Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF AJUSTMENT MINUTES - APRIL 6, 1970 <br />&Z <br />3. To prohibit the owner from finishinq and remodeling <br />the existing building at this tine would create an <br />economic hardship to the owner. <br />This variance is subject to a letter from the apnlicant that they sre <br />providing additional parking in the in!modiate vicinity. <br />A hearing was hold on the application of Dale J. rood, 4112 West Vicw <br />Drive, Everett, Washington for variance from Section 15. rverntt <br />City Code Subsection "C", R-1, Single Family Low nensity Residence. <br />Lone, which requires a minimum side yard of six (6) feet and re,7uest <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 Cood spoke on the application and made the. following statements, <br />1. The water runoff on the proposed wont would not <br />affect his neighborhood to the <br />2. The neighboring houses would be a, atelv twenty <br />(20) feet apart if the variance wz Ited. 'lost <br />houses in the area are only s'x (6) feefrom their <br />property line. <br />3. Same of the existing houses in the immediate vicinity <br />have carports that are clonor than six (6) feat to <br />the property line. <br />Mr. Anderson, 4720 West View Drive was opposed to the granting of the <br />variance for the following reasonn! <br />1. lie has a garage that in too small for two cars and <br />as a result must leave one outside. Re would like <br />to build within two (2) feet of his property line to <br />extend his garage. The two garages then would he <br />only four (4) feet apart and in his opinion this <br />would be too close for safety s,ike as well as <br />setting a poor precedent for the neighborhood. <br />After personally visiting the subject property and conaidoring all the <br />evidence and testimony presented, it was moved by !•r. Champion, <br />seconded by Mr. Ingram, and unanimously carried to deny the annlicant'c <br />request for the following reasons: <br />1 The oriy.^sl 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, boon <br />utilized to gain access to adequatx perking <br />at the rear of the subject property. <br />A hearing wan h^ld on the application of Dale Jesperson, inn2 nockofcller. <br />Everett, ;-?ashing•-in for a variance from Section 15.04.090, Everett Cite <br />Code Subsection 'C- R-2, Single Family Righ Density Residence, which <br />