5512 S 1ST AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

'I 3. b. � ^ , The Applicant has a single family structure on the subject property which hae been converted to a triplex and is currently being used as a duplex. The conversions by the Applicant of the structure in question took place witheut the required City permits. Conclueione: The Applicant's property does not contain any physical conditione or circumetances unique to hia property for vhich a variance can be granted. Applicant's current use is in violation of the City's zoning code. The anly hardship ahich the applicant has demons[rated is due to the fact that he noca ia operating a duplex structure where such is not permitted unleas the Rpplicant hae a lot of 7,500 equare feet or larger. But tt�is cannot be conaidered an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance becauee the only reason [he Applicant is in thie ei[uation is that he hae not complied with the City ordinances. Thie conetitutes a self-created hardship which does not constitute undue hardship for purpoaed of the City's zoning code. That euch variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a aubatantial property right of the Applicant possessed by the owners of other properties in the same vici.nity or zone: a b. Findinga: The Applicant ia currently veing the structure located on his property as a duplex s[ructure. This le a single family dwelling that has been converted without the benefit of any permits or having met any other City requirementa. The other structures in his area are predominately single family structurze. The Applicant's lot is 6,000 equare feet in size and there are duplexes on 6,000 equare foot lots throughout other areae of the City. However, these exist becauae they are non-conforming. Other duplexes exist in the vicinity of Applicant's property, but these exiat on 7,500 equare foo[ lote which ia permitted. Single family residences are permitted on 5,000 square foot lots. Conclusions: The use to which the Applicant wants to make of his property is not available to owners of other property in the same zone or vicinity. i3e can use his property for single family use and will be enjoying the same property rights possessed by his neighbors and others eimilarly aituated. I': he vere allowed to uae it for a duplex use, he would be enjoying a property right which those in the same vicini[y or zone do not have. That the authorization of such variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfa:e or in3urious to property in the vicini[y or zone in which [he property is located: a. Findings: Applicant�s lot contain� only 6,000 square fee[. Due to the small size of the lot, there is inadeqaate space for tenant parking and for other tenant-related amenitiea which would be reQuired of a duplex structure. -z- ��8�T�1 