Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-23-1973 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PIjANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY OF MINUTES **********~********* TIME: Monday, July 23, 1973 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting ******************** I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present:Commissioners Belanger, Marshall, Martin, Matteoni, Smith, and Woodward. Absent:Chairman Lively. Due to the absence of-Chairman Li~ely, Vice-Chairman Marshall acted as Chairman for the evening. B. MINUTES Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the reading of the minutes of the July 9, 1973 meeting be waived and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission with the following changes:. .page 7. .paragraph 3. .be changed to read as follows. .. "Commissioner Martin stated that a' signal light is being provided at Wardell Road and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and a decision on cul-de-sacing should not be made until a determination is made on the effect of this signal.";. .page 7. . .paragraph· 13. .line 2. .change the words "Planning Commission" to read "City Council"; motion carried unanimously. C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Commissioner ~'~hiIr'~o'fFd' the following;!items discussed at the City Council meeting of July 18, 1973 aS being of significant interest to the Planning Commission: 1) The appointment of John Terry to the Parks and Recreation Commission. 2) The stop at the intersection at Wardell and Carniel. 3) The four-way stop at Wardell and Arroyo de Arguello. 4) Pedestrian and.·potential bikeway paths on Via Roncole and · .. Ritanna Court. 5) 'The cul-de-sacing at Arroyo de Arguello and Corte de Arguello - referred back to the Planning Commission. 6) Adoption of Resolution 668 - Abandonment of Public Utility Easement. 7) Four-way stop sign at the intersection of Fourth and Springer and Fourth and Paul. 8) Discussion of Lyngso Garden Supply Center - Opinion of surround- ing property owners that this use should be eliminated. 9) Horse Trails - James Day Subdivision on Quito Road. 10) Westbrook Annexation. 11) Horse·Lovers Association proposed that the horse trails on the north side of the Barco tract be reinstated - this matter referred back to the! Staff. Planning Commission.?- Minutes - July 23~ 1973 - Continued :'f'I. D. INTERSECTION AT PROSPECT AND STELLING Commissioner Martin expressed concern about the traffic at the corner of Prospect and Stelling and inquired if bike lanes were proposed in this z:area? Public Works should check this area very carefully since it is very prone to accidents especially those involving bicycles. The Secretary stated that he would ask the Public Works Department to prepare a report on this matter. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance NS-3~ Article 3 - Regulations for Hill- side ~Combining Zoning Districts The hearing was opened at 7:45 P.!M. The Secretary explained that the'City Attorney did submit a letter with some recommended changes for the proposed ordinance; therefore, it is suggested that the matter be continued to the next regular meeting. No one in the audience wished to 'comment relative to this matter. Commissioner Marshall directed the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance continued to the next regular meeting to allow additional time for review of same. B. V-396 - Dennis Paldi, Wardell Road - Request for Variance to Allow Reduction in Front Yard Setback Requirements - Continued from July 9~ 1973 !Chairman Marshall reopened the hearing relative to V-396 at 7:50 P.M. The Secretary read the Staff RepOrt recommending that the subject Variance be granted. Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the public hearing relative to V-396 'be closed; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the Staff Report dated July 23, 1973 lrelative to V-396 be adopted and that the Variance request to allow reduction in front yard setback require- ments be granted; motion carried Funanimously. C. UP-226 - C & I Development, SaratOga Avenue and Palo Oaks Court - Request for Use Permit to Allow Model Home Sales Office - Continued fram July 9~ 1.973 Chairman Marshall reopened the hearing relative to UP-226 at 7:56 P.M. Th~ Secretary explained that the applicant did submit a letter requesting that Tract #4768, also, be included as part of the tracts to served by the proposed model home sales office. The Secretary read the Staff Report dated July 23, 1973 recommending that UP-226 be approved. Commissioner Marshall inquired if the development at Cox and Saratoga Avenue is s01d what will the two i(2) remaining tracts use for a model home sales office. The Secretary