Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2137 <br />May 15, 1996 <br />Page 3 <br />The slight increase in lot coverage by structures, and the proximity to the lakeshore of the <br />proposed spa (approximately 40' at the closest point) are somewhat related in that they address <br />the bulk of structure on the property, and in this case, its visual impact from the lake. <br />Although the proposed addition meets the required 10' side setback, it will to some degree <br />reduce the perception of open space on the property. Vegetative screening such as some shrubs <br />and small trees, might help reduce any negative visual impact as viewed from the lake. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Is there sufficient hardship demonstrated to support the proposed variances? <br />What specific measures might be appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the additional <br />structure if it is approved? <br />3.Are there any other locations on the property where this addition might be more <br />appropriate? <br />4.Although hardcover is proposed to further decrease as a result of this addition, are there <br />further hardcover reductions that might be appropriate? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />In order to recommend approval. Planning Commission should establish that there are sufficient <br />hardships to the property that support and justify the request. Planning Commission should <br />consider if there are further appropriate hardcover removals, or other conditions, which would <br />help to minimize the impact of the addition. <br />Options for Action <br />1. Recommend approval without conditions. <br />. .ur' /j.s; <br />2. Recommend approval with specific conditions. <br />\ <br />I ^ . —• <br />FA.'i- <br />3.Table for further discussion or additional information / J .r <br />4. Recommend denial, stating specific reasons, <br />5.Other.l/’CLte-- - V :■> V <br />I f. _ •r* \ <br />■CR ORIGlN.<XL DOCUMENT . f ,/ -IL L <br />I ! <br />f-V o:'* <br />..