Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/16/1993, 2 - APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING OFFICER'S ACTION APPROVING A REQUEST TO ALLOW MORE THAN ONE DWELLING ON AN R-1 (LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) LOT 9A 217-92) 1111 �p�1111I111M�`JI �J r MEETING DATE: �pl��l�uJl city Or Sd11 .IS OB1S�J0 -�(0-93 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 1T 3W NUMBER: From: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director Prepared by: Whitney McIlvaine, Associate Planner Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission's action to deny an appeal of the Hearing Officer's action approving a request to allow more than one dwelling on an R-1 (Low-density Residential) lot. (A 217-92) CAO RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission action subject to the original findings and conditions as noted in the attached notice of Hearing Officer action. DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND Data Summary Applicants: Albert and Caryl Cooper Appellants: Robert and Margaret Sigerson General Plan Designation: Low-density residential (1 dwelling per 6223 square feet) Environmental Status: Categorically Exempt (CEQA Section 15303a) Situation Zoning regulations require approval of an administrative use permit for the construction of more than one dwelling on an R-1 lot. R-1 density standards apply. The density standards would allow a total of four dwellings on the subject parcel, which is more than half an acre in size. On December 9, 1.993 , the Hearing Officer approved a use permit with a condition that the design of the new unit be subject to architectural review. As part of architectural review, special consideration is to be given to the placement of the new structure and location of windows to minimize overlook into adjacent yards. Please refer to the attached letter notifying the applicants of the Hearing Officer's action. At the administrative hearing, Mr. and Mrs. Sigerson, the appellants, spoke against the project and submitted a letter outlining their concerns. A copy of their letter is attached. The appellants' property is adjacent to the applicants' rear yard, near the proposed new dwelling site. The appellants' primary concerns relate to privacy, drainage, fire protection, and the impacts of construction on a large oak tree. The Hearing Officer noted that the architectural review process will address privacy concerns. Oak tree preservation can also be addressed through architectural review. City code requirements will address issues related to fire protection and drainage. The appellants reiterated their concerns at the Planning Commission �►��fl� �il�I �n ►� U city of san t oBispo A-0 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT meeting on January 13th. On a vote of 4 to 1 (with 1 absence and 1 vacancy) the Commission denied the appeal and approved the applicant's request subject to the original findings and conditions of the Hearing Officer's action. ALTERNATIVES The Council may (1) continue the review of this item pending further discussion or additional information, or (2) uphold the appeal and deny the request to construct an additional dwelling on the subject site. Attachments: vicinity map draft resolution denying the appeal draft resolution upholding the appeal site plans appellants' statement administrative hearing minutes planning commission minutes other dept comments _ � r L� lel (-, ■. D- pq n D I O r r � Om om r s ■ i zC t g GRAND AVENUE 47a 1IL 2!2 =.51 2b +� yo ;s4 /C i�• O O A O 010 O O y : � 00 ao - - � _ O o ■ 0 woo a O _;�� O I"�o rn O S �nV y • �r� —r— ■� ao O O O ' O O ; O ' p ' o GRAVES AVENUE G ' 340 910 ZM 240 O o .�$", o oO o o i O r, O 'n in � O Y' � TLBTT`�sib 2-f, A{ o o o � O, /90 iG/ —:1��•9 1�.l5 � >� _ °:.v . -m��J ■■■.; O oamk0 � omo o m m ------- O � O c: o OO00 HENDERSON AVENUE zx oo,, ,,0� O ■■ ioloil 0. — r �-' Ou - O M�� a� Draft Resolution No. 1 Denying Appeal Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. (1993 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO UPHOLD THE HEARING OFFICER'S ACTION APPROVING A REQUEST TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING ON AN R-1 (LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) LOT AT 300 GRAND AVENUE. (A 217-92) WHEREAS, the Hearing Officer and the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on application No. A 217-92 , and allowed a request to construct an additional dwelling on an R-1 lot at 300 Grand Avenue; and WHEREAS, the appellants have appealed those decisions to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the testimony and statements of the applicant, the appellants, and other interested parties, the actions of the Administrative Hearing Officer and the Planning Commission, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council resolves to deny the appeal and uphold the action of the Planning Commission subject to the following findings, conditions, and code requirements: SECTION 1 . Findings. 1. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 2 . The proposed use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 3 . The proposed use conforms to the general plan and meets zoning ordinance requirements. 4 . The proposed use meets density standards established by the zoning ordinance for the R-1 zone. 5. The proposed use is exempt from environmental review. 6. No public purpose would be served by requiring paved driveways to the new residence, since this would tend to increase the ' potential for cross lot water run-off and would pose a threat Draft Resolution No. 1 Page 2 to the health of exisiting trees. SECTION 2 . Conditions and Code Reauirements. 1. Design of the new residential unit shall be subject to architectural review, with specific consideration given to the placement of the new structure and location of windows to minimize overlook into adjacent yards. 2. An exception is hereby granted to allow the existing gravel driveways from Grand Avenue and McCullom Street to remain gravel. Code Requirements 1. The proposed garage with an apartment above shall meet all city standards for parking, building height, and setbacks. 2 . The developer shall construct frontage improvements and paveout the street to meet the new frontage improvements along all frontages not currently improved to city standards per Municipal Code Section 12 . 16. 050. 3 . Street trees shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 4 . The developer shall be required to collect any change in cross lot run-off and direct it to the nearest street. The water pump capacity and pipe size and outlet should be designed to accommodate a 10-year storm as specified by city engineering standards. As an alternative, the developer may submit a drainage easement to the Community Development Department for review, approval, and recordation. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: a-s Draft Resolution No. 1 Page 3 the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1993 . Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: ity Ad inistrative Officer C•t tt me zo �• Community Develo m nt Director Draft Resolution No. 2 Upholding Appeal Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. (1993 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL FROM THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO UPHOLD THE HEARING OFFICER'S ACTION APPROVING A REQUEST TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING ON AN R-1 (LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) LOT AT 300 GRAND AVENUE. (A 217-92) WHEREAS, the Hearing Officer and the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on application No. A 217-92 , and allowed a request to construct an additional dwelling on an R-1 lot at 300 Grand Avenue; and WHEREAS, the appellants have appealed those decisions to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the testimony and statements of the applicant, the appellants, and other interested parties, the actions of the Administrative Hearing Officer and the Planning Commission, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council resolves to uphold the appeal and deny the action of the Planning Commission and the Hearing Officer subject to the following finding: SECTION 1. Finding. 1. The proposed use will not be appropriate at the proposed location and will not be compatible with surrounding land uses. On motion of secondedbyand on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: a-7 Draft Resolution No. 2 Page 2 the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1993 . Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: City Ad inistrative Officer l � C,j(tlV tt rne: 1 Community Develo nt Director BO � • - F-74EK - --- ------- - -- '-r`e'n - ' - -- --__- - - -- - ------ rWA MY Z i `Q I —Sir✓.:-f LA f a �— �- M3 .._�.,:t--'PENC�'�l•. 1 ' 7�'1-^.'--Tctvi-c� T-� � �-T-�`_� _ _ . L O U VS.L.cc,.1 1T- / '1 D R IVEWAY C GAfZ - - --= -' 9 4• . 1 1 _I 1I I .. 1— 1 ..1 ..1 I • �. / --- J 1 - I - — .. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -- - - t -rte-- - - - - ---------------- _40_ -- - . -- ._ . T r. .._._. _1... _ ; -�� I •--r-: _t_.I 1 �I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 .fir• r TZZI 1 _gr Ro KI n IlF_ieo soERIE ■■ son a �■��H■■B�gd■�■■��l��������H�H■■■ ■ ERIE mttm■■■■mm■■■■H■q■■■■■■■■■t!■�i■■■■■_■■■■■ ERIE■■■■■■■N■ ■■■uqN■ERIE■■N■■■■■■■■■�■■■■■�■■■■■■■qN ®■NEN■H■■■m■■q■■■■■ MISSION t■■ ■m■■m ■ R■■ttttt■t!R■■t■■■■t■!■■t■!!!■Ht■ ■N!■H■ m�■�aisomi moms ii■■=ii■■u ■m■ I MORRIS m HE ■q■■■■■I a■o:5::■ ■■ ■■11� ERIE ■■■f\■■t■■■ ■■WOUqO■ N■■■■■■ RIE■■ ■ ■ ■m �■ ■Wi �!■miu11 ■N■■■N■aw■q■■■a ■n ■ 2 _ ' ■N■m■s■Nm■EN■wfE■■■■■.■ q ■ AR■ ■!■tNH■■idiUSES Sam!i■H■■t!i!1■■■■■t■!■■t■■■■u■■■■tnt■7i■tllt■t!t ■ ■■H■■■ ION092Asoi� GftF3i�oHaF/:us©fl5.Z-i��:»t■���1®tattt��Be3Stttis ■INNO■ ■■■i■gm■■■■■it■■■■■°�■c���1■■���■■■■■N■ ■■■■1lHtR ■m ■RITE■■■l rllf i7tt■ a■■EN■■m q ■■■1u■■■■uw�n■r�t■■■■■■■■■ ■�w■t■■■E■■mumam : ■�■ 1■N■■t■■■t■■tt■mmN �■uNNi■■■!Ni tEtttw=■■t■1q■■NN \■■f■■■H■m■■■HH■■H■ ■■N■1i■■w■■■\■■■■■■ ■■f■■q■■■■ttl■tR■t■N■■R■u■�I■ts7�7■■■�■■■■ �� a�N■■■ggEq■�■■Nm■�w■■■�■■■ ■H■ N HN■H■■H■■H■tNH■i■4J\q■■NgtE ■■q � B �tR IGl■!!