Laserfiche WebLink
6. The fence on the wes� lot line acts as both a rear and side fence because of the lot's <br /> triangular shape. It is six feet fiall within the 20-foot#ront yard setback. (Exhibits 3 <br /> and 5) <br /> 7_ The fence franting Gardner Avenue is 42 inches tall and transparent because of <br /> spacing between the members. (Exhibit 3) <br /> 8, Pursuant to Everett Municipal Code (EMC} 39.070.A.1: <br /> Except as provided in subsection A.2 of this section, fences in residential <br /> zones and fences located on the common abutting propertv line in <br /> nonresidential zanes which immediately abut residential zones shall not <br /> exceed six feet in heiqht Within the front yard setback areas the maximum <br /> height shall not exceed fortv-two inches unless approved bv the planning <br /> director using the review process described in Title 15, Local Praject Review <br /> Procedures. <br /> 9. The Applicants requested planning director review of the buif#fence, seeking to be <br /> allowed �o keep it as built_ On November 18, 2014, the Director issued a decision <br /> (REVI#14-Q16) that required the fence within the 20-foot front yard setback to be <br /> reduced to 42 inches and provided with the same transparency as the fence fronting <br /> Gardner and reguired the partion of the fence along the south lot line outside the 20-faot <br /> setback not to exceed six feefi in height. (Exhibit � <br /> 10. The unopened �cean Avenue right-af-way is used by residents and guests in the <br /> neighborhaod as a walking trail. Residents abutting this trail frequently find garbage, <br /> including alcohol containers, drug paraphernalia, pet wastes, bags af garbage, and <br /> litter on the trail or tossed into their yards. (Tesfimony of Travis and Deonna <br /> Jorgensan; Exhibifs 5 and &, see Cunningham letter) <br /> 11. The Applicanfis indicated that alang the south lot line, it was the varying height o#the <br /> adjacent yard that drove the fence height decision. A code-compliant fence along <br /> this lot iine would be broken up in height along the top, which the Applicants <br /> asserted would be unattractive for both neighbors. Along the west lot (ine, the <br /> Applicants desired the ful( six-foot fence height to provide privacy and security fram <br /> users of the trail. Although since the fence was installed there is still garbage thrown <br /> into their yard, they indica#ed t�at it is less in volume since the fence went up. <br /> (Fxhibit 5; Travis and Deonna Jorgenson Tesfimony) <br /> 12. The City received several public comments in response to notice of the proposal. <br /> Several camments praised the Applicants' renovatian of the property and the <br /> existing fence, stating they have improved curb appeal and the appearance of the <br /> neighborhood over its previous condition (described as an "eyesore" in one <br /> comment). The neighbor west of the fence on the west lot line (3106 Shore Avenue) <br /> requested that fence be maintained at its six-foot height far privacy and security <br /> reasons. The same neighbor corroborated the Applicants' assertians abou# litter on <br /> 3 � � <br />