HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/01/1991, C-10 - AUTHORIZATION OF EXCEPTION TO GRADING STANDARDS FOR A HOUSE AND DRIVEWAY TO BE BUILT ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF SANTA YNEZ AVENUE, SOUTHEAST OF SAN MIGUEL AVENUE, IN THE MONTEREY HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD. �����II�IINIIUIIIIIIII�IIIiIIIPIII MEETING DATE:
u City of san lull OBispo 10-1. 11
maabmw& 1017
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director v
PREPARED BY: Greg Smith, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Authorization of exception to grading standards for a house and driveway to be
built on the northeast side of Santa Ynez Avenue, southeast of San Miguel
Avenue, in the Monterey Heights neighborhood.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution authorizing an exception to the Grading Ordinance Design Standards,
for construction of a house and driveway at 2246 Santa Ynez Avenue.
DISCUSSION:
Background
The city's Grading Ordinance establishes design standards which determine what percentage
of a site can be graded: steeper lots must preserve higher percentages of the natural
topography. Exceptions to those standards require authorization of the council.
The Planning Commission approved a use permit to allow development of the nonconforming
lot, and to allow a minor setback reduction, on September 11, 1991. The Commission was
acting on an appeal of the Hearing Officer's action to approve the use permit. Approval by
the Community Development Director is pending for an Architectural Review Minor and
Incidental application for the project. Council approval of the grading exception must be
obtained before a building permit application may be filed.
Data Summary
Address: 2246 Santa Ynez Avenue
Applicant: James and Janice Smith
Representative: Rex Wolf, A.I.A.
Zoning: R-1
General Plan: Low Density Residential
Environmental Status: Categorically exempt
Project Action Deadline: January 23, 1992
Site Description
The site slopes up from the street frontage, as shown on the attached site plan. Overall
average slope of the site is 25%. No trees or other significant vegetation are found on the site,
which is covered with native and non-native grasses and other low plants. Three Monterey
Pines trees are located on the adjoining lot near the northwest property line, with roots and
some branches encroaching onto the project site.
C-/o-
2246 Santa Ynez
Page 2
EVALUATION
The applicant proposes to build a 2600 square-foot, three-story house on a small hillside site.
The site is an infill lot, surrounded by houses 20 to 50 years old. The plans for the house -
including the grading plan - are attached.
The Grading Ordinance specifies that 2017/o of the net area may be graded on a site with a 25%
cross-slope, with the remainder to remain in its natural state. (The area of the site occupied
by the building itself is excluded from the calculations.) The applicant proposes to grade 80%
of the project site's net area:
Total Site Area = 4723 square feet
Building Coverage Excl. kIL561
Net Site Area = 2867 square feet
Allowed to be graded: 573 square feet (20% of net site area)
Proposed to be graded: 2242 square feet (78% of net site area)
The unusually high proportion of the site to be graded is a result of several factors:
- The lot's small size.
- The steepness of the site, which necessitates an angled driveway.
- Much of the house is "dug in" to the hillside, and grading along the side property lines
eliminates the need for below-grade walls.
The Planning Commission and staff believe the grading proposed is reasonable, given various
site constraints and other issues noted below.
1. Site Constraints
Development of this site is constrained by the steeply sloping topography and the lot's small
size. Zoning regulations allow construction of a single dwelling on this legal, nonconforming
lot (4723 square-foot lot area where 21.780 quare-foot lot area required).
2. Prior Gradino
The Grading Ordinance states its purpose as preservation of natural topography. Prior grading
in this neighborhood - to provide the existing streets and to build the surrounding houses - has
extensively modified the original topography. Because of this historic grading and small lot
sizes, it would be virtually impossible to develop remaining infill lots without exceptions to
the Grading Ordinance standards.
3. Other Site Development Issues
Although this section of the Monterey Heights neighborhood is not included within a
designated hillside study area by the General Plan, the proposed design appears to be
consistent with the Plan's Hillside Standards. The grading plan and building size are consistent
with those found on similar lots in the neighborhood.
