Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/27/1999Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 11/10/99 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, October 27, 1999, 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes (3) #17-99 ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:00 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; Carl Cahill, Associate Planner; Shaunn O'Connor, Assistant Planner; Lam Smith, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Michael Scott, 27856 Black Mountain Road, discussed the frustration experienced with his pond project which he started approximately three years ago. The process left much to be desired. He referred to his neighbors and his letter to the Planning Commission regarding the conditions of approval. He objected to the pond maintenance agreement (disclosure statement). He suggested developing a process to handle complaints and/or objections to the conditions of approval. Betsy Bertram, 11854 Page Mill Road, requested an update on the Montgomery property issue which was answered by the Planning Director. The Planning Director introduced the new Associate Planner, Carl Cahill, to the Commission. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 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 (continued from September 22, 1999). Staff had nothing further to add to the report. Commissioner Gottlieb compared the two plans (previous and current) and it appears that the trees by the garage are in a different area. The designer responded that a few trees were previously marked incorrectly. The current layout is ( correct. Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1999 Page 2 OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Approved 11/10/99 Bob Flury, 20 S. Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, project designer, felt the staff report was clear regarding the modifications to the plans in response to the previous comments. He did not agree that a portion of the back of the residence was visible from Basset Lane. Regarding condition #2, he stated that they were originally removing five oak trees, replaced with five 15 -gallon Coast Live Oaks. They are now removing only one oak tree, however, the condition has not changed. He requested reducing the number. He continued noting the unique circumstance with the front property line. Commissioner Schreiner commented on the large amount (392 square feet) of new decking within the front setback and 387 square feet of existing decking. She further discussed the encroachments on the property site. Mr. Flury clarified that the old and new decking is approximately the same size with only a small increase. They could make the numbers match so they will not be increasing the non- conformity. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, reiterated her previous request to move the garage five feet farther from the oak tree. The reason for the request was to reduce the cut (. and the possible damage to the root system of the oak tree. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Cottrell felt the applicants had addressed the previous requests. Since the house is a remodel, he did not feel it could be stepped. The house is set back. He supports the project. Commissioner Gottlieb voiced concern regarding the inaccuracy of the previous site plan which was a critical issue at the previous meeting. She would like to re -visit out pads some time in the future, in particular, allowing 27 feet. She would prefer the house reduced in height by 2 feet. Commissioner Schreiner voiced similar concerns at the previous meeting. This is a rural area. This house will set the tone of the street. Commissioner Wong felt the applicants have addressed previous concerns. He supported the application. Chairman Jinkerson appreciated the work the applicants and designer have done in terms of moving the garage. He also felt the visibility of the house is an issue. Given the fact that the power and jurisdiction of the Commission to reduce height is limited, the applicant has indicated planned screening on the back side, he can support the project as presented. He would like to see two oak trees to replace the one removed (condition #2) due to the nature of the area. Also, the decking should not be increased (verify deck size). Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/10/99 October 27, 1999 Page 3 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell and seconded by Commissioner Wong to approve the Site Development Permit for a major addition, Lands of Richardson & Wilson, 11950 Rhus Ridge Road, with the following changes and/or additions to the conditions of approval: revised plans to be submitted showing the proposed decking within the front setback equal to or less than the existing decking in both square footage and extent of the encroachment; change to condition #2, requesting two (2) 15 -gallon Oak trees. Findings for condition #4 (color board compliance) due to the high visibility (height) of this project. AYES: Chairman Jinkerson, Commissioners Schreiner, Wong & Cottrell NOES: Commission Gottlieb This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar November 18, 1999. 