020301
Mike Miller, representing the applicant, said he concurred with the
Staff remarks. No one else wished to speak, and the public portion of
the hearing was closed.
Mr. Roy noted that the two back lots conformed and if an easement were
not needed for access to those landlocked lots the front lots would
conform. Mrs. Stole noted that the lots are larger than required.
MR. ROBINSON MOVED, SECONDED "BY-MRS. STOLE, THAT V-5-78 BE.:APPROVED
FOR THE REASONS STATED BY THE:_STAFF AND BECAUSE THERE -'DOES SEEM TO BEI;_.,
'
A:yHARDSHIP.'EXISTING TH-THIS CASE, THERE WOULD BE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES;
i.
IN:'OTHERWISE DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY, AND IT DOES NOT IN ANY.•.WAY;-:SEEM TO
ADVERSELY AFFECT OTHER PROPERTIES 1"1 THE AREA; WITH THE CONDITION;rHOWEVER,
THAT THE VARIANCE IS'GRANTED'!•l1TH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT'IT IS FOR"A
!
FOUR -LOT SUBDIVISION`OF THAT PIECE OF LAND. MOTION CARRIED.
f'
V-8-78 GARY PETERSON - Variance of 212' from required side yard setback at
s:
7821 238th St. S.W. (RS-8)
Mrs. Block indicated this property'is surrounded on three sides by front
yards and she showed slides of the site. She said the applicant had
lived there 18 years and wishes to add to the kitchen area for an eating
space. This would not anount to a rezone. The applicant has a unique
!
situation'with three front yard setbacks so the area available for use
I
is limited. Strict enforcementof the Zoning Code would preclude him
from adding usable space to the home. The unusual lot configuration is
"• "Y
not the result of his actions. This is the only practical way to add
!' '?
to the kitchen area, and Mrs. Block felt granting of the variance -would
not be detrimental to adjacent.property owners. The house on the one
adjacent lot is 60' from the property line and the owner of that house*
made a written statement expressing no objection to this proposal. Mrs.
Block felt that granting of the variance would.allow the applicant to
improve his property,while retaining substantial open area around the
1:
house, and she recommended approval.. The public portion'of.the hearing
was opened, no one -wished to speak, and the public portion was closed.
Mr. Robinson inquired of the applicant why he had chosen that particular
design for the addition --a rectangular area jutting out from the existing
house. Mr. Peterson said it will be peaked under the original roof, and
that the drawing did not reflect it as it actually would appear. MR. ROY
MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. HOVDE, TO APPROVE V-8-78, BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT BE
DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, WELFARE, AND MORALS OF THE NEIGHBOP.I100D AND
NOBODY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS PROTESTING. HE SAID HE'UNDERSTOOD THE
DIFFICULTIES. OF THIS CORDER LOT AND HE FELT IT WOULD BE A HARDSHIP UPON
THE APPLICANT TO DENY THIS APPLICATION. THE MOTION CARRIED.
V-9-78 MICHAEL DOOTSON - Variance of 4'9" from required side yard setback at
21216 80th Ave. W. (RML) and
CU-11-78 MICHAEL DOOTSON - Conditional Use Permit for professional office
chiropractic practice) in a multiple zone at 21216 80th Ave. W. (RML)
It was agreed during the discussion to hear these two items together
and then to take separate votes on the actions. firs. Block said this is
a long, narrow piece of property (56' wide), and she showed slides of the
site. The Zoning Code requires a 10' side yard setback, and the -applicant
was requesting it be reduced by 49". This would not be a rezone. The
i house and carport are existing at this location and the applicant wished
to enclose the carport and build an addition to it at a later date.
Strict enforcement of the Zoning Code would preclude him from enclosing
the existing carport and from adding on to the house along the present
line. The existing house is 16 years old and is being purchased by the
applicant. Mrs. Block said this the only way to enclose the carport
EDMONDS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Page 2 - March 15, 1978
®o
■=