Laserfiche WebLink
i ( <br /> a. Findin¢s:. The proposal is to replace an existing deck landing <br /> and stainvay that is deteriorated and unsafe. The City <br /> provided written notice to all property owners within 300 feet <br /> of the subject property and no comments were received. <br /> Conclusions: The proposed variance will not be materially <br /> detrimental to the neighborhood area or the Ciry as a whole. <br /> Criterion No. 3: <br /> That the variance will only grant the subject property the same general <br /> rights enjoyed by other property in the same area and zone as the subject <br /> property. <br /> a. Findin�s: Tliroughout this neighborhood area there are <br /> numerous structures that do not meet the current setback <br /> requirements. As evidenced by the Site Plan (Exhibit #1) <br /> there is perhaps not one property within this block or the block <br /> to the southeast that conforms to the setback requirements. <br /> Many of these properties were developed in the early 1900's <br /> and pre-date current zoning code requirements. <br /> b. Conclusions: The granting of die variance would permit the <br /> subject property the same rights enjoyed by od�cr properties in <br /> the area. <br /> Criterion No. 4: <br /> That the variance is the minimttm necessary to allow the subject property <br /> the general rights described in Criterion 3. <br /> a. Findin�s: See Criteria #3. <br /> b. Conclusions: See Criteria #3 <br /> ��P <br /> - --- <br /> _ _ , - = <br /> - `a - - -- - ...,....._ ,...�.. � � <br />