Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/01/1988, 3 - APPEAL OF USE PERMIT APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER, (AND APPROVED ON APPEAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION) ALLOWING REDUCTION OF SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM TEN FEET TO FIVE FEET ALONG WEST PROPERTY LINE FOR A HOUSE TO BE BUILT ON CER (II p E8 � 1► IIIII�I�III�IIIIIII�� IIUIII r MEET lATgj C� O San LUSS OBISpO ITEM NUMBER: Inlownew COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT FROM Michael Multari, Community Development Director Prepared By: Greg Smith/ SUBJECT:Appeal of use permit approved by Administrative Hearing Officer, (and approved on appeal by the Planning Commission) allowing reduction of side yard setback from ten feet to five feet along west property line for a house to be built on Cerro Romauldo east of Los Cerros Drive. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution to Deny the appeal, and approve the use permit'subject to the findings and conditions adopted by the Hearing Officer and Planning Commission. DISCUSSION Sideyard setbacks in the R-1 zone are based on the height of the building above natural grade at the property line, and vary from a minimum setback of five feet to as much as 15 feet (Zoning Regulations 17.16.020, Table 3). Exceptions to the setback requirements are allowed subject to approval of an administrative use permit, if findings can be made. The applicant proposes a T-shaped building, with the longest wall running along the east property line and a short wall (17 feet long, two-story height) along the west property line, as shown on the site plan. On August 19, 1988, the Administrative Hearing Officer considered a request for reduction ' of both sideyard setbacks. He approved the reduction on the west side of the lot, but denied any reduction on the east side. Various neighbors appealed the approval of the west side reduction to the Planning Commission. The commission denied the appeal, on September 14, and the neighbors have now appealed to the council. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS A negative declaration has been approved for the project. No significant fiscal or other impacts are expected. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION If the council upholds the appeal, construction of a house on this lot will be delayed. Revised plans might not be subject to use permit approval, and might have more or less impact on neighbors' views, etc. I���►�►�►i��►Illlll�pn �l�lll city of San LUIS OBispo ni& COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 2 BACKGROUND Data Summary Address: 109 Cerro Romauldo Applicant: Gaines/Hill Development Representative: Merrill Gaines, Patrick Hill Zoning: R-1-PD General Plan: Low density residential Environmental Status: Categorically exempt Action Deadline: February 17, 1988 Site Description 50'x135' lot (6753 sq. ft.), sloping approximately 4% to storm drain at rear. No significant vegetation is present on the lot, which is undeveloped. The site is surrounded by houses built on lots which are generally 6000 sq. ft. to 7200 sq. ft., although some lots are larger. EVALUATION The appellants feel that the exception request should be denied, based on concerns with privacy, views, and open space, and feel that the project should be referred to the ARC. Staff suggests that the council focus on the issues raised by the appellants in their letter of appeal, and the issues noted in the Planning Commission's and the hearing officer's findings. Both are attached for reference, and the various issues are discussed below. Minutes from the August 19 administrative and September 19 commission hearings are also attached. The east setback reduction (which was denied) is not a subject of the appeal, and is not addressed in this report. Note that the plans submitted for council review are the same as those originally submitted for the administrative hearing, and do not show changes which will be required on the east side. 1. Intrusion on Privacy Windows on the west property line are much smaller than those typically used in side walls of houses. The second floor windows are two feet square, and observers looking out would be ten feet away from the windows because of the interior balcony which opens to the first floor below. Refer to the second floor plan. The balcony and windows on the south property line are set back fifteen feet, more than required by Zoning Regulations. The windows do not overlook areas on adjoining lots which are not equally visible from other adjoining two-story residences. 2. View Blockaec I The appellants state that the reduction will block views of all surrounding properties. Staff and the Planning Commission believe that the impact of the approved exception will be negligible. The exception affects only a small segment of the roof, which is more than twenty feet from the nearest window. J-d:L ''�n�� ►�hIIIQQ i►���N city of San WI S OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 3 The rear setback of the house will have more impact on views than the side setbacks. Although the house is longer than average, the 17' rear setback is 5 feet greater than the minimum required. In the R-1 zone, rear setbacks of 15' to 20' are not uncommon. Two of the lots adjoining the proposed house have setbacks in that range (Lot 36 and 37 as indicated on site plan). Increasing the rear setback would improve second-floor views to the east from Lot 37, and to the south from Lot 34. The effect on first-floor views - which are already affected by other nearby houses - and on lots which do not adjoin the project site - is not clear. It seems unlikely that a conforming building would significantly enhance views from nearby houses. 