HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/1988, 3 - TENTATIVE MAP RESUBDIVIDING FOUR NONCONFORMING LOTS OF RECORD AND CREATING FOUR NEW LOTS AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GRAND AVENUE AND MCCOLLUM STREET. MEETING ' AGENDA
'oihl�bHl�lllll� IlfVlull
city of San IDIS OBISPO DATE JUN e '89 IIS #
iul�IlBli�
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
BY: Michael Multari, Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Greg Smith
SUBJECT:
Tentative map resubdividing four nonconforming lots of record and
creating four new lots at the northwest corner of Grand Avenue
and McCollum Street.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the tentative map and subdivision exceptions subject to
the findings and conditions in the attached draft resolution.
BACKGROUND
Discussion
Minor subdivisions which do not involve exceptions to standards can
be approved by the Community Development Director, but city
Subdivision Regulations require council approval if exceptions to the
regulations are requested. This tentative map involves an exception
to the normal lot depth requirements, a request to allow three lots
which are 80 feet deep instead of the normal minimum of 90 feet.
On May 6, 1988, the Administrative Hearing Officer conducted a public
hearing on the tentative map, and recommended approval by the council
subject to conditions similar to those in the draft resolution.
Several neighbors testified in opposition and in support of the
subdivision at the hearing; letters from neighbors are attached.
Sianificant Impact
No significant fiscal or environmental impacts will occur. The
initial study of environmental impact is attached, and a negative
declaration has been approved by the Director.
Consequences of Not Taking the Recommended Action
It is unlikely that the property will be developed further until a
subdivision is approved, although Zoning and subdivision Regulations
would allow the old lots to be combined and developed with up to four
houses, subject to approval of an administrative use permit.
3�
�uh�i�►►�Illll���l��m►���� MY Of San Luis OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Data Summary
Address: 285 Grand Avenue
Subdivider: Henry Byzinski
Representative: Terry Orton, Westland Engineering
Zoning: R-1
General Plan: Low density residential
Environmental status: Negative declaration approved by Director
Action Deadline: July 6, 1988
Site Description
The site consists of four lots of record and abandoned right-of-way
adjacent to the Pacheco/Chris Jesperson school complex. The site
slopes up from the McCollum frontage; average slope is about 6%.
The site is developed with a wood frame house and detached garage,
both of which will be retained. Numerous mature trees are located on
the property and adjacent right-of-way, as shown on the tentative
map. Approximately ten of the trees would have to be removed for
street and sidewalk installation in accordance with normal city
standards.
Buildings and playground facilities associated with the Pacheco/Chris
Jesperson school complex are located to the north and west of the
site. Houses and undeveloped R-1 land predominate on other nearby
lots.
Proposed Subdivision
The subdivider proposes to divide the 28,000 square-foot site into
four lots. Three lots would be slightly larger than the minimum 6000
square-foot minimum lot size required by city regulations, with
frontage on McCollum Street. These lots will be only 80 feet deep
(less than the normal 90 foot minimum depth) , but would be much wider
than the 50-foot minimum width requirement.
The fourth lot, at the corner of Grand Avenue and McCollum Street,
would exceed all area, width, and depth requirements. This larger
lot is designed to allow the existing house on the property to be
retained. A new garage would have to be built on the corner lot, to
comply with parking requirements of the Zoning Regulations.
city of San tins OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 3
EVALUATION
Adopted Policies
The General Plan Land Use Element includes the following policy:
"The city should encourage residential development, promoting
efficient urban densities and diversity of design consistent with
prevailing or proposed neighborhood character, to enable adequate
choice of location, type, tenure, design and cost by families and
individuals working in or enrolled near San Luis Obispo. "
That element also designates the site for "low density residential"
uses, with a range of four to seven units per acre. A three- or
four-lot subdivision would be consistent with that range.
City Subdivision Regulations require new lots to meet minimum
standards noted above unless special findings are made, as listed in
the attached draft resolution for approval. These findings establish
a policy of allowing exceptions only when they are needed to- allow
reasonable use of the property, consistent with the General Plan and
the intent of the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations.
Consistency With Neighborhood Character
Much of the testimony at previous hearings on this subdivision
centered on this issue, with neighbors expressing concerns that
development of the lots would appear out of character with existing
houses nearby, and reduce property values. Some stated a preference
for a two- or three-lot subdivision as being more consistent with
existing neighborhood character.
Lot sizes in nearby blocks vary considerably. East of Grand Avenue,
typical lot widths are 50 to 60 feet; depths vary from 100 to 150
feet; most developed lots are about five to six thousand feet in
area. West of Grand Avenue, lot dimensions vary without regard to
steepness. Lot area is typically nine to ten thousand square feet,
and lot widths are 60 to 80 feet. The narrowest lots have frontages
on McCollum Street, in the same block as the proposed subdivision.
Thus, the proposed lots are wider and flatter than the lots across
McCollum and up the hill, although somewhat smaller in area. Due to
the topography of the site and the location of school buildings
adjacent to the rear lot lines, it would not be feasible to create
deeper lots, even if the rear lot line was adjusted. The lots are
regular in size and have adequate area for typical development in
conformance with setback and other zoning requirements.
It is difficult to predict what impact, if any, development of these
lots would have on neighborhood property values. The lots are not
directly adjacent to any existing house; they would have less of a
�-3
►I�11111�I1��°AMY Of San tins OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 4
view than many neighborhood lots; other houses in the neighborhood
are somewhat older, although most are well-maintained; the new houses
might be either smaller or larger than existing ones. New houses are
often larger and more costly than older ones in the same
neighborhood, in staff's experience, and are more likely to raise
than lower property values.
Tree Removals
The subdivider proposes to remove approximately nine of the trees in
the right-of-way, to install street paving and sidewalks. One tree,
a very large Black Acacia located near the center of McCollum Street
at the Grand Avenue intersection, would be preserved in a small
median island.
Preservation of this tree was also a controversial issue during
previous hearings. The tree is large and attractive, and it would be
feasible to construct travel lanes in each direction and drainage
improvements with minimal impact on the health of the tree. On the
other hand, the tree interferes somewhat with visibility at the
intersection; it might be struck by a motorist who had lost control
of his vehicle; its remaining life span is likely to be 10 to 30
years under the best of conditions; the median planter would result
in loss of several curbside parking spaces; and its top must be
pruned regularly due to overhead utility wires.
The Hearing Officer recommended removal of the tree due to concerns
about traffic safety and its relatively short remaining life span.
Further analysis of sight distances by Public Works staff (after the
administrative hearing) has resulted in their conclusion that sight
distances will be adequate if the tree is preserved. (Pruning of
shrubbery on Lot 4 will be needed, however. )
The draft resolution for approval incorporates conditions which would
allow for preservation of the Acacia tree and most of the Avocado
trees located in the right-of-way at the frontage of Lots 2 and 3 .
The latter will require bringing the curb and perhaps a low retaining
wall around the trees and restricting on-street parking on that side
of the street. Preservation of the various trees would likely result
in the loss of six to eight curbside parking spaces.
Ambient noise levels.
Refer to attached initial study for a detailed description of noise
levels affecting the site. All of proposed Parcel 4 and part of
Parcel 3 would be subject to traffic noise which exceeds the level
normally acceptable for outdoor uses associated with residences,
according to standards in the city's General Plan Noise Element. The
Hearing Officer determined that mitigation measures (an eight-foot
noise wall between the existing house and the north property line,
and extending along the property line an additional 30 to 50 feet)
would not be warranted, since the noise exposure to residents is not
significantly changed by the subdivision. dOW
���H�i�i�►�IIIIIIII{19�UIU city of San LUIS o8Ispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 5
Parking requirement. Parcel 4
Zoning Regulations require two parking spaces, one of which must be
covered, for the house which is to remain on Parcel 4. The
subdivider proposes construction of a two-car garage as shown on the
tentative map, which would require a street yard setback exception.
If the exception request is not approved, it would be possible to
meet the parking requirement by construction of a garage behind the
house, with a driveway along the west property line. Conditions of
approval recommended by the Hearing Officer require the second
option.
Grand. Avenue Access
Conditions of approval recommended by the Hearing Officer include a
requirement that access to Grand Avenue from Lot 4 be prohibited, due
to traffic hazards. Refer to the initial study for additional
discussion.
Fire flow requirements
Parcel 1 will be farther from a fire hydrant than called for by city
standards. Provision of a residential fire sprinkler system for any
house on that lot will provide an acceptable alternative, meeting
code requirements for this project. This solution would not upgrade
fire safety for the rest of the neighborhood, which is below city
standards.
OTHER DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS
Significant comments from other departments are discussed in the
sections above, and reflected in the conditions of approval.
PREVIOUS REVIEW
Previous testimony at subdivision hearings as indicated in attached
minutes.
ALTERNATIVES
The council may approve, deny, or continue the tentative map
request. Special findings are required by subdivision regulations
for approval or denial, and the council must take final action by
July 6, 1988, unless. the subdivider agrees to a continuance.
3 •�
����m►bu��iIIII�IIPj►���III city of San Luis osIspo
Nii% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 6
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolution approving the tentative map for
MS88-21, subject to findings, exceptions and conditions recommended
by the Hearing Officer, and including an added condition regarding
preservation of mature trees in the McCollum Street right-of-way.
Attachments
Vicinity Map
Tentative Map
Draft Resolutions: Approval, Denial
Subdivider's Statement
Minutes - Administrative Hearing
Letters from neighbors
gts4:ms88-21
3��
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE MAP FOR MINOR
SUBDIVISION NO. 88-21 LOCATED AT 285 GRAND AVENUE
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 Minor Subdivision No. 88-21, and the Community
Development Director's recommendations, staff recommendations and
reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements are
consistent with the general plan.
2 . The site is physically suited for the proposed type and density
of development which is permitted by the R-1 zone.
3 . The design of the subdivision. and proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage, cause serious
health problems, or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
4. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not
conflict with public easements for access through or use of
property within the proposed subdivision.
5. The Community Development Director has determined that the
proposed subdivision will not have a significant effect on the
environment and has granted a negative declaration.
SECTION 2. Exceptions. Approval of reduction of lot depth
required from 90-feet to 80-feet on Parcels 1, 2, and 3, based on the
following findings:
1. Due to the shallow configuration of the property to be divided,
and the existence of an embankment at the rear of the property,
it is impractical and undesirable to conform to the strict
application of these regulations.
2. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with
the regulations is not the sole reason for granting the
modification.
3. The modification will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the
.vicinity. ��
Resolution No...
Page 2
4. Granting ent and
purpose of t}e S gis o =Regula aas;�`ana. ij7-joonsistent with
the General aIId- _ 7 a aTe speed plans or other
plans of the 'cfX:r,
SECTION 3. Conn i :=aha i file-•app s =of-t e tentative map
for Minor Subdivfs#p`x 2�. 8S_-2 Se¢ :to tY ` fallowing
conditions:
1. A final map shalr_be submitted to .the city for review, approval
and recordation.
2 . Subdivider shall dedicate sufficient right-of-way to allow for a
30-foot radius curb return at the corner of Grand Avenue and
McCollum Street, tosthe satisfaction of the City Engineer.
3 . Subdivider shall inst'all. frontage "improvements consisting of
curb, gutter, sidewalk. and paving-- for a half-street within
McCollum Street right-oi-way. Improvements shall be constructed
in accordance with_cit� standards,.- and to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
4. Frontage improvements to be installed by the subdivider shall
include a median planter around the. mature Acacia tree and a
modified curb alignment- along the McCollum Street frontage of
Parcels 2 and 3f, :ta-allow=for•-preservation of existing mature
trees located withirr`'the r�-gfitt —way-in front of those two lots,
to the approval- l-6f-the .Con=xnity Development Director and City
Engineer. The dtiveway 1-ocation' for parcel 3 shall be modified
to preserve these trees. Trees in front of parcel 4, except the
acacia noted abovi-, .*ay be removed. -
, _ � � Y -•
5. Subdivider sha_il. pwide twa-parking spaces as required by the
Zoning Regulations cin the:=westerly side of the house on Lot 4, to
the approval of. the ,Community Development Director.
6. Final map shalt vote that deveTciPment- of Lot 1 shall require
installation of-.a fir _spririkre=�ystex,. .to--_the satisfaction of
the city Fire MarshaL.x _ -
7. Final map shat-I show deat-cition_ td the-city of access rights
along the Grand_ Avenue froritaqe- cn_;Parcel 4.
SECTION 4. 6adrirembxrts can- fng. ,represent standard
- -
requirements requiiTrby variou*---codes-,-. ard$nances, and policies of
the City of San Luiji,�;obispapbut:are- nat limited to the following:
1. Subdivider shall-'install street trees in accordance with city
standards, at the time=cf, fubbme.development of each parcel.. d
r � t
? 'tom:.. -..•a--- �:.�, .� r' :T � -
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 3
2 . Subdivider shall provide individual sewer, water, and utility
services from all parcels. , New utilities shall be underground.
3. Subdivider shall pay water acreage and frontage fees as
determined by the City Engineer prior to final map approval.
4 . Subdivider shall pay park in-lieu fees for two parcels, prior to
final map approval.
5. Subdivider shall install street lights in accordance with city
standards.
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 Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk Pam Voges
3-�
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO DENYING THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR MINOR
SUBDIVISION NO. 88-21- LOCATED AT 285 GRAND AVENUE
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 Minor Subdivision No. 88-21, and the Community
Development Director's recommendations, staff recommendations and
reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The design' of the subdivision and proposed improvements are not
consistent with the general plan.
2. The site is not physically suited for the proposed type and
density of development which is permitted by the R-1 zone.
SECTION 2 . Action. The tentative parcel map for Minor
Subdivision No. 88-21 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.
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk Pam Voges n I 10
3N p 7Lr 2' 0 O O 0 ycn
o . 0
_ O v
0 -- -- -------
- - -- --- -
_ O a
o ro 0 .
0 4ti M O , o 0 0 0 0 0 snob' 0 �
aes an ��A a.9
O p p I p C�
p
O4
- n
r0
c
p
Ci'
p
O
m �
VJ� T T1J�_r
j1 -
C-
1 � �
S
i K Rm CFrZ ■
N ^ f
0 A UO '17
GRAND AVENUE
ztz us 25. . r ..�r :m i.e —
O O O O 0 , 0 ' O O r O 00 O'O
p
i O E
o ► : 0 O 0 yY°O _O G
it �<
TT o a
0 I O O O ■� 3'�I
_ o
� O ; 0 0 , 10 . 0 . 0 O740 �N
a i ■
iz
1 i II
qm apialp t
:
1.5
Tr
G :"I
u d ' J ' lit' � •^`. `•�
T i
V [
_ yrs :� / 22-. .
e m 5 ROH !
a� +a: oi Wr�j��r+ •' '! J=.3:_.. ...:7• ..
Mf w r
"- (� 3 � -��.. „• WORT, 7.
J!C: � -.
i $ R
I ,
3- �
•, S ' .�$ tl• M�¢ n ' 1 �',w�s''N'fy : .�.,.J:.. ::� "&:• . ,'^;,ye.��ia•,y�.(54 •1: 't.r.:L:
--AC4 'f'+S';/'ft'.. .1••L•-'1jR-r+1. 1'.F' !.,.,��..�+,yryl'�ii��j'.^'1'�y:' « ',* _ J.+ 2,1 ,. t i;y�G`_d�r;%•�.�' '
.:C 3'r'tf �ti �. �:�' i � 1 . Y x'4 'ia'^ 4y CGS � �." fi'�]f`�' ` 't �, � 4 ::.,r�J 9`7w`-Y sl,i• .c.::c'
..}•T �YMIr' ...P i�':.Y Y.Y,`:!6: -.>;i t`�. YNy�"` y ti. 1.�- '`.,.:_;
: �F Y,:rM�!*}`+ r� 'p•.f,.,���t/••�,�:-+ .&. �1. Y Y h � .'j�� pt�?�i 't"''.�.1` �r l':1
� `• ]��yv i .q`'4t � / O •i•'.. ids>.7�.>��.' "W r`�:�].v{�1,' Lh ,y't7,
}� „�� * :}: ?F:'.'riC,� +$JLKi ��/•, O ww a �� � w?p: E ;i'6 ;,"•!.,�''(�+�T.''".x;
dY•- 'i�%R�!�i ;:�'�, _ '.. .,� ,> ;1,>.::J�i'%rc r�T'Fl:"' +. � r . �?: f�ii�:h'Cd05C:' �.-
~'i S y f,YC..`k"�6 '�'''�Nl�t'':.7"'. ,•t. :I.t"
IT ulR.
nv
..
,;,.n!•; f 'YU: }a.^•_. ., -0Ci. ti• 7••1.'y.a.' i ' b\`;.'
r �
,L. 'w'>r�;!+l r'.'lSGri�..�.,7�:i0✓ :,�'>Y'"Rc.+;l:,r -rte >• �t.-4•% "`iC� ..
