02-25-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7. At their regular meeting of January 22, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's revised request for variances as described above. In the letter of request r ed January 11, 1991, the applicant's architect 'ered as a hardship the fact that virtually the e structure is within the average lakeshore setbo-x zone, and that the proposed addition above the existing residence, while not extending outside the footprint of the existing residence, would be located in the 0-75' zone. After reviewing the statements of the applicant's architect and written materials provided by str"* and applicant. Planning Commission voted 3 in fa^ 2 against, 1 abstention to recommend approval of - proposed plan as revised. 8. At their regular meeting of Pebruaxy 11, 1991, the City Council reviewed the applicant's rc»vised request for variances, and voted 4 to 0 to direct ctaff to draft a resolution of denial for the requested variances, based on the following findings: r' "S:i a. Hardcover on the property already exceeds the hardcover limitations imposed by the Code, and the applicant's proposal does not provide sufficient decreases in hardcover in either the 0-75' or 75- 250' zones to support approval of the requested variances• b. Removal of non-scructural hardcover in the 0-75' zone does not justify increasing the bulk and permanence of structure in the 0-75' setback zone. c. The fact that a variance was granted in 1974 to allow construction of the residence in its current location 45' from the lake with decks 33' from the lake, is not justification for allowing a^ itional structure in the 0-75' zone above the existing structure. 9. The applicant has not demonstrated sufficient hardship because he has not shown that no other options exist for construction in the 75-250' rone meeting hardcover lisdtations. Page 3 of 6