HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/05/2002, PH-2 - APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION DENYING A REQUEST TO MODIFY USE PERMIT U 204-92 TO ALL council
j acEnaa► Report �mHu.�. pH-z
C ITY O F SAN L U I S O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Tyler Corey, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION DENYING A
REQUEST TO MODIFY USE PERMIT U 204-92 TO ALLOW AN EXISTING
4-FOOT TALL FENCE TO REMAIN LOCATED ON PROPERTY LINE AND
WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WHERE 3 FEET WOULD
OTHERWISE BE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED IN THE C-N-S
ZONE.
CAO RECOM IENDATION
Adopt a resolution to deny the appeal, and uphold the Planning Commission's action on the subject
project.
DISCUSSION
Data Summary
Address: 399 Foothill Blvd.
Appellant: Elyse Iverson
Zoning: C-N-S (Neighborhood Commercial Special Consideration)
General Plan: Neighborhood Commercial
Project Action Deadline: March 14, 2002
Situation
Approximately four months ago City staff received a code enforcement complaint that the Child
Day Care Center at 399 Foothill Blvd. replaced their perimeter fence with a vinyl slatted chain
link fence. Based on research of City records, it was determined that the height and location of
the fence was inconsistent with the requirements of a past Planning Commission Use Permit (U
204-92), that approved the day care center on this property.
On October 16, 2001 the appellant was sent a letter informing her of the situation and advising
her that the fencing had to be relocated consistent with Use Permit U 204-92 or a Planning
Commission Use Permit modification must be obtained to avoid further code enforcement action.
On January 23, 2002 the Planning Commission denied a modification to Use Permit U 204-92 to
allow a 4-foot tall fence to remain located on property line and within the public right-of-way at
the subject property.
Council Agenda Report—MOD 181-01
March 5,2002
Page 2
Proiect.Description
The project is a modification to Planning Commission Use Permit U 204-92 to allow a 4-foot tall
fence to remain located on property line and within the public right-of-way where 3 feet would
otherwise be the maximum height allowed. In addition,the Council is being asked to approve an
encroachment permit to allow the fencing along South Tassajara to remain located 2-feet within
the public right-of-way.
Planning Commission Action
On January 23, 2002, the Planning Commission voted six to one (Commissioner Aiken opposed)
to deny the request to modify Use Permit U 204-92 to allow a 4-foot tall fence to be located on
property line and in the public right-of-way based on findings, as indicated in the attached
Resolution No. 5329-02 (Attachment 1), and directed the appellant to relocate and modify the
fence within 180 days to comply with the approved Use Permit, City Standards and screen with
landscaping to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Commission
discussion focused on the location of the previous fence, feasibility of providing a landscape strip
and sight distance impacts at the Foothill Blvd./South Tassajara intersection (see attached draft
minutes from January 23, 2002, Attachment 2).
Appeal Filed
On February 4, 2002, Elyse Iverson filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision
(Attachment 3). The appellant does not feel that the Planning Commission's action fully
considers the cost and consequences of relocating the fence, and is asking the City Council to
approve the existing fence at its current height and in its present location through a modification
to Use Permit U 204-92.
The appeal letter indicates that the original fence was located at the back of sidewalk on South
Tassajara for the past 10-years without any issues or complaints. In addition, the appellant feels
that the existing fence has similar setbacks as other fences in the area and is consistent with the
character of the neighborhood.
Fence Height and Location
Although the fence may have historically been located within the public right-of-way on South
Tassajara, as indicated by the appellant, the City does not have any records of an encroachment
permit or other approval for the fence to be allowed in this location. There is no provision in the
City's Municipal Code to grandfather violations that were not constructed pursuant to City
Standards or permits.
