11-12-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

toning Fllr Soptonbor 6, 1991 Pngo 2 of 3 Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J OinettnalcMi Survay Staff Survay/Hardcover Review Befora/After Hardcover Proposals Municipal Sewer Location Diagram Garage Plan Submitted Inspection Notice 8 22/91 r-^ Applicant demolished the pre-existing 20' x 24* garage and removed from the aite a pre-existing 10* x 20' shed/barn structure without obtaining the necessary demolition permit. This came to the attention of City staff when applicant was found to be pouring a slab on the property August 22, 1991. The slab maa half poured when discovered by the Building Inspector and a Stop Work Order was immediately posted. However, because concrete for the remainder of the slab was on the way and could not be returned, applicant was allowed to pour the remainder of the slab at applicant's risk. Applicant was advised that there is no guarantee that the slab and/or any garage proposed to be constructed on it, would meet the Code requirements, and <dOOtinuing work was entirely at the applicant's risk. Applicant immediately ordered survey work, and upon submittal of the survey, as anticipated by staff, the prCr/ose^< work did not meet Code in many respects. Staff review of the survey and field me^ urements indicate that the existing house was not accuratel plotted by the surveyor in relation to the normal shoreline. Staff has slightly redrawn the shoreline to reflect field conditions, as well as oonfirm and correct the insufficient hardcover data supplied by the applicant. The city has to date not required permits for sidewalks, surfacing of driveways, or other «evel concrete pours, although quite often such work places a property owner in violation of the hardcover ordinance. ^Mnce construction of the garage itself had not been started nor were there garage construction materials on the site, technically the work to date did not need a permit. in this respect, the application for garage construction is not after-the-fact. The Building Inspectors have indicated that it may be feasible to cut away portions of the slab and make use of the remainder using certain construction techniques. The Planning Commission should not therefore necessarily make the assumption that the slab would have to be entirely redone if some portion of the proposed work is approved. I.