1016 DALEY ST (3).pdfS
7 �Y.i+a.1...... '3} .. ... Yrw..a,.0 x.: s"� .ne..{.x..e .s.......,....,JJ r....r... .... mr_...... ............ I - �,.{.
EXHIBIT 2 FILE# �' >
DATE
CITY OF EDMONDS FEE t--
HEARING EXAMINER RECT # r.,r
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE APO'S
HEARING DATE )i
APPLICANT %ram J�eci A'_' ADDRESS_
CITY & ZIP PHONE_
INDICATE TYPE OR DEGREE OF INTEREST IN PROPERTY_ OCCl//elc
LOCATION OR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY
i
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY !3Cl��G �3——�'c�� `f"--ll /�=-•�</u
G
VARIANCE REQUESTED :
U /.
cSli' CC C%�C�� dLh.a I (J /ill `L5r-PC,22a/CGi� Ill �t /'% LL1
�e nt,r_`ole&_ Ijn Q r7 �L /1 I l J 1 Cf' !l�(CL _ %llf :i �1 PE1'? C�GI.f�'•C7 Gc%<�1G1 2�. "
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: USE ZONE:
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT:
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 attendant to this application.
Signature o Applicant,
Representative
er or
k
DECLARATION'S 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?
/fez, je,"t A-e'c-f- 6a'Ile e hv"I(L-
-T-77-7
1— rev' 4Llrzle2l"-,A -Y
in the same
How does yo, 0 pr -erty differ, -from other property
2 *. �Px: 9 rl C'
vicinity?
3.
4.
5.
V-
X,
damaging to
Will this variance IYe detrimental -t o the public or'
other property or improvements in the vicinity?
Ae�)
kN
What hardships will result to you if the variance is not granted?
Will these hardships have been caused by your own action?
el Ile AF�Klcl
V Can y- -1�1 e reVasonable use of your property without the varianc e
OIL
--e
ZZ&
e� I'Oref
ze
��� Gti�2 � ��'X to 'ca�e��� • ��e �� C ��U���f`�t"' �`w
6r�rr� /oa7 �.�uc , � -rr.� � �..�►o .�� ��.��.� G�a.�-'�i.�G'.=��a�.tccs�
�5Z�
� �EytGpIGG,Q �G � ����y� � /yta_.r-G'c CGt-�-.2 �� ,��1�� 5�� �r •
v
�� ��t�-�G �GU � � -- .�,� cam, • ��t�G a �.�c �.��� .
���'� , c�lL�yt.% �c�.a•.� ; /fir -.ter- Gl�c�lz�� .ire .r�c��G`�, �-��r ����
/�.ee 445 vf*�-
/,s�(�,+`YaGG`r� Lk G `JZ-�ri rct�jJ�.L�dG eG .,li`Gtli✓C'G
4'i 4 V•G�Gt° /lT
.�G�sJae
-pL I P/aic lomsetalete- 1,P07 SAP
11497
4t
0
EXHIBIT 4
J3�o��r r yl l•. C. (fcnTc�) YI YLI% OSs ! n Z J ;' T CemenT
is
�l ..
CC p ( TC'� 5 4-0iC fe
f.�'"x•IS 1' i� �.. ^(fG n'•Cc`' Gr
l.p hC/CTC LjY. u
y a lr„1 C0tNClaim {sb vha cr, I �BnCC
�1 1
r"c�l n C�
�1` r� -k - 1 6 �� )v � �•rl I
D_ J n\
l� L Il
Zoo I�
Q
Ly� �i"4• r UC4 Soil
G✓ CCU I re" i C. :.?!c I InT
L//. �f lov �" (ircnJc. j ���5<I�J i psr 7'0 %camCvnnc,,_
f� G4 1 I 1 •� G\ O ('�
21 Gti �
-r
sloe
l%R1;•1rt�
i
1
i
Tv nc 7 vfYt
fl
eA
J Ja.
f�
I
IV A'(Vfh 1
1 { -• ,.., j � n Cc' I � r' c r -!'1, a 11 (, r�X �, I �
w t �� GI 1 IY'1Gt 1.4'J %a ;a 1�� r•, { G r+ {7 ��p I VC? {� :J
t-11,t7l.
c
YU,
y'If 1 i1t✓
��/�v ��i �/SEE/ j ��/r`��"' � L•C�G/.T/2G.���%«JL'
c
YU,
y'If 1 i1t✓
��/�v ��i �/SEE/ j ��/r`��"' � L•C�G/.T/2G.���%«JL'
/PosS �76ia8
y
of
Og
gvo177•4
1,174
it
Aa * C.
a�scOLiou S /Jv ��-c ear/ -' .t�O -e
M 4 5 a 44 UJQ
I/
ctJGl�!%?�6YLlt-bpi' r-1'LlirZ'G-IPL[..cG�y�G-�-
awd 00�,V. a
i oa �e
sf.
