HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/18/1994, 3 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY USE PERMIT A 106-94, A REQUEST TO ALLOW A 0-FOOT SETBACK FOR A SHADE CLOTH STRUCTURE, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF BUCHON STREET, BETWEEN TORO AND SANTA ROSA STREETS (1176 BUCHON STREET). �'IINll�llllln�nA��lll MEETING DATE:
N II IInN�� cityof san LxtIs oBIspo 10-18-14
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director; 0
By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner /
SUBJECT.
Appeal of Planning Commission's action to deny Use Permit A 106-94, a request to allow
a 0-foot setback for a shade cloth structure, located on the northwest side of Buchon Street,
between Toro and Santa Rosa Streets (1176 Buchon Street).
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Draft Resolution A, denying the appeal, and upholding the Planning Commission's
action to deny Use Permit A 106-94 to allow a 0-foot setback for a shade cloth structure.
DISCUSSION
Situation/Previous Review
Approximately three years ago,Jeffrey Wolcott,the applicant/appellant and property owner,
installed a 7'4"-high fence along the western interior property line and a shade cloth
structure (nylon material supported by metal tubing) extending between the house and the
fence. The fence and shade cloth structure were installed without a building permit. After
a neighbor complained about it, the issue became part of the Zoning Investigations
Coordinator's caseload. The matter ended up in Municipal Court where the judge ordered
that the situation be corrected-either the structure be brought into compliance or necessary
approvals be obtained from the City to allow it to remain - by November 8, 1994.
On September 28, 1994, the Planning Commission, on a 4-1 vote, denied an appeal of the
Hearing Officer's decision to deny a portion of Use Permit A 106-94 to allow a 0-foot
setback for a shade cloth structure. A fence height exception included as part of the same
use permit was approved by the Hearing Officer (see follow-up letter dated 9-7-94 attached
to the Planning Commission staff report). Because the Planning Commission's purview was
limited to the setback issue, which was in this case clearly secondary to the Uniform
Building Code(UBC)issues,the Commission had some difficulty evaluating the request and
developing any kind of compromise. Jeffrey Wolcott filed an appeal to the City Council on
September 30, 1994.
Project Issues
Although the situation started with a complaint, the main issue with this request is not a
matter of neighborhood concern, but a matter of fire safety and UBC violations. The
specific issue is that exterior walls of structures less than 3 feet away from a property line .
need to be of one-hour fire-resistive construction. The shade cloth which is defined in the
J-/
��� � �I►►ill�� �ui'IIUIII city of San IDIS OBISpo
= COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Use Permit A 106.94
Page 2
Building Code as a "structure", does not meet this requirement and cannot meet this
requirement without significant alterations.
It is important to note that the Council does not have the authority to waive or grant
exceptions to the Building Code. So even if the Council were to grant the applicant's appeal
on the setback determination, the shade structure would still need to be removed or
modified in order to comply with the Building Code. Two possible strategies to modify the
shade cloth structure to make it conforming would be to: 1.) Cut it back so that it is a
minimum of three feet away from the property line with either posts or struts extending
back to the building wall; or 2.) Use all non-combustible materials (for example, metal
louvers instead of nylon material) and maintain a minimum of a 2-foot setback from the
property line.
Conclusion
Even with approval of a 0-foot setback, the appellant would not be allowed to keep the
shade cloth structure he has installed because it cannot comply with the UBC. Approval
of a three-foot setback, as a modification to the use permit request, is a possible alternative
that could comply with the UBC.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt the draft resolution labeled Draft Resolution B, approving a modified use
permit allowing a 3-foot setback, based on findings and subject to conditions.
2. Continue with direction to the staff and appellant.
This alternative has limited relevancy since the Municipal Court has set a fairly tight time
frame for this matter to be corrected - by November S, 1994.
Attached: Draft Resolutions A & B
Appeal to City Council received 9-30-94
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5141-94
Draft 9-28-94 Planning Commission minutes
9-28-94 Planning Commission report and attachments
L\UsE\106-94.CC
Draft Resolution A
RESOLUTION NO. (1994 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION
TO DENY USE PERMIT A 106-94 TO ALLOW A
SIDE YARD SETBACK REDUCTION FROM 5 FEET TO 0 FEET
FOR A SHADE CLOTH STRUCTURE AT 1176 BUCHON STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of-San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Finding . That this Council, after consideration of public testimony, the
appellant's request and statements, and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff
recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings:
1. The structure as proposed will not comply with Section 504 (b) and Table 5-A of the
Uniform Building Code which require that the exterior wall of the structure be of one-
hour fire resistive construction, with no openings.
