Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/05/1988, 1 - A. TENTATIVE MAP FOR TRACT 1544, 27 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT THE WEST CORNER OF LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD AND DIABLO DRIVE. B. APPEAL BY SUBDIVIDER OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TO DENY USE PERMIT REQUEST A159-87, TO REDUCE STREEI'Iry1INII^, W 1111III " J T MEETING DATE: lul �I� I1 C� � San Lug$ OBI$pO 1 -5 -88 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: FROM: N" Michael Multari, Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Greg Smith SUBJECT: A. Tentative map for Tract 1544, 27 unit residential condominium project at the west corner of Los Osos Valley Road and Diablo Drive. B. Appeal by subdivider of Planning Commission action to deny use permit request A159 -87 to reduce street yard setback from 20 feet- to 12 feet and to allow high fence where a 3 foot high fence is normally allowed at the Mirada Drive frontage. CAO RECOMMENDATION: Continue consideration of both items with the subdivider's consent, and give direction regarding specific issues noted in the staff report. - fya1&eJ.- eLW1i[ J Discussion Processing of this project involves consideration by the City Council, Planning Commission, and Architectural Review Commission. The Planning Commission has considered this project at two hearings. At the most recent hearing (December 2), the commission recommended that the council deny the tentative map, and denied the use permit. This recommendation was made after the subdivider refused to agree to a continuance to resolve various issues involving modification of the site plan. (Deadlines imposed by subdivision regulations required the commission to take an action unless the subdivider agreed to a continuance.) The ARC will consider the project for the second time on January 4, 1988. Action by that commission will be reported by staff at the January 5 council hearing. Driveway locations, building setbacks, view preservation, and headlight glare have been controversial issues in previous hearings on the project. Many neighbors have testified at the hearings; minutes are attached. Significant Im ac Council action will determine the site plan, grading, and general building configuration of the the project. The initial study prepared by staff recommends that a negative declaration be approved for the project, and no significant fiscal impacts are anticipated. Consequences 2 Not Taking the Recommended Action If the council denies the project, development of the property will not occur until new applications are submitted and approved. New fees would have to be paid. If the council approves the project, subdivider could proceed to file a final map and obtain a building permit after ARC approval. �ium�bN►�IIIIIIIIIP1 ° °u� ►�I�111 city or san Luis osispo j ONGs COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 2 EVALUATION 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subdivider proposes a 27 unit residential condominium subdivision with detached houses on individual lots, and various commonly -owned areas. The plans for the project have been revised twice during the review process. The original plans proposed a private street which would loop from Mirada Drive to Cordova Drive. Those plans involved a planned development rezoning and a standard subdivision; some lots were proposed for future individual development with houses. After the ARC and Planning Commission both expressed concerns with the original plans, revised plans were submitted. The PD application was withdrawn; circulation was revised, with access to Diablo Drive and emergency access only to Cordova; grading was slightly revised to lower the height of the noise /retaining wall along the Los Osos Valley Road frontage; and conceptual unit designs were proposed for each lot. These plans were reviewed by the Planning Commission at the December 2 hearing noted above; they were not reviewed by the ARC. The plans submitted for review by the council include additional revisions as noted in the detailed description below. The current plans have not been reviewed by the Planning Commission or the ARC, at the time of the council staff report deadline. The ARC will review them at their January 4 meeting, and staff will report the results at the council meeting. ' 1.1 Use Permit Reauest An application has been filed for a use permit to allow two exceptions to zoning standards: A. Reduce the street yard setback at the Mirada Drive frontage from 20 feet to 12 feet. This would allow the private yards provided at the rear of the units whose fronts orient to the private drive and not Mirada, to be counted toward the open space standards required by condominium regulations. Normally, such open space is not allowed to encroach into a street yard setback. Note that the buildings themselves would be set back 20 feet or more. B. Allowing a 6 -foot fence /retaining wall to be located 4 feet from the property line at the Mirada frontage. Normally, a 3.6 foot fence is allowed, and a 6 -foot fence must be set back 20 feet. The fence location has been revised since the Planning Commission reviewed the plans; see 4.5 below. Again, this is required because the units orient to the private road, not Mirada Drive, and a fence is needed to assure privacy and security of the units and some screening of the rear of the units from the street. The retaining /noise wall at the Los Osos Valley Road frontage does not require any exception to the 6 -foot height limit. e ���H�i�►►►�i�ll�llp���lll City of San LUIS OBISp0 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 3 1.2 Designation as a Condominium Subdivision The applicants have designated this application as a condominium subdivision. Procedurally, this means that lot size standards and interior lot line building setbacks which apply in standard subdivisions do not apply to this project. The lots may be of any size or shape suited to the proposed development. 1.3 On -site Circulation The applicants propose a private street with access to Diablo Drive and Cordova Drive. 1.4 Grading Plan The city's Grading Ordinance sets standards for the percentage of a site which may be graded for development. The steeper the site, the higher the percentage which must remain in its natural (ungraded) state. Since the subdivider proposes grading more than 90% of the site, an exception to these standards is needed, and special findings will be required. Refer to section 3.6 of the report for more details. The grading plan for the project has been revised slightly so that the backyards of the units nearest Los Osos Valley Road are somewhat lower than previously. This change does not have any significant impact on the amount of the site being graded, and an exception to grading ordinance standards is still required. This revision was shown on plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 2nd. 1.5 Unit Designs All units will be two -story or split - level. Designs for the A and B -type units is identified on the plans as conceptual, since final design of these units (to adapt them to grading revisions noted above) has not been done. Height of the units will not increase; floor area may change slightly. Note that most units now have incorporated interior grade changes in their design. This tends to lower the units as they will "step down" the slope. 1.6 Environmental Review A revised initial study is attached. The council should review the study and approve a negative declaration as part of any action to approve the project. 2.0 EVALUATION ISSUES The central question in evaluating the project is whether the development concept is consistent with city policies as reflected in the Land Use Element and Housing Element, and with the intent of the standards contained in the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. �►�n�i�ii►�IIIII��� ►��u������U MY Of San LUIS OBISPO i MIGn COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 4 Review should take into account special features of the project's design and physical constraints for developing this site. The site's steepness, its relatively narrow shape, and multiple street frontages all contribute to the difficulty of development. Planning Commission review focused on several issues which are discussed in this report. The issues are listed below and the specific sections which discuss them are noted in parentheses: 1. Traffic safety, both real and perceived (Sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4); 2. View preservation (4.8); 3. Density and appearance of density; additional open space and less paving in the interior of the project (Sections 3.1, 3.7, 4.6, 4.7); 4. Wall on Los Osos Valley Road (4.3); 5. Corridor appearance on Mirada (4.5, 4.8); 6. Increased sensitivity to topography (split units) (1.5, 3.6); and 7. Grading concept (3.6). The revised plans raise other issues which are also discussed in the following report. 