Laserfiche WebLink
The applicant proposes complete reconstruction of residence structure <br />on the site using only the existing foundation located approximately 61' <br />from the lakeshore setback area. In order to meet the hardcover allowance <br />of 25% within the 75-250' setback area, the applicant proposes the removal <br />of the existing detached garage and a re-location of a trimmed back access <br />drive with backout strip. Approximately 212 s.f. of new structure is <br />proposed within the 0-75' setback area. Applicant proposes the removal of <br />326 s.f. in order to offset the excess of hardcover at 15.18% existing. <br />The applicant proposes a total reduction of 114 s.f. of hardcover within <br />the 0-75' setback area. <br />The reconstructed residence will now be totally located behind the 61' <br />setback area with a 2' upper story deck extending another 2' into the <br />lakeshore protected area at 59'. The previous principal structure was set <br />at 55' with an accessory staircase located 10' from the lakeshore. <br />Issues for Consideration - <br />1.Is the proposal consistent with similar improvement variance <br />applications (review Exhibit J & K)? In consideration of the Palm <br />application at similar lot area and width standards, the Rhode <br />application has less hardcover than approved in the Palm application. <br />Palms: <br />0-75' = 17.5% <br />Rhode : <br />0-75' = 13.3% <br />75-250'29% <br />75-250'24.8% <br />2. <br />3. <br />Are there specific features or functions of the improvement plan that <br />could be improved upon or amended? <br />Have the improvements in structural setbacks from the lake and <br />hardcover reductions offset the 212 s.f. of new structural hardcover <br />within the 0-75' setback area? <br />Based on the conclusions drawn from the discussions above and the <br />factual findings presented by applicant and staff in the review, <br />following options of action are available to the Planning Commission: