Loading...
9325 OLYMPIC VIEW DR (2).pdfCITY OF EDMONDS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE F I # DAB -- FEE 'T RECT # � 1 APO' S� HEARING DATE: 2 APPLICANT Sam Stamm ADDRESS 9325 Olympic View Drive. CITY & ZIP Edmonds, Wa. 98020 PHONE 778-5765 INDICATE TYPE OR DEGREE OF INTEREST IN PROPERTY Owner LOCATION OR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY Same as above. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Tract 28, Maple Manor, City of Edmonds. County of Snohomish, State of Washington VARIANCE REQUESTED: (6) feet. Change inset from the north lot side boundry to six::: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY USE ZONE: FQ - /Z �.� ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: J ;c STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) Signature of pplicant, Owner, or Representative Of f,Ul19NDS On this date, before me, the unJ&;jUT, a Notary Public in a94 for the. -State of Washington, duly commissioned aft--emttltl, personally appeared,,y.,.,, `{d who, being duly sworn, on his/her oath deposes and says that (s)he has prepared and read the attached statements and has acknowledged to me that the recititations contained therein are true, and has signed this instrument as his/her free and voluntary act and deed for the purposes therein mentione Subscribed and sworn to before me this,/ day o 190, ' C C' it ;27 Notary Public in,-ijnd for the State f Washington, t c residing DECLARATIONS OF APPLICANT Please answer all questions 1. What are the physical characteristics, (i.e. topography, shape of lot, etc.).which create a hardship for you in regard to development of your property? This application is submitted in connection with a lot line adjustment application between TrActs 27 and 28 of Maple Manor and for the purpose of legalizing an existing condition. The two parties involved find Mutual benifit in increasing the inset on the enterance side of the house on Tract 27 by reducing the inset on the service side of the house on Tract 28. Tract 27 is legal _..b r:� gtt6t8 of a variance, Tract 28 is pro ec ed by the grandfather clause. 2. How does your property differ from other property in the same vicinity? My property is triangular having 107 feet on Olympic View Drive and tapering to 0 feetn 25U feetown trLe bluff to the sound. I am boardered on the south by a small city park. The three ousel to the nortft of me are firty k!)Ul loot lots and lega zed by either variance or the grandfather clause. 3. Will this variance be detrimental to the public or damaging to other property or improvements in the vicinity? No. 4. What hardships will result to you if the variance is not granted? Will these hardships have been caused by your own action? A mutually beneficial agreement with my neighbor to the north will riot be • Tlis situation will not be Caused by any action taken by me_, 5. Can you make reasonable use of your property without the variance? Yes, but not so much. �3 A 21, "Sn CI�jYf of EuMoN05 ii pLAgNING Otl1. ti,. z yin t ti� ` Record of Findings of Fact by Board of Adjustment The hoard of Adjustment for the City of Edmonds finds in the case of 27'?5�©,request for variance at File No . , �..._,... the following: 1. That notice was given according to Code requirements, and Affidavits attesting to same are in the file. 2. That the foregoing set forth standards and Criteria each have/ha*e--nvt been met. C 3. In addition that Q. Therefore, the request for variance is Defied/Granted, subject to the following special conditions: S. Section 12.1;,110 —property d if a within oneyearfromitheand/or date ofcthenBoard'sidecision,obtained for the subject property con- ditional use permit or variance shall be automatically null and void.---" 6. Decision shall be effective on: Date �D DATED: C airman, Board A ustment DATA ;. � Date of Application: Date of Hearing: Date of Publication: Q" 'fib Continuances: Date of Posting: Date of Appeal from Decision of the Board: ecretary, Boar of ustment C t 1 t) 5 t t aM1 A .I f 1 Sr rf) Z R'i p71gkil aI �rMtj'J� rv'tiY y3 � t1 ? rif •f� , i J, �,.•',� INA�l.S��yj} � g(Igry '� { ir �. The names and addresses"of owners of property within 80 feet of the proposed lot line adjustment. Namely the south line of Track 27 or the north line of Tract 28 of Maple Manor, City of,Edmonds, County of Snohomish,.State of Washington. John M. Midgley, 9323 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, Wa. 98020 Sam Stamm 9325 Olympic View Drive "Edmonds,'ViVP. 98020 t Theo Cedarberg 9317 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, Wa. 98020 Jonathan Bolduan 9304 Olympic View;Drive Edmonds, Wa. 98020 s Mrs. R. D. Wailes 9318.Olympic View.Drive Edmonds, Wa. 98020 Furnishedby,- .; Sam Stamm n M. MI-Agley \. >a i NOTICE OF HEARING PETITION FOR VARIANCE - XXVMMkXJ=)Kf ffX BY EDMONDS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT All interested persons are hereby notified that Wednesday, the 20th day of August , 19 80 , has been set as the date for hearing petition filed by Sam Stamm for avariance - =Kddxbi-amack &)pemkt: from required side yard setback at 9325 Olympic View Drive said property being zoned RS-12 4gg t� SCE t Said hearing will be at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington before the Board of Adjustment and all .interested persons are invited to appear. IRENE VARNEY MORAN City Clerk, City of Edmonds FILE NO: V-27-80 PUBLISH: 8-2-80 f�: Affidavit of Publication STATE OP wASHINaTON, as COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of the EVERETT HERALD, a daily news- paper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snoho- mish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, and that the notice .................................... NOTICE OF HEARING ..................................................................................................... .... .... ..................................................................................................................._....... .... .................................................................................................................................. ! r a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the fallowing days and times, namely: w AUG. 2, 1980 ............................... ......................................................................................... 1 . ........, a _..................................................... .......... ....... .............................. . r t and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers �. during all of said period. ee Principal Clerk t J 1 i Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4 th ' t, day of .... ......... AUG.............. . 1 . 80 ............ ,x tary Public in and for the State of Washington, % esiding at Everett, Snohomish County. V � { Ty V x S N FILE NO. V-27-80 APPLICANT Sam Stamm AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING That on the___,5� ,� day of k , iyU, ine dtLat Licu a Notice of Public of Hearing was mailed as required to adjacent A' property owners, the names of which were provided by the applicant. Signed- `--�' Subscribed and sworn to before me this rY day o_.E 19y Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE THEex&4 C7 usrncn WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING 19 , ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO.. l...- .. I .n..J .-, PROPERTY ADDRESS AND LOCATION ZONE DISTRICT - THE HEARING WILL BEGIN AT /�r�(J M. , IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE EDMONDS CIVIC CENTER, 250 FIFTH AVENUE NORTH. IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT ON THIS PROPOSAL, YOU MAY COME TO THE HEARING AND SPEAK. YOU MAY ALSO WRITE A LETTER STATING YOUR VIEWS WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING. PLEASE ADDRESS THE LETTER TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 505 BELL STREET, EDMONDS (PHONE 775-2525, EXT. 227). THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR WARNING!CONCEALMENT OF THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE OF THE HEARING IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT. THIS NOTICE MAY BE PLANNER'S VARIANCE REVIEW FORM FILE APPLICANT: ADDRESS: ZONING: VARIANCE REQUESTED: ZONING CODE REQUIREMENT: ' OTHER PERTINENT FACTS: ,;nA -Ajus+mp^+—with the neighbor to the north, who was granteda variance for a side yard setback in 1973. VARIANCE CRITERIA - Section 12.16.100 1. Does this amount to a rezone? 2.(a) Are there conditions and/or circumstances not generally applicable to other Yes. The lots in this area are quite long lands in the same district? and narrow. (b) Would strict enforcement of the zoning code deprive the property owner °other frights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. ¢' properties in the vicinity have been granted reduced side yard setbacks due to the narrowness of the lots. 3. Do the special conditions result from the actions of the applicant? No- `i ; 4. Are there unnecessary hardships and practical difficulties in carrying out the provisions of the zoning code? Both homes exist now and the area k between the homes will remain open, just the property lines will change.' 5. Will the granting of the variance be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare :. of property owners in the vicinity? No. This request will not affect any adjacent properties. ;i 6. Is this the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of land? Yes. 7. Will the granting of the variance generally be in harmony and compatible with this zoning code? Yes• it will make one lot more conforming. Staff recommends approval Planner's Variance Review 1 2/77 Elm V-27-80 SAM STAAW - Variance from required side yard setback at 9325 Olympic View Dr T�— ed applicant had applied for a lot This request was to reduce the required side yard setback to approximately 71, the code equiremene being lO 1. line adjustment with .keine1973. This ighbor to hwould tnot wamount to atrezone. The for a side y and narrow and other properties in the lots in this area are quite long and setbacks for that reason, $0 vicinity had been granted reduced side y of strict enforcement of thezoning o ninlncode would ul dddeprict.thThersteepybank limits those rights enjoyed by The granting of the the developable area. Both homes exiinesowilldchangerea between the homes will remain open --just the property the health, safety, re of variance would not be detrimental a to this request will not oaffect aany adjacent property owners in the vicinity, and properties. This was a minimuming vnotaingethat Mt would amake twould onelotmoree compatible with the conforming. The public portion of the hearing was opened. The applicant said he does not use that piece of property anyway and since t the as it is near rDhis neith remindedfhimtthatrinethe futurenifgheoshouldtdecide ltouse remodel his home this could affect how wide he could go. No one else wished to speak, and the public portion of the hearing was closed. MR. j SECONDED .BY MR. HATZENBUHLER, TO APPROVE V-27-80 SINCE THE LERAAS MOVED, i' INVOLVED PARTIES ARE IN ACCORD AND BECAUOF SE THIS A, PROPERTY TOIN THBE ERIMENTAL TO<THE HEALTH, WELFARE, ET VICINITY. MOTION CARRIED. red side equired V-28-80 BETTY KIT Variance from requi structures rats9719c216th Pl. Sk and from rW- (RS-8) maximum height limit The application was to reduce the side yard setback from the required 7 1/2' to 5' and t,, allow bottom portionboflthegstructurto e ishanloldhnoncon- requirement by 2 3 applicant did not obtain a building permit for its forming structure. The app construction and by the time the City received the complaint it to a was built. Mr. t wO Bowman reviewed the vaariance,c e,torotherllandsldinntheot asarne districtzone. Conditions not generally applicable were that the shed was a pre-existing, nonconforming structure anot s to its side yard setback. Strict enforcement of the 20ning code the same district. the property ownerive r of rights commonly enjoyed by applicant as the The special conditions do result from the actions of the m't. As to applicant costructed the second story without a building P practical difficulties in carrying out the proleteanit will eprove ncostly}to because