3232 HOYT AVE 2018-01-02 MF Import

� • � ` �..� r- The Fire Marshall has inspected the prenises and concurs with the above requirements of the Building Inspector. He also commented that the UBC defines a lodging house as a building cc�ntaining not more than five guest rooms, and that this use could be classified as a hotel since it contains more than five guest roons. Therefore, this use may c:ome under the juri.sdiction of the State Fire Marshall (see Exhibit 4). The City Zoninq CodE requires that a Use Permit be obtained when the use of a building changes to a more intensive use. The zoning code requirement for oarking is one space for each roomer so nine parking spaces are required by code. The formar use of the building was a single family residence which only required tu!o off-street park�ng spaces and so a Use Permit is required for the chanqe of use. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIOHS: Critesion No. 1• That there have been exceptional or. extraordinary circumstances or conditions applyir�g t.o the subject nroperty or as to the in- tended use thereof that do not apply generally to other pronerties in the same vicinity or zone. a. Findings: In his narrative statement, the Applicant contends that his typical tenant does not own a vehicle. That on the average for the past year not more than three tenants have had vehicles at one time as these tenants can barely afford to pay rent and food are therefore not in a position to own and operate a vehicle. In addition to the lack of tenants coith vehicles the property is located on a corner lot witr plenty of street parking. Even though this particular owner rents to l��w income persons who generall.y do not own automobiles, in the future, especially when the Nacy �s based in Everett, there will be younq Navy personnel ownir.g cars who will 5e looking for low cost housing and at that time a �•evere parking problem could occur in the area because of this. In addition, the Applicant has created his oc.m hardship by converting to a rooming house without obtaining the necessary permits, during which process he would have become aware of the City code reqrairements before making any substantial investment. b. Conclusion• Alternative 1: The Applicant contends that their are unusual circumstances pertairiing to the use of the property based on the tenant's economic condition. Alterna'r.ive 2: The Applicant ,�reated his own hardship by proceeding with the conversion of the building to a rooming house without obtaining the rroper permits and complying with city codes. Criterion No. 2• That such variance is necessary for the preservation and en- joyment of a=ubste�ntial property right of the appeilant pos- sessed by the oc:ners of other pro�erties in the same vi.cinity or zone.