HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/07/1997, 5 - A. A 116-96: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION APPROVING A YARD REDUCTION AND AN EIGHT-FOOT-WIDE DRIVEWAY WHERE 10' IS NORMALLY REQUIRED, WITH CONDITIONS. B. REQUEST FOR FEE WAIVER FOR APPLICATIONcouncil
apenaa RepoRt
OF S A N L U I S O B I S P O
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Develop ent Director (�o
Prepared By: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner J
SUBJECT:
C I T Y 7-7 A7
a. A 116 -96: Appeal of Planning Commission's action approving a yard reduction and an eight -
foot -wide driveway where 10' is normally required, with conditions.
b. Request for fee waiver for application
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal, thereby upholding the actions of the Planning Commission and
Administrative Hearing Officer approving the exceptions with conditions.
2. Deny the fee waiver, based on finding that there are no special circumstances justifying a
waiver.
DISCUSSION
Backeround
The site has been the subject of several enforcement actions since 1993. In an effort to clear up
the last one, the applicant- property owner wants to build a carport in the rear of the lot. A
driveway width exception and a side yard exception are needed to allow the carport and provide
access to it. The applicant requested these exceptions and they were approved at an
Administrative Hearing on October 18, 1996, subject to conditions.
The applicant and another citizen appealed the decision, for different reasons. The Planning
Commission denied both appeals, thereby upholding the Hearing Officer's action. The applicant
has appealed this decision. Appeals of Planning Commission actions are heard by the Council.
The applicant has also requested a waiver of fees for this exception request. Fee waivers may only
be acted upon by the Council.
Applicant: Alana Reynolds
Property owners: Alan and Alana Reynolds
Zoning: Low- Density Residential (R -1)
General Plan: Low- Density Residential
Environmental status: Categorically exempt, Class 5, Section 15305(a): minor alteration
in land use limitations, including sideyard exceptions.
Project action deadline: Action has been taken. No state- mandated deadline for action on
appeals.
S
Council Agenda Report - A 116-96 appeal
1939 Huasna Street
Pie 2
Site description
The site is a rectangular flat lot on the southwest side of Huasna Drive, containing a one -story
house. The neighborhood is low- density residential, containing mostly older homes with single -car
garages.
Project Description
The project is the construction of a driveway and one -car carport on the northwesterly side of the
property, and the conversion of the existing one -car garage into living space.
EVALUATION
A. The exception request
1. A converted garage is the driving force. The attached land use data lists several
enforcement actions against the property. The following paragraphs summarize this
history.
A complaint was received in July 1993, and subsequent investigation revealed that the
one -car garage had been converted to living space without permits, the residence was
being operated as a hostel and that a home occupation (home product sales) was being
operated without a permit. Over time, the hostel ceased operation and the applicant
moved, eliminating the home occupation. The converted garage remained.
There are two ways to correct garage conversions: 1) convert the garage back to its
original use as a garage, or 2) replace the required parking space or spaces elsewhere on
site, to City standards. The applicant wanted to retain the living area and therefore chose
to provide a covered parking space elsewhere on site. She made three attempts:
She first tried to obtain approval of a carport on the southwest side of the house. The
carport required a yard exception to allow it to be on the property line, and the space was
not wide enough for a car. The request was denied by the Planning Commission and, on
appeal, by the City Council. Second, she requested a yard exception from five feet to
three, and a driveway width exception, from ten feet to eight, to allow a carport at the rear
of the lot, on the southwesterly side of the property. This request was approved in
September 1995. After submitting a building permit application for this solution, the
applicant learned that her survey had been incorrect, and she did not have adequate space
on that side of the house to create an eight- foot -wide driveway.
Thus the third attempt, which again involves an exception from five feet to three for the
carport and a driveway width exception from ten to eight on the northerly side of the
property. To assure that this minimum width of eight feet can be provided, the applicant
Council Agenda Report - A 116-96 appeal
1939 Huasna Street
Page 3
has obtained approval from the neighbor at 1897 Huasna to process a lot line adjustment
later. This is the request that was approved on October 18.
