Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-07-1978 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, June 7, 1978 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, Calif. TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Callon, Corr, Kalb, Kraus Absent: Councilman Matteoni (arrived 11:05 P.M.) B. MINUTES - May 17 Councilwoman Cbrr pointed out a correction on Page 13, item D-3, in which the title should state: Memorial Day ~eremony of Foothill Club. Councilwoman Callon req~uested a modification to item V-B, p~ge 5, final paragraph, to indicate that Councilman Matteoni suggested the Council consider giving some bonus to clustering, rather than including this as part of Councilwoman Callon's motion. 'Councilman Kalb requested wording be modified on Page 7, item VI-B, second paragraph,v=to indicate: " . the City has purposely restricted parking along nearby sections of Allendale in order to make provisions for the traffic " Councilman Kalb pointed out in item VI-C, page ~, ~e CoOncil had included in its motion the condition t~at Dr. Dale improve the flare into his driveway., It was moved by COuncilwoman Cor~r~and seconded by Councilman Kalb to approve the minutes~j~f'May 17, ~I978, as corrected. The motion was carried unanif~b~l~'.' II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. COMiDOSITION OF CONSENT CALENDAR Councilman Kalb requested items 2, 3 and 4 be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered separately. This was acceptable to the other Council members. It was then moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilman Kalb approval of the composition of the COnsent Calendar, with the exception of items 2, 3 and 4. The motion was carried unanimously. B. ITEMS FOR CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Resolution ~.B7-131, Prohibiting Parking of Motor Vehicles on City Property at the Intersection of Cox Avenue and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road * 2. Amendment to Contract with System Development Corporation for Extension of Agreement to October 1, 1978 * 3. Authorization to Call~for Bids - Solar Heating Project - Saratoga Community Library * 4. Resolution 653-4, Setting Forth Environmental Impact Report Criteria and Procedures for Private Land Projects in the City of Saratoga - Amending Resolution No. 653-3 5. Request for July 4th Block Party - Chalet Lane 6. Construction AcceptanCe - Tract 5927, Saratoga Foothills Development Corp., Douglass Lane 7. Final Acceptance - SDR-1247, Wendell and Mary Whitfield, Carniel Drive and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 8. Payment of Claims It was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilman Ka~ approval ~he items fQ~ the Consent Calendar~--wi~F'the ~'~cep~f~n'~f"i~ems 2',"3 a~d 4.~'The motion was carriedunanimously. C. ITEMS CONSIDERED SEPARATELY 2. Amendment to Contract with System Development Corporation {or Extension of A~reement to October f,'1978 3. Authorization to Call for Bids - Solar Heatin5 Project - Saratoga Community Library Councilman Kalb asked if it makes economic sense for the City to pay baqk its. ~hare,R~ ~is p~oj~t.of $~,~Q0~. _ Alsq_, ~e ~%~i~ed h~$~r~_.~'if ~e Ci~ '~dver~ises 'f0F bids~ it' is l~ally'S~ying that we'~-gding to'award th~ ~fd to somebody. He asked if the Council might want to consider transfering these funds until it has evaluated all possible needs for this~roject. The City Manager suggested action be taken on the contract extension this evening. He commented that there is presently work being done on the contract, and believed that the City would experience some, other problems if it ~eqidej.~9 ~.p~%.% .ou~ ~t~ ~hj~s time. ~M~.~p%~e~T~ 'the ~ ~ont~act' ~ith. S/D?C~ technical'~ &~pired i~' J~ne,' and they "ar~'~s~i~If~F'[h~ ~it~s{~{n t~rms of their own in-house operation. However, he agreed action could be delayed concerning authorization to call for bids at this time. It was then moved by Councilman Kalb and seconded by Councilwoman Corr to approve the amendment to the contract with S.D.C. fOr extension to October 1, 1978, and to delay action concerning authorization to call for bids on the solar heating project to the Adjourned Regular Meeting on June 13.. The motion was carried unanimously. 4. Resolution 653-4, Settin Forth Environmental Impact Report Criteria ~nd P~'ocedures~or Private Land Projects in the'~?- City of Saratoga .Coundilman Kalb indicated his question on this item was: "Where does the criteria and procedures for environmental impact reports come from?" He asked if perhaps this shouldn't be a subject for public hearing rather than on the Consent Calendar. The City Attorney explained that this resolution is ~erely a. reiteration of the existing resolution. The input for the base resolution had several hearings two ~ears ago, and thisis merely an update of the California Environmental Quality'Act guidelines, with no procedural changes~rom last year. ~It was th~d~e~ ~y,~Suncrlma~~ Kffl~'dr'~Sffded--by C~uncil~O~an~C~lon ffhe~doption Of Resolution 653-4. . The motion was carried unanimously. III. BIDS AND CONTRACTS IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND FORF~L RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION 856 A Resolution Abandoning Portion of Public Utility Easement, 137~9 Lexington Court It was moved by Councilwoman Gallon and seconded by Councilman Kraus the adoption of Resolution 856. The motion was carried unanimously.. B. RESOLUTION A Resolution of Intention to Vacate and Abandon Easement Tract 5243 (Har'leigh D~ive) ~::'~G~, Di~ect~r:~""~¢lic ~orks, explained that the City Co'fiB~il~i~ ita"rast ~e~llr meeting approved the partial acceptance of the adjacent subdivision, and at that time the Council discussed vacation of a portion of the older easement to conform to the new easement. He advised that a discussion with the City Attorney indicates this does not require a resolution of intention or a public hearing, due to the fact this easement has not been, in continuous use since its acceptance in 1973. He indicated cohnn~nts are being solicitated of the utility companies, and recomrnended Resolution 857 be re-drafted to vacate'the unnecessary portion of the easemenB,~and this be ~ontinued to the next regular Council meeting to allow comments from the utility companies. In addition, for the ~ouncil's consideration this evening is Resolution 36-B-182, which' formalizes'the action at the previous meeting accepting the 20~foot emergency access easement and pedestrian access easement. in Tract 607a. It was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilman Kalb Resolution 857 be re-drafted and '~9_~inued ~o the next regular meeting of June 21st, and that Resolution 36-B-182, A Resolution Accepting Dedication of 20-Foot Emergency Accessi Easement and Pedestrian Access Easement, be adopted. The moti~d was carried unanimously. V. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES, ZONING REQUESTS A. REQUEST BY DAVID A. RITTER TO APPEAL THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CO~ITTEE DENIAL OF THE SECOND ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE SITE APPROVAL ON SDR-1208, FOR ONE LOT 0 N BOHLMAN ROAD Upon the request of the applicant, it was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilwoman Gallon to delay action on this appeal for a period of 30 days. The motion was carried unanimously. 3 B. CONSIDERATION OF REFERRAL FROM SANITATION DISTRICT #4 RE: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION OF RAVINE-LITTLEBROOK ROAD Mayor Kraus acknowledged t~o items of correspondence on this matter frqm: Mr. Arthur Slemmons, Coalition Representative,.r~~ questing that the refe.rra.1 from Sanitation District #4 be continued until after coalition representatives can meet with the City Council. Ms. Ruth Wood, expressing support of the proposed sewer line project in the Ravine Road-Littlebrook area. The City Manager indicated that the Council had considered this matter in April of this year, and one of the concerns expressed following-the Co~un~il's referral back to the District'was that there was not a contiguous connection be- tween where the sanitation line ended, and it was impacting some properties that were not initially directed by that line. According to the Sanitation District's latest proposal, the sewer line runs across the property of one of the proponents who would like to be served, and leaves two properties un- affected by the service which would be able'to hook up at a later time. Councilwoman. Callon asked Mr. Goodman, Manager and Engineer, Sanitation District No. 4 how the City would go about dis- couraging:~h~:D~{~=~'s B'oard from extending this. sewer district. Mr. Goodman replied that the City should indicate t0~the Board that it is not favorable to waivingits request that LAFCO consider its normal policy of annexation to the City before annexation to County Sanitation District No. 4. /~ w~'=~"~o~s~~'of the Council to ~q!