Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-10-1984 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COmmISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, October 10, 1984 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Rol'l Call Pres'ent: Commissioners Burger, Crowther, Harris, McGoldrick, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried (Commissioner Schaefer arrived at 9:12 p.m.) Absent: None Minutes Commissioner McGoldrick moved to waive the reading of the minutes of September 18, 1984 and approve as distributed. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.' The following changes were made to the minutes Of.September 26, 1984: On page 3, th.e second sentence in the last paragraph under V-659, "diminished" should be "reduced". On page 3, the second sentence in the first paragraph under V-659 should read: "She commented' that she feels the applicant ~s willing tb make a compromise on the setback, which the Land Use Committee found reasonable." On page 6, the 'sixth paragraph, the fifth sentence should read: "However, I remember distinctly Cheriel Jensen talki.ng about how mammoth that building was going to look and the people who were 'in the homeowners group at that time, including one who is a City figure now, fully bought that fact that there we~7:e some compromises being made and that the 'building was not going to be as over- whelming as it was." The seventh sentence should read: "So that was the major error, which set the precedent." On page 7, the fifth paragraph, in the ninth "more" should be '~es·s'' On page 8, the addition should be made to sentence, . the last i~aragraph under the Owen project, "Commissioner McGoldrick stated that what she heard her neighborhood say is .that traffic is the most important con- · cern. Therefore, if this P-A wa's reduced significantly, maybe in half, and she does not' know if 'that is 'feasibl'e, then we are discussing the .traffic they had in mind." (She noted' at the' October 10, 1984 meeting, for the Council ' s infor- mation, that she distinctly remembers posing to the applicant at a Committee- of-the-Whole meeting a proposition that was smaller than the number of square feet they presented to the Commission at th'e .last meeting; however, it was certainly not half.) On pag~ 9, fifth paragraph, the fourth sentence, "down" should read "out to the side". Commissioner Peterson moved to waive the read- ing of the minutes of September 26, 1984 and approve as amended. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which 'was carried 'unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR Item #3, A-1015, Mendels0hn Lane DeVel'opment, was removed for discussion. Com- missioner Peterson moved to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar listed below. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 1. .A-1018 Brow~, and Kaufman, Quito and Pollard Road, Request for Design Re'v'iew App'ro'val for a Subdivisi'on Sign 2. 'Giovanni and Rey'es Brignolo, 19645 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Construction of a 6 'ft. hi'gh redwo'Od 'fenCe wit'h'in '1'0'0 ft. 'of Saratog.a-Los Gatos Road Later in the meeting Mr. Brignolo asked for clarification of the conditions of the approval of his fence, stating that he would like to align it with the neighbor's fence. Discussion followed on the setback, and it was explained to the ~ppIlicant that the Commission does not want the visual impact of one solid continuous wall along that road. Af..t.'er'fur.ther"'dis'C'u"s'~'-i"en..it W~.S 'the- ~'~d~i's'~Hs::~!~7 t~.~-t -~ti~' a'~O'~a.~...'is. "s.U~'j e'.c.t '.~-tO '~.~h~."' c'o'nd.i'~i~6~ 7~' ~'~'a'r'e'...d ~i'.~ the Staff Report. The 10-day appeal period was noted. Discussion followed on A-1015, Mendelsohn Lane Development. Scott Cunningham, representing the applicant, addressed "condition #5, which requires that the garage be pushed back 5 ft. from its location. He explained that the tree behind the garage. has two large branches that would most likely have to be cut Planning Commission Page Meeting Minutes 10/10/8 A-10iS (cent.) to facilitate that move. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use ·Committee report and noted that there is a second larger oak tree directly behind the proposed garage. She indicated that the move would probably require the removal of one of the large branches. Staff commented that the City Horticulturist had called for a 10 ft. diameter protection. for the' tree in the driveway; therefore, Staff suggested the relocation of the garage. They noted that the second tree in the rear ·is not evi·dent from the plot plan. It was suggested that the applicant can work with Staff to determine the appropriate location, considering both trees. After further discussion Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A-1015, Mendelsohn Lane DeVelopme.nt, per the ·Staff Report dated September 28, ].984, with Condition #5 to· read: "The garage ·will be positioned per Staff review with the City Horticulturist and the applicant." Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 'PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR : All of the items, #4, #S and #6, were removed for discussion. It was noted that the applicant for #5 will not arrive Until 8:30 p.m. and it was determined that this item will be heard after the regular public hearings. Discussion foliowe'd on Item #4, A'-96'4, ~IcBain & Gibbs. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee 'report, expressing concern that the driveway seemed quite close to the road and there was.no.provision for a turnaround which would be needed by the Fire Department. Commissioner Harris commented that this is the lot directly below 'the Geno home which was approved on lot 15. She added that the pad is very close to lot 18. It was noted. that it might be difficult to do anything about moving the pad because the 'rear slope is so steep. The public hearing was opened at 7:47 p.m. Robert 'MCBain, the applicant, gave 'a presentation on the project and addressed the turnaround area. He described the driveway. for this house and lot 15 and suggested possibly using a retaining wall on the east side to widen out the driveway. Commissioner' Crowther stated that, since it is a common driveway, it looks like the house' is too close to it. Mr. McBain also indicated that he would prefer' to have the stucco a gray tone, instead of the brown' suggested in the Staff Report. He noted that the neighbors have looked at the plans. Chairman Siegfried indicated that he would like to have a better feeling that the home is not going to have any impact on that ridge in terms of visibility, and he also would like to see the relationship of the two homes. Commissioner Crowther commented that he would like 'Staff to provide information on the set- back of the hOuse relative to' the driveway. The applicant was also asked to submit a sample of the gray tone 'requested. It was determined that there would be an on-site visit at 10:00 a.m. on Novem- bet 3, 1984, a study session on November ."6, 1984, and the 'matter continued to the regular meeting of November ',1'4, 1984. Item' #5, 'A-101'7,' David ArCangel, was discussed at the end of the regular public hearings. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee Report, commenting that some 'of their concerns centered around the fact that the height of the structure, which is proposed at 23 ft., does' seem high in relation to the sur- rounding one-story homes in the 'neighborhood, which average about 18 ft. She added that the pad is elevated at 2 to 3 ft and there 'is some screening at the rear of the property. She 'added that she.feelS more screening by the applicant would be applicable here. The public hearing was opened at 8:42 p.m. Mr. Arcangel gave a presentation on the project, noting that the site is one-half acre, and he feel's that they have kept the square footage below the require- ments for an R-i-20,000 home. He des·cribeld· the ceilings in the home and the need for a height of ·23 ft. He indicated that there is no intent to have a second-story building. Mr. Arcange! des·cribed the surrounding area, stating that they· are ·maintaining setbacks for· R-l·-20,000. He ·added that they could do additional landscaping. Staff described the ·lots surrounding the 'applicant's site. They clarified that the ·setbacks meet ·the R-i-20,000 zoning district and the floor area is also compatible. The ·stairway and height of the attic space were discussed. 7 ......~";"~ "=: "t ........."" -' '.~--.'-."'7' ... - ' -~-. --" .:'~...~..:~- .z c '."."~ ':: :'~,'7~"' ~"~:'~ I-' '- 9 :'-Planning Commission Page 3 Meeting Minutes 10/10/84 ~ A-.lO17 (cont.) Max Mauk, Mellon Drive, stated that he had no objection to the project. He stated that his primary concern is that there be no two-story houses allowed in the area. He.'added th'atT.'he would not like any dormer windows because of the privacy issue. Commissioner Crowther moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther stated that he was going to make a motion to approve and change the 'recommendations by the Staff be'caUse he is in favor of an applicant coming in in a R-l-10,000 zone and building a house on a lot twice the size required. He commented that he feels that fact mitigates the 3 ft. in height that he is asking for wi'th this particular structure. He added that he agrees with the applicant that he has the R=l-20,000 conditions; therefore, he would leave the s~ze at what he is requesting.