Laserfiche WebLink
■ >. <br />4. <br />I 1 <br />5. <br />A.Air photos indicate the preexisting deck was constructed sometime <br />between the mid 1970's to the early 1980's. The City does not have <br />a permit on file for the deck. <br />B.At its’ closest point, the deck would not encroach nearer to the <br />protected tributary than the old deck (48' from the OHWL). <br />C.A deck would continue to provide a landing for a sliding glass door <br />located at the rear of the house. <br />D.The original deck would have been constructed prior to the adoption <br />of the Shoreland Ordinance. The Shoreland Ordinance applies to non- <br />lakeshore property. Section 10.22, which is the ordinance that <br />regulated hardcover prior to 1992, applies only to lots zoned Lakeshore <br />Residential and only to lakeshore properties. The applicant ’s property <br />is zoned RR-IB and is not a lakeshore property. <br />t The total hardcover for the replacement deck within 75’ of the creek <br />is 170 s.f. where 174 s.f. had existed prior to removal of the deck. <br />The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are <br />peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning <br />district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic <br />conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring <br />property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is <br />necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to <br />preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in <br />keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan <br />of the City. <br />The City Council has considered this application including the findings and <br />recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments <br />by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety <br />and welfare of the community. <br />Page 2 of 4