Laserfiche WebLink
5. Because the building plans show doors which open to the outside on the second level, should <br />these doors be permanently barred and the upper decks removed? <br />6. Should the lower level decks remain but be reduced in size to better adhere to the hardcover <br />previously approved? The lower decks with railing do not contribute to the 1,500 s.f. of lot <br />coverage by structures. <br />7. The property is very undersized for the standards of the LR-IC zoning district. <br />8. Other issues raised by the Planning Conunission. <br />Staff Recommendation: <br />1. In the opinion of staff, the approved, stamped plan set contains substantial notations and <br />markings to indicate the upper level deck was not approved. The approved plan set is <br />supposed to be used for construction. <br />2. The plans used by the applicant to gain variance approval clearly did NOT show a second <br />story deck (See Exhibit D of repou - excerpted from 11/13/00 staff report). <br />3. The fact that the proposed deck was merely a ground level deck and therefore not <br />contributing to lot coverage was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting of 11/20./00 <br />(See Exhibit F, page 2). <br />Based on the above, staff recommends removal of the second story deck and requiring the <br />applicant to take steps to make the upper level door safe by adding a railing or permanently <br />blocking it. <br />Because there are two lower level doors exiting the house, staff recommends retaining the lower <br />level deck with railings as-is, and grant a variance for the additional 36 s.f hardcover, yielding <br />2,118 s.f or 26.4% where 2,328 s.f or 29.0% had existed and 2,082 s.f or 26.0% had been <br />approved. <br />#03-2880 Fred Johnson <br />1926 Fagemess Point Road <br />4/14/2003 <br />Page 4 of 4 <br />t 4