HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/16/1992, 5 - MINOR SUBDIVISION MS 91-203. CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBDIVISION HEARING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP CREATING TWO LOTS FROM ONE LOT, AND TO DENY EXCEPTIONS TO ACCESS WAY WIDTH AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. MEETING DATE:
��� � uuIIIIIIIIIP° ���U city of San IUiS OBISpo & -10 -9z
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: t
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Greg Smith, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision MS 91-203. Consideration of the Subdivision Hearing Officer's
recommendation to approve a vesting tentative map creating two lots from one
lot, and to deny exceptions to access way width and setback requirements.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached resolution approving the vesting tentative map for MS 91-203, and
denying exceptions to access way width and setback requirements, as recommended by
the Subdivision Hearing Officer.
DISCUSSION:
Background
The subdivider proposes a deep lot subdivision which would create a new lot behind an existing
house. Council approval is required because the map would require exceptions to the City's
Subdivision Regulations.
The Subdivision Hearing Officer conducted a hearing on the proposal on March 6, 1992, and
recommended that the Council approve the subdivision, but deny any exceptions. Minutes of
that hearing are attached. The Hearing Officer's recommendation is incorporated in the
attached draft resolution for approval.
Data Summary
Address: 1359, 1361 Bishop Street
Owner: Barbara Vance
Subdivider/Representative: Steven Frank
Zoning: R-1
General Plan: Low density residential
Environmental Status: Negative declaration pending.
Project Action Deadline: June 16, 1992
Site Description
The site is a 200'x74' parcel developed with a house, detached studio apartment, garage and
shed buildings. Several introduced trees are planted in various location on the site, which
slopes at 5 to 10% toward the southwest property line.
oma►�ui►uillllllllhNu►��UIII city Of san u,.41S OBIsPO
11i;% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
EVALUATION
The proposed lot split involves several exceptions to ordinance standards for lot dimensions and
setbacks. These and other issues are discussed below:
1. Deep Lot Subdivision
The Subdivision Regulations allow flag lot subdivisions only "where development would not be
feasible with the installation of a standard street, either alone or in conjunction with
neighboring properties, or where justified by topographical conditions.
In staff's judgement, this basic finding can be supported. The project site and adjoining
properties include significant amounts of undeveloped land, but are not deep enough to
accommodate even a short cul de sac street.
2. Exceptions
The proposed subdivision involves the following exception requests:
a. 12-foot access flag and driveway with where 20-foot access flag and 16-foot driveway
width required.
b. Four-foot setback from house on Parcel A to access flag where ten-foot setback
required.
These exceptions are being requested by the subdivider to allow for the retention of an existing
house on Parcel A. If the subdivision is approved without the exceptions and all setback
standards are met, the house would have to be significantly altered or demolished.
The "alternatives" section of this staff report identifies one option that would result in the house
being retained. The implementation of this option would require the cooperation and
participation of the adjoining property owner.
The subdivision regulations allow exceptions to be approved when the following four findings
can be made:
a. The property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such topographic
conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular case, to conform
to the strict application of the regulations codified in this title.
The Subdivision Hearing Officer indicated that this finding was not supported, and cited
that as a major factor for his recommendation for denial. The location of the existing
house on the site blocks compliance with driveway and setback standards, but is not one
of the factors cited as possible justification for exceptions.
�11���►����iIIIIIIIPjIIIIIII city of San LUIS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
b. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole
reason for granting the modification.
C. The modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be
injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
The driveway width reduction results in a one-lane driveway 110 feet in length. This will
be slightly less safe than the two-lane driveway normally required by the regulations.
If a turn-around area is provided on Parcel B, the increased hazard will be mitigated
somewhat. Even with the turn around area, however, cars will sometimes back onto
Bishop Street from the new driveway.
d Granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations, and
is consistent with the general plan and with all applicable specific plans or other plans of
the city.
The Subdivision Regulations are intended to provide for logical and orderly
development, and to provide for adequate public and private traffic circulation facilities.
Meeting the access standards in the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations often requires
cooperation between owners of adjacent lots, and several common driveway easements
are approved by the City each year for small-scale residential projects.
The Housing Element encourages preservation of existing dwelling units. The Land Use
Element supports infill development in existing residential neighborhoods when it is
consistent with neighborhood character, and conforms to zoning and subdivision
standards.
3. Alternate Subdivision Designs
Either of two alternative subdivision layouts which more nearly conform to deep lot standards
may be feasible:
a. 20-foot flag, common driveway with adjoining property. A 20-foot flag width and ten-
foot setback to the existing house could be achieved if approximately 14 feet of the
required flag width were provided on the adjoining property to the southwest (1351
Bishop Street).
The existing house at 1351 Bishop would also meet the ten-foot setback requirement
from the access way. In addition, one or two new lots could be created at 1351 Bishop
in the future, using the common driveway for access.
b. 20-foot flag, on-site. The house on Parcel A could be demolished or remodeled to meet
flag width and setback requirements. This would involve approximately 40% of the floor
area of the 1500-square-foot house.
