Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/11/1990FT9'J,T*W9C `, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 FREMONT ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, JULY 11TH, 1990 cc: Cassettes #13-90(1),13-90(2) 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Chairman Emling and Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Jones, Noel, Pahl, Stutz Absent: None Staff: Bill Ekern, Director of Public Works; Ann Jamison, Planning Director 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 4 2.1 Approval of the Minutes of the June 27th, 1990 meeting Commissioner Carico wished to clarify on page 2, paragraph 4, regarding selection of the Chair and Vice -chair, that she wished the Commission to use a rotation basis for selection of the next Chair. Commissioner Stutz and Pahl clarified on page 4, the vote to allow the applicant to continue the paint color, Commissioner Noel voted 'no'. Commissioner Comiso referred to page 5, and wished to clarify that there was no ordinance specifically prohibiting painting a house white. She also noted the end of Commissioner Pahl's statement on page 7 under Planning Commission Disclosures had been omitted. Commissioner Pahl clarified that he had noted he received money on a monthly basis from the applicant, the Town, in his capacity as a commissioner. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Comiso, seconded by Stutz, and passed by consensus, with Commissioner Jones abstaining, to approve the minutes of June 27th, 1990 as amended above. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Approved July 11th, 1990 `, Page 2 3. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING There was no City Council meeting. 4. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE There were no Site Development Committee meetings 5. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR There were no presentations from the floor. Chairman Emling noted this was his last Planning Commission meeting as a commissioner. He thanked Staff for their hard work, support, and assistance. And he noted his positive experience working with the commissioners over the past four years, thanking them all. He thanked Commissioner Stutz for her support, noting he thought she was one of the best commissioners the Town has ever had, and Commissioner Carico for her hard work and diligence. Chairman Emling also thanked his two daughters for their help in making his role as commissioner work. t And he thanked his wife, Shari, for her support through good and bad Commissioner Noel noted his appreciation of Chairman Emling's leadership. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6.1 LANDS OF HARRINGTON, 12100 Hilltop Drive, A request for a Site Development Permit to construct a new residence, secondary dwelling unit, storage shed, and pool house. Bill Ekern introduced this item, noting it was forwarded from the Planning Commission Site Development meeting of June 27th, 1990. He noted the applicant's submittal of a revised grading plan. He clarified that while there is an existing residence, the extent of alterations is such that it should be addressed conceptually as a new residence. Mr. Ekern noted Staff's concerns relative to mitigation of the impact of the proposed two-story house on a potentially visible site, and of the proposed guest house and storage shed in a flat, open area. In response to a question from Commissioner Noel, Bill Ekern explained the applicant had reduced the amount of fill substantially, and Staff redlined even more. Commissioner Jones questioned the practical difference of considering the proposal t a new residence rather than a remodel. Bill Ekern noted there were no tax #r' implications with the County Assessor, and noted Staff thought acknowledgement PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July I1th,1990 4, Page 3 Approved was important that it is not assumed the house will look like it does today. The redesignation is not intended to penalize Mr. Harrington in any way. Commissioner Comiso noted the description of the project should stay 'remodel' if it is designated a 'remodel' at Site Development. Bill Ekern noted he felt the project had been erroneously labeled a remodel. Planning Commission Disclosures: Carico had not visited the site since Site Development. Comiso spoke with Susan Carter and discussed the Staff Report. Jones visited the site and noted the site went before the Commission a year ago. Emling noted he hadn't attended the Site Development meeting, and that he spoke with Mr. Harrington about the project and the public hearing. Stutz didn't speak with anyone and hadn't visited the site since before the Site Development meeting. Noel didn't visit the site but was aware of it as he lives around the corner. Pahl visited the site and was at the Site Development meeting. The Public Hearing was opened Commissioner Pahl asked Mr. Harrington if he had any concerns with Staff's proposed Condition 7. Mr. Harrington responded that he did have concerns. He presently intends the house to be wood, and didn't see the necessity of conditioning it. He noted it is possible to tastefully combine wood and stucco or brick in a design. Commissioner Pahl wished Staff to consider whether they would have any objections if the applicant used other materials and adhered to the Town color chart. Bill Ekern noted an absorbative material, like wood, can provide mitigation, while stucco is a highly reflective construction material. He felt that decisions on changes in the materials could reasonably be reached between Staff and the applicant. Mr. Harrington noted he didn't want Staff designing his house, and noted his right to use reasonable materials. He did not wish to leave an issue that could impact the completion of his project open with Staff. Ann Jamison referred to the Site Development Ordinance and provisions for the Committee's input regarding materials where the house is on a ridgeline, hilltop, or hillside. She clarifed Mr. Harrington had indicated to her that the house would be wood which lessened concerns with the short eaves and lack of shade and shadows of the house's design. The Commission discussed possibilities for materials relative to Staff recommended Condition 7. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES a July 11th, 1990 AW Page 4 Approved Commissioner Carico read from the Site Development Ordinance, which provides for attention to selection of colors and materials that are not highly reflective. Ann Jamison noted that if an impasse was reached between Staff and the applicant, she would refer it to the Commission. Mr. Harrington referred to the Staff Report and noted he did not intend to put in a lawn or do grading within the dripline of the Oak tree. He noted if designating the project a new residence versus a remodel is only semantics, and Staff has made their point regarding the extensiveness of the project, then he would argue there is no problem calling it a remodel. He noted the restriction in the design of the house as it is a remodel. Mr. Harrington questioned whether the new residence would increase traffic, as indicated in the Staff Report, relative to requirement of a 30' right- of-way. He also questioned whether the pool house, a 10' by 15' building, could be considered a third unit. Carol Gottlieb, 24290 Summerhill Avenue, outlined her concerns about the siting of the secondary dwelling unit. She noted past Planning Commission decisions where there was a secondary unit and applicants were not allowed to build pool houses. 40 She also noted that a 30' easement is only consistent with the rest of the Town. Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Road, Chair, Pathways Committee, noted one condition discussed at Site Development was a Type II -B path. The Master Path Plan shows Hilltop Drive as a connector road, and Mrs. Schreiner noted that when they have asked for native paths, they have been landscaped over. She noted Mr. Harrington felt 5' in width was too much. She thought a 4' width path could do well meandering around the trees that are there. In response to a question from Commissioner Comiso, Bill Ekern clarified that while the existing right-of-way on Mr. Harrington's side of Hilltop Drive is 20', the vast majority of the street is a 60' right-of-way. He noted that with an average daily trip per residence in a Town like Los Altos Hills of 20 - 25 trips daily, it is reasonable to assume there will be more traffic with the new residence and secondary unit as proposed. Sally Shaw, 12201 Colina, noted the openness of the area where the second unit is proposed. She noted the existing house is well mitigated, but indicated that she had difficulty even after looking at the landscape plan in deciding how well a two story house will be mitigated, and the visibility of the second unit as located. t The Public Hearing was closed. M' Commissioner Jones questioned whether the 30' right-of-way dedication required will impact the applicant's plans. Bill Ekern responded that the applicant had been PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Approved July I1th,1990 Page 5 alerted to the issue and it would not impact his plans. He noted increased traffic and preservation of a sense of openness were the basis for the requirement. Chairman Emling noted the Commission's goal of consistency, and felt this request for a 30' right-of-way dedication was consistent with what has been required of other property owners in the Town. Commissioner Carico noted this proposal, as a two story house on a hilltop, is against the Town's ordinances and the proposal hasn't been modified enough to make it acceptable. She felt it would have a dramatic impact on the surrounding neighborhood. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Jones to approve the Site Development Permit with Staff Recommended Conditions 1 - 6 and 8 - 10, and with the following Conditions 7 and 11: 7. The siding of the new residence, and all other structures affected by this permit is to be of a material as proposed by the applicant, and to be subject to reasonable approval by Staff. The color of the structures is to be approved no later than the time of landscape planting approval, or once the structures have been framed. Color shall be non -reflective earthtone, as indicated on the approved color board. 