Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-18-1979 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, JUly 18, 1979 7:30 PLACE: Saratoga City CounCi~ Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, Calif. TYPE: Regular Meeting AGENDA " ACTION TAKEN I. ORGANIZATION ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Callon, Matteoni, Kraus Absent: CSr~i'~alb B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. None. II. COMMUNICATIONS ' CO~UNICATIONS A. ORAL 1. John Weir, 12343 A~royo.. Acknowledged. de Arguello, urgin~ Council not to approve grading per- mit on Parker development untilapproval received from other parties. III. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES, SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES, ZONING REQUESTS ZONING REQUESTS A. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY Mr. HeisS advised the Council he WILLI~ E..HEISS, CIVIL is awaiting the. encroachment per- ENGINEER, JENNINGS-MCDERMOTT- mit from SoUthern Pacific, and HEISS, INC., FOR AUTHORI- also, final approval from the ZATION OF A GRADING PERMIT Fremont Union School District for FOR TRACT ~6526 (PARKER RANCH) an easement on this developmept. It was the concensus of the Council to continue this matter to the regular meeting of August 1, 1979. IV. PETITION$~ ORDINANCES~ AND PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, AND RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTIONS A.- RESOLUTION 908 (Cqnt'd. 7/10) The Council discussed the item of re-'upholstery of furniture and A RESOLUTION APPROVING BUDGET replacement of a bookcase at the FOR CITY OF SARATOGA FOR Community Center for $2,150, and FISCAL YEAR 1979-80 it was determined this should be included. M/S: Matteoni/Callon to adopt the 1979-80 Budget, as amended, in the amount of $2,471,830. Carried unanimously. IV PETITIONS~ ORDINANCES, AND PETITIONS, ORDINANCES, AND RESOLUTIONS (Cont'd.) ~ RESOLUTIONS B. RESOLUTION 780-8 M/S: Matteoni/Kraus to adopt Resolution 780-8, as proposed A RESOLUTION ALTERING AND by staff. Carried unanimously. ESTABLISHING FEE SCHEDULE C. CONSIDERATION 0F'1979-80 M/S: Callon/Matteoni to approve CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM th~'1979-80 Capital Improvement Program as proposed. Carried unanimously. V. PUBLIC,HEaRINGS ~ ~ PUBLIC HEAilNGS7 A. TO CONSIDER APPEAL BY GE~RALD ViCki Rudin o~~ the Planning staff AND JUDITH BUTLER OF PLANNING outlined the basis of this appeal, COMMISSION DECISION PZLATIVE and the reason for Planning · . TO REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO Cornmission denial of the tentative TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP ON map.(staff. report 7/18/79). THEIR LANDS, VICKERY AVE. (12 LOTS) (SD-1418 The Mayor then declared the public hearing open at 8:25 P.M. Don Beardsley, Ruth of Going, Civil Engineers and Planners, repre- senting Mr. and Mrs. Butler, urged ~hat the Council consider the decision made by the Planning' Commission relative to this matter. This would involve 4 homes taking access to Vickery, and 8 homes taking access out to Lira Drive, if and when Lira Drive was ever extended. Mr. Beardsley indicated that the property under consideration is an 18-acre parcel. 8 units take access out to Lira Drive. He indicated that back in early 1977, Mr. Butler entered into an agreement to purchase this portion of a parcel of land owned by David Arata. He filed a tentative map which proposed to extend Lira Drive onto this property and cul-de-sac it. At the time the map was filed, the staff reviewed the application and determined that because there was a large parcel of 'land that was landlocked for ultimate development, that Lira Drive should not be bulbed off, but should be extended to the edge of the Arata property across land~ of San Jose Water Works and onto the Young property for primary access. The tentative subdivision map was approved in that fashion. When Mr. Arata failed to fulfill the conditions of the escrow, Mr. Butler filed suit to force the