The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-23-1980 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~!'iHISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, July 23, 1980 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE:- City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Laden, Marshall, Siegfried,·Schaefer, and Zambetti (Commissioner Siegfried left the meeting at 8:27·p.m. because of illness) Absent: Commissioners King and c The following corrections were made to the minutes of July 9, 1980: On page 5, under A-717, the last sentence should read that this matter was continued to the July 23~ 1980 meeting. It shcu!d be added that the last item of the meeting dealtwith approval in concept of the resolution for Faber Johnston, Resolution No. PC-135. With those corrections, Commissioner Siegfried moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to waive the reading of the minutes of July 9, 1980 and approve· as distributed. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Marshall moved to adopt Resolution PC-135, commending Faber Johnston for his service to the City of Saratoga. Commissioner Z~mbetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR The Negative Declaration for V-535 and SDR-1466 was removed for discussion with those items. Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Siegfried, to approve the other item listed below. The motion was carried unanimously. 1. SDR-1449 Steven Sundquist, Ten Acres - 1 Lot, Final Building Site Approval PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. City of Saratoga, Request for Pre-Zoning of the area bordered by Baylor Avenue on the north, McCoy Avenue on the south, Quito Road on the west and Villanova Drive on the east to R-l-10,000. Said project in conjunction with proposed annexation to the City of Saratoga Staff gave a background of the prezoning of this area. It was noted that the City Council has determined that they do want to pursue annexation of Sunland Park, and Sunland Park Homeowners Association has hired a consultant, Mr.·Geary ~a~7~.~ who has prepared all of the applications to LAFCO. The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Geary ~.~'tT~~ addressed the Commission, and stated ~hat He'would try to answer any questions. Staff clarified that LAFCO has directed the City, as a way of showing that they want to pursue the annexation, to take the first ~tep in that process, which is the prezoning of it. They commented that the Commission should take any public testimony and were recommending that the public hearing be continued until after LAFCO has considered this annexation. ~Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes 7/23/80 Prezoning (cont.) Mr. ~.~t~. commented that the Sunland Park Homeowners Association would be appearing before LAFCO, requesting that this annexation be approved, and would state to them that the City of Saratoga has initiated the prezoning process by holding its first public hearing. No one appeared in opposition to t~ p~oning. It was noted that there had been one written objection to ~h'f~ ma't'~'~'F .... , Chairman Laden commented that the City'of Saratoga's criteria should be followed and incorporated into the General Plan revision if this annexa- tion is approved. Staff was requested to notify LAFCO that the City has taken the necessary step to initiate this prezoning by holding a public hearing. It was directed that the public hearing on this matter be continued to August 27, 1980. 4. UP-458 - John Cuda, Request for a Use Permit to allow the construction V-5'30 of a 20' x.24' garage 12' in height which would provide a 6' rear yard where 25' is required, and Request for a Variance to allow the construction of a 20' x 30' attached carport which would provide a 30' rear yard where 60' is required, at 20870 Verde Vista Lane; Continued from June 25, 1980 Staff described the present proposal, stating that the use permit request is being withdrawn, and the variance proposal is now for a patio cover 20' x 30'. The applicant has also deleted the driveway and grading necessary to take access to this carport area. Staff commented that they felt there are other options available to the applicant to deal with the shade problem. The public hearing was reopened at 7:55 p.m. Mr. Cuda, the applicant, stated that he had tried to comply with the Commission's requests regarding the grading and design. He described the present proposal. Commissioner Marshall commented that the Commission, in order to approve this variance, would have to be willing to give that same variance to any other person under the same circumstances,and to do that all five findings have to be made, and he found that he could not do this. Commissioner Zambetti stated that he also found it difficult to make all five findings. He did indicate that there is hardship in a sense because of