Loading...
18510 OLYMPIC VIEW DR (2).pdfDATE EXHIBIT 2 CITY OF EDMONDS FEE HEARING EXAMINER � RECT APPLICATION TrATTM FOR VARIANCE APO'S_ HEARING DATE: APPLICANT- ADDRESS_ PHONE_ 7 -%/- CITY & ZIP. INDICATE TYPE OR DEGREE OF INTEREST IN PROPERTY LOCATION OR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY _���&< LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY VARIANCE REQUESTED, CW VIA M(F' oq o6m LA 7ri' 1 t3 e6v t v ep NO*OR 6iFF W USE ONLY: ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: is Re'­'n/'4n1t2 Harmless Agreement undersigned applicant, his heirs and assigns, in consideration for The indemnify, defend and the City processing the application agrees to release, hold the City of Edmonds.harmless from any and all damages and/or claims for including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from any action e damages,lse, misleading or incomplet s based in whole or in part upon fa or inaction i or employees. information furnished by the applicant, his agents Permission to Enterect Property The undersigned applicant grants his, her or its permission for public ct prov officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subje for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to t Is a ication.erty Owner r <S�kgna,ture o7,,AP1vjJL Representa y4 EXHIBIT 2 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? A r- 2. How does your property differ from other property in the same vicinity? 3. will this variance be detrimental to the public or damaging to other property or improvements in the vicinity? /y 4. What hardships will result to you if the variance is not granted? Will these hardships have been caused by your own action? 5. Can you make reasonable use of your property without the variance?? r/ r c i t r s i (# if �.!'%� 1>.�,�j�� ,tea^/�_ �})✓� Y'lt��'�� j� J ,✓vt Cr / f� .,i 4 k i EXHIBIT 3 PARCEL A: Southeasterly 60 feet of Lot 14, Rlock O'B", Edmonds Sea View Tracts,= according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 3 of Plats, page 76, records of the Auditor of the County of Snohomish, State of Washington, as treasured along the Southwesterly line of said lot; EXCEPT therefrom the following described parcel: .. ........ Beginnings at the original `Northeast corner of said Tract 14; thence North 39 15'23" West along the North line thereof 69.45 feet; thence South 43°38' East 54.57 feet, more or less, to the Easterly line of Tract 14; thence North 39*73107" East along the Eastlery line 50 feet to the Northeast corner and the point of beginning. ALSO EXCEPT any portion lying within Edmonds Beverly Park County Road,' - survey No. 640. PARCEL B: That portion of Lot 8, 'Block C, Edmonds Sea View Tracts, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 3 of Plats, page 76, records of the Auditor of the County of Snohomish, State of Washington, West of Olympic' View Drive and that vacated portion of Sound View Place adjoining said Lot 3, Block C, Edmonds Sea View Tracts. PARCEL C An easement for ingress and egress over that portion of said Lot 149 Block "B", Edmonds Sea View Tracts, EXCEPT the Southeasterly 60 feet t`.:ereof described as follows: ! f� Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of said Tract 14; thence running South 89015123" East along the North line of said tract 102.56 j feet; thence South 39°28•0711West parallel to the Westerly line and�80 feet at right angles thereto 13.83 feet to the true point of beginning;" thence continuing South 39s28.07" Kest 41.88 feet; thence ?forth 4*0Z! - - West 3T.A3 feet; thence South '18S°S8' East 24.59 feet to the true point of beginning. 7T FILE NO. V-31-81 f APPLICANT__E,H. Taylor j AFFIDAVIT OF POSTER STATE OF`WASHINGTON } I 1 COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH i Duane Bowman being first duly sworn, }' on oath deposes and says:' l That on the p,- D tN day of Vt�( , 19the ` attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted as prescribed by Ordinance,` and In any event, in the Post Office and Civic Center, and where applic- able, on or near the subject property: Signed Subscribed and sworn to before me this day ofc.��u yam' 19 c Notary Public in and for the State of Washington residing at is ti NOTICE OF PUBLIC THE HEARING EXAMINER WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING THURSDAY JANUARY 21 19 82 , ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO..��--------- VARIANCE TO ALLOW INFLATABLE POOL COVER FROM OCTOBER TO MAY WITHIN REQUIRED 10' SIDEYARD SETBACK. PROPERTY ADDRESS AND LOCATION i P C VIEW D V ZONE DISTRICT RS-12 THE HEARING WILL BEGIN AT 7 : 30 P.M., , 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 NISFORMAT ON NEEDED, THE DATE IOF THE CONTINUED NG BECAUSE THE GHEARING WILL BE ANNOUNCENDA IS NOT COMPLETED, OR ED FURTHER ONLY AT THE MEETING. --., ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 505 BELL STREET, EDMONDS {PHONE 775-2525, EXT. MW V46/ THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR E CONCEALMENT OF THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE WARNING! OF THE NEARING IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT. THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOVED AFTER 1-23 -82 c TO _ rcr AT i Dan Smith, P.E. Inspector and Fire Dept. SUBJECT DATE V-31-81/E.H. TAYLDR 1/5/82 Please review attached variance required prior to building permit, f S �ciA the hearing dte is 1/21/82 JAN Thank you CIT- OF S r Rk I � i PLEASE REPLY TO SIGNED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 k DATE SIGNED L, �� i i. (aEpiFiDgnn a 4S 4b9 SEND PARTS T AND 3 WITH CARBON INTACT. - i PART 3 WILL BE RETURNED WITH REPLY. t POLY PAK (50 Sets) 4P 469 DETACH AND FILE FOR FOLLOW-UP Y; sr AT TO ector a DATE an Smith, P.E. SuejECT V-31-81/E•N• TAYLOR Please review attached variance required rior to buildin, ermit the hearing dte is 1J21/82• k U Thank you. 1982 ---'- A SIGNED j - `1' .e._ 4 .