the building essentially has been comp and welfare of conform to code requirements. As to t e h althe variance could be detrimental property owners in the vicinity, 9 of the adjacent properties; as the building may intrude into the privacy`! ould not diminish this intrusion substantially. however, lowering the building wIf Mr. Bowman said this real) adjacent not tapropertminimumesaadversely. Granting ofthe does not really code as the extra variance generally would be in harmony with the Zoning 2'3" allows for a pitched roof to provide bova1rdrainage because than a of. Mr. Bowman said he could not recommend app an consstrructewithout owne uildiwho didpnotiobjectitottheer hstructure candetheremwas on property one in opposition. The public portion of the hearing was opened. The pplcat sid the ey ded storage areaaandiitnwasatoo costly ltonhavesaGbasement constructed onstrucd because hunederthe house. �• ich had never been finished was alooldintit,e She said the small building wh and they had put the heater and filter system far the swimming P l large hfor storage so decided to bui d it higher. but it was not idotknowthey could not dotisontheir own property, She they d PageN7S BAugOstF20, ADJUSTMENT � ti t tF .. N'M�y t EXHIBIT FILES'# DATE--G�/%--_� / CITY OF EDMONDS FEE HEARING EXAMINER RECT Yt APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE APO'S_r HEARING BATE : '7 _ / APPLICANT Mrs Roumonada ADDRESS_r, ptymnic Vi.w Drive CITY & ZIPramQnds Wash 98020 PHO'JEIionp ?'7G,-.? 76 INDICATE TYPE OR DEGREE OF INTEREST IN PROPERTY property owners LOCATION OR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY 9325 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, Wash. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY -SAP attached VARIANCE REQUESTED: reduction of front yard building setback -1-V 4 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: USE ZONE: %�,S- -,--- / ;-� 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 emplovees. N Permission to Enter Subject Property The undersigned applicant grants his, her or its permission for public i officials and the staff of the City of Edrwnds to en er the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting tte an to this application; J. ew Sinnature.o Ap ant, icOwner or Representative ff . r s+a! EXHIBIT DECLARATIONS OF APPLICANT Please answer all questions 1 o alotYeetc.)pwhichacreateaathardship,for youtinoregard,tohape development of your property? 2. How does your property differ from other property in the same vicinity? See Attached 3. Will this variance be detrimental to the public or damaging to other property or improvements in the vicinity? See Attached 4. What hardships will result to you if the variance is not granted' Will these hardships have been caused by your own action? a See Attached S. Can you make reasonable use of your property without the variance? See Attached FXHIBIT 2 Declarations of 2pRLicant: as prepared by owner's representative 1. Steep unbuildable topography on the westerly half of the subject property and it's tapered shape severely limit the location of the proposed addition. Approximately one third of the existing house is now located in the front yard setback. An addition that conformed to the 25' setback would require building uncomfortably close to the clif, and would result in an awkward connection between the new and existing portions of the house. 2. The subjest property is quite similar to several adjacent properties. The first four houses located south of the city park(see vicinity sketch) have been built an average of 20'-1" from the thickened edge of the pavement of Olympic View Drive. These homes are located an estimated 21-0" from their front property lines. The addition on the subject property would be located approximately 31-4" (at the closest point) from the front property line. The four houses to the south have virtually no front yards with only paving between the houses and the street. The subject property now has and would retain a pleasent landscaped front yard and a brick wall that separate the house from the street. 3. it does not appear that any views from adjacent property owners will be adversly effected by the proposed addition on the subject property. Most of the driveways and garages of the four houses to the south are so arranged that cars back out onto the street right of way and then back out onto Olympic View Drive in a reverse direction. This represents a traffic hazard. This same con- dition now exists on the subject property,where the hazard is aggravated by the steep sloping driveway. The proposed addition is arranged with a paved turn -around area so that vehicles may be backed out of the garage, turn around, and then drive in a foreward direction out onto Olympic View Drive. The existing curb cut will be removed and the old garage will not be used. This represents a substantial improvement over the existing conditions. 4. If the variance is not granted, the owners of the subject property will be required to conform to the 251 front yard setback. The location of the existing house, the shape and topographical features of the lot do not allow reasonable development on any other portion of the subject property. If the existing house had been located further west, this variance would not be required for a reasonable addition. 41 9: EXHIBIT s a July 9, 1981� +` i MEMO TO: Planning Department FROM: Dan Smith Planning/Engineering Inspector 1 SUBJECT: COMMENTS FOR JULY 16 HEARING EXAMINER MEETING s5 V-14-81 RICHARD EIDEN Variance -rom required 25' height limit to 34' at 7415 180th Street S.W. (RS-8) °- s Engineering has no comment on this variance. The drainage plan submitted with this application,glus 1 the site plan,shall be reviewed in conjunction f. with the building permit application. V-15-81 MR. AND MRS. ROUMONADA Variance from requ re frontyard setback to 3'4" at 9325 Olympic View Drive. (RS-12) No comment. C DS/mt �i t: h: i r, EXHIBIT 4 165 CA I e- : / =40 !4V e-xlsr .Se—'r 1.07' i; HO Z/5 IZ, 57A K 0— A t4 0 Olt ICA SfE. N nay Q) tk) VQ) o`��,W LO EXHIBIT C IT'( PACK exGTIt-J4 --A 52-1C< wArG CEJ-4TERL14E orOLf - MF-w C;LIVF- (:S 17F- FL . 