Laserfiche WebLink
Lot Existing <br />Area <br />Existing <br />Width <br />Proposed <br />Area <br />Proposed <br />Width <br />4480 Forest Lake Landing 14,489 s.f 58^horeline <br />45^75’ SB 14,882 s.f 56’-shoreline <br />45’-75’ SB <br />1090 Wildhurst Trail 20,505 s.f 57’-shoreline <br />63’-75’ SB 20,116s.f 60’-shoreline <br />65’-75’ SB <br />4480 Forest Lake Landing - Hardcover Calculations (existing percentages will be based on the <br />zone square footages pre-lot line re-arrangement; proposed percentages will be based on post-lot line <br />re-arrangement square footages. <br />Hardcover <br />Zone <br />0-75 <br />75-250 <br />250 - 500 <br />Total Area in Zone <br />(eiisting/proposed) <br />4,134/3,834 s.f. <br />7,758 / 7,974 s.f. <br />2,597 / 3,074 s.f <br />Allowed <br />Hardcover <br />(s.f.) <br />0 <br />(0%) <br />1,940/1,994 <br />(25%) <br />779 / 922 <br />(30%) <br />Existing <br />Hardcover <br />0 s.f * <br />(0%) <br />3,165 s.f* <br />140.8%) <br />1,425 s.f* <br />(54.9%) <br />Proposed <br />Hardcover <br />0 s.f <br />(0%) <br />1,832 s.f <br />(22.97®/^ <br />1,845 s.f <br />(60“/o) <br />1090 Wildhurst Trail - Hardcover Calculations (existing and proposed percentages based on pre <br />Hardcover <br />Zone <br />Total Area in Zone <br />(existing/proposed) <br />Allowed <br />Hardcover <br />(s.f.) <br />Existing <br />Hardcover <br />Proposed <br />Hardcover <br />0-75 4,491 / 4,661 s.f 0 <br />(0%) <br />0 s.f • <br />(0%) <br />0 s.f <br />(0»/o) <br />75 - 250 12,210/12,159 s.f 3,053 / 3,040 <br />(25»/o) <br />5,591 s.f* <br />(45.79%) <br />5,591 s.f <br />(45.98®/o) <br />250 - 500 3,804 / 3,296 s.f 1,141/989 <br />(30»/o) <br />825 s.f * <br />(21.69%) <br />825 s.f <br />(25.03®/o) <br />Planning Commission Recommendation <br />The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their May and June PC meetings. The <br />Planning Commission ultimately voted 6-0 to approve the most recent revision, which is noted <br />above in the application summary. The Planning Commission stipulated this approval on submittal <br />of a favorable engineering report indicating the existing foundation could support the proposed <br />improvements. <br />A preliminary report from the ^>plicant’s engineer is favorable, however the applicant has requested <br />fiiilher guidance with regard to a rebuild vs. a renovation/addition as the cost to conduct the latter is <br />probably more costly than a total rebuild. The applicant requested that the Planning Commission <br />provide an alternate recommendation should a rebuild be necessary. The Planning Commission <br />chose only to vote on the renovation/addition proposal submitted, suggesting they would want to see <br />this application again if it becomes a rebuild. <br />m