2.1 Proiect Orientation Units are oriented toward an interior private street. Consideration of functional and visual relationship to the neighborhood is important. See Sections 4.4 and 4.5 below. 2.2 Unit Tyne Detached, split -level units are proposed. The long, narrow configuration of the units and their lot coverage are important factors in distribution of open space throughout the project. 2.3 Use of Private Street Private streets are typical in condominium subdivisions. Planning and engineering staffs believe this is appropriate for this project, subject to proper design and layout of the street. 3.0 SITE PLANNING CONCERNS Some aspects of the site plan have been changed in response to concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Commission, and neighborhood residents. Some issues still remain. 3.1 Density Gross density of the project would be 5.97 units per acre; a maximum of 7.0 units per acre would be allowed. Average slope of the site is 13.5 percent; maximum density for a site steeper than 15 percent would be 4 units per acre. ������aH►I�IIIII�Ij�I ����U city O� San LUIS osispo ONGs COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 5 (State law requires special findings if the development review process results in reduction in the number of units any residential project which conforms to adopted policies and ordinances. This law does not apply to this project since various exceptions are requested.) 3.2 Traffic Generation This project is expected to generate an average of 300 trip ends per day. Most of these trips will be directed through the Diablo Drive /Los Osos Valley Road intersection. This volume of traffic would not be enough to justify installation of a traffic signal at that intersection, in the judgement of the City Engineer. Any increase in traffic results in some increased hazards to pedestrians and vehicles using the street. The project will result in a slight increase in hazards at Diablo Drives, but staff does not expect the increase to be significant (see below). 3.3 Intersection Location Planning, Engineering, and Fire Department staff opposed the deadend driveway shown on the previous plans, although some neighbors voiced concerns with the safety of providing access to Cordova and possible headlight glare. Extension of the driveway through the site with unrestricted access at the Cordova Drive end of the driveway would provide safer and more convenient access for residents and for emergency- service vehicles. Connection to Cordova Drive would not cause safety problems if the intersection were properly designed. The project is expected to generate a maximum of 300 trip ends per day. It is unlikely that more than a third of these trips would use the Cordova Drive driveway; during the busiest hour this would result in one car every five or six minutes. This change in the level of traffic would be virtually undetectable. A third alternative should also be considered. As noted in the original Planning Commission staff report, staff believes that connection of both ends of the driveway to Mirada /Cordova would be safer overall, because of the speed of traffic on Diablo and sight distance limitations. Peak hour traffic in this situation would be increased by approximately 30 cars per hour or less; traffic volume would still be much less than levels found to be acceptable by residents in other parts of the Laguna and other neighborhoods. Problems with the steepness of the driveway noted on the original plans report could be easily remedied. 3.4 Private Street Transitions Engineering staff recommends that "street -type" curb returns and handicap ramps be installed at both driveway locations. Also, minor revisions to grading are desirable to provide a staging area for cars entering and leaving the site and to have the intersection at Diablo aligned with the driveway from the condo project across the street. It seems unlikely that significant changes to grading of the remainder of the site would be needed to accommodate these driveway revisions. ���H� ►�,►►�IIIII�IIP N city or SM LUIS OBISp0 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 6 3.5 On -site Parkins The applicants have proposed two covered parking spaces with each unit, plus twenty -five parallel parking spaces provided on the private street (2.9 spaces per unit). . The common driveway provided between the units will accommodate only very limited tandem parking. In most cases, a car parked in the driveway will make access to the adjoining unit's garage more difficult. Also, driveway lengths on units without common driveways will encourage, but not adequately accommodate, parking in the driveway. Staff recommends that in all cases, a setback of less than 8 feet from the curb or more than 18 feet be provided where garages back directly to the access road. 3.6 Grading Concept The site slopes approximately 30 feet from Mirada Drive to Los Osos Valley Road. The applicant proposes to make the slope bank at the Los Osos frontage slightly higher, and use a five -foot retaining wall and six -foot slope bank at Mirada Drive to take up most of the difference in elevation. The remaining 10 -foot difference would be taken up by smaller walls and slopes in the building area. The grading concept differs from the previous phase of Laguna Homes development, where two major pad levels 10 feet apart were used. In both plans, however, over 90 percent of the site is to be graded. Since the overall slope of the site is 13.5 percent (similar to the previous phase), an exception to Grading Ordinance standards is required if more than 60 percent of the site is to be graded. A finding must be made that the proposed grading is consistent with the intent of the Grading Ordinance - preservation of the natural topography of the community. Staff would note that some disruption of the natural topography has already occurred in conjunction with Los Osos Valley Road construction and grading for Tract 603 and 608, and that the required findings were approved by the council for the previous phase. Staff would note that the grading plan is closely linked to the unit types and site plan. Significant changes to any of these elements would necessitate corresponding changes to the others. 3.7 Usable Lot Area Usable lot area is limited by steep slopes, unit configuration, multiple lot frontages and irregular lot shapes. 3.8 Site Planning Details Many details of site drainage and utility service have not been worked out to the satisfaction of the Public Works staff. They prefer that these concerns, along with driveway grading details, be worked out before the tentative map is approved, �►►u�i�lilullll @��p��u����U��l City of sap LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 7 4.0 OTHER PROJECT DESIGN ISSUES 4.1 C /OS -40 Zoning The northerly corner of the site is zoned for Conservation /Open Space use; the zone boundary is established .by the elevation 135 contour line. This includes approximately 4500 square feet of the site, much of which is taken up by the Los Osos Valley Road setback. This zone boundary was established based on the area to which reliable gravity flow sewer service could be provided The grading proposed by the applicants would extend serviceable area to include the proposed building pad on each lot. It may be appropriate to delete the C /OS -40 zoning designation, unless an alternate purpose is seen for open space at this location. A corresponding revision to the Land Use Element map, although not required for consistency purposes, would be desirable from the point of view of clarity and would probably be included in future "clean -up" revisions. Since unit 7 encroaches across the zone boundary, this unit must be relocated if an amendment is not processed before recording the final map or issuing building permits for the project. 4.2 Provision for Future Development to the Northwest When this area was subdivided in the 1970's, there was much discussion regarding provision of street and utility "stub -outs" to serve future annexations. The northwesterly city limits and the general plan's urban reserve line coincide with the northwesterly boundary of this site. A "rural residential" development project which includes a proposal for a golf course at Los Osos Valley Road and adjacent to this site, is currently being presented to the county. In view of the location of the urban reserve line, and proposed development on adjacent property, staff questions whether it is desirable or feasible to provide for street or utility extensions. The Public Works Director recommends that property lines and unit locations be adjusted to accommodate a sewer easement. The utilities, of course, would not be installed at this time. Condition No. 10 of the attached draft resolution for approval reflects this recommendation. 