2701 WALNUT ST 2018-01-02 MF Import

1. That there is a lack of visibility with the existing sign., 2. There will be no detrimental effects and no conflicts with the surrounding neighbors if the higher and larger sign is constructed. 3. That the new sign would be 8 x 36 whereby the existing sign is 4 x 18 1 but that the company needs more exposure from the freeway and they feel this is the only way that it can be accomr1ished. The opposition to the applicant's request was from Mr. Woody, a neighbor on the west side of Everett Avenue and his main objection was that there are and would be no stopping of other signs going up in the area; that when the Texaco Service Station was constructed on the northeast corner of Everett Avenue and Walnut, they were denied a high large sign and that he had been approached a number of times by people who want to place signs on his property, Mr. Woody feels that if this variance is granted, that there will be many other similar requests for sign- in the immediate area. After visual observation of the subject property and considering all the facts and testimony, a motion was made by Mr. Russell, seconded by Mr. Kristiansen, and unanimously carried, tc deny the applicants' request as the Board felt that the effects of the proposed sign would have an overall effect on the Comprehensive General Plan. A hearing was held on the application of Mr. and Mrs. Horman, 1741 Whitmarsh Road, Burlington, 98233, for a variance from Section 19.12.050, Everett Municipal Code, Yard Requirements, Paragraph "A" for permission tb construct a single family residence to within nineteen (19) feet of the front property line rather than the Code requirement of twentyfive (25) feet. Also to allow construction of tre residence up to the north east easement line. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 18, Granada Seaview Estates, Div. 1 ADDRESS: Approximately 5009 23rd Ave. W. ZONING: R-S Single Family S--iburban Residential Dan Hovey represented Mr, and Mrs. Horman. Mr. Bovey stated 1. That the topography makes it very difficult to build without a variance being granted. 2. That the single level home with a low profile would have few view exclusionb for the surrounding neighbors. 3. Easements for utilities should have been included in the legal description of the property. 4. That there have been other similar variances granted. There were many of the neighbors that were against the granting of this variance and a list of them are on record. 'Their main objections were as follows: . -3-