3. Open Space As noted in the Zoning Regulations, one of the functions of the setback requirements is to maintain appropriate patterns of building masses and open areas. Sideyard setback standards help to keep buildings from appearing crowded together. Staff would note that the appearance of crowding is reduced in this proposal by the fact that the portion of the building which encroaches in the side setback would be set back more than sixty feet from the street frontage, and by the location of buildings on adjoining lots. 4. Solar Shading Preservation of solar access is another function of setback requirements. In the judgement of the Hearing Officer and Planning Commission, the impact of the setback reduction on solar access of adjoining properties will be negligible. The orientation of the surrounding houses and lots is such that the shadow cast by the proposed house would affect neighboring property only during the early morning and late afternoon. In fact, shading of neighbors' property would be much less than is typical in R-1 subdivisions, and would fully comply with the applicable policy in the General Plan Energy Element: "Most south walls and all roof areas should be unshaded during midday on the winter solstice." Note that houses have been built on the adjoining lots using setbacks which are larger than the minimum required by Zoning Regulations. Energy Element standards would still be met even if large additions to the existing houses on those lots were built. 5. Size of House The floor area of the house will be slightly more than 2400 square feet, excluding decks and the two-car garage. The house and garage cover about 29% of the lot; coverage including the arbor and pavilion is about 33%. Zoning Regulations allow a maximum of 50% coverage in the R-1 zone. In staff's experience, neither the lot coverage nor the floor area of the house is exceptionally high. city of san Luis oBispo Niis COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 4 6. ARC Referral The appellant suggests referring the house design to the Architectural Review Commission. The city's ARC regulations and guidelines provide for review of single houses when they "could change the neighborhood for the worse" or when "the project's scale or character contrasts significantly with adjacent or neighboring buildings". In staff's judgement, referral to the ARC is not warranted; characteristics of the site and proposed design are not sufficiently different from typical development in the neighborhood. PREVIOUS REVIEW As noted above, the setback reduction request has been previously considered at administrative and Planning Commission hearings (August 14 and September 19, 1988, respectively; minutes attached). At those hearings, several neighbors testified in opposition to the project. ALTERNATIVES The council may approve or deny the appeal; in doing so, the council may approve or deny the setback reduction, and may adopt modified conditions of approval. The council may refer the project to the ARC either before or after acting on the appeal. i RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal, and upholding the action of the Hearing Officer approving the setback reduction on the west side and denying the reduction requested on the east side, as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff. Attachments: Vicinity Map Site Plan Hearing Officer's Action Letter of Appeal Administrative Hearing Minutes Applicant's Letter Draft Resolutions Denying Appeal Upholding Appeal gts2:a 10388cc RESOLUTION NO. (1988 SERIES) RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO APPROVE A SIDEYARD REDUCTION AT 109 CERRO ROMAULDO (A 103-88) WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer approved Use Permit Application A 103-88 at a public hearing conducted on August 14, 1988; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered an appeal of the Hearing Officer's action at a public hearing conducted September 19, 1988, and determined to uphold the action of the Hearing Officer; and WHEREAS, on September 23, 1988, appellant filed an appeal requesting that the council deny the use permit; and WHEREAS, on November 1, 1988, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the testimony of the appellant and other interested parties. NOW, THEREFORE, the council of the City of San Luis Obispo denies the appeal and takes an action to approve Use Permit A 103-88, thereby allowing a reduction of the required sideyard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet along the west property line for a house to be built at 109 Cerro Romauldo as approved by the Hearing Officer and Planning Commission, based on the following findings: SECTION 1. Findings: 1. The proposed exception will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity. 2. The proposed exception is of a minor nature involving an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure. 3. The proposed exception would not significantly increase shading of the property or adjoining properties and will be consistent with appropriate pattern of setbacks, open areas, and building masses in the neighborhood. � -S Resolution No. (1988 Series) Use Permit A103-88 Page 2 On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing document was passed and adopted this _ day of 1988. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: ity A ministrative Officer �{ ity Attor y Community Development Director RESOLUTION NO. (1988 SERIES) RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO APPROVE A SIDEYARD REDUCTION AT 109 CERRO ROMAULDO (A 103-88) WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer approved Use Permit Application A 103-88 at a public hearing conducted on August 14, 1988; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered an appeal of the Hearing Officer's action at a public hearing conducted September 19, 1988, and determined to uphold the action of the Hearing Officer; and WHEREAS, on September 23, 1988, appellant filed an appeal requesting that the council deny the use permit; and WHEREAS, on November 1, 1988, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the testimony of the appellant and other interested parties. NOW, THEREFORE, the council of the City of San Luis Obispo upholds the appeal and takes an action to deny Use Permit A 103-88, thereby denying a reduction of the required sideyard.setback from 10 feet to 5 feet along the west property line for a house to be built at 109 Cerro Romauldo as approved by the Hearing Officer and Planning Commission, subject to the following findings: SECTION 1. Findinas. 1. The proposed exception will adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity. 2. The proposed exception is not of a minor nature involving an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure. 3. The proposed exception would significantly increase shading of the property or adjoining properties and will not be consistent with an appropriate pattern of setbacks, open areas, and building masses in the neighborhood. On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: Resolution No. (1988 Series) Use Permit A103-88 Page 2 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing document was passed and adopted this _ day of 1988. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: City A ministrative Officer Attor66Y. Community Development Director O PF �Z 010 r I TR 1313 Z]0 AWffA \\ I 1l7 FOSITA I 7-7-RR �_ d ; Q o ti�° ` � A 74-gs O l N O Ilb 20 O l�M•M1( .. 1] VLO ,s O 2 j 3A \Oa1 A42-B � -Y••V M 76 Y^C ::: . . .47 O N � 0O t^ : R -1- PDV p . Q 90 N i � `.-' 7R 1113 M5224• O 4 AMC e1-D2 _- pJD-7'+ I AKC 87-29hI II i O \ O O O I O O 1 =100' - Po��J4.12o4 YC e3•e0 i d► cR« ss3c-e,,7e TR 222 iM.,/4a-e4 ti4 13 37 / /5/ i 167 �3 ion Q O O1OOO 1070 � O i I o 4- ex .l_ I �'I CERRO ROMAUIDO Jy. Jm rAld U F 3 �o 0 ° J r B ° J O m S U �S W v -e. m %i JJ '� a r v a m e'hign neap. y } 50--0' G "s iil i� G: �IIG'llli p'll;y �ni�::�i�lll!i�'�►i III; ��il I �iili�l�lilli l►I��II�I���ISI i�l aly of san luis oasnvo , Sm !. 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 San Luis Obispo Planning Commission rendered on September 14, 1988 , which decision consisted of the following (i.e. set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal . Use additional sheets as needed) : See Attached The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with: No discussion occured with on any member of the City Council. Appellant: Date Appeal Received: j Name/Title Stephaniet�Stanley, Homeowner, and see attached EIC G V E D page f^r signatures of YY�- Representativgth er members of the SEP 2 3 1988 101 Cerro Romauldo, neighborhood. C1TVCLE�RrK� Address San-Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SAN LUIS OSISPO.C� 541-3516 home, 544-9120 work Phone Original for City Clerk Copy to City Attorney C len ared for: // / Copy to City Administrative Officer Co to the following department(s) : City Clie-r�o The concerned neighbors of 109 Cerro Romauldo appeal the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission to allow the reduced side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet on the Westerly property line for the following reasons: 1) The reduced setback will intrude on privacy reasonably expected by residents to the west and South. 2) The views of all surrounding properties, including residents not neighboring the proposed reduced side yard, will be blocked. This problem is magnified by the unfortunate location of the house on the property. 