Loading...
PC 06-28-65 PC-Rll 80,000,4 C I T Y o F C UP E R TIN 0 California MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF'THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 28, 1965, 8:00 P.M. , The meeting was held in the Library Room, Portal School, 10300 North Blaney Avenue, Cupertino. I SALUTE TO THE FLAG. II ROLL CALL: Minutes of .the previous meeting: June 14, 1965 Comm. present: Frolich, Hirshon, Johnson, Traeumer, Gates Comm. absent: none Staff present: City Attorney, Sam Anderson Chief Building Inspector, Bill Benevich Dir. of Public Works, Frank Finney Dir. of Planning, Adde Laurin Recording Secretary, Sylvià Htnrichs Corrections to the Minutes of June 14th: Comm. Traeumer noted that on page 10, vote on motion carried to close the first hearing should be corrected to read 3-1; delete "Comm. Traeumer aÞstained", and insert "NAY: Comm.· Traeumer". Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded byComm. Hirshon that the Minutes of June 14th be approved as corrected. Motion carried, 5-0 III ANNOUNCEMENTS OF POSTPONEMENTS, ETC. 8-v-65 5-TM-65· '::;-2-65 7-TM-65 8-TM-65 8-u-65 A. Cþairman Gates announced that Applicatjon 8-v-65 and 5-TM-65 by WOOLEY, and Application 9-2-65 and 7-TM-65 .. by BEATTY, have been postponed indefinitely by request of the applicants, and will be dropped from the Agenda. They will be advertised· again when they are, put back on the Agenda. B. Application 8-TM-65, MACKAY HOMES, Item VI A, has been postponed untjl the next meeting, when the appeal re~ garding re¡::oning of the R-3-H lots along Foothill Blvd. has been decided upon, and tJ!).e neces.sary changes· requested by the Planning Commission have been sub- mitted, It will not be advertised. C. Application 8-u-65, VALLEY TITLE COMPANY, Item VI E has been postponed at the request of the applicant, until the next meeting. It will not be advertised. -1- PC-Rll -------------------------------------------------- --------------- Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeti.ng, June 28, 1965 IV WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 80,002.70 A. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: Announcing the 67th Annual Conference to be held in San Francisco October 10-13th. 81,004 10-U-65 V 3-TM-65 The Planning Director mentioned that each Commissioner had received a copy of the notice, and said he would arrange for reservations for those who planned to attend the Conference. B. CITY PLANNER: Ordinances regulating residential zones. Copies of a retyped edition were distributed to the Commissioners. C. CITY PLANNER: Copy of a letter to the City Attorney regarding the R-24-H Ordinance. This letter was dis- cussed under VII B. D. AMATEUR RADIO OPERATORS IN CUPERTINO: Copy of a letter addressed to the City Council discussed with Application lo-u-65. VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS The Planning Director reported that at the last City Council meeting, Askam-Jones had appealed the Planning Commission decision denying their application to rezone 54 acres from A-l:B-4 to R-l on the hill west of the ex- tension of Mercedes Road. This appeal has now been with- drawn, and at present the application does not exist. The City Council, however, referred this item back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Even though Askam-Jones are not interested now, they might con- sider coming back with a new request. .The Planning Director said that the City Council may feel that the adoption of an ordinance allowing half-acre lots would solve the problems of hillside developments, but that in his opinion many difficult technical problems are involved, which need further study. A Policy for Hill Developments is advertised as an item on the next Planning Commission Agenda. 8-TM-65 VI HEARINGS SCHEDULED: A. MACKAY HOMES: Postponed. See Item III B -2- PC-Rll ------------------------------------------------------------------ Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, June 28, 1965 12-Z-65 B. DON CHUCK: Application for Rez:oning of one acre from R-l to R-3-H, at the southwest corner of Wolfe Rd. and Richwood Drive. Second Hearing. Mr. Richard Foust, representative for the applicant, said he had talked with Mr.J.Zehms of 10165 Vicksburg Drive, who had objected to the change in zoning at the last meeting, and had discussed a number of schemes and changes to the first plan, which could be more agreeable to the nearby prot!