Loading...
18926 83RD AVE W.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH * EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 * FAX (206) 771-022 HEARING EXAMINER BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 189' A14,k FINDINGS9 CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION -444 OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: Rod Addicott CASE NO.: V-96-28 LOCATION: 18926 83rd Avenue West APPLICATION: A variance to allow an increase in the maximum permitted fence height from 6-feet to 9-feet along the entire west property line (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). REVIEW PROCESS: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: a) Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 17.30.010. (FENCES SPECIAL HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS). b) Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions Hearing Exan-dner Decision: Approve with conditions PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the application was opened at 9:30 a.m., April 18, 1996, in the Plaza Roorn, Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:50 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. 0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-96-28 Page 2 HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City: Kirk L Vinish, Project Planner, presented the staff report indicating that the applicant was responding to the neighbor CLeffel) to the west whose property is higher and looks down into the applicant's back yard. The two neighbors wish to increase their respective privacy by increasing the height of the fence on the reu property line and within the unopened street right of way from 6Vto 9'0". In response to questions from the hearing examiner regarding the use of the property for business purposes and the use of the unopened street right of way, Mr. Vinish responded that there had not been a complaint related to the use of the applicant's property and the City did not investigate without a complaint. He also stated that so far as he knew, no specific conditions were applied as to the use of the street right of way. From the Applicant: The applicant indicated that he had lived in this house since 1955. He noted he did not run a business from this location but did have some equipment there. In 1982 he had problems with people on the path in unopened right of way breaking into his property and he requested and was granted a street use permit. He subsequently fenced the property. He indicated that the only restriction was that he not build any permanent structure. He noted that in 1993 the Leffels also applied for a street use permit and fenced their property. He noted that after discussing a complaint about his property that he agreed to apply for and build the higher fence if a variance is granted. The neighbor has planted a slow growing hedge, and their intent would be to remove the higher fence when the hedge reaches an adequate height to provide a privacy screen between their properties. From the City in Response to a Question: The hearing examiner asked if the Edmonds Zoning Code didn't place the same 6V restriction on hedges. 1W. Vinish indicated that it did. From the Community: None. CORRESPONDENCE: A letter from Jim and Cindy Leffel indicating their support for the variance was included in Exhibit A as Attachment 6. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-96-28 Page 3 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION L Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: 1) Size: The subject property is approximately 13,300 square feet in area and located at 18926 83rd Avenue West. The proposed fence would be located along the west property line (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). 2) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Single Fanfdy Residential (RS- 12). 3) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property gently slopes from west to east. Vegetation consists of ornamental landscaping (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). 4) Site Use: The subject property has a street use permit for a portion of the unopened right of way and that property and the rear portion of the yard are used for storage of materials and equipment, apparently for a roofing business. b) Conclusions: 1) The use of the property and the street right of way do not appear to be consistent with the purposes of residential zones relative to providing freedom from visual pollution and protecting residential uses from dust, ... and heavy truck traffic which may result from other, more intense uses. (16.10.000 BA. and E). 2) The use of the property is not consistent with many of the criteria for a home occupation in that a home occupation cannot include storage, building materials and/or operation of building machinery unless it is wholly enclosed within a structure or building (20.20.010 B.3.a). 