14 ATTACHMENT 4-5 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Decker noted that staff did see normal variation of projects from the original designs submitted to the Planning Department, some without permits. The Zoning Administrator examines those differences and determines if there is substantial conformance to approved plans. She noted that the City does not condone unpermitted work and cited Ms. Harryman's comment that this particular project did not show up on the Planning Department's radar until complaints were lodged. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox to clarify staff s recommendation, Ms. Decker replied that staff recommended that the Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval and to deny the appeal. The recommendation included the revised conditions in Exhibit B shown on pages 11 and 12 of the staff report. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner O'Connor regarding the requirements and events following a potential extension of construction beyond the agreed-upon time limits, Ms. Harryman replied that if the work has not been completed after eight months, the 2001 approval would not change. The design review for the addition will lapse at that time, and the additions currently proposed would revert to an unpermitted status. At that point, the applicant may return to apply for a new design review, or Code Enforcement would bring an action to remove the additions. It would be up to the Chief Building Official to extend or to bring action with respect to an unreasonable state of partial construction. Commissioner Blank noted that this Commission took a relatively dim view of work done outside of Code. He noted that many of these cases may have been approved had they been properly permitted, especially in cases where there were no view easements. He did not see any evidence to support the claim of construction that has lasted 15 years. He did not intend to impugn the speakers who testified to that claim, but he did not see any documents, permits, or photographs to support that claim. Commissioner O'Connor inquired whether a permit would be on file if the chimney had been built at that time. He believed it was unfortunate that this issue had not surfaced when the neighborhood meetings had started and that there was a limited amount of options the Planning Commission had after five-plus years. Commissioner Pearce believed the Danville baseball field was a different case and probably would not have been approved in the first place. She expressed sympathy for the neighbors and noted that with respect to unpermitted work, she was inclined neither to be overly lenient with projects that would not have been approved in the first place nor to be overly punitive. She noted that all the parties wanted to see the project completed and supported expediting that completion. She noted that the project was within the FAR and height limit and that the Planning Commission would have been inclined to approve it. Commissioner Olson noted that the argument that the Code has been violated was compelling in his view, but he was not prepared to ask the property owner to tear out the existing work. He was concerned that Condition No. 6 in the original Exhibit B has been stricken from the current Exhibit B. In deference to the neighbors, he believed a condition should be included that put EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 26, 2007 Page 10 of 12