Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/22/1974 (2)PLAN!! IG CO71ISSION To,an o.` Los Altos Hills Los Altos :!ills, California ilinutes of Iay 22, 1^74 Reel 2-1, Side 2, Tract 1 - 1117 to end Side 2, Tract 2 - nno to 197n Chairman Spencer called the meeting of the Planning Commission to order in the Council Chambers of the Tom Hall at 0:00 P.'". ROLL CALL 7resent: Commissioners CARICO, LACHUBRUCH, PEPI'VJS, PHILLIPS, SPE!CF.R, YOUNG Absent: Commissioner SCIIICK STAFF City 'ianager Lawson, Planning Consultant 'iader, Assistant Plarnino Consul- tant Vlasic, Secretary Huffstetter. MMUTES otion was made by Commissioner PERKINS, seconded by Commissioner CARIC0, the :A nutes of May 0, 1474, be approved as submitted. r+otion was unani- mously approve':. tFOP. SUBDIVISIONS--- --- -._._._- -- C�irairman__'�pencer stated a meeting had been held p;;`1ay 20, 1474, which covered sone of the problems concerr.ino the Taan's objectives and goals, reviewed some of the problems in the `iatadero Oaks Subdivision, considered sore of the aspects that might be considered from the two previous items discussed, and discussed whether the Commission mould supnnrt a building moratorium. The Corv.ission ruched the consensus that the Town should undertake certain studies to revieer whether the Town's ordinances are con- sistent kith the General Plan and proposed improvements in the General Plan and the possible proposed improvements to the To,an's Standard for Subdivisions, concerning roads, cuts and fills, etc. The Commission did not take any official action on this, as the Town Planning Consultant hal not made a study on the probable costs for doing these studies. Planning Consultant 'Piader distributed a mono to the Planning Commission, outlining a proposal for the study of planning regulations pertaining to subdivisions and building sites, and reviewed each of the steps involved in the study. The steps include (a) reviewing the General Plan and �xtract- ing statements which provide guildelin.es for forns, quality, etc., of subdivisions and lot development; (b) reviewinn zoning, subdivision, site development ordinances and Tam standards an9 group requiremerts by sone of the categories as in (a) above and identify gaps and inconsistencies; (c) review ilatadero Oaks, Deer Park Acres, Page eiill Estates, 'iatadero Hills, Parkside and Bahl Subdivisions and possibly others, to identify objectionable subdivision design features, lot grading, accessory uses and inconsistencies with the General Plan or Too -in Ordina-ces; (d) field trips AW with Planning Commissioners; (e) develop recommendations for ordinances -1- PLANNING ComMISSIO^1 - flay 22, 1974 and standards which appear warranted based on (b) thru. (d); (f) Planning Commission Study meetings; (g) preparation of proposed amendments to regu- lations and standards for public hearings; (h) Planning Commission Study meetings; (i) revisions of proposed amemdments in response to Planning Com- mission review and have the City Attorney r^view at this point; (1) prepar- ation of final reports; (k) public hearings, and (1) revisions to pronosals in response to public hearings. It is estimated the cost will be about $4,509. If any actions are taken at the oublic hearinq stages, the reasons- for easonsfor the actions should ba stated, along with the recommendations and any references that are made to earlier actions or precedences previously set. Chairman Snencer stated a subcommittee had heen used veru effect'vely in the past for the slope dznsity studies, and 'inquired if a subcorriittee could be used this time to assist the staff in the studies. Planning Consultant `fader stated he had suggssted this at the previous meet- ino. . The subcommittee could make reports to the full Commission at: the regular meetings. Commissioner Perkins requested that Dam Ridge be included in the study or the subdivisions, and asked what the time elescnt would be for thes, studies. Planning Consultant ilader stated he had not worked out a time schedule yet, but it would take four to six months to do these studies, or longer if they ran into difficulties. Commissioner Young stated he would like to have some older subdivisions. i.e. completed more than ten years ago, included in the study. Planning Consultant Mader stated the study did not need to include.. -Al subdivisions, but only enough subdivisions tofind the range of problems encountered. Commissioner Phillips asked if a general overhaul was needed or if poly certain categories needed to be worked on. Planning Consultant Mader stated parts of the Town Specifications needed to be looked at, and refinements made in some areas, i.e. the amount of grading and cutting and filling on lots. Commissioner Phillips stated he was concerned about the costs involved in doing the studies, and asked the City fIanager for his opinion. City Manager Lawson stated a modification in the Town's subdivision aac. zoning ordinances is recommended, and $8,300 has been put into the FY 75 Budget for special studies. The Commission can use this money for 'gat ever studies it feels have the most priority. Commissioner Lachenbruch stated he believed these studies to be ver, en- propriate, and they should be done by the Planning Consultant. City Manager Lawson stated a review of the budget is in progress by the Citizens.. Review Cormittee, and on May 28, the Committee would be review- ing the Building..'