9610 1ST AVE SE 2016-01-01 MF Import

. . r� �� BOARD OF ADJiJSTl�NT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORllER VARZANCE NO. 22-88 Based upon the written request for a variance from the City's zoning code by: Levon Kasparian 5015 Alki Dr. Everett, WA 98203 hereinafter referred to as "Applicant," for a variance from E.M.C. 19.42.030(C) , Special Side Yards, to allow a five foot setback from the top of bank of a stream instead of the 30 foot setback required by code for a single family structure. " on the following described property: � The Northeasterly 65 feet, as measured along i the Northwesterly line thereof, of the southeasterly 150 feet of Lot 13 , Intercity Division 1, Replat of Block 6, recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, page 63 , records of the Auditor of the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. commonly known as: 9610 lst Ave. S.E. ; The Board of Adjustment, following a public hearing on said. application held on July 11, 1988, and further having reviewed all' i I testimony, makes the following Findinqs, Conclusions and Order: I FTNDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Criterion No. 1: I I,; That there have been exceptional or extraordinary circumstancesl i�� or conditions applying to the subject property or as to the in-� i tended use thereof that do not apply generally to other' li properties in the same vicinity or zone. 'i a. Findina: When obtaining the buildinq permits the builder, was not aware that it was necessary to show the stream on the site plan and was not aware of the 30 foot setback requirement, even though that requirement is listed on a' checklist for building permit application. The checklist '� for Building Permit Application has now been revised to� require the siqnature of the applicant verifying that he has read the checklist and is aware of all thei i requirements. i The Applicant states they have spent $30,000 to date on � j this project and conforming to the 30 foot setback II � requirement would make the lot unbuildable since the i � lot is 65 feet wide and a 30 foot setback on one side ' and a six foot setback on the other would only leave a 29 foot wide area to construct a house. i b. Conclusion: The unusual circumstances ap�,lying to this property is the fact that construction of khe house has begun do to an oversight on the part of the builder and also because the width of the lot is only 65 feet which' would not leave adequate room to build a house if the 30 foot setback were met. Criterion Ho 2• That such variance is necessary for the preservation and en- joyment of a substantial property right of the appellant pos- sessed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity or zone. -1- J