Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-16-1988 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: March 16, 1988 PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA TYPE: Regular Meeting !. ROLL CALL: Mayor Peterson, Councilmembers Anderson, Clevenger, Hlava, Moyles present at 7:35 P.M.. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: None. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes: Meeting of March 2, 1988 Councilmember Moyles asked that the Council's discussion on Route 85 interchanges and a ballot referendum be recorded in the Minutes. ANDERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES .OF MARCH 2, 1988, AS AMENDED. Passed 5-0. B. Approval of Warrant List: HLAVA/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF THE WARRANT LIST. Passed 5-0. C. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properl~ posted on March 11, 1988. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Commission Actions - Meeting of March 9, 1988, cancelled. B. Heritage Preservation Commission Actions, February 17, 1988, - Noted and filed. C. AuthOrization for attendance of City Engineer at PubliC Works Institute, San Diego, April 6-8, 1988 with reasonable and necessary expenses. D. Cash and Investment Repori - February 1988 E.' Financial Report - January and Febmaxy 1988 F. 'Treasurer's Report - January and Februaxy 1988 G. Proclamation on 30th Anniversary of Little League H. Proclamation welcoming Soviet Visitors to City I. Final Acceptance and Notice of Completion on Civic Center Landscaping J. Final Acceptance of Improvements and Release of Bond, Sixth Sweet (C. Mauldin, developer) K. Final Map Approval, Tr. 8100, Three Oaks, 7 lots (Woolworth Construction, developer) L. Agreement to Improve Saratoga Ave. under Use Permit for Cypress Properties (property in City of San Jose) M. Authorization for Community Services Director~oissue new Permit for 10K Montalvo Foolxace du~ to Rou~:e C/mmSe st;~e~; To ~.~ncronchment Permit form Callruns MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page MARCH 16, 1988 CONSENT CALENDAR Continued N. Appropriations Resolution 2429 for Guardrail Appmved March 2, 1988 MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR. Passed 5'0. 5.COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC: A. Oral Communications fxom the Public and Commissions - Ms. Joan Hershkowitz, Chairperson, Protect Our Environment, objected to comments made about POE and cited accomplishments in making information available on Route 85. Mr. Roy McClosky, 12563 Cambridge Dr., Saratoga, wished to comment on Route 85. Item on the agenda; Council to take testimony at that time. - *~- Ms. Dianne Lindow, 19145 Buckingham Ct., Saratoga, noted concerns regarding impacts on the quality of life from Route 85. She objected to San Jose Mercury News articles. Ms. Dora G~ens,Saratoga, addressed the Mt. Eden Estates/Coeciardi Subdivision and objected to a letter received from the City Attorney, February 11, 1988. B, Wriiten Communications from the Public 1)Dianne McKenna, Chairperson, County Transit District Board, concerning structure and focus of Board. Consensus reached to place on the agenda of Joint Session, March 22, 1988, 6: 30 p. ra. 2)Virginia Faneili, 1175 Saratoga Ave. #17, San Jose, CA, 95129, requesting study session on Odd Fellows Property. · Councilmember Hlava suggested that this Item be referred to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Moyles did not wish to discuss the issue unless the Commission recom- mended change; he cited the policy already in place of no through access in this neighborhood. Mayor Peterson noted that a policy decision affecting the subdivision was required and suggested preliminary discussions to inform the Commission of the Council's position; · however, the consensus of the Council would be acceptable to him. Consensus reached not to agendize request; Item referred to the Planning Commission. 3) Margaret Coffeng,' 12960 Paramont Dr., objecting to deputies treatment of youths. Consensus reached that letter of reply to contain circumstances surrounding the incident. · - 4) Stanley E. Thompson, 12061 Saraglen Dr., objecting to congestion at freeWay - hearing - Noted, acknowledged and filed. · . . ~ 5) Tins VanSlow, no address, opposing Highway 85 - Noted and fried. . '..,, 6) John E. Toevs, 14345 Saratoga Ave., # 36 - Noted, acknowledged and filed. 7)J. R. Geddes, 13917 Lynde Ave., Saratoga, favoring an interchange ballot measure - Noted, acknowledged and filed. 8)Cathy and Rich Gaskell, 20700 Sevilla Lane, Saratoga, favoring an interchange ballot measure - Noted, acknowledged and filed. 9)John Erixon, 20668 Seaton Ave., Saratoga, favoring an interchange ballot measure - Noted, acknowledged and filed. 10flhe h~xl~ds} 21025 B~ Lane, Saratoga, favoring an interchange in Saratoga ~ Noted, acknowledged and fried. '11) Evelyn Nettesheim, 13625 Surrey Lane, Saratoga, favoring an interchange in' Saratoga - Noted, acknowledged and filed. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page MARCH 16, 1988 6. OLD BUSINESS None. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of the Placement of an Advisory Measure concerning Highway 85 Interchanges on November Ballot. The City Manager reviewed the Report to the City Council of March 16, 1988. The Council accepted testimony from the Public. Ms. Joan Hershkowitz, Chairperson, Protect Our Environment, read a prepared itatement. Unverified signatures on petitions were insufficient to place the question of interchanges on the ballot. The "no interchange" position was the only promise left of the Saratoga Alternative. POE submitted that if this question were placed on a ballot, other portions of the Freeway Agreement should also be placed on a ballot. Ms. Christina GuLrich, 12308 Walden Ct., Saratoga, stated 'that if the question of no inter- changes were placed on a ballot, freeway depression and median also be on a ballot, Mr. Roy McClosky, 12563 Cambridge Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: Urged that the question of no interchanges not be placed on a ballot Individuals he spoke with felt that the Council had made a commitment on this issue Cited a projected 48% traffic increase on Saratoga Ave. with only 8% decrease on Hwy. 9 Noted other potential changes, i.e., 8 lanes, a Route 85/Lawrence expressway connection If one question were placed on the ballot, then other issues should also be on a ballot Ms. Carol Machol, Ronnie Way, Saratoga, presented information and commented as follows: · Asked that the question of no interchange not be placed on the ballot Neither the Barton-Aschman Traffic Study nor discussions by the Council had made clear that metered on ramps would be used Environmental Impact Report showed gridlock conditions occurring at intersections; Level of Service ratings were discussed Asked that information not available in the Traffic Study be made available to the public Mr. Ray Froess, 20225 Liepava Dr., Saratoga, stated that the Council had made known the position of Saratoga and finalized the agreement; he did not favor a ballot measure. Dr. Stutzman, 15195 Park Dr., Saratoga, read a statement citing the representative role of the Council in negotiating the Freeway Agreement; such could not be settled by referendum. Ms. Marlene Duffin, Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, commented that since Route 85 would be built, Saratogans favored minimum disruption to the City and asked to be' able to access it. Mr. D. Barnett, Saratoga, stated that if interchanges were to be built, Saratogans wished to vote on the location of such; Saratoga Ave. would be a logical choice for an interchange. Mr. Shelley Williams, 11951 Brookridge Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Noted the length of time Route 85 had been under consideration Noted the interest of all Saratogans in preserving quality of life in Saratoga Strongly recommended that an interchange be installed at Saratoga Ave. Consideration of a Quito Rd. interchange, for the following reasons: ~ Quito Rd. had only 100 less tips per day than Saratoga Ave. ~ This was one of the entrances to West Valley College; ~ There was a possibility of connecting Route 85 with the Lawrence Expressway Favored an interchange at Prospect Ave; traffic impacts of no interchange cited Issue to be put on the ballot if the Council could not decide Mr. Fred Tatter, Saratoga, commented as follows: Voted in favor of the Freeway with the understanding that interchanges would be installed Neither he nor others he spoke to realiTed that a no interchange policy existed Urged that negative impacts of no interchange policy be carefully weighed and ff need be, the issue be placed on the ballot MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 MARCH 16, .1988 NEW BUSINESS Continued Councilmember Clevenger cited the negotiations conducted to reach the Freeway Agreement and noted the priorities of a depressed freeway and no interchanges. One of these major priorities was now being reconsidered by the public and the question of placing other parts of the Agreement on the ballot raised. She was not favorable to placing any part of the Agreement on the ballot; furthermore, if interchanges were placed on the ballot and passed, such would reopen renegotiations by adjacent cities. The Freeway Agreement was a negotiating process; Saratoga would be negotiating with other cities from an untenable position if a mandate were received favoring interchanges. Secondly, now the Council was hearing that other aspects of the Agreement were not acceptable to Saratogans; placing any part of the Agreement on the ballot was not the answer. Councilmember Anderson noted that the Freeway Agreement was a compromise document; it was evident that parts of the Agreement