HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/07/1989, 6 - MINOR SUBDIVISION 88-303, A REQUEST TO RESUBDIVIDE A 22,792 SQUARE FOOT SITE AS A ""FLAG LOT"" SUBDIV" MEETING OATS
���fl�a�►�I�IIp��n � �11 City of San Luis OB15p0 3-7-89
1110 -a COUNCAGEN®A REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
IL
FROM: Michael Multari, Community Development Director; By: David"Moran Assistant
Planner
SUBJECT
Minor Subdivision 88-303, a request to resubdivide a 22,792 square foot site as a "flag
lot" subdivision consisting of three lots on Wilson Street westerly of Grand Avenue.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt draft resolution No. 1 to concur with the negative declaration on environmental
impact and approve the minor subdivision with the exceptions, findings and conditions
noted.
BACKGROUND
The applicant wants to res ubdivide a 22,792 square foot site consisting of 5 lots of
record and a portion of an abandoned right-of-way (Park Street) as a "flag lot"
subdivision. Exceptions to the subdivision regulations will be required for allowed
density, decreased lot size and widths and access. Exceptions must be approved by the
City Council based on specific findings (attached).
In 1985, the owner of the property received approval for a minor subdivision to create a
separate 14,993 square foot lot behind the existing house for the purpose of constructing
two detached "air space" condominiums. The parcel map has not been recorded; the map
expires on October 23, 1989. The present subdivider wants to construct the same identical
project, only as single family residences on individual lots.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may:
1. Approve the minor subdivision with exceptions.
2. Deny the minor subdivision by making appropriate findings.
3. Continue review to a later meeting but no later than April 7, 1989 to meet statutory
requirements.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
According to the Noise Element of the general plan, the project site is subject to noise
exposure which is likely to exceed 68 Ldn, which is the threshold for normally acceptable
exterior noise levels in a residential zone. The initial study identified two potential
mitigation measures which, if incorporated into the design of the project, is expected to
achieve the exterior noise standard for usable outdoor open space. (see initial study,
attached)
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION
If the minor subdivision is not approved, the applicant would still have until August 31,
1989 to record the previously approved parcel map creating the two air space condominiums
and commence construction of a nearly identical project. /
1lJ111111III1IIpaA] city of San tins OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPOW
MS 88-303
Page 2
Data Summary
Address: 1690 Wilson Street
Applicant: McDowell Kitamura Corporation
Representative: RRM Design Group
Zoning: R-1
General Plan: Low density residential
Environmental Status: The Community Development Director granted a negative declaration
on environmental impact on January 11, 1989.
Action Deadline: April 7, 1989
Site/Proiect Description and Prior Approvals
The site consists of five lots of record and a portion of an abandoned right-of-way (Park
Street) and contains a two-story single family residence which fronts Wilson Street The
site borders the 101 freeway to the north, an apartment complex parking lot to the east
and single family residences to the south and west. The project site slopes east to west
approximately 16% and contains several mature fruit trees; a eucalyptus and avocado
trees.
Evaluation
1. Prior Approvals For This Site -- The previously approved plan (MS 85-272)
required an exception to the density requirements but avoided the need for lot size
and width exceptions by proposing two dwelling units on a single, 14,993 square foot
lot as "air space" condominiums. The Planning Commission found the exception to the.
density requirements to be justified because:
-- The underlying lots would be resubdivided into a conforming lot.
-- The density of development of the site would be more consistent with the
relative intensity of surrounding development.
-- The design of the two new dwellings was sensitive to the topographic constraints
of the site and would not affect views from surrounding dwellings.
The dwellings would not be visible from the street.
All of the above factors apply to the new subdivision except that the resubdivision
will not result in conforming lots.
