Loading...
1035 9 AVE S.pdfIt t; i, It, ,. t. Y i u f ? t ,ra yy 4 fIt , it �iSv� iItt 01 ) , � r r 1 (( ZA aa �0i ti� yritIt f ILLt lfi I I I I I I ol °iry JAtf ;it�sr IT i �i y Y t h-z!I'41 y r c,l, r�i t 'i' ry )'pp3.irQi>ri'A pt7+ °f i ti Y it S 115��[.1 Y �(t �� Yt s 1 r1Y �, i.' ,. r +� -� 1 4. 1 is x. DECLARATIONS OF APPLICANT f, �j Please answer all questions 1. What are thephysical characteristics, (i.e. topography, shape of lot, etc.) which create a hardship for you in regard'to development of your property? -No physical characteristics.$: --My property has a 12 foot easment on the North side.`' -The house is 6 feetfrom the easment and also is 18 feet from the property line. -Ordinance now requires a 10 rootset bacXrom, _ e easmen , ryf. 2. .'How does -your property differ from other property in the same ` vicinity? Easment on the North side restricts the usable width of the property 3. Will this variance be detrimental to the public or damaging to other -propertyor improvements in the vicinity? NO s r 4. What hardships will result to you if the variance is not granted? Will these hardships have been caused by your own action? ;. f : -The hardship was not created by my action. -I will not be allowed to improve my property to make it comfortable for my wife, motherinlatiy and myself, There is no garage so tools autos, storage is outside 5. Can you make reasonable use of your property without the variance.. NO the house is basically a two 'he li ht basement, two closets one is 3' the other is 5', 'all rooms are Sma= ITT ana poor, insu a ion. i q rWi• '�-sdYf TO Be 11 • to 2E 21•0 � 1 W*. PAST. MA111 w FQA.T 10 •o.. I2 er �=- • E j= �. � � ' - • r 14,- 2t4] Ce:fA t=n4flh �. .q ; •---_— __ - ,1 -F - ------ _wI214.OMIZ eo. rs 0015:k I - L • ..�.�n•-.ram—' -��—' tlO:I 2 61984 :--i : fr, '' ' ,�..,. ' L. ti L: 1..,�.,. f .. to t In ol to Wn tk or I I1 ` i�Z Y��S. _1 ojS tlp�g .F�{yE I Ij T \ f '1-•`� —, At Y a. vo �� r44 s vmA AI I LL or 1 I r it A I to 1'. lv 9 oft to ooLooLLL .` or i N r MAto 44 I.ro-Lot!. JAL {gi • I 7 :�.. .I}li } , 3� I IW g I0 ALL a E0 i 1 I , aslx� I ,M >j - '-- - ' A07 I PY Q L ..--- or AV loo Lot Lr r: u ey - . A . .... ... - ,1f7+� fir. 9 WL, • r^� f�L, FT I 4�{ T -41 r . i..;���ls,w +' Irt C '1!^'v ' r�`ERjA7�+ v .. 101 ! � — ,1110 r 1 r�l t\r l0 1 ,i v 44 4 � L�r w ! I M �44 Ilk 1 l 1 Via I i — 1 i ^ , - --1 ----� -- i ---- .'----j - L J rIIIIIIIIIII� PI -rA -- -. - - --•�- AW W. � i ' I l •- A i i r - ..-_..:.-4..+....w::..li�.::�......_:.,'..:•-.:.1..+.::w..a.::.....,..+...>::.,:..._. gym.-.x '.-.�<,..u._..:.. ..._... _._. i �(O +.c,i 4q'� t u0 ri D a1 ti I BUILr),ING LAND SD.:15 FM 04 ❑ REVAL 8S 12/! F84 12/17/84 ACCOUNT NO 25E 3-1-098-0008 L/C: 0213 SITUS: P/P NO TYPE' NBR—yO3C.i ----- UNIT # — — — — — — PRE -- STREET 9Tb—_—_•__---_-- TYPEI}u SUF CITY - - - - — — — — — — ZIP 9$8LJ-B ---- CT ol+ ' GGZ SEC—TWP—RNG LZSCZ�Q� WTRFT BUSINESS NAME BUILDING NO OCCUPANCY CONSTRUCTION STYLE, 1 OF 1 RESIDENTIAL 1 STRY/BSMT' DATE BUILT REMODEL DATE CONDITION EFFECTIVE AGE DEPRECIATION.% 1958 GOOD 27 18 %UNFINISHED HEIGHT MULT PERIM MULT BUILDING LIFE MARKET MODIFIER QUALITY BEDROOMS # 4 FLOOR COVER BUILT IN APPLIANCES AV G P T vN L RANGE —OVEN 2 INTERCOM EXTERIOR FULL BATHS # 1 FLOOR CONST HOOD —FAN 2 VACUUM SIDING 3/4 BATHS # 1 FRAME (D 1314 DISHWASHER EL GAR DR ROOF TYPE 112 BATHS # 1 CONC (D GARB DISP, HOT TUB PITCHED TRASH COMP SAUNA ROOF COVER PLUMB FIX # 11 HEAT —COOL MICROWAVE BUILT UP FRCDAI R FOUNDATION FIREPLACE CONCRETE DBL 2 STY 1 1st FLR (D I t 314 BASEMENT ID 1 t 31 4 ,GAR DUAL C P DUAL F A I R PRCH DUAL L CW 2nd FLR ID DAYLITE YE J EXTERIOR ROOF CVR n U I L7 UP CONC m b 56 3rd FLR ID POR DEV 1 ♦ 14 ATTACHED (D C P ED 240 DECK m 41h FLR ID QUAL FIN AVM DETACHED (D BALC m LOFT m BASEMENT m ROOF N 656 MEZZANINE COMMERCIAL BASEMENT YARD IMPROVEMENTS LIVING UNITS LOFT ID UNFIN ASPH TYPE # UNDEV m CEILED ID CONC (L STUDIO RETAIL ID FINISHED ID YO LT #P #F 1 BR RET—OFF Tj RETAIL IT1 FENCE LIF 2 BR BUILDING VALUES OFFICE APT QJ 3 BR BANK (D OFFICE (D SPRINKLEDID TOTAL P/P BANK (D FACTOR% ELEVATOR LENGTH BLDG S 61t600 PARKING m WIDTH PARK QUAL AVG HEIGHT O•IMP $ G PERIMETER COMM s 0 LAND USE 12102 FAM Y R ZONING N, — n n c ACRES ACCESMETHOD . 28 NEIG LEG PHV RO VIEW FRT TOTALS 61 Ir b.01 AP i 23 • S CL01 23 1 2 12 1 2C 1 212 S SN 1 234 123 T l SE O N R S S F A T N E O G U A F Y N Y N A G R U P P E E O I E P B G A F L M H D T T A E S D T I T C M SITE UTILITY T A D O V A E O E O S R 8 N O U E PA D L B L E T P L O V A O E I E L R I E U O G I O LA E E P I T Re I R E O G E D D G I S S R H V S R E L L C R F D R B A N E LAND VALUE �/ O E F F E R N T T S QUANTITY RATE D G K F K N D •� N S 54 U OJ A T L C K K L �, U A T TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE N LIEN VALUE L Is U 1 E N-0 1 TFM r 1f s. k1 r-�F`3`,(g r3FY�« Nub Ti r{ 3 } 1 Cal ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER LIST 1 I 7 Y PLEASE LIST ALL STREET ADDRESSES. OF RESIDENTS OF PROPERTY WITHIN.80 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINES OF THE SITE ALSO LIST NAMES AND MAILING ADDRESSES OF OWNERS OF .THESE SAME `. PROPERTIES. (THIS INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE COUNTY; ASSESSOR'S -OFFICE, IF A BANK IS LISTED AS OWNER, PLEASE INCLUDE LOAN NUMBER NEXT TO INDIVIDUAL'S NAMES) C. J. Keuss 1041 9 Ave. So Edmonds Wash. 98020 ]Bob -,Matheson 1033 9 Ave. SO. n rr rr R.W. Mecord 1037 9 Ave. So. r" it rr Fred -Freund 1015 9 Ave. So rr r� rr H.C. Sater 1048 9 Ave. So.. r, rr rr R. Zenger 9 Ave. _So. 'l 1 a i 1. - i '.Ir I L�� ,F )a tit 1 �If�fili ax$'41 _., .,'VIP. .. MlGe�� �-AMMIIL him '- r. .....1 c+i+.SU+4✓at"-Frwr!Ft T^1t� ^L1'�`{n` .........-.. . �'rl Christopher and Judith Keuss December V11 1041 9th Ave South "�g"" Edmonds, Washington 98020 STATEMENT OF PUBLIC RECORD FILE NO. V-25-84 ' My name is Judith Keuss. _I represent Christopher and Judith Keuss, property owners at 1041 9th Ave. South, Edmonds. Our property is adjacent to the i McLenaghen property (1035 9th Ave South). We wish to go on record as pro- 1`1 testing the request for variance to change the set back code or to exceed the 25% limit of improvement. We want to keep the establishedr set back restriction in effect for the following reasons: rr 1) If a non -conforming structure was to be built forward, with just a two feet set back it would block our view of the Sound on the northwest side. All the homes in this area have the same set back restriction. This would not only reduce our view from the back lot, but also limit the view potential from our front lot. 2) Secondly, there is existing inadequate drainage.on'the McLenaghen property On rainy days, surface water runs from the McLenaghen property through our. property onto the sidewalk and 9th Avenue. Nothing has been accomplished to correct this drainage situations. 