HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/20/1996, 3 - PD 139-95 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING TO ALLOW SMALLER LOTS, A SLIGHTLY INCREASED DENSITY, AND SMALLER YARDS THAN ARE NORMALLY ALLOWED IN A LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY END OF BROOKPINE. MEEn G DATE:
''��fl�► �IIIIIpIIp q�p� city of San WIS OBISpo z
IM me COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT REM NUMBE
IQ 2
FROM: Arnold Joommunity Development Director
BY: Judith Lautner ssociate Planner
SUBJECT: PD 139-95 Planned Development rezoning to allow smaller lots, a slightly increased
density, and smaller yards than are normally allowed in a Low-Density Residential zone, at the
southwesterly end of Brookpine.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Pass to print an ordinance approving the planned development rezoning, based on findings and
subject to conditions, as recommended by the Planning Commission, except as modified by staff.
DISCUSSION
Back ound
A vesting master tentative map for six phases of development in the Edna-Islay Specific Plan area,
on the easterly side of the railroad tracks, was approved by the City Council in 1990, along with
a planned development rezoning to allow a small density bonus, a parking exception, and small
lots in phase four. The voters overturned the rezoning by referendum the following year. The
approval of the referendum did not nullify the subdivision map, but it did place phases one
through four in limbo. The attached Planning Commission report explains the differences in more
detail. Minor changes were made to the condominium project (phases 1 and 2) to eliminate any
density bonus in those phases, and phase 3 was finally approved with standard-sized lots.
Now the applicants want to submit the final map for phase 4. However, because the rezoning was
overturned, the map no longer is consistent with the zoning and subdivision regulations.
Therefore, to eliminate this inconsistency (explained further in the Planning Commission report,
attached), the applicants have requested another planned development rezoning,just for this phase.
The Planning Commission reviewed the request on January 10, 1996, and recommended approval
to the City Council. The Architectural Review Commission reviewed home plans for the site on
January 16, 1996, and granted approval subject to approval by the Council of the rezoning and
the final map.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the planned development, based on findings
and subject to conditions listed in the attached draft ordinance. That Commission also
recommended that the City Council consider "traffic calming" measures that may be incorporated
into the design of this phase, that would benefit the neighborhood as a whole. The Commission
directed staff to work with the applicant to come up with acceptable measures that could be
considered by the Council.
���H��►►�IIIII��Ii��ui►���IU city of San OBISpo ' `
i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
PD 139-95
4411 Brookpine Drive
Page 2
Data Summary
Address: 4411 Brookpine Drive.
Applicant/property owner: Hertel & Sons
Representative: Craig Campbell, John Wallace & Associates
Zoning: Low-Density Residential, with Specific Plan (R-1-SP)
General Plan: Low-Density Residential
Environmental status: Environmental Impact Report adopted by the City Council in 1982;
Addendum adopted in 1990; no further environmental studies
required.
Project action deadline: No state-mandated deadlines for legislative actions, including
zoning changes
Site description
The site is part of the 446-acre Edna-Islay Area, governed by the Edna-Islay Specific Plan,
adopted in 1982. The site includes 8.18 acres at the southerly end of Brookpine Drive, just east
of the railroad tracks and bounded by the creek. The property slopes generally toward the railroad
tracks. The site has been rough-graded and contains no significant vegetation.
Evaluation
Please refer to the attached Planning Commission report for an evaluation of this request, along
with the following additional information:
Traffic calming measures. The Planning Commission, after hearing public testimony about
traffic levels and speed in the area, voted to recommend approval of the project with the street
design as submitted (rather than with the design changes recommended by the Public Works
Department: see attached report), based on finding that the narrower street around the adobe and
the tighter curb radii would in themselves slow traffic. The Commission also asked staff to work
with the applicant to come up with several additional "traffic calming" methods, specifically
including detached sidewalks with trees in the parkways, illustrated graphically, that could be
discussed at the Council level, with the most feasible techniques incorporated as conditions of the
project approval.
Because of the limited time available between the Planning Commission meeting and the date the
report was due for the City Council, it was not possible to explore traffic calming methods
exhaustively. Planning staff met with the applicant, and later with the City's Transportation
Planner, to discuss options. Time schedules made it impossible to meet with both at the same
time. The following paragraphs outline applicant concerns and discuss various "traffic calming"
�mh�i�►►�l�ll��l1° 91111 city of San L.iS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
PD 139-95
4411 Brookpine Drive
Page 3
methods that were discussed at the Planning Commission hearing. Illustrations of some other
traffic calming alternatives are included in the Council's reading file.
1. The applicant would prefer the wider street and is willing to install stop signs.
Although the plans were submitted with a 32' curb-to-curb width for F Street (surrounding
the adobe), the applicant considered the concerns expressed by the Public Works
Department and felt that a wider (36' curb-to-curb) street would be safer for the residents
and drivers. It will also allow curbside parking near the adobe, which may be desirable
(the applicant's original intent was to prevent parking next to the adobe, to retain more of
an open feeling for the building, in keeping with its historical context). The applicant
would now prefer to make the necessary adjustments to create a 36' street. The Planning
Commission has recommended that the street remain at 32', which would require that there
be no parking along one side.
The Public Works Department also suggested installation of a stop sign at Wavertree and
Ironbark. The applicant is willing to install such a sign.
The attached ordinance reflects the Planning Comission recommendation. The Council
should specifically address the street width issue in its motion.
2. Integrated or detached sidewalks are again the question. The applicant asked to be able
to install detached sidewalks about one year ago, for phase three of the same subdivision.
The Council denied the request, based on a recommendation from the Public Works
Department. Now the Planning Commission has asked that the City Council consider the
use of detached sidewalks for this phase of development, because streets with tree canopies
tend to have the effect of appearing to slow traffic. (Adequate studies have not been
performed to verify this effect.)
Section 12.16 of the Municipal Code says that sidewalks are to be constructed "per
standards". The City Engineering standards illustrate detached and attached sidewalks, and
include the note:
Integral sidewalk is the City standard, detached sidewalk shall not be used without
approval of City Engineer. (see attached)
The subdivision regulations (Title 16 of the M.C.) do not specifically require sidewalks
to be either integral or detached. Last year (May 1995), the City Council adopted a
resolution (attached) confirming a policy to require integral sidewalks. The resolution
allows the City Engineer to allow detached sidewalks in certain circumstances:
3-3
���n�i�►►►�IIIIIIIIIP°i►IIUIII city of San s OBIspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
PD 139-95
4411 Brookpine Drive
Page 4
a. If one-half or more of any block is already improved with detached
sidewalks, or
b. In the event of unusual circumstances, due to physical topographical
features, or
c. Where deemed logical and necessary as a result of Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements or other conditions that would render
integral sidewalks as impractical or undesirable.