the sun on the kitchen area. Commissioner Marshall stated that there are other options that could be used to block out the sun, and no variance would be required to plant trees. Since no one else appeared, Commissioner Marshall moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Laden commented that, because of the topography of this piece of property, with the sun coming in directly at the back of the home, and the fact that the adjoining home is considerably above this home, she did not feel that the cover would infringe on anyone's privacy. She added that she would be very reticent to allow a carport, garage and driveway, and cutting of the hillside of several hundred cubic yards, but feels this is a different type of structure. -.2 Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes 7/23/80 UP-458 and V-530 (cont.) Commissioner Siegfried agreed, but asked if the City would have any control over a driveway being added and this structure being used as a carport in the future. Staff commented that the only control would be via the grading permit process; however, there is no provision for the limiting of impervious surface. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he did not have any particular problem with the variance because of the severe slope behind this house and the fact that the.;'~"~'~'GH~:='h'o'~fi'~"~T~'~=above it, and it would enable the use of the '~a&k"~F~a ~f 'tH'~"a'~Fl~'~ant's property. He added that if there could be some type of control, because of the topography of the property, he felt he probably could find a basis for making the findings. It was the consensus of the Commission that the size of the cover could be reduced and, in light of the sun and the topography of the site, the Commission could make the findings for a variance for a smaller patio cover. The applicant stated that it would be impractical to make that area a carport. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve V-530 for a 10 ft. x 30 ft. patio cover,._a~....oppo~ed to the 16 ft. x 30 ft. cover requested, with the .~-~.p~la£'~h'~'L~-H~a~ig~'~j~'~ reviewed and approved by Staff prior to issuance of building permits; making the necessary findings. Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Mr. Cuda stated that he would submit a formal letter of withdrawal of the use permit application. 5. UP-448 Mike Kermani and K. Navai, Request for Use Permit to A-721 - allow the construction of ten (10) cOndominium units and one (1) retail store on a 42,000 sq. ft. site in the "C-V" (y.isitor-Commercial) district at 14599 Big Basin Way; Continued from July 9, 1980 Staff reported that the grading plans have been received and the applicant has submitted other information to the Department of Inspection Services related to the topography of the adjacent sites. They noted that they are awaiting the perspective and are awaiting plans showing the location of the Caldwell buildings relative to this site; therefore, they are requesting a continuance to August 13,. 1980. The public hearing was reopened at 8:11 p.m. Since no one appeared, it was directed that this item be continued to the August 13, 1980 meeting. 6.. UP-464 - Caleb Properties, 12378 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Request for a Use Permit to allow a Drama Theater to locate in the Azule Shopping Center Staff described the present proposal. They reported that this pro- posal would have no greater impact than the old King Dodo Playhouse, even though this theatre would have more expanded uses on weekdays and Sundays. The applicant has submitted a traffic statement which has been analyzed, and Staff is recommending approval. The number of people attending the daytime activities was discussed. Staff commented that it is estimated there will be about 50 people attending these activities. The public hearing was opened at 8:15 p.m. 3 - Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes 7/23/80 UP.-464 (cent.) Wes Finlay, the applicant, was present to answer questions. He explained that the first two rows are designed to be removed for daytime meetings, which 'reduces the daytime capacity to a total of 90 seats and leaves 10 feet between the front of the first row~ and the curtain to allow for fire regulations. Lynn Belanger, 1625 The Alameda, commented that Staff had stated that at capacity the theatre requires 51 parking spaces for the employees and all of the attendees. She indicated that their traffic count in the parking center showed that at the peak period of day it has never exceeded an average of 69 cars and there are 173 spaces there. Staff commented that the buildings in the center at present are not totally occupied and the parking availability may change with time. It was determined that a condition should be added to the Staff Report to read: "It is expected that an average of 50 people will attend day-time activities, and no more than 90 as a maximum will attend these activities." The Department of Inspection Services also requested that a condition be added, to read: "The structure shall be reviewed for code conformance and necessary corrections, as judged by the Department of Inspection Services, will be made." Commissioner Marshall moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to.approve UP-464 per the Staff Report dated July 15, 1980, as amended. Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. 7. V-535 Dr. Norman Baker, Request for a Variance to allow the SDR-1466 - creation of a 13,000 sq. ft. lot which would have its sole access from a minimum access street where a 20,000 sq. ft. lot is required, and Request for Tentative Build- ing. Site Approval for three lots on Marion Road The proposal for the Variance and Building Site.Approval was described by Staff. They noted that in the recent past the Commission has indicated that they are opposed to using the variance procedure for creating nonconforming lots, particularly where the density would be increased as well. Staff stated that they could not make the neces- sary findings and were recommending denial of the variance. They indicated that Marion Road already has more than 15 lots fronting on it, and the policy has been that whenever there is a street that has no secondary access, no more than 15 lots shall be developed on it until a secondary access is provided. Staff added that one of the other concerns was that the lot itself could provide a connection between Marion and Springer, and this point had been discussed pre- viously at a Land Development Committee meeting for another 3-lot proposal which was denied by the Committee. Staff indicated that, since the subdivision would not be consistent with the General Plan, they were recommending denial. It was noted that there had been correspondence from the adjacent property owners along Marion indicat- ing their opposition, and there had been an on-site inspection by the Committee-of-the-Whole on July 15th. Commissioner Siegfried explained that he would not be here for the voting on these matters, because he would be leaving the meeting because of illness, but he wanted to comment t.hat he has considerable problem with the usage of a variance procedure to create additional lots. However, he stated that he had a problem with limiting the applicant to only one house on this site, even though there is such a strong desire not to have any additional access onto Marion Road. He stated that he would like to see some compromise - 4 - Planning Commiss ion Page 5 Minutes 7/23/80 V-535 and SDR-1466 (cont.) possibly a 2-lot subdivision, but would not like to use the variance procedure to create 3 lots. Commissioner Zambetti commented that he.felt the entire Commission should go on an on-site inspection, since there is a lot of history associated with this application. Commissioner Marshall commented that he could feel sympathy for the applicant if he were allowed only one lot; however, he was bothered by the comparison that the applicant has made between Springer Avenue and Marion Road, and the fact that the extra lot given to Mr. Renn was not done by the Commission but by the City~Council. He stated that he feels that, in a case like this, the Commission should stick with the planning issues, which are access and the number of houses that can be served from a good planning standpoint, and that the political issues be done at the City Council level. He stated that he felt that a lot of people do not understand the ordinances as they apply. He also pointed out that the Day development, to which Dr. Baker refers, is a pre-existing subdivision. The public hearing was opened at 8:31 p.m. Kurt Voester, 14251 Burns Way, stated that he felt the Commission is aware of their concerns. He commented that it ~as the general. feeling of that neighborhood that they would like to preserve it as it is. Mr. Voester stated that they would not like to have the street widened or the traffic increased, and they would not like a through street. He submitted a letter dated July 19th with 14 signatures' on it in opposition to this matter. Commissioner Zambetti stated that the'Commission was looking at this matter from a planning standpoint. He commented that there is an existing problem on Marion of having no turnaround area, and this development would put in a cul-de-sac. The easement given to Mr. Voester to get to the rear of his property from the Jim Day subdivi- sion. was discussed. Mr. Voester commented that there are now 28 resi- dences on Marion Road. Mark Ebner, 20636 Marion, stated that there is already on file a petition that was signed by the residents of Springer and Marion several months back that made it quite clear that they do not want any through connection. He stated that he was opposed to any