Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/24/1996Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 2/14/96 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 24,1996, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes #2-96 ( 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 McMahon, Commissioners Gottlieb, Cheng, Doran, Stutz (arrived 7:10), Finn & Schreiner Staff: Curtis Williams, Planning Director; Sheryl Proft, Assistant Engineer; Suzanne Davis, Planner; Susan Manca, Planner; Land Lonberger, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -none 3. PUBLIC HEARini . 3.1 PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR LANDS OF HAU for a proposed three lot subdivision of 4.5 acres, located at 13901 W. Edith Road, also known as 25561 W. Fremont Road, and cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract. Continued to a date uncertain and will be re -noticed for public hearing. 3.2 LANDS OF LOHR,12102 Oak Park Court (Lot 8D) 223-95-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool and spa. Ms. Davis introduced this item noting that the standard pool conditions would be added to the conditions of approval. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Steve Lohr, 586 Lagunita Drive, Stanford, J. Lohr Properties, discussed the application and the constraints on the lot which included conservation easements and human habitation setbacks. Approximately 80% of the lot is encumbered by these easements. `. Although the maximum floor area is 6,433 square feet, the clients prefer a smaller Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/14/96 January 24,1996 Page 2 home. His clients do not wish a swimming pool so the need for a retaining wall underneath the Oak tree will not be necessary. Mr. Lohr commented that they plan to add a stucco band to the south elevation to continue the tutor style in the front. They will also add a dormer over the center window on the south elevation. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to approve the Lands of Lohr request for a Site Develop- ment Permit for a new residence only with the following changes/amendments to the conditions of approval: deletion of condition #11; deletion of the requirement for an arborist to inspect the Oak tree noted in condition #4; deletion of all reference to a pool, pool equipment and retaining walls as they are not a part of this approval; and the addition of architectural features on the south elevation as stated by the applicant. AYES: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Cheng, Finn, Gottlieb & Doran NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Stutz (arrived late for discussion) This approval is subject to a 21 day appeal period. ( 3.3 LANDS OF PARIKH, 26875 Elena Road (194-95-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, secondary dwelling unit and pool. The Commission took a brief break to review the new correspondence presented (Blaine Boccignone, certified arborist with Davey Tree, Arlene Hoff, and additional comments from Guy Jinkerson, Environmental Design Committee). Discussion ensued regarding tree protection and definition of a ridgeline. Staff felt this was not a ridgeline with two houses in the general area higher in elevation than the proposed house. Also, the lot provides heavy vegetation for screening. Commissioner Schreiner noted that the Design Guidelines indicate that due to the 14% slope, this should be a step down house and the elements should be stepped down close to or approximately two feet. However, the staff report indicates a step down of only one foot so visually there is not an effect of a step down house. The Planning Director indicated there was not a 14% slope in the actual location of the house although the average percent of slope on the property is 14%. He did feel there was an opportunity to step the house a little more, if the Commission felt it was appropriate. It was noted that the basement being proposed is totally below grade with no exposed walls, meeting the definition of a basement. The Planning Director discussed the Fire Department's request for the driveway to be 20 feet in width, indicating some flexibility in the request. It was noted that there was an error on the septic system plan indicating a 200 gallon septic tank. The correct figure should be 2,000 gallons. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/14/96 January 24,1996 Page 3 Commissioner Stutz suggested the leach field line by the present house be abandoned with the other leach field lines extended to take up the difference. She also commented on the Oak tree in the location of the deck which extends down 6-8 feet below that level, expressing a desire for the tree to be saved when the regrading is done. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Allen Nikitin, 236 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, discussed the project design, creating a recreational site for the pool, and trying to be sensitive to the neighbors. He noted the concerns with grading which have been minimized. He further discussed low visibility, the roofline below the height limitations, and the driveway design. Other driveway designs contemplated were either too long or made the driveway very inconvenient (walking up to the house from the garage). Robert John Stinson, 15659 Cherry Blossom Lane, Los Gatos, project landscape architect, discussed the project noting their goal was to make the site as natural as possible. The fill is to soften previous relationships on the site that were not very aesthetic. There is an existing barn/shed with a large vertical wall which will be removed with the underneath area grades tapering off and blended below the site. This is the only area which has substantial fill involved with it. Regarding the protection of the trees, they are moving existing structures farther away from the trees to provide more ability for growth and survival. Excavation of the pool will be done ar on the side away from the trees. He noted that the pool location is within the foundation of the original house currently on the site. The pool house is located 30 feet away from the existing property lines. The pool equipment is located behind the pool house in an enclosed shed which will also be sound insulated. He felt the location of both the pool and pool house with the pool being further away from the property line than the 30 foot setback, are mitigating any other issues from the neighbors. Bob Hall, 12140 Foothill Lane, neighbor, opposed the project. He provided the Commission with photographs of the project taken from his property. He felt he will be losing both the view and privacy with the second story looking directly into his living room, family room and spa. The pool house which will be located right outside their bedroom looks as though it will diminish the view from that room also. He suggested the house be moved to the top of the driveway where the lower part of the house could be built into the steep slope. Also, by moving the house forward, it would act as a noise barrier from I-280 and the yard area in back. He felt the maximum use or over -use of the property was not in the spirit of the founding of Los Altos Hills where privacy was considered of the utmost importance. He further quoted Municipal Code Article 7, Section 10-2.702 and discussed the definition of ridgeline property. Robert John Stinson commented on the photos provided by Mr. Hall noting the view beyond the house through the story poles is mature landscaping on another property. They are not obstructing Mr. Hall's view. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/14/96 January 24, 1996 Page 4 Virginia Hall, 12140 Foothill Lane, neighbor, clarified that the view which will be obstructed is towards the Moffett Field area. Guy Jinkerson, Environmental Design Committee, commented that three committee members had visited the site with the following opinions: building site appears to be on a ridgeline so there should not be a two story development; prominent location for the house; and they were concerned with the location of the pool and pool equipment. Commissioner Doran asked the Planning Director to repeat the staffs interpretation of a ridgeline and why they did not feel this was a ridgeline home. Mr. Williams again noted that the site is not at the top. There is land up above it and a home up above it. The language in the code and guidelines also speaks of visible ridgelines. It was the staffs opinion that there was a fair amount of mature vegetation that interrupted the view of this site and it could accommodate at least a partial second story. He disagreed with Mr. Jinkerson in that it is not a clear cut decision as there is some interpretation to be made. It would be the Commission's prerogative to determine if the site was a visible ridgeline and a one story structure was appropriate. John Dumont, 7203 St. George Lane, San Jose, builder for the applicants. He commented that when looking at topographic maps, it become clear where a ridge is; this is clearly an upslope lot with existing residences above this particular lot. When looking at this site prior to the purchase by the applicants, he looked at ways of placing a home on the lot such that it would be less visible than the current structure, and still be able to accommodate a leach field to satisfy the current Public Health Department standards. The leach field that was proposed for this property has yet to be worked out and will be different than is drawn. Also, as you come up the long driveway, everything straight ahead of you and to the left (the down slope side) is exposed. All the vegetation that would obscure new construction is on the right hand side of the property. The best place for a new residence would be around to the right, behind the vegetation and somehow dug into the hill to mitigate the impact of the structure. He felt as the Commission reviews the topographic map, story poles, and the grading sections which indicates how this has been pushed into the hill, they will see that much thought has been given to those mitigation measures. He requested approval of the project. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Commissioner Cheng asked the Planning Director for clarification of the elevation of the Parikh house versus the Halls. Mr. Williams commented that the roof line of the applicants appears to be a few feet to several feet higher than where Mr. Hall has taken the pictures from (the family room). It appears that there is about 10 feet of difference from the floor of the proposed house to the property line. The roofline is a few feet higher than where the neighbors took the picture from. It was not known what Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/14/96 January 24, 1996 Page 5 v percentage of the neighbors view would be lost. Commissioner Finn asked if the first floor level of the proposed residence is approximately 20 feet lower than the Hall's family room, how could this be on a ridgeline when the next door neighbor is 20 feet higher? Further discussion ensued regarding the definition of a ridgeline. Commissioner Doran felt there was some latitude to lower the elevation of the house and perhaps step the main floor, kitchen and the family room a little bit lower. They do not protect views in this community, however, they do want to be sensitive to neighbors. She did not agree with the cut to make the driveway go flat with the house. Sometimes you have to walk up some steps to get into your house. She liked the design of the project and the overall effect of the house on the lot. She asked that the applicants be sensitive to the land (grading) and the neighbors. Commissioner Stutz felt there was a way to lower the house some. She suggested pulling in the driveway by reducing the width from 20 feet to 14 feet as suggested in the staff report, and reduce the grading for the driveway and parking area. The lot is not appropriate for a flat house and she was not sure if it was ridgeline property. She felt some consideration should be given for a two story house as there are other two story homes in the neighborhood. She agreed that the finished floor should be lowered (164-165), the location for the pool and pool house was good, the 30 foot setbacks should provide privacy, and the view of the lot is protected from a distance. Commissioner Gottlieb would like to see the house set in and lowered, the driveway pulled in to a 14 foot width, and suggesting moving the pool equipment. She felt they should consider view issues. She felt this was a very visible lot and the design not compatible with surrounding homes in the area. It should be tucked in. Commissioner Schreiner felt the Commissioners were asking for a redesign to lower the house and respect the impact on the neighbors (Halls). She was concerned with the cut on the driveway asking if they make it a steeper pitch, what will it do to the slope of the driveway going up. In reviewing G2 of the plans, Ms. Manca felt there should not be a problem with raising the bulb. Commissioner Finn did not feel this was a ridgeline home. He felt the Halls will only see roof, not windows. If they increase the elevation of the bulb 1 foot, it appears the house will fit into the neighborhood. Commissioner Cheng agreed with Commissioner Finn and Doran suggesting that the applicants be sensitive to the neighbors views. Chairman McMahon felt the house elevation and roof plan were highly articulated and a very good design. It showed care in presenting a large home in an attractive manner as seen from all sides. She particularly liked the siting as you come up the steep drive, as it is tucked around the right hand side which is nested in the existing trees. Regarding the heights, she commented that the roof slopes are at the most minimal Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/14/96 January 24,1996 Page 6 slope she has seen proposed in many months. She felt lowering the roof a foot or two would help. However, as the house stands, it is attractive in its particular location on the site. Commissioner Doran suggested lowering the elevation 18 inches between the house and the bulb with the driveway not flat at the house (stepped up) to minimize the cut so the project would not have to return to the Commission. Commissioner Stutz would prefer the house be lowered two feet and the bulb raised one foot with the cut in the back of the corner be terraced out. Further discussion ensued regarding the Halls view toward Moffett Field. The photographs taken by Mr. Hall were reviewed again. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Finn and seconded by Commissioner Doran to approve the Lands of Parikh request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, secondary unit and pool with staff working with the applicants to terrace the cuts, to reduce the finished floor by 1.5 feet, and to look at the potential of raising the parking/turnaround bulb by at least one foot in elevation. The changes shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and Engineering Department. AYES: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Stutz, Cheng, Doran & Finn NOES: Commissioners Gottlieb & Schreiner This approval is subject to a 21 day appeal period. Brief break at 8:25 p.m. 3.4 LANDS OF OWEN,13930 La Paloma Road (209-95-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool and tennis court, an a proposed Negative Declaration. Several letters were received from neighbors (Raeanne Carter, Anita Tsui, Juanita Reed, Mr. and Mrs. Stiles), and also a petition from various neighbors