02-10-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4. The Planning Commission made Uie following findings of fact: A. Planning Commission finds that a lot area variance is not required since the existing house foundation and part of the first door walls will be used, without structural repairs. If the foundation which is located w ithin the 30’ front yard setback is found to be replaced, the application needs to be revisited and reviewed as new construction. B. The existing residence was built in 1920, prior to existing zoning standards. C. The hardship is the existing house location in relation to front lot lines. C.The hardcover in the 250-500’ setback zone is below the allowed 30%. D. Lot coverage by structures will be 17.2%, above the 15% limit. However, the applieant is removing the shed decreasing the amount of lot coverage by structure that currently exists on the property. E. The irregularly shaped property is due to a subdivision which occurred in 1973. F. The new second story will not adversely affect any adjacent neighbor ’s view of the lake. Cl. 1 he applicant has requested to add to the existing house rather than build a new structure on the property. I he owner has stated the existing foundation w ill not be removed or altered as part of the remodeling plan I he City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances will not adversely affect traffic conditions, fight, air. nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serv'c as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and w ould be in keeping w itli the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and Page 2 of 6