Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2036 <br />July 7, 1995 <br />Pigc3 <br />Dcscriptioo nX Request <br />Applicant has presented three alternatives for the redevelopment of this severely <br />substandard parcel. Review Exhibit B-2, applicant’s description of those three options. <br />Case 1 <br />Review *^xhibits G, H, I. J and K. This improvement plan involves an 8’ x 3 expansion <br />of the footprint at the northeast and southeast comer to the lakeside o tte <br />Exhibit J existina foundatton would be approved along the destgnated Itne. The da <br />shows the 3' x 8' new foundation section. The remainder of the struemre ts not ^^'4uaie <br />sup^rt expansion or improvement of the second level. Stmeture wtll rematn as shown w.th <br />only a first floor living area. <br />Review Exhibit I. Applicant proposes an addition to the existing garage, major portions <br />of whic^rbe located ouf of the 0%5’ setback area. Garage dottrs wtll be rel^ated to^ <br />rfU nf structure The existine garaee has doors opening out onto Loma Linda. The <br />existing single stall garage is of quesUonable structural condition. It is doubtful whether this <br />structure can be expand^ upon. It is also doubtful whether the City would approve ot <br />improvement of a structure that encroaches 6" into a year-round public access. <br />Case 2 <br />Review Exhibits G, L. M and N. There ts no dtfference <br />either Case I or 2 This improvement plan calls for the rounding oil ot the 3 x 8 comers on <br />fh n tS nnd Lth side of the structure at lakeside. In this case, the entire foundation would <br />^ r^nraced all ™ no for an expa^on of the second store. Review Exhibits M and N. note thts <br />UnTa complete second storv addttion. The only portion of structure that will extend beyo^ <br />the existinc footprint are the steps and from stoop that will encroach another “ 'he <br />lakeshore y'ard. Note hardcover improvements are the same for noth Cases 1 and The <br />for the detached garage remain the same as it was in Case 1. <br />Case 3 <br />Review Exhibits O, P. Q. R. S and T. In this option of improvement, applicant proposes <br />f, 1 ^ , Tn of the same footprint funher away from lake and the garage would now be <br />n Z stmemr^Z auhe same approximate location from the street and right side yard. <br />attached to h located 10’ from the left side lot line. Compare the setback results <br />The .structure wo setbacks noted above. Hardcover for this improvement plan is <br />and the increased to 62% in the 75-250- setback area. <br />reduced ' c -p poor plans succest only a second tloor expanston over the prtncipalRevtew Exhibits R, S and 1. tlm P ^ ^ <br />stmeture lootprtm. Note in tmelev^^^^^^^ <br />cmcrll ^yonTL average lakeshore setback line of the residence to the immediate north.