HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 95-35 Resolution N0. 95- 35
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SARATOGA GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
IN PART AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
LL 93-008, V-93-020 AND DR 93-032
HEATH - 14300 SARATOGA AVENUE
WHEREAS, Mark and Cindee Heath, the applicants, have applied for Lot Line
Adjustment approval to merge a 20 foot wide property strip to the main parcel,
Variance approval to allow the proposed cumulative building square footage
(including accessory structures) to exceed the allowable for this property, to allow a
25 ft. tall two-story garage (one-story, 15 ft. in height maximum permitted) and to
allow the second story addition to exceed the 26 ft. main structure height limit by 4
inches and Design Review approval to add 2,204 sq. ft. of first and second floor area
to an existing two-story residence listed on Saratoga's Heritage Inventory.
WHEREAS, on May 24, 1995, 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 a conclusion thereof the Planning Commission denied~ the application;
WHEREAS, the denial by the Planning Commission has been appealed to the
City Council by the applicants;
WHEREAS, on July 5, 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;
~ The Planning Commission did deny the entire application; however, it is
noted by this Council that the minutes of the Commission proceeding indicate
clearly that the Commission was prepared to approve the Lot Line Adjustment, the
main structure height Variance, a cumulative building square footage Variance (in the
amount of 608 additional square feet) and the Design Review, modified accordingly.
The minutes further reflect however, that the applicants requested and received
denial of the entire application.
1
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:
Section 1. Lot Line Ad!ustment Findings for LL 93-008. By unanimous 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 applicants have met
the burden of proof required to support the lot line adjustment application and the
following findings have been determined:
(a) A greater number of parcels than originally existed is not created by this
lot line adjustment.
(b ) The parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to the
Saratoga General Plan, the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance, and Saratoga building
ordinances.
Section 2. yariance Findines for V-93-020 - Height of Main Structure.
By unanimous vote of the City Council the appeal from the Planning
Commission is hereby granted and the decision of the Hanning 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) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including
size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified
regulations would deprive the applicants of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district, in that the
additional height is necessary in order to match the existing roofline of the main
structure which is listed on the Heritage Resource Inventory, and without the
variance the applicants would be unable to construct a second story addition
compatible with the main structure, as owners of neighboring properties are able to
do.
(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
2
classified in the same zoning district, in that the approval of a height variance is
unique by virtue of the roo~ine of the existing main structure which is of historic
significance.
(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.
Section 3. Variance Findings For Vo93-020 - 25 Foot Tall Two-Story Garage.
By two separate split votes of the City Council (Council members Burger and Wolfe
voting in opposition) the appeal from the Planning Commission is hereby denied and
the action of the Planning Commission is affirmed, to wit: The applicant has not met
the burden of proof required to support the application for a 25 foot tall two-story
garage. However, the Council has approved a one-story garage not to exceed the 15
foot height limit, without a stairway and to be constructed a minimum of 10 feet
from the existing fir tree. The following findings have been determined:
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 garage may be constructed without the nec~sity of a
variance if it were lowered to no more than one-story, with a 15 foot height limit.
Section 4. Variance Findings For V-93-020 - Cumulative Building Square
Footage: and Desi~tm Review FindinE For DR-93-013.
By split vote of the City Cotmcil (Council members Burger and Wolfe voting
in opposition) the appeal from the Planning Commission is hereby granted and the
decision of the Planning Commission is reversed, only to the extent that the Council
approves a maximum cumulative building square footage variance on the property of
5,008 square feet, and approves a design review consistent with the approved
cumulative building square footage and with the other variance actions taken herein
by this Council, to wit: The applicants have met the burden of proof required to
support the cumulative building square footage variance application and the design
review application, and the following findings have been determined:
3
Variance - Cumulative Buildin~ Sauare Footaee.
(a) Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property,
including size, shape, topography, location of existing structures thereof 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 project site is constrained by three historically
significant accessory structures (the "carriage house", the "shed" and the "office")
which total 608 square feet, and which are not present on surrounding properties,
thereby causing applicants a substantial loss of ability to construct the additions to
the desired size, while meeting all City setback and design requirements, a privilege
enjoyed by many properties within the immediate 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 the size and lot coverage of the proposed residence is
consistent with the size and lot coverage of many other residences constructed on
properties 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 construction of an addition to a residence meeting all City setback and
design requirements and consistent with the size of other residences within the
immediate neighborhood is not considered to be or constitute a hazard to public
health, safety or welfare or to be materially injurious to improvements or property in
the vicinity.