,,
ova
�Q23
j7e
i
o
J/
l00
ioe3
mar
. tL�.Y�.w"�.:L,...O�S4�Wnc�ls,�i.LcaF:ft+.. ,.:u.`J:.Y.wa.,:L:.:u.b:.e....Y..l:.w3„c`..G_.:...•=�.:J..Wa_....,�u�...�H.. ,................._... . _.__... _ _..__._ .. ._. _. _.. _:...__ .. __..__...._...: _:.. _. ,,._,_......: .... ...4..... ... ... _._ ....._
,, pp
N
V lz'1019 Sprague Street
CITY_ OF EDMONDS
Edmonds, Washington
Nov. 7, 1986
Dear Ms. Francis,
This is in response to your telephone conversation with my wife
on October 29 about Mrs. Ross' variance application. I would like to
know how the City of Edmonds can legally have a hearing on something
that is built on someone else's property. After having her property
surveyed, Mrs. Ross built a fence and deck, illegally and without a
building permit, over the property line. After my original complaint
in August, the city asked Mrs. Ross to remove it.
Several years ago Mrs. Ross constructed a garage on her front
property line, evidently without a building permit or variance. This
suggests a disregard for neighbors and laws that are made for all of us
Please let us know about this and when the hearing will be held.
We have not seen any posted notices.
Sincerely,
Alvin D. Millis
n
t 'l
T.7
EXHIBIT 7
I �
1\G11 " 1986
1)-(� (W CITY OF E/DMONDS
For_
�LCe
Ve-4o, x-GLe-r"Y-4�, C�� tti z� Gt-c �C L•�' �C cc'`'�J
OV
d-. �'
C
FOB
BOSS
L OT.S S" 0 6 - &O,� X SY3
C irr I of AMIM:700VZ2S
2`/s, r&W.P7N', Rill. 3 E, W,M.
Fit-*
wwwwowo�
1
qn
0
e4)
I
iIt
L,
4 r�,ERA
o, OR
o.V.,r
N�p�
a,41S
i �u.uc� - '
,
YRINU & ASSOC., IN.C.,
23423 Highway 99
Edmoada, WA 980?0
P *OA Bs 32 iLYnnwood, ,W A► 98036
J015 A/OL .9ro -053
.4=a /Orss Irrp �z
SCRLE'/�'-30e
,4 DiS SW6, A//a
�� I �°,«?T' o.�' C/✓"Y Gam' �
I — FND-sl1RFi9Cs�'td1�%.'
1;
Be
y1 400#60066 4F%f� i
oNA� L rN
:��ta
_A
1
11
t
November 17,1986
Ylanninm Department
250 Fifth Avenue North,
Edmonds, Washington 93020
6%. Ito
MOMMOMMOMP
Re: File No. V-34-86
Variance to Reduce Required
151 Rear Setback to 0' For
Deck
Gentlemen:
:4ith reference to the issue noted above, I am at a loss to
see how it can in an-,r :•ra,,r block an individuals view or detract
from the surround .n property. With the f ether clearing off
of the bark .•ri th the removal of the Creeds and "horses tails" it
can only add to trio appearance. Peel t•re jn our irm-aediate
neighborhood take a great deal of pride in ol.a-r laiwhich hich helps
to attract to the City of 2dmonds.
Sincerely,
(Mrs. R.T.) 41awrty Jane Conran
(1010 Daley- Street)
r.0.Do1, 1
'Emonds, WA. 98.020
a
1004 Daley Street,
Edmonds, Wa.,
Nov. 20, 1986
Hearing Examiner,
City of Edmonds.
Dear Sir:
This letter is in response to a notice received re your File#V-34-86.
We own, #nd reside onJ the corner lot two doors west of the property
at 1016 Daley St.
Would you kindly consider the following points in your deliberations?
Y. The fence and attached platform are plainly vivible from.our front door.
2. Over the years Mrs. Ross has made her back yard into one of the finest
beauty spots in Edmonds, but the hill at the back remained an eyesore. It
is too steep to mow and is really dangerous to work on.
3. This year Mrs. Ross decided to deal with the problem by building a fence
and attaching sr,platformior a level base of operations for making an
Asian garden of the hillrside, and so complete a beautiful back yard.
4. To do this she needed to stabilize the hill. She did this by means of
cement cores and the platform which they support.
5. The structure is not a"deck/in the meaning of the development Code. It
is merely a platform to assist in th development of the Asian garden.
6. If this is torn out it will destabilize the hill and make a real mess.
7, We regard this development as as an impromement in every way. We have
checked with the neighbors who can see the hillside from their properly.
They all agree with us that it is an improvement.
8. We believe that the neighbors to the south have no legitimate complaint-
TheY cannot see the`'decle from their property because of the fence.
9. Mrs, Ross is a very considerate and helpful neighbor. We cannot understand why
anyone would object to this improvement on her property or the improvement
to the view from 1004 Daley St. , 1010 Daley St. , and 1026 Daley St.
We thank you for giving this your impartial consideration.
Sincerely yours,
0
0
W.
:,
11-19-86 Set ION
To: The Hearing Examiner
From: Nevin Hasham and Dean Farnham, Jr.
1009 Daley Street, Edmonds
Re: Variance #34-1986, Marion Ross
We live across Daley Street from Marion Ross's home.
This is our written opinion regarding Marion's deck.
