Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/12/1995Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 7/26/95 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, July 12,1995,7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: cassettes sio-yo t i 1 1. 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: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Cheng, Doran, Gottlieb, McMahon, Finn & Stutz Staff: Curtis Williams, Planning Director; Sheryl Kolf, Assistant Engineer; Suzanne Davis, Planner; Susan Manca, Planner; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary �b, The reorganization of the Planning Commission was brought forward with Chairman McMahan and Vice -Chair Doran being selected. 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR None. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 4. PT J131 HEARINGS 4.1 LANDS OF CHAWLA, 24289 Hillview Road (60-95-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool, and cabana (continued from June 14, 1995). Commissioner Gottlieb stepped down for the hearing due to the proximity of the project to her residence. Letters had been received from three neighbors, Bormann, Gikis, and Van Dyke noting concerns with the proposed two story structure. The applicants and their architect held a meeting with the neighbors, prior to the Planning Commission meeting, to discuss the changes made to the plans. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/95 July 12, 1995 Page 2 OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Ron Harris, 10091 Streeter Road, Auburn, architect, discussed the changes that were made from the previous plan which included: reduced pavement; increased landscape; reduction of the bulk and mass; reducing the overall height of the residence by 1 foot; relocating the house towards the northwest property line to move the driveway further from the southeast property line; reduced the number and area of windows along the rear elevation of the house by 20%; reduced the number of skylights by half; included proposed outdoor lighting; re -configured the circular driveway to create a safer entrance and egress from the property; increased the roof overhangs of the second floor rear wall; and showed the location of the pool equipment. He commented on the partial two story being in the back, giving the appearance of a one story from the front. At the meeting with the neighbors, they discussed the possibilities of a single story residence or a floor underneath, explaining why they have retained the partial second story. Commissioner Schreiner was concerned that even though they have reduced the mass and bulk on one side of the house, they have only accomplished a 1 foot reduction in the overall height asking if it was possible to bring it down to 24 feet. Mr. Harris responded, if this was a concern, they could clip some of the ceilings or rework some of the upstairs area to lower the ridge height to get down to 24 feet. Commissioner Schreiner asked if it was necessary to have the gazebo at a 17 foot height, if all the driveway pavement was necessary on the right side of the house, and if all the proposed lights were necessary? Mr. Harris felt they could lower the pitch to reduce the height a few feet; they could round out the parking area so it would only be a turn around area; and he had not provided a sample of the lights proposed, however none are flood lights and all will be down shielded. Also, there will not be any lights in the skylights. He noted that the gates and pool equipment will be included in the landscaping plan. Bob Worcester, 24221 Hillview Drive, reviewed the new plans noting little change from the previous plans as the project is still a two story on a knoll. Code requires that no two story house is built on a knoll or a ridge. The present house is a low profile, flat roof house. A single story could easily be built which would maintain the rural atmosphere. Jan Farnsworth, 24220 Hillview Road, neighbor was concerned with looking up or at an imposing structure. There are no other two story houses in the neighborhood. The architecture does not fit into the neighborhood. She suggested a redesign that would eliminate the two story at a minimum and a redesign of the very imposing covered driveway and portico in the front of the building. Bonnie Gikis, 12415 Hilltop Drive, was concerned with the large, two story home on top of the hill. Other homes in the area are one story, nestled into the site. Currently, there are one story, ranch homes in the area and this home will change the character of the neighborhood. J ' Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/95 July 12, 1995 Page 3 CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Commissioner Finn agreed that a 26 foot house was out of character for the neighborhood. The outdoor lighting should be at a minimum. There is a need for significant landscaping requiring trees. He agreed with Commissioner Schreiner's previous comment regarding the parking area. Commissioner Doran commented that the previous discussion dealt with a one story element. However, the one story element can be up to 27 feet. If they look at a one story element, they should impose a height limitation on the structure. She also discussed lights on a hillside property. Commissioner