Staff considers Alternative A to be superior to Alternative B. However, if the City requires
off-site improvements where no easement exists, the City may be forced to waive the
city Of San L.Ais OBISPO
Eli% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
requirement or acquire the easement through condemnation proceedings. The conditions
recommended by the Hearing Officer would allow the applicant to choose between providing
a common driveway and modifying the existing house.
4. Modifications to Other Structures
In addition to the possible modification of the existing house noted in section 3b above, other
modifications would be necessary to comply with Zoning Regulations:
a. Convert studio to garage. Necessary to meet density and on-site parking requirements
for parcel A.
b. Demolish or modify shed and/or storage portion of existing garage. Necessary to
provide minimum five-foot setback to proposed new lot line.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Approximately 2,900 square feet of the Parcel B area is currently improved with pavement or
structures, exclusive of the access flag. Staff estimates that this area would increase by 500 to
1,000 square feet if a moderate single family residence is built, and the existing garage is
demolished. The City's Building Code would require that a sump pump or easement be
provided to accommodate any increase in concentrated runoff.Engineering and Building staff
note concerns with drainage and setbacks addressed above.
If a 20-foot driveway is not provided, Fire Department staff notes that a residential sprinkler
system (NFPA 13-D) would be needed for structures on the rear parcel.
FISCAL IMPACT
No significant effect on City revenues or expenditures will occur as a result of the proposed
subdivision.
ALTERNATIVES
The council may approve the exceptions,subject to findings required by Subdivision regulations,
and subject to appropriate conditions. The Council may also deny the tentative map, if findings
required for approval cannot be supported.
The Council may not continue consideration, unless the subdivider agrees to the continuance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the council adopt the attached draft resolution approving the vesting
tentative map for minor subdivision MS 92-203, and denying exceptions to access way width and
setback requirements, as recommended by the Subdivision Hearing Officer.
������► iIUIIIiIIIIIp� llUlll MY Of San `aiS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Attachments: Draft Resolutions for approval, denial
Vicinity Map
Tentative Map
Subdivider's Statement
Subdivision Alternatives
Subdivision Hearing Minutes
Letter Opposing Subdivision
gtsd:ms92203c.wp
r
RESOLUTION NO. (1992 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO GRANTING APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR
MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 91-203, AND DENIAL OF REQUESTED
EXCEPTIONS TO FLAG WIDTH AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1259 AND 1361 BISHOP STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration
of the vesting map of Minor Subdivision No. 91-203, and the
Community Development Director's recommendations, staff
recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The design of the vesting tentative map and proposed
improvements are consistent with the general plan.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of
development allowed in the R-4 zone.
3 . The design of the vesting tentative map and the proposed
improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems,
substantial environmental damage or substantially and
unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
4. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements
for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision.
5. The City Council approves the determination made by the
Community Development director that the proposed vesting
tentative map will not have a significant effect on the
environment and has granted a negative declaration.
SECTION 2 . Exceptions. Denial of exceptions to flag width
and setback requirements, based on the following findings:
1. There are no size, shape or topographic conditions affecting
the site which justify approval of the requested exceptions.
.,n
3_6
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page 2
2. The requested exceptions to the standards would increase
traffic hazards.
3 The granting of the requested exceptions would not be
consistent with the intent of the subdivision regulations.
SECTION 3 . Conditions. . That the approval of the vesting
tentative map for Minor Subdivision No. 91-203 be subject to the
following conditions:
1. Subdivider shall provide a 16-foot wide driveway located in
a 20-foot accessway to Parcel B.
2. Subdivider shall relocate, modify, or demolish the existing
house on Parcel a to provide a minimum ten-foot setback to the
access way (flag) portion of Parcel B.
3. Subdivider shall demolish the existing studio apartment
located near the northeast property line, or convert it to a
covered parking space, to comply with residential_ density
regulations of the Zoning Regulations.
4 . Subdivider shall. provide parking for any remaining dwelling
unit on Parcel A, in compliance with the Zoning Regulations
and to the approval of the Community Development Director.
5. ., Subdivider shall modify existing storage structures on Parcel
A and parcel B to provide a minimum five-foot setback from new
lot line.
6. Subdivider shall submit to the Community Development Director
for approval and recordation, a common driveway easement and
agreement allowing access to Parcel A via the flag accessway
and driveway.
7. Subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review,
approval and recordation. The map shall be prepared by, or
under the supervision of, a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor.
. 8. Subdivider shall provide individual electrical, cable
television, and natural gas services and metering for both
parcels to the approval of affected public utility agencies
and the City Engineer.
9. Subdivider shall provide individual water services and sewer
connections for each lot, to the approval of the City
Engineer.
s-7
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page 3
SECTION 4. Code Requirements. The following represent
standard requirements required by various codes, ordinances, and
policies of the City of San Luis Obispo, but are not limited to the
following:
1. Subdivider shall install durable boundary monuments, to the
approval of the City Engineer.
2. Subdivider shall provide a 20-foot access driveway per Uniform
Code 10.207 (b) . (Option: If a narrower driveway is provided,
subdivider shall place on the final map a not that mitigation
of access deficiency shall be mitigated by provision of an
automatic fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13-D for all parcels
located on Parcel B. )
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
1992.
