The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/19/1994, 3 - ARC 18-94: APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S (ARC'S) APPROVAL OF A FOUR-APARTMENT PROJECT ON THE NORTHERLY END OF RACHEL STREET. �u � ��IIIII�II��n=q�l�l► city of san a_ais oBispo MEETING DTE: COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director BY: Judith Lautner, -Associate Planner SUBJECT: ARC 18-94: Appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's (ARC's) approval of a four-apartment project on the northerly end of Rachel Street. CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution denying the appeal, and approve the project as revised, with elimination of the proposed lith parking space. DISCUSSION Background The City Council first reviewed this appeal on May 24, 1994, and continued it for 60 days, with direction to the applicant. The plans have been revised and the applicant is now seeking denial of the appeal and approval of revised plans. EVALUATION 1. The project is now in two buildings. The revised plans show two buildings, each containing two one-bedroom apartments. The size of each of the units has been reduced 160 to 194 square feet, to 682 and 715 SF each. The lofts have been removed. The buildings are lower down the hill, located no closer than 40' from the rear lot line. 2. The Council preferred two two-bedroom units. The City Council continued the project on May 24, with direction to the applicant to "work with staff on alternatives to the proposed project in light of comments tonight with respect to density and neighborhood issues, with suggestion that the two downhill units retain lofts and be called two-bedroom units with upper portion of the site left protected. Jurisdiction on this item to remain with Council" (see minutes, attached) . The Council's preference was for the project to include two two- bedroom units rather than four one-bedroom units, which would mean a density reduction of 0.64 unit. The applicant has tenants for one-bedroom apartments, and therefore prefers this configuration. Understanding that the chief concerns voiced by councilmembers were the inclusion of the lofts and the location of the upper units, the applicant has eliminated the lofts and moved the upper units downhill. Together with the decrease in size, these changes should address Council concerns, while still allowing the applicant the full density allowed in this zone. 3. Height of buildings. One neighbor concern was with the height of the buildings. The height has been increased somewhat over the previous design, because of a wish to minimize the use of retaining walls, but the absolute height above sea level is decreased by about J ��►►��IIIII��I� llUlll MY of san tuts OBISPO Mii% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ARC 18-94 2006 Rachel Street Page 2 2.5 feet (The highest point of the previous design was 3341 , while the revised building is no higher than 331. 51 ) . 4. The driveway. The parking and driveway standards say that lots with more than six spaces but fewer than 20, with a two-way driveway, require a minimum driveway width of 16' . The plans show a 12' driveway. Exceptions to parking and driveway standards are granted by the Community Development Director, or, by extension, any approving body. The Architectural Review Commission approved an exception in this case, during its review of the original project, to save the existing tree on the south side of the entrance, and to limit the total amount of paving on the site. One Councilmember has stated a concern with the narrow driveway, and suggested that it be widened beyond the tree. The applicant is willing to make this change, if so directed by the Council. 5. And the parking spaces. Some members of the public expressed concern about the impacts on parking that the project may have. The revised plans show the addition of an 11th space, to address this concern. A tree will have to be relocated to allow creation of this space. Staff feels the extra space is not needed in this case, and does not support its inclusion. It increases the amount of paving, making a less attractive project, and requires removal of a green space between parking spaces. 6. An alternative design. The representative has also prepared preliminary plans for a four-unit project in four separate buildings, that differs from the original in the elimination of lofts. Plans for these revisions will be available at the meeting, if the Council is interested. Staff finds this revision less bulky and therefore more attractive than the two-building version, and supports approval of either revision. ALTERNATIVES The Council may approve the appeal, thereby denying the project. Findings for denial must be made. State law requires that any action requiring the reduction of allowed density on a site must be justified by real health and safety reasons. The project may be denied because of design concerns, if those concerns cannot be mitigated by further changes to the project. It is inappropriate to make findings that are so encompassing that they would effectively preclude any additional development on the site, however. The Council may deny the appeal, thereby approving the project, with modifications to the design other than those submitted. J ��► I�IIIII�II�I��U111 city of san LUIS OBISpo WsZe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ARC 18-94 2006 Rachel Street Page 3 The Council may direct the applicant to return to the ARC with a favorable recommendation on the revised plans. The Council may continue action. Direction should be given to staff, the applicant, and appellant. Attached• Resolutions Vicinity map CC Staff report- May 24 Minutes - April 4 ARC meeting Appeal letter Environmental initial study Minutes - May 24 CC meeting In Packet: Revised Plans �'J RESOLUTION NO. (1994 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION, THEREBY APPROVING THE ADDITION OF FOUR APARTMENTS - TO A LOT CONTAINING TWO DWELLINGS, AT THE NORTH END OF RACHEL STREET (ARC 18-94) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration of public testimony, the applicant's request for approval of four apartments (ARC 18-94), the appellants' statements, the Architectural Review Commission's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed project will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 2. An initial study of environmental impacts was prepared by the Community Development Department on September 12, 1990, that describes significant environmental impacts associated with project development. The Community Development Director has reviewed the environmental initial study and granted a Negative Declaration of environmental impact, with mitigation. The initial study concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, subject to the mitigation measure being incorporated into the project, and the City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration and finds that it reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. SECTION 2. Anneal denied. The appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action is hereby denied, and the Architectural Review Commission's action approving the design is upheld, subject to all conditions as required by the Architectural Review Commission. On motion of seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _ day of 1994. J -,1! Resolution No. (1994 Series) ARC 18-94: 2006 Rachel Street Page 2 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: /111111t Attq ey J-5 �e RESOLUTION NO. (1994 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION, THEREBY DENYING APPROVAL OF FOUR APARTMENTS ON THE NORTH END OF RACHEL STREET (ARC 18-94) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration of public testimony, the applicant's and appellants' statements, and the Architectural Review Commission's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed apartment project design will be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons in the vicinity because (COUNCIL STATE REASONS). SECTION 2. The appeal is hereby approved and the proposed apartment design is denied. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 1994. .3'G Resolution No. (1994 Series) ARC 18-94: 2006 Rachel Street Page 2 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: *tt ey 06 _ �: eS} -2 R Ell E E Ate, R_2—Si,. C/ w Isss R —.2 ta S% Ln c J-13-L J % N. RACHEL COUR So -fo7 r Cp ..'a R—2—S \C—S 92Z -me FLORENCE . ov. I- - S 0.0-0 0-0 o" 01 ioc 05. SIMI C- S R-2—S LQ MEN j ft o Ul ROURiFe"M1711 too fees L see2— See Fn MEETING DATE: N{i'l�ull �q city of San Luis OBlspo ITEM NUMBER: COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT FROM: Arnold Jonas,/-¢ommunity Development Director �o BY: Judith Lautnef, ssociate Planner j SUBJECT: ARC 18-94`� Appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's approval of a four-apartment project on the northerly end of I Rachel Street. I CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution denying the appeal, thereby approving the project as j approved by the Architectural Review Commission. I DISCUSSION Background The applicant wants to add four apartments to the rear of a large lot that currently contains two small residences. A virtually identical project was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) in 1990. The approval expired, and the property was sold. The new owner wants to build what was originally approved. Therefore, similar I plans were submitted and because of the previous review, approved at the staff level (as "minor or incidental") . Two neighbors appealed that approval. See the attached ARC report for further description of the project and an analysis of the first appeal. The ARC heard the appeal on April 4, 1994, and denied it, thereby approving the apartment project. Another neighbor appealed the ARC's decision. Appeals of ARC actions are heard by the City Council. ARC Action The ARC, on a 4-2 vote (Combrink and Regier voted no, Farrell abstained) granted final approval to the project, with direction to return to the Commission with a variety of paving materials and colors, additional bicycle parking, and modifications to materials and details to achieve a "cottage feel" . Commissioners voting no were concerned about the lofts included in the project, and wanted to see them removed or the space relocated to a lower level. Approving commissioners felt it would be a good project, but wanted to see more differentiation between buildings and detailing that would give the buildings more of a "cottage appearance". Appellant's concerns The appellant, Pete Evans, noted on his appeal that "details of approval unclear and appropriateness of project still in question. " In addition to this brief objection, Mr. Evans submitted a letter at the ARC meeting outlining his concerns. The letter and Mr. Evans' testimony focussed on the following concerns: * Process. The project was taken in as a "minor or incidental" application because it is virtually identical to a project approved City of san Luis omspo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ARC 18-94 I 2006 Rachel Street Page 2 I a few years ago. The former approval expired. Mr. Evans felt the minor or incidental process did not allow for sufficient public access. Staff notes that the public had ample access to the previous project, and that circumstances have not changed substantially since that time. Contrary to Mr. Evans' contention, mailed notices were sent this time as well. * Slope of lot. Mr. Evans feels the average slope of the lot has not I been calculated accurately. Staff has calculated the slope several times, using an accurate survey and approved "weighted averages" calculation methods. The calculation was reviewed by Engineering staff and determined to be accurate. * Environmental impacts. Mr. Evans disagrees with the determination that the project will have no significant impacts on the environment. He questions how the trees that had previously been removed will be replaced, and comments that these buildings will be too tall. Virtually any project on this site will have identical impacts on the environment. Rachel Street is not a heavily-travelled street, nor will it become one with the addition of four small apartments. Tree replacements are a part of the new development plans. The approximate 22' height of these buildings is well below the 35' maximum normally allowed in this zone. The buildings are not expected to have a significant impact on views of Terrace Hill. * Zoning. The crux of Mr. Evans' arguments seems to be his objection to the R-2 zoning in this area. This zoning designation was placed on this area several years ago. Possible impacts from expected further development were evaluated as a part of the review of that zoning change. If the City Council feels that the zoning is now inappropriate, then it may initiate a zoning map amendment for the vicinity. Mr. Evans is free to apply for such a change himself. At this time, however, it is inappropriate to deny a project that conforms with the zoning, unless the project is inconsistent with architectural guidelines and and cannot be modified to be consistent. Density is not an architectural issue. Further, state law requires that if the density of a project is required to be reduced from what is allowed, specific health and safety findings must be made. It is unlikely that such findings could be made in this case. * "Details of approval unclear. " Mr. Evans apparently did not understand the ARC action. The action was to approve the project in substantially the same form as is before you. Modifications to paving, colors, additional bicycle parking, and modifications to J-/0 city of San Luis OBlspo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ARC 18-94 j 2006 Rachel Street Page 3 I materials and details are required to return to the ARC on a . future agenda. In other words, the basic design has been approved, but details that should enhance the project still need to be submitted. j ALTERNATIVES The Council may approve the appeal, thereby denying the project. Findings for denial must be made. The Council may deny the appeal, thereby approving the project, with modifications to the design not required by the ARC. The Council may continue action. Direction should be given to staff, the applicant, and appellant. Attached: Resolutions Vicinity map ARC staff report Minutes - April 4 ARC meeting Appeal letter Written comments from Appellant Environmental initial study In Packet• Plans i 3-/ ARC Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 3 2. ARC 18-94: 2006 Rachel Street. An appeal of the Community Development Director's action approving a four-unit apartment complex; R-2 zone; Kathy Dang, applicant, Anker Molver & Georgia Sanford, appellants. Commr. Farrell stepped down because of a conflict of interest. Judy Lautner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that the commission deny the appeal and grant final approval as submitted or with conditions. Chuck Crotser, architect, discussed the previous review. He noted that the lofts had been an issue previously and said he had reduced the size and height even further from the plans that were in the packet. The lofts are 220-230 square feet and the overall height of the building is about 20'. Kathy Dang, applicant, said that she liked the site. She said her brother lives in the house and she wants her family to live there also. She talked to the neighbors and many of.them don't have any objection to the project. She said she believes the design will be attractive to couples. Georgia Sanford, 2027 Swazey Street, explained that she is concerned about the view of Terrace Hill and the height of the lofts. She wondered if it would be possible to provide the space elsewhere, maybe a basement instead of increasing the building height to accommodate the lofts. She was concerned about noise and exhaust from increased traffic, and thought a solid wood fence and foliage around the property might help. She said she is not opposed'to more units, although she prefers earth-sheltered homes. She felt that some increase in density is better than spreading out over agricultural land. Dave Fosse, 2056 Rachel, said that the project was well-conceived and had been approved once. He felt the owners are quality people and bought the property with the understanding that they could do this project. It seems unreasonable to him that the property owners should have to go through this process again. He said the opposition does what they want with their property but oppose what other people want to do. Pete Evans, 2040 Rachel, submitted a letter in opposition and said that it contained "facts and emotional outbursts." He said the neighborhood suffered from previous development attempts. He was glad to hear that Kathy Dang planned to live there. He stated that it was almost luck that anyone heard about this project. He noted that it was difficult to get final ARC approval the first time. He reiterated some concerns from his letter. He said there is a serious question about accuracy of the slope calculations since the slope of nearby property is higher. He preferred a height limit above street level to 3-/c; - ARC Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 4 prevent obstruction of viewscape of the hill. He noted that