Staff does not support a modification to Use Permit U 204-92 to allow the existing 4-foot tall fence
to be located on property line and within the public right-of-way for reasons outlined in the
Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 4), which specifically addresses neighborhood
a -a
Council Agenda Report—MOD 181-01
March 5,2002
Page-3
compatibility. Based on this staff analysis,it is recommended that the 4-foot tall fencing be made
to comply with Use Permit 204-92 requiring that it be setback 18-inches from property line. It
should be noted that an 18-inch setback from property line on South Tassajara would allow for a
3-foot 6-inch separation between the back of sidewalk and fence. This is due to an existing 6-
foot sidewalk and 8-foot public right-of-way on South Tassajara.
Conclusion
While the basis of the appeal is readily understandable,the fencing was not reviewed or approved
by the Community Development Department prior to being replaced. City Code requires that the
fencing design/material be examined for compatibility with its surroundings, and that fencing
location and height be evaluated for compliance with City Zoning Regulations and previously
granted use permits.
CONCURRENCES
The appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was not distributed to other City departments.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The City Council may uphold the appeal and modify Use Permit U 204-92 to allow the
fence to remain at its current height and in its present location.
2. The City Council may continue action, if additional information is needed. Direction
should be given to staff and the appellant.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution 5329-02
2. Draft Planning Commission minutes of January 23, 2002
3. Appeal letter received February 4, 2002
4. Planning Commission staff report
5. Draft Resolution"A" Deny the Appeal
6. Draft Resolution`B"Uphold the Appeal
a -3
Attachment 1
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5329-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING A MODIFICATION TO USE PERMIT U 204-92 FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 399 FOOTHILL BLVD., MOD 181-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on January 23, 2002, for the purpose of considering Application No. MOD
181-01, a request to modify Use Permit U 204-92 to allow an existing 4-foot tall fence to
remain located on property line and within the public right-of-way where 3-feet would
otherwise be the maximum height allowed in the C-N-S zone; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence,
including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the
following findings:
1. The proposed fence will adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons
living or working at the site and in the vicinity because the fence poses a traffic
safety hazard for sight line visibility at the Foothill Blvd./South Tassajara intersection.
2. The installed fence is located 2-feet within the public right=of=way along South
Tassajara which has raised valid concerns for safety from the City's Public Works
Department, which is not in favor of granting a temporary encroachment permit to
allow the fence to remain in this location.
3. The existing fence is not compatible with the site and surrounding residential
neighborhood because the color and location detract from the overall character of
the neighborhood and does not allow for landscaping to provide a visual transition
between the street and subject property.
4. The existing fence was constructed in violation of Use Permit U 204-92 for not being
set back 18-inches from property line.
Section 2. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby deny a modification
to Use Permit U 204-92, application No. MOD 181-01.
On motion by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commr Caruso, and on the following
roll call vote:
a-�
Attachment i
Resolution No. 5329-02
Page 2
AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Caruso, Osborne, Boswell, Loh, Peterson
NOES: Commr. Aiken
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 23`d day of January 2002.
Ronald Whisenand, Secretary
Planning Commission
a-s
Attachment 2
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2002
CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. on
Wednesday, January 23, 2002, in the City Hall Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commrs. James Caruso, Orval Osborne, Allan Cooper, Alice Loh, Jim
Aiken, Michael Boswell, and Stephen Peterson
Absent: None
Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Ron Whisenand, Planning
Technician Tyler Corey, Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo, Neighborhood
Services Manager Rob Bryn, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce,
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
The Minutes of September 26th and November 28"' were accepted as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
There were no public comments.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 399 Foothill Boulevard. MOD 181-01; Modification to an approved Use Permit (U
204-92) to allow a 4-foot high fence to be located on the property line, and to
consider other changes to the approved site plan; C-N-S zone; Elyse Iverson,
applicant.
Planning Technician Tyler Corey presented staff report, recommending denial of the
modification request based on findings which he outlined, and with direction to the
applicant to relocate and modify the fence within 60 days to comply with the approved
Use Permit, and to paint it a dark color (brown or green), and screen with landscaping,
to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
Commr. Cooper asked if they were going on the assumption that the applicant would
recycle the existing fence.
a-�
Draft Planning Commission .__Butes Attachment 2
January 23, 2002
Page 2
Deputy Director Whisenand replied that would be the.Commission's decision.
