Laserfiche WebLink
FILE #05-3104 <br />14 June 7005 <br />Page 4 of 4 <br />driveway has been reconfigured and is 171 s.f. larger than existing, but considering the relief <br />from crowding the toad at the rear of the property staff feels that the additional driveway area <br />is not a significant issue. <br />Snmnary of Issnes for ConsideratioB <br />■ Rebuild vs. Remodel? <br />■ Structural coverage from 16% to 21%. <br />■ Lakeward expansion further into the 75’ setback. <br />■ Rear yard setback 28’ for attached 3-car garage. <br />■ 2*^ story addition over existing home and new additions. <br />■ Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Staff Rccommeadation <br />Plaiming Staff recommends approval of an attached garage and 2"*' story additions above the <br />new garage and existing footprint but recommends denial of the hardcover variances, lake <br />setback, and structural coverage variances in order to expand the house footprint square <br />footage. <br />r ^ • ■.•>1 <br />•V: <br />' • ■- iu- • <br />'V.- <br />'4^'-i<f ¥ <br />' - ^'-4 <br />p\ ' '■ V <br />l <br />.tabu