2602 WALNUT ST 2016-01-01 MF Import

December 5, 1977 The regular meeting of the Everett Board of Adjustaent,was held at 7 p.m, in the City Ilall Council Chambers. Mr. Baird presidedj Mr. Kristianson, Mr, 12usse1l and Mr. Black were present; Mr. Berg was absent. - Mr. Baird called the meeting to order and then made the announcement that agenda items presumably coming before the Hoard that,were obviously concerned with the short plattiag of land would tonight and in the future not be heard by the Board of Adjustment but would be an administrative item. A hearing was held on the application of Ervin Hoglund, 6203 61st Ave, Everett, WA 98205, for a variance from Section 19.16.030, Everett Ftunicipal Code, to allow for (1) a reduction in.m3nimum width from fifty (50) feet to forty-eight feet six inches (48'6")j and (2) a Ireduction in minimum lot size for a 2 family dwelling (duplex) from 7,500 sq, ft, to 5,820 sq, ft. . Leqal Description: Lots 20 and the north half of Lot 21, Block 599, Miley Land Company's Fourth Add. i ! Address: 2602 Walnut Zoning: R-2 Single Family High Density Residence Mr. Hoglund represented himself and he made these statelnents: ' " l, That he will have more than the setback requirements on the side yards. _ 2. That the parking for the proposed duplex would be off the alley and blacktcpped as well as lined for the four parking stalls that are required; and 3. That the proposed building will be s single story structure. These was some opposition from the audience. Those objectinq were Mr, Robert Hoyden who spoke in behalf of his grandparents who live at 2605 Walnut and, also, for three other neighbors. Also, objecting was Mr. Lee Cazter rf 2606 Walnut. Their comments were as follows: 1.' That a structure such as the proposed duplex would • � b:inq in low income families and that would cause a I deterioration of other lots and homes in the area. , . , � , 2. That the proposal c.rould take up parking on the street ' making it difficult for the existing residents�to park their own vehicles; and � 3. That there was not enough room on the lot for a duplex.