HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-08-1981 Planning Commission Minutes O
CI'I'Y OF ~%ARATOGA PLANNING COMMISS'[ON
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, April 8, 1981 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Ch·ambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE:. Regular Meeting ..
ROUT I NE OR (;AN I ZA T I ON
R o 1. 1 C a I. 1. '
'Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, King, Lad. en, Monia., Schaefer and
Zambetti (Cornmiss:loner Crowther arrived at 8:15 p.m.)
Absent: None
Minutes
Commissione'r Zambetti moved, seconded b~ Commissioner Bolger, to waive the
readin,,' of the minutes of March 25, 1981 and approve them as distributed
The motion was carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. A-76]. - Nino Gall_o, Request for Final. Design Review Approval. for a. twO-
story, singl. e-famil. y dwelling that would. be-over 22' in height
(30' max.) on a lot with an average slope less than 10% in the
R-].-20,000 district on Mend~lsohn Lane, Tract 6531, Lot #15;
Continued from March 25, 1981
" It xqas reported that there has not b~en a new interim Urgency Ordinance
adopted by the City Council; therefore, this application wil. 1. be considered
under the present ordinance. :
']"he public hearing was -reopened at 7:40 p.m.
Shelby ChriStian, 20250 Bonnie ·Brae Way, stated· that tb~ey are part of the
Mendelsohn-Montalvo Homeowners Asso~:kation, and they a.~e concerned about
the heigh. t of this. house. She commented that they werd also concerned
about the o1~t t~ees on the site and 'believe they are ~ot beino treated·
properly in the building of thes.e houses. It was clari!fied to Mrs.
-Christian that the ordinance 'does permit a 30 ft ..t .t. ct re and the pro
r~,u , -
posed one is' 30 ft. at maximum and 27' ft. at mid-point Staff also noted
th. at there wil. 1 be four trees removed for th. is particuiar building, and
the other trees are being cared for and pruned by a' lan~dscape person.
e .' one, and it was
Mrs. Christian asked if an environmental. report had b eln d
reported that a Negative Declaration 'was approved when ,the subdivision was
approved. It was pointed out that at that time there x,~a.s a great deal. of
~¢o'rk done by the homeowners association. Mrs. Ch. ristialn commented that one
of thei. r major concern. s was the grove of trees on theh ~"ght a.s you :face
the property. Commissioner Schaefer, stated that she B~ also heard con-
cussed with the develope'r.. She indicated that e e feelings
in the neighborhood about the two-stdry structure, and they felt it was
too high and would like to reach a compromise.
Dave Call, who works for th.e developer, stated he tnad dliscussed the proposal
wi. th' one of the neighbors who had a. ttended the last mee~ting. He commented
that he felt that the neighbors had ~ot been aware of s~ome of the efforts
and study that have been done regarding the trees. He ista. ted that he had
explained th.e project to her. Mr. Cal. 1 commented that ~he felt the site
an excellent one for a txvo-story, s:~ce it is not d. irec~tly across from any
home. He also added that the home has been set back 4si ft., which. has
saved three trees. '1
Chairman Laden indi. cated that when the subdivision had lbeen originally
planned, all of the trees were appraised by Brian Gage,~ the City's consul-
I '-
P].ann ing Commission Page 2
Meeting Minutes - 4/8/821
A-761. (con. t..)
rant, and. a study was done regard. ing whi.ch ones should be removed. A
g'reat. deal of consideration had been given to sav:ing the vast majo'rity of
trees and th. ose which we're the healtb. iest. It was noted that the City has
been monitorino the t'ree removal on th-is site as the subdivision d. eve].ops
Sin. ce no one e].se appeared, Commissioner Mouia moved to close the public
hea'r-i.ng. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was ca'r'ried
un a.~ :i mous ] y.
Commissioner Zambetti commented that this lot is an appropriate lot :For a
two-story. He stated that he is in favor of the proposal., since it meets
the criteria s'et forth in the Fhnergcncy Ord:inance and has a 45 ft. setback.
Commissioner Bolger stated that he agrees that a two-story would be appro-
priate, but 'feels that the structure. is too high. He commented that he
felt that the 30 ft. height is not cOmpatib].e with the existing neighbor-
hood, and :i.t should be reduced in he:i. ght at least to 26 ft. Comm:i. ssioncr
Schaefer agreed.