C/ooZ
2246 Santa Ynez
Page 3
No hazards to the project site or adjoining properties are likely to occur as a result of the
proposed grading. The proposed grading plan has not yet been reviewed by a soils engineer,
but the soils report for the site indicates that the site is underlain by sandstone two to three
feet below the surface. This should provide a stable base for grading and construction. The
Chief Building Official will require the grading plan to be reviewed by a soils engineer before
the actual grading permit is issued.
CONCURRENCES
As noted above, the Planning Commission has approved a use permit for the project. Minutes
of the Commission's September 11, 1991 meeting are attached. The minutes reflect the
concerns of the Commissioners and the neighbor to the northwest concerning preservation of
a Monterey Pine tree near the northwest property line. The approved use permit includes a
condition intended to guarantee preservation of that tree.
The proposed plan allows adequate access to a City sewer main located in an easement along
the back and side of the lot, in the judgement of Public Works staff.
FISCAL IMPACT
No significant effect on city revenues or costs will occur.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may deny the grading exception request, or may require modifications to the
grading plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Council adopt the attached draft resolution approving an exception to
the Grading Ordinance Design Standards, and allowing grading of 78% of the net site area at
2246 Santa Ynez Avenue.
Attachments: Draft Resolutions for approval, denial
Vicinity Map
Grading Ordinance Excerpts
PC Minutes (Forthcoming)
gtsd:ar9177gr.wp
C-0
RESOLUTION NO. (1991 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
1UTHORIZING AN EXCEPTION TO GRADING ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
FOR A HOUSE AND DRIVEWAY AT 2246 SANTA YNEZ AVENUE
WHEREAS, the Council has considered the testimony and statements of the
applicant, and other interested parties, and the records of the Planning Commission hearing
and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council resolves to approve the requested
exception and authorize grading of 78% of the net site area at 2246 Santa Ynez Avenue,
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
SECTION 1. Findin s
1. The exception granted is subject to conditions which insure that it does not constitute
a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the
same vicinity.
2. Because of special circumstances applying to the subject property, notably the
nonconforming lot size and prior grading adjacent to the site to accommodate
construction of Santa Ynez Avenue, the strict literal application of the grading
limitations would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity.
I Under the particular circumstances of this case, the proposed grading is consistent
with the purposes of the Grading Ordinance as set out in Section 15.44.020 of those
regulations.
4. The proposed project is categorically exempt from environmental review
requirements.
SECTION 2. Conditions
1. Grading shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted grading plan, to the
approval of the Community Development Director.
2 Grading shall comply with all the requirements of Use Permit A 61-91 and the
provisions of the Grading Ordinance, to the approval of the Community
Development Director and the Chief Building Official.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
C to-�f
Resolution No. (1991 Series)
2246 Santa Ynez Avenue
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of ,
1991.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City jAministratEeOfficer
r
Ci ttor{�ey
l
Community De el pment Director
C�Q S
RESOLUTION NO. (1991 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN EXCEPTION TO GRADING ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
FOR A HOUSE AND DRIVEWAY AT 2246 SANTA YNEZ AVENUE
WHEREAS, the Council has considered the testimony and statements of the
applicant, and other interested parties, and the records of the Planning Commission hearing
and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council resolves to deny the exception request for
grading 78% of the net site area at 2246 Santa Ynez Avenue, based on the following
findings:
SECTION 1. Findings
1. The requested exception would constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity.
2. There are no special circumstances applying to the subject property which
would cause the strict literal application of the grading limitations to deprive
the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity.
3. The proposed grading is not consistent with the purposes of the Grading
Ordinance as set out in Section 15.44.020 of those regulations.
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
1991.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
42 -10--6
Resolution No. (1991 Series)
2246 Santa Ynez Avenue
APPROVED:
City dministrative Officer
C' t orn
Community Deve]o nt Director
040-7
O
^y t
r ''l O
\ O .1 O
O
�b
P ��; O 0
Pa�P O �r° a� , J i
s►► iA
A O
OI
a1 y y' m/
o / O
_ `j £ AVE•
t M,r �B
�
i s j►N O a ; O ci
4
1 3 O
O
O
� N
O ^F�t O p
0
.Z q
a Qa 7c
0 O " r 0
O N ?7N Z
t'• Q ? ?,
■■//.111■■-�'���- LO
Q Q N ,
3nN3AV V1SIA�y VN3ne = U
c=b -W. 0"
5 ` K s O O O O 0
I
N �
i rgw+)+ww �snw xrV•n �
� N ,
OaW � Q O y v
" W
,.y O Q " N
OCH a
p A W a 0 `°'' -- 0 1 0
a "
O3 O 0 bl.
i z
f j N
= J �
0 0 0 0 ':a=
Cb
I
S 42' 7'
'O.,w {
'SEWER E-SE ^�
y t
=I
EO'
I I i
,n
LO = i I I REF.
i
� ss'
_ - .
