Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-28-2015 PC Item 1 - 2390 Loomis Street (USE-1520-2015)Meeting Date: October 28, 2015 Item Number: #1 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Second review of a new single-family residence with an attached Secondary Dwelling Unit in the S-overlay zone that includes height and setback exceptions, with a Categorical Exemption from CEQA (Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). PROJECT ADDRESS: 2390 Loomis Street & BY: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner 48 Buena Vista Avenue Phone Number: 781-7524 e-mail: kbell@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: USE-1520-2015 FROM: Tyler Corey, Interim Deputy Director RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) approving height and setback exceptions for the development of a single-family residence, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. SITE DATA Applicant Jeff Kraft Submittal Date June 15, 2015 Complete Date August 5, 2015 Zoning R-1-S, Low-Density Residential with a Special Considerations Overlay General Plan Low-Density Residential Site Area 13,321 square feet Environmental Status Categorically exempt under Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures; Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines SUMMARY The applicant has requested to construct a single-family residence in the R-1-S zone that includes height and setback exceptions on a sloping lot. The Planning Commission reviewed the project on September 23, 2015, and voted 6:1 (Fowler) to continue the project to a date uncertain with direction (Attachment 6). Staff has reviewed the applicant’s response to Planning Commission direction items and finds the modified project plans and supporting information in compliance with Planning Commission direction. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) approving the PC1 - 1 USE-1520-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 2 project based on findings, and subject to conditions. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The Planning Commission continued the project on September 23, 2015, to a date uncertain with direction (discussed in Section 3.0 below). The Planning Commission’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City standards. The Secondary Dwelling Unit (SDU) and architectural design of the residence will be reviewed through a separate application SDU-1521-2015. The SDU regulations state that nothing prohibits an applicant from requesting exceptions or variances from any other section of the Zoning Regulations 1. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Background On August 27, 2015, an Administrative Hearing was held to review the project. Members of the public attended the hearing and expressed concerns regarding developing the site and allowing exceptions for the project. At the hearing, the Administrative Hearing Officer determined that the project should be elevated to the Planning Commission to address public concerns over site development. On September 23, 2015, the Planning Commission held a hearing to review the proposed project and voted 6:1 (Fowler) to continue the item to a date uncertain with direction (Attachment 6). Specific Planning Commission directional items to be addressed by the applicant included: 1) Evaluate the proposed lower level of the residence, originally proposed as unconditioned space, for its ability to be converted to habitable space. 2) Address concerns related to the roof deck area associated with noise and privacy. 3) Clarify the need for the requested height and setback exceptions. 2.2 Site Information/Project Description/Project Statistics A detailed description of the site, project description and statistics can be found in the September 23, 2015, Planning Commission staff report which is Attachment 5 to this report. 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS At the September 23, 2015, Planning Commission meeting the following directional items was provided to the applicant prior to taking final action on the project; 3.1 Directional Item #1: Evaluate the proposed lower level of the residence, originally proposed as unconditioned space, for its ability to be converted to habitable space. 1 Zoning Regulations 17.21.010.D.1; Performance Standards: Design Standards: Nothing in this section prohibits applicants from requesting exceptions or variances from the strict interpretation of Zoning Regulations to the extent allowed by said regulations for any other use. PC1 - 2 USE-1520-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 3 The applicant has revised project plans to remove the lower level of the residence and cantilever the middle floor (now, the lowest level) over the existing slope. The applicant has expressed that the intent of the residence was not to include a third level, however, a third level was provided to satisfy the Hillside Development Guidelines (Attachment 8, Applicant Response Letter). Conclusion #1: Hillside Development Guidelines state that the lowest floor level should not exceed a vertical distance of six feet from the lowest point where the foundation meets grade and the lowest floor line of the structure. To meet this requirement a third level was originally proposed. To determine compliance with the Hillside Development Guidelines a finding will have to be made through the architectural review application SDU -1521-2015 that the removal of the lowest level helps reduce the overall mass and scale of the project and provides for a more consistent design that maintains the natural character of the hillside. This evaluation will occur following the Planning Commission’s review and action on the project. 3.2 Directional Item #2: Address concerns related to the roof deck area associated with noise and privacy. Due to the steep slope of the site there is limited space to provide private usable outdoor space for the residence. The applicant is required to provide a minimum of 250 square feet of private outdoor space for the primary residence and the Secondary Dwelling Unit. In order to meet this requirement and maintain consistency with the Hillside Development Standards, the least impactful location on the site to provide this outdoor space is through the use of the roof and balconies. The size of the roof deck has been designed as the primary outdoor area for the primary residence. A balcony has been provided for the SDU that meets required private outdoor space. Absent adequate usable outdoor space on the site, the applicant has expressed concerns that his children may choose to play on the street. The applicant has revised the roof deck design to include artificial turf for a portion of the space (Attachment 8, Applicant Response Letter). Conclusion #2: The closest existing residence to the property is located approximately 20 feet in elevation above the roof deck and over 110 feet away. It is not anticipated that noise generated from use of the roof deck will negatively impact adjacent neighbors more than any other usable outdoor area on any neighboring property, due to its location in relation to neighboring properties. In addition, the proposed roof deck does not generate any overlook concerns because the immediate adjacent properties are undeveloped. The property to the south that may accommodate future development has sufficient developable space that will not be affected by this project because the project complies with all applicable setback requirements along the adjoining property line shared between these two properties. The property to the north is designated as permanent open space that is over two acres in size; the project proposal will have no effect on this property. For these reasons staff is in support of the roof deck as proposed. PC1 - 3 USE-1520-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 4 3.3 Directional item #3: Clarify the need for the requested height and setback exceptions. Conclusion #1: Staff has provided additional information to further clarify the requested exceptions and findings to support their approval consistent with the Zoning Regulations, please see sections below; Special Considerations Overlay: Chapter 17.56 of the Zoning Regulations stipulates that a property with a Special Considerations (S) zone overlay requires approval of an Administrative Use Permit before any use may be established. The intent of the Permit is to assure compatibility of the use with its surroundings and conformance with the General Plan. The Special Considerations zone overlay was added to this location to address development on the sloping site and views from Highway 101. An Administrative Hearing Officer (now the Planning Commission) may establish conditions relating to improvements, building location, or access which are more restrictive than provided in the underlying zone, in order to fulfill the intent of Special Consideration zone overlay. The proposed single-family residence at this location has been designed in a way that minimizes impacts related to development on the sloping site in conformance with the City’s Grading Ordinance and Hillside Development Guidelines. By locating the residence as close to the street as possible, while maintaining adequate street yard setback requirements, significantly reduces the amount of grading (35 cubic yards) that would otherwise be necessary for the driveway. The proposed single-family residence has been designed in a way that keeps a low profile and conforms to the natural slope by stepping the building foundation. The structure will appear approximately six feet in height as viewed from the public right- of-way on Buena Vista Avenue. The structure is located below the ridgeline as viewed from Highway 101, and incorporates colors and materials that blend well with the surrounding hillside. In conclusion, the single family residence has been designed in way that minimizes the impacts from development on a steep slope and reduces the amount of grading required to the maximum extent feasible in accordance with the intent of the Special Considerations (S) zone overlay. A full project evaluation for compliance with the Hillside Development Guidelines and the City’s Grading Ordinance will be conducted as part of the architectural review application SDU-1521-2015. Height exception: Section 17.16.040 of the zoning ordinance establishes the maximum building height per zone. Any variation from these limits requires the approval of a variance except for buildings within the Low Density Residential (R-1) zone and the Office (O) zone that may be approved through an Administrative Use Permit for a maximum height of 35 feet 2. The use permit may be approved upon findings that the 2 Zoning Regulations 17.16.040; Table 5.5: Maximum Height by Zone: R-1 zone maximum height is 25 feet (up to 35 feet with approval of an administrative use permit). PC1 - 4 USE-1520-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 5 exception will be consistent with the existing conditions of the neighborhood and that the exception will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons working or living at the site or within the vicinity. The applicant is requesting an exception to allow a 28 foot maximum building height from average natural grade 3 where 25 feet is normally allowed in the R-1 zone (see Figure 1). From Buena Vista Avenue the building will appear as less than a single story structure due to the downslope of the driveway. In order to comply with the City’s Grading Ordinance, the design of the building has minimized the amount of grading required to develop the site by locating the structure close to where street access is available and by maintaining a relatively small building footprint. The Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.020, Yards, state that a 20 foot setback is required in the R-1 zone as measured from the right-of-way line to the nearest point of the wall of any building. The Parking and Driveway Standards state that driveways that descend are allowed a maximum slope based on the length of the driveway measured from the worst condition between the back of the sidewalk extension and the finished floor grade at the garage entrance (Code Section: 2140 Upward & Downward Driveways). The maximum slope allowed at this site for the proposed driveway is approximately 14%. The garage has been designed to accommodate the full street yard setback of 20 feet with a 13% slope of the driveway, which places the ceiling of the garage at 28 feet above the average natural grade. The minor height exception of three feet is warranted due to the existing constraints of the site that limit the location of a required covered parking space in the R-1 zone. Maximum building height per zone has been established in order to preserve neighborhood character, and to protect access to adequate solar exposure. The proposed three foot exception will not detract or negatively affect the neighborhood character because the structure will appear as less than a one story structure from the public right- of-way surrounded by one and two story structures within the neighborhood. The exception will not deprive any adjacent property from reasonable solar access, as the 3 Zoning Regulations 17.16.040; Height: The height of a building is the vertical distance from the average level of the ground under the building to the topmost point of the roof, including parapets. The average level of the ground is determined by adding the elevation of the lowest point of the part of the lot covered by the building to the elevation of the highest point of the part of the lot covered by the building, and divided by two. Figure 1: Height measurement from average natural grade. PC1 - 5 USE-1520-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 6 property that would be most affected by the shading of the structure is zoned Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5) with each parcel over two acres in size, as seen in the solar study provided in Attachment 4, Solar Study. The structure will appear approximately six feet in height as viewed from the public right-of-way on Buena Vista Avenue. The