Loading...
18927 OLYMPIC VIEW DR (2).pdf�pl •'.� _ '' � 9 } 1 ... � � _ � .... ..> ...4 .._ a. .. v ._ .. ._ .. •. _ Y!'� :3� .. �. Y-,. ...��4 •-Y4)Yt., 11i :..tr 1 1 1 i , .: . , n�.rtr�.••.m....�...,,.....�w:. a t.. r 4 EXHIBIT 3 ^ \: s` sf r VICINITY MAP A 4 1, 1ti 4 y� 'V' r� if J.? )• __ ,ti�.•.. t I • yrt JJ n` 1 oq. r a • )d I I j.IIIe. n or MO N AK R t - 1 • n v ,l t g• v E v .... I 18J > ... a •r to • _ pit• ir• t R-. 1 .. •e: t P 4 9 Tl f QQ ' •ro ITTIT t /Syr `Il' It r' • ). g At • J` • t bottom ~ '-` • ,loo,�or If, to A , { f ;\ d PJ c EEI .• 5 f • . ) [ Pass ,40 tit' + '�•�' ' • VIEW TRACTS v 1 .n•Itr♦T EOu0N05 SEA 1 3 p v 0 D ,� • •i• I851N to I T N ST W. ur.u: — N®R,t,N f ,� . ♦ed` %��i {b TT IT ./� •t HUTT ' L.SW t••mnttit ! r _ ) 1{ �y'r `• J ; \ • •. 1• . tt PARK : E.0 NO NO tu.rtr , �r • tI If �./ ,('.�, • •• •: 14 t E 1 u 9 P ] t 1 a1N • M. f�1.1- \.�1 �. a• •. i i Y1 a It 1 ••limo•' W ol,,•�'• \a /ta • y j q l,v TI W Oli:l,o N D S y\ A ). C , for TIT / It 64 •♦1 '1 ' T PROPERTY SUBJECT ';,` 1 • •_ 1 TRACTS___.. SUBJEC ) u n e AGHTS 1 Jr; to SE ++ NGONTS ElE E M N1AR ••� `' ) • t _ � • at j •t Itf TN---"'��ET—�- 5f.N001 _ to a tga•o-k''•• At . • N 2 EOMONOS SEA VIEW TRACTS - 1 a , q K..). ,.t E , fto o f 1• 1, it ,• f �P'ji1V'jj� t -' / a NIN PARK • � ' -.. »IsO ^ r, _ t ♦ _ TN 5 VN SIT I /._. t _._. r• •• n t • 1 I 1 t 1 of 11 13E ND Sti .f ♦G bE VI w. — c /� 1,}fJ�e 1 �� •1 EO ONDg , ; w sow D! •) 04 I id !ti• ss `-- ___-- TRA r:Jt ) II • t .3 •t / . // • TN TR TT 4 Iz ti �\ `/ Dg ) —_ •' �� uAP n oto t GARDEN UNREC iAd .'� mayvr r. 7 y t n ,..S � - - -.TT I. -- ' N P t \ IJ aWf d J t, Igo, at I . t a _..._.I •VOCT DRIV[ — 2� i • • WR.NOR 1 Is A To .M1P OIYMPNDIC .. � • 1 t o t • t • rw T 5 PU rN 1 ELEMENTARY — ���.. IiA Is • ' '"1 Ind t f u � • CITY PARK .. - `` ♦^`ate POO 5 C H 0 0 L 1 ) ,r u u it +• _ --_ V. LOT I L __ ■ o v 1 , H14pGO LEY LANE i i . ^ V• • tt HA I SEW I I ♦\ \ r —V P 1 l y v WAG R A All BROOKMERE ST I I a To 1 r ) I r u a`. r... IF ;1 m (f) "-A ADD zm,4 Im Nod =-�Z ZU)D G� Z j 117' 15 i 120 I I o N 0 E r O N 10 _ ME m Z . m � ' M L y • .. I iA qL,. , ; 11 -ok r m CA OJ r D i I OejN O f 3 . If � s t 57 1 1k 4} I 7 1 1 l ,. ; ..JN .o .. - . 1. .1 .1 1... ar l....� �� �1. 1. _'�..,.� Iy r :C.. �I M1 F .0 .` a / t 1 1 -70 .t 'v _ .. .... .. _ . _ .. _ _ . jY S $ ws...y ,a.+...�� �5� 1, j .Y r i r t ry ti' 'TER -OFFICE COMMl1t ,AT10N a �. DATA April ' l Of:`�2: Jim Adams r City Engineer �`_IN TO Bobby Mills - P.W. FROM Duane Bowman Gary McComas Ni Fire Marshal 'Planning Dept Steve Simpson Parks and Rec, r MP;F of I e ?� SUBJECT@ V-10-85 VARIANCE. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF w A JOINT USE DRIVEWAYYZ AT 18927.OLYMPIC VIEW. DRIVENII Y` w,. qi- or PLEASE RESPOND WITH YOUR COMMENTS NO LATER THAN APRIL 251 1985. THANKSIN . `,D� ED if EN GINEERING � � . G ,�i�; , �f ..dry ,�r•�/� ,l�!�,� I. t �t. PPoS 600 'o TVCA M of � � � / 5 1��V iC..-c� rnN•t SKJ "' It - _ t �•,-:� �.y ` ��,,,J -� r +• C 'ice. !: -'^ P e /�:.���NINI No.1. �Y _NN Nl d No, IN of No 1 If oll-Y `'N, IN :, �•o4.': =.:f3- :'i: -:{ _ r, _-+.._� :�:_;_'.`:L• �j: `v/J •. •:.:�7rr:�•.:iC•�•C _-]j- { +� l-%C. Sri:•.•:•:.-.�'{•-.�_ IN - : •a•: •:: C': -}•T`_i,. }a N. : ,�.;. �.ti-.. viw•�•❖••+a`S.7y.?' iof:of �.i,'.IN :�•:=•Ill; :-^;• _ "it:ice. -1• \ - y. ! / -.•i - . v - Note w .t•C-. - - - lM . - •4 •--.'n -•''V- ti • ir+^..^. T. _ 1 ?-r•:w•. -.:-...�1.1.rG 'L it4•!. l _♦ .M-.•:.assIN r; .. .. ..r S, , ..#...A� .. iJ.a._.. ti4._v+f•P' Eya':' I.iP ri/A - - - _ Y;. .NIINN IIINoI _ '- :. 1 i• f +: + _ _ _ _ _ I. •�'�••• iYi i'%ti-. •t �nr • - -..• 1. '¢ —. -.