Loading...
HE Decision V-5-91 & V-29-90.pdf90 C'11""Y OF EDMONDS LARRY S. NAUGHTEN 250 - 57H AVE. N. o EDMONDS, WA 98020 a (206) 771-3202 MAYOR I-IEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS A14D DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FILE: V-5-91; OF DAVID AND JOANNE SPIRO FOR V-29-% APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE DECISION: The variance V-5-91 for the reduction of the minimum side setbacks is granted subject to conditions listed; the variance V-29-90 for a structure to exceed the permitted is granted subject to conditions listed ftz••� *�k I David & Joanne Spiro, 7711 ® 171st Street SW, Edmonds, Washington 98020, (hereinafter referred to as Applicant), requested approval of variances for property located at 15631 ® 75th Place W, Edmonds, Washington. The requested variances are (1) to allow a new single family dwelling on the subject property exceed the permitted height limit by an additional 6 feet 9.5 inches; (2) a variance to move the existing lot line and to allow less than the required minimum side setbacks for the structure to be built on site. The required 10 foot minimum side setbacks are requested to be reduced to a 5 foot setback. A hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds, Washington, on March 22, 1991. At the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence: ED S(%IIERS Planning Dept. City of Edmonds Edmonds, WA 98020 DELMAR H. CARYL 15701 - 75th Place W Edmonds, WA 68020 IWAVID SPIRO 7711 - 171st St. SW Edmonds, WA 98020 a lnco� pw ated August 11, 1890 0 .qi"for Ciflocz Infory);1firmAl -- 1-4011in'ln hAnArl HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: V-5-91; V-20-90 4/3/91 Page 2 At the hearing the following exhibits were submitted and were admitted as part of the official record of this proceeding: Exhibit 1 - Staff Report " 2 - Application/Declarations to 3 - Plot Plan if 4 - DNS & SEPA Checklist of 5 - Planning Dept. Re lot size After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Applicant, and evidence elicited during the public hearing, the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions constitute the basis of the decision of the Hearing Examiner. FINDINGS OF FACTS 1. The applicant is the owner of the property at 15631 - 75th Place W, Edmonds, Washington. This property, located in the North Meadowdale area, on the east side of 75th Place W, overlooks the Puget Sound. The site, along with other lots in the area have steep hillsides. 2. It is the intent of the Applicant to develop the subject property with a single family dwelling similar to other single family residences on lots in the area. The plans as submitted necessitate variances to allow the new single family dwelling to exceed the permitted height limit. In addition, the plans require a movement of an existing lot line and reduction of a minimum side setback for the structure of 5 feet instead of the required 10 feet. 3. The subject property is zoned RS -20. The Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.20.030 limits RS -20 zoned properties to a maximum height of 25 feet for all structures. The Applicant seeks a variance from this standard in order to construct a structure that is 31 feet, 9.5 inches. 4. (ECDC) 16.20.0,30 requires that RS -20 zoned properties have a total of 35 feet of setbacks on both sides of a lot and each lot must have a minimum 10 foot setback on each side. The proposal of the Applicant would have a 35 foot total setback, but would have a 5 foot setback on one of the sides. It is from this standard that the Applicant seeks a variance to allow the construction. HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: V-5-91; V-20-90 4/3/91 Page 3 5. In order for variances to be granted within the City of Edmonds, the criteria as set forth in ECDC 20.85.010 must exist. Those criteria include: A. Because of the special circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. B. The approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. C. The approval of the variance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds. D. The approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located. E. The variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone. F. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. (ECDC) 5. The City determined that the lot is a non -conforming lot that was platted in the 1950's. The City made an administrative deter- mination that this non -conforming lot can be developed. The subject property consists of approximately 16,000 square feet. The eastern half of the property is a steep hillside that is in developmentally limited area because of soils instability and the steep slopes. The buildable area of the lot is limited to the western half of the property. 