Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDwagner2ph1RECEIVE D JAN 5 201 0 'SLO CITY CLERK civil engineers j land surveyors I land planners -!COUNCIL --CDD DI R L~'f~46rz1 iIN DI R "C/0/71 IRE CHIE F © ATTORNEY t PW DI R i 2-CLERK/OHIO C 0LICE CH F 1I.7N2, ,ell) D EA p 9 REC DI R C~'UTIL DI R l 'HR0111 1ri 5 ,e,evNC EL "tti cry /It —cLc:2 _ Dear Mr. David , On behalf of the project applicants, Sue and Jeff Spevack,eda - design professionals submits the following response to the appeal of the approval of the subject Tentativ e Parcel Map . Please place this response in the Planning Commissions packet for th e October 20, 2009 hearing . Thank you . APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO THE APPEAL OF SUBDIVISION APPROVA L The applicants are the owners of the 2410 Johnson Avenue property . They request that the appeal of the Administrative Officer's approval be denied by the Plannin g Commission . The appeal presents no significant new information . Both the Spevacks and eda believe that staff acted appropriately in its approval of the Tentative Parce l Map, and that staffs findings should be upheld so the Spevacks can move on withou t further unnecessary costs and delays. The applicants believe that their map is a test of their right to develop their propert y within the bounds of the City's policies and ordinances . It is also a test of the City's resolve to fulfill Strategic Growth objectives, General Plan goals, AB32 and othe r planning objectives . This project complies with all City requirements, policies, goals, an d contrary to the appeal, staff Findings 2, 3, 4, and 6 . We respectfully request that th e Planning Commission deny the appeal . A point-by-point response to the appeal is offered below, in a format similar to the appea l itself . Buildin g Envelope Parcel 1 -- Slop e Slope_City staff reviewed the slope gradients that eda presented on the approved ma p and concurred with our figures . The area of 30% slope cited in the appeal comprise s approximately 250 square feet, and is a manufactured slope resulting from backyar d 1998 Santa Barbara Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-549-8658 Fax 805-549-8704 www.edainc .com RED FILE MEETING AGENDA James David DATE //Siiv .ITEM #12/H City of San Luis Obisp o Community Development Departmen t San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1 October 21, 200 9 RE : MS 78-09, PM-SLO-09-0074, 2410 Johnson Avenu e APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO APPEAL OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL Planning Commissio n PM-SLO-09-0074 October 21, 200 9 Page 2 of 4 construction . The point is irrelevant, however, since the development standards ar e based on average slope. Trees and landscaping .The map was not conditioned to preserve the 24" eucalyptus o r the 6" oak, so their removal is not prohibited . There is no intent to remove the tree s unnecessarily, as they are recognized as assets . Regardless, their fate will becom e evident after building plans are developed and the plans are subjected for ARC and Cit y staff review . Some ornamental landscaping may be removed, which is allowed . AR C will review landscape issues during permit review . Massive Grading .,eda's preliminary grading review indicates that cuts and fills for th e driveway and related walls should not exceed three feet in height . Construction of a house should not require more significant grading . In eda's opinion this does no t represent massive grading and is within allowed limits . ARC will review grading issue s when it reviews a building permit application . Buildinq Envelope Parcel 1 — Setback s For clarification, the Spevacks propose to subdivide Lot 1 of Tract 1272 into Parcels 1, 2 , and 3 . Tract 1272 CC&Rs .The appeal points out that the Tract 1272 CC&Rs do not apply t o Lot 1 (Spevack). We agree. The CC&Rs are irrelevant . Setbacks .eda intended the building envelope to define the limits of construction of a home and yards, including possible retaining walls . We evaluated the use of three-foo t retaining walls at the top of Parcel 1 to provide for a lower elevation for a yard and futur e house, to mitigate impacts on neighbors' views . The applicants wanted to provide fo r that option . Higher walls could be considered by the owner and reviewed by ARC . ARC Review .ARC will evaluate building setbacks when application is made for a building permit, as well as building orientation and height, depth of the rear yard , landscaping, and other issues . Let us allow ARC to apply all of the considerations an d do its job properly . We recommend the building envelope remain as approved by staff . Parcel 1 — Acces s Driveway grade .The Final Parcel Map will be based on driveway slopes of 15% or les s and all Fire Department requirements will be met . The effect of reducing the grade o f the first 60 feet of the proposed driveway is shown on the attached exhibit . Reducing the grade from 17% to 15% changes little . At one point near the top of Parcel 2 th e driveway will indeed climb a 20% existing slope for approximately 20 feet, but cuts of tw o to three feet at the break will allow a driveway to be designed at a 15% grade . Oda -design professionals 1998 Santa Barbara Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1 805-548658 &Fax 805-549-8704 www.edaino .com Planning Commissio n PM-SLO-09-0074 October 21, 200 9 Page 3 of 4 Vegetation .Vegetation along the property line that must to be removed will be replace d with appropriate new plantings . The applicants are