02/19/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Hubbard reminded all present that the focus of this discussion was the definition of `, nonconforming structures, not any individual project. The Planning Director noted that there was an increase in nonconformity which resulted in a situation more appropriately addressed by the variance procedure. Bob Logan, applicant's attorney, commented that his clients' home burned down in 1995. The Lamberts now were planning to rebuild and the question had been raised about'grandfathered nonconformities' and the phrase'increase in the nonconformities'. He and his clients concurred that any changes to floor area, development area, setbacks, design, location and footprint would be allowed as long as they did not result in an increase in the nonconformities of the lot. The issue not resolved was that of height. The Lamberts were planning a house that was in the original location but larger than the original house. They concurred that the resulting setback encroachment would require a variance. The Lamberts believed however that the Town's Code allowed the house to be rebuilt to the pre-existing nonconforming height even if the excess height was in a different location than for the original structure. Mr. Logan referred to the Town's Code and believed that any reasonable reading of it would allow his clients to build their proposed house. Elaine Lambert, applicant, commented that the proposed new home was in the same location as the original home as there really was no choice on this steep lot. It was a slightly larger home, however, to allow for the landslide problems on the lot. They had worked for some time now reviewing the Codes and working on a house design that would conform to the Codes. They were shocked to find they did not comply with the nonconformities issue and had never been told they would need a variance for the height request. Dave Anderson, 24696 Olive Tree Court; Richard Winkelman, 24692 Olive Tree; Ellen Bush, 24603 Olive Tree Lane; and Carol Curran, Los Altos, each addressed the Council in support of the Lambert's project. They all believed the proposed new home would fit in much better in the neighborhood than the original house. The Planning Director stated that in June of 1995 he had discussed with the Lamberts the possibility of shifting the house away from the landslide area. This also included the possibility of going into the setback to get away from the unstable area. However, the project that was proposed was totally different. The Planning Director further stated that the Lamberts were never told they met the nonconforming issue. Johnson believed the appropriate course was to apply for a variance and because of the unique features of the lot he believed it would have a good chance for a favorable review. Casey stated she thought the Lamberts' request should be allowed according to the Town's Codes. They were building in substantially the same location; the nonconformities were not being increased; and the Lamberts' project would have to go Vr+ February 19, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting