Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
16510 76TH AVE W (2).pdf
ZOV 01H AWAUh NVHIH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771.0220 - FAX (206) 771.0221 HEARING EXAMINER fist. 1s9v 'ff/j FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE BEARING EXAMINER CITE' OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: Rob McCoy CASE NO.: V 96-81 LOCATION: 16510 76th Avenue West (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1) L APPLICATION: A variance to reduce the required street setback from 25-feet to 19- feet to allow an addition of a new garage bay to an existing detached single -bay garage; and a variance to allow an increase in the maximum permitted height of an accessory structure (proposed garage addition) from 15-feet to 17-feet 4-inches (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 through 4). REVIEW PROCESS: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes s final decision. x S MAJOR ISSUES: r a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS). c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Sections 20.190.140 and 20.190,150 (definitions of STREET SETBACK and STRUCTURE respectively). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: I Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions 4. 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 McCoy application was opened at 9:18 a.m., July 18, 1996, in the Plaza Room, • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • ' Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan r '� v5 w: -J w �� LL jl = w' rx z t— ;: O' z LL, w' D: �a (> (n o t: I L) u- o Jz wCn �s o� z D�1 t0 Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:20. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing i is available in the Planning Division. a HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City: Kirk Vinish, AICP, Planner entered the staff report into the record and noted the same request had been approved earlier by the previous Hearing Examiner, but that the permit had expired. From the Applicant: Kyra McCoy, Applicant, said their contractor had backed out just before ` the permit expired so they are going through the process again. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: 1) Size: The subject property is approximately 40,075 square feet with property dimensions of approximately 180-feet wide by 320-feet deep with approximately 83-feet of street frontage (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). 2) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with a detached single-family residence and a single detached garage. 3) Zoning: The subject property is located in a residential single-family zone (RS-12); (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). 4) Terrain and Vegetation: The site slopes towards the west at approximately 20% and is landscaped with Iow vegetation and a few trees. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Facts: 1) The site is located in a single-family residential zone (RS-12). 2) The lots neighboring the subject property are zoned RS-12 on the north and south, and RS-12 to the east, with the Burlington Northern railroad tracks and Puget Sound to the west (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). w = i U 0' U) LU � (n al g �1 �d = u, r z_w i-- o w u, �a �a �cl) o— a ►F- �F- U-Q WrX U _ o~ z E. HISTORY 1. Fact: A previous application for the same request was approved on May 18,1994 by the City's Hearing Examiner (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5). C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) 1. Fact: A determination of nonsignificance has been issued for this proposal. The appeal period expired on May 10,1994. D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE I. a) Fact: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to single-family development in a RS-12 zone are set forth in ECDC Section 16.20.030. This section requires the minimum street setback to be 25-feet for all structures. b) Conclusion: The proposal complies with the requirements of the zoning ordinance except the portions for which the variance is applied for. 2. a) Facts: 1) ECDC Chapter 20.85 sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a case -by -case basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship. The criteria are as follows: (a) Special Circumstances: That because of special circumstances relating to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, not any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property. (b) Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. F® (c) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the zoning district in which the property 'is located. t s Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-81 Page 4 (d) Not Detrimental: That the variance, as approved or conditionally • approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, a �� safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the _ vicinity and the same zone. w� c.� (e) Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the minimum Ln o necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the � _ vicinity with the same zoning. wo I (2) The applicant has presented declarations to respond to all of the required criteria as follows (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). N # (a) The applicant states that the proposal meets the special circumstances z d ` criteria due to the natural steep topography of the site. The owners z M would like to enlarge the existing garage to accommodate 2 vehicles to z o prevent having to park 1 vehicle on the street during icy weather when w W a. their driveway, which is approximately a 19% slope, is not maneuverable. The existing topography prevents a larger structure o -} than exists now from conforming to the height requirements due to the w w- { severe drop in grade from the street level to the back of the structure. However, the street elevation of the proposed structure will conform to u- o?. the height regulations as the finished height at the street will. be 14'-Y' Z. Ui Cn above grade. c� T ~ (b) The applicant states that this proposal is not a grant of special privilege z because the provision of secured parking for 2 vehicles that will be accessible from the street is fairly typical for a residence in this area. (c) The applicant states that this proposal will be consistent with the il Comprehensive Plan because it will not disturb any existing natural elements on the site. } (d) The applicant states that this proposal is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the use of the existing building as a residential garage p will not change. (e) The applicant states that the proposal will not be detrimental to the public health safety or welfare, or other adjacent property owners. The proposed structure will provide enclosed parking at the top of the driveway so vehicles parking there they will not be on the street and r 0 this will be safer for the area by removing a potential hazard due to restricting site lines on the road. (f) The applicant states that this proposal is the minimum variance needed. The character of the existing building will be maintained and the impact to the site will be insignificant. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-81 Page 5 b) Conclusions: (1) The proposal meets the special circumstances criteria due to the steep topography of the site. Those lots in the immediate area on the west side of 76th Avenue West which have a similar slope problem, have houses which are sited at the street level. Conversely, the subject house is sited much farther down the slope, therefore, no sites in the immediate area have such difficulty accessing their garage. Because of the lot configuration, the house is forced to be sited low on the lot, requiring it to have a steep driveway access. Strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges pertnitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning as they are able to access their garages easily regardless of weather conditions. Also, strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would impact the environment by requiring grading into the hillside to relocate the structure to meet setback and height requirements. (2) The approval of this variance request will not be a grant of special privilege as the lots in the immediate area on the west side of 76th Avenue are able to easily access their garage at the street level and do not experience the limitations of the subject property. (3) Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the continued use of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance designation of the site. (4) Approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. The applicant states that with the garage addition there would be one less car parked on the street, which would eliminate a possible traffic hazard. (5) Approval of the requested variance appears to be the minimum required to allow for the reasonable use of the subject property because the existing driveway slope does not make it feasible for use during the winter months, and creates minimal impact to the environment for construction of such a structure. E. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE 1. Fact: The Variance Application has been reviewed and evaluated by other Departments/Divisions of the City (Le. Fire Department, Public Works Division, and t 0 The Parks & Recreation Division). No comments were submitted regarding the 11 application. 