110 PINE ST.pdfr
aim
�l
ow
�EXHIBIT 2
FILE# j/-�= �%
DATE Z. Z 7
CITY OF EDMONDS
HEARING EXAMINER &6
RECT �k
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE APO'S
HEARING DATE: 2
APPLICANT-�jy��,� 7 -Z®G� ADDRESS_
CITY & ZIP PHONE,-5
INDICATE TYPE OR DEGREE OF INTEREST IN PROPERTY
LOCATION OR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: USE ZONE: j2- Cry
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: 14i5t6--,NT 1-1114 r
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 sub' ;ct pro-perty
for the purpose of inspection and posting j;tendan o his apcati.on.
Signatufr' of/�6plicant, Uwner or
Represent ve
0
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?
2. How does your property differ from other property in the same
vicinity?
�i ��r�' Ste!-��] ..�`�T �.�G� //�•�-�� ��'c� �-�
3. Will this variance be detrimental to the public or damaging to
other property or improvements in the vicinity?
1 T14 /L/a ///�GJ
4. What hardships will result to you if the variance is not granted?
Will these hardships have been caused by your own action?
zL-
5. Can you make reasonable use of your property without the variance?
I-Ij
■
e(
-=;IAJEC:'T ..
I �do
'--- .
;.
\� , It
. lq 1I% :V. . .. . oId
F.I IR..I I.I.. 1If.I0;II II 1 I1 I II I. . 6I - L�II II6I I NNI1I II . . o7 III.g - dZ I.. :o.. I) 'I . I \ *I. III II. .:r. � ) . II oi.I d 1? . �% e 00 I4.. I. II. � it; . a I0"Is.:. ; . . . Io.II-. I. . . I II :..I .. II 4 I� .�I I : I.6 I -..6\ (II . z IIS. II.I IIsI: ..II'mI I . R. I:Is.fk .I II4 . .6II II6 I .6I. 4 I1 I ' I..I. . '%I 60.I NI I\. '..��.-0. ....;. NI: I ..s;:I'I'II,I' o. : . 0l I II dIII6 OI II I*: Ii4II . I .�� d . . I. I I :pd RIII dI4..IRII v : s:' .. I . . - . 1.1. IIoI ... I 0 RI .I , R .I I .. .I I, .II. I6 III 40.I.l 4.. . I.0II..�. .Z f I-'1.I -I...I .. I: - .. I6.-I.; .� .;....e:I I I II1..I.II.I I. I1I ..- I: ..II ,II1II; l* I:: IIR- .. R. . ..oI'. II. I : RI. IdI f ..I 6.s. .--I.I- -iII I ."I 4I. Io . I ..0 I 6I I I . , II..RII-.III .o. .I. . : I .. I .0..I 6 I I.*II . .I. :., .. i..I I.� : I .> ... RI. "Rd .tII ...,-. �0. .- . I ..I..'I . III I . '.II.'I. I,- I P<� d d. I ..s�1kIIAN,..
) 1..J. Iod II....Osd'. I ".o;AI s IIs. .1I.o R,.RIIII. .IfI ,.f .: .I . . 1.'It.,,I.. . .::. R'\ .ItI"I .; .:II \ s...., Rd, 1.. 'd.l�..I.I.I- 4 .I . I.: .-.o.. III dIl0....1doVZd. NN .IIII �.:1dsId. ":.p.I.:.,..IIo . I.%I. .- . ''1. I..- ..I1I4 RdI".I.-.lsI0I,I.I.s0.�.II..S. ) I I ..4IAo 1 % ,d.I . I.* .: w'I 1.I,II.L.. . I .d.Io .,o.o II. o-I ... I..II --..o.o .I:;, I'.RR.I dq . .-". I-''% :t I ."0.II
I .oII�4IOfI 4 6;. 1IR1..I. '..I.: .I '9o: \. ..t IV . .IR,'I . .,)II. � .,R. -A � -. -WOIII. It F..II dR d! ". .� I i;...I. t. , I . :oI II.-V:o.pa..b -!III & . ' R.III: R40-6.I . I 'I -I . .. RI. .! d ...'4I RI I1-.,.'. . : II I.I. . I1I . I s I -. It Io�I-I.. ;.: "X ..II - .I.-.1..I:4.IIR.d.I ..I.. :.-. .00RII.1;,.I t-..I .I.I Ik.0j.: ;; d�I.-I'. . ' II. 41Io1"II.� -. . . I - �.: :; 4dI. I. 4 II .d.'I ..- IR... I. .II.,N I .dI .1.I 1. I , :'R1.I 1I. ..I.o .I ; .I :".I.11 o .I R.-'o�I.I Re,.� 0\v ....R:I;'1 II j .dI:'.dI. 1 .I..- ..;...R . .t.. I . . I I . d' I...rs.... ..6:I. . I�.'I- I .i".o ,.IRI o d.-'R..I1.l(-I ! I -- ..-.I.. o3R I .�sII
.4 ..I'. ... o. III .I - - I ..Id -II I - 4Is, I I . ftI t.IlId. . �6 I\I ."o I". Iof`I 4.dL 1od0I. RI.
sI
.1 iI; i' '
Io
. . . . ,A.'ll 'I' it r \ I .. M1 :Mr':;1 ';. .1f II
r .. `•t.
I.
, II 7
L. I . i
i • is r, 1
. . . 1 1 -I
. .,. • . .
IN)
of ,.�•:
i \,...
I \
I.
II
dI
%!. 1• -' . -I.. _ '.J':{: ri['i ,'{1: r•' •1\'.' .r 11;'. :ay •r r,,. ..u•.. :•e.,. 1 1 '�•
1. .I �•: .[.•,. • ''u �i •=171::• ,'[,,. ....,•.. .Vv ; . u s
•v.I: ;r .l�.l. .7 I 1i.': '^� I I•: :: '.�✓ •. "• �Li}.. /:. :: ;o ,.e�' r N;. .�rl ,,.t.,.:��i i; �11,• !,�.
I.
I.
o
o
r.. it i. _ M1 1] } 1 .t`•..,. 1 ♦. d `, i.r•• i sr .1 i..�'{trru::.::
..7, � .i T: .%•.,t. r �'' p '� 3• :i _ s 'r .'J'&i•iF-il .r1.' ,.i!Ir..
.y." � 1. 1 1 1 V u` 1 ,~.+.. 3;.. Via: a r r •" rJl y t. It
.[j: •l':'),. v.
0.
oA
o
1.
IsR
s.
II
a.
oI
Io
I. 1., I;i . � i •, t ! i a�J y i r r _'ti:' 'l i'•. \ �1 •..T..7 L. , � J,w. i 1.[ ,� 1 r Q•.i:•
.i,:.ol i ..I e_ ..,,.., i t, r J 1 r1'.r9 ♦"7 1. 1-`4 L L•3�1i• .'a': ,I .M1. I'"•; •. Ib.• •,•. I 1,v. s. 1, i I f:YS Y•w•'
l+ 1 1 / • .fit ,IK :' •r• 1:� • a•}h r L9 4, 1; I:,: .a: ::I
i t 4(' \ tit :.11. 47 'I. \.,• i. - .I.-•c.�.':1 5.a:r .:,}"':.'i rr'ti l'
ir \ - 1 'fVo• , 1 •, S 14. J. _ 'C. *rsl I t<= ,� Kt�`•d•
:, Y:
N 1. i •; 1 a`l .`p! 1 . : , a!1! i 1 Ir toW: n[:
. ..: I. •.\ I1{rl 11• Y`I ; _t-- ..'"'�J �'' '; t _ ';..I I q`uo 9,0
t' r{I t r\ t�afoI
: 1 11• 11t' 1 I J.1 4 •�[ \ •�' i'.. IRA I I I. u.F' ' si,s L lLJi1 ti 1, 19:i...v • t .a
' 1 .11Q •. a . f I II< t :. ry�1 i r" •L. i - `t i ."r P.5%, I r]r •.
'i I I � ,%:Y11 �.' I i ^, '))f r,{`{`,..1 i' ,::\•.ui I'1'NLFv .r 'i ' yli.
. . I 1 t r 1 `r O: t{ 1•'. 1.5h'.':'. .. •I F•4 C t:._',` Y ..n.,- r.
IA tp
UCH ,
I• .' . 1.1 I V' 'i. . I' C I r I I rr l J al.:
,I 1 1 L I. - * \ t6 It
O_re ,r :t .1:''•L: r:I { �' ,I � :r I .�^i 'i•1'Y:., I.
' .,?.
�• 9,Rh' . 1,-�.• ,10•. n ili.. I 11II' : t;' •' a.4
1n
.f -. I$ - ./ I 4=0o RI. '.. I o,.'- �I d:1RI ,-.�I I" . -, ..,s'.I oI -.I.s- o.. :1.V"I IsR' d1I0I.d Io .I 4. . I;.Id.:" ..I It R, I1: . . *.It"II ,o0d.I:"t... s,I 1. .. .RIId % I oRII4.sI .. , II .. I R1I , o 'Ii "& - .-sI . I.Ios.I.I o..�..I . II .I.I .'I-4:.I fId.-III*'j...o oA!-t1I O4a,-sI v s "dI-.I. .. .1 :.oIR;R!-."I-.I .-. .� .I . .. .od .. �"'I-., 0 ..'Id. I ''0 ! ..I ..II-o'I . ... s*iI . ... I-k. I .-Id ".' I ..Il..I II ' III..t-I -tI. iMR-II II6 -dI II.s. . 1I ',. *o4.d\ .sd'o .I I :o ...-I.I . 10 .#r .,.. ---. I II .. -I ., II4 II.: l.RI . R.I..- II I..II.. RI '. I d. .d1 .. .I. . - II . I R's... . . I1.'.-4o..IIP.. I ...'o.. II III...... �1 . . I. .; .., .I.'.RId..;. I.II OII-Id . ... ..I .I,,I.II:..I .I 6I.....,. �.1d...'oI,.4I..II 0.. -, .. .0f.I . . . R..w1..4o I I. . , .dR..:.It::I.to.....I.I- ":.I: . o .II,.;" \% . I I..I .oNRI;." I,.I a I dihI ..o.o
o.
O
.t': ,L' -_•'I. ..A.-•.._ �_ .v'. .,r a%. '::'; :'• ._y,i ..l r.:' [r „i; J= rp., foR i'u/ 4!.,II
t' _t.• ..i�.i�:.u�rr. J. *' 1: •:i ,?Y7!: i.! J:� .r ;11. .'ti Y.}li p: '•:,Or,<< r•
✓ :ft: :v •,.:•r. •'!^ ii, ,1.1 R,j •. r. R: - �: '0:•. rul .i'Sd.:: - .1
II .1' ♦ .''dal :,.1. �•I. .'iIid• R. ',i •' •L r It1 ..r a a1?,1.... :*r
.._ J :r:
• t .t . .�. J•tY.
... J,✓I:•:'Ir :.; ':'l< ,.fr. •.. ,I I:. 1: ij, i:.^ •t')•-:-•'4::YSVL.:f tile.,.,. .!1 G. 1J w;'
-1. . .',n ,:'L:`1! JJ. -II
:,�y ,:.I.. 01: 1 1 n. •.1•'•.%'e I' Ll. In •!?1'' :.(. �.J:.•.r 1..,aa`'1
i.l. r rri::ti (.•.J[ :•y.i. . ''L. •...6I ..i:.: li'' C., drI..I • SIR :_i:.:
I.
II
dI
:9:'.
i i, vA1; '' I '- -_ / J; r y I `'Rod 1 I I • -'I
i r
(� J 111 1 ydil`1 jl1 .Id
(� 1, • li✓ , I , 1r I I I" `1 , '• I.
N 'n ` II. 1 ''1 r %. .>.�...•'1 r r '. 1 iu ' • . •'`'.''1. i 1 1' , 1 u I t (; t / 1 ' /i , t 1-,
\ { a r I :'
\1 Not, 1t 1'I; :r 1 ", J ,1 ..' r J f i `/. Y 1 r 55'• 1 ."r f. 7 1
DID . m yro r �f ti 1 1 0 1
1 L,O ° ! ri i r,ilt„)t`9It JI d'r rll 1 1 fL}1 1 a v r } t'; ♦tJ IIi .•`.
.� �` 1` ••:.S J .:!>..• �`..3a1 .i..'. I a, 1 r� t J %1,, �, r i1 y r I I•[r w .• r 1 i ,..
l�� `'(t 1 h a .. -J 1u r 1 , •.r' �* 'i .i. t C . t 1:....
