Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/23/1979VARIANCE AND PERMIT COMMISSION 4W Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, May 23, 1979 Reel 78, Side II, Tr. 2, 537 to 900 Chairman vanTamelen called the meeting of the Variance and Permit Commission to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Town Hall. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Rydell, Dochnahl and vanTamelen Absent: None Also Present: City Engineer/Planner John Carlson, Secretary Ethel Hopkins APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman vanTamelen declared the Minutes of April 25 approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. LANDS OF WARREN, File #VAR. 7059-79, 14677 Saltamontes Way, Request for Variance in Setback to Construct a Retaining Wall �Ar Mr. Carlson discussed the above request as reviewed in his May 23rd staff report, adding that after a visit to the site it was his recommendation that a single retaining wall be built to maintain the slope on the property. Thereafter the hearing was opened to the public discussion. Bill Warren,Applicant, noted that the problems existed when they purchased the property and answered questions the Commissioners had concerning the type of wall that would be constructed and the height of it. The public hearing was closed, and Commissioners determined the following responses for the conditions of granting a variance: 1. Steepness on the property was a factor which contributed to the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances on the property which necessitated the granting of a variance. 2• Practical difficulties would result if the variance were not granted. 3. It was agreed that the strict application of the provisions of Chapter 9 would deprive the Warren family of a back yard, and recreational facilities should be available to the residents of the Town. 4. No one will be able to see the retaining wall, and no detriment to the public welfare will result. 5. The variance would not authorize a use or activity forbidden by the zoning of the parcel. rr 6. It was agreed that the granting of the variance would be in harmony with the General Plan. 4W VARIANCE AND PERMIT COMMISSION MINUTES - May 23, 1979 Page two PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) 1. LANDS OF WARREN, File #VAR. 7059-79: (continued) MOTION SECONDED AND UNANIMOUSLY PASSED: It was moved by Commissioner Dochnahl and seconded by Commissioner Rydell that a variance to allow a fifteen foot (15') encroachment into the setback for a retaining wall be granted, subject to the conditions as noted in the May 23 staff report. 2. LANDS OF BINDER, File #VAR. 7055-78, Catherine Court, John Riley, Engineer, equest for aFance in SetDaCK to Construct a Tennis Court Mr. Carlson discussed the above request as detailed in his staff report for the May 23rd meeting, suggesting that an alternative to the request for variance might be to move the tennis court back toward the house. However, problems could arise with getting the tennis court too close to the house. He recommended that the engineer for the applicant speak on the matter. Thereafter the hearing was opened to the public discussion. John W. Rile 66 Third Street, Los Altos, En ineer for the A licant, discussed the proposa to move t e tennis court closer to the ouse. The court would rest at the overhang of the house but a four foot variance would still be required. The proposal before the Commission would allow a desirable clearance between the structure and the court. Other points covered were that the Binders had been under the impression when they bought the house that a tennis court could be accommodated on the lot, that the application had been made at the close of escrow, and that be- cause of the location of the property along a busy road at the back, no one would be affected by the reduction in setback. Dr. Ste hen Binder, 26050 Catherine Court, stated that everyone in his vicinity was in favor of t e variance request, t at most houses in the area would have tennis courts, and read the list of his justifications for the six points for the granting of the variance. He added that he was under the impression that a tennis court would fit on the lot when he bought the already constructed home. He added that no one would be affected by the granting of the variance request. Commissioner discussion with the application centered on the fact that Dr. Binder had consulted with the Town before the close of escrow on the property and had been told that the Town does not grant variances easily, yet he had gone ahead and purchased the property; and that no matter what plot design was attempted a variance of some sort would be required. Victor Riches, 26200 Catherine Court, spoke for the recommendation of approval of t e variance request and noted that with the retaining wall and lowered area of the yard, that the tennis court fence would at the same height as the fence along the pathway area. This would also act to buffer the sound from the court. Garry Leight, 14200 Sholes Court, recommended approval of the variance request. Alex Reevas, Tennis Pro, San Jose, recommended approval of the variance request. The public hearing was closed, and discussion returned to the Commissioners who began a review of the six conditions for the granting of the variance. Findings were: VARIANCE AND PERMIT COMMISSION - May 23, 1979 Page three 4w PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) 2. LANDS OF BINDER, File #VAR. 7055-78: (continued) I. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that necessitate the granting of a variance: It was agreed that the lot was an odd shaped piece of property and that a tennis court and a house of the size as existed on the Binder lot could not be accommodated on the lot without a variance. It was noted, however, that the lot was marketed as a tennis court lot, and that tennis courts were a prevalent feature on lots surrounding the Binder residence. It was noted also that the Town should not have to correct the errors made by the builder in the placement of the house on the property. 2. It was agreed that practical difficulties would result without the granting of the variance. It was also noted that the court would be lowered and screened from the road. 3. The strict application of the regulations of the chapter, it was found, would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by others in the area, since sur- rounding properties would have tennis courts. 4. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare. 5. The granting of the variance would not authorize a use or activity not other- wise authorized by the zoning governing the property. 4 6. It was noted that the General Plan calls for a rural environment. Commissioners discussed the disposition of the request. Commissioner Dochnahl stated the could agree with all the conditions for the granting of the variance except the first one. Commissioner Rydell noted that the Binder request was another difficult variance request, but that no negative impact would result for the community. Commissioner vanTamelen felt that there were no exceptional or extraordinary circum- stances and the variance should not be granted. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: It was moved by Commissioner Dochnahl and seconded by Commissioner vanTamelen that the request for variance be recommended for denial on the basis of the first requirement for a variance and the fact that it is not in harmony with the intent and purpose of the General Plan. AYES: Commissioner Dochnahl and vanTamelen NOES: Commissioner Rydell ABSTAIN: None Chairman vanTamelen informed Dr. Binder that his request could be reviewed in a public hearing before the full Planning Commission at the meeting of June 13. ADJOURNMENT: There being no new or old business, the meeting of the Variance and Permit Commission was adjourned by Chairman vanTamelen at 7:31 p.m. �ar Respectfully submitted, Ethel Hopkins Secretary