18504 OLYMPIC VIEW DR (2).pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
FILE # 1/ — 4-2
DATE
FEE y 25
RECT
APO'S ✓
HEARING DATE : 4 — i i --
APPLICANT Walter M. & Barbara A. YEAGER ADDRESS 18504 Ol Ymn; v; p+.tlri ve
CITY & ZIP Edmonds 98020 PHONE 774 9214
INDICATE TYPE OR DEGREE OF INTEREST IN PROPERTY ,� r, wa �_�^� prnpPrty
LOCATION OR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY_ 18504 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, 9802t1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (attached)
VARIANCE REQUESTED: We seek a variance to the 10 ft. set -back e
of the north property line o our lot. A recent survey of the lot to the north indicates
that the northwest corner of our house (kitchen)_ma be sli htly withinY
zne. we wish TO ODLd111 Ia variance that would enable us to extend the kitchen at its present
westerly angle, parallel to the Droperty line for a distance of 15 feet
adffiffi—ofn7T. tAltnoughThe new survey shows the house to be slightly within 5 ft. of the
property line, a FOR OFFICE USE ONLY previous sketch by pioneer National Title Insurance
company (AV MP-1786 showed it to be 10 ft. fromlihS .)
USE ZONE: S /
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: Io
STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH)
Signature of Applican ,Owner+ or
Representative
On this date, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in andd fothe tatyc%f1
of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeare
who, being duly sworn, on his/4wwr-oath deposes and says that-4w)he has prepared' v
and read the attached statements and has acknowledged to me that the recititations
contained therein are true, and }•-ts signed this instrument as his/+Ot free and
voluntary act and deed for the purposes therein
tt mentioned /
Subscribed and sworn to before me this�_day of. .lt— 19 F19
No ry ublic in and for the State of Washington,
residing at 1
a
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? The unique topography and shape of the lot severely
restricts the possibilities for budding an addition (10 ft. x 15 ft.),which would make
the house functional for a small family. The lot is somewhat funnel -shaped and is
sited where the lot narrows. A steep slope covers the broad portion of the lot to the
east In fact this house has no driveway access to the structure and is reached by
a steep switchbacked trail. Thus it would be difficult to build an addition to the east.
As the portion of the lot faring west (tn the railroad tracks and sound), is relatively
flat, it constitutes the most practical place for an addition (an addition should
extend to the west
2. How does your property differ from other property in the same
vicinity? The eep rear (eastern), slope of the property isolates the house from the
view of neighboring homes to the east, so that an addition cannot obstruct their view
of the sound. Even the new home being built to the north by Mr. James A. Smith, will
be on a higher level. Essentially the Smith home will have a parallel westerly view
to our own The first house to the south is located some distances more than 100 ft)
and has a parrallel view not affected in any way by the proposed addition. Most of the
neighboring houses are situated on natural terraces and do not have the topographical
limitations of our property. Our home is older (1917) and much smaller thane in the
3. Will this variance be detrimental to the public or damaging to
other property or improvements in the vicinity?
The proposed variance would in no way limit fire or other emergency access to
to neighbors a homes Such services find their access directly from -the -north-east,
and south-east. Should the proposed variance be approved, the 15 ft. kitchen extension
would follow the same angle of the prpsent nnrth kitchen wall Ibuus the addition
would be o r to e north r ert 1' e than th re ent north wall Th Addition
would parnaQl�ie nor propert Qpine fat ��ie same set Dacsk as tie -present ki cen.
Mr. Smith approves and supports the variance and apparently does not courser the
proposed addition to be detrimental to his view or property. Other neighboring homes
would b_eaTf'e_cted by the variance or addition.
4. What hardships will result to you if the variance is not granted?
Will these hardships have been caused by your own action?
Our home essentially is a small cabin and its most glaring defects are inadequate
kitchen and closet space. If the variance is not granted it would be difficult to
make the house more livable. An addition set -back t. from the north property line_
would be much more expensive and would destroy the aesthetic lines of the house.
My wife and I wish o repair and improve the present house structure as it is old.
But lacking adequate space for a small family we hesitate to make these needed improvement!
