The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/19/1997, 4 - USE PERMIT A 82-97: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION DENYING A FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A 6-FOOT HIGH WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN IN THE STREET YARD, WHERE A 4-FOOT HIGH FENCE WOULD BE ALLOWED, FOR A BOARDING HOUSE LOCATED AT THE SOU • J council 19 .9-f acu enaa epoat j CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Directoo Fe. .41 Prepared By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner pp, SUBJECT: Use Permit A 82-97: Appeal of Planning Commission's action denying a fence height exception to allow a 6-foot high wood fence to remain in the street yard, where a 4-foot high fence would be allowed, for a boarding house located at the southwest comer of Santa Barbara and Leff Streets (1703 Santa Barbara Street). CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt Draft Resolution A, denying the appeal, and upholding the Planning Commission's action to deny the fence height exception,based on findings, and with a condition. DISCUSSION Situation/Previous Review The appellant applied to the City fora fence height exception to allow an existing 6-foot high fence to remain in portions of the street yard where it is required to be lower in height. The exception request was filed after the appellant was notified through an enforcement action that the fence as installed did not comply with the City's fence height criteria contained in the zoning regulations. The fence connects with an older wooden fence that was constructed along the southeasterly property line of the site, then turns at an angle into the street yard. The appellant states in an attached letter that a taller fence is needed for privacy and security reasons. The request for a 6-foot high fence was denied by the Community Development Director on May 14, 1997. The Director's decision was based on concerns with the fence being out of character with the historic neighborhood and blocking views of vehicles using the driveway on the adjacent property. The appellant filed an appeal of the Director's decision on June 2, 1997. The matter was then scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission's Action On July 9, 1997, the Planning Commission denied the appeal on a 5-1 vote (Jeffrey voting no), upholding the Community Development D'irector's action to deny the fence height exception, based on findings suggested by staff. Commissioners generally found the fence style and height to be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood, and to a lesser extent felt the fence could restrict views of oncoming traffic, particularly of bicyclists. The Commissioner voting no indicated that his investigations proved that there was no visibility problem and he felt the appearance of the fence was a subjective judgment. '�'t/ Council Agenda Report-A 82-97 appeal 1703 Santa Barbara Street Page 2 During the public hearing, the manager and some residents of the house spoke in support of the fence, saying that it provides privacy and security and helps prevent thefts and trespassing on the property. One citizen spoke in opposition to the exception, noting that historical photos of the neighborhood show either no fences or low picket fences. She further said that the house is very important historically and the fence is not in character with the house. Appeal Filed On July 15, 1997, Jennifer Brainard filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action. Other Citizen Participation Staff received a phone call from Devin Gallagher who owns the adjacent property at 1725 Santa Barbara Street, as well as other nearby properties. He objected to the installed fence, and approval of the requested fence height exception, for three primary reasons, which are: • the design of the fence does not respect the historical context of the site and the neighborhood; • the site is prominent visually and located along a gateway to the downtown; and • the fence interferes with sight distance along the driveway. Data Summary Applicant/Appellant: Jennifer Brainard Zoning: R-3-H; Medium-High Density Residential with the Historical Preservation Overlay General Plan: Medium-High Density Residential Environmental Status: Categorically exempt under Section 15303.(e) of the CEQA Guidelines -- Class 3,New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Project Action Deadline: Action has been taken. No state-mandated deadline for action on appeals. Site Description The project site is located in the Old Town area of the City near Railroad Square. The boarding house is on the City's Master List of Historic Resources and is located in a historical preservation overlay zone. The house was built in 1885 and has a historic ranking of "5", indicating that it is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, but is significant at a local level. The site is level and the two-story building occupies the majority of the site. Staff Analysis Based on the site plan submitted by the appellant, staff has determined that the installed fence is located about 5 feet away from the front property line. The Public Works Department indicates �T"02 Council Agenda Report- A 82-97 appeal 1703 Santa Barbara Street Page 3 that the front property line is located at a distance that is 10 feet back from the face of the street curb. The site is zoned R-3-H and has a requirement for a 15-foot street yard. Therefore, at a distance of 15 feet from the front property line, a 6-foot high fence would be permitted. As