Cobblestone Court analysis/Feb 2008

Home Browse Search

.+ original approvals. I emailed you about this problem on February 7 and discussed it with Jeremy at City Hall on February 11. 5. On February 12 you dropped off a revised plan for Lot 1 depicting a house 80' in length with a 10' deep deck along the south side extending eastward from the west end of the house. The house was now 3' from the side lot line, so 7' of deck would be in the Commons Area. This eliminated the 5' setback encroachment, but raised further issues: a. With the revised plan there was now an encroachment of the 26' setback �' outside the boundaries of the originally approved house, as well as a corner encroachment of the MCWD 35' buffer; and b. The proposed deck now extended 7' past the lot line into the Common Area where only a 30" cantilevered encroachment was allowed. The cantilevered encroachments allowed within the covenants do not allow support posts outside the lot boundaries. On February 13 you and I discussed these issues and we concluded the solution was to move the deck further east along the south side of the house where it would not encroach the 26' setback or the 35' buffer, and that either a re-plat or a change to the covenants would be needed to allow the additional 4.5' of deck encroachment of the Common Area. I felt that this revision to the covenants (or a replat if determined necessary by the City Attorney) would not meet resistance from the City since no other properties' views would be impacted. At a staff level, we concluded we could issue a permit prior to such covenant revision or re- plat only if you provide an interim plan showing a fully conforming deck,then work thru the legal issues before the deck is actually built per the permanent plan. As noted above, at this time I had not become aware of the discrepancy between Sheet C3.9 and Sheet C2.5, or the (now apparent) issue of a required new buffer in the side yard of Lot 1. 6. On February 20 you submitted a further revised plan that moved the proposed deck further east, but now it has become a screen porch and extends 12' out from the house. The covenants do not contemplate this type of encroachment at all, and certainly not to the extent of enclosed space extending 9' into the Common P„ V--' Area. Based on this plan, there is no encroachment of the 26' wetland setback; �(/ ` but, there is clearly an encroachment of the required "new buffer" shown on C3.9; f,��t ' and the enclosed porch structure is being proposed outside the lot boundaries, far �l in excess of the cantilevered 18" bays allowed by the covenants. 7. Further, concentrating for the first time on Lot 2, the approved encroachment of the 26' setback was for a house 90' in length within the 97' lot. The area of allowed encroachment was the southwesterly corner of the house, with the home � pushed as far east as possible on the lot. Also, the 90' length just missed , encroaching on the 3 5' buffer by about 2'.