not Complel +y+ C Wetland Known Extents E Floodplains v A ® AE ® VE _ R P X O Q DOH Wellhead Protection Area d L . 6 Month l4 . 1 Year 5 Year M 10 Year O Buffer Zone N Rezones O cV Z —� PRD J a RoW ' USGS Soils ElAlderwood Gravelly sandy loam, ❑ Alderwood Gravelly sandy loam, W ll Alderwood Gravellv sandv loam. C Notes s Mattson New SFR r Q I Packet Pg. 172 1 1/7 Hering Examiner Meeting Re: Critical Areas Variance: Reasonable Economic Use We are requesting a variance available under the Reasonable Economic Use provisions established in sections 23.40.005 and 23.40.210 of the ECDC. The following consists of our responses to the elements set forth as Al-7, together with elements B through Q A Application of this title would deny all Reasonable Economic Use of the subject parcel. A strict application of the suggested setback from Shell Creek, together with a designated wet land area and its 60' recommended buffer would, without the granting of a reasonable economic use variance, deny all use of the subject parcel. So to avoid a constitutionally prohibited "taking," a variance would be necessary. A-1. The economic impact of the regi I ons on the property owner. The acquisition costs of the property would not be recovered without the economic development of said property. The holding costs, i.e., annual property taxes, would not be recoverable without the economic development of said property. The value of the immediate family estate would no longer have the additional value derived from the existence of a residential property in the Edmonds Bowl area. Add to that the proposed single family residence that would also become part of the estate's increased value. A secondary economic impact would be to the next family generation that would inherit the property and enjoy a free and clear location in which to set up a household. That possibility would also be lost. Atta ' PLN2 Packet Pg. 173 2/7 A-2, Extent to w—luich tho rcolation hm intcrfcrcd with cxpc ions held Mu- at firne Pf pumhase of • pM When the kids had all graduated from college and had moved out in 1988 —1990, we thought it might be time to downsize our residential requirements. In 1991 the property on Main Street became available. Having lived on Shell Creek since 1978, we liked the location of the Main Street parcel as it was close, but not actually on the same creek. We made an offer on the property and it was accepted. We began thinking about the new house and started the sketch and budgeting processes. Time sped by quickly as our decisions barely kept up with our changing situation and perceived needs involving a new living arrangement. At a certain point we became aware that a new "Critical Areas Ordinance" had been adopted by the city in 2004, and directly affected our property on Main Street. Not only affected by the new buffer and set back requirements, but outright denied any here -to -fore use of the property. Even for a single family residence. "They can't do that," we said. The U. S. Supreme Court agreed: "No governmental Later, talking with the City planning staff, they pointed out that there was a somewhat complicated back door approach to a building permit process called a "Reasonable Economic Use variance" request. And finally we are here today with that request. A• 3. How the regulation is serving the public interest by countering the adverse public impact of the proposal: Even though the city has traditionally used its streams and creeks as an extension of its storm drainage system, we shall endeavor to not add to the problem. By adhering to the current regulations as closely as we possibly can, we can limit any adverse impacts normally associated with residential development. These efforts are spelled out in the details in our responses to the seven elements that need to be addressed as part of the analysis for the granting of the requested variance. A side note: The term "Public Interest" would seem to be debatable. Some of the "Public" is calling for less traffic, fewer cars, etc. But the city still requires two off street parlang spaces (thus encouraging cars?) but when the city relaxes or removes this requirement during the development of a multi -family residence (see 3' Ave N. and Edmonds Street as a recent example) resulting in NO off-street parking, the "Public" is outraged! Go figure... Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 174 3/7 A'4 Size location. and physical attributes of the propertv:- The subject property is located on the north side of Main Street between 9`s Ave N. and an unopened I& Ave. At 60 x 110 feet, encompassing 6600 square feet, it is approximately across the street from the Rude James Theater. It is south of the upper reaches of Shell Creek and contains some delineated wet land area The only regulations in effect in 1991 were the standard RS6 zoning requirements, i.e.: setbacks (front, side, and rear yards), building height, lot coverage, two -car off street parking etc. A•6. Purchase price of property: Having decided to "downsize" our living requirement, we noted a "For Sale" sign on the property in 1991. Talking to the Realtor that had the listing, it appeared that the lot was up for sale by the hens of the former owner. Hearing that they wanted a quick sale and closing at a reasonable price, we offered $20,000 cash and it was accepted. The sellers were happy with a quick turn around and we were happy with the price. It was a good investment. we watched as the county raised the value of the property annually, along with the yearly property taxes. We considered these as "holding costs." To date the annual holding costs have amounted to over $10,000 — half of the original cost of acquisition! The accompanying chart of county valuation over the last few years shows the "Market Valuer as determined by the county appraiser, currently at over $250,000. It remains a good investment. Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 175 3A/7 TABLE ONE: �Otrner I !PO HO:t 23.1, MMONDS, LEA 90010 �146�tifATTSati'i: .._. (United stets property Vatues� ;Value TyI�P rax Year Tex Year T Tax Year ax Yar eTax Year 2U22 2U21 2020 2019 2010, ITaxable Value ReguLu _ vnt Regtsw �_ - -- S2-43,600'— S212,300 _ .. S195.600� 5171.000 S142,6005 _ _-- — IE%empdonAst _ tisriact i�tal S253 606� 5212,300 S19_3,6C, S17I,606 Sld 6' 06i .. y !Assessed Value ^ r — �5253.600 �` 5212,300 S195,600 5171,000 S1;2,600; �^ SP3666' S212:306 S195,600 S171.ao_o 5142,600i �zkerL2M lialoer iotj rahiCt1t `- jParyartal Propatcy _ , — - -- —4 Actives Exemptions "01=tempriow Found *78% increase in four years! After a little research into the record for the single family building permits issued during the previous eighteen months, we found some items of interest. Shown below are some of the permit averages as compared to our proposal: TABLE TWO: Cate o Averages Our Proposal Two story residential not including es 3100 Sq. Ft. 1348 Sq. Ft Number of parking spaces provided 2.4 1 + 1 Overall impervious surface area [house foot print / driveway / walk / etc. 2650 Sq. Ft. 985 Sq. Ft Impervious surface lot coverage 33% 15% It is obvious that our proposal is considerably less than the average of permit requests issued in the last eighteen months. Showing once again that the resulting reductions and compromises on our scaled back proposal respects the creek and wet land area to a very reasonable degree. Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 176 4/7 A- 7.... Cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed development: The environmental impacts of the proposed development should be minimal, if any. The 100 foot buffer between the proposed development and Shell Creek should be maintainable. The designated Class III wet land will be maintained as is. The 60 foot buffer* for the Class III wet land area will contain the proposed development of a single family residence. With a gentle, careful and respectful development process, together with any restrictive ovcrsite requirements (noise, dust, etc.) imposed by the hearing examiner, the final results should be acceptable to all government agencies and to the property owners. A lot coverage of 35% (in this case: 35% of 6600 Sq$ = 2310 Sq$.) is the current allowable by code. We propose to reduce that allowable coverage to about 8 rh -11% or approximately +/- 750 SgfL This is less than a third ofthe allowable coverage. By proposing a sketch plan consisting of a single carport open on three sides and minimum floor area (no formal dining area, no "media room," no main floor master suite, no family room, etc.) we can keep the total footprint to an area of +/- 750 SqB. *It should be noted that a portion of the north half of the Main Street roadway is within the 60 foot buffer area B. No other reasonable use of the propertx... has less impact on the critical area: ECDC 16.20.101 Uses: Single Family Zones Permitted Primary Uses: Single family residences, churches, primary schools, public facilities, parks, open space, community parks. Permitted Secondary Uses: Foster homes, home occupation, individual room rental (without kitchens), fallout shelters, 300 Sqft green houses, stables, commuter parking for 10 or more spaces, B&Bs. Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 177 sn A single family residence would obviously have the least impact of any permitted use, with the possible exceptions of fallout shelter'or open space. Of course "open spacer' has no possible "economic use value, and if a parcel is designated thus, it would have to be barricaded to keep the citizenry from damming up the small water ways and protect the natural growth from being trampled and any trees from being cut down to use as "forts" by the younger citizens. All other uses and the accompanying traffic generated would undeniably have greater impact on the subject propert3'- C. The proposed impact... is the minimum necessary'to allow for Reasonable Economic Use of the property: This element indicates an assumed impact, but it should be held to a minimum. That is exactly what we are proposing. Respecting the 100 foot buffer to Shell Creek, maintaining the Class III wet land area, and carefully developing a single family residence that has the least impact of all economical uses permitted in a residential zone. D. The inability of the applicant to derive Reasonable Economic Use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant after the date of the ordinance codified in the title: Since the purchase of the property in 1991, there have been no actions by the property owner to affect the status quo of the property. The parcel has remained untouched since purchased- E. The oronosal does not nose an unreasonable threat to the oublic health. safety. or welfare: A single >hmily residence, absent any unlawful activities therein, does not pose a threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the site. F. The proposal minimizes net loss of critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science: Again, this element seems to indicate an expected "net loss of critical area functions." However, this proposal, consistent with the best available science, has minimi7ed any ecological impacts to be the least possible. See attached drawings, sketches, and notes provided by credectialed professionals. Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 178 6/7 G. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards: All other applicable building codes, planning regulatioM fire codes, and required inspections shall be complied with prior to and during the course of development. Additional comments: ❑ Since Shell Creek does not encroach upon the subject parcel, we are left with setback buffers gWy to be discussed and agreed to during the R. E. U. process. Typically a "Buffer Planting Schedule" is requested to "protect" the creek itself But, if the existing century old growth is left as is, with no clearing of existing vegetation, the buffer would be complete and mature on day one_ No interim inspections. No replanting of failed landscaping. Our part of the Shell Creek watershed would be preserved as natural and undisturbed. ❑ Roof and driveway storm runoff would be handled by the "Infiltrator" system that we intrWac ed to the city and was adopted by the engineering department in 2004- With a large storage capacity for storm surges and pervious side walls to slowly disperse the storm water into the surrounding soils, this has proven to be a successful method of managing the occasional northwest rains. ❑ A well designed single family residence on the property, along with a new county appraisal, will add an annual source of income to the city's tax base, typically inaming year over year. If the city were to purchase the property, the annual tax income would drop to zero and stay there. Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 179 6/7 G. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards: All other applicable building codes, planning regulations, fire codes, and required inspections shall be complied with prior to and during the course of development. Additional comments: ❑ Since Shell Creek does not encroach upon the subject parcel, we are left with seftwk buffers on to be discussed and agreed to during the R. E. U. process. Typically a "Buffer Planting Schedule" is requested to "protect' the creek itself But, if the existing century old growth is left as is, with no clearing of existing vegetation, the buffer would be complete and mature on day one. No interim inspections. No replanting of failed landscaping. Our part of the Shell Creek watershed would be preserved as natural and undisturbed. ❑ Roof and driveway storm runoff would be handled by the "Infiltrator" system that we introduced to the city and was adopted by the engineering department in 2004. With a large storage capacity for storm surges and pervious side walls to slowly disperse the storm water into the surrounding soils, this has proven to be a successful method of managing the occasional northwest rains. ❑ A well designed single family residence on the property, along with a new county appraisal, will add an annual source of income to the city's tax base, typically increasing year over year. If the city were to purchase the property, the annual tax income would drop to zero and stay there. Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 180 7/7 ❑ To avoid a "governmental taking," we would ask for a Reasonable Economic Use Variance to be granted as outlined in the preceding request and our responses to the seven elements mentioned. ❑ A `base zero height talc" should be established. To keep the proposed single family residence up out of the designated wet land area, this "base zero height" point should be located at the southwest property comer. This point is permanently marked with a survey pin in the city sidewalk and easily noted by officials during the height check verification process. The proposed height of the new structure would be 25 feet or less above the reference point thus marked - To City Staff: Thank you for your time in reviewing thus request and for any constructive comments you may wish to add to the conversation. After a final review of our proposal together with any amendments, we shall schedule a meeting with the ctW s hearing examiner. property Owner. Ken Mattson Agent: Ame Ganze Date Date Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 181 :mm.a �V-'City of Edmonds Map Title Humrningi;ird P i I I Hummbigbir . Par ^'�`-EDT►7lDND5 5 _.__ _----� Qr1DS "ST 1 .L I LU I 1 I I > -- BELLST _ c��"BEICST_'- <o �Id .t LLT 25 Pt12 Z6 , $LK 67, Gt't`t of �pMoN95 �.�itaG�olS� I I I � , MAIN ST f. 1; 1,516 126M 2546 Fwt 2,257 1 eal This map Is a user generated static output ham an Internat mappins sln and Ia referena only. Data layers that appear on this map mayor may not be aaun current, orotherwisa re ta'. City mondiserutorJ4sdiarY�D1»fe THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCM City of Edmonds U 0 c 0 U W m cts Notes E E s U 0 a Packet Pg. 182 q A I N O N I � '• J in I N 00' 18' 11 " E 11 0,'M ?' 20' E� �0 O 0 38. O O SEj6Ac-- (OE 'TYP 27.61 ' r Iv I 25.66 I I ` V J M -- 0 T r•+ .. cu d = 30 66.61 ' �.� ,2 y 5FR 0 2 b / C 0 U W d 2.28' 6 /WN ,� c d c 1 1 —7-- N I �c.6i'gwaPT) ►o I / cu I / Ln r 1 i►•5 31 / � e cu cu a/ a m L / N 00018' 11 " E M 110. E a ' - N N Z I J a KNJ I I SCALE l" = tot w Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 183 I Edmonds Map Title M N O J a \ CO o _ \ a 48 O °' o _ �9 0 .... 0 o > = ~, .... ... .. .. t�� 0 CU 0 CU CU SFR o �• CU e MAIN Si -0 CU CL -- - U) M O O M N O N Z J a C 1: 758 w C 126.3 Feet This map Is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and CCJU reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accu Q here � current, or otherwise reli Packet Pg. 184 1 k g' �1t�lititl� . I I Amp, wo-�VlN4 mimmm sm-�Rlw e-NNIT rIVIf n' =000� 1 IF Packet Pg. 185 3' k I —,l <, o MM9 FLU, Aftt� I lop 57( Lou Cu g4 m 0 0 w w c� AQ w E pole O CL Co ` w�N �� /►�P�RKINK .