Laserfiche WebLink
To:Planning Commission <br />From:Mic:h>ol P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning 7\dmi ni stra tor <br />Date:Mav 14, 1985 <br />Subject: #921 Van F.eckhout Building Corporation, 2135 Salem Court <br />Variance <br />Zoning District - RR-IB <br />Application - After-the-Fact Variance to side lot line setback for a <br />new residence (under construction) <br />Required SEtback: 30* <br />Proposed Setback: 11' <br />Variance: 19' or 63% <br />List of Exhibits <br />Exhibit A <br />Exhibit B <br />Exhibit C <br />Exhibit D <br />Exhibit E <br />Exhibit F <br />Application and Letter of Request <br />Plat Map <br />List of Property Owners <br />Proposed Site Plan <br />Original Site Plan <br />Possible Lot Line Rearrangenient - Staff Sketch <br />This application is the result of a construction error in which <br />house was placed iiccrrectly by the applicant's footing contractor and <br />ended up too close to the lot line. <br />Apparently, the footing excavation had been done for the house <br />portion only, not the garage, and the contractor had started to pour <br />footings prior to inspect ic;n. <br />V\’hcn the inspector arrived midway through ♦^he pour, he had the <br />contractor expose portions of the poured area to verify the soil base, <br />and he noted that the setbacks appealed to be OK. Some days later, <br />presumably when the garage footings wcie excavated, :t became obvious <br />that the footing contractor had actually mtHde a . stake and had <br />located the house so that the garage would end up 11 ‘‘rom the pro­ <br />perty line. At this point, some work had been starter on the block <br />foundation walls, but the foundation was not complete, accv^rding to <br />the building inspector. <br />At this point the applicant canie to the City to discuss the <br />problem, and suggested that ra«.her than start over, because he had <br />sizable investment in the work done* so far, that he would prefer <br />either a lot lin* rearrangement with t b.c' adjacent lot (which he owns), <br />or would request a setback variance. Staff advised apf>licant that he <br />would l>e proceeding at his at his own risk in continuing work on the <br />house portion; that he und*?r no circumstances would be allowed to pour <br />the garage foot infjs until tfie prol)lem was reiiol vod; cind that theie was <br />no guarantee that a variance or lot line rearrangemerit wculd be <br />granted under the circumstances.