Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-14-1969 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TD~: Monday, 14 July 1969, 7:30 P.M. PLACE: City Council Chambers, Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting : I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION The meeting was called to order by Chairman Norton. A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bacon, Crisp, Kraus, Lively, Metcalf, Norton, and Smith. Absent: None. B. MINUTES : Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Lively, that the reading of the minutes of the 23'June 1969 meeting be waived and they be approved as distributed to the Commission; motion Carried unanimously. Chairman Norton stated he was glad to be back and thanked Commissioner Lively for carrying a double load as Chairnun of the Planning Commission as well as Chairman of the General Plan Committee. Commissioner Lively requested that the record express the fact that he ~s very happy to have Chairman Norton back. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. SLOPE DENSITY ORDINANCE - RevisiQn to Ordinance NS-5.8, the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga and Ordinance NS-3, Section 4.2 and Section 4.5d, Zoning Ordi- nance Of the City'of Saratoga Relative to Slope Density Regulations for Hillside Residential Development - Continued from 23 June 1969 Chairman Norton re-opened the hearing at 7:37 P.M. The Secretary stated that the City Attorney has prepared a Hillside SubdiviSion Resolution for consideration by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Smith stated that after analysis of some other cities hillside regulations it was found that none of them have a .good test case and it is the feeling of the Subdivision Committree that a Resolution (such as the one proposed by the City Attorney) is a more flexible %~y.to handle hillside sub- divisions than it would be with a formal amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. .- ; Chairman Norton stated that there are two ways of looking at slope density regulations: 1') require the lot to be larger where the slope is steeper and 2) to recognize the existence of a natural building pad even though the average slope of the lot is very steep. Commissioner Smith stated the Subdivision Committee feels that 'each lot should be studied individually to determine %~at should be required relative to slope density regulations. Chairman Norton stated that if the Plannin~ Commission adopts the resolution as proposed by the City Attorney. one acre minimum~y be required if problems with slope are involved and if there ~re no problems relative to slope then the application will be accepted as }resented by the applicant. -1- ;planhing commission Minutes - 14 July 1969 - Continued IIo A. SLOPE DENSITY ORDINANCE - ContinUed Chairman Norton explained that by;the proposed resolution the Planning Commission is giving notice that they can require more than one acre if the lot has any pecularities. ComMissioner Metcalf stated that the Planning Commission should normally apply the standards set forth in ~he proposed resolution even in a natural building site. Chairman Norton explained that 1)! if the proposed resolution is adopted it will put the burden of proof on the applicant 2) the applicant would be required to present his plans and be prepared to provide larger acreage in case any problem relative to slope is discovered. Commissioner Bacon stated that 1)' it would be helpful to know what other cities have done 2) four or five'cities have been contacted 3) most of these have a hillside ordinance 4) it appeared that only one city fully applied their ordinance and 5) judging from experience of other cities with their ordinance it might be well to use them as a guideline and move in short steps, in other..words, adopt and work with the proposed resolution .rather than an ordinance amendment. No one in the audience wished to comment relative to this matter. At 7:48 P.M. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Crisp, to close the hearing relative to the'Slope Density Regulations; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the resolution prepared by the City Attorney establishing preliminary hillside development standards be adopted; motion carried unanimously. B.. SARATOGA AVENUE PLAN LINE - Including Consideratfon of Alternatives at La Pa!oma, Douglass Lane and Herriman Avenue - Continued from 9 June 1969 Commissioner Lively explained that the General Plan Committee has been very busy with the General Plan Review:and have not yet had an opportunity to study this matter, but will ~eview the subject prior to the next regular meeting. In view of the foregoing, Chairman Norton did not open the hearing relative to the· Saratoga Avenue Plan Line. C. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES - An Ordinance ~ending Article 3 of Zoning Ordinance NS-3,-Pertaining to Setback Requirements for Accessory· Structures·in Rear Yards of Single Family Residential Zonin5 Districts Chairman Norton opened the hearing at 7:54 P.Mo The Secretary stated the Notice of Hearing had been published. He further stated that 1) the pro- posed ordinance is similar to thelrecently adopted emergency ordinance relative to accessory structures 2) the newly proposed ordinance does allow swimming pools, cabanas, and poolSequipment in the required 'rear yard and 3) the proposed ordinance shoul~ be amended as follows: Section 1.. .last line.. .inser~ the words "in which" between the words "district" and "said". -2- Planning Commission Minutes - 14 July 1969 - Continued IIo C. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES - Continued Commissioner Smith stated that 1). the Subdivision Committee has discussed this matter and is not entirely in agreement with the 500-foot area allowed "by the proposed ordinance and 2) it has been suggested that the area allowed bereduced to 350-feet. Chairman Norton stated that usually two dressing rooms and a shower are provided in yards with swinnning pools. Commissioner Crisp indicated that 350-feet of area would provide ample room for the aforementioned facilities. Chairman Norton stated that perhaps some allowance should be made for people who wish to build garages or carports in the rear of their property since this would be a great aid in keeping cars off the street. The SeCretary stated that the proposed ordinance will present some problems to residents that planned to construct garages in their rear yards. CommiSsioner Crisp stated that this ordinance is aimed at prohibiting structures in the rear yard. ~. Norman Martin, President of Prides Crossing Homeo~mers Association, stat'ed that 1) he started the proposed 6rdinance sometime ago and is a little dis- appointed at the results and 2) Allowing a cabana ten-feet in height will obstruct the view and allow the very type of thing that the proposed ordinance was intended to prohibit. Commissioner Smith explained that a ten-foot height limit is much to be desired since it encourages gable~ gambrel, or. hip type roofs rather than flat roofs. Mr. Martin stated that. it is possible even with a ten-foot height limitation to have a building with a fifteensfoot overall height as defined in the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Smith, stated that if a fire wall is provided a structure could conceivably be built right on the rear property line. Commissioner Kraus stated he would very much'like to see some regulation included in the ordinance which would move structures away from the property line. The Secretary stated that swimming pools are required to be six-feet away from the property line under the existing ordinance. Mr. ~rtin stated that 1) present California living includes using the rear yard for living more than the front yard and 2) he would like to see a pro- vision that would make it easier to use the back yard without requiring a vat iance o Chairman Norton stated that 1) it might be worth~ile to consider adopting a resolution relative to accessor~ structures (such as the one adopted relative to slope density) in order to give the Planning Commission more flexibility 2) perhaps some language could b~ devised with the City Attorney and 3) there is a growing tendency for some builders to build houses around the entire yard; thereby, creating an interior cou~t yard. Mr. Jim Naugle, Vice-President of'the Prides Crossing Homeo~mers Association~ stated that in order to obtain some degree of control (since many area have deed restrictions) it might be possible to include in the Building Permits some method of checking if the deed restrictions hav,e been complied with by everyone issued a Building Permit for construction. -3-. Planning Commission Minutes - 14 July 1969 - Continued II. C. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES - Continued Chairman Norton stated that 1) the proposed Building Permit check method would not be possible because of the heavy load it would constitute for the Building Department Staff,2) the proposal would involve expenditures of City funds and the matter would best be discussed with the City Admininstrator and 3) if someone wanted to come into City Hall and look at the Building Permits this would be permissable at any time. Mr. Naugle stated that the cabanas mentioned in the proposed ordinance could be stretched to cover a multitude of sins if not properly defined. Chairman Norton closed the hearing for the evening at 8:17 P.M., ~irected the hearing on accessory structures continued to the next regular meeting, and referred same to the Subdivision Committee for further study. D. V-332 - George W. Day, Farwell Avenue - Request for Variance in Connection with Underground Electric Facilities The SeCretary opened the hearing at 8:18 P.M. The Secretary stated the Notices of Hearing had been mailed' and two communications had been received as follows: 1) Mr. Vince Faso, Vice-President of George Day Construction Co., ·Inc., submitted