Commissioner King stated that he had. a probl. em with arbitrary height
reduction regarding the architectural appearance of homes. He stated that
he was not disagreeing with the concern over the he:ight, but would like
to discuss it further before the Commission gets into truncati.ng the
de s :i gn.
Dave Call commented th.a.t the trees that stand in. front oE this home range
from 40 to 60 fit. in height and are heavy with foi. lage; therefore, there
will not be a visual impact. He sta.~ed. that some concern should be given
'to the style of the house when reduction is considered. Mr. Ca]..1. stated.
that this is a.n excellent site 'for this style of home.
Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve A-761, pe'r the Staff Report and
'-"" making the Ci.'ndings of the Emergency. Ordinance. Commissioner King seconded
the motion.
l):iscuss:ion fol'l. owed on the hei_ght of: the struttrite. Commissioner Monia
moved to amend the moti. on for approv'a.]., to inCl. ude the stipulation that
the structure be reduced to a maximum height of 26 ft. Comm:issioner Bolger
seconded the a. mendment. The motion wa.s carried, witJ~ COmmiSsioner King
dissenting. It was determined that a condi. tion should be added to the
Staff Report to read: "The height of: the structure w-i.~.] be reduced t.o a
maximun~ of 26 ft. Revised plans are. to be submitted to the Planning Depart-
merit for review and approval."
The vote was' taken on the motion to approve A-761 .at a. maximum height of
26 ft., per the amended Staff Report~ The motion was 'carried unanimous].y.
Marry Oakley, the a'rch. itect, stated ~ha.t the roof pitch is based on the
'living room area of ".the house. IIe indicated that they could 'not maintain
the same roof pitch if reduced by 4 ~t.
Chai. rman I..aden stated ~hat the Comm:i. ssion' had previously asked'the appli-
cant to cons:i. der reduc:i.'ng the'height:. of the .h..o.me, and' it ~s .the consensus.
of the Commiss.i. on that it is 'too'hig!~. i~ Wa~'noteZd:that' there is a 10:day
· appeal period'. ... ".
2. SDR-'1.'486 Tor Larsen, Request ~7or Tentative Bui].dii~g Site Approval for
3 lots, . Pierce Road; Continued from Lan'd Deve]opment' Commi tree
Meeting of'March 19 ]_981.
Staff expFl a. ined that this j. tem is 'a ~ont'i. nued pub'l:i.c heari. ng from the Land
Development Commi. ttee. Staff exp/l. ai.~ed. that the Subdivision Ord:inance-
requ:i. res that when there is a minimum access or driveway access off o.C a
cul-de-sac, 'it requires an exception'. from the Planning Commission. It was
- 2 -
Planning Commission Page 3
Meeting Minutes -- 4/8/81
SDR-_1486 (cont.)
noted th. at Condition VII'I-D of the S~aff Repo'rt should be amended to read:
"Construct driveway 12 ft. wide plus a 3 ft. shoulder .... ".- The present
proposal and. history of the project were discussed. It was reported that
the driveway was moved 10 f--t. from the property 'line; with iandscaping and
f--ecing req. ui'red, to minimi. ze any sound from vehicles that may go to the
., residence on Parcel B. Staff reportGd that this item had been discussed
at a Committee-of-the-Whole by the COmmission and ~t the Land. Development
Committee meeting, and a.t both meetings there was a consensus for the access
off of Ashley Way. :
The public hearing was reopened at 8:08 p.m.
Bill Heiss, civil engineer for the p!~oject, stated that he feels there is
an asset to the community by what is .occurring, He explained that Ashley
Way presently terml.nates as a deadend street. without any turnaround, and
the applicant i_s dedicating and improvi'ng, a.s part o'f this concept, a. ful21
cul-de-sac turnaround. l..Ie stated that they were working on the drainage
problems. Mr. He:i. ss described the proposal, including the .landscaping and
fencing. He indicated that Parcel A would not be utilizing the same drive-
way.
Commissioner Bolger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner King
seconded th.e motion, which was carried unanimously.
Comn~:issioner King moved to approve the Negati. ve Declara. tion 'for SDR-].486.
Commissioner Monia. seconded the motiGn, which was carried unanimousZly.
Commi. ssioner King moved to approve SDR-1486, per the Sta-ff Report as amended.