4.3 Streetscaoe at Los Osos Valley Road As indicated in project cross sections, a 2:1 slope bank is proposed along this frontage. The retaining /noise wall at the back yards of the downhill units would project 2 feet above the slope bank near the Diablo Drive corner and would be about 6 feet high near the northwest property line. Visual impact of the wall would be somewhat less than the previous phase, where 6 to 8 feet of wall are visible. ���u��NNllullillplpiau'ui����Ul Clay Of San LUIS OBISPO diNCOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 4.4 Diablo Drive Streetscane Staff is concerned with the fencing and grading at the Mirada Drive /Diablo Drive intersection. This location is one of the most logical for providing visually effective open space. Minimal open space is provided, however, and the proposed grading and retaining walls will make the significant modification of the existing topography especially evident at this location. Also, it is not clear that the 6 -foot retaining wall indicated will be adequate to deal with grade differentials at this location. It appears further work on the details of this corner is appropriate. 4.5 Mirada Drive Streetscane Staff believes that an effective landscaped yard is essential to maintaining the character of Mirada Drive. The proposed fence is 8 feet from the back of sidewalk (4 feet from property line) and the grade on the streetside of the fence should be built up slightly to make the landscaping more effective. A 2 -foot retaining wall with a 4 -foot fence would provide minimally acceptable landscaping and still provide adequate privacy screening. Note that this location for the fence has not been reviewed by the Planning Commission or Architectural Review Commission, although staff believes it is acceptable. This proposal would work only if PG&E and other utility companies agree that no major new underground lines are needed behind the sidewalk. Moving the fence away from the street would increase shading of the yards slightly, although a 6 -foot fence in any location at the slope bank will cause significant shading during winter months. 4.6 Interior Streetscane The project would have less landscaped area and more paving than is typical for the interior "front yards" than is typical for R -1 developments. The applicant feels that despite this fact, the product will be more marketable than smaller or attached units with increased open space. The subdivider has modified the interior front yards in response to recommendations made by staff at the December 2 Planning Commission hearing (the modifications have not been reviewed by the commission). The modifications include narrowing the interior sidewalk to 4 feet in width and providing "bulb -out" landscape planters on one side of the private street. The subdivider has not responded to staff's recommendation that a fifteen -foot setback be provided between the private street and garages with tandem driveways on the downhill side. In addition, the design of the bulb -outs is such that planter areas and parking spaces are too small to function well in some cases. Staff believes that the elimination of two or three spaces to resolve these problems is appropriate. jiII�III city of San LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 9 Staff's setback recommendation could be implemented by shortening the downhill units by 5 -feet, or by shortening both uphill and downhill units by a lesser amount. Revision to hallways and laundry areas could achieve a shortening in many units; in others, more substantial changes would be needed. Staff would note that. downhill unit designs are conceptual in any case. 4.7 Usable Private Ooen Space Private yards for many of the units is provided in what would normally be the street setback area. Usable open space is also affected by the long, narrow units and lots, and by the size of the units - average living area of these units is 200 square feet larger than the previous phase, with approximately the same number of units per acre.. The applicant has not supplied adequate data to evaluate compliance with condominium development regulations open space requirements. The project appears to be in substantial compliance, subject to approval of the Mirada Drive setback reduction. Yards and entries of many units are not oriented to provide solar exposure and prevent wind exposure. Mitigation of this problem is difficult without significant revisions to the site plan concept due to steepness and shape of the property. 4.8 View Obstruction At previous hearings, neighbors expressed concern about the project blocking views of Laguna Lake. Owners of four houses across Mirada Drive from the project site are primarily affected. The revised submittal will interfere very little with views in staff's judgment. It is likely that the buildings could be a few feet higher without causing significant view blockage, but a detailed evaluation of how much taller the buildings could be without affecting views would require an on -site study using surveying equipment. 5.0. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES A variety of development alternatives can be considered in resolving site planning and other project design concerns, ranging from minor revisions to the proposed project to provision of public streets and standard -sized lots. Staff previously recommended that any acceptable alternative include three main features: A. Provision of safe, convenient vehicular access. B. Provision of significant landscaped area and /or functional orientation of units to Mirada Drive, while maintaining or increasing usable private yard areas. C. Provision of more landscaping and less paving in the interior streetscape. Staff believes that some of these issues have begun to be addressed and has noted suggested revisions to the proposed project which would adequately address each of these issues in staff's judgment. However, the significance of these revisions and the number of "technical" issues regarding drainage, utility locations, driveway grading, etc., which remain are significant. Staff feels more work needs to be done in incorporating these suggestions into the plan before the tentative map is most appropriate for approval. ������ ►d►►►�IIIII�III1° i�U�ll MY Of san LUIS OBI SPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 10 PROCEDURAL ALTERNATIVES 1. Tentative Tract Mao. The State Subdivision Map Act sets deadlines for council action in processing tentative tract maps. After reviewing the situation with the City Attorney, it appears that the safest course is to assume that this regulation requires the council to approve or deny at tonight's hearing unless a continuance is agreed to by the applicant; the applicant has indicated willingness to consider this. Draft resolutions incorporating appropriate findings for denial and findings and conditions for approval. Conditions of approval are somewhat more general than usual; many details would have to be worked out prior to City Council action on the final map. Note also that Architectural Review Commission review may result in further modification to the project. 2. Use Permit A159 -87. Although there is no deadline for action on this use permit at tonight's meeting, staff suggests action on the use permit correspond to action of the tentative tract map. Findings for approval and denial are included below. 3. Grading Ezceotion Reouest. Action should correspond to action on the tentative tract map. Findings for approval and denial are noted below. 4. Revised Initial Study. Changes in the project description have resulted in the necessity to revise the initial study. A draft of the revised initial study is attached for council action; the draft resolution for tract approval incorporates required environmental findings. PREVIOUS REVIEW: The Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission considered this project at previous meetings as noted above. The Architectural Review Commission has not considered the revised project; they will review the revisions prior to consideration of the project by the City Council. At the ARC and Planning Commission hearings, numerous residents of the neighborhood spoke in opposition to various aspects of the project. Those concerns are outlined in draft minutes. A petition opposing the project and a letter regarding traffic signal installation were received and are attached. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: Comments of the Engineering and Public Works staff, and the Fire Department staff, which would have a significant impact on the project are noted in the body of the staff report. Engineering staff opposes the interior bulb -outs. • ���nni ►►�IIIIIII�II ���Ill MY Of San LUIS OBISp0 ONFma COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 11 SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED: Mirada Drive Streetscape /Fence Height and Setbacks. An important decision is whether or not the upper row of houses orient to the interior street or to Mirada Drive. Staff feels orienting to the interior street is acceptable given the steepness of the site and the fact that this approach minimizes view blockage. The treatment of Mirada now proposed by the applicant appears acceptable. 2. Interior Open Space, Especially Setbacks from the Private Street. Staff feels more open space, especially in the front yards of the units along the interior street is necessary. Staff feels a 12 -foot setback with bulbouts on the street for the upper units and a 15 -foot setback for the lower units would be acceptable. 3. Access to Cordova. Different versions of the project have included no- through access to Cordova (emergency access only). This is not recommended by staff. The latest version shows a through connection to Cordova. 4. Grading /Landscaping at the Corner of Mirada /Diablo. This highly visible corner needs further work in detailing of grading, retaining walls, setbacks and landscaping. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the council continue the project to the meeting of February 16th with direction to the applicant regarding issues noted in the staff report. If the applicant does not agree to a continuance, and if the council feels that denial is not an appropriate action, staff has included several conditions which we feel are necessary to an acceptable project, particularly regarding the following: 1. Mirada Drive streetscape /fence setback. 2. Internal open space, especially setbacks from private streets. 3. Private street access to Cordova Drive. 4. Grading and landscaping at Diablo /Mirada street yard. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolutions for Denial Draft Resolutions for Approval Vicinity Map Site Plan Subdivider's Statement Land Use Element Map Draft Minutes - ARC (October 19th); PC (November 4th, December 2nd) Revised Initial Study Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Denial Petition in Opposition to Project - November 2, 1987 sr:tr1544 RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1544 (LAGUNA GARDEN HOMES - PHASE III) LOCATED AT 786 MIRADA DRIVE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findinits That this council, after consideration of the tentative map of Tract 1544 and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, and reports thereon, makes the following findings: 1. The site is not physically suited for the type of development proposed. 2. The subdivision is not consistent with street setback and private open space requirements of the zoning and condominium development regulations. 3. The size and configuration of proposed condominium lots is not suited to the proposed grading and circulation plans, nor to the configuration of condominium units proposed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for Tract 1544 be denied. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1988. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor n RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN EXCEPTION TO SECTION 17.78.210 OF THE GRADING ORDINANCE FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1544 (LAGUNA GARDEN HOMES - PHASE III) LOCATED AT 786 MIRADA DRIVE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findines That this council, after consideration of the tentative map of Tract 1544 and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, and reports thereon, makes the following findings: The proposed grading exception is not consistent with the intent of the grading ordinance to preserve and enhance the beauty of the landscape by encouraging maximum retention of natural topographic features and minimizing padding or terracing of building sites in hillside areas. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the requested exception is hereby denied. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1988. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor M RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION A 159 -87 FOR STREET YARD REDUCTION AND FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 786 MIRADA DRIVE WHEREAS, the applicant request a use permit to reduce the street yard setback from 20 feet to 12 feet and to allow a 6 -foot high fence where a 3.6 foot high fence is normally allowed on the Mirada Drive frontage. WHEREAS, on December 2, 1987, the Planning Commission denied conditional use permit application A 159 -87; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 1987, the applicant's representative appealed the Planning Commission's action to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on January 5, 1987, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the testimony of the appellant and other interested parties; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findin¢s. That this council, after consideration of the tentative map of .Tract 1544 and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, and reports thereon, makes the following findings: The proposed setback reduction and fence height exception are inconsistent with the intent of setback standards to provide an appropriate pattern of building masses and open areas and to provide adequate views and exposure to sunlight. 2. The Planning Commission acted appropriately in denying use permit application A 159 -87. SECTION 2. Action The appeal by the applicant's representative is denied, and the action of the Planning Commission to deny use permit application A 159 -87 is upheld. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Hg Resolution No. (1988. Series) Page 2 the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _ -- .-day of 1988. Mayor ATTEST: .APPROVED ity Ad inistrative Officer City.A.ttori&Y Community Development Director RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1544 (LAGUNA GARDEN HOMES PHASE III) LOCATED AT 786 MIRADA DRIVE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration of the tentative map of Tract 1544 and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, and reports thereon, makes the following findings: The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements are consistent with the general plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in a R -I and C /OS -40 zones. 3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with easement for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision. 5. The City Council has reviewed the revised initial study prepared by the Community Development Director and determined that the proposed subdivision will not have a significant effect on the environment and hereby grants a negative declaration. 6. Buildings which will be constructed as part of this subdivision will be afforded adequate solar exposure. SECTION 2. Conditions. That the approval of the tentative map for Tract 1544 be subject to the following conditions: Setback along the Mirada Drive /Cordova Drive frontage of this project shall be as specified by conditions of Use Permit A 159 -87. 2. A minimum 15 -foot setback from the private street shall be provided for units 9 through 16. 3. A minimum 10 -foot setback from back of sidewalk at private street shall be provided for units 19 through 27. 4: Landscaped "bulb -outs" shall be provided along the west side of the private street to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission and the Community Development Director. / /6 Resolution No. (1988 Series) Page 2 5. Grading and alignment of driveways at Diablo Drive and Cordova Drive shall be revised to the approval of the Community Development Director and City Engineer. 6. Driveways for units which back directly onto the private street shall be set back less than 8 feet or more than 18 feet to discourage parking in such a way as to obstruct traffic in the private street. 7. Street cross section, curb, and individual driveway design shall be revised to the approval of the City Engineer and Community Development Director to prevent drainage from flooding garages or landscaped areas. 8. Public and private storm drainage catch basins, connection points, etc., shall be revised to the approval of the City Engineer. Individual water and utility meters shall be provided for each unit. 9. Sewer and water mains in the private streets shall be public and shall be located in a utility easement to the approval of the City Engineer. 10 Subdivider shall record an irrevocable offer to dedicate a 12 -foot utilities easement between the private street and the northwesterly boundary of the tract to provide for possible future extension of public sewer and water mains to the approval of the City Engineer. 11. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions to be approved by the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to final map approval. CC &R's shall contain the following provisions: a. Creation of a homeowner's association to enforce the CC &R's and provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of all common area including private driveways, private utilities, drainage, parking not area, walls and fences, lighting, and landscaping in a first class condition. b. Grant to the city the right to maintain common area if the homeowner's association fails to perform,-and to assess the homeowner's association for expenses incurred and the right of the city to inspect the site at mutually agreed times to assure conditions of CC &R's and final map are being met. C. No parking except in approved, designated spaces. d. Grant to the city the right to tow away vehicles on a complaint basis which are parked in unauthorized places. e. Prohibition of storage or other uses which would conflict with the use of carports and uncovered parking spaces for parking purposes. f. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motorhomes, or trailers nor long -term storage of inoperable vehicles. g. No outdoor storage by individual units except in designated storage areas. 1-17 Resolution No. (1988 Series) Page 3 h. No change in city- required provisions of the CC &R's without prior City Council approval. i. Homeowner's association shall file with the City Clerk the names and addresses of all officers of the homeowner's association within 15 days of any change in officers of the association. 12. Units in the subdivision shall be addressed according to an addressing plan approved by the Community Development Department. 13. Construction of structures on the site shall be consistent with approved tentative map and attached exhibits, consistent with these conditions of approval, and the requirements of the Architectural Review Commission. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1988. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED City A ministrative Officer City At ney Community Development Director lOE,7 RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO GRANTING APPROVAL OF AN EXCEPTION TO SECTION 17.78.210 OF THE GRADING ORDINANCE FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1544 (LAGUNA GARDEN HOMES - PHASE III) LOCATED AT 786 NURADA DRIVE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings That this council, after consideration of the grading plan for Tentative Tract 1544 and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings: The conditions of approval of Tentative Tract No. 1544 will assure that approval of the grading plan does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity. 2. The strict literal application of the grading design standards deprives the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity because of the following special circumstances which apply to the subject property: A. The narrow shape of the site. B. The excessive street setback area required by Zoning Regulations. C. The site has previously been graded and is no longer in a natural condition. 3. Under the circumstances of this particular case, the exception is in conformity with the purposes of this chapter as set out in Section 14.44.020. SECTION 2. Action. An exception to the design standards of the Grading Ordinance is approved, allowing less than 40 percent of the site, exclusive of building area, to remain in its natural state, as shown on the approved grading plan for Tentative Tract No. 1544. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Resolution No. (1988 Series) Page 2 the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1988. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED ity A inistrative Officer City Atto ey tl Community Development Director Mayor /IR0 RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION A 159 -87 FOR STREET YARD REDUCTION AND FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 786 MIRADA DRIVE WHEREAS, the applicant requested a use permit permit reduce the street yard setback from 20 feet to 12 feet and to allow a 6 -foot high fence where a 3.6 foot high fence is normally allowed on the Mirada Drive frontage. WHEREAS, on December 2, 1987, the Planning Commission denied conditional use permit application A 159 -87; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 1987, the applicant's representative appealed the Planning Commission's action to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on January 5, 1987, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the testimony of the appellant and other interested parties; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration of the tentative map of Tract 1544 and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, and reports thereon, makes the following findings: The proposed fence height exception and street yard exception will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity. 2. No public purpose will be served by strict compliance with the fence height regulations and setback requirements. 3. The fence height and setback exceptions are consistent with the intent of zoning regulations standards to provide an appropriate pattern of building masses and open space within the neighborhood and to provide exposure to sunlight. SECTION 2. Action. The appeal by the applicant's representative is upheld, and use permit application A 159 -87 is approved subject to the following conditions: /-0?� Resolution No. (1988 Series) Page 2 A setback of not less than 10 feet shall be provided between Mirada Drive and private open space areas required by condominium development regulations. 2. A retaining wall /screen fence not to exceed 6 feet in height may be constructed along the Mirada Drive frontage with a setback of not less than 4 feet. Grading and landscaping of the area between the back of sidewalk and wall /fence shall be completed by the applicant in accordance with a plan approved by the Architectural Review Commission. 3. A 20 -foot by 20 -foot landscaped area shall be provided at the intersection of Diablo Drive and Mirada Drive, and the fence shall not encroach into this area. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1988. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED City Ad inistr.ative Officer City Attor y i Community Development Director tea :. .b +Y '. 1 O / /. 4Ll^ �i ias c -t y of san Luis oBispo 990 Palm Street /Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 -8100 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of 1042P CM A41 2:516 61 rendered r on ` L��G I q 8- which decision consisted of the following (i.e. set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal. Use additional sheets as needed): 6 i`' fAd1NiO5 M D(L fflt� e'sra7FS 78& Mr IT *A 67 �Er�t --�� 7c� � `TKO �T1�r✓�-T 1� u� IK'x'� if1C�iNc:6 W Kk:�4LF-5 A- - � The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with: ..; on A pellant: R E C E' V 9 D Name /Title DEC 4 1987 cW Representative C$TV CLENM SAN Lun> 09SXJ CA L. I/ �/"ti• `7 `� `� - . Address Phone Original for City Clerk Copy to City Attorney Ca tenred for: i S Copy to City Administrative Officer Coy to the following department(s): li/rr� City Clerk December 3, 1987 City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Appeal to City Council In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals the decision of the Planning Commission rendered on December 2, 1987, which decision consisted of the following: PROJECT: Garden Homes III Laguna Hill Estates 786 Mirada Drive Denial of Use Permit #A159 -87, request to reduce the street yard setback on Mirada Drive frontage from 20 feet to 12 feet for required private open space, and a fence height exception, along the Mirada Drive frontage, to allow a 6 foot. high fence where a 3 foot high fence is normally allowed. Related action recommended denial to City Council of Tentative.Tract Map, Tract 1544. It is our understanding that this wil I normally proceed to the City Council. (5n n D. Pults, AIA Project Architect Representing: Rick Webster Laguna Hill Estates A?UWedM PlanningGGropbks 1401 Htumpvel San Lwd (MmIra. Cali)hmia 95401 805/541.5604 GARDEN HOMES III LAGUNA HILL ESTATES SAN LUIS OBISPO R -1 ZONING EXCEPTIONS We would like to request the following exceptions to setback and fence height requirements. 