HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/20/1990, C-6 - AUTHORIZATION OF EXCEPTION TO GRADING STANDARDS FOR A HOUSE AND DRIVEWAY TO BE BUILT ON THE NORTHWE MEETING�DAATE:
'��� �Ildiil!IflliP�' lllhl city of San IDIS OBISpoZIL
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Greg Smith, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Authorization of exception to grading standards for a house and driveway to be
built on the northwest side of Oakridge Drive, near Los Robles Street.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution authorizing an exception to the Grading Ordinance Design Standards,
for construction of a house and driveway at 628 Oakridge Drive.
DISCUSSION:
Background
The city's Grading Ordinance establishes design standards which determine what percentage
of a site can be graded: steeper lots must preserve higher percentages of the natural
topography. Exceptions to those standards require authorization of the council.
The Architectural Review Commission granted final approval to the project design on October
15, 1990. Council approval of the grading exception must be obtained before a building permit
application may be filed.
Data Summary
Address: 628 Oakridge Drive
Applicant: Steve Ekegren
Representative: Mike Underwood
Zoning: R-1
General Plan: Low Density Residential
Environmental Status: Categorically exempt
Project Action Deadline: February 5, 1990
Site Description
The site is an irregular 2.15-acre lot. It is located on a steep hillside; average slope of the lot
is 29% with some slopes steeper than 50%. Various mature and young trees are located on
the site, most apparently planted within the last twenty years. Other vegetation on the site
includes primarily introduced grasses.
EVALUATION
The applicant proposes to build a large, two-story house on a prominent hillside site. The site
is an infill lot, surrounded by houses built in the 1960's and 1970's. Blueprints of the plans for
the house - including the grading plan - are included in council packets.
628 Oakridge
Page 2
The Grading Ordinance specifies that 90% of a site with a 29% cross-slope is to remain in its
natural state. In other words, not more than 10% of the site is to be graded. (The area of the
site occupied by the building itself is excluded from the calculations.) The plans approved by
the Architectural Review Commission reflect grading of 24% of the site.
The ARC and staff believe the grading proposed is reasonable, given various site constraints
and other issues noted below.
1. Site Constraints
Development of this site is constrained by the steeply sloping topography, and by a private deed
restriction. The setback line shown on the site plan - 250 feet from the Oakridge Drive
frontage - is the result of a private agreement made when the project site was split off from
the property to the north, in order to preserve the panoramic view from the existing house at
660 Oakridge Drive.
The 250-foot setback requirement affects grading in two ways:
- The graded driveway must be at least 250 feet long. Two-thirds of the proposed
grading is to accommodate the driveway.
- The flattest portion of the site - where a house could be built with less grading - is
within the required setback area.
The plans approved by the ARC included revisions which reduced the grading from the
applicant's original submittal. A lawn area was eliminated, the parking area was reduced, the
building was moved fifteen feet closer to the street, and the floor area was reduced by several
hundred square feet.
A slight further reduction in grading (to roughly 22% of net site area) could be achieved by
reducing the size of the house, stepping it to conform more to the hillside. Grading could also
be reduced by moving the house lower on the hillside, where slopes flatten out, although an
exception to the private deed restrictions would be needed. The adjoining property owners
indicated at the ARC hearing that they were unwilling to grant such an exception, since it
might interfere with their view.
3. Other Site Development Issues
At the ARC hearings, the commission and public testimony focused on the Hillside Planning
Standards, neighborhood scale, and privacy concerns of the neighboring property to the north.
The commission concluded that the final version of the proposed project adequately addressed
those concerns, subject to the following conditions:
- Front upstairs bedrooms relocated back from front of the structure.
- Various revisions to the landscape plans to enhance screening, and emphasize use of
native plants.
The proposed house would be one of the largest in the vicinity, even with the floor area
C a
628 Oakridge
Page 3
reductions noted above. The design minimizes large vertical building faces, and the ARC's
C action to grant approval reflects their judgement that the scale of the structure is appropriate
on the large lot.
The revised plans have also adequately addressed the issues of privacy and views of the
adjoining house to the north, in the judgement of staff and the commission. The owners of the
adjacent property to the north indicated that the plans approved by-the commission adequately
address their earlier concerns.
No appeal.of the commission's decision was filed.
Preliminary engineering studies of the site indicate that extensive work is necessary on the site
to mitigate landslide hazards. However, it appears feasible to stabilize the slopes by excavating
and recompacting soils in the vicinity of the building site.
