Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />�•-: •.- <br />>'' -- ; <br />�' , _ : <br />��. <br />,�tk l� <br />,3 <br />, a <br />,.:f,'t <br />':�3,� ;-.:. <br />� <br />;f;: <br />Y.' y �. <br />„ <br />��'.4+. re:F <br />;�� � �,F <br />-0, ,.. <br />ry Y. <br />,��i e <br />+a � <br />,a . <br />t.�;�',¢ <br />, <br />_ _3_ <br />� Mr. William Coster, 1210 Madrona, testified that his house is dfrectly across the <br />( street from Mr. Klin�beil and while he would be tha most affected of any property <br />I j owner he has no objection to this variance. <br />� 1 <br />, There were no further questions or comments from the audience. <br />After viewing the subject property and considering all testimony it was moved by <br />Mr. Berg, seconded by Mr. Bartlett and unanimously carried to grant tnis request <br />for the following reasons: <br />I. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applying to <br />the subjecF propariy� that do noY apply to other properties in the <br />same vicinity or zone, specifically that the variance is for a remodeling <br />on top ot an existing structure so that there will be no further en- <br />croachment into the established sideyard, <br />2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment <br />of a substantial property right of the appellant possessed by owners <br />of other properties in the same vicinity or zone, specifically that <br />the owner wishes to merely add a vertical dimension to his house, <br />built upon an existing structure. <br />3. That the authorization of such variance wiil not be materially detri- <br />mental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the vicinity, <br />specifically that there wiil be no view obstruction or crowding ot <br />adjacent residences, <br />4. The granting of the variance will not adversely effect a Comprehensive <br />Plan since the nature of the variance will not esta�lish a precedent <br />for future variances. <br />In granting this request the Board attached the following stipulation: <br />That the addition shall match the outer dimensions or the existing house. <br />A public hearing was lield on the request of Frank Granat, Jr., 17000 IOth N.W., <br />Seattle, for a var�ance fram Sec. 15.04.060 E.C.C. General Provisions, Non-Conforming <br />Uses for permission to re-establish a non-conforming use (tavern) in a B-I, Neigh- <br />borhood Shopping Zone. . _ <br />Legal Description: Lots I, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 278, Everett Division "0". <br />Address: 1431 �9alnut <br />Mr. Granat spoke on behalf of his application. He stated that this tavern,before it <br />became vacant eighteen months ago,had been in use for at least twenty years. It is <br />located next to a major arterial which makes it ideal for re-establishment as a <br />tavern. He further stated that he recegnized the parking problem which had existed <br />in the past and stated that he would develop the remainder of the block for parking, <br />lie aryued that by g'ranting the variance the Board would be allowing a deteriorated <br />buildir� to be upgraded and put back to a useful purpose. <br />Mr. Berg asked if Mr. Granat planned on using the er,isting building or ff he had <br />given any consideration to constructiny a new building under this variance, Mr, <br />Granat stated that his only intention was to use the existing,building. <br />m <br />