PLN197900041-8285.pdfi
i
i
•
0
•
0
Oat
Au+y
a.�
AI"
i
eo+tl
1'
1
•+n«
i
CITY OF EDMONDS FILE # V-L
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DATE 72
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FEEfc�S,Qp
REC'T
Albert and Melanie HEARING DATE:f�-�
APPLICANT Boosman ADDRESS 19129 Olympic View Dr. CITY & ZIP Edmonds, WA 98020
PHONE 774-0126 Indicate type or degree of interest in the property: Owners
OWNER: Boosmann Melanie ADDRESS,CITY & ZIP 19129 Olympic View Dr. Edmonds, WA PHONE 774-0126
98020
LOCATION OF PROPERTY(ADDRESS) 19123-1912g Olympic View Dr., Edmonds, WA 98020
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERY:ALL of Tract 82; EXCEPT the north 39.00 feet of the west 150.00
feet thereof; ALSO the east 150.00 feet of the south half of Tract 81; all in Edmonds
Sea View Tracts, according to the plat recorded in Volume 3 of Plats, page 76, records
of Snohomish County, Washington.
USE ZONE RS_12
BY PLANNING DIVISION
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: 80' minimum lot width/.10' side yard setback/ 0.4 minimum lot
dimension ratio.
VARIANCE REQUESTED: 7' variance to allow 73' lot width/ 1.5' variance to allow 8.5' side yard
setback/ 0.01 ratio vpriance to allow 0.39 lot dimension ratio, o C
STATEMENT OF CONDITIONS AND REASONS FOR REQUEST, IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
ATTACHED: Present condition ( 13' panhandle on northenmost lot ) allows access to only one
building lot, Requirement for 20' access easement to serve two proposed building
sites creates the three conditions for which variances are sought.
STATE OF WASHINGTON)ss.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH d
ignature of Applicant, Ow er or Representative
On this date, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public '40 a d the State of
Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared P`z,who, be;
duly sworn, on his/,6w oath deposes and says that *)he has prepardd and read the foregoing
statementsand has acknowledged to me that the recitations contained therein are true, and has
signed this instrument as his/Aoqi& free and voluntary act and deed for the purposes therein
mentioned. �
Subscribed and sworn to before me thiF7'day of 1 19
residing at....,..
Notary Public in and for the State of Wash ngton.
ALLEGATIONS OF APPLICANT
POINT 1. The following are the special circumstances which apply to my property
which deprive me of rights and privileges which are enjoyed by other properties in
the vicinity under the identical zone classification.
Point 1 is stated on an attached sheet.
5
POINT 2. The variance I am requesting will not be detrimental to the public wel-
fare or injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity of a zone in
which my property is located because:
ThP Ant ire parcel is large enough (one acre) to handily contain three high -quality
ing relative isolation from each
other from existin homes in the neighborhood, and from the roadway. The only aspects
homes
each with a su
of the entire
rb view, and each en
nsal which are substandard are created
a 9n, arress easement across a
the necessity for establishing;
' wide portion of the property.
POINT 3. If this variance is not granted, an unnecessary hardship will continue
to the owner of this property, the cause of which is beyond his control because:
The r_nnditions which prevent development of this property without variance were
created by plattingand construction before we bought the property.
POINT 4. So as not to grant a special privilege to me by the granting of this
variance I submit the following conditions to be imposed so as not to cause in-
consistencies with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone
in which I am located.
NO s ecific conditions are suqqested at this time, but we state our willingness
to accept reasonable conditions which the Board may require.
