Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-06-1989 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL DATE: Wedl esday, September 6, 1989 - 7:30 EM. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ' I 1. Roll Ca!l: Mayor Clevenger, Councilfi~embers Anderson, Moyles, Stutzman present at 7:35 P.M.; Councilmember Peterson absent. 2. CEREM 3NIAL ITEMS: None. 3. ROUTI? IE MATTERS: A. Appro zal of Minutes: Meeting of August 2, August 8, and August 22, 1989 ANDERSON/S'] UTZMAN MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 2, AUGUST 8, AND AUGUST 22, 1989, AS PRESENTED. Passed 4-0. B. Appro!al of W~trrant List: ANDERSON/MOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF THE WARRANT LIST Passed 4-0. C. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant o Go ernment Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on t v. September 1, 1989 D. Mayor Clevenger asked to have the Country Squire Ln. resurfacing project placed on the agenda; she stated she had been contacted by residents of the area with their concerns. Councilmember Moyles noted for the record that the urgency was to have the question resolved in time to have the r~urfacing completed as scheduled. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO PLACE THE COUNTRY SQUIRE LN. RESURFAC- ING PROJECT ON THE AGENDA UNDER NEW BUSINESS. Passed 4-0. · 4. CONSEl lT CALENDAR: A. Plannit Commission Actions, August 9 and August~a, 1989, - Noted and flied. B, Herita~ Preservation Commission Minutes, July 12, 1989, - Noted and filed. C. Public Safety Commission Minutes, August 14, 1989, - Noted and filed. D. Library] Commission Minutes, August 23, 1989, - Noted and filed. E. Ordina!ce 71.66 Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Article l5-19 and other related CitY Code s.eLctions to implement the Saratoga Village Plan and to review certain regulations pertaining to the commercial zoning districts', the application also involves the rezoning of certain Village properties in accordance with the Village Plan and approval of the NegatixJe Declaration. (Second reading and adoption) ............................. ~ _...; 2~.L C.~nc~rning Ylacement of Garbage Containers at Curb-sille for Trash Collection. (Second reading and adoption) G. Resolution 2591 authorizing Destruction of Certain City Records H. Resolution 2592 upholding Planning Commission Decision approving Odd Fellows Use Pehnit ( Appeal heard August 2, 1989) I. Contra!t for Geotechnical Services - William Cotton and Associates J. Third [ · Amendment to Hakone Foundation Trust Agreement MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL c__ Page 2 SEPTEMBER 6, 1989 · CONSENT CALENDAR COntinued K. Est blish ent of yearly Rate for Hakone Goxc].ens Care~:nker/Securj_L-y A].].ovro. nce 25 L. Resolution 36-B-238 Final Acceptance, Tr. 7928 andRelease of bond, Miljevich Dr. (Developer, D. COffey) M. _Proclamation concerning Fire Prevention Week N. Proclama.ti0n concerning Rideshare Week O. Proclamation concerning National Stamp COllecting Month P. Proclamation Proclaiming the Weekof October 30 to November 5, 1989, as "Celebrate Saratoga Week" Q. Resolution MV-186 approving stop sign installation on Lutheria Way at La Paloma Avenue and on Oak PI. at La Paloma Avenue. R. Resolution-MV-187 approving stop sign installation on Ravenwood Dr. at Montpere Way. S. Resolution 2575.3 adjusting budget for HCDA Reallocations ($10,450) T. Resolution 2575.4 adjusting budget for Chamber of COmmerce ($7,000) U. Resolution 2575.5 adjusting budget for Skateboard Ramp ($10,000) V. Treasurer's Report - June, 1989 W. Investment Report - June, July, 1989 X. Financial Report - June, 1989 MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT CA! ~F. NDAR. Passed 4-0. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR II - CLAIMS: A. Claim of Halstead concerning replacement of clothing allegedly damaged by paint at Saratoga COmmunity Library ANDERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO DENY THE CLAIM OF HALSTEAD AND REFER TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR SETTLEMENT..Passed 4-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC: A. Oral COmmunications from the Public and COmmissions COl. E. T. Barco, Camino Barco, presented a statement concerning a series of Sunday Brunches he held for certain high school students and elected government officials; he objected to a directive that Staff could not take applications for participation in these events and brought the issue to the City COuncil prior to asking the Saratoga News to print a retraction to a portion of their story. Mayor Clevenger responded that the COuncil would consider this Item under City COuncil Items; she invited COl. Barco to contact a' Councilmember tomorrow, if he could not stay for the discussion. Ms. Margaret Shetrill, 14290 Paul Ave., Sar~to~ .... ~-'~+~d a serie~ nf ?;""'r'~ :in ~nl:i.~in~tlnn of · addressing the City Council at their September 2~0thMeeting. Mr. Alan Rosenus, 20621 Lomita Ave., Saratoga, noted the number of heritage Oaks in the City which were in danger of perishing. He specifically cited the condition of the "Pronger Oak" and suggested consideration of an "adopt" a heritage tree program and noted citizen's interest in such. Mayor Clevenger stated she was favorable to consideration of this request as an agendized item. Councilmember Moyles noted his concern for the preservation of the heritage trees. In years past, similar considerations by the City Council during the budget hearings resulted in a Tree Master Plan; such could be incorporated with Mr. Rosenus' proposal to "adopt" a heritage tree. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 SEPTEMBER 6, 1989 COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Continued Consensus reached to direct Staff to prepare a report on this item and agendize it for consideration. Mr. Stan Bogosian, 20630 Lomita Ave., Saratoga, concurred with the above comments. Mr. John Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Dr., Saratoga, asked to comment on Consent Calendar Item E. He noted that an 8 ft. masonry foot between abutting residential and commercial uses was required to mitigate~the significant problems encountered; such included fumes from diesel trucks, noise from barking dogs at a veterinary clinic and serious crimes. A 6 ft. fence was insufficient; initial negotiations with the commercial property owner were not successful. The City Manager noted that only in certain areas of the City was a fence in excess of 6 ft. in height allowed; a variance application would have to be made in the instance cited. Mr. John W. Oliver, P.O.729 Mendocino, 95460, (Commercial Property Owner) asked to address the issue raised; Mayor Clevenger responded that the issue would have to be agendized. The City Manager added that the regulations enacted in Consent Calendar Item E. would only apply to future development and modifications to existing uses; there was nothing in the Ordinance enacted to require a property owner to retrofit an existing use. The Planning Director reviewed the considerations of the Planning Commission in a similar instance where commercial and residential uses abutted; a requirement to install retaining walls and/ or appropriate landscaping was devised to address on-going problems. It was his understanding that the implementation of this requirement could be expanded to apply to existing conditions. Mayor Clevenger stated that the issue would be considered under City Council Items of the agenda. 1) Update of Strategic Plan for Measure A Program (Will Kempton, Traffic Authority) Mr. Will Kempton, Santa Clara County Traffic Authority, presented copies of the Draft Santa Clara County Highway Progam: 1989 Strategic Plan; he discrinsed the project's status, including the going to bid for the construction phase, revenue/cost increases and the June 1990 Trans- portation Initiative. He reviewed the success of the Measure A Program and the schedule for the adoption of the Draft Report. Mayor Clevenger asked that the Draft Report, Page2--la the term, "at grade" be inserted in the reference to the Saratoga Ave. interchange. Councilmember Anderson commented that "at grade" meant a zero to five foot difference in height; such should be referenced in the document. Mr. Kempton responded that the appropriate wording could be devised to include these requests. Mayor Clevenger asked that the sound walls in the area of Saratoga Ave. be as high as possible (14 ft.) since there would be no mitigation of the noise. Mr. Kempton responded that there was some difficulty meeting this request; a noise attenuation standard higher than that required by State or Federal guidelines was being provided; however, a review of this request could be done. All along the Route 85 Corridor, there were situations similar to this one. Mayor Clevenger requested information on the status of the Southern Pacific Railway. Mr. Kempton responded that he was familiar with problems associated with a possible relocation of the railway; however, the Traffic Authority was not actively considering a purchase of the railway, due to the anticipated cost of such an alternative. Mayor Clevenger asked about the possible revision of the Cox Ave. overcrossing; Mr. Kempton responded that various considerations had been entertained. The Traffic Authority was concerned about the costs, the aesthetics of the overcrossing and the community's feelings on this issue. structure itself. However, this was a very large, 48 inch line and incorporation of such was not done anyplace else in the State; this alternative had been eliminated. In addition, a separate structure to carry the water lines proved to be much more expensive than the original design proposed, which placed the water lines under the freeway. Utility companies regularly used this configuration. Mayor Clevenger asked whether a letter addressing the Highway 17/Route 85 interchange should be sent to the Traffic Authority as recently done by the City of Campbell. MEETING OF THE CITY COLFNCIL Page 4 SEPTEMBER 6, 1989 COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Continued Mr. Kempton responded that the Traffic Authority was beginning to see that a l "staged construc- tion" option was not a particularly good idea; subsequently, the Traffic Study showed some very negative impacts to the Town of Los Gatos, City of San Jose neighborhoods, as well as to the City of Saratoga, from such an approach. In addition, the absence of north bound ramps at Winchester Ave. had a negative impact on Saratoga and the cities to the west of Highway 17. Incorporation of these ramps was important and the funds to do so were budgeted. He suggested that Council- member Mbyles was already addressing these concerns; a letter was not necessary at this time. Councilmember Anderson noted the sound walls appeared about two feet higher than anticipated; the City Manager responded that correspondence had been sent addressing the inconsistency noted. Mr. Kempton added that Conceptual Design Plans required confirmation that they accurately re- flected the Noise Study, since the Study was the vehicle used to determine the attenuation required. Councilmember Stutzman reported on a recent field trip sponsored by the Flood Control District; District personnel were surprised that the freeway would be depressed through the Calabazas Creek area; construction of a freeway through a flood plain area violated State standards. Mr. Kempton stated that the flood plain started at about Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. and