Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-07-1981 City Council Minutes SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Tuesday, July 7, 1981- 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Meeting Room, Saratoga Culm~unity Center, 13777'Fruitvale- TYPE: Regular Adjourned Meeting AGENDA · . ACTI ON I. ~0LL CALL - Ceuncilmember's Clevenger, All present. Jensen, Mallory, Watson, Mayor Callon II. CONTINUED PUBLIC lEARING ON AN ORDIBI~qC~, Planning DireCtor reviewed the purposes of the AMENDING ORDINANCE NS-3, THE ZONING draft ordinance and explained bow various ORDINANCE, WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN SEC- specific figures had been reached. He pDted TIONS CONCEPa~ING DESIGq REVIEW AS IT that a subsection f. on page 6 needed to be RELATES TO SINGLE-FAMILY DW~r.LTNC~ AND add~ed to-r~p~.laC~ section 3.7-2 of the Zoning THE REQUIRED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Ordinance, which would be repealed. (continued from 7/1/81) .. Councilmembers 'Clevenger and Watson cu~plir;. k mented staff on the ordinance, saying that the guidelines seemed to be appropriate for Saratoga. Planning Director, in response to Mayor Callon. explained that it appeared that most single= family residences ~Duld need to go through the design review process. This would bring about the need for explaining the processes to applicants initially, but would be ehsi&r in the long run. He further explained that major additions in son~are footage Or height would also require design review. This would not mean extra work for the applicant, however, because th~ docanentation required under the new ordinance was also required previously. Planning Dieector then reviewed the new method of measuring the height of a structure, which was greatly simplified. Mayor Call0n expressed her concern about in- cluding the garage in the square footage figures for impervious coverage. Planning DireCtor explained how figures were reached and noted that the new system gives the appli- cant flexibility in deciding how he wishes to use his allotment of impervious coverage; it also encourages the use of materials other than solid paving, such as turfblock. Councilmember Mallory noted'that limitation on impervious coverage was in~portant for ecological reasons, but Council should be careful 'tdi'hatance<this =.c6n~fderation"~.'with the rights of hcmeowners. Planning Director asserted that the ordinance provided balance. Carroll Connors, of the Saratoga-Los Gatos Board of _.Realtors, sukmitted fiqures for siZe-=of-xhouses .minus _~arage ~Which.!-she- had calCulated' on-~tbe basis of alloweble per- centages in the proposed ~dinance. 2-7/7/81 AGENDA ACTION Planning Director, in response to Mayor Callon, explained the size of houses per- mitted on various lots on the basis of the impervious coverage section of the proposed ordinance. The Planning Ccm~ission, he stated, wished people to have larger lots i :f if they wanted such facilities as tennis courts or swimming pools. Councilmember Clevenger pointed out that if one wished to bave-such~a facility on a lot smaller than the guidelines permitted, one could apply for a variance. Deputy City Attorney noted that on HCRD or NHD lots there was an absolute limit on square footage in addition to the limitations by percentage of lot size. Council,. afid ~staff 'discussed~ advantages and dis- advan_tagesfof?hav~ng a~separate?de~sign~-re~iew ccm~ittee and having the proposed ordinance as part of the Zoning Ordinance or part of the Municipal Code. Councilmenber Watson favored the proposed ordinance and felt that it should not be altered at this point. City Manager favored making ordinance separate frcm Zoning Ordinance, Since it rest be flexible to be useful as a problem- solving device, and the Zoning Ordinance tends to be rigid. Deputy City Attorney stated that the ordinance would have to be revised substantially to create a design review board. He also stated that the Ordinance could legally be included in the Zoning Ordinance; if it were not, an argu- ment could be made against its legality; as to a design review board, it might not have the authority to grant variances. Councilmember Clevenger stated that she wished to pass the ordinance and deal with the question of a design review beard later. Councilmember Mallory objected that the height definition would result in the sloping of houses downhill. Planning Director agreed, but pointed out that this would minimize grading. Councilmember Mallory also expressed lconcern that the height de- finieion would encourage a highly visible facade and an undesirable sameness in archi- tecture. Councilmember Watson said that a good architect could produce good, varied designs under the' restrictions of the ordinance as proposed. Councilmembers Jensen proposed a change in the height definition to a true warped plane concept. Planning Director stated that such a definition would encourage grading into the hillside. CounciLmember Jensen feared that the proposed definition would encourage strange roof lines by those attempting to circumvent the ordinance. 