01/21/1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

E. REPORT FROM THE PLANNING COMISSION: Commissioner Kaufman reported that the following actions were taken at the 1/14/87 Planning Commission Meeting: 1) Lands of Stark, 13431 Wildcrest, request for approval of conditional use permit for secondary dwelling unit above garage, approved; 2) Lands of Komo, 23225 Ravensbury Avenue, request for approval of variance to encroach into the westerly setback and into the northerly setback for purposes of constructing a garage and storage area, approved; 3) Lands of Fin- ney, 11876 Murietta Lane, accepted the decision of the Council to grant the appeal for a variance and site development permit for an ad- dition to an existing residence; and 4) continued to their next meet- ing, January 28, 1987, the public hearing to consider the requirement for an environmental impact report and tentative map for the Lands of Bellucci, 26220 Moody Road, for an eleven lot subdivision, with the stipulation that this public hearing be heard after the public hearing scheduled for that same date to consider certification of the final environmental impact report for the Adobe Creek Lodge and Country Club Conditional Use Permit application, 26220 Moody Road, 1, 750 mem- bership. F. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. LANDS OF BABAYAN, 12940 Atherton Court, appeal of Planning Commission' s decision to uphold the Site Development ( Committee' s decision (condition related to design, cost hr and location of wall) Mayor Pro Tem Tryon stepped down from consideration of this item. The Town Planner referred to her staff report dated 1/15/87 which out- lined the background information concerning the Babayan property at 12940 Atherton Court. In part the report noted that on 8/6/86 the City Council took actions requiring Mr. Babayan to pay a penalty fee and requesting the Site Development Committee to require appropriate mitigating measures related to the shifting of the Babayan residence. The Site Development Committee determined the mitigating measures should be a stucco wall and plantings. These decisions were appealed by the applicant to the Planning Commission. The Commission upheld the decisions and the applicant was now appealing at the Council level . John Hanna, 525 University Avenue, Palo Alto, applicant' s attorney, stated that he had hoped some sort of compromise could have been reached prior to the meeting. Failing that, however, he commented on two items which they found objectionable: the $3 ,500 penalty fee and the requirement of a 100' long, 6 'high stucco wall , ten feet from the property line. Mr. Hanna reported that, according to their records, the increase in the height was only 5" and the soils engineer had ad- vised them to move the house away from the steep slope on the proper- ty. Mr. Hanna further commented that his client had had permits on file and if there had been no violations he thought the penalty fees _3_