there are many evergreens proposed but two proposed deciduous trees in back could perhaps be changed to evergreens. According to a previous staff report a number of trees were removed. He wondered if they had been replaced. He pointed out that the size of the units is larger than other one bedroom units in the area. The neighborhood contains basically single homes that are all different. He prefers the units to be different from each other and feels they are incompatible with the surroundings. George Chans, 434 Swazey, said he lives with his grandfather and they do not oppose the project. He agreed with what David said and some of what Pete said. It is an older neighborhood and he prefers the older homes, although he would like to reconstruct his house to look nicer. He felt the development is okay. Anker Molver, 2022 Rachel, said he has lived there for two years and likes the older neighborhood. It has been a quiet street because it is a dead-end street. He has made improvements and changes to his property, and although he did expect some additional units at 2006 Rachel, he never thought there would be six units. When the street abandonment took place it added land to the site. According to the plans, he thinks it looks like more than 60% coverage of the property. He expressed concerns about the slope. Also, he asked about the trees. He considered the lofts to be rooms that will be used for additional bedrooms. He thought the parking spaces adequate in number but difficult to maneuver. He expressed concern that people would fill the garage with other things and park their cars outside. He thought the buildings would stagger up the hill and be visually prominent. He would like to see the colors muted. Commr. Combrink agreed with the previous staff report about removal of the lofts. He felts they cause problems with scale and compatibility in the neighborhood. The neighbors have a feeling for what is happening. The building could be lowered since there is plenty of room downstairs. He felt it is right on the edge of density limits. He thought it is important to reduce the height and noted that since it is on a steep slope there is not a lot of useable open space. Commr. Joines agreed with Commr. Combrink that several points add up to an issue. She thought it would be nice to have four true cottages that were small, contained units. It could be unique. She felt that one color choice makes the development look larger. She suggested using more variety in colors and perhaps use natural siding that will weather. She was concerned about the amount of paving and would like to see some variety, maybe turfstone to allow some greenery. She said ten spaces seems like a lot of parking. She wondered how visible these units would be from town. Commr. Aiken said he considered the neighbors concerns. He respected their input but was not completely sympathetic. He had seen similar projects that blend well in the site. .3-/3 ARC Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 5 He cited the Binns Court-Ella Street project as a good example. Those units are more cottage-alike, but each one does have a loft. The project was recognized by the Obispo Beautiful Association. He felt it is an appropriate use and liked the project as is. He also wanted to see variety in the paving. Commr. Mandeville said she felt it was hard to change radically what the previous commission approved. She recommended approval as submitted. Commr. Regier recognized concern about the quality of the neighborhood. He preferred to see the lofts eliminated and would also like to see the units more cottage-like. He agreed that there should be .some variety in paving. He asked if a wall or fence or bike racks had been proposed. Commr. Illingworth said he had voted for the project the first time and he still supports it. He wanted to see the colors varied and some variety in the paving. Kathy Dang commented on the parking. Her brother and his wife park right in front of the property. She stated the studio is too small for her. Her boyfriend's grand piano won't even fit in the living room. Chuck Crotser said a six-foot high wood fence has been proposed along the southerly side. They would like to leave the other sides open so there is more of a natural blending into the hill. He felt they could provide bicycle racks although tenants usually prefer to put their bikes near their units. He thought the porch area could be enlarged to accommodate tenant bicycles and perhaps but a bike rack for guests near the trash enclosure. He thought the comments on colors and paving were good. He liked variety himself, and said, unit A is duplicated and unit B is also duplicated. They are detached, skewed on different angles and he thinks they will look different. The lofts have gone from 29' high down to 20' in height. He felt it is a good scale. He asked if there is a need to redesign the project, would the commission consider a single or two-building project over what they have presented? Commr. Combrink moved to continue action on the project with direction to: 1) reduce the height of the buildings by removing the lofts, 2) provide a variety of paving materials in the parking area, 3) provide at least one inverted U-rack for bicycle parking at the entrance to the four units, 4) vary the colors. Commr. Joines seconded the motion. . Commr. Joines suggested an amendment that the recommendation to remove the lofts. be withdrawn. ARC Minutes April 4, 1994 Page 6 The amendment was denied. The original motion was brought back. Chuck Crotser asked that if the recommendation were to remove the lofts that the project not be continued. He would like to see an approval or denial so they could move forward. It would be a major redesign to eliminate the lofts. AYES: Combrink, Regier NOES: Aiken, Mandeville, Joines, Illingworth ABSENT: Farrell The motion failed. Comrnr. Joines felt the commission should work with the applicant on the loft issue. Commr. Mandeville moved to deny the appeal and grant final approval with direction to return to staff with the following: 1) variety in the paving, 2) additional bike parking, 3) variety in color; and to consider modifying materials and details to achieve a "cottage feel". Commr. Aiken seconded the motion. AYES: Mandeville, Aiken, Illingworth NOES: Combrink, Joines, Regier ABSENT: Farrell The motion fails. Commr. Joines wanted to give Chuck Crotser leeway in changing design elements. Commr. Mandeville moved for final approval to return to the commission with variety in paving materials and colors, additional bicycle parking, and modifications to materials and details to achieve a "cottage feel". Commr. Aiken seconded the motion. AYES: Mandeville, Aiken, Joines, Illingworth NOES: Combrink, Regier ABSENT: Farrell The motion passed. 3. ARC 127-93: 147 Los Cerros. A request for review of landscaping plans for a new house on a sensitive site; R-1-PD zone; Burt & Virginia Polin, applicants. city OSAn tuis OBISPO 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code,the undersigned herebyappeals from the decision of A'ep rendered on —414124 which decision consisted of the following (La. set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal. Use additional sheets as needed): Pip ro v4 006 ;t�a 4 '. ZD-eTa,`s o F oe ay�o 1-0Va/ a�,pro �o►^��enPss Qf IpRo1 L st ii ,N lzleS77o11, .. ...,. RECEIVE_ APR 1 31994 MY OF SAN LUIS OBISPC CM'MUNITY OEVELOP&,, The undersigned discussed the.decislon being appealed with: Gl on T/ F F DATE &TIME APP L RECEIVFn- Appellant: Pe7e ✓,�.I/s Namefritle IRECEIVIEiD Representate APR 1 2 1994 ares CITYrLERK - I 59�.�g'S3 Phone /0-$SR•A( . Original to City Clerk Calendared for. �Ij�-9' py tto Administrative Officer Coto thelfollowing department(s): ax o.✓.4S 67 D city of San tins OBISpo INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITE LOCATION 2006 Rachel APPLICATION NO. 28-90 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Addition of four one-bedroom detached apartments to a lot containing a two-bedroom apartment and a studio apartment, on Rachel Street, at the intersection with Jennifer. APPLICANT Al Michels STAFF RECOMMENDATION: X NEGATIVE DECLARATION X MITIGATION INCLUDED EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED PREPARED BY Judith Lautner, Associate Planner DATPeppttember 7, 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTT N: DATE h+mwzD �V=of' a� SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING II.