installed,the portion of the fence that runs parallel to the back of sidewalk could be 4 feet tall. While sympathetic to the concerns of the appellant for security and privacy, staff feels that the installed 6-foot high fence within the street yard is too tall and is out of character with the historical neighborhood that the site is located in. In its field visits to the site, staff observed that other fences in the neighborhood were lower in height within the street yard, consistent with the requirements contained in the zoning regulations. When reviewing fence height exceptions, staff focuses on whether granting the exception results in either aesthetic or safety concerns. In this particular case, staff found that both concerns applied. From an aesthetic standpoint, the installed rough-finished and unadorned fence is not in keeping with the type of lower and more decorative fencing typically associated with street yard installations in historical neighborhood contexts. The safety issue is also a factor since the fence is located directly adjacent to the driveway on the property to the immediate southeast. Santa Barbara Street is a popular route for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians traveling between Broad Street (Highway 227) and the downtown. For a rather narrow two-lane roadway it carries large amounts of traffic at relatively high rates of speed. The street also curves in the vicinity of the site which diminishes views of approaching vehicles. Therefore, staff feels that it is especially important at this particular location to maintain adequate sight distances. The appellant has some options for maintaining the desired privacy for the on-site yard. The installed 6-foot high fence would be permitted an additional 10 feet back from where it currently exists. It appears that the appellant would still be able to maintain a fairly sizable private yard with the fence further set back. FISCAL IMPACT None. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt Draft Resolution B, upholding the appeal and approving the fence height exception, based on findings. 2. Continue with direction to the staff and appellant. �-3 Council Agenda Report-A 82-97 appeal 1703 Santa Barbara Street Page 4 Attached: Draft Resolution A (Planning Commission's recommendation) Draft Resolutions B (uphold appeal) Appeal to City Council received 7-15-97 Copies of photographs showing low-level fences in the vicinity of the site Planning Commission follow-up letter&Resolution No. 5199-97 Draft 7-9-97 Planning Commission minutes Vicinity map Site plan Appeal letter from applicant dated 6-2-97 Action letter on fence height exception dated 5-22-97 Statement from applicant Fence height criteria from zoning regulations Available in reading file: Historical photographs submitted by Astrid Gallagher at 7-9-97 Planning Commission meeting Color copies of photographs showing low-level fences in the vicinity of the site useW 82-97(Brainerd appeal to CC) Draft Resolution °A° RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS ACTION, THEREBY DENYING A FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR THE BOARDING HOUSE LOCATED AT 1703 SANTA BARBARA STREET (A 82-97) WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on August 19, 1997, and has considered testimony of interested parties including the appellants, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of the Community Development Director; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the project is categorically exempt under Section 15303.(e) of the CEQA Guidelines. BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the requested fence height exception (A 82-97) and the Planning Commission's recommendations, public testimony, the appellant's statements, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The fence height exception would constitute a grant of special privilege, an entitlement inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning, because recently installed fences in the neighborhood step down in height in the required street yard as required by the zoning regulations. '2. The installed fence is located immediately adjacent to a driveway on the adjacent property which raises concerns with the maintenance of adequate sight distances. The subject property is located along a section of Santa Barbara Street with a curve in the roadway which carries large volumes of traffic at high speeds. Safety is a key consideration at this location given the potential for accidents in the immediate vicinity if adequate site distance is not maintained. 3. The design of the installed fence is not in keeping with the historical character of the surrounding neighborhood. Resolution No. (1997 Series) Page 2 SECTION 2. Denial. The appeal is hereby denied, and the request for the fence height exception to allow a 6-foot high fence where a 4-foot high fence would be allowed is denied. The appellant has until 5:00 p.m. on Friday, September 19, 1997, to either remove the installed fence or modify it to comply with City fence height regulations On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 19th day of August, 1997. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Bonnie Gawf APPROVED: 4��A/W&Zj�:�4� "Zme/le Irgg&n ral[ence-no Draft Resolution "B° RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION, THEREBY APPROVING A FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR THE BOARDING HOUSE LOCATED AT 1703 SANTA BARBARA STREET (A 82-97) WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on August 19, 1997, and has considered testimony of interested parties including the appellants, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of the Community Development Director; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the project is categorically exempt under Section 15303.