0 M1 za w Q, W v. J 0 w LU T J N LL� o; w� Q� T d, � s; z_ F-.. t— O z 1— u+ w �o Ucl) i o� iUJI r� LLo _z w to U= O~ z K*J Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-81 Page 6 F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) 1. a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Residential". b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. 2. a. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies which relate to "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below. (1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted...:' b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City for the development of residential property in the City. DECISION Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the application is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 2. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction. 3. The permit is transferable. 4. The approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for extension of time before the expiration and the City approves the application. (ECDC 20.85.020.C) 5. The variance is approved as shown on the site plan (Exhibit A, Attachment 4). { Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 96-81 Page 7 Entered this 29th day of July, 1996, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. z !t I=- w o Ron McConnell = Hearing Examiner w J F- LLI - O` RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS CC ( The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and r s . appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact z F- the Planning Department for further procedural information. F- Q w w REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 2 = Section 20.100.010.E allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or o i--r recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the w ,.0 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 — z which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must LU cn cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances �- governing the type of application being reviewed. a z APPEALS Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons _._ . why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the s Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. D LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' to NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR J The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. W .j - t L) V) V) LU, LLI U) LL 0 w L.L X wi r- :C z 0: z Fi LU Lui 0 ui LU LLD z ui 0 z t 0 PARTIES OF RECORD: Rob and Kyra McCoy 16510 - 7& Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 0 'i Ito ti H^ Z. —w U )O n uj J 4— cn u., — 0 ua Q J u� D In S u, z t— �a Z ww �O 00 U to at wW zU F- H u- C _ z ui t!, U = o� z STATE Or WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHON.ISH. B-2•1 I- J U L 1 1 1996 Affidavit of Publication EDMONDS CITY CLERK The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice ........................................ Public Hearing & Notice of Development Application/James & Sue Colbeck File No.: AP-96-80 ................................. :................. ............................................................................ a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: July 7, 1996 ............... an t t said newspaper was re y distri uted to its subscribers durin all of said period. .... .... I .................... ....4.r....:::.. Principal Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this........ ,8th day f..................J. ly............q ............., 19. g6.. .... ..:.................... . . ..... oPublicin andfoate ofWashington, residing at Everett, Snounty. r ON NOTAgp s tri Au a Ltr' � �'�� 5•ts•sa 0 OF WASN�� t t a CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY !.s G ; ~ MAYOR 260 6TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 99020 • (206) 771.0220 • FAX (206) 771.6221 .. - COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT i i F p St. Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering is Letter of Transmittal ' { Date: July 10,'1996 To: Rob McCoy 16510 76th Ave. W. - Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: Hearing Examiner Meeting of 7/18/96 Transmitting Agenda & Staff Report ' 3 t. For Your Information: XX ; As you requested: For your file: Comment: Note attachments: Sincerely, Diane M. Cunningham, Planning Secretary cc: Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner EDMONDS HEADING EXAMINER MEETING AGENDA JULY 18,1996 AT 9:00 A.M. Plaza Room - Edmonds Library 650 Main Street 1. Call to Order 2. Public Hearings a. FILE NO. AP-96-80; Appeal by lames & Sue Colbeck of a Planning Division staff interpretation of ECDC Section 17.40.010 related to the appellants request to expand the floor area in each of the 10 two -bedroom units of a nonconforming apartment building located at 21521 73rd Place West. The subject apartment building is nonconforming due to the number of units. b. FILE NO, V-96-81; Application by Rob McCoy for a Variance to reduce the required street setback from 25-feet to 19-feet to allow an addition of a new garage bay to an existing detached single -bay garage; and, a variance to allow an increase in the maximum permitted height of an accessory structure (proposed garage addition) from 15-feet to 17-feet 4-inches. The subject property is located at 16510 76th Avenue West and is zoned RS 20. C. FILE NO. V-96-83; Application by Edward & Sue Koenigs for a Variance to reduce the required street setback from 25 feet to 18 feet 4 inches, and to reduce the required 7.5 feet to 6 feet to allow the applicant's to place siding on an existing nonconforming carport. The subject property is located at 9719 216th Place Southwest and is zoned RS-8. 3. Administrative Reports - No Reports. 4. Adjournment PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE ACCESSIBLE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (Contact the City Clerk at 771-024S with 24 hours advance notice far special accommodations) 0718KDOC.ACMDASWE .. - 0 ,` ® i lit RM CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 To: Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner From: - Kirk J. Vinish, AICP Planner Date: JULY 10, 1996 File: V-96-81 ROB McCOY Hearing Date, Time, And Place: Jaly 18, 1996, At 9:00 AM, Plaza Room - Edmonds Library 650 Main Street TABLE OF CONTENTS Section page I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................:............................................2 A. Application.....................:..........................................................:............................................................2 B. Recommendations.......................................................................................:..........................................2 IL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS.....................................:...........................................................3 A. Site Description...............................................................:......................................................................3 B. History......:.............................................................................................................................................3 C. SEPA...............................................:..........................................:.........................................................3 D. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance..........................................................3 E. Technical Committee.......................................................................:.....................................................5 F. Comprehensive Plan. (ECDC)............................................................................................................6 III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS.......................................................................................................6 A. Request for Reconsideration.....................................................................:............................................6 B. Appeals..................................................................................................,................................................6 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL..............................................................................................:...................................6 V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR...............................................................................................................6 VI. APPENDICES...............................................................................:.....................:...........................:................7 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD....................................................:............................................................................7 0 0 �' z Z.J _w .0 V UO :n a w J H, U) LL i — O` wLL zw H z 1- �- O Z ww � Q C3 Vy, off = twj F- r LL O —z wM O~ z i0 Rob McCoy File No. V-96-81 Page 2 of 7 . I. INTRODUCTION A. - APP'LICANT INFORMATION 1 Annl�, icant: Rob McCoy (see Attachment 2). { 2. Site Location: 16510 76th Avenue West (see Attachment 1). 