9212 HOLLY DR 2018-01-02 MF Import

Page21 of29 21. The building height increases would occur on lots with small footprints: the footprints would range from 760 square feet to 1,140 square feet. The square footage would include the garage. This design calls for higher structures in order to provide for private rear yards and increased open space. (exhibit 1, staffrepart) ' lot be 22. The provisions of EMC 19.15.100 require that buildings on the same separated at least ten feet and an additional ten feet for each floor above the first floor. A one-story building would have a separation requirement of ten feet; a two-story building would have a separation requirement of twenty feet; and a three-story building would have a separation requirement of thirty feet. Based on the submittals of the Applicant in the site plan and building elevation plan ' (exhibits 3 and 4), the separations of the buildings would be approximately ten feet instead of the twenty to thirty feet, as required. (exhibit 1, slaffreport; Tyler ' testimony) 23. Parking in the development would be within private garages and driveways. The garages and driveways would be designed toward the interior of the site and away from surrounding properties. In addition to the private parking, twenty-one guest parking stalls would be located throughout the site and accessible from the ' internal road. There would be at least a 15-foot landscape buffer between surface parking area and the nearest adjoining property. (exhibit 1, stuff report; exhibit 3, ' site plan) 24. The Applicant submitted various designs of the project (as depicted in exhibit 4). The designs would be complimentary to existing residences throughout the area ' and would include vertical windows, building modulation, prominent entry, pitched roof's, and landscaping. (exhibit 1, staff report; exhibit d, elevations) 25. Public testimony was submitted in the form of letters, as well as oral testimony, at the hearing. A significant amount of the testimony related to the relocation of the current mobile home park residents. The issues relating to the relocation and compensation are outside the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner is limited to authority and jurisdiction as granted him by ordinance2. 26. The proposed project is subject to the provisions of the City Traffic Mitigation Ordinance of the City of Everett. As part of the review, the City calculated both the traffic to be generated by the 50 single-family residences and that generated lby the use of the existing development. Based on traffic studies and monetary formulas for impacts to traffic, the City determined the mitigation fee of $22,475 would be due pursuant to the Traffic Mitigation Ordinance. (exhibit 1, sluff report; exhibit 6, MDNS) t t The emails and letters that were considered included those from Nancy Dewester, Nora & r Daniel Gregg, and Elizabeth Rabideau. L