SU0013128 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Item No. 5 PC : 6-1-89 GP-89-6/ZR-89-9 Page 3 STAFF ANALYSIS BACKGROUND: On February 4, 1987 , Vern Hansen, then owner of a 20-acre parcel on the east side of Alpine Road, submitted Minor Subdivision Application No. MS-87-42 to create a 3.3-acre parcel , a 3 . 4-acre parcel , a 3 .0-acre parcel , and a 10. 3-acre parcel from a portion of what was recognized as the Evergreen Town Site. At the Planning Commission hearing of May 7 , 1987 , County Counsel entered an opinion that nothing on record supported the validity of the original subdivision, as there was no official action taken to recognize it as a subdivision. In addition, in 1892 the roads of the Evergreen Town Site were abandoned, which effectively dissolved what remained of the "Evergreen" subdivision. Based on the fact that if the Evergreen subdivision did not exist , staff did not have the authority to approve the Minor Subdivision, and the application was withdrawn and fees were refunded. Mr. Hansen subsequently submitted Minor Subdivision Application No. MS-87-93 to create a 3-acre homesite parcel and a 17-acre remainder. MS-87-93 was approved by staff on July 16, 1987 . Thomas Summers acquired the 17-acre remainder parcel in September 1988 and submitted a preapplication for a General Plan Map Amendment , Zone Reclassification, and Major Subdivision on November 15, 1988. A full application for GP-89-6 and ZR-89-9 was filed on April 6, 1989. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: General Plan and Zoning: The project area is shown as Agriculture on the General Plan and is zoned AG-40 (General Agriculture, 40-acre lot minimum) . The proposal is inconsistent with Rural Residential Principles within the Land Use/Circulation Element of the General Plan. Rural Residential Principle No. 3 states, "Future rural resi- dential development will take place only within the designated areas . . . " This phrase has consistently been interpreted by staff to mean that new Rural Residential areas are not to be created and that rural residential development will take place only within already designated areas. Any other interpretation of this phrase is a statement of the obvious, and there would be no need to have it stated as a Rural Residential Principle of the Land Use/Circulation Element . The proposal is also in conflict with Rural Residential Principle No. 1 , which further restricts rural residential development by stating, "Rural residential areas should be kept to a minimum in number and extent . "