PC 09/23/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

staff as to whether a structure such as the one under discussion can n rmally be built on a person's property without review as long as it fits in with the setbac . Mr. Swift replied that as this particular structure was 11 ft. high it required design revi w approval; however, if the building were less than ten ft. it would not have required admi istrative design review. ~ In response to Commissioner Michelotti's question, Mr. Swift furthe building had been less than ten ft. it would not have required admini however, it would still have required a building permit. clarified that if the tive design review; In response to Commissioner Mahern's question, Mr. Swift further c 'fied that freestanding garages, cabana rooms, and a number of other four-walled accessory structures can be built without administrative design review, as long as a building permit is btained. The City can put certain restrictions on various zoning districts or subdivisions; ho ever, the structure under discussion could have been built with only a permit if the heig t had been less than ten ft. Commissioner McGuirk questioned staff as to whether the FAR on is site had any bearing on the case. Mr. Swift replied that the accessory structure is within e allowed FAR. If it had gone over that limit, the building permit would have been turned down. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Norman Bottorff, 2927 Victoria Meadow Court, represented the ap . He stated that he and his wife bought their house knowing that they were on a hill, but were not aware they might have to deal with a situation as they are now. He felt that Mr. Salmon had built the pavilion illegally and that the only correct solution was to remove it. He thought that if the pavilion is allowed to remain as it is, other neighbors in the area will soon be doing the same thing. He said no permit had been obtained, and no inspections were made by the City once the structure was complete. He continued to say that he thought the tructure should be removed; and that if the property is sold or transferred, that it should be stated in the deed that the structure should be removed or demolished. ~ Brigitte Ben, 668 Orofino Court, also represented the appeal. She th ked the Commission for coming to their homes to see the structure from their point of vie . She stated she is very opposed to the structure, and if it is not to be entirely removed, she would prefer that it is at least moved to the middle of the yard. She was opposed to the moked glass windows and felt they should be removed as she did not like the feeling of hav ng someone watching while she could not tell whether someone was there or not. She felt ere were a number of problems associated with this structure. She thought that if the Com ission would allow the structure to remain as it is that it is setting a precedent for other peo e to build a similar one. Mrs. Ben noted that all the neighbors are waiting to see what i going to be decided. She felt the bottom line is that the structure was built illegally and sh uld be removed. ~ Planning Commission Minutes September 23. 1992 Page 3