HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.1J-1
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS February 1, 2007
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: PERMU FOR A FENCE AND GATE; LANDS OF PAPP; 13263 SIMON LANE;
FILE 4180-06-ZP
FROM: Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner
APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
Approve the requested Fence Permit, subject to the recommended conditions in
Attachment 1.
7Ti7"�ef[ 616 I
The subject property is a 1.40 acre parcel located at the end of the Simon Lane cul-de-sac.
The property is currently developed with a two-story residence. The lot is generally flat
with an average slope of less than 10%. The house was built in 1983 and is sited on the
west side of the lot. The surrounding neighborhood includes a mix of one and two-story
homes.
The applicant is requesting to install a new six (6') foot tall, open wire mesh fence along
the north and south property lines and a six (6') foot tall wrought iron driveway gate on
the east side of the property. The applicant has submitted photos of the subject property
and surrounding area. (Attachment 5)
The property is encumbered by a 10' wide pedestrian and equestrian trail easement that
runs west to east along the north property line and a 10' public utility easement along the
east property line. According to a property line survey provided by the applicant, a
screening hedge located between the subject property and the adjacent property at 13145
Byrd Lane is encroaching within the aforementioned pathway easement by 2'-3'. The
applicant proposes to remove the hedge in order to install the fence within his property
along the north property line.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
Section 10-1.507 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code provides regulations and design
standards for fences, walls, gates, and columns. This application bas been forwarded to
the Planning Commission for review and approval per section 10-1.507(e) (1)
Staff Report to the Planning, Commission
February 1, 2007
Page 2 of 5
(attachment 2) because the existing screening hedge on the northern property line will
have to be removed in order to construct the fence.
On October 18 and December 13, 2006, staff met with the adjacent neighbor Alice
Sakamoto, 13315 Simon Lane, to discuss her concerns regarding the proposed fence. In
her emails dated October 19 and December 13, 2006 and letter dated January 26, 2007
Ms. Sakamoto noted her concerns about the appearance of the fence and its impacts to
wildlife movement in the area. (Attachment 3)
In response to Ms. Sakamoto's request to relocate the fence along the south property line,
the property owner modified the fence location to provide a wider driveway corridor for
the neighbor.
On December 12, 2006, staff met with Michael and Sharen Schoendorf, 13145 Byrd
Lane, to discuss their neighbor's plans for a fence along the shared property line. On
December 17, 2006, Mr. Schoendorf sent an email to the Planning Commission and City
Council citing his concerns for the proposed fence. (Attachment 4) Mr. Schoendorf
asserts that there is an existing wildlife corridor for deer and other animals to travel
between the properties and the proposed fence will obstruct this wildlife path.
properly
Line
Lands of
Lends of
Popp
Liccaroo
_
0pvn Fvncv
WMV YUIr en Woof Vo¢Y
qro
ce )
en..Lands
o}SakamotoApplicant
*fence
relocated proposed
(41-"
away from property line to provide a
wider driveway corridor for neighl,or
I
On December 12, 2006, staff met with Michael and Sharen Schoendorf, 13145 Byrd
Lane, to discuss their neighbor's plans for a fence along the shared property line. On
December 17, 2006, Mr. Schoendorf sent an email to the Planning Commission and City
Council citing his concerns for the proposed fence. (Attachment 4) Mr. Schoendorf
asserts that there is an existing wildlife corridor for deer and other animals to travel
between the properties and the proposed fence will obstruct this wildlife path.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
February 1, 2007
Page 3 of 5
DISCUSSION
Pathway Easement
Portions of the new fence will be located along a 10' wide pedestrian and equestrian trail
easement along the north property line. There is currently no physical path constructed on
the property. On March 8, 2005, the City Council approved the removal a `future path"
on the subject property from the 2005 Master Pathway Plan. The path was deemed
redundant by the Pathways Committee and the City Council voted to remove of the future
path, citing that it is redundant to the existing off-road path at the end of Byrd Lane.
Although no future path is required to be built on this property, the 10' pathway easement
remains. Portions of the new fence will be installed along the northern edge of the 10'
wide pathway easement but the property owner will be required to leave a 10' gap at the
northeast corner so as not to obstruct access to the 10' wide pathway easement.
