5028 WILMINGTON AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

s BOA&D OF ADJIISTMENT FINDINGS, CONCLIISIONS AND ORDER (Larry Vognild) Variance i25-84 Based upon the vritten requeat for a variance from the City's Zoning Code, specifically E.M.C. 19.14.050(B) made by Larry Vognild of 5028 Wilmington, hereinafter, referred to ae the "Applicant," [he Board of Adjustment, folloving a public hearing an said application held on September L0, 1984, and further haviag. reviewed all testimony, makes the folloving FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. That there have been exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditiona applying to the subject property or as to the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to other propertiea in the same vicinity or zone. Finding: The applicant ovns a parcel of property which ia located at 5028 Wilmington. The applicant's property coneiats of an 90' R 165" lot and ia 14,850 eq. ft. vith a eingle familq reaidence. The property ia located in the R-1 zone vhich requirea a 6 foot side yard aetback. The applicant ia propoeing to add a garage in the back yard area [hat would be 3 feet from that property line. Moat garages tha[ take accese off alley have 0' to 3' setback. Concluaion: The applicant's property does contain physical conditione or circumetances that are unique to hia property for whicli a variance can be granted. Other property in the area have garages With setbacka ae propoaed. This doee conatitute a hardship baaed on the fact that thia is the only location vhere a carport or garage could be located and leave a reaeonable rear yard area. 2. Tha[ such variance ia necessury 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: The applican['s property ie located in an R-1 zone and ia being used per that requiremen[. There are other garages that take accesa off alleys that have simllar setbacka. Conclusion: The garage and setback proposed would not be inconaiatent with the buildings in the area. 3. That the authorization of such variance vill not be materially detrimen!al to the public welfare or injurious to property in the vicinity or zone in which the property is loca[ed. Finding: There are already garages in the same area with a similar setback. Canclusion: The granting of the variance would not affect propert in the vicinity. �� I;vUIING I [YLARRYy�� ❑ ��1S.D[NT,_,___ ' (-�DDIJG ! —'___ I �L;;_; � ��K � '. I/W�LOO�O�.:�{�C fREU —/ .._ � j'iJO�td/Q�/ [SfUNICE �/.��-', I �j eauri /O i% ,S(�/ [�-�suE ��-� �, �::-_�=Lc� — ----- -'