HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 - APPL-0331-2018 (221 Casa Street)PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of an appeal (filed by Diller Ryan) of the Community Development Director’s
decision to approve a remodel and addition to a legal nonconforming single-family residence to
create three, one-bedroom dwellings within two structures three. Project includes the removal of one
existing pepper tree (ARCH-1512-2018).
PROJECT ADDRESS: 221 Casa Street BY: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Assistant Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7091
E-mail: kvanleeuwen@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: APPL-0331-2019 FROM: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) denying the appeal and upholding the Community
Development Director’s design review approval of the multi-family residential project in the Office
zone.
SITE DATA
SUMMARY
On April 12, 2019, the Community Development Director approved a design review application for
a remodel and 1,845-square foot addition to an existing 750-square foot two-bedroom single-family
residence to create three, one-bedroom units in two, two-story structures totaling 2,595 square feet in
the office (O) zone (Attachment 2). On April 22, 2019, the decision was appealed by Diller Ryan, the
adjacent property owner. The letter submitted by the appellant identifies four points of concern with
the approval of the project (Attachment 3). Mr. Ryan’s stated concerns are summarized as follows:
1)the proposed project exceeds density limitations, and the project includes spaces that would be
easily converted to bedrooms, which is aided by the inclusion of two full bathrooms in each of the
one-bedroom units; 2) there is an existing non-conforming wall, which is located four feet from the
northern property line where a five-foot setback is normally required, and “every inch counts at this
level of density”; 3) drainage for the project is not properly addressed; and 4) the size of the existing
Appellant Diller Ryan
Applicant Dr. Boris Pilch
Zoning O (Office)
General Plan Office
Site Area ~5,375 square feet.
Environmental
Status
Categorically exempt from
environmental review under CEQA
Guidelines § 15303 (New
Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures )
Meeting Date: July 10, 2019
Item Number: 2
pepper tree on the northwest corner is falsely identified as 18 inches in diameter at shoulder height,
and this should not be approved for removal, but rather retained by reconstruction of the existing non-
conforming wall to accommodate the tree.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
Per Chapter 17.126 of the Zoning Regulations, decisions of the Director shall be appealed to the
Planning Commission. The scope of the Planning Commission’s review is to consider the proposed
project, the concerns of the appeal, and provide a final determination of the proposed project.
Staff is recommending the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s approval
of the project (Attachment 4, ARCH-1512-2018 approval letter). If the Planning Commission
approves the project, the project will have all necessary entitlements needed to move forward for
building permits. The following report provides additional background and analysis of the proposed
project and the appeal.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
Site Details Proposed1 Required2
Lot Size 5,375 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. (min)
Height of Structures 22 35 (max)
Max Building Coverage (footprint) 41.1% 60% (max)
Density Units 1.98 DU 2 DU
Setbacks
Front Yard
Side Yard
15 feet
4 feet (existing)
15 feet
5 feet (min)
Vehicle Parking 3 spaces 3 spaces
1 Project Plans (Attachment 2)
22019 Zoning Regulations
Project Description
The project consists of a remodel and 1,845 sf addition to an existing two-bedroom, 750-square foot
single-family residence in the Office zone. Resulting in three one-bedroom units and garage. The
layout of the project is two, two-story buildings with a raised deck as access to the two upper units.
The proposed garage will accommodate two cars and provides an attached accessory space for
laundry and bike storage. A third parking space is provided under the raised deck. Each residential
unit is between 859 and 876 square feet, and each unit consists of one bedroom, two bathrooms,
kitchen, and living space.
3.0 ANALYSIS OF THE APPEAL
Density and Floor Plan: Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.24 (Office Zone) establishes that the
maximum residential density for the Office zone is 12 density units per acre, and goes on to state that,
“regardless of the density calculation, at least two density units shall be allowed on each parcel”. The
subject property, at 0.12 acres, would be allotted two density units for development. The project
consists of three one-bedroom units, each of which is between 859 and 876 square feet (sf). Zoning
Regulations Section 17.70.040 assigns density unit values for specific dwelling unit types, with one-
bedroom units between 601 and 1,000 sf counting as 0.66 density unit. This project proposes 1.98
density units (0.66 x 3 units), which is less than the two density units allowed, and consistent with the
Zoning Regulations.