■!■H■N N■ m■■■■Nt■!■■lHNmEl1■NN■■■■■tN■ ■N DOtIR■i■!■!t �lRHtmtR!!■!® ■■tNN■!■!t■t■Rt■t� tlRt■�iounoun tt ■ ERIE MEN linens E■■■ ■■ on EE ERIE■■■ ■■■■�SEEN■\■■q■�■■q■H\N■q■■■■■■■■■■■■■\■ ■■\ERIE■■■ERIE■IS SENSE ■ R ■■m■A■■NlRtt 'tltt■■! ■fit■ttt■t!■!tt!!!tf!! ■* ■H!■■■■t! so qN■■H�EN■� Nq ■E■■E■m ■■■ ■■ ■■■N ■■tt■■!a!■m ` 1 • 1 • 1. Y�pll Cl san WIS OBISPO 990 Palm StreetlPoat.Office Boz 8100 •San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100 - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL In,axordance with the appeals,procedure as authorized by Tide I, C e 120ofis Obispo Muntclpal Code,the underslgried herebyappealsfromthedecisIonof rendered on which decision consisted of the foil g (Le. set forth factual station and the grounds for submitting.this appeal Use addWonal sheets as needed): The undersigned discussed the.declstort being appealed with: on ' DATE&TIME APPEAL RECEIVED: all ame e RECEIVED Representative Q/ .JAN 1 1 1993 ess CITY CLeRK SM LUIS OBISPO,CA Phone Original to City Clark City Attorney Calendared for: : ::'a2.=/� = Copy to Adminlstrawe Officer _ � Copy to��le-fogowing department(s): 1840 Hope Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 January 14, 1993 Mayor and City Council . 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 Dear Mayor and City Cm=il: we wish to appeal to your body the approval by the. City of San Luis Obispo's Zoning Hearing Offices and San Luis Obispo Planning Commission of Use Permit Application A 217-92. Our enclosed letter dated December 17, 1O102, outlines our opposition to this project, as well as that of neighboring property owners. This so-called "guest house" will be the only two-story structure in our neighborhood if allowed to be constructed. Its location at the back corner of this fairly large lot not only involves our privacy, but with the large trees very near its proposed location would doubtless put our home and that owned by Mae Bastress in serious jeopardy should a fire occur at that residence. Our oak tree's limbs are directly above these residences and we neither want our hundrends of years old oak tree nor these homes damaged, especially since there is adequate roan to locate the so-called "guest home" nearer the residence with which it is supposed to serve. A cne-story structure located nearer McCollum Street probably would permit an easier solution to the problems of privacy, drainage and fire hazard. In addition, allowing a gravel driveway, wihich I understand is contrary to City Code ,is incomprehensible. and it would appear that it should be denied. Very truly yours ROBERT L. SIGERSON nAR%3M L. SIGERSON Encl. Ltr. dtd. 12-17-92 RECEiven JAN 2 1 1993 CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA s/� 1840 Fnoe Street San Ii WIp. CA 93405 December 17, 1992 City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Hearing Officer P. O.. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Subject: Use Permit Application A 217-92, 300 Grand Avenue Dear Sir: With regard to construction of subject 2-car garage apartment behind the resi- dence fronting McCollum Street, we are whole-heartedly opposed to it. There is a definite drainage problem occuri.ng on subject property and the water flows onto our property due to the slope of the lots in this area. As a good neighbor policy and rather than complaining to the Rosenthal's about this drain- age problem, at our own expense, we had a drainage pipe installed to keep our backyard from being flooded from the runoff from subject property during rainy weather. We feel that this problem will be exacerbated by the proposed construc- tion near our property line and if this project is constructed, we want all of the runoff from this property stopped. At one time, Mrs. Cooper's father m-awned with Mr. Evans our lot, although his interest was sold to Mr. Evans prior to the purchase of our property. We were assured by Mr. Rosenthal, who owned the subjec* lot, ;and Mr. Evans that there would be no additional residential constructiono%'ubject property. This assurance was given prior to the purchase of our property. We would neither have purchased our lot nor designed our hone with a two-car garage in front of our home, which set our living quarters near our back property line had we not received this un- equivocal guarantee- We certainly had no inclination that an additional two- story structure would be constructed so near our bedroom. Now, some thirty-two years later, we are faced with this extremely undesirable problem. Again, we are definitely opposed to subject project for the following reasons at a minimum: 1. We can envision lack of privacy with a two-story residence overlooking our backyard and bedroom window, as well as a potential mise problem from such a nearby residence, with the possibility of people yelling and music blaring into our backyard, bedroom and other living quarters. 