4712 W VIEW DR 2018-01-02 MF Import

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER (Variance #26-85) March 5, 1986 Based upon the written request for a variance from the City's zoning code, specifically 19.14.050(B) & 19.42.040(C), made by Dale Good at 4712 West View Drive, hereinafter referred to as "Applicant," the Board of Adjustment, following a public hearing on said application held on March 3, 1986, and further having reviewed all testimony, makes the following Findings, Conclusions, and Order: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. That there have been exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property or as to the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity or zone. IF 3 4 Finding: The existing house was constructed prior to annexation to the City, and County requirements at that time called for a five foot sideyard setback. The house is not square on the lot so by extending the sidewall parallel to the existing house wall to enclose the carport, it put the front corner of the garage ten inches into the six foot setback area. Conclusion: The setback of the house is legal since it is nonconforming and if the house had been constructed squarely on the lot, the extension of the wall to enclose the carport would not have intruded further into the setback area. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the appellant possessed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity or zone. Finding: Other property owners in the neighborhood whose homes are not so close to the property line and square on the lot could extend garages and carports to double garages if they so choose. _Conclusion: The appellant wishes to create a double car garage which is an option available to other property owners in the neighborhood. 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. Finding: Granting the variance would still leave more than 25 feet between the garage wall and the house to the south. Should the neighbor to the south extend 12 feet to make a double garage, the two structures would still be 13 feet apart. Conclusion: There would still be adequate separation from the adjacent property. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the Comprehensive General Plan. Finding: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as single family. Conclusion: The use is cons13tant with the Comprehensive Plan and the Plan does not specifically address side yard setbacks. �-1 x z c -i n m