Laserfiche WebLink
FILE«04-29aS <br />2 March 2004 <br />PagaSofS <br />spIrU Mitd InUnt eftkt Onno Zonbtg Coda. <br />Staff finds that ttthn»gh the applicants replaced existing decks on their property and did <br />not increase the size or the setbacks of these existing decks, the existing decks did not <br />have City approval. However, due to the fact that size and location of the decks (wluch <br />wen replaced) were not ^>proved by die City, there is no hardship for which to justify <br />allowing bigger decks than were approved to remain. <br />In addition, to base subsequent hardcover levels and approvals on unapproved decks <br />would not be in keeping with the City’s practice. Therefore staff does not find that a <br />tiardihip exists to allow the current level of hardcover on the property. <br />Issnes for Conslderatton . ^ u <br />Does die Panning Commission feel diat then is hardship in order to grant the aner-the- <br />fimt side yard setback variance? <br />Are dien any issues or concerns with this application? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Planning Staff recommends denial of the after-the-fact hardcover, structural coverage, <br />and avenge lake setback variances.