HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-14RESOLUTION NO. 2007-14
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUEST DP 2007-11
TO ALLOW THE EXISTENCE OF A PRIVATE FENCED SPORTS FIELD WITHIN A
TOWN-IDENTIFIED MAJOR RIDGELINE AREA AND GRANTING AN
EXCEPTION TO ALLOW THE SPORTS FIELD TO BE LOCATED WITHIN 100
VERTICAL FEET OF THE RIDGELINE
(APN:197-130-019 - LOWE)
WHEREAS, David and Connie Lowe (OWNERS) have requested approval of a
Development Plan request to allow for the retention of an existing private fenced
artificial turf sports field, with related improvements including a 14 foot high tube and
netting fence around the perimeter of the field, mobile light poles, and retaining walls,
located with aTown-identified Major Ridgeline area. An exception is required to allow
the development to occur within 100 vertical feet of the top of the rdgeline on a 2.3 +/-
acre site; and
WHEREAS, the subject site is located at 485 El Alamo and is further identified as
Assessor's Parcel Number 197-130-019; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Danville Scenic Hillside and Major Ridgeline Ordinance
requires approval of a Development Plan application and requires the granting of an
exception to allow development to be located within 100 vertical feet of an identified
Major Ridgeline; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the project at a noticed public
hearing on August 28, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the public notice of this action was given in all respects as required by law;
and
WHEREAS, a staff report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission
deny the request; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did .hear and consider all reports,
recommendations, and testimony submitted in writing and presented at the hearing;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the Town of Danville denies without
prejudice Development Plan request DP 2007-11 per the findings contained herein:
FINDINGS OF DENIAL
1. The proposed siting and design of the sports field will conflict with the
intent and purposes of Ordinance 29-84 ("Scenic Hillside and Major
Ridgeline Development"), in that development will result in highly visible
fencing inconsistent with the Purposes of the Ordinance including to
"Preserve significant features of scenic hillsides and major ridgeline areas
in essentially their natural state as part of a comprehensive open space
system." In addition, a Development Standard contained within the
Ordinance states "All fencing shall be open wire fencing. Fence posts. shall
be natural wood color, or painted a dark color." This language is intended
to allow for rural, agricultural type fencing, not tube and netting sports
field fencing.
2. The proposed development is not in conformance with the goals and
policies of the 2010 General Plan. Goal 2 of the General Plan states
"Integrate new development visually and functionally in a manner
compatible with the physical character of the surrounding community."
The creation of a private fenced sports field fence on the ridgeline is not
compatible with the physical character of the surrounding community as
the surrounding community consists of single family residential
development.
In addition, Danville General Plan Policy 2.02 states "Preserve the Town's
visual qualities and the identity of the neighborhood by restricting
development on visible ridges and hillsides, protecting trees and riparian
areas, and maintaining open space within the community." The proposed
sports field. neither preserves the identity or visual qualities of the
neighborhood as it is not a residential development or use consistent with
the subject zoning district and surrounding land uses, and the sports field
is highly visible on the ridgeline from surrounding residential
neighborhoods.
3. The proposed development is not in conformance with the zoning district
in which the property is located since a portion of the private fenced sport
field would require a height variance, and the recreational activity, when
conducted as the only use of the parcel, is subject to approval of a Land
Use Permit.
PAGE 2 OF RESOLUTION N0.2007-14
APPROVED by the Danville Planning Commission at a regular meeting on August 28,
2007 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~~~ ~~'
City Attorney
Chairman
Chief of lan g
PAGE 3 OF RESOLUTION N0.2007-14