Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-23-1981 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO DATE: 6/23/81 DEPARTMENT: City Manager SUBJECT: =RIM APPROPRIATIONS FOR JULY AND AUGUST, 1981 Issue Summary Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. The City received its financial report and management letter from its auditors on April 30, 1981, and on May 9, 1981 these results were reviewed with the City Council. While the City's financial condition remains sound, several modifications to our financial records keeping and budget systems were indicated as urgently needed. On June 3, 1981, we .retained the firm of Arthur Andersen to assist in making changes and modifications needed. For this and other reasons, preparation of the 1981 -82 budget is delayed to take full advantage of these improvements. However, the current fiscal year ends June 30, 1981, and, along with it, appropriations for expenditure limits by City departments. New appropriation limits are needed therefore to cover July and August, by which time I)& ex ee clot' o%Pve a new budget ready. Adopt interim appropriation limits for July and August 1981. Fiscal Impacts Provides authorization to continue current services and operations at present year levels, plus two per cent for a two-month period. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Resolution No. 2. Report from City Manager Council Action Watson/Jensen moved adoption of Res. 1023. Passed 5 -0. M • JAMAINIOO R�ND�.lti1 uguw @2 §&z&UQX5& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 TO: CITY COUNCIL DATE: JUNE 22, 1981 FROM: CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: INTERIM APPROPRIATIONS FOR JULY AND AUGUST, 1981 Attached is a Resolution for your consideration at the June 23, 1981., Special Council meeting. The Resolution provides interim appropriations in the amount of $ 514,234.00 to continue present services and operations of the City while our work on developing and compiling the recommended budget for fiscal year 1981 -1982 is undertaken. This amount of appropriation should provide for the months of July and August during which time I expect the budget,recommendations to be com- pleted and presented to you. The amounts as recommended were derived by taking one -sixth (two months of one year) of the current year appropriation, adjusted upward by two percent to reflect our current estimate of next year's revenue increase. The two percent adjustment is a minimal increase in view of present rates of inflation and a previously committed four percent adjustment in salaries agreed upon last year. Overall, however, the two percent increase should be adequate if we continue the frugal habits evidenced by the City during this past year. Since there are no legal requirements with respect to the format or adoption of a budget by a general law city, our main concern here is to provide for some appropriate level of control by the City Council during the period when we are compiling- our budget. The budget itself is of course our main means of managing and controlling the City's financial resources. J. yne De etz City Manage ck CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. Dept. Hd. DATE: June 22. 19 81 DEPARTM= : Planning C. Atty. C. Mgr. SUBJECT: Appeal on Approval for a detached solar rack in the rear yard at 19405 Bainter Avenue UP -495 Appellant ___ Dona ld_and_Bly_��_���j; Applicant - Jack and Ruth Plato Issue Summary On May 27, 1981, the Punning Commission granted approval for a detached solar rack in the rear yard with a maximum height of 10'. Rack is 12' from rear property line where a setback of 15' is normally required. Land- scaping to screen the fence is to be installed as condition of use permit. Following is brief summary of appellant's letter: 1. Appellant feels insufficient study was done on visual impact. 2. There are other potential locations on site for the proposed rack. 3. Rack could adversely affect appellant's mental health and property value. 4. Desire for rack to be located 80' from rear property line. Recommendation 1) Conduct a public hearing on the appeal. 2) Determine merits of appeal and approve or deny. 3) Staff recommended approval to the Planning Commission. Fiscal Impacts None anticipated. Exhibits /Attachments 1) Appeal letter 2) Minutes from May 27, 1981 Planning Commission meeting. 3) Staff Report dated May 20, 1981. 4) Exhibits "B" and "C" Council Action Clevenger/Mallory moved to deny appeal. Passed 3 -2 (Jensen, Watson opposed). / fl A I June 1, 1981 TO: Saratoga City Council RE: APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON PUBLIC HEARING UP 495 (Plato) May 27, 1981 APPEALED BY: Donald P. & Blythe T. Bacci 19261 Citrus Lane, Saratoga, CA REASONS FOR OBJECTIONS: (1) The Staff did not actually make a visual impact study. (2) To our knowledge, the Planning Commission (except for Mr. Bolger) did not visit or inspect the site for any adverse visual impact before granting approval. REBUTTAL TO STAFF ANALYSIS: "Maximum Solar Access ". If the intention of the applicants was to maximize solar access, they would move the panel to the re- quired 25' set back and raise it to the full 30' allowed by Ordinance. "Minimize removal of trees ". There are any number of locations on