3) Open space is a concern of the entire neighborhood. The reduced setback will reduce the available openspace for the entire Foothills development, and contribute to the crowding of our community. This is an already established family neighborhood. For the reasons as stated above, this proposed variance will have a devaluating effect on our neighborhood. This devaluation will affect not only the property value of the neighbors, but will devalue the quality of life. Two arguements the Planning Commission accepted for granting the variance proposed by Gains/Hill Developers were: 1) there have been provious zoning law variances granted in our neighborhood, and 2) by having to change their building design, the design "concept" would be affected. While we can appreciate the architects' situation, we believe that zoning laws in our community should govern the design of new homes, rather than their design govern the zoning laws. The practice of granting variances based on previous variances sets a dangerous precedent. The issue is not how many minor variances were rightly or wrongly granted in the past. The issue is whether this variance at 109 Cerro Romauldo should be granted. One possible solution, suggested at the Planning Commission meeting, was to require a review by the Architectural Review Committee. The developers are attempting an unorthodox and exceptional placement of the house on the lot not in keeping with the character of the community and contrary to the original concept of preservation of views, privacy and openspace in the Foothills Development Plan and its Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions. .f August 24, 1988 RECEIVED Mr . Michael Multari AUG 2 6 1988 Director of Community Development C41 s.n L„ ob,y0, 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo , CA 93401 Dear Mr . Multari : The undersigned concerned residents of The Foothills appeal the decision of the San Luis Obispo Zoning Hearing Officer , Mr . Ken Bruce granting use permit application A103-88 in part , as to the reduced side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet on the south . The following will be a result of this judgement : 1) The reduced setback will shadow the two lots to the south , causing a severe problem with solar passage . 2) The reduced setback will unnecessarily block views of all surrounding properties , including residents not neighboring the property in question . 3) The reduced setback will eliminate privacy reasonably expected by the residents to the south and east . The majority of 109 Cerro Romauldo ' s windows face south and east , and the majority of the windows of the house at 188 Los Cerros face north . 4) Open space is a concern to the undersigned , as well as the yet unknown residents of 109 Cerro Romauldo . The reduced setback will reduce the open space in a manner which will affect the entire Foothills development . One of the major attractions of the neighborhood , to the residents , is the lack of crowding and openness . The reduced setback is definitely not in keeping with the neighborhood ambience . This is an already established family neighborhood , not a high density transient neighborhood . Re- duced setback , such as the proposed , are more in keeping with a transient apartment neighborhood and not with the R-1 zone . 5) There are two problems not yet considered which should affect the decision regarding the reduced Mr . Niichael Multari August 24, 1988 Page 2 setback. These problems are : water run-off and ultimate erosion , and compaction . These two problems will eventually affect the structure to be built , and the reduced setbacks may affect the treatment of water run-off and soil compaction : all to the detriment of the neighbors . The undersigned , as well as the other residents unable to attend the hearing , are seriously concerned about the disastrous effect the ruling will have on the community . We feel that a 2500 square foot on a 50 foot by 135 foot lot is overly ambitious and exhibits greediness on the part of the developers . A slightly smaller and tastefully situated house is a more reasonable use of the property . The aforementioned problems will lead to a reduction in the value of neighboring properties and a diminuation of the quality of life for all concerned . We ask that you reconsider this judgement in respect for our homes and our neighborhood . Yours truly , The Foothills Residents C. 74ja i4b3.ks'a e, Graham and/lana Barter Georg and orm Norris 117 Cerro Romauldo 188 Los Cerros /I) f �/'. Shan a d Mary S,o layatY David. and Karo n Chandler 127 a ro Roma dp 166 Los Cerros Jay �i tephanie,'S anley' Nils and Kathy �edwick 19-Y Cerro Romauldo l 162 Cerro Court September 14, 1988 City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission 990 Palm San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: 109 Cerro Romauldo Ladies and Gentlemen: Please consider the following in response to the letter of appeal of August 24, 1988 submitted by some of the residents adjoining 109 Cerro Romauldo: 1 . With regard to shading of the adjoining southerly lots: As the sun rises in the east to southeast in the winter, the southerly portion of our house will cast a very small shadow on the northwest corner of 101 Cerro Romauldo, and only in the early morning, as pointed out by staff. By 10:00 AM there would be no shadow cast on any of the south adjoining lots -for the remainder of the day. 2. With regard to views past the subject property: The T-shaped plan, as proposed, creates significantly more views past and through our site than a more compact, square shaped plan would, particularly from the south side. 3. With regard to the amount of window area facing adjoining property: The condition claimed by the appealants is incorrect. As currently proposed there is very little window area facing south at the property line. In fact, there is no access to windows at the second floor living area due to the two story space above the study, as correctly pointed out