HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-13-2015 PC Item 1 - APPL-0978-2015 (598 Princeton Place)Meeting Date: May 13, 2015
Item Number: 1
2X
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Director’s Decision to deny the use of parking in the front yard.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 598 Princeton Place BY: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner
Phone Number: 781-7524
e-mail: kbell@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: APPL-0978-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) denying the appeal and
supporting the Director’s decision to uphold the citation.
SITE DATA
Appellant Katherine Aaron and Joseph
Gambucci, Resident
Zoning R-1, Low-Density Residential
Submittal Date January 9, 2015
General Plan Low-Density Residential
Site Area ~18,060 Square feet
Environmental
Status
Categorically exempt under
Section 15270, projects which a
public agency rejects or
disapproves.
SUMMARY
City staff received a complaint regarding a vehicle (boat) parked within the front yard at 598 Princeton
Place. An inspection of the property was conducted, and Code Enforcement staff documented the code
violations. The property owner received a Notice to Correct Violations for parking vehicles in the
front yard outside the driveway. The enforcement action regarding the vehicle parking was appealed
by Katherine Aaron and Joseph Gambucci the property owner and resident of 598 Princeton Place.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission’s role is to determine if parking a vehicle (boat) in the front yard outside the
driveway is consistent with the Zoning Regulations.
PC1 - 1
APPL-0978-2015
598 Princeton Place
Page 2
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
The subject property is located at the end of the cul-de-sac on Princeton Place off of Highland
Drive west of Highway 1 in San Luis Obispo. The immediate neighborhood consists of single-
family homes in close proximity to the Mission-Nativity Pre School to the west of the subject
property. According to the San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office, the three bedroom residence
was constructed on the subject property in 1958. Please see Attachment 2 for a Vicinity Map.
Site Size ~18,060 SF
Present Use & Development Single-family residence
Access Princeton Place
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: R-1 (Single-family residences)
South: R-1 (Single-family residences)
East: R-1 (Single-family residences)
West: R-1 (Single-family residences)
2.2 Background
May 11, 2014
Staff received a complaint regarding parking in the front yard and inspected the property at 598
Princeton Place and noted that a boat was parked in the front yard outside of the driveway, which
violated San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.17.055 Front Yard Parking.
May 12, 2014
A notice to correct was sent to the owner of 598 Princeton Place on May 12, 2014 to voluntarily
correct the code violation by May 22, 2014.
May 22, 2014
Property owner hand - delivered the appeal to the Community Development Department. The
appeal stated that the driveway was constructed between 1990 and 1991, 19 years prior to the
adoption of Section 17.17.055. The appeal stated that the space used to park the vehicle (boat) is a
legal nonconforming front yard parking space under Section 17.17.055 E.
June 19, 2014
A notice of the Director’s decision was sent to the property owner that denied the appeal and
upheld the notice to correct. The notice of Director’s decision stated that the regulations in Section
17.17.055 are intended to preserve the residential character of streetscapes in the City’s
neighborhoods. Vehicle parking is permitted on driveways leading to garage parking, or other
approved off-street parking spaces, vehicles may not be parked on pavement or other surfacing
which has been added outside the driveway area and within the street yard as defined by SLOMC
17.16.020. “Legal non-conforming front yard parking” only applies in cases where permits were
previously granted to allow parking in the front yard area per SLOMC 17.17.055 E.
PC1 - 2
APPL-0978-2015
598 Princeton Place
Page 3
December 4, 2014
On December 4, 2014, an inspection was conducted to determine compliance with the Directors
decision. During the inspection a citation was issued to 598 Princeton Place for parking a vehicle
(boat) in the front yard for a fine of $50.
December 11, 2014
Property owner hand - delivered the appeal to the Community Development Department. The
appeal stated the same description of the first appeal on May 22, 2014.
December 15, 2014
A notice of the Director’s decision was sent that denied the appeal and upheld the citation. The
notice of the Director’s decision restated the same findings found for the notice of the Director’s
decision on June 19, 2014, that also stated that there are no permits on file for 598 Princeton Place,
which address the paved area next to the driveway.
January 9, 2015
Property owner hand - delivered the appeal to the Community Development Department. The
appeal is described in Section 2.3 below.
