Laserfiche WebLink
k. <br />M04-.1066 4051 lii|>hwood Road <br />March 24,2005 <br />Page 2 <br />Discussion <br />ITic property owner was recently granted variances for lake setback and side setback in order to construct <br />a partial second story, and reorient and expand first story roofiincs to a higher pitch for portions of the <br />existing house that encroach the lake or side setbacks. Although hardcover was the primary topic <br />addressed in the PC memo of 11 /8/04, Planning Commission spent considerable discussion (see minutes <br />of 11 /15/04) as to whether the intended extent of construction should be considered as a remodel or a <br />rebuild. The issue is that ifthis was a rebuild, the house should be relocated or redesigned to meet required <br />setbacks, and hardcover should be brought into compliance. The submitted building plans do show wliat <br />walls and elements arc intended to be replaced and what will stay. The staffsketch (Exhibit D) provides <br />a basic summary of this. Applicant submitted an engineering irispection report regarding the foundation, that <br />was basical ly inconclusive about tlic condition ofthe foundation under tlic west (older) portion of the house. <br />Planning Commission concluded during the variance review that the extent of removals did not appear to <br />quite rise to the level ofa total rebuild. The applicant did agree to certain hardcover removals. Since the <br />variance was granted, tlic applicant has been issued a building permit and has gutted the interior, removed <br />siding, and removed flooring and floor supports in the west wing. It is now obvious that tlic existing <br />foundation of the west wing is virtual ly worthless and beyond repair, and mu.st be rtiilactxl; another option <br />is to construct a new foundation inside it, and cantilever support out to the perimeter walls, leaving the <br />existing foundation in place for cosmetic purposes. <br />Ihc concern that con vincal staff to bring this back to tlic Phuining Commission and Council, is tliat all that <br />will remain of the one-story west wing is the perimeter stud walls and sheathing. Ilie ceilingjoists, roof <br />tni.s.ses and rmif will be rtplacetl with a vaulted ceiling and a new higlier-pitchcd roof; the fioorboiirds and <br />floor joists arc already gone, and the foundation is unacceptable for re-use. Staff stopped the job on <br />March 18, and in order to reach a conclusion in tlic most timely manner for the homeowner, immediately <br />brought this to the Planning Commission as a di.scussion item for review on the 21st. <br />Planning ('omntission Review and Recommendation <br />The question posed to the Planning Commission at tlie March 2 1 meeting wxs, i f you had known that all <br />that would be left of this portion of house is the perimeter 1 st story wall, would you have considered this <br />as a rebuild and recommended that the house be re-designed to meet a 10’ setback? <br />A Her discussion (.sec drafi minutes of 3/2 1 /05) and review of the photos, 5 of 6 Planning Commission <br />members concluded tliat they woukj have considered this portion of the house as a rebuild, and would have <br />recommended that the west wing be brought into confomiance to the side setback, noting that the space <br />lost might be gained back in lengthening that wing northward toward the garage. <br />It was not clear to staff whether PC would have required that the west wing also be offset northward so <br />that Uic 75 ’ lakcshorc setback encroachment would also become conforming. Planning Commi.ssioncrs <br />ilid di.scuss the fact that the cast wing is only 20 years old and in good shape, so they might not have <br />required that it be moved out of the 0-75 ’ zone. Plamiing Commission also acknowledged that it would <br />be in the best interests of both the Cii ^ .aid the property owner to have a proper foundation rather than <br />cobbling the existing foundation together merely to satisfy the zoning issues.