~ a stU~y.~ession~~ · ~td '186kv~{~ ~nti~;'iSS~'and~to ~h~se ~r' and' ~ih~t Margaret Marsdon, 2194 Nimrick Lane, San Jose, addressed the Council, indicating that she and her husband own property on Littlebrook Drive. Mrs. Marsdon commented that although she understands it makes sense to look at the whole problem before taking the first step, it is becoming a severe financial strain for them to be put off. She stated that the affect of waiving this annexation to Saratog~ is to permit Sanitation District No. 4 to submit a proposed route for sanitary sewer to LAFCO for existing lots. She further pointed out that sanitary sewer lines are contiguous to the proposed Ravine-Littlebrook area, and 100 percent of the property owners on the proposed sewer route want sanitary sewage disposal and the cost will be borne by the people using the service. Thus, by'.w~iving annexation of nonecontiguous property, Sanitation District' 4 would be able to begin the process of determining the cost and timing for sanitary sewers to the property owners. Following additional consideration by the Council, it was moved by Mayor Kraus and seconded by Councilwoman Callon to schedule this item for discussion at a future C6mmittee of the Whole Meeting, and to notify the various spokesmen when this date is established. i The motion was carried unanimously. 4 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DE NOVO HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF DENIAL OF USE PERMIT FOR TENNIS COURT, ALLEN AND GLADYS FONG, UP-364 (14350 TAOS DRIVE) Without objection, this i~em was continued to follow items B. C and D of public hearings, to allow Councilman Matteoni to participate in the discussion · B. TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION RE:' ll~FOOT VARIANCE FROM REQUIRED 50-FOOT SETBACK FROM POOL TO ALLOW A STABLE/CORRAL TO BE PLACED ON PROPERTY IN AN R-I-40,000 ZONING DISTRICT = .V-487, RODNEY AND SUE JENNINGS, SOBEYROAD Mr. Robinson,' Acting Planning Director,.advised that'ithis matter was before the Planning Commission at its May 10th meeting. The staff and ~arian~ ~Smmitte~~"~itH'~i~rn~i~ ........ location for this stable/corral with a.redu~tion to 385 square feet and slightly different Configuration,lwhich would conform to the required setbacks. H0we~er,-the Planning Commission had recommended denial of this' variance based on'the inability to make the necessary findings. The Mayor opened the p~plic hearing on this matter at 8:26 P.M. Stan Marshall, Planning COmmissioner, addressed the Council. He stated he was oneof the three members of the Variance Committee'that visited the Jennings property.-- they had looked at the property and concluded that the existing non-conforming use could be adopted to tie to the barn. TheKefore, it was recommended to the applicaht that a new plan be developed which would tie the barn to the existing arena. He pointed out that the total impact in this case is swimming pool~ and everything else abo~!~h'~'~afiande '~Ii- '=-~ cation is perfectly legal. The applicant had moved the barn at the suggestion of the Land Use Committee, and this is tied to the fact that an arena exists and it made sense to not further the non-conforming use but to utilize it. Councilman Kalb inquired what~the_location of the properly located barn would be. Mr. Marshall replied that essentially it would have to rotate in a clockwise position toward the rear of the.Dr~p~r~y is 50 feet awa~ from the side property l{n~ councilwoman Callon inquired if she was-correct in her unde~'~'.!~ standing that the proposed smaller bar~ would be triangular "' .... in shape. .Mr. Marshall replied that using the documentation they had, Mr. Everingham of the Planning Staff took dividers and scaled off a set of arcs which provided the legal setbacks from the pool, the house, and a parallel line was set back in the side yard and front yard property line. The area~which is generated aS a result of this becomes the configuration of the barn. Rod Jennings, 14955 Sobey Road, indicated that he is present to answer any questions the Council might have regarding their request for variance on this proposed barn. Mayor Kraus inquired if Mr. Jennings felt there was any place else the barn Would fit on this property without a varian oe and be 'somewhat contiguous to the arena. Mr. Jennings replied that :there is nof~~ ....... "~ Councilwoman Corr inquired if the opening is supposed to be facing the pool or would it be facing the other direction. Mr. Jenningsexplained that the opening of the bar~ itself would be facing to the left as you look at the picture, and the horses would exit to the left side and walk downward toward the arena and enter the arena there. The one-story pool room where the pump is blocks a little canyon between a row of trees and a fairly steep uprising of land. Therefore, in putting the horse barn there, anything going from the horse barn toward the pool would be blocked by the little pool house. The variance requested allows them to put the horse barn 11 feet closer to the'pQol than is allowed by law. Additionally, there is a pool house which blocks flies from the barnSgOing to the pool. Councilman Kalb commented that in the arena in the front~of roperty on the right-hand side there appears to be a stable=,i ~ype area. Mr. Jennings replied that'_~li~ on~-walled, 7-foot high roof, which is shade protection 'for a horse. Mayor Kraus inquired what would suffer if the arena were to be shortened a bit. Mr. Jennings replied that it would effectively prevent riding in the arena. Bill Heiss, 14933 Sobey Road, addressed the Council, indicating that he has been aUneighbo.r of the Jennings family for 14 years and he is hereto speak in favor of this variance. Mr. Heiss stated that in looking over the findings required for variances he would make all the findings in order for this variance to be granted. He.indicated that there is a physical hardship on the property,. and it was his feeling the ordinance tends to over-protect the individua'l involved in this particular case. The variance meets'~all the requirements of the ordinance as far as the exterior portion of the property is concerned. Also, Mr. Heiss commented that there are exceptional circumstances relative to this property, He dommented that the riding arena is one of the key features of Sobey Road. Mr. Heiss indicated that he believes the width of the arena is critical because to cut it in depth would definitely hamper the ability to turn the horse and keep the continuous circular riding effort going. Also, the Jennings have gone to much effort 6' i "i 'f a ..... ~'~!~d~Z'f~ arena and 'one that is comfortable ~8~ ~th~hB~s~ ~nd s~fe'Y~r children to utilize. Mr. Heiss further cormmented that denial 'of' this variance would deprive the applicant of the right to develop the property similar to. others classified in the same zoning district. tte felt that not to grant this variance would be denying the applicant o~ what other people in the neighborhood have. As you drive up and down Sobey Road, there are barns 11 feet from the street rather than 39 feet from the pool. Therefore, there is a basic established situation along Sobey Road that is unique. Across the street, a variance was granted allowing a barn to be relatively close to_the street. Mr. Heiss felt that in not granting this variance, the City would be allowing special privilege. With regardt0 t~e finding that the use will not be detrimental to. the community or injurious to the properties in the vicinity,' Mr. Heiss commented that as an immediate neighbor, he finds this as'an asset to the neighborhood, and the facility proposed to be constr~cted'will be an upgrading to the neighborhood. There- fore, he would like to urge that the Council grant. this variance. He finds this situation unique and one which the community at large would benefit from. Also, the City is only~B~ l~p~ 'a~'~e iS'~f[~ ~ifl{ng ~'~{~ ~i'th '~.~' ~e~ 'ft W~s his feeling it would be appropriate for this Variance to be granted. Virgil Voss, 14982 Sobey Road, addressed the Council. Mr. Voss indicated he is a neighbor of the Jennings, and also a neighbor of Mr. Heiss. ~r~ Voss stated that his purpose this evening would be=merely to reinforce Mr. Heiss's contention that those residents in the area do not feel impacted in any way by the ~ennings' request; rather, they feel it optimizes the use of ~heir propertyF~'~" ~V~'~o~ne~[~-that if the arena is narrowed down, it becomes V~ryHiff!cUltI'fd'turn a horse. He indicated that to his knDwledge, there has been no objection from any of the neighbors to the application for this variance, and he believes the Jennings have done a heroic job in trying to con- form to the best use it can possibly make Of the sitUation as it exists.. There being no further comment from the audience, it was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilwoman Callon the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried; the public hearing was closed at 8:50 P.M. .Councilwoman Callon commented that she believes the Council can make the findings that are required for a variance in this case, and would therefore,support it. COuncilman Kalb commented that could vote for allowing this variance, but with the condition that the she~ter.