3) A short time ago, it appeared that, the Mclenaghen house was.being-rented f .out as ,a duplex in our residentially zoned community. It seemed that'two i; unrelated families were living in the residence. This was reported to the City of Edmonds by a neighbor and nothing was done to correct the situation. y. There arel\covenants running with the land in this case that restrict its use . The zoning codes, covenants and restrictions were established to t- protect all property owners in this area. If the City does not enforce I them, what good are they? Many property rights would be violated, if any 3 variance is granted for this one individual. Therefore, we request denial of this variance. Thank You, Christopher Keuss Judith, Keuss 'I M Vr „'S irx ......../`)`t1tS��4 gp j {ji t i CITY.OF E D M O N D S l j t 1 LAF;RY S rvAUGi�TEN/;` -- MAYOR r-"- --� 250 5th AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 96020 • (206) 771.3202 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' A / r, r DATE:: December 203 1984" ' 3 a TO: James M. Driscoll kl.= A' - Hearing Examiner 510'Second Avenue,W. Seattle, WA 9811.9 TRANSMITTING: LETTER RE: ALVIN AND NORMA MCLENAGHAN - FILE:V-25-84, t AS YOU :REQUESTED: FOR YOUR INFORMATION : XXX AS WE` DISCUSSED: FOR APPROVAL: FOR YOUR FILE: XXX REVIEW AND COMMENT: COMMENT AND RETURN; MINUTES OF MEETING. REMARKS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT. . Kelly Madrid r t v 1 r ' t I i t VV-y -WW �. F 1 wx trYk e L (f! December 19, 19 8�+:. l I Mr. James M. Driscoll Hearing Examiner, City of Edmonds Civic Center Edmonds, Wash. 98020 RE: ALVIN AND NORMA MCLENAGHAN . File V-25�-8 Dear Sir: ` We are opposed to granting a variance on building improvements ` exceeding twenty --five percent of the existing building valuations, Mr. McLenaghan has indicated he will suffer a hardship should he not receive this variance. For your information, he purchased this structure three or four years ago, and, at the time, all these "hard- ships" for which he now seeks relief existed. The argument that it may be a current hardship can hardly have validity, inasmuch as the .condi- tion existed at the time of acquisition. The only change to the structure in the past three years was the laundry room, bathroom and I light meter which Mr. McLenaghan added so that he could rent each level as separate apartments. We see no reason why he should be allowed to escape the consequences of his own actions. In other words, if he shot E himself in the foot, it is his own darn fault. E We do not feel he should be granted any variance,let alone one which is in excess of fifty percent of the present valuation, This is } absurd. The zoning restrictions were enacted to prevent this precise type of action; We feel the property owners are entitled to the pro- tection provided by the zoning law, and this should not be waived to I bestow a benefit upon one owner. I Yours truly,., Robert W. Mathisen Maude K. Mathisen 1033 - 9th Ave. South Edmonds, Wash. 98020 1 , 4 h � `e. Staff Report to thF :firing Examiner `' k File #V-25-84 - Exhi ui t 1 r X ' ak 1� Page 2 1 y J 1 f tt C. Conformance to Chapter 20.85.010` ' 1. Special Circumstances In reviewing the criteria for special circumstances, no special circumstances appear to exist in this particular case. 2. Special Privilege, It -would appear. that to approve he variances would be a grant of special privilege. 3. Comprehensive Plan The _subject property is designated as 'low density residential. ; The. proposed variance; appears to conflict with the policy outlined in Chapter 15.20.005(B)(3) which states:: "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction, or additions to existing homes." 4. Zoning Ordinance The subject property is zoned RS�-12 as are: all the adjoining properties. The proposed variances appear.to,.conflict with Chapter 16.10.000(B)(3), which states: "B. Any growth or.devel.opment should'strive to preserve for itself and its neighbors the following' values: 3. Views, open spaces,' shorelines and other natural features." Clearly, the proposed variances, if approved, will impact' the view of•the neighboring properties located to the rear of the subject property. 5. Not Detrimental The variances will, if approved, definitely impact the view of the property located to.the rear of the subject property. s r 1 :i S W �l4w ��fgii� "I"'IFti Zd�r Staff Report to th�,fearing Examiner File #V=25-84 -Exhibit 15shy; t iF Page 3 h �t4 �1' r �� y �''7 (,tj 51 6. Minimum Variance h f The six-foot setback variance request would appear to' represent a minimum variance request. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION t in analyzing these variance requests, staff sympathizes with the Applicant in h.is attempt to improve his property; utilizing the existing nonconforming setbacks. In re- viewing the variance criteria, staff cannot find any justification.for approving the variance." Staff has no choice but to recommend denial. J4 a r v 4 Findings and Deco... ion of the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds Re: V-25-84 Page 2 Subsequent'to the December 6, 1984, hearing the City of Edmonds Planning Department requested a reconvening of the hearing be of new information that had been acquired after the hearing was completed on December 6th. The hearing was reconvened by the allowance of additional written testimony to be submitted to the Hearing Examiner. The following exhibits have been submitted to the Hearing Examiner, pursuant to an Order being issued by the Hearing Examiner granting the reconvening of the hearing. These exhibits become part of the record and are as follows: Exhibit 12 - Request of the Planning Department Of the City of Edmonds for -the reconvened hearing 13 - Letter dated 12/19/84 from Robert Mathisen and Maude Mathisen _ " 14 - Letter dated 12/18/84 from Lupie Mecord " 15 - Letter dated 12/20/84;and a copy -of a Snohomish County Tax Assessments for property located at 1035 9th Ave: South, Edmonds, Washington, from Alvin McLenaghan. " 16 - Letter dated 12/20/84 from Fred Freund On December 20, 1984, the hearing was deemed closed. , After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Applicant; evidence elicited during the public hearing; and, as a result of the personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding areas by the Hearing Examiner, the following findings of fact and conclusions constitute the basis of the decision of the Hearing Examiner. FINDINGS OF FACT x, 1. The Applicants have requested variances to exceed the 25 per- v cent limit for improvements to a nonconforming structure and to reduce the required 10-foot side setback to a 2-foot setback. The subject property is located at 1035.9th Avenue South, Edmonds, Washington, and more particularly described as ' shown on the attached Exhibit 3. r-� 2. 