Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 984 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA In the Matter of: ) ) ) RESOLUTION NO. 984 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Ruling Upon An Application By ALLEN DON For The Grant Of An Exception From The Interim Restrictions Imposed By The Initiative Ordinance Adopted By The Voters In An Election Held On April 8, 1980. At a special election ordered consolidated with the general municipal election and held on April 8, 1980, the voters of the City of Saratoga adopted an ordinance entitled, "An Initiative Ordinance Directing Preparation of a Specific Plan for Preservation of the Rural Character of the Northwest Hillsides of the City of Saratoga and Imposing a Moratorium on Development Pending Completion of Said Plan." The Initiative Ordinance is also commonly referred to as Measure A. It went into effect on April 25, 1980. Section 7 of the Initiative Ordinance provides that: "SECTION 7. INTERIM RESTRICTIONS Pending final completion of the requirements of Section 3, no zoning changes, land divisions, sub- divisions, building or grading permits for construc- tion of a new residence, or other land development approvals of any kind shall be issued in the subject area, nor any applications accepted therefor; pro- vided, that upon a showing of extreme hardship and in agreement with the provisions of this initiative, exceptions may be granted after two noticed public hearings by a 4/51s vote of the City Council." To implement Section 7, the City Council on June 4, 1980, adopted Resolution No. 956.1, a "Resolution of the City Council of the City of Saratoga Establishing Criteria for Evaluating Hardship Exemption Applications Under Section 7, Interim Restrictions of Measure A." On October 28, 1980, an application was filed on behalf of Allen Don for an exception under Section 7 of the Initiative Ordinance for development of a single-family residence on a pro- posed building site. The applicant now owns Lot No. 12 of Tract 3943, comprising part of a 25 lot subdivision which received final approval on September 7, 1966. In August, 1975, the final map approval was extended to September 7, 1981. A site development plan was also approved for Lot No. 12 more than 2 years prior to adoption of the Initiative Ordinance. Although the applicant's present lot and site development plan are exempted from the Initiative Ordinance under Section 8 thereof, the applicant pro- poses to purchase square feet of land which is not a buildable site from the adjacent property owner thereby enlarging his lot and relocating the building site upon which his residence would be constructed. The exemption set forth in Section 8 of the initiative ordinance would no longer apply to said enlarged lot nor the new site development plan for said lot. -1- Noticed public hearings were held on November 19, 1980, December 3, 1980, and December 17, 1980, at each of which the applicant was heard and presented evidence. In addition, all other persons wishing to be heard were heard. Members of the City Council have inspected and are familiar with the property; each has reviewed the City's files pertaining to the property and the application, has read the written record pertaining to the application for an exemption and has listened to, considered and evaluated the testimony at the public hearings and the presentation by staff, in accordance with Resolution No. 956.1. The question before the City Council upon the question of whether or not to grant an exception under Section 7 is whether there is a showing by the applicant: (1) of extreme hardship and (2) that the proposed development is in agreement with the provisions of the Initiative. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council finds and determines as follows: 1. The evidence with respect to whether or not there is a showing by the applicant of extreme hardship is substantially as follows: a. After the proposed land purchase has been com- pleted, the property will consist of approximately 47,941 square feet, located in the area which is the subject of the Initiative Ordinance. b, The new lot and building site upon which the applicant intends to construct his residence does require approval under Section 7 of the Initiative Ordinance and approval may be granted only pursuant to the exception procedure of Section 7. c. The proposed development is strictly for construc- tion of an owner-occupied single-family residence. It is not a subdivision. Working drawings and geology reports have been prepared at considerable expense to the applicant, and unless work is commenced witþin the near future, the applicant will incur increased construction costs. The applicant has sold his former residence and is now living in temporary quarters pending completion of his new home. d. According to applicant's declaration and testimony, if applicant is required to build on the existing approved building site, his home would be placed in a lower elevation in relation to the existing oak trees, thereby placing the solarium and related passive solar system design in shade and rendering it useless. As a result, the applicant's future utility costs would be greatly increased. Relocating the building site upon the proposed enlarged lot would avoid this problem and allow applicant to efficiently utilize his passive solar design. e. The cost to applicant for the purchase of additional property sufficient to meet the Measure A standard would be extremely expensive and no additional -2- property adjoining applicant's lot is presently for sale. 2. The