Laserfiche WebLink
-2- <br />3. To prohibit the owner from finishing and remodeling <br />the existing building at this time would create an <br />economic hardship to the owner. <br />This variance is subject to a letter from the applicant that they are <br />providing additional parking in the immediate vicinity. <br />A hearing was held on the application of Dale J. Good, 4712 r•;est View <br />Drive, Everett, Washington for variance from Section 15.04.M "verett <br />City Code Subsection "C", R-1, Single Family Low Density nesidence <br />Zone, which requires a minimum side yawl of six (6) feet and request <br />permission to construct a carport to within two (2) feet of the side <br />property line on Lot 21, View Acres Division. 2. <br />Dale Good spoke on the application and made the following statements: <br />1. The water runoff on the proposed carport would not <br />affect his neighborhood to the South. <br />2. The neighboring houses would be approximately twenty <br />(20) feet apart if the variance was granted. *lost <br />houses in the area are only six (6) feet from their <br />property line. <br />3. Some of the existing houses in the immediate vicinity_ <br />have carports that are closer than six (6) feet to <br />the property line. <br />'Ir. Anderson, 4720 West View Drive was opposed to the granting of the <br />variance for the following reasons: <br />1. Ire has a garage that is too small for two cars and <br />as a result must leave one outside. He would like <br />to build within. two (2) feet of his property line to <br />extend his garage. The tiro garages then would be <br />only four (4) feet apart and in his opinion this <br />would be too close for safety sake as well as <br />setting a poor precedent for the neighborhood. <br />After personally visiting the subject property and considering all the <br />evidence and testimony presented, it was moved by ?Ir. Champion, <br />seconded by Mr. Ingram, and unanimously carried to dery the applicant's <br />request for the following reasons: <br />1. The original design should have taken into <br />consideration a double carport or garage. <br />2. Any hardship that is existing is self-imposed <br />as the original carport space could have been <br />utilized to gain access to adequate parking <br />at the rear of the subject property. <br />A hearing was held on the application of Dale Jesperson, 1002 Rockefeller, <br />Everett, Iashington for a variance from Section 15.04.090, Everett Cite <br />Code Subsection "C" R-:2, Single Family Hiqh Density Residence, which <br />