936 W MUKILTEO BLVD 2016-01-01 MF Import

r` ,^ BOAHD OF ADJUSTMENT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDBfl (VARIANCE C30-84) Based upon the wri[ten requeat for a variance from the CSty's zoning code, apeclfically 18.44, made by Ronald Wheeler at 936 Mukilteo Soulevard, hereinafter referred to as "Applicant," the Board of Adjustment, folloving a public hearing on said application held on October 1, 1984, and further having reviewed all testimony, makes the folloving Findinga, Conclusions, and Order: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. That tlicre have been exceptional or extraordinary circumetancea or conditiona applying to the eubject property or as to the intended use thereof :hat do not apply generally to other properties in [he eame vicinity or zone. a. Flnding: The applicant owns a parcel of property Which is located at 936 Mukilteo Boulevard. The applicant'e property coneists of a 200' x 448' lot vith a single family residence on Lot 94. The applicant is propoaing a four (4) lot ahort plat. b. Concluaion: The applicant's property does have adequate area for four (4) single family lote. I2• The authorization of the variance vill not be detrimental to the public � velfare or injurioua to the property in [he same vicinity or zone. a. Finding: The applicant is proposing one accese point onto Mukilteo Boulevard in which all lots would ahare a common drive. The comman drive woul.d have less impervious aurface and would not require maintenance by the City. The common drive will reduce the potential acceae conflic[ points on Mukilteo Boulevard to one. b. Conclusion: Reducing conflict point on an arterial is in the public welfare. There are no reasonable alternativea which Would allov for acceptable design of the ehort aubdivision in accordance with existing s[andards. a. Finding: Existing City etandards would require a 40' right-of-way, 24' pavement and public street. b. Conclusian: Easement access is a reasonable alternative to sCreet in this location. 1• The appli.cant's request for a short subdiviaion has been procesaed by the City which confirma [hat the final approval cannot be granted without an authorized variation from the Board. a. Finding: The applicant has filed a ehort subdivision with the City. b. Concluaion: The ehort subdivisian has been granted preliminary approval.