Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-01-1978 City Council Minutes MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING TIME: Wednesday, March 1, 1978 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, Calif. TYPE: Regular Meet ing I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Brigham, Corr, Kraus, Matteoni, Bridges Absent: None B. MINUTES Mrs. Cerr noted a correction to page 5, paragraph 3, to refIect .85..acres, rather than 8.5 acres. It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilwoman Corr the minutes of February 15, 1978, be approved as corrected. The motion was carried unanimously. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. COMPOSITION OF CONSENT CALENDAR It was ~6~ed~y Counci.lman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus approval of the Consent Calendar compo- sition. The motion was carried unanimously. B. ITEMS FOR CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Ordinance 38.84, AnOrdinance of the City of Saratoga Amending Chapter 9 of the Saratoga City Code by Establishing a Passenger Loading Zone on Glen Brae Drive (Second Reading) 'R~'~ion 775-2, A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 775-1 Establishing the Compensation for the City Manager of the City of Saratoga (Cont'd. 2/15/78) 3. Ordinance 38.72-2, An Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Amending Chapter 9 of the ~aratoga City Code, which Chapter is Entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic" by Modifying Section 9-203 Relating to Exemptions 4. Agreement with.~Jun R.. Hatoyama and Associates for Plans and Specifications for Improvements at Hakone Gardens (Cont'd. 2/15/78) 5. Payment of Claims It was moved by Councilm~n Kraus and seconded bj Councilman Brigham approval of the items for the Consent Calendar. The motion was carried unanimously. III. BIDS AND CONTRACTS IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION 780-3 A Resolution Altering and Establishing Fee Schedule The City Manager suggested deferring action on this items until item VI-A, relevant to the proposed Grading Ordinance, had been considered. This was agreeable to the Council.' B. RESOLUTION 843 A Resolution Concurring in the Amendment of the Solid Waste Management Plan for Santa Clara County Esltablishin~ an Interim, Counterwide Administrative Structure It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Council- woman Corr Resolution 843 be adopted. The motion was carried unanimously. V. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES~ ZONING REQUESTS A. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TENNIS COURT IN A "PC" DISTRICT AT 14350 TAOS DRIVE, PER ORDINANCE NS-3, SECTION 3.2(h) (Cont'd. 3/15/78) The Mayor acknowledged items df correspondence received relevant to this matter, as follows: Ms.OSusan Browder, 19625 Douglass Lane, expressing opposition to proposed tennis court on Taos Drive. Mrs. No'rm~ E. Norton, 19752 Minocqua Court, in opposition to Dr. Fo~g's use permit appeal. Kornel Spiro, 19753'Minocqua Court, in opposition to Dr. Fong's use permit appeal. R.M. Metcalf', 14150 Douglass Lane, re: tennis court use permits inlSaratoga. Mr. and Mrs. Domenic. Norcia, 14400 Nutwood Lane, in opposition to Dr. Fong's use permit appeal. Ms. Grace Clover, in opposition ~o Dr. Fong's use permit appeal. Rosalie C. Hauer, 19707 DOuglass Lane, in opposition to Dr. Fong's Use permit appeal. Stanley Walker, former Planning Director for the City of Saratoga, outlining background information relevant to the role of the "PC" zoning district in Saratoga at that time. He explained that the Cit~ Att'orney had requested this ma~ter be continued to~.t~i~v&~{~'~o arl~'~'~i~'7~f~rth'~ ~i~W .p'~i~ t~h'~"Co~Cir's'~-~t~k'i~'~-a~.~-i~on.-~ .~ The City Manager commented that his understanding of the City Attorney's opinion on this matter is that based on the amount of land available and the criteria ih~he ordinance f6r siting of the tennis court, Dr. Fong does own this additional one-third acre. However, because the "PC" requires a use permit, there is a different level of consideration in this particular instance. Mayor Bridges explained that the Planning Commission has denied this use permit; however, findings for denying the permit have not been made available. The City Attorney advise~ tha~ the very least the Council should do is to reverse the decision and send the matter back to the Planning Commission for re-hearing, due to the fact findings must accompany the denial. It was therefore, moved by Codncilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham to grant the appeal to be heard, and refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for re-hearing. The motion was carried~4'~oo~f~h~Councilman Matteoni abstaining from the vote. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS (taken.out of order) B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Report from City Council Re: Ordinance NS-3.37 It was moved by Councilman Kraus and s~conded by Council- man%B~r~g_~to direct the staff to draft~e~dm~ts~t~'7~,~TI Plan~eed'~es idential Ordinance ~as recommena[~'ir th~ ~o~, dated February 23, 1978 ~n an i ~o u s 1 y. ~ ~"~' ~ ' ~ ~'~T VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ORDINANCE 38.83 (Second Reading) An Ordinance Amending the Saratoga City Code andS~ecifically Article V Thereof, by Enact. ing New Regulations Governing and (Controlling Excavation and Grading in the City The Mayor acknowledged items of correspondence relevant to this issue, as follows: Russell L. Crowther, 20788. Norada Court, objecting to adoption of the Negative Environmental Declaration for the Northwest Circulation Plan, and also discussing Ordinance No. 38.83. Margaret Warne Monroe, Ironside and Associates/Planning Consultants, re: Ordinance 38.83. The City Manager outlined ordinance, as proposed by Ironsi~n~6~fa~ follows: '~Section.~-40~2 L~t&~(~'~0dified to ~e;ad:-"Any .excavation-which TS ~les~s thanZ_5~O;cnbic ~ards in - 3 - Section 3-40.2, wording modified to read: "No person shall do any grading~ removal of 50 cubic yards of material or more withiX a year without first having obtained the grading permit." Section 3-40.5, add wording:! "After all other grading, 50 to 1,000 cubic yards .of material shall be deemed regular grading." It was further'suggested=the final sentence in Section 3-41 be modified to indicate Section 1-7 "of this code",'for purposes of clarification. The Mayor then opened the public hearing on this matter at 8:07 P.M. There being no further discussion concerning the ordi~.a~n~.e~ at this time, it was moved by ~Councilman(~i~'~f~d~d by Councilman Kraus the public hearing be~'l~'~dT"~eemotion was carried; the public hearing was closed at 8:08 P.M. It was then'moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Matteoni Ordinance No. 38.83 be adopted, as amended, and the reading waived. The motion was carried unanimously. B. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TENNIS COURT WITHIN THE REQUIRED REARYARD SETBACK AT 19199 MONTE VISTA DRIVE, PER ORDINANCE NS-3, SECTION 3.38 Mr. Robinson, Assistant Planning Director~ advised that this item was sent to the Planning Commission on February 8th, at which time the staff had recommended denial. of the-use permit, due to the fact the individual had had opportunit.y to conform to the requirements of the existing tennis court ordinance. The MayOr acknowledged one item of correspondence from Mr. and Mrs. John Mclnerney, indicating support of the appeal by the applicant. The Mayor then opened the pubiic hearing on this matter at 8:12 P.M~ David de Carion, 19199.Monte Vista Drive, addressed the Council. He commented that.according to his landscape architect, there would'be no significant reduction in cut or fill by moving the court over. Further, he commented if it were moved in, this would be going into an area where the poolis, and they would have to fill quite a bit on the downslope side to account for~the rise in elevation from the pool. Mr. de =Carion then presented ~o the Council pictures of the trees which would berequired to be removed if.LH?'~were (t~t~'dct' the tennis court within the required r'~yard s~t~k?~ He advi'sed that the.total lot coverag~.,~900 square feet, and the square footage proposed ~r the~tennis court addition is 5,940. .This totals 9,840 s~'~F~fe~t, and the lot size is 46,7~f'e~~~ p.~!~'?~~2'~e~'~f~hYi~~r~tage. Councilman Matteonilinquired if it is proposed the deck be built around the tree, as indicated in one of the pictures. Mr. de Carion replied that th~s is their plan.. Councilman Matteoni then inqufred what is.the distancelfro~ the uppermost tree to the side of the tennis court. Mr. de Carion replied this would vary, according to which plan one is talking about, and the closest would be about 2 feet~ Councilman Kr~us ~ked h6w many trees would have to be removed. Mr. de Carion replied 5 Qr 6 trees would have to be removed. Stan Winvick, i9174 Panorama Drive, addressed the Council~ He indicated that the ~rees provide advantages forthem -- one is the viSual.screen that they provide, and they provide a sound barrier between the highway and their property. He commented that they are in agreement with the de Carion's that it makes more sense to build a portion of this court within the 15-foot limit than it would to cut down the trees. Councilman Matteoni asked Mr. ~de Cari6n ~hat uses he makes of. the back yard. Mr. de Carion replied that they would mak~ no use at all of the lower portion of the property, which was a corral. Councilman Matteoni asked if the.corral fence' came up the property line. Mr. de Carionresponded that the rear fence of the corral area is the rear property line. Mary Ann Hall, 19231Monte IVista Drive, indicated she is .Very much in favor of overturning the Planning Commission's denial of this use permit. She commented that cutting the trees will result in more noise from the pool, and also, loss of privacy'for both the .