3-7/7/81 · AGENDA ACTION Ci~ Manager noted that grading is regulated by the grading ordinance, and there is a choice between stepping the foundation down a hillside or having a flat pad on the hill- side. Councilmember Mallory asked how "c~npati- bility" was defined as used in the ordinance. Deputy City Attorney pointed out that Section 4 of the ordinanc.e.Wa~s__subj_ective~. and ~' ~ Section 5, objective. __ Plar~ing Director then ~ -~ added that the' controversy in Section 5 centered around the percentages for the R-1-40,000 district,' which cor~nissioners thought might not allow large enough houses; he then explained how staff had aErived at 'I those percentages. Concerning-the impervious covera. ge restric- tions, Councilmember. Mallory then asked whether soil factors might be a basis for a variance; Planning Director replied that it was possible bu~ that findings were defined by State'~'Law, and soil factors were probably no justification for a variance. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:00. Carrol Connors, 'speaking as a paid staff member of the Los Gatos-Saratoga Board of Realtors, stated that she had provided the figures upon _which many of the calculations of percentages in ~he ~proposed ordinance were based. She deplored the fact that she had provided figures, which she believed were misleading, without understanding their intended purpose. She feared~ the figures might not be representative of Saratoga: she stated _.that the current nmltiple listing book listed quite a few homes which ~Duld not meet the 'proposed ordinance and,. in short, a different b.ase sample should have been used° Planning Director stated that he had used March 1981 figures and had other statistics in addition to those supplied by Ms. Connors; he felt the sample was representative. Ms. Cormors noted that the inclusion of the garage in the limitations reduced the possible size of a house considerably. Further, she believed that two-story con- versions wer~ discouraged in hillside areas by the appeal process which was in her opinion unwieldy. She felt that such con- versions should be encouraged because, among other things, they saved energy. She also believed that in in-fill situations, if an application falls within the ordinance, the Planning ~ Department should be the approving b6dy rather than the Planning Commission; the Council would otherwise. become involved in neighborhood disputes. As to Section 3, she found the word "substantially" too vague. 4-7/7/81 ACT ION Deputy City Attorney asserted that "substan- tially" had been ~sed to provide flexibility to the situation. He also pointed out that multi-story building was encouraged rather than discouraged on hillsides because of the limitations on impervious cover. Ms. Cormors summed up her 6bjections to the proposed ordinance by saying' that it was restrictive and no~-growth~ ~ In answer to Coun~ilmem~e~ Mall6ry, Planning Director stated that the .proposed ordinance would not pose any more difficulties for those who wish .to build a second story than the current systen. Only the name had been changed, he said, frc~n use permit to design review. Pat Pope, 14356 Evans Lane, spbke as a real estate broker. She staffed that many homes are sold privately and were not available as statistics to staff for the preparation of percentages for the proposed ordinance. She favored differentiation for two-story homes, since they do not use so much ground space. Raisa Kocher, 15139 Park, stated that the proposed ordinance took away all creativity from architects; she felt it did not give enough square footage for those Who live on one acre end would result in sameness in the appearance of houses. Nancy Arias, Canyon View Drive, related a recent incident involving a large in-fill hcme in her neighborhood which was approved over strenous objections by the neighbors under then-current guidelines. As a side- light, she pointed out that hc~es could probably be less expensive if they were smaller. Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, sub- mitted copies of Section 3.7-2 of the Zoning Ordinance, which included the definition of "subdivision~" He believed problems would result if this section were repealed as pro- posed. Deputy City Attorney stated that a function of the proposed ordinance was to eliminate the ambiguities in the last two paragraphs on page 236; he noted that "subdivision" was also defined in the Subdivision Ordinance. Nancy Arias again spoke to state her opinion that the 26' height limit for triggering a Public Hearing should~be~ilowered to require public hearings .for lower houses. 5-7/7/81 AGENDA ACTION Shelley Williams, said that because' of the housing shortage, families should be allowed to' expand their hcmes in a reasonable fashion. He felt that landscaping could mitigate many problems without the necessity of a public hearing. 'He, too, believed that the proposed ordinance restricted creativity. As to the hills, he felt they were aesthetically pleasing when housing and the concc~itant i landscaping kept ~them-gre~ni~ 20% to 25% of ' 'City residences wQ~l_dj_~b~.