1503 RUCKER AVE 2018-01-02 MF Import

, Criterion /2: That auch variance is neceasary for the preaervation and en�oyment of a aubatantial property right of the appellant poasessed by the ownere of other propertiea in the same vicinity or zone. a. Findin : In regard to the variance :equeat for Grosa Floor Area Ratio, elnce April 1986, the City of Everett hae been in the proceae of reviaing the zoning code ta elfminate the groea floor area ratio requirement, and the Boacd of Adjuatment hae gra¢ted flfteen requests for variance from the GFAR requirement in tha[ time ranging from .33 to .60 (see Exhibit /9). None of those granted aere oppoaed e:cept for one at 3116 Tulalip, vhich was opposed by a neighbor acroea the atreet on [he basie that a two-etory structure Would not fit into the neighborhood xhich hsd predominantly eingle story homes. In regard to the requeet to e:tend the deck to Within 17 inchea of the eouth property line, the ataff Sa not aware of any similar requeete. h. Conclueion: Other variances fur Groee Floor Area Ratio in the aame range ae that proposed by the applicant have been granted in the recent past. Therefore, it appears that the variance would allow a substantial property right that has been granted to eimilar property ownere. � i Criterion 13: That the authorization uf euch variance will not be materlally detrimental to the public welfare or in�urioue to property in the vicinity ar zone in which the property ie located. a. Findin�: There Were no adverse commente from other City ' Departme¢ta regarding either variance requeste. The propoaed deck, which is an eaeterly eztenelon from the eouth eide of the eaisting atructure, ie ri[hin 17 inches of the eouth eide property line and could potentially impact the neighbor to the south. b. Conclusion: In order to prevent any infringement on that eouth neighbore property line, a aolid board fence a minimum of forty-two inches high ehould be required on ehe south line from the rear of the exlating atructu:e to the rear property line if the variance is granted. a. Findln8: In regard to the variance for grose floor area ratio, the Applicant had initially proposed a txo-etory addition which would have increased the groes floor area to .65. Notice of the request xas placed in the nerrspaper and mailed to surrounding property orr¢era. The owner adjacent to the north submltted a letter in oppoaition to [he req�teat as he felt it would damage hie property's value by ahading hie property. The Planning Department Would have Lasued a negative recommendation to the Board as there appeared to be a eignificant impact on the adjoining property [o the north. Because of the oppoeition from the ormer of the ad�oining properiy and the negative recommendation from ihe Planning Department, the Applicante have revised the requeat to allow constructioa of a one-ator addition [hat would cause a grosa floor area ratio of .50 instead .65. In the past year, the Board hae granted three variances for groae floor area ratio of .50 or higher (See Exhibit 7). b. Conclusion: There does not appear that there Woul�t to be significant impact from r.he one-story structure and the Board has gran[ed similar variances in the past. -Z-