The deck is a well built and an aesthetically pleasing structure. It is not visible
from the properties on Sprague Street and is only slightly visible from Daley Street.
The deck enhances Marion's view and appreciation of her property without hindering
her neighbors or having an adverse effect on the surrounding properties.
I, Dean Farnham, am employed as a real estate appraiser for the King County Department
of Assessment. I have run into situations where because it would cause undue
and unnecessary hardship on the property -owner, the structure,in violation of a
building code, has not been condemned.
In view of the fact that it was an innocent mistake and that the deck is not a
significant structure, we request that her variance be granted.
We feel that in this case, enforcing a general rule would place an unduly harsh
burden on Marion Ross.
Marion is a concerned, caring and responsible citizen, who is always looking out for
the welfare of the neighborhood.
Respectfully yours,
0
i
mall llf.
/1 r
:0%
/ ' Y
G..
7l'
d, J�
� (if
ld
,P lot
' / / _/li'L'•"i n'._!' C it
'Vo`/
if
16 / �1
/ r �
1
aloe ./�GCLGG ., d� GGf�
It
A"G G'
too
do Z;rr7t 4*0
eel
eoc wZ--�(L%�`PJ
root
• off- � . r lv /� .��.�-
ey
���
Ao,
ifop,
I I Al1 1
p a �.
for
a
i_l^
1 >rs
too
to
14
y
,,Y n��Zijj, .rt7/11)}ryF � i
%GGG '!�Gc'•2cjl� t<r�l�zi G'�L.-'�<<ZLGG �� C��C:-Ci".c�sLe=uG� G t�%Lr�- �C ��- i
•• i�C<c�GG �/`_<c,'•yr!/ •y�/l�' .GczcClf !,:•ty."L° %��C� L��'CL'_ l'=L�'Y'lc't-?i ��---¢.J �'s�-C`C'�Ci.t
op
-CClc' Cj-�GC�G'•Z� -Gtc; l�'�dti /��'•�G�d,�+lc,,cc'�G�/ <i'•t-tc(�4Z'-6r='G�>�G'G�t-�l�-, GSG l�'.c�
l <'L G•lc <cdj z, '4erLG4ac� c'� <<G� %fir<� = Ct cyGCc_<�e-r
�l-G�c�-L.� �-G.,%�<i%�-GG'�?e'.,lC- �2=c�'� G7�Y�>�'CJ •• %�L �c-tom �t-C-o�+'G'� � L�M._t.�
LC�AcA
jCV y lC roc •1C' /� % y �a,c�1ace<1 c C - L . �l'� 'aC'L�t�t'G�iJ� . (� > `oo�
G! �- e[..4 G!'/G+�''V �.G-G.CC/iE'i `C�
}Z/G�+��L/ `4---L•G.GB•C'�G�•G=L<G�Lj:�i /
�� L��'tG�e, «-r-<-=(''�D .-�lL��✓ <1,.- C?t�Gr��� l�c'��-� lc<fC-� . "l.�C/
%%ZCt�fCesZ�' F� u i-;GI .�Cc<<� -G/t G �G <<<'��J r% %rG <� <�� Cam- -<�Ge N✓
.C�4� L%v
�GLG1-Gc`' �-G�G" /� C-G /LG'-C`,�Glr-<Z-L"fL ./�G•<G Z-
d/
_ C�ri> ��.1��-�.G�<�y • %Ci'��r-«<�., .cam �'ti��,��
n
lce4ce.c. . cy. e G:'e; L" JCS C C-
/ "
i Cl/J
Gu�LZ �GLGr� .�LLCLGC�" I�GG"i�7 �t`GGLCGG ��'c�d�2i y
��'CCfGli'� %l ' off•-t%�-S
a
E r. 1 N7
ft
Tex Salmon's Chevron Service Cenfer
Your Neighborhood Chevron Dealer
355 N. W. 85th St., Seattle, WA 98117
Telephone 789-1661
SEPTEMBER 23, 1986
DEAR MRS. ROSS,
WE HAVE INSPECTED THE FENCE RECENTLY BUILT BETWEEN OUR TWO PROPERTIES,
LOCATED AT 1016 DALEY AND 1007 SPRAGUE, AS YOU REQUESTED. THE CORNER
POST H S ENQVRR THR ggygy iINF,, USING THE MARKER LEFT BY
Y UR SURVEY OF THE PROPER 1—ES- PINION, _AMARK OF
PMR .7i1nGF�tF.NT ON THE PARTOF THE- CONTRACTOR. IT IS USUAL, IN THE
CONSTRUCTION OF FENCING, TO PLACE THE CORNER POST AND THE FENCE WITHIN
THE PROPERTY LINE, NOT IN THE MANNER WE OBSERVED.
14E COOPERATED WITH YOUR REQUEST TO CLEAN UP THE AREA SO THAT A FENCE
COULD BE CONSTRUCTED. NO MENTION WAS MADE TO US OF A DECK THAT IdAS
A PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION.
