HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 96-22 RESOLUTION NO. 9~-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING
AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO
DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL DR-94-042
SKOV; 14970 SOBY ROAD
WHEREAS, Skov, the Applicant had made an application for Design Review
Approval to construct a 536 sq. foot first story addition and a 769 sq. foot second story
addition to an existing single stoW residence with a detached garage and recreation room
totaling 4, 154 square feet; and
WHEREAS, on February 14, 1996, the Hanning Commission of the City of
Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing on said application at which all interested
parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and following
the conclusion thereof, the Planning Commission voted to grant the Design Review
Application; and
WHEREAS, Appellant's Richard and Diana Anderson have appealed the granting
of Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission to the Coundl; and
WHEREAS, on April 3, 1996, the City Council conducted a de novo public
hearing on the Appeal, which included a review of the entire Design Review Application,
at which time any person interested in the matter was given a full opportunity to be
heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the City Courtall reviewed and considered the Staff Report, Minutes
of Proceedings conducted by the Planning Commission 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 Councfi (Coundlmembers Moran and Jacobs
voting in opposition) taken on April 17, 1996, the Appeal from the Planning
Commission is hereby denied, to wit: the Applicant has met the burden of proof required
to support the Application for Design Review approval with the conditions as modified
herein below set forth, and the following findings have been determined:
The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed addition,
as conditioned, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and
location of residential structures on adiacent lots and within the
neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable
interference with views and privacy, in that the proposed addition as
conditioned, meets or exceeds the minimum setback requirements for the
zoning district and the proposed height of 23 ft. should not unreasonably
impair neighboring views. In particular, from all written and oral evidence
submitted, this Council finds that neither the view from the appellants'
property nor appellants' privacy will be unreasonably or substantially
impaired or interfered with by the proposed addition, as conditioned by
this resolution.
The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing
structures 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
undeveloped areas, in that only one tree w~l be removed and no grading is'
required.
The proposed addition as conditioned, in relation to structures on adjacent
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 addition is well massed and articulated.
The proposed addition, as conditioned, 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
ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy, in that the addition is
setback in compliance with the required setbacks, the 23 ft. maximum
height is in compliance with Code standards, and the design utilizes
techniques to minimize the perception of bulk and mass.
The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current
grading and erosion control standards used by the City.
- The proposed addition as conditioned, will conform to each of the
applicable design polides and techniques set forth in the Residential
Design Handbook and as required by Section 15-45.055.
2. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans
and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Skov for
Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following
conditions:
1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on "Exhibit
A" , incorporated by reference.
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. All applicable requirements/conditions of the Resolution (e.g.
modifications to plans) shall be noted on the plans.
3. Prior to issuahce of a Zoning Clearance, the plans shall be modified as
follows:
a. The second story deck shall be eliminated.
b. The bathroom windows on the east elevation shall either be
redesigned as upper "derestory' windows OR the window material
shall be changed to obscure glass.
4. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, the applicant shall indicate the
location of one (1) 36 inch box size tree on the site plan. The tree shall be
consistent with the City's xeriscape standards and shall be planted prior to
the issuance of Final Occupancy approval.
5. The height of the addition shall not exceed 23 feet.
6. No ordinance size tree, besides the one (1) Chinese Elm tree, shall be
removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit.
7. No structure shall be permitted in any easement.
8. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New
Development and Construction - Best Management Practices as adopted
by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution.
9. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses,
induding 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. Became 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.
3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will
expire.
4. 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 lst dayof May , 1996 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Burger, Moran, Tucker, Wolfe and Mayor aacobs
NOES: None
ABSENTNone
ABSTAIN: L.~...,."! .
,,~:;~.,!!!!!5~i :: .."'
!:~:,.. ,;..; .... . .......
AITEST:
Deputy City Clerk
April 22, 1996
I :\WPDXMNll.SWN273NII-E S 96~ KOV.418
4