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ................................................... NONE B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.......................................... NONE C. LAND USE ....................................................................... NONE D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............................................. E. PUBLIC SERVICES .................. NONE F. UTILITIES........................................................................ • G. NOISE LEVELS ............... ...................... NONE H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .................... NONE* L AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS............................................... NONE J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY .............................................. NONE* K PLANT LIFE......................: ............... NONE L ANIMALLIFE..................................................................... NONE M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL .................................................... NONE* N. AESTHETIC ...................................................................... NONE 0. ENERGYIRESOURCE USE ........................................................... NONE P. OTHER .......................................................................... NONE U1.STAFF RECOMMENDATION NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WITH MITIGATION 'SEE ATTACHED REPORT 58-85 3-/I ER 28-90 2006 Rachel Street DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project is the construction of four one-bedroom apartments at the rear of a lot containing one 2-bedroom apartment and one studio apartment.. The lot is on the lower slopes of Terrace Hill, is rectangular, and is 0.35 acres in area. A five-foot-wide pedestrian easement exists along the northerly property line, half of a ten-foot-wide easement that allows public access to Terrace Hill. The site slopes upward from the street at about 15%. Six trees exist on the lot: five bottlebrush, and one California pepper. This side of Rachel contains primarily single-family homes. The surrounding area contains single homes and apartments. POTENTIAL IMPACTS Transportation and Circulation The project will generate an average of 26 trips per day, or a high of 37 trips per day, according to estimates obtained from data by the Institute of Traffic Engineers. Peak hour evening traffic generation is expected to be from 3 to 4 trips. Traffic counts taken during May 1989, supplemented with estimates of traffic generated by the construction of 24 condominiums on Terrace Hill and proposed construction of 19 condominiums on Florence ("Fairview Station") result in an estimate of 431 trips per day on Rachel Street. The project would add up to 37 trips per day, for a total of 468 trips per day. According to criteria established by the Urban Land Institute, this volume of traffic is within the range expected for local streets. The additional 37 trips that could be generated by the project are expected to be noticeable to residents, but will not cause the street to be "traffic-dominated" . Conclusion: Not significant. Utilities Water: The city is currently in a drought situation, and has adopted an ordinance to control water use, both in existing projects and in new development. The ordinance ensures that no projects are built that worsen the load on the city's water supply. The regulations will also limit issuance of building permits after the drought period is passed, and are expected to mitigate water-use impacts 1_0 ER 28-90 2006 Rachel Street Page 2 at that time. The project will not, therefore, have any significant negative impact on the city's water supply. Conclusion: Not significant. Geologic and Seismic Hazards and Topographic Modifications The site slopes upward from the street, at about 15%. The grading regulations say that the topography of a site proposed for development shall remain substantially in its natural state. To meet this requirement, on a site with an average cross slope of 15%, 40% of the site, exclusive of building area, is to remain in its natural state. The plan does not appear to meet this requirement. Conclusion: May be significant. Mitigation measure: 1. The grading plan shall be redesigned to meet the 40% criteria, or an exception must be granted by the City Council. Plant life Five trees previously existed 'on the site, in a row to the north of the two-bedroom dwelling. Three of these trees have been removed, and two others may have to be removed to allow construction of the project. Trees may be removed if approved by the City Arborist and Architectural Review Commission. Notification is required for these tree removals, and replacement trees are normally required. Conclusion: Not significant. Current tree regulations are adequate to address impacts from tree removals. Aesthetic The homes will form the edge of development against the hillside. As such, they will be visible to persons viewing Terrace Hill from several parts of town. The city's general plan sets standards for hillside lots to assure that the buildings do not block views or draw attention to themselves. These standards include stepping foundations up the hillside and using colors and materials that are compatible with natural hillside materials. For one-bedroom apartments, the buildings are large, over 800 square feet, and tall, reaching 29 ' from the garage level to the J-/q ER 28-90 2006 Rachel Street Page 3 upper roof line. Materials include half-scored concrete block for the garage and foundations, horizontal hardboard siding, and cedar shingles. The materials can be finished to blend into the hillside. However, the height and size should be diminished as much as possible. It appears that the lower levels can be dug into the hillside more than they are, and the loft areas can be removed. The apartments are subject to review by the Architectural Review Commission, which is charged with assuring that buildings adhere to hillside standards. That commission has reviewed the project once, and has addressed esthetic concerns by asking that the lofts be removed, the windows simplified, and the homes be set into the hillside more, if possible. Conclusion: Not significant. Architectural review should assure that esthetic concerns are addressed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Grant a negative declaration of environmental impact, with the following: Mitigation measure: 1. The grading plan shall be redesigned to meet the 40% criteria, or an exception must be granted by the City Council. City Council Meeting Page 5 Tuesday, May 24, 1994 - 7:00 P.M. 3. APPEAL - 2006 RACHEL STREET (File No. 407) Council considered an appeal by Pete Evans of an Architectural Review Commission action to approve a four-apartment project at 2006 Rachel Street; Kathy Dang, applicant. Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director, reviewed the agenda report. Woody Combrink, ARC Co-Chair, said although the ARC approved the project, there was some concern regarding the lofts. Frank Randise,2000 Rachel Street,approved of the project because it will provide affordable housing. Pete Evans, Rachel Street, appellant, said the proposed apartment project would be imposing on the neighborhood and was concerned with zoning and appropriateness of use. Kathy Dang, applicant, said she wanted to continue with the project and gave the addresses of property owners who support her development. Chuck Crotser, the applicant's architect, said the project was well within the zoning regulations and urged Council to support the project. Anker Molver. 2022 Rachel, expressed his opposition to the project. Lucinda Nichols, 1901 Henry, said the neighborhood was very much opposed to the project. George Chanz, 2034 Swazey, communicated his concerns about growth in San Luis Obispo but was not opposed to the proposed project. Mayor Pinard closed the public hearing. The Council debated the issue of the lofts and other rooms that might be converted to bedrooms and exceed zoning density. City Attorney Jorgensen told Council that the project was consistent with the R-2 zoning and general plan for R-2 neighborhoods. Chuck Crotser, the architect, asked Council for clarification of what the options are in providing lofts in R-2 projects. Pete Evans, the appellant, said that lofts were not the point, but that the project was not compatible with the neighborhood. Woody Combrink, Vice Chair of the Architectural Review Commission, said the commission needed some direction on how to handle the issue of extra rooms and lofts until the policy is more clearly defined. Chuck Crotser suggested that he could eliminate one or more lofts and work with the ARC on what they would feel comfortable with as a compromise. -cot/ City Council Meeting Page 6 Tuesday, May 24, 1994 - 7:00 P.M. Moved by Romero/Roalman to continue the appeal for a period of 60 days and direct applicant to work with staff on alternatives to the proposed project in light of comments tonight with respect to density and neighborhood issues,with suggestion that the two downhill units retain lofts and be called two-bedroom units with upper portion of the site left protected. Jurisdiction on this item to remain With Council; motion carried (4-1; Council Member Rappa voting no). 