Laserfiche WebLink
c <br />� <br />b. Conclusions: The granting of the variance would provide <br />the su �ect property with the same rights enjoyed by other <br />properties that exist in the area. <br />Criterion No. 4: <br />at t'I'h�e vanarce is the minimum necessary to allow the subject property <br />the general rights described in Criterion 3. <br />a. FindinRs: See Criteria f13. <br />b. Conclusions: See Criteria k3 <br />Criterion No. 5: <br />he gr'I antm— g?-the variance is consisrent with the goals and policies of <br />the Everett General Plan. <br />a. �Findi_n�s : The Everett General Plan designates this property <br />as 1.� Single Family Detached. <br />b. Conclusions: The propo�ed ase of the subject property for <br />resi e� ntial purposes is consistent with the Everett General <br />Plan. <br />Criterion No. 6: <br />e n'I�i e�e otTfie requested variance is not the result of a self-createci <br />hardship. <br />a. Findin s: The applicant states that the neecl for this <br />vartance �s the result of the existing size and shape created <br />by the construction of Interstate //5. <br />'fhe subject property is a legal non-conforming lot. It is <br />substandard with regards to lot depth, lot area and its � <br />irregular configuration. <br />Reasonable development of this lot is not possible without <br />variance approval from the City's Zoning Code standards. <br />b. Conclusions: There are unique circumstances related to the <br />sub�eci property that were created as a result of tl�e I-5 <br />corridor. Due to its triangular shape it is not possible to <br />crcate a reasonable building site while meeting the standard <br />setback reyuirements. 'Cherefore, the r.e:Yl for the requested <br />variance is not the result of a self-creat��d hardship. � <br />4� <br />