Loading...
536 MAPLE ST (2).pdf`CITY OF EDMONDS size . ~� EXHIBIT 2 ������zom ro aExRzmm Exm1zmon epo aFOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - ` Rect. mv.-2�-AJZ1__-_ HEARING DATE aprLzcANT`RlCHARD A JOHNSUN ADDRESS 747 SPRUCE STR Indicate type or degree of interest in the property: PURCHASER owmEo. GENEVlEVE P{CKETT ADDRESS 638 MAPLE STREET PHONE.. LocxTzom OF PROPERTY (ADDRESS) LEGAL oamouznrzow OF puopaoz LOTS 7 lG BLOCK I22 PLAT OF CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGT0N, RECORDS OF 3N0HOMISH COUNTY WASHlNGTUN To be completed by the Planning Division: Use Zone M I "—' fe �,L Legal description checked and approved by: NET VICINITY SKETCH: rLoAos uonn BELOW u vzozmzTx aoEzoo AS PER zoAMPLE, zmozoATzwo mnuro. Example: GUOIXcr ' A? — CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTED: DETAILS or raoPooEm nnuGs: .0 GRADING AND EXCAVATION IN EXCESS OF 500 CUBIC YARDS TO CONSTRUCT 21 CONDOMINIUM UNITS RELEASE/HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT The undersigned applicant, his heirs and assigns, in consideration for.the City processing the application agrees to release, indemnifv defend and hold the City oi Edmonds harmless from anv and all damages a�d/or claims for damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from any action or inaction of the City whenever such action or inaction is based in whole or in part upon false, misleading or incomDlete information furnished by the applicant, his agents or employees. PERMISSION TO ENTER SUBJECT PROPERTY The undersigned applicant grants his, her or its Dermission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmopa" enter the subject epresentative CITY 0 PROJECt AME ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DATE SUBMITTED The information on this form will be used to determine the effect of your action upon the environment of the City of Edmonds. Please answer each question as thoroughly as possible. 1. LAND (To Be Same Area___31.00 s re feet oils Type Determined) Limitations extreme in short dimension or hy (w slope) Approximately 28% at Description of topograp depth of lot NOTE: if grading or filling will rAding exceed 500 cubic yards a g Grading: Estimated cubic yards 11,958 cubic_yards and filling plan must be sub- mitted with the application. Filling: Estimated cubic yards None- rea to be paved (including buildings) 17,500-18,0001 square feet Estimated a Estimated area in open space (pervious surface) 2. WATER Stream - Estimated flow (cubic feet per second) NA Will stream be altered? _NAIf yes, to what degree? NA Applicable,Codes) Other water bodies? NA Impact on storm drainage(Comply with Method of handling runoff Collection of roof drainage and footing drainsinto a detention system. f MP14)? No Adjacent to shorelines zone? No Within 200 feet o 3. VEGETATIO!; Type and approximate number of trees Mixture of Maples, Firs, Pine, Madrone and a few fruit trees. There are 10-15 trees over 611 in diameter. rees to be removed 90. Minimum diameter of trees to remain 2011 % of t e removed 100 Ground cover Grasses, Blackberry, etc. % to b Proposed landscaping, if any Will be designed by Landscape Architect and will comple ent e istin veqetation. ROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: 4. EXISTING LA14D USE WITHIN 300 FEET RADIUS OF P . n9le Mu ti- Vacant F m-il Commercial Other 5. CIRCULATION Estimated increase in auto trips dail -half block --corner of Fifth Availability Of public transportatio South 6. AREA OF IMPACT Neighborhood___ XCity-wide_________--­! ro 7. EFFECT ON AIR QUALITY Non�si_qnificant ;ame use as surroun.din a. CHANGES IN NOISE GENERATION Non -significant (Same us 11/78) ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER LIST PLEASE LIST ALL NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN 30 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINES OF THE SITE. Laurintine: POn5eti, William & Karen 523 Maple St #101, Edmonds It Post, Charles R. 523 Maple St. #102 ff Stelte, Louis J. & Rosemary 523 Maple St. #103 Graham, Stanley R. 523 Maple St. #104 523 Maple 3t. #201 Sater, Ruth C. Denvis, Inc. 523 Maple St. #202 Smith, James A & Myrtle A* 523 Maple St. #203 Jackson S. Cay 523 Maple St. #204 523 Maple St. #301 Martinis, Andrew J. Md. Baker, Bruce F & Joyce N. 523 Maple St. #302 Richardson, I.F. (The Mariner) 533 Alder St. #1 Schwehm, Wilson M & Helen A. 533 Alder St #2 Bums, Floyd M & Helen R. 533 Alder St. #3 533 Alder St. #4 Eller, Vern W. Carlin, Thomas 1 533 Alder St. #5 Oster, Sally A 533 Alder St. #6 533 Alder St. #7 Nickelen, Arthur Rowland, Robert E & Reta C. 533 Alder St. #8 Allen, Beatrice 533 Alder St. #1 533 Alder St. #2 Davis, Virginia 533 Alder St. #3 Anderson, G.M. Baer, George F & Rachel E. 533 Alder St. #4 Fix, Robert T 533 Alder St. #5 #6 McClure, Donald B. 533 Alder St. 533 Alder St. #7 Kaiser, Mary M. Wood, Frederick R & Helen H. 533 Alder St. #8 Mariner Assn. 533 Alder St. #9 533 Alder St. #10 Echelbarger, Dean Church Property 551 Maple St. Johnson, Howard M. 531 Maple St. 5z7 Maple St. Borcich, Vincent L. . fez;1*-%b--),er520 Maple St. . I '� Union Oil Co. 3U7 5th Ave. S. Jacobsen, Jack B & Charlene F. 128 Sunset Ave. Lincoln Mutual Svgs-, 98101 Gard, Walter B. 129 12th Ave. N. Kingen, George Rice, Clara G. 523 Alder St. Yost, Kenneth 0. 517 Alder St. Remick, Larry Dr. 313 5th S. 313 5th S. Edmonds Vet. Hospital 2/9/32MT , /Vo //-�? Iq AAF- /9--� A6ck IN" ",---,,OFFICE COMMUNICAT-IONS DATE z FROM TO (V" SUBJECT: IV op— te 6—,,00.021 el A/ 7- 70 4 foV1jfjF 17 0,1 7v IfIlVf 6440IM;-, FfOVf AC r.-,lV,000rf-1-Y A4.4wl 7V 4/ -47 720 Ar rl7Z- lotllfm�l 74114Y fo6lTX3 4el7' A34,4 IS AW elrf.- 7V lVhW 15; V hW "Wirs;;r 1*&cr-5* av 7;5w -fp,7��zpwvr WIvW Mer flgvfWelv) Ae rv-:P"O-*V Aw 7*W dodo /4Z L �1441 0- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 0 MAPLE :5TREET ---------- ------------------------------------------- ------ ------ 40 wALNur sTiteeT z MAX ft"..f4p9l. 149" . .......... I PtJbLt6,r 7 ALLEv LEGEND LCGAL DESCRIPTION WmNuARY a TOPOGRAPHY suw4y FOR WESTGATE BUILDERS.INC. TN—SWI/40FSWI/4.SECTM24.T2?N,*3t.WM SNOHOMISH COATY. VASHINGTON =L ........... —1... EDMONDS CCUNCIL OF CONCrR4ED CITIZE!4S STUDY OF FIIE #CU - 48 - 42 & V - 16 82 Introduction This study is submitted by the Edmxds Council of Concerned Citizens Board and mmTbership to create an awareness on the part of the Edmonds City Council, the Edmonds Hearing Examiner, the Architectual Design Board and the Edmonds City Planners as to the implementation of the Edmonds Ccmmmity Development Code with respect to the granting of Variances and Conditional Use Permits; as a contribution to public welfare. The Fkbvords Director of Ccmmunitv