3.2 LANDS OF LAUER, 11993 Magdalena Avenue (179-99-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new two-story residence and attached garage (continued from September 22, 1999). Mr. O'Connor introduced this item referring to his memo regarding a 10 foot pathway easement not being required. The right of way for Magdalena Avenue does not encompass the entire right of way, leaving approximately 10 feet to accommodate a pathway. The Magdalena Avenue right of way is within the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County. He recommended removing condition #21 and modifying condition #20 (all required permits shall be obtained from the SCVWD and Santa Clara County). The applicant provided a site plan showing the parking space out of the setback. Commissioner Cottrell questioned the request for a pathway and bridge (condition #20). Mr. O'Connor reviewed condition #20. He and the Engineer felt the feasibility of a full length bridge over the creek would be difficult. He discussed how to accomplish a pathway without a bridge. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Tom Lauer, 5945 Fibbleton Place, San Jose, applicant, stated with the result of a couple of meetings and a working session with the Commission, the house has been redone, relocated, with no variance requests. He also questioned the request for the bridge. If the intent is to have a continuance pathway along the length of the property, five feet wide, he thought it could be done. He pointed out that to the west and east of the property there were no pathways. Ginger Summit, Pathways Committee, clarified that they are trying to make connections as properties come in for development. The pathway should be separated five feet from the road to provide a buffer zone. Regarding the bridge, the Committee only wanted to make sure people could get across the creek. The Committee would support another way to get across the creek (without a bridge). CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/10/99 October 27, 1999 Page 4 06 Commissioner Wong voiced support of the project especially without the need for variances. Commissioner Schreiner was pleased that the applicant was sensitive to the comments. She liked the driveway design and appreciated the changes. Commissioner Gottlieb voiced support. She asked since the County put in the Magdalena/Summerhill pathway, if they could put in the rest of the pathway. Commissioner Cottrell also voiced support. He clarified that no bridge is required. Chairman Jinkerson agreed. He was pleased with the outcome. The new location of the driveway will be a safety benefit. He thanked the applicant for working with staff and the Commission. He requested a verification of the 25 foot setback top of bank location (condition #8). MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner Schreiner to approve the Site Development Permit for a new two-story residence and attached garage, Lands of Lauer, 11993 Magdalena Avenue, with the following additions/changes to the conditions of approval: verify 25 feet top of bank; delete condition #21, and modify condition #20, as presented in the staff memo, striking "bridge". Findings for condition #5 (color board compliance) due to highly visible house on a well traveled road. AYES: Chairman Jinkerson, Commissioners Wong, Cottrell, Schreiner & Gottlieb NOES: None (f, This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar November 18, 1999. Brief break at 6:50 p.m. 3.3 LANDS OF DITZLER, 27040 Dezaham Way (220-99-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new second story addition. Mr. O'Connor introduced this item by presenting a memo regarding an error in the calculating of the MDA. He recommended that condition #1 be revised to the standard wording (deleting the MDA requirement). Discussion ensued regarding the swapping of development areas. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Noel Cross, 255 N. Market Street, San Jose, project architect, discussed the design of the second story, placing it over the portion of the house that was cut deepest into the contours of the hill. Heavy landscaping has already been planted in the area of the closest neighbor for screening purposes. The neighbors only requested no windows on the rear fagade of the addition. Privacy impacts are minimal. They have matched all existing materials, etc. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, complimented the efforts to coordinate plantings with their next door neighbor. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING kaw Discussion ensued with all in support of the project. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/10/99 October 27, 1999 Page 5 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to approve the Site Development Permit for a new second story addition, Lands of Ditzler, 27040 Dezahara Way, with the following additions/changes to the conditions of approval: revised condition #1, deleting the MDA requirement. AYES: Chairman Jinkerson, Commissioners Cottrell, Gottlieb, Wong & Schreiner NOES: None This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar November 18, 1999. 3.4 LANDS OF FINN, 12000 Finn Lane (183-96-ZP-SD-GD-VAR-Amend); A request to amend an approved site development permit and variance for construction of a schoolhouse, to allow grading of terraces and retaining walls. The Planning Director introduced this item by providing background information. In 1997, the Planning Commission granted a site development permit and a variance to allow floor area to exceed the maximum allowable for the site by 101 square feet, to accommodate the rebuilding of an old schoolhouse on the property, in close proximity to Prospect Avenue. Substantive conditions of approval included a requirement to record a limitation of the square footage on the adjacent lot to compensate for the 101 square foot variance. A limited amount of grading was L proposed with the project that was approved. In August of 1999, upon final inspection by the \I Planning and Engineering Departments, it was determined that a significant amount