The URL can be used to link to this page

16006 75TH PL W (3).pdfS ti t el u;',siYrF<tfi',?c;.'�`ww y O - p2 4 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF: ECOLOGY °�l�;,d�Gf� 1 99j P.O. Box 47600 * Olympia, Washington 98504-7600 • (360) 407-6000 a TDD Only (Hearing /mpaired) (360) 407--6006 ~ July 17, 1997 Uf 4 �f • V d! w? Robert Cole and Jem Merritt LU r=-$ td628-70th PI W o Lynnwood, WA 98037 9_3 Dear Applicants: d Re: City of Edmonds Permit #SM-97-48 F, Robert Cole and Jerri Merritt Applicants z Shoreline Substantial Development Permit #1997-NW30043 u, t,ua pi The subject Shoreline Substantial Development permit, to allow site grading U v, (approximately 1500 yards of cut and 600 yards of fill) in association with the a construction of a new single-family residence, within the shoreline jurisdiction of Puget' Sound, was filed with this office by City of Edmonds on July 14, 1997. z� The development authorized by the subject permit may NOT begin until the end of the 21-day appeal period August 4, 1997. The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you in, writing if this permit is appealed. Other federal, state, and local permits may be Z required in addition to the subject permit. If this permit is NOT appealed, this letter constitutes the Department of Ecology's final notification of action on this permit. Sincerely, Joan M. Velikanje ® Shoreline Specialist Shorelands and Water Resources Program JMV jv RECSDP.WP t9 cc: VMc.51°M,W#lsonti ity of Edmonds - Michael George, AIA SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT z Application No. SM-97-48 Mr. ;" } Administrative Agency City of Edmonds Date Received 4/2/97 Jt to U. Approved XXX Denied LU Date 6/24/97 Pursuant to RCW 90.58,' a permit is hereby granted to LU } Michael George, agent for Robert Cole and Jerri Meniit (Name orAppgcant) o `n 10241st St., Ste. 307, Snohomish, WA 98290 vM w (Address) o to undertake the following development: ui Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to allow site grading in excess of 250 cubic yards in association with the construction of a new single-family residence. a upon the following property: 16006 75th Pl. W. Edmonds within Puget Sound and/or its associated wetlands, The project will be within shorelines of statewide wi significance (RCW 90.58.030). The project ll be located with a CW Urban Marine designation. The following master program provisions are applicable to this development: i 15.36.010.A & B.15.38.060.A & 15.37.020.B & C (State the master program sections or page numbers): If a conditional use or variance, also identify the portion of the matey program which provides that the proposed use may be a conditional use, or that portion of the master program being varied. ®? r csxOREPT.DOc Development pursuant to this permit shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions: Conditions of approval listed in the decision of the Edmonds Hearing Examiner for permit SM-9748 attached hereto. This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline ManagepmentAct of 1971 and nothing in this permit shall excuse the applicant from compliant with any other federal, state or local statutes, ordinances or regulations applicable to this project, but not inconsistent with the Shoreline management Act (chapter 90.5$ RCW). This permit may be rescinded pursuant to RCW 90.68,140 (7) in the event that the permitee fails to comply with any condition hereof. CONSTRUCTION PURSUANCE TO THIS PERMIT WILL NOT BEGIN OR IS.NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF FILING AS DEFINED IN RCW 90.58.140(6) AND WAC 173-14- 090, OR UNTIL ALL REVIEW. PROCEEDINGS INITIATED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM. THE DATE OF SUCH FILING HAVE TERMINATED; EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN RCW (90.58.140)(5)(a)(b)(c). (Date) (Signature of MtfioriAed Local Govemment Official) THIS SECTION FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY IN REGARD TO A CONDITIONAL USE OR A VARIANCE PERMIT. Date received by the Department 1 CITY OF. EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • {208) 771.0220 • FAX (206) 771.0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering Letter of Transmittal tIIA MONO W^ OIIO MAY*. OW-19 qZ003 VVV.=A1 cOMMutVtTYeYRlV10M -41PA�ft. T Gnainamlng TO: � *'�c.i=¢.✓ t.,�'C�7:"'G�Q..�.....+ C7AT� TtiANSMI'1"1'EOE ��' � %J NUMBIBER CIP 1-4ACAIES. (including Cca r Pace) ReciplOnts'rSIOCapter Number:3r C> FAC -4= -61MIJ - eC;jUjpMMN-r; *'k o i. (2T3 W1%"4Y;'3j.-ujpp"jll r-R(:)M: It there are any problems during transmission or documents are received IncoT late, lease =aft fmis) 71 -0 20 and ask I or Sender'n'relecopier "umber. (2093)771-02.21 SEND NOI REMOTE STATION I.DjSTART TIME DURATION I #PAGES COMMENT 11 360 568 1930.1 6--�28-97 5:33PM,l 5'151" I 8 �II fist..ig9v CITY i OF E1JlvlONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 96020 ,• (206) 7 1.0220 • FAX (206) 771.0221 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS A DECISION OF THE REARING EXA MR CITY OF EDMOND APPLICANT: Michael George, agent for Robert Cole and .Ferri Merritt CASE NO.: LOCATION: APPLICATION: REVIEW PROCESS: SM 97-48 16006 75th Place West (see. Exhibit A, Attachment 1). Application for a Shoreline ubstantial Development. Permit to allow site grading in excess o 250 cubic yards in association with the construction of a new sin le -family residence (see Exhibit A,, Attachments 2 and 4). Shoreline Substantial Development Permit,. Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and is�ues final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance with Edmonds Commt Chapter 16.20 (RS- SINGLE-FAMILY b. Compliance with Edmonds Comm Chapter 18.40 (GRADING AND RE7 C. Compliance with Edmonds Comm Chapter 15.36 (SHORELINE MAS' Environments). d. Compliance with Edmonds Comm Chapter 15.37 (SHORELINE MA Policies). e. Compliance with Edmonds Commi Chapter 15.38 (SHORELINE MASTS f. Compliance . with Edmonds Commi Chapter 15.39 (SHORELINE MASTS g. Compliance with Edmonds Commi Chapter 20.55 (SHORELINE PERMI1 h. Compliance with Edmonds Comtnt Section 20.100.010. (HEARING EXA BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL REV Development- Code (ECDC) >IDENTIAL). y Development Code (ECDC) 4ING WALLS). y Development Code (ECDC) PROGRAM - Designation of y Development Code (ECDC) iR PROGRAM - Goals and ity Development Code (ECDC) PROGRAM- Use Activities). ity Development Code (ECDC) PROGRAM - Implementation). ity Development .Code (ECDC) ity Development Code (ECDC) MINER, PLANNING ADVISORY W). * Incorporated August 11, 189, Sister. Cities International — Hekinai ;•iz tb' W-1 .A Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM 97-48 Page 2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions PUBLIC HEARING: After, reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the application was opened at 10:28a.m., June 19, 1997, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 10:42 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing: From the City: Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor reviewed the staff report and noted that the cumulative amount of grading to be done will be approximately 1,700 cubic yards. From the Applicant: Michael George, Architect for the Applicant concurred with the conditions of approval recommended by staff. He clarified the amount of cut and fill which would occur and said the amounts would be approximately those identified in the Environmental Checklist. He said he expects there to be approximately 600 yards of fill and 1,500 yards" . of cut. From the Community: No one from the general public spoke at the public hearing. H. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development and Zoning: a. Facts.• (1) Size: The subject property is approximately 21,496 square feet in area (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3). (2) Land Use: The subject property is currently undeveloped (see, Exhibit A, Attachment 3). (3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned RS-12 (single family, residential, minimum 12,000 square foot lot size required) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1): C .w 9 .,fit f•' [ P y C! r �. 1 1 r 1 .- r S a` 2 4 ay rt� K ti t 1 IS r fti i '•v: 6 sHearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM 97-48 Page 3 } {4) Terrain and Ve etation: The subject property from z 4: the east to the west, with the area of the greatest slope located downward closest .cc k to the west property line. The average slope on the site exceeds 25% „' with a total elevation change of 41.13-feet from e east property line to the west property line. Vegetation consists of �1 native grasses. several trees and ua U) wE ,. W t" 2: Neighboring Development and Zoning: o a. Facts (1) The adjacent property to the north, south and west are currently cn o zoned RS-12, while the area to the east is zoned RS-20 (see Exhibit z A, Attachment 1). S (2) The adjacent properties to the east are currently developed with Ui U W( J. sub detached single-family residences. The area to the west 0 of the subject Property is developed with the Burlington Northern -Santa Fe tea, Railroad right-of-wa o — ca � currently undeveloped, y. The remaining adjacent properties are LU � B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT SEP — ( A) 1 a. Facts: or� (1) A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued by the Responsible Z Official on May 6, 1997- The Environmental Checklist and Determination are included as Exhibit A, Attachments 5 and 6. (2) No appeals of the Environmental Determination were submitted within the applicable appeal period: b• Conc_ 1____ usian: The applicant and the City have satisfied the requirements of SEPA. ' C. HISTORY O 1 a. Fact: The applicant has received approval of a variance, pursuant to. C ty Of Edmonds File No. V-97-2, to allow an increase in the maximum Permitted height for the proposed single-family residence to be constructed on the subject property (see Exhibit A, Attachment 7). D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIA L a. Fact: The fundamental site development standards Pertaining to a s nglEe- family residential dwelling unit in an RS-20 zone are set forth in ECDC Chapter 16.20. b. Concfusion: The proposal complies with the lot and dimension regulations for the RS-20 zone as set- forth in rECDC Chapter 16.20, or as modified pursuant to City of Edmonds File No. V-97-2. " :� :;:8 .. .:: .. � '..,-' G ,.i+1-. Wit+: ,e .... ?. ✓, . _;.;��{ h.... � ..ridt.. �t.�t:.: r 4�4`,,,�r�a�e�a. �'4tr,;¢.Sri"�r��'1'�'�x�M��'�"?�c,'x�asenn«„�...,._.__ Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM 97-48 Page 4 2. a. Facts (1) The subject property is subject to .review under ECDC Chapter 20.15.13 (Interim Critical Areas) as part of the application process. (2) The applicant had submitted a Critical Areas Checklists, and the City. has issued a determination that a "Study" was required, under CA File No. 96-221 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 8). 3. a. Fact: ECDC Section 20.55.030 sets forth the procedural standards for review of all Shoreline Substantial Development Permit applications. Specifically, it provides that in addition to the procedures and criteria set forth in ECDC 20.100.010, review of all Shoreline Permit applications shall also use the criteria and standards established in the City's Shoreline Master Program (ECDC Chapter 15.35). 4. a. Fact: ECDC Section 20.106.010 stipulates the procedures to be used by the Hearing Examiner in the review of all Shoreline Permit applications. 5. a. Fact: Pursuant to ECDC Section 20.55.060, "No construction' authorization by an approved shoreline permit may begin until 30 days after the final City decision on the proposal." This restriction shall be stated on the permit. E. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP) 1. a. Fact: The subject property is designated as an "Urban - Residential" shoreline environment on the City's adopted Shoreline Environment Map, pursuant to ECDC Section 15.36.020.D. b. Conclusion: The proposed grading for the development of a detached single-family residence is consistent with the "Urban - Residential" Shoreline Environment designation of the property. 2. a. Fact: ECDC Chapter 15.37 sets forth the "Goals and Policies" by which all Shoreline Substantial Development Permits are to be reviewed. b. Conclusion: The proposed grading for the development of a detached single-family residence is consistent with the applicable "Goals and Policies" as set forth in the City's Shoreline Master Program. Additionally, the proposed grading activity is not specifically inconsistent with any specific goal or policy of said chapter. 3. a. Facts: ECDC Section 15.38 sets forth the "Goals and Policiesby which all Shoreline Substantial Development Permits are to be reviewed. b. Conclusion: The proposed grading for the development of a 'detached single-family residence is consistent with the applicable "Goals and Policies" as set forth in the City's Shoreline Master; Program. Additionally, the proposed grading activity is not specifically inconsistent with any specific goal or policy of said chapter. K G. 4. a. l 1. a. 1 1. a. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM 97-48 Page 5 :t: Sections 15.39.030.A and .B state the permit process requirements the review of all Shoreline Substantial Development permit COMMITTEE (1) The Engineering Division has submitted comments related to the subject application, these comments are, provided as Exhibit A, Attachment 9. {) The Public Works Division commented with respect to an easement over an existing sanitary sewer line on the subject property which is required to maintain the line (see Exhibit A, Attachment 10). {) Even though specific comments were not provided by all Departments or Divisions within the City, it is still the applicants responsibility to comply with applicable City development cregulations at the time of any building permit submittal. onclusion: The applicant should comply with all requirements placed on the proposed development by other Departments/Divisions of the City. nENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) Fact: The proposed application is not inconsistent with any specific goal or, policy contained within the City's adopted Comprehensive Land Use DECISION Based upon the foregoi Development Permit is I. This application Community De compliance witl specific conditic 2. All excavations (U.B.C.), 19941 3. The applicant A all conditions of 4. The applicant sF Engineer prior tc 5. The applicant sh removal of any e findings and conclusions, the request for a Shoreline Substantial proved, subject to the following conditions: is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds elopment Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure the various provisions contained in these ordinances, in addition to the is listed below. nd grading shall comply with Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code iition. 11 obtain a grading permit from the Building Division and comply with aid permit approval. al submit an erosion control planfor review and approval by the City the issuance of a grading permit. 11 submit a truck route plan to the City Engineer for approval prior to cavated material, or import of any material. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM 97-48 Page 6 6. The applicant shall be responsible for keeping all streets clean and free of debris at all times. 7. All grading/fill work shall be done during normal working hours of the City of Edmonds (8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Fridays). 8. The applicant shall be responsible for providing verification of the total amount of material to be removed or deposited on the subject property, prior to finalizing the grading permit application. A soils engineer shall monitor the grading/filling on the subject property. Verification shall be by letter from a licensed soils engineer stating that he/she inspected the site and the grading/filling conforms to Chapter 33 of the U.B.C., 1994 Edition. 9. If deemed necessary by the City Engineer, the applicant shall provide traffic control during the removal of site excavation material, and/or the placement of fill material. 10. The applicant shall have the site plan approved by the City Engineer prior to any site work. 11. No construction authorization by an approved shoreline permit may begin until 30 days after the final City decision on the proposal 12. This permit shall not be transferable. Entered this 24th day of June, 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. a_0'�Lc�'�,e,d^ Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner .RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ® Section 20.100.010.E allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date. of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony, or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.105.020.A & .B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office. EXHIBIT: The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report PARTIES of RECORD: Robert Cole and Jerri Merritt 16006 75`h Place West Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds Planning Division Edmonds Public Works Division Edmonds Engineering Division Edmonds Parks & Recreation Division Edmonds Fire Department Michael George 10241St Street, Suite 307 Snohomish, WA 98290 M AKINU hAAMINEK FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEADING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: Michael George, agent for Robert Cole and .ietri Merritt CASE NO.: SM 97-48 LOCATION: 16006 75th Place West (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). APPLICATION: Application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to allow. site grading in excess of 250 cubic yards in association with the construction of a new single-family residence (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 and 4). REVIEW PROCESS: Shoreline Substantial. Development Permit, Hearing Examiner conducts ublic hearin and issues f al d c' ' p g m e ision. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance with . Edmonds Community. Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.20 (RS- SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Cade (ECDC) Chapter 18.40 (GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS). C. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code, (ECDC) Chapter 15.36 (SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM - Designation of Environments). d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 15.37 (SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM - Goals .and Policies). e.. Compliance with Edmonds Community. Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 15.38 (SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM - Use Activities).. f. Compliance' with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 15.39 (SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM - Implementation). g. Compliance with Edmonds Community. Development Code (ECDC)' Chapter 20.55 (SHORELINE PERMITS).. h. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code:. (ECDC) Section 20.100.010 (HEARING, EXAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW). * Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International Hekinan, Japan n'`:Yitrl i { ratida R i ,tfr x SS kV t 1 7 tY Y i Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM 97-48 Page 2 SUMMARY, OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISIONS Q Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions UJ cc Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions c.a -J,o1 PUBLIC HEARING: ,`J I-- After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and LU after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The g hearing on the application was opened at 10:28. a.m., June 19, 1997, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds ;Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 10:42 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the . air z hearing is available in the PlanningDivision. rI HEARING COMMENTS: M: era The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing U La a- From the City: LU Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor reviewed the staff report and noted that the cumulative amount of grading to be done will be approximately 1,700 cubic yards. z�- "' u'i ,., From the Applicant: o N' Michael George, Architect for the Applicant concurred with the conditions of approval z I recommended by staff. He clarified the amount of cut and fill which would occur and said the amounts would be approximately those identified in the Environmental Checklist. He said he expects thereto be approximately 600 yards of fill and 1,500 yards of cut. From the Community: -- No one from the general public spoke at the public hearing. r IL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ,© A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development and Zoning: a. Facts (1) Size: The subject property is approximately 21,496 square feet in >. ®` area (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3).