Development, the Edmonds City Planners and the Edmonds Hearing Examiner positions were created by ordinance to insure that the Comnunity Development Code Policies and Regulations regarding land use are adhered to and enforced, in relation to applications for granting Variances and Conditional Use Permits pertaining to all construction and development. SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE The application of Richard Johnson for approval of a Variance and a Conditional Use Permit. A Conditional Use Permit is required when excavation of 500 yards or more of soil is proposed in an application for development of any property in Edmonds. On December 17, 1982, the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds, with the recamendation of approval by the Edmonds City Planners, granted a Conditional Use Permit (CU #48-82) to the Applicant for the purpose of grading and excavating of approximately 12,000 cubic yards of earth on a property located at 536 Maple Street, Edmonds, Washington. In granting the approval of the CU #48-82, the city Staff and the Hearing Examiner failed to apply the Edmonds City Code with respect to the severe slope (28%) of the property and the extensive nature of the grading required by the topographical limitations imposed by the site on the proposed development. This special approval ignores the Edmonds Ccm=ity Development Code which clearly and repeatedly speaks to the issue of environmental protection. CODE 15.05.010 Purposes. A. To serve as the basis for municipal policy on development and to provide guiding principles and objectives for the development of regulations. Page 2 C To anticipate and influence the ordcrlY land c and restore natural and building use s of the city and its environs, and cOnsOrv' 011 "I'll' U and other natural resources. 15.05.020 Effect Of Plan - private Projects. All Private Projects requiring city review and approval shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan- 15.15.000,SOils-and-TOE2E-a2!�Y-- omnen A. General. The natural topography Of the City contributes to the envir tal avenity of the commnity. Many of the remainlng undeveloped areas of the City are located on. hillsides Or in ravines where steep slopes have discouraged developmnt. %-% B Goal. A steep slope and potentially hazardous -te soil conditions ql,,OA iy- based on site devel t w�bich eserve, U natural site charLcLe_ristics in accordance with the following Policies: reduce invervious surfaces, cuts and f ills. rading of the hillside. 2. MjnjEj�� C. Goal. Dr hazardous soil conditions should preserve the natural features of the site, in accordance with the following policies: Grading and Filling. ing e restricted to build nads, a. Itt shall.b driveways, access waYs and., other ous surfaces. b Grading shall not jeopardize the stability of any slope, Or Of an adjacent . property- Only minunal amounts of cut and f il 1 on hillsides exceed Lng 15 o e should C. be permitted that the natural i-rrY*jqraphV be preserved. d. Fill and excavated dirt shall not be pushed down the slope. 4 2. Building Construction- a. Buildings On Slopes Of 15S or greater shall be designed to cause min imim disruption to the natural topography. 3. Erosion Control. a. TenVorarY measures shall bo taken to reduce erosion during construction. COMMENTS The Code calls for discOurageMent Of the type of development applied for duc to the topographic limitations. The excavation in excess of 500 cubic yards Of soil On the Richard Johnson property at 536 maple street, Edmonds, Washington, caused Page 3 the removal of the entire natural setting. None of the vegetation previously seen on the property retrains after excavation. 7his is inconsistent with the applicants Environmental Assessment which states trees of 20" in diameter were to remain, 10% of the trees on the site. In addition, the excavation created a steep cliff in excess of a thirty foot vertical drop which represents a health and safety hazard to the comrunity. This type of cut and the subsequent pushing of earth down the slope is a temporary hazard to the adjacent properties due to natural events such as storms which could cause additional erosion and possible earth movement which may result in slides. In neither the Staff Report nor the Findings Of Decision by the Hearing Examiner were the Chapters 15.05.010 - 15.15.000 of the Edmonds Community Development Code mentioned in relation to the Richard Johnson Application, although testimony was provided by Ray Martin at the Hearing regarding these chapters and how they applied to the proposed development. The design and size of the proposed building is not suitable to the property, additionally the City Staff in their recommendation did require the Applicant provide a temporary erosion prevention plan, however, these measures are not in evidence at the site. STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER (EXHIBIT 1) AND FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF EWONDS The Edmonds City Development Code is specific regarding the powers and duties of both the City Planners and the Hearing Examiner. In order for a Conditional Use Permit to be approved the application has to conform to the Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 20.05.010 titled Critera and Findings. Staff Report #CU 48-82. IV. Staff Findings and Conclusions. A. Description of Subject Property and Surrounding Area. The sites slope steeply up from Maple Street and the west property line. The eastern half of the property is relatively level before sloping downward to the eastern property line. The most severe slope is approximatley 28%. C. Conformance to Chapter 20.05.010. 1. Comprehensive Plan. The proposed grading would essentially be limited to the building pad areas, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted, however, that tbe proposed grading will substantially alter the topo- graphy of the site. 7, Page 4 3. Not Detrijwntal. As conditioned, the proposed grading should not be signifi- cantly detrimental to any nearby private property or in4)rovements nor to the public health safety and general welfare. V. Staff Reconnendation. 7. Due to the extensive nature of the grading operation, should it be determined that road(s) are damaged by heavy truck traffic, the developer will be held responsible for correction of such damage. Findings and Decision of Hearing Examiner of the City of rXITOndS File CU #48-82. Decision. The Conditional Use Permit and Variance applications are granted subject to the conditions listed. Findings of Fact. 3. The subject prop�rty slopes steeply fran Maple Street and the west property line. The easterly portion of the property is relatively level. Hamever, at the eastern property line there is a downward slope. 