02275HOUSE WOULD BE TOO CLOSE TO ITS TWO PROPERTY LINES, AND BECAUSE SHE DID NOT
SEE SPECIAL CONDITIONS IN THIS SITUATION THAT DO NOT EXIST IN OTHER SITUA-
TIONS. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH MRS. DERLETH AND MR. HATZENBUHLER
VOTING YES, AND WITH MR. BYRD AND CHAIRMAN ROY VOTING NO, RESULTING IN A
TIE VOTE. THE MOTION FAILED. Chairman Roy said if he owned the property
he would cut 3' off the existing house, as that property is too large not
to be utilized, and he felt the owner had certain rights. MR. HATZENBUHLER
THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. BYRD, TO CONTINUE V-54-79 TO OCTOBER 17, 1979
DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE BOARD WAS DEADLOCKED, IN THE HOPE THAT WITH ADDI-.
TIONAL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT A DECIDING VOTE COULD BE TAKEN. City Attorney
Wayne Tanaka advised the Board not to discuss this matter with any other
member of the Board, any member of the public, or any other person at all,
and that absent Board members should listen to the
1tape
said recording
she of this
hearing prior to the October 17 meeting. Mrs.to hear information on other possible access to this property. THE MOTION
THEN CARRIED. Mrs. Medina returned and a short recess was announced..
V 59=79 .' R. B. WILSON - Variance from required front yard setback at 703:Driftwood
ane W1't)
Mr. Pearson said the applicant wished to locate a tool shed in a less
conspicuous place than the setback requirements would allow. His lot
borders on Puget Sound, that being the only special condition. Mr. Pearson
felt the variance would not be detrimental to the neighborhood and probably
would be less visible to the neighborhood as proposed. The public portion
of the hearing was opened. The applicant said that because of the way the
street was designed and the houses built, his front yard bordered on his
neighbor's back yard, and to put the shed where allowed by the Building
Code would be to place it in front in full view of the neighbors to the
north. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Mrs. Derleth commented
that on view property she thinks of the rear yard as what they call the
front yard, and it appeared to her that there was justification for the
application. Mrs. Medina agreed, saying for practical purposes.the front
,yard.was the back yard. MR..B.YRD MOVED, SECONDED BY MR: HATZENBUHLER, TO
APPROVE V=59-79.because it would not be detrimental to the 'public in'the
area, it was'a minimum variance, and by virtue of preserving the sound view
it was in harmony with the zoning code. MOTION CARRIED;
V-60-79 DONALD PATRICK - Variance from required front yard setback at 815 Driftwood
Lane -
Mr. Pearson said the proposal was to put in a subdivision with a 20' private
road and there was a variance request from the setback of that road and
also a variance request from the existing road to the front. He said the
road already exists as a driveway but would have to be extended to the
back. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka then noted.that notice was given only on
the east front yard variance request, so the second variance could not be
heard. He suggested that the application be amended and be reposted and
republished; otherwise, there would have to be two hearings. Jurgen
Sauerland, of Lovell-Sauerland and Associates, Inc., said they had been
informed after submitting the application that the additional variance
would be required due to the City's requiring the one on Driftwood Lane,
and it was his understanding that the application was so posted. The file
was checked and no such notice was found. Mr. Sauerland said they then
would wish the item to be postponed as it will be controversial and they
prefer that it be properly posted. MRS. DERLETH MOVED, SECONDED BY MR.
HATZENBUHLER, TO POSTPONE V-60-79 TO OCTOBER 17, 1979, WITH THE ITEM TO BE
REPOSTED AND REPUBLISHED FOR THE ADDITIONAL VARIANCE, AND WITH INSTRUCTIONS
THAT THIS ITEM BE PLACED FIRST ON THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
V-61-79. CHARLES CROSBY - Variance from required front yard setback at 21225 Shell
Valley S-B)
The request was for a 0' front yard setback, a 25' variance. Mr. Pearson
noted that this lot was on a steep slope with most of the level land being
in a 20' pedestrian easement across the front of the property, which had
been dedicated to the City. Originally the Staff had recommended approval
based on the special circumstances of the steep and wooded lot and the
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Page 4 - September 19, 1979