AT THIS TIME THE LOCATION OF THE FENCE DOES NOT PRESENT A PROBLEM. WE
WILL RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THE RELOCATION TO ITS LEGAL BOUNDARY,
IF AND WHEN OUR REMODELING OF THE PROPERTY REQUIRES THIS ACTION.
SINCERELY,
G. D. "TEX" SALMON
cc: CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING DIVISION
W�o
Chevron
40,
0
Al
r�.r it�_....�__.�.0 row t .�,�._. .. .. ... ...... ..... ,_.. ,.. ..
or
.••'.+ t
��, rflt , R r �� R�LG �l • E'Di �Vr�
( {/it It1; rlh ,lt,t ..'./ '.o�. E��®� �. [ r 1 e yl t �Y5 S,ir'� ri I i.4.
Ir%�r .ry.'S1 ,Y rr. , ( �� �y ` . `I I. •'SMrh lr / i Ykl }' n {i17 '
r.
or.
IN4}
✓/
�� �� �' P w OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
:41,Bobby MroI's - INTER- kI,t
pwt
rIIr
o
or
kke
ILo
r.
I.
or
t,
rIr
I.
II
�'t?`Gary: McComas -Fire M. CITY' OF `EDMOND
,Dan Smith/JerryHauth - Engineering
Bruce Finke " 'r 11/4/86''
FROM DATE
:To
;;
`SUBJECT
" TWO ,LOT SHORT` SUBDIVISION' AT 6925-176TH .ST S W (RS'-8)
"' S-34-86
0 r.ir '..Irv' ' 1'
I v v t ` .,r,.
"� HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 26,1986 0'
tit
oL
o.
`it rot r rful,
r,i , , , , ,
PLEASE .RESPOND WITH YOUR COMMENTS NO LATER `THAN `NOVEMBER 14, 19.86 .
tars„<.NI ,
r}'t 'a1�te� t 4
44 THANKS
yt,ii{ i�r Ir rJ i 0 .r ,ram
e t/JJ4ii iit 5_If . Y ,. r ,
1 f'lrgfalJ��I`rva r,. rlY ,,' ,•. 'It
rt 0 hY.
�. r
t
I
.9 �fef-�, AZ4 !e ;, 2 CE1l1ED�:
t 0
tnlF' (�
y '.
,
17
r r /
'^': `{ \
i rf / i 'i i
;'!• ..
1 r '' ,.M`
..cl....M .71i1t47 rYILr:U.aJa:.:+,w•� •. v^.'.. '
1 • 1
✓.
'i.. ••�:
a••
i.
;.•
••i:�
�..
r
v;
• .. .....
. �.�. +.
. • t
.. •`.
Jl '
oY.
\..� � �'i+.��t4.eip ut i tw, A... .,. ;, ".,'.•.., , r. _. '.......... ..... .. ..... .._.,.. : .. ... ... .. ._.....:u..i......i.::: .J}a'X.tato'u.i _a1 1... �r.....w...,.i,.
f Edmonc .� I� �r1 ,
® it t1 t111�f ,., ,
1 /t
ECEIV,�ED
INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDEN
Bobby,Mills P.W.
Gary McComas - Fire Marshal
i�gnTSSmith/Jerry Hauth - Engineering FROM
Duane Bowman
Iv
I
11986
'
. .j' a �
I
tI l •'4f
I
'. ENGINEERINf 'I ' `
11 i.511i
11 /4%,86
DATE
r
Irity of Edmon(
INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
CtTY� OF EDMONDS
Bobby. Mills P.W,
ry McComas - Fire Marshal
''DanSSmith/Jerry Hauth - Engineering Duane Bowman
T11/4/86
FROM
DATE
_.
,
,��
5
x
A.
'61ty of
Ed monc s
�2 � 1, t l'•V �f �y
IYO,11 J'�JVU..4'4t
INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
"Bobby. Mi 11 s = P.W
CITY OF EDMONDS 1
Gary McComas - Fire Marshal Duane Bowman
i;:;; r,.11 /4/86
"Dian Hauth - Engineering FROM
DATE
TSmith/Jerry
SUBJECT
V-34-86 VARIANCE TO REDUCE REAR SETBACK FROM CODE REQUIRED 15'TO:0' ?. ,
FOR DECK/FENCE AT 1016 DALEY STREET (RS-6)
HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER.20, 1986
`gyp
RESPOND WITH YOUR COMMENTS NO LATER THAN
NOVEMBER,12, 1986
PLEASE
.: 0``�' THANKS.
�V�
•
F t
I �
t
. •1ir a•J.. •tr�i! i. .. ,
'•?•
,
a
1
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER LIST
PLEASE LIST ALL STREET ADDRESSES OF RESIDENTS OF PROPERTY
WITHIN 80 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINES OF THE SITE, ALSO
LIST NAMES AND MAILING ADDRESSES OF OWNERS OF THESE SAME
PROPERTIES, (THIS INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE
COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE, IF A BANK IS LISTED AS OWNER,
PLEASE INCLUDE LOAN NUMBER NEXT TO INDIVIDUAL IS NAME,)
1
C
/re?�/-��r
`JCLG'{%sC<jyS�%cGcC/L JGC��'/ v��L�rf .
