Laserfiche WebLink
6 <br /> } <br /> S <br /> r,,i <br /> car garage can be rebuilt on the same footprint and can be <br /> RE certified as an existing non-conforming building. The new <br /> garage will be constructed in the same location as the <br /> M existing garage. • <br /> 9HV <br /> Criterion Mo. 2: That the variance will not be materially i <br /> P 0 detrimental to the property in the aria of the subject property i <br /> o x o or to the city as a whole. <br /> hdH� i <br /> xa. Findings: No written adverse comments have been received <br /> p at this time. The Applicant has stated that the variance <br /> 1. H C will not be detrimental because it will be a standard two <br /> Ngi g car garage within all boundaries and will not restrict any <br /> c. o view nor be an eyesore. <br /> H b. Conclusions: The variance should not be materially t <br /> H y detrimental to the property in the area of the subject <br /> H property or to the city as a whole. <br /> ca ti <br /> yy r I <br /> Criterion No. 3;. That the variance will only grant the subject { <br /> H o y property the same general rights enjoyed by other property in the <br /> same area and zone as the ssbject property. <br /> a. Findings: The Applicant has stated that the variance will <br /> only grant him an opportunity to park his cars inside as <br /> ( and to work on them indoors when the weather is adverse, <br /> and that this is no more than what most other properties <br /> have in the neighborhood. <br /> I�►•...1 b. Conclusions: The surrounding properties are developed with <br /> residential uses, the majority of which have garages. Two <br /> ...,,,...i , garages in the area are very large and exceed the code <br /> 4 <br /> „w allowance for accessory structures. The granting of the <br /> variance would permit the subject property the same rights <br /> enjoyed by other properties in the area. <br /> ... Criterion Mo. 4: That the variance is the minimum necessary to II <br /> allow the subject property the general rights described in <br /> I I Criterion 3. <br /> a. rindinaw See Criteria #3. <br /> , 1 L.! b. Conclusions: See Criteria #3. <br /> ��� Criterion Mo. 5: The granting of the variance is not inconsistent <br /> with the goals and policies of the Everett General Plan. <br /> a. Findings: The Everett General Plan designates this <br /> property as Single Family Detached. The Applicant has <br /> stated that the variance request is not inconsistent with <br /> the Everett General Plan as he is only requesting to <br /> replace a one car garage with a two car garage that is <br /> consistent with the area. <br /> { <br />