Laserfiche WebLink
19. The City of Everett General P(an designates the site as 1.1 Single Family Detached. <br /> The plan does not address fencing. Planning Staff submitted that the requested <br /> variance would be cansistent with the goals and policies of the plan_ (Exhibit 1) <br /> 20. Planning Staff submitted the opinion that the Applicants had demonsfirated that a <br /> variance for the fence along the south lot line is necessary because of exceptianal or <br /> extraordinary circumstances regarding the topagraphy; however Staff concluded that <br /> fihe record does not show that the requested variance within the 20-foot frant <br /> setback is necessary due exceptionaf or extraordinary circumstances regarding the <br /> subject property_ Staff recommended approval of the variance along the south side <br /> lot line and denial of the variance in the 20-foot front setback. (Exhibit 1; 1ngalsbe <br /> Tesfrmony) <br /> CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br /> Jurisdiction <br /> Jurisdretion: The Hearing Examiner Pro Tem of fhe City of Everett has jurisdictional <br /> authorify to hald a hearing and to rssue the decision. That aufhorify is set forfh in EMC <br /> 95.16.90Q Based on the above Findings of Fact, the Hearing Examiner Pro Tem enters <br /> the fottowing Conclusians: <br /> Criteria and Standards for Review <br /> EMC 19.41.130.0 <br /> A summary of these criteria is: <br /> (1) The variance will not be materially detrimental to the property in the area of the <br /> subject property or the City as a whale. <br /> (2} The variance is necessary because of exceptional ar extraordinary <br /> circumstances regarding #he size, shape, topography or location af the subject <br /> property; or the locatian of a preexisting improvement on the subject property <br /> that conformed to the zoning code in effect when the improvement was <br /> constructed. <br /> (3} The variance will only grant the subject property the same general rights enjoyed <br /> by other property in �he same area and zone as the subject property. <br /> (4) The variance is the minimum necessary to allow the subject property t1�e general <br /> rights described in Criteria 3 abov�. <br /> (5} The granting of fihe variance is not inconsistent with the goals and palicies of the <br /> Everett General Plan. <br /> (6) The need for the requested variance is not the result of a self-created hardship. <br /> CONCLUSIONS BASED ON FINDINGS <br /> 1. There is no evidence af detriment resulting from the over height fence along <br /> the south lot line. The adjoining property owners requested that it be retained <br /> as is. Regarding the west fence along the Ocean Avenue right-of-way, the <br /> 5 ;`� . � <br />