~rty owners. Mr. Foust said he had changed the parking arrangement, and included a planting strip which would serve as a buffer between residential property line and the parking area. The type of building planned is one that would be compatible with the surrounding area. louvered windows would not allow people to look out over adjacent R-l lots, and the building would be designed with an inner court for entry. In answer to Comm. Traeumer's question as to the size of the building, Mr. Foust replied that since they have cut down the building size because of the parking arrangement, the building will comprise approximately 10,000 sq. ft., with 5000 sq. ft. on the first floor, and 5000 sq. ft. on the second, and space for 50 cars. (Note June 30, 1965): The Parking Ordinance requires 67 parking spaces for 10,000 sq. ft. gross floor area in a PO-H z:one.) To Chairman Gates' request for comments from the staff, the Planning Director said he doubted that people would buy a home with commercial z:oning across the street from their property~ and PO-H would be preferable zoning. He added that the Planning Commission cannot make the displayed building plans a condition for a rezoning, but if these plans were made a part of the minutes and were sent to the H-Control Committee, it would be a matter of record that these plans had been presented before the Planning Com- mission when considering the rezoning to PO-H. Mr. Zehms said when they purchased their home, the developer told them the area was zoned R-l, and other homes would be developed in the area. Mrs. Dorothy Webb, attorney speaking in behalf of Mr. Zehms, related that there were several objections by the families involved. namely, (1) the building would be lighted at night which would disturb the residents, and would, in effect, be transforming a subdivision into a city, (2) children running up and down the alley behind and climbing the fence to the open area would constitute a nuisance, and (3) the parking situation. -3- PC-Rll Minutes of the Planning C9mmission Meeting, June 28, 1965 -------------------~--~~--~--------------------------------------- Mrs. Webb added that since there is no plan all families concerned could agree to, the lesser evil would be to have a one-story building situated close to the edge of the property line and have it divided from the fence with evergreen planting and a blank wall. Perhaps objections could be overcome in this way. Mr. Zehms made the same suggestion. comm. Traeumer asked Mr. Foust what his feelings would be in regard to a single story rather than a two-story building. Mr. Foust said this might bè possible, but he would have to discuss this with his client. However, if the building was pushed back close to the fence, the planting would have to be cut down considerably. In answer to Comm. Johnson's question as to how the light- ing would affect the neighbors, Mr. Foust said the build- ing would not be lighted at night as a rule. There would be precedent on certain restrictions. Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Johnson, that public hearings be closed. AYES: Comm. Hirshon, Johnson, Traeumer, Gates NAYS: Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 4-1 Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Johnson, that Application l2-Z-65 be approved, subject to the follow- ing conditions: 1-12 Standard Conditions 13 That building be single-story construction 14 An adequate buffer for adjacent property be included in the plan 15 Revised site plan and parking plan be approved by H-Control. Comm. Frolich announced that he would prefer to continue this application to another meeting, and at that time Condition 15 be modified to include that H-control hearings on this plan be published. The Applicant should submit new plans for a single-story building. Comm. Traeumer withdrew his motion and Comm. Johnson withdrew his second to the motion. Comm. Johnson said the Planning Commission recommendations on conditions to be included in this application should be given to the City Council, as a matter of record, in case there is a transfer of this property to another owner and another applicant submits a different plan for the property. -4- PC-Rll ------------------------------------------------------------------ Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, June 28, 1965 13-2-65 Comm. Frolich suggested this matter be continued to the next regular meeting, and asked the applicant to submit plans for a single-story building. The Commission can then make conditions for the new plan. Moved by Comm. Frolich, seconded by Comm. Traeumer, that Application 12-2-65 be continued to the next regular meeting. AYES: Comm. Frolich, Hirshon, Traeumer NAYS: Comm. JOhnson, Gates Motion carried, 3-2 The Chief Building Inspector added that the City does have a PO-H Ordinance in effect, and there will be added limi- tations and set-backs compatible to R-l zoning. If the applicant decides to build this as a single-story building, a shake roof cannot be used. C. VAN VLECK REALTY TRUST: Application for Rezoning of 1/3 acre from R-3-H to C-l-H, on the northwest corner of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. and Kerwin Lane. First Hearing continued. Chairman Gates recapped the Hearing of June 14th, and asked the Planning Director for his report on the difference in restrictions in sign and parking ordinances between C-l-H and PO-H zoning. The