01939had no objection to granting of the variance. The public portion of
the hearing was opened.
The applicant stated that the building presently is open and he felt it
would be better to enclose it to make it more useful and more attractive.
Ted McKowsky of 8821 Main St. said he has a business across the street
from this site and he felt the applicant would be making
The pthe
areaublic much
tion
better by what he planned to do with the building.
of the hearing was then closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. McQUADE, SECONDED
BY MRS. STOLE, TO APPROVE V-36-77 BECAUSE IT WILL IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD '
USE
BY IMPROVING THE VISUAL USEEI�FISTHAT
E IT I
NOTCOINNANY WAY A ASDANGERS
TOHTHEEST PUBLIC
OF THE. PROPERTY, ANDECA
HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE. MOTION CARRIED.
,V=414Y DONALD R. WESTLIN Variance to relax density regulations to allow six
t 518-
units a524 Bell St. (BC)
Mrs. Block said that, based on the size of the lot, the Zoning Code would
allow 5.86 units for this site, and the applicant was requesting six.
She said this was not a rezone. The special condition existing was that }
this qualified for well over five units but did not have adequate space
for six. Mrs. Block indicated that, in essence, the actions of the.
applicant resulted in this situation and that strict enforcement of the
Zoning Code would not deprive the owner of rights enjoyed by others in
the district. With regard to whether the proposal would be detrimental
to the health, welfare, and safety of the neighborhood, Mrs• Block
osition to
mented that a petition had been received from neighbors in opp
the proposal who wanted to the maintain the present density. Although
RM development is permitted in a BC zone, the neighbors had cited a
number of specific concerns such as traffic. Mrs. Block felt that granting
of the variance would not be in harmony with the Zoning Code, noting that
the City Council had recently illustrated their intent to decrease allowable .
density in the City by removing the bonus density. She felt it would be
circumventing the intent of the standard density to allow an increased G
number of units, and she did not recommend approval. She showed the loca
tion on a vicinity map and showed slides of the site, noting that the
proposal almost utilizes the maximum lot coverage. Mr. Roy asked if this
would have qualified for six units without a variance before the bonus
density was removed, to which she replied it would have. The public portion
of the hearing was then opened.
Don Westlin, architect for the project, said timing had been very delicate
in this matter. He had signed a contract with the owner on May 18, 1977.
He said he was aware that the City Council was considering the bonus density.
Id have enough drawings to vest by the
but there was no way that he cou
that under the old bonus density they
August 29 cut-off date. He noted
would have been allowed 6.8 units, and that at one time anything over i
.5 carried them into the next unit count. lie thought that for .14 of a
unit he would not have a problem. -lie noted that zoning had become an
issue in the current election and the neighbors were concerned, so they `
were debating for .14 of a unit. He said parking would be provided under
the building and there would be one-way traffic flow, and that they were
not going to congest the street parking or the traffic flow on the street.
He did not feel his project would be detrimental to the area, and he noted
that there is an apartment building to the east of the site so a precedent
had been established. He said there is BC zoning throughout the block and
a commercial operation oncorner
the communitylynotingthe
that tthe Hhouses it
his project would be an asset to
would replace are probably at least 50 years old.
Chuck Sheppard, attorney, spoke for one of the adjacent apartment owners
asking that the law be followed as it is now. He said 82 people had signed
EDMONDS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Page 2 - September 21, 1977