Loading...
PC 07-26-65 "I r t '" '0 . PC-R13 80,000.4 C I T Y OF C U PERT I NO California MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 26, 1965 8:00 P.M. The meeting was held in the Board Room, Cupertino Elementary School District, 10300 Vista Drive. Cupertino. I SALUTE TO THE FLAG II ROLL CALL: Minutes of the previous meeting: 7/26/65 Comm. present: Comm. absent: Frolich, Johnson, Traeumer, Gates Hirshon City Engineer, Bob Shook Dir. of Pub. Works, Frank Finney (10:15) Dir. of Planning. Adde Laurin Recording Secretary, Sylvia Hinrichs Corrections to the Minutes of July 12th: Staff present: Chairman Gates: Page 11, voting on motion to deny application l5-V-65 was left out of minutes - should be AYES: Comm. Frolich, Johnson, Tràeûmer NAYS: Comm. Johnson, Gates· Motion carried, 3-2. Comm. Frolich: On page 6, 3rd from last paragraph, the word only should be added, to read ".....the application should only be revoked by public hearings at that time.. II . . . On page 8, to Item 2, add "regarding grounds for Variance." Comm. Johnson wants to add to the first paragraph, pg. 8, that his question to the applicant had been whether any other cities had required a Variance for a sign, and applicant's answer that no Variance had been requested in any other city. Comm. Traeumer: First sentence, paragraph 5, page 14. should be corrected to read: "...end result will be R24C." Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Johnson, that Minutes of July 12th meeting be approved as corrected. Motion carried, 4-0 -1- PC-R13 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of July 26, 1965 ---------~------------------------------------------------------------ III ANNOUNCEMENTS OF POSTPONEMENTS, ETC. There were none. IV WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Letter of protest from Mr. Jack Robertson, Attorney for James A. Moering, owner of shopping center adjacent to property , to be discussed with application l4-z-65. V VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. James Zaleski, 21884 Oakview Lane, Monta Vista, re- presenting Monta Vista Citizens for Sound Community Planning, asked the Planning Commission if they would take a stand on the Use Permit issue coming up before the County Planning Commission on August 18th, wherein the prospective buyer intends to build a billiard parlor and slot-car racing establishment at the corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Mann Drive. The adjacent residents feel this type of business is not compatible with a single- family residential area. The Planning Director asked the Commission for instruc- tions to answer, should the expected referral from the County reach him too late for the next Commission meeting. When the County asked for comments on rezoning this property to C-2 on May 21, 1965, the Planning Commission had voted 4-0 to recommend against the rezoning. Comm. Traeumer recommended action be taken by way of a Minute Order. Minute Order: Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Frolich, to instruct the staff to write the County Planning Commission, recollecting that the Cupertino Planning Commission objected to the rezoning to C-2, and that the Commission further objects to the grant- ing of a Use Permit for the type of usage considered for this site,which use would be incompatible with the nearby residen- tial area. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Frolich, Johnson, Traeumer, Gates None Comm. Hirshon Motion carried, 4-0 -2- PC-R13 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, July 26, 1965 ------------------------------------------------------------------- VI HEARINGS SCHEDULED: l6-v-65 M. L. GEISLER: Application for a Variance, to build a 6' fence along front of the house, at 11094 La Paloma Drive. First Hearing. Rev. Geisler explained the lot plan, and the re~sqn they had purchased this particular house was to have a yard large enough for their retarded child. They would like to bring the fence between 20'and 14' from the side- walk. This will be an oPen picket-type fence; will be attractive; and an asset to the community. A. Chairman Gates. pointed out the 6' height required a Variance, and asked for comments from the staff. The Director of Planning and the Chief Building Inspec- tor have inspected the site and have no objections in this particular case. The fence does not obstruct the view from automobiles. Mrs. Foley, 11124 La Paloma, spoke in behalf of the applicant, with a plea that the Planning Commission accept this application. In answer to Comm. Traeumer's inquiry why the 6' fence height could not be r,educed to 4', Rev. Geisler replied that their child was a climber and would be able to get over, thus a 4'·fence would not be safe. Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Johnson, that the Public Hearings be closed. Motion carried, 4-0 Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Johnson, that application l6-v-65 be approved. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Frolich, Johnson, Traeumer, Gates None Comm. Hirshon Motion carried, 4-0 Chairman Gates advised the applicant this application will be on the City Council agenda for August 2, 1965. l2-TM-65 B. ALLEN B. WILLIAMS (Western Title Co.): Application for a Tentative Map; one-half acre on McClellan Road, 1/4 mile east of Stevens Creek Canyon Road. First Hearing. -3- PC-R13 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, July 26, 1965 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Max Dittman, of James Bre.en Assoc., Millbrae, . repre- sented the applicant. He said this is a two-lot'subdivi- sion adjacent to Deep Cliffe Subdivision. Street improve- ments will be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Cupertino. Comm. Traeumer asked about requirements of the right-of- way and easements at the easterly corner of Lot 2 (on McClellan); and what provision the City has made concerning this. The City Engineer said the secondary access to the golf course is a private easement. It was once required because the primary access might be blocked by a realignment of plan and profile of McClellan Road. Mr. Dittman said that the County Planning Commission once required an access to the golf course to McClellan Road at the upper level. The golf course was then annexed to Cupertino and was allowed to construct the present entrance. Comm. Johnson asked if the Planning Commission should make a decision on this secondary entrance now. The City Engineer said it would be a substantial cut and fill job, and these two lots at McClellan would be involved in the cutting operation. The Planning Director pointed out that making McClellan Road straight would be excessively costly; a detour to gain length for the grade would probably be necessary. If so, the two lots may be located at a dead- end street. Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Frolich, to close the Public Hearings. Motion carried, 4-0 Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Frolich, that application l2-TM-65 be approved, subject to the 12 standard conditions. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Frolich, Johnson, Traeumer, Gates None Comm. Hirshon Motion carried, 4-0 15-2-65 C. ll-TM-65 PROUD HOMES, INC.: Application for Rezoning from R-l:B-2 to R-l, and change of the location of a park area zoned R-E:B-4, at Price Avenue, south of Stevens Creek Blvd., east of Blaney Ave. Also a Tentative Map. First Hearing. -4- PC-R13 - ------ -------------- ---- --.---.--- --- --- --------- - -- ---- -- - --- ---- - -- Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, July 26, 1965 Mr. Leo Ruth, Civil Engineer, 919 The Alameda, San Jose, represented the applicant and pointed out that City officials have earlier been in favor of R-l Zoning for a portion of this property, and also asked for a por- tion of it for a park site. Applicant is submitting a revised park site to be approved by the City and a re- quest for rezoning. C;mm. Frolich questioned the reason for this' change of park site and who had requested it. The Plànning Dir. said that this layout was drawn by the City as a result of conferences between the City Manager and Mr. Paganini, the owner of the property, as a reasonable basis for negotiating the purchase of land for the park. Draw- backs are that the City gets a long frontage on the proposed street connecting Portal Avenue and Vicksburg Drive, with subsequent costs for street construction, and that the net area for the park would be cut from 5.1 acres to 4.33 acres. However, there are advantages also, in that it is nice to have a park you can see from adjacent streets. The Recreation Director is of the same opinion; that the. relocation has both advantages and disadvantages, and it is acceptable. Chairman ·Gates wondered if a 150' wide park strip is effective, even if it is in conjunction with the school yard. The Planning Director said he had made alternative' sketches at the request of the City Manager, for size and shape of the planned park. Parking necessary for the park can be accommodated in the parking lane of the street. The City Manager has confirmed that the park in its presently proposed size and shape still meets the re- quirements for Federal grant. Construction of a con- nectionthrough the adjacent commercial area to Stevens Creek Blvd. at the Same time as the development of the residential area should be made a condition to the Tentative Map. Comma Traeumer asked if this. park site has actually been designated. The Planning Director said the City has. not bought it, but the site has been selected by the City Council. The present park zone is shown on maps accompanying the application. Comm.Traeumer added that perhaps a Minute Order should ask the City Council to decide on the park site before the Planning Commis- sion makes a recommendation on Zoning and Tentative Map. Chairman Gates remarked that in order to approve the application, the Planning Commission would have to make four separate rezonings. Is the proposed relocation an acceptable park geometry? Comm. Johnson felt it was of no particular