2. The applicant objects to the second condition. The request for exceptions was
approved with two conditions (see minutes, attached). The second condition requires the
existing driveway ramp and paving to be removed, because it does not provide access to
legal parking on the site. The applicant has appealed that condition. She offers the
following reasons for the appeal (see appeals to Planning Commission and to City Council,
attached, one reason is not discussed here because the applicant- appellant was basing her
reasoning on County, rather than City standards):
* City standards (attached) restrict driveway widths to 16', and say that more than
one driveway may be allowed if the frontage width is at least 70'. The property,
after the lot line adjustment, will be 65.6' wide. Ms. Reynolds feels the difference
between 65.6' and 70' is small and an exception should be granted.
Comment. If the width were 70', then 30 1/6, or 21', would be allowed to be in driveways.
If 30% of the actual width of 65.6' were allowed, total driveway width could be 20'. The
two driveways would not exceed this total.
* Less than the allowed amount of the front yard will be concrete.
Comment. This is true. The City's property maintenance standards say that no more than
50% of the front yard, not to exceed 26' in width, may be paved. It appears that about 18'
would be in paving in this case.
* The driveway would get one car and one motorcycle off the street.
Comment. The space in front of the garage is not a legal parking space (parking spaces
must be set back 20' from the street property line). The driveway removes eight feet from
the curb line, thereby tightening available parking area on the street itself.
3. Exceptions can be granted. The parldng and driveway standards (section K.2 and K.3)
say
2. Only one &iveway is allowed per street frontage for residential property unless
the frontage exceeds 70 feet; and
3. As a condition of issuance of any driveway permit, all abandoned driveways and
driveway ramps on the same property shall be removed landscaped and the curb, gutter,
and sidewalk properly restored
Too many driveways can limit the amount of parking available on the street, can affect the
appearance of the block, and can sometimes result in dangerous conditions. Abandoned
-5`3
Council Agenda Report - A 116-96 appeal
1939 Huasna Street
Page 4
driveways should be removed because they are no longer needed, yet they prevent the use
of on -street parking and offer easy access to illegal parking spaces.
The City Council may grant exceptions to these standards, in lieu of the Community
Development Director, who does not support such exceptions, if it makes all of the
following findings:
1. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
driveway or parking limitations upon other properties in the vicinity.
2. The exception will not adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of
persons working or living in the vicinity.
3. The exception is reasonably necessary for the applicant's full enjoyment of uses
permitted upon his or her property .
(Zoning regulations section 17.16.070)
Staff does not believe that these findings can be made.
B The fee waiver
4. The applicant wants the fee to be waived. Because the request to allow an eight -foot-
wide driveway and a three - foot -wide sideyard is in fact identical to the applicant's request
in 1995, except that it is for the opposite side of the lot, the applicant is requesting that the
fee for that approved use permit be transferred to this application.
It is coincidental that the request is for the same two things. The application is separate
and distinct from the one approved in 1995. It is on the opposite side of the lot, adjacent
to a different neighbor, and involves installation of a new driveway rather than use of an
existing one. The applicant is forced to repeat her efforts because her own survey was
incorrect, not through some error of the City's.
In accordance with the City's User Fee Cost Recovery Study finding (March 1995), staff
estimates the total cost to the City to process a typical administrative use permit, an appeal
to the Planning Commission, and an appeal to the City Council to be approximately
$4,000. Our fee for an administrative use permit is currently set at 25% cost recovery
($235) and there are no fees for Planning Commission or City Council appeals (i.e., no
cost recovery). Our fees are not established as a penalty or license but as a way to recover
some of the City costs in processing such requests. This project has resulted in many hours
of staff time and a waiver would result in a further drain on City resources.
ALTERNATIVES
�5--y
Council Agenda Report - A 116-96 appeal
1939 Huasna Street
Page 5
■ The Council may approve the applicant- appellant's appeal, eliminating condition #2 and
thereby granting exceptions to the parking and driveway standards to allow the abandoned
driveway to remain.
■ The Council may continue consideration if additional information is needed. Direction
should be given to staff and the applicant.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Public Works Department concerns about granting exceptions to driveway standards are
discussed above. Other departments did not have concerns with this request.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of a fee waiver would mean that the City would lose $235 in revenue. Action on the
yard and driveway exceptions are not expected to have any fiscal impact on the City.