closing of escrow. - 2 - IV. PUBLI~ HEARINGS(Cont'd.) PUBLIC HEARINGS A. TO.CONS'IDER APPEAL BY GERALD Mr. Beardsley commented that what AND JUDITH BUTLER OF PLANNIN( is being asked tonight in no way COMMISSION DECISION RELATIVE changes the original intent of TO[REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO approval of the tentative sub- TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION }IAP ON division map as it was approved ! THEIR LANDS, VICKERY AVE. last December. IfLira Drive is (1~ LOTS) (SD-1418) never extended, the 8 lots in the second unit would never be developed. , we were to develop all 12' lots at t .developer filed once, with the front four lots them~p for the Young property, taking their access to Vickery. the courts'had issued a memorandum of a de~ision which Councilwoman Callon: Have you was ~n favor of Mr. Butler. negotiated to the point where The decision o'f the court has you have permission and docu- be ~ppealed bX Mr.' and Mrs. mentatio~? 1 r ~i not Mr,. BeardSley replied that what be extended for some time. they have is.a letter of intent They ~ave, therefore, asked to Mr. and Mrs. Butler to grant for reconsideration of the./~'!' t~e'~econdary access which would ~ or~g nal approval of the tenta~ remain in effect until Lira Drive allow. tive ~ap which would is extended. the Idevel0pment of. 4' lotS,' ' takin~ access to V~'ckery Ave.~ '~MayorK~a~!~-%I~nJt_i~,it true that and ultimately~,to, Lo~ita, and '~' leaveI the remaining,lotsun- the Planning 'C'ommiss'ion was con- " cerned a~out not allowing any ~-.developed untilthe question more homes to exit Onto Vickery of Li~a DriVe is. resolved. ~.~ AvenUe than there are at the Mr. B ardsley indicated they present t~me? have ~egotiated with.the . ~. Beardsley replied this was a Christian Science Church, ' concern of the Planning Commission. owner~of an adjacent parcel of la~d, to provide'for a ~yor Kraus: Isn't it true that .secondary a6cess With the in effect, we have two additional existing homes on ViCkery homes that will be exiting on and the 4 added, there would Vickery.Avenue? be a ~otal of 15 lots on a c 1 d s and theX would be M~i!~ Be~rdsley stated this is true. pr6viHing an emergency access. '1 Mayor Kraus: Is it a possibility He further commented that when ~his item was to be- that'Lir. a Drive Will never be · ~ extended and we would face the co ~ered by the Planning CommiSsion,, the staff report fact we may always have these two ~ additional-home~? recommended den'ial of this p jest'. The purpose for the ro denial was'that~15 housing' Mr~ Beardsley'agreed with this; should have a primary and units~ however, he pointed out that. the a secondary access, or emergency significant difference, should Lira ~ Drive never be extended, is that .access. Since this staff re- port had come to them only Lira Drive will be provided with 2 day~ before the Planning an emergency access. He further .C6mmi~sion Meeting, it did not commented he had written a letter give [hem enough time to re- - fbr~an~ad~&~tance to the Subdivision spond[to the staff's conc'erns ~ Ordinance which allowed the nor negotiate for the emer- gencylaccess. Therefore, 'a Planning Commission to app.rove this day b~fo~e the Planning Conrnission map. It was his understanding when ,~eet~~--~-~I~k~d~_~.~{~ he wrote this letter that if you i~em g'~ ~8~ont{~ue~. "~o~e~er have a 50-lot ~ubdivision, and two ~ ' ' ' of those lots took their.access this request was not granted, and the item denied. via a minimum access road to the IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS · (.Cont' d. ) .~ PUBLIC HEARINGS A. T0 CONSIDER APPEAL BY GERALD (Virginia Laden) AND JUDITH BUTLER OF~ CgMMISSION DECISION RELATIVE Conmission's knowledge of what was TO REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO happening, unless Lira Drive were T~NTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP ON constructed, under any circumstances, T~IEIR'LANDS, VICKERY AVE. the Planning Commission would not (.12 LOTS) (SD~1418' approve two additional. homes to ~ access off of Vickery, whether (Mr. ~eardsley)' ' secondary access or emergency access ~ had been obtained becaus~ in fact s.ubdi~ision, 'that'a minimum Vickery is a private 'road with acces~ road would be required. already more impact than private The Subdivision Ordinance roads have been allowed to have. states that "all lots in a major The sTecondary access which ubd'~ision must take their Mr. Beardsley has discussed would S 1 acces~ via a public street,." have made no difference in the He..st~ted that the purpose for Planning Conmission's decision.- the e~ception to the ordinance which~was subsequently granted Councilman Matteoni cor~nented by th~ Planning CommisSion .wa~ that he felt it might be appropriate to c~rcumvent that quirk. to .grant this kind of continuance . ~ . ~ ............. ~q~ request in the future. '~in~i.th~ ~lari~'~a~on''~' ments are well taken. relative to the difference be- Councilwoman Callon inquired why tween'a private road and the th~ City'does not permit more than proposed Lira Drive, which 4 homes on a pri~ate street. She would, be a city standard street,. indicated she does not understand a cul~de-sac with 15 homes. private versus public numbers. The Planning Con~nission did approve lots 4 and 5, which Mr. Trinidad, Assistant Director the Butlers are asking of Public Works~ indicated that approval to buil8 upon, on the'Ordinance has always been' the p~edication that this clear that a major s.ubdivision could not develop on'a pri~ate total map woul8 be accom- plished. That would mean the road. It further states that a present two Oliver~ residences subdivision lot must take acces's' would~exit onto Li~ Drive, on apublic street, however, in which would be a public street subdivisions of 4 or less.lots~ and e~uated into the 15 ho~es. t~e PIa~ning C6mmission may ~pprove That ~emoval Of the 'two the division of la~d. They have Olive~i residences from Vickery allowe'd some minor division on wouldl allow for two additional Pike without making it become a residences to exit onto Vickery. public s. treet'. In this case, i.t The Commission's trade off in ~is..an old private.road -= it did allowing lots 4 and 5 wa~ that have,more than 4, but the in fa'ct the Oliveri homes would Shbdivision Ordinance indicates 'access off of Lira, that 4 at a time could be permitted if the Planning Commission so Counc'ilman Matteoni indicated allowed. In this case, since it was a major ~uBdivision,'the he q~estions the procedure ;'~ Commission first had to find an of t~e Planning Commiss{on ~ ~ - relat'ion to hearing~ re- exception to the ordinance. They ques~jfor continuance. made the determination that they would make no additional, but since Ms. ~aden commented that the 2 already had access to a private Commi'ssion moved to deny the road, they would allow the same request .i~ ...... ~{r~_6~e number access to private road, and "'-i%~-~-'-.F-~--'~.: the 20liveri-~ites would have to take access off the public street. - 4 'PUBLICHEARINGS ~ IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd. ' 'C (-Mr. Smith - cont'd.) A. TO CONSIDER'APPEAL'BY GEKALD In this case, a secondary or AND JUDITH BUTLER OF~NG· emergency access is being p~ovided. COMMISSION DECISION RE IATIVE .Therefore, it seems the policy TO REQUEST FOR A~NDMENT TO pertaining to 15 lots on a'cul-de- TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAPON sac has been met by this application. THEIR LANDS,. VICKERY AVE. · With reference to 'the dis.cussio~ (12 LOTS) (SD-1418) '- and concern about a subdivision not Mr. Beardsley commented that in being approved with more than 4 reference to the environmental lots on a minimum access streets, · impact report for this project, this has to be taken in L~2.