Commissioner Moni. a. seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schaefe'r stated that she felt that this 4. s th.e best compromise,
but for f. uture cul-de-sacs she would still have a concern about adding
other driveways as a way of allowing more homes on. cul-'de*sacs. She
indi'cated.that she f-'elt this should be part of the record for future refer-
ence .
3. UP-487 Imperial Savings, Request fo2r a Use Permit to allow a. financial.
4. A-762 institution to locate in the "C-C" (Community-Commercial) district
.at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos .Road, and Final Design Review Approval
Sta. ff d. escribed the proposal. They noted· that there ha.d been a change in
the ordin. ance about two years ago, trying to preclud. e real estate offices
and financial. institutions .from the Village and "C-V" districts, in order
to increase the tax base. As noted ijn th.e Staff Report, th.~s is a situa-
tion where they are relocating a financial institution from the center of
the village to the outskirts, to allow some additional commercial type
activities 'to be located wi. thin the mi. ddle of the Village.
~]:.}~e. alley way was discussed. Chairman Laden indicated that it shoul. d be
verified who the owner .i.s and who will maintain it. She stated that she
would like to be assured that .the alley way will not be closed off.
The public hearing was opened. at 8:z02 p.m.
Commissioner Zambetti stated that he .was ,disturbed that they were consider-
ing an ivory plexiglass trim o'n. the sign, since th.]s building is located
on a sce'nic highway. He stated that,: :i.f the Commission favors a bank in
that l'ocation, or some savings and loan, then the sign should be in wood
or some .material to keep in character with the scenic highway. He added
that, as a me'rchant, he does not think that, by moving the bank there, the
City will get more ta.~..dqilars 'fhan' w2h'a-t:':.they.-haVe' been' recei:ving. from the
businesses. that have been housed in t'he 'Helen's Antiques building. Fie
stated that he would be against aL1.'lo~,~i. ng the use to move.
3
Planning Commission Page 4
Meeting Minutes -. 4/8/81
UP-487 a. nd A-762 (cont.)
Since no one appeared, Commissioner King moved to close the publ.ic bearing.
Commissioner Bol. ger secondad the motio'n, which wa.s carried unanimously.
that '
Chai'rman La'den stated she feels: as much commercial type 'of tax base
business.--':.should be put on Big Basin as possible, and perhaps thi. s is one
method o:E doing :i.t.
I .
Commissioner King stated that h.e agreed with Commissioner Zambetti's concern
about the v:isual impact of the bu:i. lding. He added that he favored movifig
the financia. 1 establishmen.~s 'off of the Vil. lage main street.
Commissioner Zambetti statgd that h.e~ felt this is a vOry important :retail.
sa. les tax dollar base location, and it shou].d not be used as something that
does not generate sales t, ~ dollars ro the City
Commissioner Schaefer sty..ed that shb felt there were many other uses that
atI
could be considered "'~br
. tt%a.t bui].dipg; possibly it could be div:ided up
'into smaller stores such ~s the Opera House in I,os Gatos.
The parking ratio and the qmployee parking were discussed. It was deter-
mined that this item should be contihued, in order to discuss some of the
conce'rns with a representative of Imperial Savings. Commissioner Monia
moved to reopen the public ~hearing and continue it to the meeting of
May ].3, 1981. 'Commissione~ Zambetti' seconded th.e motion, which was carried,
with Commissioner Schaefer/dissenting.
5. V-545 Leonard Metz, Reqqest for a: Variance to allow th.e construction of
a pool cabana to niaintain a 15' side yard where 20' ]s required,
at 1.5102 Mon. talvo [Road.
Sta~f described the propos~.l.. They commented that they had included
several options in the Sta:fff Report which woul. d comply with the ordinance,
in'cl. uding a reduction of the size of. the cabana and relocating it to the
other side of the pool. THey stated that, since these Viable options are
ava:i. lable, and there are n4 constraints associated with the site, Staff
canno. t make the n. ecessarv ~indings and 'recommends denial. The letters
from the neighbors, favG~..:Ug this proposal., were noted into the record.
Commissioner King stated that he had.! visited the site with Staff, and had
n.o ad. ditional comments to add to the' Staff Report.
The public hearing .was opeded at 8:30 p.m.
