HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/17/1998, 3 - PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL BY ERNIE AND TAWN ROIDE TO WAIVE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS AT 88 BUENA VISTA AVENUE. council Z-,7-cif
j apenaa izEpoat h.Numb= 3
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Michael D.McCluskey,Director of Public Wo
Prepared By: Jerry Kenny, Supervising Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to consider an appeal by Ernie and Tawn Roide to waive sidewalk
improvements at 88 Buena Vista Avenue.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution requiring sidewalk improvements along the Buena Vista frontage and
authorizing a covenant to be recorded postponing sidewalk improvements along the Santa Maria
frontage until called due by the Director of Public Works.
DISCUSSION
Background
The Monterey Heights neighborhood was subdivided in 1925 under "County"jurisdiction. Curbs
were installed with the subdivision, but not sidewalks. The area was subsequently annexed to the
City in 1948. Over the years, as new homes were constructed, sidewalks were installed somewhat
"sporadically", due to the relatively steep terrain and other natural features that made sidewalks
somewhat impractical to construct and/or expect the public to use. In many cases, a
"postponement"of the condition via recorded "covenants"to install the improvements when called
due by the City Engineer, were authorized by the Planning Commission, based on justifiable
circumstances. The authority was later delegated as a joint responsibility of the Community
Development and Public Works Directors, in lieu of installation prior to a final release of the
building. Deferral of all or a portion of these requirements is authorized under the above-referenced
code section, subject to a joint finding by the Public Works and Community Development Directors
that"...they will cause extreme hardship or serve no useful purpose". (per Exhibit 7)
Current project
The property owners applied for a building permit to construct a new residence at 88 Buena Vista
Ave. (SE comer of Buena Vista & Santa Maria) in 1996 and Municipal Code Section 12.16.050
(attached Exhibit 7) requires the completion of all frontage improvements. The residence is
currently under construction and nearing completion.
The building plans were reviewed by staff in 1996. There is no record of a specific written
requirement by Public Works Department staff to require the installation of sidewalks along both
frontages. However, a standard comment by the Community Development required a note to be
placed on the plan that refers to the requirement for a curb,gutter and sidewalk. That note states the
requirement for a permit "...for any proposed driveway approach, curb, gutter or sidewalk in the
public right of way". Such a note was placed on the plan, but only a driveway and a very short
3 - 1
Council Agenda Report-88 Buena Vista Ave.sidewalk appeal
Page 2
section of sidewalk was shown to be built, in conjunction with the driveway and which connects to
an onsite sidewalk.
The contractor recently applied for an encroachment permit to install those improvements and
Public Works Department staff informed him that sidewalks must be installed per requirements of
the Municipal Code along both frontages, including a curb ramp at the intersection. Buena Vista
Avenue has a relatively gentle slope,while Santa Maria Avenue is very steep(approx. 20% slope).
Appeal by agent
Alan Deckel, (real estate agent representing the property owners, Ernie and Tawn Roide) has
appealed the condition because of 4 reasons. (See Attachment 6) The following comments are in
response to those items:
Reason 1. Serves no useful purpose - little pedestrian traffic and few homes - In staff's
opinion,this is true along Santa Maria Ave.,but not along Buena Vista Ave.where there is existing
sidewalk next door. It is also a convenience for people exiting vehicles during rainy weather -
where traversing landscaping may be hazardous or muddy conditions may be present.
Reason 2. Dangerous for pedestrians and promotes skateboarding or rollerbladers -but so is
the street for pedestrians; and they would have to compete with vehicles in the street, which would
be more hazardous. The same is true for skateboarders and rollerbladers. There are many steep
sidewalks in the City and this would just be another.
Reason 3. Aesthetics - no room for landscaping - City standards require sidewalks and
landscaping is typically installed behind the sidewalk, as an extension of yard landscaping. The
same number of trees may be planted, but they need to be planted to accommodate the sidewalk.
The need to use public right of way for the public (sidewalks) should be greater than use of public
right of way for private landscaping.
Reason 4. Extreme hardship-occupancy delayed,failure of staff to inform early on and cost
of sidewalk not factored in the financing - Staff agrees that earlier notification would've been
preferred by all. However, in spite of that, the cost of sidewalk installation (only - since curbs
already exist) would only be a relatively small percentage of the overall cost of this residence.
Typically, the construction budget would include at least 10% for "contingencies", to cover
unknowns encountered during construction.
