Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 118 RESOLUTION NO. 11~8 RESOLb'rlON ON APPEAL - S~BDIVISION MAP ACT ROBRRT MORGAN - 8D- 319 The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as foiiMs: Section 1: The eneral findin s and opinion, specific ~ and conclusion on appeal, copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby declared to be the findings, opinion and cenclusion of this Council on appeal. Section__2: The Condi=ions 21 and , in SD-319, and as clarified by ~he m~Cached here~o, ~o · med. ~d Planning ~sston a ~e above and foregoing resolution was re~larly passed and a~p~ed aca special mee~in~ of the City Council of =he Ci=y of held on the 24~ day of January, 1962, at which a quorum was presto, and by ~he following vo~e: A~S: Brazil, Glenno~, ~ake, Lan~ill, Hart~n ~ES: ~one ~SE~: None .~::r::::::=-~'.~ ATTEST: RE: SD- 319 ROBERT MORGAN, Appellant The appeal in this matter, under B & P Section 11552, purports to be from all conditions imposed at the time of tenta- tive the Sa'~atoga Plannin Commission. However, at the of this appeal was by Appellant to conditions 21 and and will be so regarded. Conditions 21 and 22 require dedication and improvement of the heretofore unimproved portion of Saratoga Avenue which liee~ At t/~e present time the existing Saratoga Avenue varies from 12 to feet from center line. There- fore the conditions taken together mean the Appellant is required between 18 and 20 feet along sion, together with curbs and gutters. It was at the time of hearing that Appellant was not aware of the meaning of these condi- tioms, hence this ex[ .eation as borne out by the evidence. the heavy black limes on the original map. quired to and improve a i street certain property outside of his subdivision. This we find untrue. Appellant was , and to furnish this Council with engineering survey data ant to establish his property line in relation to the center line of Saratoga Avenue. To give Appellant sufficient time to furnish this information, the hearing was con- tinued from December 20, 1961 to January 3, 1962. At the January 3d hearin~ Appellant was not present, and still not having furnished his en~ineering data, the Council to take additional evidence as to the street center 1 s relation to AKpellant's line. The hearing a~ain was continued for t e purpose furnishing. this engineering data, and con- tinued to Januar~ 17, 962, of new date Appellant was notified. At the January 1 th continued hearing again was not present, but reported through the City office that the City Engineer's determination that Appe s property line and the center line coincided, was correct. Under Sections 3.1 and 3.3-9 Part 2, Ordinance NS-5, the exterior boundaries of a subdivislon bordering on an adjacent existing street must go to the pro erty line, up to but not beyond the center line of that street. ~e subdivider is required to dedicate and improve all within the bordering street be- tween this center line-' and the right of way line. This is exactly what the 8 C~msdssion imposed by conditions 21 and 22. The Cem~ssion had not only the right, but also the positive to re, this with these sections of the Or4 , and should be noted in passing that condition 18 requires Appellant to comply with this ordinance. divider other than is required by the subdivision ordinance. 1. This is a five lot subdivision, the exterior boundaries of which coincide with the center line of Saratoga Avenue on the South side. 2.A~~'!8 tentative is fly drawn, and the final map m~St cen~ermwith $,e: 3. , Part 2, Ordinance NS-5, to properl show the property line and subdivision exterior boundary line along Saratoga Avenue. 3. The conditions are in accord with this City's policy eviden¢~d by prevfems s of street improvement on Saratoga Avenue on prior subdivision apprevals along this street. 4. Conditions 21 and 22 are reasonable, as are the other condi- tioms but w~ich other co~ttions are not direct subject matter of for the use of nei traffic, sad the conditions are in accord with, not inconsistent ~rlth, 's local ordinance governin~ subdivisions. The conditions imposed b the Planning Commission, as sustained b the City Council' should be af£~d.