01/14/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

building process in Town twice. She commented that they had wanted a dual driveway in • one of their applications but was told they could not have one by the Planning Commission even though they were allowed to according to the Town's regulations. She also stated that they were unaware of the appeal process. Ms. Wiler inquired if residents had input on Town codes,policies,paint regulations, etc. Gail Sullivan, Elena Road, stated that what they wanted was uniformity in decision-making, reduction of subjectivity and conformance with the design guidelines. Cary Hill, LaPaloma, stated that there were 38 homes in his neighborhood. He believed that increasing the notification to more than 500'.would be a hardship on an applicant. He also thought the process was a slow and painful one and there was an uneven application of the rules by the Planning Commission. The process needed to be speeded up and the subjectivity removed. Two issues which Mr. Hill believed exemplified the subjectivity issue were the unwritten La Paloma rule of not allowing two-story homes in the La Paloma area of Town and the height of chimneys. Colette Penne, 27080 Fremont Road, commented that it could be very expensive for applicants if the Council held the public hearing on a project and at that meeting and at that late date in the process made changes to the project. She also commented that this process would mean a lot more work for the Council. She recommended making the codes very straightforward and removing any Planning Commissioners who were arbitrary. Rick Ellinger, 28520 Matadero Creek Lane, commented that when he was on the Planning Commission he had seen approximately 700 agenda items, 400 of which involved visits to the sites. Of these most were in full compliance with the Town's regulations. He recommended establishing a checklist of basic requirements. If an applicant met these regulations, staff could issue a permit. This would fast track the easy • projects. Mr. Ellinger also noted that he had built in the Town. In his opinion it was important to establish the strategy then look at the organization. He also commented that there should be reasonable management and oversight but if the Council was overriding the Planning Commission decisions,the Commission would not like it. Taylor Vanderlip, 13851 Fremont Pines Lane, referred to her letter in which she indicated that the problem appeared to be that the ordinances were not clear thus resulting in wide ranges of interpretations. She supported establishing a subcommittee to review the issues and " report back to the Council on specific issues and problems. Mike Scott, 27856 and 27860 Black Mountain Road, asked what the rights of those building in Town were and suggested that a list be made available of what rights the homeowners had as well as what rights the Town had. He also believed the process should be parallel not serial. There should be a clear list of requirements at the beginning of the process so there were no surprise requests along the way for additional information, etc. Josh Korman, Altadena Drive, believed that the prevailing preference of many as shown in the design guidelines was for one story,brown,ranch-style homes and not everyone wanted this. Jitze Couperus, 13680 Page Mill Road,noted that there were two conflicting opinions being discussed: a simple checklist versus a public hearing. He believed the story poles were being put up too late. By this time in a project a lot of money had been spent. He suggested doing a general design and then putting up story poles to save money. Bill Maston, architect, commented on his experiences of working on applications in the Town. He believed continuity was important. He also supported the pre-application meetings with staff and commented that one had reasonable assurance from working through an application with staff who knew the regulations that approval would be granted by the Planning Commission. He further supported the impartial analysis of the • January 14, 1999 Special City Council Meeting 3