(Condition of approval #5)
lxal] u1Y
Wu' lxlm mw Olm, .1 95PI.. 0p1
J� 1a1m
. lam � ]am a1s u ' talm 'N
]ma nm
€ Future path removetl from 10°
lasz 1 Masterpath Plan per City
Council In March 200.5
zrno
m1s
>ems
tal]
. ]ffim �. mi10
�pES ASE' h✓' xY1am]10^
_ _ N �cURPENTLV .Ow" Ou THE tPP, ra RwAV A�eN)
Irv0'F Srvowu Orvi1.1 1NhRTER Pm n1, 1--1 —1
R PATH -PROPOSED GOR REMOJ/LL FROM THE aHfl hTNw— PIAN
Wildlife Corridor
Two adjacent neighbors have expressed concerns regarding the proposed fence and its
impact on wildlife movement in the area. Per Section 10-1.507(f) (10) of the fence
ordinance, "Any fence crossing or intersecting an officially designated wildlife corridor
shall conform to the requirements specified above for an open space/conservation
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
February 1, 2007
Page 4 of 5
easement perimeter fence". Since the Town currently does not have an officially
designated wildlife corridor, the ordinance is not in effect at this time.
The proposed fence complies with the height, location, and design standards set forth in
the Fence Ordinance. Removal of the screen hedge to accommodate the new fence
section may expose the view of the adjacent neighbor's house and staff recommends that
replacement screening be planted along the northern fence line. (Condition #2)
CEOA STATUS
The proposed Site Development Permit is exempt from California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303(e) of the CEQA Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended Conditions of Approval
2. Section 10-1.507 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code -Fence Ordinance
3. Emails and letter from Alice Sakamoto, 13315 Simon Lane, dated October 19 and
December 13, 2006, and January 26, 2007.
4. Email from Michael Schoendorf, 13145 Byrd Lane, dated December 17, 2006
5. Applicant's Photos and written description received January 12, 2007
6. Project Plans (Commission only)
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
February 1, 2007 ATTACHMENT
Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR A FENCE PERMIT
LANDS OF PAPP, 13263 SIMON LANE
File # 180-06-ZP
1. The location, height and materials of the fence and gate shall be constructed according
to the approved plans. Any changes to the location, height, or construction of any
proposed fences or columns shall fust be approved by the Planning Department.
2. The new fence and gate shall have a maximum height of 6'.
3. The homeowner shall plant screening along the fence located on the north side of the
property. The replacement plants shall not obstruct access to the 10' wide pathway
easement.
4. The location and elevation of all portions of the fence shall be certified in writing by a
State of California registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor as being in/at
the approved location and elevation as shown on the approved plan prior to final
inspection
5. The property owner shall maintain a 10' wide opening at the northeast comer of the
property over the pathway easement along the north property line.
6. No new outdoor lighting is approved. Any additional outdoor lighting requires
approval by the Planning Department prior to installation. No lighting may be placed
within setbacks except for two driveway or entry lights.
Project approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 22 days of the date of this
notice. Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set
with the Planning and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building
inspection approval.
NOTE: The fence permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until February 8,
2008). All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work on items
not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and completed
within two years.
ATTACHMENT Z
ORDINANCE NO. 442
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
AMENDING SECTION 10-1.507 OF ARTICLE 5 OF CHAPTER 1
OF TITLE 10 OF LOS ALTOS HH LS MUNICIPAL CODE
REGULATING FENCES, WALLS, GATES, AND COLUMNS
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to amend the existing ordinance section that
provides regulations and design standards for fences, walls, gates, and columns.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does ORDAIN as
follows:
I. AMENDMENT OF CODE. Section 10-1.507 (Fences, Walls, Crates, and
Columns) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Title 10, Chapter 1: Zoning
Section 10-1.507. Fences, Walls, Gates, and Columns.
(a) Parposa The following regulations were created to preserve the beauty and open rural
quality of the Town while acknowledging that residents have the right to fence their
properties in order to protect their children, contain their animals, and maintain privacy.
