Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11/14/2006, PH 4 - APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY A MINOR SUBDIVISION CREATING TWO LOTS FROM ONE L
council M�°°- Iq IDLA j acEnaa Report I=N C I T Y OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY A MINOR SUBDIVISION CREATING TWO LOTS FROM ONE LOT AT 1364 SAN MARCOS COURT. (MS 158-04) CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution, denying the appeal, and upholding the Planning Commission's action to deny the subdivision, based on findings. DISCUSSION Background The applicant/appellant, Jerry Reiss, would like to subdivide the existing lot at 1364 San Marcos Court, creating a new vacant lot that would share an existing flag lot driveway access with three other properties at 2675 though 2685 Johnson Avenue. The proposed map includes three exceptions to the flag lot standards, MC 16.18.060 of the Subdivision Regulations: accessway width, accessway landscape setbacks, and ownership of the accessway. The ownership situation surrounding the proposed subdivision is somewhat convoluted since the appellant, Jerry Reiss, no longer owns the property which he is trying to subdivide. Instead, the property is currently owned by Paul and Julie Hatalsky. The Hatalskys previously purchased the subject property from Jerry Reiss subject to an agreement that Mr. Reiss could later subdivide the rear half of the property for his own interest. Prior to selling the property to the Hatalskys, Mr. Reiss also secured an access easement from a property owner at 2685 Johnson Avenue. 2685 Johnson Avenue is the back lot on an existing flag-lot subdivision that has a total of four houses on it (see Attachment 1). The property owner that originally sold Mr. Reiss the easement has since sold the property to Robert Cooper. Mr. Cooper testified at the Planning Commission hearing that he is not in support of the proposed subdivision and does not support the use of the easement. The history of the ownership, and the easement, however, does not affect the applicability of the Subdivision Regulations, or the City's ability to act on the request. Subdivision Exceptions The Subdivision Regulations implement specific standards that are designed to protect existing neighborhoods while implementing the General Plan and Subdivision Map Act. Mr. Reiss' proposed subdivision map requests the following exceptions to these regulations: y-� Council Agenda Report—Appeal of Planning Commission action denying a minor subdivision for 1364 San Marcos Page 2 1. Access-way Modifications The existing (and proposed) accessway is 19 feet wide and the minimum width required is 20 feet (MC 16.18.060 C, below). Although a 1-foot difference is not significant, the available area to improve the accessway with a new driveway is hampered by utilities, trees and other improvements that encroach into the accessway..Additionally, the existing residence at Johnson Avenue is right at the edge of the accessway with no setback. The minimum driveway width for this subdivision should be 16 feet while the existing driveway is approximately 10 feet wide. MC 16.18.060 C. The accessway (access lot, not driveway width) to the rear shall be at least twenty feet (20') wide for residential and conservation open space zones and 40 feet wide for commercial zones (except the C-D zone which is 15 feet). Driveway width and paving shall be determined by the City parking and driveway standards and is subject to approval of the Community Development Department Director based on use, distance, number of parking spaces and/or units served. 2. Access-way Landscape Setbacks The Subdivision Regulations require that a minimum of eight feet be reserved between the access driveway and existing residential structures (MC 16.18.060 E, below) Presently, the access driveway is about 1-foot from an existing residence and there is a narrow landscape planter (approximately 5 to 6 feet in width) along one side of the driveway. Widening the driveway to allow two-way vehicle access or fire truck access is likely to completely eliminate the existing landscape buffer. MC 16.18.060 E. Each lot shall have yards as required by the Zoning Regulations. A landscape area with sufficient width to plant screening shrubs and trees (minimum of eight feet) shall be reserved between the access driveway (and any required turn- around areas)and existing or proposed residential structures. 3. Ownership of Access-way The access-way is currently a part of the rearmost lot (2685 Johnson Avenue). With the proposed subdivision, the rearmost lot would be the Reiss parcel; however Reiss would not own the accessway. Instead he would utilize an easement over it. MC 16.18.060 H requires that the lot furthest from the street own the accessway in fee. Planning Commission Action Based on neighborhood testimony and staff description of insufficient site access, the Planning Commission unanimously denied the subdivision request at a hearing on September 13, 2006 (Attachments 3, 4, and 5 Planning Commission minutes, resolution and staff report). Neighbors that share the existing accessway on Johnson Avenue expressed concerns about the loss of landscape and privacy due to the proposed widening of the driveway. Other concerns include increased vehicle trips onto Johnson Avenue and excessive trash and recycling bins at the narrow driveway frontage at Johnson Avenue. Commissioners noted that they would support the map if alternative access to San Marcos or Augusta Avenue could be achieved. The basis for denial is especially ya Council Agenda Report—Appeal of Planning Commission action denying a minor subdivision for 1364 San Marcos Page 3 related to the unique access request within an existing flag lot easement that currently serves three other residences from Johnson Avenue. The existing access is too narrow to allow for safe vehicular access or fire truck access and the addition of another lot on this accessway only exacerbates the problem. Appeal An appeal was received from the applicant, Jerry Reiss on September 21, 2006. Mr. Reiss is appealing the Planning Commissions action and believes that he has provided a sufficient access plan for the proposed lot. Specifically, Mr. Reiss' appeal provides two reasons to justify the appeal. Each of Mr. Reiss' appeal points, in italics below, is followed by an evaluation of the particular point. 