20031 81ST AVE W (3).PDF111111 lill 11
7375
20031 81 ST AVE W
City of Edmonds
G -01. -WAY CONSTRUCTION
HT
REET RMIMIT
Permit Number.
Issue Date:
A. Addiess or Vicinity of Construction: 2()031 81 Ay y
9 0 C� B. Type of Work (be specific): ReloCa:te SerMiCe line
C. Contractor: Washington NaturalL Gas —
Mailing Address: 1122 75 St S4 Everett
State License #:, 98203 -
D. Building Permit # (if applicable):
E. E] Commercial Subdivision
Ej Multi -Family SingleFamily
INSPECTOR:
Contact: Frank SwAn
Phone: 447-3294
Liability Insurance: Bond:$
Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable):
El Cityproject [0 Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER)
El Other
INSPECTOR:
F. Pavement or Concrete Cut Yes G. Size of Cut: H. Chargt�,$
14A, �oj
7A
APPLICANT TO READ AND 4'N
�_:t)�_9 5�_
INDEMNITY. Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to, hda;;.- Ttty/�f
Edmonds:harmless fro s, dama
±�in&m , ges, or
claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen oir unforeseen, that may be —a-' uthj City of
gains Edmonds, or any of its departments or
employees, including or not limited to the defense ofany legalproceedings including defense costs, and attorney fees by reason ofgranting thispermit.
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIAL F oD OF ONE YEA'� q LaWVYG THE FINAL
INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL �iWEET PATCH
IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIMEA DEBIT OR CREDIT. WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT.
Construction drawing of proposed work required with permit application.
A 24 hour no I tice is required for inspection; Please call the Engineering Division, 771-0220.
Work and material is to be inspected during progress and at completion.
Restoration is to be in accordance with City Codes.
Street shall be kept clean at all times.
Traffic Control and Public Safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer.
All street cut ditches shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the end of the working day;
NO EXCEPTIONS.
Ihave read the abovestatements and understand thepermit requirements and thepink copyof thepermit willbe
available on site at es for i s ction purposes.
Signature: Date: 03-22-9'5
(Contractor or'Agent
CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK
FOR CITY USE ONLY
APPROVED BY: I "j A
TIME AUTHORIZED: VOID AFTER tA IL —DAYS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
COMMENTS:
DATE:
RIGHT OF WAY DEPOSIT
DISRUPTION FEE/FUND Ill:
RESTORATION FEE:
PERMITFEE-
C_
TOTAL FEE:
RECEIPT FEE:
ISSUED BY:
NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE
Eng. Div. 1994
FIELD INSPECTION NOTES
Comments:
Diaaram
(Fund 111 - Route copy to Street Dept.)
a * A
CONTRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION YES NO
Parfial Work Inspection by P.W.:
Work Disapproved By: Date:
FINAL APPROVAL BY: Date:
CA FILE NO. q5 --7 2-
Critical Areas Checklist'.
Site Information (sd*ds/topogmphy/hydrology/vegetation)
1. Site Addressa=afiow. - - - - - - -
�Ak
2. Property Tax Account Number-. 4-b 1 -2— C)o 0 0121
Approximate Site Size (acres or square fed):
3.
4. Is this site currently developed?
--L—yes; no.
If yes; how is site developed?--jfMAD Q S
5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply.
Flat less than 5-feettlevation change over entire site.
4.
V,- Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise Of '10-feei 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 104bet over a
horizontal distance of less than 33-feet).
Other
,please describe):
6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water. —KM ;Approx. Depdr-
7. Site contains areas of seasonal stohding water: 0D Approx. Depth:
What season(s) of the year?
8. Site is in the floodway floodplain of a water course.
9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-
round? Q 0 Flows are seasonal? (What time of year?
10. Site is primarily: forested ;meadow _;shrubs mixed
urban landscaped Qawnshrubs etc) y"
11. "Obvious wetland is present on site.
RcV0110094
, 9 0 - 19 *4 -
City of Edmonds
Critical Areas Checklist
The Critical Areas Checklist contained on and submit it to the City. 1he City will
this form is to be filled out by any. pawn review the checklist, malm a precursory site
preparing a Development Permit - visit, and make a determination of the
Application for die City of Edmonds prior subsequent steps necessary to complete a
to his/her submittal of a development development permit application.
permit to the City.
Ile purpose of the Checklist is to enable
City staff w determine whether any
potential Critical Areas are or nay be
present on the subject property. The
information needed to complete the
Checklist should be easily available ftom
observations of the site or data available at
City EWI (Critical Areas inventories, maps,
or soil surveys).
An applicant, or histher 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
BF plot plan for indmdual
with enough detail that City staff can find
and identify the sWJect parcel(s). In'
addition, the applicant shall Include
other pertinent Wormation (eg. site
plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in
conjunction with this Chedklist 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
facbW, to the best of my lmowledge (fill out the appropriate column below).
Owner / Applicant: Applicant Rep
4 I�JS
Nam Nume
6 -t— tqu�:7 L"
c:)-00�3 I J
Stred Addnm
�-nk) `77�-S-S-14(
Phone
9 -5 '
Stred M�ew
city, Stae, ZIP Phone
Date Signature Date
329 P02 MAR 28 195 0?:33
1
0' -
AV -A
� D
vi.
. I .
t -
TA va
ssimmisr, AOF
RVAMIS SMOS 409 L P
11"S"Its $SQUARE
2 0
42411 "0 MIPS, 51 SSQMUAA*tl
%I %VlE,. W.
I
LAJ
NJ
kD
-0
G
rki
-Z
3)
;u
Di
01)
w
Ln
G
CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
250 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
4",
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPLICANT: William Cummins
CASE NO.: V 97-4
LOCATION: 20031 8 1 st Avenue West
APPLICATION: Application by William'A. Cummins for multiple Variance -
requests to accommodate the construction of a new 1,440 square
foot detached workshop/garage/storage building for an existing
single-family residence. Specifically, the applicant has requested a
variance to reduce the required side setback from south property
line by 2.5-feet, from 7.5 feet to 5-feet; a reduction of the required
rear setback (from the east property line) of 10-feet, from 15-feet to
5-feet; and, an increase of 2.5-feet to the maximum permitted
height of the structure from 15-feet to 17.5-feet (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 1.).
REVIEW PROCESS: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes
final decision.
MAJOR ISSUES:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Site
Development Standards).
b. Compliance with Edmonds. Community Development Code (ECDC)
Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES).
