Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1579 <br />August 17, 1990 <br />Page 2 <br />Applicants proceeded with the necessary after-the-fact variance <br />application, although they were advised that the City could not <br />ultimately allow the continuing encroachment of the deck over the <br />lot line, and that a hardcover variance request might not be <br />successful. <br />2. Per the survey, the deck is approximately 2' over the lot line. <br />City codes allow a platform type deck with no railing to extend <br />to within 2' of a side lot line. A deck such as this with a <br />railing must be setback 10' from the side lot line. <br />3. Hardcover on the property, as calculated by the applicants <br />surveyor with one revision by staff and shown in detail on the <br />survey.is as follows: <br />Zone Zone Area <br />0-75*10,035 s.f. <br />75-250*10,309 s.f <br />Existing <br />Hardcover <br />430 s.f. (4%) <br />5910 s.f. (57.3%) <br />Allowed <br />Hardcover <br />0% <br />2577 s.f. (25%) <br />4. The assessor's record card indicates that an 18* x 13* deck <br />previously existed adjacent to the garage and screen porch. That <br />deck extended approximately 4' lakeward from the house, as <br />compared to the new deck which extends about 10* lakeward from <br />the house. Dimensions of the previously documented deck are 13* <br />X 18*, or 230 s.f. The currently existing deck has dimensions 9| <br />X 38* plus an extension toward the lake averaging 10* deep x 16' <br />wide, for a total deck area of 502 s.f. <br />5. The average lakeshore setback line coincides with the lakeshore <br />side of the house. The old deck encroached 4' past the average <br />setback line. The new deck encroaches 10' past the average <br />setback line. No neighboring property owners have views that are <br />affected by this encroachment. <br />6. The applicants have constructed a 7' high fence along the street <br />side of the length of the deck. Because this fence is ver 6 <br />high based on the grade at the driveway, such a fence would need <br />a building permit, unless it was dropped to a height of 6 *. <br />Discussion <br />The piers from the pre-existing 13' x 18' deck are still in <br />place, hence we believe the assessor's records are correct. There is <br />no question that the 13' x 18‘ deck was completely removed and the <br />currently constructed deck is entirely new as of 1988.