7901 BEVERLY BLVD 2016-01-01 MF Import

Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner of the City of Everett RE: AA-1-86 Page 2 FINDINGS OF FAC7� 1. The Appellants are the cwners of property located at 7901 Beverly Boulevard, Everett, Washinqton. This lot is an 8,000 square foot lot on which two residences are located. The property is zoned R-1. It is the intent of the Appellants to subdivide the 6,000 square foot lot into two lots for the purpose of selling one of the structures. (Staff report, Gray testimony) 2. All lots in R-1 zones are required to be 7,000 square feet. In order for the Appellants to subdivide the property into two smaller lots, they must obtain a variance for a reduction of lot area. The City of Everett's Planninq Department determined upon a review of Ordinance 1119-85 Section 4(d)(3} that all lots created in a short subdivision must be in compliance with existing zoning regulations and that a variance is not allowed. (Wood t.estimony) g 3. The houses on the subject property are older ctructures. The house on the eastern portion of the lot was conatructed in the . mid 1920s. The house on the western portion of the lot was moved to the lot in 1952. Zoning for the lo_ was not establiahed until the mid 1950s. Clearly the lots.are �on-conforming in nature. '_ �(Wood testimony and Gray tes_inony) 4. �Phe houses on the lot have been in disrepair for years. After purchasing the property the Appellants have rehabilitated the houses and invested considerable amounts of money in them. It is aow their intent to sell one of the homes. However, in order to sell the house, they must short p.lat the subject property in order to create one lot. If they are unable to short plat the property, financing cannot be secured ,for purchase of the house. 5. The City submitted that Ordinance 1119-65 Section a.l allows the Appellants to seek a variance of the lot requirements of Section 5.c.14 of the ordinance. Section 5.c.i4. does not include minimum lot size requirements. Because of the exclusion the City has determined that the Appellants may not seek a variance. 6. Many of the lots within the area that the subject property is located are substandard in size. Ad�r�itted as exhibit 4 was a map show- ing the various lots that are substandard in size. (Gray testimony' and Exhibit 4) 7. The structures on site are used for living purposes. With the proposed subdivision of the Appellants, there will be no increase in density, lot coverage, setbacks, starm drainage, parking, or other land use factors. (Gray testimony) 6. As noted the structures are non-conforming. A short plat will not increase the non-conforming status of each structure. (Wood testimony an4 Gray testimony)