HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/05/1989, 4 - MINOR SUBDIVISION 89-135: CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE MAP CREATING TWO LOTS, WITH EXCEPTIONS NEEDE MEETING DATE:
city of san tins oBispo -
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT rM "NUMBER,
c ae u tare, Community Development Director; PREPARED BY:Gary W. Price
SUBJECT:
Minor subdivision 89-135: Consideration of a tentative map creating two lots, with
exceptions needed for a site on the west side of Broad Street between Caudill Street
and Mitchell Drive.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution approving the tentative map with exceptions, findings, and
conditions as recommended by the Hearing Officer.
BACKGROUND
Discussion
The subdivider wants to subdivide the property into two separate lots to allow separate
ownership. The front parcel would have 8,255 square feet of lot area containing an
existing two bedroom house. The back parcel would have 19,400 square feet of lot area
and contain a four unit apartment complex with parking. Exceptions to the city's
subdivision regulations being requested are as follows:
1. The minimum lot width for R-2 zoned property is 60 feet. The subdivider is proposing
a 54.61 foot lot width.
2. The lot farthest from the street shall own the access way in fee. Other lots using
the access way shall have an access easement over it. The deep lot subdivision as
proposed does not have an access flag. Instead the subdivider is proposing a common
driveway easement owned in fee by the front lot. The back lot would be given an
access easement over the front lot.
Approval of the proposed subdivision requires council approval of exceptions based on
specific findings (attached).
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may:
1. Approve the minor subdivision with exceptions (refer to Exhibit A).
2. Approve an alternative subdivision design. Staff has analyzed four alternative
design options (refer Addendum Sheets attached to the report and Exhibits A through
E).
3. Deny the minor subdivision by making appropriate findings.
4. Continue review to a later meeting but no later than August 25, 1989 to meet
statutory requirements.
q rl
101111111 rf lj city of san lois omspo -
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 2
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 subdivider 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.
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 Descrintion
The irregularly shaped site is generally flat with a very slight slope towards the
west/rear of the property. Existing development consists of an older wood-sided house,
oriented to the front along Broad Street. 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 large trees including a pepper, a sycamore and an oak. The site is surrounded by
houses and an apartment building to the south.
Case History
On February 29, 1988, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed plans to construct
four apartment units to the back of the site. The commission granted schematic approval
with direction to revise the driveway design to preserve a large 24-inch trunk diameter
pepper tree. The Fire Department commented that due to emergency vehicle access
requirements any reduction to the 20 foot driveway width would require that the
apartments to be sprinklered. Understanding the difficulty of designing the project
around the tree and the added cost of sprinklering the apartments, the commission granted
final approval of the project allowing removal of the pepper tree and requiring a new
replacement tree.
After construction began on the apartments the subdivider submitted a plan to divide the
site into two lots in a standard deep lot flag arrangement with a 20 foot wide access way
along the south side of the site with a portion of the driveway reduced to 16 feet to
save the pepper tree. Prior to Council consideration of the map, the subdivider withdrew
his application noting some disagreement with the recommended conditions of approval,
specifically the costly requirement of sprinklering the apartments.
K ��
111111$11P,111 city of san Luis osispo
_ Wall COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT
Page 3
The subdivider then submitted the current proposal which included a revised map design
with no flag driveway. On June 9, 1989, the Hearing Officer recommended approval of an
alternative map design which includes a deep lot flag driveway.
Evaluation
1. Subdivision Design
The development is typical of older 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.
b. Deletion of the Flag:
The two main reasons for requiring a deep lot flag owned in fee by the farthest lot from
the street include:
I. The rear lot owner retains ownership and therefore control of the flag. It is in the
rear property owner's best interest to adequately maintain and keep clear the
driveway.
2. The subdivision must comply with the city's minimum lot area requirements excluding
the flag portion. This affects the development potential of the subdivision.
