315 8TH AVE NIII III III I I "I 1111111
14456
740 SPRAGUE ST
ADDRESS: � � (,/ ,
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUNIBE//
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE):
COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR:
CRITICAL AREAS:
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED:
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR:
PERMITS (OTHER):
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED:
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
DETERMINATION: E] Conditional Waiver El ;tudy Required E] Waiver
SEWER LID FEE $: LID #:
SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: BLOCK:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: —
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #:
GEOTECH REPORT DATED:
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #:
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED:
LATEMP\DST's\Fomis\Street File Checklist.doc
E
zo
SThcc I FILE
CITY OF EDMONDS
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
APPLICATION TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
File
Da tA!
C
Fee $25.00
Rec't No.o�=�
FUK LUNDMONAL USE PERMIT HEARING DATE, -
APPLICANT: Sproule McGinness ADDRESS 222 Sunset Edmonds PHO . NE: 778-7885
Indicate, type or degree of interest in the property: Owner
OWNER:— Same ADDRESS PNONE:
LOCATION OF PROPERTY (ADDRESS). ft�jlml�p a�qpe §�t
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: E-0ts 6-through 13, 1 inclusive. Block 85, City
of Edmonds
To be completed by the Planning Dept: Use Zone- Legal des-cri'ption-checked'and
approved by:
Date:
VICINITY SKETCH: PLEASE SHOW BELOW A VICINITY SKETCH AS PER EXAMPLE, INDICATING NORTH.
Example:
5peeque Si.
N t
00
A4al',,7 5 Y.
CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTED:
Non - s t ructu ra I
q rad i ng-
pe rmi t
DETAILS OF PROPOSED USAGE:
To i-mprove the
property
value and future marketability.
STATE OF WASHINGTON ss.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH
zogpture.p.t/Applicant, Owner, or
RepkesentAtive.
On this date, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Publi;.-in an for hestate of.
Washington. duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared 5/,V'
,who being duly sworn , on his/Fep'oath es and says that
(s)he has prepared and read —the foregoing statements and has acknowledged to me that the
recitations contained therein are true, and has signed this instrument as his/her free and
voluntary act and deed for the. purposes therein mentioned.
RECEIVED Z
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19 el��50
FEB 111980
I, �v M-p
Of
Dir. Ot ru.,..,.. -,urks LIC, in �and �?Ne State
Washington, residing at
CITY OF S
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
PROJ E%E— ' S.-P I r-ou I e -kcG i nnes s�
DATE SUBMITTED 1/14/80
The i,nformati'on on this form will be used J.b 'determin --the effect- f your action upon the
environment of the City of Edmonds.. Please. answer eactquestion a)�.thor.oughly as possible.
1 . LAND
A I de rwood- I nd i anp -(:F-
Area 0. 61 ac. Soils Type h-i'l'ly'���-ase*--;�-'_:�-jmi-tatiqns Moderate. for bui ]din(
Description of topography (% slope)J"' Slopes south
Grading: Estimated cubic yards Nqne----,
Filling: Estimated cubic yar "'o c.y-
S--
Estimated area to be paved (Qinclu-Idli�ngbuildings.)
Estimated area in open space (pervious surface)_
r 6:1
--N0;l`E'- If grading or filling will
exceed 500 cubic yards a grading
and filling plan must be sub-
mitted with the application.
None
2. WATER
Stream - Estimated flow (cubic feet per second) N/A
100%
Will stream be altered? If yes, to what degree?
Other,water bodies?
