PLN197800027-5195.pdfPLANNER'S VARIANCE REVIEW FORM
APPLICANT: Wilb a
ADDRESS:/?/
VARIANCE REQUESTED.
ZONING CODE REQUIREMENT:
OTHER PERTINENT FACTS: (�'Q�m,��t�P /2i�4vY►
FILE # 1/-ai'iF
9
VARIANCE CRITERIA - Section 12.16.100
1. Does this amount to a rezone?7?c). l�,�l�.o �.�c,c1Z,� (1 4
2.(a) Are there conditions and/or circumstances not generally applicablg to.other
lands in the same district? W/ .,k.Z nM 0, Arn n T ,()o
(b) Would strict enforcement of the zoning code deprive the prop r y ownerof rights
commonly enjoyed.by other properties in the same district? ; .
4. Are there unnecessary hardships and p,.
5. Will the granting of the variance be
of property owners in the vicinity?
6. Is this the minimum variance that will make
,_ or welfare
sible the reasonable use of land?
7. Will the granting of Et
varianc generally be in harmony and compatible with this
zoning code? U0/0. UM at a ecc �Aj jw6 ccrC, Lao L`tO
Planner's Variance Review 12/77
FA T S
APPLICANT: � � �� �
� -
HEARING : FILE #' �� ` �
r) 17770,
Lo a,�- .
If
if -_Q
VV • �
r,
t ,
SJ
i
FACT SHEET- FILE
#a
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS: 8
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
PLANNER'S VARIANCE REVIEW FORM
FILE # V-X) _?ff
�7 E IR7lG Ol✓v�/J►'C `, U,^. ZONING: /eJ' I olro%,
rJ
ox
ZONING CODE REQUIREMENT: l �l °lG rc wow 5
OTHER PERTINENT FACTS:
VARIANCE CRITERIA •' Section 12.1g Inn
1. Does this amount to a rezone?
2.(a) Are there conditions and/oriam
1ands in the same district?
(b) Woul Pstrict enforcement of.the zoning code deprive the property o ner of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district?_Wn.
NEW FA
�_ •l�•t i it,1 s 'result fromactions of ••licant?.21LAL.
. Are there unnecessary hardships and pr
provisions of the zoning code?_
5. Will the grantinof the variance b
of property owners in the vicinity?
.
i cal difficulties in carrying out the
rimental _to th health, safety, or welfare
6. Is this he minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use" of land?
CW
�J
A6 A /'
7. Will the gran t g f the variance gen rall bZnharmony andtmpatible with this
zoning code?
Planner's Variance Review 12/77
s1
l)
i
i
I
i
APPLICANT
HEARING:
(te C.. d dJ
t � i
FILE t* V- D L ?
FACT SHEET -FILE
1p
41
t'.
r
CIT�4F Ot'F r7m"o�!CN, r�LlPZEg'�FA M7 S
CIVIC CENTER •, EDMONDS, WASWNGTON 98020 • (2M) 775.2525
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HARVE H. HARRISON
MAYOR
l
As
.,.`L0- _
F
public portion of the hearing was opened. Vern Bauer of 19707.44th Ave. W.
said te office portion of the proposal would be for the Gwinn Construction
officei'. He noted that at the City Council meeting the previous evening
when the right-of-way reduction was approved there had been traffic
problems discussed. He felt that.to have parking at the front of this
site would compound the traffic problems. Elizabeth Mathey of 8006
240th St. S.W. said she was in favor of granting the variance. She
said the property had been an eyesore for years because of neglect and
she felt the proposed use of the land was extremely compatible with the
area because of the small amount of traffic which would be generated.
She a so felt the landscaping at the front of the site would be benefi-
cial o the neighborhood. She said she thought she spoke for other
peopl in the community. The public portion.of the hearing was then
closed.
