18907 OLYMPIC VIEW DR (2).pdf4k1/h !If ., i ( il1•, i Z il�.1 '1W).l
EXHIBIT 2 F304
DATE 17- e-) -- 8.2
CITY OF EDMONDS FEE
HEARING EXAMINER RECT y6 3�zS
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE APO'S
HEARING DATE:
APPLICANT Ci"Y 2, ....r,.5-/hi M ADDRESS_ /rs' rPkf
CITY & ZIP �/�.+i1,�irrr s' %��C �" PHONE_
INDICATE TYPE OR DEGREE OF INTEREST IN PROPERTY
LOCATION OR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY .GAJ '''-'
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTYAi�J%%YDs'
VARIANCE REQUESTED: T'C� r
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: USE ZONE:
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: a Y /F'1
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 subject property
for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this application.
/
,L s?P-7'*I
Signature of Applicant, Owner or
Representative
....._.. _. ._ i:•T r. :-,+ 77R`I If �I(�i �{I)�!. ���1•. t/V.��1 9��{'L�1.,-y-•`+a`.
EXHIBIT 3'
— �i
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?
441 /
" c rr�� rrC rir G c>,Z' �v,¢s* "� ems': TG> t f1� ifs r-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?
,ti1r•,£•1"` I'%f�'-' � '//rY'/'%s`i/�L�'r T G� rU
„�T/ram
4. What
hardships will result to you if
the variance
is not granted?
Will
these hardships have been caused
by your own
action?
W/GL
E
W��.�n �,�!>v�n
��►-� :,�-»ram
�.tvy
l��,� 4L
1
5. Can you make
reasonable
use of your property without
the
variance?
ES
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER LIST
PLEASE LIST ALL NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF OWNERS OF PROPERTY
WITHIN 30 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINES OF THE SITE,
xo-51'pov�7--
/ klel
/44 - A X-/- e 7 - Pel- eA--6
j e �7e3 e /- YAVIle Ple/
1ze.5*1A6--,r
/ e 59 49's-, e117 Z
,4,e 7,11AIX 17�
-4 A 7-11 I/A
J, !?,59
S 1A
Plam' J4
2/9/32MT
clt
ZYS 2- IA,-
e?2
A.
/ X,14,1"le
T-
k
I Mai
WEDIS
ra
o'4
kA 41->
I
Pq
42
F77 7
T
ij.
17 T
L
''Yes
non
t
-7r
H
7.,
. ......... . ..
7
... .. ..
pill! .17 ni
N,
ME pool
Lt Ain
7 I'M, :1!i.
PA.
-7—
many an
w, :-.. ., 7 7: TKis 1OW 1 mm; 1 ON
"a
Own
it
lot
ja�!
allla:
Mali
7,-
vp
4 TWO
A STA WON W:1WI
t1h,
j'.
110n;
r:—T! _77,77T
........ ... V4
Tv
J _.T M-I
_*: T .....
j
111
j
ti
,
i
EXHIBIT LIST
i
tik
1)
Staff Report
2)
Applicant
{u
3)
Declarations of the Applicant
4)
Topography Map-
5),
Site Plan
6)
Proposed Deck Plan
`
7)
Deck Cross-section
o Me
his is
e pac a was sent
—Hearing Examiner on August 12, 1982
t
t
Y{'
e»-,..,.Asa.�s+�soxrmear.+vsa»»«ennerree+m....
.f.,.........+.,«.-..+..-,.*..-
"A) 14)
PLEASE NU'I'E: APPLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT HEARING
STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
FILE #V-11-82
HEARING DATE: AUGUST 19, 1982
a
I. REQUESTED ACTION:
Variance to allow a one foot street setback instead of the required
twenty-five foot setback.
II. APPLICANT/OWNER:
Gary L. Isham
18907 Olympic View Drive
Edmonds, WA 98020
III. LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
The West 84 feet of Tract 76, Edmonds Sea View Tracts.
