HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/18/1999, 2 - A 177-98: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED YARD TO 2 FEET FOR A BALCONY; 1734 ALTA, R-1 ZONE. council "` 5
j apenaa uEpont 12 "�"
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director V
Prepared By: Michael Codron, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: A 177-98: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
APPROVING AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED YARD
TO 2 FEET FOR A BALCONY; 1734 ALTA, R-1 ZONE.
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution"A" denying the appeal and approving an
Administrative Use Permit to reduce the required side yard from 4 feet to 2 feet for a balcony and
to allow an addition to a nonconforming structure.
DISCUSSION
Situation
Matt Wall, the applicant,wants to install a deck and a balcony leading from his kitchen to the front
of his house via the side of the garage. Mr. Wall would like the balcony to be wide enough to
provide for disabled access. On October 5, 1998, he applied for an Administrative Use Permit to
pursue the proposed project. The use permit was requested for three reasons:
1) to allow a balcony to be built along the side of the garage with a 2-foot side yard where
normally a 4-foot side yard is required;
2) to allow a deck to be built with a 2-foot side yard where normally a 5-foot side yard is
required.
3) to allow a nonconforming addition to a nonconforming structure.
Mr. Wall has recently modified his building plans to eliminate the need for a setback exception
for the deck. The issues now before the Council are the requests to reduce the required side yard
to 2' for a balcony and to allow a nonconforming addition to a nonconforming structure.
Administrative Use Permit Review
On October 16, 1998, the Hearing Officer denied the use permit, based on three findings. The
Hearing Officer stated concerns with privacy, particularly since the existing trees that would
screen the balcony are located on the neighbor's property. The.neighbor has indicated that the
trees may be removed in the future. On the same day, an appeal of the decision was filed by the
applicant citing six reasons why the exceptions should be approved. The item was scheduled for
the November 18, 1998 meeting of the Planning Commission.
2-1
Council Agenda Report- wall/Padidar Appeal (A 177-98)
Page 2
Plannine Commission's Action
Commission discussion focused on two main issues, the privacy impact to the neighboring
residence at 1710 Alta, and the 'applicant's desire to build a balcony wide enough to
accommodate wheelchair access.
The Commission considered two motions. The first motion to deny the appeal and uphold the
Hearing Officer's decision to deny the request failed by a 2-3-2 vote. Discussion in support of
the motion cited concerns with privacy and screening as well as the need to consider alternative
handicap access should it be needed in the future. Commissioner Marx expressed concern that
there was no assurance that the trees screening the balcony would remain, since those trees are on
the neighbors property. Commissioner Whittlesey expressed concern with how future owners
might use the balcony.
The second motion, to uphold the appeal and reverse the Hearing Officer's decision to deny the
use permit was approved 3-2-2. In support of the motion Chairman Senn noted that substantial
improvements had been made to the property by the applicants and that the deck adjacent to the
kitchen will block the view line between the properties. Commissioners in support of the second
motion supported Mr. Wall's desire to use the balcony to provide wheelchair access to the main
residence.
Appeal Filed/Mediation Pursued
On November 20, 1998, Dierdre Stull-Padidar, the next-door neighbor, filed an appeal of the
Planning Commission's decision to approve the project.
Soon after the appeal was filed, the applicant and the appellant agreed to postpone the City
Council hearing in order to try and resolve the issue through mediation. The result of the
mediation was that the Padidar's would pursue construction of a fence to screen the balcony.
However, since this fence would need to stand roughly 15 feet tall, planning staff discouraged
the fence as an option.
Data Summary
Address: 1734 Alta Road
Applicant/Property Owner. Matt and Mary Wall
Appellant: Dierdre Stull-Padidar
Zoning: R-1
General Plan: Low-Density Residential
Environmental Status: Minor alteration of an existing structure, categorically exempt (CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1)
Project action deadline: The Zoning Regulations say that an appeal shall be scheduled for the
earliest available meeting,considering public notice requirements,unless the appellant agrees to a
later date. It does not specify when action must be taken on an appeal. The appeal was received on
2-2
Council Agenda Report-Wall/Padidar Appeal (A 177-98)
Page 3
November 20, 1998,and was delayed until the May 18, 1999 City Council hearing at the request of
the appellant and the applicant to allow a resolution to be pursued through mediation.
Site Description
The lot has frontage on both Alta and Alisal. The primary entrance to the residence is located on
Alta,at the high end of the lot. A terraced yard with a pathway provides pedestrian access up to the
home from the Alisal right-of-way. The lot is over a quarter of an acre and there is a secondary
dwelling unit on the site,originally permitted in 1984. The requested setback exception is relative
to the property line shared with 1710 Alta,the adjacent downhill lot.
EVALUATION
Staff Analysis
The primary concern that the appellants have with this project is that they feel their privacy will
be impacted by the construction of the balcony. Plans indicate that the walkway, at the highest
point, would be nine feet above grade which is three feet higher than the existing property line
fence. While significant overlook is likely, the applicant has indicated that the main reason for
constructing the balcony is to provide wheelchair access to the residence and that use of the
balcony would be infrequent.
The follow-up letter submitted by the appellant details her concerns with the project. In her letter
she takes issue with each of the findings made by the Planning Commission. Discussion of the
three findings made by the Planning Commission follows.
1) The side yard exception for the walkway/balcony would not constitute a grant of special
privilege, due to the site's topography.
