HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 03-021
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SARATOGA
ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION No. 03-021
CONTAINING FINDINGS AND DECISION BY CITY COUNCIL REGARDING DENIAL OF
VARIANCE SOUGHT BY MITCHELL AND TRACY CUTLER
FOR 190-FOOT WALL AT 14480 OAK PLACE
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga City has received and reviewed an appeal by
Mitchell and Tracy Cutler regarding the denial of Variance Application No 02-0269 for a
190-foot wall exceeding six feet in height at 14480 Oak Place;
WHEREAS, Application No. 02-0269 requested approval of a variance from the
maximum height limit of 6- feet imposed by City of Saratoga wall regulations to authorize
the height of the unlawfully constructed 190-foot section of the existing property line
wall along the north and northeasterly sides of the parcel (adjacent to the DAVIES,
SMITH AND KING properties as shown on the diagram attached hereto as Exhibit A)
which reaches heights of7-feet 6-inches in certain portions to remain as constructed;
WHEREAS, said variance Application was denied by the City Planning
Commission on February 12, 2003;
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2003, following a duly noticed and conducted de novo
Public Hearing at which all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard
and to present evidence, the City Council considered all testimony and evidence presented
including all materials prepared by City staff, the applicant and other interested parties and
rendered its decision on the variance sought by Application No. 02-0269; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby adopts the following findings and final decision
on Variance Application No. 02-0269.
Now, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve
that after careful consideration of Variance Application No. 02-0269 regarding City
height restrictions for walls, as well as additional presentations made to it by City Staff
and other interested persons, the City Council makes the following findings and renders
the following decision with respect to Variance Application No. 02-0269_
FINDINGS
Required Finding Under Saratoga City Code section 15-70.060 (a). That
because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the
owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning
district.
The City Council finds that there are no special circumstances applicable to the
property as to which the strict enforcement of the height limits for walls would
deprive the Applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the
vicinity and classified in the same zoning district in that none of the following
facts constitute special circumstances warranting the approval of a variance:
(1) The fact that the CUTLER parcel is a flag lot does not constitute a
special circumstance in that there are numerous flag lots
throughout the City.
(2) The fact that the CUTLER parcel is burdened with an
ingress/egress easement does not constitute a special circumstance
in that there are numerous parcels throughout the City burdened
with ingress/egress easements_
(3) The fact that the CUTLER parcel includes a 12- foot offset in the
property line does not deprive the Applicant of privileges enjoyed
by owners of other properties in the vicinity_
(4) The fact that the CUTLER parcel is surrounded by 10 other
parcels constitutes a special circumstance; however a wall limited
to six feet in height would not deprive the Applicant of privileges
(including privacy) enjoyed by owners of other properties in the
vicinity_
Required Finding Under Saratoga City Code section 15-70.060 (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
classified in the same zoning district.
The City Council finds that the granting of this Variance would constitute a grant
of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the
vicinity and classified in the same zoning district This finding is based on the lack
of evidence that there are other fences on other properties in the vicinity that have
been permitted to be constructed in violation of the applicable codes.
Required Finding Under Saratoga City Code section 15-70.060 (c). That the
granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially iujurious to properties or improvements in the viciuity.
The City Council finds that the granting of this Variance would be detrimental to
the public health, safety and/or welfare, and will be materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity in that the wall height and bulk is
consistent with an industrial area but not a residential zone district
DECISION
The Planning Commission decision is affirmed and Variance Application No_ 02-
0269 is denied by the City CounciL
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga City Council, State of California,
this 7th Day of May 2003 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmember Kathleen King, Norman Kline,
Vice Mayor Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor Nick Streit
NOES: Councilmember Stan Bogosian
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor, City of Saratoga
~~
NOTICE TO APPELLANT: YOUR APPEAL HAS BEEN
DENIED. IF YOU INTEND TO SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THIS
DECISION, THE DEADLINE TO DO SO IS GOVERNED BY
CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1094.6.
ANY SUCH PETITION SHALL BE FILED NOT LATER THAN THE
90TH DAY FOLLOWING THE DATE ON WHICH THE DECISION
BECOMES FINAL.
THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON MAY 7TH, 2003 AND THIS NOTICE
WAS SERVED ON MAY 22, 2003 BY:
(1) MAILING BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL, POSTAGE PREPAID,
INCLUDING A COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OR
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING TO APPELLANT.
PROOF OF SERVICE
I certify and declare as follows:
I am over the age of 18, and not a party to this action. My business address is City of Saratoga,
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070, which is located in Santa Clara County where the service
described below took place.
I am familiar with the business practice at my place of business for the collection and processing
of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence so collected and
processed is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of
business.
On May 22 2003, the following document(s):
1. RESOLUTION CONTAINING FINDINGS AND DECISION BY CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING DENIAL OF VARIANCE SOUGHT BY MITCHELL AND TRACY
CUTLER FOR 190-FOOT WALL AT 14480 OAK PLACE
was placed for deposit in the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope, with postage fully paid to:
Mitchell and Tracy Cutler
14480 Oak Place
Saratoga, CA 95070
William F. Breck
20375 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
Frank, Letha & Pat Matas
20385 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
Holly Davies
14478 Oak Place
Saratoga, CA 95070
The Kings
14472 Oak Place
Saratoga, CA 95070
I certify and declare under penalty of perjury that
e and correct
Dated: May 22, 2003