15730-75TH PL W.pdfn
CITY & ZIP�)� I,(�� PHONE % Odi
J
INDICATE TYPE OR DEGREE OF INTEREST IN PROPERTY
LOCATION OR ADDRESS OF. PROPERTY 1, 730� 574.
5- /�� � 444 614..
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
1
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
USE ZONE : % r
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT
STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss.
COUNTY OF BMW
KING
Signature of 4
Representative
On this date, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State
of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Malcolm E,_Jgnkin5
who, being duly sworn, on his/her oath deposes and says that (s)he has prepared
and read the attached statements and has acknowledged to me that the recititations
%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 before me th
.. -. t t , ` r rr' r'�t.,VY' Ji"1�;'t�'yYy�i2 i ri.tr:
T diiA t k l
fa ... .. rd
... ..-.e .. ... n ..- ...-.. i.. u.... .- ,. ....
7 1
EXHBIT
�-
1 k < Y qk
It
?
DECLARATIONS OF APPLICANT
a
, tL 1,,
Please answer all questions
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?
S
G Va j f 01' �, ek*- lk
'Ti/s Gr '�- �� r �' L;:.�l i�C.(/ �r% es%-cyl•
2. How does your property differ from other property in the same
vicinity?
/ : rJ C
eel
eo
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?
.. „.,. ..... u • ..�..',. t ti ... .. r�..t , ' ,..vt�.y.y.}v�v=+•Jt 1 i 2. '.,"vi:'-iY�yj�ir�iy.. �15f�N �' IF I
' r /"'i'i.
._ _ �1'':�\ \ �-�� N.. _ -�. �� I'---------'^^�-,�--•�r•y a if ,IIr
�3 SUBJECT
AREA
L It
l \ \ OF
NN
_ }_
FFI
IF
Ll
LL
{'• 11 \1��yAI,"{`}%
IF
It r
F-.111111 I. '
wIN
IF
It
IF
LL
7 , IF, \
j I j 1 �',� u. <`�L., "� nc •"� 4-:�.:S`S � ' � .� it �I{t I'�1,:,.�', `, '� ``\``' ���.\\� � _'..
�\IF i,.
1 —� l 1{' -{t i I+ ,11 It� 11:1
f ,IFFI
:
t!:
�. ICJ I 1 I \
1IF
CL
It p
IF
I � i
J i
�' 7
IF
i y 1 11
Fr
�,
IN I
MEW
11
k i vi,,
ar
l 5 w /
Record of F % ji ngs of Fact by Board of Adju .gent 7`l
The Board of Adjustment for the City of Edmonds finds in the case of
�,- ,,�.��. - f i 1e No. �1-� ' C'r� request for variance at
n
fr ..
—�—^
17r�c the following:
k 1. That notice was given according to Code requirements, and Affidavits attesting to same
are in the file. Sr�;
20. That the foregoing set forth Standards and Criteria each have/have not been met. - 7
3. In addition that
4. Therefore, the request for variance is Denied/Granted, subject to the following special
conditions:
5. Section 12.16.110 "----and if a building permit and/or occupancy inrmi 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. --NOW
5. Decision shall be effective on:
Date
DATED: Chairman, Board of Adjustment
DATA
Date of Application: /.1 -! �` Date of Nearing:
Date of Publication:
/,: , ) oil
j Continuances. -
Date of Posting:
I
Date of Appeal from Decision of the Board: '!!
f.
i
r
tN.
emu....i+h. 'Nr Jf
EXHIBIT 1 ' ,I I
STAFF REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER Y
�.
- 1 1 I. !f f L
FILE #V-.38-80 Fi
HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1980 '
I. RFQUESTED ACTION: Variance to the required side' yard
setback on the north property line
and from the front yard setback on
the south property line
Specifically, from 171�' to 7' on the L L k
north property line and from 25' to 5'
on the south property line
II. APPLICANT/OWNER: Malcolm Jenkins
III. PROPERTY LOCATION: 15730 75th Place West
Edmonds, WA 98020 ,
IV. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The south 45 feet of Lot 7, Block 28
Meadowdale Beach according.to the
plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of
plats, page 38 records of Snohomish
County, WA (together with `that vacated
portion of street located to the west
on and adjoining attached said lot by
Operation of Law.)
V. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. Comprehensive Plan Designation - Low Density Residen ial
t
B. Existing Zoning RS-20
C. Surrounding Zoning - North South East West
RS-20 R- RS O MR
D. Official .Street Map - Proposed Existing j
East 75th Place West 6040'
South-158th.Street S.W. 30' 30'
The Official Street Map indicates that.a 10' dedication is
required along 75th.Place West.
E . Description of Subject Property and Surrounding ' Area ,
The subject property slopes in a stair -step fashion from
east to west. Presently, there is a dilapidated house and
and garage on the eastern plateau. A relatively level
lawn area is located below the house, with the remainder;
of the property sloping downward to the west.
The Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way forms the
western boundary of the subject property, Lwith the unimproved
right-of-way of 1.58th Street S.W. the southern boundary.1.
75th Place West is the eastern boundary.
Development in the area is single family rdsidential'. The
adjacent property to the north is developed with ,a residence
and garage. To the south, the area is all unimproved.
74
1did-
If
s fi
10 I x <4 i YY t '1 t `w'' r v.ME
"If.k -did.iI��'d `'��St{ !. �N t .y..,.�.., s'i���:..<.;,:c..... ... .... ...a ..�...w.:.�.�.,... t rr rjzdiA, �',�"}C£ off ;R
j Z. lU
i F ,f {� z rl 4rFih v,.
:r1 Y ^r° i ° If ti i` >�tFYf`T^Ie�y If I I If
1
/
. i �fari'�t>,tr ti
Sf "�' - .,t J. r ti did
':
i rC 2? Y,uN txi }y,Y;} Ir{y fc ."r
-d I
4 If..t 1l 1{� �rrY FyYI
YldirAI
n 1
. 1 1 %4 I
did I
Staff .Report to.Hearing ExaminerIli ,'` a
Fife #V-38'-80, Hearing Date 2/5/81 "' r,
Page 2 = 1/28/$1 -
Y
i Y
i
F. Conformance to Chapter 20.85.010 -
I ILL
h%Y
1. Special CircumstancesTfih;'.
Special circumstances do exist with the subjIect`. %
property. It is a nonconforming lot as to lot %I
,1.di
width. Code requires 100' for lot width and
Yaf'ddd�
the subject lot has only 45'.:
If If
k 1:.
To compound the problem of nonconforming lot
Awidth is the fact that this lot is also a cor-.IS
ner'lot This means that front yard setback
must be observed from.each right-of-way improved Gt'
;I
or not. The net result is an approximateILL
22' X .140'. building pad.did
r
2 Special Privilege '
The adjacent property to the north is also
a -non -conforming lot and is developed into
a residence and garage. The subject property
has the added burden of being a corner lot. The
granting of these variances will not result
in the granting of special privilege.
3 Comprehensive Plan If I
Development, as a.result of the,approval of the'' '
requested variances, will be consistent with the
Comprehensive. Plan. ;
40 Zoning Ordinance
These variance requests are generally in conformance
With Ithe purposes of this zoning code.
5. Not Detrimental
Idd
The approval o .these variances should not be
injurious to the other properties or improvements
in the vicinity and same zone, nor will the variances
be detrimental to the public, health, safety and
welfare, ;
6. Minimum Variance
The requested variances are the minimum to allow
the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties L.
in the vicinity with the same zoning
VI 0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variance
requests however, the applicant should
be aware: of the following items`:
l) Since no sewers are in this area, a building permit
Y,r
If
IT I
ZI
,If
if
It
..p
.. 1 1
i 4
h 1; c ) r: i.t y j'45 wti ,M si .y, MHy,t=ik,r F
ot� to
to
t istI to _,�4. .....u..}�..,u. ....A It ..ii,-�.=+rm t+ : Vol 7i� r.Sr f*7'r't"W � .Y� —sl.
.. .. m... .._..: _ _ �.�. .... e.,.,... ,
,it r w t tr,r rta to cud tjij.xtSd {A,r.0 4.�,.al �..,
. tl.., o
; otLSN
e 1 t. tySr > J
t1to
I
to
It I
r1 5'yIjor
torI
�,r
o
It
f t <1
+ sIt
+ 4 ri +f
, t 1 .
EXHIBIT i1
r t£
+l
$'t
January 2 6 , 19 81to I
',
x
.. t17+,piif 1%
' 1 1 1 1, 1 1 P."' '' ?
t*k
I to
tY
MEMO TO: Hearing Examiner
Planning Department artment9
tto
FROM: James E. Adams o
City Engineer/Engineering Division ,,;.
SUBJECT: COMMENTS FOR FEBRUARY 5, 1981 HEARING EiCAMINERI to
o
MEETI14G
..
, ;,'.
,,
f to
Engineering Engineering has the following comments to make on those hearings
scheduled for the February 5, 1981 Hearing Examiner meeting:
P-3-8 0 R ON SNARE, "WILLOW RIDGE" Six -lot subdivision lo-
cated at 21015 80th Ave. W. (RS-8)
Engineering Division has no objection to this action.
Engineering.requirements are attached and apply spe-
cifically to the preliminary plat as submitted. Any
change in the plat design may require changes in the
Engineering Requirements. (See attached.)
V-38-80 MALCOM JENKINS Variance from required side and front
hard setback at 15730 75th Pl. W. (RS-20)
Engineering does not object to the variance. However,
there does not appear to belttufficient square footage
on this property to meet the septic tank minimum reI Ito:
-
quirements. Therefore, we would oppose the issuance;
of a Building Permit on the lot.
AP-1-81 RICHARD EKMAN Appeal of decision of approval of
four -lot subdivision at 8726 209th St. S.W. (RS-8)
The comments in Mr. Ekman's appeal request letter of +.
January 19, 1981 are not germane to the Engineering #
requirements.`'
4 E. ADAMS
to I
It
DS/jf
I to
Encl. (1)
A
CIA
;l:,
to
It I
I to
�',
f. -< r 4 il n r rr
71 711:
lip"
prior commitment not to develop this area because of its swampy nature. He ss
was concerned that water would flow across his property, but Mr. Bowman
explained the water restrictor which would retain the water and release it
at the rate it currently flows. y
21016 78th Ave. W. also expressed concern about water, and
Dwight Thomas,
Mr. Bowman explained that provisions of the Drainage Ordinance would require
that water does not leave the site at a rate exceeding the current rate. ;
Mr. Thomas asked why 8" diameter was the size of trees required to be saved
in the setbacks of Lots 3 and 4, and Mr. Bowman explained the City's tree
cutting policy. Mr. Thomas said the trees seemed to be in the center of
the lots and he thought it logical to construct around the trees. He also
questioned the stability of the lots on which fill had been placed and C
whether the rear of the site should remain in open space, just as the J
property to the south had been. After consideration, Mr. Bowman said a
tree -cutting plan could be required on Lots 3 and 4, instead of the require- j
ment stated in paragraph VI.(8) of Exhibit 1. He felt that in view of the (,
concern raised by Mr. Thomas, that would be a good substitution. He also
said a soils report could be required on the lots Mr. Thomas questioned as
to stability. Mr. Long responded that they had done some soil tests and
the result was they will have to extend the foundation footings down 2' to
get to bearing soil.
The hearing was closed. Mr. Driscoll stated that a copy of the findings
will be sent to those who testified, as well as to the involved parties,
and that his decision would be made by February 23, 1981. He noted that
Exhibits 1-8 would be admitted as part of the record.
V-38-80 MALCOLM JENKINS - Variance from required side and front setbacks at 15730
75th )j. W. RS-20)
The variances requ'asted were to reduce the required 17 1/2' side setback on
the north property line to 7', and to reduce the required 25' front setback
on the south property line to 5'. A vicinity map, plot plan, and topographic
map were shown, as well as slides of the property. Surrounding zoning
is RS-20 to the north, south, and east, and MR to the west. A 10' dedication
is required along 75th P1. W. The subject property slopes in a stair -step
fashion from east to west and currently has a dilapidated house and garage
on the eastern plateau. A relatively level lawn area is located below the
house, with the remainder of the property sloping downward to the west.
The Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way is the western boundary of
the property, the unimproved right-of-way of 158th St. S.W. is the southern
boundary, and 75th Pl. W. is the eastern boundary. Development in the area
is single-family, residential, the adjacent property to the north having a
residence and garage, and the area to the south being unimproved. This is
a nonconforming lot as to lot width, the Code requring 100' and the lot
having only 45'. This lot also is a corner lot, so front yard setbacks
must be observed from each right-of-way, improved or not. The result is
that the owner has a building pad of approximately 2 1/2' x 140'. The
adjacent property to the north also is nonconforming and has developed with
a residence and garage, but the subject property has the added burden of
the corner lot requirements. Mr. Bowman said granting of these variances
would not result in the granting of special privilege. Development with
the requested variances would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
the Zoning Code, would not be dtrimental to other properties in the vicinity
or to the public health, safety, and welfare. The requested variances were
considered to be minimum to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Because this area is not
sewered, a building permit cannot be issued until a septic tank, conforming
to Chapter 18.20 of the Community Development Code, is obtained. Dan Smith
indicated that there is a general history in this area of land movement,
landslides, and failing septic systems, and that the City Engineer does not
believe a system can be designed to fit on such a small lot, as it is only
9,000 sq. ft. and slopes drastically to the west. He said the County
health official sets the standards for septic tanks. He noted that they
could apply for vacation of 158th St. S.W. which could add some footage to
their lot. They are over 1/2 mile from the City sewer system to the south.
HEARING EXAMINER MJNUTES
Page 2 - February , 1981
f
Malcolm Jenkins, the applicant, said he concurred with the statements of
the Planning Staff and that he understood the problems with his lot. He
noted that there has been a building moratorium in the area, but at this
time he was only taking the first step to see if he could proceed, prior to
going to any expense. No one else wished to speak.
The hearing was closed, and Mr. Driscoll said a decision would be rendered
by February 23, 1981. He stated that Exhibits 1-6 would be admitted as a
part of the record. Mr. Jenkins asked whether he could get an extension of
the variance, if granted, and if he could not proceed immediately. Mr.
Bowman said there is the possibility that sewers will be in the area in
approximately two years, and he could get extensions on the variance until
that time.
AP-1-81 RICHARD EKMAN - Appeal of decision of.approval of 4-lot subdivision at 8726
209th St. S.W. (RS-8)
The Planning Staff had approved a preliminary 4-lot subdivision for this
property, owned by John Taylor of 9210 Olympic View Dr. The appellant is
the owner of property adjoining the proposed subdivision. His reasons for
appeal were that the following facts were not considered: (1) Negative
impact on a quiet, residential neighborhood by addition of four residential
lots and attendant vehicular traffic. (2) Traffic danger to children who
use 209th Pl. S.W. as a playground. (3) Loss of valuable and unique trees
located in the path of the proposed access. (4) Lack of requirements for
lateral support of elevated yards that adjoin the subject property to the
west. Mr. Bowman stated that when the plats of Tommy Park Addition #3 and
#,4 were developed, a 25' right-of-way was provided between Lots 1 and 9 of
Tommy Park Addition #4 to provide access to the subject property which
otherwise would have been landlocked. The proposed development of the
subject property was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning
Code, and the proposed access conformed to Code requirements. Mr. Bowman
said the estimated number of average vehicle trips per day from the proposed
subdivision would be 28-32, with expected negligible impact on the neighborhood.
He agreed that children sometimes play in streets, but stated that the
primary function of a street is to provide a paved surface for automobile
traffic. The turnaround proposed in the subdivision will cause the loss of
some large trees, but that is the only logical location for the turnaround.
The trees involved are commonly found throughout western Washington --cedar,
alder, and fir. Since the turnaround will be dedicated to the City, Mr.
Bowman said a development plan must be approved prior to construction and
the City Engineer may require lateral support of the elevated yards to the
west in the area of the turnaround. He said the site has a relatively
gentle slope from east to west and most of the large trees on the site are
relatively erect, even on the slopes. A soils plan was required, and he
did not believe there would be drainage problems. He said there is an open
drain line that feeds into this lot and that will be picked up in the
drainage system for the development. Also, topography on Lot 4 is quite
steep and it may have to be accessed from Pioneer Way when it develops. He
said the Planning Division had requested a future development plan before
finalization in order to see whether it is intended that Lot 4 will be
subdivided further. Mr. Driscoll determined by questioning that the only
feasible point of access will be from 209th, and not Pioneer Way. Exhibit
8 consisted of the short subdivision requirements for this proposal, and it
was noted that the applicant had agreed to them. Mr. Bowman recommended
that the appeal be denied in that the proposed subdivision was in compliance
with all City regulations. The hearing was opened to the public.