+i •. •�... a n . C �' . i �•Y W ,.�•� f � 1 f�•� i t .:.......... ._ .... .... ._. a '. .... ._. .... ... ..t.. ..,. ...,.tt3t3;L.F-r»t ie.+ri'tu5v, i�' x �b t ('. y a r. L , -- G Ali I I ca!^ ......_ _ _ .a .is� a. .... r • 1. a.L fV . n P _ . .. .. .....�n.A .. . .. a r.r n _ \ .. ....'a i I 40 407 �.. 4 7. Y ',, , '. 11 l Y tY Y t y 1 !*y 1'iy ffef" J'.. NIiF 36 l. l. .f 24 ", ,il i5IOl pv34 f ....rl :... t 1.... . n.. u. ..._ , .. al Circumstances The subject property does rhave some .unique; circumstances in that it does have a steep shape. environment. The Applicant could meander an access back to serve the rear portion of the lot, but would end up with only two lots. Y 2. Specgr ial Privilege t. Other development along Olympic View Drive, on the LL Or east side of the road, have similar driveway slopes. The access road serving the lots north of the to subject property has a slope that exceeds the code required 20% slope. fi 3. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Policy Plan map designates the subject property as Low Density Residential'. The -; adjacent properties to the east, west, and south. are also designated as such. The proposed variance does not appear to completely L i' conform with the goalsandpolicies of the Comprehensive Plan. It must be noted that,in order Al to serve the proposed lots', an access road on either the north or south property lines will exceed -20% 4. Zoning Ordinance The subject property and surrounding area are zoned RS-12. The proposed variance does appear to`conflict with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and 'the RS-12 zone. Adding another steep driveway in this area is not in the best interests of community. L. 5e Not Detrimental The proposed variance may impact the safety of the general public. Side by side steep driveways will double the hazard of vehicles, during rainy or icy conditions sliding down onto Olympic View Drive. While there are other steep driveways in the vicinity, there is no need to compound this hazardous condition. 6. Minimum Variance L Lf The request does not appear to represent a minimum I variance. Chapter 18.80 060 (D) outlines the criteria for allowing the Public Works Director to allow a driveway slope to exceed 14%, up to 20%. In this case, we are looking at exceeding that maximum grade by 4%9 ,1 -41"- , -7 411 777. 0{ 1}`r'YF 4L .:'✓. ..,.., { f7 \- { . ! ..>`t .. . ...{ W ., , .' .,1. T iYr l F I ..s ...1a. 1, kk aJr,ti•.,}+.vdW '4aJK'�1hf1�^i� i. . Ij -•tt � .,]✓ .p + 4 eft (ri7+ 4 t pl�.l ��. Id M1 a FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE Y CITY OF EDMONDS I t,v x.: j{ IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FILE V-10--85, Mr' � OF FRANK LEIFER FOR APPROVAL OF y< A VARIANCE ; . hfi,{ r4 DECISION: The variance is denied. ,1,rt 4 ri w� r ;' INTRODUCTION Frank Leifer, 810 12th Avenue Northwest, Edmonds, Washington ,�',_,r 98020, and hereinafter referred to as Applicant, has requested a variance for the development of the property at 18927 Olympic ��` View Drive, Edmonds, Washington and on property more particu, larly described: L L ,� Tract 77, Edmonds Seaview Tracts, according to the Plat thereof recorded in volumn 3 of Plats, on page'76, records of Snohomish County,.Washington. The specific variance requested is to exceedthe maximum slope 11 of 20% in order to construct a driveway on the ;subject property. The Applicant desires to exceed the maximum slope by 4%. A hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds on May 2, 1985. At the hearing the follow-. L. ing presented testimony and evidence::. I: DuanIL e Bowman Jerry Lovell Planning