1510 RUCKER AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

r FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Criterion No. 1: That tlie variance is necessary because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances regarding the size, shape, topography, or location of the subject property: or the location of a pre-existing improvement on the subject property that conforrtied to lhe zoning code in efiect when the improvement was constructed. a, Findings: The applicant has stated that the proposed variance is necess4ry due to the exceptional and ex�raordinary characteristics ci the site. The site measures appro�cimately 33' x 120' totaling 3,960 square feet in area. The applicant is proposing to remodel the existing single family residence on site, including adding approximately 150 square (eet to the main floor, 940 square feet to the upper floor, adding a 506 square foot deck, and a 102 square foot covered front porch. Based on the 3,960 square foot lot size, 40°0 lot coverage o(the sile would be maximized at 1,584 square feet, and 50% gross floor area coverage at 1,980 square feet. The proposal would result in a 1,653 square foot building iootprint, and a 3.212 square foot gross iloor area for the struciure. The Ciry Planning Department certified the existina residence as legal nonconforming per setbacks, under Review Process NC6 =02-012. on June 5, 2002 (Exhibit �6). The R-2 zone allows structures lo be constructed to a height of 28 feet. The existing residence is a single story structure with an un(inished basement. Minimum lot size within the R-2 zone is 4,500 square feei with a minimum lot width of 50 feet and minimum lot depth of 80 feet. The subject property is substandard with regard to lot width and area, therefore any proposed addition to the structure would exceed the lot coverage and gross floor area ratio. The applicant is proposing to construct a landmg and stairs within 2 feet of the northem property line, which exceeds the code allowed 36 inches in heighl The narrowness of the lot compounded �vith ihe new building addition create the need (or the variance. �, Conclusions: The subject sile does have extraordinary features, such as its limited lot size which limit the options for additions and severely restrict ihe size of the single family residence on site. However, the City fi�ds that the landing and stairs which are proposed to encroach inio the northem side setback are necessitated by the design of the house reinodel, and serve as a convanience and do not take into consideration the side selback requiremenis. Therefore this portion of the variance request is not the result of a unique circumstance of the subject site. Criteron No• 2: That the variance will not be material!y detrimental to the property in the area of the subjecl properey or to the City as a �vhole. ��