Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/04/1994, 1 - R 101-93 - REQUEST TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION PROCESS FOR THE MERGER REQUIREMENT FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS.IIIH�,�IIIIVIIIII����Ii�l� r MEETING DAT C o San Luis OB�spo - V 1-3 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: FROM: Arnold B: Jonas, Community Development Director; C By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner PR SUBJECT: R 101-93 - Request to amend the text of the zoning regulations to provide an exception process for the merger requirement for nonconforming lots. CAO RECOMMENDATION: Introduce an ordinance to print approving a text amendment to San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section No. 17.12.020 A., based on findings. DISCUSSION Situation In February of 1993, separate planning applications were filed by Devin Gallagher to further develop adjoining nonconforming properties located at 1717 and 1725 Santa Barbara Street. Planning staff informed the applicant that the two properties would need to be merged because of the following requirement contained in Section 17.12.020 A. of the zoning regulations: "If a nonconforming lot has been held in common ownership with any contiguous property at any time since November 18, 1977, it may not be individually developed. The area within such a lot may be developed only after it has been merged with contiguous property, or otherwise resubdivided in conjunction with the contiguous property to create one or more conforming parceLs or one parcel which more nearly conforms." Previous Review During the public comment portion of the May 25, 1993 City Council meeting, the applicant presented the idea of modifying the language in the zoning regulations to allow for certain exceptions to the merger requirement. The Council instructed the applicant to appeal the Director's determination of the merger requirement to obtain official endorsement of staff's interpretation of the language in the zoning regulations. This process would also allow for the Commission and Council to focus on the particular section of the zoning regulations and provide direction on any changes to the regulations that may be warranted. The applicant's appeal was filed with the Community Development Director on June 4, 1993. At its June 30, 1993 meeting, the Planning Commission considered an appeal by the applicant of the Director's determination that the adjacent properties he owned at 1717 and 1725 Santa Barbara Street needed to be merged in order to be further developed. The Commission denied the appeal, but directed staff to further study and recommend possible revisions to the existing regulations. �un� ►lui►�I�I����I����� city Of San Luis OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 2 On November 17, 1993, staff presented to the Commission a suggested amendment to the text of Section 17.12.020 A. of the zoning regulations to allow for exceptions to the merger requirements under certain circumstances. At the conclusion of their hearing, the Planning Commission recommended the following text amendment to the Council for adoption: . •• • ate.• • 15119; • 1 1 An exception to the above merger requirement may be requested through an administrative use permit. To approve the use permit, the director must find that retention of the property line(s) will not adversely impact neighborhood character. Factors that assure that neighborhood character is maintained include. ■ The regular spacing of buildings on the affected lots, when viewed from the street, is consistent with other developed properties within the same block; and ■ convenient and conforming access and parking is available to serve site use. ALTERNATIVES 1. By motion, deny the request. 2. Continue with direction to the staff and applicant if the Council desires further information or analysis to render a decision. Attached: Attachment 1: Ordinance approving the text amendment Attachment 2: Draft 11 -17 -93 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 3: 11 -17 -93 Planning Commission Staff Report ATTAHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NO. (1993 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.12.020 A. TO ALLOW EXCEPTIONS TO THE MERGER PROVISIONS FOR ADJACENT NONCONFORMING LOTS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Zoning Regulations Amendment. That the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section ( SLOMC) 17.12.020 A. of the Zoning Regulations be amended as shown in Exhibit A and included herein by reference. SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed text amendment to the zoning regulations, and reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation measure into the project: An administrative use permit review process shall be required to exempt a nonconforming property and an adjacent property under the same ownership from the merger requirement when further development is contemplated. The Planning Commission and City Council shall establish guidelines within the zoning regulations for when the physical development of a neighborhood will not be adversely impacted if an exemption to the merger requirement is allowed. SECTION 3. Adoption. The text amendment to Municipal Code Section 17.12.020 A. of the Zoning Regulations is approved, subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the purpose of the zoning regulations stated in SLOMC Section 17.02.020, and more specifically, consistent with the intent section of SLOMC Section 17.12.010 governing nonconforming lots. 2. The exception process proposed as a text amendment to SLOMC Section 17.12.020 A. will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working in the vicinity of potentially affected sites, if the specific /-3 Ordinance No. (1993 Series) Page 2 factors related to neighborhood character included in the text amendment are considered when evaluating requests. SECTION 4. Implementation. A summary of this ordinance, together with the ayes and noes, shall be published, at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in said city, and the same shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, at its meeting held on the day of , 1993, on motion of seconded by following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: a ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: IVA Mayor and on the /-y EXHIBIT A Text Amendment - to be added as Paragraph 2 of Section 17.12.070 A. An exception to the above merger requirement may be requested through an administrative use permit. To approve the use permit, the director must find that retention of the property line(s) will not adversely impact neighborhood character. Factors that assure that neighborhood character is maintained include. ■ The regular spacing of buildings on the affected lots, when viewed from the street, is consistent with other developed properties within the same block; and ■ convenient and conforming access and parking is available to serve site uses. /-S P.C. Minutes ATTACHMENT 2 November 17, 1993 Page 13 Ron Whisenand said the hours of oper tion were determined after considering that the uses of adjoining land had not yet b n determined. He said that Condition 3 should read "...to the approval of the Com nity Development Department Director." Commr. Williams asked staff ab the handicapped parking space that was a concern of the City Building Division. / Whitney Mcllvaine said that th re should be room on the site to permit relocation of the handicapped parking space nd some type of architectural review would be required. Commr. Sigurdson move to approve use permit U 141 -93 based on the findings and conditions with conditio 3 modified to require approval of the Community Development Director. Commr. Whittlesey ,sbconded the motion. VOTING: ;?BSNT Commrs. Sigurdson, Whittlesey, Hoffman, Williams, Cross, Senn and Karleskint None E - None The motigh passed. Item 3. Rezoning R 101 -93. A request to amend the City's non - conforming lot standards; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Whitney Mcllvaine, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and distributed a copy of the section of the zoning regulations requiring non - conforming lots held in common ownership to be merged prior to development. She explained that after reviewing 450 lots that were non - conforming because of size, staff