Laserfiche WebLink
B. <br />C. <br />� <br />b. <br />,_ <br />The Comprehenaive Plan designatea Narbeck Avenue ss a <br />potential arterial connection to the southweat Eve.rett <br />office and induatrial park area; however, at the time, no <br />deciaion hae been made ae to whether that will be <br />implemented, and Narbeck Avenue may remain a re�idential <br />dead-end street. There is no timetable for development <br />�� Narbeck Avenue beyond the plat. <br />The proposed encroachment into the front yard area ia <br />minimal eince because of the curve of the undeveloped <br />right-of-way, the aoutheaet corner of the house xill meet <br />the 25 foot front aetback and have a 16-foot aetback on <br />the northeaat corner. <br />Conclusion: There are ezceptional or extraordimary <br />circumstances applying to the aubject property and the <br />intended uee; i.e., taking advantage of the view. <br />Rear Yard Requirement <br />1. Finding: Since both the house to the weet and the <br />proposed house are oriented to the north, the yard epace <br />betrreen the two etructures will fuaction as eide yard <br />even though technically they are designated front and <br />rear yarda. <br />2. Conclueion: Since the rear yard actually will function <br />ae a eideyard, it rould be reaeonable to reduce the rear <br />yard requirement. <br />If the structure wae ielocated on the lot to west, the <br />front setback could be met. Thie would require [hat the <br />variance requeeted for rear setback be increased from <br />five feet to fourteen feet which would atill leave an <br />eleven foot rear yard vhich ehould be adequate eince it <br />functione ae a eide yard. <br />Groee Floor Area Rstio: <br />1. Findin e: The lot slopee to the eaet and the applicant <br />ie propoaing to take advantage of that natural elope by <br />further ezcavation to add living apace on a lorrer level. <br />The footprint of the building covera only 24 percent of <br />the lot. <br />On October 13, 1987, the Planning Commisaion recommended <br />to City council that certaia changee be made to the <br />2oning Code in regard to groea floor area ratio and <br />height of buildinge. Their recommendation ie to <br />eliminate [he groae floor area ratio requirement and <br />instead place a mazimum building coverage of 35 percent <br />for the R-S zone. <br />2. Conclueion: There are <br />to the grose floor <br />variance requeated is <br />changea. <br />-2- <br />ezceptional circumatancee relating <br />area ratio requirement and the <br />consiatent with the proposed code <br />