10405 3RD AVE SE 2016-01-01 MF Import

l 16. There is adequate area on the subject property that would allow the Applicant lo expand the residence without exceeding lhe heighl limit. The existing residence is located on-site so thal additional area of the Iot could be used for expansion purposes wilhout exceeding the height restriction. (variance - exhibit 1, staff report, page 3; Heilman testimony; Ingalsbe testimony) 17. The City determined that because the subject property would be used for single- family residence, il is consistent with the goals and policies of Everett General Comprehensive Plan which designates the site as 1.2, Single-Family Detached, allowing five-ten tlwelling per gross acre. (variance - exhibit 1, staff report, page 3; Ingalsbe testimony) 18. The work, including the construction and raising of the roof, was done without building permits and was done in the last year. The need for the variance directly stems from the construction that was done without the permits and is a self- created hardship. (Heilman testimony; Ingalsbe testirnonyi 19. The Applicant submitted a number of letters in support of the variance. The content of the letters addressed the personal situation of the ApplicanYs family, including the death of his father and the need for more space at the family residence. It was stated that the existing house was crowded and that attempis were made by the Applicant's family to keep costs down by raising lhe structure. (va�iance - exhibrt 5lelters a-h) 20. Tl�e Applicant submitted thal the family needs more room in the residence because "it is too litile for 14 kids". The Applicant indicated that if they could not obtain ihe requested variance, a smaller variance of"lwo to three to four feet higher" would be adequate. (variance - exhibit 4, narrative statementJ The City responded that a reduced variance would not satis(y the criteria of Everett Municipal Code (E�4C) 19.41.130.C. (h'eilman testimony; Ingalsbe testimony) 21. The Applicant submitted that ihe neighbors in the area do not object to the height of the house, and the new height would be similar to that of other structures in the area. (variance - exhibit 4, narrative statement;Anatoliey Stelmakh testirnony) 22. The Applicant submitted that you cannot see the resider�ce from the slreet, or from olher neighbors' residences, and no impacts to other properties would exist. (variance - exl�ibit 4, narrative stafement;Anatoliey Stelrnakh testimony) 23. Tl�e Applicant submitted that he did nr,l know when he started raising the roof of the residence that a building permit was required. It was his understanding that a building permit was needed wlien building a new house, but not when remodeling one. He expressed remorse and claimed tiiat it should nol be considered a self-created hardship because he did not know the rules. (variance - exhibit 4, narrative statement) 6