The subdivider indicates that it is his desire to develop the site consistent with
the previously approved condominium plan, except as individual houses on individual
lots. Staff can support this level of development so long as the design of the
proposed residences is sensitive to the concerns outlined above, as was the original
plan. For this reason, staff is recommending both lots be designated "sensitive
sites" and that any new development be subject to review by the Architectural Review
Commission. If the applicant chooses to develop the site with the previously approved
development plan which expires on August 31, 1989, then ARC review will not be
required.
r�
Gild Of san LUIS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MS 88-303
Page 3
2. Proposed Subdivision Design and Exceptions -- As outlined above, the site
consists of five nonconforming lots (40 feet wide where 50 feet required) oriented
parallel to Wilson Street and fronting on a portion of an abandoned right-of-way
(Park Street). Surrounding lots are predominantly 50 feet wide and 120 feet deep or
less and are improved with single family residences at a density of 7 units/acre. The
proposed resubdivision of the site will result in two lots which are more or less
rectangular; both will be oriented east-west with a common driveway access to Wilson
Street.
The change from airspace condominiums to fee simple lots with single family dwellings
solves some problems and creates others. For example, the two condominiums
necessitated a home owner's association consisting of only two members, which would
likely lead to problems in resolving disputes and increased maintenance costs per
dwelling. Conversely, the creation of two additional single family lots on this site
necessitates the following exceptions to the subdivision regulations:
I. Slope/Density Requirements -- An exception is needed to allow two additional
units where one would normally be allowed under the slope/density regulations.
In the R-1 zone, a maximum 7 units per acre are allowed for sites with an
average cross slope less than 15%, which drops to 4 units per acre when the
slope is between 16% and 20%. In this case, the site slope about 16% from west
to east making the total allowed density for the site:
22.792 square feet X 4 units per acre = 2.1 units
43,560 square feet per acre i
The site already contains a single family residence (1 unit) and the subdivider
proposes to add two more dwelling units for a total of three dwellings.
Therefore, the subdivider is asking to exceed the allowed density by 1.0
dwelling unit.
II. Lot Size and Width -- In the R-1 zone, the subdivision regulations require that
a new lot be a minimum 50 feet wide, 90 feet long and 6000 square feet in area.
An exception is needed to allow the creation of nonconforming lots with respect
to lot width (less than 50 feet) and size (parcel 2 less than 6000 sq.ft.). As
outlined above, the underlying lots which comprise the site are oriented
east/west and are 40 X 100. The proposed subdivision will create two lots
oriented east/west which are slightly wider (42-48 ft.) and longer (approx. 130
ft.). Surrounding lots are predominantly 50 X 120 ft. In this context, the
proposed resubdivision will result in a pattern of development consistent with
the historical configuration of the site and more consistent with the pattern of
surrounding development.
III. Access -- The proposed parcel map shows the accessway, or "flag", owned by
parcel 2 rather than parcel 3, the farthest lot from the street. Section
16.36.230 of the subdivision regulations says that, in a flag lot subdivision,
the lot farthest from the street shall own the accessway in fee and that other
lots using the accessway shall have an easement over it. The regulations also
say that the "flag" is not to be included in the determination of the lot area
and that a 10 foot minimum yard shall be provided along the access road. The
reason the map is drawn this way is to minimize the number of exceptions needed
(410-3
city of San lU1S OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MS 88-303
Page 4
for approval. If parcel 3 owns the flag, the extension of the proposed property
line along the easterly portion of parcel 2 will result in a six foot setback
from the garage on parcel 2 where 20 feet is normally required. In addition,
subtracting the "flag" area from both parcels 2 and 3 will make both parcels
less than the required 6000 square feet in area (approximately 4600 square feet
where 6000 square feet required).
However, to be consistent with the wording of the subdivision regulations and
past city approvals of flag-lot subdivisions, the Hearing Officer recommended
approval of the proposed subdivision with the condition that the "flag" be owned
in fee by proposed parcel 3 and that parcel 2 enjoy access rights over it. As
mentioned above, by attaching the flag to parcel 3, an exception is now needed
to allow a 6 foot setback from the flag for the garage on parcel 2 where twenty
feet would ordinarily be required. A 20 foot setback is normally required so
that a vehicle may park in front of the garage without blocking the access
driveway for the other parcel.
In order to grant exceptions to the regulations, the City Council must make specific
findings which say, in sum, that there are circumstances relating to the site --
other than the cost of complying with the regulations -- which justifies an exception
so long as the intent of the regulations is being met (see actual wording, attached).