believed there should be some system in place to further evaluate development, but found that in some cases an exception to the merger requirement was warranted. She recommended that the Commission recommend to the City Council that exceptions to the merger requirement be subject to the administrative use permit process, and be granted only if a finding could be made that the retention of the property lines would not adversely affect neighborhood character. Commr. Whittlesey noted that the negative declaration of environmental impacts listed only community plans and land use as possible negative effects. She asked if impacts on energy, resources, noise levels and aesthetics could also occur. /_4 d,fb f -� P.C. Minutes November 17, 1993 Page 14 Whitney Mcllvaine said Commr. Whittlesey's concern was valid. She explained that lots are non - conforming for various reasons besides size, such as being more narrow than the City standard. She said the Commission could add an additional required finding that there would not be adverse impacts due to noise and energy. Arnold Jonas said that undeveloped non - conforming lots totaled 4 percent of the lots in the City. He said that this percentage could be seen as having an insignificant impact. Chairman Karleskint opened the public hearing. Tim Woodle, architect at Pults & Associates, 1401 Higuera, said the present merger requirement was not a good ordinance because it was difficult to administer and monitor. He thanked staff and the Commission for recognizing the need for flexibility in the ordinance. Chairman Karleskint closed the public hearing. Commr. Whittlesey suggested the Commission discuss the addition of another bullet to the text amendment stating that "There is no public benefit served by the merger, and the lots are consistent with the degree of existing development, and are adequate to maintain the neighborhood character." Commr. Senn said bank financing of non - conforming lots was difficult in today's market climate. He suggested that the third sentence in the text amendment be modified to state "Factors that assure that neighborhood character or that the proposed improvements will benefit the health, safety or welfare of the neighborhood include;" and that a finding be added stating that "Financing for the proposed development cannot reasonably be obtained if the merger requirements are imposed." He believed that the City needed to be flexible with what lenders were requiring or property owners would allow property to be unrepaired and continue to deteriorate. He explained that the hearing officer could consider statements from an applicant's financial representative. In answer to a question by Commr. Whittlesey, Commr. Senn explained the wording change would allow a property owner to show the lender that the City would be cooperative in the development of the non - conforming lot. Chairman Karleskint reopened the public hearing. Tim Woodle said he agreed with Commr. Senn. As an example, he explained he had separate financing approved for a single family home and a boarding house, but if the lots were merged, it would be extremely difficult to obtain financing. Chairman Karleskint closed the public hearing. /_7 P.C. Minutes November 17, 1993 Page 15 Ron Whisenand expressed concern about the financing language because the administrative hearing officer would be making a decision without technical financial expertise. Arnold Jonas agreed with Ron Whisenand. Commr. Senn felt that information on financing should be able to be presented to the hearing officer as evidence. He explained that if there was doubt in the hearing officer's mind about the proposed development meeting criteria for an exception, the availability of financing might be a factor to be considered. Ron Whisenand felt the decision should be based on land use. He said land use and financing should not be mixed. Commr. Cross said he was uncomfortable with Commr. Senn's suggested finding. Commrs. Hoffman, Williams, and Whittlesey agreed with Commr. Cross. The Commission decided not to include Commr. Senn's suggestion. Commr. Whittlesey withdrew her suggested changes. Commr. Whittlesey moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the text amendment to SLOMC Section 17.12.020 A. as submitted by staff. Commr. Williams seconded the motion. VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Whittlesey, Senn and Karleskint. NOES - None. ASSENT- None. The motion passed. Williams, Hoffman, Cross, Sigurdson, Item 4. Zoning Regulations Amendnent R 108 -93. A request to amend the Zoning Regulations to /bispo, ify processing, add and change definitions, clarify wording and foand make minor changes to development standards (Phase It og Regulations amendments initiated by the City); City of San Luis applicant. (To be continued) Ron Whisenand said that staff r commended the item be continued to the regular Planning Commission meeting o December 15. 1993. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT BY: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner PK FILE NUMBER: R 101 -93 PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide ATTACHMENT 3 rrEM # 3 MEETING DATE: November 17, 1993 SUBJECT: Review of a text amendment to the zoning regulations to provide an exception process for the merger requirement for nonconforming lots. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council approve a text amendment to SLOMC Section 17.12.020 A., based on findings. BACKGROUND Situation At its June 30, 1993 meeting (report attached), the Planning Commission considered an appeal by Devin Gallagher of the Community Development Director's determination that adjacent properties he owned at 1717 and 1725 Santa Barbara Street needed to be merged in order to be further developed (as per Section 17.12.020 A. of the zoning regulations). The Commission denied the appeal, but directed staff to further study and recommend possible revisions to the existing regulations. Staff is now returning to the Commission with a suggested amendment to the text of Section 17.12.020 A. of the zoning regulations. Data Summary- Environmental Status: The Community Development Director approved the filing of a negative declaration of environmental impact with mitigation measures on November 10, 1993. Project action deadline: Not applicable to legislative actions. EVALUATION Staff reviewed residentially -zoned properties that were nonconforming because of lot area to get an estimate of the number of lots that may potentially be impacted by changes to Section 17.12.020 A. The attached initial study summarizes the findings of that research. The residential nonconforming lots that were evaluated (deficient in terms of lot area) can be viewed as a statistical sample from the total population of nonconforming lots citywide. This sample indicates that there are enough situations where the merger provision would apply to justify a review- process. Such a process would allow evaluation of compatibility issues that may arise when nonconforming lots are allowed to be individually developed. /- R 101 -93 Page 2 Since nonconforming lots are naturally more difficult to develop, there may be issues related to the physical development of the site that could impact neighborhood character, such as the spacing of buildings, location of driveways and related building code compliance issues, that would be affected by retention of the property line. The initial study of environmental impact includes one mitigation measure outlining the process that needs to be set up to review requests for an exception to the merger provision. 'An administrative use permit review process shall be required to exempt a nonconforming property and an adjacent property under the same ownership from the merger requirement when further development is contemplated. The Planning Commission and City Council shall establish guidelines within the zoning regulations for when the physical development of a neighborhood will not be adversely impacted if an exemption to the merger requirement is allowed." Staff suggests that language be added to Section 17.12.020 A. of the zoning regulations to provide for an exception process and the criteria to evaluate such requests (see recommended legislative draft in the Recommendation section below.) ALTERNATIVES 1. The Commission may recommend that the Council approve the text amendment as prepared or with changes. 