HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4a. 1953 Chorro (APPL-0512-2021)
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DIRECTOR’S DECISION TO DENY A DIRECTOR’S ACTION
APPLICATION (DIR-0599-2019) REGARDING A REQUEST FOR SETBACK
EXCEPTIONS TO ACCOMMODATE AN 800 SQUARE-FOOT ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1953 Chorro Street BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7593
Email: woetzell@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: APPL-0512-2021 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the draft resolution (Attachment A) denying the appeal and upholding the
Community Development Director’s decision to deny the Director’s Action application
DIR-0599-2019, regarding a request for a reduction of the required side and rear setback
requirements to accommodate placement of an accessory structure on the property at
1953 Chorro Street.
SITE DATA
SUMMARY
On July 5th, 2019, City Code Enforcement staff issued a Notice of Violation to the owner
of the property at 1953 Chorro Street and posted a Stop Work Order on the property,
upon observing installation of a large accessory structure in the southwest corner of the
Appellant Todd Miller
General Plan Medium Density
Residential
Zoning Medium-Density
Residential (R-2)
Site Area 7,500 sq. ft.
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt from
environmental review
(CEQA Guidelines §
15270: Projects Which Are
Disapproved)
Meeting Date: 9/8/2021
Item Number: 4a
Time Estimate: 60 Minutes
Page 9 of 34
Item 4a
APPL-0512-2021 (1953 Chorro)
Planning Commission Report – September 8, 2021
property, noting permit requirements and setback standards applicable to the work (see
Notices and Photos, Attachment B).
On September 9th, 2019, Todd Miller, the property owner, filed Director’s Action
application DIR-0599-2019 requesting an exception to setback requirements, to reduce
the side and rear setbacks from five feet to eighteen inches, in order to accommodate the
structure, described as a “pre-fab metal carport” (see Project Plans, Attachment C).
In April 2021, Planning staff met on site with Mr. Miller to review the site conditions,
including the placement of the accessory structure on the property. Based on the
observations made in the site visit and the information available in the record file, the
application was denied by the Community Development Director on July 14th, 2021 (see
Decision Letter, Attachment D) based on several findings regarding:
Inconsistency of the proposed placement of the accessory structure, within
side and rear setbacks, with the neighborhood character and development
pattern as required by Zoning Regulations § 17.70.170 (D) (2) (d) (ii);
Inconsistency with the Historic Preservation Ordinance due to the size,
scale, and industrial character and appearance of the accessory structure
with the primary dwelling on the site, which is a Master List historic resource;
Adverse visual and scale effects on neighboring properties from the
placement of the structure within setbacks, contrary to the intent of setback
standards set out in Zoning Regulations § 17.70.170 (A); and
Absence of site characteristics or improvements that make adherence to
Zoning Regulations impractical or infeasible, according to required findings.
Denial findings are discussed in further detail in the Analysis of Appeal section of this
report, below.
On August 9th, Todd Miller, the property owner, filed an appeal of the Director’s dec ision
(see Appeal Form, Attachment E). The appeal cited the Director’s findings for denial and
consisted of a statement disagreeing with the Director’s findings.
1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW
As provided in Zoning Regulations § 17.126.040, decisions of the Community
Development Director are appealed to the Planning Commission, for their consideration.
2.0 PROJECT SITE
The subject property is a residential lot measuring 7,500 square feet in area (50 feet wide
and 150 feet deep) located on the west side of Chorro Street, about 125 feet north of High
Street, within a Medium-Low Density Residential (R-2) Zone. It is developed with a single-
family dwelling built between 1890 and 1910 and relocated to the site (from 40 Prado
Road) in 1993. It was included in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources as a Master
List Resource in 1994 (added as the Oliver House by Council Resolution 8352), as a good
Page 10 of 34
Item 4a
APPL-0512-2021 (1953 Chorro)
Planning Commission Report – September 8, 2021
example of “Queen Anne Victorian” style and
for its association with an early farming family
of immigrants in the area.