Mary Ann Ekman, wife of the appellant, and representing him, said some of
their concerns had been addressed, but she was still concerned about the
loss of trees from the driveways, saying they are the natural barriers
between the properties. She said the driveways running north and south to
access Lots 1 and 4 will cause the loss of many old trees. She also stated
that there is a drainage problem from 209th to the ravine in that with any
significant rainfall the water does not drain to the ravine as it should.
She indicated that there is a steep slope on the property immediately
behind her home and those to south and if all the trees and shrubbery are
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
Page 3 - February 5, 1981
i
ty
' - 'y 1 , \y ✓ Lai`} ».
//3
t
FINDINGS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE
CITY OF EDMONDS
<,4
}if �I: r a
x„
y
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPL CATION OF FILE NUMBER: HE 81-jT-.01
MALCOLM JENKINS FOR APPRO AL OF A r\
VARIANCE
n.
DECISION: The application for a variance as submitted
by Malcolm Jenkins is granted.
tr`ri
J
INTRODUCTION
Malcolm Jenkins, Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter called Applicant,
has requested approval of a variance from the sideyard setback
requirements for property located at 15730 75th Place West,
Edmonds, Washington, and more particularly described as:
The South 45 feet of Lot 7, Block 28, Meadowdale Beach
according to the pla thereof recorded in volume 5 of plats,
page 38, records of Snohomish County, Washington (together with
that vacated portion of street located to the West on and
adjoining attached sa d lot by operation of law.)
The above described property is zoned RS-20. This zoning 4
designation is established by the City of Edmonds Community
Development Code. A hearing on the request for the variance was
held before the Hearin ' Examiner of the City of Edmonds, on
December 17, 1980. The f llowing presented testimony:
Duane owman
Planni g Department
Edmond , WA
Don Sm'th
Public Works Department
City o Edmonds
Malcol
Edmond
The Following exhibits w
Jenkins
, WA (Applicant)
r
e presented and admitted at the hearings
CITY'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 - Staff Report
Exhibit 2 - Copy of January 26, 1981 (engineering memo)
Exhibit 3 - Application
Exhibit 4 - Vicinity Maps/Plot Plan €-
Exhibit 5 - Topographical Maps;
Exhibit 6 - List of Adjacent Property Owners
E:
Afer due consideration o 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.
ORIGINALt l
a
s r
p. s
i ]Il
_ ( l till li
Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
1
Fide Number: HE- 81-V-01
Page 2 t
F D NGS Q FACT a
k
;
1. The Applicant has requested approval of a variance from the
sideyard setback requirements on the North property line and
from the frontyard setbacks on the South property line for
property located at 15730 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington,
and more particularly described as set forth above.
2. Zoning for the above described land is RS-20 as establishedin
the Edmonds Community Development Code.
3. The comprehensive plan designation for the subject property is
low -density residential.
4. The specific variance request is for a reduction of the
sideyard setbacks on the North property line from 17 1/2 feet
to 7 feet and a reduction of the sideyard setback on the South
property line from 25 feet to 5 feet.
5. The subject property slopes from East to West. Property
consists of tiers of that correspond with the slope.
1.
6. The subject property is bordered on the West by the Burlington
Northern right-of-way line; on the East by the 75th Place West
on the South by the unimproved right-of-way of 158th Street
Southwest; and by private property to the North.
7. The adjacent property to the North is developed with a residen
and a garage. The adjacent property to the South is
unimproved. Because of the right-of-ways for the street and j
railroad there is no development to the West and East.
Presently on the subject property there is a house and a garage
on the eastern plateau of the property. These two structures
are in a dilapidated state,
8. The subject property is an extremely narrow piece of property i
that does not meet the code requirements of a 1.00 foot lot
width and in fact is only 45 feet wide. Thus, it is imperative
for the Applicant to secure a variance in order to develop the
IL
property in any manner.
9 In addition to the extreme narrowness of the lot, the subject. 1.
property is also a corner lot which necessitates frontyard j
setbacks being observed from all right-of-ways. As a result of
these setbacks and the current width of the property, the lot
under the code requirements allows for construction on a 2 1/2
foot by 140 building pad.
10. Chapter 20.85 of the Community Development Code of the City of
Edmonds sets forth the requirements for the issuance of the 44
variances. The burden is upon the Applicant to show the
special circumstances relating to the property; the lack of any
special privelege accorded the Applicant for the variance; the
consistency of the request with the comprehensive plan; the
consistency of the variance with the Zoning Codes; the fact
that the variance would not be detrimental to the community;
and the fact that the variance is the minimum needed to allow
the rightful enjoyment of property.