~ He 'moved to approve A-101?, David Arcangel, per the Staff Report dated September 25, 1984 and Exhibits "B" and "C", changing CondtiOn'.#4 to read 4750 sq. ft. instead of 4000 sq. ft., chang- ing Condition #3 to read 23 ft.. instead of 20 ft., and adding Condition #5 to read that no permanent access to the attic area and no dormer windows are permitted. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion. Commissioner Harris suggested that landscaping be installed on the 'western side prior to final occupancy, with 'Staff approval. Commissioners Crowther and McGoldrick accepted that amendment. The motion was carried Unanimously 6-0. Regarding Item #6, V-'663'., James' McCart'hy, commissioner Burger explained that'she had asked to have it removed;'hm~e~'er, she 'had meant to have #5 removed. She stated that the 'Land Use Committee had no concerns with #6. The public hearing was opened at 8:09 p.m. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hear- i.ng. Commissioner Burger seconded the' motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve 'V-663, J'ames McCa'rt'hy, per the Staff Report dated October 5, 1984 and Exhibits "B" and "C". Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried' unanimously 6-0. P. UBLIC HEARINGS 7a. Nega'tive 'Declar'ation SDR-15'81 - Wilbur & Gayle Fisher 7b. SDR-1581 Wilbur & Gayle Fisher, Request for Design Review and Tentative 7c. A-1014 - Building Site Approval to allow an existing single story dwell- ing to be converted to a two-story dwelling in excess of 4800 s'q. f-t. in the R-i-20,00'0 district at '15069 Park Drive · It was directed that this matter' be continued to October 24, ].984. 8. A-1016 - McBain & Gibbs, Inc., RequeSt for Design Review Approval to con- struct a two-'story single family residence on a hillside lot in the NHR 'Distri'ct'.at '2140'9 Tollgate Road, Tr'ac'.t 6'628'., Lot 5 It was directed that this matter be continued to October 24, 1984. 9. UP-568 - Oak Creek Investments (Cornish & Carey'), Request for Use Permit Approval to allow 'an ex'pansion of the existing real estate office at 1'2175 S'a'ratoga-SunnyVale Road, in the C-V. zoning d'istrict Staff explained the proposal, stating that they were unable to make the General Plan findings 'and recommend denial. The public hearing was opened at 8:12 p.m. Martin McComer, rep'resen'ting Cornish & Carey', addressed the Staff Report_. He stated, regarding the 'issue involving the sales tax revenue, that a modifica- tion to the use per'mit would not adversely affec't this. }{e explained that the existing tenant, Mr. AleXander, is operating under a lease that could extend to 1996, and if the'y' do not absorb his spaZce then he will stay there perhaps until that date. .I-.Ie note:d'-that M~..Alex'a~d~r'is cUr.ren'tly li's~ed' 'in the Staff Report as being one of tl~e' non--sal~s 'tax uses in the' 'facilit'y. ?4r. BqCComer commented that when the 'Cornish & Carey lease expires in 1994, the'n'that space would be oRened 9p to retail store front to generate sales. tax. He addres's"e'~ the'.paLrk'ing,-;sj.~at- mng that if they absorb Mr. Alexander's parking spaces.'it would result in a light- er use of the' current parking stalls. Mr. Chen, the 'architect, stated that the're WoUld be 'no increase in the non-sales tax use. Planning Commission O Page 4 =Meeting Minutes 10/10/8 UP-568 (cont.) Scott Carey, of Cornish'& Carey', discussed' the sales tax revenue issue. He also addressed the benefits their company provides to the community, other than sales tax, i.e. monetary and non-monet'ary ben'efits throughout the year. Commissioner Pet'erson mov'ed to close the' public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which 'was carried unanimously. Commissioner' Crowther indicated' that he wa's going to move in favor of the application. He stated that it does not really change the 'area and that par- ticular sort of use,'and they' have 'adequate 'parking. He moved to approve UP-568, per the Staff Report 'date'd' October' 4, 1984. and Exhibits "B" and "C", making the 'following findings: He does not think it is 'inconsistent with the Gener'al Plan and Zoning Ordinance for that particular parcel. It essentially meets the objectives of the General Plan for the 'reasons stated by Mr. Carey and because 'it doesn't really increase 'the' non-sales tax base use in the center. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried 4-2, with Commis- sioner's McGoldrick and Pet'erson dissenting. 