Laserfiche WebLink
6. <br />7. <br />8 <br />9. <br />10. <br />II. <br />12. <br />(W3-2940 <br />September 15,2003 <br />Page 5 of 0 <br />Not applicable <br />"The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a <br />variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone <br />where the affected person's land is located.” <br />A deck is a permitted i4se in residential zoning districts. <br />"The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a <br />one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” <br />Not applicable <br />"The special conditions applving to the structure or land in question are peculiar <br />to such property or immediately adjoining property.” <br />The special condition is that the deck exists in a non-conforming location <br />"The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in <br />which said land is located.” <br />Several existing decks are non-conforming and it has been City policy that they <br />can be replaced if only in the exact same manner as they existed previously. <br />"The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment <br />of a substantial property right of the applicant.” <br />The applicant's have a right to continue to enjoy their deck, however a variance <br />must be granted to rebuild it because it has deteriorated. <br />"The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, <br />comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning <br />Code.” <br />Allowing a deck to remain will not be detrimental in any way. <br />"The granting of such variance will not merely ser\ e as a convenience to the <br />applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.” <br />The granting of a variance is necessary to alleviate the demonstrable hardship of <br />the existing deck being non-conforming. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Should the non-conforming shed (See Exhibit G, last photograph) along the northern <br />property line be addressed? Is there an alternative location? <br />2. Should the applicants be allowed to increase the size of their deck by 33 square feet? <br />3. Should the portion of the deck within the 75* lake setback be required to be <br />eliminated? <br />4. Is it appropriate to allow the deck to increase in size by 17 square feet as a trade for <br />eliminating a non-conformity? <br />5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />1 <br />(