IV. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. Description of Subject Property and Surrounding Area
The subject property is a 9,660 square foot lot located east of
Olympic View Drive (OVD). The lot sits above OVD on a bench.
Exhibit 4 clearly shows the topography in the area.
There is a house on the property which is already nonconforming
as to the required street setback (16z' instead of the required
25' setback). There was a 6' deck which had to be removed due to
its deteriorating condition.
Surrounding development is all single family residential.
B. Official Street Map Proposed R W Existin R W
West - Olympic View Drive
C. Conformance to Chapter 20.85.010
1. Special Circumstances
No special circumstances appear to exist in this particular case.
2. Special Privilege
The granting of the variance would appear to be a grant of
special privilege.
3. Comprehensive Plan
The proposed variance does not appear to conflict with the policies
outlined in Chapter 15.20.005(8).
Staff Report to ti,; Hearing Examiner
File #V-11-82
Hearing Date: August 19, 1982
Page 2
4. Zoning Ordinance
The proposed variance does not appear to be consistent with the
policies outlined in Chapter 16.10.000.
5. Not Detrimental
The variance does not appear to be significantly detrimental to
any adjacent property owner. It may encroach on the privacy
located on the west side of Olympic View Drive.
l
of the house
l
6. Minimum Variance
The requested variance does not appear to be a minimum request.;
i
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The applicant will, if the variance is granted, gain an attractive, useful.
being detrimental to any adjacent
R
and scenic deck without significantly
However, due to the fact that the variance criteria out-'
property owners.
lined in Chapter 20,80.010 cannot be met, Staff cannot support the
L
variance request.
:f
lr
I
EXHIBIT 2 V-wo 11—
DATE
CITY OF EDMONDS FEE. -
HEARING EXAMINER RECT
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE APO'S
HEARING DATE:
APPLICANT y 44 ,ADDRESS_ -
CITY & ZIPPHONE_
INDICATE TYPE OR DEGREE OF INTEREST IN PROPERTY
LOCATION OR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY R
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY .5
VARIANCE REQUESTED: d
lh�z I I- 7-y .4.4 t-,-c, ,
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: USE ZONE:
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: L r(L "( /M
Release/Hold Harmless Agreement
The undersigned applicant, his heirs and assigns in consideration for and
the City Processing the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend
hold the city of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages a/o
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 Subj_e�ctPr�oer�t for Public
The undersigned applicant grants his, her or its permission
officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property
for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this application.
Signature ot Applicant, Owner or
Representative.
• yvI EXHIBIT 3 04
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?
S1 ! ! ��,�- r r,G r/l'E" � [y ,T" �•�� s' � Gam' s : `� T L� lJY'� ,�s1�f�`i7�i+-�T
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?
X �r4'�' 'i � �� .✓L [' ty�¢Y /rt`%7/f�/!"/> T i1/ s' .11!/>/-Gr /.,�
4." What hardships will result to you if the variance is not granted?
Will these hardships have been caused by your own action?
>,� r ray r�cvs? rH t r -rf1if rc�pd stn
LYt s� t l► l�,.ZCl/// �c ��!} iw�/��-�s� �Yl.�'IrY 110"e .4
5. Can you make reasonable use of your property without the variance?
Chi (
a
r,i till
till 1. • ,
+1 t�
tt S1 t r}t • t
t,.,�z, „�._. �}, ?ri }, it.. t � t i+..{:S, lli.f ..i< t• .i it ' 1 i
ji( 't tt 11r.
�t,.
t i
tlt}' 1r� x}yt it
l
— H7
ii
+
It f!
!Ill
_+. i: Imo:
7t
717 , t, �j tl
i
7 tl lt 77 t
t
,.
+ i. r it 1
t+ i S i. � ,i
iim
tlit,i + ' L � II I ;fit i ,���ti' f#ft �µy
.. �. ,. .1+ ��.� �� n I.. .� :.I. ..)� 1+ �t ..I ��•r , .I :f,. +,11 f11::;I till it
+ I
t
?...:: :,.! .... ..:} ... r -i:
t
t1l iil i
iil I
+lit t1. i t tif'
�ti#ilit:
�ii#}+ �
( 1� tit 'j t Itttll �� + i
i 1 1'
lt.i t i 3+
` �..: .. t j.i lit
t
_+ t
�t
t.�
.i';;.
..............
_�� :t: :, � ..�' �ili.%r'7rcir 3 �v+'',f��lt�.�✓ .}. � 1 , }. t
42)
0
ON
fi
isNN
#
—111
1jj77
#
#
#t
f
xttl
t
f
{
}
t
tN.
If
f.
t
i}
S
it
,
I S
{
t t
t'{:: •:
11
P11
tt
i44
f
t
tt
I
) ft
tr
tr#
t
{(, ".
t'1
i
#?.i
iljIII
t
t
j1t
I
E AMR
�{
�-i.
t i
t
S
f,
{
}.
f
f
t
t
I
.I
i
#
1
t
#Lit
1:
....
t t
I
#`
P�
f
f
}
1
It
I
I
f
ram.
t
I
}
-
1
7777
?
t
!r
'
#Kim
J
cv
1
no
An
NN
t
fIt
o
i
?
t
I...
a!
1 #
tl
Out:
j;_
E
1
��. 1:
f
S Y
I ,
tt
'
r'
(
,I
,
I
,
,,
j+
,
ti
{slid",
HN
#I
? .i't
I#
ta,t
c
?}#
i
}
k
it
Ia it
}I'
I win
i::";:;;
do
I
f
ilo
.
#
t
Nf7j�r.
:,:
Ti Ali
n
do
N:
:
r
t
off
0"
A 1h \�A 'qh
:ii
c a
}1
i.
1,
}
. ....
i
.�.
}`
—
.t
L
:1:
1
t
t
;
3.
7 7 tj
•
7
1
,
t
7
�111
,.
$
�
?
i
f
1
t t1
It
tis s
i
t j
t
1
!
4
1 +
' I
3 _
....-
7}
.
lu}$,t,
1st
r
?r�tr?_
t
t
I,{
$
7
1:}
$ t
+
'
7 3
�4
+ 1
$ }
{
41
«t 7 ,4 7 T1
S1 }
i
I ti a
i 3a
y�
t
s„
tts4lt}�
Y { ai }.7
r
k1
k
1)
71
ii tlt t
,
f
+
k
i?ti
+?
} .
-
tj{
+
yt
-.
+ +
!71
+ 1
2 ! +
1 ijj
1`.tF
tt i
t �
t i
t
t
2� �'.
�ij ktS
Is
H
�'{
' jtit
��t ,
1 7
j:�
$ 7
1'
� 1 1 3 ?� 71 $�.
is
+?S .t +
«}}?}
}t1
1
}1
1 ik'
1 is ''
s
1a
}}$}
j!''
lli1
t
j„! { ik 4
tft
{
,
i !
7 t }
j
s
}4
;ti
+4, f
((
yli 1i f
1 itl
�, S.
1
17t$7
i ?
7 1; $ t ik4 }1}i {
1
+ ? it
,'
I;
7s
?i
t
its
t
S
t
lit
s i
Mot"
}...
1{.�
jj
�ilit;
� 7
�
ft
$`
7a
`
.31' 4 7j
�
�
1
74
y
111.117..
71,
t
1
,�3
..........
{
I
i
M
9
Al
fi
PLEASE NOTE~ APPLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT HEARING
STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
FILE #V-11-82
HEARING DATE: AUGUST 19, 1982
I. REQUESTED ACTION:
Variance to allow a one foot street setback instead of the required
twenty-five foot setback.
II. APPLICANT/OWNER:
Gary L. Isham
18907 Olympic View Drive
Edmonds, WA 98020
III. LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
The West 84 feet of Tract 76, Edmonds Sea View Tracts.
