Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/15/1998, 4 - APPEAL OF HEARING OFFICER'S ACTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION CREATING TWO LOTS FROM ONE AT 2903 BROAD STREET (CITY FILE NO.: MS 61-98) council N.ji �5 - j acEnaa izcpoizt "®N®`4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Arnold B.Jonas,Community Development Director 10 Prepared By: Peggy Mandeville,Associate Plannerq'% SUBJECT: Appeal of Hearing Officer's action approving a minor subdivision creating two lots from one at 2903 Broad Street(City File No.: MS 61-98) CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt Draft Resolution A, denying the appeal, and upholding the Hearing Officer's action to approve a two lot subdivision, based on findings made by the Hearing Officer and consistency with the City's Subdivision Regulations. DISCUSSION Backaroand/Situation On April 3, 1998,the Community Development Department received an application from David Bolduan to subdivide one parcel into two lots of 13,795 square feet each (see Attachment 3, Vicinity Map). Project plans (see Attachment 4, Bolduan parcel map reduction) showed Parcel 1 as undeveloped and Parcel 2 as developed with two residential structures presently serviced by overhead lines from the adjacent P.I.E./Saturn site owned by Kimo Pankey. On October 2, 1998, the Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing on the applicant's request for tentative map approval for a minor subdivision creating two lots from one(see Attachment 5 and 6, Minor land division staff report and Meeting minutes) and took the item under advisement directing staff to contact PG&E regarding the responsibility for relocating the overhead utility line serving the site. After the hearing, City staff spoke with Mike Momber,PG&E. He advised staff that PG&E was "working on relocation of the pole"and it is"not a problem". On October 5, 1998, the Hearing Officer approved the tentative map for Minor Subdivision MS 61-98 based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements (see Attachment 7, Action of the Community Development Director). On October 7, 1998, at the request of Joe DeLucia, City staff contacted Mike Momber, PG&E, who advised us that he had misspoken about the utility pole relocation and believed that PG&E had"prescriptive rights"to utilize the utility pole on Mr. Pankey's property. 4-� Council Agenda Report-_ _iduan Appeal Page 2 On October 14, 1998, Joe DeLucia (representing the P.I.E./Saturn site property owner, Kimo Pankey)appealed the Hearing Officer's action to approve the project. Evaluation The letter of appeal from Mr. DeLucia dated October 14, 1998 (See Attachment 8,Appeal letter)included a letter attachment from his legal counsel,Roy Ogden, dated May 14, 1998, which contains more detailed reasons for the appeal. The appeal is based on two issues: 1) Suitability for subdivision and development of the subject property; and 2) PG&E's rights to serve the subject property with electricity from within the Pankey property. 1. Suitabilityfor subdivision and development The land division will result in two parcels that comply with the Subdivision Regulations requirements for lot size, lot depth,and minimum frontage. Additionally,the creation of the two parcels lessens the existing non-conformity of the lot's depth to width ratio. The existing depth to width ratio is approximately 9 to 1. With the lot split,the ratio would be approximately 4.3 to 1. Subdivision Regulations allow a maximum of 3 to 1. The two parcels conform to Zoning,General Plan, and all other City requirements. When subdivided,Parcel 1 would be undeveloped and Parcel 2 would be developed with one single family residence and one studio apartment. Pursuant to the Zoning Regulations, a maximum density of 12 du/ac can be developed on each parcel. This equates to 3.8 dwelling unit equivalents. As proposed by the minor subdivision,Parcel 2's density would be below the maximum density allowed. 2. PG&E service The subject property includes two buildings that have existed for many years and which have received overhead electric service from a pole on the adjacent property, currently owned by Pankey. Properties along Perkins Lane are also served by the primary and secondary power traversing several parcels between Perkins Lane and Rockview Place,near its Broad St. intersection. The existing PG&E poles,wires and individual services apparently were installed without the benefit of formal (recorded)easements. However,these facilities existed for at least 50 to 60 years. In those days,according to J.T. Haas of PG&E,this was not unusual. PG&E believes"prescriptive rights"exist over the properties,based on the presumed approval by the respective property owners when the system was installed and the long-standing use. Public"disclosure"to subsequent property owners is obvious to anyone inspecting the site, due to the somewhat imposing facilities. Determination as to whether or not prescriptive rights prevail is subject to a court decision,not unilaterally,by either party. q..