3. Request: A variance to reduce the required street setback from 25-feet to 19-feet to allow an addition of a new garage bay to an existing detached single -bay garage; and a variance to allow an increase in the maximum permitted height of an accessory structure (proposed garage addition) from 15-feet to 17-feet 4-inches (see Attachments 2 through 4). 4. Review Process: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. 5. Major Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS). c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Sections 20.190.140 + and 20.190,150 (definitions of STREET SETBACK and STRUCTURE respectively). B. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on Statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, we recommend approval of this application with the following conditions: i. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds' Community Development code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 2. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction. 3. The permit should be transferable. 4. The approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for extension of time before the expiration and the City approves the application. (ECDC 20.85.020.C) 5. The variance is approved as shown on the site plan (Attachment 4). V96-8 LDOC /.July,10„ 1996 / Staff Report 0 0 t w= _U U0 Y)a ww J F- V)LL w} � w L_ Na =w Z I— l.-O wLLJ �0 U to Qp F- zLLj LL C w u U= OF Z I Rob McCoy Fi%No. V-96.81 Page 3 of 7 II. FINDING S OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS N A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Size: The subject property is approximately 40,075 square feet with property dimensions of approximately 180-feet wide by 320-feet deep with approximately 83- 11 feet of street frontage (see Attachment 4). (2) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with a detached single-family III, residence and a single detached garage. ' (3) Ong: The subject property is located in a residential single-family "zone (RS-12); j (see Attachment 1). (4) Terrain and Vegetation: The site slopes towards the west at approximately 20% and is landscaped with low vegetation and a few trees. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Facts: II (1) The site is located in a single-family residential zone (RS-12). (2) The lots neighboring the subject property are zoned RS-12 on the north and south; and RS-12 to the east, with the Burlington Northern railroad tracks and Puget Sound to the west (see Attachment 1). B. History (1) Fact: A previous application for the same request was approved on May 18, 1994 by the City's Hearing Examiner (see Attachment 5). C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) i. Fact: A determination of nonsignificance has been issued for this proposal. The appeal period expired on May 10, 1994. D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. a) Fact: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to single-family development in a RS-12 zone are set forth in ECDC Section 16.20.030. This section requires the minimum street setback to be 25-feet for all structures. b) I Conclusion: The proposal complies with the requirements of the zoning ordinance except the portions for which the variance is applied for. it V96-81 DOC 7 July 10,11996 ( Staff Report I // Rob McCoy t _ File No. V-96-81 Page 4 of 7 2. a) Each: (1) ECDC Chapter 20.85 sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a case -by -case basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship. The criteria are as follows: (a) Special Circumstances: That because of special circumstances relating to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, not any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property. (b) apecial Priv kU: That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. (c) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning_ Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the zoning district in which the property is located. (d) Not Detrimental: That the variance, as approved or conditionally approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone. (e) Minimum Varianee: That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. (2) The applicant has presented declarations to respond to all of the required criteria as follows (see Attachment 4). (a) The applicant states that the proposal meets the special circumstances criteria due to the natural steep topography of the site. The owners would like to enlarge the existing garage to accommodate 2 vehicles to prevent having to park 1 vehicle on the street during icy weather when their driveway, which is approximately a 19% slope, is not maneuverable. The existing topography prevents a larger structure than exists now from conforming to the height requirements due to the severe drop in grade from the street level to the back of the structure. However, the street elevation of the proposed structure will conform to the height regulations as the finished height at the street will be 14'-3" above grade. (b) The applicant states that this proposal is not a grant of special privilege because the provision of secured parking for 2 vehicles that will be accessible from the street is fairly typical for a residence in this area. (c) The applicant states that this proposal will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it will not disturb any existing natural elements on the site. 101 W Rob McCoy File No V-46-81' Page 5 of 7 (d) The applicant states that this proposal is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the use of the existing building as a residential garage will not change. (e) The applicant states that the proposal will not be detrimental to the public health safety: or welfare, or other adjacent property owners. The proposed structure will provide enclosed parking at the top of the driveway so vehicles parking there they will not be on the street and this will be safer for the area by removing a potential hazard due to restricting site lines on the road. (f) The applicant states that this proposal is the minimum variance needed. The character of the existing building will be maintained and the impact to the site will be insignificant. b) Conclusions (1) The proposal meets the special circumstances criteria due to the steep topography of the site. Those lots in the immediate area on the west side of 76th Avenue West which have a similar slope problem, have houses which are sited at the street level. Conversely, the subject house is sited much farther down the slope, therefore, no sites in the immediate area have such difficulty accessing their garage. Because of the lot configuration, the house is forced to be sited low on the lot, requiring it to have a steep driveway access. Strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning as they are able to access their garages easily regardless of weather conditions. Also, strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would impact the environment by requiring grading into the hillside to relocate the structure to meet setback and height requirements. (2) The approval of this variance request will not be a grant of special privilege as the lots in the immediate area on the west side of 76th Avenue are able to easily access their garage at the street level and do not experience the limitations of the subject property. (3) Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the continued use of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance designation of the site. (4) Approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. The applicant states that with the garage addition there would be one less car parked on the street, which would eliminate a possible traffic hazard. (5) Approval of the requested variance appears to be the minimum required to allow for the reasonable use of the subject property because the existing driveway slope does not make it feasible for use during the winter months, and creates minimal impact to the environment for construction of such a structure. E. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE I. Fact: The Variance Application has been reviewed and evaluated by other Departments/Divisions of the City (i.e. Fire Department, Public Works Division, and The Parks & Recreation Division). No comments were submitted regarding the application. h=—�cc 2 D U U O V)a Lw U cn 0 g �k d LL d, Di F- w z 1=— E— O z t— ww U — o �� w w! = U' IL �z W tN U = Q z ' Rob McCoy File No. V-96-81 Page 6 of 7 F. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) 1. a. EW: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Residential". b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. 2, a, jFArU: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies which relate to "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below. (1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted.... " b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City for the development of residential property in the City. III. RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. B. APPEALS Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project 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. V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. VI. LAPSE OF APPROVAL t © Section 20.05.020.0 states'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' !!l i �.