Mr. H vde felt there would be more and more of this type of planning,
with arking at the rear. He felt landscaping looks much better than
a par ing lot and he noted that the City had reviewed the landscape
requirements. He did not feel the granting of this variance would
decrease the neighborhood's valuation or cause any problems whatsoever.
Mr. Hatzenbuhler agreed, and -felt the proposed development would greatly
improve the area. Mr. Leraas noted that the Council's action in reducing
the fight -of -way had made this a minimum variance. MR. HATZENBUHLER THEN
MOVE , SECONDED BY MR. HOVDE, TO APPROVE V-24-78 BECAUSE IT MET THE CRITERIA
FOR I IT WOULDIT WOULD NOT
DETRIMENTALNCETO�THE SAFETY EANDNWELFARE THENOFGTHE RAREA. HOODAMOTION CCARRIED* BE
AGENDA
V-2748 WILL AM N. CAMPBELL - Variance to exceed the maximum 14°% driveway slope
to s rve three single family homes at 18715918717, and 18719 Olympic
View Dr. (RS-12)
Mrs.Luster said the Planning Department was recommending denial of
the ariance as requested, but an alternative proposal was submitted
whic� she would review. The first variance requested was not recommended
for approval because it was not a minimum variance in that.it was possible
to reduce the safety hazards created by the.22% slope by redesign of the
driveway, and because the driveway slope situation was created by the
applicant and was not a result of outside action. Mrs. Luster showed
the location of the proposal and a slide of the site. She said this
would not amount to a rezone and the use would be compatible with zoning
in the area. The alternate proposal would have driveway slopes not to
exceed 18.4%, whereas the original proposal had some as great as 220.
Strict enforcement of the Code would deprive the applicant of reasonable
acc ss to his property. Topography of the area created the problem and
the alternative proposal appeared to be a feasible solution. Granting
of the variance would not be detrimental to others in the vicinity as it
wou d improve the site problems, would create fewer steep climbs, and
wou d move the driveway away from the curve on Olympic View Dr. A lot
lin adjustment would be required, and an application had been made for
tha . Mrs. Luster felt that granting of the variance would be compatible
wit the Zoning Code as it would provide safer access to the lots and
mov, the access away from the curve in Olympic View Dr. She recommended
approval of the alternative plan. She added that a covenant should be
fil d to indicate that the owner assumes responsibility to reconstruct
theldriveway to City standards if the City should widen the roadway of
Olympic View Dr. hers. Derleth asked what had been the requirements of
the subdivision when this property was subdivided. Assistant City
Engineer Dick Allen explained that at the preliminary design stage
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Page 4 no May 17, 1978
there is certain topography required but the house plan is not with the
layout. The election of the developer of the property under single
building permits was such that there were certain trees and topography
changes not desirable on the part of the applicant, and when inspections
were made of the driveways after they were installed they were not in
accordance with the code standards. Mr. Allen said subdivisions are
only approved on conditions that they are meeting the City code, but
in this case the code standards were not met. He said that at the
subdivision hearing there was a knowledge of steep topography, but there
were various options for placing the houses. The public portion of the
hearing was opened.
John Anderson of Reid, Middleton 9 Associates said their new plan was
given a favorable recommendation by the City Engineer. Mr. Anderson
felt the driveways indicated would not be detrimental to the safety of
the area or to the future owners of the homes. He explained the
various grades at the different locations on the property. He said
the applicant would be willing to reduce that percent of slope to no
more than a maximum of 200, but the applicant felt it would be an
additional hardship on him and detrimental to the property if the
alternative access as proposed would be implemented. He saki that if
the alternative is approved the existing paving will have to be torn out
and.an 18" maple tree which is a part of the aesthetics of the property
will have to be removed. He displayed a drawing illustrating driveways
in the.vicinity which have greater grades, and he said they were not
asking for anything the neighbors haven't had. He also displayed a
photograph of neighboring driveways. He said they are not going right
down to the right-of-way with the steep slope and there is room to
back two cars to get onto the right-of-way.without any safety problem.
