710 SPRAGUE ST (2).pdfFI� V" vC��
,t
DATE 3
CITY OF EDMONDS
FEE d�eU ,,tt
HEARING EXAMINER RECT ? '46
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE APO'SEXHIBIT 2 HEARING DATE : J '2�— '�
APPLICANT Howard t+hn. Laorson
ADDRESS_ 71a Sprague Street
Edmonds da=rin ton
PHONE_ 778 92tr2
CITY & ZIP 98020
INDICATE TYPE OR DEGREE OF INTEREST IN PROPERTY aumer
LOCATION OR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY la 5oraue St. - '�dmonds - f31k 85 Lot !r & 5
,
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Mock 85 Lot IL LP 5,
City of Edmonds Vol.2 pay es
8 Snohomish Count Washington
REQUESTED : Allotrance
VARIANCEfo=' ;•rest side of nr. onosed garage to be constructed
Q
R1-oc}{ 85,
erithin one and one-half feet (1.8 inches) of the west nronerty line of Lot 1�,
in lieu of the required five foot setback.
ONLY: USE ZONE:
FOR OFFICE USE ,,pp /f
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: '`✓ si{^cRnL"'
Release/Hold Harmless Agreement
or
The undersigned applicant, his heirs and assigns, as consideration ,defend and
the City processing the application agrees to release,
hold the City of Edmonds harmless from s and/or claims for
any and all damage
ion
damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising misleading ortincompletE
or inaction is based in whole or in par
thisoagents eor employees.
information furnished by
the applicant,
Permission to Enter Subject Property
applicant rants his, her or its permission for publlronerty .. it
The undersigned app g
officials and the staff of the City of Edmondentdanenter tis subject property -__
for the purpose of inspection and posting_ ��j
Signature o Applicant. Owner or
Representative
EXHIBIT
DECLARATIONS OF APPLICANT
Please answer all questions
l ofalot, etc.)physical
createcharacteristics,
for youtopography,
shape
regard to
development of your property?
ido access to the rear of 0111• nronerty. Lack of space to build a garage east
of the existing house and. the east line of Lot 5. Tonography and lack of snace
rule out construction of a gaxage north of the existing; house.
2. How does your property differ from other property in the same
vicinity?
Our nronerty is a "side -hill" location which is characteristic of most of the
area, with the exception of Lots 1-2-3 & 38-39-�d of Block 85, which are basically
level.
3. Will this variance be detrimental to the public or damaging to
other property or improvements in the vicinity?
No.
lot
-s;-4. (continued) I am sure the seller was not atiare that the house was set on the
at an angle.
4. What hardships will result to you if the variance is not granted?
Will these hardships have been caused by your own action?
If the variance is not allowed it t•!ould not be feasible to construct a garave on
our nronerty. ';,Je nurchased this nrooerty 'With assurance from the seller that
the property would accommodate a 16 foot garaf;e on the east side of the house. (see above)Y
S. Can you make reasonable use of your property without the variance?
The nronerty can be used as a resic'•ence ,Tit.hout a Tara ;e but it trill rerrive- us
of storage for our rutomobile and r.ardeninF equinment.
APPLICA`r1011 FOR VARIANCE - (A) LOT PLAN - Block 85, Lot !i t, 5
j
t
F?oward 1,N. Lamson - ?,:10 Sprar
SLreet, ,drnonds
�t
�
r',ca2t=r�
EXHIBIT 4
I
{
{
f
}
{
m
n
RO
+
_. .....