% Rob McCoy , File No. V-96.81 Page 7 of 7 i VII. APPENDICES ATTACHMENTS 1 THROUGH 5 ARE ATTACHED. Z }. W"1 1. Vicinity J Zoning Map g' 2. Application Form/Legal Description t ` w v! 3. Declarations of Applicant 00 4. Site Plan and Elevations w 5. Hearing Examiner Decision, dated 5/14/94 w= U) LL j VIII. PARTIES OF RECORD W o; a Applicant u- < N Planning Division dr h _' Z 1. h O Z LU W' 2 p'; t3 �' OLU — G3 Wi H L), u. p Z" tii N!. t] _. O ~ Z r } �y V96-8t.DOC/July 10, 1996lStaff Report. .f, ® �,: f lam.*+"^�.t%^•'F ®"i.; Wo •EST4 Vicinity Map w� —J LJ Ln w Wo w Q J L� (n T w h = z h 1.- 0 wj 0 U cn o1-- wLLJ u- C UJ a o� z city of cc . ponds l land use application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ❑ COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Ci HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT / STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER cA- ct4 -� FILE # V qG-06 i ZONE ! Z. DATE - G/7/9i REC'D BY .� FEE 267. 0ssa�ECEIPT# � S la 12PA HEARING DATE HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED APPEAL# Applicant h 1 t cz' t} Phone �� 2-- 7 O15 Address 16s 3 o 1 Rt t uks� ` E-a,,yt , ' L^-jL 13 MLf Property Address or Location SG+rv� Property Owner SGm2_ Phone Jcl -c— Phone I Address Tax Acc # G k 001 "7 UO S U 0 0ZSec. Twp. Rng. Legal Description Details of Projector Proposed Use -f A, J Lff4 ,� . c -,.:� (I-) rG.r- c �-e 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, 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 F`-"`- enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AG ATTACHMENT 2 File No. V-96-81 0 w, Lnw N 6 r --•`�~r tic �`=� DF �-+c'�T� r 'PACfl� 3g i y2�Cp i� p� � d � , � C 'G�-1��h4 -ttt tGv`CON+ .At�kD N44CA'r-n) —nrF22rer. pro �tae cti�� `P7 .Co GT+ >k W t Ti�l t-{.SA r Or tJGUMpr'5 r OF '05"r TM'E y�-t tE�., ,l-OTa U'�'TlOh.! csF �a'TH J-IN'E. o� ..�c� 7 Atop � ��M tt�1F c�� �Ata G oT g , Ttir- l ko;zr t f�GSzli� At=- T+tAT 'F7'QTt©t4 �- d-1 .Ctrs i . CG} t t�tE*t ! t•lC� AT - tM 1JC zi}t - -,'� a-t- c,� . 'T i- o ( a�t os I^..t At. -©ram -1'>= uC.e t�. oa op;rM�ft�, ip Fr--r---r; TKE-ttrc- 151O a13, 2p" yr, C)q v1 �, 68•919 (,qr rr--t!:.T -tv THE It --A Qui'C c"tt-mote l�.t�s-f >t cRtp iiUM f t COO to -�czz ca U t �R lU tao,0.t.iCst-rOt�. ,g Ft.�� �.,t0, 'i 712oao257� "Ti is tG>� tFNt!.,3�y ALONAr OF -76 Z ?Q,ACE J,.Jrz. a- ' 'tU pRoLot_A HE act toia. at? j i N COPC(I l_ tt,-1•� �htC+ J-Cst- tea. �.,,11-�-H-t"i,i"� .�tD 1~1�'ST Al-ot,i�c..... ctD laOizTid. 1.-try' 't O�TMFtO�ItyT' Or_ i t`at�ilt�iG� . oC75 _ 0002. . .... ... ... . I-V t ne mom== W company inc architects N cord=tom February 1e,1994 tj Uo Fl To; The City of Edmonds Wo From: Stephen R. Sullivan Architect (n Re: Application for Height and Setback Variance for the (n LLI LU 0.i McCoy residence 2 � =iI tt< The list is e following a compilation of the findings made for this Ln ; MI: project per Chapter 20.85 of The City of Edmonds Community X UJ': I- Development Code X' z I_ 0 Lu LU; D A. Special Conditions ' 0 The natural topography of the site prevented the existing LULu, XLY car garage from being located within the setback without requiring extensive re -grading. The Owners would like to u.Z enlarge the existing garage to accommodate (2) vehicles to Prevent having to park (1) vehicle on the street during icy weather when their driveway, which is approximately a 19% 0 I slope, is not maneuverable. z The existing topography prevents a larger structure than exists gow from 'conforming to the -height requirements due to the severe drop in grade from the street level to the back of the structure. However, since it is this severe drop that will cause the building to be non -conforming, the street elevation of the proposed structure will conform to the height regulations as the finished height at the street will be 14'-3" above grade (see drawings). 0 B. Special Privilege The provision of secured parking for (2) vehicles that will be accessible from the street would not be a special to Privilege as a (2) car garage is fairly typical for a residence in this area. ATTACHMENT 3 File No. V-.96-81 44bM 18596 76th Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 778-6812 SULLId 09702 0 �01--_1 — I , " " , , 11� . ' say Sz 77Mis a hi rE C7 C. IM 8. P. February 18, 1994 Comprehensive Plan The approval of this variance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it will not disturb any existing natural elements on the site. The area to beenclosedis currently a paved surface, so no additional', grading will be required and existing drainage patterns will not be significantly altered The proposed garage will rehabilitate and enlarge the existing garage. Since, -tie proposed garage will maintain the rustic appearance of the existing garage new structure will harmonize with the existing surroundings. Zonincr Ordinance The purpose of the zoning ordinance will not be affected by the approval of this variance. The use of the existing building as a residential garage will not change. Not Detrimental - The approval'of this variance will not have any harmful or adverse affects for the surrounding properties and it will enhance the property on which it is located. The proposed structure will provide enclosed parking at the top of the driveway so when vehicles must be parked there they will not be on the street and this will be safer for the area by removing a potential hazard due to restricting site lines on the road. Minimum variance The proposed addition is the minimum necessary to maintain the character of the existing building, provide the owner with the desired accessible secured parking for (2) vehicles, and to maintain the existing environmental tK conditions as they are. 18596 76th Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 98026,E (206) 778-6812. SUWC! 09702 M,�r z +t!(W� •f air "F' t ✓i t{} i t 1 l QQ . Q� UO N _ Q�Q o w i I' zi 1 z � cv � � 14" .oveFANA :O;-JyP.... : O �f7 " I 01,11 elII �X is fTo ! OTIII-T,_: AboTl /Jhl +`i2931 4 ' " 141•Gn ral -off_- ®: - .. M`.00Y [",AIs.T I N...G . &A". a' L A N T'H-e 'S`U "CLt V'A 1-4 Cc; 2>t6-��• No TH � u 0 � 32 X 25 x O o . rk, 0 t) J �� �j20�OS�'l� G.AIzACGE. rLE�V; M`GOT � I~ S 1 D It, N 114 �, S1J L L IVAN CO, i-' 0 M`Gc)y F Lr1 DFNG 1 , THE GULLIVA14 .CD, CITY OF EDMONDS LAURA M. HALL 250 - STH AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221 MAYOR HEARING EXAMINER z W! 1 890 .194 Z. LU W FINDINGS AND DECISION J 0 OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS :n _JLu Cn UJ IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FILE: V-94-29 2 OF STEVE SULLIVAN FOR APPROVAL g =3 OF A VARIANCE LL D a DECISION: The variances are granted subject to the conditions LU listed. z I_ F !i 0 UJ LU INTRODUCTION L)W; Steve Sullivan for Rob and Kyra McCoy (hereinafter referred to as 0 applicant), 18596 - 76th Avenue West, Edmonds, Washington, W W, requested approval of variances for property located at 16510 - = U. 76th Avenue West, Edmonds, Washington. The requests are to p 0: reduce the required street setback (twenty-five foot setback z; standard) to nineteen feet to permit an addition of a new garage w (n, L) L bay to an existing detached single bay garage and to permit an P 0 increase in the maximum permitted height of an accessory z structure (fifteen foot height standard) to seventeen feet four inches. A hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds, Washington, on May 5, 1994. At the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence: ANN BULLIS KYRA McCOY Planning Dept. 16510 - 76th Avenue West City of Edmonds Edmonds, WA 98026 0 Edmonds, WA 98020 At the hearing the following exhibits were submitted and were admitted as part of the official record of this proceeding: Exhibit I - Staff Report with the following attachments 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map to 2. Application Form/Legal Description 3. Declarations of Applicant 4. Site Plan and Elevations After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Applicant, and evidence elicited during the public hearing, the following . ATTACHMENT 5 * Incorporated August 11, 1890 9 File No. V-96-81 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 0 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: V-94-29 5/17/94 Page 2 Z �{ _ Findings of Fact and Conclusions constitute the basis of the w decision of the Hearing Examiner. LM _J t� o FINDINGS OF FACTS w � �. 1. The request is. for variances to reduce the required street o! setback to nineteen feet (twenty-five foot setback standard) in UJ U order to develop an addition of a new garage bay to an existing J�detached single bay garage and to allow an increase in the maximum permitted height of an accessory structure (fifteen foot height cn a standard) to seventeen feet four inches on property located at w' 16510 - 76th Avenue West, Edmonds, Washington. Zh r_o 2. The subject property is approximately 40,075 square feet in z w area with property dimensions of approximately 180 feet wide by 320 feet deep with approximately 83 feet of street frontage. The owners desire to enlarge the existing garage to accommodate two o - ~; vehicles to prevent having to park one vehicle on the street during t icy weather when their driveway,sloped at approximately % p. pproximatel a 194 grade, is not maneuverable. "--Z' 3. The subject property, currently developed with a detached LU v-i single family home, is located in an RS-12: zone. The adjacent F properties to the north and south are zoned RS 12, properties to z the east are zoned RS-20, and the Burlington Northern railroad tracks and Puget Sound are west of the subject property. 4. The site slopes toward the west at approximately 20% and is landscaped with low vegetation and a few trees. 