CONCURRENCES
As noted above, the ARC has granted final approval to the proposed building design and site
plan for the project. Minutes of the commission's October 15, 1990 meeting are attached. The
minutes reflect comments of commissioners and neighbors supporting the project., and of
neighbors and commissioners opposed to the project.
FISCAL IMPACT
CNo significant effect on city revenues or costs will occur.
ALTERNATIVES
The council may approve or deny the grading exception request, and may require modifications
to the grading plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the council adopt the attached draft resolution approving an exception to
the Grading Ordinance Design Standards, and allowing grading of 24% of the net site area at
682 Oakridge Drive.
Attachments: Draft Resolutions for approval, denial
Vicinity Map
Grading Ordinance-Excerpt-s
ARC Minutes (Forthcomin )
gtsd:ar9070gr.wp
RESOLUTION NO. (1990 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AUTHORIZING AN EXCEPTION TO GRADING ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
FOR A HOUSE AND DRIVEWAY AT 628 OAKRIDGE DRIVE
WHEREAS, the council has considered the testimony and statements of the
applicant, and other interested parties, and the records of the Architectural Review
Commission hearings and actions, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;
NOW,THEREFORE,the council resolves to approve the requested exception
and authorize grading of 24% of the net site area at 628 Oakridge Drive, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
SECTION 1. findings
1. The exception granted is subject to conditions which insure that it does not
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other
properties in the same vicinity.
2. Because of special circumstances applying to the subject property, notably the
existence of an appropriate building site 250 feet from the street frontage, and
the location of residences on adjoining lots whose views will be affected by
development of the subject property, the strict literal application of the
grading limitations would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed
by other properties in the vicinity.
3. Under the particular circumstances of this case, the proposed grading is
consistent with the purposes of the Grading Ordinance as set out in Section
15.44.020 of those regulations.
SECTION 2. Conditions
1. Grading shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted grading plan,
to the approval of the Community Development Director.
2. No trees shall be removed from the site, except as approved by the
Architectural Review commission.
3. Applicant shall submit an engineering geology report to the Chief Building
Official prior to issuance of a grading permit. All work shall comply with the
recommendations of the report, to the approval of the Chief Building Official.
4. Applicant shall comply with site revegetatbn requirements and all other
provisions of the Grading Ordinance. Applicant shall be required to obtain
a separate water allocation for revegetation areas, to the approval of the )
Community Development Director,if water allocation regulations are in effect
at the time the grading permit for the project is issued.
C— � � 7
Resolution No. (1990 Series)
628 Oakridge
Page 2
C
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
C' APPROVED:
itystrati Offic
i tto ey
Community Deve m t Director
cow, (v _5
RESOLUTION NO. (1990 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN EXCEPTION TO GRADING ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
FOR A HOUSE AND DRIVEWAY AT 628 OAKRIDGE DRIVE
WHEREAS, the council has considered the testimony and statements of the
applicant, and other interested parties, and, the records of the Architectural Review
Commission hearings and actions, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;
NOW, THEREFORE, the council resolves to deny the requested exception
to for grading of 24% of the net site area at 628 Oakridge Drive, based on the following
findings:
SECTION 1. Findings
1. The exception requested would constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity.
2. There are no special circumstances applying to the subject property which
would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties
in the vicinity.
3. Under the particular circumstances of this case, the proposed grading is not
consistent with the purposes of the Grading Ordinance as set out in Section
15.44.020 of those regulations.
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
i
GTY' LIMIT
ro
O
#xO
1 i
\ :lr.:..rr.::;..is..
,xt;,.,.;..;.r'ir.;}n•.y(:ra:r;, .t,t + r
$NoN
�+v:t^\�i�SCNti\u: �1i4 u1
::..•C'(.;i�'i::�C�ti��(.'+i;.:;:.itt�.i;.::'tit�:::i'k;r1i.1:1C':; :1r�X i
qq
;.C.:Y.(:;;;;tr;}eft+j•+.r.}::}}'.;:::..,.;'::::Pl�v\�
O :;':.9•!;::i:{:�:;ii;4:i::i'ii`i:C::i;�s?;i::i;�:iiti:
y:•y::l:•:Lt t+:• ,.
coo
O e
J
L O S
- o y ,c• � � Fd
F � 1
� � I
TL
O O I O O O :D •e
O e AL— NIL ®RIVE IIV
O O O O O D
DR. I J_
Resolution No. ( 990 Series)
628 Oakridge
Page 2
O ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City A mirustrative OfIrcer
i tto e
O
Community Develop e" t Director
O
15.44.010-15.44.040
�\ '15.44.250 Drainage and terracing. ated soil erosion problems incurred in adjust-
15.44.260 Erosion control. ment of the natural terrain to meet outside and
15.44.270 Dust prevention. off-site development needs.(Ord. 1061§2(part),
15.44.280 Hours of operation. 1986;prior code§9401)
15.44.290 Grading—Inspection=
Designation—Requirements— 15.44.030 Scope.