con- struction at the end of that street. Mr. Ebner added that he did not believe that the applicant is interested in living in any of the residences. He commented that he felt granting approval would create an undesired precedent for all of Saratoga. Commissioner Zambetti pointed out that there were already more than 15 homes on Marion and Springer and other streets when the policy of no more than 15 homes became a part of the ordinance. Mr. Ebner stated that emotionally he would be against having the applicant take down the old residence and build a new one in its place because it is a historical structure. However, he added, if h'e thought that the applicant had good intentions of building a home for himself and living there because he enjoyed and li.ked that street, and not just to speculate, he would not argue with one structure for the applicant. Mrs. Gary Campbell, 20731 Marion, stated that she lives.~-~' .... ~"~'~'~ ~"~'~'j'~a~c~'.~jF~'??the property. She commented that they are ~'~F~'~~'~ed to the applicant's proposal. She explained that part of this cul- de-sac will cut into their part of the road which they have always maintained. Mrs. Campbell indicated that she did not want a through - 5 - :,Planning Commiss'ion Page 6 Minutes 7/23/80 V-535 and SDR-1466 (cont.) street, and going through to Paul and Canyon View could not be done unless they went through'her property. She added that she is against any further residences at the end of Marion Road. Mrs. Campbell stated that she had not heard about any easement, and the City has not paid for any road maintenance at the end of Marion Road. Commissioner Marshall commented that there are some parcels on Marion that are susceptible to subdivision because they are in excess of the minimum lot size requirement. He explained that things do not always stay the way they are, and he stated that he has seen pressure to build on Marion for a number of years. Commissioner Marshall stated that this hearing might put to rest, depending on whatever decision'is made, the future of Marion Road for some number of years. He explained that, for example, were the decision made to approve the applicant's proposal, a few other landowners might say now is the time m subdivide; were he to be denied, the neighborhood will feel that no one gets to subdivide for quite a while. Mrs. Campbell stated that this was their family home, and they would not subdivide at any time in the near future. She added that they would like to see Marion maintained as it is. Tom Donovan, 14231 Springer, stated that he had pleaded with the Commis- sion on the same type of subdivision 1½ years ago,'but Martin Hall w'~s allowed to subdivide. He pointed out that the applicant has stated he will put in a cul-de-sac, and when Mr. Donovan did not agree to donate his property, the City put in half a street. He stated he would like the City to go to the end of Springer and look at what the City has done to it. Mr. Donovan stated that the Commission had agreed that Mr. Hall would only have 3 lots; there are now 5. He added that he would appreciate it if the Commission would have some continuity to their decision-making. Commissioner Marshall explained to Mr. Donovan that, in the matter of Martin Hall, there were 4 dwellings on 1 site, and the Commission asked him to remove 1 dwelling. It was clarified that the residence that was torn down was a legal residence. ~'d~'~f~'~y~7~j.7i~'~Yt~ih'e'd".~at, in addition, when it was subdivided, he ended up with 5 one-half acre lots in an R-l-15,000 zoning. Commissioner Marshall stated that Dr. Baker proposes to have .38 acres average for 3 houses in a R-1-12,500 zone. He explained that the contrast is that the Hall property had variances applied to it in order to make previously illegal situations legal, and then treated the land that was residual as suitable for development, provided that all ordinances'were met. In the Baker case, the applica- tion is to have an illegal lot, a lot not conforming with the ordinance. Commissioner Marshall stated that he could be very consistent by saying that when Dr. Baker can'meet the same requirements as were met by Martin Hall, he would be very happy to grant him approval, but he has a long way to go. Chairman Laden stated that it is the Commission's intent to be consistent. However, as time goes on there have been some changes in philosophy and she feels~'~J~-e~'~"j~F~'z~'~'~._~'~iations between what the Commission decides on this matter and what was decided in 1964. Hopefully, however, what the Commission decided two years ago on the Hall property will be very consistent with what is decided on this application, she added. Dorothy Stamper, 20562 Marion Avenue, stated that she had lived on Marion for over 30 years and would hate to see any more building on Marion Avenue. She explained that she is a widow and does not know what will happen within the next ten years. Mrs. Stamper stated that she has 2½ acres of land and would hate to be locked in to not being able to do anything with her property, even though she has no plans.now. She commented that she hoped her daughter will be able to live there and keep it as it is; how- ever, she does have to think about her future!