Laserfiche WebLink
illy <br /> 6.3 Lands of Ashman, 13645 Paseo del Roble Court, Floor Area Variance and <br /> Waiver of Appeal Fees <br /> Council had before them the Planning Director's 1/3/90 staff report which included <br /> the background information on the Planning Commission's denial of the Ashman's <br /> request for a variance to the maximum floor area limitation for the remodel of an <br /> existing residence. The Planning Commission was unable to make the required <br /> findings for the 771 square foot floor area variance, particularly finding one which <br /> states: "That, because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the <br /> subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict <br /> application of the provisions of this Title is found to deprive such property or <br /> privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning <br /> classification." The Ashmans had appealed the Planning Commission's decision and <br /> were now before Council for a public hearing. <br /> Councilmembers stated they had no disclosures to make regarding this application. <br /> Mary Stutz, 25310 Elena Road, commented on the disclosure policy and specifically <br /> { asked Councilmembers if they had visited the site. Johnson, Siegel and Tryon stated <br /> they had driven by the site. Casey stated she had never been on the site. van Tamelen <br /> stated she had been on the property but had not spoken with the applicants. <br /> Mrs. Joann Ashman, applicant, presented slides to the Council and explained the <br /> status of the present house, the proposed project and why she believed the variance <br /> could be supported. She noted the currently there was a high, obtrusive deck, an <br /> excessively visible asphalt parking area in the front of the house and the present <br /> development of the lot was not in conformance with the intent of the Town's <br /> ordinances. They had modified their original plans so that now all they needed was a <br /> maximum floor area variance. Mrs. Ashman stated that the size, shape and structure <br /> of house, and topography resulted in hardship and the findings for the variance could <br /> be supported. She stated that their proposed project included no increase in <br /> maximum development area, a finished exterior treatment, conformance with the <br /> intent of the Town's ordinances, a reduced parking area, less obtrusive structures, a <br /> safer home and more screening by native vegetation. Mrs. Ashman also referred to <br /> slides to show how the present deck would be removed and the new addition would <br /> be screened by trees. She commented that they had been attempting to improve their <br /> home since they moved in 2 1/2 years ago and the variance process had been a last <br /> resort. <br /> January 3, 1990 <br /> 3 <br />