HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-17-1981 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: Tuesday, November 17, 1981 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council'Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther,: King, Laden and Schaefer (Commissioner
Schaefer arrived at ?: 40 p .m. )
Absent: Commissioners Monia and Zambetti
Minutes
Commissioner Bolger moved, seconded by Co:mmissioner Laden, to waive the read-
ing of the minutes of October 20, 1981 and approve as distributed. The motion
was carried, with Commissioners Crowther 'and King a|Sstaining since they were
not present at the meeting.
The following was added to the minutes of October 28, 1981, under SDR-1503 on
page 4: Mr. Held was asked about the hot=.el foundation elevation of 368 ft.,
shown in the exhibit, said elevation being below the 1% flood elevation shown
on the map for the Johnston property across the creek. Mr. Held indicated
that this e].evation in the 'exhibit was incorrect and should be 468 ft. Mr.
Held was asked if all of the elevations 'o'f the parking lot and the hotel were
above the 100-year flood elevation, and ~e replied that all elevations were
above the level' of the 100-year flood. With this addition, Commissioner King
moved to waive ._the reading of the minutes' of October 28, 1981 and approve..as
:n~.6~:i'~fl~a~ ......Co~misS':ii0'~'~r'~C~ox~/'th~"sehb'~de~"t~i'e "'~o'{'i'0'n' wh'i'~h"waS ca~ri. ed ".
'~ith Commi'ssioner Laden abstaining sxnce :she was not present at the meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A-799 and the Consistency of the 1981-82 :Capital Improvement Program were
removed. for discussion. Commissioner King moved to approve the balance of the
Consent Calendar listed below'. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which
was carried unanimously.
1. A-791 Hal Johnston, Argonaut Shopping Center, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road,
Final Design Review Approval for Sign; continued from October 28,
1981 ' '
3. SDR-.].409. David Ritter, Belnap Drive, I ].or, Request for One-Year Exten-
si'on of Contract for Improvement Agreement
4. Mr. C. Lindseth, 18620 Vessing Road, 'Modification to Site Development Plan
for Pool ........
5. Joel Koreitz, 13630 Surrey Lane, Modi'fication to Site Development Plan for
Pool
Discussion folloWed on 'A-79'9 Wi'lson De'~elopmen't Corporation, CUnningham Place
(Saratoga-Sunnyv'ale 'Roa'~y, four (.4) S'ingl'e-F'a. mily Res{~nces, Fina. 1 Design
Review Amp'royal. Chairman Laden abstained 'from the discussion on this matter
because oF her involvement in this company. Staff described the proposal.
Commissioner King gave a 'history of the project and bored previous issues
of concern in this area, such 'as privacy ~for the 'adjacent homeowners and the
condition of single-.story homes. I-.Ie also discussed the unusual shape of the
street entering the 'development and the existing turnaround bulb.
Staff commented that there was an Addendum which lists the reduction in Size of
the structures on Lots A and D and the increase in size of the structures on
Lots B and C. They' pointed out that this does 'not change the 'floor area ratio
status. They also noted that the roof he'].ght on .Lot D wi].l be lowered from
20 ft. to 18 ft.
Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve A-,799, per the Staff Report, the Addendum
and Exhibits "B", "C-.I", "C-2", "C-3" and "C-4". Commissioner Bolger seconded
the motion, which was carried, with Commi'ssioner Laden abstaining.
]~.~.ann~ng Commission Page 2
Meeting Minutes 11/17/81
Th.e' Ca'pit'al .Imp'ro'veme'nt Program was discussed, and Commissioner Crowther
expressed concern regardin~ the'inconsistency between the amounts listed
for' the acquisition of E1 Quito Park on page 1 and the last page. He com-
mented that th'.e 'amount 'of $320,000 is list'ed on page 1 and $1 million is
listed on the' 'last' page. He also noted that the General Plan for Area F
does not mention anything about 'El Quito Park.
Staff Stated that it was their understanding that the Council has indicated
the in. tent to .acquire E1 Quito Park, and that is indicated in the cost break-.
down on page '1. They' explained' that, regardi.ng.the '$1 million figure, this
may be 'a ph.as. ing situation and the intent is 'to use additional state park
bonds as they be'Come availabIe .on an annual basis.
Commissioner Crowther state'd th~Zt he found that there was insufficient informa-
tion to judge if the 'program i~' consistent with the General Plan, not only
on that item but on other's~. Staff explained that the items on the' last page
are not included in the cur'rent proposed program but are items that might be
d. one in the 'future. Staff added tha't perhaps 'the last page and its effect
should not be 'considered with 'the' balanc~ of the projects that are being pro-
pose'd to be funded this year.~Whi.ch appear.to be inconsistent with the General
Plan.
Commissi'on'e'r Crowther indicated that he ~ould not approve the' program as being
consisten't with the General Plan without deleting the last page, because those
i. tems in particular are areas where there isn't sufficient information.
Chairman Laden stated' that she did not s'hare his concern because she feels
that the 'last page is a list of future anticipated or perhaps projected areas
for study, and she does not see 'that having any adverse effect on the General
Plan and does not feel it is inconsistent with it.
Commissioner' Schaefer moved to rec'ommend to the City Council that the Planning
Commission finds the 1981-82 Capital Improv'ement Program consistent w~th the
General Plan. Commissioner K.ino seconded the. moti'on Commi~ssioner Crowther
moved to amend the mot.~on to 'd~lete the 'final page on future Capital Improve-
ment Programs. Commissi'oner' Bolger seconded the motion. The Deputy City
Attorney clarified that the' Specific Plan is in place;.therefore, the recom-
mendation should be that the Co'mmission finds th.is to be consistent with the
1974 General Plan as 'supplemented by the Specific Plan. The vote was taken
on the amended motion, which failed,.with Commissioners Schaefer, Laden and
King dissenting. The vote was. then taken on the motion to recommend...that the
Commission finds consi'stency between the'current General Plan and the pro-
posed Capital Improvement Program, as presented in the 'document before the
Commission. The motion was carried, with Commissioners Bolger and Crowther
dissenting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
'7. UP-.510 -~ Moreland School District, Request for a Use Permit to allow a
new master leasee (.One World Montessori) and sub-leasees
(.Religious Science of Mind,~Pacific Academy, Sunburst Day Care,
Developmental Learning Associates, Inc., Dance Plus, Fitness
Unlimited and Karate) to occupy the Brookview Elementary School
si't'e' at"123'01' Ra'doyka' Dri'Ve'; 'c'onti'n~ed fr'om October 20, 1981
The present 'proposal was 'described b~ Staff, who explained that this
applicati'on had been before th.e Commission at study sessions. They
commented that they were recommending approval, with deletion of some of
the uses. which ~do not comply with th~ ordinance. They explained that
profit-.making institutions' and schoo~ are not permitted on public properties,
per the ordinance. The~ added' that ~he 'applicant has submitted a copy of
their lease and certification from the State, certifying them as a non-
profit organizati'on. Discussion' fol.lowed on the possibility of changing
the ordinance, amending the text to 'allow different uses in the R-1 dis-
trict under a conditional use permit~. Staff suggested that the Commis-
sion could approve the uses that. are currently allowed and the applicant
could reapply o.r modify the use permit if the ordinance were amended..