Dl/t7"LLJ e 9 : 4' ;1��i <«j r 12)
/:.'���<�r� �'
_.__.............. _
Great Western Savings
Wash. Federal S&L
Edgar, William R.
Reardon, Robert L.
#50520020586
#90-027014891-6
11201 S.E. 8th St.
425 Pike St.
Bellevue, WA 9800-9
Seattle, WA 98101
William Edgar/Resident
Mary Jane Conran
1027 Daley St.
P.O. Box 217
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Elsie J. Bush/Resident
Resident/Owner
1023 Daley St.
1010 Daley St,
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Mrs. Bonnie Kostic Kulle Mr. & Mrs. Fred Ross
or Resident 1016 Daley St.
1017 Daley St. Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Savings Bank of Puget Sound Michael Hill/Resident
Kostic, Earl F.
1026 Daley St.
#222-41630-6
Edmonds, WA 98020
815 2nd Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
J.I. Kislak Mtg. Serv.
Rainier Fin. Ser. Co.
Nasham, Nevin #3713113
Hill, Michael G.
1101 Brickell Ave.
#3005180184
Miami, FL 33131
P.O. Box C-34040
Seattle, WA 98124
Nevin Nasham/Resident
Harry Ittner/Resident
1009 Daley St.
1028 Daley St.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Olaf Aase/Resident Wash. Mutual Say. Bank
1003 Daley St. Ittner, Harry W.
Edmonds, WA 98020 #018420695379
1101 2nd Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Reardon/ Donald H. Berry/Resident
Resident 1027 Sprague St.
1104 Daley St. Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
4
Mr. & Mrs. Alvin Millis/
Resident
1019 Sprague St.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Lomas & Nettleton Co.
Millis, Alvin D.
#0746-43547
P.O. Box 660722
Dallas, TX 75266
Gayle & Millicent Salmon
20418-92nd Ave. W.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Alice Thornton/Resident
1003 Sprague St.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Mr. Jude Petre/Resident/Owner
1007 Sprague St.
Edmonds, WA 98020
0
CITY OF EDMONDS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TH
040 WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING
�fwtw,6IDA-Y 4 APPLICATION:
FILE • V77J T*--
PROPERTY ADDRESS AND LOCATIO
ZONE DISTRICT,
7!
THE HEARING WILL BEGIN AT M., IN THE PLAZA MEETING ROOM, LIBRARY
BUILDING, 650 MAIN STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT ON THIS PROPOSAL,
YOU MAY COME TO NSIIDERED AT THE HEARING. PLEASE ADDRESS THEHE HEARING AND SPEAK. YOU MAY ALSO WRITE A E
TTER STATING YOUR VIEWS
WHICH WILL BE CO LETTERER TO HE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT AND INCLUDE THE ABOVE FILE NUMBER.
IF THE ITEM IS CONTINED TO US NEEDED, ANOTHER
THE DATE OFING THE CONTINUED JSE HE AGENDA IS NOT
HEAR HEARING WILL BEAN ANNOUNCED ONLY
FURTHER INFORMATION
AT THE MEETING.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 250 FIFTH AVENUE
NORTH, EDMONDS (PHONE 771-3202, EXTENSION 252).
THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR
CONCEALMENT OF S NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE
WARNING'S OF THE HEARING ISTA IMISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE
BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.
THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOV
ED AFTER- 6� H��
FILE NO. V-34-86
APPLICANT Mrs. Fred Ross
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
Susan Painter being first duly.sworn, on oath
deposes and says:
That on the 7th day of November ,19 86 , the attached
Notice of Public Hearing was mailed as required to adjacent property owners,
the names of which were provided by the applicant.
Si gned ►V l,t:Q�i� �� �n t�'U
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
19-
.. _
QiL
Public in and for the
State of Washington.
Residing at�`�!�/
MY, COMMISSION EXPIRES s.IR.R9
FILE N0. V-34-86
APPLICANT Mrs. Fred Ross
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTER
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
Ray Johnson being first duly sworn, on oath, deposes
and says:
That on the 7th day of November 19 86 , the attached
Notice of Public Hearing was posted as prescribed by Ordinance, and in any event,
in the Frances Anderson Center and Civic Center, and where applicable on or near
the subject property.
Signed
_f)L
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of �J .
19
Notary Public in ana for the ,)rate qT
Washington.
Residing at
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 6.16.89.
Tex Salmon's Chevron Service Center
Your Neighborhood Chevron Dealer
355 N. W. 85th St., Seattle, WA 98117
Telephone 789.1661
SEPTEMBER 25, 1986
DEAR MRS. ROSS,
1'"tIVED
NOV u" 1986
-CM E EDMONDS
WE HAVE INSPECTED THE FENCE RECENTLY BUILT BET14EEN OUR TWO PROPERTIES
AS YOU REQUESTED. THE CORNER POST HAS BEEN PLACED OVER THE PROPERTY
LINE USING THE MARKER LEFT BY YOUR SURVEY OF THE PROPERTIES. THIS IS,
IN OUR OPINION, A MARK OF POOR JUDGEMENT ON THE PART OF THE CONTRACTOR.