1. The General Plan Policy of infill development within the City of San Luis Obispo was not given full weight in the consideration. Attachment 3 includes the Planning Commission staff report. The Planning commission was presented with a complete General Plan analysis including a detailed project description. Infill development is supported when the development is compatible with the existing neighborhood and when it does not create significant health, safety or welfare issues. In fact, at the Planning Commission hearing, Commissioners stated that they would support the map if the applicant could find reasonable access to either Augusta Street or San Marcos Court. The proposed access route to Johnson Avenue was the PC's concern that tipped the scale between logical infill and an infeasible request that will negatively impact the neighborhood while supplying only one building site. In regards to GP policies regarding infill development, there are none which speak directly to the circumstances of this appeal. The most relevant reference to infill development is a program in the Housing Element that addresses infill. Program 6.3.9 reads: "Balance City efforts to encourage residential development by focusing as much on infill development and densification within the City Limits as on annexation of new residential land." However, there are many General Plan Housing and Land Use Element policies that are also designed to protect residential neighborhoods. For example, Policy 3.2.6 of the Housing Element: "Preserve the fabric, amenities, yards, (i.e. setbacks) and overall character and quality of life of established neighborhoods" C' Council Agenda Report—Appeal of Planning Commission action denying a minor subdivision for 1364 San Marcos Page 4 2. There is potential of improving a non-conforming driveway which will provide additional safety for all residents along the access easement and better sight distances and pedestrian protection at Johnson Avenue. Although the plan does indicate widening and improving the existing driveway, sight distance and pedestrian protection at Johnson Avenue would be unchanged unless parking from Johnson Avenue is elimindated and significant trees and other vegetation are removed from the easement area. Rather than improve the situation, widening of the driveway would eliminate privacy and shade while decreasing the aesthetic appearance of yards that abut the access driveway. The positive benefits of widening the driveway are overshadowed by the negative impacts that would burden at least six existing dwellings (three dwellings on the access driveway and three others on adjacent properties that abut the driveway). Conclusion Encouraging the expanded use of the existing access driveway out to Johnson Avenue is not consistent with the intent of the Subdivision Regulations or the applicable General Plan Policies. The Flag Lot Standards in the Subdivision Regulations (MC 16.18. 060) are designed to implement General Plan Policies in regards to protecting existing yards, properties and neighborhoods. These standards require significant landscape buffers, and other design standards that are intended to screen backyards and residential bedrooms from vehicular driveways. The proposed plan conflicts with these important standards and would eliminate existing screening. As noted earlier, the map might be supported by the Planning Commission if alternative access plans to Augusta Street were to be achieved. CONCURRENCES The Public Works Department (Transportation Division)and the Fire Department have reviewed the site and have commented on the proposed access plan. The Fire Department would require fire truck access on the driveway and a turn around area. The Transportation Division agreed that the existing access-way is not appropriate to accommodate an additional dwelling and that widening and tree removals would have to occur to increase access sight distance. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact. ALTERNATIVES 1. Uphold the appeal, thereby approving the minor subdivision to allow a new lot behind the existing residence at 1364 San Marcos Court. Upholding the appeal would require staff to prepare an environmental analysis with the need to return to Council to review and adopt the L/-y l Council Agenda Report—Appeal of Planning Commission action denying a minor subdivision for 1364 San Marcos Page 5 environmental document and a revised resolution. The recommended action does not include an environmental analysis since the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not require such an analysis when the project is to be denied. If the Council wishes to approve the appeal it may also want to add specific subdivision_ and access driveway conditions when the item returns to Council. 2. Continue the item for additional analysis or research, Council should specify the information needed and to provide staff with specific direction in order to return to a hearing at a later date. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Reduced scale site plan and project details Attachment 3: September 13, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachment 4: September 13, 2006 Planning Commission Resolution Attachment 5: September 13, 2006 Planning Commission staff report Attachment 6: Appeal to City Council Attachment 7: Draft Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission action to deny the minor subdivision. G:\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Subdivisions\MS 158-04(1364 San Marcos)\AP CC158-04 11-14-06.doc y-� 6A VICINITY MAP iFile No. 151 1364 San Marcos Ct . AttachmenI. 2 San Luis Obispo City Planning Department 990 Palm Street P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Re: Minor Subdivision To Whom It May Concern: I have made application to subdivide the property located at 1364 San Marcos Court into two parcels. The newly created vacant.parcel will be approximately 9,400 s.f. in size and be accessed from Johnson Avenue by way of an existing driveway and easement. The remaining parcel at 1364 San Marcos Court will revert back to the original.configuration, as subdivided in 1971. The two parcels were combined in the mid 1980's. City Planning has notified me that two items may be of concern and need to be addressed: easement width and lot location. The following discussion addresses each of these concerns. 1. EASEMENT WIDTH: The existing driveway easement is nineteen feet wide in lieu of the now required twenty foot width. The easement has been in constant use by three parcels for approximately fifteen or more years. The rear parcel owns the land upon which the easement exists. 2. LOT LOCATION: City regulations require the lot which is farthest away from the street to own the land underlying the driveway easement. The rear property line of the proposed new lot extends twenty-five feet farther back than the easement lot. However, both lots were originally equidistant from Johnson Avenue until a lot line adjustment was allowed, which moved the easement lot rear property line twenty-five feet closer to the street. Additionally, access to the garage on the easement lot extends.beyond the end of the driveway easement held by the new lot. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AIIG e,$ 29 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT a-7 Attachment 2 Please do not hesitate to contact me, if you have further questions or need further clarification. ZBest gards, er Reiss 820 Walnut Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-544-4387 y-� U n pql J ma$ a � a N 4� alb �n �d <m�aea kr� ash U �o 12: RaI L Lg�s AV NOSNHOr W g sx gal I I I i I I h� !1H � � I � F I I m' I � I h a� --—— � a 9 e afd' In C11 CCR c wee $ lel 7° 4N � OG I yll - achment 2 g €€ 3 1OK6 VO'odslgp sin-1 ueg'any uosugor 6L9Z R n v o uolslMpquS sslaa --N, gsuawanojduq ReMeApa posodoid S o = W ow pp tO d 2:) Z O o y � � J I W � U a }: 1 I m� I W � � < a I 1 � g g I / U J � W U K J Attachment 3 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 13, 2006 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Commissioners Charles Stevenson, John Ashbaugh, Andrew Carter, Jason McCoy, Peter Brown, Vice-Chair Carlyn Christianson, and Chairperson Andrea Miller Absent: Commissioners Carlyn Christianson Staff: Deputy Director Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore, Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick, and Recording Secretary Jill Francis ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items. MINUTES: Minutes of August 23, 2006. Approve or amend. The minutes of August 23, 2006, were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1364 San Marcos Court MS and ER 158-04: Consideration of a tentative parcel map creating two lots from one lot, and environmental review; R-1 zone, Jerry Reiss, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending the Commission deny the proposed vesting tentative parcel map based on findings which he explained. Andrew Merriam, Wallace Group, representative for the applicant, spoke in support of the request, explained how the driveway would be widened to improve conditions, and described how there were no other access opportunities Jerry Reiss, property owner, was available for questions. PUBLIC COMMENTS: A letter was presented to the Commission from a neighbor opposing the project. Rolf Monteen, SLO, spoke against the project, explained the impact of the project to his property, was concerned about the loss of trees and vegetation; felt the driveway would Planning Commission Minui._ Attachment 3 September 13, 2006 Page 2 be better served going to Augusta Street, and presented photos to show the size of the current driveway. Eric McSwain, San Luis Obispo, spoke against the project, expressed concerns with increased traffic on Johnson Avenue and the extended driveway. Scott Moran, San Luis Obispo, opposed the project, discussed the driveway dimensions and presented photos, and expressed safety concerns with vehicles exiting onto Johnson Avenue. Ed Mayo, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns with the increased density, and opposed the project.. Chris Burtness, San Luis Obispo, spoke against the project and voiced concerns with the easement created in 2003 which his family was unaware of. George Shamis, San Luis Obispo, opposed the project and noted concerns with changes occurring in the neighborhood. Mark Ekhert, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns with noise and increased density, noting his opposition to the project. Robert Cooper, San Luis Obispo, owner of the current driveway that would need to be widened, spoke against the project and did not support the easement. Craig Adams, San Luis Obispo, had concerns with traffic and density, and expressed opposition to the request. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: The Commission discussed the history of the proposed lot, the access, and complexities of the ownership and easement issues. They encouraged the applicant to seek alternative access to another street other than Johnson Avenue. Commr. Stevenson discussed the proposed driveway and possible widening, as well as loss of vegetation. Commr. Ashbaugh asked staff about other possibilities for the parcel if this project is denied. Commr. McCoy asked where the original access for parcel was located. He noted he could not support the project because of neighborhood concerns with fire and traffic safety, and another dwelling unit. Commr. Carter asked about the original access to the lot. Planning Commission Minu,_,'�3 ��_�� Attachment 3 September 13,2006 Page 3 Commr. Miller discussed possible avenues for the owner with the denial of this project. On motion by Commr. Carter to deny the proposed tentative parcel map. Seconded by Commr. Ashbaugh. AYES: Commrs. Ashbaugh, Stevenson, Brown, McCoy, Carter, Miller NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Christianson RECUSED: None The motion carried on a 6 :0 vote. 2. 1772 Calle Joaquin. U 123-05; Request to construct a wireless telecommunications facility camouflaged by two 31- foot tall faux trees; C/OS-10 zone; Cingular Wireless, applicant. (Tyler Corey) Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending approval of the use permit, based on findings and subject to conditions. Jeff Jacobsen, Infranext, applicant's representative, described the simulated trees and clarified the location of the facilities. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION.COMMENTS: Commr. Stevenson spoke in favor of the project with protection of existing trees and vegetation. On a motion by Commr. Brown to approve the use permit, based on findings and subiect-to conditions. Seconded by Commr. McCoy. AYES: Commrs. Ashbaugh, Brown, Miller, McCoy, Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: Commr. Carter ABSENT: Commr. Christianson The motion carried on a vote of 5:0. 3. 1908 Ruth Street. MS and ER 109-06; Consideration of a tentative parcel map creating two parcels (3,085 sq. ft. and 4,389 sq. ft. ) from one lot, with exceptions to Y1� r Attachment 4 RESOLUTION NO. 5462-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING THE VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR A MINOR SUBDMSION LOCATED AT 1364 SAN MARCOS COURT MS/ER 158-04 (SLO 04-0338) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 13, 2006, to consider the applicant's request for a tentative parcel map to create two lots from an existing lot with an exception to the Subdivision Ordinance Section, Section 16.18.060 flag lot requirements, for property located at 1364 San Marcos Court; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff; and BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The site is not suited for the type and design of the subdivision due to the inability to create safe, logical site access. 2. The exception would allow approval of a minor subdivision that will result in improvements that will be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity. 3. Granting the exception is not in accord with the intent and purposes of the Subdivision Regulations since the proposed access driveway does not meet required dimensions and required landscape buffering would not be possible. 4. Approval of a subdivision with the proposed access through a non-conforming flag lot is- not snot consistent with General Plan Land Use and Housing Element policies that are designed to protect existing neighborhoods. In particular; granting access for this new property out to Johnson Avenue is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.2.5 which states that new residential developments, or redevelopments involving large sites, should be designed to orient low-density housing to local access streets, and major arterials through residential areas shall provide only limited private access or controlled street intersections. SECTION 2. Denial. The request for approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. MS 158-04 (County Map No. SLO 04-0338) and requested exceptions are hereby denied. q zl ) • MS 158-04 Resolution to dei '7'13� Attachment 4 Page 2 On motion by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Carter, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Ashbaugh, Brown, Miller, Carter, McCoy and Stevenson NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commr. Christianson The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 13th day of September, 2006. Doug Da ' son, Secretary Planning Commission L� �S �) Attachment 5 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMM SSSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM# 1 BY: Philip Dunmore`,`Associate Planner(781-7522) MEETING DATE: September 13, 2006 Pf FROM: Pamela Ricci,, Senior Planner FILE NUMBER: MS/ER 158-04 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1364 San Marcos Court SUBJECT: Review of a proposed vesting tentative parcel map with exceptions to the flag lot standards contained in the Subdivision Regulations to create two lots from one existing lot at the end of San Marcos Court located between Augusta Street and Johnson Avenue. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution to deny the proposed vesting tentative parcel map based on findings. .BACKGROUND Situation The applicant would like to subdivide the existing lot at 1364 San Marcos Court, creating a new vacant lot that would share an existing flag lot driveway access with three other properties at 2675 though 2685 Johnson Avenue. The proposed map includes exceptions to the flag lot standards, MC 16.18.060 of the Subdivision Regulations. The exceptions include reduced accessway width, reduced accessway landscape setbacks, and the lot furthest from the street would not own the accessway in fee. Data Summary Address: 1364 San Marcos Court Applicant: Jerry Reiss Property Owner: Paul and Julie Hatalsky Representative: Andrew Merriam Zoning: R-1 (Low:Density Residential) General Plan: Low-Density Residential Environmental Status: An initial study of environmental review has not been prepared for the project since CEQA does not require one for projects that are to be disapproved. Site Description The lot is on the north side of the cul-de-sac street known as San Marcos Court. San Marcos Court intersects with Augusta Street near Sinsheimer Park. The lot is approximately 14,617 Attachment 5 MS 158-04 (1364 San Marcos Court) Page 2 square feet in area and contains an existing residence near the street. The rear of the parcel is vacant and does not contain significant landscape or vegetation with the exception of one large eucalyptus tree. The rear of the site abuts an existing flag lot accessway that contains a driveway serving three parcels from Johnson Avenue. The three parcels on Johnson Avenue are each independently owned and contain a total of four residences. The front lot, 2675 Johnson, contains a secondary dwelling unit that accesses the flag lot driveway. 2679 and 2685 each contain a single-family residence and each of these properties utilizes the flag lot driveway. Proiect Description The project includes splitting the existing lot into two parcels. Parcel 1 would be the vacant parcel, 7,969 square feet in area, at the rear of the site adjacent to the flag lot accessway from Johnson Avenue. Parcel 1 would be 6,648 square feet in area and encompass the existing residence at 1364 San Marcos. In order to improve visibility and access, the applicant would improve the existing driveway from Johnson Avenue by widening and clearing back vegetation. In addition, the City Fire Department would require that a fire truck tum-around be provided on the new lot, prior to construction of a new residence. A recorded easement exists that allows for access to the San Marcos Court property through the existing flag lot driveway from Johnson Avenue. Although 1364 San Marcos previously contained two parcels in the same configuration as this subdivision request, the City Engineer is requiring that a new map be prepared to formalize the lots rather than a certificate of compliance since there is not sufficient record to verify the legality of the lots. EVALUATION The proposed vesting tentative parcel map will result in two conforming lots in terms of their overall areas and dimensions. However, the proposal to establish and improve access to a new lot from an existing non-conforming flag lot subdivision is a major concern given the range of necessary exception requests it requires, the potential•impacts to adjacent residents, and the. serious traffic and safety issues that are intensified. Due to the proposed access and the numerous conflicts it creates with General Plan Policy and the Subdivision Regulations, staff cannot support the subdivision proposal. If there were options to access this property, such as through the existing residence at San Marcos, or through an existing flag lot subdivision at Augusta Street, many of the significant concerns might be overcome. The following portions of the evaluation section discuss the project's lack of consistency with the General Plan and Subdivision Regulations in greater detail. 