PROJECT
',�:• >.r.
APPLICANT KT A
STAFF RECOMMENDAnON:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY DA
ITV DEV O
DATE
ACTION: CGQ-��..,,^t
v y[G I4•cnTI0✓
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY. FINDINGS .
L DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
IL POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. CQMMUNITY PLANS ANa-GOALS............................... :................. •®
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH......................................... �nrp
C. LAND USE'... .... ......•�. '.ioii.i-�'i....:....�!f�si.Mme• h• ��i.f l.....• ..
(
A' RD1IM AND dRpJL
' r 1�S.V y f�•.�5�,`:•^::;h'fLlti'1:+ !!s'4r�1�.•�, '.]'�.' ,-'.,`•�. L` '.. �'�y,�Y s 'n.. . : M` f:ls . � •
1 _£ PUBLIC SERVICES
' :•i: ��.%y1�P�wSw�rlr_. •.2':'1 • .. G t i.�'�.rr�:i•
IL
F. LIiILJT1E3........
• G. NOISE LFbELS ............. i.......u...:
N.'G60LAGIC&SEISMICNAZARDS&TOPOGRIIPNICMDDIFTCIGTONB�
+tAIRQUATITYAND%MNDCONOITIONS' ' a ,
NIIQERFLOIMtAND
{` q '~ '`��iy�1.{�=y.R:j,.�ry., .�j � "t,•.r.9,� � t•� J'1•,4
1
i
ER6-88
Page 2
IL POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW
D. Transportation and Circulation
Proposed lot 4 would have frontage on Grand Avenue, which is an arterial street with a
high volume of traffic traveling at approximately 40 mph. If a driveway were constructed
in such a way that cars backed out to Grand Avenue from lot 4, a traffic hazard would be
created.
It may be appropriate to restrict access rights as a condition of approval of the
tentative map. The City Engineer has the authority to require a driveway design which
would result in forward exiting onto Grand Avenue, regardless of subdivision activity.
Recommendation: It is not clear that the hazard would be severe enough to constitute a
significant impact, and it is unlikely that the situation will occur. No further
mitigation is necessary.
G. Noise Levels
Staff estimates traffic noise at the Grand Avenue centerline to be approximately 73
dBA(Ldn). The noise level at the Lot 4 backyard is approximately 67 to 71 dB, depending
on distance from the street, without any noise barrier. This noise level is
significantly higher than the 55-60dB noise level judged to be normally acceptable for an
outdoor residential environment.
A six-foot high masonry wall at the building setback line would provide a noise level of
62 to 65 dB, an eight-foot wall would provide 60 to 62 dB.
The noise level at part of the Lot 3 backyard may also be slightly higher than the the 60
dB standard, but the existing and future structures on Lots 3 and 4 should provide
adequate noise barriers to ensure substantial consistency prior to occupancy of a
residence on Lot 3.
Recommendation: It is not clear that the level of noise exposure constitutes a
significant effect, since the only structure affected is the existing one on Lot 4.
While processing of the subdivision provides the opportunity for the city to require
mitigation of an existing situation, the project itself does not involve any physical
change which increases exposure to excessive noise levels. No significant impact will
occur.
K. Plant Life
The project involves removal of ten mature trees, as shown on the tentative map, in order
to construct street improvements which would serve this subdivision and other existing
property. The improvements would complete the only remaining undeveloped portion of
McCollum Street, a local street serving several blocks of low-density residential . _ .
development. Existing improvements in this segment consist of approximately 16400t
width paving, without curb, gutter, or sidewalk.
Of the ten trees to be removed, only one Acacia is judged to be a significant specimen.
The others are Avocado trees of moderate size, similar to a number on the site,which will
be preserved, and an unidentified fruit tree which is nearly dead.
The Acacia tree is four feet in diameter, and approximately 40 feet in height. This tree
has existed in the right-of-way for 40 to 60 years, and may have a remaining life span of
10 to 30 years. The tree obstructs traffic and visibility, and must be pruned annually
because of power lines. It might be feasible to preserve the tree in a median planter
area with asphalt curbing, if the traffic hazards were judged to be acceptable.
Recommendation: Removal of the trees does not constitute a significant impact.
