Laserfiche WebLink
VARIANCE AND PERMIT COMMISSION <br />`. Town of Los Altos Hills <br />26379 Fremont Road <br />Los Altos Hills, California <br />MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING <br />Wednesday, April 25, 1979 <br />Reel 77, Side 2, Tr. 2, 260 to 574 <br />The meeting of the Variance and Permit Commission was called to order at 6:35 p.m. <br />in the Council Chambers of Town Hall by. Chairman vanTamelen. <br />ROLL CALL: <br />Present: Commissioners Rydell, Dochnahl and vanTamelen <br />Absent: None <br />Also Present: City Engineer/Planner John Carlson, Secretary Ethel Hopkins <br />APPROVAL OF MINUTES: <br />The Minutes of April 11 were corrected as follows: On page two, next to the last <br />paragraph, delete "requested that he be able to go to" and add instead ' was informed <br />that he could go before...". Thereafter, the Minutes of April 11 were approved as <br />amended on the motion of Commissioner Dochnahl, seconded by Commissioner Rydell. <br />Voting for the motion were Commissioners Dochnahl and Rydell. Commissioner vanTamelen <br />( abstained. <br />PARI TC NFARTNGCu <br />1. LANDS OF JAISWAL, File #VAR. 7057-79, 13571 Hill Way, Request for Recommendation <br />of Approval for Variance in Setback to Construct a Garage <br />Mr. Carlson reviewed the background of the above request as detailed in his April 25 <br />staff report. He noted, however, that the applicant had moved the existing garage <br />closer to the residence and now needed less of a variance with setback to construct <br />a new garage. As there was no further discussion among Commissioners, the hearing <br />was opened to the public discussion. <br />Balgobind Jaiswal, Applicant, responded to questions on the windows affected by the <br />proposed new construction. <br />Patrick J Ryan Contractor for the Applicant 1200 Dale Avenue Mountain View, <br />responded to some of the questions asked of P1r. Jaiswal. He noted that the applicant <br />had obtained the sianature of the only neighbor who would be affected by the variance, <br />discussed the applicant's responses to the justification for granting the variance, <br />and noted that the encroachment for variance would be fourteen feet rather than <br />seventeen feet. <br />The public hearing was closed and discussion returned to the Commission. The <br />following responses were given as the Commission's response to the granting of <br />L the variance: <br />�r 1. The lot is substandard, and the house and garage were in existence <br />when the Town was incorporated. The house itself is an unsatisfactory <br />residence except for a family without children if left as it is. As <br />