HomeMy WebLinkAbout90-12REsOLuTION NO. 90-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLA~NNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF
DANVILLE DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MINOR SUBDMSION
REQ'UEST MS 854-89
WHEREAS, RobertJ. Costa has requested approval of a Minor Subdivision to create
two residential lots on a 1.1 + acre site; and
WHEREAS, the subject site is located on the northeast side of La Gonda Way, at
1036 La Gonda Way and is identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 197-110-024; and
WHEREAS, Title 9 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the Municipal Code requires
approval of a Tentative Map for the proposed subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the project at a series of noticed
public hearings commencing with a hearing on February 27, 1990 and ending with a final
meeting conducted on August 28, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the proper notice of this request was given in all respects as required
by law; and
WHEREAS, a staff report was submitted recommending that Planning Commission
approve the request; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all reports,
recommendations, and testimony submitted in writing and presented at the hearing; and
WHEREAS, Comprehensive Goal 3 of the Danville 2005 General Plan (p. 13)
requires the protection of the quality .of life within existing developed areas of the Town;
and
WHEREAS, Community Design. Policy 3.07 of the Danville 2005 General Plan (p.
28) states that the Town should achieve a high standard of residential design through the
project review process;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission of the Town of
Danville hereby denies without prejudice Minor Subdivision request MS 854-89 and
makes the following findings in support of this action:
PAGE I OF RESOLUTION NO. 90-12
That the project is inconsistent with Comprehensive Goal 3 of the Danville
2005 General Plan which requires the protection of the quality of life within
existing developed areas of the Town.
That the project is inconsistent with Community Goal 3 of the Danville
General Plan (13. 28) which requires the integration of new development
visually and functionally' in a manner compatible with the physical character
and desired image of the community.
That the proposed subdivision may adversely impact surrounding
properties.
The applicant has not adequately addressed concerns of the Planning
Commission which include: public safety, severe design constraints of the
site, the aesthetics of building modifications to the existing single family
structure on proposed Parcel A, possible adverse visual impacts of a future
single family structure on proposed Parcel B, and possible adverse impacts
resulting from grading of the site.
Due to the steepness of the site and severe development constraints,
consideration of any future minor subdivision application for this site will
require submittal and review of a more detailed site plan, more detailed
architectural plans, and more detailed grading plans.
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE this 25th day of September, 1990 by the following vote:
AYES:
Vilhauer, Hughes, Hunt:, Frost, Hirsch
NOES: Wright
ABSTENTION:
ABSENT: Hendricks
Chief~an~g
Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~r Attorn~
pdpz3
PAGE 2 OF RESOLUTION NO. 90-12