The Deputy City Attorney clarified' ti~at the non-conforming uses have a
right' to appeal to the. City Council,. and at that point they might request
the 'City Council to initiate immediate action for amendment of the exist-
ing ordinance, should they ~esire to do so, and in t~e meantime perhaps
an interim emerge. ncy ordinance could. be adopted.
~!anning Commission Page 3
Meeting Minutes 11/1.7/81
UP-.5'10 (cont.)
Commissioner' Crowther stated that he .was concerned that this situation
has gone on as 'long as it has and has"created a problem, because he
feels it could influence 'the 'cOmmunity"s 'deCision on whether Our school
sites 'sl~ould be ke~t open for recrea'tional ooen space 'needs of the communi-
ty or let' them develop at 'a relativeljy hi'gh aensity. He added that he
personally does' not fee'l' the"ordinances"are strong enough 'in this area.
He indicated that he does' not 'think i:t was 'ever the 'intent that school
sites would be used for purposes"that are 'more intense 'than their use as
a school. Commissioner Crowther handed out a draft that he would ulti-
mately like 'to see' in the form of an ~ordinance, listing conditions that
he felt should be 'made part of this use 'permit.
The oubl'ic hearing wa's opened at '8:10 p.m.
Warren JacobSen, representing the applicant, stated that 'he feels 'the
code, under Article 16, allows. that a use permit could be granted .f6r the
other uses. He pointed out that the:schOol site is still primarily being
used for education and provides community uses. The 'conditions in the
Staff Report were discussed by Mr. jacobsen, specifically those limiting
the number of students and the additional. paving for parking spaces. Fie
also indicated that he would provide the Commission a list of the officers
of One World Montessori and stated that he had submitted a copy of the
document given to the State, showing that they were a non-profit organiza-
tion.
The traffic probl'em was discussed. Commissioner Bolger pointed out that
Mr. Jacobs'en had asked to intensify the use of this site further; yet he
had agreed that there 'is a traffic problem already. Mr. Jacobsen stated
that it was a problem of economics. .The possibility of busing was brought
· up, and B~r. Jacobsen indicated that he thought that busing would not be
possible, since they do aot 'have the 'resOurces' to buy busses; he stated
that they had asked their'people using the si. te to carDool as much as possi-
ble.
The Deputy City Attorney discussed Article 16 of the code, stating that
he did not view it as expanding the scope of use 9ermits under Section 3.
He explained that what it provides is that the Commission may grant use
permits for conditional uses as are 'preScribed in the district regulations.
He added that the 'Planning Commission has the power under the use p~rmit
t~..grant variations in terms of..a~e'a'!den~ity and"s~'r~'~tu~e height; it '~0es"-
npt....~a~e use per se but relates to physical characteristics of the use.
Commissioner Schaefer stat'ed that she f~els very strongly that ~rogram's i~ke
"~eV~i'00men'~al 'E~a.'rn'i~" Assbd~i'~t~""~r~._badl~; ~'e'ed'~'d '~7'~ 'tt~'s area"; '-i ~ iS edti+
· ."~"""aur'~-~'~' ~He' ~av she added' that ch.i'ld care is ai-so badly needed
Lawrence Green, Executive DireCtor of Develoomental Learning Associates,
addressed the issue 'of traffic, stating that he did not feel that problem
wou].d be 'solved if the non-.complying.uses were replaced with other uses.
He i.ndicated' that he felt the issues were really traffic and zoning. Mr.
Green commented that he' feels there is a real need in this community for
this type 'of organization. He stated that if the non-compliance becomes
an issue, then h'e would recommend that the Commission at least examine the
possibility of reconsidering the zoning.
Paul Gilovich stated that he 'lives at the torner of Radoyka and Kosich.
He commen'ted that he did not see how the'M6.f~l_and"'SChoo~""Dist'rict could
sublease to anyone else other than the Montessori School, since their
lease agreement b~ly':'lists that school. The"Dep'uty City .Attorney stated
that the 'City is not a party to the contract. He explained that what is
being dealt wi'th here is the 'use per'mit 'and the ordinances oursuant to
which it is issued, and if it is denied, it will not be on the basis of
some interpretation of the lease. He added that, even though the school
district is in effect a oublic body,'the 'City is not going to make its
d. eter'minations dependent on how the school board leases out its property.
The Deputy City Attorney commented that he did not see' any real conflict,
because the' school district is also' saying that Lt is required to be used
for school purposes' and non--profit organizationS.
Mr. Gilovich indicated that most of the traffic is in the morning, evening,
and on Sunday morning. Chairman Laden commented that the Commission has
- 3 -
Rlanning Commission Page 4
~.~.eeti'ng Minut-es '11/17/81 "
UP - 5 10 (cont.)
been considering studying the option of addressing school use 'perhaps by
students per square foot, and. that souare footage of student occupation
can only happen once a day'. Mr. Gilovich 'indicated that he 'felt that
w. ould help th'e traffic situation, and he discussed the safety situation
on his corner.
Commissi'oner' Bol'ger oointed out that,' if the use' permit were 'denied, it
wo'uld perhaps 'hasten" the School Distr'ict to dispose' of this property.
FIe added that, under' the present zoning, between s0-~60 ho'mes could be
built in this particular area and it would seem that the traffic oattern
would be about 'the same. Mr'. Gilovich stated that 'he Would prefer the homes
there, since he felt that' th.e hOmeown~ers wo'uld pay more attention to the
area.