Impact on storm drainage Minimal Method of handlin g runoff Drainage will be
directed to the natural point of discharge
Adjacent to shorelines zone? No Within 200 feet of MHHW? No
3. VEGETATION
Type and approximate number of trees Approx. 5 or 6 Fir,, Maple & Alder trees*
Minimum diameter -of trees to remain 611 % of trees to be removed 50%
Ground cover brush (prior to filling) '% to be -removed N/A
Proposed landscaping, if any None
4. EXISTING LAND USE WITHIN 300 FEET RADIUS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
Single Multi -
Vacant Fa,mi ly Family Comme rc i a 1 Other
North X
South X
East
X
West X
5. CIRCULATION
Estimated increase in auto trips daily N/A
Availability of public transportation Existing road - SDraque
6. AREA OF IMPACT
I
Neighborhood X City-wide_
EFFECT ON AIR QUALITY None
CH41GES IN NOISE GENERATION None
ECEIVEr.)
Regional
FEB 11 1980
(11/78) ."irks
poll" ENVIRONMENTAL CHE_CKLI'ST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent Sproule McGin*ness
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 222 Sunset, Edmonds, W� 9802-0
Phone: 778-7885
3. Date Checklist Submitted January 29,_1980
4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Edmonds Planning'Dept.
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable N/A
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:
To improvej-ots 6 through 13 of Block 85, City of Edmonds by filling
with 3470 cu. yds. excavated material from 121 - 5th Ave., Edmonds
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 surrounding area is residential and the site is approximately 370
feet southwest of Shell Creek. Access will be from.Sprague St., which
arallels the north property line. There is no present use of this site.
The site is to be drained southwesterly as it was in its natural state.
8.
Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal May, 1980
9.
List of al I Permits,'Licenses, or Government Approvals Required for all
Proposal (federal, state, and local — including rezones):
F! I I in p pe=Lt
10.
Do you have any plans for future additions, ex pansions, or further
activity related to -or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
-No
11.
Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered
by your proposal? If yes, explain.
-No
RECEIVED.
Attach any other app.lication form that has . been completed regarding the
FEB 11 1980
proposal; if none has been completed, but is expected.to be filed at
some future date, describe the nature of such application form:
None
D.. .664 Pis
-1-
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required).
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures?
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? X_
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion
of soils, either on or off the site? X
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? X
Explanation:— 3470 cu. yds. of coarse sandy.fill will be placed 2n site which
will change the topography. However, this change will not adversely affect
the surrounding properties. Storm drainage will be routed to its original point
of discharge. See soils report by Hemphil & Assoc.
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality?
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: Temporary deterioration will occur during construction, due to
dust and -emission from construction equipment.
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
RECEIVEtb Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of sur-
FEB I 1194--e water runoff? X
M
Uil. Ui .,,IfKs -2-
YES MAYBE NO
c. -Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
X
d. Change i.n the amount of surface water
in any water body?
_X
e. Di$charge into surface waters, or in
any alteration of surface water quality,
includfng but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
X
f. Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters?
'x
g. Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct additions
or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
x
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?
X
i. Reduction in the amount of water
other -wise available for public water
supplies?
X
Explanation: The coarse sandy fill material will increase the present absorp-
tion rate of -the soil. This material can absorb highrainfall intensities
and no erosion is expected. A swale will run along the top of the bank to
permit additional collection and sedimentation control.
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,
microflora and aquatic plants)? X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of flora? X
c. Introduction of new species of
flora into an area, or in -a barrier
to the normal replenishment of exist-
- ing species? x
d. Recution in acreage of any agri-
cultural crop? X
Explanation: There will be a change in the diversity of species an
RECEIVIR ber of species associated with this development. Removal of much, of thp
trees and vegetation will occur due to the nature of the development. T rees
FEB I I "!�
wiql be saved if they do not pose a hazard or fall outside of the fill area.
Dir.Ui et-,- NevA species common to urban development will be introduced.
3�
YES MAYBE NO
5. Fauna. WIll the proposal result in:
a. Changes in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of fauna (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fith and
shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or
microfauna)? X
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
of fauna? _X
d. Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat? X
Explanation:— Existing native squirrels and small birds which reside on site
will be displaced due to construction, but it is expected that they will re-
locate on adjacent undeveloped land.
6. Noise. Will the proposal increase
existing noise levels? _X
Explanation:— Construction noise levels will be intermittently high during
construction.
