2602 VIEWCREST AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

i BOAflA OC ADJUSIMENT FINDINGS� CONCLUSIONS AND ORDEA VAHIANCE N0. 21-87 ' Based upon the written request for a variance from the City's zoning code by: IAick Graff 1003 Woodlawn, Everett, WA 98203 hereinafEer referred to as "Applicant," for a variance from E.M.C. 19. 12.060, Height, to silow: a 27.5 foot height limitation rather than the 25 foot limitation required by Code. on tha folloxing described property: Lot 5, Kenilworth Hills Div. 5 �le02— l�/.Ek/GPES'r j�yE. ' The Board of Ad�ustment, following a public hearing on said application held � on June 1, 1987 and further having reviewed all testimony, makea the followtng Findings, Conclusicns and Order: i FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: I 1. That there have been exceptional or extraordlnary circumstances or I conditions applying to the subJect property or as to the intended use i thereof that do not apply generally to other properties in the same , vicinity or zone. ia. Flnding: The applicant La attempting to maintain a � traditional txo-story house style r+hich already has been 'i established in Lhe neighborhood. If he were to lower Ehe root i p�tch to a 5/12 or 4/12 in order to meet the 25-foot height limi .ation, it Would drastically alta�• the appearance of the � structure, and this Ss not accepteble to his clients. Ib. Conclusion: The proposed variance appears to be a reasunable � rnquest. � ' 2. That aueh variance is ne�:essary for the preservation and en�oyment of j a sub�tantial proparty right of the appellant possessed by the owners �� of other properties in the same viclnity or zone. I a. Finding: Similar varianeee have been granted to other properties in Lhe area, including one to the applicant for Lot 3 of Kenilworth Hills Div. 5 dranted on January G, 1987• b. Conclusion: The variance xould allow a property right posse:�aed by other owners in the vicinity. 3. That the autho[•ization of sucti variance wlll not be materially detri.mental to the publ.c welfare or in,jurious to property in the viciniL,y or zone in which the property is located. a. Fint ding: No comments were received from other City I departments. The v1eNs from this area are to the north. Since a11 existing residantial development is to the north, east or r+est oC this lot, it will not ereate vier+ blockage. The property is bounded on Lhe south by a 75-foot greenbelt buffer, which effectively eliminat��s any future concerns abouC view blockage Lo those properties.