4. APPEAL - 109 DEL SUR (File No. 407) Assistant City Clerk Kim Condon told Council that Item No. 4 on tonight's agenda, a public hearing to appeal a use permit for a second dwelling at 109 Del Sur Way, had been withdrawn by the appellant. Moved by Settle/Romero to accept withdrawal; motion carried (5-0). 5. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT (File No. 463) A public hearing was scheduled to consider amendment to the Zoning Regulations to simplify processing, add and change definitions, clarify wording and format, and make minor changes to development standards. (Continued from 4/11/94.) Moved by Romero/Settle to continue this item to Tuesday, May 31, 1994; motion carried (5-0). 6. BANNER POLICY (File No. 805) A public hearing was scheduled to consider revising the banner policy to eliminate all banners at Mission Plaza,provide a broader definition of events and limit banners to the announcement of events only. (Continued from 4/19/94.) Moved by Romero/Settle to continue this item to Tuesday, May 31, 1994; motion carried (5-0). 7. ORCUTT ROAD SETBACK LINE AMENDMENT (File No. 537) A public hearing was scheduled to consider adopting a revised setback line for Orcutt Road, between Broad Street and the SPRR, and limiting vehicular access to two locations on the south side of Orcutt Road, between Broad Street and the SPRR. (Continued from 4/19/94.) Moved Romero/Settle by to continue this item to Tuesday, May 31, 1994; motion carried (5-0). 8. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (File No. 537) A. CITYWIDE NEIGHBORHOOD STRATEGY/AUGUSTA STREET PEDESTRIAN SAFETY Council considered pedestrian safety devises on Augusta Street near Sinsheimer Elementary School. Mike McCluskey, Public Works Director explained'the need to adopt a strategy for neighborhood traffic management planning and how the need for pedestrian crossing facilities on August Street had been brought to staff's attention by the Sinsheimer School. Mayor Pinard asked for comments from the public. MEETING AGENDA DATE ITEM #i CITY CLERK MEMORANDUM _ yyy ` t$ "' 'T<' `` ::::::`:':::::2:{ i'``? ''' 3<%f" ...:. ... ...... : ..:.. . July 14, 1994 TO: City Council FROM: Kim Condon, Assistant City Clerk VIA: Diane Gladwell, City Clerk SUBJECT: Minutes for Item #3, 7/19/94 The minutes for the May 24th meeting were adopted by Council in their corrected form, and a draft version has been inadvertently quoted in the staff report. The corrected motion by Council Member Romero that the Council formally adopted reads: "To continue the appeal for a period of 60 days and direct applicant to work with staff to deal with issues brought before the Council tonight." :klc F ❑ CDD DIR❑ FlN DIR ❑ FIRE CHIEF ❑ PW DIR ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ REC DIR ❑ UTIL DIR 13 PERS DIR City Council Meeting Page 6 Tuesday, May 24, 1994-7:00 P.M. Moved by Romero/Roalman to continue the appeal for a period of 60 days and direct applicant to work with staff to deal with issues brought before the Council tonight; motion carried (4-1; Council Member Rappa voting no). 4. APPEAL- 109 DEL SUR (File No. 407) Assistant City Clerk Kim Condon told Council that Item No. 4 on tonight's agenda, a public hearing to appeal a use permit for a second dwelling at 109 Del Sur Way, had been withdrawn by the appellant. Moved by Settle/Romero to accept withdrawal; motion carried (5-0). 5. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT (File No. 463) A public hearing was scheduled to consider amendment to the Zoning Regulations to simplify processing, add and change definitions, clarify wording and format, and make minor changes to development standards. (Continued from 4/11/94.) Moved by Romero/Settle to continue this item to Tuesday, May 31, 1994; motion carried (5-0). 6. BANNER POLICY (File No. 805) A public hearing was scheduled to consider revising the banner policy to eliminate all banners at Mission Plaza,provide a broader definition of events and limit banners to the announcement of events only. (Continued from 4/19/94.) Moved by Romero/Settle to continue this item to Tuesday, May 31, 1994; motion carried (5-0). 7. ORCUTT ROAD SETBACK LINE AMENDMENT (File No. 537) A public hearing was scheduled to consider adopting a revised setback line for Orcutt Road, between Broad Street and the SPRR,and limiting vehicular access to two locations on the south side of Orcutt Road, between Broad Street and the SPRR. (Continued from 4/19/94.) Moved Romero/Settle by to continue this item to Tuesday, May 31, 1994; motion carried (5-0). S. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (File No. 537) A. CITYWIDE NEIGHBORHOOD STRATEGY/AUGUSTA STREET PEDESTRIAN SAFETY Council considered pedestrian safety devises on Augusta Street near Sinsheimer Elementary School. Mike McCluskey, Public Works Director explained the need to adopt a strategy for neighborhood traffic management planning and how the need for pedestrian crossing facilities on August Street had been brought to staffs attention by the Sinsheimer School. Mayor Pinard asked for comments from the public. - ErCDD DIR • MEETIN, AGENDA _;'CAO ❑ FIN DIR DATE yl - 9 ITEM # CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF EtTTORNEY ❑ PW DIR July 17, 1994 CLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF 1 ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR Regarding Rachel Street A artments ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR fro�Pete Evans, appellant .� ❑ PERS DIR - Dear Council Member, Your May 24, 1994 Council Agenda Report (page 2) states the applicant has the right to build additional dwelling units, provided they "meet the City requirements." Based on criteria in the General Plan (pages 13, 14 and 25, included) and the Draft LUE (pages 23,24,25 and 30, included) I feel the scope of the project does not meet the city requirements. One of the many conflicts here is population density. The General Plan (pg. I4, C.21) suggests a density of approximately 25 peoplelacre for R2. This site is about 1/3 acre-if we allow for 27 people that yields nine people to inhabit this site. There are now seven, soon to be eight. Will you allow only one more person to occupy all the other units? As proposed we could easily have about 17 people living on site, only one less than for the highest density, R4. And that is without the lofts. The petitions and letters submitted to you nearly two months ago should give you a clear indication of the similarities between our concerns and those of the residents on Del Sur. Since we are soon to be a major pedestrian and bicycling artery I would think our traffic.situation a significant concern. It is felt you would have sustained the position of the residents of Del Sur against just one house there, yet our neighborhood is bearing the brunt of numerous developments. I enclose pages 4-4, 4-5 of the Council Agenda Report on that item to you for your review. You can see that the cumulative impact and precedent setting nature of altering the ambiance of a neighborhood is significant. The September, 1990 Council Agenda Report to you concerning a subdivision about 200 feet from this site included the statement, `would allow the possibility of future development of small to medium houses consistent with the neighborhood's character". I include a copy for your review. Once again, I submit that apartments are in violation of the GP, LUE and the above comment. However, if we must have them I feel they should be fewer and sitdd lower (elevation wise), with a height reduction to reflect concerns of privacy and viewscape. You have more than adequate grounds to make findings to reduce density-the regs offer 7-12 units per acre, not just 12. And of course the density formulas are very liberal, not really counting the actual units accurately. The slope and density are at maximum, in fact if the slope was 1 % more the density would have to drop by one halts Whatever you do, please refer this back to the ARC to assure minimum conflicts with the neighborhood. The ARC did encourage some mitigating features before, like variable paving and colors, is that still in effect? All in all, I feel a small to medium sized home would be much more appropriate to this site, allowing the applicant faiCand reasonable use of the land without disrupting the neighborhood too much-and it could be done legally without ignoring all the regulations. IVB' JUL 1a 1994 jet'.