Laserfiche WebLink
development of these properties. These properties would be restricted for any <br /> setback reduction. (testimony of Mr. Tyler) <br /> 9. There are other properties that have similar zoning and are adjacent to <br /> residential zones. However, according to the City, these properties were not <br /> analyzed because they were located adjacent to freeways and not impacted or <br /> affected by the fifteen-foot setback standard. (exhibit 19, power point, page 26; <br /> testimony of Mr. Tyler) <br /> 10. The Applicant submitted material that included a photo of the adjacent buildings <br /> whose walls would face the proposed development on the subject property. The <br /> Applicant noted that some of the buildings on the adjacent property have very <br /> few windows. It was also noted that there is a six-foot high solid landscape fence <br /> along the property line and is landscaped with landscape trees that are <br /> significantly higher than six feet. (exhibit 16, Applicant's Motion for <br /> Reconsideration) <br /> CONCLUSIONS <br /> 1. On November 22, 2013, the Hearing Examiner of the City of Everett denied <br /> variances that were requested for the development of a project commonly known <br /> as the 9th Avenue West multi-family project in the 10100 block of 9th Avenue <br /> West, Everett, Washington. The denial was based on the Applicant's failure to <br /> satisfy four of the criteria for variances pursuant to Everett Municipal Code (EMC) <br /> 19.41.130.C. <br /> 2. The November 22, 2013, decision held that criterion EMC 19.41.130.C(1) had <br /> not been satisfied. That criterion reads: <br /> The variance will not be materially detrimental to the <br /> property in the area of the subject property or the City <br /> as a whole. <br /> Conclusion #3, as set forth in the November 22, 2013, decision, is hereby <br /> withdrawn and the following conclusion is substituted: <br /> A further review of the record and the additional exhibits presented at the <br /> reconsideration hearing has shown that although the structure will be closer <br /> than the 15-foot setback, the design and location of the building will not <br /> create an additional impact to the adjoining property. With limited windows <br /> on the south side of the adjoining property, and the separation of the <br /> properties, including significant size and landscaping trees on both sides, <br /> the impact will not be detrimental. (finding 10) <br /> 3. Another criterion that was not satisfied according to the Hearing Examiner <br /> November 22, 2013, decision was criterion EMC19.41.130.C(2) which <br /> reads: <br /> 6/1::3 <br />