VIAWto
} of
.o , i iG
,: ito
of
i 1
Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner tx'
of the City of Edmonds 'j
b f,
File Number: HE-81-V-01L k i
Pa g e 3 r IX;
11. Because of the extreme narrowness of the existing `property_ and4t .
because of the required frontyard setbacks from the rgnt-of.=<
way lines, special circumstances do exist on the subject '
property necessitating a variance. Without a variance the, o
t'.
subject property could not be improved because of the extreme
limited building area.
12. The variance from the sideyard setbacks and frontyard setbacks
on the subject property would not be a special privilege`or
accorded to the Applicant. The adjacent property to the North
is a nonconforming lot and has been developed into a resa:d;erce'too
and garage. This property could be developed in a similar (',
manner.
13. Development as a result of an approval of the requested +
variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan of the E
City of Edmonds.
14. The requested variance would be in conformance with the zoning
ordinances of the. City of Edmonds.
15. The granting of the requested variance would not be detrimental
to the public health. and safety and welfare of the communit Y•
16. The requested variance is the only reasonable method of
creating a lot that can be developed.
17. The planning staff of the City of Edmonds recommended approval..`
of the variance but made the following comments with their
recommendation:
1. Since no sewers are in this area, a building permit;,
cannot be issued on the property until a septic tank,
conforming to Chapter 18.20 is obtained. As outlined
in the memo from the Engineering Department, Exhibit
2, this may not be possible.
2. Subject property is in an environmentally sensitive
area due to slope conditions. At the time of the
building permit application, a complete assessment
will be needed.
3. As per the Official Street Map, a 10 foot dedication
is required along 75th Place West prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
18. The Public Works Department of the City of Edmonds stated no
objection to the variance. They did add comments:
There does not appear to be sufficient square footage on
this property to meet the septic tank requirements..
Therefore we would oppose the issuance of a building
permit on the lot.
19. The Applicant testified in support of the recommendations of
the Planning Department.
20. When asked if he completely understood the comments submitted
with the Planning Department's recommendation the Applicant
�y
l J
Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner L"k'
of the City of Edmonds
File Number: HE-81-V-01
Page 4 r
''rr
tesified that he did. He was aware that by acquiring :the'
variance would not necessarily allow him the right to get .,a
building permit. Instead the Applicant testified :that`; the. I.
acquisition of the variance was the first step in eventually =tt
developing the property and that he would concern himself with
the building permit at a later date.
21, There was no opposition testimony to the application.
LL
�.
L�
CONCLUSIONS -}
l
1, The application is for an approval of a. request for variance
from the required sideyard setbacks on the North property line
and from the frontyard setbacks on the South property line of
property located at 15730 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington,
and as more particularly described as set forth above.
2. The specific request is for a reduction of the sideyard
setbacks on the North property line from 17 1/2 feet to 7 feet
and for a reduction of the frontyard setbacks on the South
property line form 25 feet to 5 feet.
3. The zoning classification of the subject property is RS-20 and
the comprehensive plan designation of the subject property, is i
low density residential.'
4. Section 20.85.010 sets forth when a variance can be approved in
the City of Edmonds. This section reads as follows:
No variance may be approved unless . all of the findings in this
section can be made.
1. Special circumstances include the size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings of the property, }
public necessity_ as of public structures and uses as
set forth in Section 17.000.030 and environmental
factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and
wildlife habitats.
2. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon
any factor personal to the owner such as age or
disability, extra expense which may be necessary to !
comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to
secure a scenic view, the ability to make more
profitable use of the property, nor any factor
resulting from the action of the owner or anypast
owner of the same property,
B, ape__ ciao. Priy_il Zg That 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, Comprehansive Plan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Y,
..of
14.
Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examinerf to
forr ' Xf
14
{•
l
of the City of Edmonds
File Number: HE-81-V-01`Ss`
Page 5„r
rr
D. 7onina Qrdinance. That the approval, of the variance ;.will r',�1
be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance
and the zone district in which the property is located: '
�r
E. Not Detrimental.. That 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 .
t5 .'-
and same zone.