1. General Plan The following paragraphs evaluate the proposed project for consistency with applicable General Plan Policies. General Plan Policy is in italics followed by staff's response. "�7 L._A Attachment 5 MS 158-04 (1364 San Marcos Court) Page 3 Land Use Element LU 2.2.5 Street Access New residential developments, or redevelopments involving large sites, should be designed to orient low-density housing to local access streets, and medium-or high density housing to driveways accessible from collector streets. Major arterials through residential areas shall provide only limited private access or controlled street intersections. Staffs Analysis: Johnson Avenue operates as an arterial street, with high traffic volumes and relatively high traffic speeds. Increasing the residential density on an existing non-conforming access driveway that intersects with Johnson Avenue is likely to create more intensive traffic and safety issues. The existing driveway is non-conforming since it is too narrow to accommodate two-way traffic (approximately 10 to 12 feet wide), and the existing residences and property lines are too close to the driveway to allow the driveway to be improved to an acceptable standard. If a vehicle is pulling out of the driveway when a vehicle wants to enter the driveway, traffic conflicts could occur on Johnson Avenue. City staff has visited the site with Public Works transportation staff, who recommends that if the subdivision were to be approved, that an alternative driveway access plan be mandated. The applicant has explored alternative access arrangements, including a driveway out to Augusta Street through another existing flag lot subdivision; however, such an arrangement has not been secured. Achieving access to San Marcos Court, through the front of the property, would seem to be the most logical solution to the problem. However, in order to achieve access to San Marcos, the existing residence would have to be modified, An additional complication to this subdivision request is that the applicant does not own the underlying property or residence on San Marcos. Instead this subdivision request is based upon a recorded agreement with the current property owner. The agreement allows the former property owner (Jerry Reiss, applicant) to subdivide the rear half of the property for his own interest. The agreement expires at the end of 2006. The agreement was recorded when Jerry Reiss sold the property to the current owner.. LU 2.2.12:Residential Project Objectives Residential projects should provide: A)Privacy,for occupants and neighbors of the project, E)Security and safety; F)Separate paths for vehicles and for people, and bike paths along collector streets; G)Adequate parking and storage space; I) Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches, front yards along streets, and entryways facing public walkways. Staffs Analysis: The site's flag lot configuration, shared driveway and limited access space makes it more difficult to design a project that easily complies with many of the objectives contained in General Plan Policy LU 2.2.12. The project's consistency with each objective is evaluated in the following paragraphs: Attachment 5 MS 158-04 (1364 San Marcos Court) Page 4 A) Developing a residence at this site will reduce privacy for neighbors of the project since existing landscape buffers at the edge of the driveway near private backyards would have to be removed to accommodate some widening of the driveway. E) Safety would be compromised by additional vehicle trips on an existing narrow driveway that intersects a busy arterial roadway. Even with required improvements, fire access and tum-around capabilities are likely to be marginal. F) There-is not enough room in the driveway to create separate paths for bikes or pedestrians. This exacerbates existing conditions since Johnson Avenue is not especially friendly for pedestrians and bicyclists given traffic volumes and rates of speed. G) Due to limited street frontage, parking demand issues within flag lot subdivisions are common. The new subdivision regulations .require that each of the lots within a flag lot subdivision provide one additional parking space than required by code. In this case, a new lot would be attached to an existing, developed flag lot subdivision; therefore, it would not be possible to place additional parking on separately owned, developed lots. However, the proposed lot, would be required to provide a total of three parking spaces plus space for a fire-truck turn- around. All of these improvements would severely compromise the lot's available building envelope. 1) The deep lot configuration, narrow driveway, and remote location of the lot in relation to the street would not allow for traditional design elements mentioned in I. Housing Element HE 3.2.6 Preserve the fabric, amenities, yards (i.e. setbacks), and overall character and quality of life of established neighborhoods. Staffs Analysis: Due to the required improvements to the existing access driveway to achieve fire access and some widening, the existing yards and quality of the setting would be compromised. The existing driveway is only 10 to 12 feet wide and bordered on one side by a heavy landscape screen and on the other side by existing residences (one residence is as close as 1-foot away from the existing driveway. The plans propose to widen the driveway to approximately fourteen feet with a couple of vehicle turn-outs that would be eighteen feet wide. The widening would result in the removal of important landscape screening that currently helps to buffer the driveway from adjacent rear yards of residences at 2699 and 2695 Johnson Avenue. The driveway improvements and the addition of a new residence at this location would not be consistent with Housing Element Policy 3.2.6. HE 7.2.1 Within established neighborhoods, new residential development shall be of a character, size, density and quality that preserves the neighborhood character and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents. Staffs Analysis: The issue at stake is the quality of life for existing and future residents. The new lot and potential new residence will impact the quality of life for existing and future residents if the lot's access is taken through the existing flag-lot driveway out to Johnson Avenue. Attachment 5 MS 158-04 (1364 San Marcos Court) Page 5 HE 7.2.6 Housing shall be sited to enhance safety along neighborhood streets... Staffs Analysis: As noted above in the Land Use Element discussion, the proposed access route through an existing non-conforming flag lot subdivision would compromise the safety of existing and future residents. 