* SEND PA 1,.AND 3 WITH CARBON INTACT, s 4S 4b9 PART 3 WILL BE RETURNED WITH REPLY. POLY PAK (50 Sets) 4P 469 DETACH AND FILE FOR FOLLOW -Up t� �.t 4 �=i 4 i s i EXHIBIT LIST V-31-81 1) Staff Report+ 2) Application and Declarations of Applicant 3) Legal Description 4) Plot Plan t •' a� 41 5) Vicinity Map j 7 f: I PLEASE NOTE: APPL.:;ANT OR REPRESENTATIVE MUS'i'-3E PRESENT AT HEARING. EXHIBIT 1 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER FILE #V-31-81 HEARING DATE: JANUARY 21, 1982 I. REQUESTED ACTION: Variance to allow inflatable pool cover from October to May within the required ten foot side setback at 18510 Olympic View Drive. II. APPLICANT/OWNER: Mr. E.H. Taylor 18510 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 III. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Exhibit 3. IV. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: A. Description of the Proposed Action Subject Property and Surrounding Area The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an inflatable pool cover to encroach two feet into the required sideyard setback. The swimming pool was constructed in 1980 under building permit #800254. The size of the pool is 486 square feet. The building code at that time allowed the inside face of the pool to be no closer than five feet to a side setback. The subject pool appears to be approximately eight feet. The inflatable cover is considered a structure and must conform to the required ten foot side setback. The subject property is an irregularly shaped parcel of land situated below Olympic View Drive. An easement road forms its northern boundary. Surrounding development is all single family residential. B. Official Street Map Proposed R/W Existing R/td East - Olympic View Drive 60' 60' C. Conformance to Chapter 20.85.010 1. Special Circumstances As shown on Exhibit 5, the subject property is situated below Olympic View Drive and has an irregular shape. The size of the proposed cover is under 600 square feet. Accessory structures under 600 square feet may be erected with a five foot rear setback. By strict interpretation of the code, the pool cover invades a required side setback. In reality, the area involved is more like a rear yard. PLEASE NOTE: APPLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT HEARING, Exhibit 1JV-31-81 Page 2 2. Special Privilege The property located to the north also has a swimming pool which is non -conforming as to its setbacks. The granting of this variance could set a precedence for that property. 3. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Policy Plan designates the subject property as low density residential. The proposed variance does not appear to substantially conflict with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Zoning Ordinance The subject property and surrounding area is all zoned RS-12. The variance, as conditioned, appears to be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance. 5. Minimum Variance The requested variance appears the minimum necessary. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of .the staff that V-31-81 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The pool cover may only be in place from October 1st to May 31st. 2. Owner to maintain the pool cover in a clean, well kept manner. 3. Height not to exceed 15 feet. . , O OEEDMOND$ Mc. James Driscoll Hearing Examiner City of Edmonds Edmonds, Washington 98020 Dear Mr. Driscoll, 18520 Sound View Place Edmonds, Washington 98020 February 2, 1982 z hope you'll excuse this late letter regarding the pool cover belong to E. H. Taylor on Olympic View Drive and presently under scrutiny in Variance 3181. Since z live further than eighty feet away from the property on which it has been erected, z was not notified of the public hearing held on January 21, although z was the one who ocigioally�ques- tiooed the legality of the novec- Nor were any notices posted io a place where z would have been likely to see them. None, in particular, were posted on Sound View Place where the pool cover, with its vide blue and white stripes, is visible more than half a mile away. Conversely, neighbors to the north and vest, who du not view the cover from their homes, were notified. 00` it is the visibility z object to. Yes, indeed. z was astoni shed to learn �bu� anyone could put up what resembles a circus tent in a resi- dential neighborhood and leave i� pPcoc the greater part of the year. There is apparently nothing in the city Code to prevent this from happening. There is much in the city Code to prevent businesses in Edmonds from dis- playing oversize or unsightly signs, but nothing to protect the homeowner from having to look at oversize or unsightly structures in a nearby yard. it is conceivable oouec the present code that several of my neighbors could pot in swimming pools, to vbiob z have no objection, and then cover them with whatever they wish, to which z do` have z u learned The variance at hand concerns the placement of the cover. from the Planning Department that the cover is 6h feet from the lot line or 3h feet into the side setback. This is o mere trifle. The decks on the house were built into both the side and back setbacks several years ago without benefit of o variance at all. That was granted after both decks were firmly in plaoe Two of the fences enclosing the property