Resolution 3208 - Laserfiche WebLink

000006 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: AP-#2-89 4/27/89 Page 8 31. Appellant Kellerman submitted that current zoning requires two offstreet parking spaces. With the resulting lots from the boundary line adjustment no offstreet parking will be provided because the carport will be removed and there will be no offstreet parking on lot B. 32 . The Appellant submitted that R/L Associates v. Klockars , supra, applies to the current situation. According to the Appel- lant, the City of Everett' s boundary line adjustment is not a procedure for public participation. It is only after the City has reviewed the request that this matter can be appealed and thus the provisions of Klockars apply. 33 . The City submitted that the law of Klockars is distinguish- able because the City of Everett' s boundary line adjustment ordinance differs from that of the City of Seattle. Further, according to the City, the removal of the carport leaving the duplex allows for the adjustment into lots A and B. In fact, according to the City, no additional lots were created by the lot line adjustment because according to previous rulings lot 4 could have been developed under the old plat. The boundary line adjust- ment resulted in two new lots. 34. Various appellants and citizens submitted testimony. A summary of this testimony is set forth below: A. Brian Dale. The witness submitted that there had, in fact, been merger of the lots and the boundary line adjustment should not be allowed. According to the witness parking will become a problem in the area with an additional lot being devel- oped. He submitted that 34th Street already has parking problems because parking is only allowed on the south side of that street. Further, according to the witness , parking is congested on Tulalip and the development of lot B will only add to the problem. The witness also contended that lot B as proposed is a substandard lot that may need variances in order to be developed. Because of the topography of the lot the Applicant is limited in the development. Further, the front yard of lot A has a steep bank with no parking allowed. If the carport is removed that parking will exist on the street. The witness contended that the Applicant had no vested right for the development of the lot. B. John Sevenich. The witness submitted that he has lived in the area for thirty-five years. His main concern is the density of the neighborhood and the traffic. He contended that parking will be increased and will create a greater problem than exists today. liJOOO47