Laserfiche WebLink
3. The addition is adding mass to the residence, but to the street side rather than the lake side. <br />There is no average lakeshore setback encroachment. <br />4. The lot is small compared to the LR-IC zoning district standard. <br />5. The foundation and first story walls will remain as existing. <br />6. If the lakeside deck was not calculated in structural coverage, the proposed house and addition <br />would meet the 15% limit (14.9%). If the deck and railing were lowered it would not be <br />included in the structural coverage of the lot. <br />7. The house was built prior to current zoning standards. <br />8. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. <br />Options for Action; <br />1. Recommend approval of the variances to allow the addition and remodeling with the <br />condition if the foundation is found to be in disrepair this will be considered a rebuild and needs <br />to come back to the Planning Commission for review. Also a new survey showing revisions be <br />submitted to City staff for approval before building permit will be issued. OR <br />2. Advise tlie applicant what other possible revisions will make the application approvable, and <br />table the application. <br />3. Other. <br />Staff Recommendation; <br />Staff recommends the application be tabled. While meeting with staff, the applicant did mention <br />the lakeside deck will need to be replaced sometime in the future. Because replacement of the <br />deck will in itself require a setback and hardcover variance, Staff feels the structural coverage <br />and hardcover on the lot would be better addressed if the addition, remodeling and lakeside deck <br />were reviewed concurrently. (NOW). Lowering this deck could eliminate its lot coverage status <br />and result in no need for an overall lot coverage variance <br />(^2564 William Dampinr <br />3.^50 Ivy Place <br />Variances <br />3/20/2000 <br />Page 3 <br />{I