Loading...
715 HANNA PARK RD (2).pdf0 1 0 CITY OF EDMONDS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE ,I O� FIT DATE In ✓1 01 FEE a S r%1 RECT # APO'S HEARING DATE: APPLICANT Tp-/@ a?y ADDRESS J/ S h/ ,,.^4 ;;%✓,o<l /Po....40 CITY & ZIP goose. PHONE 77e— 3`a S INDICATE TYPE OR DEGREE OF INTEREST IN PROPERTY O�✓irE�2 LOCATION OR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY 7/ S K LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Lot 3 of Plat, the South 342 feet of Government Lot 1, Section 24, T27NR3E, less East 660' thereof VARIANCE REQUESTED:, Re -construct roof of recreation room o t.. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY USE ZONE: 9� ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) ignature of Applicant,Owner, or Representative On this date, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in a d for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , who, being duly sworn, on his/her oath deposes and says that (s)he hag prepared and read the attached statements and has acknowledged to me that the recititations contained therein are true, and has signed this instrument as his/her free and voluntary act and deed for the purposes the ein mentioned. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19;4—. Notary Pub����� fo � State of Washington, residing 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? R portion of the existing structures is non -conforming according to today's side yard setback requirements. 2. How does your property differ from other property in the same vicinity? When we applied for a permit to remodel, we were not aware that the structure was _non -conforming. 3. Will this variance be detrimental to the public or damaging to other property or improvements in the vicinity? rM 4. What hardships will result to you if the variance is not granted? Will these hardships have been caused by your own action? We have a flat roof that is leaking In order tonPrmanPntly correct this situation we need to reh7il7d the rnnf nn tha non -conforming structure, 5. Can you make reasonable use of your property without the variance? No Record of Findings of Fact by Board of Adjustment of Adjustment for the City of dmonds finds in the case of �r The Board j �,rE�y7 � File No. "f request for variance at 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 add ition that 4. Therefore, the request for variance �s /Granted, subject to the following special conditions: 5. Section 12.16.110 "----and if a building permit and/or occupancy Permit is not obtained for the subject property within one year from the date of the Boards .decision, the con- ditional use permit or variance hall be automatically null and void.---" 6.- Decision shall be effective on: Uate ' J DATED. � . —Chairman,-Board o ustment DATA Date of Application: 1 nhil-M' Date of Hearing: J1Ld�� Date of Publication:_ Il-� °� Continuances: Date of Posting: Date of Appeal from Decision of the Board: 30Fretary, -Board of Adjustment r CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING DIV. CIVIC CENTER EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 Received of Dollars ,.. RECEIPT NO. 2390 Date WS.E.P.A. FILE NO. BARS ACCT. NO. BDIVISION AMOUNT 001 000. 000. 341.82.00 001 000. 000. 341.89.00 FEE - 001 000. 000. 341.81.00 --IEW 001 000. 000. 341.88. 00 MAPS - BOOKS 001 000. 000. 341.84.00PHOTOSTATING 000.000.1001 34.86.00THERO 001 V OL (DW -A, P O Zia FA 66 c 2 w 0 J. M Pi 4 ..........f')fi C n J / 5J � v i _ -�itw5:-.ift:.tc� Sct•tat 1 v��5st -7t�j .YntcK.->zor>p BD».otsAs WASH MA14PA. �FGEZ'bESGRIPTtO1J: 3.07 3 OF P1_dT THSr 'SOUZ}i 3L12 gET �OF . GDYV tZW lwr. N T LOT 1 S%G..'lq t T 2'1 k R 3 5 3T.= Dili"D '[KE-WE OF . - -. el :i NOTICE OF HEARING PETITION I FOR VARIANCE - BY EDMONDS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT All interested persons are hereby notified that Wednesday, the 21st day of November 19 79 , has been set as the date for hearing petition filed by Jerry Schei for a variance from sideyard setbacks to construct new roof on non -conforming building at 715 Hanna Park Road said property being zoned RS-1�2 P P Y 9 avxi�x>�acklgxcob�ximcx64ockl+o�x z: i x. { S Said hearing 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: f PUBLISH: 11-5-79 x; t, f NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE �ioard..of Ad�justmenf AN APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FILED FOR. YQJ".I.Q.IIIJG.... �rOm.. .Sidiyard.... sefb4aks.... io..... 0ansfrucf.