HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-11300 denying an appeal and upholding the denial of a request for a Discretionary Exception from Side and Rear Setback Standards for an Accessory Structure at 1953 Chorro Street (APPL-0512-2021)R 11300
RESOLUTION NO. 11300 (2022 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S DECISION DENYING A REQUEST FOR
A DISCRETIONARY EXCEPTION FROM SIDE AND REAR SETBACK
STANDARDS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1953 CHORRO
STREET (APPL-0512-2021)
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director denied a request for a
Discretionary Exception from Side and Rear Setback standards for an accessory
structure located at 1953 Chorro Street, on July 14, 2021, under Director’s Action
application DIR 0599 2019; Todd Miller, applicant; and
WHEREAS, On August 9, 2021, Todd Miller filed an appeal of the Community
Development Director’s decision to deny the request for a Discretionary Exception from
Side and Rear Setback standards; and
WHEREAS, On September 8, 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of San
Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing by teleconference from San Luis Obispo,
California, to consider the appeal of the Community Development Director’s decision, and
upheld the decision of the Community Development Director to deny the request for a
Discretionary Exception from Side and Rear Setback standards; and
WHEREAS, On September 17, 2021, Todd Miller filed an appeal of the Planning
Commission’s decision upholding the Community Development Director’s decision to
deny the request for a Discretionary Exception from Side & Rear Setback standards; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing via teleconference from
the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on January 11, 2022 for the purpose of
considering the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision upholding the Community
Development Director’s decision to deny the request for a Discretionary Exception from
Side and Rear Setback standards, and has duly considered all evidence, including the
record of the Planning Commission hearing and recommendation, testimony of the
applicant and interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendation by staff, present
at said hearing; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the
manner required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings:
DocuSign Envelope ID: D5095864-95EB-44F0-9C02-169873E34FF3
Resolution No. 11300 (2022 Series)
R 11300
1. The proposed accessory structure for which the setback reduction is requested
is neither consistent with, nor an improvement to, the character or traditional
development pattern of the neighborhood (Zoning
§§ 17.70.170 (D) (2) (d) (2) (b) & 17.108.040 (A) (2)). It is of an excessive
scale, being significantly deeper and wider and greater in total enclosed floor
area than structures which are typically considered to be accessory and
subordinate to a single-family dwelling, and it is constructed with an exclusively
metal exterior material which is inconsistent with conventional building
materials and design for a residential building of this size and scale. As such,
its placement directly against the property line without building setback is not
consistent with the prevailing pattern of building masses in the vicinity, in which
larger structures are set back from side and rear property lines in conformance
to Setback Standards set out in Zoning Regulations.
2. The proposed setback reduction does not provide adequate consideration of
potential adverse visual and scale effects on surrounding properties (Zoning
Regulations § 17.108.040 (A) (3)). The accessory building’s perceived scale
and the incongruity of its metal surface material are amplified and made more
noticeable to neighboring properties by placement of the building directly
adjacent to the side and rear property line without setback.
3. No site characteristics or existing improvements have been identified or
observed which would make strict adherence to the Setback Standards set out
in Zoning Regulations impractical or infeasible, and placement of the unusually
large proposed accessory building directly against the side and rear property
lines without setbacks does not conform with the intent of Setback Standards
to determine the pattern of building masses and open space (Zoning
Regulations § 17.108.040 (A) (4)). The property is of a conventional
rectangular shape, and of dimensions exceeding minimum standards for the
zone, without constraining topographical features such as creeks or unusual
slope characteristics, and existing property improvements are limited to one
modestly sized single-family dwelling.
4. The proposed setback reduction is not consistent with policies for protection of
historical and architectural resources set out in § 3.3 of the Conservation and
Open Space Element of the General Plan, or their implementing guidelines
(Land Use Element § 12.4). The industrial character and metal construction of
the accessory building for which the setback exception is proposed is not
consistent with, and does not complement, the historical character of the
primary structure on the property (Historical Preservation Program Guidelines
§ 3.4.1 (d)), a Victorian Queen Anne Cottage (Oliver House), designated as a
Master List Resource in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. Contrary to
the guidance for Related New Construction (including new accessory
structures) provided in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Property, the accessory building’s austere metal surface
material and industrial character are not stylistically appropriate for the
character of Oliver House, which exhibits a conventional residential character
through wood exterior materials and decorative detailing.
DocuSign Envelope ID: D5095864-95EB-44F0-9C02-169873E34FF3
Resolution No. 11300 (2022 Series)
R 11300
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council has determined that
this application is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). It involves a request that a public agency will disapprove, as described in CEQA
Guidelines § 15270 (Projects which are disapproved).
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby deny the subject appeal filed
by Todd Miller and upholds the Planning Commission’s decision upholding the
Community Development Director’s decision to deny a Discretionary Exception from Side
and Rear setback standards for an Accessory Structure, under Director’s Action
application DIR-0599-20201.
Upon motion of Mayor Stewart Christianson, seconded by Vice Mayor
Christianson, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Member Marx, Pease, Vice Mayor Christianson, and Mayor
Stewart
NOES: None
RECUSED: Council Member Shoresman
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 11th day of January 2022.
___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
_________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________.
___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: D5095864-95EB-44F0-9C02-169873E34FF3
1/13/2022 | 11:48 AM PST