The total frontage of the lot is 160 feet. The proposed driveway and sidewalk shown on the plan
involves 36 ft., which leaves 124 ft. of sidewalk, including a curb ramp at the comer. Staff
estimates the cost of installing the "additional" sidewalk to be approximately $4,000. If only the
Buena Vista frontage were completed (including a curb ramp), that is estimated to be $2,500. The
appellant stated an estimated cost of$10,000 in the above-referenced letter. Staff advised the agent
to solicit bids from several contractors to obtain a firm cost. The $10,000 figure may have possibly
included the driveway and sidewalk work already included in the approved plans.
3-z
Council Agenda Report-88 Buena Vista Ave.sidewalk appeal
Page 3
Council Goal
In the past, many covenants deferring these conditions have been approved in old subdivisions,
typically, where the adjacent properties do not have sidewalks. However, in recent times, staff has
taken direction from Council goals that the City be made more pedestrian friendly and in fact an
emphasis be placed on constructing new sidewalks in areas where none now exist. As a result, no
covenants have been granted by the Community Development Director and the Public Works
Director within the last two years. Thus, when property owners do not agree with the requirement,
their proper recourse is to appeal the condition to the City Council. Recently, the City Council
heard similar appeals on Henderson Street and on Penny Lane.
As previously mentioned, the City Council has put new emphasis on sidewalk installation by: a)
increasing the budget for sidewalk repairs by staff;b)creating a budget for contract sidewalk repair;
c) creating a budget for 1911 Act new sidewalk installations; and d) directing that staff prepare a
staff report for Council consideration to install new sidewalks on Chorro Street, between Murray
and Rogueot Streets.
Analysis and Recommendation
The appeal must consider the referenced Municipal Code section stating that the "...sidewalk
would cause extreme hardship or serve no useful purpose". Under nominal circumstances, staff
would have pursued a "covenant" to be recorded against the land - but only for the Santa Maria
frontage, since there is existing sidewalk in front of the adjacent easterly property, on Buena Vista
Avenue. Thus for this issue tonight, staff would recommend a requirement for sidewalk
constriction on Buena Vista Ave. and allow the applicants to sign a covenant with the City for
future sidewalk installation on Santa Maria Ave., with tree placement not within future sidewalk
areas.
Because this project did not receive a full review at the time of application is not a reason to
override the Municipal Code. Had that occurred, absent recent Council actions, staff would have
recommended sidewalk installation on Buena Vista Ave. only and a covenant for future sidewalk
on Santa Maria Avenue. However, given the direction for new sidewalks and Council's actions
mentioned above, staff would have recommended that full sidewalks be installed. Most likely, this
would have also resulted in an appeal before the Council for a decision on Santa Maria Avenue.
If the Council allows all or part of the sidewalk to be "deferred"under a covenant, it will allow an
occupancy release when all other conditions have been met. Otherwise, the above-referenced code
provides for deposit of cash or a certified check to cover the cost of the uncompleted work to allow
occupancy-pending such construction. (Current policy is a"Letter of Credit"or other form of cash
guarantee)
CONCURRENCES
The Community Development Director and City Attorney concur with the recommended action.
3-3
Council Agenda Report-88 Baena Vista Ave.sidewalk appeal
Page 4
FISCAL E'dPACT: None
ALTERNATIVES
Option 1: Require installation of all sidewalk improvements.
Option 2: Authorize recordation of a standard covenant to postpone all sidewalk
improvements to a future date,when called due by the Public Works Director.
Attachments
1) Resolution postponing Santa Maria sidewalk only.
2) Resolution requiring all improvements
3) Resolution upholding appeal/postponing all additional improvements
4) Map
5) Grading plan
6) Letter from Alan Deckel(1-28-98)
7) Municipal Code Sections 12.16.050
F:\PWWgenda\Appeal of sidewalk req't. at 88 Buena Vista
3-y
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL TO ALLOW POSTPONEMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT
TO INSTALL SIDEWALK 11%IPROVEMENTS ALONG THE SANTA MARIA AVENUE
FRONTAGE OF 88 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on February 17, 1998 and
has considered testimony of interested parties and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that postponing the condition to install
sidewalk improvements per City regulations at 88 Buena Vista Avenue is justified along the
Santa Maria Avenue frontage under the appeal procedures of Municipal Code Section
12.16.050 subject to executing a covenant to call the improvements due upon future written
notice by the Public Works Director.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Fes. That this Council, after consideration of the applicant's
request to waive installation of sidewalk improvements, staff recommendations, public
testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following finding:
The condition which requires the installation of sidewalk improvements per City
standards is not necessary in this case along the Santa Maria Avenue frontage to
accommodate orderly development and pedestrian travel at this time
SECTION 3. Approval. The request for postponement of the requirement to install
sidewalk improvements along the Santa Maria Avenue frontage is approved, subject to
execution and recordation of a standard covenant to be recorded against the land, that provides
for sidewalks to be installed "between the southerly property line and the curb ramp to be
constructed at the intersection of Buena Vista and Santa Maria Avenues", upon written notice
by the Public Works Director.