t1t
c0.Ak7,
j -
1 W w4 t !n -a,-r
V �
w_
"ro
i I
7
i
h
r
•;
Ig
{
i
y
t
i
17
}
i
i
y
I
APPLICATION FOP, VA'i?IANCE - (13) 7TCI14ITY S*',TCH - Blk s5, Lot h-5
' Howard lm- Lawson - 710 Spr V treet, Edmonds
'
1
E
avPR/�G.UF S7:
Rg0POS.E0
�._
o
(
z�voa'rN
RMEn
BFR
R O7`
MA�zy
r�cNNunt
'
{
j
STbXK0 V / C
T0HN 9,0IV
Q t,SF_ IV
S
i
`L
�G644 6
UALC t
`..,y M♦ h b +. b N O � a ., '` r � m q a •^ N M♦ h b ^ b m � ^.. a M • m p r. 0 q N '• N M '� h �
J 84 t
ZZ
A a d
d
ii.Mn M �+ h a N N a N �+ a a h ♦ n 1 �'1
SPRAGUE ST
I
JOIN
111111
MMn m•♦i n.N,y•
EDMONDS p ST.
b^ a n O h b A� •' R 411
h b w a R 0^ N^ h♦ h b" bl w� ^ a h • m b A
•N M♦ h b A a A^ f
t �
' 99 vi
86 �
•- - �. b h• An ry b a m ^• b r1 ! p N O q M n, b a♦ M N a M h M n n M j
N W w a N N a w N ! M M h n M n M n n n N a N w N N N
♦. h h M n h M n M
BELL ST.
[HIM
m
mo,. I
v hb �aa$ Nh ♦ b a
7
98 87 f
623 ( THE '
MA CARM£L
' h `
ST. N f ae .q m .. O q m r. b ri! n N O q m +� b ri♦ M N a A b !
! M h M M M M 11 �5 N N w (59661 ♦ M h M M M h M h r't
(6290) M A I N ST .
a •.Ta • Y, b m g 0
=iS6221 W
ZI
olU,
.^,� � M M h �i h M rn N• j� N N N a a a w N
DAYTON
'^ a M• vt b N a g a� N h• M b A b N a
t � N
10
a a a w b ri • M N
�o « ti+ M«!i n «hn aaa aN a as
n
n a
.N N
N
^ IM♦
hr
w m
g 0`
N
M♦
h b
n a
A a
ee
ST
^ N M♦ h b w m g a
M1 N
n' N b
•` p
a V
0
89
M
•M
M W
N N
N N
N M
N�
O
M M
M�
n
� A
o` MAPLE ST
o a n n b w a^ b N M! h b w m a o a M v m e m q y ^ a M• p a ti
,a an•hb,.aa ^a ^�
t
95 90 �
,` p p! M N p N� �. b h♦ M ry O N h ti M h h n A 4 .9i W N 4 N N a N N a n M !� n M M M
y ♦ h M M n n n h M� •'s a w N N a a � ! "+
ALDER ST
BLOCK 8lts' , hi
Lot 28 thru 0 Carl S. Harris - 721 Sprngue Street, L•1'moifds, WA 98020
BLOCK 85:
+•w' Lot 1 thru T' Vincent Knrrn Hor•ich - 17�50 Rnllinger `1zy NNE, Seattle, WA 08155
Lot 6 thru 20 Sproule 'c rinnrs - 22? Sun7et Wenue, I-Anonds, :dA 98020
...ww Lot ?l thru 33 "ary .?:�nnum - 4'.;!.'�io 101 - ::;c!monr's, '•iA �80?.0
Lot 3': 35 8eo•,rtL. 01sen - :'.r!. noa 1''M _ For•tl-na, OR 97207 _
AMFA4 iort,; nr,e' Carrornt.ian h073ii5
" Lot ?6 37 Elmer ,tH ,'ohnson - 11.?3 t:th Ave, 5-rjt.tlrr, A 98101
`4daehir.: t.;an 'r'("<?ernl. Snvi.n Lon ssociat.:.on 50-200-20930-0
Lot 38 thru h0! Zivojin Stojkovic - Nill ?.th—Avenue, Seattle, ':,A o8111
?+,or•l: s ho,`L�nr r= Comrnny 9420l:10
.gin,•...., ,.. 1., �;,,•7 _ :'." >r�. 't:e ,.-rs,.t, :.r.�-;n;;r?:
{
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH,
NOTICE OF
+ PU84tG HEARING �
HE��1AR ING EXAMINE*,,f c,}�,
hertebYote�ttftedri ers lhutiiC.,
.dov of o
gali;'has* been'set aslbadle
.
t ` for;heortop b0he CIIY or E, d-
�' .,mends HeValan xofrom e�-
or000sed
5 jtjdlred stdeyord.setback ol'S
10 I o} the'grooerty locoted
1? of )to Sprague; street
;r5old hearino Will be al ; too
o.mY.in .iM,f_odndt Ctwmbers.;,
09...
