HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 96-30 RESOLUTION NO. 96 - 30
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPLICANT/APPELLANT NAGPAL; 19101 VIA TESORO COURT V-95-014
WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Nagpal, the applicant has applied for
variance approval to allow the existing residence on Lot 1 to be
located roughly 55 feet from the front property line when 69 feet is
the required set back; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 1996, 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 voted to deny the variance approval; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed the denial of the Planning
Commission to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on May 1, 1996, 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 to present
evidence; 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. After careful consideration of the Tentative Parcel Map,
plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, by
unanimous vote of the City Council the appeal from the Planning
Commission is affirmed, to wit: The applicant has failed to meet the
burden of proof required to support the application for variance
approval and the following findings have been determined:
(a) Special circumstances applicable to the property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings do not
exist which would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the
owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same
zoning district in that the applicant's own desire to subdivide the
lot into two (2) lots does not constitute a special circumstance.
(b) That the granting of the variance would 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 no special physical circumstances exist applicable to the
1
property to support a Variance.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Saratoga held on the 5th day of June , 1996,
by the following vote:
AYES: Counci~sBurger, MoranandWolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: CouncilFember~eacandMayor Jacobs
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk