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