File #: 07-149    Version:
Type: Agenda Item Status: Failed
File created: 1/19/2007 In control: Board of Supervisors
On agenda: 2/27/2007 Final action: 2/27/2007
Title: Hearing to consider an appeal of the approval of Tentative Parcel Map P99-0003 proposing to create two parcels ranging in size from 3.03 to 4.0 acres on a 7.03 acre site, identified as APN 078-230-39 located on the west side of Silver Ridge Court, approximately 1,000 feet north of the intersection with Silver Ridge Lane, in the Pleasant Valley area (Supervisorial District II). Applicant: Garrett Wilkin; Appellants: Jerry and Julie Reffner and Steve and Pam Fortune. (Continued 2/6/2007, Item 28)
Attachments: 1. P99-0003 Appeal Form.pdf, 2. P99-0003 Attachment 1.pdf, 3. P99-0003 Revised Findings.pdf, 4. P99-0003 Site Photos.pdf, 5. P99-0003 Staff Report.pdf, 6. Ltr - Reffner - rcvd 1-30-07.pdf, 7. Letter Garratt Wilkin - rcvd 2-5-07.pdf
Title
Hearing to consider an appeal of the approval of Tentative Parcel Map P99-0003 proposing to create two parcels ranging in size from 3.03 to 4.0 acres on a 7.03 acre site, identified as APN 078-230-39 located on the west side of Silver Ridge Court, approximately 1,000 feet north of the intersection with Silver Ridge Lane, in the Pleasant Valley area (Supervisorial District II). Applicant: Garrett Wilkin; Appellants: Jerry and Julie Reffner and Steve and Pam Fortune. (Continued 2/6/2007, Item 28)

Body
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Planning staff recommends the Board deny the appeal and approve Tentative Parcel Map P99-0003, based on the revised findings listed on Attachment 2, subject to the revised conditions listed on Attachment 1.



Background: This appeal was considered by the Board of Supervisors on February 6, 2007, at which time the Board continued the hearing to February 27, 2007, with direction to staff to clarify several issues in the original submittal. Changes have been made by underlining for additions and strikeouts for deletions. Staff is also recommending the addition one condition (see Item 3 under Discussion below ) requiring participation in a zone of benefit, should such a zone be formed, for the purpose of road maintenance.

DISCUSSION

The points raised on appeal are:

1. No clear distinction between onsite vs. offsite road improvement and the requirements for each - blanket statements only.

There were no specific on- or off-site road improvements required of the project. Only standard conditions applied since an existing access met minimum standards (Attachment 1 - Conditions of Approval).

2. The staff report notes that a design waiver had been requested to reduce the required road size from 24 to 20 feet with 2-foot shoulders. Yet the roads within the project, Silver Ridge Court and Silver Ridge Lane, do not have consistent 2-foot shoulders, and in some cases there are no shoulders at all.

The design waiver was for a reduction in roa...

Click here for full text