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

the externl malts extend entirely within the south setback area and may Impede Ingress/egress access to the rear and s,dc, of the building. The solid Ore -rated wall required per Building Code to mitigate safety impacts to the abutting property owner to the south would need to be built on the property line approximately five feet away the neighbor's porch. Four comments total were received during the review period. Two comments were received by City Staff; one regarding the requirements of the solid fire -rated wall, another regarding boarder disputes and expressing concern of possible future neighbor to neighbor conflicts. Two public comments were received by residents within the six -unit complex; one positive, one negative. Conclusions: The proposed project impacts access to the site, access to a lower storey window, and when completed with the necessary Building Code fire -rated wall would create an adverse visual Impact to the property to the south. 4. Visual impnet to surrounding properties caused by parking facilities In the proposed development and whether such impacts are less than would result from compliance mith the development standards and/or design guidelines proposed to be modified. Findin g: The project proposal's parking component should have no visual impact to the properties to the west, north and east. However, the carport for the southernmost parking stall requires a solid fire -rated wall separation which would be constructed nn the lot line for up to approximately 40 feet in length between the six -unit complex and the adjacent property to the south, and could be at least 15 feet in height. The applicant supplied a letter by previous owner Tom Szalay stating that he built the carport roof over the parking stall between December 1983 and April 1988. There Is no evidentiary support, however, indicating permit approval by the County for a carport up to the south lot line. Conclusions: The uncovered parking stall maybe dwermined to be non -conforming in its location, however, the applicant has not provided conclusive evidence to support that the parking stall was a County approved and permitted covered carport. Regardless, the construction of a carport and the subsequent Building Code required regulations will create n greater visual impact to the property adjacent to the south compared to complying with current development standards. 5. Does the proposed design mitigate the Impacts that could be caused by relaxation of the standards which are proposed to be modified? Hi dinar: The proposed modification has not addressed Implementing any mitigation of the impacts 111a1 could be caused by the relaxation of the standards. Conclusions: The impacts will not be mitigated. 6. If the development proposes greater building height (hull permitted by the zone in which the property Is located, does the Increase in building height result In an Increase in the usable open space on the property over what would be provided by meeting the development standards and design guidelines proposed to be modified? F'pdjngy: The maximum permitted building height far the subject property is 45 feet, which the development will not exceed. Per EMC 19.39.150.C.2, the maximum permitted height for decks up to the rear lot line is three feet. The expansion 'or the south and east facing deck appears to be over 10 feet In height, seven feet over code allowance. Approval or the deck expansion would increase the open space for Unit 6 by approximately 25 square feet In area; an addition to the approximately 430 square foot existing deck. However, the applicant has a west facing deck of approximately 254 square feet width could be expanded and would comply with height rcgulation��EMC 19.39.070.A, the maximum permitted Page 3 Revll 10.015