The appellant argues that the exception for the walkway would constitute a grant of special
privilege since no other property within the area with the same zoning and topography has
received an exception for a reduced side yard. Planning staff has reviewed the permit history for
the area residences and has found no side yard exceptions have been requested. In making the
finding, the Planning Commission cited similar setback exceptions that have been granted due to
topographical constraints in other parts of the City.
2) The exception is necessaryfor the applicant's full enjoyment and use of the property.
The exception is necessary in order for the applicant to construct the balcony. The balcony is the
applicant's preferred means of providing disabled and emergency access from the front of the
house on Alta to the kitchen door in the back.
3) The requested exceptions would not compromise privacy between adjoining property due to
the height of the structures and grade differential between the properties.
2-3
Council Agenda Report-WaWPadidar Appeal(A 177-98)
Page 4
The average natural grade of the appellant's lot is significantly lower than that of the applicant's.
As a result, the balcony would be screened by the foliage of the treetops on the appellant's
property. If the appellant were to remove those trees, then the grade differential would still limit
direct line of site contact since the balcony would be at such a higher level. However, the
balcony would be very close to the top fence and could give the impression that there is "no
setback at all"as indicated by the appellant.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may uphold Dierdre Stull-Padidar's appeal, thereby denying the use permit,
based on the findings included in Draft Resolution `B" (Administrative Hearing Officer's
action).
Based on additional analysis of this project, imposition of Alternative #1 would preclude the
applicant's ability to construct a walkway from the kitchen to the front of the house. While
previous discussions at the Planning Commission meeting and at the administrative hearing
indicate that the applicant could build a walkway with a 2.5-foot setback by right, that
presumption was incorrect. In preparing this report, planning staff has determined that the
required setback for the applicant's residence is 8 feet due to a building height of 18 feet. As
a result, the minimum setback for the balcony that is allowed by right is 4 feet (Zoning
Regulations Section 17.16.020D.b. and Figure 2). Since the existing residence is
nonconforming and is built 5 feet from the property line, the balcony could only extend one
additional foot into the required yard, making use of the balcony infeasible.
2. The Council may continue action, if more information is needed. Direction should be given
to staff, the appellants and the applicant.
Attached:
Attachment 1: Draft Resolution"A"(deny appeal -Planning Commission's action)
Attachment 2: Draft Resolution`B" (uphold Stull-Padidar appeal -Administrative Hearing
Officer's action)
Attachment 3: Appeal to City Council
Attachment 4: Planning Commission follow-up letter& Resolution No. 5240-98
Attachment 5: Drift 11-18-98 Planning Commission minutes
Attachment 6: Wall Appeal of Administrative Hearing Officer's decision and letter from Paul
Wolff, Architect
Attachment 7: Project Plans
2-4
Attachment 1
Draft Resolution A
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION BY THE APPELLANT,DIERDRE STULL-PADIDAR,THEREBY
APPROVING THE USE PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED PROJECT
LOCATED AT 1734 ALTA STREET. (USE PERMIT A 177-98)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on November 18,
1998, and on appeal, considered the applicant's request to reduce the required side yard to 2 feet
to allow for the construction of a balcony; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission upheld the applicant's appeal, and approved the
use permit to allow a balcony to be constructed with a 2-foot side yard; and
WHEREAS, Dierdre Stull-Padidar, a neighbor of the project who lives at 1710 Alta
Street, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on November 20, 1998, because she
felt that the proposed balcony would impact her privacy, would be a grant of special privilege
and is not necessary for the applicant's full use and enjoyment of his property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on May 18, 1999, and has
considered testimony of the applicant and appellant for their different reasons, interested parties,
the records of the Planning Commission hearings and action, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project
(A 177-98), the appeal, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following
findings: .
1. The side-yard exception for the walkway/balcony would not constitute a grant of special
privilege,due to the site's topography.
2-5
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 2
2. The exception is necessary for the applicant's full enjoyment and use of the property.
3. The requested exceptions would not compromise privacy between adjoining property due
to the height of the structures and grade differential between the properties.
SECTION 2. Appeal denial. The appeal of the Planning Commission's action by the
neighbor, Dierdre Stull-Padidar is denied,and therefore the use permit is approved.
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 . 1999.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price,City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ity ttorn Je ey . Jorgensen
2-6
Draft Resolution B Attachment 2
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION BY THE APPELLANT,DIERDRE STULL-PADIDAR,THEREBY DENYING
THE USE PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATED AT 1734 ALTA
STREET. (USE PERMIT A 177-98)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on November 18,
1998, and on appeal, considered the applicant's request to reduce the required side yard to 2 feet
to allow for the construction of a balcony; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission upheld the applicant's appeal, and approved the
use permit to allow a balcony to be constructed with a 2-foot side yard; and
WHEREAS, Dierdre Stull-Padidar, a neighbor of the project who lives at 1710 Alta
Street, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on November 20, 1998, because she
felt that the proposed balcony would impact her privacy, would be a grant of special privilege
and is not necessary for the applicant's full use and enjoyment of his property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on May 18, 1999, and has
considered testimony of the applicant and appelant for their different reasons, interested parties,
the records of the Planning Commission hearings and action, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project
(A 177-98), the appeal, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following
findings:
1. The side-yard exception for the walkway/balcony would constitute a grant of special
privilege,due to the site's topography.