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 Examinerconducted a public hearing on the application. The
hearing on the application was opened at '10:15 a.m., March 6, 1997, in the Plaza Room,
Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 10:44 a.m. Participants at the p ublic
h earing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording -of the
hearing is available in the Planning Division.
0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 0
Sister Cities International— Hekinan, Japan
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 97-4
Page 2
HEARING COMMENTS:
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. -
From the City:
Kirk Vinish, Project Planner, introduced the staff report into the record and recommended
denial of the application.
From the Applicant:
William Cummins, Applicant, said:
• He bought the property a year ago when he bought the house, it was a wreck.
• A 15' x 30' accessory structure was on the property when he bought the property
and the structure was located 6" from the property line. The building collapsed
during the snowstorm and he wants to replace it.
• His elderly parent live with him and he needs additional storage.
• The height recommended by staff is o.k. and he can work with a 7 1/2side yard
setback, but he needs a reduction in the rear yard setback so he can build a
structure which is large enough for everything he would like to store.
He felt the houses next door are not consistent with the surroundings.
He didn't think a special privilege would be granted if the request is approved
because there are several other structures in the neighborhood which do not meet
setback requirements. (H6 submitted Exhibit B into the reco'
rd to make his point).
From the Community:
No one from the general public spoke at the pub lic hearing.
Response from the City:
Kirk Vinish responded that:
City staff would like to see the proposed garage shortened so it would comply with
the code.
9 The old structure was closer than the one proposed, but it was also smaller.
He didn't know if any of the examples identified in Exhibit B were built with City
approval.
Response from the Applicant: . .
William Cummins responded that:
He was charged with finding structures which did not meet setback. requirements. He
did that and listed many examples, some of which were over 600 square feet in size.
Hearing Examinef Decision
Case No. V 97-4
Page 3
He is trying to improve what he had and he needs the depth proposed for storage for
himself and his parents.
CORRESPONDENCE
No correspondence was submitted by members of the general public.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
1. Site Development And Zoning:
a. Facts:
1) Size: The subject property is approximately 19,500 square feet in area (see
Exhibit A, Attachment 4).-
2) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Single -Family Residential (RS-'
8).
3) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property is generally flat with a sharp
slope at the west property line, with all open areas vegetated with native
grasses. The proposed garage would be located along the southeast property
lines (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4).
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a. Facts:
1) North: Developed with detached single, family residences, and zoned RS-8
. (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3).
2) South: Developed. with detached single family residences, and zoned RS-8
(see Exhibit A, Attachment 3).
3) East: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned RS-8 (see
Exhibit A, Attachment 3).
4) West: Developed with detached single family residences, and zoned RS-8 (see
Exhibit A, Attachment 3).
b. Conclusion: The proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding
zoning and development.
B. EDMONDS COMMUNITYPEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE
1. Compliance with RS-8 Zoning Standards
a. Facts:
1) The fundamental site. development standards in a RS-8 zone are set forth in
Chapter 16.20.030.
2) Minimum'side setback in -the RS-8 zone is 7.5-feet, minimum rear setback is'
15-feet and maximum height is 25-feet.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 97-4
Page 4
b. Conclusion: Except for the requested side, rear and height variances, the
applicants proposal conforms with RS-8 development standards for locating
structures on a lot.
2. Compliance with requirement for a Variance
ECDC Chapter 20.15B. 180.A, states an applicant may r ' equest 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.
V ariances may be used to modify bulk standards. They may not be used to
modify use or procedural requirements.
3) The applicant states that special circumstances exist in that he has steep
slopes, sensitive soils and a public utility pole thereby restricting the available
locations available for a garage.
4) The applicant states that the variance would not be a grant of special privilege
in that other properties in the immediate vicinity have been granted variances.
5) The applicant states that the proposal would not be detrimental to adjacent
property owners.
6) The applicant states that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan because the site is designated as single- ' family (see Section "D" of this
report for further discussion of conformance with the Comprehensive Plan).
7) The applicant states that the proposal would allow for the continued
development of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning
Code.
8) The applicant states that the proposal is the minimum necessary due to the
location of existing structures and his desire to park a recreational vehicle in
the garage requires the additional height and setback variances.
9) - Typical length for garages is 22-feet.
10) The applicant states that 7621 through 7625 on 200th Street Southwest have
similar development and therefore granting the variance would not be a grant
of special privilege.
11) through 7625 on 200th Street Southwest is zoned multi -family (RM-3).
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 97-4
Page 5
12) The garage door dimensions are 12-feet wide by 12-feet high (see Exhibit A,
Attachments 4 and 5).
b. Conclusions:
1) Special Circumstances
Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings of the property and public necessity for public structures.
Special C ircurnstances do not,appea.r to exist since the applicant appears to
have considerable space in the rear portion of his property and should easily
be able to locate a garage and comply with the setback requirements of the
RS-8 zone. While slopes do exist on the subject property, they do not appear
to restrict the options available to the applicant on the southeast portion of the
site. Therefore, special circumstances do riot appear to exist in that the
applicant could locate a, garage in the rea r portion of . his property without
encroaching on side or rear setbacks. Also, since the proposed garage doors
are 12-feet in height it appears that a lower garage roof is possible, therefore
special circumstances' do not appear to exist to support a height variance (see
Exhibit A, Attachments 4 and 5).
2) Special Privilege
It appears that approval would be granting a special privilege in that other
properties in the same zone with similar circumstances would not qualify for a
height or setback variance (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2).
It is unknown if any of the examples cited by the applicant were constructed
when the subject properties were in the City. They may have been constructed
in the County under different regulations and then annexed to the City or they
may have been constructed in the City without permits. Neither case would"
set a precedent for this application.
3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan
The proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (see Section' "D")
or the Zoning Code.*
4) Not Detrimental
Approval of the variances would be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare. Specifically the neighbors to the east and south will have their sense
of privacy adversely affected.
5) Minimum Required
The request is not the minimum necessary for accommodation of the garage in
that the applicant could comply with the existing setbacks and still enjoy the
full use of the garage. The applicant could move the garage forward on the
site, reduce the size of the garage or change the dimensions of the garage (i. . e.
make it longer, but not as deep) so that it can fit Within the required setback
area. While the applicant may have to* redesign the roof configuration it
should be possible to maintain an adequate slope to the roof and still comply
Hearing Examiner Decision
with the 15-foot height limitation.
