Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-02-1987 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: September 2, 1987 PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. ROLL CALL: Mayor Peterson, Councilmembers Anderson, Clevenger, Moyles present '- at 7:00 P.M. Councilmember Hlava present at 7:58 P.M. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: None 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes: Meeting of August 19, 1987. MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVED OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 19, 1987. Passed B. Approval of Warrant List: MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF THE WARRANT LIST. Passed 4-0. s,' C. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 28, 1987. " 4. CONSENT CALENDAR - OTHER ITEMS: A. Planning Commission Actions, August 26, 1987, - Noted and filed. B. Heritage Preservation Commission Actions, August 5, 1987, - Noted and filed. C. Library Commission Action Minutes, August 26, 1987, - Noted and fried. D. Resolution 2438 Reversing Planning Commission in Case of Gregory, heard August 19, 1987. E. Nonpoint Source Discharge Evaluation Action Plan Cost-Sharing Agreement F. Authorization for Staff to attend Building Official Education and Code Development Conference, September 19-25, 1987, Kansas City, 3vith reasonable and necessary expenses. G.Conditional Final Map Approval, Tr. 8058, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., Pierce Rd. (Wayne Miller Investment, Developer) H. _Treasurer's Report of Fund Balances - June 30, 1987. I. Preliminary Financials - June 30, 1987. - I. InvestmentReports - June 30, 1987 and July 30, 1987. Councilmember Moyles requested removal of Consent Calendar Item F. Councilmember Anderson requested removal of Consent Calendar Item G. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR WITH REMOVAL OF ITEMS F. AND G. Passed 4-0. MEETliNG OF THE CITY COUNCIL · . Page 2 t SEPTEMBER 2, 1987 CONSENT CALENDAR Continued -' Councilmember Moyles requested information regarding Item F, Authorizing Staff to attend the Conference; the City Manager reviewed the topics to be discussed and cited policies governing out of the area conferences. Councilmember Anderson requested information regarding Item G., Conditional Final Map Approval of Tr. 8058; the City Attorney reviewed the status of this Application. She noted ,, ,_ complaints received regarding the amount of impervious coverage on this project; Councilmember Clevenger stated she also received complaints on this issue. Mr. Jerry Kocir, 12855 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., Saratoga, recognized by Mayor Peterson, noted his continuing opposition to the traffic impacts resulting from this project; he stated that die easement shown on the map, listed' as a frontage road, was an error and should not be permitted. The City Attorney reviewed procedures of a Conditional Final Map approval. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS F. AND G. Passed 4-0. 5.COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC: A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions Ms. Kathy Gillurn, 108 Los Patios, Los Gatos, read into the record a letter of Robert Sod~rman and presented a petition from the Ri:n~conada Hills Association opposing the pr0~osed Route 85 interchange at Quito and Pollard Rd. Ms. Antoinette Romeo, 12848 Pierce Rd., Saratoga, registered a complaint regarding trucks and heavy equipment on Pierce during the middle of the night; Ms. Davies concurred. The City Yana~Jer will investigate complaint. B, ' Written Communications from the Public - None 6. OLD BUSINESS - None 7. NEW BUSINESS A. _, Request from Heritage Preservation Commission to consider waiving heritage Resource Designation Fee. Planner Young reviewed the Report to Mayor and City Council of August 20, 1987. In · .response to a question, she stated that approximately four to six hours were required to process · ~mapplicationandonlyapercentageofStafftimewasrecoveredbytheapplicationfees. Councilmember Moyles was unfavorable to exempting a group from required application fees. Mr. Warren Heid, Heritage Preservation Commission, stated that the original applications were under the no-fee program; he noted that applicants for Heritage Resoumes were very few and were complying with goals of the City. He was favorable to incentives offered to residents. Councilmember Clevenger concurred that the Heritage Resource designation enhanced the City and applicants should be encouraged to apply for such, Mayor Peterson was also in favor of ' ~ - ' waiving the fees and noted that the property owner had to come forward voluntarily to initiate ' the process; requiring a fee would not meet the objectives of the City. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED.TO WAIVE HERITAGE RESOURCE DESIGNATION FEES. Passed 3-1, Councilmember Moyles opposed. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO READ, ADOPT A MINUTE RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CURRENT FEE SCHEDULE. Passed 3-1, Councilmember Moyles opposed. -' MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page SEPTEMBER 2, 1987 NEW BUSINESS Continued B. Local Celebration of 200th Anniversary of the U.S. Constitution Planner Young reviewed the Report to the Mayor and City Council dated August 21, 1987. ~LEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE PROCLAMATION, AUTHORIZE APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION AS A BICENTENNIAL COMMUNITY, APPOINT HERITAGE COMMISSION AS LOCAL BICENTENNIAL COMMITTEE, AND DIRECT COMMISSION TO ORGANIZE LOCAL CELEBRATION EVENTS. Councilmember Moyles seconded the Motion with Mayor Peterson designated as Council ]Liaison to the Commission. CLEVENGERfMOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF MOTION AS AMENDED. Passed 4-0. C. Boundary Adjustment - City of Saratoga and City of San Jose The City Manager reviewed a Memorandum of August 28, 1987, and answered questions. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONCEPT OF BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT, DIRECTING AN APPLICATION BE FILED WITH LAFCO AND COM- MENCEMENT OF PREZONING ACTION. Passed 4-0 D. . Declaring Certain City Property Surplus and Authorizing Sale or Disposal Thereof The Cit~ Manager reviewed the Report to the Mayor and City Council of August 28, 1987. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO DECLARE LISTED PROPERTY AS SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZE SALE OR DISPOSAL OF SAID PROPERTY AS INDICATED. Passed 4-0. · E. Selection of City Auditor The City Manager reviewed the current situation and suggested consideration of the bid made by Peat Maxwick Main and Co. He confirmed that the bid was reasonable for a city the size of Saratoga. Finance Director Shriver answered questions addressed by the Council. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF THE SELECTION OF PEAT MARWICK MAIN & CO. AS AUDITOR FOR THE CITY FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD BEGINNING WITH FISCAL YEAR 198~-87, AT A COST OF $23,025. Passed 4-0. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2429.2 INCREASING .. APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDING THE 1988 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET. Passed 4-0. F. Appropriation Resolution 2347.10 The City Manager reviewed the Appropriations Resolution. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2347.10 INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDING THE 1987 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET. Passed 4-0. Mayor Peterson proceeded to City Council Items. ' A. Reports from Individual Councilmembers Councilmember Clevenger reported on Sanitation District 4. City Engineer provided infor- mation regarding current projects; additional information will be provided. Councilmember Clevenger commented on Housing and Community Development. Councilmember Hlava present. at 7:58 P.M. Mayor Peterson proceeded to Public Hearings. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 SEPTEMBER 2, 1987 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Appeal 6f lot line adjustment to allow various adjustments between four lots (LL 87-003) and tentative building site approval for three lots in the R-I-20,000 zoning district at 20411 Hill Avenue (SD 87-009. 1) (Applicant, R. Rivoir, appellant, A. Smith) Planner Caldwell presented a Memorandum of September 2, 1987, find reviewed Analysis of Appeal; Staff recommended denial of the appeal' by approving the reversion of acreage and reaffirming the decision of the Planning Commission on the lot line adjustment and building site approval on the three lots of record. Questions addressed by the Council were answered. The City Attorney stated that he wished to respond to comments made that the Applicant had attempted to elude City Ordinances. The process of a reversion to acreage and a lot line adjusunent was suggested by the City and significantly reduced intensity of development; fi:om '; the City's viewpoint, the process was both logical and consistent with existing regulations. The Applicant was agreeable to this process and to Master Planning of the site. The slope density formula was not applicablesince it could only be applied to an undeveloped parcel. The Public Hearing was opened 8:10 P. M. Mr. Gary Coats, Planning 'Consultant for the Appellants, stated that one of their major concerns was safety relative to the lot line adjustment; Exhibits presented inclueled: Exhibit 1: aerial view of the Smith property, Assessors Parcel Map (Figure 1). With resp6et to Analysis of Appeal, 2., he noted that there were many alternatives for designing thii"pmject. Appellants had no opposition to development of the Rivoir property. Exhibit 2: Photographs were presented Exhibit 3: Proposed solution presented jointly from the developer of Rivoir's property and the appellant, insuring the Smith's privacy and safety; agreement had not yet been signed. Exhibit 4: Proposal The City Attorney reiterated that the action under consideration was not a subdivision; in addition, Vine Street was an existing dedication. Only the City, which was the holder of the dedication, had the authority to make changes on Vine Street. The Application under appeal did not address Vine Street with the exception of deferred improvement agreement until such time as properties were developed; the only issue relative to improvement was a road widen'rag. Mr. Coats felt that the alignment of Vine Street was appropriate at this time since it would