7. Light and Glar ' e. Will the proposal
produce new li'ght or glare? _X
Explanation:
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result
in the alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area? ------ X
Explanation:
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resource? _X
RECEIVED b. Depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource? _X
FEB 11 1980Explanation:
Li.. U1 �Uk)�'�- ..";K6
A
YES MAYBE NO
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal'involve
a risk of an explosion 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? X
Explanation: Limited to potential construction accidents,
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the
location, distribution, density, or growth
rate of the human population of an area?
Explanation:
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing
using, or create a demand for additional
housing? X
Explanation:
13.
RECEIVED
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:
X
X
X
X
X
X
, fEB 111980
Dir. Of Pu6..,. .,urks -5-
YES MAYBE
NO
14. Publ.ic Services. Will the proposal have
an 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:-
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
b. Demand upon existing sources of
energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy?
Explanation:-
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need-To-r new systems or alterations to
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
Explanation:
RECEIVE")
FEB I I 198Y
Dir. 01 n'.....
YES MAYBE NO
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result
in the creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)? x
Explanation: The development will not create any health hazards.
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in 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
public view? X
Explanation: This proposal will not adversely affect thp ap-thptirc� nf thp
area.
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result
in an impact upon the quality or quan-
tity of existing recreational oppor-
tunities? X
Explanation:
20. ArcheologicallHistorical. Will the
proposal result in an alteration of
a significant archeological or his-
torical site, structure, object or.
building? X
Explanation: There are no known archeological or historical sites with this
project boundary.
C. SIGNATURE
1, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is
true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declarati
or non -significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should therE
be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack ofJAtll disclosure on my part.
RECEIVED,
FEB I 11980
uj, �,. ,jujic works
PROPONENT:
-7-
STREET FILE
there now and the construction would not
holly tree. He said the holly tree will
so one can see over it except at the peak
trees along the side to help maintain sou
by trees and landscaping. She said she %
there and also opposed to building a hig�
build on the house with something that is
which will give them what they need, wit�
Stalker said he had 11 trees cut in back
ing the view of the people in back of hin
cost of the cutting. He said he did not
only to top it. He asked to see the ele�
He said Mr. Curtis had informed him that
to make it look right, and if the whole r
they change the slope to hold the present
Westlin explained that the existing roof
every l') and that was the minimum they c
roof, and as far as the ridge height itsE
because they are maintaining the same roc
depth of the house. He said the same ric
not know how that related to Mr. Stalker'
hearing was closed. Mrs. Medina asked tc
brought them forward. Chai man Roy askec
of the possible alternatives, noting thal
stories. Mr. Leraas asked if Mr. Andersc
Curtis, across 10th. The public portion
Anderson said he did and if the applicani
build on the back of the garage and that
his kitchen. He asked why they did not c
end of the lot. The public portion -of tt
Medina observed that this was a difficull
the higher elevation and if the applicani
ui) to 25' and block all of the views. St
block as much as that existing
be removed and the roof will slope
. Mrs. Curtis said they had cut
e of the view that was obstructed
as opposed to having high trees
house, but it is impossible to
a credit to the community and
out adding to the north. Mr.
of his property which were obstruct-
, and he paid his share of the
want Mr. Curtis to cut his tree,
ation of the proposed construction.
he had to take the entire roof off
oof was coming down why couldn't
elevation of the ridge roll. Mr.
pitch is 4 in 12 (rising 4" for
ould use for a hand -split shake
lf, it would remain the same
f pitch and are spanning the same
ge height would be kept and he did
s view. The public portion of the
see the drawings and Mr. Westlin
the neighbors if they were aware
they could go up to 25' with two
n lived cater -corner from Mr.
of the hearing was reopened. Mr.
were to get the variance he could
would block most of his view from
o the construction at the other
e hearing again was closed. Mrs.
decision because the Code allows
decides to redesign he could go
e said she would like to see the
applicant, the neighbors, and the architect work this out together. Mrs.
