Laserfiche WebLink
8 <br />0 <br />Findina• <br />The Applicant contends that other property owners in the <br />area are able to utilize thei.r property to its best use <br />whether it be as a residence, office or multifamily use, <br />and that the best use of his property is as a nine room <br />rooming house. <br />This structure was constructed as a single family <br />residence and provided parking for that use in a two <br />car garage. The structure has been converted to a use <br />that has a much greater parking requirement, that being <br />one space for each sleeping room. There may be some <br />uses in the area that are nonconforming for parking; <br />however, if any of those uses is changed to a use that <br />has a higher parking requirement as this one has been, <br />the new use must meet the code requi.renents. <br />Conclusion• <br />Alternative 1: mhere are unusual circumstances <br />applying to the subject propert;� based on the economic <br />condition of the tenants. <br />Alternative 2: There ar� no unusual oi• er.traordinary <br />circumstances pertaining to the property or the use of <br />the property based on the premise that there is no <br />guarantee that the type of tei,�ant will remain the same <br />and there is the possibility theit future tenants will <br />own vehicles and cause parY.ing p�-oblems in the area. <br />Criterion No. 3- <br />That the authorization of such variance will not be material7V <br />detrimental to the public wel.fare �r injurious to property in the <br />vicinity or zone in which the property is located. <br />a. <br />0 <br />Findina• <br />The Applicant contends that approving the variance <br />would allow a use to continue that will benefit the <br />public welfare by providing a type of housing not <br />generally available in Everett. <br />It may be detrimental to the public welfare if future <br />tenants own vehicles since there would not be enough <br />off-street parking and the street parking would become <br />congested. <br />Conclusion• <br />Alternative 1� Granting th� variance would not be <br />detrimental tu the public crelfare or injurious to <br />others in the vicinit�� and zone because the type of <br />tenant generally does not own vehicles and so would not <br />impact the on-street parking. ' <br />Alternative 2: Granting this variance would be <br />detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to <br />others in the vicinity and zone if the type of tenant <br />would change to vehicle owners in which case there <br />would be an impact to the on-street parking in the <br />vicinity. <br />Criterion No. 4• <br />That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the <br />Ccmprehensive General Plan. <br />a. Findi,na; The Comprehensi��e Plan designation is <br />multiple-f,smily, 25 to 50 dwellinq units per acre. <br />3, <br />