4710 GARDNER AVE 2018-05-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

. . . . . _. . . ... , . .. ��. T All of the exhibits are available far inspection at the Hearing Examiner Pro Tem's Office lacated at 2930 Wetmore Avenue, 8th floor, Everetfi, Washington. Based upon a review of the above record, the following Findings of �act and Conclusions hereby constitute the basis af the decision of the Everett Hearing Examiner Pro Tem. �INDINGS O�' FACT 1. The Appiicants requested a variance to allow an existing fence within the 20-foot front setback and the five-faot side setback to remain as is. The property subject to the application is at 4710 Gardner Avenue in Everett. (Exhibifs 1 and 5} 2. The subject property is located in the R-S, Suburban Residential zone and is developed with a single-farnily residence. All surrounding parcels are zoned SFR/R- S. (Exhibif 9) 3. The site plan and the survey in the record show the lot is not rectangular. It is an irregular triangle shape with a slightly outwardly curved hypotenuse alang Gardner forming the eastlnortheast lot boundary and a straight shor�er leg forming the southlsoutheast boundary. The property's west boundary runs north and south, abutting the unopened Ocean Avenue right-of-way. Gardner curves to the west at the north end of the triangle and becomes Shore Avenue. Topographically, the subject property drops in elevation from Gardner to Ocean Avenue (from east to west) approximately 24 feet. (Exhibits 1, 2, and 4) 4. After purchasing a derelict property and renovating the residence, the Applicants hired a fencing cantractor in August 2014. The contractor designed the fence and told the Applicants it complied with Everett code requirements; the Applicants did not check with the City ta see if the contractor was correct. After construction, fihey received a letter from Everett Police Department Code Enforcement Unit informing them that portions of the new fence did not comply with code requirements. {Exhibit 5; Travis Jorgenson Testimony) 5. The #ence along the south lot line (a side line) varies from 50 to 87 inches in height abo�e the grade of the subject property. Twelve linear feet of this fence is within the front setback; of this segment, up to ten feet abuts a neighbor's p[anting bed taller #han the site's elevation, making the fence 50 to 60 inches fiall. ln the middle of fihe south lot line, the neighbars have an ecology biock wall built on the cammon property line, raising the elevation of their yard relative to the subject property. Along this retaining wall, the existing fence is up ta 89 inches tall in order ta provide the privacy and security that a six-foot fence would provide an flat ground. (Exhibits 3 and 5; Travis Jorgenson Testimony) 2