4.1. DRAFT BA MINUTES 06-27-2023

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 2 May 23, 2023 ----------------------------- th Ben Paxson, 11030 196 Ave NW, recently moved into the neighborhood and was drawn to the privacy and wildlife in the area. Spencer Mattson, applicant, explained that the property belongs to his grandfather, and he would be building on a portion of it. His proposed site is set back from the road to allow for more privacy and to avoid disturbing the wetland area. He will do a wetland delineation and the wetlands will not be filled in. Mike Jackson, 19594 Ulysses St NW, was undecided on the project. He appreciates the privacy of his yard but would also be interested in the option to subdivide his own property. Mr. Craven asked if the driveway could come from Ulysses Street. Mr. Mattson said that the former road easement had been bought by a neighbor. There being no one else to speak, Chair Larson-Vito closed the public hearing. Mr. Leeseberg confirmed that a wetland delineation would be required. He explained that neighboring properties would not be able to subdivide their property due to not having proper street frontage. Commissioner Johnson asked who owned the narrow strip of land shown in the maps. Mr. Leeseberg responded that it was owned by Phoenix Enterprises. th Commissioner Rydberg questioned the location of the cul-de-sac at the end of 196 Ave. Mr. Leeseberg explained it may have been intended as a future through-street for development. Commissioner Rydberg did not feel like the applicant had “circumstances unique to the property not a consequence of the petitioner’s own action or inaction”. Chair Larson-Vito stated that the only reason a variance was required was so the applicant to avoid the wetland area. Moved by Commissioner Beise and seconded by Commissioner Booth to approve the lot size variance for the following reasons: 1. The general purpose and intent of the ordinance are met. 2. The property has a land use of residential and the use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The proposed use is reasonable and is permitted in the zoning ordinance. 4. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the property not a consequence of the petitioner’s own action or inaction. 5. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. and; with the following conditions: 1. Documentation be provided for each lot that primary and secondary soil treatment areas are available on the proposed parcels. 2. The proposed Parcel-A contains a wetland which will need to be delineated prior to a building permit being issues.