Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-16-1975 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, April 16, 1975 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 .Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Brigham, Corr, Kraus, Matteoni and Bridges Absent: None B. MINUTES Correction: Page 4, Item VT-C, sixth paragraph, add "After additional ~discus~iOn, . it was moved by Councilman Brigh~m that the City Council adopt Mr. Hays' proposed resolution;" I I. BIDS AND CONTRACTS None. I I I. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND FORMAU RESOLUTIONS A. ORDINANCE NO. 60 (First Reading- Introduction) Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Adopting New Subdivision Ordinance Series and Repealing Series NS-5 It was moved by Councilman Kraus and Seconded by Councilman Brigham Ordinalice No. 60 be introduced, the reading waived, .and referred to the Planning Commission for review, with a~ report b .ack in 30 to 45 days. The motion was carried. B. ORDINANCE NO. 38.54.1 (First Reading - Introduction) Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Repealing Ordinance 38.54, Granting Franchise to Communications Systems Corporation The City Manager indicated due to the fact there has been some problem in securing the $75,000 cash bond required by the.City, and also, one amendment by the F.C.C. to the Certi fi cate of Comb 1 i anc~ ~a~d two amendments by the F.C. C~oncerni nq~he ~ franchise agreement, the Ordinance has been drafted for council consideration. In addition, the franchisee 'has had some difficulty in obtaining a loan for financing of the underground facilities. Therefore, it was his recommendation introduction of this ordinance 5e delayed until the next regular meetin to all6w the franchisee an ~t~it~t~t~i~h a reD~esent~i~d~ ~~ves of'~hTC~ t~attemnt Mayor Bridges appointed a sub-comittee of the Council, consisting of Councilman Kraus and Councilwoman Corr, to meet With ~ Ni.sh~mura, Presideht of the!cable television franchise~in an attempt to -i~ron out th~ existing problems prior to the next regular me~ing of the Council on May 7. He directed that a report be forthcoming on the status of this matter at the next meeting.. C. R~SOLUTION NO. 731 Resolution of the City Council of the City of Saratoga Commendin~ Jean Woodward in Bein~ Selected "1974 Citizen of the Year" It was moved by Mayor Bridges and s~conded by Councilwoman Corr Resolution No. 731 be adopted. The motion was carried. D. RESOLUTION NO. MV-95 Resolution Designating Stop Signs at the Intersections of Seagull Way and DeSanka Ave. and Seagull WaN and Goleta Ave.(eas~) It was moved by Councilman Brigha m and seconded by Councilman Kraus ResolutiQn MV-95 be adopted. The motion was carried. IV. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES AND ZONING REQUESTS A. SDR-1100 A. R. WOOLWORTH, BRANDYWINE DRIVE (Cont'd. 4/2/75 & 4/8/75) It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded~by Councilman Brigham the Council. deny the request to modify the Offer to Dedicate Easement form to allow for a' ten-year effective term, and require Mr. Woolworth to submit the appropriate form of dedicati.on for improvement of the Storm drain facilities. The motion was carried. It was then moved by Councilwoman Cor~ and seconded byrCouncilman Brigham the site approval agreement be modified to eliminate condition "Y" requi~ing dedication of a trail easement. The motio'n was carried. B. SDR-1071 WILLIAM PAUL WALTER, FOOTHILL LANE (Cont'd. 11/20/74, ~/25/75 & 3/5/75). The City Manager explained that this matter was referred to the City Attorney at the~M~h~5~t~>~e~:~"'~.~ who has reviewed this entire file a!nd rendered an opinion, dated March 21, 1975. After hearing comments from Mr. Walte~ on this matter, it was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the request for reconsideration of con- ditions on this building site approval be denied. The motion was carried, 4 to 1 in favor, Councilman Bridges in'opposition. "'~Dncilman' M~t~eo~i ,Sugg~t~'T~o~Yl~t~r'al~with this motion, the City should · 6~6~ s~me~s~i~'~_~aL~In~u~:TM~_'S~t.