10/16/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Bob Owen, applicant's representative, stated that they had redesigned the house 4110, several times and it was a hardship on his clients if this project was delayed. He asked Council for consideration of their request to proceed with this project. Council requested review of the Planning Commission's approval of a request for a site development permit for a new residence, tennis court and swimming pool for Lands of Ben-Artzi, 27800 Via Feliz at a public hearing on November 6, 1991. 5. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Ruth Buneman, 12655 LaCresta, addressed the Council on behalf of the Palo Alto Chapter of the Red Cross and presented a pin to Mayor Hubbard in recognition of his long-standing contributions to the Red Cross. Mayor Hubbard, on behalf of the community, thanked the Red Cross for all of their help. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6.1 Request for Certification of a Mitigated Negative Environmental Declaration, Approval of a Conditional Exception and Approval of a Tentative Map for a Two-Lot Subdivision, Lands of Merrill, 25355 La Lorna Drive The Director of Public Works referred to his staff report dated 10/16/91 which W' included the recommendations from the Planning Commission that Council certify the mitigated negative declaration, approve the conditional exception and approve a two-lot subdivision for Lands of Merrill. Staff recommended a conditional development permit for regulating development on Lot A which staff believed was a substantially constrained lot. The Director of Public Works also distributed revised wording for condition #6 and a new condition #7 which addressed specific findings the Planning Commission needed to make before approving any permit for the lot and which related to what conditions may be imposed on the lot in order to protect the public health, safety, general welfare and to secure the objectives set forth in the findings. Kieth Merrill, applicant, requested that Council approve his subdivision without the restrictive language of the amended conditions #6 and #7 as provided by the Director of Public Works. Mr. Merrill did not think it was necessary to make the buyer of the lot aware of what could be done on the lot in this manner. There were other methods such as the site development process. In addition California Law required full disclosure on the sale of the land and he lived next door and would be easy to find if there was a problem. He thought the value of the land and the opportunity to develop were curtailed by the revised condition #6. Mr. October 16, 1991 4