15. In order for a Conditional Use permit to be granted in the City of Wzcnds the application must meet the criteria as set forth in Section 20.05.010 Criteria the proposed use must and Findings of Conditional Use Permits. These include: be consistent with the Canprehensive Plan; (2) the proposed use mist be consistent with the purposes of zoning ordinances and the zone district in which the property is located, (3) the proposed use must not be detrimental to the public healtht safety or welfare, or to any nearby improvements or property. 16. The proposed clearing and grading would be limited to the building pad areas. It will substantially alter the topography of the site, but would not be detrinental to other properties. 17. The proposed clearing and grading will be done for the purpose of developing the site for the 21 units. This is in conformity with the density allowed for RM-1.5 zone. 18. The clearing and grading will not be detrimental to nearby properties or to the public health, safety or welfare. 20. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds recam-end approval Of the variance. 25. A witness (Martin) testified that the construction of the 21 unit development� would adversely affect views throughout the area and is not desirable. Further, the witness stated that the proposal was not consistent witli the Comprehensive Page 5 Policy Plan map in that it interrupted views; caused extensive cutting and fill g; arid, was not aesthetically pleasing. Conclusions. 4. The clearing and grading Conditional Use Pennit as requested appears to be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinances of the City of F4monds and with the RM-1.5 zoned district. The clearing and grading is necessary for the construction of the 21 unit condominium. All of the requirements for the develop- ment of the condominium in this zoned area are satisfied. 5. The clearing and grading and excavation will not be detrimental to the surrounding properties or to the health, safety or welfare. 6. The proposed clearing and grading and excavation is consisent with the Comprehensive Policy P lan of the City of Edmonds. Decision. 2. The Applicant must provide a temporary eros ion control plan prior to the issuance of any building permit. This plan is subject to the approval of the City of Edmonds. 4. The Applicant must provide measures to ensure public safety at the site during the earth removal and construction period. COMMENTS The Staff Report shows that the property slope was 28%, slopes more than 15% are allowed per the code only minimal amounts of cut to preserve the natural topography (15.15.000.C.l.c). Conformance with Chapter 20.05.010. Item 1. Comprehensive Plan. The design and size of the proposed building used the minimzn allowed set -backs, thus the entire site required excavation wbich as the Staff Report noted would substantially alter the topography of the site. This is a blatant failure on the part of the Staff and the Examiner to apply these facts to the Code regarding Soils and Topography. Not Detrimental. The fact that excavation has created a 30 foot vertical cliff is a health and safty hazard to the community. Piles of loose soils (make-up being sand and small aggregate rock) have been pushed down slope to be used later as back fill.This creates additional safety and hazard problem to the community and especially the alacent property down slope. The site should be fenced per the Page 6 Hearing Examiners directive, the Planning Departrent and Building are not enforcing their conditions of approval. 4-.: CON1CLUSION The language eniployed by the F4n=ds canTxmity Developw.nt Code is clear and precise as to the policies and regulations of the City of Edmonds. The Code mandates all develoWmt be sensative to the environmnt and the city's amnities. The Staff's recanwndaticn of approval based on conpliance with Chapter 20.05.010 A, of the Comprehensive Plan is nothing less than a misapplication of the Code. The Staff Report on which the Hearing Examiner basedlis Findings and Decision presented an incomplete and misguided recoar-endation in that Code directives on Soils and Topography and Building Construction were not taken into consideration. It is our opinion the Edmonds City Planner, Assistant and Associates and the Edmonds Hearing Examiner should be directed to review the Edmonds Commity Development Code, chapter 15.00 15.20 and apply the policies and regulations as otlin to all future r ests for Variances and Conditional Use Permits. ed equ Furthermore, measures should be taken to insure public safety at 536 Maple Street during the construction period per the Hearing Examiner's conclusions. Prepared by Finis Tupper % Lloyd Ostrom, Box President 4�r; �21 V, FILE NO. cu-48-32 APPLICANT RICHARD JOHNSON AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH MARYANNE TOWNSEND being first duly sworn, on oath deposeg and says: That on the Qc:P— day of -,19 -z, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed as required to adjacent property owners, the names. of which were provided by the applicant. S i n e d 'Subscribed and sworn to before me this aJAZ ay of 19 Notary Publ*,6A and for State of Wgingtq� Residing at FILE NO. rii-4.R-22-- APPLICANT RICHARD JOHNSON Washington Kesiding at NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING THE HEARING EXAMINER WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING THURSDAY, DECEMBER 2. -19 82 ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO.. v-16-82 AND cu-4 -82 VARIANCE FROM REQUIRED HEIGHT LIMIT FOR 21 UNIT CONDOMINIUMS -AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GRADING AND EXCAVATION IN EXCESS OF 500 CUBIC YARDS, PROPERTY ADDRESS AND LOCATION 536 MAPLE STREET ZONEDISTRICT RM-1.5 THE HEARING WILL BEGIN AT 7:30 P M., IN THE OF THE EDMQNDS JIIIIIIIIIIIIII ---- .v4ptsery ojf'f1d4jq IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT ONqHIS PROPOSAL, YOU MAY COME TO THE HEARING AND SPEAK. YOU MAY ALSO WRITE A LETTER STATING YOUR VIEWS WHICH WI LL BE CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING PLEASE ADDRESS THE LETTER TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND INCLUDE T�E ABOVE FILE NUMBER. IF THE ITEM IS CONTINUED TO ANOTHER HEARING BECAUSE THE AGENDA IS NOT COMPLETED, OR FURTHER INFORMATION IS NEEDED, THE DATE OF THE CONTINUED HEARING WILL BE ANNOUNCED ONLY AT THE MEETING. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 605 BELL STREET, EDMONDS (PHONE 775-2525, EXT. 227). THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR CONCEALMENT OF THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE WARNING! Of THE HEARING IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT. THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOVED AFTER IZ-Z- 82� 1��JZTER-OFFICE COMM U I -,`�.ATIONS DATE November 22, —19 TO DAN SMITH, PLANNING/ENGINEERING INSPEC. FROM PLANNING DEPARTMENT GARY MCCOMAS, FIRE DEPARTMENT I SUBJECT: V-16-82/RICHARD A. JOHNSONMEARING DATE: DECEMBER 2, 1982 CU-48-82/RICHARD A. JOHNSONMEARING DATE: DECEMBER 2, 1982 Please review the attached proposal and return any comments to Duane Bowman, ._T,.j'§.,!'jTEM WERE. FORWARDED WITH THE -.-PSAL-0, -32). j E, L F4�11119 , ,7 - LBO 11 77, :77:77 HARVE H. HARRISON CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR CIVIC CENTER - EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 (206) 775-2525 PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: November 24, 1982 CITY OF EDMONDS HARVE H. HARRISON MAYOR CIVIC CENTER EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020 (206) 775-2525 M6 PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: December 14, 1,982 TO: Mr. James W. Driscoll Suite 525 Westland Building 100 South.King Street Seattle, WA 98104 TRANSMITTING: LETTER FROM MRS. WOODS REGARDING RICHARD JOHNSON PROJECT FILE Ps CU-48-82 and V-16-82 AS YOU REQUESTED: FOR YOUR INFORMATION: xxx AS WE DISCUSSED: FOR APPROVAL: q FOR YOUR FILE: REVIEW AND COMMENT: COMMENT AND RETURN: MINUTES OF 14EETING: REMARKS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT v dj 7VI Oe Xx I Zee IT112- I)e, Uwwx �41' .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Til" I , I '4 W; tl-- )Vn OWN c 14, e '1741 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .... . ..... .. 1-7 777 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a, V. OMONOS CITY 'OF EK HARVE H, HARRISON MAYOA CIVIC CENTER EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020 (206) 175 .2625 PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: -December 23, 1982 TO: Vince Borcich 17850 Ball Linger Way N.E. Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 F INDINGS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTING:' C U-48-82 and V-16-82 AS YOU REQUESTED. FOR YOUR INFORMATION: AS WE DISCUSSED: FOR APPROVAL: FOR YOUR FILE: REVIEW AND COMMENT: COMMENT AND RETURN: MINUTES OF 14EETING: REMARKS PLANNING DEPARTMENT 77. - - --------- '4 OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF FILE: CU-48-82 & V-16-82 RICHARD A. JOHNSON FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DECISION: The Conditional Use permit and Variance applications are granted subject to the conditions listed. INTRODUCTION Richard A. Johnson, 747 Spruce Street, Edmonds, Washington, the contract purchaser of property at 536 Maple Street, Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as Applicant, has appli d for a Conditional Use permit for grading and excavating approximately 12,000 cubic yards of soil at 536 Maple Street, Edmonds, Washington. In addition, the request is made for a variance from the required height limit for a 21 unit condominium at 536 Maple Street, Edmonds, Washington. The specific variance request is for the granting of a variance to exceed the 25-foot height limit by 10.69 feet. The legal description of the subject property is: Lots 7-16, Block 122, Plat of City of Edmonds, Edmonds, Washington, Records of Snohomish County, Washington. A hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds on December 2, 1982. The following presented testimony at the public hearing: Duane Bowman Planning Department City of Edmonds Edmonds, WA 98020 Thomas Harroner 1101 Pike Street Seattle, WA Helen Wood 555 Alder Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Ray Martin 18704 94th Ave. W Edmonds, WA 98020 The following exhibits were presented at the hearing and were admitted into evidence: rd", Findings and Decisiclioaf the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds Re: CU-48-82 & V-16-82 Page 2 ellu� Exhibit 1 - Staff Report 2 - Conditional Use Permit Application 3 - Variance Application and Declaration of the Applicant 4 - Scheme "All showing lobby on proposed structure 5 - Scheme "B" showing no lobby on proposed structure 6 - Building Height Calculation Site Plan 7 - Section Map showing lobby of the proposed structure 8 - The Side View Map of the Proposed Structure After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Applicant; evidence elicited at the public hearing; and as a result of the personal inspection of the subject property and the surrounding area by the Hearing Examiner, the following findings of fact and conclusions constitute the basis of the decision of the Hearing Examiner. FINDINGS OF FACT I. The Applicant has requested approval of two permits from the City of Edmonds. A Conditional Use permit is requested for the purpose of excavating and grading approximately 12,000 cubic yards at 536 Maple Street, Edmonds, Washington. In addition, a variance is requested to exceed the 25-foot height limit for a proposed 21 unit condominium at 536 Maple Street, Edmonds, Washington. The variance requested is to exceed the 25-foot height limit by 10.69 feet. 2. The subject property is a 33,000 square foot parcel of land. Currently on the property is an older single family residence that is located near the center of the site. 3. The subject property slopes steeply from Maple Street and the west property line. The easterly portion of the property -is relatively level. However, at the eastern property line there is a downward slope. 4. The subject property is zoned RM-1.5. 5. The property to the east, west and south is all developed as multiple family residential. The property to the north is a mixture of multiple and single family residential development and a church. 6. The Applicant has proposed a development of a 21 unit condominium on the site. The 21 unit condominium satisfies the density requirements for the City of Edmonds and satisfies all the zoning code requirements for RM-1.5 except for the building height. 7. Building heights within the City of Edmonds are calculated by taking the average elevation of four corners of the smallest rectangle that would fit around the building that is proposed. J Findings and Decisi^f the Hearing Examiner of tne City of Edmonds Re: CU-48-82 & V-16-82 Page 3 8. It is the intent of the Applicant to develop the.subject property by constructing two buildings. One of the buildings would be a nine unit building and the other building would be a 12 unit building. It is the desire of the Applicant to connect the two buildings with an entry lobby for the purpose of providing a more attractive and useful entrance to both structures. 