2. The Commission may recommend that the Council deny the text amendment based on inconsistency with the intent of the zoning regulations and related City goals for development. 3. The Commission may continue action with direction to staff on further information that would assist the Commission in rendering a decision. RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council approve the following text amendment to SLOMC Section 17.12.020 A., based on the following findings. Legislative Draft of Text Amendment - to be added as Paragraph 2 of Section 17.12.070 A. An exception to the above merger requirement may be requested through an administrative use permit. To approve the use permit, the director must find that retention of the property, line(s) it-ill not adversely impact neighborhood character. Factors that assure that neighborhood character is maintained include: / -/D R 101 -93 Page 3 • The regular spacing of buildings on the affected lots, when viewed from the street, is consistent with other developed properties within the sane block; and • convenient and confonning access and parking is available to serve site uses. Findings 1. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the purpose of the zoning regulations stated in SLOMC Section 17.02.020, and more specifically, consistent with the intent section of SLOW Section 17.12.010 governing nonconforming lots. 2. The exception process proposed as a text amendment to SLOMC Section 17.12.020 A. will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working in the vicinity of potentially affected sites, if the specific factors related to neighborhood character included in the text amendment are considered when evaluating requests.. 3. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on November 10, 1993, which describes significant environmental impacts associated with project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the recommended mitigation measure being incorporated into the project, and the Planning Commission hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and finds that it reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission. Attached: Initial Study ER 101 -93 Planning Commission minutes of 6 -30 -93 Planning Commission report for Gallagher project prepared for 6 -30 -93 meeting city o� san luis oBispo INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITE LOCATION Citywide APPLICATION NC101 -93 PROJECT DESCRIPTIOfinend Section 17.12.020 A. to allow an exception to the merger provisions through an administrative use permit under specified conditions. APPLICANT City Of San Luis Obispo STAFF RECOMMENDATION: X NEGATIVE DECLARATION X MITIGATION INCLUDED EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED PREPARED BY am Ricci, Associate Planner COMMUNITY DEV LOPM N i RECTOR'S ACTION: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED MA,C 11 -10 -93 DATE // l/o l f 3 SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IL POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS .................... ............................... B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH .......... ............................... . C. LAND USE ............................. ..... ..... .............. ....... .........- D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ............... ............................... E. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................. ............................... F. UTILITIES ..................... ....... ..... ........... :........................... G. NOISE LEVELS .................................... ............................... H. GEOLOGIC & SEISMIC HAZARDS S TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS ................... I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS ................ ............................... J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY ............. ............................... . K. PLANT LIFE ...................................... ............................... L. ANIMAL LIFE ..................................... ............................... M. ARCHAEOLOGICAL /HISTORICAL ................... ............................... N. AESTHETIC ..................... ................. ............................... O. ENERGYIRESOURCE USE ..................... ............................... . NONE POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS MAYBE* NONE MAYBE* IT ;oNE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE P. OTHER .. . .... III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION NEGATIVE DECLAP.P.TION WITH MITICA.TION SEE ATTACHED REPORT 5885 INITIAL STUDY ER 101 -93 I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Planning Commission directed staff to evaluate the merger provisions contained in the zoning regulations for nonconforming lots (Municipal Code Section 17.12.020 A.). Specifically, the Commission was interested in considering changes that would allow for exceptions to the merger provisions under certain circumstances or even eliminate them altogether. Those circumstances that the Commission highlighted where exceptions to the requirement for merger of contiguous parcels under common ownership may be warranted included: ■ when a zone boundary separates parcels; ■ when all contiguous parcels are "developed "; ■ when property development includes historic buildings. The exceptions being-contemplated would affect nonconforming lots citywide. II. POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW A. Community Plans and Goals C. Land Use Issues: ■ consistencv with the intent of the zoning regulations; and ■ potential to disrupt the physical arrangement of established neighborhoods Chapter 17.12 of the zoning regulations contains the rules for the continued use and development of nonconforming lots. The intent of this chapter is to "provide for the reasonable use of such nonconforming lots, consistent with other standards adopted to protect the public, health, safety and general welfare." The merger provisions contained in Section 17.12.020 A. attempt to eliminate nonconforming lots when there are adjacent nonconforming properties under common ownership, at the time that new or further development of the properties is contemplated. Lots that have not been held in common ownership since November 18, 1977, may be individually developed. Using information available from the City's computerized land use inventory, staff reviewed residentially -zoned properties that were nonconforming because of lot area to get an estimate of the number of lots that may potentially be impacted by changes to Section 17.12.020 A. In the R -1 and R -2 zones, lots with less than 4800 square feet were listed. "S00 square feet was used as a threshold since Section 17.13.020 B. exempts lots that have SOSc of the minimum lot area and dimension standards from the merger requircmelIts. A ER 101 -93 Page 2 total of 289 lots were counted in the R -1 and R -2 zones that were less than 4800 square feet in area. A total of 162 lots with less than 6000 square feet were tabulated in the R -3 and R -4 zones. Based on a research done by the Community Development Department in April of 1990 using the land use inventory, there were a total of 10,169 residentially -zoned parcels citywide. Therefore, the 451 nonconforming lots (because of lot area) represents about 4% of all residential lots citywide. Although the total number of nonconforming lots was greater in the R -1 and R -2 zones than it was in the R -3 and R-4 zones, there was relatively a greater proportion of the nonconforming lots in the R -3 and R -4 zones that met the merger requirement for adjacent properties under the same ownership. There were 15 lots out of the 162 nonconforming lots in the R -3 and R -4 zones (about 9 %) that were owned by a person who also owned an adjacent property. This can in part be explained by the fact that most of these properties were purchased as rental properties for investment purposes, rather than sites for owner occupants. All of these lots were at least partially developed. Conclusion: - May be significant. The residential nonconforming lots evaluated (deficient in terms of lot area) can be viewed as a sample from the universe of nonconforming lots. This sample indicates that there are enough situations where the merger provision would apply that