1132 90TH ST SW 2018-01-02 MF Import

carport In the south setback, or for a variance granting approval of reduced building setbacks from the south lot line. Per EMC 19.4.020, the definitions of 'Lot line, front, rear, and side' determine the north lot line abutting 90'h Street SW to be the front lot line, the south lot line to be the rear, and the west and east lot lines to be the sides. Current zoning regulations per EMC 19 Table 6.1 require a 20 foot rear setback, and per EMC 19.15.070.13 parking Is not permitted in the rear setback. The property is non -conforming by 20 feet for the parking area, 18 feet for the west side second -storey deck, and 15 feet for the building in relation to the south lot line. The property Is permitted to maintain the existing non -conformities, provided they are certified, but It is not permitted to make those non -conformities greater. Per EMC 19.38.040.2, a non -conforming structure which does not meet required setbacks may be expanded along the non- conforming setbacks if approved by the planning director; provided the expansion does not make the setback more non -conforming. The project proposal is seeking a reduction of the rear setback to zero feet in order to expand the non -conformities I'm a carport, exterior stairs and a second -storey deck expansion. The duplex to the south has a north facing window and an open porch located along the north and east sides of the building, approximately five feet setback from the adjoining property line. Conclusions: Under current regulations, there should be a 25 foot buffer separation between the six unit complex and the duplex on the adjoining property. The project's modification for expansion of the second -storey deck, exterior stairs, and carport in the rear setback area up to the south lot line adversely affect the buffer separation between the two properties by negating the little separation that does exist, reducing it to a five foot buffer; the applicant did not effectively prove how the proposal enhances or protects the property's unique characteristics. 2. The positive characteristics of the proposed development and whether such characteristic• could be provided by compliance with the development standards and/or design guidelines proposed to be modified. Findings: The reduction of the rear setback to zero feet would allow for the expansion of one second- storcy unit's deck of approximately 430 square feet, exterior access stairs to said expanded deck, and a 198 square foot carport to serve as protection for one parking stall from needles and sap from neighboring trees. The exterior stairs and carport are not required by the Zoning or the Building Codes. Furthermore, EMC 19.15.080.A.4 prohibits external stairways from encroaching Into a required setback irea, and EMC 19.39.150.C.12 allows for uncovered decks that are no higher than 10 feet to encroach by no more than 50 percent of the rr4uired rear setback depth. The deck appears to be greater than 10 feet In height and encroaches Itdo the entire depth of the rear setback. If the project proposal were to be approved, a substantive solid Ere -rated wall is required per Building Code to be constructed along the property line to provide protection for the neighboring property to the south. Per EMC 19 Table 6.1, the west side setback for the property is five feet. The applicant has two decks; one west facing, and the one in question facing south and cost. There is ample room for the applicant to expand the west facing deck with exterior access stairs without encroaching Into a setback area. Conclusions: The result of approving the modification would be a large, unsightly, solid wall on the south property line, approximately five feet from the duplex to the south which could Impact the abutturg property negatively In a visually aesthetic way, and would create a massive wall -effect which Is out of character for the neighborhood, Relocation of the deck expansion and exterior stairs to the west facing deck would achieve most of the applicant's alms and would comply with development standards. 3. The arrangement of buildings and open spnecs as they relate to other buildings and/or uses on the subject property unit on surrounding properties. Findings: The expanded deck, exterior stairs, and carport have little to no relation to other buildings or uses for surrounding properties to the west, north, and east. The structural support for the stairs appear to block physical and visual access from a lower sto ow on the subject property. The arrangement of Pegs 2 Revll 10.015