Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1587 <br />October 3, 1990 <br />Page 3 <br />Additional CoMents and Planning Coamission Peconnendation <br />As of this date, the City has not received the penalty <br />payment requested for the after-the-fact variance application. <br />It is staff's understanding that Mrs. Siford will appeal the <br />payment before the Council. <br />In the Planning Commission's review of the application, they <br />questioned the substandard setback of the shed from the garage <br />and the deck. The Commission questioned whether there was a need <br />to address the need for additional firewalls because of the shed. <br />Staff advised that this other factor would be considered in the <br />determination of firewall construction for the existing detached <br />garage. <br />In light of the circumstances surrounding the after-the-fact <br />aspect of this application and the fact that the owner, Mrs. <br />Siford, appeared to be completely unaware of the work being done <br />without a building permit, the Planning Commission recommended <br />unanimous approval of the 5' separat on setback thereby requiring <br />no future alteration of the deck structure. Their approval <br />recommendation did include payment of all penalty fees due the <br />City. The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the approval <br />recommendation of the Planning Commission and subject to the <br />conditions set forth Hv the P nning Commission.