-00 A.W1 . CITY CLERK ..'.'1 OBISPO.r vvFlb — � R 2C STREET S IT� -s0) s IR-2 rc /\ � ,Y: ��—:..=w....r -=iQ i ❑7 1LQ` o R-2 NOW J-13-L Is '` - RACHEL -COURT Cv I � FLORENCE S • , •� ... "' o" I = o J = iu YO roe o.;' •' •;i ..10 sw Route - N.:... •- _2_ m R_1 A 18-94 � 1R� 2006 Rachel Street Page 2 EVALUATION 1. The ARC liked it the last time. The previous project was reviewed three times. Final approval was granted on January 7, 1991. Changes to the project since that time include some modifications to the floor plans to include laundry areas in each unit and to make the two unit designs more similar. The general appearance and size of the project is the same as that originally approved. Colors are also identical (see letter from representative, attached). 2. The lofts are still there. In reports on the previous project, staff advocated removal of the lofts as a way to lower the roof heights of these new buildings. The lofts meet the definition of loft, but as designed it appears that they may be used as additional bedrooms. It is not within the ARC's purview to require the elimination of lofts because of potential density problems. The Commission can, however, require their elimination to reduce compatibility issues. The ARC approved the lofts in the previous project. For this reason, staff approved them in the present project. Staff would support their removal if the Commission has second thoughts, however. 3. The appellants are concerned with density, review process. Two neighbors appealed the minor or incidental approval because of concerns with density and parking and a desire for a public hearing on this project. "The 1 ant also wrote cerns with "certain design features" but did not elucidate. C does make decisions on density or p irements, as long as these elements meet City s ards. In this case, they do. The applicant has right to build Kadditional dwelling units on the Re, providing the units meet City reauiremen a ARC can ar• y on e p ysi a roject, with an eye for achieving com bility with t. neighborhood while recognizing the rig owne -U, 'I ? Do OTHER DEPAR'I'NIENT CONni IENTS Concerns of other departments were addressed through the previous review process. Attached: Vicinity map Letter from representative Letters from appellants Environmental initial study ER 28-90 i i ara' e, Areas designated for interim agriculture/residential expansion and e rural industrial within the urban reserve should be encouraged to :d remain in agricultural use. In the event nonagricultural use such as rural industrial, rural residential, or rural planned development is pursued, the following policies should be employed: ing - The County should consider minimum five- to ten-acre parcelization or equivalent rural planned development only when it is demonstrated, prior to land division, that individual on-site water and septic systems will be adequate to serve the intended rural residential uses, and that subdivision (or parcel map divisions) are consistent with an adopted "property development plan". The property development plan should show an appropriate pattern of present and future local and collector streets, planned utility system alignments, and how each separate five- to ten-acre parcel can be City individually used in the future, without cooperation or combination of individual parcels. I 2. Residential Land Use Objectives s The policies outlined as Growth Management Objectives should serve as general principles in review of residential development proposals. In addition, the following policies shall guide both new development and redevelopment: a. The City should encourage residential development, promoting 1'> efficient urban densities and diversity of design consistent with prevailing or proposed neighborhood character, to enable adequate choice of location, type, tenure, esign and cost by families and individuals working in or enrolled near San Luis Obispo. ply i --The City should coordinate residential development with employment, _enrollment or other economic base alterations to assure that persons or families working, attending schools, or conducting other activities in San Luis Obispo, have appropriate opportunity to reside ith here rather than commute. --The City should establish minimum as well as maximum density and property development standards for all residential land use classifications: Low density shall be from 4 to 7 dwelling units per net acre; Medium density shall be from 7 to 12 dwelling units per net acre; Medium-high density shall be from 13 to 18 dwelling units per net acre; High density shall be from 19 to 24 dwelling :units per net acre; >3 --Residential developments which achieve maximum densities of 7, 12, 18, and 24 dwelling units per net acre in areas designated for low, medium, medium-high, and high density, respectively, shall be considered consistent with the General Plan, provided that design and placement are compatible with prevailing or proposed neighborhood c aracter and the availability of adequate to rastructure, public facilities and circulation. b. Low-density residential development, allowing a maximum of 7 dwelling units per acre, will be encouraged within neighborhoods clearly committed to this type of development and within identified expansion areas at t e pertp ery o the city. C. Medium-density residenXia.Ldevelopmcnt, allowing a maximum of 12 er cre, shall be encouraged in close proximity to neighborhood and community commercial and public facilities, where utilities, circulation, and neighborhood character can accommodate such development. Medium-density nroiects should-he designed to hr compatible with neighboring low-dengity development. d. Medium-high-density residential development, allowing a maximum 18 dwelling units per acre, shall be encouraged in areas substantially committed to this type of development, close to community commercial centers and public facilities. e. High-density residential development, allowing a maximum 24 dwelling units per acre, shall be encouraged in areas adjacent to major concentrations of employment, college enrollment, or business activity, where existing development of similar character, as well as 3. utilities, circulation, and public facilities, can accommodate such intensity. High-density development should be designed to provide a transition between less intense residential uses and nonresidential uses. f. Residential densities are expressed as the number of dwellings per net acre of site area. Based on unit occupancy characteristics, the population impact within multifamily areas shall be equalized so far as possible by relating densities to a "standard dwelling unit" of two bedrooms. More or fewer units will be allowed ccording to the FPcpdium-high- of units proposed, aiming for population densities of oximately 25, 40 and 55 persons per acre for medium-, and high-density multifamily residential areas, respectively. g. Residential neighborhoods should be separated from incompatible nonresidential land uses and buffered from major circulation facilities. New residential developments or redevelopments involving largescale sites (expansions of existing neighborhoods or major infill and intensification areas) should be designed to orient low-density housing to local access streets and medium- or high-density housing to driveways accessible from collector streets. 