Laserfiche WebLink
, - �' L� t� f� � dC� � <br /> � ,� ,�� 1� « Q <br /> �5s �% , �`' ���c Jur� o"r i985 <br /> ,� <br /> ����� � D �.J �i�'� ...._...._......... ... __.......r <br /> CITY OF EVERETT <br /> � � G � ' �� ,� BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT pp;'!c Wcrks Qect. <br /> � y�, �� ✓� FINDZNGS� .CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER <br /> � (Variance fi9-�5) <br /> ' 6aseu upon the written request for a variance from tne City's zonir.�y <br /> code, specifically 19. 14.040, A & C� maiie by Davia Brandvold at 59G2 broaduay, <br /> hereznafter reierrea to as "Applicant�" tne boaru of Adjustme.�t, following a <br /> public iiearing on said application held on June 3, 1985� and furtner having <br /> revieued all testimonY, makes the folloaing Findings, Conclusions, and Order: <br /> FZNDIN':S AND COilCLUSIONS: <br /> 1. That there nava neen exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or <br /> conditions appl;�ing to the sub�ect property or as to tt.e intended use <br /> thereof tliat do not apply generaliy to other properties in tae same li <br /> vicinity or zone. , <br /> a. Findin : The lot is locatefl in the R-1 zone ana is 75' x 45' . I <br /> The property is �,5b7 sq• ft. of lot area. The applicant is <br /> proposing to build a single Family residence witn an attached <br /> garage. <br /> b. Conclusion: The exceptionai ci:cumstances of the lot are tt�e <br /> xidth and depth along with limited land area for a building site. <br /> 2. That such variznce is necessary fer tt;e preservation ana enjoyment oi a <br /> substantial property right of the appellant possessed by the owners of <br /> other properties in the same vicinity or zone. <br /> a. Finding: Most daellings in the area are built with about ttie <br /> same setback :equirements. <br /> b. Conclusion: The application is cor.sistent witi� other properties <br /> in the area. <br /> 3• Tnat the authorization oi such variance will not te �aaterially <br /> detrioental to the public welFare or injurious to proNt:c; in the <br /> vicinity or zore in whicn the property is located. <br /> a. Finding: The request for a variance would not affect adjacent <br /> property. 1'he atljacent properties are tt�e City anc; 2UD <br /> right-of'-way which are respectively 100' and 80' wide. <br /> o. Conclusion: This pro�ect wi11 have no effect on acjacent <br /> property. <br /> 4. That ti�e granting c[ sucn variacice �.r:ll not ao��ersely affect tr.e <br /> Com�.renensive General D1_an. <br /> ;. ?ir.ain�: The Compre^ensive ?1an i� �i:��e �a�:l� Ras��entia�. <br /> b. C�nclusion: Th'_s oro,j?et will :ave ao e;iec� en ,h= <br /> Co�prenens�ve Plan. <br /> -1- <br />