Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/18/1990, 3 - APPEAL OF HEARING OFFICER'S ACTION TO DENY A DRIVEWAY WIDTH EXCEPTION FOR AN INDUSTRIAL DEEP LOT SU MS 90-168 Page 3 The Hearing Officer did not believe that these findings could be supported, as noted in Director's Action No. 90-13, attached. Staff recommended denial of the exception at the subdivision hearing. CONCURRENCES Fire Department staff notes that a 20-foot access road would meet minimum standards which they enforce, and would be acceptable in this case. Engineering staff notes that a 20-foot access road would adequately handle current traffic volume. Appropriate private utility easements must be provided. The map appears to indicate cross-lot connections to private sewer lines, which are prohibited. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact will result from approval or denial of this project. ALTERNATIVES The council may uphold or deny the appeal. A draft resolution for each action is attached. RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal of the Hearing Officer's action to conditionally approve Minor Subdivision MS 90-168, and thus deny the requested exception to access road width standards. Attachments: Draft Resolution Denying Appeal (includes Director's Action) Draft Resolution Upholding Appeal Vicinity Map Tentative Map Appeal Subdivision Hearing Minutes Subdivider's Statement gtsd:MS90168C.wp ORESOLUTION NO. (1990 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING THE SUBDIVIDER'S APPEAL OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 90-168 LOCATED AT 3580 SACRAMENTO DRIVE WHEREAS, the Community Development Director conducted a hearing on the tentative map for Minor Subdivision No. 90-168 on November 2, 1990, and conditionally approved the tentative map on November 6, 1990, and WHEREAS, the Director denied the subdivider's request for an exception to paved access roadway width, and WHEREAS, the subdivider has appealed the decision of the Director to the City Council, and WHEREAS, the council has considered the tentative map, Osubdivider's appeal, the Director's action, the staff report, public testimony, and other relevant materials, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo to deny the subdivider's appeal, and to uphold the action of the Director to approve the tentative map of Minor Subdivision No. 90- 168, subject to the findings and conditions of the attached "Director's Action No. 90-13". On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Resolution No. (1990 Series) Page 2 the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1990. Mayor Ron Dunin ATTEST: City Clerk, Pam Voges APPROVED: City A ministrative Officer t to e ,r' community Develbdment Director �-S RESOLUTION NO. (1990 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL_ OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING THE SUBDIVIDER'S APPEAL AND GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 90-168 LOCATED AT 3580 SACRAMENTO DRIVE WHEREAS, the Community Development Director conducted a hearing on the tentative map for Minor Subdivision No. 90-168 on November 2, 1990, and conditionally approved the tentative map on November 6, 1990, and WHEREAS, the. Director denied the subdivider's request for an exception to paved access roadway width, and WHEREAS, the subdivider has appealed the decision of the Director to the City Council, and WHEREAS, the council has considered the tentative map, subdivider's appeal, the Director's action, the staff report, public testimony, and other relevant materials, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo to uphold the subdivider's appeal and to approve the tentative map of Minor Subdivision No. 90-168, subject to the following findings and conditions: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements are consistent with the general plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the M zone. 3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. C4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with easements for access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision. r Resolution No. (1990 Series) Page 2 5. The negative declaration issued by the Community Development Director is hereby approved. 6. Development of the subject property would not be feasible with the installation of a standard street. SECTION 2 . Exception. Reduction of the width of paved access road from 24 feet to 20 feet is hereby approved, based on the following additional findings: Findings for Exception 1. The topography of the property to be subdivided is such that it is undesirable to comply with the strict application of the Subdivision Regulations. 2 . The cost to the subdivider is not the sole reason for the exception. 3. The requested exception will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity. 4. Granting the exception requested is consistent with the intent of the Subdivision Regulations, and is consistent with the general plan. SECTION 3 . Conditions. That the approval of the tentative map for Minor Subdivision No. 89-168 be subject to the following conditions: 1. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the City for approval and recordation. 2. Subdivider shall provide for public and private utility easements over existing utilities, to the approval of the City Engineer. Easements shall be shown on the final map. 3 . The subdivider shall record a common driveway easement and agreement providing for access from Parcel A to Sacramento Drive, via the flag portion of Parcel B. The form of the easement and agreement shall be to the approval of the City Engineer and Community Development Director. 