71
Y O W�Nf Lo
7R0
�
NG
cJ 3
U1 \
h
7-
-j J
I ry
I ,. •���j�h— so I
� I i
WRAGE -�i I. ' .I
r- \ FFeaY-
� II
2 I ?
�1Y8TjG.
Y
i
1 33.1, E .I i iJ'
S E R-475
35'� \ !I I
i ao-
I
SgNTA YNEZ AVE. -
SO ,OE
a
w
REX WOLF, architect
SMITH RESIDENCE
C�o-5
GARAGE e
I 177:-!Eipl
ulGf
FIRST FLooR FLA..N
REX WOLF, architect
SMITH RESIDENCE
Bath 3
I I.
Bedroom 3
J •I-�I I
Powder
I
--- ----�
I
-• --J Game Room — T Dining Room
L
I
I
r I I I I
_ Z
!I j
Fj
kitchen I I I
�I Deck
� I
I Entry i��
r-�
Living Room
I I
L_J Breakfast
Nook
Entry �—
\ Parch
/l
\ UP
I
UP
SECOW> FLOOR PLAN 1/13
REX WOLF, architect
SMITH RESIDENCE
t'taay
I' • Room
L �
U �
CIC! i
��1
oN
_-j __ /Bath 2 I
MasterBathroom
Bedroom 2
I
I• r
! I'
Beater
Bedroom J
Office
rl
TKIRO FLooR PLAN
REX WOLF, architect
SMITH RESIDENCE /1
i
v
i
I
OF \
I
i
!L Iii
n®
� I
I
I
I
Im
i
�il � ❑❑
I
I I�SI�
I I ,moi
iFEE
h�
�I
�i
' 1
WES • ELEVATION
C-iv I�
I � i
I ,U
i
1
IEEq
REX WOLF , ARGOITEGT
S M ITN
C/0-15
m � ll �
� I
I
El
' I
REX WOLF, ARcH IrEcT
SmirH RESIDENCE
No-/(o
15.44.010-15.44.040
15.44.250 Drainage and terracing. ated soil erosion problems incurred in adjust-
15.44.260 Erosion control. ment of the natural terrain to meet outside and
15.44.270 Dust prevention. off-site development needs.(Ord. 1061 §2(part),
15.44.280 Hours of operation. 1986; prior code § 9401)
15.44.290 Grading—Inspection—
Designation—Requirements— 15.44.030 Scope.
Notification of noncompliance. Thischaptersets forth rulesand regulations to
15.44300 Completion of work— control all grading, including,but not limited to,
Notification—Final reports. excavations, earthwork construction, road con-
15.44310 Violations—Notification. struction, rills and embankments, and work
15.44320 Appeals. within waterways;establishes the administrative
procedure for issuance of permits: and provides
15.44.010 Title. for approval of plans and inspection of grading
The regulations contained in this chapter shall construction.This chapter recognizes the impor-
be known and referred to as the "Grading Ordi- tance of the waterways of the city and the need to
nance of the city of San Luis Obispo."(Ord. 1061 regulate all changes to these waterways that may
§ 2 (part), 1986; prior code § 9400) lead to increases in erosion or changes in capac-
ity. (Ord. 1061 §§ I (part). 2 (part). 1986: prior
15.44.020 Purpose. code § 9402)
This chapter is adopted for the following pur-
poses: 15.44.040 Definitions.
A. To protect and provide for the public For the purposes of this chapter, the defini-
health, safety and general welfare of the city: tions listed hereunder shall be construed as
B. To guide the future growth and develop- specified in this section:
ment of the city, in accordance with and consis- 1. "As graded" means the surface conditions
tent with the general plan: extent on completion of grading.
