Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/11/1999Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 8/25/99 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, August 11, 1999, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes (4) #13-99 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Commissioners Gottlieb, Jinkerson, Wong (arrived at 7:00 p.m.) & Schreiner Absent: Commissioner Cottrell Staff: Curtis Williams, Planning Director; Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner; Ola Balogun, Associate Engineer; Shaunn O'Connor, Assistant Planner; Lam Smith, Planning Secretary 4,10 Consultant: Jeff Peterson, Wilsey Ham PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -None PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF FONG, 25721 La Larne Court (99-99-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and a three -car carport (continued from July 28 1999). Commissioner Wong had previously stepped down from the hearing due to the proximity of his residence to the project site. The Planning Director introduced this item by noting the receipt of a memo from the project architect, Jerry Veverka, regarding the revised floor area calculations. Discussion ensued. The floor area figures were checked and the proposal is 9 square feet over the maximum allowed. The plans will be revised to be in compliance prior to building plan check. The pad has been dropped one foot and the house lowered to less than 27 feet. The basement is in compliance as it is below grade and the exit would not be visible from off site although the door opening is not completely below grade. A change to the door (moving it back) was discussed. The project architect indicated he could make this change. ` OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/25/99 August 11, 1999 Page 2 Jerry Veverka, 246 First Street, San Francisco, project architect, thanked staff for the quick turnaround of the changes. He will correct the floor area figures and the basement exit. He has eliminated one driveway to bring the development area into compliance. He has lowered the height of the structure by 1'/s feet and dropped the pad one foot for a 2'/z foot reduction from the story poles on the site. The storage cabinets have been eliminated so the carport is open on two sides. The floor level of the new first floor would be three feet lower than the existing house. He provided photographs of the adjacent neighbor's home taken from the existing house and one showing the view from the proposed second story windows. Privacy is important to the Fong's also and they intend to plant landscaping to increase screening. He believed further height reduction would negatively impact the design and the livability of the house. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Discussion ensued regarding the height of the fill (4 feet), the pool room (room for a pool table), skylights meeting code, additional plantings by the carport wall facing the street and special attention given to screening for the neighbor to the east. It was noted that the drainage condition of approval has been modified The findings for the height reduction: reduce visibility and impact on privacy to neighbors on the east and north side; bring project into compliance with grading policy; and height above the highest point of the land reduced. Commissioner Gottlieb suggested that the copper roofing and trellis material meet the reflectivity standard and should not be too shiny or glossy. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence and a three - car carport, Lands of Fong, 25721 La Lanne Court, with the following additions/changes to the conditions of approval: revise the basement exit to the pool to recess the door at the corridor even with the adjacent room; add landscape screening to break up the view of the carport wall from La Lanne Court; the trellis glazing shall be tinted or roughened to achieve a right reflectivity value of 40 or less; and add to #18, that the engineering department shall pay particular attention to minimize potential impacts to downstream properties, including across the street. AYES: Chairman Jinkerson, Commissioners, Gottlieb & Schreiner NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cottrell ABSTAIN: Commissioner Wong The approval is subject to a 21 day appeal period. N Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 1999 Page 3 Approved 8/25/99 3.2 LANDS OF WANG, 27581 Samuel Lane (111-99-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence with attached garage. Staff had nothing further to add to the report. The Commission reviewed letters from Stuart Bessler and John Arnold, both voicing concerns. Discussion ensued regarding the septic system and the conservation easement. It was noted that the area in the conservation easement was used for the MDA/MPA calculations. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Ron Harris, 10091 Streeter Road, Auburn, project architect, designed the house to be one-story from the rear; two stories only in the front (sunken garage). There is good screening on the site year-round. There is mature vegetation on the property that would provide some initial screening of the house from Purissima, lot 3, and the Lands of Swanson. He further discussed architectural details. Dave Pilling, 12849 Canario Way, felt the proposed house is too close to the lower pasture. When lots 1 and 3 were considered, the developer shared the plans with the surrounding neighbors. These plans were not shared. The neighbors did not know of the project until the story poles were erected. Thus, no one has had enough time to consider the plans and to review the project particulars. He further discussed the proposed height and drainage issues. John Arnold, 12750 Canario Way, questioned the Palo Alto sewer project as noted in his letter to the Commission. The creek has gone from seasonal to continual flow of water from some source year round. In all likelihood, the source of this water is the leakage from sanitary drain fields which have been added to the district during the last twenty years. The Planning Director suggested he contact the Town engineering department regarding sewer feasibility studies. Mr. Arnold continued, stating his view of the house will be of a large roof. Jerry Anderson, 12829 Canario Way, has lived in the area for 27 years. He understands they cannot stop progress, but he felt the neighbors should have been contacted by the developer. The developer of the other two lots listened to the neighbors. Mr. Anderson provided photos taken of the site from his property. Rich Swanson, 27575 Purissima Road, felt the property was fairly screened, but needs additional screening since the second story portion faces toward his property. He was also concerned with damage to the road due to construction vehicles. Nader Zatparvar, 410 Juanita Way, Los Altos, builder of lots 1 and 3 in the subdivision, would like to see the same standards applied to this project as when his projects were reviewed. He pointed out that he did not maximize the floor area on either of his lots. The applicant could make the house smaller to better fit into the neighborhood. He further discussed the requirements for lots 1 and 3. He kept the houses smaller to fit in. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/25/99 August 11, 1999 Page 4 4V Chairman Jinkerson noted that the Commission has less discretion than when Mr. Zatparvar's projects were reviewed. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, stated the plans only indicate one cedar tree in the front, asking that the other two cedar trees in the front of the house be preserved. The oak cluster along the roadway provides good screening and mitigation to the neighbors and should not be removed. Also, there is a landscape gap for the rear neighbor suggesting fill-in plantings. Ron Harris submitted an arborist report and indicated that they will save as many trees as possible. The house is one-story except for the garage area. The septic lines are between the trees to avoid any impact on them. Commissioner Schreiner asked if it was possible to reduce the impact on the neighbors by shifting or swinging the house around. Mr. Harris stated they were trying to keep the grading down and he did not feel shifting the house would make any difference. The garage is tucked underneath so it will not be seen by the neighbors. The Planning Director indicated the limited flexibility due to leach lines. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Gottlieb referred to the extensive grading close to the property line. When the lot was subdivided, it was noted that the development and floor area for each lot in the subdivision would be restricted due to various factors, including topography and required setbacks. The future developer of any lot may not be able to utilize the Maximum Development Area, the Maximum Floor Area and the Maximum Height Allowance for such lot as set out in the Town's Municipal Code. She voiced concern with the lack of a backyard although there is some area by the garage. She would like the second story element reduced (21 feet to 18 feet). Commissioner Schreiner stated the issue is that this lot is constrained by the shape, leach lines and the amount of development proposed on the lot. She was concerned with the number of neighbors who have written and/or voiced concerns and that the applicant and his architect have not worked with them. There may be ways to lessen the impact on the neighbors and to fit into the neighborhood. Lot 1 will be very impacted by this house. She would like to continue this application so the architect could speak to the neighbors and work with staff to address concerns. Mr. Wang, applicant, stated this was a constrained lot in relation to the MDA/MFA. The Planning Director clarified the subdivision wording which was specific regarding the maximums may not be able to be reached. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 825199 August 11, 1999 (( Page 5 \/ Commissioner Wong asked for an explanation on MDA/MFA and the difference between a constrained lot and a regular lot. The Planning Director responded stating some constraints (slope and road) are already taken into account. Others such as the creek and conservation easement, and trees are not. The Planning Commission has the discretion to reduce the size, height, placement, etc. based on impacts on neighbors, design and how well it does or does not fit the lot. Chairman Jinkerson noted there was no code requirement for the applicant to contact the neighbors. He asked for suggested findings for height and size reduction. The Planning Director indicated the following: there was not another reasonable way to mitigate it; reduction due to visual impact on neighbors; the subdivision conditions noted that maximum numbers might not be achieved; other homes on Samuel Lane were required to be reduced; and the conservation easement was calculated in the slope density, although it is not an area that can be developed. Commissioner Gottlieb felt there were ways to work with the neighbors. She would also like to continue the application to reduce the floor area and/or height. She requested the applicant work with the neighbors. Commissioner Schreiner stated these problems were noted when the subdivision was approved. If the house size is reduced, the length will also be reduced. Also, the height at the comer should be reduced. Commissioner Wong supported a reduction on a portion of the house, not on the entire structure and the use of landscaping for mitigation. liar The applicant and architect agreed to a continuance. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to continue the Site Development Permit for a new residence with attached garage, Lands of Wang, 27581 Samuel Lane, to August 25, 1999 (if possible), for redesign, to address the following concerns: explore how impact on neighbors can be lessened through lowering, reduction in size, and/or shifting (if possible); what can be done with landscaping, especially where the house is close to setbacks; and a reduction in size (350 to 500 square feet). AYES: Commissioners Jinkerson, Wong, Gottlieb & Schreiner NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cottrell 3.3 LANDS OF CHASE AND ARNOLD, 12180 Kate Drive (89-99-ZP-SD- GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence with attached garage. The Planning Director introduced this item by discussing the current applications in Quarry Hills subdivision, looking for staggering setbacks, variety, and not many two story vertical structures. So far, he has seen a variety of designs. He further discussed Fast Track, as it applies to a new subdivision, noting the first few homes will be reviewed by the Commission. `• OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes Approved 825/99 August 11, 1999 Page 6 kow Michael Davis, 275 Tennant Avenue, Morgan Hill, project architect, provided a sketch of the project. The finish will be similar to the Rogez home (old world finish). They have broken up the two story element and have increase the front setback. Commissioner Schreiner noted that this lot and lot 11 will both have driveways within the setback requiring a need for landscaping. This is a barren area, in need of extensive landscaping. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Schreiner asked that condition #2 be strengthened. Commissioner Gottlieb also suggested heavy landscaping between the two properties and in front and perhaps a tree in the circular driveway. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Wong and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence with attached garage, Lands of Chase and Arnold, 12180 Kate Drive, adding to condition #2, second sentence, "and in particular in the front yard and one the side to screen between the driveway and the driveway on Lot 11". AYES: Commissioners Jinkerson, Schreiner, Gottlieb & Wong NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cottrell The approval is subject to a 21 day appeal period. Brief break at 8:45 p.m. 3.4 LANDS OF KERNS, 11890 Francemont Court (61-97-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, a secondary dwelling unit with detached two -car garage, and an exception to an existing conservation easement to allow part of the driveway and rear yard to encroach into the easement. The Associate Planner introduced this item by fielding questions regarding the retaining walls (850 lineal feet), connecting to sewer, and the length of the driveway (new portion approximately 1200 feet). The utilities will run underneath the driveway and the pathway will be over the driveway which would have a roughened surface. She also noted the receipt of three letters of concern from Liz Dana, L. Craig Britton, Regional Open Space, and Roger Spreen. Chairman Jinkerson questioned the need for an Environmental Impact Review or Negative Declaration. He cited Leonoff versus Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 CA 3d 1337. There was an issue of whether or not the initial study (that which determines if an FIR or Negative Declaration is necessary) must "contain supporting evidence." "Without a properly �, prepared initial study, the record may prove inadequate to permit judicial review of the agency Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/25/99 August 11, 1999 (( Page 7 4r decision." He felt opposition to the project was enough to trigger Public Resources Code §210.82.2, citing Citizens Association for Sensible Development of Bishop Area versus County of Inyo (1985) 172 CA 3d 151 "personal observations" of project opponents. Environmental Planning versus County of EI Dorado (1982) 131 CA 3d 350 stated if there is a possibility that the project may have a significant effect, the agency should undertake an initial study. The Planning Director noted that the California Environmental Quality Act generally exempts single family residences and subdivisions of less than four lots from its provisions. However, it does have specific language stating that any time you find there is a significant adverse environmental impact, you may require a Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report to be prepared. Commissioner Wong questioned the existing retaining walls and whether the new walls would be a significant impact. Ms. Davis responded, yes, as grading and clearing would be a visual impact and would be a significant change to the site. He asked if the upper site was intended for development. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Bill Maston, 384 Castro Street, Mountain View, project architect, summarized changes that have been made to the project since starting three years ago. The subdivision Tentative Map shows the conservation easement and exception to the conservation easement to allow for a building. 40 The map does not designate the lower area as the building site. The lower site would not support a house of the same size as what is proposed on the upper site. He had presented a plan with the guest house on top and it was considered more of an impact on the site and on off-site views. They have attempted to design a driveway that is not unsafe while meeting the criteria allowed by the Town and the Fire Department. They have balanced safety issues with wall heights, grading and road gradient. Also, they have looked at long term versus short impacts. They intend to re -vegetate the areas disturbed by road construction. Susan Roberts, Giuliani & Kull, 4880 Stevens Creek Blvd., San Jose, project civil consultants, discussed a number of different road alignments. They have been working with the Kerns over the past three years and prior to that worked on the 1988 subdivision (Gaither). The existing road bed is mostly 20% slope with one section at 25%. Following the denial of the first project, they developed criteria to work toward. The goal was not to exceed 5 foot high retaining walls and not to exceed 18.5% slope for short sections. Current slopes vary from 16.7% to 18.5% with 850 lineal feet of retaining walls (approximately 25% on both sides of the road). The original proposal had 1700 lineal feet with 80% double walls. The earthwork has been reduced for the entire project, from 3600 cubic yards to 735 cubic yards of off -haul. The cut and fill numbers have been reduced as well. The majority of the walls are on the downhill side of the road where it is easier to mitigate with planting. They are trying to fill the existing roadbed back to the natural grade, or close to it, and then build the retaining walls. There are only a few places where the walls would be higher than 5 feet. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/25/99 August 11, 1999 Page 8 4W Chairman Jinkerson asked what portion of the road would be at 18.5% and how deep would the cut be to build the walls. Ms. Roberts responded 190 feet with most of the remainder at 16.7%, and 2 to 3 feet minimum; 5 feet maximum. She continued stating the conservation easement exchange would be done in two areas and they would like to add an area at the rear of the house to provide yard area. This would result in the conservation easement being 3,680 square feet larger than existing. Bill Maston reviewed the model of the lower driveway. This portion of the driveway would not be seen except by one neighbor when driving up to their property or someone driving on the driveway. The first curve would have a 9 foot height at the upper and lower walls (at highest point; transitions down from 9 foot portion). They intend to add color to the driveway concrete to help it blend with the site . He compared the previous house design with the newly proposed. They are grading the house down into the site which allows a lower profile and keeps the retaining walls around the parking areas to 3 feet or less. It also creates a berm to help shield from open space. This creates many more benefits than raising the house. The water tanks have been enclosed rather than having them outside which reduced site impact. He presented the color board for the house, driveway and retaining walls along with a colored rendering of the house. He further provided photos of the Loughmiller project at 25309 La Loma Drive. They have investigated locating the house on the lower building site, but felt it was not feasible due to setback constraints, buildable area, and slopes (30% to 50%). The approved Harker residence would not meet today's standards. He addressed the receipt of the three letters noting most of the site is in a conservation easement which is to everyone's benefit. The house has been oriented away from the Open Space Region and they can screen with landscaping. Four or five lots on Rhus Ridge Road would have a visual impact. The house on the upper site is a minimum of 400 feet from the closest neighbor. The lower site has four neighbors close to it; approximately 150 feet to the closest neighbor. Roger Spreen, 11970 Rhus Ridge Road, representing the Rhus Ridge Homeowners Association, understood that the applicants have been working on this project for three years, but did not feel