stated that when that event occurs it would be best to review the sales-office permit. Commissioner Marshall stated that the sales office Could be moved to the appropriate subdivision at the time it is being sold. Planning Commission Minutes - July 23~ 1973 - Continued II. C. UP-226 - Continued Mr. Mark Roberts, present to represent the applicant, explained that the reason the model home has been proposed at the Cox Avenue-Saratoga · J 'Avenue subdivision is because this will be one of the most difficult tradts to sell. This ~developer has always'b~ cooperative in closing out the sales office after the subdivision is sol'd out and the cost has always been less than the $1500 bond amount required and he would like to request that the bond amount be lowered. The Secretary explained that this amount is a llttle high, but it was arrived at on the basis of past experiences. It is true that this developer has always been very cooperative in converting his model homes back to their original state. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the public hearing relative to UP~226 be closed at 8:03 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Staff Report dated July 23, 1973 relative to UP-226 be adopted and the subject reqqest for Use Permit tq allow a model home sales office be approved for a period of one (1) year as shown on Exhibit "A" subject to the conditions stated in said~report; motion carried unanimously. D. Informal Public Hearing - Abel M~ Carreia, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Requese for the Storage and Sales'of Building Supplies and Garden Landscape Materials as a Conditional Use In the "C-V" (Visitor-Commercial) Zoning District - Continued from July 9~ 1973 The Secretary stated that it was!his understanding that the applicant wished to withdraw this request for the time being; therefore, the proceedings shouId be terminated,and the matter continued off the agenda until further word is received from the applicant,and/or his attorney. Chairman Marshall so directed. E. C-170 - Ben R. Shippen, Allendale Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from "R-i-40,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-I~10,000" (Single-Family Residential) The public hearing relative to C-170 was opened at 8:07 P.M. The Secretary stated that the Notice of Hearing wa~ mailed. Mr.'Gordon Martin of 18560 Allen4ale Avenue stated that 1) he is an adjacent property owner 2) he iS in opposition to the proposed change of zoning 3) one main attraction of this area was its open-space and rural atmosphere and the proposed change of zoning would encroach upon that and 4) a petition containing fifty eight (58) signatures has been submitted in opposition to this applications. Mr. Bill Haile of 18579 Ravenwood Drive stated that he supports one-acre zoning for this area and strongly objects to the proposed change of zoning. Dr. Darwin Barrett of 14050 Marilyn Lane stated he 'is opposed to the proposed change of zoning since it would set a dangerous precedent. There are other open-space areas along.Allendale Avenue and if this zoning change is approved it will encourage other applications for rezoning of these areas. Mrs. Jean Laufman of 18591 Ravenwood Drive stated that she is opposed to the change of zoning~application since she is against higher density for this area. The approval in ~his request would result in more traffic, pollution, noise, and additional enrollment in the schools. The Secretary -3- Planning Commission Minutes - July 23, 1973 - Continued II. E. C-170 Continued The Secretary read ~th'e'f~rl~lng~communications all filed in opposition to the proposed Ch~ge'of zoning%application: 1) A petition containing fifty-eight signatures. 2) A letter from Isabelle Bellicitti of 14161 Quito Road. 3) A letter from Mr. and Mrs. Martin Schibler of 13939 Quito Road. 4) A letter fromMr. and Mrs. Brandt Woodward of 18620 Ravenwood Drive. ~ Mr. Charles Rehling of 18531 Allendale Avenue stated that 1) about a year ago the traffic situation became greatly increased on Allendale and a signal was installed at either end and the proposed subdivision of property would further increase the traffic load on Allendale and 2) ff there were more through streets to Fruitvale Avenue the situation would be different. ~ Commissioner Smith noted that one fundamental thing must be kept in mind relative to C-170 and that is whether or not this zoning change would .i. constitute spot zoning. If it ~es then the request for change of zoning mds6'be denied. The'Subdivision'Committee did review the map showing the six (6) lots proposed for this sdbdivision and four (4) of those lots do not meet City Ordinance requirements for the "R-l-10,000" zoning class- ification. Commissioner Martin stated that there should be some transition area there and perhaps the applicant would be willing to go for half acre zoning. Commissioner Marshall noted that.the subject property is bounded on three (3) sides by '!