Affidavit of Publication
The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says
that she is Principal Clerk of the EVERETT HERALD, a dully news-
paper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snoho-
mish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper
of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper
has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior
Court of Snohomish County, and that the notice ....................................
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
............... ....................................................................................... I...............................
............................................................ -------- -
a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said
newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and
entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely:
MAY 1, 1981
and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers
during all of said period.., -y
........CX_1 ....:..................
Principal Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ..... zi?d...........
.........MAY .. 19 81:...
dayof ........... ............. ........
:: /... .
N tin :' :...
ar Public and for the State of Washington,
f si ng at Everett, Snohomish County.
-_
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
HEARING EXAMINER
01`
All interested persons are hereby notified that Thursday, the
21st day of May ,19 81 , has been set as the
date for hearing by the City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner on proposed
Variance from re uired side and setback of 5' to 12"
;44#
of the property located 710 Sprague Street
5
R��at�t:t�x�a��kXb�ffixnxx��:t:t�sasz
i.,
i;
Said hearing will be at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of
the Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington, and all interested persons are invited
to appear,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
HEARING EXAMINER
01`
All interested persons are hereby notified that Thursday, the
21st day of May ,19 81 , has been set as the
date for hearing by the City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner on proposed
Variance from re uired side and setback of 5' to 12"
;44#
of the property located 710 Sprague Street
5
R��at�t:t�x�a��kXb�ffixnxx��:t:t�sasz
i.,
i;
Said hearing will be at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of
the Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington, and all interested persons are invited
to appear,
CITY OF EDMONDS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING,',
THE HEARING EXAMINER WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARIN'
THUP�l ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION:
FILE NO..,,
r r
VARIANCE FROM REQUIRED SIDEYARD SETBACK
PROPERTY ADDRESS AND LOCATION SPRAGU S RE T
ZONE DISTRICT RS-6
THE HEARING WILL BEGIN AT 7 -.30 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
WILL BE CONSIDERED AT TH."'
MAY ALSO WRITE A LETTER STATING OUR VIEWS W
PLEASE ADDRESS THE LETTER TO THE COMMUNITY DEIVE OPM NT DEPARTMENT AND ENCLUDIE NGTHE
ABOVE FILE NUMBER. CAUSE THE
IF THE ITEM IS CONTINUED
NEEDED, THE DATEANOTHER RING BE THE CONT{NUEDGHEARING WILL BE ANNOUNCED
FURTHER INFO
ONLY AT THE MEETING.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED
ATHE
;�COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
505 BELL STREET, EDMONDS (PHONE , T. 4p$v"
mi,L, *1161 11,61ra
THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR
CONCEALMENT OF THIS NOTICE agFORE THE DATE
OF THE HEARING IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE .
BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.
THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOVED AFTER li .
CITY OF EOMONOS
CIVIC CENTER - EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 9a020 * (206) 77S-2525
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: May 15, 1981
TO- Mr. Howard Lawson
716 Sprague Sheet
Edmonds, WA 98020
TRANSMITTING: STAFF REVIEW
RE: V-6-81
AS YOU REQUESTED:
FOR.YOUR INFORMATION: xx
AS WE DISCUSSED:
FOR APPROVAL:
FOR YOUR FILE:
REVIEW AND COMMENT.,
COMMENT AND RETURN:
MINUTES OF MEETING:
REMARKS:
14ARVG 14, HARRISON
MAYOR
PLANNING DIVISION
..........
{
e
t
}
EXHIBIT 1.
