HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/18/1989, 1 - MINOR SUBDIVISION 88-324: CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE MAP CREATING TWO LOTS, WITH EXCEPTIONS TO LO III�I�I�I�III�II�N111I MATING DATE
�I�IU City Of San IDIS OBISPO 4-14-89
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT I NU11:
BY: Michael Multari, Community Development Director; PREPARED BY:Gai)✓/ - Price,
Associate Planner
SUBJECT:
Minor subdivision 88-324: Consideration of a tentative map creating two lots, with
exceptions to lot width and access standards and a reduced building setback from a
common driveway on the west side of Broad Street between Caudill Street and Mitchell
Drive.
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
Discussion
The applicant wants to subdivide a 28,300 square foot site into two lots in a flag lot
arrangement with the smaller, 6,020 square foot parcel fronting on Broad Street and a
21,636 square foot parcel to the rear. Exceptions to the subdivision regulations will be
required include decreases in lot and access widths and reduced setback between a house
and the common driveway access. Exceptions must be approved by the City Council based on
specific findings (attached).
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 August 25, 1989 to meet
statutory requirements.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
No significant fiscal or environmental impacts will occur. The initial study of
environmental impact is attached, and a negative declaration has been approved by the
Director.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION
If the minor subdivision is not approved, the subivider would not have the option of
separating ownership of the house and the apartment properties. No other consequences
would be anticipated as a result of this action.
city of san Luis oBispo -
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 2
Data Summary
Address: 2527 Broad Street
Subdivider. Ken Chatham
Representative: Mike Szatlocky, Central Coast Engineering
Zoning: R-2
General Plan: Medium Density Residential
Environmental Status: The Community Development Director granted a negative declaration
on environmental impact on , 1987.
Action Deadline: August 25, 1989
Site Descriotion
The irregularly shaped site is generally flat with a very slight slope towards the
west/rear of the property. Existing development consists of a wood-sided house, oriented
to the front along Broad Street, and a wood barn located towards the center of the site..
A four unit apartment complex is currently being constructed at the rear of the site.
The site is covered primarily with grass with significant vegetation consisting of
several mature trees including a pepper, sycamore and oak. The site is surrounded by
houses and an apartment building to the south.
Subdivision Exceptions
The request for subdivision exceptions are explained in detail below:
I. Reduce lot width for Parcel I to 54.61 feet where 60 feet is normally required.
2. Reduce a portion of the access way width to 12 feet where 16 is normally
required to allow preservation of a large pepper tree.
3. Reduce setback between the existing house and the common driveway access to 5
feet where 10 feet is normally required.
Previous Review ,
On August 1, 1988, the Architectural Review Commission approved a four unit apartment
complex on the site. The approved design included a 20 foot access driveway along the
south side of the site which included removal of a large pepper tree.
On February 2, 1989, the subdivider submitted the proposed subdivision application with a
revised driveway design with the intension of preserving the pepper tree. On March 17,
1989, the Administrative Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing recommending that the
Council approve the tentative map with exceptions.
I
i
'111 X11111111ISI city tY
of san Lays oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 4
4. Drainage Situation:
The ARC previously approved the project with a hydraulic pump system to direct storm
water from the apartment site to Broad Street. The Hearing Officer felt that due to
problems with electrical pumping systems, specifically the potential for power outages
during storms, requiring drainage easements to Gail Place or Caudill Street would be a
preferred solution. This requirement is reflected in the conditions of approval for
Draft Resolution No. 1
5. Density Considerations:
The Hearing Officer was concerned that the project would not meet the density
requirements since the flag portion of Parcel 2 would be subtracted from the lot area
calculation. This essentially reduces the size of the site and reduces the density
potential for the apartment project. Staff calculated specific lot areas of both parcels
and has determined, with existing and proposed development, the subdivision would comply
with the zoning ordinance's density requirements. With the proposed subdivision no
additional dwellings could be added to Parcel 2 (the apartment site), however, a bedroom
addition to the existing house or a studio or one bedroom apartment could be added to
Parcel 1.
