5009 23RD AVE W 2016-01-01 MF Import

1< That there is a lack of visibility with the existing sign,. 2a There will be no detrimenYal effects and no conflicts with the . surrounding neighbors if the h.igher and larger sign is constructed. 3e That the new sign would be 8 � 36 whereby the existing sign is 4 x 18 but that the company needs mcre exposure from the freeway and they , feel this is the anly way that it can be accomplished. The opposition to the applicant's request was from. Mr. Woody, a neighbor on . the west side o.'c E�•erett Avenue and his main objection was that there are and would be no stopping o� other signs goinq up in the area; that when the Texaco SE�rvice Station was constructed on the northeast corner of Everett Avenue and �4alnut, they were denied a high large sign and that he had been approacbed 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 mariy othar sir,iilar requests for signs in the immediate area, After visusl observation of the subject property a�d considering all the fact� and testimony, a motion was made by N,r, Russell, seconded by Mr. Xristiansen, and unanimously carried, to deny the applicants' request as the 13oard felt that the effects of the proposed sign would have an overall effect on the Comprehensive Genaral Plan. A hearing was held on the aoplication of b1r, and b1rs, Horman, 1?41 Whitmarsh Road, Burlington, 98233, for a variance from Section 19.12.050, 'r,'ve:ett Municipal Code, Yard Requirements, Paragraph "A" for permission tb construct a singla Samily residence to within nineteen (19) feet of the front property line rather than the Code revuirem�nt of twentyfive (25) feet. Also to allow I construction �f the residence up to the north east easement line. � LEGAL DESCRIYTION: Lot 18, Granada Seaview Estates, Div, 1 ' , ADDRESS: Approximately 5009 23rd Ave. We I 2pNING: R-S Single Family Suburban Residential i � Dan Bovey represented Mr, and Dirs. Horman. DSr, Bovey stated , 1. That the topography makes it very difficult to build without a variance being granted. • 2. That the single level homc with a low profile would have few view exclusions for the surrounding neignbors. 3. Easements for utilities should have bee� 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 agaznst t•.he granting of this , variance and a list of them are on record, Their me,in objecT.ions were as follows- . . , � -3- I I I � ��.