Laserfiche WebLink
5. The proposed construction will include demolition of an existing 213.4 square <br /> foot garage that encroaches on the side yard setback. The garage was built prior <br /> to the purchase of the house by the Applicant. The garage and its design are not <br /> consistent with the original 1940 era home and will be removed. The <br /> improvements submitted by the Applicant for the use of the access to the site <br /> and the rear setback variance will improve the design and compatibility of the <br /> structure. (exhibit 6, narrative, page 1) <br /> 6. According to the Applicant, the subject property was developed as part of a short <br /> plat that satisfied land use criteria at the time. However, no specific zoning <br /> requirements were in place by the City at that time. (exhibit 6, narrative, page 2) <br /> 7. The subject property has three existing non-conforming setbacks that became <br /> effective at the time zoning standards were enacted within the City of Everett <br /> (1956). The front setback is 9 feet 8 inches; the rear setback is 15 feet; and the <br /> side setback is 7 feet 10 inches. The Applicant seeks a variance from the rear <br /> setback non-conforming status. (exhibit 1, staff report; testimony of Ms. Medlen) <br /> 8. In order for a variance to be granted from the City of Everett, criteria of <br /> EMC 19.41.130.0 must be satisfied. <br /> 9. The variances will not be materially detrimental to the property in the area of the <br /> subject property or to the City as a whole. During the review of the project, the <br /> City of Everett Planning Department received no comments from the public <br /> regarding any impacts from the proposed project. (exhibit 1, staff report, page 2) <br /> 10. The subject property is in a long-time developed section of Everett. Other <br /> properties have been developed with reduced setbacks, Reduced setbacks are <br /> not uncommon in the neighboring properties. (exhibit 1, staff report, page 2; <br /> testimony of Ms. Medlen) <br /> 11. During its review of the application, the City Planning Department conducted site <br /> visits. At a site visit, the City determined street parking was available and that a <br /> reduction of a single parking space would not be detrimental to the neighboring <br /> properties. (exhibit 1, staff report, page 2; testimony of Ms. Medlen) <br /> 12. The design of the subject property and the pre-zoning code construction are <br /> significant and are taken into consideration for the allowance of the requested <br /> variances. <br /> 13. Other properties in the area have been developed with similar residential <br /> designs. Because of these reduced sizes, any expansion of a home cannot be <br /> done without a grant of a variance. The Applicant has gone through the variance <br /> process and is not being given any special right that cannot be enjoyed by other <br /> property owners in the area. (exhibit 1, staff report, pages 2 and 3; exhibit 6, <br /> narrative; testimony of Ms. Medlen) <br /> 3la)_ <br /> 3 <br />