this 2.87 acre site that would entail only two walnut trees being removed. In fact, closer to the house or in the corral area, there would be no need to remove any trees. Staff made reference to an existing solar panel on Dr. & Mrs. McLaughlin's site. No public hearing was held and surely no visual impact study was made. We had no opportunity to voice our objec- tions, and Staff did not visit our site to observe the impact that the enormous (830 square foot) industrial - looking solar rack has had on our home and yard. In winter, when the trees are bare, it appears to sit in our yard. REBUTTAL TO STAFF FINDINGS: The location of the solar panel as proposed is indeed detri- mental to our mental health and a serious injury to our visual well being. Furthermore, without an actual MAI appraisal, how can Staff make the assumption that this solar panel will not directly affect 2 the value of adjacent property? I assure you that there will be a significant decrease in the value of our property. OUR ANALYSIS: Mr. Bolger, who to our knowledge was the only Planning Com- missioner to visit the site, insisted that there were other areas to place the panel and' voted against the applicant'. Mr. Bolger's approximate question to Mr. Plato was, "Why don't you put it closer to your house ?" Applicant's approximate response was, "People will see it when they drive into our driveway." This statement would lead one to believe that the Platos also consider the panels unsightly. In our opinion, if the Platos were striving for maximum solar efficiency, they would build their rack 30' high and would not need a variance. In our opinion, the only reason for placina the system close to the ground and as far back as possible is to ensure that it is not visible from their living space. It will, however, be direct- ly adjacent to our living space. Just a few months aqo the Council was asked by the Platos, McLaughlins, Lucas' and ourselves to deny Mrs. Maynard a variance to build a home next to Platos so as not to disturb or disrupt the natural rural beauty of this area. After your field trip, you agreed and did, in fact, deny that variance. Now we are about,to have two structures in the same area that are equal in surface to a house but far more unsightly. We know that it is not the intent of this Council to injure any- one. You've been fighting to keep Saratoga as natural and rural as possible. we, in turn, do not want you to deny-the Platos their rights to have solar for we. too, are in favor of solar as well as all energy conservation. However, where there can be compromise and equal consideration, as in this particular instance, we feel we would be uniustly iniured to the benefit of the Platos if this Council did not consider alternative locations for this solar panel. I am enclosing the applicants' map outlining an area of over an acre that will allow sites that will give more than adequate solar energy for the Platos use and still enable us to retain our view and sanity. As Mr. Bolger so aptly stated, "If one wants solar, one should be willing to look at it." It seems that the Platos are requirinq us 3 to endure the burden of visual contact with the panel while they enjoy its benefits. We respectfully request the Council to reject the applicants' proposal and direct Staff to assist the Platos in placing the solar panel and system a minimum of 80' from the rear property line. Pale �icctins; ?iinut.cs S /'7 /til 5. UV 191 Ilon ;tla \ %,ailn :iis, R.i :quest. fiir a Use Per,iit to ailoi. construction of a dctachcd t;arai <c and shop over 6' in hcir;ht. to be located in the rcduircd roar lard (1' from shale yard property line, — _from rent _tiohort)' line'), at 20603 Carnici. : \venue Staff doscrihcd the proposal and stated that they were requesting that no applicant: rtai.nt.airr the 6 ft. side ::,nil rear setbacks. l The public hearing was opened at 9:25 p.m. "1r. \'ad11' s the. aptlicant, stated that. he i:ould like to build the nets strU(Wture there the old structure is, i:hi.ch is appro) :i.nrate1 %, a 3 ft . setback for hack and side. He explained that when he bou,ht the place lie thou "ht the structure had been huil.t i•;ith a permit: and that lie could replace it with an approved building ;:ithout any problem. He stated Hat With the ft. setback it would make an casicr turnaround area in the fir. Vadimis corimented that the prop osal is agrccabl.e with his ncis,hhor> and he stated that there would not he an aesthetic disruption, since there are trees arouad the corner that shield. lie also commented that the houses on the two lots just: hoh.ind are set on the front of tile. lots and there is quite a distance between the those liontes aril the net structure. Discussion followed on the setbacks. It was noted that the fact that t. ?iere is no hr.i.ildi.ng to the east is important from the standpoint of fire pro- tection. Commissioner Schaefer comsretited that if all ilugal structures are allowed to be replaced, it cricourages people to build them. Mr. Vadi;ai_; stated that if it erimmatchcd on any privacy he i:eu]d a „tee, L•i:t hie does not. think that ally other structure will be back there. Commissioner }sing movecl to close the public hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. It was the consensus of the Coram.i.ssion that the 6 Lt., setback should he maintained for consistency. Corunissioncr }:ins; moved to approve UP-49.1, per the Staff Report. dated Mly 20, 1981, . sui)ject. to the cond].tion of a revised site Plan reflecting; the 6 ft, setback and a larger turnaround, and a l;!ndscapin;')elan, showing Imw it will hr screened from adjacent properties, being submitted; making the findings. Commissioner Crowthcr seconded the motiorl, which t.'as carried unanimously. 