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

SOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FZNDINGS, CONCLDSIONS AND ORDER (Charlea L. Wiley� Vsriance 1122-84 I Based upon the written request for a variance from the City'a Zoning Code, apecifically E.M.C. 19.14.050(A) made by Charles L. Wiley, hereinafter referred to as the "Applicant," the Board of Ad�ustment, following a public hearing on said application held on September 10, 1984, and further having � -� n reviewed all testimony, makes the following P?NDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER. !" �. .� � � 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumel•ances or conditions �, y applying to the subject property or as to the ii��nded use thereof, '^ _ m that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity or � o mo zone; �� o � Finding: The applicant owns a parcel of property which is located at �' � � 8606 - lOth Avenue S.E. The applicant's property conei.sts of an 8400 m -� sq. ft. lot w-ith a single family residence which is in an R-1 zone. Q � p —! The R-1 zone allows single family residential and its usual accessory � _ buildings. The applicant is proposing to add a carp.irt i�i the front � �, yard area. There are other carports in the area with similar setbacks o s as proposed. Ther� is no alley access for this lot. '� y -i m Concluaioa: The applicant's property does contain physical conditions i*iv or circumstances that are unique to his property for which � variance o can be granted. Other property in the area have carports with setbacka � m as proposed. This does conetitute a hardship based on the fact that � � this is the only location c+here a carport or garage could be located. _i � • m ?b 2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and en�oyment of a -- substantial property right of the appellant possessed by the owncrs of -+ _.. other prope:ties in the same vicinity or zone; r Finding: The applican['s property is located in an R-1 zone and is = eing used per that requirement. There are other carports on lOth `v Street that hrve similar setbac4:s. � _� Conclusion: The carport and setback proposed would not be m inconaistent with the buildings in the area. 3. That the authorization of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public velfare or injurious :o property in the vicinity or zone in which the property is located. Finding: There are already carports in the same block with a similar setback. Conclusion: The granting of the variance would noC affect property in I the vici.nity. -- — I fi-;U I I�. � �LhRRY��❑ M,S.DENT � [?DOUG � ^��❑ JACK __� l�'YAlDO� I� ��'❑ FRED _ . I �IUNM I� L Q�EUNICE �.- i I ��-BRIAN i�_L!//�4 L1 �UE �I / i � , Ly-r•c.c=,_ ; � ------- - ---------- il i � �. _