Bill' Tulty, from Dance Plus, stated t. hat the money that One World Montessori
is paying to the SchOol District i~ olffsetting the expense 'to all of the
taxpayers in the County and State. lie added that the people who' use Dance
Plus are 'frOm Ithis community.
commissioner King moved to close the ~Dublic hearing. Commissioner Bolger
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Chairman Laden commented that she felt all of the Commissioners have deep'
concern for this situation and feel that there are many schools and
activities going on on this site that are very beneficial to the community.
However, she added, the 'Commission also has concern about maintaining the
ordinances as they are written.
Commissioner Crowther expressed· concern about adding additional parking
to the site when there is already concern about traffic. He stated that
he would like to change Condition 3 to read that use of the site shall be
such as to not require any off-site parking.
Commiss~ion·er King expressed his concern that the One World Montessori School
has taken the full responsibility for the management of this site. He
stated that it is difficult to see where the 'applicants themselves are
dealing with ·the commercial aspects of many of these things. He added
that there is a possibility that this site may be boarded up in June,
and possibly the ·Commission could consider a timeframe regarding this
application.
Commissioner Bolger stated that he 'agreed with ..Mr. Green, in that there
are a number of services that are bei. ng nrovided to this community, whether
they be prof·~it or none-profit making; .that really has very little bearing.
He commented that he would like the Commission to st·Udy the ordinance in
the future. Commissioner Bolger agreed with ·Commissioner King's feeling
that there has ·been a lack of policing on this site·.· HoweVer, he added,
he feels these services are very mucli needed in this community, and he
would like ·to see· ·the leasee and the neighborhood get together and achieve
a satisfactory solution.
Commissioner Crowther stated that he 'felt the Commission should try to be
consistent, and he recalled another ~chool site where the use of the site
was restricted to no later than 6:00 p.m., with only infrequent use in the
evenings. He ·added that he felt that same condition should be placed on
this site. He indicated· that he strongly opposes use on the weekends
because that extends it beyond the normal use of the school. Commissioner
Crowther indicated that he~·fel·t that ·there ·should be general criteria that
reflect on the nei'ghborhood's concerns and put th·ose in as conditions,
which would achieve the objective.·
The concept of regulating the use· ·to ·that wh·ich would approximate the· use
of an elementary school· was discuss·ed. Chairman Laden commented that she
feels the ordinance i·s very clear and she has a nroblem putting conditions
on particular act·ivities and businesses that ·do hot meet· the· ordinance.
She added that, if the· Commission wi·sh·es· the or·dinance changed, they should
ask the· ·City Council to' do that. She indicated that it was her personal
o~inion· that the· 'Commission has to meet· the· ordinance and then condition
t~.e us e.
The conditions of the· Staff Report we·r·e discussed, and there was a consen-
sus on th·e following:
- 4 -
,Fla~ing Commission Page S
M~eting Minutes '11/1.7/81
UP-.510 (cont.)
Condition No. 1 sh.ould read: "The maximum number of students occupying
the site per' day sh'all .not exceed' the. si'te's 'capacity as an elementary
sch0ol.'7
Condition No. 3 sh'all read: "Parking 's. hall be restricted to existing park-
ing spaces 'on site."
Condition No. 4 shall rea'd: "Class'es 'shall not'be. conducted any later than
7:00 p.m.. InfreG'uent evening mee'tings will' be 'allow'ed on site. ~.Veek'end
use is to be"res-trict'e'd."'
Commissioner' King moved' to 'approve UP-,5i0,. per' the' Staff RepOrt as amended,
with 'the condition that 'the non'-complying uses"be 'removed by June 30, 1982.
Commissioner' Sch'aefer seconded the mo. tion. The Deputy City Attorney
clarified' that approval of the 'use"De;rmit would legitimate 'those uses that
are there now, with a direCtive to '~t'aff not to initiate action to in effect
evict those who do not con'form. FIe a. dded that the' use permit would be
granted as to 'those Uses wl~i'ch 'the 'Co'mmissi'on finds to be in compliance,
and those uses wh'ich are not 'are given until June 30, 1982 to find other
premises or effectuate a change in th!e ordinance.
The Vote..was taken on the motion. The motion was carried, with 'Commissioners
Laden and Bolger dissenting. Chairman Laden recommended that the Commis-
sion take the' use of school sites under consideration at a study session,
and they can then recommend a change '~n the ordinance to the City Council.
It was noted that there is a 10-day appeal,.period on the decision.
8a. V-562 -. C. M..Mayo, Request :for a Variance and Design Review Approval to
8b. A-794 -. allow the construction of a 'two-story dwelling which exceeds the
floor area ratio by 18% where 5% is the maximum allowed at 18801
Mon't'ewo'od D'rive; 'continued'from 'Octob'er'28, 1'981 '.'
Chairman Laden explained that this item was before the Commission at the
last me~ting, and it received a sDlit' vote. At that time it was directed
to be continued to this meeting, in order to have a full Commission; how-
ever, there are only five Commissioners present tonight. The Deputy City
Attorney' explained' that the applicant=, under the ordinance, would be
entitled to have this matter heard by a full Commission. He stated that
the applicant could consider the opti'on of having the item continued to a
meeting where there is a full Commiss:ion, or having it considered at this
meeting. After discussion, it was deter'mined that the applicant was not
present at the meeting since he had been told there would not be a full
Commission. It was, therefore, direc:ted that this item be continued to
the December 9, 1981 meeting.
Commissioner Crowther commented that ~he feels that considerations of
neighborhood, visual impact, etc. should be made Dart of the Floor Area
Ratio. lie stated that he is going to' propose a change to the 'ordinance,
where you essentially allow DlUS and ;minus credits or debits that relate
to some of these key issues that have come before the 'Commission.
Break - 9:15 - 9:30 p.m.
9. Consideration of a Revision to the Slope Density Formula in the HCRD
District to 'a 2--10 Acre' Straight L'i'ne Formula ......
Staff gave a description of the revision bei'ng considered and described
the areas propose'd to be affected.
The public hearing was opened at 9:38 p.m.