moved easterly toward Rodeo Creek; there was a portion of the depressed freeway under Prospect Rd. that had some flood control considerations. The Traffic Authority proposed a Conceptual Plan that included drainage; the Water District would have to be consulted as to the adequacy of the Plan. However, to say that the Water District was not aware of the discussions surrounding the Route 85 Corridor was difficult to believe; he had worked closely with Mr. Carlson of the Water District. Councilmember Stutzman responded that a flood control map showed the flood plain to be more extensive than the City had been led to believe; he asked that Mr. Kempton work out the details. Mayor Clevenger suggested a study session be held as discussions with adjacent cities were completed; consensus reached that this study session would be held in early October. B. Written Communications from the Public - None. The Council proceexted to Public Hearings. 8. PUBLIC BEARINGS: A. Appeal of denial of variance approval to exceed the allowable floor area to construct an 897 Sq.ft. poolside caband at 15243 Montalvo Heights Ct. in the R-1-40,000 zone district, where the existing home currently exceeds the maximum allowed floor area by 980 sq. ft. (V 89-016) (Applicant/appellant, Noller)' Planning Director Emslie presented the Memorandum dated September 6, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:52 P.M. Ms. Virginia Fanelli, Representing the Applicant/appeliant, commented as follows: Introduced the Applicants and the Project Designer and reviewed the history of the project Clarified that the cabana measured 828 sq. ft. plus 81 sq. ft. for the pool equipment housing (total 909 sq. ft.); a proposed 9 ft. retaining wall was changed to two walls of 5 ft. and 4.5 ft. - The sole request of the Applicants was to construct a cabaria with four enclosed walls; this was a common amenity found in this area of the City - A cabana was important since the kitchen and bathrooms were orientated to the front of the home; it would be inconvenient to enjoy the full use of the rear yard without such accommodations - The plan designed for the rear yard area was of great beauty and imagination; it almost com- .I pletely concealed the caOana in the hillside ' ~ - The proposed structure would be compatible with the slope of the hill and appear to be a continuation of the hill, covering the roof of the cabana - Neither of the adjacent neighbors objected to the request and the surrounding residents had signed a petition in favor of granting the Variance requested - There was no negative comment by the Planning Commission on the design; the failed 4-3 vote reflected their difficulty making the Findings; Applicants believed the Findings could be made - A statement entitled Proposed Finding: Noller Variarlce, V-89-016 was presented and discussed - Noted that this Application was similar to that of the Prolo's in that this was a unique area of the City, i.e. the lots and the homes were very large and were built individually with many of them having accessory accommodations ~ MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 SEPTEMBER 6, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Fanelli, Representing the Applicant/appellant, continued her comments as follows: - This Application was also like the Prolo's Application in that this was an existing home which under today's rules already exceeded the allowable square footage; any intent to enlarge the structure or to add amenities to the yard required a variance application - As with the Prolo's, granting a Variance would not create a precedent throughout the entire City The combination of the continuous slope with the design proposed provided a unique physical aspect to the lot; furthermore, the cabana was well separated from the main structure and would not contribute to the perception of mass and bulk All other features of the rear yard area were approved by the City and were in the process of being completed; to complete the plan and to allow the owners the same use of their property as enjoyed by their neighbors, approval of the Variance was requested Ms. Patricia Mozelene, 25223 Montalvo Heights Ct., Saratoga, confirmed she had seen the plans which would not impact her property at all; the cabaria would be an asset to the area. The resident of 15065 Montalvo Heights Rd., Saratoga, had no objection to the request and wel- comed the project proposed. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:57 P.M. Councilmember Anderson commended the amicable agreement reached with the neighbors regard- ing this project. This Item reminded her of the Needham Application and she had no difficulty mak- ing a Finding that "a strict or literal interpretation of the zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship..." In addition, the neighborhood would not be im- patted by this request; she could appreciate the difficulty of accessing kitchen or bathroom facilities due to the particular design of this home; a certain physical hardship would result from a denial of the request. Once the structure was built, it was not so important whether or not walls were added. This was a special and unique location in the City; large homes, cabanas and pool/recreation areas were common in the Montalvo. Thus the request would not be a grant of special privilege; rather, it was the natural outcome of living in this area of the City. She concluded that she could make the necessary Findings to grant the Appeal. Councilmember Moyles agreed with Councilmember Anderson's comments; the Design Review Ordinance, cited in reference to in this Application, was one he had not been especially enthusiastic about although he voted in favor of it. However, it was his recollection that