10. V-662 J.P. & Geertie DeVos, Request for Variance Approval to allow a 10.ft.' fence 7 ft. from the si'de property line at 14681 Farwell AVenue,:'i'n'the: R-'l-40,000 zoning district The application was explained by Staff, who stated that they are unable to make the findings 'and recommend denial. They stated that if the Commission wishes to approve the f~nce they have 'listed conditions, one of which states that the 'height' be no more 'than 8 ft. The' correspondence received on the project was noted. The public hearing was 'opened at 8:24 p.m. 'Richard Stowers, the architect, gave the' history of the house and described the fence. He 'indicated that the 'house above 'sits about 16 ft. higher than this house. .Mr. Stowers described the proposed' landscaping, commenting that they would be happy to meet wi'th the 'neighbor. At Commissioner Crowther's inquiry, Mr. Stowers stated that trying to screen the bathroom with vegetation would take too long. He commented that if the Commission has any negative feelings about the wall he would appreciate it if the Commission would go out and look at it. It was noted that the 'Land Use Committee had walked the site previously in connection with the controver'sy on'the 'color of the wall, and at that time they did not realize that the wall was d~n~t'rUct'ed hi'ghef'th'a'n it ~s"~pposed'~O be. Commissi'oner Harris stated that 'she feels strongly that there is no need for that extra heigh. t' and it was done knowingly. Commissioner Crowther agreed. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the 'moti'on, wh'i'ch wa's carried' unanimously. Commissioner' Harris commen'ted that she thinks it is inappropriate for the Commission to condone this kind of action, and if the ordinances call for 6 ft., she feels that is. wHat the Commission should deal".w~th. She added that there was a problem with the fence being on the plan at 8 ft., but it was not noted in the report and it slipped by. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that this was the area that she was most con- cerned about at the 'discussions 'regarding the color of the wall, so she remem- bers stressing the' fact .that there had to be a tremendous amount of vegetation along that wall. She stated that she feels that something 10 ft. tall is required there because of the bathroom and the 1.oC~tio.n of the 'neighbor's house. However', she would have preferred to see a wooden fence or something different. Commiss'ioner Crowthe'r stated' that he feels it could be screened with vegeta- tion. Commissioner McGoldrick commented' that this house is quite close; she thinks ther'e is a privacy problem here, and she feels that vegetation would take too long. Howe'v'er, the mater'ials the 'applicant used are just so in opposi- tion to'this whole beautiful wooded glen, and it looks awful. Commissioner Burger agreed that the 'site is odd; the house 'sits far below the house next.door, and they are quite close.. She added that she feels there is a need for privacy there,"~n'd..'she also agrees that ther~ should. be'a lot 6f ~ea-vy..l~nd'.sca~ing-.on.the oUt.Side-o~ t]~at'.-wall. She sugg~.sted that maybe" ..... ..~.~. the wall could be r'educed to 8 ft. and heavy landscaping put on the outside. - 4 - .~. ~Pla~nning CommisSion Page S ~eeting Minutes 10/1 0 V-662 (cont.) Commissioner McGoldrick suggested putting a wooden lath or fence-like structure on the neighbor's side of that wall and. the landscaping,-~vln~ ~he'Wa'll.Z' Mr. Stowers indicated' that they would be willing to build a 6 ft. fence on the property line. Staff suggested that, if 'the Commission feels this is a ~iable solution, the applicant should discuss this with the adjacent property owner. They explained that perhaps putting a 6 ft. fence up there may remove the neighbor's view out towards the creek. There was. a consensus to continue this matter to a study session on October 16, 1984' and the regular meeting of OctOber 24, 1984. Chairman Siegfried commented that Mr. Stowers should work With the next-door neighbors and submit thoughts at the study session. It was determined that the individual Commissioners will make an on-site 'Visit. MISCELLANEOUS 11. Anthony Thomas, 21401 Tollgate,. TraCt 66'28, Consideration of Amendment of .:. CC&Rs regard'ing fencing Staff explained the request'.. They indicated that if in fact the Commission recommends to the 'City Council that such a condition be modified it will trigger a variance to .the zonxng to allow 'for the fencing of the entire perimeter of this property. They commented that they find that that is inconsistent with the zoning .in this area and would recommend that the Commission not move to recommend to the Council that the CC&Rs be changed. Commissioner Crowther stated that he agrees with