He felt it would be an extreme hardship if the applicant were not allowed
to utilize his existing paving, and he said the applicant was, willing to
bring that up to City standards. Mr. Allen was asked why the alternative
access was considered safer than that proposed by the applicant. He said
that by changing the slope you are also reducing the run -out area and
he was concerned about the approach angle to the street. He expanded
on that and said he was also concerned with the sight distances as they
approach there. He noted that the road has a general curve to the down-
ward and to the right as one approaches south to north. Mr. Hovde com-
mented that Olympic View Dr. is a nightmare of driveways., fir. Anderson
responded that traveling north on Olympic you would take two right turns,
and with the proposal you make a gradual curve. He thought the existing
paving and widening of it was the best choice. Bill Campbell, architect
for the project, said that when the plat was conceived he felt it desirable
to locate the driveways adjacent to the other access points on Olympic.
He said he had considered it since this problem had arisen, and he was
really trying to save the trees and the environment. He thought the
excesses in slope were fairly modest in comparison to other examples in
the City. He said he would do what the Board wanted, but he would prefer
to leave the driveways as they are. He thought that with a widened
driveway the swing would be better off the street and they would just be
improving what they already had.. The public portion of the hearing was
then closed.
Mr. Hovde asked how the existing driveways were constructed, that there
must have been permits. Mr. Campbell responded that he had building
permits on all of the houses with driveways shown essentially as they
are. Mr. Allen said that in their review of building permits they
reviewed the driveways. lie said they issue a memo on the face of each
permit given to the applicant saying that driveways must conform to
slope standards. From that there is no point at which the builder calls
and says he is ready for inspection of the driveway prior to paving
and other construction. He said the driveways were in when they made
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Page 5 - May 17, 1978
dO
an inspection of the site and it was discovered at that time that
they were not in conformance with the slope standards. Mr. Hovde
thought it looked impossible to meet the standards. Mr. Allen said
it is not usual that a topographic plan goes in with a single family
building permit application. He said it is assumed that grading will
be done to conform to steep slopes. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka noted
that the fact that a permit is issued does not mean a person does not
need a variance, and the fact that a building permit was issued does
not excuse the necessity for a variance in this case. Mr. Roy said
he found the alternative from the Staff to be constructive. He felt
there would be more room to stop with that alternative. He didn't
feel the whole thing should be torn out, but he thought somebody should
have looked at the grade lines. Mr. Visser agreed that the alternative
solution was the better. Mr. Leraas said he had gone up and down the
driveway and felt there was a sight impairment to the south. He favored
the second alternative, as did Mrs. Stole. Mr. Campbell said he would
accept the alternative. He said he thought these are subtle kinds of
things they are dealing with. Mrs. Derleth was concerned that develop-
ments get to this stage before such questions are resolved. Given the
alternatives, she felt the last one was the best solution. MRS. STOLE
MOVED TO ACCEPT THE ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION FOR V-27-78 BECAUSE IT
IS'A REASONABLE VARIANCE AND APPEARS TO BE A MINIMUM VARIANCE THAT
CAN BE ALLOWED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES; BECAUSE IT WILL BE A SAFETY
FACTOR AND NOT DETRIMENTAL; AND THAT THE OWNER WILL ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY
FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF THE DRIVEWAY TO CITY STANDARDS IF THE CITY WIDENS
THE ROADWAY OF OLYMPIC VIEW DR. Gene Greenway, one of the partners in
Olympic Builders, said the covenant was not a reasonable requirement.