1. Fence height exception to allow a 6 foot high fence where a three foot height would normally be allowed along Cordova Drive at the rear of the uphill lots. (Fences at lots 1 through 5 will be offset a couple of feet fro^ retaining v:alls tc avoid total heights over 6 feet.) 2. Setback exception to allow private open space to encroach into the street setback along Cordova Drive, reducing the street setbvack to 12% PRIVATE OPEN SPACE LOT AREA SF LOT AREA SF 1 2072 14 960 2 1632 15 1410 3 1283 16 1060 4 2036 17 740 5 2832 18 780 6 2650 19 960 7 2050 20 11.30 8 1340 21 1145 9 920 22 1350 10 1060 23 1145 11 960 24 1350 12 1060 25 1270 13 1060 26 1870 27 1560 COMMON OPEN SPACE 39,719 SF TOTAL PROVIDED Does not include private street, street yard setbacks, unit footprints, or private open space. -Arcbilecture, Planning £ Grapbia Ad, CRY of San LUW 1401 igursn.l](ta4 c 1���^t uu( Luis Obispo. Cablurnia 93yu1 hoi!iy/ ioaq I=r%A ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES 1. 1-7 November, I C,'B 7 D&p L '0+ S&.1 l..Llit:! 101-.LSI�0 t. t J C t !,J: 15,14. zL L ev .11,e - ?1 clp.=j - t 41rl t:l m. i k: -z;. t r i c_ - t i 0 a..:.1: e. e r C k:F t L-ot :.t F a z fJ1. tv 1_.,7 Ui=i Lrrequl ar, �h_�pc- o + t! -, e Parcel -Aif% Clp:?!l FPaCZ Exid the zxea be; --o 11 cry e; street .'..he ind clu c.l 1 of tii. 6:' irl 'iettlaCkS r+..F-_� Em. tr Cc!6 I J. tr, ..ond i t j con' i s I L 80- CC: G? -P .-.!I of d a r 1 a T a - t 1,7791 an pv;- %. i it- C.. I F: a Ft C E• 1. -L j?o i i •ed ti_: 1. for irsorr:l Si j, m ,11 t i. ! r tm�, c; L f-j I I j t i (:.o L t 1 rj k:)!- IT, E ? 1-1 "I"I F1 1: Ul- cA 1 1-: Z_ub,tao t i 1. L A!:: t was bLIJ . I t ul 1 c':: e Ca.! Lausi' i t i u-. to tht,- =-t-!'r ,in _!tiij L15` r: S; r t J' 1. rl L.' C-4 1.�ure 40% U+ the Site is v e �� Z.-i J. clu ; : ?1a1 e. i =il S t,ntj lo 1 : r ei. m,f:t! m c' J t. c: j I ony queotiton-s or prcvidr-� further" inforrinition (..is a5 s 0 on B54 p n s S i u" I c- l)F.V1_-_L_1_jPM.ENT A.SZ-Q(' I P.TE5 Rhilip F'. Paldn.er 6 ENGINEERING- • LAltD SURVEYING • PROJECT ADMINISTRATION 1320 N I POMO STREET • SAN LUIS OB I SPO . CA 93401 • 805-549-8658 � Orz I..r; el— , I, --, • 06. . . I. n -py'l -0*... k. of. •-CW^4qt_ . . OW" ...... WA ftm N. rS se 00 rob N?plAn NOW 1r, v- K, , LAGUNA LAKE ....... ... J-j .. .... if: .......... St 7 A XA ........ ........... n. Irv, ....... ... % .... ....... ...... ....... IT4 ........ ... ....... .. . .. 'pr ........... WORTH CY -Abis . ocqzA ...... . .. ..... .......... . • 'fin Zy ...................... fi ...... ......................... • ...... ...................... ........... ; ....... . . ................... IN............ .................. ....... ..... .... . "Ile .......... or, ."r ... ................. ............... ....................... -or Ir low -low jm ....... #ro ........................... "Joe", ....... . Fr .... ........... ........... .. ........ .......... -I.tp % N,;i ........ .............. ..................... :_ /1 for ... ........ .. .... J1.4 f1% W I Ox ... '04 Olt . . ... DRAFT ARC MINUTES October 19, 1987 2. ARC 87 -134: 786 Mirada Drive; 18 new houses in Tract 1.544; R -1 -PD zoning pending; schematic review. Commrs. Baur and Morris stepped down due to a:conflict of interest. Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the commission continue the project with direction to restudy specific aspects of the design and forward comments to the Planning Commission. Rick Webster, applicant, explained the project concept. Steve Pults, architect, responded to the staff report. Robert Cleath, neighbor, objected to the project and felt the site should remain zoned R -1. He cited other planning and design problems in the area and felt this project would compound those problems. Paul Tuttle, neighbor, agreed with Mr. Cleath. Virgina Cleath, neighbor, objected to the proposed project due to its density, reduced setbacks, poor street character, lack of open space, excessive amount of paving, and lack.of landscaping. She preferred to see a conventional R -1 development on the property. She also objected to the use of wood fencing along the Mirada /Cordova frontage and suggested using a masonry wall instead. Doug Hendry, neighbor, expressed concerns with the 9 -foot high wall facing Los Osos Valley Road and Diablo Drive. He suggested changing the driveway access to Diablo Drive for greater safety for neighborhood children. He also wanted the fence height reduced on Mirada Drive. He agreed with other neighbor comments. Gary Wintermeir, neighbor, agreed with previous neighbor comments. Pam Spouts, neighbor, expressed concerns with the wall height on Los Osos Valley Road and agreed with other neighbor comments. Commr. Pinard felt the project "read" like a walled community. She felt the project was too dense given the site restrictions. She indicated that the project had conceptual problems and needed restudy. She could not support schematic approval. Commr. Rademaker felt the issues were predominantly of a land use planning nature, and that the Planning Commission should be discussing the issues first. He thought that overall the planning concept seemed appropriate, but that the project had technical problems. I&R S DRAFT ARC MINUTES October 19, 1987 Page 2 Commr. Starr questioned the justification for a PD designation since the houses seemed to be conventionally sized and designed on undersized lots. He suggested possible alternatives for parking. He agreed the concept needed additional study. Commr. Cooper questioned why a zero lot line concept was not used for this project. He suggested combining lots 15 and 16 to allow, additional setback and landscaping to enhance the °gateway#, into the project and neighborhood. He also suggested using concrete block for the wall along the Cordova frontage, and taking the access driveway from Diablo Drive. He wanted to see the wall height reduced and landscaping increased along Los Osos Valley Road. He agreed the project was not ready for schematic approval. Commr. Pinard moved to continue consideration of the project. Commr. Rademaker seconded the motion. AYES: Pinard, Rademaker, Cooper, Starr NOES: None ABSENT: Baur, Morris, Jones Commrs. Baur and Morris returned to the meeting. /a . -P,C. Minutes . aae6sibit •19 1987 . Page 5.- Coate. Kourakis seconded the notion. VOT INC: �" AYES - Comm"-; Crotser, Kourakis, Duerk, and Gerety. NOES - Commrs. Mainline and Schmidt. ABSENT - None. The motion passes. Commr. Kourakis moved to._pass on to the ARC the commission concerns about the Chorro Street facade in..,terms of pedestrian scale, visual; variety, and palm tree preservation. �. Commr. Duerk seconded the motion. VOTING: AYES - Commrs.'Kourakis, Duerk, Crotser, Gerety, Hainline, and Schmidt. NOES - None. ABSENT - None. The motion passes. Item 3.. Public Hearing: Actions Relating to Property at 786 Mirada Drive. Requests to develop a 4.52 acre site; Laguna Hills Estates; Rick Webster, applicant. (Continued from October 28 and November 4, 1987 meetings) A. Use Permit A159 -87. Requests to reduce the street yard frontage from 20 feet to 10 feet and to allow a 6 -foot high fence where a 3 -foot high fence is normally allowed on the Mirada Drive frontage. B. Tract 1544. Consideration of a tentative map creating a 27- unit residential condominium. ---------------------- ---------------------- ----- -- ---- --- -------- -- - - - -- -- Greg Smith presented the ataff report and recommended continuance for incorporation into a revised map. Chairperson Kourakis opened the public hearing. Rick Webster, 1715 LaLuna, applicant, agreed with the driveway solution on Diablo Drive. He clarified the Phase 2, project and discussed the raised wall. He did not agree with the interior open space issue and felt large homes on small lots was acceptable. He noted there was little natural grade left and could not comply with grading ordinance. Commr. Duerk was concerned with the open space issue and felt the partial wall issue was significant. She did not agree with the 0 lot line and felt 5 -foot was acceptable. /c'.G P.C. Minutes - Dpg4mber 29 1487.. Page 6. Robert Xk*eth, 777 Mirada, was against the project. He did not agree wit" the grading, substandard street, lot rise, setbacks, and fencing. He f.el growth development should be considered within a neighborhood. Robert Cooper, 1520 Diablo, felt his view would be preserved.. He was against-the new access at Diablo Drive and felt traffic would be impacted. He objected to the front wall, but was basically in favor of the project. Paul Tuttle, 1540 Frambueao, stated that Mr. Webster has cooperated with neighbors in terms of keeping views and configurations. Jesse Tuttle, 1540 Frambueao, was concerned with traffic on Mirada Drive and preferred it routed on Cordova. She was concerned with thickly planted trees blocking'viewa. C /ea Xh Virginia &Aet�rfi, 777. Mirada, preferred to