Derleth said she could understand both positions, but she was having difficulty
in finding this to be a minimum variance, as it was a 10' extension across
the front of the house, and she was not convinced it was the smallest
variance to achieve the objectives, so she was inclined to be opposed to
this variance proposal. Mr. Hatzenbuhler felt something more equitable
could be worked out, and Mr. Leraas felt it was not a minimum variance.
MRS. DERLETH MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. HATZENBUHLER, TO DENY V-85-79 BECAUSE
SHE DID NOT SEE THAT THERE WERE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF TOPOGRAPHY OR SIZE
NOT A?PLICABLE TO OTHER PROPERTY IN THE AREA, SHE DID NOT BELIEVE IT WAS
NECESSARILY THE MINIMUM VARIANCE REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVE OF
MODERNIZING THE HOME AND IMPROVING THE VIEW ASPECTS OF THE HOME, AND BECAUSE
TESTIMONY INDICATED IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEIGHBORS. THE MOTION
CARRIED. Mrs. Medina suggested to the applicant, the architect, and the
neighbors that they try to work things out together to come up with a
satisfactory plan.
CU-79-79 THE HOVDE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - Conditional Use Permit for fill of more
than 500 cu. yds. at 740 5—prague St. (RS-6)
This application was for a continuous fill over a number of lots (Lots 5-
15, Block 85, Edmonds) of approximately 2,000 cu yds. Mr. Bowman showed
slides of the property reflecting the fill as it already was place. He
said that on inspecting the site he found evidence that cracking and some -
slumping is occurring at the southwest corner of the fill. The setback
requirements were violated on each lot and he indicated the existing
condition may ham adjacent properties if proper protective measures
were not taken. The existing fill violated setback requirements and
the policies of Section 203 of the Comprehensive Plan in regard to
filling and grading. The information provided by the applicant had
not been adequate and, after several telephone requests, a letter was,
sent on December 10, 1979 by Planning Division Acting Manager Mary Lou
Block, enumerating the requirements yet to be met before the application
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Page 4 - December 19, 1979
00 00
t",
could be approved. Mr. Bowman stated that before this application could be
approved there must be conformance with Chapter 70 of the UBC and Ordinance
1924 regarding drainage, and a grading plan must be submitted which must be
approved by the Building and Engineering Divisions. Mr. Bowman stated this
item fell within the realm of an environmental checklist and a declaration
of nonsignificance had been issued in that this type of action could be
acceptable if proper mitigating actions were accomplished. It was the con-
clusion of the Staff that, based on the information submitted to date, they
could not justify approval of this Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Bowman
recommended denial of this application until drainage and grading plan
requirements were met. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Ken
Hovde, Jr., of 18905 Olympic View Dr. said they would be happy to comply
with the criteria but he requested a continuance rather than a denial which
would require another application. He said they had only become aware of
the conditions required this date. Mr. Bowman then read aloud the letter
sent by Ms. Block on December 10, 1979 stating that the Planning Office had
requested by telephone on November 16, November 30, and December 5 that the
application be completed, and enumerating the requirements. Mr. Bowman
stated that Mr. Hovde had picked up the checklist and revised some of the
answers on the checklist and brought in plans indicating what they proposed
and a soils report from where the fill had been taken. He read aloud a
letter of October 4, 1979 from the Acting Building Official stating require-
ments and he said these letters established the fact that the City Staff
had been attempting to get the applicants to conform to the requirements of
the City Code, but now Mr. Hovde indicated they wished to conform. Mr.
Bowman said if the item were to be continued he would request that all the
conditions set forth in the Conditional Use Permit review form regarding
drainage and grading plans be completed prior to bringing this back to the
Board. He felt a date should be established by which this information
should be provided to the City. He added that a stop -work order had been
placed on the property at one time and it was ignored. He said the fill
was on the site and the Planning Division was attempting to have the
applicants come into conformance with the City requirements. City Attorney
Wayne Tanaka said the City could bring criminal charges against them for
violating the stop -work order but it had been the policy to try to get such
violators to come into compliance. George Walsh of 739 Sprague, across the
street from this site, said several other neighbors and he had written a
letter regarding this situation which was in the file. He said this had
been a fiasco from the beginning and the City now was being asked to approve
and legalize a series of illegal acts by issuing a Conditional Use Permit.