~t~ ~ork.lwi~th Mr. Walter in meeting the'C6ndi~ions of building site approval. The Council concurred with-"~his suggestion. C. SD~-IO07 RALPH PEARSON, EL QUITO'WAY,'I LOT It was moved by Councilman' Kraus and Seconded by Councilman Brigham Resolution' ~SDR-IO07-1, granting Final BuildingSite Approval, be adopted~ The motion was carried. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A~ APPEAL'BY NORMAN J. MARTIN,.12524 MILLERSAVE., ON PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DECISION REGARDING CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING R~IDENCE AT 12545 NORTHAMPTON COURT Coninued on agenda. B. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS - SARATOGA VIELAGE PARKING DISTRICT NO. 2 '~ . Due to the fact the engineer ha~ not been able to complete the engineering drawings for the modified district boundaries, the City Manager recommended the hearing ~e ., opened and then continued to the regular meeting on May 7. This will enable staff to reviewsthe proposed aSSessment spread with proper%y owners prior to the public hearing. The. Mayor opened the public hearing at 8:05 P.M. The~e being.'no ~e~timony from members in the audience, it was moved by Councilman ~righam and seconded by CounCilman Kraus the matter be continued to the next regular meeting of the Council on May 7, 1975. .The motion was carried. A. APPEAL BY NORMAN J. MARTIN, 12524 MILLE~ AVE. ON PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DECISION ~.~.~REGARDING CONVERSION OF AN 'EXISTING RESIDENCE AT 12545 NORTHAMPTON COURT ~' Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director, explained that this application inVoiCes a .i. request which is handled in the form of, a use permit in order to convert an exist- ing one-story residence to a two-story residence. He noted an error in his memo- randum, dated March 28, 1975, which indicates a 31,100 square foot site area, -2- and stated this should be corrected to~reflect 13,100 square feet. Mr. Van Duyn pointed out the proposed site plan for the two-story improvements. He 'stated that the intent of the proposed addition is to allow<~np_~_~nal bedroom and additional study area. Included in the addition Of the southwesterly elevation is a balcgny which projects approximately four feet.i Mr. Van Duyn indicated that a.public hearing on this matter was heldby the Plannning Commission, and in attendance at this meeting were: Mr. Norm Martin, Mr. and Mrs. Stephenson, Mr. Rohner (applicant) and Mr. Warren Heid (architect). Mr. Van Duyn then pointed 'out a map ~'l'i~tr"'~'~'i~g~the existing two-story homes in this area, explaining that the "F""'~i'g~ion indicates those people in the area who have expressed support of this conversion, and the "A" designation indicates those who have expressed opposition to th~sconversion. He ~ndicated that in con- sideration of granting this use permit, there is a provision under the Two-Story Ordinance which allows the Director to deviate some of the provisions of the Two- Story Ordinance, and as the 2% deviation seemed minimal and Within reasonable limits, the Director utilized this authority in granting approval of this use permit. The City Manager indicated there was an item of correspondence from Mr. and Mrs. Jack Stephenson, 19446 Northampton Drive, expressing opposition to granting this ~o~_v~e~j~permit. Mayor Bridges advised that this is a de novo hearing; therefore~'the Council would be permitted to take testimony which was not introduced at the previous public hea~.~g on this issue~ He declared the public hearing open at 8:15 P.M. Mr. Norm Martin, 12524 Miller Ave., addressed the Council and indicated the location of his home on the diagram; and stated the two i~llustrated two-story structures on Miller Avenue were in fact single-s~ory residences. Mr. Martin then read into~h~'~record~h~i'~'~r, dated April 12, 1975, indicating reasons for filing this appeal. Thi~'~r is on file i n ~he City Cl.erk's office. Th6~letter further indicates that the proposed si~e coverage as being 25.8% rather th~the previously indicated 20%, andhe explained his calculation on this. Mr. Martin then presented to the Council two alternative plans for adding on to a single-story structure, and he projected these on the screen. The home on Thelma Avenue had added a bedroom of considerable area onto ohe side of the home. The home on Plymouth Ave. showed a 450~square foot addition in the form of an entrance