Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/25/19994m, Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 9/22/99 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, August 25, 1999, 6:30 Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont cc: Cassettes (2) #14-99 ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Commissioners Gottlieb, Jinkerson, Wong, Cottrell & Schreiner Staff: Curtis Williams, Planning Director; Ola Balogun, Associate Engineer; Lam Smith, Planning Secretary 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS -6:30 p.m. 2.1 LANDS OF WANG, 27581 Samuel Lane (111-99-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence with attached garage. This item was continued as no new plans have been submitted. The project will be re - noticed at a future date. 3. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:00 P.M 4.1 LANDS OF LE FEVRE, Altamont Road and Eshner Court (85 -99 -LLA); A request for a Lot Line Adjustment, and request to abandon a pathway easement between the Lands of LeFevre and the Lands of Cleary. Commissioners Schreiner, Gottlieb, Cottrell and Jinkerson disclosed they had spoken to the Clearys. Chairman Jinkerson further disclosed that he lives more than 500 feet from this site but closer than 2,500 feet. He did not feel this project would effect him financially. The Planning Director introduced this item by discussing this unusual lot line adjustment. He clarified that approving the lot line adjustment does not automatically approve the t abandonment of the pathway easement. He noted the receipt of letters from Stephen Pahl, ` Tom LeFevre and Anthony Spohr. The City Attorney (Sandy Sloan) and prior City Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9122/99 August 25, 1999 Page 2 Engineer (Jeff Peterson) reviewed both of Mr. Pahl's letters regarding boundaries concluding that the boundaries shown on the lot line adjustment for the conservation easement remain correct. Mr. Pahl also referred to lot line adjustment law and adjusting lot lines between adjacent parcels. Staff felt these are adjacent parcels which are being reconfigured (in some odd ways), but are adjacent parcels today and will continue to be adjacent parcels. The City Attorney and staff felt this may not be desirable, however it is legal. They agreed with Mr. Pahl's assessment that the intent of the conservation easement was to be at the property line but nevertheless while the intent was not expressed specifically enough in any kind of recorded minutes to change where it is shown on the map. He discussed the limited authority under code and the lot line adjustment meets the requirements of the law. Commissioner Schreiner asked if they are separating out the two lot line adjustments and the abandonment of the pathway easement. The Planning Director indicated they can vote separately on the lot line adjustments and the pathway abandonment. Commissioner Schreiner asked for clarification regarding private and/or public conservation easements. The Planning Director indicated he had spoken with the City Attorney who stated that the Town considered the private conservation easement was a public conservation easement although it was not accepted until the 1996 map. The 1971 conservation easement had elements of view protection which are at dispute as to how they apply. This differs as to the Town's conservation easement in 1996 (areas are to be left free of structures other than lawfully constructed fences (not solid) which allow for movement of wildlife within the 4I conservation easement and it is to be maintained with native vegetation). OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Tom LeFevre, 14850 Manuella Road, noted that the staff is recommending approval of the lot line adjustments. He is also proposing the elimination of the pathway easement between the Lands of LeFevre and the Lands of Cleary. The reason is due to the reconfiguration of the lot. Currently, the pathway will bisect the lot which is not desirable. Gary Cleary, 26410 Silent Hills Lane, discussed the lot line adjustment stating there is a 1971 and a 1991 recorded map which refers to the existing lot and some changes. There were some legal issues with the 1991 recorded map regarding the CC&R's. He has the recorded map with the recorded conservation (view) easement. The questions raised by Mr. LeFevre with the four foot gap caused them to review all of the boundaries. There needs to be some clarification of boundaries. He referred to the City Council adoption of conservation easement in 1991 at which time Mayor Siegel accepted the map, referring to the 1971 recorded map which meant it went back to the map prior to 1991. This caused litigation between LeFevre and the Clearys. As far as the adjacent parcels, reviewing Lot 2 with respect to the conservation easement, he felt there needed to be an understanding as it appears to him that it is not adjacent to it but lots in between (clarification needed). If there is discrepancy of boundaries, this should not be recorded until L they have clarification. He continued, discussing three areas of concern: (1) unusual and fir' unnecessary act; (2) undoing some prior compromises that were done in the earlier Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/22/99 August 25, 1999 Page 3 46, acceptance of the subdivision map with the conditions; and (3) addressing what is good planning. He further discussed the 10 foot strip to be added to Lot 2 for the purpose of expanding the development area which burdens his property. Regarding the pathway, they prefer the pathway as originally proposed. Commissioner Schreiner referred to Mr. LeFevre's letter regarding view rights. Mr. Cleary discussed the law suit which indicated that they (Parcel 3 of the Eshner subdivision) were removed and they have no burden or benefit from the CC&R's. He feels he has a view easement