3.0 ANALYSIS OF APPEAL
Development of an accessory structure
requires approval of a building permit from
the City’s Building & Safety Division (Zoning
§ 17.70.010 (D) (1)). Additionally, accessory
structures must conform to all applicable
Zoning Regulations, including setback
standards (Zoning § 17.70.010 (C) (1)).
Under Director’s Action application DIR-0599-2019, the Community Development
Director was asked to consider reducing the side and rear setbacks by 3 ½ feet (from
required 5 feet to 18 inches), as provided in Zoning Regulations § 17.70.070 (D) (2), to
accommodate the accessory structure installed in the southwest corner of the site. Such
exceptions may be granted in certain circumstances, upon making the findings for an
individual exception, along with the Required Findings for Director’s Action set out in
Zoning § 17.108.040 (A). An excerpt from the City’s Municipal Code describing the
required findings for a setback exception and for approval of a Director’s Action
application is provided for convenience as Attachment F (Required Findings).
As described in the decision letter denying the application (Attachment D), staff was
unable to make three of the required findings for setback reductions, and the structure
itself could not be found to be consistent with the City’s Historical Preservation policies,
therefore the setback reduction could not be granted. The four findings upon which denial
of the application was based have been cited by the Appellant as the basis for his appeal
of the Director’s decision (Attachment E).
Neighborhood Development Pattern (Finding #1). In order to grant a setback reduction,
the Director must find that, in the case of a detached single-story accessory structure, the
structure is consistent with the traditional development pattern of the neighborhood
(Zoning Regulations § 17.70.170 (D) (2) (d) (ii) (b)). This neighborhood is characterized
by the placement of primary dwellings at or near the 20 -foot front setback limit (see
Figure 2) and, as is common in an R-2 Zone, additional dwelling units to the rear of a lot,
subject to minimum 5-foot side and rear setbacks applicable within the R-2 Zone (Zoning
Regulations § 17.82.20 (A) & (B)). Likewise, new accessory structures are subject to the
same minimum 5-foot side and rear setback standards (for structures up to 12 feet in
height).1 Existing dwellings and accessory structures in the vicinity are constructed of
conventional residential building materials, such as wood or masonry.
1 The depth of a required setback increases with building height above 12 feet (see Zoning § 17.18.020 (B)
Figure 1: 1953 Chorro
Page 11 of 34
Item 4a
APPL-0512-2021 (1953 Chorro)
Planning Commission Report – September 8, 2021
While a limited number of accessory structures in the vicinity may be observed within side
or rear setbacks, such accessory structures are of a small scale, typically single -car
garages or storage sheds of limited depth and width, which are most commonly “legal
non-conforming” structures pre-dating the City’s setback standards.
The applicant has indicated that a permitted structure was located on the property in
approximately the same location. Aerial imagery appears to show a smaller accessory
structures in the rear yard area of the property, but no corresponding permit record is
Figure 3: "Pre-Fab Carport" Accessory structure (completed, left; under construction, right)
Figure 2: Neighborhood Pattern (Google Maps)
Page 12 of 34
Item 4a
APPL-0512-2021 (1953 Chorro)
Planning Commission Report – September 8, 2021
found in City records. Nonconforming Provisions in the City’s Zoning Regulations which
may have allowed continued use of a prior nonconforming accessory structure would not
apply to the new carport building, as the prior structure has been demolished and the new
carport building is an entirely new structure subject to current setback standards.
At 20 feet in width and 40 feet in depth, the new accessory structure is about double the
size of typical legal non-conforming accessory structures in the neighborhood. Its metal
construction also represents a departure from the predominant wood and stucco building
materials that dominate construction in this neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood
does not contain similarly sized accessory structures and exceptions have not bee n
provided for reduced setbacks for structures of similar size or material.
Adverse Effects (Finding #3). Required findings for Director’s Action approval call for
consideration of, and measures to address, any potential impacts to surrounding
properties (Zoning § 17.108.040 (A) (3)). The visual impact from the unusually large size
of the subject accessory structure and its incongruous metal material are made more
noticeable to adjacent properties when placed almost directly against the property’s
boundaries. The structure rises several feet above the boundary fence and no natural
elements such as tall hedges or trees are
present to screen the structure from view of
neighboring properties. Setback standards
are intended, among other purposes, to
help determine the pattern of building
masses and open areas within
neighborhoods (Zoning § 17.70.170 (A)).
