Laserfiche WebLink
#03-2901 4l2SHIgbwoodRMd <br />July 17.2003 <br />Page 3 <br />Structural Coverage; <br />Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage <br />28.648 s.f.Allowed: 4,342 s.f. (15%) <br />Proposed: 2,370 s.f. ± (8.3%) <br />Hardcover Calculations; <br />Disteace from Total area in Allowed Existing Proposed <br />shoreline setback hardcover hardcover hardcover <br />0-75'11,993 s.f.0 s.f.779 s.f.779 s.f <br />(0%)(6.5 %)(6.5 %) <br />75-250'16,655 s.f.4,164 s.f.6,180* s.f.4,630 s.f. <br />(25 %)(37.1 %)*(27.8%)** <br />* After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds <br />**4,690 s.f. or 28.2% if 4* bluff encroachment is denied <br />iMUeo for Consideration <br />I.Applicant has provided a plan that addresses the Planning Commission recommendation to <br />remove as much hardcover as possible to get closer to the 25% standard. Is the proposed plan <br />acceptable to the Planning Commission? Do the stated hardships support the granting of the <br />decreased hardcover variance as now proposed? <br />2.What hardship supports the granting of a variance to encroach 4' into the requit 30* bluff <br />setback? Does the resultant slight decrease in deck hardcover offset any visual impacts <br />caused by encroachment toward the bluff? <br />3.If the hardcover variance is approved, will Planning Commission be able to distinguish the <br />unique aspects of this application from similar requests for rebuilds on similar sized lots? <br />Does the mature landscaping of the site and the retention of the existing garage support the <br />idea that this is not a ‘complete* site rebuild as compared to other situations where a site is <br />completely redeveloped? <br />4.Does Planning Commission have any concerns regarding replacement of the deck in kind <br />or in any marmer that encroaches within 30' of the top of the bluff, if applicant chooses to <br />replace the deck in kind?