F. Minimum Variances That the approved variance is the
minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by
other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.ILI
5. The Applicant has met the burden of proof by showing that the
requirements as set forth in section 20.85*010 are satisfied, `
6. The granting of a variance does not necessitate the granting of r.
a building permit. If the Applicant is to secure a building
permit he must meet all the code requirements and those set
forth by the Planning Department and the Public Works I
Department. r.
7. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds and the Public
Works Department of the City of Edmonds, did not object to the ;ILI
issuance of the variance request.
8. The Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds has authority to
make decisions on variance requests pursuant to section
209100*010 B.2. L L
A
Using the above findings and conclusions as the basis of the
decision, the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds hereby orders
that the variance requested by Malcolm Jenkins for a reduction of
the required sideyard setbacks on the North property line and the
frontyard setbacks on the South property line on property located
at 15730 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington, and more
particularly described as set forth in the introduction of this
document, is as follows:
The sideyard setbacks on the North property line of the subject
property shall be reduced from 17 1/2 feet to 7 feet and the
frontyard setbacks on the South property line of the subject
property shall be reduced from 25 feet to 5 feet.
By the granting of this variance the Applicant of the subject
property does not secure a building permit. In order to obtain
a building permit the Applicant must conform: with all the
requirements of the City of Edmonds Code, laws of the -State of
Washington and other reasonable requirements as established by
the staff of the various departments of the City of Edmonds.
These variances are granted because it has been shown
meet the criteria as set forth in 20.85.010 of the
Community Development Codes
that they
Edmonds
1
s +
N
l+ r
21,
17
Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner L. L.x `
of the City of Edmonds
Fife Number : HE-81-V-011 0 1 1 1 1 1 r I I I I IdAbh;
w`
Page 6
t;i j11r 1
Further, there appears to be no conflict with the existing goalsLL.`,
policies, plans and standards of the City of Edmonds as set forth,
in the Edmonds Community De elopment Code.
K lie-
Entered this day of r .� , 1981 pursuant;
to the authority granted the Hearing Examiner under section ;ryr
20.100.010 B.2. of the Community Development. Code of -the City of )x
L. Edmonds, Washington.
III ILI
- - :'i N;
t
f®r
J ES M. DRISCO L
Baring Examiner
NOT E OF R T APPE
Pursuant to section 20.100.010 B. Edmonds Community Development
Code, written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other:'
grounds for appeal may be filed with the Department of Planning and
Community Developments within fourteen • (14) days of the date of the
Hearin Examiner's final action. In this matter, n ap eal must
g
be received by the Department prior to 5:00 p.m.
1981.
:
ILI
L.;. .
'(,
I IL
;i
• �i
(
� .,,, � .. ..�_. i. .. ,. .. r. „� 'e, ._� .�. ...,.. �. „�._
I�
:. r r.. e r .. . r.. �I. r.. �. � h. Sv:. t.. r \{- T.! ,L Pt .lr1`J.21.1 H
ff�f�y,(ja.
it
..1 w.,i�+. +.:...4 ....r.•..r-r.w�........ +.�...wu:.4 a-c L �' tAN. BlC�rs �tti 151uYMMVI ro�Ft +ik •• n i��,
?t.N•�C.+ Mc. uf, .t.w, .y....:. t !„c.. i:.r,. t'.k. .l?. f _,fJ ...� ,� ,• °i ) 1 - ��M•�++wi�� tQ` Y�����tudxv r.• ':'�'T� � d � ",F`;r
G }
a � it x:fsj 4T ,
y:�5 X - .� yt• xa�. .. nyAlk Al� iA
' �:i • i i I y 3 { t ,�ty,
' S, e t 7 S\ ��, r ♦t f
f�
rr
1,
�lr<
t, G N2r , , t.
t 4S t�
r i },,
a ,
Zj !
THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING
YsY ;
DETERMINATION:
f
..TOrG.RANT AN EXTENSION OF APPROVAL OF VARIANCES FROM REQUIRED•}`
yl
SIDE AND FRONTYARD SETBACKS, THIS DECISION WILL BECOME FINALpjL
1 frd} a °�• •'. • • • • • . • . • •'• • • • • •. . . . • • • • • • • • .
ON MARCH 2, I982 -UNLESS A FORMAL WRITTEN APPEALS STATIryG REASONS
,f �� . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . .
67 ^�t
i •LYe-tfi�Y(�" is _ ..