Staff in this matter. Com- missioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the lot. She commented that it wa's a tremendous lot to cover with fencing. Mr. Thomas, the applicant, introduced his representative, Katherine Pereira. She stated that it had been intended that the area be left as open as possible, and a lot of the homes there have open fences and do enclose a large part of their property. She summarized a letter' from Roger Mano, attorney for the developers, which stated that it was never the developers' intent that Mr. Thomas would not have the privilege of erecting an open fence to enclose ani- mals and establish safety precautions for small children. It indicated that the developerS, McBain & Gibbs, are instituting steps to correct the CC&Rs on this tract so that the 4,000 sq. ft. enclosed fence restriction applies .only to solid fences and not open fences. Ms. Pereira explained the proposal for fencing.--and'fSUbmi'~.t~d..'a 'si~ bi'a~'f '- The City Attorney stated that the Commission should keep in mind the distinc- tion between the City-zoned ordinances and the CC&Rs. He explained that the CC&Rs are the private reStrictiOns 'appliCable to the' entire subdivision which have been approved by the City and can only be modified or amended with the consent of the City. He 'indicated that .this request seems to be an amendment to the CC&Rs, which are 'for the benefit n6t .only of the City, but all other occupants of the subdivision. He stated that the 4,000 sq. ft. restriction is a requirement that is in the Zoning Ordinance, and the requirement was put in the CC&Rs at the City's insistence; i,t was a condition of the subdivision ap:pro~al. Bob McBain, the developer,'commented that when they originally brought this subdivision to the City there was some discussion about open fencing as o.pposed to closed fencing. He noted that many of th'e lots have a chain link fence. He explained that when those issues were brought up it was solid fencing that they were trying to keep from emcompassing the area, and he believes the word "solid" got omitted in the CC&Rs. Discussion followed on solid vs. open fenc- ing. The City Attorney commented that the ordinance per se does not make a distinc- tion between solid vs. masonry, etc. Therefore, assuming that the City cOn- sents .to an amendment of the' CC&Rs,' the applicant would still need a variance, and the fact that it is an open fence 'as' opposed to a closed fence might have a bearing on the' Commission'.s inclination to allow more of an area to be enclosed. Commissioner' Crowther ex'pressed concern regarding setting a precedent for all the hillsides. Commissioner Harris commented that ther'e 'are a lot of chain link fences around the homes that back up 'to Mr. Th'omas' property. However, they are in the back yards and the°t~p~g~ap~y i~S.'.suCh~at',.the fe'nces"a~e~:~:' ~' ,.."'Planning Commission Page 6 ,Meeting Minutes 10/10/ ~ract 6628 (cont.) out of view, as opposed to having black wrought iron across the front of the property. Commissioner Siegfried stated that there may be some 'reason that it would be appropriate for Mr. Thomas to want to enclose 6,000 or 8,000 sq. ft., and if it didn't impact anyone he might not have a p.roblem With that. However, he would have to.look at that on its individual merits, rather than the philosophy that the Commission is just going to allow people to enclose the whole two acres. The City Attorney' clarified-~-~a.t..='i~'i~th~j~p-iiC~nt.~fies.'the:vari'a~ce'applicat'ion, and if it is 'approved for something more than 4,000 sq. ft.,'it would still be necessary to amend the CC&Rs because all other owners of lots within that subdivision would ]have 'the right .~ object, even if the City gave its approval. Chairman Siegfried stated that he does not hear any consensus that the Commis- sion is willing to say that people should be able to put up perimeter fencing around the entire site as a general rule. There may be some possibility of something less than that, depending upon the particular needs and its impact. He noted to the applicant that they have the first hurdle of getting everybody who owns property affected by the CC&Rs'to agree. Commissioner Peterson stated that if the applicant amends the CC&Rs, then he would be willing to look at some kind of a proposal along the lines that Chairman Siegfried men- tioned. Staff pointed out that the applicant needs the City's approval to amend them. They suggested that the Commission tonight add the words "or as approved by · variance"; the applicant can then go ahead with the variance and talk to the property owners. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she understands the security problem, and she also is not opposed to enclosing an orchard on the property with a different.fence than that for security, or enclosing a dog area somewhere else; ]however, she opposes 'one huge constant fence.' Mr. McBain stated that they would like to limit it to not allow a lot of solid fencing, therefore, they would like to keep the 4,000 sq. ft. enclosure of a solid fence restriction in the CC&Rs..However, in the future they would like to discuss the. issue of open :fencing, particularly when it is decorative. There was a consensus to recommend to the 'Council to change the CC&Rs to add "or as approved by. variance"', so ther'e could be additional fencing if the Com- mission were willing to approve a variance. 12. Consideration of Amendment to City Code Regarding Public Dancing and Public Dance Halls The City Attorney explained that this matter will go to the City Council and they will conduct a public hearing at that time. He commented that the obser- vation had been made that under the ordinance dance halls would be permitted only in the C-C and C-V zones, but it did not mention the Community Center. He stated that if there 'is a dance given there where tickets are sold, then perhaps the Community Cente'r ought to be 'included. FIe indicated that this amendment is basically directed at a commercial operation. The City Attorney explained the procedure for noticing of the event for which a permit is ob- tained. He clarified that the amendment does not change any business activity which may now .be conducted by any establishment selling food or drink; it is dancing conducted in connection with the 'other business that would bring this ordinance into play. DisCussio~'foll~ On"law"'enforcemen~'dalrS, and Com- missioner Crowther suggested that there be some way of making organizations responsible for the cost of the calls. He added that he feels this should be in the ordinance. The City Attorney stated that he fe~ls this point should perhaps be considered in a broader perspective in connection with other viola- tions, rather than zoning in specifically on this type of activity. It was the consensus of the Commission that this amendment should move forward. 13. Consideration of Neighborhood Watch Signs Format The program was explained by Staff, wh'o indicated that they are interpreting these signs to be that of a public interest sign, and as such would not put them under design review. Discussion followed on the signs. - 6 - ,, Pl'~ning Commission Page 7 ~eeting Minutes 10/10/84,,~ Neighborhood Watch Signs (cont.) Roy Worthington, from the Sobey Road group, des'cribed the program. He indicated that this program has been brought about..beCause of bu~gl'aries. It was the consensus of the Commission to approve 'the'si'gns. CO~4UNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from S. K. Brown Deve.lo'pment Co., dated October 3, 1984. Staff explained ~he request for recons~derat~on of the need for lattice work to be installed on the northeast balcony, second floor of the building at Saratoga Square, and that the 'sol'id glass window'On that balcony be changed to a sliding glass door. They note'd' that the 'neighbor, Mr. Benevento, still expresses con- cern that,.while in fact the trees do p'rovide a scr'eening at thi's time, they may die. After discussion it was the consensus that the conditions should not be changed. 2. 'Let'ter' f.rom Mrs. Sabella, 't'hanking the Planning Commission for their consi'dera'tion on the Owen project. Oral 1. Bob McBain stated that ther'e is a conflict in the Genera]. Plan con- cerning their subdivision., in that the private 'street' is called for to be a collector and is actually a cul-.de=sac. The City Attorney described the street on the map, which 'leads to Canyon View. He explained. that it is not a through road, but only an emergency access. He added that the balance of Tollgate is not designated'. It was noted' that a'100 ft. setback is needed from a collector street. Staff commen.ted that,' rather than the road system that has recently be.en built by McBain & Gibbs and Parnas, in ea'rlier General Plans there was a collector system that would essentially ConneC't to and include Canyon View. Since then the decision has bee'n made 'to not make that a through circulation road and the General Plan has just not been corrected in that regard. There was a consensus to give conditional approval subject to change in the designa- tion of that cul-de-'sac,~h-d th~'l~0'-ft..setback would not be required. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner McGoldrick moved to adjourn. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting ended at 9:50 p.m. SeCretary RSS:cd