CCMIN071889 - Laserfiche WebLink

153 Nina Walker, 3352 Muscat Court, Mr. Sinz' neighbor and in direct line of Mr. Valdez' backyard, inquired why, when Mr. Valdez applied for a variance for his spa, he did not apply for a variance for the deck as well, which runs from his spa directly to the property line. There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Brandes stated that he hoped no precedent had been set and that it was not misunderstood that if the previous owner constructed an illegal structure and was not caught, it was all right. Mr. Butler asked the staff if the spa were properly permitted and within the setback requirements and if the variance issue on hand were strictly with respect to the deck. Mr. Swift answered in the affirmative and added that the deck did not figure in the spa's building permit. Mr. Mercer pointed out the difference between Mr. Lawson's and Mr. Valdez' cases: Firstly, Mr. Valdez is a contractor and knows about variances and building permits; and, secondly, Mr. Valdez' case concerns privacy issues. Ms. Mohr concurred with Mr. Mercer's statements. It was moved by Mr. Brandes, and seconded by Mr. Butler, that Resolution No. 89-318 be adopted, approving the appeal and denying the variance from the Municipal Code to allow the retention of an existing deck structure/spa and shed which encroaches into the required rear yard setback located at 906 Crellin Road. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Butler, Mohr, Tarver, and Mayor Mercer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Item 6f 1989-90 Annual Assessment for Landscape Assessment District 1984-1 Mr Elliott presented his report (SR 89:313) regarding this matter. Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing open on the application. There being no testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing closed. -12-