` r (2) Land Use: The subject property is currently. undeveloped (see. ; Exhibit A, Attachment 3), (3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned RS-12 (single familyt h, residential, minimum 12,000 square foot lot size :required} (see1 Exhibit A, Attachment 1).� 3 t4 s 4 r g 1 'L �tiqS'�`.�.i3�ttn5..iiBtiEid4aax.uv.l"...... 'wkmrehv,..a..raw.u,�ova,e..w:a�,w+w,.+w.....:_.,..-.:-. w.avrwm:anu.i�ri.•....vaw Fearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM 97-48 Page 3 (4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property slopes downward from the east to the west, with the area of the greatest slope Iocated closest to the west property line. The average slope on the site exceeds 25% with a total elevation change of 41.13-feet from the east property line to the west property line. Vegetation consists of several trees and native grasses. 2. Neighboring Development and Zoning: a. Facts: (1) The adjacent property to the north, south and west are currently zoned RS-12, while the area to the east is zoned RS-20 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). (2) The adjacent properties to the east are currently developed with detached single-family residences. The area to the west of the subject property is developed with the Burlington Northern -Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. The remaining adjacent properties are currently undeveloped. B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) 1. a. Facts: (1) A Determination of Nonsignifieance was issued by the Responsible Official on May 6, 199T The Environmental Checklist and Determination are included as Exhibit A, Attachments 5 and 6. (2) No appeals of the Environmental Determination were submitted within the applicable appeal period. b. Conclusion: The applicant and the City have satisfied the requirements of SEPA. C. HISTORY 1. a. Fact: The applicant has received approval of a variance, pursuant to City of Edmonds File No. V-97-2, to allow an increase in the maximum' permitted height for the proposed single-family residence to be constructed on the subject property (see Exhibit A, Attachment 7). D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. a. Fact: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to a single= family residential dwelling unit in an RS-20 zone are set forth in ECDC Chapter 16.20. b. Conclusion: The proposal complies with the lot and .dimension regulations for the RS-20 zone as set forth in ECDC Chapter' 16.20, or as modified pursuant to City of Edmonds File No. V-97 2 , �. 1 iz n?r?j ' � ., Py f 4.5 x �..`fir _ •.,t �.f t i z.Rfl , iS it <r -� D7 � 1 f t � _..., .....L.,4.....,,,._..�..�s�.4''svx•....:a:'.w,�}.x+:i:t'J.u1�C7 vua.•. e.•rw.,�r.�.��m�zrzwwewwt+mwmwxrcsrt+sw�i.�aa�an-+�<.ivrxawvnan:a.wmw».n..e........�_. '.:.�,�+..�...•.......-»'«..»...,...•.»..„,_-. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM 97-48 P 4 age. 2. a. Facts. (1) The subject property is subject' to ,review under ECDC Chapter 20.15.13 (Interim Critical Areas) as part of the application process. (2) The applicant had submitted a Critical Areas Checklists, and the City has issued a determination that a "Study" was required, under CA File No. 96-221 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 8). 3. a. Fact: ECDC Section 20.55.030 sets forth the procedural standards for review of all Shoreline Substantial Development Permit applications. Specifically, it provides that in addition to the procedures and criteria set forth in ECDC 20.100.010, review of all Shoreline Permit applications shall also use the criteria and standards established in the City's Shoreline Master Program (ECDC Chapter 15.35). 4. a. Fact: ECDC Section 20.100.010 stipulates the procedures to be used by the Hearing Examiner in the review of all Shoreline Permit applications. 5. a. Fact: Pursuant to ECDC Section 20.55.060, "No construction authorization by an approved shoreline permit may begin until 30 days after the final City decision on the proposal." This restriction shall be stated on the permit. E. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP) 1. a. Fact: The subject property is designated as . an "Urban - Residential". shoreline environment on the City's adopted Shoreline Environment Map, pursuant to ECDC Section 15.36.020.D. b. Conclusion: The proposed grading for the development of a detached single-family residence is consistent with the "Urban - Residential" Shoreline Environment designation of the property. 2. a. Fact: ECDC Chapter 15.37 sets forth the "Goals and Policies" by which all Shoreline Substantial Development Permits are to be reviewed. b. Conclusion: The proposed grading for the development of a detached single-family residence is consistent with the applicable "Goals and Policies" as set forth in the City's Shoreline Master Program. Additionally, the proposed grading activity is not specifically inconsistent with any specific goal or policy of said chapter. 3. a. Facts: ECDC Section 15.38 sets forth the "Goals and Policies" by which all Shoreline Substantial Development Permits are to be reviewed. b. Conclusion: The proposed grading for the development of a detached h ' single-family residence is consistent with the applicable "Goals and,f Policies" as set forth in the City's Shoreline Master Program. ry;Y Additionally, the proposed grading activity is not specifically inconsistent < with any specific goal or policy of said chapter.; z4 j �; F ..:::;.. t«.n 1a, .'h.x1 Yrn�>Liti`[f.v�'.rt i�h,..'pl<:ih�i-i'.i•iY6YrIr/n»+an.saa..m.m+reawmEtal23_wu4twlcyRw..wsvv.nxrn•nwvcw+nueva+rrMrNa.n»rei.uew,w'r+.atr........_..]..._......:.y_.ar........u.. m..�....v...i..e»............, r:... ii .. ' j Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. SM 97-48 • Page 5 I 4. a. Fact: Sections 15.39.030.A and .B state the permit process requirements for the review of all Shoreline Substantial Development permit z �. ¢ applications. UJI �! IF. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ty + o ! 1. a. Facts cn w, X, (1) The Engineering Division has submitted comments related to the w j subject application, these comments are provided as Exhibit A, LU o{ Attachment 9. (2) The Public Works Division commented with respect to an easement LL over an existing sanitary sewer line on the subject property which is zrequired to maintain the line (see Exhibit A, Attachment 10). zEms..; (3) Even though specific comments were not provided by all o Departments or Divisions within the City, it is still the applicants LU UJ! responsibility to comply with applicable City development o;. regulations at the time of any building permit submittal. � us 0 L b. Conclusion: The applicant should comply with all requirements placed on � w w the proposed development by other Departments/Divisions of the City. z G. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) v town)` 1. a. Fact: The proposed application is not inconsistent with any specific goal or policy contained within the City's adopted Comprehensive Land Use z Plan. DECISION i i Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1.1 This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure © j compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances, in addition to the specific conditions listed below. 2.1 All excavations and grading shall comply with Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (U.B.C.), 1994 Edition. 3. The applicant shall obtain a grading permit from the Building Division and comply with Iq all conditions of said permit approval. 4.1 The applicant shall submit an erosion control plan for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading permit. "s z 5.1 The applicant shall submit a truck route plan to the City Engineer for approval to prior removal of any excavated material, or import of any material. .a f� f: i ®.17prk is J��Y� yF,` 44 LL 0 F:A 6. The. applicant shall be responsible for keeping all streets clean and free of debris at all times. 7. All grading/fill work shall be done during normal working hours of the City of Edmonds (8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Fridays). 8. The applicant shall be responsible for providing verification of the total amount of material to be removed or deposited on the subject property, prior to finalizing the grading permit application. A soils engineer shall monitor the grading/filling on the subject property. Verification shall be by letter from a licensed soils engineer stating that he/she inspected the site and the grading/filling conforms to Chapter 33 of the U.B.C., 1994 Edition. 9. If deemed necessary by the City Engineer, the applicant shall provide traffic control during the removal of site excavation material, and/or the placement of fill material. 10. The applicant shall have the site plan approved by the City Engineer prior to any site work. 11. No construction authorization by an approved shoreline permit may begin until 30 days after the final City decision on the proposal. 12. This permit shall not be transferable. Entered this 24th day of June, 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Zan vx-- "r Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or I appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Section 20. 100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider big. decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony, or by any person holding anowhership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or xecommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the ,findings' ' and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. J 2� kt Y ....___._......i,..,;..x.,L.i.y4,.kw:...o,a+.,t,'`.SIA6eh,w-1�.Y<:;;a;...,.....,.._.. .........,r,n..,��..-,> w..,,..:....,..Wr,.........._ .. ____.�,:.lx.,....,c�....«,..,.r<,...w...r...,.r� ...<.>...n.. Hearing Exami�er Decision Case Nip. SM 97-48 Page 7 B. APPEALS Section 20.105.020.A & .B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examine decision or y recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writin , and shall I include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest L) o, in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The Cn w : appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) � �s.. i working days after the date of the decision being appealed. cn U. 0 LAPSE OF APPROVAL J U. Section 20.105.020.A & .B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner U decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the ZZ I- decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the io name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the (matter, and ui ui; reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must }le filed with a a the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after thel date of the o decision being appealed. o� F-j NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR W N; The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County) Assessor's .� Office. z EXHIBIT: The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report PARTIES of RECORD: O Robert Cole and Jerri Merritt Michael George 16006 75th Place West 10241st Street, Suite 307 Edmonds, WA 98020 Snohomish, WA 98290 Edmonds Planning Division Edmonds Public Works Division ® Edmonds Engineering Division = ', Edmonds Parks & Recreation Division Edmonds Fire Department�J Y " p 3r r rryanxaxiw ; �;. E .rA .... .. ,.., '; ,. .' C .. .. .... ... ... ..5• 6.. -f ..@I,itC � i 7 � , vq'A�� dcs� y +' P } ^ Y DUNE '19 1997 PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY Y0M.NA►IVIE, ADDRESS AND Zf P CODE BELOW IP YOU WISH.TO SOPEA►K ON THIS ITEM : • - - ------------- -- - --_- ------ - - - -- ----------- SM-97 49 MICHAEL GEORGE W �o w �r g a�' v m' p t= . s Uj yuj Lu ;a 0 `j co N 59 lia M FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO: RON WCONNELL, BEARING EXAMMR FROM: r, HEARING DATE, TIME, AM PLACE: JUNE 19,1997 AT 9:00 AM Plaza Room - Edmonds Library 650 Main Street n TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Application................................................................................................................................... 2 Recommendation........................................................................................... ....I..... ..... ............. 1..L ....... 2 SiteDescription ......................................................................................................... I .............. 3 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) .................. ...................................................................... 4 History................................................................ . ............... 4 Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) ........................................... 4 ............ ShorelineMaster Program ............................................................................................................. 5 TechnicalCommittee ...................................................................................... I ............................ 5 ComprehensivePlan (ECDC) ........................................................................................................ 6- Requestfor Reconsideration ............................................................................................ o ............. 6 Appeals...................................................................................... I ........... ............................ L 61 Lapseof Approval .......................................................................................... .............................. 6 Notice to County Assessor ......................................... 6, ................... I ................................................ Appendices ............................. -7 ................................................................. o ........... I ......................... Parties of Record .................................................. .................................. I ................... a ...... EXHIBIT FILE 0 0 �101 1A 1. Applicant: Michael George, agent for Robert Cole and Jorri Moffitt (see Attachment 2). 2. Site Location: 16006 75th Place West (see Attachment 1). 3. R%luest Application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to allow site grading in excess of 250 cubic yards in association with the construction of a new single-family residence (see Attachments 2 and 4). 4. Review Process: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Hearing Examiner conducts public heating and issues final decision. 5. Major Issues: j a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.20,(RS- SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 18.40 (GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS). C. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 15.36 (SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM - Designation of Environments). d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 15.37 (SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM - Goals and Policies). e. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 15.38 (SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM - Use Activities). f Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 15.39 (SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM - Implementation). g. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.55 (SHORELINE PERMITS). h. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20. 100.010 (HEARING EXAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CrIY COUNCIL REVIEW). B. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on Statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, we recommend approval of the applicant's request subject to the following conditions: 1. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances, in addition to the specific conditions listed below. 2. All excavations and grading shall comply with Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (U.B.C.), 1994 Edition. 3. The applicant shall obtain a grading permit from the Building Division and comply with. all conditions of said permit approval. RMitTSI.Sr 101 t 0 M II. (2) (3) (4) t . ......,. ..4.., ,..n.Fa ar. ., ...;.u.,u.. ,.ru.da.e.ewe,..,.......W..........wx:xz.s..vs-_:ti";Z4-r-s.d.{E.2.Y1,`..f,., ' � � CO�CiMIQ!'Iii��i0QTg0 Fdde No. SM 9749 Ps®e 3 of7 4. The aprplicaei# shall submit an erosion control plan for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading permit. • 5. The applicant shall submit a truck route plan to the City Engineer for, approval prior to . I removal of any excavated material, or import of any material. 6. The applicant shall be responsible for. keeping all streets clean and free of debris at all . times. 7. All grading/fill work shall be done during normal working hours of the City of Edmonds (8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Fridays). 8. The applicant shall be responsible for providing verification of. the total amount of material to be removed or deposited on the subject property, prior to finalizing the grading permit application. A soils: engineer shall monitor the grading/filling on the subject property. Verification shall be by, letter from a licensed: soils engineer stating that he/she inspected the site and the grading/filling conforms to Chapter 33 of the U.B.C.,1994 Edition. 9. If deemed necessary by the City Engineer, the applicant shall provide traffic control during the removal of site excavation material, and/or the placement of fill material. 10. The applicant shall have the site plan approved by the City Engineer prior to any site work. 11. No construction authorization by an approved shoreline permit may begin until 30 days e after the final City decision on the proposal: 12: This permit shall not be transferable. Ir a. Facts: (1) The adjacent property to the north, south and west are currently zoned RS- 12, while the area to the east is zoned RS-20 (see Attachment 1). (2) The adjacent properties to the cast are currently developed with detached single-family residences. The area to the west of the subject property is developed with the Burlington Northern -Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. The remaining adjacent properties are currently undeveloped. B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) 1. a. Facts: (1) A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued by the Responsible Official on May 6, 1997. The Environmental Checklist and Determination are included as Attachments 5 and 6. (2) No appeals of the Environmental Determination were submitted within the applicable appeal period. b. Conclusion: The applicant and the City have satisfied the requirements of SEPA. C. HISTORY 1. a. Fact: The applicant has received approval of a variance, pursuant to City of Edmonds File No. V-97-2, to allow an increase in the maximum.pernutted height for the proposed single-family residence to be constructed on the subject property (see Attachment'). D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. a. Fact: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to a single-family residential dwelling unit in an RS-20 zone are set forth in ECDC Chapter 16.20. b. Conclusion: The proposal complies with the lot and dimension regulations for t$e RS-20 zone as set forth in ECDC Chapter 16.20, or as modified pursuant to City of Edmonds File No. V 97-2. 2. 3. a. Facts: (1) The subject property is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.15:11 (interim Critical Areas) as part of the application process. (2) The applicant had submitted a Critical Areas Checklists, and the City has issued a determination that a "Study" was required, under CA File No. 96- 221(see Attachment 8). a. Fact: ECDC Section 20.55.030 sets forth the procedural standards for review of 0 r Me Na SMA74B — Pap S of? 4. a. Fact: ECDC Section 20.100.010 stipulates the procedures to be used by the Bearing Exammer in the review of all Shoreline Permit applications. I 5. a. Fact: Pursuant to ECDC Section 20.55.060, ' No construction authorization by f an approved shoreline permit may begin until 30 days after the final City decision on the proposal." This restriction shall be stated on the permit. L. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP) 1. a. Fact: The subject property is designated as an 'Urban- Residential" shoreline environment on the City's adopted Shoreline Environment Map, pursuant to ECDC Section 15.36.020.D. b. Conclusion: The proposed grading for the development of a detached single. family residence is consistent with the "Urban - Residentid' Shoreline Environment designation of the property. 2. a. Fact:, ECDC Chapter '15.37 sets forth the "GaAs and Policies" by which all Shoreline Substantial Development Permits are to be reviewed. b. Conclusion: The proposed grading . for the development of a detached single- family residence is consistent with the applicable "Goals and Policies" as set forth in the City's Shoreline Master Program. Additionally, the proposed grading . activity is not specifically inconsistent with any specific goal or policy of said chapter. - t 3. a. Facts: ECDC Section 15.38 sets forth the "Goals and Policies" by which all Shoreline Substantial Development Permits are to be reviewed. b. Conclusion: The proposed grading for the development of a detached single- f anily residence is consistent with the applicable "Goals and Policies" as set forth in the City's Shoreline Master Program. Additionally, the proposed grading activity is not specifically inconsistent with any specific goal or policy of said chapter. 4. a. Fact: Sections 15.39.030.A and :B state the permit process requirements for the, review of all Shoreline Substantial Development,permit applications. F. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE �n® ® �i:', P E WeMLSM-9749 Pap 6 of7l G. 'COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC), • 1. i .,a. Eigr The proposed application is not inconsistent with any _VOCIfiC goal or policy, contained within the City's adopted Compreliensive Land Use Plan. In., RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the dcadlines and prooedurcs for filing reconsWrations and Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or, appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing 'Examiner to reconsider. his, decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial docision.by any person Who attends the public hearing and sips the attendance register and/or promts Ustimony, or by any person holding an, ownership interest in a'tmct of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation., The reconsideration request must. Cite SPCCifiC WfCreucCSto the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances govenung the typc of application being reviewed. B. "PEALS Soction 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a, Heating Examincr decision.or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be madc, in writing, and'" include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the, date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the maItcr, and reasons why the appellant believe:s the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10)'working days after the date of the -decision being appealed. M LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.105.020.A & B 'describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner_ decision or recommmdation shall be made. The appeal shall. ble made In writing, and shall indude the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and thedate of thedecision, *e: name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal Must be filed With the CommunityDMIopment Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. V. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision -rendered by the Hicaring ExamWr request a. change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessoes Office. RM1qR7"TA]W 0 0 �1. z LU 0 0 LU U- di u 8 z m Vicinity and Zoning Map ATTACHMENT 1 File No. SM-97-48 ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ❑ COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION 0 SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CJ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT / STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ,'SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER Ea 0' 0 0 i FILE # 6M ZONE DATE 41-2- S7 REC'D BY FEeRECEIPT# 2-Z67 -7 HEARING DATE i Ctit• SHE 13 STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADS ❑ CC ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED -%0-slus-1331 , iJk- 1$?AD Property Address or Location ILQ01p ZS44,% tt . W • Wtof'A ., Ac Property Owner l ie4 one 2&a - 7 tZ Address � fv%?tb -?C M, W . L44yayoa We& q7)03-1 Agent Phone Address Tax Ace # 1 - ODL - WOtP Sec. Twp. _ Rng. Legal Description .Sec A.&.c Details of Use The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the applIcation agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attomey's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleadind, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/'Its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for. public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and postf g nd t to this apt' - SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/OWNER/ AGENT ATTACHMENT 2File No. SM-97-48 `L . !, o 9 0 Ni MEMpWD� ' NI r , r 1 fNB � F.v i ii � Yr r '� , `\ / ` / y �(, , ri , � � � � s•iF�+ i 1/li r ! �� ' �/ � �,` i . � _ �" rvG��;� /� ' � I' I S l �(� �'?"o rs� ZT2. PtAff. /1_n. ..1 so--- '\y.yyv rr / 0 �'S „ r r1r/ r6re r l ✓ 1 It�saiw.i lE e.,z6atgJ iw rtY EMENf .. - GRY BKCI'QNT ' _ qp_—_ eP Nw,aC elf 4frt4L N.iCf.. �aO i a 5P111'19.�( R M - � 1 � 9u si'- ,^+•l 2w'SeAM��mf F.unuvureR Gou W14m p m—I,- +cw'oG �u'eC eCbM � � � mm ®® �snl+u sort« 'I S = STaR't DRJViii .7 sflNb - vaN r<rw�vN -n D SEL'f'IOi.) C PROPasED 6P.a•� CE7 t1ERfQR' RD�Eyi�E. CD t`sZei C1.miclNb 4bR[H) .-1'�q7 '. c n Reeewea ca i APRgR 69! .ra � OD A i CITE'' OF EDMONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST larpose of Checklist: lie State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires atl.governmental agencies to consider the nvironmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all troposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide aformation to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it an be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. instructions for Applicants. , his environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this becklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer he questions briefly, with the most precise information kpown, or give the best description you can. (ou must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the bast of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to rower the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hive experts. If you really do not know the utswer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal. write 'do not know" or does not apply". complete answers to the luestions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. iome questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions f you can. If you have problems. the governmental agencies can assist you. the checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels if land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which iou submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining f there may be significant adverse impact. Yse of checklist for nonproject proposals: :omplete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though question-, may be answered "does not apply.", IN ADDITION, Amplete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project." "applicant." and "property or site' should be read as 'proposer." and "affected geographic area." respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed prgJect, if applicable: l../,r,_j 1it? riDt 2. Name of applicant: 3. Addrt-s and phone number of applicant and contste person: it r ,A -7n4 1�. W. �. mwa .ta- a�"7[ 2dw Ila% t ` �� . ATTACHMENT 5 4. Dnte checklist prepared: �1Z `t-1 o Page 1 of 23 File N. SM-97-48 S. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 5:" (STAFF COA41t4ENTSy 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain, KO (STAFF COMMENTS) S. List any environmental inforination you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. (STAFF CONIMCNTS) 9. Do you know whether appticatioms are pending for governmental approvals or other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Y1.D (STAFF COMAICNTS) 10. List any ITverninent approvals or permits that will he needed for your proposal, if known. -CL. _ t i V fA .e. h J t to i �-=-M.�w�. /,t.L -rP V J 1„ 11tA.8 c rrrKLrnaass�.MAsreR . APR Il. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and size of the pri jest aitd site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects O&W do not need to repeat those answers on this page. 4 � %% (STAFF COMMENTS)___ 12. Location of the proposal., Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and singe, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range or area, provide range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, ifreasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this'cheekl"est.. (STAFF COMAIEWS) 'O BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS L Earth ,, General description or the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly steep slopes mountainous, other: a. N a7-D .' "� >•( �Sa :• t �/ f js s5vl 4 } .fir � �t rJ 7� t r 1pgl� tt. r+' t{ci a to "` p1,✓' '� y �� f' a4 ? - -. uw�manrawnnomfntidmwtauivnn.+r.Ji•••,•• .�—_.... `....�..._.ria_��7 �... .�.._.. ...............�....... ..._.....�._. 01 (STAFF COAIN ENTS) LU N 0 1 d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. """04 7.�si r /x "000 1 C.41�y�GscilGn t-+� ./•J ?.Q,,r /L�o ;� .s»�v r. �+ � � �.,L.c'. ,o//�..t � rsf� t7 r .4 � ill G, �/ / i �'I • {STAFF COMMENTS) z I.--r p e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source w w' of fill. 1 LU t ADO GU S -�.- xLu— LA: z! {srAFr COMMENTS) w ash �N f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing;, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. P r' _ (STAFF COMMENTS) g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction,(for t 0 example, asphalt or.buildin s)? u o,; umi u+' LU cn LU C U. L" WI c� 0- nL SU Z! U tA� z � i b. C. Cif?' Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to — 7� szu- vg=A06 Ito c—z-O'je c „i.,.e . 2. AIR i (STAFF COi AWI TS) a.' What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, Automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate q into ies if known. � S ir} Vt'�1 tfj (STAFF COMMENTS) Are there any off -site sources of emissions fir odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed measures to reduce fir control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: �I>7V1�E'i (STAFF COMMENTS) 3. WATER a. Surf ace: (I) Is there any surface wuter body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and sc.L.aonal stre;ums, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? if yes, describe type and provide names. if appropriate, st: a ~~fiat stream fir river it flows into. oft 5� 'ka�cr '7 1hi , dL5 V" t-st.Z , 5 y t 7.w (STAFF COMMENTS) i rs i MA ig (2). Wily the project require any wark over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach availablM s "+� �-' F�1ot . (3) (4) (5) (6) (STAFF COMMENTS) Estimate the amount of fail and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate lire area of the site that would be affected. indicate the source of fill material. (STAFF COMMENTS) Will the propml require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. h.o (STAFF COMMENTS) Doe; the proposal lie within a 100 y"-ir finodplain? if sn, note location on the site plan. VLt> (STAFF COMMENTS) --- Does lire proposal involve any discharges of waste materials do surface waters? if so, describe_ the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharne. I st ^v.r r, z4Rus�a t� �3Jnxt{S�. hY: S � y�e1r! ts�7 f} r"�4 l tr rsx f I1g S �i 9} 4 aij ✓! v a -1 ;. d. Pro aced measures It reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water inwacts, if any IiGtt M1. Q5 tri z FT- UA_ 71 (STAFF CODiA19ENTS) e`3 a 0{ N tuf, d. Plants UJ U. a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: Ui deciduous tree: alder maple, pen, other: LL evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: shrubs z h i' grass I 0l pasture LU tit; crop or grain - Nvet soi(plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other. O � natter plants,: water li!y, cel m-ts milfoil other: W Cl other types of vegetation: ion: W (STAFF COMMENTS) F•- xj z b. What kind at d amount of vex„ etotion will he removed or uttered? ` . �"•, �' �'ak F 7 0' (STAFF COMMENTS) C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or never the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) ' d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetatiein on.the site, if any: a P6ye it ar22 6 z S. Animals a. Check or circle any birds and animals which have hekn observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near'the.4t birds: hawk, hernn, eagle, son hirda, other: gLi mammals: deer, hear, elk, beaver, other: fishy hays, �Imotrnu hrrrin she tsh other: �j1h (STAFF COAiN9FNTS) b. List any threatened or endangmd specie¢ known to be on or near the site. sr-. Ulf - (STAFF COMMENTS) IZ W U. w U 0 Z L.1IMM=W�2:..;A7"W ��L' �li3►a��lr*.�ir T.S �t�e�*�� i ' ;. ®.'. :'l;� '� ..........�i `�I 8» Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use or the site and adjacent properties? f v"v,r�/ Aldueuk—inu y. i W. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. -Has the site been used far agriculture? Irsn; describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) c. Describe any structures an the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will any siruetures he demolished? irsn, what': (STAFF COMMENTS) e. What is the current wining elim4fic i ion or lie site? 'L S� xp�F; b .(STAFF COMMENTS) r Pap 12 or22 r n srL, s v;h'°.ra. � rs0� ` r i a �' 3,i..�'+� ,ru�,5 t �{ < ' F x s S i 5 .. � .l 1a 5�{ g '` {_ vt � t � s Y-. ✓ r 1 >t Tt u.'".L-�«:i�L#caur+v>o:�.�:....�..i ..:...1'.t..._,.sx .�_ i.. ra F.i _,:i�' `S �; s• 7 f. What is the current con rehensjve plan designation or the site? V-uu '10'GJI t 4 a� (STAFF COMMENTS) LU. ? U. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation or the site? � � _LZtiCi3 'EZ�IG?�}71 Sd . E•.I' (STAFF COMMENTS) ep 3 w' 3 h. H:tc any, part or site been cia�rificd as sSn "environmentally semitive" areal rso; speciry. h k. Proposed measures to avoid or.reduce displacement impacts, if any: MIS= (STAFF CohlAlENTS) Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing.and projected land uses and plans, ir:inv. (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Iiousin a. Approximately how.mitny units would he provided; if any? Indicate whether High, middle; or low-income housing. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Approximately how many units, if any would he eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low. income houing. C. MWITIMxm 14&c :� (STAFF COMAlENTS} b. What views in the immediate vicinity would he altered or obstructed? (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or* ceintroi apt 1 lic itmpa t �� anyL e- rx _ S !I. 0, ®` b, (STAFF COMMENTS) Light and Glare ,What type or light or glare will the propi.iad produce? what time or day would it mainly occur? r (STAFF COMMENTS) M- C.. What existing off -site sources o light or glare may affect your proposal? { Q (STAFF COA4A4EWS) Q U 0i d. Proposed me2sures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: w (STAFF COMMENTS) _z01 hs W Lu` r 12. Recreation O N a. What &Nignated an 'nfo ral recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? C1 a t i W W u. `Qi . p (STAFF COMMENTS) 2 b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation useti? If so, d escrihe. 110 (STAFF. cohmENTS) C. Proposed metwure; to reduce or .control impstcts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS)- P42e16 01'22 o yr7 c r3r+iY 7 S 5 q E xi r, . i :t�''Jx �h 3..,qi ?yN.�y S rwT�c,t✓W'�ni 4l..F }1k i 4� Y� { �:� Sa J ,� 4 • �3 , t 6 � t J $� ? a"�) } � S"�'" ;; t- u k �y.z, r 's) yr'4 r' r 4 1 a � , p �. .. '� � ,�. : `� �!ur �." s � d� i S4 !r t _a � t. hft '+kr • '' i G� {�, s{ �, �� Uh4wYGf^mx' s: r 13. Isstoric and Cultural Preservation a. Are theme any places or ohjects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local 'presiervation misters z known to he on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Cr U o (n UJf r (STAFF COniniENTS) u) o W M h. Generally describe any landmarks br evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural LL importance known to be an or next to the site. z t— 0 (STAFF COMMENTS) - =w } C. Propertied measure; to reduce or control impacts, if any: uj o , z _ (STAFF COMMENTS) 14. Transportation > a. Identify puhlic streets and highxays serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing -street j systean. Show on site plans, if any. ca 1 I`�. •HA • d�'Id 1 L. i t /stlrlr" .-- . I11j_4e 'C% 1�., Y?�n`t uAs _ .,., �� e (STAFF COMMENTS) c. flow many parking spaces uld the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? (_ 2 e V O (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will the propix-ml require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). 4� :(STAFF COMMENTS) e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? if so, generally dL-cribe. t V'-AAVVAA (STAFF COMMENTS) r. How many vehicular trips per day would he }venerated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. �?l ` is c�nccYna-.s vs �enme =.r r =1 {F' � �;�,i •t tfvf .Y.S. -.vd �'�tb �x xv+t.�.1,�1 .�'t t �Yir 6 � �dj,,(s� .� 1}pk t ,? x g. 1Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: U i (STAFF COMMENTS) 0) LU'' UJ U)c u, IS. Public Services u. q i. is a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for mample: fire protection, police u' d [ r protection, health rrre, schoots,•other)? If so, generally dexeribe. W LU V 4. (STAFF COMMENTS) :U 17 LU u,i w b. Proposed me twurm to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, it any: Z (STAFF COMMENTS) p- 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site electricity, natural grass a-mter, refuse service, telephone, A., nit.►ry sever septic sysiesn, other: ® (STAFF COMMENTS) 0 5 i YAK."fEii t t ii t i }.�' iat77,} f.. }t5� tr ;��i�.�xi� 1, } t iry i ..a•i }7jcit� i `yt#'' , i `} t ,� i t �— ..p-ir � E i i IT 11 if 1 � \ Vicinity and Zoning Map - - - --------- •fM � x . City' Of ]Edmonds 4ti al Areas - The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person' preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of a development permit to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any Potential Critical Areas are or may be present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City MR (Critical Areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). An applicant, or histher representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. With a signed copy of this form, the applicant should also submit a vicinity map or plot plan for individual Iots of the parcel With enough detail that City staff can find and identify the subject parcel(s). In addition, the applicant shall include Other pertinent information (e.g. s,te plan, toPographY map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assist staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. i have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below). Owner I Applicant:. 10 ey� Name Street Address 4ch, wt , Wk �$�7 'State, Zip Phone q, ' j° * Date Applicant Representative. Name street Aaarm Ci ,M Phone `o ? Signature Date, C': GAF NO. .. . drritical Areas Checklist C44 -%_ze i Site Information drolo /ra etation) (soils/toPog PhY Y gY g /It ve ?fir �G�G 1. Site Address/i ocation: l ' IwQ a S' W • eo AwyA-,'a e 15.0, Fl- W. 2. Property Tax Account Number: 151.3t 0!4- 6,i 00oo _ 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square'feet):. V , 4419 s F 4. Is this site currently developed? yes; ' no. OCT 2 If yes; how is site developed? 1996 S. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. PERMIT COUN TER Fiat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling: slopes on site generally less, than 15% (a vertical rise of 10 feet over a horizontal distance of 66 feet). Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet oven• a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). 