2. We havea huge, beautiful, several hundred year old live oak tree in our backyard, . which is growing at a rather rapid rate, and we can en- vision problems resulting frcm construction and the location of this project damaging the root structure, as well as impeding its growth, feeding, etc. We feel it to be our duty and privilege to protect this beautiful, old, and irreplaceable tree. 3. An increased fire hazard as a result of this project, due to the loca- tion of our home, the Roberts' building at or near their back property line, fences, and trees in the area of the proposed construction. a-�3 San Luis Obispo City Zoning Hearing Officer 2 4. The drainage problem noted above. After happily residing at 1840 Hope Street for over 32 years, we would hate to relocate cur residence at our age, because someone inherited this property and decided to repudiate her Father's promise regarding not constructing on this property which would have obviated problems arising therefrom. Mr. and Mrs. Robert Roberts, who own property on the Graves St. side of subject property, have a backyard swimming pool and probably would be adversely affected by the proposed construction, are unfortunately in Mexico and probably will be unable to comment on it. Mrs. Mae Bastress, whose property is on the corner of Grand and Hope Sts., is vhale-harb331y opposed to this project, but probably will be unable to attend the Hearing, because of a bad case of the flu. :r1r, Carl Mortenson, who is over 90 years of age, will be unable to attend this Hearing, but also whole-heartedly opposes the proposed project and stated that he received a written guarantee from Mr. Rosenthal when he purchased his property at 1890 Hope Street from Mr. Rosenthal that no additional residential construction would occur on subject property. Richard Tartaglia, who owns the other property on Graves Street which abuts this property, told Robert Sigerson that he opposes the proposed project and authorir him to inform you of this fact, because he probably will not be in attendace a� this Hearing. We know of no"property owner in the entire affected area, other than the Coopers, who favor this project and all of the property owners with whams we discussed this project are definitely opposed to it. Although not necessarily germane to the matter under consideration, in order to further peace and harmony in the area, we previously removed our living bottle brush fence and replaced it with a wooden fence, at our own expense, and have maintained both sides of it, because the living fence presented a trimming prob- lem to the elderly Mother of the present owner. Also, with the permission of Mrs. Rosenthal's son, twice yearly for many years, Robert Sigerson has spent over a day each time cutting back and disposing of her ivy vines which encroached our fence, so as to keep the ivy from growing into and damaging it. We deeply regret that construction of this project, with problems resulting there- from,would end any feelings of friendliness and good neighborliness to the current owners, because this is a neighborhood where most residents have lived, 20, 30 and 40 years years and is not typified by frequent turn-over of residents. It also would be the only two-story residence in our immediate area. As a rhetorical question -- 1f this is such a hirable project, why don't the property owners build it near their residence, so that they will be forced to be subjected to any cE its undesirable aspects, rather than the undersigned and othe neighbors? It appears to be as far from their residence as possible! It is respectfully requested that this application be denied. Very truly yours, RCMEPT L. SIGERSON MARGARET L. SIGERSON ��/ ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING - MINUTES FRIDAY DECEMBER 18, 1992 300 Grand Avenue. Use Permit Appl. A 217-92; Request to allow more than one dwelling on a lot in the R-1 zone; Albert and Caryl Cooper, applicants. Glen Matteson presented the staff report, noting that the request is to develop an additional house on a parcel that already has two houses on it. He explained that, under the city's Zoning Regulations, this type of activity requires a use. permit. The additional dwelling proposed is an apartment over a two-car garage at the rear part of the property. Staff recommend approval, based on six findings and subject to two conditions and four code requirements, which he outlined. The public hearing was opened. Margaret Sigerson, 1840 Hope Street, said she felt it is not just the concern of the city, but of everyone in the neighborhood, and that she is definitely opposed to the request. She noted that there is a drainage problem which has caused problems throughout the years, but had temporarily solved the problem in an attempt to be good neighbors by putting in a pipe (at their expense) that diverts the water through her