Case No. V 97-4
Page 6
Therefore, it does not appear that the
proposal is the minimum necessary for the accommodation of the garage.
C. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
Fact: No comments were submitted by other departments
D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC)
a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Large Lot".
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. Developmen . C in
the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below.
I-) 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 ... ..
2) Page 3 1, subsection B.5.0 states, "Stable property values must not
be threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments.
3) Page 31, subsection B.6 states, "Require that new residential
development be compatible with the natural constraints of. slopes,
soils, geology, vegetation and drainage. "
b. Conclusion: The proposed development is inconsistent with the above
adopted goals and policies of the City for the development of residential
property in the City, in that the neighbors to the east and south would find
a diminution of their sense of privacy due to the encroachment of the
garage toward their property.
DECISION
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is denied.
Entered this 20th day of March, 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
under. Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
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.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 97-4
Page 7
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the
initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register
and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land
which* is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must
cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances
governing the type of application being reviewed.
APPEALS
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in w riting, 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.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is
required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval,
the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an
application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.'
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request
a change in the valuation of the property'by the Snohomish County Assessors Office.
EXHIBITS:
The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record.
A. Planning Division Advisory Report
B. List of other structures in'the area which don't appear to meet code requirements
PARTIES 'OF RECORD:
William A. Cummins Jack Bevan
200318 1 " Ave. W. 1921094 1h W.
Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98020
Planning Division
Engineering Division
Fire Department
Parks Department
Public Works Department
1. �.MY-29-97 THU 12:15
P, Oi
CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA PAHEY
250 STH AVENUE NORTH * 90MONbs, WA 08020 - (206) 771-0220 a rAX (206) 771 0221 MAYOR'
HEARING EXAMINER
FINDINGS� CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPLICANT; Mr. & Mrs. William A. Cummins
CASE NO,: V 97-54
LOCATION: The subject property is located at 20031 81,qt Avenue West (see
Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
APPLICATION: Application for a Variance to reduce the required rear setback
(from the east property line) frorn 15-feet to 7,5-feet to allow tho
construction of an approximate 1.200 square foot det2ched
accessmy garage/workshop (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 through
4).
REVIEW PROCESS: Variance, Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and issues
final decision.
MAJOR ISSUE$:
a.. Complianct,with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Chaptcr
16.20 (RS - SINGLE. -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL).
b, Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter
20.85 (VARLOiNCEs).
C. c.. Compliance with Edmonds City Code (ECDC) Chapter 5.30.120
(VARIANCES).
d, Compliance with Edmonds Community Development 'Code (ECDC) Section
20.100.010 (11EARING EXAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD
.AND CITY COUNCIL REVlpW).
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Staff Recommenc[ation: Denial
Hearing Examiner Decision- IDenial
PUBLIC 14EARING:
After reviewing the official rile which included the Plarming Division Staff Advisory Report-, and
after visiting the ilte, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application, The
hearing on the application was opened at 9:12 a.m., May 15, 1997, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds
Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:42 a.m. Participants at the public he4ring and
. * Incorporated August 11, 1890 e
SIster Cities International — Hakinan, Japan
MAY-EO-07 THU 11!1410
F. op
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No, V 97-54
Page 2
the exhibits offered and. ontorc,d are listed in this report, A 'verbatim recording of I the )14�..�jrjng is
availablo in the Plarining Division.
HEARING TESTIMONY:
The following is a rummary of the tCstim0fiY offered at the Public hearing.
From the City:
Jeff Wilson reviewed the staff report and recommended denial of the request, Hr, notcd
that while the applicant has reduced the size of the stnicture frorn his previous variance
request. the rear setback is still only 7.5 feet instoad of 15 feet. He believed (Ile vuriatice is
not the minimum necessary.
From the, Applicant;
Wifflarn Cummins, Applicant, said:
He wished the Planning Departruent had reviewed ttlis rcqua�t against the origijl�jl
request more closely. ke said he had:
0 Increwscd the side, and rear setbacks from. 5 feet to 7.5 feet,
Reduced the height of the structure from 17.5 feet to 15 feet.
The, distance, between the house and the accessor n S
y structure is 15 fect a d h i,
pickup is 12 -feet long and he nee& the space between thC. 110UNe and [lie accessory
stiucture to bc able to maneuver.
lie had a structure that wmon the property which was 6 inches frorn (he property
line. That structure was destroyed and since it war. a non co"fornlifig 5tructurc he
couldn't replace it -
Now he uses shippinS containcrs for storage. He would lik�, to replace [lie forl-ner
shod and the shipping contjiners with a new building,
He plans to, add onto the house and plans to remove the carport in the future io (he,
accessory building 'will become a. garage,
Response from the City,
Jeff Wilson said stdff is not trying to prec
lade the applicant from adding a structure, but
the applicant must show there is no other reason ible Imation on the site for (lie Structure.
Staff believes alternatives exist to build astructure within tile setback requirements,
Froin ft Community,,
No 011e from the general public spoke at the public hcaring. >
MAY-29-87 THU 12:17
P, 03
CORRESPONDENCE:
HeariD9 Examiner Decision
Case No. V 97-54
Page 3
A letter/petition in'oppo.9ition, signcd by 5cven neighbors oll the Street behind the subjoct
PrOPeAY, wt;s received (Exhibit B)
FIND1h[QS.QF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A- SITE DIES CRIPTION
I - Site, Development and Zoning:
a. Fac ts:
Tbe siubject property is approxithately I (),Soci
quare fect ('17 XreS) in area and is gen8rully rectangular ill shape
with approximately 135-feet of frontage on 81st Avenue Wc%t and
aPproxiinately 150-feet indcpth (sce Exhibit A, Attacill-norlt 3),
M LAD_dthw The subject property is'currently dvclopcd with ail
existing detached single-ftLmily residcnce (see Exhibit A. Attachment
3).
(3) Z0,11in . The subject site is zoned Single-Fanj . ily Rr-3identhij - 8,000
squate feet tninimum lot size (RS-8) (see Exhibit 1),
2. Neighboring Development and Zoning:
4� Facts:
(1) North: The area is developed with single-fallifly residences and
zoned RS-8 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
(2) &_uth: The area i6 developed with single-family x-esidences alid
zoned RS-8 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
(3) The. area is developeci with single-family residences and zoned
R8-8 (see Exhibit A, Attachmerit 1).