2. Noise Constraints -- The site is adjacent to Highway 101 which results in noise
exposures in excess of 60 Ldn, the upper limit for normally acceptable exterior noise
levels. Interior noise levels for the proposed single family residences can be
satisfied through relatively simple construction techniques such as the use of
closed-pane windows which do not open toward the north. Exterior noise levels for
usable outdoor space can be achieved by orienting the open space on the leeward side
of the proposed dwellings from the freeway noise source and/or by constructing a 6
foot high masonry wall to enclose the usable outdoor area. To insure compliance with
these requirements, staff is recommending both lots be designated as "sensitive
sites" and that development plans for either lot demonstrate that interior and
exterior noise levels will satisfy the requirements of the Noise Element of the
general plan.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt Draft Resolution No. 1 approving the minor subdivision with findings,
exceptions and conditions as recommended by the Hearing Officer or others of your own
choosing.
2. If the council cannot make the required findings to approve, the council must adopt
Draft Resolution No. 2 denying the request.
2. The Council may continue review of this item to a later date (no later than April 7,
1989) to allow the subdivider to revise his plans. Staff asks the council to give
specific direction to the subdivider and staff as to changes requested.
q�llll city of san Luis osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MS 88-303
Page 5
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
This item was considered by the Hearing Officer at the Director's Subdivision Hearing of
February 3, 1989. The Hearing Officer recommended the minor subdivision be forwarded to
the Council with a recommendation for approval with the findings, exceptions and
conditions noted in the report and in Draft Resolution No. 1.
Three people from the surrounding neighborhood attended the meeting and expressed
concerns relating to the size of the two lots. The adjacent neighbor to the west
expressed a desire to prune or remove the trees in the yard of the existing house and to
have the wood fence relocated to be on the property line. None of the people attending
the meeting spoke in opposition to the proposed subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Draft Resolution No. 1 to concur with the Community Development Director's
determination of a negative declaration on environmental impact and approve the minor
subdivision with findings, exceptions and conditions noted.
Attachments: draft resolutions No.'s 1 and 2
vicinity map
subdivider's statement
initial study
minutes from administrative hearing of 2/3/89
resolution of approval for MS 85-272, a minor subdivision creating two
airspace condominiums
photcopy reduction of MS 85-272
Enclosed: parcel map
i
Draft Resolution No. 1
RESOLUTION NO. (1989 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO GRANTING APPROVAL OF MINOR SUBDIVISION No. 88-303
LOCATED AT 1690 WILSON STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings That this council, after consideration of the tentative map
for minor subdivision No. 88-303 and the Hearing Officer's recommendations, staff
recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the
general plan.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the
R-1 zone.
3. The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause
serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and
unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
5. The Community Development Director has determined that the proposed subdivision will
not have a significant effect on the environment and has granted a negative
declaration.
The following findings support the exceptions stated in Section 2, below:
6. The proposed exceptions to lot size, lot width, density and access do not constitute•
a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in
the vicinity because the overall intensity of development is.consistent with that of
other properties.
7. That under the circumstances of this particular case, the exceptions requested carry
out the spirit and intent of the Subdivision Regulations and past actions of the City
Council.
8. The cost to the subdivider of strict literal compliance with the regulations is not
the sole reason for granting the exceptions.
Resolution No. (1989 Series)
Minor Subdivision No. 88-303
Page 2
SECTION 2. Exceptions That the approval of Minor Subdivision No. 88-303 be subject to
the following exceptions:
1. Lot area for proposed parcels 2 and 3 to be approximately 4600 square feet where 6000
square feet is required.
2. Lot widths for proposed parcels 2 and 3 to be 42-45 feet where 50 feet required.
3. Development of two additional dwellings where one would ordinarily be allowed.
4. A 6 foot setback to the garage for proposed parcel 2 where 20 feet is ordinarily
required.
SECTION 3. Conditions. That the approval of the tentative map for Tract 1509 be
subject to the following conditions:
1. Subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval and recordation.
2. Full frontage improvements shall be installed along the project's entire Wilson
Street frontage including curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway ramps and street paveout
to new gutter to the approval of the City Engineer.