� I I N CD (14 LjI a I AA I � Packet Pg. 186 °s°_ 12D" 5f*wo�k +3 I�XYH a•. I m 4; D'• *,#i Ato • t.kI-AotN4 0 c 0 U W cu 0 UN m o w w I � voww S°� �'D•• 0 0_ m L U) 001 - t'41 O .. I N N M6,9ft�c gp'Cr� �I 0 r z c a � w LL; s .o I i 11 :L a r .. Packet Pg. 187 toy � f�evv.cou• *2 P. 60- Packet Pg. 188 51'INC S,TL-K a Packet Pg. 189 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ALL OF LOTS 25 AND 26, BLOCK 67, CITY OF EDMONDS, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, PAGES 38 AND 39, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHI NGTON. VERTI CAL DATUM NAVD 88 FOUND CASED CONC. MON. WITH 1-1 /; BRASS DISC & X" DOWN 0.35' AT THE INTERSECTION OF 97H AVE AND BELL ST(UNOPENED) ELEVATION=184.53' EQUIPMENT & PROCEDURES METHOD OF SURVEY. SURVEY PERFORMED BY FIELD TRAVERSE INSTRUMEVTATION. LE1CA TS16 ROBOTIC ELECTRONIC TOTAL STATION PRECISION. MEETS OR EXCEEDS STATE STANDARDS WAC 332-130-090 BASIS OF BEARING: THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF 9TH AVENUE AS THE BEARING OF N 00' 18' 11 " E PER RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 200409095090. LEGEND SET 1/2" X 24" REBAR W/CAP STAMPED "PCS 37536" X SET TACK IN LEAD WITH WASHER STAMPED "PCS 37536" OFOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT AS NOTED L RIGHT OF WAY CENTERLINE EL ELEVATION F FIR M MAPLE H HEMLOCK CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE OVER 6"AT 4.5' SURVEY REFERENCES (R1) RECORD OF SURVEY - AFNI 200409095090 (R2) PLAT OF CITY OF EDMONDS - VOL. 2, PGS. 38-39 NOTES 1.) BOUNDARY LINES SHOWN AND CORNERS SET REPRESENT DEED LOCATIONS; OWNERSHIP LINES MAY VARY. NO GUARANTEE OF OWNERSHIP IS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT AND DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW ALL EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND OCCUPATION WHICH MAY ENCUMBER TITLE OR USE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. I FOUND CASED CONC. MON. W/ 1-1/2 " BRASS DISK & X". DOWN 0.35'. INT. OF BELL ST (UNOPENED) 9TH AVE. & BELL ST. (UNOPENED) ------------------ --- ELEV.=184.53' N 89*36'10" W I I ; a 12 ij 1 I I T N r— W I Q - I FOUND CASED CONC. MON. W/ 3" BRASS DISC & X" (*�- - -i- *— - DOWN 0.25'. AUGUST 2014. I I i I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --0- I I I 170 I STREAM (OHWIv>) I i y I �2 L-----------I--------� --I—------�T--L—T—_--------L---- y8o Lo I I I I I I I I EL.=200.51' 82, ,7 j8 T----------- N 89'3 " W 60.00' STREAM I I f I I I ------J--------------- \\ SET REBAR/CAP LOT AREA\ - -_ I 6� 00 30.6'(S) OF CORNER 8sr, I I pS I ON° ON PROPERTY LINE �� 6,6010 $ "`\ � 8"-Ufl434206702500 " ��s `N 7" !j Al EL.=188.42' 187.9'l I I - \ J J I I I I \19 23 1 22 1 0\ A2 —�190.2' °Q o W 198147 o 19 �94 � - 22 _ SET REBAR/CAP �� s 190.9, --� 'l96_ �: 79 2' S OF CORNER O I M � � � _ 7 I ON PROPERTY LINE I I � - -- N\ - ----< iA4 �190— — — - A5 I I N i 190.6' „--192 - - I I 1 { � --- tNz o EL.=199.09' 196--- N _ _ EL.- 619 82 I ; I 0.5, 0.5 i I I — — — — — — ---I [ SIDEWALK N 89'36.01 " W 60.00' - SIDEWALK CONCRETE CURB EL.=200.09' EL.=197.57' F/ =1Q5 Q1' Alm nn, --------�---------- - X DRIVEWAY 1 O J. R\ ' of wAse d� A$ f�col� .o x 37536 q \ �Gr3TL LAND M n� Ro*38'n11 W --�--MAIN ST --- --- CONCRETE CURB SCALE: I" =20' 0 20 40 Pacific Coast Surveys,, Inc. LAND SURVEYING &MAPPING 0 A. F. NO. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR: P.O. BOX 1361g MILL CREEK, WA 98o82 NW 1 PH. 425.5�2.7099 FAX 425-357.3577 DRAWN BY WWW.PCSLirvey5.net ARK KELL1 HOMES M O O M N O N Z J a m. SE 14, SEC z4, T.z7N., R.3E., W.M. DATE DRAWING FILE NAME SCALE JOB NO. 07.17.;3 222849top-b.DWd ttaG�' m nt2J- P I K1,9 n 9 -,1 Packet Pg. 190 I 2 f nc. 1 8y� 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner RE: Jordan Schenk PLN20130044 (critical areas) and PLN2014000 (height variance FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION INTRODUCTION The applicant requests a reasonable use exception to build a single-family home within the 100 foot critical areas buffer of Shell Creek and a height variance to build the home ten feet above the applicable 25 foot height limit. Both applications are denied because the applicant is not proposing a minimum reasonable use of his property and because his biological assessment of stream impacts is based upon the incorrect premise that Shell Creek is a non-anadromous fish bearing stream with a 75 foot buffer. The findings and conclusions of this decision start at page 15, after a summary of hearing testimony. ORAL TESTIMONY Note: This hearing summary is provided as a courtesy to those who would benefit from a general overview of the public testimony of the hearing referenced above. The summary is not required or necessary to the decision issued by the Hearing Examiner. No assurances are made as to completeness or accuracy. Nothing in this summary should be construed as a finding or legal conclusion made by the Examiner. Reasonable Use and Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision PLN21 Packet Pg. 191 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Kernen Lien, Edmonds planner, stated that this hearing deals with two variance applications. One is a critical area variance. During review the applicant considered a different number of alternatives to minimize critical area impact and he settled on a height variance (the second variance) which is a request to construct the house to 35 feet. Because these variances are intertwined they have been combined for review by the hearing examiner. The subject property is located at 742 Daley Street. Shell Creek cuts through the property. There are also steep slopes buffering the property. There is a 100 foot buffer to Shell Creek. The entire property is encumbered by critical area buffers. He submitted the staff report for the record as Exhibit 1. With regard to some specifics of the subject site, the slopes are greater than 40% which makes it a potential landslide hazard. A critical area variance is required to develop on this property. The proposed house has a 720 sgft. footprint but it also includes some overhangs to the south and towards the stream. There is a tandem garage on the bottom with two floors of living space above. The property is zoned R6. Shell Creek runs from Yost Park to Puget Sound. When the application for the critical area variance was made to the city, according to Mr. Lien, Shell Creek was considered a non-anadromous fish bearing stream based on a report done in 2005. Attachment 24 in the staff report references the Landau report, which stated that above Casper Street it was non-anadromous (staff showed a GIS map with critical area layers, attachment 58 from the staff report). Mr. Lien stated that city staff has taken photos of salmon upstream from Caspar Street in 2012 at 7th and Glenn Street. The staff determined that this section of Shell Creek should be considered an anadromous fish bearing stream. This means that a 100 foot buffer is required in this area. With regard to reasonable economic use, Mr. Lien stated that this was vested to the definition that was in place when the application is made was made. The code has since changed (ECDC 2040.21032). The staff report contains a detailed analysis of all the criteria necessary for the variance. Mr. Lien then stated why the applicant had been unable to demonstrate reasonable economic use. The site is entirely encumbered by critical area buffers. The city asked the applicant to demonstrate whether or not there was another reasonable economic use for the site. For example, could a sale to a neighbor be considered a reasonable economic use to the site? Easements from the lots had been sold to neighbors in the past. Mr. Lien noted that the applicant did not believe that sale to a neighbor would be a reasonable economic use. The site had been on the market on and off since 2008. The applicant is not the property owner, currently; however, he is under contract based on the granting of the variance. Mr. Lien questioned whether the applicant had the same expectations as an owner -applicant. He also noted that the staff was not basing their recommendation solely on whether another reasonable economic use could be made with the property. According to Mr. Lien, the staff questioned whether there could be an improvement which had less impact on the area. The proposal is for a residence which is 80% of the average square foot of the average residence in the area. The code does not suggest that a home of a certain size, shape, or footprint is required. Reasonable economic use does not consider whether making a more profitable use of the site is Reasonable Use and Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac�— PLN21 Packet Pg. 192 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 reasonable economic use criteria. A larger house may be making more profitable use of the site. The city asked the applicant to consider other options. While using potential alley access was deemed too narrow, the applicant considered a number of house designs. Attachments 35 through 40 in the staff report show a number of different house designs, using various overhangs. The minimum use proposals shown by the applicant are found in attachments 35 and 36. The current proposal has that basic footprints, but has large overhangs that impacts the critical area. Mr. Lien noted that the roof area of will have an effect on the critical impact area and the staff feels that there are other options. The applicant has shown that another house could be built that had less of an impact. The applicant's design has shown that this is not the minimum area. Regarding ECDC 2238.210. Mr. Lien noted that the use limitations are based on the critical areas of the site and that the applicant entered into a purchase and sale agreement with full knowledge that the site was limited by critical area issues. The applicant was aware of the complications of getting the critical area variance. Reasonable economic use is not associated with the applicant's desire to make more profitable use of the site and the desire for a house of a specific size is the applicant's preference. The staff noted that the applicant submitted a number of mitigation plans to reduce impact to the stream and critical area. There was an impact report that the proposed house would not have impacts on or off the site. The fact that the house is buffered by critical areas means that it could pose some threat. Mr. Lien stated that any request for critical area variances potentially poses some threat to health, safety, and welfare. Because there is not a reason to build home larger than the minimum that is necessary the staff decided that this caused an unreasonable threat to public health, safety, and welfare. The staff does not feel that there is enough data to determine whether there is another reasonable economic use. There could be another single family house constructed that would have less impact. The proposed application is not the minimum necessary. Staff concluded that the applicant does not comply with this code section. With regard to special privileges, the staff noted that the size of the subject site is similar to other sites in Edmonds that are not encumbered by critical areas. At one point in time this property was advertised for over $400,000. It is currently under contract for $95,000. Given the discounts, staff believes that granting this variance would confer a special privilege to the applicant. The house should be consistent with other houses not encumbered by a critical area, and granting a height variance would confer special privilege. Given these elements, the staff suggests that the applicant is looking for more profitable use and therefore does not meet the criteria. With regard to consistency with the zoning ordinance, the applicant complies with a number of them. The staff does not believe that the height variance would impact views and would preserve other natural features. However, the applicant could build a house with less impact; this is not the minimum necessary. In regard to the livable square feet of the home, Mr. Lien reported that it was 2970 sqft, and that the average in the area was 3400-3500 sf. Reasonable Use and Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac�— PLN21 Packet Pg. 193 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In regard to the minimum square feet needed to be considered "minimum," Jeff Taraday replied that it should meet the required standards for a single family home, that there were two off-street parking spaces required, which the applicant had provided for in the 720 sgft footprint. Mr. Taraday stated that the drawings of the garage footprint are larger than necessary to include the parking spaces and circulation that would allow access to the second floor. He stated that the minimum ground disturbance are that would be required and what is necessary for the minimum number of parking spaces. In regard to when the current owner bought the property, Mr. Lien replied that he would have to look in the record. Applicant Testimony Mr. Schenk stated that this variance application is for 742 Daily St. The lot size is 10,454 sqft. and zoning is single family, RS-6. The site is located within the riparian buffer, Shell Creek. His request is for a critical area variance and a height variance. Not all of the slope at Shell Creek is considered critical area. Recent photos taken yesterday show invasive species on site as well as a culvert with a rotting deck connected to a chain -link fence. According to Edmond's City Code, its primary use is single-family residential. Mr. Schenk then went through the basic data provided in his attached presentation (Exhibit 2). He discussed the height variance as his one non- standard development request, and went into the background of the critical area, discussing its prior classification as a non-anadromous fish bearing stream and its change to an anadromous stream. He discussed the development changes that this entailed, including a change from a 75 to a 100 foot buffer. Mr. Schenk noted that the findings presented to Edmonds in 2006, based on city employees siting of salmon in the creek, were not investigated further. With regard to the reasonable economic use, Mr. Schenk stated that exception 3931 was passed July 2, 2013, and ordinance 3952 amended the definition of reasonable economic use. Reasonable economic use is to defend and protect the rights of the property owner. He noted that a determination of reasonable economic use should not include what is personal to the owner. In the first variance request submitted July 1, 2013, the house design meets or exceeds all requirements. Mr. Schenk, using the data provided on his PowerPoint (Exhibit 2), demonstrated the location and details of the proposed house on site as originally proposed which he stated met original standards. After the submission he learned that he needed the 100 foot buffer and that Shell Creek had been deemed an anadromous stream. He met with the city for design working sessions in order to create a design that everyone would support. He stated that he was told by the city attorney and planner that variances would be considered if critical area issues were met. On January 10, 2014 Mr. Schenk submitted a proposal based on the design meetings. The changes and specifics of this new design are noted in the PowerPoint and compared to the prior design. The cantilevers and overhangs from the new design are also noted. These include a decrease in the footprint and increase in the critical area buffer, a decrease in the house living area, etc. He Reasonable Use and Variance Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac�— PLN21 Packet Pg. 194 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 considers this design best for reasonable economic use because the height variance allows for greater critical area buffers. He stated that on January 10, 2014 this revision was consistent with group discussions. He was initially told that the staff report recommended approval, but was then informed that city planner had rejected the plan. No explanation was given as it was considered a red line report. On June 4th the applicant was finally given information is to why the application was rejected which was one hundred and ten days later. Mr. Schenk then provided a summary (detailed in Exhibit 2) as to why his application meets requirements and should be approved. He noted the overall benefits to the site, its reasonable economic use of the site, and its buffer for critical area requirements. He noted that 58% of the site will be dedicated to the buffer, more than any other property in the immediate area. By granting the height variance