Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/24/1993�W Minutes of a Regular Meeting APPROVED Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Council cc: Cas: March 24,1993,7:30 P.M. rnbers, 26379 Fremont Road ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Cheng, Comiso, Ellinger, Schreiner, Simmu & Stutz Staff: Linda Niles, Town Planner; Jeff Peterson, City Engineer; Lard Lonberger, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOO Persons wishing to address the Commission on any subject not on the agenda are invited to do so now. Please note, however, that the Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion or take action tonight on non-agendized items. Such items will be referred to Staff or placed on the agenda for a future meeting. Stephanie Munoz, 13460 Robleda Road, discussed the mandatory garbage rates and felt that before the Town adopted this project, the Planning Commission should have been asked to make an environmental impact assessment so the Town could decide whether it was necessary to make an environmental impact report. She discussed the export of dirt, the rural look of the Town, and she felt that what the earth produces should not be taken away, especially at the expense of the tax payers. Moderate residents paying for their wealthy neighbors is a change in the philosophy of the Town. She felt the issue of higher rates should not have gone to the City Council without first going to the Planning Commission as she felt it was a matter of planning. She wondered if the Town was actually on the right track for limiting the garbage and the land fill which is mandated by the State. She discussed the amendment to 939 also. kw Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 24, 1993 Page 2 �W 3. CONSENT CALEN12A Items appearing on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be adopted in one motion, except for my item removed for separate consideration elsewhere on the agenda. The Chairman will ask the Commission and the audience for requests to remove these items. None 4. PI JBI IC HEARINGS 4.1 LANDS OF REDDY, 11011 Magdalena Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence and Swimming Pool (continued from February 24, 1993). Ms. Niles stated that there was a Site Plan submitted that evening for the Planning Commission's review to replace the one in their packet showing corrections in the height of the retaining walls. In her report, she indicated that the wall was at least 10' high and the applicant's engineer did not re -draw the plan to show it was only between 6'and 7 for the first wall rather than 10'and the walls go up accordingly. The applicant asked Ms. Niles to remind the Commission that the size of the house is the size his famdly needs and that was why the house size was not reduced in square footage. The Commission does have the option to approve the project if they felt it was appropriate �AV as designed which was not one of her recommendations. Since there has been a redesign, the Commission has the option of reviewing the redesign and seeing whether it addressed the issues shown on page 2 and 3, items 1 through 8 of the Staff Report. The items that were addressed, in her opinion, were the grass crete in the driveway and moving some of the back retaining wall up against the perimeter wall of the building so there would not be a large retaining wall across the whole back of the property. However, the area on the back patio has not been increased in depth to allow for more maneuverability. Ms. Niles said she would appreciate discussion of the issues mentioned in the Staff Report and it was Staff's recommendation that the project as designed be denied, or continued for redesign to allow the applicant to redesign, addressing those areas that are still of concern to the Commission. Commissioner Schreiner discussed the calculation of the basement and the interpretation presented by Staff. She read from the City Council's March 3rd minutes, page 13, last paragraph, "that the new interpretation of the code shall apply to those applications that have not yet been scheduled for hearing before the Planning Commission." The Reddy's calculations are under the old interpretation. It was her understanding that notl-dng was to be grandfathered which had not been heard at that time. She felt that it was unclear regarding the Lands of Reddy because this application �W had been heard and had been tabled. She felt that the intent was that the two Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED Mardi 24,1993 Page 3 %blw applications (Hall and Reddy) were there for interpretation of the basement calculations and they would go by those calculations. She further discussed scheduling of applications. Ms. Niles stated that the Reddy project was publicly noticed before the Council meeting and was tabled. It was scheduled and publicly noticed. Additionally, they schedule items to be on a public hearing before Staff sends out notices. Otherwise, the meetings are too booked for each meeting. In other words, things that are in house now, she has scheduled for the April 14 and April 28th meeting. She further stated that the other application to be heard (Lands of Hall) had been scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting and there was a concern from the property owner and engineer regarding calculating floor area. The applicant decided to take an interpretation to the Planning Commission for a ruling on how to interpret floor area. Their application was not noticed