Siskiyou County planning commission considers variance for porch at 444 Shasta Avenue

On Sept. 16, the Siskiyou County Planning Commission heard a variance request to allow a wraparound porch and deck at 444 Shasta Avenue in McLeod. Project proponent Mark Heine and a project representative presented site plans and argued the proposed porch would not create a traffic-visibility hazard; planning staff said the commission must consider roadway centerline setback requirements and a separate lot-coverage calculation tied to a proposed garage.

Mark Heine identified himself as the resident at 444 Shasta Avenue and described the design intent: "My name is Mark Heine. I live at the residence at 444 Shasta Avenue in McLeod." He told commissioners that, when measured in the field and shown on Google Earth, the top of the proposed extension would sit below the level of a neighboring fence and therefore "visibility is not an issue." Staff, represented on the record by James, said the project is categorically exempt from CEQA but noted the deck intrudes into a roadway centerline setback and that staff had recommended conditions to ensure the deck would not obstruct traffic.

A central point of the discussion was whether a separately proposed garage—described in application materials but not part of the packet before the commission for the porch variance—triggered the 40% lot-coverage threshold. Staff told commissioners that the garage and porch are two separate permits; the unroofed deck is not counted as building coverage, but the county requested a calculation from the applicant’s designer to confirm the combined roofed area (existing house, existing metal garage, and any new garage) would not exceed 40 percent of lot area. The applicant said that calculation had been provided to staff and asked the commission to remove or amend Conditions 1, 3 and 4, arguing some conditions were moot or already resolved.

Commissioners repeatedly emphasized that the matter before them was the porch/porch extension as described in the staff packet (schematics on page 23) and urged clarity from staff on future agenda write-ups when multiple plan submissions exist. The transcript provided does not record a final vote or disposition on the variance; staff noted that if later filings show combined roofed area exceeding the 40% threshold the applicant would need to return to the commission.