are in the street rights - of -way, ^ the one on the Olympic view Drive aide by as much as ten feet or more. b� u comparison. ooa�ver, Three-and-m-half feet is really not further �ba^ i� ubool' if the offensive cover could be moved those few feet oc e o"^t` _ he, it would be that much further away from ,e. and in my opinion, pool covers should be up from roughly October 15 through April 15, half the year rather than the�ba� two-thirds requested. it might be wise for the City to amend the code so only 9cml covers of a clear material are allowed. xuuca truly, Joan Swift - i q. t CANT OR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT HEARING, PLEASE NOTE. APPLI, ; t EXHIBIT 1 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER s FILE #V-31-$l HEARING DATE: JANUARY 21, 19$2 I. REQUESTED ACTION: s Variance to allow inflatable pool cover from October to May within the required ten foot side setback at 18510 Olympic View Drive. I L II. APPLICANT/OWNER: j Mr. E.H. Taylor 4 '1 18510 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 ;L' III. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: !� See Exhibit 3. IV. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: j A. Description of the Proposed Action Subject Property and Surrounding Area The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an inflatable pool cover to encroach two feet into the required sideyard setback. The swimring pool was constructed in 1980 under building permit #800254. The size of the pool is 486 square feet. The building code at that time allowed the inside face of the pool to be no closer than five feet to a side setback. The subject pool appears to be approximately eight feet. The inflatable cover is considered a structure and must conform to the required ten foot side setback. ' The subject property is an irregularly shaped parcel of land situated s; below Olympic View Drive. An easement road forms its northern boundary. Surrounding development is all single family residential. B. Official Street Map Propos_ ed RJW Existing J f. East - Olympic View Drive 60' 60' C. Conformance to Chapter 20.85.010 1. Special Circumstances As shown on Exhibit 5, the subject property is situated below is Olympic View Drive and has an irregular shape. The size of the proposed cover is under 600 square feet. Accessory +, structures under 600 square feet may be erected with a five foot rear ti setback. By strict interpretation of the code, the pool cover invades a required side setback. In reality, the area involved is more like a ; rear yard. i ..,,�•—ie-,�,n.,a„Wc�ua«r.«.a...,..r,;uirecu, .... , ..:....,:.uhsam v-v.'�-w ••_. �w.V.r .r_a„..�i T.u..:::s:.ab':�i�L11:.;5•n1:,.vu•^.:.�w�=aiY,a:q.Y.ta..:W::�us�. •"—, ;Y PLEASE NOTE: APPLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT HEARINGr ' Exhibit 1IV-31-81 Page 2 2. Special Privilege The property located to the north also has a swimming pool which is non -conforming as to its setbacks. The granting of this variance could set a precedence for that property. 3. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Policy Plan designates the subject property as low density residential. The proposed variance does.not appear to substantially conflict with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Zoning Ordinance The subject property and surrounding area is all zoned RS-12. The variance, as conditioned,appears to be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance. 5. Minimum Variance The requested variance appears the minimum necessary. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the staff that V-31-81 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1 The .pool cover may only be in place from October 1st to May 31st. 2. Owner to maintain the pool cover in a clean, well kept manner. 3. Height not to exceed 15 feet. FILE' 31 -­?` DATE Z�u EXHIBIT 2 CITY OF EDMONDS FEE et 0 HEARING EXAMINER RECT jk APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE 36-71 APO'S ✓ HEARING DATE: APPLICANT Ac_, Air- ADDRESS. IeCIO 0,(YAM-C Z1111-Ael- CITY & ZIP. )Ej)/wpvWt4,oq 0 —PHONE 7 7 eM?l INDICATE TYPE OR DEGREE OF INTEREST IN PROPERTY LOCATION OR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY 6LI-10 NX, L&/Szvl DA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: Release/Hold Harmless Agreement The undersigned applicant, his heirs and assigns, in consideration for the City processing the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages and/or claims for damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from any action or inaction is based in whole or in part upon false, misleading or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his agents or employees. Permission to Enter Subject Property The undersigned applicant grants his, her or its permission for Public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the sUbje t property ic for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this ap ication. b-3:anacture. o Representat 1� EXHIBIT 2 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? Yn A tIr-- 2. How does your property differ from other property in the same vicinity? 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? 