2 mi Other (please describe): 5 o ;_-6- Site contains areas of year-round standing water: ND ;Approx. Depth: LU Uj t- 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: Wo Approx. Depth: .. °zi What season(s) of the year? LU W. 8. Site is in the floodway floodplain M of a water course. Z ; 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year- round? VLO Flows are seasonal? _ (What time of year? M )- 10. Site is primarily: forested ;meadow ; shrubs ✓ ; mixed ; urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: do FoiCity Staff Use Only a %1: Yr$itC 1S Zdned? 1C c'' �.n '� i `'` scs'mapped soil iypetsj? i%}i-'attJ t�' • i-yZtaf/ Y, Zak- %U� 3x� �-Wttland inventory or C-A. map indicates wetland present on site?, � � .i/�� ...r . ; ... : Criiicoft '•tliras invcntory''or C.A imap,inilicates'Critical Area on site? ` sSite'wtthin itesi&ated'earth suiisiitorice landsliitthazard'area? - 1�-= 5 Site'desiga'aQ odtlie I3nv1ronin`ciit@1:V Sensitive.Areas DL1'I:RMiIVXTION.`... e, �.;' ; r. n : �`"r"'� m; e' >4 `'i'• '.' : =ti ` ' r. y%w, t � ."%F 4,' ✓✓K!i 4 .Y�:g;nw+w}. ','v','.'fcr, . f,,, i ' : � .,A.. . ,. 5:.: • i .. • , .. r i i. "�{"� STUDY'RSQUFI2ED :Y ° }. � : ��,s�`•: .� .�COT115fffbNAi *Ai'VCR?r, .�':Ts";^5• Wt11:VER `• :; .y... '•.y: , r ,y�>. ' ' •, • ' :,�.;,.. ' . i3,:.•:�. Rdvlewtd'byi"'' ,j, : �;,,{:�?r ,•: ; '`;.� �':w� ;:: s�,r:' ' � • annex =.:.:..ri=i�, ;,�'i ` 'Date : > j� • ,'=m' Af Project Name; Permit Number: Site Location: [16006V75th PL W , Property Tax Acct #: 5131-059-001-0006 Project Description: non -project specific A site inspection and review of the submitted survey map has revealed a slope of 40% or more with a vertical gain of 20 feet or more within the 40% slope on and adjacent to the subject property. This:slope is a Critical Area. The critical area is found near the western property line and the Burlington Norther Railroad tracks. The surveyed map indicates the top of the critical area slope is the 42 foot contour, and the bottom is the 20 foot contour line. Based on the above findings, it is determined that there is a steep slope critical area on or adjacent to the site. A Critical Areas Study prepared by a licensed land surveyor locating the critical area is normally required. In this case the surveyed map submitted at the time of application for Critical Area Review completes the required Critical Area Study with the . top of the critical area being the 42 foot contour line, and the bottom of the critical area being the 20 foot contour line. The steep slope critical area requires a 50 foot buffer, which may be reduced to 10 feet if a Licensed Geotechnical Engineer prepares a study which clearly demonstrates that that the• proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon the site, the public or any private party (ECDC 20.15B. I 10). If the property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which they feel would not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may submit their proposal to the Planning Department for review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Areas or its buffers, a conditional waiver may be issued on a project by project basis. John Bissell Name October 29. 1996 { y SWAT& aft n Am G OSCIENCES INC. Post Office Box 6966 Bellevue. WA 98008-0966 Telephone ,(206) 867-3297 Facsimile(206) 88 ]-864 r , r JUUJ: Bob Cole and Jeri A. Merritt Job Number 6095 v clo Lakeside Seawood Group October 31, 1996 7500 212th S.W., Suite 210 g�} LU Edmonds, WA 98020 w! Subject: SubjDuffer Reductio Critical Areas Checklist Letter 3 W IL Cole/Merritt Residence w SWC 75th Place west & Meadowdale Road 3 Edmonds, Washington Dear Client: z This letter. presents some of our geotechnical engineering conclusions - for the proposes€ ram-,' © Cole/Merritt Residence to be constructed on the southwest corner of 75th Place West and �- - Meadowdale Road in Edmonds, Washington. LU W Our conclusions are based on the work completed to date. We have supervised the drilling of f- two test borings on the property and reviewed laboratory tests consisting of sieve gradation © studies and moisture content tests. In addition, we have measured the standing groundwater LU table in a slotted PVC standpipe which was installed during drilling activities. ; `—` Our geotechnical engineering report saunanarizing our testing, engineering analysis and u, mi conclusions will be available neat week. in general, the site is covered with a mantle of loose sand overlying firm to stiff silty clay. We measured the groundwater table at 26 feet (:k elevation 46 feet) below existing grades. Based on our testing, analysis, and review of the mart floor/site plan which was faxed to us by the architect, it is our opinion the buffer on this property for this specific development can be safely reduced to ten feet. The proposed development keeps cuts into' the slope to a practical minimum. Our analysis indicates the structure will have to be founded on piling. If there are any questions, please contact the undersigned at (206) 827-1084. ' DODD iences Inc. j F9 : J �4 w.D.f;13� 03Ej R� e9�c�Ky��,�'�a ti ® ' '��SfrJiVAtrt� r' UPIRES Mark K. D odds, .E.; MKD/wd o s �„ n ._. .. .., __✓. ..t ,. ,r,.. ,., ..al..: .,S ...,. ,. /,+u.. ..... . ,nir .._.t ...r.a .,.+. ra,fL.:i.2xri#:w a3a'. M7'4'Sal.. _ .. t! YAiya. F��.�;1 Of E°e'o U� 4.N +t, t9n 01 CITY OF IEDIVIONDS 250 STH AVWAM NORTH, MMOMS, WA 98020 (42S) 7n om RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: The proposed project to allow site grading (approximately 600 cubic yards of fill and 1,500 cubic yards of excavation) for the construction of a new two story single-family residence with a daylight basement and an attached three -car garage, totaling approximately 3,900 square feet in area. (City of Edmonds File No. SM-97-48) ]Proponent: Robert Cole & Jeri Merritt, 16628 70th Place West, Lynnwood, WA 99307 and Michael George, A,I,A., 1024 1st Street, Suite 307, Snohomish, WA 98290 Location of proposal, including street address if any: 16006 75th Place West. The subject property a vacant lot located directly southwest of the intersection of North Meadowdale Road and 75th Place West. ]Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it •does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by May 21,1997. Responsible Official: Jeff S. Wilson Position/Title: Current Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Services - Planning Division Phone: 771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 Date: Mav 6_1997_ Signature-_ � e AP--Z-4 ... r XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than June 5,1997, by filing a written appeal citing the reasons. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Jefirey S. Wilson to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on May 6. 1997, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist, ATTACHMENT 6 974ID SI= Page t of2 File No. SM-97-48 Xss',.ssrw i tSF` t.r�`k41 X ub K:Ytrnf4t 1.r ; "V {M�,+, Mailed ;to the following along with the EtwirdnnienW Checklist.. Xk: n, o v Aj* amt: Bobcat Co c 4'hri Merritt t of Ecology 466 28 70th Place , P.O. Box 47761 - 504-7703 bi *W98 L, vvoo WA d, -98307 Burliv 9tan'Nordiern RAW ASeat Mchael George. 900 Bond, 024 st trai, I s swta 307 - - — Evc3rctt;WA 98201 Snohomisk WA 98290, Attachmnts.. pc File NO Notd)ookl— Psai 2 of 7 3 fr(D CITY OF EDMONDS 260 STH AVENUE NORTH • EOMONDS. WA 98020 • {208 771-0224 o MAYOR } FAX (208t 7Ti•0221 ' HEARING EXAMINER®e"� CS t. 189v _ FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS �Z41viuJI.V(S a OIe1S AND DECISION �,�, OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: CASE NO.: LOCATION: APPLICATION: REVIEW PROCESS: MAJOR ISSUES: Michael George for Robert Cole and Jeri Merritt V 97-2 16006 75th Place West (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). Variance to increase the maximum permitted building height from 25-feet above average grade level to 30-feet for the construction of a new single-family residence (see Exhibit A, Attachments 3 and 4). t. Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. a. Compliance width Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85.010 (VARIANCE). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDEiV'TIAI, - Site Development Standards). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions PUBLIC BEARING: After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the application was opened at 9:00 a.m. February 20, 1997, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:37 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. ATTACHMENT 7 e Incorporated August 11, 1840 File No. SM-97-48 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan t Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-2. Page 2 s HEARING COMMENTS: ar� The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. L Q: cy; From the City: (n Steve Bullock, Project Planner, reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of -J the request, with conditions. He also noted that: CO -o LU The entire garage is under the 25 foot height limit. u _ • The remainder of the structure is within 5 feet of the height limit. 5: zr • Special construction techniques will be used to reduce the bulk of the structure. j o S nFrom the Applicant: ' Mike George, Architect, said: 0 s u • Previously, an 8 foot height variance had been requested and the plans have been o redone so that a 5 foot height variance is now requested. LL_• The site is a difficult site to build on, but the house has been adapted to the site. F' Previously, the main floor was proposed to be at elevation 70' S" and now the z main floor is proposed to be at elevation 66' and elevation 67' 6". • The driveway slope will have between a 14% & 18% slope, but that allows the garage to be within the height limit. • The site is constrained with steep slopes, sensitive soils and a pedestrian walkway which bisects the property. . • A 7 foot to 9 foot retaining wall will be necessary to allow the house proposed. • He did not feel this variance would grant a special privilege as other 2 story homes have been granted height variances in the immediate area. • They have gone as far as they can to minimize view impact. He referred to the cross-section (included in Attachment 4 to Exhibit A) and said he did not believe there would be any significant view impact if the variance is approved. • The houses to the north and south across 75s' are higher and won't have views significantly impacted. • He couldn't see how the request could be for less height and still have a house . consistent with the neighborhood. ]Elearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-2 Page 3 + The variance process is designed to address sites that have special circumstances such as this. w Bob Cole, Applicant said: • He did not want to request a variance, but he needs to move as little soil as possible due to the nature of the soil on the property. • They tried to drop the house down as much as they can and they don't feel they will block views. Virginia Deaver, Realtor, said: • The applicant's have purchased a premier lot in the neighborhood and should be able to build the proposed home to maintain value in the neighborhood. • The City should reward good architecture such as this. Lee Appleton, Builder, said: • He has built a number of homes in the area and this will be consistent with the. other homes in the area. • All of the other homes he has built in the area are 2 story homes. s From the Community: Paul Elliott, neighbor, said: • The applicant's lot is impacted by a utility easement and a pedestrian path. + He is delighted the applicant will access the property from above rather than try to extend vehicular access along the pedestrian path below the house. • He does not want vehicles on the pedestrian path. + It appears the applicant has done everything possible to comply with the code and he recommended approval. Phyllis Wiggips, neighbor, said: + This proposal takes 5 feet of view from her house. + When the ridge poles were installed for the previous proposal which was 3 feet higher, they were very visible from her house. e earing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-2 Page 4 • This proposal won't have much less impact. • She wants to protect her property values and her view. Response from the Applicant: 4: Michael George responded to concerns and objections expressed by neighbors. He said: k • He disagrees with the contention by Phyllis Wiggins that the proposed house will { affect her view. He referred to the view analysis which showed her house to be f significantly above the proposed house. • In response to Mr. Ruggeiro's comments: 3 • A variance is an accepted process to use in the zoning ordinance. • Mr. Ruggeiro had to obtain an access easement from a vacated right of- wa�y to get access to his house from below, rather than take access from 75 Place West as the applicant is proposing. • The Anderson's view will not be impacted by this proposal. The proposed house y will not even be seen from the Anderson house. CORRESPONDENCE: Correspondence from the general public was submitted by: Phyllis Wiggins, (Exhibit B) who wrote in part: • A restriction on building heights seems reasonable to safeguard neighborhoods { from unreasonable, unorthodox or inappropriate structures. • Five feet of building height takes a great deal of Puget Sound out of my view. • This proposed house will have unrestricted views from every floor, yet they ask all their neighbors to restrict their outlooks. • If this is the only house they are willing to consider, then they need to find a different lot for it. If the lot is their priority, then they can find a way to comply with the City's restrictions on heights. Phillip Ruggiero, (Exhibit C) who wrote in part: • I am again voicing my objection to granting of any height variance for all the, same reasons outlined in my initial letter of December 15,1996. >.r n.y:..IM.!. .. L4 s.# }'a 6�.s�">m.'�,.s�.k`s-- d � .. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-2 Page 5 • The rules are very clear... twenty five (25) feet is the height limitation in this area: • This variance will impact other people's views and there is absolutely no reason for granting a height variance of this magnitude, • The buyers and/or the architect knew the limitations of the lot and the restrictions and rules before they decided to design a multiple story home on this lot. • There is no precedent for this type of height variance and we don't want to start now. Robert Anderson, (Exhibit D) who wrote in part: • All previous comments on the record regarding the matter of the 8 foot height variance, now appealed at 5 feet, are generally and specifically still valid. • We do not view the three foot change as substantive, but token - just enough to perhaps squeak by the zoning ordinance in the meaning rather than the letter of the statute. • 1 should have much preferred that the appeal reduce the requested variance to 3 feet or less. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS: A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a. Facts: 1) Size: The total size of the subject property is 21,496 square feet. 2) Land Use: The subject property is currently undeveloped, surrounding development consists of single family dwellings (see Exhibit A, Attachments 3 and 4). 3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned RS-12 (single residential family with a minimum 12,000 square foot lot size requirement) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). 4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property slopes from the east to west with the greatest slope closest to the west property line.. The average slope on the site exceeds 25% with a total elevation change of 41.13-feet from the east property line to the west property line., Vegetation consists of several trees and native grasses. i 'iicariqg Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-2 Page 6 2- Neighboring Development And Zoning: a. Facts: U3' 1) The adjacent properties to the north, south, and west and are currently U zoned as single-family (RS-12) (see Exhibit A, Attachments 1). J. �l Properties to the east are zoned RS-20. us . 2) The adjacent properties to the east are currently developed as single- J_ family homes. West of the property is the Burlington Northern (n U. Railroad tracks and all remaining adjacent properties are undeveloped. J B. HISTORY U. 1. On October 29, 1996 the applicant. applied for variance to increase the s � maximum permitted building height from 25-feet above average grade level to z a=- 33-feet for the construction of a new single-family residence (File No. V-96- Qf 130). W W � 0 2. On January 6, 1997 the Hearing Examiner denied the variance. The Hearing o Examiner noted the following in his decision (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5): o a) "It appears that special Circumstances exist on the site and the applicant ��. should be provided some relief from the height requirements of the U. p� ECDC. #, cW.i x b) "It does not appear that any special privilege will be demonstrated in p �" granting this variance in that other properties in the same zone with Z similar circumstances have qualifced for a height variance." c) "The Examiner believes that an applicant has the right to construct a building which complies with the code requirements even if it impacts views of neighboring properties. However, views should be considered and preserved to the greatest extent possible when an applicant is requesting a variance from the code. " ' d) "As proposed approval of the height variance may be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare in that other properties in the immediate �&9 vicinity (particularly houses across 75th Pl. W to the north and south) could have their views affected. " e)"The house will be supported on piles and nothing in the geotechnical engineering report specified that the house could not be safely constructed if it were depressed two or three feet more than proposed by the applicant. C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. Facts: a. The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development in a RS-12 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030. 4 r SEEiY y,,llryry �OaYfr�{r.R Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-2 Page 7 S b. Except. for the requested height variance, the, existing development conforms to all RS-12 requirements (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). 2. Conclusion: The proposal complies with the development standards for the RS-12 zone as set forth in Chapter 16.30, with the exception of the height setbacks. 3. Compliance with -requirement for a Variance ECDC Chapter 20.15B.180.A, states an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances). Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a case -by -case basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). a. Facts: 1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These criteria include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted; the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum necessary. 2) Variances may be used to modify bulk standards. They ,may not be used to modify use or procedural requirements. 3) The applicant states in his declarations that sp ecial pedal circumstances exist due to three conditions on the site a) Steep slopes which average 25% across the site; b) Sensitive soil conditions, which dictate minimizing. to the extent possible the amount of excavation'of water sensitive and slide -prone soils typical of the Meadowdale Beach area; and t c) The intrusion of the City easement of an eight foot wide walking 1 ®? path. The walking path bisects the site and reduces the buildable area available and restricts the ability of the applicant to locate the house further to the west. 4) The applicant states that two-story homes are typical for this area of Edmonds and reducing a home to one-story residence is inconsistent with other homes in the vicinity. Additionally, other residences north ®, of the site have been granted height variances (City of Edmonds files V-90-6, V-90-5, V-90-2), so he believes that approving the variance . would not be a grant of special privilege. 