HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC-1045-21 (APPL-0512-2021 -- 1953 Chorro St.)
RESOLUTION NO. PC-1045-21
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 meeting was
conducted via 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 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
Resolution No. PC-0512-21
APPL-0512-2021 (1953 Chorro St.)
Page 2
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 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).
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.
Resolution No. PC-0512-21
APPL-0512-2021 (1953 Chorro St.)
Page 3
Upon motion of Commissioner Hopkins, seconded by Commissioner Dandekar, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Dandekar, Hopkins, Kahn, Shoresman, and Wulkan
NOES: Chair Jorgensen
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Vice-Chair Quincey
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 8th day of September, 2021.
____________________________________
Brian Leveille, Secretary
Planning Commission