Laserfiche WebLink
L <br />StaiNMat 9f Hardship: <br />The applicant has included their statement of hardship in Exhibit C. The applicant should also be <br />asked for their testimony regarding this issue. <br />iMHca far Coasidcratioa: <br />1. The existing residence was built in 1%6, prior to existing zoning standards. <br />2. A portion of the screen porch to be constructed falls within 75* of Lake Minnetonka. Does <br />Planning Commission feel there is a hardship to allow more structure to be constructed within <br />75 ’ of Lake Minnetonka? Should the porch be constructed to meet the 75* setback? <br />3. Are any neighKirs' views of the lake negativ-ely impacted by the addition? Is the location of <br />the existing rcsidcncc justification for the variance? <br />4. Hardcover in tlw 75-250* setback area will be decreasing, but still over the allowed 25%. Are <br />there any other removals that Planning Commission would suggest? <br />5. Should the deck liH;ated by the lake remain and when it needs repair or replacement then be <br />removed? <br />6. Lot coverage by structures will remain at 9.6%. well below the 15% limit. <br />7. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. <br />Staff Rccoronicndaiion: <br />If the Planning Ct>mmission feels the existing conditions of the residence and property create a \*altd <br />hardship that support > the variances requested, then a recommendation for approval is appropriate. <br />Your alternative i> to consider one of the other options for action. <br />OptiMH for Action: <br />1. Recommend approval of variances. <br />2. Recommend denial of variances, stating reasons. <br />3. Table, giving appiicaiu direction. <br />4. Other action. <br />•03-2167 Dan AJ.intv <br />1143 Tonakavva R.vkl <br />214-2003 <br />Pate4of4