Laserfiche WebLink
� ���` .��! `, Y � �.a � 7�'`y •p� .. t 90.��'. �� . ��'�����'yj /f'�+r f�r��� �12 <br /> a. �ie,. �5�y, � ����" , . ",\. +„ t ..t� , .�.'i �q.3 ii!� 'p�jd.�•�-- ",Y.� <br />�. _ '� `�—��_ �la . _r7,?�'�_ . .� . . ' ��, 1 �<4g ' t�`, '- ,�t� i'a14:1� � <br /> _... ..'. . . ., _::=.'�� -�"'� _tf .il�li.,it d_j '_, <br /> 1 .. <br /> subject propeRy that conformed to the zoning code in effect when Ihe <br /> improvement was constructed. <br /> a. rin in • 'I'he applicant states that the variance is necessary <br /> because of the exceptional circumstances regarding the <br /> existing layout of the property. The property layout is <br /> designed for its original use as a fast-food restaurant. The new <br /> tenant wishes to restore it to its original use and preserve the <br /> existing drive-tivu lanes as they are currently situated. This <br /> arrangement is the only way ta maintain the minimum � car <br /> holning lane required by code. Design efforis to relocate [he <br /> drive-thru lane to an area outside of both an existing easement <br /> and the 100 foot setback from the resilential zone have proven <br /> impossible. <br /> b. Conclnsions:. The requirement for the vehicle holding lane to <br /> Ue located 100 feet from reside,ntially zoned property camc <br /> into existence witi� the adoption of the 1990 zoeing code. 'i;c <br /> drive-tluv restaurant and development of the site was <br /> origina(ly a�i�iroved in 1969 under a previous zoning code. <br /> Criterion No 2• <br /> That the variance will not be materially detrimental to thc property in the <br /> azea of the subject property or to the City as a whole. <br /> a. indin :. The applicant states that ti�e vacant site is currently <br /> &equenced by transients. Improper lighting conditions and <br /> lack of pedeshians add to potentially dangerous situations. <br /> The proposed development of the property, which acts as a <br /> gateway into the City at the 41st Street location, would add <br /> greatly to the image and safety of Everett. In addition, <br /> residential lots immediaEely udjacent to the property are vacant <br /> and are screened by heavy foliage. <br /> b• ;��nclusions: A letter opposing tlie variance was received by <br /> Kristina Dalman representing Mike Pegram. (Exhibit #4) The <br /> City does not anticipatr the proposal to have a materially <br /> detrimental affect to the community as a whole. <br /> Criterion No 'i� <br /> That the variance will only gruit the subject property the same general <br /> rights enjoyed by other property in the same area and zone as the subject <br /> proper[y. <br /> a• :n 'n s:. The applicant states that oth�r fast food restaurants <br /> w�thin this commercial zone ma;ntuin drive-thru locations. <br /> Dri��e-thru sales attribufe approximately 50% of the tenants <br /> income and are a mandatory requirement for development of <br /> this kind. Previous variances have been granted in Everettto <br /> accommodate drive-thru lane facilities on small lots. On this <br /> lot, those facilities are already in place and other <br /> configurations are not possible ber,ause of existing access and <br /> easemen[ comdors. <br /> �;...�.,.�,,. —._:K��: .-�v�- . <br /> , _ ' " _._n`,--�'°°P <br />