't
f
V esdand Engineering Comp my
Consulting Civil Engineering 8 Surveying
1037 Mill Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 541-2394
February 26, 1988
Mr. Ren Bruce
City of San Luis Obispo
Planning Department
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: SL-88-021 (Byzinski)
Dear Mr. Bruce:
The site is in a predominantly residential area with a school
directly to the north. We are proposing minimal improvements on
McCollum Street in order to try to minimize the removal of trees
in the front area. We are proposing these new lot lines since
the existing configuration does not lend itself to the present
land uses within the area. The existing structure is intended to
be left on Parcel 4. The additional three lots are intended to
be created for resale.
If you have any questions regarding this application, please
contact our office.
Sincerely,
WESTLAND ENGINEERING COMPANY
fence IV. Orton
TRO:nc
Enclosures
3-I�o
DIRECTOR'S SUBDIVISION HEARING
FRIDAY MAY 6, 1988
Minor Subdivision No. 88-21. Consideration of a tentative parcel
map creating four lots from one lot;
285 Grand Avenue; R-1 zone; Henry
Byzinski, subdivider. (Continued
from April 15, 1988)
Ken Bruce opened the public hearing, explaining that the map would
also have to be approved by the City Council. It must also be heard
by the City Council because an exception to the Subdivision
Regulations is being requested. The tentative hearing date before
the City Council would be Monday, June 6th.
Mr. Bruce noted for the record that several people spoke at the
public hearing on April 15th, namely Rick Doran, Doris Wiley and
Helen McMannus. Their comments are a part of this hearing also.
Terry Orton, subdivider's representative, also spoke.
Jeff Hook presented the staff report, recommending approval of the
tentative map and subdivision exceptions being requested subject to
findings and conditions which he outlined.
Findings
1. 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 the R-1 zone.
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 Community Development Director has determined that the
proposed subdivision will not have a significant effect on the
environment and has granted a negative declaration.
Mr. Hook further stated that staff is recommending that an exception
be granted to allow Lots 1, 2 and 3 to have a depth of 80 feet where
a minimum of 90 feet is normally required in this zone. He outlined
conditions of approval, as follows:
3,017
Page 2
Conditions
1. Subdivider shall provide two parking spaces as required by the
Zoning Regulations for the house on Lot 4, to the approval of the
Community Development Director.
2. Subdivider shall provide a noise attenuation wall eight feet in
height to reduce noise levels at Lot 4, consistent with the
General Plan Noise Element and to the approval of the Community
Development Director.
3 . Final map shall note that installation of a fire hydrant to city
standards, or alternate fire suppression measures, must be
installed at the time of development of Lot 1.
4. Final map shall show dedication of a one-foot no-access strip
along the Grand Avenue frontage to the city.
The public hearing was opened.
Terry Orton, Westland Engineering, subdivider's representative, spoke
in support of the request. He said there were two alternatives in
order to build structures on the lot: 1) To get permits to move the
structure on to one of the existing lots or demolish it, then develop
the four lots with some type of common driveway agreement; or 2)
resubdivide to be more consistent with the neighborhood. The second
approach would seem more logical, so that is what they are proposing.
Mr. Orton discussed the location of a proposed garage adjacent to an
existing structure. There was some question as to whether or not
that would be the best location for the new garage since is does
encroach into the street yard setback about five feet. He pointed
out that there are a number of alternatives avaliable. The garage
could be moved back meeting all setback requirements, at this
location to help attenuate the noise since the garage will be over S
feet in height. He felt noise attenuation was a concern. The garage
could be located on the other side, but proposed property lines would
be adjusted slightly. He felt the proposed design is more
appropriate since one would anticipate the family use area to be away
from the street.
Mr. Orton said that at the last meeting it was pointed out that these
lots would be too small and not be in character with the
neighborhood. He pointed out that the lots are legal building sites
and are in keeping with the neighborhood. In essence, they are
taking four substandard lots and making four lots with different
configurations. Mr. Orton said that the lots directly across the
street are even smaller. Each lot is over 6,000 square feet in size,
and each lot is almost entirely flat and buildable.
3�1 v
Page 3
Ken Bruce noted that after the last hearing he made a comment that
his preference was for three lots rather than four lots. He asked if
there was any further study done on consideration of three lots?
Terry Orton replied that they had looked at the possibility
extensively. He felt that there would be no advantage to three lots.
