HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2392 ]].ESOLUT]ON NO: 2392
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY O]F
SARATOGA REVEl{SING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMIF~IOH
WHEREAS, Linda Protiva, the applicant, has applied to the City of
Saratoga for tentative building site and design review approval and a lot line
adjustment to permit the construction of a new single-family residence at 14460 Oak
Place, such applications being identified as SDR 1629, DR-86-004 and LL-86-001, and
WHEREAS, on September 24, 1986, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga conducted a public hearing on said applications, and following the conclusion
thereof, the Planning Commission approved the applications, and
WHEREAS, Holly Davies, et aL, has appealed the decision of the Planning
Commission to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on December 3, 1986, the City Council conducted a de novo
public 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 December3, 1986, by a vote of 4-1 with Councilmember Peterson
dissenting, did resolve as follows:
1. The appeal from the Planning Commission was upheld and the
decision of the Planning Commission was reversed.
2. The City Council was unable to make the findings required for the
granting of tentative building site and design review approval and the lot line
adjustment for the following reasons:
(a) The site is not physically suitable for the type of development
proposed, nor is the site physically suitable for the proposed
density of development. Although the proposed residence, when
viewed in isolation, may technically comply with the zoning
standards, the cumulative impact of this development on Lot
13, when combined with the existing residences on Lots I0 and
12 and the anticipated future development of Lot 11, is
excessively dense for this neighborhood. Lots 10, 1 ] and 12 are
substandard in size and two-story houses already exist on Lots
10 and 12. The proposed merger of the triangular parcel with
Lot 12 will not mitigate the visual impact of the development
-1-
as viewed from Oak Place since all of the additional site area
will be added at the rear of Lot 12. Moreover, the development
will result in the elimination of existing landscaping at the
frontage of Lots 12 and 13 and the creation of multiple
driveways taking access at a lot frontage which is substandard
in width. The existing intensity of development on Lot 12 is
shown by the fact that a portion of the residence encroaches
into Lot 13 (in the absence of a lot line adjustment) and the
opposite side of this residence is located only 6 feet from Lot
11, which is the minimum distance permitted under special
rules applicable to nonconforming sites. The normal minimum
side yard setback for a lot within the R-l-10,000 district is 10
feet.
(b) The applicant has already constructed a two-story residence on
Lot 10 which is similar in size, shape and design with the
proposed residence on Lot 13. The applicant has also indicated
her intention to develop Lot 11 as well. The existence of three,
and possibly four, two-story homes adjacent to each other, each
being in excess of 3,000 square feet in size, wouk] not serve to
minimize the perception of excessive height and bulk,
particularly since Lots 10, 11 and 12 (as it now exists) are all
substandard]. The presence of other two-story homes in the
neighborhood, as noted by the applicant, actually suggests the
propriety of constructing a single-story residence in order to
avoid a cumulative impact of excessive development.
{c) The proposed residence on Lot 13 will unreasonably interfere
with the privacy enjoyed by the occupants of Lot 12. Although
the applicant currently resides in the home on Lo~ 12 and
apparently is willing to sacrifice the loss of privacy for the
economic gains she expects to realize from the development of
Lot 13, the determination of privacy impacts should properly
take into consideration the effect of the proposal on future
occupants in the event Lot 12 is sold. The lot line adjustment
and construction of a new driveway on Lot 12 would simply
aggravate the situation by eliminating the area on Lot 13 in
which landscape screening could be planted.
(d) The neighborhood around Oak Place is one of the oldest in the
City and contains a mixture of architectural styles and variety
of design~ Some of the homes have historic interest or value,
including the house in which the applicant now resides. This
neighborhood is particularly sensitive to new development and
the allowance of intensive land use will destroy its character.
In this case, the uniqueness of individual homes within the
neighborhood will not be preserved to the extent the proposed
residence is a duplication of the home constructed by the
applicant on Lot 10. Moreover, the standards contained in the
zoning ordinance represent maximum figures which the City
can and should reduce when the application of these figures to a
particular situation will result in a group of structures which
are collectively incompatible with the neighborhood in terms of
design, size, bulk and height,
-2-
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Saratoga held on the 17th day of December, 1986, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Anderson, Clevenger, FDyles,
Peterson, and Mayor Hlava
NOES: Nc~e
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Nc~e
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-3-