My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 7.1
LOSALTOSHILLS
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2004
>
October 14, 2004
>
Item 7.1
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/20/2016 7:44:07 AM
Creation date
10/16/2014 11:55:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Staff Report
Date
2004-10-14
Item Number
Item 7.1
Description
Draft Meeting Minutes September 23, 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
Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT <br />September 23, 2004 <br />Page 3 <br />Mr. Alfinito's bedroom window. Before they even had approval to build the house, his <br />neighbors landscaping was so over grown you could hardly see his house from Mr. Burger's <br />property in the area of question. Mr. Alfinito started cutting down everything and removed <br />shrubs on the Burger property to try to establish that he had a view. The intent was to try to <br />prevent the Burgers from building the house. This is why he wants a proper barrier between the <br />properties. <br />Mr. Alfinito reiterated his concerns for the proposed 6 foot wall. <br />CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING <br />Commissioner Clow felt the applicant was being very reasonable with the pool placement and <br />the fence which was agreed to by the neighbor (a 6 foot fence is reasonable). Commissioner <br />Cottrell felt the applicant was in the right and should be able to build a 6 foot fence. <br />Commissioner Collins felt the applicant does have the right to build a 6 foot fence but <br />unfortunately in this case it is in the view of his neighbor's bedroom window. Chairman Kerns <br />agreed with previous comments. He wished people could work out their differences but in this <br />situation there is much history and the applicant is within his rights requesting a 6 foot fence on <br />his property. He supports the application and the change to condition #3, changing "12" to "9" <br />oak trees and to relocate one of the trees per their request. <br />MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell and seconded by <br />Commissioner Clow to approve a Site Development Permit for a 1,000 square foot pool and spa, <br />removal of two (2) heritage oak trees, basement modification, fence, and landscaping, with the <br />recommended condition of approval with changes/additions to condition #3, "install nine (9) oak <br />trees in three groupings of three...); and adding that the multi-trunk oak (tree #2) shall be <br />removed and replanted on the property at a location selected by the applicant, Lands of Burger, <br />13193 La Paloma Road. <br />AYES: Chairman Kems, Commissioners Collins, Cottrell & Clow <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: Commissioner Mordo <br />This approval is subject to a 23 day appeal period. <br />3.1 LANDS OF ABRAHAM, 12831 Viscaino Road (177-04-ZP); A request for a <br />Site Development Permit for a 89-foot retractable antenna tower with a 17 foot <br />mast. (staff-Carl Cahill) <br />The Planning Director introduced this item by reviewing the report. He noted that the City <br />Attorney was present to help the Commission sort out Federal rule interplay with local rules and <br />discretion. They had considered in the process of reviewing the antenna the idea of partial <br />landscape screening as in the case of Mr. Fenwick's 85 foot antenna that also cranks up and <br />down which is partially screened with trees. But in this case, if you try to plant trees to screen <br />the antenna you will be blocking more of the neighbors view up hill. This is why in the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.