07-22-1985 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#f876 Randy Asplund Page 3 June 14, 1985 3444 Eastlake Street Applicant has been ordered to remove the concrete patio by the end of July, allowing time to resolve the patio issue. Applicant wishes to install, in the same location as the existing concrete patio, a floating deck. His proposal is to create a movable deck platform which would sit directly on the surface with no footings, which would be permeable, and which could, if necessary, be underlain by a sand bed so that all water falling on the deck would be absorbed under the deck. Staff would request your recommendation on these questions: 1. Would this type of deck be considered as a structure? 2. Would the fact that this is to be located in the 0-75' setback be a problem, in that it has the appearance of structure and could be underlain with something impermeable with little trouble? Remember that the recent cases where the council has allowed decks as non -hardcover have been such that: A. The deck is attached to the house; B. The deck is a permanent structure which can't be readily moved; C. The decks approved were within a foot of the surface and enclosed with side panels so that no plastic can be easily placed under them in the future; and D. In only one case has a deck such as this been allowed to encroach on the 0-75' setback and this was for an existing house, not new construction. The Council has stated that they would need to see a hardship to allow detached deck such as that proposed. Staf f would recommend that a f lat, low level permanent attached deck be constructed that will minimize the encroachment into the 75' zone and which will meet the non -hardcover deck standards which have been approved in previous applications. Note that no hardcover calculations have been submitted for this property, but a cursory review indicates it is around the 25 percent limit.