Laserfiche WebLink
;^ !>--£. ::jj(■m--^mrnwm:jV.'-^rr-::;aion in the 0-, Subdivision ' and G. These house/ which stroyed to an shall not be <br />>rovisions of <br />;he boat house <br />»adr "however, <br />permit for <br />the floodway <br />floodproofed, <br />ity with this <br />uctures) that <br />continue as a <br />ts that if a <br />.s issued, the <br />conforming. <br />i of a minimal <br />e an existing <br />issue in this <br />o remain. <br />tructures are <br />I of leaving <br />nks, with the <br />e lake with <br />In general, <br />rict view on <br />rally holding <br />However, in <br />e-fact total <br />orated on the <br />I more visible <br />I dual purpose <br />s a previous <br />make the pre- <br />j or shrubbery <br />it since there <br />the remaining <br />with more than <br />'mmi-p.; ••••O'3'■■■,■•■ ■■■■.:-S <br />o-i- -ipSCT^r-' • •■ 4 <br />-ft’ ;• <br />■•: -mmsxmm <br />^mmm <br />i'; <br />r-' <br />> <br />■ .3 •■ - <br />:• '.i <br />f ■*, .r ■ V: ■■•■*' / <br />V.: ■ : <br />Zoning Pile #1439 August 16, 1989 Page 3 of 3Another factor to consider is the visual impact of the concrete foundation wall as viewed from the lake. The deck probably tends to create some shade patterns which break up the mass of the wall, perhaps tending to hide it. On the other hand, the deck appears from the lake as a platform that wasn t previously there. Staff would wonder whether the wall could be <br />screened with some type of vegetation# and whether or not the <br />existence of the deck would have some effect on that screening. <br />Staff R dation - <br />The retaining walls as proposed and as partially constructed <br />would appear to be appropriate and functional, and staff would <br />recommend after-the-fact approval of the proposed retaining wall <br />construction. <br />If no boat house had previously existed, this deck would not <br />likely be granted a variance for construction. However, the fact <br />that the deck replaces a pre-existing boat house, in conjunction <br />with the provisions of Section 10.55, Subdivision 26 (E), may <br />have a bearing on the Planning Commission's recommendation. <br />Subdivision 26 (E) appears to not totally preclude the City s <br />ability to issue a conditional use permit for the deck. <br />If the Planning Commission recommends that the deck be <br />allowed to remain, you should indicate whether (and how) it <br />should be screened, and also address the hardships or factors <br />that justify the approval recommendation. <br />You may wish to address screening of the remaining <br />foundation wall even if a recommendation for deck fecial is <br />forthcoming. Staff would strongly recommend you visit this <br />property to see the structure in question. <br />« <br />■*:• -'X-X:^ f.-X.:» <br />—'f'saaife <br />;v <br />f <br />[XX-XX-^ <br />-X. <br />I •„ ■ <br />. .. <br />!• . j'*5T;aa:i! <br />xxxxsxym <br />pifl