4. Cross-lot drainage shall not be allowed. The subdivider shall provide drainage facilities that carry storm water to a -' 1 o Resolution No. (1990 Series) Page 3 suitable disposal point, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. SECTION 4. Code Requirements 1. Subdivider shall install street trees on street frontage, in accordance with city standards and to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 2 . Subdivider shall provide individual sewer, water and utility services for each parcel. New utilities shall be underground. 3. Subdivider shall pay water acreage and frontage fees as determined by the City Engineer, prior to final map approval. 4. New lot corners shall be staked by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: 0 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1990. Mayor Ron Dunin ATTEST: City Clerk, Pam Voges o ," Resolution No. (1990 Series) Page 4 i APPROVED: ity A inistrative Officer for ey - Community eveladent Director �-9 G DIRECTOR'S ACTION NO. 90-13 AN ACTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE MAP AND DENIAL OF THE EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 90-168 LOCATED AT 3580 SACRAMENTO DRIVE BE IT RESOLVED by the Community Development Director of the City of San Luis Obispo, as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Community Development Director, after consideration of the tentative map of Minor Subdivision 90-168 and the staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings: 1. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements are consistent with the general plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the M zone. 3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4 . The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with easements for access through, or use of property within, the. proposed subdivision. 5. The negative declaration on environmental impact issued by the Community Development Director is hereby approved. 6. Development of the subject property would not be feasible with the installation of a standard public street. SECTION 2. Conditions. That the approval of the tentative map for Minor Subdivision 90-168 be subject to the following conditions: 1. The subdivider shall submit a final • map to the City for approval and recordation. DA 90-13 - Page 2 i 2. The subdivider shall provide for public and private utility easements over existing utilities, to the approval of the City Engineer. Easements shall be shown on the final map. 3 . The subdivider shall record a common driveway easement and agreement providing for access from Parcel A to Sacramento Drive, via the flag portion of Parcel B. The form of the easement and agreement shall be to the approval of the City Engineer and Community Development Director. 4 . Cross-lot drainage shall not be allowed. The subdivider shall provide drainage facilities that carry storm water to a suitable disposal point, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. SECTION 3 . Code Requirements. That 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. The subdivider shall install street trees on street frontage, in accordance with city standards and to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 2 . The subdivider shall provide individual sewer, water and utility services for each parcel. New utilities shall be underground. 3 . The subdivider shall pay water acreage and frontage fees as determined by the City Engineer, prior to final map approval. 4 . New lot corners shall be staked by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. SECTION 4. Exception. Denial of reduction of driveway pavement width from 24 feet to 20 feet, based on the following findings: 1. It is practical and desirable to conform to the strict application of the Subdivision Regulations. 2 . The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the Subdivision Regulations appears to be the primary reason for requesting the exception. Jia J n r- J •"`•r ...••.•••......................... .••••.•••trriiiiiiiiii:.'�iiiiiii:Fii::Ei:ii�. , •::::::iititt=tititittstit .... ................. »::»:::•::::-::--:::'•:.`i'i=^ii:iFiiiititits'F:`i:'ii:'i;E:.di�?iFi':i;"'[eY€ � �iiii. ' .......................... ct .;»!>::::::•::::•:::::" r.::::::a::.••::::....:,..»; ..::»:::::siisiiiiirii iisi ii�:> Mill- .......... :::it.... siiiiiiiiiiiitii;-i:::::»:::::::::::.................::................. •♦ 9' �icc -iiE'scF:s B s�♦a+ \itti�:tiii«?iE.�iiiii;�Fis;^E=imi"� !NT :H»ce: :r »»»ii:s:::::::»:a:: v .� \i[ii3z:::»::cis:iI. =i-:r: _ciiaiiiiistiiie9tiii:EE ' tj cc 46 �♦'"e Et^tiiliiiiii�:�viiici^eieeiiiiii�ii'�'OtiG� � t V � I I d i u Q a O Y o y x t, \ �er jsi L SCO • r, YSs ;+ 9 0 e II DA 90-13 OPage 3 3. The exception will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity. 4. Granting the exception is not in accord with the intent and purpose of the Subdivision Regulations. The foregoing document was passed and adopted this 6th day of November, 1990. Community Development Director by: Ken Bruce, Hearing Officer O Z fn 11 O 0 J ag o aZ u- Ys 00 J j Q O U F u g o 0 Wy m W fn U W u QO° ~O WCD p F p L� J W = .�' W W W$ M Q J Q N Q� W 81 t� r y a x ti /� 7 a- �jr` Lu W =F C > O O v m Q H ►L J Q N W 1 • I I Z ►JJ W W Z W ~ fn I I J:i t! fnZ ► a 0 Q J N. Ld O 4L y• z •rPgq F- a o o !N- ": . '9i1Y b /00, a O _ O m N A G W Q u y\ u W a © 4 y z w U iO- Ir Y a u z CF:J u 0> _ O O <W I !I M \ • \ f i i � 9 u 2 m V!