Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/06/1988, 6 - APPEAL OF MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVED BY THE SUBDIVISION HEARING OFFICER ALLOWING SUBDIVISION OF ONE LOT INTO TWO LOTS ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF PHILLIPS LANE, NORTHEAST OF GROVE STREET. 1��N��^II��IIII���IIIIUM�IIIDIII city of Clan LUIS OB�SPO DATE A D 122-6--6-MEEnN88 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT � "N�",�: FROM: Michael Multari, Community Development Director Prepared By: Greg Smith SUBJECT: Appeal of minor subdivision approved by the Subdivision Hearing Officer allowing subdivision of one lot into two lots on the northwest side of Phillips Lane, northeast of Grove Street. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal, and approve the minor subdivision subject to the findings and conditions adopted by the Subdivision Hearing Officer. DISCUSSION: The Subdivision Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing on the minor subdivision on October 7, 1988. Various neighbors testified against and in support of the project, and a petition opposing it was submitted. The hearing officer took the application under submission, and approved the tentative map for the subdivision on October 17, 1988. On October 27 an appeal was filed, and on November 14 a petition in support of the appeal was submitted. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS: A negative declaration has been approved for the project. No significant fiscal or other impacts are expected. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION: If the council upholds the appeal, the proposed minor subdivision will not occur. The subdivider or future owners may or may not decide to remodel the existing house. Zoning Regulations would allow a second house to be built on the existing lot if an administrative use permit were approved, although it is questionable whether such a permit would be approved subsequent to denial of the subdivision. j����11 city of san Luis osispo IffmaCOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 2 BACKGROUND Data Summary Address: 1640 Phillips Lane Subdividers/Owners: Gary Toll and Charlene Souza Representative: Joe Boud Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low density residential Environmental Status: Negative declaration approved by Director. Action Deadline: December 7, 1988 Site Description 100'xl30' rectangular lot (13,000 square feet), with a slope of approximately 13%. The lot is developed with a wood frame house built prior to 1946. A detached carport is located near the back of the lot. The lot is surrounded by other single family residences. EVALUATION The proposed tentative map would allow splitting the existing lot in half. The existing building would have to be demolished, moved, or remodeled, since it would conflict with the new lot line. The subdividers have stated their intention to remodel the structure to meet setback requirements (approximately seven feet), but have not submitted any specific proposals. Demolition would be subject to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission, but staff is not aware of any notable architectural or historic significance to the structure. Staff suggests the council review the issues outlined below in determining whether to approve the subdivision. The letter of appeal and petition supporting the appeal are attached for council reference, as are the subdivider's statement and the minutes of the October 7 Subdivision Review Hearing. 1. General Plan Policies The Land Use Element encourages infill development at efficient density, consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood (Land Use Element page 9 and 12, attached). The Housing Element indicates city policy is for new housing construction to keep pace with enrollment and employment growth and help reduce commuting (Housing Element, page 7). I i 11n111t►►1III111A111111 city O� SM LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 3 2. Compliance with Ordinance Standards The proposed subdivision complies with minimum standards for subdivision in the R-1 zone, as indicated in the following table: Min. Min. Min. Avg. Area Width Denth Sloe Requirement 6,OOOsf 50' 90' 15% or less Proposed 6,500sf 50' 130' 13% Staff would also note that the proposed lots are as large or larger than most of the existing lots in the immediate vicinity. 3. Precedent for Future Development The appellants are concerned that this subdivision will be a precedent for future development in the neighborhood, possibly leading to a situation similar to Mill Street (currently zoned R-2). Staff believes that there are two factors which should be evaluated in assessing likely future development in the immediate neighborhood. First, current zoning and subdivision regulations would allow very few additional units to be built. Only three of the R-1 properties in the vicinity have any potential for subdivision: 1681 Phillips Lane (formerly used as a fraternity house), which may qualify for two lots, depending on topography; 1690 Wilson, where a tentative map for two new units has been approved but not yet recorded; and 643 Grove Street, an irregular lot which might support up to three new lots, depending on topography. Excluding the possibility of granny flats or rezoning, the only four to eight units could be added to the 75 existing houses in the R-1 area. Secondly, it is important to note that nearby blocks on Mill Street were zoned R-3 between 1955 and 1978, and are currently zoned R-2. Current zoning regulations clearly would not allow similar development in the R-1 area around the proposed subdivision. 