did not satisfy everyone. She cited the Council's efforts to Secure the best possible agreement for Saratoga. The inability to have a fully depressed freeway was a disappointment; however, it was important to have no interchanges. Saratoga Ave., a-residential area, was the only section of an at-grade freeway; having no interchange at this location was the only way to mitigate impacts. Furthermore, a senior citizen complex was proposed for a site adjacent to the Route 85 corridor. She felt that a ballot measure would be a contested election item as well as an expensive item; citizens would provide clear direction in June by voting for candidates who represented their views on the issue. Further consideration of a ballot measure could be given after the June elections if necessary. The Council required the freedom to negotiate with other cities as needed; she was opposed to consideration of other issues for a ballot measure and noted that referendums did not mean that the Council could successfully negotiate such items. ~ Councilmember Moyles reviewed the incidents surrounding the decision to place Measure B on the ballot two years ago; Council had established the precedent of placing this item on the. ballot. It was vital that Saratogans be asked; not to place this item on the ballot was to infer that opinions of the people were unimportant. Councilmember Hlava felt that the Freeway Agreement negotiated was a good agreement; she noted surprise at the number of individuals who seemed dissatisfied with it. She added that individuals who felt that they held the majority view, wished to place the item on the ballot; however, such did not necessarily indicate that they were indeed a majority. There were some issues where there was no alternative to asking individuals what they thought. Route 85 and now, the question of interchanges were so dlvisive that a decision would not be accepted by the dissenting vote unless the issue were placed on the ballot. Those most opposed to a freeway nonetheless felt that if there was to be a freeway, they wished access; thus, the public needed to be asked. She reviewed recent events, including the traffic study , commissioned by the City of San Jose to assess impacts of half interchanges at ProspeCt Ave. and Qulto Rd. A ballot measure would have to be carefully worded. Mayor Peterson noted the dfffxculty of the issue under consideration. He strongly favored placing the item on the ballot in order to hear citizen input; such was fundamental to the demo- eratic process. However, other parts of the Freeway Agreement had been resolved; the ..... freeway was voted on, negotiated and would be built. He was not favorable to giving a choice of various interchanges; he wished to know whether voters favored an interchange or not. Councilmember Moyles a~ked that the item be agendlzed with additional public noticing; he suggested that the public be asked to address Alternative 1 of the Staff Report. Councilmember Hlava suggested that the public be asked which location they preferred. Councilmember Anderson felt the Council should decide on the location of an interchange. Councilmember. Cleyenger thought that the question should be whether citizens approved the interchange agreement worked out by the Council; if the answer were no, the Council would have the latitude to make further decisions on interchanges. Mayor Peterson favored the Alternative 1 of the Staff Report. Consensus reached to place on the agenda of the April 20, 1988, Meeting of the City Council. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 MARCH 16, 1988 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Appeal of denial of request for modifications to approved plans to relocate the house and garage, modify the roof pitch, revise the rear elevations and install landscaping for · a new two-story home at 14230 Paul Ave. (DR-87-048.1) (Appellant/applicant, F. Barnett/D. Cunningham) (Continued from March 2, 1988) Planning Director Hsia presented the Memorandum of March 16, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:00 P.M. Ms. Janet Harris, Chairwoman of the Planning CommiSsion, commented as follows: Felt it her duty as Chair of the Planning Commission to inform the Council that some information contained in the packet was incorrect · Cited the Comminee-of-the-Whole Minutes of January 19, 1988, Items of Discussion: ~ The above were not Minutes; there was no review nor approval by the Commission ~ Such contributed tothe difficult communications between the Council and Commission Cited the following changes she felt were required ~Fourth paragraph to read, "After a question by the Chair as to the purpose of the Study Session, City Attorney Toppel instructed the Committee to give the applicant guidance regarding mitigation measures which could be agreed upon by both parties." ~ Fifth paragraph to read, "The majority of the Committee gave