this allows for a smaller footprint. In addition, the cantilevers and overhangs allow for a smaller footprint as well. He argued that the design minimizes impact to the site; that no view corridors will be blocked. Mr. Schenk also stated that the site was currently an eyesore in the neighborhood. The chain -link fence and deck are falling down. It is overrun by invasive species. There are limitations to the functions of riparian habitat. It has become a dumping ground for neighborhood yard waste. Buffer planning and management will improve riparian buffer habitat. It will increase species diversity and improve the walking path. With regard to page 25 of the staff report, Mr. Schenk proceeded to address all the objections from the staff report (as noted in his presentation, Exhibit 2). He made reference to staff use of the word "minimum" objecting to its being used to make determinations about structure size. He stated that minimum use to which a property owner is entitled, and that ideas of minimum use and reasonable economic use should not include personal ideas of use. He noted that a variance is the minimum necessary to allow rights to property owners, and, that in this case, minimum use is defined as a reasonable economic use such as a single family residential structure. This is not a proposal of an alternative use, this is clearly a minimum use that is designed with minimum impact to a critical area. His design has used the best available science and the plan enhances habitat area. With regard to the house size, Mr. Schenk noted that he met with staff in design review session resulting in three separate house plans. Mr. Schenk utilized data from his PowerPoint to discuss minimum and maximum guidelines for the house size. He stated that the design was developed during working sessions with the goal of following guidelines while creating a design that would be similar to others in the area. He also provided data from sales records pulled for single family homes and used these as a data set to demonstrate that the house size is less than the average of both the neighborhood and the City of Edmonds.16.005001 (Code of Tax Area). Mr. Schenk stated that not granting single family residence that meets criteria is denying reasonable economic use. With regard to the staff argument that the applicant is not the property owner, he argues that he currently does not have a primary Reasonable Use and Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac�— PLN21 Packet Pg. 195 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 residence and that the proposed residence will be his primary residence. Mr. Schenk stated that "investment back expectations" is a term not in the ECDC code. He stated that the staff was informed that this will be his primary residence. As to staff suspicion that this purchase price of $95,000 is less than market price, the applicant believes that this is without basis or merit. The 2013 assessed value was $83,000. As to staff suggestion that he has unreasonable investment -based expectations, the applicant noted easements sold on property had limited impact on the property. The 2006 sale was the last sale of the property for $270,000 at height of the market. A 2006 easement was sold and did not impact property value. He argued that economic use is a single family use and that the staff report denial is a denial of reasonable economic use. As to the staff report comment that an alternative single-family residence might be a reasonable economic use, the applicant stated that this "alternative" use is in fact the same use. While the staff report suggests that an alternative house plan would have less impact to the critical area, the proposed footprint is minimum required for onsite parking by code. The search results comparing size of house passes the reasonableness test for the R6 zone and city of Edmonds. The staff believes that the size of house is too large, but it meets standards and passes the reasonableness test. The 720 sgft footprint minimizes impact of the riparian critical area buffer, as does the third story created by the height variance. The house is placed close to the property line. The staff report states that an alternative design would have minimum impact to the critical area and references other designs submitted by the applicant. All designs created have the same footprint. No other designs provide reduced impact to the critical area. The proposed house size is below the average of the downtown city of the house size of Edmonds. The minimum size only refers to as it would affect critical areas and minimum net loss to critical area functions, which means this is without basis or merit. The staff report makes an incorrect assumption that areas under the overhang and cantilevers will not allow such station growth. These areas are not considered part of the critical area buffer, but do provide a function filtering water entering the creek. Certain local species will grow underneath the overhangs. The critical areas existing on the site are not the result of the actions of the applicant, since the applicant did not create the critical areas. The applicant desires to build a house based on development standard and following guidelines for critical areas, minimum loss to the critical area function, and health and safety concerns met. The staff is trying to apply minimum code to a minimum house size which is an incorrect use of the code. The staff argues that applicant entered into the contract understanding that critical areas would need to be addressed. This is correct. In early February, 2013 applicant spoke to a planner named Gina prior to entering into his purchase contract. She indicated that since there had been no changes since the last application had been approved by the city and hearing examiner decision, the process should be relatively straight forward. The applicant confirmed that code dealing with critical area ordinance and reasonable economic use definition was unchanged, and did not expect this to turn into this exhaustive process. Staff stated that prior staff report supporting the variance and the decision approving the application was Reasonable Use and Variance al Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac�— PLN21 Packet Pg. 196 ►:1 El If 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 erroneous. The applicant believes that the conclusions of the previous staff report provide insight. According to Mr. Schenk, the staff report indicates the desire to have a certain house size is related to actions of applicant and is designed to make more economic use in house site. This goes against reasonable economic use. This statement is a contradiction that links house size to more profitable use of the site. A more profitable use would be a building classed other than a single family residence. The only element of the code that address a structure size is the requirement for single family residence. There is nothing in the code that prevents the applicant from building this residence. The proposed residence will not create any health or safety issues. The proposal does not create safety issues to the public as long as the site is developed under conditions of the geotechnical engineer and erosion and flooding issues are dealt with. The staff report indicates that building in any critical area could potentially be a threat to the public. The staff references towards house size which, per the code, only refers to use effect on the critical area and critical area net functions. This is an opinion without basis in merit. RS-6 zone is compliant with the building codes which were created to ensure public safety is protected. With regard to special circumstances, Mr. Schenk noted that this site is impacted more than most. Strict interpretations of the 100ft area buffer would create a site in which no building would be allowed. The special conditions are not a result of the actions of the applicant. Following this, the applicant would be denied any reasonable use of property permitted of other properties in the zone. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to provide the applicant with such rights. The previous staff report states that all property owners have a right to request a reasonable economic use if their property is otherwise unbuildable. Therefore this title does not confirm the applicant any special privileges that would not be given to people with similar properties. The staff report is taking into consideration the size of the house and the price paid for the property. The applicant wants to build under the RS-6 zone guidelines. The applicants request for variance allows him to have the same ability to build under these guidelines like his neighbors. The staff indicates that the building size is too large; however, the criteria for basing house size is under the RS-6 zoning. The conclusion that the house is too large is the opinion of a staff member. Staff indicates that the property was previously marketed at $469,950 price and states that the purchase price of the applicant for $95,000 is too low, attributing it to the fact that the site is in a critical area and building is limited. Further research says that the property was listed from 2007 through 2008 through a broker for 290 days without receiving a single offer. Applicant did further research, looking back for four and half years prior to putting a contract on the property. The property had been listed for 208 days for $99,900 without receiving a single offer. The list price of a property has no merit in determining the market value of the property. Market value is determined by supply and demand. Other properties in the area where marketed and sold in recent years Reasonable Use and Variance p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac�— PLN21 Packet Pg. 197 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 went for a higher price because they were larger lots with views. Critical areas do not play a factor in pricing. Mr. Schenk stated that the staff claims that allowing the variance on a critical area site that has been purchased at a lower price with the intent of buying of building on a property similar to others in the area is not the intent of the critical area guidelines and are concerned that it will set a precedent for individuals buying less valuable property in critical areas and attempting to use variances to increase their value, and that this will be detrimental to the general public welfare. This seems to indicate that just because an applicant purchases a property knowing that it is located in a critical area they should not have the right to reasonable economic use of that property. This limits rights of the property owner. All property owners have the right to request reasonable economic use. The statement that the property was purchased at a discount is the opinion of the staff member and there is no proof to the statement. This proposal is to build a house sized according to the RS-6 requirements while following minimum use and impact to critical areas. Data provided demonstrates that the house size is less than average for the area and therefore is considered reasonable. Concern about precedents is a non -issue as it does not affect the general public welfare. Mr. Schenk said decisions should not be based on any something specific to the property owner, such as the ability to secure a scenic view or to make more profitable use of the property. The staff report statement that property was purchased by applicant knowing that critical area existed suggests that the applicant was looking to make a greater profit on this property. A more profitable use would be a building that was not a single family residence. Structural size is only addressed by the RS-6 code. With regard to special privilege, approval will not grant special privilege to the property in comparison to properties in the area with similar zoning. All property owners have the right to request a variance f their property is so encumbered they need to for reasonable economic use. The idea of special privilege, according to the staff, is based on the idea that the property has been purchased at a discount. At the time of contract this was fair market value. There is no basis or merit that this property was undervalued. Variance is not a special privilege. Minimum use impact in critical areas and net loss of critical area functions are met by the proposal. RS-6 zoning is the only area that connects to house size, and the design will be consistent with the purposes of the RS-6 zoning ordinance with the exception of the height variance. The height area variance will not impact views of other residents in the area given the lower elevation of the subject site. The staff report states that natural features must be protected. With the height variance there is greater protection of natural features allowing for a larger buffer and less impact on the site. Designing a structure with a smaller footprint and greater height provides greater protection in the critical area which is viewed as the primary goal of the city. The variances approved will not be detrimental. The approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner to enjoy the property to the level of other residences in the vicinity. The height variance was developed to minimize the amount of excavation work. The top two floors would conform to the development standard of RS-6. This height variance seeks to minimize impact to the slope. Reasonable Use and Variance 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac�— PLN21 Packet Pg. 198 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 With regard to public comments received prior to the hearing, Mr. Schenk responded to some of those letters and emails. He noted that he currently lives four blocks southeast of the property, his full-time occupation is in the finance industry, he is married and has three children, and spends time in the community with his family. His office is in the neighborhood as well. He stated that he cared about the opinions of the public and his future neighbors. In response to public comments and emails to the senior planner, the applicant noted that his proposal has been amended to deal with the change in classification of the stream by creating the 100ft buffer, that he is requesting the height variance in order to be able to have economic use of his property while following critical area guidelines, that the 35ft height variance will not have a detrimental effect on his neighbors as he blocks no view, that construction will follow guidelines regarding groundwater, trees and habitat, and hillside stability. He noted that his lot will have the larger buffer to the creek than any in the area. He will be eliminating invasive species and introducing back native species, he will clear the area of debris and eliminate its use as a dumping ground and teenage gathering spot. In general, the applicant stated that his proposal does meet the definition of reasonable economic use and minimum use. The variance for height is not a special privilege and was requested to create a design that would meet the City's demands to reduce impact. While the staff stated that the prior approval for a variance on the lot was erroneous, variances are allowed to applicants if strict adherence to code creates an unbuildable lot. According to Mr. Schenk, it is questionable whether the staff is violating his constitutional rights. The city attorney rejected first proposal without offering to meet and discuss detail. The staff was open to design meetings and the proposed design resulted through consensus of applicant city attorney and planner; however, after submission of the proposal the staff stated that they could no longer support the proposal. The city attorney would not response to inquiries as to the rejection until 110 days later. The applicant perceived a general lack of willingness to work for consensus on this issue. Public Comments Dawn Schaeffer stated she resides on Daley Street directly next door to the subject lot. She supports the recommendation not to grant the variance. She noted that the 1 oft variance in height could affect herself and her neighbors because of the slope, and the home could reach up to 40ft in height. It would affect the privacy of the neighbors and would block western sunlight from her property. She is concerned with resale values and stated that the proposed design has floor to ceiling windows that look directly into her house. She states this is a violation based on page 19 of the staff report. She stated that Mr. Schenk had submitted another design that would have had less of an impact. She stated that he purchased the lot for a reduced price because he knew that it was in a critical area and he would have challenges building. His