02339He objected to placing the house close to the street and blocking every-
one's view. He said a house could be built there if they
founda-
tion but he thought they didn't want to spend the money foP a foundationut in a
Frank Peak of 221 loth P1. N., the second house east of the proposal,
said the street serves 12 homes as well as the park. He said there is
a. quite a bit of traffic and he thought 5' from the property e
close. He said he had no objection to the older homebeinglinthes too
neighborhood --only that it is too close to the street. Mr. Schell responded
that any house of two stories is going to block the view. lie said, regard-
ing the environmentally sensitive area, it was because of this that he had
applied for the variance. He said that the Planning Department had indi-
cated that the farther up the bank he could place the house the better it
would be for the stream. He said also that it sounded as though the
front door would be 51 from the property line but, actually, only the
4 corner of the house would be located there. He indicated that the Histori-
cal Society would like to see the house restored as there are less than 20
such houses left in the Edmonds area. Audrey Ryder of 200 loth P1. N.,
in the general neighborhood, said the slides did not really give a good
picture of the topography of the lot or its lack of depth before it drops
off to the creek. She said from an aesthetic point of view she thought
the house would be totally out of place there. She admired the applicant's
desire to retain the house for its historical value, but felt it would be
out of place on that lot. Paul Roy, speaking from the audience, said he
thought it should be pointed out that there is a certain amount of fill
s on this lot, but he was not sure how much. He said it was not clean fill
j and that it may make it difficult or impossible to put in a foundation.
( The public portion of the hearing was then closed.
I
Mr. McQuade said he had walked the lot this date and had noted the fill i
i situation. Mr. Quatier submitted a soil study of the lot and said it i
is an entirely man-made lot. He said the fill activity probably terminated
I in 1968 and the soil is reasonably well settled. He said organic matter
was not found in the test holes. Mr. Hovde commended the applicant on
f his presentation and agreed that .the house should be restored, but not on
that site: He said putting it that close to the street would do it an
injustice and he thought the applicant should try to put it on a lot
where it would look like.it was always there. He said that even if it
met all the standards it would stand out too much in that location. He '
said it was a prize house and should not be put somewhere where it doesn't
fit. Mr. Schell respondedthat they had canvassed the Edmonds area trying
to find a lot and could not find one they could afford that was suitable. �.
He said.it will cost $4,000 just to move it those 3 - 4 blocks and to
move it much further would cost more than it is worth. Mr. McQuade said i
that although he liked historical things, he had looked at the site in
question .and the other homes and he agreed that this particular house
would be completely out of place in that environment. In addition, he 1.
noted that the way it wouldbe positioned on the lot any view of it from
9th Ave. would be of the rear'of the house. He said he had been on the
Board a good many years and could not recall ever having granted such
a large variance as this proposal. Mrs. Schell then told the Board the
house had been given to them free of charge which was unusual in itself. I
She said that against all odds they had been granted a construction loan
for the house, and after much searching they had found this lot. Mr.
Hovde advised her not to give up, and he suggested a'flat lot which
cost more to purchase would probably be less expensive in the long run
if it did not require the special work this lot would for a foundation.
Fir. Robinson said he also had looked at the lot and found it to be a nice
lot but one that needs a home designed specifically for it. He commented
that the Board must ask itself whether this would be a minimum variance
to allow reasonable use of the land, and he could not say it was. MR.
LERAAS•THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. HOVDE, THAT V-9-77 BE DENIED BECAUSE
IT IS NOT A MINIMUM VARIANCE AND WOULD DENY THE. ADJOINING NEIGHBORS THE
RIGHT TO DEVELOP THE STREET PROPERLY AND WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE
SAFETY AND APPEARANCE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MOTION CARRIED. A SHORT
RECESS FOLLOWED, AFTER WHICH MR. ROY AND MRS. STOLE. RETURNED TO THE ROSTRUM.
EDMONDS BOARD OF ADJUSTthIENT
Page 4 - March 16, 1977