by staff. The ground floor window area at the property line is only 2 square feet. The majority of windows on the south side are 29' from the south property line and the majority of windows facing east are 53' from the property line. 4. With regard to the amount of open space created and the apparent density: The T-shaped plan creates more open space on the site than is typical of all the homes built along Cerro Romauldo in Tract 1313. /We would be glad to furnish a detailed comparison of residential square footages versus lot sizes for this area. As noted by staff under Item 6, our plan covers only 29% of the lot area, wheras the maximum allowed is 50% and wheras several adjoining already built homes exceed 40% including 101 , 117, and 127 Cerro Romauldo. We have made an effort to infact be quite unlike the typical homes along the street and have created significantly more open space than is found on adjoing lots. 1 page 2 5. With regard to drainage, soil erosion and compaction: This last paint, of all the facts that the appealants have tried to distort, is the most blatant. The lot at 101 Cerro Romauldo was filled and raised 30 some inches above our lot, with no provision for retainage of soil and water runoff, in order to create a flat building pad, with fewer stepped footings required and consequently much cheaper to construct. (see slides) . That lot, in fact, drains onto ours. Just the opposite of what the appealants claim. In addition, our lot slopes to the east some 8 feet lower than the sidewalk level . There is already a large catch basin in the northeast corner of the lot. The adjoining lots to the north and east have retaining walls that create a permanent edge which will force any water draining to the north to flow east and into the catch basin. However the lot already naturally drains to its northeast corner. We propose several stuccoed walls along the perimiter of the lot which will control any possible runoff, but the site itself already prevents this possibility. A simple visual survey by a knowledgable person makes this very apparent. In conclusion we feel the appealants comments and intentional delaying of this project to be bordering on harrasment and libel , particularly their refering to the "greediness on the part of the developers" . It seems to us that they have bought into an area that they did not know or realize at the time was going to be built out to its current density (some of the early homes enjoyed unobstructed views to the north and west, i .e. Bishops Peak) and they are now trying to save whatever open space they somehow feel they were entitled to, while the "greedy developers" who built and sold them their homes have run off with their money. To be fair to us and our limited efforts to survive and create interesting and unique architecture, while not at all being "greedy" (we have built only 1 other spec home in 7 years, a passive solar home in Atascadero featured at the 1984 Monterey Design Conference) , we must be allowed the same latitude to develop our property to its potential , just as their lots were developed to their potentials. Sincerely, I%PTI //M Patrick D. Hill , Architect Merrill C. Gaines, Architect ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING - MINUTES FRIDAY AUGUST 19, 1988 Use Permit Appl. A 103-88. Request to allow reduced side yard setbacks from 8 feet to 5 feet on the north, and from 10 feet to 5 feet on the south; 109 Cerro Romauldo; R-1 zone; Gains/Hill Development, applicant. Greg Smith presented the staff report, recommending that the application be approved in part and denied in part. Staff's judgement was that the setback reduction at the northeast property line would increase shading of the southerly walls and in yard areas of the adjoining house, but has concluded that there are no significant design, shading or privacy issues related to the setback reduction at the southwest property line. (To simplify, he explained that staff is recommending approval for the right side of the house; denial for the left side. ) He said it could be possible to adapt a floor plan to comply with the setback requirements on the northeast property line. He also noted that part of the recommendation for approval for the right side of the house is based on review of the floor plan and the size and location of windows that are located in that wing of the house which would provide minimal or no view of the neighboring property from the area involved in the exception request. Greg Smith outlined the three findings that would be required for approval. The public hearing was opened. Pat Hill, applicant, spoke in support of the request. He agreed with staff's conclusions about the .house and site, but wanted to point out that the east side, even though it may be moved three feet, does not really mitigate a shadow problem on that side. Mr. Hill said he had submitted a revised shadow plan that is more accurate than the one submitted originally. It shows a.m. and p.m. shadows at their extreme. He explained they have a minimal amount of windows on the east side in order to reduce privacy problems. He felt he could eliminate more upper story windows to further reduce privacy concerns. He said he is prepared to grant a permanent open space easement in the southeast corner of that lot to help in that