desire to have a home that is similar in size to surrounding homes should not be taken into account when considering reasonable economic. She said that you cannot Reasonable Use and Variance Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac�— PLN21 Packet Pg. 199 ►:1 El III 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 make an exception for a single individual without making the exception for all of the people living in a critical area. The desire for a certain size is related to the actions of the applicant. This is connected to his desire to make more profitable property. Allowing him to bypass the code is setting a dangerous precedent for the area. The rest of the residents have to abide by code. He knew what the restrictions were before he decided to build. There is a lot of wildlife around this area, and she believes they will be affected by clearing the lot. All of the trees on the property are not reflected on his plan. She asked to submit a photo of the great herons that feed in the Creek. She stated that since it has been confirmed that it is a fish bearing stream the old variance approved should not be considered. The applicant has not demonstrated compliance with criteria for critical use or economic use. She stated that her homes and several next to her are small homes and much smaller than the 3000+ average that Mr. Schenk gave. She has observed dumping in the lots and have called the Edmonds Police Department about it. They were told by the police that unless the police catch them in the act they cannot do anything about it. On the path from the Schaeffer house to the lot, they have observed teenagers going down the path to go drink in the empty lot. She submitted two photographs of blue Heron submitted as Exhibit 6. Diana LeRoss testified that she is a neighbor who supports the staff recommendations to reject the variance. Shell Creek is a fish bearing stream and should be protected. Slide 42 of the Schenk presentation states that he will not make more profitable use of the property. She stated that there is a direct relationship between the size of the property and profitability. She believes that a smaller house could fulfill the critical area criteria without making the impact and requiring the variances. She also noted that she suspects Mr. Schenk lied when he claimed that he will be a neighbor as it is her understanding that there is a buyer "in the wings." She wanted to clarify that her letter regarding height variance simply meant that if there is a 35ft variance available that all of the neighbors would have taken it when they built their house. This building would affect the privacy of her neighbors. They have large windows in the back of their home and the proposed home would look directly into the existing home. That would require that they keep their blinds closed if they need privacy. Finis Tupper stated he lives on Daley Street. He wanted to make sure that the Hearing Examiner does a site visit. He stated that after the original proposal and Hearing Examiner approval, he witnessed a blue Heron pull a cutthroat trout in the stream behind his house. There is quite a bit of wildlife around the stream, and he does not consider the lot an eyesore. He believes that you could put a single-family house on that lot, but the one that is proposed encroaches upon and does not enhance the habitat. Mr. Tupper stated that the buffer is supposed to be a 100ft, and it can only be reduced by 50% under a reasonable use permit. The applicant is reducing it to 35% or less. The code does not allow for more than a 50% reduction. He noted that this is not in the staff report or any of the documentation that Landau did for the applicant. If you go through the sequence you can see that when Landau updated their report they updated based on being a non -fish bearing stream. Their letter clearly states that the update was done in June before the determination that there was a 100 foot buffer. Reasonable Use and Variance P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac�— PLN21 Packet Pg. 200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 They started on the wrong premise and will have the wrong outcome. The staff asked the applicant to do another critical area study and mitigation plan based on that change and he refused. The height variance is a 40% increase and that is unheard of in this area. He hopes the Hearing Examiner will support the staff s recommendation. Roberta Poletes said she lives on Daley Street. She questions the applicant speaking for the neighborhood in his statement that the lot is an eyesore. She says it is not necessarily an eyesore, but it has been used as a dump. She agrees with everything that Dawn Schaeffer has said and asks that the Hearing Examiner walk through the neighborhood and look at how the house would fit. The homes that surround at are much more modest. Gary Schenk stated that he has not had the opportunity to look at all of the information in the report. He is concerned with some things that the City has done. The proposal was rejected the applicant was not given information as to why the rejection was made. The applicant sold his house based on this deal going through and based on what he had been told by the city. Mr. Schenk is an employee for the city government in the Puget Sound region and code enforcement building. There are code violations regarding invasive species on the lot and its use as a dumping ground that need to be addressed. The building of the house would alleviate these issues. He does not see how the building of the house would affect the wildlife, especially considering blue herons. With regard to the claim that this house is blocking sunlight, he stated that the house would allow for more sunlight than the existing trees. The house seems to be the best use for the property. The laws in the codes of the city are those that we should abide by. The height variance was the result of attempting to comply with the city and there should be some give and take. Everything that has been proposed is in conformance with code and laws. The applicant asked why he had been rejected and he was not given an answer. He is related to the applicant. Bill Mitchell testified that he lives on Daley Street. He agrees with the staff that the variances should be denied. He moved into their house four years ago and before he bought the property he paid a premium for the property because of the view the trees behind them and the neighborhood. He spoke with the city and with realtors to get an understanding of building codes, etc. He thought they understood this to be the law, but now sees that variances are allowed. He says that this does not affect him but it does affect his neighbors. They will not be able to look over the house at the trees they will only be able to look at the new house. He does not like how it is affecting critical areas and height requirements. He requested the variances be denied. Lynn Hilman said she has lived in Edmonds for ten years. She supports Mr. Schenk's proposal. She stated that there is no way that an applicant or a city plan reviewer can show compliance or noncompliance with a code requirement that is not there. There are no guidelines in Edmonds Code for what minimum is with respect to designing a house for critical area lot. She stated that you cannot base denying a variance on the unprovable; if this is done, there will always be a house that is smaller than the one you propose until there is nothing left and the lot becomes essentially worthless. The Reasonable Use and Variance Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac�— PLN21 Packet Pg. 201 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 applicant participated in voluntary design meetings with city staff. After all those meetings, they still recommended denial. The city's reputation is damaged by this, and people will refuse to do business here at all. It is been claimed that the lot was a reduced price because of being a critical area. She stated that the code does not include lot price as a criteria for variances. If this was so, variances could be bought; instead, price is a factor personal to the owner. The price of this purchase agreement reflects market conditions and many have sold for low prices including those that were not in critical areas. She noted that she will provide the city with copies of sales records. She has been an architectural engineering and planning examiner for over 20 years. She has operated in over a dozen cities and understands meeting requirements for approval. She never saw anyone deny someone a permit and said they typically guide applicants through the process to create acceptable plans. This is standard practice in this industry. She would like to see the City of Edmonds and the Hearing Examiner do the same thing here. She submitted her written comments and sales records as Exhibit 7. Scott Pawling testified that he lives on Daley Street. He's a professional engineer in Washington and has reviewed plans and assisted the City of Edmonds in geotechnical plans. He has a number of concerns. He stated that the footprint site is very misleading. The impacts from the overhangs are substantial and do not allow precipitation on that part of the ground. The idea that water flow from the hillside is not included does not make sense to him. The foundation is cutting off the water that is flowing to the ground there. He does not know why it was necessary to go as high as 35ft in the design. He recommends a design with 30ft and a flat roof. The 2006 plan based on a non-anadromous fish bearing stream needs to be changed and updated. With regard to square footage, the statistics Mr. Schenk used are inaccurate. He is referring to houses that are downtown in general not in the subject neighborhood, and the homes were constructed prior to 2000 are much smaller. He stated that just because others were allowed to build in the stream in the past does not mean that it should happen now. The reason that the buffer requirements were established is to help right some of the past wrongs. Just because there is a buffer does not mean that it should be encroached upon by the applicant. Using the next - door neighbors as an example is not appropriate. He supports the staff s conclusions and believes that a smaller house could be constructed. Staff Rebuttal Mr. Lien stated that there are differences between the 2006 variance and the variance being considered today. A major change is regard to the classification of the stream. In 2006, it was a fish stream but not an anadromous fish stream. The 2006 classification allowed for a smaller buffer. With the change of classification, the buffer becomes wider and you cannot do the same buffer with reductions. With regard to representation of staff to applicants requesting variances, the staff is always very clear that they are not the ones that make the decisions and that it must go to hearing. The staff and the city attorney did work with Mr. Schenk to look at different alternatives. He noted that there is difficulty when considering the footprint of the site Reasonable Use and Variance p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac�— PLN21 Packet Pg. 202 ►:1 Ej III 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and that the overhangs are not counted in the 720sgft. Area. He claims this is a misrepresentation of the footprint of the area and that the impervious surfaces — the roof area — of the building should be considered based on code. This is larger than the 720 sgft. He stated that the city did not deny any application; instead, this is done by the hearing examiner. What the city did do was tell Mr. Schenk that they would not approve the current proposal. In February, there was a meeting with Mr. Schenk to let him know that the staff proposal would not recommend approval. They conversed over the phone and decision was made to go through with the January proposal and not go back to redesign. There was communication with staff but nothing necessarily in writing. With regard to reasonable economic use, the staff stated that the definition does consider a single-family residence to be a reasonable economic use. But the last line says it will not consider situations personal to owner, such as trying to make more profitable use of the site. As mentioned in the public comments, a larger house can be considered a more profitable use of the site. With regard to impact to the critical area in the minimum necessary, the staff did conclude that the critical area report submitted by Landau does minimize net loss to the critical area given the current proposal. However, there could be less impact if there was a smaller footprint. And that buffer could also be minimized to the maximum extent. He noted that there is a fine distinction here. With regard to an investment -backed expectations, the city attorney cited the case Buechel v. State Department of Ecology 125 Wn.2d 196 (1994). This case deals with a variance with regard to a shoreline. He stated that this is very similar to the analysis that needs to be done here. One thing that this case talks about is reasonable use. This does not involve the concept that Edmonds has in its code where reasonable use refers to single-family home, but he states that this case is important in interpretation. In the case the applicant had a similarly restricted lot and very little buildable space, and the Shoreline Hearings Board concluded that reasonable use of small shoreline parcels without the presence of homes is being made on Hood Canal in the vicinity of applicant's lot. Such use is available to applicant. In this situation we conclude that this prevents him from meeting the threshold of requirements under the Mason County Shoreline Program. This is not directly applicable because of the Edmonds single family use code language. The hearings board also noted that we cannot conclude on this record that the board decision that the landowner had reasonable use is erroneous. The board's finding that water dependent recreational uses do constitute a reasonable use of the small sliver of property finds support in this record and in case law that shows that lots may have some economic value if the use is recreational. The size, location and physical attributes of a piece of property are relevant in deciding what is a reasonable use of a particular parcel of land. The city attorney noted that the applicant argues as if his parcel should be able to be developed as any other property in Edmonds and that is not what the law requires. According to Buechel, "To some extent the reasonable use of property depends on the expectations of the landowner at the time of purchase of the property. If existing land Reasonable Use and Variance p. 13 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac�— PLN21 Packet Pg. 203 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 regulations limit the permissible uses of the property at the time of acquisition a purchaser cannot reasonably expect to use the land for prohibited purposes. Although not necessarily determined courts may use its zoning regulations in effect at times of purchase to determine what is reasonable use of the land. Presumably regulations on use are reflected in the price that a purchaser pays for a preset property this land owner knew when he purchased this lot that it did not meet requirements." The city attorney noted that this is relevant based on Mr. Schenk's contract for purchase of the property (attachment 14 of staff report) which indicates that he is under contract to purchase the property for $95,000; that there is an earnest money of $5000; and that he has not yet closed on the property because closing does not have to occur on or before 15 days after variance receipt. Mr. Schenk confirmed the $5,000 is nonrefundable and that he has also invested $25,000 in pursuing the applications. Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Schenk stated that his intent is not trying to find the most profitable use of the site. This compromise design is less desirable to the market. In terms of caring about the environment, he walks his lot every couple of weeks and his office is a block away. With regard to Dawn Schaeffer's testimony, he stated that he believes that her light will be blocked less once his house is built. He has great concern with privacy. He has attempted to place window to make views into residence minimal. With regard to the issue of fish, the issue is not whether there are fish present. The issue is whether there was a blockage that prevents salmon from coming down the creek. The habitat today on that site is blackberry bushes, a culvert with a fence around it, and yard waste. Clearing that out and putting in native plants will attract more animals. The habitat is currently not per code, and his proposal will give a cleaner site for the City. With regard to the concern about people entering the site, he did not mean to suggest that the current owners were dumping yard waste. From a public safety standpoint, improving the site would prevent a number of problems. The future buyer referenced earlier is himself. He wants to live there himself. With regard to the property to the west, he has designed smaller windows facing this house. The building height is 35ft above grade with regard to the structural engineer's comments, which means the concern about being over 35 feet is just not there. All the reports were updated by Landau Associates, who conducted new site visits and the conclusions are as stated. With regard to questions about average house size, there are some large houses in the neighborhood, so it depends on where one is looking in the neighborhood. The house proposal is not grandfathered in any way, so this will be the largest buffer on the street. Besides the variance, he has stricter criteria than the rest of the neighborhood homes. The class of stream has changed. Due process was not taken to determine whether salmon were in the Creek. Instead 2005 and 2006 blockages were stated, along with photos taken in 2009 of the salmon. When he spoke to the planning department about purchasing a new report to see if salmon were present, the senior planner determined that the ultimate decision would be in the planning department, who would give more weight to the actual photos, so he decided not to pay for the report because he did not think that it would be looked at. He has the most current results and environmental report. With regard to impervious surface Reasonable Use and Variance p. 14 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac�— PLN21 Packet Pg. 204 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 calculations, this is not required, but even with the impervious surface calculation it would bring it up to 18%. The current code says up to 35% so he is still under. Mr. Schenk noted that the city planner has been above reproach and the planning department has been responsive. It is been the city attorney who has not been responsive. According to Mr. Schenk, regarding more profitable use of the site, he is just interested in meeting requirements. The Mason County case referenced is clearly a shoreline case. If it is labeled at as a recreational property someone can drive their boat up and enjoy the property. This is not the case here. There is no recreational use of Shell Creek, and he does not understand why this would be applicable. The home he is proposing is to protect the waterway, not to use or enjoy the waterway. Mr. Schenk asked about cases of taking property without just compensation. He stated that he has more than the $5000 invested in this property and a year of his life. Again, this proposal is not his first choice. The proposal was made to meet requirements. His original proposal was changed to meet the requirements creating minimum impact to the site. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Staff report dated June 4, 2014 with all 73 attachments. Exhibit 2 Schenck presentation outline and power point. Exhibit 3 June 12, 2014 memo from Schenk to Lien Exhibit 4 site plans Exhibit 5 Email chain dated February 15, 2014 involving city attorney Exhibit 6 Schaeffer photographs Exhibit 7 Hilman comments and sales data FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. The applicant is Jordan Schenk. 2. Hearing. A hearing was held at 3:00 pm on June 13, 2014 at the Edmonds City Council meeting chambers. The record was left open for a site visit, which was conducted after 5:00 pm on the same day. Substantive: 3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicant requests a reasonable use exception to build a single-family home within the 100 foot critical areas buffer of Shell Creek and a height variance to build the home ten feet above the applicable 25 foot height limit. Both applications are denied because the applicant is not proposing a minimum reasonable use of his property and because his biological assessment of Reasonable Use and Variance p. 15 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac�— PLN21 Packet Pg. 205 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 stream impacts is based upon the incorrect premise that Shell Creek is a non- anadromous fish bearing stream with a 75 foot buffer. The subject property is located at 742 Daley Street. The property has steep slopes along the west side of the property and Shell Creek runs across the northeast corner of the property. Shell Creek is identified as an anadromous fish bearing stream which has 100 foot stream buffers pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.90.040.D. Given the entire property is encompassed by the stream buffer, the applicant is pursuing a critical area variance to develop the site. The applicant considered several alternative house designs for the property in order to minimize impact to the critical area and to demonstrate reasonable economic use. Ultimately, the applicant settled on a design for a house 35-feet in height. The maximum allowable height in the RS-6 zone is 25 feet, so the proposed house requires a 10-feet height variance. Given that the two variance applications are intricately intertwined, both requests have been consolidated into a single development project pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002.B and are being reviewed concurrently. 4. Characteristics of the Area. The subject site is located within a single- family residential neighborhood in Edmonds. The site is one of the few undeveloped parcels in the area and is completely surrounded by parcels that are currently developed with single-family residences. The site and surrounding properties are located within the RS-6 (Single -Family Residential) zone (Attachment 63). North of the neighborhood is the Holy Rosary Church and School site which is zoned RS-12. West of the neighborhood across 7th Avenue North is property zoned RM-1.5 (Multi - Family) that is developed with a mix of multi -family and single family residences. 5. Adverse Impacts. The applicant has not established that the proposal would not material impair the critical area functions and values of Shell Creek and its associated buffer. The applicant's expert critical area analysis and mitigation is based upon the erroneous premise that Shell Creek is a non-anadromous fish bearing stream subject to a 75 foot buffer as opposed to a anadromous fish bearing stream subject to a 100 foot buffer. The 100 foot stream buffer is imposed by ECDC 23.90.040(D)(1)(b) and the 25 foot height limit is imposed by ECDC 16.20.030. The applicant's expert critical area analysis was prepared in 2006 and updated in 2013. See att. 5, 6 and 8. Both of these reports were based upon the understanding that only non-anadromous fish access the stream at the project site. Since 2006 fish have been observed by staff up stream of a culvert that had been considered to block fish passage to the applicant's property. Staff have concluded that anadromous fish now do pass through Shell Creek at the project . The applicant has presented no evidence to the contrary. Given the uncontested evidence presented by staff, it is determined that anadromous fish do pass through the subject property and that it should be classified as an anadromous fish bearing stream. Anadromous fish bearing streams are more environmentally sensitive than non-anadromous fish bearing streams as established by the fact that City code requirements impose a 75 foot buffer for non-anadromous fish bearing streams and a 100 foot buffer for anadromous fish Reasonable Use and Variance M Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac�— PLN21 Packet Pg. 206 2 El IM 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 bearing streams. The applicant's 2006 critical area analysis expressly notes its understanding that anadromous fish only pass to points downstream of the project site. Att. 5, p. 3-2. The applicant's 2013 makes no mention of the change in stream classification and the applicant stated in correspondence with the City that he would not be updating the reports to address the presence of non-anadromous fish. Att. 27, p. 5. Neighbors testified and presented photographs depicting the presence of blue heron at the project site. Any reapplication should also address whether there is any blue heron habitat present that is protected by the City's critical area regulations. The height variance raises concerns over privacy issues. A neighbor testified that the increase in height would result in a home with a line of site directly into her windows. If the applicant is be given the benefit of a height to which no other homes are entitled in the vicinity, that added benefit should not result in a privacy detriment to adjoining neighbors. Although the issue does not need to be resolved for this application because the variance is denied for other reasons, it should be addressed in any similar future variance application. The applicants will have to demonstrate that any height variance will not result in any line of sight from the windows of the proposed home into the windows of any adjoining homes. Beyond the privacy issue, there are no other adverse impacts identifiable in the record from the proposed height variance. As noted in the staff report, the home is located at the bottom of a steep slope and the difference in grade is more than enough prevent the proposed added height from adversely affecting any views. 6. Minimum Reasonable Use. The minimum reasonable use of the subject property is a home that minimizes to the maximum extent impacts to Shell Creek and its buffer. As identified in the staff report, this would be a home with living space limited to that which can be constructed on top of a two car garage. The applicant's proposal exceeds this minimum reasonable use because it includes a second story overhang comprising several hundred square feet that will block sunlight to critical area buffer vegetation. As outlined in the Conclusions of Law, minimum reasonable use is a principle derived from constitutional takings law that involves a balancing of the burden on the property owner verses public benefit. Investment backed expectations are a major factor. On February 8, 2013, well after adoption of currently applicable critical area regulations, the applicant entered into a purchase and sale agreement to purchase the property for $95,000. See Att. 14. Closing is contingent on the applicant acquiring approval of a reasonable use variance to construct a single-family home. The property had previously been on the market for $469,950. See Att. 67. There is no question that the applicant has acquired the property at a deeply discounted price and that he was well aware that acquisition of a reasonable use approval was not a given. The limitations on development were well known in the real estate market, as the property had been on the market at an offering price of $99,990 for 208 days without a single offer prior to the purchase made by the applicant. See att. 12. Reasonable Use and Variance p. 17 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac�— PLN21 Packet Pg. 207 ►:1 EJ ,:7 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Beyond the presence of critical areas, the lot is well suited to accommodate a single family home. The lot itself is fairly small at 0.24 acres, but this is large enough to accommodate averaged sized homes in the Edmonds community. The lot is of a size that is the same size or even slightly larger than surrounding lots developed with full size homes, as shown the adjoining vicinity in Att. 9 and as confirmed by the examiner's site visit. The public interest served by the stream buffer is fairly high. Of the six types of buffers required to protect stream habitat, the 100 foot buffer imposed for anadromous fish streams is the second largest imposed by the City of Edmonds. See ECDC 23.90.040(D)(1). This indicates that the type of stream affected by the proposal is one of the most sensitive and/or ecologically valuable in the City. The impacts of the proposal on this highly sensitive critical area have not been adequately evaluated. The applicant relies upon habitat management studies completed in 2006 (att. 6) and 2013 (att. 8) to argue that impacts are mitigated, but these studies were completed at a time when the stream was considered to be non -fish bearing and only subject to a 75 foot buffer. There is no information in the record to establish that the proposal is still adequately mitigated to prevent impacts to the higher sensitivity of the stream. Given the factors above, a minimum use of the property using the "liberal construction" requirement of the City's reasonable use definition would have to be considered the minimum size at which a marketable home could be constructed without a loss. Sales data provided by the applicant for home sales in the City of Edmonds between 2008 and 2013 show at least seven homes with less than 650 square feet of living space selling at prices ranging from $35,000 to $550,000 with only two of the seven selling for less than $199,000. See att. 31. From this data it appears likely that a new home could be built and sold without a loss from a vacant purchase price of $95,000 as paid by the applicant. Of course, a more solid finding would be based upon information on the costs of home construction and the locational characteristics and conditions of the homes sold. However, the burden of proof lies on the applicant' to establish he is being denied minimum reasonable use and there is nothing in the record that suggests that it would not be possible to build a marketable home without a loss. 650 square feet is used as a minimum reasonable use size because it is approximately the minimum sized home that could be placed upon a two car tandem garage. As noted in the staff report, ECDC16.20.030 requires two on -site parking stalls for the proposal. Consequently, the minimum critical area buffer disturbance for a single- family home compliant with City code would be a home with living space limited to 1 ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2) provides that a reasonable use request may only be granted "if an applicant demonstrates" compliance with the reasonable use criteria. Reasonable Use and Variance M Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac�— PLN21 Packet Pg. 208 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the area above a two stall tandem2 parking garage. The living space in such a configuration would be limited to 626 square feet3. See att. 31. The applicant's proposal is limited to the footprint of a tandem two car garage. However, it also includes a second story overhang with 1804 square feet overhanging the southern foundation and 464 square feet overhanging the east foundation. See att. 31. As noted in the staff report, this overhang can adversely affect the critical areas by blocking sunlight to vegetation. The applicant argues there is no evidence to support this, but this position fails to recognize that the applicant bears the burden of establishing minimum reasonable use. As would be expected, the applicant's buffer mitigation plan recognizes the important function of buffer vegetation in protecting critical area functions. See att. 5. It is reasonable to conclude that blocking sunlight to vegetation will adversely affect it. Given these facts, it is incumbent upon the applicant to establish that the overhang he proposes will create no such adverse impacts. In the absence of any expert testimony or other evidence supporting the applicant's position, it cannot be determined that the overhang will not adversely affect the critical area. More likely than not, given that the overhang is several hundred square feet in area, the overhang will harm critical area function. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. ECDC 20.85.020 provides the Hearing Examiner with the authority to review and act upon variance applications as Type III - A. Substantive: 2. Zoning Designations. The area is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS- 30 2 Tandem stalls would apparently be necessary to maintain separation from the stream. 3 The city attorney testified that the City disputes whether the size of the garage proposed by the applicant is absolutely necessary to accommodate two parking stalls, circulation and second floor access. The City has not identified any specific reasons why the footprint is too small. In order to provide some clarity to the applicant as to what constitutes minimum reasonable use and in pursuance of the liberal construction requirement of the City's reasonable use definition, the 626 square foot design presented by the applicant is determined by this decision to meet the minimum reasonable use requirements of the City's reasonable use regulations. 