Laserfiche WebLink
April 3, 1972 (Continued, <br />2) The property owner should be allowed to enjoy the same property rights <br />as other businesses outside the spot zone. <br />3) The proposed new building will not change the clw ratter of the land. <br />4) There will be no adverse effect on the city's comprehensive general <br />plan which shows the area in commercial use. <br />A hearing was held on the application of Donald Holmberg, 431 Loma Prieta <br />Drive, Aptos, California, 95003, who was represented by Mr. Paul Alley of <br />Ken Schilaty & Associates. Mr. Holmberg asked for authorization to utilize <br />a vacant non -conforming commercial structure for commercial purposes. <br />Lots 15, 16 and 17, and south twenty (20) feet of Lot 14, Block 8, Plat of <br />Lowell Division "A", 4228 - 3rd Street, Lowell, Nash:ngton. <br />c <br />After visual observation of the subject property and considering all the testimony <br />given it was moved by Mr. Ingram, seconded by Mr. Dickson, and unanimously <br />carried to grant the applicant's request for the following reasons: <br />1) The property could not be suc_essfully renewed for residential use at <br />at this time. <br />2) Improvement of the building will help the neighbors enjoy their <br />property rights. <br />3) The existing building is injurious to adjacent properties. <br />41 The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the comprehen- <br />sive general plan. <br />A hearing was held on the application of Mrs. _ Johnnie Johnson, 3027 Tulalip <br />Avenue, Everett, Washington, for a variance from Section . 080 of E. C. C. <br />15. 04 (Zoning Ordinance) to permit conversion of a single family structure to <br />a two-family structure on the following described property: <br />Sec. 30, Twp. 29, Rgc. 05 (Legal description on file in Planning <br />Department). <br />After visually viewing the subject property and considering all the testimony <br />given, it was moved by Mr. Dickson, seconded by Mr. Ingram, and unanimously <br />carried to grant the applicant's request for the following reasons: <br />1) A definite hardship is involved with one parent being an invalid and <br />needing constant care. The daughter is a registered nurs, . <br />2) Granting the variance will assist the owners to enjoy their property <br />rights. <br />3) Completion of the existing structure will not be injurious to the <br />neighborhood. <br />