Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLD1990-00051 ,, yod /3./98I 30, of- cjo,tiry Cotiot-tissio,vcz 5 // --. . T/t-BL�_D eE'gvee71 Wei) iye APPLICATION FEE $25 .00 Y . .041//k1Uic1 7`o AiEtT, /4/rez'T OA Se721,4f.e. Aatei et.e.-fiaiv75 R gu. -C fo'r Sites D Ni- 1 2m€ r1t 0 t ra.dar cI Var 1 ari.c oVariances from site development standards may be granted when the application of the standard would result in practical difficulty and undue ki hardship. The following application provides the information necessary for variance review. DIRECTIONS h cry (li g • Answer all questions completely. (Please print or type.) Contact the Jefferson County Planning Department for aid in filling out this application and for instructions on further administrative procedures required to q, \ complete its processing. Submit this variance request along with your ' O permit application. d; • Attach any additional information (reports, studies, maps, illustrations, leases, permits, etc.) that may further describe the proposed variance in a addition to the site plan. co APPLICANT: /lF .bl ?` -77... /0/ 64z//,C& zJ .ecS'//4 ADDRESS: / df, W.LC":r /77,4 '/- ' & ?- I e 4/Z aeJ / " TELEPHONE: (home)- -3 7-.y.3' .5 (business) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION GENERAL LOCATION: - /I`/_ ✓ ) ; 7 c1 LEGAL: (from property tax statement): , ', i '.�" 1/ii ' .&Cf`7 47 ,f'` ,�-,0 r_ W. Z e, r1 c'e4 Ste/ T�?A, lZt — 14 .4:e.." y ".4)<Tax Parcel Number 9 8 "R"2 p, 3 2 - VARIANCE REQUEST A variance is an exception from the general rule or standard and as such must be accompanied by sufficient reasoning to justify granting its approval. Granting a variance is based on a hardship presented by applying the standard to circumstances or conditions unique to the property and generally not experienced by other properties. The following questions will assist in the evaluation of the variance request. From which standards are you requesting a variance? f u-6-/a'7 `> /— o a i .r7�7—" /.3, G./(- Describe the extraordinary conditions or unusual circumstances which exist on your property that would justify deviation from the standard. c r�/i/r>" ,. 7 /l/i//,(/Ca /�G%'2-4,,,i`it/e Q , _, fir! Are these conditions unique to your property and not experienced by other ,properties in the area? (If yes, please explain.) A/® Were any of these conditions or circumstances caused directly by you? (If yes, please explain.) • /p Describe the hardship the standard places on the use of your property. G / 7C>72 d ,p i Z) O/J ,'9C;I/3/,///2/6 1 /-3e'r /416 .� T- �r/7") Is the deviation you request the minimum necessary to accomplish your project or is there another reasonable way to accomplish your project that would not require a variance? (Please explain) '/rq V ,�`` ' /27Aie/4/, T> �S'.67 /3 4 .✓7.> .'/f Is there anything else you would add which supports your request? (.3 /42-J 7 ,t//',4/. 4) (r->z.4 ,r,z,t 7-a) --2- ,41--Z—M/0/6/1 y / ,q/4///// I ,8eY/t/4# 71 7- SITE PLAN A site plan must accompany the variance request. It needs to be no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying, and graphically illustrate or identify the following features: • North arrow and scale • Development area (property boundary lines, section lines, etc.) • Property improvements (existing and proposed structures, utilities, septic tank and drainfield location, existing wells, etc.) • Property features (existing and proposed changes to topography and ground relief, vegetation, shoreline location, outstanding physical features, etc.) • Setbacks (required and proposed, if different) • Roads (State, County and private) and easements (road, utility and others) • Other information that explains the variance request. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I hereby declare that the information provided in this application is true and correct t o°f thethe best of my proposal may not occur until acknowledge. Further, I devel nuntil approval has been granted by Je fe son County. „t ,11- 2/;., (app leant or authorized representative) (date) (OFFICE USE ONLY) • CASE NUMBER: FEE: RECEIPT NUMBER: q3/96 • Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: November 13 , 1989 Page: 2 HUMAN SERVICES AGREEMENT, Interlocal re: Peninsula Regional Support Network; Mental Health Services; Ciallam County and Kitsap County: Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve the interlocal agreement with Clallam and Kitsap Counties to form a Peninsula Regional Support Network for Mental Health Services. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Tuesday: AGREEMENT /89-10-07 re: Student Assistance Counselors On Site at Schools October 10, 1989 through June 30, 1991; Educational Service District /114 : Commissioner Dennison moved to approve the agreement as submitted for Human Services to provide Student Assistance Counselors on site at the schools. Chairman George Brown seconded the motion, in the absence of Commissioner B. G. Brown. The motion carried by a unanimous vote . FACILITIES MANAGEMENT BID OPENING: For Mechanical, Heating and Air Conditioning Improvements at the Jefferson County Correctional Facility: Architectural Coordinator, Frank Gifford, opened bids for improvements to the mechanical , heating and air conditioning systems at the Jefferson County Correctional facility, as follows : BIDDER: BID TOTAL: Western Sheet Metal , Olympia $34 , 690 . 00 including tax. Engineers Estimate 21 ,021 . 