The hardships that would be caused if the variance is not granted are inherent in the
5. Can you make reasonable use of your property without the variance.mphy
We can exist in the house as it now stands, or rent it to a couple. But the
granting of a variance would enable us to make it more liveable and provide the
incentive to invest in repairs and home improvements (to the present structure).
Such investments would tend to upgrade the house and neighborhood as the home would
be more in line with the larger and more modern homes in the area.
ram ---
Record of F�idincs of Fact by Board of Adjustment
i The Board of Adjustment for the City of Edmonds finds in the case of c
rivGYZ� , File No.Y' -LO request for variance at
j -�;.d . 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/h9*e-net been met.
3. In addition that
4. Therefore, the request for variance is Quad/Granted, subject to the following special
conditions:
S. Section 12.16.110 "----and if a building permit and/or occupancy FV rmit is not obtained
for the subject property within one year from the date of the Board's decision, the con-
ditional use permit or variance shall be automatically null and void.---"
6. Decision shall be effective on:
Date
DATA
`___ 1 ,i
".
Date of Application: { ' (� �? Date of Hearing:, r 1--ill-7 0
Date of Publication: ,j, /_j k-O Continuances:
Date of Posting:
Date of Appeal from Decision of the Board:
ecretary. ORR of AdjustmenE
PAGE 1 of VICINITY SKETC�1 N � 1` 86
1967 sketch of property by Pioneer National Title Insurance Company.
Apparently the house is closer to the north property line, as shown in the atta ed
second page of the Vicinity Sketch. /
! � y
a _
s
proper covered by the mortgage
{l an a pr approximate general location of,
This sketch shown location and boundaries of the h p y ieasurements of the.f
,., policy
' identitied in $'llchedulee Q�e tion without actual surveyand r' r M
prove�enie sn-app ro ert is
'y The` street, number, of. said p p y
r improvementet:.
T1 Co. 2.
Ithea
eaper
iy28I83 a
t
Ni a i
V&'FtAL RECOR S p rr _
PAGE
REG. OF 0J FlON£ER NA " . y
� TITLE INSURANCE Q � •
• CNflPltulcu "MINTY OFFI F � °� � � 5
STANLEY DUSU
ti SNOMOM10 C VUE AUDIT017
0cpJ1T
Y_
�w-.
t
Fomw L.58 ,
' AV -MP° 1786
Statutory Warranty Deed
a GRANTOR - RAYMOND C. NICHOLSON, also appearing of record as
RAY C. NICHOLSON, and HELEN I. NICHOLSON, his wife; -
THE AND NO 100---------------- -- DOLLARS
for and in consideration of TF�3 —
k in hand paid, conveys and warrants to — WALTER M. MEAGER and BARBAitA ALTHEA MEAGER, his wife,-
_ --- SNOHOMISH -- — , state of
CV the following described real estate, situated in the County of
Washington:
r:
tT AS SHOWN ON.,EXHIBL pbt..,ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF BY THIS REFERF31fiF:
{
x EXHIBIT ONE
,t rr
ac !:'nont' ' w rs, lccc
} Plr.:, r a WLth t 1i5}f
,.ic, t ir_•nL:a rulnriinrt alone and t "
c:
,t." ly ,ide o.. f t.,:
{i:) anT et o` StSahur t, ac o d •
r P. tit _ nr[;` r:nrr,:ri in '1n, l:mu J or -,lass, ^<irC 7f. ,. rC fir), L.S
L:..
i .Ct...i�
.I rc,• .r�. atn r n.. t of a
ice Yb 3:9 0t.. .. .C. O` ).P :,.3.. n.^i 4n..n ,e ?
. -
::ec to -tit... .. :: s rt
t. r_ o rt
.. ,.. t 7�. r t C. ..� .•,3<, ;'1^, L^.2 p JF ina
.,a_rlyi'i
ht'
.,rit3Th I nry t�[, rit rh.
......., a t .y Its ` _.. , ., .rc .>. , L':", T7:q true ^nl.:t n` .gins. !