(b) Permits required. No fence, wall, gate, or column structure shall be erected or replaced
without the prior issuance of a zoning or site development permit from the Town.
(c) Definitions. The following definitions are established for the purpose of this Article and the
meaning and construction of words and phrases is as follows:
Legal Nonconforming Structure: Refer to Section 10-1.401(h) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Column: Around or square pillar, pole, orpost flmkmy an entranceway contracted of
sucYmaterials as brick, stone, concrete, or other materials. Includes mailbox columns.
Wall: An upright structure of wood, stone, brick, or other substance or combination of
substances serving to enclose, divide, or support and usually having greater mass than a
fence.
Fence: A structure serving as a barrier or screen constructed of wood, metal, wire,
masonry, glass, plastic or any other material (not including graded berms or living
hedges).
Gate: A movable frame or solid structure that swings, slides, or rolls controlling ingress
and egress through an opening in a fence, wall, or vegetation.
Ocen Fence or Gate: A fence or gate constructed in such a way so that no more than fifty
(50"16) percent of the surface area obstructs a ground level view through the fence or gate.
Solid Fence or Getz: A fence or gate constructed in such a way so that more than fifty
(500/6) percent of the surface area obstructs a ground level view through the fence or gate.
Fence Amendments
February 9, 2006
Page t
(d) Prohibited fences, walls, gates, columns types. The following fences are prohibited:
(1) Chain-link or cyclone fences, including any fence with bare lengths of wire stretched
between metal poles, with the exception of dark green, black, or brown vinyl -coated
chain-link fences with matching vinyl -coated cross bars and caps.
(2) Barbed or razor wire fences, including any fence with attached barbs, sharp points, or
razors.
(3) Electric fences, including any fence designed to produce an electric shock, except
where necessary for animal husbandry operations.
(4) Any perimeter fence, wall, gate, or column where the color reflectivity value exceeds
50%.
(5) Any fence, wall, gate, or column located within a public or private road right-of-way
or pathway easement except for a mailbox column with an approved permit
(e) Fences, Walls, Gates, and Columns Requiring Public Notice. Permit requests for the
types of fences, walls, gates and columns identified below require notification of adjacent
neighbors and neighbors across the street:
(1) Fences, walls, gates and columns that require the removal of existing screening
vegetation (trees and shrubs).
(2) Solid fences that impact neighbor views as defined by Section 5-9.02 of the View
Ordinance.
(3) Any other proposal deemed appropriate by the Planning Director for a noticed
hearing. Such proposals may include solid fences, as well as walls or vinyl -coated
chain-link fences along any road right-of-way, and fences or walls longer than 1,000
linear feet.
Open fences using natural materials and colors, including unpainted or stained white, brown
or gray wood; welded or woven wire and wood posts; and natural stone and/or brick
construction are preferred and generally are not subject to public notice.
Staff shall notice a permit hearing and conduct the permit review hearing pursuant to Section
10-2.1305(b) except that only adjacent neighbors and neighbors across the street need to be
notified. At or prior to the permit hearing, neighbors and the fence permit applicant shall be
provided with notice that the approval or denial of any permit may be appealed pursuant to
Section 10-1.1109.
(f) Development Standards for Fences, Walls, Gates, and Columns.
(1) Fences and walls located on property lines or in setback areas that are not adjacent to
a road right-of-way shall not exceed a maximum height of 6 feet
(2) Fences and walls located in setback areas that are adjacent to a road right-of-way
shall comply with the standards established in subsections (4) through (9). Height
may be proportionately increased 1 foot for every 10 -foot increase in setback, up to a
maximum of 6 feet in height.
(3) Fences, walls, gates, and columns located behind setback lines are not subject to these
development standards.
Fevre Amendments
Febwary 9, 2006
Page 2
(4) Open Fences
(5) Solid Fences, Gates, and Walls
(6) Open Driveway Gates
4) OPEN FENCES AND GATES
Minimum setback from centerline of adjacent
30'
public or private road right-of-way.
Maximum height of open fences and gates at the
41/2'
minimum setback from the centerline of adjacent
4'/x'
public or private road ri tof-wa .
(average)
Maximum height of open fences and gazes at the
4'/2'
minimum setback from the centerline of adjacent
public or private road right-of-way.
adjacent public or private road right-of-way
45'
Minimum setback from centerline of adjacent
45'
public or private road right-of-way for 6' tall
open fences and gates located between adjacent
public or private roadways and the structural
setback line for the particular property.
5 SOLID FENCES, GATES, AND WALLS
Minimum setback from centerline of adjacent
30'
public or private road right-of-way.
Maximum height of solid fences, gates, and walls
3'
at the minimum setback from the centerline of
adjacent public or private road right-of-way.
Minimum setback from centerline of adjacent
60'
public or private road right-of-way for 6' tall
solid fences, gates, and walls located between
adjacent public or private roadways and the
structural setback line for the particular property.
(6) OPEN DRIVEWAY GATES
Minimum setback from centerline of
30'
adjacent public or Lrivate road right-of-way.
Maximum height of open driveway gates at
4'/x'
the minimum setback from the centerline of
(average)
adjacent public or private road right-of-way.
Minimum setback from centerline of
adjacent public or private road right-of-way
45'
for open driveway gates with a 6' average
height (T maximum height) located
between adjacent public or private
roadways and the structural setback line for
the particular property.
Fence Amenemeres
February 9, 2006
Page 3
112lntlws ere eowad
Im Tliebblmedimon
,m.&rols7feac
(7) Columns
COLUMNS
Minimum setback from centerline of
30'
adjacent public or private road right -of.
way-
a .Maximum
Maximumheight of columns at the
6'
minimum setback from the centerline of
7' (w/lights)
adjacent public or private road right -of.
-way.
mns located
Maximum height of col`=111
6'
between adjacent public or private road
right-of-way and the structural setback line
7' (w/lights)
for the particular property.
8 OUTDOOR ATHLETIC COURT FENCING
Maximum height of outdoor athletic court fencing located beyond the
stmctmal setback line for the particular property.
10'
(9) OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION EASEMENT PERIMETER FENCES
Maximum height of open space/conservation easement perimeter 6'
fences.
Nftnimum distance of lowest fence strand or rail from ground 12" above grade
Open space/conservation easement perimeter
fences shall provide openings sufficient to
accommodate the flee passage of wildlife
through the easement A split -tail wood fence
(see exhibit) or equivalent design shall be
required. Where a pathway is located within
an open space/conservation easement, the
perimeter fence shall be required to have at
least two openings at least as wide as the width
of the pathway easement
(9) Open space/ o=s adon easement
perimeter fencing
(10) Any fence crossing or intersecting an officially designated wildlife corridor shall
conform to the requirements specified above for an open spacelconservation easement
perimeter fence.
(11) No fence, wall, gate, or column shall be located within a public or private road right-of-
way or pathway easement A four -foot (4') tall mailbox post or column may be granted
an exception to be located within a road right -of --way. An encroachment permit from
the Engineering Department is required to install a mailbox post or column within a road
Fence Amendments
February 9, 20Da
Page 4
right-of-way easement Any existing fence, wall, gate, or column located within
any road right-of-way may be required to be removed at the owner's expense.
(12) Solid walls, fences, or gates shall not exceed a maximum height of three (3D feet
and all shrubs and plants shall be pruned to a height not to exceed three (3') feet
above the road level at its nearest point in an area bounded
by the center line of intersecting roads or easements for
vehicular access, public or private and a straight line joining
so, points on such center lines eighty (80) feet distant from
their intersection (see exhibit). All side limbs of trees in
such area shall be pruned to a height of not less than six (6')
feet above the road surface. The purpose of the provisions
of this section is to provide an unobstructed view of
43 Feet High Max approaching traffic on the intersecting roads. The City
Engineer may prescribe greater restrictions than the height
set forth in this paragraph where unusual conditions make such additional
restrictions desirable in the interests of the public safety.
(13) Any fence or wall may be required to be landscaped. Screen plantings required
as a condition of approval for any fence or wall shall be maintained in good -
condition by the property owner.
