Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-25-1974 Planning Commission Minutes OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMI ~' MINUTES TIME: Monday, November 25, 1974 - 7:30 p.m.l PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitva~e Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting ***********~******** I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Martin, Marshall, Matteoni and Woodward Absent: Commissioner Smith B. MINUTES Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the reading of the minutes of November 13, 1974 be waived, and that they be approved as dis- tributed to the Commission subject to the following corrections: (1) Page 3, second paragraph of Item. IV-C. Add: "The motion was carried unanimously." ~ (2) Page 6, first sentence of Item V!I-D. Correct spelling of word "earth;" also, substitute "Saratoga-SunnyVale Road" with "Regan Road." The motion. was carried unanimously. C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT The.S'ecretary presented a copy of the action minutes of the City Council meeting of November 29, 1974. A copy of these minutes is on file in the City Administra- tion Office. ' D. PLANNING POLICY COMMITTEE REPORT Chairman Marshall gave an oral report'of the PPC meeting of November 21, 1974. Of special interest to the Commission. was the adoption by the County of the PPC Trails Program. It was noted that a County Planning Department memorandum had been issued summarizing the status of:trails and pathways in the County, and that copies of this memorandum were being distributed to members of the Saratoga Trails and Pathways Task Force. Of farther interest was the announcement of a special PPC-sponsored Planning Commission Workshop scheduled for January 18, 1975 at the Berger Auditorium in San Jose.i~'."~7.-.;' II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. UP-259 - Saratoga Rotary Club, Saratoga Plaza, 14440'Big Basin Way, Use Permit to Allow an Outdoor, One-Day, Once-a-Year, Non-Profit Art Show The Secretary explained this application involved blocking off a portion of Big Basin Way during the Art Show, and that StaffTzWis~.~d to r'~i~w this"""~atte'~f~rthe~ Chairman Marshall directed UP-259 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting~= of December 11, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. B. V-416 - The Burl, South Saratoga-Sunn~vale Road, Variance to Allow Off-Site, Free-Standing Sign (Zoning Ordinance NS-3~ Section 10) The Secretary reported that this matter had not been reviewed by the Variance Com- mittee as yet, and recommended this be continued. Discussion followed on sched- uling an on-site inspection, and V-416 was scheduled for same by the Variance Committee on Saturday, December 7 at 8:00 a.m. Chairman Marshall directed V-416 be continued to the Planning CommissiOn meeting of December 1!, 1974, and referred this matter to the Variance Committee for further review and report. -1- MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 25 )74 C. V-417 - Theodore Picard, Canyon View Drive, Variance to Allow 15-Foot Front-Yard Setback in Lieu of Required 25-Foot Front-Yard Setback (Zoning Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.7) The Secretary reported that the Variance Committee had not revie~dt~h~S ~att~, and recommended it be continued. The Variance Committee arranged an on-site in- spection on Saturday, December 7, 197'4 at 8:30 p.m. A lady. in.the aud~e~e"~ished Mrs. Lois Cockshaw, 20995 Canyon View Drive, indicated she was representing several neighboring residents of the area who were concerned 'that construction and grading of the proposed access road to the property would cause drainage problems and possible landslides. Sh'e asked what the plans were for the road, and when construction of the road would take place, expressing concern that con- struction might take place during the rain season. It was explained that the conditions 'of the tentative building site approval spe- cified a standard 18-foot road with requirements for a grading plan. It was noted that final building site approval by the City Council had been granted the applicant in October 1974~"i'i~ was f~rther pointed out that City Ordinances..~f'' =did not~.specify when an individual was to begin construction; it only specifie~" ~that an applicant had one-year fr?!n' date of Final Bufrdi~.",Approval in which t~ complete construction. At this time ehairman Marshall'closed. the public hearing on V-417 at 7:54 p.m., continued this matter to the Planning' Commission meeting of December 11, 1974, and referred same to the Variance Committee ~nd Staff for.