He said the City was trying to make them assume costs that other tax-
payers do not have to assume. He said it was an unreasonable restraint
on the sale.of the property. He said he he.d been told this had been
implemented in the last two months, and they were the only builders
being given this burden. Mr. Roy responded that Olympic View Dr. is
unique and probably never will change. He said the City probably should
have prevented them from building the driveway, then they could have
excavated the hillside --at a larger cost to them. MRS. STOLE THEN
REPHRASED HER MOTION, THAT THE ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION FOR V-27-78 BE
APPROVED BECAUSE TO STRICTLY ENFORCE THE ZONING CODE WOULD BE DEPRIVING
THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHERS AND GRANTING OF THE -VARIANCE
WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO SAFETY; BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE IS A SAFETY
FACTOR AND SHE FELT IT TO BE REASONABLE; FURTHER, THAT A COVENANT BE
FILED REQUIRING THE OWNERS TO RECONSTRUCT TO CITY STANDARDS THE DRIVE!•JAYS
ON BOTH PROPERTIES AFFECTED BY THE ACCESS IF OLYMPIC VIEW DR, IS EVER
WIDENED. John Anderson objected to the requirement of construction to
"City standards" because the City standards are not now met and any
reconstruction would not meet City standards. MRS. STOLE STRUCK FROM
HER MOTION THE WORDS "TO CITY STANDARDS" IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR RECONSTRUC-
TION OF THE DRIVEWAYS. MR. ROY SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Hovde objected
to the covenant, saying if the City should widen the street they could
cut back the driveways and change the grade. He said they will have to
reslope an area for a short distance to make it p[a�ssable to get back
up there again. He felt the covenant should be oifitted. A ROLL CALL
VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH MRS, STOLE, MR. ROY, MR. HATZENBUHLER, MR. VISSER,
AND MR. LERAAS VOTING YES, AND MR. HOVDE, MR. BAILEY, AND MRS. DERLETH
VOTING N0. MOTION CARRIED. A short recess was announced.
Vee30ee78 R. E. DUROCHER - Variance requesting 1,000 sq. ft. reduction on lot
size and 1' from required rear yard setback at 9528 220th St. S.W. (RS-8)
Mr. Leraas advised that he has worked with Mr. Durocher and he asked to
be excused from this hearing. He left the rostrum. Mrs. Luster said
the variance was in conjunction with a recent subdivision. She said it
would not amount to a rezone. Because of the location of an existing
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Page 6 - May 179 1978
• 4
i
Ap
71
ode
Ass Aj
As
r� gl
4t
i.
W
ftaPAO
it A
ASIA P-
A Miss
A.
411
weep
• _ • • •..
•�AM.a do
•• • •,� •IA.
• 1•
-460
000
rp
1'
• • • ' soft AAA SAW tj I
« •.
so AND
M wM••.glp• or..S•iti0�.'•�✓•r••�••�••�•..d�.• '^��� •��•••.M���r� •.�•.• ��.••n•. r••. ..��•••.•+w• sa1
s. ;..,'.:
I'�'�t 16► ..
i
a
rA
1
•�..
AL YAII/C pot/Y6
fk
•; o I 1�°
0 W"ZE
N
a . W CA
q 'e.17
off I
�A.
t -
x b A��sy
It if
9•al �g
n
' �a, � � . 4 -o`er -��.►.
�. oa' a �'
L.a, •�� I2*1'
Ida
,r ` \:
3
ir\ A , �.
i oat
sm'///J
L.9snoy.'3wdd.cools'It
r
.a
00 yge01
,I'
i,
o
d,
qo o-
d`
m6
dd
10
V
y to0.y :01,C
o' Sd�
,. / 71
Pao ��� .
�00
M
—`�---__
-,._
�c •• ii.' ` ase
-�'\
�, i ��
��
y� d
�`�
i �1\� ,
A
,.
�0
--�—
�'p�VE
Q .. aro.
���:- t.�000;
�,
�..,_ �.