5.. Can you make reasonable use of your property without the variance? EXNIBiT PARCEL A: � Southeasterly 60 feet of Lot 14, Block "B", Rdmonds Sea View Tracts f._.... according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 3 of Plats, rage 76, records of the Auditor of the County of Snohomish, State of tVashington, _. as measured along the Southwesterly line of said lot; EXCEPT therefrom the following described parcel: _ Beginnin8 at the original ":artheast corner of said Tract 14; thence ?forth 39 15123 West along the North line thereof 69.45 feet; thence South 43°38' East 54.57 feet, more or less, to the Easterly line of Tract 14; thence "North 39*2310711 East along the Eastlery line 54 feet to the Northeast corner and the point of beginning. ALSO EYfTPT any portion lying within Edmonds Beverly Par}: County Road. Survey 2io. 640. _-- PARCEL B: _.:-__----- That portion of Lot 8, Block C, Edmonds Sea View Tracts, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 3 of Plats, page 76, records of the . Auditor of the County of Snohomish, State of Washington, West of Olympic; View Drive and that vacated portion of Sound View Place adjoining said Lot 3, :dock C, Edmonds Sea View Tracts. „ r. L} PARCEL C: „ ..,a. An easeseent for ingress and egress over that portion of said Lot-14, ' ViewTracts, rXCEPT the Southeasteriv 60 feet Block "B", Edmonds Sea t;iereof described as .follows: Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of said Tract 14; thence running -- -� South &-15'23" East along the North line of said tract 112.56 feet; thence South 39*2811711 west parallel to the Westerly line and 80 feet at right angles thereto 13.83 feet to the true point of beginning;'' thence continuing South 39°281n7" West 41.83 feet; thence north 4*O2__'._. ,.. 1. Kest 37.A3 feet; thence South 85°58'.East 2q.59 feet to the true point of beginning. -- - - 4: ' t _ " I lou IO ,y '-• ` yid ..E .._. _ �o pi�c� - ---------- - -------- - --------- EXHIBIT _wov VC01- 60VF-z V el 4 14 I i I Ll CITY OF EDMONDS, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON t CITY OF EDMONDS HARVE N. HARRISON MAYOR .,e u•-,- CIVIC CENTER • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 96020 • (706) 775.2525 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: —February 4, 1982 TO: Mr. James Driscoll Westland Building 100 South King Street Suite 525 Seattle, WA 98104 TRANSMITTING: LETTER FROM JOAN SWIFT RE: V-31-81/TAYLOR AS YOU REQUESTED: FOR YOUR INFORMATION: xx AS WE DISCUSSED: FOR APPROVAL: FOR YOUR FILE: REVIEW AND COMMENT: COMMENT AND RETURN: MINUTES OF MEETING: REMARKS: f i PLANNING DIVISION �I�II Lo(on sn.qL rig ,�. •�382 18520 Sound View Place CITY OF FCi ONDS,, Edmonds, Washington 98020 February 2, 1982 Mr. James Driscoll Hearing Examiner. City of Edmonds Edmonds, Washington 98020 Dear Mr. Driscoll, I; I hope you'll excuse this late letter regarding the g g goal cover belong to E. H. Taylor on.Olympic-View Drive and presentlyunder,' scrutiny in Variance 3,181. Since I live further than eighty feet away from the k.. property on which it has been erected, I was not notified of the public' hearing held on January 21, although I was the one who originally ques- tioned the legality of the cover. Nor were any notices posted in a place where I would have been likely to see them. None, in particular, were posted on Sound View Place where the pool cover, with its wide blue and white stripes, is visible more than half a mile away. Conversely, neighbors: to the north and west, who do not view the cover from their homes, were notified. So. It is the visibility , -I object to. Yes, indeed. I was astonished to learn that anyone could put up what resembles a circus tent in a resi- dential neighborhood and leave it up for the greater part of the year. There is apparently nothing in the City Cade to prevent this from happening. There is much in the. City Code to prevent businesses in Edmonds from dis- playing oversize or unsightly signs, but nothing to protect the homeowner from having to look at oversize or unsightly structures in a nearby yard. It is conceivable under the present code that several of my neighbors could put in swimming pools, to which I have no objection, and then cover them with whatever they wish, to which I do. The variance at hand concerns the placement of the cover. I have learned from the Planning Department that the cover. is 6h feet from the lot line or } 3h feet intb the side setback. This is a mere trifle. The decks on the house were built into both the side and back setbacks several years ago without benefit of a variance at all. That was granted after both decks were firmly in place. Two of the fences enclosing the property are in the street rights- of -way, the one on the Olympic View Drive side, by as much as ten feet or more. 1 Three -and -a -half feet is really nothing by comparison. However, if the offensive cover could be moved those few feet, further north that it should be, it would be that much further away from me. And in my opinion,.pool covers should be up from roughly October 15 through April 15, half the year rather than the two-thirds requested. It might be wise for the City to amend the code `so that only pool covers of a, clear' material are allowed. FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION PZLD NO.: V-31-81 OF E. H. T&YLOB FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCES DECISION: The application for the variance as requested by the applicant is granted subject to the conditions listed. INTRODUCTION Mr. D. B. i:ayIoc, 18510 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, Washington, 98020, and hereinafter referred to as Iioaot, has requested approval of a variance to allow an inflatable swimming [moI cover over a swimming pool located at 185I0 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, Washington, and more particularly described as set forth in Exhibit 3 attached hereto. The inflatable pool cover would be within the required lO foot aide yard setback at the above described property. The