Laserfiche WebLink
c.The City’s tax records back to 1974 indicate the former owner received <br />homestead credit from 1974 to 1981. The property has been non- <br />homcsteaded to the current time. <br />D.Major portions of the property are located in the lakeshore protected area. <br />5,348 s.f. is located within the 0-75’ setback area and 1.464 s.f. is located <br />within the 75-250’ setback area. <br />E.The curvamre of the shoreline to the southeast of the property intensifies <br />the impact of the lakeshore setback upon limited building envelope of this <br />propert>. <br />F. The propeny has been assessed and is connected to municipal sewer. <br />The Planning Commission at their August 21, 1995 meeting reconsidered a <br />second request of applicant to install a second story over the 22’ x 22’ single- <br />story caraee. The Planning Commission recommended denial of applicant ’s <br />request to amend the Planning Commission s original recommendation of <br />approval based on the following findings: <br />A.A second stoty over the approved 22’ x 22’ garage addition would <br />intensify the impact of strucmre on this severely substandard lot. <br />B. The earage is located 3’ from a public access to lake and 5.4’ from street <br />lot line. <br />The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar <br />to it and do not apply generally to other propeny in this zoning district; that <br />sranting 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 or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property <br />richt of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent ot the <br />Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br />Page 3 of 7