Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2264 <br />Augiist 15, 1997 <br />Page 2 <br />Plan B is a revised plan that still incorporates the existing house but proposes a slightly lower <br />addition than Plan A, and extends the footprint area further to the north. This results in a slight <br />change to the bulk of structure encroaching the average setback. <br />Applicant’s uphill neignbor who would be most affected by the average setback encroachments has <br />provided a letter indicating he approves of plans for the two story house and has no problem with <br />the encroachments of the average setback line, noting that the additions will not impact his lakeshore <br />views. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />When comparing the criginally approved plan with the currently proposed Plans A and B, <br />does Planning Commission have any concerns regarding the encroachment of this structure <br />into the average setback? <br />Given that applicant has r i' erted back to a proposal that will make use of the existing <br />foundation and a significant portion of the existing h* luse. does Planning Commission concur <br />with staff that no area oi w idth variances are i.ecessaiy , and that the 1996 provisions for 0-75' <br />hardcover removals in exchange for reconstructing the terrace in the 0-75' zone, is still <br />acceptable? <br />Are both Plans A and B acceptable to Planning Commission? Applicant submitted both <br />plans to avoid a further delay should Planning Commission conclude that the bulk of <br />structure encroaching average setback in one or the other is too extensive ... <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Planning Commission is provided with site plans and elevation views for the originally approved <br />house; for Plan A which has been niodified since > our July review; and Plan B which is a new plan. <br />For all three plans, applicant has indicated that substantial amounts of the existing foundation and <br />existing residence will be saved and incorporated into the building, thus avoiding the need for lot <br />area and width variances. Applicants intent is to avoid the need to move the residence to a <br />completely conforming location, thereb> allowing the reconstruction of a serni-circular terrace in the <br />0-75' in exchange for significant 0-75' removals, resulting in a hardcover reduction in that zone. <br />If Planning Commission concludes that there is sufficient hardship to justify granting the average <br />lakeshore setback encroachments of Plan A and Plan B, and concludes that the findings of <br />Resolution #3761 regarding hardcover on the site still apply, then a recommendation for variance <br />approval would be appropriate.