024011
t •
i
Y 33-78 FRANK FLETCHER,- Variance from required rear yard setback at 306 ;
di& s St.'' BC) i
Mrs. Luster indicated the variance requested was 18' from the required
20' rear yard setback. She said the applicant wishes to build a
storage shed to replace the small shed that presently is located there.
The .structure would front on an alley. This would not be a rezone.
Special conditions are that this lot is located on an alley, and the
new shed would be at the side of the property. It would not be possible
to relocate the structure anywhere else on the property and meet the
setback and still be in a feasible location. The storage shed will be
used for materials in connection with the operation of a four -unit
apartment building which also is on the property. Because of the shape
of the lot and the location of the apartment building on the lot the
proposed location of the shed is the only feasible one. If the applicant j.
could not construct this shed he would have to store items several miles
away from the apartment building. Granting of the variance should not
be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of others in the vicinity
as the shed would not impose a sight hazard or abut another dwelling to
cause a safety hazard. A one -hour wall -will be constructed on the property
line side of the shed and no combustibles -will be stored in it. Mrs.
Luster noted that there are other sheds in the area located closer to
the property line than the required setbacks. The public -portion of
the hearing was opened, no one wished to speak, and the public portion
was closed.
Mr. Leraas inquired whether the applicant had built the apartment building.
Mr.. Fletcher responded that he had not, but that he had owned it 7Z years.
He said there was a 6'x 8' shed on the property when he bought it and
until the first of this year he had been able to renta garage on
adjoining property to use for storage. He needs a place to -store extra j
appliances and items for the apartments, and he said he presently is
renting a storage shed on the highway. Mr. Hatzenbuhler felt this was
a reasonable request. Mrs. Stole thought it was a large variance, but
she said she noticed there were others in the neighborhood located at c
least as close to the alley. She felt the applicant had a need and '
would not be taking any parking spaces for.the shed. MR. V.ISSER.MOVED,
SECONDED BY. MR. ROY,,,TO APPROVE V=33-78 BECAUSE ,IT MEETSTHE.VARIANCE."'r
i CRITERIA. 'MOTION CARRIED. I
a
V-36-78 ROBERT and SUE HARRISON - Variance from required front yard setback at
18624 94th Ave. W. RS-12)
i
Mrs. Luster indicated this variance requested was 19' from the 25' front
yard setback required. She showed a drawing of the layout of the property,
noting several very large trees on the site that have been landscaped into
the existing yard area. She noted that there is a slope on the property
to the west side and that the street on the east property line has been
vacated so there is no access from that side of the property. She showed
slides of the property, noting that the -garage is connected to the house.
This would not amount to a rezone. The special conditions not generally
applicable to other properties in the area included the several very
large trees that have been worked into the landscaping and a slope of 25'
from 238' to 213' on the west side of the property. Access to this
property is by an easement road and this would be the best location for
access to the garage from the easement. .There is no access along the
northeast property•line, which would be the only other location on the
property large enough to construct this garage. The owner of the property
when the home was built thought the setback would be measured from the
property line instead of from the easement road which is well within the
property line. Mrs. Luster indicated relocation of the garage would not
EDMONDS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Page 2 - May 31, 1978