4302 CRESCENT AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

12. Other properiies in lhe general vicinity have been developed with single-family residences. Many of these residences have decks, as well as garages. Based on the City's site visits, it appears that many of these properties do not meet the existing required setback siandards. (exhibit 1, page ?, staff reporf; exhihit 2, site plan) 13. Tlie requested variances are the minimum to allow the subject property the same general rights a� other properties in ihe area. The variances would allow the replacement of a f��iling deck, as well as provide a reasonable acces� to the main enlrance of lhe structure. They wouid also allow tha minimum necessary to provide for a covered space for one vehicle. These general rights are consistent with those th�t have been granted to other property owners in the general vir.inity. (exhibit 1, stafireport; exhibit 6, narrative; testimonyofMs. Firnstahl) 1d. In lhe City of �vereli Comprehensive General Plan, ihe subject properiy 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 designation. With the grant of the requested variances, the use of the subject properly for single-family residential purposes would be consistent wiih the goals and policies of the Everett General Comprehensive Plan. (testimony of Ms. Firnstahl, exhibit 1, page 4, staff report) 15. The request of the variances is not lhe result oi a self-created hardship. The Applicants purchased ihe subject property in 2005, and it was developed at thal time. The property, when it was developed, was developed with building permits, and a Certificate of Occupancy was issued. (exhibif 1, sfaff reporf; exhibit 6, narrative; exhibit 10, certificate of occupanc�) 16. At the iime the property was developed, it met all setback standards. (exhibif 1, staff report; exhibit 11, original site plan and construction permit; testimony of Ms. Firnstahl) 17. It has been determined ihat the failure of lhe retaining wall on-site is the resuit of naturai earll� movement. (exhibit 7, geciechnical assessrnent) It appears that lhe construction in 1980 was not coordinated with a� ��act survey of the property and the �verelt General Comprehensive Pla�. T'he Cily granted the permits. None of these factors is the result of an� activity of the Applicants. As noted earlier, the Applicants purchasPd �ne subject property after all permits and development had occurre�. (exhibit 6, narrative; exhibit 1, page 4, staff repoit; testimony of Ms. Firnsiahl) 18. �n �ne Cily of Everett, pursuant to EMG ��.39.150.11, unc�vered porches, decks and sieps not over 42-inches above grade may encroach into a setback area by not more than fifty-percent of the required setback area. The deck ihat is pronosed to be rebuilt wouid encroar,h in the front yard area by more than fifty- �1