some type of system should be set up to evaluate whether or not retaining the lot line between properties will be an issue from a compatibility standpoint with further development. Since nonconforming lots are naturally more difficult to develop, there may be issues related to the physical development of the site that could impact neighborhood character, such as the spacing of buildings, location of driveways and related building code compliance issues, that would be affected with retention of the property line. ;'Mitigation Measure: An administrative use permit review process shall be required to exempt a nonconforming property and an adjacent property under the same ownership from the merger requirement when further development is contemplated. The Planning Commission and City Council shall establish guidelines within the zoning regulations for when the physical development of a neighborhood will not be adversely impacted if an exemption to the merger requirement is allowed. ER 101 -93 Page 3 III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that a negative declaration be prepared for this project with the noted mitigation measure. If the Community Development Director determines that the mitigation measure outlined in this initial study is ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify the mitigation to meet the intent of the original measure. l'415; P.C. Minutes June 30, 1993 Page 2 Item 1. Appeal of Community Development Director's Determination A 17 -93. An appeal of the Community Development Director's determination that adjacent properties need to be merged to enable further development of the two lots; 1717 and 1725 Santa Barbara Streets; R -3 -H zone; Devin Gallagher, appellant. ----------------------------- - - - - -- - Whitney Mclllvaine presented the staff report and explained that the Commission was being asked to determine if the merger requirement of the Zoning Regulations applied to the appellant's lots, and if the Commission desired to request a change to the Zoning Regulations which would allow exceptions. She said that staff believed the merger requirement of the Zoning Regulations did apply to the appellant's lots because the lots were non - conforming in regard to standard tot dimensions and because they had been held in common ownership since 1977. She said the appellant was requesting the Commission to allow exceptions to the merger clause regulation. She recommended the Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Officer's action. Commr. Cross expressed concern over requiring lots to be merged in older neighborhoods where the lots already developed were small, because it would create a hodge -podge effect, and the merged lots would be incompatible with the neighborhood. Ron Whisenand said the regulation only applied when there are two adjacent lots under the same ownership. Commr. Senn asked if staff felt there was a problem with providing flexibility for special circumstances. He referenced a letter from Gallagher Properties proposing revised language to the Zoning Regulations. Ron Whisenand believed that the intent of the merger clause in the Zoning Regulations was correct, but said the City would be open to flexibility, such as the addition of an exception clause if the Planning Commission and the City Council desire. Commr. Senn asked if an owner of two adjacent lots could deed a lot to someone else and develop the lots independently. Ron Whisenand said that could not legally be done, because the ordinance references a specific date. Commr. Whittiesey asked if the merger was being required to meet requirements for R -3 zoning? / -/6 P.C. Minutes June 30, 1993 Page 3 Ron Whisenand said this merger would have no effect on the density. Vice Chairwoman Williams opened the public hearing. Tim Woodle, 1401 Higuera Street, Appellant's representative and architect, requested the Commission deny the appeal and direct staff to work on a modification of the Zoning Ordinance to provide latitude for exceptions. He used the overhead projector to display diagrams showing situations where the ordinance would require mergers prior to development. He said he was requesting that the appeal be denied because the appellant believed the Zoning Regulations, as written, do apply. Commr. Cross expressed concern that if the Commission denied the appeal, the appellant could appeal that decision to the City Council. Tim Woodle said the appellant did not intend to appeal the denial. Commr. Whittlesey asked if the appellant was willing to keep the project in abeyance until a modification to the Ordinance was completed. Tim Woodle said yes. Vice Chairwoman Williams closed the public hearing. Commr. Senn moved to deny the appeal. Commr. Whittlesey seconded the motion. Commr. Senn explained he preferred the simplicity of two motions, one to deny the appeal and one recommending a change to the Ordinance. Commr. Cross expressed concern that two separate motions would allow the appellant to appeal to the City Council. Commr. Senn felt the Commission should accept Mr. Woodle's credibility in saying that he was not going to appeal. Cindy Clemens said that if one motion was made for both the appeal and the modification to the Zoning Ordinance, the appellant could appeal a part of the motion. VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Senn, Whittlesey, Hoffman, and Williams NOES - Commr. Cross ABSENT- Commr. Karleskint /-/7 P.C. Minutes June 30, 1993 Page 4 The motion passed. Commr. Senn moved to direct staff to return to the Planning Commission with a revision to Ordinance 17.12.020 providing for modification as generally suggested by Gallagher Properties, and that the language of the revision be discussed with Gallagher Properties and approved by the City Attorney within six weeks. The motion died for lack of a second. Commr. Hoffman expressed concern about the six week time limit. Commr. Williams felt staff could determine the appropriate language without relying on the language submitted by Gallagher Properties. Ron Whisenand expressed concern with the six -week time limit. He said staff would need to do research and study language options. Commr. Whittlesey moved to direct staff to modify 17.12.020 of the Zoning Regulations regarding issues raised at this meeting , such as different zoning and ownership issues, and transfer of ownership. Commr. Senn suggested the motion state staff be directed to bring back appropriate exceptions to the Regulations. Cindy Clemens suggested that the Commission ask for a status report from staff in six weeks during the Comment and Discussion period of a Planning Commission meeting. Commr. Whittlesey amended her motion to state that staff modify 17.12.020 of the Zoning Regulations regarding issues discussed at this meeting and that staff provide a verbal update in approximately six weeks at a Planning Commission meeting during the Comment and Discussion period. Commr. Hoffman seconded the motion. Ron Whisenand agreed to work with the appellant on extending processing time lines while the Zoning Regulations were modified. VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Whittlesey, Hoffman, Senn, Cross, and Williams. NOES - None. ABSENT- Commr. Karleskint. /-l8 P.C. Minutes June 30, 1993 Page 5 The motion passed. Commr. Senn suggested staff consider lending requirements. He said it might be easier for developers to obtain financing if adjoining parcels are developed at different times. Item 2. Use Permit A 76 -92. An appeal of the Hearing Officer's action approving the continuation of a billiards parlor subject to a limitation on hours of operation; 1119 Garden Street; C -C -H zone; SLO Brewing Company, appellant. Whitney Mclllvaine presented the staff report and explained that the hours of operation for the use permit had been extended from midnight to 1:30 a.m. on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights at the six month review before the hearing officer because the business had already posted those hours of operation. She said the Police Department had received 10 to 15 calls, but had indicated it had a good relationship with the appellant. She explained that staff originally recommended that the appeal be denied and condition 3 be retained, but after discussions with the Police Department, felt the Commission could modify or eliminate the condition restricting hours. Commr. Cross expressed concern that the appellant did not comply with the condition regarding operating hours under the original use permit. Whitney Mclllvaine said that was correct, but the Community Development Department had not received any complaints after the billiard parlor opened. In answer to a question by Commr. Williams, Whitney Mclllvaine said the subject of complaints included battery, disturbing the peace, vandalism, and public drunkenness. She used the overhead projector to identify neighboring uses. Vice Chairwoman Williams opened the public hearing. Michael Hoffman, 1119 Garden Street, Appellant, said he was requesting that the condition restricting hours of operation be removed. He said he did not intend to routinely remain open past midnight Monday through Wednesday, but would like the flexibility to do so if a significant number of customers were in the billiard parlor near midnight. He explained some of the calls to the Police were made by the appellant to expel patrons who were intoxicated or under age. He said the business has an excellent rapport with the Police Department. He said ABC regulations would allow him to stay open until 2:00 a.m. /—/T CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM BY: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner PR MEETING DATE: June 30, 1993 FILE NUMBER: A 17 -93 PROJECT ADDRESSES: 1717 & 1725 Santa Barbara Street SUBJECT: Appeal of Community Development Director's determination that adjacent properties need to be merged to enable further development of the two lots located on the west side of Santa Barbara Street, across the street from Railroad Square Park. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal and provide direction to staff on any desired modifications to Section 17.12.020 A. of the zoning regulations. BACKGROUND Situation On February 3, 1993, an application was received for an administrative use permit and architectural review (A 17 -93, ARC MI 17 -93) to allow the addition of a studio apartment to a nonconforming lot at 1725 Santa Barbara Street. This lot is currently developed with -a two- bedroom house. The use permit is needed to allow: 1.) further development of a nonconforming lot (lot size is 3,786 square feet where 6,000 square feet is required, lot width is an average of 39.64 feet where 60 -foot minimum width is required); 2.) a 0 -foot setback along the north property line; and 3.) a common driveway. On February 10, 1993, a second application was filed for the adjacent property at 1717 Santa Barbara Street. This request for architectural review (ARC MI 20 -93) involves the demolition of an existing apartment and the addition off a two- bedroom apartment at the rear of the site. The site is also nonconforming because of lot width (average width of 52.74 feet where 60 -foot minimum width is required) and is currently developed with four apartments in one building with another apartment in a building behind it. Staff met with the applicant and his representative several times to discuss project processing issues prior to sending the attached letter dated March 12, 1993. In that letter, the requirement for the merger of the two properties is called out. Section 17.12.020 A. of the zoning regulations states: "If a nonconforming lot has been held in common ownership with any contiguous property at any time since November 18, 1977, it may not be individually developed. The area within such a lot may be developed only after it has been merged with contiguous property, or otherwise resubdivided in conjunction with the contiguous property to create one or more conforming parcels or one parcel which more nearly conforms." /-020 Gallagher Project Page 2 Since the two properties are currently under common ownership, staff has told the applicant that he must merge the properties in order to proceed with his plans for further development of the two properties. An attached letter dated April 26, 1993 from Community Development Director Arnold Jonas reiterates the merger requirement and responds to a letter from the applicant dated April 15, 1993. During the public comment portion of the May 25, 1993 City Council meeting, the applicant presented the idea of modifying the language in the zoning regulations to allow for certain exceptions to the merger requirement. The Council instructed the applicant to appeal the Director's determination of the merger requirement to obtain official endorsement of staffs interpretation of the language in the zoning regulations. This process would also allow for the Commission and Council to focus on the particular section of the zoning regulations and provide direction on any changes to the regulations that may be warranted. The applicant's appeal was filed with the Community Development Director on June 4, 1993. Data Summary Address: 1717 & 1725 Santa Barbara Street Applicant /Property Owner: Devin Gallagher Representative: Tim Woodle, Steve Pults & Associates Zoning: R -3 -H, Medium - High - Density Residential with Historical Preservation Overlay General Plan: Medium - High - Density Residential Environmental Status: Categorically exempt Project Action Deadline: Application not yet certified complete. EVALUATION 1. Intent of Section 17.12.020 A. of the Zoning Regulations Section 17.12.020 A. is included in the Nonconforming Lots chapter of the zoning regulations. The intent of this chapter is to provide for the reasonable use of such nonconforming lots, consistent with other standards adopted to protect the public, health, safety and general welfare." The paragraphs included in the regulations section of the chapter specify standards and procedures which apply to nonconforming lots. The purpose of the requirement contained in Section 17.12.020 A. is to eliminate nonconforming lots when adjacent properties have been under common ownership at the time that further development is requested. Staff's research indicates that the nonconforming lot section of the zoning regulations has been modified on several occasions over the last twenty years. At least as far back as 1974, the zoning regulations have contained some language regarding special requirements for adjoining nonconforming properties under common ownership. /-021 Gallagher Project Page 3 In terms of changes to the section, the trend seems to have been to simplify the descriptions of situations where mergers apply. The earliest version of this section that was found, required resubdivision "into four or more conforming parcels ". The purpose was to avoid development of previously subdivided legal nonconforming lots that were part of large acreages under common ownership. The specific example of the old Terrace Hill tract was mentioned in the accompanying report. A 1977 version required the creation of 'two or more conforming parcels ", before the language was modified in 1982 to be generally consistent with the current requirements. 2. Applicant's Progosed Changes to Section 1712.020 A. of the Zoning Regulations The applicant does not want to merge the lots in order to pursue his plans for their further development. He cites financing problems and the desire to maintain two distinct properties because of the different periods in which they were developed as reasons. He and his representative have indicated that they agree with staff's interpretation of what the regulations currently say, but do not believe that merger of the lots in this case provides any public benefit (see attached letter from applicant dated 4- 15 -93). The applicant suggested that some type of exceptions to Section 17.12.020 A. be allowed under certain circumstances and presented additional language that might be added to the section (attached). If the Commission agrees that there are certain circumstances under which merger of contiguous nonconforming lots under common ownership would not be desirable, then staff is seeking direction on those specific situations. The applicant's wording provides a good start for discussion, but any new language in the regulations regarding exceptional circumstances that would warrant consideration of an exception would need to be very explicit and unambiguous. One idea would be to require the processing of a use permit in order to waive the merger requirement. Approval of the use permit would be dependent on a judgment of conformance with specific criteria and goals contained in the regulations. A criterion that might be used in judging the suitability of a merger would be the degree to which the nonconforming lots were already developed. Currently with its continued work on the update and overhaul of the zoning regulations, staff is looking at making changes to this section of the regulations. Staff has not yet formulated specific wording or ideas for changing the subject section; therefore, direction from the Commission and Council would be timely and useful. 3. Exceptions Associated with Proposed Further Development Staff has structured this report to keep the Commission keyed in to the merger issue and its relationship to the goal and purpose of the nonconforming lot regulations - what the regulations currently say and whether or not changes to the regulations are desirable. However, one of the incentives for merger, in the case of the proposed project, is that all of the exceptions being requested as part of the use permit application would no longer /-02a- Gallagher Project Page 4 be necessary (further development of a nonconforming lot, 0 -foot setback for the new building at 1725 Santa Barbara and a common driveway). The bottom line is that the use permit would still need to be approved if the lot line was maintained. Therefore, even if the regulations were modified to enable the waiver of the merger requirement, there is no guarantee that the project as submitted would be approved, given the number of exceptions requested. ALTERNATIVES The commission may deny the appeal indicating that the regulations should prevail as written. 2. The commission may deny the appeal indicating that the regulations should be modified (the Commission should provide direction on the changes that are desired). 3. The commission may approve the appeal. The Commission must stipulate why the applicant's situation is not subject to the merger provisions. Approval of the appeal would overturn the Director's determination and allow staff to continue to process project applications without requiring merger. 4. The commission also.has the option of continuing action on the appeal if they feel further information or analysis is necessary for them to render a decision. RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal and provide direction to staff on any desired modifications to Section 17.12.020 A. of the zoning regulations. Attached: vicinity map project site plan Chapter 17.12 of the zoning regulations, Nonconforming Lots Letter dated 3 -12 -93 from Pam Ricci to Devin Gallagher Letter dated 4 -26 -93 from Arnold Jonas Letter to Devin Gallagher Appeal letter received 6 -4 -93 Letter dated 4 -15 -93 from Devin Gallagher Applicant's suggested revisions to Section 17.12.020 A. of the zoning regulations / 023 ...T 'YL ' ^f1 1� V c «t k� VICINITY MAP �4L S ,c o ^ P F- Imo. ° _ � •. _ � , \`/ ` � •' :C tom•? O Q t� 3 r 0 .y 'A A"13•�= _ ,4II.2 �. •1i V � --1 � � � Iv ri y3 � T� A17 -93 SCALE 1 'f = 100 ` 'R O low 0 V a v \ I ` \ li z X-Ap v 1-10 •N P, m 1 C) -Z I 11 Fix "(L" U-� 11MV J'Lw Fix J'Lw Chapter 17.12 1035 - 1 Ex. A (part), 1987: Ord. 1006 - 1 (part), 1984: Ord. 931 - 1. (part), 1982: prior code - 9202.3([3)) NONCOti- FORMINC LOTS Sections: 17.12.010 Intent. 17.12.030 Regulations. 17.12.010 Intent. A lot having less area, width, depth or frontage than required by the subdivision regulations, as set forth in Title 16 of this code, for the zone in which it is located, but which was lawfully created prior to the effective date of regulations requiring such greater area or di- mension,shallbe considered a nonconforminglot. These regulations are intended to provide for the reasonable use of such nonconforming lots, consistent with other standards adopted to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. (Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code - 9202.3(A)) 17.12.030 Regulations. A. If a nonconforming lot has been held in common ownership with any contiguous property at any time since November 18, 1977, it may not be individually developed. The area within such a lot maybe developed only after it has been merged with contiguous property, or otherwise resubdivided in conjunction with the con- tiguous property to create one or more conforming parcels or one parcel which more nearly conforms. B. In an R -1 or R -2 zone, the merger or resubdivision requirement set forth in the first paragraph of this subsection shall not apply to a nonconforming lot and contiguous commonly owned property where each of the parcels hasan area. width, depth and frontage equal to at least eighty percent (807r.) of the minimum re- quired in the Subdivision Regulations (Title 16 of this code). C. if a nonconforming lot has not been held in common ownership with any contiguous property since Novem- ber 18, 1977, it may be individually developed. D. Development of a nonconforming lot shall require approval of an administrative use permit. E. Property development standards shall apply to non- conforming lots, except that the density standards shall not prevent construction of a single dwelling unit where otherwise permitted by this chapter (see Section 17.16.010, Density). (Ord. 1102 - I Ex. A(5), 1987: Ord. 18 / -fib p.:a'yi,4?li�'iP l:�,l: •: �ir':;I :•' i;'��.1,: ;ai::' March 12, 1993 city of sA--n- lugs o 990 Palm Street /Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 -8100 Tim Woodie Steve Pults & Associates 1401 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: Status of: Use Permit and Architectural Review Applications for 1725 Santa Barbara Street (A 17 -93, ARC MI 17 -93); and Architectural Review Application for 1717 Santa Barbara Street (ARC MI 20 -93) Dear Tim: I have reviewed your applications for the further development of two contiguous R -3 -H lots owned by Devin Gallagher at 1717 and 1725 Santa Barbara Street. As we have discussed on several occasions, the fact that the two nonconforming contiguous parcels have been under common ownership complicates the processing of plans for the proposed apartment additions. Section 17.12.020 A. of the zoning regulations states: "If a nonconforming lot has been held in common ownership with any contiguous property at any time since November IS, 1977, it may not be individually developed. The area within such a lot may be developed only after it has been merged with contiguous property, or otherwise resubdivided in conjunction with the contiguous property to create one or more conforming parcels or one parcel which more nearly conforms." The recommendation of Planning staff continues to be that the two properties should be merged through a lot combination. Merging the properties would be consistent with the zoning regulations section cited above and result in one conforming parcel, as well as eliminate the need for the use permit application for 1725 Santa Barbara Street (allow a 0 -foot side yard setback along the north property line, allow further development of a nonconforming lot and allow a common access driveway). �t The City of San Luis Obispo is commuted to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781.7410. /-a- 7 Tim Woodle Letter Gallagher Projects -- 1717 & 1725 Santa Barbara Street Page 2 I have discuused this matter with the City Attorney. He concludes that the cited regulations are legally defensible and that the refusal to merge parcels would render the parcels undevelopable. Therefore, beyond Planning staff's preference for a merger of the two properties to be more consistent with the zoning regulations, the City Attorney has said that the regulations prohibit further development without a merger. Please respond back to me by March 29, 1993 and let me know if you would like to withdraw the applications submitted or if you would like to proceed with a lot combination and architectural review of a plan incorporating both sites. With a merger of the two further development will parking spaces proposed. I outlines concerns with the of vehicles to back out of direction. properties, the two main issues with be density and accessibility of the memo from Bob Bishop is attached which proximity of buildings and the ability garages and exit the site in a forward My calculations indicate that the two sites combined would allow a maximum density of 4.17 equivalent density units. Proposed plans show a unit mix with a total equivalent density of 4.98. Proposed density actually exceeds existing density of 4.66. The composition of the unit mix proposed needs