Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1439 <br />August 16, 1989 <br />Page 3 of 3 <br />Another factor to consider is the visual impact of the <br />concrete foundation wall as viewed from the lake. The deck <br />probably tends to create some shade patterns which break up the <br />mass of the wall, perhaps tending to hide it. On the other hand, <br />the deck appears from the lake as a platform that wasn't <br />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 Reco endation - <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 denial is <br />forthcoming. Staff would strongly recommend you visit this <br />property to see the structure in question. <br />