-D a 9pci Zft ow WO N w a 4 h Q a A► / emu g� n> a c a =1� n m - AY d__ � • J O Iter.I/•r��r ,T... PT SACRAMENTO DRIVE 60 R/W FE �1011111ciCit� yOf sAn WIS Oti1S O t0i11Ltd' 990 Palm Slreet/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Oblsp0, CA 93403.8100 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL NnV 1491 in accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title 1 , Cha;SAW1.;:S 06iCFK?�.C' 1 .20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of _ Ren Bruce, Hearing Officer rendered on Novpn1 r_ 6. 1990 , which decision Consisted of the following ( i . e. set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal . Use additional sheets as needed) : A • denial for a request for an exception in .the. pavement wir-th required by the Subdivision Standards for proposed minor s-.i`5division SL 90-168 located at 3580 Sacrament Drive in San Luis Obispo . The City Council may authorize exceptions to the City Subdivision Standards per Section 16 . 48.010 of the Subdivision Regulations . The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with: Greg Smith on November 9,. 1990 DATE & TIME APPEAL RECEIVED: Appellant: -Robison Electronics. Inc ..- Name/Title Steven Frank. RCE 30412 Representative 440 Country Club Drive SLO Address (805) 544-0280 (805) 549=4468 Phone Original for City Clerk Copy to City Attorney Ca Lend red or: C. / Copy to City Administrative Officer — Co y to the fo 1 wing department(s) : City tier DIRECTOR'S SUBDIVISION HEARING - MINUTES FRIDAY NOVEMBER 2, 1990 3580 Sacramento Drive. Minor Subdivision No. 90-168 ; Consideration of 'a tentative parcel map creating two lots from one lot; M zone; Robison Electronics, subdivider. Judy Lautner presented the staff report, noting that staff supports the tentative map, based on findings and subject to conditions which she outlined. She explained that staff supports a "deep lot" subdivision in this case because a cul-de-sac .street for this purpose would make existing buildings non-conforming in terms of street yard and it would involve much paving and city maintenance which doesn't appear necessary for two parcels. However, Ms. Lautner stated that staff does not support the exception in paving width which was requested by the subdivider, based on the finding that there is no physical reason to prevent paving the full 24 feet which is normally required for this type of subdivision. The public hearing was opened. Steven Frank, project engineer, spoke -in support of the request. He said he concurs with the findings and conditions, and noted that the zoning was listed . incorrectly in the staff report. He explained that the subdivider wants to reduce the width of the existing roadway. He noted that this subdivision differs from a normal deep lot subdivision in that there is access through long- term easements through Lot 7 of Tract 915 to Ricardo Court, adjacent to this parcel, as well as the fact that this driveway has been in ' use since 1973 , and he felt it is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of anyone. He also noted that there is no history of any accidents or problems, and feels the existing 20-foot wide paved roadway should be allowed to remain to satisfy the requirement for the back lot. Mr. Frank said he wanted to clarify to staff that the subdivider is offering the full 307foot flag for right-of-way; they just don't feel that saw-cutting the road and widening it 4 feet is a viable and necessary request, and therefore is asking for that exception.. The public hearing was closed. Ken Bruce noted that the parcel map shows an existing 2' -inch water line going through the property from Sacramento Drive. He asked if the subdivider is proposing an easement over that water line Othat would reach all the way to the private driveway? Mr. Frank responded that an easement over the water line is proposed, but it does not necessarily have to be a public utility Page 2 easement; a private utility easement would be more than sufficient. He said they are very tentative with any sort of plans for development of parcel A; they have no idea of what that site will be used for, or when it will be developed. He noted this project was more estate planning than development planning. He further said that the intent is to keep all utilities going back to the plant that are in existence, intact and in place. He felt this would favor the southeasterly edge of the property for any structures or driveways or parking areas on the northwesterly side. of Parcel A. He noted that this also includes the tip of proposed parcel A where there is a 4-inch sewer line, which is presently significantly landscaped. Judy Lautner asked about the private sewer line coming from one of the lots. Mr. Frank said it was incorrectly labeled on the map. He also said that engineering had concerns with the private utility easement since the map incorrectly shows sewer lines going to lots within Tract 915, which they do not. He noted that all utilities and all improvements were made by the subdivider for Tract 915, and all go out to Ricardo Court. Ken Bruce asked if he had discussed with the subdivider, .the possibility of combining Lot. 7 of Tract 915, which is basically a parking lot, with Parcel B? Steven Frank responded that they were considering, depending on the outcome of this meeting and any subsequent meetings with regard to this proposed deep lot subdivision, to consider another map with a lot line adjustment whereby they may combine what is seen as Parcel B with Lot 7 of Tract 915, and then either reduce or eliminate the flag, although his preference is not to do it this way. The existing. roadway is used to transport individuals to a plant in this industrial zone, it drains well and is in good repair. Ken Bruce asked if the flag lot were