My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7.1
LOSALTOSHILLS
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2004
>
April 8, 2004
>
7.1
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/15/2014 4:00:38 PM
Creation date
10/15/2014 4:00:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Staff Report
Date
2004-04-08
Item Number
7.1
Description
Draft Meeting Minutes March 11, 2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
f <br /> Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT <br /> March 11, 2004 <br /> Page 4 <br /> normally allowed. Also, part of the Mehta's driveway is on the Chan's property. He reviewed <br /> the site from the Chan's property, taking photos from the upstairs master bedroom and from the <br /> upstairs guest bedroom. Looking from the Chan's master bedroom, which has floor to ceiling <br /> windows, the Chan's are very exposed. He agreed with having three or four extra trees on either <br /> the Mehta's or Chan's property for critical screening, at least 24" box. Regarding the permit <br /> modification regarding the windows, he would do nothing. <br /> Commissioner Kerns discussed several issues: (1) Windows on the northeast side-no change. <br /> There are architectural features which will help with style. (2) The east side windows-larger <br /> windows would be acceptable with additional landscape screening. (3) Skylights-no problem <br /> with a solar tube although after viewing the area, the applicant could put in a large skylight <br /> facing towards the back of the house which would provide more light into the stairwell than the <br /> solar tube. He felt there were solutions to the dark stairway leading to the second story. He was <br /> concerned with condition #3 (4/17/03) asking how they allowed him to get to building plan <br /> check without complying with this condition, asking if it was true that the asphalt has not been <br /> removed. It was clarified that staff knew of the condition as the applicant requested to wait on <br /> the removal in case they were asked to install larger trees than required at the time the house was <br /> to be finaled. Commissioner Kerns stated a concern with condition #1 (4/17/03) "all windows <br /> located on the second story to provide privacy". He would like the applicants to be able to <br /> increase the windows on the east side with the additional planting in appropriate places for <br /> screening. He did have a problem specifying a box size without a height and width information. <br /> Commissioner Vitu agreed with previous comments from Commissioner Kerns. She felt the <br /> windows should only be limited on the northeastern side of the property. She would not restrict <br /> the southeast side of the property. Regarding the landscape plan, additional landscaping is <br /> needed. The setback is relatively small there and screening is appropriate on the Chan's property <br /> as well as on the Mehta's property. She liked Commissioner Kerns' solution concerning the <br /> skylight although she does not have a problem with the solar tube. <br /> Chairman Clow felt Mr. Chan did need some landscaping and felt it was a generous offer to <br /> place some of the landscape screening on his property with a deposit to draw against. The <br /> Planning Director clarified that they would not be allowed to condition the project for off-site <br /> improvements. The plan could be approved as is and the neighbors could mutually come to <br /> some agreement where Mr. Mehta installs landscaping on the Mr. Chan's property (private <br /> agreement). Chairman Clow continued stating he supports the landscaping as shown on the plan <br /> with the three trees filling in the gap. He would make a recommendation to the City Council to <br /> not allow changes to the windows. Regarding a skylight, he felt the applicant could return with a <br /> separate application to be noticed and reviewed. He was not in favor of any architectural <br /> changes but would support the landscaping. Regarding the windows on the east side versus the <br /> northeast side, he stated he did not have a recollection of limiting the windows only on the north <br /> east side. <br /> Discussion ensued regarding taking no action versus making a recommendation to the City <br /> Council. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.