~ - 6 - Planning Commission · Page 7 Minutes 7/23/80 V-535 and SDR-1466 (cont.) Margaret Sherrill, 14290 Paul Avenue, stated that she was speaking from an environmental standpoint. She explained that there are a number of natural springs in thi's area, and when there has been building in the area in ways that 'obstruct the-stream courses, the City ends up with a big bill trying to repair the damage that the stream causes by seeking a new channel or trying to get back to the original channel. She noted that the area is one of very heavy drainage and it has already been much overbuilt. Mrs. Sherrill indicated that there is so much runoff into Saratoga Creek, and if any additional construction or roadwork is done this will aggravate the water flow situation. She strongly recommended and urged that a soils study be made of any land before there is more building in this area. It was pointed out to Mrs. Sherrill that the Commis- sion does receive soils reports and reports from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Mr. Livesey, 20685 Marion Road, stated that the main issue is the turnaround. He stated that the neighborhood is against improvement, but the road was improved for them by the property owners of four new houses. He stated that he feels the road needs a'turnaround at the end of the street and new development would only improve the property. Pete Matulich, 20640 Marion Avenue, stated that he paid one-fifth 0f the cost of fixing Marion Road; however, he still does not want a cul-deosac. He stated that he was the first to build on that street since the City was incorporated and he would not want a through street or cul-de-sac street. He stated he would like the street governed the same way as the initiative does for the hillsides. Dottie Noeggerath, 12950 Pierce Road, stated that she feels Saratoga has to create more housing possibilities, especially medium income housing. She indicated that she felt Marion Road is one of the areas where this type of housing can be and she feels the City should consider this. She explained that it would be possible to have smaller lots there for nice housing that is in a price range that people can afford. Bill Heiss, engineer for the project, discussed the property and the proposal. He stated that he had thought the precedent of no more than 15 lots on the end of a cul-de-sac would not apply since the Commis- sion has frequently permitted more than 15 lots in this area. He indicated that, for that reason, they did not look upon this as being an unusual request for this particular project. He explained that he had the feeling that the Planning Commission felt that each case should be handled and considered on its own merit and a decision would be made. 'He noted that there are now more than 15 homes on Marion and other streets in the area, and when other developments occur there will be more pressure to allow more than that number. Commissioner Marshall commented that, relative to Springer, Paul and Marion, and excluding the Renn application for one additional lot which was granted by the City Council, there had been no case of subdivision since 1970 where the Commission has violated the 15-lot rule. It was pointed out to Mr. Heiss that the Martin Hall sub- division was not such a case. Commissioner Marshall stated that in the creation of the Hall subdivision, the tradeoff was to try to establish lot lines that minimized the total number of variances that would accure.. He added that, were Dr. Baker to apply for a 2-lot subdivision, then you would have parody between what Mr. Hall asked for'and received. Commissioner Marshall stated that, in that case, the Commission would be saying the same thing as in the Hall case; we will correct some problems, i.e., the cul-de-sac would be a benefit to the City and there is no increase in the number of resi- dences, and the City derives a further benefit by requiring that the - 7 - Planning Commission "~J" Page 8 Minutes 7/25/80 V-535 and SDR-1466 (cont.) potentially illegal structure, whether it is or is not used, would disappear. Mr. Heiss explained that there are two dwellings that are being used as legal.nonconforming lots on the site, and in the sense the appli- cant would be adding one additional dwelling unit. He indicated that the turnaround being proposed will-not take land from the Campbells, because they will be utilizing the present 15 ft. easement. Dis- cussion followed on drainage and runoff on the site and the natural drainage channel. Mr. Heiss stated