01888 (2)V-68--'"
4
The applicant said he was not changing his parking at all. He said
the parking is existing and he has 50' of concrete from the street to
the parking. He said he plans to develop the property into a shopping
mall or apartments and they would just have to tear up the parking area.
He was asked if his rezone application was in, and he replied that he
thought it was. The public portion of the hearing was then closed.
MR. ROBINSON MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. LERAAS, TO APPROVE CU-64-77 AS IT'
MET THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA, BUT THAT THE PERMIT BE FOR A
PERIOD OF ONE YEAR ONLY, AND THAT THE PERMIT IS CONTINGENT UPON COMPLIANCE
WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS SET FORTH BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF,
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, AND AMENITIES DESIGN BOARD. MOTION CARRIED.
KENNETH HOOD - Variance of 20' from required 25' rear yard setback at
18301 Andover St. (RS-12)
Mrs. Block said this application was for the construction of a storage
shed/workshop, a 16' x 20' building. She said this would not amount to
a rezone. The setback would be maintained on the side but the proposed -
structure would be totally within the rear setback. She showed slides
of the property and said there are no special conditions on the site and
it is level. The nature of the landscape layout, however, rather limits
the area where the structure could be put without disturbing the land-.
scaping. Mrs. Block said there were other places on the site where the.
structure could be placed, but this was one of the few that would not
disturb the yard. The circumstances of this application were the result
of the applicant's actions, but the most practical place for the structure
would be where he proposed. Elsewhere on the site it would be in the
middle of the back yard area. Mrs. Block felt a storage shed would not.
be detrimental to the neighbors, but as a workshop it may be. She sug-
gested it could be moved 5' to the west, thereby reducing the impact on
adjoining properties. She recommended approval of a lesser variance of
15', which would provide a larger distance as a sound buffer as well as
a visual buffer. She further recommended a height maximum of 12' because
of the proximity to other properties. The public portion of the hearing
was opened.
The applicant explained that due to the layout of the house and the back
yard this was the most practical location for the building. He said the
living room is in the center of the back'of the house and looks out to
the back yard, and the bedrooms are at the end. The back fence is 6'
cedar and chain link is on the side. The applicant said his neighbor to
the rear has no objection to his proposal. The public portion of the
hearing was closed.
Mr. Robinson inquired why the applicant did not put the shed on the
adjoining property to the north which he also owned. The applicant
responded that if he ever decided to sell the property he would have the
problem of the building on it. On questioning, he said he did not plan
to have plumbing in the building but he hoped to have a table saw. Other
alternatives were discussed, and Mr. Roy commented that the landscaping
should not be considered nor should financial loss. Mr. Robinson noted
that any variance granted would run with the land unless it was otherwise
stipulated. Mr. Visser commented that there are standards which should
be maintained. MR: ROY MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. LERAAS, THAT V-68-77 BE
DENIED BECAUSE HE DID NOT FEEL IT MET THE VARIANCE CRITERIA AS THERE WERE
OTHER PLACES ON THE PROPERTY WHERE THE BUILDING COULD BE LOCATED. MOTION
CARRIED.
EDMONDS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Page 5 - December 21, 1977
Mh