9. Without the entry lobby as proposed the calculation for the structures would be done separately. Both of the structures would satisfy the height requirement of the City of Edmonds. 10. Because the two buildingswill be connected by the common entry lobby, it is necessary to consider the development as one structure and therefore the structure must satisfy the building standards of the City of Edmonds. 11. In order for a variance to be granted in the City of Edmonds, the Application must conform to the requirements as set forth in Section 20.85.010 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. These requirements include: (1) special circumstances must exist for the granting of the variance; (2) the variance must not be a special privilege granted to the property or to the owners of the property; (3) the variance if granted must be consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan map of the City of Edmonds; (4) the variance if granted must be consistent with the zoning ordinances and the zoning district in which the property is located; (5) the variance must not be detrimental to the surrounding properties or public health, safety or welfare; and, (6) the requested variance must be the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. 12. The Applicants would be able to build the two buildings as separate units rather than combining them with a common lobby. All the City of Edmond's building standards are met by the two buildings proposal. 13. The Comprehensive Policy Plan map designates the subject property as a mixture of commercial business and high densi-ty residential. 14. The type of development proposed by the Applicant is consistent with the type of development that has occurred in other RM-1.5 zones. 15. In order for a Conditional Use permit to be granted in the City of Edmonds t he application must meet the criteria as set forth in Section 20.05.010 Criteria and Findings of Conditional Use Permits. These include: the proposed use must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; (2) the pro- posed use must be consistent with the purposes of zoning ordinances and the zone district in which the property is located; (3) the proposed use must not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or to any nearby improvements or property. 16. The proposed clearing and grading would be limited to the building pad areas. It will substantially alter the topography of the site, but would not be detrimental to other properties. 17. The proposed clearing and grading will be done for the purpose of developing the site for the 21 units. This is in conformity with the density allowed for RM-1.5 zone. Auk Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds Re: CU-48-82 & V-16-82 Page 4 18. The clearing and grading will not be detrimental to nearby properties or to the public health, safety or welfare. 19. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds has recommended that the Conditional Use permit be approved subject to the following conditions: A. Provide a detailed clearing and grading plan with building permit appl i cation. B. Provide temporary erosion control plan. C. Provide trafficcontrol plan during earth removal phase. D. Provide measures to insure public safety at site during the earth/removal construction. E. Provide truck routes, subject to City approval, to fill site. F. Provide fill site information if site is in the City. G. Due to the extensive nature of the grading operation, should it be determined that road(s) are damaged by heavy truck traffic, the developer will be held responsible for correction of such damage. 20. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds recommended approval of the variance. 21. The Applicant testified that the variance request is made for the purpose of improving the aesthetics of the area and the development. According to the Applicant the strict 25-foot height limit of the City of Edmonds are more stringent than those found in the Uniform Building Code. 22. The Applicant testified to be in support of the City of Edmonds recommenda'- tions. 23. An adjoining property owner testified that the Applicant should be required to screen the parking. According to the witnesshis property would be in the direct line of any headlights from cars in the parking lot. 24. A witness (Wood) testified about her concern as to the height of the building and the fact thatit could disrupt her view. 25. A witness (Martin) testified that the construction of the 21 unit develop- ment would adversely affect views throughout the area and is not desirable. Further, the witness stated that the proposal was not consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan map in that it interrupted views; caused exten- sive cutting and filling; and, was not aesthetically pleasing. 25. The Architectural Design Review Board of the City of Edmonds recommended approval of the 2-unit concept with the common lobby. Findings and Decisio?!%W the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds Re: CU-48-82 & V-16-82 Page 5 CONCLUSIONS 1. The application is for the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a Variance for property located at 536 Maple Street, Edmonds, Washington. The Conditional Use Permit request is for the purpose of excavating and grading approximately 12,000 cubic yards of material. The variance request is to exceed the 25-foot height requirement by 10.69 feet for the development of a 21 unit condominium at the property. 2. In order for a Conditional Use permit to be granted within the City of Edmonds, the criteria as listed in Section 20.05.010 must be adhered to. 3. The subject property is zoned RM-1.5. 4. The clearing and grading Conditional Use Permit as requested appears to be consistent w ith the purposes of the zoning ordinances of the City of Edmonds and the RM-1.5 zoned district. The clearing and grading is necessary for the construction of the 21 unit condominium. All of the requirements for the development of the condominium in this zoned area are satisfied. 5. The clearing and grading and excavation will not be detrimental to the surrounding properties or to the health, safety or welfare. 6. The proposed clearing and grading and excavation is consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan of the City of Edmonds. 7. The proposed Conditional Use permit should not be transferable. If any new project is developed a new application should be required. 8. In order for a'variance to be granted within the City of Edmonds the criteria as listed in Section 20.85.010 of the Community Development Code must be met. 9. Special circumstances do exist for the granting of the variance. Without the variance the Applicant would be allowed to develop the property into two units. However, with the variance the Applicant can develop the property without any increase in height. The lobby appears t o provide a more pleasing structure. 