Department 23106 100th Ave. .West City of Edmonds Edmonds, rWA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Frank Leifer 810 12th Ave NW Edmonds, WA 98020 x At the hearing the following exhibits were submitted and admitted as part of .the record: Exhibit 1 ,- Staff Report 2 Application/Declarations 3 Vicinity Map " 4 Site Plan and Driveway 5 - Preliminary Plat S-17-4 After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Applicant; evidence elicited during the public hearing; and, as a result of the personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding areas by the Hearing Examiner, the following findings of fact and conclusions constitute the basis of the decision.of the the Hearing Examiner. { a Mr r ,y f r ,t t d 7R+ ey1 SyyFi,t l iif4n'Z ..r tr !t t.4s.i i t.;( rF ti'Yh3j rTal N't w,Lr.tie'+j sSYKFi r.. Irt1 r al t t Ar S su . .R III. ' twtwy...a..5'�n" . 'S'4 . c.It r ° IN Ij OL Findings and Decision of the rl'xrs°' �, ;j , , - ti Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds Page 2If FINDINGS OF FACT i t 1. The Applicant has requested approval of a variance fortd property located at-18927 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds; l - x << The specific variance is to allow a drive 7` Washington . i way slope to exceed a maximum slope of 20 by an addi-- tional 06 (Staff Report) r ° 2 Is 18.80.060(D) of the Edmonds Community, Development Code (ECDC) limits driveway slopes to 14% unless author- ized by the Public Works Director of the City of Edmonds.` s The Public Works Director may authorize driveway slopes to exceed 14% up to a maximum of 20% if certain conditions are met. Any slopes in excess of the 20$ slopes must , obtain a variance. The Applicant has requested such a variance. (Section 18.80:060(D)'of the ECDC). L Li i 3'. It is the intent of the 'Applicant to develop the'subject M ''property with a three -lot short sub -division. Preliminary y approval was gra.nted`;to the Applicant in. ;July, 1984. How- 1 ever, in order to provide access to the three -lot sub- 11, division the Applicant must provide an access and utility L. R easement. It is this access and utility easement that is F the subject of'the variance. (Bowman testimony) 4. The subject property is zoned RS-12. (Staff Report) 5. RS-12 lots much have a maximum areaL of at IJLeast 12,000 square feet. (Edmonds Community Development CoL. de) 6. In order for a variance to be granted within the"City 'Of Edmonds the criteria as set forth in Section, 85.0I must be satisfied. That criteria include: { 1) Special circumstances must exist -for the granting of a variance; 2) The granting of a variance must not beta special ` to the Applicant; privilege 3) The variance must be in conformity with the Com- prehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds; 4 4) The variance must be in conformity with the goals and policies of the zoning ordinances In the',RS=12 one; 5) The variance must not adversely impact the health, safety and welfare of the public or adjoining properties; 6) The variance must_be the minimum necessary -to develop the subject property. (Section . 2Q . 85,:010;) r i r l 1 i- i5tsS,✓4y' axS`:rY i ci tyre A �y 1 3 .q "4 ...u.. n::,. an....... _ . _ .. _ ..... _ .. ...J , ._... . r r , x i r c a l� : ,..0 ' � IN ON r rs r r "P r . i6r1G'��4.1 M ,^ , __ rkfN 'fsSY+�I-� F Findings and Decision of ithe Hearing Examiner of.the City of Edmonds Re`: V-10-85 'L 5r Page 3r k r I I I I r r, MI i 3i lqi "A , 7. The subject property is located directl east of O1"m is 7 P P Y Y Y P4.1 ,,., View Drive, 'an arterial i.n the City of Edmonds. Terrain a� 9 in the area is steep "and access to sites is limited. '(Bowman testimony) -?' . Ak y'+rLr 8. Surrounding development of the subject property is single""` family residential. The most significant development; surrounding the subject _property is to the north. These properties are developed with three residences. There L1S � an 'access easement servicing these three residences. This existing assess easement would adjoin the proposed access and utility easement that is the subject of this variance.