511 LAUREL DR 2016-01-01 MF Import

a. Findin s: The applicant has made an e(fort to meet wiih several of the neighboring property owners in order to explain the proposed expansions as well as to discuss any potential view blockage concerns. b. Conclusions: The City provided v�ritten notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject �ite. Several leiters were received by the City from neighboring property owners; they have been included as exhibits #6-9. The proposed variance has been reviewed by the City Public Works, Buildiny, and Fire Departments. The following comments weie received: 1) Building permits from the City are required (or construction. The Board of Adjustment has jurisdiction to allow deviations (rom the setback requirements upon private property and finds that the requested variance would not be detrimental lo the subject property or to other properties in the area of the subject property. Criterion No. 3: That the variance will only grant the subject property the same general rights enjoyed by other property in the same area and zone as the subject proper'y. Findinqs: A majority of the homes in this area of town were constructed prior to the Zoning Code coming into effect. Several, like the subject residence, do have legal nonconforming setbacks due to the age of the ori�inal construction. Expansion along a legal noncon(orming setback is permitted as long as it does not make the noncon(ormity more nonconforming. On August 4, 2003 the Board of Adjustment issued an approval for a variance localed at 615 Laurel Drive. The variance granted the owners of the property the right to encroach into the front set�ack for their building expansion. The approved variance was for an 11 foot 8 inch frcnt setback rather than the code required twenty feeL Many of the conditions which exist on lhe subject sile, were found at tlie residence located at 615 Laurel Drive. Conclusions: The subject residence is located within the Rucker Hill National Historical District. Majority of these homes were consirucled in the early 1900's prior to any zoning code provisions coming into effect. The proposed expansion would not result in the subject property bein� provided rights not enjoyed by other properties in the area. Criterion No. 4: That the variance is tlie minimum necessary to allow lhe subject property the general rights described in Criterion 3. a. Findin s: See Criteria #3. �� ` �`�/