noting opposition to certain architectural features of the proposed residence. Staff also provided the Commission with new wording for conditions #12 and #23. A brief discussion ensued regarding the drainage plans for the La Paloma basin. The Assistant Engineer commented on the last meeting the Town had with the residents in December. At that meeting, the Town was hoping to get an idea from the residents if they were willing to grant the necessary easements for the Town to go forward with the drainage plan. The drainage design was for an open channel, however most of the residents appeared to prefer a tightline pipe going through that area rather than an Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/14/96 January 24, 1996 Page 7 open channel. At this point, staff will be working with the consulting engineers (Wilsey and Ham) and the City Council to determine what would be the next step. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Bob Owen, 445 S. San Antonio Road, Los Altos, applicant, discussed the project, commenting on the following items: sensitivity to the area; impact on the neighbors; 90 foot setback from neighbors; L shape design; screening with landscaping; contemporary design; basement totally hidden (below grade); UBC codes relating to light and ventilation; stairwell coming out of the courtyard; neighborhood support; and the concern expressed by neighbors regarding the tennis court. He provided a cross section of the tennis court. The original tennis court plan had 6 foot high retaining walls on either end of the court. The plan has been revised so the south side of the tennis court wall now is 3 feet high and 2 feet high on the north side. There will be a 6 foot cut on the south side, a 4 to 5 foot fill on the north side. The cuts and fills are almost balanced. The tennis court will be concealed on three sides by vegetation and the fourth side can be screened. The court size will be 5,500 square feet as drainage was a big consideration. He felt the impact on drainage would be minimal because there will not be much increase from the previous development on the site (incremental increase of 1,850 square feet impervious surface towards La Paloma). He has worked with staff to develop drainage plans. He noted that some neighbors voiced concern with the drainage out to the rear of the property. He felt they have collected it well and taken it off site. He indicated no problem with the change to conditions #12 and #23. He noted that there had been some concern regarding lighting. They have not submitted the lighting plan to the Town as yet, however he felt they can develop a lighting plan that will be acceptable to the neighbors. He will propose to use a "low E" glass with a heavy tint for the living room and dining room which will reverse the light at night. Skylights will be placed in the flat roof with no lighting within the skylight wells. He noted some contusion/concern regarding the reflective pond; it will not emit light. It is a pond 18 inches deep with 12 inches of water. There will not be a light problem coming from this pond. Also, there will not be any lights in the glass roofed area or sides of the porte cochere. It was noted that a kitchen is not being proposed in the basement area. Commissioner Finn asked Mr. Owen to clarify his basement design and what makes this basement different from other basement designs the Commission has disallowed in the past. Mr. Owen commented that he has spoken to Council members noting their intent was that if the basement could not be seen, it was fully submerged, it would not count as floor area. The code states that it has to be enclosed on four sides. What they have done is to come out into a courtyard which is enclosed and calling it the fourth side. Commissioner Schreiner gave some background on the change to the basement definition. A true basement is completely underground and thus does not count. She felt if they want the courtyard, then the basement counts into the calculations. Mr. ow Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/14/96 January 24,1996 Page 8 Owen felt this design was unique as he has buried the entire basement and was concealed everywhere on the site. Juanita Reed, 13940 La Paloma Road, neighbor, agreed with Mr. Owen's suggestion to use "low E" glass with a tint. She thought there would be a problem with light reflecting from the glass in the porte cochere (afternoon sun). She requested no glare glass, although Mr. Owen commented he could use "low E" glass on the porte cochere also. Regarding the basement, she did not feel this basement met the definition. Regarding trees and landscaping, she noted that much has already been removed with others being proposed to be removed. She requested screening during construction for privacy. She would also like to see some trees planted after grading to get some screening in place sooner and to give some privacy. She further discussed grading and drainage. It appeared that most of the drainage will be taken back to Fremont Pines Road. Fremont Road and Fremont Pines Road already have a drainage problem. She suggested having the drainage from the new development come down the easement side of