of grading and retaining walls were constructed which had not been approved on the plans. Staff informed the applicant that an amendment to the initial approval would be required, and the applicant shortly thereafter submitted revised plans. The plans provided to the Commission were the approved plans and the proposed plans (existing). The Planning Department was not made aware of the changes to the approved permit until the site visit. At that time, the Planning Department contacted the applicant. The Planning Department was not notified that these changes were going to occur in advance. The Planning Director recalled that there was more extensive landscaping first proposed, not as much as shown currently, adjacent to the school house. At that time, staff indicated this could be a concern, a variance situation, to have the additional disturbance and that portion was deleted. It was presented to the Commission without the additional grading. Chairman Jinkerson asked, with regard to the 1997 approval, was there any demo permit for the removal of trees? The response was no. He marked his plan (yellow highlight) of the trees that have been removed and the walls and stairways, for the record. He asked if the Town requires engineering for the design of the walls that have been built? The response was yes. He asked, prior to this application, was there ever an application for permits submitted for the walls he highlighted? The response was no. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/10/99 October 27, 1999 Page 6 Ken Schoppet, 960 N. San Antonio Road, Los Altos, project landscape architect, stated the sequence of events discussed were accurate. He had prepared the original plans for the variance request which was approved. He did not supervise the construction. He did visit the site three to four months ago and noticed the walls and cut. He had asked the applicant if he had permits. He was told that someone told the applicant that as long as you stayed with a three foot retaining wall and fill situation (four foot cut), permits were not needed. Two months later, the applicant contacted him requesting a plan showing the existing walls to apply for a permit. The retaining walls behind the schoolhouse are as approved but there are extensive walls also. He understood why the work was done as the applicant wants more usability on his property. There was an issue previously regarding drainage going across Prospect Avenue onto the adjoining neighbor's property. He felt that the terracing done will help the stability of the slope more than not helping it. It will help mitigate some of the drainage problems that would or could occur on a steep slope. Not getting a permit is another issue. Regarding concealing the walls from across Prospect Avenue, there are many redwood trees and a substantial oak tree. The applicant has asked him for a plan for further screening from the street. Creeping fig will be going on all of the walls and there will be rosemary on the hillside to help continue to stabilize the slope. They have additional oaks that they will be planting back along the down hill side of the schoolhouse and additional shrubs along Prospect Avenue to reduce the visual impact. All of this is proposed after the fact. Commissioner Schreiner viewed the property noticing sprinkler heads placed every one to two feet in the area of the lawn. This area will be heavily artificially watered. She was very concerned with what this will do to the retaining walls and the path. She was concerned with the potential drainage problems. When the original retaining walls were approved for the house (front and back), they were assured by engineering that they were adequate for the job. They gave approval on that basis. She asked if Mr. Schoppet felt that the original plans were not adequate. Mr. Schoppet felt what they proposed in the variances was very adequate for what they needed to do for the schoolhouse. Commissioner Wong asked what would be a better solution than watering the lawn and vegetation, and are the retaining walls usual in this type of slope situation. Mr. Schoppet felt the sprinklers were for the creeping fig. The creeping fig and rosemary will not require much water. However, the lawn will. There was one oak tree shown on the original plan that died. There are several reasons for retaining walls. He felt the applicant wanted more usable space. He was working on some assumption that what he was doing was okay. He further discussed the original 1997 landscaping condition and the removal of some the redwood trees. Originally, the redwood trees were planted for fast screening with the idea of removing some at a later date. He was not sure how many redwood trees were removed. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/10/99 October 27, 1999 Page 7 Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, discussed the two sets of plans. There is still one oak tree along the Prospect Avenue property line on the inside of the fence but there are redwood trees planted below the drip line which is not recommended. Also, the redwood trees that are planted along there are uphill from the live oaks along the street which is very detrimental for them. She further discussed the number of sprinkler heads 3 to 3 '/z feet apart. The Committee would have recommended more native drought tolerant plantings there. The redwoods are putting the oaks at risk on the Prospect Avenue side as well as the ones across the road due to runoff. The six oak trees shown on the plan have not been planted and should be required to replace the ones removed. Betsy Betram, 11854 Page Mill Road, clarified