1411 11TH ST 2016-01-01 MF Import

� � � � � x � Q H � Hfn H� H �C C� H 7J oxo 'TJHK7 VJ H �y � residences in the area have on-site parking available and H � �y do not rely on street parking exclus:.vely. Hy � b. Conclusions: The majority of proparties in the ara_a have � y� garage or un-site parking space available and yet on- F, y street pazking is a problem. if the variance is granted g� H as requested by the applicant, the subject property would c� tyv, be partially dependent upon on-street parking to meet �a� � minimum code requirements. �1 y p � criterion No. 4: That the variance is the minimum necessary to allow the suhject property the general rights described in Criterion 3 . a. Pindinas: See Criteria $3 . b. Conclusions: See Criterion 3. II Criterion No. 5: I The granting of the variance is co�sistent with the goals and ' policies of the Everett General Plan. �I t�1 a. Findinas: The Everett General Plan designates this �i '_r property as 1.2 Single Family Residential. I b. Conclusions: The granting of the variance is consistent ��' with the goals and policies of the Everett General Plan. � �a' Criterion No. 6: The need for the requested variance is not f the result of a self-created hardship. ! � a. Findinas: The applicant has stated that the home was originally built in 1930 as a ;aother-in-law apartment. ..+ When it was built, one garage space was used for the main � 1 house and one for this house. Because this home was a ��e rental unit on1y, one bedroom and one bathr.00m in 590 square Peet of living space was adequate. The use of the �' home has since changed and the current size does not suit o its current use as an �wner occupied home. Tc+o garages � are simply no longer necessary. a � b. Conclusions: The need for the requested variance to s' reduce the available on-site parking is the result of a o� self-created hardship. The need for the requested variance to allow living space in the rear and side setback areas is not the result of a self-created hardship. FINDIHGS .�� CONCI.IISIONS: