Laserfiche WebLink
To; Bryan Crawford, City Attorney <br />Prom: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />Date: May 18, 1990 <br />Subject: Zoning Review - Garry Everson Property 4755 North*Shore <br />Drive <br />Today I received a copy of the Certificate of Survey for the <br />above referenced property, such survey being completed oy A <br />Metro Land Surveyors. I would make the following specific <br />comments regarding information shown on that survey: <br />1. The survey verifies that the wood deck for which the <br />applicant was cited, is not in the 0-75' protected lakeshore <br />setback zone. <br />2. It is unclear from the survey whether the deck ®^rends <br />into the average lakeshore setback zone. <br />construction is allowed to encroach toward the lake past a <br />line drawn between the lake sides of existing residence <br />structures on either adjacent property. (Reference Zoning <br />Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B), attached.) <br />3. The wood deck has been constructed over the lot line and <br />onto the neighboring Walter Krahl property to the ^st^ <br />Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 iC), the non <br />encroachment section, notes that a grade level deck cajmo <br />extend closer than 2' from any lot line, and a deck <br />structure that is above grade level so as to not meet th^e <br />criteria for a grade level deck, would have to meet a 10 <br />side setback in the LR-IB zoning district in which this <br />property is located. <br />4. The final critical issue with this wood deck is that it <br />increases the already excessive hardcover on the <br />Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, limits <br />hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone to 25%. This property <br />is currently at 56% in that zone, and the contruction of the <br />wood deck certainly exacerbated the pre-existing hardcove <br />excesses. <br />To summarize, portions of the currently existing wood deck <br />which were newly constructed in 1988, and which resulted in i <br />actionf do not conform to the Code because they ares <br />A) Too close to the lot line (in fact over it); and <br />B) Contributing to and increasing the pre-existing <br />hardcover excesses on the property.