Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2187 <br />November 14,1996 <br />Page 6 <br />Issues for Discussion <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />Given the magnitude of the additions to the west, are there still suitable hardships for <br />granting the east side setback variance? <br />Have sufficient hardships been demonstrated to support the granting of a street setback of <br />18' where 50' is normally required? Will this street setback encroachment be in keeping with <br />the surrounding area? Should additional screening be required? <br />Does sufficient hardship and justification exist for the granting of the requested lakeshore <br />setback and average lakeshore setback variances? <br />Can Planning Commission make a finding that all of the code requirements for a non-rental <br />guest apartment have been adequately addressed? Is the guest apartment designed to <br />functionally and visually be a part of the principal residence rather than an entirely separate <br />unit that could become a rental unit? <br />Does Planning Commission have specific concerns about the lack of an alternate drainfield <br />site? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />In order to recommend approval, Planning Commission must make findings in support of the <br />requested variances and conditional use permit. If the degree or magnitude of certain requested <br />variances is considered excessive, Planning Commission may wish to offer the applicant a chance <br />to redesign. <br />Options for Action <br />1. Recommend approval as proposed, stating findings in support of each variance requested. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />Recommend approval with specific revisions. <br />Table for further information or revisions (give applicants parameters, if possible). <br />Recommend denial. YM-iJe H-l. / i'- <br />.../ <br />Other. <br />- /)Of/ .•/ .v-r )r rn S'^ - fjr ’ '■J • •'