IV. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. Description of Subject Property and Surrounding Area
The subject property is a 9,660 square foot lot located east of
Olympic View Drive (OVD). The lot sits above OVD on a bench.
Exhibit 4 clearly shows the topography in the area.
There is a house on the property which is already nonconforming
as to the required street setback (162' instead of the required
25' setback). There was a 6' deck which had to be removed due to
its deteriorating condition.
Surrounding development is all single family residential.
B. Official Street Map Proposed R/W Exist'n4 R/W
West - Olympic View Drive W �— 0'-
C. Conformance to Chapter 20.85.010
1. Special Circumstances
No special circumstances appear to exist in this particular case.
2. Special Privilege
The granting of the variance would appear to be a grant of
special privilege.'`
3. Comprehensive Plan
The proposed variance does not appear to conflict with the policies
outlined in Chapter 15.20.005(B).
4. Zoning Ordinance
The proposed variance does not appear to be consistent with the
policies outlined in Chapter 16.10.000.
5. Not Detrimental
The variance does not appear to be significantly detrimental to
any adjacent property owner. It may encroach on the privacy
of the house located on the west side of Olympic View Drive.
6. Minimum Variance
The requested variance does not appear to be a minimum request.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The applicant will, if the variance is granted, gain an attractive, useful
and scenic deck without being significantly detrimental to any adjacent
property owners. However, due to the fact that the variance criteria out-
lined in Chapter 20,80.010 cannot be met, Staff cannot support the
variance request.
`t
3�
7t
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
Duane Bowman
being first duly sworn,
on oath deposes and says:
That on theday of 11�i15� ,19 t� the attached
Notice of Public of Hearing was mailed as required to adjacent
property owners, the names of which were provided by the
applicant.
Signed lv�
Subscribed and sworn to before me this_ZLday of
�a
'a htaPublic in and for the
State of Washington
s
Residing at=��-rtJ
*4
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
THE HEARING EXAMINER WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING
THURSDAY j AUGUST 19TH 19 82 , ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION:
FILE NO.. V-11-82
VARIANCE FROM REQUIRED 25' MINIMUM FRONTYARD SETBACK
PROPERTY ADDRESS AND LOCATION 18907 OLYMP I C VIEW DRIVE
ZONE DISTRICT RS-12
THE HEARING WILL BEGIN AT 7 `• ,m 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 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.IW.
THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR
WARNING! CONCEALMENT OF THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE
OF THE HEARING IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE
BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.
THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOVED AFTER 8-12 U--
i
INT►""':-OFFICE COMMUNICATt ""NS
DATE 19 c)
TO •h� FROM
;i
INTER -OFFICE COMMUNICATIONS
{
TO FROM
PLANNING/ENGINEERING INSPECTQ
�r
fOFM 41 - I.fTTLC'O
SUBJECT: GARY ISHAM/V-11-82/HEARING DATE: 8-19-82
PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR.COMMENTS REGARDING THIS,ITEM TO DUANE BOWMAN
BY.AUGUST 12, 1982.
THANKS.
DATE JUlY 3, 1g 82_
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FINDINGS AND DECISION
:j 'OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FILE: V-11-82
i OF GARY L. ISHAM FOR APPROVAL OF
A VARIANCE
a{ DECISION: The variance is granted subject to the
conditions listed.
}
INTRODUCTION
Gary L.•Isham, 18907 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, Washington, 98020, and herein-
after referred to as Applicant, has requested the approval of a variance to allow
a one (1) foot street setback instead of the required 25-foot setback for property.
located at 18907.Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, Washington, and more particularly
described as:
The west 84 feet of tract 76, Edmonds Seaview Tracts, Snohomish
County, Washington.
The above described property is zoned RS-12 as established in the Edmonds Com-
munity Development Code.
A hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner of the City of
Edmonds on August 19, 1982.
