HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-27-1981 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MI. NUTES
DATE: Wednesday, May 27, '1981 -'7:30.p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowthe. r,. King, Laden, Monia, Schaefer and
Zambetti
Absent: None
Minutes
The following changes were made to the minutes of May 13, 1981: On page 2,
under SDR-1485, it was added: "It was pointed out that the project exceeded
building height limits of a C-V distridt by 13 feet and did not conform to
the Zoning Ordinance setback requirements." On page 10, under SDR- 1490, it
Should read that Commissioner Crowther ,moved to approve SDR-1490, with the
condition added that no further construction is permitted on any of the
newly created lots.' On page 12, under V-550, the sentence was added: "Mr.
Hall, when asked if he was considering ldeveloping his property in such a
manner that he would need a wider road,'. replied that he had no desire to
develop it." With those changes, Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by
Commissioner Crowthe.r, to waive the reading of the minutes of May 13, 1.981
and approve as distributed. The motion was carried, with Commissioners King
and Monia abstaining, since Commission6r King was not present at the meeting
and Commission. er Monia was not present 'for a portion Of .it.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. EP-16 - Lawrence Roe, 12499 Scully ..Avenue, Request for Encroachment Permit
for fence in right-of-way
2. SDR-1487 - Saratoga Union School D{strict, Aloha Avenue 4 lots, Final
Building Site Approval
Both of the above .items were removed from the Consent Calendar for dis-
cussion. Staff explained that one .of the neighbors had requested a
continuance on EP-16, since they were unable to attend the meeting this
evening. It was directed that EP-16 be continued to the meeting on
June 24, 1981.
It was pointed out that, on the Status Report for SDR-1487, it stated
that all conditions for Building Site Approval have not been met. Staff
commented that they believed that to be in error, and that all of the
conditions had been met.
Dr. McNicholas, from the Saratoga Union School District, stated that it
was his understanding that all. of the requirements have been met at this
time.
Commissioner Crowther moved to approve SDR-1487, conditioned upon the
fact that all of the 'indicated items have been met. Commissioner Zambetti
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. .V_.:~5..4...9._- Brian Morrow, Request for ~ Variance to allow a recently con-
structed balcony to maintain a 17' side yard where 20' is
requir_ed, at 19015 Springbrook Lane; Continued from April 22,
.'.. i-.: :-:! ::..-...:... '1'9 _8'!';'.~' "?"'~:'~ ~-~' ':". ':": .: .:' :. ":."'..'.-'-":._--'~."-'.' '- · '.. ' ....
Staff explained that this item had been continued' from April 22, 1981
because the neighbor was out of town and the new property owner had not
been present. Staff described the proposal.
Planning Cornmiss ion ', Page 2
Meeting Minutes 5/27/81
V- 549 (cont.)
The public hearing was opened at 7 :.50 ~ p .m.
Tom Carine, the adjacent property Owner, stated that, 'since the
balcony looks right into his back yard, specifically his master
bedroom area, he would like to see a row of trees placed along the
property line. He submitted a list of different types of trees that
he felt would solve the problem rather than removing the balcony.
'
Mr. Morrow commented that he thought that would be agreeable with the
new owner, who is present, since hE hid discussed plantings with him.
He noted that the new owner also has a loss of privacy from his kitchen
area. '
Mr. Carine stated that he had seen·th~ landscaping plans that the new
Owner, Mr. Nederveld has, but he would like to see something planted in
the near future.
The proposed landscaping was discuSse~ by Mr. Nederville, the new owner,
and he stated that it was in agreemen~ with what Mr. Carine was request-
ing. He added that the drawings will, be completed soon.
Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Crowther moved to approv~ V-·549, subject to the condition
that suitable plantings be established as shown in Mr. Carine's exhibit
(Exhibit "D") within 30 days, and maiHtained along the fence line to
shield· the neighboring property. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the
motion, making the findings.
Commissioner Schaefer commented that,:since the person who is supplying
the trees is not the person who isiliying in the home at the time,
she questioned what happened if some of the trees die. It was noted
that the motion included that these p!lantings must be maintained, as a
condition of the variance.
Mr. Hederveld stated that he would·ha~e to get vehicles in and out o'f
the area to construct a retaining walil. He requested that 60 or 90 days
be the timeframe, rather than 30.
