Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-05-1986 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: November 5, 1986 PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. ROLL CALL: Mayor Hlhva, Councilmembers Clevenger, Anderson, Moyles present at 7:04 P.M. Absent: Councilmember Peterson 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: A. Proclamation on Winter Storm Preparedness Week sponsored by Mayor Hlava. HLAVA/MOYLES MOVED FOR THE ADOPTION OF A PROCLAMATION ON WINTER STORM PREPAREDNESS WEEK. Passed 4-0. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes of October 15, 17, and29, 1986.. Mayor Hlava requested a correction on the Minutes of October 15, page 4, B, second paragraph, delete Mr. Gage and replace with Mr. Cage. CLEVENGER/HLAVA MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17 AND OCTOBER 29 AS SUBMITFED AND THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15, 1986, AS AMENDED. Passed 4-0. B. Approval of Wanant List: CLEVENGER/HLAVA MOVED TO APPROVE THE WARRANT LIST AS CORRECTED. Passed 4-0. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR - CLAIMS: A. Application to Present Late Claim - Guerra B. Claim - Guerra C. Claim - Shull The City Attomey stated that with respect to Claims A and B the application to present a late claim on behalf of a minor, under the law, the City is obliged to accept. He asked that separate motions be made; A is granting permission to file a late claim and B is a recommendation to deny the claim. MOYLES/HLAVA MOVED TO FII.F. CLAIM A. Passed 4-0. CLEVENGER/HLAVA MOVED TO DENY CLAIMS B AND C. Passed 4-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 2 NOVEMBER 5, 1986 .:_ 4. CONSENT CALENDAR - OTHER ITEMS: A. Planning Commission Actions, October 22, 1986, - Noted and filed. B. Parks and Recreation Commission Actions, October 13, 1986, - Noted and filed. C. Public: Safety Commission Minutes, October 13, 1986, - Noted and filed. D. Cash and Investment Report - August, September 1986, - Noted and filed. E. Ordinance N 5-3-ZC-94 rezoning property located off Herriman Ave., Lot 1, Tr. 7499 from R-1-12,500 to R-l-10,000 as recommended by the Planning Corrm~ission (C-230) (second reading and adoption). F. Ordinance 71.8 adopting and modifying the 1985 editions of the following cedes; Unifo:rm Administrative Cede, Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Housing Code, and Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (second reading and adoption). G. Ordimmce amending Article 4-05 of the City Code to require a business license for the rental of property and establishing a license fee for such business (second reading. Removed from Consent Calendar. H. Ordimmce 71.9 establishing Speed Limit of 25 miles per hour on Austin Way (secon~d reading and adoption). I. Notice of Completion for Reconstruction of Reid Lane and Overlay of Reid Lane and Beaumont Avenue - Accept and record. J. Notice of Completion, Congress Springs Park Restroom/Concession Stand - Accept and record. K. Final Acceptance, SDR 1523, J. Day Construction Co., Inc., Sobey Rd. L. Resolution MV-169 Designating Intersection of Douglass Lane at Shadow Oaks : Way as a Yield Intersection - Adopt. The City Attorney asked that Item G be removed from Consent Calendar due to the passage of Proposition 62 on November 4, 1986. He will submit an opinion to the Council relative to this issue; however, it is probable that an increase in the business license fee or the impositiou of a new fee will be subject to Proposition 62 legislation. This measure will require that any change in the business license fee be submitted to the voters. MOYLES/HLAVA MOVED THE ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR WITH THE REMOVAL OF ITEM G. Passed 4-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC: A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions Ms. Harriet Handler, 13385 Ronnie Way, Saratoga, offered an apology to the Council for her remarks at the previous Council Meeting. She noted that she had been injured in a accident prior to her attendance at the Hearing. Dr. Beebe questioned the placement of Item G on the Consent Calendar;, Mayor Hlava explained the intent of this item and noted that the issue is no longer relevant due to the passage of Proposition 62. In response to further questions, the City Manager listed other California cities that have si~nilar fees. Mr. Bob Clancy reviewed a Report of Saratoga Cable TV schedule, noting events and programs presented during October and urged appointments to the Saratoga/West Valley College Public Access Board. Mayor Hlava noted the interest of citizens in programs presented. Councilmember Moyles su. ggested that the City Newsletter be used to promote local cable TV and obtain information on wewer interests. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 NOVEMBER 5, 1986 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Continued B. Written Communications from the Public 1. James H. Hopkins protesting imposition of exactions. The City Attorney reviewed the Memorandum submitted and noted: 1. The section of the Government Cede cited by Mr. Hopkins was not applicable in this case. 2. With regard to the authority of the City to require improvement of private roads, there is nothing particularly unusual about such a requirement. Mr. Hopkins does not oppose the legal authority of the City to impose such requirements; he seems to be citing other reasons. With regard to these reasons, it is up to the discretion of the Council; he advised the Council not to feel constrained to grant the request on legal grounds. Councilmember Clevenger stated that on a site visit to the Hopkins property, she observed a large oak tree in the path of where widening of the street would probably occur. Neighbors spoken to absolutely do not want the street to be widened. The City Attomey reviewed the Conditions of the Deferred Improvement Agreement. Mr. Shook confn-med that it is not the intention of any improvement agreement to remove trees; widening of the street may take place on either side of the street He stated that the Applicant was required to enter into an Deferred Improvement Agreement for permanent public street improvement at such time as property owners on the street desire such improvements or such improvements are necessary under development requirements. What is required at present is to bring the street up to private road standards. He confirmed that the street would have to be widened to 18 ft.; the Deferred Improvement Agreement would require a 26 ft. width. Councilmember Clevenger questioned the requirement of putting an oil and screen citing comments of neighbors that such was a waste of money since the street needs to be rebuilt. She did not favor widening the street if it would further endanger the oak tree and questioned requiring Mr. Hopkins to oil and screen the street at an cost estimated by him, to be $7,000. The City should require only that potholes be repaired. Mr. Shook restated that the above requirements were standard for private roads. Mayor Hlava noted a concern regarding making a decision upon reception of a single letter; a comprehensive review was done by the Planning Commission and, at present, no other Staff report was available. She noted that a low volume of street traffic does not mitigate safety concerns which are the purpose of such regulations. She saw no persuasive reason to overturn the well considered decision of the Planning Commission. Councilmember Clevenger suggested a site visit by the Council; Councilmember Anderson suggested that this item be placed on the agenda for further consideration by the Council. Consensus reached that the Report of the Planning Commission be reviewed, a Report be made by Staff, a site visit be made by the Council and the Item be placed on the agenda for further consideration at the next Council Meeting. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Memorandum from Public Safety Commission Secretary Recommending Expansion of Commission to Seven Members. ANDERSON/HLAVA MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2386 EXPANDING MEMBERSHIP OF PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION AND APPOINTING THREE COMMISSIONERS. Passed 4-0. B. Memorandum from City Engineer on Elva Avenue - Review of Parking. The City Engineer stated that the review of parking on Elva Avenue was undertaken under the direction of the Council; after studying parking patterns, he recommended that there not be a parking prohibition on Elva Avenue at the present time. Consensus reached by the Council to acknowlede and file memorandum. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 NOVEMBER 5, 1986 OLD BUSINESS Continued C. Report from City Engineer on Elva Avenue - Follow up Traffic Review. The City Engineer stated that earlier in the year improvements were made on Elva Avenue and the intersection of Elva Avenue, Reid Lane, Michaels Drive and Canyon View Drive was moonfigured. 'Ittese improvements were intended to modify in pan, the traffic circulation patterns. Follow-up studies show that the desired results have been achieved. However, the study revealed a problem at the Michaels intersection; a resolution was presented to the Council for consideration. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION MV-170 DESIGNATING THE INTERSECSFION OF MICHAELS DRIVE AND REID LANE AS A STOP INTERSECTION. Passed 4-0. Councilmember Clevenger complimented Staff on the work completed at the intersection and noted that this was an excellent example of Staff and residents working cooperatively on a project. She noted that originally more Sheriffs Patrols were to be provided on Elva Avenue to monitor traffic speed; due to increased traffic on Friday nights, residents asked that additional SheriflTs patrols be utilized. Mr. Shook noted that due to the placement of speed bumps, traffic speed has been reduced significantly; however, continuing review of this intersection will be provided. Councilmember Moyles concurred that the improvement of this intersection was impressive; he noted, however, the problem of four wheel vehicles cutting across a section of the intersection. Mr. Shook concurred and suggested that Staff present to the Council a landscaping plan to prevent this illegal access across a pan of the intersectic,n. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Allocation of Deferred FY 1986/87 HCDA Funds. The City Manager stated that as the Staff Report notes the City has received additional allocation of $34,575; he suggested that this allocation be applied to the Senior Center addition. Mayor Hlava noted a concem at the growth of the Senior Center with the requests for additional fundinl;. She questioned the process of project review. The City Engineer stated that while the orig,4nal grant application was made as the seniors developed the day care project, the size of the facilities became inadequate. Additional square footage was added to provide needed facilities. Councilmember Clevenger reviewed the recommendation of Staff, in Fiscal Impacts, which suggested that $7,000 be taken from the General Fund instead of Housing Rehabilitation Fund. She proposed taking the entire $41,000 from HCDA Funds--S34,575 of these funds taken from the Supplemental Appropriations and die remaining $6,425 taken from Housing Rehabilitation Fund. Mayor Hlava concurred with Councilmember Clevenger on this point and noted her support of the Senior Center;, howe~,er, she stated that she was concerned about the process whereby funding needs have increased without a comprehensive and timely review by the Council. The City Engineer added that the City is still pursuing additional funds from the bond act. If in fact, the major facility which has been approved does not come through and reallocation is necessary, it was the City Engineer's understanding that there will be further information available by December 1, 1986; if these funds are not available to the Senior Center, other funds can be reprogramed. Mayor Hlava asked Mr. Drake of the Senior Coordinating Council to address the City COuncil on die status of the project. Mr. Drake stated that a larger facility is needed. He concurred with the City Engineer that there is hope that an additional $50,000 grant would be procured. In addition, there is a possibility that a sizable equipment fund could be procured from state funds; the latter has not materialized and the former is as yet undetermined. He acknowledged that costs have been higher than anticipated and noted his appreciation to the Council for consideration of this request. In response to Councilmember Clevenger's question, he stated that if the additional equipment grant is received firom the State funds, there will be no request for $25,000 from the City. If the City is stating at this time that additional funds would not be available, the Senior Center project would mount a major fund raising effort in the community. In response to Councilmember Anderson's question, he stated that volunteers will be utilized along with professional staff to opelate the facility. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 NOVEMBER 5, 1986 NEW BUSINESS Continued Councilmember Moyles noted the change in population i~ the City and reaffn'med the Council's support for development and expansion of Center facilities; HCDA funds have never been well spent on housing rehabilitation; the cost of adrniniswafion is greater than the benefit d~-ived. He noted his concern regarding the cost of operating expenses and stated that the loss of FIDCA funding may terminate some of the activities currently funded. In response to Mayor Hlava's questions, the City Manager recommended that the Resolution will be revised and presented to the City Council at the November 19, 1986, Meeting. Recommendation accepted by the Council. B. Appointments to City of S aratoga/West Valley College Public Access Board. Consensus reached to appoint Community Services Director Argow and , Councilmember Moyles to the Board. C. Senior Center Addition Plans CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO ACCEPT THE PLANS SUBMITFED AND AUTHORIZE BIDS TO BE TAKEN ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT. Passed 4-0. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mayor Hlava asked that Item C. and Item D. be considered first C. Appeal of denial of design review approval of plans to construct a second stor7 addition of an existing singie family residence at 20334 Thelma Ave. in the R- 1 - 10,000 zoning district (DR- 86-019) Appeilant/Applicant B. Pool) In response to questions by the Council, Planning Director Hsia stated that Staff did not object to the request for a continuance. Councilmember Moyle~ questioned the reason for the request; the Planning Director stated that the applicant felt he had insufficient time to prepare a response to the Staff Report. The Councilmember noted that while sufficient time should be provided for appellants to prepare a case, the interests of others must also be considered. A two week continuation is reasonable; however, a continuance to January is excessive and will require Councilmembers, Staff and neighbors to review the entire case again. The Appellant, Mr. Pool, was not present at time of consideration of his request for a continuance. Consensus reached that this Appeal will be heard on November 19, 1986. The Appellant will be notified by registered letter of the date of the hearing of his appeal. D. Appeal of approval of site and design review approvals and a lot line adjustment to allow the construction of a two-story single family home at 14458 Oak Place in the R-l-10,000 zoning district (SDR 1629, DR 86-004, LL 86-001) (Appellant, H. Davies; Applicant LZ Profiva) Mayor Hlava stated that the Applicant had requested a two week delay and noted that in this appeal the Applicant and the App~llunt are separate'parties. However, the Appellant was not present at time of considerationof the request:Consensus reached that the appeal will be continued to December 3, 1986, meeting of the City Council. .