` (Staff Report) j:` .. . 90 The access easement servicing ,the properties to the north exceeds the code requirements of 20%. (Staff Report) 10. The requested access and utility easement<for the Applicant is the Only 'access available in order for',the Applicant to develop the three -lot sub -division. The terrain and grade on the south portion of the subject property is too steep to put in a road. The only other alternative that the Applicant would have to provide access would be to construct. a curved road through the lots of the three lot sub division. However, this would reduce the area, of the lots, and would eliminate at least one lot within the proposed short sub- division. (Bowman testimony) (Lovelltestimony) 11. If the requested access easement ,is constructed there wou!dLLL be two access easements adjoining each other that would exceed code standards. (Bowman testimony) 12. Subsequent to the public hearing, an attempt was made by the Applicant, the ,City of Edmonds, and the adjoining property owners to the north to reach a compromise or solution to, the.access of the subject property. No progress was made on this endeavor. (Bowman testimony - May 16, 1985)' 13. The Planning Department of the,City of Edmonds determined that the requested variance was not in conformity with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and that it was not in the best interest of the community to allow another steep driveway in this area of the City of Edmonds. (Staff Report) 14. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds stated. that adjacent, steep driveways will create hazardous conditions for vehicles during rainy or i.cy weather and thus, create safety hazards for the traveling public on Olympic View Drivee;. (Bowman Testimony) ., ♦� �T It , ' . , ,i' JS s Si?jr ` 2..r the t •44'. 67 .. t }PS d f111P U'a`. :JySY I ( ♦ I ik.`N d 14J1 �:. , " i f._.. .:, - Sri, _. .., _. i; .. 1 ... i. (. °'1`✓4^^YYj.± ... I I` f > J rh 3.'iAo I.k 14Ai4a§. ...:...,u....4.-., ,v ..... ,., Y .2.t F.c. ,yy It ICi •'„ y} rt It It tr Ati , G It Findings` and Decision of the ,r Hearing 'Examiner of .the ''City of ,Edmonds dry J Re* V-10-85 x � . Page 4 `y'It I*r y, 15. The Planning Department of the .,,City .of Edmonds submitted y�yr' that the variance request was not the minimum to properly develop the subject property. According to the Department the Applicant could make` an access road but would the .I I7I 4a to reduce the number of dots within the proposed short P It ; subdivision. (Bowman testimony) , . s °�' . 16 The recommendation of the Planning'Department of the' City t L ;` of Edmonds was as follows* Staff cannot recommend approval of V-.10-85, as proposed.I. In the best interest of the public safety, two side -by`- side steep driveways cannot in all honesty be approved`'. 