Commissioner~Crowther amended his motion to state that the plantings must
be done within 60 days. Commissioner! Zambetti seconded._ the amendment,
and the motion was carried unanimously.
4. V-550 - Ronald Knapp, 20885 Wardell R'oad Request for a variance to
allow an existing corral and ~arn to remain in their present
location which does not meet 'current ordinance setback require-
ments · (50' from any property'!line and 100' from any dwelling
not on the site)..; Continued fr~om May"l'3, 19·81·
Staff explained that this item had be~en continued from the last meeting,
at which time Mr. Hall indicated tl~at~ the existing corral structure
encroached into a 30 ft. easement.' lit was noted that both the Staff and
Deputy City Attorney have reviewed!thee ·documents pertaining to this
easement. Staff indicated that, if t!he ·Commission approves the variance,
Staff is recommending that the corral' be relocated to be completely out-
side the 30 ft. wide easement area.
It was reported·by Staff that they:h~d rechecked Mr. Knapp~s calculations
on the map, and it had been found tha~t the corral itself encroaches
into the easement about 7½ feet, not i2½ ft. as indicated by the applicant's.
drawing. Staff also indicated that M·r: and Mrs. Moon had requested an
inspection by the Environmental Healt~h Services of the County, and they
have submitted methods of cleaning'a~d containing the horse waste so it
would not have adverse impacts. Staff explained· that the County Sani-
tarian had not detected any particular odor problem when they visited
the site; the animal was not on-site :at that time and there had been only
one manure pile near the barn. ·Ho~e°~er, they feel there could be problems
in the future.
Planning Commission Page 3
Meeting Minutes 5/27/81
V-550 (cont.)
The public hearing was opened at 8:'00 p.m.
Ronald Knapp, the applicant, discusZSed the issues of the easement and
sanitation. He stated that he feels an agreement could be worked out
with Mr. Hall regarding the easemen.t, as they have done in the past on
various items. He discussed how he. had measured the calculations on
his map. Mr. Knapp stated that his attorney has advised him that the
easement is for Mr. Hall and two other families' ingress and egress,
but it is not an easement that gives full 'rights to the property. He
added that the attorney maintains!_'~a~ there should be no reason to
move'the corral fence at this time,. since it does not in any way weaken
the easement of the Halls; it does not interfere with the egress and
ingress, and certainly an agreementZ to move it if and when the roadway
is ever widened should be acceptable. Mr. Knapp stated that his
attorney's biggest concern is the allegation inthe Staff Report that
the roadway should be construed as .a potential street because it is a
30 ft. easement and that the setbacks should be measured from that.
He explained that that interpretati'on should be left to.b'~.'.'~0~"rk~...gufLb~"-
Mr. Hall and himsdlf and/or through: the courts. He alsome~ion~"~he
fact that the report states that th:e easement should be subtracted from
the acreage in figuring the land area. Mr. Knapp requested that both
of these statements be deleted from' the Staff Report. He reported that
his attorney was not present at theZ meeting.
Chuck Moon, 12651 Arroyo de Arguell.o,.submitted a copy of the letter
from the Health Department, a letter from his pool service, and a draw-
i'ng. He stated ~hat he had also measured the setbacks and easements,
and he concurred with the measurements of Staff. Mr. Moon commented
that, when the easements..are subtracted, Mr. Knapp has slightly less
.than one-half acre and d'O'~'sn'~t'meet !the ordinance requirements for horses.
· t-.te also indicated that the manure pile is still there. Mr. Moon stated
that if the Commission grants the variance, he would request that the
corral be relocated south from the ~existing barn, and there is adequate
room. He explained that if it were moved it would make a significant
difference to them because the wind~ comes primarily from the-north.
Mr. Moon described the' location of the other neighbors.
Mr. Marshall Hall addressed the Commission, pointing out that the ordi-
nance states that you need 40,000 sq. ft. for a horse, and he feels the
Knapps only have a little over 30,000 sq. ft. of usable area. He
stated that he felt Mr. Knapp's attorney would recognize that you cannot
use the surface of someone else's r.ight-.of-way when calculating the
area. Mr. Hall indicated that there are two property lines in question,
the line dividing the right-of-way 'from the balance of the Knapp property
and the line defining the subdivision. He stated that the corral does
not clear either one of those lines. by 50 ft. Mr. Hall gave the history
of the barn and corral. He commented that if the City grants this vari-
ance conditionally with requirements that it be cleaned every three
days and watered down, etc., it will create an impossible policing situa-
tion for the Staff.