see R -1 homes on standard lots as opposed to the proposed condominiums. Kelene Powell, 1520 Diablo, requested her name and that of Robert Cooper be removed from the petition. Glen Goelzer, 1571 Cordova, supported the project with the Diablo Drive access and proposed .open space and acceptable fire accessibility. Chairperson Kourakis closed the public hearing; Commr. Crotser stated he met with the applicant and architect for project medification clarifipation. He felt this plan resolved streetscape and fencing issues, and suggested clustered landscaping and changes in the 200- foot wall. He felt access should be continuous through the street. Wayne Peterson was still concerned with the inadequacy of the `tentative map and wanted a resolution before approval. Mr. Webster stated he would prefer a denail to a continuance and agree to work the Public Works staff. Commr. Hainline stated she met with the applicant for review. Commr. Gerety was concerned with large homes on small lots. Commr. Hainline felt the less yard /more open air concept was acceptable and desirable to the buyers. Chairperson Kourakis was concerned with the grading, lack of usable open space, lots being too small for house size, high density, and specific Public Works concerns. She did not feel the site was physically suited to the development proposed. Chairperson Kourakis moved to deny the use permit, subject to findings. /-3, 'P.C. Minutes Decea er 2. -_1987 - Coasts: Gerety seconded the ■ottonr VOTING: AYES - Comers. Rourakis, Gerety, Duerk, and Schmidt. NOES - Camara. Crotser and Hainline. ABSENT - 'None. The motion passes. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. to the special meeting of December 7, 1987. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Hoske Recording Secretary 1-3e PC Minutes - 11 /4 /L Page-5 maaking of the cut; there was also some concern about the proximity of bedrock to the surface; 5) lot 13 has problems with visibility, geology., fire protection problems; for all those reasons, he would not recommend approval of that lot. Commr. Schmidt asked Mr. Multari about fire and police problems. Michael Multari said that because the lot is at the end of along narrow canyon, significantly apart from the public right of way, it presents concerns. Chairperson Kourakis said she could not support the use permit and needs more creek information and other options to access restrictions. She was not,in agreement that if lot 13 is deleted, two additional lots should�be approved lower on the site, aw had been suggested by staff. Chairperson Kourakis then moved for continuance until the December 2nd meeting with the stipulation that lot 13 be eliminated. : She also wanted a more creative solution•'to a riparian barrier than fencing, but did support some restriction on access, depending on the report from Fish and Game. Commr: Duerk seconded the motion. VOTING: AYES: Chairperson Kourakis, Commrs. Duerk, Crotser, Reiss, Gerety, Hainline,.and Schmidt NOES: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. Item 4. Actions relating to property at 7S6 Mirada Drive. k request to rezone the property to a planned development and consideration of a tentative subdivision map for 4.52 acre site; Laguna Hills;Estates (Rick.Webster), applicant. Greg Smith presented the staff report. There was some discussion by the commissioners. The public hearing was opened. Rick Webster, 1715 La Luna, applicant responded that the staff report was thorough, but he didn't agree with the recommendation, and asked. for direction from the Planning Commission. Robert Cleath, 777 Mirada, objected to present development and presented a petition-signed by 73 people wanting the property developed differently. His concerns were with density, environment, beauty and traffic, and requested denial of the use permit. /3T PC Minutes - 11/4/87 Page 6 Douglas Androtti, 1594 Frambuesa, said his only problem with the project was concern about traffic impact on children in the area, and requested a signal light be put in at Diablo. Jessie and Paul Tuttle, 1540 Frambuesa, was concerned about traffic and did not support the use permit. Dennis Tunis, 1690 Cordova Drive, asked for clarification on R -1 zoning., Greg Smith defined R -1 zoning, and said some condo development would be possible. Dennis Androtti said he not support the wall along Los Osos Valley Road. Michael Foley, 1725 Frambuesa, cited the road, children and traffic, and did not support the project. He did support an exit on Diablo and left turn lane, also lower structures to save the view. ! Virginia Cleath,777 Mirada, did not support the PD, citing walls, traffic, and phase 2 grading. Frank Servidia, 1555 Cordova, was concerned about his view. Glenn Gelzer,,1571 Frambuesa, favored the project. Rick Webster said the wall would be a noise mitigation wall made of attractive slumpstone. Wayne Peterson said the traffic level was acceptable in certain neighborhoods and he recommended the intersection be at Mirada Drive. Commr. Duerk felt that the issues were traffic safety real or perceived; view preservation; the perception of denisty such as large buildings on small lots; the : "wall" problem; open space requirements for condos; she questions whether this development is in harmony with the existing neighborhood. Commr. Crotser agreed with Commr. Duerk and would like to see the building more sensitive to the topography, and felt the fence on Mirada should be-removed. Commr. Schmidt did not support large houses on small lots; he felt that it was inconsistent. Rick Webster asked for clear direction if his application was denied with findings. Chairperson Kouakis said findings for denial would be excessive grading and wall height. Commr. Crotser said the streetscape was too harsh. 1-25 PC Minutes - 11/4/87 Page 7 Chairperson Kourakis said there was too much grading (exceeding Grading Ordinance by 30 %), too many exceptions, and moved to deny the application. Commr. Gerety seconded the motion.. VOTING: AYES: Commrs. Kourakis, Gerety NOES: Commrs. Crotser, Reiss, Duerk, Hainline, Schmidt ABSENT: None The motion failed. Commr. Duerk moved to continue PD 1334 until December 2nd, with., direction to address the items above. Commr. Crotser seconded the motion. VOTING: AYES: Commrs. Duerk, Crotser, Reiss, Gerety, Hainline, Schmidt and Kourakis NOES: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. The meeting closed at 11:48 p.m. to the next regular meeting shceduled for December 2nd, 1987, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Respectfully submitted, Nina O'Connell Recording Secretary 1-3,5 city of san tins oBispo INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT t APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION PROJECT DESC APPLICANT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: NEGATIVE'DECLARATION EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED 1 i PREPARED BY COMMUNITY I ACTION: I MITIGATION INCLUDED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED DATE DATE SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IL POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POS ISLE ADVERSE EFFECTS A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS .................... ............................... . B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH ........... ............................... C. LAND USE ....................................... ............................... D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............. ............................... E. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................ ............................... F. UTILITIES ........................................ ............................... G. NOISE LEVELS ......................... .......... ............................... H. GEOLOGIC & SEISMIC HAZARDS & TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS ................... I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS ............... ............................... . J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY ............................................. KPLANT LIFE ....................................... ............................... L ANIMAL LIFE ..................................... ............................... M. ARCHAEOLOGICAL / HISTORICAL .................... ............................... N. AESTHETIC ...................................... ............................... O. ENERGYIRESOURCE USE .......................... ............................... P. OTHER ........................................... ............................... Ill. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 'SEE ATTACHED REPORT - . 