Notification of noncompliance. This chapter sets forth rules and regulations to
15.44.300' Completion of work— control all grading,including,but not limited to,
Notification—Final reports. excavations, earthwork construction, road con-
15.44310 Violations—Notification. struction, fills and embankments, and work
15.44320 Appeals. within waterways;establishes the administrative
procedure for issuance of permits;and provides
15.44.010 Title. for approval of plans and inspection of grading
The regulations contained in this chapter shall construction.This chapter recognizes the impor-
be known and referred to as the "Grading Ordi- tance of the waterways of the city and the need to
nance of the city of San Luis Obispo."(Ord. 1061 regulate all changes to these waterways that may
§ 2 (part), 1986;prior code§9400) lead to increases in erosion or changes in capac-
ity. (Ord. 1061 §§ l (part), 2 (part), 1986: prior
15.44.020 Purpose. code§9402)
This chapter is adopted for the following pur-
poses: 15.44.040 Definitions.
O A. To protect and provide for the public For the purposes of this chapter, the defini-
health, safety and general welfare of the city; tions listed hereunder shall be construed as
B. To guide the future growth and develop- specified in this.section:
ment of the city, in accordance with and consis- 1. "As graded"means the surface conditions
tent with the general plan; extent on completion of grading.
C. To encourage the planning, design and 2. "Average cross slope' means the ratio,
development of building sites in such a fashion as expressed as a percentage. of the vertical dif-
to provide the maximum in safety and human ference in elevation to the horizontal distance
enjoyment while adapting development to. and between two points on the perimeter of the area.
taking advantage of, the best use of the natural with the line connecting the two points being
terrain; essentially perpendicular to the contours
D. To preserve and enhance the beauty of the between the two points.Different portions of any
landscape by encouraging the maximum reten- area may have different average cross slopes(see
tion of natural topographic features, such as Examples A-1 and.A=2)
creeks, streams, lakes, slopes, ridge lines, rock
outcroppings, vistas, backdrops, natural plant
formations-and trees:
E. To minimize padding or terracing of build-
ing sites in the hillside areas;
F. To encourage imaginative and innovative
building techniques to create development
suited to natural surroundings;
G. To minimize grading and cut and fill oper-
ations;'
H. To minimize the water runoff and acceler-
367 (San Luis Obispo 7.86)
. � ai
15.44.190-15.44.210
A. A tentative minor subdivision or tract director may require bonds in such forms and
map, use permit, architectural review commis- amounts as may be deemed necessary to assure
sion project approval or similar authorization that the work, if not completed in accordance
has been granted; and with the approved plans and specifications, will
B. Related street and utility grades have been be corrected to eliminate hazardous conditions.
established;and Also, the community development director
C. A cash deposit or cash bond is deposited to may, at his discretion, require that bonds be
guarantee restoration of the site to a natural con- posted to recover the full costs of any damage to
dition as required by the community develop- public right-of.way which may occur because of
ment director should the project not proceed to the peculiar nature or large scope of the project
completion.. (Ord. 1061 § 2 (part), 1986; prior (i.e.,transportation offrllorheavy equipment on
code§ 9410.1) local streets not designed to accommodate the
traffic).
15.44.190 Permit and plan checking fees. B. Optional Guarantee. In lieu of a surety
A. Plan Checking Fees.For excavation and fill bond the applicant may file a cash bond or
on the same site, the fee shall be based on the instrument of credit with the city in an amount
volume of the excavation or fill, whichever is equal to that which would be required in the
greater. Before accepting a set of plans and speci- surety bond. (Ord. 1061 § 2 (part), 1986; prior
frcations for checking, the community develop- code§9412)
ment director shall collect a plan checking fee.