the genesis' of the Ordinance was not intended to apply to Applications of this kind; the Council was not worried about accessory structures as much as the main structure. A variance procedure was developed in anticipation of dispensing exceptions to the rule; he had no difficulty with three of the Findings made by the Planning Commission in their failed Motion to approve this Application. He could make the necessary Findings. Councilmember Stutzman stated that this was one site that had to be viewed in order to understand the situation; Planning Commissioners who visited the site approved the Application. This subdi- vision pre-dated the current Ordinance requirements. The home to the north of the subject property has 6715 eq. ft. and the home to the south has 6930 sq. ft., with a 446 sq. ft. cabana; the Noller home was the smaller of the three. Furthermore, the property to the rear was the twenty-three acre Notre Dame Provincialate which would probably not be developed; if it were developed, structures would not be in close proximity to the subject site due to the deep gully adjacent to the rear, border fence. The problem arose in 1986 when the Planning Commission allowed structures larger than the recommended amount; the City was now left with this residual problem. Insofar as the perception of bulk was concerned, there was no sense of the cabana's size since it would be set into the hillside and would enhance the appearance of the back yard much more than detract from it. A lack of completion of this structure would leave a void in the overall appearance; the Planu~i, be built, rather than a 60 ft. setback. Finally, there were elderly parents residing in the Noller home; it was much more pleasant and preserved the peace and quiet to have accommodations for the pool side activities away from the main structure with its private rooms. This was a substantial element for the health and welfare of this family. The fact that the neighbors had no complaint was a positive factor; this was a unique development and he would uphold the Appeal. Mayor Clevenger agreed with the other Councilmembers; there was nothing further to add. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 SEPTEMBER 6, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED TO GRANT THE APPEAL ON V-89-016, OVERTURNING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND MAKING THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: THAT THE LOT CONFIGURATION DOES PRESENT AN EXCEPTIONAL PHYSICAL CIRCUMSTANCE; THE REAR YARD IS GREATER IN WIDTH THAN DEPTH. SET- TING A RECREATION AREA INTO THE SLOPE WAS ONE WAY TO UTILIZE THE SITE. THAT A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE DOES RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY BECAUSE ACCESSING A BATHROOM THROUGH AN- OTHER'S PRIVATE AREA WAS A RECOGNIZED HARDSHIP IN THE CIVILIZED WORLD. THAT GRANTING A VARIANCE WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A GRANT OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE GIVEN THE CHARACTER OF THE MONTALVO AREA, THE SIZE OF HOMES AND THE AMENYHES ENJOYED BY OTHERS IN THIS AREA. Passed 4-0. B. Ordinance amending Section 16-06.090 of the City Code defining the term "basement" and amending Section 15-45.060 concerning design review and approval of the Negative Declaration The City Attorney presented the Memorandum Re: Definition of Basement (AZO-89-002). Councilmember Stutzman noted that prohibiting a direct means of access between the exterior of a structure and a basement may result in a hazard if an earthquake, fire or other emergency occurred. The Planning Director responded that their concern was that basements were not calculated in the allowable square footage; there were a number of creative ways used by architects and designers to define a structure as a basement. Such contributed to the mass and bulk of a house. Councilmember Stutzman asked why basements were not calculated as allowable square footage. The City Attorney responded that such originated with the Design Review Ordinance when bulk and appearance were under consideration; basements defined as being below grade and not visible, were not counted on the principle that such did not contribute to the mass and bulk of a structure. Nonetheless it could be used as living area. The City Manager added that he shared some of Councilmember Stutzman's concerns and had some reservations regarding the administrative aspects of the proposed Ordinance. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:14 P.M. There were no speakers. The Public Hearing was then closed. Per questions of the Council, Staff clarified the definition of a basement and applicable require- merits of the Uniform Building Code. The Planning Director added that the proposed Ordinance was specifically designed to prevent the use of second, false wall with din placed between the two walls in order that the structure be considered as below grade. Mayor Anderson noted that the intensification of use crea~ed by basements had not been addressed. The Planning Director responded that the Ordinance would enable the Planning Department to in- elude this consideration in Design Review, which would be heard by the Planning Commission. The City Manager wished to further explore the reason for a prohibition on a direct means of access between the exterior of a structure and the basement; per the above discussion, a basement · by definition was five to six feet underground and thus, precluded direct access. The Planning Director responded that the proposed Ordinance was an attempt to clarify the question. The City Attorney added that the physical situation he envisioned, was a room below grade wi!h one wall that could be graded out. · '~'~it; 21~:~',i~:hasi~' ~,uggeited that by requiring an exterior access,-there ~vould be f~we: ~; -~. ~ :;:.,i ;-,~ .... Consensus reached tO refer the proposed Ordinance back to Staff for reconsideration. Break: 9;25 -9:37 EM. C. Ordinance amending the Building Code to provide for mandatory pre-occupancy inspection for all non-residential uses and a voluntary inspection for residential uses Chief Building Inspector Oncay presented the Report Re: Requirement for Occupancy Inspection Upon Change of Ownership or Change of Use, dated September 6, 1989. He confirmed that the Real Estate industry had been consulted and their suggestions incorporated in the document. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 SEPTEMBER 6, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Anderson stated that she wished to ensure that persons purchasing a single family residence in the City would be informed that a pre-occupancy inspection service was available. There was no such provision in the Ordinance Amendment proposed. Mr Oncay agreed there was no provision requiring a disclosure; however, if adopted, implementing the Ordinance would include presentations to the local Boards of Realtors and informing the press of the service. The Public-Hearing was opened at 9:50 EM. Mr. Jeffrey Johns, Representing the Los Gatos - Saratoga Board of Realtors, stated that while the Board had not taken a formal position on the Ordinance Amendment, they were not as opposed to it as they had been when a transfer disclosure statement was required. The program under consid- eration was much more favorable; however, one continuing concern centered on advertising for potential buyers. Contract agreements clearly stated that a potential buyer could not contract with a local city and/or agency to have an inspection done without the seller's written permission. Secondly, with respect to the term "single-family" there were alternatives to the typical dwelling; the term "residential" many be more appropriate. The City Attorney responded that language could be added to clarify the latter point. Staff intended the phrase "single-family" to include not only typical single-family dwellings, but also, townhouse and condominium units; however, an owner of a multi-family building with rental units would not be excluded from a mandatory inspection. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:56 EM. Councilmember Moyles continued to have reservations regarding the Amendment. Generally, he preferred to abide by the principle that less government was better; this was a situation where he concluded that an expanded governmental role was not required; the need had not been demon- strated. He doubted the cost estimates presented and was concerned regarding the City's exposure and potential liability; Staff would be inevitably drawn into disputes. Finally, he was extremely skeptical about the belief that Staff could accommodate this additional task unaided; it was only a matter of time before the Council would be petitioned for an increase in personnel. While he recently supported Staff growth, he did not support this request and wished to consolidate the existing Staff and improve performance. Mr. Oncay reiterated that present projections did not indicate additional Staff were needed; how- ever, it was difficult to predict since the City did not have knowledge of the number of times a home was bought and sold. He felt the cost would be recovered and, if a Staff shortage occurred, the fee charged would cover a part-time person. He did not see the need for a full-time person. Per r~uest of Mayor Clevenger, Mr. Johns estimated that 20-30 homesa non'~n sold in the Ssratoga area, buta-number of these were'new structures. 'Mr~ Oncay estimated that an inspection wf~ld take ~ and one-half hours. Per Councilmember Stutzman's question, the City Manager responded that mandatory pre- occupancy inspections should be instituted for commercial properties; there had to be a mechanism in place to carry out the State's mandate. While most of the single units were probably receiving this service or the equivalent, he felt the procedure under consideration was more efficient and pos- sibly, less expensive for the seller of a property, than the current situation. While the fee schedule would be different, the work load would not be incre.ased. Mayor Clevenger stated she was in favor of this requirement because it was a service to residents and potential residents of the City. Councilmember Anderson agreed. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE ADDING ARTICLE 16-71 TO THE CITY CODE CONCERNING OCCUPANCY INSPECTIONS BY TITLE ONLY, :T, klVING ............... ~-". ' ...... ' "' ' ""~' '~" TIIE TEP,~! "SINGLE-FAMILY" AND INSERT "RESIDENTIAL". Passed 3-1, Councilmember Moyles dissenting D. Ordinance adding Article 15-22 to the City Code to establish a CS: Community Service overlay district and approval of the Negative Declaration. The purpose of the Communi- ty Service Overlay district is to establish regulations and standards for certain conditional uses that may not otherwise be adequately controlled by the regulations of the underlying zoning district (AZO 88-008) MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 8 SEPTEMBER 6, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Planning Director Emslie presented the Report Re: Establishment of Community Service Overlay District, dated September 6, 1989. The City Manager added that the Ordinance Amendment allowed the city to determine whether a particular site, currently not in an institutional use, was suitable for such given the surrounding neighborhood; while a quasi-public use was an established land use under the General Plan, the City had not created a quasi-public zoning designation. Councilmember Moyles noted that a number of