02-19-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Applkali*B Sunmao: The applicant requests the following variances to replace an existing 507.6 s.f. (42.3 ’ x 12’) lakeside deck, enclosing I SI s.f as patio aa*a: 1) Lot coverage by structure: 2.848 s.f. (1 6.3%) where 2.620 s.f (1 5%) is permitted; 2) Hardcover within the 75’to 250’ lokeshore setback /one: 6.442 s f (87.08%) 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 oiiginol ratling system. The building permit did nut identify a new deck us port of the approval nor did it question the amount of structure or hardcover on the property at that time. It is the City ’s ptdicy that a second story may be added to a home w hen the foot print area of the building is not incre.i>ing. regardless of hardcover e.xccsses. There liave been no zoning applications on this property in the past The applicants w ish 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 w idth of this property ore less than required by the zoning district. Lot coverage by structure The existing amount of structure on the property exceeds the ma.\inium permitted by 228 s.f Structure on the property includes the house (with deck) and a shed in the rear yard. 1 his application does not proptise 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 show3 that the shed was in existence prior to 1970. At that time, a building permit may not have been required since the building code allows structure up to 120 s.f to be built without a permit (although the City has required permits for all such structures since 1996). To reduce the amount of structure on the lot and bring the property closer to conforaiity , the shed (128 s.f) could be removed or reIcKated under the deck. The removal of tlie shed would reduce the amount of structure to 2.720 s.f (15.57® o) 2) Hardcover There is significant hardcover liKated within the 0-75’ and 75’-250’ hardcover zones, none of which has had building permit approval but has existed since before 1970 (as shown on aerial photographs). Even thou^ the proposed deck replacement is located in the 75’-250’ hardcover zone, it has been the City ’s practice to request removal of hardcover in the 0-75’ zone when excesses c.xist. »OJ-2>S66 unj Du\iJ Zuschke 2u:m Page 2 of S