structure is located below the ridgeline as viewed from Highway 101, and incorporates colors and materials that blend well with the surrounding hillside. Other Yard Building Height Exception: Section 17.16.020 Table 3 establishes the minimum required other yard setback for the R-1 zone. Other yard setbacks, more commonly known as side yard setbacks, are measured from the property line to the nearest point of the wall of any building 4. The height of a building in relation to a yard setback is the vertical distance from the ground to the top of the roof, measured from a specific distance from the property line. For reference, a structure with a wall that is 35 feet tall that faces the side yard property line requires a setback of 15 feet in the R-1 zone. Section 17.16.020.E.2 identifies specific exceptions from the setback requirements that are discretionary through the approval of an Administrative Use Permit. These discretionary exceptions have to meet specific findings in order to grant approval. To clarify, these exceptions are not variances and are not required to meet variance findings. Any exception that is not identified in Section 17.16.020.E.2 would require the approval of a variance. The discretionary exception that is being requested for the proposed project is an exception to the other yard setback in relation to building height which may be granted upon finding any of the following circumstances identified in Section 17.16.020.E.2.e.5 Upon approval of a use permit, the director (now Planning Commission) may allow exceptions to setbacks when the exception is of a minor nature, involves an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure; and the adjacent property will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure. The applicant is requesting a 12-foot setback on the northeast corner of the home where 15 feet is normally required for a structure that is 35 feet from the existing grade. Approximately 0.79% or 12 square feet of the structure would intrude up to 3 feet into the required 15 foot setback. Due to property lines that are not parallel, the sloping nature of the site, and the fact that the setback adjustment is for the yard adjacent to land designated C/OS-5, (open space), this minor setback exception will not deprive the adjacent property of reasonable solar access or privacy. 4 Zoning Regulations 17.16.020.B.3; Measurement of Yards: The height of a building in relation to yard standards is the vertical distance from the ground to the top of the roof, measured at a point which is a specific distance from the property line. Height measurements shall be based on the existing topography of the site, before grading for proposed on-site improvements. 5 Zoning Regulations 17.16.020.E.2.e; Other Yard Building Height Exceptions: Upon approval of a use permit, the Director may allow exceptions to the standards… Such exceptions may be granted in any of the following and similar circumstances…: When the property that will be shaded by the excepted development will not be developed or will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure, considering its topography and zoning. PC1 - 6 USE-1520-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 7 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In 1989 the project site consisted of three lots approximately 5,000 square feet each that were proposed for a development project of three 3,000 square foot residences with access from Buena Vista (ARC 89-27 & U 1433). An Initial Study was required to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of developing the three lots (ER 16-89). The Initial Study identified several mitigation measures requiring that the three lots be reconfigured into two legal lots. In 1990 the existing property was reviewed and approved for a Lot Line Adjustment that reconfigured the three lots into two legal lots (LLA 90-115). The two lots have been vacant since this that time and are individually owned. The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines, because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that will not have a significant effect on the environment. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5.1 Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 5.2 Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations and applicable City policy. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Project Plans 4. Solar Study 5. PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report) 6. Draft PC Hearing Minutes 7. Applicant Response Letter PC1 - 7 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT IN THE S-OVERLAY ZONE THAT INCLUDES HEIGHT AND SETBACK EXCEPTIONS WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED OCTOBER 28, 2015 (2390 LOOMIS STREET & 48 BUENA VISTA AVENUE USE-1520-2015) WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 27, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520- 2015, Jeff Kraft, applicant; and elevated the project to be reviewed by the Planning Commission to a date uncertain; and 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 September 23, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015, Jeff Kraft, applicant; and continued the project to a date uncertain and provided directional items to the applicant and staff; and 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 October 28, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015, Jeff Kraft, applicant; and 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, and 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: Special Considerations Overlay 1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the single family residence is proposed on a PC1 - 8 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-15 USE-1520-2015 (2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue) Page 2 legal lot and has been designed to be compatible with site constraints and the scale and character of the neighborhood. 2. The design and approach to grading is consistent with the open space element of the general plan, in such that; the proposed project keeps a low profile below the ridgeline and conforms to the natural slope by stepping the building foundation, and site grading is kept to a minimum. 3. The project has been designed in way that minimizes the impacts from development on a steep slope and reduces the amount of grading required to the maximum extent feasible in accordance with the intent of the Special Considerations (S) zone overlay. 4. The project design incorporates colors and materials that blend well with the surrounding hillside as viewed from Highway 101. 5. No useful purpose would be realized by requiring full setbacks or height requirements because no significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are anticipated. Height Exception 6. The additional three foot height exception will not obstruct views from any adjacent property due to the existing topography and will allow for the construction of covered parking space that complies with the Hillside Development Guidelines and the Parking and Driveway Standards for the driveway. 7. The proposed height exception will not detract or negatively affect the neighborhood character because the structure will appear as less than a one story structure from the public right-of-way surrounded by one and two story structures within the neighborhood. Setback Exception 8. A reduced side yard setback is acceptable at the subject location because the adjacent properties will not be deprived of reasonable solar access or privacy. The portion of the residence requiring a setback exception is only 14 square feet in area and will cast no greater shadow than the portions of the residence which meet the setback/height requirements of the City’s Zoning Regulations. 9. Granting of these exceptions will not alter the overall character of the neighborhood or the street’s appearance because the requested exceptions are minor and will not deprive any adjacent property from reasonable solar access, as the property that would be most affected by the shading of the structure is zoned Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5) with each adjacent parcel over two acres in size. PC1 - 9 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-15 USE-1520-2015 (2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue) Page 3 Section 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines, because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that will not have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby approve application USE- 1520-2015 subject to the following conditions: Planning Department 1. A building plan check submittal that is in full conformance with submitted project plans and project description, and incorporating the following conditions of approval, shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Department. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project approval. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. 2. The proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit and architectural design of the building shall be reviewed separate from this Use Permit per Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.21.010, through the architectural review application SDU-1521-2015. 3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out all proposed colors and materials on elevation drawings. 4. The minimum setback from the north property line to the proposed structure shall not be less than 12 feet with a maximum wall height of 28 feet from the natural average grade. 5. The building plan and grading plan shall be in compliance with the City’s Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2 Hillside Development. 6. The grading plan shall ensure that development near or on portions of the hill do not cause, or make worse, natural hazards (such as erosion, sedimentation, fire, or water quality concerns). 7. Grading plans shall include erosion and sediment control practices including temporary vegetation sufficient to stabilize disturbed areas. 8. As shown in the Planning submittal, plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly indicate a parking plan, showing designated parking spaces for both the secondary dwelling unit and existing single-family residence. 9. Land alterations should be minimized by: keeping cuts and fills to a minimum; limiting grading to the smallest practical area of land; limiting land exposure to the shortest practical amount of time; replanting graded areas to ensure establishment of plant cover before the next rainy season; and creating grading contours that blend with the natural PC1 - 10 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-15 USE-1520-2015 (2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue) Page 4 contours on-site or look like contours that would naturally occur. (Ord. 1490 § 3 (part), 2006) 10. The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents or officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole or in part, the City's approval of this project. In the event that the City fails to promptly notify the Owner / Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, or that the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense of said claim, this condition shall thereafter be of no further force or effect. Engineering Division 11. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing frontage improvements be altered or upgraded to comply with city standard M.C. 12.16.050. 12. The building plan submittal shall include a complete construction staging plan. The plan shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department prior to building permit issuance or the commencement of grading or construction. The plan should include any temporary or permanent changes to the street section, signage, curb alignments, and/or curb painting to support parallel street parking to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 13. Frontage improvements would generally be required for both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with this project. The city will support the deferral of frontage improvements along both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with the recordation of a covenant agreement to install the required improvements at a later date. A covenant agreement regarding the approval to defer frontage improvements shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. The city will prepare the agreement for recordation. A nominal recording fee will be required. 14. The building plan submittal shall show the new driveway approach to be installed per ADA and city standards. The current ADA and city standard requires a 4’ accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp. The driveway slope shall comply with the parking and driveway standard #2130 for downsloping driveways. The building plan submittal shall include additional detail showing the vertical curve and critical spot elevations and/or contours to show compliance. 15. The driveway approach shall be generally aligned with the garage door opening. The driveway approach and improved driveway located within the public right-of-way shall be perpendicular to the adjoining right-of-way and shall not be offset or require access at an off-set angle. 16. The final driveway and approach design, guardrail materials, vertical curve, and plantings shall consider the line-of-sight from a backing vehicle to on-coming vehicle and PC1 - 11 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-15 USE-1520-2015 (2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue) Page 5 pedestrian traffic from either direction. A line-of-sight analysis shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal to the approval of the Public Works Department. 17. The driveway approach and access along with the existing adjoining 12 inch high street curb shall consider the historic upslope tributary drainage area and curb capacity. The minimum curb height shall be sized in accordance with City Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual. If supported by analysis, a transition to a lowered curb height could be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department to accommodate a City Standard driveway approach design. 18. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the parking and driveway standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes drainage and materials. Alternate paving materials are recommended for water quantity and/or quality control purposes and in the area of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking area may occur within the dripline of any tree. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 19. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. Services to the new structure shall be underground. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted. 20. The new water service and water meter(s) shall be sized in accordance with the approved fire sprinkler plans. If separate water meters are proposed for the residence and the secondary dwelling unit, then the service shall be installed with a meter manifold rather than adding a second service. 21. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the stormwater runoff from this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. 22. The drainage report and analysis shall include a review of the existing upslope watershed that is tributary to Buena Vista Street. The analysis shall include reasonable street topo and an analysis of the curb capacity along the project frontage per City Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual. The transition to a standard curb height may be approved to accommodate a standard driveway approach and to support potential curb side parking. PC1 - 12 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-15 USE-1520-2015 (2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue) Page 6 23. An engineered grading plan and drainage report prepared by a licensed civil engineer will be required for this development project. The plan and report shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal. The plan and report shall evaluate the existing and proposed grading and drainage. The soils engineer and civil engineer shall collaborate on any requirements for slope stability, brow ditch construction or other diversion to direct the improved and/or existing drainage away from the existing Loomis cut slope, and to evaluate a non-erosive outlet or level spreader design to mimic historic drainage. 24. The building plan submittal shall include a complete drainage report showing compliance with the Waterway Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design Manual. The building plan submittal shall include erosion control measures in accordance with Section 10.0 of the manual and post-development stormwater quality management in accordance with Engineering Standard Section 1010.B. 25. A soils engineer shall review all levels of construction of this project that are recommended in the soils report prepared by Beacon Geotechnical Incorporation due to the sensitive nature of this hillside development. 26. The building plan submittal shall include a Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the City’s Website. The template will be used to document the expected exemption or minor project compliance summary for the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 27. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 3” or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property shall be shown for reference. The plan shall note which trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for reference. Tree removals may require approve by the City Arborist and/or Tree Committee. The plan shall show all existing and proposed street trees. 28. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed street trees. Street trees are required along Buena Vista Street at this time. Street trees along Loomis Street may be deferred until frontage improvements are installed. Street trees are required at a rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage. The City Arborist shall approve tree species and planting requirements. 29. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A city-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. PC1 - 13 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-15 USE-1520-2015 (2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue) Page 7 Utilities Department 30. The existing water meter serving a neighboring property on Buena Vista Avenue shall be relocated outside of the proposed driveway apron consistent with City Engineering Standards. Fire Department 31. An NFPA 13-D fire sprinkler system shall be required. 32. The structure(s) shall comply with the following requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, Chapter 7A, for materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure. This will include ignition resistant siding, a Class-A fire-rated roof assembly, and ignition resistant vents, including, roof, attic, and sub-floor vents. 33. The under floor area of elevated or overhanging buildings shall be enclosed to grade in accordance with the requirements of R327 of the CRC or the underfloor area shall consist of non-combustible construction materials. On motion by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 28th day of October, 2015. _____________________________ Tyler Corey, Interim Deputy Director Planning Commission PC1 - 14 PF C/OS-5 R-1-S R-1 R-1-SR-1-S R-1 R-1 LO O M I S B U E N A V I S T A VICINITY MAP USE-1520-201548 BUENA VISTA ¯ Attachment 2 PC1 - 15 Co v e r S h e e t CS . 1 SH E E T N o . 1 0 9 No . D a t e I s s u e 12 1 P r e f o n t a i n e P l . S . Se a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 0 4 [2 0 6 ] 3 2 9 - 1 6 5 4 © C h r i s P a r d o D e s i g n , L L C 2 0 1 5 Th e s e d r a w i n g s w e r e p r e p a r e d f o r "K r a f t H o u s e " p r o j e c t i n S a n L u i s Ob i s p o , C A . T h e y a r e n o t i n t e n d e d f o r us e o n a n y o t h e r p r o j e c t . el e m e n t a l a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m St a t e d d r a w i n g s c a l e i s b a s e d o n 3 6 x 2 4 s h e e t . Kr a f t H o u s e Sa n L u i s O b i s b o , C A 15 5 6 N . P a l m C a n y o n D r i v e Pa l m S p r i n g s , C A 1 0 9 . 0 2 . 1 5 W O R K I N G PL A N I N G C O M I S S I O N M E E T I N G S E T RE V I S E D 2 S T O R Y O C T O B E R 2 0 1 5 3R D M E E T I N G Attachment 3 PC1 - 16 10 5 0 S o u t h w o o d D r i v e Sa n L u i s O b i s p o , C A 9 3 4 0 1 P 8 0 5 . 5 4 4 . 7 4 0 7 F 8 0 5 . 5 4 4 . 3 8 6 3 NO . 6 5 3 2 8 JO H N C . ROGER S I V REGISTER E D P R O F ESSIONA L E N G I N EER S T ATE OF CA L I F O R NIA EX P . CIV I L 9- 3 0 - 1 7 50 C . Y . 20 C . Y 20 C . Y . 19 ft 19.00' 19.00' Attachment 3 PC1 - 17 10 5 0 S o u t h w o o d D r i v e Sa n L u i s O b i s p o , C A 9 3 4 0 1 P 8 0 5 . 5 4 4 . 7 4 0 7 F 8 0 5 . 5 4 4 . 3 8 6 3 476.5 TOW -455 EG= 21.65 = 9' upper level 466 TOW-454 EG=12' lower level 461.5 TOW-439.2 EG=22.3'=9' lower level TOW-455EG=2165=9 = (9' MIN. SETBACK) (13'6"' MIN. SETBACK) TOW 473.4-EG 441.6=31.8=13'6" upper level 13'-6" 461.5 TOW-435.9 EG=25.6'=11' TOW 473.4'-EG 438.4'=35'= 15'W 473.4'-EG 438.4'=35'= 1 384=35'= (15' MIN. SETBACK) 15'-1" 14 s f TOW 473.4'-EG 444'=29.4'= 12.5'TOW4734'-EG444'=294'=125'TOW52 (12' 6" MIN. SETBACK) 12'-2" STAIR TOWER TOW 476.65' -448.7' EG = 27.95' = 12' 13'-5"OW47665'4487'EG (12' MIN. SETBACK) TOW 476.65' -452.7' EG = 23.95' = 10' 13'-1" 10' 5'-6" TOW 448.6-430.6 EG=18'=8' parcel next door C/OS5 8'-0" 2'-7" UNCOVERED PERMIABLE DECK SHADED AREA DECK LESS THAN 30" TO GRADE SHADED AREA SETBACK EXCEPTION REQUESTED 1. E X I S T I N G F I R E H Y D R A N T 2. E X I S T I N G F I R E H Y D R A N T 4 5 0 ' S W O N B U E N A V I S T A 3. E X I S T I N G F I R E H Y D R A N T 8 5 0 ' S W O N B U E N A V I S T A FI R E S P R I N K L E R R I S E R 1,706 sf 463 sf NON PERMIABLE NON PERMIABLE DE C K OW 448.6-430.6 EG=18'=8' *(8' MIN. SETBACK ) SE E D R I V E W A Y UT I L I T I E S E X I S T I N G TR E E S A N D DR A I N A G E P L A N FO R D E T A I L S SE T B A C K A N D M A X I M U M H E I G H T C A L C U L A T I O N S EX C E P T I O N S L A Y O U T SE T B A C K A N D M A X I M U M H E I G H T C A L C U L A T I O N S RE Q U E S T E D E X C E P T I O N S L A Y O U T GR A D I N G L I M I T S P E R M I A B L E C A L C U L A T I O N S 00 7 AP N 0 5 2 - 2 7 1 - 0 0 7 (Z O N I N G C / O S ) AP N 0 5 2 - 2 7 1 - 0 0 7 (Z O N I N G C / O S ) *Uncovered balconies, uncovered porches, or decks may extend into the required yard not more than four feet or one-half the required yard distance,whichever is less. Fire escapes, exit stairs or other required exits may be required to meet greater setbacks to comply with Building Code 30 ' - 1 " PO S S I B L E F U T U R E B U I L D I N G , H O W E V E R T H I S I S A V E R Y S M A L L P A R T O F A 5 . 8 5 A C R E P A R C E L PO S S I B L E F U T U R E B U I L D I N G , H O W E V E R T H I S I S A V E R Y S M A L L P A R T O F A 1 2 . 5 A C R E P A R C E L 20 ' FO R P E D E S T R I A N P A T H 46 0 . 1 4 F L O W 45 7 . 4 4 F L O W 45 8 . 7 9 F L O W 12'-6" 32'-2" ) CLOSEST HOUSE TO HOUSE DEMENSION 10'-0" Attachment 3 PC1 - 18 SI T E P L A N SC A L E : 1 : 1 0 EX . 1 6 " P I N E TR E E RU N O F F D I S S I P A T I O N SW A L E ( 1 2 " D E E P W / LE V E L T O P ) 20 ' S E T B A C K 5.86'(5' MIN. SETBACK) 9.17'(9' MIN. SETBACK) 12.04'(12' MIN. SETBACK) 13.18'(13' MIN. SETBACK) Si t e P l a n A 1. 0 SH E E T N o . 1 0 9 No . D a t e I s s u e 12 1 P r e f o n t a i n e P l . S . Se a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 0 4 [2 0 6 ] 3 2 9 - 1 6 5 4 © C h r i s P a r d o D e s i g n , L L C 2 0 1 5 Th e s e d r a w i n g s w e r e p r e p a r e d f o r "K r a f t H o u s e " p r o j e c t i n S a n L u i s Ob i s p o , C A . T h e y a r e n o t i n t e n d e d f o r us e o n a n y o t h e r p r o j e c t . el e m e n t a l a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m St a t e d d r a w i n g s c a l e i s b a s e d o n 3 6 x 2 4 s h e e t . Kr a f t H o u s e Sa n L u i s O b i s b o , C A 15 5 6 N . P a l m C a n y o n D r i v e Pa l m S p r i n g s , C A 1 0 9 . 0 2 . 1 5 W O R K I N G SE E C I V I L D R A I N A G E P L A N F O R T H E F O L L O W I N G : 1. F R O N T A G E I M P R O V E M E N T S 2. U T I L I T Y S E R V I C E S ( E X I S T I N G A N D P R O P O S E D ) 3. S I T E D R A I N A G E I M P R O V E M E N T S 4. E X I S T I N G & P R O P O S E D G R A D E S 5. C O N T O U R S & S P O T E L E V A T I O N S 6. F I N I S H F L O O R E L E V A T I O N S 7. R E T A I N I N G W A L L S 8. P U B L I C W A T E R , S E W E R , S T O R M D R A I N S LA N D S C A P E N O T E S 1. N O A D D I T I O N A L S P E C I E S W I L L B E P L A N T E D . 2. T H E N A T U R A L L A N D S C A P E I S T O R E M A I N TH R O U G H O U T T H E P R O P E R T Y . 1, S E E S E P A R A T E L A N D S C A P E P L A N S 2. A L L P L A N T S A R E N A T I V E D R O U G H T T O L L E R A N T S P E I C E S T O B E I R R A G A T E D B Y R A I N W A T E R / G R A Y - W A T E R S Y S T E M 3. A L L E X I S T I N G T R E E S T O R E M A I N 9. D E T A I L E D S E T B A C K A N D E L E V A T I O N S F R O N T Y A R D KI D S P L A Y A R E A Attachment 3 PC1 - 19 10 5 0 S o u t h w o o d D r i v e Sa n L u i s O b i s p o , C A 9 3 4 0 1 P 8 0 5 . 5 4 4 . 7 4 0 7 F 8 0 5 . 5 4 4 . 3 8 6 3 Ex i s t i n g Pi n e T r e e to r e m a i n LA N D S C A P E A N D IR R I G A T I O N P L A N AL L P L A N T S S H O W N A R E N A T I V E LO W W A T E R U S E TR E E S A R E T O B E O A K S LI V E O A K S A N D B L U E O A K S 2 4 " / 4 8 " BO X O R L A R G E R WA T E R D U R I N G F I R S T S E V E R A L YE A R S T O B E S U P P L I E D B Y RA I N W A T E R C O L L E C T I O N U S I N G DR I P S Y S T E M MA J O R I T Y O F T H E S I T E T O R E M A I N NA T U R A L L A N D S C A P E P L A N NN O O MM OO NN N OO 5 C 10 B B 8 F F 9 F F 3 B B O O 8 E 12 G 5 B B 5 C 5 L 5 I 10 J 15 H H 12 J NN NN O I R R I G A T I O N N O T E S BA C K F L O W D E V I C E P E R C O D E DR I P I R A G A T I O N O N A U T O M A T I C T I M E R PR I M A R Y S O U R C E R A I N W A T E R C A T C H M E N T WI T H C I T Y W A T E R B A C K U P S Y S T E M EL I M A N A T E A F T E R P L A N T S A R E E S T A B L I S H E D OR E Q U A L BU I L D I N G P E R M I T JK 9/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 5 20 ' FO R P E D E S T R I A N P A T H 3 V A L V E B O X 2 V A L V E B O X 3 V A L V E B O X BA C K F L O W D E V I C E FL O A T V A L V E W I T H A I R GA P F R O M W A T E R L I N E 50 0 G A L L O N R A I N W A T E R CA T C H M E N T T A N K I N CR A W L S P A C E W I T H P U M P WA T E R F E A T U R E MAIN LIVING LEVEL DECK BA L A N C E O F S I T E T O RE M A I N N A T U R A L L- 1 1 2 3 Attachment 3 PC1 - 20 A B C D1 FL O O R P L A N : R O O F L E V E L SC A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 A4 . 1 1 A3 . 0 2 A3 . 0 3 A3 . 0 4 A3 . 0 2X W O O D D E C K I N G 2X W O O D S L E E P E R TP O R O O F M E M B R A N E RO O F D E T A I L SC A L E : 1 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 Fl o o r P l a n s Ro o f L e v e l A 2. 0 SH E E T N o . 1 0 9 No . D a t e I s s u e 12 1 P r e f o n t a i n e P l . S . Se a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 0 4 [2 0 6 ] 3 2 9 - 1 6 5 4 © C h r i s P a r d o D e s i g n , L L C 2 0 1 5 Th e s e d r a w i n g s w e r e p r e p a r e d f o r "K r a f t H o u s e " p r o j e c t i n S a n L u i s Ob i s p o , C A . T h e y a r e n o t i n t e n d e d f o r us e o n a n y o t h e r p r o j e c t . el e m e n t a l a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m St a t e d d r a w i n g s c a l e i s b a s e d o n 3 6 x 2 4 s h e e t . Kr a f t H o u s e Sa n L u i s O b i s b o , C A 15 5 6 N . P a l m C a n y o n D r i v e Pa l m S p r i n g s , C A 1 0 9 . 0 2 . 1 5 W O R K I N G 1. A L L W A L L L A Y O U T D I M E N S I O N S A R E T O F A C E O F S T U D , U N O . 2. W H E R E I N D I C A T E D , R E Q U I R E D M I N I M U M C L E A R A N C E S A R E M E A S U R E D T O F A C E O F FI N I S H M A T E R I A L A N D S H A L L B E V E R I F I E D B E F O R E W A L L S A R E F R A M E D . 