1419 73RD ST SE 2018-01-02 MF Import

1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEP 15 1986 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER VARIANCE NO.33-86......................... ......... .... rvTY OF EVERETT Based upon the writtfn reque:3t for a variance from the City's zoning oode by: I Eldin C. Anderson 1419 73r•d St. Everett, WA 93203 hereinafter referred to as "Applicant," for a variance from E.M.C. 19.14 04C Gross Floor Area Ratio to allow: construction of a detached garage which together with the exi.3ting single fanily residence will cause the gross floor area ratio to be .45 instead of the .30 allowed by Code. on the following described property Lot 10, Plat of Highland View. commonly known as: 1419 73rd St. The Board of Adjustment, following a public hearing on said application held on September 8, 1986, and further having reviewed all testimony, makes the following Findings, Conclusions and Order: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. That there have been exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property or as to the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity or zone. Finding: The Applicant is proposing to construct a 30' by 32' detached garage for cover for an R.V. trailer and two pickup trucks. They have recently removed eleven feet of deck which extended over the driveway in order to be able to move the trailer which they formerly parked in front of the house into the rear yard. The deck they removed had provided cover for the two pickup trucks. City zoning code defines "Gross Floor Area Ratio" as the sum of all the floors of a building divided by the lot area. The City feels a more reasonable way to limit lot coverage would be to consider the footprint of the building as the basis for figuring gross floor area ratio since there is already a height limitation that controls the number of floors. In the past, the gross floor area ratio has not been uniformly enforced; however, the City feels that rather thE.n disregarding thel code it is more appropriate to consider applications for variance on and Individual basis until the zoning code is changed. The footprint of the structures cover 28% of the lot area. Conclusion: The variance as proposed by the Applicant appears to be a reasonable request. 2. That such variance is necessary f;r the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right o" the appellant possessed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity or zone. Finding: The Board of Adjustment has granted other requosts for variance from gross floor area ratio and the City will continue to recommend doing so until the zoning rode is changed. Conclusion: The variance would allow a property right possessed by other owners.