2.Subdivision Regulations The minor subdivision will be subject to processing under the City's flag lot standards of the Subdivision Regulations (MC 16.18.060, Attachment 5). Flag lots must be designed to conform to specific standards that are designed to minimize impacts to existing adjacent properties. In this case, the proposal will not create a new flag lot, but instead it will utilize an existing flag lot driveway to achieve access. Because of the age and intensity of existing development, necessary improvements to create logical access and buffering for existing properties would be difficult to achieve. The following discussion highlights the proposed project's consistency with applicable code requirements. The pertinent sections of the Subdivision Regulations are summarized in italics followed by staffs analysis. MC 1618.060 B. The original lot shall have frontage on a dedicated street of at least the minimum dimensions required by these regulations (20 feet). Staffs Analysis: The existing frontage for the rear parcel of the existing flag lot (2685 Johnson) is approximately 19 feet wide, which does not conform to current standards. No changes are proposed, or are possible to the frontage of the lot. The new lot (Parcel 1) would not have frontage on Johnson Avenue and would utilize an existing easement over a non-conforming flag- lot driveway to achieve access: MC 16.18.060 C. The access-way to the rear shall be at least 20 feet wide. Driveway width and paving shall be determined by the City parking and driveway standards and is subject to approval of the Community Development Director. Staffs Analysis: The existing flag-lot is approximately 19 feet wide; however the paved area of the existing driveway within the accessway lot is only about 10 to 12 feet wide. The Parking and Driveway Standards would require a driveway of this type to be a minimum of 16 feet wide to accommodate two-way traffic. Additionally, the Fire Department has requested that the driveway exceed this minimum standard and be improved to a 20-foot width with at least 13', 6" of vertical clearance. With existing conditions; widening the driveway beyond 14 feet would cause the removal of significant trees and other screening landscape, significantly impacting the existing residential properties adjacent to the driveway. Currently there are residences and other improvements that are within one or two feet of the existing driveway. Even if the driveway were widened to the greatest extent possible, given the physical constraints, it would not conform to required standards and would not allow sufficient width to allow two vehicles traveling in separate directions to pass each other. Attach mant 5 MS 158-04 (1364 San Marcos Court) Page 6 MC 16.18.060 E. Each lot shall have yards as required by Zoning Regulations. A landscape area with sufficient width to plant screening shrubs and trees (minimum of eight feet) shall be reserved between the access driveway (and any required turn-around areas) and existing or proposed residential structures. Staffs Analysis: Beyond potential traffic and safety impacts to Johnson Avenue, insufficient buffering between the driveway and existing properties is the most significant issue involved with this subdivision proposal. This code requirement was designed to implement General Plan Land Use Element Policy 2.2.12 to ensure that existing residential yards and bedrooms would not be impacted by vehicles entering or exiting driveways. As mentioned above, the existing shrubs, trees and other improvements would have to be removed in order to improve the driveway for fire and vehicle access. Since minimum driveway width standards cannot be achieved, there is obviously no additional space to provide for the landscape setbacks required by MC 16.18.060 E. The proposal would leave landscape areas that range from 4 feet to 2 feet in width on one side and less than one foot on the other side. Landscape buffering for existing properties to the south would be impacted. The creation of one lot does not warrant the potential loss in privacy and quality of life for existing properties.. MC 16.18.060 F. For each residence served by a flag lot driveway, one additional off street parking space shall be provided. The parking space may not be within the street yard or in tandem to other required parking spaces. Staffs Analysis: The proposed lot would have to supply a total of three parking spaces in addition to a fire-truck tum-around, severely compromising the available building footprint. It would not be possible to require additional parking spaces for the existing developed lots taking access from the flag lot driveway since they are under separate ownership and are not part of this subdivision application request. Therefore, the parking requirement must be considered another exception sought by the applicant. The Commission.should also note, that street parking is very limited on Johnson Avenue, at least in part because of the concentration of flag-lot subdivisions in the vicinity. The proposed driveway improvements resulting from this map are likely to remove additional street parking spaces. MC 16.18.060 H. The lot farthest from the street shall own the accessway in fee. Other lots using the accessway shall have an access easement over it. Staffs Analysis: In this case, the proposed lot at the rear of 1364 San Marcos would be the lot furthest from Johnson Avenue, however the accessway is already owned in fee by 2685 Johnson Avenue. This map is asking for an exception to MC 16.18.060 H. Currently the property at 1364 San Marcos has an easement for access and maintenance over the existing accessway for 2685 Johnson. It is this particular easement that the applicant is relying upon for future access to the new lot. «� �) Attachment 5 MS 158-04 (1364 San Marcos Court) Page 7 3. Property Development Standards No plans have been formalized to develop the proposed lot at this time, therefore it is not possible to evaluate specific development standards. The lot would have to include a 40-foot deep fire truck turn-around per City standard. Trash collection, site drainage and a reasonable building envelope are all potential issues. The site appears large enough to be able to accommodate an adequate building envelope even with the requited fire truck tum-around and compliance with other property development standards. As with any flag lot subdivision, trash collection would be problematic. A total of five residences would have to utilize the property frontage at 2675 Johnson Avenue on trash day. Typically, R-1 properties utilize,separate trash, greenwaste and recycling bins for a total of three separate bins per residence and a total of 15 bins possible on trash day. Given the limited sight distance and driveway access issues at Johnson Avenue, a large amount of trash bins in front of one residence would exacerbate existing conditions. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution denying the minor subdivision with exceptions. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional information or project modifications required. 2. Approve the map based on findings and subject to conditions. Staff would need to prepare the required environmental document and return to the Commission with a complete set findings, conditions, mitigation measures, and code requirements at a later date. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Vicinity map Attachment 2: Reduced scale project plans Attachment 3: Letters from applicant and applicants representative Attachment 4: Copy of recorded easement fordriveway access through 2685 Johnson Attachment 5: Flag Lot standards, MC 16.18.060 Attachment 6: Resolution denial of the minor subdivision of the tract map to City Council Enclosed: Full-size project plans. dAPdunsmore\Subdivisions\TR 159-05 (2932 Augusta)\TR 159-05 PC rpt(3-22-06).DOC b .r Filing Fee: $10 Chmert 6 is RE Bvec '��J 21 �,"J 0; Ic •REFER TO SECnON4 SLO CITY CLERK san lu s oB po APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMA77ON slcr" xt Reiss %4 93401 Name Mailing Address and Z-tp Code CBOT) 6044- 4387 Phone Fax �►�drew t+�lerr�arn X334 \�lav�r�r+re Sl' . SLv g3s�1 Representative's Name Mailing Address and-Zip Code 6poisul6n 11=1410%Cw- cgs, 6-44 -4011 Title Phone Fax SECTION! SUBJECTOFAPPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo _.� Municipal Code(copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of tfe0ii211?ii0ii 13°44 c1287C2 PLLi �IaH.Ntt G�@+•��wtfSSua+� PLM APPL FE $100.00 (Name of Office?, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) DI$IF`'' 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: 13lo 4 3.. The application or project was entitled: 134A fp-gz t J Nakaga s eggri �,as � �r� ass • m 4 -�,� .��✓e �n 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff members ��ptJ Ltd1 t Ntl1r ?_ on mAl hoya _ (Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and by whom: V11 o SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what actionfs you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages,if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Pagel of 3 .-4;3 Reason for Appeal continued This project is being appealed for two reasons: 1. The general plan policy1 infill development 1 1 the 1 1Luis • f• was riotgivenweightI 1 " consideration. 2. Tbere ispotential / improving nonconforming driveway whichwill provide additional for all residentsalong 1 ' access easementand bettersight distances and pedestrian protection Johnson Avenue. r,. �'�_'s' r.TAZ y.�,�K'y�•] '�+vim' T^ w-A'•••- v t? > �`�rw 'd -Je.•+w ''F 'R"1' ""a-*s:. y;' i �,e�• amu, -'s: -9.�r. T p 1.r• 61� ab r F Gd'C{r L [ � � »::t 3 r-xi w t� * a •3l ,{' S� w E ymr-r•'�< �,�, `~ �"�z .•" u�s�y .� .fit^i�.�h�� "�,� aq .� �� � *r +`1n .J.3,^'Ma > r mgr J� SE ,g Y ,,�c7 t t}o�� ✓ ;,s- "U Y Ck�. ,.'f�` r .�' ryF_ 1 ¢ E:C.ar �ltl2^i. 7M �13 �yy%h-i -V � i'a IF 1 yl c Yt t• �Tr Itd fF r q -r tp c r a �'J �i �'rK r 2r- 4�� *.+.-F•i`�a�v�w+'a....�.�r i�W 4r�r7 df yP�"�-r �'�" t'iCy;y 1 w`� r'"1K ye^ �..P�4_A.tig ` �N.S I ,�' e:WR..{+lI• C.5 4.i♦'.e�qnjJ,pfi�af^�te.Sti�`_i�{.1'r�F'3t-f7nRq'F�°e I Ir, ryyry7a.(y-J,Yµsta{r"�•a•�'��'+.irx@�Ui,�e_K`_ yerry�I"++�t.4fi:.3,rr-g''uY�t K`Gy,.�+n��Alya.VyIi9'C`!7'rpS1''^iX.yr�'r1,tu•�t��A`i[•!?F(pe,�.R,r�i,.��W"4�vI,�µ�Jv�l�„�riyrA+f�(^wr(�W'7rydst-jY'iII4tR�L�i.tm.�'G"rii.Jwya`iia.d'ib'�tasfS+.—,�1r1,f�',f�,.J'1r�,s<0r'�4'..s+i'lxd4 rJsn�Y{LR'a.�r1Gral-+}�ia�,cer`'�..�^cvJ{$.+dt�1.t r 4tCj4V11.,:+.t,��n�k..,F.�.y�,r,.�C.Hlw vAS'�r{t r�Y. tiCd>S�=''lrEsu,A',+w,`t k!"t^1”.e>M5rt�i�.4b.*3'��.j al,8lsI�a,'s ut YP•!zij ` w�lpId.' rC) Z M.�Yr Sta m" "i..•.�{.z, � ii v}_ c� �}�P �+�•�SYr"S` .r-. I t ., r- E-r cr7.^ Y,Li � d�...k•.- -� ," iwAa" e_ •r .,;. ! ` '�iyawr at s. w:' G£ 3 �1"F fcq h %v @rte° Cf f t{ PI r°, i Y �� +��� >k i •'----;, � >r� s,fP�, ,r !' .,� ..Ja - ,�t 1, tc�• 3- E m Y y eG 9S3Et< �* t�R r *c a a 4 iy eq c `Y"��`�� 6,-1��`(al i'� f(sJ'"�'��a�'s"`'"'1..��''.., r x� r�; �.r•. ,ry�, '" y�<r..u� z`� it ear �t }Y .F�l.6er.*" •?'4+''j :�`.'„* M .K In C ^�, fSAq 4 1� [ 71 A ,c 1 ' _ t t `��.,`�.Y•.t�'L..cl�'. Y ,.r4k'r•" �EII(CLt+�rr-.'>- a r- � rlY! F qLq` FI a 2 r=Yi �_m[i i t i f3C t UI LCrai 94, °t}e paFel�e�H� y B(rr }� i 4 S]t� >L:.�r„�.ti+r M. t YS �' TF N G i- •r�V i. r�TY * t (ba. "ftGq'£ '^ 'S�SS,x p�_'�-z " s $^�+;r °k .3GpM�v ' --t L 1 a ' cirri x'VmrwS` �� ' _Pr fia'+e 5-�.v�,..X':' a�l�d'1°4^,Fa�ryWyf:•iA,�'�'dS `R'H,b�4 iMi-VT:f�i�.lri'l Orly , v �l es}1,5�,���U-�-°^IS(��,er�r'�+.,,.a`f�-'.1��!f�trfS i �i ia',y^7-�lr,�� s i i Sra j��1�•,�aY�; 1�y d >•`,, � `-�h'.+"^ �«Y }� at-`: - -1 r .ir �.� y.,a �" Ga,f,�h :"o r >c a = t.•s c Gc ,. rrlc 7'1 .: C- � �l~ 6, •r G +n iC f ! -.G" 7 "lia ..,„ .� y 6� J@! J�pt ar , �`2 rc Sr�ci E 1 ,f1✓ } a, F, c 7tf z a w�/c> "}F 1/' ,[ r.' t �Fll G_ a�r,�f-'!it( t (rte--I.� e + ., w% F r� "a i'a J Cn.In7 i!p 1 'S'i *' L i, , } c3-.4�, •�Ki ar ' '� n.r�Jti.'•� .''J ; i.Y" h �,` �`..0 v c vd}y''�i t `t rr.{d ffid.Jr..,�ya{�, �� +fM 4N. 4$ rye h �� ��1�i �C^'�'gn•gt��jy�Ar`y^�+5�,�J� �q 4..��"^'�d rIq„� {' �i !•1' A.34�r�yS �y.� •x��ti�L. , y q �e:• i .�j�. Y��.�r 7}-! ,y �M�, a`.'tq.,s'�,4's.'� -?';,,t('�C^+e`1Kiawt�Nc'^�. C;t',,,, >t 3 �3. -t �, �`c7�sa�-,�,i o Yl'"7!�''�r I°J -JJ • fi/a•')t'� e Cllr r/� 4{s�-}era+ r N"`e r ++o la 1�:���i/ 1. •^.. 1 i,'r•° �roa"'a:T ��� �� a��q �y�`�^a�y,�•w .' +d.r EJ�5�JKT$-.M-(J"`>.741j¢ / "Ar_{GyA,s`3`4}-r(r 'a�r. ;j.r,'_,rvii`� ; � �.. "+: W T '- •fit. � �k� ��.c� rt r'a” 'pry M1M1�.. �y�y.�Ty�}^-t '/•y/•`' f LL. J `��.•l�t/"' M1 �•0"j�ati $$ .i .L c�k ,p �"Gi 9YY�.:DY_>�R r .��_Tw.s1.w.+X.r'w.aY:_, 4 m+'R16:r 'm'4]I��.krt�1 'W .fl�`T"•�£'. �'` •-,�_. 1f J'"'�`7 1C''a..!}t. f. •T .�t � r� .�`'b}� "I C'�"�k j �'rY� }{. - %� 't�• [y t rS� 1� e ...Z �It1J l�'. r' C(e 'y At t ii i e ^_ k �` C 1�/xv. 'ra�:,-.r�s -iir •• G l , • ti :IGI� i ••1-1� a r: v � ���<Y ... � C 7r �'� _� r 1 � ��� 1 -•1 .ri.�erl w x °'1 1 0 s..�• Y�r' „ di t.�ry� • r • 1 - � : v � Attachment 7 RESOLUTION NO.####-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TO DENY THE VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 1364 SAN MARCOS COURT MS/ER 158-04 (SLO 04-0338) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 13 2006, to consider the applicant's request for a tentative parcel map to create two lots from an existing lot with exceptions to the Subdivision Ordinance Section, Section 16.18.060 flag lot requirements, for property located.at 1364 San Marcos Court; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission denied the minor subdivision, based on findings; and WIFREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission's action was received by the City on September 21, 2006; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the appellant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Denial of Appeal. The request to appeal the Planning Commission's action denying the minor subdivision is hereby denied, based on the following findings: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The site is not suited for the type and design of the subdivision due to the inability to create safe, logical site access. 