The following presented testimony at the public hearing:
' Duane Bowman
Planning Department
i City of Edmonds
Edmonds, WA 98020
Gary L. Ishapi
18907 Olympic View Drive
Edmonds, WA 98020
Jack Dublin
18911 Olympic View Drive
Edmonds, WA 98020
The following exhibits were presented and introduced at the hearing:
CITY EXHIBITS
j:
Exhibit I - Staff report
it
2 - Application
3 - Declaration of the Applicant
" 4 - Topography Map
5 - Site Plan
6 - Proposed Deck Plan
" 7 - Deck Cross Section
" 8 - Alternate Plan as submitted by the
Applicant at the Hearing
r
Findings and Decision the
Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds
Re: V-11-82
Page 2
After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Applicant; eviden
elicited during the public hearing; and as a result of the personal inspec
of the subject property and the surrounding area by the Hearing Examiner,
lowing findings of fact and conclusions constitute the basis of the decisi
Hearing Examiner.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Applicant has requested a variance to allow a one (1) foot street setback
instead of the required 25-foot setback for property that is located at
18907 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, Washington, and more particularly described
as set forth above.
2. The subject property is zoned RS-12. For property in an RS-12 zone the Edmonds
Community Development Code requires 25-foot street setbacks.
3. It is the intention of the Applicant to replace the decayed and deteriorated
deck on the existing house on the subject property and to replace it with
another deck.
4. The subject property is a 9,660 square foot lot located east of Olympic View Drive
and it sits -on a bench overlooking the drive and the Puget Sound.
5. The lot is nonconforming as is the house on the property. The house is noncon-
forming in that currently there is a 16-1J2 foot setback instead of the required
25-foot setback.
6. In order for a variance to be granted for the subject property the Applicant
must meet all of the standards as set forth in Section 20.85.010 of the
Edmonds Community Development Code. These standards include:
A. Special circumstances relating to the property must exist necessitating,
a variance.
B. The requested variance must not result in a special privilege being
granted to the Applicant.
C. The variance must be consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan of
the City of Edmonds.
D. The variance must be consistent with the purposes for the zoned district
in which the property is located.
E. The variance must not be significantly detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the
vicinity of the same zone.
F. The variance must be the minimum necessary to allow the owners the same
rights enjoyed by other property owners with the same zoning.
7. In reviewing the requested variance with the criteria as set fort!) in
Section 20.85.010 the Edmonds Planning Department determined that no special
circumstances existed for the granting of the variance, and the granting would
be a special privilege to the Applicant. The Planning Department did agree
Findings and Decisioi "f the
Nearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds
Re: V-11-82
Page 3
that the requested variance was not in conflict with the policies of the
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan or the zoning ordinances of the City of Edmonds.
8. The subject property is located on a steep bank. It appears that the right
of way for Olympic View Drive extends to the edge of the bank. Not all of
the right of way is used and the roadway for Olympic View Drive is approxi-
mately 20 to 25 lateral feet from the right of way line.
9. The proposed variance for the construction of a deck would not create any
hazards or danger to the travelling public.
10. The bank on which the property is located appears not to have been a natural
cut, but appears to be part of the cut that was made to create Olympic View Drive.
11. None of the properties in the area appear to have the configuration and size
of the subject property. In addition, the subject property appears to have
an exceptional site for views of Puget Sound and the Olympic mountains.
12. The requested variance for the construction of a deck would not be significantly
detrimental to any adjacent property owners. It would not encroach on the
privacy of any of the neighboring properties and, if anything, would provide
more privacy in that it would block the views from the residence on the sub-
ject property.
13. The requested variance would allow for the construction of the deck to occur
within one (1) foot of the Olympic View Drive right of way. There appears to be
some engineering problems with the location as proposed in that there are
no tests for stability of soils to carry the load of the deck and there may
be possibilities for slippage with the deck being close to the banked
right of way.