17. The PlanninIt,g Department of the City of Edmonds, however, did state that if -a compromise or cooperative `agreement could ; be' reached with the properties to the north of the subject property, the Planning Department; of the City of.Edmonds, would-support'the�'variance for one access road to the subjectIV property and to the properties to the north. (Staff Report) i. 18, The Applicant's spokesman submitted that other properties in the area are serviced with Itsteep driveways and create norl It problems for the traffic along Olympic . View Drive He 'stated -the requested variance would be consistent with the develop= ment of the area. (Lovell.testimony) 19 Only two lots within the proposed ,three -lot subdivision would be serviced by the access road. They are lots two and three. Lot one would be accessed directly off of Olympic It 11 view Drive. (Bowman testimony) 20. The Applicant submitted that the proposed access and utility easement for the subject property would be in much better condition and would engineeringly be more adequate than the existing _access easement to the north. The Applicant's spokesman submitted that the proposed utility=and access I easement would be much safer than that existing to the north. (Lovell testimony) 21. The Planning Department submitted that one of the property, owners to the north of the subject property objected to the granting of the easement. The property owner was iden- tified as Jack Dublin. (Bowman testimony) CONCLUSIONS 1. The application is for the approval of a variance to allow r a driveway slope to exceed the maximum slope of 20 on property located at 18927 Olympic View Drive,`Edmonds, j Washington. The requested variance is to allow a driveway J,a �- Vs... r r.: It It tt I,12,. eta` tCAntbr }' Iit f t r nIt �It .�u utf i kY A li-'S�h St}f v i r Yri!' H$^1 g1�r•!s '..yM a. f� f 5 Lb zIt I d> - f g t 9 rr,¢ yixw Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner of -the City' of Edmonds - Re. V-•10-85 ) 5� Page 5 r .r. slope'of =24$ o.n the subject property. t} 2. In order for a variance ,to be rgranted within the City of ;; r;It Edmonds the criteria as set forth in Section'20.85.010, must be met. Allof the criteria must be met. 3. The application has `failed to satisfy all of the criteria of Section 20.85.010. 4. 1Although special circumstances relating ,to the steep. terrain of the 'subject property exist, the circumstances are not sufficient to grant a variance. The Applicant }f could develop the subject property with less than three IL lots by providing an alternative access that does .not exceed . the engineering codes of the City of Edmonds. 5. Other properties in the area do�have existing access ease- ments that exceed the code standards. 6. The requested variance.for allowance of an.access easement in excess of 20% does not conform to the policies of La Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds, in that it would be creating additional development on.a steep area and changing the existing soil characteristics, increased.run- off, .and excessivegradingof an existing hillside. 74 The requested variance -does not conform to the,purposes`;of the RS-12 zone in that the proposed access would create.two steep slopes adjoining each` other. Such development would not be compatible with single family residential use. , 8. The requested variance is not the only economical or envir , onmental reasonable alternative A meandering access road could be provided to this site. If such meandering access` were provided the Applicant would lose oneL lot in the sub- division. 9 The proposed steep driveway will present a traffic, pedes- trian and bicycle safety hazard. The existing driveway toI L II IL the north already presents one and the additional access easement would just compound the problem. 