3. P R O V I D E A P P R O P R I A T E W A L L D E P T H W H E R E A N Y E Q U I P M E N T I S T O B E R E C E S S E D I N WA L L . 4. W A L L S A R E T O B E B U I L T F U L L H E I G H T T O U N D E R S I D E O F S T R U C T U R A L F R A M I N G , TY P I C A L U . N . O . 5. V E R I F Y A L L N E W P L U M B I N G F I X T U R E S A N D A P P L I A N C E S W I T H O W N E R O R AR C H I T E C T , P R I O R T O P L A C I N G O R D E R . 6. A L L N E W E X T E R I O R G R A D E , C O N C . P A T I O S , D E C K S , W A L K W A Y S S H A L L S L O P E 14 I N C H PE R F O O T M I N . A W A Y F R O M B U I L D I N G , T Y P I C A L . 7. S E E M E P F O R G E N E R A L E L E C T R I C A L , M E C H A N I C A L , P L U M B I N G N O T E S A N D ME C H A N I C A L E Q U I P M E N T S P E C I F I C A T I O N S . RO O M R E Q U I R E M E N T S 8. C E I L I N G H E I G H T A T A L L H A B I T A B L E R O O M S S H A L L H A V E A M I N I M U M O F 7 ' - 6 " ( R E F E R TO P L A N S F O R A C T U A L C E I L I N G H E I G H T S ) . 9. G L A Z I N G I N N E W D O O R S A N D N E W W I N D O W S S H A L L B E S A F E T Y G L A Z I N G ( F U L L Y TE M P E R E D G L A S S ) , P E R C B C 2 4 0 6 . 3 , S E E W I N D O W A N D D O O R N O T E S F O R S P E C I F I C RE Q U I R E M E N T S , A N D E L E V A T I O N S A N D D O O R A N D W I N D O W S C H E D U L E F O R T E M P E R E D GL A S S L O C A T I O N S . 10 . P R O V I D E S M O K E D E T E C T O R S A T A L L B E D R O O M S , H A L L S L E A D I N G T O B E D R O O M S AN D O N E A T E A C H F L O O R P E R 2 0 1 3 C B C S E C T I O N 9 0 7 . 1 PR O V I D E L E V E L L A N D I N G A T M A X I M U M E L E V A T I O N O F 1 - 1 / 2 - I N C H E S L O W E R T H A N TO P O F D O O R T H R E S H O L D W H E N D O O R S W I N G S O V E R L A N D I N G . 2 PR O V I D E L E V E L L A N D I N G A T M A X I M U M E L E V A T I O N O F 7 - 3 / 4 - I N C H E S L O W E R T H A N TO P O F D O O R T H R E S H O L D W H E N D O O R D O E S N O T S W I N G O V E R L A N D I N G , FR O N T Y A R D KI D S P L A Y A R E A Attachment 3 PC1 - 21 6 5 43 2 12 11 13 14 F E A 10 Ki t c h e n 12 ' - 0 " x 1 1 ' - 0 " 14 0 F T ² Li v i n g 12 ' - 0 " x 1 6 ' - 0 " 20 0 F T ² Be d r o o m 1 9' - 0 " x 1 3 ' - 0 " 12 5 F T ² Ga r a g e 20 ' - 0 " x 2 0 ' - 0 " 40 0 F T ² En t r y AD U SL O P E T O D R A I N SL O P E T O D R A I N SL O P E T O D R A I N FU T U R E S T A I R FU T U R E R O L L I N G BA R N D O O R FL O O R P L A N : T O P L E V E L SC A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 A4 . 1 1 A3 . 02A3 . 0 3 A3 . 0 4 A3 . 0 Fl o o r P l a n s To p L e v e l A 2. 1 SH E E T N o . 1 0 9 No . D a t e I s s u e 12 1 P r e f o n t a i n e P l . S . Se a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 0 4 [2 0 6 ] 3 2 9 - 1 6 5 4 © C h r i s P a r d o D e s i g n , L L C 2 0 1 5 Th e s e d r a w i n g s w e r e p r e p a r e d f o r "K r a f t H o u s e " p r o j e c t i n S a n L u i s Ob i s p o , C A . T h e y a r e n o t i n t e n d e d f o r us e o n a n y o t h e r p r o j e c t . el e m e n t a l a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m St a t e d d r a w i n g s c a l e i s b a s e d o n 3 6 x 2 4 s h e e t . Kr a f t H o u s e Sa n L u i s O b i s b o , C A 15 5 6 N . P a l m C a n y o n D r i v e Pa l m S p r i n g s , C A 1 0 9 . 0 2 . 1 5 W O R K I N G 1. A L L W A L L L A Y O U T D I M E N S I O N S A R E T O F A C E O F S T U D , U N O . 2. W H E R E I N D I C A T E D , R E Q U I R E D M I N I M U M C L E A R A N C E S A R E M E A S U R E D T O F A C E OF F I N I S H M A T E R I A L A N D S H A L L B E V E R I F I E D B E F O R E W A L L S A R E F R A M E D . 3. P R O V I D E A P P R O P R I A T E W A L L D E P T H W H E R E A N Y E Q U I P M E N T I S T O B E RE C E S S E D I N W A L L . 4. W A L L S A R E T O B E B U I L T F U L L H E I G H T T O U N D E R S I D E O F S T R U C T U R A L F R A M I N G , TY P I C A L U . N . O . 5. V E R I F Y A L L N E W P L U M B I N G F I X T U R E S A N D A P P L I A N C E S W I T H O W N E R O R AR C H I T E C T , P R I O R T O P L A C I N G O R D E R . 6. A L L N E W E X T E R I O R G R A D E , C O N C . P A T I O S , D E C K S , W A L K W A Y S S H A L L S L O P E 14 IN C H P E R F O O T M I N . A W A Y F R O M B U I L D I N G , T Y P I C A L . 7. S E E M E P F O R G E N E R A L E L E C T R I C A L , M E C H A N I C A L , P L U M B I N G N O T E S A N D ME C H A N I C A L E Q U I P M E N T S P E C I F I C A T I O N S . RO O M R E Q U I R E M E N T S 8. C E I L I N G H E I G H T A T A L L H A B I T A B L E R O O M S S H A L L H A V E A M I N I M U M O F 7 ' - 6 " (R E F E R T O P L A N S F O R A C T U A L C E I L I N G H E I G H T S ) . 9. G L A Z I N G I N N E W D O O R S A N D N E W W I N D O W S S H A L L B E S A F E T Y G L A Z I N G ( F U L L Y TE M P E R E D G L A S S ) , P E R C B C 2 4 0 6 . 3 , S E E W I N D O W A N D D O O R N O T E S F O R S P E C I F I C RE Q U I R E M E N T S , A N D E L E V A T I O N S A N D D O O R A N D W I N D O W S C H E D U L E F O R TE M P E R E D G L A S S L O C A T I O N S . 10 . P R O V I D E S M O K E D E T E C T O R S A T A L L B E D R O O M S , H A L L S L E A D I N G T O BE D R O O M S A N D O N E A T E A C H F L O O R P E R 2 0 1 3 C B C S E C T I O N 9 0 7 . 11 . A L L A P P L I A N C E S T O B E B Y O W N E R A N D E N E R G Y S T A R R A T E D . 1 PR O V I D E L E V E L L A N D I N G A T M A X I M U M E L E V A T I O N O F 1 - 1 / 2 - I N C H E S L O W E R T H A N TO P O F D O O R T H R E S H O L D W H E N D O O R S W I N G S O V E R L A N D I N G . 2 PR O V I D E L E V E L L A N D I N G A T M A X I M U M E L E V A T I O N O F 7 - 3 / 4 - I N C H E S L O W E R T H A N TO P O F D O O R T H R E S H O L D W H E N D O O R D O E S N O T S W I N G O V E R L A N D I N G , 3 4' - 1 0 " X 4 ' - 4 " E L E V A T O R . M O D E L T B D 44 2 S Q U A R E F O O T IN L A W S U I T E Attachment 3 PC1 - 22 Li v i n g 18 ' - 0 " x 1 6 ' - 0 " 28 8 F T ² Ki t c h e n 18 ' - 0 " x 1 5 ' - 0 " 26 0 F T ² Ma s t e r B e d r o o m 12 ' - 0 " x 1 4 ' - 0 " 16 8 F T ² Gu e s t B e d r o o m 11 ' - 2 " x 1 3 ' - 3 " 14 8 F T ² Gu e s t B e d r o o m 11 ' - 5 " x 1 3 ' - 3 " 15 1 F T ² FL O O R P L A N : M A I N L E V E L SC A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 7 8 9 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 G H i J K L MN 4 A4 . 1 1 A3 . 0 2 A3 . 0 3 A3 . 0 4 A3 . 0 X X Fl o o r P l a n s Ma i n L e v e l A 2. 2 SH E E T N o . 1 0 9 No . D a t e I s s u e 12 1 P r e f o n t a i n e P l . S . Se a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 0 4 [2 0 6 ] 3 2 9 - 1 6 5 4 © C h r i s P a r d o D e s i g n , L L C 2 0 1 5 Th e s e d r a w i n g s w e r e p r e p a r e d f o r "K r a f t H o u s e " p r o j e c t i n S a n L u i s Ob i s p o , C A . T h e y a r e n o t i n t e n d e d f o r us e o n a n y o t h e r p r o j e c t . el e m e n t a l a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m St a t e d d r a w i n g s c a l e i s b a s e d o n 3 6 x 2 4 s h e e t . Kr a f t H o u s e Sa n L u i s O b i s b o , C A 15 5 6 N . P a l m C a n y o n D r i v e Pa l m S p r i n g s , C A 1 0 9 . 0 2 . 1 5 W O R K I N G 1. A L L W A L L L A Y O U T D I M E N S I O N S A R E T O F A C E O F S T U D , U N O . 2. W H E R E I N D I C A T E D , R E Q U I R E D M I N I M U M C L E A R A N C E S A R E M E A S U R E D T O F A C E OF F I N I S H M A T E R I A L A N D S H A L L B E V E R I F I E D B E F O R E W A L L S A R E F R A M E D . 3. P R O V I D E A P P R O P R I A T E W A L L D E P T H W H E R E A N Y E Q U I P M E N T I S T O B E RE C E S S E D I N W A L L . 4. W A L L S A R E T O B E B U I L T F U L L H E I G H T T O U N D E R S I D E O F S T R U C T U R A L F R A M I N G , TY P I C A L U . N . O . 5. V E R I F Y A L L N E W P L U M B I N G F I X T U R E S A N D A P P L I A N C E S W I T H O W N E R O R AR C H I T E C T , P R I O R T O P L A C I N G O R D E R . 6. A L L N E W E X T E R I O R G R A D E , C O N C . P A T I O S , D E C K S , W A L K W A Y S S H A L L S L O P E 14 IN C H P E R F O O T M I N . A W A Y F R O M B U I L D I N G , T Y P I C A L . 7. S E E M E P F O R G E N E R A L E L E C T R I C A L , M E C H A N I C A L , P L U M B I N G N O T E S A N D ME C H A N I C A L E Q U I P M E N T S P E C I F I C A T I O N S . RO O M R E Q U I R E M E N T S 8. C E I L I N G H E I G H T A T A L L H A B I T A B L E R O O M S S H A L L H A V E A M I N I M U M O F 7 ' - 6 " (R E F E R T O P L A N S F O R A C T U A L C E I L I N G H E I G H T S ) . 9. G L A Z I N G I N N E W D O O R S A N D N E W W I N D O W S S H A L L B E S A F E T Y G L A Z I N G ( F U L L Y TE M P E R E D G L A S S ) , P E R C B C 2 4 0 6 . 3 , S E E W I N D O W A N D D O O R N O T E S F O R S P E C I F I C RE Q U I R E M E N T S , A N D E L E V A T I O N S A N D D O O R A N D W I N D O W S C H E D U L E F O R TE M P E R E D G L A S S L O C A T I O N S . 10 . P R O V I D E S M O K E D E T E C T O R S A T A L L B E D R O O M S , H A L L S L E A D I N G T O BE D R O O M S A N D O N E A T E A C H F L O O R P E R 2 0 1 3 C B C S E C T I O N 9 0 7 . 11 . A L L A P P L I A N C E S T O B E B Y O W N E R A N D E N E R G Y S T A R R A T E D 1 PR O V I D E L E V E L L A N D I N G A T M A X I M U M E L E V A T I O N O F 1 - 1 / 2 - I N C H E S L O W E R T H A N TO P O F D O O R T H R E S H O L D W H E N D O O R S W I N G S O V E R L A N D I N G . 2 PR O V I D E L E V E L L A N D I N G A T M A X I M U M E L E V A T I O N O F 7 - 3 / 4 - I N C H E S L O W E R T H A N TO P O F D O O R T H R E S H O L D W H E N D O O R D O E S N O T S W I N G O V E R L A N D I N G , 3 4' - 1 0 " X 4 ' - 4 " E L E V A T O R . M O D E L T B D Attachment 3 PC1 - 23 12.13 ft 7.60 ft Attachment 3 PC1 - 24 Attachment 3 PC1 - 25 LI V I N G R O O M KI T C H E N SE E S T R U C T U R A L 10'-0" +0 ' - 0 " LE V E L 1 +1 0 ' - 0 " CE I L I N G +1 1 ' - 0 " LE V E L 2 +2 2 ' - 1 1 " CE I L I N G +2 4 ' - 6 " LE V E L 3 +3 4 ' - 6 " CE I L I N G +3 5 ' - 6 " RO O F D E C K +3 9 ' - 8 " T. O . S T A I R T O W E R 1'-0"11'-11"1'-7"10'-0"1'-0"4'-2" 3'-0" 1'-0" 11 3 4"2'-0" 10 ' - 0 " 3' - 1 " 1' - 6 " 2' - 0 " 4' - 0 " 1' - 0 " 4" 1'-11" 9' - 1 0 12" 6" 1'-4" 4" 5' - 1 12" 10 ' - 4 12" +1 5 ' - 9 " LE V E L 2 . 5 +2 4 ' - 8 " CE I L I N G +2 6 ' - 6 " EN T R Y L E V E L +3 4 ' - 6 " CE I L I N G +3 5 ' - 6 " RO O F D E C K 1'-0"8'-11"8'-0" +3 9 ' - 8 " T. O . S T A I R T O W E R 1'-10" +1 1 ' - 0 " LE V E L 2 . 5 4'-2"15'-9" AD U K I T C H E N GA R A G E CL O S E T BU I L D I N G S E C T I O N 1 SC A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " +4 3 8 . 5 4 Bu i l d i n g Se c t i o n s A 4. 0 SH E E T N o . 1 0 9 No . D a t e I s s u e 12 1 P r e f o n t a i n e P l . S . Se a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 0 4 [2 0 6 ] 3 2 9 - 1 6 5 4 © C h r i s P a r d o D e s i g n , L L C 2 0 1 5 Th e s e d r a w i n g s w e r e p r e p a r e d f o r "K r a f t H o u s e " p r o j e c t i n S a n L u i s Ob i s p o , C A . T h e y a r e n o t i n t e n d e d f o r us e o n a n y o t h e r p r o j e c t . el e m e n t a l a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m St a t e d d r a w i n g s c a l e i s b a s e d o n 3 6 x 2 4 s h e e t . Kr a f t H o u s e Sa n L u i s O b i s b o , C A 15 5 6 N . P a l m C a n y o n D r i v e Pa l m S p r i n g s , C A 1 0 9 . 0 2 . 1 5 W O R K I N G Attachment 3 PC1 - 26 3' - 6 " 1' - 0 " 6" 8' - 0 " 3'-0"4'-6" 2'-0"1'-0" S1 S2 S2 S3 ST A I R 1 : S E C T I O N SC A L E : 3 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 ST A I R T O W E R : R O O F L E V E L - 3 5 ' - 6 " SC A L E : 3 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 S1 S2 S3 +3 5 ' - 6 " RO O F D E C K 4'-6" +3 1 ' - 0 " LA N D I N G +2 6 ' - 6 " EN T R Y L E V E L +2 0 ' - 3 1 / 2 " LA N D I N G +1 1 ' - 0 " LE V E L 2 4'-6"6'-212"9'-312" +3 5 ' - 6 " RO O F D E C K +3 1 ' - 0 " LA N D I N G +3 5 ' - 6 " RO O F D E C K 4'-6" +3 1 ' - 0 " LA N D I N G ST A I R T O W E R : E N T R Y L E V E L - 2 6 ' - 6 " SC A L E : 3 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 3 3' - 9 " 8' - 0 " 6" 1' - 0 " 8' - 3 " 712" 11 " 3' - 6 " ST A I R T O W E R : S E C T I O N SC A L E : 3 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 S4 S4 +2 0 ' - 3 1 / 2 " LA N D I N G +1 1 ' - 0 " LE V E L 2 9'-312" ST A I R T O W E R : S E C T I O N SC A L E : 3 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 5 ST A I R 4 : L E V E L 3 - 1 1 ' - 0 " SC A L E : 3 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 712" 11 " A 6. 0 St a i r D e t a i l s SH E E T N o . 1 0 9 No . D a t e I s s u e 12 1 P r e f o n t a i n e P l . S . Se a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 0 4 [2 0 6 ] 3 2 9 - 1 6 5 4 © C h r i s P a r d o D e s i g n , L L C 2 0 1 5 Th e s e d r a w i n g s w e r e p r e p a r e d f o r "K r a f t H o u s e " p r o j e c t i n S a n L u i s Ob i s p o , C A . T h e y a r e n o t i n t e n d e d f o r us e o n a n y o t h e r p r o j e c t . el e m e n t a l a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m St a t e d d r a w i n g s c a l e i s b a s e d o n 3 6 x 2 4 s h e e t . Kr a f t H o u s e Sa n L u i s O b i s b o , C A 15 5 6 N . P a l m C a n y o n D r i v e Pa l m S p r i n g s , C A 1 0 9 . 0 2 . 1 5 W O R K I N G Attachment 3 PC1 - 27 Wi n t e r Sh a d i n g Di a g r a m A 5. 0 SH E E T N o . 