4931 NICHOLS PL 2016-01-01 MF Import

Steve dartlow Construction Variance 14-89 Page -4- 12. Confusion of the Applicant :�as caused in part by a misunderstanding of marks that were made on the plans. Ttie marks were made in "red" and indicated the problem with the encroachment lnto the front yard. The Applicant's impression was that these marks pertained to construction of the front porch and not to the location of the building. 13. Because of the steep bank on the subject property, the confusion wlth the markings on the officlal plans and the time that the official plans were found to be misinterpreted, exceptional circumstances exlst to the subject property that do not apply to other propertles. These exceptional circumstances create a negative impact upon the Applicant and, in particular, tlie property owner who has contracted to have the house built. To change the r�^^R at this point of the co¢struction wonld result in great expense �+� •. ,roperty owner for the sol.e purpose of adhering eo the setback starye•,. ;.. 14. It appears Lhat the variance is needed Eor the enjoyment of the property right o[ the property owner in the area have setbacks, although they aren't requested setbacks. pre.servation and Other properties as greut as the 15. The requested variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to tlie properties in the vicinity. 16. The granting of the variance will not be i❑ conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City oE Everett end Che designatlon of the property, Low Density Residential. 17. At the public hearing exhibits were submitted. These exhibits included correspondence from various parties. They included: Dill and Yvonne Tiombardier - The letter writers submitted that they are the property owners who will be living in the house on the subject property. They submitted that the impact from the s.:tbacks will not be negative to the enjoyment of their yard or the area around their hoi�se. The removaL of the canti-lever sections of the house would reduce living space and the design and the street appeal of the strucr.ure. James Uranstrom - The letter writer is the property owner across Che street from the subject proper[y. f1e submitted that he had no objection to the grant of the variance and that there is no negative impact o❑ the value to the surrounding propertles. Steve IIartlow - The letter writer stated that he wished to conti.nue construction on the residence at the subject property while the variance is being requested and considered. He submitted that he doing so at their own peril. (This letter was acknowledged by the City). Ron Rudge - The letter writer submitted that his property 1s next to the subject property and adjoins the side yard for which the setback request is sought. }Ie supported the variance.