Placement of this large metal building closer
to neighboring properties than permitted
under current setback standards does not
provide adequate consideration of adverse
visual and scale effects on surrounding
properties arising from the pattern and lack
of open area that would result from the
proposed setback reduction.
Impracticality or Infeasibility of Conformance (Finding #4). Approval of a Director’s Action
application is also subject to finding that, in light of site characteristics or existing
improvements that make strict adherence to the regulations, including setback standards,
impractical or infeasible, a project nonetheless conforms with the intent of Zoning
Regulations (Zoning § 17.108.040 (A) (4)). Here, there are no discernable site
characteristics or existing improvements that render strict adherence to the setback
standards impractical or infeasible, and none were described by Appellant in the
application submittal or in his subsequent correspondence.
As a rectangular lot measuring 7,500 square feet in area (50 feet wide by 150 feet deep)
and developed only with a modestly-sized single-family dwelling, the property is not of
unusual size or shape and existing improvements present no barrier to adherence to
setback standards. The structure itself is a very large pre-fabricated structure and
Figure 4: Accessory Structure, right wall
Page 13 of 34
Item 4a
APPL-0512-2021 (1953 Chorro)
Planning Commission Report – September 8, 2021
granting a setback exception to accommodate a building that was not designed to fit this
particular site would be inconsistent with the intent of setback standards and the
exceptions thereto. In addition to lack of basis for making the required finding that strict
adherence to the setback standards is infeasible or impractical, staff could not find the
requested exception to be nonetheless consistent with the intent of setback standards
(see Adverse Effects, above).
Historical Character (Finding #2). The Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE)
of the City’s General Plan sets out policies for the protection of historical and architectural
resources (see COSE § 3.3),2 and as described in Section 12.4 of the General Plan Land
Use Element, these policies are implemented through the City’s Historic Preservation
Ordinance (SLOMC Ch. 14.01) and supporting Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
(HPPG). 3 The HPPG provide that construction on properties that contain listed historic
resources shall conform to those General Plan policies and to the Historic Preservation
Ordinance and supporting Guidelines (HPPG § 3.1.1). In particular, new accessory
structures are to complement the primary structure’s historic character through
compatibility with its form, massing, color, and materials (HPPG § 3.4.1 (c)).
The accessory structure installed on
this property does not satisfy this
guideline, and therefore, is inconsistent
with General Plan policies for
preservation of historic and
architectural resources. It is an
unusually large accessory structure, at
800 square feet in area and 40 feet in
depth, about 70% of the size of the
1,130 square-foot Oliver house. It
exhibits a functionally-oriented
industrial appearance that contrasts
with the Oliver House’s Victorian
(Queen Anne) form, detailing, and
decoration, and is constructed of a
utilitarian metal material without apparent relation to the wood -sided Oliver House, apart
from the horizontal orientation of its metal siding. For these reasons, the accessory
structure is not seen to complement the Oliver house in form, massing, color, or materials,
and granting a setback exception to accommodate the structure could likewise not be
found consistent with General Plan policies, as implemented through the City’s historical
preservation policies.
2 Relevant policies include Policy 3.3.1: Significant historic and architectural resources should be identified,
preserved and rehabilitated; and Policy 3.3.4: New buildings in historical districts, or on historically
significant sites, should reflect the form, spacing and materials of nearby historic structures . The General
Plan can be accessed online at: www.slocity.org/government/department -directory/community-
development/planning-zoning/general-plan
3 Historical Preservation documents available online at: www.slocity.org/government/department -
directory/community-development/historic-and-archeological-preservation
Page 14 of 34
Item 4a
APPL-0512-2021 (1953 Chorro)
Planning Commission Report – September 8, 2021
4.0 CONCLUSION
Exceptions from setback standards, as requested under Director’s Action application
DIR-0599-2019, could not be approved because the required findings for such an
exception, as set forth in Zoning Regulations § § 17.70.170 & 17.108.040, could not be
made, as described above. The appeal of the Director’s decision to deny the application
does not identify authority indicating misapplication of the setback standards or any
factual inaccuracies on which the decision to deny was based. No information has been
provided with this appeal demonstrating that a setback exception is appropriate in this
case, or that could serve as the basis for making the required findings necessary to
approve the requested setback exception.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Denial of a reduction in Setback Standards is not subject to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15270 (Projects Which Are
Disapproved).
