Laserfiche WebLink
9 <br /> 21. The building height increases would occur on lots with small footprints: the footprints <br /> would range from 760 square feet to 1,140 square feet. The square footage would <br /> include the garage. This design calls for higher structures in order to provide for <br /> private rear yards and increased open space. (exhibit 1, staff report) <br /> 22. The provisions of EMC 19.15.100 require that buildings on the same lot be separated <br /> at least ten feet and an additional ten feet for each floor above the first floor. A one- <br /> story building would have a separation requirement often feet; a two-story building <br /> would have a separation requirement of twenty feet; and a three-story building would <br /> have a separation requirement of thirty feet. Based on the submittals of the Applicant <br /> in the site plan and building elevation plan (exhibits 3 and 4), the separations of the <br /> buildings would be approximately ten feet instead of the twenty to thirty feet, as <br /> required. (exhibit 1, staff report; Tyler testimony) <br /> 23. Parking in the development would be within private garages and driveways. The <br /> garages and driveways would be designed toward the interior of the site and away <br /> from surrounding properties. In addition to the private parking, twenty-one guest <br /> parking stalls would be located throughout the site and accessible from the internal <br /> road. There would be at least a 15-foot landscape buffer between surface parking <br /> area and the nearest adjoining property. (exhibit 1, staff report; exhibit 3, site plan) <br /> 24. The Applicant submitted various designs of the project (as depicted in exhibit 4). The <br /> designs would be complimentary to existing residences throughout the area and would <br /> include vertical windows, building modulation, prominent entry, pitched roofs, and <br /> landscaping. (exhibit 1, staff report; exhibit 4, elevations) <br /> 25. Public testimony was submitted in the form of letters, as well as oral testimony, at the <br /> hearing. A significant amount of the testimony related to the relocation of the current <br /> mobile home park residents. The issues relating to the relocation and compensation <br /> are outside the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner is limited <br /> to authority and jurisdiction as granted him by ordinance2. <br /> 26. The proposed project is subject to the provisions of the City Traffic Mitigation <br /> Ordinance of the City of Everett. As part of the review, the City calculated both the <br /> traffic to be generated by the 50 single-family residences and that generated by the <br /> use of the existing development. Based on traffic studies and monetary formulas for <br /> impacts to traffic, the City determined the mitigation fee of$22,475 would be due <br /> pursuant to the Traffic Mitigation Ordinance. (exhibit 1, staff report; exhibit 6, MDNS) <br /> Jurisdiction: The Hearing Examiner has jurisdictional authority on the request to issue a <br /> recommendation to the Everett City Council. The authority is set forth in EMC 15.16.120(A). <br /> Based on the above findings, the Hearing Examiner enters the following conclusions: <br /> 2 The emails and letters that were considered included those from Nancy Dewester, Nora & Daniel Gregg, and <br /> Elizabeth Rabideau. <br /> 7 <br />