3. The subdivider shall obtain a covenant (encroachment permit) for any retaining wall
needed within the public right-of-way. The proposed retaining wall within the public
right-of-way shall terminate at the prolongation of the westerly property line.
4. The proposed driveway ramp serving parcels 2 and 3 must provide a minimum 3 feet
minimum clearance from the adjacent fire hydrant.
5. No building permits shall be issued prior to recordation of the parcel map.
6. All new utility services shall be underground. The existing utility pole shall be
relocated to provide access to parcels 2 and 3.
7. Each parcel shall be served with individual water, sewer and utilities services
within a utility easement to City Standards and to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
8. The final map shall show parcel 3 owning the accessway in fee and that parcel 2 shall
enjoy access rights over it.
Resolution No. (1989 series)
Minor Subdivision No. 88-303
Page 3
9. The subdivider shall submit a common driveway easement and agreement to the city for
review, approval and recordation.
10. The final map shall note that parcels 2 and 3 are sensitive sites. Any new
development of the site shall require review by the Architectural Review Commission
which shall demonstrate, among other things, that the interior and exterior noise
standards of the Noise Element of the general plan will be satisfied.
11. The subdivider shall submit a tree preservation plan which identifies all existing
trees by size, type and location as well as their disposition in relation to the
proposed development of the site. The subdivider shall safety prune existing trees to
the satisfaction of the City Arborist.
Code Reauirements
1. Grading and drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
Community Development Director. A header board, wall, berm, or 2 foot wide level area
must be provided at the back of the public sidewalk.
2. Water acreage and frontage fees shall be paid as determined by the City Engineer
prior to issuance of building permits or final map approval.
3. All property lines shall be fully dimensioned.
4. The subdivider shall pay park in-lieu fees for two parcels prior to final map
approval.
5. Street trees shall be planted for every 35 feet of frontage.
6. The subdivider at his/her option must either increase the paving width of the common
driveway to 20 feet and provide an additional on-site fire hydrant,or provide fire
sprinklers for any new development which occurs on parcels 2 and 3.
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
1989.
Resolution No. (1989 Series)
Minor Subdivision No. 88-303
Page 4
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City Administrative Officer
City Attor
Community Development Director
Cit Engineer
Draft Resolution No. 2
RESOLUTION NO. (1989 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO DENYING APPROVAL OF MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 88-303
LOCATED AT 1690 WILSON STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration of the tentative map of
Minor Subdivision No. 88-303, the Hearing Officer's recommendations, staff
recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The design of the minor subdivision will result in an intensity of development which
is not consistent with development allowed in the R-1 zone.
2. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will conflict with city
standards with respect to lot size, width, access and allowed density.
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
1989.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Resolution No. (1989 series)
Minor Subdivision No. 88-303
Page 2
APPROVED:
City Administrative Officer
City At rney
Community Development Director
City Engineer
vU ��/
1
1 A88i
/O S-5 nu»Ir
W uurry
p 0 ER w- R3
p 0 0 0 0 .�
1..,
Z
STREET
"` WILSON STREET
Both ,n 3
�/
/t 1 / / 1661 ' WfiO 090
02 O 0 0 0 O O -1w�
X069
0 6Rc ya
4 Rs: u �•
W moo+ren-„ y
_ R
O w
V• ^ p I' E5
a O
O0� 0
10 O
�'" `? I p <1D
u
O
Odd- O \�G�''
O - O
- - 0 0
O 0
v, r
-71
'o
A,.
co
Al
Ic,
phi 38
�4t
r.
PAF
no CL
N
U)
V Lo
LLI
05 s'J
L)
IV
A(c)
5
93 0
REV :2-i-80
GROVE
NOTE—ASSESS
NUMBE
R R M D E S I G N C R 1- P
December 29, 1988
Mr. Mike Multari
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Re: Michel Project
Dear Mr. Multari :
We are submitting for your review and comment a revised exhibit,
parcel map SLO 88-303. In order for parcel 2 to meet the minimum
parcel size of 6,000 square feet, we are requesting an exception to
the subdivision regulation Section 16.36.230E requiring that the lot
furthest from the street own the access way in fee.
