PC 022807 - Laserfiche WebLink

could be applicable and appropriate in this case if it were an actual enclosure and had the appropriate setbacks. In response to Commissioner Blank’s inquiry regarding whether the structure was built by the applicant or a contractor, Ms. Decker replied that she believed it was built by the applicant and added that the applicant’s representative could verify that. Commissioner Blank observed from the staff report that the structure was built without Planning approval or a building permit. He inquired if staff had any indication why this was the case. Ms. Decker replied that she did not have that information. Chairperson Fox inquired what the required setbacks are and what would have to happen to the structure should no variance be granted. Ms. Decker replied that the structure would have to be removed or constructed to the setback required by Code. With a variance, the structure would need to be which are three feet from property line, per the Building Code; however, the eaves overhang can project past the posts by one foot, leaving a two feet between the eaves overhang and the property line. Chairperson Fox inquired what the applicants would need to do in terms of painting and fire-proofing if no variance were granted. Ms. Decker replied that no painting and fire-proofing would be required as the applicant would have to either remove the structure or move it to the required setbacks, which would then be in compliance with the Building Code. In response to Commissioner Blank’s inquiry regarding whether the applicant would need to lower the overheight fence if the variance were not approved, Ms. Decker replied that while it is a common fence, it was installed by the adjacent neighbor and not by the applicant. In response to Commissioner O’Connor’s inquiring regarding what would be considered an overheight fence, Ms. Decker replied that any fence over six feet in height would be considered an overheight fence and would require an administrative design review approval. Commissioner Blank inquired if this property was straight-zoned and if there were any CC&R’s. Ms. Decker confirmed that it was straight-zoned and stated that she was not aware if there were CC&R’s. Commissioner O’Connor observed that there was extensive discussion in the staff report regarding the property being a substandard corner lot within an R-1-6,500 zoning district. He noted that it appears like the house was built to accommodate the substandard lot, with 10 feet and 11 feet side yard setbacks, as opposed to being built to the property setbacks. In relation to the questions earlier raised by the Commission regarding what needed to be done should no variance be granted, Ms. Decker clarified the actions the Commission may take. She explained that denying the appeal would mean upholding the Zoning Administrator’s decision of moving the posts to maintain the three-foot setback; and approving the appeal would essentially mean that what the applicant has constructed is acceptable. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 28, 2007 Page 6 of 13