1614 BAILEY AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

( ! Criterion No. 5: The granting of the variance is consistent with the goals and policies of the Everett General Plan. a. Findings: The Everett General Plan designates this property as 1.2, Single F�mily Detached, 5-10 Dwellings per gross acre. b. Conclusions: The proposed use of the subject property for residential purposes is consistent with the Evarett General Plan. Criter(on No. 6: The need (or the requested varlance is not the result ot a sel(- created hardship. a. Flndinqs: The applic.3nt has stated that he purciiased the home in November 2001, and therefore only recently beca�e !he homeovmer of the subject residence. He also states that the setback problems already e.<isted on site at his time of purchase. He stafes he was told by tn;, rea�!or lhat the setbacks were ok and that he would not have to remove any portion of the structure to meet current code requirements. Since purchasing the property the applicant has cleaned debris left on site and hss therefore improved the site for the neighborhood. The City of Everett Code Compliance Office has been attempting to �,vork with the property owners of the subject residence for saveral years to correct the vioiations on site. Several letters were sent to previous owners of the property, making it known that viola[lons existed on site (Exhibil #7). However, due to ownership changes over the years, inciuding bark foreclosures, Code Compliance action has not been concluded to date. The Hearing Examiners Order, of May 30, 2002, required the property owner, Mr. Dalton, to seek a variance as a possible solution to the setback violations on site. The real estate agent who listed lhe property during the time the applicant purchased said property, was sent a memo via facsimile in the Spring of 2001, from the City of Everett Code Compliance Office, making her aware of the fact that there were several setback violations present on site. and the site was part oi an ongoing code compliance action. The letters which have bEan sent and any other information that the Ciry has on the property �s part of the public record, and is available for vie�ving by contactino the City. The applicant met with City staff after purchasing the home and w�s made aware of the violations c�xistin� on site, and the corrective action necessary. b. Conclusions: The b�ilding currently has a garage built to wilhin 3 feet o(the�runt s�tback, and with�n 8 irc,hes of the western interior property line. The wr�st side of the residence hzs been expanded to between 0 and 8 inches of the western property line. A second story deck extends 3.5 feet into the required 20 foot front setback. The building additions which were made to the residence which !ail to meet the required setback were all done withoul the benefit of building permits or City approval. Therefore, the need for the requested variances is the result of a self created hardship. y