Laserfiche WebLink
April 13, 1984 <br />TO: City Council <br />FROM: Jim Andre <br />SUBJECT: Richard Robbins' concerns regarding his contacts with City staff. <br />I have attached a letter from Mr. Richard Robbins, who owns the property <br />at 2764 Victoria, regarding his dealings with the City staff over the <br />past six-month period. After reading the letter, it is clear there <br />were several instances of confusion and misunderstanding between City <br />staff and Mr. Robbins. <br />Mr. Robbins' contact with the City was initiated when he proposed to <br />construct a detached garage on his lakeshore property at 2764 Victoria. <br />The proposal required it building permit under the Lakeshore Zoning <br />Ordinance, necessitating a meeting with the planning staff. <br />An examination of a survey of the property showed the lot contains three <br />principal structures. The City Code permits one principal structure on <br />a single-family lot. The Planner indicated a Planned Unit Development <br />was required to bring ti►e site into conformance with the City Code and to <br />enable the construction of the proposed garage. <br />Prior to Air. Robbins' application for PUD relb hing the Planning Commission, <br />he requested his application be withdrawn. It 'was then discovered that <br />footings for the garage had been poured and several courses of block had <br />been laid. The Council directed that the footings and block be removed. <br />� t-If sent a letter dated 11/16/83 (attached) to Mr. Robbins directing <br />that the garage footings and foundation be removed within 60 days, unless <br />he reinitiated the process required for issuance of a building permit. <br />The major reason for Mr. Robbins' withdrawal of t-.is application was the <br />requirement that an additional 10 feet of right-of-way be dedicated along <br />Victoria as a condition of the PUD. The Robbins' property currently <br />contains a duplex located partially in the Victoria right-of-way. An <br />additional 10-foot dedication would place a large portion of the duplex <br />in the right-of-way. Air. Robbins expressed concern regarding the loss of <br />the duplex in the event of the additional right-of-way dedication. Staff <br />advised Mr. Robbins that an agreement could be worked out regarding his <br />continued use of the duplex. <br />