Laserfiche WebLink
#07-3259 1374 Rest Point Road ' <br /> February 15,2007 <br /> � Page 6 . ' <br /> With i�ie proposed project, overall site hardcover reinains at about 1800 s.f. uiore tlia.n tlus site � <br /> would normally be allowed. The hardcover calculations indicate about 600 s.f. of hardcover is <br /> associated witli ihe pool iii 1:he 0-75' zone, plus aii additional 300 s.f. for walls and walkways. <br /> Adding this to the 75-250' zone yields a proposed 75-250' hardcover "equivalent" of G348 s.f <br /> when the site would norinally be allowed 4,576 s.f. <br /> The City's 1999-2004 review of lakeshore rebuilds suggested that for lakeshore lots with 75-250' <br /> zones of 16,000 to 20,000 s.f., or�ly 2 of 6 properties were granted variances, and those only for <br /> 28%. The other 4 met the 25% liinitation. From staff's perspective, wlule the proposal to re-use _ <br /> portions of the existing house and garage nlay save some costs, we believe that the end result of <br /> tlus proposal will be a house tliat is 90%-plus iiew construction, and the portions being `saved' are <br /> , being saved merely in aii attempt to preserve existing nonconfornlities. . <br /> Wlule the pool is an attractive amenity for this site, it is the primary reason for excess hardcover on <br /> . the property. Staff questions whether su�cient ha.rdship or justification is present to allow it to ' <br /> reinaiil. • <br /> The gazebo is an adjunct to the pool. The gazebo is just lakeward of the average setback luie, but � <br /> it does meet the 75' setback. Its 143 s.f. footprint accounts for just under 1% of the 75-250' zone <br /> proposed hardcover. Staff believes the�gazebo has minimal if airy impact on neighbor's views of <br /> the lake. . <br /> City Engineer's Comments � � . <br /> The City Engineer has reviewed the grading and drainage plan and has provided writteii <br /> comments. The grading plan has significant flaws and needs much work. Additional coirunents <br /> regarding� the foundation are also part of the City Engineeer's cominents. The report by the <br /> . applicant's structural engineer does not clearly answer all questions that need to be answered iii <br /> order to re-use the existing foundations. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> l. Staff believes this project should be reviewed as a rebuild, not as a reiiiodel. Further, the <br /> issue of expailding nonconformities is clearly present because the proposal a) adds new <br /> structure above existing structtue ui the substandard street setback; and b) adds new <br /> hardcover where hardcover does ilot exist when tlie site is already very non-conforming <br /> . in terms of hardcover. <br /> 2. Wlule tlie removal of the extremely non-confornliiig wing neai the sneet is appropriate, <br /> giveii the iniiumal portions of house that will actually remaiii, Plaruiing Coiiunission <br /> should explore whetller it might be inore appro�riate to require that the entire existing <br /> house be shifted toward the lake by 12', eliminating any sireet setback variance. This <br /> � could be done without encroaching the average sei;back, and would still be Far enough <br /> from the pool to not be a factor in whether the pool is retained... � <br />