~e Carion's and the neighbors. Councilman Kraus indicated he would like to g~ out and look at theirproperty. It wasthen moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham to continue the public hearing to the next regular meeting to allow the Council to visit the site. The motion was carried unanimously. (8:25 P.M.) C. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL BY RESIDENTS OF CARNELIAN GLEN AND DIVIDEND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RE: PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION CONCERNING DESIGN REVIEW CONDITIONS OF PROPOSED RESIDENCE BY LOU IACOMINI, LOT #5, CARNELIAN GLEN Mr. Robinson of the Planning_Staff explained ~ap is a~ alte'~~h~h~iCh was originarly~f~e~te~ by ~h'~ ap~l'i~t"~"whi~'~' ~6b~'eq~ently a~p~oved b~ 'ffh~ ........ Planning Commission. It is the City'Attorney's opinion that' once the City has approved design review, there is another condition that. the Design Review Committee of Dividend Industry must'approve the design, and the matter at hand is that Dividend InduStry and Mr. Iacomini have not come to a r~solutionofthe ~esign. 'Therefore, it is the opinion of the City Attorney the principle matter'is not between the City, but between Dividend Industry and Mr. Iacomini. The City Manager indicated that in the letter,of appeal, it mentions some plans, which were apparently developed after the Planning Commission's action', and these plans 'have not been submitted to the City Couhc{1 as they were not a matter of record to Planning Commission deliberations'. Therefore, if the Council wanted to consider those plans, it would be recommended to hold a de novo hearing, rather than reviewing the matter as it took place at the Planning Commission level. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded lby Councilman Brigham to hold the public hearing this evening, based on the record as submitted by the Planning Commission. The Mayor then opened'the pubIic hearing on this matter at 8:31 P.M. Frank Nicoletti, attorney representing Mr. Iacomini, addressed the Council. He indicated that subsequent to the Planning Commission approving the plans~ and specifications, there still was a conflict With Dividend Industries ~nd the architectural control committee of that tract; however, they have now developed a setof plans which the developer would accept. However, they do not wish to be in violation of anything the City of Saratoga has proposed. Mayor Bridges explaine~ Go Mr. Nidoletti that the Blanning Commission has approved this plan, based on certain criteria. He advised that if he wishes, the applicant can come back and obtain design reviewzappro~al on the new plan. The City Manager suggested that if the contractor and the developer"~ ~design review committee are in agreement on a set of plans, they re-submit their design review request to the Planning Commission. i Dick Oliver, one of the Owners of Dividend DevetS.p~ent Corporation, commented that he believes one of the problems is the order of procedure. It was his suggestion that it would be better if the Planning Commission would stipulate before t~e City would even accept plans, they require evidence that the applicant satisfies the lrequ~rements of the architectural reviewlboardZ. Mayor Bridges indicated this would be saddling the City with powers they were not everintended to have -- that of enforcing C.C.&R.'s. He/SuggeSted Continuing this matter to a Cfty Council Meetin~ in April,' and in the interim, re- submit plans to the Plan~ing Commission. At the request of the applicant, the matter was continued to the April 5th meeting of the Council, with the understanding that plans would be re-sdbmitted to the Planning Commission for consideration on Mardh 22nd. ~V. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RE~OLUTIONS (Cont'd.) · A. RESOLUTION 780-3, ~ttering and Establishin~ Fee Schedule It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilwoman Corr Resolution 780~3 be adopted. The motion was carried unanimously. - 6 - VII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS (Cont'd.) A. C~MAYOR B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS 2. Report from Parks and Recreation Commission Re: Walkway Easement for Pedestrlan/Equdstrian Access - Sobey Meadows Court The City Manager reviewed some background information~on- cerning this easement. He indica.ted that on December 7, 1977, the City Council after holding a public hearing on the request. for abandonment of a walkway easement in Tract 5164, authorized a surveyI~to be completed to identify the exact location of the proposed easement, and requested the Parks and Recreation Commission to review this and develop a plan with the staff to illustrate what might take place if such a trail were to be developed, and then submit this back to the Council within 30 days. Due to inclimate weather, the survey was delayed two weeks He pointed out that in addition to the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission, there is a report from his office supporting the recommendations of the Director of Community Services relevant to the financial aspects of the proposed trail. G. Carlson, Chairman of ~he Parks and R~creation Cormhission, commented that it is the feeling of the Commission that this is an exceptionally important part of the proposed trail system in Saratoga, and therefore recommends that the easement be retained. Further, it was the recommendation o~ the Commission that a specific time limit be established (90 days) from the time a development proposal is accepted, to be given to 4-H, with a request for a~jpropo~al of what portion they would be willing to accept, in .terms of their responsibility. Mr. Carlson indicated that he believes the high maintenance cost associated with this short portion of traillcould be reduced to as much as 80 percent. Mr. Carlson further pointed out without this particular portion of trail there is no loopi~~~'?"~"-~."~~ r r Ba Ua a Sampson, D~rector 9_f_f_JCgmmun~ty Serv~ces,.adv se that after the surveyL~f~f~e 'e~i was completed, the engineering staff andC~'~u~ffft~Services staff went over the area, and there was an initial development.plan calling for aim ost complete creek realignment, which was presented to the Commission at their February 6th meeting. It also called for an 8-foot trail, instead of the current 5-foot trail, which 8-foot trail required a retaining wall on Mr. Hart's property. She advised there is no retaining wall in the current proposed plan. \ Vic Monia, a resident of Granite Way, inquired of the following: 1)How didwe .get from:Z$89,'000 down to $29,000, and then to $10,0007 2) Does_~City h~ve the ;ight to accept the - 7 - The City Attorney advised that if there is a new statute of limitations on this type of an Offer of Dedication, he is unaware of itS; however, he would be happy to research this. Mr. Carlson addressed Mr. Monla's first question regarding the reduction in costs. He explained that the original plan called for channelization of this entire length of creek -- widening, rip-rap, and making a complete new chahnel.through this area. The Parks Commission did not feel it was appro- priate to change the environment to this extent; therefore, there was a significant reduction in the plan. Mayor Bridges commented that he feels there are some liabilities involved with this easement which he.is no~ ~~~~fford. Further, he recalls ~i~ef ~o'Fssi~a~ions 0'f~trail in the Arroyo de Arguello area, which considerations were abandoned due to the tremendous cost in maintaining the trail -- both maintenance and policing.~He further commented he feels there is a tremendous topographical problem on the entrance to the trail; therefore, he questions whether the $29,000 proposal is flushed out enough to make this a viable, usable trail. He asked that the Council take these thoughts into con- sideration at the 'time it takes action on this matter. Councilman Kraus li~~She would like to express his feeling conce=ning this~rail. He indicated he wasn't thinking anywhere near $'5,000, let alone $10,000 for this project.. Further, he commented he has walked the trail several times and was in favor of the trail until the survey was conducted. It was his feeling the City is not in a position to sRend this amount:of money on this kind of endeavor ~'_~ ~ Councilman Brighamindicated he is in favor of the Parks and Recreation Commission's report; ~however, he would like to see a $10,000 limit put onlthe project, and reduce some of the maintenance costs by volunteer help and volunteer policing. Councilwoman Corr commented that she would disagree with respect to puttipg a $10~000 limit on the project, in that this particular piece of trail is so critical that it has to be don.