-:. .. :.-.::-: :,. _ A. Ordinance Amending the Second Uni~'Ordinanc~ ~o Allow New Second Units in the R- 1 - 10,000 Zbning District (farst reading) "- ' The City Attorney called attention to the revised 'draft, dated October 3,0, 1986, submitted to the Council which incorporated some changes. With 'respect to the suggestion of the Good Government Group that additional findings be made applicable only to the R-1-10,000 zoning district, he did not receive a directiye from the Council to incorporate this suggestion and secondly, the proposed suggestioi~s were incorporated in one manner or another in the existing Ordinance. MEETING OF 'FHE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 NOVEMBER 5, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Clevenger noted the approval of the proposed changes b/the City Council on October 15, 1986, by a 3-2 vote of the Council; Councilmembers Clevenger and Moyles noted for the record thai: they would vote in favor of the Ordinance at this time to reflect the fact that introduction of the Ordinance was agreed upon at the previous Council Meeting; however, they are in opposition to the Ordinance. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:19 P.M. Ms. Harriet Handler, 13385 Ronnie Way, Saratoga, stated that them is not a City Ordinance to prevent seniors from crowding into one home, but there is a City Ordinance to prevent seniors from sharing a home comfortably and privately. Lot size can be a problem for seniors and is the primary reason seniors are supposed to give up their homes when they cannot physically or financially maint~tin their homes. The issue is to make it possible for older Samtogans to benefit from under utilized space. In her opinion to legislate lot size to R-l-10,000 for second units is urtreasonable.. She urged the Council to grant seniors in the R-l-10,000 the same privileges grantext in other zoning districts. Lot size for second units is a non-issue. Ms. Louise Cooper, Legislative Chair for the Senior Coordinating Council, expressed her appreciation to the Council for their attention to this issue and in particular for the direction taken by the Council allowing at least some second units in the R-l-10,000 district. However, she noted her concern regarding the singling out of the R- 1-10,000 district for special requirements. She asked that the same roles apply to the R-l-10,000 district as apply to other districts. CLEVENGER/1M[OYLES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:29 P.M. Passed 4-0. Councilmember Moy[es stated that he will vote in favor of the motion to introduce the first reading of this Ch~dinance on consideration of the Council majority at the previous meeting. He stated for the record that his vote in favor of the Ordinance at this time was one of accommodation; he has the same reservations as stated earlier. Councilmember Clevenger concurred with the above; she will vote in favor of the Ordinance being introduced. She will not vote favorably on this Ordinance in the Second reading. Mayor Hlava noted the contributions of Mr. Cage, the Good Government Group and City Attomey Toppel in formulating the revised Ordinance. One of the problems of the second unit Ordinance has boen the perceived conflict between the desires of the Council to maintain standards in zoning and lot size inherent to the quality of life in Saratoga with the recognition of problems senior citizens are experiencing in obtaining housing. Councilmembers Clevenger and Moyles questioned whether they could abstain from the vote and were assured that the Ordinance could be introduced with the abstention of both Councilmembers.. HLAVA/ANDERSON MOVED TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 4-0. HLAVA/ANDERSON MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 15-56.010 AND 15-56.070 OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO SECOND UNITS. Passed 2-0-2, Councilmembers Clevenger and Moyles abstaining. :: B. Appeal ofdenial of variance to reconswuct garage 3 ft. from side property line rather than 6 ft. as required (Appellant/applicant, J. Gregory) (V.-86-005) (Continued from Octolx,'r l5, 1986) Mayor Hlava reviewed the appeal noting the split vote on the granting a variance allowing a 3 ft. side yard setback. The City Attorney stated that in the event of a split vote at this hearing, for any reason, the appeal would be denied and the decision of the Planning Commission would remain intact. The Public Hearing Was opened at 8:37 P.M. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 NOVEMBER 5, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Gregory reviewed the conditions of the lot and neighborhood; he stated that neighbors had no objection to the proposed building plans and noted the difficulty that would bo imposed by the requirement of a 6 ft. side yard setback for the garage. In response to questions by Councilmember Moyles, he stated that moving the garage toward the rear of the property would result in an extremely long driveway and an unattractive presentation of the lot. The use of tuff block on the driveway, reducing impervious coverage of the lot, was considered and rejected due to high expense of the product. In response to Councilmember Anderson's comments regarding safety on the property, the Appellant confumed that he would instal/a one hour f~re wall on the side of the garage which faced the neighbor's garage; he also was amenable to installing a sprinkler system in the garage if the cost was not prohibitive. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:43 P.M. Passed 4-0. Councilmember Moyles noted that he had made a site visit to the Gregory property; however, he was unable to make the variance findings. He stated that a Variance hearing is an opportunity for a citizen to demonstrate why their unique circumstances overfide the policies of the City. Unique circumstances have not been demonstrated in this instance and making the required Findings was not possible. He concurred with comments made by Mayor Hlava and Councilmember Peterson at the previous Heating. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL OF A VARIANCE ALLOWING A 3 FF. SIDE YARD SETBACK. Failed 2-2, Mayor Hlava, Councilmember Moyles opposed. Mayor Hlava addressed the Appellant and stated that she believed it should be the policy of the City to rectify conditions of substandard lots when there is an opportunity to do so. The Mayor recessed the Meeting from 8:49 - 9:13 P.M. E. Presentation of Alternative Uses for City-Owned Property at Cox Avenue/Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. Mayor Hlava reviewed the history of the property in question and noted that in the 1984 discussions of the pavement management program, one of the finance mechanisms adopted by the Council was the selling of this property in order to invest the proceeds on behalf of the City. A Planning Consultant was contracted to provide a report on alternative use plans for the property. She noted that an application for the two adjacent lots of the property in question is being heard at the Planning Commission Meeting of November 12, 1986. Planning Director Hsia introduced the Consultants who were to address the Council on land use options for the propexty. Mr. Gene Scothorn, Civil Consultants Group, stated that the information presented to the Council was a joint effort on the part of Civil Consultants Group and HED Architects. Four general land use options were developed and presented to the Council for review. Mr. Wayne Holland presented a slide presentation to accompany the report. He stated that the important element in the land use options presented was a creek which divided the property in half. The presence of Samtoga-Sunnyvale Road with its difficult access, was also addressed; in the schemes presented, entrance to the property was averted from the corner if possible. The other unique aspect of the plans presented is the attempt to abut residential property against adjacent residential rather than abuting residential and commercial property. Mr. Holland reviewed the land use options on an individual basis. He stated that all site planning reflected City Ordinances with the exception of the mixed use layered scheme. Councilmembers noted their concern regarding the a~cess on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. · ' Obtaining access from adjacent commercial property, he noted that the 5 ft. change in elevation between the two properties would make access difficult, though not impossible. In response to Mayor Hlava, he stated that lot requirements and the preservation of the creek would make it impossible to get six lots with sole access off of Cox Avenue. Proposed land use options were developed with the assumption that the City would maintain conformity to present City Ordinances. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 8 NOVEMBER 5, 1986 NEW BUSINESS Continued Relative land use factors already recorded and appraisal information already provided was the benchmark used to determine the relative value of the property. The appraisal assumed that a mixed residentlad/commercial use was the highest and best use of the properly. A reasonable selling price for each use of the property was derived from the above assumption; this es'tirnate was reduced by the cost of developing the property (actual construction costs, design fees, city fees, other agency fees, reasonable profit to the developer). The residual amount became the available amount for a developer to purchase the property. This residual amount was compared with the appraisal forresidential/commercial use; from this figure a series of ratios was developed. For example, multi-family residential use of entire property would result in approximately 62% of appraised value; mixed commereial/residential use (mixed use spli0 would be about 76% of residential/commercial use while the mixed use layered (stacked, three story arrangement) would be approximately 142%. The project maintains the creek as a design element; what makes the project attractive financially is that commercial use would underwrite the purchase of the land. There would be virtually no land cost for residential units, making the project very competitive with other projects. He noun that a layered mixed use is effective in some places and not in others from the standpoint of community acceptance and financial viability of the developer. When the Council considers a mixed use commercial designation for the site, consideration should be given to the:. 