10-15-2007 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

, ,,, � Page 3 of 5 ; Boathouse � ❑ It was initially suggested by staff that we consider tearing down the boathouse. ❑ After review of the alternatives and feedback from neighbors, it was determined that it was best to maintain the boathouse. f Drivewav . ; � �The driveway is really the cornerstone of the issue and at the core of the request for a hardship variance. i ❑ Right now, I have a moderate house with a major driveway.❑ The driveway constitutes about 2/3 of the total hardcover. � � 0 The easement with neighbors requires a circular�driveway, but not of the existing width.❑ I also think the neighbors would be very amenable to changing the easement to eliminate the circular driveway provision. ; • I ❑ Working with staff, we developed four initial pTan options with the primary variable being the width and configuration of the driveway. ! i � � - 0 By narrowing the driveway slightly, it is possibl'e to create a plan that is hardcover neutral, keeping total hardcover at the current 24.0%. � . ; � First Planning Commission Meeting ❑ The initial four plans were presented and reviewed at the Planning Commission meeting on August 20, 2007.❑ � � - � - ❑ The result of the detailed discussion from that meeting as summarized in Melanie's report was, "The applicant was given direction by the Commission consisting generally of the following points: ❑ Remove the screen porch at the end of the home closest to the point in order to reduce proposed hardcover and structural coverage levels; and i� 0 Step down the roofline at the point to reduce the appearance of additional massing; and 0 Removal of the boathouse would not be a requirement of approval; and 0 Follow the hardcover and driveway plans on the plan Option#3." ❑ Based on that clear feedback from the Planning�Commission, we developed two additional plans, as follows: � � ❑- Option I:� Stepped down roofline and eliminated screened in porch.�OThis option delivered exactly what was requested from the Planning Coriunission. � ❑- Option II:❑ Stepped down the roofline as requ,ested and provided a much smaller screened in porch and deck that conformed exclusively to the hardcouer area that is already there with the current patio and trellis. i Both options reduced the roofline and did not add any hardcover on the back of the house where a larger porch had been proposed in all four of the original plans. � Staff s Assessment Of Revised Plans ❑ Melanie's summary of the two new options was, "The applicants have responded to the Commission's direction with two new options.❑ The first option'"eliminates the screen porch addition at the point end of the property while proposing to retain an existirig grade level patio.❑ Option#2 proposes a screen porch at the point with a balcony above." . , ; ; 10/11/2007