04-28-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1■i t 4 structure approvals granted by the City Council. However, the building plans submitted showed a different ground level deck, a screen porch, and a second level deck. The building o/ficial made notations o;, the plans regarding the decks. The ground level deck was permitted but not the screen porch, not the second story deck, and not the extra portion of the ground level deck. A building permit was issued on May 18, 2001. The building ofHcial made notations on the plans regarding the screen porch and second story deck. Bottenberg pointed out that many inspections took place during construction of the residence. The building inspector at the time, Marc Davis, never noted that the decks which were constructed and the decks on the approved plan were not the same. The final inspection by the building inspector was March 8,2002. A certificate of occupancy was issued on March 8,2002. Bottenberg continued that, shortly after the certificate of occupancy was issued, Lyle Oman, Building Official, noticed the decks. The approved plans were reviewed and the builder was contacted by the building official. The contact was initially by phone and then later by letters on February 24, 2003 and March 5,2003. On March 17,2003, the applicant made application for after-the-fact variances for the decks. With the application, the applicant submitted a copy of the plans that he used that he feels indicated he was able to construct the decks. Bottenberg indicated that, in the opinion of staff, the approved, stamped plan set contains substantial notations and markings to indicate the upper level deck was not approved. The approved plan set is supposed to be used for construction. Furthermore, the plans used by the applicant to gain variance approval clearly did NOT show a second story deck Based on the above, stafT recommends removal of the second story deck and requiring the applicant to take steps to make the upper level door safe by adding a railing or permaiiently blocking it. Bottenberg noted that because there are two lower level doors exiting the house, staff recommends retaining the lower level deck with railings as- is, and grant a variance for the additional 36 s.f. hardcover, yielding 2,118 s.f or 26.4% where 2,328 s.f. or 29.0% had existed and 2,082 s.f. or 26.0% had been approved. Mr. Knutson indicateo that, after submitting his drawings and plans, he was unaware of any additional changes made after the initial appro\als. He knew only that decks were involved as part of the proposal from beginning to end. Mrs. Chwialkowski pointed out that she and her husband had only recently purchased the property and were confused how the certificate of occupancy could have been granted if these outstanding issues existed. She maintained that numerous inspections had occurred during th'* course of construction and questioned how this wasn ’t caught until after the certificate of occupancy had been granted and they had purchased the home. She stated that they were shocked by the City s letter, since the decks were in e.xistence when they purchased the home. Mrs. Chwialkowski argued that the City should take issue with the builder and past oATier, Mr. Johnson. She indicated that Mr. Johnson had said nothing to them about these