Laserfiche WebLink
Surrounding Zoninq/Land Use: north: <br />Exhibits: <br />1. <br />2. <br />]. <br />4. <br />5. <br />6. <br />7. <br />a. <br />9. <br />lo. <br />31. <br />12. <br />First Letter of Appeal <br />Clarification ot Appeal <br />MiCigeted Oatermination <br />Vicinity/Zoninq Mnp <br />Assassors Nap <br />Site and Basement Plan <br />First Floor Plen <br />Sacond Floor Plan <br />Third Floor Plan <br />Building Saction <br />Public Commants <br />Environmantal Checklist <br />1.�..: : a. H�Y <br />south: <br />east: <br />west: <br />R-5/multiple family and <br />daycare <br />R-5/sinqle and multiple <br />family <br />R-5/Single and multiple <br />family <br />R-5/Scott Paper Parking Lot <br />and convenience store <br />of Non-Siqnifieance <br />In March of 1989, the City received a completed application from <br />Jari K. Williema for a SEPA environmenr.al review for ihe <br />construction of a 28 unit apartment building on a 12,000 sf lot. <br />The subject property is located south of 25th St. and vest of <br />Grand Avanue at 2510 to 2514 Grand Ave. After review of an <br />environmental chacklist end public comments the CS�y iasued a <br />Finel Mitiqatad Datarminetion of Non-S19nifieance (DNS) on Hey <br />18, 1989. 11n app�al of ihe DNS vas received on Mey 30, 1989 <br />from William B. Foeter, representing Hoverd and Kay Ozmun. 2511 <br />Grand Av�nue� EVlratt� W!1 98201. A letter from William B. <br />Foatar clarilylnq tha specific items of appeal vae received on <br />T affic,1ParkinqheRecreation/Sa£ety,�and Noiseled: Density, <br />,� .�� .. .. <br />1, srp� Ordinance <br />Findinns: ACW 47.21C.075(�)(d) - the State statute related to <br />SEPA eppeels tequires the City to give svbstentiel veight to <br />procedurnl determinatlons made by the Responsible Official. The <br />appeal procedures section of the City�nthepdflteiIDitfatiOR�• <br />1748-87, Section VZIC states in part=ime facie correct and the <br />appaaled from shall be regarded as p <br />burden of establishing the eontrary shell be upon ttfe eppenling <br />perty". This languege is consistent vith the State statute <br />mentioned above• <br />ronclusion: The appallant must prove that the City erred in <br />issuinq the Mitiqated Determinntion of Non-Siqnificance for the <br />pzoposal. <br />TYq47:�`yy-a:��� � <br />11. ISSIIE - DIDt5ZT1C <br />The Appellant appeeled the DNS on six qrounds, the first being <br />thnt the density of the proposed ape deewoulduallow 251to450nits <br />per acre; vhile the current zoninq <br />dwellim7s per gross ecre. The eppellant states that this <br />deneity presents a siqnificant adverse impact. <br />