Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-22-1971 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SAP~ATOGA PLA. NNING COMMISSION MINUTES TIJ~E: Monday, 22 February 1971, 7:30 P.M. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANISTION The meeting was called to order by Chair~n Lively at 7:30 A. ROLL CALL Present: Co~issioners Fagan, Kraus, Lively, ~rshatl, 1.~rtin, Metcalf, and Smith. Absent: None. B. MINUTES Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Com_missioner Kraus, that the reading of the minutes of the 8 February 1971 meeting be ~mived and they be approved as distributed to the Commission; motion carried unanimously. II. PUBLIC HE~INGS A. C-137 - Alfred F. Dum~2s,. Inc., Prospect Road - Request for Change of Zoning from "R-i-10,O00" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-i-IO,000" "P-C" (Sipgle--Fami~y Residential Planned CommunitX.) The Chairman opened the hearing relative to' C-137 at 7:34 P~M. The Secretary explained that the applicant met with the Subdivision Committee to discuss the revised plans and it was decided that more specific plans were necessary; therefore, it is recommended that this matter be continued to the next regular meeting. He, also, stated a new Notice of Hearing ~s ~iled. Coxm~issioner Smith stated that additional consideration must be given relative to density in connection with this application before the Subdivision Committee can make any kind of a recommendation. Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 7:37 P.M~, directed C-137 continued to the next regular meeting, and referred same to the Subdivision Committee for further study. B. C-140 - Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, 'Saratoga Avenue and Cox Avenue - Request for Change of Zoning from "A" (Agricultural) to "P-A" ~P~ q~.e s s i ona 1 -Admin i s tra t ive ) Chairm~n Lively opened the hearing relative to C-140 at 7:38 P.M. The Secretary stated a new Notice of ttearing was mailed,and the applicant has ~p~de a proposal to the City Council that the City purchase the subject proper'ty for use as a park site. .Reverend Anderson, present to represent the applicant, stated that 1) it is the applicant~ sincere desire to see the property utilized to the greatest advantage for the entire community 2) it is utilized now by various conmunity organizations and the applicant will continue to allow this and 3) it is impossible for the applicant to support the subject property for co~unity use for an indefinite period of time. Co~issioner S~nith advised that the applicant did meet with the S~bdfvision Committee and at that time t~.~o (2) suggestions were m~qde 1) that the property be offered to the City as a park site or..2) that the applicant submit a request for consideration at the .General' Plan Review to change the lan~ use of the said property. -1- Planning Commission Minutes - 22 February 1971 - Continued II. B. C-140.- Continued Conm~issioner Smith recomanended that C-140 be continued to the meeting of 12 April 1971 in order to al].ow time for this app.!iCation 'to be reviewed at the time of the General Plan Review. ' " Chairman Lively closed the hearing for the evening at 7:42 P.Mo, directed C-140 continued to the meeting of 12 April 1971, and referred same to the Subdivision Committee for a report after the General Plan Review. C. C-141 - Charles Maridon, Wardell Road - Request for Change of Zoning from "R-1-40,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "A" (Agricultural) - Continued from 8 February 1971 Chairnmn Lively re-opened the hearing relative to C-141 at 7:44 PoM. The applicant was not present and no one in the audience wished to comment relative to this application. The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 22 February 1971 recommending that the subject application for Change of Zoning be approved. Commissioner Smith stated he is concerned about the amount of fruit processing that will be permitted on this land under the requested zoning'. ' -. The Secretary reviewed a Staff Report dated 15 January 1971 in file C-141 and stated that under Resolution 559 (adopted 17 FebrUary 1971) the fruit processing on the subject property under "A"' .zoning x~:ould be limited to forty-buckets of cherrie~ per day for .a.two-week period during the season and one truck" in' add 'out of the property per day for that two-week period. Chairman Lively temporarily closed the hearing for C-141 at 7:52 P.M. in order to allow time-for the Secretary to locate a copy of Resolution 559. Other items were discussed'during the b~{ef ~a~"i~ "~e' hearing ~elative to C-141, but for the sake of clarification the items will follow in