Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD ON AD,TUSTMENT <br /> ' FINDINGS� CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER <br /> (Va�ian::e 3-86) <br /> Based upon the written request for a variance from the City�s zoning <br /> code, specifically 19.40.020 , made by Jim and Brent Baldwin <br /> j at 100� Everett Mall Way; hereinafter referred to as "Applicant," the Board of <br /> Adjustment, folloking a public hearing on said application held on April 7� <br /> 7986, and further having reviewed all testimony, makps the following Findings, <br /> Conclusions, and Order: <br /> FINDINCS AND CONCLUSICNS: : <br /> 1. That there have been exeeptior.•al or extraordinary circumstances or <br /> conditions appl,ying to the sub,�ect property or as to the intended use, <br /> i thereof that do not apply generally to other properties in the same: <br /> vicinity or zone. <br /> a. Finding: The use is located in a C-1 zone and currently has 65 <br /> parking stalls. 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 preparad 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 a <br /> table showing a comparison of code requirements placed by various <br /> jurisdirticns. The range far parking requirements is 37-716. <br /> b. Conclus:Con: The proposed variance is consistent with the parking, <br /> survey and is within the range of code requirements contained in <br /> ' Exhibit 6. <br /> ;� <br /> i <br /> � 2. That such variance 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. Findin�f: There are various fast food restaurants that do not <br /> meet zoning code requirements. <br /> b. Conclusion: This variance will be consistent with similar uses. <br /> 3• That the authorization 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 tne property is located. <br /> a. Finding: The parking study shows that Arby's does not use its <br /> amount of parking and that ther.= is an excess. The Zoning Code <br /> comparison shows Everett Requirements is one of the most <br /> restrietive. <br /> b. Conclusion: The proposed number oi spaces shown will be adequate <br /> for Arby�s. <br /> zz3zF <br /> r � � [� � ML� D <br /> APR 11 �gg� <br /> ...__ ...._.._..._. <br /> CITY OF [VERETT <br /> p�'t::c 1h'crks De,r,i, <br />