~e~fe~?~d=.'~0r.t'~ III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-1150 - Donald Holly, Kittridge Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; (Expires December 12~ 1974)~ Continued from November 13, 1974 The Secretary stated the applicant had encountered sewer-~equirement problems, and was in the process of discussing same with the Health Department; consequently, Staff recommended this matter be continued. ~hairman Marshall directed SDR-1150 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of December 11, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. B. SDR-1151 - David Dozier, QuitoRoad, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; (Expires December 17~ 1974); Continued from November 13~ 1974 The Secretary stated Staff had been prepared to recommend approval on this matter; however, the applicant indicated he w{shed to alter his plans and had not submitted same to Staff; consequently, Staff recommended this be continued. Chairman Marshall 'directed SDR-1151 b'~' continued to the Planning Commission meeting of December"ll, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. C. SDR-1152 - Peter Fitchen, Quito Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot~ (Expires December 19, 1974); Continued from November 13~ 1974 The Secretary stated that a Staff RepOrt had been prepared on th~ which recom- mended approval be granted. Mr. Butt, Assistant Planner, explained that building site application on this site had expired six-months ago, and the applicant had to reapply. for building site approval. He explained that improvements on the street as conditioned by the earlier approved building site had been made, and that bond and the payment of fees had been made. It was noted that it might be necessary for the applicant to apply for a Variance regarding above-ground utilities; further, that a Variance h~d been granted on same previously but had expired a year ago. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission approve application SDR-1152 per the tentative map (Exhibit "A"), and subject to the Staff Report dated November 25, 1974. The motion was carried unanimously. -2- ., ""' MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 25[ D. SDR-1153 - Western Federal Savings and Loan, Big Basin Way, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires December 28~ 1974) The Secretary stated that the file was not yet complete on this matter, and that Staff recormnended this be continued. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1153 be con- tinued to the Planning Commission mee~ting of December 11, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for review and report. E. SDR-1154 - Beck E~terprises, Walnut Avenue, Building Site Approval - 3 Lots; (Expires December 28~ 1974). The Secretary stated that the file was not complete on this matter, and that Staff recommended this be continued. Chairin, an Marshall' directed SDR-1154 be continued 'to the Planning Commission meeting of Z December 11, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for review and report. IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-429 - Church of Ascension, ProspectiRoad and Miller Avenue, Final Design Review, Landscaping Plans Mr. Dick Loewke, Planner I, stated thht the master landscaping plans had been re- viewed by the Design Review Committee: on October 22, 1974 and November 12, 1974. He explained that the plans reflected, landscaping along the service parking area, along the sidewalk leading to the church from the service parking area, and land- scaping along Ascension Drive. H'~:"~'~['~d'~that a Staff Report had been prepared · which recommended approval be'grantd~'i ..... ~ommissioner Woodward added that the plans had been revised as .r'~uested by the Design Review Committee, and were acceptable to same. There were no further comments.' Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded!by Commissioner Callon, that. the Planning Commission g[ant final design review approval to application A-429 per Exhibits "C-i" and "D~" and per the Staff_Report dated November 25, 1974. The motion was carried unanimouslY. B. A-446 - Thomas Walker, Pierce Road, Final Design Review - Single-Family Residence; Continued from November 13~ 1974 Mr. Loewke stated.that the applicant had yet to submit revised plans as requested by the Design Review Committee, and recommended this matter be continued. Chairma~ Marshall directed A-446 be c~ntinued to the Planning Commission meeting of December 11, 1974, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and report. C. A-457 - James Dinkey, Mt. Eden Court,:Final Design Review - Single-Family Residence; Continued £romNovember 13~ 1974 Mr. Loewke stated that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this matter on numerous occasions, and h~d..been workSng closely with .the applicant on revising his application. He explained that the house would be a two-story structure, the design of which met with the~'C~t~'~or~nance~r~Rd~adde~a~he application conformed with all setbacks, that ~he'~le~.'A~6~n~"~"'dut'was now presently pro- posed, and that the applicant was now using the majority of the existing pad. He pointed out that the Building Department had inspected this on-site on two occasions, and that one of the conditions of the Staff Report was to closely inspect any remaining fill as well as require an engineered retaining wall. He noted that the "x" marks on Exhibit "C" as designated by the Building Department reflected the~i!oc~tion of the retaining wall. It was noted that a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended approval be granted. Chairman Marshall suggested a note be'added to the Staff Report under Concluding Comments as follows: "Variance application V-414 was applied for and denied by the Planning Commission on October 23~ 1974." Commissioner Martin expressed concernlthat Exhibit "C" was not correct insomuch as the ledger did not.i'ef~ect/~h~7"~uZmarks as being a retaining wall. Staff was directed to positively identify.Exhibit "C" to reflect this retaining wall. -3- MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 25, ~74 C. A-457 James Dinkey - Continued Discussion followed on the grading that had taken place on the site, and it was noted that a grading permit had been issued by the Building Department earlier this year without obtaining approval from the Planning Department; consequently, the earlier grading had not been in conformance with the conditions of the origi- nal Staff Report. A complaint was issued that the design of the house was a "flatland house." Members of the Design Review Committee indicated they did not . approve of the design, but pointed out that the design did meet all of the re- quirements of City Ordinances. They pointed out that the Committee had reviewed this on three occasions with the applicant, and the third revised plan (Ex. "C") was the result of a compromise by both parties. There were no further comments. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to application A-457 per the:Cq~=~ed map (Exhibit "C"), subject to the conditions of the Staff Report dated NoVember 25, 1974, and subject to the addition of a note to Concluding Comments on the Staff Report as follows: "Variance application V-414 was applied for and denied by the Planning Commission on October 23, 1974." The motion died for lack of a majority: ayes - Commissioners Callon, Woodward and Matteoni; noes -lCommissioners Belanger, Martin and Marshall. At this time, the applicant stepped forward and requested an explanation for the objecting votes. Chairman Marshall explained that his objections were that he did not like a flatland house on a hillside; that he did not think the house had been designed for the property;. and that he did not like the manner in which the matter had been presented. He indicated-..that the plans submitted were sub- standard."" ~'~. Di~"~a~'~d~th'ai~7~~.',had been designed to allow flexi- bility, and'Coht~nd&d'that'{'t'~ad-not"~'e'~'designed blindly. He pointed out that the drawings were originally prepared by a licensed builder and civil engineer, but that Exhibit "C" had be~n prepared by the applicant himself. He contended that Exhibit "C" introduced'to the Commission at this meeting was not the last revised plan submitted by him. In order to clarify this point, Chairman Marshall..~!ed..a...recess .,' .......:':1%'5'Ai'.~ :.~zs cali.ad ~t th~ 'ti~e '.r,, C?=~.~rm~p ~a.rsh~.li i:-ord~er to lo='~te -"' ......... ' ..... .- ZZRECESS']~sa9':QOs.t~s9~"f5 pZm~$y claimhad I:~ su',,.,T_taad .... ~-.:: .... - - _ .....~ . . ..... ' ....."":" '- ..................... = ........ Y .... ........ ~__--_ ......... .................... = .Exhibit "C" as :presented to the Commission was the latest revised plan jgbmitt~d..by-.the..,..ap.Rli~ant~ ....... Chai~man.--Mars,ba.ll,,s.ta-ted-.-that= he would :,~9~r7~[ S~Y~e'f~']j't~ F~ lbaCkt~ o'~ the ~s i~npReV~'ew ~ Commi.~ t~e~ in 'b~d~r t ~ o tbb t~n:.-'t-'. ]. "<l. · ~.acc~rataop~anse. as:;=requ~stedobybth~nCommittee.plH'essf~tedo.th~t ..the~.p~ansc'shsUld '-~ ;.~5e~s~bi~t~ed~sh.~g~the~.c~t~ec.~.e~ev~on~cc~ntbu~inessahdithe=.re.tai~ing. ~." "'~ali.~a': eievs. tions~ .ncr. tour lines a.n{l --. .... .... · ........ .__ . .......... ~,- ............... - _. .' .... .. T' Mr. Dinkey objected to this matter being continued. He pointed out that the Building Inspector and he had written down material the City was requesting' t~e' applicant tp~s~Smi t-.~'j',l~.~d~.e .Vf~!fi~ 'h'j~d}:{5~p~'£~d'~l~{tFi~me~{~ U'HeEJ'tat ed,.t~a't.~.,: .-" if this matte~ W~ to be continued, however, thi{'he would like the Commission give direction to Mr. Loewke as to what specifically it required in order that he could obtain final design review approtal at the next Planning Commission meeting. CommisSioner Belanger stated that the mere altering of plans as suggested would not make any significant impact on her' feelings, adding that she felt this was a classic example of a'sit~ tailored to a house and not a house tailored to the site; consequently, she felt the desigp went against the principle of design review. She stated: "If you want a flatland house you should buy a flatland lot. Out of regard for that, you should alter personal tastes so as not to impact on the environment~of the rest of us. If you want to build on the hill, the house should be so tailored." Commissioner Martin stated that he voted against approval. of this application because he felt the plans were not correct.':-'jHe ~t~d'~hSt~h~U~shed'6o '~ee .... all details of the house included on the plans so that it was'6~EaT%ly, correct. aEd unchangeable. He added that he too had a strong objection to seeing a site de- signed for a house instead of.~_b.guS.~ being designed ~or the site, but"pof~[~ .']~ .[H~"tE[ 'El~a'-~'~:'~{~' ~dina~cesy ...... .'; ..... ~ "7' '~7~' · ': V'T; ...... = .... ' "~ ..... ..... " : -.~ .~. i: .-? ...... ' ' ' '- 'r ..... .% ~ ~" "' \ -- ......· ...... , ..... - . ~ Z.~Sf~i~.: .7. ........... ~.--[>.:~,:.~.... ,.. . _-/. ,..~. =-.. .... .. Z.'~;~ !~; ........~ ........................... ...... -4- MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 25 ~74 C. A-457 - James Dinkey - Continued At this point, Chairman Marshall directed A-457 be continued to the Planning Com- mission meeting of December 11, 1974, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and report. It was noted that the Design Review C~mf~ittee would review this matter at 'i~"me~i'ng December 3, 1974. D. A-458 - Theodore Picard, Canyon View Drive, Final Design Review - Single-Family Residence; Continued from November 13~ 1974 Chairman Marshall noted that this matter could not. be acted upon until a decision had been reached on Variance application V-417. He directed A-458 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of December 11, 1974, and referred this mat- ter to the Design Review Committee for further review and report. E. A-459 - Dividend Industries, Inc., Saratoga Avenue and Dagmar, Final Design Review; Single-Family Residence - Tract #5462; Continued from November 13~ 1974 Mr. Loewke stated that the applicant had signed a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the City agreeing to maintainlt~etho~non~andsc~p~ngi'o~ ~'e~7~r~isl~nd~ as showf~ on Exhibit "C"; further that a portion of the 10-foot.path~y"'easement'was to be deeded to the City as part of the street right-of-way. It'"was noted that the City Council gave conditional final site approval subject to Design Review approval, with the stipulation that the applicant would include in its CC&R's such language as to provide for maintenance of the landscaped areas by a home- owners' association. It was further 'noted that the Landscape Maintenance Agree- ment signed by the applicant was ~."p;erpetual'.' la~ndscape agreement. Commissioner Belanger recommended the last sentence of the third paragraph under Project Descriptions be worded as follows: "The developer is to include in the Tract~s CC&Rs, as an irrevocable promise by the homeowners, such language as to provide for this maintenance." Chairman Marshall and Commissioner Matteoni felt Cit ' this proposed language helped to clarify the y s position, and agreed that the Staff Report should be modified to reflect same. Commissioner Woodward moved., Seconded by~Commissioner Matteoni, that the Planning Commission grant final design review ::approval to application A-459 per Exhibit "C", subject to the Staff Report dated November 25, 1974, and subject to the modifica- tion of the' last sentence of the third paragraph under Project Description of the Staff Report as follows: "The developer is to include in the Tract's CC&Rs, as an irrevocable promise by the homeo~.~ners, such language as to provide for this maintenance." The motion was c~rried unanimously. F. A-460 - The Burl, South Saratoga-gunny~ale Road, Final Design Review, Identifi- cation Sign Chairman Marshall noted that this matter could not be acted upon until a decision had been reached on Variance applicaeion V-416. He directed A-460 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of December 11, 1974, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee and ..Staff for further review. V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATIONS The following Negative Declara6ions were filed between November 13 and November 25, 1974: A. SDR-1153 - Western Federal Savings and Loan, Big Basin Way, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot B. SDR-1154 - Beck Enterprises, Walnut Avenue, Building Site Approval - 3 Lots VI. COMMUNICATIONS - WRITTEN The foiiOwing written correspondence was introduced into the record: · ., .. "MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 25]~974 WRITTEN COMMIBriCATIONS - Continued A. Letter dated November 13, 1974 from Mr. R.L. Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, for- warding a copu of a letter from Robert McLaughlin of the U.S. Geological Survey relative to the geology of the Parker~ Ranch. Staff was directed to make this part of the CE-172 file on Parker Ranch. B. Lett.~r dated November 13, 1974 from R.L.Crowther, 20788 Norads Court, req~e§~ng F_'the. namQS. 9f_ '~-i~e~ f ,M~s ]W~.lt..~s:iM~_~.~_. jS~4WeirK;~il~3 '~r0y~ ~- ~guel'lo)~, l.~e .placed on the Planning Corni'll{on Age~d~':.f~ti~Ii~'L'i'~e~' "'I~;.!-~s-'-npted that both names had been placed on the mailing lis~'7' - ....... .:'~:-~" C. Letter dated November 20, 1974 from V'ic Mendez, 1921 CaliforniaStreet ~21, Mountain View, California, submitting: his comments.-a~d':'recommendations on the Parker-Ranch nIn. I t was '--- ~.'iil~ ~.7.;~- '-; -' ' ?-. ,?' t:~.... .......................................... ~ ......................... _ .... - ......... ' '...: ....... -' D. Letter dated November 20, 1974 fr~Richard Cecchi, MacKay & Somps, regarding . the Brookside Court-Radoyka Drive development by Osterlund Enterprises. It was:". pointed out that the City was presently meeting with the Moreland School Distri&t for purposes of possibly modifying the conditions of approval on SD-1147. The Secretary noted that a report of sac. would be given to the SuBdivision Co~ittee as soon as possible. E. Letter dated November 25, 1974 fr~Mr. and ~s. No~an Cockshaw, 20996 Canyon View Drive, expressing concern reiat~ve to the grading and construction of the access road' on V-417 (~eodore Picard). Staff was directed to make this part of file V-41Y, and the Secretary indicated Staff would be responding to the Cockshaw's letter. F.Brochure from University of California at Berkeley regarding a Short Course for Planning Coaissioners to be held'January 31 and February 1, 1975. G. Letter dated November 22, 1974 francKay and Somps relative to SDR-1037 re- questing a one-year extension to the tentative building site approval. Mr. Burt stated that this property would fall within the Hillside Conservation . Phase I of the traffic count study in'this area would not be completed until the middle of Dece~er, and advised the Coaission that if they did grant an extension, it~could be for any period%of time under one-year if it so desired. The consensus of the Planning Coaission was to delal_~StL~n this request until the Subdivision C~ittee had reviewed :s~i~'~y'~l~n;~;fl'~a~a'f[e~.=~ preliminary traffic counts of the area were subm~'~to Chai~an Marshall directed the request for one-year extension on SDR-1037 be continued to the Planning Coaission meeting of December 11, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Coaittee and Staff for further review and study. Staff was directed to notify the applicant of ~e Coaission's decision, and to schedule an appointment with the Subdivision Coaittee to discuss this ~tter. VII. GO~NICATIONS - O~L : A. Mr. Russell Crowther, 20788 Norads CoUrt, asked what document the Planning Coaission would be reviewing at the Special public hearing on CE-172 scheduled for December 16, 1974. He stated that if there was a new document which was to be submitted by nnviros or Staff, the Friends of Painless Parker r]{q~S~a"the "'~..:.. opportunity to review same prior to the public hearing. Chai~an Marshall explained that one more public hearing on CE-172 would be held on December 16, 1974 for purposes of taking public testimony. He stated that after public testimony had been taken,.the public hearing would be closed and Staff, inii'~oncert with Enviros, would submit a final doesent b't. which the Coaission would consider. Upon acceptance of a final EIR by the Coaission, the document would be forwarded to thd City. Council with the reco~endation ~e secretary aaaea .