.. •{Ay ,\ •1•:. tR y 1 ' \ rt emu•.;<.''': ' , 1 a 4 ..{.' s�r: 1 ! 1 r vi 1 ,t..• ,a',jr t i .: ri: j r.. '.I.
1\Q �� ® r lr �1 a l i" ' t.. '•' i . Y i J `! 't.
nh' • I.. j' 1 ll''1u1p{l it tr f: -y. u Ii ,i fs , f `' - r •_. '_ r r Tyt :.
•f�'rrlZ l ° ''1', � r•' ..1r . yr : 1'r r Ili 111 7 , J 1, ,, , . ,r :, r' ..1 1 <I r t r' 1 r t1
\, tl ly -1 [ 1 it, Y -4 1 , II Ytr r i I 1 Y, . 1 ,
t1 •` \(1 .fW i t \• 1 r T a "'./• Zr. t 4i 1 , r 1 1' r t, 1
• NW ,` s' 1 i fir / ' t Flu .3 t • , { ' 1uvt r r I rrJ : r '.
'f1. .I\ t a y 1 . r, 'r 1 r. i h. 1 r _ y ,
. t1.V t,1 1 <r. t o I l > 1 / 1 s 'i , , 1 .
\r\�`� 1 a t: • I < .!r♦la, /T iS e I :1 r' l ,. r.
1' V Y oa 1 t t Li )' f Y7 I ,`tr SJI t . i 4, I ,1 r, :'.
1 \ r , ! 1111. I r11�Y t 1 v..C`rll ]I !\la lr • Il rL.1 , l 1 r.r 1 a
1 \l, '\1lr, i li' �1 1 91. s 1'i.1 t t t I 1 F. i.•:
\`[) �p1 \ 1. t Y ♦ . a1r . 1 I 1 r ♦ , ♦ r L �[ 1 r t• .
N' .. lr�l, It ly 'lr u ,..:rl` e:i / •ITI "\t t.�rl�t li 7 t i : ' Jr
`\ A1A1 r:> y .F •; t. •i1?r : .7:�. �, u.Itt- r 1 1 1'n }'"' r 1" I .]: R.,c l•. I'1
J, ♦ I s,1 .1.. '.:v:11I I rry :u t t 1d 7' 1 r. r i.. 'I r tl j J
i• a \ 11 y.11,.. p•�,I IIs. SSIT t�•( {�191-v�R ttt4 I ' fi • o Ir "1i I '.�
\ n ,�\ I. f . 'q / ' 1 f, ` I 4. f \ y ♦ ♦ y I % 1 ' 1 \ r r :4 I . r `r : ; i •
f\. 'V 1 r • -.Iyr 5' l ? `1 Q I It r. i r 1. : .. u, I .:'11
11r ram % . I {\ 1 J t I .J. {f 4' �` / .1 1 4 11 r t. 1 l
C\Ll ;t.I i iv 1.3 1. r , . _ ...
` \\ j qIY, ♦I 4, l I I
I.
• \/ 11 I II 1 'r r
t A"1
1 "i
t. i..t
i I -
i
i
61
y.
n
--4._
Y�•� �s`�' !� .aYvtti..�a%it,�'d�Naffi:k?r�i w's .Y'+�w.YiviB..aR��aw..:•wwent..::1..rzA3iaua.a:..aWu;+r.v:::a
to
LT
i
m
ui
N
L�
•s 3nnr3n d ONO
1A, 90, 00 o ON ,
,L0-eel
O
m
I3L' -
z
�x
ir
I
1
I
m
""01111111w I -Jr.
(lI
EXHIBIT 5
PRELIMINARY
SHORT SUBDIVISION FOR
MARIAN LOCKE
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
t Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Ino.
s ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
20106 100TH AVE. W. • EDMONDS WA. 00020 • PHONE 775-1591
DRAWN 01COED DATE F.o, !DALE FILE W.
JTT /0-0-86 260 /"=50 /'585
I
�L��.�d.......,.,',}...LL�r....,t......,.....:./:....,�...„L..,.1....�.-.,...,sm.w.....::.4v.._..sew._.........�»w.r.e...u...,e.,.....a.:..uN.��v.�dss?-r.i�.im. Wawru..w'c. �..Nnt..::......¢.a.,._�,..ia ��.u.....s..�.�.rrYu:r.u._.._....•.,.o,.u.'_ �..,.__.....�o.�......�...... w._....:.i ,. _.x_,__ i -:.., ��,,
RECEIVED
rlarch _8. 198
Ci ty of Edmonds
Hearing Examiner
Re: File # V-9-87
Hearing Date: 4 -,57
1. Special Circumstances
CITY OF EDMONDS,
— r::�X, 4c:,7
.r
1 Answer to St.a.fr Report.
t For Conformance to
Chapter='0.8E.010
i
i
(.See Exhibit 3. Staff Report.)
P r o p e r t line is slanting a.wa.y from the existing
street at approximately 30 degrees. Setback from
street. is increased by a n g 1 ed pr,oper•ty 1 i n e so as
to render a normal setback impossible.
Easterly 30 feet of the 80 foot lot is blocked
by power poIe and guy wire. Westerly 30 ft is
blocked by Freeway fencing and Power C"a.biner..
Driveway is centered on lot and not moveable. This
makes a. normal house-gara.re relationship impossible.
Variance for setback reduction impractical as fence,
pose, and drive location are blocking.
A variance is being requested on a. proposed house
that "Footprints" into the difficulties with the
best results. The footprint is as far East as
Lo allow the sr_rUaLure to setback from the street
the least distance. The front is approximating the
front lot slope while still appearing to face
forward. The sides of the str-ucture are par-allel to
the sideya.rds an(-_i irr•egi_ltar to prevent boring flat
surraces.
The Victorian Style was selected as the one most
compatible with the "Hi i Itown" theme or Edmonds and
the s1_rrrounding homes. i in the 1890-1900 and 2
pre-1930) The nearest neighboring house being the
Dutch Colonial uphill and to the East, and the only
house ors Fine Street below Second. (See Exhibit. 4)
The variance being requested is not r_o build a
particular house but to be able to obtain a normal
square root for lot site ratio and blend into the
neighborhood architecturally 1 am submitting in my
opinion the best solution for the reduced options
that this lot presents.
•,�
'u1J..i+Y._.ur". uJ_..IIIK.bI ..fuJ.__ .l_L ..� Y
.J.1 J-_ wf.rn hR..JuL�w r.4.«r .t'.J--�a..3J.x..uwuN i l.G..e wrl uLL.+l ' ._._�..�ir� r.l
Special Pr iy i leg E
The property in question has been owned by the Locke
Fami l.,r for a.l most 5u nears. This lot was slot
purchased with known prob- 1ems, that b;; granting a
variance would constitute a special privilege. The
problems were created by the taking of land for- the
"public grood" The neighborhood, in the immediate
area, has not cha.nl;ed in the past 30 years with the
exception of a "move i1-1" by Harve Ha. rrison a few
years a.go. [ am pr_isitive that no complaint of special
privilege would be raised by the neighbors in the
area.
Comprehensive Plan
The comprehensive plan for the area is single family
residential to the east and south. To the north is
the City Park Shops that by use would qualify the
property as General Commercial. Height restriction is
Hone with a conditional use permit.
1\1orthwesr. across SR i U 4 is the Union Gil property
that is coned Commercial Waterfront. The height
restr,ir_tiol-! for this Fir ol:,ert;,' is 48 FEET according to �
Chapter 16. 5 of the ECDC. The freeway t.o the west is
elevated approximately ._U feet above the natural
ground level. Beyond SR 104 is WOODWA'f PARK ESTATES b
with a. 3 Ioot_ height restriction. The major zoning
col-ii I ict in the area is by the City of Edmonds in
using F,U171 iC Use I-Yohef'ty Z.S t-jenera.l Commercial.
To suggest that B. height .'a.r iz+rjce, granted to a home
I)
that will be overshadowed by the house next door, is
in conflict with the Coml_irehensive Plan is 1.1-1ane.
Zoning Ordinance
The surrounding properties are Zoned as described
above. The building height as a part of the bull< and
dimensional requirements of the Zoning ordinance is i!
not meant to cause hardship upon deserving
Structures. The "conformity and beauty" of the home
as it relates to the lot and it's surroundings is of
far greater importance than the fact that a. house
could be designed to fit. 1 request-. that. the City
ask the Archit.ectura.I Review Board to examine the
facts and I will be klad to corlior•m with their
findings, f
Pry
1 x-
..�o.,w.w....:�.'W.:.3.1.+.�ns::u.�.,..as.a�,e1. �. .wsn.,.��.•..:.:+xx.i.,, w:Y is .:.m.'` � �•-�:e:.+.mii;.:r
f
Not Letr imenta.l
Agreed that no impact is expected by granting a
variance.
Minimum Variance
The proposed house is still in the design stage and
the variance requested is not totally established.
The variance is requested as a notto exceed with the
intent being to keep the height as low as possible
and still meet the design criteria. The height
envelope will not. be exceeded.
ECUC Requirements
All of the criteria has been met in it's intent. To
riot grant the variance would cause a. hardship on the
owner of the property. The variance should be
granted.
YV�y'"
oc
110 Piet
Edmonds.• -Washington
a
:%k.
:et
r.
�+5'Nitn.rC!.dfZiM�4aiwtil}✓e,,yf.BM,ws:u:`.�'Yz.idCL&:d'.u+.«b+t,:.+tl+,..n.aLlS3d a't43;t9a �"Gax+Y.'�,'+'�>nuNA#`.F.{i..:MYdr1'...dk:�, .• ,• ,
.GAY ED 410NDS�
y �7
(f (y
.4eZ
a
eor
4- o J
-�, 7Z��u�
i
a
;s
fit
G
e
/ _-
1
I
1=
W.
:a,
:4
.I,
eE
CGdL
1�.
7
Fit
S ,FR 1'
�iY i rItto
I r 1 1 `. '}�I, , ,q7t' .f 7+� t• • / ,S l
rf� r r ' t' 7 f �. „ ,� y rTl k4'Yfitt F (r
�*• �Ir ! • �t
Gr tr . , t
4{Yo
ITo -, aZ i ,.
+ .J� ao t of ,a 2 ',
I- t
to
• 1=� /` to / �I , 1 •CnC'; of y i 4
iL71`1II�t. .� �.� 1 .7 1 •.��
It b y t
�t� 1FAf ?rdo�.i4
t
{ \•a i •.It
i 1 i M� e,�"Yooi 1 . .•
L WNW
e{�l���I(�RJ �ryf4 t�"� .t,t: 1... t 1•,-��.:.it>r-_
INol.�.. r.r.r
of to
amolool
a r ti
LL `7a1 J.
I to I If y . iyLee i .
ui / , tIt
%ool Lee
v'
�li of
0.
It
to
1/J r'M � .
Il. of �.It d L;IF
It
�� '"1&
Ito
LL
/{
N�»..� f .. • r
L.
L !
f
' a
.. _ _ - n r. ���
Id 4
lg
1! 1 �}�Y��-mot-"�.-eriF�loi
��.rl'- M.1,"'"•�r.
!! �
J ♦ .4 J
�yv [ i s �4
.1:7L .. `i,.b t'i1. �.t .1. .� t �' 4•i�k t:'.. .11:.1i.1 r.�f
�•'Mli
rn♦
r
4
4vii....`ir
\l'
• 6
tppp
, - 4 ' �.yRj�141♦ '.' i^ �.~y twf����fw �i•1 • ) '+. j« •\ �1�tJ �V •:•M'/'t l'•
.r 't. f,, j�.t\•+. '� •;,�j Z•{.}1�'r•�i1{.>•ir! V•�nj.'� r Vl ;}� r V.S, t i�` ''t .1���•i� f.".` ( t f �'�
t '1A i �l ' •{'.}f• ♦ tq�C'l�,lLt};ON
�t�•t'!:��tlj�pcy��1� �i.' �'i� r/f �tq �� 1 `!1.•'�R��y►, y�'Y'• 7
t�l• �1�" c itJL .«Y,1�h'tr\V�� t•��t.•r'f ` i•7� i.'��,•r� 1 :y\ .,:.Sr t'•i'� :.
