Laserfiche WebLink
.. . . , .'-.•y <br /> . i <br /> � <br /> � �a front property line is a cliff. The remainder of <br /> the property is approximately 4C feet lower at the <br /> d � bottom of the cliff. <br /> y�� b, roncl�ionR: The subject property is large, but has <br /> a limited area that is buildable and accessible. <br /> ��y� (`ri tnr10I1 ZIO. 2' <br /> W • <br /> ��� That the variance will not be materially detrimental to <br /> �d the property in the area of the subject property or to the <br /> H <br /> City as a whole. <br /> p� a, g�yg� The subject property is immediately north <br /> x of a vacant parcel owned by the City of Everett. <br /> �� The variance request vill permit the applicant to <br /> � build closer to the City owned property immediately <br /> � south than is a1loWed by code. <br /> W <br /> �� There is n multifamily development project under <br /> construction immediately across th is townedf b m B6K <br /> - subject property. The property Y <br /> � partnership who is represented by Kirk Smith. �+ <br /> letter was received by Mr. Smith on Mny 6, 1993. <br /> The letter states that he did not receive notice of <br /> 1 the variance hearinq held on June 5th and that he is <br /> C� opposed to the variance request. He has stated that <br /> there is a heiqht restriction thnt vas purchased <br /> ; from the previous :,wner of ris. Sorieno's property <br /> and that the variance will adversely affect the <br /> view corridor and sales of his units. (Exhibit I6) <br /> I �� A lettes was submitted by the applicant with <br /> i signatures of property ottners in the immediate area <br /> in support of the varianre request. (Exhibit /7) <br /> 1 . <br /> � �► �, letter was submitted by Kirk Smith at the heering <br /> . opposing the variancn request and outlining the <br /> l�pplicant's proposal and how it did not meet the <br /> I—t� criteria necessary for a variance to be granted. <br /> � (Exhibit /e) <br /> b, c.+nclL;o�: The City of Everett�s Real Property <br /> ��� Manager has stated that the variance will not be <br /> detrimental to the City owned property immediately <br /> south of the subject parcel. (Exhibit A5) <br /> There is a recorded view easement covenant for the <br /> benefit l�Sr. Smith's pzoperty that limits the heiqht <br /> of structures to 20 feet for the north half (iot 34) <br /> of the ap�licant's property. Because this is an <br /> agreement between private property owners. the City <br /> does not enforce such covenants. <br /> There are hardships that exist with the property, <br /> makinq development difficult. <br />