Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-26-1969 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA P.LA~RiING COMMISSION ·MINUTES TIME: Monday, 26 May 1969, 7:30 P.M.° PLACE: City Council Chambers, Fruitvale Avenue, saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION The meeting ~s called to order by Vice-Chairman ·Lively. A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Crisp, Kraus, Lively, Metcalf, and Smith. Absent: Commissioners Bacon and Norton. B. MINUTES Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Crisp, that the reading of the minutes of the 12 May 1969 ~eeting'be waived and they ·be·approved as distributed to the Commission; motion carried unanimDusly. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. SLOPE DENSITY ORDINANCE - Revision 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 H~llside Residential Development.- Continued from 12 MaY 1969 Chairman Lively re-opened the hearing at 7:40 P.M. The Secretary stated that nothing new had been added to the file. Chairman Lively explained that the ordinance under consideration would provide a greater lot size ~.~ere slopes excee~ 10%; however, studies relative to the proposed ordinance have not yet beem completed. . Commissioner Smith stated that Sant~ Barbara County 'uses two plateS..labelled Slope· Density Curve A and B as follows: PLATE A - A general curve by which permitted density shall be not less than the figure derived by entering ~he chart in Plate A·with the average slope of the parcel or any portion for which density · ' is to be determined and"readin~ from. ~he curve the number of dwelling units per acre. PLATE B - This is a more !~beral curve by whic~ the Planning Commission can recommend a density not to exceed that derived by entering 'the chart in Plate B.with the average slo'pe of the parcel or any portions for ~iCh the density is to be determined and reading from the curve the number of ~welling units per acre Commissioner Smith further stated that Santa Barbara County has apparently not applied these plates as yet; therefore, they cannot give any records relative to application and so the matter should be given further study. The Secretary stated that 1) Monterey makes little use of the slop·e density ordinance, even though, they state that they initiated the original formula for same 2) the slope density ordinance drafted'for the City of Monterey has not yet been formally adopted and 3) Monterey has problems similar to other Cities attempting to establish such'an ordinance. -1- Plannin~ Commission Minutes - 26 May 1969 - Continued II. A. SLOPE DENSITY ORDINANCE - Continued Commissioner Crisp stated that he has had occasion'to see Several developments in Monterrey and they have all'o~m,d cluster develop- ments and have restricted building to areas that are relatively level; thereby, leaving the remainder of the property in its natural state. Chairman Lively advised that.it might be wise to postpone this matter to 23 June 1969 to allow time for a study session in connection with the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Smith suggested that a study session be scheduled for 4:00 P.M., Wednesday the llth of June 1969.. At 7:45 P.M. Chairman Lively directed the hearing relative to the slope density ordinance continued to the meeting of'23 June 1969, referred the matter back to the Subd{vision C~nmittee for study 'and requested the Secretary to schedule a study session'for the date and · time suggested by Commissioner Smith. B. V-329 - Edward T. Wild, Fruitvale Avenue - Request. for Variance in Connection with Lot Width Requirements The hearing relative to V-329 ~ms opened at 7:~7 P.M. The Secretary stated the Notices of Hearing were mailed 'and ~hen priefly reviewed this application. The applicant was present and stated that 1) '~e o~med two-and-one-half acres at the subject location and have been I.~ing in their home for eighteen years 2) now that their family is gre,,m it is their intent to sell their present home and keep the front· ~ortion of their property and possibly build a' smaller home on it 3) .thee sewer was put in last year and the property was considered as two panrcels at that time 4) his neighbors did call and offer 'to attend this m~eting and state that they had no objections to the proposed Variance and 5) his next door neighbor did obtain a Variance, but not as large as the one he is requesting. No one else present wished to comment. Commissioner Crisp, on behalf ~of the Variance ~ommittee, arranged an appointment with the applicant for an on-site inspection at 9:00 A.M., Saturday, 1 June 1969. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 7:52 P.M., referred V-329 to the Variance Committee for study and ~irected the matter continued to the next regular meeting. C. V-330 - John Richardson, Jr.,. Via Ranchero - Request' for Variance in Connection with Side Yard and Between Structures Setbacks for Construction of a Chain Link Fence Chairman Lively opened the hearing at 7:53 P.~. The Secretary stated the Notices of Hearing were mailed and briefly reviewed the subject application. The applicant's Mother, }~s. Richardson, was ~resent and stated that 1) it was necessary for the applicant to be ~t of to~,m at this time and 2) her son purchased the 'subject property ~'ith the understanding that it was large enough for a paddle tennis csurt. }~. John Grimaldi, o~.mer of p~operty at 13202 ~ia Ranchero Drive,. stated that 1) his property is located next door to ~he applicant 2) he did not receive a notice of the proposed Variance 3) Mr. Day (developer) should have notified the new property o~.mers ~ this area and 4.)' he'is neither for nor against the proposed Variance at this time. -2~ Planning Commission Minutes - 26 ~,~y .1969 - Continued II. C. V-330 - Continued Mr. Walter E. Mullally, o~mer of property'at 13135 Via Arriba, stated that 1) he ox~med the parcel directly behind tile applicant's 2) he did receive a NotiCe of Hearing 2) the subject Variance would .-.. .not..be..in .the beS. t int.erst of the community 3~ he believed that all who invested in this subdivision will live in ,a very high class and very costly area 4) the approval of the subie.'ct VAriance would con- stitute spot zoning and could set an undesirable precedent 5.) he and his wife are opposed to the proposed Variance ~nd 7) he felt the Saratoga Tax Rolls will be g~eatly enhanced by the development of this area. Mr. Lorain Corn~ell, owner of property at 13I~7 Via Arriba, stated that 1) he owned the properly to the rear of ~the applicant's property 2) construction of the proposed chain link france would obstruct their view and would not enhance the appearance of ~neir property and 3) he is opposed to the proposed application. Mr. Kenneth Burton, o~,mer of : property at 1317'~ Via Arriba, stated that 1) one of the reasons they bought in the subject area'is for the view and because of the fine.zoning restrictions imposed by the City of Saratoga and 2) he and his wife strenuously ~bject to the approval of V-330. ~. ~;illiam A. Ehnsam, owner:of property at I]193 Via Arriba, stated that 1) he, also, feels the:chain link fence '~ould obstruct the view and 2) he and his wife are Opposed to the gr~nting of this Variance. Commissioner Crisp, on behalf of the Variance Committee, tentatively arranged for an appointment ~zith ~s. Richardssn (applicant's Mother) for an on-site inspection of.the property at 9~:30 A.M., Saturday, 30 }~y 1969. Chairm~n Lively requested the Secretary to re-notice V-330 in order to assure that everyone concerned about the subject Variance can be notified. He then closed the hearing (8:11 P.M.) for the evening, referred V-330 to the Variance Committee for study and directed same continued to the meeting of 9 June 1969. D. V-331 - Thomas W. Fuelling,,BOhlm~n Road - Request for Variance in Connection with Front'Yard Setback Requirements The hearing relative.to V-3311 was opened at 8:1.3 P'.'M. The Secretary stated the Notices of Hearing. were mailed and ~'hat the subject application is a refile on V-314 (a Variance ~ich was approved and then allowed to expire). Mr. Fuelling, the applicant, stated'that 1) since the Variance Committe, investigated the property at the time V-314 was under consideration he would like to request that a second on-site inspection be dispensed with and the Variance be granted and this time and 2) the subject Variance is the only thing holding up construction. Commissioner Crisp stated that 1) judging from a report submitted by the Public I,lorks Department it is'apparent that there has been considerable wash-out on this lot during the past winter which creates problems in connection with this lot and 2) another on-site inspection is necessary and a member of the Public I.brks Department will accompany the Variance Committee to the site to determine the amount of damage caused to the lot by the rains ocurred last winter. The applicant agreed to meet ~he Variance Comn~i'ttee at the site at 10:00 A.M., Saturday, 31 }~y 1969. Chairman Lively (8:16 P.M) closed the hearing relative to V-331 for the . evening, referred same to the'Variance Committee for study and directed the matter continued to the next regular meetimg. -3- Eianning Commission Minutes - 26 ~y 1969 - Continued · , Ilia. E. SARATOGA AVENUE PLAN LINE - including Consideration of Alternatives at .La Paloma, Douglass Lane and Herriman Avenue Chairman Lively opened the hearing at 8:17 P.M,. The Secretary stated that the Notices of Hearing Were mailed and puSlished. He then stated that 1) the Plan Line is no~7. available for review 2) the plan invisions widening Saratoga Avenue to four lanes either divided or undivided 3) the alternate plans to provide intersections a~ LaPaloma Douglass Lane and Herriman Avenue with shifting to avoid tree removal and 4) it might be well if the matter· is referred to Committee in order to allow each Commissioner time to review the plan. Chairman Lively advised that since this secti~m is one of the most beautiful in the City particular ~ttention should be given to its revampment. Commissioner Smith suggested that the matter be continued and referred to the General Plan'Committee for study.· Mrs. Wilbur Worden of 14204 Squirrel H~llowLame, indicated she would welcome an opportunity to review the subject P~an Line. Chairman Lively stated that ~he Plan Line wouId be available for review at City Hall at anytime the office is open and .could, also, be r'eviewed at the recess this evening. At 8:23 P.M. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening, referred the Saratoga Plan Line to the GeneraI.'Plan Committee for study and directed same continued to the next regula~ meeting. C~airman Lively requested Commissioner Metcalf to act a·s .Chairman since it was n~cessary for him to leave for approximately one-half h~·Ur. II~l. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS z A. SDR-817 - Jones and Davidson, Quito Road and ~odbank I,~y - Building Site Approval - 4 Lots Commissioner Smith stated that the Subdivision!·iCommittee met with the applicant and his representative and there seem·ed to be a conflict as to what is wanted and it was'suggested to the applicant that he decide whether he wishes to proceed with the applicat~,on or if he wishes to withdraw same. Commissioner ~ith then recom~=nded that SDR-817 be continued to the next regular meeting to allowed·time for further study. Acting Chairman Metcalf so directed. B. SD-607 - pou~las P. Hines·, Pi'erce Road - Subdf~ision Approval·- 5 Lots The Secretary stated that the~ applicant had re~.iewed the proposed condi- tions of approval and expressed satisfaction of same. The applicant was present but offered no furth=~ comments. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissf·®ner Crisp, that the Subdivision Committee Report Of 26 May 1969 re:[ative to SD-607 be adopted and that the tentativle m~p (Exhibit "~~-7", filed 26 ~y 1969) be approved subject to the conditions set fort~ in said report; motion carried unanimously. IV.. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-269 - Abel M. Carreia, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Roa!d - Final Design Review - Modification of Comanercial BuildinS The Assistant Planner read th~ Staff Report da.~led 26 May i969 recommending that the subject request be denied. The Assis~nt Planner further stated that }~. Menard (applicant's architect) submitSled a plan proposing skylights that do not require cutting through the roof ef the building and would be attached to the roof sheetingr -4- Planning Commission Minutes - 26 May 1969 ~ Continued IV. A. A-269 - Continued Commissioner Smith stated that the applicant's p~oposal would in effect provide dummy skylights. Commissioner Kraus stated that the Design Review Committee reviewed the plans as initially laid out and i~ is their recommendation that the roof and skylight be retained as originally approved. Acting Chairman Metcalf, in answer to an inquiry fro~ Commissioner.Smith, stated that the Design Review Comanittee reviewed and approved the plans as originally presented including the skylight which will provide additional light and the Committee feels therle is no practical'reason to change the plans at this time. Commissioner Smith stated that if 'the applicant does not need the lights he could not see why the City should require him to supply them~ Acting Chairman Metcalf stated that in paragraph 1 . . of the Staff_ Report dated 26 May 1969. .line 4. . .the."words "plastic skydomes" should be deleted and the word "skylight" be inserted instead; and paragraph 2. .line 4. .change !'1969" to "1968". · Commissioner Kraus moved, secondedz by Commissioner Crisp, that the Staff Report dated 26 May ~969 be adopted, as amended, and that the request for modifications bedenie~' and the applicant be required to comply with the originally approve~ plans as show~. on Exhibie "A-3" in file A-269; motion carried. unanimous ly. B. A-314 - John Irwin, Big Basin Way - Final. Design Review - Remodeling to a ,Commercial Building The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated 26 May 1969 recommending that Final Design. Approval be granted for A-314 as shown on Exhibit "A". The applicant was not present. Commissioner Kraus moved, seconded.by Commissioner Crisp, that the Staff Report dated 26 May 1969 be adopte~ and that.Final Design Approval be granted for A-314 as shown on Exhibit "A" and subject to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried unanimously· C. A-315 - Ditz-Crane, Sea Gull Way and Cox Avenue - Final Design Review - Model Homes (only) for Subdivision Acting Chairman Metcalf stated that the applicant presented'the Design Review Committee with the most complete set of plans seen by the Planning Director and Assistant Planner in a long time and because time was short the Committee was unable to look at all the plans; therefore, it was decided to postpone review of the remainder of the designs to the next regular Design Review Committee meeting. The Assistant Planner read the Staff Report dated 26 [~y 1969 recommending that A-315 be granted Final Design Approval for six (6) model homes only. Commissioner Smith stated that a condition "(f)" should be added to the Staff Report as follows: (f) Illumination of the premises shall be limited to that which is reasonable and proper for 'a private residence·" -5- Planning Commission Minutes - 26 May 1969 ~ Continued IV. C. A-315 - Continued Mr. Crane, applicant, stated that 1). he would appreciate an opportunity to review the subject Staff Report and 2) he wondered why a restriction such as the one proposed By Commissioner Smith is necessary. Commissioner Smith explained that the reason for Condition (f) is that some model homes have been lit up like night clubs and the'City atten~ting to limit the lighting. ~. Crane stated that they do light up their model homes for security reasons and so that the homes can be seen by propsective buyers, but that they do attempt to keep the lighting at a minimum. Acting Chairman Metcalf proposed ~ recess at this time to allow the appli- cant ah opportunity to review the !subject Staff Report. RECESS' AND RECONYENE A-315- Continued Mr. Crane stated that 1) Conditio'n (c) of the subject Staff Report is questionable 2) they do plan for the bedrooms in their subdivisions to have one wall to put the bed against where there will not be a window over the bed 3) by complying with' Condition (c) this would not be possible and 4) a short window ab[ove the bedroom could be provideH but he did prefer not to have any window over the bed at all. Acting Chairman Metcalf advised that the Design Review Committee does have an aversion to houses with blank walls. ~. Crane indicated he would like ~n .opinion relative tO the sign since the sign company must be notified in Order to allow them ample time to prepare said signs. Acting Chairman Metcalf advised that the signs would be given consideration at the next meeting of the Design Review committee. Contmissioner Kraus noted that the plans indicated flood lights to be used for lighting for the model homes. i Mr. Crane stated that 1) they were proposing dual flood lamps which could be pointed in any direction and be:turned down to the illumination permitted and 2). the lights will be on a time clock and will be turned off at a designated time each day. The Secretary stated that often residents have flood lights of the type proposed by the applicant, but not:as.many as the number the applicant intends t~ use. Acting Chairman Metcalf explained that 1) neighbors (of other model homes) have complained about the illumination' of model homes 2) in some cases the lights have been left on all night and 3) the neighbors have found the excessive illumination quite objectionable and the City is inclined to agree with them. Comznissioner Kraus moved, seconded!by Commissioner Crisp, that the Staff Report dated 26 ~y 1969 be adopted, as amended, and that Final Design Approval be granted for A-315 for the six (6) model homes only as shown on Exhibits "A" and ':B" and subject to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. -6- Planning Commission Minutes - 26 ~y 1969 - Continued V. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Acting Chairman Metcalf gave a summary! of the items reviewed and action taken at the City Council meeting of 21 May 1969 with emphasis on the following items: 1) Approval of the Kerner Variance (V-326) a Variance originally denied by the: Planning Commission. 2) Approval of the Emergency Ordinance prohibiting construction of accessory structures ·(such as the Kerner addition) other than in connection with swimming pools. The subject ordinance was then referred to the Planning Commission for develop- ment of a permanent ordinance. The Secretary s~ated that a permanent ordinance could be scheduled for public hearing for 23 June 1969. 3) The Congress Spring Annexation was referred by the Supervisor back to LAFCO2 and the ~yor (Saratoga) requested the City Attorney to attend the LAFCO meeting of 4 June 1969 and make a presentation on behalf of the City. PLANNING POLICY COFLMITTEE REPORT Commissioner. Kraus gave a summary of the Planning Policy Committee meeting of 22 May 1969 with emphasis on the following items: 1)· Endorsement of the Planning Policy Committee of the Petris and Dolwig Bills relating to San Francisco Bay Conservation and Develop.ment- 2) The Planning Officers (SCCAPO) reaffirmed the Planning Policy Committee's policy recommending that Lafco require the land in the Congress' Springs area to be annexed. to Saratoga at the same time it is annexed to County Sanita- tion District 4;4 and a fire district. The Planning Policy Committee further recommended that future annexation pro- posals to utility districts be subject to the .condition of annexation to the appropr~-ate City.' Chairman Lively returned at this time to conduct the remainder to the meeting. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. SARATOGA FOOTHILLS - PARK AND RECREATION FEE - City Council Request for Recommendation - Continued .from 26 May 1969 The Secretary read the Subdivision Co.~ittee Report dated 26 }~y 1969 recommending that credits against Park and Recreation Fees for providing recreational facilities be allowed j only under certain circumstances as stated in said report. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Co~anissioner Crisp, that the Sub- division Committee Report be adopted and forwarded to the City Council as the recommendation of the Planning.Commission and that credits against the Park and Recreation Fee for providing recreational facilities be allowed only under the circumstances stated in the subject report; motion carried unanimous ly. .. The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 26 May 1969 recommending that the subject request submitted by Saratoga Foothills Development ,relative to the credits against the Park and Recreation Fee on SDR-764 be recon~mended to the City Council for denial. Planning Commission Minutes - 26 ~y 1969 - Continued VI. A. StD~TOGA FOOTHILLS - Continued Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Crisp, that the Staff Report dated 26 }~y 1969 be adopted a~d forwarded to the City Council as the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the subject request be in 'accordance with the policy outlined in the Subdivision Committee Report dated 26 May 1969 relative to credits for'Park and Recreation Fees; motion carried unanimously. B. SDR-701 - George Thayer, PiFrce Road - Request for Reconsideration of Conditions - Continued from 12 }~y 1969 Commissioner Smith reviewed this application and stated that the Subdivision Committee has decided to stand by!its original recommendation as stated in the Staff Report dated 26 }~y 1969. : The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 26 May 1969 re.commendin~ an alternate access for Parcel 3 be allowed from the minimum access road. Commissioner Metcalf recommended ehat Condition (1) of the Staff Report be amended to read as follows: (1) No additional accesses from this subject minimum access roa~ as sho~m on Exhibit "A-I" shall be permitted ~in connection with any further subdividing of Pardel 2. Mr. Stieber, architect and Mro Gonder (new o~,mer of the'property) were present but offered no further comments. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Crisp, that the Staff Report,dated 26 ~y 1969 be adopted, as amended, and the request for an alternate access from the minimum.access road be permitted subject to the conditions stated in said report;'motion carried unanimously. C. REPORT OF GENERAL PLAN CO~SMITTEE ON 1969 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW Chairman Lively read the General Plan Committee Report dated 19 }~y 1969 responding to specific requests of individual citizens, organized groups, proposed future development plans,'~and general items of concern which were accumulated by the Planning Department. The Secretary 1) stated that the matter of Housing Element is being studied by the'County Planning Director's Office and they 'intend to propose-a sample that all communities might adopt before 1 July 1969 and 2) .suggested that the City wait for the '~ounty Planning Director's Report since Saratoga is complying with the State Law requiring that the Housing Element be under study by 1 July 1969. Commissioner Smith recommended that the following lettem be added to the reference list appended to the General Plan Committee Report: (1) CASA Foundation, Inc. letter dated 22 April 1969 recommending an increase in density to provide homes for lower in!come families. (2) A letter from }~. Ke!ker (Saratoga resident) stating his opposition to the proposal made by the CASA Foundation. Letter. (3)A letter received from Mr. Fitsos (Saratoga resident) also, .opposing the' CASA Foundation proposal. -8' Planning Commission Minutes - 26 May 1969 Continued' VI. C. GENERAL PLAN - Continued Chairman Lively, in answer to an inquiry from the 'Secretary, stated that, in his opinion, the subject General Plan Committee Report should be made available to the. public so they can study it and prepare their com~ents for the public hearing on the General Plan to be held 9 June 1969. The Secretary stated that a sufficient number of copies are not available at present, but will be availablezat City Hall during office hours. Chairman Lively directed that the.General Plan Committee Report be referred back to the General Plan Committee and presented again to the Planning · Commission at the time of the public hearing relative to the General Plan scheduled for 9 June 1969. D. REPORT OF GENERAL PLAN CO~.