1614 BAILEY AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

( � FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: ; Criterion No. 1: That the variance �s necessary because of exceptional or extraordinary ` circumstances regarding the size, shape, topography, or locatior, of the subject property; or the location of a pre-existing improvement on the subject property that conformed to the zoning code in effect when the improvement was constructed. a. Findin s: The applicant has stat�d that the structure on site con orms with other properties within the immediate area, which fail to meet required setGacks. The City finds that the subject site is zoned R-t Single Family Detached Low Densily, and is 7,200 square feet in area. The property was annexed into the City of Everett on Janua�� 1, 1s�59. According to Snohomish County Assessors records the house was built in 1956 (See Exhibit #5). The photo history contained in the County Field Notes show the progression of the additions made to the residence. A carpoR does appear to have been built to the house prior to annexation into the City cf Everett. However, the scale and location of the carpoR have changed since original construclion. As shown in Exhibit#3 the exisling garage and building addition along the west property encroach into both the front twenty foot setback . and the west five (oot side setback. A building permit was issued by the City for the second floor addition which was applied for on April 28, 1982. However, the second floor deck encroaches into the tront setback and is in violation of Section 6 Development Standards related to required setbacks. b. Conclusions: The subject site is larger than the minimum lot size required in the R-1 zone, and complies wilh both the minimum lot width and depth provisions of the Zoning Code. The site is generally flat and contains no environmentally sensitive features. Standard setbacks for the site would be a twenty foot front and rear setback, and five foot sides. The house has been significantly modified since its construction in 1956. All building additions which are in violation of the Zoning Code were dane without the benefit of permits, or City review. The City concludes that there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances existing on the subject property that make lhe subject setbacks necessary. Criterfon No. 2: That the variance will not be materially detrimental to the property in the area of the subject property or to the Ciry as a whole. a. Find(n9s: The applicant has stated that the immediate neighbor is not affected by the siructure, and that the majority of the structure hes been present since 1965, which is prior to the neighbor owning his home. Al the meeting ot the City of�verett Violations Hearing Examiner on May 30, 2002 the property owners of 4703 Greely (which is the ,1�5