Laserfiche WebLink
p. ,� <br /> ) <br /> BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT � <br /> FINDINGS� CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER ! <br /> (Variance 3-86) <br /> Based upon the written request for a varianae from the City's zoning, <br /> code, specifically 19.40.0?0 , made by Jim and Brent Baldwin <br /> at 1007 Everett Mall Way, hereinafter referred to as "Applicant," the Board of <br /> Ad�ustment, following a public hearing on said application held on April 7, <br /> 1986, and further hsving reviewed all testimony, makes the followirg Findings, <br /> Conclusions, and Order: <br /> FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: <br /> 1. That there have been exczptional or extraordinary circumstancas or <br /> conditions applying to the sub,ject prcperty or as to the intended use <br /> thereof that do not apply generally to other properties in the same <br /> vicinity or zone. <br /> a. Finding: The use is locaLed in a C-1 zone and currently has 65 <br /> parking stalla. When the use was built it was built � stalls <br /> short of Code requirement. The applicant is attempting to, <br /> correct a permit violation. He has prepared a parking survey to', <br /> define the actual parking demand generated by the use. The' <br /> maximum count shown by parking survey is 43• The City prepared al <br /> table showing a comparison of code requirements placed by vac•ious• <br /> jurisdictions. The range for parking requirements is 37-116. <br /> b. Conclusion: The proposed variance is consistent with the parking <br /> survey and is within the range of code requirereents contained in <br /> Exhibit 6. <br /> 2. That such varianee is necessary for the preservation and en,joyment of 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: There are various fast food restacranY,s that do not <br /> meet zoning code requirements. <br /> b. Conclusion: This variance will be consistent with similar uses. <br /> 3. That the autl�orization of such variance will not be materially <br /> detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the <br /> vicinity or zone in which the property is located. <br /> a. Findin : The parking study shows that Arby's does not use itsl <br /> amount of parking and that there is an excess. The Zoning Code <br /> comparison shows Everett Requirements is one o.,` the most <br /> restrictive. <br /> b. Conclusion: The proposed number of spaces shown will be adequate <br /> for Arby�s. <br /> 223zF <br />