3. The subject property is located in an RS-12 zone. The Comprehensive Plan lists the subject property as a,low-density ; residential area. The property is part of the Edmonds Short Subdivision #S-34-64. At the time this subdivision was created a 12-foot access easement was established to provide access to the lot. This access easement is located north of the subject property..and borders on the northern edge of the subject property. E t, t �1 �` L- . 4. go 6. Thus, setbacks are measured from the southern edge of the.. 12-foot access easement. There is an existing structure on site that includes ahouse, and a,carport. The house and the carport are six feet from:, the south boundary of the access easement. Thus, these two structures are nonconforming because of the existing setbacks, which are six feet instead of the required ten feet. It is the intent of the Applicants to remodel the existing. residence on the subject property with an addition of a second story and a new entrance. In order to do so the Applicants will utilize part of the existing nonconforming setbacks. The Applicants have indicated that there are two possible proposals for the development of the subject property. One would include the enclosure of a portion of'the existing carport and an expansion of an existing deck. A'�new addi- tion would be added on the second story of the building. The -other proposal of the Applicants is for the use of the existing setbacks with one wall having a glass protrusion. In addition, the deck, as proposed by the Applicants, would have siding placed upon it. Such a project would require a variance from the setback standards and from the limitations of improvements on nonconforming structures. 7. Section 17.40.020(D)(4) of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) limits the cost of maintenance and alterations allowed in any one-year period for a nonconforming building to 25 percent, or less, of the fair market value of a noncon- forming building. It is from this section of the ECDC that the Applicants seek a variance in order to make improvements to the structure on the subject property. 8. The Applicants also seek a variance from Section 16.20.030 of the ECDC. This section establishes side setbacks for RS-12 zoned property as 10 feet. The Applicants desire a setback of two feet under the first proposal as submitted by them. If the second proposal is adopted, a setback of six feet would still be required; thus, a setback variance would still be required. 9. In order for a variance to be granted within the City of Edmonds the criteria as set forth in Section 20.85.010 of the� ECDC must be met. These criteria include: A. Special circumstances relating to the property must exist necessitating the variance; 10 C . The required variance must not result in a special privi- fir; {F N S tr Wes.. 1 Findings and Deco. _ion of the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds t; Re: V-25-84 Page 4 D. The variance must be_consistent with the purposes of the zone district in which the property is located; E. The variance must not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of thesame zone; and, F. The variance must be the minimum necessary to allow the same rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone. 10. Section 17.40.020(C) of the ECDC establishes the -value of a nonconforming building to be determined as the most recent assessment by the Snohomish County Assessor. In an attachment to a letter dated December 20, 1984, the Applicants have sub- mitted the most recent assessment by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office. That assessment establishes the value of the building on the subject property as $61,600.00. 11. The Applicants desire to make improvements of $28,800.00, or 47 percent of.the value of the building.' The allowed improve- ments that can be made on the building in one year is $15,400.00, which is 25 percent of $61,600.00. 12. It is the contention of the Applicants that the improvements. as proposed should be allowed and the variance from Section 17.40.020(D)(4) should be granted because to prohibit the improvements as proposed would result in a building that,is partially completed for a period of two.years This will create an unsightly appearance on a highly visible street in downtown Edmonds. 13. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds.has reviewed the proposal and the application for the variance to exceed the 25 percent limitation. In reviewing the application they have applied the criteria of Section 20.85.010 of the ECDC. According to the Planning Department, the variances should not be granted because: 1. No special circumstances exist for the granting of the variance; 2. The granting of the variance would be the grant of a special privilege; 3. The proposed variance is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and in particular Section 15.20.005(B)(3) which encourages minimizing encroachments on views of existing, homes by new construction, or additions_to existing houses. U, n n t6 y _ 1Ar Findings and DeCL..,ion of the Hearing Examiner of theCityof Edmonds'' ; Re: V-25-84 + 4i Page 5 5. The variance will impact the view•of the properties .> located to the rear of the subject property. r 14. The Applicant submitted that the reason for the need for a variance was not created by him, but was -created by the subdivision requirement of an access easement being located on his property. Thus, according to the Applicant, he should be able to develop the property as proposed. 15. In order for the setback variance to be granted the same criteria as set forth in Finding #9 must be met. 16. The Applicant's proposal which would not increase the setback of six feet and that would require siding.on the proposed deck appears to be in conformance with the criteria of Section 20.85.010. It is in conformance because it does not impact other.properties; it does not conflict with the Compre- hensive Plan or any of the Plan's criteria; and, it is con- sistent with the RS-12 zoning. Further, it is the use of an existingcondition that can be used to improve the structure. 17. At the public hearing a witness (Keuss) testified to be the owner of the adjacent property. She voiced opposition to the granting of the variances because they would block her view. Also, the witness was concerned about the affect the enlarged structure would have on the neighborhood of single7family residences. 18. A witness (Mecord) testified to be in opposition to the variance granting a relief from the 25 percent improvement criteria. The witness submitted that the variance, if granted,` would ruin the conformity of the structure with the rest'.of the neighborhood. 19. A witness (Freund) submitted that the proposed structure would not fit with the existing neighborhood and would block the views of other properties. 20. In a letter submitted to the Hearing Examiner, Witness Lupie Mecord submitted that the variance be denied and -the . Applicants be required to keep their property compatible with other homes in the neighborhood. 