Laserfiche WebLink
applicant applied to modify the roofline and was subsequently refuted by a roofing specialist with <br />knowledge of the required work that needed to be done and corresponding costs which were <br />substantially less than the applicant's stated repair costs. <br />An unpermitted roof modification to the historic one-story pool house/cabana, noted by City staff during their <br />review for this CUP, was made to the roof increasing the height from thirteen feet to twenty feet and modifying <br />SK-3 the roof structure from a flat roof to a pitched roof and other alterations changing the character of the pool <br />house. <br />In both situations, it appears that negotiated settlements by the applicant with the City (assuming planning <br />commission) were made regarding the unpermitted work. Clearly both violations would appear to be be non- <br />compliant with applicable SAMC standards. While I am not privvy to the ultimate resolution, I would be <br />curious to see what the final resolution was as well as the level of authority the Planning Commission has in <br />settling unpermitted, unauthorized construction, especially when a repeat offense is involved. Lastly, given that <br />the settlement is public not publicly available I would be cursious to see what level of oversight is excercised by <br />Council to ensure all settlements are applied equitably to all residents. <br />SK - 4Lastly, it appears very clear to be that the Historic Resource Commission should have been consulted in regards <br />to any negotiated settlement for both of the violations as historical structures were involved. <br />Thank you <br />Stacey Kato <br />