Because in standard flag lot subdivisions, the development potential of the flag is
area is lost, elimination of the flag essentially gives the subdivider a higher
density on the front lot (including the flag increases density on the lot to allow an
additional one-bedroom unit.
3. Drainaee Considerations
The Building Department approved the project with a hydraulic pump system to direct storm
water from the apartment site (now Parcel 2) to Broad Street. The Hearing Officer
discouraged the use of such a system since during storms an electrical pumping system can
fail due to power outages and flooding my occur. An off-site drainage easement to direct
drainage to Gail Place or Caudill Street would be the best solution. If an easement
could not be secured by the subdivider, the city would have to use condemnation
procedures to get it. Staff suggests the subdivider have the option to use either method
for drainage.
I
`1 V
"' Nillll�pi1 city of San Luis OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 4
4. Parking Considerations
Since Parcel 1 would have a single family house, parking standards should be required in
accordance with the zoning ordinance. Therefore, prior to final map recordation, the
subdivider should provide two parking spaces, one of which must be covered on Parcel 1.
S. Subdivider's Statement:
The subdivider claims that the proposed subdivision design most closely resembles the
original site design approval of the Architectural Review Commission. A major reason for
deleting the deep lot flag is to avoid having to modify the existing house to provide a
fire wall. The Uniform Building Code requires that any portion of a building which
encroaches within three feet of a lot line must incorporate such a wall. With a 20 foot
wide flag, the lot line would come within one foot of the house. In evaluating the
alternative map designs, presented later in the report, the subdivider felt it
unnecessarily costly to redesign the project to save the pepper tree. A reduced driveway
width would result in additional fire safety upgrades to the apartments. The subdivider
has expressed some frustration in the processing of the development application since the
ARC approved removal of the pepper tree and the tree has become an issue of the
subdivision request. The subdivider has stated that the project should not go back to
the ARC for further consideration.
6. Staff Recommendation:
Given the number of design constraints, including existing site development, required
fire and building codes, and current architectural approvals for the project, the
proposed subdivision and some exceptions seem warranted. If the council wishes to
consider an alternative design, staff would suggest Design Alternative 4 as separates the
house from the driveway and preserves the large pepper tree. If the driveway was
designed correctly, the existing 22" diameter oak tree in the front yard would also be
saved.
7. Hearing Officer Recommendation:
Since the flag design is a specific requirement of the city's subdivision regulations and
the city has never approved an exception to delete a flag in a deep lot subdivision, the
proposed design should not be approved. The preferred design is Design Alternative 3 as
it most closely resembles the original ARC approval and would result in the standard 20
foot wide flag as required by the city's subdivision regulations.
DEPARTMENTAL COMN[ENTS
Public Works Department:
If the access driveway is not part of Parcel 2, Engineering recommends the driveway be
constructed to a higher standard (residential street standard for TI=5:5).
I
A common driveway easement will be required. ,
t4 - �
„�M►�n��uI�IIIIIIp ��ll city of san tuts osispo J
Hi;% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 5
The lot shall be graded to preclude cross-lof drainage.
The subdivider shall install individual sewer, water and utilities to serve each parcel.
Unless an off site drainage easement is obtained, an on site ejector pump shall be
installed to drain storm water to Broad Street.
Fire Department:
Access driveway shall be designed as a fire-lane with a minimum 20 foot width and 13.5
feet vertical clearance per the Uniform Fire Code. Access shall be painted red with
appropriate signage installed to prohibit parking.
If the access driveway is reduced in size (no less that 16 feet in width), fire
mitigation will be required including installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system
to the apartment units and a dry stand pipe for supplying the required fire flow.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
This item was considered by the Hearing Officer at the Director's Subdivision Hearing of
June 9, 1989. The Hearing Officer recommended that an alternative subdivision be
approved by the council with findings, exceptions and conditions as noted in attached
Draft Resolution.
Other than the subdivider and his representative, no one else testified at the meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt resolution approving the tentative map with findings, exceptions and conditions
noted. An option would be to approve a design alternative.
Attachments: Draft Resolution Approving
Draft Resolution Denying
Vicinity Map
Reduced map of proposed subdivision
Minutes excerpts from the June 9, 1989 Subdivision Hearing
Subdivider's statement
Initial study ER 15-89
Design Alternatives
gpms89135c
I
Ll
_ e
f
I
RESOLUTION NO. (1989 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
GRANTING APPROVAL OF MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 89-135
LOCATED AT 2527 BROAD STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findines That this council, after consideration of the tentative parcel
map of Minor Subdivision No. 89-135 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 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 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 I Exceptions. That approval of reduced lot width for Parcel 1 or 34.61
feet where 60 feet is normally required, and allow .a one foot building setback from the.
flag lot access way where ten 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.
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 parcel map for Minor
Subdivision No. 89-135 be subject to the following conditions:
1. Subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval and recordation.
y -�
Resolution No. (1989 Series) �J
Minor Subdivision No. 89-135
Page 2
2. Final map shall show Parcel 2, farthest from the street, owing the access way in fee,
and Parcel 1 with a minimum of 6,000 square feet in area.
3. 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.
4. The subdivider shall secure a drainage easement to drain surface water on Parcel 2 to
Gail Place or Caudill Street, or install ejector pumps to dispose of surface water to
Broad Street, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer..
6. The 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 Reauirement . 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 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. Utility lines
shall not be installed within the drip line of existing trees.
6. Existing house shall meet Uniform Building Code requirements, to the satisfaction of
the Chief Building Official.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT: (�
1 - 7
Resolution No. (1989 Series)
Minor Subdivision No. 89-135
Page 3
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1989.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City dministrative Officer
City AttorneW
Community Development Director
U �
RESOLUTION NO. (1989 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 89-135 LOCATED AT
2527 BROAD STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Fi,ndines That this council, after consideration of the tentative parcel
map of Minor Subdivision No. 89-135 and the Community Development Director's
recommendations, staff recommendations and reports thereon, denies the tentative parcel
map based on the following findings:
1. The design of the minor subdivision and proposed improvements are not consistent with
the general plan or the Subdivision Regulations.
2. The design of the subdivision or not physically suited for the proposed type and
density of development which is permitted by the R-2 zone.
3. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements may cause substantial —�
environmental damage.
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
Ls
' Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Minor Subdivision No. 89-135
Page 2
APPROVED:
City dministrative Officer
�O
City/Attt�oorne/y'
/- - G2LY/C,C��LC-
Community Development Director
l
VICINITY MAP
OX
6 � 6•i ' O V l • •'�-, ''4 �• i- -
D O
VNO OBR10 4
o
o
4
�o � ^� �;, M o
r 0 1~~
Olt V A
r
:f
��o
I� A
O
e,.
V
C 1J®1LL n �.
U s�• s
`�-- •fit .�`` � �L�
Ls
^ O
s
o
�y � � e ,avuompr'n�
lid,
o Ro o00 000
Z
MITCHELL ORIVE
�J
O O O 01011010
p • �'`°�
o . 0
R o o R 1
w
3
'too MO.
�p
• ttii�
♦ Imo. �._ - 0-
r 1 1
• o
J.
J
DIRECTOR'S SUBDIVISION HEARING - MINUTES
FRIDAY JUNE 91 1989
Minor Subdivision MS 89-13.5. Consideration of a tentative parcel
map creating two lots from one lot;
2527 Broad Street; R-2 zone; Ren
Chatham, subdivider.
Gary Price presented the staff report, explaining that the subdivider
wants to create two separate parcels from the one existing parcel.