Cheng agreed with the comments from both Commissioners. Since the neighborhood is low profile, this house should be a maximum of 23-24 feet in height whether it is a one or a two story. Commissioner Schreiner commented on diversity in styles encouraged in Town. The Town will not stay ranch or bungalow style forever. They need to try to integrate the old with the new with the least amount of impact on the neighbors. She did not agreed that if a two story comes down to 23-24 feet it would be desirable as you still have two sets of windows. The two sets of windows at night are going to produce a great deal of light. She was in favor of one set of windows on a one story house, possibly no more than 22 feet in height on this property. She would like to see some of the lighting reduced, and the pavement in one area reduced. She liked the extension of the eaves. There is a need for significant landscaping and the color of the house is important to make the house blend into the site. She would prefer a reflective value of 50 or less, in earthtone colors. She was in favor of a redesign with these points addressed. Commissioner Stutz again discussed the additional parking. It was not whether they needed the additional parking but parking was not allowed in the setback. There are other areas not in the setback available. She suggested the six portico lights be reduced to four; the seven additional recess with down lights from the walkway to the front door be reduced to four; the reconfiguration of the circular driveway was not mirrored on the left side as requested; and the entrance to the driveway be moved 10-15 feet so it would be 50 feet from the front property line. She did not like to see properties gated. She suggested heavily staggered trees and shrubs be planted from the 96 to the 100 foot contour line for screening. She also noted that the property line as shown on the plan was incorrect by 5 feet and should be corrected if fencing was planned. Chairman McMahon agreed with the comments regarding the number of lights proposed needed to be reduced. She also commented on the ordinance and guidelines regarding two story structures as they may not be possible on the top of a knoll. This �, design does not meet the intent of the ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/95 July 12, 1995 Page 4 Commissioner Doran asked the applicant if they were willing to redesign to a one story home not to exceed 22 feet. Mr. Harris noted that at the last meeting the Commission did not tell him to reduce the design to a one story. He did not feel they could design a 22 or 23 foot two story house. They would be willing to reduce the two story to 24 feet and remove the portico. Commissioner Stutz would not vote for a two story house in this location. The location is ideal for a flat roof house. Commissioner Doran suggested a one story house with some creativity to working with the contours of the land that would show a two story element but not from the street. The applicant preferred not to redesign at this time. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commissioner Schreiner to deny the site development permit for a new residence, pool and cabana without prejudice. AYES: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Cheng, Finn, Stutz, Schreiner & Doran NOES: None 4.2 LANDS OF HWONG,12813 Clausen Court (105-95-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a sports court. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. Commissioner Gottlieb questioned the site plan showing the length of the sports court being 100 feet, however the cross section on the next page shows it at 102 feet. Mr. Williams noted that the calculations were based on 100 feet. If the project is approved as shown, this would need to be corrected. Discussion ensued regarding the height of the retaining wall; rounding the slope of the lawn area; the chain link fence on top of the retaining wall for a total height of 13-14 feet, the Town fence ordinance; and the fence as shown on the right side of the property. Ms. Kolf noted the one corner of the fence that is encroaching into the slope easement should be moved to the line of the slope easement (back to the 318 elevation). This could be added as a condition of approval. She commented on the use of a slope easement and access by the Town for specific purposes. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Larry Hwong,12813 Clausen Court, applicant, discussed the 3,000 square foot sports court and play area. He discussed the retaining wall in the front area being 2-3 feet in height, not 4 feet in height. He did not want the lawn area too contoured as his children needed an area to play. In discussing the lights, he mentioned the lights were put in for safety before he bought the house (condition #6). Mr. Hwong indicated that he had read the letter from his neighbors, the Jabbours. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/95 July 12,1995 Page 5 Items discussed included re -contouring within the 10 foot slope easement; the slope easement being 25 feet along Clausen Court; staff s concem with the abruptness at the comer between the sports court and the house; the visual appearance of the retaining wall; the lack of story poles for better visual appearance; the appearance of a 20-22 foot wall enclosed on three sides from the corner of Clausen Court, a more pleasing appearance being a 3 foot retaining wall plus the tennis fence up to 10 feet, 10 feet back from the 30 feet giving more of a distance for planting of small and larger shrubs to mitigate appearance; a step down effect; and the overall visual effect of the subdivision Commissioner Stutz could vote for the 3,000 square foot sports court but not for the 15 feet along side at the same elevation. She did not want to see the upper portion of the land graded down to the sports court, suggesting lowering the court by two feet which would also reduce the trellis. There was a consensus to cut off the front wall at the 30 foot section of the sports court rounding back from the end of the chain link fence, keeping its natural slope or terraced up at the lawn area up to the sports court (from house to court). There was a consensus that the project did not have to return to provide story poles for a visual review. Condition #8 was discussed noting they would not require the applicant to remove the pool or deck as it was an existing situation when the applicant purchased the property. Further discussion ensued regarding the remaining conditions of approval. Mr. Williams felt staff and the applicant could work kw together regarding the lights. Mr. Hwong noted that he was willing to compromise, however he would like a flat lawn area for his children. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to approve the site development permit for a sports court, retaining walls, and associated grading with revisions to the plan to include: (1) reducing the grade of the sports court by two feet; (2) create a more natural slope for the lawn area between the house and the sports court; (3) limit the retaining wall along the Clausen Court frontage such that it does not extend beyond the edge of the sports court; (4) limit the trellis height to 9.5 feet; (5) limit the fence height to 8 feet; (6) utilize a retaining wall at the rear of the sports court to retain the natural slope at the rear of the lot; and (7) relocate fencing out of the slope easement; condition #8, certification of the rear area but not require removal of any structures; and the lighting to be handled at staff level. AYES: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Finn, Stutz, Gottlieb, Cheng, Schreiner & Doran NOES: None This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar August 2, 1995. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/95 ' July 12,1995 Page 6 Brief break at 9:10 p.m. 4.3 LANDS OF GARCES, 26101 Elena Road (253-93-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a major addition/remodel, pool and spa, and pool cover structure. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. Staff has been working with the applicant since 1993 noting many delays. Commissioner Stutz questioned the pool equipment enclosure being counted as floor area. Staff will review and correct, if necessary, as this was included in the worksheets from the applicant. Commissioner Stutz suggested removal of the roofing if pool equipment is ever needed to be counted as floor area. It was not known if the patio was put in with permits. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Raymond Miller, 225 Frances Drive, Los Altos, architect, commented that the applicant would prefer to paint the addition the same as the existing color. He clarified condition #13, the last sentence "all fill that was placed on the site without a permit shall be removed and the grades returned to the natural grades prior to final inspection" commenting that the fill was placed there illegally. They plan taking 10 feet back from the property line reverting it back to natural grade, and sloping back up. This is something he and the assistant engineer had agreed upon, however it is not reflected in 1J the conditions of approval. Ms. Kolf felt it would be better to hear all of the discussion first and then return to discuss of condition #13. Lisa Douglas, 12469 Robleda, property backing up to the applicant's property. She discussed problems they have experienced with the illegal grading. When they first moved to Los Altos Hills in 1989, the back property that adjoins their property was gently sloped with no major patios. In the last 5-6 years, they have two major patios, one of which the Garces' plan to locate a swimming pool. Just this year, the Garces have been doing major grading, again without permits. The applicant has raised their second level of land over 6 feet. All of the dirt they have moved from their property and/or had trucked in on the weekends was now higher then their 6 foot high fence. Consequently, the dirt came down onto their property, into their pool, and underneath their house during the winter storms. There is also a problem with drainage and sewage from the applicant's leach lines coming onto their property. Everything the applicant does impacts Mrs. Douglas' property. Now the Town is considering allowing them to develop further. The applicants had spent over a year digging out the lower area of the house without permits. This is a concern in the event of an earthquake as the property would slide onto their property. Now they are proposing a soccer field which