1) increased value of return to the City 2) opportunities the developer to cream an unusual and potentially attractive design. Mr. Scothom noted that this property is not prime residential property; this explains the 11% - 142% range of v,'~ue of the property. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:45 P.M. 'Mr. Bob Levin, Lowell Enterprises, Sunnyvale, presented an alternative land use proposal, The Academy of Magical Arts and its Club House, the Magic Castle. He stated that the Academy is a nort-profit group dedicat~A to the education of magic as an art form; the Club House provides an environment for dirling and theater in an estate like setting. Mr. Bill Kinst, Architect for the project, stared that the proposal presented is a mixed land use in which density would be reduced by ihe location of the Warner Hutton House on the east part of the property. In addition, many activities would be during the daytime. He stated that the Magic Cas~e would act as a buffer between the neighborhoed and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. Councilmember traderson noted her concern regarding access; Mr. Kinst stated that proposed access would be on Cox Avenue. In r6sponse to Mayor Hlava's question, he stated that the height of the project was distorted by the drawing presented and maintained that the completed project would be within the height guidelines of the City. The facility being proposed is about 7,500 - 10,000 sq. ft. footprint and a txl, o-story building. Ms. Folger, 20502 Elvira Rd., Saratoga, complimented the City on the proposed multi family dwellings with 62% of appraised value'. She noted her experience and concerns regarding the traffic at this intersection. In response to Councilmember Cievenger's question of access for the property, she t~lt that access should be at the southerly portion of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. Access through adjacent commercial p~roperty would be most deskable; access through Pierce Rd. may be the safest option. Ms. Molly Ording, 16281 Lucky Rd., Monte Sereno, asked whether consideration was given to use as a recreational and park facilityl Mayor Hlava responded that the City would not pursue such an option. However, a private investor would be flee to purchase the property and use it in such a manner. Ms. Ording noted the need for recreation and park facilities; Mayor Hlava stated that parks most used have more facilities than could be accommodated on the parcel of property in question. ' Mr. Jerry Koch', 12855 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., Saratoga, stated that the City purchased the property for $80,000. The City should sell the property for the same mount. The area does not need more problems. He noted that a traffic study had not been presented and asked titat the rural atmosphere of Saratoga not be destroyed. M_EET[NG OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 9 NOVEMBER 5; 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Mary Wilton, 205 Cox Ave. concurred with statements regarding traftic congestion at the intersection and problems with access on Cox Ave. She asked that a traffic study be done. Mr. John Gilbert, Lowell Asssociates, noted that the Magic Cas~e proposal would not create a traftic problem. Ms. Joyce Lange, Los Gatos, Real Estate Broker and Developer, stated that she has been interested in this piece of property for the past six years. She will be meeting with the Hanning Commission on November 12, 1986, with an application for the adjacent commercial property. She stated that the traffic problem should be addressed tint. Ms. Sarah June Vincent, 20279 Pieme Rd., Saratoga, went on record asking the Council to consider the effect of changes on the residents in the area. Mr. Mark Koch' stated that'he lived in Saratoga all of his life and he does not feel that Saratoga needs more commercial development. Councilmember Clevenger notedthat the prime concern is the access of the property; she suggested that this be resolved before making any decision regarding use. In addition, adjacent commercial development is being presented to the Planning Commission in the coming week Planning Director Hsia stated that the Council would need to decide the land use of the property in question before any efforts at coordinating the adjacent commercial could be done. The City Manager stated that an easement could be reserved on the adjacent commercial property. The other issue is a design issue; namely the project would have to be designed so that the location of the access would accommodate both properties. Should the Council favor a residential development, access through commercial property would cause difficulty and security problems. However, the problem would not be insurmountable ff required that: 1) the design of the adjacent property include an access in a appropriate