Laserfiche WebLink
<br />?-<¡;\ <br />~ <br /> <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br /> <br />Department Approval: <br /> <br />Manager Reviewed: <br /> <br />DATE: 4-22-91 <br />ITEM NO.: :p - S- <br />Agenda section: <br /> <br />ð <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Consent Agenda <br /> <br />Item Description: <br /> <br />George Davis request for a shoreline permit <br />and shoreline setback variance at 513 Heinel <br />Drive. <br /> <br />Backqround: <br /> <br />1. The City Shoreline Ordinance requires that before any <br />building permit can be issued for properties abutting a lake <br />that a shoreline permit has to be approved by City Council. <br /> <br />2. The Shoreline Ordinance requires that structures be set back <br />75 feet from the lake. <br /> <br />3. George Davis is requesting a shoreline permit and variance to <br />the shoreline setback requirement to allow him to construct a <br />porch enclosure on top of his existing deck. The existing <br />deck is set back eighteen feet from the lake and the proposed <br />enclosure would be set back 23 feet from the lake instead of <br />the 75 required feet. <br /> <br />4. Letters are attached from the adjacent neighbors stating that <br />they have no objection to the proposal. <br /> <br />5. City Staff has reviewed the proposal and have some concerns <br />that the proposed enclosure would constitute a further visual <br />encroachment to the lake. The enclosure would not proj ect <br />any further than the existing deck structure however. <br /> <br />Alternatives: <br /> <br />1. Deny the shoreline permit based on finding that the proposal <br />would adversely affect the lake. <br /> <br />2. Approve the shoreline permit and variance based on findings <br />that there are no adverse affects on the lake. <br /> <br />Policy Implications: <br /> <br />1. To ensure that development along lakeshores do not adversely <br />affect the lake or adjacent properties. <br />