6. Shared Driveway:
Since the driveway will be shared between both properties an easement for common access
�- and maintenance will be needed.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
This item was considered by the Hearing Officer at the Director's Subdivision Hearing of
March 17, 1989. The Hearing Officer recommended the minor subdivision be forwarded to
the Council with a recommendation for approval with the findings, exceptions and
conditions as noted in attached Draft Resolution No. 1.
At the hearing a neighbor testified in opposition of the subdivision noting design
concerns of the applicant's apartment project; a letter is attached. The neighbor was
notified of the previous architectural review of the apartment development and was given
a prior opportunity to comment on the apartment project. The neighbor will, however,
have a further opportunity to comment on the apartment's design when the Architectural
Review Commission reconsider's the project at a future date.
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.
I
Attachments: draft resolutions No.l and 2
vicinity map
subdivider's statement
initial study
minutes from administrative hearing of 3/17/89 /—
1
u� iMHu01111��p � � city of san suis osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 3
Evaluation
1. Subdivision Design
The development is typical of other neighborhood development with houses in the front
along Broad Street and apartments to the rear. The proposed subdivision formalizes the
development pattern separating ownership between the lower and higher residential
densities on the site. Therefore, in staff's opinion, it is a logical and acceptable
request.
2. Subdivision Exceptions
a. Reduced Lot Width:
Due to the site's unusual configuration, large size, and limited street frontage, staff
can support an exception of reduced lot width of 54.61 feet.
b. Reduced Driveway Width:
Staff applauds the applicant's design to preserve the 24" Pepper tree. During the
apartment project's design review, the Architectural Review Commission indicated a desire
to preserve the tree. However, at that time, it.was determined that the tree would have
to be removed to permit adequate fire vehicle access. More recently, the Fire Department
commented that the driveway width could be reduced to 12 feet if the apartment
construction incorporated a fire sprinkler system and a dry-stand pipe serving Parcel 2
to mitigate fire safety problems.
At the direction of staff and the Hearing Officer, the applicant has revised the plans to
provide a 16 foot wide driveway with a reduction to 12 feet around the base of the tree.
The plan also includes concrete pavers around the drip line of the tree where it.
encroaches into the driveway. Staff is satisfied that this design approach will allow
sufficient two-way vehicle circulation both on and off the site.
c. Reduced Building to Access Way Setback:
The subdivision regulations require a minimum 10 building setback from any flag lot
access way. The proposed plans call for a reduced 5 foot setback. Plans also delineate
a four foot pedestrian walkway along the north side of the driveway which encroaches to
within one foot of the house. This was a revision made to the plans since the Hearing
Officer's consideration of the subdivision.
3. Design Review Considerations
The subdivision plans are not consistent with the previous plans approved by the
Architectural Review Commission for the apartment development. Inaccuracies include the
footprint of the existing house, parking orientation for the house and location of the
walkway to Broad Street. The Hearing Officer determined that specific design related
issues of the map and apartment development would be reconsidered by the Architectural
Review Commission after the City Council considers the subdivision map. Council's
consideration of the map would not preclude the ARC's review of apartment project's
design options. However, as an option, the Council could refer the project's design back
to the ARC prior to taking an action on the map.
f
C.
RESOLUTION NO. (1989 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE MAP FOR MINOR
SUBDIVISION NO. 88-324 LOCATED AT 2527 BROAD 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. 88-324, and the Community
Development Director's recommendations, staff recommendations and
reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The design of the minor subdivision is consistent with the
general plan.
2 . The site is .physically suited for the type and density of
Qdevelopment allowed in the R-2 zone.
3 . That the design of the subdivision and proposed improvements are
not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, cause
serious health problems, or substantially and unavoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat.
4 . The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will. not
conflict with public easement 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.
SECTION 2 . Exceptions. Approval of Reduced lot width for Parcel
1 or 54 . 61 feet where 60 feet is normally required, and reduced
building setback from the .access way to five feet- where 1.0 feet is
normally required, based on the following findings:
1 Due to the unusual lot configuration, large lot size and limited
lot width, it is impractical and undesirable to conform to the
strict application of the Subdivision Regulations.
C,
Resolution No. (1989 Series)
Page 2
2 . The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with
the regulation is. not the sole reason for granting the
exceptions.
3 . Granting the exceptions in this particular case is in accord with
the intent and purpose of the Subdivision Regulations.
SECTION 3 . Conditions. That the approval of the tentative map
for Minor Subdivision No. 88-324 be subject to the following
conditions:
1. Subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review,
approval and recordation.
2 . The subdivider shall submit a common driveway agreement to the
Community Development Department staff for approval and
recordation. Final map shall show an easement for the common
driveway.
3 . The driveway shall be paved a minimum of 16 feet in width except
within the drip line portion of the 24" Pepper tree which shall
be improved with porous pavers.
4 . Final map shall note that all dwellings constructed on Parcel 2
shall be provided with fire sprinklers to the satisfaction of the
City Fire Department.
5 . In lieu of inadequate access to Parcel 2 due to the proposed
substandard driveway width, the subdivider shall install a dry
stand-pipe to the satisfaction of the City Fire Department.
6. The subdivider shall secure a drainage easement to drain surface
water on Parcel 2 to Gail Place or Caudill Street, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
7. Subdivider shall install two parking spaces (one covered) on
parcel 1, consistent with city parking standards for a house,
prior to final map approval.
SECTION 4 . Code Requirements. The following represent standard
requirements required by various codes, ordinances, and policies of
the City of San Luis Obispo, but are not limited to the following:
1. Grading and drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer and Community Development Director.
1
O Resolution No. (1989 Series) ,
Page 3
2 . Water acreage fees shall be paid for as determined by the City
Engineer prior to final map approval.
3 . Subdivider shall install street trees in accordance with city
standards, prior to final map approval.
4 . Subdivider shall pay park in-lieu fees for one parcel, prior to
final map approval.
5 . Subdivider shall provide individual sewer, water, and utilities
to each parcel to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department
and Utilities Department.
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)
Page 4
APPROVED:
—_1
C7 Adm'nistrative Officer
City Atto ey
-7f
Communit evelopment Director
ORESOLUTION NO. (1989 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO DENYING THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR MINOR
SUBDIVISION NO. 88-324 LOCATED AT 2527 BROAD 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. 88-324. and the Community
Development Director's recommendations, staff recommendations and
reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The site is not physically suited for the proposed type and
density of development which is permitted .by the R-2 zone.
2 . The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements may cause
substantial environmental damage.
3 . The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements are not
l consistent with the general plan or the Subdivision Regulations.
�J SECTION 2 . Action. The tentative parcel map for Minor
Subdivision No. 88-324 is 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
1989 .
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk Pam Voges /�
Resolution No. (1989 Series)
Page 2
APPROVED:
ity Adm'nistrative Officer
City Attoiyey
Community velopment Director
VICINITY MAP
4v All
n 4 i
147 l
� Jl�e
opt
O `' S• 'r
qy n e
i` • O t
r
WO ®ORlp siis -sem §
o 0
O � f i•. O '
f
• ,ds' 0 ��° •9
iJ KN, F �y� q 30 A Q a
O Jp ..=
Y �F► � ` e1.
Coop
J .+
T
O �O O O °
C U®1L1=,
O O O01
•_
W
Cl 0
sF. .
s ,�.fiwrt
o
O B 0 0 0 I O O O ® � kms" �►��
MITCHELL CRIVN"V A47
4i7
O N O O O 01010 O
C'R� 10 rov, 1 m 1 0
VMS ® p
CENTRAL COAST
ENGINEERING
396 Buckley Road
San Luis Obispo January 31, 1989
California 93401 E 1709
City of San Luis Obispo
Planning Department
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
RE: SLO 88-324: CHATHAM
Please find attached the submittal package for the above map . We are
proposing a lot split at 2527 Broad Street. The map will create 2 parcels.
One will be a 6000 square foot lot with an existing house in place . The
second larger lot will have 4 apartment units. The units are currently
under construction. To facilitate the lot split, we will need to process a
variance application because the front yard dimension isless than the
current ordinance minimum.
We are proposing a minimum driveway width of 12 feet. We have reviewed
this with Mr. Meyer of the Fire Department. We will provide sprinkler fire
protection for the apartment units in order to utilize the reduced
driveway. The reduction in driveway width will save a mature pepper tree
and provide for a more pleasing front yard.