4 The text to att. 31, page 3, notes that the length of the southern overhang in att. F (from which the 180 square feet was derived) underrepresents the length of the overhang. It is unclear if this error extends into the 180 square foot figure depicted in att. F. The actual area of the southern overhang may be more than180 square feet. Reasonable Use and Variance P. 19 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac�— PLN21 Packet Pg. 209 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3. Review Criteria and Application. Variances to height requirements are set by ECDC 20.85.010, quoted below and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. Reasonable use exceptions to critical area stream buffers are governed by ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2) and 23.40.210(B). Applicable criteria are quoted in italics below and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. HEIGHT VARIANCE ECDC 20.85.010: No variance may be approved unless all of the findings in this section can be made. ECDC 20.85.010.A(1) — Special Circumstances: That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the 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. a. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses as set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats. b. 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; 4. The criterion is met. The staff report argues that the criterion is not met because the applicant would enjoy reasonable use from a single -story 625 foot residence. That is an overly restrictive interpretation of "use rights and privileges" in the criterion above that fails to recognize that the criterion extends beyond the deprivation of rights to the deprivation of privileges. Limited to one story of living space, the applicant is left with a home that is several times smaller than surrounding homes. Allowance of the variance would double that size and still result in a house that is only at 84% of the average home size in the City of Edmonds. See att. 31, p. 5. The need for the variance is completely attributable to the critical areas on site, since it is solely because of those critical areas that the size of the home is limited. ECDC 20.85.010(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; 5. The granting of the variance would create a special privilege, because the applicant has provided no evidence that other homes in the vicinity are constructed at heights exceeding 25 feet. Given that the applicant is already conferred a reasonable use of his property with a single story of living space as determined in the Reasonable Use and Variance p. 20 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac�— PLN21 Packet Pg. 210 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 conclusions of law below, it cannot be concluded under these circumstances that the extra height associated with a variance would not constitute a special privilege if no one else has built to that extra height as well. ECDC 20.85.101(C) — Comprehensive Plan: That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan; 6. The requested setback variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan for the reasons outlined at Section VII of the staff report, adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. ECDC 20.85.010(D) — Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located; 7. The proposal is consistent with the purpose of the RS-6 zoning district as outlined in Section X of the staff report, adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. ECDC 20.85.010(E) — 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 same zone; 8. The criterion is not met. The applicant has not demonstrated that the added height would not adversely affect the privacy of adjoining home owners as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. ECDC 20.85.010(F) — Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 9. The criterion is not met. As determined in the conclusions of law below, the applicant can enjoy reasonable use of the subject property with just one story of living space. Although the applicant may not enjoy the same development potential as other owners in the vicinity and same zoning, one story of living space does allow the applicant reasonable use of his property, a right enjoyed by his neighbors as well. BUFFER ENCROACHMENT REASONABLE USE REQUEST ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(a): The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use of a property or subject parcel; "Reasonable economic use(s)" is defined pursuant to ECDC 23.40.320 as follows: "The minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal Reasonable Use and Variance p. 21 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac�— PLN21 Packet Pg. 211 2 El IM 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of substantive due process. "Reasonable economic use" shall be liberally construed to protect the constitutional property rights of the applicant. For example, the minimum reasonable use of a residential lot which meets or exceeds minimum bulk requirements is use for one single-family residential structure. Determination of "reasonable economic use" shall not include consideration of factors personal to the owner such as a desire to make a more profitable use of the site. " 10. Under the definition above, there is no question that the stream buffer denies the applicant all reasonable use of the subject property. The subject lot meets minimum bulk and dimensional standards in the RS-6 zoning district. Consequently, a single family home qualifies as a minimum reasonable use under the definition. The property is completely encumbered by the stream or stream buffer and City regulations prohibit the construction of a home within a critical areas buffer. Consequently, the City's critical area regulations are depriving the applicant of a minimum reasonable use of the property. ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(b): No other reasonable economic use of the property consistent with the underlying zoning and the city comprehensive plan has less impact on the critical area; 11. The criterion is met. As concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 10, a single- family home is defined as a minimum reasonable use for the subject property. As a minimum reasonable use, no other type of reasonable use could be required for the property unless it allowed for a greater economic return on the property. As outlined in ECDC 16.20.010, more intense uses allowed for the subject property include uses such as churches and schools and none of those uses could be accommodated on the applicant's relatively small lot. None of these types of uses could be construed as creating less impact to critical areas. If the "other reasonable use" referenced in the criterion above encompasses different project design as opposed to different types of uses, then as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6 the applicant has failed to establish that a smaller home would not have less of an impact to critical areas. ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(c): The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property; 12. The criterion is not met. The proposal does not minimize impacts to critical areas. The proposed second story overhang could be removed and still leave the applicant with reasonable use. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, impacts to Shell Creek are not minimized, because the proposal includes an overhang over critical area vegetation that exceeds the footprint for minimum reasonable use by several hundred square feet. This overhang will block sunlight to buffer vegetation, thereby adversely affecting the vegetation and its associated critical area function and value. The "minimum reasonable use" referenced in the preceding paragraph and Finding of Fact No. 6 is a single family home with a footprint limited to accommodating a tandem two car garage with living space located above it. This minimum reasonable use is based upon a number of constitutional balancing factors used by the courts in assessing constitutional takings cases. The code definition of "reasonable economic use", ECDC 23.40.320, is based upon constitutional takings law, so that law must be referenced to determine what constitutes minimum reasonable use. Reasonable Use and Variance p. 22 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac�— PLN21 Packet Pg. 212 1:] EJ 16 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In the context of regulatory takings caused by stream and buffer regulation, a taking will most often occur under either a Lucas analysis where the property owner is deprived of all reasonable economical use or a Penn Central analysis where the burden on the property owner is weighed against the public need and benefit of the regulations in question. The Lucas analysis comes from Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). That case set the precedent for "categorical takings", where no balancing of public verses private interests is required to determine if a property owner is entitled to compensation under the takings clause. The U.S. Supreme Court in Lucas ruled that when regulations deprive a property owner of all economically viable use, a categorical takings has occurred and compensation is due unless the regulations fall into some very limited exceptions. A footnote in Lucas explained that the categorical rule would not apply if the diminution in value were 95% instead of 100%. The court acknowledged that anything more than a total loss would require a Penn Central takings analysis. The meaning of "all economically viable use" was put to the test in Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001). In that case Mr. Palazzolo owned an 18 acre subdivision containing 74 lots. The subdivision was undeveloped and covered with wetlands with an indeterminate area of uplands. The only way to develop the lots located in wetlands was to fill them. Subsequent to the subdivision of the 18 acre parcel the Rhode Island Legislature adopted regulations that prevent Mr. Palazzolo from filling the wetlands. Prior to adoption of the wetland regulations, Mr. Palazzolo's could have developed a subdivision worth about $3.1 million. After adoption of the regulations Mr. Palazzolo could only fill the upland portions of his parcel, which would only enable a development worth about $200,000. The Supreme Court ruled that the remaining $200,000 qualified as economically viable use and, therefore, no Lucas categorical takings had occurred. In short, Mr. Lucas was left with less than 10% of the development potential of his property and no categorical takings had occurred. As identified in Finding of Fact No. 6, for this proposal City staff are asserting that the applicant should build a house limited to 626 square feet. This area is about a fifth of the average size of a home built sold in Edmonds today. See att. 31, p. 3. It is unclear what the average sales price is in Edmonds currently, but given these factors it is very unlikely that the applicant would be losing more than 90% value if the applicant is limited to building a 626 square foot home. Imposing the maximum house area advocated by the City would not constitute a categorical takings under Lucas. In the absence of a categorical takings, the remaining way to establish a regulatory takings is through a Penn Central analysis. Penn Central is a United States Supreme Court case that created the concept of regulatory takings, where just compensation under the 5th Amendment takings clause can be required by over -regulation of property without any physical appropriation such as in a typical road condemnation case. See Penn Central v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) The Court ruled that whether a regulatory action that diminishes the value of a claimant's property constitutes a "taking" of that property depends on several factors, including the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant, particularly the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment -backed expectations, as well as the character of the governmental action. Those regulatory factors have been developed and expanded upon in Washington State court opinions assessing regulatory takings. See, e.g. Guimont v. Clark, 121 Wn.2d at 603-604, 610 (1993); Presbytery of Seattle v. King County, 114 Wn.2d 320, 331, 787 P.2d 907 (1990). Those factors, in turn, have been applied into assessing the "reasonable use" term for Mason County shoreline variances in Buechel v. Dept. of Ecology, Reasonable Use and Variance p. 23 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac�— PLN21 Packet Pg. 213 1:] EJ ,:i 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 125 Wn.2d 196, 884 P.2d 910 (1994). The Buechel ruling was applied by the City Council in its construction of its critical area reasonable use provisions in the Hillman reasonable use request, City of Edmonds Resolution 1294. The factors used to assess reasonable use in Buechel include the size, location and physical attributes of the property; the expectations of the owner at the time of purchase of the property; the zoning regulations in effect at the time of purchase; the purchase price of the property; and the cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed development. See 125 Wn.2d at 207-208. These factors were applied and assessed in Finding of Fact No. 6. There have been surprisingly few cases that have applied 5th Amendment takings claims to wetland and/or stream buffer regulation. None have assessed Penn Central takings claims in the State of Washington to wetland regulations. One case outside of Washington provides some insight as to how the regulation should be applied. See Friedenburg v. New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, 3 A.D.3d 86 (2003). In Friedenburg the property owner was denied a permit to fill wetlands in order to build a single-family home on a 2.5 acre waterfront parcel. The only use remaining use the property owner had with the denial of the wetlands permit was access rights to the shoreline. The denial of the permit devalued the property from $665,000 to $31,500 based upon the findings of the trial court as to what the property could be used for. The value of the property would have been $50,000 if additional use rights alleged by the government defendant applied, such as the construction of a catwalk or moorage for a houseboat. The New York Supreme Court applied federal constitutional takings case law and ruled that a takings occurred whether the property was valued at $50,000 or $35,000. The Court reasoned that the property owner experienced either a 95% or 92.5% reduction in value and that in either case the reduction was significant. The Court found that the public benefit conferred by wetlands protection did not justify the taking of public property. It noted that if there are no direct reciprocal benefits to the property owner, the property owner should not bear the burden of providing those benefits to the general public. Due to the significant loss in value and the lack of reciprocity in the benefits of wetland protection, the Court found a takings Finding of Fact No. 6 applies the Penn Central factors of investment backed expectations, purchase price, lot size, environmental impacts and City regulations in effect at the time of purchase. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, a balancing of these factors results in the entitlement of one single family home with living space limited to the area above a two car tandem garage. The minimum reasonable use set by Finding of Fact No. 6 provides the applicants with use rights that are wholly distinguishable from those in Friedenburg. Most notably, the applicant will suffer no reduction in value subsequent to the purchase of the subject property. The applicant has pointed to no evidence that establishes a reduction in value below the $95,000 purchase price. