Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2014 <br />April "l2. 1995 <br />Page 2 <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - Application <br />B - Plat Map <br />C - Propert)' Owrers’ List <br />D-1-3 Hardcover Inventorv' <br />E-1 Upper Level As-Built <br />Upper Level Proposed <br />Lower Level As-Built <br />Lower Level Proposed <br />Survey/Average Lakeshore Setback <br />Sur\ey/Upper Level Improvements <br />Survey/Lower Level Improvements <br />Elevations <br />E 2 <br />F-l <br />F-2 <br />G <br />H <br />1 <br />J <br />Description of Request <br />The applicant proposes major additions to the existing partial two-story residence located <br />approximately V 6” from the south side lot line. Additions at the south side are a great room <br />to the lakeside and a bedroom addition to the street side or rear. Lower level mprovements also <br />include an approximate 3’ stmcmral expansion to the lakeside over the existing deck. Review <br />Exhibits E-2. H and J. Note the great room will be two-story. To the lakeside of the upper <br />level master bedroom there will be a minor stmcmral expansion towards the lake. A deck will <br />be placed in line with the existing lower level living room (not within 3’ expansion). AJl <br />proposed additions will encroach required setback areas either lakeshore or side The great <br />room will be placed over in existing concrete patio and the approximate 12’ x 20’ bedroom <br />addition to the rear will be placed over a portion of an existing sidewalk. Applicant’s hardcover <br />facts have not been adjusted to include the new hardcover improvement in the 75-250’ setback <br />area. <br />Review hardcover facts. 24.6% hardcover exists in the 75-250’ setback area and with <br />the proposed rear addition hardcover will be over the allowed 25%. There is excessive paving <br />within the street yard that includes a paved ramp at the north lot liiw obviously for vehicular <br />use. <br />The purpose of this review is to provide applicant and applicant’s consult^ with <br />concepmal direction regarding the redevelopment of the property. Applicant’s architect has <br />discussed a possible lot line rearrangement with property owner to south where stmemres both <br />encroach required side yards. The architect has noted that the stmcmral addition of the property <br />to the south is an older covered porch area that could easUy be removed and rebuilt m a <br />conforming location. It is difficult to see just what portion of the subject property could be <br />given up in an equal area exchange. Staff has heard nothing from property owner to south.