Laserfiche WebLink
rEUaa* <br />«03-2915 <br />July 21,2003 <br />PagcSof S <br />12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the <br />applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or diiliculty.* <br />The location of the home constitutes a hardship for the applicant. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Does Planning Commission agree that the average setback encroachment will have <br />little or o impact on views of the lake enjoyed by the adjacent property owners? <br />2. Is there any hardship demonstrated to support the encroachment of the eave <br />**eyebrow” mo"' than 1.5’ past the 10 ’ setback. This eave area is between the first <br />and second stores and is an ornamental feature of the house. Staff cannot support any <br />eaves above the second story being more than 1.5’ from the house, but the existing <br />eyebrow should be addressed. <br />3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance. The addition would <br />not encroach further into the average lakeshore setback tlian the existing home. The addition <br />would not affect the vi;ws of the lake from the neighboring properties, rather potentially <br />blocks only the view of the neighboring yards. <br />Staff recommends denial of the requested excess roof eave encroachment. <br />*.• • <br />♦ # <br />%imk