Laserfiche WebLink
2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />The property is located in the LR-IB. Single Family Lakeshore <br />Residential zoning district, which requires a minimum lot area of 1 acre. <br />The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing <br />held on March 15, 2004 and recommended conditional approval of <br />variances baaed on the following findings: <br />a. Per Resolution No. 2047, adopted in 1986, the property was permitted <br />hardcover of 52.2% hardcover within the 75 ’>250 ’ zone and 2.5% <br />hardcover within the 0>75 ’ zone. <br />b. The applicants purchased the property with non-conforming hardcover <br />consisting of decks and additional driveway within the 75 ’-250 ’ zone, <br />and a shed within the 0-75 ’ setback zone, which items were apparently <br />added since 1986 by a prior owner, without City approval. <br />c. The applicants removed 142 s.f. of non-conforming hardcover within <br />the 75 ’-250 ’ zone when they recently, without requesting the <br />appropriate permits or iqiprov^s, reconstructed the existing decks <br />A^ch were rotted and unsafe. <br />d. The Planning Commi'<sion finds no hardship to justify allowing the <br />newly the non-conforming shed to remain within the 0-75 ’ setback <br />zone. <br />e. Planning Commissio.i finds no hardship to justify allowing the <br />portions of the newly »)nstructed deck which extend into the average <br />lakeshore setback to remain. <br />f. The side setback variance of 5.8 ’ is supported by the hardship of the <br />location of the home which extends 6.8 ’ into the side yard setback and <br />the new deck was constructed at the same side setback as the previous <br />deck. <br />g. There is no available property to purchase in order to make this lot <br />more confonning. <br />The City Council has considered this application including the findings <br />and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />I