PC 09/23/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

~ staff as to whether a structure such as the one under discussion can ormally be built on a person's property without review as long as it fits in with the setb s. Mr. Swift replied that as this particular structure was 11 ft. high it required design re iew approval; however, if the building were less than ten ft. it would not have required adm nistrative design review. In response to Commissioner Michelotti's question, Mr. Swift furth r clarified that if the building had been less than ten ft. it would not have required admin strative design review; however, it would still have required a building permit. In response to Commissioner Mahern's question, Mr. Swift further larified that freestanding garages, cabana rooms, and a number of other four-walled accesso structures can be built without administrative design review, as long as a building permit i obtained. The City can put certain restrictions on various wning districts or subdivisions; h wever, the structure under discussion could have been built with only a permit if the hei ht had been less than ten ft. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. is site had any bearing the allowed FAR. If it down. Commissioner McGuirk questioned staff as to whether the FAR on on the case. Mr. Swift replied that the accessory structure is withi had gone over that limit, the building permit would have been turn ~ 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, b t were not aware they might have to deal with a situation as they are now. He felt that r. Salmon had built the pavilion illegally and that the only correct solution was to remove i. He thought that if the pavilion is allowed to remain as it is, other neighbors in the area w 11 soon be doing the same thing. He said no permit had been obtained, and no inspections w e made by the City once the structure was complete. He continued to say that he thought th structure should be removed; and that if the property is sold or transferred, that it sho d be stated in the deed that the structure should be removed or demolished. Brigitte Ben, 668 Orofino Court, also represented the appeal. She hanked the Commission for coming to their homes to see the structure from their point of v ew. She stated she is very opposed to the structure, and if it is not to be entirely remov ,she would prefer that it is at least moved to the middle of the yard. She was opposed to th smoked glass windows and felt they should be removed as she did not like the feeling of h ving someone watching while she could not tell whether someone was there or not. She fe t there were a number of problems associated with this structure. She thought that if the Co mission would allow the structure to remain as it is that it is setting a precedent for other pIe to build a similar one. Mrs. Ben noted that all the neighbors are waiting to see wha is going to be decided. She felt the bottom line is that the structure was built illegally and hould be removed. ~ Planning Commission Minutes September 23, t992 Page 3