2-7
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 2
2. The exception is not necessary for the applicant's full enjoyment and use of the property.
3. The requested exceptions would compromise privacy between adjoining property due to
the height of the structures and grade differential between the properties.
SECTION 2. Appeal upheld. The appeal of the Planning Commission's action by the
neighbor, Dierdre Stull-Padidar is upheld, and therefore the use permit 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_day of . 1999.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/i�/ktto ey . Jorgensen
2-8
Attachment 3
lows
Cly Or SAn 1UIS 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
2 L WO&ry\rvuScAmA rendered on _ t l As /9 8
U
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.)
APPS" d�ca.ccrn 64-LJ ave pp tVajec "A-,c -c?
Tk A ro�¢ -Me,,, t� L'Le i2e-ta L4--n, t t
t- so -ktlad v►.tof-k P IOL
ie,�
F�C.t v1.Q V to lc�ecQ
WL}O a
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
IJen (j)k a-eeLM&4.c( on I iLW I G
Name/Department (Date)
Appellant: 1)l erzt) 11 f O t,TA '5T S Go c.A.
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code) c/3 L(c,I
909-79 3 -may
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative: pa"--Q (Lec,�.t -sLf
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip ode) at3gO 1
For Official Use Only. _ OK .tk � i49p
Calendared for qq aDate & me Received: �i5 1
c: City Attomey
City Administrative Officer RECEIVED
Copy to the following department(s):
Wf 1,c.2& ' C'i170 NOV 1 0 1998
SLO Gi i"Yv CLERK
a�'�a4L� c D� O:yo PK. - 7n.X-9
original in city o rk's office i
City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission 429/99
Re: File#177-98 1
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision
To Reduce Side Yard From 30"to 24"
The issue before the Board of Supervisors is whether or not the Zoning
Regulations (February 21, 1997) should be upheld and respected by our
community. Specifically at what point and for what reason should the "minimum
required yard," (Reg. 17.16.020)be disregarded and a new precedent set.
Our reasons for opposing the request to reduce side yard are two fold. First, we prefer that
an elevated walkway not be constructed above our property line fence at all. We feel that
both because of the design and the proximity of the walkway to our back patio,kitchen,
master bathroom and master bedroom that it would be intrusive.
While we agree that we cannot stop the Wall's from constructing the elevated walkway,we
feel that by limiting the width of it,we also limit the use of it. Consequently it will not
become a major thoroughfare.
Secondly,if die decision of the Administrative Officers hearing(November 18, 1998)is
allowed to stand as is,a bad precedent will be set in our community disregarding the
"minimum required yard:' The findings in the above mentioned hearing for approval of
setback exception are as follows:
1. The exception of the walkway/deck would not constitute a grant of special
privilege due to the sites topography.
2. The requested exception is necessary for the applicant's full enjoyment and use
of the property.
3. The requested exception would not compromise privacy between adjoining
properties due to the height of the structures and grading differential between
properties.
We submit the following points in disagreement with the above mentioned findings:
1. The exception of the walkway would constitute a grant of special privilege;it is
entitlement inconsistent with the limitations placed upon other properties in the vicinity
within the same zoning and topography. In the area,no other home has been forced to
accept a reduced side yard for any reason! Adherence to the 30"side yard serves a very
useful purpose of protecting our privacy by limiting the amount of traffic on the walkway.
The Wall's are not being forced to build an elevated walkway_ There currently exists a
stairway which can be used for transporting large items to their planed rear deck and to the
rear of their property or storage area under the garage, without mess,danger of damaging
the interior finishes and inconvenience any route through the house would involve. The
other option would be to bring items up from Alisal Street. The Wall's recently constructed
a beautiful walkway, which has no stairs, from Alisal Street to their house. Why not use it?
While we agree that the privacy of their rental unit is important so is ours.
2-10
City of San Luis Obispo running Commission 429/99
Re: File#177-98 2
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision
To Reduce Side Yard From 30"to 24"
Furthermore,we provide all the screening between our properties. We feel that the
responsibility to provide screening should lie with the person requesting the exception. We
have landscaping plans which include eliminating and trimming back both the Oleander and
Mock Orange Trees. My children are allergic to Mock Orange tree blossoms and Oleander
is poisonous. Even if the Wall's want to plant foliage to provide for screening along the
walkway due to the lack of sunshine on that part of their property nothing will grow.
2. We argue that the exception is not necessary for the applicant's full enjoyment and use
of the property. A walkway in compliance with the zoning requirement of 30" will provide
adequate passage from the driveway to the deck. Furthermore we propose that the walkway
not be used as wheelchair access. The Wall's purchased their home very recently(in late
1997). If wheelchair access is an important issue to them they should have considered that
issue before buying their house. There are plenty of houses,including ours,which are
wheelchair accessible in San Luis Obispo. We have taken the time and incurred the
expense of having an architect draw some possible and very feasible alternative wheelchair
access routes. My husband being a Physician is very sympathetic to the Americans with
Disabilities Act(ADA)and sees everyday the benefit this act has on handicapped
individuals.
The Wall's would like friends of theirs who are wheelchair users to be able to visit them.
Mrs.Wall has a condition that may require her to use a wheelchair in the unforeseen future.
The 36"walkway would provide normal wheelchair access through to the deck behind their
garage. We agree that the 30"walkway would not be wide enough for wheel chair access.
