The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-19-2016 Item 14, Codron 3Council • January 15, f�15 �4 1 • TO: City Council FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director PREPARED: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner RECEIVED JAN 15 2016 SLO CITY CLERK COUNCIL MEETING: 0 1 A 9 I ITEM NO. _ - . VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager SUBJECT: Item 14: 48 Buena Vista, Updated Resolution to Deny the Appeal Attached, please find an updated resolution denying the appeal. Although staff does not recommend this course of action, the findings listed are intended to provide the City Council with additional facts upon which to base a decision to deny the appeal. The attached findings explain why the Council may find the that proposed exceptions to property development standards are unacceptable, or that the design of the building is inconsistent with the Community Design Guidelines. In either case, the applicant would have the ability to redesign and submit a new planning application for approval of a single - family residence on the project site. \ \chstore7\Team \Community Development \KBELL \USE -1520 -2015 (2390 Loomis) \History of URL \Council Memorandum - Revised Resolution.docx RESOLUTION NO. (2016 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS 011I9P0, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS DECISION TO DENY AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT IN THE S- OVERLAY ZONE THAT INCLUDES HEIGHT AND SETBACK EXCEPTIONS AS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED JANUARY 19, 2016 (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; 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; and denied the project based on the finding that the project would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity, due to concerns with steepness and narrowness of the dead -end road, lack of on- street parking, and lack of pedestrian sidewalks and connectivity; and WHEREAS, Jeff Kraft, the applicant, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on October 29, 2015; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council 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 Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Resolution No. (2016 Series) Page 2 Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: The proposed height exception will detract or negatively affect the neighborhood character because the exception is inconsistent with the way other properties in the neighborhood have been developed. By allowing the exception, the building will be more prominent on this hillside development site than otherwise allowed under the City's zoning code. Moreover, the subject property includes a roof deck which, due to its design and intended use, will exaggerate, emphasize and play up the increased height of the residence in comparison to and to the detriment of the surrounding neighborhood. 2. A reduced side yard setback is unacceptable at the subject location because of the steep slope and visibility of the lot on the hillside location, which increases the visual impact of the proposed residence by allowing this exception. Compliance with the setback requirement would result in a less massive building, and more articulation of the building walls at the most prominent and highest point on the building from adjacent grade. 3. The proposed residence is inconsistent with the City's Hillside Design Guidelines because the location of the structure is not placed in the "least visually prominent... lowest feasible elevation" of the subject property. In fact, the placement of the structure is at the most visible and prominent portion of the subject property. As a result, redesign of the project is necessary to reduce the effect of the massing in consideration of the location. An acceptable design at this location would step down the hillside to a greater degree, and incorporate additional horizontal and vertical articulation to break up the massing of the building and reduce the appearance of the flat roof and continuous walls. 4. The proposed residence is further inconsistent with the Hillside Design Guidelines because it does not "[k]eep a low profile and conform to the natural slope" and does not "[a]void large, continuous walls or roof surfaces, or prominent foundation walls, poles or columns." The proposed residence is a square shaped, two -story "box" with a proposed height that is in excess of the City's height restrictions. The residence utilizes continuous walls and a flat roofline, and includes long and visually prominent support structures. The design of the home is inappropriate for this hillside development because it has insufficient overhangs, roof pitches or horizontal or vertical articulation to break up the massive form of the residence. The proposed structure is also inconsistent with the Hillside Design Guidelines because the support structures are not enclosed and are not an integral feature of the architectural design of the residence, and the roof deck is greater than six feet above grade. 5. Construction of a home on the project site without exceptions to City standards is possible and preferable because of the steep slope of the property and visibility of the lot in the hillside location. 6. The proposed project is detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of people working and living in the vicinity of the project site because, as noted in findings #3 and #4, the house is proposed to be developed in a manner that is inconsistent with the Community Design 17 Resolution No. (2016 Series) Page 3 Guidelines and is out of character with homes similarly situated on the hillside and in the surrounding neighborhood. Section 2. Environmental Review. The proposed project is statutorily exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15270 (Projects which are disapproved). Section 3. Action. The City Council does hereby denies the appeal of the Planning Commission's action to deny the proposed project hereby granting final denial of the application USE -1520 -2015. Upon motion of and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was adopted this ATTEST: Traci R. McGinley City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney , seconded by Mayor Jan Marx , 2016. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this day of Traci R. McGinley City Clerk 110