6. The property to the north includes a structure of which a portion is located'on the subject property. It is the intent of the applicant and the property owner to the north to do a lot line HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: V-5-91; V-20-90 4/3/91 Page 4 adjustment to correct the deficiency of the lot, and to allow the structure on the northern property to be entirely on one lot. As a result of the lot line adjustment, a reduction from the required 10 feet to a 5 foot setback on the north side will occur. 7. Special circumstances exist for the grant of the variances. The lot line adjustment is necessitated by errors of previous plats and surveys. These special circumstances warrant the grant of a variance for the reduction of the side yard setback to 5 feet. 8. The grant for the reduction of the side yard setback will not be the grant of a special privilege to the Applicant. Because of platting errors that occurred and the fact that the house on the adjoining lot is partially on the subject property, corrections must be made to have the plat reflect the actual development of the site. 9. The Comprehensive Policy Plan Map of the City of Edmonds designates the subject property as low density residential. The requested variance for the reduction of the side yard setbacks is not in violation or contrary to the low density residential designation. The lot will be developed with a single family residence consistent with this designation. 10. The subject property is zoned for the reduction of the side yard for residential use with a density sive Plan of the City of Edmonds. RS -20. The requested variance setbacks will provide an area consistent with the Comprehen- 11. The requested variance will not pose any significant impact to the public, nor to nearby private properties or improvements. 12. The requested variance is a minimum variance request. 13. The Applicant submitted the height of the proposed structure to be built on the lot to be 31 feet 9.5 inches. Included in the design was a turret which extended approximately 6 feet above the 25 foot height limit allowed. The turret is a design feature of the house. 14. The design of the house and the location of the structure have been done in a manner that will not be detrimental to any property owners in the area. Property owners in the area voiced support for the variance and submitted letters of support. HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: V-5-91; V-20-90 4/3/91 Page 5 15. Because of the steep slopes on the east end of the lot, and the slopes north of the subject property, no further development will occur in this particular area. As a result, the subject property will not impact any further designs or views. The steep slopes of the site constitute a special circumstance that allows for the issuance of the variance. 16. The steep slopes of the site created a special circumstance to the Applicant, that allows development of the property with a height that would normally be restricted. The lot is limited because of the steep slopes on the northern and eastern portions of the property, and in the amount of area that can be used for construction purposes. These limitations outweigh any special privilege to the Applicant, and the requested variance does not constitute a special privilege. 17. The requested variance will not be detrimental to the adjoining property, the public, nor to other nearby private properties or improvements. 18. The requested height variance is consistent with the purposes of the RS -20 zone district and the low density residential designation. 1. The Applicant requested approval of variances for the development of property located at 15631 - 75th Place W, Edmonds, Washington. The Applicant requested approval to allow a 5 foot side yard setback and also instead of the required 10 foot minimum side setback. In addition, the Applicant requested a variance to allow a single family dwelling to exceed the permitted 25 foot height limit. 2. In order for variances to be granted within the City of Edmonds the criteria of ECDC 20.85.010 must be satisfied. With conditions, the application satisfies these criteria. 3. Special circumstances exist for the grant of the reduction of the side yard setbacks. Because of previous platting errors and the location of the structure of the property immediately north of the subject property, a lot line adjustment must be made. As a result of the lot line adjustment, the side yard setback must be HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: V -5-91j V-20-90 4/3/91 Page 6 reduced to 5 feet. The total 35 foot setback required by ECDC 16.20.030 will still be satisfied by the request. 