5) The applicant has stated that the proposal is, consistent with ,the Comprehensive Plan and zoning 9rdinance (see also section "E" of this. report for additional discussion of compliance with the Comprehensive 3 Plan). He also states that he has reduced to the extent possible the Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-2 Page 8 amount of view impact to surrounding neighbors by utilizing stick - framing techniques which allow for a lower residence than would be typically seen. 6) The applicant states that the proposal ik not detrimental in that the two homes to the cast, which likely would have the greatest potential for view impact, are elevated substantially from. the street and would not have their view affected. - The applicant also states that to a certain extent they will improve their neighbor's view by removing trees which currently block a portion of their view. 7) The applicant states that the proposal is the minimum necessary in that there are a. number of physical constraints placed on the property which are beyond the applicants control. In order to enjoy benefits similar to other properties in the vicinity, namely a two story residence, the owner is proposing a two story residence with sloped roofs, with the second story portion of the building pushed as far west as the • physical constraints permit. The applicant has previously applied for a height variance of 8-feet and was denied. Working in conjunction with his geotechnical engineer he is now requesting a variance of 5-feet. The geotechnical engineer recommends, "Excavations in the building area [should be] limited tows shallow a depth as practical."(see Exhibit A, Attachment 2, Exhibit 10). 8) Driveways may not exceed 14% slope without approval from the Engineering Division. The applicant is proposing a driveway between 14% and 18%. b. Conclusions: 1. Special Circumstances The applicants property has steep slopes, which exceed 25% in some places. Driveways may not exceed 147b slope without approval from the Engineering Division. There is an easement for a walking path on the western portion of the property. The proposed residence is in the Meadowdaie area of town which is slide prone and therefore minimal . • soil disturbance would be required for the construction of any home on the site. Therefore it appears that special circumstances exist on the site and the applicant should be provided some relief from the height requirements of the ECDC. 2. Special Privilege It does not appear that any special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that other properties in the same zone with similar circumstances have qualified for a height variance (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). 3. Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan The proposed development has minimized view encroachment .on surrounding properties by: nin.,,.,,..,�.:�::env..a�::�:;...__....._......._......,.....,.,.�,....,..,......W-..�.�,....�.�i:..,.,..,..w..,.�,. .. t,., s :i}. _., _._ t_...___. ,, Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-2 Page 9 a) Utilizing stick -framing techniques which. allow for a lower residence than would be typically seen; b) Depressing the garage below the required 25-foot height limitation, and; c) Depressing the residence portion of the structure by an additional 3-feet. Therefore, approval of the proposed height variance would allow for the continued development of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). Intrusion into the views of surrounding residences appears to have been kept to the absolute minimum necessary to construct a home consistent with other homes in the immediate vicinity. 4. Not ]Detrimental After a review of the view analysis and a visit to the site, the Examiner believes the current proposal will not be detrimental to nearby properites. The proposed development has minimized view encroachment on surrounding properties by: a) Locating the residence as far west on the property as physical constraints allow; b) Utilizing stick -framing techniques which allow for a lower residence than would be typically seen; c) Depressing the garage below the required 25-foot height limitation, and; d) depressing the residence portion of the structure by an additional 3-feet. Therefore, approval of the height variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare in that other properties in the immediate vicinity do not appear to be significantly adversely affected by the proposal. The proposal should not be detrimental to other residences in that while the home will be seen by surrounding properties the impact will be the minimum necessary to construct a single family residence. S. Minimum Required The architect has attempted to reduce'the bulk of the residence by utilizing construction methods which will reduce the size of the roof line and still allow a two story residence to be constructed. He used a sloped roof and located the residence as far west on the:property as the physical constraints allow. According to the geotechnical engineer the residence should be limited to as shallow a`depth as practical. In response to the Hearing Examiners previous comtnents and the geotechnical engineer's direction the architect: has lowered the garage below the 25-foot height limit and the main residence by 34eet. r - F� l 1 .u......... ...a.. � +uway.wan+rmuw.wr...i....aa�.._a-_�.........5��tY14RN�6S4LY6'rtSo4'Y tlM ..... '`c'+Yivaru,:�::,:..V .... '{. �'� .u.e.....,...�.:......�.... _.. ..:�►... Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-2 Page 10 Therefore, the proposal appears to be the minimum necessary for construction of a single-family residence. D. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE L Review by City Departments a. Fact: No comments were submitted by other departments. — 0 E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) 1. a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Large �. ;J `n 0, b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the z r�: existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. 2. a. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, ,Z w`.. identifies goals and policies which relate to "Residential 2 �I Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies are ? �y discussed in detail below. a L-, 1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality _ residential development which is appropriate to the diverse U- of 1 lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and of promoted. The options available to the City to influence u; the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached U _; realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic p }" consideration, in accordance with the following policies: " z . 2) Policy B.1. states, "Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. " 3) Policy B.3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures." 4) Page 31, subsection B.S.0 states, "Stable property values p , must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments. " b. Conclusion: The proposed development will minimize view encroachment on existing homes to the extent possible and the home will be constructed with architectural lines which will enable them to harmonize with the surroundings,, adding to the community identity and desirability. The proposed development is consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of .the City for the development of residential property in the City. s R Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-2 Page 11 DECISION: z i. Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a height variance is approved, i uj,, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is to allow the proposal in the location and configuration as specifically Q ' W related to the requested variance identified on the proposed site plan (see Exhibit A, w Attachment 4). Any other structures, additions or remodels would have to conform' LU F with the typical setbacks or height requirements for the zone or obtain another 0 variance. �: 2. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds U. M# Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. = W� z1--; 3. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction. 0 4. The permit should be transferable to future property owners. w ur aF Entered this 6th day of March, 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner '++ u� under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. r U. a Zt ui Cni z F-{ Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. © REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Section 20.100.010.E . allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. APPEALS Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the r` r �� } t1a y Rs�i�S a t 1g wsig Dearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 97-2 Page 12 name of the individual or .group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. W t LAPSE OF APPROVAL r w p Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is g required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, -=� U. the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an La d application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' x..� z hi NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR i op The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request 1-1 a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. 0 a- EXHEBITS: s W The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record. LL �l A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with 5 attachments _ o, z}. B. Letter from Phyllis Wiggins, dated 2/13/97 .. W —; ry C. Letter from Phillip Ruggiero, dated 2/19/97 z D. Letter from Robert Anderson, dated 2/20/97 PARTIES OF RECORD: Robert Cole/Jeri Merritt Michael George, A.I.A. 16628 7& Pl. W. 1024 First St.. Ste. 307 - Lynnwood, WA 98037 Snohomish, WA 98290 Virginia Deaver Phyllis Wiggins 6129-188 h St. SW 16012-70 Pl. W., Lynnwood, WA 98037 Lynnwood, WA 98037 Lee Atherton Philip Ruggiero 20225 20 NW 6126.140 Court NE Shoreline, WA 98177 Redmond, WA 98052 ®: Robert Anderson, M.D. Paul Elliott _ 16010 73`d Place West 16000 75`h Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026-4552 Edmonds, WA 98026 Planning Department Engineering Department i� � f. ByQ,l�a�� City of Edmon& C�ificai Areas Che' ck[ist 0 . N The Critical Areas Checklist contained on and submit it to the City. The City will o this form is to be filled out by any person' review the checklist, make a precursory site Preparing a Development Permit visit, and make a determination of the -J AppIication for the City of Edmonds prior subsequent steps necessary to complete a . d to his/her submittal of a development development permit application. permit to the City. z The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are or may be present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hail (Critical Areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). An applicant, or his/her representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, With a signed copy of this form, the applicant should also submit a vicinity map or plot plan for individual lots of the parcel With enough detail that City staff can find and identify the subject parcel(s). in addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (e.g. site Plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction With this Checklist to assist stab in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. I have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fiff out the appropriate column below). Owner / Applicant: Name Street Address RWW t A- �8t�? C , State, ZIP Phone atu Date Applicant Representative.. �• 6-1 &t Name cr7 Street Address ' '197AO Ci P Phone 1 t Sibmature A1TA�HNiEhjT 8 File No. SM-97-48 CA F1L.G NO. ifical UCA a , , t Areas Checklist -• �'� -2�1 Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation) jf rx�td �` 5 W o � � 5@u. ?541" PL W. }J. ReAt WW ?A 1. Site Address/Location: -)' t�� 2. Property Tax Account Number. 0:: can t 000�o ¢ j 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet):. 21 r "(P s Cl D LUj 4. Is this site currently developed? yes; no. m 21 d OCT 2 9 1996 if yes; how is site developed? Uj U up S. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. PERMIT CQiJN ER (nW' Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. -i Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a w o! horizontal distance of 66-feet), / ✓ Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30%' ( a vertical rise U- of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). sSteep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a ? F- horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). ' Other (please describe): W u,I �a 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: %p ; Approx. Depth: u' 7- Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: V1 C} ;Approx. Depth: z cs O! What season(s) of the year? ,~,. ui U 8. Site is in the floodway Vi1�„i floodptain M of a water course. g- Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flaws are Year - z round? N O Flows are seasonal? -- (What time of yeaf? Ao )• 10. Site is primarily: forested ;meadow ; shrubs ✓ ;mixed , urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: tlo - jw City Staff Use Oniy `� :1 rr �;:>Sifeis'Zoned? • rt� �- / %L. ` L ' ' �k:.>_ -7v� �.'•S&rn' apped soil 't s). yl t'' A C.A. map indicates wetland present an site?, 3' r' Wetland inventory or , w Gritical`Axuu inventory'or C.A." inap'indiastes•Critical Area on site? �=r �'• ��" Y$►te'wtililn'aesignatbd earth Subsidence`laiidsil& hazard'area? ^ 5 '� 5rEeytiesigaateil'on'tlie Erivironinent"a11y` Sensitive Areas Map. . • ,; ; :Uic7`�RMYI�ffiTYaN'...r�:: '�:`.;; :;�s.y,..r�:„:.� .,F,�.�>-' .. :;`•.:••;•�' .�r: "'''� .y1e'�%'ayitiF:,; st'• • .�ryti.:: R� ewtd,by'•^ SlVP/ �ra,ro�st �;`::;>:.: zir'i�� A•: :• •.CONDITYONAi �}� t� r .Y• .. ... „ •, ,yty �i•'� ry o .•t ri. „.. r a �. w c.s H= 0 z r F,. �ijt-+h�::3,� ,e�;_�,s��r��'c,4F�t��-''��'�: ',yareuJK�Sx�I kw�.tr ��n,t�r��,�r.Fa�, �_'frryi{rr}��:'�S�Fi+• ,�y��"��r� Y7,��jsrS ii �.. j t r 0477, City of Edmonds Critical Areas Fete •nano rrni n Applicant: Robert Cole e - Determination #: , CA-96-221 Project Name: Permit Number: Site Location: 16006 75th PL W � Property Tax Acct #: S131-059-001-0006 Project Description:, , non -project specific A site inspection and review of the submitted surveyy map has revealed a slope of 40% or more with a vertical gain of 20 feet or more within the 40% slope on and adjacent to the subject property. This slope is a Critical Area. The critical area is found near the western property line and the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. The surveyed map indicates the top of the critical area slope is the 42 foot contour, and the bottom is the 20 foot contour line. Based on the above findings, it is determined that there is a steep slope critical area on' or adjacent to the site. A Critical Areas Study prepared by a licensed land surveyor locating the critical area is normally required. In this case the surveyed map submitted at the time of application for Critical Area Review completes the required Critical Area Study -with the j top of the critical area being the 42 foot contour line, and the bottom of the critical area being the 20 foot contour line. The steep slope critical area requires a 50 foot buffer, which may be reduced to 10 feet if a Licensed Geotechnical Engineer prepares a study which clearly demonstrates that that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon the site, the public or any private Pay (ECDC 20.15B.110). If the property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which. they feel would not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may submit their proposal to the Planning Department for review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Areas or its buffers, a conditional waiver may be issued on a project by project basis. John Bissell -'c? - October 29, T996 Name ignature Date U 0 Z QEOSGIENCES INC. Past Office Boxd966 Bellevue, WA 98008-0966 Tttiephone (206) 867-3297 Focsimlle f20088 J-864 J Bob Cole and Jeri A, Merritt Job Number 6095 c/o Lakeside Seawood Group October 31;1996 7500 212th S.W., Suite 210 Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Suffer Reduction/Critical Areas Checklist Letter Cole/Merritt Residence SWC 75th Place West & Meadowdale Road Edmonds, Washington Bear Client: This letter presents some of our geotechnical engineering conclusions for the proposed Cole/Merritt Residence to be constructed on the southwest corner of 75th Place West and Meadowdale Road in Edmonds, Washington. Our, conclusions are based on the work completed to date. We have supervised the drilling of two test borings on the property and reviewed laboratory tests consisting of sieve gradation studies and moisture content tests. in addition, we have measured the standing groundwater table in a slotted PVC standpipe which was installed. during -drilling activities. Our geotechnical engineering report sununanzing our testing,, en�nnceting analysis and conclusions will be available next week. In general, the site is covered with a mantle of loose sand overlying firm to stiff silty clay. We measured the groundwater table at 26 feet (t elevation 46 feet) below existing grades. Based on our testing, analysis, and review of the main floor/site plan which was faxed to us by the architect, it is our opinion the buffer on this property for this specific` development can be safely reduced to ten feet. The proposed development keeps cuts into'the slope to a practical minimum. Our analysis indicates the structure will have to be founded on piling. If there are any questions, please contact the undersigned at (206) 827-1084. E. a 0 ui ti 8 z APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE: SM-97-48 AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING ROUTEQM Fire 4/4/97 Public —Works —4/4/97 Parks 8t Rec. 4/4/97 Staff Comments: 'mz a;eeadLea4' APR 41997 RETURNED ENGINEERING Engineering ,Fire Public Works Parks at Rec. 77. *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE? *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED *Additional Information Required for Complete Application *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review e Owner COLE/MERRITT/GEORGE ± Property Address 16006 75TH PL. W. ± Date of Application 4/2/97 1 Type Hearing Required: Yes X No Date of Hearing (if known) X Application x _Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 1 11) —!—Fee —Site Plan (11 x 17) X APO List —ji—Legals (Existing & Proposed) —Tille Report lEnvironmental Assessment X —Vicinity Map —Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) Elevations —Declarations (Variance) Petition (Official Street Map) —1—Environmental Checklist —A—Critical Areas Determination ATTACHMENT 9 He No. SM-9748 - '- 6 �; �ti it ,��xs•�Lr � 5 j � "� V p _L �G } 5 �<�� 1 akx y.�}1 yy Cy��t 5qa ,E��t7�y, '� f .l ..,:rF vrS..�€:u"45i✓a„Yais't�:�..erw".:::...,..+.*wNt�i++a.:wr-1..... "...:...,1`• .,F .. r,-ry� .:_ i.' APPLICATION ,ROUTING FORM FILE: SM-97-48 AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING j �7 s 4 07 z ROUTED T0: �� DE Pi RETURNED T j Engineering , 4/4/97 �tj8L1G Engineering �i Fire 4/4/97 Fire ° h, _5 pl Public Works �+' arks Rec, 4/4/97 Parks at Rec. •;,;.,;4 t c Staff Comments: W U. *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE? *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED � *Additional Information Required for Complete Application z Uj a �a 0 *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review s U. W c.� s M Owner COLS/MERRITT/GEORGE Property Address 16006 75TH PL. W. • Date of Application 4/2/97 Type SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT -- • Hearing Required; Yes X No Date of Hearing (if known) w 2' 0 i �. y , i� ;� rE a _�MMf.AJJ ffiL/MlSRRRT �c�ca�m�tik�c t F i - �. b:'F4lbr,""u:._.W.ray..FxAlii ueuatr.w.w...... �,...��....•..................n..ur.+n!n1e.�dk'.�i�T:UCd5W1LLn'4eYOC+rt.SbSftYGaO>�aaNiCntYao>�iimwa>een�ry.,.. �,nwa.wan..u......:..�. ED,yp�u. u�p4 CITY OF EDMONDS =I. 290 2S05M AVWRM H0RM WM0MX,wA %= (t2S) i -0= d RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignific ance (DNS) DETEILKWATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE 4 a: Description of proposal: The proposed project to allow site grading (approximately 600 cubic yards of fill and 1,500 0} cubic yards of excavation) for the construction of a new two story single-family residence with a daylight Cn =a basement and an attached three -car garage, totaling approximately 3,900 square feet in area. (City of Edruionds -J 1-1 File No. SM-9748) cn LL w 0 Proponent: Robert Cote dt Jeri Merritt, 16628 70th Place West, Lynnwood, WA 98307 and Michael George, �� A.I.A., 10241st Street, Suite 307, Snohomish, WA 98290 �Q{ us d.I Location of proposal, including street address if any: 16006 75th Place West. The subject property a vacant lot L& located directly southwest of the intersection of North Meadowdale Road and 75th Place West. zj. . O Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS 2 di The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the ri m environment. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c). This decision was B made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This w w information is available to the public on request. „- ~O! There is no comment period for this DNS. z, v W XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for•15 days O from the date below. Comments must be submitted by Mav 2L 1"7. � z Responsible Official: Jeffrey S. Wilson PositfonlTitie: Current Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Services - Planning Division Phone: 771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 Date: May 6, 1997 Signature =---.a ®. XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 99020, no later than — June 5,1" by filing a written appeal citing the reasons. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Jeffrey S. Wilson to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. ® XX Posted on Mav 6.1997, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist. 97-= rs.nuc 93N?"A ya Page 142 f� t #� y . CITY OF ]EDMON7DS 1-74rou Ml 'I 1 �y V /- /1�Q/jj� { U L,L f in W! Purpose of Checklist. J Fi The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). chapter 43.21C RCW. requires all.govemmental agencies to consider the T O environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all Lu proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from our proposal sal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from theproposal, if it p y g Y fY P Y P Po Pa U. < can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. s X Instructions for Applicants. = r This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this O� checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an ETS. Answer UL the questions briefly, with the most precise information kpown. or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of our knowledge In most cases, you should be able to Utn q Y• Y• Y o• 0 h answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the a w answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write 'do not know" or does not apply". complete answers to the = U¢ questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. F �, 4t' Z+ Some questions ask about governmental regulations. such as zoning. shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions �i if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels 2 g of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which 1 you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals. - Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply.', IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROIECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," 'applicant," and 'property or site" should be read as 'proposer,' and "affected geographic area." respectively. ® A. BACKGROUND 1. Name ofproposedprgjcct,itapplicuble: �Lf ,t/triVlr ® 2. Name or applicant: S� .� r )tt,► rL"l P.11 t 3. Address and phone number of applicant and wnt:tc persons I.W. o ?ne 74z=- 1 bat 4. Date cht� klist prepared: Page t orn L 0 . 1 tt3i iT 1 ry rk r.�r5,f.-✓F�.��fse zc5k''. S. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds. 6. Prop timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):, LW V j` �! (STAFF CORi WAMS) F-+ 7. Do y a have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this O proposal? If yes, explain. tw _ i Up I z (STAFF COMMENTS) Rj LU w; =X 0 � 8. List ny environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly p F. relatedto this proposal. xLU U. r i5 ui N! L Li �I z A' (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Do y�ru know whether applications are pending for government.•il approvals of other proposals directly affecting the p operty covered by your proposal? if yes, explain. —ftb (STAFF COMMENTS) Ill. List ny avernment approvals or, permits that will he needed for your proposal, if known. i (15TAFF. CONIhIENTS) Page 2 of 22 z N 11. 12. � Tf: E RECEIVED APR Give brief, complete description of your proposal, -including the proposed uses and seize of the prd; "if? ite. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects 41I�.i do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (STAFF COAMRMMS) Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide range or boundaries of the site(s). )Provide legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. (STAFF COMMENTS) CO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT I. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth f a. General description or the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly steep slopes mountainous, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) _ lit b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you _ knoiv the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. uk5 ' ru 2 % e. Descrihe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any tilling argrading proposed. Indicate source M rIF. 1�"44 VAWO 14 1 600 610 AA t �✓Dd Lt3 S (STAFF COMMENTS) f. Could erosion occur ns a result of cIcaring, construction, or use? I f.so, generally describe.!! It. Proposed� +measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: (STAFF CONNO NT S) Z. AIR a., What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal Cue.,dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and Give approximate awintities if known. 1 . ' (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. 0 (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emi��ions or other impacts to the, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 3. WATER a. Surface: (1) Is there any surfacewater body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and scesonal streams, saltivater, lakm, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. ® If appropriate, stwhat stream or river it Rows into. j a 511A hA AA c. "Zlk W . dG5 C (STAFF COMMENTS) 0 (2) Will the project require any wark over, in, or n4 jacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? if yes, please describe and attach available pI Z etas Cr (STAFF COMMENTS) v O. Cl! N It ¢- (3) Estimate the amount or rill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface p water or wetlands and indicate the area or the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of rill t material.U. Ld i 1-t— (STAFF COMMENTS) ww O c� to aF (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrrwais or diversions? Give general description, = w purpose, and approximate quantities if known. ►— � U1.o u. O _z tiZQ 'r' h- O Z (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Doev the propenal tie within a 100 yeah {inodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. �C (STAFF COMMENTS) (ti) Dom the propnarl involve any discharges of wactb materials to surface waters? N so, describe the type of wwste and anticipated volumeeof discharge. A 1 r '5 b. Ground: ithdr: (1) Will ground water he %va aum, or will water. be ilLsehatted to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. (STAFF IqOMMEWS) (2) Describe waste material that will. he discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources,' if - any (for examolei ` Domestic seivage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the IIMII or such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number or animals or humans the systern(s) are expected to serve. KIO KA-I (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Water Runoff (including storm water): (1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method or collection and dEspiksal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow int rat ers? -flers Jf so, d Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: older maple, spen, ottaer: evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pane, other: shrubs�AL"i Bras Pasture crop or gain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: wader plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoiI, other. other types of vegetation: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. tl�hat kind aald -an►nunt of ve„datinn will he rcynoved trr uttered? j D:xli�lLt.,hi.. en.�,v�e t„ u�t� ono., 1rP,llBn�r�I� /Ica t►�'1 1�<, All (STAFF COMMENTS) G Lis t threatened or endangered species known to he on or near the site. {STAFF COMMENTS} d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to. preserve or enhance vegetation on the . site, if any: Pap 8 of 22 S. (STAFF CONIM ENTS) Animals a. Check or circle any birds and animals which have beta, observed on or near the site or are known to he on or near'the site: hirde: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ,g:2CM&tc, �UU\S . . mammals. deer, hear, elk, beaver, other: `� fish: bass, lmo tron herti she uh other: ON (STAFF COMMUNTS) b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or nt :ir the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Is the site part ora'migration roiele' irso, explain. �fl (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measurcx to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 6. Energy and Natural Resources (srar• r COMMENTS) C. What kinds'or enemy conservation reatum are included in the'Olans or this proposal? List other W c (STAFF COMMENTS) a c» to LU J Cl) (2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: w O IA O Y12_ �a yd - z ~j (STAFF COMMENTS) O; v (31 b. Noise t= (I) What types of, noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, X uw � equipment, operation, other)? W z{ LIi Q ' Z .t t (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Wbut types and levels or noise would he created by or wm iated with the project on a short-term or a long -teen basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise TT� ' would co ie fr rm the site. [� t lhut Y n V1nY�o itrrt NG fnoiatttAf/ Y'Jd5tV4CLiS I A (STAFF COMMENTS) ® (3) Proposed me surt,'c to reduce or control n 'se inpacts, if any: ��J►� !A!$ � `6tA&Kr. l) dK l (STAFF COMMENTS) e I I of2 � -.� � r �_ � t ,C"f� �-Y0. hik yp,,�' k •c[r '`CL 7r •}, `2 t nvy10, kSA, M: ''1 z w U 0 0 U 0 z (STAFF COMNIMTS) d. Wilt any structurc"c he demolished? If sa, ♦that? (STAFF COMMENTS) e, What is the current wining clussilicat ion or t e site? Jf'a.-.'"'•j. tu< .z..+7Z''r ,t�/+71•.., Ad..�J• iWY1 i fi . �.. �, ii1v 1't`y'D i ! t .'.t t�y�,', :nf. hr'"`t}1 it�tt. {.3+�` G �11(t` ^C 9 f f�:�t F i�- !., '"f � •4 ; j.. t •�%` J + y t'_ *' � r'� � ) s��>%�,x>ti ,i�Y a. tvcp,�,� 2riy t ) e v"f r�` .4j• 3 f ' t �v.r t,3 + t t �s �: < ', e 1. 'v �1 -. �t 1' i ��) . t 1.Y 6�reYRs�L.c y� r} �,.. � sj '+-�� ?•1� eYy.t4 u`telt �. { j � � y Y4.+„, �+,3ye y - t 5^4-.:)1 4 rjr y. ., - z y ka f r dat ,t r Sd �',kj .. 3st ,ya .��i t iv s,. ,•:, S��y ) .T; y �t t� t�t C )t � s � �.'� s ':i, 5'.. 5.,...,..r.,Ydw+t` I'++� *K au ...._. _ar. ?......k t.� �,7.w,�. �••_.._ �w�r.L.....+n _....�....:^.�2`u'. eax.awrawa r f What is the current co relLenWe plan dmignation of the site? IQ cc Is <— 5{ LU pl, (sTArFcoNwENTs) CO LuLu g: cn g. if applicable, what is the current shoreline muster plan designation of the site? pF (STAFF COMMENTS) Lu utt a o1 h. Hiu; any part of the %ite been claktiifled us: "environmentally sensitive"'area? if so, specify. a tzlit/t Lu LU �: L6LU 0 (STAFF COMMENTS) z i. Appro(x�-imately how many, people would mile or wort: in the completed project? i (STAFF COMMENTS) j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? i (STIFF COMMENTS) a t � ,. �irT,1_.�. 1=:ii�Ia��_+�.E.,n�i��C��.:a1�"�j9ifl�'��:�-rt�L��y.�lr�.� j t If Y f L S 1 � f ... - "' LunyaN.._.t'N..i4iift.Yasboi6�.uu.rau -._.....>....•...«..,wmw'.siamur.a..t+w...........+.:�:.:.�........:�4........wraa....w.�r.........Y.:.._..+..._..._: '"...:.....:'...«..nxwinrwwrsnxx.aisw.w�r...urxa,.u.x,: .. .0". ' 10. Aesthetics Z si. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed? cc ` — eAvez-o -WAS, CO W LU CO (STAFF COMMENTS) — LL LL b. What views in the immediate vicinity would he altered or obstructed? LC Z F- M W to v (STAFF COMMENTS) o LAI u Fes- F C. Proposed me surer to reduce or controlaestheticimps s,if any: a� (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Light and Glare a. What of light or glare ill the pro/p�n�mll produce? What time or day would it mainly occur? -. 1ty.t�p+e. ©v v- s (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Could light or glare from the finish ed project he a safety havard or interfere wit views? gg � Q N �j)U NLr (STAFF COMMENTS) „, ;i$t� �''''??��t[[,�� .4• S V�C,y�'��f }�5 (t�:ixw3`iG.ev']M1i45f::'.i�`.u.�i[<1.i a C. What existing off4te sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to /reduce or control tight and glare impacts, if any: (STAFF CONINItNTS) 12. Recrwtioti a. What dLsig;nated an 'nro u.tl reCMItinn:d opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? t ' (STAFF COM NICNITS) h. Would the proposed project displace any existing; recrwtion uses" it so, describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed mcwtires to reduce or control impstcts on recrca6on, including recreation opportunities to be . provided by the project or applicant, irany: ma � (STAFF COMMENTS) k Page 16 of 22 rti . ... _ - p j (wkry ' .. .. ... i. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers z known to he on or next to the site? 1f so, generally describe. cc 21 cn ! W LUj � 1x-: (STAFF COMMENTS) Cn �� -J b. Generally describe any landmarks br evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural LL O. importance known to he on or next to the site. Ix—� t "� z I.- wLu 0 (STAFF COMMENTS) F- • Ww x h= u. p c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: t= x Z (STAFF COMMENTS) --Y J 14. Transportation a. Identify public street: and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street t system. Show on site plans, if any. d'be �4`a r to ug a..� i? (STAFF COMMENTS). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. E0 (STAFF COMMENTS) How many vehicular trips per day would he generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. s '. '' f 1 �+ S✓' 6 {A i v 5! S -f 1 z v i r d.r{ } R •`'• 4 a x7 Vil i! f \..;...4-'^•��1 L A;�q ,� �A It�M,,(..: � r�,} 4 ^ �'rs { A.. jur.obw ` .ie�ewwi++.wi �.t h.�•.........si t " j.t�rx} 1`^� r � 5.w.ww.wwi�`+w.+,{,raum� ! !' � e '': e g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: IS. (STAFF cOMMENTS) Public services - a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (ror example: fire protection, police protection, healthcare, schools, other)? if so, generally describe. . NQ (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Proposed me surer to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, it any: (STAFF COMMENTS) Vicinity and Zoning Map C .' ) �y o Edmonds r��«al Areas- Gh e' ckfest The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be ,filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of a development permit to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are or may be present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical Areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). An applicant, or his/her representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. With a signed copy of this form, the applicant should also submit a vicinity map or plot plan for individual Iots of the parcel ` with enough detail that City staff can find and identify the subject parcel(s), in addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assist staff in completing their prelirxrinary assessment of the site. T have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below), Owner / Applicant. Name Street Address Kw Wk q5�7 C , State, ZIP Phone Iku6t e .10 2 2 �4�}� •, Date Applicant Representative: Name 5�� Street Addrew '�I.t Ci P Phone r �4s4b Signature r " ate t,. ., .. .ins... ,_e.w. ... ........�..._. .. .. _.,._.....,...+gaa,...uv,vae.s4«..,,.•. v..w,.�,�.....,.•a...,.... ........n,,,r.,..�......•_... _..._. �,i .................. ...... •,-....,--:, �...., ...,..e a r v. CA - No. " Critical Areas Cheeldist Cry- - f( Site information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation) Gro. 7 Y �G• (�-�� I. Site Address/Location: 2. Property Tax Account Number. " Om 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square•feet):. Zi . O � � ' Wj ' �CEIVED 2; 4. Is this site currently developed? yes; no. OCT 2 a: Oi If yes; how is site developed? w' 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. PERMIT COUN TER Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. U. 0 Rolling: slopes on site generally Less, than 1590 (a vertical rise of IOfeet over a J / horizontal distance of 66-feet). t/ Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30?a ( a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). W Other (please describe): m W 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing•water: _d _. ; Approx. Depth: A roxDepth: i 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: VIK3 PP. P------------• zi What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway ,o • floodplain lA of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are Year- round? _40Flows are seasonal? _0-_._• (What time of year? no )- 10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow ; shrubs ✓ ' m1XCd ' urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) i It. Obvious wetland is present on site: i1- Foi City StaffUse Only :1'%'.• $ife'is ,.SC mapped soil iyr i k ` .rz-•- '7v 3r?%yWedand inventory or C.A. map indicates wetland prestnt an site?, - 4' t `Critical`•Akas inventdO'or C.A amap indieates'Ciiticat Area oa site? Sit'vuitfiin'designatbd'earihsiib'sideaice•landslidiliazard'area? ?... , viro i {� 6:" >�S%'SiEo'desi�n'a`ted'on{tli >rn ninentaily Scns�ti$e Areas M :. ' I rlti4rlri`�'i'rt x ,� z t '� STUDY'RE UIRED nj�, ; .CONDtff iNAL W IIVB;; : si' hf'i w .• h '. `�"tr'°`R"e<`c.',:Wi4I1%ER^ ..: ">i�• +�>j.>.�4N�•� `. •. .,. .y. Rdvuwed by:h";� < • •Date ''> •''��• S7'U aerosrtwsa ,, 7 0� M • I City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination Applicant: [Robert. Cale _�- Petennination #: CA-96-221 Project Name: Permit Number:-- Site Location: 16006 75th 1PL W Property Tax Acct #: 5131-059-001.0006 Project Description: I non -project specific A site inspection and review of the submitted survey map has revealed a slope of 40% or more with a vertical gain of 20 feet or more within the 40% slope on and adjacent to the subject property. This slope is a Critical Area. The critical area is found near the western property line and the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. The surveyed map indicates the top of the critical area slope is the 42 foot contour, and the bottom is the 20 foot contour line. Based on the above findings, it is determined that there is a steep slope critical area on or adjacent to the site. A Critical Areas Study prepared by a licensed land surveyor locating the critical area is normally required. In this case the surveyed map submitted at the time of application for Critical Area Review completes the required Critical Area Study with the top of the critical area being the 42 foot contour line, and the bottom of the critical area being the 20 foot contour line. ' The steep slope critical area requires a 50 foot buffer, which may be reduced to 10 feet if a Licensed Geotechnical Engineer prepares a study which clearly demonstrates that that the - proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon the site, the public or any private party (ECDC 20.15B. 110). If the property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which they feel would. not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may submit their proposal to the Planning Department for review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Areas or its buffers, a conditional waiver may be issued on a project by project basis. John Bissell Name ignature AD October 29, 1996 Date s t� r 3 r q l x e 1 r 4 4s } r i r p +a 07. DODDS QEQSCIENCES INC. Post Office Box 6966 Bellevue, WA 98008.0966 Telephone (206) 867-3297 Facsimile (206) 88 i-864 T Bob Cole and Jeri A. Merritt Job Number 6095 Lakeside Seawood Group October 31, 1996 7$00 212th S.W., Suite 210 Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Buffer Reduction/Critical Areas Checklist Letter Cole/Merritt Residence SWC 75th Place West & Meadowdale Road Edmonds, Washington Dear Client: This letter presents some of our geotechnical engineering conclusions for the proposed Cole/Merritt Residence to be constructed on the southwest corner of 75th Place West and Meadowdele Road in Edmonds, Washington. our conclusions are based on the work completed to date. We have supervised the drilling of two test borings on the property and reviewed laboratory tests consisting of sieve gradation studies and moisture content tests. In addition, we have measured the standing groundwater table in a slotted PVC standpipe which was installed during drilling activities. Our geotechnical engineering report summarizing our testing, enggutn►eering analysis and conclusions will be available next week. In general, the site is covered with a mantle of loose sand overlying firm to stiff silty clay. We measured the groundwater table at 26 feet (i elevation 46 feet) below existing grades. Based on our testing, analysis, and review of the main floor/site plan which was faxed to us by the architect, it is our opinion the buffer on this property for this specific development can be safely reduced to ten feet. The proposed development keeps cuts mto'the slope to a practical minimum. Our analysis indicates the structure will have to be founded on piling, If there are any questions, please contact the undersigned at (206) 827-1084. DODD fences Inc. 4o wa'sll'��O AN; �" Notice of Development Application & A® Date of Notice: June 5, 199' File # SM-97-48 Applicant Information Name of Applicant ........... Michael George/Robert ColelJen Merritt Requested Permi and Approvals:.... Date of Application:........