Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #876 <br />July 18, 1985 <br />Page 2 <br />3. At their July 15, 1985 meeting, the Planning Commission <br />reviewed the request by the new owners, the Monges, at 3444 <br />Eastlake Street. The Monges purchased the property from Asplund <br />in 1984, but it is not clear as to whether their closing occurred <br />before or after Asplund was notified of the problem. For the <br />record, the City issued a certificate of occupancy for this <br />,)roperty on May 11, 1984, apparently prior to installation of the <br />driveway or patios. <br />At this meeting the Planning Commission recommended approval of <br />after -the -fact hardcover and structure variances to allow the <br />existing concrete patio at 3444 Eastlake Street to remain along <br />with the portion of sidewalk between the house and the patio <br />(i.e. recommended the Council to rescind their May action) under <br />the following conditions: <br />a) Sidewalk between lake and patio to be removed <br />b) No future hardcover allowed <br />c) Cost of removal of sidewalk to be borne by h-:ilder <br />d) Staff and Council to review CiLy policy on fining of <br />contractors <br />Staff understands Planning Commission's motive in condition c) <br />but questions whether it is a va � id issue for City to address. <br />Note that Planning Commission ret. :.idations for 3444 Eastlake <br />recognize that the new owners bout;:: the property under the <br />impression that what they saw is what they get. <br />The Planning Commission did not in their reconunendation address <br />the deck platform 'ssue because they felt it was not a realisti.: <br />alternative give- ie desires of the Monges and the likelyhood of <br />iL Lecoming pern, !nt hardcover. They did briefly discuss the <br />idea of an attached deck located near the house but did not Feel <br />it would be useful without some encroachment into the 75' zone, <br />and would not give the Monges an equivalent to the patio. <br />To Summarize: <br />3424 Fast lake Street - Council has ordered patio in 0-75' to be <br />removed. It has -.ot been removed. Applicant requested at Planning <br />Commission to allow F,�rtions of patio in 75-250' to remain and to <br />construct a -reen porch. Planning commission recommends that <br />driveway bacf apron be removed, that all plastic -lined ruck beds b- <br />perforated o, plastic removed, and that any screen porch be offset <br />with removal of other existing sidewalk, etc. in the 75-250' zone. <br />