Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT <br />FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER <br />VARIANCE N0. 15-88 <br />Based upon the written requeat for a variance from the City's zoning code by: <br />Bay Town Eecrow, Inc. <br />Ed Medema <br />5017 Claremont Way <br />hereinafter referred to ae "Applicant," for a variance from EMC 19.40.010, <br />Off Street Parking, to provide 3 insteed of the 6 off.-atreet parking apaces <br />required by Code for an office use. <br />commonly knoWn as: 3226 Rockefeller <br />The Hoard of Adjuetment, following a public hearing on eaid application held <br />on May 2, 1988 and fur[her having reviewed all teatimonq, makea the <br />following Findinge, Conclueione and Order: <br />VARIANCE CRITERIA: <br />Findinge and Conclueione: <br />Criterion dl: <br />That there have <br />circumatancee or <br />property or as to <br />apply generally to <br />or zon�. <br />been exceptional or eztraordinary <br />conditiane applying Co the aubject <br />the intended uee thereof that do not <br />other propertiea in the eame vicinity <br />a. Finding: The Applicant ie propoeing to uee an existing brick, <br />eingle family structure as an office for an eacrow company. <br />They would uee about 800 equare feet of the 1,140 aquare foot <br />structure and there vould be txo employeee at the present time <br />(the ownera of Bay Town Eacrow). There ie normally only one <br />client.in the office at a time with tr►o being there at one time <br />occaeionally. The majority of client visits are under five <br />minutea. <br />The lot ie only 25 feet wide and originally the Applicant had <br />proposed putting three parking apaces ia the front yard and <br />three off the alley; however, Public Worka xould not allow <br />parking in the front since there vould be no room to turn <br />around and vehicles would have to back out onto Rockefeller. <br />There is an existing acceseory building in [he rear yard that <br />will be demolished, as [he Applicant is now propoaing to <br />construct six parking spaces in the rear yard; horrever, only <br />three of these could be counted towarde [he parking <br />requirement, aince the other three would be "stacked," i.e., <br />blocked from acceas to the alley by the three etalln directly <br />adjacent to the alley (aee Exhibit 3, Site Plan). The <br />Applicant feels theae three "etacked" spacea could be used for <br />employee parking, leaving [he three off the alley for clients. <br />