Ken Bruce said his preference was to see the garage location on Lot 4
to be in the rear rather than in the front. He felt the issue had
been addressed by Mr. Orton.
Ken Bruce asked if further study had been made regarding the large
Black Acacia tree. Mr. Orton responded that they've shown where the
tree exists and where the crosswalk would exist. The actual
eye-sight of the driver will be at the tree, which is not a good
situation. He pointed out that they will probably have to trim down
the hedge in front of the existing structure because it also
obstructs sight vision on Grand Avenue.
Ken Bruce asked if the revised map shows a flatter radius at the
corner. Mr. Orton said yes, they are offering more for dedication to
allow more distance between the curb and tree. He said they have not
determined whether or not the tree could be saved, but have shown a
section on the revised map.
Mr. Bruce noted that the revised map shows an 8-foot diameter planter
around the tree and 20 feet clear from curb-to-curb on both sides.
Barbara Lynch, City Traffic Engineer, stated that the Engineering
Division feels that the tree obscures visibility to. the point where
it may present a hazard to drivers. The tree should be removed for
safety reasons.
Wes Connor, 316 Albert Drive, felt the neighborhood has lived with
that tree in the middle of the road, so to speak, for many many years
and he is unaware of any accidents that have occurred there because
of it. He said he would like to hear a recommendation from the Tree
Committee on all the trees on that street, not just that one tree.
He felt all the trees should be saved. He said he was concerned
about grading near the back property line near the school property
which abuts two sites. He felt that with every major storm that
occurs, a tremendous amount of water that comes down; so much in fact
that sand bags are used to deter water from that intersection. He
felt that someone should investigate that situation. He said he was
concerned about the configuration of the lots.
He was also concerned with potential traffic hazards with the
driveway for the proposed new garage being adjacent to the corner.
He noted that many handicapped and grammar school children use Grand
Avenue right there, and was concerned for their safety.
3- �4
Page 4
Ken Bruce explained that the subdivider is proposing access onto
McCollum Street for all four parcels.
Mr. Connor said the character of this neighborhood is R-1 and he is
fearful that student housing may be put in here. Mr. Connor asked
for a clarification of the one-foot no access strip proposed.
Jeff Hook explained that it is to prevent driveways from existing
onto Grand Avenue.
Ken Bruce explained that the issue at this hearing is the subdividing
of the land, not the use of the land after the subdivision.
John McMannus, neighbor across the street from the proposed
subdivision on Grand Avenue, said he felt the Acacia tree was a
problem because current neighbors have to clean up the debris. He
said he would rather see that owners of the new lots be required to
plant new, low-maintenance trees. He also said that this property
abuts the school, and he felt the subdivision should be denied and
the zoning be changed to multiple-dwelling.
Elaine Simmer, 1677 McCollum Street, felt the proposal is not in
keeping with the present houses on McCollum Street. She said the
average lot on McCollum Street are 60 x 150 feet, all with large
houses. She felt that if the large piece of property is broken up
into four smaller pieces, they will be fairly inexpensive properties
which are bound to be student rentals. She said she would rather see
larger houses built that would be better suited to single families.
She felt smaller houses and smaller lots will detract from the
integrity of the neighborhood and decrease property values. She
would prefer to see only two houses built there, but three maximum.
Helen McMannus, 311 Grand Avenue, felt that if three lots were
created with larger homes, no one would live there because the
neighborhood is surrounded now with Cal Poly students. She felt
there is no way a larger home could be sold to a family. She felt
four lots would mean Cal Poly housing, and supported the request.
Frances Allard, 1647 McCollum, said she supported creation of only
three lots, to allow for more parking on the lots.
In response to a question, Ken Bruce replied that the size of the
lots are slightly over 6100 square feet in area and 40% of that is
buildable which would accommodate a large house. He also explained
setback requirements.
Mr. Allard said he felt the Acacia tree is a hazard and should be
removed.
Mr. Crane, 281 Albert Drive, said he felt McCollum Street needs to be
fully improved on both sides, and curb parking needs to be provided
for. Mr. Bruce explained that only the northerly half of the street
would be improved as part of this subdivision. If McMannus'
subdivided their property on the other side of the street, 3 ;W
improvements would be required at that time.
Page 5
Virginia Crane, 281 Albert Drive, asked about parking and people
using the recreation area at the school. She asked if that would be
taken into consideration. She didn't think it was fair to have a
recreation area with no parking.
