3416 BELL AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

further statFd that "City zoning code defines "�r�ss Floor Area Ratio" as the surt� �f all the rloors of a building di � ided by the lot area. The City feels a more reasonable way to limit lot coverage would be to consider the footprint of the building as the basis 4or figuring gross floor area ratio since there is already a height limitation that controls !he number of floors. In the past , the gross floor area ratio has not been uniformly enforcedi fiowever , the Citr feels that rather than disregarding the code it is more appropriate to consider applications for �ariance on an indi � idual baais until th: zoniny code is char�ged. " In paragraph 2, the Board stated "That such �ariance is necessnry for the preservation and en�oyment of a substantiat property right of the appellant POS�ESSED BY THE OW�IERS OF OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME V: CINITY OR ZONE. " (capitalization pro� ided) . Attached to Mrs. BoYlan's request were drawings af the structure and its proposed location on her lots, (See AtYachment E) , indicating that the structure would be located sixtr-two t62) feet back from the front property line . This location wa= known to the residents of the adJoining propertY on the south , who had only recently purchased the property from Mr . Olin , and who agreed with the 62' setbacK as it pro� ided Mrs. Boylar� with e. totally unobstructed � iew of the Port and the City of E�erett ar�d only reduced the view from the adJoining property by approximately 40-50%, mainly the � iew from the sundeck . HowE�er , the �tructure subsequently was located approximately between 45-50' from the front property line . This relocatlon is not what was presented to the Board and played a part in the : r considerations, nor was it whnt the owners of the adJoin � nq property had agreed to. Now their � iew frcm the sundecK wa� all but totally obscured by the blanK wall of the structure (See Attachment F) �nd their � iew of the Port from the li � ing room was reduced by not less than 75%, lea� ing only a � iew of the c � ty and a gtimpse of a tiny qortion of thE north boundaries of the Port (See Attachment G? . What had happened to THE1R "subs.tantial property rights"? As construction proqressed, it became ob� ious that the structure was goiny to be very tall and of such design that it became a concern tv the neighborhood as it was so cnmpletely out af phase with the okher homE=_. and exhibited coTplete disregard for the views pre�iiously enjoyed by adjacent homes. Site preparation had consisted of bulldozing away the concrete floor of the pre� ious garage and the new qarage floor was poured at a level approximatelr one foot at the most �elow the pre� iously existing floor wh ! ch was le�el wiih the existing grade le�el . Thus as thz buildinq rose , it �ppeared that the total height iNould Pxcead the thirty-fi �e (35? foot total height re=triction . As the result of teiephone ca11s and personal � isits to the Buildinq Inspectors Office , on approximatelr the 13th of October , Inspectors came to the site with the result tha! a STOP WORK order was issued based on two probable � iolation=_, height and a re<ultant possible � iola.tion of the electrical cede . The rouf trusses which had �ust been IiftEd to the top floor were remo�ed. About two days later , it Gzcame apparent that thE STOP WOkK �rdEr had been rescinded as