Laserfiche WebLink
TO Board of Adjus[men[ <br /> ",�,M Reld H. Shockey <br /> °A*� January 3l , 1975 <br /> `'"'"'��� S[aiP Review - <br /> - Variance fieque�t <br /> PU�EL $OUIId .SBLV�CC' � �� r qr i �.iv� ii � ��n„� �v.:yr�ir�.:iw� <br /> Corporation, 2`�25 Iiaker <br /> I• RE UEST <br /> Mr. T.L. Johnson, Vice-Pre�idan[ of Pu�;et Sound Service Corporation, <br /> is requea[ing permiseion to construct a duplex on a 6000 square foo[ <br /> lot. The zoning Ss R-2 whi �!� permi[s duplexes when construc[ed on lots <br /> of 7500 aquare teet. <br /> II . ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR <br /> In reviecoing this appl�cation [he Si,,([ could find no argumen[s in favor <br /> of [his requeat �ahich might set i[ apart trom o[her request of a <br /> eimilar nature. As we have 3tated before however U�ese reports are pT�- <br /> pared in auvance �F [he applicant's tes[imony and [here may be extenua[ing <br /> circumatances of which the Sta[f is not aware. <br /> L�=. ARGUAiENTS AGATNS i' <br /> n ownere�whonmig�;tm(shV[oiconatructda�duple�ronelo[s ofr6000eaquare�.1[y <br /> Feet. <br /> R. The applicant argues that [he currenL �,rket woul,a, rer favor ti�e con- <br /> struc[ion of �uet ane aingle family dwelling oi� �!.tA proper[y. iia;;�ver, <br /> [his is no nore and no less true of o[hei proper[ies in tne :i-�inity. <br /> IV. (�UESTIO�S <br /> The key queetion in this applica[inn involves simply wha[ [he appl�cant <br /> feels is unique abou[ [hid property tha[ would warran[ auch a varlance <br /> when most other propertiea in the Ci[y are also 6000 square feet in size <br /> and are res[ricted [u one dwelling unit. <br /> V. I'OSSIBLC_ � g�� <br /> 6'ithout hearing the applicant's [es[imony [�ie Staff has �auch difficulty <br /> addresaing [he four conclusionn which munt be made to �uat�lfy the granting <br /> of a varlance. There do no[ eppear ta be any exceptional . ircumetane.es <br /> that do not apply to other proper[Ses in the vicinity. It wou: I appear that <br /> the applican[ enjoya all [he property righ[s of those other pruperty owners <br /> in slmilar airuations; there dces not appear to be a hardship involved; <br /> and because it would be setting a precedent ior land usee ic the R-2 znne, <br /> i[ could be said [hac [he in[e�ri[y of [he Comprehtns�ve Plan would be <br /> adversely aCfected. <br />