4. Traffic and Parkina Studies based on surveys in numerous locations in the country indicate that a single detached residence generates between 4 and 21 "trip ends" per day. (A single round trip - leaving and returning to the residence - generates two trip ends). Most studies indicate trip generation rates in the range of 6 to 14 trip ends per day, and staff would expect a future residence on the proposed new lot to be in that range. No traffic counts have been conducted by city staff on Phillips Lane, but staff has no reason to believe that they are unusually high for an R-1 neighborhood. Likewise, no parking count has been conducted, but the number of existing curbside spaces is not unusually low, and one additional unit in the block is unlikely to have a significant effect on the situation. 'J 1111►tiw 11111111111MI111 city of sail Luis OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 4 5. Unique Neiehborhood Character The neighborhood which is of concern to the appellants is apparently the 75 single houses currently located in an R-1 enclave, surrounded by office and multi-family zoning. Most lots are between 5000 and 7000 square feet with slopes of 10 to 15%. Most of the houses were built between the 1920's and 1950's, and vary in size and style. Most structures and lots are well maintained. It is not clear to staff how the neighborhood character will be affected by the proposed subdivision. 6. Utility Capacity The existing sewer lines serving this block meet city standards, and are adequate to serve existing and future development. Existing fire hydrants in the neighborhood do not provide enough fire flow to meet current standards. The subdivider will be required to upgrade a water main serving the existing fire hydrant at the corner of Phillips Lane and Grove Street, by replacing a short section of 4" water main with 6" pipe. This will bring the hydrant's fire flow nearly to current standards for new construction. Since there will still be slightly less than the normal minimum, the Fire Code requires alternate provisions for fire suppression to be made for new construction; the Fire Marshal has indicated that he will accept a residential fire sprinkler system in any new house in the subdivision (and in the remodeled existing house, if the remodeling exceeds 25% of the value of the structure). In the judgement of the Fire Marshal, the hydrant upgrade will significantly improve protection for all houses within 300 feet of the hydrant, and the combination of hydrant upgrade and sprinkler system will provide better protection than would a standard hydrant without a sprinkler system. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION As noted above, neighbors testified both in support and in opposition to the proposed subdivision at the previous hearing. Minutes are attached. ALTERNATIVES The council may approve or deny the tentative map for the proposed minor subdivisions. Specific findings are required for approval or denial by state and city subdivision regulations, as reflected in the attached draft resolutions. The draft resolution for approval reflects the findings and conditions as approved by the Subdivision Hearing Of f icer. I i I��N�� i�►IIIIII�i jll�Ill city of san lues osispo ON COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 5 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the council adopt the attached resolution approving the tentative map for Minor Subdivision 88-184, subject to the findings and conditions approved by the Subdivision Hearing Officer. Attachments: Draft Resolutions (2) Vicinity Map Tentative map Appeal Petition (11/14) Petition (10/7) Subdivider's statement Minutes - 10/7 Subdivision Hearing General Plan Excerpts gts4:ms88184cc I RESOLUTION NO. (1988 SERIES) RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE SUBDIVISION HEARING OFFICER'S ACTION TO APPROVE THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION 88-184 LOCATED AT 1640 PHILLIPS LANE WHEREAS, the Subdivision Hearing Officer approved the tentative map for Minor Subdivision 88-184 on October 17, 1988, after conducting a public hearing on August 14, 1988; and WHEREAS, on October 27, 1988, appellant filed an appeal requesting that the council deny the tentative map; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 1988, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the testimony of the appellant and other interested parties. NOW, THEREFORE, the council of the City of San Luis Obispo denies the appeal and takes an, action to approve the tentative map for Minor Subdivision 88-184, subject to the following findings and conditions: SECTION 1. Findings: 1. The design of the minor subdivision and proposed improvements are consistent with the general plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-1 zone. 3. The design of the minor subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4. The design of the minor subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with easement for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 5. The Community Development Director has determined that the proposed minor subdivision will not have a significant effect on the environment and has granted a negative declaration. Resolution No. (1988 Series) Minor Subdivision 88-184 Page 2 6. The improvements described in Condition 4 below are necessary for the protection of public safety. SECTION 2. Conditions 1. Subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval and recordation. 