~ which is next to the streets-which he would consider a public hea~th hazard--be eliminated and moved into the barn itself. Councilwoman Corr agreed with this suggestion, and felt also they could include some of the other animals in the barn to consolidate ina more compact area. Councilman Kraus commented that the barn probably could be relocated on the property; however, he did not know what purpose this would particularly serve at this point, and he believes the only people who are going to be impacted are the Jenhings. Therefore, he would vote for the variance.. It was moved by Councilwoman Callon and seconded by Co~ncil- woman Corr to approv~ Variance 487 on the basis of the following findings: 1) Physical hardship exists in the sense of the slope of the.property and the creek, and also, the con- figuration of the proposed barn that would fit without a variance. 2) Exceptional circumstances in that the lot is not a normal one as far as slope, creek, etc. 3) Depriving the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners, due to the rural setting along Sobey Road~ ~'i'~!so, other homeowners across the stre~['~h~e been granted a variance to put a barn closer to the street. 4) It would not be a grant of special privilege. 5) It would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Also, Mrs. Corr proposed that a.condition be added in granting this variance, that the .shelter n~ar'6h~'~oad be~"emo~d at'the ~ime the barn is built, and an attempt be made to'~n~lude ~e 6ther animals within the one structure. Also, these conditions be carried out to the satisfaction of the City's Planning Director. The motion was carried unanimously. C. TO CONSIDERAPPEALOFPIA~EqG COMMISSION DECISIONRELATIVETO.CONDITION RELATIVE TO ROAD IMPROVEMENTS IMPOSED ON TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION APPLICATION SD-1363, MARTIN HALL & ASSOCIATES Mr. Robinson Acting PlanninK Director, advised that this item was '~fo~" ~h~'-~Fa~i~gl ~Co{~mi~iqnq~W6~' w~k's' r~g6'i -~nd the "appeal speciffcally ~erfains to dDnditf6n 'IILA,'i~proVements'to 25-foot h~lf-street right-of-way, and condition IIoE, improve the turn about at the end of Springer Avenue to provide as much plavement area to the street. The applicant has additionally submitted a list of individuals in the area who have agreed to support a Deferred Improvement Agreement. The Mayor opened the public hearing at Clint Nagy of Martin Hall and Associates, developer of this property, addressed the Council .Mr~LN~gy~C6mment~d'~lative to a sta.tement to.add two additional properties t'6 the' develop- ment. He indicated that there are actually four structures on the property~-- and there is a small home that now services to people. Therefore, the essence of this is that they would be removing that building and'adding two new structures, and the full intent is that they are really adding one family. Mr. Nagy commented that although he did submit the petition along with the appeal, it was on the homeowners' initiative that this petition be submitted. Further, he indicated that .Mr. Donovan'had attended the Planning Commission meetings and w~s quite vocal in his feelings as to the improvements. He was told at the last Planning Commission meeting that he would not be-able to present his feelings to the City Council. 8 In place of trying to speak, he then went to all the home- owners along the street and took a copy of the subdivision map as it was approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Nagy commented that to require the improvements all along that lane, plus the half bulb for one additional family, in an area that will probably never be further developed because of the width of the properties across the street, would not lend itself unless varianq~ were apP!i~ for and recei~e~._..T~, fore it is the:~v~ioper's~oplhio ~'l'th~t~th~h~additi~ wO~ld-~ ~e o~"~ fi~'l~ ~d th~ ~rbper~y w~ never 'be-~6mplet~l~ ~imp~v~'~'~hi~"'i-s"~he basis f~r their appeal~ -' Councilman Kraus asked ho~ much the 18-foot improvement would add'to the street. Mr. Shook, Director of Public Works, advised that there is presently a 9 to 10-foot half-~treet_improvement, and this would be talking.abodt adding an equal amount. CounCilwoman Callon inquired what we would be losing if we went to the Deferred Improvement Agreement. Mayor K~aus indicated his personal feeling is that a Deferred Improvement would be the way to go, from the standpoint that we wouldn't require it until something else did happen, but nevertheless, the dedication would be therev It was then moved by Councilwoman C~rr and seconded by Council- man Kalb the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried; the public hearing was closed at 9:17 P.M. Mr. Kalb commented that it is his feeling there needs to be a way to turn around and provide for fire access; however, he does not see the need for a 36-foot boulevard. He asked if the Council felt we would be better off in preserving the overall character of the neighborhood in going for a 26-foot-wide street with the bulb being the same size to provide for the turn-around. Councilwoman Corr agreed that a 26-foot-wide improvement would be ac~eptable~ Further, she felt the nature of the homes they would bebuilding would change the nature of the area, and she would like to see the. improvements made. It was moved by douncilman Kalb and.S~conded by Councilwoman Corr thatiSpringerAvenue be developed as a 26-foot-wid~ street or 13-foot ~haIf-street, and that the bulb or cul-de-sac be designed to retain the same effective size that it is right now, and that this be done now as part of subdivision improvements. Marty Hall of Martin Hall and Associates, developer of this property, commented that they are willing to meet the City's requirements. He indicated he felt that putting in a half a bulb 'is not accomplishing ~nything~n~'~e'~n~s'~personally that Mr. Donovan and the people on that s~r~'et~Qill~~ get together and form an assessment district in orderto improve the other side of the street. He cohfmen~ed that what the city is encouraging by p~tting in a bulb is people ~fn~g'~6~' ~6"the end of the street'~Q ~ make that turn. Mr. Hal~adV{sed that the developer is providing a driveway between the large home and the 'two small homes to the large lot in the rear, and he is assuming if there is any need for fire requirements, they are probably going to, use that driveway to turn around. Also, they have. to,meet the fire department requirements for a turn- around. It is the developer's feeling that if they put in improvements in the form of gutters, etc., they are changing the personality and environment of the neighborhood. COuncilwoman Corr commented that she can see widening the street, but she wouldn't like to see the.character of it changed. Therefore, she would not li~ to see the curbs and gutter~ go in. Mr. Kalb asked the Director of Public Work~what would be the alternative t~ full-fledged gutters. Mr. Shook replied asphalt'berms would be an alternative for drainage improvements. Mr. Nagy commented thaf he f~lt .the residents would be in favor of the deferred improvement on the bulb; however, he personally does not feel an asphalt berm would add the aesthetics, and there is already a good drainage there because of the slope of the street. Previous motion retracted) ~t was ~b~ed by Councilman Kalb and secorded by C~uncilwoman Corr to develop this portion of Springer to a 13-foothalf- width with asphalt berm and a Deferred Improvement Agreement on the half-bulb turn-around, in reference to SD-1363. The motion wa~ carried 3 to 1, Councilman Kraus in'opposition~ due to the fact he felt the berm and sidewalk could be under the Deferred Improvement Agreement D. TO CONSIDER APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED 5jLOT SUBDIVISION, APPLICATION SD-1357, Mr. Robinson, ~cting Planning Director, advised that the .Planning Commission denied this application based on incon- sistency with the General Plan, specifically the portioh which states that no more than 15 lots should be allowed on a deVe!opme~t without a primary or secondary access. M~yo~ Kraus indicated he'has received a letter from Mr. Favero of Elvira 'Street in reference to supporting the cul-de-sac but not the punch-through. Counc~manjKalb "Comment.