Laserfiche WebLink
\v- <br />r r. <br />M3-29H <br />jHly It, 2N3 <br />Paget <br />3.Would re-direction of roof runoff to the street yard from the entire house be a way of <br />mitigating the excess hardcover on the site, given that such runoff would travel further and <br />have more potential for absorption and filtration before it reaches the lake? Staff has not <br />looked at the impact of this on neighboring properties... <br />4.Are there any significant visual impacts imposed by the upper level additions in the 0-75' <br />zone that need to be mitigated? <br />5. Does Planning Commission have any additional concerns about this proposal? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Staff recommends approval of the upper level additions in the 0-75' zone, finding that the visual <br />impact of those additions is decreased by constructing them in a '/i-story configuration, and noting <br />that the existing home being partially in the 0-75' zone is the hardship. <br />Applicant proposes hardcover removals of 301 s.f in the 0-75' zone to compensate for 601 s;f of <br />added hardcover in the 75-250' zone. This proposal has merit; however. Planning Commission <br />should consider whether it would be more consistent with past practice to require concurrent <br />removals of hardcover in an overall ratio of 1:1 to result in no net hardcover increase on the site. <br />Hardcover removals in a ratio greater than 1:1 would create a better long-term situation, given the <br />excesses of overall hardcover on the property. However, driveway hardcover removals in the 75- <br />250' zone may result in parking problems. Redirection of roof runoff should be considered, since <br />in this unique situation discharge to the street side of the lot yields a potentially greater infiltration <br />capacity. <br />r <br />t , < r m <br />k__i aA <br />1