(4) West: The area is developed with i . 3ingle-family rcsiderices and
zoned RS-8 (see Exhibit A, Attaclunent i),
b. Conclusion; Accessoty structures are common with the . developillcilt of
single-family fesidenca8.
B. HISTORY
a. Facts:
(1) The applicant had PfeViOusly submitted art application for a sirnilar
variance request to reduce the requi;rd rear soiback from 1.5_f,;et to
7.5-feet and increase the maximum permitted height of an acCossory -
structure. from 15-feet to 254cet, undc.r.File No. V-97-4 (see Exhibit
A. Attachment 5).
-MAY-29-97 THU 12:17
F. 04
Hearing Examiner Dccision
Case No. V 97-54
Page 4
(2) The variance requests submitted under File No, V-97-4 were
processed thfoligh the I -leafing Exalnirler and a hearilig w, 1jeld 01
'LS
March 6, 1997, On March 201h, the flearing FXw-nijjej- i."tied his
docision, dt�jjyjrjg both the variance Tequest to 1,educo tile required
rearsetback- from 15-feet to 7.5-feet and die reque,,;t to inercaso tile
maximum permitted height for an accessory st'r'uctL*trc from I -1-feet to
25-feet (see Exliibit A, Attachment 6).
(3) The current variance request to reduce the required rear setback from
15-feet to 7.5-feet is identic;il to the request I that had been submitted
by the applicant under File No. V-97-4, except, tile applicant has
PrOPOsed 0 Ilightly smaller accessory structure (reduce from 1.440 to
1,200 square ,*eet for a net reduction of,240 Square feet), and, tile
applicant is not requesting aTj i.ncrease in M.-Ctimurn Pormittcd height
(see Ex1-:tibit A. Attachment 5).
(4) The decision denying the variance r
V-974 concluded the followilIg as equests submitted under F' le No.
, aPplied to the reclucst to, reduce
the required rear setback (see Sections -B.2.b. 1) Lind .5)'on page 5 of
Exhibit A, Attachm6nt 6);
",5pecial Circumstances'do not appear to exi.vt yjjj(,e the
applicant appears to have considerable space in t1le rear
Portion of his properiy and should easily be able lo lucate a
garage and comp�v with the setback requirement.v of thc RS-8
zone. While slopes do exist on thesubj--ct pr(;per�y, jh y 10 ()t
appear to restrict the options available to the cpplice,111 0,pj the
southe)zlst portion of the site. Therefore, special circurnstalices
do not appear to, uxist In rhat the applicant could locatV. a
garage in the rear portion uf his properj� without encl-Quelling
on side or tear setbacks.
5) "The reqrx-yt is nor the pzininuan necessaryfor accoinnjoel(Ition
,Of The garage in that the applicant coul(I ct)ftjpjy wjjh exisli)IR
setbaCks and still enjoy tile
, full use of the Sarage. The
aPPlicant could nwve the garage forward an the sire, redlice
tile size Of 0140 ga"age or change the dimensions of the garage
(i.e. make it longer, buT not as deep) so that it canfit within the
required setback area.
(5) The decision of the Rearing Examiner issued for the 1'raquests
submitted under Filc No. V-97-4 was not appeale(l.
b. CODCJU
WD—n: While the applicant has re-ducod tile propo,�Od accessury
structure, fron, 40-feet in width by 36-feet In depth to 40-feet in widdl to
30-feet in dcpth, the applicant has not reduced the requested 'Varianlce for
the rear setback by a corres'pondinE Elmouht, In- �L,; Much .18 decision
Wnying the request submitted under File No. V-D7-4 concludcd that ihe
proposed varianCO. Was not . the minimum necessary, the current request
must also fail, It, appears that thr, applicant did attefflPt to follow the
MY-28-97 THU 12;18 F.05
Hearing Examiner Deci3ioll
Case No. V 97-54
Page 5
guidance offered by the Rearing Examiner in his decision on File No. V�
9?-4 by reducing the depth of the proposed structure by 6-fe . et, howeyer,
Che reduction in the depth did not translate in anyway it, a corresponding
redution in the request to intrude into the requircd rezir Selback,
1C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)
a. Fact, The aPl?"cat'Orl is exempt ftOrn SEPA pursuatit to WAC 197-11-
800(l)(b)(i).
b. 90_ncluslon- The applicant and the City have satisfied the requircments of
SEPA,
D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DIEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE
I - a, Eacts:
(1) Edrnotid5 Community Develo rnent Code
p . (ECDC) Cliaptel,
20�1513,180,A, states an aPPlicant may requc.qt a vari.111ce froln tile
standards Of this Chapter pursnant to the procedures sct forth in
ECDC Chapter 20,85 (Variances). Chaptcr 20,83 of the ECDC sets
forth the mochanibm whcreby a provision of the -Code may be varied
on EL case -by -case basis if the application Of the Provision would
rc�sult in an unusual and unreasonable hardship.
(2) ECDC Section 20.85,010 establishes the de-cisiorlij criteria with
which a variance request must comply in order to be gninted by tile
Rearing Examiner, These criteria include: '-I SPOcial circurnstancc
must exist (special cifftimstances include: sizc, shapc, topography,
location or sulToundings Of tile property and public necessity f(il,
public structures),- no sPecial privilege is granted; tile proposal is
ir-consistcin with the Compirhensive Plan and the Zoning Code; tile
proposal will not be detrimental: and. the proposal is thec' Illininlurn
110tess,IrY to allow reasonable use of the sUbject propcity,
(3) Variance may be used to modify bulk standards. They may nut he
used to mod4 use or procedural requirements,
(4) The applicants request to modify the ' '
requireme I nt for the RS-8 zone. minimum required rear setback
(5) The applicants declarations in response to the required . review
criteria are contained on Exhibit A, Attachment 4.
b. Cqndu_.qion?..-
(1) special Circumsmos - -Special cif0umstancen do 'not appeal, to eXist
On thO Subject Property which would preclude, tile rcas011ilble use of
the subject property U a single-famBy residOnce. The subject
PfOPctty a * ppears to contain considerable developable a,,ea whicil the
applicant could use without the necessity of being granted u variance,
The necessity for tho, variance appears to be dircc[ly rclated to the
MAY-23-37 THU IZ;18
F. 00
HearinZ Examiner Dechoon
Case No. V 97-54
Page 6'
size of the accessory st-Tucture the 6pplicarit IS Proposing and not due
to the. constraint on placement of the Proposed accessory -jt1,ucLuJ'a'
directly rclevcd to some unique feature of the P1,()PcT_ty
limits the options for the applicant to use tile. site. itself which
S120601126-11fle-gc - While the applicant has indicated that othel-
variances May have ken gra lited within the vicinity Of the'subjcct
property, that applicant has not provided any .specific evidence to
indicate. the nature of the other devclopnlcat�. Therefore., it is
'it granting a variance for an
appropriate to conclude at this ti'lle, th
accOssOrY" structure and not the primary use -of tile pl,operty would
be a grant Of Special Privilege. Denial of the requested variance,
Would not deny the, applicant the ability to collt7flue the pilinary
Permittf,-d use of the property as a singlo-fiaYiily rcsidence,
(3) de d,,the Com rehe12,5iye pt - The reqUes
zmia�� 12 An. ted variaflcc
1S not CODSistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Ser, Exhibit
Section 111) or. the Zoning Code.