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) North:, Developed with single family residences, and zoned RS-12. (2) South: Developed with single family residences, and zoned RS-12. (3) East: Developed with single family residences, and zoned RS-12. (4) West: Developed with single family residences, and zoned RS-12. b) Conclusion: The proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding zoning and development. B. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. Compliance with RS-12 Zoning Standards a) Facts: (1) The ftindamental site development standards in a RS-12 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.020. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-96-28 Page 4 -ent does not confonn to all RS-12 requirements (see (2) The existing developn comments A.Lb, 1) and 2)). (3) ECDC Chapter 17.30 states the standards by which fences may be developed, including fence height. The standard from which the applicant is requesting relief is . ..... The City Engineer may approve a fence or hedge of up to six (6) feet in height". (4) All other requirements of ECDC Chapter 17.30 must be complied with. The drawings submitted with this fence height variance show that the applicant will be complying with all other requirements of ECDC Chapter 17.30. b) Conclusion: As conditioned the proposal con4)lies with the development standards for RS-12 zones as set forth in Chapter 16.20 except the standard for which the applicant is seeking a variance. 2. Compliance with requirement for a Variance ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances) states an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85. Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC also sets forth the mechanism, whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a case-by�-case basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). a) Facts: (1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These criteria include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted; the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum necessary. (2) Variances may be used to modify bulk standards. They may not be used to modify use or procedural requirements. (3) The applicant is seeking a variance to improve the privacy of his backyard (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). b) Conclusions: (1) Special Circumstances Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property and public necessity for public structures. The applicant states that the topography and surroundings of his property cause a significant decrease in his privacy (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). The neighbors property to the west is higher than the applicants and is able to clearly see into all of the applicants backyard therefore the applicants privacy seems to be impaired by the present fence height. Although privacy is an issue, the larger issue is the current use of the applicants property for storage and business related activities. The Engineering Division does not, believe that the Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-96-28 Page 5 fence will cause a sight hazard (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5), so the increased height will not cause any ham to other properties in the vicinity. Special circumstances appear to exist with respect to topography and surroundings of the property. (2) Special Privilege it does not appear that any special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that other properties in the same zone with similar circumstances would also qualify for a variance (see Exhibit A,. Attachment 2). (3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the continued development of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). (4) Not Detrimental The Engineering Division does not believe that the fence will cause a sight hazard to traffic (see Exhibit A, Attachments 5 and 6). Approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). (5) Minimum Required The request is the minimum necessary for reasonable development of the subject property (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 and 4). The variance would allow the applicant to enjoy the ability of most property owners to have reasonable privacy on their property. As conditioned, the requested variance would be consistent with the review criteria for a variance. C. TECHNICAL COMMIME 1. Review by City Departments a) Fact: The Engineering Division notes that the fence cannot be constructed on . public property without a right-of-way permit. D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) 1. a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Large Lor. b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. 2. a. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies which relate to "Residential Developmene, in the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below. Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse Mstyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted ...... Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V-96-28 Page 6 b. Conclusion: The proposed project is consistent with the "Single Famidy Large Loe'designation in the Comprehensive Plan. DECISION Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the application for a variance is approved, subject to the following conditions. 1. This variance is to allow the proposal in the location identified on the proposed site plan (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). The additional height on the fence will be removed by the applicant at such time as the hedge on the neighbor's property provides the privacy desired. 2. Any other structures, additions or remodels would have to conform with the typical setbacks or height requirements for the zone or obtain another variance. 3. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure con4)liance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. (NOTE: It appears that there are activities not consistent with the Edmonds Community Development Code which should be investigated for code compliance). 4. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction. 5. Ile permit should be transferable. Entered this 2nd day of May, 1996, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20. 100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. GWA!�&A?2-0,� Robert G. Burke Hearing Examiner Pro Tem RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS: The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or vnfzi 1347, Avenue west Edmonds, WA 98026 !on by Rod. Addicoft for a Variance to increase the makimum permitted fence heightfrom. 6-feet to 9-feet. The proposed fence Is. to be located along the entire west property line. The subject Is located at 18926 83rd Avenue West and is zoned RS-19&2,,, If you wish to speak on this item, please print your name and address below: Name ...... Address ..... wea� iFa-(mo,7,Q IX141� CITY OF EDMONDS 1PARBARA FAHI ty ^Vgt4U* r4on-n-4 . NOMONOW, W^ 00020 - MCC) 771-0220 771-0221 COMMUNITY 812MVICHO 06PARTIVIONT Public works o Plannine a Park& and nocrantion a analnearina -r9!!t-T==C�optE=-F;t 4=01VER PAL4313 MA NUIVISFER aF PAIGO (sr-loluding C-Over Page) Reciplenterelecopler Number: FAC�SIMIL-S 4EQUIPIVIIEN-17: ^utC3-MatIlXCRmup It if there are any pr=btems cfuring trarismisslon ar dc),Cuments are recelvw�d Incown lete,2plemse call p 520andusk 1) 10206) 71-0 r Genclarle -relaCMpler tjumt:ler. (208) 771-022*1 Fier, A& Incorporated Auguat 2 2. 1890 Stater =itlew international 144kinart. JaPa" TRANSMISSION REPORT THIS DOCUMENT (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE) WAS SENT ** COUNT # 12 *** SEND *** NOI REMOTE STATION I.D. START TIME DURATION #PAGES COMMENT 11 206 889 0730 4-11-96 7:48AM 8-10" 12 dm DAMWorddata\FaxForm,l .4, lncorporob�dAu4ustll 1890 nt�rnation6l:ro�� Hekinand!�P97.1,� Rod Addicott File No. V-96-28 Page 2 of 5 INTRODUCTION A. Application 1. Applicant: Rod Addicott (see Attachment 1). 2. Site Location: 18926 83rd Avenue West (see Attachments I and 4). to allow an increase in the maximum permitted fence height from 6- 3. Reques A variance feet to 9-feet along the entire west property line (see Attachment 1). 4. Review Process: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. 5. Major Issues a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 17.30.010. (FENCES SPECIAL HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). B. Recommendations Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend Approval of this application subject to the following conditions: I . This variance is to allow the proposal in the location identified on the proposed site plan (see Attachment 4). Any other structures, additions or remodels would have to conform with the typical setbacks or height requirements for the zone or obtain another variance. 2. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 3. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction. 4. The permit should be transferable. 'j" 11. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Site Description 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) SqLzs: The subject property is approximately 13,300 square feet in area and located at 18926 83rd Avenue West. The proposed fence would be located along the west property line (see Attachment 4). (2) Zonin : The zoning of the subject property is Single Family Residential (RS-12). (3) Terrain and Veggtation: The subject property gently slopes from west to east. Vegetation consists of ornamental landscaping (see Attachment 4). Rod Addleoft File No. V-96-28 Page 3 of$ ces and zoned RS-12. �(3) L q: Developed with single family residen (4) -ftq: Developed with single family residences, and toned RS-12. b) Conclusion: , The proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding zoning and development. B, Edmonds Community Development'Code (ECDC) Compliance 1. Compliance with RS-12 Zoning Standards (1) The fundamental site development standards in a RS-12 zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.020. (2) The existing development conforms to all RS-12 requirements. (3) ECDC Chapter 17.30 states the standards by which fences may be developed, including fence height. The standard from which the applicant is requesting relief is, ... The City Engineer may approve afence or hedge of up to six (6) feet in height". (4) All other requirements of ECDC Chapter 17.30 must be complied with. The drawings submitted with this fence height variance show that the applicant will be complying with all other requirements of ECDC Chapter 17.30. b) Conclusion: As conditioned the proposal complies with the development standards for RS-12 zones as set forth in Chapter 16.20 except the standard for which the applicant is seeking a variance. 2. Compliance with requirement for a Variance ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances) states an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85. Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC also sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a case -by -case basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship (see Attachment 2). (1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These criteria include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted; the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum necessary. (2) Variances may be used to modify bulk standards. They may not be used to modify use or procedural requirements. (3) The applicant is seeking a variance to improve the privacy of his backyard (see Attachment 2). b) Conclusions: (1) Special Circumstance Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property and public necessity for public structures. Rod Addicou Filc No. V-96-28 Pagc 4 of 5 Ile applicant states that the topography and surroundings of his,property cause a significant decrease in his privacy (see Attachment 2). The neighbors property to the, west is higher than the applicafits,and is able to clearly see,in,to all of the.,applicants; backyard therefore the applicants privacy. seems, to be impaired by the present fence height. The Engineering Division does not believe that the fence will cause a, sight am to other hazard (see Attachment 5), so the increased height will not cause any h p erties in the vicinity. Special circumstances appear to exist with respect to rop topography and surroundings of the property. (2) Special Privilegg It does not appear that any special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that other properties in the same.zone with similar circumstances would also qualify for a variance (seeAttachment 2). (3) ning Code and the Comprehensive Plan Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the continued development of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site (see Attachment 2). (4) Not Detrimental The Engineering Division does not believe that the fence will cause a sight hazard to traffic (see Attachments 5 and 6). Approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare (see Attachment 2). (5) Minimum Required The request is the minimum necessary for reasonable development of the subject property (see Attachments 2 and 4). The variance would allow the applicant to enjoy the ability of most property owners to have reasonable privacy on their property. (6) As conditioned, the requested variance would be consistent with the review criteria for a variance. C. Technical Committee 1. Review by City Departments a) fo-d: The Engineering Division notes that the fence cannot be constructed on public property without a right-of-way permit. D. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) I . a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Large Lof'. b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. Rod Addicon File No. V-96-28 Page 5 of 5 III. RECONSIDERATIONSAND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing redblisideration's.an appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the:Planning Department for further procedural information. A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20.100.01O.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his. decision or, recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of die initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. Appeals Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the e iration date.' xp V. APPENDICES Attachments 1 through 6 are attached. 