V-6-81
f
1)
Staff Report
2)
Application
3}
Declarations of Applicant
4)
Plot Plan
5)
Slides
j
of
i1.
is
z,
E
r
f
j(
iii
}
i
EXHIBIT 1
STAFF REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER
FILE #V-6-81
HEARING DATE: May 21, 1981
I. REQUESTED ACTION:
Variance from the.required sideyard setback: at
710 Sprague Street.
Specifically, to reduce the required five foot sideyard
setback down to IV (;
II. APPLICANT/OWNER:
Howard Lawson
710 Sprague Street
Edmonds, WA 98020 j
III. LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
(See Exhibit 2)
IV. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
!
A. Description of Subject Property and Surrounding Area
The subject property is 60' X 110' (6,600 square feet).
The site slopes generally away from Sprague Street in a
bank is located along
south-southwest direction. A steep
the west property line. A single family residence is
located on the property.
t_
Single family development surrounds the subject property
i;
to the north., south and west. The area to the east is
undeveloped.
i
B. Official Street Map Proposed Existing
60
North - Sprague Street bu—
15' 15'
South - Alley
C. Conformance to Chapter 20.85.010
1. Special Circumstances
Apparently, when the house was placed on the property in
1968, it was placed askew in the center of the property.
fill
In addition, the house was placed upon material.
do not exist in that the
Special circumstances really
developmental constraints of the property were essentially
j
created when the house was placed on it.
A�
Exhibit 1/File #V-6-81
Page 2
2. Special Privilege
The granting of the variance will result in the grant
of special privilege in that a garage could be designed
to meet the setback requirements.
3. Comprehensive Plan
As proposed, the granting of this variance would
generally not be in conformance with the goals and policies
of the Comprehensive Plan regarding residential
development.
4. Zoning Ordinance
The granting of this variance would not be consistent
with the purposes outlined in Chapter 16.10. Specifically,
this proposed garage would essentially be right on the
property line, towering over the backyard of the property
located to the west. It will required a retaining wall.
5. Not Detrimental
If this variance is granted, it will encroach on the privacy
of the neighboring property to the west. The full impact
of such an encroachment is, however, not substantial.
6. Minimum Variance
This variance is not the minimum needed to make reasonable
use of the property. Other alternatives are available to
the property owner.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the staff that V-6-81 be denied
in that it does not conform to the criteria outlined in
Chapter 20.85.010.
While it is true that the topography behind the house is
steep, a single car detached garage could be constructed
within five feet of the alley. it would mean the alley would
have to be developed out to 7th Avenue North. The other
alternative is to construct a single car garage within the
setbacks. It would be approximately 122' X 22'.
i
IIN
�s
y
EXHIBIT 1 _
'
r
V-6-81
-
1)
Staff Report
I
2)
Application
i
if
3)
Declarations of Applicant
{
4)
Plot Plan
if
5)
Slides
1
It
_
_ THIS IS THE PACKET THAT WAS SENT TO
THE HEARING EXAMINER.
1-
i 1
i
e
if
i
+
!1111•' r
.X
EXHIBIT 1
,STAFF REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER
FILE #V-6-81
HEARING DATE: May 21, 1981
I. REQUESTED ACTION:
Variance from the required sideyard setback at
710 Sprague Street.
Specifically, to reduce the required five foot sideyard
setback down to W.
II. APPLICANT/OWNER:
Howard Lawson
710 Sprague Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
III. LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
(See Exhibit 2)
IV. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLTI.-,TnMq
A. Description of Subject Property and Surrounding Area
The subject property is 601 X 110, (6,600 square feet).
The site Slopes generally away from Sprague Street in a
south-southwest direction. A'steep bank is located along
the west property line. A single family residence is
located on the property.
Single family development surrounds the subject property
to the north, south and west. The area to the east is
undeveloped.
B. Official Street Map Proposed Existing
NortH__-Sp_rague Street go, 60'
South - Alley
151 15'
C. Conformance to Chapter 20.85.010
1. Special Circumstances
Apparently, when the house was placed on the property in
1968, it was placed askew in the center of the property.
In addition, the house was placed upon fill material.
Special circumstances really do not exist in that the
developmental constraints of the property were essentially
created when the house was placed on it.