14
*•-�/�• •'J \ raft It ! . �a`1!•A .�•.'11 )•. _t-1/ , .. 1r t �� •
.. ' rt-i kt.•}�' ���� i '��'�•T 1 rA.. 1J.• ..i1 n 'vj
•.\. t , \ , i+�•,.t' 'J t'.1 513 r ilv t1 J 1., bt•YY •hSyt'
S - I r...J\� ��wt lYjri•f i•l•r l�! �;.'.•,r✓.� yl:• v.�•:�h LJ tS
.' , 1�.IA f�+ 15� �. t ,I.�' Yr�r'� t ti � ?� ^' Y�' `r �.�I l,•>Jt L a
' IY1 t J �. � '!I ' �1 �, K _ � t t �. , � i tr. I � .�..; 1 .0 ,i '• � , ..'i1t ' a
' r 7't`Y t i�•` n�'•��Ir 1 C f � ' :t'! �r:.. 1� S• 1 �..��y(t .r �•S'1K•7�1�•1+�A�4'
4 ��. f; '•+r` �•.J.- � •.1 >f. •t� KN ..'� r cr+ �t,!1. , rr. r\•:' - �1 1.{+. '7�.t)
W,
• _
t
- may•,
r
-- BLIP --
®I w..
'k . -
1
•
t}
CthX .1 -
tlr
>�./i•.•'h. l_ tf4.aCP.'��.t.:. iG�.Y ��:d�1 ri,�►T'Wll�/ {+t �i {.��srv.: �',�tl�„��■1, nt.. t-,
,.�t, Itt�1r , r � �-� 1 � . I �1111111111 `�
}41 �T{If+[•`ltfv rSt.. pi T..i I a' I
++_r�J'{~t' �'�6h ;51,e II �� t1 VI "~•i. " ^ Sl ry�fi f' t1 dd
i t i- 0'.
Yir+-nr•W r �i ttYs� }uq 1 7' llr s `�i it ) 'yY^ }vl_ r �tYt v�J d ' A
_ '9^•"1,45 7�+,lV�etl151y,��iw:tj t '7"S5, ,1+7i)i�t �i� t "r', !.+>�i �Fs9T:I,f!u
rt f1 �r� 1 l t fVtz S.it�tf Y��•. �41Y���� MR4q I tTt ��.a
ML4 :i ri r P ��J \ Jtt tL7f LVll— .r 4 7 T .
Y ��;sl+ ar4'1. t •CI\Y Y r d - .,• II i :..;• t .. 4i•
rr �t \ 1 �a,I. ttYS a ,t\ -tl ire t
:Ywl. 't �k� .', r.'�-> �`, •,�..\i r l.1. E\IAJ,de://n.U'+J.. L4i$"Oylfl!'li/711.7 i.ildsrrr/i�///%I/!r_ ..
FIXrt dl ,.r Y/rr I `4ii 4 'l/ I'r tl Irsv 4)f tofr ' J-- ri
t 4.wlyL I.. f`I.s � ♦ i�. , 1�..i ltl `1�t �3 .i tt I r,1t :e refs r �'rl t rs r! 7^"1P. i�rr� I �Sii,�'��\(L Ji `'..1{ i ,/J�JJgp1
� -� �(1J i J•: t }�� Y 1' '' •f� ,�(r) l 1 t r4�1 I�t f 1 �t i1, �.h �C { � � r•'e ifY!w��.jll+ � r, Y�#it 11� �' Wi .) ) "t ` II:' 1 1lJ,•r�N�/�/�
.! l Y li vta t G r
r { 1 r �`Y t F-^I i 4 t i• - Y
� I+I� .ty lh ' � r 3 r a 4�1{f 1' J{ �{ Il I. I r d>I}•f, i,y..u+/`, t C }�IIC�'�.v�t�j�!.0 tr !'�jK 1t1 �i.
1 t:, rl ttj.-{ 41•t,'Ir� ,} t�,J �r '�� 1.IS. r1 t -- x��. e�>I .'?,'til ' � t� 1�� '11 li��`
If. �-. it - 11 � t "7�� / �,i. rlv t•f , s �3, tl It />L:I <li yt',, LS.4r C �Zt� ��Jtr 1 r' S`,lif iy }yl �.
[i 1rr' t+t,.e I r ><5 It• >d f t, fY15 tl 11 Vi, n;S f IrI s1. i to �. vl�9 t rr
1.1 j1taILy91 r'! �Ij
.�! 'Yn 11
i(� rlw • ra al s ''t1�1r�11'j1
I S' r ISY4 \ r\V1I. d�.n f rl rr MP 1
_ $ 11(jfj 4 rm�y1 ti' I i i t � ,,71
IA�.��RS?t.fltii. tia. i�_,t! yl f.. �� 1.�.. hY�4{��'dI :.1 _i�73�11I r }��i�'$e•-sd�.:.'..HfL (, .._ ,� .4i _ ,I,f.�`�tl'��
l;
TO:
FROM:
EXHIBIT 16
MEMORANDUM
April 6, 1987
James Driscoll
Hearing Examiner
Duane V. Bowman
Assistant City Planner
SUBJECT: Staff Response to View Blockage V-9-87
At your direction, I met with Mr. Locke at Mrs. Flatt's at 1020 2nd
Ave. S. We met specifically to examine the view impact on the Flatt
property as a result of Mr. Locke's height variance request (V-9-87).
There is no question that Mrs. Flatt's view will be impacted with any
developement on Mr. Locke's property. The view corridor from her
property is very limited. The issue is how much.
The building pad shown by the Mr. Locke in Exhibit 3 will slightly
impact Mrs. Flatt's view. This, however, is not justification for a
height variance.
;.: zV.� �t ywr_-. vt'" d, r+ ,:. _.. .. ,, ,,.._... .-_l._s tii��_..�_.__x..a:i.+:.�,.••-....c..J-•:�...:..y....a+..s...�.:.::i.......u..zri:."'rk..S�s - �_....:+:r.::.w.....j-...:i,:��,. .Gsw.iwi.,�w. ..i
CITY OF, E�MONU;
.Apr i l 6. lira+
James [If IS O i
rie.arin,4 Examiner
Cit1r Ui Edm0ndS
Edmonds, Wzish.
Re : V-9-@ 1 LOC1 E HE I G H T VAR I A1JCE
Dear Mr'.DriScol 1 .
Fursuant to
your instructions
i wish
to
submit the
fal1owin9
report
and evidence in the
above
matter.
FLATT-LANGVOLL) PROTEST: VARIANCE WILL BLOCK VIEW.
RS-u Zonink ai lows a maximum hei;l-,t 0f5 feet
without variance. rpage 61 ECDC') :SEE EX'HISIT 'u
Exhibit is a. aerial topozra.ti,hic ma.p of the area
between the Flatt Property and r_he rerr'y dock The map
was ar_,T.a.ined from the City of EdmonaS and is current..
The view boundaries are piottea in b- lue and r_he gtround
prof i i e of r_he easter I bounaar'y is plotted in red
above. The sight tine profile is plotted from the
viewing winnows <eievation 65' ! to a point 5 feet above
the ferry dock. �elevar,ion -3' .; By measuring with a.
1"=uGenneeril-+ sca.ie between the r.e6 and black
piotr_ed 1 roes. the sighr. clearance can be measured at
a.n point alon;� the sigl-it I ine.
The green area represents the lot asking variance.
The mean eievation of the lot is 5.3 feet usink the
r_opogr'a i-+ic 1 ines or+ r.he map. The roof 1 ine of a 'S root
high house wc)u1d be a1=1=1'GX1maLly 7c Ieet in height. This
is weil above the viewing windows at 05 feet. The view
is bioci:ed without variance. THE VARIANCE HAS NO EFFECT
ON THE VIEW OF THE CONCERNED HOHES.
hirs Fiatts view or the ferry clock' is explained by
the i o 1 1 ow i n o: HEASUR I NG S i GHT CLEARANCE. EXH i B I T 20
i'i-+e si,-, r. I ine of the F latt home enters the trees
of the Cit;; t-arl: at a. height of 3.4 ieet above ground and
pc-oceeds thr'ou ri h i_he trees for a distance of
apl:)rax imate 1 Y 96v I e e T_ . The EC'_DC. does not def ine the
t.er'rll '}`U]eW" and I wiI i not question the right of the
Iad';' to see the terry i ighrs through the trees even it
She has visque'en na.i led Over ner windows for insuler..ion.
in viewin; Exhibit -C the moving of the proposed
residence westward could possibly widen the Flatt "view"
t1-1rough the trees. i offer no resistance if the
variance will be granted. I will attempt to move as far
west on the iot as possible without losing my future
garage. I Giier this as 7.oi:en of m*y desire to mesh into
the neighborhood with the least amount of upser".
Duane Bowman. Firs. Flatt and FiVseli met. at the site
on Monday the sixth and confirmed the plotted results of
the aerial topographic ma}.-.
Respectiuiiy submitted..
Sydney F . Loc1•:-��
i
MIN
1 ,t. /.✓ \I C: T +� /' .,.'fit �.. \ J • '\' S 1 '. Si a. -• x t
r i. t 5 iy lr' I ' �-� I t i �� t, '� ` ` 11' `\ `1 .r� t� •f yi ` e. .` i
IF
iYa2o'; ' moo) 4,`rit •} 1 , ,yt j, ± r }•. �. \' \� �iy.{'< l[ t \ �. . f t ti✓_ j t + Flu ,
IF
r ^ t.- 1{..... {0 \ 1 ,1•„'�vf .t' to ! ,f ,4t \ t\\
;9 ♦ ,d•r rq.. t ••, a ' t ,�, ,.t :iJ� �.:` t 1 t,t ' i J
'i 7 r a 1 r}' 'T aC: '..i • F ♦ r
.1� ! r )r` R �. . 1 1 l 1\ ;./ lY J •tr^ •, ,V,t.
Yd ••. 1 r ij,d ,\ ! ••fir}`
4)mlvp
,III
11 S j •{\�'� { r'.•`. 71 \ ^!1 t y'^ _'ls �.r r t t i4• 7t +
s 2' 9�8X///)p" 9 L 9! _ f. ;t „J'k r O �Z t •'".• `"t ..��,1 �.,ri �\ —-"t,
�', dryY j.a:. at 1.3 ` /y t SVr: 4~• I'04) it• •y 1"ti `tf Y• -s s t+
y 12 ),Vo
:l t t ft r %'8hY_.. �s\ l; ,� L, ; Z 7•s6 : yam, ,
frj- .1 s- t..;.�1+ 'C•�� t•1 si is ,l �r ?�" /%� r�`'�+l t �1 -T•. [F..,I\ i r `�•tt
r "
�.
1�� } rr.rf t} r R� t ! t ,•+ t •� 1 � ..• T w • _ 'a r... * \ w.`•. [: r
`� `•'• ' t , ,A S 1 fr 'lit \�` Y, l S+S S �a 'y \ / . r; l.,w '"i 1 ; • ` a 1.. `i';\}� ` ,•r\.: \`t ' i i1' [ 1jJC t rb .,,"tXRS.
ir'y'.,{'�_• e1 ,K.., , '.', .u.�ti 1' Jk`S 'Yr 1'5...: r (�``'7" , s`�../ d .��� ---�i.
+;o s,• • i i�S,a < it. of U t.`. .s ,.?��- J f '• t`�•' `ti,r}tl�M .y..,_ \F `i�, \-\,.. 1•.'LBl: ..'[:d\ `
v t 'r 19 a c r i �. 1 O'88.K. •t
_ r.:J: '�t`> .J'5:1 .•�.t L � ? �' riir' �i', �`�' �Y4: ,Tt'�..ItY�r. .�rJ� r. `�`" ..5_ •�tt,, L�t�••..'�'•. c, ;1. ,•M - ... 4..
LX 7 (,l.''i; �,i:'3 r x=1 '-.•r•-•• �. LL er a' �;:: t�t'�.:• . Mv.`',.
�': r �` i ,f;� �� 4 •a. T J .i�.^IS `O' 1 ., Y'.��i:J �....". 1 �, � \•,\ 1 '�'tye
L- r .. .• t t. )T) 77 Y f +' i / �'•+., t 2l \.; '\� ... t{ \ ` .i,+.
���lll
�+rs.S +l js�� :',� x �' + Yj�+_ s jr � ,Y�r1 ' •r r ��
����= ' . a ' +r . /� .Ir'•., T Y-.• a f"M rr `�- \ 1.-� � t..
