04-10-2000 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

To:Council From: Date: Mike Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator i 4-5-00 Subject: Addendum - Additional Information The applicant has submitted 4 drawings and a brief summary depicting four potential methods for revising the lake side deck to make it no longer structural coverage (See attached sheets). I don't believe 1 would characterize these as a "compromise ’ between staff and the applicant; nor would I consider each of the options "mutually acceptable’. Rather, they are a compilation of the options discussed by staff and applicant as to how the lot coverage issue might be resolved. Applicant was advised that he could propose options to the Council for consideration. Staff has the following brief comments on each: Plan A - The idea of creating 3' wide planter terraces at 30" drops adjacent to the deck is appealing, and would technically eliminate the need for a handrail; but this won ’t work at the north side where the deck platform is only 3-4 feet from the lot line and 6 feet above grade. .Applicant’s proposal to replace the handrail on the north side with heavy terra cotta planters on top of the deck is problematic in that the planters themselves would have to be guardrail height (36") and spaced no more than 4" apart at any point. Lower planters relying on vegetation as a barrier will not meet building code requirements per Building Official Lyle Oman. 36" high planters intended to act as a guardrail will have the same or greater visual impact as compared to a guardrail, and might seem to be defeating the intent of the structural coverage ordinance... Plan B - It will be impossible to place fill along the north side of the deck to a level that is high enough to eliminate the guardrail requirement, due to the deck platform being 6 ’ above grade and being only 3-4' from the side lot line. This method likely works for the lake side of the deck, but not the north side. Plan C - Same issues as Plan B - on the north side the deck platform is 6* above grade; to eliminate the guardrail requires a 3' wide terrace no more than 30" lower than the platform. It will take two 3' wide terraces out from the north side to accomplish this, but only 3-4' available to do it in... Plan D - Cut off north portions of deck platform and add terrace planters as needed being 3' wide and no more than 30" above grade. Could then add removed deck to the south side of deck where no railing would be needed. This has negative implications for applicant’s trees and the functionality of his south side yard. Except for these concerns, staff prefers Plan D over Plans .A. B or C. Other options have been briefly discussed, including lowering the entire deck to a point where it no longer needs a guardrail (although this has wheelchair accessibility implications such as requiring a ramp from the house to the deck). Another option Council might consider is granting a lot coverage variance for the deck as-is but with a condition that converting the deck to a covered porch will require further variances which are unlikely to be granted. In your discussion, keep in mind the reason for the lot coverage ordinance: to limit the visual massing and bulk of structures on small (<2 acre) properties. — r— - » I I M I I