location 2) a reciprocal access agreement Councilmember Anderson asked that a comprehensive map be presented to show the relationships of the surrounding area to the property in question. Mr. Holland stated that the land use must be decided before other plans could be developed. Mayor I--llava und Councilmember Moyles noted a variety of concerns regarding the benefits und drawbacks of the proposed land use options. Councilmember Clevenger favored some form of residential stating that the site is not visible nor appropriate for commercial development, nor is access adequate and noted that the City needs residential development. Cotmcilmember Anderson favored residential use with some commercial on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd; she also favored commercial access through the adjacent property on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. and residential townhouse access £rcra PS. erce Road ra'cho. r' ~hem Cc~: AvonUe .She remained concerned about the access to the property and wished to see a traffic study before making a decision on the land use. Councilmember Clevenger stated that commercial along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. appears to be strip zoning; what is desired for this project is cohesive development. The City Attorney advised the Council that the property in question was owned by the City and could be sold with specific development criteria in mind. Mayor Hlava noted that the Hearing was building a record of the development criteria the Council had in mind. Mr. Richard McGowan, Attorney for the Magic Castle, asked for clarification of comments made by the Council. Councilmember Moyles stated that the Magic Castle could pursue presentation as a design for the property and would receive the same consideration as other presenters; however, he noted that he is not favorable to the design presented. Mayor Hlava cited some of the concerns of placing any commercial development at this site. Mr. Jerome Koch' stated that he felt those who had spoken had not been heard since commercial use of the property was still being considered. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEAPriNG AT 10:57 P.M. Passed 4-0. Consensus reached that !~present CN zoning of this parcel of property would continue, that uses acceptable to the Council are all townhouses, or mixed use with no commercial in the back. MEETING OF THE C1TY COUNC/L Page I0 ' NOVEMBER 5, 1986 F. Ordinance adopting and. modifying the 1985 Uniform Fire Code and mending Article 16-60 of the Cit~ Code concerning early warning fire alarm system:; (fast reading) , The City Attc.mey stated that this Ordinance is adapting the 1985 Fire Code. The City Attorney stated that the Saratoga Fire District and the Central Fire District both reviewed the 1985 edition of the Fire Code and recommended some modifications. The effect of the modification of the Code requiring early warning fire alarm systems is to eliminate the need for heat detector systems and smoke alarm systems in other than bedrooms and would apply where an automatic sprinkler syste, m is installed as an alternative installation. The Public Hearing was opened at !11:00 P.M. There were no speakers. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:01 P.M. Passed 4-0. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE AND AMEND ARTICLE 16-60 OF THE CITY CODE. Passed 4-0. G. Ordinances decreasing speed limits on a portion of Pierce Road and on Sobey Road (fast reading) City Engineer ',Shook stated that he was pleased to present the Ordinance decreasing speed limits on a portion of Pierce Rd. and Sobey Rd. The Public He,'tring was opened at i 1:02 P.M. There were no speakers. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:02 P.M. Passed 4-0. HLAVA/CLEV~NGER MOVE TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE DECREASING SPEED LIMITS ON A PORTION OF PIERCE ROAD. " Passed 4-0. .a I CLEVENGEP4ANDERSON MOVE'i TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE DECREASING SPEED LIMITS ON A PORTION OF SOBEY ROAD. Passed 4-0. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: , A. Discussion of Oral Communications not referred to Staff - None. r , il r B. Repo ts from Indiwdu al Counc membe s Councilmember Moyles suggested holding a Public Hearing for Traffic Authority Strategic Plan on December 3, 1986; there 'lwas consensus to do so. " (Clerk's Note: Date of Public Hearing later changed to November 19, 1986.) He reported on his trip to Japan. Councilmember Clevenge presented the S'ster City Committee Report and outlined a r 1 travel agenda for visitors to the City. She reported on Mellowood l:rivei'~interest in becoming part of Sanitation District 4. · r n Councilmember Ande so reporte,d on the Transportation Commission Meeting. " She reported on recent developments at the 7-11 Store. CASA has requested teenage voluhteers to participate in a Youth Commission should one be formed. Mayor Hlava suggested Staff prepare a proclamation honoring three Cupertino Schools; there was consensus to direct staff to do so. She reported on the Metro Transportation Committee. The meeting of the City Council was ad ourned at 12:05 A.M. Respectfully subrr~tted, Carol A. Probst-Caughey Recording Secretm:y