5. In order for a reduced street setback variance and a variance for an increase in permitted height of -an accessory structure to be yranted'withit the City, of Edmonds, the criteria of ECDC 20.85.010 ` must be satisfied*. Those criteria include: © A. Because of the special circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other'properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. B. The approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the t® limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. C., The approval of the variance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds. N. ®- REAP.WG F.VWXNjM DECISION RE: V-94-29 5/17/94 Page 3 D. The approval of the variance will be consistent with the Lu:' purposes of the zoning ordinance and. the zone district in < which the property is located. LU -1 oi U 0� E. The variance as approved or conditionally approved will (n Lu'i, En =i not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety. Lu and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in U) LL 0 the vicinity and same zone. F. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to allow- < the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the D Ln a vicinity with the same zoning. W, (ECDC) Z t--, Z 6. Special circumstances exist for the grant of the reduced ww street setback and increase in permitted height variances. These 3 circumstances include the steep slopes on the property. The cn� 0 existing topography prevents a larger structure than currently wexists from conforming to the height requirements. Due to the Lu M severe drop in grade from the street level to the back of the I--- structure, the applicant is limited with the proposed construction. ZL However, the street elevation of the proposed structure will d! cn)) conform to the height regulations as the finished height - at the U =,street will be fourteen -feet three inches above grade. 0 Z 7. The -grant of the variances will not be the grant of a special privilege to the applicant. - Secured parking for two vehicles accessible from the street is typical for residences in an RS-12 zone. a. The requested reduced setback variances are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan low density residential designation'of the subject property. 9. The requested reduced setback variances will not be detrimental to the public nor to nearby private property or improvements. The proposed project will conform to other developments in the area and will provide enclosed parking on the subject property and not on the street where there is a potential hazard. 10. The requested reduced variances are a *minimum variance to request. No views are impacted as a result of the requests. 0 10 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: V-94-29 5/17/94 Page 4 CONCLUSIONS 1. The request is for variances -to reduce the required street setback to nineteen feet (twenty-five foot setback standard) to permit an addition of a new garage bay to an existing detached single bay garage and to permit an increase in the maximum permitted height of an accessory structure (fifteen foot height standard) to seventeen feet four inches on property located at 16510 - 76th Avenue West, Edmonds, Washington. 2. A variance is required pursuant to the -provisions of ECDC 16.20.030. 3.. The criteria for review of variances are set forth in ECDC 20.85.010. These criteria have been identified in the Findings of this document (Finding #5). The manner in which each of these criteria is satisfied has also been addressed in the Findings of this document (Findings #6-10). These Findings are hereby adopted as conclusions in support of this decision. 4. The requested variances are consistent with the RS-12 zoning standards of low density residential designation as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The requested variances will not be detrimental to* other properties in the area. 6. The requested variances are the minimum variance necessary for the applicant to have the same rights as other property owners in the vicinity. 7. The setbacks and new height of the proposed garage addition will not impact other properties in the area. DECISION Based upon the preceding Findings 'of Facts and Conclusions, the testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing, and upon the impressions of the Hearing Examiner at a site view, it is hereby.ordered that the requested variance to reduce the required street setback to nineteen feet and to increase the permitted height of an accessory structure to seventeen feet four inches on property located at 16510 - 76th Avenue West, Edmonds, Washington, is granted 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 0 (f) LL 0 KL � --- - - - - - - - - -- - -- -- --- -4. ".Y -- -44�� within one year from the date of approval or the variances shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for extension of time before the expiration'and the City approves the application. 5. The variances are approved as shown on the site plan. Entered this .18th day of May, 1994, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearing Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other grounds for appeal may be filed with the Planning Department, City of Edmonds, Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington 98020, within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Hearing Examiner's final action. In this matter any appeal must be received by the Department prior to 5:00 p.m. on June 2, 1994. 0 4ELECCPtLFt COVEC*_PAGIE 'Mn -�fL-p� ^ CiATE'rRANSLtVf NUMBER OF t"Y"r>=t?• �, �70.QES' (tnatudinp Govl or Rage) Reciplunts'rolacopier Numtmr: FACSIMILE E41SiPMENT: ` Automatic). Qrbup (2.3 mins_t3*oup 13 III FRy,OM-. IG+ ti•�-M- -_6 A L +� It thera �uro an clurinp transrn d -o Frnan'la a inoompleta. . t208)-p2-0 tar i �y lomb4am6 - ssion or a racelvad (ease call ancl ask Sander'a Tealacopier Numbor: (200.) 771-0221 RE_ dm o:w�wawa.:.��.r.Fom,• •. tnccrparatrd Aupuat I3, ilt90 + Sister Class International — Hakim.. Japan TRANSMISSION REPO THIS DOCUMENT (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE) WAS SENT. ** COUNT # 3 *** SEND *** NO REMOTE STATION I.D. START TIME DURATION I #PAGES COMMENT 7 206 339 3049 7- 2-96 3:13PM 1 1'36" 1 13 TOTAL 0:01,36" 3 XEROX TELECOPIER 7020 i i win f 'xr^^,h%�Fx r e ii� �� rd C, PUBLIC HEARING and NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Name of Applicant: James & Sue Colbeck File No.: AP-96.80 Project Location:. 2152173rd Pl. W. Project Description: Appeal of staff interpretation of ECDC Section 17.40.010 related to the appellants request to expand the floor area in each of the 10 units of a ` nonconforming apartment building. City Contact: John Bissell Public Comme t Period Due By: 7118/96 Name of Appli�lant: Rob McCoy File No.: V-96-81 Project Location: 16510 76th Ave. W. Project Description: Variance to reduce the required street setback from 25-feet to 19-feet to allow an addition of a new garage bay to an existing detached single -bay garage; and a variance to allow an increase in the maximum permitted height of an accessory structure (proposed garage addition) from 15-feet to 17-feet 4-inches. City Contact: Kirk Vinish Public Comment Period Due By: 7/18/96 Name of Applicant: Edward & Sue Koenigs File No.: IV-96-83 Project Locationn: 9719 216th Pl. SW Project Description: Variance to reduce the required street setback from 25-feet to 18-feet 4 inches, and to reduce the required 7.5-feet to 6-feet to place siding on an existing nonconforming carport. City Contact: Kirk Vinish Public Comment Period Due By: 7H 8/96 PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Time: 9:00 AM Date: Thursday, July 18,1996 Place: Plaza Meeting Room - 650 Main St., Edmonds, WA 98020 Sandy Chase, City Clerk Publish: July 7,1996 �:. ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ❑ COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # V �� '� 1 ZONE ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION DATE _ 6/7/9L REC'D BY ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE �217 �' Gi32� ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ssa ECEIPT# 2 S ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HEARING DATE urn ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT / STREET VACATION HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ACTION TAKEN: ® VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED ❑ OTHER n-. q 4 APPEAL# Applicant ._ t � 1 ' 1 � � Phone G-7 2''% 015 Address toy to � � � t. p_s -- E—&'\.w.�Tt,_sl� Property Address or Location _';Oy" Property Owner '5G✓riQ_ Phone J&,r-c. Address Agent Phone Address Tax Acc # 001 i U O S 0 0 V 2„Sec. Twp. Rng. Legal Description o_ U-C'vtr e �. Details of Project or Proposed Use 1/\ I1 _ 0 ,"' c °cam,— C c -n G cv�� r T� f�S 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 postin attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AG T �� U. J July 8, 1996 w is Rob McCoy _J E- 16510 76th Avenue West p ' Edmonds, WA 98026 u- Subject: ASSIGNMENT OF HEARING DATE D d _ UJ; Dear Mr. McCoy: zP z o Your application is now complete and has been scheduled for public hearing at the time and place listed w w below. �a o Action: Hearing to consider Variance �r LU File No. Assigned: V-96-81 Date of Hearing: July 18.1996 �!- Time: 9:00 A.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible. Zi u1 cn! Place: Plaza Room, Edmonds Library 650 Main Street z Hearing Body: Hearing Examiner Please be aware that your presence at the hearing is highly advisable. If an applicant or his representative is not present, the item may be moved to the end of the agenda. Items not reached by the end of the hearing will be continued to the following montlfs agenda. 1 If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Kirk J. Vinish, Project Planner at 771-0220. _._.._� M Sincerely, nity Services Department - Planning Division 0 Jeffrey S. Wilson, AICP Current Planning Supervisor pc: File No. V-96-81 Kirk J. Vinish, Project Planner F® ^cntr.noc s Incorporated August 11, 1890 • +' 07/OS/96.COPMSVWOTICE Sister Cities International I Iekinan, Japan 7 ex t, k<x .— r t } 4 Notice of Development Application & Public Hearing Date of Notice: July 3, 1996 File # V-96-81 Applicant Information Permit IInformation Name of Applicant:,..... Z Rob McCoy Requested Permits O Variance and Building y. Date of Application: ...... . ....... 0 617/96 and Approvals:.. ................. . 0 LL -)ate application Complete:.... ete: 7/2/96 Other Required Permits not * Unknown o yet applied for (if known):. L- Project Location:.. 16510 76th Ave. W. Required Studies related t N/A Project Description: ........ .. 0 Variants to reduce required street to the project:..................... setback from 25-feet to 194eet and to increase the maximum permitted height Related Environmental * Critical Areas Checklist of an accessory structure (garage) from Documents: ........................ 1 5-feet to 17-feet 4-inches. Public Comments due by: Z) July 18, 1996 City Contact for project: Z Kirk Vinish 0 H Public earing Information tiq 1111to Date: July 18, 1996 Time: 9:00 A.M. Place: Plaza Meeting Room, 650 Main Street Information on this development application on be viewed or obtained at the City ofEdramods Community Services Department, 250 5th Avenue North, Edurnials, WA 98020. (206) 771-0220. Public comments should also be sent to this address. 0 7ha darimh amthis development application will be made within 120 days afthe data ofthe Letter of Completeness .1thq,?n4qc,00;d requests. Note that ability to appeaha decision is contingent upoeparlialeation in Ike P14 The rennoved,mutilath.., d.et—th..,.,concealment ofthis This notice may be removed notice before the hearing date Is a misdemeanor punishable by aft" i Warning. fine and Imprisonment. July 18, 1996 32XIII 25X 331-000-003-00 .arry Rosok. .6530 - 76th Ave.; W. 3monds, WA 98026 i931-000-004-00 ;eorge Goddard .6540 - 76th Ave. W. Awnds, WA 980* - of 931-000-W5-00 LU :obert Gregg q� 6550 - 76th Ave. W. 4monds, WA 98026 _� a. w z .931-000-009-00 H o ordon Peterson w LU 6710 - 76th Ave. W. g o. dmonds, WA 98026 00 U cn' o—: o w i 931400-:011-00 = U; urtis Barnard ti 6736 - 76th Ave. W. zl dmonds, WA 98026 cn`. U O~ z ' 931-000-012-00 y Seuk-Yong Chang 6740 - 76th Ave. W. dmonds, WA 98020P 131-000-088-03 .L. Melang 65.15 - 75th Pl. W. dmonds, 'NA 98026 131-000-089-01 onald H. Hansen. 6411 - 75th Pl. W. dmonds, WA 98026 i 131-000-089 2 WOre 98026 . W. 131-000-089-03 affrey L. Meyer 6429 - 75th P1. W. Ion, WA 98026 Mark Simonson 16621 -- 76th Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 9802(p i 5131-000-095-00 Fr `t�nnces E. Weaver 16630 - 75th P1. W. Edmonds, WA 98024 51�1-097-003-00 Nicholas Blattner 16420 - 76th Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 I , 5131-097-005-01 Michael Goodrick 16508 - 76th Ave: W. Edmonds, WA 98024 6931-000-001-00 David & Kathleen Teo 16600 - 76th Ave. WA Bdmonds, WA 98026 Stephen R. Sullivan 18�96 76th Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 I Rob & Kyra McCoy 16510 76th Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 i NOTICE OF HEARING AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING a STATE OF,WASHINGTON) j COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH } I, JOHN BISSELL, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: 2 APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE: V-96-81 AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING JUN 17 1996 ROUTED TO: RETURNED PLANNING DEPT. Engineering _ 6i t f1/96 Engineering "P T� .� �•� Fire _ R E C E i V k Li Public Works Public Works Parks az Rec. arks ai Rec. iuwl0 1996 rt Staff Comments: -moRnNDS FIRF Mr" *Additional Information Required for Complete Application } *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review = Owner, ROB WOW • Property Address16510 76TH AVENUE WEST r Date of Application-617196 • Type_HEIGHT az SETBACK VARIANCE • Hearing Required:Yeses_ No Date of Hearing (if known) X Application Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11) X Fee X Site Plan (11 x 17) X APO List X Legals (Existing & Proposed) Title Report Environmental Assessment vicinity Map Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) X Elevations X Declarations (Variance & C. U. P.) Petition (Official Street Map) X Environmental Checklist 94-76 Critical Areas Determination OTHER COMMENTS Vj uj� Cn ioDqv - /otn Ave. w. IbbJU - 75th Pl. W. LU 7: -j F-q Edmonds, WA 98026 , Edmonds, WA 98026 U) LL LU 0 M 6931-000-005-00 5131-097-003-00 g < Robert Gregg Nicholas Blattner LL =) 16550 - 76th Ave. W. 16420 - 76th Ave. W. Or uj;� Edmonds, WA 9802(j, Edmonds, WA 98026 Z I-- �- Z R' 6931-000-009-00 5131-097-005-01 LU Uj Gordon Peterson Michael Goodrick M =)! :) 0; 16710 - 76th Ave. W. 16508 - 76th Ave: W. U cn Edmonds, WA 98024P Edmonds, WA 98024 0 Uj W! 6931=000-:011-00 6931-000-001-00 Barnard David & Kathleen Teo Z!Curtis 1 LU 16736 - 76th Ave. W. 16600 - 76th Ave. WA U sLp��' Edmonds, WA 98021& Edmonds, WA 98026 01' Z 6931-000-012-00 Sy Seuk-Yong Chang Stephen R. Sullivan 16740 - 76th Ave. W. 18596 76th Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 ---. JIF 5131-000-088-03 M. L. Melang Rob & Kyra McCoy 16515 - 75th P1. W. 16510 76th Ave. W. 0 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 5131-000-089-01 Donald H. Hansen. 16411 - 75th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98020j 0 5131-000-089-02 Delmar Mackenzie 16431 - 75th Pi. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 5131-000-089-03 Jeffrey L. Meyer 16429 - 75th Pl. W. Edmonds, .WA 98026p. 0 0 0 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list. On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties located within 300 feet of the subject property. vvt rVI.1 Signature of Applicant or ApplicdKI' epresentative Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7 day of 4) AP0.doc\LATemp\foms APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE: V-96-81 AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING i I Z.kRETURNED ROUTED TO: p rw Engineering 6110/96 Engineering **1k. f` 1 fi Fire_ 6/ 10/96 Fire �Fs►� � o Public Works /16 019b Public Works V) L' %l,R } P `7/ F Parks ex Rec. lam—' LU : r ��- w oLL ' Staff Comments: 2 LL ?� dr. *Additional Information Required for Complete Application x z_ t— ro z�— g W *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review �a o —� off{ W LLjj LL O _z LU Cn Owner, ROB McCOY 0 ~ _ Property Address 16510 76TH AVENUE WEST Date of Application 617196 •_ Type HEIGHT 81 SETBACK VARIANCE e Hearing Required:Yes X No Date of Hearing (if known) X Application X Fee X APO List Title Report Vicinity Map X Elevations Petition (Official Street Map) 94-76 Critical Areas Determination Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11) X Site Plan (11 x 17) X Legals (E)dsting & Proposed) Environmental Assessment Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) X Declarations (Variance & C. U. P.) X Environmental Checklist } MEMORANDA o; Date: June 11, 1996 !A W' 2; s w U0- To: Planning Division LU a' s From: Gordy Hyde, Engineering CoordinatorLL i d Subject: Variance far Rob McCoy (16510 - 76th Ave. W.) (V-96-81) z t- E— 0 W' s` W The application has been reviewed by the Engineering Division. The, o Engineering Division has no requirements to impose at this time. The applicant o will need to comply with all the terms of the building permit. It is typical for LU properties located along through streets that on -site turnarounds be required to be constructed. Construction of the future driveway may require issuance of a LL o' right-of-way construction permit. The application is considered complete at this z! w time. o ~�z f "t•, - 0 CITY OF EDMONDS ENGINEERING DIVISION V96081.DOC y! � CITY OF EDMONDS ENGINEERING DIVISION V96081.DOC y! � APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE: V-96-81 AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING =j%jr,, ROUTED TO: 1, WWI dire 6/16j9'-6-' Public Works--6/10/96 Parks at Rec. 6/10/96 JUN 10 INIS EN 6 1 N RETURNED Engineering Fire Public Works Parks 81 Rec. _J//& *Additional Information Required for Complete Application *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review • Owner ROB McCOY Property Address 16510 76TH AVENUE WEST Date of Application 617/96 Type HEIGHT ex SETBACK VARIANCE Hearing Required:Yes X No Date of Hearing (if known) X _Application Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11) X —Fee X Site Plan (11 x 17) X -APO List --X—Legals (Existing & Proposed) Title Report --___Environmental Assessment Vicinity Map ----Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) X —Elevations x I Declarations (Variance & C. U. P.) _Petition (Official Street Map) --X—Environmental Checklist 94-76 —Critical Areas Determination OTHER COMMENTS = Z. .UU J O Jp W J F Ln oW' Q J LL Ld r= zr �_o WLU �o U to aH H ti C W U. c1 _ a� z E 0 RECEIVED ROUTED TO: J U N 1 0 1996 