4401 S 4TH AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

forming since tP�e �:otal area covered by the ga- rage, woodshed and storage shed was 611 square feeC instead of the 600 square feet alloo�ed by code. The existing side setback nonconformity would be extended four feet further to the wesL- which is a minor extension of an existing nonconfor- mity. The Applicant has �`_ated he �s willing to re- move the eaisting old woodshed and storage building af.ter the garage is const:ructed o�hich would then make a total lot coverac�e for acces- sory buildings of 650 square feet. Since there is a nanconformity existing of 11 square feet, the applicant is reguesting a variance of 39 square feet from the code requireaent of 600 square feet or a two percent variance from lot coveraqe requirements. b. Conclusio� There are unusual circumstances related to this property based on the above findings that the existing garage wa� nonconforming for setba�k anc9 lot coverage and the proposed addition is a minor variation from code requireme:nts. C itr eri�nl:�L7.� That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoy- ment of a substantial property right of the appellant possessed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity or zone. a. Findina: Other property owners in the vicinity and zone exceed the currenY. code requirement for lot coverage of accessory buildings and there are many other locations where corner lot side set- back is not met. b. Conclusion: Granting this variance will allow the Applicant a property right enjoyed by others in the vi- cinity and zone. Criterion No. 3• That the authorization of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welf�re or injurious to property in the vicinity or zone in which the property is located. a. F�nd�na: The minor extension of the existing nonconform- ing garage will have no effect on the surround- ing property owner� since the existing garage is located in the i•ear yard adjacent to the al- ley and the minor extension on the west and south is towards the interior of the subject ' lot. In addition, no adverse comments have been received in response to notice mailed to property owners within 300 feet. b. Conclusion: Based on the above finding, it does not appear that granting this variance would be detrimen- tal to the public welfere or injurious to oth- ers in the vicinity and zone.