2. The side yard exception is inconsistent with two of the stated purposes of yards (SLO
Municipal Code Section 17.16.020 A.1.) which are to "provide separation between
combustible materials in neighboring buildings"and "to help determine the pattern of
building masses and open areas within neighborhoods".
SECTION 2. Denial. The request to appeal the Planning Commission's denial of Use
Permit A 106-94 to allow a 0-foot setback for a shade cloth structure is hereby denied.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
X33
City Council Resolution No. (1994 Series)
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _ day of 1994.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
Aom
L•UZWI06%.DNY
Draft Resolution B
RESOLUTION NO. (1994 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION
TO DENY USE PERMIT A 106-94 TO ALLOW A
SIDE YARD SETBACK REDUCTION FROM 5 FEET TO 0 FEET,
BUT APPROVING A MODIFIED USE PERMIT ALLOWING A 3-FOOT SETBACK
FOR A SHADE CLOTH STRUCTURE AT 1176 BUCHON STREET
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
appellant's request and statements, and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff
recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings:
1. The side yard setback exception will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare
of persons residing at the site or in the vicinity because a three-foot setback complies
with the Uniform Building Code and addresses fire safety concerns.
2. The proposed structure is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible
with surrounding land uses since there are many other structures in the nearby vicinity
that do not fully comply with current setback standards included in the zoning
regulations.
3. The proposed structure conforms meets zoning ordinance requirements with approval of
the exception request.
4. The proposed use is exempt from environmental review.
SECTION 2. Denial. The request to appeal the Planning Commission's denial of Use
Permit A 106-94 to allow a 0-foot setback for a shade cloth structure is hereby denied.
SECTION 3. ApRroval. A modified use permit to allow a 3-foot setback where a 5-foot
setback is required is hereby approved with the following condition:
1. The final design for the revised shade cloth structure be to the approval of the
Community Development Director and the Chief Building Official.
City Council Resolution No. (1994 Series)
Page 2
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.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
L4C4�
Alto ey
L'UtMt0&90.APP
pis'
city Of. San luis OBI
p o
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
rendered on which decision consisted of the following (Le.set forth factual
shIation and the grounds for submitting this appeaL Use additional sheets as needed):
L'-h.C�; '�{Yt� c{.�:5`fr•>.��`�, `iC' � �"�•�- •,Jl.•L�GL ��i>`..`1.t - _`
The undersigned dlscussed the.decision being appealed with:
Cj
--
on
DATE&TIME APPEAL RECEIVED: Appelia
ame e
G- e I v/
SEP 3 U 1994 (c V4_"C
resS
CITY CLERK
oewPO =
Original to City Clark
City Attorney
Calendared for. Q7' Copy to Ad
-following
f it m
Copy tent(s):
de
r
CLEM
- S
' 1
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5141-94
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did
conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chamber of the San Luis Obispo City Hall, San
Luis Obispo, California, on September 28, 1994, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under
application No. A 106-94 by Jeffrey Wolcott, applicant.
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT REVIEWED:
Appeal of an Administrative Use Permit denying a request to allow a reduced side
from 5-feet yard setback to 0-feet for a shade cloth covering.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development Department, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
1176 Buchon Street.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT:
Medium-Density Residential with Historical Preservation Overlay.
PRESENT ZONING:
R-2-H
WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and
studies made by itself, and in behalf and of testimonies offered at said hearing, has
established existence of the following circumstances:
1. The structure as proposed will not comply with Section 504 (b) and Table 5-A
of the Uniform,Bpilding Code which require that the exterior wall of the
structure be of one-hour fire resistive construction, with no openings.
2. The side yard exception is inconsistent with two of the stated purposes of
yards (SLO Municipal Code Section 17.16.020 A.1.) which are to "provide
Resolution No. 5141-94
Administrative Review A 106-94
Page 2
separation between combustible materials in neighboring buildings"and Ito help
determine the pattern of building masses and open areas within neighborhoods".
The foregoing resolution for denial of the appeal was approved by the Planning
Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo upon the motion of Commr. Karleskint,
seconded by Commr. Hoffman, and upon the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Hoffman, D. Williams, Karleskint, G. Williams
NOES: Commr. Cross
ABSENT: Commr. Senn, Whittlesey
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
DATED: September 28, 1994
J4
draft
Minutes
Planning Commission
September 28, 1994
Page 4
Item 2. 1176 Buchon Street: (A 106-94) A request to allow reduced side yard
setback to 0-feet for shade cloth covering; Jeffrey Wolcott, applicant.
This is an appeal of the Hearing Officer's action of September 2, 1994, denying the
request to allow a 0-foot setback for a shade cloth structure. Appellant Jeffrey Wolcott.
Cindy Clemens and Ron Whisenand stepped down for this item, due to a conflict of
interest.
Whitney Mcllvaine gave the staff report with a history of the project, the property owner
constructed a 7'4" high fence along his western property line and attached an arched
shade cloth structure to the fence and to the house. She explained that the structure of
shade cloth was not in compliance with the City Building Code. She said that Mr. Wolcott
was notified of the building code violation, which was also a zoning regulation violation
in terms of fence height and setback of structures. Since no action was taken to correct
the violation, the project was sent to court and the judge ordered Mr. Wolcott to exhaust
his administrative remedies by going to the Administrative Officer and requesting approval
of the project. The Hearing Officer did approve the request to allow the 7'4" fence, to the
extent shown on the submitted plans, but denied the request to allow a 0-foot setback for
the shade doth structure bad on the findings that are noted in the report
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the
draft
Minutes
Planning commission
September 28, 1994
Page 5
Hearing Officer's action.
Commr. Hoffman asked what made shade cloth a structure, and asked for clarification
of why the shade cloth is a problem.
Ms. Mcllvaine said the definition of a structure, comes from the Building Code, as
interpreted by the City's Chief Building Official. She explained that it is a problem
because it goes out to the property line. She suggested that the only alternative would
be to provide the minimum 3' setback required by the Building Code, unless it was
constructed in such a way so that it was fire resistant.
Chairperson D. Williams opened the public hearing.
Jeff Wolcott, 1176 Buchon, the appellant provided some background information for this
project. He said he did not even realize that he would need any special permit since he
had seen many projects with similar frameworks coming off the building and going-from
the house to the property line. He suggested that looking at fire considerations, the
framework is metal tubing, and the shade cloth, if exposed to heat would just melt and
fall away. To make this structure legal, he explained that he would have to use lattice or
wood framework, which would provide many times more fuel for fire closer to the
neighbor's property line than there is with the existing shade cloth.
Commr. Hoffman questioned the possibility of finding a non-flammable covering, even
draft
Minutes
Planning commission
September 28, 1994
Page 6
though there were still Building Code violations which would need to be resolved.
Mr. Wolcott explained that the court has given him until November 3, 1994 to resolve the
issue, or pay a $350 fine.
Commr. Hoffman asked for the measurements between the appellant's house, and the
neighbor's house. Mr. Wolcott explained that from his (louse to the fence was 9'- 10', the
neighbor's house is about 3' from their house to the fence.
Chairwoman D. Williams closed the public hearing.
Commr. Cross sympathized with Mr. Wolcott but he agreed that the Hearing Officer had
made the correct ruling. This is a building violation.
Commr. Cross made a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Officer's
actions with his findings 1-5.
The motion was seconded by D. Williams.
The Commission discussed'and questioned staff on various ways of changing the
structure to make it conform with the Building Code requirements and labeling this project
a structure vs. awning.
J-/6Z
draft
Minutes
Planning commission
September 28, 1994
Page 7
VOTING: AYES: Commr. Cross, D. Williams
NOES: Commr. Karleskint, Hoffman, G. Williams
ABSENT: Commr. Whittlesey, Senn
The motion did not pass.
Commr. Hoffman made a motion to have this item continued to the next meeting to get
answers to questions of the fire rating with non combustible materials used throughout
the structure; and the setback question for an awning with supports out to a property line,
and a clarification of the actual classification of the structure.
Commr. Karleskint seconded the motion.