a statement of reason explaining that if the proposed Variance is not gramted the people presently being serviced by the existing over[~ead poles will be forced to absorb costs involved in reviewling their present service connection and the. George Day Compamy will be forced to spend an additional $11,000 to $12,D00 for pole removal; and 2) Mr. Frederick Buechner of 19915 Bet~a Vista Drive submitted a communication stating that he coul~d see no reason for the · granting of the proposed Variance. ~. Edward Panelli, applicant~s attorney, stated th. at !) all in-tract electrical facilities will be underground 2) the approved tract map does indicate relocation of power poles on Farwell Avenue to the inside of curb lines and 3) since the approval of the tract map, Ordinance NS-3.20 has gone into effect, requiring all ··public utilities to be installed underground in the City. "· Con~nissioner Crisp explained that this situation is~ ·the same as the DitzLCrane and Paul ~·~sson problems relativ~ to underground ut~ilities and in each case the City Attorney has ruled that aZ Variance.. is rec[~aired for the type of over- head installation proposed by the applicant. Mr. Panelli explained, in answer to an inquiry ·· Chai~r·man Norton, that the approved plan would provide that the George Day service go underground but that ·the existing overhead services would remain. Chairman Norton stated that in other words the existing utility poles would remain. Mr. Gordon Doaks, 19600 Farwell AVenue, stated that, 1) he w~s opposed to the proposed Variance 2)· once an ordinance is esta~mlished (such as the~ Underground Ordinance) it should be enforced 3) he ·had two letters written by his neighbors relative to the subject Variance. The Secretary read the letters ~.rfitten by ~. and ~r:s. Robert Swanson of 19616 Farwell and Louis M. and Sandra R..Thorpe of Flarwell AVenue) both of which stated they were opposed to the granting of t'~e proposed ·Variance. -4- PlanninS Con~ission Minutes - 14 July 1969'.- Continued II. D. V-332 - Continued ~r. Ted Shebs, 19520 Farwell Avenue, stated that 1} there are problems involved with the adjacent property o~.mers relative to converting to under- ground facilities 2) he can see the desirability of having the underground facility but there will, also, be' costs involved and 3) he felt the people in the area should be made aware of any future meetings that are held' in connection with this matter. Chairm~n Norton explained that this matter will agein be discussed at the Planning Comnission meeting of 28 July 1969 and an}~{one interested in attend- ing that meeting will be welcome.. ~. George R. Smith of 19740 Farwell Avenue stated ,that 1) the monetary expenditure involved relative to this ~tter are his main concern and 2) he wondered if P G & E will be able to come up with am approximate cost esti~te for the proposed facilities. The Secretary explained that it is normally the responsibility of the property o~er to connect to the junction box for service. }~. Panelli explained that 1) the developer is required to conform with the ordinance and remove existing' poles and install transformers and 2) the people on Far~,Tell should be rode'aware ~of the $2,000 to $3,000 per home that this service will cost. ~. Cummins of Farwell Avenue stated that P G & E ~'ad quoted a figur~ of about $300 per dwelling and he understood the cost '~.~ould be incurred by the developer and not the individual property o~ner.. ~. Faso stated that the $2,000 to $3,000 figure qu,oted by ~k'. Panelli was the fig~e for the total project and not the price per dwelling. At 8:40 P.M. Chairman Norton clos'ed the hearing for the evening, referred V-332 to the Variance Conmittee for study and continued same to the next regular meeting. Commissioner Crisp, on behalf 'of the Variance Committee, arranged for an appointment with the applicant's representative for an on-site inspection at 9:00 A.M., Saturday, 19 July 1969. Chairman Norton delegated Comanissioner Smith to attend the on-site inspehtion in place of Con~missioner Lively who will be unable to attend due to a pre- vious c~ittment.' ~. Cummins stated he would be interested in attending the on-site inspection scheduled for Saturday. Co~issioner Crisp stated the C~ittee would be at the site at approxi~Rtely 9:00 A.M. Saturday and ~. Cu~nins could attend if he so desired. He then requested the Secretary to contact a representative of P G & E to be present at said meeting. E. V-333 - David W. Moss, Old Oak Way - Request for Variance in Connection with Front Yard Setback Requirements The Chair~n Opened the hearing rzelative to V-33 at 8:41 P.M. The Secretary stated the Notices of Hearing had been ~iled and t~hen read .two co~unications submitted by 1) Dorynda W. Johnston and Raymond B=. jones stating they concurred with the applicant~s request and 2) Raymond B. Jomes stating that the granting of the subject Variance would create a more aesthe=ic h~e. ~tanning Connnission Minutes - 14 July 