~that C~thr~U~h~Mari6n', '=it ~'Would~s~em= C~= 'h'im ~r~he only_fyp~ ~f7 ~it~altiSn ~her~b~y~u'~d~Lfall~=geti"~i'lr~ti6 something happens in that section of the street'.by~the first lot. He questioned if this was an effective secondary access in any'case. Councilwoman Corr commented that it would seem to her it would be a much better.arrangement to cul-deosac Elyira and make four lots. Planning Commissioner Stan' Marshall ~ar~fied~t?l~t't~'~p~plicant originally submitted a plan in which'~[~ ~1o~ ~es~ off Marion and two would access off a bulb on Elvira. Public Works indicated a desire to improve the situation on Marion, parti- cularly with respect to accessing from Marion onto Highway 85. The net result was that a dialogue with the applicant led to his coming in with one plan which showed a punch through. Simultaneeusly, a large number of people on Elvira became upset at the notion of it becoming a through street and a number 10 p'eople on Marion became upset with the notion of their street .being further developed. As a result of this dialogue, he beoame oneof the-advocates of not punching through for the following reasons: 1) Police and fire service are unable to get into or out of a development through a secondary emergency access; 2) In this particular case, 17 homes are allowed. to be built on the existing parcels on Marion. If the punchythrough were to be made from Elvira, the total number of homes on the cul-de-sac portion of Marion would still be 17 -- you lose 2 between Elvira and Highway 85, and you add 2 on the far side -- and therefore come out with two over what is considered the optimum. 3) In order for various properties along Marion to develop, the.Ren~.~Fert~ius 7't~operty toward the end of Marion pr~hfly will support 6ne'h~use, and in order for it to be developed further, it would require secondary access. The alternative is to bridge the creek ~nd connect to Paul or the end of Springer ~tio~' 0h' this" ~at~e~ ~e~ ~artly -bas~ on the fail~ on 'the- part of the developer to ~ome back with a legal subdivision that considered either a punch-through or no punch-through. The alternative given to decide upon was what was considered to be an unacceptable 5-lot subdivision accessing onto Elvira, or a number of variances, which was also unacceptable. The Mayor then opened the public hearing on this matter~at~I9:55 David Smith, Attorney for.David Wilson, developer, addressed the Council. Mr. Smith indicated they have several alternatives to discuss this evening. He p~inted out that the Planning Commission, although finding that this subdivision did meet all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, found that it did meet the requirements of the General Plan of 1974 or one specific pro- vision of the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 16. Mr. Smith commen[~d that he takes objection to that finding because it is his opinion neither of these provisions even apply to this subdivision. The provision of the General Plan that has been relied upon by the Planning Commission states as follows: "For s~ty, eveEy ~ew or developing residential areat~i~he city w~t~fifteen housing units should ~have a primary and a secondary (for emergency) access." Mr. Smith commented that he believes it is clear that what this provision addresses itself to is every new or developing resi- dential area. With reference to this particular property, Marion Avenue was established in 1891. Since that time, it has been maintained as a private street. He commented that the existihg homes are not all of totally recent vintage, and it would be difficult for anyone to logically claim that this is a developing area. Further, if we are talking about a new or developing residential area, this is further defined in this provision as one containing more than ~5 housing units, and in this particular situation, we are talking about 5 housing units. He°commented that this provision must be applied to this specific project, and as it states: "Every new or developing residential area with more than 15 housing units ", and this doesn't qualify under that provision at all. 11 It then states: "Should have a primary and secondary access." He asked if the word."emergency" defines secondary, or is it intended to mean just another way into the area by means of an extension of another public or city street. Mr. Smith commented that in this particular case, the~-are not sure ~'_~'__~. there is not such an alternative meansT-whether it be emergency or a true city street into this particular,area. Mr. Smith circulated three Assessor's parcel maps ~6~" ~ completely define the end"of Marion Road.' He poi~Ced-oBt~that if Marion is extended, there is property both to the north and to the south at the end of Marion that is still developable such that the property to the south would be common to the dead end~of Springer Avenue. If this fairly large parcel of property is developed, Marion Avenue could very, readily be extended to connect with Springer. The property to the north is also of adequate size that a slight jog,in Marion Avenue could cause it to readily?Connect with Paula Avenue. He stated that the question is whether d~velopment of the subject property should be held up until such time as that access is provided. They also have informationQ.(referring to the Mary Spr~nger tract map~ that the long rectangular p~rtion desig- nated as Lot 64 at the end of Marion was shown on the original- map to-be a through street, and provided for circulation of traffic in the Mary springer tract. For some reason, that street was not developed and has since become private property. ~hey do not presently know the exact status of this propert~ Bowever, at one point in time, the City h~d submitted to it a map with a street shown.that would have connected with Marion Avenue, and for whatever reason, it was not developed as such, and if those rights have since been abondoned by the City of Saratoga, they do not believe that action should prejudice this developer. Mr. Smith indicated that he would like to draw the Council's attention to a provision of the Subdivision-Ordinance that has been relied upon .by the Planning Commission. This states~-not as a mandate but as a statement of future policy on all matters concerning the design and improvement of site 'and subdivision~-- the following shall generally~6t~be~ed: ~i~.~ ~'~" '~ '. "Subdivisioh C - Cul-de-sac, dead end or other streets not having a means of secondary access where such street services' more than 15 lots or building sites." Mr. Smith stated that they do not~-.~ '/feel this provision is even applicable to this particular subdivision because they are not asking for a cul-d~-sac, dead end, or other s~reet to be approved. All this dev~loper.~is asking that he be allowed to use 310 feet of access ~n Marion Avenue that can be divided into legal subdivision lots. They are not asking that the City approve'any partidular cul~de-sac or any dead-end street or any other type of street that contains more than 15 lots. They are simply asking that he be allowed to develop the property he has purchased, consistent with the zoning ordinances. Mr. Smith indicated he would also like to draw~the Council's attention to a provision that appears in both~f these sections, that being the number 15. . According to his discussions with the Public Works Department, that number is completely arbitrary. He had .asked Mr. Trinidad of Public Works if the number 15 had any reasonable relationship to safety purposes bedause it states this specific provision of the General Plan was designed for safety. However, it was indicated the number is totally arbitrary, and in this case, it has been indicated there are already 17.~ 12 Mr. Smith commented that his only purpose in pointing these provisions out is to indicate that: 1) He doesn't believe they apply at all, and if they do have some application, he believes there is an ambiguity that exists in the language as to whether it does or should apply to this particular property. 