above described land is zoned RG-I2 as established in the Edmonds community Development Code. Abeariug on the request for the variance was held before the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds on January 21, 1982. The following presented testimony at the public hearing: Duane Bowman Planning Department City of Edmonds Edmonds, W& 98020 E. H. Taylor I85I0 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 The following exhibits were presented and introduced at the hearing: I. Staff ^^eDort 3. Application Declaration of Applicant 3. Legal Description 4. Plot Plan 5. Vicinity Map Subsequent to the hearing a letter of protest for the variance was received from Joan Swift. The letter is pact of the record of this application. After doe consideration of the evidence presented by the Applicant; evidence elicited during the public hearing; and as u result of the pecnuoaI inspection of the subject property by the Hearing Examiner, the following findings of fact and conclusions constitute the basis of the decision of the Hearing Examiner. TAYLOR/VARIANCE - 1 FINDINGS OF FACT I. The Applicant has requested the variance in the required IU foot side yard setbacks at I8510 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, Washington, and more particularly described in Exhibit 3 attached hereto. 3. The purpose of the variance request is for the allowance of an inflatable swimming pool cover over the swimming pool that is located on pact of the above described property. The pool cover would be two feet into the required side yard setback. 3. At the time the swimming pool was constructed no pact of the above described property, the zoning code allowed a five foot setback from the inside face of the pool. The pool was built within eight feet of the setback and is therefore a legal nonconforming use. 4. It is the intention of the Applicant to install the inflatable pool cover over the pool for the DocDooe of providing recreation during the cold months of the year. 5. According to the Planning Department of the City of Edmonds, the inflatable DmoI cover is considered a structure because it is above ground and has lot coverage and therefore must conform to the lU foot side yard setbacks or avariance must be obtained for construction in the setbacks. 6. The subject property is an irregular shaped parcel of land that is located on Olympic View Drive and an easement road that is north of the subject property. According to the Planning Department the property is considered a corner lot and therefore has two front yard setbacks and two aide yard setbacks. 7~ In order for a variance to be granted on the subject prperty, the Applicant most meet all of the standards as set forth in Section 20.85.0I0 of the Edmonds .ommuoity Development code. These standards include: a. Special circumstances relating to the property exist necessitating the need for a variance. b. That the requested variances will not be the granting of a special priviIedge to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. C. That the opDconaI of the requested variance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. d. That the approval of the naziooue will be ounolateut with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located. e. That the variance as approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, TAYLOB/V&8I80CE - 2 safety or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the same zone. t. That the requested variance is the mioimuo that is the necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. D. The Planning Department testified that special circumstances do exist for the granting of the variance because of the irregular shape of the property. According to the Planning Department, although the strict interpretation of the Community Development Code makes the area of the swimming pool on the subject property a side yard, it is in reality more of a rear yard. 9. Section I6^20.050(C) of the Edmonds Community allows setbacks to be reduced to a minimum of five feet for accessory buildings covering less than 600 square feet of the site. The pool cover is such an accessory building and, therefore, could be placed within the minimum five foot setback. lU. The Planning Department submitted that the subject property is adjoined byother properties that have swimming pools that are nonconforming as to setbacks and, thus, the granting of avaciauoe would not be a special privilege to this property. II^ The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds determined that the proposed variance does not appear to conflict with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds. 12. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds determined that the variance, it conditioned, would be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinances of the City of Edmonds. 13~ The variance appears to be the minimum necessary to make adequate use of the property. 14. The Planning oepartmeot of the City of Edmonds recommended approval of the variance subject to the following conditions: I. The pool cover may only be in place from October Iot to May 31at of each year. 2. Owner is to maintain the pool cover in a clean, well - kept manner. 3. Height is not to exceed 15 feet. 15. The Applicant testified to be testified to be in agreement with the recommendation of the Planning Department but requested a longer period of time in which to have the pool cover erected over the pool. IG. The Applicant testified that the pool was utilized with the cover over it in October of 1981 but that it was not used � during the succeeding months. According to the Applicant the cover does not maintain enough beat to allow o' ~ the pool in the months after October. ^~= "�= f 17. Subsequent to the hearing, a letter of protest for the granting of the variance was received from Joao Swift.The basis of oo. Smift'a objection was that the pool cover is esthetically ooDIeaoiog. 