3-,9'
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page Two
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 , 1998.
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
i Att a ff 4rgensen
DevRev\...\Streets\88 Buena Vista Resol. rec
3-G
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL TO POSTPONE THE REQUIREMENT TO INSTALL
SIDEWALK E%IPROVEMENTS AT 88 BUENA VISTA AVENUE.
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on February 17, 1998 and
has considered testimony of interested parties and the evaluation and recommendation of staff,
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that postponing the condition to install
sidewalk improvements per City regulations at 88 Buena Vista Avenue is not justified under
the appeal procedures of Municipal Code Section 12.16.050 and would result in added
administration time and monitoring by staff if a covenant were authorized which would call the
improvements due upon future written notice by the Public Works Director.
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 applicant's
request to waive installation of sidewalk improvements, staff recommendations, public
testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following finding:
The condition which requires the installation of frontage improvements per City
standards is necessary in order to accommodate orderly development and
pedestrian travel in the vicinity.
SECTION 3. Denial. The request for postponement of the requirement to install
frontage improvements is hereby denied.
�'7
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page Two
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 , 1998.
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
o eyrgensen
DevRev\...\Streets\88 Buena Vista Resol. Option 1
03
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL TO ALLOW POSTPONEMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT
TO INSTALL SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS AT 88 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on February 17, 1998 and
has considered testimony of interested parties and the evaluation and recommendation of staff,
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that postponing the condition to install
sidewalk improvements per City regulations at 88 Buena Vista Avenue is justified under the
appeal procedures of Municipal Code Section 12.16.050 subject to executing a covenant to call
the improvements due upon future written notice by the Public Works Director.
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 applicant's
request to waive installation of sidewalk improvements, staff recommendations, public
testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following finding:
The condition which requires the installation of sidewalk improvements per City
standards is not necessary in this case in order to accommodate orderly
development and pedestrian travel at this time.
SECTION 3. Approval. The request for postponement of the requirement to install
sidewalk improvements is approved, subject to execution and recordation of a standard
covenant to be recorded against the land, that provides for sidewalks to be installed upon
written notice by the Public Works Director.
3-9
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page Two
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 1998.
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
#tyloeqy ff J rgensen
DevRev\...\Streets\88 Buena Vista Resol. Option 2
3-io
x Sam
cr2° c 1.1v
36 RrgO
i 139 2 S PART OF S.W. 1/4 OF S. 4 X34 w�60
OF SEG. 24 r 30 &
^' 20 S 60o N.D.N yX?o
F �
6O\E� cFs - W /,g �O 19� b
�� .o sT 2s
12 �j i.� +
.�?•`' 221 s . o y1 a a� I► T a� 24 � � Z•7
0 rz
ZOI N71$O3'E S7 `b /s 2 a
ft 4
° Ave.. CV
IGOV
1
3s0 1✓ e'
S p3°�pY o q 36 A. F
04 16 d,a6 .10. 0046 E / B
56 10��
��5;� O 4� g,1
ogv+ N72 X11 36 i�R.• °� /.
13 \C e a 3 \ J(O �� B.
�P va
Z3
/5660
Nap - '"�� 19 ,- o �' 100 8p?�s 3?E
!7)
`!' ��" � N I 8 360
585026 E 2.0 `\p oy
" 2
03 �o G" �^0 % ZO 115.10 �e c �� `� 0 q .
a 10
2 0 ma 1 12 04E c
i 26 134 28 .-:• �_ � t
_ f2 Z� 50 N 1T ° 20
E 271 2 �6 o
N 12 05 O` 8 2 w� a \3 n Imp too 2/ 020 c o
1 m,SS S— 24 N s� 4 1R� 41 1i�,( 4 ° o °� `� 16 0 19 N 13 ��a tee.6p V 2p 6
11 25
v 4 28 136
`STS � N i'���' o
�_
v 16 0 p5 E 8 m 10'T 50�J
43 6 c 2O 105 0�m
c50 w ca Q =04 2 s o — yrs-.. ae /p9 ° 90 6 R BO 4
9 a c � "NYS� 266/ 'qL r' �43E4 p 2290 27
o H 6'g0 6 �ry
lai 8
23 �0ac W O �/ y�i //g 3 3pZ R=70
A
21
40
5A/VT j78.9H B! ' a���,ti 2S� O " c 50
! b
2% ? as30 ��I 470 1� °y 20 34 o po
4 � o
FC .• 3!i ,per
Yzv, �27.5
3-�
NOTE-ASSESSGR'S
BLOCK 6 LOT .
