01-27-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

^^1 •• •Af# 4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JAN 2 7 2003 Cl IY Or U mun O Date: January 24,2003 Item No.: Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. GafTron Title: Planning Director Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #02-2753 Wesley Byrne, 2817 Casco Point Road - Plan Revisions - Variance Review List of Exhibits A - Memo and Exhibits of January 15,2003 Summary of Request The applicant was granted a 75-250' hardcover variance in March 2002 for major additions to the existing residence. The variance was granted based on a finding that the existing residence building and foundation would not be altered as part of the remodeling, and that no lot arca/width variances were necessary because the existing house walls and foundation will remain, without structural repairs. A condition of approval was that if it is determined the existing foundation is required to be replaced or repaired, all variance approvals will be withdrawn and a new variance application submitted. Not discussed in the approvals was the fact that a portion of the existing house was 6' from the side lot lino where a 10' setback is required. Unclear during that review was that the rooflinc in the substandard setback was intended to be raised, requiring a side setback variance which was not addressed in the approval. Applicant was issued a building permit in June 2002. The building inspector recently noted that the second story of the existing residence had been completely removed, including the portion encroaching past the side setback. Further, it has been determined that the portion of foundation below the first stoiy wall with substandard setback is not adequate to support the first floor without major repairs, much less replacement of the second story. Replacement of the removed second story in the substandard setback clearly requires a variance. Furthermore, per the approval resolution conditions, the removal of portions of the existing house and the need for substantial work on the foundation, triggered the need for further City review. The underl>ing issue is whether the remodel ing/add it ion process has resulted in removal of so much of the existing residence that the project should be considered as a total rebuild, requiring all setbacks to be met. On January 13 Council re-opened application #02-2753 and referred this to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. j