Loading...
02262 (2)F 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