Laserfiche WebLink
#03-2907 <br />July 17,2003 <br />Page! <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - Revised Site Plan Dated 7-14-03 <br />B - Revised “Removals” Plan Dated 7-14-03 <br />C - Elevation Relationships Drawings 7-14-03 <br />D - Response Package Submitted by <br />Applicants at June PC Meeting <br />E - Memo & Exhibits of 6-12-03 <br />Background <br />At the June Planning Commission meeting the applicants submitted a response packet providing <br />changes to their proposed remodeling/addition plans, addressing certain issues raised by staffin the <br />June 12 memo. Planning Commission tabled the request for further review and analysis by staff. <br />Applicants have made a number of revisions since the June meeting, so both their response packet <br />handed out at that meeting, and a further more recent plan revision, are included in this packet. <br />The changes needing variance approval arc summarized above. The characteristics of the most recent <br />plan include: <br />- Deck removal and replacement with a small (95 s.f.) deck in 0-75 ’ zone to limit structural <br />coverage; <br />- Removal of extraneous hardcover in 0-75' zone and 75-250 ’ zones; <br />- Relocation of the attached garage to be approximately 6’ from the iefr side lot line at its closest <br />point, and to avoid encroachment of the sewer casement; <br />- The second stoiy additions directly above the existing hoiisc footprint remain, so the side setback <br />and lakeshore setback variances are still requested; <br />- The driveway is minimized to a width of 10’, widening near the garage; the existing detached <br />garage by the road will be removed. <br />The primary issues with the current proposal include: <br />a) The second story addition is partly in the 0-75 ’ zone, and adds additional bulk of structure <br />nearer the lake than normally allowed. <br />b) The second story addition is proposed to continue the existing extremely substandard side <br />setbacks of 4 ’-5’ on the left side and 2.5-3.9’ on the right side. The Building Official has <br />determined that windows can be allowed wherever the walls are 3’ or more from side lot <br />lines, which leaves only a short length of the south side wall as ineligible for windows. <br />c) The attached garage is proposed to be 6’ from the side lot line, which is better than the <br />ongmal proposal but still constitutes new structure in a substandard setback. <br />d) Drainage is still a concern, although from staffs perspective the most recent plan will <br />actually r^uce the magnitude of overland drainage from the rear half of this site. Staff <br />believes the drainage issues are not made worse with this plan, and a suitable drainage plan <br />incorporating swales and roof gutters can be devised to reduce any cuirent drainage problems.