. and Planning Budgets. The public hearings on the Budget will be held by the City Council on June 19. There will be anoroximateiy - 2 - PLAilIRM Cn'�'.JSSI"! - flay ".9, 1"7A $Eng, .,, $700 left frum: °aiis year's budget in t`r. -nacial Studies Category, .rich can be used to start the studies on tt,e .,anninB regulations, zoning ordinance, etc. It would need to be detemined, houaevor, ho-,, far the money would carry tie studies. Plannian Consultant Mader reviewed th proposed studies for the coming year, as they are 'listed in the FY 75 Bulget. Commissioner Phillips stated it was the Commissions' concansus the studies be done, and he. would like to see this item included in the coming ,year's budget. Motion +ias made by Commissioner LACHErlBRUCH, seconded by Commissioner PERKINS, the Torn implriment the study program outlined by the Planning Consultant, and as outlined in the "Iemorandum dated May 22, notion was unanimously ap- proved. Commissioner Young inquired if a subcommittee would he appointed to work with the staff on these studies. Chai man Spencer stated he believed a subcommittee should not be appointed until the Council has given its approval for the studios. City °tanager Lawson stated he also would recommend the Commission not appoint a subcommittee for these studies until the Cocncil had passed the Budget. DISCUSSED THE OUESTIOU OF A 110RA:TORIV, OH BUILDING IN THE TOUR nF LOS ALTOS HILLS Chairman Spencer stated his views on why hewas opposed to a moratorium on building, which included the fact that he did not have specifics on the moratorium, and did not kno--nou,?i the moratorium. Commissioner Perkins agreed with Chairman Spencer and stated at the meeting on May 20, the Commission did come up with a list of specific items, in- cluding the question of cuts, revising, the ordinance as to grading, amount of cuts and fills and restrictions on what should be included when figuring net acreage and road easements for maintenance are include3. Until th9sp and othar 'tems are resolved, it might be best to hole'. off on any further suL- divisions, unless it can be clearly shown that these probleias are not part of any subdivisions under consideration. Commissioner Young stated he is against the moratorium as there is an eraloyy- ment problem in tais ar,l in the construction field, and the Commission should give consideration to this problem. Commissioner Carico stated the Commission hail comnlied with all the exist- ing ordinance and building requirementsfor subdivisions when they reviewed them, but the Council had 'returned them to the Commission for further st,Ay. She . does not want to spend any nora of the subdivi•lers' ' staff or Commission's time nevi.rring V,l subdivisions, and then have the Council return them for reasons that are not presently cov�rerl Lr the Town's or?inances. She would like to have ther:ommission take the time no,, to look at the ordinances and standards for possible revision. If a mora- toi,ium is necessary while this is being, done, then she is in favor of a moratorium. _ a _ PLANNING MMISHON - No 22, 1074 Commissioner Lachenbru,h stated he would not support a moratorium, as it had been presento", biut tirculd consider a moratorltin if it was limited to subdivisions only end .ipeci Fed the areas to be studied while it was In effect. He would like, hpr!ever, to allot! subdivisions to proceed if they could show the,, acre not. involved with any of the problem areas under study. Commissioner Phillips stated he had mixed feelings concerning the moratorium. ale does not like to have subdivisions returned to the Commission by the Council, after the Commission has approved them. If a moratorium is ap- proved, there should be definitely stated reasons for it, and he had yet to hear any definite reasons for the moratorium. Ccanissioner Carico stated that Councilwoman ililler had told the Corriission the Council would revise the moratorium. The moratorium would not be against all building, but +Mould only apply to subdivisions that would ba affected by the updating of the Town's ordinances and standards. Commissioner Perkins stated the Tam has had tyro moratorium in the past. fine was for the !IMCP area circulation study and the other was for the slope density study. He does not see, at the present time, the shar;3lj•. defined areas tnat would call for a moratorium. Chairman Spencer stated he could vote for a moratorium, but he would not make any specific recommendations to the Commission at this time, as the areas are not specifically defined. Commissioner Phillips asked if the questions raised by the Council could