Mr. Metz, the applicant, e~plained that the previous owner had put the
pool in the wrong loca. tjon.I He stated that the pool is located in such a
_ ']
Way that the pool house ~a. to be a certain. minimum size in order to be
usable. He explained that li.f they make the building narrower it would be
totally unusable. Mr. Met~ indj. cate~ that his main object was to enclose
th.e pool equipment to reduce the n.o:i~e i.n the neighborhood.. He also noted
that the previous owner had put in a'l. ot of concrete which they would like
to utilize. He added t.hat putting the cabaria on the other side would
jeopardize some very large beautiful, oak trees, and they would also have to
~'dd an additional amount .of concrete, which would take away from' the greenery
of the p'roperty. Mr. Metz stated theft th.e structure in this location. does
not have a visual impact f~'om the street. He stated that if the cabana
were smaller and within the setbacks, it would not .be adequate or acceptab]e
arch ite c tura 1 ly. :
l)onald Call, 1.4930 Monta].vd Road, stated that he is the adjacent neighbo'r
to the immed:iate north. l-I~ i'ndicated that they did not feel this would be
an objectionable 'variance.I He desc'ribed their property and stated that
the enclosing of the pool ~quit~ment would be favorable and the structure
would be a barrier between ~the two properties.
The designer for the project described the proposal Mrs Metz submitted
l
4
Planning Commission 'Page 5
Meeting Mi'nutes - 4/8/81
V- 545 (cont.)
photos of the site, and the trees on .the property were discussed.
Catherine F~lde, 15164 Mont~l'l. vo, sta~ed. that they had seen the plans and
are in favor of the cabana.] She comme~ted' that if it were placed on the
othe'r sid. e they would not bO able to .Ten'joy the open space that is t. here
now. She added that she fe~t the applicant's reasons 'for the present
location certainly bear mer,~t.
Commissioner King gave an ol~-si. te visit report and. stated that he agreed
w'ith the statements in the Staff Report. Commissioner Zambett~i commented
that he had also visited th~ site and also' agreed. with the Staff Report,
· stating that a smaller structure wou~d be mo're app'ropriate.
~ ·
Commissioner King moved to ~lose the public. hearino Commissioner Zambetti
seconded the motion, which. was carryled unanimously.
] ..
Commissioner Schaefer statea that shO had a big concern about the size of
the structure,'which is act[~ally the size o.lF many homes. She expressed
concern that in the future ~omeone may use it a.s a second home.
Commissioner Monia stated that he did not really have a concern about the
size of the structure, but would like to see it smaller, if possible.
Regarding its location, be ktated. that be felt the proposed location ~s the
best, because if it is ovea to the s'~outh it would h. ave more of an impact
on the privacy of Dr. Call'k home because it would-be elevated. He stated
that he did h. ave a concern w'~th the possibility of it being a second dwell-
ing :i.~ the future. CommissI~o'ner Monia commented that, based on the sligt~t
slope th. ere and the fact that the neigh'bors feel that i.t would help them,
he could make the findings ~ecessary zto approve the variance.
Commissioner Crowther stateh that he 'had not had a chance to visit the
site; however, primarily because of fhe neighbors being in favor of the
va'riance, he would ~vote for it. lie ~dded t. hat he would like to see con-
ditioning to have ro ~ 1
t pe" p ~'nti'ngs a~ong the side, and also, if possible
to ensure that this could not become 'a second living quarters.
Commissioner BoZlger stated th,at he hald visited the site.and it does appear
to be the best location. t-I~ added that, bec~use of that fact and the fact
that the neighbors are in favor of i~, he would vote for approval of the
variance.
Commissioner Laden commente that she felt this was an impressive structure
· I
that has been well thou. ght out. However, she stated that she would have
d. ifficulty making the ~nd~ ,~gs when there are othe'r options that sl~ould be
7 .... 1 .
explored.. She indicated that she fel't it could be '.reduced by 2 or 3 ft.
in width and moved closer t6 the pool..
Commissioner King stated that t~e 'tl~i'H:ks. it is important that the Commission
be consistent regarding the finding~ .For a variance, even though t.l~e
neighbors may not object. He added that he would have difficulty making
the 'findings in this case.
Commissioner Bolger stated that l~e appreciates Commissioner King's comments;
however, he feels tha't, in order to n~aximize the use of this particular
structure, it could. not .be reduced in width. by 'an appreciable amount because
of' the bowling alley effect L He stated that he feels it would be an undue
. ~b~n~ closer to the pool.
l'~ardship to move the c~ ~ ~' .
