HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-10-1986 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: December 10, 1986 - 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Burger, Commissioners Harris, Siegfried, Guch, Pines,
Callans, Tucker.
Approval of Minutes: November 12, 1986, Commissioner Harris requested the following:
On page 3, Item 7, second paragraph, delete the word "confirmed" to read. "Commissioner
Harris suggested.." On page 6, third paragraph, after the third sentence, add- "Commissioner
Pines asked for the numbers regarding site area and percentage of coverage allowed." On page
7, Motion to read, "Chairwoman Burger, Commissioners Guch and Tucker opposed." On
page 10, second paragraph from bottom, delete the word "commended" and add::~
"commented.." On page 11, Motion for DR-86-023~5., add the words, "if determined by
Staff to be necessary,.."
Commissioner Guch requested a change on page 11, Item 20, delete the word "decisions" to
read, "Commissioner Guch reviewed suggestions.."
Chairwoman Burger requested a correction on page 6, fourth paragraph, delete the word
"project" to read.,:. "the proposed height of the town-houses"
HARRIS/PINES MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12,
1986, AS AMENDED. Passed 6-0-1, Commissioner Siegfried abstaining.
Additions and DeletiOns to the Agenda; Planning Director Hsia noted that Item 2 was being
continued to the January 28, 1987, Meeting of the Planning Commission.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR;
A. Determination by Planning Commission that proposed disposition of public property at the
comer of Cox and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Read will be in conformity with the General Plan.
Commissioner Pines noted for the record that he would vote No on this Item on the basis that
property owned by the City should not be returned to the private domain; the City as the owner
of this parcel of property should retain the property and develop it for the benefit of residents of
the City of Saratoga.
SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
Passed 6-1, Commissioner Pines opposed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR;
1. V-86-009 Mulert, request for variance approval to allow a front setback of 22 ft.
where 30 ft. is required and a rear setback of 31 ft. where 35 ft. is required
at 13750 Harleigh Ct., Saratoga, CA in the R-l-20,000 zoning district per
Chapter 25 of the City Code.
Continued to January 14, 1987, pending revision of plans.
2. SD-86-001 Goni, request for building site and design review approval for construction
DR-86-003 of a new two-story single family dwelling at 14080 Saratoga-Sunnyvale
V-86-004 Rd~, in the R-l-10,000 zoning district. Also consider granting variance
approval for a carport to be located 9 ft. from the front property line where
25 ft. is the required setback at the above address per Chapter 15 of the City
Code. Continued to January 28, 1987, at the request of the applicant.
X
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 "~--~
DECEMBER 10, 1986
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
3. SD-86-008 Wayne Miller Investment Co., request for approval of a two-story lot
subdivision per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Property is located on the east
side of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. at Pierce Rd., south of Cox Ave.
Continued to January 14, 1987, pending receipt of information on tentative
map.
4. DR-86-052 Milan Madaric, request for design review approval of plans for a 530 sq. ft.
expansion to an existing second story at 19933 Douglass Ln., in the
R-1-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
5. DR-86-051 Don Coffey, request for design review approval of plans to construct a new
single story 3,730 sq.ft. single family dwelling at 20427 Miljevich Dr. in
the R-1-12,500 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
6. AZO-86-007 City of Saratoga, consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Sec. 15-90.060 (h) pertaining to uses in required yards of commercial sites
and Sec. 15-35.030 (a), (b) and (c), pertaining to covered parking for
residential uses. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project.
7. DR-86-047 J. Lohr Properties, Inc., request for design review approval of plans to
construct a new 3,159 sq. ft. one-story single family home at 18735
Cabernet Dr., in the R-l-10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City
Code.
8. DR-86-037 Kelly, request for design review approval of plans to construct a new
one-story single family home at 19337 Lisa Marie Ct. (Lot 4 of a new 5 lot
subdivision at Saratoga and Fruitvale Ave.) in the R-1-20,000 zoning
district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
9. DR-86-050 Kelly, request for design review approval of plans to construct a new
one-story single family home at 19363 Lisa Marie Ct. (Lot 3 of a new 5 lot
subdivision at Saratoga and Fruitvale Ave.) in the R-1-20,000 zoning
district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
10. V-86-013 James Compton, request for variance approval of plans to allow 6 ft.
side yard setback for a swimming pool and accessory mechanical equipment
pad where 20 ft. is required and allow a 1.5 side yard setback for an arbor
where 6 ft. is required. Property located at 15040 Oriole Rd., in the
R-l-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
11. DR-86-040 Parnas Corp., request for design review approval of plans to construct a
new two-story 4,802 sq.ft. single family dwelling at 21801 Congress
Springs Ln., in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Continued to January 14, 1987 pending completion of geology review.