IT IS USUAL, IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF FENCING, TO PLACE THE CORNER POST
AND THE FENCE WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINE, NOT IN THE MANNER WE OBSERVED.
WE COOPERATED WITH YOUR REQUEST TO CLEAN UP THE AREA SO THAT A FENCE
COULD BE CONSTRUCTED. NO MENTION WAS MADE TO US OF A DECK THAT HAS
ALSO BEEN A PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION.
AT THIS TIME THE LOCATION OF THE FENCE DOES NOT PRESENT A PROBLEM. WE
WILL RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THE RELOCATION TO ITS LEGAL LOCATION,
IF AND WHEN OUR REMODELING AT THE PROPERTY REQUIRES THIS ACTION.
SINCERELY,
/fJn'
G. D. "TEX" SALMON
cc: CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING DIVISION
Chevron
a
'4=�5 �a�¢'�,�k.�n �r.+�r'�`ir+7S1 �,!ty.,:k�:3tz�'.�t#.d.✓Y!e tGN„1'Lt>s�.".:.a�.<::ic'ai.�t:..�k.�:it«Ga.i�iL.s,o,e�.col:e � � 't :w+ES3n�''u:.'%.,iJs b.,du..w+�..tusecC ..r '''w .v.:t'*
.asW%1ii:w4�ati� ...u�.w,u.....r r .]_...✓.._ /.�.4 •uL..._.�_ ~
1
Tex Salmon's Chevron Service Center
Your Neighborhood Chevron Dealer
355 N. W. 85th St., Seattle, WA 98117
Telephone 789-1661
NOVEMBER 3, 1986
REl�,tIVED
HV 51986
CITY OF EDMONDS
DEAR MS. FRANCIS, RE: MARION ROSS, 1016 DALEY, EDMONDS
THE ENCLOSED LETTER WAS SENT TO MRS. ROSS SEPTEMBER 25TH. WE HAVE
LEARNED FROM NEIGHBORS IN THE AREA THAT A VARIANCE OR PERMIT WAS
NOT OBTAINED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION DISCUSSED IN THE LETTER, AND THAT
MRS. ROSS HAS REQUESTED A HEARING FOR A VARIANCE ON CONSTRUCTION
THAT HAS BEEN COMPLETED. AS OUR LETTER STATES, WE WERE NOT INFORMED
OF HER PLAN TO BUILD A DECK, NOR T,IAS IT EVER MENTIONED DURING OUR
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE FENCE TO BE BUILT BETWEEN OUR PROPERTIES. WE
FELT YOUR OFFICE SHOULD BE AWARE OF THESE FACTS WHEN CONSIDERING HER
PETITION.
SINCERELY,
G. D. "TEX" SALMON
OWNER, 1007 SPRAGUE ST.
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
0
Chevron -.'
���` CHN '«i.& w.d.....,..,s:,.�S..L.....e.....a_>...,._.+....ii...,..._......�.,�wtk.rJ..n...:...f a..........:.e_..�:.i.:.`..'.Sw.:.'rsZ.,:. ..r...___ _...`.�.,. a....c..........« ........u.,.�..,u..�.•=ma ' - .-1. .a..___....� ^��-
522i
^d
THIS PACKET SENT TO HEARING EXAMINER
ON NOVEMBER 14, 1986
EXHIBIT LIST
V-34-86
EXHIBIT 1 - STAFF REPORT
EXHIBIT 2 - APPLICATION/DECLARATIONS
EXHIBIT 3 - PLOT PLAN / VICINITY MAP
EXHIBIT 4 - DECK PLANS
EXHIBIT 5 - PETTITION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION
EXHIBIT 6 - LETTER OF OPPOSITION ALVIN MILLS
EXHIBIT 7 - LETTER OF OPPOSITION JUDE PETRIE
EXHIBIT 1
STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
FILE: V-34-86
HEARING DATE: November 20, 1986
I. REQUESTED ACTION:
Variance to reduce the required rear setback from 15' to 0' to
allow a deck at 1016 Daley Street, Edmonds.
II. APPLICANT/OWNER:
Marion Ross
1016 Daley Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
III. LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
See Exhibit 2
IV. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. Description of the Subject Property and Surrounding Area
The subject property contains approximately 7,050 square
feet of area. There is an existing garage, house and shed
on the property. The garage was built under variance
#V-13-83.
The applicant built a new fence and deck in the southeast
corner of her lot in August. The work was done without a
building permit.
Surrounding development is entirely single family
residential.
B. Official Street Map
Proposed R/W Existing R/W
North - Daley Street 60' 60'
C. Conformance to Chapter 20.85.010
1. Special Circumstances
3
Staff Report Page 2
V-34-86
Special circumstances do not appear to exist in this
particular case. While the southern portion of the lot
is steeply sloped, and a very good view of Puget Sound
can be obtained from the deck, these are not grounds
for special circumstances.
2. Special Privilege
The proposed variance does appear to represent a grant
of special privilege.
3. Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Policy Plan map designates the
subject property and surrounding area as Low Density
Residential.
The proposed variance does appear to conflict with the
purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. The deck sits
above the neighboring properties to the east and west.
