Laserfiche WebLink
#05-3102 920 Bro�vn Rd.S. <br /> NIay 12,2005 • � � <br /> ' ' P1ge 3 <br /> � Structur�l Cover��e: <br /> Tot�l Lot Are� Tot�T Structui•al Cover�ige <br /> 40,400 s.f (0.93 ac.) Allowed: 6,060s.f (15.0 °/a) <br /> Iliitial Proposal: 3,463 s.f-. (8.6 %) <br /> Revised Plau: 3,714 s.f•. (9.2 %) <br /> I��x•dcover Calculltious: <br /> IIardcover Total Area Allowed Existing Rev'rsed <br /> Zone in Zone Hzrdcovei� �Taz•cicover xai•dcover <br /> 0-75' 3,220 s.f. 0% (to Ue reinoved) 0 s.f. (0%) � <br /> 75-250' 21,825 s.f. 5,456 s.f. (25 %) (to be reilloved) 2,498 s.f. (11.4%) <br /> � � 250-500' 15,,340 s.f. 4,602 s,f, (30%) (to be reii�.oved) 4,294 s.f (28.0 %) <br /> ' Totals 40,385 s.f. 10,058 sf (to be removed) 6,792 s.f. <br /> } H�rdship Statement &Analyszs <br /> (Refer to comments froni April 14 Memo) <br /> Summax•y of Issues foc•Consideration <br /> l. Is the existing lot size sufficieilt hardslup to support grantiiig of tlie lot area and width <br /> variances? <br /> 2. Are there hardsliips presenfi that support granting of tl�e side setback variances? Ts the <br /> 50' wide buildable enve'lope so limiting as to Ue considered a hardship? <br /> 3. Would grauting of the north side sel;Uaek variatice of 12' be appropriate in the coi�.text <br /> of this ileighUorhood aud ihe locations of ileighboruig hoiiies? Is the iinpact or <br /> additional stntcture lengih while reqttiriug less side setUack eilcroaclunent, a posiiive <br /> or negative for the ileighborhood? <br /> 4. Ar�e fihere any other issues with this proposed reUttild? <br /> i <br /> ; <br />