He noted that the front parcel (parcel 1) would be 82.55 square feet
and contains an existing house. The second parcel to the rear is
over 19, 000 square feet and contains a 4-unit apartment complex which
is currently under construction. Mr. Price explained that the
subdivider is also requesting exceptions to the Subdivision
Regulations: (1) The minimum lot width for R-2 property is 60 feet;
the subdivider is proposing 54. 61 feet in width on parcel 1. (2) The
farthest lot from the street shall own the accessway in fee. other
lots using the accessway shall have an access easement over it. The
proposed deep lot subdivision does not have an access flag; instead
the subdivider is proposing a common driveway easement, owned in fee.
by the closest lot to the street. He explained that the farthest lot
would be given an access easement over the closest lot to the street.
Relative to the design, Mr. Price indicated staff's support, and,
noted the separation between the lower and higher density type of
development with a single-family character in the front and the
multiple-family density character in the rear. He explained that
although staff supports the concept, it is felt that this is not the
best design solution. The flag lot situation, which is required in
the subdivision Regulations, is to allow the owner of the rear
parcel, who would typically be the heaviest user, to have control of
the use, clearance, development and maintenance of the parcel. In
this case, Mr. Price explained, that would be in conflict since the
front parcel would be in control. Mr. Price explained that Public
Works Department has no problem with the design provided the access
driveway is built to a higher standard as a residential street.
Mr. Price noted Planning Division's concern that any subdivision must
comply with the minimum lot area requirements, excluding the flag
area. In this case, the flag portion is eliminated and could be
considered a bonus in terms of development potential of parcel 1
because the flag is considered as part of the development potential
of the front parcel. However, he explained that staff has calculated
the specific lot areas of both parcels with and without the flag, and
with current, existing, and proposed development, the density
requirements are met.
He then explained that the Uniform Building Code requires that any 1
portion of a building which encroaches within three feet of a lot
line must be modified with a one-hour fire wall. In the original
proposal, the subdivider had a flag lot. The lot line encroached
within that three foot area, thereby requiring modification of the
L/ -I
Page 2
existing residence. The current proposal eliminates that
requirement.
The subdivider is requesting common driveway use. The City's Parking
and Driveway Standards specifies that the buildings should not be
located in close proximity to a common driveway. In this instance,
since it is an existing residence and there doesn't appear to be a
satisfactory solution with a driveway along the south side of the
property, he noted that .staff would support the common driveway.
Due to the site's unusual configuration, large size and limited
street frontage, Mr. Price said that staff would supportthe reduced
lot width.
Mr. Price noted that staff offers four design scenarios in the staff
report, along with attachments graphically depicting those design
alternatives. He felt that any of those design alternatives are
preferable to what is being proposed, as they incorporate flag lot
situations. He said staff recommends alternative 4, which puts the
driveway to .the *north side of the lot and eliminates the need to
remove the 24-inch Pepper Tree which would be removed with the
current proposal. Mr. Price also noted that existence of a fairly
significant oak tree on the north side which could be disturbed by
placement of the flag lot along the north property, so staff would
encourage a unique design in locating the driveway to the center of
the site, going around the oak tree back to the rear parcel. The
parking lot would be realigned to the north of the site. He explained
the positive aspects of this alternative is that trees would be saved
and the original direction of the ARC.
The subdivider had expressed concern about having to mitigate a
reduced driveway width to keep the pepper tree by sprinklering the
apartment. Mr. Price indicated that staff suggests a way to both
provide for the 20-foot minimum width of the driveway and not have to
sprinkler the apartment in the back. Mr. Price also noted that, in
conversations with the subdivider, he was 'amiable to a design
solution that would save the trees and eliminate sprinklering the
apartment.
Regarding drainage, Mr. Price said discussion had occurred about
placing a hydraulic pump system to direct the storm water from the
apartment site to Broad Street. During the previous review of a
similar subdivision, use of such a system was discouraged because of
the potential for a power outage during a storm and the failure of
such a system. He noted. that the Community Development Director had
suggested that an option be provided to .both allow the pump system or
provide drainage easements to the rear or side to Caudill Street or
to Gail Place.