affect the subdivision and thus affect the Application under consideration. The City Attorney responded that the Planning Commission had acted on the assurances of Mr. Rivoir that he would not develop the lots adjacent to Vine Street at this time; neither the Commission nor Staff felt that final decisions regarding the width of Vine Street were necessar.7 at this time. The City Manager suggested consideration of the following: Benefits to parties involved; in. this instance, the beneficiaries appeared to be the Smith's The necessity of relocation, dedication and building of a new road before,abandoning the existing one Abandonment and relocation of Vine Street could be petitioned of the City at any time Mr. David Arata, representing the senior Aratas, cited a letter by David Arata, Sr., read into the record an agreement regarding access to five lots on the Rivoir property. Ms. Lynn Belanger, Attorney for the Rivoirs, added that any agreement was subject to approval by the City. Mr. Bill Heiss, Civil Engineer, representative of the Rivoirs, suggested modification of the Conditions of Approval, Exhibit "A", B. 18. adding a phrase to read, "final curb radius be as required by the City Engineer." Mr. Delman Smith, Attorney for the Smiths, noted that agreements had not yet been finalized and asked for an opportunity to present to the Council at a later date any agreement reached with adjacent property owners. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page SEPTEMBER 2, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Bill Heiss reviewed the application and presented slides of the property in question; he discussed options for development of lots accessing Vine Street. He felt that concerns raised by the Smith s had been addressed by Staff in recommended Conditions of Approval. City' Engineer Shook reviewed the relocation of Vine Street for the information of the Council. Ms. Lynn Belanger stated that the City Attorney had adequately addressed points of consideration she wished to made. She noted that the Application had been submitted in a spirit of co-operation; any conditions placed on the reversion of acreage and the lot line adjustment could not be imposed at this time. She asked that this matter not be continued and that the deferred improvement agreement for Vine Street remain as stated at this time. Mr. Coats was favorable to the Rivoirs developing their three lots; however, items not reviewed by the Planning Commission should be referred to the Planning Commission. He concurred with Councilmember Clevenger that the Smiths would have further opportunity to address concerns on the lots contiguous to their property. HLAVA/ANDERS ON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:07 P.M. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Hlava concurred that the Rivoirs had submitted this Application in a spirit of co-operation; she asked that a revised map be submitted showing the relocation of Pleasant Street as ,already agreed upon by the Rivoirs and the Aratas and noted that beyond the deferred improvement agreement for Vine Street, no further action could be taken at this time. She was favorable to this application and stated that she would vote to deny the appeal. Councilmember Clevenger noted that Mrs. Smith had attempted to settle the question of Vine Street for many years; however, further action was not possible at this time. She favored the reversion of acreage and lot line adjustment and, reluctantly, would vote to deny the appeal. Councilmember Moyles concurred with the above and added for the record that he favored the Master Planning of this site; he noted sympathy for the Smith's situation and commended the plan for Vine Street proposed by Mr. Coats. However, this appeal was not an adequate vehicle for resolving the situation. MOYLES MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL OF SD-87-009.1 AND LL-87~003, CONTINUING TENTATIVE BUILDING SITE APPROVAL PENDING MAP REVISION. REVISED MAP TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COUNCIL. The City Attorney stated that the Council could act to deny the appeal at this hearing subject to .submission of a revised map. Ms: Belanger stated that such satisfied her concerns. HLAVA/CLEVENGER MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL OF SD-87-009.1 AND LL-87-003 SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF REVISED MAP. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Anderson commended the Rivoirs for their successful efforts in reaching an agreement with the Aratas and encouraged them in future negotiations with the Smiths. Consensus reached to hear Items C. and D. out of order. C. Consideration of Revocation of Business License, Mimosa Beauty Salon and Body Care D. Consideration of Revocation of Business License, Sherri Salon and Body Care The City A_ttomey.reviewed applicable provisions in the City Code andnoted that tenants had vacated both properties; however, he advised a revocation of business licenses. Councilmember Moyles suggested that anyone wishing to contradict the information, come forward and testify; in the absence of such, the City would accept reports made by police. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:26 P,M. There were no speakers. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Pag6' 6 SEPTEMBER 2, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued HLAVA/MOYLES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:27 P.M. Passed 5-0. · MOYLES/HLAVA MOVED A REVOCATION OF THE BUSINESS LICENSES ON ITEMS 8 C. AND 8 D. Passed 5-0. Break: 9:27 - 9:44 P.M. Mayor Peterson returned to Item B. B. Ordinance revising design review regulations (AZO 87-003) (first reading) The City Attorney presented the draft Ordinance and reviewed proposed amendments. He discussed a provision allowing a portion of the roof area to exceed the 26 ft. height limit and noted that in recent applications before the Planning' Commission there had been some mconsideration of the provision. He discussed Allowable Floor Area, Height of Structures and Types of Applications Requiring Design Review. Questions w~re answered. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:56 P.M. Mr. Bill Heiss, CM1 Engineer, requested reconsideration of the slope penalty, Examples from Parker Ranch Rd. and Saratoga Heights cited. He noted that both projects allocated significant areas to open space as opposed to other hillside projects where the property was divided into lots; thus° lots that abutted open space would have been penalized. He asked that a bonus be conSideal for lots abutt:in:Jopen space and noted the potential for discouraging the creation of open areas. The Public Hearing remained open. Councilmember Clevenger questioned the feasibility of allowing a percentage of the roof area to exceed the 26 ft, height; Planner Young presented examples from site drawings. Mayor Peterson· favored the 26 ft. height limitation without exception; ~:Cou~C_il._m~e,~b:_er Hlava concurred, noting the difficulty of calculating correct amounts. Councilmember Clevenger favored reinsertion of the slope penalty, questioned allowable floor area in excess of 6,200 sq. ft. and favored guidelines set up in the May 1st draft Ordinance. The City Attorney cited the Ordinance and noted that the Planning Commission had the authority to approve homes larger than 6,200 sq. ft; however, such was not a variance. Councilmember Hlava favored deletion of requirement for aerial photographs at design review; Mayor Peterson disagreed and noted the value of such information. With respect t~o floor area in excess of 6,200 sq. ft., Councilmember Hlava suggested consideration of reinstating the slope penalty or special findings which would address this issue. She concurred with the City Manager's Requirement for Design Review by the Commission. Mayor Peterson favored a method whereby the Planning Commission could limit the size of very large houses even if placed on large lots. Councilmember Moyles favored reinsertion of the slope penalty formula and noted reluctance to have special findings for houses in excess of the 6,200 sq. ft. allowable floor area. The City Manager suggested a modification of square footage guidelines set forth in the Table of the proposed Ordinance, if the Council so wished, while leaving the concept and the mechanism in ·place. Councilmember Clevenger was favorable to the Table since it clearly defined standards. Councilmember Hlava suggested the addition of categories for square footage in excess of 40,000 and calculating actual square footage allowed at 30 sq. ft. per thousand; in addition, the .. slope penalty formula would be applied.. ~ Councilmembers Clevenger and Moyles concurred. Consensus reached on standards set forth in the May 1, 1987, Ordinance with the following: Allowing 30 sq. ft. per thousand of allowable floor area over 40,000 sq. ft. 26 ft. height limitation with elimination of the 25% allowance :-- Design Review in line with that proposed by the City Manager Reinsenion of the slope penalty formula · Setback standards t:o z'~aain at 22 ft. of buildi.nCJ heicJht, MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 SEPTEMBER 2, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued City Manager presented 7. of Requirement for Design Review by the Commission, reading, "Any multiple story main structure or multiple story accessory, any conversion to a multiple story, any expansion of a second story of a multiple main or accessory structure, any main sumcture to be constructed on a hillside lot." He cited other references from the May 1st draft. Consensus reached to Continue the Public Hearing on AZO-87-003 to September 16, 1987. Mayor Peterson returned to City Council Items A. Reports from Individual Councilmembers (Continued) Councilmember Moyles presented "Suggested Policy Amendments-Draft Safety Element;" The City Manager stated that the Safety Element was scheduled for Public Hearings September 16, 1987; 'sta~fi will report on these policy an~ndm_ents at that time. Councilmember Moyles reported on Routi'85 Barton-Ashm~in Study being conducted. He noted that the Bamboo Garden in Hakone was nearly completed. Councilmember Anderson reported on Transportation Committee 2000; Staff directed to investigate levels of service and routes offered to Saratoga residents Councilmember Hlava reported on the Hillside Task Force Mayor Peterson reviewed scheduled meetings and events for Councilmembers The meeting of the City Council was adjourned at l l :04 P.M. Respectfully submitre Carol A. Probst-Caughey / . Recording Secretary