This poses a potential for imposing on the privacy of
those properties, as well as the properties to the
south.
4. Zoning Ordinance
The subject property, as well as the surrounding area ,
is zoned RS-6.
The proposed variance does appear to conflict with the
purposes of the zoning ordinance and the RS-6 zone
district. The deck could be moved down slope eleven
feet and would comply with the zoning ordinance.
5. Not Detrimental
The proposed variance does not appear to pose any
significant impact to the public or to any near by
private property or improvement.
6. Minimum Variance
The requested variance does not appear to represent a
minimum variance request.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the staff that V-34-86 be denied, in
that it does not conform to all the review criteria of Chapter
20.85.10
I
� ) CITY O F EDMONDS LARRY S. NAUGHTEN
t-t MAYPEI
250 5Ih AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771.3202 i s . i V E L)
-� HEARING EXAMINER i_ Igor
CI fY OF EDPIORiDS'
FINDINGS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE
CITY OF EDMONDS
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FILE NO: V-34-86
OF MARION ROSS FOR APPROVAL OF
A VARIANCE
DECISION: The requested variance
is denied.
INTRODUCTION
Marion Ross, 1016 Daley Street, Edmonds, Washington, 98020,
hereinafter referred to as Applicant, has requested a variance
to reduce the required rear setbacks from 15 feet to 0 feet
at 1016 Daley Street, Edmonds, Washington, and more particularly
described as:
Block 043-D-00, Lots 5 and 6 plus one half of
the north vacated alley in the City of Edmonds,
Washington.
A hearing on the request was held before the Hearings Examiner
of the City of Edmonds, Washington on November 20, 1986. At
the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence:
Duane Bowman, Planning Department, City of Edmonds, Edmonds,
Washington, 98020; Marion Ross, 1016 Daley Street, Edmonds,
Washington, 98020; Alvin D. Millis, 1019 Sprague Street,
Edmonds, Washington, 98020; vale Salmon, 1007 Sprague Street,
Edmonds, Washington, 98020.
At the Hearing, the following exhibits were submitted and were
admitted as part of the official record of these proceedings:
Exhibit 1 - Staff Report
Exhibit 2 - Application/Declarations
Exhibit 3 - Plot Plan/Vicinity Map
I'm
n
Exhibit 4 - Deck Plans
Exhibit 5 - Petition in Support of Application
Exhibit 6 - Letter of Opposition of Alvin Millis
Exhibit 7 - Letter of Opposition of Jude Petrie
Exhibit 8 - Survey of Property
Exhibit 9 - Letter from Berry
Exhibit 10 - Letter from Conran
Exhibit 11 - Letter from Reardon
Exhibit 12 - Letter from Thornton
Exhibit 13 - Letter from Farnham
Exhibit 14 - Letter from Aase
Exhibit 15 - Letter from Applicant Ross
Exhibit 16 - Photograph submitted by Ross
Exhibit 17 - November 19, 1986 Letter from Ross
Exhibit 18 - Salmon Letter
Exhibit 19 - Photograph submitted by Ross
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
areas by the Hearings Examiner, the following Findings of Facts
and Conclusions constitute the basis of the recommendation of the
Hearings Examiner.
FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. The applicant has requested approval of a variance from the
required rear setbacks on property located at 1016 Daley St.,
Edmonds, Washington. The specific request'is a variance
from the 15 foot required rear setback to a 0 foot setback
in order for a deck to be allowed on the subject property.
(2)
a
2. The subject property is zoned RS-6. Section 16.20.030
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) establishes
minimum rear setbacks for RS-6 zoned property as 15 feet.
The applicant seeks variance from these standards. (Ex. 1)
3. The subject property consists of 7,050 square feet.
On the property is a garage, house and shed. The appli-
cant has built a new fence and deck in the southeast
corner of the property. The fence and deck were built
without a building permit. Upon investigation it was
determined that the deck was constructed within the
setbacks and the applicant seeks a variance to allow
the decks to remain as constructed. (Exhibit 1)
4. In order for a variance to be granted within -the City
of Edmonds the criteria as set forth in section 20.85.010
ECDC establishes the criteria for review of a variance.
That criteria includes:
A. Special circumstances relating to the property
must exist in order for the granting of a
variance.
B. The approval of the variance should not be a
grant or special privilege to the property
in comparison with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity with the same
zoning.
C. The approval of the variance should be consis-
tent with the comprehensive plan of the City
of Edmonds.
D. The approval of the variance must be consistent
with the purposes of the zoning ordinance in
the zone district in which the property is
located.
E. The approved variance must not be detrimental
to the public health, safety and welfare nor
injurious to the property or improvements in
the vicinity in the same zone.
F. The approved variance must be the minimum
necessary to allow the owner the rights en-
joyed by other properties in the vicinity
with the same zoning (ECDC).
(3)
a
5. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds has
recommended denial of the variance. The Planning De-
partment submitted that special circumstances do not
exist for the granting of the variance and that the
granting of the variance would represent a special
privilege. In addition, the Planning Department sub-
mitted that the request of variance is in conflict
with the purposes of the comprehensive plan in the
zoning ordinances of the City of Edmonds. The Planning
Department further submitted that the requested variance
does not appear to represent a minimum variance request.
