Resolution - #14-06-102 - 06/05/2014

Home

9. That Lot 1, as proposed would only have frontage on 159 Lane, which is prevented from gaining driveway access to this road due to existing wetlands. 10. That Lot 1 has legal access to 160 Lane NW through a road easement across two private properties as approved by the City in 2003 and 2004. 11. That Lot 1 road frontage is very fragmented across three separate roads, and primary access is gained from 160 Lane, not 161s Lane. 12. That a similar Variance was approved in 2003 by Resolution #03 -10 -127. 13. That the proposed Lot 2 would have approximately 300 feet of street frontage. 14. That the Applicant is requesting a variance from the required lot width to allow the property to be reconfigured in such a way that there would be no frontage along RESOLUTION #14 -06 -102 Page 2 of 4 161" Lane. 15. That the City has previously granted variances for lesser lot widths and frontages at the public street. 16. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. 17. That if granted, the variance will not permit a use that is prohibited in the R -1 Rural Developing District. 18. That the granting of the variance will not grant the Applicant any special privileges that are denied by this Chapter to other owners of land in the same district. 19. That if granted, the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. 20. That if granted, the variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Chapter or other property in the same zone. 21. That if granted, the variance will not increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. 22. That if granted, the variance will not unreasonably diminish property values within the neighborhood. 23. That if granted, the variance will not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. 24. That if granted, the variance will not violate the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.