Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout007-88 BEFORE THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF DANVILLE In the Matter of: Granting the Appeal by ) Bob Ferrero From the Decision ) of the Planning Commission and ) Denying the Request to Construct ) RESOLUTION NO. 7-88 a Residence within a Major ) Ridgeline Area (Development ) Plan No. 87-16) ) ) Anthony and Elaine Robinson (applicants) are requesting an exception to Chapter 50 of Title 8 of the Municipal Code (comprising sections 8-5001 - 8-5013) relating to scenic hillside and major ridgeline development for a seven-acre lot located at the northeasterly terminus of Gwen Court (subject property); The subject property was initially designated as an open space lot in Woodmont Subdivision (Tract 4607), which was approved by the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County and recorded on March 9, 1978. The developer of Tract 4607 granted the development rights for the subject property to Contra Costa County by Deed dated January 20, 1978 and recorded April 28, 1978; The issue of whether any portion of the site was buildable was reviewed in 1980 when Woodhill Development Company applied to the San Ramon Valley Area Planning Commission for a modification of the subdivision conditions and a superceding deed of development rights for Parcel A to allow for the building of one home on this parcel; Woodhill proposed two alternative building sites: one at the eastern boundary of the parcel on a knoll at the 650 foot elevation (Site A) and the second at the base of the hill on the north side of Gwen Court (Site B); On October 8, 1980, the San Ramon Valley Area Planning Commission, acting on the request of Woodhill Development Company, approved an amendment to Tract 4607 which would allow for the construction of a single family detached residential structure and appurtenant facilities on the subject property subject to conditions including one that construction only take place below the 500 foot elevation (the "lower site"). In order Page 1 of Resolution No. 7-88 to implement the approval for construction, Woodhill Development Company and the County of Contra Costa modified the previous grant of open space to the County by entering into a "Superseding Grant Deed of Development Rights" which rescinded and replaced the prior Deed. The Superseding Grant Deed (limiting the development of this parcel to the single building Site B for a single-family residence with accessory structures located below · the 500 foot level) was accepted by the County of Contra Costa and recorded on November 24, 1980 as instrument No. 159763 in book 10103, page 944; Anthony and Elaine Robinson purchased this parcel from Woodhill Development Company in 1981 with notice of the subdivision and deed restrictions; The Town of Danville was incorporated on July 1, 1982, and the subject property was included within the Town boundaries; the Town of Danville succeeded to the development rights over this parcel pursuant to the Superceding Grant Deed and succeeded to jurisdiction over subdivision 4607; In 1983 the Robinsons applied to the Town of Danville for modification of conditions of approval 18 and 19 of subdivision 4607; the Danville Planning Commission denied the Robinsons' application on May 19, 1983 for a number of reasons; the Robinsons appealed such Planning Commission denial to the City Council of the Town of Danville which Council denied the Robinsons' appeal on July 5, 1983 for a number of independent reasons including the fact that there were no significant changes of conditions that would justify modification; On July 2, 1984, the Town of Danville adopted Ordinance No. 29-84 which added Chapter 50, comprising sections 8-5001 - 8-5013, to Title 8 of the Danville Municipal Code. Those provisions govern construction on scenic hillsides and major ridgelines within the Town. Section 8-5010 provides that the Town may grant an exception to permit development within 100 feet (measured vertically) of the center line of a major ridgeline if any one of the following findings are made: (1) due to the application of Chapter 50, Title 8 of the Municipal Code a structure could not otherwise be constructed on the parcel; (2) development is designed to take place as far beneath the centerline of the major ridgeline as practical; or (3) the proposed siting, grading, landscaping and architecture are such that the development will Page 2 of Resolution No. 7-88 not conflict with the purposes set forth in section 8-5001(b). The application herein was filed by the Robinsons in 1986 and seeks an exception under section 8-5010 to construct a residence located at approximately the 638 foot elevation (the "upper site"). The application was determined to be complete on June 16, 1987. The elevation of the upper site is within 100 feet of a major ridgeline (the applied-for foundation would be approximately 11 feet below the ridgeline but the roof would extend approximately 9 feet above it) and a 900± foot driveway would cross open space to elevation 638 feet--which driveway would be subject to slides and require extensive soil stabilization per the applicant's engineer. Construction on the upper site would violate both Chapter 50 of Title 8 and the provisions of the Superseding Grant Deed unless the Town Council and the property owner were to agree to new provisions which would supersede the Grant Deed between the applicant's predecessor in interest and the County of Contra Costa (recorded on November 24, 1980 in book 10103 at page 944); On July 27, 1987, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the exception under section 8-5010) to build on the upper site subject to conditions of approval (DP 87-16); On August 6, 1987, Bob Ferrero appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the Town Council; The Town Council held public hearings on November 5, November 16, and December 7, 1987. NOW, THEREFORE, the Town Council of the Town of Danville finds, determines and orders and follows: 1. Notice of the public hearing was given in the time and manner required by law and all persons interested were given the opportunity to be heard. 2. The Town Council finds, with respect to the application of section 8-5010 as follows: (a) Sections 8-5001 - 85013 of the Danville Municipal Code do not prohibit the construction of a structure on the subject property for the following reasons: (1) there are other locations on the property which are not within 100 feet (measured vertically) of the center line of a major . ridgeline upon which improvements may be Page 3 of Resolution No. 7-88 constructed. Geotechnical information was presented to the County of Contra Costa in 1980 at the time approval was granted for a building on the lower site indicating that through proper engineering, a buildable site could be created below the 500 foot contour in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Superseding Grant Deed of Development Rights. The applicant submitted information indicating that there had been activity of soil instability in the area of the lower site, the existence of soils stability problems in the area was recognized in 1980 when approval for the lower site was given. In addition, it is acknowledged by the soils information available that construction is possible on the lower site. Construction 6n the lower site although difficult and expensive is not impossible or impractical. (2) The applicant has not shown that under no circumstances can the site (contemplated in the Grant Deed of Development Rights for the construction of improvements) be improved; (3) The evidence upon which to base a conclusion that the site proposed by the applicant is the only buildable site on the subject property is not substantial enough to support that conclusion. (b) For the reasons set forth in paragraph 1, and other reasons, the development proposed by the applicant for the upper site is not designed to take place as far beneath the center line of the major ridgeline as is practicable. The word "practicable" includes not only physically practical but economically practical. It is possible that the development of a home site could be as economically reasonable on the lower site as on the upper site in that the upper site requires a 900±-foot driveway (which road will require stabilization work) up the hill to an elevation of 638 feet through slide areas, etc., and then also require a properly engineered foundation. The development of the approved lower site requires a buttressed and filled building pad. The applicant has presented no evidence that the cost to develop the lower site will make the lower site more economically practical in comparison to the upper site. Page 4 of Resolution No. 7-88 (c) The development for the upper site includes constructing a driveway 900! feet in length extending around the hill to the 638 foot elevation and a ~ingle-~ory dwelling s~ruc%ure 18± feet in height comprising 3500± square feet in area. The proposed siting, grading, driveway landscaping and architecture are such that the development conflicts with the purposes and intent set forth in section 8-5001; the proposed project intrudes into an area designated as open space and would impose upon the viewscape both from surrounding properties and from a significant number of other areas of the Town. The existing natural features of the property would be eliminated or visually degenerated by cut, fill and the creation of flat areas. The development of the upper site would conflict with the following portions of section 8-5001: (1) The desirability of keeping grading and cut and fill operations consistent with the retention of the natural character of the hillside or ridgeline areas and to preserve the predominant views both from and of the hillside and ridgeline areas (§S-5001(a)(2), (b)(4)); (2) The retention of scenic hillsides and ridgelines in as near a natural, state as is feasible as part of a comprehensive open space system consistent with the right of a property owner to develop its property (§8- 5001(a) (4), (b) (1)); (3) To keep the semi-rural qualities of the Town by preserving its open and uncluttered natural topographic features (§8-5001(b)(2)); (4) The preservation of predominant views of the ' scenic hillsides and major ridgelines and the retention of identity and image that these areas impart to the Town and its environs (§8-5001(b) (7)); (5) To require the retention of prominentnatural features that enhance the character of the Town (§8-5001(b) (10). (d) The development of the upper site would violate Page 5 of Resolution No. 7-88 the following policies and objectives of the Danville General Plan: (1) Utilize techniques of land development that protect or enhance the natural landscake (p. 12, policy 2); the proposed development will require a carefully engineered 900± foot driveway up to an elevation of 638 feet; that driveway will require cut and fill areas and will allow development in an area of open space as designated by the Danville General Plan. (2) Protect significant hilltops and ridges and their visual quality (p. 14, objective 2); the proposed project would allow development that extends above a major ridgeline and / which requires creation of flat building areas approximately 11 feet below the ridgeline, the visual quality of this major ridge, (visible from significant portions of the Danville area) would be violated; (3) Maintain the natural appearance of hillsides and ridges to the greatest practical extent (p. 14, objective 4): See paragraph (2)(b) above. Also the applicant has not shown that the lower site is impractical; denying the upper site to preserve the natural hillside and ridge is appropriate. (4) Preserve the visual qualities of the planning area by restricting development on significant scenic ridges (p. 17, objective 2): The proposed development is within a major ridgeline as defined by the Scenic Hillside and Major Ridgeline Ordinance of the Town of Danville. The ordinance considers a major ridgeline to be a significant natural topographical feature which comprises a part of the scenic resources of the city (§8- 5001(a) (1)). The proposed site is atop a major ridgeline and is therefore on a "significant scenic ridge." Denial of the proposed development preserves the visual quality of the planning area. 3. The finding(s) necessary to grant an exception under section 8-5010 of the Municipal Code cannot be made for the reasons set forth in section 2. Page 6 of Resolution No. 7-88 / 4. The appeal of Bob Ferrero is granted, the decision of the Planning Commission approving the application (DP 87-16) is disapproved and the application for an exception under section 8-5010 of the Danville Municipal Code is denied. Passed and adopted at a meeting of the Town Council held on Fphru~ry ]~ , 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Kennett, Lane, Ritchey, Schlendorf NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Greenberg M~~~/ ATTEST: Town Cl e~~r ~ Page 7 of Resolution No. 7-88