1055 7TH AVE S (2).pdf.�
A
n
11
t,
1.
t.
1
i1
�M
4&
IN
171
li
11
CITY OF EDMONDS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
,r► ,f
. FILE # ✓�!�' I'
DATE
FEE $25.00
REC'T
HEARIIJG DATE: •',Z
11 �.
APPLICAPJT: Jj ), )jjj* S t h _ADDRESS /OSS- �fve S . PHONE:
Indicate type or degree of interest in the property:
OWNER:J 5po e-k t ,ADDRESS:/0,1"9 % f/c y S PHONE:, 7tf-9862
LOCATION OF PROPERTY (ADDRESS) Lfl��� %r7E� V e
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:,_Lit / s o j
LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHECKED & APPROVL
USE ZONE: 5 By Planning Department
ZONING ORDIPIA14CE REQUIREI1ENT: Hp_ i Ght 6f a ass ary 6ccrldi� to at"
ii
VARIANCE REQUESTED: ��'fi' mo i r e r hQlhe S -Pv-o'm b L_. 1)q- t� C i q hf
STATEMENT.OF CONDITIONS AND REASONS FOR REQUEST, IN ACGORDAPICE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
ATTACHED: aft o'n has Eo Le- hic,A Ju e�S�"i�a� ev 47ine-e
STATE OF iIASHIPJGTON)ss.
COUNTY OF. SIJOH014ISH) Ygla ure o App i t, Owner or Representat i
On this date, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared ,wl;
being duly sworn, on his/her oath deposes and says that (s)he has prepared and read the fora
going statements and has acknowledged to me that the recitations contained therein are true.
and has signed this instrument as his/her free and voluntary act and deed for the purposes
therein mentioned.
Subscribed and sworn to befo.re me this ay of , 19_:Z•
�L � YYI, A. residing alt
fotary Public in and for the State of Washington.
;j
t
'f
�j
.POINT 3. If this variance is.not granted, an unnecessary hardshipwill continue
to the owner of this property, the cause of which is beyon is coniro.1 because: !�
.4/Q
POINT 1. The following are the special circumstances which apply to my'property,
which deprive me of rights and privileges which are enjoyed by. other properties in
the vicinity under the identical zone classification.
POINT 2. The variance I am requesting will not be detrimental to the public wel-
fare or injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity of a zone Am
which my property is located because:
r
POINTr/YSo as not to grant aspecial privilege to me by the granting of this
variance�I submit the following conditions to be imposed so as not to cause in-
consistencies with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone
in which I am located.
..
• Record of F ings of Fact by Board of Adju:'_ l nt
The Board of Adjustment for the City of Edmonds finds in the case of
• ``
File N o . request for variance at
,l�' � �' 7
the following:
1. That notice was given according to Code requirements, and Affidavits attesting to same
are in the file.
2. That the foregoing set forth Standards and Criteria each have/have not been met.
3. In addition thereto,
4: Therefore, the request for variance is d/Granted, subject to the following special'
conditions:
t
r
y
5. Section 12^1 G.110 "----and if a
building permit and/or
occupancy Fermi t is not obtained
for the subject property within*
one year from the date
of the Board's decision, the con
ditional' use permit or variance
shall be automatically
null and void.---"
pOa
6. Decision shall be effective on:-
:
to
R®di
t
.
.
2-�0 , l �i 7 � '
DATED: Chairman, Board of. Ad' stme.
DATA
Date of Application: 3 .Z - 7 7 Date of Hearing':
Date of Publication: - 7 2 Continuances:
Date of Posting: - —
Date of Appeal from Decision of the Board:
Secretary, Board of Adjustment
:.7i
� � �-�� ..
��. _...
M
_
� .
���
.,;,,9 ,� ., �
� ������
.�
,a� ���rn� �Z�� ��
�Z���
�'��.��� � .
h .�°�
�� �-
.�, . Zvi �Q-°`_"�
. i, l�.i /�'J�••(I�C✓�i(/` Vir�/ri�r./��� yam.. � � /� � • �j[/� K �/
. %. � w i /• � if� (LI� � �..I .tJI i T l � / J GrC/l"/ I ✓ 7► Jf`
1.
,'
*'.
