927 GRAND AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

�t variance ( �^ NARRATIVE STATEMENT I am requesting a variance from EMC 19.16.040, Gross �loor Area (C�A) ratio in order to be able to constuct an 81 square foot addition onto my son's bedroan. Our lot is 50' x 130' and contair�s 6,500 square feet. Our house is a single story bungalow-type dwelling which has been added onto several times since it was originally constructed in the early 1920's. It now contains 2,142 square feet of floor space. When the area of the garage is included, the GFA ratio is .392. When the previous owners added a family room in the 1950s they literally cut off the corner of one of the bedrooms in order to get access to the new room they were building. The result is a bedroom which has one corner cut off by an angled wall. The B1 square foot addition will substantially improve the utility of that bedroom by regaining the "lost" space. The addition will match the style of tfie oldest parts of the house; the roof line will be an extension of the present roof. Our GFA of .392 is nonconforming. The addition will increase the GFA by .013 to .405. We feel that the increase is extremely minimal and respect- fully request approval of the variance as requested. VARIANCE CRITERIA 1. Exceptional circumstances. Our house is across the street from a substantial area zoned R-1. Lots on the west side of Grand in our area are larger, although much of their extra area is unbuildable bluff. Because those lots are technically larger, they can have larger homes. But because of the bluff, the net GFA of some of the nearby homes would be as great or greater than will ours. I understand that the City is considering dropping the GFA ratio in favor of a lot coverage ratio that will probably be somewhere between 35% and 40% for the R-2 zone. Our request is in line with the City's proposal. 2. Substantial property right. A visit to our neighborhood will clearly show that we are not one of the largest houses on the block. Most houses on our block are either 1} or 2 stories high. Many have two car garages as do we. It would appear that many of the neighboring homes have GFRs ihat exceed the code limit. (Robert Lee, who lives at 901 Grand in our blo^k, received a variancein July for a.45 C�A.) Denial of the variance woui� deny us the right to have a home comparable to our neighbors. Incidentally, it would be very difficult for us to tuild up, as some in the neighborhood have, rather that out, as we propose, because of ttie way our house was originally built: our ceiling joists do not meet UBC stan- dards for floor joists. We would thus have to rip the entire top off the liouse in order to gain a little "upstairs" space. That would be a substantial hardship for the small amount of space we want. 3. Public welfare. Our addition will not be vi.sible from the stTeet. It will not be near any property line. It will match the style of the house. The amount of the variance is miniscule. 4. Comprehensive plan. Approval of the variance will not a1teT the use of our property: it will remain single family residential in conformance with the canprehensive plan. NaxxaTiv� STATAMENT EXHISIT 3