14 ATTACHMENT 4-5 - Laserfiche WebLink

applicants provided elevations that reflected actual construction rather than the plans that had been approved in 2001. Ms. Decker displayed and described the rear yard elevations and pointed out the 273-square-foot addition to be considered at this hearing. She noted that Mr. Smith's efforts to coordinate his efforts and mitigate some of the neighbors' concerns about the additional square footage that was not approved included removing some of the previously approved windows facing the Morgans' home and applying stucco over them. She noted that vegetation along the fence had been removed for the benefit of construction and displayed the proposed new planting. As noted in the staff report, the neighbors feel that the scope of the 2001 approval was greater than what they had anticipated and that the two-story addition was too large, resulting in a loss of privacy. Staff and the Zoning Administrator recognized those concerns; however, they were already approved, effected, and vested by permit; those portions of the home were being completed. The Zoning Administrator at that time, Janice Stern, Principal Planner, wanted to ensure that there was some mechanism to add landscaping that could augment the original approvals. Ms. Decker pointed out the second-story addition that was being considered under the appeal; since the cease-and-desist order, work on that part of the roof was stopped because it was not approved and permitted. Chairperson Fox noted that one letter stated the construction had been going on for 15 years and inquired whether building permits went back 15 years. She further inquired whether the applicant was no longer living at this residence during the construction. Ms. Decker replied that the scope of the actual work included gutting the interior of the home and that it was not currently livable in that state. The residents have temporarily relocated until that work was completed, and they were performing only permitted work. In addition, the Zoning Administrator requested that the applicants provide a timeline for the completion of the work. Staff felt that the extension work left uncompleted had constituted a nuisance. The Smiths provided a timeline estimating completion of the work in six to eight months. The Zoning Administrator was concerned that the exterior of the property needed to be finished and suggested several timing criteria for her approval that would require completion of the exterior of the premises only within a 60-day period. Staff would present differing conditions than those presented by the Zoning Administrator that were tied to building permit times. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner O'Connor regarding the neighbors' statements that the work had gone on for 15 years, Ms. Soo replied that she had spoken with the neighbors, who stated that interior work had begun before the exterior work. According to the permit log, the permit history went back to as far as 2002; earlier interior work may have begun that did not trigger building permit requirements. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner O'Connor regarding the definition of "continuing work diligently" if the work had been going on for six years, Ms. Decker replied that definition was based on inspection records. According to State law and the Building Code, an inspection of the premises must be done every six months for a building permit, which was considered to be due diligence. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 26, 2007 Page 2 of 12