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 6, homes similar in size to those set by Finding of Fact No. 6 sell for prices as high as $550,000. From the limited information in the record, it is likely that the applicants will be able to build a 625 square foot home and then sell it at a profit. It is also of significance that the applicant isn't even bound to its $95,000 purchase price. If the applicants choose to abandon their proposal as a result of their decision, they can get out of their purchase and sale agreement with losses limited to the $5,000 earnest money. See Schenk testimony. A second distinguishing factor is that the concept of reciprocal public benefit addressed in Friedenburg is turned on its head. If the applicant is permitted to build the home he is proposing, he stands to make an extraordinary large profit for single-family home development. The "fire sale" $95,000 price of the property is completely attributable to regulations designed to protect those wetlands. In short, solely because of the environmental significance of Shell Creek, the 5 In the Presbytery case the court outlined the factors involved in a Penn Central analysis of a wetlands takings claim, but then declined to apply them because the applicant had not exhausted his administrative remedies prior to fling suit. Reasonable Use and Variance p. 24 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac PLN2 Packet Pg. 214 2 EJ ,:i 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 applicant only has to risk $5,000 in earnest money to develop a $95,000 lot into a home worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Mr. Schenk argues that he is entitled to a larger home because the average sized home in Edmonds is considerably larger than 625 square feet. He provides extensive data on the size of homes located in the vicinity of the subject parcel as well as the City of Edmonds as a whole. Mr. Schenk points to no legal authority or compelling reason as to why his minimal investment in the subject property entitles him to an average sized home, which is about 3,100 square feet based on home sale records for downtown Edmonds since 1900. See att. 31, p. 12. With no reduction in value evident from limiting a future home to 625 square feet, there is no compelling reason to authorize any larger home. A final legal issue that should be addressed is the reasonable use definition requirement that "reasonable economic use" be "liberally construed" to protect the property rights of the property owner. For this case a liberal construction is already built into the definition's requirement that the applicant is entitled to a single-family home. Given the absence of any reduction in property value since the time of purchase, the City's recommended limitations on the size of the home should be on fairly solid legal ground. ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(d): The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title or its predecessor; 13. The criterion is met. The inability to derive reasonable use is wholly attributable to the critical areas ordinance, which encumbers the entirety of the subject lot with a stream buffer. The staff report concludes that the lack of reasonable use results from the actions of the applicant in purchasing the property with knowledge of the critical area restrictions. However, with or without this knowledge, the critical areas ordinance prohibits all reasonable development of the property. The lack of development options for the property cannot be attributable to the applicant's knowledge of development restrictions. ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(e): The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; 14. The criterion is not met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal will not adversely affect Shell Creek or its buffer. Although not necessary for the conclusion that the criterion quoted above is not met, the cumulative impacts of the proposal are also a concern. As the amount of vacant land in the City of Edmonds continues to decrease, development pressures for environmentally sensitive lots such as the one at hand will increase. It will be difficult to conclude that public health, safety and welfare is not threatened if development such as proposed in this application is allowed to proliferate within the critical area buffers of the City's streams and wetlands. ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(f): The proposal minimizes net loss of critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science; and 15. The criterion is not met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal does not minimize impacts to critical areas. Reasonable Use and Variance p. 25 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac�— PLN21 Packet Pg. 215 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(g): The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. 16. With the exception of the height subject to the proposed height variance, the proposal is consistent with all other applicable regulations and standards. As noted in the staff report, staff has determined compliance with all applicable development standards and there is no evidence to the contrary. ECDC 23.40.210(B)(1): Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, the lot, or something inherent in the land, and that are not applicable to other lands in the same district; 17. The property is completely encumbered with critical area buffers, which qualifies as a special condition and circumstance. Most lots in the vicinity and district are not fully encumbered by critical area buffers. ECDC 23.40.210(B)(2): The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; 18. See COL No. 13. ECDC 23.40.210(B)(3): A literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of all reasonable economic uses and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone of the subject property under the terms of this title, and the variance requested is the minimum necessary to provide the applicant with such rights; 19. See COL No. 10. ECDC 23.40.210(B)(4): Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this title to other lands, structures, or buildings under similar circumstances; 20. The criterion is met. Authorizing the variance would enable the applicant to build a home that is similar in size (and even a bit smaller) to the homes that surround it. ECDC 23.40.210(B)(5): The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this title, and will not further degrade the functions or values of the associated critical areas or otherwise be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the subject property; and 21. The criterion is not met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to support a finding that the proposal will not damage Shell Creek or its buffer. Reasonable Use and Variance p. 26 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac�— PLN21 Packet Pg. 216 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ECDC 23.40.210(B)(6): The decision to grant the variance is based upon the best available science and gives special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish habitat. 22. The criterion is not met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to support a finding that the proposal will not damage Shell Creek or its buffer. In particular, the habitat analysis done for the proposal doesn't even recognize that there is anadromous fish habitat at the subject property. DECISION The height variance and reasonable use request are denied. The applications must conform to all applicable criteria. Several criteria for each application are not met as outlined in the Conclusions of Law of this decision. Dated this 27th day of June, 2014. Phlif A.Olbrcchts Edmonds Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices This land use decision is final and subject to closed record appeal to the City Council as authorized by ECDC 20.01.003. Appeals must be filed within 14 days of the issuance of this decision as required by ECDC 20.07.004(B). Reconsideration may be requested within 10 calendar days of issuance of this decision as required by ECDC 20.06.010. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. Reasonable Use and Variance p. 27 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac�— PLN21 Packet Pg. 217 1 2 / II 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CITY OF EDMON DS 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner RE: Kent Dietz Critical Area Reasonable Use PLN20150052 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION INTRODUCTION The applicant requests a reasonable use variance in order to construct a single-family home with a 336 square footprint within the 100-foot critical area buffer of Shell Creek. The reasonable use request is approved subject to conditions. ORAL TESTIMONY Note: This hearing summary is provided as a courtesy to those who would benefit from a general overview of the public testimony of the hearing referenced above. The summary is not required or necessary to the decision issued by the Hearing Examiner. No assurances are made as to completeness or accuracy. Nothing in this summary should be construed as a finding or legal conclusion made by the Examiner. Kernen Lien, Edmonds Senior Planner, summarized the proposal. In response to examiner questions, Mr. Lien noted that City regulations and recommended conditions don't require that the conditions of approval be recorded against the property. Kent Dietz, applicant, noted that the reason the buffer enhancement areas aren't larger is because the rest of the property wouldn't benefit from any improvements. The remaining area is already native growth. Reasonable Use Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and D&cision tt_ PLN2 Packet Pg. 218 2 Kl H 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 OR Lynnette Callahan, neighboring property owner, noted that the site is not an attractive nuisance as alleged in the exhibits. She has never seen the property serve as an attractive nuisance. Neighboring property owners were not sent letters about the proposal, only adjacent property owners. She saw approval as a slippery slope where it could lead to other variance requests. There have been multiple owners of the property who have all had to accept that development of the property is restricted. Removal of the trees will cause stormwater problems. Vi Walls, neighbor, asked questions about the proposal. She noted that she lives on top of a hill and she used to dump her yard waste over her fence and was told she could not do so, apparently because of the presence of critical areas. Scott Blomenkamp, citizen, testified that the review process was in violation of WAC 197-11-340(2)(a), which prohibits an agency from acting on a proposal within 14 days of the issuance of the SEPA determination. The city set a hearing and prepared a staff report within that 14-day period. He also stated that an appearance of fairness presentation should have been made at the beginning of the hearing. Mr. Blomenkamp believed that the City tends to overly rush development projects. In rebuttal, Mr. Lien stated that Ms. Callahan was referring to a letter submitted by the applicant on the issues regarding letters sent to adjoining property owners and the property serving as an attractive nuisance. Kent Dietz stated in rebuttal that the amount of trees being removed is minimized. He noted that his comments about the property being an attractive nuisance were based upon information given to him from neighboring property owners and also that every time he goes to the property he has to close the gate. Neighbors have told him that the property is often frequented by young people. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Staff report dated March 17, 2016 with 39 attachments. Exhibit 2 Staff power point. Exhibit 3 Email from Lynnette Callahan dated March 23, 2016 Exhibit 4 Schenk reasonable use decision -- PLN 20130044; 20140008. Staff sent an email to the examiner dated March 24, 2016 stating that a letter had been submitted to the City's planning counter at 3:50 pm on March 24, 2016. Since the hearing was already closed at that time and hearing participants did not have an opportunity to respond to the letter, the letter was not admitted into the record. Although the letter was emailed by staff to the examiner, the examiner did not read the letter and has no knowledge of its contents. Reasonable Use Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and DRt T ion PLN2 Packet Pg. 219 2 Procedural: 3 al 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 FINDINGS OF FACT Applicant. The applicant is Kent Dietz. 2. Hearing. A hearing was held at 3:00 pm on March 24, 2016 at the Edmonds City Council meeting chambers. Substantive: 3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicant requests a reasonable use variance in order to construct a single-family home with a 336 square footprint within the 100-foot critical area buffer of Shell Creek. The property is located at 742 Daley Street and has steep slopes along the west side of the property and Shell Creek runs across the northeast corner of the property. Shell Creek is identified as an anadromous fish bearing stream which has 100 foot stream buffers pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.90.040.D. Given the entire property is encompassed by the stream buffer, the applicant is pursuing a critical area reasonable use variance to develop the site. 4. Characteristics of the Area. The subject site is located within a single- family residential neighborhood in Edmonds. The site is one of the few undeveloped parcels in the area and is completely surrounded by parcels that are currently developed with single-family residences. The site and surrounding properties are located within the RS-6 (Single -Family Residential) zone. North of the neighborhood is the Holy Rosary Church and School site, which is zoned RS-12. West of the neighborhood across 7th Avenue North is property zoned RM-1.5 (Multi -Family) that is developed with a mix of multi -family and single family residences. 5. Adverse Impacts. As mitigated, impacts to Shell Creek will be minimized and stream functions and values will be maintained. No other significant adverse impacts are anticipated. The two primary impacts of concern are to Shell Creek and a landslide hazard located on the property. As noted in the critical areas report, Ex. 1, att. 5, the proposal will result in unavoidable stream buffer impacts. As noted in the report and evident from its references to credible scientific studies, the report is based upon best available science. Since the entire property is encumbered by Shell Creek or its 100 foot buffer, there is no way to build a home on the property without encroaching into the buffer. To compensate for these impacts, the critical areas report recommends 1,617 square feet of stream buffer enhancement with native trees and shrubs. The critical areas report also recommends a five-year monitoring plan. The home is also located as far as possible from the stream itself and the size of the residence's building footprint is far smaller than that of neighboring properties or sizes usually associated with single- family homes. A split rail fence will also be installed close to the home to ensure that no clearing or other development activity occurs outside of the footprint area. In Reasonable Use Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac PLN2 Packet Pg. 220 2 Ll 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 addition to adopting all of the critical area report recommendations, this decision will also require that the buffer restrictions be recorded to provide notice to subsequent property owners and to facilitate enforcement. As designed and mitigated, the critical areas report concludes that the functions and values of the Shell Creek will be maintained. There being no evidence to the contrary and given the expertise of the report and minimized design impact, it is determined that the proposal will maintain Shell Creek functions and values. As previously noted, the southwest corner of the property has steep slopes. These slopes meet or exceed 40% grade and therefore qualify as landslide hazard areas pursuant to ECDC 23.80. The applicant had a geotechnical report prepared for the proposal, which determined that the proposal would have no adverse impacts to slope stability and would improve slope stability due to the proposed reinforced concrete foundation and drainage controls. The proposed site work also includes slope stabilization measures composed of gabion walls, which the geotechnical report describes as a wire basket of rocks. There being no evidence to the contrary and given the expertise of the geotechnical report, it is determined that the proposal will not adversely affect slope stability. The proposal is fully compatible with surrounding homes. As noted in the critical areas report, Ex. 1, att. 5, the proposed home is significantly smaller than surrounding homes and the applicant is proposing a single-family home in an area zoned and developed with single-family use. As noted in the staff report, the residence is not likely to adversely affect the views of existing homes since the home will be located on the downhill side of a steep slope. There was some concern about the removal of trees, but there is no evidence to suggest that this removal will create any significant adverse impacts. The amount of trees that will be removed is not identified with any specificity in the record, except for a comment in the environmental checklist that a large maple tree will be removed. The area to be cleared is only about 800 square feet and the required mitigation involves enhancing 1,689 square feet, which includes the installation of 15 native trees. Given the determination in the critical areas report that the functions and values of the stream will be maintained, the minimal amount of clearing proposed and the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is determined that removal of the trees will not create any significant adverse impacts. 