~contexts. which was found complete by the First, it says "a subdivision of City at the time they proces.sed 4 or less lots to front on a minimum. their map, and this generally access street." In this particular states there areno existing application, there are only 4 lots operational problems on the proposed, 2. of which already access residential streets in the ~_~i~ 'onto the minimum access road. If site vicinity. Traffic flow you deal with these 4 and ignore is generally maintained at every other parcel of property that service levels A and B. currently accesses or uses that Traffic approaching Saratoga- private road, this does satisfy the Los Gatos Road.on either Subdivision Ordinance. He pointed Vickery or Montalvo is sub- out there Are already 13 homes that ject to some delay during use this minimum road without any peak periods. Traffic flow means of secondary access. There- during peak hours'is generally fore, what is being asked is to' at service level C. 'The in- trade the 15 with an emergency crease on Vickery Avenue would access road, versus maintaining b'e 5.3 percent between Saratoga- the status quo of 13 without any Los Gatos Road a~d'Lomita Ave. kind of emergency access. Increases on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road would be less than 1 p&r-. .Mr. Smith stated t~e applicant cent. Traffic increments in the~ef0re feels they have satis- these ranges will have little- fied the policy of not having more or no impact on 'operating than 15 on a cul-de-sac without conditions.' Mr. Beardsley providing secondary access, and indicated that at one time secondly, they have met the standards they had a court order for a subdivision of 4 or less on a assuring that Lira Drive minimum access road, and the situation would be extended; they are is being benefited bI the addition now asking the Council to of the hopefully temporary emergency reconsider this. access, which would be alleviated when Lira Drive is extended. David Smith, Attorney.repre- senting Mr. and Mrs. Butler, Councilwoman Callon: If this w&re indicated he believes there ~ allowed to go through, would the may still be some confusion City have offers to make this a relative to 15 lots on a cul- public street? de-sac and 4 on a minimum access street. He commented Mr. Trinidad replied he does not that 15 lots on a cul-de-sac believe this was a condition derives from a policy of the as it is clear at this time that City, which indicates not ~s if this develops this way, there a mandate, but simply as a would never be an opportunity to matter of policy~ matters. of make it a public street· subdivisions with cul-de-sac design or dead-end design will Mr. Beardsley again addressed the not be approved for 15 lots or Council stating that they did more unless there is a means consider Vickery Avenue as a princi- of secondary accesS. pal access to the subdivision 4 or 5 ye~s ago. However, the staff - 5 - IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS (COntjd.) ,, PUBLIC. HEARINGS A. TO CONSI~ER.APPEA"BY~GERALD ." (Mr. Beardsle~)' -AND JUDITH BUTLER OF.PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION RELATIVE published a circulation study TO REQLrEST FOR A~ZND~ENT TO' indicating that Lira Drive would TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP ON be ext,ended and serve this property. THEIR LANDS, VICKERY AVE.' So they had no choice. At one (12 LOTS) (SD-1418) time, they offered to bring Vickery Avenue up to public road standards within the present right-of-way. -' M/S: Mat'teoni/Callon to close : the public hearing. Carried unanimously. The public hearing was closed at 9:06,P.M. Councilwoman Callon: If the policy on private streets had been abrogated already and sh~ were to support granting Unit 1 building approval, it would haveto be. with the condition that when the other 8 units went in, ~ti'6r~ time a~'Li~ D~iv~ became avail- able. Therefore, if the council could.resolve the private street issue in favor of the applicant, she would still have to condition that ox¥~some kind of firmer cormnit~ent to a continuing emergency access until such time as another emergency access could' be found. M/S: Matteoni/Call0n to continue this matter for 2 weeks to allow further consideration of the City's policy relative to secondary access for 15 units on a cul-de-sac. Carried unanimously. IV. PUBLIC"HEARINGS Cont'd..) PUBLIC HEARINGS B. TO CONSIDER APPEAL BY WADE AND Vickie Rudin of the Pla_n~n~ng DOROTHY SHORTER OF PLANNING staff ~outli~Fd Z~h~ckgr6~d CO}~ISSION DECISION RELATIVE C~i~thi~'~Spo~d-iddit~n TO GP NTING OF USE PERMIT FOR - CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND STORY -findin~in gran~f~'~'approv~I'. ADDITION AT 14330 LUTHERIA WAY (memorandum dated 7/18179). (UP-415, DAVI~) She indicated'a major point~f contention ~l[d~Yo_'~.