value that people could see the park from the street and accidents may be caused by children running out on the street from the park. -5- PC-R13 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, July 26, 1965 Comm. Frolich pointed out that the connection of Portal Avenue with Vicksburg Drive would invite a lot of through traffic along the park. We should consider a street pat- tern which would discourage through traffic. He favored the proposed R-l Zoning, however, and suggested this matter be continued for two weeks; in the meantime, asking for comments by the City Council on the change and shape of this park. Chairman Gates suggested the Planning Commission give their recommendations to the City Council on the Tentative Map. He stated the park plan was first originated by the Recrea- tion Director and presented to the City Council. It was then given to the Planning Commission to be rezoned, and re-submitted to the city Council. The Pl~nning Director remarked on procedures established by Ordinance 002(a): Assuming that the Planning Commis- sion wishes to deny the request for rezoning, and the City Council subsequently approved the rezoning but desires changes, then the rezoning will be referred back to the Planning Commission. Moved by Comm. Johnson, seconded by Chairman Gates, that the Public Hearings be closed. Comm. Frolich objected to closing the Hearings for the reason that people in the area should be given an oppor- tunity to discuss the park site, but withdrew his ob- jections. Motion carried, 4-0 Comm. Johnson commented that if the City Council did approve the rezoning and the change of the park site over the decision of the Planning Commission, the appli- cation would then be returned to the Planning Commission for further discusslon. He suggested the members of the Commission appear before the City Council and voice their opinions, both as a Commission and as interested citizens of the area, if additional Hearings are required. Moved by Comm. Johnson, seconded by Comm. Frolich, that application l5-Z-65 be denied, and to hold application ll-TM-65 pending City Council action. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Frolich, Johnson, Traeumer, Gates None Comm. Hirshon Motion carried, 4-0 The reason Comm. Traeumer voted to deny this application did not mean he is against the zoning in existence; he did not feel it was within the scope of the Planning Commission to modify the size and location of the park site; this would be Council action. -6- PC-R13 --------------------------------------------------------------- Minutes of the Planning Commission, July 26, 1965 14-2-65 ll-u-65 Chairman Gates advised the applicant that the reason for the denial was the layout of Portal Avenue and Vicksburg Drive, and the revised shape of the park, and that the applicant may appeal the decision within five days to the City Council. D. ALAN ALAMEDA (Church of Christ): Application for Rezoning from R-l:B-2 to C-I-H, north side of Bollinger Road, 500' west of Blaney Avenue. Also Use Permit for a Funeral Home. First Hearing. Mr. Gene Lacey, representing the applicant, explained that a problem has come up within the last few days which makes it impossible to discuss the application tonight. The application may possibly be withdrawn. However, Mr. Lacey requested a continuance until another meeting. Chairman Gates suggested that since so many interested people in the audience were present to hear about this particular application, perhaps some action other than a continuance could be taken this evening. He asked if the representative would present something on the plans at this meeting. Comm. Johnson suggested the Commission proceed with with the first hearing at this time, if the repre- sentative feels qualified. Mr. Lacey stated that he has not been supplied with adequate information to represent the applicant or the piece of property, and would not like to discuss the application now. Chairman Gates asked the Commission what happens if the representative withdraws the application now, and what happens if he bringB it up at a later date; can he do so without paying the filing fee? It must then be advertised; will the applicant have to pay the publish- ing fee for Hearing? Mr. Lacey said that the applicant would agree to pay for the advertising. Moved by Comm. Frolich, seconded by Comm. Traeumer, to continue this application until the next meeting of the Planning Commission. However, it will be then postponed or tabled until advertised anew at the re- quest of the applicant, who is to pay for re-advertis- ing fees. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Frolich, Johnson, Traeumer, Gates None Comm. Hirshon Motion carried, 4-0 -7- PC-R13 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Minutes of the Planning Commission, July 26, 1965 8-u-65 .VII l5-V-65 VIII It was suggested that application be submitted in the form of a Use Permit only, not a Rez:oning. There is some question as to whether restrictions to use as a Funeral Home only could be made conditions to rezoning application for the use intended - but they can be attached to a Use Permit. Rezoning at this property was denied previously, mainly because of traffic pattern and parking created by C-l-H. This project may not have the same drawbacks. E. It was announced this item is to be heard last on the agenda. UNFINISHED BUSINESS C, B. ARCHDALE: Application for a Variance to extend present bui:ding into rear yard, at 20063 Merritt Drive. The flanning Director stated this appllcation has been referred back to the Planning Commission by the City Council for further discussion. The Chief Building In- spector, on request from the City Manager, had made a visual inspection of the property to ascertain if a hard- ship existed here to justify the approval of a Variance. The applicant has decided to abandon his plans for the extension, however, and has withdrawn his application. NEW BUSINESS 81,025.05 A. YMCA: Extension of Park Avenue to Alves Drive. Mr. Kiser represented the YMCA and submitted a map showing the location of a proposed YMCA building in Cupertino. They would like to know jf their project meets with the approval of the City, so they could get on with the necessary Rezoning or Use Permit. They are ready to build in three years, or so. The YMCA would like the Planning Commission to give them an informal thought on a procedure to be followed. Chairman Gates asked Mr. Kiser how the YMCA would fit in or operate in relation to the Central or Neighborhood Parks. Mr. Kiser said there are several problems to be resolved before they can complete their transaction of the pro- perty, which they have contracted with a Minnie Mae Neilsen. They would like the assistance of the Commission in work- ing out these problems: 1) Approval of the location. -8- PC-R13 Minutes of the Planning Commission, July 26, 1965 -------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Alves Drive extension to Park Avenue. This could be accomplished if the City would initiate con- demnation proceedings for which the YMCA would pay. An easement district would be one method, but would be too costly and involved, and they would prefer the condemnation method. They have offered to pay for the street improvements if the owner would dedicate the small strip needed to complete Alves Drive, but have been unsuccess- ful. Comm. Frolich recommended the YMCA submit more de- tailed plans, which the Planning Commission could discuss at the next meeting when the City Attorney will be present. He further recommended that the City Attorney be asked to make a written review and report for the Planning Commission on this matter for discussion at the next meeting. Moved by Comm. Johnson, seconded by Comm. Frolich, that Hearings be continued at a subsequent meeting, provided the representative for the YMCA has filed a formal application. Motion carried, 4-0 Chairman Gates called for a 5-minute break at 9:20 P.M. 81,025.05 B. CITY PLANNER: Neighborhood Plan for area limited by Stevens Creek Blvd., Stelling Road, and the Freeways. The Planning Director demonstrated and commented on a 1" = 400' preliminary Neighborhood Plan for this area. Though not in as large scale and with as much detail as a final proposed plan, it does show recom- mended residential and other uses, including density, and a complete street pattern. The Plan is closely connected with application 8-u-65, but has also wider implications. No action by the Planning Commission is required at this time, except to the extent it has bearing on the aforementioned appli- cation. Comm. Johnson related that former Mayor Finch had met with Sunnyvale and the County some time ago, and it waS agreed that a study session would be held to discuss Mary Avenue and an overpass over Mary Avenue. To date, this meeting has not come about. Is the City Council planning to have another session with Sunnyvale, or is Sunnyvale waiting to hear from the Cupertino City Council? -9- PC-R13 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Minutes of the Planning Commission, July 26, 1965 8-u-65 Comm. Johnson wondered if Cupertino can proceed with any ideas on a Neighborhood Plan until the issue of Mary Avenue overpass has been resolved? The entire plan of the applicant (8-U-65) is based on the assumption that Mary Avenue is going to overpass the freeway, The Planning Director said that a meeting had been scheduled for some date ·in July, but the meeting has not materialized yet .'" '. E, VALLEY TITLE COMPANY (Page Properties): Application for a Use Permit for a 60-acre one-family Cluster Development within a PC-H z:one, north and east of Mary Avenue, near Stevens Creek Blvd. Second Hear- ing continued. Moved by Comm. Johnson, seconded by Comm. Frolich, to reopen the Public Hearings. Motion carried, 4-0 Mr. Mittelman asked the Planning Director whether he had seen any of the drawings of the profiles of the West Valley Freeway where it borders the Corporation Yard. The Planning Director answered that preliminary plans show the north-south traffic on an embankment in front of the