1503 RUCKER AVE 2018-01-02 MF Import

a ICritcrion @2: That such vari:�nce is necessary for the preservation and � enJoyment of a substantlal property righ[ of the . appellant possessed by the oxners of other propertles in , the eame vlcinity or zone. ' a. Findlag: In regard to the variance requ�s[ tor Groas Floor Area Ratio, eince April 1986, the City of E�•ere[t hae been in [he ptoceafl of revising the zoning code Co el;minate the gross floor area ratio requirement, and the Board of Adjuatment has granted fifteen tequeata for variance from the C!'AR requirement in that time ranging from .33 to .60 (see Exhibit M9). None of those gran[ed were oppoaed excepi for one at 3i16 Tulalip, which was oppose3 by a neighbor acroea the atreet on the baels that a two-etory etructure would. not fit inl•o the neighborhood which had predominantly aingle etory homea. In regard to the rEqueat [o extend the deck to within 17 inches of the souih property line, the staff is not aWare of any eimilar r�:ques[s. b. Conclueion: Other variances for Grose Floor Area Ratio !n the eame cange ae that propoeed by the applicant have been granted in the recent paet. Therefore, it appeare that the variance would allow a subetantial property right that has been granted to eimilar proper[y oxnera. Criterion 13: That the authorization of euclt variance will not ba materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurioue to property in the vicinity or zone in which the property ie located. a. Finding: There were no adveree commenta from other City ' Departmente regarding either variance requeete. The propoeed deck, which Se an easteriy extension from the south slde of the exieting etructure, ie within 17 inchea of the sou[h eide property line and could potentially impact the neighbor to the south. ii b. Conclueion: In order to prevent any infringement on that aouth neighbors property line, a aolid board fence a minimum of forty-two inches high ehould be required on the sou[h line from the rear oE the eziating atruc[ure to the rear property line if the variance ie granted. a. Finding: In regard to the variance for groea floor area ratio, the Applicant had initially proposed a two-s:ory addition which would have i¢creeaed the grose floor area to .65. Notice of the requeet aas placed in the newspaper and mailed to surrounding property or+nera. The ormer adjacent to the north . submitted a letter in oppoeition to the requeat as he felt it would damase his property'e value by ahading his property. The Planning Department would have iseued a negative recommenda[Lon to the Board ae there appeared to be a 3lgnificant impact an the ad�oining property �o the north. Becuuae of the oppoaition frem the ow-ner of [he adjoining property and the negative recommendatlon from the Planning Uepartme¢t, tne nppticants have re�:aec the request [o aL:ow conatruction of a one-story addition that would cauae a gross floor area ratio of .50 instead .65. In the pas[ year, the Board hae granted three variances for groea floor area ratio of .50 or higher (See Exhibit 7). �. Conclusion: There does not appea_• that [here would [o be significant impact from the one-story structure and the Board has granted aimilar varlancea in the past. -2-