>{[~[~ appeal'seems'~t~'5~'~M~f~r- pretation of the intent of the ordinance.with respect to the natur~ of the structure which - exists across from the structure ~ to which the second story would be added. It is the interpre- tation of staff that if an adjacent structure is already a second story structure, then it is 'permitted to add a second story.to the structure that is making the application. The Ma~or opened the public hearing at 9:22 P.M~ The Mayor acknowledged an item of correspondence from Roberta Worden, 20211 LaPaloma, stating no objection to the granting of construction of a second story addition. Wade Shorter, 14320 Lutheria Way, commented they are perplexed and disturbed by the unilateral decision by the Planning Director . to grant a permit' for a second story'jaddition to the property ~ contiguous tO theirs. The .... ' purpose and res,trictions of Zoning Ordinance NS-3.31 are. ~to ~e- ~o ~l~6'P~t~s a:' l~sted.'~n'd'&r ~Se~t:~ ?f6~'l~"wh {~&""~rd~ ~ uB~i fy ~r p~i.~a variance. There are no qhestions which involve differences of 6pinion. Mr. Shorter commented that the staff report, dated 7/18/79, is evasive as it.relates to the purpose and restrictions of Ordinance NS-3.31. Paragraph 8 relating to invasion of privacy is highly inaccurate, to say the least. Further, there is com- plete omission of the fact that a fine view of the crest of the Sant~ CruZ. Mountains is obliterated. - 7 - IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.'d.) PUBLIC HEARINGS B. TO CONSIDER ApPeAL BY WADE AND (Mr. Davis) DOROTHY SHORTER.OF PLANNING COmmISSION DECISION RELATIVE 'the Planning Director what TO GRANTING OF~USE PERMIT FOR specific objections he had of 'CONSTRUCTIDN OF A SECOND the design of the second'story, STORY ADDITION AT 14330 and he had indicated none -- LUTHERIA WAY (UP-415, DAVi~ that i~ was basically a well designed addition and hE did not Mrs. Shorter commented relative have any specific objections. to the correspondence from Roberta Worden, indicating thatI As far as the wind is concerned, Ms. Worden rents the home on Mr. Davis stated there would be LaPalbma and'does not live'there. some reduction, but the addition " is planned to be 50 feet on a Anthony Davis, 14330 Lutheria Way, 250-foot long lot, so it covers made reference to Mr. Shorter's approximately 20 percent. of the letter, and'spedifically ,the' lotlength, and that lea~es a 4 points that he lists. With lot of room for wind to go regard to invasipn of privacy, around. he would.agree there is some --. In closing, Mr. Davis stated it it is impossible to do .anything is not possible to do anything to any extent that does not on an 80-foot lot without a create some reduction of privacy reduction of privacy. Further, of the neighbors. However, the,. he pointed out the primary prob- design was.put together with lem is a 1,600 sq. feet home this thought in mind. The which is significantly smaller windows on the side facing.the th~n other homes in the area Shorters are small, and there which run 2,300 to 2 500 sq. ft. are no windows to the rear.. ' There is a significant amount of Mayor Kraus asked Mr.'Davis if landscaping along the prgperty the~.Shorter house sits closer line, and the Planning Director to the street than theirs. made it a condition that. additional landscaping would be Mr. Davis repliedl'they are about put in. . ~ ~ the sa~e. . As far as privaey f 'e d: d r? t~d[~h~!t{~'~lea~I~6'~'~ow.. M~yor' Krahs..asked' ~here' the ~e~'i~'~i~'screen