.... .' 7 {., " �
- .., �a'
/ -•.r' � V 29?,L"f • .F f",.%•7dF.�1l•/ / / G// • ��UiiGi� • v' C. l.. f!- '`%� 1�..• �I M t+"
i /'�' /! w w w s._..1� // � /� / � � X f 1 " 1 � I l' ---i--�e � � l� 3 .i . •./ .' 1
9
r y..
NOTICE OF HEARING PETITION
FOR VARIANCE -
BY EDMONDS BOARD .OF ADJUSTMENT
All interested persons are hereby notified that Wednesday, the
20th day of April 1977 ,has been set as' the
date for hearing petition filed by Jimmie Specht .
for variance of 1191, from required
15 building height
at 1055-7th Avenue South
said property being zoned'RS-6.
Said hearing will be at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the
Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington before the Board of Adjustment
and all interested persons are invited to appear.
IRENE VARNEY MORAN
.City Clerk, City of Edmonds
u
FILE NO: V-15-77
PUBLISH: 4-6-77
...
U
AFFIDAVIT OF PUB�ICAT ION
STATE OF WASHINGTON ss
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH
THOMAS J. COAD, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes and says that he is the Publisher of the EDMONDS
TRIBUNE -REVIEW, a weekly newspaper. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and has been designated as such
by Court Order No. 38282, and is now and has been for more than six onths prior to the date of the publications herein-
after referred to, published ii the English language continually as a weekly
newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington, and it is now and during all of
said time was printed in an of
of said newspaper, and that
County
That the annexed is a true
as it was published in regula
paper once each week for a
commencing on the —�
and ending on the
both dates inclusive, and th
subscribers during all of sai
for the foregoing publication
been paid in full, at the rate
and $ .a hundred
Subscribed and sworn to
Notary Public in and for the
maintained at the aforesaid place of publication
was of general circulation in said Snohomish
issues (and not in supplement form) of said news-
eriod of one XAi86Ci MVV weeV,
day of Apri L. 19.17
day of , 19-1
such newspaper was regularly distributed to its
period. That the full amount of the fee charged
the sum of $ 2 . 56 ._, which amount has
• $ 2.00 a hundred words for the first insertion
for each subsequent insertion.
methis 6th day of _ April 19_Z,7
of Washington, residing at Edmonds, Wash.
1
NOTICE OF- PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS THAT A
PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE
................ .
.... to. 0C.
AN APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FILED FOR.. ...... .. � �u/��
goo
.........:.. ��/.GAT"...
...................:........................
......................... .......... .
.....................
.......................
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION OR ADDRESS:.I.O�'S • • ����' ��•
ZONE CLASSIFICATION ..... s, • • • • • 40 ' ' ' ' '
� ..... V:,u)a n-
TIME & DATE OF HEARING. 7* - °• TIME • DAY DATE
THE MEETING WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ERSON INTERESTED'IDIN CIVIC
I$
CENTER, 5th AVENUE AND BELL STREET. ANY
PROPOSAL MAY APPEAR IN SUPPORT-OF=OR IN OPPOSITION
O IT. OR AMETHE
CONCERNING THE APPLICATION MAY BE SUBMITTED
MEETING, IN PERSON OR IN WRITING. ADDITIONAL E775 25205REXT.10227)NIIN THE
OBTAINED AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT (PHONE THE PUBLIC
EVENT THE AGENDA IS NOT COMPLETED ON TMEETING E ABOVE DATE,
AT THE SAME
HEARING WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR
TIME AND PLACE.
FILE NO..Y ...........�.... PUBLISHED.... .....
She removal, mutilation, destruction, or
concealment of this notice prior to -the date
W N A RNI"A"® of the hearing is a misdemeanor punishable
by fine and imprisonment.
k1'
t`
FILE N0.
APPLICANT
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTER
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
i
being -first duly sworn,
e,
PLAN-N`R'S VARIAh E REVIE'd FORM FILE #- 1.5" 21-
APPLICANT: — --- - _ -
ADDRESS: - i _ _ ZONING:
VARIANCE REQUESTED: /01
ZONING CODE REQUIREMENT:_�
OTHER PERTIMEN ACTS :
V RIANCE CR ERIA - Section 12.16. 0 v�
1. Does this amount to a rezone?____a
2. (a) Are there conditions and/or ,,c�i� r``cumstances not generally anpl i_cAble ;to otf�er
lands in the same district?'�.J�-
(b) !doul tri ct enforcement of the Zoning code deprive he pro rty oar i of r.i ghts
commonly enjoyed by other pvopert-ies in the sane district? I
001
3. Do the special conditions result from he action of the appli�can)t?
�.IA4 4- _
4. Are there unnecessary hardships nd practi al di =fi cul ies which rende ^ i di fi cul t
to carry out the provisions of the Z0111ing code? ---
eDAkh
��9�
5. 1,1111 the granting of the variance be (let mejntal to ne heal .i sae or eve ar j
property p P J y�?AD. ' •
of ro owners i n the ri ci ni t � �r/__. ,
6. s i is the minimum variancethat tivi11 snake ssiblc the reasonable use of land?