Exhibit 1/File #V-6-81
Page 2
2. Special Privilege
The granting of the variance will result in the grant
of special privilege in that a garage could be designed
to meet the setback requirements.
3. Comprehensive Plan
As proposed, the granting of this variance would
generally not be in conformance with the goals and policies
of the Comprehensive Plan regarding residential
development.
4. Zoning Ordinance
The granting of this variance would not be consistent
with the purposes outlined in Chapter 16-10. Specifically,
this proposed garage would essentially be right on the
property line, towering over the backyard of the property
located to the west. It will required a retaining wall.
5. Not Detrimental
If this variance is granted, it will encroach on the privacy
of the neighboring property to the west. The full impact
of such an encroachment is, however, not substantial.
6. Minimum Variance
This variance is not the minimum needed to make reasonable
use of the property. Other alternatives are available to
the property owner.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the staff that V-6-81 be denied
in that it does not conform to the criteria outlined in
Chapter 20.85.010.
While it is true that the topography behind the house is
steep, a single car detached garage could be constructed
within five feet of the alley'. It would mean the alley would
have to be developed out to 7th Avenue North. The other
alternative is to construct a single car garage within the
setbacks. It would be approximately 12z' X 22'.
FI.
: �
CITY OF EDMONDS DATE -•�{FEE
HEARING EXAMINER
RE CT
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
APO' S t '�
EXHIBIT 2 HEARING DATE:
APPLICANT Howard ',*n. Laerson ADDRESS_ 710 Snraf;ue Street
CITY & ZIP Edmonds, '•Ia:=rint-ton 98020 PHONE '778 92112
INDICATE TYPE OR DEGREE OF INTEREST IN PROPERTY Gamer
LOCATION OR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY 710 Snranue St. - Edmonds - 931k 85 I of L & 5
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY `,lock 85, Lot It & 5, City of Edmonds, '/ol 2, 1'i es
3 _u 9, Snohomish County, trashinrrton
i
VARIANCE REQUESTED: Allowance for ;•rFst side of nronosed (;arafte to be constructed
I
within one and one-half .feet (I.8 i nchns ) of the west nronerty line of I:ot 11, '?lock 85,
in Lieu of the required five: foot scthnck.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: USE ZONE:._...D 3`�'
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: '' S / i%
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 att.endant.to this application.
r
Signature ot Applicant, Owner or
Representative
EXHIBIT 3
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?
No access to the rear of our nronerty. Lack of space to build .> reara ;e east
of the existing house and the eaFt line of Lot 5. Tonography and lack of ::*race
rule out constriction of a r-nraf'e north of the exir-tiny grouse.
2. How does your property differ from other property in the same
vicinity?
our nroncrty is a "sine -hill" location which is characteristic of most of the
area,
T.ri.th the exception of Lots 1-2-3 c, 38-39-110 of Block 85, which are basically
level..
3. Will this variance be detrimental to the public or damaging to
other property or improvements in the vicinity?
No.
:Zsn sure she seller s; -r ot: a:rare that the house was set on the lot
-�4. (continued)
at an anule.
4. What hardships will result to you if the variance is not granted?
Will these hardships have been caused by your own action?
If the variance is not 010-ed it }could not be feasible to construct a f*a..r iff on
our nronerty. '.�e nurch;:3ced Hli-s nronerty �-,i.th assurance .from the seller that
the nrorert could accommodate + IC foot Barn— on the east side of the house.(see above
Y
5. Can you make reasonable use of your property without the variance?
The nronerty can he used as a resic?ence without a r-arare but it will (�errive us
of storare for our-utomobile and ardenin en,uinment.
— (A). PLOT PLAN — Block 85, Lot 1, ?; 5 f
APFUC+�TION FOR VARIAI: CL;
.