It does not appear than any of these circumstances exist in this case, except that it may be
possible to find that "ADA requirements or other conditions...would render integral
sidewalks as impractical or undesirable". If the Council wants to require detached
sidewalks, staff suggests that it either make this finding, specifying what circumstances
make integral sidewalks impractical or undesirable, or direct staff to return with a
modified policy on sidewalks city-wide. When acting on a sidewalk request on Jaycee
Drive last year, members of the Council asked informally that the question of the staff's
ability to approve exceptions to the integral sidewalk policy be addressed and returned to
the Council in the spring of this year.
The Public Works Transportation Division is reviewing the possible benefits of detached
sidewalks as part of a Pedestrian Transportation Plan, which, after hearings and adoption,
could lead to the development of a new detached sidewalk standard. At this time, however,
the department continues to recommend the use of integral sidewalks except in special
circumstances. The benefits and drawbacks of the integral and detached sidewalks are
listed in the attached May 1995 staff report from the Public Works Department.
Detached sidewalks may be appropriate in this medium-density development, given the
smaller cottage-like homes and the separation from the streets that tree-lined parkways can
provide. Detached sidewalks are also easier and less expensive to install. However, the
right-of--way widths in this subdivision allow eight feet from the curb to the property line,
and the sidewalk is required to be six feet wide. Thus a parkway would only be two feet
wide, not adequate for trees. An integral sidewalk will allow the use of that two feet as
part of the resident's front yard.
Because an exception to the policy would be difficult to justify in this case, and because
a two-foot-wide parkway is not adequate for trees, staff does not support detached
sidewalks for this subdivision. This exception to the Planning Commission's
recommendation is reflected in the draft ordinance.
3y
��� i���►IiIIIIIIpIII� IIU�U city of San 1.9S OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
PD 139-95
4411 Brookpine Drive
Page 5
If the Council chooses to allow an exception to the policy, staff recommends a standard
parkway width and sidewalk width of 1.6 meters (5.25 feet) each. This width is
recommended because the sidewalk width meets minimum ADA requirements and the
recommended parkway width is wide enough to support trees with minimal damage to the
sidewalk or street. Such a width, however, would further affect the sizes of these lots,
making them more difficult to develop.
3. Other traffic calming devices. The Planning Commission wanted staff to work with the
applicant to come up with feasible traffic calming methods for this phase of development.
Planning staff has discussed the possibilities with both the applicant and transportation
staff. A packet of illustrations of traffic calming devices is available in the Council reading
file. Staff recommends that the final design and use of calming techniques be worked out
between Public Works transportation planning staff and the developer, and be limited to
what can be done within the parameters of the tentative map design. A condition to that
effect is included in the draft ordinance.
The Planning Commission also asked that traffic calming devices be incorporated into the
existing neighborhood, beyond the stop sign noted above. The City's policy for existing
neighborhoods is to have representatives of the neighborhood (possibly members of the
board of directors of the homeowners' associations) request assistance from the
Transportation Division, not to impose devices where they have not been requested.
Therefore, the attached ordinance differs from the Planning Commission recommendation
in that it does not include a requirement for such devices in the surrounding
neighborhoods.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Planning Commission heard this request on January 10, 1996. Several members of the public
spoke, primarily against the small-lot development. The Architectural Review Commission
reviewed home plans and fence designs on January 16, 1996, and granted final approval,
contingent on approval of the planned development and final map by the City Council. No
members of the public spoke at that hearing. No other public hearings have been held on the
Planned Development rezoning request.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Other department comments are discussed above or in the attached Planning Commission report.
FISCAL IMPACTS
_S�
MEETING DATE:
����� ►�Illllll�i� u►��d�Il city of San WI S OBISPO
:OUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
Page 6
The planned development project is not expected to have a financial impact on the City. Costs of
development will be borne by the developer. Financial impacts on the City of the subdivision,
including restoration of the adobe and maintenance of the park, were discussed during the review
process of Tract 1750.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may adopt an ordinance approving the request, if it finds it consistent with the
general plan.
The Council may continue action. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant.
ATTACE31ENTS
Planning Commission report and attachments
Draft ordinance
Draft minutes of January 10, 1996 Planning Commission meeting
Public Works report on sidewalks
Resolution on sidewalks adopted May 16, 1995
In packet: Planned Development map
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMM SION STAFF REPORT ITEM#2
BY: Judith Lautnersociate Planner MEETING DATE: January 10, 1995
FROM: Ron Whisen d, Development Review Manager
FILE NUMBER: PD 139-95
PROJECT ADDRESS: 4411 Brookpine Drive
SUBJECT: Planned Development rezoning to allow smaller lots, a slightly increased density, and
smaller yards than are normally allowed in a Low-Density Residential zone.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval of the preliminary plan to the City Council, based on findings and subject
to conditions.
BACKGROUND
Situation.
A vesting master tentative map for six phases of development in the Edna-Islay Specific Plan area,
on this side of the railroad tracks, was approved by the City Council in 1990, along with a
planned development rezoning to allow a small density bonus, a parking exception, and small lots
in phase four. The voters overturned the rezoning by referendum the following year. The approval
of the referendum did not nullify the subdivision map, but it did place some phases in limbo.
Minor changes were made to the condominium project (phases 1 and 2) to eliminate any density
bonus in those phases, and phase 3 was finally approved with standard-sized lots.
Now the applicants want to submit the final map for phase 4. However, because the rezoning was
overturned, the map no longer is consistent with the zoning and subdivision regulations.
Therefore, to eliminate this inconsistency (explained further below), the applicants have requested
another planned development rezoning,just for this phase.
Planned development rezonings are reviewed by the Planning Commission, which makes a
recommendation to the City Council, which acts on the application.
Data Summary
Address: 4411 Brookpine Drive.
Applicant/property owner: Hertel & Sons
Representative: Craig Campbell, John Wallace & Associates
Zoning: Low-Density Residential, with Specific Plan (R-1-SP)
General Plan: Low-Density Residential
3-7
PD 139-95
4411 Brookpine Drive
Page 2
Environmental status: Environmental Impact Report adopted by the City Council in 1982;
Addendum adopted in 1990; no further environmental studies
required.
Project action deadline: No state-mandated deadlines for legislative actions, including
zoning changes
Site description
The site is part of the 446-acre Edna-Islay Area, governed by the Edna-Islay Specific Plan,
adopted in 1982. The site includes 8.18 acres at the southerly end of Brookpine Drive,just east
of the railroad tracks and bounded by the creek. The property slopes generally toward the railroad
tracks. The site has been rough-graded and contains no significant vegetation.
hject Descripfm
The project is a planned development rezoning from Low-Density Residential, Specific Plan (R-1-
SP) to Low-Density Residential, Specific Plan with Planned Development (R-1-SP-PD) to allow
smaller lots than are normally allowed in the Low-Density Residential zone, and a small increase
in density. Some yard exceptions are also requested. Minor changes have been made to the street
layout from the tentative map approved in 1990, which may be approved as part of the overall
project.