according to the 1971 map. Nobuko Cleary, 26410 Silent Hills Lane, discussed history of the Planning Commission and City Council approvals, noting that they are the most impacted neighbors. The applicant is now proposing lot line adjustments and the abandonment of the pathway easement, neither making any sense. They bought the house with the understanding there was a view and conservation easement. The applicant and his lawyers have been trying to remove both. The stringbean or umbilical cord design shows no common sense. She asked that the Planning Commission protect their rights and not let the interest of developers and subdividers take away the rights of people to enjoy their property. Stan Weber, 26495 Altamont Road, a 30 year neighbor, was surprised with the proposal. He felt the pathway easement was useful and needed in connecting the two streets. There was no logical reason to abandon the pathway or to approve the lot line adjustments. He was opposed to the proposals. Lynn Miller, 27320 Julietta Lane, was very interested in the application. However, she has been out of town and requested more time to review the plans before making any decisions. She did note that everyone in the neighborhood purchased their lots for privacy. Stephen Pahl, 27431 Black Mountain Road, was on the Planning Commission when the subdivision was first approved. He stated his August W correspondence contained an error as he was unaware of the language contained in Resolution 1391. Councilmember Siegel was very clear in his language when he did not make any mention of the 1991 map of the adoption of the conservation easement; he only spoke of the 1971 map. This is substantial because there is a substantial controversy concerning where the east and west Cleary boundary lines are located. Government Code Section 66412 requires that they be existing adjacent parcels. Adjacent, to him does not mean separated by several hundred feet or by the creation of a stringbean lot, nor does it conform with the local zoning ordinances. He questioned the reasoning for the stringbean lot, to either: (1) artificially inflate the MDAIWA on Lot 2 by 10%; or (2) to build a spite fence. He continued, stating that it was clear from the 1971 map and the 1991 map that the eastern and western lot lines of the Clearys should be perfectly parallel but it cannot be in light of the meets and bounds descriptions as contained in the proposed lot line adjustment (4 feet off on the north side and 2.1 feet off on the south side) which means the west side line cannot be correctly stated on the map. He suggested to not approve or deny this application but to send it back to re -survey or to ask the applicant to come back and address the issues Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/22/99 August 25, 1999 Page 4 contained in his August 19'° letter. Regarding the views, he stated the court held that because the Clearys purchased the property before the CC&R's where actually recorded against their property, the CC&R's that were adopted by Mr. McGowen do not apply to the Cleary property. The court did not make any decision as to what was entitled under the 1971 map (the view easement). This issue has not been resolved. They believe under the 1971 map that there are still view and slope easements as drafted by Jules Eshner and another attorney. Scott Vanderlip, Pathways Committee, stated that the Committee recommends maintaining the pathway easement between Lands of LeFevre and the Lands of Cleary to connect Eshner Court to Silent I -tills Lane as well as maintaining the easement connecting Silent Hills Lane to Julietta Lane. The pathway on Eshner Court to connecting easement should be built on the westerly side of Eshner Court. There are several reasons why this is an important path and why it should not be abandoned: (1) This is a prime connecting path. This proposed path would directly connect the "bulbs" of two cul-de-sacs in a straight and efficient path over fairly flat ground. (2) This path impacts the minimal number of residents by being direct and would be far superior to any alternate that has been proposed up around the hill impacting from 5 to 10 property owners. (3) The proposed path borders two properties. One property is already developed and that property owner would like to see the path there. The other property is not developed and any future project on that parcel can be designed knowing where the pathway exists since it would be installed at L subdivision. (4) This path will help create a better sense of community by allowing kids, and families to walk or bike throughout the neighborhood in an efficient way. Also, the Master Path Plan shows an undefined arrow crossing the site at three points, inferring connections between Altamont Road and Julietta Lane. In addition, the Pathway Element states "the design of new subdivisions, especially those with cul-de-sac streets, shall incorporate pathway connections to nearby neighborhoods" and that "off-road paths shall be located along or as close to property lines as possible". The existing easement appears to be consistent with both of these policies and the proposed abandonment would be contrary to those provisions. The Parks, Pathway and Recreation Committee strongly opposes abandoning the pathway easement already approved as part of the conditions for the LeFevre subdivision. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, asked if the current fencing was approved as it is cutting through the dripline of an oak tree. The fencing should be kept open for the movement of wildlife. She continued, stating the stringbean corridor will not enhance the area and only benefits one property. The existing fencing is very restrictive for the wildlife habitat and to add more fencing would be risking the ecosystems of that natural space we are trying to preserve. It seems foolish to have conservation easements if they do not allow the habitats to enter and leave and use it to help maintain a healthy ecosystem. Lynn Miller, asked if the stringbean is added to the property, do not allow an increase in ` the MDA/MFA. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/22/99 August 25, 1999 Page 5 Tom LeFevre, in response to previous comments, stated if the intent of the lot line adjustment was to gain 10% development area on Lot 2, there would have been easier ways to make a lot line adjustment. He happens to like the conservation easement. The view from Lot 2 looks directly over that area and he would like the conservation easement to be connected to Lot 2. This is a lot line adjustment. Any other issues are separate from the lot line adjustment. The law is clear regarding lot line adjustment approvals. Chairman linkerson referred to Mr. Pahl's letter regarding the boundaries, asking Mr. LeFevre if he felt there was a dispute regarding the proper boundary lines. Mr. LeFevre stated this was the first he heard of this issue. It was his understanding that the City Engineer had extensively studied this and was comfortable with what was being proposed. He felt it was unnecessary for an additional survey. Shelley LeFevre, 14850 Manuella Road, as property owners, they have property rights also. If they want to live on Lot 2, they would like the benefit of the conservation easement. It is not for the benefit of the other lots, its for the benefit of Lot 2. Chairman linkerson stated, as an example, the applicants could grant themselves an easement over this property since they own all of the property, and the Town would not be involved. Since they own Lot 4, they could grant to Lot 2 an easement over Lot 4 which would be binding on Lot 4 when sold. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman linkerson stated at first reviewed, the adjustment did not appear to make sense. As mentioned, since the applicants own all of the land, they can grant an easement from Lot 4 to Lot 2 and accomplish the same thing without Town involvement. However, this proposal does not violate any of the Town ordinances. They have also heard the discussion regarding the word "adjacent", referring to case San Diegutto Partnership versus City of San Diego, an issue similar to this came up. It referred to the word "adjacent" stating that the usual, ordinary import of "adjacent" is that the position of one thing relative to another is "not distant or far off," "nearby but not touching," `relatively near and having nothing of the same kind intervening," "adjacent is sometimes merely a synonym for near or close to." He cannot make a finding that this is not an adjacent parcel. He felt staff was correct in their assessment that this is allowable. Other issues are not a part of this application. One benefit of the adjustment is that the front lot, Lot 4, by granting the easement, they are reducing the maximum floor area by 4,000 square feet (reduction in mass). Commissioner Schreiner, regarding Lot 4, Parcel B, stated the reason this has been reduced in size has nothing to do with the easement. It has to do with the fact that Parcel 2 now has considerably more land added to it because it is being taken away from the conservation easement. The original configuration for Lot 4 included the conservation easement plus an ` area on the other side. She has difficulty approving a project when there are so many �r questions regarding the boundaries. She would like this clarified in more detail. Her most Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/22/99 August 25, 1999 Page 6 important objection is that she does not feel that the request for this easement meets the zoning code and the intent of the Site Development Policy. It gives more floor and development area to Lot 2 without giving the corresponding expansion of land. The structure could be at least 1,000 square feet more and at least 2,000 square feet more of development area with limited areas for placement. The land may not be able to support additional numbers. The 10 foot connection does not enhance Lot 2, only gives it more MDA/M]FA. Commissioner Gottlieb agreed with the previous statements. She would like a continuance to clarify the boundaries. She was also concerned with land locking Parcel A and emergency access. Commissioner Cottrell had many of the same concerns with the boundary issues and found no logic to the lot line adjustments when there were easier ways to accomplish the same results. He felt it sets a precedent. He felt this was bad planning. The Planning Director stated there is not a boundary dispute in the minds of staff, including Jeff Peterson, the prior City Engineer. Mr. Peterson has reviewed Mr. Pahl's letter of August 19ih regarding the boundaries, stating the analysis was incorrect. If there is a boundary dispute on the west property side, it is a private dispute between the two property owners. Commissioner Schreiner stated that the pathway was taken at the appropriate time with the approval of the subdivision. The pathway serves a most useful purpose and carries out what the Pathway Element states. She could not support the abandonment of the pathway easement. The Planning Director clarified that lot line adjustments are essentially exceptions to the subdivision map act. State law has provided that lot line adjustments do not have to go through the subdivision process. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to recommend approval of the lot line adjustment between new Parcels A & C, Lands of LeFevre, Altamont Road and Eshner Court, to the City Council. AYES: Chairman Jinkerson, Commissioners Wong, Gottlieb, Cottrell & Schreiner NOES: None 4 V1 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9122/99 August 25, 1999 Page 7 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to deny the request for a lot line adjustment between new Parcel A, lot 2 and new Parcel A, the conservation easement, Lands of LeFevre, Altamont Road and Eshner Court. with the following findings: the Site Development Policy, zoning codes and ordinances are not being followed when more floor and development area are added to a parcel without a corresponding expansion of the land to carry it. Also, Parcel A is extremely constrained by a conservation easement and steep slopes so the positioning of the structure is dictated by the constraints of the land. AYES: Commissioners Cottrell, Gottlieb & Schreiner NOES: Chairman Jinkerson & Commissioners Wong Commissioner Jinkerson stated, as the law stands currently, the lot line adjustment is allowed. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to recommend denial of the proposed abandonment of the pathway easement with the determination that it would be inconsistent with the Pathway Element of the General Plan, Lands of LeFevre, Silent Hills Lane and Eshner Court. AYES: Chairman Jinkerson, Commissioners Gottlieb, Schreiner & Cottrell NOES: Commissioners Wong These items will appear on the City Council agenda September 16, 1999. 4.2 LANDS OF VAMEGHI, 25705 O'Keefe Lane (149-99-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and attached garage. This item was continued to September 81h due to story poles not being in place. 5. OLD BUSINESS 5.1 Report from subcommittees. There will be a pathway walk on October 91h at 10:00 a.m. and a dedication to Mary Stutz, former Planning Commissioner. 6. NEW BUSINESS None 7. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7.1 Planning Commission Representative for August 19'" —no meeting scheduled Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9122/99 August 25, 1999 Page 8 7.2 Planning Commission Representative for September 2 I Commissioner ]inkerson 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8.1 Approval of the August 11, 1999 minutes PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the August 11, 1999 minutes with minor corrections; Commissioner Cottrell abstaining. 9. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT HEARINGS — AUGUST 17 AND 24 1999 9.1 LANDS OF YANEZ, 26242 Fremont Road (173-99-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan. Approved with conditions August 17, 1999. 9.2 LANDS OF YEN, 27886 Via Ventana (178-99-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan. Approved with conditions August 17, 1999. 9.3 LANDS OF TAM, 14297 Saddle Mountain Drive (87-99-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for pool and spa. Continued to August 31" as no representative for the applicant was present. 9.4 LANDS OF TILLEY, 26217 Dori Lane (147-99-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a 984 square foot addition, and remodel. Continued to August 31, 1999 for story pole placement. 9.5 LANDS OF MOON LANE DEVELOPMENT, 13826 Moon Lane (188-99- ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan. Approved with conditions August 24, 1999. 9.6 LANDS OF MOON LANE DEVELOPMENT, 13824 Moon Lane (187-99- ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan. Approved with conditions August 24, 1999. 10. REPORT FROM FAST TRACK HEARINGS—AUGUST 17 AND 24, 1999 10.1 LANDS OF BARITEAU, 13769 Wildflower Lane (124-99-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new 5,388 square foot residence (26 feet in height) with attached garage. Approved with conditions August 17, 1999. This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar September 2, 1999. Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 1999 Page 9 Approved 9/22199 06 10.2 LANDS OF VELLEQUETTE, 13944 Fremont Pines Lane (128-99-ZP-SD- OD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new 6,010 square foot residence (26 feet in height) with an attached two -car garage, and a one -car carport. Approved with conditions August 24, 1999. This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar September 16, 1999. 11. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lam Smith Planning Secretary LI ` Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 9/22/99 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, September 8, 1999, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes(1)#15-99 ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Commissioners Gottlieb, Jinkerson, Wong, Cottrell & Schreiner Staff: Curtis Williams, Planning Director; Ola Balogun, Associate Engineer; Shaunn O'Connor, Assistant Engineer; Lam Smith, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -None 4 3.1 LANDS OF VAIvEGHI, 25705 O'Keefe Lane (149-99-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and attached garage (continued from August 25, 1999). Mr. O'Connor introduced this item by reviewing some of the comments from the staff report, in particular, the inaccuracy of Worksheet #2, indicating the development area exceeds the allowable. Condition #1 includes language requiring the applicant to revise the plans to meet the MDA for the site. The condition also indicates the request for revising the rear yard area to comply with the grading policy. Regarding the Human Habitation setback area for noise, only non -habitable structures can be in this area. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING James Chu, 39 W. 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, project designer, provided a clarification of the development area numbers. The staff report suggested to either reduce some of the second floor or to set it back 5-10 feet at the very front of the residence, to provide a better stepped roofline. They do not have a problem stepping the house. He noted that the site is difficult as it slopes in both directions. He can set bedroom #5 back, working with staff. Commissioner Gottlieb questioned the height of the gazebo (trellis) and the parallel parking space which was answered by Mr. Chu. She also suggested moving the porch down one foot to ` reduce the bulk. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/22/99 September 8, 1999 Page 2 4 Masoud Vameghi, 2704 Wakefield Drive, Belmont, applicant, thanked the Planning Commission for their assistance in helping to reduce the development area figures. Nancy Ewald, Pathways Committee re -iterated their recommendation Debbie Chen, 25545 O'Keefe Lane, commented on the height and the structure not being in line with the other houses. The project will be visible from her site. She asked for tree plantings to reduce the visibility. The Planning Director felt the house height was not much different from other houses except for the two new houses which were restricted to one story. If the house was pushed back it would make the house higher and more visible. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Gottlieb asked if there was any way to reduce the height one foot without changing the design. The Planning Director stated they could either grade down or change the roof pitch. Staff was not concerned with the height as much as with the siting of the second story. Commissioner Wong asked what the Commission could change without making findings which was answered by the Planning Director. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence and attached garage, Lands of Vameghi, 25705 O'Keefe Lane, with the following additions/changes to the conditions of approval: the second story shall be stepped back at least five feet; and the front entry element height reduced. The motion referenced the Design Guidelines, page 14. AYES: Chairman Jinkerson, Commissioners, Gottlieb, Wong, Schreiner & Cottrell NOES: None This approval is subject to a 21 day appeal period. 3.2 LANDS OF RICHARDSON & WILSON, 11950 Rhus Ridge Drive (158-99-ZP- SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a second story addition, a detached garage, and remodel. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue the application, as recommended by staff, to the September 22nd meeting as the applicant has not received Health Department clearance for the proposed septic system. 3.3 LANDS OF DYKES & CALDERON, 12200 Kate Drive (lot 10) (165-99-ZP-SD- GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, including attached garage, pool and pool house. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 3 Approved 9/22/99 Commissioner Gottlieb stepped down from the public hearing due to a business conflict The Planning Director introduced this item by discussing the cul-de-sac front setback on Kate Drive. He clarified that the application included a pool and pool house. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Patricia Haight, 885 N. San Antonio Road, Los Altos, representing Mark Sandoval, project architect, who is out of the country. She fielded questions regarding the basement which will be used as non -habitable space for car storage. The Planning Director stated there were few requirements for basement light wells for non - habitable space. The basement meets the Town definition as it is wholly underground. They will be using a lift to lower the cars into the basement area. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, asked for clarification regarding the setback from the creek which was answered by the Planning Director. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Schreiner was surprised that the height of the structure would not block any faw existing or potential views and would be consistent with other homes in the subdivision. The houses on lots 9 and 10 will be in close proximity to each other. She was concerned with keeping the area rural especially from off-site. The landscaping between the two houses should be extensive. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell and seconded by Commissioner Wong to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence, Lands of Dykes & Calderon, 12200 Kate Drive (lot 10), with the following additions/changes to the conditions of approval: add to condition #2, that particular attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view of the new residence from the street and neighboring properties, and in particular in the front yard and on the side to screen between the driveway and the driveway on Lot 9. AYES: Chairman Jinkerson, Commissioners Schreiner, Wong & Cottrell NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Gottlieb This approval is subject to a 21 day appeal period. 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.1 The Planning Director reported that the Land Use Element of the General Plan Committee will be scheduling a meeting on September 29, 1999 at 6:30 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 4 None REPORT FROM TEE CITY COUNCIL MEETING Approved 9122/99 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for September 2nd, Commissioner Jinkerson, reported on the following items: the Lands of Burger; the Lands of Quinn, new residence and lot line adjustment; and the Lands of Kerns. 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for September 16th — Commissioner Gottlieb 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of the August 25, 1999 minutes. Continued to the September 22, 1999 meeting. 8. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT HEARINGS FOR AUGUST 31, 1999 8.1 LANDS OF TILLEY, 26217 Dori Lane (147-99-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a 984 square foot addition and remodel. Approved with conditions. 8.2 LANDS OF TAM, 14297 Saddle Mountain Drive (87-99-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for pool and spa. Approved with conditions. 8.3 LANDS OF ALLISON, 11030 Magdalena Avenue (194-99-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for landscape screening plan. Approved with conditions. w : Y QB:LISI:1 The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Smith Planning Secretary