2) Statutes of this nature suffer from a constitutional defect that a person who looks at this law is entitled to understand what is being regulated -- what is being prohibited -- what it is he can and cannot do. He indicated that in this particular case,~_~eveloper who would look at this proper~y would most probably interpret it as he (Mr. Smith) had interpreted it. If not, at least he might be uncertain as to what it does mean~ In this parti- cular case, Mr. Wilson contacted the Planning Department prior to purchasing the property and was advised that they saw no reason why Marion Avenue could not be used as a means of access. Therefore,. in his estimat~tion, there~is~a constitutional defect in that this particular statute is vague, is ambiguous, and should not be enforceable. Enforcing it in this particular manner where it deals retroactively with a piece of property that has existedin the same structure ~ince approximately 1891, and existed in its present structure since before 1974, would be a deprivation of valuable property rights without due process or without compensation for that property. This would lead him to believe that a developer caught in this particular situat~on~ could have ready access to the courts for the purposes of compelling the approval of a map of this nature. However, he believes,there is a reasonable resolution to this situation. Mr. Smith commented that he believes if all things are taken into consideration, the proposal that has been submitted is the one that makes the most sense and meets all the requirements without the necessity f6r. additional variances. Based upon this, it has been suggested that the developer hasn't done his home- work and hasn't been imaginative with reference to a cul-de-sac and developing some configurations for the lot lines that would comply with the minimum width and minimum depth requirements;_. however, suggested that in looking at the map~ti!~i~t'7~e'~7 difficult to do this and also maintain the frohtage on t~e ~culade-sac that is required. Therefore, there are a number of difficultie~ on this proposal that probably couldn't be resolved without a variance. Mr. Smith urged that the decision of the Planning Commission be overruled and the developer be allowed to file this subdivision m~p. 'Councilman Kraus aske~ if he was correct in his understanding that a request was made for a 4-lot subdivision off Elvira. Mr. Smith replied that this is incorrect. It was suggested that a 4-lot subdivision off Elvira would be possible without any variance. However, this would require the sacrifice of one legal lot that is otherwise maintained with the proposed map. Councilman Kalb inquired if the 5 lots shown as a subdivision off. of Elvira are all legal lots. Mr. Smith ~eplied that according to the Planning Commission and staff, they would require ~ariances because they do not meet the minimum width requirements. Dave Wilson, 14370 Saratoga Avenue, addressed the Council, advising that he~purchased this property last September through 13 the estate 'of Ellen Renn.7 In searching whe~her~or not the property was feasible forhis purchase, he talked with the staff and was led to believe that the 310 feet on Marion Avenue could be used by himself'for frontage and for access. Using that information, he felt it was economically feasible for him to make.the purchase, and he did so. He feels that he has a legal 5-~ot subdivision and does ngt feel it will work any other way. It was then moved by Councilman Kalb and seconded by Councilwoman Corr to close!~the public hearing. The motion was carried; the public hearing was closed at 10:18 P.M. Councilwoman Corr commented that she would like to see all the lots open onto Elvira as this gives a qontrolled entrance onto Saratoga~Sunnyvale .Road. Also, she believes the City has to be very cautiouslin how it plans any future' develop- ment in th!~Parea. Therefore, she would favor 4 Iots on the cul-de-sac at Elvira Councilman Kalb indicated he would be very much opposed to p~nching Elvira through. He felt it really boils down to whether or not the City wa~ts to follow the guidelines of the General Plan and try to minimize the number of homes coming off of a dead-end streetsor cul~de-sac. He would also favor developing something from a 4-lot standpoint off Elvira. It was then moved by Councilman Kalb and seconded by Council- woman Corr to deny this appeal. The motion was carried unanimously. A. DE NOVO HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF DENIAL OF USE PERMIT FOR TENNIS COURT, ALLEN AND GLADYS FONG, UP-364 (Cont'd.) The City Manager advised that this matter was before the Council at its last regular meeting, at which time the appli- cant had requested a de-novo hearing, which was scheduled for this evening. Mayor Kraus opened the public hearing at 10:28 P.M. Bernard Vogel, attorney representing Dr. and Mrs. Fong~ addressed the Council. Mr. Vogel indicated that originally there was a staff report, dated January 18th~ which approved the tennis court in question and set ldown si~ conditions for that approval: 1) lighting prohibited; 2) sc~eenin~ prohibited; 3) the fence be no greater than 10 feet in height; 4) landscaping plan with 3-feet retaining Walls ~equired and bonded; 5) tennis court was to be increased f~om~a rear-yard ~etback to 30 feet from the 20 feet. This report was passed onto the Planning Commissioh who denied, on .March 16, 1978, the application per the staff report. The Council then heard an appeal and it was~ sent back for review and a new report. Thereafter., the staff report came out and denied the application on the basis that.it was not in accord with the objectives of the ~oning Ordinance if one looks at the intent of a PC development, which was to allow open, unrestricted space. Therefore, the City had created in this PC development small lots with common greens and a 15 percent limit on fencing. Secondly, it was bad to the.public health and safety and might have set a precedent contrary to the above intent and purpose of the PC. development. 14 .Mr. Vogel stated Chat On April 10, 1978, the Planning Commission made the following findings: 1) the granting of the use permit would be a grant of a special privilege~ ~dnot in accord with the objectives o~ the zoning ordinances and the purpose of the PC district; 2) proposed use could be construed as being material~l~ injurious to property or improve- ment in the vicinity,. a~d.may not preserve.the existing values of the property. Mr. Vogelpresented to the Council photographs portraying photos of both the PC area and of the Farwell area development. Photographs labled B-1 through B-Sj~eal with fencing that presently exists in the PC area. The purpose of 'the "A" photo- graphs is to show_~hat he believes are the similarities between the two areas~.!'~hg'~o~aphs C-1 through C-4 depict a tennis court on Doug~..~p~X~'~ely 3 doors from the subject property; a tennis court on~D~%~'~pproximately 1 ~tot. ldown from the subj.ect property; and a tennis court immediately adjacent to C-2, two lots down from the subject property. C-4 is a photo- graph of the tennis court on Taos which is in the PC development. Mr. Vogel asked to display on the board two pages from the Assessor.'s map which shows PC area and the Farwell area on both sides of Douglass. On that.map h&.ha~ ~laced'in red the existing tennis courts in the area. In blue, he has placed what he could see from the road as swimming pools in the area~ In addition, he has labled in "B" basketball standards, whether they be on poles or on garages that exist in the PC area. He~?made reference't0_a l~ter from Mc, Whinney, Whatley and Mil~"~et~-i~--fort~-~%es prices of homes in the area, 3 of which were in the ~acinity of the tennis ~ourt presently on Taos, and sales of 2 other homes near tennis courts. In additionl,. he has a declaration of his own which shows street addresses of homes in the 'PC area which are fenced. He stated that of. the 46 homes 'in the PC area, ~efxclhding the last 4 which were added onto the PC.a~ea, he belives there are 5 homes only that are not fenced. ' ' ~.~rj~QQ~ei'iY{dicated 'that in his review of the City's ZOning Ordinanc~h~ found no section that stated directly a .recreational'court or tennis court was prohibited in a PC development, and in fact, 'he finds the opposite in Section 4-A, which does permit such a development. Also, this is implied in the recreational ordinance, NS-3.38. Mr. Vogel commented that in additionally, there is in the file diagrams of the landscaping of this tennis court and the. re- quirements of the trees to be placed in the area. Also, he indicated that it is clear to see that Dr. Fong's lot is the largest lot in the PC area. Mr. Vogel indicated it was. his understanding the Council established the PC area because it was dissatisfied with the development that took place on Farwell. The City made the lot smaller and required there be the common green in the initial PC development. He~pointed out that the major part of the common green is that which borders on Fruitvale and not any other of the PC development. He indicated that if the City intended to have the.