4. The grant of the variance for a reduction of the side yard setback is not the grant of a special privilege to the Applicant. 5. The grant of the variance for a reduction of the side yard setback is consistent with the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds. 6. The requested variance for a reduction of the side yard setback is consistent with the purposes of the low density residential zoning designation. 7. The requested variance for a reduction of the side yard setback does not pose a significant impact to the public nor to nearby private properties and improvements. 8. The requested variance for a reduction of the side yard setback is the minimum variance. 9. The requested variance for an extension of the subject property from the permitted 25 feet to 31 feet, 9.5 inches is warranted because of the special circumstances of the subject property. Because of the limited area on the lot that can be developed, and because no other development can occur in the area, special circumstances exist for the grant of the variance. 10. The grant of the height variance is not the grant of a special privilege to the Applicant. It will allow the Applicant to develop the property on the lot that is reduced because of natural restrictions for development. 11. The requested height variance is not contrary to the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds, nor to the low density residential designation of the subject property. 12. The requested height variance does not pose a significant impact to the public nor to nearby private properties and improvements. HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: V-5-91; V-20-90 4/3/91 Page 7 Based upon the preceding Findings of Facts and Conclusions, the testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing, and upon the impressions of the Hearing Examiner at a site view, it is hereby ordered that the following variances for property located at 15631 - 75th Place W, Edmonds, Washington, are granted subject to the following conditions: A. Height Variance. The Applicant is allowed a variance to develop a new single family dwelling that will exceed the permitted height limit. The height of the structure shall not exceed 31 feet, 9.5 inches. This variance is granted subject to the following conditions: ' 1. The Applicant shall design and construct the house consistent with the plans admitted as Exhibits in this matter. 2. The Applicant shall comply with all Architectural Design Board requirements. 3. The variance shall be acted upon within one (1) year or the variance approval shall be rendered null and void. An extension may be granted prior to the expiration date. B. Setback Variance. The Applicant's. requested variance to allow less than the permitted 10 foot side yard set back for a single family dwelling is granted subject to the following condition: 1. The variance shall be acted upon within one (1) year or the variance approval shall be rendered null and void. An extension may be granted prior to the expiration date. Entered this 3rd day of April, 1991, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearing Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. LA JA US M. DRISCOLL ,Hgaring Examiner HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RES V-5-91; V-20-90 4/3/91 Page 8 Written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other grounds for appeal may be filed with the Planning Department, City of Edmonds, Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington 98020, within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Hearing Examiner's final action. In this matter any appeal must be received by the Department prior to 5500 p.m. on April 17, 1991. ANNA/0" VVY/� � THIS PACKET SENT TO THE ~ HEARING EXAMINER ON 3/14/91 � H EXHIBIT 1 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER FILES: V-29-90, V-5-91 HEARING DATE: March 22, 1991 REQUESTED ACTION: V-29-90 Variance to allow a new single family dwelling to exceed the permitted height limit at 15631 75th P1. W., Edmonds. (25 ft. height permitted, 31 ft. 9 1/2 inches proposed) V=5-91 Variance to move an existing lot line and to allow less than the required minimum side setbacks for an existing single family residence. (35 ft. total side setback and 10 ft. minimum side setback required for the existing residence, 5 ft. proposed.) II. APPLICANT: Dan Baggen 9207 15th Ave. N.E. Seattle, WA 98115 III. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Owner: David and Joanne Spiro 7711 171st. Street S.W., Edmonds, WA 98020 Meadowdale Beach Supp. Plat Blk. 000 0-03 N. 100 ft. of lot 25 less the E. 380.73 feet and less the W. 10 ft. to City of Edmonds for road per qcd. rec . of no. 2254338. IV. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: A. Description of the Subject Property and Surrounding Area The subject property is located in the North Meadowdale area on the east side of 75th P1. W. overlooking Puget Sound which is across the street and down the hill to the west. The area is characterized by steep hillsides and is developed with single family residences. The area is known for unstable soils and drainage problems. The site is zoned RS 20,000 and has approximately 100 ft. frontage on 75th P1. W., 160t. depth, and has 16,000 sq. ft. of lot area. slopes steeply up from the street. A single family residence, the subject of the setback variance in this application, straddles onto the subject site from the adjacent property to the north, and has existed in that situation for many years due to a past platting error. A detatched garage also exists on the site and is proposed to be removed. Staff Report Spiro Page 2 Surrounding development includes single family residences and vacant properties. Proposed Development The applicant proposes a lot line adjustment to eliminate the encroachment of the adjacent house onto the subject lot under a separate lot line adjustment application (file S-3-91), and proposes to demolish the existing garage and construct a new single family residence. The proposed lot line would leave a 5 ft. sideyard setback on the south side of the existing residence where a minimum of 10 ft. and total of 35 ft. of setback is required in the RS -20 zone. A height variance is proposed to allow the roof of the new house to exceed the permitted height of 25 ft. B. Official Street Map Proposed R/W Existing R/W West - 75th P1. W. 60' 50' Analysis - V-29-90 Height variance C.- Conformance to Chapter 20.85.010 1. Special Circumstances Special circumstances do not exist in this particular case. It is the applicant's choice of house plans that include a turret and peaked roof that exceeds the permitted structure height and needs a variance. The choice of plans are not special circumstances that apply to the site or that warrant waiving the single family height restrictions. The plans could be revised to reduce the height of the roof and avoid the variance. The choice of plans is a factor resulting from the action of the owner. 2. Special Privilege Since no special circumstances exist, and the applicant could reduce the height of the roofline to avoid a variance. No similar variances have been approved in the area, therefore the variance request does represent a grant of special privilege. 3. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive_ Policy Plan map designates the subject property as Low Density Residential. As proposed, the variance does not conflict with the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Zoning Ordinance The subject property is zoned RS -20 Staff Report Spiro Page 3 The proposed variance does would deviate from the permitted height of the RS -20 zone, but would not conflict with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the RS -20 zone district. 5. Not Detrimental The site slopes steeply up to the east, and no views would be blocked for the properties uphill. The proposed variance does not pose any significant impact to the public or to any near by private property or improvement. 6. Minimum Variance Since there are no special circumstances and the variance could be avoided by reducing the slope of the roof, no variance is warranted. For these reasons the variance does not represent a minimum variance request. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff cannot support the variance request because not all the variance criteria have been met. Should the Hearing Examiner decide to grant V-29-90, it should be subject to the following condition: 1. The variance must be acted upon within one year or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless an extension is granted prior to the expiration date. Analysis - V-5-91 Side setback variance C. Conformance to Chapter 20.85.010 1. Special Circumstances Special circumstances do exist that justify allowing less than the required side setbacks. The subject site existed as a separate lot before being incorporated into the City in 1963, however, due to longstanding surveying errors in the past, the existing house on the lot to the north straddles the existing lot line. This situation necessitates a lot line adjustment to resolve the encroachment. The lot line adjustment reduces the lot width and building area on the subject site. A variance is needed to provide a side setback for the existing house and maintain a building site on the subject lot comparable in width to other lots in the vicinity. The proposed lot line would provide a 5 ft. setback from the existing house. 