HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2190 RESOLUTION NO. 2190
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
WHEREAS, Pacific Coast Investments, the applicant, has applied to the
City of Saratoga for a variance to allow a 68 foot lot width where 85 feet is the
minimum required and tentative building site approval for a two lot subdivision, such
applications being identified as V-656 and SDR-1580, and
WHEREAS, on September 12, 1984, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga conducted a public hearing on said applications, and following the conclusion
thereof, the Planning Commission denied the applications, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed the administrative decision of the
Planning Commission to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 1984, the City Council conducted a de novo
hearing on the appeal, at which time any person interested in the matter was given an
opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the staff reports,
minutes of proceedings conducted by the Planning Commission relating to said
applications, and the written and oral evidence presented to the City Council in
support of and in opposition to the appeal,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga, at its
meeting on October 17, 1984, by a vote of 4-1 with councilmember Callon dissenting,
did resolve as follows:
I. The appeal from the Planning Commission was denied and the
decision of the Planning Commission was affirmed.
2. The City Council was unable to make the findings required for a
variance due to the following considerations:
(a) The City maintains an established policy of not approving a
subdivision of land which results in the creation of a non-
conforming lot. An approval of the variance applieation would
therefore confer a special privilege upon the applicant.
(b) The proposed subdivision would result in the creation of two
non-conforming lots, thereby increasing the existing
nonconformity.
(e) A subdivision of the property is not required in order to
preserve the existing second unit on the site, or to replace this
structure with a new unit. The applicant could apply for a
second unit use permit to legalize the existing unit, or a new
accessory structure without a kitchen could be constructed.
-l-
Therefore, a denial of the variance application will not result in
unnecessary hardship.
(d) The property is not distinguishable from other properties in the
area which could be subdivided if variances for lot size are
granted. Consequently, there are no special circumstances with
respect to the application.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 7th day of November,
1984, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Cal lc~ and Moyle s and Mayor Pro Ten Hlava
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Clevenger and Mayor Fanelli
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK ~
-2-