Commr. Cross said he would not support the motion, and did not see a reason to grant
a continuance and was concerned about the precedent setting nature of the project.
Whitney Mcllvaine agreed with Commr. Cross and suggested that the purview of the
Commission has to do with the setback issue, and not with the type of structure involved.
She said that granting a continuance, and asking the applicant to redesign the structure
would not do the applicant any favors. Shq. suggested that the question before the
Commission is: The Commission could grant an exception to allow the structure to be
3-�3
draf t
Minutes
Planning Commission
September 28, 1994
Page 8
within 3' of the property line versus within 5' of the property line as required by the
Building Code and given the type of structure involved.
Commr. Hoffman requested that the motion be withdrawn.
Commr. Karleskint made a motion that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and
uphold the Hearing Officer's action, based on Findings #2 and #3 in the staff report.
The motion was seconded by Commr. Hoffman.
Commr. Cross said he would not be supporting the motion suggesting that the Hearing
Officer's findings were correct and Finding #5 regarding the precedent-setting nature of
the exception was paramount to his decision making on this project.
VOTING: - AYES: Commr. Karleskint, Hoffman, D. Williams, G. Williams
NOES: Commr. Cross
ABSENT: Commr. Whittlesey, Senn
The motion passed.
COMMENT & DISCUSSION
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM x 2
BY: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner PF, MEETING DATE: September 28, 1994
FILE NUMBER: A 106-94
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1176 Buchon Street
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Hearing Officer's action to allow a 0-foot setback for a shade cloth
structure.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Officer's action.
BACKGROUND
Situation / Requested Exception
Approximately three years ago, Jeffrey Wolcott, the applicantlappellant, installed a 7'4"-high
fence along the western interior property line and a shade cloth structure (nylon material
supported by metal tubing) extending between the house and the fence. A neighbor filed a
complaint with the City regarding the legality of the fence and the structure. The City's Zoning
Investigations Coordinator processed the complaint by referring it to the Building Division for
verification. The Building Division inspected the site and then issued written notices to correct
the violations noted (fence - too tall; structure on the property line).
After the applicant took no action to correct the violations, the matter was referred to the City
Attorney for action. The City Attorney filed a court action resulting in the Municipal Court
Judge ordering that the situation be corrected by December 12, 1994. On August 19, 19949 the
applicant filed for an administrative use permit to allow a fence height exception and a 0-foot
setback for the shade cloth structure.
Hearing Officer's Action
On September 2, 1994, the Hearing Officer took the following actions (see follow-up letter dated
9-7-94 attached):
■ Approved the request to allow a T4" fence to the extent shown on submitted plans; and
■ Denied the request to allow a 0-foot setback for the shade cloth structure.
The findings for denial cited inconsistency with the zoning regulations and the Building Code,
fire safety considerations and the precedent-setting nature of the request as the basis for the
action.
,K-Ar
Use Permit A 106-94
Page 2
Data Summary
Address: 1176 Buchon Street
Applicant/Appellant: Jeffrey Wolcott, property owner
Zoning: Medium-Density Residential with the Historical Preservation Overlay (R-2-H)
General Plan: Medium-Density Residential
Environmental Status: Categorically exempt
Project Action Deadline: November 25, 1994
Site Description
The site is a flat, rectangular-shaped lot, that is 7,050 square feet in size. It is developed with
the house which is listed as a "contributing" property in the City's Historical Preservation
Program Guidelines (contributing means buildings in older neighborhoods that contribute to the
character of that neighborhood). A 20-foot wide public alley is located at the back of the
property. The surrounding neighborhood is developed with a combination of single-family
homes and apartments.
EVALUATION
Although the situation started with a complaint, the main issue with this request is not a matter
of neighborhood concern, but a matter of fire safety and Building Code violations. Even if
concerns with aesthetics and the precedent-setting nature of the request could be mitigated, the
structure still would not conform with Building Code regulations which state that a structure
must be of one-hour fire resistive construction within three feet of a property line. Therefore,
even if the Commission is sympathetic to the applicant's situation and feels that the structure
looks attractive, the problems with the structure being in violation of the Building Code still
exist.