2. Special Privilege The platting error and the house straddling the lot line were need to be corrected, and the lot line adjustment and variance for setback are Staff Report Spiro Page 4 the most reasonable methods to correct situation. It is concluded that because of this situation, the proposal would.not be a grant of special privilege. 3. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Policy Plan map designates the subject property as Low Density Residential. As proposed, the variance does not conflict with the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Zoning Ordinance The subject property is zoned RS -20 The proposed variance.does not conflict with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the RS -20 zone district. 5. Not Detrimental The proposed variance does not pose any significant impact to the public or to any near by private property or improvement. 6. Minimum Variance 35 ft. of total side setback and 10 ft. minimum side setback is required in the RS -20 zone, and 5 ft: setback is proposed. A 5 ft. side setback is permitted in the RS -6 zone, and is a usual setback in some areas of Edmonds. Considering the location of the existing house on the adjacent property and the remaining buildable area on the subject site after the lot adjustment, the proposal would be a minimum variance. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the side setback variances be approved with the condition that: 1. The variance must be acted upon within one year or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless an extension is granted prior to the expiration date. city of n � s Exhibit 2 9 land use application 1 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD 1 COMP- . : CONDITIONAL 0 FORMAL SUBDIVISION 1 HOME OCCUPATION 1 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 11 OFFICIAL STREETA. AMEND 1 PLANNED - r •- 1 REZONE 1 SETBACK ADJUSTMENT 1 SHORELINE ■ SHORT SUBDIVISION ■ STREET VACATION El VARIANCE ■ RESUBMITTAL FILE # U®2S-la ZONE DAT —® REC'D BY FEE ?-S = 11-0 RECEIPT # HEARING DATE I: ` y HE 11 STAFF El PB El ADB El CC ACTION TAKEN: 44 APPROVED ® DENIED EIAPPEALED APPEAL # Applicant 0d1i►d dIgA z17l. u&i 4Qia:? Phone Address 7711 l`11sf , bra - SiAL . ..... . ,—IAM aA67,L Property Address or Location lae3 I -75P- bA Q eat " Property Owner -(k\)I av A -,Thvi iA u SbiY() Phone __ SAID Address-'5&A6L Agent OA 130-6xj'e V1 Phone Nl – uZZS Address `Q-0-7 151—" AVE N -F IrVGt x$11'; Tax Acc # Sec. Twp me Legal Description .� M tbb PH of Cot- 25- les Tk-e L 3�b 73 S14..-0049IAf-- 90MALe Bucci, a d&oy-gi rx�-fh ikv- OU t r-er ad.o'd i n Vol 5 2... R Q"'rd'J no Co xcevfi vve� i D p r Ilu reaF Details of Project or Proposed Use . hg'41-e' (zcrni)%e rP 4i�/n�1�sc t �Nn he t�h 1- -f 1A �A t- Q X C.e,e��5 `fes .e (irv► i �-jwt S 1� �,� (� , �' �' rr � The undersigned applicant and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/her/its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/OWNER/AGENT 62 Utlb city of edmonds land use application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ❑ COMP PLAN CHANGE ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMEND ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP ❑ REZONE ❑ SETBACK ADJUSTMENT ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ STREET VACATION 51 VARIANCE ❑ RESUBMITTAL FILE # FILE # V-3-91 ZONE S ` x' _ DAT Ft. 2-i REC'D BY FEE j� Z S �d RECEIPT # HEARING DATE 3- z t cl j CZHE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED APPEAL # Applicant 4MV1 tee- a," D-Od S&U Phone 77i�- YQVP Address -r f r71 St- Stvncr sw Property Address or Location 1SU-31 ✓7ST" Pf We,r Property Owner _QLNd6k aILL c=clnM 41a.1 Phone :17&-1402p Address SAWV-'�- Agent Address Phone 00 • LegalDescription il_•A/'i i'r e 9d /I go r lei► Qi9300• Iti Im ' Rgf aAla �abi.. �I a r! �_ /It.: f. ► r f 1 i ! _ ' I r l_ The undersigned applicant and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/her/its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/OWNER/AGENT M 3. 4. 