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

The Applicant is proposing to demolish the shop and carport and replace it with a 1,700 square foot structure on the rear of the lot and has stated the following reasons for justifying their request: 1. 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. The Applicants are just starting a family (currently have one baby) and they would like to have a play area in the rear yard that would be visible from the house for a small child to play in safely. a; 2. The existing 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. y;- 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 Letter suit their needs to demolish it and build a new one. The City contends that replacing the existing square footage of the accessory structure should be ample for their needs. The average two car garage is 20 by 22 feet or 440 square feet, so it would appear that a 1,144 square foot structure (the size of the existing structure) would be ample to house three vehicles, a boat and two motorcycles and still provide a small shop area. The vehicle and boat storage would use 880 square feet of the structure, leaving a 12 by 22 foot (264 square foot area) for the two motorcycles and a shop area. In regard to the play area, the Applicant has a large front yard (84 by 70 feet) that could be fenced to provide a safe play area visible from the house, or if a new 1,144 E;. square foot structure were placed on the rear of the lot, they would have the interior rear yard for the play area. b. Conclusion: There does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to either the subject property or the use thereof that would justify + granting the variance as requested. Criterion 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. p}1 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 have sizeable accessory structures; however, the City finds that none of them are as large as that proposed by the Applicant and the Applicant does have a large front yard that could be fenced for a safe play area visible from the house. The City is recommending that the Applicant be allowed to build a new structure the same size (1,144 square feet) as the one they area proposing to demolish. This would still leave the large play area in the rear yard or they would have the option of fencing the front yard. -2-