He said the owner of the property is a former Mayor of Edmonds, Sproule
McGinness,and is well aware of the.requirements of the City. Further, that
the Lynnwood Trucking Company, moving the dirt, and the Hovde Construction
Company are experts in their fields and are known throughout this area,
doing all kinds of work, and they are aware of the Codes of the various
cities. He said the City was being forced into accepting a fait accompli.
Mr. Walsh said this had been excellent residential property and there was
no reason for the fill to be there and it should be removed as it was
changing the character of the neighborhood, and that was one of the Board's
criteria. He said the City recognized the position they were in but the
residents had been fighting the dirt, dust, and mud, and the drainage
patterns on some of those lots had been changed. Further, that this was
adding more water to the Shell Creek drainage pattern. He said the citizens
on Sprague St. had been fighting mud and dirt all summer long and had spent
a lot of time digging ditches trying to get the water to run off properly.
He further stated that one of the truck drivers had torn down the first
stop -work order and when another was posted one of the neighbors pointed it
out and was verbally abused by the driver; then a formal order was issued
to the Hovde Company and even after that they continued to dump dirt on the
property. Mr. Walsh said they could not plead ignorance and what they
really were asking the City to do was to issue a permit to legalize their
actions. He asked that the permit be denied and that the City Attorney
consider prosecuting and, further, that the fill be removed and the property
returned to its original condition. He said they are living in a sea of
mud, the paved street being covered with mud. Ken Loving, property owner
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Page 5 - December 19, 1979
90 1 .00
il 10
adjacent to this site on the west side, said the boundary on that side is
5' from his back door and they.were creating a 10' high bank there. He was
concerned that in the winter after a substantial snow the snow would melt
and go to his basement. He said he had been so upset about this that he
had put his house on the market but interested parties changed their minds
vihen they saw the fill. He stated if Mr. Hovde did not know the City
requirements then he should get out of th� construction business. Mrs.
Loving said she was -very concerned.about the mud at their front doorsteps.
She said the trees and bushes all had been replaced by a mountain of dirt
and she felt they should be prosecuted. Mr. Walsh added that there is at
least a 12' drop at the back of this site which is a hazard as there is
nothing to stop children from falling there. Mr. Bowman noted that the
proposal was for one continuous fill and a Conditional Use Permit is required
anywhere in excess of 500 cu. yds. for each lot, but the applicants must
get a variance for a continuous fill on each,of the five lots there. He
said without a variance they could fill each of the lots but would have to
maintain the setback requirements for each lot, so a variance would be
necessary for the continuous fill. He noted that this was an existing
condition and he said it was felt that a submittal of a grading plan to the
Building Official, according to Building Code requirements, and an approved
drainage plan would help minimize the impacts on adjacent property owners.
The public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Hatzenbuhler said that
in all good conscience he recommended denial because it violates everything
required by the Conditional Use Permit and even if some of the conditions
were met it would not minimize the impacts on the neighborhood. Mrs.
Derleth said she agreed. Mr. Leraas said he had difficulty trying to
believe that the people involved did not know the requirements, and he said
he would vote for denial. MR. HATZENBUHLER THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY MR.
LERAAS, TO DENY CU-79-79 IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IT VIOLATES ALL THE
CRITERIA FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT --IT ENDA14GERS THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND
WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT -IS INJURIOUS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, THE
FILL IS NOT IN CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY, AND IT DOES NOT
MEET THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Loving asked what
would happen to the dirt, and Mrs. Loving asked if justice would be done,
or if the City would just give them a permit the next time. A short recess
was announced.