Please let me know if more information is required.
Sincerely,
Mike Szatlocky
1
CHATHAM/023
Telephone(805)544-3278 /�/�
- � RE�E1V ED
Car of San LW5 OnsDO
. Mumty Deyeloum^,
CENTRAL COAST
ENGINEERING
396 Buckley Road
San Luis Obispo March 6, 1989
California 93401 E1709
Planning Dept.
city of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Attn: Gary Price
E: SLO 88-324: Cnatham
Gary,
Please find attached the resubmittal material for the above project
consisting of copies of the tentative map, reduced copy and new title
report. We have made. the revisions to the map as per your request . The
following will explain the revisions. Our comments refer to your memo of
ebruary 8, and the five items noted.
ITEM EXPLANATION
1 The house and garage shown on the tentative map are correct and
based on a field survey. The front house will be served by a
tandem parking arrangement. The barn is shown as to be removed.
The current design is based on saving the pepper tree. We have
reviewed the reduction of driveway width with the fire department.
2 The existing PG&E easement as well as a new 10 foot utility and
drainage easement are shown on the map. We have shown the
building setback lines for the front parcel . The setback
requirements for the rear buildings were not shown as they were
reviewed with the. ARC submittal. The size of water and sewer
lines are not known at this time. It appears that the actual size
of the lines is a building concern not a mapping problem. The
plum tree at the property frontage has been labeled. Again, this
tree was specified to be planted with the ARC submittal .
3 A note regarding the reduction in front yard width has been added
to the drawing.
Telephone(805)544-3278 /�/
March 6, 1989 page 2 of 2
E1709
4 The zoning of the adjacent lots has been added to the drawing.
5 A new title report is included with this submittal .
If you have any further questions regarding this submittal, please contact
me.
,Sincerely,,
Mike Szatlocky
Chatham/D24
1
c,ty of San IDIS OBISPO
ili�i AINITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION 2527 Broad St. (west side of Broad near Caudill) APPLICATION NO, ERI$-89
PROJECT DESCRIPTION T)ivicion of one 28,300 sq-ft lot into two lots (One fronting on Broad
,tram 0; 070 sq—ft and a f13g lnt behind 21,616 sq-ft . ).
APPLICANT KPn C h th m
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Y NEGATIVE DECLARATION _MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPAREDBY �rarjz Ly Prim - DATE Fehruary 16- -1989
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: DATE 2/22/89
Negative Declaration .
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY. FINDINGS
I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
IL POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS.................,.................................... NONE
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH...........................................-InNt_
C. LAND USE ..............................._......-................................... Nobir
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION •••••.••.•••••••••.•• .NoNrz
E. PUSLICSERVICES ................._............_................................... NQ:;R
F. UTILITIES.........................................................................................Mn..r
• G. NOISE LEVELS .................................................................... mmm _H. GEOLOGIC 3 SEISMIC HAZARDS 8 TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .................... NCtt7F
1. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS........................................ ....... NnNF
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY ................................................ Nnny
K. PLANTUFE................ .....
L ANIMALLIFE.......................................... . .........._.................�rn?sTp
M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL ..............._....... ........... ..................fig
N. AESTHETIC ......................._............... . . ..................._...........
O. ENERGYIRESOURCEUSE ............................................................ F - -
P. OTHER ............. ...—D1ONZ
III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT seas
J.
DIRECTOR'S SUBDIVISION HEARING - MINUTES
FRIDAY MARCH 17, 1989
Minor Subdivision No. 88-324 . Consideration of a tentative parcel
map creating two lots from one lot;
2527 Broad Street; R-2 zone; Ren
Chattham, subdivider.
Gary Price presented the staff report. He explained that the
subdivider wants to subdivide a 28, 000 square foot lot into two lots
to accommodate separate ownerships between an existing house which
fronts on Broad Street and a four-unit apartment complex currently
under construction at the rear of the site. He noted the proposal
requires several exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations, including
reduced yard width of 54.61 feet where 60 feet is normally required
for parcel 1, and a reduced paved accessway width of 12 feet where 16
feet is normally required; and reduced building setback from the
driveway for the existing single family residence of 5 feet where 10
feet is normally allowed.