14. At the public hearing, the Applicant submitted Exhibit 8 which shows an
alternative to his proposed deck. This deck, as shown on the attached
exhibit, would provide a six-foot deck extended from the house with two
octagon extensions that would come within five feet of the right of way.
These extensions do not appear to create any load problem on the bank.
15. Testimony was received from a neighboring land owner who questioned whether
a large weeping birch tree, at the southeast corner of one of the octagon
extensions,would remain. The Applicant assured the witness that it is his
intention to keep this tree intact. The witness testified not to be in
opposition to the proposed deck as submitted by the Applicant.
16. No other testimony was received at the hearing.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the above findings and upon a review of the testimony submitted at the
hearing, and the evidence presented at the public hearing, the following con-
clusions are made:
1. The Application is for a variance from the required front street setback
of 25 feet for property located at 18907 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds,
Findings and Decision of the
Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds
Re: V-11-82
Page 4
Wash ngton, and more particularly described as set forth above.
2. The pecific request is to allow a one (1) foot street setback instead of
the equired 25-foot setback for the purpose of allowing the Applicant to
cons ruct a deck.
3. The requested variance of one foot street setback appears to be excessive
and trot the minimum necessary to properly develop the property.
4. The �ppli ant submitted as an alternative a proposed deck with a variance
allowing for a five-foot setback. This variance was shown on Exhibit 8.
5. In o der for a variance to be granted within the City of Edmonds conformity
must be shown to all the criteria as listed in Section 20.85.010 of the
Edmo ds Community Development Code.
6. Special circumstances do exist for the granting of a variance for the five-
foot setback in that the property is located in a unique area and has a
different configuration than other properties. In addition, the property is
located on a bank that appears not to be a natural bank, but one that has
been created by the development of Olympic View Drive.
7. The . ranting of a variance for a five-foot setback will not result in a
special privilege for the Applicant in that the uniqueness of the property
appears not to exist for other properties within the City. In addition,
other properties within the area have nonconforming uses. Further, the
construction of the proposed deck will improve the aesthetics of the
surrounding properties.
8. The requested variance for a five-foot setback is consistent with the
purposes of the zoning ordinances of the City of Edmonds.
9. The requested variance is not in conflict with the Edmonds Comprehensive
Pla .
10. The requested variance will not be significantly detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the properties and improvements
in the vicinity with the same zoning.
11. The requested five-foot `setback variance is the minimum needed to allow the
owner the same property rights as other property owners have in the area.
12. The Planning. Department of the City of Edmonds did not recommend approval of
the requested variance of one foot.
DECISION
Using the findings and conclusions as the basis for the decision, the Hearing
Examine of the City of Edmonds hereby grants a variance to Gary L. Isham. The
varianc is granted for property that is located at 18907 Olympic View Drive,
Edmonds Washington. The variance is granted subject to the following conditions:
1. the variance is for the allowance of a five-foot setback from the
f
Findings and Decision' the
Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds
i
Re: V-11-82
Page 5
t�
property line along Olympic View Drive.
2. The Applicant is to develop the pro�osed
deck in a manner that is
similar to that as shown on Exhibit[8.
Should there be any signi-
ficant deviations from this proposal,
the proposal is to be reviewed
by the Hearing Examiner.
I
3. Prior to any construction the Appli
ant is to submit a stability I
report of the soils. This report i
to include confirmation that
the ground is stable enough to supp
rt the weight of a deck five
feet from the property line. Shoul
this report fail to show such
stability, the variance will be wit
drawn and the Applicant may not -
build the deck.
Done and dated this 2nd day of September, 1
82. 1
- A S M. DRISC
LL
aring Examin
r
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
1
Pursuant to Chapter 20.100.010 of the Edmon
s 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
Development within fourteen (14)
days of the date of the Hearing Examiner's
final action.
In smatter, thi any appeal must be received
by the Planning Department no later
than 5 p.m. on September 17, 1982.
i
�i
1
i,
7
1
f
i
{
1
a
ME
F