1329 63RD ST SE 2018-01-02 MF Import

I. The existing structure is awkwardly placed in the middle of the backyard, leaving a sixteen foot yard between the house and garage with a larger yard behind the garage at the back of the lot. They are just starting a family (currently have one baby) and there is no good place on the lot currently for a small child to play safely as the front yard is adjacent to a busy street and there is not an adequate area between the existing shop and the house. 2. The Applicant has lived at this location since he was a child (for the last thirty years) and their lifestyle is such that the structure is not big enough for their needs since they have two vehicles for commuting to work, a boat, a vehicle to tow the boat and two motorcycles. 3. The existing structure is in need of a roof which would cost about $2,000 and rather than put more money into the old building, it would better suit their needs to demolish it and build a new one. b. Conclusion: There are unusual circumstances applying to the subject property that do not apply generally in the vicinity and zone because of the size of the lot, the proposed use, and the fact that the rear yard abuts the City reservoir property. 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. Finding: The Applicant has stated that other lots in the area have sizeable back yards visible from the house to provide a safe play area for small children, and that other property owners in the vicinity of the subject property have sizeable garages and shops. b. Conclusion: Granting the variance would allow a property right possessed by others in the vicinity and zone. That the authorization of such 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. Finding: Moving the structure to the rear of the lot would actually make it further from other residences in the area. Because the City reservoir abuts the rear property line, the additional coverage in the rear yard area will not adversely affect any other property. Public Works had no adverse comments and no adverse comments were received in response to notice sent to property owners within 300 feet. b. Conclusion: Authorization of this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity or zone.