Due to the site's unusual configuration, large size, and its
substantially narrow configuration, Mr. Price said staff has no
problem with the lot width reduction. He commended the efforts of
the subdivider to preserve the pepper tree.
Mr. Price explained the Fire Department's comments that the driveway
width could be accommodated with mitigating circumstances, such as
providing for a dry stand pipe to parcel 2, with the apartments to
incorporate a fire sprinkler system.
He noted staff's concerns regarding traffic hazards resulting from a
narrowing of the paved access and limited two-way access on the
driveway that would occur, because Highway 227 (Broad Street) is a
heavily traveled road. He felt vehicle conflicts from entry and
exiting Broad Street due to the narrowing of the driveway could
occur. He further stated that one mitigation measure would be to
widen the driveway to 16 feet and extend a landscape paver system
around the drip line of the tree. He felt this would allow for
adequate vehicle stacking into and out of the project site.
Relative to the building setbacks, Mr. Price indicated that staff had
no problems. He felt that it may be impractictal to shift the
building to meet the minimum required setback to comply with the
Subdivision Ordinance. Staff supports this exception. However, he
noted that subdivision plans are not consistent with the original
Architectural Review Plans submitted previously. He felt the ARC ,
should review the plan revisions prior to it going to the City
Council for review and consideration of the exceptions.
i
C) Page 2
Mr. Price further expressed concern about the proposed tandem parking
which was not approved by the ARC. Staff would recommend a different
design using the tandem parking as a driveway for parking along the
side of the residential unit, and possibly build an attached garage
to screen parked cars along Broad Street. He suggested that the
tandem parking arrangement on Parcel 2 not be considered as part of
this application.
Mr. Price noted that staff is recommending that the City Council
approve the tentative map with the subdivision exceptions, subject to
findings and conditions in his report and as previously outlined.
Ken Bruce asked what the difference is between this plan and the plan
reviewed by the ARC.
Gary Price responded that the building footprint for the existing
single-family house was shifted away from the driveway and closer to
the street; and there were two parking spaces provided next to the
house to the rear.
Ken Bruce asked what the driveway width was that was approved by the
ARC.
Gary price responded that 20 feet was approved. He noted that the
C tree was also shown to be removed and replaced by a 24-inch box tree
in the front. He explained that the. ARC had a problem with removal
of the tree. However, at the time, the Fire Department's
requirements made it impossible to save the tree.
Ken Bruce asked, for the development that is under construction on
Parcel 2, does the size of Parcel 2 accommodate the density that is
being built.
Gary Price stated that based on the 21, 636 square feet of lot size,
it does. He was not sure if that included the flag lot portion. If
the flag portion is not included, then there may be a question in
terms of meeting the density.
The public hearing was opened.
Mike Szatlocky, subdivider's representative, spoke in support of the
request. He said he did a calculation on the. net area (number of
building units based on 2- and 3-bedroom units) with the net,
excluding the flag, being sufficient.
He said he is unsure as to whether the request on the driveway is for
a 16-foot full width or to allow an approach lane before the tree.
He noted that two alternatives have been considered. (1) Flaring the
_ driveway out as it approaches Broad Street to allow incoming cars;
(2) if a full 16-foot driveway were required, it would go through the
Pepper tree.
-/7
Page 3
Ken Bruce answered that staff is recommending a 16-foot driveway
width, with theexception at the tree where it would be narrower.
Mike Szatlocky indicated that they are currently doing more
engineering on the drainage system to make sure they can take the
surface water generated by the tract and move it to the street.
Ken Bruce asked if there were any questions regarding the Fire
Department's requirements, such as the dry stand pipe or sprinklering
of the units. Mr. Szatlocky indicated he had no questions; he had
discussed the sprinklering with the Fire Department, which is where
they came up with the 12-foot allowance on the driveway. .
Gary Price asked what type of material would be used for the walkway.
Mr. Szatlocky responded that gravel would be used and would flush
with the driveway.
