Laserfiche WebLink
�- <br /> BA71RD O� I�DJLiST:-7ENT <br /> MZNU7.'E5 Or SEPTEi1BLR 13, 1971 <br /> The regular meeting of the City o£ Everett Board of Adjustment <br /> was held at 7 :30 P.rI. , September 13 , ? 971 in the City Hall <br /> Council Chambcrs , City IIal7., �verett, Washington. <br /> Mr. Graff presided. Mr. DicY.son, Mr. Tngram, A1r. Cronin and <br /> P1r. Champion were present. <br /> The reading of the minutes of the August 11, 1971 meeting <br /> were read and approved as read. <br /> A continuation on the application of i✓ir. Roy Thorsen, 3102 <br /> Rucker, requesting a variance from Section 15.09 .2G0 E.C.C. <br /> (Zoning Ordinance) Special Side Yards and Protective Screen- <br /> ing foz permission to build to the Soutli property line on <br /> Lots 1 thru 6 , IIlock 739 , Plat of Everett Div. "H" . (S .E. <br /> corner of Pacific and Grand) . Section 15 .04.260 r�quires <br /> a 12 ' yard set-back between a residential zone and a business/ <br /> commercial zone. <br /> Mr. Thorsen presented a letter, as new evidence from b]r. <br /> Erickson, the City of Bverett Building Insl�ector, stating <br /> his approval oP the existing wall and that Ile would issue <br /> a building pc�rmit providing all other requirements of the <br /> building code are met. <br /> After discussion and questions regarding the application , <br /> both from members of the Board and L-he audience , a motion <br /> was made by r7r. Cronin, seconded by Mr. ingram, then a vote <br /> was taken by the Chairman. Mr. Cronin , Air. . Ingram, and Mr. <br /> Graff voted to grant the applicant' s request for a variance <br /> while Mr. llickson and Mr. Champion voted to deny the request. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> The reasons for yranting the variance are as follows : <br /> 1. A hardship wou'.d exist if not granted because <br /> of additional construction costs and the loss <br /> oP square footage to the workable area of the <br /> new building. <br /> 2 . This will not be detrimental to thc neighbor- <br /> hood or surrounding area. <br /> 3. The aesthetics of the existing vacant lot will <br /> be improved. <br /> 4 . The topography of tlie area does not particularly <br /> warrant the required 12 ' greenbelt-. <br /> � <br />