21. In a letter submitted December 19, 1984, Witnesses Robert and Maude Mathisen stated that the structure as purchased by the Applicants consisted of all the "hardships" from which the Applicants now seek relief. 22. In a letter dated December 20, 1984, Witness Freund restated the basis of his opposition. f 23. In a letter dated December 20, 1984, the Applicant submitted. } that only $28,800.00 worth of improvements would be made on the subject property. According to the Applicant`s letter,' E f { 4.0 Findings and Dec,,ion of the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds Re: V-25-84 Page. 6 using his experience and actual material costs he'would ..need' a 22-percent variance. 24. In determining the improvements to be made on the subject pro- Y perty the terms of the Uniform Building Code must be considered,.' In the Uniform Building Code improvements include material"and'• money for installation of the materials. It'appears that the Applicants have not included labor costs in the valuation of; the improvements to be made. CONCLUSIONS 1. The application is for the approval of variances for property' PP PP located at 1035 9th Avenue South, Edmonds, Washington. The requested variances are to exceed the 25 percent limitations on improvements of nonconforming buildings as required in Section 17.40.020(D)(4) of the ECDC, and,to:reduce the required 10-foot side setback to a two -foot setback. 2. In order for variances to be.granted in the City of Edmonds, the criteria as set forth in Section 20.85.010 of the ECDC must be meta The applications fail to meet the criteria. 3. No special circumstances have been shown for the granting of a variance. It appears that it is the desire of the Applicant to improve the structure; but, because the structure is a non- conforming structure he is limited to improving the structure by no more than 25 percent of the fair market value of the (. building in'a'one-year period. 4. The granting of a variance would be the granting of a special privilege. 5. The Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds protects views , of existing homes by requiring a minimization of encroachments on views of existing houses by new construction, or additions to existing houses. It has been shown through testimony of'... various witnesses at the public hearing that, if allowed, the improvements will create visual impacts to other properties and will conflict with Section 15.20.005(B)(3) of the ECDC and the Comprehensive Plan of the ECDC.1 6. The subject property is zoned R-12, whichn..is a residentialI zone. Section 16.10.000(B) sets forth the purposes of a residential zone. That section requires that any.growth or development should strive to preserve for itself, and.its neighbors, the following values: 4 1. Light.I 2. Privacy. 3. Views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural - features. 4. Freedom from air, water, noise and visual pollution: AP ytg� r Findings and Deci _on of the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds Re: V-25-84 Page 7 The Applicants' proposal does not comply with this section of the code and, therefore, conflicts with the zoning ordinances of the City of Edmonds. 7. The variances if granted will impact the neighborhood for the reasons as set forth in the previous,findings.and`conclusions. 8. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds has recommended denial of the requested variances. 9. Testimony in support and opposition to the variances has been set forth above in the findings. DECISION Based upon the preceding findings of fact and conclusion; the testi- mony 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 requested variances be denied. The specific requests are to exceed the 25 percent limitations on improvements for nonconforming buildings, and to reduce the required 10-foot side setback to a two -foot side setback. The subject property is______!_ located at 1035 9th Avenue South, Edmonds, Washington. The reasons for the'denial of these variances are set forth in the Conclusions of this document. It is.noted that the Applicants have also submitted a proposal for improvements that do not exceed the existing six-foot side setback. This proposal appears to be acceptable, but should be considered by the Planning Department before any final determination is made. If this proposal is submitted in a formal application, the Planning Department should review the criteria of Section 20.85.010 of the ECDC and submit their recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. No fee should be required from the Applicants for the review of this proposal. However, this proposal in no way changes the denial of the variance for the request to exceed the 25 percent limitation of the fair market value of the nonconforming building. If the Applicants adopt the proposal and submit for review by the Planning Department, they are still prohibited from exceeding 25 percent of the market value of the nonconforming building for improvements in any one-year period for the purpose of maintaining and altering. Entered this 3rd day of January, 1985, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearing Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. S M. DRISCOLL Baring Examiner 1 { ( ? ry 1 1 4 p Findings and Dec _on of the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds Re: V-25-84 y 1 Page 8 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other ,grounds for appeal maybe filed with the Planning Department, City. of; Edmonds, Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington,;98020, within<fourteen , d a (14) days of the date of the Hearing Examiner ; sfinal' action. In this matter any appeal must be received by the Department prior' to 5:00 p.m. on January-17, 1985. b Thank You Alvin N. McLenaghan EXHIBIT 1, _ ` k [ 1 a STAFF, REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER. 1 FILE: V-25-84 (MODIFIED) HEARING DATE: March 28, 1985: I. REQUESTED ACTION: Variance to reduce the required 10' side setback.to'6.', at k 1035 9th Ave. South, Edmonds, WA F, II. APPLICANT/OWNER: r:r Alvin and Norma McClenaghan �s 1035 9th Ave. S. Edmonds, WA 98020 IIS. LEGAL DESCRIPTION:' (See Exhibit 3), IV. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: A. Description of the`Subject Property and Surrounding, Area The subject property was created,by Edmonds Short Subdivision #S-34-64.A 12' access easement was established to provide access to the lot behind the, subject property. The subject property fronts directly onto 9th Avenue South.