Laserfiche WebLink
i' ■-». <br />u. <br />#2564 <br />April 13,2000 <br />Page 2 <br />Please review the staff memo to Council as well as the April 5 addendum, and consider these <br />questions in making a recommendation to Council: <br />1.Does the existing deck with railing constitute visual bulk and massing of structure to the <br />extent that it should be included in lot coverage? If so, then consider questions 2 and 3. <br />However, if you conclude that this deck should not be considered as lot coverage, then either <br />a variance should be considered and unique findings made about this particular deck, or <br />perhaps the code should be revised, and applicant might be advised to place his project on <br />hold until the code is changed. <br />2.If the grade along the east and north sides is raised by adding a retaining wall, and the railing <br />is removed, does the deck then meet the intent of the lot coverage ordinance? <br />3.Should a CUP be granted to allow construction of a l'-4' high retaining wall approximately <br />r from the side lot line to accomplish this? <br />Options for Action <br />1.Recommend approval for the retaining wall / railing removal concept, with the result that a <br />lot coverage variance is not needed, and recommend approval of variances for side setback <br />and hardcover as well as a CUP for the retaining wall. <br />2. Recommend approval of variances for the side setback, hardcover and lot coverage for the <br />proposal with deck left as-is, stating Justification/hardship for lot coverage variance, and <br />perhaps suggesting a code revision. <br />3. Table for more information. <br />4. Recommend denial of lot coverage variance, finding none of the proposed alternatives <br />acceptable. <br />5. Some other action. <br />. I