Laserfiche WebLink
c. There will be no building or other obstruction <br />in the easement area. <br />(1) The access to the proposed dwelling in <br />case of fire will remain the same as if no easement <br />existed. <br />(2) The light and air within the side yard <br />will remain the same as if no easement existed. <br />(3) The openness or "open space" of the side <br />yat-1 will remain the same as if no easement existed. <br />9. The proposed location of the single family <br />dwelling is set back more than 75 feet from the shoreline <br />as re(Ini.rod by the city ordinance. <br />Fl The prepesed 4eeatien of the front of <br />the Oedse exists a+eser than the average distAnee <br />trot" the sherel-ine of existing residenee bni�dings <br />r,nd nearby 4etsr <br />b- a. The "average se+. back requirement" was not <br />(I igned nor has it been interpreted in the past <br />to prevent the development as proposed on this <br />sort of unique angulated shoreline adjacent to <br />,lack Rhode's lot. <br />e: b. The intent of the "average sct back requirement" <br />wasro protect the sight lines of neighbors. <br />d- c. The only neighbors whose sight line or view <br />(,t The lake will be obstructed b-.• the proposed <br />location, the Lauers, have no objection to the <br />proposed location of the dwelling. <br />d. Vie s_cght line or view of the lake from the <br />lakeside facade of the Becker `house will not be <br />o_bst.>ucted b the proposed location as shown on <br />Exhibit A. <br />10. The city council has granted variances in <br />such r-as,,r; in the past. <br />11. A prior house, now removed, was approximately <br />40 feat from he lakeshore. <br />12. !Ir. Lauer wants the building to be as far <br />fr)rward ;v, possible. <br />13. Ir. Becker war t_s the building as far to the <br />rear ,v; 1— ;sible. <br />