-
• i+t>} � '-- 1 r1t� f 'ty ft, tr••-"'--iV� 4i .., z } 4t� a, � .
`.. '+-r Y LyI / Y2' 4t'C ++ t }fS V i iby ry` 1`• .4 t �'tl\ 410
+Tc♦\t'.,•••.
1
jr
.t; r{ �� t r f r r rt t' c t. �F{ •, \ �. �• I
1 J. 1 i •tZ y rt IY,;+ iy Imo\ 'J..c
1 - �aga 92:•: e F. sr �• 1 Ya . . n'9L;i
t f_
l d r ♦3(IaI,A "t ! {t:. 1. Kul �•y,• ri.,, h1X ^'� yl a .f'14' �41,+�..�. rV'. ,
i.� 1>4,Y1 .:,. 5{ 1 J J J� ,t 4.t..'♦ ?$r c r , >. 1'♦[ S tiA� wy
='S t ,.•1 Jr !• !: " k. '.ia >.. ��'f, to^t 4? i; r r S `r '�. "r. 4 $E:{� 'wit
i t i rc - ro.i �. ^s :tvi`,(`••i\t ... C1t..•f fir.
' l , .°r•'a ^t '9c�: .i' r -f •. , �:, i
d'.ygRk'
t. o:..{ Jt { L. [ •-•.: :r 1# ` J J.?; 7yV'�X i?r 4� ; y, i t3L'r t = v r •�`;1 ``rY
ro. S L 1X v f lY � 1. � 1 � {♦ .. ,.. T yam_ '—_\ \ �f
J , , �, ,i
. �r �s�iE },1X 1J}1X� �E 12K r �'IEX s. s..
•�_ I `` +1 'I t i l; k't S Y`r'[ . , - • 4. "' °"4 t s t r ( - t
r " •. � w � 4 ♦ z}J t� t { ati� �N )'i r - 1ri t `ttwic ♦ l 'Tim IF
EX �
9 9hX .eX
oF. T.
t:a +«k '1. �t' 1 F hl\.•.' G,y,l%0'n l�..
I '25XIiOs
; F. ' �3 •E IBM
d
FFIIIII,
r4N•Ti
e �"4.:_'.x 1 1 `' � t r.•-12I. '.r t � i'� �, tt 1i _' .rd�: f{♦�...
J Jy* ti e I' t�' 91Y. 1 A ?a�� t. , 61\ 6'h1X ( J IY — L'EJX 6'EIX t
4, 1. ra•{'X 1 iey r r- - 9'18 1 l ' qt; )t. v �, r. '1- J� t r •tt r 'r -� , _
. �"
i_ PJ,;F
: �)at { jl. \•r Altr I.JX t , ♦ [' ♦
d �- yt,<<•• t• v IX
1wi'X•. _.... o'n1Y..:,.' r.,...
`� OF,1 I i`[ ''• � t .._{'9l;< .y i `\E'alX 1'tyIX 1 9 LI/.+''Y
.:
0 . I Qx
,.,:. + � @ -t if rip, l •4 �•'2c:" .. .._ r .•,�,
�i t pDV6 9.E.1X t-
_ .. \tI t
iO7" • j •: rrj�-v. :.! r •fi '1.40.
! + - . I .. ', :., te'+�i\ l•'�� t r t• ,,
Fit
1 J ±P♦ r
It '.fl'S in
g �.. ,t
.�Ir.
VKC
.Cr �a, A�.)�,h4 1 ,jj a • 8 ii - fu r , 2t'
�t)•Lr `v{, t. y [ L'91} ' .� Q••h IX +tt,
. syf IVol,1 ' 4
1
{
•D O CZ 01 \A 1`�\
I oao and
1=0 r1 o N tJSj
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
T- L PCI
Avenv� S.
� 4SOap
3E W 1\ L E.
p CO R�'Oy. 3 0 C 3
VCRa-TC W(--
°1 %ao3
3 • M(---\ P-,\(N Lc)
Pit\u
E lc� rn D tN bs, `f %Oa.p
On my oath, I certify that the -names and addresses provided represent
all properties located ��in k feet of th ' bject,,property.
gndture of NppPc
Subscribed and sworn to befor
epresentative
thi s ,�b- day of Ak 19 9`71
,
No ary Pub is in and for the
State of Washington
Residing at �i��ox�/
MY 09MMISSION EXPIRES 6;162'89.
`i
IY
O
It
u�
M
Z
Q
N
tD
F—
cn
W
1
Q
]
M:
N
J
cc:.
�
O
J
z
J
o
Ctf
N
Ld
Q
Z;
0
J
t`
f
Ld
F
L
OO
O
2
Gl
U
U'
O
r
W
r
^
S
N
O
r
W
Q
J
N
S
Qw
C
F
W
U
Cl.
1-•
CZ
Q
3
U
W
Z
O
O
1`
r--.
• •
Z
co
V)
N
W
O
01
O
W
H
Q.
r
F-
C
Q
N
�
W
W
O
d
O
U
W
CU
N
Z
V)
Z
W
N
Lu
0
S
CL
Q
H
s
.' f• c
Q OD CD
Z cn s
} La �cr")
ul
z'
z z
ut Q w W
a
0
4
t,
�
f
1
{
rn
c
/
w
1
�
L
•
i
ro
3
2
fi
i
T
1
S-
1
i
N
N
—
E-0
O
L
r
��•EC
)
a
TNF
o9oro
0
IL
In
M
¢
O
S
}_
f—
rY
L r.
W
N l0
¢
tN
J
O
LL
Z
IN
•~ Ln
H
i
Z
..w
w
a
co
O
=
C9 O
r
[--,
d'
=
N
O
i N¢
r.
x
¢ w
F-
W U
0.
a
Z
¢
3
U W
O
11
Z
lb
In
w
O
cn
OW
F-
dr
~
0
w
w o
W.
o
U W
CD
N
¢ O
H
N
x
Y
1 O
¢
W
C
¢
¢ Y
W
J
¢
x
a
S
m
i
F
r`
co
1
Q�
1
7
1 1�
n
t, Q, N
417,
0
o
ao
QJ N
} co ¢
O �
C'
N r+
W
N
to
1
I
j
i
N
¢
J
iLL
Z
{—
c
S
W
Z
W
,p
rr
LLI
p
F.
a
co
O
�p
2
01
U
C7
O
r
W
C
C
r
®
2
N
O
r
,+
O
W
Q
J
0/i
N
r
S
LLJ
I—
Lui
W
L.)
d
.i
2
J
¢
3
t,
Q
U
W
r
r
Z
co
1
Ln
o
rn
O
w
Q
N
7
U
W
C7
N
N
Z
W
N
CC
C-3
Q
d'
W
J
Q
S
W
E
L
N
7
n
co
,
LL
Ql
a
a
1
i
=,
I
in
to
F-
(„)
r
O
L
W
r
U
Y
�.E•E
i
Q
D
o
ro
ro
N
CITY OF EDMONDS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
:rr WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING
194?7_, ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION:
FILE NO. V• 77
I
PROPERTY ADDRESS AND LOCATIO
ZONE DISTRICT •
6001
# p
THE HARING WILL BEGIN AT 74 • 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 THE HEARING AND SPEAK. YOU MAY ALSO WRITE A LETTER STATING YOUR VIEWS
WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING. PLEASE ADDRESS THE LETTER TO THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT AND INCLUDE THE ABOVE FILE NUMBER.
IF THE ITEM IS CONTINUED TO ANOTHER HEARING BECAUSE THE AGENDA IS NOT COMPLETED, OR
FURTHER INFORMATION IS NEEDED, THE DATE OF THE CONTINUED HEARING WILL BE ANNOUNCED ONLY
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 THWARNING! OF THE HEARING IS A NOTICE(MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE
BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.
THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOVED AFTER
I
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
Duane Bowman
and says:
That on the 20th
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTER
day of March
FILE NO. V-9-87
APPLICANT Sydney Locke
being first duly sworn, on oath, deposes
, 1987 , 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 `(
Subscribed and sworn to before me this o?015-4 day of` ,
19.
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington.
Residing a
MY dMMISSION EXPIRES 6-16-89.
1
FILE NO. V-9-87
A.PPLICA.NT Sydney Locke
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
Susan Painter being first duly sworn, on oath
deposes and says:
That on the 20th day of March ,19 87 , the attached
Notice of Public Hearing was mailed as required to adjacent property owners,
the names of which were provided by the applicant.
Signed '4"'
Subscribed and sworn to before me this o?p' day of Yxa,wl�
19�.
Notary Public in and for the
State of Washington. ,
Residing at r��,G,r�,�fl✓
NIY, COMMISSION EXPIRES 6-16.89.
}
.
i.
F
-
THIS PACKET SENT TO HEARING -
EXAMINER ON MARCH 27, 1987
EXHIBIT LIST
V-9-87
EXHIBIT
1 -
STAFF REPORT
EXHIBIT
2 -
APPLICATION/DECLARATIONS
EXHIBIT
3 -
SITE PLAN & VICINITY SKETCH
EXHIBIT
4 -
BUILDING ELEVATION
EXHIBIT
5 -
PRELIMINARY PLAT #S-33-86
4,
EXHIBIT 1
STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
FILE: V-9-87
HEARING DATE: April 2, 1987
I. REQUESTED ACTION:
Variance to increase the height for a proposed residence from 25'
to 35' at 110 pine Street, Edmonds.
II. APPLICANT/OWNER:
Sydney Locke
1402 N.E. 155th St.
Seattle, WA 98155
III. LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 1, Block 4, South Park Addition to Edmonds, according to the
plat thereof, recorded in Volume 8 of Plats, page 13, records of
Snohomish County, Washington;
EXCEPT the west 115 feet thereof; and,
EXCEPT that portion thereof conveyed to the State of Washington
by deed recorded under Auditor's File No. 2175124.
IV. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. Description of the Subject Property and Surrounding Area
The subject property is located on the southeast corner of
the intersection of Pine Street and SR 104. On December 1,
1986, the City granted preliminary approval for a two lot
short subdivision on the subject property under file
#S-33-86. The applicant is proposing to build a residence
on the proposed Lot 2 of that short subdivision.
The Applicant is seeking a variance to allow the proposed
residence he intends to build to exceed the permitted height
limit of 25' by 10'.
Surrounding development is single family residential to the
south and east. Edmonds City Park is located north of the
subject property, across Pine Street. To the west is SR 104.
B. Official Street Map
West - SR 104
North - Pine Street
Proposed R/W
210'
Existing R/W
210'
Mm
f
Staff Report
V-9-87
C. Conformance to Chapter 20.85.010
1. Special Circumstances
Page 2
No special circumstances appear to exist in this
particular case. The applicant is seeking to build a
Victorian style home. The variance is based a specific
design of a home that cannot meet the required height
limit.
2. Special Privilege
The proposed variance does appear to represent a grant
of special privilege. The home built to the east was
erected in the early 1900's. Building height
regulations have changed numerous times since then
which other homes in the immediate area have had to
comply with.
3. Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Policy Plan map designates the
subject property as Low Density Residential, as are the
adjacent properties to the south and east. Edmonds
City Park, which is located to the north, is designated
as a Community Park.
The proposed variance does appear to conflict with the
purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Zoning Ordinance
The subject property, as well as the surrounding
properties to the south, west, and east is zoned RS-6.
To the north, Edmonds City Park, is designated as
Public Use.
The proposed variance does appear to conflict with the
purposes of the zoning ordinance and the RS-6 zone
district.
Building height, as part of the bulk and dimensional
requirements of the zoning ordinance, is meant to
regulate the size and appearance of structures. The
applicant could design a home to meet the height
limitation.
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.
4
7
EXHIBIT 2 C -1\); I
MAY 08 NO(
CpLp(V�11NG DEPfi.
