Laserfiche WebLink
'.. ,� -.��:� <br />t�_ •���. <br />+ � � '' <br />L: <br />K�;�; , °�' <br />�T�' <br />�.�.`, <br />� �;m'. _' . <br />�:: <br />4ro"` 1 �r <br />5 �' .: <br />A;,.;;: r_ ` <br />R:r..l!+.'TI�'�� ; <br />. ��x.^r•:,�^6�. <br />CT.M1 �' � <br />- ".{T � .� _::�.j" <br />��;: a-; �o �: <br />f�'X' � <br />�.' , s, <br />i�"y: �'�8�j" .," _ _ <br />q M <br />� Y �! <br />� �,� -'1.- '� <br />f�� <br />�� <br />il)•l, <br />',`` :�,��� _ . <br />,� <br />Applicant: <br />Location of Property: <br />Requested Action: <br />Existing Zoning: <br />Existing Land Use: <br />� <br />BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REPOR"f <br />Peter Storseth - 1/V 23-32 <br />November 1, 1982 <br />Adjacent Lanci Use/Zoning: <br />Exhibits: <br />1. Staff Report <br />2. Vicinity Map <br />3. Plat Map <br />4. Narrative Statement <br />PINDWGS AND CONCLUSIONS: <br />A. Existing Conditions: <br />Peter Storseth <br />1906 Mukilteo Blvd. <br />Everett, WA �8203 <br />1906 Mukilteo Blvd. <br />Sec. 18.44.210 - a 20 foot easement <br />access Variance to allow approval of a <br />Short Subdivision containing a rear lot <br />that is unable to meet :.oning code <br />frontage requirements. <br />(RS) Single Family Suburban <br />Residential <br />(12,500 sq. ft. per unit) <br />Single Family Residential <br />North: Suburban Res./Single Fam. <br />South: Suburban Res./Single Fam. <br />East: R-1 Single Fam./Single Fam. <br />West: Suburban Res./Single Fam. <br />Finding: The current lot width is 86 feet, which would not allow the applicant <br />to comply with the Variation allowed under Sec. 18.44.200 - Panhandle Lots. <br />Conclusion: The applicant is proposing a new driveway access on the west <br />property line, which would require elimination of the present driveway to meet <br />the City Council Mukilteo Blvd. policy, which prohibits any further addition of <br />traffic directly on to the Blvd. (April 28, 1980) <br />�I <br />f3, Public Welfare: ~ ~ <br />H " <br />r-i : <br />Finding: Allowing this Variance would promote infill and allow the better �� <br />utilization of available City services. d�; <br />m <br />Conclusion: The Short Subdivision is consistent with City and State law and �� <br />with a common driveway would be consistent with City Mukilteo policy. <br />�� <br />C. Alternatives: ~ <br />'� ` <br />Finding: There are no reasonable alternatives for development of this site �` <br />because of current lot configuration. <br />• � ;, <br />Conclusion: This short subdivision could not be designed under current <br />standards except for the a�cess easement option. <br />� <br />�: <br />� <br />Z I <br />y <br />