NUMBERS
SHOWN IN CIRCLES
SAP,, ?wj
r
�= gyp• \ '
c:
r �
'��,. .0'i \ � � ���' � \ ' � • . may+'\ ! .
\ \ °L A10 ,
exo el. w
'\ -...
y
Sao 4r5 .
DC iti�oD':_Ll'v�GSA C GtAiGU JN: rl�
January 28, 1998 1JAN 2 1998
.G res ,
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm,San Luis Obispo,93401
Dear City Council,
A building permit for a single family home was obtained at 88 Buena Vista.We are within 30 days of
obtaining occupancy. We have worked with the staff throughout the process and arranged financing for
the project based upon all the building requirements imposed by the staff through the permitting and
building process.We now understand that the public works department is requiring us to install
sidewalks at an additional expense of approximately$10,000.Frankly,we didn't anticipate the additional
expense.
The requirement of a sidewalk is unreasonable because of the following:
1) Serves no useful purpose-This home is near the top of a dead end street with very little pedestrian
traffic and only a few homes.
2) Dangerous-Because of the steep slope along Santa Maria Ave.,a sidewalk would certainly promote
the chances of someone Falling not to mention any daredevil kids with skate boards or rollerblades or
?;and this could turn real ugly!
3) Aesthetics-There is no room to professional landscape the front of the property.If sidewalks were
put in you would simply have more concrete and less trees and beautiful landscape.
4) Extreme hardship.Occupancy delayed as staff failed to inform us of this requirement.In addition,
the cost of the sidewalks were not factored in the financing for the project
San Luis Obispo city ordinance section 12.16.050 provides under exceptions the following:
The director and the community development director may defer or temporarily waive all or portions of
these requirements if they jointly agree that they will cause extreme hardship or serve no useful purpose.
I tried to contact Arnold Jonas,community development director,and was told to talk with Ron
Whisenand in his department who would handle this matter.When I reached him via voicemail, .
Whisenand voicemailed me a message indicating that I should talk with Jerry Kinny from the public
works department.When I finally talked with Kinny,he informed me that I needed to fill out a wavier
request foam with the city clerk office.I attempted to obtain the necessary paper work from the city clerks
office and was informed this wasn't the proper way to go about it The only form available was an appeal
form which they felt wasn't the right form for this situation. I then put together a conference call with the
city clerks office and Kinny to try to figure out how to proceed.They both advised me to write this letter to
the city council and send a copy to Bonnie Gawk,Arnold Jonas,Mike McClusky,and John Dunn.
I don't know what it's going to take,but please treat this letter as a wavier request for the sidewalk
requirement under city ordinance section 12.16.050.If there are any forms you need me to fill out please :
have your staff send them to me ASAP.Please understand that this requirement which pubic works is
imposing is causing extreme hardship.It is absolutely imperative that we obtain occupancy no later than
30 days.
Sincerely,
Alan Deckel-real estate agent representing Ernie and Tawn Roide-owner
Fax: (805)528-3845
Voicemzi:: (805)542-8391
3-�3
i
12.16.050-12.16.060
77
12.16.050 Installation or pleted, then the city may use all or any
reimbursement required portion of said bond to complete the installa-
when—Exceptions. tion.
Whenever any building is constructed on Exceptions: The director and the commu-
or moved onto any parcel of real property in pity development director may defer or tem-
the city, or whenever existing buildings are. porarily waive all or portions of these require-
altered or expanded in excess of fifty percent meats if they jointly agree that they will
of the value of such building as determined cause extreme hardship or serve no useful
by the chief building official, it is required, purpose.
except as hereinafter provided, that a stan- VOrd. 1132 § 2, 1989: prior code § 7330.8)
dard concrete curb,gutter,sidewalk:and street
pavement as determined by council resolu- 12.1 .055 Reimbursement.
tion be installed on all street frontages of Theo or develope ho installs im-
such property by the owner of such property provements whi u roperty other than
or the person in possession of the property . that being develope ma reimbursed as
prior to granting of occupancy or final ap- provided in Secti 16.44.091 of this code.
