Loading...
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