10-20-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#t2-2asa . 2*59 Ca«c« Patel Itead October 17.2MJ Pa|c3 Deck NMcoBformitics The deck liuti was replaced is attached to a 12'x22' accessor>' building located 5 ’ from the shoreline and nearly abutting the side lot line. The accessor> building has been there for many >rars and has apparently been maintained in relatively good condition The deck extending from the end of the building towards the shore was replaced by the applicant in Apnl 2001. per applicant's statemer'. because the old deck was rotting away. The City has no record of the preexisting deck, cither on old surx c>s or in the assessors records. The January 1992 photo submitted by the applicant shows a deck at this location, although the deck in that picture appears to be not as deep as the new deck, and is perhaps 6’ x 12' rather than S’ x 12*. The old deck had posts at the perimeter, the new deck is cantilex ered 2* past the posts, and extends over the w ater. The deck is located less than one foot from the side lot line. City code would generally not allow an accessory deck w ith a railing to be less than 10’ from a side lot line The neighbors ha\ e indicated they are aware of the construction. The deck as it exists today comprises approximately 100 s.f. of hardcover including the steps to it. Part of this hardcov cr is o\ cr the lake City code allow s no hardcover or structures w ithin 75 ’ of the shoreline, except for one 4’ w ide stains ay; a lifl; landings of no greater than 32 s.f.; and lock boxes. Total existing hardcover in the applicants 0-75* /one is 16 24“o. consisting of: Accessory Building 22.1* x 12.1* Concrete slab adjacent to building (Approx I2\IS) Retaining Walls Stone walkw ay and landing Deck at shore inci steps (portion over land) Slone & w ood borders 267 s f. 208 s f 87 s.f 71 $ f 84 s f 27 s r 749 s.f / 4580 1624% Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a hardship statement in his Idler of request (Exhibit B), and should be asked for his additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis tm e»midertmg applkmhmi /#r witmet, the ntmtung Cemmiuum shall caasUer the effeet afthe proposed rariamee mpam the health, safety and welfare afthe caatmamify. existing amd anticipated traffic canditianu tight and air. danger afflre. risk ta thepnbUc safety, and the effect an taJuet afpraperty in the turrannding area. The Planning CamasissUn shall cansider recammending appravat far variances fram the Uteta! previsions afthe laming Cade in Inuanees where their strict enfareememt wamtd cense mndme hardship becanse afeirenm sxamees mnlgne ta the Individmat praperty mnder eansideratian, and shall recammend approval amJy when h b demanstrated that smek aellant wOtbeln keeping wHh the tplrU and intent afthe Orane Zanlng Cade.