Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />V <br />5.? <br />')■ ‘ <br />f <br />••• <br />ft-f <br />■p- <br /><■'.fr <br />■ fi.:: <br />K; <br />ft. <br />Pr <br />f:r <br />I' <br />I <br />I* <br />r‘ <br />k <br />"■-.V . <br />i,. <br /><4 Aiatej <br />Zoning File #1608 <br />Septttnber 9, 1991 <br />Page 2 <br />Applicant's lot coverage calculation suggests that the <br />intent is to keep the combination of retaining wall and <br />ornanental fence lower than the 6* height at which the enclosed <br />area would be considered as lot coverage. Under this proposalr <br />the sod areas outside the pool patios would not be considered in <br />lot coverage^ yielding a final lot coverage of 13.1% under this <br />interpretation. <br />Note that the Building Inspector has determined that because <br />the patio is not continuous to the retaining wall* a fence above <br />the wall is not strictly required even though the top of the wall <br />is as much as 3 1/2* above grade. He would, however, encourage <br />the use of plantings as a safety barrier. <br />Staff Keco lation <br />Under the revised proposal, based on the conditions and <br />interpretations noted above, applicant requests the following: <br />A. <br />B. <br />C. <br />Hardcover variance to allow 27.3% (27.6% with tower) in <br />75-250' zone. <br />Average setback variance of 25'. <br />No lot coverage variance necessary. <br />If Planning Commission feels the requested variances are <br />justified and supported by adequate hardships, then a <br />recommendation for approval would be In order. Options for <br />recommendation include: <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />Recommend approval as revised. <br />Recommend partial approval, specifying limitations. <br />Send on to Council, or request further revisions be <br />brought back for review. <br />Denial• <br />Other. <br />lev