Mr. Price explained, relative to parking concerns, that parcel 1
L/ 'j '
Page 3
being separated would be considered a single-family type of
arrangement and therefore the Zoning Regulations for parking would be
applied which calculates to two parking spaces, one which must be
covered, and would need to be designed into the project.
Mr. Price explained that staff recommends the Hearing Officer
recommend. to the City Council, approval of the proposed subdivision
as shown in Exhibit A, or design alternative 2, as deemed
appropriate, subject to findings and conditions as noted in the staff
report.
The public hearing was opened.
Mike Szatlocky, subdivider's representative, spoke in support of the
request. He noted that one of the principle concerns with the design
as suggested by staff, would be reconsideration by the Architectural
Review Commission, since ARC approval has already been granted, and
building permits issued. He felt it was necessary to make this
project match as closely as possible as to what is being built. He
felt that proposal A best reflects what the original ARC approval
was.
Gary Price noted that when he spoke to the subdivider, Mr. Chatham,
he did not express concern about providing a flag lot.
Mr. Szatlocky explained that originally he was told that he could not
go less than 20 feet on a flag because of minimum access
requirements. The flag is not an issue, as it was in the original
proposal. He noted that the main reason for eliminating the flag was
to avoid having to modify the existing house to provide a fire wall.
He explained that the original configuration did not have the
building in as close to the driveway, which was unfortunate because
of an error on the part of the first surveyor that was not discovered
until after ARC approval was received. He indicated that if there is
a way to .resolve the property line issue for the bidlding, they would
prefer to do it the way it was previously approved.
Ken Bruce felt the only way to resolve the issue of fire wall
protection and property line setbacks, is to move the driveway to the
northerly side of the site.
Mr. Szatlocky felt that would not be acceptable because the project
would then have to go back to the .ARC, which is what he is trying to
avoid. He explained that construction of the driveway is currently
underway. He said his immediate problem is that he cannot stop the
project and wait for the process of going "back through different
committees; this would throw off the timeline and money.
Gary Price asked what progress has been made as far as the driveway
goes.
Mr. Szatlocky answered that some form of trenching for the water and
L
Page 4
gas lines; the gas lines will be going underneath where the driveway
would be right now. He reminded staff of the processing time it
takes to go back through the process, and the impact of the
construction loan with a significant interest rate on the project.
He felt this design option should have been considered a year ago
when it went to the ARC.
Ken Bruce explained that the last thing he wants is the appearance,
or in fact the city being a hindrance to the project or the
subdivision. He said his personal opinion was that it is unfortunate
that the subdivider would withdraw the previous subdivision request
that had already received tentative map approval, and was already
scheduled for a hearing before the City Council. Ken Bruce noted
what he felt were the issues: (1) The exception being requested
because of lot frontage, he felt, is reasonable to be granted because
of the unique configuration of the site. (2) The access easement, be
it a flag or a common driveway easement over it, or a combination of
both and its relationship to the existing house, along with building
code requirements related to setbacks. (3) Drainage and how to get
stormwater off the site.
Ken Bruce stated that he will not accept or recommend approval of a
subdivision unless it is a flag lot subdivision and the flag goes to
the street, and the flag is owned by the rearmost lot. He explained
- that it is an ordinance requirement required by the Subdivision
Regulations. He said the Fire Department will not accept an
accessway or driveway less than 20 feet wide without providing fire
sprinklers in the rear buildings. He reiterated that a 16-foot
driveway could be approved; the building code problem could be solved
with the fire wall protection, but the rear buildings would have to
be sprinklered. The other alternative is to go with a 20 foot
driveway, eliminate sprinklering the rear buildings, but having a
fire wall problem with the front building. In terms of drainage, Mr.