V-74-79 77JAMES-WILLTAM WELLS - Variance from required side yard setback at,920_1�t-:
_W�-7T2T—
Slides of the site were shown and Mr. Bowman indicated the location of the
proposed addition. A 3' variance'was bei.ng requested, to reduce the south
side setback from 101 to 7' to allow a two-story addition over and behind
the existing garage. This application had been scheduled for the October
meeting but was removed from the agenda as the Staff mistakenly thought the
property was in -Emerald Hills where 7' setbacks are allowed. This would
not amount to a rezone. The house was built in approximately 1961 under
earlier zoning requirements, and the proposed location appeared to be
logical for the addition. Other houses in the area were built to the same
older requirements including the adjacent house to the south. The special
conditions did not result from actions of the applicant. A 10' setback
would require redesign and a considerably smaller addition, and it was felt
that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the health,
safety, or welfare of property owners in the vicinity. Mr. Bowman felt
this was a minimum variance and he recommended approval. The public portion
of the hearing was opened. The applicant said they had planned this addition
for several years. He said his driveway is unusable when there is ice or
snow. When he first spoke to Building Division personnel he was told a
variance would not be necessary and at various stages along the way he was
told differently, but now he found it was necessary. He had gone to all of
the neighbors within 200' of his house and had shown them the plans and
nobody objected. He said the roofline would be only 5' higher than the
existing height and the construction would not be any closer to the adjacent
neighbor. The public portion of the hearing was closed. MRS. MEDINA MOVED,
SECONDED BY MR. HATZENBUHLER, TO APPROVE V-74-79 BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT
AMOUNT TO A REZONE, IT WOULD*NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT WAS
A MINIMUM VARIANCE, AND IT WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE ZONING CODE.
MOTION CARRIED.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Page 6 - December 19, 1979
III No TO
FROH;
� U B,J E CT:
DATH
C",
STM:cT FILE
h, Id ill;,, 1); %, i. , .
I MI
DevelopmetiL DeparLmenL
n e e r i. n �7 s i. o
U J� I j, C �,To
4 . .s Department
F-1 W KA
of, oil e
t-he Follo",.: i 11 �,' c or"Ii,. e 11 IL s
2 —. 0— 7-1 & =T-
--)q-U- AM E r-
0 k) lit
1-7-1 AJ6,
Lo —
AALA 12
&-0 R FAC I-E ----V-NjLL)-v /�o 9
OF
Sloc L A
Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc.
ENGINEERS SURVEYORS * PLANNERS
324 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington 98020 0 (206)775-3434
JanU3ry 23, 1980
File No. 4956A
DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS
FOR
SPROULE McGINNESS
Lots 6 through 13, Block 85, City of Edmonds
Flow on PrODert
C 0.30 for hilly sandy fill
Tc — 230 + 30 min.
I Ttg-o-T —7T67o + 5 = 7.8
110 1.8 in/hr
Area 0.61 ac.*
Q = CIA = 0-300-8)(0.61) = 0.33 c-f-s-
Try 6" corrugated plastic pipe
What flow can it handle at 5% slope?
Q "49 AR2/3 Sl/2'
n
n 0.022 for corrugated pipe
A 7r r2 - 1963 f t. 2
R A/P .1249 ft.
Q 1*49 (..1963)(.1249)2/3 (.05)1/2 = 0.75 c.f.s.
0.022
Therefore, 6" corrugated pipe is adequate
L E G END
0 10
Tq 0 S -P P-,-" 67�7-
toe
Co. Al/,�Y.
/06
A - 6.,
.101, 0 A ' 10
STREET FILE
Z-1 K 1:5 ;'I'n 9 Ele V. _r, :5,
P,- 0,- 05 e a� con;"O v
3 4 7 ev, y als
72) 5e
0 VV,-7e,--
0-
LEGAL DE5C)91PTIOAI
thr-i-h 13 ? B 1()� 9r,
104
10.
le
loo
- ----- 96
PK 4 1 V A G & .4,plpo v#v
,�) 2-1-80
( ropo 1, ey )
( , A4e,:?5u,-eon&,,lt5)
GEM
C, r
Or
U:,
imperm
7x
JD6
e4--'
ex�
of
C.) �0�'
/0'
PUBL /C
GENERA L NOTES
I . ', 1 1 q r o, 1 i w; sh,-) I I con rorr-, li,wi c r- /0 It i i
Bit i I d i nci Code 1 '-) 76.
