PC 022807 - Laserfiche WebLink

no flammable substances such as gas, oil, or propane would be stored within the structure. Mr. Judd stated that Mr. Thomas indicated that these mitigation measures would satisfy the fire retardant issue set forth by the Building Code and would allow a minimum setback of two inches. Mr. Judd noted that there was limited space on that side of the property, and moving the structure three feet back would not provide enough room to store the jet skis. He indicated that the applicants were willing to comply with the requirements for fire-proofing by installing the glass-type material over the opening, painting the entire structure with the two-hour fire- retardant coating, and moving the fence posts two inches back. He commented that in response to a neighbor’s complaint regarding materials flying from the top of the structure to the neighboring property, there were no trees upfront, and any debris would be airborne rather than coming from the applicants’ property. He noted that he was not asking for any special concessions in requesting to retain the structure as there were many similar existing structures in the area. Commissioner Olson inquired how far from the property line the posts would be set back. Mr. Judd replied that he would like to maximize the space and move the fence posts by two inches. In response to Commissioner Olson’s comment that the setback required would be three feet and that the structure was over 120 square feet in area, Mr. Judd noted that with a variance, the posts could be set back two inches from the property line as the structure was not over ten feet. He stated that the primary objection to the structure was going into the three-foot setback and that the mitigation measures would satisfy the Building Code and safety issues, making the structure fire-retardant. In response to Commissioner Olson’s question regarding how the fence posts would be moved two inches from the property line, Mr. Judd replied that the fence posts would remain and new posts would be installed two inches from the property line. Commissioner Blank noted that everything he had read on the fire-free materials submitted by the applicant indicated that the coating is a one-hour rated product and not a two-hour-rated product. He added that the one-hour rating was only indicated for gypsum and that there is nothing mentioned about what it would do to redwood. Mr. Judd replied that the documentation says that it would fire-rate the lumber. Commissioner Blank noted that the contractor who built the structure would have known that a permit was required. Mr. Judd replied that the applicants took responsibility for that action, basing their decision on what they saw around the neighborhood. Commissioner Narum noted that most of the similar structures in the area had a gutter along the property line and inquired if the direction of the drainage from the top of the roof would be towards the neighbor’s property or if it would stay on the applicants’ property. Mr. Judd replied that he did not know the answer but that this has not been an issue. Commissioner Narum stated that if the direction is towards the neighbor, then this issue should also be addressed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 28, 2007 Page 8 of 13