the fact that the applicant is currently a Councilmember and a former Planning Commissioner. She was very upset and disturbed regarding work done without permits by a Planning Commissioner and now a Councilmember. Ginger Summit, Pathways Committee, echoed Mrs. Betram's concerns. They now have two people who knew better but went ahead and did the work without approval. She felt the City Council and Planning Commission were losing all credibility. This is a serious omission by the applicant. The Town should make some kind of statement indicating this is not okay (working without permits). Ken Schoppet was not as concerned with drainage as with screening. He felt there may be a need to remove some of the redwood trees by the large oak tree. He did not feel the planting of the rosemary on the hillside would require any more water than native grass. The only thing that would create extra water and drainage would be the lawn. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING The Planning Director discussed the options: approve or deny. It is very difficult to review a project that has already been built. Perhaps the Commission can approve something but making a statement that it is not the right process to go through. He discussed a few possibilities: (1) code provision which allows them to require multiple times the permit fee for projects which are constructed without permits; (2) might be possible to allow the walls to remain but require that the irrigation and lawn be removed and the area planted in native trees and shrubs and/or perhaps placed in a conservation easement. This is a rare occasion. Commissioner Wong asked how other cities handle such situations which was answered by the Planning Director. Commissioner Schreiner felt the main issue has not been addressed. She was on the Commission when the original variance was granted. It was granted for a 682 square foot schoolhouse. The variance was required because the applicant did not have sufficient floor area. There was a great deal of concern expressed about where this schoolhouse was going to be located. It was determined that it could be located on other areas on the property but Mr. Finn wanted it in this particular area. Concern was expressed because of the steep slope, the impact to that slope, and that trees would be taken out. The variance was granted with stipulations: the intent and purpose of the ordinance will still be served because the schoolhouse will fit on the site with minimal impact; the location of the proposed schoolhouse is placed in such a way that it will Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/10/99 October 27, 1999 Page 8 nestle perfectly into the lots sloped north bank. This placement requires minimal grading to construct the building. The existing redwood screening between Prospect Avenue and the schoolhouse is situated in such a way that no additional screening will be required for off site visibility. The staff report indicated no trees or vegetation were to be removed. Those were the conditions under which the variance was granted because the schoolhouse could have been placed elsewhere. Now they have excessive grading with disturbance to the area with retaining walls. This is exactly what they did not want to see (keep area as natural as possible). The extra retaining walls are not necessary for the safety of the building per landscape architect. She concluded that the retaining walls and the amount of grading were only for aesthetic reasons. This application asks the Commission to modify the original variance findings so to approve something they would not have approved originally. This is not a good message to send to other residents in Town. She has difficulty making the additional findings. Commissioner Gottlieb was also on the Commission when the original variance was granted. She agreed with the previous comments. She was also concerned with the trench to the pathway and with drainage. She cannot extend the findings. Commissioner Cottrell was concerned with the principle. This application puts the Commission in a difficult situation. If this is approved, it means that anyone with a permit can deviate from that permit and it will be blessed later by either the Planning Commission or perhaps the City Council. For that reason he would deny the project requesting the applicant to correct this matter 1 to the satisfaction of the Commission and/or City Council. �y Chairman Jinkerson was also on the Commission as well as the applicant when the original variance was granted. The approval was a very close call. He felt an amount of goodwill carried the variance (give and take with the swapping of floor area). He was stunned when viewing the site, knowing what was approved compared to what has been done without permits. It is an unknown regarding engineering of the retaining walls (safety issue). He was very concerned with the message given to the Town and that a public figure would take advantage of the code. He cannot support the modification of the variance. This parcel should be put back the way it was originally approved. Commissioner Wong felt the applicant should have applied for the permit. However, the project has already been done. They should look at a way to mitigate the situation and make it into a more productive situation, also sending a message to the residents that this should not be repeated. He asked how they could rectify this and still keep the integrity of the Town. Commissioner Cottrell felt this was a good point but the applicant should remove the walls and restore the area as originally approved. Chairman Jinkerson stated the laws apply to