CITY OF EDMONDS
LARRY S. NAUGHTEN
MAYOR
250 5rh AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771.3202
HEARING EXAMINER
I'.INI?TNG AND DF,CISrON
Or THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE
CITY OF EDMONDS
IN THE MATTER OP Tlik,' APP,,IC'+'I"1 1-1 OF FILE: V-9-87
SYDNEY LOCKE r`R f: - it
VARIANCE
DECISION: Ta('
INTRODUCTTON
Sydney Locke) 1.402' N,E, 155th Street, Seattle, Washington, 98155,
(hereinafter I.e=er:ied to as Applicant) has requested approval of a
variance f r;:m i:he restrictions for property located at 110
Pine Street; i;drton I'., `<<; ::, i•1. n,J I.UfI. 111ha requested Variance is for
allowance :) �i:�ucLarc� on site to exceed the 25-foot height
requiremen`. h), ;.0
A hearing ;;u till,-rr:c;i:%Jr:. ,gas held b�ef:orc- ti',re Heari.ny Er.rl;nin«ar of the
City of ::�!i;al�,,.,.J, ,ic...::;'.�"...i'a/ ':1;1 i:�Ji: ��, .iq"1.
At the heaLine iCl? 10'+7'•ra. Cil' ' c':nt./'a l:ei;t iiic;n'y ari!7 evi delilc ::
I)l:uiip lip;.:4!'.ii3 r1 yrl [lt?%f Locke
1'Itla:. I. !1Ci %'•':,., 1a0 ".•:.E. 1:5t1i St.
r - e„': 1. e I Wn .815'./
1% ( 2 n.., st.;.;t:h
EdhiondS, WlP-- 98020
At the hearing the following ::Yhibits were submitted and admitted as
part of the official record of cirji.s proceeding:
Exh-JAAL I - SL•Ziff Repo::':
'-1.C1"•1.1i:%ti.,iGn�/1_lr_'Clr,';riltions
- ,l:.r; .•:Ir: S t�i.\: Wily Sketch
' - , ter•;; �. ::,t�:'.L1e,'
N.E. cocner at
J _'
HEARING EXAMINER RE: v-9-87
Exhibit 9 - Picture of fence on west
property
line
"
10
- Picture of
Flatt house
"
11
- Picture of
Applicant's Mother's
house
"
12
- Picture of
Hendrick House
"
13
- Picture of
Nicholson House
"
14
- Picture of
Park View from Lot
"
15
- Ward House
(demonstrative purposes only)
"
16
- Memorandum
from Bowman to Hearing Examiner
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 Hearing Examiner, the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions
constitute the basis of the decision of the Hearing Examiner.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Applicant has requested approval of a variance from the
height requirement for property located at 110 Pine Street,
Edmonds, Washington. The Applicant has requested that the
25-foot height restriction for the site be changed to allow for
a 35-foot high residence to be developed on site. (Staff
report.)
2. The Applicant has not developed the subject property. It is his
intent to develop the property with a single-family residence.
The proposed residence would exceed the 25-foot height
requirement by 10 feet. (Locke testimony.)
3. The subject property is zoned RS-6. Edmonds Community Develop-
ment Code (ECDC) 16.20.030 establishes 25 feet as the maximum
height for RS-6 zoned property. It is from this standard that
the Applicant seeks a variance. (Staff report and ECDC.)
4. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of the
intersection of Pine Street and State Route 104. The subject
property is a lot which was created by a short subdivision
(#S-33-86). The Applicant intends to develop Lot 2 of the
short subdivision. It is for this lot that the variance is
sought. (Staff report.)
5. The properties to the south and east of the subject property are
zoned RS-6. Located to the west of the subject property is
State Route 104. The property to the north is the Edmonds City
Park and is designated as Public Use. (Staff report.)
6. In order for a variance to be granted within the City of Edmonds
the criteria as set forth in ECDC 20.85.010 must be satisfied.
These criteria include:
A. Because of special circumstances relating to the property,
the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would
-2-
{
r
HEARING EXAMINER RE: V-9-87
deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to
other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
B. The approval of the variance would not be a grant of
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 will be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds.
D. The approval of the variance will be consistent with the
purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in
which the property is located.
E. The variance as approved or conditionally approved will not
be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety
and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in
the vicinity and same zone.
E. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to allow
the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity with the same zoning.
(ECDC.)
7. It is the intent of the Applicant to design a Victorian -style
house for the subject property. It is the Applicant's
contention that the irregular shape of the property and its
limited access prohibit him from being able to design the
Victorian house as shown in the photograph of Exhibit 15, a
copy of which is attached hereto. (Locke testimony.)
8. The subject property is an irregular -shaped lot. The f`
northern property line commences at the northeast corner of the
subject property and extends approximately 15 feet to the
west. At that point the property line goes in a southwestern
direction for approximately 71 feet. Access to the property is
off Pine Street at the north portion of the subject property
and the access is limited to the 15-foot northeastern property
line. The subject property has a slope in a westerly
direction. According to the Applicant, the slope creates
problems for design of structures on site because it will
prohibit an aesthetically pleasing house if the 25-foot height
restriction is imposed. (Locke testimony.)
9. According to the Applicant, the slope of the site, the irregular
features, including the configuration of the lot, and the
limited access allows for only a small portion of the lot to be
developed. Although the Applicant can develop the lot, he
seeks a variance for the purpose of constructing a designed
house compatible,with existing development in the area. (Locke
testimony.)
1
-3-
r rev
HEARING EXAMINER RE
V-9-87
a
A
10. The Applicant testified that it is his intent to develop the
lot with a residence and a garage. If the variance is not
granted the access limits the development of the site and
prevents the development of a garage. (Locke testimony.)
11. The Applicant contended that the Victorian house style is com-
patible with the "mill town" theme of Edmonds and with the
neighborhood. According to the Applicant, houses on the
adjoining properties are similar architecturally to the house
that he proposes. According to the Applicant, the proposed
Victorian house would fit in with the neighborhood
architecturally. (Locke testimony.)
12. The Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds designates the
subject property as Low Density Residential. According to the
Applicant, the area to the north, which is the City Parks
Shops, should be considered together with the area northwest of
the site which is the Union Oil property. These uses imply a
conflict of the zoning in the area that is illogical and
"inane". (Exhibit 6 and Locke testimony.)
13. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds submitted that
the requested variance was in conflict with the Comprehensive
Plan of the City of Edmonds and the zoning ordinances and the
purposes of the RS-6 zone. According to the City, the
Applicant could design a house that would meet the height
restrictions of the City. (Bowman testimony.)
14. The City submitted that the requested variance is not supported
by special circumstances and the granting of a variance would
be the grant of a special privilege. (Bowman testimony.)
15. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds recommended
denial of the variance. The Planning Department submitted in
their recommendation:
Staff recommends.denia.l of V-9-87. The applicant desires to
erect a style of home that does not meet the height limit
requirements of the RS-6 zone district. Clearly, all of the
review criteria of Section 20.85.010 of the ECDC are not met
and the variance should be denied.
(Staff report.)
16. A property owner in the vicinity (Langvold) submitted a letter
in opposition to the variance. According to the property
owner, the granting of the variance would be disruptive to her
limited view and would be contrary to the uses that exist in
the area. (Exhibit 7.)
17. An adjoining property owner (Flatt) testified that her view
may be impacted by any development of the Applicant's property
with the use of a height variance. Upon direction of the
-4-
HEARING EXAMINER. RE: V-9-87
Hearing Examiner, the Planning Department of the City of
Edmonds, the Applicant and the Witness Flatt examined the view
impact of the Flatt property. On April 6, 1987, the Assistant
City Planner submitted a statement indicating that the view
corridor from the Flatt property; will be impacted if the
variance is granted. (Exhibit 16.)
CONCLUSIONS
1. The application is for the approval of a variance from the
height restrictions on RS-6 zoned property located at 110 Pine
Street, Edmonds, Washington. The Applicant seeks a 10-Eoot
variance for the purpose of exceeding the 25-foot height
requirement. It is the intent of the Applicant to design a
Victorian -style house that would exceed the 25-foot height
limit.
2. In order for a variance to be granted within the City of Edmonds
the criteria as set forth in ECDC 20.85.010 must be satisfied.
This application does not satisfy these criteria.
3. Special circumstances do not exist for the granting of
a variance. Although the subject property is an irregular
shaped lot that has a limited access, there is adequate area
for the lot to be developed. It appears that the requested
variance is for the purpose of constructing a particular style
house on the property rather than for the development of the
property.
4. The granting of the variance will be the grant of a special
privilege.
5. The requested variance does not conflict with the purposes of
the RS-6 zoned property as set forth"in ECDC 16.20.000.
However, it does not meet the general development standards
necessary for the RS-6 zoned property.
6. The requested variance does not conflict with the Comprehensive
Plan designation of Low Density Residential. However, the
variance would be new residential development that would not
necessarily be compatible with the natural constraints as set
forth in ECDC 15.20.005(B)(6).
7. The granting of a variance will result in impacts of views of
neighboring properties. The variance will have a detrimental
impact upon other properties in the area.
8. The requested variance is not the minimum necessary for the
Applicant to develop the property.
DECISION
Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions; the
testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing; and, upon
-5-
--
i
HEARING EXAMINER RE. V-9-87
the impressions of the Hearing Examiner at a site view, it is hereby
ordered that the requested variance for an increase in the height
requirement on property located at 110 Pine Street, Edmonds,
Washington, is denied. The basis of the denial is as follows:
The controlling facts and conclusions of this request have been set
forth in the Findings above. The variance has been denied because
it appears that it is a variance in order to design a particular
style of house. The Applicant's lot is an irregular -shaped lot, but
it can be developed in spite of the slope of the lot. It is the
intent of the Applicant to develop the lot with a Victorian -
style house; however, the lot itself may not be ideal for the
Victorian -style house as designed by the Applicant. This in and of
itself is not a sufficient reason for the granting of a variance.
The lot is of.ample size for further development. It does have a
limited access, but the access is sufficient to allow a single-
family residence and a garage.
Any height variance granted to the Applicant would impact views in
the vicinity.
It is for these reasons, and the reasons as set forth in the
Findings and Conclusions, that the variance is denied.
Entered this 4th day of May, 1987, pursuant to the authority granted
the Hearing Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community
Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
ES M. DRISCOL
ring Examiner
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other grounds for
appeal may be filed with the Planning Department, City of Edmonds,
Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington, 98020, within fourteen days of
the date of the Hearing Examiner's final action.
In this matter any appeal. must be received by the Department prior
to 5:00 p.m. on May 18, 1987.
0
a.,. a he.• I �.
EXHIBIT 1
1,1a}, 16. i dE1
Fi5nning Dralarrill c-111-
City of EcimonaE
._YJ 5r.i'I ,;venue ii.
Edmonds. W a s n I nk t on Jbv C,
Re: Ap(?eal OC D�111a1 OC bBr lc. IlCB V-'.d-G! 5/4/1c115/
�ydne'; F. Locke. ritrLll. hivl
110 Fine 3t.
Edmonds. Washington 9oi=0
Gent I eill en :
MAY 16Wtl(
PLANNING DEPT.
i wish to appeal the decision of denial of the above
variance on the roiiowiI)g grounds and in accordance with
EC DC .:U. 105. U. U:
I. The letter or April 6, 1967 and Exhibit .=u kmarked
biT in planning riled wa.s submitted as per instructions
of Hearint� Examiner, but never considered. 13ee page
Findings and `v.= isign. File V-�j-c,i,. Memo from Bowman
SubIII i [ted at sdfile LiIII e was considered, lExhibit 16).
Evidence or variarr_e I'lavinz NO EFFECT on view of Flatt
or Lanavold FroperLles was rlot considered, and/or
overiookeci ano: of wrorlsrui I;: suppressed.
C onciusio1lS of rlear'int ExBminer ar'e not col'Isistent
With Lhe CaCLS Pre S e-n Led. ie; 1dec 1 S ionl v a r lance
r'e Cl ue S ter} r•.o a e S i gn a par ticul of style of house.
I. Lest imo nyl Le r. ter da Lea 1•1a r c h -6, 1:dt6 .:Exhibit 6)
Quote: The variance oeing requested is not to build a
particular house but to be able. to Obtain a normal
square Toot for' lot size ratio 1 Exhibit _i .:_i'::7/8
application for variance. FF.4. Plornlal sized home to fit
iot requires height variance to 'oe equal to neiahborina
usage.
3. 3r.arr Report con La ins various errors. ie: rage 2.
Quote. The variance is based on a specific design or a
home 1.hat cannot meet Lhe required height Iimit.
1plication: House equal to neikhL-oriI usage. Exhibit
o: FROFu3ED HOUSE that footprints..
is nor. to bui Ill a [_iaf ticul ar rliiUse.
