Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />m, c-i <br />To: <br />From: <br />Date: <br />Council <br />Mike Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator im4-5-00 <br />Subject: Addendum - Additional Information <br />The applicant has submitted 4 drawings and a brief summary depicting four potential methods for <br />revising the lake side deck to make it no longer structural coverage (See attached sheets). I don ’t <br />believe I would characterize these as a ‘compromise ’ between staff and the appHcaiit; nor would I <br />consider each of the options ‘mutually acceptable’. Rather, they aie a ccmpilation of the options <br />discussed by staff and applicant as to how the lot coverage issue might be resolved. Applicant was <br />advised that he could propose options to the Council for consideration. Staff has the following brief <br />comments on each: <br />Plan A - The idea of creating 3' wdde planter terraces at 30" drops adjacent to the deck is appealing, <br />and would technically eliminate the need for a handrail; but this won ’t work at the north side where <br />the deck platform is only 3-4 feet from the lot line and 6 feet above grade. Applicant ’s proposal to <br />replace the handrail on the north side with heavy terra cotta planters on top of the deck is <br />problematic in that the planters themselves would have to be guardrail height (36") and spaced no <br />more than 4" apart at any point. Lower planters relying on vegetation as a barrier will not meet <br />building code requirements per Building Official Lyle Oman. 36" high planters intended to act as <br />a guardrail will have the same or greater visual impact as compared to a guardrail, and might seem <br />to be defeating the intent of the structural coverage ordinance... <br />Plan B - It will be impossible to place fill along the north side of the deck to a level that is high <br />enough to eliminate the guardrail requirement, due to the deck platform being 6' above grade and <br />being only 3-4* from the side lot line. This method likely works for the lake side of the deck, but not <br />the north side. <br />Plan C - Same issues as Plan B - on the north side the deck platform is 6' above grade; to eliminate <br />tlie guardrail requires a 3' wide terrace no more than 30" lower than the platform. It will take two <br />3' wide terraces out from the north side to accomplish this, but only 3-4' available to do it in... <br />Plan D - Cut off nortli portions of deck platform and add terrace planters as needed being 3* wide <br />and no more than 30" above grade. Could then add removed deck to the south side of deck where <br />no railing would be needed. This has negative implications for applicant ’s trees and the frmctionality <br />of his south side yard. Except for these concerns, staff prefers Plan D over Plans A, B or C. <br />Other options have been briefly discussed, including lowering the entire deck to a point where it no <br />longer needs a guardrail (although this has wheelchair accessibility implications such as requiring <br />a ramp from the house to the deck). Another option Council might consider is granting a lot <br />coverage variance for the deck as-is but with a condition that converting the deck to a covered porch <br />will require further variances which are unlikely to be granted. In your discussion, keep in mind the <br />reason for the lot coverage ordinance: to limit the visual massing and bulk of structures on small (<2 <br />acre) properties.