Laserfiche WebLink
#10-3467 , <br /> �tay 17,2010 <br /> Page 4 of 5 <br /> calculation worksheet or a site plan,just the total amount of allowed hardcover in each zone. <br /> The various staff reports give several different numbers for the size of the deck in the 7� to <br /> 250 foot zone. The building permit was for 2�7 square foot deck. Staff accepts this as the <br /> size of the deck approved by the variance. The patio is 46 square feet larger the approved <br /> deck with 49 square feet of excess in the 0 to 7� foot zone. Staff suggests that 46 square feet <br /> be removed from the patio in the 0 to 75 foot zone and the patio extend no farther toward the <br /> lake than allowed by the variance, measured as 12 feet forward of the 12 foot segment of the , <br /> wall of the house facing the lake. The 3 square feet of addition hardcover in the 0 to 75 foot <br /> zone can be considered to be the result of more precise measuring and possible erosion of the <br /> lakeshore. - <br /> The deck is not included in the structural coverage in the staff reports for the 1992 variance. <br /> This meant that the top of any railing was no more than six feet above adjacent grade. The <br /> deck plans with the variance included a bench around the perimeter. This bench did not <br /> satisfy the safety railing requirement as it was less than 36 inches high. The plans with the <br /> building permit show no bench or railing. The Building Official noted on the plan that a <br /> safety railing was required where the deck was more tha�i 30 inches above adjacent grade. <br /> The plans appear to show one step to grade. But the lot slopes down toward the south <br /> property line and the 1992 survey does not include topography. So it is difficult to determine <br /> if the deck had a railing and where it was located. Staff suggests that no part of the portion <br /> of the patio within the 0 to 75 foot setback have a railing with a top more than six feet above <br /> adjacent grade and that the railing be of minimal opacity (e.g. glass or cable). Such a railing <br /> would be less obtrusive than the bench around the deck. Neighboring property owners may <br /> be able to provide more information about any railing on deck. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> Should the size of the garage be reduced? <br /> Is Staf�s suggestion for bringin� the property into compliance with Resolution No. 3117 <br /> acceptable? <br /> Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Planning Staff recommends approval of the hardcover variance to construct a new garage <br /> subject to: <br /> A. The width of the driveway apron being reduced froin 22 feet to 18 feet and the width <br /> of the approach from Concordia Street being reduced from 12 feet to 10 feet while <br /> increasing the depth of the turnaround from 8 feet to 12 feet. <br /> B. The patio being brought into conformance with Resolution No. 3117 by: <br /> a. The elevated patio being allowed as equivalent to the deck. <br /> b. The patio being brought into compliance with the hardcover variance by <br /> removal of 46 square feet of the patio (including the fill supporting it) within <br /> the 0-7� foot zone. This is an increase of 3 square feet but the variance was <br />