fence 4 addition starts. feet high, and when .the Shorters . . are in the back ya~d~0~ 't~ey. are Mr. ~ayi~ i~eplied it/is the entire in the back yard,"they can hear back section. each other's conversations and can see everything each other Mrs. Shorter commented that as does. Mr. Davis stated it would far as p~ivacy is concerned, the be his intention to put in a youngster was on top of the roof Ifence and addi~i6nal landscaping fixing the antennae yesterday, so they would actually end up and he could look right into the with more privacy. Shorters' house. Therefore, this invasion would invade their Mr. Davis indicated that the view privacy -- their master bedroom, from the Shorters' house has to den, kitchen and'dining areas which be a very limited view -- there is .face the new addition. a 7-foot hedge, and additionally, they have placed awnings' which Councilman Matteoni commented'he cover the. top,third or hald of the feels it would be beneficial for windows'. the Council to view this property, particularly the 2 side yard As far as aesthetic appearance, widths, and also, elevations. when Mr. Shorter was askedby M/S: ¢allon/Matteonito continue the public hearing for 2 weeks. Carried unanimously. - 8 - VI. BIDS AND C6NTtACTS BIDS AND CONT'RAC~S VII CONSENT CALENDAR ~, CONSENT CALENDAR A. SALE OF SURPLUS CITY EQUIPFREN% M/S: Callon/Matteoni to approve 1. Approve li. st of surplus the Consent Calendar. Carried items to.be ~old unanimously. 2. Adopt ResOlution 905 A Resolution 0f the City of Saratoga Authorizing the Sale of Surplus ' Property 3.Approve Public Notice of Sale B. FINAL ACCEPTANCES 1.SDR 1286-87, Saratoga Ave. (Baroni Court) 2. SDR 1309, Quito Road ®Adopt Resolution SDR 1309-2 3. Tract 5923, Chester Ave. ·Adopt Resolution 36-B-187 4. Tract 5927, Dguglass Lane ·Adopt Resplution 36-B-188 C. CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANce 1. SDR 1307, Saratoga Federate Church, 20390 Park Place D. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS E. CITY TREASURER'S REPORT F. CITY CLEP%'S FINANCIAL REPORT Rece'ss and reconvene VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE ~TTERS AR~INISTRATIVE ~TTERS A. MAYOR 1. Letter from City of Ezampbell Costs of this emergency service Re: Emergency Services will be sent to each city. being handled'by the County 2. Letter from SuperviSor Council concensus to write a Diridon sent to the Transit letter to I.C.C. to not abandon Board re: abandonment of this service. S.P. cormmuter service. B. COUNCIL & COMMISSION REPORTS COUNCIL & CO~ISSION REPORTS None~ ~.' VIII, ADMINISTRATIVE M~'~TERS (:Cont ~'h .') ADMINIST~RATI~E MATTERS' . C. DEPART}~NT HEADS & OFFICERS 1. Planning Director Report Re Vicki Rudin of. the Planning staff Request of Mr. Robert provided background informa-tion Van der toorren, Planning concerning this request, She Consultant, for Building advised that the Land Use Department t6 lift stop Committee met on the site on work order on project at July 2nd and formulated an 14462 Black Walnut Court alternative to this plan...ThisI was to remove the paving to' wfthin feet of the property line. .A further~jcondition would be to' create a landscape buffer and install a fence 6. feet in height. The 15~foot setback would meet~ the minimum requirement for the recreational court'ordinance~ The Commission had considered the issue of whether the paved area actually is part of the total recreational court or not. It.was the judgement of the Planning Commission'that part of the use of the paved area is a recreational court,.and there- .-. fore, this would require a use -' permit. Mayor Kraus inquired if the original perr~it for this plan included the area outlined as · a sports court. Mrs..Rudin indicated that.as she understands it, it did. Mayor Kraus~ote~ that the original permit was 32 x 70 feet. This is '~0.x 74 feet, and it does not look in proportion. William Butlrer, representing Mr. Oberhauser, applicant,.explained thatthe permit' as originally issued was for an area 32 x 70 feet. The area was expanded for the s~ecific purpose of the creation of the .. patio area by 8.feet at the bottom portionof the overhead drawing-. and 4 feet tothe side. The sport court itself covered a · portion of what the original per- mit would have allowed to have been installed. The question is '~ .. whether or not'a homeowner can .