Commr. Boswell asked what the normal process of review is on the fence design.
Planner Corey explained the normal process for review of the fence would be done as
part of the initial project. Once the review has occurred, they need to maintain
compliance with the existing use permit and all the conditions
Deputy Director Whisenand noted that because it is commercial property, it would be
subject to Architectural Review for site planning changes.
Commr. Aiken asked if this is a replacement of a previous fence and asked when the
fence was replaced.
Planner Corey explained it is a replacement of a wooden fence, but is uncertain of when
it was replaced.
Commr. Aiken asked if the previous fence was in the same location.
Planner Corey replied the previous fence was in compliance with the use permit, which
was set back 18-inches from the property line. This fence is not.
Vice-Chair Loh asked if anyone considered a 45-degree site line turning from Foothill to
South Tassajara when the traffic post and a signal box were installed.
Planner Corey replied yes.
Vice-Chair Loh asked why a 4-foot high fence located 18-inches back from the street
property line was approved previously.
Deputy Director Whisenand explained the 18-inches is from the property line, which is
outside of the right-of-way line. He stated the concept behind it was to allow a minimal
area where they could landscape and provide some screening.
Elyse Iverson, applicant, stated the original use permit allowed a 4-foot fence because
it was a pre-school and Social Services required a minimum of a 4-foot enclosure for
any play yard for children. That was why the Planning Commission waived the 3-foot
requirement and allowed for a 4-foot fence. She explained the reason she chose the
chain link and plastic lattice was because of the wood splinters, and felt it wasn't safe
for the children.
Commr. Cooper noted that the Planning Commission has purview over Foothill
Boulevard but not Tassajara Street.
Ms. Iverson explained that there is a concrete curb that runs along the entire strip of
Foothill Boulevard that the fence is secured into, which would also have to be removed.
Draft Planning Commission . .,utes Attachment 2
January 23, 2002
Page 3
Deputy Director Whisenand stated the recommendation, which follows the original
Planning Commission's action, was to have an 18-inch setback on both Tassajara
Street and Foothill Boulevard.
Commr. Cooper explained that even if the fence is located 18-inches from the property
line, it must be removed.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Brett Crosswell, 17 Mariner's Cove, explained that Social Services requires a 4-foot
high fence. Given the number of students needed to make the business work out
financially was that a certain amount of area was needed, and if the fence was set back
the required amount, there would not be enough area for the number of students she
had. She noted they came to a compromise of 18-inches.
Naoma Wright, 400 Foothill Boulevard, stated the owner of the 399 Foothill Boulevard
property knowingly violated the terms and conditions of her use permit and never
bothered to get a permit for the extensive reconfiguration of the property that began.on
September 1, 2001.
Tom Kirshner, 615 Cerro Romauldo, stated he would like to appeal for mercy and
reasonableness on behalf of the applicant. He explained that the applicant's school
provides a safe environment for the children so their parents who support the public
sector can work.
Tom Wilabur, 424 Foothill Boulevard, stated he couldn't think of a better use for this
property than to have a pre-school there. This kind of service is desperately needed in
this town.
Shelly McGregor, SLO, explained the fence has always been white-and blends well with
the community. She stated the new fence has kept the sand off the sidewalk.
There were no further public comments.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Cooper noted that the fence setbacks must be observed and is a common
requirement.
Commr. Cooper made a motion to modify the use permit to allow a 4-foot fence, but to
require that it be set back 18-inches from property with some landscaping introduced
between the sidewalk and the fence. Seconded by Commr. Caruso.
Chairperson Peterson stated he supports the motion.
Commr. Osborne recommended that they strike the requirement for landscaping.
Commr. Cooper asked what the landscaping would be replaced with.
a-g,
Draft Planning Commission utes Attachment 2
January 23, 2002
Page 4
Deputy Director Whisenand stated he would like to see a landscape plan required and
have a plan that would include species that would grow up on this fence and work in this
18-inches.
Commr. Osborne suggested an amendment to not making it a requirement, but the
applicant would have the option.
Commr. Cooper did not accept this as an amendment.