'the applicant rras inf.ormcd_. f the 10 -day appeal period. 6.., 011-495 - Jick pl.ato, Request for a Use Permit to allow construction of a ctached solar accessory structure over 6' in height (l.0' max.) in the required rear yard which would maintain a nli.nimum 12' setback where 25' is re(!uired, at 19405 ilainter venue Staff descri.hed the proposal. They commented that this was the best loca- tion i.11 towns of solo) orientation and they feel it would he consistent tVith the City policy of encouraging solar utili.aat.i.on. The public hearing Was opened at 9:40 )),Ill. The applicant: described the solar system and his proposal• Ctrs. Donald L'acci, 19261 Citrus Lane, stated that tile)' live inuncdiatcly behind where: the panels will be placed. She explained that Dr, Mclaughlin had put up his solar panels the first of the year and it is like living in an industrial ar;;a. tors. ilacci commented that their liven;; part of thr hack yard ar:d house is directly behind r:here. `•1r. Plato i• :ottld like to put his solar system. She stated she felt: that it someone =ts to put in :t solar system, they should also he willing to look at it, rather than, the ncighhors. She i lid i.c:ated that their yard is not screened to the. hack, since thr.y wanted a rural feeling. Mrs. Bacci cluest.ionad why the panels have to go directly behind the only yard that is open and not screened. The location of the homes in the area and the, p;i!Ie1s acre di:,cussed. l•hc possihiliry of additional landscaping.•cas discusscd. Commissioner l-olt;cr co :rm: :rated that he felt '•irs. i3acci was ;:shin;: the Corn;tissiori to inresti;;ate other sites on this par±irular arnpert.•', to see v.hcther or not it might accomplish vile applicant's needs as well as not impact the neighbors. Staff Wdicated that other locations on the site might be subject to sbadi_n, 5 I !'tanning Co;n„issiotl Mee liut; ?!in tit cs 5/"/S U1,- 4 9 (cone. ) Papa t. ly eve-green trees. Commissioner Bolger sgocstccl the eastern wing of t:hc house alott�; tits Corral ;iron as an alternate location. Com ill issinncr Ladon stiggcst.ed planting heavy shrubbery, adjacent to the panels on the applicant's propert.v, which would 11" vide some screening of the panels and would also not affect the sun coming in if they were just as high as the panels. She cotvmented O nt this would not im"ct the BaccisI vies.; hut: would essentially provide sor.!(,, kind of curtain 1 :o the side of the p;tnels. Nrs. Lncci also noted that they objected to the vier•, of the scaffolding :involved. Staff indicated Ant: if the shrubbery was planed to the cast it is unlikely it would have any adverse shndin', i!npact. Thcy acldcd that if the. shrubbery was low enough .it would not affect the Baccis' view, Mrs. Bacci stated that it still would affect it, since they are lower. Shc commented that: '•!r. `dc Laushlin's panels have reduced their propert.l- value. by onenIt u•ter. She Wed that she mould like the Corrnissioners to come and stand in her i)ack yard, so t11c)' could vi.sttali :c the situation. The Itoss'ihle landscaping bras disctt_;scd with the applicant., and he stated that he would he happy to plant anything tilt• Cotmmission requested. C:o Ili - Wssioner King encouraged Mr. Plato to discuss the planting with Mr. NcLaughlin, and poss:i.blly the. problem concerning his panels could also he solved. Commissi.oner0.moved to approve VATIS, per Exhibits "B" and "C ", subject: to the condition that: there be screening p1nntings placed to the cast, which will require Staff review and approval.. Commissioner King seconded the motion. Commissioner Bolger indicated that he felt Mrs. Bo cci's statement about the fact: that, if you are going to have the benefit of solar, you should loot at it as well. It stated that he would not be voting for the variance, since he feels there are other alternatives. Connnissioner Schaefer stated that site would like the panels moved so that it would he within the s:ethack, and a use permit would not be necessary. however, she added, site could understand the reason for not puttirtc; it closer to the hcuse because the shade factor is very, major. Staff pointed out that:, by using a use permit, the Commission can acid A t:igatAg measures b:hich you could not Otherwise. The vote was taken on the motion, which was carried, with Comiissioner Bolger dissenting. Chairman laden noted the 10 -clay, appeal. period. Consideration of a "Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to Design Review (GF -S.31.) Staff stated that the present ordinance does not have any criteria by which die Commission can evaluate projects. They reported that a sub- committee had hecn set up to work on the modification of the ordinance prior to it coming; to the Comunission. Staff noted major changos of (1) inclusion of major additions of interior space, and (Z) standards for devol.opmcnt of residential structures. 