the ..... no~'nml order' '0'f th~ agenda. The hearing for C-141 was reopened again at 8:00 P oM. The Secretary read Resoluti6n 559 which stated the list.. of activities permitted in an "Agricultural Preserve" area° Chairman Lively observed that Resoltuion 559 would allow the o~mer of the property to build workmans~houses on the property. The Secretary stated that this ~.:ould be impractical for the property owner; however, it would be possible. Conm~issioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, to close the hearing relative to C-141 at 8:06 P.Mo; motion carried unanimously. "Com~missioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the Staff Report dated 22 February 1971 relative to C-141 be adopted and that the subject application for rezoning to "A" (Agricultural) be reco,,-mended to the City Council for approval' on the basis the objectives of Section 1ol of Zoning Ordinance NS-3 can be met, the proposal complies with the goals of the General Plan' and for the reasons set forth in the Staff Report dated 15 January 1971 and the approval be subject to the condition stated in the 22 February 1971 report; motion carried unanimously. PlanninB Com~nission Minutes - 22 February 1971 - Continued IIo D. C-142 - John F. Torre, Wardell Road - Request for Change of Zoning from "R-I-40,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "A" ~gricultural) - Continued from 8 Febr~:ary 1971 The hearing was reopened at 8:07 P.M. The Secretary stated nothing new had been added to the file.· The applicant was not present and no one in the audience wished to coherent relative to the snbject application. Chairman Lively noted ·that C-142 is an exact duplicate of C-141 except for the size of the property. The Staff Report dated 22 February 1971 relative to C-142 recommended that the subject request for change of Zoning be granted° Con~missioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, to close the hearing relative to C-142 at 8:08 P oMo; motion carried unanimously. Com~nissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the Staff Report dated 22 February 1971 relative to C-!42 be adopted and that the subject application for rezoning to "A" (Agricultural) be recon~ended to the City Council for approval on the basis the objectives of Section 1.1 of Zoning Ordinance NS-3 can be met, the proposal complies with the goals of the General Plan and for the reasons set forth in the Staff Report dated 15 January 1971 and the approval be subject to the condition stated in the 22 February 1971 report; motion carried unanimously. E. V-354 - John Markulin, Leonard Road - Request for Variance to Allow Site Reduction for Corridor Lot - Continued from 8 February 197t Co~mnissioner Kraus stated that 1) the Variance Committee did meet with this. applicant 2) they discussed with the. applicant a solution that would conform to the Zoning Ordinance 3) the applicant has the solution under consideration and 4) it will not be necessary to open the hearing at this time since the matter must be recommended for continuance. · Chairman Lively, in view of the foregoing, did not open the hearing relative to V-354 and directed same continued to the meeting of 8 March 1971o F. V-355 - A.RoC.O., Cox Avenue - Request for Variance to Allow a Freestanding Identification Sign - Continued from 8 February ].971 Chairman Lively reopened the hearing relative to V-355 at 7:54 PoM. The applicant ~.~s not preseht and no one in the audience wished to c on~e n t. Con~nissioner Kraus read the Staff Report dated 22 February 1971 recommending that the variance request in connection with V-355 be denied.. Co~mnissloner Metcalf moved, seconded by Cormn~issioner ~rtin, that the hearing be closed at 7:56 P oMo; motion carried unanimously° Commissioner Kraus moved, seconded by Conunissi~.ner' Martin, ..that .Staff Report dated 22 February 1971 .be adopted and that the subject request for variance V-355 be denied on the grounds that the findings required by Section 17o6 of Zoning Ordinance NS-3 cannot be made for the reason stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. G. V-356 - Floral Supply Center, Saratoga-Sunnyv·ale Road - Request for, Variance to Allow a Freestanding Identification Sign - Continued from ~ 1971 Chairn~n Live.]y reopened the hearing relative 'to V-356 at 7:58 PoM. -3- Plannin~ Commission Minutes - 22 February. 