In reviewing the standard described in Part D of the section
described above, it may also be necessary to request an exception to
the 10-foot yard required along the access road pavement. Please
give us your interpretation on this matter and call if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
RRM D€SIGN GR
April A. Rosenlund
Associate Planner
Enclosure
V14/AR-Mutt
6"/�t
C �
city of san lues osispo
!ii�►illill!Il ;;!� 1lllililili
® INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION 1649 Wilson Street APPLICATION No.ER 75 - 88
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Resubdivide 22,792 sq.ft. site as flag lot subdivision.
APPLICANT McDowell Kitamura Corp
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
X NEGATIVE DECLARATION X MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY David Moran Assiatnt Planner��LL,,-��/t DATE 1/10/89
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORS ACTION: DATE 1-11-89
Negative Declaration with Mit-Wat i nn Tn l ixlafl
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
11.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ................................... .................... None
S. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.......................... ................. None.
None
C. LAND USE ....._......_..........................................................
i
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .................................... .. None.
E. PUBLICSERVICES ............. None.*
F. UTILITIES.............:. None.
. ............................................
G. NOISE LEVELS ........ Maybe.*
H. GEOLOGIC d SEISMIC HAZARDS A TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS ............... None.
I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS................... ..................... None.
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY .............. None.
K PLANT UFE........... None.
L ANIMAL UFE.........__..........................,..................................
None.
M. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL .......... None.
N. AESTHETIC ......................................................................... None.
O. ENERGY/RESOURCEUSE ....................................... ................... None. I
P. OTHER .................................................................... ........ None.
Ill.STAFF RECOMMENDATION j
*legative declaration.
i
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT sees i
FPaitial Study ER 75-88
ge 2
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The applicant wants to resubdivide a 22,792 square foot site consisting of 5 lots of
record and a portion of an abandoned right-of-way (Park Street) as a "flag lot"
subdivision. The proposed resubdivision will necessitate exceptions from the subdivision
regulations relating to access and density. The site contains a two-story single family
residence which fronts Wilson Street and borders the 101 freeway to the north, a parking
lot to the east and single family residences to the south and west. The project site
slopes east to west at approximately 16% and contains several mature fruit trees, a
eucalyptus and avocado trees.
II. POTENTIAL IMPACT OVERVIEW
C. Land
Presently, the site consists of five substandard size lots of record (4000 sq.ft.)
oriented parallel to Wilson Street and fronting on a portion of an abandoned
right-of-way (Park Street). The surrounding lots are predominantly 50 feet wide and
120 feet deep or less and are improved with single family residences. The proposed
resubdivision of the site will result in two rectangular lots; both will be oriented
east-west with a common driveway "flag" access to Wilson Street. In this context, the
proposed resubdivision will result in a pattern of development consistent with the
historical configuration of the site. Evaluation; Not Significant
E. Public Services
Water
Under current conditions, development of the project would reduce the level of water
service for city customers. City water use in fall 1988 (8,042 acre-feet per year)
exceeded safe annual yield (7,357) by about nine percent. Safe annual yield is the
amount of water which can be withdrawn from reservoirs year after year, without
running out of water during a drought like that which has been experienced since the
reservoirs have been in use. As water use increases above safe yield, cutbacks from
usual water use will be needed more often and they will have to be more substantial
to avoid running out of water. In response to two-years of below-average rainfall,
the city is aiming for a 25-percent reduction in water use during 1988-89. More
substantial reductions may be needed in following years.
While the city is pursuing conservation and several.supplemental sources of water,
new supplies may not keep pace with added demand due to development. Therefore, the
City Council has adopted development controls (the Water Allocation Regulations) to
help correct the current imbalance between water use and supply. The controls could
delay or prevent issuance of building permits.
The proposed development of the two new lots with single family residences will
result in the annual consumption of approximately 0.37 ac.ft./yr. X 2 = 0.74 acre
feet/year, or 0.01% of safe annual yield.
