Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-01-1989 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL DATE: Wednesday, March 1, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. Roll Ca!l: Mayor Anderson, Councilmembers Clevenger, Moyles, Peterson, Stutzman present at 7:39 P.M. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: A. Resolution 2547 Appointing Henry Murakami to Finance Advisory Committee CLEVENGERAc'ETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2547 APPOINTING MR. HENRY MURAKAMI TO THE FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Passed 5-0. B. ResolUtion 2548 commending Robert Weiss for service on Finance Advisory Committee PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2548 COMMENDING MR. ROBERT WEISS FOR SERVICE ON THE FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Passed 5-0. C. Resolution 2549 commending Robert Shook for Service as City Engineer PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 25~-9 COMMENDING MR. ROBERT SHOOK FOR SERVICE AS THE C1TY ENGINEER. Passed 5-0. D. Certificates of Commendation for Young Citizens of Saratoga Mayor Anderson presented the Certificates of Commendation to Jason van Over, Jim Van Over and Miles Kihara. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Approval of Minutes: Meeting of February 15, 1989 CLEVENGERfMOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 1989, AS PRESENTED. Passed 5-0. B. ApprovalofWarrantList: PETERSON/MOYLES 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 properly posted on February 24, 1989 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Commission Actions, February 22, 1989, - Noted and filed. ' B'. :' '" U~,.~ic~y-Com~iiission Minutes, February 13, 1989, - Noted and filed. C. Library Commission Minutes, February 22, i989, - Noted and filed. D. Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes, February 17 1989, - Noted and filed. E. Finance Advisory Committee Minutes, February 2, 1989, February 9, 1989, and February 16, 1989, - Noted and filed. F. Ordinance 71.55 making technical modifications to building regulations concerning early warning fire alarms and garage sprinkler systems (second reading and adoption) MEET1NG OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 2 MARCH 1, 1989 CONSENT CALENDAR Continued G. Ordinance 71.56 making minor amendments to various provisions of the Zoning Ordin- ance ( second reading and adoption) H. Final Building Site Approval, SD-88-021, Sobey Rd. (i lot) (Developer, E.Y.Y. Chau) I. Construction Acceptance for UP-87-001 and Release 50% Bond, Saratoga Ave. (Developer, Cypress Properties) J. Final Acceptance of SDR 1290 and Release of Bond, Mt. Eden Rd., (Developer, L. Hulse) K. Final Acceptance of SDR 1530; 18450 and 18470 Sobey Rd., 14269 Quito Rd., (Developer, ButlerJohnson Corp.) L. Authorization to advertise for vacancies on Heritage PreserVation Commission. M. Resolution 2550 authorizing City Manager to purchase Vehicles utilizing Bidding Process and Bids Received by State of California. The City Attorney requested removal of Consent Calendar Item J. CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH REMOVAL OF ITEM J. Passed 5-0. City Attorney asked that the Final Acceptance of SDR 1290, Mt. Eden Rd.,be modified to include a Condition that t he applicant shall have executed a dismissal, MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM J, FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF SDR 1290 AND RELEASE OF BOND, MT. EDEN RD., (DEVELOPER, L. I-ILrLSE), WITH THE ADDED CONDITION THAT "THE APPLICANT SHALL HAVE EXE- CA~UT. ED A DISMISS W 4~116~3I,~E OF LAWSUIT C(2M411XlC"]~ BY THE APPLICANT s ., II,IT 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC: A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions - None. B. Written Communications from the Public 1) Lynne Cali Castagnola, Cali Investments, 14510 Big Basin Way, concerning construc- tion on Big Basin Way Councilmember Clevenger noted that she had worked with West Valley Sanitation District to insure that property owners on Big Basin Way did not have to pay for the installation of the street laterals. Councilmember Moyles added that the improvements were not undertaken by the City nor was Big Basin Way (Highway 9) under the City's jurisdiction. Consensus reached to receive, file and refer communication to West Valley Sanitation District; response from the City to include the above comments. 2) Mike Roos, Speaker Pro Tempore, California Legislature, requesting support for AB 357 and SB 292 The City Manager reviewed the differences in Assembly Bill 357 and the Senate Bill 292. Consensus reached to send a response to State Legislators, reaffirming the City's support of a ban on assault weapons. 3) Richard Mount, Saratoga National Bank, resigning as trustee of Hakone Foundation Consensus reached that Mayor Anderson send a letter of appreciation on behalf of the City; Councilmember Moy]es noted that Hakone Foundation would be recommending nominees. 4) .Dom Richiuso, 19303 Chablis Court, objecting to use of Odd Fellows picnic grounds by outside groups Consensus reached to receive, acknowledge and refer to the Planning Commission. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 MARCH 1, 1989 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Continued 5) Jack Vance, 19363 Athos PI., objecting to possibility of traffic helicopters over Saratoga due to Highway 85 Consensus reached to refer to the City Attorney to determine the City's jurisdiction in this matter. 6) John J. Harmon, 13400 Saratoga Avenue, expressing concerns of residents near Saratoga interchange site Consensus reached to respond with information on the proposed community meeting schedule for an interchange. 7) John English, 20300 Herriman Ave., with concerns about Sheriffs deputies Consensus reached to refer to the Community Services Director. 8) Kim Bloom, 14150 Squirrel Hollow Lane, requesting gathering place for teenagers Consensus reacheft to refer to the Youth Commission. 6. OLD BIJSINESS: A. Ordinance Rezoning 14,100 sq. ft. of developed property at 12764 Saratoga Ave.) from R-l-10,000 to RM 3,000, General Plan PDR (Planned Development Residential) (ZC-88- 002) (Applicant, J. Lohr) (first reading and introduction) MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN TERRITORY W1THIN THE CITY IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 386- 59 .-30 FROM R-l-10,000 TO RIll-3,000. Passed 4-1, Councilmember Peterson dissenting. B. Resolution 2551 affirming and modifying decision on Saviano appeal heard February 15, 1989 (SD-88-006). The City Attorney presented a revised Resolution with a technical correction under 3. (b), g., deleting the term "Ps" and inserting "Pal". CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2551 UPHOLDING AND MODIFYING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Passed 4-1, Councilmember Stutzman dissenting. The Council proceeded to Public Hearings. 8. P',JBLIC HEARINGS: A. Appeal of design review and variance approval to construct a 2,013 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing two-story home at 19841 Glen Una Dr., for a total floor area on the house of 6,822 sq. ft., resulting in a total off 9,362 sq. ft. of floor area on the site (includ- ing the main residence and accessory buildings) exceeding the maximum floor area on the site by 2,342 sq. ft. in the R-1-40,000 zone district (Applicant, Prolo; appellant, Peterson) (DR-88-100; V-88~043) Planning Director Emslie presented the Memorandum to the City Council Re: DR-88-100, V-88-043. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:10 EM. He would abstain from voting despite the City Attorney's opinion that he could do so 9,362 sq. ft. house was too large, especially where 7020 sq. ft. was already allowed Home approved by the Planning Commission set a terrible precedent Noted the City's efforts to revise the Design Review Ordinance and set standards where guide- lines were formerly used; reviewed height requirements and the slope density formula used Cited his,,_ difficulty in making the necessary Variance Findings ff the Variance were granted, square footage would exceed the allowable standard by 33% Reviewed Staff Report Analysis. Size of Structure Concurred with Staff Recommendation to reverse Planning Commission's decision and deny the Variance and Design Review requests; granting this Variance would be a special privilege - Noted that the original Staff Report could not make the necessary Findings MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCE, Page 4 MARCH 1, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Peterson continued as follows: - The size of the existing home, well over 7,000 sq. ft., was not an undue hardship to the Appli- cant, nor would denial deprive the Applicant of the full enjoyment of the home /n addition, there were no unique physical characteristics to the lot With respect to the Design Review Ordinance, he cited Staff Report statement, "The proportion and Tudor design are incompatible with the immediate neighborhood by not being complimen- tary in style to nearby homes; the bulk, mass and Tudor architecture work together to call unnecessary attention to the residence". He would not object to a 400-500 sq. ft. addition if an additional bedioom were needed, but the 'request for an addition 33% in excess of that allowed would set a precedent; such concerned him This represented a policy change in the direction the City Council wished to move Reminded the Council that garages and cottages were counted in the total square footage; he saw no reason to make an exception in this case Cited the City's history and noted the small, low profile homes from twenty or thirty years ago; however, in the 1980's homes became huge; he reviewed efforts to redevelop standards NOted the Parker Ranch development which demonstrated the huge homes built in the 1980's Urged the Council to deny the request for 33% increase over the allowable square footage Ms. Virginia Fanelli, Representing the Applicant, commented as follows: Clarified Staff Reportsstatement that the request was for a 2,013 second story addition; the correct figure was 649 sq. ft. addition on the first floor which was currently a porch area; the second story addition would be 614 sq. ft. Reviewed the background of the Application and the Applicant's current use of the home and cottage; the house did not have a family room or adequate bedrooms for a growing family Staff suggested the Applicant remove the accessory structures or convert such to other uses; either of these options negated the reason the Prolos purchased this home In addition, the accessory structures were quality buildings and were built with permits Immediate neighbors approved the plans - Reviewed the City's method of calculating allowable square footage which differed from a realtor's method of counting square footage - Applicants believed there were special circumstances connected with this Application which made the Variance Findings possible: ~ The main residence as proposed was 6,92/. sq. ft.