4302 CRESCENT AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

1?_. Other properties in the general vicinity have been developed with single•family residences. Many of these residences have decks, as well os garages. Based on the City's site visits, it appears that many of these properties do not meet the exisfing required setback standards. (exhibit i, page 3, staffreport; exhibit 2, site plan) 13. The requested variances are ihe minimum to allow the subject property the same general rights as other properties in the area. The variances would allow the replacement of a failing deck, as well as provide a reasonable access to lhe main entrance of the structure. They wouid also allow the minimum necessary to provide for a covered space for one vehicle. These general rights are consistent with those that have been granted to other property owners in the general vicinity. (exhibrt 1, staffreport; exhibit 6, narrative; testimonyofMs. Firnstahf) 14. In ihe City of Everett Comprehensive General Plan, the subject properly is designated as 1.2, Single-Family Detached, 5-10 Dwellings per gross acre. The subject property has been developed in a manner that is consistent with this �esignation. With the grant of lhe requested variances, the use of the subject property for single-family residential purposes would be consistent with ihe goals and policies of the Everett General Comprehensive Plan. (testimony of Ms. Firnstahl, exhibit 1, page 4, staf(report) 15. The requesl of the variances is not the result of a self-created hardship. The Applicants purchased the subject properly in 2005, and it was developed at that time. The property, when it was developed, was developed wilh building permits, and a Certificale of Occupancy was issued. (exhibit 1, staff report; exl�ibit 6, nan�ative; exhibit 10, certificate of occupancy) 16. At the time the property was developed, it met all selback standards. (exhibit 1. staff report; exhibit 11, original site plan and construction permit; testimony o(Ms. Firnstahl) 17. Il has been determined that the failure of the relaining wall on-sile is the result of nat�ral earlh movement. (exhibit 7, geotechnical assessment) It appears that lhe construction in 1980 was not coordinated with an exact survey of the property and the Everelt General Comprehensive Plan. The City granted the permits. None of these faclors is the result oF any a:tivity of ihe Applicanis. As noted earlier, the Appiicants purchased the subject property after all permits and development had occurred. (exhibit 6, narrative; exhibit 1, paae 4, staff report; testimony of Ms. Firnstahl) 18. In ihe City of Everett, pursuant to EMC 19.39.150.11, uncovered porches, decks and steps not over 4�-inches above grade may encroach into a setback area by nol more than fifty-percent of the required setback area. The deck thal is proposed to be rebuill would encroach in the iront yard area by more lhan fifty- 4� n . �