(4) Not Detrimental - Approwd of the requested variance could very
well be detrimental to the adjacent property vwncrs througn the lose
of privacy resulting fi-oni the cOnNtruction of a very 5ub.s[al1ti,11
structure within very c1losc proximily to the Con,,Tlon pl,operty ill
Seven ncarby property oWners signed a letterlpetiti()n
in, opposition
to tile request (�see Exhibit B). One Of the neighborq who sigiled d1c',
letter/petition in opposition shves the rear property liar, witil [11C
applicant and could be negatively impacted if rbe vaiiance for a
reduced rear yard setback were to be approved.
While. the applicant has reducea the square
footage and more importantly, the depth Of the proposed accessory
structure, this has not translared Into a significant reduction in the
request to intrude Into the requited rear'Setba-ck from the proposal
that Was denied under File No. V-97-4- The request L�s subl-nijtcd
does not appear to be the rnirlimum tl"essary, since the rovised
dimensions (depth) of the structure, the, applicant has fUrtberreduced
the need for tuiy encroachment and could now more e4sl ly loca(e the
Structure on the site without the, need for any setback V31-i-MICC !It .111.
F 17ECHNICAL COMMITTEE
a.
(1) The Engineering Division has subMitt:Dd comments related to t1le
subject V17lication, these comments are provided Exhibit A.
Attachment 7.
(2) Even though Vccific comments were not provided . by all
Department.4 or Divisions within the City, it is Still the applictults
miponsibility to comply with applicable City development
regulations at the time of any building permit submittal,
. . � MMY-?3-37 THU 12; 15 F. 07
I-Eearing Exarniner becision
Case No. V 97-54
Page 7
b. The applicant should comply with amll Te-quirements pl,,Iced oil
the proposed development by other Departmciltsr-T)Msions of tile City.
F- COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC)
a. T-ae-1: The subject property is designated as "Sin& -.lc Run ; ily large Lot,"
b, K11.2nduslon: The Proposed use of th-V subject p�roperty is co . i tellt
n; .5 With
the tYpical uses envisioned with Single-rall,i]y do-velopmcnt,'therefore, it is
consistent With the eXisting Comprehcnsive Plan Land use designation for
the subject site.
2. a, The Comprehensive Plan, ResidentiEL-1 Drvelopillent se ction,
identifies goals and policies which rclatc to "Rcs:Meadal Development" ill
the City. SPecifiC goals and policies are discussec-I in detai I below:
(1) Se-etion B states asa goal of the City that: "'High quellity residuntial
development which is appropriate to trie diverse 1V�sj.qes of
EdMon4s residents should be Maintained andl proajatecl_
(2)
Page 31, gubsection,
&S-C statcs, "Stabie r_---iroper'ly values must not
he threatened hy view, traffic, or land i4re e?r croachnients. �)
(3) Page 31. subsection B.6 state, "Require_- their new residential
development be cotripatihic with Me narurc--if coiistraints q1'slopes,
s6ils, 8e010,-Y,' vegetadon and drainage.
b Conclusion: The p;-oposed development is inco _nsistent with the zftve
adopted goals and Wicies-of thc City for the dowelopment of residential
property in the C ' ity, in that the neighbors to the eatst and so�th could find a
diminution of their sense Of PTivacy due to th4,, encroachment of the
accessory stracture'toward their property. The Cit--y should bc particularly
sensitive to this issue in ligh.t of the fact thit thc aPPlicarit's request
pertains to An accesscxy structum and Is not relaL ed to a request to seek
relief from the rrquired: setbacks to due to naLural cojis(rainLs of tile
Ptoperty which would adversely affect the developj� Tlent of the sito With tile
primary use Of a Single-family residence -
DECISION
Basedupon th . e foregoing finding3 and conclusions, the request for a vari�Lnce is denied.
MAY-23-37 THU 12;20
P. 08
Hearing Extinaincr Dcciflon
Case No, V 97-54
Page 8
Entered this 29th day of May, 1997
pur-luant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
undef Chaptcr 20. 100 of the Community Development Code of the City of F-dinunds.
Ron McConnell
Hearing Exarnincr
RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS
The following is a,$UTl1t1la1Y Of the deadlines and proicedures for filing. reconsiderution's
and aPPCalS. Any person wishing to file or respond to a fecommendtitior, or appeal should
contact the Planiling Department for further procedural information,
A- REQUEST FOR RECONSIDER-ATION
Section 20,100,010,G aJlov�s for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider h I is deci.,qion or
reconumendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of thc date
of the initial decision by any Person who attends the public hearing and sig1j.,; the.
attendance register and/Or presents testh -nony, or by any porson holdin, all owlier'ship
interest in a tfact of land which is the 311bic.ct: of Stich doe, -
IS1011 Or recommendation.
The re -consideration request Inust Cite Specific references to the findings and/or tile
Criteria Contained in the ordillances governing the tYPe Of application being roviewod.
B. APPEALS
Section 20.105,020-A &.B describe how appeals of a Hearing Bxanliner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, und N11all
include the decision being appr-aled along with the name of the project and the date of
the decision, the narne Of the hiclividual Or group appealing the deci.qian, t1leir ilitel-eit
in the matter, reasons why the appellant befleves the decision to be wrong, anct all
required appeal fees. The appeal mast be 'filed with the Community Devcl()pj-nent
Director witlI&I ten (10) working days aftef the date of the decision Wing appealed.
IV- NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSE5SOR
The property owner may as a regult of the &cision rendcred by tile Hearing Exii-nincr
request a -change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's
Office.
V. LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 20,105.020,A & B describe how appeals of a Ifearilig EXajnfner decisjon or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writin, mul shall include
the decision bcing appealed jzj0jjg with the name Of the -PriVeet and the deil of the
decision, the name of 11;e individual or aroup APPeaftng d)4? dvciyiot� their inia e
rest tn fit e
MAY-29-97 THU 12:20
V.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 9?-54
page 9
matter) andTeasons why the APPaMant h0liOves the decision to be W01�9- Me appeal
mast be flied with the COmmunity Developtnent Director witflin ten (10) working, days
aJ�er 'he date Of t)lv d0cisi&n being appealed,
)EMBITS;
The f011owing exhibits were offered and entered into tfie rccc)r(j.
A. Planning Division Advisory Rr-port, with 4 attachments
B, LetterTetition submitted by Kenneth and Joan Zukoski, and others received
5114191 - , -
PARTIES oir ncon:
William A, Cummins
200318 1 " Avenue west
Edtmnds, WA 98026
Rennoth and Yoan Zukoski
2011 8o"' Ave. West
Edmonds, WA 98026
F-dMOt).ds Planning Division
Edmonds Public Works Division
Edmonds Engineering Division
Edmonds Parks & R8Creadon Division
Edmonds Fire Department
NOTICE:
The information *shown on the attached
map(s) was compiled for use by the City of
Edmonds, its Employees and Consultants.
The City of �Edm.qnds does not warrant the
accuracy of anything set forth on these
map(�_). Any person or entity -requesting a
copy should conduct an independent
inquiry regarding the information shoWn on
_.'___tFe -map(s), including, but not limited to,
the location of any sewer stub shown. Such
sewer stubs may or may, not exist and may
or may not exist at the location shown.
Neither the City of Edmonds nor its
ernpl-o-yee-s o-r offiuce-rs -shall be l-`1a-b-1`e for the
information given on thi5 map(s), nor for
any one representation provided based
upon said map(s).
me -6S
CITY OF ED K
CIVIC CENTER — WATER -SEWER DEPARTMENT Can PRospect 6-1,107 when work
is ready for Inspection. (No Inspec-
tions Saturday, Sunday or holidays.) N2 1888
SIDE SEWER PERMIT
ADDRESS ... 2.0.0.3.1 .... 8.1st ... A-ye.n.u.e ... West ...................... ...............................................................................................................
.. ........ -... ...........
Art Johnson Russell Johnson
OWNER----------- . ........................................................... ........ CONTRACTOR ..............................................................................
Perruission is granted --- ----------- Mar-c.h....2.9 ......... jq�?.., for ...................... days, to REPAIR or CONNECT a side sewer
........ .. ...
with City Sewers in accordance with application on file and governing ordinances.
ATTENTION IS CALLED TO THE FOLLOWING:
NOTE No. I —The owners of the property may obtain a permit to construct sewer Inside property line. A licensed Side Sewer Contractor must
be employed to construct side sewer In street area. Do not cover any portion of sewer before it has been Inspected.
NOTE No. 2—Obtain full information regarding Ordinance 11.16.OW and Regulations governing side sewers when you get permit.
NOTE No. 3—Top of side sewer must have at least 30 inches coverage at property line and 12 inches inside property line; minimum grade of 2%.
No bends in gr-ade sharper than % will be permitted.
('—'�OTE No. 4—Trenches In street must be water settled and surface of street restored to original condition. Contractors shall be responsible for
failure due to improper work which may develop within one year of completion.
NOTE No. 5—It is unlawful to alter or do any other work than Is provided for in the permit, or to do any work on the main sewer or its ap-
purtenances except to Insert the pipe into the wye.
------------—----
APPLILAInim
for V
The City of Edmonds SIDE SEWER PERMIT EASEMENT No . ......... ................................
"I NEW CONSTRUCTION ol� REPAIRS E]
OMEV /' / /—,
-------------------
OWNER ..... 1?.R.r ........
ADDRESS ....... ....... ......
.............................
7
Fo'
CONTRACTOR �.-se—.-/� .......... , '/.. .... PERMIT No �W-
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT No . ...... .................. ................... BLOCK No . ..................... ..............
A
NAME OF ADDITION .......... ....... ...........
t�lAiol-)4&s
47
APPROVED'
VAR 2-9-M
6-,C
Approved:
DAT........... -196-7 ...... By .. . ...... I ................ ......... ................
I
Permit N
City of Edmonds o: ZO_3-0�_v
RIGHT- . OF, -WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Issue Date: 5?_.023 1� 3
A. Addressbir Vicinity of Construction: C) 0 5 1 N,-
B. Ty
.pe of Work (be specific): /-_YT q 000 ir,@.01 4,L.e- (le, it Q 0 r 1h9
0, %. I , -r - 4,A-e V
C. Contractons�� 0 nn
P- Q'
Contact: (2V ok t A.,
Mailing AddressJ'a
11w -7
8 L.". P"h lo e: Ot S1 -7
State License
Liability Insurance: Bond: $
el `V .0 3
D. Building Permit # (if applicaE)'_�,
Side SewerPermit # (if applicable):
E. i![:] Commercial
Subdivision
Ej City Project EUC (!�U:D�ERIZON, PSE, AT& T, OVWD)
Multi -Family
Ej
Single Family
F1 Other
INSPECTOR:
F. PAVEMENT CUT: El YES
Le NO Q SIZE OF CUT x
CONCRETE CUT: El YES L2J�NO
INDEMNITY. Applicant understands by hislher signature to this application helshe holds the City of Edmonds harmless ftom
injuries, 'damages or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unfbreseen,� that may be made. . against the' City of
Edmonds or any of its departments or employees, including but not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense
costs and attorneyfees by reason ofgranting this permit.
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE 1EAR FOLL097NG THE FINAL
INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES 47LL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS
COMPLETED BYCITYFORCES, AT WHICH TIMEA DEBITOR CREDITR7LL BEPROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THEAPPLICANT.
+ Traffic control and public safety shall be in accordance with City regulations, as required by the City Engineer. Every
f1hgger must be trained as required by (WAC) 296-155-305 and must ha ve certification verifying completion of the
required training in their possession.
+ Restoration is to be in accordance with City codes. All street -cut trench work shall be patched with asphalt or City -
approved material prior to the end of the workday - NO EXCEPTIONS.
