Resolution - #01-09-321 - 09/10/2001

Home

• 5. That the Applicants are proposing that a single family dwelling be constructed on the Subject Property. • 6. That the Subject Property is landlocked and has no frontage on a public road and the literal interpretation of City Code Section 9.11.01 would prohibit the development of a single family dwelling on the Subject Property and therein deprive the Applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district, resulting in an undue hardship. 7. That the City has previously granted similar variances. 8. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. 9. That the special landlocked conditions do not result from the actions of the Applicant. 10. That if granted, the variance will not permit a use that is prohibited in the R -1 Rural Residential District. 11. 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. 12. That if granted, the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. 13. That if granted, the variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Chapter or other property in the same zone. 14. That if granted, the variance will not increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. 15. That if granted, the variance will not unreasonably diminish property values within the neighborhood. 16. That if granted, the variance will not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. 17. That if granted, the variance will not violate the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Board Member Kociscak, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chairperson Nixt Board Member Kociscak Board Member Reeve Board Member Watson RESOLUTION #01 -09 -321 Page 2 of 3