1592 9TH AVE N (2).pdfAl &
l W`
hi CITY OF EDMONDS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
Y,
FI` ': # -Asp �?
DATE 1
FEE
RECT # 1
APO'S
CV
HEARING DATE:
APPLICANT J044 ( 14, jt5ti1S'Enl ADDRESS )act 2- AVE' Mica,-t(+
CITY &ZIP pnn nrJn t L//� 9,PD PHONE
INDICATE TYPE OR DEGREE OF INTEREST IN PROPERTY uJAIEI�!-.— O Gc�PP�lJT
LOCATION OR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY
Sy O�
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY - A�1. 7/�T �/D�'TiaO✓ 0 �- � � � t
2_ -7 /✓/ P 116 E -3 €/{ ! � ,V . M . /� 5 �v c t o c,c35 � C' oM NMFNC/it/ G
o /N O /V G -L ;' E-41e' / 0 ✓ 10<
„EpMp
�T .
VARIANCE REQUESTED: - '}
c4 AtZ P a RT N D .4 D p I -nip ni TO
fi
Ill ES � i2 S L�A &
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY '
USE ZONE: S= l 2-
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT :
rn
STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH)
r t��
Signature of Applicant,Owner, or
Representative
On this date, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public i �dor h1 t.A
of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared
who, being duly sworn, on his/h=P oath deposes and says that .{W a has prepared
and read the attached statements and has acknowledged to me that the recititations d.
contained therein are true, and has signed this instrument as his/ham free and
voluntary act and deed for the purposes there n,_mentioned.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 19.
Notary Public in and for the St to of Washington
Y-n W,;-A�
DECLARATIONS OF APPLICANT
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?
YtbUSE AND Clk2PD ?' "'EQ� Ba)L.T 1N�,i6 eZ AND
S ET R 1< < A- PtP^2 nLsl�`t' AD of OT C_o
Al T Go D C. 5
2. How does your property differ from other property in the same
vicinity?
h%f'4 VC
a
5.Irz
3. Will this variance be detrimental to the public or damaging to
other property or improvements in -the vicinity?
MWIA A•ITVU�,i ► • , i
_ r
�. 4. What hardships will result to you.if the variance is not granted?
-:y
Will these hardships have been caused by your own action?
I LC
5. Can you make reasonable use of your property without the variance?
PR C'rIC_I4qL__Y M r4aic
X
S.
j Record of Findings of Fact by Board of Adjus.,ent
The Board of Adjustmen
t for the City of Edmonds finds in the case of 0%
File
No. U'L�; 0- . request for variance at
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 that
fore the request for variance is Denied/Granted, subject to the following special
�'.
4. There l a
conditions:
li.
permit
i s not' obtained
perm and/or occupancy C
5. Section 12.16.110 "-'--and if a building p of the con-
e da
far Lhe subje t _property within one year frommthi al le nullhand voids_�ecision,
ditional use permit or variance shall be auto
6. Decision shall be effective on: U e r4,;
3w
DATED: C airman, oard ANUS
DATA
Date of Application:_ -(S
Date of Hearing:
Date of Publication:
Conti nuances • .1
Date of Posting:
Date of Appeal from Decision of the Board:
1
4e"cre@rY_,=-=fONr ustment
r
t
t
UA
TV
rt!
t
g
..
lllttt
5�:.
.
'
/-ZAl S�
ley �,�,
/✓�l!
1� �_S'
E
t/O w xe- s,
!
r
T —
Olw dNvS
�.
tti
�
1
7'
ADM 0A/D
.�
a�t
"AN
4,1
%
'1
�►/, �" 1��•� d NHS
u�A
t
:t
! 1 `
to
! r,
I !
fy
1
tp
1
/!
A
1
�y
i
1
- .. •
•
1
till
�
Y.
f:
I
r
`.1
...
t
1
1
NOTICE OF IIEARING PETITION
FOR VARIANCE - >$gDt.iDjjjRDJR9Xl4RKXRRRMff
BY EDMONDS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FILE NO: V-50-79
PUBLISH: 7-2; 79
t
M !
STATE OF WASHINGTON, u.
