Laserfiche WebLink
Criterion No 2• <br /> That the variance will not be materially detrimental to the <br /> property in the area of the subject property or to the city as <br /> a whole. <br /> a• Flndina: Moving the house forward on the lot would not <br /> block anyone's view and would not create a traffic hazard. <br /> Because of the unused right of way there would still be <br /> room to park a car in front of the garaqe without intrud- <br /> ing into the street. Publ:.c Works had no adverse comments <br /> an granting this variance. <br /> The applicant will be pr�viding four off-streec parkinq <br /> spaces (two in the gerace and two in front of the qaraqe) . <br /> b. Concluaion: Granting this variance would not be m�- <br /> terially detrimental to the property in the area or to the <br /> ; City as a whole. <br /> � ��on No. 3• <br /> That the variance will only grant the subject property the seme <br /> qeneral riqhts enjoyed by other property in the same aree and <br /> zone as the subject property. <br /> a. Findino: There are other houses in the north end.thnt do � <br /> not meet the twenty foot front setback. in addition, a <br /> variance was grented for front yard setback and a house <br /> conatructed on Parcel 2 because of the steep alope. <br /> b. ��� Granting this ti•nriar�ce will allow tha owner a <br /> property right enjoyed by others in the same areA and <br /> zone. <br /> Critarion No. 4• � <br /> Thnt the variance is the minimu{� necessary to allow the subject <br /> property the qeneral riqhts desbribed in Criterion 3. <br /> a. Flndina: The level urea availAblo for anchorinq the Poun- <br /> dation is very limited and any less of a variance would <br /> creete a greater hardship for construction of a l�ome. � <br /> b. Conclusion: �ranting this variance is the minimum neces- � <br /> sary to allow the property rights enjoyed by others in the <br /> same area and zone. <br /> Criterion No, 5: <br /> The qre:�ting of the variance is not inconsistent with the goals <br /> and policies of the Everett Generel Plan. <br /> a. ��nd�The General Plan desiqnates the area for single <br /> family rosidential. <br /> b. Conclusion: The proposad use is single family and so will <br /> not be inconsistent with the General Plan. <br /> Criterion No. 6• <br /> The nQed for the requested variance is not the result of a <br /> sE31f-created hardship. <br /> a. Pindina: The topography of the lot is the reason for re- <br /> questing the variance. <br /> b. Conclusion: Th� need for the •✓ariance is not the result <br /> of a self-created hardship. <br /> 2 i <br /> I <br />