Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/25/1994Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 6/22/94 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, May 25,1994,7:00 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes #10-94 (3) 1, ROT r CALL AND ELEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Cheng ( left at 9:45 p.m.), Ellinger, (arrived 7:20 p.m. -left 10:20), Schreiner & Stutz Absent: Commissioners McMahon, Takamoto Staff: Linda Niles, Planning Director; Jeff Peterson, City Engineer; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR 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. None 3. CONSENT CALENDAR Items appearing on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be adopted in one motion, except for any 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. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 15,1994 A public packet is available the Friday prior to the City Council meeting for the Planning Commission representative. 4.1 Chairman Comiso reported the following items were discussed at the City LW Council meeting: Consent items approved; presentation by Sun Country Cable; Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 25,1994 Page 2 4 and rebuilding of two homes demolished due to damage from the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. 4.2 Planning Commission Representative June 1 will be Commissioner Cheng. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS If you challenge the proposed action(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described below, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. All applications approved or denied at tonight's Planning Commission meeting are subject to a 10 day waiting period during which any member of the City Council may initiate a Council review, or any member of the public may appeal the Planning Commission decision. 5.1 LANDS OF CORRIGAN (75-94-ZP-SD),12797 Normandy Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Second Story Major Addition. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. Commissioner Schreiner questioned the location of the house, asking if it was in a flood plain. Ms. Niles commented only the back area of the lot was in a flood plain which would not impact this addition. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Dan Thompson, 681 Oak Grove Avenue, Menlo Park, project designer, was available for questions. He noted they agreed with the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Schreiner's only concern was with restrictions regarding the flood plain, however she was satisfied with the response received. Commissioner Stutz questioned the two houses in the area which will be under construction and the control of traffic, dust and noise. Ms. Niles noted condition 3 was a standard condition addressing these issues. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 25,1994 Page 3 040 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to approve the site development permit as conditioned. AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Cheng, Schreiner & Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Ellinger, McMahon & Takamoto This item will be on the City Council consent calendar June 1, 1994. 5.2 LANDS OF KENDRICK (79-94-ZP-SD-VAR), 25591 Chapin Road; A request for a Site Development Permit and Variance to allow encroachment into front and side setbacks for an addition. Staff had nothing to add to the staff report. Commissioner Stutz disclosed she knew the applicant and discussed the project over a month ago. Commissioner Schreiner asked if the fees would be waived since this is earthquake damage. Ms. Niles responded no, as the time period had expired by at least three years. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Buck Kendrick, 25591 Chapin Road, applicant, discussed the earthquake damage from the 1989 quake being extensive which was not discovered until sometime later. When they applied for the permit and started work on the repairs, they discovered more problems. They have been in the house for 27 years, never remodeling. They plan to hold the house in place (the upper deck), take out the lower walls, replace the foundation along the back and along the west and reconstruct the walls to hold the house up. He further discussed the basement as shown on page 10 of the plans and the portion that needs to be replaced. Commissioner Schreiner asked if they had made any plans regarding the development of the additional 1,000 square feet left. Mr.. Kendrick had no present plans, however perhaps in the future they will consider a secondary unit. He further noted that the calculations done by his civil engineer had assumed a 30 foot dedication at the front. He has an easement at the rear. He objects to the dedication of a 50 foot right-of-way for Darling Lane. He felt this dedication was inappropriate (#15). It is a private lane, on an easement and maintained by the tenants. As far as he knew, no part of Darling Lane has been dedicated previously. He also discussed condition 14 requiring a 30 foot road right-of-way dedication ` along Chapin Road. Ms. Niles noted that this was a situation where the Town's road right-of-way policy requires that they request the dedication in these areas. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 25,1994 Page 4 The Planning Commission and ultimately the Council only have the authority to change or not require what is required by the road right-of-way policy presently. Mr. Peterson commented that he had not looked at this particular situation in the field. He discussed the road right-of-way policy. He suggested that the Planning Director check the last two applications on Darling to see if there were road right- of-way dedications and duplicate that handling. After investigation, Mr. Peterson noted that there were only two properties that are using Darling Lane and appears not to be subdividable. Therefore, Darling Lane could be considered as a driveway. It would be correct not to request a road right-of-way dedication on Darling Lane. Mr. Peterson noted that Chapin Road is a through street and the code requires total 60 foot road right-of-way dedications. There are other properties on the street that have dedicated a 30 foot half street and it is required on this lot. Mr. Kendrick discussed condition 16 regarding the request for under -grounding of utilities. Mr. Peterson discussed how this is usually handled. It was noted the cost for his neighbor was several thousand dollars. He further discussed condition 9, noting he was not really doing any grading. They were only leveling the driveway slightly in front of the garage. Everything else is in place except for putting in a foundation which will require a small amount of excavation. They are not grading any part of the lot which would cause erosion or run-off. He also questioned having a civil engineer reviewing anything (condition 10 and 11). They are only extending an existing ridge line and not raising the height of any part of the structure. They are closing in a corner that was left out in the foundation. By inspection, you can see that it matches what is there now. Mr. Peterson discussed the intent of the condition and if the work to be done is clearly not close to the setback line, he would not have a problem with removing the condition. Ms. Niles noted (condition 11) they would only require re -certification in the areas that they are proposing the additions since there is no foundation under that area at this time (the variance areas). Mr. Kendrick asked for an explanation of condition 13 which was given by Mr. Peterson. Mr. Peterson noted that this condition was a State law and the staff assist Mr. Kendrick in any way with this condition. He discussed condition 12 regarding the pathway. The condition was explained to his satisfaction. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Ellinger understood the intent of the re -certification of the foundation. However, they are talking about hundreds of dollars for someone to stretch four strings. Further discussion ensued as to who would be responsible for certifying the location foundation. Mr. Peterson suggested either deleting the condition or have the applicant's contractor certify the foundation was built to t plan. Mr. Kendrick noted that the civil engineer had been out to the property for a Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 25,1994 Page 5 site survey. He has located those corners and lines on a wet -signed plot plan. The Planning Commission had not problem with deleting this condition. Commissioner Ellinger suggested a deletion of the second sentence in condition 9 as the applicant is not changing the grading or drainage plan in any significant way in this case. Commission Ellinger suggested additional wording, Any new down spouts or other drainage apparatus required by the change in roof line shall be connected to the existing found site drainage apparatus." The staff noted that the additional wording was not necessary as the City Engineer had no problem deleting the second sentence in condition 9. Commissioner Ellinger also suggested in the future, to spell out the acronym NPDES. Further discussion ensued regarding the deletion of condition 16 as the utility pole does not serve solely this project site. Mr. Niles agreed with the deletion. A further explanation of condition 12 was given to the applicant. Commissioner Stutz discussed condition 5. Staff suggested to add wording noting that the staff would be the body determining if a landscape planting plan would be necessary for mitigation screening of the minor additions. Commissioner Ellinger did not have a problem with the addition but asked if the variance findings (#1) if this was a sufficient finding. Chairman Comiso discussed the variance wording noting it states that a finding can be based also on the fact that some of the improvements or buildings were put on this piece of property at another time (prior to 1947) and not due to the present owners. It was also noted that the proposed changes have received no opposition. This was a pre-existing condition that was worsened by the 1989 earthquake and the applicant is only improving the house after many years. Ms. Niles felt it was appropriate to add the additional wording to the end of the first finding sentence regarding the fact that the current situation was not created by the applicant but was a pre-existing non- conforming situation. Ms. Niles noted that the variance only increases the square footage that is in the setback, it does not increase the degree into the setback more than currently exists. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to approve the site development permit and variance with the following amendments: 1. Condition 5, add, "if determined to be necessary by the Planning_ Director for mitigation screening of the minor additions." 2. Condition 9, delete the second sentence. 3. Delete conditions 10,11,15 & 16. 4. Add wording to the Variance Findings, #1, noting the current situation was not created by the applicant but was a pre-existing non -conforming situation. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 25,1994 Page 6 kAYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Schreiner, Stutz, Cheng & Ellinger NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners McMahon & Takamoto This item will be on the City Council consent calendar June 1, 1994. 5.3 LANDS OF FREMONT HILLS COUNTRY CLUB (69 -94 -TM), 12889 Viscaino Place; A request for a Lot Merger of three lots into one lot (APN 175-55-46) (Lots 2 & 3, Tract 1947 and a portion of Lot 45, Book H of Maps, Page 76). Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. Commissioner Schreiner asked for the proposed MDA and MFA figures for the merged lot. Ms. Niles noted the existing MDA is 212,313 square feet; proposed 220,710. The existing MFA is 93,117; proposed 29,742. Commissioner Schreiner asked if the lot merger could not be conditioned at this time for conservation easements. Mr. Peterson responded that was correct. It will be done at the site development application or the Conditional Use Permit. She further discussed the fact that there were a number of 10 foot general purpose easements that are being abandoned around the lots. She thought they were originally five feet on both sides of the property for pathways and utility easements. She asked if it had been determined that they are no longer needed. Mr. Peterson commented that staff has checked on this and to their knowledge there are no existing utilities or such or plans for pathways in these easements. Commissioner Ellinger and the City Engineer discussed the Town currently not having an ordinance specifying the procedure for processing a lot merger. Presently the Town has a policy, not an ordinance. Chairman Comiso requested that the City Council be informed that the Planning Commission would like an ordinance covering the procedure for processing a lot merger. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Ken Rodrigues, 50 W. San Fernando, San Jose, project architect, noted that they did not have any presentation or any concerns with staff comments regarding the lot merger. They would like to make a presentation on the next application. He was available for any questions. It was noted that the Fremont Hills Country Club does own both of the lots. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz and seconded by Commissioner Schreiner to approve the lot merger as conditioned. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 25,1994 Page 7 AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Ellinger, Schreiner, Stutz & Cheng NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners McMahon & Takamoto This item will be on the City Council consent calendar June 1, 1994. 5.4 LANDS OF FREMONT HILLS COUNTRY CLUB (19-94-ZP-SD-CUP-VAR), 12889 Viscaino Place; A request for a Site Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Variance to allow club house and pool house entry elements to exceed the 27 foot height limit for a Major Remodel and Addition. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. Commissioner Ellinger asked for the approximate time to complete construction and was there any insurance that the applicant was able to complete the work even in the event of potential over -runs. Staff felt the applicant could answer the questions. Commissioner Schreiner did not see where all the conservation easements are going to be proposed to be dedicated. Also she asked if there are any structures in those particular conservation easements which are planned to be removed or will remain. It was noted that the applicant could answer these questions. Chairman Comiso questioned condition 19 noting there where no trees shown to be removed, however there were Eucalyptus trees that were removed prior. Ms. Niles noted that there were, in the recent past, some Eucalyptus trees removed around the perimeter of the property. This project is not planning to remove any trees right now. It was in the condition as it appeared as though the removal of those trees opened up the property so much that the proposed project would be more visible. When this happens, staff points out in the landscape condition the areas of concern. If the Planning Commission feels there is no concern as to where the tree had been removed, the wording can be removed. Chairman Comiso further discussed the amount of deposit required in the condition. She further discussed conditions 26 and 34a, noting there should not be any stockpiling of any manure. Commissioner Ellinger discussed condition 20 with Ms. Niles clarifying only significant trees near the construction are required to be fenced at the dripline. Commissioner Schreiner discussed ADA requirements and the proposed elevator. She asked if there were also UBC requirements as well as ADA requirements for adequate rest room facilities. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Les Earnest, 12769 Diane Drive, on behalf of the pathway committee, he was happy to see the inclusion of condition 32. He noted that if the pathway was constructed along Purissima immediately adjacent to the road, in the vicinity of the ball field, it is likely it will turn into additional parking. He suggested it be moved Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 25,1994 Page 8 a bit away from the road with something intervening to prevent cars from parking there (i.e. trees , bushes or a rail fence). Mr. Peterson noted that ultimately the right-of-way on Purissima will be 30 feet half street. He suggested the condition could be worded "where possible, the pathway shall be separated from the street and buffered by vegetation" or whatever the Planning Commission felt appropriate. Mr. Earnest noted that even where not possible, perhaps a berm to inhibit cars from encroaching. Chairman Comiso was not sure about bushes for safety as children dart between bushes. She would like the oncoming traffic to see whatever is there, whether it be a horse or a child. Ken Rodrigues, 50 W. San Fernando, San Jose, project architect, discussed the project and revitalizing the existing Country Club. He presented color drawings illustrating the linking of all facilities in a landscape fashion. The parking lot will be re -done providing more parking and they have increased the landscape area. He further discussed compliance with ADA and the Uniform Building Code; three tier landscaping; a series of lower decks working off the end of the club house; updating the pool area and pool house; tennis courts being re -surfaced; re - vegetating between the courts; low pathway lighting; using a gravel format on the upper parking lot instead of the recommended asphalt which still counts a development area; linking all the buildings together; the new entry feature; increasing the balcony size; pool house elevations; and new trellis feature. He discussed page four of the staff report, second paragraph of #1 discussing using a crushed rock which he felt would be long lasting. He felt this surface would support cars, be more appropriate for horses and would be safer. The high heel rule was discussed by Chairman Comiso, making sure when getting out of a car no one sinks into mud. They are proposing a combination of drainage, good base rock and compaction and then the gravel surface over the top. Commissioner Stutz asked if they discussed the