The floor plan for the project identifies one bedroom in each unit, and no other spaces are included
in the floor plan that meet the Zoning Regulations definition of bedroom1. The “exercise area” that is
specifically identified in the appeal meets the definition of “den”2, because it is open on one side and
does not contain a closet or wardrobe. The Zoning Regulations does not regulate the number of
bathrooms a dwelling unit can have.
Nonconforming Wall: The existing structure is legal nonconforming because the north-facing wall is
located approximately four feet from the northern property line, where five feet is the minimum
setback currently required in the Office zone. Zoning Regulations Section 17.92.020 (Nonconforming
Structures, Limits on Reconstruction – Exceptions) states that, “changes to structural elements,
interior partitions of other nonstructural improvements and repairs may be made to a nonconforming
building. However, demolition, as defined in Section 17.158.012, and reconstruction shall be
permitted only if the structure is made to conform.” The project does not meet the definition of
demolition because more than 50% of the existing conforming exterior walls will be retained. Upon
review of the proposed project, the Director determined that the proposed project complied with the
intention of the Zoning Regulations to allow changes to structural elements on a nonconforming
building because it allows for the continued use of an otherwise sound structure. In order to ensure
the proposed project remained consistent with the intent of the Zoning Regulations, the Director’s
approval included a condition that would require the building to conform to current setback standards
if the additional walls of the existing structure are demolished or removed, as required by Zoning
Regulations Section 17.92.020 (Attachment 4, ARCH-1512-2018 approval letter).
In addition, Zoning Regulations Section 17.158.012 states that exceptions may be granted for
buildings that are over 50 years old where the existing building and any proposed additions or
modifications are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, as determined by the Director.
Upon review of the proposed project, the Director determined that the proposed project complies with
1 Bedroom: Any space in a dwelling unit which contains a minimum of 70 square feet of floor area unless it is one of the
below listed rooms or common spaces. The “bedroom” definition does not include garages, attic space, or similar
spaces which are not habitable such as foyers, storage closets, utility rooms, or unfinished attics and basements.
The following rooms/co mmon spaces that are adjacent and open to common areas are not considered bedrooms:
Table 9-1: Rooms and Common Spaces Not Considered Bedrooms
Hallway Den (see definition, Section 17.158.012)
Bathroom Mezzanine (see definition for requirements, Section 17.158.030)
Kitchen/breakfast nook Laundry room
Living room, family room, dining
room
2 Den (or “family room”): A room which is open on at least one side; does not contain a wardrobe, closet, or similar
facility; and which is not designed for sleeping
this section of the Zoning Regulations because the structure was built in 1945.
Drainage: City engineering staff evaluate project submittals during planning entitlement review,
including the preliminary drainage report, and identify any major issues that would prevent the project
from being able to meet engineering requirements. Based on engineering staff review of the proposed
entitlement application and project plans, which included a preliminary drainage report (Attachment
3), no major issues were identified that would prevent the project from being constructed as proposed.
In every development project, whether an entitlement is required or not, the plans are subject to all
local codes and ordinances. The subsequent building plan submittal will need to show compliance
with the City’s adopted building code and the Drainage Design Manual (DDM) in regards to storm
water run-off. The DDM requires pre-development vs. post-development analysis of 2-year to 100-
year storm events to ensure additional runoff is within acceptable levels.
Tree Removal: The project includes removal of the existing pepper tree. The project plans identify
the tree as having an 18-inch diameter, which is incorrect. The City Arborist has identified the tree as
being approximately 29 inches in diameter. However, this does not change the City Arborist’s
recommendation, which is described below.
The City Arborist reviewed and approved the applicant’s request to remove the pepper tree, given 1)
the proximity of the tree to the existing structure (approximately two feet away from a portion of the
structure to remain); 2) the location of the tree under the proposed addition; and 3) compliance with
condition #20 of the Director’s approval requiring compensatory tree planting. In addition to two
street trees along the Casa Street frontage, five trees (minimum 24-inch box/container) shall be
planted near/along the north and west property boundaries, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist.
While it is the current project proposal that is driving the request for removal of the pepper tree at this
time, trees of this size and proximity to a structure are often requested to be removed. These requests
usually cite damage or potential damage to the structure’s foundation as reason for desired removal.