-� Council Agenda Report-,solduan Appeal Page 3 During the review of the proposed subdivision, Public Works staff recommended the"standard" wording for a condition that requires all parcels to be served by individual utility services. (Municipal Code Section 16.36.250,J.4). City regulations will require utility services for any development of Parcel 1 to be served from existing facilities on Rockview Place. Additionally any new structure on Parcel l (which is partially developed)will be served via underground wires from Broad Street. Staff does not feel it is justified to require the existing services to the buildings to be relocated until such redevelopment of the parcel occurs. After consideration of the objection by the appellant(s), staff contacted the subdivider(Bolduan) regarding the matter. Staff indicated that a document would need to be recorded simultaneously with the final Parcel Map that requires new electric service via PG&E facilities along the Broad Street frontage for any"substantial remodel'or redevelopment on the property. The subdivider has agreed to this condition. (See Attachment 9,Letter from David Bolduan). In fact,Mr. Bolduan verbally agreed to new"overhead" service at this time by PG&E, if it were feasible and at a reasonable cost($200-300 range). J.T. Haas stated that it would be feasible, but would probably require setting 2 new service poles on the Bolduan property,due to the location of the rear building,along with a new transformer. The total cost would no doubt exceed the amount agreed to by Mr. Bolduan. Utility services for Parcel 1 (fronting on Rockview Place)will be served from existing facilities along that frontage and is therefore not a concern regarding this appeal. Staff feels that City standards are being met and any modification to the existing services would be a matter between PG&E and the appellant,if deemed appropriate by a court decree,until redevelopment of the subject property. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt Draft Resolution B,upholding the appeal and denying the project,based on findings. 2. Continue with direction to the staff and appellant. Attachments: 1. Resolution A,denying appeal 2. Resolution B,upholding appeal 3. Vicinity map 4. Bolduan parcel map reduction 5. Minor land division staff report 6. Meeting minutes 7. Action of the Community Development Director 8. Appeal letter from Joe DeLucia 9. Letter from David Bolduan Enclosed in Council packets: Project plans 4-3 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING OFFICER'S ACTION, THEREBY APPROVING THE MINOR SUBDIVISION CREATING TWO LOTS FROM ONE AT 2903 BROAD STREET (MS 61-98) WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on December 15, 1998, and has considered testimony of interested parties including the appellants, the records of the Minor Land Division hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the minor land division is exempt from CEQA per Section 15315 Minor.Land Divisions. 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 project plans for MS 61-98 and the Hearing Officer's action, public testimony, the appellant's statements, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following finding: 1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the General Plan,which allow division of land in accordance with the City's subdivisionregulations. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-2-S zone, because the lots have adequate size and frontage for residential uses, consistent with the subdivision regulations. 3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems,substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because no further development is proposed at this time. Additional environmental review may be required at the time of further development. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements for access through,or use of property within,the proposed subdivision. 5. The Community Development Director has determined that the proposed land division is exempt from environmental review,because it meets all standards(Class 15,Section 15315). SECTION 2. Denial. The appeal is hereby denied, and the minor subdivison creating two lots from one is approved subject to the following conditions and code requirements: Conditions 1. The subdivider shall dedicate a public pedestrian easement along Rockview Place frontage, varying from 1 foot wide adjacent to the sidewalk and 6 foot wide adjacent to driveway ramps, 4-4 Resolution No. (1998 Series) Page 2 so that future sidewalk and driveway ramp modifications can meet the requirements established by the Americans with Disabilities Act. 2. Each parcel shall be served with separate services/laterals (water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone,and cable TV)to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 3. Street trees will be required to be planted at the same time of development of each parcel in accordance with city standards and to the satisfaction of the City Arborist - 4. All boundary monuments, lot comers and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with AutoCAD (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. 5. The parcel map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis),to the approval of the City Engineer. 6. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo via an avigation easement document prepared by the applicant and submitted to the County for approval and recordation. The applicant shall provide the Community Development Department with a copy of the easement for documentation purposes. Note: the process of granting an avigation easement takes approximately one month,therefore, it is recommended that the property owner pursue this requirement as soon as possible. 7. Redevelopment of Parcel 2 shall require the provision of utility services from the Broad Street frontage. A covenant to that affect shall be recorded concurrently with the final parcel map. Code Requirements 1. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Water and wastewater impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of any building permit. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: 4 -6 Resolution No. (1998 Series) - Page 3 AYES- NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 15th day of Dece.bbd; 1998. Mayor AllemSettle ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED: /ity/ALrJy Je org en 4 =� Attachment 2 RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING OFFICER'S ACTION, THEREBY DENYING THE MINOR SUBDIVISON AT 2903 BROAD STREET (MS 61-98) WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on December 15, 1998, and has considered testimony of interested parties including the appellants, the records of the Minor Land Division hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the minor land division is exempt from CEQA per Section 15315 Minor Land Divisions. 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 project plans for MS 61-98 and the Hearing Officer's action, public testimony, the appellant's statements, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following finding: (Council specifies findings to be used) SECTION 2. Approval. The appeal is hereby approved, and the request for a minor subdivision creating two lots from one is denied. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 15th day of December, 1998. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price 4 -7 Resolution No. (1.998 Series) Page 2 .APPROVED:' City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen 4 =8 i ♦01 � Kf :i%:5 :`,!>✓ ��%��: /:r:,i�../i:�, ✓/:is //moi: `'jll'9�. %J//'✓''�4i::;<�oL �jl�'/�y%i �%!"/:i�%i/��1. �j. _� ��%i% p`% �//i l it+/ � ✓ /i /J: ;1/ 1 ry r� /r/ �i )'//%0�`/2�If G: 6 :.. ✓//,iJ� //Infer. r/ i�/. /�:/:� //': 4�/.f%/:' �/% �/:i�;!4/�/:; ':::.ir:.:.'�a%�.//,.r'a'y' er.' '•/ \� .i:.'" ��:�%'`y':%n%'Y,:'f J/' f/y' • l 4//,r�%/�r/�r/r N'Y4��:' j'f.,.�i%Y`l.,'.%:':ijkii.y�%;:: :�% ✓/%:a`�'/::fI ::.:. Vii.. � �117'�i:'r/i 'Jf. Attachment 4 V/C/N/ry MAP • N /.YJec:I'•ddVLL Ib ' j x 8 PERWINS LANE y hum A 'Will e a rar.se' .a7sess., bl AdReZL � � IR dr•dI'OO C�K eI' I � i / � m I � OWNER/SUMMOD? SURVE RIRDWESENWIVE f/'ENFA////Y y�� PAW99 kgARP dlWe tL aaraoau.Stat. WA&WM-ce+/c crae><vrrd �L4 NJ���J�Lf Rd a= Ie IS- P.O.aOR///s R- [!ni dRIdAD.Ge,ddIQ6 ==MOM ed MOM GO."Ardl Ieos)SfS-errr fees!4aa-6t7 ter d d•M--weq/Y/W&MVeuira,/u ra/EC/rrA ID ceaasiro cruses C.S.dart Cdr-Wry d<aeV WIN OWSPO.drew eFCeuoeR�/ie. es�v. eI-ser-aa c�SYeIR,/Jd9 �Y J6�idSI/ Cd.1/41 4 -co 6rii OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MINOR LAND DIVISION REPORT Attachment 5 BY: Peggy Mandeville,Associate Planner DATE: October 2, 1998 FILE NUMBER: MS 61-98 (PM SLO 98-073) PROJECTADDRESS: 2903 Broad Street SUBJECT: Minor land division to divide one 0.63 acre parcel into two parcels of 13,795 square feet on the west side of Broad Street south of Perkins Lane. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Approve the minor land division,subject to conditions. BACKGROUND Situation The applicant wants to create two lots from one. The existing lot is non-conforming in size because: 1. The lot width is 55.48 feet where the minimum required is 60 feet. 2. The lot depth is greater than three times the lot width(3:1). The two proposed lots maintain the 55.48 foot lot width and improve the non-conformity of the lot depth to width ratio from 9:1 to 4%:1 by splitting the lot in two. Data summary Address: 2903 Broad Street Applicant: David Bolduan Property owners: Bolduan,King,Ahearn Representative: David Bolduan Zoning. R-2-S(Medium density residential with Special Considerations Overlay) General plan: Medium Density Residential Environmental status: Categorically exempt (Class 15, Section 15315): project is the division of property in an urbanized area into four or fewer parcels,where all standards are met Project action deadline: December 18, 1998 Site description The site is rectangular in shape and slopes from Rockview Place down toward Broad Street with an elevation change of approximately five feet. The site has access from Broad Street and Rockview Place. The site is currently developed with two dwelling units (a house and studio apartment)that have access from Broad Street. Surrounding land uses include residential to the north and west and service commercial to the south and east EVALUATION 1. Consistency with regulations. The land division will result in two parcels that comply with the Subdivision Regulations requirements for lot size, lot depth,and minimum frontage.Additionally,the two parcels lessen the non-conformity of the lot's depth to width ratio. The two parcels conform to zoning,General Plan, and all other City requirements. When subdivided, Parcel 1 would be undeveloped and Parcel 2 would be developed with one single family residence MS 61-98(PM SLO 98-073) 2903 Broad Street Page 2 (equaling a maximum of 2.00 dwelling unit equivalents if the house has 4 or more bedrooms)and one studio apartment (equaling 0.50 dwelling unit equivalents). Pursuant to the Zoning Regulations, a maximum density of 12 du/ac can be developed on each parcel. This equates to 3.8 dwelling units(ie. one 4-bedroom unit,one 2-bedroom unit and one 1-bedroom unit). 2. Subdivision findings. To approve a subdivision,the Director must find that it is consistent with the General Plan. The Subdivision Map Act (Section 66474) also includes findings for denial of a subdivision,which,reversed,may be used as findings for approval. Findings for denial are: a. That the proposed map is not consistent with the City's General Plan. b. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's General Plan. c. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development d. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. e. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. f. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The reverse of each of these findings can be made in this case. 3. CEQA exemption. The California Environmental Quality Act says that a land division where four or fewer parcels are being created, "when the division is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning,no variances or exceptions are required,all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available,the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous two years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent" is categorically exempt from CEQA. The proposed land division meets all these criteria. RECOMMENDATION Approve the land division,based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the General Plan, which allow division of land in accordance with the City's subdivision regulations. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-2-S zone, because the lots have adequate size and frontage for residential uses, consistent with the subdivision regulations. 3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems,substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because no further development is proposed at this time. Additional environmental review may be required at the time of further development 4 - 12- MS 61-98(PM SLO 98-073) 2903 Broad Street Page 3 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements for access through,or use of property within,the proposed subdivision. 5. The Community Development Director has determined that the proposed land division is exempt from environmental review,because it meets all standards(Class 15,Section 15315). Conditions: 1. The subdivider shall dedicate a public pedestrian easement-along Rockview Place frontage, varying from 1 foot wide adjacent to the sidewalk and 6 foot wide adjacent to driveway ramps, so that firture sidewalk and driveway ramp modifications can meet the requirements established by the Americans with Disabilities Act. 2. Each parcel shall be served with separate services/laterals(water, sewer, gas, electric,telephone,and cable TV)to the satisfactionof the Director of Public Works. 3. Street trees will be required to be planted at the same time of development of each parcel in accordance with city standards and to the satisfaction of the City Arborist 4. All boundary monuments, lot comers and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with AutoCAD (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS)purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. 3. The parcel map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. -all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis),to the approval of the City Engineer. 4. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo via an avigation easement document prepared by the applicant and submitted to the County for approval and recordation. The applicant shall provide the Community Development Department with a copy of the easement for documentation purposes. Note: the process of granting an avigation easement takes approximately one month, therefore, it is recommended that the property owner pursue this requirement as soon as possible. Code Requirements and General Information: 1. Traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of any building permit 2. Water and wastewater impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of any building permit Attached:vicinity map,reduced site plan,letters from neighbors 4- ( 3 Attachment 6 DIRECTOR'S SUBDIVISON HEARING MINUTES OCTOBER 2, 1998 2903 Broad Street Minor Subdivision No. MS 61-98 (SLO 89-432) Consideration of a tentative parcel map creating two lots from one lot; R-2-S zone; David Bolduan, subdivider. Peggy Mandeville presented the staff report, explaining this is a minor land division to divide a .63 acre parcel into 2 parcels of equal size that would be 13,795 square feet on the west side of Broad Street south of Perkins Lane. She noted that staff is recommending approval subject to conditions which she outlined. Ms. Mandeville explained that the lot is currently non-conforming in size because it is 55.5 feet wide and current standards require it be 60 feet wide. She noted that the lot depth cannot be more than three times the lot width. This request is to split the lot in half with the 55-foot wide lot remaining. It appears that all other requirements, including density, are being met. It was noted that the existing three-bedroom house and studio apartment on the one parcel is still below the density allowance for that parcel, and meets general plan requirements and requirements of the subdivision ordinance. The back lot is currently vacant and there is no proposal for its development. It is assumed the back lot would have access off of Rockview Place, and Parcel 2 would have access off Broad Street. Ms. Mandeville stated for the record that comments had been received from Julie Stowasser, Art Murphey, and Roy Ogden opposing the request. One concern mentioned was lack of an easement for the electric service. A letter from PG & E indicates there are no conflicts. In closing, Ms. Mandeville felt the map conforms to all of our requirements and guidelines and recommended approval. Ron Whisenand noted this item had previously been considered for a lot line adjustment with the property adjacent to Perkins Lane. The applicant had been working with Mr Banducci and was unsuccessful in working out a deal. Since then, the City received a letter requesting that the City go forward with processing this minor land division. Mr. Whisenand felt neighbors feared that the property would be changed to commercial and asked if there was any information as to further development plans. He asked if there is any proposal to add this piece of property to the PIE electric building site, thereby increasing the commercial use of that property. 