for a hearing although it had been scheduled and set aside until an interpretation could be deterniined. Commissioner Simmu discussed the revised first page of the plan and the changes made to it. He asked Ms. Niles when calculating the floor area if it related to the natural height of the land when calculating what is exempt. She answered yes. He asked if the fact that the retaining walls have moved mean it does not necessitate a recalculation of the basement area. She answered no. �Ir OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Sena Reddy, 11011 Magdalena, applicant, discussed his project and the retaining wall. He stated that the size of the house is what he needs for Ids family. He tried to meet the Town codes and his family's needs. He also discussed the bulk and mass and presented the Commission with an artist rendering of the house for their review. He also discussed the driveway and the fact that they did not modify the driveway and did not want to unless necessary. He felt that the design of the home met his family's needs and he would like the Commission to approve the project. Commissioner Schreiner asked Mr. Reddy why he was reluctant to move the house forward as requested by the Commissioner, which would accomplish less excavation. Mr. Reddy stated that they were trying to meet the known codes of the Town, however, there are some unknown things and he felt that they could not plan on a moving target. He wanted to have the house in the back for two reasons; he did not want the bulk to show from the street and at the same time he wanted it to fit in with the contours of the current vegetation so it blends in with the back of the hill; it leaves more area in the front to be used. Other items discussed were the view of the house as shown on the rendering, length of 06, time at present address (2 years), if Mr. Reddy had read the General Plan, the total Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March24,1993 Page 4 4W height of the house which is 27' high and the artist rendering not showing accurate view. Chairman Pahl discussed the artist rendering and the fact that on the plan there is grass crete for the driveway from the garage and the rendering shows asphalt or concrete. He assumed the rendering was incorrect in that regard. Also, the rendering shows a beautiful patio area, fountain and swimming pool, all of which looks as if it has aggregate. The Plan does not show aggregate. Chairman Pahl pointed out that what they are indicating was the development area that they plan on is not 6,650 sq. ft. but somewhere between 6,650 sq. ft. and 7,206 sq. ft., depending on how much aggregate they can put in to work around the pool and up to the driveway and up to the front door. It appears that the development area listed on the plan was not the development area they are planning to put in on this property. Chairman Paw stated that if the Commission were to approve this project upward to 6,650 sq. ft. of development area, that would not give the applicant an opportunity to put in a walkway up to the front door. He has a concern with approving plans that are incomplete where there is not an intent for them to be complete. His concern was directed to maximum development area and what he did not know was how much development area was actually going to go into the property. Ms. Niles stated that the numbers on the Giuliani and Kull plan were incorrect. The numbers on their last Staff Report of February 24th stated that the MDA allowed was 7,358 sq. ft. and the development area proposed as shown on the Giuliani and Kull plan and the floor plans 7,357 sq. ft. which leaves them 1' to work with. She stated that in the last Planning Commission meeting the Reddy's indicated that they preferred grass and they were not going to put a deck around the pool. In discussing the new plan submitted that evening, she stated that the applicant was not proposing patio material in the back patio area and just showing it as dirt. She would be concerned that if they are not proposing it, that it is stated that it is not allowed or that if it is, they make sure it works with the remaining development area. She felt that the applicants would want to fill in this area some day, otherwise it would be a mud hole. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Comiso discussed the sub committee that was formed to discuss the basement interpretation and scheduling of applicants. Her understanding of scheduling, after attending the March 3rd City Council meeting, was that applicants already in for scheduling were to go under the old basement interpretation ruling. She felt that it was very important that Staff, Planning Commission and City Council all have one interpretation regarding basements as it was very hard on Staff and applicants after spending so much time on the design, then having it further delayed due to interpretation. She stated that Council's direction was to have the old interpretation for those applications that have been submitted and are already in the process or have already been put on the agenda. #6V Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March24,1993 Page 5 Commissioner Schreiner stated that she was also at the March 3rd meeting and she felt that there was a portion of the discussion relating to the two applications that are to be heard tonight and it was her understanding that if it had not been heard (heard rather than scheduled) before the Plam-ting Commission, it was to go by the new rules. She had