their views on the project and generally agreed that the pitch of the roof did not substantially increase the wew impact to the Bevans property." ~ The Planning Commission did not say the pitch of the roof was acceptable; Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of January 13, 1988, cited ~ Add paragraph to end, "The Chair explained to the Applicant that as one member of the -~ ; Commission, she would not be supporting the Application for modification because it did not address the roof pitch which had made the house too tall, bulky and boxy in appearance to be compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Guch stated that her comments that evening in no way suggested that she would support an application for modifications. She had only addressed mitigations that would be mutually agreeable as they had been instructed to do by the City Attomey." January 13th Minutes, fourth paragraph from end, word "unless" indicated that the pur- pose of a Study Session was to see if mutually acceptable mitigations could be agreed on : In same Minutes, second paragraph from end seemed to indicate that the Applicant would not be agreeable to changing the structure; thus the Commission had not discussed such. · - Staff emphasized in the Commission's comments that the modified structure did not look like the structure approved; while such was wue, the Commission had also expressed dismay at the Public Hearings that the roof pitch greatly altered the look of the house There were ways the house could be modified, i.e., lowering roof piwh, reducing height and square footage; such 'Would have achieved the design approved by the C. onvaissj. on; Applicants chose other modifications. Ms. Virginia Fanelli, Representing the Appellant/applicant, commented as follows: Her client understood the content of the Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting as Staff had · ' Suggested that these Minutes be disregarded in their en~cty Presented a plot plan to clarify the foliowing issues: - What appeared to be a rectangular parcel was in fact a parallelogram shape ........... Such caused the confusion in numbers ~ Original setback of southwest comer was 25 ft; northeast comer was 30 ft setback ~ House was only moved 6 ft. to the rear, not 8 ft; rear yard was 73-78 ft. History of Application reviewed; issues were privacy/view and compliance Slides were presented showing the design approved and the existing modified structure: Finished floors of both designs were exactly the same Neighbor contending that his view was more obswucted by a 2-12 roof than by a 5-12 pitch; in fact, the opposite was true. 15 ft. trees would mitigate any remaining impact. With respect to compliance: changes were made only with Staff approval To determine whether substantial compliance was achieved, Findings of the original approval were reviewed (Exhibit B, February 10, 1988 Meeting) House met required Findings and was in substantial compliance with approval granted Applicant agreed to some privacy mitigations: obscure glass on second story windows, reduction of balcony to 2 ft., installing landscape screening (trees) and a 6 ft. fence Project was in substantial compliance wi~b tS~ plans 0~nally approved and with the Findings made August 12, 1987; Approval was requested MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 MARCH 16, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to Councilmember Moyles' question regarding assessment of responsibility in determining slope of the lot, Ms. Fanelli stated that she did not know. Plans were drawn up and appmved on the basis of the lot being flat; however, a topographic map drawn up showed the fail of the property. Ms. Karen Tucker, Planning Commissioner, noted for the record the following: - Her objections to this Application when initially presented due to the size of the house - With respect to the Study Session, it was her understanding that the purpose was to aid the differing parties in coming to some agreement; no decisions were made by the Commission - At the February 10th Commission Meeting, she understood that the modified plans were to be viewed as if new plans were be presented to be judged 'on its merits Mr..Jerry Bevans, 14231 Springer Ave., Saratoga, read a prepared statement and presented cardboard cutouts of the orlginai design and the modified design. He commented as follows: - As demonstrated, there were two different structures -First floor level of the originai design would have had to be at-grade in' order to allow a 5-12 pitch and still adhere to the 24 1/2 height limitation - Some grading or other type of footing would have had to be done - · Living platforms had been raised; such discussed at the January 19th Study Session - Working from the 24 1/2 height down to locate the placement of the building platforms; properly located they would have prevented any privacy impacts Building