Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1801 <br />Fcbniao 9. 1993 <br />Page 3 <br />4. Toul builUtng height of Lot 3 is 34’10* as measured from the highest existing <br />elevation 939.1* grade. This height is consistent annind all elevations of the <br />proposed building. Whe«eas house on Lot 6 measures 30* from the street side <br />atKl 39* to the rear. House on 1^ 4 measures 30* from the street yard and 41 ’ <br />from rear yard. <br />5. Applicant notes house on Lot 5 will actually be 6* lower than the adjacent <br />residences. <br />6. A classic 2 1/2 story colonial with mansard roof and as further described in <br />hardship #4 could not be built based on the limitations of the building height <br />section and could only be installed with a walkout design which applicant claims <br />is not really suited for the traditional colonial sty le. <br />Please note all properties within the City ire subject to the height regulations - not just <br />lakeshore. <br />Ivsucs fur ConsidcTatiofl <br />1. What hardships arc valkl in the variance request? What findings are valid in the <br />vanaiKe request? <br />3. <br />4 <br />What was the intent of the building height code amendment? <br />What is your response when applicant*s consultant claims this specific design of <br />home cannot be built in the City because of the approval method of determining <br />allowed height of structure. <br />Wliat will be the real impact of this structure on the immediate neighborhood? <br />Docs the area of the lot. proposed setbacks, the unique physical feature or <br />adjacent land uses have any bearing in your determination?