be handled under the present Town ordinances and standards; ;,itheut :. nora- tori um. City Manager Larson replied that the Commission has a certain amount, of latitude in their review process, and they could deny any application for a subdivision, based on its design. The applicant, however, has the right to resubmit the application again. Commissioner Lachenbruch stated it must be defined sneci7ically what it is the Co,.maission does not like about the Town ordirarces and Torn standards. If a subdivision is turned dot -in by the Commission, the Commission must be able to give specific reasons for turning it down. If a moratorium is put into effect, and it covers the areas that have been listed by the Comnis- sioners in their discussions, he does not feel the moratorium will be very restrictive. If a subdi4ision do not pose problems in the areas under study, then the n'..;iaiaio;lshouldbe. processed. He requested the Planning Consultant make a list of the areas defined as pro_lem areas, and also reouested the Commissioners made a similar list. These lists can be reviewed at the next meeting. Chairman Spencer set the date of 'lay 29, 197e, at 7:45 for an adjourned meeting for review of these lists. Commissioner fillips asked about the history in California on moratoriums. E Planning Consultant ruder stated if there is a good reason for the noratorium, �r and the Torn is taking action to correct the deficiencies .in the Toren ordin- ances and standards, a moratorium,car, be passed. - 4 - PLANNING C01t1ISSIOH - Play 22, 1974 Chairman Spencer stated VP; City Council hag referred a letter from Shirley Smith to the Cornission,for study and report. Since a subcommittee is al- ready studying the RellnCCi property, Adobe Creek area, the letter will be forwarded to them. RECESS Chairman Spencer declared a short recess at 9:13 P.11., and reconvened the meeting at 4:211 P.°i. assistant Planning Consultant Vlasic stated Hardy Golston had filed a two - lot subdivision for land on the corner of Weston Drive and 14est Fremont Avenue. The two lots are 1.07 and 1.15 acres in size .. He reviewed the staff memorandum of Play 17, 1974, and reviewed the recommended conditions for approval, including outlining the pathway easement recommended by the Pathway Committee. It is also recommended the Commission declare this project categorically exempt from the MIA. A letter, received from John and Janet Gallo, objecting to the pathway recommendation of the Pathway Committee was also reviewed. Discussion followed concerning the pathway easement muested by the Pathway Committee, and the pathway easement already in effect along Weston, outside the property line. Commissioner Perkins asked where the pathway would lead, as the adjoining property is already developed. During the discussion, City �lananer Lavrson elaborated on the pathways in the area, including those along Heston and Aric Lane. Chairman Spencer inquired as to the need for a soils engineer for this par- ticular lot. Assistant Planning Consultant Vlasic stated as most of the soil in the area is expansive soil, a soils engineer should evaluate the area where the foundation for the residence will be built. Discussion followed on the soils engineer and the function he performs, and the paths in the area of the Junta property and vicinity. Commissioner Perkins inquired about the pronerty line and the condition for the additional 30 -foot dedication for roadway purposes along Fremont Avenue. Assistant Planning Consultant Vlasic stated this requirement -could be added to the "Check List" of conditions. Commissioner Perkins stated that in the past, other nrocerties along Fremont Avenue have had lines drawn on their mq:.s foran,additional 20 -feet of roadK,ay in anticipation that Fremont Avenue would eventually have a total width of `, 100 feet. He feels the Town should decide wliothar it wantsthe additional width, or it should give up the additional widths it has obtained, -5- PLANNING CMMISSION - Hay 22, 1974 To his knowledge, there are no plan lines for Fremont Avenue, and he `, elaborated on the history of this practice of asking for the additional road widths. Discussion followed on the question of Fremont Avenue and its width. Chairman Spencer requested the question of Fremont Avenue and its width be scheduled for a study session discussion in the near future. City :tanager Lawson explained some of the options the Torn would have in this matter after it was determined if these roadway widths had been deeded to the Town or if they were just lines drawn on maps. Paul Nonack, representing the applicant, spoke, stating the anplicant does not understand the Pathway Committee's recommendation for the pathway, as there is a 10 -foot area across the road that is used for a nathway. The applicant agrees with the Commission that a soils engineer report is not nee It thjs time.. Santa Clara County has an ordinance that does not require a soils report prior to the final parcel map being filed, but may reouire a report before a building permit is issued. On the recommended in lieu fees for roads, the applicant agrees with the recomriendation for the in lien fee for Fremont Avenue, but not for Weston, as Weston is improved its full length on both sides. Discussion followed on the question of requiring ' soils engineering ` reports. John Callo spo!,c on the Pathway Committees' recommendation for a patharay along Weston Drive, stating he lives immediately to the �2st of the Colston property, on Weston, and he objects to the recommendation. The oathway would stop at his property line, but users of the pathway would not realize this, and would tresspass onto his property. Also, there are many large trees along the roadway where the Pathway Coiwnittee has requested the path, and if the pathway is put in there, . the trees will have to be removed. Commissioner Perkins asked for more information on the soils engineering requiremnt. Commissioner Lachenbruch stated as he understands the auestion. a sells engineer should work with the builder at the time the foundation is b^ing designed, and asked if the staff would explain specifically what Condition 5 of the "Check List" meant. Assistant Planning Consultant Vlasic stated the soils repert should he prepared as recommended by the Town Geologist. There should be a report made on both lots. However, this condition c -:n be changed to read thut prior to issuing a building permit a soils report shall be prepareu and the foundation designed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and the Torun Geologist. City itanager Lawson explained that th=_ Site Development Ordinance allows the Site Development Committee to require a soils report, if .it so de- sires. It can be listed as a condition on the "Check List" that when the final map is recoreded, it will state, on the map that the deed must state a soils report will be regdiired prior to issuing a building permit. - 6 - PLANNING COINISSf0:'i - "ay 22, 1974 This would solve the problem of the buyer not i,cnq aware of this require- ment. Commissioner Lachenbruch stated if there is a pathway on the other side of the road, where it does or doesn't go is not a good. reason for excluding the pathway the Pathway Committee is requesting. The Town ordinance states thera will be paths in Town. He believes the paths should be separated from the road as far as possible. He does not tMnk- that 50 -foot right- of-ways are adequate for pathway separation from the roads. He believes a uniform 60 -foot richt-of-way should be required for all roads in Town. 'lrs. Alma Iloods spoke on the pathways in the area, stating there should not be paths that do not go anywhere. Also, there should not be additional paths created ! when the Tam does not have the funds to maintain the present paths. Assistant Planning Consultant Vlasic reviewed the "Check List". He stated the condition that a public right-of-way, 30 -feet in width along Fremont Avenue, for Parcel #1, will be added. Also, the requirement for a pathr+a,y along the [Jeston property line will be deleted. Co;missioner Lachenbruch stated he does not favor pathways along both sides of the road, as the Tot -in ordinance only requires a pathway e.lo'ng one side of the road. Assistant Planning Consultant Vlasic stated Condition #5 would be char„ed to require the soils report at the time the -building permit is issued, and the requirement for the soils report will shorn on the parcel map Whop it is recorded. Commissioner Phillips asked about the in -lieu fees for the roads on both Fremont Avenue and 'Heston Drive. City Manager Layson stated is has been the Town', policy to collect it -lieu fees regardless of the condition of the 'road. During discussion, Commissioner Perkins stated that since this property is bounded on two sides by roads, this requirement is not equitable, and rk:4 Co,irission should study this problem. During discsssion, Commissioner Lachenbruch stated this is not a matter the Commission can be arbitrary about. It should be looked at with respect to past practices. If there are inconsistencies, they should be resolved. Following discussion, motion was made by Commissioner PEI.KIIIS, secorr'ed by Commissioner YOUNG, this item be continued until the meeting of clay 29, 1974. Motion was unanimously approved. Assistant Planning Consultant Vlasic reviewdd the tentative subdivision for �, Silent Hills Development Company, !foody Heights Subdivision. The subdi- vision consists of 5 lots, With a net acreage of 5.82 and a gross acreage of 6.73. It is located approximately 1,500 feet southwest of the 9000y- -7- PLANNING CYfflSSIGN - May 22, 1°74 Altamont Road intersection. The staff is recommending approval of this subdivison, subject to,the conditions listed in the memorandum of May lr;, 1974. It is also recnPmnn•!e-' the Comnission make a negative declaration for this project, it is rncortnnded two additional conditions be added to the "Check List" (1) all cuts and fills necessary for the installation of `foody Springs Court