Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-11-1974 Planning Commission Minutes';= ','~ ~,OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES TIME: Wednesday, September 11, 1974 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: "City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: " Regular Meeting z ***********~******** I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Marshall, Matteoni and Woodward Absent: Commissioners Martin and Smith B. MINUTES Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the reading of the minutes of August 28, 1974 be waived, and that they be approved as dis- tributed to the Commission. The motion was passed; Commissioners Callon and Woodward abstained in that they were absent at the.='August 28th meeting. C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT A written report of the City Council meeting of September 3, 1974 prepared by Commissioner Martin was presented. Of special interest to the Commission was the granting of the appeal by Donald Perata on application SDR~ll30. A copy of these minutes is on file in the City Administration office. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. V-411 - Steve Stevens, Quito Road - Request for Variance to Allow Construction of a 10-foot Fence within 6-feetz of the Side Property Line in Lieu of the Required 20-foot Setback (Ord.. NS-3, Section 3.7-1); Continued from August 28~ 1974 Chairman Marshall reopened the public· hearing on V-411 at 7:37 p.m. The Secretary explained that this had been continued pending receipt of revised plans by the applicant. He reported such plans had not been submitted, and subsequently Staff recommended this matter be denied per' the Staff Report dated Augu,.st 28,_j1974. Chairman Marshall noted that at the last Commission meeting, the ,Variance Committee fhad determined that the request for Variance did not meet any of the five tests for /granting~a Variance, and the consensus of the Planning Commission had been that it /~·would be practical for the applicant to constrU.~t 7 a Variance. ~ ' i'Mr. Don 'B~ardsley, the applicant ' s representative, submitted revised plans at this time which ~e, creased the southerly sideyard setback from 14-feet to 10-feet. He added that this had been measured from~he permanent driveway of the adjacent neighbor, that there was a 20-foot str{p of land rbltween the properties owned in.~ ifee by that ~ighbor, and thatz·~the ap_p_li__C,~nt felt these were ·OVerriding mitigating /factors in granting this request. Mr. Stevens, the applicant, explained that ~and his wife played an advanced type of game, and that playing on this reduced fcourt would be difficult as it was, adding that they would like to retain their ~request for a ll5-foot court as reflected on the modified plans. Commissioner Belanger stated that she felt the driveway was a mitigating factor and made the situation unique, adding· that she would be in favor of granting approval to ;~'~d[fi~d request for Variance which s~oke to the fact of the unique- ness of the situation a~d 'w~ich Would~ be 'under landscaping control. Commissioner Woodward agreed stating that she also felt it was a unique situation, that the property was presently heavily landsc.aped, and that there was a buffer zone between ./ad' , jacent propertieS. Commissioner Callon further agreed adding that she did not feel that' by granting this Variance a;. precedent would be set because the driveway was a mitigating factor. She pointed; out that the intent of the Ordinance was to protect neighbors, and that because of the existence of this permanent driveway, she felt the neighbors were protectedZ. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the public hearing on V-411 be closed. The motion was passed unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 7:55 p.m. -~l - '~ .,~MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 1 974 A. V-411 - Steve Stevens - Continued : Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that application V-411 be granted a 10-foot Variance on the southerly side of the property because of the uniqueness of the situation, subject to landscaping approval by Staff, and that the Staff Report dated Augus.t 28, 1974 on V-411 be rejected. The motion was passed; Chairman Marshall voted no. B. UP-245 - Steve Stevens, Quito Road - Request for Use Permit to Allow Court Fencing within Required Setback (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.7-1); Continued from August 28~ 1974 The Staff Report was read into the record recommending approval be granted subject to the approval of application V-411.. Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on UP-245 at 8:01 p.m. There were no comments. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the public hearing on UP-245 be closed. The motion was passed unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 8:02 p.m.. Commissioner Belanger moved, secondedby Commissioner Woodward, that application UP-245 be approved subject to:"the Staff Report dated August 28, 1974 as modified to conform with Exhibit A-1 dated September 11, 1974 of application V-411. The motion was passed unanimously. C. V-412 - W.M. Meier, Sarahills Drive - Request for Variance' to Allow a 40-Foot Rearyard Setback in Lieu of the Required 50-foot Rearyard Setback for the Construction of a New Residence (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7) The Secretary reported the Variance Committee reviewed this onesite September 7, and that a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended approval be granted. Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on V-412 at 8:03 p.m. Mrs. Meier, applicant, explained that two years ago she had received approval of a 40-foot rearyard setback Variance request, but that the application had expired~ The Secretary verified that V-412 was. the same request for Variance as application V-385 which was granted in 1972. There were no further comments. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded. by Commissioner qallon, that the public hearing on V-412 be closed. The motion was p~d/.'.unanimously, a~d the public hearing on V-412 was closed at 8:05 p.m. Commissioner Woodward pointed out that the Variance Committee reviewed this on- site, and reported that the Committee felt there was no problem in granting approval of this application. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded~by Commissioner Callon, that application V~'412 be granted subject to the Staff:Report dated September 11, 1974. The motion was passed unanimously. D. UP-252 - Barbara R. Norman, Farwell Avenue - Request for Use Permit to Allow the Construction of a 12-foot Fence around the Perimeter of a Tennis Court (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.4) The Secretary reported that the City had.'i'S'~Uaa'~'a Stop-Work Order on grading of the property to the applicant after it had been determined no grading- or building- permit had been issued. The applicant had filed a Use Permit application, it had been duly noticed, and due to several phone calls and a letter opposing this request, Staff recommended this be continued pending an on-site inspection by the Commission. Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on UP-252 at 8:10 p.m. Mr. Gordon Do~a,:f~19600 Farwell Avenue, stated he submitted a letter dated August 30, 1974 which opposed construction of the fencing. He requested that three questions be considered in determining whether this application should be approved: (1) Have all Ordinances pertaining to setbacks and grading been com- plied with? (2) As Farwell Avenue was designated as a scenic area, would the proposed fence add to the scenic value of this area? (3) Would the fence add to the property value of the Farwell area? Mr. Doakes stated, "unless there is a unanimous yes to these questions, I request this application be denied." .: "MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 1 [974 D. UP-252 - Barbara Norman - Continued Mrs. Jane Fast, 19611 Versailles Way,' stated that she was not against a tennis court or a 12-foot high fence, but she would be opposed to a 12-foot fence ato~ a 16~-foot fence rising above the street is definitely·an 4~-foot fill, adding "a 2 eyesore." She further pointed out tha't even though there were many trees, they would lose their foliage during part 'of the year. She reported that because of the slope of this property, there would be a serious drainage problem and stated she would be adversely affected by same:insomuch as she lived below the property. Mr. Lou Thorpe, 19550 Farwell Avenue,~ agreed with the comments made thus far, adding that consideration should be given to the fact that West Valley College had tennis courts which were within walking distance of Farwell Avenue. Mrs. Pope, 14534 E1 Puente, pointed out that the property on Farwell was on an elevated slope, and by the time a 16~foot fence was built on the natural slope, "it will look at the Taj Mahal." She further stated there was a serious drainage problem which should be considered. Mr. Dan Cooper, 19639 Farwell Avenue,.stated he agreed with the other neighbors and added that until the fence was either lowered or there was regrading, he could not agree with a fence like that proposed because it would look bad. Mrs. Robert Swanson, 19616 Farwell Avenue, stated that she was curious as to why a Variance was not being requested, and further asked what standards the City had on tennis courts. Chairman Marshall informed her that the City had no specific standards on tennis courts,.adding "oUr experience has been that a~ tennis court was whatever the City and the applicant could negotiate." 