4 -14 Director's Subdivision , gearing October 2, 1998 Page 2 Peggy Mandeville responded that she was not aware of any future plans to develop this property. The applicant had inquired in the past about the number of units allowed on the back parcel that is currently vacant, and had mentioned that the property owner of the Saturn site had talked to them about purchasing the front half of this parcel for parking. Ms. Mandeville noted that parking is not an allowed use, and the current owner wasn't interested in selling it for parking. Ron Whisenand noted that this request is for a subdivision only, and any future change to the boundaries of the commercial use to the south would go through a separate hearing process. Ron Whisenand asked for an idea of approximately how many dwelling units could be built on.parcel one. Peggy Mandeville responded that for a 3.8 dwelling unit equivalent, one 4- bedroom unit, one 2-bedroom unit and one 1-bedroom unit. She noted that since the lot is only 55.5 feet wide, maximum density may not be attained because of access, tum-around, and parking. Ron noted that the current house and studio apartment have access from Broad Street and asked if Public Works indicated a desire to rethink where the access would come through parcel 1 to parcel 2 off of Rockview. Ms. Mandeville noted the access is established and the applicant felt access from Rockview would be too difficult. They understand that this is where the new parcel 2 will be getting access from Broad Street and the applicant liked the idea of the back half getting access from Rockview Place. Ron Whisenand explained he had read Mr Pankey's attorneys letter and raised the issue of the over-head lines, and had read PG&E's response that everything is okay. He asked if this letter was prepared in response to that concern. Peggy Mandeville said she had sent PG&E a copy of the map, but did not specifically ask them to address the over-head service lines. She also spoke to Jerry Kenny of Public Works and he said existing overhead service is valid to that property. Redevelopment of the Bolduan property will be served from Broad Street and/or the existing poles might have to be relocated. There was no need to secure a formal off-site easement. Ron Whisenand noted that if they did something on parcel two, it would probably be conditioned upon taking access off Broad Street at the applicant's expense. The public hearing was opened. 4-15 Director's Subdivision. . gearing October 2, 1998 Page 3 Dave Bolduan, applicant, spoke in support of his request. He said this property is owned as a partnership and the reason for the lot split is to dispose of part of the property. He noted it is a very awkward size and felt that if it were split, the rear portion could be developed with residential units and the front portion could be sold or developed. He noted that traffic makes development difficult. Mr. Bolduan felt there would be difficulty on developing the front portion for residential because of the Saturn dealership, and the tremendous amount of traffic. Ron Whisenand noted his concern, indicating that this a very strong neighborhood that cares about what goes on, as experienced with the Saturn project. Their concern is that they would like to have some assurance that their residential neighborhood will remain intact and not converted to commercial. Mr. Bolduan said he really wouldn't want to have residential units there because the units next door are not very attractive. He stated that he is a residential builder and not a commercial builder, and had spoken to the City at one time about the possibility of a mixed use where we could keep residential units in the rear and am office or something more appropriate in the front considering the volume of traffic, activities and noise that occurs on Broad Street. He didn't know if that was feasible. He explained his plan at this point is to sell the front parcel and let somebody who wants to fix it up as a house and live in it take over. Ron Whisenand asked if Mr. Bolduan understood that the entire piece of property is zoned R-2 with a special consideration overlay zoning; and that the General Plan is residential not commercial; and that the subdivision is a subdivision of residential property. He reaffirmed that the parcel is a residential parcel and that any changes from residential that are done in the future would have to go through the process to change the City's General Plan. Mr. Whisenand asked if the subdivider understood what the avigation easement was for, and the response was that he did not. He explained that here is a very large area of the city that is covered by a County Airport Land Use Plan which is a planning document used by the airport. It has a variety of regions within the planning boundary depending whether a property is in the flight path, the landingttake off zone or just the periphery. This project is at the periphery. The plan looks at the appropriate uses underneath this imaginary boundary around the airport. which this project has been identified as an allowed use. But there is a requirement that all developments of the subdivision