Laserfiche WebLink
� _ i <br /> I <br /> I <br /> BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ' <br /> FINDINGS� CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER !I <br /> i (March 11 , 19B5) <br /> �-N3-85 <br /> ; <br /> i <br /> Hased upon th� written request for a variance from the City�s zoningi <br /> � I <br /> i code, specifically 18.44•210, made by Mike Baker at 2706 VieKcrest, � <br /> hereinsfter re£erred to as "Applicant," the BoSrd of Ad�ustment, following ali <br /> public hearing on asid spplic+�tion held on March 4, 1985, and further havingf <br /> I <br /> reviewed all testimony, rmkes the following Findinge, Conclusiona� and Order: � <br /> FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIOTIS: I <br /> 1 . Ttxit thece }�ve been exceptional or extraordinsry circuma�nces or� <br /> conditions applying to the sub�ect proparty or as to the intended uae . <br /> thereof thst do not apply generally to other propertiea in the same : <br /> vicinity or zone. <br /> I <br /> a. Find3n8: The applicant oNns a lot locsted off of Viewcreat and) <br /> 23rd. The npplicant's property is 250' x 4¢9� aith 20' ofl <br /> frontage. The applicsnt is proposing a two lot short subdivision. ' <br /> b. Conclusion: A 20' acceas to lot //2 Nould be reaeonable at this � <br /> locstiun. i <br /> 2. Thst such variance is neceas3ry for th= preaervation and enfoyment of al <br /> subst9ntial property right of t}r� appellsnt possessed by the ownere ofl <br /> otUer propecties in the same vicinity or zone. <br /> a. Findin : Access to lot //2 will Ue via 20' easement access over 'I <br /> lot 1. Total tr:ps per dsy would be approximately ten. <br /> b. Conclusion: Thia accesa point Would not sffect the otkw_r lots �i <br /> in the aree because of its locgtion and number of tripa per day. <br /> 3. There are no reasonable altnrnatives which rrould allow for acceptsble I, <br /> desigrt of th= short subdivision in accord9nce with existing sixndards. <br /> � <br /> a. Finding: A public street should not be built in this ! <br /> loastion. A public street should not be extended acroes the � <br /> nutural drainageway. <br /> b. Concluaion: Easement access is the most acceptable deaign toli <br /> the City. I <br /> 4. The applic3nt's request for a short subdivision hss been proceased by , <br /> the City which confirms that the final approval cannot be grantedi <br /> without an authorized variation from the Board. <br /> a. Finding: The applicant has filed a short eubdivision Kith thell <br /> City. <br /> b. Concluaion: The short subdiv.ision h3s been granted preliminary <br /> approval. <br /> � <br /> i <br /> ii <br /> _�_ <br />