~ITTEE - Regarding Status of Fourth Street . Abandonment The Assistant Planner read the Sta!ff Report dated 26 l,~y 1969 recommending that the southerly one-half of Fourth Street right-of-way between Big Basin Way and Oak Street be abandoned wfth the City retaining a center 15-foot strip for pedestrian ~!mlkways and Zthe residual strips (17~-feet each) on either side of said pedestrian right-of-way be deeded to'the adjacent and appropriate property owners. ' Commissioner Metcalf recommended that the property be deeded to the property owners with the provision that the. appropriate property o~ers landscape the residual strips at the time the walkways are constructed by the City. Commissioner Crisp stated that, he felt, 1) it will be difficult to convince the subject property owners to accept the property and pay taxes on it without any benefit to them 2) the property owner will not feel it is beneficial to him to pay the additional taxes for these residual strips Unless he can use the land to increase the size of his own home. Commissioner Metcalf stated that 1') if the property o~ers do not choose to accept the land under the conditions proposed then the City should retain it 2) ~nat he visualized was the similar situations in San Francisco x~ere there is a street extension and,it. is obviously too steep for pavement a pedestrian stairway and terrace garden is provided and 3) the appropriate property owners may be inclined to:,.take the property since it would make it easier for them to comply with their setback requirements. Commissioner Crisp advised that the subject properties are all legal non-conform- ing lots. : 'Commissioner Kraus stated that 1) 'perhaps it should be left just as it is now and wait'to see what develops relative to this street in the future and 2)' he did not feel he could vote for'any of the solutions presently proposed. Chairman Lively directed that the matter be referred back to the General Plan Committee for further study and review. VII. NEW BUSINESS PETITION OF AZULE HO~.~O~,~ER'S ASSOCL~TkON - Regarding General Plan Review of Caleb Prpperty The Secretary read a petition (72 signatures) received from the homeo~mers in the Azule area filed in opposition to the re-zoning of the Galeb property from R-l-10,000 to R-M-3,000. Commissioner Smith stated that a petition of this type would be more appropriately presented at the time of the public hearing relative to the General Plan scheduled for 9 June 1969. -9- Planning Commission Minutes - 26 May 1969 - C6ntinued VII. PETITION ·- Continued Chairman Lively explained that 1) [~s. isheets or her ~epresentative was invited to attend the study session relative to the General Plan and this · petition is probably submitted at this time to reaffirm their position relative to the Galeb property and 2) this matter cannot be considered as a public hearing at this time and all comments from the audience must be postponed to the time of public hearing to be held on 9 June 1969. He then referred the petition to the=General Plan Committee for inclusion in the General Plan public hearing. STREET LIGHTING FOR SARATOGA AVErrUE The Secretary stated that 1) a communication was received from the City Administrator requesting the Planning Commission to propose an appropriate Street Light Standard for Saratoga Avenue 2) the City Administrator would like an early recommendation in orde~ to= submit cost estimates for the 1968-69 budget and 3) this matter should be 'referred to the Design' Review Conmaittee for study. Chairman Lively so directed. VIII. CO~RrNICATIONS A. WRITTEN SDR-782 - Joseph Foster, Fourth Street and Springer Avenue - request for Revision The Secretary 1) stated that a commdnication had been received in connection with SDR-782 requesting a irevision· in the access road for the subject property and 2) recommended that the matter be referred to the Subdivision Comnittee for study.. Chairman Lively so directed. ~D-812 - David R. Franklin, Sevilla Lane and Sarahills Road - Request for Reconsideration The Secretary read a letter received f~om }~. Franklin requesting that Condition 7 and Condition 8 of the Subdivision Committee Report dated 12 May 1969 be given reconsideration 5y the Planning Commission. Chairman Lively referred the matter to the·Subdivision Committee for study and a report at the next meeting. B. ORAL .. .. ehairman Lively acknowledged, with pleasure, .the presence of Councilman ~er, Mrs. Owens and Mr. Kitchen of the Good Government Group and ~. Martin of the Prides Crossing Homeo~.mer's AsSocation. He, also, thanked ~s. Owens for the coffee served at recess. IX. ADJOL~.~ _. The Chairman declared the meeting adjournea at 10:30 P.M. R~spectfully submitted, S~ratoga Planning Commission j -10-