Laserfiche WebLink
Cazdwell of KFC Coip. These letters are attached as <br />Exhibits �f 9 and N10. <br />Crit�:rion No. 3: <br />at t�e vu��ance will only grant the subject properry the same general <br />rights enjoyed by other property in [ti e same area and zone as the subject <br />properry. <br />a. N'indii. : The applicant states that the variance will only <br />grant e subject property the same rights enjoyed by other <br />properties that are built along Interstate Five. A fence height <br />of 42 inches would do nothing to block out the view of cars <br />and trucks zipping by at 60 miles an hour. Also, the <br />requested variance would do little to block out the noise but <br />would at least give some relief to the view. <br />b. Conclusions: The unmediate area is developed with <br />pr o�m�nandy single family resu' nces. There were no <br />similaz retaining wall structures or fences in ttte azea of the <br />subject property. Driveways in the azea range from <br />approximately 10 feet wide to 30 feet wide with the average <br />driveway being about 20 feet wide. <br />Criterion No. 4: <br />at1` t�e var nce is the minimum necessary to allow the subject property <br />the genera] rights described in Criterion 3. <br />a. <br />b. <br />Findin : See Criteria #3. <br />Conclusions: See Criteria #3 <br />Criterion No. 5• <br />e granting o the variance is consistent with the goals and policies of <br />the Everett General Plan. <br />a. <br />b. <br />Findin : The Everett General Plan designates this property <br />as 1. mgle Faznily Detached. <br />Conclusions: The proposed use of the subject propecry as <br />resi enu is consistent with the Everett General Plan. <br />Criterion No. 6: <br />e need or e <br />hazdship. <br />requested vaziance is not the result of a self-created <br />a• Findings: The applicant states that the prior existing wood <br />retaining wall had failed dua to years of deurioration causing <br />a land slid„ situation. The urgent need for this ntaining wall <br />to be replaced with a more suitable material for thistype of <br />ap�lication was agreed between the applicant and the af�cted <br />neighUor. The sidewaik along side of the home in this area <br />was severely damaged. It was cracked, detached aad the <br />underlying foundadon had washed away. The slope was 45 <br />