1725 FULTON ST 2016-01-01 MF Import

i i : �� � � � � � � The applicant has constructed a driveway off Fulton and aj i ceaent slab on the entire south twenty five feet of thej lot. He is now proposing to construct a twenty foot byl twenty-two foot carport on the slab. i The total square footaqe of the proposed carport is 440i !� square feet which exceeds the 184 square feet ofl l accessory buildings permitted by co3e by 139 percent and ; covers 24 percent of the lot area. The carport would � cover 52 percent of the rear yard ar.ea instead of the 50 � percent allowed by code. , The total lot coverage for all buildings permftteci in ; ' this zone is 40 percent or a minimum of 1750 square feet � � The exiating sinqle family residence covers 39 percent of � � the lot. With the addition of the carport eha total lot ; coveraqe would be 63 percent plus the additional paved ! area foz the driveway but would be under the minimua 1750 ; square feet. � b. Conclusion: There are exceptional circumstances applyinq � to the subject property since it is nonconfoneinq for � lot size and setbacks and therefore cannot meet code requirements for the carport, and also to the proposed ! ; use do to the fact rhat it is located across the street ' ;� from a use that has intensive parkinq needs which limitsl the availability of on-street parkinq. I ;Icriterion No. 2• , '.IThat such variance is necessary for the preservation and en- � �joyment of a substantial property right of the appellant pos '� ;Isessed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity or ; ' zone. � a. Findinc: The �pplicant contends the variance is � nacessary in order to provide off-street parking and , protaction for their vehicles as others do, and that I th�r� is little off-street parkinq available because of � � th� lxation directly across the street of the IThirty-Four Oakes Fellowship Hall which does not hava , � adequat� off-street parkinq. �i b. Concluaion: Granting this variance would allow the I applicant to have a property riqht possessed by others in j this vicinity and zone. I icriterion 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. i a. Findina: The Applicant has submitted a "Property Owners � OK" sheet signed 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 buildinqs, the Applicant constructed the cement slab and the curb cut without obtaining permits. The Public Works Department could find no record of permits being 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 tc the front of the carport.