5. ( DECLARATIONS OF APPLICANT Please answer all questions What are the physical characteristics, (i.e. topography, shape of lot,etc.) which create a hard- ship for you in regard to development of your property? our lot from west to east has an overall slope of 25%, starting with a rise from the road, leveling off, rising again to a natural bench & continuinq to a steep slope to the property line. That slope then con- tinues up the hill to approximately another 100 feet in elevation. The steep intermediate slope & the bench make placement of the structure limited, given the required setbacks. How does your property differ from the other property In the same vicinity? our property Is similar to other properties, although the abrupt steepness of the bank of the east side limits the area which is buildable. will this variance be detrimental to the public.or dam- aging to other property or improvements in the vicinity? No. This requested height variance will not damage or impact any other property. The buildable portion of the lot behind is approximately 100 feet in elevation higher then our proposed new construction, and on either the north or the south, the views will not be Impacted. It is only a portion of the roof structure that will be exceeding the height limitation. What hardships will result to you if the variance is not granted? Will these hardships have been caused by your own action? If this variance is not granted there would be a hard- ship because the lower flat part of the lot is not a sufficient area to build our house, given the required setbacks, plus the additional 10 feet dedicated to the city. Having to move it up the slope to the bench area has caused a portion of the roof to exceed the hight limitation by 6.8 feet. It is the topography of the land and the required setbacks that are at cause in this case. Can you make reasonable use of your property without the variance? Taking into account the slope and the setbacks, it would be very difficult to place the house on this lot which is the size and quality which is comensorate with the value of the land and the nature of the future dev- elopment in the Meadowdale & Edmonds area. P le�c,�e. cup � �o -F► i e V - a..� - �fi p . DECLARATIONS OF APPLICANT Please answer all questions '�. i FEB 7 N91 PERMIT COURER 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. How does your property differ from other property in the same vicinity? Oyoaea- +-0 � ��x �f- (5�hm1 f I Uo {-2e ' hi ( `r r S i � ( 5 S; a 1 iraln n I P stn fid ntavi 3. Will this variance be detrimental to the public or damaging to other property or improvements in the vicinity? 4. What hardships will result to you if the variance is not granted? Will these hardships have been caused by your own action? S. Can you make reasonable use of your property without the variance? =.XR—. � ....... 11jul-LL.J1 lU-U:5fl-JULJ —7. —.1 —. T ollicis 7Laor aur GIAVC U61 SVOM Sau Em IN c i j-z)nH-LSNOZ) OHICIs xaor auv aiAva SV. OM U61saa Ell 0 7:7-71!7� 'T low re YA70- O=lh O�z tz � `\ \/ j ) {� }\� )| § ƒ � TH 4 1. �gf NOIJ-OnU-LSNO5 \�| ouids xaor a9v CiAva SVOM u fil C\j . ..... .. .. ........ .. ) $ IS.. O-43 . \� ` � ����f}°� .- i /i \� � ° � �_� �} � `\ \/ j ) {� }\� )| § ƒ � TH 4 1. �gf \�| ��|( ) $ � `\ \/ j ) {� }\� )| § ƒ � TH �,a.>.�u�K,=�M •�a,Iowa$ Nollona.tsNogjMbL A�j o ;.w 31®M m imTd V%GG SE9'CT 8If1Yt orGSyB 'FYR arras aaor atter alAva 5�l® 61Sa � NO3 $JN$Q28SM M$N f4 — y¢ a G q gg M h, �� � � m gd �� •fir€ � �v��,f—Y W°� k �i Z ��, v ;�� m iW. \ Q m W 3 N 4 © tS rZk 4 ' _ l Q � 0. �g v ��� � •krw,o-g � 4r pi � I O qpA (} kk IL----- re m 1 N nu uoxcasatcsvV •saran... mss.■■ NOEEFUISNOO S++M + +Td �i3zG SE9LS i1Wf 'i]PCiNB 'Lbt'I oxzas aaor aur ainxa t161 1 N I mss.■■ �•�.:. 1 N Nci-Lonl:JJ-SNO0 'am milli I / � -141/ ~«� / / / | | uoaoxxxevx •saxowaa NOI.L'.Dnb3.LSN00 -a®.x ra .xa.sc :ev�i awvt •.www •nm -- — onus xaor amv arnea 1161 2� x03 .....I... ... SVCM .�a>A,z:sz�.M .sauo Qa h oumnU1SNOM BOOM 0004d-USCG L£9CT II7. OHMS 7. oust aiAva iI ISa V aaoa aolssaxaaa .nau t 6LEMM 0 0 ouids Acor aNy aiAva u . ......... — N I C7 �r T N I 890SO"I"... ..Kowa$ N c f LonalSNOO I gnu a,ssy oQTd �f s'rL TEs6t BSYYf 'bIDG2W o tzas xa116 or ... aznxa 1 mwuma ,is xcuxacxra Mau him plosaxzxay.. .sauowas ;Q �•L `.,7(I}=JI.SNOZ) /^y •i"yyp lastsM ,sa>BtTd ti>.SG' TE9�2 {�,� 9EiNC 'I.ID0I99 S9n1 Oxus zaor aMt C1AVC1 am uffigao all '- 9aoa sanxsax s.'�ax MS32 a� n �, s� s "A �§Yi; }g Ec 1 :'3« H, € ae figg" s}9 fig} asr $i , E. 7 of «S «€°� }«E g;s;� � >5 aya E 14 =}} :} 6 }S, n ° , s E8 f HR!; E .a i II HHill �, ca g � aw;s } Y g 'Y �"` f_y�° s a"}a�m�a as H11 E =:s.a "8 a :s� Y§�� �a ••°}��a �gi tz$ }Y} EE} } s>.a6x ga x 3 Y$ s sgaV}e .a3s �,g f � sa }" sz -Y=" }_ ;°._$ } }i Y$B • �a a }Eg ssssa _a�iai€}"s f "g °aagsE$se�as'6i E:a: f< :s elf 3 :aas"E a :a ::ic 91 s� 401 s saf Ni �a a it i RY �.L 633 � S. � �• Zi }«E0;}r s3 " R"5e Re« • Y E R8 3 I -H "A 89 wzu Ei E �kR .aBEL 6 �fA � C = A, All aall;aaa•i:ia� f•jak 'tt� 9;aapg9_ a k�1 s a a a a!-iE' t s a+ a $$ s oa ;Ij ai s s^ I 1y{ tji 5 ® $ figg° y i" _._ JIM Y ;'}1 i Mill a' ' , 4� aall;aaa•i:ia� f•jak 'tt� 9;aapg9_ a k�1 s a a a a!-iE' t $$ $ ;Ij ai 17I I 1y{ tji JIM Y ;'}1 i Mill a' ' , 4� Oil ,02 yy , �79: 77 f91y'I71wW.1V 11172- lwlylvz1lxw _Z/ rz 47Z 27*Y- 7 W771- -/ 4, Y7,:: Mr, 4: J, j�171V ,!Z-7 _7V X11-7 m KM -ld3U VNINNY 1- 1 S 4. 