Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/22/1980VARIANCE AND PERMIT COMMISSION Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, October 22, 1980 Reel 89, Side I, Tract II, 110 - 560 The meeting of the Variance and Permit Commission was called to order by Chairman Carico at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Carico, Lachenbruch, vanTamelen Absent: None Also Present: City Engineer/Planner John A. Carlson, Assistant Planner Pat Webb, Secretary Leslie Penfold APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of September 10, 1980 Variance and Permit Commission were approved as submitted at the September 24, 1980 Planning Commission meeting. {, PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1) Lands of Zenp, File #VAR 9-80, 13631 Paseo Del Roble, Paul Nowack & Associates, Engineer, Request for Recommendation of Approval for a Variance of an encroach- ment fifteen feet (15') into the rear yard setback line for a swimming pool. I Is, Webb discussed the above request, stating that the six reasons providing just- ification for the need for the Variance were listed on her staff report dated Oct- ober 3, 1980. Staff recommended approval of the swimming pool, also stating that the property is adjacent to another Municipality with a different Zoning, Ordinance, (the setback requirements in Palo Alto indicate that a swimming pool can be Placed within three feet (3') of the property line). She further noted that there had been no written or verbal opposition from adjacent neighbors. Commissioners discussed the Variance briefly and then opened the hearing for public discussion. Mr. Jon Lynch, Paul Nowack & Associates, 127 Second Street, Los Altos, discussed the applicant's desire to place the swimming pool in this location due to the minimal amount of grading that would occur and this location would be less obtrusive to the adjacent neighbors. Commissioners discusssed the possibility of placing the pool outside the setback line. Mr. Carlson indicated that the applicant did originally apply for Site Devel- opment with the pool situated outside the setback line and there was considerably ♦ more grading necessary, at that time staff recommended the pool be placed elsewhere `. on the property. Mr. Zepp, 13631 Paseo Del Roble, spoke in favor of the pool placement as shown, in- dicating that it would be less obtrusive to his neighbors. VARIANCE AND PERMIT COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 1980 PAGE TWO Commissioners found the findings of fact as amended in staff report dated October 3, 1980, satisfied the six conditions for a variance in Section 9-5.1107 of the Municipal Code. Conditions #2 and 4 of the October 3, 1980 staff report were amend- Aw ed as follows: 2. The literal enforcement of the Code would result in practical difficulties for the applicant, such as: removal of portions of the existing deck; placement of the pool very close to the existing house and; considerably more excavation and construction of a retaining wall. 4. The granting of this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, in that it will allow siting of the pool in a location that will be unobtrusive to the neighbors on the southeast side of the subject property. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner vanTamelen and seconded by Commissioner Lachenbruch to recommend approval of the Variance for the Lands of Zepp, File IIVAR 9-80. 2) Lands of Sokoloff, File IIVAR 11-80, 12390 Barley Hill Road, Henry Sumaraga, Land- scape Architect, Request for Recommendation of Approval for a Variance for a wind- screen above six feet (6') in height and a thirty foot (30') maximum encroachment into the rear vard setback line. Ms. Webb referred to her staff report dated October 16, 1980 and presented a brief background of the Property and the requested windscreen. The placement of the wind- screen as shown on the Plans dated "Received October 15, 1980" is obtrusive to ad- jacent neighbors on the northeastern side of the nronerty. Based on information ob- tained on wind direction, staff felt the windscreen was only needed for the northern portion of the Property, and that there was no justification for the northeastern location. Staff did not feel this variance met the six requirements for justification of a variance and recommended denial. The meeting was opened for public discussion. Mr. Mark Burton, 5476 Taft Drive, San Jose, Meteorologist, discussed his letter dated October 13, 1980 giving justification of the need for a windscreen. Mr. Burton made himself available to the Commissioners for anv questions regarding wind Patterns and wind shelters. Dr. Norman Sokoloff, 12390 Barley Hill Road, spoke in favor of the variance for the windscreen. He felt they were justified in asking for this variance, because of the great amount of wind on their nronerty. He referred to his letters dated "Received September 24, 1980 and October 15, 1980", and gave an explanation of the design and planting of the windscreen. Mrs. Sokoloff, 12390 Barley Hill Road, assured the Commissioners that the plants selected would be large enough for screening and would be carefully tended to insure proper growth and development. Commissioners discussed the Possibility of constructing a six foot (6') arbor or Planting of trees without the use of an arbor, both would not require a variance. Mr. Alan Stewart, 12165 Hillton Drive, spoke against the requested variance, and referenced his report entitled "Opposition to application for Variance" dated "Received October 15, 1980". He also presented photographs of the Sokoloff Property (showing the height of the posts needed for the requested windscreen). The Public hearing was closed. VAP.IWE AND PERMIT COPA+ISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 1980 PACE THREE Commissioners discussed the requested variance, with the facts presented for this application, they did not find the request met the six findings of fact ` for a variance in Section 9-5.1107 of the Municipal Code. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Lachenbruch and seconded by Commissioner vanTamelen to deny the variance request for the Lands of Sokoloff, File #VAR 11-80, for the following reasons: 1) Condition #1 of the variance requirements is not met, 2) a planted screen can be devised that would not require a variance and would not have an artificial structure within the build- ing setback. Dr. and Mrs. Sokoloff were advised that they could make an appeal to the City Council in writing within ten (10) days of this meeting. There being no further new or old business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Leslie Tenfold Engineering/Planning Secretary