Mr.' Knapp commented that they do have the original horse permit that did
not have any requirement to move the corral when the land was subdivided.
He added that it indicated that they were in full compliance, and he has
a building permit on the barn which shows where the easement is. The
easement was discussed, and Mr. Knapp added that he would be glad to plant
some trees along the site. He also noted that both the Code Enforcement
Officer and the Building Inspector have commented on how neat and clean
the area was. He commented that their pool is totally removed from the
barn area; however, they' still have a tremendous dust problem in the pool
area.
The Deputy City Attorney discussed :the easement. He stated that he did
not agree with Mr. Knapp's counsel that the City~s recognition of that
easement constitutes some form of c'ondemnation. He explained that the
definition of streets in the City'sZ ordinance includes private easements.
There is an easement of record which has been acknowledged by the parties
and apparently there is no claim th'at such easement has been'in any way
relinquished or abandoned, even though the entire area of the easement
has not been used. He stated that .there has been no interference with
- 3 -
i~lanning Commission ~. Page 4
Meeting Minutes 5/27/81
V-550 (cOnt.)
the rights established under that easement, and he would take the posi-
tion for the City that there is a 30 ft. easement as a matter of record;
the parties have acknowledged the existence of that easement at various
times subsequent to the creation of~ the easement; therefore, we would
also view that 30 ft. easement as establishing the width.
Chairman Laden stated that she would like the Deputy City Attorney to
take the input of Mr. Knapp's attorney and Mr. Hall's interpretation and
give the Commission his written opinion as to those items. The Deputy
City Attorney asked the applid'ant to have his counsel address a letter
to the City or City Attorney's office, outlining what his position is,
and he will respond to that.
Commi'ssioner Crowther stated that he felt the Deputy City .Attorney has
clarified that the statements in the Staff Report regarding the ease-
ment are consistent with the Ordinance. He added that his only question
would be whether it is feasible to do what Mr. Knapp suggests, which is
to grant the variance conditionally: on the basis that, if for some reason
in the future the full width of easement is needed, the corral would be
moved.
The Deputy City Attorney stated that he would prefer not to put that in
as a condition unless there is some agreement between the owners which
is a matter of public record. He explained that, while the 'condition is
known now and it is understood that t|~e corral would be moved as time
"'.7'g~0~s. by',~th~S~'.~thing~.s'om~t'~.~"~get!'los~ in the process. He added that
he feels Mr. Hall has'a point that,! once you allow something over the
easement, unless it is a matter of public record, you run the risk of
infringing on that easement. The only way it could be workable is if
there was some document acknowledge'd by Mr. Knapp made a matter of public
record, so that subsequent owners wbuld be aware of the easement, and
the fact that the structure within .the area would not negate the easement.
The Deputy City Attorney clarified 'that he was referring to something
recorded in the Office of the Recorder for Santa Clara County; however,
his preference would be that, if th'e variance is to be granted, we try
to keep clear of the easement if at. all possible.
The Deputy City Attorney also stated, when questioned whether the Com-
mission could require that the corral be moved back 50 ft. even if it
wasn't mentioned in the original approval, that he did not. think the
Commission is bound by particular p~rovisions in the license. The license
says that ~t is subject to all applicable laws of the City of Saratoga,
and we have already determined that. a variance is required with respect
to other areas; therefore, you can .impose conditions if the variance is
to be granted.
The Deputy City Attorney was also requested to submit his opinion on
the following questions: (1) Do we .subtract all easements from the
site, even though the Knapps are in! fact paying taxes on this land?
(2) Has there been any modification. to the ordinance since the applicant
made application, say, in the last 10 years? (3) The City's liability
relative to the building-'permit whi'ch shows setbacks that were approved,
and then permitting a neighboring s.ubdivision with the particular layout
of the homes.