-.... .new ..... roof ... on .... . n. an. -. con .for. m1n3 ................. ......................................... PROPERTY DESCRIPTION OR ADDRESS:.#CiJma..Park ....... ..KQqd .................................................................. ....................................................... A ZONE CLASSIFICATION:. .3�44a ..... .. , , , , , , TIME & DATE OF -HEARING. ,/. •.13Q ..Wat;. $��479 TIM DAY DATE THE MEETING WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE EDMONDS CIVIC CENTER, 5th AVENUE AND BELL STREET. ANY PERSON INTERESTED IN THIS PROPOSAL MAY APPEAR IN SUPPORT OF OR IN OPPOSITION TO IT. COMMENTS CONCERNING .THE APPLICATION MAY BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO OR AT THE MEETING, IN PERSON OR IN WRITING. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT (PHONE 775-2525 EXT. 227). IN THE EVENT THE AGENDA IS NOT COMPLETED ON THE ABOVE DATE, THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING AT THE SAME----------� TIME AND PLQC���,„� 1 v % FILE NO.. ... ... .. ...... PUBLISHED.t ....� ...... The removal, mutilation, destruction, or WARNING! concealment of this notice prior to the date of the hearing is a misdemeanor punishable by fine and imprisonment. 7Fw '.r L a 1. .. .a ..; r n l ,) l� , d r. r'�.. ! . - .... • -� I ­ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING`'' STATE OF WASHINGTON ss . �. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) i being first duly ,,sworn, 4_ �� on oath deposes and says: That on the �`' day of NOVam C- ,19 C the attached Notice of Public of Hearing was mailed as required to adjacent property owners, the names of which were provided by the applicant. Signed k 4 Subscribed and sworn to before me this ay of 21,,r-��P�i-�� 19�q___. i i i s r S e yF� I ! ' ota y Public in and for the i State of Washington Residing at z-eze� I E ewe PLANNING DIVISION all PLANNER'S VARIANCE REVIEW FORM FILE # I/- e y- 17 APPLICANT: !T6+VU sc.Aci ADDRESS: -JIS- f%winO%a Pow is gc�. ZONING: f2S-/2— VARIANCE REQUESTED: r1.d�wtc S/d�yw.ra/t 3 to 110W _ ,MJAW ZONING CODE REQUIREMENT: sid," st4back- o:� /D OTHER PERTINENT FACTS: VARIANCE CRITERIA - Section 12.16.100 1. Does this amount to a rezone? Iyv. 2.(a) Are. there conditions and/or circumstances not generally applicable to other lands in the same district? 54rkcfu..L hrisfi. (b) Would strict enforcement of the zoning code deprive the property owner of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district? A. %Ar 3. Do the special conditions result from the actions of the applicant? C,�.eC{ 1A 1 b.01 ,c=—t 4. Are there unnecessary hardships and practical difficulties in carrying out the provisions of the zoning code? b'ts - W•...tct ,C{4�..�.:.� .�/oca.,F►.� 5. Will the granting of the variance be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of property owners in the vicinity? A/,b , 6. Is this the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of land? yP< 1. Will the granting of the variance generally be in harmony and compatible with this zoning code? Yes. Planner's Variance Review 12/77 ®;IM , p{f gSS,"jf\ f)'4kvp 161 coT�rOF EOMONOS HARVE H. HARRISON MAYOR ! ,..,.... CIVIC CENTER • EDMONDS, {l'ASNINGTON 90720 • C206I 775.2345 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT„ r r. a uz` DATE: December 19, 1979 TO: Mr. Jerry Schei 715 Hanna Park Road` Edmonds, WA 98020 KtV. TRANSMITTING: Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes RE: V 84-79<` i , AS YOU REQUESTED:. Y' 1 FOR YOUR INFORMATION: xx AS WE DISCUSSED: ` FOR APPROVAL: FOR YOUR FILE: REVIEW AND COMMENT: rr COMMENT AND RETURN: MINUTES OF MEETING: November 21, 1979 f '' t REMARKS: � PLANNING DIVISION a] V-83-79 V-84-79 Chairman Roy. Frances Dietz who lives three houses away from Mr. Schaller said that since this had come up they already had two more people in the neighborhood who wanted to start businesses. She felt that business was going to creep in on the residential neighborhood. Mr. Schaller asked Mr. Pearson what the zoning plans were for their neighborhood, thinking it would be more likely that it would be susceptible to apartments and condo- miniums than to business uses. Mr. Pearson responded that it was unlikely that their property would be rezoned at all inasmuch as the mood of the City Council was exactly to the opposite. Mr. Schaller said he was not an advocate of creeping commercialism and he had just spent about $4,000 having his home landscaped. Mrs. Dietz stated that if one person gets in it will just be a short time before they will be living in "downtown Edmonds." Chairman Roy advised her that the Board had