'File publ i.c. hearing; was opened at. ].0:1.5 p.m. DiSCLISSi.011 followed on the floor area ratio. It was determined that the numerator should he changed to read: "Footprint plus any additional stor :Ic usable space ". 'I'hc pos:: i.b i 1 i ty of nn ;Arch i tectura 1 Review Comm i t t:cc ho i ng• ut i l i -cd i,;as d.i scussed , wit i c11 caul c; view the ho ;nos a l ortll i th Staff. - . Cha i ruutr! Lacicn commented that silo 1.oIt tits ordinance should havc a trial period, and then it: could he dctrr :Ili Tied ii. there was a nccJ fur nn : \rchitcctural Rivi.cl: Committee, Cormisnioncr }:ins, comimennO Ant: the Commission ha;; wasted rime hccatlsc of lack of nily definitive criteria. Ile felt that the cxis, tin!, small : \rchitectural ! <cvirw C'orr,!ittcc has not hoon properly utiliQuh Co— issioncr Schae for syreod that the C:o :nmIttec should he used Illoro of toil. Commissioner Zctmhetti rWestioned the fact that an addition of 300 sq. ft Cily of Sarc?rcj APPR0'./ED LY: Y REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION *(amended 5/27/81) DATE: 5/20/81 Commission Meeting: 5/27/81 SUBJECT: UP -495, Jack and Ruth Plato 19405 Bainter Avenue REQUEST: Allow the construction of a detached solar accessory structure over 6' high in the required rear yard. ZONING: R -1- 40,000 SITE SIZE: 2.87 acres ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: This project is a Class 3 categorical exemption according to State E.I.R. Guidelines. PUBLIC HEARING: This application was advertised by posting, publication in the newspaper, and by mailings to 25 nearby residents. STAFF ANALYSIS: The proposed solar rack would be 10' x 83' (830 sq. ft.) in size and between 7' and 10' in height. The structure would maintain a 12' rear yard at its eastern end and.,: a 29' rear yard at its western end. Section 3.71 of the ordinance requires a 25' rear yard for an accessory structure over 250 sq. ft. in size. The rack will support 20 4' x 10' panels angled at 45 degrees utilizing galvinized pipe construction. The rack will orient the panels due south to maximize solar access during low winter sun periods. This desire to maximize solar access is the reason for the different rear yard setbacks. The solar panels will provide hot water for space and water heating (pool and dwelling). Two walnut trees (part of an existing walnut orchard) one 15' high and the other 20' high just south of the proposed location of the solar rack will have to be removed to prevent excessive shading of the solar rack. Staff Report 5/20/81 UP -487 Page 2 FINDINGS: If the structure were moved (maintaining its same orientation to the sun) so that the minimum rear yard it maintains is 25' more walnut trees would have to be removed. The proposed location of the solar rack appears to be the best location in terms of minimizing tree removal and adverse impacts due to shading. The site plan shows several open areas in the southern portion of the site but these areas are heavily shaded during key solar heating periods during the winter due to larger nearby trees. The adjacent property to the north also contains a large array of solar panels near the same property line although they are further away. The proposed solar rack should not have any greater visual impact than the existing rack. Some screening is provided by existing walnut trees but their effectiveness is reduced in fall and winter. The rack is about 51' west of the eastern property line which will help to reduce the structure's visual impact. The Commission has in the past granted a use permit to allow a solar rack to maintain a.substandard rear yard when the panels would be adversely shaded by existing trees if required to comply with ordinance requirements (UP -433, Tom Kirker). Granting the use permit would be in line with the City's policy of encouraging the use of solar energy. 1. The proposed location of the solar rack is in accord with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. The proposed location of the solar rack and the conditions under which it would lbe operated or main- tained will not be detrimental to the public health safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to pro- perties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The proposed solar rack will not comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance in that a 12' rear year would be provided ,,;here 25' is normally required. No adverse impacts are anticipated from this variation, therefore, it is recoRmended that this variation be approved with this use permit. 6' Staff Report C` 5/20/81 UP -487 Page 3 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve per staff report dated 5/20/81 and Exhibits "B" and "C ", subject to the following condition: *1. Prior to issuance of building permits: A. The applicant shall submit landscaping plans showing how the proposed accessory structure shall be screened from view from the adjacent eastern property for Planning Department review and approval. Landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection. Michael Flores, Assistant Planner Approved V2 - P.C. Agenda 5/27/81 *as amended at the Planning Commission meeting 5/27/81.