_... Apd12, 1997 Date Application Completes....... Ap6130,1997 Other Required Permits not yet at Project Location ............... 16006 75th Pi. W, Edmonds for (if known):...... Project Description:......,.,,.,.,,,. Shoreline Substantial Dev. Permit to Required Studies undertake site grading(approx. 700 cubic related yards of cut & 1,000 cubic yards of fill) for to the the construction of a new single-family project%..... residence. The subject property is zoned Related Environrr RS-12. Documents:........ Public Comments due by:....... June 19,1997 O Pulltc lHe�ring IriforrYiation - Date: June 19, 1997 Time: 9:00 A.M. Place: Plaza Meeting Room - 650 Main St., Edmonds Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Community Services Department, 250 Sth Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020. (425) 77I-0220. Public connects should also be sent to this address. The decision on rhi addition Warning! The removal, mutilation, destruction, w concealment of this This notice may be removed notice before the hearing date is a misdemeanor punishable by after: June 19, 1997 fine and imprisonment. 5131 029 009 0001 Gerald Bernstein 6653 NE Windermere Rd. Seattle, WA 98115 7904 000 0010001 Dennis & Susan Chiavelli 724 Las Canoas Pl. Santa Barbara, CA 93105' y' LL 7904 000 00 OOo7 o Oliver i 1 23 W Ed s, W 98020 5131 029 007 0003 Thomas & Deborah Falk t 400 Dayton St. #`A pl Edmonds, WA 98020 � use a 5131 058 0010008 Phyllis Wiggins u F-1 16012 74th P1. W. — Z Edmonds, WA 98026 v 0i p 5131 029 006 0004 Z Jon Becker 15908 75th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 5131 029 0110007 Paul & Linda Elliott 16000 75th PI. W. { Edmonds, WA 98026 0' 5131 058 005 0004 M. E. Ebert 16031 75th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 5133 000 035 0206 Kathleen Johanson 7309 N. Meadowdale Rd. Edmonds, WA 98026 5131 059 003 0004 Abollossein Ansari 9304 Olympic View Dr. Edmonds,. WA 98020 7904 000 002 0000 Lorian Estates LP 16010 73rd Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 / 11 iii. lI 7904 000 004 0608 Joann & Robert Anderson 16010 73rd Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 7904 000 010 0000 William Derry 16107 74th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 5131 030 007 0001 Richard Hankinson 15925 75th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 5131 058 006 0003 Paul Guardian Williams 6324 181st Pl. SW Lynnwood, WA 98037 5131 030 009 0009 Frank Bonipart 7429 N. Meadowdale Rd. Edmonds, WA 98026 Michael George 1024 1st St., Suite 307 Snohomish, WA 98290 121 5131 659 006 0001 Roger MaCorklc PO Box 7178 Seattle, WA 98133 7904 000 003 0009. Seung & Heyoung Chung 5508 154th Pl: SW Edmonds, WA 98026 7904 Oo 009 0003 I"Orian ates Family LI I6010 rd P1. W, Edmo ds, WA 98026 •i� Ili /l i11 7904 000 008 0004 Stephen & Joan Johnson 16121 74th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 5131 030 008 0000 Mrs. Howard Glazer 15927 75th P1. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 5131 058 004 0005 Eugene Imamum 5707 244th St. SW Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 5131 058 009 0000 J. Sherman Mills 16115.75th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 5131 W 908 0100 I Sher Mills 16115 h PI. W. Edmonds, A 98026 Robert Cole/Jerri Merritt 166M:70th Pl. W. Lynnwood; 'WA 98037 c -f 5 � k c3r'' 7T { ,d4 ,� � � r. k t• � ? t � - ; y t� s'�dr! 7 x ..,. :, � t 1 . J� 3 '�, < x: 't, �, x� �• ak r1" 3� .. r' xy t _. f t l y: 1 .;��t�Y ti .. g} } r-i x 1 � .x� tti � !r. y hit •i yz� � i r1 1 t }, )7 t t r S p �'` t f .� tf �,�� .iat y c y�, r } IT Z F F..DM�NL�S �AA9AFtA FAN1C`f 00 aTPi AVANVa IVORTM aDMOnDa. WA iabAO.- )ADO) i'rt.b$AO MA7t IibO) 9i1�09A1 MAYOR OMMUNiTY ®iRVIC KO GCPARTM®NY ubllo Works Planning a Parka and R4braatlon A Engineering 'rim -LP -Cc -pima acovER PAGtE Z Q ��., M. µl 'OATE TRANSMIT .14" , � ;7 - NUMBER CIF PAQE^.a• :"' V (Including Cover Pat=as) t.? Reclplents'reiocopi " Number: '7a FAGSIMIL,.E CCtUIPMEN'T' N W - - AlltomaUa/roup 11 " Fes' (2,3 rnins'.j.92 rcaup Ili to W F.ROMI tE there are tsnY problems 0: ' cluring transmission or LLI documents are received inoompiete, pteaaa.catt f[o20r62n ) 771-020 ad ask LL • Sender's 7elacoplar Number: (206) 771-0221 ,CA Uj RE• z F— tid gLLI a a am W } IL •, tncarparataot AupwR I1• I894 a Slater Cities intornutlonad -- Haklnan, Japans W tJ U � TRANSMISSION REPORT THIS DOCUMENT (REDUCED SAMPUE_ABOVE) bd#;�ZE aIUT'I NO REMOTE STATION I.D. START TIME DURATION #PAGES COMMENT 1 12063393049 5— 8-97 5:08PM. 1'18'. 2 b , :: fr G P ';.f ur a. K � , � y:::. r �r _�.�'.hi'•ti'i"�7"t��`".cFxir�re��4s�'�+tS It .:5 ,� � x .. 4f,�� .�i �tX� ��s J, lTt,.., ft{ 4 (((1k 'M.h f. rr 50.k1 h1 t` ��s? .. ,t - Sx s ! t $, r f 'st � e � ti l73,.xr s 3� :�p � Fk �'�,� i i �rt;sZ�� `1 eti+ y r: err �3 ri'tt�t} tf•?F t # Y�ir e r t ,� } y , ,�� c:;.,.., .. ... _ ,., `.... .... i �u :warY.'sxva •••-�....d. „_?;:.�;. a�,*.euenrase,%rrae�rost.. s THIS IS A LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT AND SHOULD BE BILLED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND w' NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION z �— Name of Applicant: Michael George/Robert Cole/Jeri Merritt File No.: SM-97-48 j Project Location: 16006 75th Pl. W., Edmonds tai Project Description: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to undertake site grading (approx. w{ 700 cubic yards of cut & 1,000 cubic yards of fill) for the construction of a new single-family residence. The subject property is zoned RS-12. u o " City Contact: Jeff Wilson g Public Comment Period Due By: 6/19/97 U. ��yy Name of Applicant: Berger/Abam Engineers Inc./Wash. State Ferries File No.: SM-97-66 Z Project Location: 71:W. Main St., Edmonds { Project Description: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to allow the installation of new steel UJ WE: # pile dolphins to replace the existing north outer, floating dolphin, north inner o' timber cluster pile dolphins and the installation of new intermediate steel pile v cep dolphins to accommodate an upgrade to the terminal facility for a broader range o L_ of existing vessels: u+ City Contact: Jeff Wilson i-- ~ Public Comment Period Due By: 6/19/97 ui �nl PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION z TIME: 9:00 AM DATE: June 19,1997 LOCATION: Plaza Meeting Room - 650 Main St., Edmonds Sandy Chase; City Clerk Publish: May I I & May 18,1997 t , i1 y�i 1Lk} a Ak A al Vicinity Map Elevations ion;( mental Checklist t r. J E. • � .� ,0 1i l '� ,� \ N/! YI :.i I"-' t i /. y.�j^• °{- 1,/'f / Gp��II�- .>-._; _// / . /'i 1 �/ 11 II i I t I � // � t� - 4� •!'� /��/( l! It 11 clatd i ' w � _ MEADbWDA F-5 6 Sfi �' F` NE) / /� iEP. '1V 1 - Ii do / ' ) ' I f. _ t . .1. n A r / Ex e'P ya� ! 't I It + 1�1-,! 4 J� •sN I �a6lr ! - r /r '� o. /Ir tt / .a'� 1 I I ! Ex r�E j ) i h I j //. i r,.;q -;'� ! rif- f / Izo• 1 ,2�i rE-zass I 1 1! t) rpP_swq / I f ! �of 3o 7r i r it i ! /!/f/ rt /r/✓eevvov'w s< a'.. 'a9:.7 ',.� — 'A �� a✓: t 1 '�°�*I,' l�"d ! _ /1 Rgeelveo S97 COUNTER G'Ot.EiMERIZIYI' , zF' 1.\ , , ,i r' I f l I % �, RESID2m �I '� I t /\ l ! r { ) t t t ��•i /1 _ \\\� � •`� t I %� SITE . C�'t.Ai,.1 anoo��loiot I 1 1 i 7 4"7f BASEMEN 0 �+ryy9��• l $ToaM.oWuNAc o / ly -Y[es,-. fit• Zm J tdaNE 4 x Or'-6d 66 l E- BJ6r g'f'1-fJ•7 - �� _ Flw 174. zo 1 fi'! 1 1 O I \ 9l i ✓� I,. '� t / 6UT'(RE�ZtTE r (t! )r 7 /7) ! l )l !t ! 1• �1 rn. sue. ! r 7 ) . .. �'� fi � � ':� ) J 73 '.._GUT 1105. 2¢ ti aT I DRAIIJw! szs�'i / �, ,roo �/ �i — — — — - — — �l• as q7 '>nEF. STORI,i AGE✓ % I 7 8E'REIOCATE[J ES` E I' RI RIM 6].t0i G p `- �4 �, �� f5��y&{` u4 iY•'�f r :.. �,k �'3 r�`Y>�.. 4�.p�i ��.� r ;, �yza �,a i� ztr� k t - w.wa...0 tt G'Seanbw ' GIN '64s�seMs6.I'C:. '�L UYY S"em y i � SK ` PA`/EY1f?7Y R i 7I _ vtKVBv� Y - , z4.c •.- sc' w _ SL 'SANtT�Y SE�VE(Z UeA - ' i'�' HWOwA'[ER. U�MEH SHAVER LIWE.�tasula / �"' ___ t7A4t1'IQG UIJE 9C1.ICTlB$ .. -. _ _ BosTn.i etawe srnc�M DRAtAIS . 2e - .. _ NeoPoSEp tOGhttoN t=ISGMM2f�--m eKlS K EUMOUD` STb{xM. sY'S'RtM.. "L.VW 2 1° � zml G iaow� MoQaa} GoI;E,/ME�t-tP �ESIDE�fc.6 t THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑, Resubmit copies for approval or your use ❑ Approved as noted. ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ As requested : ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ . Return '' corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FORBIDS DW 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS s' c � _ v ct _ � ' t i� COPY TO r SIGNED.44. ktndty M enclosuraa are not as noted, notify ua, at once. y r z F�'O iu 0 0 LU LA. Iii Y 8 z of RECEIVEJ) , 6. APR eian IL Give brier, complete description of your proposal, including, proposeduses and size'otif the pi4i There amseveral questions later in this checkrat that ask you to describe certain aspects 41M do not need to Vpeat those ansiverson, this page. -4 eAv 12 U&M, C(K4 V I _441 2_1 -5- -(STAFF COM 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information fo,r a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and ringei itknown. N a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide range or boundaries of the site(s).: Provide legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. Wife you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related ,tothis checklist.f, t 1% a. %F—Cials ue%%o aptalts- of 4&1-c. w-RC tigicia ,x- into tuii1itig, wsiy(Siccp s!tipr_sj mountainous, oiner. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? (STAFF COMMENTS) What general types or soils are round an the site (for example, day, sand, gravel.'L'pea 'peat, I ,muck)? If you know the dacsification or agricultural soils,'specify. them and note any prime farmland, Page 3 or22 :.. ; "Page! of 33 �taLTl10.392.MASYER JaT,�� i 11 (1 / t t �� N/ MEAD{bWDA h�' i ! i i r! I t' + it ! � it ,• t�` x r / /_ J ff9 TgEE� s� / ` / / +J i.bssr / 6 � � ! f t '- ! I , t ,' ! � . �, -�'�� s / I� � IJ � y S�r�S 4'/ �' • ---�/ � / p v ) IA do t 1 / t T IL 1 I O 1I)rr l..,�r k33JSNi I d(,t � � 11JJ r � j 'Q° �'� a' N / � t �-._ l T -i-✓ - �/� �! s , � � /!� / G 1 / � / 1��,t+£�.�r tl 1 / � I ./ i I !/ /�� ( /� / / �r �� BdD9lJ1—W, f =fi � _ RECEIVE® APR20 1997 � `2 1 / ! i 1 E / s"Init t t J I � i : / {W d a < z _Em i'+q+"a ,z / / � � t / @fie, f � � � � w ORS ✓i l /� ! ° PEBMITCOUNTER g fZf=Slvk:FJG6 h t l-� I I t>S t BASEMEN / dot $ 1� 'Y�/ •�l mi/ EX ssx+v .lv,_RST_OF Zan LING Flw gT4. ZO i 4 Er'Psla v SNTNeE�9tTH rzu. - 3r«t•_ a� es 11-m — � CAYC S,£. ST:R D EXS STORY. DRAIIiACE' UNE'' To BE'RELOCATED` ! ! 1' (Gg E Ii RIM,67.10l 1) L cst. 189v April 30,1997 C9i7 CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771.0220 - FAX (206) 771.0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning + Parks and Recreation • Engineering Mr. Michael A. George, A.I.A. © Michael A. George Architect P.S. 1024 First Street, Suite 307 Seattle, WA 98290 Subject: ASSIGNMENT OF HEARING DATE Dear Mr. George: Your application is now complete and has been scheduled for public hearing at the time and place listed below. However, the project is subject to review and issuance of an environmental determination pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, should an appeal of the Environmental Determination for your proposal be filed in a timely fashion, the hearing on your permit application will be continued to a future dated to allow for consolidation of the appeal hearing and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit hearing. Action: Shoreline Substantial Devel pment Permit File No. Assigned: SM-97-48 Date of Hearing: June 19,1997 Time: 9:00 A.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. Place: Plaza Room, Edmonds Library 650 Main Street Hearing Body: Hearing Examiner Please be aware that your presence at the hearing is highly advisable. Man applicant or his representative is not present, the item may be moved to the end of the agenda. Items not reached by the end of the hearing will be continued to the following months agenda. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 771-0220. Sincerely, Community Services Department - Planning Division Je �flson, AICP Current Planning Supervisor pc: File NoJSM=9'1=+ 9A7' Robert Cole & Jerri Merritt, 16628 70th Place West, Lynnwood, WA 98037 s� �+�•nr • Incorporated August 11, 1890 + oar�srszrnwssevflwo»cs Sister Cities International Hekinan, Japan r�} Y i$'a'�2 eryA CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEv MAYOR 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 + 1206) 771.0220 + FAX (206) 771.0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Z Stt 1 $ gfl Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering . of April 22, "1997 LL Mr. Michael A George, AI.A W o Michael A. George Architect P.S. 1024 First Street, Suite 307 Lt.Q Seattle, WA 98290 wa ZSubject: REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION TO HEIGHT OF GARAGE APPROVED o, UNDER FILE NO. V-97-2 oLa Dear Mr George: 01= c 1 have reviewed your request as outlined in your letter dated April 16th, and discussed your proposal with Steve Bullock, whom you met with earlier. After review of the height variance Z{ granted under File No. V 97 2 for the garage, it is very clear that a specific elevation (maximum height) was called out as part of the variance approval. Therefore, a change in the approved maximum elevation for the garage, or any of the structures, even to accommodate a change in driveway grade, can not be approved administratively, be must be applied for through a new variance application. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 771-0223. �. Sincerely, { Community Services Department - Planning Division { �_ Je ey S. Wilson, AICP Current Planning Supervisor PC: File No. V--97-2 f L Fge No. SM-9748 R t� s1-2WIMOCZ-A" a Incorporated August 11, 1890 * :v .. CoRkimnus p Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan' " _J�� -~ ' ' ^'~' ~~ ' 0 z 0 wn t0LE/MERRLT--T/bE0'k6t': reZ _ I 600619THTL' o-,"OropeiVAOd W. 1:.:of pl cat on ate I 1 4/2/97 e, SHORELINE MANAGEM P yp' ENT, EkMIT tHearing Rquirie Y' d es 0 —.K--Applidafi X, ke X APO USt X Vicinity Mao Elevaums P eb on Odal StteefMap) I D Coca keas eterminabon "J 0 C: 0 1APPI.IC:i4TId B�1.iRCil3TING;F{aFtil� FILE' SM 97�d$ AN® 6HE'dKLIS+T ' ERQfl� F'Li4NNBN�. . lid �+ m ROUTED TO, RETURNED a.. Engineering . 4/4/97 Engineering:,� ' Fire , 4/4L+97 POMP�':zr Public Works arlcs 8t Rec 4/4197 Pants 8t`Rec Staff Comments *PER WHAt'SECTIO o9 0F .TH > �®►iEDE. . O � `E➢�TS 't1VIT *C Hitt_ :C['�° _1 ' ' .I 1>l:L ��"`II ECONSIDER1- 1EIiB''> 'Additional Information Required for Complete Appiicatiori' , 'Additional Studies, Required to Completi; jew •' Owrner C0LE/MERRITT/GE6Rd •. ° PropertyAddress 160®5 75TH PL. �P/. • Date, of Application 4/2/97 • :, TypeSHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT Hearing Required:. Yes ` X NcL Date of Hearing (iF known) " >X AplicaUon' X Site Plani for Short Subdivision(8 5 x 11} : X Fee Site Plan (11 x 17) ;4 X APO List X Legals (Existing k roposed) , . r Titie'Report _- Environmental Assessment v X Vcinity Map ` Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADIi) J Elevat<ons '. Declarations (Variance) Petition (Official Streef Map) 7,1�,;LALLLERviroOrneritall Ctteckiist } 7 Cnhcal Areas Determination rya Gcke"I t1iWFRArrT— Op NORTH 1 0 2.0 ST O M APPLMATION';ROUTING :FORM . FILE ::. SM�97=48. ANDCHECKLIST . FROW1 ',PLANNING ' R6UTED TO: RETURNED Engineering 4/4I97 Engineering , Fire 4/4/97 Fire Public Works 4/4/97 Ptibllc.Works Parks 8t itec: 4/4/97'' Parks 8t -Rec: } Staff Comments: t *PIEWI1 HAT SECTIo OF ' *HE. CODE? *tCCfldlMEI�TS WITHOUT CITATIONt.WILL NOT, BE CONSIDERED � *Additional Information Required for Complete Application t *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review : 1 - • Owner COLE/MERRITT/GEORGE I i • ' Property Address 16006 75TH1 PL. W. • " Date of Application 4/2/97 • Type SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT • Hearing Required: Yes' X No 3 Date of Hearing (if known) X Application X Site Plan for Short Subdivision {8.5 x 11) X Fee Site Plan (11 x 1 i) X APO List X Legals (Existing &Proposed} Title Report Environmentai Assessment . X Vicinity Map Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU} ; Elevations Qecfara6ons {Variance}04 Pe66on'(Official Street Map} X Environmental X Critical Areas Determination C7 ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ❑ .COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION Q SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT 1 STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE A( SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER A` OIcant' Address 1 Property Address or Location Property Owner Address (Wo?l FILE # 51n -A-1- 45 ZONE t S / L DATE W"z- `1-7 REC'D BY 9, FEO'j� RECEIPT# 2-Z67 ? HEARING DATE Q, K ❑ STAFF Q PB ❑ ADB © CC ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED Agent Phone Address Tax Ace # 52U21 - 00 -00t. - Ea00tn Sec. Twp. Rng. Legal Description 5ee -A; EsiiA Details of Project or Rroposed Use [oil Avu - i 0 0 The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of 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 in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/'Its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for. public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and postilg aj�nd�it to this application. W.F. I e . - Re Ln LL 0 w - a - ..., 1 0 .t- - Vicinir-v and Zoning Map _® y St, r h•✓ r I )i 1 S , t> ^+ -� Lul - OC 0 C Z m -A QI utn�i =qRF rp 7sryA c� L 8NR Z 75TH AVE W - L ,LU �� Q � it vv >y, Oda e~p z m rn g o M 3A V H189 _ �- cn rri mm A D° n o = p x, l r, e• r.,., :,® r.. � t � 1 r3 }�"�. 4irn �t S hY �t et '��'s�.iva-� (M� `�E• �,yY�'?i.f hr rY; "•v"f �+dy'..��A �"�v��i �•��,:<I,�[1,�r,,c. � �� r - ,,;r r e � y^ i 2��. ,l�rr i+� rt+i rt� rkr•�*�tYi.�T'�',yr=77�,��r�,.{�p�3 �'� i, rY' ( a �g T•�fia •ydyi%��q,a�dtt Efii r V,. Commitment He- 027798 EY,HTDTT � • i Y y r 11 \ w J��1T� �•'' ; �t wy ,i s+ That portion of Lots t according to the platlthereot recordedlock , Haadowdaie poach, 30, records of Snohomish in Volume County, Nashington. S,00 Plats, page TOCETfiF.R WITH n portion at abuttln anddracordod�7unes19acated b, 9 75th Avenue f,+. North I City of Edmonds Ordinance �rtion of 75th place1979 under Rocordin nce No, 2073 ". recorded oecemb77,t as vaoatcd under No. 7+�06190110 and a whole 199Q n being more • under Recording Nor. 2799, • f iio' 901207009E particularly describad ',•' o • the Commencing at tt,a Northeas as follows; THENCE South 72.20+17a t corner of said block; 1�.16 teat to the Was West along the Northerly tine thereof and the the WOlyemar line of the City Y of Edmonds vacation gin of 75th p�ACQer1y 10 tGet of said beginning; n ordinance No, W", as established ky TH.:NCE South 16• . „ 2799, being the point of margin 17uth 59 17 West oleo .. Tilruce North g7;+tt�to�+inters t said Wcstarly line and 75 43 West nee the South ling of ^aid Lot Said intersect the Westerl along said Sovth Avenue line N, o margin of said vacated . fee to lies Northa75n2q+a48e N83nh0 rre of a po tton of 75th +....", curve THENCE Northerly oleo 52S8.a0 tram wh!Lh the Cnt-ont' loot throe >. said NasterlYemariin*and l that 9h a central nngle of 1.17• ++g �. sold curve to the to intersect that Certain 0s an are 101 2yuE and ling recorded u ettnbllahod ,iangth of 117.99 " roccra, under Auditors Y dead dated j. SouthaOV091 nty;r,st File No, 8400190452, May . anF1aE g point 09 43aloe THENCE thereon; 00�+ g said lino 54.48 feet to an Easterly East along said ,tine 102.G1 t # said city terminus of that cartain•road vacation THENCEity °t Edmonds ordinance fee to the es tablished by ; paralielout hlsatd'goserrlt along id of 25.40 that to Intersect the ni said Ea;tcrly;torminun, Y margin of 75th placr; yi, R'iiCNC E North • 72 20 17++ Northerly li»e op �! d1"tanco to the paint of ho East along said Northorl at(r Block 59; ylnning, r c Y lino 3E, Situate 47 feet 1n the f County of._ . Star, �nohamisho of Nashi xo . n h n,� N, M . • '� _ _ .' ' Zee �k � yy e s mt. ,¢ gL 122t7V45J ? Vj�jj 2 . PAGEZ .