Engineering 6/it)/98 �„�+ it lR+fti�k4 Q Fire EpT Parks 81 Rec RETURNED Engineering_ Fire j 2 pjy ���ltiYfi 1?FN6 r Public works Parks 8t Rec. Staff Comments: *Additional Information Required for Complete Application *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review d Owner Property Address-16510 76TH AVST Date of Application Type —HEIGHT ar Cj:Tf MI . Hearing Required:Yes__X_____ No Date of Hearing (if known) X Application X Fee X APO List Title Report Vicinity Map X Elevations Petition (Official Street Map) 14 6 Critical Areas Determination OTHER COMMENTS -Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11} X Site Plan 01 x 17) X Legals (Existing & Proposed) Environmental Assessment Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) X Declarations (Variance & C. U. P.) X Environmental Checklist <LD J U �o �o �LU LU -j in 0`LLJ U- Di a. z t— N0 z� UjW �o U v,, o Ff s Lui �- o —z wU) U= o~ z r APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE: V-96-81 AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING ROUTED TO: Engineering Fire Public Works_ b/ 10/96 Parks 8T Rec. 6/ 10/96 Engineering_ Fire Public Works Parks 8T Rec. Staff Comments: *Additional Information Required for Complete Application *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review • Owner Property Address 16510 76TH AVENUE WEST Date of Application 6/7/96 Type HEIGHT a SETBACK VARIANCE Hearing Required:YesX_ No Date of Hearing (if known) X Application X Fee X APO List Title Report Vicinity Map X Elevations Petition (Official Street Map) 94-76 Critical Areas Determination OTHER COMMENTS Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11) X Site Plan (11 x 17) X Legals (Existing & Proposed) Environmental Assessment Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) X Declarations (Variance & C. U. P.) X Environmentat Checklist 4-crr e� By -rKS 10, ?po e94-rt4 r -7 MOV:TlA 5A,"D .LOT -0'i -T+kA-r -V-O�P-Tjot4 AT -t-tAr- A4-ONACo X;)trAt-ACS oT= t-A Cq 1-7 11 1, Crr S. A FT=-r--'T- Z,89*' ''4u it e, 1-1 'E�l 5-7. 8ct TO -T 11-1 C?Lt I -r 'F4C— �,�C-17 . CLAIM i2=CC>pr.V u �Aoe COU 140. ALct,4o 154,jr> of 7E> Z -,"a r _TJ Or4. O.F 4P204-Ot'ACOtTi0t4 OF '"TiJS OF a.Crr -Zo Ntr.,) -r+kvwcF \,AJ Cr_ _tcD _r"\ r _ t, r,>, 5' Sl - C>(::T -7 - O0D S - 0002 t 0 t z (i Zo r l 91/CLY 91,711 /- "L�yk PAP �C1U2/4' wAY 2' MAPL£ 1 II O R2 q4 96 48 Ica "o 102. 104 loin io°� t1S 120 s' 6=r7",v.V- to Do, APpAIC YuAav�Y n rcc+sfl ^ 12 �' z zs ~ W X M. W n. _J U o. U) 0 U) w: J F =, z F- o ww aH =v u. p _z U o~ z DM Now JUN r 1996 c a m Q an y i n c Pl AlwvjiVG aEPr. orchttects . conftoctm February 18,1994 To: The City of Edmonds From: Stephen R. Sullivan Architect Re: Application for Height and Setback Variance for the McCoy residence The following list is a compilation of the findings made for this project per Chapter 20.85 of The City of Edmonds Community Development Code A. Special Conditions The natural topography of the site prevented the existing (1) car garage from being located within the setback without requiring extensive re -grading. The Corners would like to enlarge the existing garage -to accommodate (2) vehicles to prevent having to park (1) vehicle on the street during icy weather when their driveway, which is approximately a 19% slope, is not maneuverable. The existing topography prevents a larger structure than exists now from conforming to the height requirements due to the severe drop in grade from the street level to the back of the structure. However, since it is this severe drop that will cause the building to be non -conforming, the street elevation of the proposed structure will conform to the height regulations as the finished height at the street will be 14'-3" above grade (see drawings). B. S2ecial Privilege The provision of secured parking for (2) vehicles that will be accessible from the street would not be a special privilege as a (2) car garage is fairly typical for a to 11 residence in this area. 18596 76th Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 98026■ (206) 778-6812m SULLICI * 09702 E SE The approval of this variance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it will not disturb any existing natural elements on the site. The area to be enclosed is currently a paved surface, so no additional grading will be required and existing drainage patterns will not be significantly altered The proposed garage will rehabilitate and enlarge the existing garage. Since the proposed garage will maintain the rustic appearance of the existing garage new structure will harmonize with the existing surroundings. D. Zoning Ordinance The purpose of the zoning ordinance will not be affected by the approval of this variance. The use of the existing building as a residential garage will not change. E. Not Detrimental The'approval of this variance will not have any harmful or adverse affects for the surrounding properties and it will enhance the property on which it is located. The proposed structure will provide enclosed parking at the top of the driveway so when vehicles must be parked there they will not be on the street and this will be safer for the area by removing a potential hazard due to restricting site lines on the road. F. Minimum Variance The proposed addition is the minimum necessary to maintain the character of the existing building, provide the Owner with the desired accessible secured parking for (2)' vehicles, and to maintain the existing environmental conditions as they are. 18596 76th Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 98026■ (206) 778-6812 ■ SULLICI * 09702 0 j S I \l Z = Z�. w> � F N Q�. .Gc dal 3 w 0(D „� I r EKISti11Cs GnN�.RE7Y. ArAr,aGE Fa .Ppp a Apo�IOF: �r7y�},LLry � v r� n_..,_.5�� Ito ® C NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLETHAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE OUAIITY OF THE DOCUMARENT._ om -15 —w i T — — is ID is _1171, _ �r 1 III I Z O ® (T. 12'•�, extST, GA AGE NEIGH. _ 7 I.1,MI F-f-EO Q.AF.Afeb H EIC.N i (Ai 1� 3 x i C x UNUMI March 30, 1995 Ms. Jeannine Graf Building Official City of Edmonds 250 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Gootechnicat Engineers, i C, & Enyhnnmwnlal +r. u',0ki Job No. G-0080-1r eV -N. IJP N Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation Garage Addition McCoy Residence 16510 - 76th Avenue West Edmonds, Washington Reference: Geo Group Northwest, Inc. report G-0080, dated May 2, 1991 iF Titled ". Geotechnical Engineering Study; Kitchen Addition and Backyard Levelling; Dr. and Mrs. Robert McCoy Residence" Dear Ms. Graf: At the request of Mr. Steve Sullivan of the Sullivan Company, Inc. the project architect, Geo Group Northwest,. Inc. has reviewed the proposed garage addition and prepared this letter to address the geotechnical considerations for the proposed garage addition" at the McCoy Residence. We had prevlously.visited the McCoy residence site in 1991 to perform a geotechnicai study and prepared the referenced geotechnicai report for the kitchen addition and backyard levelling. evelling We'also visited the site ln:1994,for a drainage evaluation. i C � t C � . - i�,K F'v.....,..: F4: «Yd,�;..y r,` �, .(.i r`}t4 ���'rj ••F It Is our understandin that th g e proposed,garage addition consists of taking the existing 14 by . . , > 18 foot garage footprint and eniarging It to 24 by 18 feet In plan dimension. The addition will .; be built over an existing concrete slab, therefore no grading activity is anticipated, k; r, 13240 NE 20th Street, Suite 12 • Bellevue, Washington 98005 Q '� Phone 2061649-8767 • FAX 2061649.8758 1<,�t d , `• ; r a .. .. _. .�l 4 E William Chang P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer cc: Mr. Steve Sullivan Geo Group Northwest, Inc. CITY OF EJDMONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1�� p�rrlf�'9s z TZn, Purpose of Checklist:The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, re uires all LM qgovernmental agencies to consider the w S environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all -)U.proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide pinformation to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it 2� can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. u. < j; Instructions for Applicants: W. 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 O, the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. w W; You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to a answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the U W! answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply". complete answers to the dquestions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. LU Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions }- h„ if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. LL Z 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 U - of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which O r you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining Z 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 NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). i 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. 1*1 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: C_ ea rq_ c,Q� , M n dQ I 2. Name of applicant: r E i 1 t p 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 4. Date checklist prepared: p 1 tp Page t of 22 CIMTt10.25-91MAMR IL., ,.. S. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds. 44 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): —SO YYL M �-K -P Q l' 1 J v! (STAFF COMMENTS) v o' Lo uJ; � H': 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this Lo O proposal? If yes, explain. D i i C� -�►'Yl CP 6 C. r P YV� 2 K 6 LL _ T }�i " I k-9 y- On rQ, a, 'r- z (STAFF COMMENTS) r o z w w' U m, 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly O —}: related to this proposal. n� z ��! _tL-ILyt I U(CG� I % Cf s" 'i� b'_CZ --�,91�Y�I Yl 0 ll _ ii- 0, _ Z' F �: � (STAFF COMMENTS) Z 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. J7} t® (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be neede(t for your proposal, if known.. CHKLTt10-25-93.MA9 8R (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 2 of 22 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and size of the project and site. ' There are several questions later in this checklist, that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this pa ve. d `.ka . !a Y��.t 1) C.t � +% F-3 ` sue vt .(b pl o fly J "'i (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 related to this checklist. _._, Q. >'l, � d5e. !,U ��1.�Js�"�' a"'-r � l_ [�'•.1 �,1�,� � t'��Q-�' r�ltt�t O t � i - 1 ■Wi r (STAFF COMMENTS) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling hilly teep slopes, mountainous, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? I1t_e�a E®; (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? N you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Page 3 of 22 CHMT11425.93.14A5r6R 0 4-1 GJOL 0 (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? N so, describe. n'rrz Y- e4Q 16 -Se (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of rill. (STAFF COMMENTS) f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 11 (STAFF COMMENTS) Ete (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: null U. (STAFF COMMENTS) 3. WATER a. Surface: (1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)?' If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state_what stream or river it flows into. y (STAFF COMMENTS) ' Page 5 of?? CHKU/10-25-91MASM (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. 1 N b 1SC { (STAFF COMMENTS) (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? , Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. R (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on'the site plan. (STAFF COMMENTS) (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. (STAFF COMMENTS) Paga 6 or22 b. Ground: (1) Will ground water he withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage, industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. LU 11 (STAFF COMMENTS) H nil Water ]Runoff (including storm water): (1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Nn (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 7 of22 i i d. Prgposed mettsures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: z sF-:' z (STAFF COMMENTS) uj v 01 $. Plants } LU a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: w O l s V deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: Uj 2 evergreen tree: fir, cedar,: pine, other: f L, ' shrubs D cy " grass T .", w _ z H: pasture Z 01 crop or grain Ui LU' wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: o, U cn water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: r o h- other types of vegetation: (r �/ s cu'j.` u�. O' _ (STAFF COMMENTS) z v (n, O� z b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? t0 (STAFF COMMENTS) C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. L (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Page 8 of 22 D al 3: Uj! Z F- z W W, 0 UJ UJI LL 0 z Lid cn z 51 L S. Animals 6. to In V r %-Winlur'n I a) a. ' Check or circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: I birds: hawk, heron, a 11 songbird - , other- the 6 6) - mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, �i fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: LU.4 "L (STAFF COMMENTS) b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. CA Yk D MA (STAFF COMIENTS) C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) Energy and Natural Resources Page 9 of22 CHKLT/10-2593.MASrER (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health harards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hawardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. i (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 10 of 22 cHKLT/f 6aA3.MASTER . . f 7111 (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) Page i 1 of 22 CHMT110d5-43.MALTER M. ' d h � 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use -of the site and adjacent properties? r i CA g I- w;. Cr 2; ;5 =v:: (STAFF COMMENTS) � o v cn d' cn w Ui b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. wpU. IV'b . d J t=-w' z H (STAFF COMMENTS) F- a z w w'; = p C. Describe any structures on the site. o H} f Q V ww. T fJ.' — O Zt ui � U (STAFF COMMENTS) 0 z d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? N� j (STAFF COMMENTS) e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? (STAFF COMMENTS) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site?, (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Hasanypart of the site been classified as an "environmentally "envvironmentally sensitive area,?,, If so, specify. a rA s,��� ae ea - (STAFF COMMENTS) i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? jj)�Vk_ t—k oar anl�� t s (STAFF COMMENTS) ,j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? ° N6n(L jet® (STAFF COMMENTS) i ,.. i k. Pro ed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: z � < Zs (STAFF COMMENTS) _ w: w =' osed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected Iand uses and plans, U J a` I. Pro if any J }—}+ Cn LL LU Ml , it U- T d z W .; STAFF COMMENTS) f . zF a LU w' 9. Housing ; t=� a. Ap r how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high,, middle, or Iow-income O — hovi i �xinmately 1 LU LL t x U.; LL 0'., Z': O (STAFF COMMENTS) z b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- incom housing. jj ® (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Pro t ' o ed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: j s� STAFF COMMENTS) Page 14of22 ' 'r CHMT110-254.MASfER 10. Aesthetics A. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including Antennas; what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed? L4 (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What views in -the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? b Y'\ (L (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: (L (STAFF COMMENTS) Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Could it or glare from the finished prqject be a safety hazard or interfere with views? (STAFF COMMENTS) Page IS of 22 =001 C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? 1�1 D n (STAFF COMMENTS) - d. Proposed measure to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: (STAFF COAMENTS) 12. Recreation a. Wht t designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? 1� t (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Wotqd the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Pro used measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be prov ded by the project or applicant, if any: za i (STAFF COMMENTS) ' (STAFF COMMENTS) 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. 36 rQ0+ L Uo-{- -¢ (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Is site currently served by public transit? If no, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? N 6 Pate P of 22 ;i (STAFF COMMENTS) i C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? z f' W Qom: LU p (STAFF COMMENTS) fA LU. LU _,. . . .J F"', Ln w O� d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not includingdriveways? If so generally describe indicate whether ublic or private). Y �g Y C P P� } LL z w I; o z �— , w w! 13 M (STAFF COMMENTS) w to e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, LL 0. generally describe. z; O~ z (STAFF COMMENTS) i f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak votumes would occur. (STAFF COMMENTS) t0 CftMT/I0-25.93 MASTER g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: ! (STAFF COMMENTS) 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, healthcare, schools, other)? if so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. t Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on publicservices, if any - (STAFF COMMENTS) 16. Utilities a. C: ' ` 'es currently available at the site: lectric' y, natural g Ovate efuse servi telephone, sanikary sewer, , eptie system, others (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKU/I42SL91MASM Page 19 or22 J U) LL 0 LU ti LL 0 z 0: W W: 'S M. 0 La Lu wl z LLJ 0 z EEG I 1*1 M D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet far project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. HOW would the proposal be. likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or ha7ardous substances; or production of noise? Proposal measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. Ho would the proposal he likely to affect plants, animals, rash, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal he likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: CHKLT/10-25-93.MASTER Page 21 or 22 7. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand— {s_ a e, Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local Prot lion of the environment. ,state or federal laws or requirements for the W � S CHKLT/142-5-91 rtASTER Page 22 of 22