The Planning Department did submit that the proposed
variance will not result in a significant impact to the
public or to nearby private properties or improvements.
(Bowman Testimony)
6. The applicant submitted that she recently had her
property surveyed and it was determined that she had an
extra 3 feet of property on the hillside in the rear
yard of her property. It was at this time that she de-
termined that she wanted to landscape the area with a
wooden fence and area deck in order to use the steep
hillside more effectively. She proceeded without the
necessary permits from the City of Edmonds and con-
structed the fence and deck within the 15 foot rear
setbacks required for RS-6 zoned property. (Ross
Testimony, Exhibit 2) The applicant submitted that
because of the steep grade of her property in the
rear (45 degrees) it is difficult to use the property.
With the construction of the deck the property is
accessible and can be landscaped. (Ross Testimony)
7. In building the deck the applicant had concrete piers
constructed in order to support the weight of the
deck. These concrete piers were placed 4 feet in the
undisturbed soil of the property. It is the opinion
of the applicant that should the deck be required to
be removed and the piers disturbed there will be
erosion and slippage problems on the steep hillside
in the rear yard of the applicant's property. (Ross
Testimony)
g. The applicant submitted that no properties in the
vicinity are impacted aesthetically by the deck.
According to the applicant the property owners on
Sprague cannot see the deck. (Ross Testimony, Exhibit
15)
(4)
El
9. An adjoining property owner submitted that the structure
was illegally constructed and there is no justification for
the granting of a variance. According to the witness,
if the terms of 20.85.010 are adhered to, the variance
should be denied. (Millis Testimony)
10. The applicant submitted letters of support from neighbors
in the area. These letters indicated that the deck is
not a detriment to the neighborhood and does not impact
their properties. (Berry Letter, Conran Letter, Reardon
Letter, Thornton Letter, Aase Letter, Farnham Letter)
CONCLUSIONS
1. The application is for a variance for a reduction of rear
setbacks on property located at 1016 Daley Street, Edmonds,
Washington. The specific request is for a reduction from
the required 15 foot setback for the RS-6 zoned property
to 0 foot setback. The purpose of the variance is to
allow a deck that was built without permits to remain on
site.
2. In order for a variance to be granted within the City of
Edmonds the criteria as set forth in Section 20.85.010
ECDC must be satisfied. The proposal of -the applicant
does not satisfy all of the criteria.
3. Special circumstances do not exist for the granting of
a variance. The placement of the deck within steep
slopes for retention of a view is not a special circum-
stance that warrants a variance.
4. The grant of a variance would be the grant of a special
privilege to the applicant.
5. The properties adjoining the property will have their
privacy impacted by the variance. As a result the
requested variance is not consistent with the compre-
hensive plan of the City of Edmonds in that residential
privacy would not be protected as required in Section
15.20.005B5A. The requested variance conflicts with
the zoning ordinances of the City of Edmonds and the
purposes for the RS-6 zone as set forth in 60.30.000
ECDC. It does not provide an additional use which
complements or is compatible with single family dwelling
use.
(5)
0
I
6. Requested variance will result in an impact to the public
or to nearby private properties or permits by an invasion
of the privacy of the property owners adjacent to the site.
7. The variance is not -the minimum necessary for the applicant
to enjoy the use of her property.
nvoTCTnTJ
Based upon the preceding Findings of Facts and Conclusions, the
testimony and evidence submitted at the hearing, and upon the
impressions of the Hearings Examiner on the site view it is
hereby ordered that the requested variance for a reduction of
the rear setbacks from 15 feet to 0 feet in order to allow a
deck at 1016 Daley Street, Edmonds, Washington is denied. The
denial of the variance, however, does not require the applicant
to remove the concrete pillars that have been placed within
the ground. The pillars can be allowed to stay to prevent any
further erosion or slippage of the property. However, the
platform on the pillars must be removed.
This variance request is denied because the applicant has
failed to satisfy the criteria as set forth in Section 20.85.010.
It is the applicant's desire to have the deck located within the
setbacks, and it is advantageous to the applicant for its loca-
tion at this point. However no special circumstances exist for
the granting of a variance and allowance of the deck to remain.
Entered this �, day of December, 1986, pursuant to the authority
granted under..Chapter 20.100 of the Edmonds Community Development
Code.
James M. Driscoll
arings Examiner
(6)
�, ..,,._i..�..:::,....�':....W:.....,s......��t_.:.._..�:..:......_.:..,Y.............,a..sv,....,a.::.:,..,..F..,ia:a.u..fixu....:..::«.,.w....,xx+.,...�....:.....:::x,...�.�...yv.:.: _..._.:. 'i.. y. :.+V. 1`":
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-34-86 MARION ROSS
Variance to reduce the required 15' rear setback to 0' to
allow a deck at 1016 Daley Street
NAME
ADDRESS
po o� 3G3 K. s�6� Lj,
5
y
s
°i
,' II
ern of EDMOND
aeop
- •��
k