•.• t�"�� r....i: F �h N 1 dmon ds C#Pwcaf Areas* Y'�°..3.uF•Si:".�"'al"'!�.tY:'a;1:�k'2E,�,'.r ":tSVSi'tiR�' Checklist .J6 The Critical Areas Checklist contained on and submit it to the City. The City will c this form is to be filled out by any person review the checklist, make a precursory site preparing a Development Permit visit, and make a determination of the Application for the City of Edmonds prior subsequent steps necessary to complete a v to his/her submittal of a development development permit application. permit to the City. E X The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any Potential Critical Areas are or may be present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical Areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). An applicant, or his/her representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, With a signed copy of this form, the applicant should also submit a vicinity map or plot plan for individual Iots of the parcel with enough detail that City staff can find and identify the subject parcei(s). In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc) or studies in coraunction with this Checklist to assist staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. l have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (filI'out the appropriate column below). ��O}} wner / Applicant:. KO�ieY� �le-� Name Street Address 40. State, ZtP Phone natu� . Date Applicant Representative: t i�l � (eo-c, Act.&. Name � Street Address Z 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet):. 54--t • M-2Z ECi C) d LU4. Is this site currently developed? ,-_yes; no. T Z dt D'. if yes; how is site developed? u� J U; c', S. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. PERMIT COON-1 ' U) LW w Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. wU. l Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a Ui 0 / horizontal distance of 66-feet). Q ✓ dilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise S2 C of 10 feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). +�- Steep; grades of greater than 3096 present on site {a vertical rise of 10-feet over a li z � horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). r 0: w Lul Other (please describe): oL{ 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: N ;Approx. Depth: LU LL.; 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: V►b ;Approx. Depth: _ x LL p What season(s) of the year? Z1 hood lain 1AA of a water course. ui cn 8. Site is in the Soodway irt.� P +g, Site captains a creek or an area where water Saws across the grounds surface? Flows are year- 0 ; round? Flows are seasonal? _J2.-.-- (what time of year? Ylo )• 10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow ; shiubs ✓ ; mixed ; urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: io Fot City Staff Use Only ' " L` r k:>Sife'is'2oned? Iz S ' i 2 ' 2 SCS`mapped soil tylie(s)? i()i�'a2rJ+:t'I�? '�-�2dW�? / 1IYVIaIY`- ^%�l�? ® ' riWdland inventory or C.A. map indicates wetland present an site?, xib 4: � �`-,Cntical Ai c" inventory' 'or C.A hup'mdicatw'Criticai Area on site? S�Site`witliin'8esignat'earth suii"siderice landstid hazard'area? Sit }design'atul'on `t e ] nviraiiin iitmfly eiisitivc'Areas Majs? Q .D-,TERMINATTQN.'. A. �'„, •, " CONDTI 1(}AIAL. VltAitlER STUDY'REQUIRED w' 1 >b 4 yk4.VX s r WAIVER �`'` > ` x Reviewed by RW8tA)04 1 ZM A site inspection and review of the submitted survey map has revealed . -a slope of 40% or more z . with a vertical gain of 20 feet or more within the 40% slope on and adjacent to the subject property. This slope is a Critical Area. The critical area is found near the western property line LU UJ and the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. The surveyed map indicates the top of the critical a area slope is the 42 foot contour, and the bottom is the 20 foot contour line: o Based on the above findings, it is determined that, there is a steep slope critical area on. or S w adjacent to the site. A Critical Areas Study prepared by a licensed land surveyor locating the critical area is normally required. In this case the surveyed snap submitted at the time of zi application for Critical Area Review completes the required Critical Area Study with the LU x top of the critical area being the 42 foot contour line, and the bottom of the critical area being the 20 foot contour line. o z The steep slope critical area requires a 50 foot buffer, which may be reduced to 10 feet if a Licensed Geotechnical Engineer prepares'a study which clearly demonstrates that that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon the site, the public or any private party (ECDC 20.15B. I 16). If the property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which they feel would not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may submit their proposal to the Planning Department for review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed development permit will not adversely. impact a Critical Areas or its buffers,.a conditional waiver may be issued on a 1 ®;; project by project basis. John Bissell October 29, 1996 j Name ignature ' Date r J Jr T f }v rtcrF?r lifr .� }t rai .sr sr NCF0, INC. 6 r `L �r tt '3 i 2 j t AJ r r j,` 3 l} y l.f § it k . 1 !➢ 4 T 7,1h ra<aa.:;it�U�;.,ia;ec �` �xtxxsxo►:t+wmazm Post Offl a Sox 6966 Bellevue WA 98008.0966 Telephone (206) 867-329T Facsirntt (206) 88I-864I Bob Colt and Jeri A. Merritt Job Number 6095 c% LakesideSeawoodGroup October 31 1996 7500 212th S.W., Suite 210 Edmond., WA 98020 Subject: Buffer Reduction/Critical Areas Checklist Letter Cole/idterritt Residence SWC 75th Place West & Meadowdale Road Edmonds, Washington Dear Cli nt: This letter presents some of our geotechnical engineering conclusions ` for the proposed Cole/Merritt Residence to be constructed on the southwest corner of 75th Place West and Meadowi We Road in Edmonds, Washington. Our conclusions are based on the work completed to date. We have supervised the drilling of two test borings on the property, and reviewed laboratory tests consisting of sieve gradation studies d moisture content tests. In addition, we have measured the standing groundwater table in a� slotted PVC standpipe which was installed during drilling activities. Par gec technical engineering report summarizing, our testing, en uaeering: analysis and conclusions will be available next week. In general, the site is covered .with a mantle of loose sand overlying farm to stiff silty clay. We measured the groundwater table at 26 feet (t elevation 46 feet) I elow existing grades. Based or. our testing, analysis, and review of the main floor/site plan which was faxed to us by the archi ect, it is our opinion the buffer on this property for this specific development can be safely reduced to ten feet. The proposed development keeps cuts into the slope to a practical minimum. Our analysis indicates the structure will have to be founded on Piling. If there are any questions, please contact the undersigned at (206) 827-1084. DODDiences Inc. ` 5131029 009 0001 5131 059 003 0004 5131 059 006 0001 i Gerald Bernstein Abollossein Ansari Roger McCorkle 6653 NE Windermere Rd. 9304 Olympic View Dr. PO Box 7178 Seattle, WA 98115 Edmonds, WA 98020 Seattle, WA 98133 z .� rz— UAf cc 7904 000 0010001 79044 000 002 0000 7904 000 003 0009 vi Dennis & Susan Chiavelli Lorian Estates LP Seung & Heyoung Chung v t 724 Las Canoas Pl. 16010 73rd Pl. W. 5508 154th Pl. SW U) $} Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 ai, W O F, 7904 000 005 0007 7904 000 006 0006 7904 00 009 0003 2 � t Oliver Finnigan III Chun & Ui Pak Lorian tes Family LI � ' 23004 107th Pl. W 3828 NE 1Wth St. 16010 rd Pi.W. Edmonds, WA 98020 Seattle, WA 98125 Edds, WA 98026 1.- 5131 029 007 W03 7904 000 W4 0008 7904 000: 007 0005 � Thomas & Deborah Falk Joann & Robert Anderson Mary. Ncering UA UJ; 4W Dayton St. #A 16010 .:73rd Pl: W. 6807 164th Pl. SW � ® Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA.98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 w 5131 058 0010008 7904 000 010 0000 7904 000 008 0004 ti e Phyllis Wiggins William Derry Stephen &Joan Johnson LA: Cj 16012 74th Pl. W. 16107 74th Pl. W. i6121 74th Pl. W. ZI Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 z .a 5131 029 006 0004 5131 030 007 0001 5131 030 008 0000 Jon Becker Richard Hankinson Mrs. Howard Glazer 15908 75th Pl. W. 15925 75th Pl. W. 15927 75th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 5131 029 011 00W 5131 059 004 0003 ' 5131 058 004 0005 Paul & Linda Elliott Philip Ruggiero Eugene Imamura r 16000 75th Pl. W. 6126 140th CL NE 5707 244th St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Redmond, WA 98052 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 5131 0% W5 W04 5131 058 006 W03 5131 0-% 009 0000 <' M. E. Ebert Paul Guardian Williams J. Sherman Mills 16031 75th Pl. W. 6324 181st Pl. SW 16115 75th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Lynnwood, WA 98037 Edmonds, WA 98026 ® 5133 000 035 0206 5131 030 009 0009 5131W 908 0100 Kathleen Johanson Frank Bonipart J. ShcrrVh Mills F= 7309 N. Meadowdale Rd. 7429 N. Meadowdale Rd. 16115 h P1. W. rat Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026. Edmonds, WA 98026 5131 058 008 0209 Michael George 1024 1st St.; Suite 307 Robert Cole/Jerri,Merritt 16628 70th Pl r „ Paul Guardian Williams Snohomish, WA 98290 Lynnwaad;.WA 98037 .< 024 181st Pl. SW Lynnwood, WA 98037 ;.® . ?yy'--4 ... ' r A v { 9 w� }�.` t1 t'J e r F1 .} Aid '3.""..�v'kzi =9�'zYi ,r;'� k,)izr{`t , 3,c ✓• ter!, rr4- U O-t--6 Purpose of Checklist. - The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW. requires all. governmental . agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants. This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information kpown, or give the hest description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal. write "do not know" or does not apply". complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems. the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals. - Complete this checklist for nonproject propo%als, even though questions may be answered "does not apply. IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROIECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site should be read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area.' respectively. A. BACKGROUND I. Nstme oC proposed prgjf.-et, if appii mble: (tt¢, ('( (t t/r 6s 2. Name of applicant: doe t,��,A 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contac person: r hL 4. Date checklist prepared: Page i or22 S. Agency requesting cheeidisft City of Edmonds. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (includitrg phasing, if applicable): �r��l �- _S1 V (STAFF COAMENTS) 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activityrelated to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Cw (STAFF COMMENTS) S. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Do you know whether applirotione are pending for governmental approvals or other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your propo.-il? if yes, explain. YlD (STAFF COMRICNTS) 10. List any , avernment approvals or permits that will he needed far your proposal, if known. D" RECEIVEt) APR n a 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, -including the proposed uses and size of the porieg trite. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects 41MRbMTfR1 do not need to repeat those answers on this page. 10- w/ -;-e.AV 4AM's__' Lax- Irt"k -5-%CtvVAVA1 "A' -��) U %. % - !LV. 1 11 :54E (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications (STAFF CONINIENM 170 BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth 3. General description or the site (circle #me): Flat, tolling, hilly (steep Slopes ) mountainous. other. 0 (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What is the steepest slope on (lie site (approximate percent slope)? (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What general types or soils are found on the site (for example, day, sand, gravel, peat, -muck)?. If you know the classification or agricultural soils, specify them and note any Prime farmland. Page 3 of 22 (STAFF 6AiN;wri d. Are there surface indications or history or unstable sails in, the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. 77W., ZZUA 41,W44 L-im >4 17—eef K> A:R (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any tilling or grading liroposed. Indicate source a fill. �40 GU/A t '50,0 (STAFF COMMENTS) f. Could erosion occur as a result orclearingo, comaruction, or use?. Irso, generally describe. t:4P-S C44AZA�e-,AIA 4q7 5- M t Ci 0 It. Proposed ^measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: (STAFF COMWINfM 2. AIR a. • What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal CU., .dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate uuantilies if known. # ' (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may e!1'ect your proposal? If so, generally describe. YO (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measurer to reduce or control emi&ions or other impacts to the, if any: Ot7{Ae , (STAFF COMMENTS) 3. WATER a. Sure ace: (1) Is there any surface water body on or in tire immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal strt.ums, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. jr appropriate, swhat stream or river it flows into. a 5; 5- t '21= O (STAFF COMMENTS) f Page $ or22 (2) Will the pruje ct require any work o yes, please desgibe and attach avail 0 in, or adjaae►►t to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If (STAFF C0>4 AWNTS) (3) Estimate the amount of GIi and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or %vetlandc and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of rill maierial. 1 bjaw4.'' (STAFF COMMENTS) (4) Mrill (lie: pnipwzil require surface %%titer withdra►vaLs or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. �fl (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Doe~ the proposal lie within a 140-yea►r floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. WA) 'O (6) ry. aiKLTnas93MASTM- (STAFF COMMENTS) Does the pn►pe,wi involve any discharge of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of %%%%te and antic{ipated volume or discharge. A (i t a y 7 I AM It. Ground. (I) Will groundwater he tvitbdrmvn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give < general description, purpo-r4 and approximate quantities if !mown. t— wl. J V 0 V` 1 WLU (STAFF COMMENTS) - I.A. � � I 4 (2) Deserihe «paste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanki or rA enter sources, if • any (for example: ' 1Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the 4 following chemicals...; agricultural,, etc.). r Describe the general size of the system, ;the z t-F number of such systems, the numbof how to he served (if applicable), or the r Ci 'mAanher of annuals or humans the systern(s) are expected to serv& i p f_ w m (STAFF COMMENTS) �� 1 ■ 'f' (f d d.: PrIVA sed measures t reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water' ds, if any: ati � o (STAFF coan3ENTs) 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder maple, pen, other: evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: shrubs grass pasture emp or grain .vet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk ,cabbage, other: ♦Dater pl:mts: water.lity, eelgr:Lss, milfoil, other. other types of vegetation: (STAFF COMMENTS) It. What kind aqd :unount orvegetation nn will he removed or altered." a it © (STAFF COMMENTS) C~ List threatened or endangered species known to he on or near the site. 111.OVr.2.,, (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the _ site, if any: z, Page 9 or22 CUKLT/I*-2S.93.MASrBtt - - - ttl cif" fox tivrc sa+�f��,i Jiffs`® •�:�+a�,, f " � v t , ° c a' "�s d � t r .: s �.. � , t r. ::•�,.t# �cs' ��, f� d a: What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stave, -solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy n Describe whether it will. be used far beating, manufacturing, etc. Gd t (STAFF COMMI TSj b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. WO r (STAFF COMMENTS) c. What kinds of energy amservation features are included in the' plans of this proposal? List other propkise d measures to recce or cogtrol energy impacts, if any:, (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental htmlth hazards, 'including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hm-ardour waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe.. 1 F C ._�-.:.. � .... •� ,:!: .:.,. ._:' �._._W:._,.�,..,...,.,..,7.;..:�.,,,ww�-.�.:u.�.,,...�,a..•:;;.�«.v,.a.,.w,�,:;.,w,r,au•:.Iwra,,.�.w.,�..�.,�,..,., - .. Aft (I) Describe special emergency services that might be required. LU (STAFF commEN`TS) 01 Q uJ Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: a J h' (STAFF COMMENTS) o' � I f b. Noise ` ti (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, f equipment, opera(ion, other)? • Ft .n10f Zi r 'a (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) What typeq and levels or noise would he created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long; -tern,; hme; (for example: traffic, construction, operation, o(her)? Indicate what hours noise Would co ie f an the site. (3) (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed mcasures to reduce or. control nose iegpacts, if any: �� z'N i P �; aau.Tnasv�.�insrcx . r i T,SF� Jt'....... 7. d t "` _..�._.... .... ,'...» }" �nmmu�niadzm�} '•,,,�. ��'ttS'6afi!k��iFlf:S?uCShN.�.'ISR:at^.F w.,....1 «: Alk t What is the current Mmhen sxe plan designation of theside? t �--• �` Fes• f (STAFF COMMENTS) ci a, uNs UJ' a tx-i g. It applicahle, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? LL W �„_ U. C.. 9 Z (STAFF COMMENTS) LU LUi G h. llas anyprrt orthe site Izeen classified as. "environmentally sensitive" area? f so, specify. OCa 1 Lu va �ii {M,B� x t){{ LL.. Zf Lai (STAFF COMMENTS) i. Appro LLmately hose many. People would resider or work in the completed project? ` (STAFF COMMENTS) s j• Approximately how many people would the completed proJect displace? t _ LS i • (ST4F•F COMMENTS) f { 4 r Page, 13 of22 ..::.»..:.....„.,.w.:,:,;:.,,•,,.,_.;;..s:ns;eanus-,:iuvdi+sss�uoresaieA.Yh'a.ifak^.�Jstit5�}�y&cP.�t%f'ia'.7db2157tk'}it2t�.lSS4�S.�.s-,°"+t°.'A'kSiiSY:t§�.�L�,*r:,f�ib�dth'arem�:H3sfid:r�'�4�r.'k'�;:YsvA�5stz?e,?ui ��u t-w;e,rirtx k. Proposed measures to avoid or,reduce displacement impacts, irany: (STAFF COMMENTS) I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, (STAFF COMMENTS) &try 1 ) G ,. w.....•.,.._._... .. .,.«..-..,.,,.,...3..+mMu+.,ewe»:r..neaas.c'a»g471J7C�&'C.'4�Y.:.TitA'xAs'3:NNA3'S.fJv'":,FZi'.A.3vldA:°.'0'C3r^.!srt�r,'n+tiatcoxrmrdzd::da..NRfat�.`L1Y:t'Jz.,f,�q,.w^�"garl Xp ° 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structtrre(s), not including antennas; what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed?cc UtlA Gtn W11LS w _J 01 0� ~ LU Fi {STAFF CONNIFNTS) w� 2 � L b. What views in the immediate vicinity would he altered or obstructed? � xr z; 4 g aY (STAFF COMMENTS) U v, ww C. Pmposed measure; to reduce or control aelhetic impac s. er any . 0 U or Op Z . (STAFF COMMENTS) l 1. light and Glare a. What type of light or }dare will the pnipaml produce? Mint time of day would it mainly occur? t�tAkA -�¢ yr ► -�i�c- l �kk (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Could light or glare from the finished project he a safety harard or interfere will views17 (STAFF COMMENTS) S Palo is or32 w T a c. CUMT110.W-41.16ASTC•Q [i ] i4l .. [ . 7 43 F r. 1 � Va .`rt. ��r � �. t rlj pi r � =. "..: � •�� ' .,... .wa..W.xuMmMlm.i.•Jcmr��tl�v bSi1dLS941FWA`413rACtCu'rt*i.A1210.%9Fb;a:T'JTdaldA:�SY 4"iY.lR:dr�hY�r=�+ (STAFf? COMMEM (STAFF COMMENTS) How many vehicular trips per day would he generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volutes would occur. �.:'✓. A M' to 0-tree .t l� w.'a.•: •a... AIL iY G'LRU A. if ll'!VY . CI qC L'TYtC42s.93MASTM- Mm C� C