934 XX - All, M011AW I i �, N\ Off w Mv* zop, A-I� Xz- ra- -:7 XG7 al, el� _W7112; �//-T 3 114 ww cis MITIGATED FILE# N/A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal Single Family Residence Proponent David & Joanne Spiro 7711 171st St. SW., Edmonds, WA 98026 Location of proposal, including street address, if any 15631 75th P1. W., Edmonds, WA 98026 Lead Agency Edmonds Planning Division The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant`adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. — There is no comment period for this DNS. x This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not i act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by March 7, 1991 Responsible Official John Bissell Position/Title Code Enforcement Tech. Phone 771-3202 Address 250 5th Ave. N., Edmonds WA 98020 Date February 20, 1991 Signatures X You may appeal this determination of nonsignificance to Hearing Examiner at 250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds, WA 98020 no later than 5:00 p.m., March 17. 1991 by filing a written appeal citing reasons. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact John Bissell to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. — There is no agency appeal. CONDITIONS OF MITIGATION SPIRO BUILDING PERMIT, PLAN CHECK #247 This determination of nonsignificance is subject to the following conditions: 1. All excavation and grading shall comply with Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code, 1989'edition. 2. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit from the Building Department and shall comply with all conditions of permit approval. 3. The Applicant shall submit a drainage plan to the City Engineering Division and follow the required guidelines. 4. The applicant shall follow the requirements and guidelines of the City of Edmonds Engineering Division. 5. The applicant shall follow all recommendations of Hemphill Consulting Engineers, project number 1636 report dated December 10, 1990 and addendum dated December 24, 1990. i 6. A geotechnical engineer from the reporting firm shall be retained on site during all excavation and grading work, and the contractor shall follow all recommendations of said engineer on site. 7. The applicant shall provide the City with a clearing plan and a relandscaping pian. The relandscaping. plan shall include a timetable for completion. All landscaping must be complete prior to occupancy of the structure. 8. The Applicant shall make every reasonable effort to keep exposed soil covered during construction. 9. The Applicant is to make every possible effort to keep dust controlled and to keep the streets clear of dirt and debris. Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply". IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part O). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," "property and or site". .should be read as 'proposal and and "affected geographic area. respectively -.-, A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if..applicable: SI N &L-6`PA714 1C al OUNCE - 2. Name of applicant (CPN► p 2a 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: .. �O m nra+� S 7 2e� _�� _a0 2 4. Date checklist prepared ' D 1. - 5. Agency requesting checklist ; C>� G—QlYI ®�f 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Nb �' �hL 6 CAt3 j�E - 7. Do you have any plans for future additions; expansion, -or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes; explain. _ 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly, related to this proposal. 9. - -Do you know whether'applications.'are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, o: explain. tom( 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known il.. Give brief', complete .description ofyour proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are.several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You'do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) SJN(yi.� t"i�cl�tn RGCI PC�x/CC;` �i O�UU Sc�, F(�'�7` ., f:: . 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks. or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals.:.; or etc.). Describe the general size of -the system, the number of such systems; the number of houses to be served (if applicable); or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are. expected to serve. cj wnati types ana ieveis of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction. operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. ( / t� kZ C.o �irr ► trrrn . r or /� c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: F A—V Pi .l t' A-n 1 t=^