that this development would have minimal effect on the channel, and whether or not the property develops, the channel will need to be' stabilized. Staff explained that, because this is a private drainage, the Santa Clara Valley Water District has taken the position that they have no jurisdiction and no authority or responsibility over it. They commented that Mr. Heiss and the Department of Inspection Services have been dealing with this matter and the delineation of the 100-year flood.plain is the result of their concern. Mr. Heiss stated that the applicant would be offering a turnaround, giving sufficient right-of-way so it is totally on his property. He commented that he felt this was a valid proposal and basically it is a situation that exists in that area. Commissioner Marshall commented that Mr. Donovan had raised the matter of consistency, and he was personally very much concerned with consistency. FIe stated that he believed, were the applicant to submit a 2-lot subdivision, he could make it very comparable to the Hall proposition and argue validly that the number of residences is not being increased; therefore, a present nonconforming situation would be legalized. However, he added, he could not approve three structures. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Schaefer, to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Marshall moved to deny V-535, on the basis that the findings cannot be made, per the Staff Report dated July 15, 1980. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mously. Commissioner Marshall stated that he had trouble with the form that the Negative Declaration took, because it speaks to specific remedial actions that will be taken for that site; yet the resolution of the remedial action is nothing more than boilerplate, and it does not seem to be a boilerplate situation at all. The Building Site Approval was discussed. Commissioner Marshall stated that he felt a case could be made for a 2-lot subdivision, because the Commission would not be causing any deterioration of the situation on Marion, and it might be considered favorably, subject to mitigation measures. Commissioner Marshall moved to deny without prejudice SDR-1466. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion,'which was carried unani- mously. Chairman Laden explained to the applicant that if he chose to present a new map with 2 lots, the Commission h. as some favorable opinions about that fo'r some of the reasons stated. However, in deference to the people who l~ve in the neighborhood, there are a number of miti- gating measures that still would have to be considered before that could be approved, all of which. would be taken up at that time. Break: 10:00 - 10:15 p.m. - 8 - Planning Commission Page 9 Minutes 7/2.3/80 DESIGN REVIEW 8. A-675 Osterlund Enterprises, Inc., Single-family residences, Lots 3, 4 and 6, located off of Chester Avenue, Final Design ReView Approval; Continued from May' 28, 1980 Staff reported that new' plans have been submitted on this item, and it was directed that it be continued to the meeting of August 13, 1980. 9. A-717 Jerome Gilmore, 19088 Austin Way, Single-family residence. Final Design Review Approval; Continued' from July' 9, 1980 It was noted that there had been a letter from the Gilmores, stating that the misunder'st'anding had been cleared up and they approved the lot split. As previously mentioned at the last meeting, it was determined that Condition 1-E of the Staff Report should read: "Bridge width and dynamic load capacity shall be approved by the Central Fire Protec- tion District and Department of Inspection Services." It was also determined that a condition should be added to read: "Secondary access from Austin Way to Bainter Avenue shall not be permitted." Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve A-717 per-the Staff Report dated June 3, 1980 and the amended Addendum dated July 3, 1980. Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion, which. was carried unani- mously. 10. A-720 Mendelsohn Development Corporation, 20150 Rancho Bella, Single-family residence, Final Design Review Approval Staff described the proposal_. They noted that it does conform to ordinance requirements. It was indicated that it would not necessitate the removal of any trees that the Commission had not already approved. It was pointed out that the applicant has changed the building envelope and has f'lipped,l 'a t-h e house. Staff noted that the exhibit shown was the approved Nino Gallo, the applicant, commented that he was under the impression that the house was in the building envelope. Staff stated that they had no prob~.em with the applicant flipping the building over to avoid trees and it would not create any greater impact. Commissioner Marshall stated that, since the houses on the sides have not yet been built, the change to the rest of the