Design Review,
(a) The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed addition
or to the proposed accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the
nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the
neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference
with views and privacy, in that view sheds should not be obstructed since the
property is well camouflaged from neighboring properties.
(b) The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing
a main structure addition and an accessory structure to follow the natural contours of
the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and
will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and
4
undeveloped areas. Ordinance protected tree removal is not permitted.
(c) The proposed main structure addition and accessory structure in relation to
structures on adiacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the
perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in
that the proposed additions will match the main structures, existing roofline and will
be consistent with many of the existing two-story homes within this neighborhood.
(d) The proposed additions to the main structure and the proposed accessory
structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential
structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within
the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i)
unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor (ii) unreasonably
impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy, in that based on the
location of the existing and proposed structures, these impacts should be minimized.
(e) The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current
grading and erosion control standards used by the City.
(f) The proposed addition to the main structure and the proposed accessory
structure will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set
forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15-45.055.
Section 5. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings,
plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of
Heath for lot line adjustment, design review approval and variance approval be and
the same is hereby granted to the extent set forth above and only subiect to the
following conditions:
1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit
"A", as otherwise modified by this Resolution.
2. Prior to submittal for a Building Permit, the following shall be
submitted to Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning
Clearance:
a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this
Resolution as a separate plan page.
b. One (1) set of engineered grading and drainage plans, also
5
incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page.
c. All applicable requirements/conditions of this Resolution (e.g.
modifications to plans) and requirements/conditions of the City
Arborist (e.g. tree protective fencing) shall be noted on the plans.
3. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, applicant shall submit revised
plans indicating the following for Community Development Director
review and approval:
a. The total building square footage shall be reduced to no more
than 5,008 sq. ft., including the three existing historic accessory
structures identified as the "carriage house", "office" and "rock
shed" per Exhibit "A".
b. The second story shall be eliminated from the proposed accessory
structure garage. The revised single story garage shall be no taller
than 15 ft. and shah be no closer than 10 ft. from the trunk of
the Douglas Fir per the City Arborist's recommendation.
c. The approved Variance for the additional 608 sq. ft. of building
square footage was granted only for the three existing historic
accessory structures identified per condition no. 3.a. above. If
these buildings are removed the property will be governed by
current Zoning Ordinance maximum allowable building square
footages. This shall be noted on the plans.
d. The existing gravel driveway along the southwest property line
shall be removed and the entrance onto Saratoga Ave. blocked. A
good neighbor fence, or landscape screening, shall be installed
along the southwest property line.
e. The independent apartments on the property shall be removed or
modified so as to not constitute independent dwellings. One
second dwelling unit is permitted if approved pursuant to Article
15-56 of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. All requirements of the City Arborist's Report dated November 7, 1995
shall be met. This includes, but is not limited to:
6
a. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, a tree protection security
shall be submitted in the amount of $8,876.00 pursuant to the
report and recommendation of the City Arborist to guarantee the
maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. This
security will be released once construction is completed and it has
been verified by the City Arborist that the procedures outlined in
his report have been followed.
b. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance revised plans shall be
submitted indicating:
- Six (6) ft. chain link tree protective fending shown as
recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place
throughout construction."
- Pervious driveway paving material within any portion of the
canopy of the Douglas Fir.
- All other applicable construction period notes shall be
included on the plans.
c. Prior to issuance of Demolition, Building or Grading Permits, tree
protective fencing shall be installed and inspected by staff.
d. · Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall
perform a final site inspection and all outstanding City Arborist
fees shall be paid.
5. No fence or wall shall exceed six (6) feet in height and no fence or wall
located within any required front yard shall exceed three (3) feet in
height.
6. No ordinance size tree shah be removed without first obtaining a Tree
Removal Permit.
7. Property is located in a designated hazardous fire area.
a. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code
Class A or B prepared or built-up roofing.
7
b. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and
maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16-60
City of Saratoga.
c. Early Waming Fire Alarm System shall have documentation
relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the
Fire District for approval.
d. Automatic sprinkler heads shall be installed in garage.
8. All driveways shall have a 14 ft. minimum width plus one ft. shoulders.
9. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New
Development and construction - Best management Practices as adopted
by the City for the purposes of preventing storm water pollution.
10. 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 proiect.
11. 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 this City per each day of the violation.
8
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Saratoga held on the 19th day of 3.1 v ,1995, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Oacobs, Moran, Tucker, Wolfe and Mayor Burger
NOES: None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk/'
J:\WPDMMNRSWX2 73XRE S95XHEATH.W61