1971 - Continued II. G. V-356 - Continued The applicant ~;~s not present and no one in the audience wished to comment relative to V-356. The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 22.February 1971 recor~ending that the subject request for variance be denied. Con~nissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner t~aus, that the hearing be closed at 7:59 P.M.; motion carried unanimously. Co~issioner Kraus~moved, seconded by Commissioner ~rtin, that the Staff Report dated 22 February 1971 be adopted and that the subject request for variance V-356 be denied on the grounds that the findings required by Section 17.6 of Zoning Ordinance NS-3 cannot be ~de for the reasons stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. BUILDING SITES A~ID SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-878 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corp., Saratoga Avenue - Buildin~~Drova! - 1 Lot - Continued from 8 February 1971 Commissioner Metcalf, in answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Smith, stated that the Design Revie~ Committee feels that a breeze~.,Tay connect- ing the buildings is quite appropriate for the proposed d~velopm. Tent. Mr. Bernie Turgeon, Vice--President of Saratoga Foothills, stated that 1) the proposed development will be altogether different from the Gatehouse development on Springer Avenue and 2) it is .felt that if some open space could be maintained it would be to everyone~ advantage. Commissioner ~rtin explained that the Design Review Comn~ittee did recommend that the buildings be staggered. ~. Jim Moreland, architect, explained that it was the recommendation of the Design Review Co~ittee that a hip roof be used to give an open effect. Mr. Turgeon explained that the oak trees on the property will be involved in the street widening; however, it is indefinite when Saratoga Avenue is to be widened. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Fagan, that the Building Site Committee Report dated 22 February 1971 relative to SDR-878 be adopted and that the tentative map (Exhibit "A" filed 5 January 1971) be approved subject to the conditions set forth in said report; motion carried unanimous].y. B. SDR-882 - Robert P. Lewi~j~J Road - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot The applicant was present and stated he had reviewed the proposed conditions of approval and expressed satisfaction with same. Commissioner Smith recon~n~ended that the Building Site Co~mnittee Report dated 22 February 1971 be amended as follows: Condition II-B be changed t0 read as follo~s: "B. Corridor driveway shall be improved to 18-feet ~.~ide using double seal coat oil and screening on 6-inch A.B. for entire length of corridor or 12-feet wide by connecting across to the adjoining driveway (Ramke). Turn-around and improvements shall be pr6vided as approved by Director of Public Works." -4- planningL Commissioner Minutes - 22 Februa~:y 1971 - Continued III o B~ SDR-882 ·- Continued Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Kraus, that the Building Site Cormnittee Report dated 22 February 1971 relative to SDR-S82 be adopted,· as amended, and that the tent~-~iVe·maP (Exhibit·.7'A!', f~!__ed ...... · 10 February' 1971) be' appr6ved' s~bj~c~' f0· ·~he Conditions set forth in said re'p~r-~-i'"~6'tio~-carried unanimously. Co SDR-883 - Thomas Frver~_S_ar___~a_t_oga Hills Road - Building Site A_p_proval - 2 Lots Commissioner Smith recommended that this application be continued to the next regular meeting to allow time for further study. Chairman Lively so directed. IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-360 - Grace Unite~d Methodist Church, Prospect Road - Preliminary Design Review - Fe llowshi_!p_.Ha 11 Com~nissioner Metcalf explained that there ·is an existing classroom, the office ~.:ill be constructed sometime in the future and the fellowship hsll is to be constructed a't this time; however, the overall plans are submitted for approval at this time° : Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Staff Report dated 22 February 1971 be adopted and that Preliminary Design Approval be granted for A-360.as shoxm on Exhibit "A" and subject to the conditions stated in .said report; motion carried unanimously. B. A-362 ·- Mo E° Frazier, Cox Avenue and SaratOga Avenue - Preliminary Design Review - Office Buildin~ The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 22 February 19.71 recommending that Preliminary Design Approval be granted for A-362. Commissioner Kraus inquired if the proposed building could be illuminated in any manne~'~ ~on~issioner Metcalf recommended that the Staff Report zelative to A-362 be amended by adding t~re following condition: "d. Any external illumination subject to Design Review Approval." Dr. Abrams, adjacent property o~mer, stated that 1) this is the first opportunity he has had to review the subject plans 2) the adjacent property o~ners at a previous hearing ~ere assured that they would get a chance to review the proposed plans before they were approved and 3) he would request that the matter be continued to allow all adjacent property o~mers to review the plan~. Chairman Lively requested the Secretary to look back in the minutes of · previous hearings on this property to see if the Planning Commission did make a co:m~ittement to contact adjacent prop.erty o~ners and notify them ~,hen plans'for development of the subject property ~.