,..,,•� uoti•rard ;Im. L._�rson aO
r,�`� treet .dmonds
S�; S � is
i,
Pr-co#RF-r 5 r
EXHIBIT 4r
r
t
/
�
;-j
i
3
,
4
�
ty to For
0 U
'A -RI 4A10
;.�4urR�D
t5
1
s
_ 1
I
q;'
r
3
i
�
4
f
N�
�
CITY OF EDMONDS
CIVIC CENTER • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 48020 • (206) 775.2525
f i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: June 9, 1981
TO: Mr. Howard Lawson
710 Sprague Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
TRANSMITTING: HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
RE: V-6-81
I
AS YOU REQUESTED:
FOR YOUR INFORMATION: XX
AS WE DISCUSSED:
FOR APPROVAL:
FOR YOUR FILE:
REVIEW AND COMMENT:
COMMENT AND RETURN:
MINUTES OF MEETING: May 21, 1981
REMARKS:
HARVE H. HARRISON
MAYOR
PLANNING DIVISION
V-6-81 HOWARD LAWSON - Variance from the required side yard setback of 5' to
1 1/2' at 710 Sprague St. (RS-6)
Mr. Bowman showed slides of the site. The property is 60'x 110' and slopes
away from Sprague St. in a south-southwest direction. A steep bank is
located along the west property line. A single-family residence is located
on the property 35 from the rear property line. Single-family development
surrounds the property to the north, south, and west, and the area to the
east is undeveloped. Apparently when the house was placed on the property
in 1968 it was placed askew in the center of the property. It was placed
upon fill material. The owners of the lot had purchased it with assurance
from the seller that the property would accommodate a 16' garage on the
east side of the house, and the owners thought the seller was not aware
that the house was on the site at an angle. Mr. Bowman indicated that
special circumstances do not exist in that the developmental constraints of
the property essentially were created when the house was placed on it. The
granting of the variance would result in special privilege because a garage
could be designed to meet the setback requirements, although it would be
only 12' wide. Granting of the variance would not be in conformance with
the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan regarding residential
development, and would not be consistent with the purposes of the Zoning
ordinance in that the proposed garage would be essentially right on the
property line, towering over the back yard of the property to the west and
requiring a retaining wall. It would encroach on the privacy of the
neighboring property to the west, although the encroachment would not be
substantial. Mr. Bowman stated the variance was not the minimum needed to
make reasonable use of the property and that other alternatives are avail-
able to the property owner. The staff recommended denial of the application
as it does not conform to the criteria in Chapter 20,85.010 of the Community
Development Code. Mr. Bowman noted that while it is true that the topography
behind the house is steep, a single -car, detached garage could be constructed
within 5' of the alley. That would mean that the alley would have to be
developed out to 7th Ave. N. The other alternative would be to construct a
single -car garage, approximately 12 1/2' x 22', within the setbacks. The
hearing was opened.
The applicant said that the retaining wall needed for the garage would
actually be 5'- 6' in height, and he did not agree that the garage would be
a towering structure in relation to the neighbor to the west, as the house
already is 2 1/2 stories and the garage would be adjacent to the daylight
basement so the other 1 1/2 stories would be there anyway. As to going to
the alley, he said that is out of the question because that area is a bog,
and if the bog were drained there still would be 14' up to the basement
level so it would not be feasible to construct there. He said the house on
the property was moved there by a previous owner, and when he purchased the
property the seller told him the garage could be put there, and he thought
the seller was sincere. He had measured the front property line but it was
j not until he moved into the house that he became aware that it was not
square on the lot. He said even a 12' garage could not be built there
within the setbacks because there is a fireplace on that side of the house
and the chimney would cut the garage area down to slightly less than 10',
and that would not be adequate for a car and storage of garden tools. He
did not think his proposal would be much of a detriment to the community,
and he said there is not adequate space on the east side and there is no
space at the front.
Vince Borcich, 17850 N.E. Ballinger Way, Lake Forest Park, said he is the
owner of the property to the west of the Howard Lawson property, and he
would only object if it would impact his right to build within the legal
setbacks of his lot.
No one else wished to speak, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Driscoll
admitted Exhibits 1-6 and stated his decision would be submitted by June 5,
1981.
There was no further business to come before the Hearing Examiner, and the meeting
adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
Page 7 - May 21, 1981
r..