back yard and into the street. However, she said she did riot want water coming onto her property`as a result of this project. -Ms. Sigerson explained that, prior to-her purchasing the lot at 1840 Hope"thes(v&e` "1 ` assured by Mr. Rosenthal (the applicant's father) and Mr. Evans, the sellers, that there would be absolutely no construction going on at the back of the property. Based on this information, they had their house built with the two-car garage in front, and her house much closer to the back lot. She said she would have done things differently had they known this additional construction were going to occur. She then noted that when Mr. Mortenson purchased his property at 1890 Hope Street in 1951, he was guaranteed in writing by Mr. Rosenthal that no construction would occur at the subject property.. Ms. Sigerson also noted that this would be the only two-story structure in the immediate area, and it would be within 11 feet of her back yard. She had concerns that the structure would overlook her back yard and in the bedroom window. She acknowledged that the structure is to be used by a member of the family, but felt the current owners may not live there forever. If the house were sold, it would probably be used by other people, and there is a noise issue to consider. She also said she felt that there would be a fire hazard having the structures so close since it would back in the corner near another structure on an adjacent lot. The issue of a very old oak tree was also a concern of Ms. Sigerson. She said the tree is several hundred years old, and felt it her duty to protect it. She felt that construction a-�S Administrative Hearing Minutes December 18, 1992 Page 2 of the proposed dwelling could cause damage to the tree roots, and having the structure built over the roots could be a problem. In summary, her concerns were privacy, drainage, fire hazard and preservation of the live oak tree. She said that in the interest of compatibility, it is a very undesirable project. She reiterated her earlier statement that everyone she has talked to in neighborhood is opposed to this request. She said she has lived in her house for 32 years, and the majority of the neighborhood are long-time residents. [Ron Whisenand asked Glen Matteson what the density is on the lot. Glen Matteson responded that the lot is about 28,500 square feet in area, which is about 2/3 of an acre. The Zoning Regulations allow seven dwellings per acre, so it would allow four dwellings on this property -- this would be the third dwelling.] Robert Sigerson, 1840 Hope Street, spoke in opposition to the request. He said he did not feel this request is one that is considered "minor" in nature. He was concerned that no one told him of this request prior to his receiving notification of this hearing by the City. Mr. Sigerson also said there is a severe run-off problem in three places in particular, which he would be willing to show city staff,-as well as two large rivets made by the-earth and rain, and during a heavy rain, the water comes down both sides like a river, leaving sometimes ..one:ao two`.inches of .water,in. the -yard;:'sometimes.' more:. Even.:after. installation of pipes to divert the-water,-he,noted that-it•is:sometimes-a week• before they, can go into their back yard because it is so soft and soggy. Mr. Sigerson was greatly concerned that the apartment is going to located where a shed now exists, and will eliminate his privacy to his bedroom. He said he was told this is called "spot housing" and is illegal in San Luis Obispo in the R-1 zone. He also said he was told when he bought the property, that the subject property would not be built on. According to Mr. Sigerson, Mr. Mortonson, a neighbor, asked him to speak on his behalf at this hearing, opposing the request. AI -Cooper, applicant, spoke in support of his request. He said he had spoken to Mr. Mortonson, and did not feel he was opposed to the request. He noted that two of the neighbors mentioned by Mrs.' Sige'rson Have five Cal Poly students each'living in''their` horries and they are both rental units. It was his opinion that Mrs. Sigerson was concerned that another Cal Poly rental unit is being built. He admitted that he does have a rental unit on the property, however, it is not income property, and also noted that they do not rent to students. He said that if he wanted income property, he would build a unit twice as large, split the lot and sell off the individual parcels for a large sum of money, or split the lot and build a 2,000 square foot house on it. Mr. Cooper said he needs a place for his relatives to stay when they visit, and that he needs a two-car garage to Administrative Hearing Minutes December 18, 1992 Page 3 accommodate his vehicles. He did not feel the tree issue was a valid one, since houses are built around trees all the time. He noted that the proposed dwelling would be about 20 feet from the tree. He said he feels he has a legal right to build, that the legal