10005 19TH AVE SE 2016-01-01 MF Import

I� � � �� ''- ' I i,� � , � II �i The ma�or portion of the propoaed 414 foot long structure is threei � �� etories in height vhich meets the required LO foot side yard aetback; �� however, the extreme northweat corner, for a diatance of 66 feet, is � Eour etories high which would require an additional 5 foot aetback. j There is an underground driveway and parking garage which forms ai continuoua loop beneath the buildings, and an attempt to offset the � � uorthvest 66 feet of the atructure by five feet to meet [he uide yard � requirement vould diarupt the configuration of the undergroun3 accese syetem. The portion of the etructure whic}i exceeds the height � limitation ia the elevator shafr. and stairwell. IConclueions: Improvement of 99th St. SE would be a benefit Co thel � neighburhood and the Applicant would not need th�� eide yard variance if they were not dedlcating the 15 feet of right-of•-way. In addition, the I Applican[ is providing an intericr court yard vith ameni.ties � approximately tvo acrea in size. Chimneye and steeplea are not conaidered when ce:tculating the height of a building and it could be argued that an eleva[.or ehaft and s[airwell IIare eimilar atructurea. �� B. Preservation of Property Righta i III Findings: By dedicatrng street right-of-way for improving 99th St. SE, � the Applicant is looeing approximetely 7,000 square feet of ei�e area. ' Churches in the area may have steeplea that exceed the 35 foot height �!i limitation. I� Conclueion: Thie varience would be compatible with the overall development of the eite and would allow the Applicant to proceed ji without modifying the building plans. ,� �I C. Public Welfare �I i � Findin : Construction of the elderly congregate care facility would �' provide houaing for the elderly, and improving 99th St. SE wcould provide access for other property ownera. � I Conclusion: Granting of thie variance would noi: be detrimental to the � public, in fact, would provide aervices for ttie elderly and improved acceas for other properties. D. Compreheneive Plan Find;n8s: The Comprehenaive Plan designates tt�e area for residential � and commercial uses. Conclusion: This variance would not aaveraely affect the comprehensive I plan for the area. I RECO[�AtENDATION I Approve the variance as reques[ed by th<: Applicant with the followingl Iconditions. � 1. Meet all conditiona as placed by Concomltant Agreement to Rezone No. 2-84. (See Exhibit 4.) I ii i I I ;I Prepared by J i �� Reviewed by - I I � I I � ' i I I �� % Ij i