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.