18. @e. Swift submits that if the variance is granted, the pool cover should be moved a few feet to the north so that it would not interfere with her view and that the pool cover be allowed from October lStb through April 15tb rather than the months as recommended by the Planning Department. 19. No other testimony in support or Opposition to the pool cover was submitted. CONCLUSIONS l. The application imarequest for a variance from the lU foot side yard setback to property located at 18510 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, nvaobiogtoo" and more particularly described as set forth in Exhibit 3 to these hearings and is attached hereto. 2. This specific request is for a variance to allow an inflatable pool cover from the months of October to May over a swimming pool that is located on the above described property. The cover is a structure and must conform to the required IO foot side yard setback for RS-12 zone. 3. In order for a variance to be granted within the City of Edmonds, conformity must be shown for all criteria as listed in Section 20.85.010 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. 4. Special circumstances do exist for the granting of a variance in that the irregular shape f the subject property and the location of the subject property on a corner lot results in side yard setbacks that -bst are difficult to work with on the subject property. 5~ *ibe granting of avariance will not result in the granting of a special privilege for the subject property in that other properties within the area also have swimming pools that are nonconforming to the setbacks. 6. The variance ao requested will out be in ooutIiot with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds. /. -ibe proposed variance with conditions will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ozdloauoeo of the City of Edmonds. 8. The variance will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to the property and improvements in the vicinity or in the same zone. T&YLOf/V&RI&0CB - 4 9. The Planning Department has recommended approval of the requested variance subject to the conditions listed. lO. The inflated pool cover will be of beneficial use for a limited time during the year, namely during the months of October and the early months of spring. Il. opposition testimony was received as noted above. DECISION Using the above findings of facts and conclusions as the basis of this decision, the Hearing Examiner of the City of udmouda hereby � grants approval of the variance request to allow an inflatable / i pool cover over a swimming pool that is located at I85I0 Olympic ' / View Drive, Edmonds, Washington. The variance is granted subject � to the following conditions: � ` . � ' ! I~ The oI cover may only be in place from October lot to ^ / November 15tb and from April lat to May I5tb of each year. . �. The li t � to maintain the pool cover in a clean, � - Should the pool cover deteriorate in any ` well -kept manner. u e o � \ way, the variance will terminate. � i ` | ! 3 The height of the pool corer is not to exceed I� feet. � . g ' � < \ 4. The Applicant is to assume all liability for the pool cover � and is to bold the City barmImea from any liability arising | ' tbeceuoder. ` . ` DONE AND DATED this 9tb day of February, 1982. � ( S~ M. -_---___ zim] Examiner NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Pursuant to Section 20.I00.018(B) of the. Edmonds Community Development Code, written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other grounds for appeal may be f1ledwith the Department of | Planning and Community Development within 14 days of the date of the Hearing Examiner's final action. In this matter, any appeal must be received by the Department prior to 5:00 on February 23' 1982. > / | ' I&000 - 5 j PARCEL x: Southeasterl Y b0 feet according to the of Lot 14, BIock ,.8,, x'v records of the Auditor thereof recorded ,: rdn�ttcia S as neasc;red along the ts County off olur,e 3 ofee View 1'ricts�, t.�e '50uthwe nohonish t e of# Page sLerly line o' said • State of tPashin - r:tCF.PT t`�erefrom Iot; Rtott, the .following described parcel; Beginning 39°gIS 23he ,original Northeast co South Y3°33, hest along the Nort}i �rner of said Tract 14• Tract 14• Bast 54.57 feet ine thereof 69 � thence ' thence North 39°,3;07ore or less, to the 1=asterlvt' thence to the Northeast corner and the Fast aloe line of g the Fastlery Iine 50 feet ALSO EXCrPT an Point of beginning. Y portion 1 j Survey ?:0. 640. lying within Edmonds Revcrly Par}: _-. County Road., PARCEL--- $ : f That Portion of Lot 8 i LA.e Block Cr F.drlonds Se � Plat thereof recorded a icl-f Tracts Auditor of the C in I' Sell 3 of Ply , according to Vieca Drive and aunty of Snohomish P that vacated ► State of Was�iin�ton' ecords of the Lot 3, Block Co Edmonds Sea nortion of Sound L'ie» place' West of Olympic t View Tracts. adjoining said PARCEL C: An casen►ent for ingress and egress over that itBor Sea :'1eir Tracts, F:iCFPT portion of .,. sai ,cribed the Southeasterly 60t 14, as Eollows: feet CeSouth 'ns at the Northt+esterly corner of said Tract feet; thencel5t East along the North line 11> thence running f , t.