CC){' '/{.: :,r: r ":7^r„^5 .'}� foi :r)l•/inr: t t Y
3 :,`.. ^cr �i rsl !:<;>tq ' / ne
:):tri•l .. ....^ti` to ;: tt^r rtf rar:ord-I
•? Or ,tAt _ r S%, i[i COC:.:t '.•: .. T.c J
_ ' 7, `, litt r,ct the ce :rnt:rlltc .,:).:2h
1 - ^r. w ) •S?'wra;}:! r'St 55.4f) ?.-:lEr^,T i �,
'n „`.t._. In_....r. [o:i:. °r '3`.}' i1 nt
:.o^«i:r' .'. t):"C!} ?Ln� r)!' .:1!<i .. <l .^. 1: 1'•, +
_ .[. .: rr1l ?tl J' . .it r t t .)•, ;r n:! = is?ri ', 1.^,q ? !„ i Cbt , :he. il(:
.%s L^bl 5 .�„ r .. :;ninr �. •ac,.,:.lr rrl
.3 .•�': _:<; I^t :7^/er1, :r:}r}: C,Llil t'/
{.;• r r 1,'tn7 at po;nC
t{ ,r �rt:i^� + :. If', n, ...•,:� T,3r:n .�{� L:1 1. it ".0 ie O p.a tS, , ], .,1
4 `'t,l• r,r r r: r' `,jG11 t�:f:.i 5t rp:`:1C f' or Sr:i
lt
, _�nCrt^ :,^• ' on
r •, ..rt ^^ nr `,a i. •� „i,r2
t (• r t th , y;. ;r":• t11 ,.1��1th t>:r�(Jf�f�f •.., ,, 3V j(,�
!. !'Gr t. C•r !;_... , L.L IC,t.I JV 'y,..a•;7 \.`. �{y'�j r,'.^�/Sr ri
OAFIAL`' f ECORD5 Ra on C. N* h llson
.-E 09 43
i VOL 8J PAu Helen I. Nicholson
t :;3
All
h_�_
+T
ITS
1
1 w 1 1
i
4-1
kVfix
s1/i a, +_
.SX.i71
All
_....._t
_''tjr' f }
f-- . �----•-••-r_� -` F '-' i ^ S. �i''1. 1 mot_' I '. f!
�
�"..
'_
, ' j1
�� t; f
I _. ---a �' t
r' —* ---_tom. -•-i---�- i- ..:�.. _._:t._ __.-� �-- �
I
tt
_
'
S-' S f } 1 t j � � i • ..�!!' � f � �lki �'R.+i `i 4 j �n f''ir R = y' r� , �
.. •• .
t�
, 1._.�.i..--+.
it
� _ � ....i._ r .1....,_ t _r----i.\_. f-_._-._i-' - t .....i_
I ,
t f
f i
'
t f
}
?P[�' � � s X t
y,.
NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF PROPERTY OWNERS 80 feet of subject property
R
1) West protion of Lot 2 immediately to North
James & Anne Smith 744 Walnut Edmonds 98020
?
i
2) Gilbert T. Bowen, 18516 Sound View Place, Edmonds, 98020 778-8044
f '
Lot 15 on Vicinity Sketch
i
3) Mr. &Mrs. Steven Maloof, 18516 Olympic View Drive, 98020 phone 778-9422
Lot 14-on Vicinity Sketch
4) Mr. Jerry L Morey, 18430 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, 98020 phone 774 3132
Lot 2 easterly portion on Vicinity Sketchy
i€
5) Mr, and Mrs. Charles Curry, 185i8 soo•UD uIs-PLfycu 9Soz�
?`
L-o-T J% o-u U1 c i-11 y SkLlteN -7-7 86 193
trj
,
S1
i
5
}
NOTICE OF HEARING PETITION
FOR VARIANCE-1IiGx(t4
BY EDMONDS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
All interested persons are hereby notified that Wednesday, the
17th day of December 19 80 has been set. as the
,
date for hearing petition filed by Walter & Barbara Yeager
for a variance - u":%t4Mx1[9W"Nftx from required
sideyard setback
at 18504 Olympic View Drive
saidproperty being zoned RS-12
61,
""44
to
Said hearing Will.be at 730 P. M in the Council Chambers'of the
yf'
Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington before the Board of Adjustment
'
and all interested persons are invited to appear.,
I RENE;, VARNEY MORAN
City Clerk, City of.Edmonds
)
* � We
FILE NO: V-40-80.