(14) The vertical dimension of any fence, wall, gate, or column shall be measured
from the finished grade on both sides of any such fence, wall, gate, or column to
any point on top of the fence, wall, gate, or column, including post/column caps
and any ornamental features.
(g) Requirements for Nonconforming Fences, Walls, Gates, and Columns.
Replacement of existing legal nonconforming fences, walls, gates, and columns shall be
subject to the requirements in this ordinance. Exceptions may be granted pursuant to
subsection 10-1.507(h) of this ordinance, or where the strict application of these
requirements will result in a hardship for the property owner. Repair of short sections of
legal nonconforming fences, walls, gates, or columns (repair of less than 50 feet or repair
of no greater than 25% of total fence or wall length) will not require a permit if no other
work is done on the same structure over a 12 -month period. The replacement of any
nonconforming structure shall be prohibited if the City Engineer determines that a public
safety hazard exists or that the structure encroaches in an easement or public right-of-way.
Any fence, wall, gate, or column constructed without a lawfully issued permit is a
violation of the Municipal Code and shall be subject to the provisions of Title 1, Chapter 2
of the Municipal Code.
(h) Exceptions.
Exceptions may be granted subject to a noticed bearing and upon the Site Development
Authority making all of the following findings:
(1) The height and design of the proposed fence, wall, gate or column are
compatible with other fences in the neighborhood;
Fence AmendmeMz
Febmary 9, 2DDa
Page 5
(2) The proposed removal of vegetation and trees and disturbance to natural terrain
have been Crum ized, and
(3) The proposed structure is otherwise in compliance with all regulations and
policies set forth in the Municipal Code and the General Plan.
Any fence proposed to exceed a height of 6 feet in a setback area or to be located closer to
the centerline of the road than required shall require a variance in accordance with the
provisions of Article 11 of the Zoning Ordinance.
H. SEVERABILITY. If any part of this ordinance is held to be invalid or
inapplicable to any situation by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or the applicability of this
ordinance to other situations.
Ill. EFFECTIVE DATE: POSTING. This ordinance shall become effective
thirty (30) days from the date of its passage, and shall be posted within the Town of Los Altos
Hills in three (3) public places.
INTRODUCED: January 26, 2006
PASSED: Febrary 9, 2006
AYES: Mayor Kerr, Mayor Pro Tem Warshawsky, Councilmember Jones,
Councilmember. Mordo and Councilmember O'Malley
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENT: None /
BY:
Mayor
A
City Clerk
AP O AS TO FORM:
City Attom
Fence Amendment
Feb' ary 9, 2006
Page 6
Page 1 of I
ATTACHMENT -3
Nicole Horvitz
From: Alice
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 12:50 PM
To: Nicole Horvitz
Subject: Information you requested yesterday - (Alice Sakamoto)
0 Nicole,
As requested I am including our list of concerns regarding the proposed fence by Jim Papp.
Thanks very much for meeting with me yesterday. I appreciated your getting me in so late in the day.
Alice Sakamoto
(
Fence Concerns:
Appearance: The proposed 6 foot high wire mesh fence along the property line we share with Jim Papp
will cause our property to be completely surrounded by both solid and 6 foot high wire mesh fence, none
of which will have been put in by us. Likewise the proposed long driveway fence would be so tall, and
would make for an extremely narrow corridor in and out of our property. Additionally by being
enclosed almost entirely by 6 foot fence, the value of our property is diminished, particularly on our
view side.
Regarding the issue of the ugly fence, we recently had a survey done in part with the plan to replace that
fence which is simple T -post fence and easily removed. We'd be more than happy to accelerate this and
to pay for a new fence along our line with three -rail, split rail or wire strand fence with 4 x 4 posts.
With wire mesh and solid fence on all sides, we have fire escape concerns particularly with respect to
our horse.
One of the reasons we live here is to enjoy the wildlife. There are very few towns in the bay area where
people are still able to do this. The proposed fence would further cut off wildlife travel through here.