Commissioner Cro~vther tatet that it ',does appear that there are some unique
S . (.
aspects of the site which would justi'~fy the findings of a variance, su. ch
as vegetation and the elevation tel. at'i've to the neighboring prope'rt'y.
I'
Commissioner Monia stated that there .wo'u].d be d. ifficulties with moving
the building and the necessary tree r'emoval. l-le commented that he feels
I ·
this ]:s a case where the Commission shou].d. be looking at what they want to
- S
Planning Commission Page 6
Meeting Minutes 4/8/'81
V-545 (con. t.)
do and allow the 'residents to d.o within our community, rather than the
style under whi. ch the Commission is going to operate. I..Ie stated that he
feels the findings can be made, and 'i.t is in the proper p].ace. He added.
that it is quite large, which.' presents some of the problems which the
Commissioners are having, but he f. eels that there is a. ].ot of room in the
t~ack yard, and it is not going to |lave an impact on the neighborhood.
Commissioner Crowther moved to approx~e V-545, ma. king the necessary findings,
based on the :Fact th.a.t the sit. e :~s unique; it has an unique elevation
relative to the neighboring sites, and has vegetation which wou.]d be pre-
served by locating the building in tl~i.s particular location. 'Commissioner
Monia seconded the motion, which fai].ed, with Commissl.oners Zambett. i, Laden,
Schaefer and King dissent:ing.
Commissioner Zambetti moved to deny V=545 without p're.judice. 'Commissioner
King seconded the motion', which was carried, with Commissioners Bolger,
Crowther and Monia. dissenting.
,
'l'he applicant was notified of th.e ten-day appeal period. Cha. irman l,aden
stated that she felt it was the feeling of the Comm:ission, in not allowing
the variance, that there are ways in.which this can be designed so a
varia. n. ce would not be required and the setba. cks could'be met. She exl~]_ained
'that th.e Commission has to make five very part'i. cu].ar findings to grant a
variance, and -i.t was the :feeling of tile majority of the Commission that they
could not make those findings.
It was explai. n. ed to the applicant that the variance had been. denied without
prejudice, to allow th.e applicant to either return to the Commission with
an alternative proposal or appeal the denial to the City Council. Commis-
sioner Sch. aefer indicated that.. she would like to see the entire structure
reduced somewhat in size, .because of'the possibility o.f it becoming a.
rental in the future, and the City has no way of eff_-ectively enforcing that
type o'f situation.
6. V-546 - Douglas North, Request for a Varian. ce to allow the construction of
a ga'rage expansion to maintdin a 6.6'7' interior side 'yard where
10' is required, at 1909]. POrtos :Drive .,
'It was noted' that this item ~'i~1 be dontinued to a future 'meet:ing.
The public hearing was opened at 9:.00 p.m.
Since no-one appeared, it was directed that this item be continued to
May 1.'3, 198'1.
DESIGN REVIEW
7a. Negative Declarat:ion A- 763 Patrick Hidalgo
7b.A-763 Patrick Hidalgo, 20877 Kittri'dge Road, Sing]e-family residence,
Final. Design Rev:iew Approval
Staff re. commended that this particular' item be continued, since it had just
been pointed out that this structure !does not meet' 'the .warpe'd plane concept
of the HCRD Ordinance. Staff stated that they had just informed the appli-
cant of this and recommended to him that he either find a way to modify
the plan or apply for a variance. Staff explained that they had measured
this site usi:ng the old design review format, and that does not apply to
the'HCRD district. The'y indicated that there is one portion of the rear of.
the structure that exceeds the 30 ft. heigl~t limitation when measured
parallel to the natural grade of the'site. Staff ,.added that the. plan will
h. ave to be modified to.comply With the |-ICRD Ordin.a'hce requirements.
Patrick and Michael Hidalgo addressea the Cornmiss'ion. They Y~t~:a-t,"-:
they had had the impression that everything CG~nt~l.Li~e-d-.:Z~-~th 'the requirements.
Planning Commission Page 7
Meeting Minutes - 4/8/'81, = "
A- 763 .(cont. )
They explained that they had ai~prov6d plans for another home, but did not
like the design.. Mr. Hidalgo stated that he would' like these' plans
· approved, conditioned upon the changes being done to 'meet the requirements.
