Laserfiche WebLink
3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />“1 <br />The Planning Conunission reviewed the application for variances and recommended <br />approval by a vote of 7 to 0 based on the following findings and hardships: <br />A. The property has been developed as a single-fami ly residential property since <br />1973. <br />B. <br />C. <br />D. <br />The property is connected to sanitary sewer. <br />The lot is consistent with other properties in the locality. <br />The addition partially replaces an existing porch connection between the <br />house and garage. The building expansion will only include an area that is <br />surrounded on three sides by the existing structure. <br />E.No encroachment into the side yard setback will be required. The addition is <br />17' from the property line. <br />The 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 trafTic 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 applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is <br />necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would 1^ in <br />keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the <br />City. <br />The City Council has considered this application including the findings and <br />recommendations of the Planning Conunission, reports by City Staff, comments by <br />the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and <br />welfare of the community. <br />Page 2 of7 <br />.A