(e) of the CEQA Guidelines. BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the requested fence height exception (A 82-97) and the Planning Commission's recommendations, public testimony, the appellant's statements, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following finding: 1. No public purpose would be served by strict compliance with these standards in this case since the existing fence does not pose any safety hazard and is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. SECTION 2. Approval. The appeal is hereby upheld, and the request for the fence height exception to allow a 6-foot high fence where a 4-foot high fence would be allowed is approved. Resolution No. (1997 Series) Page 2 On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 19th day of August, 1997. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Bonnie Gawf APPROVED: City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen crsWence-no y-8 a��H��►►��II�IIll�11°°"�� VIII cityo san l�uis OBISPO APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of Planning Commission rendered on July R. 1897 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 correspondence. The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with: on Name/Department (Date) Appellant: Jennifer Brainard 1323 Balboa, SLO 93405 Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code) 546-9269 Home Phone Work Phone Representative: Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code) For Official Use Only: Calendared for 8/19/97 Date & Time Received: c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Copy to the following department(s): A. T RECEIVED J U L 1 5 1997 3.000 PM Original in City Clerk's Office SLO CI Y CLERK y-9 I ' 7- l5 -Q7 1 - - - -- . --- -- - - - - _ _ -x r. _ -- . 1703 - ----- - - ------- -�---- - - ---9_ . ,_1.9.9 7 � - -- -...-- -- - --- --- --- -- ox RECE �� rte. - ... . .. V E DJUL 1 Street Yard Fencing - Santa Barbara St. vicinity 1. 1512 Morro -white picket fence. 2. 974 -+ 980 Islay -white picket fence. 3. 1541 Osos -white picket fence, stepped wood fence. .4. 1110 Buchon -31/z' wood "open" fence. 5. 1153 Islay -3' to 6' wood fence. 6. 1117 Islay -white picket fence, lattice top fence. 7. 1720 Santa Rosa -brown picket fence. . 8. 1717-* 1749 Santa Barbara -white picket fence. 9. 1717 Santa Barbara -white picket fence. 10. 1789 Santa Barbara -white picket fence. 11. 1635 Chorro -wrought iron fence. 12. 874 Church -white picket fence. y�i�J, ♦ `r! ! • 4 J b OI d 2 0, •.� ,�1 ,�5.(� iii ,� C � Q !� ,S � �y�• � �� l 'I .�[ \ ��'�� dpi 'd '� do V \TV ' •,,� X A .a O.. 8)7 �J (10)� All ) p` O %I% 00 1 •! 12Sao ,•1i d d� „b VICINITY MAP. A 82-97 NORTH 111111a 1703 Santa Barbara Avenue �-�� R t � Y a s � SA ' . .ti v. � •� Y 4 < s r • r J � _ I 1 ' ..4; t K _ r r w �.. i t 1'r � MnI imar r � ,j k l l• -F 1 LAt(s.! I S :a I I � I • ♦ � ♦ I � I � ♦ ♦ G• ��- -j` fns y/T��!^"-� .� •�./ �j%a�G:1..4�1 `iv ��++��h��iii►�►i��►�Illllllllllll�1°"""'�i� I III city of sAn luis oBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 July 11, 1997 Jennifer Brainard 1323 Balboa Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405-4903 SUBJECT: A 82-97: 1703 Santa Barbara Dear Ms.Brainard: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of July 9, 1997, upheld the Development Director's action denying a fence height exception,based on findings in the attached resolution#5199-97, and directed you to remove the fence within 30 days of the Planning Commission decision (by August 8, 1997). The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within ten days of the action. An appeal may be filed with the City Clerk by any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission. The appeal period will expire at 5:00 p.m. on July 21, 1997. If you have any questions,please contact me at 781-7177. Sincerely, Rona G.Whis d Development Review Manager ATTACHMENT: Resolution No. 5199-97 nucTcM-97-Mar Il Zl The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. -` T Innnrr,., n.n ,nnc 1'1u..:ne f—lY- M—f lnmc1 7017.11/1 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5199-97 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of.San Luis Obispo did conduct a public hearing in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo, California, on July 9, 1997, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application , A 82-97, Jennifer Brainard, applicant and appellant. PLANNING COMMISSION PERMIT REVIEWED: Administrative Use Permit 82-97 - Appeal of the Community Development Director's decision to deny a fence height exception for a boarding house located at the southwest comer of Santa Barbara Avenue and Leff Street. DESCRIPTION: On file in the office of Community Development Department, City Hall. GENERAL LOCATION: 1730 Santa Barbara Avenue GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT: Medium-High Density Residential with a Historic Overlay PRESENT ZONING: R-3-H WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and studies made by itself, and in behalf of testimonies offered at said hearing has established existence of the following circumstances: Resolution No. 5199-97 A 82-97 Page 2 1. The fence height exception would constitute a grant of special privilege, an entitlement inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning, because recently installed fences in the neighborhood step down in height in the required street yard as required by the zoning regulations. 