111"2.01-011 171 Z44A p FCn FE U'Y LIWE F-xi s7mj(� cufzp-, cur .lid 6A EXHIBIT 9 that one condition. The public portion of the hearing was opened. i The applicant said it seemed to him that this would be a reasonable use of that property. He said he could rent the house as a residence but he did not want to get involved with the inherent problems, preferring to rent to an architect or accountant who would not create problems with shaggy dogs or beer bottles. He said the house is a good one, with a good foundation, and he would try to add a module 18'- 20' wide and blend it into the existing structure, having the building one level on the street side and two levels in back, which is essentially what the house is. He had no objection to the medical/dental use restriction, saying he really would like to get two architects as tenants. No one else wished to speak, and the public portion of the hearing was closed. MR. LERAAS MOVED; SECONDED BY MRS. DERLETH, THAT IN VIEW OF WHAT THE APPLICANT HAD BUILT ACROSS THE STREET, HE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF CU-31-81 BECAUSE HE FELT IT WOULD ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND BE BENEFICIAL, RATHER THAN DETRIMENTAL, TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THAT IT WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE ZONING CODE; BUT APPROVAL WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTION THAT OFFICES FOR MEDICALjDENTAL USE WOULD BE PROHIBITED. MOTION CARRIED. *srxrar• SCU 32z$O RICHARD-£IDEN-- Conditional,Use,Permit for filling and grading over 500 cu .,,, $Oth St S N (RS $} w .+..i?�i�', Mr. Bowman said the proposal was to add some 880 cu. yds. of fill to a site which already has some 1200 cu. yds. on it, the purpose being to create a more suitable building site for a house. Mr. Bowman showed slides of the site which depicted the fill and retaining wall in relationship to adjacent properties. The property originally had been bowl shaped and the proposal would bring the elevation to 188'. The applicant originally received a building permit for placing 500 cu. yds of fill and a rockery. According to the applicant, there was some discussion with someone on the staff which led him to believe that as long as that was increased in 500 cu. yd. increments he would be within the limits. Since the time of issuance of the building permit, approximately 1200 cu. yds. of fill has been placed on the site. The rockery is 10' high and extends along most of the western property line. Mr. Bowman reviewed the Conditional Use Permit criteria. He felt the proposed use would not endanger the public health and general welfare as the off -site effects were trucks and drainage, both of which could be handled. It would not be injurious or detrimental to adjoining property as the main impact would be in drainage, but an adequate drainage plan would eliminate any problems. Mr. Bowman said the Comprehensive Plan does not support the type of action proposed, but a good portion of the fill material already was in place and the policies of the City are to try to work out the best solution to such a problem. He said the major impact from this would be drainage, and if the applicant were allowed to add the additional fill to an elevation not to exceed 188'. he should be able to design a drainage system which would minimize drainage impacts. Mr. Bowman recom- mended approval, with the following conditions: (1) Submission of approved site drainage plan; (2) Meet all Engineering Division requirements; (3) The highest elevation of the fill not to exceed 188'; (4) The total amount of fill not to exceed 2,000 cu. yds.; and (5) A combination of crushed rock and soil retaining vegetation to be placed behind the rockery on the west end to prevent additional erosion into adjacent properties. rMr Bowman y stated that any future building permit will have to be based on the former f contour of the site --not the elevation after the fill is in place. Assistant City Engineer Patrick Wilson stated further requirements: (1) The existing rockery to be verified for stability by a licensed civil engineer; (2) Drainage plan to be submitted for approval by the City Engineer; (3) The existing sanitary sewer cleanout in 15' easement to be raised with a concrete ring and the cap reset as required by the City Engineer; (4) One foot of earth cover is required over the existing 16" concrete culvert at south end before any flexible (asphalt) driveway is placed over it; (5) Application Should be modified to reflect the larger amount of fill. The public portion of the hearing was opened. The applicant said this was a problem lot and he had planned to have pilings Put in but they could not get the rig in to do the job. He did not have the funds to fill it all at once so he did it in increments. He said that BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Page 4 - May 21, 1980 EXHIBIT 9 with the permit to get the elevation to 188' he can get adequate drainafelt for the lot and it would improve the condition of the gully it should also improve the neighbors' drainage. He intended constructing a single story house with a basement and carport under it. He said he recognized that the height of the house is restricted to the computation from the ground level prior to the fill. Mrs. Doris Matthews, a neighbor, said the fill had been beneficial to the drainage on her property. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Byrd stated that it would appear that the conditions placed by the Staff would take care of any issues to be addressed, and with those in a Conditional Use Permit he felt it would be acceptable. Mrs. Derleth said that in looking at this site her main question is would she have granted it before the fact --does she think it is reasonable. In looking at the area where the house is to be located she noted that almost every house around it has a similar retaining wall and terracing of the land, so it obviously is difficult property on which to build. She said her concern was with the neighbor below (Mrs. Matthews) and would that neighbor object to that wall because the light may be restricted, but this neighbor has testified that she finds an improvement. She said she probably would have been motivated to permit the fill. Mrs. Medina said that if she had had a chance to vote before this was in place she would have voted against it. She said it would affect the adjacent property considerably because of the high wall, it affects the use of the property, and the visual aspect of the property is important But she said the only solution seemed to beCtiOeNta ong wits whatever remedy thev.Cityt5ta�ff,i,r�ds (�MRS 'UERLEHrn'►ItRCfi2ON5 V-14-80 LAURENCE AND CAROLYNNE HARRIS - Variance to renovate an existing nonconforming structure, which is noncon orming as to setbacks, to an amount exceeding the permitted 25% of the actual valuation of the building, and also to allow a deck in the side yard setback at 601 Main St. (RMH) Mr. Bowman stated that a Conditional Use Permit had been approved for a professional office building on this site (CU-14-19) but it had not been noted that in the renovation process the amount of repair or maintenance may not exceed 25% of the value of the structure in a one-year period, and a variance should have been requested at the same time as the request for a Conditional Use Permit. The side setback requirement is 10'. Mr. Bowman reviewed the variance criteria. This request would not amount to a rezone. The lot is a small corner lot, which is a condition not generally applicable to others in the area. The small lot and building were the result of earlier zoning requirements. Because it is a corner lot, front setbacks are necessary on both streets, rendering the lot impractical for building. Mr. Bowman said granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of property owners in the vicinity; it would be a minimum variance to make possible reasonable use of the land; and granting of the variance would be compatible with the zoning code. A building permit had been applied for on the basis of the Conditional Use Permit, but the proposed work was questioned by a building inspector because of the building being nonconforming. The lot is only 30'x 110', and the Staff felt the request was not unreasonable because of its size and the corner lot setback requirements. The renovation plan had been approved by the ADB, and the structure's appearance will remain essentially as it is.. The building currently was raised in order to construct a foundation beneath BOARD Of ADJUSTMENT Page 5 - May 21, 1980 TO: M. dames Suite 525 M. Driscoll Westland Building 100 South King Street Seattle, WA 98104 EXHIBIT 4 FROM RICHARD EIDEN VARIANCE(V-14-$1) i TRANSMITTING. AND HEARING EXAMINER "SIGN -IN" LISTS FOR JULY 16, 1981 HEARING. AS YOU REQUESTED: XX c FOR YOUR INFORMATION: XX AS WE DISCUSSED: E_ irk FOR APPROVAL: FOR YOUR FILE: `? REVIEW AND C01,21ENT COM4ENT AND RETURN: MINUTES OF MEETING: Al 11, '. REMARKS: c i �ts s PLANNING DIVISION t 1 � CITY OF EDMONDS F'Zl'D6lK*3 .... ....... : i I THE HEARING EXAMINER WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING 1S =�� ^ ONTHE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO. 15-81 SETBACKVARIANCE FROM REQUIRED FRONTYARD To 3/8» � | �| .i ` � ! , '| PROPERTY ADDRESS AND LOCATION 9325 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE� ' \ 'i ' / l' ZONE DISTRICT THE HEARING WILL BEGIN AT .yN.'|NTHE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OFTHE EDK8ONDSCIVIC CENTER, 2G8FIFTH AVENUE NORTH. / / }pYOU WISH TO COMMENT ONTHIS PROPOSAL, YOU MAY COME TDTHE HEARING AND SPEAK. YOU MAY ALSO WRITE ALETTER STATING YOUR VIEWS WHICH WILL 8ECONSIDERED ATTHE HEARING . � PLEASE ADDRESS THE LETTER TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND INCLUDE TkE | ABOVE FILE NUMBER. � |FTHE ITEM |SCONTINUED TOANOTHER HEARING BECAUSE THE AGENDA |SNOT COMPLETED, OR FURTHER INFORMATION IS NEEDED, THE DATE OF THE CONTINUED HEARING WILL BE ANNOUNCED ONLY ATTHE MEETING. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GO5BELL STREET, EDMONDS(PHONE 775'2525'EXT. INK _ THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, UR / CO0CEALK8ENTOFTHIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE WARNING!Of THE HEARING |GAMISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE ' � BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT. '. ��������U���������� REMOVED THIS un�� NOTICE v��u~ nm"r�o ~=�� nxu_nnm������~ AFTER ��"u - ----- 77 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING HEARING EXAMINER a All interested persons are hereby notified that Thursday, the t 16th day of July ,19 81 , has been set as the date for hearing by the City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner on Proposed m Variance from required 25' frontyard setback to 3'4". x � 4: F^ of the property located 9325 Olympic View Drive f zf`j Said hearing will be at 7:30 P.m. in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington, and all interested persons are invited to appear. IRENE VARNEY MORAN City Clerk, City of Edmonds FILE NO. V-15-81 9 Publish: 7-1-81 { 51,_.,,__,_......_..........p' 1 0 111110 all No ....... W*W-� ... �i yy��y�. .. ���C�iJl'��a �Yt' t.`T.0 S'GS �M �•r Y�r <a:, rh n.r�i 3-•itca� .y,,.,... �.f�.mrv��..r..,a.r7 ^•*F.i�.V....w"iLL.r"'�'L':r w'-a:.. ;��iYil!, o ',�, lYli klFC�", r_ Vlk'T 1' :S;r!��'a—=------•-�" _ -:' ";.>y� � �7,' _, o' _ r." SUBJECT V-14 and V-15-81 for July 16th Nearing Examiner Meetin! Please review the attached items and comment. PLEASE REPLY TO, SIGNED DATE r.. � � StGNED� � ✓�•�S.