2. The final map shall note the existence of a fire flow deficiency, and the requirement for alternative fire suppression devices to meet requirements of the city's Fire Prevention Regulations for new construction on either lot. 3 . The existing structure on Parcel A shall be modified to comply with setback requirements of city zoning Regulations prior to final map approval, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 4. Subdivider shall replace the 4-inch water main serving the fire hydrant at the corner of Phillips Lane and Grove Street with a 6-inch water main prior to final map approval or prior to issuance of any building permit allowing new construction on either Parcel A or Parcel B, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. SECTION 3. Code Requirements 1. Separate utilities shall be provided for each parcel, to the approval of the Public Works Department. 2. Street trees shall be planted for every 35 feet of street frontage, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 3. Park-in-lieu fees shall be paid for one additional parcel, as determined by the Community Development Department. 4. New sidewalk shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5. Water acreage fees shall be paid for Parcel B prior to final map approval. Fees shall be determined by the Utilities Department. On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: Resolution No. (1988 Series) Minor Subdivision 88-184 Page 3 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing document was passed and adopted this day of , 1988. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: y Admi istrative Officer City At? t rney Community Development Director RESOLUTION NO. (1988 SERIES) RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE 'SUBDIVISION HEARING OFFICER'S ACTION TO APPROVE THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION 88-184 LOCATED AT 1640 PHILLIPS LANE WHEREAS, the Subdivision Hearing Officer approved the tentative map for Minor Subdivision 88-184 on October 17, 1988, after conducting a public hearing on October 7, 1988; and WHEREAS, on October 27, 1988, appellant filed an appeal requesting that the council deny the tentative map; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 1988, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the testimony of the appellant and other interested parties. NOW, THEREFORE, the council of the City of San Luis Obispo upholds the appeal and takes. an action to deny the tentative map for Minor Subdivision 88-184, subject to the following finding: 1. The design of the minor subdivision is not consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element Policies calling for development consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. On motion of . , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing document was passed and adopted this day of , 1988. Resolution No. (1988 Series) Minor Subdivision 88-184 Page 2 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: Ci y A nistrative Officer Citytome Community Development Director MESON STREET AM 81-i� /fif l �� ► t i r3- !CJ O O O O ORM1 i7tr O ` MT_/al fDI1DrlITY RD071 vos s yoars,ulasa /NOCat�9 !+!3 ty p -256 I . O ►y� y O i •. � 4tn11TMro . ti Ofr 1y�1' I O O O O O L , � � lb O O { �� O O O - �o �u O O O O O (ro 1y AV s O SITE O e O� O y � lug{ .O O O ,�- � O ��i O , 9 � �`{ 15 O F S � ata• 2 �. O �' �{ O ��� `yeM O `ry e �ukO O A ,1�P d �* O d � O O ty4R vv City Of 1640 PHILLIPS W MWA41 San Lui anlUl S m08 Sp0elopment 990 Palm Street/Post Of floe Box 321.San Luis Obispo,CA 9349 DATA/MMT MISSN 6 W i Lu. 1 I Lu Zg � I Z co O Z O ' OC a; J ti � - LU � 9 zz � 8 � . ON k (L I 1. I 4.1Li=LL. I / t Jeffe I i { . nm�ap I I i November 8 , 1988 NOV Greg Smith Planning Department City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo Calif . 93403-8100 SUBJECT: Appeal of Director ' s Action No. 88-15 Minor Subdivision No. 88-184 1640 Phillips Lane Dear Mr. Smith: We, the neighbors of the proposed subdivison, wish to appeal the directors approval action based on the following criteria: 1. Our neighborhood has been under siege from continual noise and traffic pollution for years because of the increasing density of the population in our neighborhood. 2 . We believe that further development of our neighborhood will result in a greater increase in the traffic flow, and increased parking problems with more vehicles parked on our streets. 