05-12-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. E.No action was taken by the applicant, and he sold the property to the owners in January 2003. F.bi February and March 2003 the Building Official sent letters to the applicant in a further attempt to gain compliance, which resulted in this application. The City Council finds that the increases in structural coverage and encroachment of a second story S' into the average lakeshore setback must necessarily be granted in conjunction with any after-the-fact approval of the second story deck. The City Council finds that while the second story deck construction should not have occurred, denial of the after-the-fact variances would unfairly penalize the owners who purchased the property from the applicant with no knowledge that the deck was not in compliance. The Council further finds that the circumstance that the City failed to file a timely written notice to the applicant of the violations act as a hardship which supports the granting of the requested after-the-fact variances. The 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 would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with 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 recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 3 of 6 iiitiMiaini