Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies variance for unpermitted RV cover after neighbors cite safety concerns
Summary
The Planning Commission denied a variance request Aug. 21 to legalize an unpermitted RV cover at 1512 Michigan Blvd., finding the applicant did not meet the required variance findings; neighbors cited blind spots and safety concerns and staff documented prior code enforcement and a stop-work order.
The West Sacramento Planning Commission on Aug. 21 denied a variance request to legalize an unpermitted RV cover built at 1512 Michigan Boulevard.
City staff recommended denial after reviewing the structure, which staff described as an unpermitted 47-by-15-foot RV cover that reduces required setbacks to zero along Portsmouth Avenue and exceeds the accessory-structure height limit of 12 feet. Staff presented a timeline of complaints and enforcement actions beginning in August 2024, including a stop-work order and subsequent citations after the structure was completed without permits.
During the hearing, staff said the variance requires four findings (unique property conditions, avoidance of physical hardship, no detriment to the community, and consistency with the general plan) and concluded none of the findings could be made because the site is a typical corner lot, the hardship was self-created by building without permits, and the structure is out of character and creates potential visibility issues.
Applicant Mark Reyes said the structure was intended to improve livability and shade an RV he has kept at the property for years. Reyes said he had discussed the project with city representatives and a council member and that he was later advised to apply for a variance after construction had begun. He asked the commission to allow the structure to remain and said he would finish and paint it to better match the house.
Neighbors and adjacent-property owners told the commission they experience a blind spot at the corner and worry about pedestrian and driver safety; one neighbor said an elderly tenant was afraid to exit a driveway because visibility is limited. At the hearing, a code enforcement manager confirmed the enforcement action centered on the unpermitted structure rather than prior RV parking complaints.
Commissioners questioned why construction proceeded after applicants were told it likely would not comply with code and emphasized the need to base a decision on the variance findings. Several commissioners said the construction appeared to be a self-created hardship, and that the site did not present unique physical constraints that would justify relief.
A motion to follow staff’s recommendation and deny the variance was moved and seconded; the roll-call recorded in the transcript shows multiple aye votes and the motion carried. Staff reiterated appeal procedures following the decision.
Provenance: Topic introduced at SEG 716; related discussion/conclusion through SEG 1647.