` The access easement is across the-northern,12''of the lot: (See Exhibit 3) The existing house is built to .within 6' of the access easement, with an existing deck on the northwest corner of the house to 2' (See Exhibit 3). The Applicant originally applied for variances to allowhim to do improvements to the structure which would exceed the permitted 25% valuation of'the,building and to do improvements to within 2' of the access easement. Surrounding development is all single family residential: B. Official.Street Map Proposed R/W Existing R/W West - 9th Avenue S. 60' 60' t i. :.:. .., t t ,_..W.,.. ,t ...,'Fa.L:.. ,... _:_. ....,:.: .. .._,».. .... .. ... ... .... ... . .. ...: . . ... i. �. ,..,. t, .....i o aa. .r._.. c. k.4 ..fac t 4sarx .,5n1 Gi�.f.#...1-LL�?7..r� t a' t; a } C. Conformance to Chapter 20.85.010 - 1. Special Circumstances ?z ' The setback still does not appear to meet ,requested the test of are there special circumstances in' tliis.case.' While the Applicant did not 'construct,the'existing: residence, this is still not grounds for a variance 2. Special Privilege Y, Development in the immediate vicinity has been allowed to within 7.5':of side lot lines. This was done under former zoning regulations. It would appear that to grant the request would result in the grant of special x.. privilege. 3. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Policy Plan map designates the subject property as low density residential, as are the adjacent surrounding properties. The proposed variance appears to, conflict with the policy outlined in Chapter 15.20.005(B)(3) which, states that new construction: "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing homes." 4. zoning ordinance The subject property and. the surrounding properties are zoned RS-12. The proposed variance appear to conflict with Chapter 16.10.000(B)(3),-which states: "B. Any growth or development should strive to preserve for itself and its neighbors the following values: 3. Views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features. 5. Not Detrimental Theproposedvariance will, if approved,impact the view of the property located to the rear of the subject property. A , ¢ , t 6. Minimum Variance N t '4 The proposed, 'variance. appears to be represent a minimum variance request. V. STAFF. RECOMMENDATION: a" -use' It is understandable why the Applicant wishes to the existing 6' side setback. This setback makes for a more uniformly shaped building and provides a load. bearing wall for the second story improvements.. The ; proposed improvements would be an asset to.the neighborhood'. bb While there are many good reasons for utilizing the �Ft existing north setback, staff can not honestly recommend {„ approval of the Applicant's modified plan. Again, staff would have to recommend denial of V-25-84. a- (5 )r f C 1 1J A • t i DECLARATIONS OF APPLICANT E 4 , Please answer all questions 1, What are the physical characteristics, (i,e. topography, shape of lot.; etc.) which create a hardship for yo.v, in regard to, development of your property? A 12' easment exists on the North side of m _bro er_Y ` My existing home is 6' -from the-easment , Since the original easment was ranted the ity, of Edmonds f' as changed. e required setbacks from 5 t 10' in this• area, 2: erty in the same: How does your property differ from other pro vicinity? A 12' easment exists on the North side of't e-'lot'. 3. .a or, damaging;to' Will this variance be detrimental to the public' other property or improvements'in the vicini. ? ` c nnr will it damage other �rop&rty or 4. ance is not.graht,ed? What hardships will result to'you 'if the var Wi11 these hardships have been caused by you _ --Own action? This hardship was not created by my action, if this varience is not granted some other method of improving the property will have to be found. €i 5. Can you make reasonable use of your property without the variance7, The house is livable but is very restrictiv in itls present floor plan.. • E 3. . s CENTER = 6 + • VICINITY MAP > j V-25-84 ID 1IIIIIIQ YIIIIINAIIIIII: �CIiT ►ROR CITY PROP. CITY PROP. CITY PROP. 215TN PL. S.W. I • 216111 FL. S.w. CITY PROP. CITY PROP. 215TN PL. S.W. I • 216111 FL. S.w. 215TN PL. S.W. I • 216111 FL. S.w. 216111 FL. S.w. AN ----� -� .--�-�Q�- T- Y -� � f-- ,�- -•>(- •�-- -•�-�� --��� r -T-� yam. I . T-�!t rinrl�i irrrjr - (r -—____ _ _ •id Ya,., tea• v :- �. ' •G::n n c5 ?r.7 0�� i 'ttn_ f2t`.�D 3'CRTi 77t (tf.-. -- t � � ~• --- -- - _ � a. J' M - �---1 �rl �rr�-T`'=�(� a�sr= r cap c rt .rrtn lr0 u `4 � +2 S i f. ,.., t C.. Y ,. rrl' 4r 1 •.. 1�,r Ai'�rfi.ji, V .. it 1 AFV if �.i u, l._ ' 1 .. • .� . _ .. .t :. , Y.0 2 Y,.x Yv �'•yL<:Y:r n.tl' {F"+-ta�wY"M1h.1:r n'4Y ..J+.ri�Atii.A :!�4 !... ryY a d fl _ , ly 11 y rr�1 i• ,.r1 }C7f 'N 'f 1 G f 44 of 1 eK f 1 / dodo r, 4. do L •YI .I do J 1 I 1�. t O 1� •• i'. r G,, 1 5• —.. X-- ---I1— z L I L of dl b i Via^; f4 L 4 food, do , doo 1L do L mt: V r, f �\ x `. U rt — — —� 1 19+ — \ PPyoe HAG J — ..� (— ' I '• p I � • 4—� i r r� (�-3°•ram i�}— M do" f E f ;.or aF dod dod do of L odd, dc do oz tl �� got" U T,� dodopt o f ; u odd odd _ l L. of 1 r1N i / 1• �� 1 ^ F 1 1 gi poop h• _ f• , ; ( �„ .J�— i — -- it i If IL p• I IdoI 1 r 12! 4 _ �.. - .. t2'•8' y do do do r r ... - --,-------odoododooddoodd- _��' yi----- —44, Y _ oo'do do s� tto do od llzffH S odd (� o , • 1v ii 7C j y�y ��1(y`• ypy'��..dod iT rdd ��4ht' �i `j *?}• •Mt`r'� Y� ' y�'.y ..�r�-hpT—� /� r .I . � ,i4+, �4i ,-) , L• // 1~.11l", •- 1.—... L \, 1 •t.° ..T •�~i�i(`_ .� L `. dodo dodo— ., N' h + .. a 1 �1.•. '. f r x u• _ 1 yS zt r C4{ 1 EXHIBIT 1 a= STAFF 'REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER FILE: AP-1-85 ` HEARING DATE: MARCH 28, 1985 I. ACTION BEING APPEALED: Staff interpretation of Chapter 17.40.020(D)(4) defining the one year period -for doing improvementsto a nonconforming building. II. APPELLANT: Alvin McClenaghan 1035 9th Ave. S. Edmonds, WA 98020 - -III. BACKGROUND: Earlier this year, the Appellant applied for a variance to, allow him to do improvements to a nonconforming structure in excess of the 25% valuation of the structure. The. variance was denied. IV. On January 22, 1985,,a letter was mailed to the.Appellant: outlining the requirements for complying with Chapter:` 17.40.020 (D) (4) . (See Exhibit 3} The Appellant filed. an. appeal of that staff interpretation on March 1,.1985. (See; Exhibit 2) . STAFF RECOMMENDATION , d tow a: fro,Ile .., qPWI l`. w ,.o�EiiB►o* * Pik, ttt= s #ko i e _ .•I. 1 It 1 l� ': V 1 V 'ff K ' . 14 { q !. It 1 �f a_ JI IIt It —eI III Vp Y 1 ti pm or i.'.i -1 4 i 4 y i{� ,yr1Y l RLEASE'"-PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS RELOW IT YOU WISH TO .S,PEAK ON;THIS ITEM r , AND/OR V�i'SH TO` RECEIVE A COPY'`OF THE HEARING E7(AMI'NER'S FI'NDINGS;OF'FACT , r a ALVIN & NORMA MCLENAGHAN - V-25-84 - VARIANCE TO EXCEED 25%'LIMIT FOR IMPROVEMENT TO NON -CONFORMING -HOUSE AND TO REDUCE SIDE .SETBACK FROM 10'`JO 2' AT 1035 9TH.AVENUE S. , NAME ADDRESS y p -e L4 vic4- x 1 03 d v h c�c d S zC7 l v -Tud�hu EIV� %%/��Gr�V1� %vi 7- G�vc?. S'v. ;��o rlit) S UDRY>a2 a �n: n�-,AtLCtr ,( u/:)I�f 12)ecoird Jc 7 A e ti 9 TA.) Y lS: ItsY1-1ai.1,.4}L"^��4�..w.fi.