Corporation Yard, and then coming down to ground level west of the applicant's property. Mr, Mittelman wished to register publicly his opposition to the location of the corporation yard where it is now. Regarding the City Planner's proposed Neighborhood Plan and its street pattern, he questioned the need for more outlets from the area than shown in the application. It is impossible to create the proposed park-like environ- .ment if they have to connect it with adjacent, older de- velopments. Mr, Mittelman stated he had had a series of talks with the City Planner and the Director of Public Works, which are a continuance of the earlier discussions in regard to street sections, etc., and he has included them in the Revised Development Plan. Their original application showed the same number of inter- sections on Mary Avenue as the revised plan; they have re- duced by 2/3 the number of dwelling units served by these outlets, There would be no direct access from driveways to Mary Avenue. In the design of this plan; considera- tion had to be given not only to the wishès of the buyers but also the feelings of the various publiC agencies and lending ~gencies, landscape architects, ànd maintenance c·ost.s. ...,10- PC-R13 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, 7/26/65 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Planning Director made a resume or his memo, which has been sent to Mr. Mittelman as well as the Planning Commissioners, and also made some other comments. Two schematic plans for "compact" development around courtyards were presented. 1. Different uses are allowed within a PC-H Zone; they can be mixed, but must be designated as corresponding to various z:ones and delineated on the Development Plan required in a PC-H Zone, to make it possible to compare the proposed standards with the requirements of correspond- ing Zoning Ordinances. The Planning Commission and the City Council may grant Variances; in- stead of the regular Variance procedure the Development Plan itself can be the document specifying the Variance, but this plan must be in a bi~ enough scale and precise enough to clearly show where standards vary. 2. It was suggested during the last Hearing that R-l with Variances of density, etc., would be an appropriate use designation. The applicant prefers R-24-H. Any designation (R-l, R-2-H, R-24-H, R-3-H, R1C, R2C, R24c, R3C) can be ac- commodated, with the proper Variances and con- ditions, though more or less appropriately. 3. An area "A" intended for high-rise apartments is blank on the presented Development Plan. The Planning Commission i~y in the future grant a higher density than D.U./gross acre, to com- pensate for the lower density in the now-pre- sented plan; this cannot be guaranteed, however, as no plan for area "A" is included now. No blank check5 should be signed by the Planning Commission or the City Council. 4. Width of moving lanes could be adjusted to traffic load. Parking lanes might be omitted, if it is proven that adequate parking is pro- vided elsewhere. Sidewalks might be omitted, if as direct and convenient walkways are pro- vided in the Common Area, but space must be provided for electroliers, etc. 5. The proposed section of Mary Avenue is unsatis- factory, and there are too many intersections, which would create accidents; compare the inter- sections of Highway 85 with Rodrigues Ave., etc. -ll- PC-R13 _.- -- -- - - ---- - -- - - -- - --- - -- -- - - -- -- ---- - -- - - - -... - -...- -- -- - - - - -- - -- -- -- Minutes of the' Planning Commission Meeting, July 26, 1965 6. Though it is recogniz:ed that in order to be saleable the proposed development must be self-contained and turn its back on adjacent County developments, this should not be done to the extent of impairing reason- able local street interconnections. 7. The presented plan tries to combine the houses-in-a- park concept with an "open" concept from the car en- trance side. While this would work well in a low- density area, it is a serious risk that the combination here would result in narrow passages between buildings, which might give the impression of a cheapened R-l develop- ment, However, if further studies show it would not be so, so much the better. Alternat :tV@ ·scheinatic' plans with a "closed" design presented by the City Planner are not intended as a counter-proposal, only as an illustration that by sacrificing the aesthetics at the car entrance side, more open space can be gained. 8, Detailed studies usually result in a "swelling," that would result in less open sr,ace. The applicant has assured, however, that any 'swelling" would be offset by other "shrinkage." 