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

other properties. The view from Grand Avenue would include the 6:12 roof pitch. The 4:12 roof pitch on the east and west sides of the structure would not be noticeably visible from Grand Avenue. (Giffen testimony) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Jurisdiction Jurisdiction: The Hearing Examiner of the City of Everett has jurisdictional authority to hold a hearing and to issue the decision. That authority is set forth in EIv1C 15.16.100. Based on the above Findings of Fact> the Hearing Examiner enters the following Conclusions: Criteria and Standards for Review There are no specific or unique criteria for review by th� Hearing Examiner for the appeal, other than lhe criteria as set forth in Ordinance No. 2547-01. The criteria used by the Commission in making its recommendation to the Planning Director and by the Pianning Director in making his decision are used by the Hearing Examiner in lhis matter. Consideration must be given to: (a) the unique characteristics of the property and/or surroundings and how they wiil be protected and/or enhanced by the deviation; (b) the positive characteristics of the proposed development and whether such characteristics couid be provided by compliance with the standards and guidelines; and (c) whether the proposed design mitigates the impacts that couid be caused by deviation from the standards. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON FINDINGS 1 . The Applicant requested approval from the City of Everett io construct a duplex at 1134 Grand Avenue, Everelt, Washington. The subject property is zoned R- 2H and has an Historic Overlay designation. A roof pitch for a structure in such zone in Everett is required to be a 6:12 pitch unless a deviation is issued. As part of the proposal submitted lo the City, the Appiicant sought a deviation and requesled that the east and west roof slopes of the proposed structure have a 4:12 roof pitch. (finding 1) 2. The appeal is resolved by addressing two issues: (a) whether the mass and bulk of the resulting structure was consistent with the development standards of ihe R-2H zone; and (b) whether the Everett Pianning Director erred in not adopting the recommendation of the Commission. (findings 8, 9, 10 & 13) 3. The unique characteristics of the subject property and the surrounding properties were considered by the Planning Director. (findings 8 & 13J 4. 1Nith two of the pitches of the roof retaining a 6:12 pitch and because of the size of the lot, the unique characteristics of the development of the subject property in 6