+a-� 7 t .<. •J . 1 : aS 43i t k� t 7 it t i March 291 . 985 .°. f MEMO TO: JAMES M.. DRISCOLL HEARING"EXAMINER' FROM: DUANE V. BOWMAN ` ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER` v SUBJECT: INFORMATION REGARDING EXHIBIT'6 V-`25-8.4 a° Enclosed is all the information that I could find, 'for Building permits for the property at 1035 9th Ave. S., Edmonds. As you can see on the permit, the.zoning in effect at that°time was 5-12. Side yard setbacks were 7 1/21, as I indicated during my presentation at the hearing. I can find no evidence of any variances or ,building permits for the deck or carport: (�> 6'716�1,tj Enclosure cc: Alvin McClenaghan J :i hr' 1, ...S ` ..... _ ... . :.... ._......._._...__,..,:.�_.__........._..... _......... ... ..�._.—........,.—...:.:....._.i_:.-..,-_........._..... 1 ti mini e CITY OF E D M O N D S HARVE H. HARRISON r}�z MAYOR. CIVIC CENTER • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 775.2525 HEARING EXAMINER R EC V IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ALVIN McCLENAGAHAN FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE V-25-84 CITY- OF EDMONDS ORDER A hearing on the above captioned matter was held by hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds on March 28, 1985 Subsequent to the Hearing additional evidence was submitted by the Planning Department. This evidence was submitted on March 29, 1985, and was submitted pursuant to an Order of the Hearing Examiner that was orally made at the hearing. Copies of the submitted evidence were sent to the Applicant. On April 3, 1985, the Applicant submitted a response to the evidence submitted by the City. Also submitted by the Applicant was,a copy of a building permit issued for the property. Because each of the above supports the contention of the City of Edmonds and the Applicant the evidnece will become part of the record and will be identified as exhibits to the Hearing and will be listed in the Decision of the Hearing Examiner. Further because the Applicant's submittal was not made until April 3, 1985, that date will now be considered as the date of the closing of the Hearing. Accordingly the time allowed for the filing of the Hearing Examiner's Decision shall be the allowed ten working days from the closing of the Hearing. The date that the Decision in this matter will be issued will be April 17, 1985. DONE AND DATED THIS DAY PRIL, 1985. _ ,_ U� s M. Driscoll, Hearing Examiner Aff r � t r y i CITY OF EDMONDS :.DEC:1 184 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER C.t�U OF;EDMUND�3 , IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FILE: V-25-84 OF ALVIN AND NORMA MCLENAGHAN 1 "r. On December 11, 1984, the Hearing Examiner received a'request from the City of Edmonds Planning Department requesting that the above hearing be reopened. A hearing on the matter was held on December 61, 1984.` At that hearing the Planning Department submitted that the percentage of improvements to a nonconforming structure was 36 percent of the valuation of the property. Apparently this valuation was based on the value of the building and the real property. In recalculating their figures and sub- mitting them in their request for reopening the hearing, the Planning Department submitted that the valuation of the property should have only included the value of the building. Accordingly, it is the contention of the Planning Department that the request of the Applicant requires a percentage of improvements of 68 percent of the value of the existing ' structure instead of the 36 percent as presented at the hearing. In light of this new information and pursuant to the Rules Govern- ing Land Use and Zoning Proceedings in the City of Edmonds, it is hereby ordered that the above hearing be reopened for the purpose of receiving comments from all individuals who participated in the hearing. The comments are to be in writing and are limited to the change in the percentage of improvements according to the City of Edmonds Planning ' Department. All comments are to be submitted by December 20, 1984, to the Hearing Examiner, City of Edmonds, Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington, 98020. The findings and decision in this matter will be issued by December 28, 1984. Done and dated this 12th day of December, 1984. r ijm s M. DRISCOLL Hei ng Examiner cb f 4 ' 4 y r tf S '. 11sL4i144,7r. ll J ICY t: ,fin . f » March'29, 1985 { { t �1 MEMO TO: JAMESM. DRISCOLLf¢' HEARING EXAMINER FROM: DUANE V. BOWMAN ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER. -SUBJECT: INFORMATION REGARDING EXHIBIT 6 V-25-84 Enclosed is all the information that I could find for Building permits for the property at 1035 9th Ave. S.,'Edmonds. As you can see'on the permit, the zoning in effect at that time was S-12. Side yard setbacks were 7 1/21, as I indicated during my, presentation at the hearing. I can find no evidence of any variances or building permits for the deck or carport. b Enclosure cc: Alvin McClenaghan ,s t ! ) t a 'i r Y<� (64�ri4'f !i%�?CN -i }4.. �h•.fy+ C.J+`Snn.f�i'OR P,,.'{; 1 :.:..-. :....... .. .. .�'. - ....::, ...'. ., .. _.. i . ,.. .. .,. .. ,.', .. � ai,uYn pa MtV.vk'.• t ! ,°,�6��� n Sa ;( CRY OF EDMON BUILDING PERMIT ...... try; rr.. E, dray.In��. :411d sur Cic desalts LO ulflleate � ' � Applicant htseby certifies that a plot, plan, the intention to fulfill alltlents of this code are atra h:d hereto. F Appliartion iF hereby made for `permit to do the following work:�j . 1 .. `i ...................- ...» - .' T. Bi0 1. + .� ._..— ...: _ _ // ......... . 1. Building duncnstons .• - �.3 r............. . ., 2. Lot dimensions ......... 3. Building will be stories. 4. B scmcnt .. , ;. OccuP;ljc} of builain" will hc....'.... .... feet from thc,,ncarest ;Idjolnin R line. 7: Clwncr.:..:.... • . S. owner's Add r u.. -�•—- 5�- r 9. Builder..:.... p- 10. Builder's Address .....�T . .............. ...1y-. Date-... ��•7.................... / .�.....(. (ON'ner or his a6rnU ranu_d to do the work dew n�eti hereon, according to the approved plans and. specifications pertair.ctg hfsemr Permission is hereby e of Edmonds. ' subject to compliance with the,ordinaliees of the Estimated cost�'.c.......: 01 Life of permit.:. RrC cd date fiuuina Officer) U .