It was suggested that possibly the =Knapps and Moons could get together
and discuss some of the conditions that might allow the variance, using
the suggestions in the letter from 'the Health Department. Mr. Knapp
stated that he had offered to put s'ome fast growing large shrubs or small
trees along that property line which would screen out flies and dust and
possibly odor. He stated that he a'lso had offered to relocate the corral
to the other side of the barn. Mr. Knapp commented that he would try to
discuss these solutions with the Moons. It was pointed out that one of
the recommendations from the Health~ Inspector had been to redesign the
manure bin, and Mr. Knapp was asked to consider thi. s.
It was directed that this item be continued to the June 24, 1981 meeting.
Break - 9:10 9:22 p.m.
4
Planning Commission Page 5
Meeting Minutes 5/27/81
5. UP'-494 - Donald Vadnais, Request for a Use Permit to allow construction
· 'of a detached garage and sho~p over 6' in height to be located
in the required rear yard (1' from side yard property line, 4'
from rear property line), at 20603 Carni'el 'Avenue
Staff described the proposal and stated that they were requesting that the
applicant maintain the 6 ft. side and~ rear setbacks.
The public hearing was opened at 9:25 p.m.
Mr. Vadnais, the applicant, stated t~at he would like to build the new
structure where the old structure is i which is approximately a 3 ft.
setback for back and side. He explained that when he bought the place
be thought the structure had been built with a permit and that he could
replace it with an approved building without any problem. He stated that
with the 3 ft. setback it would make .an easier turnaround area in the back.
Mr. Vadnais commented that the proposal is agreeable with his neighbor,
and he stated that there would not be an aesthetic disruption, since there
are trees around the corner that shield. He also commented that th.e houses
on the two lots just behind are set On the front of the lots and there is
quite a distance between the those homes and the new structure.
DiscussiOn followed on the setbacks.: It was noted that. t|~ fact '~]~t=' ther'e~'=
~'~.~"j~'~'b~i'!'d'~Fn'g"~'~_.~H~., east is important from the standpoint of fire pro-
tection. Commissioner Schaefer commented that if all illegal structures
are allowed to be replaced, it encourages people to build them. Mr. Vadnais
stated that if it encroached on any privacy he would agree, but he does not
think that any other structure will be back there.
CommisSioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Zambetti
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
It was the consensus of the COmmission that the 6 ft. setback should be
maintained for consistency. Commissioner .King moved to approve UP-494,
per the Staff Report dated May 20, 1981, subject to the condition of a'
revised site plan reflecting the 6 ft. setback and a larger turnaround,
and. a landscaping plan, showing how i~t will. be screened from adjacent
pro[~erties, being submitted; making ~he. findings. Commissioner Crowtber
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The applicant was
informed of the 10-day appeal period.
6. UP-495 Jack Plato, Request for a i~Se Permit to allow construction of a
detached solar accessory structure over 6' in height (10' max.)
in the required 'rear yard which would maintain a minimum 12'
setback where 25' is required, at 19405 Bainter Avenue
Staff described the proposal. They commented that this was the best loca-
tion in terms of solar orientation and they feel it would be consistent
with the City policy of encouraging solar uti-.~ization.
The public hearing was opened at 9:40 p.m.
The applicant described the solar system and his proposal.
Mrs. Donald Bacci, 19261 Citrus Lane, stated that they. live immediately
behind whjere th~ panels will be placed. She explained that Dr. McLaughlin
had put up his solar panels the first of the year and it is like living
in an industrial area. Mrs. Bacci commented that their liv~.ng part o~F the
back yard and house is directly behind where Mr. Plato would like to put
his solar system. She stated she felt that if someone wants to put in a
solar system, they should also be willing to look at it, rather than the
neigbbors. She indicated that their ',yard i.s 'not screened to the back,
since they wanted a rural feeling. Mrs. Bacci questioned why the panels
have to go directly behind the only ~ard that is open and not .screened.
.The location of the homes in the area and the panels were discussed.
The possibility of additional landscaping was discussed. Commissioner
Bolge'r commented that he felt Mrs. Bacci was asking the Commission to
investigate oth. er sites on ~his particular property, to see whether or not
it might accomplish the applicant's needs as well as not impact the
neighbors.
