1725 FULTON ST 2016-01-01 MF Import

�� ' � � I . � � ' � I � � � i i The applicant has constructed a driveway ofE Fulton and a � cement slab on the entire south twenty five Seet of the � lot. He is now proposing to construct a twenty foot by � twenty-two foot carport on the slab. ; i The total square footage of the proposed carport is 440 � � square feet which exceeds the 184 square feet of � accessory buildi,igs permitted by code by 139 percent andi covers 24 percent of the lot area. The carport would ' cover 52 percent of the rear yard area instead of the 50 � � percent allowed by code. i � The total lot coverage for all buildinqs permitted ini this zone is 40 percent or a minimum of I750 square feet � ; The existing single family residence covers 39 percent of the lot. With the addition of the carport the total lot i coverage would be 63 percent plus the additional paved area for the driveway but would be under the minimum 1750 ! square feet. � b. Conclusion: There are exceptional circumstancas applying I to the subject property since it is nonconfoneinq for lot size and setbacks and therefore cannot mer : code � requirements for the carport, and also to the �:oposed ' use do to the fact that it is located across the street � ;� from a use that has intensive parkinq needs which limits � the availability of on-street parkinq. �ICritarion No. 2• :IThat such variance is necessary for the preservation and en- � ;Ijoyment of a substantial property riqht of the appellant pos Isessed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity or 'I zone. i i a. Findina: The 7lpplicant contends the variance is necessary in order to provide o!f-street parkinq and I protaction for their vehicles as others do, and that ther� is little off-atreet parking available because of � the lxation directly across the street of the � Thirty-Four Oakes Fellowship Hall which does not have � adequat� off-street parking. 1! b. Conclusion: Granting this variance would allow the � applicant to have a property right possessed by others in this vicinity and zone. iCritarion No. 3: �That the authorization of such variance will not be materially •detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the �vicinity or zone in which the property is located. � a. Findina: The 1►pplicant has submitted a "Property Owners I OK" sheet siqned by ten other residents in the area � (Exhibit 5) . i ! The City has received three letters in opposition to the I request (Exhibit 6) . Reasons for opposinq the variance request cited in the letters were that too much of the lot would be in buildings, the l�pplicant constructed the cement slab and the curb cut without obtaininq permits. The Public Works Department could find no record of �, permits beinq obtained for construction of the curb cut � and also stated that if the variance were granted the carport must be set back a minimum of 18.5 feet from the back of the side walk to the front of the carport.