10. The granting of the variance will not be a granting of a special privilege to the property owner. The property owner could develop the site with a 21 unit condominium without the variance. ll.. The requested variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan map of the City of Edmonds and the zoning ordinances and in particular RM-1.5. 12. The proposed variance will not be detrimental to the nearby properties or property owners. The addition of the lobby will improve the structure and the appearance of the area. 13. The proposed variance is the minimum necessary to allow an attractive entry to the building. 14. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds has recommended approval of Findings and Decisio', �f the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds Re: CU-48-82 & V-16-82 Page 6 the variance and the Planning Department has recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions listed. DECISION Based on the preceding findings and conclusions, based on the testimony and evidence submitted at the hearing and the site view of the property by the Hearing Examiner, the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds hereby grants a Conditional Use permit to the Applicant for the purpose of clearing and grading and excavating approximately 12,000 cubic yards on property located at 536 Maple Street, Edmonds, Washington. This Conditional Use permit is subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant must provide the detailed clearing and grading plan at the time application is made for the building permit. This clearing and grading plan is subject to approval by the City of Edmonds prior to any issuance of a building permit. 2. The Applicant must provide a temporary erosion control plan prior to the issuance of any building permit. This plan is subject to the approval of the City of Edmonds. 3. The Applicant must provide a traffic control plan during the earth removal phase for the project. This plan is subject to the approval of the City of Edmonds. 4. The Applicant must provide measures to ensure public safety at the site during the earth removal and construction period. 5. The Applicant must provide truck routes subject to the City of Edmond's approval. 6. If there is any dumping of material within the City of Edmonds the Applicant must provide fill site information to the City of Edmonds. If necessary, the Applicant must secure a Conditional Use Permit for the dumping of the fill. 7. Due to the extensive nature of the grading operation there is a possibility that the roads may become damaged by heavy truck traffic. If that occurs, in the opinion of the City, the developer will be held liable for the correction of any damage. Further, the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds grants the approval of the variance request of the Appl-icant. The variance that is granted is one of an additional 10.6 feet of height for property to be constructed at 536 Maple Street, Edmonds, Washington. This variance is granted subject to the following: 1. The height calculation for the proposed structures are to be determined as set forth in the City of Edmonds Community Development Code. 2. The variance is not to exceed that requested by the Applicant. 3. The Applicant is to make provisions to shield the headlights of vehicles in the parking lot from the adjoining properties. Findings and Decisio—if the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds Re: CU -48-82 & V-16-82 Page 7 4. The variance is conditioned upon those conditions as set forth in the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Entered this 1��h -day of December, 1982, pursuant to the authority granted under Section 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. YS M. DRIS arSn x ring Examiner NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other grounds for appeal 4: may be fi-led 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. JanuaryJ, 19 15 FIIVA \J kz) DA',-. K')00 CITY OF EDMONDS FEEA H-S HEARING EXAIMINER RECT EXHIBIT APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE APO'S HEARING DATE: �6�, Z, APPLICANT RICHARD A. JOHNSON ADDRESS- 747 Spruce Street, Edmonds, WA 98020 E 776-8969 CITY & ZIP.Edwnds, Washington 98020 PHON -- - INDICATE TYPE OR DEGRE E OF INTEREST IN PROPERTY PURCHASER LOCATION OR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY 536 MAPLE STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY— LOTS 7-16., BLOCK 122, PLAT OF CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON VARIANCE REQUESTED: Exceed height limit for single building by 10.69 feet for building 1 and 5,01-feet fo building-2. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: USE ZONE: ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: Release/Hold Harmless Agreement The undersigned applicant, his heirs and assigns, in consideration for the City processing the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmo nds harmless from any and all damages and/or claims for damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees, ari sing from any action false, misleading or incomplete or inaction is based in whole or in part upon information furnished by the applicant, his agents or employees. Permission to Enter Subj.ect Property The undersigned applicant grants his, her or its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edm ds to enter the subject p roverty' for of inspection and Dostinrat e ant 0 t is ap Dlication the purpose S na ure of ?plicant, Owner or epresentative EXHIBIT 3 DECLARATIONS OF APPLICANT Please answer all questions 1. What are the physical characteristics, (i.e. topography, shape of lot, etc.) which create a ? hardship for you in regard to development of your property. 2. ljow does your property differ from other property in the same vicinity? SEE ATTACHED 3., will this variance be detrimental to the public or da agi 9 to other property or improvements in the vicinity? SEE ATTACHED variance is not granted? hips will result to you if the action? 4. What har4s -n Will these hardships have been caused by your ou SEE ATTACHED 5. Can you make reasonable use of your property without the.variance? SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 3 Attachment for Declarations of Applicant 1) The property is an interior lot 300 feet fronting on Maple Street and 110 feet deep fronting on an unimproved alley. The property slopes steeply up from the edge of maple street 281 south to the alley. The property also slopes down 35' from the S.E. corner to the N.W. corner. The severe topography creates a building height penalty and forces ex- cessive excavation. The penalty occurs if the two buildings are con- nected by a common area. Even though this lobby area is below the ex- isting grade, the building is classified as a single building which reduces the permitted height by 10.69' below a two building solution. 2) The property is long 300' and narrow 110' wide with severe grade dif- ferentials not common to the surrounding property. 3) No - The proposed use is consistant with the underlying zoning. The adjacent properties have been developed with similar uses. The proposed design is no higher th-n the two building scheme which has separate lob- bies. 4) The allowed height will be reduced by 10.69 feet forcing excessive exca- vation. The project would be developed as two separate structures. In our opinion the single building scheme is superior. The hardship is caused by property chicracteristics. 5) The variance is necessary to limit the impact of excavation and retain - age of service costs required by the height reduction. ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER LIST PLEASE LIST ALL NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN 30 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINES OF THE SITE, Laurintine: Ponseti, William & Karen 523 Maple St #101, Edmonds Post, Charles R. 523 Maple St. #102 it Stelte, Louis J. & Rosemary 523 Maple St. #103 It Graham, Stanley R. 523 Maple St. #104 It Sater, Ruth C. 523 Maple 3t. #201 it' Denvis, Inc. 523 Maple St. #202 it Smith, James A & Myrtle A. 523 Maple St. #203 it Jackson S. Gay 523 Maple St. #204 it Martinis, Andrew J. Md. 523 Maple St. #301 It Baker, Bruce F & Joyce N. 523 Maple St. #302 It Richardson, I.F. (The Mariner) 533 Alder St. #1 it Schwehm, Wilson M & Helen A. 533 Alder St #2 If Burns, Floyd M & Helen R. 533 Alder St. #3 to Eller, Vern W. 533 Alder St. #4 it Carl -in, Thomas 1 533 Alder St. #5 it Oster, Sally A 533 Alder St. #6 Nickelen, Arthur 533 Alder St. #7 Rowland, Robert E & Reta C. 533 Alder St. #8 Allen, Beatrice 533 Alder St. #1 Davis, Virginia 533 Alder St. #2 Anderson, G.M. 533 Alder St. #3 1P, Baer, George F & Rachel E. 533 Alder St. #4 Fix, Robert T 533 Alder St. #5 McClure, Donald B. 533 Alder St. #6 Kaiser, Mary M. 533 Alder St. #7 Wood, Frederick R & Helen H. 533 Alder St. #8 Mariner Assn. 533 Alder St. #9 Echelbarger, Dean 533 Alder St. #10 Church Property 551 Maple St. Johnson, Howard M. 531 Maple St. Borcich, Vincent L. dej4,01 5Z7 Maple St. 520 Maple St. on 01 Union Oil Co. Co 307 5th Ave. S. k Jacobsen, Jack B & Charlene F. 1-28 Sunset Ave. a Gard, Walter B. r Lincoln Mutual Svgs., 98101 Kii�ngen, George (t 129 12th Ave. N. it :L C Rice, Clara G. 523 Alder St. it t 0 Yost, Kenneth 0. 517 Alder St. It j Remick, Larry Dr. 313 5th S. It dmonds Vet. Hospital E 0 V t s 1 : 7 313 5th S. It /9/32MT 1`11� 044 ILNVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent THOMAS d. HARADER AIA, AGENT FOR PROPONENI 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 1101 Pike Street (206) 682-8741 Seattle, WA 98101 3. Date Checklist Submitted 10 November 1982 4. Agency Requiring Checklist Planning Department, City of,.Edmonds 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable NA (for location only --Maple Street ondominiums) 6. Nature and Brief Description of Proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature: The Project will consist of one, three-story, 12-unit condominium with parking under and one, three-story,, 9-unit condomini im wi�h parking — under, toqether with appurtenant common spaces. 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im- pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under- standing of the environmental setting of the proposal): The property is 300' long on ..the. south side ..of Maple Street and located between Fifth and Sixth Avenues South. It is 110' deep with an unim- proved alley on the south property line. There is a single-family res - dence presently located on the property. - Adjacent properties are dev oped .�Jth condominiums. The site slopes steeply from Maple up to the south property B. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal 9 - 12 Months. — line 9. List of all Permits, Licenses, or Government Approvals Required for all Proposal (federal, state, and local — including rezones): ADB application, Conditional Use Permit for Grading, as well as the standard Building Permits, variance application. — 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal7 If yes, explain. No 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal7 If yes, explain. No 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the proposal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: AD8 Application and Conditional Use Permit_Applica-ion attacheL. variance applicatic It I p ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS %Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answi YES MAYBE 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modifica- tion of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Explanation: See attached. 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X Explanation: See attached. 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of sur- face water runoff? X -2- ,4t'� c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in ony alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? 9. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, deter- gents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? i. Reduction in the amount of water other -wise available for public water supplies? Explanation: See attached. YES MAYBE NO X X X X X X X 4. Flora. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (in- cluding trees, shrubs, grass, crops, vicroflora and aquatic plants)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species X of flora? c. Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of exist- X --ing species? d. Recution in acreage of any agri- X cultural crop? Explanation: See attached. -3- 1 -1 YES �`��4KAYBE NO S. Fauna. WIll the pruposal result in: 4. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? X c. Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement X of fauna? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X Explanation: See attached. 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase exist ng noise levels? X Explanation: See attached. 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce—ne-w-l'ight or glare? X Explanation: See attached. 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the a teration of the present or planned land use of an area? X Explanation: See attached. 