Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 . 1 DRAFT Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday,January 25, 1995,7:00 p.m. Council Chambers,26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes#02-95 (3) 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m..in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Schreiner,Commissioners Cheng,Doran,Finn,McMahon, Gottlieb &Stutz Staff: Linda Niles,Planning Director; Sheryl Kolf,Assistant Engineer;Lani Lonberger,Planning Secretary The Planning Commission presented Rick Ellinger, former Planning Commissioner, with a plague,extending their many thanks for all his hard work and contributions off and on the Planning Commission. Rick served on the Planning Commission from 1990 to 1994. 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Jean Struthers, 13690 Robleda Road,discussed two new large visible warehouse style lights at Town Hall. She felt they were offensive from off site. The Town should be a good neighbor and reduce the size of the lights. This item was referred to staff. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR 3.1 LANDS OF HORTON,26030 Altamont Road, APN 182-25-001 and 182-25- 008 Altamont Road (181-94-LLA); A request,for a Lot Line Adjustment (continued from January 11, 1995). Chairman Schreiner pulled this item for further discussion. Ms.Niles explained_why lot line adjustments are placed on consent calendar,noting if a proposed lot line adjustment meets the Town standards for lot size, access,etc.,lot line adjustments are in the Map Act and should be approved. It was clarified that this item was noticed as a public hearing item. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT January 25, 1995 Page 2 Ms. Kolf discussed the Map Act wording, "local agency shall limit its review of approval to a determination of whether or not the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to local zoning and building ordinances." Chairman Schreiner asked if the Planning Commission needs to determine whether there is an actual building site on the new parcel and whether access is feasible. Ms. Kolf commented that the Commission would if this was a subdivision. They are starting with two lots and the finished product will be two lots. Ms. Niles noted that the two lots currently have buildable areas. The Commission will look to see if the two lots being created will still have one buildable area each. The lot line adjustment will provide for a better access, improving the lot(parcel 2). Commissioner Gottlieb felt prior to accepting the lot line adjustment they should be sure there is access in this very steep terrain. It was noted that the tentative map was current. Ms. Niles noted that the lot line adjustment does not violate any Town ordinances and would give the applicant more opportunity to design a better driveway on parcel 2. The present driveway is not in accordance with Town standards. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Bud Shore, project engineer with Sandis, Humber and Jones, discussed the map showing both parcels. He asked staff if there were any other issues to be concerned with besides access. Torn McReynolds,26045 Moody Road, discussed the project; a letter submitted to the Commission; the property being in a special Subplan of the General Plan; the new parcel needing to be subject to scrutiny of a preliminary map indicating possible building sites, potential access, utility services; the realignment of a private waterline easement; and the steepness,sensitivity to erosion and instability of the existing soils. He further discussed the map act and the requirement for a lot line split which encompasses more than one building site would require the applicant to show the MDA, access roads and utilities. Also discussed was another piece of property (Bellucci) and legal matters pertaining to same. Ms. Niles noted that Mr. McReynolds was correct regarding the property being in a subarea, however what he is discussing would be for planning a subdivision. They are not looking at a subdivision. It was noted that there is access to Chaparral Way. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Discussion ensued regarding building site and access; the slope density formula; an improvement of parcel 2; and no liability to the Town with the approval of a lot line adjustment. Ms. Niles commented that the existing lot is very constrained. To add the additional area and move the lot line over would create more opportunity. Parcel 1 already has extra area for development. Bud Shore was asked to discuss access. Commissioner Gottlieb asked that the exhibit presented by the project engineer be part Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT January 25, 1995 Page 3 of the file showing that a road access could be accomplished better than what is shown on parcel 2 presently. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commissioner McMahon to approve the lot line adjustment. AYES: Chairman Schreiner,Commissioners Finn, Stutz, Doran,McMahon, Gottlieb & Cheng NOES: None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 LANDS OF HWONG, 12813 Clausen Court (200-94-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for grading for lawn and play area (continued from December 14, 1995). Ms. Niles introduced this item commenting that when visiting the site, staff noticed that the decking around the pool is encroaching in the setback. The project was approved without the encroachment. Decking is allowed to encroach into the setback five feet. This is encroaching, in one area, up to nine feet. The normal procedure would be to ask the applicant to remove the area (24 square feet) which is not in accordance with the approved plans. At this point,since the project has been finaled in that area,perhaps the Commission could help direct staff regarding this issue. The slope easement was discussed. Commissioner Doran discussed the Council's discussion regarding abatement issues. Ms. Niles noted there was a new property owner since the project was constructed. At the time of final, the conditions of approval for this project only required that the foundation be re-certified. The pool and deck were not required to be re-certified,suggesting this could be added to the conditions of approval on future applications. Ms. Kolf noted that the deck encroachment shown on the plan is not the way the deck appears out in the field. The encroachment is less than it appears. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Lawrence Hwong, 12813 Clausen Court, applicant and Peter Fu, his structural engineer, were present for questions. In answer to questions,he noted that his closest neighbor's retaining wall is seven feet and the highest point of his proposed retaining wall will be 11 feet,sloping to zero. Dr. Hwong would like a clay tennis court if the clay material the Council is reviewing can be used as a reduced rate of MDA as he does not have the MDA needed presently. If the clay material is not approved, he will use the area for a putting green. Commissioner Gottlieb was concerned with the 11 foot cut as most of the big cuts for tennis courts are inside the property. This cut will be 15 feet from his neighbor's property. If the retaining wall fails, this would effect his neighbor. The Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT January 25, 1995 Page 4 amount of cut into the hill and possible noise resulting from same was discussed although Mr. Hwong did not feel this was a problem. The Planning Commission received two letters in favor of the project from neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Kopal and Paul Partti. He had contacted two adjacent neighbors regarding the project,who have reviewed his plans without any objections. There will be native trees,shrubs and vines along the retaining wall for landscape screening. Dr. Hwong was asked if he was willing to wait for the City Council's decision regarding the clay material before he proceeded with construction. He commented that he would rather not. In deciding what the Commission would actually be voting on (play area versus tennis court), Ms Niles commented if they were looking at the play area, there would be no problem with grass going into the setback area. However, there is a height problem with the retaining wall in the setback. If they are looking at a possible tennis court, it cannot go into the setbacks. With the retaining wall in the proposed location, you would assume that the tennis court surface would go to the retaining wall. If the tennis court only goes to the setback line,it would be a little unusual to have an 11 foot retaining wall 15 feet behind the tennis court fence. Even if the chain link was not there, staff would not recommend the design. Commissioner Doran discussed a possible drainage problem as she had noticed water backed up out of the storm drain during her site visit. Ms. Kolf noted that grading and drainage concerns are a part of the conditions of approval. Commissioner McMahon discussed the retaining wall and compliance with the General Plan,ordinances and the Design Guidelines Handbook. Mr. Fu commented that the wall is not 11 feet continuance,only in one corner. The cross section shows the wall tapering down to zero. He further discussed the visual impact from El Monte noting they could barely see the height poles at 11 feet. Dr. Hwong discussed ordinance 10- 2.901, "recreation courts should not exceed 12 feet of cut and fill." He believes he is within the 12 feet. Commissioner Gottlieb noted the remaining portion of the ordinance, "can be landscaped and/or contours rounded, to render the cut or fill inconspicuous when viewed from off the site." It was noted that Dr. Hwong will not see the 11 foot wall from his house. The neighbor will not see the retaining wall because their property is higher. Total square feet of visual retaining wall was discussed. Ms. Niles commented that the code states "walls or fences shall not exceed a maximum height of six feet when located between setback lines and property lines, provided, however the height of " Retaining walls may be allowed at higher than six feet but this is usually considered within the