12/11/1967 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

S PLANNING COMMISSION TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS MINUTES OF A REGULAR MBSTING December 110 1967 Chairman W. F. Minckley called the meeting to order at 7:50 P. M, at the Town Hall, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California., The following members answered Roll Call: Presents Commissioners Bowler„ Dawson, Hibner, Lachenbruch, Perkins. and Chairman Minckley. Absent: Commissioner Sherlock. APpR�AL OF MINUTES: November 27., 1967, Omission: P. 1, Communications, Item No, 2, add "letter written by Commissioner Bowler". MOTION, SECONDED AND CARRIED: Commissioner Dawson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hiller, that the Minutes of November 27, 1967 be approved as amended, was carried unanimously by voice vote. 1. Memorandum dated November 29, 1967 from Commissioner Gordon E. Bowler to the Planning Commission on the subject of "Nates on the Relationships between Housing Density and Public Service Costs," Memo was referred to the Commis- sion for study, OLD BUSINESS: COUNCIL REFERRAL: 1, SHOOLERJ, JAMES N„ (V-294_67) - Request for reduction of setback require- ment for pool at 13470 Ca -ilio Lane, Commission reviewed the variance request in that Mr. Shoolery's original map submitted on November 13, 1967 was returned to him on the basis the map was not adequate. Mr. Shoolery then submitted a revised map at the Planning Commission meeting of November 27, 1967, which was approved by a 4 to 3 vote and forolarded to the Council on December 4th„ which was returned to the Planning Commission on the basis of new evidence being presented at that meeting. Commission was of the opinion that the entire problem lay in the improper mapping by all parties concerned, pFns the fact only one transparency had been made but that the same pros and cens of the Fenn driveway and the impinge- ment of Mr. Gustin's view had been discussed by the Commission. Commissioner Hibner stated the additional information received by the Council regarded the impingement of view, Chairman Minckley asked for comments from the Floor. Mr. David Maguire, attorney representing Messrs. Gustin and Fenn, who are opposing the variance. stated that the Fenn driveway was a point of condition on the original map but that the new argument a:n behalf of Mr. Gustin was that there had been certain disagreements in the past whether or not this pool site should be granted in view of an impinged view. Mr. Maguire further