~ural atmosphere and the open space that is mentioned, he feels the development itself has altered that and he believes the photographs clearly indiate that. 15 Mr. Vogel indicated there is presently in the PC area 23 swimming pools that he can count, and these pools require fencing, Secondly, there i~ a comment in the report of the Planning Commission of April 10th, indicating the purpose of the planned community was not to have private recreational areas, but common recreational areas. To his knowledge, there are no in~tentlons to develop a common tennis court in this area. Also, people are entitled to have their own private pool, plus their are 8 basketball courts -- one of which is built apart from the driveway, apart from the swimming pool, with a solid cement patio, surrounded on two sides by solid board fencing. For all practical purposes, the neighbors~ ~xaV~h~d__~P~d~velopment to be just as similar to the development in t~e F~ewell area. Mr. Vogel commented that there is in existence already one tennis court in the PCarea, but contrary to the finding of the Planning Commission report granting this request of Dr. Fong, this would not be granting him a special privilege as one already exists in.that~PC development. tie'stated that it should be noted that the lot on Taos is one of over 30,000 sq~%~ and'DrY' Fb~g~has 58,000 square feet. Further, it sh~'ih='~e noted that within 500 feet of Dr. Fong's lot there exists 4 tennis courts, and within 1,500 feet of his lot, there are 10 hennis courts. Of all these 10, he still has the largest lot. He indicated that nowhere in the final staff report is there made any mention of any additional conditions that might allow this use. The reports have only mentioned that it is inconsistent with PC development, and nowhere the zoning ordinances doesit say thi~. Mr. Vogel stated that it. also says that perhaps it may affect the values; however, there was no evidence submitted to the Planping ~6mmis~i~oR~.~hat wguld indicate this, and the letter Jf~T~'s~b~itted'indica~eslthat the sales prices of those h~m~s'~l'd'~'~it~e"t~'~the contrary. Mr. Vogel indicated that the_reports do not take into consideration the requirements ~n~is-~u~t~-'F~re~e~, ~the-~in~i~I plan p~ovi~d a 7-foot visible fence from the exterior, a 6-foot fence on one side, and a 3-foot fence on the other side. Mr. Vogel commented that the neighbors who have developed their homes in a PC area have by their own actions changed some of the open space concept that initially was hoped for. Further, in looking at the PC development on the assessor's map, the only common green area is on the one edge that is on Fruitvale. However, on the further en~ where Dr. Fong is, which was an add-on~ on either portion of that PC area there was no common green. Mr. Vogel stated that to deny this appeal would be arbitrary unless there is ~omething.in the City's Zoning Ordinance that Says yOu cannot have a tennis court in a PC area. Norma Norton, 19752 Minocqua Court, addressed the Council, On behalf of the neighbors opposing the.tennis court. Mrs. Norton pointed out on an overhead exhibit the location of Dr. Fong's lot and. adjacent neighbors, as well as common green areas. Mrs. Norton-pointed out that area on Farewell mentioned is not zoned PC. Therefore, tennis courts on Douglass are governed by different regulations. ~ reference to fencing, Mrs. Norton mentioned that perhaps some property owners may not have abided by the C.C. & R.'s, andeS' ~.'7~l~is suggesting eliminating PC zoning, she belf~es'the~:best~analogy'to this would be: Do we remove the speed limits because some people do not obey them? Mrs. Norton stated that they would like to prove Dr. Fong cannot meet the necessary conditions for issuance of a~use permit for a tennis court. Section 16.6 of~C~di~io~'l~U~ ~' states that to grant the permit, the City c0un~rr m~t~ra~k~ ~' the following findings: "The proposed locatio~ of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the ZOning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located." She stated that Dr. Fong's request is not in accord with the purposes or the intent of Planned Community zoning, and does not meet the objectives of A, C, K, L and M of Section 1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Norton referenced.'the staff report dated March .16th from the Planning Department, .the Planning Commission's report dated April 10th, letters from Stanley Walker, former Planning Director, copy of a letter from Rear Admiral Metcalf, former Planning Commissioner,.as well as statements in the minutes by Norman 'Martin, former Planning Commissioner¥ whenhe addressed the Commission on March 22nd. Each of these men was involved in the original planning and development of Planned Community:~in ~Saratoga, and they all supported denial of a use.permit for Dr. Fong's tennis court because it was not in accord with the purposes or intent of PC zoning. Mrs. Norton stated she would also like to submit a letter from Louis Leto in reference to the appeal, dated Ju~e 6, 1978. The~letter states: "I was the Vice P~esident-General Manager for George Day Construction Co. from February 1970 to July 1974, and during that time, managed the sale and con- struction of homes in'the PC Cract 5150. At the condition of sale, each perspective buyer was in- formed of the purpose of PC zoning and restrictions .imposed on each property to maintain this zoning. Such restrictions included architectural control, limited fencing, as well as landscape and fencing re- view by members. of the Planning Commission. Since the purpose of PC zoning was to preserve open space and limit site coverage on each individual,lot, pro§pects were t01d that structures such as tennis courts would no~ be permitted in PC zoning." Mrs. Norton further commented that in the C.C. & R.'s for PC development, it-clearly shows the intent of the City in establishing PC because they did indicate limited fencing and design review on fencing and landscaping. She stated that the next finding the City Council has to make in granting this appeal is: "The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materialy injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. She stated that-~the opposing neighbors feel that it ~ould have an adverse affect on. the enjoyment of their property -- it would have a negative visual - 17 and noise impact on them and completely destroy the PC open space concept, which is the reason those in PC bought their homes here. Additionally, Mrs. Norton commented that the court would set a precedent -- and this would be the first tennis court with a 10-foot-high fence. approved in PC.. She indicated that once a precedent is set, they could have a row of tennis courts. Mrs. Norton pointed.out that in PC zoning, the lot size is smaller because a' portion of the. land is contributed to the common green area. This is also true of Dr~ Fong's tract where the lots are all under 40,000 square feet~ She indicated that if the common green is subtracted from Dr. Fong's lot, he is also under 40,000 square. feet. She further commented that a use permit is required for a tennis court under the recreational court ordinance; however, it is not required under R~l-40,000. There is less room for tennis courts in PC than in R-i-40,000 zoning where the lots are larger. Mrs. Norton indicated that further substantiation that the tennis court would have an adverse effect are the 7 letters from adjacent property owners who strongly oppose the issuance of this penL~it. Also, they feel it would be detrimental to property values in that it would make their homes less desire- able for resale. She submitted a letter in substantiation of this from the Clevenger Realty Appraisal Corporation, which states: "I am an independent real estate appraiser and have been so engaged for the last 30 years. A brief resume of some of my ~ualifications is attached. I have inspected the proposed permanent location of a tennis court on lot !__o~n~.Douglass Meadows in the City of Saratoga.~ Furth~,II~ha~e con~ sidered the~'f~ ~r~at~Ha~{~ity would have ~"th~elighb~Y~{~g ~'~=~rties. Over the past several months, there has been and is currently' continuing a rapid rise in property values. These inflating values make an analysis of value change resulting from this recreational facility very difficult. However, the primary influence of this proposed court on these neighboring properties reflects on their right of peaceful enjoyment of their property. The proximity and orientation of this.facility does, in my opinion, cause a severe intrusion into the atmosphere of the adjacent ownership° I have concluded that there will be an adverse affect." Mrs. Norton indicated that the final finding the City Council has to make is that the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. It does not comply, as indicated by the previous statements and by the Planning Dep~artment staff report of March 16, as well as the Planning Commission~s report of April 10. Mrs. Norton commented that she believes the findings of the Planning Commission have been well ~ubstantiated and would urge the City Council to follow their recommendation and deny this appeal. 