Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1966 <br />September 16. 1994 <br />Page 2 <br />Items for Discussion <br />Is the proposed reduction in the 0-75’ zone from 2.795 s.f. to 2.636 s.f. (a <br />reduction of 159 s.f.) appropriate? <br />Is the proptised spa an amenity that can be approved in the conte.xt of existing <br />development in this area of 0-75’ zone? <br />Because applicant filed a conditional use f^nnit for the retaining walls and then <br />included the spa in the project which requires a hardcover and setback variance, <br />applicant has not provided a statement of hardship in regards to the hardcover and <br />setback variance. Applicant should be requested to provide a statement describing <br />undo hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing <br />compliance with the zoning code requirement, in relation to the spa proposal. <br />Does Planning Commission liave any concerns regarding replacement of the south <br />retaining wall? These walls are expected to be limited m 2.5’ in height and <br />accommodate the pwl elevations rather than provide signiticant support to the <br />lakeshore banks. <br />Options for Action <br />1.Recommend approval as proposed, subject to the hardcover revisions noted, subject to <br />receipt of the updated survev confirming hardcover numbers and percentages (and <br />setbacks) which must be found acceptable to staff before this item will be presented to <br />Council. <br />Table, based on incomplete information or for other reason. <br />3. Recommend denial (state reasons). <br />Other.