sympathy was a good reason to approve a project of this magnitude. He has a direct view of the site and will be impacted by the driveway more than the house. He was not in support of the project. Charles Knowles, 25725 Basset Lane, can see the story poles from his property, although they are only visible from a couple of rooms inside the house. He felt it would be a tragedy to destroy the open space. Randy Anderson, Mid -Peninsula Regional Open Space District, felt the proposal will have significant adverse impact on the resource values in the surrounding neighborhood and adjacent public open space, and would set an unsupportable precedent in compromising the Town's environmental standards. He supported the staff report. Liz Dana, 25700 Bassett Lane, although she cannot see the site from her property, she was still very concerned. She preferred the backdrop of the ridge without any houses on it and new road would be more visible from the open space. Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 1999 Page 9 Approved 8/25/99 Michael Marshall, asked staff's opinion on the impact on the lower site versus the ridge. Bob Stutz, Pathways Committee, provided background on the use of the area and paths which have maintained the same position , providing access to Windmill Pasture. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, commented on some of the plant species on the site which are unique to the area. She was concerned that the new road would cause much damage to such a sensitive area. She felt this project goes against the Site Development Ordinance and the General Plan policies. Also, planting on the downhill side of the road will be difficult since it is very rocky and plants will take longer to get established. Jeff Peterson, Wilsey Ham, summarized the work done on the driveway design and the number of times staff has met with the project team and owners. The applicants were given the concerns and criteria to meet in order for staff to support the project. Although the driveway has come along way and has been improved, it still does not meet the criteria of both planning and engineering. If the project is approved, he recommended that the retaining walls have drilled piers to minimize the impact on the trees. He reviewed the five points in his letter (attachment 3), concluding by referencing a January 15, 1998 memo from the Planning Director to the applicant, indicating that he would support driveway slopes steeper than the Town standard provided that all other aspects of the driveway design were acceptable. In light of the retaining wall heights which exceed Town standards and the relaxed requirements offered by the Planning Director, the impact of the driveway construction on nine mature oak trees, and the location of the pathway on the steep paved driveway surface, he recommended denial of the proposed application. In the event that the application is approved, he recommended that the conditions of approval (page 3 of his letter) be included with the standard conditions for this project. Bill Maston felt the technical aspects have been met to build the road. The visual impact issue can be mitigated. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Wong asked, since it appears to be an issue of visual impact, if the impact can be mitigated and the applicants work with the Rhus Ridge Homeowners Association to reduce the impact, working toward a compromise between the desires of the applicant and Town. Commissioner Schreiner felt the issue was much more than visual impacts. She referred to the General Plan policies relative to steep slopes, ridgelines and minimizing disturbance to natural terrain. The subdivision conditions call for a one-story house. The code indicates a second unit be subordinate to the main residence. The second unit has over 1,400 square feet including the garage. The gate above it would separate the two buildings. This is not minimum disturbance to the site. Nine oak trees are impacted. The examples cited as comparisons are not relevant. L Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/25/99 August 11, 1999 Page 10 4 Many of the signers of the petition do not live anywhere near the site. The development will create a cumulative impact. She also referred to the September 17, 1997 City Council minutes, page 9, paragraph 6 (at which the Council directed that the applicant could not build on the upper site), and conditions of the 1988 Parcel Map that indicted the necessary analysis of the appropriateness of building on the lot indicating an analysis needed to be done. Commissioner Gottlieb stated that the driveway may meet the safety criteria but it exceeds other standards. They need to listen to the City Engineer. The house is not one-story and does not meet the intent of building on a ridgeline. She was also not in favor of the conservation easement exchange. The applicants can reduce the size of the house to gain more outdoor area. Also, the second unit is not subordinate to main residence. The applicants will not be able to monitor the lower site easily. The gate will separate the two sites (defacto subdivision). Chairman Jinkerson stated that the proposed house is very long, running the length of the ridge and cutting in so it is changing the terrain and the character of the area. The driveway is an impact on the environment. The walls have not been designed, and may need to be changed when construction is underway. Although the site is 21 acres, only two acres or so are developable. He agreed that development of the lower site would create a defacto subdivision. The second unit is not subordinate and appears to be a separate residence. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to deny the Site Development Permit for a new residence, a secondary dwelling unit with detached two -car garage, and an exception to an existing conservation easement to allow part of the driveway and rear yard to encroach into the easement, Lands of Kerns, 11890 Francemont Court, with findings as stated in Attachment 1, as follows: The ridgeline (upper building site) is not adequate in size to accommodate the proposed amount of development related to construction of a 7,260 square foot house and garage, fire turnaround and driveway. The driveway from the end of pavement to the upper building site cannot be constructed without excessive disturbance to the site, would exceed the Town's grading policy, would result in retaining walls of up to 9 feet in height, and would present an unsafe condition for vehicles and pedestrians using the driveway, as well as slowing the response time for emergency vehicles. The proposed development would be contrary to the following General Plan principles 1. Steep slopes, canyons, ravines, natural swales and drainage channels and geologic hazard areas within areas designated for residential development should be left undisturbed and preserved as open space. 2. The natural character of ridges should be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. 3. Uses of land should maintain the rural atmosphere, minimize disturbance to natural terrain, minimize removal of the natural vegetation and create the maximum compatibility of development with the natural environment through site design, architecture and landscaping. Im L Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/25/99 August 11, 1999 Page 11 4W Although the applicants have worked to present a plan that minimizes the disturbance to the site as much as possible and one which comes as close as possible to meeting Town standards for driveways, grading and retaining walls, the plans still exceed desirable limits of development (grading, wall heights, gradient of driveway, disturbance to the ridgeline and natural vegetation including native oaks) and would create an unsafe driveway and pathway. The Commission has determined that although the effort has been made to propose a residence that is low in profile, the house is not one-story as required by the subdivision which created the parcel, and limited in height, as required by the Site Development Ordinance provisions for building on ridge lines, and the proposed secondary dwelling unit would not be subordinate to the main residence and would be a de -facto subdivision. In addition, there is an alternative building site on the property that would not require a lengthy, unsafe driveway, and which would not have the visual impacts or disturbance to the site that development on the ridge line would present. AYES: Chairman Jinkerson, Commissioners Gottlieb & Schreiner NOES: Commissioner Wong ABSENT: Commissioner Cottrell The 21 day appeal period process was explained for the applicants and audience. 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.1 Report from subcommittees.. 5. NEW BUSINESS 5.1 Planning Commission Vacation and Holiday Schedule PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the following vacation and holiday schedule: October 13, November 24, and December 22, 1999. 6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for August 5f —no meeting scheduled 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for August 19'h — no meeting scheduled 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of the July 28, 1999 minutes PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the July 28, 1999 minutes, with a change to page 2, vote on the Lands of Kelly, with Commissioner Schreiner voting Aye. Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 1999 Page 12 Approved 8/25/99 obw 8. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT HEARINGS — AUGUST 3 AND 10, 1999 8.1 LANDS OF BODO, 10980 Magdalena Avenue (167-99-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for an addition and an accessory structure. Approved with conditions August 3, 1999. 8.2 LANDS OF SHUKOV, 14440 DeBell Road (132-99-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening and hardscape improvements. Approved with conditions August 3, 1999. 8.3 LANDS OF STITT, 25703 Lomita Linda Court (169-99-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan. Approved with conditions August 3, 1999. 8.4 LANDS OF LYONS & WIESLER, 28012 Laura Court (15833 Stonebrook Drive) (170 -99 -7,P -SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for additions to an existing structure. Approved with conditions August 3, 1999. 8.5 LANDS OF BULFER & POPE, 12840 Lucero Lane (164-99-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan. Approved with conditions August 10, 1999. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, (� Lam Smith Planning Secretary