in favor of maintaining the visua l screen between properties . Drainage Structure .There is a drainage easement on Lots 2 and 3 (Tract 1272) tha t abuts Lot 1 (Spevack). Future construction will not cross the property line, so whateve r structures exist on Lots 2 and 3 will remain . The 10'-drainage easement at the N W corner of Lot 1, adjacent to Lot 13 (Tract 1272), and. the small drainage structure will b e unaffected or addressed to the City's satisfaction . Fire Hazard .The Tentative Map was presented to the City's Fire Marshall, Roge r Maggio . He indicated that with driveway grades limited to 15% and the turnaround a s presented within design limits, the Fire Department would be satisfied, subject to his fina l approval of the actual construction documents . Fire safety standards are not being compromised . Visual Impacts CC&Rs and Owner Expectations,The Spevacks are not responsible for th e development expectations of their neighbors or the incorrect reliance on CC&Rs that do not apply to their lot . The appellants have no vested right to the views Into and across the Spevack's back yard and home. The Spevacks cannot accept the appeal's implication that their legitimate financial interests are secondary to the appellants'. Visual Impact Sketches .The rough sketches presented in the appeal reflect a worst - case analysis that overstates the likely view Impacts of a home on Parcel 1 . Th e sketches reflect no .beek yard and assume the possible highest floor elevation for th e home . We believe that adding a laaskyard and lowering the home by at approximatel y three feet would more be more realistic . We expect that ARC will consider view impact s and building setbacks in its deliberations . City Land Use Policies .The Spevack's investment in their map and this costly appea l process is not a "ploy", as claimed in the appeal . It is a legitimate exercise of thei r property rights, consistent with City ordinances and City and state policies to fully utiliz e existing lots for infill development . The staff found that the approved Tentative Map i s consistent with all City policies and ordinances, and we concur . ARC Review,The City's ARC is widely known as a strong and active review body . Th e appellants should take comfort in ARC review of a future home project on this property . We anticipate that the appellants will participate in that process, as well . eda -design professionals 1998 Santa Barbara Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1 805-549-8658 &Fax 805-549-8704 www.edatnacom Planning Commissio n PM-SLO-09-0074 October 21, 2009 Page 4 of 4 Neighborhood Controvers y The abutting neighbors have freely enjoyed the view benefits provided by the Spevack's . The applicants understand why these neighbors would resist any change to tha t condition . Nevertheless, views of the Spevack's back yard and over their home are no t a vested right held by the neighbors . It is true that the Spevacks remodeled their home in 2001, but that is irrelevant to thi s appeal . The approved Tentative Map enables the Spevacks to pursue a land division , as other landowners in the neighborhood have already done . Future Parcel 1 is suitable for development, despite the appeals' attempts to sho w otherwise . This appeal is, quite literally, NIMBY opposition to a project that fits the goal s of the City to intensify development within the city limits . Protect Alternatives We concur that selling Parcel 1 to the abutting neighbors is a viable option, Th e Spevacks have formally offered to meet to discuss this opportunity to the owners of Lot s 2 and 3 (see attached letter dated October 12, 2009). To date, neither owner ha s indicated an interest in pursuing the alternative suggested in the appeal . Recommendatio n • The Spevacks believe that this appeal is about their right to develop their property withi n the bounds of the City's policies and ordinances . This is a test of the City's intentions t o fulfill Strategic Growth objectives, General Plan goals, AB32 and_other plannin g objectives in the face of neighbors who wrongly believe they are entitled to protect thei r interests by infringing on the legitimate rights of others . This is a project that complie s with all City requirements, including Findings 2, 3, 4, and 6 . We respectfully request tha t the Planning Commission deny the appeal . We look forward to presenting our project on October 28 . Yours truly , eda - design professional s copy : Sue and Jeff Spevack ads-design professionals 1998 Santa Barbara Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1 805-549-8658 &Fax 805-549-870 4 www.edainc.com To : Nancy & Emil Shokohi, Maureen Eyerman,10/12/0 9 From : Jeff & Sue Spevac k Re : Property Subdivisio n Dear Nancy & Emil, and Maureen , Sue and I would like to extend an offer . In fact, it is raised in the Appeal as a Project Alternative to ou r proposed map. We would like to revisit the idea of selling Parcel 1, to one or both of you, That way, you could exten d and improve your yards, to enhance the value of your homes, and own and preserve your . own viewshed . Our engineer agrees that a Lot Line Adjustment between us would not be a difficult task once our map i s finalized . It is another process, but a relatively easy one . Please let us know if this is a resolution you are serious about . We think it has merit . I have left phone messages with you both, and Nancy has left a phone message back, but I thought a letter would be best . Sincerely, Jeff & Sue Spevac k .dam-x pe,rryok SPEVACK CROSS SECTIO N SCALE : 1" = 20'