Bruce felt this was something that was not worked out at the time the
project got its original building permit, and has 'only become an
issue at the time of the proposed subdivision. He felt the only
reasonable way to provide drainage over and above the historic sheet
flow drainage that the site has had for many years, is that there be
an easement, and that the drainage get out to either Caudill Street
or Gail Place. The adjacent property owner on Caudill Street has
indicated that he is willing to grant an easement.
Ken Bruce then explained that the Building Division has several
different solutions for providing holding tanks and sump pumps. In
talking with city staff and people outside the city, it has been
noted that holding tanks may be a solution, but it is not the best
solution since when they fill up, there will still have to be an
overflow, and where does the overflow drainage go? It will probably
take its historic path and flood someone. Mr. Bruce further stated
that he felt sump pumps do not work, especially in storm conditions
because of the tendency to lose power, thus causing overflow
problems. He felt the only viable solution is a drainage easement.
Part of the problem with the easement, Mr. Bruce explained, is if for
some reason the easement cannot be secured and it is the only way of
L/ - �+
1
Page 5
J
satisfying a condition, then it is up to the city to try, through
condemnation procedures, to secure that easement.
Mr. Bruce asked if there has been any contact or any negotiations to
obtain a drainage easement out through the rear of the other
properties.
Mr. Szatlocky said he was not sure. He only knew of one owner on
Caudill Street being approached.
Mike Szatlocky clarified- again that the original proposal showed a
flag with some modifications to allow fora reduction from 20 feet..
He said he spoke with the Fire Department and their concern was the
legal entitlement of where that 20 feet came from, as much as they
have 20 feet of access. He felt it seems probable that alternative B
which shows a modified access, could also have a right-of-way
easement to the other portion.
Ken Bruce noted that it would be an addition exception that would
have to be granted by the City Council.
The public hearing was closed.
Ken Bruce explained that his action is a recommendation to the City
Council, since exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations are being
requested. According to the Subdivision Regulations, the City
Council is the only body that can grant exceptions.
Ken Bruce recommended the City Council approve the tentative map for
Minor Subdivision 89-135 (Alternative 3 - the design submitted with
the application by the subdivider) based on the following findings,
and subject to the following conditions and code requirements, with
the following exceptions being requested:
Exceptions
1. Reduced lot width for Parcel 1 or 34. 61 feet where 60 feet is
normally required.
2 . Reduced building setback from the access way to one foot where 10
feet is normally required.
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.
N I .
I �
/ \1
Page 6
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 wildlife or their habitat.
4. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not
conflict with easements for access through or use of property.
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.
Conditions.
1. Subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review,
approval and recordation.
2 . Final map shall show the parcel (parcel 2) farthest from the
street owning a 20-f6ot wide accessway in fee, and parcel 1 with
a minimum of 6000 square feet in area.
3 . 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.
4 . The driveway shall be paved a minimum of 20 feet in width.
5. The subdivider shall secure a drainage easement to drain surface
water on Parcel 2 to Gail Place or Caudill Street, or install
ejector pumps to dispose of surface water to Broad 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 Director.
2. Water acreage fees shall be paid for as determined by the City
Engineer prior to final map approval.
Page 7 J
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. Utility lines shall not be installed
within the drip line of existing trees.
6. Existing house shall meet Uniform Building Code requirements, to
the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official.
I,.
i
June 2, 1989
E1709 '�t�tivtu
DEVELOPER 'S STATEMENT JUN 51969
SLO 89-135 c.;,of S"us uo:ee
2527 BROAD STREET -^^omt.
The project project as proposed will divide a portion of Lot 21 of the Beebee and
Phillips addition into the two lots . The front lot will have 8255 square
feet of gross area and 6,000 square feet of net area . The rear lot will
have 19,400 square feet.
Previous to this submittal , the owner applied for ARC review and a building
permit to construct two duplex apartment units at the rear of the property.
The units are under construction at thi's time. The tentative map reflects
the ARC approved plan design and the constructed location at the buildings .