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Uphold the appeal and adopt a resolution granting a Discretionary Exception from side
and sear setback standards, reducing the required setback to 18 inches to
accommodate the accessory structure.
This action is not recommended since the appeal provides no justification for granting
a setback exception or any basis for making the required findings necessary to
approve a setback exception. Staff could not uncover any basis on which to find that
the structure could comply with Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines, which require the structure to be complementary to
the primary structure in form, massing, color, and materials. Any consideration to
uphold the appeal should first include a continuance to allow the Cultural Heritage
Committee (CHC) to review and provide a recommendation on the project, to provide
a basis for required CEQA findings and findings of conformance with the City’s
General Plan and Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines.
2. Continue consideration of the item to a future date, with relevant guidance to staff and
applicant including an opportunity for review by the CHC so that the project may then
return to the Planning Commission for action (as described in Alternative 1 above).
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
A – Draft Planning Commission Resolution denying the Appeal for 1953 Chorro
B – Code Enforcement Notices and Photographs
C – Project Plans for 1953 Chorro
D – Decision Letter (DIR-0599-2019)
E – Appeal Form (APPL-0512-2021)
F – Required Findings (Zoning Regulations – Excerpts)
Page 15 of 34
Page 16 of 34
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND
UPHOLDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S
DECISION DENYING A REQUEST FOR A DISCRETIONARY
EXCEPTION FROM SIDE AND REAR SETBACK STANDARDS FOR AN
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1953 CHORRO STREET
(APPL-0512 2021)
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director denied a request for a
Discretionary Exception from Side and Rear Setback standards for an accessory
structure located at 1953 Chorro Street, on July 14, 2021, under Director’s Action
application DIR-0599-2019; Todd Miller, applicant; and
WHEREAS, On August 9, 2021, Todd Miller filed an appeal of the Community
Development Director’s decision to deny the request for a Discretionary Exception from
Side and Rear Setback standards; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing by teleconference from San Luis Obispo, California, on September 8, 2021,
to consider the appeal of the Community Development Director’s decision; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by
staff presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the
following findings:
1. The proposed accessory structure for which the setback red uction is requested is
neither consistent with, nor an improvement to, the character or traditional
development pattern of the neighborhood (Zoning §§ 17.70.170 (D) (2) (d) (2) (b) &
17.108.040 (A) (2)). It is of an excessive scale, being significantly dee per and wider
and greater in total enclosed floor area than structures which are typically considered
to be accessory and subordinate to a single-family dwelling, and it is constructed with
an exclusively metal exterior material which is inconsistent with conventional building
materials and design for a residential building of this size and scale. As such , its
placement directly against the property line without building setback is not consistent
with the prevailing pattern of building masses in the vicinity, in which larger structures
are set back from side and rear property lines in conformance to Setback Standards
set out in Zoning Regulations.
Page 17 of 34
Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 2
R ______
2. The proposed setback reduction does not provide adequate consideration of potential
adverse visual and scale effects on surrounding properties (Zoning Regulations
§ 17.108.040 (A) (3)). The accessory building’s perceived scale and the incongruity of
its metal surface material are amplified and made more noticeable to neighboring
properties by placement of the building directly adjacent to the side and rear property
line without setback.
3. No site characteristics or existing improvements have been identified or observed
which would make strict adherence to the Setback Standards set out in Zoning
Regulations impractical or infeasible, and placement of the unusually large proposed
accessory building directly against the side and rear property lines without setbacks
does not conform with the intent of Setback Standards to determine the pattern of
building masses and open space (Zoning Regulations § 17.108.040 (A) (4)). The
property is of a conventional rectangular shape, and of dimensions exceeding
minimum standards for the zone, without constraining topographical features such as
creeks or unusual slope characteristics, and existing property improvements are
limited to one modestly sized single-family dwelling.