Separate permits and fees shall apply to retaining 15.44.210 Design standards—Natural state
walls or other structures.There shall be no sepa- preservation required—
rate charge for standard terrace drains and sim- Exceptions.
ilar facilities. The amount of the plan checking A. Natural State. The topography of a site
fee for grading plans shall be as set forth by proposed for development shall remain substan-
council resolution. tially in its natural state.Mass recontouring shall
B. Grading Permit Fees.A fee for administra- not be allowed.In all uses the average cross slope
tion and inspection of the work authorized by of a site shall be determined by the community
each grading permit shall be paid to the commu- development director prior to any gradingopera-
nity development director as set forth by council tions or approval of any grading plan.Any grad-
resolution.Such fees shall be collected at the time ing operation shall have a relationship to the
of issuance of the grading permit. avenge cross slope of the proposed site to be
C. Alternative Fee. An alternate fee shall be graded, as shown in Table B. The percentage of
charged for plan checking, administration and the site, exclusive of building area, to remain in
inspection of projects, requiring permits under its natural state(no grading of any kind allowed)
this chapter, for which the regular fee structure shall be considered as follows:
established is inappropriate. The fee shall be as
established by resolution of the city council.The
fees for plan checking, administration and
inspection shall be collected in the same manner
as the fee which is collected for regular grading
permits. (Ord. 1061 §§ I (part), 2 (part), 1986;
prior code §941 l)
15.44.200 Bonds and other guarantees.
A. Bonds. The community development
.. 375 Ilan Luis Obispo 7.86)
G-
i
15.44.220-15-44-230
C"
Table B engineering geology report,cuts shall conform to j
the provisions of this section. l
Percent of Site B. Slope.The slope of cut surfaces shall be no
Percent Average To Remain In steeper than is safe for the intended use. Cut
Cross Slope Natural State slopes shall be no steeper than two horizontal to
one vertical. All graded planes shall be rounded
0— 5 0 on all edges to blend with natural slopes. all
6 - 10 25 rounded edges shall be graded in conformity with
11 — 15 40 Table C asset out in Section 15.44.230.
16 -20 60 C. Drainage and Terracing.Drainage and ter-
21 —25 80 racing shall be provided as required in Section
26- 30 90 15.44.250.(Ord. 1061 §2(part), 1986;prior code
Above 30 100 §9414)
B. Exceptions. The council may grant excep- 15.44.230 Design.standards—Fills..
tions from the grading limitations set out in sub- A. General.
section A of this section;provided,that all of the 1. Unless otherwise recommended in the
following conditions are found to apply: . approved soil engineering report, fills shall con-
i. That any exception granted shall be subject form to the provisions of this section.
to such conditions as will assure that the adjust- 2. Where a soil engineering report is not
ment thereby authorized shall not constitute a required, the provisions of this section may be
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the waived by the community development director
limitations upon other properties in the same for minor fills not intended tosupport structures.
vicinity;
B. Fill Location. Fill slopes shall not be con- i
2. That because of special circumstances structed on natural slopes steeper than two to one
applicable to the subject property,including size, where the fill slope toes out within twelve feet
shape,topography,location or surroundings,the . horizontal of the top ofexisting cut slopes.except
strict literal application of the grading limitations as part of an approved soils engineering plan.
is found to deprive subject property of privileges C. Preparation of Ground. The ground sur-
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity; face shall be prepared to receive fill by removing
3. That under the circumstances of this par- vegetation, noncomplying fill,top soil and other
ticular case the exception is in conformity with unsuitable materials as determined by the soil
the purposes of this chapter as set out in Section engineer,and,where the slopes are five to one or
15.44.020. steeper, by benching into sound bedrock and
Exceptions may be granted only in conjunc- other competent material.
tion with specific conditions of approval of a D. Fill Material. Earth materials which have
comprehensive plan for the development of a site no more than minor amounts of organic sub-
including, but not limited to, proposed subdivi- stances and have no rock or similar irreducible
sions, planned developments, use permits or material with a maximum dimension greater
architectural review commission projects. (Ord. than three inches shall be used.
1061 § 2 (part), 1986; prior code§9413) E. Compaction.All fills shall be compacted to
a minimum of ninety percent of maximum den-
15.44.220 Design standards---;Excavation. sity as determined by Uniform Building Code
A. General. Unless otherwise recommended Standard No. 70-1. Field density shall be deter-
in the approved soil engineering and/or mined in accordance with Uniform Building
Code Standard No. 70-2 (or equivalent) as l
(San Luis Obispo 7-96) 376 ► I
C ��