Oct.-Dec. 2000 - letter corresponces re: new construct.

Home Browse Search

♦ � Ron Moorse December 18, 2000 Page 2 used, so that your building of�'icials and engineers can make a determination of whether the proposed plan will actually be sufficient. The city has a responsibility to sign off on the drainage plan for the protection of the neighboring properties before it is built, rather than waiting to see if a vaguely drafted plan actually works. If it doesn't work, it becomes a serious problem to the adjoining owners, which should have been avoided by proper design and review by the city. In this case, where the hardcover is greatly increased and moved closer to the adjoining houses, we urge you to take a more formal design and review procedure to this drainage question before the construction is complete. ��'e believe this is a requirement of your ordinances. Regardinb the large amaount of eYcavated dirt still remaining on the lake side of the property, we agree that no filling or change of grade can occur within 75 feet of the shoreline pursuant to your ordinance. The amount of dirt remaining is substantial and is more than will be used to backfill around the edge of the house. None of it can be graded down to within 75 feet of the shoreline. Leaving that amount of dirt between the house and the 75 foot line will more substantially affect drainage to the adjoining properties as discussed above. We urged the city to be diligent in monitoring the use of the remaining dirt fill on the property. If the calculations you will receive from your o«n engineer agree that the house area already exceeds the 15% allowed for structures, �z-e will look to the city to protect the adjoining owners from that limit being exceeded. The neighbors will also insist that the City enforce the hardcover restrictions with (a) the proper calculation of the lot area and structures, and (b) inclusion in the hardcover numbers the complete roof area, sidewalks, driveways, patios and decks, retaining walls and other areas that do not allow absorption (your ordinance). Finally, the patio under the existing proposal or an�� revised proposal which lies within the average set back line is a structure under e�-ery zoning definition of which I am aware, including your ordinance at Section 10.02, paragraph 69. It is considered part of the house structure or a st�tzcture on its own that cannot be built within the average set back line. Your ordinance Section 10.56, parz�aph 6 provides exceptions only for . stairways, lifts, landings and lock boxes. A patio or deck attached to the principal structure is part of the principal structure and in no way falls within those exceptions. Therefore, building of a patio across the average �et back line would require a variance from the set-back requirements.