Laserfiche WebLink
To: <br />Prom: <br />Date: <br />Bryan Crawford, City Attorney <br />Michael P 'iffron. Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />May 18, 1990 <br />Subject: Zoning Review - Garry Everson Property 4755 North* Shore <br />Drive <br />Today I received . of the Certificate of Survey for the <br />above referenced prope.- such survey being completed by All <br />Metro Land Surveyors. ± would make the following specific <br />comments regarding information shown on that survey: <br />1. The survey verifies that the wood deck for which the <br />applicant was cited, is not in the 0-75' protected lakeshora <br />setback zone. <br />2j It is unclear from the survey whether the deck extends <br />into the average lakeshore setback zone. No new <br />instruction is allowed to encroach toward the lake past a <br />line drav/n between the lake sides of existing residence <br />structures on either adjacent property. (Reference Zoning <br />Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B), attached.) <br />3. The wood deck has been const ''ucted over the lot line and <br />onto the neighboring Walter Krahl pr-perty to the west. <br />Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C), the non- <br />encroachment section, notes that a grade level deck cannot <br />extend closer thcin 2’ from any lot line, and a deck <br />structure that is abo ’*'i ,f3<3e level so as to not meet the <br />criteria for a grade level deck, would have to meet a 10 <br />side setback in the LR-IB zoning district in which this <br />property is located. <br />4. The final critical issue with this wood deck is that it <br />increases the already o^'cessive hardcover on the property. <br />Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, limits <br />hardcover in the 75- 250' sf ttr'^ck zone to 25%. This prc! .:4rty <br />is currently at 56% in that and the contruction oi <br />wood deck certainly exacerbated the pre-exirting hardcover <br />excesses. <br />To sumirarize, portions of the currently existing wood deck <br />which were newly constructed in 1988, and which resulted in <br />action, do not conform to the Code because they are: <br />A) Too close to the lot line (in fact over it); and <br />B) Contributing to and incieasing the pre-existing <br />hardcover excesses on the property.