requirements can be met, and therefore his request should be allowed. Carol Cooper, applicant, interjected that they have no intention of renting out this unit. It is strictly a guest house, which may be narrowed down to a room, and they desperately need the garage space. Ron Whisenand asked the applicants if they have reviewed the staff recommended conditions of approval, and if they have any problems with them. Al Cooper said he has no problems with anything staff recommended. Mrs. Sigerson asked why the structure is proposed so far away from the Cooper's residence if it is intended for guests and relatives. Mr. Cooper explained that the "shed" is really a steeple off the old barn, and because of sentimental•value, is going to remain where it is. He noted that because of the large oak tree, the proposed structure will hardly be visible. After some discussion, he averaged that the -Sigerson's house.is about 20-feet from.their fence,Jn addition to:the :1,0:foot.:-- setback which:means the structures- will-be 30 feet apart; with-the large -oak AM;n, between. The public hearing was closed. Ron Whisenand felt there were four main concerns; privacy, drainage, the oak tree and fire hazards. He felt that the proposed conditions of approval adequately address the concerns. Therefore, he approved the request, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findinas 1: 'The proposed use will riot adverse) affect the health, p p y � safety and welfare of' persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 2. The proposed use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. The proposed use conforms to the general plan and meets zoning ordinance requirements. Administrative Hearing Minutes December 18, 1992 Page 4 4. The proposed use meets density standards established by the zoning ordinance for the R-1 zone. 5. The proposed use is exempt from environmental review. 6. No public purpose would be served by requiring paved driveways to the new residence, since this would tend to increase the potential for cross lot water run-off and would pose a threat to the health of existing trees. Conditions 1. Design of the new residential unit shall be subject to architectural review, with specific consideration given to the placement of the new structure and location of windows to minimize overlook into adjacent yards. 2. An exception is hereby granted to allow the existing gravel driveways from Grand Avenue and McCullum Street to remain gravel. Code Requirements 1.. .The proposed garage with.an apartment.above,shalt-meet.-. 11 city standa�dsfo�.:.`::. .. - .parking;<building.height, and setbacks. V. �:Nt...: :.J•:... :.' Vl..ii'.�... .: �. �•y,. 2. The developer shall construct frontage improvements and paveout the street to meet the new frontage improvements along all frontages not currently improved to city standards per Municipal Code Section 12.16.050. 3. Street trees shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 4. The developer shall be required to collect any change in cross lot run-off and direct it to the nearest street. The water pump capacity and pipe size and outlet should be designed to accommodate a 10-year storm as specified by city engineering standards. As an alternative, the developer may submit a drainage easement to the Community Development Department for review, approval;.and recordation. Mr. Whisenand then explained that his decision could be appealed to the Planning Commission within ten calendar days, by any person aggrieved by the decision. [Mrs. Sigerson still questioned the drainage issue. She asked. that if this project is approved, will the water still drain onto their property? Glen Matteson responded that the Administrative Hearing Minutes December 18, 1992 Page 5 Building Code requires that any time one increases the covered area of a property, that by doing so it does not increase the runoff over the pre-development conditions on neighboring properties, unless you have an easement, which means permission is given by the neighboring property for that drainage to go through.] [Mr. Cooper then asked if the Sigerson's feelings would change if he changed the structure to a single-story structure? With discussion between the two concerned parties, Mr. Whisenand recommend that the two discuss this option, and if they wish to revise their plans to a single-story structure, discuss it with the project planner.] • ..w A..M '•.'-'..7�1•.•! :. i•.1'�V.i ., • 'Y• J V . .11 {: JSs :..ui.4..0 fti.�..Y. .-1: Sy ..C., � '1i•'. ... .. ... - M..... ."Mr: .V1V++:-�awS R.'uf ia''n:�'t �'. Fs...�.. k!'y.�"•Y:'a'�ti.:':• . �:... •::1 S.