regard. He explained that the lot is only 50 feet wide. In order to get a reasonably sized house on it (2500 square feet) and retain as much open space in the back and in the front as possible, it was necessary to place the house where it is. Stephanie Stanley, 101 Cerro Romauldo, spoke in opposition to the request. Her main concern was the setback on the west due to privacy problems. She also felt the placement of the house would take up all the space between the two buildings. She said she has lived in mobile home parks before, and if she wanted, to live that close to her neighbors, she would have stayed there. She was also concerned about view blockage. Page 2 Jana Bartor, 117 Cerro Romauldo, spoke in opposition to the request. She felt that to the applicant, 8 feet to 5 feet is not a significant reduction, but to her it was. She explained that she bought her lot knowing the city requirements, and designed the house for three months to make it fit properly on the lot. She did not feel the proposed house should be allowed to be three feet closer to her property. She also noted her husband had submitted a letter to the Community Development Department opposing the request. Greg Smith summarized the letter from Graham Bartor. It noted they worked with the architect to build within the envelope without exceptions when developing their property. It discussed blockage of solar light, particularly in regard to afternoon sunshine, stating the exception is not reasonably necessary or in keeping with the quality of the neighborhood. Mary Somayaja, 127 Cerro Romauldo, spoke in opposition to the request. She said the house would cause view blockage from her home. Dave Chandler, 166 Los Cerros Drive, opposed the request due to privacy issues and the way the neighborhood was laid out originally with space factors. Norma Norris, 188 Los Cerros Drive, opposed the request. She said she built the back of her house with many windows. Her back yard will back up to the proposed house. The way it is proposed, it will obstruct all views from her house. She had concerns with this decreasing the value of her home. Solar passage would also affect her home by having the house closer. Kathryn Sedwick, 162 Cerro Court, opposed the request due to view. considerations. She felt the setback reduction would cause view blockage from her home. The public hearing was closed. Ken Bruce took action as follows: He approved reduced side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet on the westerly property line based on the following: Findings 1. The proposed exception will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity. 2. The proposed exception is of a minor nature involving an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure. 3 . The proposed exception would not significantly increase shading of the property or adjoining properties and will be consistent with appropriate pattern of setbacks, open areas, and building masses in the neighborhood. 2--10000, Page 3 He denied the side yard setback from 8 feet to 5 feet on the easterly property line, based on the following: Findings 1. The proposed exception will adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity. 2. The proposed exception is not of a minor nature involving an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure. 3 . The proposed exception would significantly increase shading of the property or adjoining properties and will not be consistent with appropriate pattern of setbacks, open areas, and building masses in the neighborhood. Mr. Bruce explained that this decision could be appealed to the Planning Commission within ten days. To do this, a letter must be submitted to the Community Development Department, explaining why the request is being appealed. Denotes action by Lead PenrsoM--TING AGENDA 2 Respond by: , 8s ITEM # �L— � ncit DAA t - E�-CAO P,Zity Atty. Draft P.C. Minutes [RClerk-odg. September 14, 1988 5-M. mrcrou STT. d 4 V/ 2. Use Permit A 103-88. Appeal of Hearing Officer's action approving reduced side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet on westerly property line and denying reduced side yard setback from 8 feet to 5 feet on easterly property line; 109 Cerro Romauldo; R-I zone; Gaines/Hill Development, applicant; G. & J. Barter and five others, appellants. Commr. Schmidt stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Greg Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending denial of the appeal and upholding the Hearing Officer's action to approve the westerly sideyard reduction subject to findings noted in the original approval. Chairperson Kourakis noted a letter had been received from Gaines/Hill Development dated September 14, 1988, updating information in the staff report. Chairperson Kourakis declared the public hearing open. Patrick Hill, 275 Del Mar Court, applicant, commented on the appellant's letter of August 24th. He noted there would be no shading problems or view blockage because of the T-shape design of the house, and privacy should not be a concern since not many windows were proposed on the westerly side of the house. He also noted that the T-shape design of the house created more open space than is typical of other adjoining homes on Cerro Romauldo. He indicated the natural slope of the lot drains back to a catch basin