shall be landscaped as necessary to minimize erosion, to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer, and (2) all pathways shall be signed with standard Tann pathway signs, to the satisfaction of the Pathway Committee. Commissioner Perkins asked if the access to the McReynolds property would be by the same road. Assistant Planning Consultant Vlasic stated that the °7c Reynolds do have a right-of-way access on Hoody Court. Commissioner Lachenbruch asked if the dedication of a 3o-foot right-on-!,lay on Moody Road would be required. Assistant Planning Consulant Vlasic answered yes,. and reviewed the subdi- vision map with respect to roads. Commissioner Lachenbruch inquired about the additional pathway easement and what the applicant's feelings on the pathway are, as this is not shown on the man. Assistant Planning Consultant Vlasic stated the pathway is not shown on the map. Discussion followed on the pathway and where it should be. Commissioner Young asked about the "no access" noted on the map along 'body Road, between Lots 1, 4 and 5, and asked if this should be included in the "Check List". Assistant Planning Consultant Vlasic stated the final nap will have noted on•:it "no access along GIoody Road". This can be added to the "Check List" if the Commission so desires. Commissioner Perkins inquired about what pathways .will be used and what type they would be. Assistant Planning Consultant Vlasic stated they would be used for both equestrians and bicycles. Discussion followed on the pathways, where they should be and what type they should be. Commissioner Lachenbruch stated he felt both a bicycle and an equestrian path will be needed and they should be separated fron the roadvlay. Commissioner Carico requested the Planning Commission and the Pathway Com- mittee meet and discuss the questions of paths, i.e. where they should be and what kind they should be. Paul flowack, representing the applicant, stated he does not think a 26 `,. pathway is appropriate. It should be a natural oathway. On the question of fill on Lot 3, he does not think this should be required. He would recom- mend that any work done be under the supervision of a soils engineer only. - 8 - PLANNING CO'A ISSION - FIay 22, 1°74 ` On the requirement that the present structures be removed, it should be st-:ted exactly when the structures must be removed. On pathways, the map states there will be a 2B pathway put in along Boody Road. Commissioner Lachenbruch asked if the pathways mould be separate from t•e road. Paul Nowack stated he did not know where the pathways c!ill be, that will be decided after more surveying is done. This is why it is noted on the map a pathway will be put in, but not shown where it will be. Commissioner Lachenbruch stated he would like to be in on the decision of where the pathway e111 be go. Commissioner Perkins stated he is requesting that improvement plans be sub- mitted to the Commission for review and approval. Steve Drews, who is residing in one of the building on Parcel 01, requested the Commission eliminate a date when the present structures on Parcel N1 must be removed. City 'tanager Lawson noted that all existing buildings on the land are non- conforming. Disucssion followed on the structures on the land, their non -conforming status, and when they should be removed. Hurl Fritchlie, one of the owners of the land, spoke on the subdivision, stating the buildings on the land are not causing any problems on the grad- ing of the pathway, going toward Altamont. The structures on Lot 4 are in the new right-of-way for the grading of Noody Court, and they will be re- moved however he would like to leave the buildings on Lot 1 until the new house is build. Other subdivisions have done this, so no new precedence would be set. firs. Nc"eynolds stated she would like to see a water easement inciu6ed in the list of conditions, as they get their water from a well alone 'foody Creek. Assistant Planning Consultant Vlasic stated there is an easement shown on the map, but it will also be included in the staff recommendations. Ar. iicReynolds spoke on the pathways in the area, and the dangerous condi- tion they are in. Discussion followed on the pathways in the area. Commissioner Young stated that ideally the pathway on floody Road should be elevated from the roadway, and the developer should be strongly encuuragec to put the pathway along the bank, above the road. notion was made by Commissioner LACHENBRUCH, seconded by Commissioner YOUNG, the Commission review the "Check List". Motion was unanimously approved. Assistant Planning Consultant Vlasic reviewed the "Check List", along rr;t0 the two rreviously added conditions, and reviewed the problem of fill on Lot 3. Discussion followed on the question of removal of the fill for Lot -g- PLANigUIG C0 JJSSIDI - iay 22, 1174 w..,"iosioner f.ad+caurucn suggested this be handled by a notation on the final man when it is recorded. Discussion follc�!ed on this item. Commissioner Youna stated he would like to