Laserfiche WebLink
I . <br />MiiliilTiiiilii'i ita Vi <br />#05-3102 920 Brown Rd. S. <br />May 12,2005 <br />Page 3 <br />Structural Coverage: <br />Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage <br />40,400 s.f. (0.93 ac.)Allowed: 6,060s.f. (15.0%) <br />Initial Proposal: 3,463 s.f. (8.6 %) <br />Revised Plan: 3,714 s.f. (9.2%) <br />"Hardcover Calciilaittbiiii:' <br />Hardcover <br />Zone <br />Total Area <br />in Zone <br />Allowed <br />Hardcover <br />Existing <br />Hardcover <br />Revised <br />Hardcover <br />0-75’3,220 s.f.0%(to be removed)Os.f (0%) <br />75-250'21,825 s.f 5,456 s.f (25 %)(to be removed)2,498 s.f (11.4%) <br />250-500’^ 15,340 s.f 4,602 s.f (30%)(to be removed)4,294 s.f (28.0 %) <br />Totals 40,385 s.f 1 10,058 sf (to be removed)6,792 s.f <br />Hardihlp Statement & Analysis <br />(Refer to comments finm April 14 Memo) <br />Summary of Issues for Consideration <br />1. Is the existing lot size sufficient hardship to support granting of the lot area and width <br />variances? <br />2.Are Aere hardships present that support granting of the side setback variances? Is the <br />50’ wide buildable envelope so limiting as to be considered a hardship? <br />3.Would granting of the north side setback variance of 12’ be appropriate in the context <br />oftUs neighborhood and the locations of neighboring homes? Is the impact of <br />additional stnicture length while requiring less side setback encroachment, a positive <br />or negative for the neighborhood? <br />Are there any other issues with this proposed rebuild? <br />JC-- <br />i