Findings of the Hearing Examiner
V-81-7
Page 2;...
.
1;
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 area by the Hearing Examiner, the following findings of
fact and conclusions constitute the basis of the decision of.. the
'
Hearing Examiner.
FINDINGS O PACT
1. The'Applicant has requested approval ofla. variance from�the
required .sideyard setbacks of 5 feet in a RS-6 zone to 1 1/2
r
feet for property, located at 710 Sprague Street, Edmonds', WA,.
and more particularly described as set forth above."
�
' r
i
2. The zoning for the above described,property'is RS-6. This
designation is established in the City of Edmonds Community
Development Code.
3. The Comprehensive Plan"designation for the above described',
property is low density resi'dentiaZ.
!
9. The Applicant has requested the variance for the 'purpose i of
constructing a garage within 1 1/2 feet of the west property
t
line of the subject property.
5: Thesubject, proper ty pis 60feet:x 110feet,.and slopes from
Sprague Street in.a South -Southwest direction. A steep bank
is located ,'along the ,west property line."
6: The subject 0 property has a single ;family residence located on
it that was placed in the center of the, property. Because of
the location of .,the house and the size, of the lot there are
restrictions for additions to the residence located at the
subject property.
7. .' Single famaly developments surround the subject property on
5 `,
the north, south, and west sides: The area to the west is
'
{{
currently undeveloped. in :order to qualify for,a variance the
1
Applicant, must meet the requirements of Chapter 20.85.010 of
€
the City of Edmonds Community Development Code.
i
8. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds has determined
that special circumstances do not exist for the. granting 'of a
variance becausethe developmental limitations that exist on
the ,property, were essentially ;created, when the, house was
placed on it and 'are therefore the results of actions taken by
the Applicant for his .predecessors.
9. - The proposed garage to be constructed if the variance is
t
granted would be 16 feet wide creating a: need fora 3 1/2 foot
variance. Because it appears that a garage could be designed
t
to meet the setback requirements the Planning Department has
determined that the granting of the variance would result in
'a
the granting of special privelege.
2
'
Lindings
of the Hearing Examiner
V-81-7
x
Page
3
l
10.
The granting of the.variance would not be in conformance with
the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan of the City
of Edmonds in that it would not meet the requirements for
coordinated: developments as set forth in the Plan. It would
j
create the possibility of strip zoning and would also result
in retention walls being created. Retention walls are
discouraged in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds.
11.
The granting of the variance would not be consistent with the
zoning ordinances 'set forth in Chapter 16.10 in that the
garage-would``be erected over the Applicant's property but
would obstruct part.of the neighboring properties:
12.
The granting of the variance appears to be injurious to the
neghbor;ing property to Ithe west inthat.it would encroach -on
y
possi,ble privacy and could result in possi'ble`iestrlctions
because.,of sideyard requirements to that property.
3
13.
Alternatives are available ,to the Applicant .fcr the
construcion of 'a' garage and the,refore'.the -:variance is ,not the
minimum,,needed to make reasonable,.use of the property...'.
14.
The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds has recommended
that the .variance request be denied in That it is not in
i
conformance with the criteria outlined in Chapter`20.85.010.
i
15.
The.Planning Department in making the recommendation also
!
stated that,"while it is true that the, topography behind the'
?.
house isl, steep, a single car ,detached, ;garage could be
ie
constructed within feet of the alley. It would mean the
i
alley would have to be developed out to 7th Avenue. North. The
other alternative is to construct a ,single car garage =within
the. setbacks. It would be approximately 12 1/2 feet x 22
45
feet."
16.
The Applicant testified to be inopposition.to the
recommendation of the Planning Department Staff. Further, the
it
Applicant testified that although his request might .not meet
q
the 'conditions, of Chapter 20.875.010, ;it would not be
detrimental to'the neighborhood.
4
17.
The Applicant testified that.he would be unable to construct a
r
t'
garage within feet of the alley because:
r
a}' It would mean -the -alley would have to be•developed and
this would be costly,
'
b} The bog currently existing in the alley .would have to be
?
drained or else construction would not be possible;
.