I-.te explained that there is only about 2 .ft. of the roof that does not
comply. He indicated that one alternative would be to ch. ange the roof, but
it may not look as good. Another alternative would be to change the roof
a little bit so it wil.1_ still have the dutch gable.
Commissioner Bolger stated. that he had concern regarding the a'm6unt of
glass that Will have ref'l. ection-: He also commented that he would like to
see the 'dwelling back further on the:pad so there will not be so much of
the structure over the slope.
Mr. Hidalgo expl. ained that a geologic survey had been done, and the buil. ding
pad w'as defined because' 20 ft. on each side of the pad is the fault zone.
He indicated that the Fire Marshall ~a's requiring a hammerhead and a. lot
of the flat area is being used for that. Mr. Hidalgo added. that if the
hammerhead is moved, there would be a problem with the location of the
leach lines for the septic tank.
Commissioner' Crowther stated that he.would .1. ike to see the outside dimensions
of the structure on the drawl. rigs. He .commented that it looks like the front
:~i~F'of the structure that will' face out has an elevation of 35 to 40 ft.
and he feels that is too much to be facing out on the front of a hill.
The glare 'From the windows was discussed. Mike Hidalgo stated that, with
the sun's position, h.e did not think!there will be any glare on the northern
side of the house. .:.
Mr. Hidalgo stated that tl'~e architect had taken the same dimensions and
building pad for the other house and '.worked with them. He stated that he
felt the architect had done an .i. ncredibl. e job under the circumstances.
Mr. Hidalgo explained that the previously approved plans were approved by
mistake, and. this design is lower in .heigh. t.than the previously approved
house. M'r. Hidalgo stated that he had no objections to working with the
Commission in a study session to see .:if the house' can be mod:ified. He
indicated that he has a couple of ex(.ra feet on the ri. ght side and will
adjust the lines to mitigate the fro~t as much as pos:sibl. e. He stated that
he will also put the dimen. sions on ttie drawings.
Comm:i. Ssioner Crowther asked if it would be possible to show the structure
on tl'~e ortho photo contou'r maps wh.i. cti th.e City has. :Staff .stated that
there are no available ortho photos for the area east of Highway 85. They
indicated that there are standards that are required regard:[ng contour
maps on applications; they have to bd 'engi. neered maps which are done by
a licensed civ'ii engineer. Commissi6ner-Crowther stated that he feels the
City shoul. d decide what the official .contour maps are to be used throughout
the City and require that those be used. Staff commented that the repre-
sentation by a registered.civil engineer is usual..1. y more valid than what
would be produced from City-wide orttio photos. They explained that the
site spec:ifi. c data from the. engineer !is generally much more precise. They
stated that the City does check the contour maps against the aerial photos
in areas where they are available. :
It was directed that this matter be continued to a Committee-of-.the-.Whole
on April..1.4, 1.981. at 4:30 and the regular meeting on April 22, 198.1_.
COMMUNICATIONS
Wi~itten NOne
Oral
1. City Council Report -. Commissioner Zambettzi gave a. br:i. ef report on
the City Council meeting on April 1, 1981. A copy of the minutes of th.i:s
Pl. ann:ing Cornmiss .i. on 'Page 8
Meet:kng Minhtes -. 4/8/81.
meeting :is on fj. le in tile C:ity Ad. min'[strat:i. on Office.
2. .The section of th.e ord:i. nance regarding the interpre.tati. on o'f non-
con-Fo'rmi. n.g st'ructures was d:i. scussed. I't. was determined that thj_s will be.
discussed Further a.t the study sessi. on :i.n May'and direction g:ive:n to the Cj. ty
a.'ttorney -[or revi. sion. .It was also .determ:ined that the prob].ems of the ViII. age,
such as mul. ti-f. am:i.].y structures and mixed uses, wi. ll be discussed at that time.
" .5. Chairman La. den thanked Counc:il.p.erson Jensen 'For attending the meeting.
AD.JOURNMENT
Commi. ssioner Bo]_ger, seconded by Commiss.j_oner Zambetti, moved to adjourn. the
meeting. The motion was ca.r:r:i. ed unan:imous].y,. and the meet-ing was adjourned
at' 9:45 p.m. :.:
l~esp.e..ctft~lly submitted,
P, SR: cd