process go through what is called an Avigation easement. This a_ ic Director's Subdivision ,gearing October 2, 1998 Page 4 easement does two things: 1) it looks at the type of structures, the height of structures, hazards, etc. which could affect air traffic. But probably more importantly, it is a recognition of the current owner and therefore all future owners of the property, that everyone recognizes that the airport exists, that airplanes will be flying over the house from time to time . It is basically a recognition of the airport's right to operate. Mr. Bolduan asked if the traffic dramatically increases, have I given up any right to protest that by signing this agreement? Ron Whisenand said he felt this agreement most likely gives up those rights. However, if there are major noise violations, the applicant would still have the opportunity to provide input. He suggested that before the agreement is signed, he review it with the County. Mr. Whisenand explained that these agreements are a result of some communities and some neighborhoods coming in after the airport is there and saying "you know I'm tired of these airplanes" and the community getting together trying to shut down the airport. Ron Whisenand, in response to a question from the applicant, noted this is a county requirement that the City has adopted as part of its review of the County Land Use Plan, but it is also based on State rules and regulations. Art Murphey, 2974 Rockview Place, said he has ten units on the southwest comer of Rockview Court, the newest residential construction on that block with a current assessed value of 1.1 million dollars. He said he was concerned about this petition because of the sensibilities raised last spring about the Saturn dealership. He said his experience tells him that a successful business expands and that its cheaper to do it horizontally, not vertically. There is always a need for another few thousand square feet of storage space or a parking lot. He said he has a fear of creeping commercialism on the west side of Broad Street He said he is not really opposing this project, but wants to know all the documentation about what happens to the east end of the that proposed lot is split. He said he is extremely sensitive to any land use changes or modifications on that whole block. There was some discussion regarding the notification boundary area of adjacent properties, and whether or not they were within the 300-foot notification area. Ron noted that in the event of a future, multi-family residential project on parcel one, it would be subject to some level of architect review. 4-1-7 Director's Subdivisioi, . ,earing October 2, 1998 Page 5 Mr. Pankey of Shandon, expressed that his concerns have changed since the letter from Roy Ogden was submitted. He was concerned with -dense residential uses on Broad Street, and felt if the parcel was divided, because of its small size and shape, a restricted usage other than the current zoning would be inappropriate. The electrical easement was another concern because of the possibility of the removal of the pole. He noted he is currently in litigation with PG&E as far as their right to have a pole on the property. Mr. Pankey felt this is a positive move for the neighborhood and as long as King and Boldone are the applicants, he is in support of the lot split. Ron Whisenand clarified Mr. Pankey's position, that he is not opposed to the split, that he has a concern about the overhead power lines that cross his property and he has no problem with the current R-2-S zoning. The public hearing was closed. Ron Whisenand said he felt subdivision fits the criteria under Subdivision Regulations, General Plan, and zoning, and supports the request. He noted with the PG&E overhead connections and would prefer something more specific from them such as they recognize that these two houses on parcel 2 are served with an overhead line and this subdivision in no way would affect the ability of those houses to remain connected to the pole across the property. Due to the areas of concern, he took this item under advisement, explaining he has 7 days to render a decision. On October 5, 1998, Ronald Whisenand approved the tentative map for MS 61- 98 (SLO 89-432), based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions and code requirements: Findings 1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the General Plan,which allow division of land in accordance with the City's subdivision regulations. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-2-S zone, because the lots have adequate size and frontage for residential uses, consistent with the subdivision regulations. 3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems,substantial environmental damage or a _�e Director's Subdivision searing October 2, 1998 Page 6 substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because no further development is proposed at this time. Additional environmental review may be required at the time of further development. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements for access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision. 5. The Community Development Director has determined that.the proposed land division is exempt from environmental review, because it meets all standards (Class 15, Section 15315). Conditions 1. The subdivider shall dedicate a public pedestrian easement along Rockview Place frontage, varying from 1 foot wide adjacent to the sidewalk and 6 foot wide adjacent to driveway ramps, so that future sidewalk and driveway ramp modifications can meet the requirements established by the Americans with Disabilities Act 2. Each parcel shall be served with separate services/laterals(water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone, and cable TV) to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 3. Street trees will be required to be planted at the same time of development of each parcel in accordance with city standards and to the satisfaction of the City Arborist 4. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with AutoCAD (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. 5. The parcel map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. -all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. 4-- 19 Director's Subdivisioi, . searing October 2, 1998 Page 7 6. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo via an avigation easement document prepared- by the applicant and submitted to the County for approval and recordation. The applicant shall provide the Community Development Department with a copy of the easement for documentation purposes. Note: the process of granting an avigation easement takes approximately one month, therefore, it is recommended that the property owner pursue this requirement as soon as possible. Code Requirements 1. Traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of any building permit. 2. Water and wastewater impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of any building permit Ron Whisenand explained that his decision, when made, is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within ten days from the date of the decision, and that anyone may file an appeal. AJ -] n Attachment 7 DIRECTOR'S ACTION NO. 98-05 AN ACTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO GRANTING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION MS 61-98 (SLO 98-073) LOCATED AT 2903 BROAD STREET BE IT RESOLVED by the Community Development Director of the City of San Luis Obispo, as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Community Development Director, after consideration of the tentative map of Minor Subdivision MS 61-98 (SLO 98-073) and the staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings: 1. The design of the tentative.map and proposed improvements are consistent with the General Plan, which allow division of land in accordance with the City's subdivision regulations. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R- 2-S zone, because the lots have adequate size and frontage for residential uses, consistent with the subdivision regulations. 3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because no further development is proposed at this time. Additional environmental review may be required at the time of further development 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements for access through,or use of property within,the proposed subdivision. 5. The Community Development Director has determined that the proposed land division is exempt from environmental review, because it meets all standards (Class 15, Section 15315). SECTION 2. Conditions. That the approval of the tentative map for Minor Subdivision MS 61-98(SLO 98-073) be subject to the following conditions: 1. The subdivider shall dedicate a public pedestrian easement along Rockview Place frontage,varying from 1 foot wide adjacent to the sidewalk and 6 foot wide adjacent to driveway ramps, so that future sidewalk and driveway ramp modifications can meet the requirements established by the Americans with Disabilities Act. 4-a-� DA 98-05 Page 2 2. Each parcel shall be served with separate services/laterals (water, sewer, gas, electric,telephone,and cable TV)to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 3. Street trees will be required to be planted at the same time of development of each parcel in accordance with city standards and to the satisfaction of the City Arborist 4. All boundary monuments, lot comers and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submittedwith the parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" _ diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with AutoCAD (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. 5. The parcel map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. 6. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo via an avigation easement document prepared by the applicant and submitted to the County for approval and recordation. The applicant shall provide the Community Development Department with a copy of the easement for documentation purposes. Note: the process of granting an avigation easement takes approximately one month, therefore, it is recommended that the property owner pursue this requirement as soon as possible. SECTION 3. Code Requirements. That the following represent standard requirements required by various codes, ordinances and policies of the City of San Luis Obispo: 1. Traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of any building permit 2. Water and wastewater impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of any building permit. The foregoing documentwas passed and adopted this 5th day of October, 1998. omunity Deve pment Director Amold B. Jonas y: Ronald Whisenand, Hearing Officer 4--AA Joseph F. DeLacia Attachment 8 Commercial Rai Estate ServicesRECEIVED P.O. Boz 1286 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406-1286 (805) 782-9844 OCT E. 1996 CRY OF R04 : aBI OMMUNiTY '�r WpMENT October 14, 1998 Ms. Peggy Mandeville Associate Planner 990 Palm Street City of San Luis Obispo, Ca- 93401 RE: Appeal Minor Subdivision No. MS 61-98(SLO 98-073) David N. Bolduan 2903 Broad Street Dear Ms.Mandeville, On behalf of my client, Kuno Pankey,I desire to appeal the above described action that was approved on October 5th, 1998 by Hearing Officer Ronald Whisenand. The reasons for my appeal are as Follows: 1. All testimony and evidence that was presented at the hearing which is recorded of record in the official tapes of said hearing. 