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