2012 GRAND AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

,� � � all and that the variance wili not be materially detrimental to the properry to the south. The inclusion of a privacy screen wiii protect the privacy of the neighbor to the south (2014 Grand Ave). b. Conclusions: The Ciry provided written �otice to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site and no adverse comments were received. The Ciry's Building Department reviewed the proposal and commented that a building permit is required for the proposal. Criterion No. 3: hat e var�ance will only grant the subject property the sazne general rights enjoyed by other property in the same area and zone as the subject property. a. Fin�: The applicant states that the neighborhood was deve•oped circa 1910. The three lots to the south are the sams lot configuration. The ezisting structures aze built so that there are no setbacks on either the north or south lot lines. Also, one of the three structures has a walkway deck very similar to the on proposed on the subject properry. b. Conclusions: The immediate area is developed with a num�older single family residences and other structures. Many of these older structures do not meet rypical setback requirements. As indicated by the applicant, the property at 2016 Grand Ave has an existing deck/walkway similar to the one proposed. Criterion No. 4: at the vanance is the minimum necessary to allow the subject property the general rights described in Criterion 3. a. Findin : Cee Criteria �3. b. Conclusionss See Criteria 113 Criterion No. 5: he granang o the variance is consistent with the goals and policies of the Everett General Plan. a. F��in�d� i s: The !:verett General Plan designates this property as 1.6 Multiple Family Detached. b. Conclusions: The proposed use of the subject property for res�dentta purposes is consistent with the Everett General Plan.