CC MIN 1969 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4 2 but if rezoning effective for whole of area , he would have the optioryto withdraw his application e Motion carried . ( MINUTE ORDER ft 6Q -195 ) Appeal of C * W , Lebsack on behalf of Florence J . Johnson , 2077 Alameda de las Pulgas , from denial by the Planning Commission of an application for a variance from the fence height limitations provisions of Ordinance No . 1130 , presented for con - sideration . Staff report stated applicant requests permission to install a six -foot high chain link fence where the maximum allowable height is 36 inches and appeal sub - mitted because of this request having been denied by the Planning Commission City Attorney advised Council , so there would be no misunderstand ing , this item had arisen as a result of acquisition by M ty of a portion of applicant's property for widening purposes of Alameda de las Pulgas and her desire to install a Pence on her remaLnin : Property line . ue stressed point that although facts indicated a contact between City and applicant had been established for purpose of acquisition nerfoti_.ations , her application for a variance must stand on its own merits with regard to the existing Zoning Ordinance . C . Tel . Lebsack, Attorney representing applicant , Florence J . Johnson , concurred with City Attorney ' s s statements that this appeal stood on its own merits , but had been brought about by acquisition of a portion of her property required ear widening of Alameda de las Pul ;as . Mr . Lebsack summarized the basis of the appeal submitted by him in support of their application for a variance in that home was built in 1965 and set back from the Alameda to make room for future widenin , as plan lines then contemplated for widening to he accomplished from both sides of the Alameda a He stated since that time widening plans had been changed due to obstacles pr. esented by Town of Woodside incorporating and to the extent that present widening will be effected by acquisition on only City side of the Alameda and to a much greater extent than had been originally planned , as now totaling 7 , 000 square feet . Slide was shown of how house now to be affected with loss of this amount of property due to widening of Alameda and graphically explained how fencing proposed would tie in to fencing by City , not cause any traffic hazard , and would provide for the privacy and insulation from side- walk to be installed . He also related there had been a series of incidents relatinm to interlopers , and since Mrs . Johnson was a widow and living T<rith a widowed sister , fencing proposed would insulate them from om such incidents , since even existing protective landscaping, had to be removed . He felt granting of variance for fencing would not be out of character for the neighborhood , as had been illus - trated and due to the unusual circumstances , came Drell within the criteria. for ^'ranting a variance . After discussion , Councilman Rosselli moved to reverse the action of the Planning, Commission and that variance be ;ranted , seconded. by Councilman Weymouth . In reply to question of Council whether Planninm Comrn.=i. s : i.on was concerned with setting of nre2edent , Planning Director replied this 'would be a. part of concern for every variance request , but in this instance felt denial was result of finding al 13 '69