7. !li i the granting of the viri nce nw:ral be in I1armon.. and compatibl tivith�t, hits
z o n i n g code?
J
P1anner's Var'ance Review 11/76
M
,
W
APPLICANT WAS WELL AWARE OF WHAT HE WAS DOING AND THAT HE KNEW IT WAS
A SLIDE AREA; THAT TO JUST LEAVE THE HOUSE AS IT WAS WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL
TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IF HE HAD THE COURAGE TO IMPROVE IT,THAT WAS GOOD;
THAT THE DETRIMENTALTTOIJHELD MAKE HEALTH,THE MORALSLANDNSAFFOETYTOF�THERLY, AND IT NEIGHBORHOOD. BE
MOTION
CARRIED.
V-14-77 B. G. OSTOLAZA - Variance of A from required 20' access easement at ,}
19918 Maplewood Dr. (RS-12)
Mrs. Block displayed a vicinity.sketch and slides of the easement in
question. The application was in conjunction with a subdivision. Mrs.
Block reviewed the variance criteria, noting that the Code requires 20'
of access easement to. serve two or more lots, and this is only 161. She
said it was the applicant's choice to secure the subdivision and he did have
the potential option of a'joint access with the neighbor to the north. She
noted in the slides the present configuration of three driveways which
presents a potentially, hazardous situation in the case of emergencies
because of the concrete barrier between the driveways and she commented
that by adding another lot to this the problem is increased. She read i
memoranda from the Fire'and Engineering Departments, -the Fire Department' +
feeling the driveways should not be separated, and the Engineering Depart
ment finding that the 16'-strip,is sandwiched between two simi1ar access
roads: City standards for access have been based on being able to pass
a stalled vehicle'on:the road. Mrs. Block recommended that the applicant i
work with -,the neighboring property owners for joint access of'the front. j
portion of the access where no trees would have to be taken out. The
public portion of the hearing was.then opened,
Na, +k. t,:,rle of tha Arcess ease -
Joan ustolaza stated WIC as yuu yu w„u
ments the Hammersla road drops,,so the road cannot be shared. Dr. B. G.
Ostolaza added that the cement divider .is only 6" - 8" high and wide and
would not obstruct vehicles as much as the trees at the back. The public
`portion was then closed. Mr. Hovde commented that use of narrower
lanes will become more common as fewer people drive big cars. He noted
that the lanes do afford privacy, and he felt the aesthetics outweighed
the danger in this matter. He said 'good lots in this area are scarce
and'he would be in favor of the application jus.t on the feasibil_ity,of it.
A MOTION WAS THEN MADE BY MR. ROY, SECONDED BY MR. HOVDE, THAT V-14-77 BE
APPROVED INASMUCH AS ONE RESIDENCE IS EXISTING AND APPEARS•TO BE SERVED
AMPLY BY THE ACCESS EASEMENT AND THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY REASON
WHY IT WOULD NOT SERVE. TWO RESIDENCES; IT WAS NOT REASONABLE TO DENY THIS
APPLICATION ON THE BASIS OF EMERGENCY VEHICLES; OTHER LANES IN THE AREA
WERE SERVING SEVERAL PROPERTIES; IT APPEARED TO BE A REASONABLE REQUEST
AND NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, MORALS, AND WELFARE OF THE AREA.
MOTION CARRIED.