%� y ?cciagann 4S 464 SEND PARTS D 3 WITH CARBON INTACT, PART 3 WILL BE RETURNED WITH REPLY. r; i, I{ 'S i0 AT FIRE, GARY MCCQMMS DAN S, PLANNING ' f � SUBJECT PATES-19-DATE S e 4 y V-14 and V-15-81 for July 16th Hearing Eaaminer Meeting Please review the attached items and comment, 7 _ ;, q�ti i `. DUPLICATE- SIGNED - 9 4i l DATE fy [SIGNED aeotF�dq 4S 469- SEND PARTS 1 AND 3 WITH CARBON INTACT. - rar v.R 150 SETS) N M9 PART 3 WILL BE RETURNED WITH REPLY. + DETACH AND FILE FOR FOLLOW-UP Not y Public in ana iar tue aaanc r sang at Everett, Snohomish County. I 6-Z-1 Affidavit of Publication STATE or WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOVIISIL 'gb1�7WOM C,�.go .7m, BLIV,14EA41 410i-MV u 4�1 The lie undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says CARING EX A EvERETT JJERALD, a daily news - I" -i Witted, s Principal Clerk of the V r that she i 'W's-e! WN 0 city of Everett, County of Snoho- and published in th . %Jbw! g6% C paper printed -Miws,�'Htdproposed newspaper is a newspaper mish, and State of Washington; that said rem e QrP 3 that said newspaper of general circulation in said County and State A "JA D 0 by order of the Superior ill oe approved as a legal newspaper Ifi has been CIVIv rp 1 persais are invited to -1 �0 Snohomish County, and that the notice .................................... q Court of VARN F PUBLIC HEARING ..................... NOTICE 0 ............ ............... ................... .............................. ......... .................. 3. ,P .................................................. ......... ................................ .......... ........... ................ . ... . ...... .................. ............................................................. . .......... ............ ........... a printed copy Of which is hereunto attached, was published in said lenient form, in the regular and newspaper proper and not in supplement d times, namely: entire edition of said paper on the following days an 16 WILY 1, 1981 .................. .................... ........... ........................... ....................................... A� ...................................................... ............................................. .................... and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. ............ ......................... .................. ................................. .................... .... Principal Cler 2nd to before me this 11 ........................ Subscribed and sworn 31 JUL/I 19 ......... day of ........ 4 Public in and for the State of Washington, ng at Everett, Snohomish County. B-2-1 It CITY OF EDMONDS HARVIi H. HARRISON CIVIC CENTER - EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 - (206) 775-2525 MAYOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: July 17, 1981 TO: Mr. James M. Driscoll Suite 525 Westland Building 100 South King Street Seattle, WA 98104 TRANSMITTING: EXHIBIT 4 FROM RICHARD EIDEN VARIANCE(V-14-81) AND HEARING EXAMINER "SIGN -IN" LISTS FOR JULY 16, 1981 HEARING. AS YOU REQUESTED: XX FOR YOUR INFORMATION: XX AS WE DISCUSSED: FOR APPROVAL: FOR YOUR FILE: REVIEW AND COMMENT: COMMENT AND RETURN: MINUTES OF MEETING: REMARKS: PLANNING DIVISION Eli HEARING EXAMINER,THURSDAY,JULY 16, 1981 1 21 V-15-81 MR. AND Variance MRS. ROUMONADA trom required f_rontyard setback { to 314" at 9325 Olympic View Drive. (RS-12) a THOSE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE HEARING WERE: 4 NAME: ADDRESS: til; 1. { t4- `--�`Y6e 4r•'�i 44 t j( EXHIBIT LIST x: V-15-81 !" � 1) Staff Report (Engineering Staff Report Included) r' 2) Application Is 3) Vicinity Sketch y 4) Survey Drawing Site an }. 6) Topography Map K' 7) Letter from Mr. Jack Ely; ?` Applicant's Exhibit 1) ,Photograph r �- THIS WAS THE PACKET THAT WAS SENT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER. } r; i Y k' c"W' EXHIBIT 1 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER FILE #V-15-81 HEARING DATE: JULY 16, 1981 I. REQUESTED ACTION: Variance from the required frontyard setback at 9325 Olympic View Drive. Specifically, to allow a 3'4" frontyard setback instead of the required 25'. II. APPLICANT/OWNER: Mr. and Mrs. J. Roumonada 9325 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 III.LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Exhibit IV. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: A. Description of the Subject Property and Surrounding Area The subject property is a triangular shaped lot comprising some 12,838 square feet of area. Midway through the property is a steep bank that slopes severely downward to the west. A small, older single family residence is located on the upland area next to Olympic View Drive. A small city park is located on the south side of the property. To the west, at the bottom of the steep bank, is the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way and Puget Sound. North and east, development is single family residential. B. Official Street Map West -- Olympic View Drive Proposed Existin 60' 60' C. Conformance to Chapter 20.85.020 1. Special Circumstances Special circumstances do exist due to the shape and topography of the subject property. Any addition to the rear of the existing house could potentially endanger the stability of the existing steep bank. 2. Special Privilege e should not result in the grant of special The granting of this varianc privilege in that the subject house and others to the south are already non -conforming to their frontyard setbacks. In the case of the older houses to the south, some do appear to have setbacks below that requested by the applicant. Exhibit 1 Page 2/File #V-15-81 3. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Policy Plan map designates the subject property as low density residential. As proposed, the requested variance does not appear to conflict with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. 4. Zoning Ordinance Subject Property RS-12 North South East West Surrounding Area RS-12 RS-12 RS-12 RSV-12 As proposed, the variance does not appear to conflict with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the RS-12 zone. 5. Not Detrimental Should the variance be granted, it should not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or to nearby private property or improvements. 6. Minimum Variance The variance is the minimum to allow for a reasonable addition and renovation of the existing older home. D. Past History In August of 1980, the Board of Adjustment granted a variance to allow a 5' sideyard setback on the north side of the existing house (File #V-27-80) This was in conjunction with a lot line adjustment (File #S-17-80). V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is the recommendation of the staff that V-15-81 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) The existing driveway must be closed. 