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

I i �` /� I lii i� BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER (Charles L. W11ey� Variance A22-84 I' Based upon the wcitten requesC for a variance from [he City's Zoning Code, specifically E.M.C. 19.14.050(A) :.ade 'y Charles L. ldiley, hereinafter reFerred to as the "Applicant," the Boa: l of Adjustment, following a public hearing on said application held on September 10, 198G, and further having � E reviewed all testimony, makes the following FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER. P , y 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinar.y circumstances or 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 �r � zone; Finding: The applicant owns a parcel of property which is located atl 8606 — lOth Avenue 5.�. The applicant's property consists of an 8400I sq. ft. lot with a single farzily residence whicli is ir. an R-1 zone. I� The R-1 zone allows single family residential and its usual accessoryj buildtngs. The applicant is proposing to add a carport in the front � yard area. There are other carports in th� area with similar setbacksl as proposed. There is no alley access for this lot. � � Conclusion: The applicont's property does contain physical conditions � or circumstances that are uni.que to Ms property for which a variancel can be granted. Other property in the area have carports with setbacks as proposed. This does canstitute a hardship based on the fact that �I this is the only location wliere a carport or garage could be loc3ted• 2. That such variance is necessary 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 applicant's property is located in an R-1 ::one and is 'i e�6 ing —used per that requtremnnt. There are other carports on lOth ' i Street that have similar setbacks. •' Conclusion: The carport and setback proposed would not bel inconsistent with the buildings in the area. 'i 3. That the authorization of such variance will not be materiallyl detrimental to the public welfare or injuricas to property in thej vicinity or zone in which the property is located. � Finding: Tliere are already carports in the same block with a similar setback. Conclusion: The granting of the variance would not aEfect property in �l the vicinity. i � � I