Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 7/25/1988

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1207 Page 2 of 3 Proposed Shed = 20' (55' or 73% variance) Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 Hardcover 0-75' setback area (4,200 s.f.) Allowed = 0 s.f. Original Hardcover (excluding retaining walls and steps) = 257 s.f. or 68 Proposed Hardcover (excluding retaining walls at approximately 116 s.f. and steps if maintained at under 4' width and safety stop limited to 4' by 4' with banks at 1 to 1 slope) = 140 s.f. or 3% (Hardcover of shed not included since is it placed under proposed deck) Staff has discussed the issue of the previous variance approvals in 1978 with the city attorney noting that there were no substantive changes to the LR district ordinances since they were adopted in January of 1975. Mr. Barrett advised that the hardcover and setback variances approved in 1978 clearly do have an impact on the current review. Staff would suggest other issues for consideration of this application: 1. Applicants claim of a special physical limitation because of back condition, review Exhibit D. Staff cannot remember a physical handicap being claimed in previous variance applications. Is it a valid consideration? 2. Purchased home and paid a price that included the original retaining wall installations and deck improvement. The value of the home has sustained a major diminution in value with the loss of the lakeside deck. 3. Does the hardship of the steepness of the lakeshore bank still hold true for the current review? Would this be an acceptable hardship in current reviews? 4. Under what conditions has the Planning Commission approved new structural improvements within the 75' setback area? In a recent review for John Waldron, a lakeside deck at the top of the bank within the 75' setback area was allowed to be improved as long as it wasn't expanded upon. The City recently approved decking within a lakeshore yard (Swanson)that expanded over a rip -rap area that applicant contended replaced a previous wooden walkway. The City has approved several grade level decks within the 75' setback area along the Fagerness Point Shoreline because they provided no visual impact. 5. Does the condition under which the applicant lost the use of the original structures have any bearing on your considerations. Options of Action Available to the Planning Commission 1. To deny the hardcover and setback variance application of the applicants based on the following findings: a. Applicant has not demonstrated sufficiant hardship. b. Planning Commission would agree with the minority opinion in the 1978 review that approval of such variances would establish a negative precedent in the review of other similar applications in the future. C. The approval of variances granted in 1978 did not convey to the owner or future owner any vested right to rebuild structures if destroyed at some time of the future. The City does not recognize a Grandfathering principal for structures that do not conform to current setback standards.