Three sets of construction drawings of proposed work are required with the permit application,
CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-4214-5555) PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK
I MA VE READ THE AB * 0 VE STA TEMENTS AND UNDERSTAND THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND A CKNO WLEDGE
THA T I MUST MAKE THE PINK COPY OF THE PERMIT A VAILABLE ON SITE A T ALL TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS
Signature:
FOR CITY USE ONLY
Date: 7101
Approved by: b I cggel— Rig'lit-o&way Fee: I 1P0 4-
Time Authorized:'Void After Disruption Feefflundlll:
Special Conditions:. QMMF-,e' htA) Fbg, CAnj Restoration Fee:
GY'AftAA); -RAC-7VIC, &00-rp-OL.. APPPNF, AS Total Fee: 116
001'tj)1 �bJ10U hEE�= ReceiptNo: 42
:W lgo�� cm(b— Issued by:(_M�/�,&
411
UPON COMPLETION OF PERMITTED WORK, AN ENGINEERING FINAL
--INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PER CHAPTER 18.00 OF THE'EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (Phone 425-771-0220, Ext. 1326)
FINAL APPROVAL OF PERMITTED WORK. DATE:
Inspector's Signature
For inspection requirements see Engineering Inspection Information handout.
NO W011K SHAI.L B[A.IN i,iuoiz To iTizmrr ISSUANCE
DAMy Documents\Forms\EngnmE�ROWpermit_.doc
PERRINVILLE
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO.1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY HALLS LAKEAREA
LOCATION 20031 81ST AV W W.O. No. 334866
POLE NO. NE1/4S 19 T 27 R 04. DATE 8/27/03 —
REASON FOR WORK ENGINEER KINMAN TASK 03
INSTALL CAPACITORS FOR PERRINVILLE DRAFTER — . U.G. NO.
CVR APPLICATION APPROVED SCALE 1" = 100'
DATE WORK COMPLETED DATE PRINTED
FOREMAN
FEES REQ'D 0 YES 0 NO
PRIMARY OVERHEAD
• RESIDENTIAL
• COMMERCIAL
LEO NO.
SECONDARY OVERHEAD
BASIC FEE S_
METER/CONV.POLE s
PRIMARY UNDERGROUND
0 RESIDENTIAL
0 COMMERCIAL
BASIC FEE S
LEU NO.
SECONDARY UNDERGROUND
BASIC FEE S—
liaqt I=s
UNDERGROUND PLAT
BASIC FEE
S
q FT.@$ -
STREET LIGHTING
q FT.@$
WORK IN RIGHT OF
WAY
0 PRIMARY
0 SECONDARY
-ri FT.0
.=s
MISCELLANEOUS FEES
VAULT S
PERMIT S
s
s
TOTAL DUE S
DATE PAID
RECEPT NO.
NEW SVCE APPLICATION NO.
— D
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
0 EXEMPT 0 NOT EXEMPT
PARA. 18 ITEM C_
O.H. U.G. COND. KV
ADD CKT.FT. PH
REM CKT.FT. PH
NET CKT.FT.
O.H. U.G. COND._KV
ADD CKT.FT. PH
REM CKT.FT. PH
NET CKT.FT.
PERMITS (DATE GRANTED)
0 TREE TRIM
0 STATE
0 COUNTY
0 CITY
0
EASEMENTS
0 REQUIRED 0 NOT REQUIRED
DATE RELEASED
FOREIGN CONTRACTS
0 VERIZON JPN NO.
0 CATV JPN NO.
0 JOINT TRENCH VERIZON & CATV
0 JOINT BORE VERIZON & CATV
0
-
POLE STENCILING
FROM TO
TAKE OFF POLE
PRE-CONST. REQUIRMENTS
0 TREE TRIM b PUD LOCATOR
0 BACKHOE 0 FLAGGING
0 ONE CALL DATE
No.
READY
PHASING
GIS
W 0 R K I N G PXOFLMER"
DMS
FINISHED
1 LINE
JOINT USE
GE
LEGEND: LOCATION MAP PA
0 EXISTING POLE
X EXISTING POLE -TO BE REMOVED
0 NEW POLE
X NEW POLE TO REPLACE EXISTING POLE
ATE_
SUBSTATION PERRINVILLE
CIRCUIT NO. PHASE
f
ENGR'S TEL. *
F-783-4384
ENGR'S PAGER #
F-514-4��.
G20-2A
(OPTIONAL)
N
0
w
OR
0 j
TRAFFIC PLAN L
CVR APPLICATION
G20-2A
(OPTIONAL)
TION B
SPEED
LIMIT
SPACING
A,8,C (FT)
-ER
BM
(FT)
tSIGN
25
200
55
30
200
85
35
350
120
40
350
170
45
iOO
50
500
55
500
15-160(2
1-80
LN191-D
SH
3149
1 1\8128
�4
0 25-28115
1-83
10
SL-2212;0
0 25-2983
0025
_____-2
�-0031
20E
8
0033
2H
-85
75-2538
SL 91-D
0035
2 7
0037
30
0128
12(
JOB SITES
VICINITY SKETCH
c:
co
(D
00
a_
U)
.(D
0
cr
U,
0
c
0
E
C�5
c
0
E
CL
9
0 ro
'0
0,�
C14
III
CITY OF EDMONDS
USE PERMIT
ZONE NUMBER 9 4a
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
joB SUITE,APT
ADDRESS
OWNER NAME NAME OF BUSINESS
x
W
z
0
1
LA AA LX,% ?7,
�/l L L ;A M
LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHECK
SUBDIVISION NO
LID NO
MAILING ADDRESS
2_u. A Ve
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP.
EXISTING � REOUIRED DEDICATION
PROPOSED
TESCP Approved
RW Permit Required 0
Stre I use Permit Req-d C3
Inspection Required 0
Sidewalk Required 0
cc
uj
CITY 4
E D LAJ &5
TELEPHONE NUMBER
.2-71 5S- it/
UQJ
NAME
METER SIZE
LINE SIZE
NO. OF FIXTURES
PRV REOUIRED
YES 0 NO 11
—
ADDRESS
REMARKS
cc
W
W
z
CITY ZIP
TELEPHONE NUMBER
z
NAME
I v
ADDRESS
cc
0
U
<
cc
I`_
z
0
L)
ENGINEERING MEMO DATED REVIEWED BY
CITY ZIV_
TELEPHO E NUMBER
FIRE MEMO DATED REVIEWED BY
W
STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE
SIGN AREA
SEPA REVIEW
ADB NO.
