Laserfiche WebLink
/40� 4004 <br />Narrative Statement Cont. <br />In our opinion increasing the size of the existing structure would <br />not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and has no <br />affect on the property in the vicinity. <br />The granting of such a variance would not adversely affect the <br />comprehensive general plan. <br />We are seeking a variance to Chapter 19.42.040 of the R2 zoning <br />code which states that accessory buildings in the rear yard <br />setback area "shall not cover more than fifty percent of the <br />rear yard area." The proposed structure would cover 59% of the <br />rear yard setback area. <br />The unique mix exceptional circumstance to the appellant property <br />is that the adjacent lot to the north is vacant with a 6' high <br />chain link fix fence kaaxding boardering the south property line. <br />This is greenbelt area surrounding the city reservoir, houses <br />the fire department training tower, and boarders the Everett <br />Golf and Country Club. Building within 5' of that property line <br />within our setback area would not be offensive to any property owners <br />since the lot is vacant. The proposed structure is actually <br />further away from the east and west property owners houses. <br />Most other lots in the general area do not have this vacant <br />unbuildable property adjacent to the rear lot, therefore they <br />would be infringing on other property owners rights. <br />NIX With the exception of one lot, all other lots in the area <br />have sizable back yards visible from the house which provides <br />for safe play areas for small children. The appellants feel that <br />acquiring a more usalbe backyard is very important for their <br />rights aw as well as improving the property value. <br />It is believed that relocating ,he accessory structure would <br />asthetically impaaa improve the lot appearance and usability. <br />This in turn would improve the value of the surrounding lots. <br />In no way would the proposed strucuture be materially detrimental <br />to the public welfare nor have a negative affect on the property <br />in the vicinity. <br />The granting of such a variance would not adversely affect the <br />comprehensive general plan. <br />