5_
,
}
{
� I
f
Findings of the Hearing Examiner-
V-81-7
Page
4
}
18.
The,Applicant had testified that it would not" be practical to
'
construct a single car garage within the setbacks with the
dimensions of 12 1/2`;feet by 22 feet in that the fireplace as
currently protrudes from this house would limit the structure
+
to one of. 10,.feet x 22 feet and this would not be of
sufficient width to store hi's.cars, and taol;s.
19.
The.. owner of the property to •the.west ofv the subject.property
testified to, be generally in support,of t. e variance request
!
of the Applicant but -had reservations'as tow hether ornot
this would restrict any ,possible: building' that may occur on
i
hispropertyor whether or not "it may affect any of: the
sideyard setbacks on his property.
20.
"No other testimony was received at the public hearing. •
k
s
CONCLUSIONS
{
1.
The application `is for a roval of a variance :from the
pP PP
�
required 5'foot'sideyard'setbacks for' an RS-6 zoned lot".to
sideyard Setbacks of ;1 1/2;feet for property 1oc'atedat 710
;'-
Sprague Street, °-Edmonds; WA, and more particularly, described
as set forth above.
2."
The subject property is zoned R3-6 and has a Comprehensive '
Plan de'si nation of low density residential,
3,
The" application„ for the variance` is , for' the purpose, of
constructing a ,garage of. 16 "-feet .x 22 feet-,on'the .site
4.
In ,order :£`or ,a� variance to be .granted "wi,thin.the"City" of,
Edmonds there must be conformity to the requirements as'listed
in Chapter 20.85.010.
5.
The application does not meet the requirement that ,special ;
circumsta'nces:.exist :in order for, the variance to be granted. <
Special circumstances do not exist because the' developm ental
limitations' of. the property are the creatiom of the Applicant
,or, his predecessor..
?
y
6.
The ;granting of the variance would result in the granting of
a special; privilege in that another type of garage could be
4•'
q
designed on the subject property.,
7.
The,,proposed.variance is not in conformity; with the
Comprehensive Plan"of the 'City of Edmonds in that it does.not
meet.the standards for coordinated 'development, it.'does
encourage strip zoning; and it ,does utilize retaining walls
which are strongly discouraged in the ComprehensivePlan.
~1
8.
The granting of the variance would not be consistent with the
t
'purposes, outlined in Chapter 16.10 of the City Cade dealing,
d
with zoning. The garage would stand on the subject property
and obstruct the property adjoining it.
r
4
q
i
Findings of the hearing Examiner
V-81-7
Page 5
9, There are alternatives for the construction of a garage other
is
than the variance requested and therefore the variance not
land.
the minimum needed to make reasonable use of the
DECISION
Using the above findings and conclusions as the basis ofthe
the City of Edmonds herby orders
{
decision the Hearing Examiner of
'request by Howard Lawson for variance from the.sideya•rd
1,
i
that the
setbacks in a RS-6 zoned lot from 5 feet down to 1 1/2 feet be
denied. The location of the property is 710 Sprague' St.(, Edmonds,
of,the"denial
WA, and more_ particularly described above. The basis
is that the Applicant has failed to;shaw
4`T
3
of this variance request
that the request meets the requirements as set forth in Chapter.
i
the City of Edmonds Community Development Code.
;E
20.85.010 of
l
This variance is denied pursuant to the authority granted the
The is set
Hearing Examiner of the City of"Edmonds, WA. authority
of the Edmonds
20.100.010 B(2) Community,
}
forth in Section
Development Code. �,
s
f
DATED this ' day of June, 1981.
JAMES PSI. DRISCOLL
&54eaing Examiner; City of Edmonds
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to Section,20.105, City of Edmonds Community Development
fact or
Code, written appeals alleging specific error, of ,other
'appeal` be filed with the Community; Development
i
grounds for may
Director of the City of Edmonds wihtin 10'days after the date of
this decision. In this matter, any appeal must be received not
j
later than 5:00 p.m., June/ j' , 1981.
5
f