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk, Pam Voges
S-O
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page 4
APPROVED:
0
City Adm istrative Officer
t Ine
Com unity DeveApplent. Director
Ste [
v �tY
s. Pi cG�N4- povm%
PF1
0 •c O, O • 'L
;c k �aei
91-
%Pb,
1- `Pb,
All
G ti+
G =
l
I r Wa vw!
.M
• A..r. . '�11Yi 'p` -
o > _
Zc it
< � t
= C Z Q
._ .__. . C Z -C _
' *�-ty —{ea_sr_--<ei:•r.;�Sr�_:c_y��.C,- 75'�t;:_-. __-_-.sr..�•:+i_mwr�-a^•+r.•ri rr-•w_V`.+¢�:�'_.:�.ti-i`:.�a=-:-?:,..
Ott
x � B f N P. �•�- .-y.
_ __ _ ..��-_-�..-�.r—+-Oma_.-<:"..�i��,� __ _ •cs-r e�s`_ ' _ rdaaiw�ee :n..:a ..
�i@.•silf�lztsr=-`�..- • �.i=c....T..:c..T'._'"i:- -F.Ti7�7 .._ .._�__._.--�°,s•�+e�c�.. � :.
+ +..�s�.•os'� - --
7-7
O � .
' . o
c.•e h
s
i
_.._. ... CD < p
a_ 3
O D y O
- > Z oOLo H D D
Z
m
is
� �� _ � _�•`.�- ���-o' , � --.xriam.,--:.;...•..cam.. m.. - - '�v--- ..
RECEIVED
JAN 3 Q M
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP SERVICE (9e5) 54+0=0
44o Coantry Club Drivel Ban Luis Obispo, CA 934oi
T. Ms8towm Frank, RCE 3041=
The property owner/resident/subdivider wishes to divide a 14 , 800
square foot parcel with one single family residence and a studio
into two parcels using the the flag lot configuration. The property
is zoned R-1 and no change is requested nor required . The property
owner lives in the existing residence and utilizes the existing ,
relatively level , straight asphalt paved driveway to park her- cars
in the garage and carport area of the backyard . As a consequence
of the requested minor subdivision, the existing studio would be
reconverted back to a garage for the existing residence. A ten-foot
wide street easement is proposed along the entire frontage of the
property and approved street trees have already been installed.
Several public utility easements have been proposed as shown on the
tentative map . Naturally , all utilities will be underground. A 1"
water service is proposed for the back lot to accommodate the
ability to install a fire sprinkler system in the residence. The
existing residence is in extremely good repair and no modifications
are proposed or necessary .
Two exceptions to the City Subdivision Standards are being requested.
Namely , Section 16. 36 . 230 (C) and (D) ; The accessway to the rear lot
would only have a 12 ' wide paved driveway to the rear lot and the side
yard setback adjacent to the access road pavement wouldll-a little more
than 4 ' . We have diligently looked at a number of alternatives in lot
configurations utilizing the adjoining properties to eliminate the
need for the requested exceptions . The property to the northeast has
just been approved for a minor subdivision and is not in a position
to modify their approved plans . The property to the southeast has a
number of substantial existing improvements to the property and access
to and from the rear parcel would be onto Johnson Avenue , which would
create a dangerous condition due to the volume and speeds of traffic
on Johnson Avenue . The only remotely possible modification to the
proposed plan would require the reconstruction of the existing driveway
on the adjacent property to the southwest in an attempt to create a
common driveway to serve both properties . It would require the removal
of several fruit trees and provide a driveway that would be virtually
useless to the adjacent landowner due to alignment and configuration
of their garage. The elderly and relatively conservative adjacent
property owners are not desirous of developing their property.
Thus , we feel that the proposed plan be authorized by the Honorable
City Council since 1) the property is in the size and shape that it is
impractical and undesirable to conform to strict application of the
above-mentioned City Standard , 2) that the cost to the subdivider is
not the sole reason for granting the modification, 3) that the modifi-
cation is not detrimental to the public health , safety and welfare
since the existing driveway will continue to be utilized if the project
is denied , and 4) that the modifications are consistent with the .genera
plans and applicable specific plans , and that this exception has been
granted a number of times in the past .
DIRECTOR'S SUBDIVISION HEARING
FRIDAY MARCH 6, 1992
1359 & 1361 Bishop Street. Minor Subdivision No. MS 91-203; Consideration of a
tentative parcel map creating two lots from one lot; R-
1-zone; Steven Frank, subdivider.
Greg Smith presented the staff report, noting this application is for a deep lot subdivision
which includes an exception to the Subdivision Regulations to allow a 12 foot driveway
in a 12-foot access flag to the rear lot. The Subdivision Regulations normally require a
16-foot wide driveway in a 20-foot access flag. He also noted this would involve another
exception; the existing structure is 4 feet from the access flag where a setback of 10 feet
is required. He stated that the ordinance requires, and the applicant proposes
modifications to an existing studio apartment to convert it back to a garage, to comply
with density and parking regulations in the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Smith noted that the
staff report outlines the findings which must be made for exceptions to regulations to be
approved, and he felt that these findings are not supported, specifically findings A which
is that the size, shape or topographic conditions affecting the property make it impossible
or impractical to conform to the strict application of the regulations.