spoken to two of the Council members that day and she believed that they felt that was the correct interpretation, however, they did make a motion which is in question as far as the scheduling is concerned. She felt that there was some confusion. Commissioner Comiso felt that they needed to decide on this question as they have applicants that have basements here and she did not want to table these items. She felt that the applicants could go to Council for another interpretation of this as she would not hold anyone up any longer. She did not feel that they should discuss an item that is in question. Ms. Niles stated that there was considerable discussion at the City Council level and it was very confusing. There was discussion back and forth as to whether or not to allow those projects that had already been submitted, scheduled or heard to follow the previous interpretation. Her understanding was as the motion read. However, as Commissioner Schreiner mentioned, there was so much discussion on the issue for all aspects and all options that she had no problem with tabling and requesting that Council give direction. She felt that the motion included both Reddy, Hall and one other she had previously scheduled with the Planning Commission. Ms. Niles was confident that the Reddy project was under the old basement interpretation rule; the Hall project was questionable. She further stated that the Council did make a statement that if the Planning Commission had problems with the floor area as exempt or any of the issues of the design, they could bring this to the attention of the Council. Commissioner Stutz stated that she could not vote for the plan this evening because they have a plan before them that does not show any access to the front door from the parking area or any other place, it shows a rectangular pool; it does not say on the plan that it is to be removed or does it say that there is a new pool to be installed. Therefore, until she sees the final figures she would not be able to vote on this project. Commissioner Sinunu felt that the General Plan was like the constitution of the Town and the zoning was an effort to put structure to it. The zoning laws permit some maximums and even when a house was within the maximum development area, it may not be consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan states that you are to maintain the rural area of the Town and look at conservation issues, such as, the way the land fits in the environment. When it appears that a structure or a plan for a structure is not allowing you to live on the land but rather dominate the land that you are living on and changing the whole nature of where you are living, it would certainly be within their right to disallow it even if it fits within the zoning laws. He felt that �W people who are builders should understand that there is a general plan and zoning laws Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 24, 1993 Page 6 tbr and should not feel that they are sandbagged somehow because the Commission would disallow something even though it would be within the letter of the zoning laws. Commissioner Ellinger felt that there was a discrepancy between the artistic rendering and the Plan submitted and that the project was so close to the MDA. Chairman Pahl stated that he agreed with Commissioner Comiso regarding using the old basement calculation ruling on the Reddy project, however, he still could not support this application. He felt that when you see such dramatic things such as the retaining walls in the back that appears that you are forcing a project onto the site where perhaps it is not the appropriate project for the site. He felt that the project needed to be more sensitive to the site. He suggested perhaps a photo montage may be helpful. Commissioner Comiso discussed the proposed grass crete and mentioned that there were some Council members who did not think highly of grass crete. Commissioner Schreiner would like the applicant to consider seriously the many issues that the Staff brought up and she felt that the Staff did a very good job enumerating them. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to continue for redesign. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Ellinger, Schreiner, Simmu, Stutz & Cheng NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Comiso The applicant was asked if he would prefer a redesign or a denial on this project. The applicant preferred a redesign and they will arrange to work with the Staff on the redesign and/or they could request a Site Analysis meeting. The issues that needed attention were listed in the Staff Report. Ms. Niles will provide the applicant with the other suggestions brought up by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Stutz felt that she was not in agreement cutting the development area by using grass crete. 