2.3 Appeal
The appellant’s letter (Attachment 10) refutes the applicability of violation 17.17.055 Front Yard
Parking to the property at 598 Princeton Place stating that the vehicle parking on the side of the
driveway conforms to SLOMC 17.17.55 E Legal Non-conforming Front Yard Parking in that the
pavement for the surface parking has been constructed in conformance with Section 17.16.020 D.7
Parking in the Other yards, prior to the adoption of section 17.17.055, and that such parking shall
be considered a legal non-conforming use, and may continue. The appellant’s letter also address
the comment made in the Director’s Decision which stated; “There are no permits on file for 598
Princeton, which address the paved area next to the driveway.” The appeal letter states that at the
time of construction, a permit was not required to modify the front parking area at 598 Princeton
Place, and that the denial of the appeal to continue to park in the driveway has created an “ex post
facto” violation of the law.
3.0 APPEAL EVALUATION
3.1 Consistency with Zoning Regulations
The appellant’s use of the parking space for the boat at 598 Princeton Place is inconsistent with the
City’s Municipal Code. Section 17.17.055.E (Front Yard Parking) of the Municipal Code states the
following:
Section 17.17.055.E Legal Non-conforming Front Yard Parking: In cases where permits
have been granted prior to allow parking in the front yard area that is not in conformance with
Section 17.17.055.B.; Or, in cases where pavement surfacing has been constructed to provide
parking in conformance with Section 17.16.020.D.7 (parking in “other yards”) prior to the
adoption of section 17.17.055, such parking shall be considered a legal non-conforming use,
PC1 - 3
APPL-0978-2015
598 Princeton Place
Page 4
and may continue. Vehicle parking on pavement or other surfacing added outside the driveway
area to access such parking in “other yards” does not meet the definition of a driveway per
section 17.17.055.B. and shall not be deemed a non-conforming use.
Section 17.17.055.E allows the flexibility for permitted parking spaces out of conformance with
this section to be established as legal non-conforming, or when parking spaces were designed in
conformance with Section 17.16.020.D.7 prior to the adoption of section 17.17.055, may also be
established as legal non-conforming. The property at 598 Princeton Place does not have any
building permits on record to establish the pavement surface as a parking space. The expansion of
the driveway is inconsistent with the Section 17.16.020.D.7 which states:
Section 17.16.020.D.7 Vehicle Parking: Vehicle parking in front yard areas of residential
properties shall conform to section 17.17.055 of this code. No person shall stop, park, or leave
standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, within any street yard or upon any
unpaved surface as defined in Sections 12.38.040 and 17.16.020 of this code.
As stated in Section 17.17.055.E “Vehicle parking on pavement or other surfacing added outside
the driveway area to access such parking in “other yards” does not meet the definition of a
driveway... and shall not be deemed a non-conforming use.” The paved surface does not meet the
definition of a driveway, and does not meet the parking dimensions of a parking space established
prior to 1977 as 9 feet by 18 feet.
Parking and Driveway Regulations Section 9200.16 of the Zoning Regulations from 1979 states;
Section 9200.16.1.A.2.c Location and Number of Spaces for Parking Lots: No portion of any
parking space or aisle, except driveways for ingress and egress, shall be permitted in a
required street-yard area.
Section 17.17.055.B.2 reiterates that vehicles are only allowed to be parked within the driveway
width as established in the City’s Parking and Driveway Standards.
Section 17.17.055.B.2 Allowed Front Yard Parking: Vehicles may only be parked in areas
within the driveway width established to serve approved parking spaces as defined in City
Parking and Driveway Standards. Vehicle parking on pavement or other surfacing added
outside the driveway area does not meet the definition of a driveway. (See figure 9.7b, below
for examples of allowed front yard parking). Vehicles shall be parked completely within the
driveway surface with all tires completely on the driveway surface.
Parking and Driveway Standards define a driveway as the same width of the curb opening and
must be within the width limitation noted on Engineering Standard #2120.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The use of the vehicle parking space on the side of the driveway is out of compliance with Section
17.17.055 and section 17.16.020 because the paved area that is being used for parking was not
permitted or designed for a vehicle to be parked on, and does not qualify for non-conforming
PC1 - 4
APPL-0978-2015
598 Princeton Place
Page 5
parking because the paved area does not meet the definition of a driveway. These regulations have
been consistent since the Zoning Regulations of 1979 that prohibits parking within the street yard
except for driveways that are used for ingress and egress from designated parking spaces. In order
to maintain consistency with the City’s Zoning Ordinance, staff recommends the Planning
Commission uphold the citation and prohibit use of the vehicle parking within the street yard.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Grant the appeal based on different or modified findings.
