02229j
i
t
1 and now they were asking for further variances to intrude into the setbacks.
The public portion of the hearing again was closed. MR. BYRD AGAIN MOVED,
SECONDED BY MRS. MEDINA, TO DENY V-62-79 ON THE BASIS THAT;THERE WERE NO
E SPECIAL' CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING WHICH WARRANTED THE .VARIANCE,
THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS NOT BEING DEPRIVED OF.RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER
PROPERTY OWNERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, THAT THE CONDITIONS RESULTED SOLELY
FROM THE OWNER'S ACTIONS IN THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING, THAT THERE WERE NO
PRACTICAL HARDSHIPS OR DIFFICULTIES EXISTING IN REDESIGNING THE BUILDING TO I
MEET THE ZONING CODE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DESIGN DID NOT APPEAR TO -BE
DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC OF THE AREA, THE REQUEST,WAS FOR A,RELATIVELY
MINIMAL VARIANCE, THE DESIGN APPEARED TO BE IN HARMONY.WITH THE,ZONING` `}
i CODE --BUT MR. BYRD FELT THOSE WERE IRRELEVANT TO,THE BOARD OF.ADJUSTMENT
JURISDICTION AND THE CONSIDERATION HERE WAS SOLELY A MATTER OF.ECONOMICS
IN DESIGNING THE MAXIMUM UNIT FOR THE LOT, AND.THE PROPOSAL DID NOT MEET I
THE'CRITERIA FORA VARIANCE, AND SOLELY ON THAT BASIS DID HE MOVE FOR 1
DENIAL. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.'
V-63-79 ART FURBUSH - Variance to improve nonconformin structure in amount of more
than 5 o q
valuation at 23931 Highway 99 (CG
Mr. Pearson said this variance request was to remodel a nonconforming
building. The building needed a 40' setback from Highway 99 and a 25'
setback from 240th. What it had was 10' from Highway 99 and 4' from the
existing right-of-way on 240th. Because the building is nonconforming the
Zoning Ordinance limits the amount of work that may be done on it to 25% of
its value in one year, and the applicant wished to do substantially more
than 25%. The existing building appeared to encroach on the proposed
right-of-way of 240th. A 5' dedication would be required along 240th.
i Further, the applicant proposed extending the building farther into the
proposed right-of-way. Mr. Pearson recommended approval of the variance,
but that nothing be built within the proposed right-of-way and that the
applicant have the property surveyed along 240th and dedicate 5' for the
proposed right-of-way. He said the applicant proposed extending the rear
of the building to encroach on the right-of-way. City Attorney Wayne
Tanaka said the granting of the requested variance would permit an improve- t
ment of more than 25% but it would not allow construction of the extension s
of the building into the right-of-way. The public portion of the hearing
was closed. MR. BYRD MOVED, SECONDED BY MRS. DERLETH, TO CONTINUE V-63-79
TO OCTOBER 17, 1979 IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO AMEND HIS APPLICATION
AND TO CONSIDER THE OTHER FACTORS WHICH NEITHER THE BOARD NOR THE APPLICANT
WAS AWARE OF IN THE INITIAL SUBMISSION. Mrs. Derleth said she did recall
in the past hearings relating to that street that there was an intention by
the City to use the whole width of the street. MOTION CARRIED.
V-64-79 DR. PAUL K. LUND - Variance from required front yard setback at 19024 94th
Ave. W.(RS-12)
Mr. Pearson said this application was for a variance of 9' from the required
25' front setback and the purpose was to locate a new garage in the front
yard. Special circumstances were that the house was built on top of a
hump. He recommended approval. The public portion of the hearing was
opened. The applicant said one portion of his property is 15' from the
center of the road and as it approaches the intersection it is 39'. He
felt this was due to the fact that there is a row of beautiful trees there.
He said if he could get the variance he would not have to tunnel under the
house to build the garage. Also, there is a well in the center of the
property so he could not put the garage there. At the proposed location he
could save seven large cedar trees. MR. BYRD MOVED, SECONDED BY MRS.
DERLETH, TO APPROVE V-64-79 BECAUSE THIS WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO A REZONE,
SPECIAL CONDITIONS EXISTED IN THE TOPOGRAPHY AND LANDSCAPING OF TREES ON
THE LOT, THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND THE EXISTENCE OF THE WELL ON THE PROPERTY
WERE NOT THE RESULT OF THE OWNER'S ACTIONS, AND IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO
THE AESTHETICS OF THE LOT TO DENY THE VARIANCE. FURTHER, THAT IT WAS IN
HARMONY AND KEEPING WITH THE AREA. MOTION CARRIED.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Page 7 - September 19, 1979