Laserfiche WebLink
! <br /> a) The lot is eatremely small and the majority of eYisting hardcover is in the 0- <br /> 75' setb�ck zone. <br /> b) The covered entry as proposed is over existing hardcover and will not <br /> increase hardcover on the property. <br /> c) The covered entry as proposed is of a size and in a location that will have <br /> minimal visual impact in terms of the bulk and massing of structure on the <br /> property. <br /> d) The location of the covered entry within 75' of the shoreline is necessary <br /> because the entry door it serves is only 49' from the shoreline. <br /> e) The covered entry is necessary to help solve a roof runoff problem caused by <br /> the design of the entryway directly below the outlet of a roof valley. <br /> � The replacement of retaining walls as requested in the initial application is not <br /> a part of this current review. <br /> 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and <br /> recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, conunents by <br /> the appiicant and the public, and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, <br /> safety and welfare of the conununity. <br /> 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this properiy are peculiar to it <br /> and do not apply generally to other property in this zoiung district; that granting the <br /> variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire <br /> hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a <br /> convenience to the applicant and owner,but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable <br /> hardship or difficulty; is necessaiy to preser•ve a substantial property right of the <br /> ap�licant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent oFthe Zoning Code and <br /> Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br /> Page 2 of 5 <br />