719 GRAND AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

7. The City in its review of the variance application received two letters of support. (exhibit 8, /etfers) One of the letters of support was from ihe property owner to the north of ihe subject property. No letters of opposition were submitted. No impacts to other properties were identified. (exhibit 1, staff report; Firnstahl testimony) 8. The subject property is a 6,500 square foot parcel. With the new residence constructed on-site, there has been an upgrade to lhe overall neighborhood. In addition, the residence to the north was refurbished within tlie last twenty years. These residences were refurbished and remodeled based on oid plat n�aps and the structures that were originally on-site. Because of this, maintaining lhe property lines as called out in the original plat has resulted in close proximity of the improved structures. (Utt festimony) 9. The single-family resid�nce on the subject properly is three feet, three inches from the north property line al the point where the fence is eight feet in height. The residence on lhe norlh property is less lhan ten feet (rom the deck. (exhibit 1, staffreport) 10. The Everett Planning Department determined tha; they could find no olher eight- foot higli fences in lhe general area. Variances are based on (acls and circumstances of each individual case. (Fimstahl testimony) 1 1. The Cily determined that the eight-foot high (ence variance would be the minimum lo allow ihe owners' of the subjecl property lo have the same general rights as oUier properly owners in lhe area. The additional heighl of lhe fence as it adjoins the deck would create an impression of six (eel of privacy which is similar to thal as allowed by Ihe height standards. (Firnstahl testimony) 12. The 6vereU General Comprehensive Plan designates the subjecl property as 1.2, Single-Family Delached. In such a designalion, five lo ten dwelling units per gross acre are suggested. The use o( the subject properly, based on lhe original plat, is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the Everett General Comprehensive Plan. (Firnstahl testimony) 13. In I�is applicalion, Ihe Applicant submitled that Ihe variance was not the resull of a self-created hardship bul a misunderstanding o( the building codes of the City o( Everelt. The Applicant, a fireman, was not familiar wilh the building or planning codes of the Cily of Everelt, and the adjoining properly owner, an oificial with a non-profit corporalion, also was unaware. The main purpose of the fence was lo accommodate the needs of the two adjoining property owners. No other impacls lo other property owners or to lhe passing public resulL (exhibit 5, narrative: Uff testirnony) 3