14 d. L c ti n gff Planning Areas: The location of each hillside planning area is generally described in this section of the Land Use Element and mapped on large scale aerial photographs on file in the Community Development Department and incorporated into this Land Use Element by reference. e. Location pf Building $i= All building sites must be located totally within the urban reserve line. Lot lines for individual parcels may cross the urban reserve line to meet dimension and area requirements of the city's subdivision regulations. The Community Development Director may grant minor variations to this provision based on more precise analysis of the area's topography when a subdivision map or precise development plan is submitted to the city. OSensitive ites: When this section designates all or a portion of a planning area as a "sensitive site" as defined by the city's Architectural Review Commission Guidelines and Municipal Code Section i 95002.E., the plans for development shall require the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. :h Housing plans shall be reviewed according to the following criteria: Bof Houses should be built in stepped levels to conform to the slope ity the hill and keep a low profile. The use of prominent stem walls and foundation piers should be avoided. i (� Grading on individual 1 uld be minimize Houses should I it. Lnerally be built close to the street. The grading of visible veways should be minimized. the (3) Landscaping which is visually compatible with the existing i The hillside vegetation should be used to screen building ag foundations and provide a landscaped transition between housing areas and adjacent open space. .phs a e4) The color and texture of building materials should blend as much as possible with the natural landscape and avoid the creation of high-contrast situations. cable 9. Ogen Space Programs: Prior to or concurrent with any further I the subdivision or development of commonly held land inside the urban se reserve, the city will require that land beyond the urban reserve be secured as permanent open space. The city will consider a wide range of mechanisms for establishing permanent open areas including, but y not limited to: (1) Scenic or open space casements (2) Parkland dedications (3) Dedications with the possibility for tax relief Coln ,511 a.YY 5 Land Use Element Plannin, ommission Draft CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF i RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS t POLICIES 2.1 Neighborhood Protection and Enhancement I 2.1. eighborhood Identity The City should help residents identify and plan for 1 neighborhoods, so they can strengthen their sense of place. [2.1] j 2.1.2 Neighborhood Groups The City should encourage and support the formation and continuation of neighborhood groups,composed of neighborhood residents. [2.2] Sc Neighborhood Traffic Neighborhoods should be protected from intrusive All neighborhood street and circulation improvements should favor the pedestrian and local traffic. Vehicle traffic on residential streets should be slow. To ftsteir`sutahle„trade speed, sheet destgn should tncfude measures su h as tthrro lanes,landscaped:'parkways, traffic,ci'icles, and textured crosswalks:, [2.3] 2.1.4 Neighborhood Connections All areas should have a street and sidewalk pattern that promotes neighborhood and community cohesiveness. There should be continuous sidewalks or paths of adequate width, connecting neighborhoods with each other and with public and commercial services. (See also the Circulation Element.) [2.4] 2.1.5 Neighborhood Open Links The City should view treat streets, sidewalks, and front setbacks as a continuous open spaee that link&5etweehall areas of the City and all land uses. These features should be designed as amenities for light, air, social identity. Street"Tanosea"'in' shOil a=consistent' i 1 ah`e contact, and community tY P.:::.g:;.. ....:::: adjacent; a1. gF b.. boodw [2.5] 2.2 Residential Location, Uses, and Design 2.2.1 Mixed Uses & Convenience Neighborhoods shall include a mix of uses to serve the daily needs of nearby residents, including schools, parks, churches, and convenience retail stores. Neighborhood shopping and services should be available within about one mile of all dwellings. [2.6] 2.2.2 Separation and Buffering Residential areas should be separated or screened from incompatible, nonresidential activities, including most commercial and manufacturing businesses, the freeway, and the railroad. [2.7] RESPCLG.LUE 23 2/1/9; Land Use Element Planning Commission Draft 2.23 Housing and Aircraft New housing should not be allowed in areas where aircraft noise exposure and the risk of aircraft accidents are not acceptable. [2.7] 2.2.4 Residential Next to Nonresidential In designing development at the boundary between residential and nonresidential uses, protection of a residential atmosphere is the first priority. [2.8] 2.2.5 Nei hborhood Pattern 1 residential development should be integrated with existing neighborhoods. Where physical features make this impossible, the new development should create new neighborhoods. [2.9] 22.6 Housing and Businesses Where housing can be compatible with offices or other businesses, mixed-use projects should be encouraged. [2.10] 2.2.7 Natural Features Residential developments should preserve and incorporate as amenities natural site features, such as land forms, views, creeks, and plants. [2.11] 22.8 Parking Large parking lots should be avoided. Parking lots should be screened from street views. In general, parking should not be provided between buildings and the street. [2.12] 2.29Compatible Development Housing built within an existing neig or o0 d n character with tha nei hborhood. 2.13 tifamil Ldevelo went and large ou -livin facilitie should becompatiblewith any nearby, r densi deve o me A. Architectural Character New buildings should respect existing buildings Which contribute to neighborhood historical or architectural character, in terms of size, spacing, and variety. B. rivacy New buildings will respect the privacy of neighboring buildings ]�Putdoor areas, particularly where multistory buildings or additions may overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings. 22.10 Site Constraints Residential developments shall respect site constraints such as area propeysize and shape, ground slope, access, creeks and wetlands, and Significant trees. [2.14] 22.11 Residential Project Objectives Residential projects should provide: Privacy, for occupants and neighbors of the project; B. Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds; _ RES-PCLG.LUE 24 2/1/94 /Land Use Element Planning Commission Draft C. Use of natural ventilation, sunlight, and shade to make indoor and outdoor spaces comfortable with minimum mechanical support; D. Pleasant views from and toward the project; E. Security and safety; DF Separate paths for vehicles and for people, and bike paths along collector streets; G. Adequate parking and storage space; H. Noise and visual separation from adjacent roads and commercial uses. (Walls surrounding a project are not desirable. Where walls are used, they should help create an attractive pedestrian, residential setting through features such as setbacks, changes in alignment, detail and texture, places for people fo walk':through them at regular lnterva s, and planting.) r I. Front yards along streets. [2.15] �ort�nP,S� G. -rGL4 Adwi N I� e-ra id^I- )N:W:tt.. i}»• vv.M"'.n. p: :+ln:^Y.L!?:ni::f]Wf.YN.9YA,Y.C�Ri%iW..^., >:SM:MYY.Mi`iFtyb#:•w.:»?i?H"%Y:i: �ivn:MFii : tdfe�s'fro gzardt7us matertafs traIIs &-tto u as recommended r/+n6ftu»r3.ti5�nY>r nAi. .Ar rK:. s..<:<.n tl �i �1FeWieQi3IL2l1CfiCtr 2.2.12 Nonresidential Activities Residential areas may accommodate limiter nonresidential activities which generally have been compatible, such as child day care, elementary schools,churches,and home businesses meeting established criteria. [2.16] 23 Major Residential Expansion Areas 23.1 Specific Plans. Specific plans for major residential expansion areasas shoe in<`F"""ze>; shall include: :H.....�i: : A. Desired types and intensities of development, compatible with the surrounding area; B. Phasing of development and public facilities, subject to availability of resources; C. Measures to protect resources and open land; D. Desired types of public facilities and the means to provide them, to City standards, including water supply, sewage collection, storm water drainage, streets, bikeways, walking paths, and passive and active park space; RESPCLG.LUE 25 2/1/94 Land Use Element EQTF/Planning Commission Draft For the categories other than Rural, Suburban, and Low-Density Residential, densities are expressed in terms of a standard two-bedroom dwelling. This approach is intended to achieve population densities approximately like those indicated. More or fewer dwellings having different bedroom counts may be built depending on the number of people expected to live in a project, as indicated by the number of bedrooms. The population-density standards also apply to group residential facilities. (For allowed residential development in Office. commercial, and manufacturing districts. seethe sections concerninEr those districts.) [2.20]- TABLE 4 RESIDENTIAL DENSTI'IES Category Average Maximum Population Density dwelling density (people per acre) (units per acre) n Rural. Suburban see below Low 20 7 U Medium 25 12 Medium-high 40 18 j' High 55 24 V 2.4.2 Density Bonuses The City may approve a density bonus for a project which will b� receiving site for development credit transferred to protect open space or as provided by State law for elderly housing or housing affordable to people with very ]ow, low or moderate