2. F ;. I Is 5 ho I I c on l'o rri i o S(-(- t i on 70 10 . S I I I I),-,
r1r) (I rei) L C r thim 2 : I The f i I I I - i It I t—dk-d I ilotl—, L i-t)L--
3, Seubacks shal I con Forri to S(-ct i on 701 1 Tho Le)o ol' the
s I o pe s h zi I 1 1) e ri ci c 10ber L.haii 3 to tht,- r)1*Oj)(-rLv line.
4. Drainage shal I conforin to Si-Cl.ion '1012. nroir)oqu it; Ln
be d i recLed southwes Lo r iv t o fie or q i na I POi 11 t Of -.,Lj r face
.-jater' discharge.
5. 1 ros i or-, con t ro. I shn I I con f'Or"' I Sect i on 701 3. 1)(10 to
thc: eros i ori- res i sLant chiiracl.er (A ihe ri,itc-ri i I no
or plant i.nci is reCiLlired.
6. Uport coinpletion of Olt, I.-Jork, thc cl,%Incr 5hall not i F, ' ! t he
C i ty or Edniands BU i I d i ncj 0-1 f i ',0 t hOL he way insj)ect the
te.
7. A s development of lots takes place, drainage from
impermeable surfaces is to be -directed to the alley.
A L L
K3 kn
400 /-a
3'1
1 3
Ho u 5 AE
140
14.5
/.6'D
/115 A/Z
Ful
5 WA LE CRO,5,5 5EC r/O/V
,4,7RAC7' -let- 5YA61- 96- CRZ'tf APR,41NIA16. C'14 4
6o P I , Z7 Z' 7-G C'A.-' /e7,17 7-2
5 WA Z- E C-RO55 5EC TION
5
104-
07
Co ve
oiler-
C)9 C.
99 c
C) 7
R�- CREgr OR,411VIAICy. oc.14e_ c
SAIU6 9,6' cOVS7,4?l1c7l_c-,O IN 61A'rS IORIoR reV Cons/ 402-,:7-6
AZACINC, _-ACH rl--R O.--RocX.6-R),. Wq _-,q
IV--CE55-A,?Y -C-le-C 15 7-0 ro
/FO C K,5_ R K. OA C K -/4 e- 8 --.,YIVD
.3' AOCKERY IA16.4c�q r1Z"R a—c'
ORIOIF 7'0 cOo�V5 771FUC 7'IIVC7 Al—c'Xr lc-r V,-
94—
P4AC
o CE 1500NO OU4RRY ROC.I< W17-H -01-1-OAVING CRADATION:
0' I/z eo z /0 20 0/0
o z 0
4 lo e 4 70 tyo
3
9z-
5;-1 CH 7- 0,-
Awl W,4 C C_ C)
ROCK,ER.y DjETAII 9/ - Co. yw.
PROFILE
SPRAGUE 3TREET
'06 0
0�_
U %011 tot) D
A"R
/I
01
\0 to, 0, 106
\04()
toe
/e)" 'y
coll.r7'. 51,14411;*1 5e &11�7 HO U 5Z
'9
15�OtjcY VzZ- �� 9.2 C v. A-)/;-r. C'10
7 9 J11 13 14
140
/06
of eel
C,
'f IZ
101 i I
\06 14S
A t?5;"
\0 0
C-) 104
10 2 tDt
to
too
01 joy
1� to-,
jo Ito
96 106 01
9.4
9
r N -A ok 6
C�
r
L E G END
- - (
05'. 6' rrotn A'icelcl
)Peo'posd.ol C 0'.? to 0
7-0 t& u At7 e 3470 C V. y cls.
