Laserfiche WebLink
the retail sales area and two for the residential use. <br /> If the variance were qranted, the owners would then have a <br /> legal use of the property in its current configuration. <br /> This would allow current use of the property (barber shop, <br /> retail space, re�idence) or would allow conversion to oth- <br /> er uses which require equal or less parking �paces <br /> according to the current zoning code. <br /> b. Conclusions• There are exceptional and extraordinary cir- <br /> cumstances applying to this property because of the <br /> existing buildings on the site. <br /> Criterion No 2- <br /> That the variance will not be materially detrimental to the <br /> property in the area of the subject property or to the City as <br /> a whole. <br /> a• Pin�iinQs: There would be no increase3 impact on <br /> off-street parking in the area since tfie propert}� has been <br /> in its current configuration since 1983 and no changes to <br /> the required number of parking spaces required would <br /> occur. <br /> b. Conclusions• Granting the variance would not be material- <br /> ly detria�ental to the property in the area or the city as � <br /> a ti�hole. <br /> Cri_ ter;�n No. 3• <br /> That the variance c•:ill only grant the subject pr�perty the same <br /> general rights enjoyed by other property in the same area and <br /> zone as the svbject property. <br /> a• �l�lg�: Other existing buildings in this same vicinity <br /> and zone do not pr.ovide off-street parking as required by <br /> code. <br /> b. Cenc�Ls+ons• Granting this variance would allow the same <br /> general rigfits enjoyed by other property in the same area <br /> and zone. <br /> Criterion No 4• <br /> That the variance i.s the minimum necessary to allow the subject <br /> property the ge�neral rights described in Criterion 3. <br /> a. Findinas: Since the buildings and uses are existing a <br /> lesser variance would not allow the same use of the struc- <br /> tures. <br /> b. Conclusions: The variance requested is the minimum neces- <br /> sary to allow the same general rights as enjoyed by others <br /> in this vicinity and zone. <br /> Criterion No. 5: <br /> The gr.anting of the variance is not inconsistent with the goals <br /> and policies of the Everett General Plan. <br /> a. Findin.gs: The General Plan designation is Highway Commer- <br /> cial and the use is compatible with that desiqnation. <br /> b. Conclusions: Grantinq this variance would not be incon- <br /> sistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. <br /> I2 <br /> I <br />� <br />