Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> may still build a single family detached dwelling on a lot that does not meet the zoning code as <br /> • to area width, if the Council found pursuant to a variance application that: <br /> 1. It is at least one acre in size, and the average width of the lot is at least 100 feet; <br /> and <br /> • 2. It is either served by a public sanitary sewer or meets all the septic system <br /> requirements of the City or other governmental body; and <br /> 3. It otherwise meets the requirements of this or other applicable ordinances. <br /> • <br /> The trial court erroneously stated that there was no dispute that the six lots involved did <br /> in fact meet these requirements. While lots 1, 2 and 3 Block 1 and Lots 1, 2 and 3 Block 2 <br /> • satisfy the first condition of the exception to the Ordinance, none of the lots are served by a <br /> public sanitary sewer and there is no evidence that they meet all the septic requirements. <br /> Moreover, the lots fail to meet the requirements of other applicable ordinances. <br /> Specifically, the location of Respondents' residence does not meet the current 100 foot <br /> setback requirement from the outlot that would constitute the private road. Respondents' <br />• current use of the property violates set back requirements if all the lots were to be considered <br /> separately. While the house location falls within all the appropriate setback requirements as <br /> well as the minimum five-acre lot size requirement for the "all lots" parcels, it does not meet <br /> a <br /> side and front setback requirements from Outlot A for if it is considered to be located solely on <br /> Lot 1, Block 2. <br /> The only way the City could have issued a permit for a residence in the location within <br /> Block 2, Lot 1 as proposed by Respondents in 1977 would have been <br /> 1) if a variance had been granted regarding lot area and setbacks; or <br /> a <br /> 9 <br />