Laserfiche WebLink
r�c� <br />1. The unusual nature of the terrain has created a <br />hardship for expansion of the residence. <br />2. The building already exists to within six (6) <br />feet of the front property line and any new <br />addition will not be any. closer. <br />3. The authorization of the variance will not be <br />detrimental to the adjacent properties. <br />4. The granting of the variance will not adversely <br />affect the Comprehensive General Plan. <br />A hearing was held on the application of `.ialph Kerr, 3515 Everett <br />Avenue, Everett, P?echington, for a varian e from Section 19.42.040 <br />E.M.C. (Everett Municipal Code) Yards, Paragraph A, for permis- <br />sion to construct a single family residence to within five (5) <br />feet of the side property line rather than the code requirement <br />of ten (10) feet. <br />LEGAL DESCRIPTION: <br />Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 594, Mitchell Land and Improvement, 1st Addition <br />e <br />ADDRESS: <br />3515 Everett Avenue <br />ZONING: <br />C-1, General Commercial <br />Mr. Ron I:ing of King McCauley Homes represented Mr. Kerr. <br />Mr. King explained the C-1 zoning of tee arc& saving that if a <br />commercial building was to be constructed, it could go to the <br />property line. IIowever, Mr. Kerr desires to build a single family <br />residence and have a five (`,) foot side yard setback. Also, the <br />existing residence of Mr. Kerr will be torn down upon completion <br />of the new home. <br />There was no objections from the audience; the neighbors that <br />appeared were in favor of the variance. <br />After visual observation of the subject property and considering <br />all the facts, it was moved by Mr. Russell, seconded by Mr.. Kristiansen, <br />and unanimcasly carried to grant the applicant's request for the <br />following reasons: <br />1. Mr. Kerr deserves the same rights as the <br />adjoining prukerti.es. <br />2. Granting the variance will not be detrimental <br />to the properties in the vicinity. <br />3. If the variance is not granted, the existing <br />residence will have to be torn down and cause <br />unnecessary hardship to the applicant. <br />4. The granting of the variance will not adversely <br />affect the Comprehensive General Plan. <br />