Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2137 <br />May 15. 19% <br />Page 3 <br />The slight increase in lot coverage by structures, and the provimity to the lake horc of the <br />proposed spa (^)proKimately 40' at the closest point) are some\vhat 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 pn^rty. Vegetative screening such as some shrubs <br />and small trees, might help reduce any negative visual impact os viewed from the lake. <br />Issues ftor ConsideratkHi <br />I. Is there sufficient hardship demonstrated to supp<>n the proposed variances? <br />2. What specific measures might be appropriate to mitigate the im^jaeis of the ttlditional <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 suppor* 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 />Recommend approval with specific conditions. <br />Table for further discussion or additional information. <br />2. <br />3. <br />I f <br />4. <br />5. <br />Isv <br />Recommend denial, .stating specific reasons. <br />Other. <br />W-j n Aca-v.\ <br />; .K <br />■ • V '/ < <br />• >