11. A Type II -B meandering pathway on the top of the bank is to be constructed before Building permit final. AYES: Chairman Emling and Commissioner Comiso, Jones, Noel, Pahl, Stutz NOES: Commissioner Carico 6.2 LANDS OF RAFFIN,13468 Three Forks Lane, A request for a variance to the methodology for calculating Lot Unit Factor, Floor Area and Development Area and a Site Development Permit for an addition to a residence. Ann Jamison introduced this item, noting Staff gave the request a great deal of consideration but was unable to make the findings necessary for a variance. She noted the ordinances take into account terrain and natural constraints of the land. In response to questions from Commissioner Comiso, Bill Ekern noted that the Lands of Cottrell on North Fork Lane is subdividable and access would be off Three Forks Lane. The intent of right-of-ways and ingress/egress easements counting Eagainst development area is to generate openness. Commissioner Comiso noted 40, that if it wasn't used, it shouldn't burden the owner. Bill Ekern noted that in the Town's perspective, it is being used. He clarified that the impact of the easement on PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ( July 11th, 1990 kW Page 6 Approved the property in terms of the ability to develop, whether it is called an ingress/egress easement or dedicated pathway, is identical; it is a deduction to the net acreage. Commissioner Jones noted he had received documents with calculations from the applicant at the time of his visit to the site that were different from the quantitative analysis in the Staff Report. Ann Jamison clarified that the calculations had been done by Gary Ahern of Churchill and Associates for the applicant. Planning Commission Disclosures: Pahl had no disclosures. Noel and Stutz both spoke with no one about the application. Jones visited the site and spoke with the applicant's architect and obtained their calculations. Comiso visited the property and spoke with the applicant. Carico had been to the site and noted she was on the Subdivision Committee for Lands of Bahr. Emling visited the site and had not spoken with the applicant. The Public Hearing was opened Bill Churchill, Churchill and Associates, project architect, referred to Dr. Raffin's letter of May 25, 1990, and noted his belief that the application met the four circumstances required for a variance. He noted there is a creek on the property, 4/ which is not the case on the vast majority of one acre lots in the Town. He noted the steepness of the creek banks distorts the overall picture of the development area of the site, and exclusion of the ingress/egress easement leaves the net lot area at only .92. He felt the creek and easement are unduly restrictive as the lot is much smaller than the neighboring lots. Mr. Churchill referred to his letter of July 5, 1990. He noted that this site is the only lot of this size with a full creek going through and that makes it an exceptional piece. He outlined research they had done on the impact of creeks on other properties in Town. Mr. Churchill felt that with the paved street that exists, there was no real need for the easement. Commissioner Pahl noted the applicant appeared to be requesting abandonment of an easement, which the Commission doesn't have the authority to do, as well as recalculations. Mr. Churchill clarified they were not requesting abandonment of the easement. Commissioner Pahl noted that if the easement area is calculated into the floor area and development area calculations, and if the unabandonned easement is used by the Town in the future, a nonconforming lot is created. He questioned the Commission's legal ability to do what was being asked. Mr. Churchill felt their request was no different from a variance allowed because of the shape of the lot. No special privileges are being accorded the owner as the owner is only being afforded the same minimum privileges as any owner of a one acre lot. He noted it was not detrimental to the environment, and noted the support of neighbors, the Stegners, Mr. Kirinoff, the Greens, and the Melkenoffs, and submitted a document of signatures of support from the neighbors. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Approved July 11th, 1990 Page 7 Commissioner Jones wished to clarify whether Mr. Churchill was in agreement with the quantitative analysis presented in the Staff Report. Gary Ahern, Churchill and Associates, outlined the numbers they had arrived at. Ann Jamison noted that as it did not affect the application, final agreement on the numbers was not pursued by Staff or Churchill and Associates. Dr. Raffin noted that when he bought the property, he knew 6,000 square feet of floor area was the usual allowable for a one acre lot in Los Altos Hills and expected to be able to build two more rooms. He outlined how the lot was severely compromised by the "gorge" in the back and the easement in front. He noted the support of the neighbors, and noted he and his neighbors felt it would be ironic if the addition is disallowed when the Town has allowed excessive building on hilltops. He noted he felt the Commissioners had the responsibility to weigh with integrity, common sense, flexibility, and sensitivity reasonable requests of citizens. He also outlined grievances with past treatment by the Town. Commissioner Carico noted her appreciation of Dr. Raffin's concerns and noted Dr. Raffin was aware of the limitations of the property when he purchased it. She questioned whether he had made a request for a variance to the floor area allowance. She noted she couldn't make the findings to approve the present request for variance. Dr. Raffin also noted he had received a sense of adversary from Staff, and he didn't feel they were open to discussion. Commissioner Comiso agreed the property has some problems and suggested the applicant come in for a normal variance, with findings for exceptional circumstances. Commissioner Noel noted that the applicant was