Attached:
draft resolutions
vicinity map
site plan
applicant's statement
minutes of October 18, 1996 Administrative hearing
letters of appeal
update of Planning Commission meeting of November 13, 1996 (m lieu of minutes)
City's land use inventory summary for the site
excerpt from the Parking and Driveway Standards
r'.-
RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF TZIE PLANNING COMMLSSION'S ACTION,
THEREBY UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
OFFICER APPROVING A YARD REDUCTION AND A DRIVEWAY WIDTH
REDUCTION WITH CONDITIONS AND DENYING A REQUESTED FEE WAIVER,
(A 116 -96)
WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearine Othcer conducted a public hearing on October
82 1996 and approved Administrative Use Permit A 116-96 with conditions; and
WHEREAS, Alana Reynolds, applicant, and Brett Cross filed appeals of that action; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on November 13,
1996 and denied the two appeals, thereby upholding the Administrative Hearing Officer's action;
and
WHEREAS, the applicant filed an appeal of that action; and
and WHEREAS, the applicant has also requested a waiver of application fees for this request;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on January 7, 1997 and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Administrative Hearing and action,
the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the project is categorically exempt under
Section 15305, Class 5, of the California Environmental Quality Act, because it is a side yard and
driveway width reduction, not resulting in the creation of any new parcel;
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Fes. That this Council, after consideration of the Administrative Use
Permit application A 116 -96, and the Administrative Hearing Officer's action and the Planning
Commission's action, the appellants' statements, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports
thereof; makes the following finding.
1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan, the Zoning
Regulations, and other applicable City ordinances, and is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood
SECTION 2. Appeal denial. The request for approval of an appeal of the
Planning Commission's action approving the use permit with two conditions is hereby denied,
and therefore the Planning Commission's action is upheld.
SECTION 3. Fee waiver denial. The request for a waiver of application fees for
use permit A 116-96 is hereby denied.
Resolution no.
A 116-96 appeal
1939 Huasna Drive
Page 2
(1997 Series)
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Crawf
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
1997.
-5 - 7
RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION,
THEREBY APPROVING A YARD REDUCTION AND A DRIVEWAY WIDTH
REDUCTION AND [APPROVING] [DENYING] A WAIVER OF FEES FOR THIS
APPLICATION.
(A 116 -96)
WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing on October
8, 1996 and approved Administrative Use Permit A 116-96 with conditions; and
WHEREAS, Alana Reynolds, applicant, and Brett Cross filed appeals of that action; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on November 13,
1996 and denied the two appeals, thereby upholding the Administrative Hearing Officer's action;
and
WHEREAS, the applicant filed an appeal of that action; and
and RE
WHEAS, the applicant has also requested a waiver of application fees for this project;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on January 7, 1997 and has
the�recoorrds of the Planning Commissions records
action, and the � evaluation action,
recommendation of staff, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the project is categorically exempt under
Section 15305, Class 5, of the California Environmental Quality Act, because it is a side yard and
driveway width reduction, not resulting in the creation of any new parcel;
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. F'm_ dinM. That this Council, after consideration of the Administrative Use
Permit application A 116 -96, and the Administrative minive Hearing Oificees aeon and the Planning
Commission's action, the appellants' statements, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports
thereot makes the following finding:
1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan, the Zoning
Regulations, and other applicable City ordinances, and is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
SECTION 2. Appeal approval. The request for approval of an .appeal of the
Planning Commission's action approving the use permit with two conditions is hereby approved,
and therefore the request is approved with the following conditions:
[Council insert modified conditions here].
SECTION 3. Fee waiver (denial) (approval). The request for a waiver of fees
for use permit application A 116 -96 is hereby (denied) (approved).
S-0
Resolution no: (1997 Series).
A 116-96.appeal
1939 Huasria Drive
Page 2
On motion of _ seconded by _
and on thefopowing roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of - —. -- 1997.
ATTEST;
City Cerk Bonnie Cra" - — --
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Crty Attorngy Jeffrey Jorgensen
Mayor Allen Settle - -
.S-�o
-, 9, J6
O
1196
;e
(\0
STATEMENT TO ACCOMPANY ADMIlJISTRATIVE USE PERMIT
FOR PROPOSED COVERED PARKING
AT 1939 HUASNA DR, SAN LUIS OBISPO
Applicant: Alana Reynolds
This administrative use permit requests two exceptions to the city's yard and parldng
requirements in order to accommodate a proposed covered carport in the rear yard of a
residence at 1939 Huasna Drive. One parking stall is required to be covered for each
single - family dwelling, as provided in the City's zoning ordinance.
The two exceptions requested herein are as follows:
1. Exception to yard requirements (17.16.020(d) to pen:nit the carport to be constructed
not less than 3' of the side of the lot line.
2. Exception to the driveway width requirement to permit an 8' width. (Normally, a 10'
width would be required per Engineering Standard 2120).
RATIONALE:
The following circumstances should be noted in the city's review of this application:
The existing side yard provides only 8' between the exterior wall of the house and the
property line. (A fence that currently lies just within the property line will be relocated.
In addition, the applicant intends to complete a lot line adjustment with the neighbors
to the west to accommodate the proposed driveway. A contract has been agreed to by
the neighbors at 1897 Huasna and has been confirmed through Ron Whisenand.
The adjacent home to the west lies approximately 17.3' from the applicant's home.
This separation provides ample width between the proposed driveway and carport and
the adjacent home.
s �z
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING - MINUTES
FRIDAY OCMBER 18, 1996
1939 Huasna Street. Use Permit Appl. A 116 -96; Request to allow reduced side
yard from 5 -feet to 3 -feet for carport, and to allow an 8-
foot wide driveway where a 10 -toot wide driveway is
normally required; R -1 zone; Alana Reynolds, applicant.
Judy Lautner presented the staff report, explaining that the request is to
accommodate a new carport at the rear of the lot, which would replace the use of the
garage that is currently used as habitable living space. She noted that staff is
recommending approval of the request based on six findings and subject to two
conditions and one code requirement which she outlined.
Alana Reynolds, applicant, spoke in support of her request. She said that she had
been told by Engineering Department that 60% of the front of the property could be
used as a driveway approach. She felt that with the existing approach and the
proposed approach, she would still be under the amount allowed. She said she would
not be losing a parking space, and that one additional off - street parking space would
also be available.
Judy Lautner responded that it is possible to approve additional driveways but it is not
automatic. She noted that the existing driveway does not lead to a legal parking
space, therefore, it is not the policy of the City to approve maintaining the driveway.
Alana Reynolds felt that she is trying to accommodate extra housing and getting
parking off the street. She felt that she should be allowed to park in her front yard,
although Ms. Lautner maintained the parking space was not legal. She felt that with
a carport, fewer cars would be parked on the street.
Ron Whisenand asked if anyone had looked at the angles of the driveway and the
potential for maneuvering vehicles to the proposed carport, and whether or not
vehicles could back out of the driveway. He also was concerned about the fire
hydrant right at the street.
Ms. Reynolds responded that the original proposal was for the driveway to be on the
opposite side of the house, and although there was a 12 -foot patio that cars would
have had to maneuver around, it was shown to be feasible. She felt that without the
patio, the new proposal is much more simple and workable. She noted that there
would be no corner posts on two of the carport corners, making maneuverability much
easier.
s -/3
Administrative Hearing Minutes
October 18, 1996
Page 2
Ron Whisenand noted that he had spoken to the adjacent property owner, and they
said they were willing to go along with the proposed lot line adjustment, so Condition
1 could be easily achieved.
The public hearing was closed
Ron Whisenand indicated that although he doesn't favor narrow driveways from
personal experience, he felt that in this case the applicant has had some past practice
on this, in that a similar permit was approved on the south side of the lot which had
a similar driveway exception, and the identical carport in the same location.
Therefore, he felt that the driveway exception could be approved and that the findings
can be made, particularly maintaining adequate separation between adjoining
properties, as well as the safety of the vehicles backing down the driveway. Mr.
Whisenand noted that the existing driveway used to go to a garage, which was used
as a garage and therefore was a parking space. He also noted that the prior owners
converted the garage without permits, which eliminated a parking space. Mr.
Whisenand told of his site visit and that he did not see any other lots on Huasna or
Oceanaire that had double driveways. He also felt the applicant would be providing
a driveway that would not only allow for a car to be parked in the carport, but behind
the carport as well. He felt that by reinstalling the sidewalk and relocating the .
driveway from one end of the house to the other, more parking would be made
available on the street.
Ron Whisenand approved the request, based on the following findings, and subject
to the following conditions and code requirement:
Findings
1. The yard reduction will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of
persons in the vicinity because it will meet all building and fire codes and will
be of such a height that it will not significantly block solar exposure to the
adjoining property at 1897 Huasna Drive.
2. The setback exception is necessary to accommodate safe maneuvering to and
from the carport.
3. The setback exception will allow for construction of a carport, replacing a
parking space in the garage, which is now used as a habitable room.
4. The existing driveway does not now provide access to a legal parking space.
s -�y
Administrative Hearing Minutes
October 18, 1996
Page 3
5. The reduction in width of the driveway will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the driveway or parking limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity because another property with the same limitations
would be afforded the same opportunity to request a similar exception.
6. The driveway width exception is reasonably necessary for the applicant's full
enjoyment of her residential property because it will allow suitable access to a
required covered parking space in the rear of the property.
Conditions
1. A lot line adjustment with the property at 1897 Huasna, as proposed by the
applicant, must be completed to assure the driveway can be built at the full
eight -foot width.
2. The existing driveway and curb cut must be removed, because it does not
provide access to legal parking on site. The driveway ramp must be replaced
with sidewalk, curb, and gutter.
Code Requirement
1. The new driveway ramp (top of driveway transition) must be at least three feet
from the existing fire hydrant.
Mr. Whisenand explained that his decision may be appealed to the Planning
Commission within 10 days, and that anyone may file the appeal.
OCT 28 195 12:09PM MAIL ')XES `JAI LEJO P.2
d. Z8 la (o
1 c� 1'jr►1c�\G: ���s
S LO
n n � h� (26IN\ m ► c?r%-
Ux' &L nbki S C'9 dS � y 3 S -ssot�
Sub, Use ge-rmC+ Appl,
1 a 3 vasr►� br.
SUS CLV-V, r.,t, k o s 1 J
c : 110 �v
So
C•
Brett Cross
1217 Mariners Cove Tt FQ
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
October 28, 1996
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Department Director
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: Appeal of a Hearing Officer's decision to allow a 8' drive where a 10' drive is
required and a reduced side yard of 3' where a 5' side yard is required. 1939 Huasna St.
File # A 116- 96. Approved October 18, 1996.
I hereby appeal the hearing officer's decision to allow a 8' driveway where a 10' driveway
is required and a reduced side yard of 3' where a 5' side yard is required at 1939 Huasna
St. because the approval will adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of
persons residing or worldng on the site or in the vicinity due the width, depth and
configuration of the proposed driveway and possible adverse impacts to community plans
and goals due to the lessened side yard and driveway configuration.
Sincerely,
Brett Cross
s -17
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of
Planning Commission rendered on 11/13/96
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.)
See attached.
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
Name/Department
Appellant: Alana Reynolds
Name/Title
438 -5500
Home Phone
Representative:
Name/Title
For Official Use Only:
Calendared for _ /- 7- ? 7
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s):
m
(Date)
14250 Morningside Dr.
Atascadero, CA 93422
Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
Work Phone
Community Development Director
Development Review Manager
Original in City Clerk's Office
Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
Date & Time Received:
ce..
NUV 2 196
3: #3a .
CITY CLERK,
J. ^h.
FRUM : Panasonic FAX SYSTEM
f t O v- .,nlDt' -'."4' S i ei G W
pp PHONE NO. :
�C AA Li Z Z
'7o A r rio vil Z-O r%AS
�L�`/1 M v � � �u �2�/10�,� Yr ',ten'}' � ► r�C/t�t�'
��� o� Sdcn �- .c,tt,S QIC3:St7�
Nov. 25 1996 03:43PM P1
r
Nor �l VZp
2S
"rZ
1 41
4IFFLW cx ce'pj- ,. � t NUV 1 5 Sao:
CITY CLERK
�-�� ( SA'\' !liS 0513 ?C, CA
►t S is 'ro h0+4 ' y tJat.L b} M
o�e�s ► rrL `yam �tP
�ynm- ion *V&SO4u od..
q thr.►-
�i l 5 44,-04-4 �- `6o skev -+ bec-c ed or,
Ca n - 0.r. �� C f.�'�"LVrt �LQ2 Q ► GL Z' t
�aY k �*� � :• i�;s � �J � � t:s ,-c �,r�, �'+�,� a ndC � Cs w:lt
Q[� i e-'
WF i o +r,,�;v�
r t� IL0;.. hk.I� �." u p s .crest LA 3 -55OO_
cJjr Li�ir���fl
S'19
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 1996
Page 2
b. Policy 3.1.3 that requires the submittal of a detailed expansion plan to
evaluate whether proposed development is aesthetically and functionally
compatible with existing development in the area.
There extensive input from the applicants and concerned business owners. The
Commission s unable to consider the requested change in land use as an expansion of
the retail comme 'al area across the freeway due to the fact that the Prado Road
interchange is severs ears from completion.
2. 2238 Broad Street: G 32 -96 ER 32 -96 LLA 32 -96 ABAN 93 -96: Request to
allow (1) General Plan Amendm to change the land use designations from Services
and Manufacturing to Neighborhood mmercial and Government Facilities and from
Government Facilities to Neighborhood mercial; (2) rezoning from C -S, C -S -S, and
PF; (3) abandonment of portion of South, and Rachel Streets; (4) General Plan
determination for proposed surplus of City prope 5) tentative parcel map to reconfigure
five existing parcels into four and eliminate obsolete ri -of- -ways; (6) use permit for a 10%
shared use parking reduction and, (7) variance to allow 40 -foot tall building where 35
feet is otherwise the maximum height allowed. Albertson's ap nt. (The applicant has
requested this item be continued to a date uncertain.)
On a vote of 7 to 0, the Commission continued the matter to a date uncertain.
1939 Huasna Street: A116 -96: Appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision denying
requests to allow a reduced side yard from five feet to three feet for a carport and to allow
an eight foot driveway where ten feet is allowed; R -1 zone; Alaria Reynolds and Brett
Cross, appellants.
On a vote of 7 to 0, the Commission denied both appeals and upheld the Hearing Officers
action conditionally approving the proposed exceptions. The Commission was somewhat
reluctant in their action because of concerns with how functional the proposed parking
solution was.
HoWeve ,, they determined it to be the best solution for providing reqired off - street parking,
considering the applicants' objection to returning the original garage
bedroom) to that use. (now used as a
736 and 750 Orcutt Road: A 110 -95: Review of an approved use permit allowing
a hom shelter; C -S zone; Housing Authority applicant. Referred by the Hearing
Officer at the A mi ' aring of October 18, 1996.
.-"e26
Case Information
Owner at time Of Violation BUCKLEY ALANA C
Comments HOSTEL
07/21/93
07/22/93
OPEN -OTHER
OPEN -OTHER
----
STATEMENTS OBTAINED -----------
09/15/93
OPEN -OTHER
ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OBTAINED
01/03/94
OPEN- INITIAL SITE VISIT, VIOLATION
FURTHER INFORMATION OBTAINED
HOME OCCUPATION IN
01/05/94
OPEN -OTHER
GARAGE
01/06/94
OPEN -OTHER
OWNER CONTACT
01/12/94
OPEN- REFERRED TO CITY ATTORNEY
OWNER INTERVIEW
01/13/94
04/13/94
OPEN - BUILDING APPLICATION SUBMITTED
OPEN-
SEE APPL40033�.'
WRITTEN NOTICE SENT
04/20/94
12/28/94
OPEN -OTHER
OPEN -OTHER
MSG LEFT FOR DEF.ATTRNY RE:STATU:
01/03/95
OPEN -OTHER
MSG LEFT FOR DEF.ATTRNY RE:STATUS
01/03/95
OPEN -OTHER
OWNR TO COMPLETE & FILE APP TO CNVT
01/04/95
OPEN- ADDITIONAL SITE VISIT, VIOLATI
WRITTEN REQST RECVD FOR DIR. CDD
PHOTOGRAPHED /POSTED
02/15/95
05/16/95
OPEN -OTHER
OPEN -OTHER
BLDG APPLICATION EXPIRED #40033
06/21/95
07/11/95
OPEN- CERTIFIED LETTER SENT
APPEAL TO COUNCIL DENIED
Follow -up notice (short)
07/25/95
OPEN- REFFRRED TO APPROPRIATE DEPART
OPEN- REFFERED TO
DIR APPROVES ONE EXTN TO FILE 7 -25
09/15/95
APPROPRIATE DEPART
OPEN -OTHER
SEE PLANNING APP 104 -95
10/26/95
OPEN- REFERRED TO CITY ATTORNEY
PLANNING APPROVAL GRANTED
11/03/95
12/15/95
OPEN- TELEPHONE MESSAGE SENT / RECVD
OPEN - BUILDING APPLICATION
A.REYNOLDS 438 -5500 TO APPLY
02/13/96
SUBMITTED
OPEN -OTHER
Appl. # 50904
04/02/96
04/17/96
OPEN - CERTIFIED LETTER SENT
APPLICANT HAS NOT P/U PLAN CHECKS
Follow -up notice (short)
OPEN- BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED
Permit # 10706
08/22/96
08/22/96
OPEN - REFERRED TO CITY ATTORNEY
OPEN - WRITTEN NOTICE
C.CLEMENS SPEAKING W /OWNER
10/03/96
SENT
OPEN- REFFERED TO APPROPRIATE DEPART
ATTORNEY LETTER
REF LAUTNER 116 -96
S ��
Address: 3 9 HUASNA CITY OF SAN
' LUIS OBISPO LAND USE DATA
19
61p: 93405 -6812 APN: 004 - 413 -020
Business :------------------ - - - - -- LAND USE DATA --------------------
--- ________
SIC Code: 0041 RES- Single - Family Residence,Floo Area: 0 Units 1
Comments: Employees: F/T 0 P/T C
Occupied: / / Checked / / Public:
Mailing address:
Phone
-------------------
---------- ASSESSOR'S PARCEL DATA______ ________
---------------
Zoning: 1= R -1 2= Zoning Area: #1= 51850 12=
Traffic Zone: 420Desc: CY SLO TR 234 BL C LT 20
---------- - - - - -- OWNER INFORMATION ------- ----- -- --
04/17/96 *BCPI BE 10706
09 /15 /95 *PADA A 104 95
CONVERT GARAGE TO 4TH BDRM/ ADD CARPORT
REYNOLDS
0516/95 *ppCD OTHER 15 95
YARD /PARKING EXCEPTIO /Allow a 3f setback
APPEAL /DIRECTORS
2 /95 *PCCD OTHER 15 95
04IZ5 /70 *BCPE B 3215
DENIAL OF PAR /appeal of Director
APPEAL /DIRECTORS DENIAL OF PAR /appeal
07/30/62 *BCPI E 3495
of Director
CONVERT CARPORT TO GARAGE
D7/16/62 *BCPI B 4988
D7/12/62 *BCPI P
RESIDENCE WITH CARPORT
2760
* = exact address match
Building Codes
Pos. 1: B
Planning Codes
Pos. 2: O= Occupancy
Pos. 1: p
D= Design Review
POs. 2 &3: EN=Environmental Review
C= Construction
AR= Architectural Review
Pos. 3 &4: Construction:
AD= Administrative Hearing
PI= Permit Issued
PC= Planning Commission
PF= Permit Finaled
CC =City Council Hearing
Pos. 4:
PV= Permit Voided
A= Approved
PW= Permit Withdrawn
C= Certified
Occupancy:
D= Denied
AP= Occupancy Approved
K= Continued
Design Review:
P--Pending
AP--Design Review Approved Environmental Review:
E =EIR
M= Mitigated negative dec.
N= Negative dec.
X= Exempt
s -az
Parking and Driveway Standards
Page 6
K. Driveways and Driveway Ramns
1. Driveway Widths:
Driveways shall be the same width as the curb opening (not including the
transitions). They must be within the width limitations noted on ENGINEERING
STANDARD No. 2120. Exceptions may be granted in special circumstances by
the City Engineer or Community Development Director. Unless authorized by
the City Engineer, property owner, adjacent property owner and the Community
Development Director, the driveway ramp and transition must lie entirely in front
of the property served. The Fire Department may require greater driveway
widths to allow for proper emergency vehicle access.
2. Number of Driveways Permitted:
Only one driveway is allowed per street frontage for residential property unless
the frontage exceeds 70 feet; then a maximum of 30 percent of the frontage may
be in driveways. The total width of all driveways to commercial or industrial
property shall not exceed 50 percent of the frontage of the property. Additional
restrictions may be placed on driveways entering arterial streets in order to
minimize the disruption to traffic.
3. Abandoned Driveways:
As a condition of issuance of any driveway permit, all abandoned driveways and
driveway ramps on the same property shall be removed, landscaped and the curb,
gutter, and sidewalk properly restored.
L Turnarounds
1. Deep Driveways:
Driveways which are over 100 feet long shall have a turnaround at the end
allowing cars to safely exit in a forward direction. In some instances, the
Community Development Director may require turnarounds for shorter driveways.
2. Single- Family House Driveways:
Single family residential developments generally do not need to conform with this
requirement unless there are extreme grade, fire hazard and /or alignment
problems determined by the Community Development Director or Fire Marshal.
5 -�3
MEETING AGENDA/V
December 17, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: Council Colleagues
FROM: Dave Romero � i; W '
SUBJECT: Marsh Street Crosswalk
At the time of the Marsh Street make -over, and the installation of the crosswalk in mid -block
between the Parable and Juice Bar, I urged that we install a traffic signal at this location because
of the hazard it presents. I was successful only in obtaining agreement to install the conduit, but
not the signal.