1969 - Continued II. E. V-3~- Continued ~. Robert Cronemiller, applicant~s architect, was present and stated that the slope of this property must be considered the bortant factor when considering the building site. . Chairman Norton agreed that the property did seem to have some difficult topography. No one in the audience wished to comment relative to the this matter. Chairman Norton closed the hearing at 8:47 P.M., re~erred V-333 to the Variance Committee for study and directed same continued to the next regular meeting. CommisSioner Crisp, Chairman of the Variance Committ. ee, made an appointment ° with ~. Cronemiller for an on-site inspection for 10:30 A.M. on Saturday, 19 July 1969. He then explained to Mr. Cronemiller that he would like to have the situation relative to the centerline of the road. verified by the meeting on Saturday. IIIo .BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-820 - John B. Walsh, Herriman Avenue - Building jSite Approval - l'Lot - Continued from 23 June 1969 Commissioner Smith recommended that SDR-820 be continued to the next regular meeting to allow additional time to study the access road relative to this application. / Chairman Norton so directed. z B. SDR-822 - E'arl Zimmernmn, BohlmanZRoad - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from 23 June 1969 Commissioner Smith advised that the Building Site Csn~nittee Report in connec- tion with SDR-822 was ready. John Stewart, engineer for the applicant, stated that he had reviewed the subject report listing the proposed conditions of approval and expressed satisfaction of same. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Bacon, that the.Building Site Committee Report of 14 July 1969 relative to S~R-822 be_adopted and that the tentative mmp (Exhibit "A-I", filed 23 June 19~) he~approv~ed subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried~unanimou~ly. C. SDR-823 - B. T. Caleb, DeSanka Avepue - Buildin8 Si~e Approva - 4 Lots Commissioner Smith recommended that SDR-823 be continued to allow additional time to review the map submitted in connection wit~ =SDR-823. Chairman Norton so directed. IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-271 - John Rodrigues, Jr., Big Basin Way - Final ~esign Review - Models and Community Recreation Building Commissioner Metcalf briefly reviewed this applicatLi~on. }~. Rodrigues, the applicant, stated that they wereinterested in obtaining approval for three (3) models and.a conmunity recreation building at this time. -6- Plapnin8 Commission Minutes - 14 July 1969.- Continued IV. A. A-27 1 - Continued Chairman Norton, after reviewing the maps relative to A-271, stated that the subject development is very impressive. Mr. Rodrigues stated that he would be bringing in some new roofing materials since the Fire }~rshal is opposed to the use of shake roofs in places of public assembly. The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated 14 July 1969 recom~.ending that Final Design Approval be granted for (3) to~mhouse models and a conLmunity recreation facility. He then stated that the subject report should be amended to read as follows.. .paragraph 3.. .line 3.. .should read.. ."be granted (for models and recreational facilities only) as sho~m on Exhibits "A-3", "E", and "F" and subject to the". Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the Staff Report dated 14 July 1969 be adopted, as amended, amd that Final Design' Approval be granted for three (3) to~mhouse models and a community recreational facility for A-271 as shown on Exhibits "A-3", "E", and "F" and subject to the conditions stated in said report;.motion carried unanimously. B. A-321 - Frances B. Anderson', Big Basin Way - Final Design Review - Remodeling of Existing~ Plumed Horse Restaurant The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report 'dated 14 July ].969 recommending that Final Design Approval be granted for A-321. Me stated that the said report should be amended as follows.. .paragraph 2. . .line 3.. ."Exhibit "A" should be changed to read "EXhibit "B". . .and in lines 3 and 4. . . the following should be deleted. . ."and subject to the following condition" . . .and the condition listed at the end of the report, also, be deleted. Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the Staff Report dated 14 July 1969 be adopted, as amended, amd that Final Design Approval .be granted for remodeling the existing Planned Horse Restaurant as shown on Exhibit "B"; 'motion carried unanimously. C. SS-61 - Walter Muir (Claude T. Lindsay, Co.) Chester Avenue and Kinman Avenue - Final Design Review - T~mpgr_ary Subdivision Sign The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated 1~ July 1969 recon~mending that Final Design Approval be granted for SS-61. C~mmissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the Staff Report dated 14 July 1969 be adopted and that Final Design Approval be granted for a temporary subdivision identification sign as shown on Exhibit "A" subject 'to the conditions stated in said report; motion carl-ied unanimously. V. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Commissioner Bacon gave a sumsmary of items reviewed an~ action taken at the City Coundil meeting of 2. July 1969 with emphasis on matters of particular interest to the ConLmisSiono VI. PLANNING POLICY CO~,DIITTEE REPORT Commissioner Kraus stated that the minutes of the 26 Jume 1969 Planning Policy Committee meeting were available for review in each Comznissioner's folder; -7- ~lanning Co:~mission Minutes - 14 Ju!X. ].969 - Continued VII. OLD BUSINESS A. C-106 - M.V.S. Company, Saratoga. Avenue - Request for Extension - Continued from 23 June ].969 The Secretary explained that the' applicant has requested a six (6) month extension for C-106 (conditional. change of .zoning) which requires (as ~a condition of a previous extension) that some construction take place by 5 July 1969 and this has not been done. Cormnissioner Smith stated that 1) at the last meeting of the Planning Commission Chairman Lively requested a chronological order of events pertaining to C-106 and this list has been prepared and is now included in each individual folder of the Co~ission 2) the Subdivision Committee has done a lot of study on this matter and there is some disagreement. as to what action should be taken. He then read the Subdivision C~ittee .Report dated 14 July 1969 recommending that an extension be granted for three (3) months for C-106. C~missioner Smith further stated that 1) he would like the Planning Co~ission to make a decision on this matter 2) the subject' request · for extension has been discussed'.with the City Attorney and he has stated that a denial of the requested extension is not subject to appeal before the City Council but that the applicant could re-apply. ~. Abrams, representing the applicant stated that 1) he' felt it ~s necessary at this time to look back to 1962 in order t0 get the entire history of the subject development 2) he got into the proposed project ~en he came to practice dentistry in Saratoga 3) at that time the Only office space available in the City was in the hotel 4) he rented space in the hotel but never used it 5) some space became available in the bank Building, hardware store and then in the building ox.med by Dr. Kilbourne and I~. Otto 6) he and his associates were looking for someone that would build the space that was needed 7) they started looking for land and found the Seagraves parcel 8) the area x,~s very run-do,~m, Saratoga Avenue was then 20-feet wide and Cox Avenue was 12-feet to 18-feet wide 9) he and his associates had to purchase the whole 45-acres because ~. Seagrave~ would not sell part of it 10) he had to become a developer because no one else would do the job that needed to be done 11) the purchase of the subject property provided an opportunity to develop their ovm (doctors) environment on a large.scale 12) he did have to admit that he was not a developer but has a strong interest in the conmunity where he has his home and his business 13) after development of the Medical Village the question arose about what to do with the remaining land 14) the General Plan of the City showed the property as Multiple-Zoning 15) a convalescent hospital considered for the subject property since it x.ms determined that such a use would be compatible with the medical center, but it ~s not possible to find a developer intereted in such a project 16) he and his associates were not a fly-by-night operation but responsible individuals ~o developed something that has been a credit to the entire com~n~unity 17) it is true that from 1963 to 1969 is a long time but the quality and character of a development is more important then the time !8) it took two-and-one-half years on Saratoga Avenue and from 1963 to 1965 to find one buyer 19) it was not econ~ically feasible for anyone to develop this property 20) a joint venture was proposed and after six months of ~ork a c~plete set of plans were submitted to the City for consideration 21) study of this plan continued to 28 March 1966 and the joint venture and a lot os money ~s lost and after that they could interest no one 22) C-101 ~,~s then initiated and shortly thereafter C-106 23) it took another year before it ~j.~s realized that any development of the subject property would have to be done by the developers of the Medical Village 24) he did not know how long it should take a dentist to build a complex such as the one proposed but that he has pursued the ~tter diligently 25) financing took a great deal 0f time and there were Life Insurance Co~anys interested in financing a project for this property, but, unfortunately, he did not move fast enough 26) they spent three (3) months on another loan and then the interest rate went to 8~% 27) he felt that even an e~:perienced developer would have a difficult P.1..anning Commission Minutes - 14 July 1969 - Continued VII. A. C-106 - Continued time under the existing conditions 28) the City is trying to avoid people taking possession of land and then speculating and this is not the intent of the applicant 29) 'the costs in an endeavor of this nature are astronomical 30) there is, also, the concern relative to providing apartments for people in Saratoga 31) h!e had a set of working drawings (which he presented to the Commission) all of which were his work and in addition he .conducts a full time dental practice and 32) they now had a set of plans that are financeable and putting a time limit on the application at this time would kill the entire development. Chairman Lively stated that he would like to see tZne last line of par..agraph 2.. .on page 2.. .deleted since it would leave the applicant unattainable when dealing with loaning institutioms. The Secretary stated that a recommendation for approval of the requested extension would be forwarded to the City Council Commissioner Crisp stated that if the matter is f~rwarded to the City · CounCil he would recommend that the three (3) month extension be from the date of approval by the City Council. The Secretary, in answer to an inquiry from Chairmmn Norton, explained that the applicant had full knowledge that he had ~to perform in a certain length of time and he (the Secretary) did not see ~,~y the applicant should not re-apply and start over again. Commissioner Bacon recommended that paragraph 2.. .on page 2.. . sentence 2.. .of the Subdivision Con~nittee Repor.~ dated 14 July 1969 should be amended to read as follows: "However, in view of mitigating circumstances the Subdivision .'..Committee,. without the concurrence of ~ihe Planning Staff, reluctantly agree that an extension be granted for three months from date of'approval by the Cit-5~ Council." Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by commissioner Bacon, that the Subdivision Committee Report dated 14 July 1969 be adopted, as; amended, and forwarded to the City Council as the recom~nendation of the Plap.~ing Commission and that a three (3) month extension be granted for C-106 from the date of approva'l by the City Council; motion carried. unanimously. B. FOURTH STREET ABANDON~,~NT - Between Big Basin Way and Oak Street - Continued from 26 May 1969 The Secretary stated that the Parks and Recreatiom Commission has requested that the Planning Commission continue this matter ',until I.~. Beck (Park Consultant) complete his report and the matter is referred to the Planning Commission by the City Council, '. Chairman Norton so directed, Co LETTER RE PARK LAND DO~L~TION The Secretary stated that the letter submitted by E4rs. Duffy relative to donation of land for parks for planned communities 'has been referred to the City Attorney; therefore, the matter should be com~inued until such time as the City Attorney submits an opinion. Chairman Norton so directed. PlanninS Commission Minutes - 14 July ].969 - Continued VIII, NEW BUSINESS None IX, CO}R.R/NICATIONS A, WRITTEN None B. ORAL : The Secretary stated that some' amendment should '~e made to the ordinance relative to eliminating apartment 'use 'as a permitted use in the "P-A" Zoning District. Chairman Norton,with concurrence of the Cormnission, directed the Secretary to first obtain more precise definitions for duplexes as-compared to apartments prior to introducing ,~'he above mentioned a me nd me n t. Procedue for Assessment Districts Commissioner Crisp stated that the City Council should request the Planning Com~nission to develop. a procedure for Assessment Districts concerning the improvement and r. mintenance of emtrances to subdivi- sions. The Secretary stated that the City Council already had nmde such a request through the City Administrator and that .the Commission was to work with the City Attorney in connection with t,his m~tter. General Plan Conmissioner Crisp advised that the Planning Commission will be asked to re-open the hearings relative to the General 'Plan because of a request by the Park and Recreation Comission. The Secretary stated that a study session has been suggested by the Administrative Assistant for attendance by the Park and Recreation Commission, City Council and the Planning Commission. Commissioner Crisp stated tha~ the City Council cannot reverse a Planning Commission reco~nendation unless it is referred back to the Planning Con~nission for review. The Secretary stated that if the Planning Commission does nothing about a referral made by the Council to the Planning Commission it is assumed the totter is automtically reco~ended for approval by the Conmission. Guests Chairman Norton acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of..Mr. ~Mrtin, President of the Prides Crossing Homeo~.mers Associanion and ~. Naugle, Vice-~esident, }~s. Wilberding and ~. Sitney of the Good Government Group. He, also, thanked l.~s.. Wilberding for the coffee served at recess. X. ADJOL~N~'E~ Chairran Norton declared the meeting adjourned at I0::20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, j