i
�`�3EGATIONS OF APPLICANT
�y
Albert and Melanie Boosman
Short Subdivision
POINT 1. The parcel under consideration presently contains only one home
on an area of slightly over one acre. We believe that the best use of this
property, in keeping with the intent of existing zoning requirements and in
keeping with the present fine character of the neighborhood, would be to
subdivide it in such a way as to allow the construction of two additional
high -quality homes. The L-shape of the parcel and the location of the
existing home on the property would require that the two proposed building
sites be located toward the rear of the parcel, thus would need to share a
private access drive to the street. The portion of the parcel over which
the required 20' wide access easement would pass is 93' wide. The existing
house is situated in this portion of the property at a distance of 28.5'
from the side property line where the access easement would begin. d Thus,
the establishment of a 20' easement would simultaneously create three
unavoidable conditions which would require variances: 1) The width of the
lot containing the existing house would be reduced to 73' (requiring a
variance of 79; 2) The side setback of the existing house would be reduced
to 8.5' (requiring a variance of 1.5'), and 3) The resulting lot -dimension
ratio of the lot containing the existing house would be 0.39 (requiring a
variance of 0.01 ratio units). The variances requested would affect only
the existing.hous.e, which is our present home and which will probably
continue to be our home for several years. We, as the occupants,
would not find the proposed variances to be objectionable. We do feel
however,that a better solution to the problem would be to allow a modification'
of the width requirement of the access easement from 20' to 181. This slight
modification would still allow a driveway of adequate width, would reduce the
requirement for a lot -width variance from 7' to 5', and would eliminate the
need for side -setback or lot -dimension -ratio variances. (Side setback would-
be increased under this proposed -modification to 10.5' and lot -dimension ratio
would be increased to the desired 0.4,)
mew
• • ileI
Rec` or= f F«Ii ndi ngs of Fact by Board of Adjustment
�J
the Cit of Edmonds finds in the case of
The Board of Adj-ustment for Y
• / -
File No. V ,request for variance at
i
V D the following:
1.�That notice was given according to Code requirements ,. and Affidavits attesting to same
,
are in, the file.
set forth Standards and Criteria each have/have not been met. ,
2. That the foregoing
`
3. In addition+ thereto
i
r
est for variance is Denied/Granted, subject to the following special E
4. Therefore, the requ '
conditions:
4
�r+rmi t i s not obtained
5. Section 12.1G.110 --and if a building permit and/or occupancy i-
f ro Lhe subject property within one year from the date of the. Board's decision, the con-.
ditional use ermit or variance shall be automatically null and void.--- "
66. Decision shall be effective on: y
Uate F
J
O
i
DATED: Chairman, Board of Adjustment
f
14
Or
.h
DATA i
Date of Applications •,,=c�'J Date of Bearing: % r�
rJ
Date of Publication:_
Continuances:
• . iL' '
Date4of Posting. '
Date of Appeal from Decision of the Board:
1p
ec tary, (bard of justment
9 I
,►�•,
Albert and Melanie Boosman
Short Subdivision
Property Owners within 80 feet of proposed subdivision: 1
4346-000-o81-0106
Rainier National Bank
Kobs, Don D. 026-5-024975
306 Main St.
Edmonds, WA 98020
434 0 0-080-0107
r Duff, Howard C.
19105 Olympic View Dr.
Edmonds, WA 98020
4.346-OOO�-080r=0-2o6
Clark, Walter E.
9510 190th P1 SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
43�+6-aee= e6�-•0-1-e9
Langli, Erl-ing A. and Gyda 1.
9500.190th P1 SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
4346-0ooRo61-o 09
Char.lston, Mylo
PO Box 97
Edmonds, WA 98020
425-j=d06-t36�-0001
Chittenden, T, P..
19222 Olympic View Dr.
Edmonds, WA 98020
43
Carlson, John E.
192o4 g4th W
Edmonds, WA 98020
M_MBA I 1
Kette, Robert W.
19211 Olympic View Dr.
Edmonds, WA 98020
43
Sutherland, William E.