possibility of having a 10 foot stretch along the parking area that would go up and along the entrance and not on the paved area. She felt there were few equestrians using the upper exit. She noted, having lived with gravel for 20 years and now having asphalt, is wonderful as the dust becomes a tremendous problem. Mr. Rodrigues further discussed condition 2 which requests number of horses shall not exceed 30. He noted that they currently have 39 and are asking for 48 horses to be kept or maintained at this facility. Regarding condition 7, they realized they need to meet Santa Clara County Health Department current health codes which is no problem. They have met with Santa Clara Valley Water District regarding drainage requirements. Commissioner Stutz asked how Condition 7a would be monitored. Mr. Rodrigues noted that the Santa Clara Valley Water District requires they provide buffer strips. They are currently greater than the 50 feet right-of-way from the creek. (� Condition 13 was discussed as the club has a concern with the second sentence, "A bridge shall be constructed across the creek to allow for access to and from the Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 25,1994 Page 9 FHCC front parking lot and the Little League Ball Field parking lot to encourage off-street parking in the area." They are proposing enough off-street parking on site now and have increased parking stalls. They realize that the Ball Field has a parking problem. From the standpoint of liability, they feel it would be better to go down the cul-de-sac, over to the street and cross at a corner versus crossing in the middle of the street. He would like the construction of a bridge deleted. Commissioner Stutz asked how many parking spots are in the main parking area plus the back parking lot. He responded they have 147 parking spaces in the front parking lot and in the back lot they have between 30140 being proposed. They do feel this is adequate parking. Condition 19 notes no trees are shown to be removed. They are planning to remove some trees which are shown on the plan. Given the amount of landscaping being added in, they have no problem added some specimen box trees where the Eucalyptus trees were located. In the third sentence, they would ask for a word change from "shall" to "may". On page 12, there are conditions which deal directly with the City Engineer that impact the project schedule. They would like relief from the wording "prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check' in conditions 26, 27, 28 and 30. Their problem is that they need to start construction on the tennis courts to be completed by November. If they do not complete this project by November, it will have to wait until the following year. Mr. Peterson gave the reason for writing the conditions with the specified wording as often times they are left to the end. In the past there has been easements which were missed, the project is finaled and the Town no longer has a leverage. He felt the dedication documents could be started now. Mr. Rodrigues noted that if they do not start construction on the tennis courts by July 5th, they will have to wait until the next year. They are not asking for any relief from the conditions, only from the time table. As a compromise, Mr. Peterson suggested the wording "prior to issuance of building permits". This should give the applicant an additional two weeks. Mr. Rodrigues suggested a change in wording for condition 29 to include the undergrounding of the utilities at the front part of the site (only). He demonstrated his request on the plan which would eliminate the request for two poles in the rear which cross the creek to be undergrounded. He felt the cost would be exorbitant and seeks relief. Condition 32 was discussed noting they have 2,500 lineal feet surrounding the entire property. The cost of upgrading the paths would be significant. Fremont Hills Country Club would like to propose upgrading the paths to IIB pathways within a seven (7) year period. He discussed their tight budget and the request would push the budget over. He further discussed their timetable for completing %W Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 25,1994 Page 10 kso the construction; starting between July 5 -15th and completing by December 20th. Financing is not a problem as they do have financial commitments. In answer to the rest room facilities, they do have to meet UBC standards and ADA requirements with the number of stalls for the number of people there. They are adding a rest room facility (unisex) behind the bar area. They are in the future, plumbing the entire bottom floor for a future locker room with rest room facilities. Commissioner Schreiner noted that what they were doing was reducing the rest rooms by one. They originally had eight, now they are reducing the rest rooms to seven. Mr. Rodrigues commented that the club has been updated according to ADA requirements. Commissioner Schreiner commented on the three story facade. Mr. Rodrigues discussed the facade and the design of the center entry. Commissioner Ellinger questioned the operation of the facility now. There was an inconsistency with the desire to complete construction in seven months however delaying the upgrading/construction of the pathways for seven years. He would prefer the entire project completed at the same time. He discussed the parking material which would not reduce dust. The project time line was discussed and the need for consistency. Mr. Rodrigues again discussed their budget and time constraints. Patrick King, General Manager, Fremont Hills Country Club, 2167 Foxworthy, San Jose, discussed condition 7 noting there is regular removal of manure presently; the animal quarters are cleaned out daily; swept out and material removed; state of the art fly control; and the new requirements by the Water District were discussed. He noted that usually horses do not walk in the creek area. Commissioner Ellinger was concerned with the location of the stables to the creek; the odor; the manure; the dust, drainage; and creek degradation. Mr. King commented that they have a sprinkler system for all rings and