�,nce South 39°28+7711 tv of said tract '.56 feet at right angles thereto est parallel to the tVe3terl0 thence continuing South 3e°o 13.83 feet to th Y line and:8O Vest 37.n3 feet• .8 07" nest 41.s3 true point Of beginnin Of beginni' ` r thence South 85°SS' Fast 2q , thence ?forth 4002,"; • S9 feet to the true point - -1------------- ---- � r d APPEAL Department of Planning and Community Developmeni City of Edmonds Edmonds, Washington 98020 Re: In the Matter of the Application of E.H. Taylor for Approval of Variance File No. V-31-81 TO: City of Edmonds; and TO: Department of Planning and Community DeveloT You are each hereby given notice that the undersigned, E.H. Taylor, hereinafter called the "Appellant", does hereby appeal the Decision of the Hearing Examiner, James M. Driscoll, dated February 9, 1982. This notice constitutes a Notice of Appeal from the `}} Decision of James M. Driscoll, Hearing Examiner, entered on i. January 21, 1982, which would permit the southerly end of the pool cover to fall within the required ten -foot side yard set- back on property commonly known as 18510 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, Washington 98020. This appeal is brought on the grounds that the Examiner erred in his Conclusion No. 10, which states as follows: "The inflated pool cover will be of beneficial use for a limited time during the year, namely during the j month of October and the early months of spring." j f The Hearing Examiner further erred in Conclusion No. 11 as follows: ,Opposition testimony was received as noted above." ?, 1 Appellant further claims that Finding No, 16, which reads as follows, is in error. } "The Applicant testified that . . According to the Applicant, the cover does not maintain enough heat to allow the use of the pool in the months after October." The Findings and Conclusions do not support Paragraph 1 of j the Decision, which states as follows: -1- 1 Ik JiLCEiYLL FEB 2 4 1982 PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION CIT-Y. OF EDMONp$ Department of Planning and Community Development City of Edmonds Edmonds, Washington 98020 Re: In the Matter of the Application of E. H. Taylor for Approval of Variance File No. V-31-81 TO: City of Edmonds and TO: Department of Planning and Community Development and TO: James M. Driscoll, Hearing Examiner This constitutes a petition of. E. H. Taylor for a recon- sideration of the+hearing examiner's Decision dated February 9, 1982 in File Number V-31-81. Petitioner requests that the hearing examiner reconsider his Finding No. 16, 17 and 18: "16. The Applicant testified that the pool was utilized with the cover over it in October of 1981 but that it was not used during the succeeding months. According to the Applicant, the cover does not maintain enough heat to allow the use of the pool in the months after October." 1117. Subsequent to the hearing, a letter of protest for the granting of the variance was received from Joan Swift. The basis of Ms. Swift's objection was that the pool cover is esthetically unpleasing." "18. Ms. Swift submits that if the variance is granted, the pool cover should be moved a few feet to the north so that it would not interfere with her view and that the pool cover be allowed from October 15th through April 15th rather than the months as recommended by the Planning Department." and Conclusions No. 10 and 11: "10. The inflated pool, cover will be of beneficial use for a limited time during the year, namely during the months of October and the early months of spring." "11. Opposition testimony was received as noted above." and reconsider Decision paragraph 1: " 1. The pool cover may only be in place from October 1st to November 15th and from April Ist to May 15th of each year." The purpose for this Petition to Reconsider is as follows: 1. The pool cover was first installed in the fall of 1981, and its installation and the effect of the installation during the calendar year 1981, one of the coldest years of record, is not a reasonable history as to the effectiveness of the cover and its ability to make the pool useable during the winter months when temperatures are not so extreme. 2. Evidence on a view of the area demonstrates that Ms. Swift's residence is not adjacent to petitioner's property, and there are other residents in between who have not complained about the esthetic appearance. It would not interfere with her view. -Page I- I 3. Ms. Swift requested a shortening of the time period, i.e., October 15, as a beginning date and April 15 as an ending date. This varies substantially from the determination by the hearing examiner. Based upon experience, Conclusion No. 14 is in error because there are many warmer days during the winter months which would make the pool useable with the bubble on. i Only on the rare extremely cold days would the use be limited. 1 4. Finally, the hearing examiner's decision, paragraph 1 imposes an unreasonable economic burden on the owner's use by requiring him to install and dismantle the pool cover twice a year. Further, it deprives the appellant of a reasonable use of his property during the winter for the private benefit of a single property owner and that were the appellants, Taylor, to shorten the bubble two feet, bringing it to the edge of the pool, the pool cover could be installed without a variance and free of any objections by Ms. Swift or approval by the City. The extreme end of the pool cover which is within the variance area is only three and a half feet in height and in and of it- self could not be unesthetic or interfere with Ms. Swift's view. Respectfully submitted, E. A. Ta4er Property i -Page 2- V VLtLLLJl\1 L']1\L LWiVl.t\. MINUTES OF MEETING: i i, REMARKS: CITY OF EDMONDS HARVE H. HARRISON