The fact that other structures in the vicinity are not in conformance with current zoning and
building code standards is cited in the appellant's statement of 8-18-94 as a reason that the
requested exception should be granted. That rationale would be relevant in certain cases, but
is not in this one. One example where an established pattern of lesser setbacks in the
surrounding neighborhood would be relevant would be where a structure was set back at least
three feet from the property line (to comply with the Building Code), but not set back the full
distance to comply with the zoning regulations (five or more feet, depending on the height of
the structure). In the case of the subject request, the final determining factor is the Building
Code provisions, rather than the zoning regulations. Also there is a difference in terms of
whether a structure is legal nonconforming (built when regulations were different than those that
currently exist) versus a structure of recent vintage that does not conform because it was put up
without permits.
Use Permit A 106-94
Page 3
Another point brought out by the appellant is that the changes he has made to the structure and
property are attractive. Staff is not disputing that the applicant's property is attractive and well-
maintained, but this again is not relevant to the particular request. Similarly, the fact that the
adjacent neighbor does not object to the shade cloth structure does not remove the requirements
to comply with the relevant regulations.
The appellant has two possible alternatives:
■ remove the shade cloth structure; or
■ cut it back so that it is set back at least three feet from the property line.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
The Planning Commission may:
A. The Commission may continue action with specific direction to the applicant and staff.
B. The Commission may grant a setback exception to allow a three-foot setback for the shade
cloth. If so, staff suggests the following findings and condition:
Findines:
1. The side yard setback exception will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare
of persons residing at the site or in the vicinity because a three-foot setback complies
with the Uniform Building Code and addresses fire safety concerns.
2. The proposed structure is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible
with surrounding land uses since there are many other structures in the nearby vicinity
that do not fully comply with current setback standards included in the zoning
regulations.
3. The proposed structure conforms meets zoning ordinance requirements with approval of
the exception request.
4. The proposed use is exempt from environmental review.
Condition:
1. The final design for the revised shade cloth structure be to the approval of the
Community Development Director and the Chief Building Official.
Use Permit A 106-94
Page 4
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The Chief Building Official notes that the structure as proposed will not comply with Section
504 (b) and Table 5-A of the Uniform Building Code which require that the exterior wall of the
structure be of one-hour fire resistive construction, with no openings.
The Fire Department indicates agreement with the Hearing Officer's action, noting that required
exposure protection requirements in the Fire Code are consistent with the setback requirements
outlined in the Building Code.
RECONEWENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Officer's action to deny a 0-foot setback for the shade
cloth structure extending between the house and the fence, based on the following findings:
ndin
1. The side yard setback exception will adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of
persons residing at the site or in the vicinity because of fire safety considerations.
2. The structure as proposed will not comply with Section 504 (b) and Table 5-A of the
Uniform Building Code which require that the exterior wall of the structure be of one-
hour fire resistive construction, with no openings.
3. The side yard exception is inconsistent with two of the stated purposes of yards (SLO
Municipal Code Section 17.16.020 A.1.) which are to "provide separation between
combustible materials in neighboring buildings"and "to help determine the pattern of
building masses and open areas within neighborhoods".
4. Significant fire protection impacts are likely as a result of the side yard setback
reduction.
5. The exception could set an undesirable precedent by encouraging others to seek approvals
to build similar structures, thereby creating fire safety, aesthetic and solar access
concerns within the surrounding neighborhood.
Attachments:
Vicinity map
Site plan
Photograph of fence/shade cloth structure
Appeal of Hearing Officer's decision
Follow-up letter dated 9-7-94
Use Permit A 106-94
Page 5
9-2-94 administrative hearing minutes
Memo from Spencer Meyer dated 9-12-94
Appellant's statement
1,etters from Tim Eidson, adjacent neighbor at 1170 Buchon
w
fr fiMR
r,,/J:� O ..� \,J \\\ ,Y�a , ';� i.✓�. .:C.