8435 198th P1 SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
132703-4-078-0000
Shoreline Savings
Snodgrass, Thomas 057000150
PO Box 25788
Seattle, WA 98125
" 132703-4-125-0003 ,
Washington Federal S&L -
Herman, Douglas J. 2001wi26O70-6` f`
1423 Fourth AV.
Seattle, WA 98101 , r,•
I
5H0RT PLAT FOR A' 'iER r e44ELW116 4900 M/y
r - I
Log
,
1
I , N00/9'27"E 198.000 —�
0 Epf cko
\ 10 5 Z I i + 1 Lpi1°a\ 000 COiipt�
C�
,.. �b 1� oats 10
—' _ _._ / 7'� C} oqi
I A z
20 c
`
/2, 730 SeP. FT. �E �o' vt �b of 000 sa, FT,
PQ'— 0
A� tl °�P /Vn"�J4'37'E'i�/�� �Op
a ,
v v OW
° a
/
OPLbppa''41a ,3 ` a`' r"P I "1 —/00 — 1` O,
b a / ( I\ O t
//O —0'�bl—►�=r p-- fIR m sa j -�5 / I —__ 73.00' -- l
�. %1 P ND /7 27
1¢IIt,416 2/f` ? d w SCR , F`%wIIl I41 1
00 IV
/OS igpyVh� A`;'% 1�f v'«�---� •�,M1 ''�'� ���O •L^ f �. .. ' Y
/00 >r_ 0Iw
Ibo,ION
� Y I_ HOUSE /V/QgSBM6HT - '
P55
♦ = STOQY
FRAME HObS6
W/QgSEAIENT
I I
6ARA66
1
OL vIWPIC VIEW ,DA
N O 0/9' 07 "6
l//C/N/TY MAP
Ode YMP/C
Mti
N v
4�
„
a �
7.3.00'
�r
,"1 93, 00'
/ N.PUPjS[O
P.aveni '
ex�sr ASPt/. p4v6MBWit
T
; 9
1
O ��I j W � �.../ SS
h Oil qj
tq h p. /3,65/S'4.FT
6 f
w O� ku
h W N \ p
I.4tl o �, la •.. b�l i
M o.I, 80 h
1�
IN
Hi,1 I •Ll
�
✓ t
t6
III •.� � 75 —�-I .: h �
O
3 t
/320.72 • --..�
/.320.75'
5
O = EX/ST. IRON .PEB,07 FROM l✓OL. 4 0A SIM"' ,PG./4
�\PN P. 3F
�•,�„F �'1As�,,:;G2
L Pl& �M A RY
cSJ. •'. p�P!slcl�a.• J�
Of/'�l LAti� y •
,
IN S.E. 114 OF 5EC. /3, 7. 27N.,*iP.3E.INoAlm
Reld. DES, _— OALE�1-ZF 7� FILE NO.
%Xlddle�oK d'r �Qado�c'R�td, 9�re, --'-�-_-- -.__-- ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • ,ILANNERS ur+. ' y (F.u. 79001015
324 Mnin Sifoof lidmond,, Wa.hi Ion 91107U CH. - _ (SCALE 1'*=40' SHEET / OP /
i
id
FILE NO:
�)
NOTICE OF FEARING PETITION
FOR
4t��y••;y„ ��ti; y ►
BY EDMONDS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
V-41-79
PUBLISH: 6-2-79
i
i
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS THAT A
PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE
Id
AN APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FILED FOR .. Variancee....from
.......... Y
�5
=81C
... 1®/C/ut _6s]. . . • • • T. f . .. .�. . . . . . . �T • . . • . • !� . . .T. W. . . . .} � .�d. fr®. /to
t ..� sm�.� '
,
raAp
H ,
l�
f
S s
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION OR ADDRESS:.. ]do got a a w a 0• • ®� e a
It 4P
%l
f
ZONE CLASSIFICATION:.....'. ....................... .. Y ............, ..... .
TIME &DATE OF HEARING ..It �.�.•94mo4 .. .. .. .. ,
a TIME DAY DATE
It
r;
THE MEETING WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE EDMONDS CIVIC-
CENTER, 250 - 5th AVENUE NORTH. ANY PERSON INTERESTED IN THIS `
PROPOSAL MAY APPEAR IN SUPPORT OF OR IN OPPOSITION TO IT. COMMENTS
CONCERNING THE APPLICATION MAY BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO OR 'AT THE
MEETING, IN PERSON OR IN WRITING. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE
OBTAINED AT THE PLANNING DIVISION (PHONE 775-2525 EXT• 227). IN THE
EVENT THE AGENDA IS NOT COMPLETED ON THE ABOVE DATE, THE PUBLIC
HEARING WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING AT THE 'SAME
TIME AND PLACE.Ir
1.1 n
FILE NO......alp....l"' • , , , Dean* PUBLISHED... . 9 .6 8 90.78.90.46 .
,t : WARNING.1
ICTrIj
•. y
The removal, mutilation, destruction, or
concealment of this notice prior to the date
of the hearing is a misdemeanor punishable
by fine and imprisonment.