~ere available for review. He then inquired if the applicant woul8 .object to a postponement of two (2) weeks'; }'~. Ralph Ramona, applicant's representative, stated that 1) there is a time limit in which construction must start 2) the F~.tter has been properly noted on the agenda aud Dro Abrams does receive the agenda; so, there should really be no reason for a delay.° -5- Plannin~ Com~nission Minutes - 22 Februa~:v ].971 - Continued IV. B o A-362 - Continued Commissioner Illetcalf stated that the applicant requests only Preliminary Design Approval at this time and he would recom~end that the nmtter not be con tinued. Commissioner Kraus stated that he would prefer that tb.e matter be continued in order to allow a thorough review of the plans by everyor:e concerned since this is an aesthetically strategic c. orner in the City. 1.~. Ramona explained that he has presented the plans to the President of the Saratoga Woods Homeox~raers Assodiation and has received no unfavorable c o~mn e n t s. Chair:man Lively stated that a two (2) week continuance does not se~=m like too much of a delay and by doing so it would allow all interested parties to review the plans. Cormnissioner Metcalf recom:nended that the matter be continued until after the recess and the earlier minutes be checked during the recess to· determine if the Commissioner did make a conmittment to provide an opportunity for adjacent property o~.n~ers and different homeo~;~ner groups to review the plans. RECESS AND RECONVENE Chairman Lively stated that: a:~ter. revie~ing the minutes it has .been disclosed that no record can be found of a conmtittment made by the Planning Commission to notify adjacent property o~.~,ners of Homeo~..rners Groups of plans submitted for '_t!~is property; ho~.,;ever, there is sufficient interest .in_~a.~e~!__by the Homeox~.~ers Groups to ~.~rrant continuance of A-:j62 to allow time for review of the' p'ia{~S."' Without objection, Chairman Lively directed A-362-continued to the next regular meeting, referred same to the Design Review Committee for study and requested the Secretary to notify anyone who might be interested in attending a meeting ~ith the Design Review Committee for the purpose of reviewing the subject plans. · Co A-36z....__i~ - West Valley Junior College, Fruitvale and Allendale Avenues - Final Desig__n Review.- I, ibrary Buildlnf~ After a brief discussion, Commissioner Metcalf read the Staff Report dated 22 February 1971 relative to A-364 recon~ending that Final Design Approval be granted for A-364o Commissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Com~nissioner ~rtin, that the Staff Report dated 22 February 1971 be adopted and that Final Design Approval be granted for A-364 as shox,,.n on Exhibit "A" and subject to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried unanimously. D. A-365 - West Valley Junior College, Fruitvale and Allendale Avenues - Final Design Review - Physical Ec]ucational Buildings The Secretary read the Staff Report dated 22 February 1971 relati~;e to A-365 reco~nending that Final Design Approval be granted for the physical education b. uilding. Con~niSsioner Metcalf stated that after revie~ing the plans he ~,7ould like to recom~mend that the condition (a) of the subject Staff Report be amended to read as follows: "(a) All sir conditioning, roof vent ducts, and other mechanical equipment to be properly screened from public view and sound isolated (sound-proofed)." -6- Planning Commission Minutes - 22_ F__~e.