Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> Mr. Johnson represented himself and at this time had x�othing further to . <br /> add to his application. <br /> Several of the neighbors were opposed to the granting of the variance and <br /> gave the following reasons: <br /> � 1. Mr. Johnson should have ]mown the code rer��irenents wh�n he <br /> purchased the pmperty. <br /> 2. T1-e five (5) foot si3e yard setback is a safety factor as well <br /> as a control for density and light. <br /> ' 3. Code requirenents should be adY�red to. <br /> 4. 71iis would be the only house on a twenty-five (25) foot lot <br /> within a three (3) tilock radius. <br /> 5. Property val.ues caould be in question, especially if the house <br /> was a rental. <br /> Mr. Johnson made the following rebuttal: <br /> 1. The tc,� foot side yard setlnck re3uested is to provide a larger � <br /> house with better appeal. <br /> 2. The or.iginal suhdivision shaas all the lots as being twenty-five <br /> ('l5) feet in width. <br /> 3. There are different side yard sethscks on houses in the vicinity, <br /> ranging fran two (2) feet to six (6) feet. <br /> 4. The house will be sold mt rented. <br /> Mr. J�ni.e Johnson, of the staff made the stat�nent that the resson for code <br /> rec�iirenPnLs of side yazd setbacks is for aesthetics, liqht, denai.ty control <br /> ancl safety from fire exposure. <br /> After visually viewing the subject propesty and hearing all the facts and <br /> testunony it was :�oved by Mr. Kristiansen seconded by Mr. Raird and unarLi- <br /> mously carri.ed to deny the applicant's request as it does not c�ly with <br /> Secti.on 19.70.060 parag�aphs 2 and 4. <br /> On motion the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. <br /> Jl1NffE G. JOFINSON, Secretisy <br /> Board of Adjustn�it <br /> `� �i�^' • �'l-.��� <br /> nxr� . <br /> -5- <br />