Commissioner Tucker requested removal of Item 8 of the Consent Calendar.
HARRIS/PINES MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF ITEMS 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, AND 10 OF PUBLIC
HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR. Passed 7-0.
8. DR-86-037 Kelly, request for design review approval of plans to construct a new
one-story single family home at 19337 Lisa Marie Ct. (Lot 4 of a new 5 lot
subdivision at Saratoga and Fruitvale Ave.) in the R-1-20,000 zoning
district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
______________________m__ ..... ~_ .... __4__ .... __~____~__m________~______~______________~____________~______w________~______~m
__~____~________ ....
In response to Commissioner Tucker's question whether the attic space could be converted into
a second story, Planner Caldwell stated that this space could not be converted.
GUCH/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE DR-86-037. Passed 7-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3
DECEMBER 10, 1986
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
12. AZO-86-003 City of Saratoga, consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Subsection 5-20.020 (a) to include bed and breakfast establishments in the
definition of "Hotel"; amending Section 15-12.030 to include bed and
breakfast 'establishments as a conditional use in R-1 zoning districts adjacent
to the Village; and amending Subsection 15-35.030 (e) pertaining to
required parking facilities for bed and breakfast establishments. A Negative
Declaration has been prepared for this application.
Planning' Director Hsia reviewed the Memorandum of December 10, 1986, and called attention
to a Memorandum prepared by City Attorney Toppel. Staff recommended approval of the
Negative Declaration and asked the Commission to recommend approval of this proposal to the
City Council. He noted the letter received by Mr. John R. Kahle, dated December 7, 1986.
In response to Commissioner Harris' question, Planning Director Hsia stated that there are
only two sites within the Village boundaries as shown on the Map; there are possibly eight or
nine sites outside the boundary line. Commissioner Tucker asked the outcome of Bed and
Breakfasts that are financially unsuccessful; City Attorney Toppel stated that the Use Permit
would remain outstanding. He suggested that if of concern, the Commission could condition
periodic reviews regarding continuous operation as a Bed and Breakfast, as done in Second
Use Permits. Wording for such a condition suggested to the Commission.
Commissioner Siegfried reviewed the history of this application and the three Ordinance
provisions addressing the concerns of some citizens of Saratoga. The Commissioner noted
that he was neither in favor of this Ordinance nor opposed to the individual application that
prompted the introduction of this application for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:50 P.M.
Mr. Richard Tyrrell, Heritage Preservation Commission, presented a written statement from
the Heritage Preservation Commission. He called attention to the Memorandum of the City
Attorney, dated November 18, 1986, (e), and reviewed the recommendation of the Heritage
Preservation Commission; with the above considerations, the Heritage Preservation
commission recommended approval. In response to Commissioner Harris' question, he stated
that the buildings under consideration were built when there were no Codes; in the restoration
of such buildings, non-conformity with Codes may arise. Sensitivity in the application of
these Codes was requested and an example cited.
Commissioner Harris noted that subjective nature of the term, sensitivity. Commissioner
Pines suggested that alternative methods of achieving the goals of the Building Codes were
possible; with the approval of the Building Inspector and the Fire Chief the intent of the Codes
can be met. CommissionerSiegfried suggested a condition allowing City officials the ability to
interpret and apply City Codes in a manner that does not lessen the safety nor the purposes of
the Codes. Chairwoman Burger concurred with the term, alternative method; Commissioner
Guch noted that buildings designated as historical sites, cannot have the exterior modified.
Planning Director Hsia stated that the Housing Code, not the Building Code, was the Code that
would be applied to historical buildings; however, he questioned the flexibility of a Building
Inspector in applying Codes.
City Attorney Toppel reviewed the three levels of regulation:
- Heritage Preservation Commission Review: he confirmed that the reference by
Commissioner Guch regarding exterior modification was correct; however this restriction
derives solely from the Heritage Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 13 of the City Code.
- Zoning Regulations: the City has flexibility is these regulations through the granting of
variances.
- Housing and Fire Codes: these are uniform codes adopted by cities and a Planning
Commission cannot grant variances from these Codes; however, as noted by
Commissioner Pines, the Codes have a series of alternative methods.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4
DECEMBER 10, 1986
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
City Attorney Toppel noted his concern regarding the conversion of single family residences to
commercial operations; he expressed concern regarding even the suggestion of a reduction of
life safety regulations. The City has never adopted the Heritage Preservation Building Code.