3. We believe this could serve to set a precedence for increased development in our neighborhood. Which could culminate in further potential for increasing problems with both sewer and water facilities. 4 . Our neighborhood has been developed for many years. Those of us who are long term . residents feel that allowing more development in our neighborhood will result in increased deterioration of the quality of life in our neighborhood. 5. San Luis Obispo is unique and our neighborhood is unique. We should not allow every plan for growth, or plan to increase density, to be allowed without complete consideration of the personality of the area involved. 6. We would like to request your examination of the Mill St . area, between Grand Ave. and Calif . Blvd. , just one block from this proposed subdivision. As one project after another was approved and the zoning changed from R1 to R2 there has been a complete loss of the family atmosphere that once prevailed there. We don' t want this to be a possibility in our area. 6 �` - 1 - Mr . Smith, the area residents of the proposed Phillips Lane subdivision, will greatly appreciate your reconsideration of this project and your denial of its approval based on the above considerations. Please, consider as well that we, the residents of the area, do not wish to have this project imposed on us. We are the people who must live with your decision. .. Po r-I e. '� 41 f cx� 44 11 j4 11- 14 n;n iuo-1 flnit(�p* 5 Lj� 2 (avER)(p"L3 �1 \ 4 1 J Phil l pn Lo, �5�-c S�;. C.S .z .o . NL y o P '�Illlii�lli�:!'ll III ''lll' II' �i�ll�i �i ii I�i ii;l!►III�I''I� I. ���+� II��� city of sAn luoBispo :yip-nab 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I , Chapter 1 .20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals U from the decision of SB— M;ij&%0.4 ?lC&IIl +e BrrAnel% rendered on J 0 - 17- 8 S1 , which decision consisted of the following ( i.e. set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal . Use additional sheets as needed) : p.?jqPA1 St?�C� ►d�S j O 88- ?1q oa i1}e groOAds c�- �ARKirf� �/ 'yR��'� �ow 1Ncr �se� �elas;�y c�ie.s�r�ct+ aa � �c�o�4La.keo� The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with: on _J'O �.27 A"S• Cam a;�. �� �o,�w►�- L Appellant: Date Appeal Received: _ Name/Title RECEIVED Representative OCT,2 7 198ti Address CITY CLERK �"~ SAN LUIS OBISPO CA Phone Original for City Clerk Copy to City Attorney Calendared f Copy to City Administrative Officer q Copy to/ thet following department(s) : City Clerk JOSEPH BOUD 6 ASSOCIATES August 30, 1988 City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 Re: Toll/Souza Parcel Map (SLO 88 - 184) The attached 'parcel map application will create two parcels from one large estate sized lot. The property is located at 1640 Phillips Lane, in the R-1, Single Family Residential zone which requires a minimum of 6000 square feet of area and a minimum 50 feet of street frontage. No exceptions are necessary or requested for this application, except that of a soils engineering report. The neighborhood is completely built-out with single family residences, so it is felt that adequate record data is available to indicate that the soil conditions in the area and on this site are stable and suitable for residential construction. The existing residence will be removed and/or portions removed and remodeled to conform to SLO city standards for setback, zoning and building code requirements. Please don't hesitate to contact my office should you have any questions on any of this material or require any additional information. Joe Boud Joseph Boud& Associates 1009 Marro StreN,Suite Son 1nI1 AR S 9340101 DIRECTOR'S SUBDIVISION HEARING - MINUTES FRIDAY . OCTOBER 71 1988 Minor Subdivision No. MS 88-184. Consideration of a tentative parcel map creating two lots from one lot; 1640 Phillips Lane; R-2 zone; Gary Toll and Charlene Souza, subdividers. Greg Smith presented the staff report. He noted that the proposal meets all minimum requirements with regard to lot size, dimensions, etc. He said there is a structure ,on the site which prompted the proposed lot line. He said staff is recommending, as a condition of approval, that the structure be modified to comply with current setback requirements. Mr. Smith noted that lot sizes in this neighborhood vary, although there are adjacent lots with up to 75- foot frontages, and many lots with 50-foot frontages, in addition to some non-conforming lots which are smaller than 50 feet wide. Greg Smith recommended approval of the request, based on findings, and subject to conditions which he explained. In reference to recommended Condition 2, Mr. Smith noted that there is a hydrant close enough to these lots to meet standards, but that the water flow to the hydrant is substandard. He indicated that the subdivider's representative has already discussed with the Fire Department, improvements to the water lines that feed that hydrant. These will not bring the hydrant up to standards, but will bring it close to the standards. He further stated that the Subdivision Regulations require that the subdivider make some improvements. The Fire Code requires that any new construction have further fire protection. He explained