Loading...
601 MAIN ST (2).pdfCITY OF EDMONDS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE ?-""* - o F. I , DATE C7 FEE RECT # APO'S HEARING DATE: 00 0 &DDRESSIZ-0- APPLICANTd M.� PHONE CITY & ZIP��,- 1'271�1���' INDICATE TYPE OR DEGREE OF INTEREST IN PROPERTY LOCATION OR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY (2�0- 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY � VARIANCE REQUESTED: ? �j FOR OFFICE USE ONLY USE ZONE: ry\ ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: r ' ST�AE OF WASHINGTON) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) or Signature of Applican Owner, Representative igned, a Notary Public in a for the State On this date, before me, the unders at Ile, sioned and sworn, personally appe of Washington, duly commis is/he-r-oath deposes and says that 4a�)he has prepared who, being duly sworn, on h hat the recititations and read the attached statements and has acknowledged to me t contained therein are true, and has signed this instrument as his/4K-r free and entioned. voluntary act and deed for the purposes therei m Subscribed afid sworn to before me this--j.4 day of 19 of Washington, N ary ubl rersidi g at '7- 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? TEi (FCX�t 2. How does your property differ from other property in the same vicinity? 1 MOMM-Max aft MMK� ariance be detrimentz -he public or damaging to 3. Will C--'C fZAY 1 1 other property or improvements in the vicinity? MOM- AQ-1-2 Mle—E Er 216(C/k'(-LV 6 A !:;-'E AT 0 C U 4. What hardships will result to you if the variance is not granted? Will these hardships have been caused by your own action? JD E:2>E- L -4 -R-1 L E �-- /V E: VzOuLu2 AP� TZZE-�CA-Fle 'A�LC�4 wm)Lo Mr:iAj,� A�NkvJ F 5. Can you make reasonable use of your property without the variance? -U�E C 0�� -F_CjB6\112S MRWRM =a Record of indings of Fact by Board of Adjus%. The Board of Adjustment for the City of Edmonds finds in the case of File flo-VI request for variance at (001 the following: 1. That notice was given according to Code requirements, and Affidavits attesting to same are in the file. 2. That the foregoing set forth Standards and Criteria each have/have not been met. 3. In aduition that 4. Therefore, the request for va Hance is, —OftpdlGranted, subject to the following special conditions: a Section 12-16-11� 11 ---- and if a building permit and/or occupancy Mrmit is not obtained ?8�0—iestTMiect-6roperty within one year from the date of the Board's decision, the con- ditional use permit or variance shall be automatically null and void.---" 6. Decision shall be effective on: �Ua t e DATED: s tme n t —C_ha2i!rfman (Boa *rdo f A ju DATA Date of Heari ng: Date of Application: Date of Publication: Continuances: Date of Posting: Date of Appeal from ,,ecision of the Board: Neighbors within 80-feet of 6 01 Main Street, E dmonds, Wa. 98020 File: Laurence & Carolynne-Harris�." Mr. & Mrs. Esterberg (owner.) 605 Main STreet Edmonds, WAshington 98020 Elaine's of Edmonds 611 Main Street Elaine's.of Edmonds 110 Mainstreet D s Drive in D' 6th and Main Sound Col or Corp 550 Main street Dr. Harry,,.Kretzl,er 555 Main Street. Ayer's Antiques 560 Bell Street Florence Wickersham 604 Bell Street. BY EDMONDS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT All interested persons are hereby notified that Wednesday, the 93 Qt- - day of mag , 19_0_, has been set as the date for hearing petition filed by Lairrance anti irarnlyn-IL=ris for a variance tn rpnnyat-P an PxiAting nonconforming structure, which is nonconforming as to setbacks, to an amount exceeding the permitted 25% of the actual valuation of the building. Also to allow a deck a e si.e yard setback. said property being zoned RMH and legally described as follows: Lot 40, Block 98 of the Plat of the City of Edmonds. Said heartng will be at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington before the Board of Adjustment and all interested persons are invited to appear. IRENE VARNEY MORAN City Clerk, City of Edmonds FILE NO: V-14-80 PUBLISH: 5-10-80 THE FILE NO.. PROPERTY ADDRESS AND LOCATION ZONE DISTRICT 0 WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: * A a am- 00 ARO X, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS THE HEARING WILL BEGIN AT 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 ANNOUNCEb ONLY AT THE MEETING. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 505 BELL STREET, EDMONDS (PHONE 775-2525, EXT. 227). wommommo� THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR CONCEALMENT OF THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE WARNINGIN OF JHLUE&RINQ IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISH , ABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT. THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOVED AFTER PLANNER'S VARIANCE REVIEW FORM FILE # V-14-8o APPLICANT: Laurence & Carolynne Harris ADDRESS: 601 Main Street ZONING: RMH VARJANCE REQUEJTED. To relitivArf. An n­v�+ ng non -conforming structure which is �n con orming as o s -RaMinry on- ­1 ­4­ ZONING CODE REQUIRE14ENT: A non-conformini structure m vql _s r,u amount n9t to Bxceed 257-6T__tWeMii�:�6�_ a ue­_-6-t­t`Me Side set ack I t uture in any year period. OTHER PERTINENT FACTS: Applicant waq nran+aA r__ itional Use Pormif tm_- allow a )rofessJonal office at this address VARIANCE CRITERIA - Section 12.16.100 1. Does this amount to a rezone? No 2.