06-13-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

proposed deck with the top of the railings exceeding 6 feet in height above existing grade, thus making the deck calculable structural coverage. The majority of the Planning Commissioners #16-3830 June 3, 2016 Page 2 suggested that the lot coverage variance in this case may be justifiable based on a number of potential findings, including the following: - The proposed deck will be minimally visible from Dickenson Street due to the topography of the site, and hidden from view from Keene Avenue and the southerly neighbor by virtue of its location relative to the house; - There was likely more structural coverage on this site in 2008 than is proposed today; (Staff note: Exhibit E illustrates that prior to removal of the accessory building on the property in 2008, the site had 2,970 s.f. of structural coverage or 21.9%, vs. the 16.6% currently proposed) - While the deck could be built lower, that would require an immediate step down of approximately two feet from the door accessing the deck, which should be avoided from a safety and practicality standpoint, and may be a practical difficulty. From staff’s perspective, there is no practical difficulty, and there are a number of potential design solutions for avoiding the lot coverage variance, such as reducing the size of the house; or reducing from a 3-stall to a 2-stall garage; or changing the deck into a grade-level patio. This could be accomplished by filling in the area of the proposed deck and adding a retaining wall extending from the foundation, avoiding the need for the railing which drives the lot coverage variance. Staff would also note that the revised grading plan does not match the originally proposed house plans, which show basement windows 2’ above the basement floor along the west façade where the proposed grade outside the foundation wall is 4’-6’ above the basement floor. This can be solved by use of window wells or (again) a retaining wall. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the area, width and setback variances. Staff does not recommend approval of the structural lot coverage variance. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Direct staff to draft a resolution reflecting Council’s conclusions with regard to the requested variances, for adoption at the June 27 meeting.