building area of the lot and not in the setbacks. Height is measured from natural or finished grade, whichever is lower. Commissioner Gottlieb noted that if the retaining wall fails,both the applicant and neighbor would be effected. Dr. Hwong stated he-has-the best structural engineer and guarantees there will not be problems. If there are problems in the future, he would be Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT January 25, 1995 Page 5 the one responsible for the Jabbour property. He noted Mr. Jabbour and his engineer have reviewed his blueprint with no noted concerns. Ms. Niles noted that an 11 foot retaining wall built in the setback would require a variance. Commissioner Cheng asked if they could raise the play area so the retaining wall would be lower. Dr. Hwong responded that it would be possible. Ms. Kolf noted that fill in the front portion of the lot is not a situation that the engineering department would like to see. There is already a steep slope and this would create a potentially unstable slope. Commissioner Finn asked the applicant what he would think of changing his request to a six foot wall rather than a 11 foot wall. Dr. Hwong did not feel this would be a problem. However, the lowest he would like to go would be seven to eight feet,only in the one corner. It was noted that anything over six feet would require a variance. Commissioner McMahon presented a sketch asking if they could have a 51/2 foot wall at the bottom and a 51/2 foot wall at the top,with no change of the slope in the front. In other words, take the 11 foot wall and put some in the front and some in the back (break it up). Ms. Niles commented that in a normal situation, not adjacent to the road, that may not be a problem. She felt engineering was having a problem with it being so close to the road with a steep slope already. Another option would be to ask the applicant to make the area smaller so the retaining wall is not as close to the road. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Discussion ensued. Commissioner Finn discussed the Lohr subdivision and the retaining wall close to an intersection. Commissioner Stutz wondered how they were proposing a tennis court when they did not even have half the development area needed. She would not approve this much grading for a play area. She would not approved an encroachment into a setback area. They could have a play area (3,000 square feet) with no walls over three feet,restricting the amount of the land they could level. Commissioner Gottlieb agreed with Commissioner Stutz noting there should not be cuts within 15 feet of a setback. Commissioner McMahon agreed. She could never support a design that makes an 11 foot cut into a hillside for anything. Commissioner Doran also agreed. She would like to see a redesign of the play area return to the Commission. Commissioner Finn felt there was mitigating circumstances in the neighborhood; one being the neighbor's seven foot retaining wall behind them. He would be in favor of a redesign of a six foot cut with the applicant realizing he could never have a tennis court within the setback area. Commissioner McMahon's proposal would be acceptable to him regarding the cut and fill. Commissioner Cheng noted that the discussion is for the play area,not a tennis court. She would be in favor of the applicant lowering the retaining wall; keeping it out of the setback. Chairman Schreiner did not feel it was reasonable to go to all this trouble just for a play area allowing this amount of grading and cut. She was not in favor of the present design. Commissioner Stutz commented that the Commission looks at each lot individually. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT January 25, 1995 Page 6 The applicant was asked if he would be willing to return with modified play area which would not require excessive grading, limiting the play area not to exceed 3,000 square feet with the area not fenced. Dr. Hwong felt this could be accomplished. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner McMahon to continue this application to February 8th to allow the application to return with modifications as suggested by the Commission. AYES: Chairman Schreiner,Commissioners Cheng,Finn, Stutz, Doran, McMahon &Gottlieb NOES: None 4.2 LANDS OF FREMONT HILLS COUNTRY CLUB, 12889 Viscaino Place (19-94-ZP-SD-CUP); A request for a Site Development Permit for a caretaker's unit and a landscape plan (continued from July 20, 1994). Commissioner Gottlieb stepped down from the proceeding as she is a member of the Fremont Hills Country Club. Ms. Niles noted that an applicant can submit a landscaping plan at any time, although usually the landscape plan is done after framing of a structure. The only structure (additional bulk) in framing is at the front of the club house. She felt the applicant was trying to plant the trees sooner so they will grow sooner. Commissioner Stutz noted that the biggest area needing landscape was along Roble Ladera Road. It was noted that no new lighting was being proposed. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Patrick King, general manager, was available for questions. Chairman Schreiner commented that one of the conditions of approval required planting where they had removed the Eucalyptus trees. This is not shown on the plan. Mr. King asked that the landscape architect address this question. Jim Lauderbaugh, landscape architect, discussed the area in question noting they are proposing some coast live oak trees at the top of the slope that they felt would mitigate some of the view and replace the Eucalyptus trees that were cut down (24 inch box). He further discussed types of trees and their location. Commissioner Stutz discussed tree sizes; areas of concern; landscape policy; and concern with screening from off site. Jean Struthers, Environmental Design Committee, walked the property with Dexter Hake, a committee member and a member of the Fremont Hills Country Club. She noted some mistakes on the plan in that the upper parking lot is a different configuration then shown. Both felt oak trees around the upper parking lot would improve the heat for the cars sitting on the parking lot as well as the view from off-site. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT January 25, 1995 Page 7 She penciled in additional suggested trees on the plan (additional 5-6 trees). Another area in need of screening was Court 1 along the service area driveway as the high fence is very visible. Suggested some shrubbery. Another area needing some thought was the children's play area/barbecue area between the creek. She requested some native shrubs in that area to add to the screening. The main new parking addition also needs plantings suggesting more olive trees (or some other trees) to continue the row down to the swimming pool. The 18 pistachio trees recommended should be required. Mrs. Struthers will provide the Planning Director with her marked plan which will include Commissioner Stutz' s suggestions. Other suggestions by Mrs. Struthers were to plant street trees along Roble Ladera, use California native wildflower mix, and shrubs and possibly a tree for screening around the caretakers unit. Patrick Ng, 12700 Elena Drive, discussed landscape policy noting he did not agree with the procedure. Chairman Schreiner explained Town policy. to Mr. Ng. Betty Ng, 12700 Elena Drive, also did not agree with the landscape policy noting government should be leaner not meaner. Patrick King will not have a problem with the suggestions, working with staff and Environmental Design. Commissioner Stutz questioned the drain field for the caretaker's unit. Mr. King noted there are existing drain fields for the caretaker's unit. She reminded Mr. King that the creek needs to be tested every six months. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mrs. Struthers had not been to the caretaker's unit due to the muddy condition. She could look into screening for that area. Commissioner Stutz objected to the requirement for all planting. The landscaping policy gives them permission to require mitigation and not permission to say "landscape your entire property." There was no objections with the caretaker's unit. There was a suggestion to change#4, the first sentence, "All mitigation screening landscaping and erosion control landscaping as shown on the revised plan are required to be planted." Mr. King noted an error on the plan. The caretaker's unit will actually be 960 square feet. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to approve a modification to the Conditional Use Permit, and approval of a Site Development Permit for a landscape plan and caretaker's unit, amending condition 4, "All mitigation screening landscaping and erosion control landscaping as shown on the revised plan are required to be planted." AYES: Chairman Schreiner,Commissioners McMahon, Cheng, Finn, Stutz& Doran NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Gottlieb Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT January 25, 1995 Page 8 This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar February 15, 1995. Brief break at 9:15 p.m. 4.3 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS: An ordinance of the Town of Los Altos Hills amending various sections of the: Zoning Ordinance 1. Section 10-1.502 (b) & (d) - Development Area; 2. Section 10-1.505 - Setback Lines; 3. Section 10-1-503 (d) -Floor Area; and 4. Section 10-1.702 (lc) - Accessory Uses, Secondary Dwellings. Site Development 1. Section 10-2.703 (d) - Construction Eaves; 2. Article 12-Right-Of-Way Dedication and Public Improvements; and 3. Section 2.1201-2.1205. Subdivision Ordinance 1. Section 9-1.506 (7 &9) - Formation of Tentative Map and accompanying data; and 2. Section 9-1.1206 (h) -Accompanying documents in support of a final map. Chairman Schreiner introduced this item suggesting taking each item for consideration,reviewing the amendments as they were forwarded 21/2 years ago, revise, send to the appointed subcommittee and/or recommend adoption. For background,Commissioner McMahon asked staff to discuss theroll of the Planning Commissioners; the function of the Town; why there is a General Plan arid ordinances; and when they are applied. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Ephram Kwok, 26387 Purissima,noted the fact that these issues were very important to him as a citizen of Los Altos Hills. He discussed greater setback requirements for larger homes noting there is no proactive notification of the citizens of this Town regarding pertinent, important issues such as this. He recommended that this be continued until the Town sends a letter to every citizen notifying them of these important issues and everyone who is interested should attend the meetings. He was shocked that there was no proactive notification Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT January 25, 1995 Page 9 given when the first set of ordinances were approved 2 1/2 years ago. He received a notice regarding Fremont Hills Country Club but not on ordinances. Ms. Niles commented that this was a hearing for the Planning Commission to separate these items to the subcommittees that the City Council has requested. The subcommittees will look at the items and any others that they feel appropriate to bring to the community. At that time, there will be a notice to the community, much as Mr. Kwok is suggesting, that will bring in the public for review and discussion at a public hearing, discussing the content. Presently, they are trying to get the appropriate sections to the appropriate subcommittee as directed by the City Council. This is the very preliminary stages. Mr. Kwok still felt they should proactively notify all citizens of this Town. Chairman Schreiner noted that the Planning Commission and City Council agendas were available at Town boxes. Mr. Kwok felt the greater setback requirements were so important, the entire Town should be notified. Chairman Schreiner noted that after it is reviewed by the subcommittees, at that time they can recommend to the City Council notification of the public hearing,by postcard,to the entire Town. Commissioner Finn commented on the changes in the size of homes from 1978 to the present. He felt the general movement over the last 15 years was that houses have gotten smaller or the Town has tried to restrict larger homes. If this is not the feeling of the Town, the Commission needs to know. Mr. Kwok noted that most of the discussion was regarding MDA,MFA and landscape. This is a very important item being discussed, even though it is at preliminary stages, again suggesting proactively noticing the Town. Chairman Schreiner suggested a possible Town mailing after the subject comes out of subcommittee. Mr. Kwok did not agree with this handling as he felt they should get public input from the start. Mr. Kwok would like the Town to proactively notify the residence that the Town is considering all of these major issues, telling them when they will hold hearings,highlighting the key provisions to be considered, asking if the residence have a favorable opinion, unfavorable opinion, or do not care. Ms. Niles noted that the Commission will take his request to the Council subcommittee for direction. Further discussion ensued regarding previous projects;bound legally to have rules;suggestions will be brought back to the subcommittee; a concern with encroachment into side setbacks; Design Guidelines Handbook; community input; trends; and suggestion of sending a postcard to every residence in Town notifying them of ordinances being considered. Mr. Kwok strongly felt the residents should be notified of the fact that amendments to some ordinances were being reviewed. Some Commissioners felt all of the issues need to be identified prior to notifying the community. Commissioner Finn and Cheng would like to see community input first. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT January 25, 1995 Page 10 Cindy Candau, 27577 Carado Court, resident since 1975, and involved with numerous community activities discussed attendance of Planning Commission meetings lasting past midnight which certainly discourages attendance. She discussed inconsistencies over the past 20 years; the Design Guidelines Handbook interpretation; and agreed with Mr. Kwok's recommendation for noticing the community prior to review. She suggested a prioritized list and identify problem areas. Jean Struthers commented that when she was on the Planning Commission, many of these issues came up as larger parcels came in for development. Some thought a larger parcel would generate a very large home which would become more imposing on its neighbors, and closer to the road. They thought it may be wise to require these houses, not be diminished in size,but to set back from the road, giving the house more dignity. The trend has changed from the one story ranch homes of the 60's to a two story stucco of light,bright colors. The discussion involved how they could deal with this problem and maintain the reason they moved to Los Altos Hills (land forms, creeks, trees, etc.) and the need to retain the beauty of the Town. We do not have a local paper or press present,suggesting video taping meetings to have them available to the community. She discussed a previous