12-08-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#92-2858 - 2659 Casco Point Road October 17,2003 Page 5 II.‘The granting of the preposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.” Granting of the variances would be in conflict with the intent of the Zoning Code, the intent of which is that no new structures be allowed within 75' ofthe shoreline, and that existing non-conforming structures eventually are removed by attrition.. 12.‘The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.** It is staff ’s opinion that granting of the after-thefcct variances would merely serve os a convenience to the applicant. Issues for Consideration 1.Would the Planning Commission have recommended appro\*al for the replacement of this deck had the application been made before the fact? 2.Does Planning Commission agree with staff that the 1992 photo provided by applicant casts doubt as to whether this deck wa.' 8’ deep prior to its replacement? 3.The property has excessive hardcover in both the 0-75 ’ and 75-250 ’ zones. Is there any hardcover on the site that should be considered for removal if the application is approved? The surveyor has identified 235 s.f. of landsc^e areas lined with plastic or fabric that are not included in the hardcover calculations on p. 2 and would be subject to removal if the application is approved... 4.Applicant paid the after-the-fact fee for the variance application- If the variance is approved, should an afier-the-fact building permit fee be paid? Applicant claims he was unaware that he needed a permit to replace an existing deck on the property... 5. Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation St nT recommend- denial of the application. If this reconstruction had been applied for before-the- fact, the encroachment over the shoreline and within 1 foot of the side lot line would have been questioned and likely not roved, in staff s -*pinion. The apparent expansion of the deck from a depth of 6* to 8 ’ would certainly r.ot have been approved. The fact that the approval process has cost the property owner more than the project is unfortunate, but should not be a factor in detem'.iiiing whether the approval is granted after-the-fact. Maintenance and/or replac<< meat of existing decks and lakeshore accessory structures is an ongoing issue along O 'ono’s 40 miles of Lake Minnetonka shoreline. The Planning Commission may wish to consider whether the current policies and codes are appropriate, or whether they need to be relaxed or strengthened. If approval is granted. Planning Commission should address the excessive hardcover on the property and makr s recommendation as to removals. An after tne fact permit should be applied for so the building inspector can confirm the construction meets pertinent building codes. «i • i t