HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 92-015
RBSOLUTION NO. 92-015
A RBSOLUTION O~ THB CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY O~ SAJtA'I'OGA GRAlfTING AN APPBAL ~ROK
THE DECISIO)l OF THB PLANNING COMMISSION
V-'1-014; 14761 BOHLMAN ROAD
1fBEREAS, Mr. Ray Persico, the applicant, has applied for
variance approval to construct a six (6) foot high fence within
required front yard and exterior side yard setbacks, and to extend
an existing nonconforming building line within the front yard
setback; and
WHEREAS, on January 22, 1992, the Planning commission of the
Ci ty of saratoga held a duly noticed public hear ing on said
application at which time all interested parties were given a full
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, and following the
conclusion thereof the Planning Commission, by separate actions,
denied the variance for the fence and granted the variance for the
building extension; and
1fBBREAS, applicant has appealed the decision of the Planning
Commission denying the fence variance to the City Council; and
WHERBAS, on March 18, 1992, the City Council conducted a de
novo public hearing on the appeal at which time any person
interested in the matter was given a full opportunity to be heard;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the staff
report, minutes of proceedings conducted by the Commission relating
to the application, and the written and oral evidence presented to
the City Council in support of and in opposition to the appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BB IT RESOLVED by the city Council of the City
of Saratoga as follows:
1. By vote of the City Council the appeal from the Planning
Commission is hereby granted and the decision of the Planning
Commission is reversed, to wit: the applicant has met the burden
of proof required to support the application for a variance for the
construction of a six (6) foot high fence within the required front
and exterior side yard setbacks,
(a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the
property, including size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning
district in that:
the property is a corner parcel in which the existing
residence was constructed in close proximity to the property line.
.'--'--'_.'..'_.'..'~.'..'..'..'_.'..'..'..'~.'~.'..'~.'..'..'..'..'..'--'--'--
Upon the City's incorporation in 1956, new zoning regulations
created a nonconforming front yard setback.
the elevation of the lot is substantially lower than the
street elevation along Bohlman Road, which is heavily used by
auto/truck traffic. Therefore, constructing a six (6) foot fence
outside the setbacks would provide no noise or privacy protection
as enjoyed by others with six (6) foot fences on level lots.
(b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on
other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning
district in that other properties are entitled to construct a six
(6) foot high fence and to benefit from the noise reduction and
privacy from such fence.
(c) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity, as the proposed fence
conforms to sight distance standards and does not exceed the height
limit of six (6) feet generally allowed for fences in the City
Code.
2. The application of Persico for variance approval be and
the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions:
(a) The fence shall be located and constructed as shown on
Exhibit "A", incorporated herein by reference. In no event shall
the maximum height of the fence exceed six (6) feet.
(b) Prior to construction of the fence, applicant shall
submit a material board for Planning Director review and approval
which indicates the type of materials and colors to be used for the
fencing.
(c) No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first
obtaining a Tree Removal Permit.
(d) Any future landscaping shall emphasize native and drought
tolerant species consistent with the City's xeriscape guidelines.
(e) Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and
expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held
to be the liability of City in connection with city's defense of
its actions in any proceeding brought in any state or Federal court
challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's
project.
(f) Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit
shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is
impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the
violation, liquidated damages of $250.00 shall be payable to this
City per each day of the violation.
3. Construction must be commenced within twenty-four (24)
months or approval will expire.
4. All applicable requirements of the state, County, City
and other governmental entities must be met.
5. The applicant shall affix a copy of this resolution to
each set of construction plans which will be submitted to the
Building Division when applying for a building permit.
*****
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Saratoga held on the 1st day of April
1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Anderson, Clevenqer, Kohler, Mania' stutzman
NOES: Done
ABSENT: none
ABSTAIN: none
Iá~-~ ..~&=~
((Ø-¿ f ~,. '--,_
Mayor·
ATTEST:
~(/J/~