2. The exception would allow approval of a minor subdivision that will result in improvements that will be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity. 3. Granting the exception is not in accord with the intent and purposes of the Subdivision Regulations since the proposed access driveway does not meet required dimensions and required landscape buffering would not be possible. Attachment 7 MS 158-04 Resolution to deny(9-13-06) Page 2 4. Approval of a subdivision with the proposed access through a non-conforming flag lot is not consistent with General Plan Land Use and Housing Element policies that are designed to protect existing neighborhoods. In particular, granting access for this new property out to Johnson Avenue is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.2.5 which states that new residential developments, or redevelopments involving large sites, should be designed to orient low-density housing to local access streets, and major arterials through residential areas shall provide only limited private access or controlled street intersections. SECTION 2. Denial. The request for approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No.MS 158-04 (County Map No. SLO 04-0338) and requested exceptions are hereby denied. On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2006. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jona Lowell, City Attorney G:\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Subdivisions\MS 158-04(1364 San Marcos)\MS 158-04 CC deny reso.doc Filing Fee: $100 " 4 R E ved city Of N/A 21 0,4' 'REFER TOSECTION4 SLD CITYCLERK ; ®�_ san lues OBISPO APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION ��rtrt� e_ oUc=+I'c Reiss Sia 4-�alrckSk sl-A 93401 Name Mailing Address and Zip Code t8os) 5-44 - 4387 Phone Fax pilrldrew 1+slcrrla»� q 334 Wa ver4rec 4 SLv FiW1 Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Gy"!Suill a -P WaHv►ew- L9es) 9A 4 - 4011 Title Phone Fax SECTION2. SUBJECTOFAPPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), 1 hereby appeal the decision of the: . �Iav1 b11+`1Q G. Ia�toSS10✓� FLAN AFF rt a?i}:4 (Name of office?, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: 131�l0 3. The application or project was entitled: (3! Sarsg Marlrtee s C&*Fu y4 �s� E rt 158 • m sf T�a�l�s�i✓e M�+r� 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member:he !Ela I I Q 1451MGlye on 41&1 Joe. (StaffVember's Name and Department) (bate) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom: to A SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 Reason for Appeal continued _ This project is being appealed for two reasons: 1. The general plan policy of infill development within the City of San Luis Obispo _ was not given full weight in the consideration. 2. There is potential of improving a non conforming driveway which will provide additional safety for all residents along the access easement and better sight distances and pedestrian protection at Johnson Avenue. SECTION 4. APPELLANTS RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of$100.* Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your representative will be expected to attend,the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the . Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that it will be granted;that action is at the discretion of the City Council hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear an my behalf when' said appeal is " F fuleedd fora ublic hearing before the City Council. vG - (Si ature f Appellant) (DA) ) Exceptions tot a fee: 1)Appeals of Tree Committee decisions. 2)The above-named appellant has already paid _ the City$100 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body. This item is hereby calendared for A Ad yz!>-7 r3 Ems'- /y 266 Z c: City Attorney p J _ ppleC W L � City Administrative Officer Department Head - Advisory Body Chairperson - A mi c�ER City Clerk(original) AWIZL - IJ Page 2 of 3 af03 AL'v,9 t oee- STu s�2 e/1 Se-c�- 9/aa IIIIIhh IIIIII .: ��fIIVII�IIuIIIIII�III llll �IIIII III III \_II U - �IIIIIII II cityo san �u�s oB�SPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 RECEIVED September 22, 2006 CEP 2 8 1106 SLO CITY CLERK Jerry Reiss 820 Walnut Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP; 1364 SAN MARCOS COURT,Ms/ER 1M-04. Dear Mr. Reiss: In reference to your appeal being heard by the City Council, City code requires an appeal to be set for the next reasonably available council meeting, but in no event later than forty-five calendar days after the date of the filing of such notice of appeal with the City Clerk. Although you have agreed by phone to permit us to schedule your appeal after the 45 day deadline (i.e. November 5, 2006), we require a signed acknowledgement. Therefore,?lease sign and return this letter to the City Clerk's Office no later than October 2' . An envelope has been enclosed for your convenience. r r-�-7 Jerry " s Sincerely, Audre ooper City Clerk © The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Page 1 of 1 Audrey Hooper - File 158-04 From: "Gary Corsiglia" <gc1000627@uid.onemain.com> RECEIVED To: "Phil Dunsmore" <PDunsmor@slocity.org> NOV i 3 2006 Date: 11/9/2006 9:24 PM Subject: File 158-04 SLO CITY CLERK Subject: File 158-04 November 9, 2006 Dear City Council members, My wife and I reside at 2707 Johnson Ave.which backs up to the present single family lot and would share a lot line with the new parcel being proposed. As we understand the proposal,the new second lot would be accessed by the driveway presently serving four houses with addresses 2675,2677, 2679 and 2685 Johnson Ave. That present driveway is very narrow, only one lane wide in some areas due to the houses,trees and bushes.The additional traffic on the narrow drive will impact the residents of the four houses, but that is not our concern. Our concern is for the fire safety of a new house built on the proposed new lot and by location the fire safety of our home. If the new house were to have a fire,the timely access by the fire department to the property would be restricted by the narrow driveway. As the time to fight the fire is delayed, it could spread to the adjacent properties including our. home. Because of this concern we would ask the City Council to deny this request to split the lot into two parcels. This proposal was wisely denied by the Planning Commission at their September 13, 2006, meeting.The Planning Commission Staff recommendation was to deny this request.There have been no changes made in the proposal to address any of the concerns of the Planning Commission, their Staff or the adjacent property owners. Please deny this request again. Sincerely, Gary and Brigit Corsiglia �CAOLINCI .21CD0 DIR MACAO O'FIN DIR FIRE CHIEF 2707 Johnson Ave. ZrATTORNEY ,0'PW DIR ZrCLERK/ORIG .e POLICE CHF San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 DEPT HEADS TZREC DIR Q`i UTIL DIR (805) 544-0890 2/HR DIR RED FILE MEETING AGENDA DATEIII-q& ITEM # � file://C:\Documents and Settings\slouser\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 11/13/2006