HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 95-03 RESOLUTION 95 - 03
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA GRANTING AN APPEAL FROM THE
OECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
V-94-0181 CORNELIUS~ 14199 SHORT HILL COURT
WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Cornelius, the applicants, have
applied for variance approval to construct a five foot high
wrought iron fence and entry gate within the required front yard
set back where three feet is the maximum height permitted; and
'WHEREAS, on November 9, 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, applicants have 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 the proceedings conducted by the Planning
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 Tucker
voting in opposition) the appeal from the Planning Commission is
hereby granted and the decision of the Planning Commission is
reversed, to wit: The applicants have 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 applicants of
privileges enjoyed by owners of properties in the vicinity and
classified in the same zoning district, in that in order to
construct a five foot high fence (which is required in order to
1
comply with the swimming pool fencing requirement that is not
within the required front yard set back, the only practical
location for the proposed fence would result in the fence
bisecting the existing orchard on the property, thereby causing
the applicants substantial practical difficulty and unnecessary
physical hardship in having to maintain a portion of the orchard
which would be located outside the fence. The privilege of being
able to maintain oness garden and landscaping fully within the
fenced portion of one*s property is a privilege enjoyed by many
properties within the i~ediate neighborhood.
b. 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 many properties within the immediate
neighborhood are built with fences within the set back or with
fences at the street.
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 construction of the fence at the proposed location will be
minimally visible from adjoining properties and from the street,
and the fence will pose no sight-distance problem for pedestrians
or motorists.
2. The application of Cornelius for variance approval be
and the same is hereby granted subject to the following
conditions:
a. Applicants agree 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
tityes defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any
state or federal court, challenging the Cityss action with
respect to the applicants~ 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.
ace
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: Councilmembers Jacobs, Moran, Wolfe, and Mayor Burger
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Tucker
ABSTAIN: None
Me~r '~
ATTEST:
Deput~ Cit~ Clerk
January 11, 1995
273 \res\v-94-018 .msr
3