asking for a complete change in the ordinances, and suggested that perhaps those he has working for him have influenced him to believe this was the only way to obtain a variance. In response to a question from Commissioner Pahl, Bill Ekern noted the precise circumstances of this lot are probably rare, but lots along Matadero and Adobe Creeks, and on Baleri Ranch Road are similarly impacted by creeks and conservation easements. Commissioner Pahl felt Dr. Raffin was asking the Commission to violate their integrity and ethics because of what he considers a compelling need. He noted he couldn't say how he would vote for a request for increased MFA and MDA because that was not presented. Commissioner Pahl noted that he hadn't visited the site 4✓ because he didn't think what the applicant was asking for was relevant, the process not the end result. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July I1th,1990 fAW Page 8 Approved Dr. Raffin noted he would be eager to pursue any other means to add the two additional bedrooms. Commissioner Stutz noted the house was built as a 'spec' house and granted many exceptions an owner wouldn't get today, such as a 15' setback from the creek when others have a 50' setback, and the removal of enormous pine trees to maximize the house built on the lot. She noted she didn't think there was any possibility even another 50' could be added. She also noted the ingress/egress should have been picked up some time ago. The Public Hearing was closed. Ann Jamison expressed concern that the applicant was being given the impression that he should come back for a floor area variance. She explained that in her review of the application, she looked at it as presented, but also looked for another basis for a variance. No suggestions were presented as Staff was unable to make the findings. Ms. Jamison noted her interest in any input the Commission had on making the findings for a variance. MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND: Motion by Jones and failed due to �y lack of a second to allow the area in the easement, to deny the variance that requests that the easement area be counted as part of the property. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Carico, seconded by Stutz to deny the request for a variance to the methodology for calculating Lot Unit Factor, Floor Area and Development Area and a Site Development Permit for an addition to a residence based on inability to make the necessary findings. AYES: Chairman Emling and Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Jones, Noel, Pahl, Stutz NOES: None Commissioner Noel noted he would like to see Dr. Raffin apply for a normal variance. Chairman Emling referred to Staff's statement that Staff had looked at all aspects of the property for findings for a variance. Commissioner Comiso agreed with Commissioner Noel, and noted she was not faulting Staff for not being able to make findings, but Dr. Raffin was under the impression this was the only way to get a variance and she felt there were other 4W alternatives. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Approved July 11th, 1990 4 Page 9 Commissioner Carico reaffirmed Staffs inablity to make the findings necessary for a variance. 6.3 LANDS OF BATEMAN, 12321 Gigli Court, A request for a variance to the fence height/setback requirements of the Zoning Code. Ann Jamison introduced this item, referring to the Staff Report. She noted Staffs concern with the height of the fence and its proximity to a narrow right-of-way, and Staffs inability to find any unusual circumstances of this property. Planning Commission Disclosures: Stutz noted she is familiar with the property and did not speak with the applicant. Emling, Jones, and Carico each visited the property but did not speak with the applicant. Comiso noted she knew the applicants and spoke with them once some time ago and once recently about the proposal. Noel drove the property. Pahl drove the property and spoke with the applicant several months ago. The Public Hearing was opened. Michael Bateman, 12321 Gigli Court, applicant, expressed confusion that his principal argument for placing the fence in the lowest place on the property of less obtrusiveness was not raised in the Staff Report. In response to a question from Commissioner Pahl, Mr. Bateman explained consideration of the security of his family relative to their request for a five foot high fence, noting kidnapping has become a habitual thing. Christine Bateman, 12321 Gigi Court, applicant, noted there are four large and aggressive dogs that roam the area and frighten the children, and runaway horses from corrals and that have thrown their riders, but clarified that their main concern is security. She also explained there is a 4' difference in the slope of the property between where they wish to put the fence and the fouundation of the house, which makes the fence appear to be even with the foundation. Frank Gigli, 12345 Gigli Court asked why the fence couldn't be built 10' feet off the berme. Ann Jamison clarified that the ordinance specifies that a 4-1/2 foot 50% open fence can be placed on the reference line, 30' back from the centerline of the road. Mr. Gigli noted he fully supported the Bateman's request for a variance as opposed to pushing the fence toward the house. Mary Hardy, 12101 Dawn Lane, noted another neighbor, Cathi Perga, had written to the Commission regarding the proposed fence and clarified that had been received. Mrs. Hardy wished to compliment the Batemans on the fence along Elena Road. However, in regard to the variance request, she expressed concern that if one variance is granted precedence is set and more and more fences will be built in the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Approved July 11th, 1990 4 Page 10 area. She noted obtrusive fences in the surrounding area. She felt the codes should protect all residents equally. Mrs. Bateman referred to a conversation she had with Cathi Perga. She noted Mrs. Perga definitely did not prefer the fence on the reference line as it would be worse looking than as proposed. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Pahl requested that Staff compare and contrast this application with Mr. Packard's application for a deer fence. Ann Jamison responded that Mr. Packard's fence design is hogwire mesh on a redwood type post, which is more rural. The property and the right-of-way are considereably more open. The fence sit down several feet below the right-of-way. Also, while that application was also a request for variance to the height, it was on the reference line. This request is for 10' in from the reference line. In response to a question from Commissioner Comiso, Ms. Jamison noted that if the fence is placed as proprosed there is a trading off of the openness of the right-of-way for the view from the house. While the Town allows fences, it is not obligated to provide the fence closer to the right-of-way, constricting the roadway. Commissioner Comiso noted the fence was for the protection of children, and questioned whether it could be conditioned to remain for a fixed length of time. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Emling, seconded by Carico to recommend denial of the variance to the fence height/setback requirements of the Zoning Code based on inability to make the required findings. AYES: Chairman Emling and Commissioner Carico, Comiso, Jones, Noel, Pahl, Stutz NOES: None Mr. Bateman wished to comment that part of the problem Dr. Raffin had is Staff's unwillingness to talk to applicants. He noted his appreciation of a commissioner's job. Mr. Bateman felt the citizens didn't deserve the treatment they received at Town Hall and outlined concerns with the present ordinances and the wants of the Town residents. He noted that after paying the fees and signing the agreement to pay for any fees incurred as a part of the review of the application, he couldn't understand how Staff could have missed the whole issue of the proposed location of the fence being less obtrusive than the required location. 4W Commissioner Pahl noted he felt the Batemans' reasons for a fence were valid, but noted the Commission was stuck with the ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Approved July 11th, 1990 Page 11 Commissioner Carico noted variances are required by law to go with the land so the Commission is not able to take personal wants into account, as he may not live there in two years time. 6.1 LANDS OF FOWLER, 25810 Vinedo Lane, A request for approval of a Tentative Map, Conditional Exception and adoption of a mitigated negative environmental declaration for a two -lot subdivision. Ann Jamison introduced this item, referring to the Staff Report. She noted the applicant had appeared before the Planning Commission on March 14, 1990. She noted the Town Geologist had recommended approval of the Tentative Map with conditions. She noted Staff's concern with the lot configuration. And she outlined Staffs concerns with the applicant's proposal for the access easement. Ms. Jamison noted Staff recommended approval of the mitigated negative declaration, but denial without prejudice to allow the applicant to improve configuration, access, and street design. Commissioner Carico noted Mr. Mandel had submitted a letter to the Planning Commission regarding this application, but she hadn't received a copy. 6 Planning Commission Disclosures: Pahl, Noel, and Comiso had no further disclosures since the Planning Commission meeting of March 14, 1990. Stutz spoke with Fowler about the application. Emling spoke with Mr. Fowler about the application and visited the site where he spoke with Mr. Fowler and Mr. Kull. Jones drove the circular drive. Carico visited the site the previous day. The Public Hearing was opened Eugene Mandel, 25802 Vinedo Lane, presented a letter addressing the proposed subdivision, noting it expressed everything he wished to say. He then referred to the previous hearings for Lands of Raffin and Lands of Bateman noting Staff took a lot of unpleasant criticism and the commissioners, with the exception of Commissioner Carico, didn't speak in their defense. He felt the Planning Commission should support Staff when they are maligned. In his contact with Staff, he had found them to be very competent, professional, and willing to help. Commissioner Noel noted that when applicants don't get what they want, they dislike Staff. Chairman Emling noted his and other commissioners praise of Staff in the past. e Commissioner Carico praised Staff's performance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Approved July 11th, 1990 6 Page 12 Graeme Fowler, applicant, noted they had specifically asked for direction from the Commission at the meeting of March 14, 1990 relative to the proposed lot -line and the access easement. With the positive feedback they got from the Commission, they