We acknowledge that wheelchair access is important. Please see the attached alternatives
we have had an architect draw for possible wheelchair access to the house.
It appears that the Wall's are willing to incur the expense of building an elevated walkway
into the setback of their side yard but not to increase the size of the entry door from their
garage to their kitchen,or even building a ramp to the front door. The Wall's mentioned
that we could build a higher fence between our properties at our own expense. We paid to
have a new fence built in May 1998. They are asking for a variance,not us.
3. The requested exceptions would compromise privacy between the adjoining property
due to the height of the structures and grade differential between properties. Our lot is
directly adjacent to and downhill from the Wall's house. The top of the adjacent property
line fence is 2 to 3 feet lower than the walkway. The walkway will,from our view,hang over
the property line fence and look directly down into our kitchen and kitchen patio giving the
impression that there is no setback at all. Also,the walkway will look directly into our
master bathroom window.
Our homes are situated in very close proximity considering the Wall's house is on 1/4 acre
and our house is on 1/3 acre. Our house is at an angle to the side yard;in addition we have
a patio outside our kitchen. The distance between our house and,side yard to the property
line is 10'3". The distance between our outside patio and property line begins at 5',the
required set back. Therefore, as you can see,there will be a discernible visual intrusion
when the walkway is built.
2-11
City of San Luis Obispo Pmuming Commission 429/99
Re: File#177-98 3
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision
To Reduce Side Yard From 30" to 24"
We prefer to look at the existing redwood siding facade presented by the Wall's garage
south wall,than look at the underside and rails of the walkway,not to mention people
walking there. In addition,the Wall's plan to build a deck outside our master bedroom and
kitchen which will be enough of a privacy intrusion considering their rental unit looks into
our bedroom and roaster bath already.
We appreciate the Wall's offer to install lattice screening between our properties.
In order for a fair decision to be made on this issue, it is imperative that you come and see
from our house,both inside and outside,the effect this walkway/balcony will have on our
lives. Until now,despite our invitation,only one person has taken the time to come to our
house and yard and see the issue from our point of view.
In conclusion,the purpose of the Zoning Regulations is to guide the development of the city
in an orderly manner,to protect and enhance the quality of the natural and built environment
and to regulate the use of land and buildings and the location and basic form of structures
(Ord.941-1(part),1982).
Thank you for considering our appeal. We have faith in you making the right decision for
our community.
Respectfully yours,
Dierdre Stull& Arash Padidar
2-12
Attachment 4
cityof SAn tuis oBispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
November 25, 1998
Matt and Mary Wall
1734 Alta Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: A 177-98- 1734 Alta Street
Appeal of Hearing Officer's denial of a request for reduced side yard
from 30 inches to 24-inches for a deck/balcony
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Wall:
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of November 18, 1998, upheld the appeal and
approved the use permit granting the requested setback reduction based on the findings,
and subject to the conditions listed in the attached Resolution.
The decision of the 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 the decision.
Due to City water allocation regulations, the Planning Commission's approval expires
after three years if construction has not started, unless the Commission designated a
different time period. On request, the Community Development Director may grant
renewals for successive periods of not more than one year each.
If you have any questions,please contact Michael Codron at 781-7169.
Sincerely,
I.J�U
Pam Ricci
Acting Development Review Manager
Attachment: Resolution No. 5240-98
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs end activil�_13
Telecommunieatlons Device for the Deaf(605)781-7410.
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5240-98
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on November 18, 1998 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application
A 177-98, Matt and Mary Wall, appellants.
REQUEST REVIEWED:
A 177-98: Appeal of Zoning Hearing Officer's denial of a request for reduced
side yard from 30-inches to 24-inches for a deck/balcony.
DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development Department, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
1734 Alta Street
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:
1. The side yard exception for the walkway/balcony would not constitute a grant of
special privilege,due to the site's topography.
2. The requested exception is necessary for the applicant's full enjoyment and use of the
property.
3. The requested exceptions would not compromise privacy between adjoining property
due to the height of the structures and grade differential between the properties.
2-14
Resolution No. 5240-98
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the appeal of Use Permit A 177-98
is upheld, and the request for a reduced side yard from 30-inches to 24-inches for a
walkway/balcony is approved.
The foregoing resolution was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of San
Luis Obispo upon the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Jeffrey, Ready and Senn
NOES: Commissioners Marx and Whittlesey
REFRAIN: Commissioners Ewan and Cooper
ABSENT: None
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
2-15
Attachment 5
1. 1734 Alta Street: Appeal of the Zoning Hearing Officer's denial of a request
for reduced side yard from 30 inches to 24 inches for a deck/balcony; R-1
Zone; Matt and Mary Wall, appellants.
Commrs. Cooper and Ready refrained from participation due to potential
conflicts of interest.
John Shoals, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and recommended
denying the appeal, thereby upholding the Hearing Officer's decision to deny a
setback exception for a balcony and deck.
The appellant provided revised plans to the Commission and staff.
There were no comments/questions and the public comment period was opened.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Matt Wall, appellant, displayed overheads and noted the granny flat on-site is
legal. He feels separating his patio from the patio below will give privacy. He
can legally build a 30-inch wide walkway along the south side of the garage with
stairs projecting from the property line. His wife is disabled and may soon be in
a wheelchair and they have several handicapped friends. To accommodate the
needs of handicapped individuals they are requesting a 36-inch walkway - a 6-
inch variance. He explained the project dimensions and existing unsuitable
conditions for handicapped accessibility. ADA requirements don't pertain to
single-family residences, but he felt he shouldn't be prevented from complying
with the spirit of the act. The question is not whether balcony should be built, but
whether they can have the additional 6 inches necessary to accommodate
handicapped individuals.