height 24 ft. 3 in. not 23 fie. 6 in. as stated; thus living platforms have been raised View impact: since sides of the house were raised approximately 4 1/2 fie. a tremendous amount of view had been lost. Furthermore, such correlated exactly with the skyline/view of the Mountains House as designed added up to '27 fie. Councilmember Clevenger confumed with the speaker that the house approved by the Com- mission would not fit according to the t6pographicai map drawn up; Mr. Bevans responded that the former Building Inspector for the City has concluded the same. The Planning Director stated that the error was not discovered during the Plan Check. Mr. Be~ans continued as follows: Report to the Planning Commission of August l2th stated that the hip roof was one of the design features that minimized bulk and brought the house into conformity With existing homes on Paul Ave. Reviewed the history of the Application Requested that the Council support the deuision of the Commission on February 10th, rejecting the Appeai and mandate that structures be located and constructed as approved Resident at 14221 Paul Ave., Saratoga, spoke for Mr. Jeffrey Frfincis and commented: · - Had no problem with construction of the house; design was atwaetive - Builder planned to live in one of the homes demonstrating commitment to the community - Asked that construction proceed according to the previously approved plan Ms. Pat Wait, 20446 Chaiet Ln., Saratoga, did not feel that privacy impacts resulted from adjacent two story homes in her neighborhood; the house in question was an asset to Paul Ave. Mr.Dwight Perkins, 20720 4th Street, Saratoga, commented as follows: Was favorable to the house in question Was concerned in that the Applicant received Staff approvai for modifications ' Was concerned regarding the potentiai for a lawsuit and possible cost to the City Mr. Tom McKenna, 14256 Springer Ave., Saratoga, cited the following concerns: Restrictions were placed on the house due to lot size and proposed size of the house and were intended to improve the neighborhood - Non-compliance with Commission's directives would result in a hodgepodge of designs · - Objected to the Applicanf s arrogance in continuing to build a house not approved Noted the concerns surrounding the bulk and style of the house from the beginning MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 MARCH 16, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Rich Deignan, 14291 Springer Ave., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Favored denim of the modification on the house Purpose was to restore the structure to the size and height approved by the Commission Objected to a statement that the house was compatible with existing homes within 500 ft. The tree in question was now removed and a driveway installed in its place Mr. George Wallington, 14250 Springer Ave., Saratoga, commented as follows: - f Felt that the movement of any structure 6 t. could not be played down Dynamic nature of decisions: he expressed concern that changes were made after approval ' Objected to allowing changes due to costs of restoring su'uctures to original approval MS. Maria Kovacs, 13280 Paul Ave., Saratoga, commented as follows: Incident in question was much ado about nothing; cited the previous condition of the lot These hearings discouraged others froni making improvements to their homes Felt that a privacy issue no longer existed Noted that there was not much view to be lost, namely, the top of ~ees Felt that the question of roof pitch was not significant Ms. Margaret Sherrill, 14290 Paul Ave., Saratoga, commented as follows: Favored the decision made by the Planning Commission Strongly opposed the modifications requested Cited her letter to the Commission objecting to the square footage requested on this lot Felt the AppliCant should not have assumed that the Commission would approve plans Could not understand how the slope of the lot was overlooked Allowing modifications requested would set precedent for increasingly large houses Objected to reducing the size of the garage and leaving the house as built Ms.. Eileen Fitzgerald, 14231 Springer Ave., Saratoga, noted that many lots in this area con- mined cottage-like homes; she asked that the Council suppor~ the Commission's decision. Mr. Charles Masters, Saratoga, commented as follows: Felt that the Staff was correct in working with the builder to make certain modifications Substantial compliance had been achieved If Staff couldn't make any decisions, then the Commission would have to make them - In that case, Commissioners would have to understand the building process Cited a personal example of a modification requested Strongly supported the Applicant's request and felt that such was in substantial .compliance Ms. Fanelli summarized as follows: Despite comments to the contrary, floor levels were not changed Only the amount of fotmdatior~ under the floor level was increased August 12th Commission Minutes refer to the covered porch as an architectural element; the hip roof was not mentioned Foundation was not poured before the Building Department had signed off the plans ' Original and modified plans had the same size of house (garage was reduced) Applicant did not continue to build when the Building Inspector noted a problem The house was Within the building envdopeeven with the 6 ft. relocation of the structure City had encouraged site improvements in this area of the City -- Nothing was done except what the Applicant believed was in compliance with approvals; nothing had been done which altered the original body of the Commission's approval HLAVA/ANDERSON MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:19 P.M. Passed 5-0. The City Engineer responding to questions, stated that there had not been substantial grading on site; he confirmed that the slope would have been apparent when .the lot was cleared. Lowering the house "into the slope" was not a recommended practice in construction. Ms. Fanelli noted that Saratoga did not measure the same way many cities did; it was possible that a professional in construction/building could have been unknoWledgeable of such. An error should have been detected at the building plan check. The building process was reviewed; she added that it was not until the top of the rust floor was constructed did it become evident to the City Building Inspector that the house would not fit. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page· 8 MARCH 16, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The City Engineer stated that it was up to the Applicant to combine the top0graphical map and building plans to meet City Ordinances; it was possible that during a Plan Check, this process was overlooked. However, the burden was not on the Plan Checker to design the house. Councilmember Hlava commented that the major issues were: Substantial Compliance: she concurred with the'Commission that the modified house was not in substantial compliance with plans originally approved; however, such did not necessarily mean that the Applicant, who had Staff approval forthe modifications should be required to remove portions of the house Privacy Impacts: Mr. Bevans suffered some privacy impacts; however, these impacts were no.different than those experienced from any two story house adjacent to a single story. Privacy impacts were not affected by the 6 ft. relocation of the Applieant's house; nonethe- less some mitigations were called for. BuMCompatibility: Noted concerns regarding inffil lots and Compared this Application with a previous application for an infdl lot; the Cunningham lot was 25% larger with a 46% larger house. Such indicated that the original approval was for too large a house even with a reduction in the garage (which is counted in total square footage). Findings were made for the original approval; the modified house was less square footage. She questioned how the Council-could fail to accept the original approval and would not asked that the Applicant tear down the house down when Staff approval had been granted. Other than mitigating privacy impacts, there were not many alternatives. Mayor Peterson commented as follows: Summarized the history of this Application A 6 ft. relocation of the house did not change the bulk nor compatibility · The question of bulk and compatibility with existing neighborhoods would continue in older neighborhoods for the next ten to twenty years While the modified roof line did appear boxy, such was not a significant problem This situation would not set a precedent House did not require and variances and met the setback requirements Would approve the modified house with significant mitigation measures imposed Councilmember Moyles commented as follows: Noted his reluctance to attempt design review; however, approval of the Application required Findings to be made, namely, that the modified plan was compatible · Noted that two deviations occurred: - The house was moved back; however, moving the house forward Was not a solution. The answer was to require mitigation of privacy impacts ~ The roof pitch was changed, making the structure taller;, the Finding could not be made since such created excessive bulk. He suggested the Application be returned to the ' ' Commission for determination on lowering the house through modification of the roof ,- The Council wished to encourage individuals to improve their homes; however, standards would not be lowered or disregarded to accomplish such Councilmember Anderson concurred that while the City wished to improve lots, such did not require that unacceptable projects be appmved; thus, a comparison of the formerly vacant lot' with the present situation was not being considered. The problem seemed to be that Applicants felt that with Staff approval they had