1 0 9 No . D a t e I s s u e 15 2 0 1 1 t h A v e S u i t e G Se a t t l e W A 9 8 1 2 2 [2 0 6 ] 3 2 9 - 1 6 5 4 © C h r i s P a r d o D e s i g n , L L C 2 0 1 3 Th e s e d r a w i n g s w e r e p r e p a r e d f o r "K r a f t H o u s e " p r o j e c t i n P a l m S p r i n g s , CA . T h e y a r e n o t i n t e n d e d f o r u s e o n an y o t h e r p r o j e c t . el e m e n t a l a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m St a t e d d r a w i n g s c a l e i s b a s e d o n 3 6 x 2 4 s h e e t . Kr a f t H o u s e Sa n L u i s O b i s b o , C A 15 5 6 N . P a l m C a n y o n D r i v e Pa l m S p r i n g s , C A Attachment 4 PC1 - 28 Meeting Date: September 23, 2015 Item Number: #2 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of a new single-family residence with an attached Secondary Dwelling Unit in the S-overlay zone that includes a height exception and a setback exception, with a categorical exemption from CEQA (Section 15303 – New Construction). PROJECT ADDRESS: 2390 Loomis Street & BY: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner 48 Buena Vista Avenue Phone Number: 781-7524 e-mail: kbell@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: USE-1520-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) to allow development of a single-family residence with exceptions to property development standards, subject to findings and conditions of approval. SITE DATA Applicant Jeff Kraft Submittal Date June 15, 2015 Complete Date August 5, 2015 Zoning R-1-S, Low-Density Residential with a Special Considerations Overlay General Plan Low-Density Residential Site Area 13,321 square feet Environmental Status Categorically exempt under Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures; Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines BACKGROUND The applicant has applied for an Administrative Use Permit to request to allow construction of a single family residence in the Single Family Residential Zone with Special Considerations overlay (R-1-S) zone, with exceptions to allow a maximum height of 28 feet from average grade where 25 feet would be allowed, and a 12 foot yard setback where 15 feet would be required. The home and secondary dwelling would occupy an existing legal lot and also be subject to architectural review. A use permit is required to allow the establishment of any new use within the Special Considerations (S-overlay) zone. The S-overlay is in place at the subject location due to the visibility of Highway 101 and the sensitive nature of hillside development. Attachment 5 PC1 - 29 USE-1520-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 2 On August 27, 2015, an Administrative Hearing was held to review the project, members of the public attended the hearing and expressed concerns regarding developing the site and allowing exceptions for the project. At the hearing the Administrative Hearing Officer determined that the project should be elevated to the Planning Commission to address the concerns of the members of the public for developing a single-family residence with a Secondary Dwelling Unit at the subject location. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW At the discretion of the Community Development Director, an Administrative Use Permit may be referred to the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director has referred this review to the Planning Commission given the public controversy of developing the site. The Planning Commission’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City standards. The design review of the proposed house and secondary dwelling unit will occur separately from this Use Permit through a minor architectural review permit SDU-1521-2015. Secondary dwelling unit regulations state that all requests shall be reviewed for consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines and no additional application fees for architectural review shall be required (Zoning Regulations 17.21.010). Because the secondary dwelling unit is attached to the residence, the architectural design of both the residence and the secondary dwelling unit will be reviewed through the application SDU-1521-2015. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Information/Setting Site Size 13,321 Square Feet Present Use & Development Vacant Topography Slopes downward from Buena Vista Avenue, approximately 30% slope Access Buena Vista Avenue Surrounding Use/Zoning North: C/OS-5 (Conservation/Open Space) South: R-1-S (Low Density Residential with an S-Overlay) East: PF (Public Facility, Cuesta Park) West: R-1 (Low Density Residential) Lot Coverage Existing: 0% Proposed: 12% Allowed: 40% The project site is an existing 13,321 square foot lot with direct access off of Buena Vista in Monterey Heights. The site has all necessary utilities currently at the site, including sewer, water, power, and a fire hydrant. The property is a downward sloping lot from west to east with an average grade of approximately 30%. The property borders an open space area to the north and undeveloped R-1-S property to the south. On the downhill side of the lot it is bordered by Loomis Street, which has a wide undeveloped right-of-way bordering the site. The site is 650 feet west of, and 150 feet above Highway 101. Attachment 5 PC1 - 30 USE-1520-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 3 2.2 Project Description The proposed project includes the following significant features (Attachment 3, Project Plans): 1. Single-Family Residence: 1,802 square-foot home with a two car garage a. Attached 438 square-foot Secondary Dwelling Unit b. Three stories with a max height at 28 feet above average natural grade 2. Design: Contemporary architectural style with; a. Glass panels b. Cement board panels c. Wood siding d. Metal panels with dimensional variation and coloring to create interest and reduce the mass of the structure Outdoor space for both units is provided through a combination of decks facing westward and on the roof, keeping all hardscape under 2,500 square feet. The remainder of the site would remain in its natural state. Cantilevered decks create shading from the sun, reduce glare, and screen freeway views from inside the house. As conditioned, landscaping to undisturbed portions of the site will be limited to native trees and plantings, which will help the home blend into the site. A rain catchment system has been proposed to provide controlled overflow release to maintain historical sheet flow of site drainage. 2.3 Project Statistics Item Proposed a Ordinance Standard b Street Yard Setback (Buena Vista Avenue) 20 feet 20 feet Other yard setbacks North East South 12 135 13.5 15 (35 foot structure 1) 15 13.5 Max. Height of Structure (Average Natural Grade) 28 feet 25 feet Building Coverage (footprints) 12% 40% Parking Spaces Lot 1 3 (1 space for SDU) 3 Notes: a. Applicant’s project plans b. City Zoning Regulations 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS 3.2 Consistency with the Zoning Regulations 1 Zoning Regulations 17.16.020.B.3; Measurement of Yards: The height of a building in relation to yard standards is the vertical distance from the ground to the top of the roof, measured at a point which is a specific distance from the property line. Height measurements shall be based on the existing topography of the site, before grading for proposed on-site improvements. Attachment 5 PC1 - 31 USE-1520-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 4 Other Yard Building Height Exception: Upon approval of a use permit, the director may allow exceptions to setbacks when the exception is of a minor nature, involves an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure; and the adjacent property will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure 2. The applicant is requesting a 12 foot setback on the northeast corner of the home where 15 feet is normally required for a structure that is 35 feet from the existing grade. Approximately 0.79% or 17 square feet of the structure would intrude up to three feet into the required 15 foot setback. Due to property lines that are not parallel, the steep slope of the site, and the yard adjustment is for the yard adjacent to land designated C/OS-5, a setback exception at this location is warranted to allow for a logical floor plan for the residence that will not deprive the adjacent property of reasonable solar access. Height exception: The applicant is also requesting an exception to allow a 28 foot maximum height from average natural grade 3 where 25 feet is normally allowed (See Figure 1). With the approval of an administrative use permit an exception can be requested in the Low Density Residential zone for a maximum height of up to 35 feet 4. From Buena Vista Avenue the building will appear as a one story building due to the steep slope of the site. In order to comply with the City’s Grading Ordinance, the design of the building has minimized the amount of grading required to develop the site by locating the structure close to where street access is available and by maintaining a smaller building footprint. The steep slope of the site in this location means that the average height calculates to 28 feet instead of 25 feet above the average natural grade. The height exception for the additional 3-feet is warranted due to the existing constraints of the site including topography, setbacks, and grading requirements. The additional 3 feet will not deprive the adjacent lots of any solar exposure as seen in the solar study provided in Attachment 3 Project Plans page A5.0. 2 Zoning Regulations 17.16.020.E.2.e; Other Yard Building Height Exceptions: Upon approval of a use permit, the Director may allow exceptions to the standards… Such exceptions may be granted in any of the following and similar circumstances…: When the property that will be shaded by the excepted development will not be developed or will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure, considering its topography and zoning. 3 Zoning Regulations 17.16.040; Height: The height of a building is the vertical distance from the average level of the ground under the building to the topmost point of the roof, including parapets. The average level of the ground is determined by adding the elevation of the lowest point of the part of the lot covered by the building to the elevation of the highest point of the part of the lot covered by the building, and divided by two. 4 Zoning Regulations 17.16.040; Table 5.5: Maximum Height by Zone: R-1 zone maximum height is 25 feet (up to 35 feet with approval of an administrative use permit) Figure 1: Height measurement from average natural grade. Attachment 5 PC1 - 32 USE-1520-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 5 Secondary Dwelling Unit: The purpose of Chapter 17.21 is substantially served. The proposed project meets all performance standards for secondary dwelling units, set forth by the Zoning Regulations (Section 17.21.010). Table 1 below summarizes the performance standards and indicates if each is met, not met, or not applicable. Table 1: Summary of Performance Standards - Secondary Dwelling Units # Performance Standard Status 1 Secondary dwelling units shall conform to all applicable building and construction codes. Complies 2 Nothing in this section prohibits applicants from requesting exceptions or variances from the strict interpretation of Zoning Regulations to the extent allowed by said regulations for any other use. Complies 3 Secondary dwelling units shall be designed as to provide separate living conditions and provide a safe and convenient environment for the occupants. Complies 4 Secondary dwelling units should also be architecturally and functionally compatible with the primary residence. (Ord. 1004 1 (part), 1984; prior code 9930) Complies 5 The height of second units should be consistent with surrounding residential structures. Unless adequate setbacks justify otherwise, secondary dwelling units that result in two-story construction shall be setback from the first floor to allow for solar access and reduced overlook. Complies 6 Site planning: Secondary dwelling units should be located behind or above the existing dwelling on the site. Designs that significantly alter the street appearance of the existing residence shall be discouraged. Complies 7 Private Open Space: A minimum of 250 square feet of private open space must be provided for secondary dwelling units exclusive of a minimum of 250 square feet to be provided for the primary residence on the property. Complies 8 Significant alterations to landform or removal of native trees or significant landscape trees shall be discouraged. Complies 9 A landscape plan shall be required for new secondary dwelling units. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape planter with screening shrubs shall separate parking areas from adjacent properties. Landscape shrubs and trees shall be required for areas between secondary unit and adjacent properties Complies 10 Parking: Secondary dwelling units that are 450 square feet or smaller shall require 1 parking space, regardless of zoning district. Parking for secondary dwelling units may be provided in tandem to allow one parking space in the driveway for the secondary dwelling unit. Complies 11 Alterations to designated historic properties or structures to allow new construction of a secondary dwelling unit shall be reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee for consistency with the Secretary of Interior Standards for treatment of a historic property. N/A The project is also consistent with Purpose “4” (Section 17.21.010) for secondary dwelling units because the project expands housing opportunities for low-income and moderate-income or elderly households by increasing the number of rental units available within existing neighborhoods. Attachment 5 PC1 - 33 USE-1520-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 6 3.2 Consistency with the General Plan The proposed project is consistent with the Land Use Element Residential Project Objectives (LUE 2.3.11) because the project includes adequate usable outdoor area, allows for pleasant views towards the project, and adequate parking is provided. The project design is consistent with the Land Use Element policy for Compatible Development (LUE 2.3.9) because the project continues the rhythm of development that reflects the existing development in the area including front yard setbacks, street orientation, and architectural design. The project is also consistent with Housing Element Program 6.10 5 because it increases residential density at an appropriate location and the incorporation of Assembly Bill 1866 (2003) which encourages creation of Secondary Dwelling Units. 