02365is an access easement running from the condominium units through the
CG property to provide access to Highway 99, and this easement will not
be affected. This would not be a rezone. The proposed division line
appeared to be the most logical because of a jog in the property line
which Mrs. Luster illustrated. The Staff recommended approval of the
variance request because it would be a minimum variance to allow for
the most reasonable division of the property; it would not create a
problem for the public health, safety, or welfare; and all other code
requirements would be met. The public portion of the hearing was
opened, no one wished to speak, and the public portion was closed.
MR. LERAAS MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. HATZENBUHLER, TO APPROVE V-76-78 BECAUSE
IT APPEARED TO BE A MINIMUM VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE MOST REASONABLE DIVISION
OF THE PROPERTY; IT DID NOT APPEAR TO CREATE ANY PROBLEMS FOR THE HEALTH,
SAFETY.,,AND .WELFARE OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES; AND THERE WERE NO OTHER
CODE REQUIREMENTS WHICH MUST BE MET. MOTION CARRIED.
V-;77-7
8.` PAULROY - Variance from required front -yard setback at north'side off
Edmonds St.5 east of 8th.AVe..°(RS-6),
Mr. Roy left the rostrum. Mrs. Luster said the Code required a 20' front
yard setback and the applicant was asking for a variance to reduce that set-
back to 101. Simil.ar.variances had been requested and granted in 1968 and
1971 but the property had not been developed. It would not be a rezone.
The site is located at the end of a deadend street and near the edge of
a ravine. The applicant wished to construct the house closer to the road
to make connection to the sanitary system easier and construction of the
house easier. The site slopes a good deal and there is a 10' vacated
street at the front of this property. The Staff felt this was a reason-
able request since it is a deadend street and location of the house 10'
from the street would not create a traffic problem. Mrs. Luster recom-
mended approval because it was a minimum variance to allow for use of
the property; the proposed house being located 10' from the right-of-way
would not create a traffic hazard because this is a deadend street; and
two other variances previously had been approved at this site, each
asking that the house be located directly on the property line.. The
public portion of the hearing was opened Mr. Roy said the lot is 90' x
110' plus the 10' vacated area which makes it 90' x 120'. He said a house
could be built there without a variance but it would be unattractive and
would require removal of a number.•of trees, and a pump would have to be
used to get back to the sewers. He said his proposed location of the
house would be in line with the neighbor's house to the west. Dick Thorpe
of 820 Edmonds St. asked if,there was any provision for off-street parking
because the street at that point is very narrow and he can barely turn
around to get out of his driveway. He said he got the impression that
the only reason this variance was being requested was because it would
be cheaper to build a house on the edge of what used to be the right-of-
way. He said the neighboring house built on the same line is not a house
but a filled in garage in which someone is living, and the house on that
lot is actually set back with the proper setback. Because of the narrowness
of the street he was concerned about the safety and difficulty of getting
in and out, and he added that there is another lot to the north that will
have to access off the same street. Mr. Roy responded that the house will
have a two -car garage and a 10' driveway. Regarding cost, he said it
would be less expensive to just bulldoze the area and double back from
the east. He said that by not going too far off the street they can
place a house on pilings so as not to tear up the neighborhood. He said
it was not a cost factor because they will have to dig from the top, and
in doing it this way only one tree will have to be removed, whereas if
the house were moved back the lot would have to be cleared. Mr. Thorpe
then said that if it were a question of one tree being removed as opposed
to several being removed, he would prefer that only one be removed, so
he did not object further. The public portion of the hearing was closed.
EDMONDS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Page 2 - November 15, 1978