4. The proposed setback reduction is not consistent with policies for protection of
historical and architectural resources set out in § 3.3 of the Conservation and Open
Space Element of the General Plan, or their implementing guidelines (Land Use
Element § 12.4). The industrial character and metal construction of the accessory
building for which the setback exception is proposed is not consistent with, and does
not complement, the historical character of the primary structure on the property
(Historical Preservation Program Guidelines § 3.4.1 (d)), a Victorian Queen Anne
Cottage (Oliver House), designated as a Master List Resource in the City’s Inventory
of Historic Resources. Contrary to the guidance for Related New Construction
(including new accessory structures) provided in the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Property, the accessory building’s austere
metal surface material and industrial character are not stylistically appropriate for the
character of Oliver House, which exhibits a conventional residential character through
wood exterior materials and decorative detailing.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. This application is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It involves a request that
a public agency will disapprove, as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15270 (Projects
which are disapproved).
Page 18 of 34
Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 3
R ______
SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby deny the subject
appeal filed by Todd Miller, and upholds the Community Development Director’s decision
to deny a Discretionary Exception from Side and Rear setback standards for an
Accessory Structure, under Director’s Action application DIR-0599-20201.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by
_______________________, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2021.
___________________________
Brian Leveille, Secretary
Planning Commission
Page 19 of 34
Page 20 of 34
Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)/Notice of Violation
(Courtesy Warning Prior to Issuance of Administrative Citation)
July 5, 2019
Kimberly Miller
816 Clearview Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 816 Clearview Lane, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 APN: 003-644-011
Code Case #: CODE-493-2019
Dear Property Owner,
On July 5, 2019, City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department staff noted the
following violations of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code or other relevant codes at the above listed
address:
1. Permit Required (SLOMC 15.02.010, California Building Code A105.1)
“Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move,
demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter,
repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the
installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first
make application to the building official and obtain the required permit.”
2. Development Standards (SLOMC 17.16.020[B])
The interior side and rear setback standards for the R-1 zone shall be as set forth in Table 2-5.
Officer Comments: A Stop Work Order was posted at the property due to a structure under
construction in the rear yard. The structure is being built without a permit and within required
setbacks.
Corrective Action: A permit will be required for the structure. Once a permit is issued please
ensure to schedule necessary inspection(s).
A COPY OF THIS NOTICE MUST BE ATTACHED TO ALL APPLICATIONS FOR A PERMIT.
ALL REQUIRED WORK MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE.
(Note: Property Address subsequently corrected)
Page 21 of 34
We request that you voluntarily take action to correct the above noted violation(s) no later than August
4, 2019. These violations constitute a public nuisance and must be abated. Failure to correct the
violation(s) by the specified date will result in the issuance of an Administrative Citation requiring
payment of FINES in accordance with SLOMC Chapter 1.24. For Municipal Code violations that
remain uncorrected after issuance of an Administrative Citation, the City may seek enforcement by other
civil or criminal remedies.
Any person having a title interest in the property may request a Director’s review of this Notice by
completing the enclosed Request for Director’s Review Form and submitting it to the Community
Development Department, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406, within five (5) days of the date
of this Notice. This Notice shall be deemed final unless you timely file a Request for Director’s Review.
We look forward to working with you to resolve these violations and would like to thank you for your
efforts to maintain your property and to help preserve the safety and beauty of our community. If you
have questions, please contact the undersigned Officer at (805) 783-7841 or ssheats@slocity.org.
Sincerely,
____________________________
Steve Sheats, Code Enforcement Officer
Cc: File
Enclosures: Request for Directors Review
Page 22 of 34
Page 23 of 34
Page 24 of 34
Page 25 of 34
Page 26 of 34
Page 27 of 34
Page 28 of 34
City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org
July 14, 2021
Todd Miller
1953 Chorro St
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
SUBJECT: Application DIR-0599-2019 (1953 Chorro)
Request for reduction of side and rear setbacks to accommodate a single-story
accessory structure
Dear Mr. Miller:
On July 14th, 2021, I reviewed your request for a reduction of side and rear setbacks to
accommodate a single-story accessory structure at 1953 Chorro Street. After careful
consideration, and pursuant to Zoning Regulations § 17.108.040 (B) (Director’s Action –
Required Findings), I have denied your request because one or more of the required findings
for approval of a Director’s Action application could not be made, as described below:
Findings:
1. The proposed accessory structure for which the setback reduction is requested is neither
consistent with, nor an improvement to, the character or traditional development pattern
of the neighborhood (Zoning §§ 17.70.170 (D) (2) (d) (2) (b) & 17.108.040 (A) (2)). It
is of an excessive scale, being significantly deeper and wider and greater in total
enclosed floor area than structures which are typically considered to be accessory and
subordinate to a single-family dwelling, and it is constructed with an exclusively metal
exterior material which is inconsistent with conventional building materials and design
for a residential building of this size and scale. As such its placement directly against
the property line without building setback is not consistent with the prevailing pattern
of building masses in the vicinity, in which larger structures are set back from side and
rear property lines in conformance to Setback Standards set out in Zoning Regulations.
2. The industrial character and metal construction of the accessory building for which the
setback exception is proposed is not consistent with, and does not complement, the
historical character of the primary structure on the property (Historical Preservation
Program Guidelines § 3.4.1 (d)), a Victorian Queen Anne Cottage (Oliver House),
designated as a Master List Resource in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.
Contrary to the guidance for Related New Construction (including new accessory
structures) provided in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Property, the accessory building’s austere metal surface material and industrial
character are not stylistically appropriate for the character of Oliver House, which
exhibits a conventional residential character through wood exterior materials and
decorative detailing.
Page 29 of 34
DIR-0599-2019 (1953 Chorro)
Page 2
3. The proposed setback reduction does not provide adequate consideration of potential
adverse visual and scale effects on surrounding properties. The accessory building’s
perceived scale and the incongruity of its metal surface material are amplified and made
more noticeable to neighboring properties by placement of the building directly adjacent
to the side and rear property line without setback.
4. No site characteristics or existing improvements have been identified or observed which
would make strict adherence to the Setback Standards set out in Zoning Regulations
impractical or infeasible, and placement of the unusually large proposed accessory
building directly against the side and rear property lines without setbacks does not
conform with the intent of Setback Standards to determine the pattern of building masses
and open space. The property is of a conventional rectangular shape, and of dimensions
exceeding minimum standards for the zone, without constraining topographical features
such as creeks or unusual slope characteristics, and existing property improvements are
limited to one modestly sized single-family dwelling.
5. Denial of a reduction in Setback Standards is not subject to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15270 (Projects Which Are
Disapproved).
My action is final unless appealed within 10 calendar days of the date of the decision. Anyone
may appeal the action by submitting a letter to the Community Development Department
within the time specified. The appropriate appeal fee must accompany the appeal
documentation. Appeals will be scheduled for the first available Planning Commission
meeting date. If an appeal is filed, you will be notified by mail of the date and time of the
hearing.
If you have any questions, or if you need additional information, please contact Walter Oetzell,
Assistant Planner at (805) 781-7593 (or by email at woetzell@slocity.org).
Sincerely,
Tyler Corey
Deputy Director
Community Development
Page 30 of 34
Page 31 of 34
Page 32 of 34
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1700, passed July 6, 2021.
17.70.170 Setbacks.
A. Purpose. This section establishes standards for the measurement of setbacks and required setback areas.
These provisions, in conjunction with other applicable provisions of the zoning regulations, are intended to
help determine the pattern of building masses and open areas within neighborhoods. They also provide
separation between combustible materials in neighboring buildings. Setback areas are further intended to help
provide landscape beauty, air circulation, views, and exposure to sunlight for both natural illumination and use
of solar energy.
