Laserfiche WebLink
TO:Chair Smith and Planning Commission Mmebcrs <br />FROM: <br />DATE: <br />Mike GafTron, Planning Director <br />January 15,2003 <br />SUBJECT: #02-2753 Wesley Byrne, 2817 Casco Point Road - Plan Revision <br />Reconsideration of Variances - Referral from Council <br />Zoning District: <br />Lot Area: <br />LR-IC One-Family Lakeshorc Residential (Vz acre) <br />16,750 s.f. (0.38 ac.) <br />Summary of Issue Removal of the pre-existing second story in a substandard setback triggers <br />the Resolution condition requiring further review of this in-progress remodeling/addition project. <br />The inspections department also has concluded that substantial foundation work will likely be <br />necessary, also triggering further review. <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - Applicants Letter <br />B - Resolution No. 4768 (March 11,2002) <br />C - Sur\'cy <br />D - House Plans & Elevations <br />E - Current site photos (1st week of January 2003) <br />F - PC Minutes 2/19/02 <br />G - Staff Memo & Selected Exhibits 2/14/02 <br />Background <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. It may not have been clear during the February 2002 review that the plan as approved <br />required raising of the second story roof a few feet. <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or repaired, all variance approvals will be withdrawn and a new variance application submitted.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 portioi • crouching past the side setback. The applicant has <br />provided documentation of the circumstances leading to this remo\ al (Exhibit A). Because the <br />inspections department is questioning the integrity of the portion of foundation below the first story