PC 022807 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Seto advised that should the Commission approve the variance, it would need to make the findings, such as the unique physical features of a substandard lot, to support the variance. Ms. Decker noted that the Planning Commission and any decision-making body are not empowered to revise the Building Code. Commissioner Narum commented that if the appeal were approved, she would have a problem making the finding that having posts on the property line was acceptable. She inquired if the Commission would have to stipulate that the posts needed to be moved off the property line. Ms. Seto stated that the Commission does not necessarily have to grant the appeal in its totality and that it could make various modifications. She added that if the Commission granted a variance, it would have to make a finding regarding the setback area, such as a substandard width lot, which would give this corner property owner the same benefits as other corner property owners within the same development. In response to Chairperson Fox’s inquiry regarding whether the Valley Trails Homeowners Association had been noticed and has weighed in on this application, Ms. Decker replied that she believed the Association, if there was one, was noticed but was not certain. She noted, however, that there was an active neighborhood group that is aware of projects in the area and that there was no indication that a representative from that group had submitted any comments. Commissioner Blank commented that if there were a homeowners association and not a maintenance association, then there would be CC&R’s associated with the property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Daryl Judd, attorney representing the property owners, Peter and Garrett Nowak, responded to the questions earlier raised by the Commission. He stated that the structure was built by a contractor and that the reason no permits were taken out was because the applicants had incorrectly assumed that this was allowed since there were 21 other similar existing structures in the neighborhood. He noted that the adjacent neighbor had constructed the overheight fence after the trellis was built. He added that subsequent to this, the Code Enforcement Officer notified the applicants that the trellis could not continue to exist and that the overhang, which extended past the property line, needed to be cut back; this was done by the applicant. Mr. Judd noted that the first two findings for the variance could be made and that the real issue is with the setback and the Building Code as it relates to the issue of fire. He indicated that in response to the requirement for a one- hour fire rating, they have identified the material and coating that would provide a two-hour fire rating. With respect to the setback, he stated that he understood that the fence posts cannot remain on the property line and that he believed the posts were, in fact, not on the property line but on the applicants’ property. He continued that when the appeal was filed, he discussed the Building Code violation with the Mr. George Thomas, Chief Building Official, and noted that Mr. Thomas indicated that the opening could be remedied by installing a glass-type product over the opening so there would be no openings on the outside of the structure; that sheetrock needed to be installed on the inside of the structure, that the garage doors needed to be fire-rated, and that the applicant should sign a written statement that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 28, 2007 Page 7 of 13