{ c� De artmcr►t of Buildings . PERMIT l �i o Plans filed : Y gl IJo ; I� Gity of Edmonds used structure, at the rate of SkOO for each hi PAY, when permit is issue+! shall 6e based on estimated custmore rh nc.f the r S c• aPPficanc agrees to Ply as additional fee 1. The building Permit fec w ch applicant P Y j1000.00 u! cox. 1( the actv+l cast of the structure. when Gually determined,"exceeds the estimated erne by ,f S2.uo f,,.r c+ch $1000,00 v1 such excess cuss. a cry of. the detailed • for a building hermit shall he Accompanied. by a COPY of the contract and 2. �f.'hmeurr a cuntnci fur tt,nst[uciiun is c ;M'`e� rion for any structure costing more thin S1o00.00 for which a licensed architect or engineer is tsoe required b) the fiuildinF C.ude of the City of rdmnnd•, the D1 ing go sPccificatiuns. (11 the 3, Prior to emPluyinF any Iabur or cucnrn c,nxF or , nt,cl onsr:huul,ttbelubriaedCfro�mvuthennearot erDep'Ir [ thetincaa olleParmenf Labor aof isbtx�aadrindusuia��Ff<f e the palroll and mace moathly refsurts u(Payrolls. in curn final paymcat, the owner shuutd obtaiind release end sr tim the Se above Prneteccmdures ate who Nuureaseats OfdthebStatarinJustriAl LmutAn lease from All b Act.actor• The nleaaes should M S• .irtcsred by the Ucparemc.rt of Ls •-1 ■ I d 4 i f Il CITY C'�' E�.. M ®N ®S LARRY S NAUGHT `p 250-5th AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771-3202 MAYOR �PETER,'E COMMUNITY SERVICES HAHN DIRECTOR r f1e a April.10 1985. 1 :If Mr. Alvin McLenaghan 1035 9th Ave: S. Edmonds',,.WA 98020 RE: STATUS .OF RESIDENCE :AT .1035:9TH AVE. S. Dear Mr. McLenaghan: r dated `A ril 3. I am writing in response to your recent letter, p 1985 which inquired about, the legal status of your'residence at 1035-9th-Ave. S.; Edmonds. Your°property is zoned RS-12. This.zone district requires a 10'. side setback. Your existing res`iderce is: nonconforming as to ' this setback requirement. Because your residence `is. 'a noncon orming building, it is governed by Chapter , 17 -40 : 020 o f the Edmonds Community Development Code. If you w i sh <to use the existing building's north side setback, you must obtain a„ variance. The issue of the easement status does not change this situation. £ I hope that this answers your questions about your property. (, Sincerely,; I Mary Lou Block $, Planning Manager. ; cc• Scott Snvder 1 { 'PUBLIC WORKS PLANNING PARKS'AND RECREATION ENGINEERING ,77 Findings and D( sion of the n Hearing'Examine• of the City of Edmonds Re: AP-1-85 �. Page 2,�� establishes guidelines for; maintaining and altering none= conforming buildings. Included within the guidelines for,:. ;r maintaining and alteringnonconforming buildings is Section 17.40.020(D)(4) which establishes a limit for -time and value` of improvements for maintaining and altering a nonconforming 5, building. That subsection reads:' The cost in any one-year period of maintenance and+ alterations allowed by this subsection may be not more than 25% of the fair market value of the non- conforming building. 2. On January 22, 1985, Duane Bowman, Assistant City Planner for the City of Edmonds, issued a letter to the Appellant setting forth the City's interpretation of the one-year time limit on improvements for a nonconforming structure. A copy of this letter was admitted,as Exhibit 3 to the hearing and is attached hereto as part of these findings. 3. As set forth in the Bowman letter of January 22, 1985, the .one-year period for maintaining and altering nonconforming structures by not more than 250 of the fair market value is determined to be the year `period beginning upon final building permit inspection 4 On March 1, 1985, the Appellant appealed the City of Edmonds' ; interpretation of the one-year time period allowed for im- provements of nonconforming buildings. The letter,:which was admitted as Exhibit 2 and is hereby incorporated as part of these findings, suggested the interpretation to be one of the following: A. The calender year January 1 through December 31 B. One year from permit date. C. Any, period which includes twelve months but not more. 5. The Edmonds Community Development Code does not define the term 'one-year period.' Thus, the interpretation of the. term must be made by the administrative staff of the City, of Edmonds. 6. The.Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds has jurisdictional authority to review the administrative decision of the staff and to hear appeals of -that decision. This authority is set' forth in Section 20.105.010 of the ECDC. DECISION Section 17.40.020 of the ECDC establishes nonconforming buildings. A nonconforming building is one which once met applicable site development standards but no longer does, due to the passage or 4 changing of zoning ordinances. Subsection 17.40.020(D)(4) allows for the maintenance and alteration of nonconforming buildings as long as the cost of such activity in any one-year period is not a �f d 1 j SSA' Findings and De .3 ion of the Bearing Examiner f the City of Edmonds Res AP-1-85 Page 3. 7,. more than 25% of the fair market value of the nonconforming build= ing. The dispute has arisen between the Appellant and the City, as to what constitutes any one-year period. It is the City of Edmonds' contention that any one-year period is to be interpreted as the time limit beginning with the final building permit inspection. The Ap-:;> pellant's contention is that. the one-year period can be a calendar; year January 1 through December 31; one-year.from the building_.. R' permit date;, or, any period which includes 12 months but not more. Because the ECDC is silent as to the definition of any one-year period other sources of .data must be referred to. A nonconforming land use; such as the instant nonconforming building, ` is one which was lawful when instituted but no longer is permitted under prevailing regulations (Asia v. Seattle, 4 Wn App 530). However, the purpose of zoning and zoning laws were not designed to terminate existing uses or the abatement of existing structures, but to safeguard the future, and the expectation that time will .repair the mistakes of the past. (Washington Land Use and Environ- mental Law Practice, Section 2.7, pgs 45 and 46.) It is the d esira flit to eventually eliminate nonconforming uses Y Y �Y ;. and buildings and the Washington Appellate Courts have provided deferential review to local zoning ordinance provisions to termi- nate or limit such uses. Section'17.40.020 Nonconforming Buildings is such a local oning ordinance which.restricts nonconforming buildings. The City is within its right to limit the improvements and alterations -hat can be made on nonconforming structures. Therefore, strong reliance must be given to the City's interpreta- tion of the one- ear period and for allowing maintenance and altera- tions within tha one-year period to not exceed the 250 of the fair.