Mr.Smith noted that it would be possible to divide this property in compliance with the
regulations if the house on Parcel 1 were modified, relocated, demolished or alternatively
if the property were subdivided in conjunction with adjoining property to the southwest
Staff recommended approval of the deep lot subdivision, but without the exceptions to the
access flag.
Terry Sanville asked for clarification on a portion of the staff report regarding permitting
a third lot at 1351 Bishop Street if the existing house at that address were modified. Greg
Smith explained the alternative which would allow a deep lot, resulting in three lots each
with slightly over 6,000 square feet. Extensive modification would be required to existing
structures. The flag would allow access to the lot at the back of the property, as well
as the adjoining property.
Terry Sanville questioned Condition 6, regarding the common driveway agreement and
access. He ask why would this be necessary to provide access to parcel A which now
has access directly off Bishop Street.
Greg Smith responded that if the existing residence and garage are to be maintained, it
would not be essential to have access nor would it be desirable or necessary for the
residents on Parcel A. If there are to be extensive modifications of that residence, then
staff would want the owner of parcel A to have the option to have access to the flag as
opposed to being required to maintain a Bishop Street driveway which would be more
hazardous and takes up a curb-side parking space.
Terry Sanville also questioned two ordinance requirements relating to sewer and water
Director's Subdivision Hearing
Meeting of March 6, 1992
Page 2
impact fees and park in-lieu fees. He asked if staff has made a recommendation that
those fees will be the responsibility of the subdivider or the developer of the property?
Greg Smith responded that park-in-lieu fees are typically paid at the time the final map is
filed; the sewer and water impacts fees, if any apply, are paid at the time of building
permit issuance. He noted that this is not within the purview of the Hearing Officer's
decision, as these are required by city ordinances with appeal to the City Council.
Terry Sanville explained that his only concern at this point is that the Code Requirements
are noted accurately, and he felt that the requirement noting that the subdivider shall pay
sewer and water impact fees should be amended to reflect staff's comment.
Jerry Kenny noted that there was some question as to whether or not this was a vesting
map when it was filed, and whether or not the new fees would be appropriate. He also
noted that any of these fees could be determined at a later date.
Terry Sanville stated that code requirements (ordinance requirements) are intended to
alert applicants and remind the staff that key .elements need to occur as part of the
project. He felt that, in this case, staff needs to evaluate when and if these fees would
be required.
The public hearing was opened.
Steve Frank, subdivider's representative, spoke in support of the request. He noted that
he had only received the staff report one hour prior to the meeting, and had not had a
chance to scrutinize it in detail. He noted the absence of the subdivider's statement
which he submitted as part of the original application package, and asked if Engineering
had a chance to review that statement. He explained that much of the justification for the
denial of the exceptions were addressed in the subdivider's statement, and he felt the
brunt of what he wanted to discuss at this hearing deals with the exceptions.
Regarding the first finding for denial of the exceptions, Mr. Frank noted that they have
looked at a number of different alternatives for this particular project, and could find none
that were realistic. The most obvious and realistic is to combine the project with the
adjacent property at 1351 Bishop Street, but the owners of that property are not
interested at all. On the contrary, Mr. Frank said he felt that the location of the
subdivider's existing house (where the subdivider currently lives, and intends to remain
living there) is a significant enough condition as to why they should request the exception.
He noted that the house is a good solid house, and reducing the house 40% in order to
accommodate the required width of 20 feet would significantly impair the value of the
house, and felt this is unrealistic.
Regarding the issue of the exceptions increasing traffic hazards, Mr. Frank felt the
contrary and did not see how this could be justified. A condition currently exists; the
subdivider parks in the back of the lot and uses the existing driveway for use by her and
svd�
Director's Subdivision Hearing
Meeting of March 6, 1992
Page 3
her family. Upon development of the property, the studio would be converted back into
a garage on Parcel A, and the new owner of Parcel B would be using the driveway in lieu
of the subdivider, so there would virtually be no difference in the amount of traffic or the
manner in which the traffic would be handled as a result of this project.
Mr. Frank stated that the requested exceptions are consistent with the intent of the
Subdivision Regulations, and with what the Housing Element says about trying to retain
the existing homes in the city that are in good repair. He explained that a considerable
amount of time has been spent on trying to find a feasible solution for development of this
lot. He noted that it is a very large lot by today's standards, and he felt that because the
city has granted similar exceptions to these on various other locations, and because of
the quality of the home, and because there is no detriment to the public health, safety or
welfare, the exceptions should be granted, and the project approved as proposed.
Barbara Vance, subdivider, spoke in support of her request She said she did not agree
with the finding that a hazardous driveway condition would be created, and said that
nothing came from the Traffic Engineer in that regard. She reiterated that there would
be no change in the way the driveways are currently being used. She also reinforced the
fact that the owners of 1351 Bishop Street have no intention of even considering any type
of change to their property. Mrs. Vance further stated that she is not interested in
demolishing her present home, in whole or in part, and to reduce its area by 40% would
make it unlivable.