1. Application 2. Declarations of the Applicant 3. Vicinity Map 4. Site Plan and sign elevations 5. Comments from Engineering Division, dated 3/6/96 6. Letter from Jim & Cindy Leffel, dated 3/l/96 W M AM-. ZAI; V I &M, 11; a IR � Applicant Planning Division Engineering Division Fire Department Parks Deoartment I city of e6 .nonds land use application El ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD E3 COMP PLAN AMENDMENT C3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 0 HOME OCCUPATION L3 FORMAL SUBDIVISION L3 SHORT SUBDIVISION 0 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Q PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT L3 OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT STREET VACATION El REZONE Q SHORELINE PERMIT 91 VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION E3 OTHER FILE# ZONE DAZT"' REC'D BY FE —RECEIPT# HE ING DATE JV HE Q STAFF Q PB Q ADB Q CC ACTION TAKEN: Applicant Rod Addicott Phone 774-7945 Address 18926 83rd Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 Property Address or Location same as above Property Owner same as above Phone Address Agent n/a Phone Address TaxAcc# 4816-003-007-0003 Sec. Twp. _ Rng. Legal Description Lot 7, Block 3, Oscar E. Jensens SEattle Suburban tracts, according to plat thereof recorded in volume 9 of Plats, Page 81 Records of Snohomish County, Washington. Details of Projector Proposed Use Our neic(hbor to the west Jim Leffel and myself wish to have more privacy between our yards because his lot is higher and looks down into mine. He has planted a type of hedge which is slow growing. We wish to extend the existing fence from 6 feet to 9 feet while his hedge grows. The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City :of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ 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 1� I ATTACHMENT 1 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT (�J File No. V-96-28 Rod Addicott 18926 83rd Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 774-794S MarchS,1996 City of Edmonds Variance Application Applicant Declarations Question #1. The proposal to extend the fence from 61 to 91 is mainly because our neighbor Jim Leffel's property to the rear is higher than ours. He has cleared the property foliage allowing a direct view into our back yard, which eliminates the privacy between the two properties. Question #2. This proposal is not a grant of special privilege because there are many homeowners in this neighborhood that have hedged foliage around and between them. This allows the privacy we are interested in. Jim has planted such a foliage but they are very slow growing. We have chosen this type of fence for immediate results. Our plan is to cut the fence back down to 61 after his hedge fills in. Question #3. This proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan because it will not effect any other neighbors. It is consistent with other ' privacy options that have been chosen throughout the neighborhood. The majority of hedge type foliage used for privacy exceeds the 9' height variance that we are requesting. Question #4. This proposal is consistent with the zoning ordinance because it will not obstruct the view of neighboring properties nor will it be detrimental to any other homeowner. Question #5. There are no other properties that will experience a loss in value or view. This proposed higher fence from 61 to 9' will not be physically injurious or harmful to any person surrounding the properties. Question #6. The proposed variance is the minimum variance needed to offer the privacy both neighbors desire. RS-12 IM P A '-se o o,4 MAR _91tv F-1011 k I I & I f I __2L_AP0 Ust _____Legals (Existing & Proposed) ____jitle Report Environmental Assessment ___-_Yicinity Map Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) ___�__Elevations Declarations (Variance & C. U. P.) _Petition (Official Street Map) -Environmental Checklist __--__Pdfical Areas Determination COMMENTS ulfY OF EDMONDS III rollool LL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING 1 ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: Lm�-j k"m ZONE DISTRICT 17. THE HEARING WILL BEGIN AT 41 *-00 Ar-M., IN THE PLAZA MEETING ROOM, LIBRARY BUILDING, 650 MAIN STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. 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 PLANNING 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,6T THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 250 FIFTH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS (PHON WARNING. THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR CONCEALMENT OF THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE OF THE HEARING IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT. THIS NOTICE MAYBE REMOVED AFTER' 0 004-001-0007 1616-003*-010-09 8 816- riiiier, victor :reland; ravid C f ey, Glen .8905 84th Ave W 18091 84th W 19006 83rd Ave W I,.dmondg'WA 98026 Edmonds WA 98026 Edmonds WA 98026 1816-004-002-0006 1 4816-004-003-0005 4816-003-003-0007 fueter, Jay Berger, Robert A Streckenbach !00 Old wilson Bridge R 601 Union St STE 2000 425 Pike St ''forthington, Oh 43085 98101 Seattle WA 98101 Seattle WA .. ........ 