- market value of he nonconforming building. The City of Edmonds has submitted that the regulation requires the one-year period to begin upon the final building permit inspection. Thi would result in a builder having to wait one, year from the ti e a project on a nonconforming building was completed. This would be consistent with the Washington law acknowledging the desirability of eventually eliminating non- conforming structures. By invoking this time period, changes to a nonconforming uilding would be limited and the municipality could pursue the policy of eventually eliminating the nonconform- ing buildings. To adopt the proposal of the Appellant would result in situations where improvements could be made to nonconforming buildings in_a manner that would result in maintenance and alterations exceeding, 25% of the fair market value within a one-year time frame. If the one-year period were defined as the calender year between January 1 { through Decembei 31, a builder could make 25% improvements during the month of December and make an additional 25% improvements 4 s:, during the succeeding month of January. Thus, using this inter pretation, 50% improvements could be made on a building wi;thi:n.a two -month period. This is contrary to the purpose of the ECDC.•'. for nonconforming buildings as set forth in Section 17.40.000 and.. the Washington law for the desirability of eliminating nonconform ing buildings. To allow the one-year period to be iFiterpreted as one year from the permit date would also be ineffe tive. The building permit is granted for six months. Improvements could be made on the building at the end of the permit anI the builder could then apply for a new permit, or the renewal of he permit,and make additional alterations or maintenance that woula exceed the 250 limitation. This also would be contrary to the desirability of eliminating nonconforming buildings and uses. Further, to adopt the third alternative of the Appellant,which is any period which includes twelve months but not more, is vague and does not set forth a specific period. Using this method, a builder could choose anytwelve-month period and com- mence construction at the end of that period. An additional twelve-month period would start and a builder would be allowed_ to add an additional 25% improvements. Thus, the 250 limitation could be exceeded in less than a tw lve-month period. Obviously, Section'17.40.020(D)(4) is vague and it is a short coming of -the ECDC. However, in order to enforce the purpose for allowing nonconforming buildingE within the City of Edmonds and to adhere to the desirability oi eliminating nonconforming buildings, it appears that the interpretation of the City of Edmonds' Planning Staff is the only logical method of establishing the one-year period. The final building permit inspection would occur on a specific date. The one -,ear period would commence on that date. The determination of this date is an objective standard and not a subjective standard and all parties will be put on notice as to the limitations of the one-year period for maintenance and alterations allowed by Subsection 17.40 . 020(.D)(4). f Edmonds' Planning Accordingly, the interpretation of he City o Department of January 22, 1985, is pheld and the appeal of thef' Appellant is denied. Done and dated this 15th day of Apr�il, AMES M. D earing Ex JMD/cb -ner ri� � 13t Fs"�J,tj• Y'$1'yF,�1Syyi ., 1 :k! � q5a CITY OF ED1!/IC: NDS LARRY S: NAUGHTEN ; u r t. MAYOR 256 5th AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771.3202 BUILDING DIVISION ° May 6th, 1985 "Alvin McLenaghan 1035 Ninth Avenue South Edmonds, Washington 98020 RE: Permit Application; 1035 Ninth Avenue South he City Building and Planning Divisions have reviewed your application for a residential addition at the above referenced location. Due to the non -conforming nature of the existing structure, work totaling only 25% percent of the assessed value of the structure may be performed r' in any twelve month period. The assessment figures your provided indicated the house to have a value of $61,000. The valuation of your proposed addition figured under City Ordinance 2446 and under the Uniform Building Code Chapter Three is $21,344, ($12.47 x 1712 square feet.) Valuation of the upper floor must be included. This figure is over 25% percent of your assessed value. If you should desire to proceed with your project please re -submit plans showingg work that is consistant with regulations in the R-S zone. a 't Harold Reeves Building Official - IiR: j lg . I i i 1{ FILE NO.: V=25 84 APPLICANT A. McClenaghian Y AFFIDAVIT OF POSTER STATE OF WASHINGTON) t' ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH)' Bruce Finke being first duly sworn, on oath, depose and says :. pY That on the 26th day of November 19.84 ', the attached. Notice of Public Hearing was posted as prescribed by Ordinance, and in any ev ent;.. in the 'Frances Anderson Center and Civic Center, and where applicable on or:near the subject property. Signed Subscribed and swan to r before me this '`� ~ day of ..���. Y .. 19 Notary P i c i 4;�ohe State of Washington. Residing "at r : CITY OF EDMONDS .. n F TIC E OF mpm"kUB LIC HEARING t �r N U m m HEARING EXAMINER WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING THE THURSDAY, •DECEMBER 6, 1984 -,ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO. V-25-84 A CES 0 E CEED THE 25% LIMIT OF IMPROVEMENTS TO A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED 1O' NORTH ` SIDE SETBACK TO 2. 1035 9TH AVENUE S,' PROPERTY ADDRESS AND LOCATION M ZONE DISTRICT RS-12 4 f r {. t� :30 P - .M., IN THE PLAZA MEETING ROOM, LIBRARY THE HEARING WILL BEGIN AT - MAIN STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT ON THIS PROPOSAL, VIEWS r� '. BUILDING, 650 BUILDING, YOU MAY COME TO THE HEARING AND SPEAK. YOU MAY ALSO WRITE PLEASE ADDRESS THEELETTERTTER TTO THEATING OUR PLANNING kr WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING. DEPARTMENT AND INCLUDE THE ABOVE FILE NUMBER. IF THE ITEM IS CONTINUED TO ANOTHER HEARING BECAUSE THE AGENDA IS NOT COMPLETED, OR HEARING WILL BE ANNOUNCED ONLY A' FURTHER INFORMATION IS NEEDED, THE DATE OF THE CONTINUED AT THE MEETING. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 250 FIFTH AVENUE I NORTH, EDMONDS (PHONE 771-3202, EXTENSION 252). THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR CONCEALMENT OF THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE WAmn"NING! OF THE HEARING IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT. THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOVE® AFTER DECEMBER 61 1984 E ZONE DISTRICT RS-12 THE HEARING WILL BEGIN AT 7 : 30 P. M., IN THE PLAZA MEETING ROOM, LIBRARY BUILDING, 650 MAIN STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT ON THIS PROPOSAL, YOU MAY COME TO THE HEARING AND SPEAK. YOU MAY ALSO WRITE A LETTER STATING YOUR VIEWS WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING. PLEASE ADDRESS THE LETTER TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND INCLUDE THE 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 PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 250 FIFTH AVENUE NORTH, E,DMONDS (PHONE 771-3202, EXTENSION 252). THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR 1AIARmi"Na 1 0 No CONCEALMENT OF THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE ® OF THE HEARING IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.