6. Minimum Reasonable Use. Finding of Fact No. 6 of the Schenk decision contains a detailed analysis of how to determine minimum reasonable use for the subject property. Although in this case the purchase price for the subject property was $20,000 instead of the $95,000 to be paid by Mr. Schenk, the analysis is otherwise the same. As was the case for the $95,000 purchase price, Mr. Dietz will certainly have no trouble realizing a reasonable economic return on his property if he is allowed to build a single- family home of minimum dimensions on the subject property. As determined in the Schenk decision, specifically footnote 3 of that decision, a home with a first floor limited to a two car garage would constitute minimum reasonable use with a building footprint Reasonable Use Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attac PLN2 Packet Pg. 221 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of 626 square feet. Although the Schenk application proposed a 626 square footprint, it was denied because it had an extensive second floor overhang that would adversely affect the stream buffer. In this application the applicant proposes a 336 square foot building footprint, but instead of in a garage he proposes to place the parking spaces on the proposed 460 square foot driveway. The administrative record does not contain any information on the dimensions of the size of the driveway proposed in the Schenk application, however from the minimal size of the driveway proposed for this application it does not appear likely that Mr. Schenk's driveway would have been significantly less in area. From all of these considerations it is determined that the proposal constitutes a minimum reasonable use of the property. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 1. Authority of I-Iearinb Examiner. ECDC 20.85.020 provides the Hearing Examiner with the authority to review and act upon variance applications as Type III - A. Substantive: 2. Zoning Designations. The area is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-6). 3. Review Criteria and Application. Reasonable use exceptions to critical area stream buffers are governed by ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2) and 23.40.210(B). Applicable criteria are quoted in italics below and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(a): The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use of a property or subject parcel; "Reasonable economic use(s)" is defined pursuant to ECDC 23.40.320 as follows: "The minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of substantive due process. "Reasonable economic use" shall be liberally construed to protect the constitutional property rights of the applicant. For example, the minimum reasonable use of a residential lot which meets or exceeds minimum bulk requirements is use for one single-family residential structure. Determination of "reasonable economic use " shall not include consideration of factors personal to the owner such as a desire to make a more profitable use of the site. " 10. Under the definition above, there is no question that the stream buffer denies the applicant all reasonable use of the subject property. The subject lot meets minimum bulk and dimensional standards in the RS-6 zoning district. Consequently, a single family home qualifies as a minimum reasonable use under the definition. The property is completely encumbered by the stream or stream buffer and City regulations prohibit the construction Reasonable Use Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and D i Ca,ion PLN2 Packet Pg. 222 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of a home within a critical areas buffer. Consequently, the City's critical area regulations are depriving the applicant of all reasonable use of the property. ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(b): No other reasonable economic use of the property consistent with the underlying zoning and the city comprehensive plan has less impact on the critical area; 11. The criterion is met. As concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 10, a single- family home is defined as a minimum reasonable use for the subject property. As a minimum reasonable use, no other type of reasonable use could be required for the property unless it allowed for a greater economic return on the property. As outlined in ECDC 16.20.010, more intense uses allowed for the subject property include uses such as churches and schools and none of those uses could be accommodated on the applicant's relatively small lot. None of these types of uses could be construed as creating less impact to critical areas. If the "other reasonable use" referenced in the criterion above encompasses different project design as opposed to different types of uses, then as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6 the applicant has established compliance with the criterion since the project design encompases the least area and impact that could be reasonably required for a single-family home. ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(c): The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property; 12. The criterion is met. Conclusion of Law No. 12 of the Schenk decision contains a detailed legal analysis of what constitute minimum reasonable economic use, which involves a balancing of the public interest in enforcement of the City's critical area reglations verses the economic impact on the property owner. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, a balancing of these factors conclusively demonstrates that the proposal does in fact constitute the minimum necessary for reasonabe use of the property. The criterion is met. ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(d): The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title or its predecessor; 13. The criterion is met. The inability to derive reasonable use is wholly attributable to the critical areas ordinance, which encumbers the entirety of the subject lot with a stream buffer. ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(e): The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; 14. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. This conclusion could not be reached in the Schenk decision because the critical areas study prepared for the Schenk appication was based upon an inaccurate critical areas classification of Shell Creek. ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(f): The proposal minimizes net loss of critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science; and Reasonable Use Variance p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and DRt ,ion PLN2 Packet Pg. 223 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15. The criterion is met. As determined in Findings of Fact No. 5 and 6, the proposal minimizes impacts to critical areas and the critical areas analysis upon which these conclusions were drawn was based upon best available science. See Ex. 1, att. 5. ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(g): The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. 16. As noted in the staff report, staff has determined compliance with all applicable development standards and there is no evidence to the contrary. ECDC 23.40.210(B)(1): Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, the lot, or something inherent in the land, and that are not applicable to other lands in the same district; 17. The property is completely encumbered with critical area buffers, which qualifies as a special condition and circumstance. Most lots in the vicinity and district are not fully encumbered by critical area buffers. ECDC 23.40.210(B)(2): The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; 18. The criterion is met. See COL No. 13. ECDC 23.40.210(B)(3): A literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of all reasonable economic uses and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone of the subject property under the terms of this title, and the variance requested is the minimum necessary to provide the applicant with such rights; 19. The criterion is met. See COL No. 10. ECDC 23.40.210(B)(4): Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this title to other lands, structures, or buildings under similar circumstances; 20. The criterion is met. Authorizing the variance would enable the applicant to build a single-family home in a single-family neighborhood that is developed and zoned for single-family use. ECDC 23.40.210(B)(5): The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this title, and will not further degrade the functions or values of the associated critical areas or otherwise be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the subject property; and 21. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the applicant has demonstrated that the proposal will maintain the functions and values of Shell Creek and will not adversely affect slope stability of on -site steep slopes. The proposal will not be materially detrimental to the public because as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 it will not create any significant adverse impacts. Reasonable Use Variance p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and DAeEta� ion PLN2 Packet Pg. 224 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ECDC 23.40.210(B)(6): The decision to grant the variance is based upon the best available science and gives special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish habitat. 22. The criterion is met. As determined in Findings of Fact No. 5 and 6, the proposal minimizes impacts to critical areas and the critical areas analysis upon which these conclusions were drawn was based upon best available science. See Ex. 1, att. 5. Miscellaneous Issues 23. Appearance of Fairness "Script". One of the hearing participants expressed some confusion about the absence of an appearance of fairness "script" in the hearing that is typically used in City Council and Planning Commission hearings. These scripts are usually comprised of the presiding officer asking if any members of the decision making body have engaged in any ex parte communications or have any association with the application that could make them appear to be biased. These scripts are recommended for multimember bodies but are not mandated by state law. The scripts are recommended because if a potential appearance of fairness violation is disclosed and no objection is made from the audience, the city or county has immunized itself from challenge. If an objection is not timely made, it is considered waived and cannot be raised on appeal. See Lakeside Industries v. Thurston County, 119 Wn. App. 886 (2004); King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, 91 Wn. App. 1 (1998), partially reversed on other grounds, 138 Wn.2d 161 (1999); RCW 42.36.080. Of course, there is no point in a hearing examiner going through a script and asking himself questions about whether he has engaged in ex parte contacts or has any associations with a project if the examiner has not made any such contacts and has no association with the application. In this case the examiner had no ex parte contacts or associations with the project beyond reviewing the prior Schenk application, which would likely not be considered an appearance of fairness issue (although the examiner did disclose and enter the Schenk decision in any event). Consequently, there was no duty to go through any script or go through disclosures. 24. SEPA Review. It was also argued during the hearing that the City violated WAC 197-11-340(2)(a) by scheduling the application hearing and issuing a staff report within 14 days of issuance of the DNS. WAC 197-11-340(2)(a) provides that a municipality may not "act" on an application within 14 days of the issuance of a DNS. This issue cannot be resolved by the hearing examiner because the examiner has no jurisdiction to address SEPA compliance issues absent an appeal of the issuance of the DNS. DECISION Reasonable Use Variance p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision I Packet Pg. 225 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The reasonable use variance is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant is responsible for seeking and obtaining all other required local, state and federal permits. 2. The mitigation measures detailed in the Critical Areas Study and Mitigation Plan prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc. revised on January 7, 2016 contained in Attachment 20 of this staff report must be implemented prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupation for the residence constructed consistent with this approval. Signs shall be installed on the fence delineating the setback area from the critical area buffer. The signs shall be consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.90.030.F.2.a. 4. At time of building permit application, the applicant shall provide an updated estimate for the cost of plant materials, labor, monitoring, and maintenance. This shall be used as the basis for a maintenance bond which will be 15% of the estimate. The maintenance bond must be secured prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupation. 5. A monitoring report must be submitted to the City of Edmonds for each of the five year monitoring periods. The monitoring report shall document milestones, success, problems, and contingency actions required to ensure success of the mitigation. 6. Compliance with Engineering codes and construction standards will be reviewed with the building permit application for development of the site. The applicant is encouraged, wherever feasible, to incorporate pervious pavements, rain gardens and/or other low impact development techniques into the project design. 7. The City of Edmonds has two easements that encumber the subject property. One is for the construction, maintenance and repair of said stream channel and the other is a utility easement for installation, operation and maintenance of a fish ladder and diversion structure. Please refer to recording documents #8207160100 and #9003150306, respectively. Easement areas shall also be shown on any future building permit applications. 8. The conditions of approval shall be recorded upon the property with express reference to the restriction that no development activity or other disturbance of the area outside the rail fence is allowed except as authorized by the City's critical area regulations. The recording document shall be approved by planning staff and recorded prior to occupancy. Reasonable Use Variance P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and PLN j Packet Pg. 226 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Dated this 7th day of April, 2016. Phi A.Olbrcchts Edmonds Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices This land use decision is final and subject to closed record appeal to the City Council as authorized by ECDC 20.01.003. Appeals must be filed within 14 days of the issuance of this decision as required by ECDC 20.07.004(B). Reconsideration may be requested within 10 calendar days of issuance of this decision as required by ECDC 20.06.010. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. Reasonable Use Variance P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Deci ion Attac PLN2 Packet Pg. 227 a SHELL CREEK TYPE F STREAM 100' BUFFER 15, STRUM BuFFIEr. Sfi T 6AGVA- PROPOSED HOUSE & CARPORT BUFFER IMPACT 2,190 SF WETLAND 600Kc�nr BUFFER: IV 56-rBNct4l BUFFER IMPACT WETLAND RESTORATION BUFFER ENHANCEMENT DATA POINT (2 TOTAL) -X- X— TWO -RAIL FENCE E CRITICAL AREA SIGN MAIN ST a . opt luot O 0 WETLAND A CATEGORY III 110' BUFFER WETLAND ENHANCEMENT 3,700 SF —15' 5T9EA1A Wf*?, SeTSACK BUFFER ENHANCEMENT 700 SF PROPOSED DRIVEWAY N SCALE V = 20' 0 20 40 Acre Job:22os6 RITICAL AREA STUDY I MITIGATION MAP PREPARED BY: Drawn By: PREPAREn FOR; Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC ser L. EmenhiKelli Homes, LLC KELLI HOMES - 963 MAIN STREET PO Box 55248 Dare:062220M 1020 Bell Street EDMONDS, WA Shoreline. WA98155 Rev 4 Edmonds, WA 98020 TAX PARCEL NO. 00434206702500. Email: louis@alrreeeenviro niontai.com MAP SHEET 1-ijf�Ri2j Packet Pg. 228