Minutes 1995 0403 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Minutes - San Leandro City Council Meeting - April 3, 1995 Page - 11 - PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Council Member Polvorosa said the Application did not meet two of the three requirements. He said there is undue hardship to the people in back because they can't build up to capacity. The Variance would impose a hardship on them and affect the value of their home and would grant special privileges inconsistent with the Zoning Code. Council Member Kerr asked if the Council could hear from the architect. Mayor Corbett explained that the hearing was closed at the last meeting. The City Attorney said the City Council could ask specific questions of the architect but could not reopen the hearing without notification to the public. In response to questions, Raymond Fong, Architect, described the design of the addition and said the roof pitch could be modified to decrease shadows. Mr. Fong said he was hired to prepare the plans after the addition was constructed, for the public hearing. He said the roof could be lowered. Council Member Galvan asked Mrs. Shih if any of her neighbors had asked her if she had permits; she said they had not. The City Attorney said, if the City Council supported the three findings, he recommended that staff be directed to provide written Conditions to apply to the property. He said all three findings must be met to approve a Variance; he read the findings. Council Member Kerr said he did not interpret the Zoning Code to state that all three findings must be made; the City Attorney said the conjunctive word "and" means that all three are required in conjunction with each other. Council Member Kerr asked if demolition of the addition would be an undue hardship. Mr. Meyers said the City Council should not consider the existence of the building as a hardship because then anyone can build an illegal building and be entitled to a Variance. The Code intends that a strict application creates a hardship related to the property and other structures on the property, not to an illegal building. Council Member Galvan asked if the fact that a handicapped person needed access to the addition, therefore the property owner could not build up, would be an undue hardship. Mr. Meyers said the findings relate to the property itself, not the residents. In response to questions, Mr. Meyers said the City Council could look at the 90' -depth of the property as it relates to other Variances which have been granted and determine if similar circumstances apply to this situation. He said the Americans With Disabilities Act does not apply.