COUNTY OF SNOH0bUSH'
8-2-1
Affidavit of Publication
The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says
that she is Principal Clerk of the EVERETT HERALD, a daily news-
paper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of.Snoho-
mish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaP4..r
of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper
has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior
Court of Snohomish County, and that the notice ....................................
... NOTICE ... OF ... HEARING.............................................................................. . ...
................................ .......................................................................................... . .. . .....
E
... . ................................................................................ ............................. . .................
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:
JULY 2, 1979
............................................................................................................................... . .....
... . .......... Z .......................................................................................................... . .......
and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers
during all of said period.
..................
........................................................ f�� ....... ...............Principal
Principal Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ...... 3K4_ .........
?,
dayof ............................................. JU.LY ....... 1921
.... . . ........... ............. ... .. ... .... .. ..... . ... . .... 2 ........ . .....
otary Public in and for the State of Washington,
residing at Everett, Snohomish County.
--y
FILE NO. V-50-79__--�
APPLICANT John Christensen
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
I
t:
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington residing at ._
r
i
{
r
•`
h
r�
�i
E
P�
fl
July 11, 1979
MEMO TO: Board of Adjustment Members
FROM: Nancy Edgmon Luster
Associate City Planner -
1
CITY OF EDMONDS
CIVIC CENTER • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 775.2525
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: September 7, 1979
BOARD'OF ADJUSTMENT
August 15, 1979
A
The regular meeting of the Edmonds Board of Adjustment was called to order by Acting
Chairman Paul Roy at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center.
PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Paul Roy Alice Stole Richard Pearson, Asst. City Planner
Jack Byrd Mary Lou Block, Asst. City Planner
Muryl Medina John Wallace, City Attorney
Ann Derleth Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
Harold Hatzenbuhler
Bill Leraas
Chairman Roy welcomed the audience and explained the functions of the Board, the pro-
cedure for handling of the hearings, and the method of appealing decisions of the
i
Board.
f APPROVAL OF MINUTES
I
Minutes of the July 18, 1979 meeting had been distributed. MR. HATZENBUHLER MOVED,
SECONDED BY MR. LERAAS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 18, 1979. MOTION CARRIED.
Ms. Block advised the Board of Nancy Luster's resignation from the Staff, and she
introduced Richard Pearson who was to present the agenda.
Ms. Block advised that V-54-79 was placed on this evening's agenda by mistake and
will be heard next month.
CONTINUED AGENDA
I
Vr50-79 JOHN CHRISTENSEN - Variance from required rear yard setback at 1592,9th-
Ave
13T
This application was to enclose a carport which is located within the rear
yard setback. It is 15' from'the rear lot line instead of the required
25'.. Mr. Pearson recommended approval because it was a minimum variance to
allow the applicant to enclose an existing carport, it would not obstruct
views or impair traffic in the area, and it would not invade existing
setbacks more than the existing house and carport. The public portion of
the hearing was opened. Mrs. John Christensen said the lot had been
surveyed to determine the property lines as there had been a question on
one of the side property lines. She said the carport had existed since the
house was constructed and they had not been the original builders of the
house. Dean Shepherd of 112 3rd Ave. S., attorney representing Mr. and
Mrs. Paul Weaver of 1560 9th Ave. N., the abutting property owners to the
south, asked for another continuance of this matter because he said the
a property line question had not yet been settled in a binding way. He said
' there were some questions regarding the actual line markers and, although
his clients did not object to the granting of the variance to enclose the
carportthey wished to have the property line correctly determined before
the variance was granted. Mrs. Christensen agreed to another continuance.
The public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Hatzenbuhler noted that
? if they did not know the correct boundary line they could not know how much
i of a variance was being requested. MR. HATZENBUHLER THEN MOVED, SECONDED
i BY MR. LERAAS, TO CONTINUE V-50-79 TO SEPTEMBER 19, 1979. MOTION CARRIED.
V-53-79 STEPHEN SULLIVAN - Variance from required front yard setback at the north
side of 175tFTT. S.W. and the west side of 72nd Ave. W.
The applicant had been asked to provide more information and he provided an
updated plot plan together with elevations and section drawings. He said
the lot has severe topographic changes and he was trying to minimize the
impact on it. He said the house will be lower than all three of those on
abutting lots. The back of the house will be built into the hill and the
51
and it was not known if there was another solution. Mr. Leraas observed
that this was not a minimum variance but the homeowners were being jeopardized
and could not sell their properties because of the situation. Mrs. Derleth
felt if the City Engineer had some alternative he should have specified it.