18 Cornell Spiro, 19753 Minocqua Court, addressed the Council, indicating he would like to re-affirm his opposition to this particular tennis court, as well as any other tennis court in this planned community. Mr. Spiro commented that if you look from his property over to the left, he has a nice open space looking at the mountains,~and if there was a row of tennis courts, this would be undesirable. With regard to the tennis court on Taos, Mr. Spiro commented that either this is not a standard tennis court or the owner violated the use permit issued by the Planning Commission. To his knowledge, there were~ no objections to the tennis court. Mr. Spiro commented that he feels he would be adversely affected by this tennis court -- that the value'of his property would not be as high as it would be without these tennis courts' (Councilman Matteoni arrives) John Klein, 14321 Taos Dr~ve, addressed the Council. Mr. Klein commented that as the neighbor closest to this "evil tennis court", he would say that he has no objection to it, and would strongly recommend its approval. He indicated he feels this row of tennis court argument is a scare tactic to get the neighbors ~o go along with'this. Mr. Klein stated the only person who has applied for a tennis court who is at issue is Dr. Fong on lot 1. The spo~t. cQurt on lot 3 does not have a fence and this is all openI~ With regard to the health and safety argument, Mr. Ktein~st~'ted th~e is no~health or safety that is going to be affected by this. With regard to noise, he commented that there is more noise in a pool. Mr. Klein indicated. he does not believe the resale value is not a valid argument, and feels Dr. Fong's attorney has presented evidence that it does not detract. Y Also, he felt the open space issue is a spurious argument as ~this is all closed in. Further, the tennis court on Taos is a standard tennis court, so this is not, a valid issue. Virginia Jones, 14296 Taos, (lot 3) addressed the Council. She stated she and her husband would have no-.objection to Dr. Fong's tennis court because he meets all the requirements. She stated that the recreation court she and her husband are planning to build is not the size of a tennis court and will haye no fencing at all. Barbara tloss,.14264 Taos D~ive (lot 4), commented that she believes it is a little difficult to assume we are going to have wall-to-wall tennis courts, and she would like to see Dr. Fong's tennis court approvedoas she believes they meet all the requirements of the ordinance. Margaret Dunn, 19521 Douglass Lane, commented that he believes the City has a new ordinance that requires landscaping around tennis courts. Mrs. Dunn stated that she lives in the planned community, and. as she looks at what has been developed off of Douglass Lane, Kenosha, Minocqua, etc., and as she drives through, she sees corridors of fences, and she believes those people on Taos could put up 15 percent of solid fence around their property, leaving all of the space open on the ou~sid~ with weeds growing, etc. Mrs. Dunn indicated~h&~be~ieves!if Dr. Fong would landscape the tennis court according to the~pfans she has seen, it would be an asset to the community. 19 The applicant's attorney again addressed the Council, referencing photographs D-1 through D-4. In D-l, he pointed out one bedroom window and 4 large trees, which in a few years, would be solid. D-2 is a view from the proposed court over to lot 1, across the street, who filed an objection. All along Douglass on lot 1 is a solid line of trees -- you can hardly~see his house. In addition~ Dr. Fong has along the easement area planted trees, which are indicated on D-2 and D-3. D-3 is looking from the tennis court site to lot 7, across the street. From this view, you can't even see a window on that home. D-4 is a photograph taken from the proposed tennis court site looking toward Mrs. Norton's and Mr. Spiro's home. Mrs. Norton has fencing around her pool area with trees growing up, and he doesn't believe Mr. Spiro's home is visible from the tennis court. Regarding the letter from Mr. Leto, Mr. Vogel indicated that if tha~ comment was made to the people in the George Day develop- ment of the PC which Dr. Fong was not, the message didn't get home to the tennis court that went in on Taos. Secondly, even if he did say that, there was nothing in the ordinance that said you can't have a tennis court in a PC area. Therefore, he commented that if what 'the City intends in a PC area is not to have any tennis courts or any private recreational facilities, he believes an ordinance would have to be made. He believes what has happened here is that the development that has taken place in the PC area in question has shown that the neighbors want their own swimming pools, they have fenced their areas and. somewhat destroyed the open space concept, with the exception of the common green area; however, that common green area is not anywhere near Dr. Fong's area, with the exception of the green indicated down to the end of Minocqua Court Councilman Kalb asked with regard toTthe 15 percent rule, if Dr. Fong meets this with or without the open green included in his calculations. Mr. Vogel replied that the landscape easement is removed approximately 19,000 square feet~ and hefalls short of the 15 percent rule by approximately 2 percent. Mr. Kalb asked if Mr. Vogel is suggesting most of the fences 'in the area are in violation to the 15 percent rule or just that they are fences. Mr. Vogel replied: "Just that they are fences." He indicated that it was mentioned in one staff report that the 15 percent rule, in some cases, has been circumvented by common neighbor fencing. He believes what has happened is that the neighbors who have lived in the PC area have developed their homes in the same way as Farewell which was not a PC area. Allan Fong addressed the Counci~L=~ndicating that he owns this entire ~ne and one-third acres~,~l ~ith reference to Mr. Kalb's question relative to excluding the 15 percent, Dr. Fong pointed out that this is not common green, but a scenic easement. He indicated that at the previous City Council meeting, the, City Attorney had 'indicated that you cannot exclude that "common green" into the .computation of the 15 percent requirement. Also, he indicated he does maintain that entire' property~ 2O Bob Norton, 19752 Minocqua Court, indicated he would like answer Councilman Kalb's question regarding the 15 percent. He indicated that when Tract 5150 was originally established, in the C.C. & R.'s, it spoke of a 15 percent fencing limitation. This 15 percent was supposed to include the area around the swimming pool; however, you would add~oTthe 15 percent the square footage of the swi.mming pool itself. These were the ground rules they were operating under. Mr. Norton advised that there were a number of owners who abided by the letter and the intent of the C.C. & R.'s, andther~ were some who did not, and in the challenge of the City of these people who did not, it was determined it was a fallacy within the way the C.C. & R's were written and they were not enforceable. Therefore, in answer to Mr. Kalb's question, he stated that there are fences exceeding 15 percent; however, there are many that are less. With regard to the other court on Taos, Mr. ~orton indicated he would like to read from Commissioner Marshall's report of April 10. "The applicant applied for a variance midway through the construction of a pool and recreational court when advised that his proposed fencing failed the rear yard setbacks and height limitations. Design review prior to start of construction specifically required in Tract 5327, had not been requested nor granted. As a compromise and subject to~-~ the total absence by Mr. Sells' neighbors, the fence location was moved in, eliminating the need for the variance. Berming and landscaping specifically designed to shield the partially 'completed pool-court complex was required, and a use permit fence~height of 7 feet was specified. It is important to note that had the applicant conformed to the PC zoning restrictions or had a neighbor complained at the outset, the proposed design on the alternative might well not have been approved." Mr. Norton stated that theTprecedentlis only that the City Be consistent with its ordinances. Mr. Vogel again addressed the Council. He stated that the initial PC concept did not include these four lots -- When these people moved in, they didn't know what was going to be developed beyond the PC area. He stated that initially this was an add on in 1975. Mrs. Norton commented that the last statement by M~.'Vogel is incorrect. She indicated when Goerge Day first ~eveloped this parcel in 1971, it was PC. At that time, at the request of the Planning Commission an~7~e City Council, the request w~sTthattlie entire 80 acres from Fruitvale ~o Wildcat Creek. In addition, the homeowners are responsible for the common green ares~and are responsible for maintaining them. It was moved by CouncilmanKalb and seconded by Councilwoman Corr to closethe public hearing. The motion was carried. The public hearing was closed at 11:40 Councilwoman Co~r'commented that it would seem to her if they really wanted toads.tick to the rules of._~C,._ma~be~he swimming pools should~'be~il'o~'~e~C~'n~{ent~d~h~e in the ordina~e'~a~'~anS tgln'fj'~'au~d~.'