4
I
I
n
4. Starr Retort: I'i1:01. Detrimental. DECISION: Variance
wouid be new residential de'veiopment that, would not
necessafi iy be compstibt8 with the natural constraints
as set iorth in ECDC 1S.=C;-C105IBl(6)
Constraints as set furI:h in ECDC 15.--0.00S.Bit6>
Require that new residential deveiopment be compatible
with the natural constraill1:3 or slopes. soils. geology,
vegetation and drainage. FACTS. THE L6T 13 THE FORHER
VEGETABLE ABLE GARDEii OF 1_6 F I IiE, VG 11, OF NATURAL
V EGETAT 1 Old. U14DERLA I IJ W I TH GLAC I ERA T 1 LL. HAS EXCELLE14T
DRA'IHAGE AFID 111LDL'i SLuFES WESTWARDLY. He::rine Examiner
could NOT have visited the Site in with ECDC.
5. E:iHIBII' 3 Sita pian Show i11g proposed house on
easterly side or the 1 o t and cer,terdrive location. The
ri•?h1:s ei, j oy ed by the other properties in the vicinity
with tree sable Zoning enabie them to HOT have a garage
in the CENTER or their house in order t.0 oa c1, out onto
t11e sr."veer". DEC 131Oil The lot is of ample size for
further' development. It doe= nave a Iimited access, but
tl"1e aCceSS is sufficient ro a.IIOW a single-ralllily
residence and a garage. Fags 3 pp. b. FIHDING OF FACTS.
...access is limired to the 15 foot no r t hens to rn
propert;; line. FACT: EXHIBIT 3.8 t, 9. ACCESS 13 114
i_.EHTER OF LOT. HORTHEASTERN PROPER ti LltiE IS BLOCI:ED
PUG FOLE AIJD GUY WIRE. NORTHWESTERN CORI'JER IS BLOCKED
B•i FREEWAY FENCE AID ELECTRICAL CABINET. Hearing
Examiner made numerous errors in the statement or the
facts.
For r"he above stated reasons I hereby exer-vise my right
of appeal ir, accorda1)Ce with EC DC 'D 1C15. O.
Sincerer,':
�yUYre;� F. LLcl:a
1-6 Fine Street
Edmonds, Washington
1
1
i
i
I:
,
REC( "VED
MAY 20198[
CITY OF E D M O N D S PLANNING DEPT. LARRY S. NAUGHTEN
250 51h AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771.3202 MAYOR
HEARING EXAMINER
IN THE MATTER OF T!TE APPLICATION
OF SYDNEY LOCKE pr:i' APPROVAL OF
A VARIANCE
CLARIFICATION
FILE: V-9-87
On May 9, 1987, .a decision was issued for the above -captioned
matter. In tho decision the exhibits were listed including
Exhibit 16, a memorandum from Duane Bowman. Exhibit 16 was
submitted aftar the hearing and it included attachments sub-
mitted by t-ho Applicant. The attachments were a letter from
the Applicants and drawings. All of these were incorporated
as Exhibit 16.
e,
DATED this day of. May, 1987.
rES M. DRISCOL
ring Examiner
City of Edmonds
- 1 -
■
I
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMO
Item number: C/
Originator• Planning Division For Action: X For Information:
SUBJECT: SET DATE FOR HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DENYING
HEIGHT VARIANCE AT 110 PINE STREET (AP-8-87/SYDNEY LOCKE)
AGENDA TIME: Consent
AGENDA DATE: June 2, 1987
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
1. Appeal Letter
Clearances: Dept./Indiv./Initials
ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY CLERK
COMMUNITY SERVICES
ENGINEERING
PARKS & RECREATION
PLANNING' _
PUBLIC WORKS
FIRE
PERSONNEL
POLICE
COMMITTEE
MAYOR
COMMENTS:
EXPENDITURE AMOUNT APPROPRIATION
REQUIRED: $0 BUDGETED: $0 REQUIRED: $0
HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT:
On April 2, 1987, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the
variance request of Sydney Locke to allow a proposed new residence at 110
Pine Street to exceed the permitted 25' height limit by 10'.
The Hearing Examiner issued his decision on May 4, 1987 denying the
variance request. Subsequently, on May 18, 1987, Mr. Locke filed an
appeal seeking to overturn the Hearing Examiner's decision.
Attached is a copy of the appeal letter.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Set July 7, 1987 as the date to hear the appeal of Sydney Locke.
COUNCIL ACTION:
LOCKEAP/COUNCIL
THESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO
'JNE 9, 1987 APPROVAL
EDMO14DS CITY COUNCIL. MINUTES
JUNE 2, 1987
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7 p.m. by Mayor Larry
Naughten in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the flag sa-
lute.
PRESE14T ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Larry Naughten, Mayor Tracy Scott, Mary Lou Block, Planning Div. Mgr.
Jack Wilson, Council Pres. Student Rep. Art Housler, Admin. Svc. Director
Steve Dwyer Duane Bowman, Asst. City Planner
Laura Hall Jack Weinz, Fire Chief
Jo -Anne Jaech Jim Barnes, Parks t, Rec. Div. Mgr.
Bill Kasper Peter Hahn, Comm. Svc. Director
John Nordquist Bob Alberts, City Engineer
Lloyd Ostrom Bobby Mills, Public Works Supt.
Jerry Hauth, Hydraulics Engineer
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, City Clerk
Margaret Richards, Recorder
Mayor Naughten recognized County Councilman Bill Brubaker in the audience.
CONSENT AGENDA
items (B) and (F) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER NOROQUIST MOVED, SECONDED
BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The
approved items on the Consent Agenda include the following:
(A) ROLL CALL
(C) 87OR HEARING ON87/SYDNEL APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DENYING HEIGHT
VARIANCE AT 1 P
d (D) ADOPTED ORDINANCE 2621 AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 19.55.060
RELATING TO UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL CODE TO EXTEND PERIOD IN WHICH 'WORK MUST BE C014MENCEO
FR014 60 TO 180 DAYS (CDC-2-87/CITY OF EDMONDS)
(E) FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR 10 LOT SUBDIVISION AT 8TH AVE. N. AND ALOHA (P-5-86/ALOHA)
Q (G) APPROVAL OF CONCESSION AGREEMENT FOR ANNUAL JULY 4 BOY SCOUT CHICKEN-Q
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 26 1987 (ITEM (B) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA]
Councilmember Hall noted the following additions: page 2, paragraph 5, "Annette Jones said it
stinks!"; page 5, paragraph 6, "Councilmember Hall said she spoke with the Department of Ecology
in Olympia which gave her statistics as to funding that the City would receive".
Councilmember Dwyer made the following corrections: page 4, paragraph 6, "Mr. Hahn said only if
appraisals indicated that the present site is more valuable than the site to be purchased"; page
4, paragraph 8, "Councilmember Dwyer inquired if anyone had any reason to believe that it would
be more favorable than 181b. No one replied affirmatively"; page 5, paragraph 8, "Councilmember
Dwyer said it has become apparent that there is no" --omit the word "single" --"reason to believe
that moving the site will result in a scenario more beneficial than an 18% to 25% increase over
the already projected increased rate".
COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMEND-
ED. MOTION CARRIED.
i
REC41"',ED
i
JUN 8 1981
PLANNING DEPT.
CITY OF EDMONDS
CIVIC CENTER • EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 90020 • (206) 775 2525
June 5, 1987
Mr. Sydney F. Locke
12345 Lake City Way NE
Suite 279
Seattle, WA 98125
Dear Syd:
LARRY S. NAUGHTEN
MAYOR
The new Mobile Home/Trailer Ordinance applies only to Highway 99 and
planned residential development.
As we discussed, once you get your Building Permit you can then secure
a trailer permit for storage. I would strongly suggest you be pre-
pared to apply for your Building Permit on July 8, 1987, if your ap-
peal should be denied by the City Council.
In the meantime, we will extend your ability to store your trailer on
your lot until July 20, 1987.
Sincerely,
CITY OF EDMONDS
r au en
Mayo
LSN/db
cc: Mary Lou Block, Planning Manager
INCORPORATED AUGUST 11 , 1 SSO
1
3
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL.
AGENDA MEMO
Item number:
Originator: Planning Division For Action: X For Information:
SUBJECT: HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DENYING A
HEIGHT VARIANCE AT 110 PINE STREET (AP-8-87/SIDNEY LOCKE)
AGENDA TIME: 30 Minutes
AGENDA DATE: July 7, 1987
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
1. Appeal Letter
2. Hearing Examiner Report
3. Vicinity Map/Site Plan
4. Building Elevation
Clearances: Dept./Indiv./Initials
ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY CLERK
COMMUNITY SERVICES lat
ENGINEERING
PARKS & RED E TION
PLANNING fA W�
PUBLIC WORKS
FIRE
PERSONNEL
POLICE
COMMITTEE
MAYOR 10
COMMENTS:
EXPENDITURE ; AMOUNT APPROPRIATION
REQUIRED: $0 BUDGETED: $0 REQUIRED: $0
HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT:
On April 2, 1987, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the variance
request of Sydney Locke to allow a proposed new residence at 110 Pine Street to
to exceed the permitted 25' height limit by 10'.
The Hearing Examiner issued his decision on May 4, 1987 denying the
variance request. Subsequently, on May 18, 1987, Mr. Locke filed an
appeal seeking to overturn the Hearing Examiner's decision.
Attached is a copy of the appeal letter.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision and deny the appeal.
LOCKEMEM/COUNCIL
4
0
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES'%
Page 4 JULY 7, 1987
r 1+
l7
PRESENTATION BY WOODWAY MAYOR JEANNETTE WOOD ON PERFORMING ARTS_ PROPOSAL
Mayor Jeannette Wood said she was present as Chairperson of the South Snohomish County Cultural
u i Arts District. She submitted a proposal to the Council. She said the District passed a proposed
project which will provide approximately 43,000 square feet for a small theatre with full stage
capabilities, an orchestra pit, dressing rooms, a rehearsal area as well as all other required
ancillary space, and provide approximately 800 seats. She noted that the project will not exceed
$7,000,000. Mayor Wood said 1,000 square feet will be designated for visual arts. There will be
office space, custodial space, parking, and fully landscaped grounds and terraces. The project
will be located on 10 acres adjacent to Edmonds Community College. She said the parcel will be
leased for 99 years at $1 per year. She noted that the college will provide the operation and
maintenance.
Mayor Wood said the heads of the entities of the District were contacted in May, and the proposal
before the Council represented discussions that took place with those entities.
Councilmember Hall said Mayor Wood has devoted countless hours towards the project. She ex-
pressed her appreciation to Mayor Wood. She reiterated that the proposal was a true reflection
of discussions with the entities of the District. She requested the Council to bear in mind that
the City was part of an interlocal agreement which encompasses South County.
Councilmember Ostrom inquired about the indebtedness of the District. Mayor Wood said the Dis-
trict is indebted to Snohomish County for $7,700 and to the architect for approximately $40,000.
Councilmember Ostrom inquired when the election is proposed. Mayor Wood said November was ini-
tially proposed. However, discussion regarding rescheduling of the election will take place on
July 8 because it conflicts with other events. Councilmember Ostrom inquired about the feasibili-
ty of the Puget Sound Christian College (PSCC) for the Cultural and Performing Arts Center.
Mayor Wood said remodeling of the PSCC would cost approximately 53.6 million and acquisition
would run between $1.5 and $2 million. She noted that the heating system is in need or upgrad-
ing, there is no air conditioning, and parking is not adequate, which would require that addition-
al land be purchased. Councilmember Ostrom said figures that he obtained reflected a $2.5 mil-
lion construction cost and $2 million for land acquisition. Mayor Wood said she obtained the
figures she had from Mr. Knudsen, who conducted a feasibility study for the project. She noted
that Edmonds Community College terminated its lease with PSCC and would not provide operation and
maintenance for the facility at that location. In addition, members of the Board felt that that
site was not centrally located in the South County District. Councilmember Ostrom said he was
not convinced that the Board had seriously considered the issue. Mayor Wood disagreed. She said
the Board has worked very hard on the project. She said the original proposal was rejected be-
cause it was felt that the community was not prepared for such a large theatre; thus, the project
before the Council at the present time was proposed with the thought that expansion would be
possible in the future if and when the need arose. Councilmember Ostrom clarified that he did
not think that the PSCC has been taken seriously and not that the Board was not serious about its
endeavors.
Councilmember Wilson noted that two of the entities involved have stated that they will withdraw
their support if the Center is proposed in downtown Edmonds.