��/t0
i
FER75-88
Page 3
Evaluation: As of January 9, 1989, there was 24.8 acre feet of water available for
new residential construction under the City's water management program. The proposed
project would reduce this amount to approximately 24 acre feet, a reduction of
approximately 3%. Not Significant
G. Noise
The Noise Element of the general plan sets a standard for normally acceptable
exterior noise levels in residential areas at 60 Ldn (a measure of average day/night
noise levels expressed in decibels) and 45 Ldn for interior levels. The:Noise Element
noise contour map indicates the site is exposed to noise levels which exceed 68 Ldn
primarily as a result of traffic on Highway 101 which is adjacent to the north. A
noise evaluation conducted for a residential property under similar physical and
location constraints approximately 2 miles to the west generally supports this
conclusion and is incorporated herein by reference (See ER 43-88, J. Lord, 1987).
Interior noise levels for the proposed single family residences can be satisfied
through relatively simple construction techniques such as the use of closed-pane
windows.which do not open,toward the north. Exterior noise levels for usable outdoor
space can be achieved by orienting the open space on the leeward side of the proposed
dwellings from the freeway noise source and/or by constructing a 6 foot high masonry
wall to enclose the usable outdoor area. Evaluation: May Be Significant.
Mitigation
1. The two new parcels resulting from this resubdivision shall be designated as
"sensitive sites". Development plans for either lot shall demonstrate that
interior and exterior noise levels satisfy the requirements of the Noise Element
of the general plan.
J. Surface Water Flow
As mentioned above, the site slopes west to east at approximately 16 percent. It is
important. It is important, therefore, that the expected increase in runoff resulting
from new development be conveyed to an acceptable point of disposal. In this case, a
drainage easement will be required in favor of proposed parcel 3 over proposed parcel
2 and all drainage will be required to be conveyed to the street. Evaluation: Not
Significant
K. Plant Life
Plans show the removal of several small fruit trees, an avocado, and a eucalyptus..
None of the trees are endangered or unusual and their removal is not likely to cause f
an adverse impact on the environment. Evaluation: Not Significant
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Negative declaration with the following mitigation: I
s
1. Proposed parcels 2 and 3 shall be designated "sensitive sites". Development plans for
either lot shall demonstrate that interior and exterior noise levels satisfy the
requirements of the Noise Element of the general plan.
MINUTES
DIRECTOR"S SUBDIVISION HEARING
FRIDAY FEBRUARY 3 , 1989 .
1690 Wilson. Street. Minor Subdivision No. 88-303; Consideration of
a tentative parcel map creating three lots from
one lot; R-1 zone; McDowell Kitamura Corp. ,
subdivider.
Ken Bruce explained that applications requiring exceptions to the
Subdivision Regulations .must also be heard by the City Council, since
they are the only body that can grant such exceptions. He further
explained that the action taken at this hearing will not be a final
action, but a recommendation to the City Council.
Dave Moran presented the staff report. He explained that in 1985,.
the prior owner (Mr. Michel) received permission from the city to
subdivider this site for the purpose of constructing two air-space
condominiums on a 14, 000 square foot lot behind the existing house.
That approval is still valid, but the tentative map portion will
expire in October of 1989. He further stated that architectural
approval was granted for design of the two residences, which also is
still valid and will expire in August, 1989.
Mr. Moran explained that the new owner wishes to resubdivide the site
to create three lots out of the singleparcel for the purpose of
constructing the same project, but on individual lots. He noted that
there are a number of exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations which
must be granted in order to accomplish this. -The most significant
exception is an exception to the.density requirements. In addition,
the lot width of parcel 3 is slightly narrower than the standard, and
the lot size and lot width for parcel 2 are substandard. Staff felt
there is no significant difference in the previously approved project
and this project, therefore, staff is recommending that the Hearing
Officer recommend to the City Council, approval of the exceptions
based on findings and subject to conditions, which he outlined.
Dave Moran explained that the standard lot size is 6,000 square feet.
Parcel 2 is approximately 4600 square feet. The standard. lot width
is 50 feet, and in this case the average width is between 40-45 feet
for parcel 2, and slightly wider for parcel 3.
The public hearing was opened.