00 Commissioner Dennison moved to have Public Works Department staff check the bid for accuracy and make a recommendation for action that is to the best advantage of the County. Commissioner B. G. Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Opening on Parks Board: Planning and Program Manager, Carter Breskin, asked if the opening on the Parks Advisory Board should be advertised? Commissioner B. G. Brown asked that information be provided on the areas that are represented by the Parks Advisory Board members before this opening is advertised. CIVIL SERVICE AND BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 1989 Budget Transfers; Civil Service Commission and Board of Equalization: Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve Resolution No. 105- 89 authorizing the budget transfers as requested by the Civil Service Commission and the Board of Equalization. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner B. G. Brown was not present during the afternoon session. PLANNING AND BUILDING Request for Setback Variance; Placement of building on a corner lot; Paradise View Estates. Lot 20 Block E; Robert & Jean Marsh: Associate Planner, Jerry Smith, reported that this setback variance request is for Lot 20 Block E of Paradise View Estates. Maple Street is platted as a 60 foot Commissioners' Meeting Minutes : November 13 ,° 1989 Page:. 3 right-of-way and Willow Street is platted as a 30 foot right-of-way. Mr. & Mrs . Marsh are requesting an eight foot variance from Willow Street and a 10 foot setback variance from Maple Street, for a proposed garage and patio. Willow Street is an undeveloped right-of-way. Mr. Marsh stated that it is not likely that Willow Street will be developed in the future. The property along this right-of-way is forested and owned in large blocks . Mr. Marsh added that the hardship which necessitated this request has occurred since he started to develop this site. The septic tank had to be placed 100 feet from a creek on the property, after a variance of 75 feet from it had originally been granted, but was not acted upon. Two additional lots were purchased to be sure that the septic , system could be placed on the property. Mr. Marsh stated that he feels that placing the patio on the other side of the house as suggested by Commissioner Dennison, would restrict their view of the water in the future. Commissioner Dennison noted that one of the criteria for granting variances from the setback requirements is that the hardship not be a result of the property owners actions . It is Mr. Marsh's choice not to place the patio on the other side of the house. Mr. Marsh stated that the breezeway could be eliminated which would mean that the proposed garage would only require a four foot variance. Commissioner Dennison asked that Mr. Marsh bring back a proposal which would require the minimum amount of variance possible for this project. Jerry Smith noted that the setback should be measured from the foundation, not the overhang of the eaves as shown on Mr. Marsh's site plan. This would mean that the request for setback variance on the Willow Street side would be reduced to six feet instead of the eight feet requested. Mr. Marsh stated that he will rework his proposal to minimize the amount of variance needed and submit it to the Board at a later date. Commissioner Dennison moved to table action on the request until the Applicant provides a revised plan. Chairman George Brown seconded the motion. The motion carried. Request for Setback Variance; Placement of building on property; Portage Bay Park; Theodore Nakumura, Applicant; Peter Sandall, Representa- tive: Mr. Peter Sandall , representing the applicant, Theodore Nakumura, was present when Jerry Smith explained that this is a request for a setback variance for Lot 1 of the Portage Bay Park subdivision. Adjacent to the lot there is a 30 foot platted street (Lincoln Street) that is not developed. A residence is currently on the site which meets the setback requirements . The owner of the property is proposing to re-build the residence . Commissioner Dennison stated that it appears that the residence could be placed on the property to meet the setback requirements . Mr. Sandall stated that the applicant would like the residence placed as close to the water as possible . The variance request was made on the assumption that the platted street will not be opened in the future. Commissioner Dennison stated that it is hard to make an assumption about how a street will be used in the future . Mr. Sandall added that there is access to each of the lots on this street by private driveways from Cedar Lane. He added that the request is to be allowed to consider Lincoln Street as a property line (as if it was an adjacent lot) which requires a five foot setback. Commissioner Dennison explained that this would be granting a variance for the convenience of the property owner, which does not meet the variance approval criteria. Commissioner Dennison asked that the structure be repositioned to minimize the setback variance request. Commissioner Dennison moved to table action on this request until the applicant presents a proposal that would minimize the setback variance request. Chairman George Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Dennison advised in response to an inquiry by Mr. Sandall , 1 ,o that he does not have to come back before this Board if the placement residence on the lot can meet the setback requirements. Environmental Policy Po Act es urces. Community Proponent Dr Northwestern Project; WesternOuimper Peninsula; p