ALLOWED PROPOSED
COMPLETE EXEMPT
EXP
SHORELINE 0
z
Legal Description of Property - include all easements
j A)
VARIANCE OR 6U_
PLANNING REVIEW BY
DATE
ir
L)
ll2j It i,, e 5 1, 1 V 2- RC 4f f,w, I,.(
,
Lu
I-Y- lite i"?C_&
SETBACKS —FEE
FRONT SIDE REAR
jL6T
COVERAGE
z
z
4
-
Property
Tax Account
ParceIN.. q3l7--(-,C)e,)-I-,'2—i—Ole.--)q
REMARKS
0.
NEW RESIDENTIAL 1:1 PLUMBING
ADDITION COMMERCIAL El MECHANICAL
REMODEL El APT. BLDG. D SIGN
GRADING FENCE
REPAIR 2. 5z CYDS J_ x _FT)
CHECKED BY
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION
CODE
OCCUPANT
GROUP
z
G?
IX-L
WOODSTOVE SWIM POOL
DEMOLISH r INSERT HOT TUB/SPA
GARAGE RETAINING WALL/
CARPORT ROCKERY D RENEWAL
SPECIAL INSPECTOR S �A�REA
REQUIRED
13 YE
OCCUPANT
LOAD
EMARKS
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 305
(TYPE OF USE. BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN:
al
0
CO
0
NUMBER
OF ..
STORIES
NUMBER OF
DWELLING
UNITS
CRITICAL
R"
FAREAS
NUMRER
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN)
App,.�gy :�L Lc.(Irl—
FIN AL INSPECTION REQUIRED
Ji 1j) 141 �10&1 E* ZAJ LAUI-9 L' Z A N _1� �04 a
PLAN CHECK FEE
VALUATION
FEE
.
0) RD
BUILDING
AEAT SOURCE:
61,5
%
PLUMBING
Plan Check No.
MECHANICAL
GRADINGIFILL
This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY.
Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sidewalks,
driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission.
STATE SURCHARGE
Permit Application: 180 Days
Permit Limit: 1 Year - Provided Work Is Started Within 180 Days
STORM DRAINAGE FEE
ENO. INSPECTION FEE
'un,
2
a:
5
0
X
"Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and
successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials,
employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of
whatever nature, arising directly or Indirectly from the issuance
of this permit. issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to
modify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance
nor limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance
provision."
PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT
--
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
00
—
I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the
information given is correct; and that I am the owner, or the duly ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL
authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and THIS PERMIT This application is not a permit until
state laws regulating construction; and In doing the work authoriz- AUTHORIZES
x signed by the Building Official or his/her
ed thereby, no perzon will be employed in violation of the Labor ONLY THE
Code f the,State, / ashington relating to Workmen's Compensa- WORK NOTED Deputy: and fees are paid, and receipt is
fs,Urgt'f�e'00 W 18.27. i INSPECTION acknowledged in space provided.
'ENT) DATE SIGN DEPARTMENT --flf—1
OFFICIAV§,SIGNATgAE DATE
CITY OF
EDMONDS
CALL FOR RELEASED BY: DATE
ATTENTI INSPECTION
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE
UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR 771-0220 ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspector
A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC A—p—
.—Of
Site Plan
5CALE: I"=20.00'
.01 10, 5o' 4o, 5o,� (oo-
Site Address
:20051 515T AVE V4
WMONV5, KA 11b0:260
Owner
JOHN 4 CINDY ROCCO
20051 a15T AVE K
EDMONDS, KA cIW26
425-615-5141
Note
Height Calculations
ALL DISTURBED SOILS SKALL BE
A 102.00
COMPOST AMENDED PER 5W T5.15
B 102.-5
OF THE STORMKATER MANUAL.
0 105.?s
V 102.50
Cut and Fill
AVERArSE 102h25.
MAX RIVr7E 121.625
CVT: 25 yrs.
PJVC7E Or- NEK ADDITION 0. 115.00'
FILL: 6 YDS. (APPROX)
Top -or- Exis-nNe Rj.o&E a ii6�ba,
OP. AT STORM M.H. IN STREETI
SET e 100.001 '1
Assessoes Parcel No.
00 4512 000 021 01 Oq
Lot.Size Zone
-T. (FIF
IcIkO:2.50. r _R CO. f;MCORDS) Setbacks
Front
Stockpile SldesPk _j7ff
AS NOTED ON PRANIN&. HILL BE COVERED
KTHIN 24 HOURS. Rem
Other
Excess Material - Excavation,
EXCESS MATERIAL TO BE USED AROUND
PERIMETER OF FOUNDATION AN12 FOR
LAND50APINC7.
Drainage
ALL NEH DRAINS TO TIE INTO EX15TINe.
NEH ROOF 67UTTERS TO TIE INTO EX15TIN6 CD
DRAINA67E SYSTEM.
Erosion Control
FENCE AT EVOE OF 015TURBED al 2
2� r � CL
SOILS. EX15TINC7 VE&ITATION TO C5
REMAIN EL5EMERE.
0 r_ t:
!P
Zoning
0* LL
R5_5000
Building Footprint ca 18 &E
H0U5E,.(P_XI5TINr7) 180q5 50. FT. V
H E (� . � 1. .
OU5 215 e
PORjr.H (1ExISTiNr7) .56
CARPORT. (r=XI5TiN5) 54:2
5HED (EXISTINC?) 120 '57F 0
TOTAL 50. FT. 2656
LOT COVZRASE 15j&%
A erp
j
15_7
'3-7/1'5
<__7
"--"I
Impervid
us surface
caics c.111.4FIA,=
Line
Type.
Area (sq. ft.)
1
Exempt
5926.0
Exempt
Non-exempt
2
Replefced
Ad
3
New
New.
TotW replaced +
new(non-exempt)
In dmded boxft)
mkv
0 1141VER P. 00
Impervious Surface Areas
EXISTIN&
ROOF
2122
50. FT.
PATI(:r
:21
SHED
145
TOTAL AREAS
541:2C
.5Q. FT.
PROPOSED
ROOF
25qI
50. FT.
DRIVEKAY
5&4
PATIOS:
2005,
SHED,
.145
TOTAL AREAS
5cl2b
50. FT.
NET NEIN AREA
0
50. FT.
W'N