Loading...
529 MAPLE ST (2).pdfEXHIBIT 2 FIL. 6/ DATE 41 CITY OF EDMONDS FEE HEARING EXAMINER RE CT APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE APO'S HEARING DATE: APPLICANT —ADDRE S S- CITY & ZIP. PHONE —I"% INDICATE TYPE OR DEGREE OF INTEREST IN PROPERTY LOCATION OR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY—,��':� r.10 T nL1QrDTVTTnm nF PROPERTY W, vz� V VARIANCE REQUESTED: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: USE ZONE: ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: Release/Hold HarmL����� 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 City of Edmonds to ente he subject property officials and the staff of the Dlication. for the purpose of inspection and postin ,5,7tterVdant to t ap k /-,--7/, 1! ; " Signatute ot Applicanto Owner or 0 Representative 0 DECLARATIONS OF APPLICANT Please answer all questions 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? t -�- I ; �-j 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? \,kl i:3F- CtD "J "K C_) %7:-.�, V;- *- �� W1. T!",- 5. Can you make reasonable use of your property without the variance? a ;4" Critchley properties utilize this easement, and adjacent to this easement on the east is another 16.831 access easement which serves the Taylor and Warhol properties. The plan was to combine the two easement roads and dedicate to the City to a point narrowing to 201 as it runs to the existing home. There were six potential properties on this road with three more eventually using the first part of the easement. A 10' utility easement was being required by the City to run along the frontages of Lots I and 2 so as not to have to put the utilities under the pavement. Mr. Warhol had committed to pave the eastern half of the easement and also to dedicate to the City. Mr. Rowe was to pave the rest of it. Mr. Smith indicated that no parking would be permitted on the access and the homes would have T- shaped driveways for turnarounds. Mr. Critchley could not be present but had telephoned the Planning Department from Hawaii to express concern about the narrow road serving the properties. He asked for a turnout at the northeast corner of Lot 3 because of probable traffic congestion. The Fire Department also had recommended a turnaround at that location, and it was noted that the turnaround was made a requirement of the subdivision. A memorandum from the Fire Department was admitted as Exhibit 8, stating the requirement for this turnaround and for a fire hydrant to be located on the north side of the easement between the Gates and Warhol properties. Mr. Smith reviewed the variance criteria. Special circumstances exist on the property in that if a road width of 30' were required two lots (Lots I and 2) would be made substandard in lot width. The result of granting this variance would not result in special privilege, but would result in a paved, two-way road, as opposed to the existing one-way, rutted, gravel road. Development with approval of the variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in conformance with the Zoning Code. Approval of the variance should not be injurious to the other properties in the vicinity, nor detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. The requested variance was the minimum to allow the owner the rights of other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. The Staff recommended approval, subject to requirement of the above described utility easement. The hearing was opened to the public. Jerry Lovel 1 of Lovell-Sauerland and Associates, Inc., representing the applicant, said they had no problem with the turnaround discussed. He said this area had grown like Topsy and the streets serving the area leave something to be desired. He had worked this out with Mr . Warhol to combine the easements for an access. He had discussed the construction of a turnaround at the terminus of the road, which will be of a "T" configuration to allow easy turnaround. He said a fire truck would have trouble turning, however. He asked that the variance be granted so the property can be developed in a fashion similar to the other properties in the neighborhood, utilizing similar street access. In answer to a question by Mr. Driscoll, he said he would see no problem with restriction against parking along the access road, except for enforcement. No one else wished to speak, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Driscoll admitted Exhibits 1-7 listed in the Staff Report, and also Exhibit 8 submitted at this hearing. He stated that this and the previous application would be addressed in the same document and that his decision would be rendered by March 5, 1981. HOWARD JOHNSON - Variance to allow a front yard setback of 12'3" and a side yard setback of 2'8" at 529 and 531 Maple St. (RM-1-5) This property is 45' x 110' (4,950 sq. ft ) and the site is relatively level with the elevation of Maple St. Th�re is a 5' retaining wall at the north property line, making the property 51 above the alley grade. An existing duplex is on the site. Surrounding zoning is RM-1.5, but develop- ment is diverse- _ a church to the east, a single-family structure to the west, and multi -family to the north. The block has both multi- and single- family structures throughout it. The Comprehensive Plan designation is High Density, Residential. Mr. Smith reviewed the variance criteria. Special circumstances do exist in that the total lot width is onily 45' and to observe the required 10' side yard setbacks would leave only a 25' wide HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES Page 2 - February 19, 1981 building pad. Also, the existing duplex protrudes into both the required front and side yard setbacks. The proposed remodel of the duplex will use the existing building setbacks, but the new upper floor, extending north, will conform to the required 10' setback, so granting of the variances will not result in granting of special privilege. Granting of the variances will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan regarding multiple family development and also with the purposes of the Edmonds Zoning Code and the zone district in which the property is located. Granting of the variances should not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. Because of the narrowness of the lot and the existing building, the requested variances were the minimum necessary to allow the property owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. The Staff recommended approval, but stated that the applicant should be aware of the following: (1) The 9' driveway shown on the site plan was not approved. Either a one-way system through to the alley or a minimum 12' wide two-way driveway into the site would be acceptable to the Engineering Division. (2) Because of their uniqueness in the downtown area, the blue spruce and cedars should be retained if at all possible with development of the site. These trees are not involved in the setbacks but will be involved in the parking lot plan. Slides of the site identified as Exhlbit 5 were not available for viewing, and Mr. Driscoll said he wished to review the slides and that he also would visit the site. The hearing was opened to the public. Lou St. John, 1727 W. Biglake Blvd., Mt. Vernon, project designer for the applicant, said when the applicant purchased the duplex it was with the intent of refurbishing it and adding a unit. He said the design presented appeared to be the most compatible with the City's policies and that the site contained enough square footage to accommodate a triplex. No one else wished to speak, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Driscoll admitted Exhibits 1-5 as part of the record and stated his decision will be submitted by March 5, 1981, and that the procedure for appeal will be included with the writter, decision. There were no further matters to be heard by the Hearing Examiner, and the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES Page 3 - February 19, 1981 PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM AND/OR WISH TO RECEIVE A COPY OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OF FACT V-12-87 HOWARD JOHNSON Variances to reduce the required west side yard setback from 10' to 2'-8" and to reduce the required street setback from 151 to 12'-3" to allow an addition at 531 Maple Street. NAME ADDRESS P ,-- '1) 00 D A 0 NJ 4