evidence with respect to whether or not the proposed development is in agreement with the provisions of the Initiative Ordinance is substantially as follows: a. The average slope of the existing lot is approximately 46.4%, whereas the average slope of the new lot would be approximately 43.5%. The slope underneath the building footprint of the existing building site is approximately 50%, whereas the slope under- neath the building footprint of the new building site would be approximately 32%. The density formula specified in Section 4a of the Initiative Ordinance would require 6.59 acres for construction of one unit upon a site having an average slope of the applicant's enlarged lot, the peculiar circumstances of this applicant render it impossible for the proposed new lot to ever meet the density standard of Section 4a of the Initiative Ordinance. b. The development will not require the improve- ment of Pierce Road because it does not front on Pierce Road. Since the enlarged lot will be improved with a single-family residence, there will be no adverse effect on traffic, access or circulation. The proposed land purchase will enable the adjacent property owner to improve the alignment of Old Oak Way, thereby avoiding extensive grading and providing for a safer traffic pattern. c. The proposed development will comply with the standards for preservation of rural character set forth in Section 4c of the Initiative Ordinance. Construction of the residence upon the enlarged building site, as opposed to the existing approved site, would involve substantially less grading, preservation of large oak trees which otherwise would be removed, and the higher elevation of the relocated building site would permit the applicant to make greater use of passive solar energy design. The enlarged building site would also eliminate the need for a side yard variance, which was required for development of the existing approved building site. There are no ågnificant geologic hazards tentatively identified in the preliminary review of the geologic report. Ade- quate regulations and controls will be imposed by the City to insure preservation, to the fullest extent feasible, of the natural drainage system, topography, and natural creekside vegetation. d. The subject property is proposed to be developed in one stage and meets the provisions for staging of growth set forth in Section 4a of the Init~ative Ordinance. e. The ability of the City to require any proposed development to meet the standards of Section 4e -3- for street and storm drain maintenance is impaired by Article XIII.A. of the California Constitution and court decisions interpreting it. Article XIII.A. limits the levy of ad valorem taxes on real property and provides for their collection and apportionment by the County as provided by law. The City can levy a special tax only upon approval of a 2/3rds vote of its qualified electors. The City is authorized to form a special assessment district as a means for financing the construction of improvements by the levy of an assessment spread over properties upon the basis of benefit received; however, there is no authority authorizing the City to levy an annual assessment over the benefitted properties for maintenance of streets and storm drain facilities. 3. Upon the issue of extreme hardship, the City Council finds that the applicant has not sustained his burden and there is not a showing of extreme hardship within the meaning of Section 7 of the Initiative Ordinance. 4. Upon the issue of agreement with the provisions of the Initiative Ordinance, the City Council finds as follows: a. The proposed development is not in agreement with the maximum density standards of Section 4a. b. The proposed development is in agreement with the access and circulation standards of Section 4b. c. The proposed development can be developed in a manner which will comply with the preservation of rural character standards of Section 4c through the imposition by the City and acceptance by the applicant of regulations and controls to avoid geologic hazards, control erosion and preserve the natural drainage system, topography and natural creekside vegetation. d. The proposed development complies with the staging of growth standards of Section 4d. e. The ability of the proposed development to meet the street and storm drain maintenance standards of Section 4e has been impaired. While it is possible to finance the construction of streets and storm drains by means of special assessments, it is not possible at this time to finance the cost of maintaining these facilities on an annual basis by the levy of an assessment, as is contem- plated by Section 4e. The Council therefore finds that it cannot require the applicant to comply with the standards of Section 4e to the extent that it is impossible to do so. 5. Upon the basis of records, files and proceedings relating to the application of ALLEN DON for an exception under -4- Section 7 of the Initiative Ordinance, the City Council makes the determination that the application for an exception under Section 7 of the Initiative Ordinance is denied without prejudice. The applicant may wish to and should have the opportunity in the future to make an additional showing for an exception under Section 7 of the Initiative Ordinance. * * * * The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 4th day of March , 1981, by the following votes: AYES, and in favor thereof, Councilmembers: Clevenger, Mallory, Watson NOES, Councilmembers: Jensen and Mayor Callon ABSENT, Councilmembers: None Mayor ATTEST: ~/ ¿, 7: City Cle~ -c;-