Laserfiche WebLink
IV04-3009 <br />Jum17,2004 <br />P«gc2 <br />Revised PUb <br />At the May meeting applicant was advised to formulate a new site plan that w ould reduce the hardcover <br />substantially from the 42% initial proposal, and elunmate the need for a lot coverage variance. Applicant <br />has submitted a revised plan with the following characteristics, based on the surveyor's updated lot area aiul <br />hardcover zone calculations; <br />Lot Coverage bv Structures: 2.S06 sf / 17,060 sf » 14.7% (1S ‘.. ^ould be 2SS9 sO <br />0-75' Hardcover . 0 s.f ■ 0% <br />7S-2S0' Hardcover . 3,557 s.f. / 10,780 sf - 33.0% <br />Hardcover Variance. <br />As noted m the May memo, from staff s perspecuve, there is some hardship to support approval of a <br />modest variance based on the lot shape and the need for a backup apron to allow forward vehicle <br />movement onto Shadywood Road. The degree of hardship supported by the lot shape is calculated as <br />follows: <br />17,060 sf / 250 ’ ■ 68.2' ■ optimum width for 75-250' Hardcover <br />68.2’ X 175' “ 1 1,935 sf x .25 ■ 2,984 sf-2,695 sf • 289 sf variance due to lot shape <br />Also, the property should be allowed a reasonable backup apron. The proposed apron per the revised plan <br />is 8’ X 8*. or 64 s.f, tlic bare minimum needed for a reasonable turnaround. <br />The drivcw ay now proposed at 8’ w ide plus a minimum garage apron, has adequate room for off street <br />parking for at least 4-5 vehicles. <br />Planning Commission at the May meet uig suggested that the potential reduction in view s and the impacts on <br />adjoining average setback lines, by moving the house nearer the road, is also a hardship that justifies some <br />measure of hardcover variance for this site. <br />F rom staff s perspective, a justified quantifiable “5-25Qf hardcover vari ance iiK lude 289 sf due to lot shape, <br />and at least 64 s.f (If not more) due to the need for a backup apron. Total quantifiable 75-250' haixlcover <br />would be 2,695 + 289 64 * 3048 sf, (28.3%). More difficult to quantify is the impact due to location of <br />adjoining homes. Given theat the apphomt has reduced the home to meet the lot coveragel 5% limit, given <br />the factors of lot shape, road access and location of neighboring homes, stafTfcels the proposed plan is <br />reasonable. <br />!________