%��
"' � ��G
\= i��:
A O N
� o
�i
_ A A ✓
� \ �\
��o ��
�y��A \�\
O��' 't!F ti
� �G
� s�
e-
�/
�=lv, /O.L N
00'9' 66,E
s.BN
Y'B09
. 1
h
W L
h
I
>� 1
W \
7f\ �
`,� 1\`
h T V
:7
02 9A 00'0// • 7
7
W
I
to
0
I
I
3.,OF,LO./N
70
1
/O,L N
Y
T
i = �
N p
PA t11 t�1 C.i
h a
Poo oii.
/d'p
3i1 ti1 /1
6�01d"i( 70
V
Q
000 O//. 7
„sO,.S.V,O/ = v
W
4
,L•8
O
fmlv®
Ael ve
°ol
I.Q Ilk4
Ir
m '
� I T
o to
3 a
C I 34
C a
N 4
c 2: "
N
or,
E
.
G r /O`
4'/Q0p
�i
__ .._........ ..._C4 OLIOVA 4 0
ILI
Lost
List
lit
j
1I I I
I Io...rIss
it , is
.. �..E
It
IL Is I
to#
+, l
tI
dJiv�l4isI III,
is r0 Lot
.• r �at�t ' yh r.. '1 'l {
Is I
" !ft' +4c; III..�r^ •i; Y.�)i lad".�Y'i\ ei , ( f aY i ,,{ J� r
.l.�hy y e' 1 l +J.ri t ay .: tyY.r + �at .s " r ', y , Y r _.A
"R t 7 .. �4 + :f.:, d ••l°11} 1 ;1 j Lt
'i ♦ f _. ♦ )
�'.. 1t t �. r' ap q Ji �• � • t r,c i.` r M!'+♦ � '•" � 1 I• d f • a �° r � 1
Is
''/I .: •I r r l {� �JFj {{rr)r t ^ `�' •` N
S��7US ..�� ( r•
'�I} it
irk" + J'r•..�yr%1f•{I, 4 tit dip.
LL
r't �•�-�al+tn0. F -��/r �: rit r i'rr w lYw j % ,, si• %�
R
r , ♦ at�R t . '.( -f r',{ �i Y1� �1, r ,1 h ` , r. '( FItIf
rr
I mid
v t
A` r ' •, ww� t • °'
. •�.rLI
It
`.7r i '.( lM .T t .. f 1 T a1 .t •..
�. = p'r IIs
14.,id.
f + Iru .iV Ir
PLLLI
1 '• j r Y r
p I'.Is
+wn-..• .;L-,may • f,n,'.`�JMT•'�.,...,,,, •f:•, 'Ip
1/1/14
t Ana ltp
I
IF
Old
17
�.1
• 1I—
v '� i r
' i• d• did. ±•
JV
r
40
do
• u
l t
. MJ. 6116,141,-J r
:.�411141110d, it
1
4414
,r yyp wM1�� J
wa
dfl
fr
+.
did:�• J: S4 F'•" Y w i M1
it
or
1
♦r.K.• J... 1 f� '• 1 ' s,fi 3 ' 7 i� \` + i } , •:,! t ' ♦ rh" , t �AJ yi«
t }4 SY it ��lt i y.. '• 1 F 1 1,' [ tl f 1
It
` 1 Y ^111111r y III y( .e,•. ," t �a(j
Cs11'; -. ' .1.tY J`kj `1 M {i A A•'i
It
if
i
r �`1�,1`"J 1S 1 1 t t J JJ 4..-.. > 1lv 1 � �. t.Y } � �2� •, ,,
it'/ 1 �f L It t y •L C 'F7`S t 4pa��JN ,'J4J '„t " !� •! ,1.�. t. O Y , '
44
U A ., " ^ y'• •� bill �i.do ' `!F
1 a�1Va
ld
14P
I ddi
- n 3
J
. j, . -� -i
;• 1
�_. •w _
It
••�^.�� a
{�l
• �•``-•`w 7','�.w•VV•1••w.wMMi• wryy,• •wI •.ij•• •• Y1
ddiid.
.�_
• - -L..• 1
ll�r
l • f '
m
,I