--' 21 Councilman Kalb commented that the City has been looking at the PC concept as a means of developing land in such a way as to preserve the open space and landscaping and for applications in the hillsides. However, one of the problems the City is going to have in trying to sell a conqept of planned community in the hills is i~has demonstrated to the citizens ~e are not really going to stand~by that concept,~{~{s an invalid tool. ~ .... ' Councilman Kraus stated that the original intent of PC was t'o assure that FrUitvale Avenue did not become a tunnel. This .was the reason for making.the lots 36,000 and 38,000 square feet~ After further consideration, the Planning Commission and the City Council decided it should not be just that one particular area, but the entire area should be developed as PC. The intent at that time was that this whole are would remain in open area. He commented that he Qould have great difficulty having sat in on the'original planning of PC and allow this to happen. It was then moved by Councilman Kraus and se.conded by Councilman Kalb to deny the appeal and uphold the ruling of the Planning Commission ibased upon the intent of the intent of the open space intended for the city when this Was developed. The motion was .carried 2~to 1, Councilwoman Corr in opposition, Council= ~'~ers6~'~C~Ii6~' ~h'd~Matteoni abstaining.. ' VII. ADMINiStRATIVE MATTERS C. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS (taken out Of order) · Op'6~"~e~dation of the City Attorney, it was moved 5y~CoVn~i'~an"~orr and seconded by Councilm~ Kalb the adoption of Resolution 858, Determining that the Public Interest and Necessity Re uire the Acquisition of Certain Lands and ij In.terests in La~s Authorizin tb~Commencement of Eminent Domain Proceedings '- quito Road/WilRcat Creek, be approved. The motion was carried unanimously. , · Recess 'and reconveyne VIII. COMMUNICATIONS!(taken out of order) A. WRITTEN 1. Mr. William P. Cox, President of Santa Clara Valley Coalition, requesting that they be allowed t6 canvass until 8:00 P.M. during the summer months.1 FollOwing consideratioh by the Council, it was moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilwoman Callon to amend the City's policy regarding canvass{ng during the months of June July and August, to the extent of allowing the time frame to go beyond 5:00 P.M. to 7:30 P.M. The motion was carried unanimously. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE MA~ERS (Cont'-d.) ~ ~ A.'MAYOR ? 1. Announced appointmen't of Councilwoman Callon as alternate member'of ABAG Executive Committee. ~'~ 3. Letter from Rodney Diridon re: Re-constitutingmembership portion to the population of each county. -Further con- sideration to be given at future Committee of the Whole B. COUNCIL AND. COMMISSION REPORTS 1. Councilman Matteoni - Advis&d...Lthat Mr. Pri'est of the-. .Saratoga Little' Leag~e.~has requested if the time indicated on the signs posted at Congress Springs Park could be extended from 6:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. to provide an open area adjacent to the ball field on Glen Brae. Mr. Shook advised this' would require modifying the re~!ution It was determined this would be brought back for~"' consideration at a future date. C. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS 1. Report from Planning Director Re: ABAG Environmental Management Plan The City Manager advised.that on June 10, Councilwoman Corr will be representing the City-at the General Assembly and the Environmental Management Plan will be up for adoption. It is the staffls recommendation_to_communicate regarding the following issueS: a) Action 12 of the Air Quality ~,1aintenance Plan (re: continuation of West Valley Freeway) - The City's previous policy be re-affirmed. b) Creation of ew bodies to c~rry out th char es m~ the .Dlan_~e.~..San Franclsco.Bav Delta Re~aarcb D CiTY i~NA~,~°gram ' Recommend continuation to monitor the · qo~uing planning process. 1. Presentation of 1978-79 Eiscal Year Budget The City Manager asked that the Council review the proposed Operating Budget, aloDg with the supplemental budget as a result of passage of Proposition.13 and proposed schedule for review. This schedule will be as follows: .. Tuesday, June 13th - Committee of the Whole to review priorities and directions Wednesday, June 21st Public Hearing Tuesday, June 27th - Continued Public ~earing; adopt budget. 2. Report Re: Meeting with Property Owners - Proposed Parking District #3 The City Manager advised that a meeting was held with property, and the key issue is that of the maintenance facility, and should try to obtain some of these answers before proceeding with the District. VIII. COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd.) A. ~RITTEN 1. A copy of a letter to the Planning Commission from Charles F..Hunter re: Parker Ranch Environmental Impact Noted and filed. 2. Mr. Robert W. Crank, Business Manager, Fremont Union High School District, advising intention to sell real property - Prospect site. - Directed City Manager to respond indicating the City has no interest in purchasing this property. 3. Ms. Louise Blake, 18610 McCoy Avenue, requesting.the City trim trees in fron of her home. - Directed the City Manager to respond indicating this not theICity's responsibility. 4. Roland Hamilton, 20266 Knollwood Drive, re: emotionalism in City Government. - Noted and filed. 5. Ms. Elizabeth Moley, 19910 Robin Way, requesting a safe bicycle path be provided on Los Gatos-Saratoga Road - City Manager to reply advising of the City's progress to date. 6. Bryon Sher, Chairperson, County of Santa Clara Intergovern- mental Council, urging the City Council to cut back the' tax rate commensurate with increases in assessed valuation. - Noted and fiied. 7. A copy of a letter to the Planning Commission from Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, re: Parker Ranch Environment Impact Report. 0 Noted and filed. .. 8. Wesley D. Smith, President, American Public Works Assodiation, presenting the Saratoga Community Library with a copy of The History of Public Works in the United States. Requested the City Manager send a letter of thanks. 9. Hugh T. Smith, Mayor, City of Avalon, requesting a resolution from City Council supporting Assembly Bill 1992. - No action taken.' 10. Postcards from 48 peopie urging the City of,Saratoga to con- tinue funding the Saratoga Community Gardens. Noted; con- sideration to be given during budget discussions. 11. Arnold Sternberg, Department of Housing and Community Development, re: information on Article 24 Clearinghouse. - Noted and filed. ' 12. Ms. Violet F. Gotelli, State ~resident, Active Women Advancing Responsible Environment, Inc., re: ABAG Environmental Manage- ment Plan. - Noted and filed. 13. Jerome Bert, Attorney, re: a Superior Court decision affecting . City Council ~f City of Albany. - Noted and filed. 14. ,Ms ? ary~- ~aratoga Su met Club, e~p~e~si~g~6~nk~-to~P~t-E~'ent~{oljYjB~n Pi~ni, and Lance Holweger for work on "Walk a Golden Mile". Noted and filed. 24 15. Michael R. ~eevey, President, California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, re: Environmental Management Plan. = Noted and filed. 16. Ms. Mary Kay Walker, Principal, Marshall Lane Summer School, requesting the'City of Saratoga continue its provision for salaries and stop ;signs for 3 crossing guards during their summer session. - Noted; continued for consideration during 1978-79 BudgetSdiscussions. . 17. Ms. Dianne M. Priest, President, Argonaut Booster Club, requesting the City of Saratoga help in funding of their 'school's playground. - Noted; continued for consideration during 1978-79 Budget discussions. B. _.ORAL 1. Councilwoma~ Callon re: Bus Stop on Third Street Mr. Shook, Director of Public works, was asked~o bring a~'r~'~{dCn~'Iba'ck 'fi~the Council for consideration IX. ~JOU~NT It was moved by Councilwoman Callon and seconded by Councilman Kalb the meeting be adjourned. ~he motion was carried; the meeting was adjourned at 12:50 RObert F. Beyer~ City Clerk 25