•a/�l+:tFu•-..rt .. .. . a-i9 Draft PC Minutes JANUARY 13, 1993 Commr. Senn moved to approve the application, with the deletion of Condition 1 and t e deletion of the reference to the right turn only sign. Commr. Hoffman seco ed the motion. VOTING: AYES- Co s. Senn, Hoffman, Cross, Williams, and Kar eskint. NOES - None ABSENT - Co Peterson. The motion passed. Greg Smith announced that th Architectural Review Commission would be considering this project n Tuesday, January 19, 1993 . Chairman Karleskint asked tha anyone who did not receive a notice for this meeting to call the mmunity Development Department. Commr Hoffman moved to request t at staff work with the Engineering Department on a proposal for a pa king district on Ferrini Road and on Cerro Remauldo Avenue from Fe ini Road to Cuesta, on the side of the street not adjacent to Tea School. Commr. Williams seconded the motion G:. . . .AYES r.:_ : .•. Commrs. .. Hoffman, • .Will•iams', Senn', '..Crossf �xandr - .p1�n c:.v:?.a:y'.r..:r•r.,e';_w...:,....:.�a....r..:.:y�w: .:Kar�eSk 2•nt-r x:y..4.,...YF'.: ra � .. •..t .... i.. . .•..q^d.:.•W+G•x v „ y:• -.. ' NOES - None. ABSENT - Commr. Peterson. The motion passed. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Item 3 . Use Permit A 217-92: An appeal of the Hearing officer's action approving a request to allow more than one dwelling unit; 300 Grand Avenue; R-1 zone; Albert and Caryl Cooper, applicants; Robert and Margaret Sigerson, appellants. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Smith presented the staff report and recommended the Commission approve the project subject to the conditions adopted by the hearing officer and deny the appeal. Chairman Karleskint opened the public hearing. Margaret Sigerson, 1840 Hope Street, appellant, felt that neighbors' feelings are not a top priority when the City considers development. She expressed concern about a tree that was 250-300 years old. She made two corrections to the minutes of the administrative hearing: That Mr. Rosenthal, Mr. Cooper' s father- in-law, sold his interest in the property to Mr. Evans and that she bought the property from Mr. Evans; that she had said Mr. Cooper's statement about Cal Poly students living in the Roberts' home was not true and that the Roberts lived .in the home six months of the year, residing in Mexico the other six months; and that she said Mr. Mortonson, one of her neighbors, had called the City planning office to object to the project. She said Mr. Rosenthal had promised that there would be no building on the lot which included a written promise to Mr. Mortonson. She said she had mistakenly believed that lots zoned R-1 allow only one house to be built on the lot. She asked if she would have to continue to take care of water draining off of Mr. Cooper's lot. Commr. Karleskint said that when the building is constructed, drainage problems resulting from that building would be the Cooper's responsibility. Greg Smith said item 4 in the letter the City sent to the Coopers requires the developer to collect any change in cross-lot runoff and direct it to the nearest street to City Engineering Standards, or submit a drainage easement. He ,said City codes will require any change in drainage patterns to be accommodated by the developer, but developers are not normally required to take care of drainage problems not resulting from development. Mrs. Sigerson felt that was unfair because she and her husband had put in a pipe to control runoff •from-tlie •Cooper.!s lot at their own expense Cindy Clemens explained to Mrs. Sigerson that the Commission did not have the authority to determine who was responsible for the previous drainage water and suggested she consult with her attorney. She said only drainage problems from the new construction could be considered by the Commission. Mrs. Sigerson said her main concerns were the oak tree, drainage, fire hazard, and privacy. Commr. Senn explained that the Commission has to deal within the confines of existing City ordinance and the Commission only has the __ authority to ensure requested development meets City laws. Mrs. Sigerson said she wished people came first. Albert Cooper, 300 Grand Avenue, applicant, said his father came to San Luis Obispo in 1923 and died in 1965. He believed his father kept his word about not building on the property. He said the appellants built a house five feet from the 300-year-old tree 32 years ago, and his garage would be about 2.5 feet from the tree. He said he had no problems with the conditions and requirements. He explained he was building a studio apartment for his son who was s" a-a i coming home after being in the Army. In answer to a question by Commr. Williams, Mr. Cooper said there would be no windows overlooking anything on the Sigerson's property except for possibly the oak tree. Chairman Karleskint closed the public hearing. Chairman Karleskint reopened the public hearing. Rob.,,__ ert Sigerson, 1840 Hope Street, appellant, said after the last time- this matter came before the Planning Commission, Mr. Cooper asked him if he would accept a one-story house farther back on the lotHe said he preferred that Mr. Cooper build a one-story house. Chairman Karleskint closed the public hearing. In answer to a question by Commr. Hoffman, Greg Smith explained that--At would be appropriate to consider this 28,500 foot