D. Exceptions to Setback Requirements.
2. Discretionary Exceptions. Discretionary exceptions to setback requirements shall require a director’s
action and meet the findings required for a director’s action (Chapter 17.108), as well as any findings
indicated below for an individual exception.
d. Other Setback Variations in Previously Subdivided Areas. Upon approval of a director’s action,
the director may allow side and rear setbacks to be reduced to zero under either of the following
circumstances:
i. When there exists recorded agreement, to the satisfaction of the city attorney, running with
the land to maintain at least ten feet of separation between buildings on adjacent parcels and the
development will comply with solar access standards of General Plan Conservation and Open
Space Element Policy 4.5.1; or
ii. When the reduction is for either a minor addition to an existing legal structure that is
nonconforming with regard to side and rear setback requirements or for a detached single-
story accessory structure; provided, that all such minor additions and new accessory structures
shall comply with applicable provisions of Title 15, Building and Construction (see also
Chapter 17.92, Nonconforming Structures) and the director makes the following findings:
(a) In the case of a minor addition, that the minor addition is a logical extension of the
existing nonconforming structure;
(b) In the case of a detached single-story accessory structure (either new or replacing a
previously approved nonconforming structure), that the accessory structure is consistent
with the traditional development pattern of the neighborhood and will have a greater front
and/or street side setback than the main structure;
(c) That adjacent affected properties will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure,
and the development will comply with solar access standards of General Plan Conservation
and Open Space Element Policy 4.5.1;
(d) That no useful purpose would be realized by requiring the full setback;
Page 33 of 34
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1700, passed July 6, 2021.
(e) That no significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy, or security impacts are
likely from the addition; and
(f) That it is impractical to obtain a ten-foot separation easement in compliance with
subsection (D)(2)(d)(ii)(a) of this subsection.
17.108.040 Director’s Action – Required findings.
A. Required Findings. The director may approve a director’s action application only after first making all of
the following findings. The proposed interpretation, determination, or modification to standards:
1. Is consistent with the intent of these zoning regulations and applicable general plan policies;
2. Is consistent with or an improvement to the character of the neighborhood or zone;
3. Provides adequate consideration of and measures to address any potential adverse effects on
surrounding properties such as, but not limited to, traffic, vehicular and pedestrian safety, noise, visual
and scale, and lighting.
With regard to cases of granting exceptions to the strict application of development standards, the following
additional finding shall be made:
4. While site characteristics or existing improvements make strict adherence to the zoning regulations
impractical or infeasible, the project nonetheless conforms with the intent of these regulations.
B. Failure to Make Findings. The director shall deny the application if any one or more of the required
findings cannot be made. (Ord. 1650 § 3 (Exh. B), 2018)
The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1700, passed July 6, 2021.
Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Users
should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.
City Website: www.slocity.org
City Telephone: (805) 781-7100
Code Publishing Company
Page 34 of 34
Staff Presentation 9/8/2021
1
APPL-0512-2021 (1953 Chorro)
Appeal of the Community Development Director's decision to deny a setback
exception request to accommodate a large accessory structure
Zoning Ch. 17.12 - Appeals
1
2
Staff Presentation 9/8/2021
2
Recommendation
Deny the appeal, upholding the Community Development Director's decision to deny a setback exception
request to accommodate a large accessory structure
3
4
Staff Presentation 9/8/2021
3
5
6
Staff Presentation 9/8/2021
4
7
8
Staff Presentation 9/8/2021
5
Findings
Required findings for a setback exception under Director’s Action application, which could not
be made in the case of the proposed large accessory structure:
Appeal
9
10
Staff Presentation 9/8/2021
6
11
12
Staff Presentation 9/8/2021
7
13
14
Staff Presentation 9/8/2021
8
Recommendation
Deny the appeal, upholding the Community Development Director's decision to deny a setback
exception request to accommodate a large accessory structure
Alternatives
Note: Review by Cultural Heritage Committee is necessary before any positive action can be
taken on a setback reduction request for this large (over 450 sq. ft.) accessory structure
End of Presentation
15
16
Staff Presentation 9/8/2021
9
Required Findings
Required Findings
17
18