06-17-1991 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1655 June 13, 1991 Page 2 2.The applicant purchased this property approxiir.ately 1-1/2 years ago and in April 1990 hired a contractor to remodel the residence. At that time, hardcover exceeded the 25% limit. The contractor submitted a plan for hardcover removals that would yield conformance with the hardcover requirements and a letter from the property owner agreeing to the removals. The permit was issued, the removals occurred prior to the footing inspection and all seemed to be in order. 3.During the course of the project, the contractor and the property owner apparently did not see eye to eye on a number of issues, and the contractor ceased involvement with the project in midstream. 4.Last fall, the property owner, now acting as general contractor, had a new driveway and entrywalk constructed, with no review by the City. When the Building Inspectors discovered this work, the property owner was notified that the hardcover now exeeded the limits agreed to previously. The property owner was surprised and indicated she was unaware of any previously agreed to hardcover limitations, and when presented with the original Letter of Agreement, suggested that her contractor may have submitted that on her behalf without her knowledge in order to speed approval of the project. She agreed to present a plan for hardcover removals to meet the code requirements. 5.After a number of attempts to come up wiuh a plan that would leave a functional driveway, allow for decks on the lakeside of the house, and would not result in the need to remove the fairly elaborate front entry sidewalks, applicant determined that the only way to accomplish this would be to request a hardcover variance. Discussion This request is for 518 s.f. hardcover excess on a lot of about 48,000 s.f. Hardcover on the property has been significantly reduced from the original 7,855 s.f. overall, to 6,668 s.f. with this current proposal. It is possible that had the property owner had more involvement in the original hardcover discussions, the extensive front sidewalk may not have been built, or a variance application might have been commenced before the remodeling project got started. At any rate, applicant finds herself in a position of having to either remove driveway to a point where it may be only marginally functional, or remove a fairly complex sidewalk system in order to have decksr xf r.o variance is granted. There were decks on the originally approved remodeling plan amounting to about 350 s.f. The current deck proposal is 524 s.f. Please review the applicant's Letter of Request and the attached exhibits. t