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

"G" sel forth the appeal process and established a deadline for the filing of an appeal of the remaining issues in this matter as being June 4, 2007. No appeals were filed of the remaining issues as addressed in the May 21, 2007, decision. Accordingly, the only appeals that are before the Hearing Examiner are those as set forth in the previous finding. (exhibit 1, sfaff report; exhibit 6, Review Process 1 adminisfrative decision; Giffen testimony) 11. The Appellant submitted that the "mass and bulk of the building is too large for the surrourding neighborhood and has not been taken into account properly by the Planning DepartmenY'. (exhibit 2, appeal) As support, the Appellant submitted a Memorandum that the 4:12 roof pitch changes the scale of the proposed structure from the street view. The Appellant contended that the mass of the structure is increased by 36% with the 4:12 roof pitch because of the increased height of the structure. (exhibit 1, staff report; exhibit 2, appeal; exhibit 3, Memorandum; exhibit 13, Appellanf's report) 12. The City submitted that p�rsuant to Ordinance No. 2547-01 the mass or bulk of a building is regulated by the height of an eave and the modification of buildings that are more than 50 feet wide. (exhibit 1, staff report) The proposed eave height is five feet less than the maximum allowed as set forth in Ordinance No. 2547-01, Section 9. (exhibit 1, staff report; exhibit 4, sfaff report to Commission; exhibit 8, cross section; Giffen testimony) 13. The Everett Planning Director considered the information set forth in the staff report to the Commission. (exhibit 4, staff repot to Commission; Giffen testirnony) Among the items considered by the Director were the width, location, and uniqueness of the lot and how it differs from a typical platted lot; the zoning of the subject properly and its predominantly single-family development; the design of the proposed structure and how it complies with the zoning standards and is consistent with other development in the area; the reduction of the width to allow view corridors; the parking; the access to the parking; the heighi of the garage entrance; the decks on the north side being reduced; the setback of the front porch; and the architecturai elements of the single prominent entry. In addition, the Planning Director considered the Commission's review and recommendation and the comments from the public. (Giffen testimony; exhibit 1, staff report; exhibit 5, director's decision HC 07-001) 14. The Planning Director agreed that ihe bulk of the structure would increase with the 4:12 east/west roof pitch. (exhibit 1, staffreporf, page 4; Giffen testimony) However, because the struciure meets all zoning standards for the R-2H zone, the increased bulk would nol be detrimental to the subject property or io the general area and would nol significantly change the appearance of the structure so that it was not compatible with other properties in the area. (Giffen festimony) 15. The Planning Director testified that his decision was based in part on the fact that lhe structure when viewed from Grand Avenue would be similar in design to 5