5028 WILMINGTON AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

� -� � � aoexn oa �w.rusr►�rrr � FINDINGS, CONCLDSION:i AND ORDER (Larry Vognild) Variance 125-84 Based upon the �+ritten request for a variance from the City's Zoning , Code, specifically E.M.C. 19.14.050(R) made by Larry Vognild of 5028I � Wilmington, hereinafter, referred to as the "Applicant," [he Board of �� Adjustment, following a public hearing on said application held on September' ��I 10, 1984, and further having reviewed all testimony, makea the following� li�, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER. I I! � FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: I ' or' 0 1. That there have been exceptional or extraordinary circumstances 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. Finding: The applicant ocros a parcel of property which le located atj 5028 Wilmington. The applicant's property consiste of an 90' X 165", lot and is 14,850 sq. ft. with a single family residence. The property is located in the R-1 zone vhich requires a 6 foat slde yard setback. The applicant is prop�eing to add a garage in the back yard area that ; would be 3 feet from that property line. Most garages that take accessl ofE alley have 0' to 3' setback. I Conclusion: The applicant's property does contain physical conditione' or circumatances that are unique to his proper[y for Which a variance � can be granted. Other property in the area have garagea vith setbacksl as proposed. This does constitute a hardship based on the fact thatj thie ia the only location where a carport or garage could be locatedl and leave a reasonable rear yard area. � 2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a li subatantial property right of the appellant possessed by the oxners of other properties in the same vicinity or zone; � � Findin : The applicant's property is located in an R-1 zone and ie� being used per that requirement. There are other garages that takel accese off alleys that have similar aetbacks. I I Concluaion: The garage and setback proposed would not be inconeistent i with the buildinge in the area. � � 3. That the authorization of such variance vill not be muterially � detrimental to the public welfare or injurioue to property in the�i vicinity or zone in which the praperty is located. i Finding: There are already gnragea in the same area vith a similar I setback. i Conclusion: The granting of the variance vould not affect property in I the vicinity. II