Laserfiche WebLink
1'1 <br /> All of the exhibits are available for inspection at the Hearing Examiners Office <br /> located at 2930 Wetmore Avenue, 8th floor, Everett, Washington. <br /> After due consideration of the testimony and evidence presented by the <br /> Applicant, testimony and evidence elicited during the public hearing by the <br /> Everett Hearing Examiner, the following findings of fact and conclusions <br /> constitute the basis of the decision of the Everett Hearing Examiner. <br /> FINDINGS OF FACT <br /> 1. The Applicant requested approval to build a 20 foot high, 952 square <br /> foot garage on property at 3610 Upland Avenue, Everett, WA 98203. <br /> Because the garage exceeds fifteen feet in height, it is subject to a <br /> Review Process III. (Exhibit 1) <br /> 2. The proposed garage wili have minimum v�ew obstruction. The aesthe�ic <br /> impact of the garage will be minimal on surrounding properties and <br /> streetscape. A neighboring property owner who will see the garage <br /> supported the request. (Exhi6it 1, Ervine testimony, Franssen <br /> testimony) <br /> 3. The proposed garage will be compatible in scale with dwellings on <br /> surrounding properties. It will not adversely impact neighborhood <br /> character. (Exhi6it 1, Ervine testimony) <br /> Jurisdiction: The Hearing Examiner of the City of Everett has jurisdictionel <br /> authority to hold a hearing ard to issue the decision. That authority is set forth <br /> in EMC 2.23.120. Based on the above findings, the Hearing Examiner enters <br /> the following conclusions: <br /> CONCLUSIONS <br /> 1. The Applicant requested approval to build a 20 foot high, 952 square <br /> foot garage on property at 361 C Upland Avenue, Everett, WA 98203. <br /> Because the garage exceeds fifteen feet in height, it is subject to a <br /> Review Process III.(Finding 1) <br /> 2. EMC 19.07.020(K) sets forth ths review criteria for accessory structures <br /> that exceed the fifteen foot height limit. These criteria have been <br /> reviewed and are satisfied by the proposal. (Findings 2 & 3) <br /> 3. The proposal will have no view obstruction, aesthetic impact on <br /> surrounding properties or streetscapes. The proposal will not be <br /> 2 <br />