Laserfiche WebLink
kir 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS <br /> 6.1 Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of a Variance to the <br /> Maximum Development Area for 547 Square Foot Deck Addition, <br /> Lands of Wong, 1167 Dawson Drive <br /> Tryon noted that she had listened to the tape from the Council meeting at <br /> which Mr. Wong's house was approved and there had been no agreement <br /> that there would be no future development on the land. She also <br /> commented on the Zoning Ordinance Subcommittee and the minor <br /> variance procedure. She asked staff to provide the requirements for a <br /> minor variance. In response to a comment by Tryon, the City Attorney <br /> stated that all variances required findings. <br /> Mr. Wong, applicant, explained that he had the plans drawn in 1986 and then <br /> became involved in the ordinance changes. He was advised by staff to <br /> delete the deck at that time and come back at a later date for a variance. <br /> Because of financial concerns at the time, he did delete the deck and as a <br /> result has no usable outdoor space on his property. Over the years he <br /> received different recommendations from the Town Planners and delayed <br /> until now because of travel and business concerns. His neighbors had no <br /> objections to this project. <br /> Siegel noted that Mr. Wong was the original owner and should understand the <br /> development area allowed on the property. He asked if Mr. Wong would <br /> agree to recording a restriction on the property noting that there was no <br /> more allowable development area. Hubbard believed this was giving Mr. <br /> Wong something that his neighbors did not have. If the Wongs could get <br /> a variance why not build a lot right up to the maximum development <br /> limits and then apply for a variance. <br /> Mr. Wong, applicant, noted that the lot was quite steep and extra development <br /> area had been needed for the slope of the driveway. <br /> Siegel supported the variance noting the uniqueness of the lot, including the <br /> steep driveway. He also referred to the County procedure whereby the <br /> Board of Supervisors referred the drafting of variance findings to the <br /> County Counsel and then they were brought back to the Board for <br /> approval. Although this did involve a slight delay to the applicant, it was <br /> a procedure which worked well. Tryon stated that this application was <br /> within her understanding of a minor variance. She also stated that the <br /> findings should relate to the land and the uniqueness of the driveway. <br /> April 17, 1991 <br /> 7 <br />