~o~-conforming under the proposed Ordinance, he believed. He also felt that-allowabl~ variation for floor area ratio or impervious cover should be 10% or 20% rather than 5%. He favored extending ?re- placement privileges under Section 13 to partially destroyed ~non-conforming hcmes. In general, Mr. Williams reccgmended less goverrm]ent, fewer rules, and more less flexi~:_'. bility as to height, size, and ~Dervious cover. Russell Crowther stated that the intent of th~ .Planning Cul~ssion was to affect new construction and not to create major non- conforming situations; he felt this intent was realized. The Public Hearing Was closed at 9:36. After a break, the Council reconvened at 9:51. Council then went through the proposed ordip. anCe page by page.,. By consensus, a number of changes were made. In SectiQn ~'. +setbacks were ,added as an item regulated by existing 6rdinances. In Section 3.g., 'tt~e basemen~ was excluded from the total usable square footage of a structure, and the definition of basement was added. At this point, Russell CroW~her stated that the Plannin~ Cc~mission did not intend to include the clause in Section 4.d., concerning the imposition of increased setbacks only with respect to the portion of the structure in excess of 22' Planning Direction differed with Mr. Crowther, and no firm agreement was reached. It was the Consensus that Section 41~d~ remain as written. In· Section 5.d. "depth" was substituted for "length", and a Section 5.f. was added setting minirmmn rear yard setbacks for nulti- · story structures l In Section 7, a. was deleted, end b. was rewritten to indicate that structures or major additions having a height in excess of 22' in the case of single- story or 26" in the case of malti-story structures, or where design review is re- quired by the tentative map conditions, a public hearing is required. The height limits in Section 9 were also changed to conform with Section 7. Section 10.b. was revised to show ? 6-7/7/81 AG~DA AC~O~ it applied to approvals. not requiring public hearingS.. Section 13 was expanded to allow damaged'~as well as destroyed structures to .... ~_ be rebuilt as non-conforming structures. ~ ~' Councilmember Jensen asked how the lots '.~ settled in the MeaSure A lawsuits would be !'--~'~ dealt with. Deputy City Attorney replied that the settlements permitted' them to go . .. I~ forward to obtain Ipermits. ~ i~ Warren Heid,- architect7-C~ented that houses would become smaller and squattier as pe6ple tried to avoid the ordinance. He favored allowing houses up to 30' high. Councilmember Mallory and Mayor Callon stated they felt the proposed ordinance was too restrictive. Councilmember Mallory said he was concerned with retaining the basic character of the city. He wanted more flexi- bility; did not want the City to become involved in neighborhood disputes; and feared a negative impact would be felt by the people through the ordinance. JENSEN/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ~ THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION GF7328. Passed 3-2 (Callon, Mallory opposed). JENSF.,N/WATSON MOVED TO WAIVE 'FULL"READING'OFc lC THE 'ORDINANCE..~Pa~'ed75u0. l(',-,~ .~:' ~ ? JENSEN/V~LTSON MOVED TO INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY, AS AMENDED. Passed 3-2 Callon, Mallory opposed). WATSON/MALLORY MOVED TO DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO INITIATE THE PROCESS.FOR ORGANIZING A DESIGN REVIEW ~Tl'~. Passed 5-0. III. REPORT ON LITIGATION EXPENS~ FOR MEDFLY Councilmember Jensen noted that LOs Gatos SUIT had paid the full attorney's bill and wished to be reimbursed. Councilmember Watson said the Council' s intent was not to reach the amount of money billed, but the City's agent, the City Attorney, had authorized the expenditure of funds, and the City was therefore liable. The City Attorney, he said, should have reported hack what was happening and with- drawn the City from the case sooner. Councilmember Jensen commented that: other cities' opinions did not apply to Saratoga, and the City' s agent should have terminated the City's involvement'. The case preg~essed very quickly, however, and the attorneys could not have controlled that, she said. Mayor Callon suggested that perhaF~ Mr. Hays, the LOs Gatos attorney, was .at- fault. Council- member Mallory agreed that' Mr. Hays should' 7-7/7/81 AGENDA ACTION have advised the cities of the cost sooner. Moreover,'he said, the fact that Los Gatos paid the bill is irrelevant to what Saratoga "'~' ~'~- .... dig;. Sar~t6~a' did 'nOt~ agree to an open-ended j' U~ contract. : JENSEN/W/LTSON ~Ol/ED.'~O':'Pi~fjTHE_FULLt:BtLE · " ' ~'3:i255.'83:FOP'Mff~DFLY LITIGATION. Failed (Call6n, Clevenger, Y~llory opposed). ~ Councilmerabe~ Clevenger said that in the long ..' ......... ~" .nun_ Sarato~ is oB~igaLe~ ~o. pay the full bill, but' shb felt we ought to pay less than " ~ the full amoant and observe the results. - -. CLEVENGER/JENSEN MOVED TO PAY THE $2,000. .- ORIGINAIL¥ ALrfi~RIZED FOR MEDFLY LITIGtTION. --: Passed S~2- (~allory, Watson opposed). IV.- SAI~TOGA-S~LE ROAD P/LSH (added at Director 'of Public Works reported that he had raeeting)' met with CalL~ans and four~ fit for the bicycle path from Prospect to the Village, : Caltacans had $90,000 for ~ork that ~as ..... estimated to cost $140,000. One possibility.. to deal ~ith the path is for the City to consLmct a separate pedestrian way on 'the - Neale frontage and a 3' petestrian ~ay at grade level on the Eahle frontage. Since it ~ould be a pedestrian way, steps. could be built in, he stated° CDNSENSUS hid ACC~I:~ DIRECIOR O~ PUBLIC ~/LTIOH CONCERNINg ROAD PATH. Councilraembez Jensen asked when the poles were canring dc~rn. Director of Public Works replied fit it ~ould be soon. The meeting a~journed at 11:41 Respectfully ! Grace E. Gory Deputy City Clerk .-4.