Steven Frank said he understands the intent of accommodating a sufficiently wide
driveway to the back parcel. He felt that one .of the major reasons for this type of a
requirement is for emergency fire access, and he felt that Spencer Meyer of the City Fre
Department, quite adequately addressed the issue of sprinklering the back house
because of the length of the driveway and the narrowness of the driveway. According
to Steven Frank, Mr. Meyer said that structures are considered to be protected if the
maximum access hose distance is increased to 300 feet if the property is sprinklered. Mr.
Frank felt this is one more reason why this property should be developed with this
exception.
Regarding the issue of a common driveway agreement with the property owners at 1351
Bishop Street, Mr. Frank felt would be extremely unrealistic. He said he showed the
arrangement of the driveway, residence, and garage of the adjacent land owner just to
show that any sort of common access driveway would eliminate trees, and would impact
existing utilities, and it would make the existing garage at 1351 Bishop Street totally
unusable.
Greg Smith noted for the record that a letter was received from Russell K Powell, 1330
Cecelia Court, in opposition to the request
The public hearing was closed.
S��S
Director's Subdivision Hearing
Meeting of March 6, 1992
Page 4
Terry Sanville noted that this property is clearly large enough to support two units, from
a size and density standpoint, and a second unit to the rear of the property is
appropriate. However, he said he is not convinced that the safety issue of the driveway
is a leading issue to act in consideration of this subdivision. He noted that the-city is
faced with the city's required findings for subdivision of properties. He explained that the
Subdivision Regulations best apply to the initial subdivision of properties and they have
difficulty in applying to the re-subdivision of properties within existing neighbothoods.
Hence, the reason for findings for granting exceptions. He felt he needs to focus on
those exceptions and determine whether or not those findings can be made.
Regarding the findings that: °In order to grant exceptions, the city needs to find that
granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations
and is consistent with the general plan with all applicable specific plans or the plans for
the area. He said the staff report notes that the Housing Element encourages the
retention of existing housing, and the Land Use Element supports infilled development in
existing residential neighborhoods. Mr. Sanville thought it was interesting that the
proposed*subdivision better meets this finding than a subdivision that would require the
removal of the existing unit. That is not to say that a conforming subdivision would be
inconsistent with the general plan, but this subdivision seems to better meet both
objectives of housing conservation and enabling housing infill.
Regarding the finding that 'The modification will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity," Mr. Sanville said he
is not convinced that the width of the driveway is of significant health and safety concern
that he could not make this finding.
Regarding the finding that "Cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the
regulations is not the sole reason for granting this modification", Mr. Sanville felt this
finding is clearly met.
Regarding the first and most difficult finding to make; 'The property to be divided is of
such size or shape, or is affected by such topographic conditions that it is impossible,
impractical, or undesirable in the particular case, to conform to the strict applications of
the regulations codified in this title.° Faced with that specific finding, Terry Sanville said
he cannot find topographic, size or shape conditions that would warrant an exception to
the standards. He further explained, as noted in the staff report, that all four findings
must be made to grant an exception, and based on the fact that the last finding cannot
be made, he said he cannot recommend the Council approve the exceptions.
Terry Sanville, recommended that the City Council approve the vesting tentative map, and
deny the exceptions, based on the following findings, and subject to the following
conditions and code requirements:
Director's Subdivision Hearing
Meeting of March 6, 1992
Page 5
Findings for aooroval of Vesting Tentative Map
1. The design of the vesting tentative map and proposed improvements are
consistent with the general plan.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the
R-4 zone.
3. The design of the vesting tentative map and the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
4. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through
or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
5. The Community Development Director has determined that the proposed vesting
tentative map will not have a significant effect on the environment and has granted
a negative declaration.
Denial of exceptions to flag width and setback requirements, based on the following
findings:
1. There are no size, shape or topographic conditions affecting the site which justify
approval of the requested exceptions.
2. The requested exceptions to the standards would increase traffic hazards.
3 The granting of the requested exceptions would not be. consistent with the intent
of the subdivision regulations.
That the approval of the vesting tentative map for Minor Subdivision No. 91-203 be
subject to the following conditions:
1. Subdivider shall provide a 16-foot wide driveway located in a 20-foot accessway
to Parcel B.
2. Subdivider shall relocate, modify, or demolish the existing house on Parcel a to
provide a minimum ten-foot setback to the access way (flag) portion of Parcel B.
3. Subdivider shall demolish the existing studio apartment located near the northeast
property line, or•convert it to a covered parking space, to comply with residential
density regulations of the Zoning Regulations.
Director's Subdivision Hearing
Meeting of March 6, 1992
Page 6
4. Subdivider shall provide parking for any remaining dwelling unit on Parcel A, in
compliance with the Zoning Regulations and to the approval of the Community
Development Director.
5. Subdivider shall modify existing storage structures on Parcel A and parcel B to
provide a minimum five-foot setback from new lot line.
6. Subdivider shall submit to the Community Development Director for approval and
recordation, a common driveway easement and agreement allowing access to
Parcel A via the flag accessway and driveway.
7. Subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval and recordation.
The map shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of, a registered civil
engineer or licensed land surveyor.
8. Subdivider shall provide individual electrical, cable television, and natural gas
services and metering for both parcels to the approval of affected public utility
agencies and the City Engineer.