Commr. Osborne made an amendment to extend the time period for compliance and
recommended 180 days instead of 60 days.
Commr. Cooper accepted as the motion maker and Commr, Caruso accepted as the
seconder.
Deputy Director Whisenand stated that staff agrees with this change.
Commr. Aiken noted with the previous fence that the comer came to a 90-degree angle
and posed a greater hazard to visibility to the intersection than a 4-foot fence.
Ms. Iverson noted that to move the fence back and have landscaping, the concrete curb
located there would have to be removed.
Commr. Boswell noted there are discrepancies between what was approved previously
and a discrepancy with the issue of the site line.
Deputy Director Whisenand explained that the fence as constructed was adequate at
that time, but now the Public Works Department and City Engineering Staff have
determined that the site distance is not adequate and are making a recommendation for
it to be pulled back.
Commr. Boswell expressed concern about the landscaping and would like to see this
requirement strengthened.
Deputy Director Whisenand stated they could require a landscape plan. .
Vice-Chair Loh stated the childcare center needs some visual screen between the
heavy traffic on Foothill Boulevard and the building and the children's play yard.
Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo stated if something is built or installed that is not
pursuant to the permit, and there was a mistake that was not caught, it does not
grandfather in the violation.
Commr. Osborne, after finding out the area has been paved, requested removing the
landscaping requirement.
Commr. Cooper felt there are still significant areas that could be landscaped.
a-9
Draft Planning Commission- _,utes /attachment 2
January 23, 2002
Page 5
AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Caruso, Osborne, Loh, Boswell, and Peterson
NOES: Commr. Aiken
ABSENT: None
The motion carried 6-1.
Chairperson Stevenson stated that the Commission's decision could be appealed to the
City Council.
Citywide. TA and ER 134-01; Amendments to the City's Zoning Regulations r ed
property maintenance and development standards, and environment eview;
Ci f San Luis Obispo, applicant.
i
Neighborhoo prices Manager Rob Bryn explained that the Neig ood Services
Team is appro , tely one-year old and is comprised of membe' of City staff and
three representativ - 10 the organization Residents for Quality ' hborhoods (RQN).
He stated that RQN an umbrella organization of vari neighborhood groups
throughout the communi t,provides input to staff and I ous commissions and the
City Council. He noted that kage of various propos" s was submitted that can be
acted on as a Planning Commis 'o function, which ar ext amendments to the Zoning
Regulations. "
Planning Technician Tyler Corey presen ' sta port, recommending the City Council
approve the Negative Declaration of envir �, ental impact (ER 134-01) and adopt the
proposed text amendments, as submitted -\
Commr. Cooper explained they j, ` erstood t there is no clear definition of
"abandonment" and suggesteg in a noticin equirement so there would be a
formal initiation period of a ent.
Mr. Bryn explained wha r occurring in single-family sidential applications is a
remodel would begin t-en stop, and when the building p emit was.about to expire
they would do some _;ingo require an inspection and then sei swork for another year.
He explained the "ay/the Uniform Housing Code is written very similar to the
language of th . ?Housing Code, which is adopted through jure' ictions throughout
California and J;a United States.
Commr. C p fP+` expressed a concern on the issue of overgrown lawn hand felt the
languag very antiquated.
Mr. B ., x,eplained that the language was simplified by saying "wet, dry, and th awn or
we , s/are over 12-inches in height it is a public nuisance. "
orney Trujillo explained condition 5 is the highbred between what the Uniform Co s
�provide for public safety and try to work it into an esthetics point of view.
Hnamment 3
RECEIVE
eived
g i, 4 c
City 0
QBh
j San Luis oBlSpo SLO CITY COUNCIL
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION
Name Mailing Address and.Zip Code
i�o< S4q !�;kS-q
Phone Fax
Represent ve's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
Title Phone Fax
SECTION Z SUBJECT OF APPEAL
1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the:
P4O-AJN`% r\-6, Co Mess or,
(Name of Officer, CoWmittee or Commission decision being appealed)
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: AJ1llO.1f'y� �3 3. The The application or project was entitled: A-a
4. 1 discussed the matte�^rtwith the following City staff member:
l�c7� t
(Staff Members Name and Departm nt) (Date)
SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL
Explain specifically what actions you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your
appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages,.if
necessary. This form continues on the other side.
