1409 LOMBARD AVE 2018-01-02 MF Import

� � � �� '� C� � � df� [�] � �ua 131987 BOARD OF ADJUSTM£N'f .......... ..............._.- FINDINGS� CONCLUSIONS AND OADER�--"'"C�:r;� �F �VERETT YART�NCE N0. 33-87 Pu�,�� Wo�•ks Dept. Based upon the uritten request for a variance from the City's zoning code by: Paul Schamp 1409 Lombard Everett, WA g8201 hereinafter referred to as "Applicanl:," for a variance from E.M.C. 19.16.050(B) , Side Yard, and 19.42.040(D) , Rear Yard, to alloa: Removal of an existing 380-square-foot nonconforming garage located on the south side property line aad replacement �+ith a 576-square-foot garage, also on the south property line, uhich will cover more than SOx of the rear yard. on t.he following described property The south i7.5 feet of Lot 4 and all of Lot 5, Block 2$8, Fourteenth Street Addition commonly known as: 140g Lombard Thc Board of Ad�ustment, folloaing a pubiic hearing on said app!ic��:ion helci on July 6, 1987 and further h;:ving reviewed all testir,�ony, r:21<es the following rindings, Conclusions anc Crder: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: 1,. That there laave been �xceptlonal or extraordinary circumst:ances or condit.tor.a applying to the aubject prooerty or as to the intended use thereu: �nat do not apnly generally to other properties in tl:e sr.me vicinity u- zone� ,' Finding: The exiating garage is located or. a 42.5 foot wide lot with y, an existing 9 foot aide drt.•;;way. Today's homeowners tend to have more vehicles and sometimes larger vehicles than they did in 1945 when the present structure was built. In order to provide adequa"e off-street storage and protection for his vehicles, the applicant uould like to widen his garage by 5 feet and lengthen it by 4 feet. Even if he were to relo.^,ate the structure, it would cover more than 50x of the rear yard due to the narrouness of the lot. Conclusion: Glven the inadequacy of the o'lder structure to meet present off-street parking needs, this appears to be a reasonable request. ?. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and en,joyment of a substantia� property right of the appellant posse�sed by t.he ownErs of other properties in the same vicihity or zone. Finding: The City encourages property ouners to provide garages in order to meet ofi-street parking requirements. The property i❑ question has had a garage existing on the south property line since 1945. Conclusion: The variance uould allow a property right which has been en,joyed by the applicant, and by other properties in the area.