Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT <br /> FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER <br /> (VARIe4YCE i728-84) <br /> Based upon the written request for a variar.•e from the—Ci&ys__zoning <br /> � _„� \ <br /> code, specifically :9.14.OSOB, made by James W. Masten t 7625 Rainier Drive, J <br /> hereinafter referred to as "Applicant," the Board of Adjustment, o ow ng a <br /> public hearing on sald application held on October 1, 1984, and further having <br /> reviewed all testimony, makes tlie :ollowing F:ndings, Conclusions, and Order: <br /> FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: <br /> 1. That there have been exceptional or ex[raordinary circums[ances or <br /> conditions applying to the subject property or as to �he in[euded use <br /> thereof that do not apply generally to other properties in the same <br /> vicinity or zone. <br /> a. Finding: The applicant owns a parcel of property a[ 7625 <br /> Rainier Drive. The lot is 75 feet �. 240 feet with three single <br /> family residences - two (2) wood f��ve homes and one (1) mobile <br /> home. The applicant has made application to [he City to remodel <br /> the wood frame hou�es and replace the oobile home with a <br /> manufactured home meeting all City U.B.C. requirements. <br /> b. Conclusion: It is more difficul[ to meet standard setback <br /> requirements with manufactured homes. � <br /> 2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a <br /> substan[ial proper[y right of the appellant possessed by the owners of <br /> other proper:ies in tlie same vicinity or zone. <br /> a. Finding: The applicant's proper[y is located in a R-1 zone aad <br /> has three (3) single family houses on 18,000 square feet. Thc � <br /> use has legal non-confo:ming status. <br /> � <br /> r <br /> b. Conclucion: Replacing the mobile home with a manufactured home r <br /> would allow the applicanc to continue with the same number of <br /> units on the lot. <br /> 3. That the authorization of sucli variance will not he materially � �- <br /> detrimental to the public welfare or in�urious to property in the � � <br /> vicinity or zone in which the property is located. m � <br /> 0 <br /> a. Finding: The property is in need of renevation and should be r�a � <br /> upgraded. c <br /> c'� F <br /> b. Conclusion: Th� appJ.icant is proposing [o upgrade all <br /> � ' <br /> structures. t <br /> � ;. <br /> 4. That the granting of such variance will no[ adversely affect the � � <br /> Comprehensive General Plan. � � <br /> 0 <br /> a. Finding: Tl�e nroperty is designated Single Family F.esidential. "7 � ' <br /> .� <br /> b. Conclusion: This variance wtll have no effect on the �" ' <br /> Comprehensive Plan. <br /> � ; <br /> � i <br /> z <br /> i <br /> -i- <br />