t�. r`
PUBLISH: 12-4-80
L
k
`45r I
STATE OF WASHINGTON.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH,
�c EA ING PF.j ;nuRa L
I C ;t QjYiO�D}S
f �Rn.AWtlsjM�MT�gr.� i
I InMti�1M �iYraava a
� a6 WNInn^ �,
to
ruj
VMW �
R
3 v�bN ai � .!aj� +ttiv
IUs}z
jE RVA1 �,a a Db;TC;;
gr
a4
itt
xt ,�
{{
�! 4
I
a;
f
I
S
M1
5-2-1
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 .................................... 1
a
NOTICE..aF..HEARING......................................_............., ............
........................................
f
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 following days and times, namely:
EC. ...4 t.,.1980
........................................... ^ ........
r ..... ... ... .... S
and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers
during all of said peri {
.......•..........:.•.............•... t
"' Principal Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ......nth.......... :
t.'
DECEriB 1
y.......................•............. 9...Ha
da f ......
......._....... . ............................ ,C'E
Notary P is n and for the State of Washin on,
residing rett, Snohomish County.
�j{
19� o
FILE NO. V-40-80 '
APPLICANT Walter & Barbara
Yeager
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTER
t
No ary ubtic in and for the State of
Washington residing at"
m 1,
t"'ITY OF EDMONDS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
A,01
THE --
-WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING
Z7_19 ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION:
F I L E NO.
PROPERTY ADDRESS AND LOCATION
ZONE DISTRICT
THE HEARING WILL BEGIN AT *7--L?0JQ 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.
r. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
505 BELL STREET, EDMONDS (PHONE 775-2525, EXT. 227).
THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR
CONCEALMENT OF NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE
WARNING ! OF THE HEARING IS AIM ISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE
BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.
THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOVED AFTER 14A - l 7-n
APPLICANT: Walter and Barbara Yeager
ADDRESS: 18504 Olympic View Drive ZONING: RS-12
VARIANCE REQUESTED Five foot sideyard setback
ZONING CODE REQUIREMENT: Code requires a ten foot sidevard setback.
OTHER PERTINENT FACTS:
VARIANCE CRITERIA - Section 12.16.100
1. Does this amount to a rezone? No.
2.(a) Are there conditions and/or circumstances not generally applicable to other
lands in the same district? Yes. The home was built in 1917 and does
not conform to the required sideyard setback on the north. The
property is steep on the north and east.
(b) Would strict enforcement of the zoning code deprive the property owner of right_
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district? The home is
older and smaller than the adjacent homes. Without the requested
variance, it will be difficult to enlarge the kitchen area.
3. Do the special conditions result from the actions of the applicant? No. The
home is older and the lot is steeply sloped to the east.
4. Are there unnecessary hardships and practical difficulties in carrying out the
provisions of the zoning code? By forcing a ten .foot setback on the
north, any addition would create an awkward design.
5. Will the granting of thq variance be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare
of property owners in the vicinity? No.
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 .
i
Staff recommends approval, conforms to the variance criteria and is a
minimum variance.
Planner's Variance Review 12/77
CITY
HAQVF H. HARRISON
OF EOMONOS MAYOR
(206) 775-2525
CIVIC CENTER
• EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 •
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE:
December 9, 1980
TO:
Walter and Barbara Yeager
18504 Olympic View Drive
Edmonds, WA 98020
TRANSMITTING:
Planner's Variance Review ForTn -
RE: V-40-80
AS YOU REQUESTED:
A
FOR YOUR INFORMATION:
XX
AS WE DISCUSSED:
P
FOR APPROVAL:
FOR YOUR FILE:
REVIEW AND CON ENT:
COMMENT AND RETURN:
MINUTES OF MEETING:
REMARKS -
PLANNING DIVISION
............. ...............
y
AT
,Ev��u� : �%• 39 0 fIF
C7
V -3(:? -tv
�o
DATE ( SIGNED
ReoFoaM ® 45 469
M, — 00 se Is, ..es
r
SEND PARTS 1 AND 3 WITH CARBON INTACT.