neighborhood and the effect on it was not known. Mr. Gallo stated that one of the reasons why' the house design was changed was that two trees had been lost and the house would adapt better away from the major trees. Commissioner Marshall commented that if this house doesn't fit the envelope,.he would like Staff to point this out to the Commission and show the comparative differences before submitting it to them. Staff stated that there is no substantial difference in terms of how the structure will appear from the street, and it does conform to ordinance setbacks. Commissioner Zambetti stated he had no problem with approving this design review, since the driveway approach is still th.e same. Commissioner Marshall noted that this site was controversial and a lot of time had been spent on the consideration of the trees, etc. He stated that he felt a new plan needs to be reviewed and approved Planning Commission Page 10 Minutes 7/23/80 A- 720 '(cont. ) by Staff, and the reasons for the changes substantiated. The applicant stated he would supply Staff with the necessary infor- mation. It was directed that this item be continued to the August 13, 1980 meeting. MISCELLANEOUS ll. EP-12 - Michael Parsons, 15001 Montaivo Road, Request for Encroach- ment Permit for fence into right-of-way; Continued from July 9, 1980 Staff reported that the application has not changed since the last meeting. It was noted that Mr. Parons has requested continuance because he is out of town. Mrs. Arata, who lives at the end of Hill Avenue, stated that they were the prior owners of all that land that embodies the home that Dr. Parsons presently lives in. She explained that when they purchased the land there was an existing fence down to and along Montalvo Road. She added that when they travelled down Hill Avenue they saw that it was a hazard and they removed half of the fence because the road is narrow. Mrs. Arata stated that Mr. Parsons is proposing to put this fence on City property that they dedicated and gave to the City for Hill Avenue. She stated that she would like to suggest that he not put the fence back where they initially had it, and particularly not cover the corner that belongs to the City, to avert accidents on that corner. She added that she would talk personally to Mr. Parons about this situation. It was noted by the. Commission that it is the lesser travelled portion of Hill Avenue that is being considered. A letter from Mrs. Samuel Smith, in opposition to the encroachment permit, was noted into the record. Mrs. Smith, Hill Avenue, addressed the Commission, stating that Mr. Parsons had put a private road going from Montalvo up to his house, instead of using Hill Avenue as an access. She explained that he had planted shrubs 'and did not maintain it, and between the shrubs and the blacktop of Hill Avenue. there is a space of ground where the dry grass grows and is quite high and unsightly. Mrs. Smith commented that she did not feel he should be allowed to put a fence in the area' he is asking, and whereever he puts a fence, the neighbors are con- cerned about having the part between it and the road maintained. It was explained to Mrs. Smith that the applicant has applied to the Commission for a definition of where he can put his fence. Public Works Staff commented that, regarding Hill Avenue, the require- ment was for'a'2S ft. half-street along that road, and they did not believe that requirement should be altered. Staff was requested to put their views in writing for the next packet, so that the Commission could further consider possible abandonment of any portion of that area. It was directed that this item be continued to the meeting on August 13, 1980.. 12. UP-452 - Abel Carreia (Saratoga Foothills Corp.), 12299 Saratoga- SDR-1439 -Sunnyvale Road, 29 Condominium Units A-710 - Staff reported that this had been continued to'the July 9, 1980 meet- ing as a public hearing, but inadvertently it was not .agendized. A new public hearing will be held and the matter'renoticed for the meeting of August 13, 1980. Planning Commission Page. 11 Minutes 7/25/80 UP-452, SDR-1439 and A-710 (cont.) Mr. J. Lohr, the applicant, stated that they have met all the requirements of the Commission. Chairman Laden indicated that, since they had been concerned about the design and placement of some of the buildingS, this matter would be studied at a Committee-of-the-Whole on August'5, 1980 and placed on the regular agenda for August 13, 1980. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from Faber Johnston, former City Attorney, dated July 16, 1980. Oral 1. City Council Report - Commissioner Schaefer gave a brief report on the City Council meeting held on July 16, 1980. A copy of the minutes is on file in the Administration Office. 2. Chairman Laden thanked the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 11:06 p.m. RSR:cd