7cf
Affidavit of Publication
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
COUNTY OF SNOHOMffiH,
The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says
that she is Principal Clerk of the EVERETT HERALD, a daily news-
paper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snoho-
i
mish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper
of general circulation in said County and States that said newspaper
has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior '
Court of Snohomish County, and that the notice ....................................
t
NOTICE OF.HEAHING
.......... ...........................
...................................................... ...................
a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said
newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and
entire editionof said paper on the following days and times, namely:
DUNE 21 1979
f
and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers
during all of said period
....--•.............................................................................................
Principal Clerk
,
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ........ 4th.....
...
i
day of t
t;
• ..................................... JUNE......... 19.. 79
'................... .... � ......
tary Public in and for the State of Weshl.ngton, .
residing at Everett, Snohomish County.
8-2-1
FILE NO, V-41-79
APPLICANT Albert Boosman
I
Y
rR
n
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTER
STATE OF WASHINGTON ) `_
ss.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
Nancy.Edgmon Luster being first duly sworn,
on oath deposes and says:
That on the 10 day of ,19 the
attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted as prescribed by Ordinance,
and in any event, in the Post Office and Civic Center, and where.applic-
able, on or near the subject property.
I_
Signed
Subscribed and sworn to before me this. day of
19 r7
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington residing at �q
•s ,
i'
i,
i
is
I..
APPLICANT:. �O�T
ADDRESS* —
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
PLANNER'S VARIANCE REVIE10 FORM FILE #_
oosrn r�
q ay 0 ZONING: I25
re ) s,.
ZONING CODE REQUIREMENT: I�f wfoizltbl ' �C��
OTHER PERTIPJENT FACTS CC C.)RUC fi' �"` `
VARIANCE CRITERIA - Section 12.16.100 ,
1. Does this amount to a rezone?
2.(a) Are there conditions and/or circumstances not generally applicable
Q
lands in the same district?
1 11 O\ C
_2_- -1 nnOrty r
(b) Would strict enforcement of tree zoning cuae =0 ra
commonly enjoyed by other properties in�the same district? oval
3. Do the special con itions result from the actions of the applicant?
I 1 .. 0"%^ _ 41 1 A n n A i` .4
4. Are there unnecessary hardships ana practilca+
UJ
provisions of the zoning code?
5a Will the granting of the variance be
of property owners in the vicinity?_
+n thin. heal ti, . safety, or welfare (:
6. Is this the minimum variance that wi 1 make possible the reasonable use of lan ?
_ ,.. ,�a ,.mmnntihle with t is
7. Will the granting of the variance genera i +y L)e ill i,a
zoning code?
n A In w�
Planner's Variance Review 12/77
APPLICANT:
HEAPING ; _
I�
a
S)
F��1 C T S II E F T
ro V r}
FACT SHEET -FILE 1; V-LI l �29
I
rr 'ft L '..ar, i _r I. :,jYiVu{te Jy' ...�:..
,,
Ir ,
APPLICANT;
HEADING:
3)
AIberl
'i
i
i
FACT SHEET- FILE
f`
I
e
(_Ik
I
i
I
PLANNING DIVISION
■
P
AIR
5HOR 7' PL A T P F Al A'lE•,r. •.406. BOO' d,41V
Nv•i9'4c"7"�' /YS 00'
♦ tea 00� ,i `' //£� t 1�),, �4 M o0__._ ._ - --off- 'r /3✓
fPyb .. �/�H ' ,i l: L..OR,.,r<GEp �10 , t!c) p►�� ......_ _
�'goo!�- . Igo . e or�. ,•' lyr► /-30
\�'�� J , , d t Otto' \1000 "�_ Cott l' J "..
oil
7 too
tog—
r•
/20 730 S..V. FT. 1��0 f1' � ;� 1 �f► 1j %/ 4 000 s � FT,
1 G 00
to
Ci jib
'j a �',hF/m,011
op`�V ,,i`a 3 7, ` ,;/ / ! ul —/Cif — "�
..�.:. _"I a _ _. ,
Adomot.g.go 0 �VII 46 ( 6 .1 11. ...
