Laserfiche WebLink
3.The shape of the shoreline makes it difficult for this property to meet the average lakeshore <br />setback. <br />4.The steep topography along the west side of the property limits any view impact from the <br />adjacent property. <br />5. The detached accessory’ building is in good structural condition. <br />6.Does the fact that the property will end up less than 15% lot coverage justify allowing an <br />oversized accessory structure where one would not normally be allowed? The applicant's <br />other option is to construct a separate accessory storage building, but would that be pos.sibIe <br />or appr oriate given the characteristics of the site? <br />7.The steep slope of the land to the immediate south of the detached garage limits where an <br />addition could be constructed. <br />8. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. <br />Option.s for Action <br />1. Recommend approval of variances as presented, <br />2. Recommend approval of variance to permit av erage lakeshore setback to allow the construction <br />of the addition to the residence, l o deny the v ariance to permit an ov ersized accessory building. <br />3 Recommend both variances for denial, .stating reasons. <br />4. Table for additional information. <br />5. Other action. <br />U02-2742 Douglas and Rohan Smith <br />4195 Highwood Road <br />^ artances <br />1/4 2002 <br />Page 3