Page 1 of 3
0�-1/
Attachment 3
Reason for Appeal continued �1f
!U UXe!C LLF�L�20J1�Q Y/i n/,! •
A2W /lllltZ4 /J/a �.�/mom " /a�iri (GtlCc�.lZi�1 -s?/D (M uQ.o 5�7 /Dy1 f s-
!a-r Lzz, aAa 0J)�vu�t � a.
SEC77ON 4. APPELLANTS RESPONSIBILITY
1.be San JDA. C' bispo City Coundi'values.public participation_in local government and
encourages all forms,of er6en involvement. 'The City,unlike most in Califomia, does not
charge a fee for filing.an appeal Hiowever,,placing an,appeal.,before the City Council requires
.considerable work and cost,including agenda report preparation and public notification.
Therefore,your right to exercise pan appeal comes with certain-responsibilities. If-you file an
appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be
notified in writing of the exact date your'appeal will be scheduled to be heard before the
Council. You or your.representative will be expected to-attend the public hearing,and to be
prepared to make-your-case. Your.testimony is limited to`10°minutes.
A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you
need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be
advised that if your request for•continuance,is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the
Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance._ Submitting a request for continuance
does not guarantee that it will be granted;that action is at the discretion of the City Council.
I hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when
said appeal is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council.
(Signature#61 Appellant) (Date)
This Item is hereby calendared for `J/ OD
c: City Attomey
City Administrative officer
Department Head
Cityylerk(origin
Page 2 of 3
,oro, � � 1 �
Attachment 4
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM#2
BY: Tyler Corey, Planning Technician (781-7169) D E: January 23, 2002
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director of Community Developmen7
FILE NUMBER: MOD 18 1-01
PROJECT ADDRESS: 399 Foothill Blvd.
SUBJECT: Request to modify Use Permit U 204-92 to allow an existing 4-foot tall fence to
remain located on property line and within the public right-of-way where 3 feet would otherwise
be the maximum height allowed in the C-N-S zone.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolution denying the modification request to allow the existing 4-foot tall
fence to remain in its current location, based on findings, and direct the applicant to relocate and
modify the fence within 60 days to comply with the approved Use Permit, City Standards, paint a
dark color (brown or green), and screen with landscaping to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director.
BACKGROUND
Situation
Approximately four months ago City staff was advised that the Child Day Care Center at 399
Foothill Blvd. replaced their perimeter fence with a vinyl slatted chain link fence. Based on
research of City records, it was determined that the height and location of the fence was
inconsistent with Planning Commission Use Permit U 204-92, and a code enforcement action
case was opened for the subject property. Condition number 6 of the use permit states, "A 4-foot
high fence located 18 inches back from the street line property line is hereby approved with the
sightline at the comer to be approved by the Community Development Director." (See Use
Permit U 204-92 included as attachment 3). It was also determined that the replacement fencing
along South Tassajara was installed in the public right-of-way and the existing sightline at the
corner of Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara does not meet city standards.
On October 16, 2001 the applicant was sent a letter informing her of the situation and advising
her that the fencing had to be relocated consistent with Use Permit U 204-92 or a Planning
Commission Use Permit modification must be obtained to avoid further code enforcement action.
The applicant believes she should not have to remove the fencing, and is asking the Planning
Commission to approve the chain link fence at its current height and in its present location
through a modification to Use Permit U 204-92. It should be noted that the Planning
Commission does not have the authority to grant any exception that would allow the fence to
remain within the public right-of-way, as is the case along South Tassajara. Any encroachment
would require approval by the Public Works Department with appeal authority to the City
Council.
a -0
MOD 181-01 (Iverson) —
Attachment 4
399 Foothill Blvd.
Page 2
Data Summary
Address: 399 Foothill Blvd.