that this means that ultimately there will be significant improvement to the fire flow and that new buildings on the lots will also have residential fire sprinklers, which would be required for the new construction to meet the new codes. Regarding recommended Condition 3, Mr. Smith explained that staff has not measured the height of the building, but felt it was likely that a 6 or 7-foot setback from the property line will be required. He paid there is no regulation that would prevent the developer from demolishing the house and constructing a new single-family residence on lot A, if he chose to do so as an alternative to modifying the existing house. Referring to recommended Condition 4 regarding the fire flow deficiency, staff noted that this is only about a 10- to 20-foot section of pipe; the cost will not be excessive to the developer, but the benefit to the neighborhood will be considerable. He indicated that finding #6 is a special finding recommended for this project. He said installation of these improvements shall be installed within 90 days after recordation of the final map, or prior to issuance of Page 2 the building permit allowing construction of new buildings on either lot, whichever is sooner. In some cases, the Subdivision Regulations allow the developer to wait until he actually builds a new building on this lot to install improvements. However, the Fire Department has recommended that he be required to install the water line sooner that might otherwise be required, in order to afford more protection to the existing structures in the neighborhood. Ken Bruce asked what the average cross-slope of the property is. Greg Smith responded 14% to 15%. The public hearing was opened. Joe Boud, subdivider's representative, spoke in support of the request. He said the average cross-slope is 14%. He offered to have a licensed surveyor shoot that grade to verify his calculations, which he felt were accurate. He said he had no problems with the findings and conditions as written. Ken Bruce asked if Mr. Boud knew what the subdivider's intentions would be with regards to the existing house. Mr. Boud responded that they have preliminary designs, and with the layout and access underneath will be fairly simple to move the wall in and do some interior remodeling. There are no supporting structures in the way, only partition walls with closets. The structure would be maintained. In essence, about 8 feet of the existing house would be removed. Ken Bruce asked if there were any objections to the Fire Department requirements. Mr. Boud said he had discussed this with Mr. Willis, Fire Marshal, and another fire hydrant flow test was done on other hydrants in the vicinity. The last time they were registered was in 1979 and the flows on their maps were 250 gpm and the new flows were 820 gpm. The standard the Fire Department uses is 1000 gpm or add fire sprinklers. To allow the project to proceed, he felt that condition was acceptable. Ken Bruce asked if there is any existing sidewalk. Mr. Boud responded that there is none; it ends at the driveway. Mr. Bruce reminded the audience that the issue today is a subdivision, more commonly known as a lot split where one larger lot is being split in half to create two smaller lots. Tony Herrera, 676 Grove Street, asked if this subdivision is approved, can anyone in the neighborhood with a similar sized lot do the same thing without city approval? Mr. Bruce responded that any subdivision in the city requires approval from the city and would go through the same process as this. Mr. Herrera asked what is proposed on the other lot. Z +/9 Page 3 — - Mr. Boud explained that it was still undecided as to what will be done. In concept only, a Spanish bungalow such as the house on the corner, has been considered. Gary Toll, subdivider, explained that he currently lives on the property. He proposes to build a new house and move into the new house, and keep the existing house. Harold Vass, 1666 Phillips Lane, had concerns with the use of the houses after construction. Mr. Bruce stated that the city cannot regulate owner-occupied housing or rental units. If the lot split is approved, one house on each lot is what is allowed. Mr. Vass submitted a petition, which Ken Bruce Read, as follows: "The following people that have signed this petition are against the splitting of this property into two lots. " Fourteen names appear on the petition, mostly residents on Phillips Lane, two on Grove Street. Bob Neill, 691 Grove Street, asked if there was any concern expressed over traffic volumes and increased density in the neighborhood. He said the neighborhood is plagued by the constant influx of traffic and parties. He felt the subdivision would begin to deteriorate the neighborhood. Huldah Truesdale, 1625 Wilson Street, spoke in opposition to the subdivision, due to traffic concerns, and the number of rental units that may begin to occur. John Dodge, 1624 Phillips Lane, said he didn't understand the condition having to do with water flow. Greg Smith explained in detail the way that condition would affect the project. Mr. Dodge asked if the subdivision is approved, how long would the existing house be able to be situated