02366Mr. Hovde commented that more than costs, quality of living must be
considered. He said it is a fact that if you put a house in a hole
you lose a degree of quality of life and to only see sky straight up
is not quality of living.' He noted that this is not a heavily traveled
area and the people who live there like their privacy, and although
everyone likes to see nothing happen to undeveloped property, that cannot
be. He felt this would be good use of the property.. Mrs. Derleth asked
where the street ends and Mr. Roy explained. MRSSTOLE,MOVED, SECONDED
BY MR. LERAAS, 170.0PROVE`V-77-78 BECAUSE IT It A`MINIMUH VARIANCE'AND
WILL ;NOT�'AMOUNT 10 VREZONE,,AND BECAUSE THERE ARE 'SPECIAL TOP06RAPWICALk
CONDITIONS'IN THIS.AREA,-FURTHER,. THAT'. MORE.PROFITABLE USE OF 'THE LAND i.
IS; NOT:A CONSIDERATION: ;MOTION CARRIED. ' Mr. Roy returned to the rostrum.
CU-46-78 The applicant was not present. MR. ROY MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. HOVDE,
TO 14OVE CU-46-78 TO THE END OF THE AGENDA AS THE APPLICANT WAS NOT
PRESENT. MOTION CARRIED.
AGENDA
V-68-78 LOUISE ZENNAN - Variance for 19'4" driveway on south side of building
at 19515 80th Ave. W. (RML)
j .
Mrs. Luster said the Code requires a 20' traffic aisle in this zone
and the applicant does have that width at the ingress/egress point but
it narrows on the site. It would not be a rezone. There is an existing
house on the site and the applicant wished to build a four -unit structure
behind it. The existing house limits the layout, and it would be*extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to develop the site without a variance. Sur-
rounding properties are developed in RM so the use is consistent with j
other uses in the area. Mrs. Luster did not feel traffic would increase
the noise to the surrounding properties. The Staff recommended approval
because it was a minimum variance (8") to allow for reasonable use of the
land; it would not be detrimental to neighboring property because of noise
from the type of use on the site; and it would not create a traffic problem u
on the site or endanger those using the public right-of-way. Under this
S
plan there would be no vehicles backing onto 80th, and this site plan had
been approved by the ADB. The applicant had been granted a previous 3
variance on this property, but with a different site plan. That site plan s
had not been approved by the ADB. She will have to conform to the site plan .
which has been approved by the ADB, so for all practical purposes the other
variance will be void. The public portion of the hearing was opened, no
one wished to speak, and the public portion was closed. The Board was in
general agreement that this was a minimum variance. MR. HATZENBU14LER MOVED,
SECONDED BY MR. ROY, TO APPROVE V-68-78 BECAUSE IT WILL NOT ENDANGER THE \
HEALTH, WELFARE, AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND BECAUSE IT IS A REASON-
ABLE REQUEST AND A MINIMUM VARIANCE. MOTION CARRIED.
The applicant for CU-46-78 had arrived just as the previous hearing was
beginning, so MR. ROY MOVED, SECONDED BY MRS. DERLETH, TO HEAR CU-46-78
AT THIS TIME AS THE APPLICANT WAS NOW PRESENT. MOTION CARRIED.
CU-46-78 NICK M. KELLY - Conditional Use Permit for amateur radio antenna at
14411 —Edmonds St. (RS-12)
Mrs. Luster stated there had been some concern at the previous hearing a
from neighbors as the antenna was in their prime view. She said the
Staff felt that the antenna, as such, was not a great hazard, but that
a view obstruction in the City of Edmonds is an important consideration
since much property in Edmonds is view property of some sort and a minor
view is worth approximately $3,000. The Staff felt it would be beneficial
to the neighborhood if the antenna could be located to one side or the
other of the property. Mrs. Luster had been unable to contact Mrs. Kelly
to find out the possibilities of suggestions made. Chairman Bailey asked
EDMONDS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Page 3 - November 15, 1978
a