Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/25/1979VARIANCE AND PERMIT COMMISSION `. Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, April 25, 1979 Reel 77, Side 2, Tr. 2, 260 to 574 The meeting of the Variance and Permit Commission was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Town Hall by. Chairman vanTamelen. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Rydell, Dochnahl and vanTamelen Absent: None Also Present: City Engineer/Planner John Carlson, Secretary Ethel Hopkins APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of April 11 were corrected as follows: On page two, next to the last paragraph, delete "requested that he be able to go to" and add instead ' was informed that he could go before...". Thereafter, the Minutes of April 11 were approved as amended on the motion of Commissioner Dochnahl, seconded by Commissioner Rydell. Voting for the motion were Commissioners Dochnahl and Rydell. Commissioner vanTamelen ( abstained. PARI TC NFARTNGCu 1. LANDS OF JAISWAL, File #VAR. 7057-79, 13571 Hill Way, Request for Recommendation of Approval for Variance in Setback to Construct a Garage Mr. Carlson reviewed the background of the above request as detailed in his April 25 staff report. He noted, however, that the applicant had moved the existing garage closer to the residence and now needed less of a variance with setback to construct a new garage. As there was no further discussion among Commissioners, the hearing was opened to the public discussion. Balgobind Jaiswal, Applicant, responded to questions on the windows affected by the proposed new construction. Patrick J Ryan Contractor for the Applicant 1200 Dale Avenue Mountain View, responded to some of the questions asked of P1r. Jaiswal. He noted that the applicant had obtained the sianature of the only neighbor who would be affected by the variance, discussed the applicant's responses to the justification for granting the variance, and noted that the encroachment for variance would be fourteen feet rather than seventeen feet. The public hearing was closed and discussion returned to the Commission. The following responses were given as the Commission's response to the granting of L the variance: �r 1. The lot is substandard, and the house and garage were in existence when the Town was incorporated. The house itself is an unsatisfactory residence except for a family without children if left as it is. As VARIANCE AND PERMIT COMMISSION MINUTES - April 25, 1979 Page two PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) 1. LANDS OF JAISWAL, File #VAR. 7057-79: (continued) the existing garage, which barely allows enough room for one car, will be converted into more living space for the applicant and his family, it was concluded that exceptional and extraordinary circum- stances do exist on this property that would justify the granting of the variance request. 2. The lack of safe and proper parking facilities is a hardship on the applicant. 3. It has been demonstrated that the strict application of the provisions of the Planning and Zoning Chapter of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code would deprive this property of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. 4. The fact that the applicant has the signature of the property owner who would be affected by the granting of the variance proves that no detriment or injury would occur to adjacent property owners should this variance be granted. 5. Standard parking is an activity authorized by the Town. 6. It has been demonstrated at the public hearing that the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Planning and Zoning Chapter of the Municipal Code and with the Town's General Plan. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Dochnahl and seconded by Commissioner Rydell that the variance request for the Lands of Jaiswal, File #VAR. 7057-79, to permit a fourteen foot (14') encroachment into the setback area, be recommended for approval. 2. LANDS OF CHU, File #VAR. 7058-79, 26701 Palo Hills Drive, Request for ecommendaR of pproval of Variance for Pool and Tennis Court Mr. Carlson discussed the request as detailed in his staff report of April 25, pointing out the difficulty of the decision in this instance. There were many tennis courts in the area, and there is no neighbor objection to the granting of the variance request. There followed a short discussion among Commissioners on changes requested in the map and whether appropriate contours should be shown. The hearing was opened to the public discussion. Dr. Chu, Applicant, discussed his original idea of diminishing the size of the tennis court but noted that he was advised against having an under -sized tennis court. He then reviewed his responses to the six conditions for variance. To Commissioner vanTamelen's suggestion of placing the swimming pool on the lower area of the lot, he noted that that was a bedroom area and it would not be a convenient location for the pool. Commissioner vanTamelen cited the December 11, 1972 policy statement on tennis courts, noted the large intrusion required into the setback area, and questioned whether there was enough room on the lot for a tennis court. VARIANCE AND PERMIT COMMISSION MINUTES - April 25, 1979 ( Page three i✓ PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) 2. LANDS OF CHU, File #VAR. 7058-79: (continued) It was noted for the record that Mr. and Mrs. Rossen, 26763 Palo Hills Drive, had written in support of the variance request. Commissioner Rydell requested that the applicant consider moving the swimming pool closer to his residence and that the application for variance for pool and tennis court be considered as separate items. Commissioner Dochnahl agreed with the pro- posal and noted that the lot originally had been poorly planned and was encumbered with a forty-two foot storm drainage easement. Mr. Chu agreed that the pool could be moved but expressed concern for endangering the roots of three eucalyptus trees. Mel Micheletti, 26724 Palo Hills Drive, spoke for the granting of the variance request. Rita Kull, 26799 Palo Hills Drive, spoke for the granting of the variance request. The public hearing was closed, and discussion returned to the Variance and Permit Commissioners. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Rydell and seconded by Commissioner Dochnahl that the variance for the pool be recommended law for denial because it does not meet item two of the conditions for a variance. A pool can be constructed within the setback limits of the property. Consideration of the conditions for granting of a variance for the tennis court rendered the following justifications for the six reasons for granting of the variance: It was pointed out that there was no other way to fit a tennis court on the lot without a variance, that the lot was encumbered with a storm drainage easement which cut down the usable acreage, and that Mr. Chu's letter outlined sufficiently the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances existing on the site. Commissioner vanTamelen, however, disagreed with the finding, stating that other lots in the area of the same size were also similarly en- cumbered. 2. There was some question among Commissioners whether the lack of a tennis court could be considered a hardship. 3. All Commissioners agreed that the strict application of the Municipal Code would deprive the owner of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the area. 4. It was agreed that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare since the court would be well hidden from view LW and has a great deal of support in the neighborhood. 5. It was agreed that there were other tennis courts in the area, and the granting of this variance would not authorize an activity expressly for- bidden by Town ordinances. VARIANCE AND PERMIT COMMISSION MINUTES - April 25, 1979 Page four rr PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) 2. LANDS OF CHU, File #VAR. 7058-79: (continued) 6. It was agreed amono Commissioners that the granting of the variance would be in harmony with the intent of Town ordinances and the General Plan. Commissioner vanTamelen again cited Resolution No. 694 with that December 11, 1972 memo attached, specifically paragraph three on page three, as a factor in determining that this variance should not be granted because of the amount of intrusion into the setback area being requested. Commissioner Rydell, however, noted that the resolution on tennis courts had been passed some years ago, that the granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the community, and that the planning and landscaping of the court were well provided for by the applicant's plans and staff conditions. MOTION SECONDED AND DEFEATED: It was moved by Commissioner Rydell and seconded by Commissioner Dochnahl that the variance request for a tennis court for the Lands of Chu, File #VAR. 7058-79, be recommended for approval with conditions, excluding Conditions 3(c) and 3(d) as they apply to the swimming pool variance. AYES: Commissioner Rydell NOES: Commissioners Dochnahl and vanTamelen ABSTAIN: None The applicant was informed by the Commission that he could take his request to the full Planning Commission, or he could appeal the recommendation to the City Council. ADJOURNMENT: There being no new or old business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 7:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ethel Hopkins Secretary