Laserfiche WebLink
and carport structures are not certified as non-conforming, but they have been <br /> on-site for many years. Because of the location of the main residence, 11.5 feet <br /> from the property line, there is barely enough area to allow for a small garage. <br /> The shed, which has an existing concrete pad, would remain unchanged. <br /> (exhibit 1, staff report, page 3; testimony of Ms. Weldon) <br /> 11. On Rockefeller Avenue and surrounding neighborhoods, properties have <br /> garages, covered parking and sheds. The grant of the variance will not result in <br /> extraordinary design rights for the Applicant to develop the property with the use <br /> of a variance. (exhibit 1, staff report, page 3; testimony of Ms. Weldon) <br /> 12. The variance is the minimum necessary to allow the property the same general <br /> rights enjoyed by other properties in the area. Although access could be <br /> provided off the alley, it would not provide a safe and convenient access. The <br /> variance will allow the Applicant to maintain the property as it has been <br /> maintained for years. (exhibit 1, staff report, page 3; testimony of Ms. Weldon) <br /> 13. The Everett General Plan designates the subject property as 1.2, Single-Family <br /> Detached. The proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the plan and <br /> conforms to many of the features of other properties in the area. (exhibit 1, staff <br /> report, pages 3 and 4; testimony of Ms. Weldon) <br /> 14. The requested variance is the not the result of a self-created hardship. (exhibit 1, <br /> staff report, page 3; testimony of Ms. Weldon) <br /> 15. Testimony was received that the setback of the side property line would have to <br /> be three inches in order for the proposed improvements to the subject property to <br /> be effective. (testimony of Ms. Weldon) <br /> CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br /> Jurisdiction <br /> Jurisdiction: The Hearing Examiner of the City of Everett has jurisdictional authority to <br /> hold a hearing and to issue the decision. That authority is set forth in EMC <br /> 15.16.110.A.17. Based on the above Findings of Fact, the Hearing Examiner enters the <br /> following Conclusions: <br /> Criteria and Standards for Review <br /> EMC 19.41.130.0 <br /> (1) The variance will not be materially detrimental to the property in the <br /> area of the subject property or the City as a whole. <br /> (2) The variance is necessary because of exceptional or extraordinary <br /> circumstances regarding the size, shape, topography or location of <br /> the subject property; or the location of a preexisting improvement on <br /> 4; �., <br />