and several walls around the perimeter of the property were proposed which would also prevent drainage from going to adjoining properties. He felt the adjoining property owners bought into an area that they did not realize would be built out to its current density and that he should be allowed the same latitude in developing his property to its potential as others in the area were allowed to do. He noted if the appeal were granted, he could propose a simple alternative but it would decrease the desirability of the house. Merrill Gaines, applicant, 945 West Street, noted all zoning requirements had been met to provide an interesting architectural package which would have advantages to the residents. He felt that any changes would compromise some of the neighbors' concerns regarding privacy and views. He indicated that in any condition the footprint of the house would not change but the second level would shift about 4 feet back. He felt a more complex plan would affect views and open space more severely than what is presently being proposed. Mr. Gaines showed slides depicting the neighborhood's character. In response to a question from Commr. Roalman about design constraints, Mr. Gaines indicated their main goal was to provide the maximum amount of open space for the house given the constraints of the property being 50 feet wide. He felt there were no other design solutions available, and a redesign of the project would result in a loss of open space and views. Graham Barter, 117 Cerro Romauldo, was mainly concerned with view blockage and loss of privacy to existing residences. He suggested bringing the mass of the house up towards the front of the yard to preserve views of adjoining neighbors. R E G E 1 V E D OCT 12 8 198 CITY CLERK SAN LUiSOHiSPO.CA Draft P.C. Minutes Page 2 Commr. Gerety explained to Mr. Barter that the commission could only deal with the 5-foot setback on the west side of the lot. Mr. Barter felt the second story being within 5 feet of the property line was too close to the adjoining house and a detriment to the neighborhood. Stephanie Stanley, 101 Cerro Romauldo, felt a 50 percent reduction in the setback would affect what she and others had a reasonable right to expect when they moved into the neighborhood. She felt the slides showed by Mr. Gaines did not accurately.reflect the perspectives of the neighborhood. Kathy Sedwick, 162 Cerro Court, felt the shape of the house would cause problems with lateral stability and shear walls. Chairperson Kourakis declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Hill indicated for Commr. Crotser that the exterior height of the house would be 22 feet above the existing grade. He noted that while he would have to put in a retaining wall, the pad would be cut two feet lower to reduce the height of the building. Commr. Crotser's main concern was with the 10 foot variance but felt the design solution was good and most of the issues had been resolved. He did not feel there would be a detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighbors. However, he felt something that could be done that would not compromise the architectural design of the house and was supportive of upholding the appeal. Chairperson Kourakis felt the Planning Commission could not address the neighbors' concerns and wished the Architectural Review Commission could review the project. Commr. Gerety was opposed to the setback reductions being handled as administrative use permits. He felt that since five other various exceptions in the neighborhood have been granted in the past, he could not support the appeal. While he was sympathetic to the neighbors' concerns, he felt it was unfair to require one builder to go for architectural review when the other existing houses did not have to go. Commr. Roalman moved to uphold the appeal and deny the requested exception to the sideyard setback. Commr. Crotser seconded the motion. Commr. Crotser agreed with Commr. Gerety regarding ARC issues and past history regarding use permit approvals. He could support the request only if there were be some compromise for the consideration of the welfare of neighbors by imposing a condition regarding the height of the tower at the end of the "T". Mr. Hill noted from Commr. Crotser that there were no other solutions available to lowering the height of the building without significantly changing the entire design of the house. Draft P.C. Minutes Page 3 Chairperson Kourakis agreed with Commr. Gerety's comments about granting exceptions. However, she felt the system was designed to allow this type of exception. She indicated that denying the appeal would not deal with the neighbors' concerns. Commr. Crotser urged applicant to come up with a design solution to the westerly properly line that is more "friendly" to the existing neighbors. Commr. Roalman repeated the motion. Commr. Duerk was concerned that neighbors' expectation of an R-1 zone was different than what the zoning ordinance allows. AYES: Roalman NOES: Crotser, Duerk, Gercty, Kourakis ABSENT: Schmidt, Hainline The motion fails. Commr. Gerety moved to deny the appeal and uphold the action of the Hearing Officer. Commr. Duerk seconded the motion. AYES: Gerety, Duerk, Crotser, Kourakis NOES: Roalman ABSENT: Schmidt, Hainline The motion passes. Commr. Schmidt returned to the meeting.