Lot size exceptions:The subdivision regulations require lots in residential zones to be a minimum
of 6,000 square feet in area (corner lots are required to be 15% larger, or 6,900 square feet. The
proposed lots range from 3,480 to 8,348 square feet, averaging 4,852 square feet (figures on the
plans are slightly off), with a median size of 4,674 square feet.
Yard exceptions: The request is to allow a standard five-foot-wide easement on one side of the
property, with a minimum 7' yard on the adjacent property,resulting in a minimum 12'-wide
distance between houses. The two-story homes require 8' yards. Therefore, a maximum of a 3'
exception is requested for some yards. A minimum street yard of 10' is requested by letter,
although no street yards smaller than 13.3' are shown. All garages are set back at least 20', in
accordance with zoning standards for enclosed parking spaces.
A planned development application must include a specific project. The project in this case is the
map of phase 4 of Tract 1750 submitted for this application, plus the homes proposed for the lots.
3-�
PD 139-95
4411 Brookpine Drive
Page 3
EVALUATION
1. A brief history. The site is part of a master tentative map, approved in 1990. A planned
development rezoning was approved as part of that action, allowing a density bonus,
smaller lots, and some parking exceptions. The voters overturned the rezoning the
following year for a variety of reasons, most notable of which was the concern over
approving development during a drought.
The City Attorney determined that the tentative map was still valid. However, final maps
for the six phases of development could not be approved if they were inconsistent with the
General Plan or Zoning Regulations. Therefore, the applicant has been modifying the
design of the phases as necessary to make. them consistent.
Minor changes to the density and subsequent changes to the zoning regulations parking
requirements made the first two phases consistent. Phases 3 and 4 originally both contained
smaller lots. The third phase was submitted with standard-size lots, based on an agreement
that phase four would contain all of the smaller lots .and that homes would be
correspondingly smaller as well. Now phase four is under consideration. This phase
contains smaller homes on smaller lots. The applicant has chosen to submit a new planned
development application, narrower in scope than the original, to address consistency with
lot size and density requirements.
2. Why not make the lots standard size? An option considered by the applicant was to
revise phase 4 to make the lots all standard size. Staff discouraged such an application
because it would have been difficult to find the final map consistent with the tentative map
without the smaller lots:
The speck plan:The specific plan map shows two types of residential development: low-
and medium-density. The map designates two areas on the Islay side for "medium-density"
housing: one next to Tank Fane Road and one near the site of phase 4. During review of
the master tentative map, the City wanted to be sure that adequate medium-density housing
would be provided, consistent with this map.
The specific plan says that medium-density housing should "promote a variety of housing
types which include but are not limited to attached single-family homes, garden apartments
and condominiums, courts, triplexes, etc. Housing should be developed for people who
are looking for smaller, more economical housing, limited private yards or minimum
maintenance responsibilities." (Page 15, EISP) The planned unit development (Islay Villas)
on Tank Farm Road clearly meets this intent. Phase four's small homes on small lots also
met this intent. A modification to this phase that would create standard-size lots with single
homes would not be consistent with this intent.
PD 139-95
4411 Brookpine Drive '
Page 4
The tentative map: Condition 46 of the tentative map approval is a restriction on the size
of the homes on the smaller lots:
Development of homes on the small lots (phases 3 and 4) shall be limited to approximately
the square footage proposed as part of the planned development preliminary plan.
Remodeling and additions to these homes in the future shall be in accordance with the
limitations in the zoning regulations.
The intent of this condition could not be met if modifications were made to the phase to
create standard-sized lots.
3. Why R-1 and not R-2? The proposal is for the property to be rezoned from R-1-SP (the
general zoning for the entire specific plan area) to R-1-SP-PD. Medium-Density housing
is usually zoned R-2. If the site were to be zoned R-2-SP-PD it would be consistent with
the specific plan and with the density regulations, with no density bonuses.
However, in the R-2 zone density is based on the number of bedrooms, whereas in the R-1
zone density is based on the number of dwelling units. If the site were zoned R-2, the
smaller lots (the smallest is 3,480 SF) would be allowed to contain only a one-bedroom
dwelling, while the larger (the largest is 8,348 SF) could have two dwelling units (one
three-bedroom and one one-bedroom, for example).
The R-1 zoning would allow the development to retain a single-family character but
because of the smaller homes and lots would be affordable to a wider range of buyers.
Property development standards (yards, height limits, parking) would limit the types of
additions that could be made to these homes.
Staff continues to support the R-1 zoning. However, a change to R-2 would meet the intent
of the tentative map and of the specific plan. Plans for homes on some of the smaller lots
would have to be modified to meet R-2 restrictions.
4. Density bonus. According to the zoning regulations, density is "the number of dwelling
units per net acre", where "net area" "includes all the area within the property lines of the
development site minus street right-of-way dedicated to the City. Net area includes the
area occupied by nonresidential uses".
There is a very small density bonus required because of the way it is measured. In the R-1
zone, up to seven dwellings per acre are allowed. The request is for 7.02 dwellings per
acre, including the area used for a detention basin (but not including the future public
park). This is a density increase of 7.02n = 0.3%.
3�a
PD 139-95
4411 Brookpine Drive .
Page 5
To approve a density bonus as part of a planned development request, the Commission and
Council must make three of six findings listed in the zoning regulations (and repeated
below, in section 7). Three findings can be made.
5. Yards. There are two yard exceptions requested:
Side yards: The zero-lot-line design (discussed below) is to be accomplished by the
granting of five-foot easements along one side of each house, for the use of the adjacent
lot owner. The yard on the adjacent lot is a minimum of seven feet wide, resulting in a
minimum 12' wide usable yard.
The average yard requirement for the two-story homes is eight feet. Therefore, the five-
foot yard is smaller than required for these homes. In every case, however, there is a total
yard at least 12' wide and most are wider. The distance between homes in this subdivision
appears appropriate and provides sufficient usable area for residents. Staff therefore
supports yard exceptions of up to three feet for some of the homes.
Street yards:The representative is asking (by letter, attached) for street yards as small as
ten feet. However, very few of the yards are as small as that and in those cases the
exception is for the porch only. Small lots tend to need exceptions to make the best use of
the land, and the occasional smaller street yard will not detract from the street appearance
of these homes. Staff supports the street yard exceptions.
