2129 W MUKILTEO BLVD 2016-01-01 MF Import

� �, � "-1 , ,j, , , � , , i' f � ' , , Masjorie Carlson Short Subdivision Variance 3G-89 Fage -3- 9. iots /1 and 92 hare been designed as irregular shaped lots becauee of a reaidence located on lot Ifl which wae deaigned to iacorporate the eziating houee as part of that lot. Ae a reault, lot d2 has an irregular ehape that results in aporozimately a 64 foot width at the mid-point. Lot A2 is an "hour glaes" type of design. 10. The topography of the property ia nor. flat. The building area oa propoeed lot d2 is on the eaeterly poetion of the proposed lot. The weetern portion of this lot ia an env.tronmeatally seneitive area that cannot be developed. 11. No other design of this lot or any other lot caa be made in a manaer as to preserve the integrity of the lot #`1 setbacks ahile at the same time preserving adequate setbacka for propoeed lot �2. 12. 13. 14. The variance, ae requested, haa no impact on the development of proposed lote d3 aad �4. All of the lota within the propoeed ehort aubdiviaion eatiafy the minimum requiremeata of RS zonee. No development of any of the lota srill occur in the environmentallq seneitive areas. 15. The lot configuration, as deaigned, will result ia the preservation of the eziating dwelling and yard area on lot N1 and allow a house to be developed on proposed lot d2. 16. Lot A1 aad lot �2 will ehare a common accese and utility eaement S+hich sii].1 reeult in the reduction of need for increased impervious surface in the area. � 17. Oppoeition to the variance was aubmitted by Dennis Robereon. According to Mr. Robereon, the City is in error in the zoning deaignation of the subject property ae RS. He claimed that the property ie zo�ed as Open Space and, therefore, shauld not be eubject to further development. The Witnees contended that the property is part of the Tiar.beck Creek drainage that cannot be developed. 18. The City responded that although the eubject property is deaignated Opea Space in the General Plan of the City of Everett, it is zoned RS and muat be developed according to the atandards of the RS zone. 19. Witneae Robereuu auhnitte�d that he opposed the variance because he dcee not rant further development on thia parcel of property. He submitted that the enviro�mentally seneitive nature of the property is auch that no development should occur.