2. Continue the action and request that staff and/or the appellant provide more information.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Site Photos
4. Notice to Correct (May 12, 2014)
5. Appeal (May 22, 2014)
6. Directors Decision (June 19, 2014)
7. Citation (December 4, 2014)
8. Appeal (December 11, 2014)
9. Directors Decision (December 15, 2014)
10. Appeal letter from Katherine Aaron and Joseph Gambucci (January 9, 2015)
PC1 - 5
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. PC- XXXX-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING AN APPEAL FOR USE OF VEHICLE PARKING IN THE FRONT YARD AS
REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED MAY 13, 2015 (598 PRINCETON PLACE APPL-0978-2015)
WHEREAS, a citation was issued on December 4, 2014 for parking a vehicle in the front
yard outside of the driveway.
WHEREAS, an appeal to the citation was hand delivered to the Community Development
Department on December 11, 2014.
WHEREAS, a notice of the Director’s decision was sent to the property owner on December
15, 2014 that denied the appeal and upheld the violation.
WHEREAS, an appeal to the Director’s decision was hand delivered to the Community
Development Department on January 9, 2015.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May
13, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL-0978-2015, Katherine Aaron and Joseph
Gambucci, appellants.
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San
Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following
findings:
1. The expansion of parking in front yard areas off driveways, interferes with the pattern of
building masses and open areas within neighborhoods, creates vehicle clutter, and results in
excessive vehicle parking, which has the effect of creating small parking lots in front yard areas
which are intended to remain as open areas within neighborhoods.
2. The use of the vehicle parking in the front yard does not comply with the City’s Municipal
Code, Section 17.16.020. This section states that the use of vehicle parking in the street yard is
prohibited that does not comply with Section 17.17.055.
3. The use of vehicle parking in the front yard does not qualify as legal non-conforming under the
City’s Municipal Code, Section 17.17.055.E, because there are no permits on record that
recognize a parking space at this location, and the paved area on the side of the driveway does
PC1 - 6
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-15
APPL-0978-2015 (598 Princeton Place)
Page 2
not meet the parking space requirements.
4. Front yard vehicle parking is only allowed within the driveway width established by the Parking
and Driveway Standards. The paved area outside the driveway does not meet the definition of a
driveway and is out of compliance with the Parking Driveway Standards.
Section 2. Environmental Review. Section 15270, Projects which are disapproved, states
that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
Section 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby deny appeal APPL-0978-2015.
On motion by _______, seconded by _______, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 13th day of May, 2015.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission
PC1 - 7
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1 R-1
JE
F
F
R
E
Y
HIGHLAND
S
T
A
N
F
O
R
D
DALY
P
R
I
N
C
E
T
O
N
MARLENE
VICINITY MAP File No. 0978-2015598 Princeton ¯
Attachment 2
PC1 - 8
Attachment 3
PC1 - 9
Attachment 4
PC1 - 10
Attachment 4
PC1 - 11
Attachment 4
PC1 - 12
Attachment 5
PC1 - 13
Attachment 5
PC1 - 14
Attachment 5
PC1 - 15
Attachment 5
PC1 - 16
Attachment 5
PC1 - 17
Attachment 5
PC1 - 18
Attachment 5
PC1 - 19
Attachment 5
PC1 - 20
Attachment 5
PC1 - 21
Attachment 5
PC1 - 22
Attachment 5
PC1 - 23
Attachment 5
PC1 - 24
Attachment 6
PC1 - 25
Attachment 6
PC1 - 26
Attachment 7
PC1 - 27
Attachment 8
PC1 - 28
Attachment 8
PC1 - 29
Attachment 8
PC1 - 30
Attachment 8
PC1 - 31
Attachment 9
PC1 - 32
Attachment 9
PC1 - 33
Attachment 10
PC1 - 34
Attachment 10
PC1 - 35
Attachment 10
PC1 - 36