5114 CHINOOK DR 2016-01-01 MF Import

� � ,- �. q, The building snvelope oi lot 7, with a 251oot rear yard rstb�dc, w11 result in e roduoed eroa for devslopment oi a reaidsnce. Ths enve�ope'�vould be 22}sst at one end, with a 30 foot avsrags, �nd 50 fest at ft�`�idest point. Thia enwlops is irndequats and too errNll to �ccommodn� dsve�oPmant of the site consistent with ths subdivision'e CC3R's thd have bsen filed for the plet. (Exhibit 3) 5. On ths propeRY �ine betwsen �ot 3 and lot 7 is a rodcsry that was instelled by tM owner ot lot 3. The rodcery w�s irntalled upon �pProval by the City through a Revisw Process IIA�nd we�roquired to reti�ty minimum Zoninp Cods requirert�enls es set forth in Everett ��micip�l Cods(EMC) 19.39.150.C5a-d. Tha owner of lot 3 wun��tted testimony in a letter opposinp the reduoed setback. (Exhibits 1 8 5, Schmitz teetimony) 6. The owner oi lot 3 wbmitted that wit� x��tfon�ti�or a fiound�tion tcould required 25 foot setbadc, tM propo retult in damapa to an existing rockery on lot 3. He aubmitted that the plecement ot a house on lot 7 within ths propoeed varianoe sstbadc envelope would impad viawa. (Exhibit 5) 7. According to tM contour maps eubmiried at e�ibit 5(pape 7), the aoutheaet corner oi ths wbject propsrtY f�398 isst, whU�ths irontage along Chinook Drive ie 380 fest. Ths stnxx�uro on lot 3 i�developsd at approximataly 400 feet, or 20 feet above the north bound�rY of�ot 7• With a reduced roar setbeck, the reaidence on lot 7 would be developed et approximately 392 fset. (Figure ie approximate) (Exhibit 5, Wood testimony) 8. The Applicant submitted that the atrict epplication of the eetb�ck zoninp stendards would require e unique house design thet would not be functionel or meet raquiromenta oi tM ro�trictions �nd covsnants oi Section 1.3 recorded under Snohomieh County Auditora File 93033230564. (Exhibit 1) 9. Admitted et the hearing as exhibit 8 was a Istler irom the Gonzelee Deeign Partners who submitted material on behalf of Mr. Schmitz wpporting an altemative placement of a houae on 1017. Such a plaoertisnt would eliminate the need for e variance, acoordi�9 to the Gonzeles. In response, the Applicent aubmitted a reviaw oi the Gonzales Design Partr�s report by a residential and inveetment specieliet, Peter Hurley. Mr. Hurley contended that the conceptual plen tor 1017, which dspids a home within a 3