02416V-2O-76
Mr. Robinson said that in looking at the alternatives it would be
possible to build four houses there without any variances, and that
would be a less desirable approach than this one. Mr. Roy said he
felt this is a useful way to use the property, and a desirable house
can be built on a 551 lot, and it would not increase the density of
the neighborhood. lie did not feel it changed the zoning. He did not
see any reasonable alternative other than approval. A MOTION WAS MADE
BY MR. ROY, SECONDED BY MR. HOVDE, THAT.V-19-76 BE APPR6V`b,'AS IT MEETS
THE CRITERIA FOR A VARIANCE AND IS COMPATIBLE TO THE zbN'ING.'IN' THE AREA
AND IT WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND GENERAL WELFARE.
MOTION CARRIED, WITH MR. BAILEY VOTING NO.
MC GINNESS PROPERTIES - Variance of 21 from minimum lot width at 536
Pine St. (R3-6
Miss Chnrleson said there is an existing house on this and '
they want to divide the property in half, She showed an overlay and ,
' slides of the property. She said it is not a rezone because there is
- no change in density. She said the shape or the old lot is the peculiar
circumstance, She said the owners would be discriminated against if
they were not able to subdivide the southerly half of the l '
each lot would have the required square footage. She said there are no
specific hardships other than it would impose a hurdship.on the owner.
� She said it is the minimum variance, it will be compatible with.the zoning '
code, and she didn't believe it would be detrimental to the general health
and public welfare, so she recommended approval. The applicant said
` this was similar to the previous subject, that there is sufficient square
footage. The public portion of the hearing was opaned.
' John LaLnnne of 637 Forsythe Lane asked if the address were correct.
' Miss Charleson replied that the address of the existing property i
off Pine 3| . Mr. LaLanne said there are already two homes in that
' area, that they cull one n garage but people are living in it. He said
to add another home would not be good planning. He said he expected
. another home would create additional 'ise. He said the homes along
' this street are large and the distance between his home and the next
^ one is 24'. He questioned the kind of home that could be built there
and how close it would have to go ip the back where there are already. '
two houses. He said it really bothered him that in certain situations
the Board clings to certain criteria but in others they re ignored. .
He said he felt this would puss no matter what he had to say. He said
he felt only one home should be there, not three, that it would not be
good planning or quality living.
At this point City Attorney John -Wallace llaoe said it is correct that therm
are two single family residences on that property, one of them being a
nonconforming building. He said to approve the subdivision at this point
would also be to approve the nonconforming building and that the Board
could not do that under the Code and, therefore, granting this applica-
tion is beyond the purview of the Board. He said the Board could con-
sider the application if the applicants were to discontinue use of one
of the buildings. Lorelee McGinnesa, one ofthe applicants, said her
attorney had advised this would be covered under the grandfather clause.
Mr' Wallace replied that the City could not tell her she had to discon-
tinue the use as it is, but when they ask to out off a piece of the
property and to increase the number of residences, that is not grand -
fathered in. He said if they left the property as it is, because of
the -grandfather clause they could continue to use the property as they
are doing, but by creating another lot there they were increasing the
nonconforming situation. Miss MoGinness said the second residence is
just a small apartment over the garage. She asked if they could gm .
ahead if they were to discontinue the rental. Mr. Wallace said U' Q
EDMOND3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
July 21, 1976 - Page 9