Richard Jordan, 685 Caudill Street, said he owns the property which
backs on the property. He read a statement, attached.
Ken Bruce explained that the issue today is the lot split, not what
is being built on the land. He also clarified that the subdivider
does have an approval for the project. The issue with the windows is
very unfortunate. Mr. Jordan asked if drainage from the back
property would affect his property. Mr. Chatham had indicated to him
that during. a heavy rain, more water could be going through his
property.
Gary Price noted that, drainage was resolved at the time of ARC
review, by being given an option through code requirements to make
sure that there was no cross-lot flows of water, and that it should
be contained on-site and taken either to Broad Street or Caudill, or
another street through either the pump system or by means of an
easement for drainage.
Ken Bruce noted that a pump system would be pumped to Broad Street;
an easement system would go out to Caudill or the street to the rear.
The public hearing was closed.
Ken Bruce explained that since there are exceptions to the
Subdivision Regulations being requested, that the action taken at
this hearing is not a final action, but only a recommendation to the
City Council. The City Council, based on our ordinances, is the only
body that can grant exceptions for subdivisions.
Ken Bruce took action to recommend to the City Council, approval of
the tentative map, based on the following findings, conditions, and
code requirements: i �
Page 4
Exceptions
1. Reduced lot width for Parcel 2 or 54.61_ feet where 60 feet is
normally required.
2 . Reduced access way width of 12 feet where 16 is normally
required.
3 . Reduced building setback from the access way to five feet where
10 feet is normally required.
Findings
1. The design of the minor subdivision is consistent with the
general plan.
2 . The site is physically suited for the type and density of
development allowed in the R-2 zone.
3 : That the design of the subdivision and proposed improvements are
not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, cause
serious health problems, or substantially and unavoidably injure
fish or wil_dlife .or their habitat.
�^ 4. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not
conflict with public easement 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.
Findings for Exceptions:
1 Due to the unusual lot configuration, :large lot size and limited
lot width, it is impractical and undesirable to conform to the
strict application of the Subdivision Regulations.
2 . The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with
the regulation is not the sole reason for granting the
exceptions.
3 . Granting the exceptions in this particular case is in accord with
the intent and purpose of the Subdivision Regulations.
Conditions
1. Subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review,
approval and recordation.
2 . The subdivider shall submit a common driveway agreement to the
Community Development Department staff for approval and
recordation. Final map shall show an easement for the common
driveway.
Page 5
3 . The driveway shall be paved a minimum of 16 feet in width except
within the drip line portion of the 24" Pepper tree which shall
be improved with porous .pavers.
4. Final map shall note that all dwellings constructed on. Parcel 2
shall be provided with fire sprinklers to the satisfaction of the
City Fire Department.
5. In lieu of inadequate access to Parcel 2 due to the proposed
substandard driveway width, the developer shall install a dry
stand-pipe to to the satisfaction of the City Fire Department.
6. The subdivider shall secure a drainage easement to drain surface
water on Parcel 2 to Gail Place or Caudill Street, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
7. Subdivider shall install two parking spaces (one covered) on
parcel 1, consistent with city parking standards for a house,
prior to final map approval.
Code Requirements
1. Grading and drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of' the
City Engineer and Community Development Department.
2. Water acreage fees shall be paid for as determined by the City
Engineer prior to final map approval.
3. Subdivider shall install street trees in accordance with city
standards,, prior to final map approval.
4. subdivider shall pay park in-lieu fees for one parcel, prior to
final map approval.
5. Subdivider shall provide individual sewer, water, and utilities
to each parcel to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department
and Utilities Department.
Before granting this lot split there are some things that I
O think: that you should know about how the building taking
place on this property is affecting me. �, -.i vZ 14T ES j !fi✓o4-Z-
Approx 1 year ago I was approached by r:.en Chatham about
discussing the possibility of allowing an easement through
my property for sewage and drainage for the construction
which is currently taking place on this lot . I agreed to
discuss it. Duri.mg the next couple of months we had 2
meetings. At the first meeting he had a set of plans which
he showed to my wife and me. He told us that if we had any
suggestions for any part of the project that he wanted to
know because he "wanted to be a good neighbor and fit in
with the neighborhood. " I asked him about windows
overlooking our property and he said there was one and
showed us where it was .in the plans. He said that it was no
problem, that he could have it removed since there was
another window in the room anyway.