1-26 Initial Study of Environmental Impact Tract 1544 - 786 Mirada Drive Page 2 I. Description of Project and Environmental Setting A 27 -lot condominium subdivision is proposed on a vacant 4.52 acre site. The site is located between the northwesterly city limit, Los Osos Valley Road, Diablo Drive, and Mirada Drive. The site slopes up from Los Osos Valley. Road; overall average cross slope is 13.5 %, with some portions of the site as steep as 30 -40 %. Significant vegetation on the site consists of numerous Monterey Pine trees. In addition to the subdivision, the project includes grading of the site and construction of houses on the lots and a private street for access. II. Potential Impact Review A. Community Plans and Goals The project would involve variation to certain grading and zoning standards normally applied to developments of this type. These variations are allowed by city: regulations, subject to special findings by the City: Council and Planning Commission. Review by those bodies and the Architectural Review Commission for consistency with the intent of the various regulations and design guidelines should insure that no significant with community plans or goals occurs. Note that no exceptions to major policies such as residential density arc requested. Conclusion: No significant impact will occur. D. Transportation and Circulation Access to the site will be via a private street 36 feet in width. Access is proposed via Diablo Drive, with an emergency access driveway and locked gate at Cordova Drive near the west corner of the site. Access according to this proposal will ;be inconvenient for residents and service vehicles, and will not allow adequate access to fire trucks. Provision of a through- traffic connection to Cordova Drive, or provision of a hammerhead type turnaround would mitigate any concerns regarding significant impacts. These revisions will be required by ordinance. The City Engineer believes that having both ends of the driveway connect to the Mirada /Cordova frontage of the sight would be safer, due to the speed of traffic on Diablo Drive and limited sight distances. He believes that the hazard from a Diablo Drive driveway is relatively minor, however. Conclusion: Standards which will be routinely applied during the development review will result in modifications which will provide safe emergency access. No significant impact will occur. /3j Initial Study of Environmental Impact Tract 1544 - 786 Mirada Drive Page 3 G. Noise Levels Noise levels generated by traffic on Los Osos Valley road are higher than those normally acceptable for outdoor use associated with residences. The concrete block noise wall proposed by the applicant will reduce the noise to acceptable levels for all except Units 4 and 5. Short perpendicular extensions would- result in full protection for all units. Conclusion: No significant impact will occur. K. Plant Life Many moderate sized Monterey Pine trees will be removed. More. trees, though smaller in size, will be planted as part of the project. The: trees do not appear to furnish critical habitat for any species of bird,and restoration of the tree canopy should occur within approximately ten years. Conclusion: No significant impact will occur. O. Energy /Resource Use The proposed structures arc somewhat closer together than normally required by Zoning Regulations for detached dwellings. Resultant shading of windows and walls will likely result in consumption of slightly more energy for space heating than if normal setbacks were observed. However, energy use will be within the mandatory standards adopted by the state. Conclusion: No significant impact will occur. / -38 SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4011 -87 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers of the San Luis Obispo City Hall, San Luis Obispo, California on December 2, 1987, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application for Tract 1544 by Laguna Hills Estates, applicant. SUBDIVISION REQUESTED: To create a 27 -unit residential condominium. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: On file in, the office of'Community Development, City Hall. GENERAL LOCATION;: 786 Mirada Drive GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT: Low- density Residential PRESENT ZONE: R -11 C /OS -40 WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections, investigations and studies made by itself, and in behalf and of testimonies offered at said hearing, has established existence of the following circumstances: 1. The site is not physically suited for the type of development proposed. 2. The subdivision is not consistent with street setback and private open space requirements of the zoning and condominium development regulations. 3. The size and configuration of proposed condominium lots is not suited to the proposed grading and circulation plans, nor to the configuration of condominium units proposed. /'3j Resolution No. 4011 -87 Tract 1544 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that application for Tract 1544 be denied. The foregoing resolution was adopted•by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo, upon the motion of Commr. Kourakis, seconded by'Commr. Gerety, and upon the following roll call vote: AYES: Kourakis, Gerety, Duerk, Schmidt, Kourakis NOES: Hainline, Crotser ABSENT: None VACANCY: Michael Multari, Secretary Planning Commission DATED: December 2, 1987 ril 1 10 To the City of Sar, uis Obispo: Members of the P;.. -iing Commission,. the Architectural Review commission, and the City Council. " We, as homeowners and /or occupants of houses in the Laguna Hills Estates neighborhood, strongly oppose the application of the Laguna Hills Estates devel- opers of the 786 Mirada Drive project (Planned Development Rezoning P.D. 1334 Tract 1544) for a 27 lot Planned Development requiring rezoning of 4.52 acres from R -1 to R -1 PD. Our fervent opposition to this project is based on many reasons, including the following: (1) It infringes on the. rights of property owners who purchased many homes from the Laguna Hills Estates Co. with the understanding that the neigborhood would remain R -1. None of us wants to live next to a congested housing development with many homes on lots 50 feet or less in width with reduced setbacks that change the character of the neighborhood. (2) It would create increased traffic that will endanger people, particularly our many children. This especially relates to the plan to send all traffic from Diablo Drive for twenty seven homes around a Mirada Drive /Cordova Drive loop that would meet the street traffic from Frambuesa Drive and Cordova Drive as well as Diablo Drive. Normal development of homes on R -1 lots similar in size to existing home lots would not result in such congestion and danger. (3) The proposed fences and walls for the development on Los Osos Valley Road and Mirada Drive /Cordova Drive would be hideously high (up to 9 feet high on an already high bank). It would be worse than the architecttirally objectionable stone fence the developers are now building on their lots across Diablo Drive and further desecrate the vital Los Osos Valley Road corridor. (4) The developers propose to build homes of approximately 2000 -2400 square feet (including garage area) on lots less in area than the required 6000 square feet minimum in order to maximize their profit. They are not now proposing homes on the nine best lots which will be larger and command higher prices. The overall project shows that monetary profit and not good neighborhood Policy is the dominant motivation of the developer, even though it adversely affects people to whom they have already sold R -1 homes. (5) The neighbors who look down on the development as proposed would see the back side of the houses, back yards, and back fences of Mirada Drive homes, hardly a desirable sight. Some neighborhood homes would have their views blocked unduly due to the "squeezed together arrangement" of 18 large homes on tiny lots. The City's mistake in approving their current planned development across Diablo Drive must not be compounded by adding another' miniature walled city to a nice neighborhood. The issue in this matter is whether the desires of the people who live in.'the neighborhood are going to be respected so that a lovely R -1 neighborhood is. maintained, or whether a developer who betrays client homeowners' interests for maximum profit will be allowed to control our environment. Please reject any Planned Development for this land and let it be developed only as other R -1 property in the Laguna Hills neighborhood. Many of us will be on hand to express our views orally at the appropriate public hearings. 2. 3. 4. 777 7 -r �7G S I✓0. Petition opposing project. reed. Nov. 2 76 signatures copies on file with / City Clerk and Planning'