11-24-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Application Summaiy: The applicant requests the following variances to replace an existing 507.6 s.f. (42.3' x 12’) lakeside deck, enclosing 151 s.f as patio area; 1) Lot coverage by structure: 2,848 s.f. (16.5’i) where 2,620 s.f. (15%) is permined; 2) Hardcover within the 75’to 250’ lakeshore setback zone: 6,442 s.f (57.08%) where 2,821.5 s.f (25%) is permitted; 3) Average lakeshore setback: encroaching 21‘. In 1993, the applicants added a second story onto their home. The remodeling and expansion resulted in the removal of the roof of the existing deck as well as the original railing system. The building permit did not identify a new deck as pan of the approval nor did it question the amount of structure or hardcover on the property at that time. It is the Cit> *s policy that a second story may be added to a home when the foot print area of the building is not increasing, regardless of hardcover excesses. There have been no zoning applications on this property in the past. The applicants wish to replace the existing deck for safety reasons, due to the deterioration of the floor boards. The proposed patio enclosure does not increase the size of the existing deck but may impact the lake views of neighbors. The lot area and lot wid*j of this property are less than required by the zoning district. 1) Lot coverage by structure The existing amount of structure on the propertv- exceeds Lhe maximum permitted by 228 s.t.^ Structure on the property includes the house (with deck) and a shed in the rear yard. This application does not propose to increase or decrease the amount of structure on the property. The proposed deck will replace the existing deck within the same square footage. There is no building permit on file for the existing shed. .A review of aerial photographs shows that the shed was in existence prior to 1970. At that lime, a building permit may not have been required since the building code allows strucru'’e up to 120 s.f. to be built without a permit (although the City has required permits for a i such structures since 1996). To reduce the amount of structure on the lot and bring the property closer to conformity, the shed (128 s.f.) could be removed or relocated under the deck. The removal of the shed would reduce the amount of structure to 2.720 s.f. (IS.f?? j). 2) Hardcover There is significant hardcover located within the 0-75‘ and 75*-250’ hardcover zones, none of which has had building permit approval but has c.xisted since before 1970 (as* shown on aerial photographs). Even though the proposed deck replacement is located in the 75’-250’ hardcover zone, it has been the Citv ’s practice to request removal of ‘ hardcover in the 0-75’ zone when excesses exist. lt03'2S66 Jud}' and David Zoschke 2/20/2003 Page 2 of 5 A