HomeMy WebLinkAbout018-87BEFORE THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF DANVILLE
In the Matter of:
Denying the Appeal For
Construction of a Tennis
Court at 250 Santiago Court
(DP 84-12)
RESOLUTION NO. ?/Y~'~)?"
A. In 1984, Donn Ferguson filed an application with the
Town requesting approval for construction of a tennis court at
his property at 250 Santiago Court, Danville (APN 202-220-010).
(City File No. DP84-12)
B. On May i3, 1985, the Planning Commission approved the
house subject to certain conditions including submittal of final
design details. The Commission did not approve the tennis court.
C. The applicant later submitted revisions and final plans
for the house design and new plans for the tennis court. On June
23, 1986, the Planning Commission approved the house plans and
denied approval of the tennis court based upon its inconsistency
with the Scenic Hillside and Major Ridgeline Development
Ordinance.
D. The applicant filed a timely request for appeal, asking
that the Town Council review the Planning Commission's decision
to deny approval of the tennis court. Due to requests for
continuance, the appeal was heard in January, 1987.
E. The property on which the tennis court is proposed is
located within a major ridgeline area of the Town and is there-
fore subject to requirements of the Town's Scenic Hillside and
Major Ridgeline Development Ordinance (Ordinance No. 29-84,
adopted on July 16, 1984, adding sections 8-5001 through 8-5013
to the Municipal Code, referred to in this resolution as the
"Hillside Ordinance").
F. The Hillside Ordinance is designed to:
(1)
preserve significant features of scenic hillsides and
major ridgeline areas in essentially their natural
state as part of a comprehensive open space system;
(3)
encourage in these areas an alternative approach to
conventional flat land practices of development;
(4)
keep grading and cut and fill operations consistent
with the retention of the natural character of the
scenic hillsides and major ridgelines; and
JZ-_ /
(7)
preserve the predominant views of the scenic hillsides
and major ridgelines and to retain the sense of
identify and image that these areas now impart to the
Town and environs. ("Purposes of this Chapter",
Municipal Code section 8-5001(b).)
G. The Hillside Ordinance also provides that:
A person who desires to erect a structure or to grade or
improve scenic hillside land must receive a scenic hillside
development permit. (Section 8-5005(a))
No development is permitted within 100 feet of the center
line of a major ridgeline except when development plan
approval is granted by the Planning Commission in accordance
with Section 8-5010. (Section 8-5004(b))
No person may grade, clear, construct upon or alter scenic
hillside or major ridgeline land without approval granted
under this chapter. (Section $-5004(c))
An exception to modify subsections (b) and (d) of section 8-
5004 to permit development within 100 feet of the center
line of a major ridgeline may be granted when the Planning
Commission finds that...(3) the proposed siting, grading,
landscaping and architecture are such that the development
will not conflict with the purposes set forth in section 8-
5001(b). (Section 8-5010)
H. On January 5, 1987, the Town Council held a properly
noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision to deny approval of the tennis court. At
that hearing, the Council heard presentations from Ron Erny,
Senior Planner, and Gary Vilhauer, Vice Chairperson of the
Planning Commission. The Council accepted testimony from Randy
Keyser, appellant's attorney, Ron Thiely, appellant's architect,
Russ Gorman, Chairperson of the Architectural Control Committee
for the adjoining subdivision, Donn Ferguson, appellant and Bill
Rust.
Following the public hearing, the Town Council voted to
uphold the Planning Commission's action, denying the request to
construct the tennis court, and directed staff to prepare
appropriate findings.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Town Council of the Town of Danville
finds and resolves that:
1. Regarding the Town's Hillside Ordinance, the Council
finds that:
PAGE 2 RESOLUTZOH NO i?-S 7
a.
the property is located within 100 feet of a major
ridgeline and is therefore subject to the
Ordinance;
be
development is generally prohibited within 100
feet of a major ridgeline (§8-5004), with certain
limited exceptions (§8-5010);
Ce
an exception to permit development of the tennis
court within 100 feet of the major ridgeline is
not appropriate because the proposed siting and
grading are such that the development will
conflict with the purposes of the Ordinance as
stated in paragraph F above. The proposal is also
inconsistent with Findings (2) and (4) in section
8-5001(a) of the Ordinance.
The
because:
proposal is inconsistent with the Ordinance
(1) The volume of grading and modification to the
site necessary to construct a 7,200 square foot
tennis court on an existing slope of approximately
35% is excessive and represents a flat-land
approach which is inappropriate in this area.
Such modification would not preserve the ridgeline
area in its natural state.
(2) The proposed grading for the development
includes fill slopes of up to 30 feet in height,
construction of retaining walls of up to 14 feet
in height and construction of chain-link fencing
of up to 10 feet in height. These features would
have a significant adversee visual impact.
(3) The possibility that the proposed fill area
below the tennis court could fail adversely
impacts the residents and real property adjoining
the site.
2. Regarding the Town's General Plan, the Council finds
that the proposal to develop a tennis court on the site violates
the following policies and objectives of the General Plan:
a.
Land Use-Residential
(policy #2 on page 12)
"Utilize techniques of land development
protect or enhance the natural landscape."
that
b.
Open Space and Conservation
(Objective #2 on page 14)
of Resources
3 R ,SO ,UTIO No. ?
"Protect significant hilltops and ridges and their
visual quality."
(Objective #4 on page 14)
"Maintain the natural appearance of hillsides and
ridges to the greatest practical extent."
C.
Community Design
(Objective #2, page 17)
"Preserve the visual qualities of the Planning
Area by restricting development on significant
scenic ridges and by preserving significant stands
of trees."
The proposal violates these policies and objectives by
proposing substantial grading and modification of the site in
order to construct a 7,200 square foot flat court on ground which
has a natural slope of approximately 35%, including fill slopes
of up to 30 feet in height and retaining walls of up to 14 feet
in height. A proposed 10-foot high chain-link fence would
further detract from the natural appearance of the area.
The proposed grading, including fill and slopes, retaining
walls and fencing, would have an adverse visual impact upon the
neighborhood along Diablo Road. Diablo Road is designated as a
scenic route in the General Plan and the proposed development
would not maintain or enhance the scenic qualities as required by
the General Plan.
3. Based on the foregoing, an exception to permit develop-
ment of the tennis courts within 100 feet of a ridgeline (under
§8-5010) is denied and the decision of the Planning Commission
(denying the application) is upheld.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of
Danville on April 6, 1987 by the following vote:
AYES: Kennett, Lane, McNeeiy, Offenhartz, Schlendorf
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
TOWN CLER~
PAGE 4 RESOLUTION NO. /.~ ~Y