07-17-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2036 July l\ 1995 Page 3 Description of Request Applicant has presented three alternatives tor the redevelopment of this severelv substandard parcel. Review Exhibit B-2, applicant’s description of those three options. Case 1 Review Exhibits G, H. I. J and K. This improvement plan involves an 8 ’ x 3’ expansion of the footprint at the northeast and southeast comer to the lakeside ot the residence. Review Exhibit J, existing foundation would be approved along the designated line. The darkened area shows the 3’ x 8 ’ new foundation section. The remainder of the structure is not adequate to support expansion or improvement of the second level. Structure will remain as shown with only a first fl(X)r living area. Review Exhibit 1. Applicant proptises an addition to the existing garage, major portions of which will be located out of the 0-75’ setback area. Garage doors will le relocated to the north side of structure. The existing garage has doors opening out onto Loma Linda. The existing single stall garage is of questionable structural condition. It is doubtful whether this structure can be expanded upon. It is also doubtful whether the City would approve of the improvement of a structure that encroaches 6" into a year-round public access. Case 2 Review Exhibits G. L, M and N. There is no difference in the footprint/site plan for either Case 1 or 2. This improvement plan calls for me rounding off of the 3’ x 8 ’ comers on the north and south side of the structure at lakeside. In this case, the entire foundation would be replaced allowing for an expansion of the second stor>' Review Exhibits M and N, note this is not a complete second story addition. The only portion of structure that will extend beyo^ the existing footprint are the steps and front stoop that will encroach another 4’ into the lakeshore yard. Note hardcover improvements are the same for both Cases 1 and 2. The issues for the detached garage remain the same as it was in Case 1. Case 3 Review Exhibits O. P, Q, R, S and T. In this option of improvement, applicant proposes the relocation of the same footprint further away from lake and the garage would now te attached to the structure but at the same approximate location from the street and right side yar The structure would now be located 10’ from the left side lot line. Compare the setback results and the factual findings for setbacks noted above. Hardcover for this improvement plan is reduced to 22% in the 0-75’ setback area and increased to 62% in the 75-250’ setback area. Review Exhibits R. S and T. floor plans suggest only a second floor expansion over the principal stmeture footprint. Note in the elevations. Exhibit T, that applicant shows a second floor above the attached garage area. The proposed upper level expansions with this option will not encroach beyond the average lakeshore setback line of the residence to the immediate north.