Laserfiche WebLink
FILEM4-MW <br />2Mreti20M <br />PigaSofS <br />Hardakip Analsrflf <br />lnt»mHtrtmtaftlkaHttuf9r¥Mtnct,tk€MMiilHiCommlal§mth9acomld*rtktiifftei§ftkt <br />ftof»itiwiametmtoinlt»keMt,uiftfymiy»tV^rtoftk9coimm»lly,mtMtgutdmtldpat9imtne <br />cmUklmM^Utktmdak, irngv 0ffln, H»k to At pmkUc mi At ^ffta on tobm ofptoptrtt In <br />AttormuMogmoo. Tke PlonnAgCommbiUm AotteonsbkrneonmoiiiAtt^rovol forvoHonees <br />f^omAtUtrotprovlUons tfAt^btg Codt A katontts wktrt AOr stria tnforctmtnt wooticaost <br />tm4oo korAklg kteontt o/dKomotonets onlgot tt At AAvUuoi proptrty undtt cotnUtrekoH, and <br />id^grotolomfywkenitlsdomonstroiedAoistick octbm wUt ke A keeping wUktke <br />^Mt mod kuenief At OronoZonktg Cette. <br />Stiff finds that although 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 (which <br />were replaced) were not approved by the 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 ix>t be in keeping widi the City’s practice. Therefore staff does not find that a <br />hardship exists to allow the current level of hardcover on the property. <br />Issecs for Constderalion <br />Does the Planning Commission feel that there is hardship in order to grant the after-the- <br />fsct side yard setback variance? <br />Are there any issues or concerns with this application? <br />Staff RccoBBcadatioa <br />Planning Staff recommends denial of the after-the-fact hardcover, structural coverage, <br />and average lake setback variances.