Laserfiche WebLink
B. <br />C. <br />� <br />The Compreheneive Plan deaignatea Narbeck Avenue as a <br />notential arterial connection to the southweat Everett <br />office and industrial park area; however, at the time, no <br />decision hae been made as to whether that will be <br />implemented, and Narbeck Avenue may remxin a resi.dential <br />dead-end etreet. There is no timetable for development <br />of Narbeck Avenue beyond the plat. <br />The propoaed encroachment into the front yard area is <br />minimal since becxuae of the curve of the undeveloped <br />right-of-wag, the eoutheaet corner of the house will meet <br />the 25 foor. froat setback and have a 16-foot aetback on <br />the northeast corner. <br />b. Conclusion: There are eaceptional or eatraordimary ' <br />c.ircumatancea applying to the subject property and the <br />intended uae; i.e., taking advantage of the view. <br />Rear Yard Requirement <br />1. Finding: Since both the house to the west and the <br />propoaed houae are orieated to the aorth, the yard apace ' <br />between the two atructures will function ae eide yard ' <br />e�en though tech�ically they are deaignated front and i <br />rear yarda. <br />2. Concluaio�.. Since tSe rear yard actually will function <br />as a sideyard, it would be reaeonable to reduce the rear <br />yard requirement. , <br />If the structure was relocated on the lot to weat, the <br />front setback could be met. Thie would require that the ', <br />variance requested for rear aetback be increased from <br />five feet ra fourteen feet which would still leave an <br />eleven foot rear yard Which ehould he adequate eince ft ; <br />functiona as a eide yard. <br />Grose Floor Area Ratio: <br />1. Find�e: The lot slopea to the east and the applicant <br />ie proposing to take advantage of that natural elope by I� <br />further excavation to add living epace on a lower level. <br />The footprint of the building cov.=ra only 24 percent of <br />the lot. <br />On October 13, 1987, che Planning Commiseion recommended <br />to City council that certain changes be made to the ' <br />Zoning Code in regard to grosa floor area ratio and <br />height of buildinge. Their recommendation ie to ' <br />eliminate the grosa floor area ratio requirement and ' <br />inatead place a maximum building coverage of 35 percent <br />for the R-S zone. <br />2. Conclusion: There are exceptional circumstances relating , <br />to the grosa floor area ratio requiremenk and the <br />variance requested is consiatent with the proposed code ', <br />changea. <br />-2- <br />