9. Subdivider shall provide individual water services and sewer connections for each
lot, to the approval of the City Engineer.
The following represent standard requirements required by various codes, ordinances,
and policies of the City of San Luis Obispo, but are not limited to the following:
1. Subdivider shall install durable boundary monuments, to the approval of the City
Engineer.
2. Subdivider shall provide a 20-foot access driveway per Uniform Code 10.207(b).
{Option: If a narrower driveway is provided, subdivider shall place on the final map
a not that mitigation of access deficiency shall be mitigated by provision of an
automatic fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13-D for all parcels located on Parcel B.)
Terry Sanville explained that his decision is only a recommendation to the City Council,
and the City Council is the only body which can approve exceptions to the Subdivision
Regulations.
RECEIVED
FEB 2 7 M2
Citv of San Luis Obispo_
Community Development Director .
1990 Palm Street/P . O . Box 1800 . -
San Luis Obispo. CA . 93403-1800
Subject : Minor Subdivision No. MS 91-203
Sir :
in reviewing your notice reaarding the above document . '. t would
appear that we are entertaining thq same =ituation as set forth in
vour MS 91 -45 of december 1991 even thought the house numbers are
different _ In any event . my considerations are the same as thev. are
in my letter date' December 4 . 1991 which I attach for your use and
information .
Though i am coanizant of the desires of property owners to enhance
their income by building additional rentals on available orcperty. I
am certainly against changing our present proPerty rules . our desires
to limit our growth in such a manner and for absentee owners to make
us bigger for their personal gain . Further . we 3lreaay have enougn
"Mother-in-Law" housing (two houses on one lot) in our fair town .
You have in this letter my fervent vote against such lot chance in
`his or anv other area . as I have an illness in my house which will
prevent my attending the March e . 199" meeting .
Thank you for your attention . I remain .
^esp--reTfuII V .
S sw KK: ." 'owel l
1320 Cecelia Court
San Luis Obispo . CA. 93401
544-0309 .
s-/�f
December 4 . 1991
Community Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo .
990 Palm Street/P .O . Box 8100
San Luis Obispo , CA. 93403-8100
Subject : Minor Subdivision No . MS 91 -145 .
Sir
The official notice of the subject listed above has been received and
it is noted that their is no date listed as to when the notice was
written . I suspect that this lack of date is not important as I have
other documentation from City agencies with out a date thereupon . I
have asked the question via telephone as to why not and the answer is
" I do not know" . Well , on to the subject. matter !
I sincerely enter- my displeasure and "NO" vote on the (Minor ?) lot
change . Some of our reasons :are set forth below .
1 . We already have enough people in San Luis Obispo who live in
houses owned by people not residents of our County or City and
some out of State Owners owners , none of whom care what happens
to our town .
2 . The proposal of using land from other lots (though apparently
agreed upon) decreases the sizes of tho lots and expanding the
lot in question for the pure purpose of renting to those who will
fill even further the presently over populated area . Question !
will these chances ensure that all lots involved will retain the
code requirements for proper lot size ?
3 .
Park Space is at a premium in this .area and the traffic ha_
become excessive on Bishop Street and Augusta Street let alone th=-
very significant travel on Johnson Avenue . To me . parking of
vehicles on Johnson Street is a hazard to the traveling public on
that thoroughfare . The reasons for the traffic and parking enigma
has been caused by past proliferation of building partially under
the comment of the City Engineer that such building would not
significantly impact either parking or traffic on the surroundina
streets . History has proven him wrong aaain ! You will please note
that all available space for parking during the week is utilized
by the County Employees in the Health Department , the Agriculture
department etc , and the public who need to use those facilities .
Please also remember- , that we the American Public have been forced
to become . for the most part . two or more car families . In a
question to the Oevelopment Aaencv regarding parkina of vehicles
for those who will be renting the addition . they responded that
the intent is for peopl.1 - to p•3r-k their .-ar- on the dditi(-)nal
property obtained froni 3d_i:linina lot ,-caner z . but you and I know
+h,.?+ ih 1 i c n;.t, ?.t r- i.-+' 1 . :,I!�._:.r-...�,1 t;-� nor �of Or- ed .
3��
Thank you for listening to me and hope that I will be able to
attend your meeting on December 6 , 1991 . I will also trust that this
notice of my negative vote will be properly entered into the record .
Very Truly Yours ,
Russell K . Powell
1330 Cecelia Court
San Luis Obispo, CA . 93401
544-0309 .
S--z/
r 'STO-
L ,mases mica ❑ FYI
CDDDIR MEETIN AGENDA
�o O mEa� DATE EM #
9��JORn 0 muacit
June 10, 1992 ❑ MGmTT� ❑ RBCDIR
D -> ff
To: Mayor Dunin and Council Members Rappa, Pinard, Roalman
and Reiss
Subject: Public Hearing Item #5 - Council Meeting of 6/16/92
Minor Subdivision MS 91-203
I am the property owner of the above-mentioned Minor Subdivision
MS 91-203 located at 1359 Bishop Street. As such, I am asking
that you approve the vesting tentative map with the exceptions to
the driveway width and setback from Parcel A as requested.