on the property line. Mr. Bruce explained that the house could not straddle the new line so it would have to be altered prior to a final map being approved. He further explained that final maps must be approved within two years from the date of tentative map approval. Mr. Dodge also expressed concerns with the appearance of the existing property. Barbara Herrera, 676 Grove Street, said she is concerned with the deterioration of the neighborhood. However, she didn't feel that the applicant should be punished because of problems caused by the fraternity in the neighborhood. She said there has been a great increase of traffic, but said that was due to the Kris Karr Apartments on the corner of Grand Avenue and Wilson, and due to the sorority directly across the street from the apartments, coupled with other Cal Poly housing in the area. She said she would like to see the Phillips Lane area improved, and had no objections to the subdivision as proposed, although she had concerns about who would occupy the structures. Page 4 Ren Bruce commented on the Fraternity at 1681 Phillips Lane. He said there are people presently living in the house, and it is being used as a fraternity; it is in violation of a court order that the city received over a year ago stating they were to vacate that property by the and of the school year last year, which would have been around July 1st. The city is aware of the problem, have met with those people, and they are to be out of the property with any fraternal- related activities including equipment such as the bus, trailer, signs, etc. , by the end of the day (October 7th) . He asked if anyone in the audience is aware that they haven't complied with that, to please let the city know. Gary Toll, subdivider, said his intention is to live on the property and build a house. He said he is a single parent with a 10-year old daughter. He said he bought the property with the intent that his daughter could walk back and forth to Pacheco School, and help create a neighborhood situation. The renters were in the existing house for an interim basis for 6 weeks while another property was being vacated for them to move in. He said his intention has always been to have that as his primary residence. The public hearing was closed. Ren Bruce took this item under submission. He explained that this means he has 10 additional days to render a decision. He said he will approve the lot split, but wants to take more time to consider the conditions of approval. When the subdivision is approved, there will be a 10 day appeal period. Anyone may file an appeal. If an appeal is filed, the item will be heard by the City Council. On October 17, 1988, Ren Bruce approved the subdivision, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions and code requirements: Findings 1. The design of the minor subdivision and proposed improvements are consistent with the general plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-1 zone. 3. The design of the minor subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4. The design of the minor subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with easement for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. Page 5 5. The Community Development Director has determined that the proposed minor subdivision will not have a significant effect on the environment and has granted a negative declaration. 6. The improvements described in Condition 4 below are necessary for the protection of public safety. Conditions 1. Subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval and recordation. 2. The final map shall note the existence of a fire flow deficiency, and the requirement for alternative fire suppression devices to meet requirements of the city's Fire Prevention Regulations for new construction on either lot. 3. The existing structure on Parcel A shall be modified to comply with setback requirements of city Zoning Regulations prior to final map approval, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 4. Subdivider shall replace the 4-inch water main serving the fire hydrant at the corner of Phillips Lane and Grove Street with a 6-inch water main prior to final map approval or prior to issuance of any building permit allowing new construction on either Parcel A or Parcel B, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Code Recuirements 1. Separate utilities shall be provided for each parcel, to the approval of the Public Works Department. 2. Street trees shall be planted for every 35 feet of street frontage, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 3. Park-in-lieu fees shall be paid for one additional parcel, as determined by the Community Development Department. 