My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 7.1
LOSALTOSHILLS
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2008
>
April 3, 2008
>
Item 7.1
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/20/2016 9:05:46 AM
Creation date
12/1/2014 1:37:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Staff Report
Date
2008-04-03
Item Number
Item 7.1
Description
March 6, 2008 Draft Meeting Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT <br />Much 6, 2008 <br />Page 3 <br />had concerns with the safety issue of drivers on Purissima Road viewing the structure. He asked <br />the Planning Commission to deny the permit. <br />Commissioner Collins suggested that viewing the landscape screening plans might solve some of <br />Mr. Kirkpatrick's site concerns from his property. <br />Mr. Kirkpatrick replied that the trees needed to be much higher than the ones specified to <br />obscure the view of the metal roof. <br />Commissioner Collins asked Mr. Kirkpatrick if he still had concerns about the location of the <br />house. <br />Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that the house should move farther down. He also felt the fence <br />surrounding the tennis court would affect Palaniappan Jambulingam's (another adjacent <br />neighbor) view. <br />Discussion ensued regarding the lighting on the back of the new residence and the chance for <br />future solar panel installation. <br />Paul Hickman, Purissima Road, said the builders had been very cooperative in discussing issues <br />with the neighbors. As far as the location of the main house, if the area to the south were made <br />more flexible, sufficient space would be available to relocate the house without disrupting the <br />applicant's plans. He felt it would be better for him and the Kirkpatrick's to have the house <br />moved farther to the south. <br />Chairman Carey said in terms of what the applicant is trying to accomplish on the site with the <br />entryway, etc., there are functional and overall goals that would be lost with relocation of the <br />house. <br />CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING <br />Dipesh Gupta, Applicant, stated that per Mr. Kirkpatrick's concern, the lights on the residence <br />would be frosted and etched. Any lights that the Planning Commission suggested will be <br />installed. Regarding Mr. Hickman's request to relocate the house, moving the house 15 to 20 <br />feet would require redesign. Moving the house farther, 6010 80 feet, would create a huge impact <br />of significant magnitude for other neighbors. <br />Chairman Carey asked what area of the roof is planned to be metal. <br />Mr. Gupta explained that the flat portion of the roof will be metal. The roof material will not be <br />reflective. <br />Commissioner Harpoothan asked if copper would be the metal that would be used for the roofing <br />material. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.