1816-003-004-0005 4816-003-006-0004 4816-003-008-0002 loore: Djrwood !.Frederickson, Joyce Leffelp James .8908 83rd Ave W 18916 83rd Ave W 601 Union St STE 2000 Edmonds WA 98020 Edmonds WA 98026 Seattle, WA 98101 ... ... ...... 1816-003-009-0100 4816-002-008-0103 4346-000-022-0405 :reland, DAvid Jamasaki Minoru Whitman, Timothy >0 Box 780 8127 190th St SW P0 Box 66815 iateriod, IA 50704 Edmonds WA 98026 ST Louis Mo 63166 1816-004-014-0002 4816-002-009-0003 4346-000-020-0407 Fowler, R i Friang, Bradley faxwell, Charles 425 Pike St 18810 84th Ave W .501 Woodield Rd ',chaumburg, IL 60173 Seattle WA 98101 Edmonds WA 98026 1816-004-012-0004 4816-002-010-0109 4346-000-020-0506 )N Sang Yong Vantine, Edwin Wo a fa )0 Box 1489 PO BOX 1797 PO Lynnwood WA 98046 Ta W 401 tiverside CA 925012 .. ......... 4816-002 4 008-0107 4816-005-012-0001 4346-000-020-0605 Susan King irwin, Michael Mjeller, Christopher 18925 83rd Ave W P0 Box 740040 18902 84th Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 Louisville, KY 40201 Edmonds WA 98020 4816-004-004-0107 4816-005-013-0000 4346-000-020-0704 Katter, LB Havens, Dwaine Seager, Gretchen PO Box 660722 1.9017 83rd Ave W 18928 84th Ave W Dallas TX 75266 Edmonds WA 98026 Edmonds WA 98026 4816-005-014-0009 Rod Addicott Connelly, Matthew 4346-000-020-0803 18926 83rd Ave. W. PO Box 100563 Geary, John Florence SC 29501 18922 84th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds WA 98020 4816-004-013-0003 Flotte, Maud Jim & Ci ndy Leffel 18921 84th Ave. W. 19015 84th Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 ,Edmonds, WA 98026 SSX08 NIHiVA 301S SIHI'N0 LAI Residing at lk,�LwteaoA 6�cum cnt2 Hearing Body: Hearing Examiner Please be aware that your presence at the hearing is highly advisable. If an applicant or his representative is not present, the item may be moved to the end of the agenda. Items not reached by the end of the heanng will be continued to the following montWs agenda. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Kirk Vinish, Project Planner at 771- 0220. Sincerely, Sunity Services Department - Planning Division Je ev S. Wils Je ey S. Wilson, AICP Current Planning Supervisor k 'ji —APPLICA TIONROUTING FORM "FILE -!V-9648 "A kkkLIST,�. FROM' PLANNINd ROUTED TO: "44* ENGINEERING, 316196 NAR'ff; FIRE DEPARTMENT� J/6196 �OBLICVOM .�,C MME TS: -Owrier�RODADDICQTT Property Addre' 18926 RD AVENUE WEST ss b fe plication 3/5196 a, of Ap, Type YFENCE HEIGHT X ADDlication ___L_Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11) X Fee __Z_Site Plan (11 r X 17) X APO List Legals (Existing & Proposed) Title Report Environmental Assessment Vicinity Ma p Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) Elevations Declarations (Variance & C. U. P.) Petition (Official Street Map) Environmental Checklist Critical Areas Determination COMMENTS oib C-a .1ft/tr +ih !A ti, "A 0 �,APFLICATION; ROUTING F RM," FILE'- V-96-28. D. H ST� �:FROM: LAN NING ROUTED TO: IENGINEERIN6.�.__.�. 3/6/96 tFIR - ;1 1 �;. - , MDEP 11? E [VIED Ct PUBLIC WORKS L PARKAREC.'I 3/6/96, MAR171199k On a Ov4ner ROD ADDICOTT Property Address 18926 83RD AVENUE WEST Date. of Application ' 3/5/96 Typ 91 FENCE HEIGHT X Application Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11) X Fee X Site Plan M I x 17) X APO List Legals (EAsting Proposed) Title Report Environmental Assessment -Vicinity Map Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) Elevations Declarations (Variance & C. U. P.) Petition (Official Street Map) Environmental Checklist Critical Areas Determination COMMENTS .,flAR­ . "16 WGINlEERN 1146, APPLICATION.�ROUTIWFPRM FILEL­ -W28.'. t­, V ''AWCHECKIL FRO -i'PWNING. Mi ROUTED TO: __111.,; X Aw 4E 'Q11NEER1 N F1 E M.PNT�­F- RED PART -316196 P UBLIC.WOR KS 3/6/96 PARK& REC., 3/6/96 MME T 'CO ME j4 Owner ROD ADDICOTT P perty-Address 18926 83RD AVENUE WEST 110 Wdrof A pplication 3/5/96 J Pe 9 FENCE HEIGHT A X Application 'Site Plan for Short Subdivision, (8.5 X 11) X Fee x Site Plan (11 x 17) x APO Ust Legals (Existing & Proposed) T itle Report Environmental Assessment Vicinity Map -Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU) Elevations Declarations (Variance & C. U. P.) Petition (Official Street,Map) Environmental Checklist Critical Areas Detennination COMMENTS ..... . ... t Y o f 6 04-j'k,, n n- r d s land use application E3 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Q COMP PLAN AMENDMENT U CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 0 HOME OCCUPATION 0 FORMAL SUBDIVISION 0 SHORT SUBDIVISION Ll LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 13 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT El OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT STREET VACATION L3 REZONE E3 SHORELINE PERMIT El VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION L1 OTHER FILE# ZONE DAT REC'D BY FE RECEIPT# '20� HEfRING DATE HE 0 STAFF 0 PB D ADB 13 CC ACTION TAKEN: APPEAL# Applicant Rod Addicott Phone 774-7945 IlAddress 18926 83rd Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 I Property Address or Location same as above IProperty Owner same as above Phone Address n/a Phone a W - . . . 