01941and three floors. Mr. Westlin said that if they are required to
eliminate one unit.they will just eliminate the one unit from the
top floor, still leaving one unit there and not lowering the building.
He displayed drawings of the building. The public portion of the hearing
was then closed again.
Mr. Roy said his nay vote was not because of the density question, but
because of the time element. He said when you invest in property there
is then time required to borrow money and work up plans, and when you
are prepared to build six units it is not fair to cut the number down.
He said his vote was based on what he thought was fair regarding the e
amount.of time involved. Regarding the parking situation, he commented
that the people in the houses are parking in the street whereas the
people in the proposed apartment building would be parking in their own
parking places on site. Mrs. Stole also spoke to the parking situation,
noting that most parking for the library is at night and that the sports
field across 6th Ave. creates parking problems. She added that a small
business at the subject location could be less attractive than an apart-
ment building. Also, she noted that if one unit is eliminated that will
cause the others to cost more per unit, forcing higher prices. Mr.
Robinson asked whether the owner had attempted to acquire sufficient
additional property to qualify for six units. Mr. Westlin responded that
the adjacent property owner was Mrs. Tuson, and he was sure she would not
entertain such a suggestion. Mr. Visser felt if the density were relaxed
for one applicant it would have to be done for others, and he did not feel
they would be justified in going beyond the ordinance requirements. Mr.
Robinson did not feel there was justification in granting the variance
on the basis of elapsed time, and he was concerned that the Board may set
a precedent. Mr. McQuade responded to Mr. Visser's and Mr. Robinson's
thoughts, saying the Board's criteria does not set precedents, that each
case is decided on its own merits, and by granting or not granting a
variance the Board is not setting a precedent. He said the Board does
not have to give one case the same as it gives another. Mr. Roy reiterated
that he felt the change in the density clause happened too quickly. A
MOTION WAS THEN MADE BY MR. ROY TO.APPROVE V=41-71 BECAUSE 'OFTHE TIME
ELEMENT, IN.THAtJWO MONTHS PREVIOUSLY.IT WOULD HAVE MET ALL THE'CRITERIA
AND. HE. KNEW IT TOOK SIX,MONTHS.TO-A YEAR To DEVELOP A PROJECT. FURTHER,
MR. ROY DID NOT'FIND THIS DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH,-
WELFARE AND _MORALS
OF;THE'NEIGHBORHOOD,�AND HE DID NOT FIND THAT PARKING WOULD BE 'IMPACTED.
BECAUSE OF`THE PROPOSED APART14ENT;BUILDING. MR McQUADE SECONDED THE
MOTION. 'A ROLL:CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH MR. ROY; McQUADE, BAILEY,.AND
MRS. STOLE AND STEINKE VOTING YES, AND WITH MR. ROBINSON, VISSER, AND
LERAAS.VOTING NO. MOTION CARRIED.
V-42-77 FLOYD H. KENNEDY - Variance of 2z' from required 72' side yard setback
at 20615 81st W. (RS-8)
Mrs. Block said the applicant wished to build a cover fora 23' boat and
trailer. She showed slides of the site and said this would not amount
to a rezone, there were no unusual circumstances, and strict enforcement
of the Zoning Code would prohibit construction. She noted that the boat
could be parked there even without the cover and that this was the most
practical location for it. It appeared it would affect only one neighbor,
the one'to the south. That neighbor had indicated by letter no objection,
provided the runoff would not invade his property. Mrs. Block said the
applicant had agreed to that condition. Mrs. Block said this would be a
minimum variance to allow covered storage for the boat and, although the
side setback would be reduced it would still be 5' and should not inter-
fere with the property rights of the neighbor other than what had been
indicated. She recommended approval. The public portion of the hearing
was opened.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
Page 4 - September 21, 1977
l-
ob