04/15/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1981 E. SPECIAL ORDERS: 1. Public Hearing: a) Appeal of Variance and Permit Co ssion denial for LANDS OF RAMIREZ, File VAR #10-80 It should be noted for the record that Councilmenbers McReynolds and Proft arrived at 7:50 p.m. during the public hearing for Lards of Ramirez. The Assistant city Planner reported that on January 14, 1981 the Variance and Permit Commission denied witlnut prejudice a variance request for a fourteen foot encroaclment into the rear yard setback for a swimming pool. The reasons for denial were based on lack of conformance to Conditions 1, 2 and 3 of the six Variance requirements. On February 11, 1981 the Variance and Permit Commission denied without preju3ice a variance request for an eight foot encroachnent into the rear yard setback for a swimming pool. The reasons for denial were based on lack of conformance to Conditions 1, 2 and 3 of the Variance requirements and to Condition 15 of the Tentative Map. Alan Shedroff, Admiral Pools, addressed the Council on behalf of Dr. and Mrs. Ramirez and explained their reasons for an eight foot encroachment. He noted that there was an area where the pool could be built witlnut the need for a variance; however, that location would allow for no future solar development. Furthermore, the proposed location was a safer one in that it was closer to the louse and allowed for better supervision of the children and also it was a visually more attractive location in that the pool as proposed could not be seen from Arastradero. Mr. Shedroff further stated that the creek and easements were not a part of this variance (reference to Condition 15 of the Tentative Map). Councilman Perkins noted that now this area of land had been developed one could see that the pool, as proposed, would not impinge on any of the other properties. He futher stated that the lot was highly constrained and much of the property was not usable. Although the property was next to a heavily traffice3 street, the landscaping was mature enough to preclude any adverse visual impact. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Perkins, seconded by Hillestad and passed unanimously to approve the variance for LANDS OF RAMIREZ, File VAR #10-80. Councilmembess stated for the record that the six requirements for a variance had been met as a result of the following factors: topography, safety, solar development, visual impact and proximity to Palo Alto. Councilmenbers further noted for the record that this variance was approved because of the specific, cumulative effect of all of these factors; there was no single factor which in and of itself warranted the granting of a variance. ha ••�s•.. � u � imp i> -2-