I have reviewed the staff report for this project and have some
comments and concerns. I have spoken with Mike Bertaccini, Jerry
Kenny, and John Rawles of the City Engineering Division. In the
staff report the statement is made under "Other Department
Comments" that "Engineering staff note concerns with drainage and
setbacks addressed above. " Neither Mike nor Jerry (who reviewed
the tentative map) have any concerns about drainage or setbacks,
nor did they express such concerns in their review to Planning
(Attachment A) .
John Rawles, the Traffic Engineer, does not have any concerns
regarding traffic hazards at the location. I have lived at 1359
Bishop St. for 14 years, and what would become Parcel B has
always been the driveway which I have used. In that period of
time I have never had occasion to back out onto Bishop Street.
Every other residence along that street has a driveway from which
they back out. Review of traffic accidents along there show that
in, January 1986 there was one traffic accident attributed to
backing out of a driveway in the 1300 block of Bishop Street
(Attachment B) .
Also related to traffic is the fact that a similar tentative map
was recently approved by the City (MS 91-145 located at 1365
Bishop and 2211 Johnson) . This parcel has a driveway going out
onto Johnson Avenue, which has a much higher traffic volume than
Bishop Street.
The City's present Parking and Driveway Standards (Standard
#2120) call for a to-foot minimum pavement width for up to six
parking spaces for residential use. Why should a single
residence need a 16-foot width of pavement, as stated in the
report? (Attachment C)
In Item 2 - Exceptions, the statement is made that "The property
to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such
topographic conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or
undesirable, in the particular case, to conform to the strict
application of the regulations codified in this title. " However,
the house itself is a "topographic condition. " Webster describes
topography as "graphic delineation in detail usually on maps or
charts of natural and man-made features of a place. . . " and "the
configuration of a surface including its relief and the position
of its natural and man-made features. " Therefore the existing
dwelling on Parcel A is a part of the topography, and is so
viewed by the Engineering Division.
I would like to invite each of you to personally view the
property. Planning staff is recommending that the house be
demolished or reduced in size by 40% in order to widen the
driveway. The home is small--less than 1500 square feet--and a
40% reduction in size would result in a house of around 900
square feet.
I feel that if you could see for yourselves the layout of the
property and see the condition in which the existing structure
has been maintained, you would agree that demolishing this home
would be unreasonable, as would a 40% reduction in size. My
husband and I purchased this house as a "fixer-upper" in 1978 and
have put literally thousands of hours and dollars into restoring
it to the fine condition in which it is today.
Other significant factors that should be considered in
regard to demolition of the house are the impact that truckloads
of debris would have on our landfill, and the number of trees (in
the form of lumber) that would be required for rebuilding.
I will contact you within the next day or so with the hope that
we can set up a time for each of you to come by and see the
project first hand.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara .A. Vance
Attachment A
P U B L I C W 0 R K S D E P T.
E N G I N E E R I N G D I V I S I O N
***** PLAN REVIEW *****
** Location: 1359 BISHOP, VANCE PROPERTY, MS91-2030 ER46-91
_ * Plan Chk: 02/13/92
1. Each parcel shall be served with individual water, sewer, and
utilites, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
2. Both parcels accommodate the historical drainage patterns.
Therefore, there is no need for grading of either parcel at this time.
Parcel B i•s presently improved with a garage and pavement. The
adjacent easterly property is proposed to be developed and graded to
reduce the amount of run-off to the subject property. Based on this
scenario, the site should support a single family structure without
impacting the adjacent westerly' property or requiring any special
drainage improvements.
Attachment B
June 10, 1992
MEMORANDIIM
TO: Barbara Vance
FROM: John Rawles d�
SUBJECT: 1359 Bishop, MS 91-203
Per your request i have reviewed the traffic accident history for
Bishop Street from 1985 to the present. To date only one accident
which involved starting or backing onto Bishop was found. This
accident happened over six years ago in 1986. Considering the low
number of accidents of this type for Bishop Street, it appears that
backing from a driveway is not a particularly difficult movement
at this time. This may in part be due to the fact that in
residential areas this type of movement is fairly common, and that
motorists- are aware.. of' it- and drive accordingly.
