Laserfiche WebLink
»TiNG <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^iAN 1 3 2005 <br />CONSENT AGENDA - <br />Oil r urOflONO <br />Date: January 9,2003 <br />Item No.: <br />Department Approval:Administrator Approval: <br />Name: Michael P. GafTroii <br />Title: Planning Director <br />Agenda Section: <br />2^ning <br />Item Description: #02-2753 Wesley Byrne, 2817 Casco Point Road - Plan Revisions - <br />Referral to Planning Commission <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - Resolution No. 4768 <br />B - Survey <br />C > House Plans & Elevations <br />The applicant was granted a 75-250' hardcover variance in March 2002 for major additions to the <br />existing residence. The variance was granted based on a finding that the existing residence building <br />and foundation would not be altered as part of the remodeling, and that no lot area/width variances <br />were necessary because the existing house walls and foundation will remain, without structural <br />repairs. <br />A condition of approval was that if it is determined the existing foundation is required to be replaced <br />or repaired, all variance approvals will be withdrawn and a new variance application submitted. Not <br />discussed in the approvals was the fact that a portion of the existing house was 6’ from the side lot <br />line where a 10' setback is required. <br />Applicant was issued a building permit in June 2002. The building inspector recently noted that <br />while the additions arc progressing, the second story of the existing residence has now been <br />completely removed, including the portion encroaching past the side setback. Further, it has been <br />determined that the portion of foundation below the first story wall with substandard setback is not <br />adequate to support the first floor without major repairs, much less replacement of the second story. <br />Replacement of the removed second story in the substandard setback clearly requires a variance. <br />Furthermore, per the approval resolution conditions, the removal of portions of the existing house <br />and the need for substantial work on the foundation, triggers the need for further City review. The <br />underlying issue is whether the rcmodeling/addition process has resulted in removal of so much of <br />the existing residence that the project should be considered as a total rebuild, requiring all setbacks <br />to be met.