Planning Director said there is no difference in require- ments in sign ordinances between commercial and professional office uses. However, there is a difference in the parking ordinance. If a professional office is located in a commer- cial zone, one space for each 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area is required; but if the same professional office is located in a PO-H zone, one parking space for every 150 sq. ft. is required. If one assumes that the need is the same in both cases for the same bUilding, a zoning for PO-H would be more logical. It would be desirable, if possible, to get a row of office buildings in the area, and it is his recommendation that this property be zoned PO-H. Comm. Traeumer said it was his understanding that the problem under discussion at the last meeting was regarding signs, and that the requirement for signs was thought to be more restrictive in a PO-H than a C-l-H zone. Mr. Van Vleck submitted a sketch of the building they pro- pose to build on the property, and three photos of service stations on three corners adjacent to this property. He explained that the property has already been zoned commer- cial, nearby areas are zoned for apartments, planned com- munity and commercial. His lot is adjacent to C-l-H and -5- PC-Rll Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, June 28, 1965 ------------------------------------------------------------------ R-3-H zoned areas now. He has been asking for C-l-H z:oning for this property for three years. The City advised him that he could not use the existing resi- dential building as an office, and if he removed the building he would be able to get C-l-H zoning. After further discussion by the Commission on differ- ences in parking requirements between PO-H and C-l-H, Mr. Van Vleck said what he was primarily interested in was hot the type of zoning, but approval to put in a larger building with less parking spaces, which would be possible in C-l-H but not in PO-H. Chairman Gates wondered whether this was a problem or not - does it matter whether this prop~r~y is zoned PO-H or C-l-H. Comm. Frolich agreed the type of zoning did not matter, but it must be determined if the parking problem can be solved. Chairman Gates asked if this property was more suit- able as PO-H than C-l-H in respect to set-backs, etc. and what was the final recommendation from the Com- mission and the audience. There were no comments from the audience. The Planning Director said that al- though he feels it would be more desirable to extend the office area here, he would withdraw his objections. Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Johnson, that the public hearings be closed. Motion carried, 5-0 Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Hirshon. that Application l3-Z-65 be ~pproved. . AYES: Comm. Hirshon, TraeUmer, Gates NAYS: Comm. Frolich, Johnson Motion carried, 3-2 After some discussion whether the 3-2 vote constituted a recommendation to .the City Council for approval of the rezoning, the City Attorney ascertained that it was so. It needs 4 out of 5 votes for an emergency ordinance, but 3 out of 5 for a recommendation for re- z:oning. If only 4 members were present, however, it would still need 3 votes to passon a rezoning, and 4 votes for any emergency ordinance. -6- PC-Rll Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, June 28, 1965 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 81,025.02 D. BONACICH & HEADLEE: extension of Western Second Hearing. Request for abandonment of planned Dri ve to Stevens Creel, Blvd. Chairman Gates recapped the First Hearing of June 14th, and asked if there were any further comments from the Commission. Mr. Bonacich asked the City Attorney what the legal status of this property would be if it were abandoned by the City. The City Attorney said the property would revert back to the prior owner, or it could revert to the State of California. if taxes have not been paid. It would then be put up for auction and sold to the highest bidder. The decision must be made with the Planning Commission, as to whether it has any value or will fit in the planning of the City. There were no comments from the audience. Mr. Bonacich said this easement is "trashy" and he attempts to keep it clean. If it is turned into a walkway the City would have to take care of the cleaning. This strip was dedicated to the City by the subdivider, and was originally intended to be a corner lot. Mr. Bonacich feels the best use of his property would be division to two 7500 sq. ft. lots. The City Attorney said abandonment is not a method of va- cating property - if no one claimed ownership, then title would have to be established. If grantor deeded the pro- perty to the City and the City accepted, then it would be recorded with the grant deed and title vested in the City. Moved by Corom. Traeumer, seconded by Corom. Frolich that public hearings be