proval. The council shall establish by resolu- (Ord. 1132 § 3 989)
tion from time to time relevant standards
and special requirements for such improve- 12.16.060 Appeals.
ments. In the case of the construction of a An appeal of a decision of the director shall
garage or other structure, which by its na- follow the procedure set out in Chapter 1.2
ture requires the construction of a driveway of this code.
ramp, the street improvements directly re- (Ord. 1132 § 4, 1989: prior code § 7330.9) .
lated to the construction must be installed
unless a waiver is obtained from the director
and community development director. It is Chapter 12.20
unlawful for any person to occupy or use such
buildings prior to the installation of the re- PARS REGULATI S
quired curb, gutter and sidewalks unless a
certified check or cash in the amount to be Secti s
fixed by the director is deposited with the city 12.20. 10 Title.
to guarantee such installation. In the case of 12.20.0 Definitio s.
structures which are already occupied and 12.20.030 Compli ce with
which, due to the extent of the construction, egul ions required.
require the installation of street improve- 12.20.040 R e and regulations
meats, the owner or developer shall post app 'cable in city parks.
(prior to issuance of the building permit) a 12.20.045 A ho 'ty to close.
bond or other security in a form acceptable to 12.20.050 sere ion of park areas
the city attorney in an amount eaual to the d struc es.
COSI: to install the sheet inl?n-Ovem ents. ` iae 12.20.060 r]_`_°'ansler o- eT3=?3i5—.
bond -lay be release-6 «'hen the improve- WritteII corse =equired-
rri��'_ = ?":. ?.�Ce`':c:: i!:? r.i :r c7Cl llo'_' LC ?��2NJ l� X77��:-7a2Z'lIIJ �COL'T'—'�
2z ?!0`L S7 C0-1- ��.rj l7fl 'deo: ter,.*1 O-30^
_ , � c._a CL„�„�1LS.
3 - iy
January 28, 1998
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm,San Luis Obispo,93401
Dear City Council,
A building permit for a single family home was obtained at 88 Buena Vista.We are within 30 days of
obtaining occupancy. We have worked with the staff throughout the process and arranged financing for
the project based upon all the building requirements imposed by the staff through the permitting and
building process. We now understand that the public works department is requiring us to install
sidewalks at an additional expense of approximately$10,000.Frankly,we didn't anticipate the additional
expense.
The requirement of a sidewalk is unreasonable because of the following:
1) Serves no useful purpose-This home is near the top of a dead end street with very little pedestrian
traffic and only a few homes.
2) Dangerous-Because of the steep slope along Santa Maria Ave.,a sidewalk would certainly promote
the chances of someone falling not to mention any daredevil kids with skate boards or rollerblades or
?;and this could tum real ugly!
3) Aesthetics-There is no room to professional landscape the front of the property. If sidewalks were
put in you would simply have more concrete and less trees and beautiful landscape.
4) Extreme hardship-Occupancy delayed as staff failed to inform us of this requirement.In addition,
the cost of the sidewalks were not factored in the financing for the project.
San Luis Obispo city ordinance section 12.16.050 provides under exceptions the following:
The director and the community development director may defer or temporarily waive all or portions of
these requirements if they jointly agree that they will cause extreme hardship or serve no useful purpose.
I tried to contact Arnold Jonas,community development director,and was told to talk with Ron
Whisenand in his department who would handle this matter.When I reached him via voicemail,
Whisenand voicemailed me a message indicating that I should talk with Jerry Kinny from the public
works department. When I finally talked with Kinny,he informed me that i needed to fill out a wavier
request form with the city clerk office.I attempted to obtain the necessary paper work from the city clerks
office and was informed this wasn't the proper way to go about it. The only form available was an appeal
form which they felt wasn't the right form for this situation. I then put together a conference call with the
city clerks office and Kinny to try to figure out how to proceed.They both advised me to write this letter to
the city council and send a copy to Bonnie Gawf,Arnold Jonas,Mike McClusky,and John Dunn.
I don't know what it's going to take,but please treat this letter as a wavier request for the sidewalk
requirement under city ordinance section 12.16.050. If there are any forms you need me to fill out please
have your staff send them to me ASAP. Please understand that this requirement which pubic works is
imposing is causing extreme hardship.It is absolutely imperative that we obtain occupancy no later than
30 days.
Sincerely,
�✓
Alan Deckel-real estate agent representing Ernie and Tawn Roid"wner RECEIVED
Fax: (805)528-3845 JAN 3 1998
Voicemail: (805)542-8391
181-0 G77 .' "2RK