PC 022807 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Olson concurred and noted that a variance had already been granted from five feet to three feet and that reducing the setback to zero would be treading on a slippery slope. Commissioner Pearce agreed and indicated that she is not inclined to grant a special privilege based on the reason that the structure is already built. She added that she felt if this request for the variance came before the structure were built, the Commission would not grant a variance. She stated that she is not inclined to support a zero setback because it is detrimental to the next- door neighbors and impacts their quality of life, as evidenced by their increasing the height of the fence. Commissioner O’Connor agreed with the other Commissioners and stated that while they would only have a six-foot wide covered structure with a five-foot setback on an 11-foot side yard, he considered the Zoning Administrator’s decision of a three-foot setback with a two-foot eaves overhang already generous. He noted that he found the size and the height of the structure to be too massive for a covered patio. He added that although variances may have been granted in the 1980’s, he did not think proliferating that is the right thing to do. With respect to the issue of gutters, Chairperson Fox noted that torrential rains could still overflow into the neighbors’ property. Commissioner Narum agreed with the Commissioners and suggested that the structure be painted to match the house color to reduce its overbearing and obtrusive appearance. She indicated that if the Commission decided to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision, she would like to leave the decision of the gutter to the applicant. Commissioner Blank moved to deny the appeal, Case PAP-103, and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision for PV-140, with the additional condition that the structure be painted in a manner acceptable to the Zoning Administrator. Commissioner Narum seconded the motion. Commissioner Pearce noted that while painting may make the structure look prettier, it does not have anything to do with public health and safety, special circumstances, or depriving the property of privileges and, therefore, she cannot support the motion. Commissioner Blank agreed to amend the motion by removing the additional condition. Commissioner Narum accepted the amendment. Chairperson Fox clarified that the applicant may appeal the Commission’s decision to the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 28, 2007 Page 10 of 13