8606 10TH AVE SE 2016-01-01 MF Import

BOARD OF ADJDSTMENT /o � �� /�INDI.IGS, CONCLIISIONS AND �'DER �� o G '� (Churles L. Wiley� Vsriance 1122-84 Based upon the written request for a variance from the City'e Zoning Code, specifically E.M.C. 19.14.050(A) made by Charles L. Wiley, hereinafter referred to as the "Appllcant," the Board of Adjustment, follouing a public t �' hearing on said applicatior. held on September L0, 1984, and further having :eviewed all testimony, makes the following FZNDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER. 1. That there are exceptiunal or extraordi.nary circumstances or conditions applying to the sub�=ct property or as to the intended use thereof, that do not apply generally to other propertias in the same vicinity or I zone; I Finding: The applicant owns a parcel of property wFich is located at 8606 - 10�h Aygnue S.E. The applicant's property consists of an 8400 � sq. it. ].ot witti a single family residence which is in an R-1 zone. The R-1 zone allowa single family rr_sidential and ±ta usual accessory buildings. The applicant is proposing to add a carport in the front I yard area. There are other carporl's in the area with �imilar setbacks as proposed. There is no alley accese for this lot. Conclusion: The applicant's property does contain �oysical conditions or circumetances thac are unique to his property for which a variance can be granted. Other property in the area have carports with setbacks as proposed. This does conatitute a hardship based on the fact Lhat this is the only location where a carport or garage could be located. ( 2. That such variance is neceasary for the pre3ervation and enjoyaent of a � aubstantial property right of the appellant possesszd by the owners af � other pro2erties in the same vicinity or zone; t:' Fiiiding: The applicant's property is located in an R-1 zone and is I ei�ng used per that requirement. There are u::her carports on lOth Street that have similar satbacks. a � Conclusion: The carport and setback propoaed would not be � � inconsistent with the buildings in the area. G ' � � 3. That the authorizati.on of such variance caill not be materially � detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properry in the � � vicinity or zone in which the property is located. =� ' � . Finding: There are already carports in the same block with a similar '� F setback. � �; i i Conclusion: The granticg of the variance would not affect property in ~ the vicinity. � � � � � I - I , � i I I� I I I I� . _ ��--