9 TaxAcc# 4816-003-007-0003 - Sec. _ Twp. _ Rng' - Legal Description Lot 7, Block 3, Oscar E. Jensens SEattle Suburban tractsf� according to plat thereof recorded in volume 9 of Plats, Page 8, Records of Snohomish County, Washington. Details of Projector Proposed Use Our neighbor to the west Jim Leffel and myself wish to have more privacy between our yards because his lot is hi2her and looks down into mine. He has planted a type of hedge which is slow growing. We wish to extend the existing fence from 6 feet to 9 feet while his hedge grows. The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ 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. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT 6U C&IVZO Rod Addicott 18926 83rd Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 774-7945 March 5, 1996 City of Edmonds Variance Application Applicant Declarations Question #1. The proposal to extend the fence from 6' to 9' is mainly because our neighbor Jim Leffel's property to the rear is higher than ours. He has cleared the property foliage allowing a direct view into our back yard, which eliminates the privacy between the two properties. Question #2. This proposal is not a grant of special privilege because there are many homeowners in this neighborhood that have hedged foliage around and between them. This allows the privacy we are interested in. Jim has planted such a foliage but they are very slow growing. We have chosen this type of fence for immediate results. Our plan is to cut the fence back down to 6' after his hedge fills in. Question #3. This proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan because it will not effect any other neighbors. It is consistent with other privacy options that have been chosen throughout the neighborhood. The majority of hedge type foliage used for privacy exceeds the 9' height variance that we are requesting. Question #4. This proposal is consistent with the zoning ordinance because it will not obstruct the view of neighboring properties nor will it be detrimental to any other homeowner. Question #S. There are no other properties that will experience a loss in value or view. This proposed higher fence from 6' to 91 will not be physically injurious or harmful to any person surrounding the properties. 4816-60S-010-0008' :rJ6"003-011-0007 .-1816-004-001-0007 ireaandl r-4'a v �4.-�ff ey, Olen ililler, Victor -18905 84th Ave W 18091184th W 19006 83rd Ave W �Edmonds WA 98026 Edmonds WA 98026 Edmonds WA 98026 4616-004-002-0006 4816-004-003-0005 f 4816-003-003-0007, Hueter, Jay Berger, Robert A Streckenbach 200 Old wilson Bridge R 601 Union St STE 2000 425 Pike St 'worthington, Oh 43085 Seattle WA 98101 Seattle WA 98101 .4816-003-004-0005 4816-003-006-0004 4816-003-008-0002 ..Moore, Djrwood Frederickson, Joyce Leffel, James ..18908 83rd Ave W 18916 83rd Ave W 601 Union St STE 2000 Edmonds WA 98020,11: Edmonds WA 98026 Seattle, WA 981 1 01 4816-003-009-0100 4816-002-008-0103 4346-000-022-0405 Ireland, DAvid Jamasaki Minoru Whitmant Timothy ..PO Box 780 8127,190th St SW PO Box 66815 Waterlod, IA 50704 Edmonds WA 98026 ST Louis Mo 63166 4816-004-014-0002 4816-002-009-0003 4346-000-020-0407 Maxwell, Charles Fowler R Friang, Bradley :1501 Woodield Rd 425 PUe St 18810 84th Ave W �Schaumburg, IL 60173 Seattle WA 98101 Edmonds WA 98026 4816-004-012-0004 4816-002-010-0109 4346-000-020-0506 ON Sang Yong Vantine, Edwin Wollam Craig PO Box 1489 PO Box 1797 PO Box 1594 ,Riverside CA 92502 Lynnwood WA 98046 Tacoma WA 98401 4816-002LO08-010'7 4816-005-012-0001 4346-000-020-0605 Susan King Irwin, Michael Mieller, Christopher 18925 83rd Ave W PO Box 740040 18902 84th Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 Louisville, KY 40201 Edmonds WA 98020 4816-004-004-0107 4816-005-013-0006 4346-000-020-0704 Katter, LB Havens, Dwaine Seager, Gretchen PO Box 660722 1.9017 83rd Ave W 1 18928 84th Ave W Dallas TX 75266 Edmonds WA 98026 Edmonds WA 98026 4816-005-014-0009 Connelly, Matthew 4346-000-020-0803 Rod Addicott 18926 83rd Ave. W. PO Box 100563 Geary, John Florence SC 29501 18922 84th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds WA 98020 46816-004-013-0003 Jim & Cindy Leffel F.1otte, Maud 1'.9015 84th Ave W 18921 84th Ave. W. Edmonds W.A 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 SMOG N*UJM 301S,SIH.L NO 3 dA