Arash Padidar, 1710 Alta Street, felt the issue is not about the 6 inches, but
privacy. His home is on the comer and has windows on all three sides. His
privacy will be compromised by a balcony on this incline. He felt there are
multiple ways to address ADA requirements but this is not the only solution. His
family's privacy is important and it is frequently violated. Landscaping plans will
change the current tree layout in his yard.
Commr. Jeffrey asked how a 6-inch addition will make a difference.
Mr. Padidar stated that 30 inches would include the rails. Garbage cans are kept
in this area, making this too small of a walkway which is essentially
nonfunctional. This area towers over his house and widening this walkway will
increase usage and impact his privacy. There are many entrances and designs
that can accommodate handicapped individuals at this home.
2-16
Bronson Berlin, 1701 Alta Street, expressed concerned about Mr. Padidar's
comments in his letter regarding Mr. Wall's character. He assured staff and the
Commission that Mr. Wall is a nice, quiet neighbor.
Joe Schwartz, 1750 Alta Street, stated the Wall's have created a number of
improvements at this once distressed property and have turned it into a lovely
site. He is bothered by the "bad blood" that has been generated by this
proposed walkway. From experience, he said he knows there is a big difference
between what is feasible and what is actually helpful to handicapped individuals.
Commr. Whittlesey asked if Mr. Schwartz would support the project if it were
proposed on the other side of the house to the rear balcony.
Mr. Schwartz said he would have to see plans. He felt it may be too far from the
driveway for someone in a wheelchair to travel.
Mary Wall, applicant and appellant, stated she respects the Padidars' privacy.
The side walkway to the back actually gives more privacy than they have now.
She felt the 36-inch stairway establishes a precedent and said the walkway area
will only be used when necessary. The existing trees give privacy on both sides
and removal of the trees will eliminate the Padidars' privacy.
Commr. Jeffrey asked if there are steps from the garage into the kitchen.
Mrs. Wall replied yes, there is a small one.
Commr. Whittlesey asked if Mrs. Wall has considered planting trees on their
property to help with the privacy issue.
Mrs. Wall responded that it is too dark and there is no room.
Mr. Wall also felt the 36-inch wide precedent has been set with the existing
stairs. He said they are willing to make any reasonable concession to get the
36-inch walkway. Mr. Wall felt that Mr. Padidar was aware of the privacy issue
when he purchased his home, and this walkway does not encroach on
anybody's privacy. He felt the walkway is needed and the additional 6-inches
will not impact the Padidars' privacy any more than 30 inches will.
Commr. Ewan asked if the current entrance to the granny unit is along the side
of the house.
Mr. Wall replied no and displayed an overhead showing the entrance and patios.
2-17
Commr. Jeffrey asked if there would objection to the Padidars' installing a taller
fence.
Mr. Wall replied no, if it were at the Padidars' expense. He noted there are very
few fences in the neighborhood.
Chairman Senn noted there is 6-foot residential fence height limit.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was
closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Marx moved to deny the appeal upholding the Hearing Officer's decision
to deny the setback exception for the balcony and deck. The motion was
seconded by Commr. Whittlesey.
Commr. Marx said she is concerned about the privacy issue and the lack of
safeguards that have been built into the new proposal. She indicated that she
hasn't had time to thoroughly review the newly submitted proposal.
John Shoals noted the Hearing Officer was very concerned about the trees on
the adjacent property - there are no safeguards the trees will remain. Screening
is typically required on site where the project is proposed.
Commr. Whittlesey was also concerned about the privacy issue. She felt the
Walls' can manage their site, but the permit runs with the land and she is
concerned with what may happen with future owners. She doesn't believe this
proposal is the only solution. This privacy issue is not the problem of the
neighbors; it's a result of this project. Privacy should be addressed.
Commr. Jeffrey was concerned with the privacy issue and believes the applicant
can build a 30-inch wide walkway which will give just as much view to the
neighbors' home as a 36-inch sidewalk. Six inches isn't extremely egregious to
allow somebody to build a wheelchair accessible entry. He supports the
appellants' request.
Commr. Ewan said he did not feel that 6 inches will make that much difference
with the privacy. He appreciates Mr. Wall's revised site plan and said he cannot
support the motion.
Chairman Senn questioned staff on the findings necessary to grant an exception.
Gil Trujillo, Assistant City Attorney, cited Section 17.60.040, which requires the
Commission to make the following three findings: (1) That there are
2-18
circumstances applying to the site such as size, shape, or topography which do
not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, (2) that the
variance will not constitute the grant of special privilege and entitlement
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the
same zoning, and (3) that the variance will not adversely effect the health,
safety, or general welfare of the persons residing or working on the site or in the
vicinity.
Chairman Senn had staff review the findings made at the Administrative Hearing
and the revised plans submitted by the appellants.
Chairman Senn noted the substantial changetimprovements made to the
property by the appellants. He has been persuaded that providing an additional
6 inches will not make a substantial difference to the privacy issue. The deck
adjacent to the kitchen will block the view line between the properties. He
believes ft's appropriate to grant the appeal based upon consideration of the
handicap access issue and the improvements that have been made. The usage
of this area as walkway will not change whether it is 30 inches or 36 inches wide.
