04-28-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i (C): Structure within 75’ of >7.5’ from the OHWL of Lake >): To permit encroachment into ipproximately 5’. t area, every' developed lot shall principal residence and garage ! 1,650 s.f. where 1,500 s.f. was Hardcover in 75-250 ’ setback; setback zone where 2,079 s.f. plan was to demolish the Due to the size of the lot and a variances were required to After discussions with .staff 20, 2000 Planning Commission e proposed project w'ith coverage by structure not to e Minnetonka. The ed as a single family residence e. The hardcover and structure ved at their December 11 , n which stated 3 original osed hardcover be submitted, the plan attached to the •uilding department. The the hardcover and structure as submitted showed a k. The building official made notations on 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 official made notations on the plans regarding the screen porch and second story deck. (Exhibit F). 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 occupanev vvas issued on March 8,2002. 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. (Exhibit C-1). Statement of Hardship: T he applicant has included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1 . The building plans submitted to obtain a building permit indicate a lakeside screen porch, second story deck, and additional lower ground level deck. The building official did make notations on the plans indicating the screen porch and upper deck were not allowed. 2. The lakeside decks on the plans submitted to the building department are different than indicated on the survey submitted. The deck on the original Planning Conmission .ubmittal was about 1 r X 16 ’ with angled comers, or about 160 s.f The deck shown on the survey submitted for building permit was 10 ’ X 15 ’ with angled comers of about 125 s.f The plan submitted for building permit show a deck 10 ’ X 12*9'’ with an additional 4 ‘ X 8’ 6” adjacei.i portion and 2 steps, for a total of 170 s.f 3. The inspection slips and Certificate of Occupancy do not note any discrepancy w ith the lakeside decks and the approved plans. 4. The discrepancy of the decks was not discovered until after the Certificate of Occupancy was issued. >^03-2880 Fred Johnson 1926 Fagemess Point Road 4/14/2003 Page 3 of 4