Laserfiche WebLink
b. Conclusions• The unusual circumstances applying to this <br /> project is the fact that there is an exYotect couldlbe de- <br /> the site. If the site was vacant the p._ j <br /> signed so as not to require a variance. <br /> Cr' erio No. 2' <br /> That the variance will not be �ateriallyed�tro=e�oa�he°City as <br /> property in the area of the subject prop Y <br /> a whole. <br /> a. F�ndinas: The property is located on the east side of <br /> Rucker Avenue and since the c3rport will be east of and <br /> much lower than the existing condominium, there is no po- <br /> tential for view blockage. No adverse comments have been <br /> received in response to notification mailed to property <br /> owners within 500 feet of the site. <br /> b. Concl»s�ons• Granting this variar.ce would not be materi- <br /> ally detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to <br /> others in the vicinity and zone. <br /> rriYPrinn NO. 3• <br /> That the variance will only grant the subject property the same <br /> general rights enjoyed by other property in the same area and <br /> zone as the subject property. <br /> a, F�nd�nas: The property is located in an R-5 Core Kesiden- <br /> tial zone whose purpose is to provide high density <br /> residential opportunities in close proximity to the down- <br /> town core, and as such, is highly developed for <br /> multi-family use. There are many other buildings in this <br /> zone that have provided garages adjacent to the alley that <br /> cover the rear yards. <br /> b, ronc�Ls�ons: Granting this variance will allow a property <br /> right already possessed by others in this vicinity and <br /> . zone. <br /> r itorign NO. 4' <br /> That the variance is the minimum necessary to allow the subject <br /> property the qeneral riqhts described in Criterion 3 . <br /> a, F�'ndinas: The variance is necessary in order to be able <br /> to cover all eight of the parking stalls. If a lesser <br /> variance were granted, it would not be possible to cover <br /> all eight parking stalls. <br /> b, r�n�t�s�ons: The variance as requested is the minimum <br /> necessary to allow the property right possessed by others <br /> in this vicinity and zone. <br /> Criterion No. 5: <br /> The qranting of the variance is not inconsistent with the goals <br /> snd policies of the Everett General Plan. <br /> a. Findinas: The General Plan designation is multiple fami- <br /> ly, 25 to 50 dwelling units per acre. The carports are <br /> accessory to the residential use. <br /> b, Conc�usions• Granting the variance would not be inconsis- <br /> tent with the General Plan. <br /> 2 <br />