2701 18TH ST 2016-01-01 MF Import

The existing structure is nonconforming for front yard setback (north) which is zero feet rather than the twenty feet required by code and for side yard setback which is appr.oximately four feet on one side (west) and one foot on the other (east) instead of the five feet required by code. The applicant has constructed a driveway off Fulton and a cement slab on the entire south t�oenty five feet of the lot. He is now proposing to construct a twenty foot by twenty-two foot carport on the slab. The total sqiiare footage of the proposed carport is 440 square feet which exceeds the 184 square feet of accessory buildings permitted by code by 139 percent and covers 24 percent of the lot area. The carport would cover 52 percent of the rear yard area instead of the 50 percent allowed by code. The total lot coveraqe for all buildings permitted in this zone is 40 percent or a minimum of 1750 square feet The existing single family residence cove��. 39 percent of the lot. With the addition of the carport the total lot coverage would be 63 percent plus the additional paved area for the driveway but would be under the minimum 1750 square feet. b. Conclusior��. There are exceptional circumstances applyina to the subject property since it is nonconforming for lot size and setbacks and therefore cannot meet code requirements for the carport, and also to the proposed use do to the fact that it is located across the street from a use that has intensive parking needs which limits the availability of on-street parking. Cxiterion No. 2• That such variance is necessary for the preservation and en- joyment of a substantial property right of. the appellant pos sessed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity or zone. a. Findina: The Applicant contends the variance is necessary in order to provide off-street parking and protection for their vehicles as others do, and that there is little off-street parking available because of the location directly across the street of the Thirty-Four Oakes Fellowship Hall which does not have adequate off-street parking. b. Conclusion: Granting this variance would allow the applicant to have a property riqht possessed by others in this vicinity and zone. Criterion No. 3• That the authorization of s��ch variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the vicinity or zone in which the property is located. a. Findina: The Applicant has submitted a"Property Owners OK" sheet sigtted by ten other resic�ents in the area (Exhibit 5).