would be 6 feet above their land. The applicant is not correcting any of the illegal situations. She requested that all of the grading on the second patio be removed, the water and the leach field problems be resolved, and she would not want to look up at Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/95 July 12, 1995 Page 7 any structure which would enclose the applicant's pool. The area which will impact them the most is the second set of patios which runs the whole width of the property. Michael Douglas,12469 Robleda, reiterated Mrs. Douglas' comments asking that the illegal situations be corrected. He also noted that Mr. Garces moved trees from the top patio down which are all dead. He felt he was living next door to a cemetery. Ms. Kolf reported two years ago, the Town was in the process of dealing with the applicants regarding illegal grading situations where Bill Carino had gone out for a "stop work" order. Presently, they do not have a real clear idea of what has been done on this property. She felt they could benefit from the Douglas' being next door; they would probably have the clearest picture of the grading that has been done. The exact areas or the exact volumes of grading that has been done is not known. Commissioner Gottlieb asked if the pool area has been built up 6 feet, do they have a soils report indicating that the compaction is correct and will hold a pool? Ms. Kolf felt the architect could answer this question. Tom Griffiths, Pathway Committee, noted an error to condition #16. He requested the IIB path remain in the front and restore the native path in the back between the two chain link fences at the rear of the property line, being aware of drainage. �w CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Commissioner Doran commented due to the controversy with the neighbors and the lack of information, she would have serious reservations making any decisions regarding the application for the addition until they have more information. They need more information on what is existing fill, the leach filed, and what are the legal and illegal structures on the property. She suggested the application come back after more information is known. Mr. Miller addressed the existing inadequate leach field, the proposed leach field, amount of cut and fill on site, illegal grading, import, and compaction. Mr. Williams recommended that the applicant have an engineer or geotechnical engineer prepare some information that shows the extent of the fill and cuts and identifies the remedial plan to correct the situation. The Town geologist can then review all the information before proceeding. Commissioner Gottlieb felt the Douglas' drainage problems should also be addressed. Mr. Miller discussed some possible drainage designs. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commissioner Finn to continue the site development permit for a major addition/remodel, pool and cabana requiring a detailed soils report to be reviewed by ` William Cotton and Associates, taking borings by the pool to determine the cuts and fills and the land to correct it, a remedial plan to correct the situation, review of legal Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/95 July 12,1995 Page 8 and non -legal structures, possibly a more acceptable noise barrier, and a solution to the drainage problem, working with staff, applicant and their neighbor (Douglas). AYES: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Stutz, Cheng, Gottlieb, Schreiner, Doran & Finn NOES: None. This application will be re -noticed for public hearing. 4.4 LANDS OF HAMM, 24292 Elise Court (71-95-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence. Mr. Williams introduced this item noting he had received several calls from Commissioners asking if a portion of the basement area or all of it should be counted as square footage as some of the wall area is exposed. This is a major issue to be discussed. Commissioner Cheng commented on the location of the encroachment being moved around which was not familiar to her. Mr. Williams noted that it was not expressly prohibited. The Zoning Ordinance, Section 10-1.401 was discussed noting that there was a sub -committee reviewing this subject presently. He would not want to trap the applicant in a nonconforming issue when there is a process going on reviewing this whole subject. Commissioner Doran noted even though the staff has pointed out all the similar projects which have been approved, there were an equal number of houses that never had the opportunity of this information that were not approved with nonconforming situations. In reviewing the site analysis meeting on May 23,1995, Commissioner Doran reported there had been a split decision of the Commissioners present (McMahon, Schreiner and Doran) with Doran and Schreiner feeling if it was a level playing field, you had to conform. Chairman McMahon felt the applicant could move the nonconformity to another spot. The main topic at that meeting was the nonconformity. Commissioner Schreiner recollection of the meeting was their concern with the applicant moving the driveway; not understanding why. When it was made clear that the percolation for the leach fields and one area was not adequate, they were then satisfied with the answer. The garage was not in the same location as presented currently and they were not aware that the basement was daylighted. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Stephen Arnn, 329 Hill Street, San Francisco, architect, provided renderings of the house. Items discussed were the front area incorporating the changes to the driveway; keeping the profile low; only one flat area on the property which does not have a view; the narrow property; and the lack of space in the front area because of the leach field. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/95 July 12, 1995 Page 9 This addresses the reason for the driveway going as far as it does as he would not want the Hamms to pave more ground then needed, if it was not necessary. They could not put the garage underneath the master bedroom and then have the Hamms carting groceries to the other end of the house. He further discussed the back area rendering showing the existing trees with the exception of the 14 inch oak next to the dining room. He indicated one of the trees which was not in good health and could not be used for screening. He would leave it, planting trees around it to provide screening of the carport from off-site, if needed. Mr. Amn commented that early in the project, trying to keep within the guidelines of the Town, understanding that the basement needs to be wholly underground with the ceiling wholly under the existing grade. On the front side, he has provided a stairway down to a UBC required exit. The planter in front of the basement doors is an attempt to hide the doorway from off-site since this is a requirement not to see the egress from off site. He is only trying to get down to the doors of the basement. This is only a code entrance. The Commission responded that they would like the finished grade around the stairs to be higher then the ceiling of that space (internal stair). The Town wants anything related to the basement to be underground, dirt, above the ceiling of anything in the basement. Mr. Arnn further discussed the encroachment issue. The preliminary sketch was discussed with staff. The reason that the corner of the living room infringes in the space between the 30 foot setbacks was discussed. The existing house encroaches 247 feet and `. the development area 2,000 feet for a total of a little over 2,200. The new encroachment of the house would be 60.5 feet and development area 69 feet for a total of 169 feet. He would have a very difficult time twisting the house to get it out of the encroachment. Mrs. Davis noted when they met with the applicants a year ago, the encroachment was not an issue. When she and Linda Niles met with the previous architect, he was given the direction that as long as he did not increase the degree of nonconformity, he could keep the nonconforming situation. The code does not specify what you can do with the nonconformity as long as you do not increase how close they go to the setback, or increase the square footage. The policy appears to be inconsistent. It was noted that the architect has decreased the nonconformity substantially; 50% floor area and 90% of development in an area where they only have a 27 foot width for the building area. Mr. Arnn provided colors samples (natural) for the house which will be in conformance with the Town color board. The driveway and entrance into the garage were discussed. Originally the carport was entered from the left hand side; the driveway followed the 10 foot line all the way around. The concern at that time was for the 30 inch oak and a 19 inch oak because of the substantial cut. He tried another approach to the carport to get an adequate and comfortable turn -around and hide it more from the next door neighbors. The arborist was not concerned with this design. Commissioner Schreiner noted there was quite a bit of the motor court in the 30 foot setback. Mr. Amn commented it was a driveway turnaround which is allowed and needed per the engineering department. Commissioner Gottlieb felt the garage area is this location Planning Commission Minutes Appr d 7/26/95 July 12, 1995 Page 10 would be viewed from off-site. Usually they ask that driveways and garages be turned to the side so people viewing the house from the street will not see the garage area. Commissioner Doran noted that the architect has turned it around as requested in the site analysis meeting. Guy Jinkerson, Environmental Design Committee, was concerned with the change in the driveway which involves the removal of shrubbery, the long driveway, and visibility. This interferes with the natural vegetation. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Commissioner Doran felt this was one of the best designs she has seen in the hills. She was opposed to the nonconformance issue however the applicant was caught in something that the Town is currently reviewing. She understands that the applicant is willing to look at making the basement a wholly underground entity. If this is the case she would be in agreement with the rest of the project. Commissioner Stutz agreed. They have done a beautiful job designing the house. She did not feel they had anything to say regarding the driveway change as it is required in order to get in a drainfield. Commissioner Finn was impressive that they have actually reduced the development area. Great design. Commissioner Schreiner commented on the driveway and the staff report. Staffs concern was that a portion of the backup area is on a 30% slope which is a does like driveway or an area where J serious consideration. She not to see any part of a cars will be parked on this type of slope. She requested some type of redesign of that area or reduction in that particular area as she feels this is unsafe. Regarding the basement, all they are asking is to comply to the code. She liked the design. She would like them to conform however, they have gone this far with the understanding that they could keep some of the nonconformity. She would not like this to set a precedent. Commissioner Gottlieb agreed, it was a very nice house although she did not feel a carport facing the Preserve area was correct. The carport is not in the right area with so much of the driveway in a 30% slope area. She would prefer not having the nonconformity and would not like to see any more in the future. Commissioner Cheng agreed with most of the Commissioners regarding the encroachment being less. She had no problem with the driveway due to the constraints of the lot. She does want the basement changed to a true basement. Chairman McMahon felt it was a remarkable design; following the Design Guidelines; not imposing. She was happy to see that instead of using the entire encroachment, they only used a modest 60 square feet. Mr. Williams felt comfortable that staff could work with the architect regarding the basement. If there were any other projects staff was working with that would fall into this nonconformance issue, Commissioner Doran asked that they be advised. The conditions of approval were discussed. Mr. Williams noted the need to add a condition with the standard language accepting the conservation easement as shown on the plan. He also suggested a condition having an arborist prepare a report making r ' Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/95 July 12,1995 Page 11 recommendations for the construction in the area of the oak trees and any other measures to help protect those trees; one in the parking area and one 10 feet off of the parking area. Commissioner Stutz suggested if the trees are really in poor condition, have them removed before construction. Mr. Arnn commented on two arborists reports which suggest the removal of the two Blue Oaks, replacing them with Red Oaks. It was felt a third report was not necessary. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Finn and seconded by Commissioner Doran to approve the site development permit for a new residence adding to the conditions of approval accepting the conservation easement below the driveway at the carport; staff working with the applicant to change the access to the basement so it is in conformance to code. AYES: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Stutz, Cheng, Finn & Doran NOES: Commissioners Gottlieb & Schreiner Commissioners Gottlieb & Schreiner indicated their NO vote was due to the location of the carport and the driveway. This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar August 2,1995. There was a consensus to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m. 5. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5.1 Planning Commission Representative for the July 5th meeting -Commissioner Cheng reported the following items were discussed: re -appointment of Commissioners Cheng and Finn and a discussion regarding cut and fill as it related to the Lands of Goldberg. 5.2 Planning Commission Representative for the July 19th meeting -Commissioner Doran. ;�►lrl�lYa��1►1�X7 6.1 Reorganization of the Planning Commission. The Commission thanked former Chairman Schreiner for all her hard work over the past year. 6.2 Revised Conditions of Approval regarding landscape, colors, required certifications, and lighting. The change in language was discussed along with a landscaping bond ordinance suggested. All agreed with the new language as presented. Ln Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/95 July 12,1995 Page 12 1J 6.3 Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting 9/14/95 at 5:00 p.m. The meeting has been canceled and will be re -scheduled for some time in the future. 7. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 Report from subcommittees. Dan Anderson is currently working on the Housing Element with all of the comments from the other committee members. 7.2 Discussion -Circular driveways. A report was presented by the Planning Director. All felt the report was very thorough. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb, seconded by Commissioner Cheng and passed by consensus to forward the report to the City Council recommending approval of this policy. 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8.1 Approval of the June 28, 1995 minutes. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the June 28th minutes with a change to page 7, fourth paragraph "not being followed." 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING 9.1 LANDS OF PETERS, 24012 Oak Knoll Circle; A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape plan. Approved with conditions. 10. ADDIOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, LaniLonberger U Planning Secretary 101