(a) Are there conditions and/or circumstances not generally applicable to other lands in the same district? The subject lo back.!� an (b) Would strict enforcement of the zoning code deprive the property owner of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district? Yes. The small lot and building were the result of ear I Ifier zoning requirements. Because ofits corner lot status front setbacks are necessar.. both stree )uildable'�,-­- 3. Do the special conditions result from the actions of the applicant? No. 4. Are there unnecessary hardships and practical difficulties in carrying out the J!, provisions of the zoning code? In order to comply with setback r6quireme�js for a corner lot, the lot becomes unbuiiZ;ie. 5. Will the granting of the variance be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of property owners in the vicinity? No. 6. Is this the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of land? Yes. 7. Will the granting of the variance generally be in harmony and compatible with this zoning code? Yes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve request. t, Planner's Variance Review 12/7-7 with the permit to get the elevation to 188' he can get adequate drainage for the lot and it would improve the condition of the gully there. He felt it should also improve the neighbors' drainage. He intended constructing a single story house with a basement and carport under it. He said he recognized that the height of the house is restricted to the computation from the ground level prior to the fill. Mrs. Doris Matthews, a neighbor, said the fill had been beneficial to the drainage on her property. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Byrd stated that it would appear that the conditions placed by the Staff would take care of any issues to be addressed, and with those in a Conditional Use Permit he felt it would be acceptable. Mrs. Derleth said that in looking at this site her main question is would she have granted it before the fact --does she think it is reasonable. In looking at the area where the house is to be located she noted that almost every house around it has a similar retaining wall and terracing of the land, so it obviously is difficult property on which to build. She said her concern was with the neighbor below (Mrs. Matthews) and would that neighbor object to that wall because the light may be restricted, but this neighbor has testified that she finds an improvement. She said she probably would have been motivated to permit the fill. Mrs. Medina said that if she had had a chance to vote before this was in place she would have voted against it. She said it would affect the adjacent property considerably because of the high wall, it affects the use of the property, and the visual aspect of the property is important. But she said the only solution seemed to be to go along with whatever remedy the City Staff finds. MRS. DERLETH MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. BYRD, TO APPROVE CU-32-80, SUBJECT TO ALL THE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS STATED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION AND THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, ON THE BASIS THAT GIVEN THOSE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS IT IS THE MOST REASONABLE SOLUTION FOR THE SITUATION AND THIS PROPERTY, AND PARTICULARLY BECAUSE THE NEIGHBOR MOST AFFECTED BY THE FILL HAS TESTIFIED THAT SHE SUPPORTS IT AND THAT IT HAS INDEED BEEN AN IMPROVEMENT FOR HER; IF THE CONDITIONS ARE MET SHE FELT IT WOULD NOT BE A DANGER TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, AND SHE FELT IT IS SOMEWHAT COMPATIBLE TO A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE MANY LOTS DO HAVE ROCKERIES AND FILLS. THE MOTION CARRIED. LAURENCE AND CAROLYNNE HARRIS - Variance to renovate.an . existing nonconforming structure, which is nonconforming at to setbacks, to an amount exceeding the pemitted.25% of the.actual valuationof�the building a I Hand also,to I ow a'deck in theside yard setback at 601 Main St. (R Mr. Bowman stated that a Conditional Use Permit had been approved for a professional office building on this site (CU-74-79) but it had not been noted that in the renovation process the amount of repair or maintenance may not exceed 25% of the value of the structure in a one-year period, and a variance should have been requested at the same time as the request for a Conditional Use Permit. The side setback requirement is 10'. Mr. Bowman reviewed the variance criteria. This request would not amount to a rezone. The lot is a small corner lot, which is a condition not generally applicable to others in the area. The small lot and building were the result of earlier zoning requirements. Because it is a corner lot, front setbacks are necessary on both streets, rendering the lot impractical for building. Mr . Bowman said granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of property owners in the vicinity; it would be a minimum variance to make possible reasonable use of the land; and granting of the variance would be compatible with the zoning code. A building permit had been applied for on the basis of the Conditional Use Permit, but the proposed work was questioned by a building inspector because of the building being nonconforming. The lot is only 30'x 110', and the Staff felt the request was not unreasonable because of its size and the cornerl ot setback requirements. The renovation plan had been appro�ed by the ADB, and the structure's appearance will remain essentially as it is. The building currently was raised in order to construct a foundation beneath BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Page 5 - May 21, 1980 it. Mr. Bowman recommended approval of both variances. Assistant City Engineer Pat Wilson said there is ia piece of retaining wall near 6th and property, and it should be relocated back to within Main which is on City ved, and With that accomplished the the applicants' property line or remo Engineering Division would have no objection to the application. The hearing was opened to the public. Marshall Menne, 134 3rd Ave N representative of the applicants, said he ; ;1u iring had talked to the applicant a 0 t eliminating the building and acqu the adjoining property, but the adjoining property is not for sale and Mrs. Harris likes the hous'e and feels it has historical value. He said the building is structurally sound although it looks terrible from the exterior. He said the house will be lowered onto the foundation and will be renovated into a nice commercial office. They wish to place the deck on the side because to go to the rear would intrude into the parking and the other side is on 6th Ave. it was intended to carry the deck to the privacy screen on the property line as there would be nothing gained by stopping 6" or 1' short of the screen. The deck would only service the side door and would be 6 1/2' wide if it goes to the property line. If it were only 3' wide it would restrict the usage because the door is 3' wide . it would only be accessible from the rear parking lot. Mr. Menne had not been aware that the retaining wall was on City property but he said that would be no problem. The front porch of the house was removed but it was intended that it be rebuilt. John Canney, 623 Main, asked if parking would be provided, and Mr. Menne responded that there will be two parking spaces behind the building �Prised Harold Kelly, 626 Main St., said this is an old house and he was su to see it renovated. He said he would like to see the roofline lowered as it interferes with his view of the Sound. Myrtle Canney, 623 Main St., said the roof is obnoxious. An unidentified person asked if they could appeal the ADB decision on this and City Attorney Wayne Tanaka responded that the appeal period had expired. Bert Stole, 8704 182nd Pl. S.W., asked for an explanation of the 25% require- ment , and Chai man Roy responded that when you renovate a building you must build to code and -they cannot do that because this building is nonconforming so they are allowed to renovate in one year to a dollar amount limit of 25'. of the value of the building, but what they propose is over that and, therefore, they are requesting a variance from that n requirement. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka added that the building is no conforming as to setbacks, and the 25% restriction applies only to buildings that are nonconforming as to setbacks. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Mrs. Derleth observed that it is a City policy to try to retain the small houses in downtown Edmonds whenever someone is willing to spend the money to do that. She thought this house was quaint and cute, and she felt there was value in retaining it, as such houses make Edmonds what it is --the houses are unique. She said she was pleased to see this rather than a two or three story apartment building constructed there. She felt it was reasonable to allow the over-25% expense, and she felt it was reasonable to build the deck over to the privacy screen. She thought the privacy screen would offer protection to the neighbors and that visually it would make the building more attractive. Mr. Hatzenbuhler commented that the building had been at that location for 75 years and will continue to be in that location, and although it may obstruct the views of people in the new condominium across the street it was not the Board's position to tell someone to Y MR. remove his roof and redesign it. MRS. McGEE THEN MOVED, SECONDED B HATZENBUHLER, TO APPROVE.V-14-80 TO ALLOW RENOVATION OF THE SUBJECT BUILDING IN AN AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF 25% OF THE ACTUAL VALUATION, AND TO ALLOW THE DECK ON THE EAST SIDE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK OVER TO THE PRIVACY SCREEN, THE REASONS BEING THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS CREATED BY THE SMALL LOT AND BECAUSE SHE FELT IT WOULD BE AN ASSET TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO HAVE SOME OF THE OLDER BUILDINGS REMAIN. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. LeraaS advised that he would be out of town on the date of the June meeting. There was no further business to come before the Board, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Page 6, May 21, 1980