Property Owner/Applicant: Elyse Iverson
Zoning: C-N-S (Neighborhood Commercial Special Consideration)
General Plan: Neighborhood Commercial
Project action deadline: April 16, 2002
Site Description
The lot consists of approximately 10,080 square feet located on the southwest corner of Foothill
Blvd. and South Tassajara. The site was originally developed as a single-family residence but
was subsequently converted to commercial uses. The tenant prior to Use Permit approval by the
Planning Commission in 1992 was a retail bicycle shop. Additional improvements to the
property include parking, landscaping, outdoor play area and equipment, and various other site
improvements.
Despite the property's Neighborhood Commercial Special Consideration (C-N-S) zoning, the
project area is predominantly residential in nature. The area to the north across Foothill Blvd. is
zoned R-I and developed with single-family residences; the area to the south is zoned R-1 and
developed with single-family residences; the area to the east across South Tassajara is zoned R-1
and R-2 and is developed with single-family residences; the area to the west is zoned R-1 and is
developed with single-family residences. Zoning surrounding the site is shown in the attached
vicinity map (attachment 1).
Project Description
The project is a modification to Planning Commission Use Permit U 204-92 to allow a 4-foot tall
fence to remain located on property line and within the public right-of-way where 3 feet would
otherwise be the maximum height allowed. In addition, the Commission is being asked to
review other changes in the approved site plan for conformance with Use Permit U 204-92, such
as, loss of landscape area.
EVALUATION
Fence Height and Location
City Zoning Regulations allow 3-foot tall fences at the front property line (street yard) increasing
to a maximum of 6-feet tall at the required minimum yard. In the C-N-S zone, the minimum
street yard setback is 10 feet. In this case, the 4-foot tall fence had approval to be 18-inches from
property line (condition 6 of Use Permit U 204-92). Normally, a 4-foot tall fence would require
a 4-foot 6-inch setback.
Staff does not support a modification to Use Permit 204-92 to allow the existing 4-foot tall fence to
be located on property line and within the public right-of-way for the following reasons: 1)A 4-foot
67
Attachment 4
MOD 181-01 (Iverson)
399 Foothill Blvd.
Page 3
tall fence on property line and within the public right-of-way will cause significant traffic visibility
impacts at the intersection of Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara as determined by the Public Works
Department. A 3-foot tall fence is required for sight lines through the corner from the control box
located on South Tassajara and continuing around the corner, westerly along Foothill Blvd. to a
point 30 feet from the corner. One option would be to have the 4-foot tall fence "cut the corner
outside of the sight line visibility area (see Attachment 4). 2) The existing fence located on South
Tassajara encroaches 2-feet into the public right-of-way, which requires approval of a temporary
encroachment permit by the Public Works Department. It should be noted that the Public Works
Department does not support granting a temporary encroachment permit for the fencing because
it is not the City's policy to allow individuals the use of public easements for private purposes.
3) The existing fence has limited opportunity to be screened or softened to blend with the
surrounding residential neighborhood. With an 18-inch setback from property line, as conditioned
by Use Permit U 204-92, the fence would have a 3 foot 6-inch landscape strip between the back of
sidewalk and property line on South Tassajara and an 18-inch landscape strip on Foothill Blvd. that
would allow for landscaping to create a visual transition between the street and subject property.
Based on the above-stated reasons, it is recommended that the 4-foot tall fencing be made to
comply with Use Permit 20492 requiring that it be setback 18-inches from property line.
Fence Design and Compatibility
Although there is no specific General Plan policy or Zoning Regulation specifying an appropriate
style or design for fencing, the City encourages open-style, decorative fencing in areas visible
from the public right-of-way. Although the site is zoned C-N-S (Neighborhood Commercial
Special Consideration) and developed with a day care center, it is in a highly visible location
where the type and style of fencing is a major component to the development's overall
appearance and compatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood.
In staff's opinion, the existing chain link fence with a vinyl slate attachment detracts from the
project's appearance and should be painted a dark color (brown or green) and screened with a
landscape treatment appropriate for maintaining site visibility at the Foothill/South Tassajara
intersection.
