08-28-1995 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

UJ J 1 - =' rkv >Zoning File #2036 July 7, 1995 Page 3 Description of Reque^ Applicant has presemed three alternatives for the redevelopment of this severely 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 of 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 w ill remain as shown with only a first flexor living area. Review E.xhibit I. Applicant proposes an addition to the existing garage, major portions of which will be located out of the 0-75’ setback area. Garage doors will be relocated to the north side of structure. The existing garage has doors opening out onto Lorna 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 ot the improvement of a sirucnire that encroaches 6" into a year-round public access. Case 2 Review E.xhibits G. L, M and N. There is no difference in the footprint/site plan lor either Case I or 2. This improvement plan calls for the rounding off of the 3’ x 8’ comers on the nonh and south side of the structure at lakeside. In this case, the entire foundation would be replaced allowing for an expansion of the second story. Review E.xhibits M and N, note this is not a complete second story addition. The only portion of sirucmre that will extend beyond 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 funher away from lake and the garage would now be attached to the structure but at the same approximate location from the street and right side yard. 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. fioor plans suggest only a second floor expansion over the principal structure footprint. Note in the elevations. Exhibit T. that applicant shows a second tloor above the attached garage area. The proposed upper level expansions with this option will not encroach beyond t'he average lakeshore setback line of the residence to the immediate nonh.