Mayor Wood said the Mountlake Terrace Council passed a resolution in support of the proposal and
stated that they would not support the project if it was located on the PSCC site. She said the
Lynnwood Council, although not prepared to endorse the proposal, spoke favorably of the proposal.
Councilmember Kasper inquired about the percentage in favor at the last election. Mayor Wood
replied 421. so it was validated. Councilmember Kasper suggested that a ballot be taken at the
general election so that a true representation of the desires of the community is ascertained.
Councilmember Kasper inquired about the tax levy on the proposal previously put to the voters.
Mayor Wood replied 48.5t per thousand.
HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DENYING HEIGHT VARIANCE AT 110 PINE ST.
AP-8-8/SIDNEY LOCKE
Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that on April 2, 1987, the Hearing Examiner
held a public hearing on the variance request of Sidney Locke to allow a proposed residence at
110 Pine Street to exceed the permitted 25 foot height limit by 10 feet. The Hearing Examiner
issued his decision on May 4, 1987 denying the variance request. On May 18, 1987, Mr. Locke
filed an appeal seeking to overturn the Hearing Examiner's decision.
Ms. Block noted that a copy of the appeal letter was attached to the Council packets.
Ms. Block said it is Staff's recommendation to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision and deny
the appeal.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3 JULY 7, 1987
0
da sister city relaliunsit gyp. lit ta:d although he hoc nut hod
irect experience with a sister city, the Colle9e has had extensive experience with sister colle(i-
es in other countries. He said those experiences have been very rewarding to the College, as
well as to the students, and has grown significantly since its inception. Mr. Nielsen said the
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,''::';,
Page 5 JUI Y 7, 1987
1 . •
l
(
Ms. Block reviewed Exhibit 3, which depicted the subject property and the property line adjacent
to it. She said the lot in question is approximately 7,000 square feet and is located in an
RS-6 zone.
Ms. Block reviewed the Hearing Examiner's Conclusions and Decision as follows: "I) the applica-
tion is for the approval of a variance from the height restrictions on RS-6 zoned property
located at 110 Pine Street, Edmonds, Washington. The applicant seeks a 10 foot variance for the
purpose of exceeding the 25 foot height limit; 2) in order for a variance to be granted within
the City of Edmonds, the criteria as set forth in ECDC 20.85.010 must be satisfied. This applica-
tion does not satisfy these criteria; 3) special circumstances do not exist for the granting of a
variance. Although the subject property is an irregular -shaped lot that has a limited access,
there is adequate area for the lot to be developed. It appears that the requested variance is
for the purpose of constructing a particular style house on the property rather than for the
development of the property; 4) the granting of the variance will be the grant of a special privi-
lege; 5) the requested variance does not conflict with the purposes of the RS-6 zoned property
as set forth in ECDC 16.20.000. However, it does not meet the general development standards
necessary for the RS-6 zoned property; 6) the requested variance does not conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan designation of low density residential. However, the variance would be new
residential development that would not necessarily be compatible with the natural constraints as
set forth in ECDC 15.20.005(B) (6); 7) the granting of a variance will result in impacts of views
of neighboring properties. The variance will have a detrimental impact upon other properties in
the area; 8) the requested variance is not the minimum necessary for the applicant to develop the
property.
"Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the testimony and evidence
submitted at the public hearing, and upon the impressions of the Hearing Examiner at a site view,
it is hereby ordered that the requested variance for an increase in the height requirement on
property located at 110 Pine Street, Edmonds, Washington, is denied. The basis of the denial is
as follows: the controlling facts and conclusions of this request have been set forth in the
Findings above. The variance has been denied because it appears that it is a variance in order
to design a particular style of house. The applicant's lot is an irregular -shaped lot, but it
can be developed in spite of the slope of the lot. It is the intent of the applicant to develop
the lot with a Victorian -style house. However, the lot itself may not be ideal for the
Victorian -style house as designed by the applicant. This, in and of itself, is not sufficient
reason for the granting of a variance. The lot is of ample size for further development. It
does have a limited access, but the access is sufficient to allow a single-family residence and a
garage.
"Any height variance granted to the applicant would impact views in the vicinity. j
"It is for these reasons, and the reasons set forth in the Findings and Conclusions, that the 1
variance is denied".
Councilmember Ostrom referred to Exhibit 4, noting that it depicted an existing house. Community
Services Director Peter Hahn clarified that that structure is located east of the property in
question. Ms. Block said there are two trailers that are located on the subject property at the
present time.
Sidney Locke, applicant, said he desired to build a home on the subject property which would be
compatible with the lot, as well as the community, because he wanted to live next to his mother.
He said the family has owned the property for fifty years. Mr. Locke said the home which he
proposes is not compatible with the Code because of several restrictive features of the lot. He
said he was only requesting that he be granted the same rights and privileges as his neighbors
have been granted.
Mr. Locke requested that a moratorium be placed on the issue until such time that the City
determines the location of the secondary wastewater treatment plant because he said he does not
want to make any investment in a home that may be located adjacent to the treatment plant.
Mayor Naughton recommended that Mr. Locke proceed with the application for a variance before
making a decision to build or not.
Councilmember Kasper inquired about the length of time that a variance is effective. Ms. Block
replied one year until acted upon. She said once action has taken place, the variance does not
expire.
Mr. Locke said he was frustrated because Staff never mentioned to him that the Pine Street site
was being investigated as a potential location for the treatment plant. Mr. Hahn clarified that
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4 JULY 7, 1987
L
the Pine Street site had not become a viable option until May of 1987- He noted that an exten-
sion was granted to Mr. Locke to keep the illegally placed trailer on the subject property.
Mr. Locke said he had obtained a permit for the trailer in March, which was mysteriously re-
scinded shortly thereafter but through the aid of Mayor Naughten reinstated.
1
Councilmember Wilson stated that the Council was prepared to hear the variance issue and inquired
of Mr. Locke if he wished to proceed. Mr. Locke said he would like a moratorium to be
placed on the issue until such time that the treatment plant site is identified. Councilmember
Wilson suggested that an alternative to the situation would be for Mr. Locke to request that
the issue be scheduled for discussion on September 1st after the proposals were received for the
treatment plant. Mr. Locke said that date was acceptable to him.
At the recommendation of the City Attorney, Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hear-
ing. No public input was offered. Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO
SEPTEMBER 1, 1987. MOTION CARRIED. (The complete file of the Hearing Examiner is on file in the
Planning Department.)
Councilmember Wilson stated that several people were in the audience to hear Item k8, Continued
Council Consideration of Hekinan, Japan as a Sister City, and requested that that item be heard
before the preceding in-house items.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO DISCUSS ITEM k8 BEFORE ITEMS P6
and 7. MOTION CARRIED.
CONTINUED COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF HEYINAN JAPAN AS SISTER CITY (FROM MAY 5)
Mayor Naughten stated that when the Council discussed the Sister City program at the May 5 meet-
ing, the Council expressed approval of the concept but had several questions. Discussion on
funding and the role of the Sister city Committee and its relation with the City and the City s
role were reviewed, as well as other issues.
Mayor Naughten said he invited the following community members who have expressed interest in a
Sister City program: Tom Nielsen, President of Edmonds Community College; Roy Ghazimorad,
Edmonds Community College; Sam McKinstry, Sister City Committee; and Pat Hale, Bellevue Sister
City Committee.
Mayor Naughten noted that there were attached letters of support in the Council packet from the
following entities: Edmonds Sister City Committee, Edmonds Tourism Committee, Edmonds Chamber of
Commerce, Edmonds Main Streets Program, Edmonds School District, Mayor William Moore, City of
Everett, and Edmonds Community College.
Mayor Naughten stated that the major responsibility and success of the sister city relationship
lies with the Sister City Committee and in their programs for "homestay", exchanges, and fund
raising. The City's role is in the official relationship and as a support for the Sister City
Committee. Mayor Naughten said he will appoint a Staff member to handle official correspondence
and Sister City Committee interface.
Mayor Naughten said it is important to understand that the program is a slow -growth relation-
ship and builds and develops over the years. He suggested that the following budget be projected
in the Mayor's budget: 1987 - $500; 1988- $500-$1,000; 1989 - $500-$1,000; 1990 - $500; 1991 -
$500. Mayor Naughten said any official trip to Hekinan would be budgeted in the year it is
planned.
Mayor Naughten stated that Hekinan is ready to accept Edmonds as its sister city. He said there
are eight Hekinan junior high and high school students planning to come to Edmonds for a
homestay visit in July. The Edmonds Sister City Committee has arranged all of the details of
the visit. An elementary school "pen pal" exchange has been established between liekinan and
Seaview Elementary School.
Councilmember Ostrom said he understood that the Council would contribute seed money the first
year that the relationship was established but that the program would be self sustaining in the
ensuing years. He inquired how the Sister City Committee intended to fund the program and what
activities were planned.
Tom Nielsen spoke in support of a sister city relationship. He said although he has not had
direct experience with a sister city, the College has had extensive experience with sister colleg-
es in other countries. He said those experiences have been very rewarding to the. College, as
well as to the students, and has grown significantly since its inception. Mr. Nielsen said the
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 5 JULY 7, 1987 I..
im
L.. ... .._...___.. _.. _...... ..... ....
f�
l\
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMO
Item number:
Originator: Planning Division For Action: X For Information:
SUBJECT: HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DENYING A
HEIGHT VARIANCE AT 110 PINE STREET (AP-8-87/SIDNEY LOCKE)
AGENDA TIME: 30 Minutes
AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1987
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
1. Appeal Letter
2. Hearing Examiner Report
3. Vicinity Map/Site Plan
4. Building Elevation
5. City Council Minutes of 7/7/87
Clearances: Dept./Indiv./Initials
ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY CLERK
COMMUNITY SERVICES
ENGINEERING
PARKS & RECREATION
PLANNINGOMkA
PUBLIC WORKS
FIRE
PERSONNEL
POLICE
COMMITTEE
MAYOR
COMMENTS:
EXPENDITURE AMOUNT APPROPRIATION
REQUIRED• $0 BUDGETED: $0 REQUIRED: $0
HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT:
On April 2, 1987, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the
variance request of Sydney Locke to allow a proposed new residence at 110
Pine Street to' exceed the permitted 25' height limit by 10'.
The Hearing Examiner issued his decision on May 4, 1987 denying the
variance request. Subsequently, on May 18, 1987, Mr. Locke filed an
appeal seeking to overturn the Hearing Examiner's decision.
The City Council continued the hearing on this matter from July 7, 1987
until the issue of the location of the secondary sewage treatment plant
was decided.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision.
LOCKEMEM/COUNCIL
■'
Councilmember Kasper inquired if the budget request for the City of Edmonds was proportionate to
the budget request for the County. Dr. Hinds said the increase for the County was larger than
for the cities. Councilmember Kasper inquired if the ratio of budget increases to small towns
was proportionate to that of cities. Dr. Hinds said the budget requests have increased by the
same percentage in accordance with populations.
Councilmember Wilson inquired to what extent other counties were becoming involved in the preven-
tion of AIDS. Dr. Hinds said the primary effort in the Seattle area focused on educational pro-
grams to control the spread of the AIDS virus. Councilmember Wilson noted that a recent newspa-
per article quoted the Surgeon General as saying that a vaccine will almost assuredly not be
forthcoming in the next decade and perhaps never.
Councilmember Dwyer inquired when the Health District will have a sufficient staffing level, as
well as funds, to meet the demands of the public. He also inquired what percentage of funding
was necessary to accomplish that goal. Dr. Hinds assured the Council, although he said it was
difficult to determine the precise needs of public health in advance, that a budget increase of
18% would not be necessary for the 1989 budget. Councilmember Dwyer inquired what the District
was attempting to accomplish with a budget increase. Dr. Hinds said the District was trying to
fill the staffing level needs and, thus, meet the demands of public health services. Councilmem-
ber Dwyer inquired how optimum staffing levels are determined. Dr. hinds said the staffing level
is determined by the external demand for public health services.
Councilmember Hall said she was dismayed, as a health board member, to learn that past staff had
not negotiated for departmental needs. She said she was pleased that Dr. Hinds and Mr. Mockler
had joined the staff of the Health District because they were reorganizing and restructuring the
District.
Councilmember Hall pointed out that the important issue to remember was not whether an epidemic
had broken out in an Edmonds or Lynnwood restaurant but that a problem existed within the County
and must be acted upon.