to conform with allowed density. With resolution of density questions and sub.:,ittal of a lot combination :nap, the following additional information needs to be submitted prior to final consideration of the project: 1. Colors and materials board; 2. Floor plans of the existing residences (existing and proposed); 3. Location and use of the nearest structures on adjacent properties on the site plan; 4. Project details including trash and recycling enclosure, lighting and fencing. When all of the above information is received and processing issues are resolved, the project will be certified complete. Certifying an application complete establishes a deadline for city processing. if you have any questions, please give me a call at 781 -7168. Tim Woodle Letter Gallagher Projects -- 1717 & 1725 Santa Barbara Street Page 3 Sincerely, /CCU Pam Ricci, Associate Planner cc: Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager 1-02 April 26, 1993 city of som*-%, Luis osispo 990 Palm Street /Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Gallagher Properties Attn: Devin Gallagher P.O. Box 1826 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Subject: 1717/1725 Santa Barbara Street A 17 -93, ARCMI 17 -93, & ARCMI 20 -93 Dear Mr. Gallagher: I have read you letter dated April 15, 1993 and discussed the ordinance requirements with staff. As I understand your situation, you propose further residential development on two adjoining parcels that are presently nonconforming. You correctly reference the City's nonconforming lot standards which require merger of contiguous substandard lots under common ownership proposed for further development. However, I do not agree that the City's nonconforming lot regulations are in conflict with the Subdivision Map Act. The Map Act's merger provisions apply to merger by "operation of law" (i.e. automatic merger of substandard lots without proper notification). The City's regulations differ from the Map Act regulations in that merger will be required only when you wish to develop either parcel. You point out in your letter that the lots are nonconforming only to lot size. However, upon review of the Assessor's parcel information, these lots are nonconforming due to the City's lot width standards as •ell. I agree with your assessment that these historic homes add to the character of the community. The structures are included on the City's listing of contributing properties and the lots are located within a historical preservation district. Preservation and enhancement of these structures will definitely contribute to the historic character of the neighborhood. However, I do not believe that combining the properties would have any effect on the individual historical characteristics of either of the structures. I do not agree with your assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of combining the properties. All of the items that you cite as a benefit for separate parcels (with the possible exception of promoting home ownership) could also occur if the properties were combined. In addition, I see that an added benefit of lot combination would be the elimination of the need for the administrative use permit that you have requested. The use permit was necessary to allow The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services. programs and activities. Telecommunica:ions Device for the Deaf (805) 781.7410. / VO Gallagher Properties April 21, 1993 Page 2 further development on a nonconforming lot, use of a common driveway to serve development, and a setback exception to allow a 0 -foot side yard. In addition, the lot combination would allow for you to develop additional housing on the property consistent with the City's density provisions. You indicate that "the last thing this City needs now is another rental housing project in an Old Town neighborhood." I am not sure the relevance of this statement to the merger issue especially since you are intending to construct additional housing units on these properties. In summary, the nonconforming lot regulations will require merger should you choose to develop the subject parcels. The merger is important in that it will eliminate substandard properties as well as allow you to construct your desired housing development without exceptions. There is currently no provision to allow me to waive the merger requirement as you suggest. Should you feel strongly that the current regulations are not flexible enough, you may wish to apply for a text amendment to modify the existing nonconforming lot regulations. I hope that the above information answers your questions. I would be happy to meet with you to discuss any additional questions that you may have. Si y, Arnold B. Jonas Community Development Director AJ /rw cc: Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney Pam Ricci, Associate Planner Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager i -3� �SrhiLLr36�' 1 1-3 P R O P E R T I E S Aiforciable Housin., • Historic Preservation • Real Estate tay.,:n::nc -:Id Uc'.clopmcnt Nlay 31, 1993 RECEIVED Mr. Arnold B. Jonas JUN 41493 Community Development Director City of San Luis Obispo cm OF SAN Luis OBISPO 990 Palm Street 00MwuNFr DEVELOPMENT San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Use Permit and Architectural Review Applications for 1725 Santa Barbara Street (a 17 -93, ARC MI 17 -93); and Architectural Review Application for 1717 Santa Barbara Street (ARC MI 20-93) Dear Mr. Jonas: I would like to formally appeal staffs determination that the properties at 1717 Santa Barbara Street and 1725 Santa Barbara Street shall be merged (pursuant Paragraph 17.12.020 of the Zoning Regulations) prior to any further development Sincerely ursy , allagher 0 oc Mayor Peg Pinard Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager Pam Ricci, Associate Planner Tim Woodle, AIA • �.... rr ...\- ..-n . - -- .. .... ru.- v.. -i... .... .• ... • •,u.�l. J• .. �V -V`.JJ •, \.1. V V -�. J�V -•JJ l V 3z. E IN 1 A. LLL SiUai LI n n n n r n r r r r Affordah;e M{ ua; • Nicroric Presrrv,rion • Rra! FC,I!r- iq�..,- -.. -.. April 15, 1993 Mr. Arnold B. Jonas Community Development DlreCLor City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Use Permit and Architectural Review Applications for 1725 Santa Barbara Street (a 17 -93, ARC III 17 -93); and Architectuai Review ,application for 1717 Santa Barbara Street (ARC MI 20 -93) Dear Mr. Jonas: I have reviewed Pam Ricci's letter of March 12 and meet with both Pam Ricci and the new Development Review Manager Ronald Whisenand. During our meetings we continue to stumble over an older zoning regulation (Paragraph 17.12.020) that reads as follows: "If a nonconforming lot has been held in common ownership with any contiguous property at any time since November 18, 1977, it may not be individually developed. The area within such a lot may be developed only after it has been merged with contiguous property, or otherwise resubdivided in conjunction with the contiguous property to create one or more conforming parcels or one parcel which more nearly conforms." It is clear that this regulation whether intentional or accidental, forces the merger of nonconforming lots and as such appears to supersede the Subdivision Map AcL Is it legally defensible? Yes, I believe it is, if alone by the shear cost of litigation. I am not interested in challenging the ordinance. I would, however, like to better understand what benefits the community derives from strict compliance with this ordinance over all others of equal importance. These lots are nonconforming only because they don't meet the current minimum lot size. Dimensionally they exceed the minimum standards. They were originally conforming lots but were resubdivided to make way for what is today a major arterial street When zoning regulations were enacted setting minimum standards (streei frontage, side yard and lot size) these two previously developed properties were listed as nonconforming lots with nonconforming structures. As time has passed, it became clear to the community leaders that these unusual properties lend character to the community. The cultural and historic character of the community is reflected, in part, by the existing properties and buildings that have survived through time. They create the streetscape that makes our community unique. The Santa Barbara Street and Osos Street corridor is an important street