~bTua~rV 1971 - Continued IVo Do A-365 - Continued Com,nissioner Metcalf moved, seconded by Con~nissioner Martin, that the Staff Report dated 22 February 1971 ·be adopted, as amended, and that Final Design Approval be granted for A-365 as shown on Exhibit "A" and subject to the conditions stated in said r~port; motion carried unanimous ly. Eo A-366 - Barclay's Bank, Big Basin Way - Final Design Review - Identification Sign Commissioner Metcalf read the ·Staff Report dated 22 February 1971 recommending that A-366 be granted Final Design Approval. Commissioner ~rshall recommended that the ~,;ord "milliamperes" be removed from the condition contained in the said Staff Report and instead the word "millilamberts" be inserted. Co~m,~issioner Metcalf moved, selconded by Commissioner ~rshall, that the Staff Report dated 22 February 1971 be adopted, as amended, and that Final Design Approval be granted for A-366 as sho~ on Exhibit "A" and subject to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried unani- mously. F. A-367 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corpo, Saratoga AvenUe - Preliminary Desig. n. Review,: - Condominium Apartments Commissioner Metcalf read the Staff Report' dated 22 February 1971 recommending that Preliminary Design Approval be granted for A-367. Commissioner Metcalf moved, se'conded by Commissioner 1,·~rtin, that the Staff Report dated 22 February. 1971 be ad. opted and that Preliminary Design Approval be granted for A-367 as shox,~n on Exhibit "A" and subject to the conditions stated in said report; motion carried unanimously° Go A-363 - West Valley Jr. College, Fruitvale and Allendale Avenues - Final DesirOn Review - Fine Arts and Humanities }~uilding Commissioner Metcalf noted that the .Design Review Committee Report recommended that the Design Review Approval for A-363 be denied. '~{'~ ............. subject report is signed by tx.~o (2) members of the Design Review Co~.m~ittee but not by the third member since he does not concur with the contents of the report. The Secretary explained that the applicant did make application for a fine-arts-and humanities-building and the Design Review Committee reviewed the plans and deferred action in order to study the height proposed for the auditorium since it exceeds tb.e maximum height limitation of 55-feet allo~..~ed by City ordinance. Co:mn~issioner ~..~rshall explained that the Design Review Committee did encourage the college people to raise balloons to designate the height of the proposed building so that the height could be visually assessed. After viewing the height of the balloons from different locations it is felt that a building of the height proposed vould not be appropriate. The point should b~ made that the plans for the subject structure have been under development for sometime and this is the first atte'~npt to present any plans to the City and tb. ere has been no serious consideration given to lowering tIie height of the building. ' ....... Chairnk~n Lively stated that he ~,:as surprised that the architect did not realize there is a t~eight limitation for buildings in the City. -7- Planning Commission Minutes - 22 February 1971 .- Continued IVo G. A~363 - Continued Mr. William Higgins, architect, explained that 1) a stage loft, in order to be functional, must be a certain height of 67-feet 2) it was the decision of the college dra:na-department that they would have a stage loft and 3) a top theater-consultant was contacted to help design the auditorium and stage loft. Chairm~n Lively stated that tile fact remains that the applicant did not bother to present the City with any preliminary plans for review and it is hoped that in future construction this will not be the case. He further stated it is unfortunate the consultant was not informed of the height limitation of the City relative to _s_t_ru¢..t_'·~r·es' Of thi.s__._type? Mr. Higgins stated that it is impossible to work with a height limitation of 55-feet when designing a stage loft. Chairman Lively pointed out that the City ordinance clearly states the 55-foot height limitation; therefore, it is necessary to work with that limitation. Com~nissioner Metcalf asked 1,it. Higgins if since their last meeting 'they had reviewed the design of the building to try and lower the over-all height of the structure. Mr. Higgins stated they had not since the applicant is opposed to the lowering of the height of the 'building. Cormmissioner Smith pointed out that the applicant m~y ~,~ant the higher building, but he r~y not al~ys be able to obtain permission for everything he' ~;ants to do in the City. Commissioner Marshall stated he ~,Tas under the impression the applicant is willing to review his plans to determine the feasibility of lowering the height of the structure. ·· Dean Arnold, representing the college, stated that 1) this structure ~.