Councilmember Nordquist pointed out that because the smaller towns in the County had no revenue
available for public health services that the larger cities, as well as the County, was subsidiz-
ing those programs.
Councilmember Hall inquired about the time line for the budgetary process of the Health Dis-
trict. Dr. Hinds said that process was dependent upon finalization of the budgetary process of
cities within Snohomish County.
Councilmember Kasper inquired if the State is showing a trend of providing less support for pub-
lic health services to local governments. Dr. Hinds said only minimum support is received from
the State.
Mayor Naughten thanked Dr. Hinds for attending the meeting and sharing information with the Coun-
cil.
CONTINUED HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DENYING HEIGHT VARIANCE AT 110 PINE ST.
7�elti4n AP-8-871SIDNEY LUUtj krKUPI DULY 7, 1987
Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that on April 2, 1987, the Hearing Examiner
r held a public hearing on the variance request of Sydney Locke to allow a proposed new residence
at 110 Pine Street to exceed the permitted 25 foot height limit by 10 feet. The Hearing Examiner
issued his decision on May 4, 1987 denying the variance request. On May 18, 1987, Mr. Locke
filed an appeal seeking to overturn the Hearing Examiner's decision.
The City Council continued the hearing on this matter from July 7, 1987 until the issue of the
location of the secondary wastewater treatment plant was decided. Ms. Block noted that the Coun-
cil rendered a decision last week to construct the treatment plant at the existing plant location
on Dayton Street. Consequently, Mr. Locke's concern regarding the possibility.of construction of
the treatment plant adjacent to his property on Pine Street was no longer an issue.
Councilmember Ostrom inquired if discussions have taken place between Staff and Mr. Locke in the
interim which have altered any position. Ms. Block replied negatively.
Sidney Locke said because of the configuration of his property and existing structures adjacent
to his property on Pine Street, access to his lot is restricted to the center of his property and
the buildability of the lot was also restricted.
Mr. Locke said he felt a variance should be granted to him to build the style of house he has
proposed because he believed the proposal met all of the criteria as set forth in ECDC 20.85.010.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4 SEPTEMBER 1, 1987
,
I
Mr. Locke said he would appreciate it if he was allowed to build a quality home on his lot. lie
said the style was conducive to the theme of Old Mill Town. Mr. Locke added that his grandfather
moved to Edmonds in 1893 and he, also, is a native of Edmonds.
Councilmember Ostrom inquired if Mr. Locke still desired to construct a replica of a Victorian
house. Mr. Locke replied affirmatively.
Councilmember Kasper inquired if compensation was awarded to his family when SR 104 was construct-
ed. Mr. Locke replied affirmatively. He said the family received $300. Councilmember Kasper
inquired about the increase in grade since the family purchased the lot. Mr. Locke said the
family would have owned the property to the far side of the freeway. However, the creek was
relocated to the area where the fish hatchery is presently located.
Councilmember Hall inquired if the variance for 10 feet was necessary only because the tower
would exceed the height limit. Mr. Locke said the tower would only exceed the mansard roof by 5
to 6 feet.
Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing. No public input was offered. Mayor
Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S
DECISION.
Councilmember Ostrom inquired if the motion included the adoption of the Hearing Examiner's Find-
ings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Councilmember Wilson replied affirmatively. The seconder
agreed.
Councilmember Hall expressed concern with the proposal because she said she was unsure what type
of structure would actually be built. Councilmember Ostrom said the charge of the Council was to
determine whether a height variance should be granted and that the type of structure was irrele-
vant to the issue.
Councilmember Kasper said he would be better directed if he was aware of what type of structure
was proposed. He thought that the construction of a home with character and sentiment would be
an asset to the community rather than a liability because he said the surrounding area has been
severely impacted by the construction of SR 104.
MOTION CARRIED.
HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 18.80 REGARDING STREET STAN-
DARDS (CITY OF EDM NOS
Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that several months ago the Fire Department
indicated an interest in modifying street standards in the Community Development Code to assure
20 feet of clearance for access to all lots in the City. These new standards pertain to all new
commercial or multi -family development or single-family development on lots capable of subdivi-
sion and not for single-family development on a single lot on an existing street or access ease-
ment.
Ms. Block said the Planning and Engineering Divisions worked with the Fire Department to develop
the language and illustrations necessary to accomplish the modifications. In addition, there
were other modifications that Staff would like to incorporate in regard to driveway width and
street and driveway slope.
Ms. Block said Staff discussed the proposed changes with the Community Services Committee on
several occasions as well as with a number of local developers. As a result of those meetings,
there have been several modifications to the original draft, which are reflected in the revised
table of street standards.
Ms. Block said it is the recommendation of Staff that the Council adopt the revised standards and
direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance.
Fire Marshal Gary McComas noted that the issue arose due to a need of clarification in the Uni-
form Fire Code to establish minimum standards, primarily for access of emergency services as well
as for access of the users of property. He said because the existing Code is not in compliance
with the Uniform Fire Code, the proposed modifications have been recommended for approval.
Councilmember Kasper inquired if only a 20 foot access was required to a fire hydrant if it was
adjacent to a lot which was capable of being subdivided. Fire Marshall McComas said the intent
of the proposed modifications was to obtain access to a building and not just to a fire hydrant.
Councilmember Kasper inquired if 20 feet of easement would be required to a home at the end of a
7 `7 ------
N,
CITY
OF EONAONOS LARRY S. NAUGHTEN
250 Sth AVE, N.
EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020 (206) 771. 3202 MAYOR
COMMUNITY SERVICES PETER E. HAHN
DIRECTOR
DATE: 9/23/87
TO: Sydney F.
Locke
110 Pine
St.
Edmonds,
WA 98020
TRANSMITTING:
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
AS YOU REQUESTED:
FOR YOUR INFORMATION:
xxx
AS WE DISCUSSED:
FOR APPROVAL:
FOR YOUR FILE:
REVIEW AND COMMENT
COMMENT AND RETURN:
MINUTES OF 14EETING:
REMARKS:
PLANNING DIVISION
PUBLIC WORKS
q
Mary Lou Block
ENGINEERING
p I A r ";: I G F-'RKS AND RECREATION J;.•.:;,; `,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
BEFORE THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Application No.: V-9-87
Sidney F. Locke, Applicant
Sidney F. Locke, Applicant, has appealed a determination
of the Edmonds Hearing Examiner denying his application for a
variance from the permitted 25 foot height limitation in the
single family residential zone (RS) to 35 feet for .property
located at 110 Pine Street. Following notice and hearing in
accordance with law, the City Council hereby enters its following
Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and Decision based upon the
hearing before its Hearing Examiner, the Hearing Examiner's
decision, and the City Council's hearing and the evidence
introduced thereat. Based thereon, the City Council hereby adopts
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of its Hearing Examiner and
therefore denies the application for variance of Mr. Locke.
DATED this day of 1987.
ATTESTED/AUTHENTICATED:
CL K, JACQUELINE G. PARRETT
WSS50138F
i
APPROVED:
7
)
-i
P 290P4[ in_g Div
RECEIPT I -OR CERTIFIED MAIL
m iSidney F Locke j
110 Pine St i
Edn'ionds WA 98020
� I
I
m _
Om
E
i
Planningg
Div
P 290 4kl `11-11
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED
MAIL
of
i I
Sidney
i13636 NE 155th
o
` Seattle " GJA"98155
a
1, rill
J
O
i
-
I �
a
LL
f
�
I
a
I
SENDER: Complete Items 1 and 2 when additional services are desired, and complete Items 3 and 4. ,
Put your address in the "RETURN TO',speco on the reverse side..Failure to do this will prevent this'
card from belnn returned to vou: The return receipt fed Will provide You the'name of the person,
postmaster for fees and check box(es) for.additional-service(s) requested.
1: Q Show to whom delivered, date, and addressee's address, 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery.
3. Article Addressed to: 4, Article Number
P.290,r461: 960
Sidney F Locke y O�� �Y9 Type of service:
110 Pine St C( g Registered ® Insured
Ednds WA 98020 ❑9 Certified COD
mo
�-1 Express Mail
Always obtain signature of addressee or ^
egentand DATE DELIVERED
6, Signet re — Addressee 8, Addressee's Address (ONLY if
X "requested and fee paid)
6. Signature -Agent
X
7: Date ofnaily,
PS Form 38 1, P b,1 86 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT'
r-
P
MEMORANDUM
December 2, 1987
TO: Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Linda Norman, City Attorney
FROM: Leigh Francis, Code Enforcement
SUBJECT: Security Trailers at 110 Pine Street
In a previous memo, I alerted you to a code violation regarding Syd
Locke. The previous memo is attached. Mr. Locke has not, as we
requested, moved his trailer. We would like you to begin prosecution
as soon as possible.
An Investigation Report is attached. The violation is noted on the
form. I do not know Locke's birthdate; his full name is noted on
the Report. The owner of the property is listed as Marian Locke;
her address is noted on the Report.
Correspondence between the City and Mr. Locke's attorney, Thomas
McDonough, is attached to the previous memo. Please call me if you
have any questions at 771-3202.
}
I
EDMONDS POLICE DEPARTMENT
INVESTIGATION REPORT
TYPE OF OFFEN SE - TYPE OF OFFENSE WITH ARREST
Zoning no code �i=ol=at_inn.--- - --= - - - ----- - _ _ _—_---- ---- -- = — -- — ---
DATE TI.1E OF OFFENSE AND;QH AIfRESi FILE NO.
Ongoin - --- - -- -- - _ ._-.__. - --
___._—._._—_ —_- _ _.__ EVIDENU--
LOCATION OF OFFENSE AND(OR Af-REST CE N
110 Pine Street Edmonds, WA 98020
VICTIhI NO, 1 ,LAST . FIHST . MIDI MIDDLE, F—Hi NAhIE IF BUSINESS D O.B. OCCUPATION f2 ACL -SEX AGF
ADDRESS OF VICTIM RES PHONE BUS. PHONE
PERSON REPORTING ( LAST . FIRST. MIDDLE: D.O.B. ADDRESS RES. PHONE
WITNESS NO. 1 (LAST• FIRST. MIDDLE) ADDRESS RES. PHONE
ISPECT NO. 1 I LAST - FIRST . MIDDLE: ADDRESS
operty Owner: Marian Locke, 126 Pine Street, Edmonds, WA 98020
c c cxx xaaracXxx�wFw>vxvacxxxxx --- —
olator: Sydney F. Lock , 126 Pine Street, Edmonds, WA 98020
(rr - CEv . AGE D•O-B HEIGHT WEIGHT BUILD COMPL. HAIR
A
EYES OCCUPATION --
TATTOOS, SCARS, MARKS. PECULIARITIES
f (1)
Identify odditional victim,.
(10)
Far burglary and larceny (car prowl) reports describe entry whet- ono new,
' (2)
Identify andiar describe additional whries,e,
and tool, used.
(0)
Identify andiar dehr!be additional suspect%.
(11)
(12)
Reconstruct incident (offense and/or arrest).
Indicate time and location where victim, and witnesses may be contacted
, (A)
Describe property taken, showing serial numbers, idemifying marks
later by follow-up investigators.
T
(6)
and value of each.
Des vibe vehicle c hd by %wpea anti di%potilion.
(101
For juvenilelt) placed in detentions Indicate name, address and phone of
E (6)
Describe physical evidence, where found, by wham and disposition.
parent, or guardian and how notified.
(7)
Describe victim's injurie, and where medical scam occurred.
pq
List person, you require to be subpoenaed to court.
n,( (8)
Report all oroperty damage— describe damage and indicate amount
(IS)
Indicate if you need a CCOR or ADR and on whom.
Of 1o11.
(16)
Indicate arraignment recommendations if any.
(9)
Describe premises —or vehicle of victim and where parked.
(17) Officer opinion. (NOTE: DO NOT PUT OPINION WITHIN ITEM 11).
❑ O.K. TO DISCLOSE ❑ DO NOT DISCLOSE
❑ DISCLOSURE NOT MENTIONED
The vacant property at 110 Pine Street currently has two mobile homes. This is a
violation of Section 17.70.000(A) of the Edmonds Community Development Code.
INVESTIGATING OFFICER SERIAL UNIT ASSISTIN, UFPI wLR
Leigh Francis, Code Enforcement, City of Edmonds
c
APPROVED I ASSIGNED I DISPOSITION IS '.AFF I CARDED
EPD•101
a