Laserfiche WebLink
1 � <br /> July 1, 1974 (cont'd) ( <br /> ( l <br /> The legal description of the subject property is on file in the � 1 <br /> office of the Planning Division, Dept. of Community Development. <br /> (File 291) . <br /> It �oas regularly moved, seconded, and unanimousl.y carried to <br /> grant the requested variance for the following reasons: <br /> 1. The lot is of an unusual shape and the house has been <br /> designed to fit the lot. , and only a corner of the <br /> � house encroaches into the side yard. <br /> � 2. There will be no adverse effect upon the surrounding <br /> ineighborhood. <br /> fHearing held on the application of Ben Elong , 607 3rd Ave. , Seattle, <br /> Washington for a ninety (90) day extensicn of variance granted <br /> Diay 7 , 1973 for permission to construct a restaurant and to <br /> provide a maximum of fifty-t�oo (52) off-si-reet parking stalls; <br /> five (5) stalls less than the minimum requirement. <br /> Restaurant to be constructed on Lot 1, Block 25, Replat of South <br /> ParY. Addition. Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Central Park Addition. <br /> .'.l <br /> The ninety (90) day extension was granted, and due to financing <br /> which has now become available, they will now proceed caith } <br /> construction. <br /> Hearing held on the application of Larlyn Development Co. , P•0. <br /> Box 509, Everett, for a variance from Section 15. 09 . 100 E.C.C. <br /> (Zoning Code) , � Subsection C, minimum lot size and width for <br /> permission to increase the allowable number of dwelling units <br /> from seventy-four (74) units co eighty (80) units in an R-3 , <br /> Mu1tiF a-Fami].y, Locv-Density Residence Zone. <br /> The proposed development is on Lots 1, 2 snd tLe south 50 feet <br /> of Lot 3 , Valley `Jiew. <br /> , It was reqularly moved, seconded, and unanimously carried to <br /> deny the requested variance for the following reasens: <br /> 1 . There was no evidence of hardsliip presented by the <br /> applicant that eighty (80) units must be constructed <br /> on the subject property. <br /> 2. The same owner oians contiguous lot and is even utiliziny <br /> a portion of this lot for off-street parking area. <br /> 3 . No reason was presented iti�hy additional land area could <br /> not be computed into proposed development. <br /> 4 . The proposed par}:ing area for f.orty-four (44) cars �vas <br /> questioned as to meeting the dema�id for the development. <br /> On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10 :30 p.m. , July 1, 1974 . <br /> -2- <br />