Mr. Bruce explained that this really isn't the issue for the hearing
today.
Henry Byzinski, 228 Albert Drive, subdivider, introduced himself. He
explained that he too is a neighbor. He said he lived on Albert
Drive prior to his acquisition of this property. He said he has
never had any problems with his neighbors. He too has small children
living in his home.
Mr. Bruce asked if the subdivision is approved, would Mr. Byzinski be
building on these lots, or if he would be selling the lots and the
new owners would build on the lots. Mr. Byzinski said he was unsure
what he will do at this point. He said it is a major decision
whether it becomes three or four lots.
Terry Orton explained that the proposed project consists of curb,
gutter and sidewalk fronting the project, and tree removal in order
to widen the road. He said the main thing to keep in mind is that
unless something drastic changes, the road will not be improved until
something is built on the property. This particular proposal must
make sense financially (improvements, paving, tree removal, etc. ) for
it to go forward.
The public hearing was closed.
Ken Bruce took this item under submission. He explained that a
decision would be made within 10 calendar days. He said his action
will be a recommendation to the City Council since they will be
making the final action. He said his intention is to recommend
approval for four lots although his personal preferance is three
lots. He said he will recommend that the acacia tree be removed
since he is convinced there is a sight distance problem. He is also
recommending conditions recommended by staff, except deletion of the
condition dealing with noise mitigation, and will recommend that the
new garage be placed to the rear of the present house.
3-21
299 Albert Drive
San Iuis Obispo, CA 93401 RECErvED
May 19, 1988 MAY 2.5
�.C'I.^.:'...x:11•.y.: :/L•S✓C
Mr. Mike Multarl
cou=nity Development
San Ul = -.,--spot 93401 RE. file no. r•i 88-021
Dear Mr. Multari:
We are writing to voice our opposition to the proposed exceptions in lot
depth that will eventually lead to the subdivision of property at the
corner of Grand Avenue and McCullcan in San Luis Obispo. our neighborhood
is one of the few areas near cal Poly that has retained an
caner-occupied, low density character.
We feel that any increase in the density of housing beyond that allowed
by the current zoning laws in our neighborhood will have an adverse
-effect on property values and on the family-oriented nature of residences
an surrounding streets. This would not only impact many property owners
who live nearby, but it world be a detriment to the character of the city
in this area.
Higher density housing should be built in San Iuis Obispo, but only as a
result of planning and foresight, rather than by granting exceptions to
existing
I hope our viewpoint will be helpful to you and the city cm=il in making this
decision.
Sincerely,
David Lord Suzanne Lord
3-z�-
RECEIVED
APR 151988
city of sen Lws OG,po
Comm mey pe,�oPment
April 12, 1988
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: MS 88-21 285 Grand, San Luis Obispo
Dear
I am opposed to the creating of four lots from one lot at 285 Grand.
The lot is not large enough to build four homes of the size of homes
in the surrounding neighborhood.
I am unable to attend the public hearing since I work fulltime. If
this lot is divided, the existing lots would only be large enough to
build small substandard housing for
rental purposes.
I feel that San Luis Obispo should be trying to attract owner occupied
homes instead of catering to the rental industry. This lot could be
divided into two lots and build homes of similar size and quality of
the surrounding neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Mary Doran (home owner)
325 Albert
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3-23
RECEIVED MEETING AGENDA
J U PJ 0 6198jQA1' • DATE ITEM #
Miki Gillman
aTY CLERK 1874 McCollum
SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA San .Luis Obispo , CA
June 6, 1988
San Luis Obispo City Council cclm
�o� •�
Palm at Osas Streets �"'-I
San Luis Obispo , CA 93401
Dear City Council Members:
As a resident of the neighborhood including MS 88-215 I
am concerned about the proposed subdivision of this land into
4 lots. My concerns include: 1.) increasing population density;
2) destruction of the cluster of beautiful trees now on the land;
3) maintaining lot sizes at the larger size - predominating in
the area .
Because of these concerns , I believe subdividing this prop-
erty into as many as 4 lots is too much. Subdividing it into 2
lots would enable the trees to remain, lot sizes to be large ,
and it would ensure population density would be no greater than in
the rest of the neighborhood. . Even a subdivision of the property
into 3 lots would be better than into the 4 lots proposed.
Sincerely,
i
�m a4A,