Court. Mr. Warren Heid, architect for the applicant, addressed the Coundl and commented that the Two-Story Ordinance was set~up to give the City a tool with which to assist in the community, and indicated he didn't feel people should have to move from their homes just to meet theirC~wth requirements. He further indicated that in selecting a plan for this addition he haa t6 take into consideration the neighbor- hood, as well as Mr. Rohner's needs. He conmented that when you get Cd~w~'6'~e~~ question of "Why do you enjoy a ~ome?", you attempt to take into ~onsi~G~aa~' home people are enjoying in ~ neighborhood which they are established, schools, etc. He indicated that it is most important ~hat this family Stays in an environment which their handicapped child is used to. Mr. Heid stated that in looking at this' floor plan, you find you do can do only certain things. He indicated that he~fi~t considered trying to add onto the master bedroom wing, but felt it would make' the other bedrooms unproportional, and it would be difficult to structure. He also took'into consideration Mr. Rohner's financial point of view to avoid going out and buying a new home. Mr. Heid indicated that(hTe~'~ doesn't ~unpos~l~'ldesign a building to go in opposition to the Ordinance, and they have made every attempt to comply with same. The owners found that a master bedroom was within the provisions of the Ordinance and right for their needs. With regard~ to the elevation, the intent here was to provide privacy. He again indicated that the situation was definitely with the'neighborhood in mind, and the neighbor to the south had indicated he.was not opposed to the two-story addition. Mr. Heid sta.ted he could have developed a building within the exact provisions of the Ordinance; however, it would have been a monster. As far as the exteridr of the building,~ Mr. Held indicated it would be in harmony with surrounding homes. He further indicated he ~ha~e~.~his particular plan because he felt he could support this style and layout, and also, because he felt it was the best answer for the overall requirements. He stated that this plan doesn't close off much 6f the view of the trees or the creek as would putting fn a wall.in the back yard. Mrj~H~j~d_i.ndi.cated that this is not just a compromise, but an answer ~i'6F~ (_qould 'suppoEt, and hopefully, the plan could be worked out compatibly for everyone s( ~h~a'('{~eople i~ the neighborhood could find they could live with the prob~m~~ Councilman Kraus asked if the 35-foot setback requirement would be met with this proposed addition. Mr. Heid replied that it would. Councilman Kraus further i'nquired if ~there would be any windows on the north side of the bedroom. Mr. Heid replied that there would be two.vertical windows with glass to allow light only. Mr. Heid indicated that the Planning Di'fector had presented a plan whereby the balcony could be changed to permit a little different exposure to the south, and he would support this; however, it would be very difficult to bring forward over the garage. Mr. Van Duyn co~e~ted ~!s! coverage Computation of 22% after construction or 2% in excess of the maximum coverage 'allowed, indicating that the 22% should re- flect the coverage before construction and it would be 2% above that figure. Councilman Matteoni asked the architect if he were to staynat a one-story elevation, could he extend all the way to 35% coverage? Mr. Van Duyn replied that he could. Mr. Heid explained that the garage is on the lower left side, and you could find 400 square feet in the area near the front entrance; however, the problem is this area would not accommodate what the owner's needs are. He further commented that he felt the architectural treatment shoDlid be of importance here, as the view could be destroyed if he were to stay within the existing walls. He indicated there is a lot of open space to the south because of the large side yard. Mr. James Rohner, 12545 Northampton Court, addressed the Council and commented that Mr. Martin's interpretation of the language of this ordinance is to insure that we protect neighborhoods fromiladVe~se characterTstics of homes, and that is the reason for adoptihg the ordinance. Mr. Rohner indicated they.have d~ne every- thing possible to meet the text of this ordinance. He indicated that they intend to remain a single-~amily residence, and they are trying to protect neighboring properties from invasion of privacy. He felt the interference of view would be very slight, as when they are sitting. in their back yard, they can't see anything beyond a fenceline. Mr. Rohner indicated there are three' two-story homes which circle the end of this court, add_ttwouldbe-compatible with surrounding homes. and would not have an a~F!'