C. To encourage the planning, design and 2. "Average cross slope" means the ratio.
development of building sites in such a fashion as expressed as a percentage, of the vertical dif-
to provide the maximum in safety and human ference in elevation to the horizontal distance
enjoyment while adapting development to. and between two points on the perimeter of the area.
taking advantage of. the best use of the natural with the line connecting the two points being
terrain; essentially perpendicular to the contours
D. To preserve and enhance.the beauty of the between the two points. Different portions of any
landscape by encouraging the "maximum reten- area may have different average cross slopes(see
tion of natural topographic features, such as Examples A-1 and A-2)
creeks, streams, lakes, slopes. ridge lines. rock
outcroppings, vistas. backdrops, natural plant
formations and trees:
E. To minimize padding or terracing ofbuild-
ing sites in the hillside areas:
F. To encourage imaginative and innovative
building techniques to create development
suited to natural surroundings:
G. To minimize grading and cut and fill oper-
ations:
H. To minimize the water runoff and acceler-
367 (San Luis Obispo 7.86)
C-/O/7
15.44.190-15.44.210
A. A tentative minor subdivision or tract director may require bonds in such forms and
map, use permit, architectural review commis- amounts as may be deemed necessary to assure
sion project approval or similar authorization that the work, if not completed in accordance
has been granted; and with the approved plans and specifications, will
B. Related street and utility grades have been be corrected to eliminate hazardous conditions.
established;and Also, the community development director
C. A cash deposit or cash bond is deposited to mav, at his discretion, require that bonds be
guarantee restoration of the site to a natural con- posted to recover the full costs of any damage to
dition as required by the community develop- public right-of-way which may occur because of
meat director should the project not proceed to the peculiar nature or large scope of the project
completion. (Ord. 1061 § 2 (part), 1986: prior (i.e.,transportation of fill or heavy equipment on
code§ 9410.1) local streets not designed to accommodate the
traffic).
15.44.190 Permit and plan checking fees. B. Optional Guarantee. In lieu of a surety
A. Plan Checking Fees.For excavation and fill bond the applicant may file a cash bond or
on the same site. the fee shall be based on the instrument of credit with the city in an amount
volume of the excavation or fill, whichever is equal to that which would be required in the
greater. Before accepting a set of plans and speci- surety bond. (Ord. 1061 § 2 (part). 1986; prior
fications for checking, the community develop- code § 9412)
ment director shall collect a plan checking fee.
Separate permits and fees shall apply to retaining 15.44.210 Design standards—Natural state
walls or other structures. There shall be no sepa- preservation required—
rate charge for standard terrace drains and sim- Exceptions.
ilar facilities. The amount of the plan checking A. Natural State. The topography of a site
fee for grading plans shall be as set forth by proposed for development shall remain substan-
council resolution. tially in its natural state. Mass recontouring shall
B. Grading Permit Fees.A fee for administra- not be allowed.In all cases the average cross slope
tion and inspection of the work authorized by of a site shall be determined by the community
each grading permit shall be paid to the commu- development director pnorto any grading opera-
nity development director as se:forth by council tions or approval of any grading plan. Any grad-
resolution.Such fees shall be collected at the ti me ing operation shall have a relationship to the
of issuance of the grading permit. average cross slope of the proposed site to be
C. Alternative Fee. An alternate fee shall be graded, as shown in Table B. The percentage of
charged for plan checking, administration and the site, exclusive of building area, to remain in
inspection of projects, requiring permits under its natural state(no grading of any kind allowed)
this chapter, for which the regular fee structure shall be considered as follows:
established is inappropriate. The fee shall be as
established by resolution of the citv council.The
fees for plan checking, administration and
inspection shall be collected in the same manner
as the fee which is collected for regular grading
permits. (Ord. 1061 §§ I (part). 2 (part), 1986;
prior code § 9411)
15.44.200 Bonds and other guarantees.
A. Bonds. The community development
375 (San Luis Obispo 7-80)
Na/g1
15.44.220-15.44.230
Table B engineering geology report,cuts shall conform to
the provisions of this section.