Bob Kitamura, subdivider, said he agreed with the staff report and
conditions, except for the condition requiring an increase in.
driveway width from 16 feet to 20 feet. Mr. Kitamura felt he was
looking at it from an aesthetic point and the city is looking at it
as a fire access requirement. He said that since he is required to
provide either a fire hydrant or sprinklers in the building, the the
reduced driveway width might be waived, back to the 16 feet width to
allow for landscaping. He said cost was not the issue, but it would
affect the appearance greatly.
Page 2
April Rosenlund, subdivider's representative, noted that the previous
project was only required to install a 12-foot wide driveway; but
now that they will be seperate lots, the Subdivision Regulations
require a 16-foot driveway, up to a distance of 150 feet. After the
access goes beyond that, the desired design driveway size is 20 feet
wide. She felt the 150 foot limit is about midway into the garage of
the last parcel, and requested an interpretation of that standard
regarding the additional area beyond that 150 feet.
Ken Bruce clarified that this is a Fire Department requirement. As
stated, the driveway must be 20-feet wide, or if it is a lesser
width, residential sprinklers would be required in the buildings.
Mr. Kitamura said he thought that a 20-25 foot driveway was not
required, in addition to a on-site fire hydrant or fire sprinklers.
It was noted that a new fire hydrant has recently been installed just
up the street. Mr. Kitamura felt that installing the sprinkers was
no problem if they could have the lesser width.
Ken Bruce noted that revised plans remedied one potential setback
problem. However, the same problem may arise because the setback is
from the easement line, not the lot line, and there will be an
easement there.
Joyce Button, 1658 Wilson Street, said she felt that a lot less than
50 feet wide is too narrow. She indicated she is unclear of what is
proposed and therefore really was neither for nor against the
project. She asked if the existing fence would be moved to the
property line, but was told that was not the intent now. However,
that could happen sometime in the future. Mr. Kitamura said if it
would eliminate problems, he could move it to the property line now,
at his expense.. He felt it would probably be best to do that now.
Ms. Button asked if a cement wall is proposed..
Mr. Kitamura explained that a wall along the freeway is being
required by the city as a proposed sound mitigation measure, but it
would not be visible from Ms. Button's property. She said she would
prefer a fence to any type of wall, and has no problem with the fence
remaining as it is.
Mrs. Button said the existing trees need to be groomed and thinned
out, and felt it was not something she wanted so close to her
property line. The trees are messy dropping berries, pods, flowers,
etc. . She said they block the view of the mountains, and felt they
needed to be kept trimmed and groomed.
Bob Kitamura said if it were up to him, the trees would be removed
and replaced with a lower growing non-fruit bearing tree, or hedges.
After this discussion, Ms. Button said she could support this
project.
Huldah Truesdale, 1625 Wilson Street, said she supported the project.
Page 3
The public hearing was closed.
Ken Bruce said he had a concern about following Subdivision
Regulations and city procedure and policy in terms of the rear lot
owning the flag to the street, and in terms of the flag part counting
as part of the lot area; it does not count.
Dave Moran explained that the flag would be owned by Parcel 2; both
parcel 2 and parcel 3 become non-conforming with respect to lot
area. Also, the setback problem will occur with the property line
that creates the flag. He felt that this way, the lot area exception
for parcel 3 would be eliminated.
Ken Bruce asked if grading will occur to accommodate the 16=foot
driveway, in terms of retaining walls or along that bank? April
Rosenlund said grading would occur in a couple areas, primarily
because of the increase in the width of the driveway, and. most
definitely if a 20-foot driveway is required, and walls less than
5-feet in height. She indicated that grading plans are currently
being drawn up.
Ken Bruce took action to recommend to the City Council, approval of
the request, based on the following findings, exceptions and
conditions:
Findings
1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are
consistent with the general plan.
2 . The site is physically suited for the type and density of
development allowed in the R-1 zone.
3 . The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements are
not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish
or wildlife or their habitat.
4 . The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will
not conflict with easements, for access through or use of
property within the proposed subdivision.
5. The Community Development Director has determined that the
proposed subdivision will not have a significant effect on the
environment and has granted a negative declaration.