I. w0000l
• 1R.1 ,v Q• �I\• L ,�.� �� too
Fi r•A �Q ! + I I'•�1 '1
Ib
,•1, ¢ „+a , r,1 i
Opp
cto
4,to
/00
NO°/9 27'"6 /0_5.00, 01j.4, 100'� •�� I NOUS�' W/�4,SEM6,yr
rh
'j c i _
,p n, , ?�s .� :
e 1
zo 7' . i
Joe—r% I Fv ro4us6 i u r• C)t"
.vr
'
1
t:
it t
;,.1R.nG6 i 11j .
h ` ;,•� ��� �,, /a•r;�•/+AFT. ofi
.t
totool
1. i • \I O: !n l,j ��
�• oo
+, in 1 !T 1 150 I 1p
q) O '
• 113l + nu log
Ion
/j1_1 - lj
'.. _ 99. 00
oL Y1�I P1 C VIEW DR* P J , YNO1 of _
�✓an�r.•� I Y� I
No 9 '4? 7 '14E !� eu pe of :0 of: ••"l, N•,va..,,Ev;r /.320.72'
I
y
I
o = EX/Sr /RON •PE901Q FROM VOL, Q Of S4/RVEYS,PG./4
n? y'i ,nP�.. Y M ,
IN
being overdeveloped with the recent changes to the doctor's building, the
construction of the adjacent fourplex, and now this proposed business. She
did not think there was adequate parking for this new business. Dr. Rosenblatt
responded that to his knowledge there had been no complaints about the
traffic or the building he had built. He said the fourplex was built in
accordance with City requirements and if there had been a complaint about
the operation of his practice this was the first he had heard of it and he
had been there nine years. He said he would not permit additional signs
for this business as it would interfere with his practice, and he was
equally concerned about the area. Regarding parking, he said adequate
parking was provided in the original plans for this site and he had heard
no complaints as to the parking. Heather Brunsman of 8948 Redmond Rd.,
Redmond, the other applicant, said she represents greeting card companies,
doing sales work for them, and she only needed an office for her typewriter,
files, desk, and telephone. She said her business is very low key and
would not involve any expansion of the office space. She said she would be
the only person occupying the office and she would be there only 1 1/2 - 2
days a week, and she anticipated someone may call on her perhaps once a
month. Dr. Rosenblatt suggested that the word "manufacture" in the business
title may be misleading and upsetting to the neighbors and it was important
to understand what a manufacturer's representative is. He said he had no
intention to expand his building and the Code would not permit it if he
did. Janet Ellis said she had no problem with the doctor, she was just
present to find out the details of the proposed operation, and she asked if
the permit would be applicable only to the business proposed or if someone
else could come in later. Ms. Luster explained that the permit was only
for this person and if she should move out somebody else could not come in
without getting a Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Luster added that at the
time this facility was remodeled the parking was figured on the entire
building, and separately from the fourplex, and the parking is more than
adequate for the uses that will be there. She said she had been by the
site several times and had never seen a parking problem. Also, that there
will be no expansion to the building. Dr. Rosenblatt said he was required .
to sign a statement when the building was remodeled saying he would not
make any additional expansion on the site. The public portion of the
hearing was then closed.
Mr. Roy said the neighbors should be advised of the criteria for a Conditional
Use Permit and if the business office should prove to be a nuisance then
the permit would be appealable. Mr. Leraas noted that since this appears
to be a low profile business this location would be a good one for it and
the applicant had indicated she intended being a good neighbor. Mr. Roy
agreed and added that these businesses have to be somewhere. MR. LERAAS
MOVED, SECONDED BY MR..ROY, TO APPROVE CU-35-79 BECAUSE IT APPEARED THAT IT
WILL NOT ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE; THERE APPEARED TO
BE ADEQUATE PARKING; IT WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE TRAFFIC IN THE
AREA; AND IT IS A LOW PROFILE.TYPE OF BUSINESS WHICH IS THE KIND WHICH
SHOULD BE USED IN NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS AREAS. MOTION CARRIED.
