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

I II . ��. �� . I • �I� 11 � � II The ma�or portion of the proposed 414 foot long structure te three � �'� atories in height which meets the required LO foot side yard setback; however., ti�c extreme northwes[ corner, for a distance of 66 ::eet, ia four ntories high which would require an additional 5 foot .setback. There ie an underground driveway and parl:ing garage which forms a , continuoua loop beneath the buildings, and an attempt to offset the '. I northwest 66 feet of the structure by five feet to meet the side yard I requirement would disrupt the configuration of the underground acceae system. The portion of the structure which exceeds the height i limitation ia the elevator shaft and stairwell. I ( , Conclusians: Improvement of 99th St. SE would be a benefit to the � I , neighborhood and the Appl<cant would not need the aide yard variance if I they were not dedicati.ng the 15 feet of right-of-way. In addition, the Applicant is providing an interior court yard with amenities approximately two acres in size. Chimneys and steeples are not conaidered when calculating the height of a building and it co�ld be argued that an elevator shaft and atairwell are similar structurea. B. Preaervation of Property Rights I Findinge: By dedicating atreet right-of-way for improving 99th St. ;iE, the Applicant ie looeing approximately 7,000 square feet of eite art�a. IChurches in tne area may have steeples that exceed the 35 foot height ' limitation. Concluaion: This variance would be compatible with the overal.l development of [he aite and would allow the Applicant to proceed without madifying the building plans. C. Public Welfare �' Finding: Conetruction of the elderly congregate r_are facility would � provide housing for the elderly, and improving 99th St. SE would �I provide accesa for other property owners. II (:oncluaion: Granting uf this variance would not be detrimental to the �� public, in fact, would provide services for the elderly and improved I acceae for other properties. � � D. Comprehensive Plan �,I il Findings: The Comprehensive Plan designakes the area for residential I Iand commercial uses. I li I Conclusion: This variance would not adversely affect the compreheneive ,i plan for the area. II DECISION I I IApprove the variance as requested by the Applicant with the following conditions. 1. Meet all conditione as placed by Concomitant Agree��ent to Rezone No. � 2-84. (See Exhibit 4.) � j� VOTE: FOR AGAINST ABSENT ABSTAIN Mr. Hoagland: R Mr. Wilson: X Mr. Zook: X II Mr. Barnett: X Mr. Miller: X I �.��.4--��-9`--� � Chairman, Board of Adjuatment ,i i