·R-l-10,000" zoning. Chairman M~rshall closed the hearing for the evening at 8:30 P.M., directed the matter continued to the next regular meeting, and referred same to the Subdivision Committee· for further study. III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-1043 - Bernard Klien, Pierce Road - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - Continued from July 9~ 1973 The applicant's engineer was present and stated he had reviewed the proposed conditions of approval listed in the Staff Report dated July 23, 1973 and expressed satisfaction with same. The Secretary recommended that condition II-C. . .line 1. . .be amended by changing "16" to read "18". Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Staff Report dated July 23, 1973 relative to SDR-1043 be adopted, as amended, and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A-i", filed June 6, 1973) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimously. B. SDR-1047 - John McLaughlin, Pierce Road and Via Regina - Building Site Approval - 2 Lots - Continued from July 9, 1973 The applicant and his engineer were both present and stated they had reviewed the proposed conditions of approval listed in the Staff Report dated July 23, 1973 relative to SDR-1047. -4- Planning Commission Minutes - July 23~ 1973 ~ Continued III. B. SDR-1047 - John McLaughlin - Continued Commissioner Marshall explained:that the applicant would like the access road to be narrower than=that called for in the report. The applicant could accept the conditions at this time and then request reconsideration of same at a later date° The applicant's engineer stated ~hat he could not understand how the Assistant Director of Public Works arrived at a 20-foot retaining wall His (the engineer'!s) estimates show that only an 8-to-10-foot retaining wall is necessary. Commissioner Marshall stated that it is difficult to get sufficient information from the map that was' submitted. He stated he was not aware cross-sections had been made available and the ones he has seen do not show anything. The Secretary explained that there are cross sections available, but not necessarily showing details of the retaining-wall and road-grade. Commissioner Marshall explained that the Assistant Director of Public. Works was present at the Subdivision Committee meeting when this matter was discussed and'in his judgement the retaining wall should be 20-feet in height. Commissioner Smith explained thatl this matter was carefully discussed with the applicant and it was clearly explained to him (the applicant) what would be allowed in connection with tree removal and retaining-wall require- ments that will be necessary to hold the access road in place. If the applicant is unhappy with the proposed conditions reconsideration can be requested and if that fails the matter can be appealed to the City Council. To continued the matter at this t~me would serve no real purpose unless some further information is provided that will made a significant difference. There has been reference made to a deed that was drafted prior to the Cit ' y s incorporation that stated tree removal would be permitted for access but this document has not been made available; therefore, the condition must'remain intact as presently stated in the Staff Report. Mr. McLaughlin inquired if it is accurate to state that his engineer submitted information that was not reviewed by the Staff? The Secretary explained that it was reviewed by the Staff and if the estimate for the retaining wall is disputed then the applicant could resolve that with the Director of Public Works. Commissioner Belanger ~tated that she did not understand why a situation is being created for a potential 10-to-20-foot retaining wall - are we ,sure this is desirable and really what the City wants? The Secretary explained that the wall could be made subject to Design Review Approval and h'e recommended that condition "R" be added to the Staff Report relative to SDR-1047 as follows: "R. Design of retaining wall subject to Design Review Approval." Commissioner Belanger inquired ifZthere!,is a remedy for the road grade? Commissioner Marshall explained that if access were available and permissable from the adjacent property the.acCess'road would.not be a problem. The tree in question is healthy and should!not be removed just for access purposes. This is simply a matter of a beautiful lot with difficult access. Cormnissioner Smith pointed out.that the applicant cannot be denied the use of this property, because it was legally established before the City was incorporated. Conditions can be placed on the property that will make it acceptable to the City. ~here does not seem to be.any way an access road can be created without eitherremoving the tree or construction of a retaining wall. -5- Planning Commission Minutes July 23~ 1973 - Continued III. B. SDR-1047 - Continued Commissioner Belanger noted that even if the tree were removed the grade of the.road would not be changed. ~The Secretary stated that a significant difference might be made right at the entrance, but the grade would still be there and require quite a retaining wall. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Staff Report dated July 23, 1973 relative to SDR-1047 be adopted, as amended, and that the tentative.map (Exhibit '~-2", filed July 9, 1973) be approved subject to the.conditions set forth in said report; motion carried with Commissioner Belan~er voting "no". C. SDR-1054 - Roy Anderson, Saratoga Avenue - Building Site Approval - 2 Lots - Continued from July 9~ 1973 The Secretary recommended that SDR-1054 be.continued to the next regular meeting to allow additional time to resolve Flood Control right-of-way requirements. Chairman Marshall so directed. D. SD-1055 - Roberts Communities, Inc., Saratoga Avenue and Dagmar Drive - Subdivision Approval ~ 42 Lots - Continued from July 9~ 1973 The Secretary recommended that SDR-1055 be.continued to the next regular meeting in order to review the latest map. (The map was available at this time and was briefly reviewed by the Planning Commission.) Chairman Marshall so directed. E. SD-1057 - Gerald D. Butler, Walnut Avenue - Subdivision Approval 7 Lots - Continued from July 9~ 1973 The Secretary recommended that SD-1057 be continued to allow time to gather further information on Flood Control requirements. It will be necessary to obtain an extension from the applicant since the time on the tentative map will expire' prior to the next regular meeting. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the subject request for Building Site Approval in. connection with SD-1057 be.denied unless a.~etter of extension is received from the applicant; motion carried unanimously. F. SDR-1061 - Ronald Freeze, Herriman Avenue - Building Site Approval -.1 Lot - Continued from July 9~ 1973 The applicant was present and stated he had reviewed the proposed conditions of approval as stated in the Sta£f Report dated July 23, 1973 and felt condition II-D was a'little.excessive. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Staff Report dated July23, 1973'relative to SDR-1061 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed June'27, 1973) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unani- · mously. : G. SDR-1062 - Dr. Elgann Jacksen, El Camino Grande and Sperry Lane - Building Site Approval --1 Lot'-'Continued from July 9~ 1973 Commissioner Smith noted that there has been some problem in connection with providing this property with water.n. Ha~,...this question been resolved? The applicant's engineer was present and stated that this matter has not yet been resolved and no information relative to same is available at this time. The applicant would like to obtain building site approval prior to proceeding with the matter of supplying this lot with water. -6- Planning Commission Minutes - Jun 11~ 1975 - Continued III. G. SDR-1062 - Continued Chairman Marshall stated that it would be preferable for the applicant and his engineer to settle the problem of water-supply before proceeding ~ny further with building-site approval. The Secretary explained that noFmally specific.information relative to water-supply is not required since water is directly or indirectly required by other agencies. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Staff Report dated July 23, 1973 relative to SDR-1062 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A", filed .Ju~.29, 1973) be.approved subject to the conditions set f~rth in said.report; motion carried unanimously. H. SDR-1063 - Ron Shoemaker Bonnie Brae Lane - Building Site Approval --1 Lot The Secretary recommended that SDR-1063 be .continued to the next regular .meeting. Chairman Marshall s6-directed. IV. DESIGN REVIEW None Vo ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT None VI. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS A. Westbrook Annexation The Secretary stated that a/repOrt from the Westbrook Homeowners Association 'is avafl~51~'~n'i~h'ri~'s all the.lot~zsizes'a~d'setbacks for the eastern portion Of the WestbroOk area or Tract 1'179. With a few exceptions on side yard setbacks the "R-l-15,000" zoning would be the most appropriate since the "R-1-20,O00" zoning would create more legal non-conforming setbacks. The area would be most compatible wilth "R-l-15,000" zoning. Chairman Marshall noted that the' information submitted by the residents of Westbrook appears to be very .thorough. The Secretary in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Belanger, stated that there are eleven (11) lots 'that.are 20,000-square feet/'or more in size. Chairman Marshall explained that. the.only lot capable of expansion with the "R-l~15,000" zoning is theone 32,500-square feet in size; therefore, the "R-l-15,00 zoning does seem to be the best zoning classification for the Westbrook area. Commissioner Smith Stated that in his opinion the Planning Commission ~hould not change it original recommendation~ but should reaffirm their report to zon~':ghis entire area "R-I-10~O00"; thereby, creating no ~h~ohforming lots. Chairman Marshall raised the question of whether the ten (10) lots that .are in excess of 20,O00-square feet in size would join forces and subdivide in the future with the "R-l-10,000"izoning. The Secretary stated that it is possible but-not likely. The Staff recommends that the eastern portion of this area be zoned ~!R-l-15,000" and the remainder be zoned "R-I-10,O00" since financial institutions look at legal-non-conforming lot sizes as being.in opposition'to the basic zoning district and therefore creating a difference in financial lending within an area. Commissioner Belanger stated her!concern is with the two (2) parcels that could possible be subdivided. -7- Planning Commission Minutes - Jd/ne 11, 1973 - Continued VI. A. Westbrook - Continued Commissioner Martin stated that he favors the "R-l-15,000" zoning for the area because it would avoid ~urther subdivision of. lots and maintain open-space, Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, to recommend the the City Council that the Westbrook area be zoned "R-i-iO,O00" for the western portion and "R-l-15,0OO"~for the eastern portion as shown on Plan "C" dated July 9, 1973; motion carried with Commissioner Smith voting "no". B. Traffic Circulation - Comer DriVe~ Arroyo de ArSuello~ and Via Roncole The Secretary explained that the'City Council has asked the Planning Commissioner to restudy the traffic circulation and alternatives in the Via Rondole, Arroyo de Arguello, Comer Drive and Wardell Road area and especially the closing of Arroyo.de Arguello and Via Roncole. Commissioner Woodward pointed out that one interesting point should be considered and that is. that the.property between the two (2) cul-de-sacs might be bought and d~veloped. Commissioner Marshall explained ~hat the residents of Via Roncole and Arroyo de Arguello have a bonafide gripe but it is apparent that they were not aware that they lived on a collector street. The City Council 1). did not feel that the Planning Commission had spent enough time on this matter 2) wanted the Planning Commission to give this matter priority consideration 3) discussed the possibility of postponing any further action until the effect of signalization is determined and/ .... ~ '~ reviewed a proposal to barricade Via Roncole at the railroad tracks. Councilman Kraus was presnet and explained that the City Council got the impression that the Planning Commission had not spent a great deal of time on this matter. Commissioner Marshall explained that considerable discussion has taken place on this matter and the Planning Commission has made every effort to preserve and regulate~f~!de-s.acing in the City and if that suddenl~ is destroyed we will essentially ~route the traffic on to what was once a rural road. Commissioner Smith stated that i~ his opinion this entire matter should be made part of the General Plan. The Secretary explained that the City Council has.indicated a higher priority is necessary for this situation.: The CoUncil is seriously considering a cul-de-sac for Arroyo de Arguello. ~ Commissioner Smith advised that he did not feel that plan had any merit , Mr. Beyer, city Manager, pointed out that Via Roncole is not shown as a collector street, but Arroyo de Arguello is shown. 'Such matter need to be reviewed annually and pre-planned. Commissioner Marshall stated that. the Plannin~ Commission should reaffirm their recommendation to not cul-de-sac .Arroyo de Arguel~0 until the effect ~ of the signalization is felt on the basis that said cul-de-sacing would be in violation of=~iiy'~Ordinance and would cause a 7disservice to d~hYf ~ parts of the City. FurtheD a study should be undertaken for other street patterns in the northwest .portion of the City .especially in undeveloped areas. / Commissioner Marshall further said tha~, perhaps, the matter .