sic Lot 3 graded and prepared for a building site, as t`is +•%ulJ avoid complications on this lot at the time of sale. !lotion was made by Comissioner YOUNG, seconded by Cormissioner LRCHEHBRUCH, this condition be added to item 17 of the Staff Report and the "Check List". .lotion was unanimously approved. Commissioner Young stated the fill on Lot 3 is uncontrolled, and as it has been there for over ten years, there is no way of knowing ty visual inspect - tion what is underneath the fill. Assistant Planning Consultant Vlasic stated the richt-of-way line along Moody Road needs to be defined better, and it is recommended the condition be adi- =1. that a minimum 30 -foot public road right-of-way, north from the center V of ?loody Road, adjacent to the subject property be offered for dedication to the Town, al=)the condition that the existing buildings on Lot 1 shall be removed prior to the coistruction of the new house.. During discussion, City Manager Lawson stated that prior to occupancyof any new house, the old buildings shall he removed. Commissioner Lacbenbruch stated he did not see why the buildings should be removed at this time, instead of remaining until after the new house is built. Commissioner Phillips stated he thought the buildinas should not be allowed to remain as they were non -conforming. Commissioner Young stated if the buildings were allowed to remain, they would be defeating the Town's purpose in its development. Discussion followed on the question of when and what buildings should be re- moved. Commissioner Perkins asked that on Lot 1, could there be a compromise on the condition, so the buildings could remain for two years,instead of making the developer removed them prior to the final map being recorded, Commissioner Carico asked if there was a legal reason for not leaving the buildings on Lot i at the present'time, Commissioner Phillips stated it is the Plannine Commission's responsibility, not just a legal decision, to determine if and when the buildinas on Lot 1 should be removed. Discussion followed on the questions posed by the Commissioners. Commissioner Lachenbruch askod what purpose would be served by imposing the condition that the buildings on Lot 1 be removed prior to recordation of the 14W, final map. Also, is there a legal procedure by which nonconforming build- ings are removed. Could the Town wait and not require the buildings on Lot 1 - 10 - PLANNING CO'i"ISSIOA - May 22, 1S74 be removed prior to a new building permit being issued for the site. Discussion followed on these questions. Commissioner Perkins suggested the Commission allow the buildings on Lot 1 to remain until either the present renters complete a ne,.w permanent building, or the present renters vacate the present building or two years after re- cordation of the final map. Discussion followed on the existing buildings on Lot 1, and their relation- ship to other homes in the area. !lotion was made by Commissioner PERMIS, seconded by Commissioner LACHE'iBRUCH, Condition, 7 of the "Check List" have added to it, "exceptthe buildings on Parcel 1, which shall be removed not later than two years from the date of recordation of the final map." notion was carried with Commissioners Phillips and Young voting no. Commissioner Perkins reouested the Planning Commission obtain anot!ter recom- mendation frort the Pathway Committee when the improvement Plans are submit- ted to the Commission for review and approval. !lotion !-was made by Commissioner PERKINS, seconded by Commissioner LACP0!BRUCH, the subdivision be approved, subject to tte conditions listed in the "Check List" and the conditions added by the Commission. fiction was carried by the following roll mall vote: `r YES: Commissioners LACHEtlBRUCH, CARICO, PERY,IHS, SPENCER. NOES: Commissioners PHILLIPS, YOUNG. ABSENT: Commissioner SCHIC!". notion was made by Commissioner LACHENBRUCH, seconded by Commissioner CARICO, the Commission declare a wagative declaration for this subdivison. 'lotion was carried, with Commissioner Phillips voting no. DISCUSSED THE PROPOSED PLAN.'IIHG BUDGET FOR FY 74-75 omntsstoner er ns requeste one o t e omnissioners be named to present a defense of the Planning Budget at the Budget Review Committee Meeting. City ,Manager Lawson stated the Budget Revievr Committee would be meetinq on i!ay 28, to review the budgets for the Planning and Building Departments. The Committee stated the meeting will not be a session where the budgets need to be defended, they will only be reviewed. He had no otjection to one member of the Commission attending the meeting, but would, in fact, encourage him• to do so. Discussion followed on the budget, and all Commissioners stated they would not be able to be at the flay 28 meeting. ADJOUR.1101T Motion was made by Commissioner L,ACHEVBRUCy, seconded by Commissioner PHILLIPz the meeting be adjourned to Wednesday, !lay 29, 1974, at 7:45 P.N. The Fleet- ,`,. ing was adjourned at 11:15 P.N. Respectfully submitted, Virginia Huffstetter Secretary - 11 -