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result In: A. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resource? X b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X Explanation: See attached. .4- 0 .. MAYB YES" 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk o n exp osion or release of hazard- ous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condi- tions? Explanation: See attached. 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the I`o`c_a-t-'j'OO—n, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X Explanation: See attached. 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X Explanation: See attached. 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the pro- posal result in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Explanation: See attached. -5- X X X X X X ---------- YESA"�41 MAYBE NO 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have in —effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X C. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X f. Other governmental services? X Explanation: See attached. 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X Explanation: See attached. 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in or new systems or alterations to i eeFT the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X b. Communications systems? X c. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? X e. Storm water drainage? X f. Solid waste and disposal? X Eiplanation: See attached. .6- C. YES MAYBE NO 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creafion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? _X Explanation: See attached. 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result Tn the —obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to X public view? Explanation: See attached. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result r- in an impact upon the quality or quan- tity of existing recreational oppor- X tunities? Explanation: See attached. 20 Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal esult in an alteration of a significant archeological or his- torical site, structure, object or building? Explanation: See attached. X SIGNATURE edge the above information is I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowl true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration or non -significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. RICHARD A. JOHNSON PROPONENT: —4tXYVAg.A_ 4a'"t/ BY Thomas d. Harader AIA Agent for Richard A. Johnson -7- B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1 Earth a. Maybe. There will,be a change in the geologic substructures caused by excavation to accommodate the underground parking and to keep the building envelope within the 25' height limitation. The cut areas will be reinforced by the structures., No unstable conditions are anticipated. b. Yes. See above. c Yes Existing grades will be modified to accommodate the new structures and provide access,to the garages. 2. Air a. Yes. Temporary minor increase in ambient particulate matter. caused by normal construction processes of grading and erecting. c. Yes. Air patterns will flow around two larger structures rather than around one smaller building, However, no adverse conditions are anticipated as a result. 3. Water b. Yes. The drainage patterns will be changed by the installation of.a storm water detention system. This system will be designed as required by the applicable codes. f. Yes. The cuts necessary to accommodate the underground garages will require that any ground water be picked up by footing drains. This water will be channeled through the,storm water detention ,system. g. Yes. See above. No. Normal residential water usage is.anticipated) which is available from the existing city source. 4. Flora a. Yes. There will be a change in the existing landscape to accom- modate the new buildings.' (Please see enclosed Site*Plan.) c. Yes. See enclosed Site Plan for types of new plant materials. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM: (MAPLE STREET CONDOMINIUMS) Explanation Sheets B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Continued . . . 6. Noise Maybe. Minimal increase in normal residential noise could be expected due to an increase in people density at the site. This increase is not expected to violate the maximum levels established in WAC 173-60. 7. Light nd Glare tion at the front and rear No. There will be only low-level illumina The interior of the project, but this will not be glare -producing. lights may, with open draperies, cause a slight increase in the overall intensity of the lighting glare in the immediate area. 8. Land Use No. The area is presently residential in character. The site is zoned to allow the residential use. The residential useis more com- patible with the surrounding area than would be a commercial use. 9. Natural Resources a and b Yes. The land as a resource will be committed for the life of the Project. Renewable resources involved will be primarily wood products for construction. Nonrenewable resources will include topsoil, open space, and building materials. Population. The site will c ngle-family residential to multi - Yes. hange from si eral persons to family residential. The density will change from sev 30-40 persons. The underlying zoning anticipates this higher density use. 12. Housinq Yes. See above. 13. Transportation/Circulation a. Yes. A mild increase in residential traffic can be expected. b. Yes. The demand for new parking has been met with 43 underground spaces. 14. Utilities e. Yes. A storm detention system will be provided to control the storm - — — — — — — — — - - :� ------ CC clue Dun EXHIBIT 4 MAPLE STREET ZI w 0, z z M z z 0 ut lot (T In ALLEY W! SHEET SITE PLAN SCHEME A TAMINg—LEALFLOOR PLAN lz 4 J EL w z D 0 w u (I Ul 0 cc CL S"EE T () . L ,�'j - -------------- jy�jcj�L Jai F�PqRfLAN I z z CL U) z u 4 ul a I ROW atev I.. 0 10. 2c, 41 i m Ive 0 ED :3 a OF-] or -I Om E3 *RA NORTH ELEY Ln Z,- zi 0." z in sm ".1 z --T T== M z 0 z .0 u El :;�l FO -4 t -ACSTILLE u m EAST FLQ,� .;Ip.ft Ir 4 Ul I 2 u ' ' ' ' ` ` ` ` ' ' | — --f ---�— � EXHIBIT � — ,, ' / ' ' -' ` MAPLE STREET / � \ bg -`-- -- -- T— -- -- -- -- -------- � SITE PLAN�� PARKING LEVEL FLOOR PLAN c u 0 u u SHEI F I- u w ---- - - ---- to..' fall mcomy total saff f.tcom, Is UP Dow'.$ 7 auto, T r---j a toy $AT" 647. .140.0 votate z t It u M. Is a OW to LWWO z U) I- z ki. th z oft.-V u z AMIUM&A too`** tso*-*, tj TYPICAL I st FLOOR PLAN 4 (4) Is W SM*ET u B El El i 00 00 00 1. % 0 PF%O.JFCT CONSULTANTS CONTENTS EMSION I m Fo" rjr- P.S ARr-HiTr=CTS/Cr-.-�ULTANTS/PLA.P,