Laserfiche WebLink
[Page 2 of 18] <br />Ms. Roth acknowledged the error and stated that she was responsible for the mistake. She was • <br />told she must have the front fence moved back to a distance of one foot inside the property line. <br />Later that day, Ms. Roth came to City Hall to apply for a variance in order to continue building <br />the fence at one foot from the sidewalk. The applicant was advised that the fence could not be <br />built in the present location unless the variance was approved by the Council. A letter was sent <br />confirming receipt of the application and advising the applicant to cease work on the front fence <br />until the matter could be settled. <br />On July 27, staff found that the applicant had directed her contractor to complete the fence at the <br />non-conforming location. She had not yet received the letter. The applicant stated that she will <br />move the fence if the variance is not approved. <br />Analysis: <br />a. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare. <br />Staff fmds that the granting of the variance will be not be detrimental to the public welfare unless <br />the fence causes problems with sidewalk snow removal. <br />b. That the granting of the variance will not substantially diminish or impair property <br />values or improvements in the area. <br />Staff finds that the granting of the variance will not substantially diminish or impair property • <br />values or improvements in the area. <br />c. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of <br />substantial property rights. <br />Staff finds that the granting of this variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment <br />of substantial property rights. <br />d. That the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent <br />property. <br />Staff fmds that the granting of this variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air <br />to adjacent properties. <br />e. That the variance will not impair the orderly use of the public streets; <br />Staff finds that the variance will not impair the orderly use of the public streets. <br />f. That the variance will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety; <br />Staff fmds that the variance will not increase the danger of fire. <br />Staff finds that the variance will not endanger public safety. • <br />Staff Report: 1423 California fence variance August 28, 2007 Page 2 of 4 <br />