Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT <br />FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER <br />(Variance f132-84) <br />Based upon the written request for a variance from the City's zoning. <br />code, specifically 18.44.2iU, made by Dennis Konopinski at 930? - 18th Avenue <br />West, hereinafter referred to as "Applicant," the tioard of Adjustment,, <br />:ollowing a public hearing on said appllcation held on November 5 1984, and, <br />; further havlug reviewed all testimony, makes the follawing Findings,, <br />Conclusions, and Order: <br />I FINDINGS AND CONGLUSIONS: I <br />1. That there have been exceptional or extr.aordinary circumst:.nces or. <br />conditions appJ.ying to the subject property or as to the intended use <br />thereof th:�t do not apply QeneL•ally to other properties in the same <br />vicinity or zune. � <br />a. Finding: The applicant owns a parcel of praperty which is�! <br />located at 9307-18th Avenue West. Tt�e applicant's property', <br />consists of a lot with 50' of frontage, 63E� of lot dep[h and <br />124' of lot width. There is a cingle family resider.ce on lot'' <br />1i2. The applicant is proposing a two (2) lot shorC plat. <br />2 <br />b. Conclusion: The applicant's property has adequate area forl, <br />approximately four to fi.ve lots. <br />That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a. <br />substantixl property right of the appellant possessed by the owners of' <br />other prc.perties in the same vicinity or zone. <br />a. Finding: The applicant is proposing one access point onto 28th <br />Avenue West. This access point is of sufficient size for future' <br />development. <br />b. Conclusion: Redevelopment of this is possible with the lot <br />configuration as proposed. <br />3. That the authorization of such variance will not be materially <br />� detrimentaJ. to the public welfare or injurious to property in the <br />vicinity or zone in which the property is located. <br />a. Finding: Existing City standard would require a 40' <br />right-of-way and 24' of pavemei�t. <br />b. Conclusion: Easement access is a reaeonable alternative tol <br />street at this time. <br />� 4. That the granting of sudi variance will not adversely affect the� <br />Comprehensive General Plan. I <br />a. <br />0 <br />Finding: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as single <br />family residential. <br />Conclusion: This short su6division is in compliance with the <br />Comprehensive Plan. <br />-1-- <br />