Bill Heiss, civil engineer, stated that he has no problem with this
revision; ]however', he commented that he felt there was an inconsistency
in the Statement that deals with 40% slope, in that the 40% slope is being
excluded from the' area', but 'on the onset it is 'required' that the '40% slope
be included' in the' area to determine its average slope. He added that the
40% is an arbitrary number' and that 'factor was used when the HCRD Ordi-
nance itself had a 40% limitation on !home sites'. Mr. Heiss explained that,
now that th.e City is going to the Measure A density, they have really
accomDlishe'd that goal~ because there 'will be a muchl'more extreme criteria
.'for the 'density~ He 'added' that, during the Measure 'A deliberations, the
determination was made that you shOul'd not build over a 30% slope, and yet
5
'~.!anH'ing Commissi~on Page 6
Meet'ing Minutes ·11/1·7/81=
Re'vis'i'o'n' tO. HCRD (cont.)
· the Measure iA'-densi·ty determinations did not put any slope removal because
of 'percentages' 'in it.. ~r. Hei'ss 'i.ndicate'd that 'it 'wOuld be' desirable to
have a con'sisten't formula, with 'no li.mitati'on of taking.out the 'over 40%
slope,··bUt including the 'geo·log'ical ·czon·strai·nts.
Staff clarified that in th·e Measure ~ Ordinance onl··y the geological
hazard areas' are deducted.'. They' added that in 1979 the City Council
determined that in the HCRD Ordinance ·the 40% sl·ope 'area would be sub-
tracted.
CommiSsioner Crowther· stated' that in Mea·sure A there is a provision that
says specifically that all lands ·over 40% shall be deduct·ed from the gross
area, but that they shall be included' in the s·l·ope det·er·mination. He
explained that the reason for that w·a·s ·it is very difficult to integrate
contour lines and determine the ·slope' unless you do it over the whole
parcel. He indicated that he believ·e~d that that provisi·on is in the den-
si·ty section of 'the detailed plan.
~r. Heiss commented that the 'copy of lthe Specific Plan he ·has basically
deals with 'the slope categorization from the determination of where th·e
building sites would be located,. not .density. He added that there is a
statement that roads and building sites should be avoided on areas 30%
or greater.
Cliff Beck, civil engineer, supported~Mr. Heiss' statement regarding the
40%. He stated that it seems cumbersome and burdensome to everyone, and
it seems-to have ·a tremendous impact. Mr. Beck also addressed the fact
that there se·ems to be no tho'ught directed towards taking care of the
~roblems of poor road conditions and 'extremely high risk areas for fire
in this area. He 'added that the only! way to take care of these problems
is to encourage people to live there and ~ay for development. Mr. Beck
stated that he feels the· long ter·m efifect is being totally ignored and
he feels there should be some further thought given to studies regarding
economic impact.
Mr. ~amoru Inouye, 15680 Canon Drive, stated that he 'lives about one-fourth
mile south of the City limits in the urban service area~ He explained
that this area has been' zoned for 1 acre and the're are homes on 1-acre
homesites, including the· area that is. being proposed to be included in this
2-10 acre change. He 'stated that he Objects to the pro.posed zOning'on the
basis that it is rather arbitrary and he feels this area should not be
included in thi·s 'change in.density. :
Peter Phipps, 15270 Norton, state'd that he feels that, though it might be
a chore to estimate the area of a lot. which is 40% slope density or greater,
it seems quite unreasonable to consider such areas in housing which is
served by septic tanks. FIe added that he believes that the 40% density
in this case is not inappropriate.
Ginny Carmedy, 15491 Bohl·man Road, agreed totally on the septic tank
problem, especially where there is fracture and. many people are on wells.
She stated that a change in density w~uld help tremendously.
Don Campion, 15280 Bohlman Road, stated that a lot.of the improvements
in that area are made by the people wh·O do develop the 'lots. It was noted
that the number' of lots ·in the ·City that are goin~ to be affected by this
change has not'yet been calculated.
The Deputy City Attorney clarified'that lots of record would not be affected
by 'th·i·s change; they would then become nonconforming lots, He stated that
.this change is mainly directed toward' any future subdivision. Mr. Cam~ion
stated that he considers ·the hi'll area something special, and he feels that
the City should be thinking of keeping the hills for wh'~t they are.
Mr. Hei·ss s~ated that he· did not· mean to infer that there would be building
on the 40% s'lopes'; it is just in the 'computations ·of density that he is
concerned about. He noted that, regarding new s'ubdivision, septic tanks
are not allowed and a true ·publ'i·c wa·te·r· system is required, rather than a
private.'individ~at well system.
Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, c·omplimente·d the Planning Commission on
~ian~ing Commiss'i'on Page 7
~eeting Minutes· i1·/1·7/·8·1
'ReVisi=on' t'o' HCRD (Cont.)
having foresi'ght 'to thi'nk. ahea'd, and sh.'.e feels 'it would be very beneficial.
Chairman Laden stated that s·h·e Would "like ·Commissioner Crowther·'s questions
about the ·SpeCific ·Plan and its final form verified· in further detail=
· It was ·det·er·mined· that this· matter· s]~ould be continued in order to clarify
that point.
The Deputy City· Attorney indica·ted that he had concerns about the language
in the revision and would like 'to clarify th.is wi'th the Commission and
Staff. He ·sta·ted th·~t he ~ould then have ·a revised draft available at the
next meeting.
It was directed· that thi·s matter· be ·Continued· to the December 9, 1981 meet-
ing.
10 GF-326 ~ Amendment to Zoning Ordinance (.Signs) By Providing Open ~ou
Signs.' Said application requests the· Planning Commission to take
acti'on to make· permanent the temporary amendments to Article 10
(S·i·g·ns··) ,' Wh'i'ch 'alloW'e'd' ·oDe·n: 'h~o'u's'e' s'i'gns i'n' re's:id'e'n;t'i'al districts
Staff indicated· that they had received no complaints during this one-year
trial period. They commented that the action tonight is to recommend
deletion of that provision that made this a· one-year ordinance.
The pub. lic hearing was opened at 10:25 p.m.
Pat Krause, representing the Los Gatos-·Saratoga Board of Realtors, dis-
cusse~d the monitoring system that the. y have been using. She stated that
they feel this should be made a permanent· ordinance.
Pat Pope, of the Lo'S Gat_.'os'_-.S~'r~a~g~"'-B'oard of Realtors, stated that she
had been policing the· area. Discussimon followed on th'e open house signs
and also on "For Sale By Owner·'~ signs..
Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Schaefer
seconded the· motion, wh·ich was carrie. d unanimously.
Commissioner King moved to approve Res·olu·tion GF-.326L1A, recommending
the modification to the City Council.' Commissioner Schaefer· seconded the
motion, wh'i'ch Was carried unanimously..
11. UP-511 - J. Teresi, Request for a Use Permit to allow the construction of
32 condominium units on a 2.,53 acre site designated for Planned
DeVelopment in the 1974 Gene:·ral Plan south of the intersection
'df S'arat'oga Ave'nUe and. Buckna'll Road
Chairman Laden noted that the· applicant has reques'teda continuance until
December 9, 1981.
The public hea·ring was opened at 10:20 p.m.
Margaret Russell, 12776 Saratoga Glen' Place, stated that she feels that
the zoning on this prop'erty should revert to its ·original zoning of
R-i-.10,000. She· commented that the excessively high density development
along Saratoga Avenue should not set· a precedent. She added that, since
the seniors would take no position on. the· Lohr request for 10wer·ing the
a·ge limit ·for ownership on the condominiums for seniors~ she assumes that
they have no further need for housing. She commented· that Saratoga Avenue
should have a unified plan wh·ich will enhance the ·area·, since it is the
gateway to the· City.
It wa·s ·directed that this item be ·con.tinued to the December· 9, 1981 meet-
ing.
12a.UP-·513 - Imperial Savings, Request fo'r a Use· Permit ·to allow· ·a financial
12b.'A-762 ~ inst'itution to locate in the. "C--C"' (Community~Commercial) Dis-.~
.... tr'ic't'. at'. 2'0·47'.3- Sa'r'atoga'-'Los 'Ga't'os' ·R·o·ad·,· a'n'd' D'es'ig'n Re'vi'ew' 'ApDroval
Staff gave the history of the project~ 'and the' ·current proposal. They
stated that ·they we·re recommending ap.proval of the use permit and design
review.
- 7 -
· ._p.!annihg Commission Page 8
M~eting Minutes 11/17/81
· UP-.'5'l'.3. 'and' ~-'7'62 (cont.)
The public hea'ring was opened at 10: 2=5 p .m.
Doug Adams, representing the 'applicant, discussed the· proposal and the
addition of the community room. He 'commented tha·t they would like to be
able to use ·the· space shown as the community room in the future if they
need to expand again. The alley' was =discussed, and he· indicated that
they had received' an opinion that it was owned by the 'City at this time,
but tl~e·y· would not get a guaranteed title 'on it until the middle of Janu-
ary.
The Deputy City Attorney' was questioned about the 'question of title of
the alley'. He s't'a'te~ that it is a qu.es'tion of deter'mining if it is a
public street'.' He 'st'ated that one 'option would be' to req'uire that the
applicant arrange for som'e purchase or' at 'lea'st 'a 'license. He added that
if it is 'a ~ublic thoroughfare, then there 'may be 'some responsibility on
the part of the ·City. He ·added· that .if it 'is found that the Ci_~y owns.. ~..,
is an integral part of the overall deyelopment. He commented that, if the
applicant wiSheS to restrict public access, then it is a matter of whether
the applicant wishes to buy that land~ from the City and close it off; he
noted, however, that the applicant's 'circulation plan uses it as a thorough-
fare.
Staff stated that they had been assuming that the portion that traverses
the property in question was part of the site. They stated that if it is
a public thoroughfare, the City may not wish it to become part of this
parking lot. Mr. Adams stated that his copy of the preliminary report
indicates that all of the parking areas shown on the site plan are owned
by' the applicant. .It was noted that Conditions 5 and 8 in the Staff Re~ort
would cover any problems with the' alleyway.
Discussion followed on the bike path in that area. Mr. George Mock, the
architect, commented that CalTrans in~tends to take a portion of the exist-
ing pavement for the path and not any'. part of the ~roperty beyond the road-
way.
Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Schaefer
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
It was determined that the condition .regarding the future use of the commun-
ity not be added at this time; the applicant can return to the Commission
for modification.
Commissioner King moved to a~prove UP'-~513, per the.. Staff R~port dated
November 12 ,. 198~ ~ mSiki~g.. 'tHe f'~'~ing'~.. '7.jdC.o~nmis'S'ioner Sch~ f.e'r s e~on~ed' '
~"the mo~i'6n., .. wh.i~h..~¥as carried unanimously. ""
Commissioner King moved to approve A-762, per the Staff Report dated
November 12, 1981. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was
carried unanimous ly. ~
13a.V-563 - Michael Mauldin, Bohlman Road, Request for a Variance and Design
13b.A-~96 - Review Approval to allow the construction of a single family
dwelling over 30 ' in height (42 ' ~ax)
The Deputy City Attorney explained that this house is proposed to be
constructed upon a portion of the site having a slope in excess of 40%.
He commented that the Subdivision Ordinance per se prohibits construction
on an envelope having a 40% slope, but does give the Planning Commission
discretion to have variances from that. He added that, however, the HCRD
Ordinance is more stringent and contains a prohibition against construc-
tion' on a 40% slope, and there does n~t appear 'to be any provision for
the Commission to depart from that.' He stated that, similarly, a review
of the~ordinance pertaining to the granting of variances, while it refers
to setbacks and heights, etc., does' not refer to slope. The' Deputy City
Attorney stated that apparently thi's site did have a ~rior approval, but
it was based' upon th'e structure be'i'ng' located at a different portion of the
site which had a slope that did not' exceed 40%. He 'added that, as. long as
the' applicant wants to put the home at this particular location on th~ site,
he falls squarely wi'th'in the 'proh'ibition under' the HCRD Ordinance.
P,.]:anni~g Cornmiss ion Page 9
~.~eeting Minutes'. 11/1.7./81
V-563 and A--'796 (cont?)
The Deputy Cit~r Attorney' stated that he' had discussed th.i's with the
applicant's 'attorney, and it is their position that putting the home on
its earlier s'ite actually' caused more 'grading and damage environmen'tally
than its pres'en't 'proposed loc'a'ti'on. He' 'added th'at that may be 'a matter
for this Commission and th'e City. Council to consider' in terms 'of a possible
revision to the HCRD Ordinance. HoweVer, he 'not'ed', this is a situation
where 'the' Commission is dealing wi't!~ th.e ordinance as 'they now read. He
commen'ted th'~t, if the" Commission wer'e to ~eny this application, the appli-
cants could ao~e'al. to the 'City Counci:l, wh'0' mi'g]~t 'want~"t6' ~ither ac~..mf
'~heir~ -~w'n' 'or '.a~ ~t" tb:'e"'YCommis s ion' ~o" 'cons ider' the' 'ordinance per' s e.
Commiss:ioner' C~owthe'r note'd' that Mr'. Cotto'n"s letters on' this are also not
too 'reassuring. He pointed out that the' letter talks 'about it being a very
marginal site, and now' .a different location is bei'ng considered than the
one h.e reviewred.
The oublic hearing wa's opened at 11:10 p.m.
Bob Sch~e'nke, representing the applicants, clarified the location of the
proposed residence in rela. tionsh. ip to the original tentative map. He stated
that the unfortunate part about the 's.lope formula is that, once a footorint
is taken and stretched out over'a longer distance on the countours, it
increases 'the slope percentage. He 'cOmmented that they were asking the
Commission this evening to go ahead and deny this application and give the
Council some direction to clarify this formula. The geology of the site
was discussed. .
Mike Mauldin, the applicant, stated that he had purchased' the 'proDerty with
the tentative mau already approved but no house designed, and they commis-.
sioned Mr. Schwenke 'to desi'gn the' 'sa'f~st house he could on that property
with the least' environmental impact.
Chairman Laden stated that the Commission does not have the authority to
go a'gainst this particular ordinance; however, 'the applicant has the right
to appeal to the City Council, who could then direct some change in the
ordinance if they felt that that was 'appropriate.
Commissioner Crowthe'r commented that he believ'es that oth'er communities
have similar restrictions. He added that generally it is 'considered that the
steeper' the slope, the higher risk you are taking; he would not want to
rec'ommend that the ordinance be changed.
Commissioner Bolger' commented that in this community there are a great
number of hillside lots which have a.n'. approVe.d' tentative map, and then
another person uurchases it, and - ~!~.ey' w~.'nt.'anoth:~r' 'de's':'~.gn .o.n 'the 's. it.e.
He stated that he has a great deal of p'roble'm with that and would like' to
address' that issue at some later date'.
Commissioner King moved' to close 'the public hearing. Commissioner' Schaefer
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
It wa's the consensus of the 'Commissi'on that 'they could not approYe the
modification to the site development plan for SDR-.1'396. Commissioner King
then moved to 'deny .A~796 per the Staff Report. Commissioner .Crowther
seconded the mot'ion, wh'ich was 'carried unanimously.
Commissioner' Crow'ther move~ to deny VL563, per the Staff Report. Commis-
sioner King se'conded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schaefer commented that th.e City Council should rev'iew designs
on areas with. an over 40% slope if they are 'geologically more sound than
another area'. Commissioner Crowther commented that he 'felt that that was
a planning issue, and it should be 'agendized and studied at a study session
'by the Commissi'on.
The 10-.day appeal period wa's noted.
-. Request' 'for a Variance 'to allow 'an addition to an
14. V: 564 M. OudeWaal,
eXist'ing office building to maintain a 7' side yard wh'er'e 17.2'
...... ~s req'u'~red and..to..all'ow' 'a front proper'ty line adjustment..~o
"" 'm'a'i'n't'ain' 'a' '4' 'front' 'y'ar'd' wh'ere' '25"' 'i's' re'quired:,' 'a't' '1'4'3'.7'5' 'S'a'rat'o'ga '.Ave.
Staff described the proposal. They indicated that there are parking spaces
9
Bl~an~ing Commission Page 10
~.~eeti.ng ~Hnutes...11Z/.1.7/81. ~.
V-'564 (cont.)
that would encroach into' .the 'adjacentZ .parcel to the west, which is also
owned by the' applicant.' Sta'ff noted that the Building Site Approval appli-
cati'on will be 'on the 'agenda of Dec'ember 9,. 1981~
The' public hearing was' op'ened' at ll:3Q p.m.
Warren' Hei'd, archi'tec~t, address'ed the 'Commission. It was noted that the
elevations 'submitt'ed' had not' been included in all of' the pack'et's. Mr.
Heid discuss'ed' the elevations and gave 'a .presentation' on the project.
It was thee 'consensus tha't th'ey'~ would like to 'continue thi's matter until
the' Building Site Approval and Design'. ReVie~V 'ap~l'ica'tions 'can be also
cons.~der'ed. Commissioner' Crow'ther' st'ate'.d that .he would like to see the
nei'ghb'o.ring prop'er'ty. in rel'ation'sh'i~ to this 'building. It was directed
that th'i's item be' 'continued to the 'DeCember 9, 1981 meeting.
15. V-565 ~ Dividend Industries (Rodriquez'), Request for a Variance and
A--797 ~. Des"ign Review Approval to allow the construction of a two-story
UP~..5'12 ~ single family dwe'lling which exceeds the floor area ratio by 8%
where 5% is the maximum at ~4578 Carnelian. Glen Court, and a
Use Permit to allow the 'construction of a tennis court which
· wo'u'~'d 'main't'a'in a. 5"' re'a'r 'ya'rd s'e.t'b'ack' where '15' is 'required
Staff described the current proposal. They commented that they could not
make the 'findings for the 'variance or.the use ~ermit. They noted that there
appears to be 'Sufficient room to accommodate the 'tennis court on the site
within th.e' 'required setbacks. ~
The 'public hearing was opened at 11: 45 p .m.
F'Ir. and Mrs. Rodriquez, the applicants, discussed the equestrian pathway
that extends 'above the 'northern portion of their proper'ty. They commented
that the 'corner where 'they are planning to build this home has motor bikes
and trespassers 'on week-.ends, and all.'of the neighbors are very anxious to
have that particular lot developed. ~r. Rodriquez commented that, under
the pres'ent ordinance, none of the' homeowners in that area could build their
present homes. He stated that he believes thi's is a home that would really
add to the cul-.de-.'sac.
Mrs. J. Hoffman, 14571 Horseshoe 'Drive, stated that they live directly
beh'ind the planned' home, and they a~re'e that it is beautiful. They expressed
the'ir concern regarding the 'tennis court, stating that 'they feel it would be
.~ve~noisy. Mrs'. Hoffman indicated' that the mechanics of the creek amplify
sound. She also addressed the issue of the notification method for hearings,
stating that they have not been notified of most of the hearings. Staff
commented that there have been some irregularities in this area, and they
are striving to improve the process.
Peter ~ane, of Dividend Industries, stated that they have coordinated with
the potential buyer of Lot ~2 regarding the Rodriquez' plans. He also
commented that they have provided information from the title insurance
company as to ~he individuals wh'o are property owners, for"the noticing.
Alex ~anacusi .stated that he 'owns the ~roper'tv adjacent to the proposed
development. He indicated that he has looked at.this lot on the corner for
years, with its noise, dunebuggies, etc. He added that he felt it would
be a shame if the ~SrZ~.~'-ho~e could not be built, since it would be an
asset to the whole area.
Larry Cohen, 14542 Carnelian Glen, stated that he is pleased' with the plans
and in favor of the proposal.
Terry Rose, 14595 Carnelian Glen, stated that ~r~ Rodriquez presently lives
directly across the street from him and is an excellent neighbor. He
commented that he has reviewed the 'mlan and it is beautiful and well within
the setback requirements. Mr. Rose ex6ressed' his 'surprise that the City has
a stated policy of res'tricting the size of' houses as to how 'large they c'an
be, and also that they include in that calculation the garage area. He
stated that the 'only nei'ghbor that is '~mpacted by the tennis court is the
one that will eventually be 'adjacent to 'it, and those people are very much
aware 'of the si'tuati'on.
10 -
:'~.ia~'ning Commissi'on Page 11
"4Me'eting Mi'nutes 11/1.7/81
V-5'65',. A'-~'7'97' and UP-5'12 (cont.')
Jim Omsb'e. rg, of' Dividend, stated that he feels the 'plans are beautiful
and would finis'h 'off the' first phase. of the 'su'bdivisi'on and compliment the
street' exceptionally well. He added'. th~at he sees it as a very legitimate
exception to the 'ordinance' 'and the neighbo'rs are 'in favor.
Further discussion followed on the 'e~'.uestrian pathWa'y. _Hr. Rodriquez
stated that it wa's 'liste'd as' an equest'rian pathway on the subdivision
map, not a pedes'trian pathwa'y. Commissioner' .Schaefer expressed' her con-
cern that it be maintained as pedes'trian as well as 'eques'trian. She
commented that it was' 'th.e' inten't of the Parks and Recreation Commission
.that it wa's' equ'es'trian, but 'also' 'that the 'children we're far more important
than any other aspect.' She 'commented' that the-other applicants in this
area had another view 'of~ it. than Mr.~ RodriqueZ, who h~d stated that he
· did not wa'nt trespasse'r's.
The Deputy City Attorney' noted ~hat 'the' easement is designated on the
map as equestrian, but that does not' necessarily exclude pedestrian. It
was pointed out 'that Condition No. 4~ calls for landscape plans for the
easement subject to City review.
Commissioner Bolger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner King'
seconded' the motion', which 'was carried unanimously.
Commissioner' Schaefer stated' that she would like something specific to
show that this is a pedestrian ~athwa'y. Staff commented that, as long as
the pathway is open for equestrians, there would be no way to prohibit
pedestrians from using it.
Commissioner Crowther stated that he'Z has real ~roblems with 'the ordinance
in a case' like this. He commented ~that 'He thi~ks'a.~ange'i~n"'~h~""'0~di-
· .~n ~ '~'~' ~ ~=d~ ~" 'f o ~ ~7-~'e "'~r ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ 'Si' ~e "~'0 ~"' ~=i5'~· ~j~ i c~.- ~ i r c urns ~'~'c ~ S
· s similar in smze 'to home 'in the neighborhood t'hat are on smaller lots.
He stated' that he could make the findings relative to the home size, but
could not make them for the tennis court, since there is neighborhood
.opposition and it could be built without the need for a use'.permit.
Commissioner' Crowther moved to approve V--565, making the' findings with
regard to the variance on the 'floor area ratio. Commissioner Schaefer
seconded the motion.
Commissioner King stated that he would like to discuss the findings further,
since house i_s 700 sq. ft. larger' th,an the' adjacent house. Commissioner
Crowther commented that he feels in 'this case it is not a special ~rivilege
because of specific circumstances in' the 'neighb'orhood where th.ere are homes
that are almost this size that are 'on lots that are 'smaller.
Chairman Laden stated that she would" vote against the motion,' not because
she does' not 'thi'nk the house is appropriate. She_'~lained that she voted
against the ordinance because she feels it
~,rm'i'~'~"'~'~=~~ '~ S'~F~ ""~'u'~ S t'i'~'~ ""'~h'~'~' '~i ~d~ t.v
'S~e ~o~men~ed~th~"~t]~'r'e 'h~'~'~ ~'~'~'n"'~;"'Hu~ber of""~arian'c'e~"' ~"a result of
the ordinance, and she feels this is~ 'an .ex~ensive and time-.consuming process.
She stated that she' could not make the' findings. She added that hopefully
the ordinanc~ will be reviewed so that people in the future won't have to
go through thi's process. She explained that she feels the home is beauti-
ful and fits the neighb'orhood; howe~ver, she feels it would be granting a
special privilege.
Commiss'i'oner' Crowthe'r commented that 'Z.'he.~does not 'feel that the ordinance
is too' restrictive in some cases, i.e., building a twosstory house in
the middle of one-.stories where .the' ~neighbo.rs are opposed. Howe'ver, he
added, the. re are cases like thi's whe.re it ~s not 'appropriate and the
variance should be 'granted. He commented that ~vhen it makes sense the
Commission sh~0uld be able to 'grant a. variance 'to the 'ordinance.
The' v.o~e-~'~'a~s~-'-~ke.~.'j"'~n'~-~h'~'n~otion to =approve V-.565. The motion was carried,
with Comm'i'~'~'i'~n~r's~"'Ki~g ~a Laden di.ssenting.
Commiss"ion'er' Cro~vthe'r moved to approve A-797, per the Staff Report dated
November' 12, 19'81 and Exh. ibi~t B~i, =Commiss'ioner Schaefer' s'e'Conded the
moti'on. Th'e 'Deputy City Atto'rney' cl~arified that the-ea'sement is defined
- 11 -
~'Flanning Commission . Page 12
~eeting Minute's.. 11./1.7/81
V-.5'65, A-.'7'9'7' a'n'd' UP-.5.12 (cont.)
in the' 'map and doesn't really fit into. a design review approval. The
vote 'was taken, and the 'motion w'as 'carried, with 'Commissioners King and
Laden dissenting.
Commissioner' Crowthe'~ moved' to deny UP~.5'12, per' the Staff .Report dated
November' 12, 1981. Commiss'ioner' King se'Conded the' mot'ion', stating that
he coul,a not make the' 'findings 'beCause 'of' th'e' deviation from .required
setbacks and ther'e 'is room' to put 'the 'tennis-'court elsewhere.' The' motion
wa's 'carried unanimousiF.
Commissioner' King pointed ou't 'to th'e neighb'ors that the noise' 'issue is
really not 'before 'th~ Commission; the' l~c'ati'on' of the' 'tennis court is.
Therefore, th'e' tennis 'coUrt can l~ga!ly be built 10 ft. further over.
The 10--da'y appeal per'iod was noted.
DESIGN ~EV.I'E~.V
16. A-798 -. E. J. Cashin (Heid), Blue 'Hills 'Shopping Center, Prospect and
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Modification of the exterior of an
existing 'commercial buildingsand approval of a new sign, Final
" De's'i'gn Re'v'i'e~. 'Approval
Staff described' the proposal. Chairman Laden expressed her concern that
this is 'going to be a step-.by'-step process to improve the center, whereby
the Commission' doesn't seem to have a lot of control, as opposed to comi. ng
in with the complete 'modification at .one time.
~Varren Heid, representing the 'applicant, stated that they want to clean
.. sh'o p
uO the existing p.. ing center so' it could'be leased, and they want to
get a sign program set up. Mr. Heid discussed Condition '7, regarding
the vehi'cle Storage, stating that they would like to maintain the vehicles
there for at least another six monthS. He also asked that the logo on
the barber shop remain, since it had'been there Eor 24 years. He stated
that he bel'iev'ad the lease' 'on the 's'er'vice stati'on is being renewed, and
there are 'no plans at present 'to develop that site. The sign program was
discussed.
Commissioner' Crowther commented that, with the problems the City has had
in the area and the controls that have been put on signs across the street,
it seems inappropriate to approve a ~ign oE this size on this site. He
stated that he has no problem with 'the design oE the building, but he
~eels that the Commission must be consistent ~egaTding the sign.
'Mr. Heid commented that the sign is against the building and conEoTms with
the slope of the roo~. He added that, to make the area look properly, it
seems to be an appropriate size.
Commissioner King stated that he ~eels this is consistent with what the
Commissi'on has 'done in the past. He moved to approve A-798 pet the StaE~
Report, modified' to alter Condition 6 to allow the continued use o~ the
existing barber pole as long as that:is 'the use in the structure, and
Condition 7 to read that rental vehicles stored on the 'site shall be
removed within six months. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion,
which was carried, with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting.
MISCELLANEOUS
17. V-.54'1 -' R... A.'. Ma'd'd'a'Iena, Big Bas'in' 1.'~ay', 9'0'.-day ReView' 'o'E Va'r'ia'nce
Chairman Laden noted that a memo had been received, stating that no
additional parking has been procured at this time on behal~ o~ Maddalena's,
either' on or orE-site.
Doug Adams, representing the applicant, asked for a continuance in order
to have time to discuss ootions with..'StafE and to have .:Sore .'peop_19 present
at the next meeting, He stated that it has been 'determin'e{[.tha~. the
owner's 'of the Melton and Smith 'properties' are not interested in joining
the Parking District ~3. It w. as sUgges:ted' to Mr. Adams that he get
togeth'er with Mr. Heid, who 'also' has; an interest in this 'district, and
the City Manager, to see Whether' or' not solution can be Eound to get the
through access for' fire 'vehi'cleS, as. we1'1 as' continuing the proposed
- 12-
· 'P~anni g 'Commission
n Page 13
· .~ ~j' .
Meeting Minutes· 11/1.7/·8·1
V- 5·41 (cont.)
Parking Assessment District.
Staff explained that if tho's·e ·prop·erti·es ·are added to the ·district it
would be adding negative Vot'es, wh'i'ch may be sufficient to kill it.
They added' that, even if that 'doe's'n "t 'happen? thOs'e 'prop'er'ti'es' would pro-
""-: duce 'the need· for additional parking s~'aces'.
It was ·directed that this matter be Continued to the· ·mee·ting on January
13, 19·81.
C 0~.~'IUN I'CAT'.I ON S' '
Wri'tten · · ....................................
1. 'L'et't'e'r' 'fr'om: 'Virgi'nia 'Q'u'e'e'n., 'dated 'NoVember". '5',' 1981, requesting
a temporary' use of a trailer during Ch~stmas tree 'sales, at Cox and Saratoga
Avenue.' Staff not'ed' that th'i's is 'an allOwe'd' use in thi's district. Discussion
followed, and Commissioner King moved that it be the' consensus of the Commission
that this one--·time request of Mrs. Queen .for the month of December 1981 be
allowed. COmmissioner Schaefer· seconded .the motion, wh'ich was carried, with
Commissioner Crowt'he'r dissenting, stating that he felt it would cause a lot
of problems.
2. Eet'te'r' ·from· A. 'I'.' Van Dalen, dated ·November 6, "I981, regarding a
"Cut and ChOose' Christmas Tree Farm" operatmon. Disc~i~s'ion '~llowed' on parking
and access. Staff commented that thi's use may fall under the 'use permit pro-
cedure. Staff wa's requested to write a l'etter, requesting more ·information
'regarding the access and parking of this :operation.
·Oral
1. Chairman Laden thanked the GoOd Government Group for attending the
meeting and serving coffee.
ADJOURI~E'NT -
Commissioner King moved to adjourn the 'meeting. Commissioner Bolger seconded
.the motion, wh'i'ch' 'was carried. "The meeting was' adjQurned af .12:.4~"p.jm.
Robert S. Shook, Secretary
RSS:cd