V4149 ALBERT 8 MELANIE B60SMAN - Variance from required lot width, required side
yard setback, and lotmansion ratio at 19123-29 Olympic View Dr. (RS-12)
This application was in connection with the subdivision of property. The
applicant was requesting three variances to one lot in the subdivision
which has an existing house on it: a 7' reduction in lot width, a 116"
reduction in side yard setback, and a .01 reduction in lot width/depth
ratio. The side yard setback reduction was needed to provide adequate
access to the other two lots in the subdivision. This was the only possible
access point to the rear of the property, and it was not feasible to reduce
the overall size of the existing house. The width of the lot was 73' and
.it would be 93' if the access easement were included, but access easements
may not be included in computing the lot width/depth ratio. The narrow and
long shape of the property affects the ratio. The Staff felt none of the
variance requests would be detrimental to the area, and the applicant would
be retaining most of the large trees on the property. Only the existing
house would be affected. Slides of the property were shown. Ms. Luster
recommended approval because the variance requests appeared minimal, adequate
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Page 3 - June 20, 1979
f
lot size and building area will be maintained, the location of the easement
and the existing house should not create a traffic hazard for this area,
and the location of the existing house dictates the overall lot design of
the lot in need of the variances. The public portion of the hearing was
opened. The applicant had nothing to add. Mr. Roy asked him if another
variance would be required for the driveway slope because of the grade. He
responded that the Engineering Division had indicated they will accept up
to a 20% grade in certain cases. Ms. Luster said there was a potential for
slope problems but they had been addressed by the Engineering Division
which indicated they would approve a 20% slope. The Fire Department had.
indicated fire access and hydrants were adequate. Ms. Luster said the
Staff had investigated the possibility of access from another area but
because of the sloping topography access could not be obtained from the
back. Mrs. Derleth observed that it would seem that the people in the
nearby yellow house would be impacted by this but there was no letter from
them or from anyone else. Ms. Luster responded that inquiries had been
received when the subdivisionwas processed but there were no complaints.
The public portion of the hearing was then closed. Mr. Roy commented that
this is a lovely area but it is large. He said the application appeared
reasonable to him although ideally parks are desirable everywhere, but
development has to come. Mrs. Derleth said this was a problem created by
the applicants as they are subdividing the property and creating the problem,
and she was concerned about the width of Lot C. Ms. Luster responded that
the Zoning Code is written for general situations and the main intent is to
maintain open space. She did not believe Lot C would appear out proportion
to the others in that area. Mr. Leraas observed that this area has assorted
sizes of lots, and he did not believe this proposal would impact.the neighbor-
hood. He felt it was a reasonable request. MR. ROY THEN MOVED, SECONDED
BY MR. LERAAS, TO APPROVE V4149 BECAUSE THE"RESULTING`LOTS, WILL;BE'LIKE
MANY ON'OLYMPIC VIEW DR* AND HE FELT THIS WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO'THE.
HEALTH. WELFARE, AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.MOTION CARRIED.
V-43-79 CHARLES MAKI as Variance from the required side yard setback at 8716 185th
Pl a SOWS-12)
Mr. Roy was excused from this hearing because of a possible conflict of
interest. Mr. Leraas stated that he has been a friend of Mr. Maki and had
served on committees with him, but he felt he could sit impartially for
this hearing. City Attorney Larry Martin advised him that it did not
appear necessary that he step down under those circumstances. The applica-
tion for the variance was in order to increase the size of the dining room
area which is extremely small. The proposed addition would be an adequate
distance from the house to the east, and the owner of that home had contacted
the Planning Division to inquire about the application. There will be no
windows facing east, and the proposed addition would be only 10'10" long.
It sets back from the street a good distance and would not interfere with
views in the area or obstruct the traffic flow. Ms. Luster felt it was a
minimum variance request for this structure and location. She showed a
slide of the site, and she recommended approval because it appeared to be a
minimum variance for the proposed use and the area; it would not interfere
with views or traffic in the area; and it would not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare. The public portion of the hearing was
opened. The applicant said that while adding to the back of the house they
decided to improve the dining room at the same time, and this improvement
would extend their seating area by 10'10"x 5'. but without the variance
they would not be able to extend it enough to make an improvement. He said
the neighbors to the east had seen the plans and had no objection, their
house being approximately 18' from the property line so there would be 26'
between the houses. The applicant displayed the blueprints for the Board
to examine. The public portion of the hearing was then closed. Mr. Leraas
observed that minimum variances must be wrestled with continually and still
give the applicant the opportunity to do what he wants to do with his home.
He believed this request was a minimum request. Mr. Hatzenbuhler agreed,
noting that to do the addition with only 3' would not be worth the bothers
and he felt an 8' side yard was sufficient and that the Code was meant to
be a little flexible. Mrs. Derleth noted that the impact on the neighbor
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Page 4 - June 20, 1979