Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 92-016 _"....""",.",,,.,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,".""",.",,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,.,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,.,,,,.'.."''''''''''",.",",,"1111111"""""""""'''''''''''''''''''''.'''''''.'''''''' '',,,..,,,,. RESOLUTION NO. 92-016 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART U APPEAL ROK ft! DECISION OJ!' THE PLAKHING COMMISSION V-92-001 - GARDANIER; 21110 CANYON VIEW DRIVE WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Gardanier, the applicants, have applied for variance approval to allow a garage extension to extend into a required front yard setback and to allow a swimming pool, associated decking, and a six (6) foot high fence to extend into the required exterior sideyard and; WHEREAS, on February 12, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing 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 noted to approve the variance request to allow the garage extension and to deny the variance requests for the swimming pool, deck and fence extension; and WHEREAS, applicant has appealed the denial of the of the Planning Commission to the City Council; and WHEREAS, 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 the in opposition to the appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga as follows: 1. By unanimous vote of the City Council approving the variance request for the swimming pool, by split vote (with Councilmember Monia voting in opposition and Councilmember Stutzman abstaining) approving the variance request for the fence, and by unanimous vote denying the variance request for the deck, the appeal from the Planning Commission is hereby granted in part and denied in part, to wit: the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the application for the pool and the fence has not met the burden of proof required to support the application for the deck and the following findings have been determined: Pool and Exterior Side Yard Fence: that because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, a strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity in the same zoning district¡ in that: the zoning ordinance defines this yard area as an exterior side yard when its practical use, based on the physical configuration of the lot, is a rear yard. Based on the literal interpretation of yard area, the applicant is not afforded the typical exceptions to yard requirements which would allow for a pool to be located 6 ft. from a rear property line and a 6 ft. tall fence within the required rear yard setback. The lot has a steep slope downhill from the road which would preclude any privacy from a six (6) foot fence built at the allowable location, as enjoyed by others with six (6) foot fences on level lots. Granting the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same zoning district in that: based on the natural topography of the lot, the exterior side yard is the only level area to accommodate a rear yard and provide for a pool. For all intent and purposes, this yard area would be considered a rear yard in which case a 6 foot tall fence would be allowed. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that: the pool proposal will not be visible or have a negative effect on the adjacent properties. The small section of six (6) foot tall fence is necessary for safety reasons if a pool is to be allowed. The six (6) foot fence does not exceed the height limit generally allowed for fences in the City Code. Deck: There are no special circumstances applicable to the property that would result in the applicant being deprived of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the vicinity in the same zoning district, by a strict or literal interpretation of the zoning ordinance and the granting of the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege, in that the proposed deck may be constructed without the necessity of a variance if it were lowered to no more than six (6) inches above the natural grade. 2. The application of Gardanier for Variance Approval for the pool and fence by the same is hereby granted subj ect to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated herein by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for building permit or grading permit, a zone clearance shall be obtained from the Planning Department. 3. Prior to zone clearance, the applicant shall acquire an encroachment permit from the Engineering Department to allow the proposed 6 ft. tall fence to encroach into the road right- of-way. 4. The proposed fence shall be black wrought iron or black chain link. 5. All landscaping shall be of native and drought tolerant species in conformance with the City's xeriscape guidelines. 6. Construction must be commenced within twenty-four (24) months or approval will expire. 7. All applicable requirements of the state, County, City and other governmental entities must be met. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. *** 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, Clevenger, Kohler, Monia and stutzman, NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ~~~a"-- / ~- ~~ --/ ~, ~._................._.... A;¡~~ J!¡~;M.~~!i'ailllîllil!li?~'íi;:i~i~Œ\:ij¡\;:":'i;¡:~;~"~'~'1~':I:!i;:.";\~li:¡""~....',ld¡~.\¡=.,.,.IL\;.~...:·,;'.:;"~I¡¡I"'~';¡:¡."":~~~ M.a ~ ~.I o FT. WOOD FENCE A.r.N. ~. 2A~('þt-. . (d>~:'tt.: . ~ L __. !2.IIIO ~ VI~W Q2IV! . Mft.+MF6.~ ~. 6 FT. CHÁIN LINK OR exl5re,use~ 6IHeJLe W.I. BLACK FENÇV ~'ðT::s~.= /" ~ï)e..:w~~ /'-- -., ~. / --- _~.-f)rŒ.,lfi~~ :fi.~' I ~~~~1_1MIHI . ,m~j¥t'.~.ft. , '~~ø:.. fì*~l'- .~_ ~wtr__ .. ØQ.~.~',,, ,L,~~) 1'- " . k1JS' ~i,~ In J ..' . ~~=:: Z~r ~!u 1 "1211 II ~ ~ "* t:UI ,. b" 1 3. ~ .:.: .~ ~~' ;;t:~it I *'=.~;;., ~ ¡-¡- It ~Jttø _ AZ I~ ·~~~·~+P;Ci.-+.~~ ¡~ I . . \ ~.4< .) \ ~ ~ r¡;o.. J'_ ~ 2 0),: f\ ~~\~ ..- -:__ . '-\:J,.\ \Dr¡ f - . ;. I 1-' - :.µ.\ ,"-l . ~ ..~ ~3· ". '"\ /' /" . N'2'~ ~~:-._. --~ .__.-t". ''', - , \ \ \ , EXHIBIT "A" - "~ (j;~/ ~ ~ ~~V .~, 1/0";'.0' _ """'" ~..J~/ ~1a.J:t\N~ -tmeÞ ~\~ ~,,/,' .... '.. _ ~~.IHIW _~ Ct¡~' . .' ~IN&S ~M~C .. ~1l . "/'/ ~~'@.&AN.fl.1Ift r- æ do) ~: i !I} . &:{ =l ~~ ~ ~5i . . ~p. ~ t~~~ § I..... a l 2 o¿= ¡¡: J:ii -< ~ ~..,)" -ï>\. . ~\ '-:', \ . . .~ '\ _ ~J}' REC~EQ"./'" ., MAR 2 7 1992" PI.ANN.1N.G DEPT.. . .