In response to Commissioner Harris' question, Mr. Tyrrell stated that once the proposed
Ordinance is passed, the Commission will see that an interest in bed and breakfasts exists;
potentially, properties held by others will be sold for conversion privileges. He stated he did
not know exact numbers; he was aware of two property owners who are prepared to initiate the
process of being qualified as a historical property and will then approach the City for
conversion into a bed and breakfast. The Historical Preservation Commission will present the
Commission with a list of possible bed and breakfast facilities; Chairwoman Burger asked
that a list of the maximum number of eligible homes be prepared. Commissioner Harris noted
the Village atmosphere and questior/ed the number of potential bed and breakfast facilities
within the Village.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that the boundary of the Village does not include the Kahle
property; the Kahle property is the former Julia Morgan home. Current property owners have
petittoned for years to convert this home into a bed and breakfast inn. This is the history of the
proposed Ordinance amendment.
Mr. Greg Grodhaus, 20379 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, stated that he was not
notified of the Hearing, even though the proposed amendment would significanfiy affect his
property. He noted the cavalier attitude of the Planning Commission; after the investment he
made in his home, the Commission is considering putting a Hotel next door. The Commission
underestimated the reason individuals purchase property in Saratoga, paying the expensive
premium required to buy into the community. He stated that a bed and breakfast is a hotel; it
has been romanticized as a friendly inn with little activity. Tourists come to enjoy a
community; individuals who use bed and breakfasts are not identified as "low users" of traffic
or parking.
He cited opposition to proposed rezoning during the previous year, one of the options
presented by the Council and the Commission would have the property in question included in
the Village boundary; the City Attorney's statements regarding a non-residential use in the
Village through a Use Permit were cited. Now, the question of extending the village to include
this property is being considered again. He asked the Commission to reconsider the term
boundary.
Ms. Betty Rowe, 20360 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, stated that this issue is very
serious. She has been fighting commercialism in her neighborhood for a long time; now, the
issue arises again. She noted that Saratoga is a beautiful place to live and she opposed bed and
breakfasts in the City. She noted extensive renovation done by neighbors. She asked that if
only one individual is asking for this privilege, the Use Permit process be used, allowing
neighbors to oppose such a Use if they so wish. However, to extend the Village boundary is
ridiculous. A request for a bed and breakfast is not an excuse for restoration. She reviewed
the history and restoration completed on her home and urged the Commission to deny this
proposal.
Ms. Carol Machol, Ronnie Way, Saratoga, presented an article from the' San Jose Mercury
News. She noted surprise at the rapidity with which this item was being heard and suggested
further consideration of the proposed Ordinance amendment. She suggested additional
restrictions be placed on bed and breakfast inns:
County suggestions be followed, including the seven day limit on stay
a record of check in and check out be kept to monitor the length of stay
no sale of other products or goods
limit of four bedrooms, limit of number of beds in a room,
keeping the bed and breakfast as close to a single family residence as possible
potential parking problems be considered
owner occupancy required
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5
DECEMBER 10, 1986
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Ms. Macol's concern was impact on the community. She noted the decision of Los Gatos
which viewed bed and breakfasts as commercial ventures and were thus restricted to
commercial zones. She read from an article describing one individuals negative experiences of
living next to a bed and breakfast. She urged further consideration of the proposal before any
decision was reached.
SIEGFRIEDfI'UCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:35 P.M.
Passed 7-0.
Commissioner Siegfried noted that the impetus for this amendment to the Ordinance was the
desire of one property owner; he suggested that the Commission reject this proposal.
Commissioner Harris concurred; however, she noted that this issue has been considered for the
past several years and asked that the proposal be put to a vote to resolve the issue. She
apologized for the lack of notice to residents and suggested there may have been others who
also would have liked to address the issue.
Commissioner Guch noted she was not favorable to this proposal, viewing it as an
encroachment into residential areas. While she would consider allowing bed and breakfasts in
the Village, she questioned the 500 ft. boundary and suggested that such a provision would, in
fact, open up other areas in the City for bed and breakfast use. She noted that the concerns
expressed by speakers were neighborhood ~oncems. Commissioner Tucker concurred and
stated that questions addressed by the speakers required answers before a vote would be taken
in support of the amendment to the Ordinance.
Commissioner Pines noted the valuable information provided by speakers and' stated that he
would not vote favorably on the amendment at this time. Further consideration is required.