_~ ~ect ~oni~he~aestheti c Further, the property values ~6~ldi~'~(d~P~sed by this ad~]'t]D~/"H~']~dl~ti~ they would not be injuring the publicswelfare of the community, they are not in- vading any neighbor~,s privacy, and they are not blocking anyone's light or air or reducing the quality of life by building up a few feet. He further stated that as their trees mature, they are goingto block Mr. Martin's view anyway, and he didn't see this addition to be that much of an intrusion on his view. He indicated the way it is designed now it would se~ate~the,'adults from the children and be of~more convenience to all. Mr. Martin again addressed the Counci~ and read Section 2 of Ordinance NS-3.31, indicating the maximum site area coverage and minimum rear yardsselback requirements. With respect to the other two-story'homes in the neighborhood, Mr. Martin indicated he couldn't even see these homes ~omrwhere he lives, and they are able to view these trees. Mr. Martin further indicated that the patio cover which comes to the'side of his home is approximately ~even to eight-feet high, and the Rohners would be building -4- above that point approximately eight feet, which he felt would be overwhelming for this particular area. Mr. Martin. agreed with Mr. Rohner's comment that a house is to be enjoyed, and he understands wh~ they need this addition; however, he didn't feel a person should try tomake his home more enjoyable at the expense of otherS. ' Mr.'Martin indicated that he participated in the writing of this ordinance, and the very reason'for this ordinance was to protect the neighbors. He felt that it is a different matter when a family moves into an area where there are already existing two-story houses; otherwise ~hey buy with the intention O~bei:~g:'surround~d- by other single-story homes. John Cromm, 12502 Miller Avenue, addressed the Council, con~nenting that when he purchased his home he spent a great deal of time looking for an area with single- story houses. Therefore, he indicated he was very much against this second-story conversion. Mr. Cromn further mentioned the fact that there is no guarantee the~:~ vertical windows which look to the north are not going to get broken. Mr. Heid pointed out that this subdivision was planned.and'approved by' the City to include a percentage of two-story homes, and it was his feeling a major!ty of ,neighbors are in favor of this addition. With regard to Mr. Cromm's statement thattthey chose this area because there,'were no two-story homes, Mr. Heid indicated he woDld have to correct~hi:s statement as there are several two-story homes in th~sare~< " Councilman Matteoni asked if City's failure to notice this public hearingin ample time would-inconveniently prolong Mr. Rohner on this conversion. Mr. ~ohner indicated he would have no objection to delaying this matter to the next ~egu. qre~y~nounc~l Meeting.on ~,y~7....-~- _ . :-~_~-~-~-~=--::~-~=--~-~ I't wa th'Gn ved by Councilma'n'Krau and secohded-by-CounciJwoman-Corr-the:pu61ic h'(aring-be'conti'nued-to-~he-MayL7-~hLeiZty-eounc~l Meetihg., to go out and view this site prior to this time. The mo~t~as' ~i'~d~ ...... ' Recess and Reconve~ne VI. ADMINIST~TIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR 1. Presented letter from Sarah Jane Rose, Pahks and Recpeation Commissioner, advising of her resiggation on the Co~ission. It was moved by.Ma~o~<Bridges and seconded by CoUncilman Kraus the council accept this resignation:Thrill}was carri ~d. - 2. Presented letter from FFank C3awso~-PaFks'and Recreation ComiSsioner, advising of his resignation to the Commission. . ~ It was moved by Mayor Brid~es 'and seconded by Councilman Kraus the Council accept this resignation. The motion was carried.. The Mayor directed the City Manager to advertise for,applicants to fill these ~o vacancies on .the Parks and Recreation Co~ission. B. FINANCE 1. Payment of Claims It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the list of disbursements, 21128 thru 21210, be approved and the Mayor be authorized to sign the warrants. The motion was:carried. 