S y
Ap
44
\ r'j
��6• O k•1 O S.
iie :d
S'
it 0
.,Olt
� 4°
l�ti 4d'P . O Ile
R _ ,e
y O
OL a �•� \�5 ti
Y
t
'\\O F O V \\
Ip
,�9
1' r c0 \\hh O \1•••Ir
O�
`'rte •`' ite �-.. g
I rye MM
sd
GRAPHIC SCALE::�t� 0 50 100 200 300 q
VICINITY MAP A 106-94 NO/�TH
/I�
1176 BUCHON ST
�X20
SitW Walk Qu�a� st
l 1 7 Lo �u�c,�o•,.� �'
- --- ----- - --.. 7.4 -- - - ------------ ---... - —
i
t I S I I I I I I S I I I
• I I I I I , � , I � I ' I I � I I
i
I i I l
-777-77 l l l ! I
-i
-07
I
SWC -TO Scab
.I'
•
l w�
J. � ;qty.•
Ot
- • e'er '�.6 _
� 6.t
RR
r,Y'
1
SCSI
-r U446 io hpPer-t-l
o-c *�_Q_ C-+1 Zo aZ KJ , CA
Q�F�c er oN ray
5� 3 -&Q46
RECEIVED
SEP 7 1994
Crrr of SAN Luis CSISPO
CONL&N"OmLopw
o.
w,
city sAn twis o
po
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo. CA 9303-8100
September 7 , 1994
Jeffrey Wolcott
1176 Buchon Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: Use Permit Appl. A 106-94
1176 Buchon Street
Dear Mr. Wolcott:
On Friday, September 2, 1994, I conducted a public hearing on your
request to allow a 0-foot side yard setback for shade cloth
covering, and to allow a 7-foot 4-inch high fence where a 6-foot
high fence is allowed, at the subject location.
After reviewing the information presented, I approved your request
for a 7-foot 4-inch high fence, based on the following findings and
subject to the following conditions:
Findings
1. The proposed fence will not adversely affect the health,
safety and welfare of persons residing or working at the site
or in the vicinity, because it provides screening between
properties and is outside of the street yard (no sight
distance issues) .
2. No public purpose will be served by strict compliance with the
six foot height limit for this fence.
3 . The upper course of the fence is lattice which minimizes the
apparent height of the fence. The fence design is attractive
and is in character with the historic setting of the
neighborhood.
Conditions
1. An exception is granted for fence height not to exceed seven
feet six inches (7' 611) , to assure that the existing fence
will comply with this approval.
2. The exception for fence height is limited to that portion of
the fence labelled 117-foot fence" as shown on the plot plan
submitted by the applicant, and labelled "Exhibit A. September
2 , 199411 , attached.
Tne City U San Luis oolspo:s communed to rncluaing the oisaoleo In all of its services.programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deat 18051 781.7410.
A 106-94
Page 2
3 . Those portions of the fence exceeding six feet in height shall
remain semi-transparent in construction, such as the lattice
material in place at the time of this approval.
I denied your request for a 0-foot setback for a shade cloth
covering extending between the house and fence, based on the
following findings:
Findings
1. The side yard setback exception will adversely affect the
health, safety and welfare of persons residing at the site or
in the vicinity because of fire safety considerations.
2. The structure as proposed will not comply with Section 504 (b)
and Table 5-A of the Uniform Building Code which require 'that
the exterior wall of the structure be of one-hour fire
resistive construction, with no openings.
3 . The side yard exception is inconsistent with two of the stated
purposes of yards (SLO Municipal Code Section 17. 16.020 A. 1. )
which are to "provide separation between combustible materials
in neighboring buildings' and "to help determine the pattern
of building masses and open areas within neighborhoodsm.
4. Significant fire protection impacts are likely as a result of
the side yard setback reduction.
S. The exception could set an undesirable precedent by
encouraging others to seek approvals to build similar
structures, thereby creating fire safety, aesthetic and solar
access concerns within the surrounding neighborhood.
My decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission
within ten days of the action. An appeal may be filed_ by any
person aggrieved by the decision.
Due to City water allocation regulations, my approval expires after
three years if construction has not started, unless conditions of
approval designate a different time period. See Municipal Code
Section 17. 58. 070.D. for possible renewal.
If your project involves building one or more new dwellings or
additional non-residential space, it may be subject to the
requirement for a water allocation or a water usage offset.
Contact this department for details.
If you have any questions, please call Pam Ricci at 781-7168 .
S nce ely,
Arnold B. J n#
Hearing Offi\qgr
Attachment: Exhibit "A"
.�-Zj
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING - MINUTES
FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 2, 1994
1176 Buchon Street Use Permit Appl. A 106-94: Request to allow 0-foot side
yard setback for shade cloth covering, and to allow a 7-foot
4-inch high fence where a 6-foot high fence is allowed; R-
2-H zone; Jeffrey Wolcott, applicant.