The City arborist has stated that these tree removal applications are typically approved to facilitate
orderly development, and replacement/compensatory tree planting is a common condition of approval
to ensure a healthy urban forest in the City.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt from environmental review (Class 3, Section 15303, New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, State CEQA Guidelines) because it consists of a
duplex or similar multi-family residential structure, totaling no more than four dwelling units. The
project is not located in a particularly sensitive environment and would not impact an environmental
resource of hazardous or critical concern, because: the project site is located within an existing
urbanized area consisting of a residential neighborhood; the project consists of an 1,845-square foot
addition to an existing 750-square foot structure, which is a minor addition that would not result in a
significant cumulative impact; the proposed project would not result in damage to scenic resources
as seen from a scenic highway, because the project site is not visible from any scenic highway; the
project site is not located on a site that contains hazardous materials; and the structure to be modified
is not a historic resource.
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
All City Departments have reviewed the project and have provided comments that are incorporated
into the staff report and recommended resolution as conditions of approval.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional
information or analysis required.
6.2 Uphold the appeal, denying the project. The PC can deny the project, based on findings of
inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City regulations and
policies.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1.Draft Resolution
2.Appeal Form and Letter
3.Project Plans
4.ARCH-1512-2018 approval letter
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-19
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL (FILED
BY DILLER RYAN) THEREBY APPROVING A REMODEL AND
ADDITION TO A LEGAL NONCONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE TO CREATE THREE ONE-BEDROOM RESIDENTIAL
UNITS IN TWO STRUCTURES IN THE OFFICE ZONE, WITH A
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS
REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED
JULY 10, 2019 (221 CASA STREET, APPL-0331-2019)
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director of the City of San Luis Obispo, on
April 12, 2019, approved a remodel and major addition of an existing residential structure,
pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-1512-2018, Dr. Boris Pilch, applicant; and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2019, Diller Ryan, as a member of the public, filed an appeal of
the Community Development Director’s Decision, 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
July 10, 2019, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL-0331-2019, Diller Ryan, appellant;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered
all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission does hereby deny an appeal (APPL-
0331-2019) of the Community Development Director’s decision, thereby granting final approval
to the project (ARCH-11512-2018), based on the following findings:
1.As conditioned, 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 project will be compatible with the
site constraints and the character of the neighborhood.
2.The project is consistent with the General Plan’s Office (O) land use designation of the
property, which allows residential uses, and with Land Use Element policy 2.3.9. (C.) that
calls for new development to reflect the rhythm of existing development because adjacent
Attachment 1
properties contain two-story structures with similar setbacks
3.The project is consistent with the Zoning Regulation’s development standards, including
density, for the Office zone.
4.The project is consistent with Zoning Code provisions for nonconforming structures because
the building is over 50 years old, the proposal does not meet Zoning Regulations definition
of a demolition, the addition to the residence conforms to current development standards, and
the existing building and proposed additions are compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
5.The project is consistent with the character of the neighborhood, including other residential
buildings in the vicinity and the adjacent Santa Rosa Park, because structures in the
neighborhood are also of a two-story design and incorporate flat roofs.
6.The project provides adequate consideration of and measures to address any potential adverse
effects on surrounding properties such as, but not limited to, traffic, vehicular and pedestrian
safety, noise, visual and scale, and lighting because the development standards for the zone,
including for parking, have been met.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt from
environmental review (Class 3, Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures, State CEQA Guidelines) because it consists of a duplex or similar multi -family
residential structure, totaling no more than four dwelling units. The project is not located in a
particularly sensitive environment and would not impact an environmental resource of hazardous
or critical concern, because: the project site is located within an existing urbanized area consisting
of a residential neighborhood; the project consists of an 1,845-square foot addition to an existing
750-square foot structure, which is a minor addition that would not result in a significant
cumulative impact; the proposed project would not result in damage to scenic resources as seen
from a scenic highway, because the project site is not visible from any scenic highway; the project
site is not located on a site that contains hazardous materials; and the structure to be modified is
not a historic resource.
SECTION 3. Action. The project conditions of approval do not include mandatory code
requirements. Code compliance will be verified during the plan check process, which may include
additional requirements applicable to the project. The Planning Commission (PC) hereby grants
final approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions:
Planning Division
1.Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the
project plans as amended and approved through this minor or incidental architectural review
process. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a
building permit that lists all conditions of project approval as Sheet No. 2. Reference should
be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any
Attachment 1
change to approved design, colors, materials, or other conditions of approval must be
approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate.
2.Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed
building surfaces and other improvements.
3.Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window details indicating the type of
materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall
include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds, recesses, and other related
window features.