proceeded with the geologic investigation; he felt the report lent further support to their proposed lot -line. He outlined their attempt to develop a roadway access which serves the Gaultieris, Rubens, and Mandels by widening the roadway where it intersects Vinedo Lane, and an additional 10' by 20' turnout, and to improve the equestrian trail to a Type II -B pathway. He noted this subdivision precludes any other subdivisions accessed by the road. He noted the number of times he has met a car coming in the other direction could be counted on one hand. He also noted they had discussed their proposal with the neighbors and submitted a letter of support from Mr. Rubens. Mr. Fowler also oulined the rationale behind the proposed lot -line, as Chairman Emling had not been in attendance at the meeting of March 14,1990. Bill Kull, project civil engineer, noted his understanding that the Planning Commission indicated at the meeting of March 14, 1990 that the lot -line configuration and access would remain where proposed as changes would create hardships to the Fowlers. Mr. Kull presented an overhead projection of the area from Vinedo Lane along the private drive that will access the subdivision. To address safety concerns outlined by Staff, they propose to create a 5' Type II -B pathway along the shoulder and to straighten out a section of pavement, and to add two turnouts, one at the Gaultieri's driveway, one further up in front of the Ruben's property. He noted they wish to protect the existing landscaping, which Staff's recommendation for widening to 16' would necessitate the removal of. Mr. Kull asked the Commission to consider changes to Staff's recommended conditions. On Condition 2, he wished to include "or sufficient turnouts to the satisfaction of the City Engineer." He wished Condition 12 to extend to, "All new utilities..." On Condition 19, he requested allowance of grazing animals and to allow storm drainage improvements to be put in place in the conservation easement. In response to a question from Chairman Emling, Bill Ekern noted the concern with the conservation easement is extreme damage that has already been done. There is nothing on it and erosion needs to be addressed. In regard to storm drainage, a storm drain easement would be a separate easement from the conservation easement. Mr. Mandel noted the use of the access way by cars was not as infrequent as Mr. Fowler had suggested. 4 The Public Hearing was closed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 11th, 1990 4 Page 13 Approved MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Carico to certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration. AYES: Chairman Emling and Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Jones, Noel, Pahl, Stutz NOES: None Commissioner Pahl noted he had difficulty approving the Tentative Map and would move denial without prejudice as the map presented is not adequate to show the roadway and turnoffs. Mr. Fowler stated he would prefer the hearing was continued to work out issues of the street. Bill Kull felt that issues of access improvements could be addressed through the Town's engineering department on a conditions of approval basis. Bill Ekern noted than in response to the sense of impass between the applicant and Staff, and as the Commission is a recommending body, it might be in the applicant's best interest for the Commission to take some definitive action. Commissioner Comiso noted she would like to see the access depicted because of concerns of the neighbors. Chairman Emling agreed and noted concern with safety with the number of houses on the street. Commissioner Carico wished to encourage that the lot line configuration also be considered. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Comiso to continue consideration of the Tentative Map to discuss issues of access off Vinedo Lane, including turnouts, pole alignments, and other issues related to the road, and other conditions related to the property, excluding reconsideration of the lot -line configuration. AYES: Commissioners Comiso, Jones, Noel, Pahl, Stutz NOES: Chairman Emling and Commissioner Carico 6.1 LANDS OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, Altamont Road (Westwind Barn), A request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit to establish a yard waste recycling collection facility. 4 This item was continued at the request of Staff to July 25th, 1990. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 11th, 1990 4W Page 14 n Approved 6.1 LANDS OF THE LOS ALTOS FIRE DISTRICT, Arastradero Road at Horseshoe Drive, A request for a conditional Use Permit and a Site Development Permit to establish a yard waste recycling collection facility. This item was continued at the request of Staff to July 25th, 1990. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1 Selection of Chair and Vice -chair for 1990/91. Ann Jamison noted the Commission may wish to consider Vice -Chairman Jones act as Chair at the next Planning Commission meeting as Chairman Emling will be unable to attend the meeting. S. OLD BUSINESS 9. ADIOURNMENT Commissioner Carico wished to thank Chairman Emling, noting she couldn't remember having a better Chair. Ann Jamison reminded the Commission there would be no Planning Commission meetings in the month of August as the Commission decided last January. The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Laura Johnson Planning Secretary