Loading...
01857V-55-79 RAYMOND DUITSMAN - Variance from the required roof pitch to meet the 30' jreg t requirement at 1015 "A" St. (RS-6) V-56-79 Mr. Pearson explained that a roof may extend to 30' in height if it is more than 4 in 12 pitch. The main roof of this house exceeds the required pitch but there are dormers which change it. If the variance were not granted the applicant would have to alter the roofline of one dormer and raise the back of the.roof and move it over 8". The house was moved onto this site and it could have been set at a lower height. It was set at the maximum with the applicant's knowledge that it was the maximum. Mr. Pearson said the ordinance provides that the roof may extend to 30' but the side walls of the dormer and the side walls of the house also extend. He said this proposal failed to meet all but one of the variance criteria, that of not being detrimental to the nearby property owners. He said the applicant was aware when he built the new foundation of the roof problem, but he chose to set the house as high as possible. Further, that the applicant could have applied for the variance before he built the foundation, rather than after the fact. Mr. Pearson said that although there were no special circumstances, and any difficulties had resulted from actions of the applicant, the proposal could be approved on the basis that the requested variance was a small one. He felt that denial would be detrimental to the neighbors since it would result in an off -balance, changed roofline. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Mr. Duitsman said he had a pre -move inspection before the house was moved and also a building permit, and it was after the footings were poured that a complaint was received, but Mr. Whitcutt had told him he would not have noticed it if it had not been brought to his attention. He said he was given a 30' height requirement and he did not drop the house because he wanted a basement and because there was a water problem in the area. He said he was 4' into the dirt and -he did not want to go farther because of the spring, and if he corrected it the ridge of the house would be 8" higher than it is now. No one else wished to speak, and the public portion of the hearing was closed. MRS. MEDINA MOVED, SECONDED B.Y_MR ,; LERAAS '. TO APPROVE V-55-79 :BECAUSE IT�'.WAS' NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD'AND BECAUSE1T`WOULD N0T'1NTERFERE`WIT.H VIEWS. 'MOTION CARRIED. TOM BERRY - Variance from required pavement for 84th Ave. W. at 8432 Olympic View Dr., (RS-12) Mr. Pearson said this was an application for a public access road, the standard width of which is 28', and the application was for a reduction to 18'. The road is rocked and gravelled to approximately 15' in width and Mr. Pearson said it will be difficult to get even a 18' wide road in there. The houses around there actually get their access from Olympic View Dr. Mr. Pearson said the City would prefer to have this -developed as a quasi - standard street. He said approval was recommended, the special circumstances being the extremely difficult topography. The Engineering Division recom- mended approval, saying 18' would be allowable, and they also recommended a turnaround at the end of the road. City Attorney John Wallace said the City Council in 1976 had approved this for 18', but that was not binding on this body. In answer to a question, Mr. Pearson said the road would .not necessary be centered in the right-of-way. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Harold Huycke of 18223 84th P1. W. asked -for further description of 84th Ave., because he lives on 84th Pl. Mr. Berry said they were talking about paving 84th from 184th north and Mr. Huycke is two blocks south of 184th. Mr. Pearson showed Mr. Huycke a map for clarification. Mr. Berry said this had been "kicking around" the City for ten years --the City saying they have to pave the road in order to have a subdivision but nobody wanting the road. He said there is a small gravel road used by one .house and the others will access from Olympic View Dr. even when the road is put in. He felt a variance should be granted because otherwise they would be taking most of the trees out of the gully and removing huge amounts of material from the hillsides for a road they don't really want. He said there was a maximum of seven lots that could use this road but actually BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Page 3 - August 15, 1979 EM 11 i ado