1136 GRAND AVE A&B 2016-01-01 MF Import

Applicant's presentation, considered the City's staff report, heard comments from lhe general public, and reviewed the records of this matter. After significant debate, the Commission voted unanimously to deny the modification of the roof pitch and to require the pitch to remain 6:12 on ail sides. (Giffen testimony; exhibit 9, Commission minutes 2/14/07) 6. The basis of the Commission's recommendation was that the proposed structure was too big for the lot and that a 6:12 roof pitch would limit the size. The general consensus from the minutes of the Commission's hearing on February 14, 2007, appeared to be that the mass of the structure is "too much". (exriibit 9, Commission minutes ?J14/07) 7. Subsequent io the Commission's hearing on February 14, 2007, the request was submiiled to the Planning Director for Review Process II. On March 29, 2007, the Director issued a decision allowing the proposed deviation as requested by the Appiicant. The Director's decision did not follow the Commission's recommendation. In reaching the decision, the Director referred to Ordinance No. 2547-01, Section 2(B). The criteria used by the Director were the same criteria considered by the C:ommission in its review. The criteria are listed in finding 4 (above). (exhibit 5, director's decision HC 07-001) 8. In addition to the Commission's recommendation, the Planning Director considered the record of the public hearing before the Commission, reviewed the minutes of the public i�earing before the Commission, and reviewed the written comments of individuais who had submitted them to the Commission. (Giffen testimony) After the review, the Planning Director approved the deviation as requesled by the Applicanl and allowed the 4:12 roof pitch on the east/west sloping roofs. The Planning Director also required a reduction of the width of the north decks of the subjecl property irom 20 feet to 10 feet. The deviations were allowed subject to conditions. (exhibit 5, director's decision HC 07-001) 9. As part of the appeal, the Appeliant submilted that the Planning Director erred in granting the requested deviation. The supporting arguments for the appeal were the mass and the bulk of the proposed structure are too large for lhe surroundinq neighborhood; the resulting structure would be out of scale with the properties in the area; the Commission's recommendation should have been adopted; the Pidnning Direclor did not consider the puhlic or Commission's input; and other issues that had noi been considered by the City. (exhibit 2, appeal; Giffen tes!imony) 10. Because the other administrative decisions had not been determined by the City, the original appeal was stayed until the City made its finai administrative determinations for the project. On May 21, 2007, the City issued an administrative decision in which it addressed the zoning standards and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) status of the proposed project. The administrative decision was submitted to the public. In the decision, paragraph 4