everyone. He referred to Section 10-2.1308 which makes it a criminal violation. The Commission has the duty to rule on variances and send a clear message: bring the project in for approval. Don't wait until you get caught and then request a variance. He will never support this type of variance. He felt the project should be returned to the original approval. This is the start of the proper penalty. V Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/10/99 October 27, 1999 Page 9 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to deny the request to amend an approved site development permit and variance for construction of a schoolhouse, to allow grading of terraces and retaining walls, Lands of Finn, 12000 Finn Lane, with findings for denial: the intent and purposes of the Zoning Ordinance will not be served by granting the amendment because the disturbance to the slope exceeds the intent of the original approval, and has resulted in excessive cut and fill and impact to trees. Additionally, there will be further drainage impacts and increased visibility of the project from Prospect Avenue. Also, there is no evidence that the retaining walls have been engineered properly. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Wong felt if they make the applicant remove the walls and restore the grading, the slope will still be disturbed (twice). What is the most important message? Commissioner Schreiner stated that the issue is: would this amount of grading and disturbance of the slope be allowed with the original granting of variance? The answer is no. It is clear from the findings that the reason the Commission allowed the variance was that the schoolhouse would fit on the site with minimal impact. They determined the minimal impact was grading of 56 c.y., retaining walls in front and back of the schoolhouse, and under variance findings which refers to minimal grading, screening, and non -visibility. Also, the mature trees were to be saved and no trees be removed. L AYES: Chairman Jinkerson, Commissioners Cottrell, Schreiner & Gottlieb 6V NOES: Commission Wong The appeal process was explained for the benefit of the applicant's representative and the public. 3.5 LANDS OF GAGNARD, 12020 Kate Drive (204-99-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence with attached garage, and cabana. The Planning Director introduced this item. He briefly discussed the tower element. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING James and Michelle Gagnard, 13105 Delson Court, applicants, have made every effort to meet all requirements and Town codes. They felt the design would add diversity to the Town. The design is a typical pillbox design found in Italy. They have shared the plans with their few neighbors with no objections. They provided sketches of the proposed landscape plan, a partial rear elevation and the cabana front elevation showing the stone work. Regarding moving the house back an additional 20 feet, they stated it would interfere with the proposed lap pool. Trees and plants can be installed to mitigate the front of the home. Architecturally, the pool is placed in the best location. Mr. Gagnard understood the recommendations and guidelines. He has made many adjustments to the design which included the placement of the garage, and the house and roof colors. The stucco will have the appearance of an aged home. The width of the house with the garage is approximately 95 feet. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/10/99 October 27, 1999 Page 10 Commissioner Schreiner asked if the homes in the subdivision were being staggered which was answered by the Planning Director. One of staff's concerns was with the driveway which cuts through the front yard and does not allow for much screening. Discussion ensued regarding the bulk and setting the house back. Mr. Gagnard was open to landscaping as noted in the conditions of approval. He discussed the design elements which will reduce the appearance of bulk. The facade in question is a 40 foot wide two story facade out of a 163 foot lot. Ginger Summit, Pathways Committee, reiterated the pathways requirement for restoring the pathway on Kate Drive to II -B standards. She also mentioned that Stonebrook Drive which is behind their property will have a pathway. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, requested they eradicate the star thistle, and work with neighbors on both sides for mitigation measures of the home. John Vidivoch, developer of the subdivision, discussed the CC&R's, the use of natural materials, and trying to create a subdivision which blends into the surroundings. The Gagnards home is exceptional and a benefit to the subdivision. The features dictate the design. This is a very expensive design with the use of real stone. He clarified that the back path is not on their property and with the house not pushed back on the lot, it gives a better separation of the pathway. He complimented the Planning Director for his help with the subdivision. Martha Robertson, owner of lot 5, voiced support of the project. Terry Couture, 903 Parma Way, Los Altos, representing Windy Hills Associates, voiced support of the project. Alice Nuzzo, Newbridge resident, felt this house has much to offer the community. She did not feel the house needs to be pushed back on the lot. Mr. Gagnard noted since there is a concern with the driveway, he suggested placing it on the west (left) side which will give them more open space in the front and more area for planting trees. Chairman Jinkerson was concerned with the tower which gives an appearance of a three story structure. If it were reduced four feet, it would be in conformity with what he appreciates as an architectural feature. However, with the lineup of the windows and the higher bank, it gives the appearance of a three story structure. Mr. Gagnard noted that this was specifically designed to meet Town objectives (less than 27 feet above existing grade) and guidelines. The tower is set back 15-20 feet from the front facade. Betsy Betram, 11854 Page Mill Road, and Mr. Vidovich felt the tower added character and creativity to the design. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING kar Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/10/99 October 27, 1999 Page 11 Commissioner Cottrell would have liked to see the house moved back but can support the project. He was not bothered by the tower. Commissioner Gottlieb was troubled with the tower as it is six feet above the roof line. Bringing the tower down at least two feet would help. Commissioner Schreiner was pleased with the suggested location of the driveway which will allow for screening. She had difficulty with the tower but it seems to be an intricate part of the architecture. Commissioner Wong supported the project. Chairman Jinkerson liked the design of the house and understood why the house could not be pushed back. He liked the new location of the driveway which will provide an area for screening. The tower troubles him as it relates to consistence with applicants. He was concerned with the tower creating a three story affect. He would like it lowered four feet but two feet would have an impact because it is set back 15-20 feet. He would like the applicants to work with staff to lower the tower 2-4 feet, making the windows in the top section smaller. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell and seconded by Commissioner Schreiner to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence with attached garage, and cabana, Lands of Gagnard, 12020 Kate Drive, with the following additions/changes to the conditions of approval: the driveway shall be relocated to enter on the western side of the lot. Findings for condition #4 (color board compliance): due to a highly visible house. 4 AYES: Commissioners Wong, Cottrell & Schreiner Sr NOES: Chairman Jinkerson & Commission Gottlieb "NO" votes due to the tower element. This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar November 18, 1999. 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.1 Report from subcommittees. Commissioner Schreiner discussed the Land Use Element Committee meetings. NEW BUSINESS -none 6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for October 7's - Commissioner Jinkerson, reported on the following items: recommendations for Town entrance signs; status report on Cyrous Gheyri's application for a site development permit; Lands of Cranston pathway; Lands of Lauer study session; and color board. Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1999 Page 12 Approved 11/10/99 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for October 21" — Commissioner Schreiner, reported on the following items: Utility and Information Systems Committee presentation on televising City Council and Planning Commission meetings; Lands of Robertson; Lands of Mittelman; Lands of Windy Hill Associates; adoption of ordinance enabling the Town to provide for reimbursement agreements for sewer main extensions in the public right of way; report from Crawford, Multari & Clark, Land Use Element; status report on appointments to Town Hall Building Committee; vote on whether to retain Charles Wong as a Planning Commissioner; amendment to Chapter 10-1.702(k) of the Zoning Code to allow second units to be permitted on lots in excess of one (1.0) gross acre in size and negative declaration; and proposed ordinance amending Sections 10-1.1109, 10-2.1313(b), and 10-2.1313(c) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code regarding appeals from decisions of the Planning Commission and staff committee. 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of the September 22, 1999 minutes PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the September 22, 1999 minutes 8. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT HEARINGS -OCTOBER 12 19 & 26 1999 8.1 LANDS OF BOISSIERE & LOCKER, 12246 Via Arline (236-99-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for landscape screening plan. Approved with conditions October 12, 1999. 8.2 LANDS OF DEBOO, 12101 Oak Park Court (230-99-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a swimming pool and spa. Approved with conditions October 12, 1999. 8.3 LANDS OF GAFNER, 26990 Taaffe Road (186-99-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for landscape screening plan. Approved with conditions October 12, 1999. 8.4 LANDS OF HABER, 13164 La Cresta Drive (240-99-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a swimming pool. Approved with conditions October 12, 1999. 8.5 LANDS OF TAM, 14297 Saddle Mountain Drive (229-99-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan. Approved with conditions October 12, 1999. 8.6 LANDS OF BONDS, 27330 Elena Road (231-99-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan. Approved with conditions October 19, 1999. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/10/99 October 27, 1999 Page 13 8.7 LANDS OF CHUANG, 13938 La Paloma Road (243-99-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Pemtit for a landscape screening plan. Since the neighbor closest to the project was not noticed, the plans will be provided to them for review prior to final planning approval. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, L`dni Smith Planning Secretary k