approved, and the flag remained, would the subdivider still consider combining Lot 7 with Parcel B, if the city didn't request or require it? Mr. Bruce said he didn't feel the city has the right to force it, but he would certainly like to see this occur, primarily because the parking on Lot 7 serves the uses .on parcel B, and it makes sense to put it all on one parcel. Mr. Frank was unsure of what his client would do under those circumstances. He also noted that his client would request that any utility stub-outs, or improvements to Parcel A be deferred until a building permit or other entitlement for development is issued, in accordance with Section_ 16.44.220 of the Subdivision Regulations. Ken Bruce asked how drainage of Lot B is proposed? Mr. Frank responded it would be through the flag. Page 3 Ken Bruce took this item under submission. He explained that this means he has an additional ten days to render a decision. He explained that the reason he it taking -the item under submission is because he has concerns with the staff-recommended conditions and felt some were not listed. Healso noted that the standard code requirements such as staking lot corners, separate utilities for each parcel, and possible sewer and water frontage and acreage fees were not listed in the staff report, and these issues need. further research. He also said he wanted to further consider the roadway reduction issue. On November 6, 1990, Ken Bruce approved the Tentative map for MS 90-168, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions and code requirements: Findings 1. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements are consistent with the general plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the M zone. 3 . The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4 . The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with easements for access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision. 5. Thenegative declaration issued by the Community Development Director is hereby approved. 6. Development of the subject property would not be feasible with the installation of a standard street. Conditions 1. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the City for approval and recordation. 2. Subdivider shall provide for public and private utility easements over existing utilities, to the approval of the City Engineer. Easements shall be shown on the final map. 3. Subdivider shall record a common driveway easement and agreement providing, for access from Parcel A to .Sacramento Drive, via the Oflag portion of Parcel B. The form of the easement and agreement shall be to the approval of the City Engineer and Community Development Director. q /Q AR 90- Page 4 Page 4 Code Requirements 1. Subdivider shall install street trees on street frontage, in accordance with city standards and to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 2 . Subdivider shall provide individual sewer; water and utility services for each parcel. New utilities shall be underground. 3 . Subdivider shall pay. water acreage and frontage fees as determined by the City Engineer, prior to final map approval. 4 . New lot corners shall be staked by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. Approval of reduction of driveway pavement width from 24 feet to 20 feet is denied, based on the following findings: 1. It is practical and desirable to conform to the strict application of the Subdivision Regulations. 2. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations appears to be the primary reason for granting the modification. 3. The modification will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be injurious to other- properties in the vicinity: 4 . Granting the modification is not in accord with the intent and purpose of the Subdivision Regulations. SUBDIVIDER ' S STATEMENT The owner wishes to divide a 4 . 005 acre industrial property into two parcels , one with 1 . 327 acres of vacant land and the other with 2 . 678 acres of land with an existing manufacturing plant and office. A zoning change is not being requested . The minimum allowable lot size is 9000 square feet or 0. 207 acres . All structures and trees are to remain . The proposed subdivi- sion is presented in the form of a deep lot ( flag) subdivision with a thirty foot wide , 230 foot long accessway as 'stipulated in Section 16 . 36. 230 of the Subdivision Regulations . The exist- ing paved roadway is twenty feet wide . This proposed subdivi- sion varies from the typical flag lot subdivision in that the property has a recorded common driveway agreement to provide this property direct access to a parking lot on Lot 7 of Tract No . 915 which in turn provides access to Ricardo Court . It is requested that the existing twenty .foot wide paved driveway be determined adequate to provide access to Parcel B. Any widening of the existing roadway would require the relocation of a large underground high-voltage electrical vault and a fire hydrant and the destruction of a significant amount of landscaping . A 25 foot wide public utility easement is proposed along the north- westerly boundary of Parcel A as well as a thirty foot wide private utility easement within the accessway of Parcel B for Parcel A. A copy of the soils engineering report for the property is included herewith . If the proposed subdivision is granted , we request that all utility stgbvuts as well as any other improve- ments for Parcel A be deferred until a building permit or other entitlement for development be issued in accordance with Section 16.44. 220 of the Subdivision Regulations . .1 AZI N, �•..:i2 n' Steven Frank RCE 30412 Of C