4717 GARDNER AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

submitted that there is no requirement for view preservation in the City of Everett. (Fauver testimony) 9. The City further submitted that although the Applicant had requested a variance, the criteria for review was for a fence modification as allowed in EMC 19.39.070.A.1. The City submitted that the review criteria for variances as set forth in EMC 19.41.130.0 did not pertain to the instant case. (exhibit 1, Fauver testimony) 10. The City determined that the fences were 'tiniell constructed and aesthetically pleasing" and wouid not have a negative impact on the subject prope�r:y or to other property owners in the area. (exhibit 1, Fauver testimony) 11. The Appellant contended that the fence and trellis are structures subject to the zoning regulations of the City of Everett, and in particular the vari2nce criteria as set forth in EMC 19.41.130. The Ap�ellant contended that the trellis and fence are detrimental to his property because it impacts the"home value and appeal". Further, the Appellant contended that there are no exceptional circumstances that warcant the grant of a variance and that it impacts on the rights of other property owners in the area. The Appellant also contended that the variance isn't consistent with the Goals and P�licies of the Everett General Plan and that the need fi�r the variance has been a seif-created hardship. (exhihit 3) Jurisdlction: The Hearing Examiner of the City of Everett has jurisdictional authority to hold a hearing and to issue fhe decision. That authority is set forth in EMC 15.24.320. Based on the above Findings of Fact, the Hearing Examiner enters the following Conclusions: CONCLUSIONS 1. On June 18, 2003, the Applicant applied to the City Planning and Community Development Department for approvai of a Review Process I (#03-017) to allow a fence to exceed the maximum allowed height of 42"within a front yard setback on property located at 4717 Gardner Avenue, Everett,Washington. In addition, the Applicant alsn requested that the other two fences on-site be allowed to exceed nine feet in height. The nine feet would include the fence and trellis. After review of the application and the applicable City ordinances, the City Planning and Community Development Director granted the request for the fence modification. The fence modification on-site was allowed subject to five requirements that were set forth in the July 23, 2003, determination. (finding 1) 2. EMC 15.16.050.A.3 allows for the Planning Director to approve maximum fence heights in the front yard setbacks. 3. The ApplicanYs request was a fence modificati��n and not a variance. The determination was not reviewed pursuant to the variance criteria as listed in the 4