6. The proposed exceptions to lot size, lot width, density and
access do not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the
vicinity because the overall intensity of development is
consistent with that of other properties.
.�,2 a
Page 4
7 . That under the circumstances of this particular case, the
exceptions requested carry out the spirit and intent of the
Subdivision Regulations and past actions of the City Council.
8 . The cost to the subdivider of strict literal compliance with the
regulations is not the sole reason for granting the exceptions.
Exceptions
1. Lot area for proposed parcels 2 and 3 to be approximately 4600
square feet where 6000 square feet is required.
2. Lot widths for proposed parcels 2 and 3 to be 42-45 feet where 50
feet required.
3 . Development of two additional dwellings where one would
ordinarily be allowed.
4 . A 6 foot setback to the garage for proposed parcel 2 where 20
feet is ordinarily required.
Conditions
1. Subdivider shall. submit a final map to the city for review,
approval and recordation.
2 . Full frontage improvements shall be installed along the project's
entire Wilson Street frontage to the approval of the City
Engineer. The street shall be paved out to meet the new curb,
gutter and sidewalk.
3 . The subdivider shall obtain a covenant for the proposed retaining
wall within the public right-of-way. The proposed retaining wall
within the public right-of-way shall terminate at the
prolongation of the westerly property line.
4. The proposed driveway ramp serving parcels 2 and 3 must provide a
minimum 3 feet minimum clearance from the adjacent fire hydrant.
5. No building permits shall be issued prior to recordation of the
parcel map.
6. All new utility services shall be underground. The existing
utility pole shall be relocated to provide access to parcels 2
and 3.
7. Each parcel shall be served with individual water, sewer and
utilities services within a utility easement to City Standards
and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
8. The final map shall show parcel 3 owning the accessway in fee and
that parcel 2 shall enjoy access rights over it.
r '
RESOLUTION NO. 2099-85
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO GRANTING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP FOR -SUB=ISION 85-272 LOCATED
AT 1690 WILSON STREET, CONRAD AND CARMEN MICHEL,
SUBDIVIDERS
BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San
lis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this commission, after consideration
E the tentative map of Minor Subdivision 85-.27.2 and the staff
scommendation and reports thereon, makes the following findings:
The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements are
consistent with the general plan.
The site is physically suited for the type and density of
development allowed in an R-1 zone.
The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements
arenot likely to cause serious health problems, substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat.
The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will
not conflict with easement for access through or use of property
within the proposed subdivision.
The existing underlying lots do not conform to the Subdivision _
Regulations and will be redivided to form conforming lots.
Because they are non-conforming, the underlying lots would not
be developable unless combined and/or resubdivided.
The Community Development Director has determined that the
proposed subdivision will not have a significant effect on the
environment and has granted a negative declaration.
SECTION 2 . Conditions. That the approval of the tentative map for
bdivision 85-272 is subject to the following conditions:
The subdivider shall submit a final map to the Community
Development Department for approval and recording.
"he final plans shall show the existing avocado tree north of
the existing house to remain or installation of compensating
landscaping to the approval of the Community Development
Department staff.
Resolution No. 2099-85
Minor Subdivision 85-272
Page 3
g. No outdoor storage by individual units except in
designated storage areas.
h. No change in city-required provisions of the CC&R's
without prior approval by the Community Development
Director.
i. The homeowners association shall file with the City Clerk,
the names of all officers of the homeowners association
within 15 days of any change in officers of the
association.
11. The subdivider shall safety prune existing trees between subject
property and adjacent property to thewest to the approval of the
Public works Department.
i
On motion of Commr. Dettmer, seconded by Commr. Duerk, and on the
i
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Dettmer, Duerk, Cleeves, Schmidt
NOES: Commrs. Reiss, Gerety
ABSENT: Commrs. Kourakis
the foregoing resolution was ,.passed and adopted this 23rd day of
October, 1985.
Toby Ross, Secretary
Planning Commission
DATED: October 23, 1985
ii' .,:, .--- � �I I;SII. • . II
I '
I
L 7',r—
...` .-`-`..... _. ........... .........
I I
Ll
LU
'1
41, or
Y
1