existing uses may be troubled by this proposal with respect to any intensification of use; he asked that the concept of grandfathering a use be clarified. The City Manager responded that the concept related to the physical structures and the use to which these facilities were put; he noted the example of the Hansen School site. If an Overlay District was adopted, the City could identify the established uses and change the designation of all of them at one time; however, such would not have to be done immediately. The City Attorney added that the existing uses were already Conditional Uses; if an expansion of services or operations were desired, a modification of the Use Permit was already required, In response to Councilmember Anderson's question, the City Manager confirmed that neither the fees or the process would be changed for the existing uses. The Public Hearing was .opened at 10:35 P.M. Ms.~Peggy Cocker, Attorney for the Odd Fellows, commented as follows: - Odd Fellows supported the C-S Community Service Overlay and looked forward to the appli- cation of the C-S Overlay to their property - However a few objections and concerns were outstanding which centered on the Development Standards and were viewed as too restrictive - .~tpresent, the Planning Commission had the authority to modify these Standards as needed - Asked that these Standards be modified at this stage rather than flooding the Planning Commis- sion with requests for modifications to the Development Standards at the Use Permit stage - The three Development Standards considered too restrictive were as follows: - Allowable Floor Area: the Odd Fellows had developed a Preliminary Master Plan for the reno- vation of their facilities; this Plan was within the allowable floor area - Because the Plan was preliminary and because the Zoning Ordinance was applied City-wide, they asked that the allowable floor area be increased to approximately 30% - In addition, a 30% Allowable Floor Area was akin to other citiesDevelopment Standards - Site Coverage was also considered too restrictive. The Odd Fellows Preliminary Master Plan approximated the 50% site coverage; however, they wished more flexibility for development - .The project on the former Paul Masson site was at 60%; they asked the same for this Ordinance - As defined in Saratoga's Ordinance, site coverage included walkways, plazas, other imper- vious surfaces including garden patios; often plazas and patios were more akin to landscaping - Building Height: they did not object to the building height proposed; however, they had a roblem with the limitation on the number of stories and asked that three stories be allowed - ~o long as the height limitation was met, what did it matter whether there was two or three stories - mayo, con rn w,,h he,ght, espec,a,,y' ' ' ever, the Odd Fellows had been reassured by the City Attorney regarding the grandfather clause - They still wished to see the Ordinance contain provisions regarding the ability of property owners to renovate or replace existing structures Mr. Bob Barton, Odd Fellows Project Consultant, concurred with the above comments. Mr. Ronald R. Cook, 19263 Brockton Ln., Saratoga, stated that many religious, fraternal, recre-. ational and public institutions were located on property that had been historically zoned for resi- dential use, and operated under Conditional Use Permits. While.t?_.: _";-i~,: protecting ~residential neighborhoods and the rights of these property owners, there was no com- pa~ble zoning district that provided equal land use protection for institutional uses; this created both a conceptual and a legal problem. In order to eliminate confusion, a list of land users and uses should be spelled out in the proposed Ordinance. Finally, it appeared that some provisions of the Draft Ordinance were too restrictive. A review of churches showed that most could not conform to a 50% site coverage; 60% site coverage seemed more appropriate. Secondly, a higher Floor Area Ratio was needed for any institutional use with a two-story building. In addition, a review of the height restriction was required; often bell towers, steeples and the like were exempted from height limitations. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 9 SEPTEMBER 6, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Barbara Jackson, 19396 DeHavilland Dr., Saratoga, noted an alarming discrepancy in the site coverage of churches, which provided buildings and parking lots for their members. Unlike schools, playing fields were not required. She had concerns that if a church wished to add to, or enlarge their facilities, more land would have to be purchased in order to accommodate growth. Mr. Bert Toevs, Representing Saint Andrews Episcopal Church, commented as follows: If their existing structure were ever lost, they could not rebuild the church under this Ordinance Cited Section 15-22.040 (g) Conditional Uses and noted that when a recreational field was in- stalled on-site the, y were required to made it available for community use; under the proposed rovisions, the community would probably be prohibited from using this field gection 15-22.070 Use Restrictions (a) Hours of operation, (b) Frequency of activity or events, (c) Number of persons involved in the conduct of the use; there was scarcely a day that the Church was not in use by the public; examples of various groups and activities were noted Under terms of the Use Restrictions, the Planning Commission could tell the Church how many persons could attend events; he recommended this Item be referred back to the Commission - A reconsideration was required; in addition, there was no reference to the grandfather clause - When Items of this type were considered, notification should be sent to all interested