2 The installed fence is located immediately adjacent to a driveway on the adjacent property which raises concerns with the maintenance of adequate sight distances. The subject property is located along a section of Santa Barbara Street with a dangerous curve in the roadway which carries large volumes of traffic at high speeds. Safety is a key consideration at this location given the history of accidents in the immediate vicinity. . . NOW, THEREFORE,BE TT RESOLVED that the application A 82-97 be denied and the Community Development Director's decision of May 22, 1997 denying a 6-foot high fence where a 3-foot high fence is normally allowed be upheld. The foregoing resolution was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo by a motion of Commissioner Ashbaugh, seconded by Commissioner Kourakis and upon the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Ashbaugh, Kourakis, Ewan, Senn and Whittlesey NOES: Commr. Jeffrey ABSENT: . Commr. Ready Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary Planning Commission MMM5199-97 ^�d DRAFT CITY OF SAN OBISPO PLANNING COMMISS N MEETING MINUTES WEDNESD Y,JULY 9, 1997 CALL TO ORDERIPLEDC OF ALLEGIANCE: The regular meeting of the San Lui Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, in Counc Chambers, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Janet Koura - , Charles Senn,Mary Whittlesey, David Jeffrey,John Ewan, and John A�hbaugh Absent: Commissioner Paul Ready \ Staff I Present: Associate Planner Judith Lautner, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Clemens, and Development Review Manager Ron Whisenand. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. i CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES: r i The Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 9 and June 11, 1997 were accepted as presented. I PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGEND ITEMS: There were no public comments made. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1703 Santa Barbara: A 82-97: Appeal of the Community Development Director's decision to deny a fence height exception request; R-3-H Zone; Jennifer Brainard, applicant. Draft Planning Comrru..,on Minutes July 9, 1997 Page 2 Associate Planner Lautner presented the staff report and recommended denying the appeal, upholding the Director's action,based on findings and subject to a condition. There were no questions asked of staff and the public comment session was opened. PUBLIC COMMENT: Jennifer Brainard, 1323 Balboa St., handles the business aspect of this house. Her grandparents own it. Ms. Brainard displayed a picture board and stated a 6'-8' section of fence was taken down by neighbors without permission. It was replaced for security and privacy reasons. Trees were also torn down without permission. Ms. Brainard stated there's 19 people living in this house and they need privacy. They're near the train tracks and there's a lot of transient traffic in the area. Ms. Brainard stated there's a concern of traffic visibility from the driveway adjacent to the fence. The fence isn't the obstruction; the plant overgrowth is. She displayed and described photos of the site and stated if necessary she will remove the stump for more visibility. If the newness of the fence is offensive, she can remedy that as well. They will plant vines to soften the look of the fence. They will comply with whatever is requested. Sara McGarret, 1745 Grand Ave., Santa Barbara,daughter of the owners, got this house 20 years ago and fixed it up. Board fences were historically common in this area. She displayed and described photos of the fence and the visibility. If the tree hadn't been removed the fence wouldn't be visible. She displayed photos of other board fences in town. Ms. McGarret stated the scale of this house is different than others. The house is probably 35'-40'high and fence doesn't appear to be too high. They've had problems in the house when the fence was down. There are transients with the railroad nearby. Commissioner Ewan asked if there was any communication with the neighbors before the tree was cut down. Ms. McGarret replied no. Chairman Senn asked who removed the tree. Ms. McGarret doesn't know. Dan Callal, 1703 Santa Barbara,has lived in this house for three years and is currently the resident manager. He stated the issue of security is a high priority. The house is very 1�-�O Draft Planning Comrru,%sion Minutes July 9, 1997 Page 3 unique with 19 people living there sharing a kitchen, dining room, etc. Everything is maintained by weekly chores that are part of the rent. There are people living there from their 20s-mid 40s. Only the private bedrooms are secured. The house is left open for residents and guests. They've had numerous occasions of theft on the property and intruders in the house. He feels the security issues stem from the lack of respect of their boundaries. If they were to comply with staff s recommendations by moving the fence back,they will be exposing their boundary and front door. Their front door stays open 24 hrs./day. The mailperson needs to get in and they can't lock each other out. This house is an excellent example of communal living and for it to function they need the fence. Commissioner Jeffrey asked if there is a concern about privacy from the view across the street because of the height of those buildings. Mr. Callal replied