Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05221990 - 2.11 2 .11 . BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Karvey E. Bragdon, Contra FROM : Director of Community Development Costa May 3 , 1990 DATE; Smith Companies Appeal of Administrative Decision . (Lot 6 of . SUBJECT: Subdivision 7109) SPEC I F 1 C REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & .BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION 1. Deny the the Smith Companies appeal of the administrative determination of staff . concerning structure setback requirement for a single family residential lot. 2. Affirm that the required (minimum 20 foot) structure setback for the subject site. is measured from the edge of the trail right-of-way. IMMEDIATE BACKGROUND AND APPEAL . -On February 8, 1990 the Smith Companies submitted residential construction plans for Lot 6 of Subdivision 7109 in the Alamo area. The site is zoned Single Family Residential, R-65. The site plan provides for a 7-1/2 foot setback from an eight foot trail adjoining Green Valley Road. After reviewing the zoning code, staff informed the Smith Companies that the proposed setback was insufficient and could only be approved after the granting of a variance. On April 3, 1990 an appeal was filed on the staff interpretation of the setback requirement by the legal firm for the Smith Companies, Little & Saputo. The appeal asserts that the setback should be measured from the edge of the road right-of-way (Green Valley Road) rather than the trail right-of-way, and references . code sections. The appeal is requesting that the Board of Supervisors overturn staff ' s determination. OTHER RELEVANT BACKGROUND The subdivision which created this lot was approved by the Board of Supervisors in June, 1989. The subdivision came to the Board of Supervisors on appeal by the Smith. Companies of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission decision. In approving the subdivision, the Commission voted to eliminate Lot 6 based on the limited building envelope area relative to: other lots in the subdivision. Staff had informed the applicant and the Commission that the setback would have to be measured from the trail ease- ment. l After taking testimony, the Board granted the appeal of the Smith Companies to allow Lot 6 on condition that no 'variances be allowed. JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDED ACTION The staff interpretation of the setback requirement for this lot stems from code sections other than the ones referenced by the appellant. Lot 6 is technically a corner lot because it has frontages along the south and west sides of the property. The zoning code refers to required setbacks as "yards. " Section 82-4.284 of the code indicates that a front yard is the area between the boundary line and the setback line (emphasis added) . Section 82-4.250 of the code defines lot frontage as being based "on the principal road, street or access" (emphasis added) . . The Community Development Department has usually . interpreted "access" to include trails. Therefore, staff feels that setback should be measured from the trail. boundary. A proposed setback which would place a structure closer to the trail could only be permitted after a variance is approved. ,.3 r Should the Board affirm the staff interpretation, the applicant would have to pursue one of two courses. Either the plan could be redrawn to comply with the 20-foot setback measured from the trail, or the applicant could file for a variance application. Given the background of this project, staff would be inclined to schedule such an application for notice and hearing before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. ALTERNATIVE BOARD ACTION Should the Board find the applicant' s appeal has merit and finds that the project complies with the setback requirement, then a building permit will be issued. 00, CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: VES SIGNATURE; RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATUREIS1: ACTION OF BOARD ON Mav 22 , 1990 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED 'X OTHER _ On May 15 , 1990, the Board of Supervisors deferred to this date the decision on the appeal of Smith Companies from the administrative decision by the Community Development Department for the setback requirements fora proposed single family residence on lot 6 of Subdivision 7109 in the Danville/Alamo area. Supervisor Schroder moved to deny the appeal of the Smith Companies, commenting on the approval of the subdivision by the Board of Supervisors. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendations 1 and 2 are APPROVED. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TARN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT; ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE. SHOWN. cc: Community Development .Dept . ATTESTED May 22 , 1990 CountyCounselPHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SmithhCompanies SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY M382• 7-83 ,DEPUTY