2325 BAKER AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

. , i f , �� . / -i In granting this request, the board attached the following etipulations: 1. That the variance shall only be for one �tructure lo- cated on the northerly 4-acre parcel as was approved , in 1973. 2. That all requirements for parlcing, landscapinq, ac- . cess, etc. , shall be met according to City code. ' A hearing was held on the request of Puget Sound Service ! Corporatioa. P. O. Box 1709, Everett, for a variance from � Section 15.0•4.090 E.C.C. (2oning Ordinance) R-2, Single- � Family High-C�c�nsity Residence 2one, Subsection C, Minimum � � Lot Size and Width, for permission to construct a duplex � on a 6,000 scuare foot lot. The existing zoning provi- � aions require %�. mi.nimum of 7500 square feet. i � Legal Description: Lots 13 and 14 , Hlock 499, Plat of Second Capital Hill Addition. Address: 2325 Haker. Mr. ' Jerry, Brothers spoke on behalf of this request. He will � purchase this property from Puget Sound Development Corp- f oration if the variance is approved, and will construct a 1 duplex on the property. Mr. Brothers :�tated that the ' property is unique in that it faces two streets. His plans call for a duplex with one entry facing each street. � Mr. David Hall, 2331 Baker, spoke against this applica- tion. He noted that a double frontage building will re- ! quire two driveways. One of these driveways wi11 run adjacent to the existing front yards and will therefore ' be incompatible with existing development. He question- ! ed why the appli.cant states that it is not feasible for i him to build single-family units when such a unit is now ; �eing constructed about a block away from the property ! in question. Mr. Brothers responded that he did not know the financial arrangement on the other house, he only kneiw that he couldn't afford to construct a single-family unit on this property. � Ther.e was no further testimony from the audience. � ' ' After viewing the subject property and having considered � all the facts and testimony presented, it was moved by Mr. Bartlett, seconded by Mr. Cronin and unanimously car- ried to deny this request for the following reasons: 1. There do not appear to be any exceptional circum- stances that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity. 2. It would appear that the applicant enjoys all the property rights of those other property ownPrs in similar situations. -5-