yes, they can see in their backyard and house. Commissioner Jeffrey asked if Mr. Callal has driven out of the driveway adjacent to the fence. Mr. Calla] replied yes. Commissioner Jeffrey asked if the fence or the tree is the obstruction. Mr. Callal answered the tree. He described the diagram depicting the views. The fence doesn't obstruct traffic visibility. Commissioner Jeffrey asked if there is storage on the side yard. Mr. Callal stated nothing is kept in the front yard because it's too highly trafficed. Bikes are stored in back along with a BBQ and chairs that are heavily used. Commissioner Jeffrey asked if a 4' fence would provide enough privacy. Mr. Callal replied yes. Commissioner Ashbaugh asked how the fence improved privacy with respect to the houses across the street. Mr. Callal stated the privacy concerns are relative to pedestrians on the sidewalk. With staffs recommended fence location,more of the yard/building is seen and the entryway is more exposed. Deanna Constable, 1703 Santa Barbara, has lived in the house four years. Before the fence was put back up, it was a broken down fence you could see through. There were problem with the fraternity house across the street and their widow was broken when beer Draft Planning Commtb.ion Minutes July 9, 1997 Page 4 bottles were thrown in to the yard. There haven't been problems since the fence was put up. When the fence was delapidated there was easy access to the mailbox and an incident of mail fraud. There have been problems with intruders and the height of the fence seems to offer protection. There are many women living in the house and they don't want to open the door for every guest; it has to be left open. Commissioner Jeffrey asked if there's been a lot of accidents along this street. Ms. Constable replied yes, but mostly at the intersection at Gus's Grocery. Commissioner Jeffrey asked if there have been any accidents involving the bike lane in front of the house. Ms. Constable replied no. Commissioner Ashbaugh asked if the police were contacted to look at how the building could be made more secure. A high fence may not be a good idea for creating defensible space and could provide a place for crimes to occur. Ms. Constable feels the fence makes a strong statement. The entryway light is left on at night as a security measure. Christopher Chin, 1703 Santa Barbars,has lived at the house four years. As far as he can remember, at least a portion of the front fence has always been there. The fence doesn't obstruct views; it's the tree. Mr. Chin stated the house is a historic building. The fence and vegetation will age appropriately with the house. It isn't inconsistent with the neighborhood. The fence is appropriate for the style of house. Mr. Chin stated the house is on a major thoroughfare. There's a lot of fast moving traffic. The fence blocks out the sound of the traffic. Mr. Chin stated they live communally. The residents range from professionals to students. They like to congregate in the yard. The fence blocks views from the street. Many passers-by think this is a public place. He requested the permit be granted so the fence can stay. Ms. Gallagher, 1680 La Finca Ct.,Arroyo Grande,displayed a photo of the Santa Barbara St. block taken in 1906. At that time there weren't any fences. She displayed another historic photo showing picket fences in front of the buildings. This building is a primary historic resource in the city and it should be on the master registry. She feels a picket fence would provide the exact same sense of privacy that a board fence provides. The board fence is not in character with the historic nature of the railroad historic district and y.�2 Draft Planning Commi..,on Minutes July 9, 1997 Page 5 is too high. The residents at 1717 Santa Barbara have a difficult time getting out of their driveway because of the traffic and the limited sight distance. The 35 mph speed limit on this street requires a 200'view and the distance is much shorter. Anything limiting visibility is a safety hazard. Mr. Callal stated in response to the historic nature of the neighborhood, it seems the neighborhood grew out of the need to respond to the railroad. Great lengths have been taken in preserving the landscaping. This specific fence has been chosen because of its simple nature and it's common to fences that went up around the railroad. There are many neighboring homes with this style of fencing. The fence takes up less than a third of the facade. The facade is completely exposed to the comer. They intend to put flowering vine on the fence to present a nice entrance to the downtown area. He added he wishes the neighbors would take out their recycling bins and trash that's left in front of their fences. Commissioner Ashbaugh backed out of this driveway and found the trees to be an obstruction. Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Jeffrey moved to approved the appeal and allow the appellants to retain the installed fence as it is. There was no second to the motion. Commissioner Ewan moved to deny the appeal based on Findings 1 and 2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kourakis. Commissioner Ewan is concerned about motorist,pedestrian, and bicyclist safety. Commissioner Kourakis is concerned about conformity to the ordinance requirements and historic districts. She feels there are obvious policing problems when living around the railroad area. Commissioner Jeffrey cannot support the motion. The fence is not the safety issue. The safety issue is the front comer of the building and the two trees. The fence itself does not obstruct views. He cited 17.16.050, Fences, Walls, Hedges, Section D. He cannot support staffs recommended findings. Commissioner Ewan stated this is an extremely busy street and he is concerned about any visual blockage. A solid wood fence does create some impairment of vision. The fence y�3 Draft Planning Commisbion Minutes July 9, 1997 Page 6 being moved back to the convect location would ensure better views from the neighboring driveway and it would be in keeping with the ordinance. Commissioner Jeffrey stated the fence does not obstruct traffic in any way. Commissioner Ashbaugh can support the motion. The fence can be made to comply by merely trimming off 2'. He is concerned about the character issue with the neighborhood. It's important to maintain setbacks and adhere to the ordinance. Commissioner Whittlesey concurred. Chairman Senn has been persuaded by the testimony. He can't make the safety finding. The testimony has been clear the fence does not impact the visual sight plan. He is persuaded by the question of the setback and can support the motion. AYES: Commissioners Ewan, Kourakis,Whittlesey, Ashbaugh, and Chairman Senn NOES: Commissioner Jeffrey ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ready The motion carried 5-1. 2. 720-726 Foothill: U 81-97: Request to allow use of storage building for bedrooms; R4 Zone; Delta Upsilon Fraternity,applicant. Associate Planner Lautner presented the staff eport and recommended denying the amendment, finding that the change will int ify uses at the site and that such intensification is not compatible with the s ounding high-density neighborhood. Commissioner Ewan asked the number f persons occupying the property. Associate Planner Lautner stated the li it is eight by use permit condition. The Zoning Regulations have set a maximum numb of person/acre for group housing. In the R4 Zone the maximum would be up to 55 p6Tsons/acre. This would translate to 13 or 14 at this site. \ Commissioner Kourakis noted the use permit ahow,s executive meetings of up to 15 persons. Nw� #9 �.�r'A �'r y INNER • ,f,•;I• O p O ~' O O ar r • '�" '�r lo�` b AL 5 V /�� 2 ,"tt 1• pyb a• Z ! h - 4r ILL + 1 R4 j 3 ,+A0 1* � • A le 4 ,e,, o ° PIP r'"fr.r.••rosp ef . — Val I LO �.• Los � -44 IS PF- O' ` s s MAD 9 •L 8 ` 3 V It A 'V C e � .�h• � O�s ✓' Oe� d.� 'tr O 3 � uaey '• ' s y ��n R. alp 41 -Z IN, +ate.+ L� `� +0 P V :�Se VICINITY MAP A 82-97 NORTH 1703 Santa Barbara Avenue irk St P-0 0 LL � j 3 RECEIVLD JUN 2 5 1997 WY OF SM LULS OBISPO ffynejaopLww 7N M. RECEIVED CP -Z-97 JUN 0 2 M ' cm OF siw Luis waPO cOMuMmoEVELOPheNT SSL �rn � 1� � ,Q19X Y.-OD p- ►��iiii��►IIIIIIlIII�IIIa1°""�� li city o sAn luis oBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.3249 Jennifer Brainard 1323 Balboa Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 SUBJECT: Fence Height Exception 1703 Santa Barbara Avenue Dear Ms. Brainard: On May 14, 1997, 1 reviewed your request to allow a 6-foot high fence in the street yard, where a 3-foot high fence is normally allowed, at the above location. After reviewing the information submitted, I denied your request, on May 22, 1997, based on the following findings: Findings 1. The fence height exception would constitute a grant of special privilege, an entitlement inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning, because recently installed fences in the neighborhood step down in height in the required street yard as required by the zoning regulations. 2. The installed fence is located immediately adjacentto a driveway on the adjacent property which raises concerns with the maintenance of adequate sight distances. The subject property is located along a section of Santa Barbara Street with a dangerous curve in the roadway which carries large volumes of traffic at high speeds. Safety is a key consideration at this location given the history of accidents in the immediate vicinity. My decision is final unless appealed to the Hearing Officer within ten days of the action. Be aware that a 6-foot high fence could be constructed if placed 15 feet back from the front property line. At the street property line, a 3-foot high fence would be permitted. Between the front property line and the 15-foot required street yard setback,the allowed fence height varies in accordance with the drawing shown in Figure 9, attached. With the submittal of an accurate and scaled site plan, staff could advise you of the allowed fence height in any particular location of the required street yard. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. v Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. u Page 2 If you have any questions,please call Pam Ricci at 781-7168. Sincerely, Ronal Whisena Development Review Manager cc: Hal Hannula, Building Division Planning File City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Attn: Diane Stuart Dear Ms Stuart: I wanted to mention how important it is for our house on 1703 Santa Barbara Street to have the fence boards at six feet for the whole distance of the fence. Having a graduated fence beginning at the street setback creates vulnerabilityfor the privacy of the house. As you know, the area of Santa Barbara Street in close to the train station and the train tracks This area tends to attract several homeless people and,reports of dady transient traffic passing by our house have been made. This situation does notgenerally create fear but, we have had to call the police because of hunglyhomelesspeople walk into our house and eat what they please. At one time, one man's behavior