'He directed Staff to determine if a Variance would be required. Mrs. Swanson stated that she was not opposed to the tennis court, but stated that should the Commission grant this application, she would like to see evergreen plantings be required around the fence. She further pointed out that a storm drainage system was being installed which might help alleviate some of the drainage problems in that area, and requested· that there be a provision on this application to allow for extra drainage. Mrs. Do~.~ ....... .,19600 Farwell Avenue, asked what the plans specified, and was informed that St~'~'fi'ad not received plans as of yet. She further reported that there had been activity on the property on September 10th; the Secretary reported that the Building Department had been informed.of same and had reemphasized to the appli- cant that a Stop-Work Order had been issued. Chairman Marshall closed the public hearing on UP-252 at 8:30 p.m., continued same to the Planning Commission meeting of September 25, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for further review and an on-site inspection. It was noted that the Subdivision Corf~tLittee would make an on-site inspection at 4:15 p.m. on September 17, 1974. The Secretary recommended the following rezoning applications be continued to the· second meeting in October pending action by the City Council on the Village Plan: E. C-171 - Mel de Selle, Fifth Street, C[ange of Zoning Request from "R-M-3,000" (Multiple Residential) to "C-C" (Community Commercial); Continued from August 28~ 71974~ F. C-176 - Gene Zambetti, Oak Street, Change of Zoning Request from "RM-3,000" (Multiple Residential) to "C-C" (Community Commercial); Continued from August 28~ 1974 G. C-177 - Mary Jane Brown, Third Street,' Change of Zoning Request from "R-M-3,000" (Multiple Residential) to "c-C" (community commercial); Continued from August 28~ 1974 : Chairman Marshall directed applications C-i71, C~176 and C-177 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 23,~ 1974, and referred these matters to be Subdivision Committee for further review. -3- MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 1 .974 -'· III. BUILDING··SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SD-1135 - Barbara Caldwell, Big Basin Way, Subdivision Approval - 6 Lots; Continued from August 287 11974 (Expiration extended to Sept. 117 1974) The Secretary stated that the applicant had made changes in the CC&R's as by the City Attorney, and that a Staff Report had been prepared which recomme~=d~d approval be granted. It was noted that Condition (e) of the Staff Report was irrelevant in that this was contained in the CC&R's, and Staff deleted same from the Staff Report. Mr. James Riley, applicant's engineerl, objected to Condition (c) complaining that by requiring underground electrical wiring, mature and existing landscaping would have to be torn out and it would be a costly expense. The Chairman informed him that this was a standard City condition to cause all electrical wiring to be under- ground. Mr. Riley further objected to Conditions (1) and (2) of the Safety Inspection Report as per Condition (f,) of the Staff Report. After some discussion of same, the Planning Commission's cohsensus was to require the applicant to com- ply with Conditions (2) through (7) of the Safety Inspection Report. The appli- cant was informed that'subsequent to action by the Commission on this appli- cation, the applicant ~'ould request r'econs~deration of conditi6nsi further, that if these conditions were not modified· to her satisfaction, the applicant could appeal to the City Council. The appl.icant indicated acceptance of this procedure. Chairman Marshall moved~ seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that approval be granted to application SD-1135 and th·e tentative map (Exhibit A filed August 27, 1974), subject to the Staff Report dated September 11, 1974 with Condition (~) deleted, and subject to~compliance with"C~ditions (2~ through (7) of the Safety Inspection Report dated September 9,'1974. Commissioner Belanger stated she was having second thoughts about the conversion of this property. She pointed out that one of the objectives of the General Plan was to provide for alternative housin~ for retired citizens in the City, and when apartments which were reasonably priced underwent conversion to condominiums which required investment of personal assetS, some of the options were taken away from some of the older citizens for housing. She~ad~dtthat the mechanics of this / appl%cation were acceptable to her, but that more consideration should be given 7 to the social process. Mrs. Caldwell, applicant, stated that!the conversion from apartments to condo- miniums was solely a financial matterS, explaining that it was not economically good business for her to continue with rentals. She pointed out that those tenants who left her were now paying much more in rent elsewhere!