MAYOR CIVIC CENTER - EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 - (206) 775-2525 HEARING EXAMINER 1AAR 12 1982 CITY OF EDMONDS' FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FILE NO.: V-31-81 OF E. H. TAYLOR FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCES On Feb. 9, 1982 the request for a variance by the applicant was granted subject to conditions listed. Subsequent to the issuance of the decision the applicant moved for reconsideration of some of the conditions listed. Based on the Motion of the applicant the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds hereby orders that the Hearing be reopened and that additional testimony and evidence be submitted at the public hearing set for March 16,1982. DONE AND DATED THIS 1*0 DAY OF MARCH, 1982. ES M. DRISCOLL C-PAt-A- -ro correaA- } RCCE lVED MAR 2 6 `•i9d2 CITY, OF EDMONDS, }} i ORDEB I IN THE'MATTER OF THE APPLICATION. OF FILE NO.: V-31-81 E. H. TAYLOR FOR APPROVAL OF A j ,i VARIANCE ' On February'9, 1982, the Hearings Examiner of the City of Edmonds granted a variance request for E. H. Taylor for the allowance of 1 j an inflatable swimming pool cover over a'swimming pool located at property, at'.18510 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, Washington. The variance was granted, subject to four <conditions. One`. of the Ei 3 conditions was :that -the pool cover may only be in place from October 1st to November 15th and `from April lst to May I5th of each year. t On February 24, 1982,the;Appiicant petitioned for t reconsideration;of the above mentioned condition. The basis .of his petition was that the time 1"imitati6ns:as conditioned were t s too restrictive and eliminated the effectiveness of the cover and during the months. t the ability to make the pool usable winter Based on the petition for -reconsideration the Hearings Examiner of the City of Edmonds reopened the hearing and held another public hearing on the matter on March 18, 1982, All parties to 4 `' the original hearing and all parties who had submittedevidence to the original hearing were notified according to the law of the. j i City of Edmonds, State of Washington. The hearing was limited to a discussion of the time limitation for the use of the pool cover. At the starch 18 1982" hearing, the Applicant submitted that the time restricitons made the variance impractical because of the expense of deflating and inflating, the_;pool cover.` Further, the Applicant submitted that the Hearings examiner had misinterpreted the uses of the, pool 'during winter months, ;and, that it was the }} intention.of the.Applicant to use the pool throughout the entire I' period of the winter months and not just during the time as set _ forth in the conditional approval. Testimony was also recieved E; F from a neighboring property owner who submitted ,that the pool t cover was not aesthetically offensive and did not create problems, for the neighborhood. No opposition testimony was, received at the starch 18th hearing. THEREFORE, based on the submitted petition for reconsideration and the additional testimony at the ' March 18th hearing the.. decision' of the Bearings 'Examiner as set forth the document of February 9, 1982, is hereby amended to read as follows: DECISION Using the above findings of facts and conclusions as the basis o£ this decision, the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds hereby grants 'the approval of:the -variance request to allow an - ORDER/TAYLOR VARIANCE - 1 I inflatable pool cover over a swimming pool that is located at 18510 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, Washington. The variance is granted subject to the following conditions: s 1. The pool cover may be in place only from October 1st to May 1st of each year. 2. The Applicant is to maintain the pool cover in a clean, well - kept manner. should the pool cover deteriorate in any way, the variance will terminate. 3. The height of the pool cover is not to exceed 15 feet. ^ PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM LISTED BELOW, Y-31-(RECONSIDERATION HEARING) VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN INFLATABLE SWIMMING POOL COVER OVER A SWIMMING POOL LOCATED AT 18510 ULYMPlC VIEW DRIVE. /R8-12\ NAME ADDRESSL - � ' �r� � v � y ^ ` f71 c, . WA) 4. CITY OF EpNlONOS CIVIC CENTER • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 + {206)7754525 i PLANNING DEPARTMENT May 14, 1982 Mr. E.H. Taylor 18510 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: SWIMMING POOL COVER I HARVE H. HARRISON MAYOR QD�nO� IAVFXI' lb-f Joov % t48?- Dear Mr. Taylor, I drove past your property today and noticed that the pool cover is still in place over your swimming pool. This is in violation of the conditions established by the Hearing ` Examiner in approving your variance, V-31-81, for that structure. Attached is a copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision. The required date for removal of the pool cover is May 1st. Please make arrangements to remove the cover within seven days of your receipt of this letter, or your variance may be subject to cancellation. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Si erely, �) DUANE V . BOWMAN Assistant City Planner DVB(mt attachments 4? EXHIBIT Tr it fl 90 1 /,�i;'•r' /.•.:, '•r� ' � � r .1�„ i ,( � 1 � �t. .. � tit' .! '1, ....•. �%'\t '1 tl 't. � G., yr' I1� � ` \ . �y�l �. yM �jr %,•",`'•..r.•' r�`�� � � ���� ,!L /,'t' .._�?•'�Y.. __jjt� -�-j• ��r.1r � .tl\ .W�}/�, „}. � r;> ,\\\ •�1;'`` ...,., ('r. .. .� .'S1)di:.: �.e.. .,w...., � ,y.�� .�+1.��yK.�ti _,,,_4_-�.�.. C..!'��,�y��*.n«,•�....�4.M ..art... ..