~as~h~eYadcU;~S'ta:f~:Ll;'~:~.os expe~Eed'~-['; ,submit .. " _ _ . - ' ...... · ...,.,~ . u._-~-' ...... " "- - .................... ....................... ~-:~s'.5'~.,~ ' ~ ....- ...................... -6- MINUTES OF DECEMBER 25 1974 He explained that an EIR with addendum material was normal procedure, and added that the Commission could delete or add to any information it felt was relevant to the information required for a complete EIR. Mr. Crowther proteste~- that there would be conflicting statements in the infor- mation sub.~itted to the Commission, and added that the Friends of Painless Parker had understood at the last special public hearing that the EIR would be an integrated, single document. The Secretary pointed out that in fairness to all parties concerned, there may well' be conflicing comments submitted to the Commission, but that it was up to the' Commission to weigh the information sub- mitted and make a' final decision on the adequacy of the impact report informa- t i on ~,av..~_.i.~lab I e, B. Commissioner Martin brought up the matter of signs being erected in the City without a sign permit. He cited aS examples a sign erected by a builder near the Beth David Synagogue on Prospect Road, and the sign put up by a builder on the Catholic Education Center on Ascension Drive. The Secretary stated that if these Signs were in violation of the City Ordinance.s, the City Code Enforce- ment Officer would notify the violators that they would need a sign permit. He further stated that it may be a'd~'i~B'le' that the Code Enforcement Officer send notices to local contractors informin~ them that if signs were erected without a sign permit, they would be taken down without further notification. C. Commissioner Callon stated that she Wished to lobby on behalf of sending a member of the Planning Commissioners to any relevant Planning Commission workshop. A request was made that funds be budgeted to cover such seminars, and Staff was directed to discuss this matter with the City Manager and report same at the next ~21~7~_~.i_'_."_'~71~.~'~ Planning Commission meeting. ~ 7~ ..... -.--.~._ .... D. Commissioner WOodward raised the ques:tion of modifying the Design Review '~ .... .~, '- Ordinance, and suggested that a DesigD Architectural Committee be formed for purposes of reviewing ..the more difficult design review applications. Discus- Cit ' sion followed on this, and Mr. Burt r!eported that a compilation of other y s Design Review Ordinances had been mad'e.i~'.'. added that these other Ordinances were not applicable to Saratoga insoniuch a's Saratoga had a Uhique geographical construction other communities did not address. He added that the proposed Hillside Conservation Ordinance would. address many of the Design Review problems, and requested the Commissio'ners make comments on the proposed Hillside Ordinance, as presented to them earlier, as soon as possible. E. Commissioner Belanger expressed conce.'rn over what .'~i~tigating 'actions could be taken by the Commission regarding sol'~ing potential construction problems prior to the actual problems occuring. She' cited as an example Mrs. Cockshaw's objec- tions raised over application V-417. '.It was pointed out that the Building Department could ask the developer to take mitigating actions per the Building Code, but that City Ordinances did not address this matter to any further' extent. The Secretary pointed out that Staff would be responding to Mrs. Cockshaw's letter with a carbon copy to the City. Council; he noted that the City anticipated sending two City field inspectors out' to review the site. .F. Chairman Marshall welcomed Mr. Beyer to the meeting, and expressed appreciation to the Good Government Group for serving coffee. VII. ADJOURN~T Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the Planning Commission meeting of November 25, 1974 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Marty Van D~, 'Plan~ing ~tary . -7-