2) Applicant must obtain a right-of-way use permit for the existing brickwall and turnaround. 1. Steep unbuildable topography on the westerly half of the subject property and it's tapered shape severely limit the location of the proposed addition. Approximately one third of the existing house is now located in the front yard setback. An addition that conformed to the 25' setback would require building uncomfortably close to the clif, and would result in an awkward connection between the new and existing portions of the house. 2. The subjest property is quite similar to several adjacent properties. The first four houses located south of the city park(see vicinity sketch) have been built an average of 20'-l" from the thickened edge of the pavement of Olympic View Drive. These homes are located an estimated 21-0" from their front property lines. The addition on the subject property would be located approximately 31-4" (at the closest point) from the front property line. The four houses to the south have virtually no front yards with only paving between the houses and the street. The subject Property now has and would retain a pleasent landscaped front yard and a brick wall that separate the house from the street. 3. It does not appear that any views from adjacent property owners will be adversly effected by the proposed addition on the subject property. Most of the driveways and garages of the four houses to the south are so arranged that cars back out onto the street right of way and then back out onto Olympic View Drive in a reverse direction. This represents a traffic hazard. This same con- dition now exists on the subject property,where the hazard is aggravated by the steep sloping driveway. The proposed addition is arranged with a paved turn -around area so that vehicles may be backed out of the garage, turn around, and then drive in a foreward direction out onto Olympic View Drive. The existing curb cut will be removed and the old garage will not be used. This represents a substantial improvement over the existing, conditions. 4. If the variance is not granted, the owners of the subject property will be required to conform to the 25' front yard setback. The location of the existing house, the shape and topographical features of the lot do not allow reasonable development on any other portion of the subject property. If the existing house had been located further west, this variance would not be required for a reasonable addition. EXHIBIT u 5. To make this older house a safe and efficient dwelling, some renovation is now required. An alternate plan could be devised, but without the variance the owners of the ! subject property face severe and unreasonable restrictions on the development of their property. The requested variance is the minimum required for the proposed addition as illustrated 4 on the attached sheet. i i; ,4{ s 4( t' f EXHIBIT 4 1 0 '< `Z < > qJ S kk' �`► Q '• o O V lk Ca Y CO' ` J V v 4.1 0 Q C (& \ G E X l5 p.'a D` . 1 � 1 `) SE.T STr1 K E w/T� cK f � ti a '?o�°`� A. • G hi `� � { FNO. tic. • ���` � V eND. PG. MOM. f CA SE• s 0 r EXHIBIT C (T`f PAEK E�clsTl� g��c�. yu4LL wat.r..�aY J =1 l v 'L.t V) Gc�t�aTTt1JCTt�rJ OP PAV T . CENtEi'tuNF_ of oLf ViEw CRLIVF fLk'aN1 of ►�1A i �TE��K L►NE t FGaP��Y Ut4Ir f 1 ExITW cu;� Cu To >~FMMF.Z) I i i Y Gc�t�aTTt1JCTt�rJ OP PAV T . CENtEi'tuNF_ of oLf ViEw CRLIVF fLk'aN1 of ►�1A i �TE��K L►NE t FGaP��Y Ut4Ir f 1 ExITW cu;� Cu To >~FMMF.Z) I i i Y EXHIBIT 6 Topography Map V-15-81 .... ......... OP Ea . , .mod �/�� � � �: "N� FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER } CITY OF EDtlONDS, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON , ! f I IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF FILE NO.: V-15-81 MR. AND MRS. J. ROUMONADA FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE DECISION: The application for the variance is granted subject to the conditions listed. TDimRnnt TION Mr. and Mrs. J. Roumonada, 9325 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, WA, to Applicants, have requested j { f 98020, and hereinafter referred as a variance for the reducticlG of the required front yard approval of setbacks on property located at 9325 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, forth in exhibit , to WA, and more particularly described as set these findings. The spcific variance request is for the allowance of a 3' 4" The e instead of the sp d setback on the above described property jrequired 25' setback. { The above described land is zoned RS-12 as established by the A hearing on the request far ti 1. Edmonds Community Development Code. the was held before the Hearing Examiner of the City of variance Edmonds on July 16, 1981. The following presented testimony at the f public hearing: ' Duane Bowman Planning Department n1 ORIGINAL City of Edmonds :, Edmonds, WA -) Dan Ganfield { 201 5th Ave. S. i. { Edmonds, WA f, The following exhibits were presented and introduced at the ;i t hearing: } CITY'S EXHIBITS :{ 1. Staff Report tt 2. Application 3. Vicinity Sketch 4. Survey Drawing 5. Site Plan 6. Topography Map 1i 7. Slides $XHrBITS � i �pii�ANT'S 1. Photographs f. Subsequent to the hearing a letter was received from Mr. and Mrs. of this {{{! Jack Ely and that letter has become part of the record hearing. k 1 1 1 f rindings of the Hearing Examiner i { Roumonada Page 2 {{{ � After due consideration of the evidence' presented by the Applicant; t 1 evidence elicited during the ublic hearing ; and as a result of the e personal inspection of the subject proeprty by 'the Hearing Exmainer, the following findings of fact and conclusions constitute the basis of the decision o£ the Hearing Examiner. }FINDINGS OF FACT f 1 The Applicants have requested a variance from the required 25' j" frontyard setbacks in order to allow a 3141' frontya'rd setback on property" located at9325 Olympic ;View Drive,Edmonds, WA, } and more particularly described as set forth in the attachment to this document. j 2. The zoning designation for the subject property as established j by the Edmonds Community Development Code is RS-12. 