06-20-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Applicant proposes renoval of hardcover totaling ■ 128.9 sq ft or 1.34%.* Review Exhibit A. * Applicant will provide a complete survey of hardcover to be removed in addition to a date for completion of that removal. Review of Revised Plan The applicant has submitted an amended survey designating a 15 X 11 foot deck this was the sixe approved in the original 1978 review. In reviewing the sketch of the revised elevation/plan with the applicant it was noted that the plan still shows a 15 x 14 foot deck. Applicant advised that because of the location of the shed underneath the deck and the width of the retaining wall to the rear side of the deck» or to the land side of the deck, that the 14 foot depth is required. Based on an earlier drawing in the first packet that was sent out on this application, this tier of decking appears to be apporximately 18 feet in depth and that if a wider width was required for some reason that applicant could redesign the deck to accommodate the shed but that it would be difficult for the City to approve any deck in excess of the 165 sq ft that was originally approved in 1978. In reviewing Exhibit B the sketch of the revised plan the stair structure has been reduced considerably modifying the impact and the intensity of the lakeshore structure. There is now a single access stair down the lakeshore bank, running parallel to the cedar deck. A safety stop and stepping pad area provide the necessary landing for the steep descent. Applicant will present their position as to why they require the deck at 14* x 15* dimension, in addition, applicant will provide a more detailed plan of the hardcover to be removed within the 74-250 foot setback area sometime within the spring of next year. Staff also advised the applicant, who was willing to have the surveyor make another amendment of a survey that would show the 15 x 14 foot deck, that this was not necessary. It should also be noted that the applicant seeks, at a minimum, the replacement of the same sized deck that was approved in 1978, which would be at 15 x 11 feet. The original request of 14 x 10 feet was in error. Please review the staff memo dated June 1, 1988 that was drafted for your June 6th meeting. Please review the section on the options available to Planning Commission to assist in the drafting of your recommendation. If Planning Commission members seek additional information please advise staff prior to the meeting so that we can formally act on the Scanlon application at our June *:0th meeting. As staff would like to present this application before the Council at their June 27, 1988 meeting. ■I 4. i