.r .� WHY THE ,EXTENSION• 'SHOULD NOT, BEGRANTED,• I S , F T LEA, W I TFj THE. PI-AN.�ILNG :'.. .
)1 „
DEPARTMENT BY MARCH 2 1982,
... ..
<� ,
PROPERTY ADDRESS OR DESCRIPTION: .1.5730. 75TH .PI.AGE. WEST. • • • . • • .
1,
FILE # ..V-aS-80... POSTED .. ' 26 11,-$?
ANY PERSON WISHING TO APPEAL THIS DECISION MUST_ DO SO IN WRITING, CITING
REASONS, TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY MARCH 2, 1932 (10 DAYS
FROM POSTING DATE)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. AT 505 `
BELL STREET. (775-2525)
THIS -POSTER MAY BE REMOVED AFTER
The removal, mutilation, destruction, or
Nconcealment of this notice prior to the
date above is a misdemeanor punishable byA R N I .
19 fine and imprisonment.
:
t �,
74
-1
E
dI
e
THE
PROPERTY ADDRESS AND LOCATION
ZONE DISTRICT
WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING
19 ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION.
THE HEARING WILL BEGIN AT 70 looM. , IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS
OF THE EDMONDS CIVIC CENTER, 250 FIFTH AVENUE NORTH.
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 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
505 BELL STREET,
EDMONDS
(PHONE
775-2525, EXT.
227).
Pill Fill III 111 11 1111111 Fill IIIIIII I I I I... IIIIII I
. . `i: �, :i . ,'.i :" t Y t',r i `
r rr„k
.:. i ,. .. ` , ` ) >.' ...011, .,. „,xf..�.'., ti i..«,a .,uY.,� 1Lk.k'e`v fa �i'$idl1 + `44Y t Ie y
I ^� ` 0 e y 1
yti a t2t d,y�4
ct, irr 4 ?1b j2J'M1 �L1 2^A t �ft
lr 1 , 'l 1"'r
i M1, ` .t M1 <
r f Y -NJC�77 ItF4.
gym.. .A LK yj,�Y,
-
�Affidav�t of Publication i '
r �,
J
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ss ,
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISiI, 1
7
} rv6t Ot Cey F 40- The undersigned; being first duly sworn on oath deposes and".says
Ad 1.' EfiR1 G
Y€}�hMExt+nhiNe►���,h that she is Principal Clerk of the EVERETT HERALD, a daily news'
�`er'gt�y�'pf`i e�d�fbdl paper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snoho-' #,
h�sat�odJ.:, t
3 1b n+ticafe6ili���q" mish, .and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a' newspaper"
lGyaQh �GY:iSrbt�'iE,d�rd
twrfaiaTr1r,anq rIt Z1147
, of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper'
F pasd r brtaeandcM}�rf►oin re
gGllt�23tr�E�ard has been approved as a legal newspaper .by order Of the Superior
setbft k C �1hC) pYoge( afro. y .
ti
cgted g c}1 ]3I30 ,15th� Ploce, Court of Snohomish County, and that the notice 4
t Wesf yM A pnr\ ' Y(,
v 5oi¢ earl 4 wlllq�€�wt
ai�h ACOJj1CII: T '
rzj
h07 ICE OF PUBLIC BEAD I
�hdQ �h � p 'ivtbc sdni .1 ................ 1................... ...... NG...._...
rk, ehd be f u +tee aslt 9 -
it ,, *eiyrl0-
f
ri
yrCillSr�M1L1Cfki�S 10L ✓qr �` i!' ..._ .. ........ ...... .. _
1
s. City,o =L,r dmor�d5',u s 5
IkcE. NO :V 38 8Q L A.
i�Qbllshedt;Jbh4< 19ca9B}.
.... .
a printed copy of which is hereunto 'attached, was published in said
newspaper: proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and
entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely:
JA ;. 19, 1961 �.
It
.......... ... ......�
and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers JL IT
during all of said period, L L I L j
f
.......... .............. ... ......... ........ .. ................ ,Il
:.. Principal Clerk t, t{a
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
20th .....'
JAAUARY E1
19y of .......:... _ G
...
It ...... ...................
Notary u is in and for the State af' Washington,
resi b Everett, Snohomish County.L
L L1
1
- i
I
I
B-2-1
;i
1
-4 s
. , . ..... a .. .. ... .. :. ... .... , ... .r !.. ..a. .:..... ,, .,.