~s designed after lengthy consultation with the drama department and everything was done to have a theater that would accomodate the educa- tional program in a one-story building 2) it ~s finally decided that the different phases of the theater could not adequately be taught in a one-story building 3) this building has been designed under the direction of a leading theater-consultant and 4) he was sorry the height limitations were overlooked and the plans would be changed if that were possible. Commissioner ~-r~rtin stated 1) he would like to point out why he did not sign the Design Review Committee Report 2) he did visit the college site and view the balloon ascent 3) the proposed building would be a good 600-feet away from the closes house and 800-feet ax,~..y from Allendale -Avenue 4) hi~ past record shows how ·opposed he is to high buildings in residential areas; however, this structure is set back far enough where it would not give the residents of the area an overbearing feeling 5) when driving do~.~ Allendale Avenue he feels the visual impact of the Morman Church would be greater ·than the proposed structure and this fact· should be noted in the Design Review Committee report 6) to postpone the construction of this building would be a detriment to the people living in the West Valley Jr. College District 7) it is reprehensab!e that the architect did not have a chance to bring in the plans earlier 8) an attempt should be made by the applicant to lo~.Ter the height of the building and 9) if the building is to be constructed at the proposed height an application for variance should be made so that ti~e neighbors 'can be notified· and given an opportunity to express their approval or aliaapproval. -8- Planning Commission Minutes - 22 February 1971 - Continued. IV. G. A-363 - Continued Commissioner Marshall stated that the applicant has been working on the subject plans for at least one-and-one-half years and the City ~.as not contacted during that time; therefore, it does not seem fair to pressure the Planning CoMmission at this time for a swift decision. Dean Arnold stated he would be willing to take the plans back to the people involved and ask them if the building can be lowered some way. Chairman Lively directed that this matter be continued and referred the application back to the Design Review Co~.~mittee and requested the applicant to see what can be done to lower the building to conform with the ordinance. V o CITY COUNCIL REPORT Commissioner Metcalf explained that he was unexpectedly called to Washington, D.C. on the day of the last City Council meeting; therefore, he ~.,~s unable to attend the meeting. In view of the foregoing, the Secretary gave a summary of items reviewed and. action taken at the City Council meeting of 17 February 1971 with emphasis on items of particular interest to the CommisSion.. VIo OLD BUSINESS A, UP-189 - James R. Davi, Sousa lane - Request for Extension - Continued from 8 February 1971 Commissioner Smith stated 1) the Subdivision Con~mittee met witb the applicant and he now reports that he does not need certification from the State to obtain a loan since the money situation has loosened up 2) the applicant presented a letter from the State Board saying Mr. Davi must start construction by 1 July 1971 3) on this basis the Subdivision Coxmnittee recommends this matter be continued another two (2) weeks to allow time for further study. Chairman Lively so directed. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. SDR-828 - John Cox~ M.D..., Jack.s Road - Request for Extension The Secretary stated that the applicant submitted a letter requesting a one (1) year extension for SDR-828o He further stated that the matter should be continued and referred to the Subdivision Committee for review. Chairman Lively so directed. VIII. COmmUNICATIONS A o WRITTEN None B. OP~AL" General Plan Com=mittee Conm~issioner Metcalf advised that the General Plan Committee will meet on Saturday, 27 February 1971 at 9:00 AoM. to review the Trail and Pathway Plan submitted '.oy the Park and Recreation Conmission. Study Session for Annual General Plan Review After a brief discussion, Chairman Lively requested the Secretary to schedule a study session for the Annual General Plan Review for Wednesday evening, 24 March 1971. -9i PlanninB. Commission Minutes - 22 Februar~ 1971 -Continued VIIIo. B. ORAL - Continued William Kinney Use Permit Commissioner Smith inquired about the William Kinney violation of their Use Permit conditions relative to occupancy of the rear building. The Secretary explained that the Code Enforcement Officer has the matter under study and he will have a report for the Planning Com~nission probably by the next meeting. Guests Chairman Lively acknowledged, with pleasure, the presence of Councilman jerome Smith, ~.'~s. Wilberding and ~.'~. Frampton.~of.. the Good Governm.~nt Group and ~s. Ottenberg of the League 0f Women Voters. He also, thanked ~s. Wilberding for the coffee served at recess. IX. ADJO~N~,~NT Chairman Lively. declared the meeting adjourned at 10:30 P~M Respectfully submitted, Stanley M. ~Walker, Secretary Saratoga Planning Co~n~ission j -10-