cape. It is essentially the equivalent of Santa Rosa StreeMghway 1 leading north out of downtown. It serves as a gateway into the downtown that sets the tone for the Old Town Historic District and the Downtown. Future planning moneys are expected to focus on improvement of the visual menagerie along the Santa Barbara/Osos Street gateway /corridor and promotion of reduced traffic speeds. I have considered and reconsidered the pro's and con's of forcing strict compliance with this regulation and have come up with the following: ,I i 1 SEEM 'b -:f3» hA. job -Uilo 33 n'S r ves s E��dd t -eV+5 -o -6w is 4, s -e,4L) CI .r15 -e,n+At hoots i r1 q Benefits of Combininsz Parcels Alto r%o ru- . - ;Y a,, e— xc,2p66n5 Creates one larger R -3 zoned lo[. Promotes rental housing. Benefits of Allowing Redevelopment as Separate Parcels Promotes home ownership. Reduces rental housing stock. Promotes preservation of historic structures within the Old Town Historic District. Provides for the rehabilitation of two historic supporting structures to become "a gift to the street" rather than an eyesore. Provides for the elimination of all overhead services (current overhead services are from a pole on Osos Street, across the park and across Santa Barbara Street) to two properties on the Santa Bazbara/Osos Street corridor. RedS Barb S P �1 of �'r)cSG e ben�if uces access points on anta ara treeL Go u �� Ce Q 5 Provides vehicle turning area for frontal egress on busy street with blind comer. Provides garbage enclosures where none existed. 6 Provides an improved driveway rather than dirt Provides off- street parking in addition to replacement of recently removed street parking. do k t eve C W t,-� a., 16 f The property at 1717 Santa Barbara Street appears to have been burl[ in the late 1800 s. Around 1906 it was apparently relocated to the site and converted to a boarding house for railroad workers. During the war it continued to be used as a boarding house. It subsequently fell into disrepair and was converted to six apartments serving as housing for heavy drug users and transients. Sometime around 1984 a fire destroyed the rear unit and garage. This building was never replaced. We purchased this property in June 1985. It was maintained, repaired and both the property and the tenants were slowly upgrading. Fencing was placed on the street frontage to eliminate the transient traffic to and from the property. The "Animal House" as it was known in the 70's and 80's was lifted and placed on a concrete foundation in 1990 to stabilize the continuing deterioration. The small house at 1725 Santa Barbara Street was built on the adjacent site around 1915 for an engineer of the Southern Pacific Railway and his family. It continued to be separately owned until sometime after 1965 when it was purchased by Marie Ram age. At sometime thereafter both properties came under joint ownership. 1735 Santa Barbara Street became a renters house and fell into disrepair. We purchased this property at the same time as 1717 Santa Barbara Street with the understanding that they were separate properties. As such we acquired separate loans. The property was occupied for Elie previous eight years by a couple who were growing illegal crops in the attic. Minimal repairs have been made to the building since 1985 with the exception of the roof and exterior paint. The building is now in a critical state of disrepair. In fact, no foundation exists under part of the house. The rear one car garage was demolished around 1989 and has not been replaced yet The cultural difference between these two structures is clear. They hail from two different eras of rime and were historically used by economically diverse walks of life. To toss them together into a housing project (PD or otherwise) negates the purpose of preserving cultural heritage and diversity. We take modern regulations and attempt to white wash the past. Will the white wash wear off enough that people will remember the past? The old will but the young will no[. Or is there some benefit in focusing attention on the uniqueness of the buildings and their uses? It makes young people ask "why" as does the unusual column across the street in the park. The City Council has expressed their view by directing staff towards preservation of cultural diversity particularly within the Old Town Historic District. Strict compliance with this one regulation over all others would also create a conflict with the City's Housing Element recommending the promotion of home ownership opportunities. "Pride of ownership" is an important combc / 3d1 aspect in the maintenance of a neighborhood particularly if the structure requires special attention as most historic buildings do. Casual observation of human nature shows that individual owners are more likely to take better care of older homes than absentee landlords. Frankly, it is my belief that the last thing this City needs now is another rental housing project in an Old Town neighborhood. Equally important are the issues of cost. Although staff does not like to consider the Pulancial constraints that limit property owners, they are a fact of life none the less. These adjacent projects were submitted to the City with staff input and represent a solution that gives the community the greatest number of total benefits. We have not attempted to exaggerate the number of dwelling units that exist or existed on the property based on floor configurations and previous ruses. We have tried to clearly and equitably present these projects based on the Zoning Regulations as a whole. It is our belief that by extensively rehabilitating these adjacent historic structures, we will end up with two adjacent properties that more nearly conform to all of the zoning regulations including those that govern nonconforming lots, nonconforming buildings, parking, egress, historic preservation and to the City's stated long term goals as detailed in the Housing and Circulation Elements. So the question remains unanswered "Does strict conformance with this one sub regulation over all other zoning regulations best serve the community needs ?" These projects are not on vacant land. They are in an older preexisting neighborhood heavily constrained by competing needs. The need for preservation of cultural resources, the need for affordable housing opportunities, the need to preserve agricultural open space and the needs of the citizens to live in a community where every home and planned development is not identical. It seems inappropriate to take one regulation out of context to the detriment of all other regulations. It would, however, create one more "more nearly conforming" land cookie from the cookie cutter. We respectfully request your consideration in allowing the redevelopment of these adjacent properties without combining the lots. I look forward to meeting with you and staff in the near future. Sincerely Yours, u Devin K. Gallagher x Pam Ricci, Associate Planner Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager Tim Woodle, ALA 3S ■ ■ q H H q1 P R O P E R T I H J Affordati:'c Hovsin., ?ECENSD - 5�25I93 c ts�tx t� M Cy CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ZONING REGULATION EXCERPT EXISTING LANGUAGE 17.12 Non Conforming Lots 1 7.1 2.020 A. If a nonconforming lot has been held in common ownership with any contiguous property at any time since November 18, 1977, it may not be individually developed. The area within such a lot may be developed only after it has been merged with contiguous property, or otherwise resubdivided in conjunction with the contiguous property to create one or more conforming parcels or one parcel which more nearly conforms. PROPOSED LANGUAGE REVISION 1 7.1 2.020 A. If a nonconforming lot has been held in common ownership with any contiguous property at any time since November 18, 1977, it may not be individually developed. The area within such a lot may be developed only after it has been merged with contiguous property, or otherwise resubdivided in conjunction with the contiguous property to create one or more conforming parcels or one parcel which more nearly conforms. Exceptions may be granted by the director for developed properties, properties which contain differing uses or zone designation, for properties containing historic structures designated as such by the City, or where special circumstances exist. Or,; .R.!14 A. N'. On; 5.: 5.n:10 /-,36