Consensus reached among the Commission that better Noticing on an issue of this importance
was necessary. Commissioner Callans noted that the 500 ft. boundary impacted some
distinctive neighborhoods and commented that probably none of the Commissioners wished to
live next door to a hotel. Consensus reached that the Commission wished to put this item to a
vote; Commissioner Harris would accept a two week continuance to allow additional notice in
the Saratoga News. Commissioner Guch noted that restricting bed and breakfasts to the
Village did not seem to be contrary to the philosophy already stated; the problem seemed to be
the extension of this use to a 500 ft. boundary. Commissioner Siegfried suggested that the
Commission vote on whether or not to extend use beyond the Village and resolve the issue.
He noted that a bed and breakfast use is already allowed in the Village.
SIEGFRIED/GUCH MOVED TO DENY AZO-86-003. Passed 7-0.
13. LL- 18 Robles, consideration of a proposed lot line adjustment and site
SM-34 modification to allow relocation of the previously approved building site on
DR-86-044 the lot granting design review approval of plans to construct a new 3,944
sq. ft. two-story home on that site at 12906 Chiquita Ct., in the NHR
zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, December 10, 1986.
Planner Caldwell noted in Resolution LL-18-1, the elimination of Condition 1 .; Condition 2.
would become Condition 1. and a statement added stating "The applicant shall submit a Parcel
Map to the City Engineer for recording prior to issuance of a permit. On Resolution
DR-86-044-1, Exhibit A, delete Condition 10.
Commissioner Tucker reported on the Site Visit and responded to questions addressed by
Commissioners.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:44 P.M.
Mr. Bill Heiss, Engineer, presented information on the creek located on the property.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6
DECEMBER 10, 1986
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Mr. Bob Tager, Contractor, stated that when the Applicants came to him, they wished to have a
Tudor style home. In a Tudor style homes a high pitched roof is required; in this case the 28
ft. height allowed is insufficient. The applicants requested 29-30 ft. height. This is one of the
lowest lots in the area; the view of others will not be impacted. In addition, there are no
adjacent neighbors with the exception of a potential neighbor to the fight of the property in
question.
Commissioner Harris questioned the removal of Ordinance size Oak trees and was informed°
that the Oak tree in front of the proposed home would be trimmed, not removed.. Trees to be
removed are to the rear of the property. Mr. Tager stated there are numerous trees on site and
removal of six trees will not impact the Site. He stated that the type of foundation will
minimize the impact on the tree located to the front of the house. Chairwoman Burger noted
that the location of a tree within 8 ft. from a proposed structure is usually noted in the Staff
Report and Conditioned in the Approval; Staff confumed that it was not noted in the Staff
Report.
Mr. Paul Robles, Applicant, stated that they designed the home with minimum impact on the
Oak trees; there are thirty five Oak trees on the property.
HARRIS/PINES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:49 P.M.
Passed 7-0.
Commissioner Harris asked that the number of trees removed be noted; she did not object to
the 29 ft. height requested, stating that the lot was not visible to other properties with the
exception of the new homes on Parker Ranch and the one house across from the proposed
house. Commissioner Siegfried concurred and noted that the house will be within 4,000 sq.ft.
instead of 7,500 sq.ft. In response to a question, the Applicant confirmed that six trees will be
removed.
HARRIS/SIEGFRIED MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION DR-86-044-1,
CONDITION 2, DELETE "28" AND ADD "30 FEET"; CONDITION 6, TO READ "NO
ORDINANCE SIZE TREES OTHER THAN THOSE SIX TREES ..."; CONDITION 10,
DELETED; CONDITION 13, ADD, "ANY FOUNDATION CLOSER THAN 8 FT. OF A
TREE MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY HORICULTURALIST." Passed 7-0.
HARRIS/GUCH MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF LL-18-1, ELIMINATION OF CONDITION
1; CONDITION 2 TO BECOME CONDITION 1; ADDING "THE APPLICANT SHALL
SUBMIT A PARCEL MAP TO THE CITY ENGINEER FOR RECORDING PRIOR TO
ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT. Passed 7-0.
HARRIS/SIEGFRIED MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF SM-34-1. Passed 7-0.
14. DR-86-049 Goel, request for design review approval of plans to construct a new 6,196
sq.ft. multi-level home at 12467 Parker Ranch Ct. in the NHR zoning
district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission, December 10, 1986.
Planner Caldwell noted the addition of:
Condition 21 :Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the following would be
submitted to the SCVWD for review and approval:
A. Plans for any work done within 10 ft. of the Diswict's right of way.
B. Written confumation from the applicant or his engineer regarding the existence of any
walls and their proposed deposition.