She noted that the applicant had improved the approach to the problems and
obviously had done a good amount of work on this. The public portion of
the hearing again was opened so the Board could ask questions of the applicant.
He was asked how many of the units currently were occupied. Gordon Neill,
the homeowners' association President, responded that 21 of the 22 were
occupied and the owner of the unoccupied unit now lived elsewhere but could
not sell his unit. He was asked if the present homeowners were experiencing
problems in parking, and Mr. Neill responded that it varied, the greatest
problems existing when several families have visitors at the same time, but
as a rule the parking generally was adequate. The public portion of the
hearing again was closed. MRS. MEDINA THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. HATZENBUHLER,
THAT V-37-79 BE APPROVED AND THAT THE DEVELOPER MEET CITY ENGINEERING
REQUIREMENTS IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS. MOTION CARRIED, WITH MR. LERAAS VOTING
NO.
AGENDA
Ms. Luster advised that V-48-79 had been withdrawn and that the applicant in V-50-79
Chad HAIRMANeSTOLE, TOntinuance util CONTINUE Vn50-79uUNTILust 1AUGUST915,M1979DERMOTIONTH �CARRIEDCONDED BY
V-49-79 DELBERT FRIZZELL - Variance from required sideyard setback at 8023 218th
St. S.W. M-8)
The applicant wished to build a roof over an existing steel shed which
leaked and which had been placed on a concrete slab 3 from the side property
line. The roof would be on separate support beams and be separate from the
shed. A new roof could be constructed as part of the nonconforming structure
without a variance as 25% of the assessed value can be improved per year,
but the proposed structure would be separate from the shed and considered a
new structure. The applicant had indicated that at a later date he may
enclose the new structure. The property had no unique features which would
preclude relocating the shed. The side yard setback requirement was 7.5'.
Ms. Luster felt the best solution to the problem would be to reroof the
structure, but the applicant did not wish to do that. Ms. Luster recommended
denial because this was not a minimum variance, it would create a new
nonconforming structure on the property, improvements to the shed could be
made without a variance, and because there were no unique features on the
site or of the shed which would make this variance necessary. She showed a
site plan and noted that access is by a private easement. The public
portion of the hearing was opened. The applicant said the steel shed had
rusted from the leaking roof and he did not think it was strong enough to
support a new roof. He said he did not really wish to enclose it but if he
continued to get water in it then he would. He said he had discussed his
plan with his neighbors to the south and they did not object. Several
suggestions for remedy were made to him; i.e., to move it the required
distance and pour a new slab, to have some metal brackets made to reinforce
the building, to fasten corrugated sheet metal or fiberglas to the roof.
He felt it would spoil his back yard to move the structure and he did not
find the other suggestions acceptable. The public portion of the hearing
was closed. Mrs. Derleth felt this was not a minimum variance because
there were options for repairing the roof and controlling the leaking
without a new structure. She felt if a new structure were built, it should
have the appropriate setbacks. Mrs. Medina advised the applicant that the
Board must follow certain criteria, one of which is that the proposal must
be a minimum variance, and this was not a minimum variance so she could not
vote in favor of it. She advised him that it would be best if he would
work within the requirements and that he get a building permit before
starting. Mr. Roy was sympathetic but advised the applicant that they
could not approve his proposal and adhere to the variance criteria. He
added that if he were a neighbor he would protest because he would not want
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Page 3 - July 18, 1979
PLANNER'S' VARIANCE REVIEW FORM FILE # V-:! CQ
APPLICANT: jon &u Chr('Ste/v s4.,u
ADDRESS: I Sq a q D �c�e, /y . ZONING:
�j VARIANCE REQUESTED: -wpmy-eQu ,red re— -Qa aem S2±bAC `
I ex Av
ZONING CODE REQUI EMENT:
R
i
OTHER PERTINENT FACTS: %h,�,p
G .
