Laserfiche WebLink
i; <br />1.- <br />^ .ij.; <br />Zoning File *1636 April 11, 1991 <br />Page 2 of 5 <br />List of Exhibits <br />Exhibit A <br />Exhibit B <br />Exhibit C <br />Exhibit D1 <br />Exhibit E <br />Exhibit F <br />Exhibit G <br />Exhibit H <br />Exhibit I <br />Exhibit J <br />Exhibit K1 <br />Exhibit L <br />Exhibit M ' <br />Exhibit N <br />Exhibir 0 ' <br />- Application <br />■ Property Owners List <br />' Plat Map <br />•3 - Resolution #1718-B, Approved 1/14/85 <br />• Permit #5678, Issued 7/12/85 <br />Hardcover Fact Sheet Submitted w/Building Permit <br />• Survey Submitted w/Building Permit <br />Surveyor's Letter of 3/14/91 <br />Hardcover Fact Sheet <br />Hardcover Site Plan <br />2 - Floor Plan/Elevation - Street Side Deck <br />Floor Plan - Lakeside Area <br />Staff Site Plan <br />Elevation 2nd Floor Lakeside Deck <br />Resolution #1908, Approved 1/86 <br />Review of Applicaticm • <br />Although a building permit was issued in 1985 for the <br />proposed addition to the existing residence on the property, <br />applicant has only recently applied for a certificate of <br />occupancy. In the process of making the final inspection, the <br />Building staff noted variations from the approvals granted for <br />the development of this property in Resolution #1718-B (Exhibit <br />D1 through D3). The applicant was advised that he had obvious <br />hardcover problems and that applicant had constructed a deck <br />along the north side of the lot line where the above referenced <br />resoluton would have prohibited expansion. It was staff's <br />understanding that all new construction at that portion of the <br />property would have to meet the required 10' setback. The <br />applicant claimed to be confussed because it was hi? <br />understanding that he was only at 19% and the property was <br />approved for 25%. Please review Exhibit F, the hardcover fact <br />sheet that was submitted with the building permit. The 1985 <br />building permit covered a 2-story 22'x49* addition to the south <br />side of the structure that included an 8>s'x6' second floor deck. <br />The permit was issued based on the use of porous blocks for the <br />driveway. Review Exhibit N, note the building permit did include <br />the second floor lakeside deck. Review Exhibits K1 through 2 and <br />L, the lakeside deck at 102 s.f. and the street side deck at <br />154.7 s.f. were not shown on the building plans. Note also that <br />the floor plans in the dinette area showed windows and not doors. <br />Doors were also not shown within the existing living room area* <br />The lakeshore deck does not encroach the 75' setback line nor an <br />average lakeshore setback line (Exhibit M). The structure would <br />not have required a hardcover variance at the time of the <br />Issuance of a building permit even if they were included because <br />the driveway was to be at a 635 s.f. hardcover. <br />£