closed. Motion carried, 5-0 The Commission recommended that the City take whatever pro- cedures necessary, with whatever conditions necessary, to abandon the planned extension of Western Drive. Motion made by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. JOhnson, that this request be approved. AYES: NAYS: Comm. Hirshon, Johnson, Traeumer, Gates Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 4-1 8-u-65 E. VALLEY TITLE COMPANY (Page Properties): Postponed. See Item III C. -7- PC-Rll Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, June 28, 1965 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 9-U-65 F. GLEN NEWTON: Application for a Use Permit for com- mercial use of a residential structure at 20381 Stevens Creek Blvd. First Hearing. James Jackson, 10601 S. Highway 9, Cupertino, represented the applicant. He explained that the building was an old residential structure which is not in use, and is no cre- dit to the City of Cupertino. The applicant proposes to use this building for a retail furniture outlet for the Colorado Manufacturing Company, which specializes in home bars and bar stools. The applicant is willing to replace any substandard con- ditions which do not conform with C-l-H z:oning. He in- tends to put a stucco exterior on the building, and would like a 90-day period in which to complete the work. The applicant realizes that the City qoes not approve of using residential structures for commercial uses, al- though there are several in the City at present. He has an option to purchase this property within a two-year period. He is requesting a Use Permit to use the present bUilding for two years, and at the end of that time he will build a permanent structure at this location. The Chief Building Inspector questioned the applicant re- garding improvements to the building, and recommended they be made conditions to the Use Permit. The Planning Director said the City has been very restric- tive of this type of use, and he would not normally recom- mend it. However, if the use is for only a two year period it would be less serious. Usually when granting a Use Permit, the City has required municipal improve- ments of Stevens Creek Blvd; they may in this case be a part of the overall improvement project for Stevens Creek Blvd. Comm. Traeumer commented that the Planning Dept. had been asked to make a survey of an isolated area, to get an overall plan for that particular area. This parcel should be thought of as one of a group. Comm. Frolich felt granting the application might be reasonable, until such a time when the City can arrive at some overall plan. The City Attorney said this is a subdivision - it is a change into commercial use. Subdivision requires dedi- cation and street improvements. Commercial operation creates a lot of heavy traffic. The City will have to apply the Subdivision and Parking Ordinances, or lose control. -8- PC-Rll ------------------------------------------------------------------ Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, June 28, 1965 10-u-65 Moved by Comm. Frolich, seconded by Comm. Hirshon, that public hearings be closed. Motion carried, 5-0 Moved by Comm. Frolich, seconded by Comm. Hirshon, that the P~anning ~~mmission feêommends the approval of Application 9-u-65, subject to the following conditions: 1-12 13 Standard Conditions The Use Permit valid for two years only, from the date of approval by the City Councilor the H-Control Committee, whichever date is the latest. !mprovements and dedication of frontage on Stevens Creek Blvd. Improvements of building and site to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Inspector. Approval by H-Control Committee 14 15 16 AYES: NAYS: Comm. Frolich, Hirshon, Johnson Comm. Traeumer, Gates Motion carried, 3-2 The Planning Director pointed out that this particular Use Permit should go to the City Council, because it was referred by the Council to the Planning Commission for report. Chairman Gates requested a five-minute break at 9:35. G. R. DEAKIN: Application for a Use Permit to install an amateur radio transmitting and receiving tower at 11097 Linda Vista, (Baywood Terrace Development). First Hearing. Copy of a letter addressed to the City Council and sub- mitted to the Planning Commission was introduced. This letter was sent by amateur radio operators in Cupertino, asking that consideration be given to instituting an ordinance to regulate masts and tower heights for trans- mitting and receiving amateur radio signals. They pointed out that this would allow the City Building Department to process most requests, and eliminate extensive paper work and the $25.00 Use Permit fee for the applicant. The applicant stated he has filed this application to erect a supporting tower which will support antenna to a height of 60 ft; it is straight up and down and not tapered, it will be guyed at three levels, and meets all requirements -9- PC - Rll Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, June 28, 1965 ------------------------------------------------------------------ of the Building Code. The tower is to be located 35 ft. to the rear of the house, in the center of the lot. The lot behind is not developed as yet. The sole use will be as a transmitting and receiving antenna for a radio station. It is a public service, which will transmit messages during emergencies. A precedent has been set by Robert Lammers, who applied for and received a Use Permit for this purpose about a year ago. Comm. Hirshon asked about adjoining property. Applicant said there was a house on eàch side - the house to the left is set bacl{ 50-60 ft. from the street, with a large garden in front, the lot in back is undeveloped. It is a residential area. The Planning Director recommended that a Use Permit be granted to the applicant, and added that possibly an amendment could be made to the Ordinance, to regulate height of masts and towers, to simplify the processing of requests such as this one. The Dir. of Public Works explained that the reason this application requires a.Use Permit is because of the height of the tower. If the term "radio transmitting" were de- leted and called a TV antenna, it could be processed· through the City Building Dept. If the City enforces this condition as to height of towers required, everyone mounting an antenna over 10 ft. would be in violation of the Ordinance, also flag poles, street lights, etc. would be in violation. Where will this stop? His interpre- tationis that if the applicant builds the tower exactly 25 ft. high he can do so with only a building permit, and suggested the applicant may· wish to withdraw his appli~ " cation and request a building permit. Quotin* from Santa Clara County Zoning Ordinance, Section 40-4: Height of Certain Structural Features: Subject to any other pro- visions of law, towers and similar structures may be built to a greater height than the limit established, provided it shall not cover any level more than 15% in area of the lot, nor have an area at the base greater than 1600 sq. ft., nor exceed a maximum height of 150 ft." The Chief BUilding Inspector said the tower in this appli- cation would be governed under the Uniform Building Code as a structure, and would require a permit; however, if the City enforces this applicant and future applicants to obtain a Use Permit or Variance, eventually all in- stallations of TV antennas will require the same. Our Ordinances need clarification. -10- PC-R11 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, June 28, 1965 The City Attorney asked if there would be any possible pro- test against this installation. At present there is no Ordinance regulating them. If there are going to be many of these applications we should consider amendment of the Ordinances related.to height. However, this type of request may not come up very often. Comm. Frolich agreed that the Planning Commission should look into the possibility of an Ordinance to cover this point; he feels that there will be similar requests and applications. He suggested this application be held in abeyance until an ordinance has been written. Mr. J. Marchant, 11135 La Paloma, Cupertino, said his home is adjacent to the applicant's. He moved to this location primarily because many of the utilities were underground, and to get away from unsightly towers and utility poles. He submitted a petition signed by 78 peop¡e in the Baywood Terrace area, who were protesting the installation of this tower. The petition stated this erection would be un- sightly and would not only mar their skyline but impede their television reception. Furthey, they feel if one radio tower is allowed, there will be no stopping others. Chairman Gates asked for the applicant's point of view; should the Commission continue this hearing or wait until the City Council has considered the possibility of an örd- inance. The applicant agreed to withdraw his application. Comm. Frolich felt that since the applicant has paid his fee for the application, it should be held in abeyance un- til either an órdinance has been written or the Planning Commission holds another hearing on the application. Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Johnson, to close the public hearings. Motion carried, 5-0 If an ordinance is written, Public Hearings will be adver- tised, and the application will be restored,.on motion, without charge to the applicant. Mr. Bob Robinson suggested the Commission read the "Amateur Radio Handbook" for their information. The Dir. of Public Works pointed out that the applicant can request a building permit to construct the first 25 ft. of the tower in the interim, while waiting for the decision of the Council on the ordinance. Comm. Frolich reminded the audience and Commission that Public Hearings have been closed; and asked that the staff make Xerox copies of materials pertaining to this application. -11- PC-Rll Minutes of the Plann~ng qommission Meeting, June 28, 1965 -----------~------------------------------------------------------ Further comments fro~ the audlence were allowed: Mr. Vim Jacobs, 11076 Linda Vista Drive: If there is no ordinance regulatíng height, who should the resi- dents contact if there is interference from this tower? Comm. Traeumer suggested that the FCC would be the proper authority to contact. Mr. Theodore Constant, 11056 'Linda Vista Drive: It waS represented to the Commission that the petition sub- mitted represented the views of the entire Baywood Terrace area; however, many residents, lncluding him-· self, do not subscribe to this petition. . Mr. Melvin Peterson, 1159 ~~sford Drive, San Jose: He feels this would be a useful service and a boon to the neighborhood. Mr. Keith Bower, 11106 Linda Vista Drive: He has not seen any specifications of the tower, or what the ap- plicant plans to build, but he understands it is a very elaborate structure, with large and smaller beams. Mr. Eston Baker, lil07 Linda Vista Drive: This tower will be erected in his line of sight, and will be un- sightly. . Minute Order: Moyed by Comm. Jopnson, seconded by Comm. Frolich, that the possibility of an amendment to Ordinance 228, to regulate the height of receiving and transmitting towers be stuqied. AYES: Comm. Frolich, Hirshon, Johnson, Trâeumer, Gates NAYS: None Motion carried; 5-0 VII UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was none. VIII 81,004.4 NEW BUSINESS: A. CITY COUNCIL: Standardized zoning nomenclature. Proposal remitted by the Inter-City Council of Santa Clara County. The Planning Director said that the system, though modified in several respects, is originally based on .the system emerging from the study sessions on -12- PC-Rll ------------------------------------------------------------------ Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, June 28, 1965 81,004 81,004 Zoning Ordinances conducted by the Planning Commission of Cupertino. It has been discussed, refined and extended during several meetings of the Inter-City Council's Ad- visory Staff Committee for Planning, then discussed during two meetings of all Planning Directors in Santa Clara Co., and refined further. Minute Order: It was decided unanimously to recommend a report by the City Council to the Inter- City Council, reading: That the proposed system would suit Cupertino; and that it is recommended as a standard for the County of Santa Clara and the Cities' within the area of the County. Motion carried, 5-0 B.:. .CITY PLANNER: Number of Dwelling Units allowed in an R-24-H zone. The City Planner mentioned that Ordinance 002(k) allows "Multiple dwellings" in an R-24-H z:one. This has been in- terpreted as 3 or more dwelling units, but Webster defines "multiple" as 2 or more. He asked if any of the Commis~' sioners remembered the intent when the Ordinance was written. The City Attorney said that the County R-24-H Ordinance was copied, and that Webster's'definition probably would stand up in court. After some discussion, the consensus was that the City Planner should consult with the County and pos- sibly submit an amendment to the Ordlnance. Minute Order; Moved by Comm. Johnson, seconded by Comm. Frolich, to instruct the staff to re- define Ordinance 002(k) more clearly with respect to interpretation of "multiple" as it pertains to duplexes. AYES: Comm. Frolich, Hirshon, Johnson, Traeumer, Gates NAYS: None Motion carried,· 5-0 C. ORDINANCES REGULATING RESIDENTIAL ZONES: Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Frolich, to recommend to the City Council that Ordinance 220, Section 4:1 (b), BUildin~ Height Limit, be amended to sub$titute the word two, an delete the words one-and-one-half from that Section. Approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Comm. Frolich, Hirshon, JOhnson, Traeumer, Gates NAYS: None Motion carried, 5-0 -13- PC-Rll Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, June 28, 1965 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The City Attorney feels that height limitations for res- dential zones should be brought up-to-date. The Planning Commission can discuss this, acquaint the City Council fully with their opinions and findings and ask the City Council to initiate an ordinance to cover it (this is permitted by the Planning Act). Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Frolich to recommend to the City Council that Ordinance 220, Section 5:1 (b), BUildin~ Height Limit, be amended to increase the height limi in an R-2-H zone to two stories to conform to R-l height limits. AYES: Comm. Frolich, Hirshon, Johnson, Traeumer, G.:c tes NAYS: None Motion carried, 5-0 IX ADJOURNMENT Moved by Comm. Traeumer· and seconded unanimously, .to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. APPROVED: Isl Jack Gates Chairman ATTEST: Odck ~.~ Director of Planning -14- .