AYES: Commrs. Marx and Whittlesey
NOES: Commrs. Ewan, Jeffrey, and Chairman Senn
REFRAIN: Commrs. Ready and Cooper
The motion failed 2-3-2.
Commr. Ewan moved to approve a oortion of the appeal and grant the setback
exception for the walkway along the edge of the garage for the 31 feet subject to
the findings that (1) the exception of the walkway/deck would not constitute a
grant of special privilege. (2) the requested exception is necessary for the
applicants' full enjoyment and use of the property. and (3) the requested
exception would not compromise privacy between adioining property due to the
height of the structures and grade differential between the properties. The
motion was seconded by Commr. Jeffrey.
Commr. Marx is compassionate about the need to have handicapped access to
one's home, but she feels other alternatives should be explored.
Commr. Whittlesey concurred. She cannot support the motion.
AYES: Commrs. Ewan, Jeffrey, and Chairman Senn
NOES: Commrs. Marc and Whittlesey
REFRAIN: Commrs. Ready and Cooper
The motion carried 3-2-2.
2-19
RECD *w
199 Attachment 6
OCZ 1
�NI ��BBdI�SP�Orr
co rnu1 ; ` IiNNIN(� C.OMMlsfron Faom
N*dry
R� A - t�r4g 1734 A�Tor 9vuecr
5GD, CA 93Yo/
0 Ocfo�sec� IG, 14 9 8 X4'3-5 3 3,>`� PAx�rah 2Z
f16"Y APPx& DcN rA` OF arm ftoussIMP StMce
VC6rr(ot6 ON -rM. FVAaUlAuG �aO�NDs
�. TUG Etcs~ is A pi;NOR 94G1cAG
p.
&MPA&6)j OF A fA6fd0W C614 FgtRM6 5TAUMP* ,
2 • No vssFl#qo evICPWs wauw /Se 9es4L.12ep ey
DOPEtinWC Tfk I OGUN$-r FOA A 16" wgWWAY 114
LICO OF- A *S0'� W AW WAY 'VAW iS fSeRIANIC&S
DIMS WlL4 . PrW44AWGE C-rVe&GcNGY Accu fooL
�M�fllc�c � p•r����y��Cvl �'62sav1V6�•
-hi
!;fit. A . SOY--6ALCONY__.W-OL40... 44VB .A. Wr W IMM of
IS . INSuFR6/fNT ftA Wb66Ci90S•
Vj6W.o . 2~M cVroW Alkide om r-a*opA* S1'1 As
ij
4AN0l06 - 4# 049-AWY A/WAV 'T-* CoMAIC0 !f
- 114 S�NrFrCAN`�.
AfAW04 gWp r46pocT ovaR w#(AT wove orA K#,%f
corms .two 66 1w .
M�9o* You Fv- cof4orearo OF API�iK,
IL9"r( A4 NW WC D iv ' fk MA?Wtt QT yZtiR dww
GavVLr 11 vkc&
ell
2-20
MATT R. AND MARY M. WALL
1734 ALTA STREET
SAN Luis OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93401-3005
805/543-5335, FAX: -5022
e-mail: mwall®calpoly.edu
April 30, 1999
City Council Members 805/781-7170
City of San Luis Obispo Fax: -7173
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3249
Re: File # 177-98. Padidar appeal of Planning Commission's approval of
our request to reduce required side yard for an elevated walkway from
30" to 24" so we may construct a 36" wide walkway instead of 30" wide.
Dear Council Members:
The file adequately spells out the considerations and points of view of both parties.
Specifically, we refer you to our letter of November 17, 1998, which summarizes
our views, as well as the letter from architect Paul Wolff.
The situation facing the parties is one which truly requires an on-site visit. Alan
Cooper of the Planning Commission has said, "There is no way anyone can render
an informed decision on the issue unless s/he visits both properties."
Therefore, we politely request collective or individual council member visits as
close to the hearing date as practical; that way more of the deck for which we do
have permission to build will be completed and less imagining will be required.
Between now and the hearing, we will attempt to work out a design for a privacy
screen with the Padidars. The last time we talked, both of us had differing ideas on
its design. We felt that waiting until our deck is nearly complete on the south side
might help us reach a better solution, and construction progress is getting to that
point. Whatever design we come up with, if we can, a lot line privacy screen
would be up to 14 feet high —and that would obviously require your approval.
Thank you for considering our invitation to have you visit our house. Feel free to
call us at 543-5335.
Sincerely,
0aw
Matt R. Wall
2-21
City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
Re: File # 177-98. Appeal of zoning hearing officer's denial of our request
to reduce required side-yard for an elevated walkway from 30" to 24"
so we may construct a 36" wide walkway instead of 30" wide.
November 17, 1998 - Page 2
Our reasons for a walkway along the south side of our garage are two-fold. First, it
provides a practical and convenient means of transporting large or cumbersome
items to our planned rear deck, without the mess, danger of damaging interior
finishes, and inconvenience any route through the house would involve.
Second, it is the most practical way to move similar items down the planned
balcony stairs to the rear of our property or storage area under the garage, without
going through the house or invading the privacy of the downstairs "granny" unit.
True, it is possible to bring items up from Alisal Street below our lot, but this is
going uphill, it is more strenuous, it invades the privacy of the "granny" unit, it is
more round about, and it is far less convenient.
