Laserfiche WebLink
RESGLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />NO. 2483 <br />I <br />B) The existing residence st~uc~ure is lo=~ted 28' from the <br />shoreline with a second sto~y deck located 20' from the <br />shoreline. Existing hardcover on the i:;roperty in the 0-75' zone <br />is 30.4% and in the 7'3-250' zone is 49.0%. <br />C) The prr~osed a~ditional structure includes completion of the <br />seconr1 story over the entire existing house, with a 3-level <br />addition brtween the existing house and the garage, plus a new <br />second story deck at tte northwest end of the house. None of the <br />additions ~ill be closer to the lake than the existing house and <br />deck. <br />D) The applicant's original proposal showed a reduction in <br />hardcover in the 0-75' zone from 30.4% to 30.1%, and from 49.0% <br />to 44.4% in the 75-250' zone. The initial Planning Commission <br />review of that proposal resulted in direction from the Planning <br />Commission to further reduce hardcover on the property, hence <br />r.tpplicant returned with a proposal for J0.0% in the 0-75' zone <br />and 38.9% in the 75-250' zone. The Planning Commission found <br />this substantial hardcover reduction to be a positive aspect of <br />thj s application and recommended approval. <br />E) Due to the fact that this property has lakeshore on 2 sides, <br />with a relatively small area in the 75-250' setback zone, the <br />property has some unique hardships in that it could not support <br />any additions without variances. <br />F) The proposed additions will crpate no significant visual <br />encroachment of vi~ws enjoyed by neighboring property owners, and <br />will not be visually obtrusive within the landscape due to <br />the topography within the irmnediate ly adjacent areas. <br />4 The City CoJncil has considered this application including the <br />f ndings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by <br />C ty staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed <br />variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. <br />5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this <br />property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other <br />property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not <br />adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard <br />or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a <br />convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demon- <br />strable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial <br />p~operty right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the <br />spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the <br />City. <br />Page 2 of 5