238 HIGHLAND RD 2018-09-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

5. A permit for the construction of the swimming lane was issued by the City, and is under construction. However, the detached accessory building requires a variance. (exhibit 1, staff report, page 2; testimony of Mr. ingalsbe) 6. The City of Everett initially allowed the construction of the building. However, on June 7, 2016, the Applicant was informed that the structure would have to be • reduced to less than 1,000 square feet in order to meet the requirements of EMC 19,07.020.M(3) which established that accessory buildings over 1,000 square feet on lots that exceed 18,000 square feet cannot be located between the principal building on the parcel and the street. The detached accessory building on the subject property was located between the existing house and Highland Road. (exhibit 8, correction letter, page 1) 7. In order for a variance to be granted, the criteria of EMC 19.41.130.0 must be satisfied. 8. The building that will house the swimming lane has been designed to be architecturally consistent with the existing residence. The siding, exterior color the composition roof and the 6:12 roof pitch are the same as the features of the single-family residence on-site. (exhibit 1, staff report, page 2;exhibit 6, narrative statement; exhibit 7, photos; testimony of Mr. ingalsbe) 9. The proposed pool building will be setback approximately 95 feet from the street. Mature landscaping and trees are in the front yard and along the driveway and soften the appearance of the new building. (exhibit 1, staff report, page 2; exhibit 4, building plans) 10. The variance will not be materially detrimental to the property in the area or to the subject property. Public notice was submitted to other property owners within 500 feet, and no comments were received. (exhibit 1, staff report, pages 1 and 2) 11. Because of the extraordinary circumstances regarding the size and topography of the subject property and the location of the pre-existing residence on-site, a variance is warranted. The back yard terraces away from the residence by approximately ten feet. To place the proposed building in the rear of the property would interfere with the use of the deck, patio and shed and would not be beneficial to adjoining properties. (exhibit 1, staff report, page 3; testimony of Mr. ingalsbe) 12. A property in the general area of the subject property has a detached indoor swimming pool that is approximately the same size as the proposed facility. While that pool is located behind the residence, the amenities of that property are not the same as the subject property. The existing pool on the neighboring property has sufficient room in the back of the yard to place the building for the swimming structure. There is not enough room in the rear of the subject property 3