final approval; however, it was understandable that they would proceed with the construction of the house upon receiving such approval. The issue was appearance of the house; something must be done to the roof since the house now appeared boxy and created a perception of bulk. She questioned how a structure in excess of 3,000 sq. ft. could have been considered a "cottage." Consideration must be given to standards for substandard lots; in this case the house and an adjacent one made the end of the street appear bulky. Mr. Bevans had in fact, two houses which impacted ,his privacy. From the standpoint of privacy impacts, Mr. Bevans had not been damaged solely by the house in question. From the standpoint of height, the house was better situated with respect to Paul Ave. having been moved 6 ft. to the rear. Further consideration of grading could have been done; now, landscaping would have to be installed to mitigate the height of the house. She asked that the roof be modified and suggested design alternatives. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page MARCH 16, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Clevenger commented as follows: Noted her efforts on the Council to secure funding for improvement of the Paul Ave. area Situation in question was an example of the City process gone awry Felt that substantial compliance with the original approval had not been achieved Concurred with other Councilmembers that the house should not be taken down Favored modifications that would improve the appearance of the roof Favored mitigation of privacy impacts Measures were being taken to insure that a simi/ar incident would not occur HLAVA/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF MODIFICATION OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 25 FT. TO 37 FT., MODIFICATION OF REAR ELEVATION OF THE HOUSE, REDUCING THE SIZE OF THE BALCONY FROM 8 FT. BY 6 FT. TO 3 FT. BY 6 FT. AND BY COVERING BEDROOM AND BATHROOM WINDOWS WITH ETCHED OR OPAQUE GLASS AND ADDING LANDSCAPE SCREENING TO THE REAR YARD TO M/TIGATE PRIVACY IMPACTS. Passed 5-0. MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED THAT DESIGN OF THE ROOF BE REMANDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW. Passed Break: 11:10 - 11:23 P.M. Councilmember Moyles noted that either opaque or etched glass could be used in response to conversation with the Applicant during the break. Secondly, he asked that the Applicant not be required to return to Council after the review by the Commission for modification of the roof. Consensus reached that the Applicant did not have to reappear before the Council after having reached agreement with the Commission regarding modification of the roof design. The Mayor returned to New Business: D. Improvements on Azule Park Site Resolution 2429.11 Item 7. D. heard in deference to individuals waiting for the Item. Councilmember Clevenger stepped down at 11:27 P.M. due to a potential conflict of interest. · City Engineer recommended Council authorize improvements of Geleta Ave. park frontage: 1) Installation of curb and gutter at this time and 2) Street widening in accord with the time schedule of the maintenance management program HLAVA/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF REQUEST TO ADVANCE FUNDS TO BE REIMBURSED BY LIGHT AND LANDSCAPING DISTRICT IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,400 AND $30,000 IN SIDEWALK REPAIR AND PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT. Passed 4-0-1, Councilmember Clevenger abstaining. % HLAVA/MOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2429.11 INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDING THE 1988 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET. Passed 4-0-1, · · Councilmember Clevenger abstaining. B. Publicity for upcoming hearings - Sign Ordinance; Subdivision Map Ordinance; .... Bowman Appeal ' HLAVA/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PUBLICITY FOR UPCOMING HEARINGS. Passed 5-0. C. Sheriffs Contract for Services and Appropriations Resolution 2429.10 The City Manager provided additional information per request of Councilmembers. Councilmember Clevenger noted concern regarding the 15% increase in cost. HLAVA/CLEVENGER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR EXECUTE THE AGREE- MENT FOR SHERIFFS SERVICE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AND TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2429.10 AMENDING THE 1987-89 BUDGET PROGRAM PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE PROTECTION-GENERAL CONTRACTURAL SERVICES ( 1011-4510) FROM $1,207,096 TO $1,273,374 AND REDI/CfNG THE GENERAL FUND RESERVE 1~¥ $(;6,278. Passed 5-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 10 MARCH 16, 1988 NEW BUSINESS Continued E. Request for City Financial Assistance to complete Regional Hazardous Wasie Management Plah City Manager reviewed Report of