09-22-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#03-2940 September 15,2003 Paft 4 of 0 Staff finds that there is not unique hardship which would allow^ the applicants to increase the deck’s size by 33 square feet, including the 3’ encroachment into the lake setback. However, staff feels there is an opportunity to eliminate the portion of the deck that is within the 0-75 ’ zone. Typically, deck replacements are allowed when non-conformities exist however they are only allowed to be replaced in the exact same manner as the rotted deck. Because the proposed deck is slightly larger than the current deck staff has reviewed the proposal in a different manner than a replacement. In this case, staff sees an opportunity for the existing non-conforming south west comer of the deck in the 0-75 ’ zone to be eliminated. The 15 square feet of deck could be attributed to the 33 square feet the applicants have proposed thus only increasing the decks overall size by 17 square feet. Although, hardcover amounts in the 75-250 ’ zone would remain at 38.6%, hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone would be decreased to 4.36%. Staff also does not find a unique hardship to allow the 3’ encroachment into the lake setback to remain when a deck will be built larger than its current state. Staff feels that if this portion is removed, and the square footage be attributed to the applicant ’s proposed deck expansion (33 sq. a.), an additional 17 square feet of deck is a suitable trade in eliminating an existing non-conformity. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to tlie criteria for “undue hardship" pertinent to this application: 1.“The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." The applicants could not replace the existing deck without variances. 2.“The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” A hardship exists whereby the existing deck is in a non-conforming location and causing excess hardcover amounts. However, no hardship exists to allow an expansion of the deck while maintaining a conformity that could be eliminated 3.“The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the localitv. A deck currently exists so the character of the locality will not change. 4.“Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Not applicable 5.Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 1 16J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." \