Alice Sakamoto
Kent Webb
1/25/2007
Page 1 of 1
Nicole Horvitz
From:
Alice [
Sent:
Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:29 AM
To:
Debbie Pedro
Subject: Papp Fence
Hi Debbie,
If, when you talk with Papp, you wouldn't mind beginning with my proposal (as opposed to an
immediate compromise) I'd appreciate it. It's possible he'd still be willing to do that
As mentioned before we'd be more than happy to put up demarcation.
The other extremely important reason for setting the fence back that I didn't even bring up when you
were there but did with Nicole, is that once Papp's fence goes up, our lot will be the last spot the deer
can get through to the small opening in the Stirling fence at the far comer of our property out to the
field.
I dont know how I managed not to bring this up when we were at the edge of the field but that route was
a major wildlife thoroughfare until the Stirling fence went up. Since then the deer have had the area
between our and Papp's property, and between Papp and Schoendorf, to get through to grazing at Poor
Clues as well as back out to Matadero Creek.
Once Papp's fence goes up, they will have a difficult time to say the least to get from the Stirling field
through our place and out to Natoma, especially assuming Yanez fences the property along Matadero
Creek. Anyway, that is the other reason a setback is very important. As one person said, that fence
along the driveways will create a narrow chute and will undoubtedly make the wildlife nervous. If Papp
would allow a setback, the deer would at least have a straight shot through the cul-de-sac, through our
place and then out to the field.
Whatever you can do is appreciated. Thanks again for coming out - Alice
1/26/2007
RECfJM
JAN 26 269T
Memorandum j
To: Dr. Bart Carey, Mr. Eric Clow, Ms. Ray Collins, Mr. Carl Cottrell, Mr. John Harpootlian
From: Alice Sakamoto, 13315 Simon Lane
Date: 1/26/07
Re: Papp Fence Permit Request
The current fence proposal of Jim and Elise Papp is of concern to us
I welcome you all to visit our property at which is adjacent to Mr. and
Mrs. Papp, 13263 Simon Lane, to see the potential effects of their proposed fence. This
is of great importance to me so I hope you all can visit.
Because I have a horse that has access to some of the area of interest, and because
we will both be working this weekend, I will ask if you can visit during the week instead
of this weekend. I will make sure to be available for you any day Monday through
Thursday and will also make sure to have the horse out of the way.
Thank you very much. I appreciate your flexibility and hope you're able to come out and
visit. (I can be contacted via phone or email below).
Alice Sakamoto
Because the Jim and Elise Papp fence permit application is going to the Planning
Commission for review I would like to propose an idea that I think would solve a
number of significant problems at least along the Simon Lane driveway area of
the proposed fence.
I realize that most of the hearing will center on the easement side of the
proposed fence but the positioning on our side greatly impacts us, as well as
another neighbor.
The current fence plan at 13263 Simon Lane includes a 360 foot long stretch of
confinuous 6 foot high fence that runs against our property line from the back of
the property, across the front of the property and along our driveway. We have
serious concerns about this.
Below is the original design as I understand it, outlined in yellow:
{' 13145 13113
r!f 13263 13253
SIMON LN.
13315
28065 If
Along our side (13315 Simon Lane), I had originally asked if Jim and Elise Papp
would set the fence back from the two parallel driveways (in dotted green):
13263 132`
PAPP
pgaue swot
13315
xk."M
This was rejected and they proposed a smaller setback from our front corner
green line):
77 13263 132
PRPP
\ SIMC
13315
alce
2801
There is also another solution (in dotted yellow):
13145 13113
'13263 132°.3 psi
SIN4ON LN.
13315
Alke
28065 g
While this is an area of less fencing it might be an acceptable solution if Mr. and
Mrs. Papp better understood the issues with the current configuration.
The alternative fence proposal above would:
1) help mitigate the complete enclosure on all sides of our property as a
result of the current fence plan.
2) reduce the impact on our neighbor, Masa Murakami (13313 Simon Lane)
with the driveway parallel to ours as the current plan creates a narrow
chute for both properties. (I am authorized to speak on his behalf)
3) maintain the open nature of the cul de sac
4) allow deer more room to continue to get to the opening in the Stirling
fence that was specifically put there to allow for wildlife access thanks to
Roger Spreen and Jean Mordo. Once the 13263 property is fenced, the
deer will have no other way to get through to the field other than through
our property. We live here in part because of the wildlife, not despite it so
continued access is very important to us.