VARIANCE CRITERIA - Section 12-16.100
1. Does this amount to a rezone?'-Y)p
2.(a) Are there conditions and/or circumstances not generally applic ble to other
1 ands i n the same di stri ct? � V 0-nAPO O�c�.. �kZ1,, �'� aA-Q,Ql
(b) Would str ct enforcement of the zoning code deprive the property owner, of -rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district?_T)-k-o C
L
0 nm 1'� Q_,b &nA--4 i� �-i A t rv� C,�i .O�Gt -�tC7
3. Do the special conditions result from the actions of the applicant?
110 c vLu a-�upixo - t m -�
4. Are there unnecessary hardships and practical difficulties in carry ng, out the
provisions of the zoning code? 6c C, t / ,!c
5. Will the granting of the variance be
of property owners in the vicinity?_
ty,_or welfare
v v-
6. Is this the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of land?
7. Will the granting of the variance generally be in harmony anacompatidie witn tnis
zoning code? �, a aA l�.y, �_ 9J� C J, -u %�'-
Planner's Variance Review 12/77
J APPLICAlA i
i
HEARING
T-ACEEI
FILE I.' V - SQ' )a
Z)
ON
CITY OF EOMON®S
CIVIC CENTER • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 9E020 • (206) 775-2525
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: October 9, 1979
TO: John Christensen
1592 9th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
TRANSMITTING: Board of Adjustment Minutes
RE: V-50-.79
H'ARVE N. NARRISON
MAYOR
PLANNING DIVISION
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
September 19, 1979
led to order
Acl
ChairrmanlPauleRoynat 7:30ep.m. inEdmondsthe Council Board of dCha Chambers ofjustment sthe lEdm Edmonds civicbCenti
PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Paul Roy Alice Stole Richard Pearson, Asst. City P1
Jack Byrd Bill Leraas Jim Adams, City Engineer
Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney
Muryl Medina
Ann Derleth Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Cl
Harold Hatzenbuhler
ng
Chairman Roy welcomed the audience and explained the functions of the Board, the pro-
cedure for handling of the hearings, and the method of appealing decisions of the
Board.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the August 15, 1979 meeting had been distributed. MR. BYRD MOVED, SI
BY MR. HATZENBUHLER, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 1979. MOTION CARRIED
CONTINUED AGENDA
V-50-79; JOHN CHRISTENSEN - Variance from required rear yard setback at 1592 9 h
This item had been continued twice. The Staff had recommended approval.
The last continuance was at the request of the neighbors in order to settle
a question of a lot line.. The public portion of the hearing was ope�ed.
The applicant said the survey had been redrawn during the past month and
the boundary was approximately 6' from the carport, resulting in the need
for a 18 1/2' variance. None of the previous opponents spoke. The public
portion of the hearing was closed. Chairman Roy commented that the carport
is existing and the desire was to enclose it to make a garage. He f It
this would be beneficial to the neighborhood as it would tend to be ess
unsightly when enclosed. Mrs. Derleth noted -that on the property to the
south the house is some distance from the property line so open spat
exists. Therefore, she felt the application would not be detrimenta to
the neighborhood. Mr. Hatzenbuhler had no objection
now
othatBY theATZ cific.
variance amount was named. MRS. DERLETH MSECONDED
OVED,
TO APPROVE V-50-79 ON THE BASIS THAT IT WOULD 'NOTBE DETRIMENTAL TO IT WOULD BE EN HE'
NEIGHBORHOOD, IT WAS A MINIMUM VARIANCE REQUEST,AND
OSING
AN AREA THAT ALREADY EXISTED AS A CARPORT. MOTION CARRIED.
V-57-79 KENNETH OLSEN - Variance to exceed square footage for accessory s
atPine St. (RS-6)
This item had been continued from the previous meeting because the pplicant
had been out of town. He wished to construct a carport to shelter collection
of old automobiles, and that would create more than the allowed 1,010 sq. ft.
of accessory building area. No special conditions existed on the p operty
to warrant the variance, other than the collection of old cars whicl could
be moved. Mr. Pearson stated that strict enforcement of the Code would not
deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by others in the neighborh000d, and
to allow additional accessory structures would be detrimental. The variance
was not needed to make reasonable use of the property. Mr. Pearson said
there were 5-6 cars on the property which appeared to be inoperabl , in
violation of an ordinance requiring that they be stored within a building.
He showed slides taken at the site which demonstrated the unsightliness of
the inoperable cars, and he said if this were to be approved he wo ld
that
noeoutside storagelofecar partsooreinopera leisual