0 vv"e r
Sproule McGinness
2 2 2 S LI n S e t
Edmonds , WA 98020
Phone : 778-3U5
LEGAL DE5CRIPTION
Lots 6 through 13, Block 85, Plat of City of Edmonds
........ ......
1 7 . ......... 7"
PUBL [C ALZEY
GENERA L NOTES
I . A 11 grad i ny sha 11 con f orm to chapte r 70 of the Un i form -
Building Code 1976.
2. Fills shall conform to Section 7010. Slopes shall be
no greater than 2:1. The fill is interded to be non-struc-
tur-I f*'',
3. Setbacks shall conform to Section 7011. The toe of the
slope shal 1 be no closer than 3 feet to the property I ine.
4. Drainage shall conform to Section 7012. Drainage is to
be directed southwesterly to the original point of surface
water discharge.
5. Erosion control shall conform to Section 7013. Due t
the eros ion- res i start character of the materi a Is , no grass
or planting is required.
6. Upon completion o f t he wo rk , the owne r s'ha I I not i fy t he
City of Edmonds Building Official so that he may inspect the
site.
7. As development of lots takes place, drainage from
impermeable surfaces is to be directed to the alley.
400 '/_5 3 1
,900 41-13 3 ,
12001-13 5
1600 Z9 3 .
.9'
SWALE CR055 SECTION
&
slyqI-e- ag coN_s,7,1ez1c7,_,'.p IAI 4�1,rrrs RRI-oR roo
01-A CINO --4clY 7-1--R Of I?Ocl(--R K. Wq--_R,5
CE5SAA1Y C-144 15 7�O 9,5- 5:XCAV,47_-cf0 7'0 lc�EACE-
RO C K _- R Y, 34 C K I -le- Z- 19 --HIN-D
ROCA(ERY IN �EACAI 7-1,6W 511466 HE*
oq1oT 7a cow57we.1c7,11vo
PLACE
6011NO
041,4RRY
ROCK W17-H P"OLLOWINO ORAOATION
1/z " ?*0
X
/0 x 0
OX,
2 " '
4
20 40
�/v
4 " lo
e
4,0 70
%0
r - W
0,05
ROCKERY DETAIL
G1 N ov
I
CITY OF EDMONDS
BLDG. DEPT.
CONDITIONAL PERMIT
WORK -
ADDRESS
OWNER -
APPROVED E.
BY
BLDG
30'
KEE,t�' ht
-,TAMPED
PLAN,
SITE FOR
ALL
:_,fIONS
PERMIT NO.
SHEET
>___ 'OF
STREET FILE
n,5-1. f.9 tl'o,-7 e 7'1111�7
/'0 WJ
105
- 105
104-
-104
-103
/OZ
- /02
/o/
-/00
LO I/& t- /0/�o e-
- 99
97 -
- 97
Con6-74
96-
Or '5?V&
- C)
95-
95
94-
1-- 94
C)_3 -
93
9z-
9/
0 C A 0.
Yc/.
RR Of -IL E
>
W
V1
6
Z
V�
U.j 0 C3
I— — �:
< CL
0 0
0
(n 0 0
< E
06 > LU
Z
0 V)
C
U.j
I a
j:)
C
LU C:
Q:� w
U)
Z
0
0
Z
(J)
0
0
<
zi
Uj
LLJ
7
7P
U_
z
0
<
LLJ
Z
<
Uj
L0
_j
00
05
0
z
0
cr-
<
0
Z)
0�
U_
'w
(D
-r
U)
Z
0
0
0
I
LLJ
SCALE
1
2 0'
DES-L.G.S.
"ET
N..
DR- L.G. S.
CH' L. F. K
F. 8-485/421
DATE
1/10/80
FILE
4 956A
NO.
RECEIVED
FEB 11 1980.
iJ". ul rui)jlc Works
051-q