5) be less expensive to build and would eliminate the decision about
positioning of the fence around trees that were planted either over or close
to the property line by the builder who sold the property to Mr. Papp.
6) reduce our great concerns about the ability to remove our horse safely if
there is a wild fire as our property abuts an 18 -acre field that has
experienced a fire in the past. The configuration that Mr. Papp proposes
would leave us with a narrow opening for our entire property, all of which
will be completely impermeable 6 -foot mesh and solid fence.
7) greatly reduce, at least along the driveway, the negative visual impact this
fence will have on us. The area of the current fence plan that impacts us
heavily is not within the Papps' direct view and is not currently maintained.
If demarcation is important we would offer to put up low shrubs along the length
of the driveway at our expense.
I believe the Jim and Elise Papp may be open to suggestions from the Planning
Commission. It seems to me that there needs to be some flexibility and room for
negotiation in granting fencing permits to protect the property rights of the
neighbors as well as the applicants.
If what I am proposing was accepted by Mr. and Mrs. Papp, I would be able to
continue to have some enjoyment of our own property. The marring of what had
been a breathtaking view and almost complete cut-off of the animals by one giant
fence will always be a source of great sadness for me. We could really use
some help with this next worst scenario.
Thank you.
Alice Sakamoto
Page 1 of 2
ATTACHMENT i
Nicole Horvitz
From: Michael Schoendorf [
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 3:30 AM
To: Debbie Pedro
Subject: Fence
Dear Debbie Pedro:
Here is a what I sent to both Council and Planning commission.
Sincerely,
Michael Schoendorf
-----Original Message ---
From: Michael Schoendorf [mailto:
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 7:05 AM
To: deanwamhawsky@yahoo.com
Cc: cmigjones@cmigjones.org; lean Mordo; Mike O'Malley;
bartcarey@gmail.com; eclow@hlnagroup.com; carljmttr@aol.com; harpootlian@sboglobal.net
Subject: Fence
Dear Council Members and Planning Commission Members:
I am writing to protest the proposed fence that my neighbor (Mr. Papp -- Simon Lane) wishes to build on the
property line between his property and mine. Let me give you a brief history of the development of his parcel, as
well as information on a fence on the property behind me.
1. Mr. Papp bought his property around 1981 from a subdivision created by the estate of the previous owner
(Abrahams). That subdivision included the creation of a 10 -foot easement that extends to Natoma.
Both the Papps and Licardos (also on Simon Lane) have been fighting this restriction for a long time.
2. The existing path provides a wildlife corridor for deer and many other animals that traverse my property
daily, mainly through a row of bushes I planted about 15 years ago along the property line I share with the
Papps.
3. The Papps want to remove the bushes and replace them with a fence. The bushes were planted directly
on the property line. The Papps could have easily protested them when I planted them, but they didn't.
4. The bushes allow the wildlife to easily traverse our two properties. A fence will block this access in the
same manner that the fence behind my property blocks wildlife.
5. Mr. Papp proposes to leave a tiny 10400t opening at one and to accommodate the wildlife. A fence all the
way to the back property line also creates problems, since there will be no way for anyone to continue a
path that has been there for years.
1 11nronm
Page 2 of 2
6. The fence behind our property was not approved by the planning commission; indeed, I was never notified
that R was to be constructed, and I am now protesting that fence.
I believe that it is critical to have an open hearing on Mr. Papp's fence, and I don't think the Town should approve
any portion of the proposed work until such a meeting is held.
Sincerely,
Michael and Sharen Schoendorf
Los Altos Hills
1/10/2007
9*A.t
E
��. �.:,,
__
l
n
>� 6
+�.
p
�'h—.ayF1
''i
- - R.--
..
:�
_
_,�
r.
r
9,
Y
i{
9*A.t
Photo 2.
Existing wire on steel post fence along Sakamoto property line
I '
�s