--within the allowable square footage - Since the accessory structures were well separated from the home, their square footage did not impact the perceived mass and bulk of the main house ~ Glen Una area was comprised of large, irregularly shaped lots with large ranch style homes and was different from the symmetrical ranch style homes in other areas of the City ~ Lot. was surrounded on three sides by streets which buffered it from adjacent properties ~ The only abutting neighbor, well over 100 ft. from the Applicant's house, had only one window facing the property in question ~ There was mature landscaping on all sides of the lot, forming a screen for the home - The lot was fiat and almost twice the size required, the house was setback from the street and due to the angle of the siting, there was no location where the full impact of the house would be seen unless sited from the corner of Glen Una Drive and Sunset Drive - Proposed design changes were compatible with the neighborhood which had diverse styles - Contrary to the Appellant's statement, Staff stated they could make the Design Review Findings if the Variance Findings could be made - Reviewed deliberations of the Planning Commission at two Public Hearings and a Study Session - The Appellant suggested that granting this request for square footage in excess of that allowed would set a precedent and would be a fundamental change in City policy - Contended that design review was a subjective process; attempts to quantify such by a set of' · numbers in fact, shut the door to designs that could be deemed appropriate; such was the experience of the Planning Commission - None of the Commission objected to the proposed addition or the design; dissenting votes were ,-^---. *-. .....,-- --:.,.-:~ e,,,,.,~ .,:n the D"~!-'',~ t,~,;;~;, r~-A ..~-~ ..... - During deliberations, the majority of the Commission stated that their intent in the development of the Ordinance was not to set iron clad numbei's and that there were special circumstances which permitted deviations from the Ordinance requirements - Summarized that there were special physical circumstances which made the granting of a Vari- ance possible as Stated above; Applicants felt the necessary Findings could be made Councilmeniber Moyles asked Ms. Fanelli to connect the aroso]-utlon content of V88-043 o. nd Findings as the Commission made them; other testimony taken while the request was roseate. hod. Mr. Douglas Rolston, 19905 Sunset Dr., Saratoga, felt there would be no impacts to the view or to the neighborhood from the perceived bulk of the Prolo's home. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 MARCH 1, 1989 PUBLIC HEAR/NGS Continued Mr. John McNulty, 15425 Pepper Ln., Saratoga, stated they had almost no windows which overlooked the Prolo's home; they had reviewed the plans and felt that the modifications propo. sed were designed to create minimal impact. Applicants would be filling in the existing impervious coverage; in addition, they would be adding a second story on the existing structure. Mr. Sol Wright, Glen Una Dr., Saratoga, stated he was heartily in favor of this request. Mrs. Wright, Glen Una Dr., Saratoga, stated that they had come from a four story home in the City of San Francisco and people would say to them, "Why do you need all this room?" And she would answer, "What is wrong with space?" She heartily approved the Prolo's request. Ms. Fanelli responding to Councilmember Moyles, reviewed the Commission's discussion of the Findings in relationship to .~ ' ~:he- Resolution for V-88-043. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:40 P.M. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Stutzman commented as follows: Noted that the home in question was a beautiful house; however, architecturally the house was not totally congruous since the upper floor was not in conformity with the ground floor The proposed additions would not encroach any further on the existing pad, so in reality, the mass of the lower portion of the house was not being enlarged The upper floor was useful as a music room, but apart from this, it did not serve family needs His definition of a house did not entirely include consideration of accessory structures; both the guest cottage and the garage were quite removed from the main structure and both were well built The existing garage did not seem compatible with the house; furthermore, if the house were enlarged, making the second floor conform to the geometrical pattern of the first floor, the entire structure would be more harmonious and enhance the beauty of the structure The proposed addition was well designed and approval of such would enhance the value of the property not only for the Prolo's but for the surrounding Glen Una area as well Noted the distinctiveness of the Glen Una area and cited the character and size of existing homes . Did not see how granting the r uest of this Applicant would establish a precedent for the City; the only precedent was that three~ity could grant a variance where such appeared to be indicated Variance had been appropriately applied for, Application requirements were met and the Planning Commission had considered this request In the past, he objected to some of the Planning Commission's Findings, when he felt they had not received proper or authoritative information and their decision was based on misinformation In this case, he felt accurate information was available when the Commission made their decision In addition, there was no dissent from the neighbors; this was a community affair and residents of the area should be able to determine how they wished the area to be The Prolo s were not violating anyone else's rights or views While the huge homes built in the Mt. Eden and Parker Ranch areas did not necessarily enhance the image of Saratoga, this home would enhance its image Concurred with the Planning Commission's decision; to take away their right to grant variances would be to take away one of the best tools they had to work with Councilmember Clevenger commented as follows: Reviewed the historical [~..rspective of events from the summer of 1980 wherein a moratorium was enacted while the question of size of the homes in the City was considered Noted the difficulty of arriving at a standard since what the City wanted was incompatible with the resident's desire; nonetheless a restrictive Design Review Ordinance was adopted Many variances were required due to the restrictivehess of this Ordinance Felt that large houses were a problem when they imposed on existing homes or changed the character of an established neighborhood; residents bought into the charm of a neighborhood ~t ~J~., t,.~lul,i.l.u~./j~. G/. ~.idlz,ru;.,ua~.iiy iratit ihe ~Cigimt,,i,,5,,Cl ....~";' ~t; ~G .'~,.,id such conflicts Felt the current Design Review Ordinance was good and she did not want to relax the standards; however, she did not wish to take away the City's option to grant variances If the City used only the standards set, a computer could determine acceptability of an application -' Felt that the request of the Applicant was compatible with the existing neighborhood; the re- modeled house would not be any more imposing than the ~x2 actja~ah~: horm-~. Agreed with Councilmember Peterson that the numbers were unsettling; however, a site visit and a review of the proposed plans made clear that the addition requested would not make a signifi- cant difference to the neighborhood - This Council action would not set a precedent and would not bind the Council in other cases Would approve the Variance since she felt that such was justified; however, this house would not have been approved as a new application since the square footage was excessive MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 MARCH 1, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Clevenger continued as foilows: - Applicants purchased a property with problems; they had children who needed bedrooms and this proposal was appropriate and reasonable for the lot - In addition, all the neighbors were supportive; she agreed that people in the neighborhood were the best group to determine the appropriate standards for an area Concluded that there were times when it was appropriate to grant a variance for excessive square footage; the Planning Commission had done so for another applicant at their recent meeting Councilmember Moyies commented as follows: Concurred with Councilmember Stutzman in this matter; however, he prefaced his remarks with the observation that the position Councilmember Peterson had taken in this matter was entirely consistent with his philosophy on design review His perspective on land use decisions was somewhat different from Councilmember Peterson He stated he had more ambivalence about government's right or interest in regulating the size of homes and less confidence that design review standards were productive of anything worthwhile Summarized his philosophy on land use as ~perhaps~:raDre ]aissez-faire than others With respect to this Appeal, there was no dispute that the home in question was a large structure; such was the cause for some legitimate concern Noted that the public articulated concerns about "creeping density" at a previous Council meeting Stated he would uphold the Planning Commission's decision in this matter because the Variance Findings had been adequately defended and as Councilmember Stutzman noted, the Commission had accurate information on this Application Mayor Anderson commented as follows: Stated she had reviewed the various variances granted during her tenure on the Council Felt the variance application process was necessary since the application of numerical formulas was not always appropriate; exceptional circumstances existed The Prolo home was large and had large common rooms; however, it also had small bedrooms and few of them for a home of its size; it was a difficult home for a family to move into The property would be greatly improved by having this common design for the entire house and a better proportion of private bedroom areas to public, common areas of the house Noted the special physical circumstances of the house and the lack of objection from neighbors Common thread of her previous approval of variances was the lack of impact on adjacent properties and minimal objection from the neighbors; in this case, no one objected to the request With respect to the structure's intrusiveness, there would be minimal impact; one neighbor abutted the site and this property owner was a considerable distance from the Applicant's house Did not see granting of a Variance as precedent setting; the lot had a number of unique features Concurred with other Councilmembers who would not approve a new house of this size Stated that she would uphold the decision of the Planning Commission Councilmember Moyles noted for the record that he could not rely on the distinction of whether a new house or an existing home were under consideration; such was an artificial distinction. Variances had to stand or fall on their own merits, not on the age of a structure. Secondly. he did not agree with the reliance placed on neighborhood consensus; such was not a con.trolling fact6r in the analysis of an issue. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DR-88-100 AND V-88-043. Passed 4-0-1, Council- member Peterson abstaining. Break: 9:01 - 9:16 P.M. B. Appeal of tentative map approval for two-lot subdivision at 14584 Horseshoe Dr. in the R- 1-20,000 zone district (Applicant, Pierce; appellants, Billner, Kraft, Ladd, Clark) (SD-88- Planning Director Emslie presented the Memorandum dated March 1, 1989. In response to Councilmember Moyles' question, the Planning Director stated that the number of driveways accessing Horseshoe Ct. had not been considered by the Planning Commission; Such would trigger required street improvements. Councilmember Clevenger felt Staff Report on this Item was incomplete; since there had been no response from West Valley Sanitation District, Staff assumed that sewage disposal was available. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 MARCH 1, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Clevenger stated that a Representative of the West Valley Sanitation District informed her that the application was evaluated and a reply sent to the City containing information on the options available for this parcel; this letter was unavailable in the packet. She had concerns whether any other information was missing. The City had not had applications with minimal access roads for several yearsl, - ~ ,~. ' : ..... . ..~ _, She favored referring this Item back to the Planning Commission for review. Councilmember Stutzman asked whether the accuracy of the Tentative Map was in question as stated by the Appellants. The Planning Director responded that the Applicant had now produced a survey stamped by a licensed engineer; Staff felt that the survey had been verified The Public Hearing was opened at 9:27 P.M. Mr. William Clark, Appellant, commented as follows: - Reviewed construction of his home at 14582 Horseshoe Dr. which fronted on Horseshoe Ct. - At that time (1966) there were no drainage problems; noted the existing drainage swale which ran along the north side of his property - In 1975, the road was required to be repaved with construction of a gutter and storm drain to remove runoff from Horseshoe Dr. - During the 1982-83 and 1983-84 winter storms, this storm drainage system was inadequate - The problem was the erosion that was occurring in this area; he felt that to allow another house of about 3,500 sq. ft. with the additional square footage to drain would create further problems Mr. Kersten Kraft, Appellant, commented as follows: - Stated he was the owner of the historic site in this area and the easement named Horseshoe Ct. - His greatest concern was public safety; noted that Horseshoe Ct. served the driveways and pedestrian use by the neighbors; it was dangerous for two cars to pass - Increasing the use of Horseshoe Ct. by adding a home substantially increased the use - Second concern was the nature of the subdivision which he did not consider minor; this proposal would impact the historic building and the rest of the existing neighborhood - Objected to the creation of two R-I-20,000 lots in an area of R-I-40,000 zoning; while he recognized that Horseshoe Dr., was designated R-I-20,000, the new subdivision would not access the R-I-20,000 neighborhood or the road maintained by the City; rather it would access on Horseshoe Ct; such was not in the best interests of the existing neighborhood - Did not object to the subdivision as such; rather he asked that one individual's gain not be put ahead of the existing neighborhood's well being Mr. David Ladd, Appellant, concurred with the above and reiterated concerns about drainage. Ms. Dottie Billnet, Appellant, stated she had purchased their lot for the character of the area, the privacy and the proximity of the historic structure; she was reluctant to see the road widened and improved in order to accommodate six sites. A representative of Mrs. Foster, 14425 Horseshoe Dr., stated that her greatest concern was that if this subdivision were allowed and she later determined to develop an extra parcel of property she owned, she would be financially responsible for the widening and improvement of Horseshoe Ct. Secondly, the drainage crossed her property; further development would impact her site. Mr. George Pierce, Applicant, reviewed the history of the property and noted that his home fronted on Horseshoe Ct.; he added that he had a 50 ft. right-of-way along the extent of his property for an ingress/egress easement and for utilities if required. He wished to subdivide his property since he could no longer maintain it; he added that zoning designations were determined by the City. In response to Councilmember Clevenger's question, the City Attorney stated that the easement referred. tn b,a Mr Pi~'r,'~' r~_n_ wi~b the lnt.. he S,,q..nt-eted !h.~ a~ tl?~ t, in!e,tBe easement was granted,. there was not a determination where the garage WoY/ld biil The deed provided along with me tit e to the lot itself, an easement that covered Horseshoe Ct. and was for the benefit of the existing parcel. However, this easement had no direct bearing on the question before the Council. Mr. William Plimpton commented as follows: Stated he had been retained to design a home if the subdivision were granted Felt the Conditions placed on this Application reflected the fact that the Planning Commission had carefully reviewed this item and its possible impacts Applicants were sensitive to the concerns of neighbors on Horseshoe Ct.; nonetheless they asked that this parcel be zoned R-I-20,000 - Sta~Mem~randum~January25th~statedthatthese~~tswerec~mpatib~ewiththez~ningdistrict MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 8 MARCH 1, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Plimpton continued as follows: Agreed there would be impacts on Horseshoe Ct., but he questioned whether such would be as major as presented, especially if access were brought in along Mr. Pierce's property Noted a deferred improvement agreement between the Horseshoe Ct. residents; such refieeted the concern that any new subdivision be brought into conformity with earlier subdivisions Noted that Horseshoe Ct. could be widened while retaining the rural character of the area Drainage patterns were reviewed; comments of the City Engineer were noted Agreed that some erosion existed; suggested mitigations were reviewed Urged that the Appeal be denied Ms. Jakita Cymbal, Westfall Engineers, stated that the property was not in a designated flood zone nor was the site within the Water District's jurisdiction; there was a watershed of about ten acres. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:07 EM. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Peterson favored remanding this Item back to the Planning Commission per Staff Recommendation. Councilmember Moyles stated he was willing to grant the Appeal; he could not envision the number of homes proposed for Horseshoe Ct. There were already four homes with sole access on Horseshoe Ct., not counting Dr. Kraft's home; six homes on this access would be inappropriate. However, he felt there was a developable lot in the R-1-20,000 zoning district and suggested consideration of a flag lot configuration. Councilmember Clevenger was willing to grant the Appeal due to her strong feelings about the drainage and the fact that she did not wish to see Horseshoe Ct. widened; she noted that the latter would cause the loss of several Oak trees and change the character of the area. Drainage had been a continuing concern in this area. Councilmember Stutzman commented as follows: - Stated he had made a site visit - Had concerns regarding the drainage swale and questioned where the water could be re-routed - In addition, flooding had occurred in the area - .Removal of the existing, dense vegetation would cause further erosion on-site and substantially increase the water runoff - Road widening would cause the loss of several Oaks which would change the area's character - The existing historic house would be impacted by the addition of new homes - Stated he was willing to grant the Appeal Mayor Anderson also had strong feelings regarding this matter; this parcel was unsuitable for a subdivision due to the drainage swale. She had concerns whether routing drainage around the house would be effective; in addition, an R-1-20,000 lot fronting on Horseshoe Ct. would be incompatible with the adjacent R-I-40,000 lots. Finally she did not wish to see the cul-de-sac widened since such would change the character of the neighborhood. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL, OVERTURNING THE - DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON SD-88-015. Passed 4-1, Councilmember Peterson dissenting. Councilmember Peterson stated that while he would probably have voted against the Application, he felt strongly that this item should have been referred back to the Planning Commission for review_. C. Ordinance revising Heritage Preservation Ordinance (first reading and introduction) ~ity'.~,~to;ney review~l the Memorandum of March 1, 1989,' and pr~;~ated ~ ~evised Ordinance.- Th~ Public Hearing was opened at 10:26 EM. There were no speakers. CLEVENGER/STUTZMAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:26 P.M. Passed 5-0. PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS IN CHAPTER 13 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO HERITAGE PRESERVATION AS AMENDED. Passed 5-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 9 MARCH 1, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued D. Ordinance changing minimum site area requirement for MIJ-PD district and changing requirements for issuance of a PD permit (first reading and introduction) The City Attorney presented the Memorandum of March 1, 1989. Councilmember Clevenger noted the desire of the Planning Commission to insure that this Ordin- ance applied only to the Paul Masson site. The City Manager suggested that language in the Zoning Ordinance be amended to require any parcel considered for a similar rezoning be required to prepare a Specific Plan. Councilmember Stutzman agreed that this Ordinance should be specific to the Paul Masson site. The City Attorney stated he did not object to increasing the acreage from 20 to 25 since this was the size of the site until Cal Trans took possession of area needed for the Route 85 corridor; secondly, if there was another parcel in the City that was to be master planned similar to the Paul Masson property, there would be another form of MU-PD zoning. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:27 P.M. There were no speakers. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:27 P.M. Passed 5-0. CLEVENGERfMOYLES MOVED TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 5-0. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY AMENDING SECTION 15-21.030 OF THE CITY CODE CONCERNING THE MINIMUM SITE AREA REQUIREMENT FOR THE MU-PD DISTRICT,, AND AMENDING SECTION 15- 21.150 OF THE CITY CODE CONCERNING ISSUANCE OF A PD PERMIT. Passed 5-0. E. Ordinance eliminating Light Industry zone district in Saratoga (first reading and introduction) The City Attorney presented the Memorandum dated March 1, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:42 P.M. There were no speakers. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:42 P.M. Passed 5-0. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 5-0. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO INTRODUCE AND ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY REPEAl ,ING ARTICLE 15-20 AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO THE LIMITED INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT. Passed 5-0. F. Ordinance establishing limits of authority and proc.~xtures for purchase of certain supplies and services (first reading and introduction) The City Manager presented the Memorandum of March 1, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:48 P.M. There were no speakers. Mayor Anderson then closed the Public Hearing. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY ADD- ING ARTICLE 2-45 TO THE-CI";Y CCZ,,E ~'S. ZZT::Z,'-LZE--~Z Passed 5-0. Mayor Anderson returned to New Business. 7. NEW BUSINESS: A. A~proval of Letter of Intent to LAFCO to amend sphere of influence and urban service area boundaries. Planning Director Emslie presented the Memorandum of February 24, 1989. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 10 MARCH 1, 1989 NEW BUSINESS Continued CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO SEND A "LETTER OF INTENT" TO LAFCO. Passed 5-0. B. Publicity for Upcoming Hearings - Maynard Appeal; Rivoir Appeal Councilmember Clevenger asked that individuals who testified at the last Maynard Appeal be notified of the upcoming hearing. Consensus reached to accept Staff Recommendation on Publicity for Upcoming Hearings with notification of individuals who previously testified on this Item. C. West ValleyCorridor Land Use/Transportation Objectives Consensus reached by the Council to receive and file; request that this matter be agendized at the next West Valley Mayors meeting with councilman Beall and Supervisor McKenna in attendance. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: A. Reports from Individual Councilmembers Councilmember Moyles reported on recent developments concerning Hakone Gardens. Councilmember Clevenger reported on West Valley Sanitation District's project on Big Basin Way. Mayor Anderson repOrted on Transportation 2000 Commission. Consensus reached to appoint Mr. Mills and Mr. Moloney to the Library Commission. B. Discussion of Agenda for March 7th Joint Meeting with Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT; The Meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 11:30 P.M. to Policy Development Conference Ave. Respectfully submitted, / ' C st- u