Since completion of that project I have driven past the site an average of once a day and have
observed many instances of urgent stops caused by pedestrians stepping off the curb in front of
on- coming vehicles. I have also noted increased vehicular congestion in this block, both before
and after the crosswalk. Traffic signals on Marsh are set to allow vehicular progression at 25
mph from Nipomo to Johnson, but that is often blocked by the random pedestrian movement at
this crosswalk. In addition, vehicles stopping for pedestrians at the crosswalk often muss the
green signal at Morro Street, thus congesting that portion of the block.
Last Friday evening as my wife and I were driving up Marsh Street, we observed flashing lights
from police cars and an ambulance. Sure enough a young woman had walked past some stopped
cars at the cross walk and was hit by a car in the third lane. She was taken to the hospital in an
ambulance and fortunately was not seriously injured. We recently received a letter from Everet
Chandler, former Cal Poly Dean of Students, pointing out this exact hazard. My conversations
with the owner of the Parable verify that there are many emergency stops taking place at this
crosswalk.
It is my firm belief that this situation is inherently unsafe and the City has a serious liability if
it does not take action in the near future to make this crosswalk as safe as possible.
It is my strong recommendation that the Council direct staff to include the installation of a traffic
signal, which will be integrated with the rest of the signals on Marsh Street, as a part of the
budget package to be submitted for Council consideration this Spring.
DR:ss
--OA-ox-. S).r or Miayo-.1,
31
0A6-\W,j-
O�p
-Hove
Jq
MEETING AuENDA
DATE /-77--f7 ITEM# -L
1.2- 3l -`t6
C CDD DIR
DD DR
—11-FIN ---
0 M
FIRE CHIEF
3 1 ]-
CH
---qQ3_--P-0QCE-CHF
03 REC IDIR
3 LM
—0-UTIL-DIR—
-RECEIVE-D.-
❑ - 0 PERS DIR
fall r7 11A.A.
= �/- ► ��" S �t. �, l` . �. IYI !N� a AGENDA
DA7 E ' 7 7 ITEM #
Y4 �" .. i'l.�tJ � �o� �D-Del o
I q3 q . f-�u qs rng , S a - ',-F- -�,ee.( R lrt ►�a �_ e c1 �..� loL s ` _
Vro P 05 4A -�or- 0- n- Lkn c .0i tea( ar l� i�r ..___c5. Q.aLC, h .
_ \er s'ete, a&-� SitaJl�,( be,. RPProve ...`�'I�Cs. is . - - ....._.._:_ .
a w F re- a1 �r s rx %
O,V\ot . ✓a ��,, .
wt 11 Q''r IJ11C ay\ eas I'i q LA.CGN ss tble
�)aAr-�C -L y�q
BUG
i
I
Y,cL�cs,
127y lf4�4 -94 q
ovAW
1-119
vwne-s
e� v s #v psi Or.
/fir J�qlvlll��I�a DIP-
l� J ► /�Gt � s cr � �''
ors`
1 -1 9 a li u°y s�
L• wd` , I T42 z H ugSr„)C`
1 "tb
,
1 Q j r J` `cam COUNCIL COD DIR
L 7 ICAO ❑ FIN DIR
IdACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
��,' 2%ATT�EY ❑ PW DIR
1 f0 F �. I%.S/z -'1� IF CLERWOR{G ❑ POLICE CHI
❑ MGW TEAM ❑ REC DIR
READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
�SL� �L -QSc1 c, ❑ PIERS DIR
RECEIVED
MAY 1 6 W5
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBK,?O. CA
a
'h
C
n. o di
q,3 q LA r p rb
DU eyed
OLA(- j(Cty-0j,
C
c)Y1 v eA-\ l�CA-% . C�O_,
cf
Ab-
L f,) L
rl�
IE1�3 1-71U/11,34 A �),e- SL,11-
6w-
OA 5.1 �s -
�A\jcir;7,noi-
lz
](017
• 1&-2-4 5ZI -7 -
ShA On 5Y13 -
�tzl )-7-73 DI-1
va-, i ." 6 C.
LQ.4-h. ,c Moof
o,:�Nnk Drt C' Li (0-13,1 Li
Ilel 7,2
a /7et