the driveway (north side) which would relieve some of the drainage on the Tsui property. She was also concerned with the drainage on the north side of this development. She was concerned that the grading would create run off onto her property. This should be looked at seriously by the Site Development Committee when the landscape plan is submitted. Alan Huntzinger, Civil Engineer representing Anita Tsui, who lives directly below the proposed development. They currently have a problem with excess water under and around their home and they cannot tolerate any increase in the amount of water which enters their property. He felt a simple solution would be the installation of a raised curb along all driveways on the downhill edges. His proposal which was provided to the Commission went into detail regarding his suggested solutions. Dave Pefley, 26169 Maurer Lane, neighbor, had provided a letter detailing a proposed solution to the proposed tennis court problem and a solution to the drainage problems in the area. However, after hearing that the tennis court drains on the Fremont Pines Road side, he withdrew his concerns regarding the tennis court. He requested that the Commission still keep in mind that the La Paloma drainage system cannot handle the present drainage. Colleen Maurer, 26170 W. Fremont Road, commented on being affected by drainage running along the length of her father's property. She disagreed that there would be no impact on the neighbors. Bob Chuen, noted that he had spoken to Juanita Reed the previous day. He noted that they could put a swale or berm along the Reed property to prevent run off from going onto that area (near the tennis court). Regarding fill on the north end of the court, there will be some run off, however it will not be strict run off. There will be �, vegetation there that will help hold and impede the water. Commissioner Gottlieb Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/14/96 January 24, 1996 Page 9 questioned the removal of many pine trees from the site, asking if the trees could remain until after construction for privacy purposes. Mr. Owen commented that they would leave as many trees standing as possible, except for the ones in the building/grading area. Bill Whitney, 13890 La Paloma Road, neighbor adjacent to the Tsuis. He commented on standing water that does not drain, water flowing across the road to properties on the opposite side of La Paloma (Burkhart and Maurer properties), hoping the Town does something. He did like the property design and the location of the house set back on the lot. Juanita Reed, gave a history of the drainage situation dating back to the Nelsons. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Discussion ensued regarding drainage with questions directed to the Assistant Engineer. Ms. Proft noted that there is a 12" pipe now. Wilsey and Ham (engineering consultants) indicated upsizing the pipe to 15" would improve that situation. Commissioner Gottlieb commented that landscape irrigation saturates the soil and when the rains come, there is nowhere for the water to go. She suggested natural landscaping rather than formal landscaping to help minimize water runoff. Guy 4 Jinkerson from Environmental Design Committee agreed noting that there is substantial watering of landscaping going on in the area. Commissioner Stutz asked the Assistant Engineer if the committee which is studying the La Paloma drainage basin is considering a tight line pipe for Fremont Road? Ms. Proft commented that it had not been considered in the conceptual designs provided by the engineering consultants, although they have tried to stay with the Town's general concept of keeping channels open and more like creeks. Further discussion ensued. Commissioner Schreiner asked for clarification regarding the incremental increase mentioned previously. Originally, this property was a two acre parcel with one house, barn, etc. What they have is not an increase of 1,850 square feet of impervious surface but an increase of 1,850 square feet plus all the development on the front lot. Ms. Proft noted the statement would be true if the project was coming in today with two proposed residences and a subdivision. However, back when the property was subdivided certain drainage requirements were required to address the issue of an additional residence and the additional development area. Chairman McMahon was not sure how much of the La Paloma basin problem should be tied to this property. She would like to focus on this project as the Commission cannot solve the La Paloma basin problem this evening. Commissioner Gottlieb suggested the use of native planting, reduction of lawn area or high water using plants which would help with the drainage situation. Commissioner Schreiner was still very Planning Commission Minutes Appmved 2/14/96 January 24,1996 Page 10 concerned with the La Paloma drainage problem. She felt all new projects should contribute in helping solve the problem. Chairman McMahon read the definition of a basement noting the proposed basement does not meet the definition and should count as it does not have "adjoining grade." An exit is permitted, not a terrace. Commissioner Finn did not feel