At the second meeting (also attended by his business
partner) we were again shown a set of ,plans , only this time
he showed us where the windows which had overlooked our
property were no longer there. He .also told us that the
plans had been approved by the ARC (or at least that is what
he led me to believe) . He then made _is an offer of $10C?U
for the easement. (This was his second offer. The first
offer had been for $Soi). ) Mr. Chatham and his partner tried
Cto convince me that this was a very reasonable offer
considering what it was going to cost them to install the
sewer and drainage line and replace our fence, bushes and a
section of our driveway all of which would have to be
removed to put in the sewer line. I said that I didn 't
think: it was a good offer. They stated that if they paid
any more, then it would be cheaper to install pumps to pump
the sewage up to Broad St. I then told them that since it
was cheaper to install pumps then that is what they should
do.
Now they have a building going up JUSt -feet over my bac":.
fence and there are TWO second story windows overlooking my
property when I had been told that there would be none and
shown plans that had been "approved" by the city, If I had
known that these windows were in the plans I woUld have
spoken up at the time, but I saw no reason to since I had
already seen the plans and knew that the windows would not
be there. The location of the windows had also been
questioned by the city planner on the project, but since no
public comment was made they were approved.
Now I am told that it is too late to do anything About it
since the plans are already approved. There is nothing the
city can do. I am told that it is now a civil matter. I
can sue him in court to solve the problem. The only problem
1 is the expense, a MINIMUM of $5C -')C) and probably much more.
So there is nothing i can do either uless I am willing to go
into debt for at least five years. This is not right.
Also, I very recently Found out that Mr. Chatham owns the
Property. He had originally told us that he was only the
designer/builder and that sorra= one else owned the property.
I have livea in this city for the last 15 years and my wife
is a life-time resident , her Parents having moved here in
1946. We have lived in our hOLAse for almost 1' years. Mr.
Chatham seemed to think: that we owed him the riaht to an
easement and when he didn 't get it for his price we have to
suffer his consequences. We certaintly don 't need any more
good neighbors like him who tit in so well with the
neighborhood.
I feel as though Mr. Chatham misrepresented the facts to my
wife and me and therefore kept us from making any public
comment on his project. Now there is nothing the city can
do. But there is. In this case it is not helpless against
a developer who stifles public comment then gets his plans
approved. Why reward him mow with an approval of this lot
split? � s s o r�tie s errrnt}d-b�
frankly, I would be
satisfied with havina our good neighbor simply cover up the
openings for the windows overlooF. ina our property. This
would be very easy now since the building is under
construction and the windows have not been installed vet. I
am only asking him to keep his word which he gave me before.
Then he can have his lot split approved.
,y^
std Ir
� aaa
a
g48
3q 3
�O.:aa
¢ppb• a'S1i w i!}3 ,11 �.vv1 Y�sa
! I�I I \ •2171Y 2��
I• W i � �!
1 S A i
o °a
C _
t
y ' 0
JI V
1
y
F �
G A14LINUA
s mt
CENTRAL COAST APR 18 1989
ENGINEERING Community
of sen leve Doapo
Development
396 Buckley Road. '
San Luis Obispo
;
'California 93401 April 17, 1989
E1709
City of San Luis Obispo Decc'-.s a6t'on by besd Person
Planning Department Rea Iby:
P.O. Box 8100 council
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 AO
Attn: Gary Price A
-Drip.
RE: SL 88-324: CHATHAM
7--
Gary,,
Gary,
We wish. to continue the public hearing of the above parcel map scheduled
for April 18 , for at least two weeks . There are several items and
recommended conditions of approval in the staff report that were not
discussed or were contrary to the discussions at the minor subdivision
hearing. We need time to resolve these issues with staff before scheduling
a City Council appearance. Please find enclosed a check for $40 to cover
the continuance processing.
Sincerely,
Mike Szatlocky
Enclosure
GARY PRICE/024
j B578 MS 40.00
i
y,
Telephone(805) 544-3278