SIITIS 06/09/92
Party 1
CD17E -. d. CS CSETW... :-. _- a'D UrtT 2--- —
_ a 1i
PCP_t7TP6 CTINN y PCF-TC PCP-MR9 i r O1P_ETPRC OTHER PICTORS Iotersectioo
---- ---------
------------------------------------------------------------- -
RE11-END 910709. T PDO .. DTBER tlT 01 1 ST8IIGBT TIOLITION BISHOP/SIERRL
1240 DOI E IT
BROIDSIDE 901220 1 PDO OTHER 1!P 01 E IT NONE 1PPIRENT BISHOP/JOEISOI
1422. . 1UTO 101 - . : 1 STIIIGET
BROMIDE 900209. P PDO .. OTHER IT 01 S-LT NONE 9MENT BISHOP/JOENSON -
1440...- AUTO RON :: _ A STRIIGIT
RUR-END 890719- 1 PDO DTEEI IT 011 STIIICBT NONE IPPIRENT BISHOP/JOHNSON
1414 TOO CLOSE 1 IT
SIDES91PI 89D428 P PDO OTHER NT 01 111711 TRIPP INITTENTION BISBOP/JOEBSON
0950 ST"/1116 1 STIIIGET
BIT OBJECT 880422 1 PDO PIED DEJECT DO A w OPP RD T1011T101 BISHOP/BOSENELL
2340 U111011 - --- . AUT=TED
EIS DEJECT 67P130_ P- 2DO:- -.: SIM 011ECT 011 STRIICET TIOLITION BISHOP/BUSENELL
2247 ALC/DIUG puccloc,
ER`
UU-1ND 860126 0 P -OTEB1 IT E NONE 1PPom 1ISBOP/SIERRI
1607 STRT/B7J3G =- 1T
BROIDSIDB 850831 S TOO DTEEI IT 011 LT. INITTENTIOA BISHOP/JOHNSON
2013 SIG/SICB :. ' S STRIICRT
Attachment C
fire hydrant
or utility pole
71-t
Dt1vepc
traffic signal or
u light siondord
W J
RI.-
/Kr R1W
'.'13�Tre:ro .�•'
YTCifi'. '•'. a
I1
3' min., full 22' min., 507: max. of 3' min.,
height curb full height lot frontage full hgt.
curb between In any one curb
O 35' driveways serving driveway or 6' min.
same parcel of land combinaiion full hgt.
of driveways. curb
4D SETBACK FROM CORNER MAY BE SHORTENED (30' max.)
WITH APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER. MINIMUM (302 max. residential)
DISTANCE IS: CURB RETURN RADIUS + 5 FEET
BO DRIVEWAY RAMPS SERVING MORE THAN SIX (6) PARKING SPACES SHALL
BE 10 FT. DEEP UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.
OC DRIVEWAY RAMPS SERVING SIX (6) OR FEWER PARKING SPACES TO END AT
BACK OF SIDEWALK.
MIN. MAX.
APPLICATION WIDTH WIDTH
LOTS WITH SIX (6) OR FEWER SPACES SERVING RESIDENTIAL USES.
EXISTING STRUCTURES CONVERTED TO OFFICE USE, AND NEWLY 1'0' 16'
CONSTRUCTED OFFICES.
LOTS WITH SIX (6) OR FEWER SPACES SERVING COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL USES AND WHERE ANY BUILDING TO BE SERVED IS 12' 16.1
MORE THAN 150 FT. FROM THE STREET RIGHT—OF—WAY.
LOTS WITH MORE THAN SIX (6) SPACES BUT FEWER THAN 20 SPACES 129 30'
AND WITH SEPARATE ENTRANCES AND EXITS (ONE—WAY DRIVEWAYS).
LOTS WITH MORE THAN SIX (6) SPACES BUT FEWER THAN 20 SPACES
AND WITH ONLY ONE POINT OF ENTRANCE AND EXIT (TWO—WAY DRIVE— 16' 30'
WAYS) AND LOTS WITH 20 OR MORE SPACES SERVING OFFICE AND
RESIDENTIAL USES.
LOTS WITH 20 OR MORE SPACES SERVING COMMERCIAL AND IN— 20' 30'
DUSTRIAL USES.
LOTS WHERE ANY TYPE OF USE REQUIRES FIRE TRUCK ACCESS BY 20' 30'
DRIVEWAY.
ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 1156 (1989)
APPROVED BY CITY ENGINEER DATECITY OF PARKING & DRIVEWAY STANDARDS
- qQREVISIONS BY APP DATE , SAS DRIVEWAY RAMP
Redrawn JDL MN 1/91 LUIS SIZE & LOCATION
'F£RE'R SPACES- JDL JWW 1/91 OBISPO 2120
"F:ETIN AGENDA
VIA ITEM #
��►���►����������i�i� �� IIIINp�►���� �► city
of sAn luis oBspo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 . San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 10, 1992
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: June 16, 1992 Council Agenda
Minor Subdivision MS 91-203 - attachements.
The attached "Subdivision Alternatives" referenced in the staff
report for this item were inadvertently omitted from the copies
distributed to the Council. Please accept our apology for any
inconvenience this may have caused.
cc: Steven Frank, Barbara Vance
COPIES7O:
�jCout�ol Adim 0 FYI
13
/d cDDDnL
❑ GO ❑ FIN.D(R
�A °❑ FW
RECEIVED
❑ MCMT. EAM ❑ MC D1 L JUN 1 0 1992
Ec�nFn.>: CILLDAM
m [� CIT/CLERK
aAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
ALTERNATIVE A
BISHOP STREET
COMMON DRIVEWAY
I+-10' SM lkCK
ADJOININGo
PROPERTY
r
O
Lo f740 SO FT
xy ,y O
.:.. O
N
O
N
124'
7400 SO FT
74'
VANCE
�B PROPERTY
ALTERNATIVE B
BISHOP STREET
x-10' SETS CK
e I f
I �
T
'Y^, ' A
ADJOINING 6b00 SO F
'.
PROPERTY b
N
124'
6586 SO FT
74'
VANCE
A PROPERTY