Laserfiche WebLink
Zomi« FUe #1953 <br />Ai^iist 4, 1994 <br />2 <br />F • Hardcover Fact! <br />G - Exi- ^ Floor Plan <br />H • Pro|KMed Floor Ran <br />I. Ekvation/ScctioQ <br />J - Lakeshore Setback Ddeiminaiioa <br />Applicani proposes the removal of the rar entry additkm at «.5 ’x9.9* and reptacanem with a <br />new eotty addilioo at 12’xl8’ with a rear attached lO’alO’ deck. Refer lo Exhibits D, E ^ <br />H. Tlie new construction wUI extenl no fuito inio the wl^Mdard sk^ <br />pade^te^d^^^ 8 1^* Upon yom siie inspeetkm, nom the overhai^ <br />the garage and review Exhibii I. The 1’ overhang will result in a separation setback of less than <br />3’ requiring special fire waH constnictioo. The proposed improvement results in an exems of <br />stnictuial coverage at 302.6 s.f. or 4.49%. Stroctural coverage ex^ at 17.3% and wUl be <br />incieasol to 19.5%. <br />StdcMik of Hardship <br />Applicant has not submined a stattment of hardsh4> and will be asked to provide ** <br />iMing. Hardships are obvious. The lot is .15 acres in area and 50’in width. »« <br />Uvim^ Avenue lots designated on the plat map. Exhibit B. 11 or 61 % of the developed lots <br />are single lots equal to or less in area. The proposed improvement is similar to the pdlern of <br />recent improvement to homes within the Navarre Heights arm. <br />Issues for Ctmddnwlioa <br />1^ Is structural coverage excess proposed too great for this property? Whaiof <br />of other structures on the adjacent parcel? <br />2. Will you approve a separation setback of less than 3 ? <br />proximity <br />3. <br />4. <br />Should the structural expansions be reduced? <br />Is the side setback of 6’ acceptable as long as it extends no further into the substandard <br />yard? <br />5, Other issues raised by the Planning Commission.