Mr. Wolcott noted that the window sills of his house are between 6 and 7 feet high,
which was why he built the fence high enough to give both properties privacy. The
shade cloth was put up for the same reason.
Arnold Jonas, Hearing Officer, noted that he had visited the site and has reviewed the
information submitted by both staff and the applicant.
Judy Lautner presented the staff report, noting that the shade cloth is not consistent
with the Building Code which requires the exterior wall of the structure to be one-hour
fire resistant construction with no openings, and is not consistent with the Zoning
Regulations. She explained that the purpose for having yards is to provide separation
between combustible materials and neighboring buildings, and to help determine the
pattern of building masses and open areas within neighborhoods. These two intents
of the Zoning Regulations have not been met with this structure, and therefore,
significant fire protection impacts are possible as a result of this reduction. She
further noted that this exception could set an undesirable precedent by encouraging
others to seek approvals to build similar structures, thereby creating fire safety,
aesthetic, and solar access concerns within the neighborhood.
The public hearing was opened. There was no public testimony, so Arnold Jonas
closed the public hearing.
Arnold Jonas complimented the applicant on his efforts in rehabilitating the house.
He clarified that staff's recommendation is twofold; to approve the fence height
exception, but to deny the shade cloth structure. He asked for clarification on the
height of the fence since some of the information submitted indicated a 7-foot high
fence.
Mr. Wolcott responded that the height of the fence depends on the location. He
further noted that he had removed an ivy covered lattice-work fence, of the same
height.
Concerning the fence height issue, Arnold Jonas felt this would be acceptable, and
noted it is attractive and provides a valid function, as indicated in staff's findings.
However, he noted his intent to add several conditions and explained his reasons why.
Administrative Hearing Minutes
September 2, 1994
Page 2
Concerning the shade cloth structure, Mr. Jonas supported staff's recommendation
,to deny the request because it is in violation of the Zoning Regulations and violates
the Uniform Building Code. He explained these reasons make the issue more difficult
to deal with than would aesthetic preference or the like. He then expanded that the
structure would have to be changed in order to be brought into compliance.
Mr. Jonas approved the request for a 7-foot 6-inch high fence, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings
1. The proposed fence will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of
persons residing or working at the site or in the vicinity, because it provides
screening between properties and is outside of the street yard (no sight
distance issues).
2. No public purpose will be served by strict compliance with the six foot height
limit for this fence.
3. The upper course of the fence is lattice which minimizes the apparent height
of the fence. The fence design is attractive and is in character with the historic
setting of the neighborhood.
Conditions
1. An exception is granted for fence height not to exceed seven feet six inches (7'
6"), to assure that the existing fence will comply with this approval.
2. The exception for fence height is limited to that portion of the fence labelled
"7-foot fence" as shown on the plot plan submitted by the applicant.
3. Those portions of the fence exceeding six feet in height shall remain semi-
transparent in construction, such as the lattice material in place at the time of
this approval.
Mr. Jonas denied the request for a 0-foot setback for a shade cloth covering
extending between the house and fence, based on the following findings:
Findings
1 . The side yard setback exception will adversely affect the health, safety and
Administrative Hearing Minutes
September 2, 1994
Page 3
welfare of persons residing at the site or in the vicinity because of fire safety
considerations.
2. The structure as proposed will not comply with Section 504 (b) and Table 5-A
of the Uniform Building Code which require that the exterior wall of the
structure be of one-hour fire resistive construction, with no openings.
3. The side yard exception is inconsistent with two of the stated purposes of
yards (SLO Municipal Code Section 17.16.020 A.1 .) which are to "provide
separation between combustible materials in neighboring buildings" and "to
help determine the pattern of building masses and open areas within
neighborhoods".
4. Significant fire protection impacts are likely as a result of the side yard setback
reduction.
