Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />k . <br />i <br />4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: <br />5. <br />A. The existing residence was built in 1951, prior to city adoption of the current <br />2 acre zoning standards. <br />The hardship is the existing house location in relation to front and street lot <br />lines. <br />C. The residence to the north is located approximately 15 ’ from the property tine. <br />D. Lot coverage by structures will be 1,410 s.f., well below the 1.500 s.f. limit. <br />E. The second story over the garage will not obscure the adjacent properties view <br />of the lake. <br />F.The properties in the immediate neighborh od to the applicant's lot are much <br />larger and many have combined lots. There is not any other land to acquire to <br />increase the size of the property to meet the required area in the zoning <br />district. <br />G. The subject property is a comer lot. <br />H.Due to the location of the house and its interior layout, there is no practical <br />way to locate the proposed garage space and additional living space addition <br />in a conforming location. <br />I. Hardcover in the 250*500' setback zone will increase by 78 s.f. Applicant <br />shall remove 78 s.f. from ground patio and garden area to maintain existing <br />level of 2.313 s.f. (35.34%). <br />'fhe City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it <br />and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the <br />variances will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard <br />or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to <br />the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is <br />necessary' to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would in <br />keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the <br />Page 2 of 7 <br />f i