2. City Clerk's Financial Report - Noted and filed. ..' 3. City Treasurer's Report - Noted and filed. -5- C. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Planning Co~nission - Recommendation Re: C-178, Zone 7 ' Ihe~-~City Manager advi's~d't~h~ts~colT~endaCi~n"i~ being Sub.,itt~d Foi- t~,e Counc~l's information, as it would! be relevant to the discussion on the City'~ Zoning. Ordinahce at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on April 22nd. D. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS E. CITY MANAGER '.. 1. Recommendation Re: County of Santa Clara Fire Consolidation Report It was moved. by Councilman Kraus and se6onded by Councilman Brigham that the Council approve the City Manager's recommendation to: 1) Reiterate the position taken in 1973 concerning the consolidated fire service for the city limits of Saratoga providing the highest level of service at the lowest possible cost; 2) support the concept of the study as presented in the report if all of the cities in the County and the fire districts are willing to parti- cipate so that there is a total and an on~ctive study taki!ng into account all available options; and 3) support the study if it is funded .by the County. The motion was carried. 2. Recommendation Re: Report on Clarification Of Federal Aid Urban Program Funds (F.A.U.) The City Manager indicated that ~ccording ~"~e,p~eTent.b~tween the City and the County, a portion of F.AL~U. ";6uld-cd a't -'th City as "washed" Gas Tax monies, and the City Council has gone on record indicating that most of these F.A.U. funds be used for rapid or public transit. However, the Trans- portation Improvement Program to 1980 presents a possible conflict i:n this position.anI(t was,therefore, hi~ recommendation the Council clarify its position on the use of F.A.U. funds for transit programs. He indicated the second issue pertains to eight issue items that have been suggested for comment by the various cities on the Transportation Commission. He asked if the Council wanted to*comment on these items this evening or review them and schedule for discussion at an Adjourned Regular Meeting next week. After discussing this a '%%conded by Councilman Kraus this matter be c~i~6d~'~6~'~j6u~6d'~R~61a~ Meeting on April:22, 1975. The motion was carried. VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN ll! Marilyn White, President, Board of Directors, Los Gatos-Saratoga Symphony, requesting money be budgeted for the Symphony's 1975-76 season. - Referred to .City Mgr's office for consideration durin9 budget discussions. ~22. Mary D. Pitts, President, Saratog~ Chapter of the American Ssociation of Retired Persons. Inc., 19303 Vineyard Lane, expressing gratitude for allowing their association to meet at the Saratoga Community Center - Noted and filed. 3. R.L. Crowther, 20788 Norada Ct. and J. M. Weir, 12343 Arroyo De Arguello, re- questing appeal of Tentative Map Approval on SDR-1037, R.J. Hunger and Associates, Comer Drive. - Council concurred in City Manager's recommendation to continue matter to the regular City Council Meeting on. May 7. City Atty. directed to give opinion re: which ordinance'the City should operate under. -6- 4. Mary Alice Stephen, 12321 Saraglen Drive, commending the City Council .on its ~ consideration of SB~510. - Noted and filed. 5. jack and Oulia~te~hepson, 16446 N~Hamp~on Drive, expres'si~g dppd~i~%ioH to g~anting o~ conversion~per~i,t,a~ ~esidence at 12545 Northampto~ Court..- NOted; included with fi.le-on~th~s matter. "6. ~ William E. Ryder, Director, Administrati'~e Services, City of Cupertino, advising ~ of the City Council's action relativeto changing the name of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road within the.city limits Q~ Cupertino. - Noted and filed. VIII. ADJOU~NMENI It was m6ved by ~ounci!~n Kr~ds and se(onded by CouncilWoman Corr the meeting be adjourhed to Executive Ses%ion. The.motion was carried. I~e meeting was adjourned at 1~:20 P.M. - .... · = spectf bmitted,