3321 52ND PL SW 2016-01-01 MF Import

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Criturion No.1: That the variance is necessary becaus� of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances regarding the size, shape, topography, or location of the sut�ect properry; or the Ic�cation of a pre-existing improvement on the subject properc� that conformed to the zoning code in effect when the improvement was constructed. a. Findings: The applicant has stated that the retaining walls are necessary due to the limited buildable area on site, creat�d by the steep slope which exists on the north side of the property. Also, the applicant has stated that the elevation of the house needed to be such in order to meet the City's requirement to provide a gravity-line hook-up to a shallow stortn drain, and that Wall 2 will help to reduce the vulnerability of the storm sewer drain line. Lastly, the applicant has stated Wall 2 will help redur,e the steepness of the driveway onto the subject site. The City finds that the subject site is encumbered by steep slope areas on the north side of the property, as shown on the recorded environmentally sensitive area map (See Exhibit #3). Although the site contains steep slopes, the surrounding properties experience similar circumstances and limitations, and have all been developed with single family residences without the benefit of a variance. The City of Everett Public Works Department issued a Public Works Permit on October 10, 2001 for the development on site (See Exhibit #9). Condition #6 of the approved permit was that the line from the applicant's side of the street to the other side of the street be gravity, however the City did not require the entire site to be a gravity-line. Pumping was permitted from the lower side of the house up to the drain in front of the house. The City Public Works Department has expressed that 3 feet of cover over utility lires should be adequate to reduce their risk of damage. b. Conclusions: The subject site does contain steep slope areas on the north side of the property, however the subject walls have been constructed on the south and southwest portion of the property. A single family residence has been approved for construction on site which meets all other zoning code requirements including setbacks and height limitations. The City concludes that there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances existing on the subject property that make the subject retaining walls necessary. Criterion No. ?.: That the variance will not be materially detrimental to the property in the area of the subject property or to the City as a whole. a. Findings: The applicant has stated the placement of Wall 1 along the western property line exceeds the minimum 5 foot side setback required by City code. Landscaping would be provided along the � side setback in order to improve the look of the property. Wall 2 does 9