3. The Comprehensive Plan"designation for the above described Property is low density residential. I I 4. The Applicants in submitting their application have submitted Y a site plan which was submitted as exhib"t 5. A copy of the. site plan is attached hereto 'and is hereby incorporated as r part of these findings. 5. As shown on the attached site plan the subject property, is a triangular shaped lot on: which a house is currently ? oonstructed. A small city park is located on the"south' s"ide of the property. On the west side of the -property is a steep bank and at 'the bottom of the steep bank is the Burlington Northern Railway,and;Puget Sound. To the north and least of the subjec property' is a single family residential development. 6. As shown on, the attached site plan, access to the subject sl ? p;it currently exists is off a small, steep ramp roper y as s that is attached to the existing house. { ` 7. The Applicants have requested thevariance in order to �z construct an addition onto the existing house and to`,renovate the older home. Also; the Applicants intend to abandon the and construct a ~ steep access to the subject property, �: ,.ramp paved,turnaround;driveway on the subject property. The proposed new construction and the proposed paved turnaround driveway are shown on the attached site plan. jv In order to;pursue their construction plans the Applicants ' must receive a variance from the :`frontyard setbacks. The 31411 requested setback will be the most extreme Ivariance requested and it will: be for the northwest edge of the proposed turnaround driveway. 9. Not all of the frontyard setback •-will be 314." but it will increase as the -'proposed driveway is constructed in a northeasterly direction. t 0RIGINA 2 .. .. ...... , �..._ -1 Findings of the Hearing Examiner $: Roumonada y Page 3 ' r 10. In order for "the variance to be granted for the subject property the Applicants,must'meet all of therstandards as I'' set forth in section 20.85.010 of the Edmonds Community Development Code.: 11. Special circumstances do"exist for the granting of a variance on the subject property. These special circumstances include the shape of he subject property and the topography of the ` subject -property,. 12. The Applicants are restricted from "constructing to the west "o£ {� the existing ;house because of the existing `steep bank and the ! construction limitations that result from it." s 13. A granting of ' -a variancewill not result in the granting of a t. spepial. priglege in that, other properties in'the area are nonconforming,(as to:fra'ntyard setbacks. 14. The variance request appears. to; meet the :goals and policies. of, the, Comprehensive Policy Plan..;,• t k i 15.' The variance'request does.not appear to be in conflict with 'zones. the purposes of any :of the,zoning ordinances�.for RS=12 1t 16. The re"quested. variance would not be detrimental to the public health,, welfare and safety or to nearby property."or improvements.` 1 17. The variance requested is the minimum ;needed to "allow !a ; reasonable addition and renovation of the existing home .,.on the subject property: 18. The Planning "staff ;of the.City,of Edmonds has recommended that A. the variance ;be"granted subject to the following conditions: f' 1. the existing driveway mustbe ,closed;. 2. the Applicants' must obtain a i.Tght of way use permit .for s the existing brick =wall and turnaround; 19. Aright of way, will be needed for the existing brick wall and turnaroundbecause of~ their encroachment onto part of the right, of way'. 20. The Applicants testified to be in support of the Planning Department's recommendations. 21. A letter was received from neighbors objecting to the granting" of the variance. The.basis,of their objection was that the f' area "is an aesthetic (landmark and the granting 'of such variance could destroy the landmark. No opposition testimony, was presented at the hearing. ORIGINAL L LL t { i t Findings of the Hearing Examiner i Roumonada Page 4 r s, AN ^TONS t 1. The Application is for the approval of a variance from the required frontyard setbacks" on propertylocated at, 9325 Olympic View' Drive, Edmonds, WA, and more particularly described as set forth in ,the attachment hereto. 2. The specific variance request,is to allow.,a reduction from the frontyard setback- on the described property from 251 to a " 31411 setback. i. 3. Special circumstances"do.exist tp.'sustain the"granting of this variance in that the. subject property has anA:rregular shape' and the topography of the subject property; makes alternative construction impossible or"extremely difficult. d 4. The granting of the variance will, not, result in the granting of special privileges to 'theApplicants because :other properties"in the area have 'nohcon£orning`"frontyard setbacks. 5: The "variance request,does not confliet.with any of the"goals and policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. g 6. The variance request does not conflict with the purposes of j "the zoning ordinances of the City of Edmonds or. the RS=12 " h zone. i, The variance will not be.detri`mental to.the pukilic"health, { 1. safety.and welfare or to any nearby property or 'improvements. 8. The variance is the, minimum needed to 'add, a' reasonable (' addition; and renovation, to'the existing older home. 9. The Planning Department has recommended approval of the variance subject to 'the conditions listed in finding number 18. , " E DECISTON' Using the above findings and conclusions as the basis of the decision, the Hearing Examiner orders that the variance requested } by Mr. and Mrs. J. Roumonada for property located at 9325 Olympic ( View Drive, Edmonds, WA, and >more ;particularly described in the attachment to this document, is .granted subject to the following ' conditions: 1. The existing driveway .that is located on the property; is to be closed at the time of the final building inspection the _by, City of Edmonds. ORI GIN 9