HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-28-1975 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CODfiSSION
~fiNUTES
TIME: Wednesday, ~y 28, 1975 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Lustig, WoodWard and Zambetti
Absent: Commissioners ~rshall and Martin
B. MINUTES
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the read-
ing of the minutes of the May 14, 1975 Planning Commission meeting be waived,
and that they be approved as-~stributed to the Commission subject to the fol-
lowing corrections: page 3, third line of seventh paragraph, replace "in the
discretion of" with "at the discretion of;" and page 5, Item II-G, correct
spelling of Mr. Edmunds' name. The motion was~=carried; Commissioner Lustig
abstained.
C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT
IC~ai~ady.Belanger gave a brief account of the ~y 21, 1975 City Council
meeting at the end of'~h.~s m~i.ng under Oral Communications. A copy of. the
minutes of ~his meeting is on file ~t'~'he C{t~"~ Admi~ist~a~{6n Office.
II. Pb~LIC HEARINGS
Chairlady Belanger directed Items A and B be addressed after completion of Items
II (C)-(H).
C. V-421 - Alex Weathers, Bank Mill Road, Request for Variance to Section 3.3-7
of Ordinance NS-5 by Allowing the Number of Lots Served by a Minimum'
Access Street 'to Exceed Four (4) Lots; Continued from May 14~ 1975
The Secretary explained that this matter was pending a request for withdrawal,
and recommended this be continued. Chairlady Belanger directed V-421 be con-
tinued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 1975, and referred this
matter to the Staff for further consultation with the applicant.
D. V-423 - Arthur Holmboe, 14566 E1Puente way, Request for Variance to Allow a
19-Foot Sideyard Setback in Lieu of the Required 20-Foot Setback as
per Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7=1; Continued from ~y 14~ 1975
The Secretary pointed out that a letter had been received from the applicant
requesting this matter be withdrawn. It was noted that after an on-site in-
spection of the property by the Variance Committee and Staff .... the applicant
had indicated acceptance of~suggested amendments which y0uld. therepy eliminate
the need for a variance. ~ "
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission accept the request for withdrawal of application V-423. The motion
was carried unanimously.
E. V-424 - Western Federal Savings and Loan Association, 14411 Big Basin Way,
Request for Variance to Allow a Free-Standing Sign Measuring 3' x 4'
to be Located at 14411 Big Basin Way as Regulated by Ordinance NS-3,
Section 10.5~ Continued fromMay 14~ 1975
It was noted that although~Staff had recommended thisi matter be denied p~r t~e
-1-
~ '., -. MINUTES OF MAY 28.
II. E. V-424 - Western Federal Savings and Loan Association - Cont'd
Staff Report dated May 28, 1975, the applicant had subsequently requested this
matter be continued pending submission of revised plans. Chairlady Belanger
directed V-424 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 1975,
and referred same to the Variance Connnittee and Staff for further review and
report.
F. UP-239 - Boething Treeland Nursery Company, Prospect Road, Request for Use
Permit to Allow the Construction of an 8-Foot High Storage Shed to be
Erected in the West Valley Freeway Right-of-Way
The Secretary noted that there had been several phone calls and letters regard-
ing this matter, and as a result Staff would suggest the Subdivision Committee
make an on-site inspection. It was arranged that the Subdivision Committee and
Staff would make an on-site inspection on Tuesday, June 3, 1975 at 4:00 p.m.
Chairlady Belanger directed UP-239 be continued to the Planning Commission meet-
ing of June 11, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and
Staff for ~eview and report.
G. UP-261 - Saratoga Cable Television, Inc., Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Request for
Conditional Use Permit to Allow the Storage of Construction Equipment
and Supplies and a Signal Processing Antenna Site to be Located at
12299 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (Ordinance NS-3, Section 7-3); Continued
fromApril 9~ 1975
The Secretary advised the Commission that major problems with the franchise
agreement between the City and applicant had yet to be resolved by the City
Council, and recommended the Commission continue this item until such resolu-
tion had been made. Chairlady Belanger directed UP-261 be continued to the
Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 1975, and referred this matter to the
Staff and Subdivision Committee for further review and report.
H. UP-274 - Eldon Hoffman, Bank Mill Road, Request for Use Permit to Allow the
Construction of an 8-Foot Tennis Court Fence (Ord. NS-3~ Sect. 3.4)
The Secretary pointed out that this matter wa~ still being reviewed by Staff,
and suggested this be continued. Chairlady Belanger directed UP-274 be con-
tinued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 1975, and referred this
matter to the Staff and Subdivision Committee for review and report.
A. C-172 - Blackwell Homes (Parker Ranch), Prospect and Stelling Roads, Change of
Zoning Request from "A" (Agriculture) and "R-I-40,000" (Single-Family
Residential) to "R-1-40,O00 PC" (Single-Family Residential, Planned
Community); a 218-acre parcel; Continued from April 23~ 1975
Chairlady Belanger advised those present that a Staff Report had been prepared
with the recmmnendation that C-172 be approved subject to certain conditions.
She explained that this Report was a preliminary report setting forth conditions
to be accomplished by the applicant prior to approval of tentative map. She
pointed out that the site development plan to be presented this evening served
as the basic guideline on which zoning would or would not be granted. Public
testimony was solicited, and Chairlady Belanger stated that upon receiving all
public comment she would recommend the public hearing on C-172 be closed. She
further stated that insomuch as the Council expected a full Commission consensus
on this matter, she would further recommend that action on the r ezoning appli-
cation be continued to the June 11, 1975 Commission meeting at which time a
full Commission should be present.