6. A planned development rezoning is appropriate for this situation. The zoning
regulations say that the planned development zone
is intended to encourage imaginative development and effective use of sites. It does
this by allowing more variation in project design than norrnat standards would
allow. Such variation from normal standards should provide benefits to the project
occupants or to the community as a whole which could not be provided under
conventional regulations. (Section 17.50.010)
The regulations also say (section 17.50.030):
A. Residential densities may exceed those allowed in the underlying zone by not
more than 25%...
B. Under an approved development pian, lot size and configuration, yards, height,
coverage and parking may be specified for the project without conformance to the
standards of the underlying zone.
PD 139-95
4411 Brookpine Drive
Page 6
Approval of the planned development rezoning will include approval of the site plan and
home layouts.
7. Findings must be made. To approve a planned development rezoning that includes a
density bonus, the Planning Commission and Council must find that the proposed
development satisfies at least three of the following six criteria:
1. It provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group (such as
the elderly or families with children) which would not be feasible under
conventional zoning.
The project is especially suited to first-time buyers, families with small children,
and moderate-income buyers.
2. It transfers allowable development, within a site, from areas of greater
environmental sensitivity or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or hazard.
3. It provides more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional
development.
Although the project is not likely to meet specific state-mandated affordability
standards, it will provide three-bedroom homes that will range in price from just
above the prices for the town homes (which are one-and two-bedroom homes) and
below the larger homes in the adjacent phase 3, thereby providing a home that
may be affordable to families who otherwise would have to rent.
4. Features of the particular design achieve the intent of the conventional standards
(privacy usable open space, adequate parking, compatibility with neighborhood
character, and so on) as well as or better than the standards themselves.
The zero-lot-line design provides usable outdoor living area at the side and rear of
the homes. Parking is provided that meets conventional standards (two-car
garages), and the homes are designed to be compatible with existing neighborhoods
nearby.
5. It incorporates features which result in consumption of less materials, energy, or
water than conventional development.
6. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits such as parking, open
space, landscaping, public art, and other special amenities which would not be
feasible under conventional development standards.
3-12-
PD 139-95
4411 Brookpine Drive
Page 7
The street design allows greater use of available open space, because it allows an
extension of the small park (with the adobe) to include use of the detention basin,
and provides for the continuation of views from the adobe into the Edna valley, as
it was originally designed to retain. Conventional development standards would
require that Brookpine connect with A street (see further discussion below), which
would interfere with this concept.
It appears that findings number 1, 3, 4, and 6 can be made. Staff has included these
findings in the recommendation..
8. The street alignment raises questions. The tentative map showed A Street running
parallel to the railroad tracks, starting at the westerly end of Ironbark and continuing in
a southeasterly direction until it met up with the current beginning of A Street. The
combination of Brookpine and A Street were intended to serve as a residential collector for
this neighborhood, along with Wavertree Street, funneling traffic between Tank Farm
Road and the numerous smaller side streets. (See attached reduced tentative map.) The
portion of A Street that was including in phase three was eliminated at the final map stage.
The proposal and its benefits. The present alignment would eliminate a small segment of
A Street adjacent to the adobe site. The intent of this change is to protect views from the
adobe in a westerly direction and to make better use of the open space areas near the
tracks. The project would include continuation of a bicycle-pedestrian path, that extends
from the west end of Ironbark, through an unfenced detention basin and back onto A
Street, where it can then meet up with the path up to Tank Farm or go under the railroad
tracks to connect with an existing path on the other side.
The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed this proposal and endorsed it, finding
it consistent with the adobe preservation measures they had discussed with the applicant
previously. (See excerpt from CHC November 27 minutes, attached.)
The elimination of this portion of A Street would then have benefits for residents and users
of the small park that includes the adobe. However, it also has costs:
The drawbacks. Brookpine would still serve as a collector for the five streets it crosses,
but drivers wanting to use Brookpine who live in most of phase 4 or the southerly portion
of phase 5 would have to use the local streets, and particularly F Street (the street that
curves around the adobe) as collectors.
The Public Works Department is concerned about the pressure that may be placed on F
Street as a result of the elimination of that portion of A (see comments and sketch,
attached). Although Wavertree is also a neighborhood collector, many residential lots front
3-/3
PD 139-95
4411 Brookpine Drive
Page 8
on it as compared to Brookpine, making it more desirable to encourage traffic to use
Brookpine. F Street is not designed to City standards, as it has a narrower radius curve
than normally required (approved as part of the tentative map) and it has a narrower width
than normally required. Public Works is concerned that this combination may make traffic
on F hazardous.
Recommendationsformodications. Staff therefore recommends that F Street be widened
to 36' curb to curb. from the 32' presently proposed. The applicant's representatives
believe this widening can be accommodated by adjustments of a foot or so in each of the
lots surrounding the curve. Public Works further recommends that F and Alder Streets be
modified to provide for smoother curves where they connect with both Brookpine and A
Street. An additional Public Works suggestion is to terminate F Street in a cul-de-sac at
its southerly end and create another street connection through lots 10 and 15. These
alternatives are illustrated on the attached sketch from the Public Works Department.
Adjustment of the intersection at Brookpine and F would require some modifications to
phase 3, a phase which is currently under construction. Staff would support such a change
if agreeable to the developer, but is not recommending additional changes to F at this time.
The street alignment changes involving Alder would smooth the flow of traffic and prevent
overuse of F Street. Therefore, this change is incorporated as a recommended condition
of approval.
9. Maintenance responsibilities. The blending of the adobe park with the bike path and
detention basin raises maintenance questions. The park is to be public, maintained by the
City, while the path and detention basin are to be held and maintained by the homeowners'
association. As proposed, there would be no distinction between the two.
Staff supports the proposed blended concept and suggests that changes in landscaping can
delineate the line between the two without sacrificing the openness intended. Staff can
work with the subdivider to develop an appropriate way to create a distinction between the
two.
10. Zero-lot-line concept. The applicant wants to create a"zero-lot-line" development on these
lots. Easements would be granted to neighbors on one side, so that each home would have
a sideyard a minimum of 12' wide, plus a rear yard. The other side would be granted to
the neighbor on that side. This design has been used successfully in some of the phases on
the Edna side of the Edna-Islay Specific Plan area. Staff finds this type design especially
appropriate for small-lot developments.
Building staff has a concern that future homeowners may adjust the drainage on the lots
so that the area next to the adjacent house would not drain properly, causing damage to the
.?-/d/
PD 139-95
4411 Brookpine Drive
Page 9
foundation. This situation has occurred on some lots on the Edna side. There are several
ways to alleviate this concern: install drainage inlets in rear yards, so that drainage to the
street along the side is minimal; provide drainage plans to each home buyer (a technique
used with success by another developer), an addition to easement language that assures that
property owners are aware of the consequences of changing existing drainage patterns.
Staff feels the problem is minimal and can be addressed through the review of
improvement plans and the final map process.
11. Orcutt Road alignment changes. Bob Fowler, Hertel representative, has requested some
changes to a tract condition involving Orcutt Road (see attached letter from Fowler).
Conditions of the vesting tentative map are not subject to change, except by an amendment
to the map itself. No such amendment request has been submitted. The applicant's request
to modify the Orcutt Road design speed is well-taken but cannot be acted upon as part of
the planned development request. - -
ALTERNATIVES
The Commission can recommend denial of the planned development rezoning, if it finds that the
proposal is inconsistent with the General Plan or any City policies or regulations. The Commission
can continue action on the project. Direction should be given to the applicant and staff. The
Commission may recommend approval with modified findings or conditions.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Comments from other departments are discussed above.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval of the planned development rezoning to the City Council, based on the
following
Findings:
1. The project provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group,
specifically first-time buyers, families with small children, and moderate-income buyers,
which would not be feasible under conventional zoning, because it provides smaller homes
with outdoor yards on small lots, and therefore is expected to be especially suitable for
these groups.
2. The project provides more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional
development, because 1) smaller homes on smaller lots will sell for less than larger homes
,3-ice
PD 139-95
4411 Brookpine Drive
Page 10
on larger lots, and 2) the design will provide single-family living at a lower cost than
conventional design would allow.
3. Features of the particular design, specifically the use of small homes with zero-lot-line
design, achieve the intent of the conventional standards (privacy usable open space,
adequate parking, compatibility with neighborhood character, and so on) as well as or
better than the standards themselves.
4. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits, including greater use of
available open space adjacent to the adobe, which would not be feasible under conventional
development standards.
5. The design of the map, as conditioned, is consistent with the tentative map for phase 4 of
Tract 1750. - --
With the following
Exceptions:
1. Street and side-yard exceptions are approved, as shown on plans, with minor adjustments
to be approved by staff.
2. Lot sizes averaging 4,852 square feet are approved, as shown on plans, with minor
adjustments to be approved by staff.
3. The street design, including the alignment of F Street and the elimination of a portion of
A Street (as compared to the tentative map for Tract 1750) is approved as conditioned.
And subject to the following
Conditions:
1. F Street shall be redesigned to be a minimum of 36' curb-to-curb.
2. The intersections of A Street with Alder, and Alder with Brookpine, shall be smoother
curves, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
3. The project is subject to all applicable conditions of Vesting Tentative Map 1750.
4. The applicant is responsible for any modifications to existing infrastructure or easements
caused by street alignment or lot changes.
.-A
PD 139-95
4411 Brookpine Drive
Page 11
5. Landscaping or other means must be used to differentiate between City and Homeowners'
Association property where the adobe park meets the landscaped buffer area, to the
approval of the Community Development Department and the Parks Division.
Attached:
reduced tentative tract map with phase four outlined
public works comments
excerpt from CHC minutes Nov. 27, 1995
letter from representative Brian Conroy
letter from representative Bob Fowler
Tract 1750 conditions
4
ti
w
y ��
December 19, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Judy Lautner, Associate Planner
FROM: Jerry Kenny, Supervising Civil Engineer
SUBJEC : TRACT 1750 (UNIT 4) PD and ARC 139-95
1. The deletion of the portion of "A Street" (per the tentative
map) separating the detention basin from the Rodriguez Adobe is
acceptable to this department.
However, if that's the case, "F" Street should be widened to 36
ft. (curb to curb) to accommodate parking and easier maneuvering
around the curve in front of the adobe. It should be noted that
this street does not meet current City standards, since it has a
curve much sharper than our minimum for a residential minor street.
(88 feet versus 150 feet radius) However, the tentative map showed
this configuration . (including parallel parking bays, etc. ) and
,alignment and presumably it was deemed acceptable. That was,
however, based on having "A Street" as a through street. With this
change, the widening would seem necessary.
It may be desirable to restrict parking on the inside of the curve
and/or provide for a passenger loading zone at the adobe.
If parking becomes a problem in the future, relating to the adobe
uses, further widening could be done with angled or right-angle
parking adjacent to the adobe property without having to install an
onsite parking lot.
2. Brookpine Drive was designed to be a collector street for the
general area with few lots fronting on it until past Alder Court.
The revision may cause more traffic to use Wavertree, which has
lots fronting on it the entire length. A stop sign may ultimately
be needed at its intersection with Ironbark; if so, it should be a
subdivision (PD) condition.
To further mitigate this concern, the alignment of "A Street" could
be modified to provide for a smoother curve, northwesterly of
Wavertree, to facilitate/distribute the traffic over to Brookpine,
through Alder Court. The extension of "A Street" northwesterly
could also be terminated and a revised street connection, through
Lots 10 and 15, could be constructed that connects with "F Street" .
The lots could be reconfigured, with a cul de sac at the detention
basin/linear park. (See attached sketch)
Compliance with the approved tentative map and/or a changed
condition re: deletion of the through street must be addressed.
Judy Lautner (T 1750, Unit 4; PD & ARC 136-95)
December 19, 1995
Page Two
3. There needs to be some distinct border between the City's and
Homeowners Association landscape maintenance responsibilities,
between the adobe property and the detention basin/linear park;
either by providing different type landscaping (e.g. lawn vs
shrubs, fencing, etc. )
4. The subdivider shall be responsible for any modifications to
existing infrastructure and/or easements caused by the proposed
revisions to the tentative map. For instance, a portion of the
irrigation main for the detention basin landscaping is outside of
the linear park/detention basin lot and within the Brookpine
extension, proposed to be eliminated.
Attachment: sketch
c: WP/TS/JR
MM/MB/HB/file
G: \wp51\dreview\T1750\PD139-95
3-�
IRONbAHK
If
STS
SAWLEAF COURT01,
qr
11>
tt i i s i
tt ; 8 129 i 30 31 32 . 33 ----
' i 34
35
J6 so
-'37 `
27 i 26 125 24 P3 22 �'\ ,\ x
60
21 �\\ �\
2 i .3
4 5 2D A 39 59
61
I i
\I 18 4 5762
I
1
9- . . 17 I 42 56 ! 63 1
43
L
i 0 6 55 64 I+
54 65
�• ,, j 45 , ;
53 � 66
46 r
„
47' .. III
\ 51 68
% r
rr
X50 / 6..9 i 11
- \l. j ( 11
.r\ \ 49
FUTUI
M 71
,
72
14
s73 ,
t ,
CHC Minutes, November 27, 1995
Page 5
7. Status of Bowden-La Loma Ado ion/Acqu' ' on Program. (Hoo
Jeff Hook updated the Com on the status of th wden - La Loma Ado , and noted that
the City Council s the proposed g' a adobe plus land to City. He said that
the Council ected staff to negoti ith the property owner urchase Parcel 1, adjacent
to the to provide add itio se area around the ad
8. Revised Concept Street Plan for the Rodriquez Adobe.
Jeff Hook explained that he had received a revised concept street layout plan from Bob Fowler
of Hertel & Sons, developer of property adjacent to the Rodriquez Adobe, and passed around
a copy of the revised street layout plan dated October 3, 1995. Mr. Fowler had, in response
to previous CHC comments, revised plans to avoid bisecting the front yard of the adobe, and
the concept plan now showed the street running to the northeast of the adobe with a some angled
parking to serve the adobe. He explained that the developer expected to go back to the City
Council with changes to the approved development plan and that it might be helpful for the CHC
to provide input on the subdivision with respect to the adobe's preservation and reuse.
Committee members endorsed the revised concept and felt that it was consistent with the
preservation measures they had discussed with Mr. Fowler last February. They recommended
that the City Council approve the street changes to allow an unobstructed open space in front
of the Rodriguez adobe to help preserve its historic overlook of Edna Valley, and to provide
staging area for future outdoor activities.
The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. to the regular meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee
on Monday, October 23, 1995 at 5:30 pm in the Council Hearing Room (Room 9), in San Luis
Obispo City Hall.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jeff Hook, CHC Secretary
Attachment
J WL
S-?2
Clork,
Conroy
& Associates
October 27, 1995
Ms. Judith Lautner
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Dept.
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93103-8100
Dear Ms. Lautner:
Attached-are 12 sets of house plans for the ARC submittal on Tract 1750, Phase 4. A
site and grading PD plan has been Included as part of each set.
In addition to the ARC package approval we are requesting tho following building
sotback.and.fence height exceptions: -
1. All two-story interior units along garage side yard, where 8'-0" is
required, 5'-0" minimum Is requested. -I his side yard is the b'
easement area used to create the zero lot line concept configuration.
2. A minimum setback between all two-story buildings, where 16' is
required, we request a minimum of 12'-0" separation, which Is a
5'-0" easement setback and a T-0" adjacent building setback from
property line between units.
3. At comer lots #1, 12, 13, 27, 28, 48, 49, and 73 we request the use
of a 6-0" high instead of a 4'-6" high stucco wall at the 5'-0" setback
along the side yards fronting on Brookpine Avenue. This will allow
more privacy for these end lots, as provided for the interior lots.
4. In all cases, garage fronts are the required 2d' street yard s4tback, dr
more, for parking. We request a minimum building setback of 10' to the
street yard property line.
We appreciate your consideration in approving these exceptions to achieve the overall
zero lot line concept plan for better use of lot and usable yard space.
Sincerely,
Brian Conroy
ALFRED MILES CLARK BRIAN PATRICK CONAOY
P.O. B=3177 2241 Boulevard Del Campo
Atoscodero, CA 93423 Son Luis Obispo. CR 93401
805-466-5195 805-543-7140
3-23
ORDINANCE NO. (1996 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP TO CHANGE AN EIGHT-ACRE
SITE ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY END OF BROOKPINE DRIVE
FROM LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WITH A SPECIFIC PLAN (R-1-SP)
TO
LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, SPECIFIC PLAN, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
(R-1-SP-PD)
ALLOWING A SMALL DENSITY BONUS
AND SOME EXCEPTIONS TO YARDS AND LOT SIZES (PD 139-95)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January 10 , 1996
and recommended approval of an amendment to the City's Zoning Map ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on February 6, 1996 and has
considered testimony of other interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing
and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed provisions are consistent with the
General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that an Environmental Impact Report was
approved by the City Council in 1982 for the Edna-Islay Specific Plan and an amendment was
approved in 1990, and that no further environmental study is needed;
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that no additional environmental
study is needed because the project is a residential project governed by a residential specific plan,
for which an Environmental Impact Report was adopted.
SECTION 2. The City Council makes the following findings:
1. The project provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group,
specifically first-time buyers, families with small children, and moderate-income buyers,
Ordinance no. (1996 Series)
Planned Development PD 139-95
Page 2
which would not be feasible under conventional zoning, because it provides smaller homes
with outdoor yards on small lots, and therefore is expected to be especially suitable for
these groups.
2. The project provides more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional
development, because 1) smaller homes on smaller lots will sell for less than larger homes
on larger lots, and 2) the design will provide single-family living at a lower cost than
conventional design would allow.
3. Features of the particular design, specifically the use of small homes with zero-lot-line
design, achieve the intent of the conventional standards (privacy usable open space,
adequate parking, compatibility with neighborhood character, and so on) as well as or
better than the standards themselves.
4. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits, including greater use of
available open space adjacent to the adobe, which would not be feasible under conventional
development standards.
5. The design of the map, as conditioned, is consistent with the tentative map for phase 4 of
Tract 1750.
SECTION 3. The Planned Development preliminary map PD 139-95 is hereby approved,
with the following exceptions:
1. Street and side-yard exceptions are approved, as shown on plans, with minor adjustments
to be approved by staff.
2. Lot sizes averaging 4,852 square feet are approved, as shown on plans, with minor
adjustments to be approved by staff.
3. The street design, including the alignment of F Street and the elimination of a portion of
A Street (as compared to the tentative map for Tract 1750) is approved as conditioned.
SECTION 4. The Planned Development preliminary map PD 139-95 is subject to the
following conditions:
1. F Street shall be designed to be a maximum of 32' curb-to-curb, excluding parldng insets.
2. The project is subject to all applicable conditions of Vesting Tentative Map 1750.
Ordinance no. (1996 Series)
Planned Development PD 139-95
Page 3
3. The applicant is responsible for any modifications to existing infrastructure or easements
caused by street alignment or lot changes.
4. Landscaping or other means must be used to differentiate between City and Homeowners'
Association property where the adobe park meets the landscaped buffer area, to the
approval of the Community Development Department and the Parks Division.
5. Streets within the development shall be constructed with integral sidewalks, to the approval
of the Public Works Department.
6. The applicant shall work with the Transportation Division to identify appropriate traffic
calming measures for streets in this phase, within the parameters of the tentative map, and
shall incorporate those changes into improvement plans, to the approval of the Public
Works Director.
7. A stop sign shall be installed at the corner of Wavertree and Ironbark, along with other
speed control measures as necessary, to the approval of the Public Works Department.
SECTION 5. This ordinance, together with the names of councilmembers voting for and
against, shall be published once in full, at least (3) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-
Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this city. This ordinance shall go into effect at
the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of , 1996, on motion of
seconded by , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
3-2�a.
Ordinance no. (1996 Series)
Planned Development PD 139-95
Page 4
APPROVED:
QA(el —Vz
VirAtJm;'
Planning Commission Meeting
January 10, 1996
Page 15
AYES: Commissioners Ready, Hoffman, Cross, and Chairman Karleskint.
NOES: Commissioner Kourakis.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Senn.
ABSENT: Commissioner Whittlesey.
2. 4411 Brookvine Drive: PD 139-95: Review of a planned development rezoning to allow
smaller lots; R-1-SP Zone; R- W. Hertel& Sons, Inc., applicants.
Associate Planner Lautner presented the Staff Report recommending that the Commission
recommend approval of the rezoning to the City Council.
Commissioner Hoffmanked about street modifications.
The public hearing was opened.
Bob Fowler, Vice President of Hertel& Sons, representative, displayed a colored map of the
development. Mr. Fowler said that Hertel had tried to address concerns raised by the drafters of
the referendum that overturned the previous-Planned Development Permit.
Mr. Fowler said they eliminated the frontage road and created a landscape buffer area between the
homes and the railroad area, eliminated a sound walland created a landscape mounding, which he
feels has enhanced the neighborhood. They have created`more green space for the neighborhood.
They widened the detention basin in phase four. He pointed,out other improvements made by the
developer. Mr. Fowler pointed out that the housing types that they are now proposing are the
middle level of housing types. He agreed with the staff report except for the street alignment
recommendation. He felt that the only area that will be generating traffic on Brookpine could
potentially be the phase five portion. He felt that the amount of traffic didn't appear to justify
street radius.
In response to a question from Commissioner Senn, Mr. Fowler said that widening the street
radius from 25'to 40' was the only area of disagreement with the staff recommendation.
Paul Hardy, 4525 Wavertree, complimented Hertel & Sons on their work. He stated the park is
almost complete and will be beautiful, and the underground water tank will benefit the
community. Mr. Hardy stated he is in favor of saving and restoring historical sites, but he sees no
value in the adobe. He stated he had trouble with having lots below 6,000 sq.ft. in area. He
expressed concern over the lack of notice of this meeting.
�a�
Planning Commission Meeting
January 10, 1996
Page 16
Ken Cess, 4532 Wavertree,said he objected to the elimination.of the collector street to
Brookpine. He felt the phase five development will cause more traffic on Wavertree and he will
be affected. He felt Wavertree needed speed bumps at this time. There are a lot of children who
play in the street. He felt the original design of a street should be kept.intact..
Denton Wilson, 1352 Aralia, expressed concern over the lot sizes. He felt a very nice project is
being ruined. He stated families are encouraged to live here, but children will have nowhere to
play. The park is too far away from the phase four development. Mn Wilson felt the two main
arteries, Brookpine and Wavertree, will be impacted by traffic. The lots should be at least 5,500
sq.ft. Parking will be a problem and houses will be too.close together.. There are eight pieces of
property in a row that are under 4,000 sq.ft. With such dense housing, there will be an awful lot
of kids playing in the streets.
Robert Stake, 4512 Wavertree St., expressed concern over lot size and increased traffic. Putting
greater density at.the far end of the project will create hazards. He stated Wavertree is on a little
hill, which creates traffic problems.
Tana Burgess, 4535 Wavertree, stated she didn't receive notification of this meeting. She
expressed concern for the children. With the addition of 73 more homes with smaller yards, there
will be very busy streets. She felt,.cutting the comers on the collector streets will increase
vehicular speeds. She urged the Commission to increase the size of lots..
Judy Woodbridge, 4542 Wavertree, expressed concerns over the density and children playing in
the streets. She felt traffic will be increased.
Colleen Clark, 1422 Ashmore St., stated she did not receive notification of this meeting. She
appreciated many of the things Hertel has done and agreed with many of the changes. She agreed
with removing the street between the adobe and the railroad tracks. She had a problem with such
high-density housing. She liked what was done to the drainage basin to widen the park. Ms.
Clark questioned the funding needed to renovate the adobe. She suggested using the adobe
bricks to perhaps build a monument. She would like the lots to be bigger. She didn't see how
this area can accommodate this many children playing in the street.
Mr. Fowler thanked the speakers for their compliments. He stated the minimum distance between
houses is 12'. The zero lot line concept enhances the livability of the lots themselves. He noted
that an existing sewer line limits how deep the lots can be. Originally the lots on Wavertree had a
10' setback for those lots from the top of bank of the creek. That has been increased to 20'.
Those are the smallest and shallowest lots in the subdivision. They will back up to the creek area
and will have open fencing. Hertel had problems making those lots deeperbecause of the sewer
line. When the park is completed, there will be.access from Wavertree. There will be park area
around.the adobe area. He stated they would.support Public Works' suggestion of putting in a
Planning Commission Meeting
January 10, 1996
Page 17
stop sign at Wavertree and Ironbark. Mr. Fowler stated they have struggled with the issue of
density. The 73 lots conform with the Specific Plan. He stated they have contacted the Cultural
Heritage Commission about the adobe. As a condition of approval on the project, they will
provide up to $100,000 in matching funds for the restoration of the adobe.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated staff is in receipt of a letter from Vincent and
Lucianne Bell, dated January 5th, stating they are opposed to the rezoning.
Mr. Fowler stated, that the specific plan adopted over ten years ago. Whether or not the density
is appropriate was addressed at that time.
Colleen Clark wondered if it is possible to amend the Specific Plan.
Ronald Whisenand stated the 1994 General Plan was adopted after many years of work by the
Commission and Council,.and this specific piece of property is designated medium-density
residential.
Colleen Clark wanted staff to remove the adobe. She noted that there are other adobes in this
area.
Judy Lautner stated the Specific Plan says the adobe is to be looked at the time of development.
This adobe has been reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Commission and a number of other
organizations and has been determined to be significant for a number of reasons.
Colleen Clark stated with the high density, there is a lot of concrete in this area and suggested
constructing a median strip.
Mr. Fowler stated he would like to have detached sidewalks, but there is specific City policy
against those. He invited Ms. Clark to join them in designing a plan for the adobe.
The public hearing was closed.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS:
Commissioner Cross asked staff about the lack of notice for the meeting.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated notice was printed in the paper. Some people
did receive notice. Notice is given up to 300' from the development. The mailing list would be
checked in the morning.
Commissioner Cross didn't want additional stop signs, saying there are other concepts that may
Planning Commission Meeting
January 10, 1996
Page 18
be appropriate.
Commissioner Kourakis supported the project. She felt the changes that have been made were
very positive. She felt that the adobe is a historically significant building and when it's restored
will be a great addition to this area and the City. She thought the design speeds for streets are
much too high. Traffic calming measures should be explored. Commissioner Kouralds stated she
would like graphic interpretations of traffic calming methods for phase four submitted to the City
Council.