parties Ms. Bey Bennett, Representing Saint Andrews Episcopal Church, supported the above comments; she felt strongly that if a church could not be in the business of providing facilities and usage for the community at large, there was not much point in having the church. Ms. Peggy Corr, Representing the Foothill Club, stated that they had a number of questions about the proposed Ordinance and its effect on them; she agreed that if they had to rebuild or renovate their structure, they may not be able to do so under the proposed Ordinance provisions. She asked that there be opportunity to discuss this Item at length. Mr. Bob Worley, Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, had similar concerns as already stated. Reverend H. Lawrence Storau, Iramanuel Lutheran Church, noted that the proposed Use Restric- tions would interfere with scheduled religious services, events and activities; a number of examples were cited. They also had concerns regarding future renovations to their buildings. Mr. Mark Canepa, Sacred Heart Catholic Church, seconded the concerns already raised. Ms. Karin Dowdy stated she was concerned regarding the amount of site coverage at Brookside Swim Club; she wished members to have an opportunity to comment on this Item. The Public Hearing was closed at 11:05 P.M. In response to Councilmember Moyles' inquiry, the City Attorney clarified that the amount of site coverage proposed in the Ordinance was greater than that currently allowed' as the City Manager stated, the City did not have regulations orientated to institutional uses. ;/~lXe Use Restrictions, which seemed to be causing concern; were used by way of an example and represented areas of regulations that the Planning Commission already exercised under the Use Permit process. Language could be added to specifically address religious institutions; however, the Ordinance was reduced to its most extreme and absurd application to say that the intent of the Use Restrictions, (a) "Hours of operation" was to prohibit special religious services, i.e., midnight Mass, sunrise Easter Service, or that (c) "Number of persons involved in the conduct of the use" would be used to limit the number of participants in weddings or funerals. He did not believe it was a violation of constitutional rights to impose such regulations; this was an institutional use in a residential zone. In the establishment of these regulations, there would be recognition of the particular use; he re- iterated that under the Use Permit process, the City already could regulate these uses. ~.Councilmember Moyles c.~._'.::: '._. "' ..... ~'~+ .......... ~ . . , ....... -, .-, ~, ...... :-,~a ~ these Ordinance provisions; the record did not reflect the concerns now being raised which showed that the process was incomplete. He was concerned that uses once welcomed in the community were no longer tolerated. The Bed and Breakfast issue was one example where residents were opposed to the continuation of this use; regretfully, this long established use had disappeared. With respect to the issue under consideration, he was concerned that if the existing structure was destroyed or required extensive renovation, such would not be allowed in their present form. He suggested that the Planning Commission be asked to reconsider this Item. Councilmember Anderson also had concerns regarding the site coverage; testimony taken caused her to have reservations about the proposed Ordinance provisions. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page i0 SEPTEMBER 6, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Anderson continued her comments, stating that individual reviews may be re- quired; the Odd Fellows situation was different from that at the former Paul Masson site. Churches varied widely in site coverage; as stated by one speaker, churches provided a structure and parking facilities, both of which were site coverage. She was unsure what would happen to existing structures if they were destroyed or required extensive renovation. In addition, it would be a monumental task to assign numbers to such items as site coverage, building height, etc. Councilmember Stutzman felt that a C-S Community Service Overlay was necessary; however, compromises would have to made. He was very concerned that various institutional uses had not been noticed of the hearing; testimony would have to be taken in order to reach a consensus. This Item should be referred back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. Mayor Clevenger agreed with Councilmember Stutzman; she felt that while some of the concerns raised had been addressed, it was important for everyone to have a change to discuss the issues. ~__ouncilmember Moyles summarized the concerns raised by the Council and members of the public. nseusus reached to refer this Item back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. The Council then reiurned to Old Business. 6. OLD BUSINESS: A. Resolution 2593 upholding and modifying Planning Commission Decision approving Espeseth Project (Appeal heard August 2, 1989) MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2593 UPHOLDING AND MODI- FYING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Passed 4-0. 