Loading...
02296HOUSE WOULD BE TOO CLOSE TO ITS TWO PROPERTY LINES, AND BECAUSE SHE DID NOT SEE SPECIAL CONDITIONS IN THIS SITUATION THAT DO NOT EXIST IN OTHER SITUA- TIONS. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH MRS. DERLETH AND MR. HATZENBUHLER VOTING YES, AND WITH MR. BYRD AND CHAIRMAN ROY VOTING NO, RESULTING IN•A TIE VOTE. THE MOTION FAILED. Chairman Roy said if he owned the property he would cut 3' off the existing house, as that property is too large not to be utilized, and he felt the owner had certain rights. MR. HATZENBUHLER THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. BYRD, TO CONTINUE V-54-79 TO OCTOBER 17, 1979 DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE BOARD WAS DEADLOCKED, IN THE HOPE THAT WITH ADDI- TIONAL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT A DECIDING VOTE COULD BE TAKEN. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka advised the Board not to discuss this matter with any other member of the Board, any member of the public, or any other person at all, and that absent Board members should listen to the tape recording of this hearing prior to the October 17 meeting. Mrs. Derleth said she would like to hear information on other possible access to this property. THE MOTION THEN CARRIED. Mrs. Medina returned and a short recess was announced. ��.B:iWIL30N=`yYa'r'ance 1'r0`"�F.�,equ�''Ired from"ri�rd'�'ietbdck at 703 DriftMood� ' ��i Z J..u, W, Mr. Pearson said the applicant wished to locate a tool shed in a less conspicuous place than the setback requirements would allow. His lot borders on Puget Sound, that being the only special condition. Mr. Pearson. felt the variance would not be detrimental to the neighborhood and probably would be less visible to the neighborhood as proposed. The public portion of the hearing was opened. The applicant said that because of the way the street was designed and the houses built, his front 'yard bordered on his neighbor's back yard, and to put the shed where allowed by the Building Code would be to place it in front in full view of the neighbors to the north. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Mrs. Derleth commented that on view property she thinks of.the rear yard as what they call the front yard, and it appeared to her that there was justification for the application. Mrs. Medina agreed, saying for practical purposes the front. yard was,.the back yard.•: Mi�j r: YRD"MOVED;:,SECONDED BY Mkt. HATZENBUHLER, T01 APPROVE V-69-79 because Id, d not tAdetrimental to the, public 'in the area, Iflas"a minimum `'vaKia ce, and by virtue; of..preser, ing the sound view it was in harmony with the zoning code. MgTCARRIEO. V-60-7.9 DONALD PATRICK - Variance from required front yard setback at 815 Driftwood Lane Mr. Pearson said the proposal was to put in a subdivision with a 20' private road and there was a variance request from the setback of that road and also a variance request from the existing road to the front. He said the road already exists as a driveway but would have to be extended to the back. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka then noted that notice was given only on the east front yard variance request, so the second variance could not be heard. He suggested that the application be amended and be reposted and republished; otherwise, there would have to be two hearings. Jurgen Sauerland, of Lovell-Sauerland and Associates, Inc., said they had been informed after submitting the application that the additional variance would be required due to the City's requiring the one on Driftwood Lane, and it was his understanding that the application was so posted. The file was checked and no such notice was found. Mr. Sauerland said they then would wish the item to be postponed as it will be controversial and they prefer that it be properly posted. MRS. DERLETH MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. - HATZENBUHLER, TO POSTPONE V-60-79 TO OCTOBER 17, 1979, WITH THE ITEM TO BE i REPOSTED AND REPUBLISHED FOR THE ADDITIONAL VARIANCE, AND WITH INSTRUCTIONS THAT THIS ITEM BE PLACED FIRST ON THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. V-61-79 CHARLES CROSBY - Variance from required front yard setback at 21225 Shell Valley Rd.(RS-8) The request was for a 0' front yard setback, a 25' variance. Mr. Pearson noted that this lot was on a steep slope with most of the level land being in a 20' pedestrian easement across the front of the property, which had been dedicated to the City. Originally the Staff had recommended approval based on the special circumstances of the steep and wooded lot and the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Page 4 - September 19, 1979 , .i