02-19-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

AppUcalioii SiiniiiMry: The applicant requests the following variances to replace an existing S07.6 s.f. (42.3* x 12*) lakeside deck, enclosing ISI s.f as patio area: 1) Lot coverage by stnicture; 2.848 s.f. (1 6.3%) where 2.620 s.f. (1 5%) is permitted; 2) Hardcover within the 75*to 250* lakeshore setbwrk /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 unto their home. The remodeling and c.xponsion resulted in the removal of the roof of the existing deck as well as the oiiginal railing system. The building permit did not identify a new deck as part of the approval nor did ii question the amount of structure or hardcover on the property at that time. It is the City*s poliev that a second story may be added to a home when the foot print area of the building is not increasing, regardless of hardcover cxcc.s.ses. 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 proposi^ patio enclosure docs not increase the size of the existing deck but may impact the lake views of neighbors. Ilie lot area and lot width of this property are less than required by the zoning district. 1) Lot cov erage by itniclurr The existing amount of structure on the property exceeds the maximum permitted by 228 s.f. Structure on the property includes the house (with deck) and a shed in the rear yard. This application docs not propose to increase or decrease the amount of structure on the properly. The proposed deck will replace the existing deck within the same square footage. There is rto 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 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 (alihougli the City lias required permits for all such strvictures 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 (15.57* o). 2) Hardcaver There is significant hardcover located within the 0-75 ’ and 75**250 ’ hardcover zones, none of which has had building permit approval but has existed since before 1970 (as showT. on aerial photographs). Lven 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 exist. Juih and DtiuJ 7o\chke 2is:tm Page:cf5