There is an existing frame house on the front lot . The location of the
house differs from that shown on the ARC approved plan due to an error in
the original engineer 's topographic- map. The actual building location as
shown on the tentative map is 20 feet further back from Broad Street and
several feet closer to the property line to the south than shown on the ARC
submittal .
In order to provide for an orderly development of the property, several
exceptions to City Standards are necessary. The first is a reduction in
front yard width for the front lot. The existing frontage is 54 . 61 feet ,
less than the current City minimum frontage of 60 feet. The properties on
both sides of the project are fully developed making the acquisition of
additional frontage unpractical .
4
June 2, 1989 Page 2 of 2
E1709
f
We have proposed -a common driveway and utility easement to Parcel 2. We
had considered flagging the lot, however, this created a problem with side
yard setbacks for the existing building which would either require moving
the building or upgrading portions of the structure to a one hour fire
standard . Neither of the structural solutions were practical . The
easement solution eliminates the setback problem . The driveway easement
meets the requirements of the common driveway portion of the City Parking
and Driveway Standards in that:
a) The driveway location best suits the building configuration and
the narrow frontage lot .
b) The minimum driveway width is 16 feet which allows for two-way
traffic. The existing building corner is within 5 feet of the
easement, but is more than 8 feet from the curb face and there-
fore will not be a problem to the easement operation.
c) Under Test P.2.C.4 of the Parking and Driveway Standards, the �!
common driveway will allow for development at a lot that is both
narrow and occupied by, an existing structure.
In fact, the driveway is no different than that proposed to and approved by
the ARC . The driveway will need one exception finding in that it will
serve 5 residential units where only 4 are normally permitted . The Fire
Department has determined that the proposed driveway is satisfaction for
fire access.
We understand that Parcel 2 may need a front yard exception in that no
street frontage is planned. Again, the proposed design will allow for
development consistent with the ARC approved drawing. An exception to
front yard standards will allow the parking to remain where it was
�originally approved, an area that best fits the plan .
Michael L. Szatlocky, .C.E. 33834
E1709/D25 y O�
r
city of San WIS OBISpo
Iql�►I�lill,!iliiii`iit►���;�iil��
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITELOCATION 2527 Broad St. (west side of Broad near Caudill) APPLICATIONNO. ER15-89
PROJECT DESCRIPTION nivieinn of one 28-300 S--f,+. lot into two lots (one fronting on Broad
Street A 090 qqft and a flan lnr behind 21 636 sq-ft.) _ --
APPLICANT Kan Ch thnm
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Y NEGATIVE DECLARATION _MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED _ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY Garjr W DATE Fahru ry16_ 1989
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: DATE 2/22/89
Negative Declaration
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
1.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
IL POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ...................................................... NONE
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH...........................................
C. LAND USE ....._...................................................._.................�n*TF
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ........................................ .......E. PUBLIC SERVICES ........... +*rr
F. UTILITIES............... ............._................................
G. NOISE LEVELS .................. .. �tnaTF
H. GEOLOGIC 3 SEISMIC HAZARDS 3 TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS ..............I.......
N(ITTt
I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS................... ••••..•••• mnmr
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY BID=
K. PLANT LIFE.................... .....................................
LANIMAL LIFE.. ............................................................... .......
M. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL ....,_....... ............ .... ...... ........... . .. . . .. vntsF
N. AESTHETIC ........... une�r
0. ENERGYIRESOURCE USE ......_..... .. .. ..... ......... .... .. . . . ... .. ........ . . ..... ntrnw
J
P. OTHER ................. .. ne,r
III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT
seas
u - a�
i
Subdivision Desien Alternatives: J
As an option to the proposed subdivision design, staff analyzed several other design
alternatives, all having flags. Staff has prepared site plans of each design attached as
exhibits.
Design Alternative 1:
Consists of a standard 20 foot wide access flag along the south side of the property
with special driveway treatment for preservation of the pepper tree. The flag lot
line would narrow near the house to a five foot setback- (refer to Exhibit B).
Consequences:
The Council would grant exceptions to allow a 34.61 foot lot width where 60 feet is
normally required for Parcel 1, to allow the house to be setback from the flag lot
access way five feet where ten feet is normally required and allow a portion of the
access way near the house to have a 16 foot width where 20 feet is normally
required. The house would not need to be modified with a fire wall. However, due to
the reduced driveway width around the tree, the subdivider would need to sprinkler
the apartment buildings and install a dry stand-pipe for fire safety.
Design Alternative 2:
Consists of a similar proposal involving a standard 20 foot wide access flag along
the south side of the property. The flag lot line would narrow near the house to a
five foot setback (Refer to Exhibit Q. -
Consequences:
Same as Alternative I except that the driveway is built to a 20 foot contiguous
width. The apartments would not need the added fire protection measures. The pepper
tree would be removed. The access easement would partially be outside the flag
(property line).
Design Alternative 3:
Consists of a contiguous 20 foot wide access flag along the south side of the
property (refer to Exhibit D). This is the subdivision design recommended for
approval by the Subdivision Hearing Officer.
Consequences:
The Council would grant exceptions to allow a 34.61 foot lot width where 60 feet is
normally required for Parcel 1 and allow the house to be setback from the flag lot
access way one foot where ten feet is normally required. Since the flag lot line
would be within one foot of the house, a portion would need to be modified for a one
hour fire rating. An option would be to relocate the house a minimum of five feet
back from the lot line. No additional fire protection measures would be required for
the Parcel 2. The pepper tree would be removed.
Y ��
Subdivision Design Alternatives
Page 2
Design Alternative 4:
Consists of relocating the flag/access way to the north side of the property. The
Broad Street driveway approach would need to be shifted south to avoid damage to the
large oak street tree (refer to Exhibit E).
Consequences:
The Council would grant exceptions to allow a 34.61 foot lot width where 60 feet is
normally required for the front parcel and allow the house to be setback from the
flag lot access way eight feet where ten feet is normally required.. The pepper tree
would be retained. The existing house would not need to be relocated or modified.
The parking area would be shifted to the north side of the site. Revised site plans
would need to be prepared for building plan check review. The Community Development
Director would approve amended architectural review plans. It has been noted that
because the oak tree may not be accurately plotted on the map, that the driveway may
have to loop around the tree's drip line.
No Subdivision Alternative:
Consists of no subdivision (refer to Draft Resolution No. 6).
Consequences:
The Council would deny the subdivider's subdivision and requested exceptions.
Development of the apartments would be unchanged from the current ARC approved
plans. The house would not need modification and the pepper tree would be removed.
The integrity of the subdivision regulations requiring the flag access way would be
maintained.
i
0
V.v
w �
¢OPS ¢o
~w
2cr
W W
CL
a
a o
. f �
V S
o
oo �
1
t , v
®1 ` t , `^ 0-4
.a Y�
Z ; t /N1
w
O
�;°
J
1
3
W II
Z
Q
w-- �f
LU
w
�apPO 2
LU
CL
a
a` rl
I
f Poo
j
e
V
I
l.� -c
✓ >r
w
g¢DPD ¢f
/ �LU 0w
cr
/ ww
l CL N
WLU 0
W 1
•� r Q
• W I
00
I f
J
i"
b1
i
apP�.
m -
- M
/ cr Q
r ~ W
cr I�
.r UJ UJ
CL m
_ ap W
Y
1
1 �
/ 1
W
Q �I
4
,
r pil
i
1
I
I
%/• z
� •
' o
/ w
0¢OPO
WT-
(L a rf
w
a
Coe
bmw
_ C7
\ LU I W
f• ¢ � A
0-4
rl
�1
� -
1
I
�-a