Staff indicated that other locations ,on the site might be subject to shading
- 5 -
P~anning Commission Page 6
Meeting Minutes 5/27/81
UP-495 (cont.)
by evergreen trees. Commissioner Bo~ger suggested the eastern wing of
the house along the corral area as an alternate location. Commissioner
Laden suggested planting heavy shrubbery~adjacent to the panels on the
applicant's property, which would provide some screening of the panels
and would also not affect the 'sun coming in if they we're just as high
as the panels. She commented that this would not impact the Baccis'
view but would essentially provide some kind of curtain to the side of
the panels. Mrs. Bacci also noted' that they objected to the view of
the scaffolding involved.
Staff indicated that if the shrubbery was planted to the east it is
unlikely it would have .~n~.'ad~rse'-~di~g"'~mp'~ct'~ They added that if
the shrubbery was low enough it.would not affect th.e Baccis' view. Mrs.
Bacci stated that it still would affect it, since they are lower. She
commented that Mr. McLaughlin's panels have reduced their property value
by one-quarter. She added that she would like the Commissioners to come
and s~tand in her back yard, so they dould visualize the situation.
The possible landscaping was discussed with the applicant, and he stated
that he would be happy to plant anything the Commission requested. Com-
missioner King encouraged Mr. Plato to discuss the planting with Mr.
McL~ughlin, and. possiblly the problem concerning his panels could also be
solved.
Commis s i one r Cr0Q~i~'~'~ .~o. Ved '6'o:."-~ r$'v'e'j'v = ~"~.' ;:'.~']~jd~.:"'E'x~'il~l"ts" "j~'~'.: a~h. '~'C" .'~ub j ect
to the condition that there be screening planrings placed to the east,
which will-require Staff review and approval. Commissioner King seconded
the motion.
Commissioner Bolger indicated that he felt Mrs. Bacci's statement about
the fact that, if you are going to have the benefit of solar, you should
look at it as well. He stated that he would notbe voting for-the
variance, since he feels there are other alternatives.
Commissioner Schaefer stated that she would like the panels moved so that
it would be within the setback, and a use permit would not be necessary.
However, she added, she could understand:'.the reason for not putting it
closer to the house because the shade factor is very major. Staff pointed
out that, by using a use permit, the Commission can add mitigating measures
which you could not otherwise.
The vot&-was"taken on the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner
Bolger dissenting. Chairman Laden noted the 10-day appeal period.
7. Consideration of a Text Amendment to,the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to
Design Review (GF-.331)
Staff stated that the present ordinance does not have any criteria by
which the Commission can evaluate prgjec'ts. They reported that a sub-
committee had been set up to work on. the modification of the ordinance
prior to it coming to the. Commission. Staff noted major changes of
(1) inclusion of major additions of interior space, and (2) standards for
development of residential str. uctures.
The public hearing was opened at 10:15 p.m.
Discussion followed on the floor 'area ratio. It was determined that the
numerator should be changed to read: "Footprint plus any additional
storage usable space"
The possibility of an Architectural Review committee being utilized was
discussed, which could view the homes along with Staff. Ch. ai'rman'L~d~n-
commented that she felt the ordinanc& should have 'a trial period, and
the.n'it could be determined if there.was a need' for an Architectural
Review Committee. Commissioner King:commented that the Commission has
wasted time because of lack of any definitive 'criteria. He felt that
the existing small Architectural Review Committee has not been properly
utili~gan Commissioner Schaefer agr&ed that the Committee should be used
more .
Commissioner Zambetti questioned the. fact that an addition of 800 sq.-ft.""-
-.....- ................ ~ .......... : ........ :.~,..:-- .... ~.-.... .... ~.- ..... - .......
'Planning Commission Page 7
Meeting Minutes 5/2.7/81 "'
Design Review (cont.)
would require a public hearing, since he feels that it i~ qdi~Z~."~.~"t~iat~ve.
He stated that he felt it should be based on a sliding s'Cale for the
zoning districts or completely eliminate 'it and use the over 50% expan-
sion policy currently existing. Discussion followed, and. it was deter-
mined that it should read that a major addition would be anything that
exceeds the allowable floor area ratio.