became a little scary for our tenants The house at 1703 Santa Barbara Street is a rental. It is an old boarding house with nineteen rooms,four bathrooms,one common kitchen and, one common living room. The entrance doors to this house are never locked as a convenience to our tenants friends and relatives Each tenant locks their rooms but, the kitchen and other common areas remain vulnerable. If you allow this fence to remain at six feet high for the whole distance of the fence,it would ease the minds of our tenants and block visibility to any potential trespasser. Thank you very much for your time. Sinc ly, e rB ' aid Min ge Bookkeeper,Daughter, Granddaughter for Sar McEre and, Dr and Mrs RO. Egeberg �f-30 IMNEYS,SOUR STSTEMS,ETC. AREA INCLUDED CV.W tt MME TW W abort: NOT INCLUDED IN COVERAGE wxlMuM BUILM96NEWT IN COVERAGE (MORE THAN 30" LESS THAN 30' ABOVE 6ROUND) ABOVE 6ROUN0 MAXIMUM ` HEIGHT ALLOWED �IB�4>G7i'A1� 1 NIb1iur POINT POINT WHERE THE DECK UNDERTNEbU1LDING EXCEEDS.30" A80VE I - �,• AVER116EviwnoN umm 5LO6. GROUND LEVEL 00� LOWEST POINT UNDER bUILDINr I � Figure 7 Figure 6 B. Application and Exception. Maximum coverage See also Section 17.16.020 for relationship of shall be as provided in the specific property yards and building height. development standards for the various zones in Chapters 17.24 through 17.56 inclusive, except Components of solar energy systems, chimneys, that the Planning Commission may grant exceptions screened mechanical equipment, vents, antennae to maximum coverage for churches, synagogues, and steeples shall extend not more than 10 feet temples, etc., in any zone, subject to approval of a above the maximum building height. use permit. Commercial and governmental agency antennae 17.16.040 Height. may exceed the height limits for the zone in which they are located if such an exception is approved by The height of a building is the vertical distance from the Director. the average level of the ground under the building to the topmost point of the roof. The average level Any other exception the height limits requires of the ground is determined by adding the elevation approval of a variance as provided in Chapter of the lowest point of the part of the lot covered by 17.60. the building to the elevation of the highest point of the part of the lot covered by the building, and For height limits of signs, see Chapter 15.40. Sign dividing by two. (See Figure 7.) Height Regulations. (Ord. 1085 - 1 Ex. A (part), 1987; measurements shall be based on natural topography Ord. 1006 - 1 (part), 1984; Ord. 941 - 1 (part), of the site, before grading. 1982: prior code - 9202.5(E)) - 17.16.050 Fences, walls and hedges. A. Fences, walls or hedges may be placed within required yards, provided: 1. The maximum height in any street yard shall be as shown in Figure 9; 32 �'3� E. A public notice shall be posted at the site of Mmdmum tense height ; each proposed fence height exception. If anyone within street Yard ; informs the Community Development Department 6, of a reasonable objection concerning the proposed NO FENCE,WAU.OR : fence height exception within five days of the ptwe To BF TALLER ' posting, the Director shall schedule a hearing for THAN TNIS UNE ; /`i✓ :, the application as provided for administrative use -Ire permits. If no questions or objections are received ;, . . by the Community Development Department within i. x ":. T:<; _. five days after posting, the Director may issue a ' ?= letter of approval upon submission of all required information and without further notice or public hearing. Ea JCA (Ord. 1006 - 1 (part), 1984; Ord. 941 - 1 (part), �^ 1982: prior code - 9202.5(F)) Figure 9 17.16.060 Parking space requirements. A. Intent. This section is intended to ensure 2. The maximum height in any other yard shall be provision of adequate off-street parking, considering six feet; the demands likely to result from various uses, combinations of uses, and settings. It is the City's B. Fences or walls may be placed outside required intent, where possible, to consolidate parking and yards, provided: to minimize the area devoted exclusively to parking and drives when typical demands may be satisfied 1. The maximum height is eight feet. more efficiently by shared facilities. 2. Where the wall is connected to and a part of the B. Shared parking reduction. Where two or more house, it may be any height allowed in the uses share common parking areas, the total number underlying zone. of parking spaces required may be reduced by up to 10%, with approval of an administrative use permit. C. Where fences or walls are located on retaining Where shared parking is located on more than one walls, the height of the retaining wall shall be parcel, affected parties must record an agreement considered as part of the overall height of the fence governing the shared parking, to the satisfaction of or wall; the Director. D. The Director may grant exceptions to these C. Mixed-use parking reduction. By approving an standards subject to a finding that no public administrative use permit, the Director may reduce purpose would be served by strict compliance with the parking requirement for projects sharing parking these standards. by up to 20%, in addition to the shared parking reduction, for a total maximum parking reduction of 30%, upon finding that the times of maximum parking demand from various uses will not coincide. Figure 9 Fancc �4. Formula ,r �or ed. I'oF d;shence R-I/R-2 Allowed 44. =36"+ (I.8`x {rem fron4_ PL. R 3/R 4 Allowed 4+. _ 2. The maximum height in any other yard shall