1922 GRAND AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

.� _ . . � .-. �� Planning Commission Piay 7, 198h City of Everett City Ball Everett WashingYou Re: Variance request for 1922 and 1933 Grand Commissioners; Richard Sullivan is requestin� the Planning Commission of the City of Gverett, County of Snohomish, State of WashingCon; for a setbacic variance Sn order to build a twelve unit apar[ment on 1922 and 1933 Grand. Each unit uill Ue sold with its own parcel of land. Tt�is property is zoned R-3 u�ultiPle ].ow density. Adjacent property and surrounding areas is zoned for k-2 and k-3 purposes,con- sisting uf single and multiple-family residences. We tlie undersigned propertp oMners; respectfully petition the com- mission to deny such such application for all variances for the following reasons: Setbacks in an R-3 zone require twenty feet in tlie front, fi?e side yard and five for eacli story over two. P1r sullivan is reyuesting to bypass zoning code for zero and seven foot front yard setbacks and internal set- backs in order to construct a very large rectangular structure settir.;, _, close to tlie sidewalk witl� minimal front.and side yards. f Homes in the Port Gardner Bay Area buil•_ in Che early nineteen Iwnd- reds are represenative of F.verett's early development.Because it is imr • portant to preserve Everett's heritage historic district:: must be maintain- ed and preserved. A large comnion wall structure lacks cornpatability witli tlie existing t�omes. Tl�is would not only violate tlie spirit of tliis heritage but do suUstantial injustice to this historical area. (Tiie east Gran�1 area has been designated as a potential historical district by tlie state preser- vations department.) Properties adjacent, to and surrouudinp, areas are valued as to the views of Puget Sound and the Olympics Lliey enjoy. Cotmnon wall structures restrict tt�is view. Zero setbacks place the buil.ding closer. to the curb and uill oLstruct more of the view seen over the roof tops. An impairment of view reduces the monetary value of properties creating economic hard- ship for existing property oxners. � This building would create a " private nuisance " by obstructing q views in tt�e inunediate and adjacent areas. ( Private nuisance as defined 1 as a nontresspassor.y invasion of anotliers interest in the private use and �� enaoyment of land. Wisconcin Supreme Court decisiont Ycah v. Maretti, N.W. 2° 182.) Grand Avenue,fram 19tf� street to F.verett Avenue�i, in an atea of rehabilitation and redevelopment. Existing public utilities designed for r single family use may eventually require an upgrading of tliat system to G � . support increased denseties. 1'his would require an expenditure of p�iblic � funding to facilitate improved services placing an additional tax burden on property owners. I � Approval oi this variance would establisl� a precedence for future i variance requesl:s. � We propertp owners l�ave a long term invested interest in this area that supersedes that of any deceloper and therefore, desire the rigt�t to oppose any structures insensitive to its character. We realize housLng domands are changinp ,tuE all retrofitting acid new construction could and should Ue replicative to the historical chact- er of this area. In our determinati�n Mr Su7livan's apartm�nt does not respond to this description so we respectfully appeal'to this commission that he stay wit:hin the legal bounds of thc z.oning o>de with no vari.ances permitted oc submit an alternate pl.an more sensitive to the ph}'sical appearancc of this district. RS