1131 E MARINE VIEW DR 2016-01-01 MF Import

for minor commercial activity (grocery store) and residential purposes. (exhibit 1, Jimerson tesfimony, Gross testimony) 2. The Appellant purchased the subject properiy in the late 1990's. When the subject property was purchased, there was a small grocery store and two attached residential dwelling units. It is now the intent of the Appellant to upgrade the residential units, but before such an upgrade can occur, the Appellant must secure all necessary permits and !he certification of non- conformity staius of the structure. (exhibit 1, Gross festimony) 3. The subject property is zoned R-2, Single-Family Residential by the City of Everelt. In an R-2 zone, commercial uses, such as the grocery store on-site, are not a permitted use. Multiple residences lhat are not duplexes are also not permitted uses in ihis R-2 zone�. The subject property, as it exists today, is not consistent with the current R-2 zoning standards. (exhibit 1, Jimerson testimony) 4. The Appellant submitted a request to the City of Everett for a Planning Director's Determination of Non-Conforming Use to allow the existing retail grocery store and the two residential units to remain on-site. After review of the records and information provided on July 7, 2005, the City of Everett Planning Director denied the Certification of Non-Conforming Use for the subject property. (exhibit 4) An appeal of the adminislrative decision was filed by the Appellant on July 13, 2005. (exhibit 2) 5. A 1,089 square foot grocery store and two attached residential dwelling units were constructed on-site in 1954. However, since December 1, 1956, the approximate date of the establishment of zoning within the City of Everett, the City has recognized only one legal attached residence on-site. The City's determinalion was based on information staff reviewed of City records, the Polk Directory, ar�J County Assessor's Field Notes. (exhibit 4, Jimerson testimony) The Appellant contended that historically the subject property has always had two residential units on it. (Gross testimony, Saunders testimony) 6. In denying ihe Non-Conforming Use Cerlification, the City based its denial in part on insufficient parking on-site with only four existing off-street parking stalls. According to the City, with a retail grocery store and one residential unit, the Appellant would be required lo provide at least six parking stalls. If the second residential unit is determined to be allowed on-site, additional parking stalls may be required. (exhibit 4, Jimerson fesfirnony) 7. The City, in its review, determined that a construction permii was issued for the project in 1954, and at ihat time, the City permitted the construction of the comrnercial structure and residence. The City's information was based on a ' A duplex may be allowed i(the site has a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet. The lot area of the subject property is less than 5,000 square feet. 3