the definition approved by the City Council addressed how large the ingress/egress area is outside the basement. He felt the Chairman was extending the definition beyond what the City Council approved for the basement definition. He did not believe that how large or small the outside area is, as long as it is also below grade, was addressed by the City Council. Commissioner Stutz commented one reason for the change in the basement regulation was to eliminate three story facades/three levels of development. She did not feel the courtyard caused any harm. However, she could not say if they were in agreement with the Council's opinion or not. Commissioner Gottlieb felt if the applicant wants to daylight the basement, it should count in the floor area calculations. Commissioner Schreiner was a part of the committee reviewing the definition of a basement. At that time, the committee felt that if a basement was not completely covered on all four sides except for the UBC requirements, it should be counted. Further discussed ensued regarding the tennis court. Commissioner Doran was satisfied with the mitigation measures that the Town has set forth for the tennis court as well as with the applicant proposing to lower the retaining walls, changing the grade of the court, and his willingness to address the drainage on Ms. Reed's side of the property as well as including some planting on that side. Commissioner Gottlieb felt the tennis court would contribute excess water to Fremont Pines Road where there is an existing drainage problem. Commissioner Finn noted that 9 out of 10 of the Fremont Pines residents have signed letters in support of the project and he did not feel there was a drainage problem on Fremont Pines. Commissioner Cheng suggested using a clay tennis court or another material that would not be completely impervious. Commissioner Schreiner suggested using grasscrete or a similar material for half of the circular driveway (west portion of the oval) for drainage considerations. Commissioner Doran suggested leaving the drainage solution to professional engineers, and reviewing Alan Huntzinger's suggestions. Commissioner Gottlieb requested a vote regarding the basement definition issue, however the request was not acted upon. M011ON SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Finn and seconded by Commissioner Doran to approve the Lands of Owen Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool and tennis court, and the Negative Declaration, directing staff to review in detail all of the drainage concerns discussed by the Commission. The conditions of approval will include the new wording for conditions #12 and #23 v Discussion Commissioner Cheng requested further discussion, issue by issue Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/14/96 January 24, 1996 Page 11 AYES: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Stutz, Doran & Finn NOES: Commissioners Schreiner, Gottlieb & Cheng This approval is subject to a 21 day appeal period. Brief break at 10:15 p.m. 3.5 PROPOSED REVISED PATHWAY ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN; Amendments to the Site Development and Subdivision Ordinances Regarding Pathway Requirements; and Proposed Negative Declaration. This item was introduced by the Planning Director commenting on previous meeting, prior changes made, and the Master Pathway Plan. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Discussion ensued. All issues of concern were discussed at length by the Planning Commission, Pathways Committee Chair and the Planning Director with the suggestions and changes to the wording to the proposed Pathway Element noted by 4 the Planning Director. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to recommend the City Council adopt the proposed Negative Declaration, the revised Pathway Element of the General Plan and the related ordinance amendments as modified by the Planning Director as directed by the Planning Commission. AYES: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Stutz, Cheng, Gottlieb, Schreiner, Doran & Finn NOES: None This item will be scheduled for City Council public hearing. 4. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 4.1 Planning Commission Representative for the January 17th meeting- Commissioner Gottlieb. She reported on the Lands of Reed subdivision application. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/14/% January 24, 1996 Page 12 4.2 Planning Commission Representative for the February 7th meeting - Commissioner Cheng. 5. OLD B iSIN .. 5.1 Report from subcommittees. None. 6. NEW BUSINESS None. 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of the December 13, 1995 minutes. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the December 13,1995 minutes. 7.2 Approval of the January 10, 1996 minutes. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the January 10, 1996 minutes. 8. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITIEE MEElaiG 8.1 LANDS OF BISCHOFF, 24009 Oak Knoll Circle; A request for a Site Development Permit for landscape and related improvements. Approved with conditions. 9. ADTOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, LaniLonberger Planning Secretary