1714 LOMBARD AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

� r., � � � �� « �► �'�' t� �_� } JUI_ 1 � 19�1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT „�.,....................._..... .. , FINBINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER��'T'Y Op EVERFTT " VARIANCE N0. 29-87 pub;ic Works Deot. I Based upon the written request for a variance From the City's zoning code by: � Nels Brookuver 1714 Lombard Everett, WA 98201 hereinafter referred to as ��Applicant,^ for a variance from E.M.C, 19.16.050(B) , Side Yard, and f1�om 19.42.040(D) , Rear Yard, to allow: construction af a 1 �008-square-foot garage and carport which would extend to Nithin 3 feet of the north side yard property line instead of the 5 foot setback required by Code, and which would cover more than 50S of the rear yard. on the following described property Lots 23 and 24, Blk 350, Pla+: of Everett, Divis!on N com:nonly knoWn as: 1714 Lombard The Board of Adjustment, following a public hearing ori said application held on July 6, 1987 and further having revieWed all testimor.y, makes the following Findings, Conclusions and Order: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. That there have been exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the sub,ject property or as to the intended use thereof that do not apply general�y to other properties in the same vicinity or zone. Finding; Last January the applicant demolished an old, nonconforming, dilapidated garage/shed, which covered more than 50x of the rear yard area and extended to the rear and north side property lines. In order to provide adequate off�treet storage and i protection for his vehicles, the applicant would like to replace the � previous structure With a garage and carport whieh, due to the 50 foot width of the lot, will cover more than 50% of the rear yard. Conelusion: The request appears to be reasonable. 2. That such var•iance is necessary for the preservation ard en,joyment of a subsL-antial property right of the appellant possessed by Lhe owners of other• properties in the same vicinity or zone. Finding; The City encourages property ouners to provide garages in order to meet off-street parking requirements, The property in question has had a garage existing on the rear and side property lines since the early 1900's. Conclusion: Tlie variance would allow a property right which has been en,joyed by the applicant and by other homeouners in the area. 3. That the authorization of such vat-iance Will not be materially detrimental to Lhe public welfare or in3urious to property in the vicinity or zone in which the property is located. Finding: No adverse comments Were received f7�om other City Departments on this variance request. The footprint of the proposed structure will not be significantly larger than that of the previous structure and should not create view blockage for adjacent property owners. In addition, replacing the previous deteriorated structure will enhance the appearance of the neighborhood and Will help relieve on�treet parking .^ongestion.