01827r
an enhancement to the area to build a garage. No one else wished to speak,
and the public portion of the hearing was closed.
Mr. Leraas felt it was a reasonable request. Mrs. Derleth noted that it
would be more difficult to get into the garage if it were moved over; also,
that the adjacent house was some distance away. Mr. Hatzenbuhler noted
that if it were moved over there would be a jog in the driveway and the
corner of the house would suffer. MR. HATZENBUHLER MOVED, SECONDED BY MR.
DETRIME APPROVE V-32-79
WELFARE OFCTHEEIT IS A SURROUNDINGNIMUM AREA.VARIANCE AND WILL N07 BE
TO MOTION CARRIED.
CU-32-79 ELAINE'S OF EDMONDS - Conditional Use Permit for temporary professional
office at 611 Main St. (RMH)
Chairman Stole was excused from this hearing as she is a principal in the
subject business. Mr. Roy became the Acting Chairman.
Ms. Luster said the request is for a temporary wedding consultant's office
across the street from its permanent location. The building that houses
this business will be removed and a new structure erected, after which the
business will move back to its permanent location. The time needed for the
temporary location is approximately 120 days. There will be no major
changes to the house at the temporary location of the business, and there
is a minimum traffic flow to the business. The applicant sells wedding
dresses which are selected, fitted, and then picked up at a later date.
Ms. Luster did -not believe that by moving across the street this business
would impact the neighborhood or increase traffic or parking in the area.
The adjoining property owners on either side had submitted a letter saying
they had no objection to the request. The applicant had submitted an
environmental checklist and a declaration of no significance had been
issued. Ms. Luster recommended approval because it appeared to be a reasonable
use for this location, no more traffic would be generated in the area, and
the use would be for a short time. The public portion of the hearing was
opened. The applicant, Bert Stole, had nothing to add. No one else wished
to speak, and the public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Leraas
commented that it appeared -to be a reasonable request, due to the short
duration. Mrs. Derleth noted that the important thing was that the neighbors
had written to indicate no objection. MRS. DERLETH MOVED, SECONDED BY MR.
LERAAS, TO APPROVE CU-32-79 BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE NEIGHBOR-
HOOD, THERE WAS NO OBJECTION TO IT, IT WAS TEMPORARY, AND THE BUSINESS IS A
QUIET BUSINESS THAT DOES NOT GENERATE A GREAT DEAL OF TRAFFIC. Ms. Luster
suggested the Board may wish to place a time limitation on the permit. She
suggested six months to allow for unforeseen construction problems. MRS.
DERLETH AMENDED HER MOTION TO INCLUDE A SIX-MONTH LIMITATION ON THE PERMIT.
MR. HATZENBUHLER SECONDED THE MOTION TO AMEND. THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED.
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, CARRIED. A short recess was announced, after
which Mrs. Stole returned to chair the meeting.
V43-79-: LLOYD KEILEY - Variance from required rear yard setback and from square
footage required for three units at 566_Alder St. (RMH)
The applicant was requesting a variance of 5' from the required 20' rear
yard setback and a variance of 200 sq. ft. from the required 5,600 sq. ft.
for three units. He will be removing existing structures from the property.
The setback request was on the west side which abuts the Commodore con-
dominium. This is a corner lot with single family residences across the
street. Strict enforcement of the Zoning Code would allow construction of a
duplex, and Ms. Luster felt a 200 sq. ft. reduction for three units would
not impact this area and would not generally increase the bulk of the
building. He could build to the same height and setback requirements with
a duplex or triplex. Density would be increased but she did not feel it
would be substantial for the surrounding area. She felt, however, that a
reduction in the rear yard setback would allow a more massive structure.
The applicant had indicated the purpose was in order to provide parking
under th ld get
under the building without �Luster e
thevariance on thesetback soared he ushe didnot
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Page 5 - May 16, 1979
Eh