survey and the time and cost involved in obtaining the opinions. Commission discussed what items listed in the staff report be sent to subcommittee suggesting that any concerned Commissioners or the public,submit to the subcommittee their written comments and concerns, realizing at this time it is all preliminary review to identify the problems the Commission has seen. First item to be forwarded to subcommittee was Greater Setbacks For Larger Homes with discussion following. Further discussion ensued with opinions from each Commissioner. Commission Stutz agreed with greater setbacks for larger homes. Commissioner Gottlieb felt a discussion of greater setbacks for larger homes was a starting point to see what could be done. The main underlining consideration for her was how to maintain an openness of privacy which makes this Town special. Commissioner Finn felt this was giving staff, the Commission and the Council many exceptions to deal with; confusing the public even more. They should make it easier suggesting ways to give things back to the residents instead of always taking something away. He would also like to reduce the amount of value judgment that happens at staff, Planning Commission and City Council level. Commissioner McMahon noted that they should look at projects on a case by case basis but then the residents say they are being subjective,not being fair and even. Mrs. Struther explained the origins of slope density formula having to do with drainage concerns. It was an equitable way to solve a major drainage situation on a hilly slope. Commissioner Doran, one of the subcommittee members, clarified what the subcommittee was being asked to review which was the size of the lot which will determine setback; one acre parcel, Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT January 25, 1995 Page 11 40 foot setback; two to three acre parcel and not limit the house to the confines of height,setback,move the house back on the lot to get more height. Commissioner Cheng agreed with larger setbacks on very large parcels,however not on one acre parcels. Chairman Schreiner discussed encroachments into the side setbacks making some houses as close at 20 feet from each other (driveways, turn around). She would like to see encroachments into the setbacks tightened considerably. If you allow a driveway to encroach,have the turn around area within the confines of the house, not into the 30 foot setback. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Ng, 12700 Elena Road, commented that he was never told when he moved to Los Altos Hills that his neighbors would be designing his home or what to plant in his yard. He complimented the Planning Commission for all their hard work although there is a lot of hard work left. He agreed with Mr. Kwok noting there is too much control and restrictions. Discussion ensued regarding paragraph 2,greater setbacks for larger homes. Commissioner Stutz suggested taking the 40 foot setback on the same side as the house address is on the street. Commissioner Finn disagreed with the suggestion sighting examples where this would not be acceptable. The Commission recommended sending all items to subcommittee for review except "de-facto subdivisions" which is ready for noticing for a public hearing. The Commissioners will forward all their comments/concerns/recommendations regarding each subject to the subcommittee. 5. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1995 5.1 Commissioner Gottlieb reported the following items were discussed at the January 18th meeting: Lands of Roley; and Lands of Brockway. 5.2 The Planning Commission Representative for February 1st will be Commissioner Cheng. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Planning Commission rotating schedule for attendance of City Council Meetings was reviewed noting one change: 2/15/94,representative will be Commissioner McMahon; 3/1/95,representative will be Commissioner . Doran. • I Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT January 25, 1995 Page 12 Ms. Niles notified the Commission that the Lands of Vidovich (subdivision) would be scheduled for public hearing in the near future. The applicant is planning an information meeting February 9th at 6:00 p.m. and a site visit February 25th at 10:00 a.m. 7. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 General Plan-Next scheduled meeting will be January 30th at 5:00 p.m. This meeting will also include color board discussion. 8. APPROVAL OF.MINUTES 8.1 Approval of the November 30, 1994 Minutes. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the November 30, 1994 minutes. 8.2 Approval of the January 11, 1995 Minutes. ' MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the January 11, 1995 minutes with one change "the Planning Commission" to "she" on page 6,5.1. 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 1995 9.1 LANDS OF SHOCKLEY,27781 Edgerton Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool,landscape andrelated improvements . Approved with conditions. _ 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lani Lonberger Planning Secretary •