Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />"‘J <br />»no, <br />des. <br />4. <br />5. <br />F. <br />I. <br />The applicant has been asked to consider the visual needs of the property <br />owner to the north and has minimized expansion to the east thereby <br />preserving lake views where homeowner would have no legal claim as <br />the propcity to the north is not a lakeshore lot. <br />Applicant has met with residents to the west and has entered into an <br />agreement whereby an existing detached garage was to be removed and <br />new construction was to meet a minimum 15' setback. <br />Proposed structural improvements for this property will be held to 14.3% <br />where the code would allow 15%. <br />G.Total hardcover on this property is proposed at 3,301.6 s.f. or 16.3%. <br />H.Hardcover in the 250-500' setback area e.xists at 45.5% and is proposed <br />at 48.2%. <br />The majority of area of this property is located within the 75-250' <br />setback area. <br />The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar <br />to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that <br />granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor <br />pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely <br />serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a <br />demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessarv' to preserve a substantial <br />property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and <br />intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br />The City Council has considered this application including the findings and <br />recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments <br />by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the healtli, safety and <br />welfare of the community. <br />Page 3 of 6