to consider whether this use would be allowed in a residential neighborhood and that zoning was another thing altogether. Mrs. McGee asked if anybody had any specific objection to the application other than what had been stated. Courtney Mathews said this had just recently been approved so he probably was not set up as yet. She felt each block of a community was somewhat of a unit and if 90-95a of the people on the block did not want something, then that should be considered. She said most people on the block felt very uneasy about this as the downtown area of Edmonds is spreading and it is going to spread east. Diane Schaller stated that there are rules and laws that have been made to protect the neighborhood from anything that would be objectionable. She said they had agreed to every provision and for that reason she could see no reason why the application should not be approved. Mr. Schaller was asked if he was currently engaged in this business. He responded that he had done some work at the port but not at his home, that he had taken his test equipment to the port. The public portion of the hearing was closed. MR. BYRD MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. LERAAS, TO DENY THE APPEAL AP-5-79 AND CONFIRM THE HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT AS IT APPEARED THAT THE APPLICANT MET ALL OF THE CRITERIA FOR A HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT SPECIFIED IN THE CITY ORDINANCES, AND BECAUSE THE OBJECTIONS HE HAD HEARD WERE DIRECTED TOWARD THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF THE HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT AND PROBABLY SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE RATHER THAN BEING RELATED TO THIS PARTICULAR HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT. Mr. Leraas advised the neighbors that if this became a nuisance they could take steps to have the permit revoked. Chairman Roy added that it could be appealed in three months if it proved to be a nuisance. MOTION CARRIED. CHARLES M. KENNON - Variance from the required front yard setback at 8601 r .W.. RS-12) This application was to enable the applicant to enclose an existing carport. The carport invades the 25' setback from 86th Ave. by 10'. The house faces 193rd so it actually serves as a side yard, but the requirement is that there be a 25' setback from any street. This property was not within the City when the carport was constructed and it conformed to County requirements at that time. It became nonconforming when the property was annexed to the City. Mr. Pearson recommended approval because the carport was existing and the lot was below the grade so there would be no visibility blockage. The public portion of the hearing was opened. The applicant stated he just wanted to enclose the existing carport. No one else wished to speak, and the public portion of the hearing was closed. MR. LERAAS MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. BYRD, THAT V-83-79 BE APPROVED BECAUSE THE CONDITION WAS NOT CREATED BY THE HOMEOWNER AND BY ENCLOSING THE CARPORT HE PROBABLY WILL ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THIS WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, WELFARE, AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MOTION CARRIED. JERRY SCHEI - Variance from required side yard setbacks to construct new rood on nonconforming building at 715 Hanna Park Rd. (RS-12) The application was for a variance to rebuild the roof over an existing building which is set back only 3' from the two side property lines where 10' setbacks are required. It would be difficult to relocate the structure and this proposal would not cause it to be any closer to the property BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Page 8 - Mve► ,.b w a c) 117 F r-6,11 lines. The structure had a flat roof which would be replaced with a sloped roof which should be more attractive. Mr. Pearson recommended app l The public portion of the hearing was opened. The applicant said the roof has a matchtroof the restich isof the house. eaking and Perhe wished to Dropping of Norse ut a peaked - roof tion said dion fhe was ydoingWas aagre odel of the be remodeled nto angame eroomlquesatied in intoerh existinroofuse. ;tnmeetdthisfone andied yshevhas ahflat droof. ress ofShe Casper if the roof would bfar°�herdthanhitwcurrentlytdiduldThe slopecwill hed rbe but would not extend any was north/south. The pliportion .-eh5 he appicantindicated the improvement,wouldbe lesstan25%- a auestion, tavon!mrvEn.',,SECIDED.BY,M4w:: T0: 7?