At this point, Chairlady Belanger reopened the public hearing on C-172 at 7:58 p.m.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
Mr. William Heiss, applicant's representative, gave a status report via a slide
presentation on the progress of the application to-date. Briefly he recapped
the changes made in the application plan starting from the first proposal in
1973 for 185 units to the present plan proposing 105 units. He explained that
.... ~rrNUTES OF ~t~Y 28
II. A. C-172 - Chan~e of Zonin~ r(Applicant's Presentation) - Cont'd
this~present ~l~'n was based on pictures and analyses of the scale model provided
the City, and on meetings held with the Subdivision Committee and Staff. The
plan involved the following aspects:
(1) Circulation. The Circulation System would incorporate a variety of public
and private streets, including one-way streets and "eyebrow and-antler"
streets, which had been designed for a hillside situation. He pointed out
that by the use of these private streets and driveway turnarounds, no home-
sites would be placed in such a way as to require the resident to back out
onto public streets. He stated that the plan proposed a major street
running from Prospect Road across the property to connect with Comer Drive,
adding that this concept had been acceptable to the City's Traffic Consul-
tant relative to what he thought might be an acceptable handling of cir-
culation in the northwest area.of garatoga. He noted that in all but a
dozen cases, the homes would be set back from the curb of the public street
at least 75 feet. FurtheSt'he pointed out a bridge connection proposed on
Prospect Road to help relieve traffic on Prospect Road by placing it on an
internal street of the subdivision itself. He gave a detailed review of
the location of the homesites along the proposed circulation system, point-
ing out specific features of same.
Concerning street specifics, Mr. Heiss noted that per discussions held
between the Planning Department, Public Works Department, the City Traffic
Consultant, the Fire District and himself, the following types of streets
were proposed to be used:
· Public streets to be 32-feet wide, measured from each outside edge of
pavement; i.e., 22 feet of pavement with a 3-foot concrete roll curb
on either side of the street which would be mountable, and adjacent
to that, a 2-foot section of asphalt on either side.
· Private streets had been introduced to keep the width of streets as
narrow as possible in order to minimize the amount of grading required
and the amount of trees required to be removed. The private streets
would be as follows: (1) for 4 or less homesites, the streets would
be 18-feet wide; (2) for 5 or more homesites, the streets would be
22-feet wide; and (3) for one-way streets, the widths would be 14 feet.
Mr. Heiss added that on-street parking would not be allowed, noting that
"parking bays" would be provided along the streets for off-street parking
purposes.
(2) Tree Removal. Mr. Heiss pointed out many specifics relative to particular
groups of trees which would not be removed. Among these trees was the sky-
line eucalyptus grove which he assured would not be removed, but which
would be looped by a private road with homesites downhill from the grove.
(3) Tr.ails. Mr. Heiss gave a detailed review of the two trails proposed as
discussed with the City~s Trails and Pathways Task Force: one running
along the western side of the property,'~nd'the other running along the
eastern side of the property.
(4) Water Tank. He mentioned ~t~at an additional water tank would.be re-
quired, explaining that it would be for appr~xima[ely 150,000 gallons of
water, measuring approximately 20-feet high and 35 feet in diameter;
further explaining that the San Jose Water Works Company would construct
the tank and that "lavish landscaping" would be used. He gave as an
example of the size of the tank, the fact that the present water tank on
/adjacent prq~e__r.ty ?wned by San Jose Water Works Company held 4 million
~ gallons of water.
(5) open space. The plan proposed 150 acres of common open space with scenic
easements to the City which would'be maintained by the property owners.
-3-
~NUTES OF MAY 28~ 1975 _
II. A. C~172 - Change of Zoning (ApDlicant's Presentation) - Cont'd
(6) Recreation. He explained that approximately 8~
a acres near the location of
the ancient landslide area Would be used for the project's active recrea-
tional facilities, including swimming pools and tennis courts.
A recap of the landuses of the proposed plan was given as follows:
!- 150 acres of common open space with scenic easements.
12~ acres public streets
i- 8 acres private streets
-- 40 acres land under private o~mership
· - Average size of parcel to be about 16,000 square feet (minimum to be
· ~ approximately 10,000 square feet) of which half would be limited to
! selected usages guided by a set of covenants and restrictions.
~ 155,000 cubic yards of cut and fill
- 95% of trees over 12" in diameter would be saved
CITIZEN RESPONSE
· ~ Zett Greely, 21450 Prsspect Road, asked for clarification of the 6-month.
'~'~i~ulation i~ the'sta~f'Report"rel'ative't& ~n in-d['~[h'~'fls and geology
study. The Secretary explained that~'~'d'd~
prior to time of approval of tentat{V~ ~ap'or within'6 months ~ft~r zon-
ing decision had been made by the City Council, whichever was lesser.
.. He pointed out that {f such studies were not submitted within the speci-
" fied time limit, it would be considered a violation of the conditions of
the zoning and the progress of the application would be reverted back to
the original classification. Relative to the use of the words "extensive
and intensive" concerning this geology study, Mr. Greely asked if these
words could be defined in more detail. The Secretary explained that these
words referred to and meant the intent of the City to require the appli-
cant to 'take test borings on each?site to be developed on the,site
plan. Mr. Greely asked what the effect woui~ b~'6n the si[e ~lan i~ a
determination was made that the Williamson Act lands could not be removed.
The Secretary responded that this would mean that the total acreage would
decrease from 218 acres to 201 acres, and Staff would suggest the City
Council refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for review of
the change of zoning on the basis of 201 acres.
· ~rgaret Clevenger, 19337 Titus Court, read a statement into the record
opposing this change of zoning on the basis that development would destroy
the n~tural beauty of the hills. She stated she felt that all of S~ratoga
would be impacted by this development, and added that without the hills
she felt Saratoga "would be like any other area of urban sprawl." She
called for a commitment to preserve the hills in tact with no tract develop-
ment. She concluded by stating: "It does not seem like ~he time to open
this up to private profit, and you as our leaders, I am sure, can find a
way to save them."
· ~Stanley Friedman, 12520 Greenmeadow, stated that he was speaking for
the 'S'ar'a~oga ~sr Homeo~ners Association~ He pointed out that although'
the Association was leaning tm~ard the "PC" zoning designation rather
than straight "R-I-40,000" zoning, they were oppose~ to this de~l~pment
because of the visual impact as well as the impact development would have
on the roa~'.