7. NEW BUSINESS: A. Report on Fire Retardant Roofing Ordinance Chief Building Inspector Oncay presented the Report Re: Fire Retardant Roofing. Councilmember Moyles expressed concerns regarding hazardous roof materials in the Village area. Mayor Clevenger stated that she would not require more than Class C roof coverings, per the ree- ommendation of the Public Safety Commission. MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE ORDINANCE AMEND- ING UNIFORM BUII .DING CODE TO ADOPT MINIMUM CLASS C ROOF COVERING FOR .AI.I.RESIDENTIALBUILDINGSW1THOUT HEIGHT,, SIZE, OCCUPANCY OR SETBACK EXCEPTIONS; ITEM TO BE HEARD OCTOBER 18, 1989. Passed 4-0. B. Nonpoint Source Discharge Evaluation Action Plan Agreement MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO DIRECT THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXE- CUTE AGREEMENT NO. AO866a ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA. Passed 3-0- 1, Councilmember Anderson absent. C. Resolution calling Public Hearing for Underground Utility District #7 MOYLES/STUTZMAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 399.9 SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FORMATION OF AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT--OAK STREET BETWEEN 'SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD AND KOMINA AVENUE; AND SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD BETWEEN. OAK PLACE AND BIG BASIN WAY/ ,i,.~.xA~',_i,~A/i;'Lr4,~,~. · ~,,, - ....... ihn tuber Aiiderson absent. D. Publicity for Upcoming Hearings - Jefferson Appeal Of Velinsky Project Consensus reached to adopt Staff Recommendation for Publicity for Upcoming Hearings. E. ApproVal of Plans and Specifications for Big Basin Way Street Tree Project and Autho- rization for Staff to got to bid The City Manager provided a brief status report on the project. MEETING OF THE C1TY COUNCIL Page 11 SEPTEMBER 6, 1989 NEW BUSINESS Continued MOYLES/STUTZMAN MOVED TO APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR BIG BASIN WAY STREET TREE PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS. Passed 3-0-1, Councilmember Anderson absent. F. Median Project on Route 85 from Big Basin Way to Verde Vista Dr. - Plans and Specifi- cations; Temporary Construction Easements for Kahle and Neale Property The City Manager provided a brief status report on the project. Councilmember Moyles noted his displeasure with project delays in excess of a year's time; he wished the project to be completed in an expeditious manner. MOYLES/CLEVENGER/MOVED TO APPROVE PLANS AND AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS FOR THE SUBJECT PROJECT WHEN ENCROACHMENT PERMYF IS RE- CEIVED FROM CALTRANS AND ALL RIGHT-OF-WAY HAS BEEN OBTAINED. Passed 4-0. G. Request for Special Leave with Pay The City Manager reviewed the Report dated September 6, 1989. STUTZMAN/CLEVENGER MOVED TO DENY REQUEST FOR SPECIAL LEAVE WITH PAY. Passed 4-0. H. Country Squire Lane resurfacing. Mayor Clevenger stated she had been contacted by irate residents of County Squire Ln. regarding the possible aleferment of the resurfacing work scheduled, per the request of one resident. Consensus reached to direct Staff that while noticing of street improvements was to be done, special requests to defer improvements would not be accommodated; the noticing was extended as a courtesy to affected residents. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: A. RepOrt from Individual Councilmembers Councilmember Moyles su ested the Rotary Club be solicited for the purchase of flag brackets; City Manager recommended th~eggC~uncil authorize payment of the $1200. from available City funds. STUTZMAN/MOYLES TO AUTHORIZE THE $1200. FOR THE PURCHASE OF FLAG ~PAC~{ETS AS A PART OF THE BIG BAgIN WAY CAPrEAL Pi~CU'ECT. Passed 4-0. Councilmember Moyles asked that a date be selected for the upcoming hearing on the Utility User's Tax with invitations being extended to interested parties who previously spoke on this Item. Consensus reached that a Public Hearing on the Utility User's Tax be held November 1, 1989; packets to be made available at the City Library, City Hall and the Community Center. Councilmember Moyles remir/ded the Council that Col. Barco's request needed to be addressed. The City Manager stated he had a fundamental objection to private citizens directing Staff or deter- mining the allocation of resources; the Sunday Brunches had no official affiliation with the City. Consensus reached that if phone calls or requests for information were received by the City, Staff would refer any interested parties to Col. Barco, since he was issuing invitations to his home. Mayor Clevenger reported on upcoming events surrounding the Sister City visit. She presented several agencies/events in consideratiG,j. ,~.~: ..... i-:i, Proclali:.:iL~_ 5~'_:.. :'_:',: .C.!i~'~ . ... With respect to Mr. Mallor y's request, Councilmember Moyles noted that the speaker wished to compel an abutting commercial property owner to increase the fence to 8 ft. in height; the Council- member stated he had an opportunity to clarify with him that the approved Consent Calendar Item E. did not enable the City to compel abutting property owners to provide additional mitigations. Consensus reached that Community Service Officers be asked to intervene in activities that were creating a disturbance or Code violations; issue raised to be referred to the Planning Commission. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 12 SEPTEMBER 6, 1989 CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Continued B. Congestion Management Plan - Inclusion as part of the Circulation Element - Oral Report from Councilwoman Anderson (Continued from August 2, 1989) Oral Report to be presented September 20, 1989. C. Designation of Voting Delegate for League of California Cities Annual Conferenee CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO DESIGNATE MAYOR CLEVENGER, COUNCIL- MEMBER STUTZMAN AS DELEGATES FOR THE LEAGUE OF CAI.IFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE. P~ssed 4-0. 10. CLOSED SESSION: closed session on personnel for purpose of the evaluation of the City Manager was postpon~ to another aate, aue to the lateness of the hour. The Meeting of the City Council was aajournea at 12:40 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Carol A. Probst-Caughey