Loading...
02196T y of cars to four, or possibly three. She displayed her site plan. Mrs. Luster noted that a Code revision had been approved the previous evening which would allow up to 25% compact car spaces in RM zones. Mahlon Dofsen said this site is only one block from a store and five blocks from downtown Edmonds. He felt these units would appeal to older people who may not drive: He said bus service also is nearby. The public portion of the hearing was then closed. Mr. Hovde asked Mrs.. Luster if it was possible to approve this for four spaces with a proviso that if the area should become saturated the'City could require the other spaces. Mrs. Luster responded that the Board possibly could do that, but she pointed out that there is no guarantee as to how long the present owners will own the property, the City would not be aware if it were sold, and the new owners could rent to young couples so two of the units may have two cars each and the studio one, and with visitors the parking would be impacted. Mr. Hovde said he appreciated firs. Dofsen's reluctance to destroy landscaping to provide parking, but on -the other hand she could not totally control the need or lack of need for parking. He asked if two parking spaces were added next to their residence whether she would feel the 18' needed would directly detract from their existing home. She responded that it would, that it is a lovely home. Mr. Hatzenbuhler felt there were unusual circumstances because the property is bordered by three streets. He noted that the applicant had been asked if she would compromise with five spaces and she indicated she would. Mrs. Derleth said she liked to see development of low-cost and low-rise multiple housing, and she was some- what moved to grant the variance, but at the same time she felt the proposal was only at the design stage and an architect could provide. the six spaces and still provide a one-story structure and maintain the landscaping. She was reluctant to approve a variance at this preliminary point. Mr. Hovde agreed, feeling a fair analysis could not be given at this point. He suggested it be continued and more input be received. firs. Luster said the proposal was scheduled -for the November 1 ADB meeting, which would be prior to the next Board of Adjustment meeting. She *noted that even if the Board were to'grant a variance on the parking the site plan would not necessarily be approved by the ADB. MR. HATZEN- BUHLER MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. HOVDE, TO CONTINUE V-78-78 TO NOVEMBER 15, 1978, AFTER THE ADB HAS REVIEWED IT. MOTION CARRIED. Y 79 78 Iift H. PERRINE - Variance:frow required rear 'an- d',,"s'Ide yard setbacks at,>636 Dayton St..'(RS-6) Mrs. Luster displayed the site plan, noting the Code requires a 15' rear and 5' side yard setback. The applicant wished to construct a one -car garage on the site which would measure 12'x 20', and to do so a 2' variance was required from the side yard setback and a 10' variance was required from the rear yard setback. firs. Luster said it was felt that this was a reasonable location for the garage because of the location of the house and the curb cut. There would be no problem created for maneuvering the car. She recommended approval because it was a minimum variance to make the most reasonableuse of the land, the garage will be of minimum size and not obstruct sight distance or impair views, and because if the garage were able to meet the side yard setback the rear yard setback could be 5' because the structure is under 600 sq. ft. The public portion of the hearing was opened, no one wished to speak, and the public portion was closed. Mr. Roy said he had visited the site and he felt this was a minimum variance. He noted that it is restrictive to have a 10' garage as you can hardly open the doors of a car in this width. MR. ROY>MOVED; SECONDED BY MR. HATZENBUHLER TO APPROVE 'V-79-78"BECAUSE IT IS A MINIMUM VARIANCE AND WILL NOT BE DETR.1- MENTAL TO'THE'HEALTH, WELFARE, -AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MOTION CARRIED.' EDMONDS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Page 11 - October 20, 1978 1= 4, 1