~properly. Also, she would hate to make a commit- ment for spending money on thislparticular 1,000 feet of trail without having looked at the entire trail system and developing priorities. ~She indicated she would like to see some kind of arrangement made Whereby the children could continue to use this easement to go to school. Councilman Matteoni indicate~ he is concerned that the Council has spent a great deai of time on thi~ when it is pushing to come to a qu~ck decision, and inquired how the Council should proceed on this matter at the next meeting,' due to the fact a new Council. will be formulated by that time. The City Mana'ger indicated he sees no problem with the Council indicating its intent this eveninK ~o~w_ey~ d6~ '[~'~ ¼~t'~st%~'~i~f~Ch~'~ft~is beyond the f{~&l' year limitation, if in fact such a condition exists. Gary Hart, 14187 Sobey Meadows Court, commented that Section 2731 of the Subdivision Map Code states that the offer of dedication on this type of easement has to be accepted within a time frame of five (5) years. It was the concensus of the Council.to continue this item for action at the March 15thCity CounCil Meeting. C. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1. Report from Directorof Public Works Re: Status Report on Drainage Probelms in Northwest Portion of Saratoga Mr. Trinidad, Assistant Director of Public Works, reported that it is estimated it will take approximately 120 days to prepare an in-depth hydrological study for this area. This was acceptable to the Council, and a status report will be forthcoming to the Council at the first meeting in July. 2. Report from P~anning.Direc~or Re: Village Task Force Report ~f~). Van Duyn outlined his Comments, as contained in his memorandum dated February 21, 1978, concerning the conclusions of the Village Task Force Report. Mayor Bridges suggested combining items(~through ~ of the report into a "re-design" package. Also, he suggested items 1 through 3 be combined, with'regard to defining. R-M-2,000 in the Village area. Establishment of a bus turn-around and traffic circle at the end of Big Basin Way (item 5) should be considered as a low priority item. Also, item 4, relevant to a new parkingratio, should not be implemented at this time, rather, negotiated on an individual basis. It was the concensus of the Cohncil the item dealing with re-crowning and surfacing Big Basin Way should be given priority with regard to areas of improvement in the Village. Also, the Planning CommiSsion be requested to begin procedure concernihga zoning ordinance to limit 'ZCC" uses to retail only. D. CITY MANAGER 1. Request to~Set Special City Coun~i! Meeting for 5:00 P.M. Tuesday, March 14th, Re: Canvass of March 7th Municipal Election Results It was q~d. 5: 1~ would ~'e"~ ~ref.erable ~:~: ~or t~i~_sp~cial ~eeting. It was~d'b~C~u~lman ' " and ~conded Matteoni by Councilwoman Corr to set Tuesday, March 14th, 5:15 P.M. as the date for the~special meeting to canvass election,~ returns. The motion was carried unanimously. 2. RequeSt to File Late.Claim, Leonard Mark Land It was mo~ed by Councilman Kra~s~'.and seconded by Councilman Brigham this claim be denied, and so indicate to the re- spective attorneys. The motion was carried unanimously. - 9 - VIII. CO~4UNICATIONS A. WRITTEN 1. Mr. Sandy Sa~toriello,' 20802 Norada Court, Re: Ordinance NS-3.37.-'Not~d and filed; City Manager Itol. respond~,. 1 2. Mr. Arnold M..-BaptiS~e, C~airman, Board of Supervisors, Marin Cohnty, 'Re: ABAG Dr~ft Environmental ~anagement Plan. - Noted and filed. 3. Ms. Ethel S. Crockett, California State Librarian, Re: Saratoga.Community Library. Noted and filed. 4. Ms. Dolores Siebert, Kittridge Road, proposin~ a location for the new'Saratoga Post Office. - City Manager to respond, advising of the Counc~l's previous action opposing this!location. 5. Leslie E..Cabe, 18540 Allendale Ave., requesting'the City Council consider establishing a speed limit of 35 miles-per-hour for all~of Allendale A~e. -.City Manager directed to respond, advising that the Council has made previous findings with regard to this matter. 6. Mr. Edward Meagher, president, Northwest Saratog~ Homeowners Association, re: development of property located on the east side of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Referred to Planning:Commission. 7. Petition from residents' of Saratoga re: SoBey Meadows easement. - Noted and filed. B. ORAL C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PUBLIC GROUP REPRESENTATIVES The Mayor acknowledged.the presence of the following group representatives: Jean Hills Good Government Group (coffee hostess) Arnold Loe - Good.Government Group G. CarlSon - Chairman, Parks and. Recreation Commission Ed Gomersall, Parks and Recreation Commission Louise Schaefer - Parks and Recreation CommissiOn Shelley Williams - Planning Commission Linda Ca~lon - Planning Commission Ann Hexamer - Los Gatos-Saratoga A.A.U.W. IX. ADJOURNMENT' It was moved by Councilman K~aus and seconded. by Councilman Brighamthe meeting be adjourned. The ~o.tion was carried; the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 P.M. s ec ~u{-~y~submitted R? ! 10 -