4. New sidewalk shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5. Water acreage fees shall be paid for Parcel B prior to final map approval. Fees shall be determined by the Utilities Department. LAW t MENT - CS?DAD�'H M6T, -- The City Council may exempt an annexation,propos from meeting some of these criteria if it determines that the annexat' n will provide compensating public benefits that outweigh an ' bility to meet one or more of the criteria. Compensating publ' enef its include: a) Housing affordable to low-income p pie, managed by a public or nonprofit agency. b) 11Ttigation of significant pre isting environmental problems. c) Actions that significand improve the quality of life within existing neighborhood d) Open space whit may be of less area than the usual standard (four times the deve able area) but which is of high value to the community; amples would be prominent visual or aesthetic features, s sitive habitat areas, areas with special recreational potentia areas with sensitive historical or archaeological resou or areas especially vulnerable to imminent development. If th city has adopted a development moratorium because of limited w r supply, the City Council shall not exempt a minor annexation oposal from the requirement to provide on-site water source or off-site water service reductions: C. The City should provide for infill, intensification, and expansion within the present City limits and provide for future minimized outward urban expansion within the unincorporated urban reserve which can be efficiently served by urban 'infrastructure' improvements. Urban development should be programmed to assure that adequate water supply, sewage treatment, fire and police, schools and recreation facilities and other public facilities will be available to serve the composition and configuration of uses provided in a safe and efficient manner. — The County should prevent scattered rural residential, . dustrial or other nonagricultural developments outside the urb reserve. Within the unincorporated portions of the urban reserve a County should work jointly with the City to assure that dev pment proposals are consistent with growth management and 1 use objectives of the General Plan. — The City should coordinate its an kation of any additional territory and its approval of any urban velopments in expansion areas within the corporate limits with the ' provements if urban service systems. A specific plan shall be re ired prior to annexation. No annexations of major u ' corporated expansion areas should be authorized until wate supply and treatment and sewage collection and treatment facility e can be met in addition to the planned urban use capacity of rporated areas. No commitments to urban development incorporated expansion areas should be authorized until water ewer, access and other public facilities and services can be vided concurrently. 10 - �� LAND tiab�M ?—iL -4T e. Areas designated for inagriculture/r dential expansion and rural industrial within the urban rese should be encouraged to remain in agricultural use. In the a nt nonagricultural use such as rural industrial, rural residentia r rural planned development is pursued, the following polici hould be employed: - The County should co ider minimum five- to ten-acre parcelization or equivalent rural nned development only when it is demonstrated, prior to land div' 'on, that individual on-site water and septic systems will b dequate to serve the intended rural residential uses, and subdivision (or parcel map divisions) are consistent with an opted 'property development plan'. The property develo nt plan should show an appropriate pattern of present and Xlnolf local and collector streets, planned utility system ments, and how each separate five- to ten-acre parcel can be dually used in the future, without cooperation or combination dividual parcels. 2. Residential Land Use Objectives The policies outlined as Growth Management Objectives should serve as general principles in review of residential development proposals. In addition, the following policies shall guide both new development and redevelopment: a. The City should encourage residential development, promoting efficient urban densities and diversity of design consistent with prevailing or proposed neighborhood character, to enable adequate choice of location, type, tenure, design and cost by families and individuals working in or enrolled near San Luis Obispo. —The City should coordinate residential development with employment, enrollment or other economic base alterations to assure that persons or families working, attending schools, or conducting other activities in San Luis Obispo, have appropriate opportunity to reside here rather than commute. j —The City should establish minimum as well as maximum density and property development standards for all residential land use classifications: Low density shall be from 4 to 7 dwelling units per net acre; Medium density shall be from 7 to 12 dwelling units per net acre; Medium-high density shall be from 13 to 18 dwelling units per net acre; High density shall be from 19 to 24 dwelling units per net acre; _3 /34� LAMP fLFW rTSN —Residential developments which achieve maximum densities of 7, 12, 18, and 24 dwelling units per net acre in areas designated for low, medium, medium-high, and high density, respectively, shall be considered consistent with the General Plan, provided that design and placement are compatible with prevailing or proposed neighborhood character and the availability of adequate infrastructure, public facilities and circulation. b. Low-density residential development, allowing a maximum of 7 dwelling units per acre, will be