4.0 CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request to allow a single-family residence with a minor setback reduction and a height exception of 3 feet. The additional 3 feet will not deprive the adjacent lots of any solar exposure. The setback reduction is warranted due to the abnormal lot lines that are not parallel, the steep slope of the site, and the adjacent land designation C/OS-5, that will not deprive the adjacent property of reasonable solar access. The property is a legal lot that is within an R-1 zone with a Special Considerations Overlay designated to address development on the hillside. The proposed project has been designed to minimize the amount of grading on the hillside slope consistent with Hillside Development Standards, the City’s Grading Ordinance, and the General Plan. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5.1 Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 5.2 Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations and applicable City policy. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Administrative Hearing August 27, 2015 (Staff Report) 4. Project Plans 5. Solar Study 5 General Plan Housing Element Program 6.10: To help meet the Quantified Objectives, the City will support residential infill development and promote higher residential density where appropriate. Attachment 5 PC1 - 34 DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, September 23, 2015 CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order on Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Larson. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, John Fowler, Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson John Larson Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Deputy Community Development Director Kim Murry, Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell, Planner Kyle Bell, Community Development Director Michael Codron, Natural resources manager Bob Hill, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, Civil Engineer Hal Hannula, and Recording Secretary Sarah Reinhart ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: On motion by Commissioner Draze, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 26, 2015 were approved as presented. AYES: Commissioners Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Malak, Multari, Riggs, and Larson NOES: None ABSTAINED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 5:0 vote. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: Derek Johnson expressed gratitude to the Planning Commission and Community Development Department staff for the opportunity to work together; expressed enjoyment for his time and involvement working as Community Development Director; announced his new position as Assistant City Manager and Interim Information Technology and Finance Director. Attachment 6 PC1 - 35 Draft Planning Commission Minutes Meeting Date Page 2 Community Development Director Codron expressed enthusiasm with his new position; shared that he gained a diverse range of experience working as the Assistant City Manager; expressed enthusiasm to work in the Community Development Department, noting that staff is well educated and enthusiastic to improve the community. Paul Rys, San Luis Obispo, addressed the importance of community involvement; encouraged the commission to improve communications with the public; voiced concerns about the name of the Avila Ranch project; opined that the name should include “Avila Ranch, San Luis Obispo” to avoid public confusion regarding the location. There were no further comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1. 159 Broad Street. AP-PC 32-14: An appeal of the Community Development Director's decision approving a minor subdivision of a 13.89-acre parcel into 4 parcels and a 13.27-acre remainder parcel, including a variance allowing minor relaxation of “other yard” setback requirements and adoption of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; R-1 and C/OS-20 zones; Andre, Morris, & Buttery, applicant; Cheryl McLean and Andrew Christie, Sierra Club, appellants. Assistant Planner Oetzell presented the staff report, recommending staff to adopt the draft resolution denying the appeal, adopting a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and approving the minor subdivision based on findings: subject to conditions as described in the resolution. In response to Commissioner Fowler’s inquiry, Deputy Community Development Director Murry clarified that the appellant would like to see an open space easement with this application; noted that the general plan designation for the property would continue to exist; explained that no changes were proposed to the designation in regards to conservation of open space; explained the difference between an open space and an open space easement; pointed out that easements are typically offered to the city. In response to Chair Larson, Deputy Community Development Director Murray stated that a certificate of compliance would be required if the title changed on the remainder parcel. In response to Comm. Fowlers inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere pointed out that a certificate of compliance is a ministerial duty and simple application to process. In response to Comm. Riggs inquiry, Deputy Community Development Director Murray stated that no open space easement currently exist for the parcel. Attachment 6 PC1 - 36 Draft Planning Commission Minutes Meeting Date Page 3 In response to Commr. Riggs’ inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere indicated that under open space designation, there are additional uses that are allowed and such as development and noted that with a conservation easement, there would be no future development. In an attempt to further address Commr. Riggs’ questions, Natural Resources Manager Hill affirmed that the open space designation is a General Plan designation; stated that General Plan designations could be changed over time; Mr. Hill explained that an open space easement is a contract between the property owner and the easement holder, and in this case, the city is recorded on the title and governed by State Public Resources code in the Open Space Easement Act; presented an overview of open space easement policy; concluded that it was not clear in the findings that the Subdivision Map Act allows for the exaction of an open space easement and in this case as a parcel map. Chair Larson, affirmed that there were two designations at issue in regards to the General Plan’s Land Use designations, first the Open Space Designation (C/OS-20), and secondly the Low-density Residential (R-1), noting that each has its own zoning regulations. In response to Chair Larson’s inquiry as to why the zoning and land use lines don’t coincide, Assistant Planner Oetzell stated that the general plan designation is general in nature and zoning is specific to boundaries. Deputy Community Development Director Murry added that differences in map scales were the reason for the map discrepancy. In response to Chair Larson’s inquiry, Assistant Planner Oetzell responded that the distance between the edge of the existing houses and the land use designation boundary in the parcel map is approximately 300-400ft. In response to Commr. Malak’s inquiry, Assistant Planner Oetzell responded that the “20” in in C/OS-20 sets the minimum parcel size, noting that the minimum lot area in that zone would be 20 acres; added that the zoning allows one dwelling per 20 acres; noting that only one dwelling could be built on it. Chair Larson stated that if the parcel was designated to open space, there would still be an allowance for a single residential structure. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere, pointed out that assuming it was all open space, it would be unclear if a certificate of compliance could be issued for the lot; noted that no analysis has been provided. In response to Chair Larson’s inquiry, Assistant Planner Oetzell responded that R-1 zoning allows for seven dwellings per net acre and for the remainder 13-acre parcel, the zoning would be less than four acres. Attachment 6 PC1 - 37 Draft Planning Commission Minutes Meeting Date Page 4 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Chair Larson noted that public correspondence was received. Commr. Fowler, noted that he had a short conversation with the applicant prior to the hearing. Commr. Draze, stated that he had visited the site prior to the non-hearing; acknowledged having a brief conversation with a resident of the project and encouraged her to attend the hearing; affirmed no commitment regarding the resident. Andrew Christie, Appellant Representative, Director of the San Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club, questioned why the wording of the public hearing notices for the April 15th hearing were changed; stated that the applicant would like to see the wording restored and expanded to encompass the remainder parcel, and across the Blue Line Creek on the adjacent R-1 zone land to encompass the wildlife corridor, then extend down to Broad Street. Stated that open-space zoning, nor its present non-consideration for development in the current General Plan Update would protect the land from development in perpetuity; advised against adopting a philosophy of never acquiring easements; stressed concerns with the plan of an open space easement to protect the property from development. Mr. Christie shared concerns for future owners of the property potentially engaging development strategies that would legally bypass analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act; recommended that the city enact a deed-restriction for the remainder parcel and the wildlife corridor as a condition of approval, of the subdivision as another means to protect future development. Jean Wright, San Luis Obispo, did not wish to speak. Jim Andersen, San Luis Obispo, stated that he resides in a contiguous property to the parcel, expressed no objection to the project; noted that if there is future development, he would prefer that the homes are individually owned lots, so homeowners and not renters can occupy the homes. Richard Schmidt, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of upholding the appeal; indicated that the staff report does not include a Conservation Open Space Easement of the wildlife corridor that comes down the mountain onto Broad Street; noted that the land to which the Conservation Open Space zoning applies to is undevelopable land, due to the steepness and poor soil of the area; expressed concerns that the open space easement may disappear and subdivisions will be developed in the area; urged that the commission uphold the appeal and request a clear plan, regarding the protection of the wildlife corridor. Linda White, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns regarding the proximity of the lots, sizes of the homes potentially being large enough to be mansions; expressed concerns with the size of the access ways not being large enough to accommodate the residents; commented that not enough people attend Planning Commission meetings because the public isn’t successfully notified. Attachment 6 PC1 - 38 Draft Planning Commission Minutes Meeting Date Page 5 Geoffrey Land, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of upholding the appeal; conveyed support for the need to address long-term implications of this decision, including: long- term open space protection and protection of wildlife corridors; noted concerns with potential drainage issues, water flow, and traffic. Chris Carr, San Luis Obispo, expressed support for the appeal; noting that he regularly hikes in the wildlife corridor; explained that wild animals live in low density residential areas; voiced concerns with potential water drainage issues. Michael Morris, Applicant Representative, provided a history of the property; stated that in the past 12 years since acquiring the property nothing was built, yet over half a million dollars were paid in property taxes; noted that the only intent for the property, is to divide the parcels so the existing homes can be sold off in order to pay debts acquired to pay the property taxes. Mr. Morris affirmed that there are no plans for further development; explained that if the property is sold and bought by a developer in the future, then they would have to go through the approval process with the city and the process will require an environmental impact report and traffic and drainage issues will be addressed. Ian Mckay, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the appeal and his lifelong residence at Bressi Place; stated that he would like the subdivision to remain the same. Sandra Lee, San Luis Obispo, stated that she is a contiguous resident to the open space area; expressed support in upholding the appeal; expressed concerns to narrow or develop the area; explained that development will disrupt the natural habit of animals and change the ecosystem; urged the commission to approve an open space easement and protect the area. Loree Ramus, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the appeal; pointed out the importance of preserving San Luis Obispo the way it currently stands, including protecting the wildlife; shared concerns regarding overpopulation and water drainage issues. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Draze explained that if the remainder parcel was to be sold, the next owner would have to undergo a full discretionary review of the project under the Map Act; noted that animals would not be affected by this subdivision; expressed support to open space easements because they usually go in perpetuity but rejected the need for one in this case due to legal constraints; expressed concerns with the possible lack of affordability of the potential homes for the families currently residing within the subdivision; stated that it is highly speculative and unlikely for the parcel to be subdivided into 28 lots; affirmed that if the owners want to do any development within the property, they will have to go through a rigorous process of approvals with the City and the community; expressed confidence in success of an open space easement when it becomes legally feasible to do so. Attachment 6 PC1 - 39 Draft Planning Commission Minutes Meeting Date Page 6 In response to Commr. Dandekar, Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere stated that he foresees no impact on the open space area as a result of the subdivision; noted that the four houses that have already built will impact the area the equally; stated that a need for the rough proportionality requirement is not probable; affirmed that the staff recommendation for this project is based on the legal recommendations. In response to Commr. Draze’s inquiry, Deputy Community Development Director Murry clarified that the urban reserve line supports the lack of building opportunity in the upper slopes because those are the limits to where city services are available. Commr. Malak expressed a desire to ensure that safeguards are in place to prevent future development from occurring. Commr. Draze noted that the open space zoning, urban reserve line and the open space designation are subject to review by the community, the Planning Commission and three votes by the City Council, pending environmental review; stated that legally it could change, however it is very unlikely. Commr. Malak voiced concerns over the prospect of the wildlife corridor being available for future generations. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere advised Commr. Malak that in his judicatory role, he did not have the power to legislate; stating that the Planning Commissions’ job is to take the policies, rules, and zoning prescribed by the City Council to apply rules to current projects. Commr. Malak stated that the Planning Commission’s responsibility is to plan for the present and plan for the future. Vice-Chair Multari noted that the synthesis of the commission is universal, as everyone would like to see the open space and the wildlife corridor preserved; stated in regards to the Subdivision Map Act, the remaining parcel could not be further subdivided without going through another Map Act and environmental review; inquired to staff, if development could take place under R1 zoning without requiring a discretionary review. Deputy Community Development Director Murry stated that any further development of the remainder parcel would cause Subdivision Map Act requirements. Assistant City Manager Codron asserted that all city standards would apply when requesting to build on the remaining parcel, including storm water requirements, design requirements for hillside development and a full multitude of regulations would need to be applied when requesting a construction proposal; noted that development proposals would cause a design review. Vice-Chair Multari voiced concerns that no development to occur on the remainder parcel; explained that would allow the Commission the discretion to require the open space easement at this time. Attachment 6 PC1 - 40 Draft Planning Commission Minutes Meeting Date Page 7 In response to Vice-Chair Multari’s inquiry, Assistant Planner Oetzell noted that the language in the condition is a “variance”; indicating that the findings for the variance could be found in the resolution. In response to Vice-Chair Multari’s inquiry, Civil Engineer Hannula confirmed that the proposed parking access, water, sewer, drainage and utility easement on the map benefits the four existing homes in the area and not the remainder parcel. Vice-Chair Multarivoiced concerns discarding the opportunity to ensure public access, including emergency, pedestrian and bicycle access; expressed concerns for the future development on the R1 portion of the remainder parcel. Commr. Fowler expressed support of the comments made by Commr. Draze; expressed uncertainties with future development on the remainder parcel without undergoing a long rigorous process, including a full environmental review; stated that the remainder parcel will not be sold without the easements being recorded; stressed that the Commission’s responsibility is not suppose legislate, nonetheless to look at the general planning; expressed support with staff’s recommendations. Commr. Dandekar expressed concerns with the decisions due to judicatory constraints; voiced support for a condition that would allow for public access in the future, to keep drainage systems intact, and to allow wildlife to roam naturally. Vice-Chair Multari, inquired if it would be possible for development to take place on the remainder parcel, without the Commission having an opportunity to require an open space easement. Deputy Community Development Director Murry clarified that future development would cause a certificate of compliance; explained a straight or a conditional certificate depending on future analysis would recognize the legal parcel and then development would be subject to all the rules, regulations and policies that are in placed at the time. In response to Chair Larson’s inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere confirmed that a certificate of compliance is considered a ministerial decision. Vice-Chair Multari recommended that if the appeal was to be denied and the subdivision upheld, he would seek a condition that an easement is offered to the remainder of the property, for pedestrian, bicycle and emergency access. In response for Commr. Malak’s inquiry regarding possible ways to protect the wildlife corridor on the R-1 Zone; Community Development Director Codron stated that city’s ordinances regarding the creek are currently in place as part of zoning ordinances that would apply, and irrespective of zoning or urban reserve line or any other designation; noted that the City has a minimum 20 ft. setback, from the top of any creek bank or the edge of riparian vegetation and whichever is greater to the edge of new development; explained that setbacks are an effective tool when reviewing new development to ensure wildlife corridors remain protected. Attachment 6 PC1 - 41 Draft Planning Commission Minutes Meeting Date Page 8 Vice-Chair Multari noted difficulties with voting in favor of an open space easement without the analysis required for setting boundaries; expressed support for protection of the open space, wildlife corridor and the creek. Chair. Larson, summarized open space concerns; stated that upholding the appeal on the basis of the wildlife corridor going through the R-1 zone as indicative of a policy statement indicates many interpretations to future development proposals; expressed uncertainties that more houses will be developed in the R1 portion of the remainder parcel, without having any subsequent review; voiced confidence that staff would find a ways to ensure discretionary review in the future; stated that most of the issues could be addressed at the time when property owner proposes to develop; clarified that the areas relative to open space are not within the four parcels; explained that it is problematic to impose additional conditions based on the open space issues on only the remainder parcel. Vice-Chair Multari concurred with the statements made by Chair Larson, noting that it would be unlikely for development, without discretionary approval and input from the community to require a dedication to the open space. On motion by Vice-Chair Multari, seconded by Commr. Draze, to deny appeal to approve a subdivision with the following added language and conditions: that will include reference to the staff analysis in the staff report and in the oral presentation as part of the initial statements in the findings. Include a condition for irrevocable offer of dedication as recorder on the property for the benefit of the public for bicycles and pedestrians on Bressi Place and an offer of dedication to the City. Include Standard damnification language, and add minor edits on Finding 9. A. SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, including the analysis provided staff in the staff report and in the oral presentation the commission makes the following findings. B. Finding 9. A variance allowing a minor relaxation of yard depth standards will not adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity. Buildings on the site are existing and subject to building and fire safety standards and codes related to fire resistant construction and emergency egress. C. Condition1. Irrevocable offer of dedication for the public access easement D. Condition 2. Include city standard damnification language There were no further comments made from the Commission. AYES: Commrs. Draze, Fowler, Briggs, Multari, Larson NOES: Commrs. Dandekar, Malak RECUSED: None ABSENT: None Attachment 6 PC1 - 42 Draft Planning Commission Minutes Meeting Date Page 9 The motion passed on a 5:2 vote. On motion by Vice-Chair Multari, seconded by Commr. Briggs, to request consideration of assigning an “S” overlay designation for this property in the next zoning ordinance updates. AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Briggs, Malak, Multari, Larson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 7:0 vote. RECESS: The Commission recessed at 7:02 p.m. and reconvened at 7:08 p.m. 2. 2390 Loomis Street and 48 Buena Vista Avenue. USE-1520-2015: Review of a new single-family residence with an attached Secondary Dwelling Unit on a non- conforming lot in the S-overlay zone that includes a height exception and a setback exception, with a categorical exemption from CEQA (Section 15303 – New Construction); Lee J. Kraft, ETUX, applicant. Deputy Community Development Director Murray informed the Commission that the plans for review were slightly different than the plans used by staff when preparing the staff report. Planner Kyle Bell, presented the staff report, recommending to adopt the draft Resolution to allow development of a single-family residence with the exceptions to property development standards: subject to findings and conditions of approval that were outlined. In response to inquiries from Commrs. Briggs and Multari, Community Development Director Codron clarified that the commission was not asked to allow the secondary dwelling unit, but was asked to review the floor plan, which includes the secondary unit. Planner Bell, addressed questions regarding parking and lot location. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jeff Kraft, Applicant, provided an overview of the project; indicated that the geological report found the land suitable for residential use; stated that the property does not block the view from Buena Vista; requested a height exemption to accommodate a garage;; noted the house will be situated behind tress and it will not look intrusive from the 101 freeway; noted that the lower level was added due to hillside requirements. Requested a height exemption due to design constraints; requested a condition that would allow for the lower level to satisfy staff’s requirements; noted that he would agree to staff’s conditions, if given the opportunity to go through the standard process of adding the additional uses to the lower level first. Attachment 6 PC1 - 43 Draft Planning Commission Minutes Meeting Date Page 10 Commr. Briggs asked staff to have a continuance of this item for further analysis to be presented once the lower level is finalized. Chair Larson inquired if the conversion to the lower level from unconditioned space to conditioned space is an issue that would be problematic. Planner Bell responded that staff did not have the opportunity to review and evaluate the changes to the lower level. Community Development Director Codron noted that more analysis and additional requirements take place before allowing changes to the first floor; stated that if the Commission did not see a problem with the use of the additional space they could dismiss the conditions. Chair Larson, noted having no problem continuing the item until the lower level issue is resolved. Shirley Ready, San Luis Obispo, voiced opposition to the proposed project; noted concerns with projected views of the structure from 101 freeway, Loomis Street and Buena Vista; recommended discussing alternative development of the site with property entrance from Loomis Street. Linda White, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to adding a secondary dwelling at this location due to the “S” designation; suggested the plans be scaled down in size to conform to city guidelines. Robert Karger, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns with the project being situated on a hazardous curve and a narrow driveway; spoke in opposition to allow exceptions and the secondary dwelling; opined that having a secondary dwelling doesn’t make this property a single family home. Naomi Hoffman, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns over potential traffic accidents; noted possible problems with allowing the second dwelling, including using the unit as a student rental; questioned the Planning Commission’s responsibility in maintaining the value of the city. Robin Ramus, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns for the safety of animals and children in the area due to hazardous traffic conditions because of the property’s proximity to a curve. Lori Ramos, San Luis Obispo, provided history of the neighborhood. Expressed concerns regarding the quality of the soil, narrow roads, and lack of emergency vehicle access; suggested the applicant build the house near Loomis Street. Attachment 6 PC1 - 44 Draft Planning Commission Minutes Meeting Date Page 11 Ken Schwartz, San Luis Obispo, expressed opposition to the proposed project; opined that the Planning Commission should improve their communication with the Public; noted that the Planning Commission does not have a good reputation with the public; criticized the commission for not speaking clearly; asserted that this property should not be labeled a single family residence. Pat Dellario, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to the request for a height extension, noting possible obstruction of site lines; advised the commission to consider additional height that will project from the deck on top of the property; expressed concerns for the precedent and the exemptions could offer other home builders. Michael Villareal, spoke in opposition to the project; shared concerns over visibility from 101 freeways; opined that the there should not be exceptions on ADA requirements; stressed the need for further drainage reviews before approval; voiced concerns over this property possible becoming a rental, suggested the house be built lower down the hill to accommodate guest parking. Paul Rys, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns over limited visual distance issues on a curve with a hillside drive and slope issues; suggested moving the location of the entrance to a lower street in order to avoid street safety issues. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Community Development Director Codron explained the rationale for second family units; noted that the State of California established that anyone who has a single family home can add a secondary dwelling to an existing home for the interest of providing additional affordable housing and elder care; indicated that the City has the ability to apply standards to secondary dwellings so that they remain compatible with the character of the neighborhood; explained that one of the dwellings must be must be owner occupied. Commr. Draze voiced concerns for the curve at the residence, potential water issues, driveway visibility and the lower level, potentially being used as a residence; suggested staff review the lower level before continuing forward. In response to Commr. Draze’s concerns regarding the driveway fence, Planner Bell noted that a condition could be put in place as part of the review that would condition the driveway fences to remain open. Commr. Dandekar concerned about the height increase required in the setback; expressed concerns regarding the lower level development; spoke against allowing ADU’s. Commr. Riggs stated he would like to see the third floor issues to be further studied before commenting. Attachment 6 PC1 - 45 Draft Planning Commission Minutes Meeting Date Page 12 Vice-Chair Multari stated that he could not make the first findings that this project would not be detrimental to the safety and welfare of the persons working and living in the vicinity; voiced concerns with the difficulties in this site including size, lack of parking for the secondary dwelling, lack of sidewalk, and lack of on-street parking. Commr. Malak noted not being in favor of roof top patios due to noise; voiced concerns with noise in that area. Chair Larson concurred with Commr. Malak, noted concerns with the lower level and the many issues with the proposal. In response Commr. Fowler’s inquiry, Planner Bell indicated the factors that contributed to the development on Buena Vista St. instead of Loomis; noted the grading to accommodate the access to the property. Commr. Fowler affirmed that he could not make health and safety findings at this time. Commr. Malak noted that he would prefer to continue the proposal; suggested to review the analysis from staff furthermore, so the project can be thoroughly vetted for consideration. Commr. Riggs voiced disagreement with comments made by Vice-Chair Multari on the issue of ADU’s; suggested to include in the motion that some level of attention should be given to the traffic implications. Commr. Draze stated having no problem with the secondary dwelling; encouraged the applicant to try different approach; explained that he could not support an approach from Loomis St. Commr. Dandekar stated that given the variances requested, the accessory dwelling unit could be reconsidered; recommended that the lower level have cohesiveness with the rest of the home; noted she would like the property be built without any variances; suggested adding screened landscaping and vegetation around the property to minimize the vie from the 101 freeway; noted she would like to see a reworking of the elevations so there is contextual fit. On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Malak, to continue the item with additional consideration to the potential use of the first level as well as considering the public comments in regards to traffic implications and the tightness of the curve as well as limitations by traffic, right of way, and fire to a date uncertain. AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Larson, Malak, Multari and Riggs NOES: Fowler RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 6:1 vote. Attachment 6 PC1 - 46 Draft Planning Commission Minutes Meeting Date Page 13 Commr. Malak, suggested staff further review the roof deck, concurs with Commr. Riggs and sees no problem with the accessory dwelling unit; voiced uncertainty about the lower level and would like to see staff do further consideration. Commr. Riggs, concurs with that further analysis of the top deck is needed and will not consider taking future development from Loomis St. Commr. Dandekar would like to see the inner workings of the lower level; suggested a proposal without variances that conforms to the governing regulations and setbacks; opposes making concessions for the size of the property. Commr Fowler, explained that based on the information provided by staff, Loomis does not seem feasible for development, urged that further analysis of the top deck is needed; expressed hesitation about allowing variances; noted no problems with the accessory dwelling unit. Chair Larson, stated he would consider variances and exemptions if convinced that they would benefit the city by creating a better product; commended the staff on their analysis and report given the exceptional nature of this property; conveyed optimism that with further analysis and revisions on the part of the applicant, they might be able to reach a well-informed decision. There were no further comments made from the Commission. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 3. Staff a. Agenda Forecast – staff provided a forecast of the upcoming October 14th meeting noting it will include a review for an addendum to the airport area specific plan. The October 28th meeting will include a review of the Cal Poly Master Plan. Staff indicated that an overview of the energy and water efficiency policies and building code framework will be rescheduled due to lack of staffing resources. 4. Commission a. Chair Larsen noted correspondence received from the California energy commission inviting everyone to workshops and resources b. Commr. Draze announced he would not be present at the Nov. 11 meeting. ADJOURMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Sarah Reinhart Recording Secretary Attachment 6 PC1 - 47 PROJECT MODIFICATION OUTLINE FOR OCTOBER 28TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 48 Buena Vista (approximate) | San Luis Obispo, CA | APN# 052-136-045 1. Use Permit a. R1 S zone (requires use permit) b. Requesting 2 minor exceptions 2. Secondary Dwelling Unit Applications After two public meetings I have made some major changes and additions to address the concerns and comments of the public, and the commissioners’ feedback. 1. A lower level was originally added to the house to meet the Hillside Design Guidelines: lowest level floor should be within 6’ of grade. As this lower level was met with a great deal of concern both on the long term use of the space and the overall mass of the house, we have eliminated it. The result is a 38% reduction of mass from the Eastern elevation, view from 101. The house now floats on the hillside with no large foundation wall. The subtle support system will fade into the shadow of the house and the natural landscape that goes under the house will blur the actual height of the house from grade as it will only be seen from 600 feet away and 150 feet below from 101 or from Loomis. This was our initial design and think it will be brilliant. 2. We have reduced the upper deck by 60% based on the neighbors’ and commissioners’ comments, however the SLO General Plan specifically encourages front porches and front yards to promote community connectivity. The space that was formerly deck will become the front yard with irrigation free turf. After learning from all of my neighbors how dangerous the road in front of my house is, I am sure the neighbors, the city, and I, do not want my grandchildren to have to play in the street on what is known as Dead Man’s Curve. The slope of the lot does not allow for a rear yard so this solution meets the intention of the general plan and keeps my grandchildren safe. Additionally, the upper deck is like a front porch, as it is only 6’ above the road, that may encourage community connectivity. As one of the speakers pointed out, she rarely got to talk to her neighbors; maybe the neighbors will join us for a glass of wine or at least a chat as they pass by in the street. Asking for this to be removed would go directly against the city’s General Plan. I believe the noise attenuation aspect of the use permit would be more of an issue if you had different zones/uses, in this case it is all residential and the noise caused by a deck is within the allowable decibel levels for a residential zone. In addition, the closest neighbor to the deck is 110’ away and 20’ above the deck. 3. There were a lot of concerns expressed about the safety aspects of this particular location. So to increase neighborhood safety we have added a very space efficient rolled curb and gutter with sidewalk along our entire property to help get pedestrians off of the street on what is reported to be a dangerous curve. Additionally, I am Attachment 7 PC1 - 48 proposing to install five speedbumps, one before my driveway and four coming down the hill toward the curve to help control the speed of the cars coming down the hill. I am sure the neighbors will support this to improve the safety of pedestrians, particularly those walking their dogs in the neighborhood. Even though we have more than the required line of site in both directions on the curve to our driveway, the speed bumps will insure we will not have speeding cars coming down the hill when we are backing out of our driveway. 4. The concern over parking does not take into account that with the length of the driveway and the garage we have room for up to six cars. The Secondary Dwelling Unit is less than 450 square feet, a studio apartment sized for one person, a couple at most. I would hardly describe the house as a multifamily situation. The SDU requires the house or SDU to be owner occupied so the concern of this being a student rental has no basis. One of the Commissioners kept referring to my request for variances. I am not asking for any variances. I am asking for two minor exceptions, both of which are addressed in the ordinances and I meet the guidelines for being granted both exceptions. Per 17.21.010 Secondary Dwelling Units, D. 1. b. Nothing in this section prohibits applicants from requesting exceptions or variances from the strict interpretation of Zoning Regulations to the extent allowed by said regulations for any other use. The recommendation by one of the planning commissioners to not grant me any (variances) exceptions because I am asking for a Secondary Dwelling Unit, is not appropriate or understanding of why SDUs are allowed by rights per the state of California. The two requested exceptions to the City’s Property Development Standards are in the first case absolutely necessary to build the house, and the second case is well within the guidelines for granting such request for exceptions. No one is affected negatively by either one. 17.16.040 Height Maximum height R1 residential 25 ft. (up to 35 feet with approval of an administrative use permit) 1. Requesting 28’ Maximum Height exception. This exception is required based on the maximum allowable driveway slope and height needed for the required garage. Due to the slope of the property and the above stated facts the minimum height based on average slope is 27’10”. This height is set back the required 12’ from the property line. This exception is below the maximum allowable exception of 35’ and is necessary to meet the covered parking requirement. Please note that even with this exception, the highest point on the house is only 6’ above the street level and does not affect the view of any neighbor. Attachment 7 PC1 - 49 17.16.020 Yards 2. Requesting a 12’ yard setback on less than 1% portion of the structure, when a 15’ is required. On the Northeast corner I am asking for an exception on the required yard setback due to the extreme slope. If I use the average grade dimension, I meet the setback but my understanding is you must use the most restrictive method. In this case I have a very small area that is less than the required yard based on the existing grade. The corner of the building measures 35’ from existing grade which requires a 15’ setback and I am proposing a 12’ setback. The area in question equates to .79%-- less than 1% of the total building square footage. In support of this request the bordering property is zoned COS 5. This zoning allows for 1 house per 5 acres. In addition, it requires a 20’ minimum yard, so that means that if someone chose to build a house as close as they could to mine, which is unlikely given their large 5-acre parcel and this is the steepest part of their property, the closest it could be is 32’. Additionally, there is a property line between two lots splitting my house so no one will build there. This exception is a total of less than 13’ over a 240’ common property line or less than 1 %. I believe this clearly meets the criteria outlined below. Director may allow exceptions to the standards provided in Tables 3, 4, and 5 of subsection C2 of this section. Such exceptions may be granted in any of the following and similar circumstances, but in no case shall exceptions be granted for less than the minimum yard required: (Ord. 1365 (2000 Series) (part)) i. When the property that will be shaded by the excepted development will not be developed or will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure, considering its topography and zoning; ii. When the exception is of a minor nature, involving an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure. My request meets both of these findings and therefore should be granted. Thank you in advance for your careful consideration of my request as well as your input on ways to improve my project. Please call or email me with any questions or additional information you may require. Jeff Kraft 503-575-5320 jkraft503@gmail.com Attachment 7 PC1 - 50