4.Any proposed exterior lighting shall be shown on plans submitted for a building permit and
shall be downward-facing, fully recessed, and shielded to avoid light trespass and adverse
impacts to visibility of the night sky consistent with Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations.
5.The subject property shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner at all times; free of
excessive leaves, branches, and other landscape material. The applicant shall be responsible
for the clean-up of any landscape material in the public right-of-way.
6.The final floor plan once constructed shall remain in substantial conformance with plans
submitted for entitlement. No additional walls creating areas that meet the zoning regulations
of bedroom shall be constructed.
7.If during construction additional walls of the existing structure are demolished or removed,
beyond what is shown on plans, the non-conforming portion of the structure shall be made to
conform to setback standards.
Public Works
8.The building plan submittal shall comply with Municipal Code Section 12.16.050: projects
involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be
installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard.
9.Unless otherwise approved for deferral by the City Public Works Director, new curb, gutter,
sidewalk, driveway approach, and street paveout shall be required as part of this development
and must be constructed in accordance with City Engineering Standards and Standard
Specifications. Line and grade shall be established by the developer and shall be shown on
the building plan submittal. A site visit to discuss frontage improvements may be necessary.
10.The building plan submittal shall show all wall/fence combinations in compliance with city
standards. A ten-foot line-of-sight triangle shall be maintained to improve visibility for
vehicles exiting the driveway and pedestrians using the adjoining public sidewalk area.
11.The building plan submittal shall show the new driveway approach in compliance with city
and ADA Standards. The current city and ADA standards require a 4 -foot accessible
Attachment 1
sidewalk extension behind the ramp.
12.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.
13.The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed public or private easements.
14.The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The grading
and drainage plan shall show all structures located within 15 feet of the property lines. The
plan shall consider offsite historic drainage tributary to this property that may need to be
accepted and conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development may
alter and/or increase the stormwater runoff from this site or adjoining sites. The improved or
altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining properties unless the
drainage is conveyed within a recorded easement or existing waterway. A summary drainage
report may be required.
15.The building plan submittal shall include a complete utility plan. The plan shall show all
existing and proposed wet and dry utilities, main locations, meters, and off-site work. All
wire utilities to all buildings shall be placed underground. The undergrounding of utilities
should be completed without a net increase of utility poles within the public right-of-way.
All proposed utilities shall be located outside the drip line and tree canopy of the existing oak
tree to remain.
16.The new water service(s) and water meters shall be sized in accordance with the approved
fire sprinkler plans. If a separate landscape irrigation meter is proposed or is required by
code, it may be prudent to consider upgrading/abandoning the existing service and install a
meter manifold to serve both the new units and landscape rather than only adding a second
service.
17.The building plan submittal shall show compliance with the Post Construction Stormwater
Requirements as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for redeveloped
sites. Provide a complete Post Construction Stormwater Plan Checklist as available on the
City’s Website. Include only the pertinent sheets from the checklist template.
18.The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter
of 3 inches or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property lines with canopies and/or
root systems that extend onto the 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.
19.The building plan submittal shall show all tree removals and the location of compensatory
Attachment 1
tree planting of five trees to be approved to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director and the City Arborist.
20.The building plan submittal shall show all required street trees. 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.
21.Trash enclosure(s) shall conform the access requirements and conditions of the San Luis
Garbage Company.
Utilities Department
22.The property’s existing sewer lateral to the point of connection at the City main must pass a
pipeline video inspection (visual inspection of the interior of the pipeline), including repair
or replacement, as part of the project. The pipeline video inspection shall be submitted during
the Building Permit Review Process for review and approval by the Utilities Department prior
to issuance of a Building Permit. Additional information is provided below related to this
requirement:
•The pipeline video inspection shall be submitted on USB drive and shall be in color.
•The inspection shall be of adequate resolution in order to display pipe.
•Material submitted shall include the project address and a scaled plan of the building and
the lateral location to the connection at the City sewer main.
•The inspection shall include tracking of the pipeline length (in feet) from the start of the
inspection to the connection at the City sewer main.
•It is optional to provide audio on the report to explain the location, date of inspection, and
pipeline condition observation.
Indemnification
23.The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents,
officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this
project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review
(“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified
Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in
the defense against an Indemnified Claim.
On motion by Commissioner ___________, seconded by Commissioner _____________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
Attachment 1
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 10th day of July 2019.
_____________________________
Tyler Corey, Secretary
Planning Commission
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4