~d best be reviewed at at joint study-session with the City Council · after a study by the Subdivision Committee a~d'S~Yf~ is compr~'~'d. -8- Planning Commission Minutes - July 23~ 1973 - Continued VI. Bo Traffic - Continued Commissioner Belanger explained that the City Council has promised the · people in the neighborhood an answer by the next regular-meeting. Commissioner Marshall pointed out that whatever is done will have an impact that will last about thirty (30) years; therefore, the matter should not be hurriedly decided. Councilman Kraus stated that thelCity Council wants to be very sure what the Planning Commissionis position is on this matter. The Secretary stated that an action plan or time schedule could be ready by the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Matteoni moved, seconded by Commissioner Smith, that the Planning Commission reaffirm their previou~ position and recommend against the cul-de-sacing of ArrOyo de Arguello on the basis it would violate the general prinqiples that have been followed in the past and because'~h'~ effect .q~_s..~gnalization of the intersection at Wardell Road ~and Sa~a~og~nn_Xy._.ale Road has not been determined. Further a st~ be '/conducted of the northwest area of the City, with the aid of the Staff and the existing policy and requirements.regarding cul-de-sacing be r~considered;~'.',I.'7l., motion carried unanimously. C. Suit Filed Against the City of Saratoga by AVCO Community Developers - Concerning .the Approval of the Development in the Proposed West Valley Freeway Right-of-Way Commissioner Matteoni asked the Secretary from some details relative to the hearing at which the Secretary testified. The Secretary explained that the City"d'f~'~prove'd'ih~b'dl~iiionmap that shows part of the land partially .located in the West Valley Freeway right-of-way The basis of the case was,~nd it came out in the comments of both attorneys and witnesses)that what AVCO was really asking the City and/or State to purchase the property because the State had advised that they could not come up with the funds in the next five (5) year period and the City's postion was that until the State makes'some deletion of this proposed route (which they have not done nor do they show any evidence that they will) the'- City cannot do anything else but refuse to grant approval for any building in that area. Cormnissioner Matteoni stated that it is his understanding that the State Division of Highway is no longer in a 'position to protect the right-of-way areas except for the area around IBM. Could it be that their position was changed without formally notifyin~ the City. Commissioner Marshall stated that' depending upon the outcome of .this'~court case the City will either have a resubmission of the tentative map or no submission at all from AVCO. Mr. Beyer stated that he received a letter from the State Division of Highways saying they did not have the money to buy right-of-way easements. They do own 68% of the right-~f~way in the Saratoga area, but there could be more than that out of Saratoga. Do WEST VALLEY JUNIOR COLLEGE Mr. Beyer explained that there has been a modification in the'plans for the college parking lot but the conditions have not been approved by the Governing Board and in fact they have.come back with a counter-~ffer and the City Council will take action!on that at their next regular meeting. The Governing Board position seems to be that there is agreement as to lots 12 and 4; therefore, lot #3 Should be taken out and anb~herl'.atte~n~tive was to leave lot #3 in and compromise another 18-feet but the City Council proposed 87-feet so there is still a 50-foot difference so the Governing Board will not be easily budged. , ~9- Planning Commission Minu~es - July 237 1973 - Continued VI. D. COLLEGE - Continued Commissioner Marshall stated that the College would really like to drop lot ~3 and proceed Without it. VII. COMMUNICATIONS 'A, WRITTEN 1, Communication from Mr. Duffy The Secretary read a.com~..unication received from Mr, Duffy requesting that his property at the end of Ravenwood Drive be included in the equestrian zone, Chairman Marshall referred the matter to the Staff for study and a report, 2, SD-1052 The Secretary read a letter received from residents of San Marcos Road and Fruitvale Avenue area (directed to the Assistant Director of Public Works~ Mr. Trinidad) stat&hg their objections and questions in connection with the proposed Osterlund Development - SD-1052. B. ORAL Chairman Marshall acknowledged, With pleasure, the presence of Councilman Kraus, City Manager Bob Beyer,.and Mrs. Aberle fromt~he Good Government Group. He, also, thanked Mrs. Aberle for the coffee served at recess. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the meeting of July 23, 1973 be adjourned at 10:20 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Stanl~yM.'W'lk~ry Saratoga Planning Commission j -10-