4.2 LANDS OF HALL, 26070 Newbridge Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence, Pool and Cabana. Ms. Niles asked the Commission if they would like a Staff Report or if they preferred to make a decision on the confusion on the Council direction regarding basement interpretation first. The Commission discussed the differences between the Reddy project and the Halls. �W Ms. Niles stated that under the new rules for basement interpretation, it may be that Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 24, 1993 Page 7 4W most of the basement area would be exempt on the Hall project. If the three light wells were not on plan it would all be exempt because the rest of it is at least 6' or more and under and the only open area is the garage. The Council exempted the garages. The natural grade is 6' or more and the only thing that does not comply with the new interpretation are the extensive light wells because light wells were not included in the new interpretation. Commissioner Ellinger questioned the light wells asking Staff if they only dropped 2' below grade then they would have at least 6'back filled against the wall in which case this would clearly be a case of the old rules. However, the light wells appear to drop all the way down to the floor level of the basement. Ms. Niles stated that they only go half way, about 4'. Commissioner Ellinger stated that then the light wells were Tto Yabove the floor so you do not have 6' of earth back filled against the wall at the light well area. Under the old rules, that floor area would count because that is not a back filled wall. He stated that in the absence of any real precise definition he would concur with Commissioner Comiso. He felt that the Hall project was the landmark house and the interpretation needed to be clear including the light wells. Commissioner Comiso stated that she did not want the basement issue to defeat the approval of the house. There were some members of the Commission who believe that the last house (Reddy) was the last one under the old guidelines. She did not want the Commission split so that the residents are in limbo. Commissioner Ellinger moved to table. The request was not just to define tl-ds under the old or new interpretation. He felt that the interpretation was an inadequate interpretation because it did not cover this case and the window well. After further discussion, Commissioner Ellinger withdrew the motion to table. Ms. Niles stated that this project did not comply with the new interpretation. The new interpretation means that there has to be back fill against the perimeter wall of the dwelling, 6' or more. If you extend a retaining wall for whatever reason, for a door, a window, a window well, a light well, a patio or anything else, from the perimeter wall of the dwelling, none of that area counts as it is not back filled to the perimeter wall of the building. Under the new interpretation, this would not comply except for the garage area. She felt that the question was not whether this meets the new interpretation but whether we are to apply the new interpretation or the old. There was a split among the Commission as to whether this project would be heard under the old or new basement interpretation. Chairman Pahl stated that there were three options: (1) they can hear it, (2) send it back to Council to review the project, or (3) return to Council for a decision as to what interpretation would apply to this project. �Sv Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March24,1993 Page 8 4W Commissioner Comiso stated that she was under the assumption that this project goes under the old rules. She was the one that brought up this issue and this project was already in progress. Council member Elayne Dauber stated that she had a fairly clear memory of what was stated on this house. The picture of thds house that was shown to the Council, and the statement that was made was that this house would not be legal under any definition of basements. The house that they were shown was open on both sides and they eliminated this house, stating that this was not legal under either interpretation so it did not matter. She has not seen the new plan so she did not know what was being discussed this evening. Ms. Niles stated that this was a redesign . What the applicant had done was to show in the interpretation, the house they wanted. The house they wanted did not fit either interpretation. The applicants have redesigned to the old standards because it was their understanding that was agreeable with Council. Ms. Niles stated that t1 -ds project met the old standards and without the window wells it would also meet the new standard. Commissioner Stutz was very happy to send this on to Council. She felt that the applicant has done a good job trying to get by with having a very open end to the basement which will be very nice for the basement, however, a window well to her was a window that is not more than 15" high and maybe 2' wide. If you had three that size in this same area you would not do the same thing as the windows proposed. Chairman Pahl asked the applicants if they would like this project sent to the Council or if they would like the Commission to ask Council for their recommendation as to whether it goes under the old or new interpretation, and then have it return to the Commission to be heard. Julie Hall, 26070 Newbridge Drive, the applicant, was puzzled why there was a question, as it stated in the Staff Report that the garage and basement were exempt from floor area calculations. She further discussed the plan, meetings with Staff regarding this design and the City Council meeting of March 3rd, where it was her understanding that the two projects, Reddy and Hall, were to go under the old interpretation. Ms. Niles' recollection of the City Council meeting was that the Reddys and Halls would be under the old interpretation and would include one or two other projects. Chairman Pahl and Commissioner Cheng both felt that after reading the draft of the March 3rd minutes, Reddy and Hall would be under old interpretation. Commissioner Schreiner felt that there was a portion missing from