Laserfiche WebLink
1. Attached accessory buildings may be constructed to the maximum height allowed by <br /> the zone in which it is located;provided,that the attached accessory building meets <br /> all setbacks required for the principal building. <br /> 2. The Planning Director,using the review process described in EMC Title 15, Local <br /> Project Review Procedures,may allow attached or detached accessory buildings <br /> meeting all setbacks or within the principal building's rear setback to exceed the <br /> fifteen-foot height limitation;provided,that all of the following requirements are met: <br /> a. The accessory building(s) shall not exceed twenty feet in height. <br /> b. The accessory building(s) shall be compatible with the dwelling and/or <br /> neighborhood character. To make this determination,the planning director may <br /> consider such factors that include,but are not limited to, view obstruction, roof <br /> pitch,building materials, screening and landscaping,aesthetic impact on <br /> surrounding properties and streetscape, incompatible scale with dwellings on <br /> surrounding properties, and impact on neighborhood character. The planning <br /> director shall also have the authority to impose greater setback requirements, <br /> landscape buffers, or other locational or design requirements as necessary to <br /> mitigate the impacts of accessory buildings which are taller than otherwise <br /> allowed by this section. <br /> c. A covenant acceptable to the city attorney's office shall be recorded on the title to <br /> the property stating that the property owner acknowledges the requirements of <br /> this section, and stating that the use of any accessory structure is limited to <br /> accessory activities permitted by the zone in which the property is located, and <br /> that the accessory building shall not be converted to a living area or used for any <br /> purposes which are not in full compliance with zoning and building code <br /> requirements. <br /> Conclusions Based on Findings: <br /> 1. The Director's determination was that an accessory structure taller than 15 feet would <br /> impede partial views enjoyed by properties across the alley from the proposed building <br /> site. View obstruction is one of a list of factors that the Director is obliged to consider <br /> when determining whether an overheight accessory structure would be compatible with <br /> the neighborhood. Three neighbors complained of view obstruction. Credible evidence <br /> offered in the record establishes that the partial views of the Olympic mountains were <br /> enjoyed by these neighbors even before the cherry tree was removed,which renders moot <br /> the question of whether removal of the tree created the view. While the Appellant has <br /> clearly invested much effort in attempting to design a structure that could fit within the <br /> context of adjacent development, as well as effort in justifying the proposed structure as <br /> designed,his appeal fails to show that the Director erred in determining that the view <br /> impacts complained of are grounds for denial. It is concluded that the Director acted <br /> properly within the scope of discretion afforded by EMC 19.07.020.J.2.b. Findings2, 4, <br /> 5, 6, 7, 810, 11, and 12. <br /> Findings, Conclusions, and Decision <br /> Everett Hearing Examiner <br /> Jeff Cook Appeal,APP-17-007 page 6 of 7 <br />