encouraged within neighborhoods clearly committed to this type of development and within identified expansion areas at the periphery of the city. C. Medium-density residential development, allowing a maximum of 12 dwelling units per acre, shall be encouraged in close proximity to neighborhood and community commercial and public facilities, where utilities, circulation, and neighborhood character can accommodate such development. Medium-density projects should be designed to be compatible with neighboring low-density development. d. Medium-high-density residential development, allowing a maximum 18 dwelling units per acre, shall be encouraged in areas substantially committed to this type of development, close to community commercial centers and public facilities. C. High-density residential development, allowing a maximum 24 dwelling units per acre, shall be encouraged in areas adjacent to major concentrations of employment, college enrollment, or business activity, where existing development of similar character, as well as utilities, circulation, and public facilities, can accommodate such intensity. High-density development should be designed to provide a transition between less intense residential uses and nonresidential uses. f. Residential densities are expressed as the number of dwellings per net acre of site area. Based on unit occupancy characteristics, the population impact within multifamily areas shall be equalized so far as possible by relating densities to a 'standard dwelling unit' of two bedrooms. More or fewer units will be allowed according to the type of units proposed, aiming for population densities of approximately 25, 40 and 55 persons per acre for medium-, medium-high- and high-density multifamily residential areas, respectively. g. Residential neighborhoods should be separated from incompatible nonresidential land uses and buffered from major circulation facilities. New residential developments or redevelopments involving largescale sites (expansions of existing neighborhoods or major infill and intensification areas) should be designed to orient low-density housing to local access streets and medium- or high-density housing to driveways accessible from collector streets. 1 e 14 .. r AW aT- _ •r5HT Major arterial streets through residential areas shall provide only limited private access or controlled street intersections, and adjoining residential use should be spatially separated or otherwise insulated from adverse noise and other traffic impacts. Residential areas should be protected from encroachment by detrimental commercial, industrial or agricultural activities, and existing incompatible uses should be abated or mitigated. Nonresidential uses which serve neighborhood needs (convenience shopping, schools, parks, day care centers, churches, lodges, and similar public or semipublic facilities) should, however, be considered conditionally compatible with residential environs, subject to evaluation of site development plans: h. All residential development proposals should be designed to achieve full use of special site potentials such as natural terrain, views, vegetation, creek environs or other features, and to mitigate or avoid special site constraints such as climatic conditions, noise, flooding, slope instability, or ecologically sensitive surroundings. They should be compatible with present and potential adjacent land uses. Designs for residential uses should include: provisions for privacy and adequate usable open space; orientation and design to provide shelter from prevailing winds and adverse weather, yet enable use of natural sunlight, ventilation and shade; provide pleasant views to and from the development; provide safety, separate vehicular and pedestrian movements and adequate parking for residents and guests; and sufficient provision for bulk storage, occasional loading and service or emergency vehicle access. 3. Commercial and Industrial Land Use Objectives The policies, goals and implementation measures outlined in Growth Management Objectives and in the Historical and Architectural Conservation and Public Facilities Elements related to commercial and industrial land uses should serve as general principles in the priority and review of intensity and design of commercial and industrial development proposals. Commercial and industrial uses should be developed in appropriate areas where the natural slope of the land is less than 10 percent. Commercial and industrial uses should have service access from the city's arterial and collector street system so as to avoid the concentrated use of residential streets for truck delivery and customer traffic. a. Neighborhood Convenience Commercial Policies 1. The city should support the concept of neighborhood convenience centers (2-5 acres depending on neighborhood size) whose service area will require shorter automotive trip distances and will encourage nonvehicular convenience shopping. 2. Increased demand for neighborhood commercial facilities created by infill and intensification of residential areas should be met by making more efficient use of existing neighborhood centers and by expansion of existing centers into adjacent nonresidential areas.