Re: code violation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

L � a. . • , • • � • � • , emo To: Melanie Curtis, Planning&Zoning Coordinator From: Christine Mattson, Planning Assistant Date: 10 May 2011 Re: 601 Park Lane Background At the April 14, 2003 meeting, Council approved hardcover, setback, and structural coverage variances to allow construction of additions to the existing home, to reconstruct a main entry landing, and to construct a revised decorative wall. Approval was subject to the specific conditions, Item 3(c) of the conditions of approval in Resolution No.4952 states: The proposed hardcover and structural removals as shown on Exhibit A must be completed before footing inspections are approved. In the Fall of 2010, Lyle Oman, reported he observed what appeared to be new construction at 601 Park Lane within 0-75' zone. On December 1, 2010 we sent a letter to the property owners, Mr. & Mrs. Rudd, notifying them of the violation. You received an email from Mrs. Rudd on December 15, 2010 informing us the structure Oman observed is located on the neighboring property. After closer review of the approved resolution, we agreed that the shed Oman had observed was in fact on the neighbors property, a deck attached to the neighbors shed was to be removed, which it was, along with a boathouse/shed. You emailed Mrs. Rudd on December 20, 2010 to clarify the misunderstanding about the structures. A copy of Resolution No.4952 (including Exhibit A) was sent to Mrs. Rudd which showed the structures to be removed (the Rudd's deck attached to neighbor's shed and a boathouse/shed on the Rudd property). On January 10, 2011, Mrs. Rudd again emailed you stating the survey attached to the resolution was not consistent with her version of the "final approved" survey. Mrs. Rudd further explained that she recalled the boathouse/shed being discussed as to be removed, but field changes were made with multiple portions of their brick walkway being removed, along with a brick border on the lake/west side of the house and the brick undemeath the steps to their front entrance as well as the entire brick sidewalk along the south side of the house being removed. Mrs. Rudd stated, "According to my husband, all of these areas were inspected by the inspector before we were allowed to pour the footings for our addition. I think the inspector's name was Bruce..." w:�.street files�park Iane�601\file memo-close violation.doc