Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout008-89 Town Council Resolution No. 8-89 A Resolution of the Danville Town Council Denying Variance Request VAR 88-45 and Reaffirming the Planning Commission's October 10, 1988 Decision to Deny Minor Subdivision Request MS 88-4 WHEREAS, Wayne Robinson requests approval of a Minor Subdivision (MS 88-4) to resubdivide Parcel B of MS 25-80 (currently zoned R-100; Single Family Residential District) into two parcels, proposed respectively at 63,080± net square feet and 40,190± net square feet with a concurrent variance request (VAR 88-45) to authorize development of two parcels less than 100,000 net square feet in area; and WHEREAS, the property owners of both MS 88-4 and SD 7112 concurrently filed a Rezoning application (RZ 88-2) requesting the rezoning of a 20.4± aggregation of parcels from their present zoning designations of R-100; Single Family Residential District and A-2; General Agricultural District to a R-40; Single Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, the State of California Subdivision Map Act and the adopted Town of Danville Subdivision Regulations require that no real property may be divided into two or more parcels or lots for purposes of sale, lease or financing unless a Tentative Map is acted upon and a Final Map or Parcel Map is approved consistent with the Subdivision Map Act, and the Town of Danville Subdivision Regulations; and WHEREAS, the current zoning designations for the subject property provides for a 100,000 net square feet (2.3± acres) minimum lot size; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Designation for the subject property, as established by the Danville 2005 General Plan, is Residential - Single Family - Country Estate, which establishes the P-1 , R-100, R-65 and R-40 zoning districts as compatible zoning districts and which deems as desirable and appropriate lots larger than one acre on slopes over 15 percent, where hazardous conditions are found, or for meeting of other General Plan Goals and/or Policies; and WHEREAS, Goal 3 of the General Plan (pg. 28) requires that new developments be integrated visually and functionally in a manner compatible with the physical character and desired image of the Community; and WHEREAS, Community Development Policy 3.02 (pg. 28 of the General Plan) calls for, in part, for the preservation of the visual qualities of the community by restricting development on significant scenic ridges; and WHEREAS, Urban DeveloDment Policy 3.06 (pg. 28 of the General Plan) calls for the protection of the visual qualitie~ of Page 1 of Town Council Resolution No. 8-89 designated scenic routes by review of projects with respect to their visual impacts; and WHEREAS, Goal 18 of the General Plan (pg. 112) requires the minimization of risk to life and property, and public liability, due to landslides and other non-seismic geologic hazards; and WHEREAS, Geologic Hazards Policy 18.02 (pg. 113 of the General Plan) calls for prohibition of development on slopes of 30 percent or greater for major residential subdivisions; and WHEREAS, the subject property was included within the 1978 340+ acre E1 Pintado Rezoning Study (2249-RZ) conducted by the San Ramon Valley Area Planning Commission (an Area Planning Commission for the unincorporated portions of Contra Costa County) and the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors; WHEREAS, the study resulted in the purposeful application of the R-40, R-65 and R-100 zoning designations on lands previously zoned A-2; General Agricultural District (five acre minimum parcel size); and WHEREAS, the subject property was rezoned to the R-100; Single Family Residential District Zoning designation, along with approximately one-half of the total Study Area, based upon some or all of the following considerations (as evidenced in the Staff Reports prepared for the Rezoning Study (2249-RZ), Resolution No. 57-1978 (SR) of the San Ramon Valley Area Planning Commission and Ordinance No. 78-64 of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors): A. Additional subdivision of lands 30% or greater in slope was considered not to be practical or desirable; B. Ridges of the larger vacant parcels in the study area should be protected from development in order to minimize grading and protect scenic qualities of the area; C. Acknowledgement that the operative General Plan Policy in place at the time of the rezoning study indicated that areas assigned for residential uses in the General Plan with slopes of 15% or more should be developed in the lower range densities established in the General Plan for Country Estates designated lands; D. Acknowledgement that, for lots formed in areas with slopes of 30% and over, the lot size should be large enough to ensure that safe, buildable sites for a house and driveway can be found, further reinforcing that lot sizes larger than the minimum specified for the Country Estate General Plan designation (R-40) are appropriate; Page 2 of Town Council Resolution NO. 8-89 E. That the inadequacies of the road network present one of the major constraints to further subdivision of parcels in the study area, as steep slopes and inadequate road widths would potentially contribute to a hazardous circulation system compromising the ability of emergency vehicles, especially fire trucks, from reaching certain parcels; F. Acknowledgement that the development constraints present in these areas collectively lead to a situation where lower densities are appropriate to assure the development activity authorized will not require extensive land form modification; and WHEREAS, in the subsequent ten year period since the adoption of the E1 Pintado Rezoning Study (2249-RZ) only two acres have been rezoned from the zoning designation applied through the study and thereby accommodating a smaller minimum lot size (i.e., the partial approval of RZ 85-3 rezoning two acres from R-65 to R-40, where the lands rezoned already abutted R-40 lands on two sides); and WHEREAS, the entire site is situated within an area regulated by the "Scenic Hillside and Major Ridgeline Development" Ordinance (Ordinance No. 29-84); and WHEREAS, the purpose of that ordinance includes, among other things; a. Retention of the semi-rural qualities of the Town by preserving its open and uncluttered natural topographic features; b. Keeping grading consistent with the retention of the natural character of the scenic hillsides and major ridgelines; c. Preservation of the predominant views of the scenic hillside and major ridgelines and retention of the sense of identity and image that these areas now impart to the Town and its environs; and WHEREAS, a detailed review of the subject minor subdivision application reveals that the average slope of the two proposed lots and their respective constraints to further development are as follows: Parcel Ave. SloDe Current Development Status and DeveloDment Constraints MS 88-4 30% +/- Occupied by an existing Parcel A residence lying wholly within a city identified Major Ridge- line area and served access by a private roadway with 400+ feet containing gradients at, or exceeding, 20%. Page 3 of Town Council Resolution NOo 8-89 ~ Parcel Ave. Slope Current Development Status and Development Constraints MS 88-4 25.6% Vacant - undeveloped. The Parcel B swale area at the center of the parcel (theproposed"potential building site") is a historic drainage swale which has been filledwithunconsolidated fill of an undetermined depth, material and compaction level and which contains a sub-drain system of undocumented size, location or design. The Contra Costa County Geologist, in conjunction with review of MS 80-25, has previously advised that a building site in the drainage swale was not suit- able and should be deleted. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold public hearings on this matter on August 22, 1988, September 15, 1988, and October 10, 1988; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearings was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the October 10, 1988, Planning Commission Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Commission deny the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports recommendations and testimony herein above set forth; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 88- 7 denying MS 88-4, in conjunction with their denial of SD 7112 and RZ 88-2; and WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial was received on October 13, 1988 from Eugene DeBolt, Project Engineer; and WHEREAS, within the appeal letter the applicant requested that a lot-size variance request (VAR 88-45) be considered by the Town Council in conjunction with the appeal on MS 88-4; and WHEREAS, the Town Council held a public hearing on the appeal and on VAR 88-45 on April 3, 1989; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all resDects as required by law; and Page 4 of Town Council Resolution 8-89 WHEREAS, the April 3, 1989 Town Council Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Council deny the appeal, reaffirming the Planning Commission's October 10, 1988, denial of MS 88-4 and also recommending denial of VAR 88-45; and WHEREAS, the Town Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE DANVILLE TOWN COUNCIL DENIES THE APPEAL AND REAFFIRMS THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION OF OCTOBER 10, 1988, DENYING MINOR SUBDIVISION REQUEST MS 88-4, AND MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THIS ACTION: 1) Retention of the existing minimum parcel size is consistent and appropriate given the intent of the underlying General Plan designation (Residential - Single Family - Country Estate) as slopes in excess of 15% are present and hazardous conditions are potentially present (in the form of slope failures, areas of seepage and the presence of unconsolidated fill). 2) Approval of the Minor Subdivision and Variance requests would ultimately lead to the residential development and use of two parcels which, by their comparatively smaller size (0.9+ acres and 1.4+ acres surrounded by 2.3+/- acre parcels) would not be integrated visually and functionally with the immediate neighborhood, and therefore would be in conflict with Goal 3 of the General Plan. 3) Authorizing the development of an additional residential unit in an identified Scenic Hillside Area adjacent to a designated Scenic Route may conflict with the respective directives of Community Development Policy 3.02 and Urban Development Policy 3.06. 4) That retention of the R-100; Single Family Residential District zoning designation over the subject property remains appropriate for the reasons established by the San Ramon Valley Area Planning Commission and Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors in their action on the 1978 E1 Pintado Rezoning Study (2249-RZ). 5) Approval of the Minor Subdivision and Variance requests would set an inappropriate precedent in terms that it may serve to undermine the intent of the actions taken with the E1 Pintado Rezoning Study (2249-RZ). The zoning classifications imposed by the rezoning study continue to serve to further the goals and policies of the General Plan. Page 5 of Town Council Resolution No. 8-89 6) Geologic Hazards Policy 18.02 prohibits development on slopes greater than 30%, which are prevalent throughout the subject property. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE TOWN COUNCIL HEREBY DENIES VARIANCE REQUEST VAR 88-45, AND MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THIS ACTION: 1) The variance request would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located; 2) There are no special circumstances present applicable to the subject property's size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which would justify other than a strict application of the pertinent zoning regulations. Strict application of the pertinent zoning regulations would not deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district; 3) Granting the variance would be in conflict with the intent and purpose of the land use district in which the subject property is located. Therefore, the proposed subdivision and accompanying lot-size variance are inconsistent with the intent of the general plan and zoning ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 3rd DAY OF APRIL, 1989 by the following vote: AYES: GREENBERG, JAGGER, LANE, SCHLENDORF NOES: NONE ABSTENTION NONE ABSENT: RITCHEY ~~ ~;4~ Mayor Approved as tp F~z~%: CityA/~t~ney~ ~. Page 6 of Town Council Resolution No. 8-89 pkgp9.5