be six feet; .Y' derived from 3G°reQjd.bF.yd. 33 MEETING AGENDA DATE LL9A2.ITEM W Qmlh . MEMO TO: John Dunn, CAO 0 FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Power Blower Concerns DATE: August 18, 1997 You asked for the status of the power blower ordinance amendments and other actions requested by the City Council in February,to respond to concerns voiced by Alan Friedman. The Council last considered power blowers on February 18, 1997. At that meeting, the Council directed staff to return with regulations banning gas-powered blowers on Sundays, and limiting decibel levels to 70 dB 50 feet from the blower. The Council also asked that the Police Department log all complaints related to power blowers and that staff form a committee of volunteers to develop a program to "educate users and detractors about the different types of equipment." Changes to the regulations to ban blowers on Sundays and to limit decibel levels have been drafted. A committee has also been formed and has met twice, to discuss ways to create an effective educational program that reaches power blower users, detractors, and the general public. A draft educational program is expected to result from the third committee meeting in early September. The Council did not specify that blowers were to be prohibited from use on holidays as well as Sundays, nor did it set a date for the return of the amendments. It took some time to bring together the advisory committee (with the help of Councilperson Williams), but they have undertaken their work with dedication and dispatch. Staff prefers to present the draft regulations to the Council along with the draft educational program, in September or October. The committee has developed many interesting ideas for getting the word out. Higher priority has been assigned those programs that can.be developed quickly at little cost. One of the concerns that the committee shares.with Mr. Friedman is an apparent lack of attention to power blower violations by the Police Department. It appears that most officers are unaware of the regulations that are currently in effect, prohibiting use of blowers before seven a.m. and after six p.m. The committee will be inviting a representative from the PD to the third meeting, to discuss this problem and how it can be addressed. E DD DIR ❑FIN DIR ❑FIRE CHIEF ❑PW DIR ❑POLICE CHF RECEIVED ❑RECDIR ❑UTIL DIR AUG 191997 OPERSDIR SLO CITY CLERK r T. I OP �+ rN J N OQ '.., O— TJ _ yam" �r' f .�`Y�.j T, �YY>+r •'� r T r^'W:C;; �' G ., .�.'*rk..4.,G!',r,?,, •t. },2,q� yn`1�','• y��'-iti T ^ r M„w +C�i`•'1 L j'I': �.�LYw"'-�"d., %�r'�_• y cr 73 rD .-� """ e. J'y f?�, a�_��'ty• '"1e.�Y'ySi�'�ry'1.'. � C �°:i8••°'YGr.,,S� • '''_.+.+,°eR4':'7m.F!:1'S�(�;s '1fi r•.. � ... ., .. tr ..�fRM[yZj�^� ,Jr;��;,.ri'r�:FR��i.:�5,•�ii.":Y S � rD •. .;+�5':�{ #ih;e`,Li�,. :'" •'.��•"�:„;� ,�: 4 .•:F'r••7.6'v-`,•1}��.1:'f�} _ r A� +'tY+v. t C •' � at� y,� 4?+ "�1i`.ar''�,`��,',t� �f ,�• W •6;} yrt x,7.. ...4 -' ✓J '� ",� �,n';SCA1Yci1 �, h.0 -'i-�*s 23, � - p'1 L�l-y r Y' ttr- •/ � � �r'” ' n�;6r1'�r�" f"�:�e.e T�r r til T-d•.rt�Lr�Ir s;. �• ,T "', m��}#ya^ �},�y .]G•��,'~',x.'k ti:,jyu} O�wJ^',;^S>�J.Y�x*�+7�n.,�),-�...4'3'.Y:-1`.`;..s.y,�J Hyl,..��_a•�,'f��, "n"�2• .J rT J•GT..,+,t r �� fD t� ..1 �;,p. .'a•M y, !.^ i r n?f � ��.,S tir n J .l ._:r:: ':,i.:' � C� CD 'k�,P• -,-'�, ,-� 4<4, L y � c,.5 1 t,:. ,rt V7. ryS,Y { a tr 11 Fc tv. T u ;, .y .ii• CD CD rz L ' �'Y'.'. � N'�,III ?•'Y�f•`-?%''e)� .. T1 � • i/ A"JgCxXxx,X�:.X!CXxSa,'X7Cx7iUCXxJw:a GJCX�►"xX'�CJq.7►SSS.1'JqCXXXa'�'xX."X.W�,"X,%.C!p►.,wC.X"�"X�'Cxa'X y f ` % e H. .w Ittg Oil O s,.. n Ilii! j �j � Al w x o Da „[lS I?` A o CD ;00 rNAO 00 ct CAI tq it CMD CD C C rJ Y r I I 1�1 I K'i '/r• y C O �j d S. d04E1r!ml.'l: .N,r -"''e b7 10, v CD % y � 0 y I .. Al 4-A0000*#Op:t % O .0 CD "t7 CS' .. � mom., .'�1 �•' 7~S" 3— x f. ' ° ► r . no tA �$ CCD O h tq ' jJ�LS .d I t1 i O1:3 o r t 1111T x M �1� C d •inn ' ► XX IV ca K .r1 • "wt it _- '° m % % a % y 'C td `+ a % .o a . ili. I ip u r % I v op % % �axXXXXXXXCxXSxXXXCXxXX�X��Sx�XX!GXXX�XXX�CtXxXXXX�X��X�X�X��XXXXX��% I� 1 e ti� 4 1 _ noun too �. i IF1 r'Ir 11, 1!h _`�� ■ �Ii 'F�� I`yi� i 1 I 1 I j I 1 r � I 1 L: je E[ tt � S Z5 t ' � N: w / -;i•IIi�.:aiJi; �—:y-- - I _ r 1 i 1717 Santa Barbara • 9 Santa Barbara "J➢o•...F III._� �� ,,y,,• _. .I a f. i r 1635 • • 4 Church r r .r� T _ �■'Y(� ZVI 14 2 L r� e c ��7 if r 4 - -..•.f= � r�. ve ,ISI moi' P ? IR I It Ilk Al r S�� ` � � !!!"'{666888 � '.� I _ '. =L _ �• - hi �. FY � �;, �:i r"� ,_ tiia >• mow.,.., M i T t � �3�'f�t c d Er a frtl�' ?; y�?� �✓�lr, ��3�,Ul��} �� 4Y F €�7 s r, fy r it n� sv`x �aP�t xiysf i� �, '�fl sj tr S.S� {3?9� Y s 34 rkf s z � � s G .� ?,� �5�`s r�vt ��l� t,.r,�f` � '+ .21.q,t `•t � y 7� N s hl4 ;r Sf �� t tit r,Alf': f } t Y } ty W �Ap4 r z t l jx 1 t � I t lift' goo 01 van t ,t r F r ti 1 t � r ' q: r �, t :e cf rrt yP :�t,s�?� r N s <ma P✓"�� "tr �'7>q{! � "'S°' xs% �! »r k + & y ✓S �, ( 3�rhf ' nfi� � sz'£5��£c?f)3 f%�T\�h�` �?rs F�'k a1°re 1�t2 f) ri- r 1 �.a '�}22' s xb � s �� .�t f ac t � � 4� f sr#„ti�fi�� .�,#fi r�' ✓tt fts rr BSc h �:a z 1 $ c�r� ,, <usdS' { dt '' r r s' Rl r j P WA' tt MW t rY, } f�'w i t ��u�t.� ��: � �d�fu�+�h2br�ff f.x�7xkxq st� � , ��1✓i ell s�Ay,�z h "�i z ir'{�'�5 cYffi%�f��e�sjFi r �}sF�2{��ri��l�f< > fis� S:sU(l6`yf?E"�a„r�l� @'S+'3r� '.x'3�7�"ft&�`ut �r�� ✓s`zJ i3t ��y,'>s`��5� �� vu, v�� t�( ka�1'3ty -1� �42'� �� 3� /rf t �2 E i' ` J 5 'i > F f ; tia . w � st n� w'. a ,f t i' F i ` to ,R z �d i . �r5 , 3 , «,r ee I s'i�•r lsA� V i i rt f 4c ;y. r ti i