PART 3 WILL BE RETURNED WITH REPLY.
}
k
i
i
19
07*17WAF& ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION:
WM
PROPERTY ADDRESS AND LOCATION
IR
ZONE DISTRICT
THE HEARING WILL BEGIN AT /•-&pd M. , IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS
OF THE EDMONDS CIVIC CENTER, 250 FIFTH AVENUE NORTH.
IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT ON THIS PROPOSAL, YOU MAY,90:41ictO 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 '
CONCEALMENT OF THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE
"'
WARNIN ! Of THE HEARING IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE
BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.
THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOVED AFTER
HARVE w. 14ARRISON
CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR
cpAC CENTER EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 0 (206) 775.2525
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: January 19, 1981
TO -
Walter M. & Barbara Yeager
18504 Olympic View Drive
Edmonds, WA 98020
Board of Adjustment Minutes
TRANSMITTING:
RE: V-40-80
j!jd
AS YOU REQUESTED:
FOR YOUR INFORMATION:
Xy-
AS WE DISCUSSED:
FOR APPROVAL:
FOR YOUR FILE:
REVIEW AND COMMENT
COn,4ENT AND RETURN:
December 17, 1980
MINUTES OF MEETING.
0
REMARKS:
PLANNING DIVISION
"
V-39-80 SvQBBW REYNOLDS - Variance from required side yard setback at 21721 Both
RM
4' variance, the Code requiring a 10' side yard
The request was for a
setback and the proposal being 6'. The applicant had ding permitswithi�
variance in April of 1979 but had failed taatriplexndesign on this
the required period of time. The ADB approved
property in accordance with that variance. The intent was to remodel the
existing building into a triplex. The existing structure conformed Mr. owman the
requirements of RS zoning, but not to those of RML zoning•
lotiisesimilaratoance otherrpropertieshis in thelareatbut the house wasnbureamOu me
prior to the current zoning and does not meet the RML setbaacrequui er of
Strict enforcement of the Zoning Code would deprive the property as it
rights,
blnoeylother
oeame district
tis
noPossefrtheappicanttconvertthis house to amultifami1y
dwelling without the variance and the block is zoned
the house cwasondition
does not result from the actions of the applicant
prior to the current zoning. Regarding practical difficulties in carrying
out the
provisions
oueyyluse ys in nd
of the acticalsoltionwould betoalowthevariacerather
tionandthemorepr
thanval of he Code. The stafflfelt the grantingeofstheAny
variance would be compatible with the Zoning Code, and it recommended
varianceminimum
of
approval.asAit wasnt City EngineerPatrickwhich will make Wilson statedathatbtheuDrainage
e
th exceptions previously noted, and the current site
plan was approved wi
conditions were essentially the same as when the previous variance was
granted, so the Engineering Division did not object to the variance. Mr.
Bowman noted that the remodel will be mostly to the interior. The two
they buildingnwiliits wconformill be atoetheehind the side yardbsetback requirements. and the Mr behind
Bowman had spoken to the adjacent neighbor and showed him the plans and
explained what was proposed and the neighbor had no objections. The hearing
was opened to the public.
207th Pl. S.W., said the plans call for re -siding the
Mike Scobby, 7906
existing house so it will match the the new structure. Also the windows
the exterior will be upgraded. He said
will be changed to thermopane and
when they received the original variance there were no objections from
anyone but they ran into delays. Also, regarding the roof, the back side
of the roof on the existing house will be reroofed where the new structure
ties into the existing structure and if they cannot get the roofing to
match they will reroof the whole thing. He said no changes would be made
asdattr plexQanddnotkmakethe additionpobvious. The snew sectionif it hd bbuilteen mainghe finishd will have
two townhouse units, each approximately 1,100 sq. ft. Mr. Bowman noted
that the requested variance was only for the distance of the existing
house. No one else wished to speak, and the public portion of the hearing
was closed.
VE V-39-80
ETH, TO
USE THE
MINIMUM VARIANCE, GRANTING DTHE VARIANCE BY MRS. LWILL MAKEPITDPOSSIBLETO ABUTTING IS A
PROPERTY FOR WHICH IT IS ZONED, AND IT WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO ABUTTING
PROPERTIES. MOTION CARRIED.
