Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6, 1979 <br />E. SPECIAL ORDERS: (Continued) <br />` 4. a) LANDS OF OLIVER (Continued) <br />After a complete review of the six conditions required by ordinance, the City Attorney <br />advised that each variance be dealt with on its own merits and that Council determine <br />whether the evidence presented addressed these conditions adequately. Mayor McReynolds <br />then made the following statement: 'Because of the topography of the Town of Los Altos <br />Hills and because of the shape of the lots; those two items don't necessarily present <br />a unique, exceptional or extraordinary circumstance. Irregularity is more of a standard <br />in the Town than it is a unique situation. Because a lot is pie shaped or on a hill does <br />not, to me, present an extraordinary circumstance.' For the record, it was noted that <br />this statement as well as the complete consideration of all the evidence presented <br />applied directly to the variance request before the Council. <br />MOTION SECONDED AND. CARRIED: Moved by Councilman Perkins, seconded by Councilman Proft <br />and passed by the following roll call vote to uphold the Planning Commission denial of <br />the LANDS OF OLIVER, File VAR #7047-77, due to lack of evidence presented in justifica- <br />tion of Item #l.of Title 9, Article 5 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. <br />AYES: Mayor McReynolds, Councilmembers Perkins and Proft. <br />NOES: Councilman Nystrom. <br />ABSENT: Councilwoman Hillestad. <br />b) Appeal of Planning Commission Denial, LANDS OF CHU, File VAR #7058-79. <br />Prior to the Public Hearing, Mayor McReynolds urged the applicant and all who wished <br />to speak to particularly address Item 1 of the six conditions as it had :been the basis <br />for Planning Commission recommendation for denial. <br />Dr. Chu, Applicant, cited the rectangular shape of his property as precluding tennis <br />court placement within setback areas, the minimum amount of grading proposed and the <br />general agreement of all his neighbors. Following Council questions, he also stressed <br />the need for more liberal interpretations of Code requirements and the poor placement <br />of his house (speculative at the time it was built) to allow for the variance request. <br />Mr. Micheletti, Palo Hills Drive, spoke for the tennis court as an asset to the neighbor- <br />hood. <br />Dr. Wong, Normandy Lane, told of the processes he went through in obtaining his variance <br />years ago, the enhancement that had resulted and the current popularity of tennis which <br />results in an activity that benefits the whole neighborhood. <br />Mr. Hough, Los Altos, spoke for granting the variance. <br />Dr. Kuramoto, Palo Hills Drive, expressed dissatisfaction with the lengthy process and <br />denials when full neighborhood support was for granting of the variance. <br />Mr. Rossen, Palo Hills Drive, offered his support for granting of the variance. <br />Dr. Wong, Normandy Lane, reiterated his feelings and urged the Council to vote against <br />the Planning Commission denial. <br />During the course of the above discussion, Mayor McReynolds offered the following: <br />I 'When you disagree with somebody, you need to go back and check your assumptions. <br />� <br />W <br />One of the assumptions being made is that the purpose of the ordinance was to keep <br />homes from being built against the property lines. That is only a singular part of <br />-5- <br />