· Tom Sawyer, 20790 Norada Court, Stated that he was ~epresenting the Arguello
Homeowners Association, and asked the applicant if any sites reflected on
the site development plan had slopes greater than 40%. He further asked
if the average~slope ~f=the property would be recalculated if it was de-
termined that the Williamson Act property should not be part of this
project.'.'. He questioned~ff'!~p~0perty owners would be responsible for
maintaining the private roads referred'to i~ the circulation system. Mr.
Heiss responded to the first question by stating that according to their
calculations, there would be no sites over 40% slope, adding that the
average slope on the Parker Ranch was 27.4%, the average slope on the Hall
Ranch was 30.3%, and the overall average slope of the entire property was
28.4%. The Secretary added that if the Hall Ranch was excluded from the
-4-
II. A. C-172 - Change of Zoningi-(Citizen Resppnse)}- Cont'd
project, a recalculation of the overall average slope of the property would
be necessary. Relative to private street maintenance responsibilities,
Mr. Heiss noted that=~i~ would be the responsibility of the homeo~.mers to
maintain private streets and'acCeSseS. Mr. Sa~.~er then asked whether test
borings would be done on the circulation system, and was informed that they
would be done.
Mr. Sawyer complimented Mr. Heiss on his presentation, pointing out that he
felt the developer was trying to do a good job on a very complex site per
the existing City ordinances. He added, however, that he felt development
of this site would present bad effects throughout the hills by increasing
the runoff, by the unavoidable need for removal of trees, by the fact that
soils on the site had "marginal stability," and in addition, the extra
105 homesites in the area would increase the amount of traffic on Comer
Drive and ~n the Arguello area. He stated that he would quarrel with the
statement '{~ ~he staff'Report ~hat this project plan was in line ~{th the
General Plan, arguing that the General Plan consultant had suggested devel-
opment of one unit per 10 acres in this area. He concluded his remarks by
stating that he was disappointed that more pressure had not be exerted in
reducing the density of this project in order "to reduce our tax burden."
· Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, asked what the minimum lot size would
be. Although Mr. Heiss responded that it would be 10,000 square feet,
Chairlady Belanger and the Secretary pointed o~t that the Commission had
not addressed the question of minimum lot size yet, and that this would
be determined at the time of the tentative map application. The Secre-
tary explained that the site development plan at this point did not
indicate a minimum square footage in that the change of zoning process
was not the proper vehicle to address this matter. He pointed out that
the test borings on each site could possibly determine that a particular
site could not be built upon and thereby effect the number or placement
of the lots to be used. He pointed out that the purpose of the site
development plan with this application was that if rezoning was approved,
no more than 105 homesites would be allowed to be built on the site,
irrespective of the size of the individual lots.
Mr. Crowther then asked what the minimum sideyard setbacks would be. He
was informed that insomuch as no minimum lot size had been determined,
the guidelines of setbacks had not yet been addressed.
Mr. Crowther informed the Commission that a Planning Staff member had in-
formed a group of homeowners that a fire station would be required for
this site. Mr. Burt~contested this statement, pointing out that what he
'h'~'d'~d was ghat if the entire h'~rl~i'd~'~d~iope conservation zone area
WaS ever ~Ully de+eloped, there eventuall~ would be a need f~r a fire
station. Mr. Crowther asked whether the proposed water tank would be
adequate enough to handle fire problems, and Mr. Heiss stated that the
gallonage of the tank had been determined by the Fire District and the
San Jose Water Works Company. Mr. Crowther expressed concern that this
property fell within the Fire Hazard Zone, and the Secretary explained
that the Fire Hazard Zone dealt with conditions relative to reducing
fire hazards, such as requirements ~or water fl~ per h'~, insurance,
protective insurance, and roofihTg'materials~j~'d'd general extr~6'~'di~y
...................... c~nS~.~tiO_n~_requirement~_which.Shpuld be used.
Mr. Crowther asked why the present site development plan was not based~
existing geological data, pointing out that some of the proposed hillsides
were in areas of soil creep and unstable soils. He further asked if the
roof elevations would be higher than the ridge line, and what the setbacks
would be on homes near Prospect Creek. He stated that they had done
evaluations on this site and had determined that some ofzthe sites had
slopes greater than 40%. He stated that their concern was that with the
density involved with this project, there was some chance that development
might occur on "risky sites," which they felt might cause high costs to
the City in the future. He concluded his remarks by stating that because
of these issues, they continued to be opposed to this project.
~.~ --=. ~NUTES OF ~tAY 28
II. A. C-172 - Change of Zoning (Citizen Response) - Cont'd
At this point Chairlady Belanger directed Mr. Crowther's questions and any
others which may arise, be addressed by Mr. Heiss after recess.
RECESS: 9:10 - 9:25 p.m.
· Joel Wight, 20603 Carniel Avenue, asked what could be expected in the way of
procedure in the next few months. The Secretary explained that it had been
indicated no action would be taken on the change of zoning request this evening
in that a whole Commission was not available; consequently action could be
taken at the next meeting of the Planning Commission relative to whether a
recommendation should be fom,~arded to the City Council on the rezoning matter.
He pointed out that~i0r to thiS, the Conmission had fon~arded to the
City Council a recomhendati0n to accep~ 6he EIR '~n'this mat~er~ bUt~hat the
Council had elected to{d~!ay scheduling a publi9 hearing on the EIR until
a rec~m~,endation from the Commission on the change of zoning matter had been
received. He explained that once this recommendation was submitted to the
Council, public hearings would be scheduled at the Council level on the EIR,
and the Council would either accept~ refer it back to the Conmission for
modification. Once the EIR had been ~ccep~ed, ~ e~plained that t~e Counc{1
would then schedule public hearings and take action on the change of zoning
application. He further pointed out that with regards to the Williamson Act
question, the City Council would have to make a ~eterminatiOn on this prior to
taking action on the rezoningmatter. The Secretary explained that if after
consideration, the Council approved the change of zoning request, application
must be made by the applicant for tentative subdivisionSmap approva~h~Z~
Y time the Commission would be amenable to receiving public input even'~'~ugh
pUbli~ hea~ings were not required for tentative map approval. He stated that
if tentative map approval was granted, the applicant had 18 months in which to
meet the conditions of tentative approval and file for final map approval with
the City Council. He noted that Design Review would be required as a condition
of tentative map approval for reviewing such things as landscaping, trail plans,
elevations, designs of houses, color schemes, etc., and that this would be re-
quired prior to filing for final map approval. Upon obtaining final map approval
the Secretary explained that the applicant would then be entitled to file for
a building permit and begin construction.
Mr. Wight a~ked how much physical development could be done prior to obtaining
a building permit. The Secretary replied that the engineering analysis, such
as soils compaction tests and test borings, would be allowed,Lbut any/sort of
grading would not be allowed.
· Joan Greene, 12350 Goleta Avenue, stated that she opposed this development
because of traffic increase on Prospect Road and Highway 85, and because she
did not want to see development take place in the hills. She asked what kind
of guarantee there would be that the final map would be adhered to. The Sec-
retary explained that prior to issuance of a building permit, all conditions
of final map approval would have to be complied with.
· Linda Stuckey, 22660 Prospect Road, asked what provisions had been made for
archeological filings and for accidental tree removal. The Secretary ex-
plained that the EIR stated that should any artifacts be discovered, there
would be an automatic hold on the project's development. Relative to acci-
dental tree removal, it was noted that either the applicant could be required
to replace the missing tree or be required to pay a fine. It was noted that
a fine of $500 could be levided for such a violation.
· A gentleman residing at 20998 Comer Drive noted that Comer Drive was not yet
a public street, pointing out that ~he City had not yet accepted the offer of
dedication. He expressed concern that if the offer of dedication was not in
~-~F~u and thi~ p~uject-was-'approvedr--the ~ ........... ~--^-
might be required to maintain this street. Mr. Dan Trinidad, Public Works
Department, explained that there were some minor points to be clarified on
this Before the City would accept the offer of dedication, But that it should
be accepted shortly. He added, however, if there was concern on this, the
C~f~f~ission could impose a condition of tentative site approval that develop-
ment could not proceed until Comer Drive had been accepted as a public street
by the City.
MINUTES OF MAY 28, 197~"~
II. A. C-172 - Change of Zoning (Citizen Response) Cont'd
· Mr. Zinga, 12423 Arroyo de Arguello, suggested that a moratoriummight be
placed on this issue until resQlution of the fo~19!qing problems currently
~being experienced by;citizens in th6'A~0yo de Arguello area: (1) flood-
ing difficulties downhill from the proposed site; (2) traffic problems
on Arroyo de Arguello relative'to cars racing do~.m the street; and (3)
problem of present inadequate law enforcement. He asked how considera-
tion could be given to multiple residential developments without first
-' alleviating the'difficulties the citizens of the area were currently
experiencing.
· Marilyn Norling, 21000 Comer Driv~ expressed concern that one of the pro-
posed trails were proposed to end in the Comer Drive area. She pointed
out that she presently dealt with many trespassing problems which could
currently be addressed by the Sheriff's Department. She reasoned that if
a public trail was allowed in this area, she would not be able to do any-
ghing about law breakers, and asked how this area would be policed.
Chairlady Belanger responded to this stating that the.placement of'ih'~'
/trails was not fi~ly'~h'6~d'i~h'~'~l~,~'~d'~hat proper poli6e measures
~should be addressed by the Council'~iatiVe to this matter at the time' it
-came before them.
·Mr. Heiss, in answer to the questions raised priorto recess, responded
as follows:
(1) Relative to soil creep, he stated that the developer's own soil
engineers had determined isolated areas of soil creep on property
which were relatively shallow and which they determined would be
reparable. He pointed out that at the time of soil testings, deter-
mination would be made as to how reparable the soil creep would be,
and in the event of a negative determination, the building site
"would have to be moved.
(2) Relative to setbacks along the creek, Mr. Heiss explained that there
would be a 50-foot easement along the creek as required by the Santa
Clara Valley Water District, andaadded that the houses would be out-
side the flood bank. He explained that the Water District stipulated
a top-of-bank measurement of a 2:1 slope lnd added that one home was
!proposed~be built on the creek side of the easement outside the
~f~'~f"b~~fr~'~he other 7 homes would be built on the_hillside_.
_Yi~J~_t__h_~__ea~.emep~ .~1~ we!!_b~.gk from the top_. o~._b_an_k_ ....... -'
(3) With regards to whether roof top elevations would be higher than
ridge lines, ~. Heiss replied that tops of roofs would be below
the ridge line of the property; but noted that there were many view-
points of the ridge, and that the matter of which ridge line to
measure would have to be considered.
(4) With regards to homesites exceeding 40% slope, Mr. Heiss pointed out
that according to their calculations, no hillsides would exceed 40%
slope. He added that about 12 homes would be in the 35-40% slope
range, and noted that a breakdown of all slope ranges would be pro-
vided the City in the near future.
(5) In addressing the runoff problem, Mr. Heiss stated that reasons for
this runoff were addressed in the,EIR which prop~sed"~h'~s situation
be mitigated by installing a pipeline to take the wa~ef shed out of
the Arguello system; and additionally, he added that $45,000 would
be set aside for utilization of any other downstream fun-off problems.
· Guthrie Hollingshead, 20775 St. Joan Court, pointed out that the function
of the Planning Commission was to plan, and asked what action'had been
taken to investiga~j~he possibility of acquiring the Parker Ranch site
as permanent open space. /
-7-
~fINUTES OF ~AY 28 19Z~
II. A. C-172 - Change of Zoning (Citizen Response) - Cont'd
Considerable dialogue followed on this, with Chairlady Belanger, Commis-
sioner Woodward and Mr. Beyer, City ~nager, responding. Commissioner
Woodward pJ~nted out that on two separate occasions/citizens had oppor-
~ tunity to assess recreational needs through Citizens Committee to study
future needs in 1961-62 which resulted in ~"b'8~'d' issue and later forma-
o ~tion of the Parks & Recreation Commission. This_Commi__s_s_io_nw_as_chargedo
with the task of putting together a study on various areas in the Cit~
_-_~E_~onsid~ati0~.Pf_the a~q~is~.~OB. of.ppen .~Pa~. _S_he ~_ted{%hat_.moni.eS
~ from the General Fund had been used to acquire parks which were being paid
for on a long-range plan. She suggested that if citizens of Saratoga fel~
strongly enough about acquiring Parker Ranch for open space, a bond issue'
should be passed. Mr. Beyer added to this that most recently a reco~m~enda~
.~io~__ha~-b~en__mad~a_by__th~_Par~s_&_Recr~a~i~n_Commission _to the_City_Council
/for a bond issue of $3 m~llion for acquisition of open space lands. It was
/ reco~m.ended that thepproper agency for Mr. Hollingshead to direct his
suggestionsto was the Parks & Recreation Commission.
CO~'~SSI~N ACTION
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the public
hearing on C-172 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously,.and the public
hearing was closed on C-172 at 10:05 p.m.
~ It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that discussion on the Staff
~ Report and action by the Commission be continued to the June 11, 1975 meeting.
~ After brief discussion o~ whether the public hearing on C-172 should be con-
~ tinued with regards to input on the Staff Report, Commissioner Woodward moved,
-. seconded by-Commissioner Zambetti, that the-public-hearing on C-172 be con-
tinued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 1975 at which time the
Commission would consider the preliminary Staff Report dated May 21, 1975.
" The motion was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Callon requested the Staff--R~port be modified as follows: (1)
under Project Descriptions, include the fact that the~Commissi0~recommendation
~. to the City Council relative to the EIR made the determination 'th~t"the'p~op0sed
project wo~ld'have a significant impact on the environment; and (2) the words=
"intensive and extensive" be defined in more detail.
B. GF-302 - Ordinance No. 60, An Ordinance Regulating the Design and Improvement
of Single Lots, Parcels and Subdivisions of Land in the City of Sara-
toga, and Superseding and Repealing Ordinance Series NS-5 Relating
Thereto; Continued from~y 14~ 1975
(NOTE: This item was addressed after Item IV, Design Review.)
Staff recommended this Ordinance be approved and transmitted to the City Council
for adoption as soon as possible in order that the City would be able to comply
with the California State Map Act requirements which mandated adherence to the
amended provisions by ~'~rch 1, 1975. Chairlady Belanger reopened the public
hearing on GF-302 at 11:07 p.m.
CITIZEN RESPONSE
· Russell Crowther, representative of the Arguello Homeowners Association,
expressed concern that this revised Ordinance appeared to reduce!othe num-
ber of steps necessary for subdivision approval. He pointed out that
left remaining in the City for development was the hillside sites which
would possibly have a much greater impact on the enviromment in terms of
flooding and costs to'.~he citizens, "and we feel it is not the time to
make things simpler." He stated that they would prefer to see the ordi-
nance made tougher, and he submitted to the Commission a letter relative
to this which was being distributed to homeowners in the City ~B~"~[~"'
Arguello Homeo~mers Association soliciting support for a peti[ion against
this Ordinance for the following reasons: (1) "grace" exceptions could
-8-
MINUTES OF ~tAY 28
II. B. GF-302 - Ordinance No. 60/(Citizen ResDonse) - Cont'd
be made by the Planning Commission without final approval by the Council,
thereby disallowing appeals by interested citizens; (2) encourages "ratch-
eting" by giving the Land Development Committee authority to approve sub-
divisions of 4 lots or less; and (3) gives full authority to Land Develop-
ment Committee and Planning Commission to judge consistency with the General
Plan and grant variances on access streets. He read the petition into the
record which requested retention and expansion of the present subdivision
ordinance in order to permit Saratoga citizens appeal of any planning
Commission legislative decision, and further which requested that the
numerator of.!t~e slope density equation be revised from one acre to
2.5 acres. He concluded his statements by stating that it was their
understanding that "it is the intent of the California law that elected
officials shall be accountable for legislative acts and therefore legis-
lative acts should not be carried out by-i"_~dyi_~0ry bodies unless there
could be an appeal to the elected officials'. We'would'conclude that based
on this set of general criteria that this ordinance be held legally invalid."
Mr. Johnston, City Attorney, responded to these statements by pointing out
there were no legislative acts the Commission as an advisory agency, nor
a committee as an advisory agency, performed;'further, that State Law
provided the functions of the advisory agencies. He noted that, in
response to other points brought up by Mr. Crowther, that this proposed
ordinance did provide tentative map approval for less than 5 lots. He
explained that the State Map Act now made it discretionary for a City_
to not require tentative map approval for less than 5 1 ts but that
Saratoga had alway~f~'~'~iY~'d' tentative map approval for all lots. Mr.
Johnston explained ~hat the'p~opSsed'ordin~[nce ~id contain an appeal
procedure to the City Council by any interested citizen on matters of
conformity with the General Plan and conformity with precise plans, and
noted that the existing ordipance did not permit such an appeal. Relative
~to minimum access--street requirements, the City Attorney pointed out that
'th~Se'r~qd~rements were identical to those ~e_City had_~lWa~s had
in its ordinance. He further contended that the proposed ordinance did
not reduce the number of steps for subdivision approval, and that they were
the same steps as those required in the present ordinance.
Mr. Crowther pointed out that the existing ordinance had tables relative
to street planning and tree plantings, which had not been part of the pro-
posed ordinance. The Secretary stated that those tables were being
amended somewhat to up-date the fee schedule portion thereof, and would
be included in the ordinance.
· Tom Sawyer, 20799 Norada Court, stated that he felt the proposed ordinance
did not give a definition for consistency, and expressed concern that as
long as an ambiguous definition' of consistency was'within the'ordi'~a~'e, !
~an interested c~tizen may not be able to appeal many decisions'. Mr. ' .....
· johnSton cited the following definition of consistency from the State Map
Act: '-
"A proposed subdivision shall be consistent with a General
Plan or a specific plan only if the local agency has officially
adopted such a plan and the proposed subdivision or landuse is
compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and
programs specified in such a plan."
He added that this meant that it would be the City Council's perogative
to define that any more specifically, and the City Council was in the
process of doing so now. He stated that this would not only relate to
the Subdivision ~p Act, but also to zoning consistency as well.
Mr. Sawyer requested this matter be continued in order to allow interested
citizens more time in which to review this proposed ordinance. It was
pointe~ out that although it was not a requirement to have a public hear-
ing on a subdivision ordinance change, the Commission had as a matter of
courtesy held two such hearings; further, that the Commission was under
strong urgency from the Council to review this brdinance as soon as
-9-
:;; ; }IIN~UTES OF ~[~Y 28
II. B. GF-302 - Ordinance No. 60 (Citizen Response) - Cont'd
possible in that the effectuation date of the ordinance as stipulated by
the Map Act was March 1, 1975.
· Mr. Crowther pointed out that relative to this urgency statement, an
attorney had informed them that the draft ordinance contained more infor-
mation than was required. He suggested that just those amendments recom-
mended by the State Map Act be recommended for adoption by the City Council
in order to be consistent with the Map Act. He further asked if the judi-
cial review period had been changed from 30 days to 180 days in the pro-
posed ordinance. It was noted that the latest copy of the proposed ordi-
nance contained this change.
~-CQ~iI~ StQN--RE-.SPONS-E-XND-AC~-ION---__
'DiscUSsion folloWed'on fihe'abOV~ ~tatements, and the request that this matter be
. continued'~~e was a division-of opinion on whether the ordinance had been
~ adequately reviewed for forwarding to the Council. Commissioners Belanger and
y Callon were in favor of further study to determine whether subsequent changes
:~ should be contemplated before forwarding the ordinance. Other Commissioners wished
-..~..~to_j~ecommend approval of the ordinance to the Council, and recommended that a
cover letter be fom~arded to ~he Council along with this ordinance requesting
.the Council give consideration to specific areas of concern within the ordinance.
.... ~_---~---~-i-?~ ·
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambett~ that the Plan-
ning Commission close the public hearing on GF-302. The motion was carried
unanimousl~ and the public hearing was closed at 11:35 p..m. ':'~.,.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig~ that the Plan-
ning Connnission accept Subdivision Ordinance No. 60 updated through ~y 28,
1975, and that this be fon~arded to the City Council for its consideration
and adoption; further that a cover letter accompany this ordinance pointing
out certain areas of concern by the Commission with recommendation that the
Council address same in reviewing the ordinance. The motion was carried;
Commissioners Belanger and Callon voted no.
The Secretary requested the Commissioners submit ~ list of areas of concern
/on this ordinance to h~m for drafting of the cover letter. It was the con-
/Sensus of the Commission to review the letter at its Committee-of-the-Whole ~
[meeting on June 5, 1975, and to__t~ke action _the~qn at the regular planning
'Cbffm,xssxon meeting of ~une 11, J975.
III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS
A. SDR-1170 - Alexander M. August, Live Oak Lane, Building Site Approval i('~"~s
(Expiration Extended to ~y 28, 1975); Continued from }My 14~ 1975
~ff F[6[~ne'~d[d]~is item be continued pending submission by applicant of
revised plans. It was noted that a letter extending this to the June 11, 1975 -~
Commission meeting had been received. Chairlady Belanger directed SDR-1170 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 1975, and referred this
ma't~r to Staff and the Subdivision Committee for further review and report.
B. SDR-1174 - Thomas N. Foster, Horseshoe Drive, Building Site Approval - 3 Lots
(Expiration Extended to May 28~ 1975); Continued from May 14~ 1975
Staff noted that the applicant was presently reviewing the possibility of ob-
taining dedication of the proposed street right-of-way from the abutting
property,~' that a'letter granting. an extension to the next meeting had been__
,~received. C~'iri~_~elang~r directed SbR-1174 be continued to. th~'CSmmiSs{on
> meeting of June 11, 1975, and referred this matter to Staff and the Subdivisicn
~C0_.n!n_~t~e for further review and rep0r~.
C. SDR-1175 - ~tt Voros, Mr. Eden Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expira-
tion Extended to May 28, 1975); Continued from }~y 14, 1975
Staff noted that a Staff Report dated }~y 7, 1975 had been prepared for
Commission review at the last Commission meeting which recommended approval.
It was additionally noted that ~he Commission con tinued this matter pending
................... ~_u._rth~ ~ey!~w_.of qqnd!~iqn. (N) per~.aining to thg_Fire. P~St~.~ct. requirement.='
-10-
~[INUTES OF ~Y 28.
III. C. SDR-1175 - Matt Voros - Cont'd
of providing a 6" water main. Chairlady Belanger explained that upon review-
ing this condition with the applicant, Staff, the Subdivision Committee and
the Fire Marshall, the Committee determined that the condition was mandatory
for development within the City of Saratoga, ~nd the ~y_7, ~75 Staff Report
~shou!d be app~oved.
Commissioner Callon moved, secon'd~'d'by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning_'
'~Connnission grant tentative b~ii'~i~'~'Yite approvar to aRplication~SDR-1175 per
'Exhibit A-l, and!subject t~ General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II~_/(A)
7t~'~'lU)"~'f'~h~S[~f~'Report dated ~y 7 1975. The motion was carried unanimously~
It was noted that if the applicant wished to appeal this decision, he could
do so by submitting a written request of appeal to the City Council within
10 days of the decision's date.
D. SDR-1176 - Lyngso Garden Materials, Inc., Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Building
Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expiration Extended to May 28, 1975);
Continued from ~y 14~ 1975
Staff recommended this matter be continued to the Commission meeting of
June 25, 1975 pending review of alternate development and possible redesigna-
tion by the Commission at the June 16th Committee-of-the-Whole meeting of
this site. It was noted that a letter 0~ extension to the June 25th meeting
had been receive~, and Chai~i~Hy'B~l~nger directed SDR-1176 be continued to
the Planning Commission meeting of June 25, 1975, and referred this matter to
the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report.
E. SDR-1179 - John Colistra, Canyon View Drive, Building Site ~pproval - 1 Lot
(Expires June 6~ 1975); Continued from May 14~ 1975
It was noted that the applicant had applied for a variance and that this item
should be continued until action had been taken on same. Chairlady Belanger
moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that application SDR-1179 be denied
subject to receipt of written extension to the Planning Commission meeting of
June 11, 1975 prior to June 6, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously.
F. SDR-1180 - Sylvia Jean, Aspesi Drive, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires June 10~ 1975); Continued from May 14~ 1975
It was noted that/'the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this matter, and that~
f a S~f~' Report had been prepared recommending approval The applicant was
present'and indicated acceptance of the Staff Report.
Mrs. Marsha Citta, 13695.Quit~ Road, pointed out.that-she was an adjacept
property owner, and that the Jeans' property had only a 15-foot wide access
from Aspesi Drive. She stated that she knew that equipmen~ trucks had had
-difficUlty negotiating this access, but noted that the Jeans had not'bee~.
-given permission to use her property for such use. She further pointed out
that grading had taken place on the Jeans' property recently, and asked if
procedurally this could be done in that building site approval had not yet
been granted.
Mr. Trinidad explained that this was a lot of long-standing, and did indeed
have a 15-foot wide corridor. He stated that the City felt that since the
lot had legal access and was a pre-existing lot, building site approval was
in order? He added that any trespassing problems should be resolved by the
two parties in question.
Mrs. Citta stated that she and other'neighbors were concerned with, in the
event the Jeans' subdivided their property, how sufficient access would be
provided. She explained that one neighbor, Mr. Dozier, had been required by
the City to dedicate land for access, and she Was concerned that part of her
property might have to be dedicated. Mr. Trinidad explained that if the Jeans'
wished to subdivide their ~r__eopert~, th~X would~be subject to conditions simi-
~ lar to those imposed on Mr. Dozier .... He pointed put that relative to the Dozier's
~ offer of dedication, the City..had ~ot yet accepted this offer as a public right-
-11-
~fI~rOTES OF }rAY 28, 19
III. F. SDR-1180 - Sylvia Jean - Cont'd
At this point Ms. Jean, applicant, stated that she was aware of the conditions
of a private road, and pointed out that she had no plans of subdividing her
property in the near future. She contended that no equipment truck had crossed
her neighbors' property, but added that she herself had on several occasions,
and apologized for having not received permission first. Relative to the re-
moval of soil,-Ms. Jean explained that the previous owner had moved a mound of
top soil onto the property and after checking with the y s Building Depart-
, Cit '
ment, she was told that a grading permit was not required to remov& a small
quantity of dirt; further, that it was covered with weeds and considered to
be weed abatement. Mr. Trinidad verified this statement adding that one could
move up to 50 cubic yards of earth without having to obtain a grading permit.
Commissioner.i~'~'i~n moved,_Seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission gran~ 'tentative building site approval to application SDR-1180 per
Exhibit A and subject to General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II (A)
through (M) of the Staff Report dated }~y 28, 1975. The motion was carried
unanimously.
G. SDR-1181 - John Vinson, Live Oak Lane, Building Site Approval - 2 Lots
(Expires June 14, 1975); Continued from May 14~ 1975
It was noted that~he Subdivision Co~,m~ittee h~d reviewed .thi. S application, and
that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval.
Commissioner Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission grant tentative building site approval to application SDR-1181 per
Exhibit "A" and subject to General Conditions I and Specific Conditions Ii (A)
through (O) of the Staff Report dated ~y 22, 1975. The motion was carried
unanimously.
H. SDR-1182 - Bernard Tougas, Paramount Drive, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
(Expires June 17~ 1975); Continued fromMay 14~ 1975
It was noted that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this application, and
that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval.
Commissioner Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission grant tentative building site approval to application SDR-1182 per
Exhibit "A" and subject to General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II (A)
through (G) of the Staff Report dated May 22, 1975. The motion was carried
unanimously.
I. SDR-1183 - Assurance Company, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Williams Avenue,
Building Site Approval - 3 Lots (Expires June 18, 1975); Continued
fromMay 14~ 1975
Staff noted that more'ttime was required in order to review this application, and
recommended this matter be continued. Chairlady Belanger directed SDR-1183 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 1975, and referred
this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report.
J. SDR-i184 - Jerry Christensen, Cordwood Court, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
(Expires June 18~ 1975); Continued from May 14~ 1975
It was noted that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. The
applicant was present and indicated acceptance of the Staff Report. Commissioner
Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission
grant tentative building site approval to application SDR-1184 per Exhibit A
and General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II (A) through (O) of the
Staff Report dated ~y 22, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously.
The files were hot complete on the following files, and Staff recommended same be
continued:
K. SDR-1185 - Charles Laughlin, Canyon View Drive, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
(Expires June 18~ 1975); Continued from~y 14~ 1975
-12-
MINUTES OFMAY 28
Ill. L. SDR-1186 - Richard Carlson, Pike Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires
June 19~ 1975)
M. SDR-1187 - Stekoll Development Corporation, Ten Acres Road, Building Site
'~T-i---i--'~ Approval - 1 Lot (Expires June 19~ 1975)
N. SDR-1188 - Jack Drinkard, Pierce Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires
June 18~ 1975); Continued from May 14~ 1975
Chai~lady Belanger directed applications SDR-1185, SDR-1186, SDR-1187 and SDR-1188
be'=~ontinued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 1975, and referred these
items to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report.
IV. DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-467 - Osterlund Enterprises, Fruitvale Avenue, Final Design Review Approval,
Tract ~5011~ Lot #11; Continued from }~y 14~ 1975
lit was noted that Staff was still working with the applicant on this matter, and
that this,item should be _continUed, ~ Chairlady Belanger directed A-467 be con-
tinued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 1975, and referred this
matter to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and report.
B. A-470 - Lyngso Garden ~terials, Inc., Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design
Review Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from ~y 14~ 1975
It was noted that this matter should be acted upon concurrently with application
SDR-1176, and consequently, should be continued to the second meeting in June.
Chairlady Belanger directed A-470 be continued to the Planning Commission meet-
ing of June 25, 1975, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee
and Staff for further review and report.
C. A-471 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rpad,
Final Design Review Approval, Lot A of SDR-1126; Continued from
May 14~ 1975
Staff noted that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval be
granted to the design of the house on Lot A, and of the landscaping, fence and
pathway along the front of the subdivision adjacent to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road.
He added that the Design Review Committee and Staff felt this was consistent
treatment of all elevations in the subdivisions, and recommended approval.
....
gom~..~issioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, .that the Plani
~-.ing'con~nission grant final design review approval to application A-471, Lot
A'of SDR-1126 per Exhibit A and E ' i _,~_a_na ~he Staff Report date
. ' xh~b t X __.~
~May 22, 1975, and approval ~_f_!and~caping, irrigation andZfencing per Exhibit
.... Lj1 ~'[he'~taff Report dated ~y 22','i975. The motion was carried unanimously.
D. A-474 - Michael Corm, Vaquero Court, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot;
_- Continued from~y 14~ 1975 -
'Staff noted that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval be
granted, adding that this item had been reviewed by the Design Review Committee.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning
Commission grant final design review approval to application A-474 per
Exhibit A-1 and the Staff Report dated May 22,z 1975. The motion was carried
unanimously.
.... ~ ......... 77 . .- .....
E. A-476 - Eldon Hoffman~ Bank Mill Road, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot "'-
It was noted that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval, and
that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this item. Commissioner Woodward
moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that final design review approval for
application A-476 be granted per Exhibit A and the Staff Report dated May 22,
1975. The motion was carried unanimously.
.....
-.
-13 -
MINUTES OF MAY 28.
IV. F. A-477 - Donald Perata~ Pierce Road, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot
It was noted that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this application,
and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Commissioner
Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that final design review
approval for application A-477 be granted per Exhibit A and the Staff Report
dated May 22, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously.
G. A-478 - Jack Graham, Lutheria Way, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot
o
It was noted that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this application,
and that a Staff Report had been prepared reco~m,Lending approval. Brief discus-
sion followed re~arding the compatibility of the design of this house with the
remaining neighborhood, and Commissioner Belanger expressed disapproval of same
in that she felt there were serious questions about the impact of this design
in the neighborhood. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner
Zambetti, that final design review approval for application A-478 be granted
per Exhibit A and the Staff Report dated May 22, 1975. The motion was carried;
Commissioner Belanger voted no.
H. SS-84 - Russell Reed, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review Approval,
Identification Sign; Continued from~y 14~ 1975
It was noted that a request for withdrawal had been received from the applicant
on this item. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti,
that the Planning Conmission accept the request for withdrawal of application
SS-84 without prejudice. The motion was carried unanimously.
V. E~riRON~ENTAL IMPACT DETEP~INATIONS
Staff'.noted there were no Negative Declarations filed between the period of May 12,
1975 abe_May 28, 1975..i
vI. MISCELLANEOUS
A. SDR-1083 - Frank Schillace, Upper Hill Drive, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
Request for One-Year Extension; Continued from ~y 14~ 1975
It was noted that the Land Development Committee wished to further review this
matter, and Staff recommended SDR-1083 be continued. Chairlady Belanger directed
SDR-1083 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 1975, and
referred this matter to the Land Development Committee and Staff for further
review and report.
VII. CO~%~ICATIONS - WRITTEN
The following written correspondence was introduced into the record:
A. Letter dated May 20, 1975 from Faber Johnston, City Attorney,~to the PlanninB
Commission in answer to Mr. Walter V. Hays~ letter relative to C-172~ cha~ge
~f zoning application on the Parker Ranch. qhairlady Bel~nger ~irected.staff
forward'a copy of th{s le[te~ to ~r. Hays, and make this letter part of the
C-172 file.
B. Revised edition of Northwest Saratoga circulation ~ster Plan Study dated
May 21, 1975 was referred to~the Planning Commission from the City Council
with the request that the CommissiBn schedule a public hearing as part of
the review on the General Plan Circulation Element, or schedule discussions
of same for a Committee-of-the-I~aole meeting. Staff was requested to recom-
mend a date for such discussions in the near future.
C. Petition signed by 256 names opposing the change of zoning of the Fremont
High School to R-I-20,000 PC. Staff was directed tomake this part of the
C-178, Zone 1 fileL~ and the petition was referred to the General Plan Review
Committee-of-the-Whole ~eeting of June 16,' 1975 for further review.
-14-
~-~ ,_~ MINUTES OF ~l~Y 28, 19~
.... ..-.~.
VII. CO~IIrNICATIONS - ORAL
A. Commissioner Woodward requested Staff to notify The
...S_u_n_n__yval_e .Road that only the City-apprgved sign was permitted :to be us~d'f~'-
the Ci.~y.
B. Chairlady Belanger acknowledged the presence of Mr. Beyer, Mrs. Runyan of the
American Association of"~e University of Women~' 'and Councilwoman Corr, and
expressed appreciation to the Good Government Group for serving coffee.
'VIII. ADJOUR~r~W. NT
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning
Commission meeting of ~y 28; 1975 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously,
and the Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 12:00 midnight.
Respectfully submitted,
~'M'rty Van Duyn, S~ry
skw
-15-