V-40-80 WALTER AND BARBARA YEAGER - Variance from required side yard setback at
imp c ew r. S-12)
The Code requirement is a 10' side yard setback and the application was for
a 5' variance. Mr. Bowman showed slides of the property and said the
existing house is 5' from the property line and the proposed addition would
continue on that house line. Mr. Bowman reviewed the variance criteria.
This would not amount to a rezone. There were conditions not generally
applicable to other lands in the same district in that the home was built
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Page 4 - December 17, 1980
n
in 1917 and it does not conform to the required side yard setback on the
north. The property is steep on the north and the east. Strict enforcement
of the Zoning Code would deprive the property owner of rights enjoyed by
other properties in the same district in that the home is older and smaller
than adjacent homes and without the requested variance it will be difficult
to enlarge the kitchen area. The special conditions did not result from
the actions of the applicant as the home is old and the tot is steeply
sloped. By forcing a 10' setback on the north, any addition would create
an awkward design, a practical difficulty in carrying out the provisions of
the Zoning Code. Granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the
health, safety, or welfare of property owners in the vicinity, and Mr.
Bowman felt this was the minimum variance to make possible the reasonable
use of the land. He indicated granting of the variance would be compatible
with the Zoning Code, and he recommended approval. The Engineering Division
had no objection to the variance. The hearing was opened to the public.
The applicant added that the steep slope to the east isolates the home from
most of the neighbors, and to his knowledge the neighbors to the east and
to the south could not see the addition and it would not interfere with
their views. He said the house being built to the north is at a higher
level, and he had discussed his plans with Mr. Smith who is building that
home, and Mr. Smith had no objection to the addition or to the variance.
He said the addition will stay in line with the existing house and will not
go closer to the property line. No one else wished to speak, and the
public portion of the hearing was closed.
Mr. Leraas said it appeared the addition would be compatible with the
neighborhood. ft LERAAS MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. HATZENBUHLER,.TO APPROVE
V40-80.BECAUSE IT APPEARED''THAT THE ADDITION WILL BE IN TINE WITH THE '.
EXISTING 'LINES OF THE HOUSE AND THAT IT WILL BE COMPATIBLEWITH THE NEIGH-
BORHOOD AND NOT DETRIMENTAL, AND HE BELIEVED IT TO BE A MINIMUM VARIANCE
MOTION CARRIED.
V-41-80 WAIDE AND LAVERNE ADAMS - Variance from required front yard setback at the
sout east corner of 8th and. Alder St. (802 Alder St.) (RS-6)
The Code requires a 20' setback from any street right-of-way, and the
variance requested was to reduce that to 10' from 8th Ave. S. which is an
undeveloped right-of-way. This is a corner lot so the 20' setback is
required from two sides. A similar variance was granted to the adjacent
property located to the west across 8th Ave. S., but there were water
problems on that lot. Mr. Bowman reviewed the variance criteria. This
would not amount to a rezone. The conditions not generally applicable to
other lands in the same district is the unimproved right-of-way. Strict
enforcement of the Zoning Code would deprive the owner of rights enjoyed by
the property located to the west which has only a 10' right-of-way. Special
conditions were not the result of actions of the applicant. Practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would result from enforcement
of the Zoning Code requirement were that the result would be a long, narrow
building pad, facing the unimproved right-of-way. Mr. Bowman said the
granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
welfare of property owners in the vicinity, that this was a minimum variance
to make possible reasonable use of the land, and that granting of the
variance generally would be in harmony with the Zoning Code. He recommended
approval. However, Assistant City Engineer Patrick Wilson recommended
denial. He said other residences in this area have met the setback require-
ments and this right-of-way possibly could join two blocks at some future
time. He noted that because of the topography there is some question of
whether it could or would be developed, but there was the possibility, and
if the variance were granted there would be two residences very close to
the right-of-way. He suggested that the applicants petition for a street
vacation, which Engineering would not oppose, but if granted that would
settle the question of a possible future street. Mr. Bowman felt that
because of the unlikelihood of a street being developed through that area
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Page 5 - December 17, 1980