Laserfiche WebLink
B. Preservation of Property Right: <br /> rinding: There are other dwelling units in the north end on the old platted lots <br /> that do not meet the side yard requirements. <br /> Conclusion: The variance is only reasonable when all the issues are evaluated <br /> through public review process. <br /> C. Public Welfare: <br /> Finding: The wall erected in 7uly 1982 serves to enclose a walkway. <br /> ' Conclusion: The action benefited only the property owner and not the general <br /> public. <br /> D. Comprehensive Plan: <br /> Finding: The Cornprehensive Plan shows this area as residential• <br /> Conclusion: The variance will not adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> RECOMMENDA7'fON: DENY <br /> Deny a variance from Everett Municipal Code Sec. 19.16.050 (B) Side Yard to allow an <br /> enclosed walkway to remain within five inches of the property line for the following <br /> ' reasons: <br /> 1. The enclosed walkway was constructed without proper permiis and public review. <br /> � 2. The particular request in question does not exliibit spe=ial circumstances which <br /> i <br /> deprive it of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the area. <br /> ' 3. The enclosed walkway as built would require encroachment on the adjacent <br /> property for maintenance of th�: wall. <br /> 4. The action benefited only the property owner and not the generai public. <br /> � <br /> � � <br /> �i <br /> i • <br /> H � <br /> y �• <br /> H � <br /> NG �: <br /> l� � <br /> y C <br /> O �: <br /> � �" <br /> �Q r <br /> C^ :. <br /> r �' <br /> H V- <br /> � C, <br /> � 4 <br /> � <br /> � <br /> � . . <br /> A � <br /> � �1 <br /> ti . <br /> . � <br /> f <br />