Laserfiche WebLink
^Oa-o o CITY of OfiONO <br />• A. <br />• <br />*^^£:sho ^ <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNC!L <br />NO.^ <br />W -r » V <br />tSr“ty t"th°eS40- lot <br />that time, property was «ned f^ <br />lot area at ®i|th variance granted in <br />area requirements. The lo existing improvements <br />1974 was strictly to ,|a5 North Shore Drive <br />associated „;rt«atec? wMle facing the Traff <br />r^^d^c^f SicS w\rpreviously a <br />for 2685 North Shore Drive, on a separate lot. <br />D) The «*4Sting residence IS J,oca..ed a- <br />from the east side lot line. j-esidence <br />proposed to be demolished and a nev <br />%«eee4.r-ii4-*«d 24.5' fTom the side• - - •> i ^ I f ^ nm side lot linef it xS <br />“h*‘hhVlV 'ea/ible to construct a new residence <br />5ilh^u\ the ne'ed for a side setback variance. <br />4. The City council reviewed th® _aPPlicatio^lncl^^^^^^^^^ <br />findings and recommendation of aoolicants and the <br />reports by City staffs heal**'h * safety and welfare ofeffect of the variances on the heal -h,^ aa£«y <br />the community on . . width, lot area and 5.5’ side <br />nth:r:iriL^%%’r^ba°sy on thl following findings: <br />A) -^he findings of the Planni.ng Commission support <br />appr'ovai of the lot area and width variances as <br />proposed. <br />B) Although it is re,”ir^%“n«r^tL%h"a;: <br />residence meeting all s ,„d'narrowing of the building <br />Views from the <br />operty <br />C) Further, the granting of a 5.5’ side <br />variance in Jt^'side setback of theresidence, in"««ses the east side sern ^ <br />Pace 2 of 5