~. put'in a patio which encroaches' upon a side yardswithout a r~quest -!~ '. . ': for a'use permit. ~ · - 10 - 'VIII. ADMIN~STP~TIVE MATTERS (Cont'd. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS C. DEPARTMENT HEADS & OFFICERS 1. Planning Director Report The City Attorney pointed out that Re: Request of ~. Robert. ,what ~. Butler is describing Van der toorren, Planning this evening was not presented to Consultant, for Buildihg' the Planning Cormnission when the Departmene to lift stop work application for the use permit order on project at 14462 . was made. The Planning Conmission Black Walnut Court and Building Department act upon ......... ~the set of plahs that are approved, ~(~!.~'~' '~ '~" ~'~' '~{~this set of plans shows fences ..... ~ ' ......... ~ ....~ ......~=~'~. ~/11 4 sides, around the sport He'inquired' if one dges not need court. a permit.to put in a patio and he has a permit for 'a sport'~ ~ It was ~he Council's concensus ,court, but intends to. expand the that a revised .plan with a dotted patio, does someone in the line delineating the additional Planning or Inspection Department area of'i~patio and the area to have the right tO say, "I don't be carpeted be presented for the believe you."? His client has Planning Commission to consider. decided to extend his patio, which is the perimeter area Mr. Butler indicated his applicant for which he does not need a would submit alterations to show permit. Therefore, he feels the increased size and the the stop order is inappropriate. different. cove~ing. and should. be lifted. Mayor Kraus expressed a concern relative to property to the' .east 5-6 feet below this prop'erty with respect-to drainage. He 'then inquired ~at.the staff'~ reaction would be to putting in- door carpeting on the,patio. Mr. Wimberly, D{rector of ~' Inspection Services, explained. that when the department re- ceive~ a plan, it is requested all the work that is going to take place on the lot be in- cluded. If the plan had included a surface being different or a fence being different, a stop order Would not hav~ been issued.' Mr. Van der toorren. clarified ~ that the patiolwas planned 5efore the applicatio~ was made for the sport court, and at that time, it was planned to put in another surface. Cost factors influenced the.Owners to con- sider carpet instead. Secondly, the fence between the sport court area to the east only 3 feet high, which is re- quired be&ause there is a 2- step down into the sport court.' ,Additionally~ there is a 6-foot front and back yard fence. - 11 VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE.MATTERS ~(Cont%d.).~ . ADMINISTRATIVE MATTEP~ D. CITY MANAGER 1. ~p6rt Re: Lighting · ~, ~ The City Managgr presented his Districts and?Park Maintenance report~ d=ated July 13, 1979, in Districts which'~it 'is requested the City c Council approve' an order to l- ~. PG&E.requeSting a temporary ,~ ,. ~ turn-off of those lights within .' the Quito Lighting District and Azule Lighting District. M/S: CalloB/Matteoni to direct the staff 'to notify residents in these two lighting districts informing them of the fact that funding for financing these lights is running out, and the City is attempting to seek' alternate funding,-and also indicating a reasonable time period in which to come .up with a resolution. Carried unanimously. E. ACKNOW~LEDGE~NT OF PUBLIC GROUP REPRESENTATIVE~ ~%~a 6~;~f~ilo~g pu ic bl group representatives: Virginia Laden, Planning Commission Shelly Williams, Planning Commission Sally Carlso~ (served coffee) IX. ADJOURNMENT ADJOURBR~NT M/S: Callon/Matteoni to adjourn to an Executive Session. Carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M. 12 -