2. All the statements identified in the attached letter from our legal counsel, Roy Ogden, dated May 14, 1998. (Letter attached as part of this appeal). 3. Staff made the decision to approve this project based on misinformation that was supplied to staff by P G&E which has subsequently been addressed between conversations with staff and P G&E. 4. Other items of evidence that are currently being compiled and will be presented to you prior to finalizing ng your staff report relating to this appeal truly y urs, Jo h E. DeLucia enc. cc; Kimo Pankey Roy Ogden,Esq. 4-23 Law Offices of ROY E. OGDEN 1042 Palm Street, Suite 100 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 May 14, 1998 Peggy Mandeville VIA HAND DELIVERY Associate Planner City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Re: Proposed Subdivision by J. Dennis Ahearn,Dale King and Dave Bolduan of Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Man SL 89-432(2903 Broad Streetl Dear Ms. Mandeville: I represent James H. Pankey. Mr. Pankey requested that I inform you in writing of Mr. Pankey's great concern regarding and opposition to the proposed subdivision referenced above ("Proposed Ahearn Development"). Mr. Pankey owns the property located at 2959 Broad Street,which is adjacent to the Proposed Ahearn Development. The Proposed Ahearn Development is a good example of poor planning. For example, the subject site is not physically suitable for the development being proposed. (Government Code section 66474(c)). The subject site is a small, irregularly shaped lot. A subdivision which creates two small, irregularly shaped lots is inconsistent with prudent planning. In addition, dense residential development is not compatible with the commercial development surrounding the site. As another example, the subject site it, too narrow to comfortably accommodate dense residential development_ (Government Code section 66474(d)). Also, the existing plan shows continued service of electricity from the adjacent property owned by Mr. Pankey. Mr. Pankey has already submitted proof to the City that no easement exists from his property to the subject site. This extension is through a revocable grant of permission. Any possible approval should require as a pre-condition the installation of new utility service to the existing property. This utility service requirement should not be conditioned on future improvements or developments. Phone: (805)544-5600 * Pager. (805)782-3438 * Fax: (805)544-7700 * E-Mail: royogden@ix.netcom.com .4--a4- • Peggy Mandeville May 14, 1998 Page 2 L on behalf of Mr. Pankey, strongly encourage the City of San Luis Obispo to deny the Proposed Ahearn Development in its present form as it violates the letter and spirit of the Subdivision Map Act. Ve ;EG yo , ROD Jk-�- REO:kaw c_IaM)elucia\Pankey\P.it 4 ndevMe.0514 cc: James H.Pankey(via mail) Phone: (805)5445600 * Pager. (805)782-3438 * Fax.- (805)544-7700 * E-Mail:royogden6ix-netoom.e0m 4--o15 Attachment 9 October 26, 1998 Ms. Peggy Mandeville Community Development Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 RE: Appeal of approval -Application Number MS 61-98 /2903 Broad Street, SLO. Dear Peggy, I am writing this letter to inform you that Dr. King and I have looked into the issue of the power pole that currently serves our property. As you know,the pole is located approximately thirty feet south east of our property line on a parcel owned by Kimo Pankey. I have discussed the pole's location with J.T. Hass,an industrial engineer with PG&E. PG&E received an inquiry into the relocation of the existing power pole. The cost to relocate the pole,transformer and high voltage lines that run all the way to Perkins Lane(via our property) came to approximately$30,000.00. PG&E has no plans to reroute the lines or move the pole. It is my understanding that Joe Delucia,the owner's real estate agent, is concerned that his client will be required to pay for the relocation of the power lines serving our property if we develop the two lots created by the above referenced minor subdivision. Based on the information I have been able to obtain from Jerry Kenny of the City Engineering Department, no changes will be mandated as long as the current development remains. However,if we elect to develop our lots,thereby requiring the service to be installed underground, he would like to have our assurance that we will serve our parcels from Broad and Rockview Streets respectively. Based on our understanding of the situation this seems reasonable. PG&E has indicated that this would be relatively easy to accomplish. No special underground vaults or transformers would be necessary. We do not feel that this change of service should be required if we simply remodel or add on to the existing buildings. If Mr. Pankey and Mr. Delucia elect to develop their parcel prior to new development being pursued on our property,they should bear the cost of relocating the pole and overhead lines. Continued service to our existing buildings would also be their responsibility. We will not be responsible for relocation costs necessitated by their development plans. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, i 44 F� _ David Bolduan