Laserfiche WebLink
I:llc��nCions of 1Applic��nt <br />raid-August, 1980. If sitc is sold to another <br />owner, such plans for the site will be made <br />available for use. The proposed "duplex" is <br />designed to aesthetically integrate with the <br />site and surroundings. Other recently constructed <br />duplexes in the vicinity have added to, not detracted <br />from, the area appearance. <br />C. Re Uoth the "developed" and "vacant" lots: <br />1) Snohomish County rentals are scarce and will get scarcer <br />especial.ly in close-to-to�an locations. Multi-plexes <br />fill this rental need at the best cost per dwelling <br />unit tvith the least impact on the residen�ial <br />character of thc area while adding to tlte total site <br />value and tax base. <br />2) Dunlexing 9ives flexibility option of either <br />single family or duplex use of the site as needs <br />of the home Uw er and/or r.ental market dictate. <br />POINT 3. <br />Denial of the requested zoning vaziance would unreasonahly <br />prohibit owner fr�m optimi�ing logical residential use of <br />both the "developed" and the "vacant" lots to the mutual <br />benefit of himself and prop�ctive home buyers and/or renters. <br />L,g „ owner. has signed an earnest money contract to sell the <br />"develoned" lot by providing for consumation of the sale only <br />if a variance to convert the lot to a duplex is granted. TY�e <br />nrospective L�urchaser finds the cost of buying the site <br />economically justifiable only if he can occupy one dwelling <br />unit of such a duplex as his principle residence and rent the <br />other unit as a planned two Uedroom dwelling unit. Recent <br />ex�erience in renting tne "developed" site sho�ved little de:nand <br />for a single family 9 1/2 bedroom rentals; the unfortunate <br />result was a"commune-type" rental causing several thousa�n� <br />dollars property damage�oversaturated vehicular parking, <br />neighborhood comolaints re nuisance-tyne social behavior of <br />the renters and guests. Similar con�iderations would apply, <br />although perhaps a lesser extent to the "vacant" lot. <br />POINT 4. <br />A, On both the "developed" and "vacant" lots compliance with <br />all relevant building codes and oth�r laws would, of <br />course, be requ�red. <br />B. Owner has no objection to� and would support, gra•�*.ing of <br />the same zoning variances in the area for. simi]arly-:-'tUated <br />owners. <br />