Percent of Site B. Slope. The slope of cut surfaces shall be no
Percent Average To Remain In steeper than is safe for the intended use. Cut
Cross Slope Natural State slopes shall be no steeper than two horizontal to
one vertical. All graded planes shall be rounded-
0 —
ounded0 — 5 0 on all edges to blend with natural slopes. all
6 — 10 25 rounded edges shall be graded in conformity with
11 — 15 40 Table C as set out in Section 15.44.230.
16 - 20 60 C. Drainage and Terracing.Drainage and ter-
21 — 25 80 racing shall be provided as required in Section
26 — 30 90 15.44.250.(Ord. 1061 § 2(part), 1986:prior code
Above 30 100 § 9414)
B. Exceptions. The council may grant excep- 15.44.230 Design standards—Fills.
tions from the grading limitations set out in sub- A. General.
section A of this section:provided, that all of the 1. Unless otherwise recommended in the
following conditions are found to apply: approved soil engineering report. fills shall con-
t. That any exception granted shall be subject form to the provisions of this section.
to such conditions as will assure that the adjust- 2. Where a soil engineering report is not
ment thereby authorized shall not constitute a required. the provisions of this section may be
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the waived by the community development director
limitations upon other properties in the same for minor fills not intended to support structures.
vicinity: B. Fill Location. Fill slopes shall not be con-
2. That because of special circumstances structed on natural slopes steeper than two to one
applicable to the subject property,including size, where the fill slope toes out within twelve feet
.shape,topography,location or surroundings,the horizontal of the top of existing cut slopes.except
strict literal application of the grading limitations as part of an approved soils engineering plan.
is found to deprive subject property of privileges C. Preparation of Ground. The ground sur-
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity: face shall be prepared to receive fill by removing
3. That under the circumstances of this par- vegetation. noncomplying fill, top soil and other
ticular case the exception is in conformity with unsuitable materials as determined by the soil
the purposes of this chapter as set out in Section engineer,and,where the slopes are five to one or
15.44.020. steeper, by benching into sound bedrock and
Exceptions may be granted only in conjunc- other competent material.
tion with specific conditions of approval of a D. Fill Material. Earth materials which have
comprehensive plan for the development of a site no more than minor amounts of organic sub-
including, but not limited to, proposed subdivi- stances and have no rock or similar irreducible
sions, planned developments, use permits or material with a maximum dimension greater
architectural review commission projects. (Ord. than three inches shall be used.
1061 § 2 (part), 1986: prior code § 9413) E. Compaction.All fills shall be compacted to
a minimum of ninety percent of maximum den-
15.44.220 Design standards—Excavation. sity as determined by Uniform Building Code
A. General. Unless otherwise recommended Standard No. 70-1. Field density shall be deter-
in the approved soil engineering and/or mined in accordance with Uniform Building
Code Standard No. 70-2 (or equivalent) as
(San Luis Obispo 7-86) 376
C-lU 19
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5068-91
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did
conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chamber of the San Luis Obispo City Hall,
San Luis Obispo, California, on September 11, 1991, pursuant to a proceeding instituted
under application No. A 61-91 by James and Janice Smith, applicants.
USE PERMIT REQUESTED:
To allow development of a non-conforming lot and to allow reduced side yard
setback from 7 feet to 5 feet.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
2246 Santa Ynez Avenue.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT:
Low-density Residential.
PRESENT ZONING:
R-1.
WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections, investigations,
and studies made by itself, and in behalf and of testimonies offered at said hearing, has
established existence of the following circumstances:
1. The proposed setback exception will not adversely affect the health, safety and
welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity.
2. The proposed setback exception is appropriate at the proposed location and will
be compatible with surrounding land uses.
3. The proposed setback exception is of a minor nature, and affects an insignificant
amount of the solar exposure for the adjoining property.
C_)
Resolution No. 5068-91
Use Permit A 61-91
Page 2
4. The proposed setback exception is exempt from environmental review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that application No. A 61-91 be
approved subject to the following condition:
1. There shall be a minimum eight foot separation between the Monterey Pine tree
near the front corner of the proposed structure and the garage footings, to the
approval of the City Arborist and Community Development Director.
The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo upon the motion of Commr. Gurnee, seconded by Commr. Peterson,
and upon the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Gurnee, Peterson, Karleskint, Kourakis, Schmidt, Williams, and
Hoffman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
DATED: September 11, 1991