Commissioner Hoffman said he prefers detached sidewalks with street trees, but no pines.
Commissioner Senn moved to recommend approval of the planned development based on the
findings, exceptions, and conditions stated in the staff report. Commissioner Cross seconded the
motion.
Commissioner Hoffman suggested amending the motion to include the recommendation that the
street radius not be widened and the street width off street remain at 32'. Commissioner Senn so
amended his motion.
Commissioner Kouralds suggested amending the motion to include a statement requiring a study
of traffic calming methods for phase four that could benefit the entire neighborhood, and which
would include detached sidewalks. Commissioner Senn so amended his motion.
AYES: Commissioners Senn, Cross,Kouralds, Hoffman, Ready, and Chairman Karleskint.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Whittlesey.
S -36
I'IN^IIpINII nlMll��` y� MEETING G
I WIIII IIIIr'N II �ity of Salt .,AIS OBI SPO ATE: 15
II , ITEM NUMBER:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT -
FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Public Works DirecfOr ?e,l
Prepared by: Gerald W. Kenny, Supervising Civil Engineer
SUBJECT:
Consideration for use of detached sidewalks in lieu of integral sidewalks for Tract No. 1750
(Unit 3) [Ironbark St. and Brookpine Dr., et al.]
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution (1) reaffirming the current preferred standard of integral sidewalks, with
transitions to detached sidewalk at the back of driveway ramps, and (2) allowing the use of
detached sidewalks where determined to be necessary and logical due to ADA requirements,
based on lot sizes and potential conflicts with adjacent properties and/or where at least 50% of a
block already has detached sidewalks, as determined by the City Engineer.
DISCUSSION:
The subdivision improvement plans for Tract No. 1750 (Unit 3) are nearing completion and
approval by the City Engineer. The approved tentative map provides for City standard 6-foot
wide integral sidewalks. The Federal Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and State
regulations require that the sidewalk at driveway crossings have a maximum of 1/2 inch per foot
(4%) cross-fall for driveways up to 20-foot wide or 1/4 inch per foot (2%) for those driveways
greater than 20-foot wide. Current City standards of integral sidewalks at driveway crossings do
not meet this criteria and thus new designs must be considered and approved.
Although City standards show both integral and detached sidewalks, the City Council has
adopted integral sidewalks as the preferred design [Resolution No. 1512 (1965 Series)].
Detached side-walks are "allowed" in instances where at least 50% of a block already had
detached sidewalks or in "unusual circumstances". [e.g. conflicts, such as trees, rock, etc.) [See
Attachs. 5, 6 and 7]. Integral sidewalks do not meet ADA requirements at driveways due to the
steep slopes needed for driveway transition from the street to private property. Detached
sidewalks meet the Federal and State requirements due to the fact that the driveway slope at the
location of the sidewalk meets the requirements of ADA.
Integral sidewalks may still be used, but must transition in some manner at driveways to meet
ADA requirements. Detached sidewalks need no such transitions. The subdivider of Tract 1750
has asked for use of detached sidewalks along the frontages where driveways occur for the
remaining units of the parent tract. Consideration of final map approval is expected soon and
this issue needs Council consideration and action prior to approval of the final map. Public
Works staff supports the current Council policy of integral sidewalks with exceptions granted only
in special cases. Staff doesn't believe the detached sidewalks requested are absolutely necessary
to meet ADA requirements in this case.
A recent action by the Council (May 2, 1995) authorized the City Engineer to make minor
changes to City standards without having to wait until review and approval by the Council.
However, staff felt this issue was different, in that the request is to change an established Council
"policy" favoring integral sidewalks as the preferred standard. Based on the current policy
resolution, the City Engineer is allowed to make decisions as to where detached sidewalks are
01
s -3 /
11111111121! city of San CU1S OBISpo
MumbM
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
justified. Staff believes that within the current policy no major changes are needed, and that the
City Engineer has the flexibility to meet ADA requirements without a complete change in policy.
PROS & CONS OF THE ALTERNATIVES
A. INTEGRAL SIDEWALKS
PROS
1. Allows persons entering and exiting parked vehicles to use a safe, flat and sturdy surface;
desirable during rainy weather.
2. Allows wider landscaping area between sidewalk and structures. This provides more
"useable" yard and setbacks from the street.
3. Street trees in narrow parkways tend to cause more damage to streets and sidewalks,
which are the City s responsibility to repair. (Reasonable minimum width of parkway to
support street trees being 5 or 6 feet, even with deep-root planters.)
4. Possibility of more potential for vertical displacement of sidewalks causing trip and fall
accidents.
5. Water meters, fire hydrants, poles are clearly visible and not subject to being covered by
vegetation.
CONS
1. Requires transitions from integral to detached sidewalks at driveway ramps, causing
possible problems where driveways are adjacent to property lines and transitions would
need to be in front of a neighbor's property.
B. DETACHED SIDEWALKS
PROS
1. No need to transition from integral sidewalks to back of driveways.
2. Parkway trees and other landscaping may "soften" the street-scape.
CONS
1. Lose benefits of level solid surface when entering or exiting parked vehicles.
2. Potential for lack of maintenance of parkways by property owners and/or filling in with
brick or other pavers (including concrete) to eliminate maintenance.
.3032.
��►►� I�� p � � City Of San L"IS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
3. Sidewalks would be closer to residences and wider landscape buffer would be lost.
4. This tract requires 2- foot wide public pedestrian easements behind the R/W line. A 10-
foot wide "parkway" is required to accommodate 4-foot wide ADA sidewalk and a 6-foot
wide driveway. (This tract was approved with 8 foot parkways.)
ALTERNATIVES:
Option 1: Adopt a resolution (1) reaffirming the current preferred standard of
integral sidewalks, with transitions to detached sidewalks at the back of
driveway ramps, and (2) allowing the use of detached sidewalks where
determined to be necessary and logical due to ADA requirements, based
on lot sizes and potential conflicts with adjacent properties and/or
where at least 5007o of a block already has detached sidewalks, as
determined by the City Engineer. (STAFF RECOMMENDED
ACTION)
Option 2: Adopt a resolution permitting either integral or detached sidewalks as
the standard.
Option 3. Adopt a resolution requiring detached sidewalks as the standard.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
CONCURRENCES:
The Community Development Director and City Attorney concur with the recommended action.
Attachments:
1 - Draft resolution (Option 1)
2 - Draft resolution (Option 2)
3 - Draft resolution (Option 3)
4 - Map
5 - Resolution No. 1512 (1965 Series)
6 - Standard Drawing # 4110
7 - Standard Drawing # 4120
8 - Letter from J Wallace & Assoc.(3-27-95)
G:\WP51\DRev ew\T17'50\U3DetSW.rep
3-
w�,