HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 95-02 RESOLUTION 95 - 02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA GRANTING AN APPEAL FROM THE
DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
V-94-015; BARKAS; 13245 PADERO COURT
WHEREAS, Mr. Barkas, the applicant, has applied for variance
approval to allow the subject property to be under the minimum
lot size requirement based on the property's new average site
slope, as a result of a proposed lot line adjustment; and
WHEREAS, on November 22, 1994, 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, denied
the application; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Chadwick has appealed the denial of the
Planning Commission to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on January 4, 1995, 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, be it resolved by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga as follows:
1. By split vote of the City Council (Councilmember Moran
voting in opposition) 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 and the following findings
have been determined:
a. Because of special circumstances applicable to the
subject property, including size, shape, topography, location of
existing structures thereon or surroundings, strict enforcement
of the specified regulations would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by owners of properties in the vicinity and
classified in the same zoning district, in that the portion of
the property to be relocated by a lot line adjustment to the
1
uphill adjacent property, which relocation results in the need
for this variance, is property that is located at the uppermost
portion of the subject property and is accessible only by
traversing a very steep slope on the subject property, or by
accessing the property from ~he adjacent property. This lack of
reasonable access to the uppermost portion of the property causes
practical difficulty and unnecessary physical hardship in the
applicant~s ability to reasonably maintain and to make reasonable
use of, the property, a privilege enjoyed by many properties
within the immediate neighborhood. Additionally, the practical
inability to maintain the property in accordance with the
requirements of the Saratoga Fire District, could result in the
property becoming a fire hazard.
b. The granting of the variance will not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on
other properties inthe vicinity and classified in the same
zoning district in that the size of the property, reduced by the
proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the size of many
other properties located within the immediate neighborhood.
c. 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 in that
the existing residence on the property will continue to meet all
City square footage and setback requirements, and the public
health, safety and welfare will be enhanced by the uppermost
portion of the property being relocated and transferred to the
ownership of the uphill property owner, thereby disposing of the
practical difficulty of the applicant having to.maintain for fire
protection purposes, a virtually inaccessible portion of the
property.
2. The application of Barkas for variance approval be and
the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions:
a. 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 the 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.
b. 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 shall be payable to the
City for each day of the violation.
c. All applicable requirements of the state, county,
city and other governmental entities must be met.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Saratoga held on the .. 18th day of January ,
1995, by the following vote:
AYES: ODunci~s Jacobs, Moran, Wolfe, and Mayor Burger
NOES: None
ABSENT: O3unci~ Tucker
ABSTAIN:None
Mayo~
ATTEST:
Deputy City
January ll, 1995
273\res\v-94-015 .msr
3