Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1402 <br />May 11, 1989 <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />When applicants built an above ground pool in 1983, they <br />were required to remove an approximately 8* wide section of deck <br />which they are proposing to replace. That removal was required <br />by the City to avoid the temptation for people jumping off the <br />deck into the pool. This is a normal requirement for all pools <br />when they are adjacent to «*levated decks or other house <br />extensions. Either the pool maintains a 10* setback or the deck <br />must come off. <br />Regarding the visual impact on the neighborhood, the <br />property directly to the rear of the house is bisected by Stubb*s <br />Bay Creek and would not be buildable, hence it is unlikely that <br />this deck will have a visual impact on the property to the rear. <br />Also, applicant plans to eventually acquire another 16* portion <br />of a car' :ay to the rear of the lot. <br />In addition to the rear setback variance, replacement of <br />this 8*x21* deck section will place the deck itself approximately <br />8* from the garage and the stairway approximately 4* from the <br />garage (in its existing location). Applicant feels that <br />maintaining the required 10* setback is not feasible since the <br />garage and the house are only 12* apart and he must have a 4* <br />walkway or access to the house entrances. Applicant has no <br />problem with the idea of leaving the decks merely as open <br />structure, and would agree to a condition that a fire wall be <br />constructed in the garage adjacent to the deck area. A fire wall <br />is simply layers of sheet rock which would slow the rate of fire <br />progression from garage to deck if there was a fire in the <br />garage. <br />Staff RecoHBendatlon -* <br />Staff would recommend approval of the rear setback variance <br />finding that the proposed deck will have no significant impact on <br />neighboring properties and will replace in kind a deck that had <br />previously been removed. <br />Regarding the proposed structure-to-structure setback <br />variance, there certainly seems justification to allow <br />replacement of the existing deck in kind, and Planning Commission <br />must determine if the new deck portion being 8* from +*he garage <br />with a platform height of 6*, is acceptable, if a fire wall is <br />provided in the garage. Staff would not object to such an <br />approval but would recommend the following condition; <br />1. The portions cf deck within 10* of the garage may never <br />be enclosed either above or below the deck platform. <br />wV -O