5. The exception could set an undesirable precedent by encouraging others to
seek approvals to build similar structures, thereby creating fire safety, aesthetic
and solar access concerns within the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Jonas explained that his decision is final unless appealed to the Planning
Commission within ten days of the action, and that an appeal may be filed by any
person aggrieved by the decision.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pam Ricci, Department of Community Development
FROM: Spencer Meyer, Fire Protection Specialist 91-14
SUBJECT: 1176 Buchon Street, Use Permit A 106-94
DATE: September 12, 1994
With reference to'the aforementioned use permit, the Fire Department is in complete agreement
with the Hearing Officer's decision concerning life-safety and fire protection. The California
State Fire Code Appendix VI-D, Table 5-A and the Building Code Chapter 5 setback(exposure
protection) requirements are identical. Basic exposure protection has historically been the first
line of defense with reference to fire protection.
With reference to life-safety and fire protection, required exposure protection is a concern the
Fire Department would not be willing to compromise.
jj 9
iCCEI v t ►
AUG 1 a 1994
,ITYOFSAN LUMO-C Jeffrey P. Wolcott
1176 Buchon Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93403-8100
August 18, 1994
Attention: Arnold B. Jonas
Mr. Jonas,
I am writing to apply for a 0' setback exception for my shadecloth
and a height exception for my fence. When I built these items
approximately 3 years ago, I looked around my neighborhood for ideas (see
pictures) and researched the Victorian Style to make an attractive
addition to the neighborhood. I have spent 7 years rebuilding my house
from the ground up (all with permits) and the whole time I planned the
"fun stuff'—a shade garden with a koi pond. I had no idea what a can of
worms I was opening.
I removed an ivy covered lattice work fence and replaced it with a
wood and lattice fence of the same height. Since my house and that of my
neighbor's is 3' up to the first floor, and the window sills are 6'-7' from
the ground, a 7' fence was needed. The shade cloth was added for privacy
_ and natural, energy-saving summer cooling. The framework is metal
tubing. I chose this because it's light weight and non-flammable.
I included pictures to show how these non-conforming structures
add character to the Old Town Neighborhood. I understand the aim of
setbacks is to reduce fire danger, but if you walk through my
neighborhood, one of the historical designations, it's hard to find a
building that completely meets code, and this is not likely to change much
in our lifetime. How many of our houses could withstand the scrutiny of a
building inspector who is really looking? I understand my problem is that
someone complained and now the ball is rolling.
330
I was told the fence height isn't a big deal, so if it's possible could
we deal with it separately? The shade cloth boils down to this. I don't
have to take it down, but I We to cut it back 3 or 5 feet from the
property line. The result is, if I make it ugly, it's legal.
If you are unable to allow me to keep the fence and cover as they
stands, please advise me on my next step. The judge gave me 90 days to
resolve this dispute, and if my only recourse is to appeal to the City
Council, I would appreciate it if you could speed me on my way with the
return of my pictures.
Thank you for your time,
Jeffrey P. Wolcott
3�3/
TIM EIDSON
1170 BUCHON STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
(805) 542-0672
August 17, 1994
Arnold B. Jonas
Community Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr Jonas,
This letter is to inform you that I have no problem with the fence, the
height of fence, the color of the fence, the material the fence is made of, or
anything else pertaining to the fence separating my property from Jeff and
Jennifer Wolcott (1176 Buchon). Also I have no problem with the nylon .
awning extending to our property line. In fact I rather like both the fence and
the awning.
It is my understanding that the previous tenant of my house, Bruce
Sieveson, a city building inspector at the time, originally filed a complaint
against the Wolcotts.
Let the record show that I certainly have no problem with the fence
or the awning, and find the whole thing rather absurd for the City of San
Luis Obispo to have pursued this issue in the manner they have.
Best regards,
" Tim Eidson
.�3z
TIM EIDSON
1170 BUCHON STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
(805) 542-0672
July 5, 1994
Jeffery G. Jorgenson
City Attorney
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Ms. Clemens,
I have been informed that the City of San Luis Obispo has filed
criminal charges against my next door neighbors, Jeff and Jennifer Wolcott
(1176 Buchon), for failure to comply to a city ordinance pertaining to awnings
extending to property lines.
It is my understanding that the previous tenant of my house(a city
building inspector), filed the complaint.
Let the record show that I certainly have no problem with the
awning, and find the whole thing rather silly.
Best regards,
Tim Eidson
cc. Robert Armstrong
Den-der, Armstrong & Rowland