HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11281989 - 2.8 TO:
y' .BOARD-OF SUPERVISORS 2 . 8
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon 1. wtra
Director of Community Development Costa
DATE: September 28, 1989 CO^
SUBJECT: Hearing on appeal of Minor Subdivision #20-89, filed by Philip E.
Park (Applicant and Owner) to divide a 43,650 square foot parcel into
two parcels, located at #40 Wayne Avenue, in the Alamo area. (APN
201-021-002)
SPECIFIC REQUEST S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Accept the environmental documentation prepared for this
project as being adequate.
2. Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commission to deny the project as per
findings stated in Resolution.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Zoning Administrator, in approving the application to subdivide
did so on the basis of statutory law (Government Code) ;
specifically Chapter 518, Section 6647, "Grounds for denial of
tentative or parcel map" . The Zoning Administrator found that the
subdivision request was in conformance with the General Plan and
with the zoning designation and that none of the findings required
for denial could be made. The Zoning Administrator's decision was
appealed by the Alamo Improvement Association.
The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission reversed this
decision, finding for the appellant as follows:
(1) It would be inappropriate to violate the consistent one acre
lot size pattern of the street.
(2) Although there had been previous attempts in 1961 and 1963 to
subdivide the subject parcel these attempts had been denied by the
Board of Adjustment. These denials were sustained by the Board of
Supervisors in both instances. It would be inconsistent to rule
differently on the same matter.
The decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission
was appealed by the applicant.
CONTINUED ON AZTACFNENT: YES SIGNATURE: )
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMI
APPROVE OTHER 7
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON November 28, 1989 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
On November 14, 1989, the Board of Supervisors continued to this
date the hearing on the appeal of Philip E. Park from the decision of
the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on the application
of Philip E. Park (applicant and owner) for approval of a minor
subdivision (MS 20-89) to divide a 43,650 square foot parcel into two
parcels with a variance for average lot width on Parcel B in the Alamo
area.
The following persons appeared to speak:
Mark Armstrong, P.O. Box 218, Danville, appearing on behalf of
the applicant Philip E. Park, summarized the position of the
applicant, and commented on various concerns that had been expressed
previously.
Michael Gibson, 70 Sara Lane, Walnut Creek, representing the
Alamo Improvement Association, spoke in opposition to the appeal, and
commented on planning reasons for the denial of the application.
1.
Lynn Tiernan, 917 Danville Boulevard, Alamo, commented on a map
she presented to the Board of Supervisors 'showing the proposed site.
Tim Tinnes, 200 Wayne Avenue, Alamo, spoke in opposition
commenting on issues including the use of the property for storage of
a variety things including business related materials.
Supervisor Torlakson commented that there seemed to be two
issues, the subdivision issue and a potential zoning violation issue.
Karl Wandry, Community Development Department, responded to
Supervisor Torlakson' s comment.
Marsten Leigh, 244 Wayne Avenue, Alamo, agreed with statements by
the Alamo Improvement Association and requested the Board to help
maintain the open space type neighborhood.
Mark Armstrong spoke in rebuttal.
The public hearing was closed.
Supervisor Schroder commented on a recent visit to the site and
that to grant an appeal and allow a flag lot in this situation would
destroy the integrity of the one acre single family character of Wayne
Avenue. Supervisor Schroder agreed with the decision of the Planning
Commission and moved to deny the appeal.
Supervisor McPeak expressed concern relative to the import of
zoning law and the denial of the subdivision.
Victor Westman, County Counsel, responded to Supervisor McPeak' s
concern, commenting that if the Board were to deny the appeal, staff
would return with appropriate findings.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendations 1 and 2 are
APPROVED.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: Community Development Dept. ATTESTED November 28, 1989
Philip E. Park PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Thiessen, Gagen & McCoy THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Alamo Improvement Assn. COUN ADMINISTRATOR
BY ® , DEPUTY
DK:plp