10. The requested variance is not the minimum necessary for the Applicant to enjoy the property. r DECISION Based.upon the preceeding Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the testimony and evidence submitted at a public _hearing, and upon; the impressions of the"Hearing Examininer, it is hereby ordered ,i � 4il`f •F n+�tikR',�sF'~ If I,i. r '.� 4. a a..i.:li J .J �_..o- r¢...L.... n.3 A, .whL-e off �...Y�`l .... _ .. .. _ .rF u _ i i ' f q.. jtI .iIf IL It I If ?It I rT d Findings and Decision of the ' Hearing: Examiner of 'the City of Edmonds Re: V- 1'0-85 Page 6 „; r that the requested variance to exceed the maximum slope of,20% ' by an additional 4% on property at 18927 Olympic View Drive,fi Edmonds, Washington is denied. The reasons for the denial are set forth in the Conclusions of this document. g The Applicant is in a difficultsituation. Without the variance he will need to develop the access to the subdivision with a meandering road through the proposed subdivision that would result F; in the elimination of one lot His only alternative is to put `. in the requested accessing utility easement. However, such an accessing utility `easement would only compound an existing problem in the area. Because the property to the north is serviced by an< existing access easement that is in excess of code standardsythe' requested access and utility easement would just widen access to the 'property and create potential for additional traffic on a steep slope. �. The Decision.is this matter was delayed so that the Applicant,' the City of Edmonds' and the adjoining property owners could ,meet C to.discuss possible alternatives* From the report given'to the Hearing Examiner these discussions were not fruitful. As a result, the only issue before the Hearing Examiner is the request of the idered if the Applic- Applicant. However, this case will be reconscant and the property owners to the north can cooperate and agree to some cooperative.use of the access easement to the subject pro- perty and the property to the north. Review of this agreement, if it is ever reached, will be made by the Hearing Examiner. If. such an agreement is made, the Applicant Ineed not reapply for the } variance but the variance will be considered as.,part of.°this file. Done and dated this 12th day of June, 19859 It f PI �. AMES M. DRISCOLL earing Examiner NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other grounds for appeal may be filed with the Planning Department, City of Edmonds, Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington, '98020,-within,seven` (7) days of the date of the Hearing Examiner's final action. XH In this matter any appeal must be received by the Department prior to 5:p.m. on June 19, 1985It 1. t :i. ,h. F l - ` �y t l l Y � �il �t AF ' 4i E it r i s ii h `�q f5 1-t(140 i � I E 4•1 tiEi irj ' T Y 1 n' 1 fit.'• 'r af>rt iBLIC H E rid+: Sri ti HEARING EXAMINER WILL HOLD A PUBLc HEARING THE 4 THURSDAY, MAY 2, 19 85 ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO. VARIANCE TO AL I OW A DRLV.FtajAy ct OpF TO FXCFFn THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED 20% SLOPE BY, 4�,. , PROPERTY ADDRESS AND LOCATION18927 OLYMP I C VIEW DRIVE. , ZONE DISTRICT RS-12 71, 4 THE HEARING. WILL BEGIN AT 30 PM., 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 AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 250 FIFTH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS (PHONE 7711,32021 EXTENSION 252), THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR [ CONCEALMENT OF THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE WA rl N IN Go"' OF THE HEARING IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT. l MAY 26* 1985 THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOVED AFTER