parcel one:-lot,and4jtzoning regulations allow building one unit per 7, 000 square feet if the units conform to setback and other building standards. .. t'a1 n : I"' —-saver to questions by Commr. Cross, Ron Whisenanc_ explained the exception for a gravel driveway was being suggested by staff because the existing driveway is gravel and it would reduce the drainage to adjoining lots. Greg;�Smith said the City arborist has determined the proposed development would not affect the oak tree. Commr.. Williams expressed concern about drainage problems from the development. Greg. Smith explained that the applicant 'would be required to collect and pump water that could cause problems to neighboring properties as a result of the new development to the street. He explained water would be collected at a low point in the new graded area:;_and pumped from that catch point to the street. aS Commr. Cross expressed concern about approving a project with a gravel driveway. Roii_='w�+ �enand suggested that the Commission recommend toe Architectural Review Commission review the proposed development. Commr': Senn said the Planning Commission should address the land use=issue. Commr. Senn moved to approve the use permit and deny the appeal subject to findings and conditions and with the understanding that the`ARC will review the proposed development. Commr. Williams seconded the motion. Commr. Cross said he would not be supporting the motion because of the exception to allow a gravel driveway. He said it could set a precedent allowing future projects to have gravel driveways in order to cut development costs. comm Karleskint disagreed with Commr. Cross. Commrs. Hoffman said the gravel driveway was appropriate for this project because it was in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Senn, Williams, Hoffman and Karleskint. NOES - Commr. Cross. ABSENT - Commr. Peterson. The -motion passed. --------------------------------------- ------------------------ Itim 4. Planned Development Rezonin PD 192-92: A request for a planned development rezoning t allow office uses in the . ; __ Medium-density Residential z e (R-3) and to redesign a e- parking lot with Office (0) and Medium-density -:__ :_ Residential zoning; 1235 O s Street, 958 Pismo ' Street, and 1336 Morro Street; O ne; San Luis Medical Clinic, =z applicant. Greq . Smith presented the staf report and said the Commission previously decided it would b appropriate for the applicant to file. this request as a PD Rez ing. He recommended the Commission recommend approval of the r oning to the City Council subject to 10-.conditions. He read 'a d explained the 10 conditions to the Commission. Ron Whisnand explained at an initial study would be reviewed .by the Community Develop ent Department before the proposal is considered by the City Council. Commr. Karleskint as d if it was appropriate for the Commission to approve a draft. Cindy Clemens exp ained that the Commission was not approving the development, but aking a recommendation to the City Council. She suggested the ords "The Planning Commission has reviewed . and concurs with a draft" be added to finding 7 to ensure that the City . Council is aware that the Commission only saw the draft proposal. Commr. Cro s said he did not agree with finding 1. He felt that the proje t was not so innovative that it should be allowed to be approved as a PD. a -a3 cityo sAn OBISD.O : 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100 TO: Mike Bertaccini DATE: December 14, 1992 FROM: Todd Martin, City Arborist SUBJECT: 300 Grand Avenue (805)549-7220 I X1 One tree required per 35 lineal feet of street frontage or any part thereof. (_ Trees are to be planted in the sidewalk with lids and a deep root planter. Trees are to be planted .7.5 feet to 10 feet behind the sidewalk with no deep root planter. Trees are to be planted within 7.5 feet behind the sidewalk -with a deep ' root planter. Trees are to be planted in the parkway with a deep root planter. 1_1 Trees are to be planted to City specifications.. City is to inspect the tree(s) and planting hole(s) prior to :plaating. 1XI Existing trees: No new trees required at this time. The proposed development will not impact any significant trees. It will involve--the removal of four Avocado trees; however, all are less than 4" dbh. 1_1 15-gallon stock. �_1 Other than 15-gallon stock: _ Type of trees: 30 ft. corner cut offs (see following example): PROPeRrr No Pu,vrnvc j ' urrE �� • I _ , B L I C W O R K S 1� P T. E N G I N E E R I N G D I V I S I O N ***** PLAN REVIEW ***** ** Location: 300 GRAND, COOPER PROPERTY, PLANNING FILE: A217-92 : . * Plan Chk: 12/15/92 1. The developer shall construct frontage improvements and paveout the street to meet the new frontage improvements along all frontages not improved to City standards per MC Section 12.16.050. 2. Street trees may be required as determined by the City Arborist. 3. Plans must reflect existing and proposed water and sewer services. P,,Je a-a