March 16, 1988, anddiscussed Findings and Conclusions. Councilmember Hlava questioned the additional $100,000 needed to complete the plan and secondly, ff such were required, what would be the fair way to divide the increased costs. Consensus reached to accept the City Manager's recommendation that the direct benefit portion should be reduced to no more than 20% with 80% being charged on a hazardous Waste generation basis. F. Curbside Recycling Proposal from Green Valley Disposal Community Services Director Argow reviewed the Report of March 16, 1988. Mr. Gerard Win, Green Valley Disposal, provided information requested and presented ~hotographs of Councilmembers and Staff who participated in recycling day. Consensus reached that the Community Services Director pursue negotiations with Green Valley Disposal's proposal to operate a curbside recycling service on a regional basis. G. Review of Phase 11I T2000 Plan - Implementation Strategy t-ILAVA/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1) HOLDING A STUDY SESSION APRIL 12, 1988, TO REVIEW T2000 PHASE III SUMMARY REPORT WITH T2000 STAFF AND 2) TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO PREPARE A REPORT FOR THE APRIL 6, 1988, CITY COUNCIL MEETING.. Passed 5-0. Mayor Peterson proceeded to Public Hearings. B. Ordinance amending and adding certain sections of the City Code relating to modifications of building plans and development conditions (first reading) The City Attomey reviewed the Report of March 16, 1988. Councilmember Hlava asked that the Ordinance amendment be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. City Attomey Toppel responded that the document had been sent to the Commission, however, they had been no Meeting since in order to discuss such. The Public Heating was opened at 12:01 A.M. There Were no speakers. HLAVA/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO APRIL 20, 1988, REFERRING THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT. Passed 5-0. C. Ordinance amending Sections 6-10.060 of the City Code concerning the posting of notice of persons responsible for maintenance of alarm systems (fast reading) The City Attorney reviewed the Report of March 16, 1988. The Public Heating was opened at 12:06 A. M. There were no speakers. MOYLES/HLAVA MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AT 12:06 A.M. Passed 5-0. MOYLES/HLAVA MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECHON 6- 10.060 OF THE CITY CODE CONCERNING NOTICE OF PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF ALARM SYSTEMS. Passed 5-0. D. Ordinance amending Art. 11-05 of the City Code to prohibit use of skateboards in certain areas of public parks and to designate violation of park regulation as infraction offenses (furst reading) The City Attorney reviewed the Report of March 16, 1988. Councilmember Hlava objected to the inclusion of parks in the Ordinance amendment. Children had very few places to skateboard; pro. Ldbifions cncotlraged skateboarding in the street. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL. Page MARCH 16, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The Public Hearing was opened at 12:10 A.M. There were no speakers. HLAVA/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 12:10 A.M. Passed 5-0. HLAVA MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 11-05.030 TO PROHIBIT USE OF SKATEBOARDS IN CERTAIN AREAS AND AMENDING SECTION 11-05.070 OF THE CITY CODE TO DESIGNATE VIOLATIONS OF PARK REGULATIONS AS INFRACTION OFFENSES WITH DELETION OF THE WORDS "ROADWAY," "PARKWAY" AND "PARKING AREA." There was no second. MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 11-05.030 TO PROHIBIT USE OF SKATEBOARDS IN CERTAIN AREAS AND AMENDING SECTION 11-05.070 OF THE CITY CODE TO DESIGNATE VIOLATIONS OF PARK REGULATIONS AS INFRACTION OFFENSES. Passed 4-1, Councilmember Hlava dissenting. E. Ordinance making technical amendments to the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Plumbing Code and adopting the 1987 edition of the National Electrical Code (first reading) The City Attorney reviewed the Report of March 16, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 12:13 P.M. There were no speakers. HLAVA/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AT 12:13 P.M. Passed 5-0 HLAVAJCLEVENGER MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 16-15.070 CONCERNING PREPARATION OF BUILDING SITES, AMEND- ING SECTION 16-15.080 CONCERNING UNDERFLOOR CLEARANCE, REPEALING SECTION 16-25.040 CONCERNING1 SIZE OF DRAINAGE PIPE, AND AMENDING ARTICLE 16-35 TO ADOPT THE 1987 EDITION OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE. Passed 5-0. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 12:16 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. March 22, 1988, for a Joint Session with the Planning Commission. Res Ctfully submitted, Carol A. Probst-Caughey ...... Recording Secretary