9. The applicant has a legitimate interest in getting an intermediate decision by the Planning Commission. Different ways to do so are outlined in the afore- mentioned memo. Mr. Mittelman complimented the Planning Director on his memo, in which be summarized his suggestions and recommen- dations to the Planning Commission for their decision, and for the schematic plans. He pointed out that a detailed Development Plan would be submitted with the Tentative Map, which will show the first phase of the development, but the developer would like some sort of approval now, before spending too much tlme and money on further detailed studies. Mr.. Mittelman stated there were provisions in the Planning Director's memo how the Planning Commission could proceed with an intermediate decision, as they con- cerned density, designation of use, adherence to require- ments in the Cluster Ordinance, and street patterns and street widths. Mr. Mittelman added that the R-24-H use designated. is the use that was originally enacted on when the Zoning was granted. He feels the Cluster Ordinance is vague as to this type of development; however, he has no objection if the Planning Director wants to follow the Cluster Ordinance, although this Ordinance seems to deal more with town houses than with the development envisioned here. In answer to Comm. Traeumer, Mr. Mittelman said that the con- flict with the Cluster Ordinance is in distance between buildings, siz:e of lots, windowless walls, etc. -12- PC-R13 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, July 26, 1965 Mr. Mittelman added that the houses in this proposed development will have a far better standard than a normal development, and this will be a very prestige type of community, where people will get the maximum use of their houses. The applicant showed slides of similar type of street patterns which are now in use in Menlo Park. He indicated the houses would be 1500 - 2000 sq. ft., primarily in two-story dwellings, some in one-story. Chairman Gates asked if the applicant wished to have the Planning Commission now approve this Use Permit, which will be followed by a Tentative Map at a later time. The applicant agreed that this was what they hoped for. The Director of Public Works advised the Commission that, in order to accomplish what the applicant has set forth in his plans, two points would need some thought: 1) Will we permit "alley" gutters, and 2) Can we go along with the philosophy of use of the sidewalk area also for parking. Perhaps the Planning Commission should make a personal inspection to de- cide whether this type of street pattern could be suitable. Mr. Mittelman said the Development Plan and the Tenta- tive Map could be submitted 3-4 months after approval by the City Council. This plan is conditioned to Mary Avenue going through. If it did not, the traffic pat- tern would not be changed, but there might be a wider setback between roadway and house. The Planning Director said that it should be assumed that Mary Avenue would eventually go through, if the capacity is needed. Comm. Traeumer said he would prefer this application be granted under a R24c rather than R-24-H with Variances, as certain restrictions can be added to a Cluster Ordinance which cannot be done in a R-24-H use. Chairman Gates said his feeling on the Cluster Ordinance was that the Planning Commission's soul went into its ordinance and had he considered the type of development which the applicant is requesting, he would have pro- moted this type when writing the Ordinance. Moved by Comm. Johnson that the Public Hearings be closed. Motion died for lack of a second. -13- PC-R13 Minutes of the Planning éOlÍllnlssiòn Meeting, July 26, 1965 .. ,.'. -----------------------___________________~_________w________________ Mr. Mittelman reiter,;¡,ted that this property was zoned long before the Cluster. Ordinance was enacted and they do not want a rezoning, only a Use Permit with present zoning, with whatever particular standards (under PC-H) the Com- mission elects to add to the proposal. Moved by Comm. Frolich, seconded by Chairman Gates, to continue this matter until the next meeting. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Frolich, Johnson, Traeumer, Gates None Comm. Hirshon Motion carried, 4-0 Chairma~ Gates instructed the staff to arrange a study ses- sion with the City Attorney to go over specific ideas such as: 1) What would be the effèct on "Area A" of a Use Permit, not including this area; 2) What would be the situation of the Tentative Map if the entire area would be rezoned R-24-H; and 3) Discuss with the City Attorney what procedures the Planning Commission should follow and what questions should still be asked and answered, in order to be prepared for a·motion on a decision at the next meeting. Mr. Mittelman asked to be allowed to attend this study session. Comm. Traeumer suggested this meeting be ad- journed to a study session on Thursday, August 5, provld- ing the majority of the Planning Commission and staff will be present. (City Planner's note: It was not possible to find a time at which a quorum of the Planning Commission could be expected. A study session will be held by the staff with Mr. Mfttelman present.) IX . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Johnson, that the meeting be adjourned at 11:00 P.M. APPROVED: Isl Jack Gates Chairman ATTEST: C.id f''!... ;;;'1"11/; ''''\ Director of Planning -14- . .