019676 of property owners in the vicinity. It aooears that a
be constructed elsewhere on the site. The staff
garage could
therefore could not see justification fora variance, and
by Mrs. Block that the
;
4 recommended denial. It was also noted
inspected by the Building Department. They saw no
vofi
site .was
problem with building elsewhere on theThetpublicdportiones and
nity map were shown of the property.
aaccord ined hwith ehis 1plan.
#
the meeting was naPthat.at
his neighbors a theymwerehin fuller
looks of the
k
He told the Board that this would improve the
that he would like to make a small
neighborhood. He also noted at
bathroom in this
'cationr. bforothislift�the r. Freasons isher hfor the
'
`
he failed justification
vehicles. It was explained
t
request were for storage of as in
a Fisher that he also needed a work area for projects he was in-
Mr. Fisher could
i
i
volved in. There was discussion on other ways
Public portion of the meeting was
accomplish this addition..
d
closed. Ken Hovde said that Mr. Fisher was trying to upgrade histh
space and the neighborhood. He thFisht that toemakeritswork
weigh* this heavily.
him. He told the Board that if he would have asked for the
the
j
{{ for
1 variance, he would have asked for a variance of 2 feet on
Hovde and said that maybe the
side. Mr. Bailey agreed with Mr.
enjoying something that Mr. Fisher isn't.- He also
j.
neighbors are
stated that if this variance was allowed it shouldn't p v the street.
line up
impact on the neighbors and it would also
'
the fact that Mr. Fishers neighbors have
E G
Mr. Visser brought up
built right up to their property line. A�.:t4DT1ONtWAS;IADE BY
THAT V-74-77 BE APPROVED.
GERRIT`VISSER SECONDED BY KEN HOVDE,
PRESENT, WITH EXCEPTION OF ED ROBINSON AND BILL
i
! ALL'`PIEMBERS
LERAAS;,�, VWTED AYES. 'MOTION CARRIED.
V-76-77 W. R. MATTHEWS - Variance of 20' from required 25' front .yard
from required building height allow-
1.
r'
i setback; variance of 3.5
on property located west side of 72nd Avenue W., North of
ance
156th Street S.W. (RS-20)
{ Mrs. Block noted that his was not a rezone. Slides were shown
terrain on the property.
I of the area. There is extremely steep
house abuts a street that probably will never be im-
Also this
oning code would deprive the prop -
proved. Enforcement of the z,
by other properties in
i erty owner. of rights commonly enjoyed
the same district. This is because of difficulty in buidling.
whether the
i The special conditions are those of topography and
To to the 25' front
City will improve the street. conform
be lo�
setback, it would be difficulThe
i
yard Enghneering�Depaortment
I sated on this piece of property.
is that the
A
has indicated by memo that it unlikely
street abutting this property will ever be used for any-
design of
thing other than utilities . The location and
the greatest consideratio to the
o have given
the house appear tn
is is a
existing neithborand.ThBy itingcof the n horses to ca"Se
�.
able use o allowing the sminimum
to the in the areas of view ob-
I'
the least disruption .neighbors
struction, loss of privacy, and open space, this variance would
of the
appear to be harmoent
nious and compatible rovaltheMntr. Leraas asked
recommended approval.
zoning code. The staff
nd how it tied into
about the deed height limitation atMr.3.5'
the applicant.s
height allowance variance asked for by
explained that the variance asked for was for Lot 7,
City
Matthews
the deed restriction was on Lot D. Mr. Hovde asked the
the height -
'
Attorney if the Board did not have to consider
Tanaka,
citrestriction bythedeed.
plticant'sresponsibility,rand�thes6oardas
that that was P restriction. A MOTION
the deed
variance does not do away with
WAS MADE BY KEN HOVDE SECONDED BY GERRIT VISSER THAT APPROVAL
IA SET BY
IT
BE GIVEN TO -76 77 USE THERE THADLBEENEA RECOMMENDATION BY
THE CITY O AND
THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR APPROVAL. MOTION CARRIED.
EDMONDS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Page 5 - December 28, 1977
_ _
i