Laserfiche WebLink
,.�.. • . .-. <br /> BOARD OF ADJOST!ffiNT <br /> FINDINU3� CONCL03I0!iS AIiD ORDSR <br /> (Variance /28-85) <br /> Based upon the written request for a variance from the City�e zoaing <br /> oode, �pecifically 1g.20.050(B) side yard, made by Dr. Joseph Welod at <br /> �� �;�' <br /> ;`Colb�, hereinafter referred to aa ^ppplicant," the Hoard of Ad�uatment,: <br /> following a public hearing on said appliaation held on January 6� 1986, and, <br /> further having reviesred all testimony, makes the Folloxing Findinge, <br /> Conelusionn, and Order: <br /> FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: <br /> 1. That there have been excepLional or extraordinary cireum�tanee� ar <br /> condition� applying to the sub,jeot pi•operty or a� to the intended uee <br /> thereof that do noL apply generally to other propertie� in the name <br /> viainity or zone. <br /> Finding: There are tk�o elinias, one existing and one proposed on four <br /> (4) 25' X 720� lota. The applicants have entered into a mutsal. <br /> agreement providing a perpetual pedestrian easement betwean notad' <br /> clinioa. Thia will provide a covered entryrray into both clinie�. <br /> Conalusion: There are no extraordinary physical conditions of the <br /> property. However, the intended use is semexhat unuaual and 13 a <br /> ' exaeptional elrcumstance. <br /> ' 2. That suah varianee is necessary for the preservation an3 en�oyment of a <br /> i �ubstantial property right of the appellant possessed by the oxners of <br /> other properties in the same vicinity or zane. <br /> Findings There has been no request as proposed by the applieant in the. <br /> ' vioinity or R-4 zone. <br /> Conclusion: Tha variance request is reasonable and the staff would. <br /> support other requests if mutual easement agreements were provided. <br /> � 3• That the authorizati.an of such varianee will not be materially <br /> detrimentai to tha public Welfare or in�urious to property in the <br /> vicinity or zone in Which the proper�ty Ss located. <br /> Findlne: The varianoe request is a sideyard varianee between two <br /> property owners that are construoting a common ent:yway. <br /> Conclusion: The varianca rrill have no affeet on ad�acent property. <br /> 4. That the granting of a+:ch variance Nill not adversely affect the <br /> Comprehensive General Plan. <br /> Finding: The ComprehensivE� Plan shows this area as multiple famLly. <br /> Clinics are allowed in multiple family zones. <br /> Conelusion: This pro�ect aill have no e;fect on the Comprehensive �lan. <br /> ROUTI NG <br /> � �'LARRY /0 � �dS.DENT n �(] <br /> [.}�DOUG �IACK �/�����.I j u` � � � � ��I � D <br /> 1I11 <br /> ��VMALDO �� ❑ ���ED �_ uU JAN 10 1986 <br /> [�'NORM �]�EUNICE <br /> �RIFNj I � �SUE ...._....-........_._.......... ............_.. <br /> � ��LE CITY OF EVERETT <br /> Pub;le N'erks Deot. • <br />