Considerable discussion was held on.the length of time the approval for
'the design review application.wOuld'remain in effect. It was determined
that it should be consistent with ~he' length of time 'applied to tentative
maps, which is an approval for 18 months', plus two 1 yea'r extensions from
the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Crowther expressed his:concern that a 30 ft height in many
cases is too high. He suggested adding to the setback as the st'~ucture
is increased in height. Chairman Laden requested that he submit a diagram
showing. the architectural result of. that idea, and it can be studied at
the next Committee-of-the-Whole. COmmissioner Monia' also noted that he
would like to further discuss the p~rcentage mentioned with regard:.to the
need for a variance.
It was directed that this item be continued to the study session on June 2,
1981, at which times the above subjects can be' discussed. This matter
will be agendized for the regular m~eting of June 10, 1981.
DESIGN REVIEW
8a. Negative Declaration A-769 Loyd~ Paradise
8b. A-769 - Loyde Paradise, Mendelsohn Lane, Two-Story, Single-Family Resi-
dence, Final Design Review ApproVal'
Chairman Laden reported that 'this item would be continued to an on-site
visit on June 16, 1981 at 4:30 p.m.~and the 'regular meeting on June 24,
1981. :
MI'SCELLANEOUS
9. Referral of the Specific Plan from the Cit'y 'Council
Staff submitted copies of the consensus changes from the City Council
on the Specific Plan. .They explained that these were 'being referred
back to the Commission for their report, which is required by the GoVern-
ment Code from the Planning Commission, indicating their review of the
changes made by the City Council.
The major changes were discussed. Regarding the Density Policies,
Commissioner Crowther stated that h'e was concerned about condominiums
in the hills and moved to request the Council to change the words back
to "single-family detached" in Item 1 on page 3. Commissioner Bolger
seconded the motion, which was carr=ied, with Commissioners Laden and
Schaefer dissenting and Commissioners King and. Zambetti abstaining.
Concern was expressed over the potentially restrictive impact of the
County Lands Policies. Concerning ~the Protection of the Ridgelines,
Commissioner Schaefer expressed str'ong disagreement with the phrasing
of protecting all of the ridgelines., to the point where, when it is the
only stable ground, there will be no building on it. Regarding the
Horse and Trail Policies, there were questions concerning private land-
owners being required to maintain the trails and emergency access roads
allowing pedestrian access. The need for the Agricultural Zoning Poten-
tial was questioned and the implementation was discussed.
'Considerable discussion was held on~ Circulation. Commissi'oner Laden
stated that there had previously be~en a.majority'feeling that the Council
should seriously consider taking full r~ghts--of-way and easements for
the roads, even if they are only going to be devel'oped as emergency
access. She 'commented that she 'per~sonally would like to suggest that
the City Council reconsider taking ~a public road width right-of-way
around the emergency access roads. Commissioner Crowther stated that
he would then be concerned that roads would go through that are not wanted
7
Planning Commission Page 8
Meeting Minutes 5/27/81 ;~
Specific Plan
by the residents. Commissioner Zambetti commented that he has always
wanted. through roads in the hillside areas because of public safety..
Commissioner Crowther moved to requesFt the City Council to add a statement
to the effect that there shall be no additional through roads considered
which are not indicated' in the policy. Commissioner Bolger seconded the
motion, which failed, with Commissioners Laden, Schaefer', King and Zambetti
dissenting.
Discussion followed on'the first Pier'ce Road Policy, and Commissioner
Crowther suggested to modify this policy on page 40 to read: "Collect fees
on a per lot basis of those 'n~wly created lots' to establish a fund for
improving Pierce Road in a manner that would not significantly alter its
character .... ". There was a consensus to request this modification to the
Council.
CommisSioner King moved to request the City Council to reconsider the
entire subject of circulation, particularly with concerns to the public
safety and lack of circulation. as being potentially very dangerous in the
hillside area. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried,
with Commissioners Bolger and Crowthe. r dissenting.
COMMUNICATIONS
Oral
1. Chairman Laden thanked Mayor Callon and the Good Government Group
for attending the meeting and serving coffee.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Schaefer moved, seconded by'Commissioner' King, to adjourn the
meeting. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meet'ing was adjourned at
].].:58 p.m.
ReSpectfully submitted,
RSR:.cd