01908and best use of the property, the garage location will not create a
traffic problem for those using the easement, and the applicant would
be allowed to retain an existing garage which is in good condition.
The public portion of the hearing was opened, no one wished to speak,
and the public portion of the hearing was closed. The application
appeared to the Board to be reasonable. MR. ROY MOVED, SECONDED -BY MR.
HOVDE, TO APPROVE V-72-78 AS HE DID NOT FIND IT.OBJECTIONABLE AND NOTHING
WOULD BE GAINED BY DE14OLISHING THE GARAGE. MOTION CARRIED.
V-73-78� '0. L. TREMOULET, JR. - Variance from required front yard setback' at'`'
1833 'An over St. (RS-12)' `
This application was for the addition of a greenhouse to an existing
home. The property is a corner lot so two front yard setbacks are
required and the proposed greenhouse would extend 8' into the setback.
The Engineering Department found no problem in sight obstruction for
traffic. The greenhouse will be screened by existing vegetation. It
will be 8' wide and there will will be a 17' setback on that -side of
the property. The applicant's intent in locating the greenhouse was
to protect some new logs replaced on the home.
The greenhouse would protect that part
of the home. The applicant had stated it was important to keep the
new.logs dry. Mrs. Luster recommended approval because it was a minimum
variance to allow for the best use of the property and to protect the
existing house, reducing the setback by 8' would not create a traffic
sight problem or obstruct views, and she felt the resulting 17' setback
would be adequate. She noted that if this were not a corner lot only
a 10' setback would be required. The public portion of the hearing
was opened, no one wished to speak, and the public portion was closed.
MRS ;-DERLETH MOVED, SECONDED �BY ,11R. HOVDE,. TO APPROVE 11;=73 7,8;iBECAUSE
IT WAS::A MINIMUM' VARIA3CE - TO' ALLOW BEST USE`,.OF ',THE; PROPERTY=AiiD PItOT�CT
THEj�EXISTING'HOUSE AND.BECAUSE IT DID NOT APPEAR TO`PRESENT A SIGHT`OR
TRAFFIC `HAZARD. ` MOTION CARRIED:,
V-74-78 MARILYN LINDBERG - Variance from lot width requirement at 19324 88th
Ave. W. RS-12
Mrs. Luster said this request was in conjunction with the subdivision
of the property. The layout of the property was similar to others in
the area. The Code requires a lot width of 80' in this zone. An existing
house is located 10' from the property line and in order to meet the
lot width requirement it would be necessary to move the property line
and apply for a variance on the sideyard setback of the adjoining lot
or remove the house entirely. The applicant must dedicate 5' along 88th
Ave. W. for future street improvements, resulting in the lot being approxi-
mately 2' short of the required width. Granting of the application would not
result in a rezone. Mrs. Luster recommended approval because it was
a minimum variance to allow for the most reasonable use of the land,
because it would allow retention of the existing house which is in good
condition,•and because all three lots in the subdivision will be over
the required size in area (Lot A - 15,053 sq. ft, Lot B - 15,053 sq. ft.,
and Lot C - 12,095 sq. ft.). She felt that granting of the variance
would not be detrimental to neighboring properties. The public portion
of the hearing was opened, no one wished to speak, and the public portion
was closed. MR. HOVDE MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. HATZENBUHLER, TO APPROVE
V-74-78 BECAUSE WHEN LOT C IS DEVELOPED THE CITY MILL CONTROL THE SETBACKS
AND THIS PROPERTY WILL 140T BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHERS IN THE AREA. MOTION
CARRIED.
EDMONDS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Page 2 - October 20, 1978
i•s