HomeMy WebLinkAbout516 DEINES COURT, EXTRA OCCUPANCY RENTAL HOUSE - PDP - PDP120005 - CORRESPONDENCE - (42)0 0 Page 1 of 1
Steve Olt
From:
Gary Lopez
Sent:
Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:16 PM
To:
'd.cook@q.com'
Cc:
Steve Olt
Subject: RE: 516 Deines Court
Deb, I believe we prefer "B". However, due to possible neighborhood opposition we believe your site plan
needs to be professionally prepared which needs to show the front of the house, property lines, organic
and paved areas, sidewalk, etc. The engineer or surveyor should do all calculations to provide the ratio
so that if your challenged as to the numbers a licensed land engineer's testimony will hold up much better
than your calculations. In addition, this should be done because of the unusually dimensioned lot. You
do understand that the max. 40% vehicle driveways include not just the newly proposed but what's
already there?
From: d.cook@q.com [mailto:d.cook@q.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 2:56 PM
To: Gary Lopez
Subject: Re: 516 Deines Court
oops — sorry — attachments now
From: d.cook@a.com
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 2:05 PM
To: glopez@fcgov.com
Subject: 516 Deines Court
Good Afternoon -
Yesterday, I re -measured this front yard and have attached two versions of driveway
expansions, with the exact front yard measurements.
Could you please informally comment on which version zoning would prefer? I am fine with
version "A", as long as the city is ok with my new driveway being 39.3% of the front yard.
Version "B" is one less percent of the total area.
As soon as I hear from you, I will proceed with the Type 1 Hearing process.
Sincerely -
Deb Cook
2/16/2012