The issue before you is NOT whether there should be a walkway at all. Zoning
permits a 30" walkway, and we trust you will agree with us that our reasons for
constructing a walkway are lawful and valid for fully enjoying our property.
The issue before the Planning Commission, therefore, is whether or not it
is reasonable, given all—but only—the rational, applicable facts in this
case, to increase the walkway width to 36" from 30" wide.
We submit the following points in support of an affirmative decision:
1. This 6" request was originally recommended for approval by your staff.
2. This wider walkway provides normal wheelchair access (36" is the standard
width) and emergency access for fire fighters and medical personnel to the
redwood deck behind our garage.
3. Adherence to a 30" side yard requirement serves no useful purpose. A 30"
wide walkway with 2" hand railing gives a net width of 28", which is totally
inadequate for wheelchair access.
4. Precedent for a 36" elevated walkway for handicapped, even at the expense of
a 6" side yard reduction, is laudable, particularly in light of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA). It does not appear the ADA was fully
considered when the regulations covering this situation were developed.
5. The 36" walkway is the same width as the existing stairs located where the
walkway will begin. Thus a 24" side yard precedent has already been set.
6. The need for a 60" diameter wheelchair "turning circle" inhibits access
through the garage and dinette area without serious inconvenience. The 6"
step outside of the entry precludes using the only other route.
2-22
City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
Re: File # 177-98. Appeal of zoning hearing officer's denial of our request
to reduce required side-yard for an elevated walkway from 30" to 24"
so we may construct a 36" wide walkway instead of 30" wide.
November 17, 1998 - Page 3
7. Aesthetically, the introduction of the walkway should look far more pleasing
than the existing flat facade presented by the garage south wall.
8. The Padidars' house is at an angle to the side yard, and it appears to be well
over 12 feet away from the lot line. Their patio is even further away, so there
would be no discernible visual intrusion by the additional 6" width, in light
of the oblique visual angles from the Padidar residence.
9. The net distance between the Padidar house and this walkway extension will
exceed 14 feet, and the steep topography near the lot line argues strongly
against expansion of their house in that direction.
10. The walkway is for passage only; a 36" width is not at all conducive to sitting
or relaxing. Furthermore, our compelling view is of Bishop Peak and Cerro
San Luis to the chest, and we intend to orient our rear deck activities in that
direction. Thus, the Padidar's fears of privacy loss seem totally unfounded.
11. The reduced 24" side yard area is 15.5 sq. ft. This is more than compensated
for by the 7+ sq. ft. stairway set back, plus a 21+ sq. ft. of 18" additional
balcony-deck set back. The compensating total area is nearly double.
12. We gave the Padidars' fence contractor permission to attach their fence in a 2
foot jog to the masonry retention wall by our drive. This gives them a visual
easement of —72 sq. ft., some 41/2 times the walkway side yard intrusion area.
13. Existing screening vegetation provides ample privacy for the neighbor. The
vegetation is rooted solely on the Padidar's property, so total control over
vegetation rests with the Padidars.
a. If they do not like the existing vegetation, they can plant new trees on
their side of the existing ones (which is the sunny side), then remove the
existing trees once the new vegetation grows tall enough.
b. They are not precluded from erecting reasonable screens, trellises or other
visual barriers to provide additional privacy for their patio, and we would
post no objections if they did.
Thank you for considering our appeal. We hope for a decision in our favor.
Sincerely,
qfAw
Matt R. Wall
2-23
Paul nL Wolff architect
design, pWmWg, consultation on baerler-free and universal design
3128 spring court, sun Ids obispo, caldornia 93401 »............... (805) 544.3450
16 November 1996
SLO Planning Commission
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,Ca.93401-3249
Re: File A 177-98
Dear Planning Commissioner,
I am a licensed architect in the state of California (C-4037), emeritus professor
of architecture(Cal Poly),and a consultant on the ADA and barrier-free design
At the request of Mr.and Mrs.Wall,,I visited their residence and familiarized myself
with the site,relevant correspondence,and plans for the proposed deck and balcony.
After thorough study of the issues I can only reach the following reasonable condu-
sion:
Findings 2 and 3,as stated by the Hearing Officer MMM #1,page 1 of agenda
packet)are not substantiated by the facts.
Finding 2: ".....exception is not necessary for the applicant's full enjoyment and
use of the property. A walkway..... of 30 inches will provide adequate passage..."
Fact: A 30"walkway will yield a dear path of travel of+/-28". This gives a clear
message to anyone using a wheelchair that"I can not enter -my needs were not con-
sidered." Able residences in this area are practically non-existant. The Walls
would like friends of theirs who are wheelchair users to be able to visit them. Mrs.
Wall has a condition that may require her to use a wheelchair in the future. Alterna-
tive routes,are exceedingly lengthy and impractical. If you are ambulatory, you can
adjust your body to accommodate narrow passageways or openings. If your sole
mode of motion is by wheelchair,you can not adapt to the environment. The envi-
ronment must be designed to accommodate you. A 30"walk will not allow"full enjoy-
ment and use".
Finding 3: " ......exception would compromise privacy......"
Fact: As noted above, 6 inches means the difference between being welcomed or
rejected for any person using a wheelchair. Upon inspection of the site,it will be evi-
dent that 6"added to the width of the balcony has absolutely no effect on the degree of
privacy. This issue of privacy seems to be the real cause of the neighbors objections.