Condition 22. Bridges: All bridges and roadways shall be designed to sustain 35,000 lbs.
dynamic loading.
Commissioner Tucker reported on the Site Visit.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:00 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7
DECEMBER 10, 1986
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Mr. Walter Cabnot, R~presentafive of the Applicant, presented the design and use of the lot.
He informed the Applicants of issues that have to be addressed in building a hillside home;
namely, stepping the home up the hill and the loss of a rear yard. The garage was placed on
the lower portion of the lot; placement of the main living area on the second story allowed the
home to be stepped up the hillside, reducing the grading on the lot.
With regard to the rear yard, patios would be placed to the side of the house allowing for yard
space. In addition, the creation of patios to the side of the house prevented grading of the lot
outside retaining wails, house pads or driveways; in this regard the Staff Report was favorable.
Mr. Noel Cross, Associate of Mr. Cabnot's, called attention to Conditions 18 and 19 in Exhibit
A; he spoke to a member of the Fire Department who stated that the Applicants did not have to
have a 32 ft. inside radius turn around.
Mr. Cross addressed Condition 20 stating that the Applicants wish to have yard space; since
the south east side yard space is the only place that will be sunny, especially during the winter
months, they wished to retain this area. The elimination of the 1,600 sq.ft. recommended in
the Staff Report will, in effect, eliminate side yard space. Arguments in favor of retaining this
area are that it does not impact the site from a street view. While this area would require
significant amount of grading, Staff stated that it was not excessive given the topographical
constraints of development of the lot.
In response to Commissioner Siegfried's question, grading would be reduced about 300 cu.
yds. if Condition 20 were required. The applicants requested that Condition 20 be eliminated.
SIEGFRIEDfFUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:17 P.M.
Passed 7-0.
Commissioner Tucker was favorable to the deletion of Condition 20.
TUCKER/SIEGFRIED MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-86-049-1 WITH THE ELIMINATION
OF CONDITION 20. Passed 7-0.
15. DR-86-043 Steve Sheng, request for design approval of plans to construct a new
two-story 6,346 sq.ft. single family dwelling at 14900 Pierce Rd. in the
NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Planning Director Hsia presented Report to Planning Commission, December 10, 1986.
Commissioner Tucker reported on the Site Visit.
Planner Caldwell stated Exhibit A, 16., was a requirement of the negotiated settlement for the
Pamas subdivision. City Attorney Toppel asked that the second half of this Condition be
eliminated in conformity with City Ordinances.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:20 P.M.
Mr. Steve Sheng, Applicant, questioned the requirement for landscaping on the south east side
of the house; Commissioner Harris clarified that landscaping was being required on the south
east side of Congress Springs Rd. The Applicant was agreeable to the requirement as clarified.
HARRIS/PINES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 9:22 P.M.
Passed 7-0.
HARRIS/PINES MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF DR-86-043-1, CONDITION 10, ADD THE
WORD "SOUTH EAST"; CONDITION 16, DELETE THE SECOND HALF OF THE
Condition. Passed 7-0.
'..,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8
DECEMBER 10, 1986
COMMUNICATIONS:
Written:
1. SRC Minutes of October 22, 1986.
The Commission was asked to approve the Minutes of the October 22, 1986, Site Review
Committee Meeting, since this was the final meeting of this Committee.
Commissioner Harris requested the following correction, on page 2, Item 4, add to "they are
planning to modify the house 'in the future..."'
HARRIS/HSIA MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SITE REVIEW
COMMITFEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 1986, AS AMENDED. 2-0-6, Chairwoman
Burger, Commissioners Siegfried, Guch, Pines, Callans, Tucker abstaining.
2. Letter Regarding CDBG Project Proposal Solicitation.
Chairwoman Burger asked the Commission to communicate any suggestions on this proposal
to Planning Director Hsia.
3. Letter regarding parking on Big Basin Way APN 503-25-012 and response dated
November 25, 1986.
Letter to Mr. Rankin to be approved by the Commission and signed by the Chairwoman.
HARRIS/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVED THE LETFER AS WRITFEN. Passed 7-0.
Oral by Commission:.
City Council Report:
Commissioner Harris reported on the City Council Meeting of December 3, 1986.
Planning Director Hsia, on behalf of the Planning Staff, wished the Planning Commissioners a
Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year.
City Attorney Toppel announced that the United States Supreme Court had declined to hear the
Wren case and that the trial court has upheld the City on the Hwang case.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:38 P.M.
Carol A. Probst-Caughey ~
Recording Secretary