Laserfiche WebLink
similar, lhis is not an exceptional circumslance that warrants the grant o(the <br /> variance. The Everett City Council has eslablished the zoning standards for the <br /> R-2 zone. Th�se are restrictive standards which do not crcate exceptional or <br /> extraordinary circumstances that allow a variance if the standards are not the <br /> same, or are more restrictive than the standards of other nearby properties that <br /> have different zoning designations and development standards. It is presumed <br /> that the Council purposely established the zoning height of 28 feet and because <br /> other properties in the area have different height standards does not warrant the <br /> grant of a variance. (findings 13, 14) <br /> 8. Non-conformity was not raised as an issue at the hearing or!n documents of the <br /> record. <br /> 9. The grant of tne variance would not grant the residence on the subject property <br /> or the subject property the same general development rights as enjoyed by other <br /> properties in the area. The subject property can be developed with the same <br /> general development rights as any R-2 zoned property in tYie City o( Everett. The <br /> subject property is zoned R-2, Single-Family Detached Medium Density and <br /> must be developed per R-2 standards. The other properties in lhe area appear <br /> to be developed according to lha development standards of lheir particular zone. <br /> (finding 13) <br /> 10. The varianc� is not lhe minimum necessary to allow the subject property general <br /> righls as olher properties in the area. The lot has significant size, 12,000 square <br /> feet, and lhere is room (or expansion of the structure on the lot. The residence <br /> can be expanded witliout the use of a variance. (finding 16) <br /> 11. The grant of the variance would not be inconsistent with the goals and polices of <br /> tiie Everett General Comprehensive Plan. The Plan calls fur single-faniily <br /> residential deveiopment but al a higher density than lhe subject property. <br /> ((inding 17) <br /> 12. The variance was lhe result of construction aclivity being conducled on-site <br /> without securing the necessary permits. Had the Applicant applied for the <br /> necessary building permil, he would have been informed that the proposec <br /> slruclure exceeded the height limit. AcceMingly, the on�y reason for the variance <br /> appears to be the result of a self-created hardship. (finding 18) <br /> 9 <br />