Laserfiche WebLink
4. <br />5. <br />A. The applicant proposes reduction in hardcover in the 75-250' setback area <br />to support the improvement of the structure within the 0-75 ’ setback area. <br />B. Ihe proposed improvement will not result in an increase in hardcover in <br />the 0-75' setback area. <br />C. The proposed realignment of the roof will allow ’ for improved drainage <br />and treatment of runotT as runoff wilt be directed to the sides rather than <br />directlv to the lake. <br />D. Applicant is in the process of reducing a lakeside deck at approximately <br />10' X 12' to 4' X 12' completely located within the 0-75' setback area. <br />E. The realignment and expansion of the roof will have no visual impact on <br />the take views of the adjacent residences. <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 variances 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 cr difficulty; is necessary 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 Plarming Commission, reports by City staff, comments <br />by the applicant and tlic effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and <br />welfare of the community. <br />Page 2 of 5