they are sprinkled on a regular basis. Over the past few years, due to the drought, they have had to reduce their water usage as requested by the Water District. Commissioner Stutz noted that it appeared they are proposing 51 stalls or paddocks as they already have 41 total. Brief break at 9:45 p.m. Mr. King further discussed wanting to do what they can to work with Animal Control, Santa Clara Valley Water District and the Health Department. He also discussed dust control; paving; horses standing in the mud; fly control; and creek drainage. Discussion ensured regarding the issues that have to be resolved before approval and forwarding the application to the City Council for final approval. Chairman Comiso noted one Commissioner left due to illness and a second Commissioner will be leaving shortly. It was agreed that the application would be continued to Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 25,1994 Page 11 the next meeting. After discussion, it was felt there could possibly be a special meeting May 31st at 5:30 p.m. Public notice will be sent again to the residents within 500 feet. The Public Hearing will remain open. The Planning Commissioners will note their concerns for the benefit of the applicant. There was a discussed regarding separating the projects such as the tennis courts. It was felt this was not appropriate at this time. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner, seconded by Commissioner Stutz and passed by consensus to continue the application until May 31st at 5:30 p.m., keeping the public hearing open and re -noticing the residents. The following concerns for the project were expressed by the Commission as follows: Commissioner Ellinger-(1) Logical consistency and integrity of the project; completing it in a diligent way, both in the ability and the specific time frames which includes the pursuit of a pathway, should it is required, in a consistent time frame with the rest of the project. (2) The operation of the facility including the environmental impact or some specific impact on the neighbors which include dust, noise, any sort of drainage issue connected with the stream , in particular, the placements of paddocks within the open space or the conservation easement. This would also relate operationally to the numbers of horses in the conditional use permit. Commissioner Schreiner agreed with all of the previous concerns stated by Commissioner Ellinger. Other concerns include grading at the tennis courts and any drainage problems which may result; the drainage fields and how they would impact the tennis courts (she would not be as concerned with gravel as she would be with asphalt); what would remain in the conservation easements where the paddocks for the horses are going to be located; the number of horses; and the placement of the pre -fab house, to name a few concerns. Commissioner Stutz objected to the proposed small ring shown on the plan; future tennis court which she felt would ruin their approach to their main building which is over a section of the drain field; limit the horses to 40; caretaker unit to be in the location of the hot walker space and no indication of where it will be re -located; and suggested moving the school house tack room from the area by Purissima Road and closer to the main building. She did not feel another bridge to the ball fields in the middle of Purissima was a good idea. She suggested not using the lower coral November through March and the IIB pathway be off of Purissima Road, separated by at least five feet. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 25, 1994 r Page 12 Chairman Comiso's concerns were as follows: why they are redoing the tennis courts; concerns with the MDA over by 8,500 square feet; the three story element; manure disposal; too close to the creeks for horse paths; the need for the pathways; the number of horses on the property; and the pre -fab house. Rosemary Damin,12660 Roble Ladero Road, a 20 year neighbor and a previous member of the club. She was concerned with the basic philosophy and their residents. She questioned the number of Los Altos Hills membership. She felt there was a lack of concern with trees which were 80 years old. She was not concerned with the noise or traffic. Her concern was the over development. Cindie Candau, 25777 Carado Court, member of Fremont Hills Country Club since 1983, serving on committees and board president last year. She noted the facility is in need of upgrade and repairs. There are currently 205 families that are Los Altos Hills residents. She discussed the Eucalyptus trees and the misconception that they are spending more money to get the project through rapidly when actually they will be saving money if the project is done in a timely manner and completed in a seven month time frame. They do have a commitment for financing. If the project is delayed beyond July, the project will either be abandoned or delayed to the next year which will cost more money. She appreciates the fact that the Planning Commission is cooperative and hopefully at (40 the end of the evening on the 31st, they will come to some resolution Chairman Comiso suggested that Earnest and/or the pathway committee review the pathway requirements. The remaining items on the agenda will be continued to the following meeting due to the lack of a quorum. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Discussion of setbacks from emergency roads. OLD B 7.1 General Plan Elements -Update schedule for work sessions. a. Land Use Element -June 6,1994 at 5:30 p.m. b. Circulation Element -Staff Review. C. Conservation Element -Continued. d. Scenic Highways Elements -Continued. e. Open Space Element -Continued. 7.2 General Plan Elements -Review Status IM Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 25,1994 Page 13 • • •111 8.1 Approval of the April 27,1994 Minutes. 8.2 Approval of the May 11, 1994 Minutes (minutes will be available at the June 8, 1994 meeting). 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING None MNEW-TO707UNTUTUR WE The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully /Vsubmitted, Lani Lonberger C Planning Secretary fM