My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resolution 2589
>
Resolutions
>
Resolution 2589
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2017 11:31:00 AM
Creation date
7/27/2017 11:30:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Resolutions
Resolution Number
2589
Date
7/10/1985
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• <br /> Charlotte Seymour Appeal t <br /> Appeal 1-85 <br /> Page - 5 - <br /> 18 . The Everett Planning Department submitted that beauty <br /> salons are a permitted use in a B-1 Shopping Zone. With <br /> the allowance of the beauty salon in a residential area <br /> there would be a potential for reduction in demand of <br /> commercially zoned property and the preservation of the <br /> stability of the City' s commercial areas would be <br /> endangered. (staff report, Ervine testimony) <br /> 19 . The Appellant submitted that the proposed one chair <br /> beauty salon would create no,. aesthetic degradation to <br /> the neighborhood and that the exterior of the <br /> Appellant ' s home would not be altered or used to <br /> advertise the business . (submittal of the Appellant) <br /> 20. The Everett Planning Department submitted that the <br /> Appellant had not established any hardship related to <br /> the need for the beauty salon in order for it to be <br /> provided in the home. <br /> 21 . The Appellant submitted that although she did not <br /> qualify as a listed hardship of Section 19 .44 .030 that <br /> there were other hardships that could be considered. <br /> These include her intent to raise her family and still <br /> maintain a profession. With the proposed one chair <br /> beauty salon the Appellant would be allowed to do so. <br /> (Charlotte Seymour testimony) <br /> 22. The Everett Planning Department recommended denial of <br /> the appeal. The reasons are set forth in the previous <br /> Findings. <br /> 23. The Appellant recommended granting the appeal . The <br /> reasons are set forth in the previous Findings. <br /> CONCLUSIONS <br /> 1. The Appellant has appealed a Everett Planning Department <br /> decision of March 22, 1985, in which the Appellant was <br /> denied a Home Occupation Permit to locate and operate a <br /> single chair beauty salon on property located at 2505 - <br /> 81st Place S.E. , Everett, Washington. The property is <br /> zoned R-1 and the beauty salon is not a permitted use. <br /> 2. The beauty salon is not a permitted use in a R-1 zoned <br /> property. <br /> 3. Section 19. 44 . 020 specifically sets forth the general <br /> requirements that must be met to qualify for a Home <br /> Occupation Permit. The Appellant ' s request satisfies <br /> these general requirements. <br /> 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.