02262F
a big, beautiful house on 7,500 sq. ft. He found the approach to be
the practical approach --not that it was the ideal approach. Mrs.
Stole said she agreed that 1,000 sq. ft. was a large amount, but she
did not see that a neighbor should object to someone else using his
own land --that it was not a form of confiscation --and the fact was that
they could go ahead and take down the garage and built without the
variance. She thought the reason the Durochers wanted to do it now was
if they sold to their daughter they would have to sell the entire
parcel. Mrs. Stole said you cannot afford to let land sit. MR. HOVDE
MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. ROY, THAT V-30-78 BE APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED BY
THE.CITY STAFF BECAUSE IT IS A LEGAL VARIANCE AND IS NOT DETRIMENTAL
TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THAT THIS
APPROVAL IS FOR BOTH VARIANCES REQUESTED. MOTION CARRIED, WITH MRS.
.DERLETH VOTING NO. Mr. Leraas returned to the rostrum.
DON KASMAR -Variance of 15' from required 25' rear yard setback at
725'Driftwood Lane (RS-12)
Mrs. Luster stated that since this property came into the City the
definition and front and rear yard had changed on this particular piece
of property. The applicant wished to build an addition to his property
along the existing building line. It consisted of an enclosed area and
a deck. It.was not a rezone. Special conditions not applicable to
others in the area were that when the house was in the County all of
the setbacks were within the code, but now that it is in the City of
Edmonds a variance is necessary to make it comply with the Edmonds Code.
By not granting the variance the owner would not be able to add to his
home in a fashion that would be most beneficial to him. The changing
of the designation of the front and rear yards was not the result of
the applicant's actions. It would not be possible for the applicant
to build the addition in the proposed location without the variance,
and this location would provide for the best use of the land and would be
the best location in relation to the existing house. Mrs. Luster said it would
not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the other prop-
erties in the vicinity because to the west the remaining setback would
be 71�2-' and to the north the new addition would not extend any farther
into the existing setback than the present house, which is 10'. If the
addition were placed at this location it would continue along the original
building line and preserve much of the existing rear yard area. Mrs.
Luster showed slides of the property, and she recommended approval. The
public portion of the hearing was opened.
The applicant said he wanted to add a dining room and this was the only
place he could do it unless he put it off the bedroom. Mr. Hatzenbuhler.
felt it was a reasonable request, as did Mr. Leraas and Mrs. Derleth.
MR. HATZENBUHLER MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. LERAAS, TO APPROVE V-31-78 AS
IT OF THETFACTETHATITHEEFRONTERIAAND�REARIT IOFATHEALOTABLE WERERCHANGED.AND IN IEW
MOTION
CARRIED.
V-35-78 EGON F. HERMANNS - Variance of 2' from required 7i' side yard setback
at 23128 75th Ave. W. (RS-8)
firs. Luster said the variance request was in order to repair an existing
single -car carport and enclose it and the balcony above it to prevent
recurrence of rotting. This would not be a rezone. Since it is necessary
to repair the carport it would appear to be practical to complete the
project to prevent the rotting from recurring. Water and debris from
adjacent woods had collected in this open area, resulting in the rotting.
If the variance were not granted the applicant would only reroof the
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Page 8 - May 17, 1978
i
. 11