02196 (2)T
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