In fact,privacy will be unaffected by the additional 6 inches. The Walls,however,are
aware of the privacy concern and are offering to install lattice screening,as desired,
between the properties.
For these reasons I recommend an approval of this appeal and allowance for
accessibility.
Sincerely,
Paul M W
2-24
Attachment 7
DECK/BALCONY REMOVED:
A =314 sq.ft. north
B - 22 sq.ft.
C - 44 sq.ft. Note: newtstairs( are
D - 15 sa.ft. - 395 sq.ft. eeuioved}to old airs
Lom W.side
Remove stairs of Garage 3 Landing
along Garage - 45 sam.
440 sg.ft.
Deck/Balcony Demolition
NEW DECK/BALCONY:
a = 45 sq.ft.
b = 6 sq.ft.
C = 27 sq.ft.
d = 28 sq.ft.
e = 189 sq.ft.
I - 77 sa.ft. - 372 sa.ft• ^ B A
New Deck/Balcony V
L I ---
8 35.0 "-<4Y
Replacement Stairs �.;
b
Q
Existing balcony I
O to remain
9
3 25.0 LO
dLO
z
i Note: This was the original
osal, since modified.
N
co, f 3.0
o
f �
o 0
Q
-
5.0 ft Stairs to be
removed.
23.0 320
0
Variance for 36" 1734 ALTA STREET
wide walkway is 1" - 15'
being sought
PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL SHE
FOR BALCONY EXTENSION I
100.00 n @ N24°1 rE
2-25
�-- Note: - rhe stairs and the ..
„ Y
J/ i deck may be extended to
f Property these locations, but they v °
35.0
Line
are well within the part of h
the lot that is buildableMA
and not subject to zoning `#M
_. approval.
E
------ v:
� / t>>;
s
x �
0 ss
n north
u E:
3' ------- ------------------
v: „A`;f>
ryi5•i.i ;'. ,£:: c:Y•^S'i:3:Xb''n'u #
cA+G:: ::.gy�<..,�J':w`•Yh.+a:'•`
any �+f
H
Sr i r3u.`. ::?$ Fu.V .tcvi•.' i.`. :'i.'t: :;.x�X{;#,,w
�'• ' :s�,;';> ac:�.��. �:.,.�:I>rc:3:i?: +rik;E:'G{::;�.^.�;::;f.`:{{Kid:;.'
;
:.: ..
Oxx
6 -610
�. ;s. . .E: :::;tt ,: Entr
W .:
Down
I V`1
I c
I
I {
r:
23.0
y s.
2, 3'
21.5 I I
1734 ALTA STREET
1 81
PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL SHEET
FOR BALCONY EXTENSION
100.00 ft Ca N24017'E 21.5
1734 ALTA STREETIN
' 1" - 15'
1
V 32.0 23.0 a
jtho ap C N � i
plaa norm '
1
1
�^ 1
f4.5 �
I ooff"
I .n.' � ��..,�¢.^ 13.0 � 1
' 1
1
10.0 I '
1
aI= 1
' I I
F5-0--1 I
1
35.0
1 I
1
1 �
1 I
1 I
1 �
I '
t '
I �
I '
I �
I '
1 '
I '
1 '
1 �
1 �
1 '
I �
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
X2.04/t 1
(Alisal St e�35°46E
r) I
® Stone landscaping rip-rap
® New concrete flatwork
2-27
MEE G AGENDA
DATE 5-1L22 ITEM #=_
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Allen Settle
City Council COUNCIL D DIR
/
0-90 O FIN DIR
VIA: John Dunn, CA`s ErAQAO O FIRE CHIEF
O PW DIR
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Director Ef��fCWWORlo O POLICE CHF
O yGMT 79AM O REC DIR
BY: Michael Codron, Planning T clinician r 8� . 'Z -1d° 17 UTIL DIR
6 o O PERS DIR
DATE: May 14, 1999
SUBJECT: Council Information for Use Permit A177-98 (1734 Alta)
Councilman Schwartz has asked for clarification as to how the findings listed in section
17.16.020 D.2.d. of the Zoning Regulations relate to the requested setback exception. These
findings which allow setback exceptions for additions to existing legal,nonconforming structures
read as follows:
d. Other Yard Variations in Previously Subdivided Areas. Upon approval of a use permit, the
Director may allow other yards (i.e. not street yards)to be reduced to zero under either of the
.following circumstances:
i.When there exists adequate recorded agreement running with the land to maintain at least 10
feet of separation between buildings on adjacent parcels;or
ii. When the reduction is for a minor addition to an existing legal structure which is
non-conforming with regard to yard requirements and provided that the Director makes the
following findings:
• that the minor addition is a logical extension of the existing non-conforming structure;
• that no useful purpose would be realized by requiring the full yard;
• that no significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are likely
from the addition;and
• that it is impractical to obtain a 10-foot separation easement pursuant to subsection "i"
above.
In approving the use permit, the Planning Commission adopted findings that are typically used in
granting variances pursuant to Chapter 17.60 of the Zoning Regulations. These findings are
outlined in the Council Agenda Report Draft Resolution"A".
Since the requested exception involves a use permit, not a variance, it would be quite appropriate
for the Council to consider the above findings in addition to those made by
Commission in support of the requested exception. RECEIVED
MAY 1 8 1999
SLO CITY CLERK