~. She stated that if she could not convert these units to cond~miniums, she would"have to sell the property. The motion to approve application SD-i135 was passed; Commissioner Belanger voted no. B. SDR-1136 - A.H. Brolly, Fruitvale Avenue, Building Site Approval - 4 Lots; Continued from August 28~ 1974 (Expiration extended to Sept. 11~ 1974) The Secretary stated a revised map had been submitted which complied with the recommendations made by the Subdivision Committee, and a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended approval be granted. Commissioner Belanger·r~qU~s~ed Staff reflect Conditions (1) and (n) 9f the Staff Report·on the reviS~-~map. Mr. Williams, applicant's representative, indicated adceptance of the Staff Report. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded·by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission approve the tentative map (Exhibit A-1 filed September 5, 1974) for application SDR-1136 subject to the conditions specified in the Staff Report dated September 11, 1974. The motion.was carried unanimously. C. SDR-1139 - Willard Lynch, Big Basin Way, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from August 28~ 1974 (Expiration extended to September 11~ 1974) The Secretary stated the applicant had submitted a letter granting an extension to the Planning Commission meeting of September 25, 1974. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1139 be continued to the Planning.Commission meeting of September 25, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for further review. -4- 'MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 1 .974 D. SDR-1140 - Michael Conn, Vacquero Court, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from August 28~ ·1974 (Expires September 19~ 1974) The Secretary explained this had been continued pending clarification of the Santa Clara Valley Water District's fetter dated August 13, 1974. He reported that a letter dated September 6, 1974' had been received from the Water District which clarified the applicant's quest:ions. A condition relative to a pathway within the public utilities easement was dis- cussed, and it was recommended a note~ be added to the Staff Report reserving for the City the"'right to require a pathway fronting on Vacquero Court. This was acceptable to the applicant. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commissio~ approve the tentative map (Exhibit A filed July 31, 1974) of application SDR-1140'~ubject to the conditions specified in the Staff Report dated September 11, 1974, and subject to the addition of a Note as follows: "NOTE: The City wishes to reserve' within that public utilities easement abutting that 20-foot portion of private property~i~·~'~_ting on Vacquero Court as shown on: Exhibit "A" the right to require either a trail or pathway or both as determined by the Trails Study currently in progress by the Trails and Pathway Committee." The motion was,passed unanimously. RECESS·: 9:20 p.m. REOPEN: 9:40 p.m. E. SDR-1142 - W.C. Garcia & Associates, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from August 28, 1974 (Expires September ~7 ~ 1974) The Secretary stated that this request was for the placement of a temporary savings and loan structure of 720 square feet'on a 7.8+ acre site with 10 off-street parking spaces provided on the site, and with direct access onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Commissioner Belanger asked whether the placement of the building would infringe upon the health of the trees located on the property. Mr. Garcia explained that the nearest tree would be 15-20 feet ~rom the back of the building, and would not be affected. Commissioner ·Belanger moved, secondedzby Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission approve the tentative map ~Exhibit A filed August 8, 1974) for applica- tion SDR-1142 subject to the conditiohs specified in the Staff Report dated September 11, 1974. The motion was passed unanimously. Mr. Shaw, a resident of Saratoga, stated that he and eight other City residents were present to express concern over the application. Chairman Marshall gave them copies of the Staff Report, and explained that even though the City recog'~ nized the right of the applicant to utilize his land for a reasonable purpose, the City had been concerned that thisisavings and loan not become a permanent thing. He pointed out that from the City's point of view, "Condition (j) of the Staff Reportjputs the applicant under the gun to come up with an acceptable development plan for that property, and it protects the City in that should this not happen, we have a timely limit upon the existence of that structure." Mr. Garcia further assured those present that he had always worked with the home- owners and would do the same here. F. SDR-1143 - W.R.. Hamsher, Sobey Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from August 28~ 1974 (Expires September 27~ 1974) The Secretary stated that a Staff RepOrt had been prepared which recommended approval be granted. He explained that the applicant was unable to be present, but was aware of and approved the conaitions of the Staff Report. -5- " ............ MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER F. SDR-1143 - W.R. Hamsher - Continued Commissioner Belanger moved, secondedl by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission approv.~..~entative:m~p (Exhibit A filed August 18, 1974) for application SDR-1143 subjecb~.to.f..the conditions specified in the Staff Report dated September 11, 1974. The motion was carried unanimously. G. SDR-1145 - Geneva Quickerr, Bohlman Road, Building Site Approval - 2 Lots; (Expires October 15~ 1974): Staff noted the file was not complete on this and recommended same be continued. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1145 be continued to the Planning Commission meet- ing of September 25, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for further review. H. SDR-1146 - Brooks Terhune, Saratoga & LaPaloma Avenues, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires October 15~ 1974) Staff noted the file was not complete on this and recommended same be continued. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1146 be continued to the Planning Commission meet- ing of-Se~[~ber 25, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for fu~' review. IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-443 - Yves Casabonne, Big Basin Way, Final Design Approval - Expansion Commer- cial Building; Continued fromzAugust 28~ 1974 Mr. Burr, Assistant Planner, Stated that a Staff Report hadnot been prepared, and recorf~f~ended this be continued. chairman Marshall directed A-443 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 25, .1974, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee for further review. B. A-444 - Allen DeGrange, Cox Avenue, F{nal Design Approval - Temporary Construction Sign; Continued f.~bm August 28~ 1974 Mr. Burr read the Staff Report into the record recommeding approval be granted. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded. by Commissioner Callon, that final design approval be granted to application A-444 subject to the conditions specified in the Staff Report dated September 11, 1974. The motion was carried unanimously. C. A-446 - Thomas Walker, Pierce Road, Final Design Review - Single-Family Residence; Continued from August 28~ 1974 Mr. Burr stated a Staff Report had no~ been prepared and recommended this be continued. Chairman Marshall directed A-446 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 25, 1974, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee for further review. D. A-447 - George W. Day Construction Company, Fruitvale Avenue, Final Design Approval - Single-Family Residence (Tract 5408~ Lot 1) Mr. Burr read the Staff Report into the record recommending approval be granted. Commissioner Belanger requested a condition be added to the Staff Report which re- quired fencing and landscaping be subject to design review approval. She explained that a 15% fencing requirement had been placed on George Day tracts in order to provide for the open space concept of!the Plann&d'Community zone, and she wanted to insure the City had the power to enforce this condition. Discussion followed on the development of Tract 5150 relative to fencing requirements. Mr. Johnston noted that as a result of what happened with Tract 5150, the CC&R's of all George Day tracts had been modified to provide: (1) a provision limiting the amount of fencing; (2) that in the event the homeowners did not enforce the provisions themselves, the City would.have the right to step in and enforce them; and (3) that those provisions which related to the power of the City to enforce -6- MINUTES OF S~f~B'ER70~97~'~ D. A-447 - George W. Day Construction Company~ Tract 5408~ Lot 1 - Continued the fencing provisions could not be amended without the consent of the City. He added that presently the fencing requirement'/~as not enforceable as a design review condition per the current Zoning Ordinance, but was enforceable as a provision of"~ ~the CC&R's. Commissioner Woodward moved, secondedl by Commissioner Matteoni, that final design approval be granted to application A-447, Tract 5408, Lot 1, subject to the conditions of the Staff Report dated September 11, 1974. The motion was passed; Commissioner Belanger abstained. E. A-448 - AVCO Community Development, Cox Avenue, Final Design Approval - Single- Family Residence (Tract 5855) Mr. Burt stated that a Staff Report had not been prepared, and recommended this be continued. Chairman Marshall directed A-448 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 25, 1974, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee for further review. F. A-449 - Medical Village of Saratoga, Saratoga Avenue, Final Design Approval - Directional Sign Mr. Burr stated that a Staff Report had not been prepared, and recommended this be continued. Chairman Marshall directed A-449 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 25, 1974 and referred this matter to the DeSign Review Committee for further review. G. SS-76 - Ad-Way Signs, Quito Road, Final Design ApprOval - Subdivision Identifi- cation Sign Mr. Burt read the Staff Report into the record recommending approval be granted. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded. by Commissioner Matteoni, that final design approval be granted to applicationS$~'76 subject to the conditions specified in the Staff Report dated September 11, 1974. The motion was passed unanimously. H. A-391 - George W. Day Construction Company, Fruitvale Avenue, Final Design Approval Single-Family Residence',~,(Tract 5327~ Lot 9) Mr. Butt read the Staff Report into the record which recommended approval be granted. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded2by Commissioner Matteoni, that final design approval be granted to application A-391, Tract 5327, Lot 9, subject to the condi- tions specified in the Staff Report dated September 11, 1974. The motion was passed; Commissioner Belanger abstained for the same reasons expressed in A-447, Tract 5408, Lot 1. V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATIONS The following Negative Declarations were filed between August 24, 1974 and September 9, 1974: ~.~'~7~SDR-1145 - Geneva Quickert, Bohlman Road - Building Site Approval - 2 Lots B. SDR-1146 - Brooks Terhune, Saratoga &.La Paloma Avenues, Building Site Approval-1 Lot VI. COMMUNICATIONS - WRITTEN A. Letter dated September 6, 1974 from Lydia Norcia, 14400 Nutwood Lane which re- quested the City to look into the West Valley College matters relating to land- scaping, parking lot lights and tennis court lights. Chairman Marshall reported that Mrs. Norcia and Mrs. Dunn had met with college representatives on Septem- ber 11, 1974, and the College had agreed to modify landscaping on the southerly portion of the property. Chairman Marshall reported that relative to the parking lot- and tennis court-lights, he told'Mrs. Norcia that he felt the neighbors themselves would be in the best position to argue their case directly i~i~h"~h~il~ge. -7- ~ .............. ... ~TES OF SEPTEMBER )74 : WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Continued B. Letter dated August 29, 1974 to Chairman Marshall from Norman Saucedo, 19554 Three Oaks Way, relative to a proposed tennis court fence. VI. COMMUNICATIONS - ORAL A. The Secretary was asked if the fill problem on Cox Avenue had been dealt with. He reported that Tom Upson and the Building Inspector had made an on-site inspec- tion, and that the owner indicated he would remove the excess fill. B. Commissioner Woodward requested Staff determine if a sign permit was required for the sandwich-board directional sign on Prospect Road advertising the Fruitvale Apartments. C. The Secretary reported that the input from the Center f6r' Environmental Design on the Parker Ranch EIR would not be delivered to the City until September 13, 1974. He explained that in order to allow 30-day review-time for the public, Staff recommended the public hearing on CE-:172 be rescheduled from October 3rd to October 17, 1974 at 7:30 p.m. in the '.City Council Chambers. He stated that the public hearing on C-172 was still scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of October 23, 1974, and he indicated Staff would notify concerned homeowner associations of this schedule change.' D. The Secretary stated the proposed Hil:lside Ordinance had been included in the Commissioner's packets, and requested they review same. He scheduled a Study Session on this on October 31, 1974 fn the Crisp Conference Room at 7:30 p.m. E. Chairman Marshall stated that Mrs. NQrcia had reported parking by West Valley students on City side-streets, and st'ated he felt the City had a legitimate com- plaint if this were true. Mr. Beyer,. City Manager, was present and stated he would check into this. F. Chairman Marshall acknowledged the pr~esence of Councilman Diridon and Mr. Beyer at the Commission meeing, and expressed appreciation to MaryjlM6~_~'. of the Good Government Group for serving coffee. VII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by 'Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning Commission meeting of September 11, 1974 be adjourned.. The motion was passed unanimously, and the meeting was adjourne, d at 11:00 p.m. ~e.Spectfully submitted, , Marty Van Duyn,-Secre~ / ~8-