incomes, as defined in the Housing Element , , mederateineeffieregidents [2.21] 2.4.3 ensit Red he allowed density of residential development shall decrease as slo creases. a City may require a residential project to have fewer units than generally owed for its den ' m enstty wou have adverse environmental imRacts or cause significant adverse impacts on the health,safety,or welfare of future residents of the site,neighbors,or the public generally. [2.14] 2.4.4 Rural Residential development consists of not more than one dwelling per ten acres Suburban residential development consists of not more than one dwelling per acreThese residential categories are appropriate for areas that have been developed or subdivided to allow such development within predominantly open space areas near the edges of the City. These areas N generally were subdivided under County jurisdiction. and are beyond City services They will be limited to areas shown for such use in the 1989 County Land Use Element (See also Greenbelt olid 2.4 - yes: entta e-N, :1 opment should=[2_22] hed,one- o-story dwellings with substantial private yards. Lowappropriate within and next to neighborhoods committed to this type of F 2.4.6 Medium-Density Residential development should generally consist of detached or 30 3MAa city OFn Luis OBispO . sia; CDUMCIL AGENDA RL RT 27-94 1 a� Q 109 Delel Sur Way IVID�U J Page 4 Public Health. Safety. and Welfare pponents of the project feel that further development in the neighborhood should not be allowed because sidewalks are not continuous, and existing streets are narrow and have an unusual layout. The safety problems posed by these combined situations would only be worsened with additional traffic from new development. Public Works staff arranged with neighbors to be on site during the evening peak traffic hour (5:00 pm - 6:00 pm) on May 4. They observed very light traffic. The project representative observed morning traffic on April 13, and also concluded that traffic in the neighborhood is relatively light.. Planning staff have also been out to the site, once around 8:00 am and twice in the mid-morning. Again, very light traffic was observed during those visits. In contrast, Planning Commission testimony shows residents feel a real problem exists with traffic in their nieghborhood. From a capacity standpoint, the street can easily accommodate additional traffic from the project, which is estimated by the Institute of Traffic Engineers to be roughly 10 trips per day. Even at twice the estimate, it is not likely that project generated traffic will noticeably change the current traffic volume or pattern. Because of the looped street system, vehicles do not travel trough th,- neighborhood to get to other areas of town. Traffic is generated almost solely by residents of neighborhood, which has the benefit of allowing the neighborhood to informally establish its own 1 standards of courteous driving. A Although the volume of traffic ma be less than in many nei hborhoods, the se is t er since the lack of cnntin lour sidewalks forces pedestrians out into the street with bicyclists and cars. The probability of a vehicle accident involving pedestrians may also be increased because f the horseshoe street configuration limits visibility. This situation could be remedied by installation it of sidewalks and the sort of proactive neighborhood monitoring suggested above. The Hearing Officer did not believe that information presented regarding the likely traffic impacts was adequate to support a finding that the project will result in a significant adverse impact on public safety, which can not be mitigated except by denying the project. Commissioners believed that evidence presented during the public testimony portion of the meeting adequately supported a finding that the project will result in a significant adverse public safety impact, which cannot feasibly be mitigated. Summary of Hearing Officer's Action On March 4, after listening to public testimony,,-the Hearing Officer continued action to allow the issue of the 12-foot utility easement to be clarified. On April 1, the*applicant was granted r permit approval based on the findings and subject to the two conditions listed below. Pubs,. testimony was heard at both meetings. " T i Gy O� S LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT M&A 241 CTq y4 6- Del Sur Way ,ge 5 / 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 conforms to the general plan and meets zoning ordinance requirements. 3. The proposed use is exempt from environmental review. 4. No public purpose would be served by limiting the driveway width to 30% of the lot's street frontage. Conditions: 1. Design of the new house shall be subject to architectural review and shall comply with all zoning regulation standards regarding site development, except that a wider driveway may be considered appropriate. Architectural plans shall specifically address views of the project from adjacent lots and privacy screening. 2. The applicant shall abandon the 12-foot public utility easement shown on attached Exhibit A in accordance with State and City regulations prior to issuance of any building permit. Summary of Planning Commission's Action After listening to extensive public testimony, the.Planning Commission acted on a vote of 5 to 1 (one absence) to upholdthe neighbors' appeal and deny the use permit, based on the following findings: 1. Cumulatively, this project, and others like it, would establish a pattern of development that 4 is more typical of higher density development and therefore not compatible with neighborhood character and not consistent with the intent of the City's low-density residential zoning. 2. The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, as evidenced by public testimony presented at the Planning Commission hearing, specifically: The cumulative impact of traffic generated by this project and other similar projects in the vicinity would increase the likelihood of accidents between pedestrians and vehicles in a neighborhood where conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles already exist due to an unusual configuration of narrow,streets,sloping topography,and lack of sidewalks. M. 6 Conceptual plans show a 23-foot wide driveway where Parking and Driveway Standards recommend a maximum width of 30% lot frontage, or 17 feet in this case. a ��h►��11�i�PA U city of sarv- lis OBlspo ' COUNCIL AGENDA REP T Staff Report ` SSE• �q d Page 2 C��; ;e$ 6872 Data summary Subdivider/Property Owner: TOTEM, A general partnership Representative: Chuck Crotser, AIA Zoning: R-2 General plan: Medium-density residential Environmental status: Categorically exempt (will not result in additional parcels) Site description Two long, narrow sloping lots on the west side of Terrace Hill. The site is surrounded by houses and apartments, with the Southern Pacific Railroad nearby, to the west and south of the site. The site slopes down from Rachel Street to Swazey Street. The lots have several small- to medium-sized trees. No tree removals are proposed at this time. EVALUATION In the attached letter, the subdivider explains the basis for the tentative map and lot depth exception. The existing lots are about 50' X 140 ' (lot 4) and 43 ' X 140 (lot 5) , with street frontage on both Swazey and Rachel Streets. Development of the site is complicated by the lots' relatively long, narrow shape with dual street frontages, and by the public sewer main which runs through the center of lot 4 from street to street. Permanent structures are not allowed to be built over or near a public sewer main. With this request, the lots would be reconfigured so that they were "back to back" , with the "new lot 4" (Parcel A) facing Swazey Street, and the "new lot 5" (Parcel B) facing Rachel Street. This arrangement would allow the possibility of one house to be built ► on each lot, without relocating the public sewer. Frontage improvements would be installed for each lot, including a 5 ' right- of-way dedication on Parcel A to allow widening of Swazey Street. The subdivider would also be required to grant a 10 ' sanitary sewer i easement, centered over the existing sewet main, to the City Engineer's approval. Subdivision Regulations The proposal would create two parcels that more nearly conform to the regulations, would substantially improve the site's appearan e and safety, and would allow the possibility of Juture development Q sma ,p medium_.sized.�ia se��onst*�ten it2r ne ghborli i rc, cte�,c The minimum lot depth for R-2 lots is 90' . The proposed parcels A and B have lot depths of 68 ' and 72 ' ,- respectively. In all other respects, the proposed lots meet