Laserfiche WebLink
A hearing was held on the application of fiarold Walsh� Route 1, Lake Steven„ <br />' Washington for a variance frem Section 19.1R,010, Everr_tt Dtunicioal Code, <br />I Land Use, Paragraph B for permission co abut on a public dedicated street <br />for a minimum of twenty (20) feet to Lot B and twenty four (2n) fect to <br />Lot C rather than the code requirement of forty (90) feet. <br />Legal Description: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Beverly ttills <br />� Division No. 2, except tlie east 60.0 <br />feet of the south 120.0 feet of said <br />� Lot 1. <br />Address: Approximately O'_ympic Dri.ve �,a 63rd <br />street. <br />Zoning: R-2 Sir,�le I?amily High Density Residence. <br />Mr. Arnold Kegel was consultant for t•fr. 47alsh and he made the following <br />statements: <br />1. The sti.pulation as ositten in the application for <br />single tamily residence was intended to rcad single <br />residenc, <br />2. Lot A should read 7,500 sq, ft, rather tl;an 7,20U <br />sq. ft, as sho�rn. <br />Mrs. Bricc, Nr. Sob Youn9, and tir. Norm Young, neighbors of the area, were <br />opposed to L•he granting of the variance for the following reasons: <br />l. Encroac}unent of privacy. <br />2. Enough duplexes in the arca now, approximately eleven (11) being <br />built within the last t�so (2) years. <br />3. Area designed for low densiCy when roads o�ere Uuilt. <br />After visually observing the subject property and considering al.l the facts <br />and tesL-imony, it was moved by Pir. llerg, seconded by Mr. Hlack, and <br />unanimously carried to deny thc applicant's request for the following <br />reasons: <br />1. There are no exceptioncl or extraordinary circmnstance� <br />or conditions applying to�the subject property or as <br />to the intended use thereoE, that do not apply generally <br />to oCher properties in thc eame vicinity or zone. <br />2, That such variance is not- nece�sary for the preservat-ion <br />and enjoyment of a substanti.al pr.operL-y right of the <br />appellant possessed by the owners of othcr properties „ <br />in the same vicinity or zone. <br />3. That the authorization of such vari.ancc will Uc <br />matcrially detrimental to the puUlic welfare and <br />injurious to property in t}�e vicinity er zone in <br />which the property is located. <br />