4001 NASSAU PL 2016-01-01 MF Import

y _;�- � �-�� ��d� ;'" OCT 13196G HOAAD OF ADJOSIT�NT ............................................... FINDIN(3S� CONCLIISIONS AND ORDBR �^CITY OF EVERE'f7 VARIANCB N0. 40-86 Pu��ic Works Dep:. Hased upon the xritten request Por a varianee from the City�s zoning code by: Robert La Grandeu:� 1273 Wetmore Everett, WA 98201 herainafter referred to as "Applicant," for a variance from E.H.C. 10.14.050(B), Side Yards, to allox: a zero foot side yard an the north side where the property abuts unused publie right-of-way. on the following deacribed property Lot 11� Plat of Nasaau View Traats `fao/- .dhcr.sAc� P.c. commonly lmown as: 40xx Nassau P1. . The Hoard of Ad�ustment, following a publie hearing on said applicati.on held on October 6, 1986, and further having reviexed all te�timony, makes the following Findings, Conclusions and Order: FINDINGS AND CONCI.USION3: That there have been exoeptional or extraordinary ciroumatanae� or oonditiona applying to the subject property or as to the intended use thereoP that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vioinity or zone. Fipd3ng: Protective covenants for the Plat of tiassau View Tracts limits the height for lot 11 to 15 feet from the street grade, thereby making it necessary to spread the footprint of the builuing in order to construot a houae comparable to thoae alydady built in thia plat. The lot abuts vacant 40th Streat right-of-rray to the north, most of whioh has alroady been vaoated, leaving only a 20 foot wide strip of unused right-of-way. The City's property manager has submitted a letter stating the City has no plans to uae that right-of-way. Conclueion: There are exceptional circumstances applying to this lot that do not generally apply to the other property in this vioinity. 2. That such variance is necessary for the preaervation and enjoyment ef a subatantial property right of the appellant possessed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity or zono. Finding: The Board has granted variances cor zero si�+q yard setback i in othar cases Where the property abuts unused City right-of-�ray. � Conelusion: The variance is necessary to preserve a property ri�;ht � possessed by others in the same zone. 3• That the authorization of such variance xill not bo materiaLly detrimental to the public xelfare or injurious to property in the vicinity or 2one in which the property is located. Finding: Since the property abuts unused City right-of-xay, the variance rrill not affact property to the north and covenants of the , plat proteet the viex of other properties in the plat. Conclusion: The variance will not be materially detrimental to the i public welfare or injurious to property in tl�e vicinity or zone.