the minutes. Commissioner Comiso would like to ask Council what applications go under the old interpretation. �w Brief Break at 8:50 p.m. 4ar Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 24,1993 Page9 Dave Hall, applicant, would like the Commission to assume that the Council grandfathered them in under the old rule. Since there was a discrepancy of opinion, he felt that it would be best to have the Council make a ruling on what projects were under the old ruling and to have the project return to be heard by the Commission. The Halls will have a professional transcript made of that portion of the March 3rd City Council meeting minutes devoted to basement interpretation for clarification of this question. MO'FlON SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Chairman Pahl and seconded by Commissioner Comiso to forward back to the Council at their April 7th meeting, a request for interpretation as to whether this particular project, and specifically by name, which projects will go under the old interpretation. The motion would further be that after they receive that interpretation, this matter be scheduled for the April 14th Commission hearing and this matter be the very first matter under Public Hearing. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Cheng, Comiso, Ellinger, Schreiner, Simmu & Stutz NOES: None Chairman Pahl requested that Ms. Niles draft a memo for him to go into the Council packet Friday. 4.2 LANDS OF HANSEN (lot 1), 11801 Francemont Court; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence, Pool and Cabana. Ms. Niles stated that this project was for a new residence on lot 1 of the second phase of the Bellucci subdivision off of Moody Road on Francemont Drive. The house is proposed as a one story house with a maximum height of 26' or 27'. The maximum height is 23'. The project is proposed to stretch out on the property and the house is proposed to be located directly at the conservation and easement line. Staff has requested that the applicant address the issue of possibly re -orienting the house in order to allow a walk around the house since the Town has had a situation in the past with a project that had been approved with a house directly on the conservation easement line. The property owners thought they could put formal landscaping, pathways and outdoor living area in that area. Since the house was so close to the conservation easement, they felt they had the right to encroach into it. She knows this applicant knows they cannot encroach into that area so she would like the applicant to address whether or not he felt it was necessary to have a path around that side of the house or whether they felt that it would not be necessary. Then the Planning Commission could condition the approval that no activity area be allowed at that end of the house. Ms. Niles requested comments only. The City Engineer would have comments regarding grading and drainage. FAG Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 24, 1993 Page 10 Commissioner Schreiner asked when the subdivision improvements would be completed and if there were any time table on this. She also asked about parcel 2 and whether parcel 1 could access the driveway also. Mr. Peterson stated that he knew that the subdivider intends on finishing soon, in fact, they have made a request for a final of the subdivision, so they have created a punch list of the items that need to be completed such as the Type IIB, pathway that runs adjacent to parcel 1. He felt that as soon as the ground dries up, they will be back completing the project so the Town will accept it. Regarding parcel 1 and the driveway access, Mr. Peterson stated that it would have to be conditioned before any building permits would be issued granting an access easement to parcel 1 from parcel 2. This would need to be done to allow those side driveways to exist. jean Struthers, 13690 Roblecla Road, Environmental Design and Protection Committee, stated that it was her recollection when the subdivision came through that there was a 25' easement on the top of the bank and she did not see how you could get a house so close to the creek if that exists. She stated that 25' from the top of the bank of a intermittent stream is a minimal setback; recommended setbacks are 100' from a creek. She felt that it was excessively dangerous to put a house this close to the top of a bank. She would request the Commission to advise the applicant that this could be a disaster. �av OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Chuck Bommarito, Menlo Development, discussed the project which will be a one story and the artist rendering of the project, stating that it was used as a marketing tool and it was the artist conception of the house. Commissioner Comiso discussed the rendering and felt it was misleading. So many people come before the Planning Commission stating "When we bought this property we were told ...... The rendering was not an accurate portrayal of the project. Commissioner Ellinger discussed the rendering; the rendering at eye level versus a montage or computer image. Further discussion involved the impact of residence in close proximity to the project. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Ellinger stated that in light of the Environmental Design comment regarding the location and the 25' back from the edge of the top ridge of the creek, he would like that red -lined on the plan. He asked Staff where the real setback line was on the plan and if they were talking about a line that is 25' from the edge of the top of the south side of the creek. �av Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 24,1993 Page 11 Ms. Niles stated that the conservation easement line was supposed to be at that point; it was to be shown on the plans at that point and it was the large dashed line. She was not sure from looking at the topo map if she could determine where the top of the bank was located. She will clarify this issue for the next meeting. Commissioner Stutz stated that she wanted to remind the Planning Commission of a problem they have had with about 4 or 5 houses that were built adjoining a creek bank. The problem they experienced was that the house was placed as close to the line as possible, the conservation easement should be marked off and there should be no bulldozers or excavation or anything running around in the conservation easement. She also discussed the Type IIB pathway, stating that the area was heavily used and was a main road. Commissioner Ettinger liked the one story design and felt that it was appropriate for the site, however, there maybe some question as to where to place it exactly. He was very skeptical of a plan that showed a pool and a spa as a rectangle because rarely do people actually build them that way. He would rather not see them at all rather than have someone say this is reserved as a place marker on the plan. He would rather have someone sketch in what they are really plan to do. This also applies to the walk in the front. He asked the applicant to reconsider what the pool, spa and walk in the front really look like and put it on the plan. He also questioned the drainage and did not see how to remove the water from the courtyard. He asked that Staff sketch it in later. Mr. Peterson clarified the pathways, stating that the pathway committee had made a recommendation that the pathways be constructed along Francemont Drive as well as along Moody Road on the other side of the creek. Both of those pathways are conditioned to be constructed per the subdivision improvement which have not been finaled. Mr. Peterson also discussed the creek, stating that the creek upstream from this area will be completed this summer and the creek is to be lined with rock, the banks of the creek will be covered with soil planted so rock will only be seen on the bottom. The applicant has checked with the Water District to see if the areas where there will be soil over the rock could use concrete instead since it will not be visible and still provide erosion protection to the creek. He has been told that the Water District has agreed that this could be done, however, he has not seen anything in writing. If this does not come to pass, all of the material would have to be pulled out. Commissioner Stutz stated that concrete does not make a good base for planting anything and she felt it would kill off anything rapidly. If there will be planting along the creek banks, she requested that the Environmental Design Committee investigate whether or not they would recommend if concrete could be used at all. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Comiso, seconded by Commissioner Ellinger and passed by consensus to continue to April 14,1993. %W Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 24, 1993 Page 12 4W 5. NEW BUSINESS 5.1 The Planning Commission discussed garbage rates and Stephanie Munoz' letter sent to the Planning Commission. It was recommended to forward Stephanie Munoz' letter to the City Council. Commissioner Ellinger suggested, as stated in Ms. Munoz's letter, to set up a procedure to monitor this activity, perhaps by hiring an intern. Commissioner Stutz suggested sending Ms. Munoz an appreciation note for her investigation regarding garbage rates, etc. with a copy to EDPC. jean Struthers discussed the Zanker Road Compost Project and a need to reduce waste. She felt that there was a need to raise the environmental conscience of the Town. 5.2 Commissioner Comiso suggested moving the "REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING" to the beginning of the Planning Commission meeting. All Commissioners were in agreement. It will appear after the Consent Calendar and before Public Hearings. 6. OLD BUSINESS 6.2 Discussion of the Housing Element of the General Plan continued. A copy of the updated Housing Element was provided to the Commission for their review and input. This item will be continued to the April 28th meeting starting at 5:30 p.m. �W 7. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 10, 1993 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Comiso, seconded by Commissioner Schreiner and passed by consensus with Commissioner Cheng abstaining. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 17,1993 8.1 Planning Commission Representative was Commissioner Comiso. Items from the March 17th meeting were discussed in the beginning of the meeting. A volunteer was requested for the CDBG to replace Commissioner Sinunu. Commissioner Schreiner will attend the CDBG meeting starting July 1, 1993. Me 61W 4W 0! Planning Commission Minutes March 24,1993 Page 13 APPROVED 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF MARCH 16,1993 9.1 LANDS OF MITCHELL, 28560 Matadero Creek Lane A request for a Site Development Permit for a swimming pool, minor addition and hardscape. This was approved with conditions relating to the relocation of the swimming pool and landscape. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lani Lonberger Planning Secretary