V=T5-77 ..:� `=JIMMIE:'SPECHT ;.""Vari'ance of -1'9°<from.:required 15' build.ing>:height'at
1055` = 7th;-Ave.' S
Mrs. Block indicated this application was for an accessory building, the
building in question being off the alley. She showed the location.on a
vicinity sketch and also showed slides of the site. She said there is
a slope to the site which is causing the problem with, the height. She
noted that the zoning code requirement for an accessory building in an
RS-6 zone is for a 15' height maximum, and the applicant was requesting
a 1'9" variance from this requirement. lie wished to build a garage on
the northwest corner of a sloping site off the alley, the site sloping
from east to west. Mrs. Block indicated that strict enforcement of the
Code would prohibit the owner from constructing the garage which was
proposed to be 14' high on the alley side, and the location proposed was
the most reasonable for access. If recreational vehicles were to be
ED14ONDS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
April 20, 1977 - Page 4
stored in the garage the 14' height was necessary. This did not appear
to be a situation where the views of adjoining property owners would be
impaired. Mrs. Block said this was the minimum variance to enable the
applicant to build a garage which would be 14' high at the alley side.
She felt this would generally be harmonious with the Zoning Code, and
she recommended approval. The public portion of the hearing was then
opened.
The applicant stated that the alley off which he proposed to build the
garage was unimproved and if the alley were ever improved he would not
need the variance because it is elevated. The public portion of the
hearing was then closed. The applicant was asked if he would consider
moving the garage towards the house to avoid needing a height variance,
to which he responded that the percentage of the slope remained the same
and moving the garage .closer to the house would not alleviate the situa-
tion. He also said he needed an 8' garage door in order to get his
pickup into the garage. Chairman Bailey indicated there was no corres
pondence in the file regarding the requested variance, and Rose Marys,'..
Specht, the wife of the applicant, indicated she had spoken to neighbors
in the area and they had no objections. A--:MOT°ION WAS=MADE°'`BY MR= LERAAS,
SECONDED`BY::MR:` McQUADE THAT:;:V-15-.77°-. BE,;APPR,OVED AS;:;IT WAS ENTIRELY'IN
HARMONY•WITKjHE`THE SURROUNDING'NEIGHBORHOOD AND WOULD NOT BE"DETRIMENTAL `'"`
E`SAFETY OR WELFARE' OF THE NEIGHBORS MOTION .:CARRIED.
TO TH
V-17-77 ROBERT W. CRUMP -.Variance of 5' from required 60' lot width; Variance
of_7' from required 15' rear yard setback at 3862 Sunset (RS-6)
Mrs. Block indicated this lot goes through from 2nd'to Sunset and she
displayed a vicinity sketch of the site and showed slides of it. She g
said the application was in conjunction with subdivision of the property. ;
There was.an existing house on Lot A and the applicant proposed to use
the existing small house on Lot B>until he could build a new .home on
Lot B. There was ample.area for two 6,000 sq. ft. lots. The lot width.
had been established many years ago so it was not the result ofactions
of the applicant, and it would probably be impossible to increase it.
Mrs. Block indicated it would not be practical to remove the small house ,.
until the new one is built. She said the division of the lot would be
consistent_ with the other lots in the area, and the lots created by the
subdivision would-be in harmony with the Zoning Code and the neighborhood. I
She recommended approval of both variances, but she recommended assuring
the removal of the small house at the time the new house is finished. She
suggested a bond be posted at the time the building permit; is issued to
cover demoliton.costs of the small house, and that such covenant should ;.
be placed on the subdivision. The public portion of the hearing was then
opened.- Edith Wicker of 386 Sunset said she felt it was important c
that young people be assisted, and she recommended approval. She said
she lived in the front house. The public portion of the hearing was Ij
then closed.
is
City Attorney Wayne Tanaka said that very frequently people have good
intentions but do not follow through with them, and that was the reason
for the suggested bond. He said it was much easier to foreclose on a
bond than to take a person to court. After some discussion, A MOTION WAS
MADE BY MR. ROY, SECONDED BY MR. LERAAS, THAT V-17-77 BE APPROVED AS THERE
HAD BEEN NO OBJECTIONS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT WAS NOT UNUSUAL TO
BUILD ON A 55' LOT; AND IT WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A REZONE AND WOULD NOT
BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, MORALS, AND WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ALSO, THE SMALL HOUSE SHOULD BE REMOVED UPON COMPLETION OF THE NEW
RESIDENCE BUILT THERE, AND UPON APPLICATION FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT IT f
SHOULD BE STIPULATED THE HOUSE WILL BE REMOVED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF FINAL I'
APPROVAL, AND THIS SHOULD BE A COVENANT ON THE FACE OF THE SUBDIVISION.
MOTION CARRIED.
EDMONDS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
April 20, 1977 - Page 5
I'
.I I