Existing Signage
During a site visit to the subject address, staff noticed signage for the day care center attached to
the fencing on both Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara street frontages. A review of permit
history indicates the property owner had not obtained sign permits for the subject signs. Chapter
15.40.170.K of the Municipal Code states, "Except as provided in this chapter, sign location shall
conform with setbacks established in the zoning regulations.,, As previously stated, street yard
setback requirements for the C-N zone is 10-feet. The existing signage is located on property
line and in the public right-of-way inconsistent with the zones setback requirement.
On April 20, 1993, staff made the determination that an existing sign attached to the fence
located on Foothill Blvd was consistent with the area and height limits for a monument sign.
With Director approval, monument signs may be located in the required setback area, provided
they do not interfere with visibility required for safe vehicular, and pedestrian circulation.
a-/s
MOD 18 1-01 (Iverson) -
Attachment 4
399 Foothill Blvd.
Page 4
Current sign regulations allow one monument sign, not to exceed 12 square feet in area or 4 feet
in height in the C-N zone. If the fence were relocated consistent with the approved Use Permit,
staff would allow one sign to remain located on the fence consistent with the previous approval
and determination. However, prior approval was granted for a 24 square foot sign and the
existing sign is 32 square feet. If the applicant wishes to keep the existing sign, an exception to
the sign regulation standards would need to be approved by the Architectural Review
Commission (ARC).
Other Site Plan Changes
Since the Day Care Center has been located at the subject address, significant site changes have
occurred. There has been a noticeable loss of landscaping and an increase in hardscape. The
current site plan is not consistent with what was originally approved by Use Permit U 204-92 and
the City has received complaints from residents in the neighborhood.
Due to the properties highly visible location, loss of landscaping significantly reduces the ability
of the site to blend with the surrounding neighborhood. In staff's opinion, the loss of
landscaping detracts from the project's appearance and ability to provide a visual transition
between the street and subject property.
Architectural Review
Staff has reviewed this project for site and neighborhood compatibility and finds that the existing
chain link fence with a vinyl slate attachment does not blend with the neighborhood and detracts
from the project's appearance. Therefore, staff recommends that the relocated fence be painted a
dark color (brown or green) and screened with a landscape treatment appropriate for maintaining
site visibility at the Foothill/South Tassajara intersection. Staff does not believe that these
changes would trigger review by the ARC. If the Planning Commission has remaining
compatibility concerns, then the matter could be referred to the ARC for action.
Conclusion
This is a code enforcement action and a notice of code violation has been issued for not
complying with the conditions of Use Permit U 204-92. While staff sympathizes with the
applicant's situation, the fencing was not reviewed or approved by the Community Development
Department. City Code requires that the fencing design/material be examined for compatibility
with its surroundings, and that fencing location and height be evaluated for compliance with City
Zoning Regulations and previously granted use permits.
The Planning Commission needs to decide if the chain link fencing with a vinyl slate attachment
is appropriate in its present location or if it should be relocated to comply with Use Permit U
204-92. In staff s opinion, the existing chain link fence poses traffic safety hazards, detracts
from the project's appearance and should be relocated outside the public right-of-way. In
addition, staff recommends that the fence be painted a dark color (brown or green) and screened
with landscaping to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
a —I&
i
MOD 181-01 (Iverson) Attachment 4
399 Foothill Blvd.
Page 5
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The only public comment received by planning staff during the review of this project was from a
neighboring property owner, Naoma Wright. The original letter submitted by Naoma Wright in
opposition to the fence is attached (Attachment 5) to this staff report.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The Public Works Department notes that the fencing along South Tassajara was installed in the
public right-of-way and the existing sightline at the corner of Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara
does not meet city standards. Public Works concerns are identified and addressed in the previous
paragraphs. No other departments commented on the project.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the request to modify Use Permit U 204-92 to allow an existing 4-foot tall fence to remain
in its current location, based on findings included in the attached Planning Commission
Resolution (Attachment 6), and direct the applicant to relocate and modify the fence within 60
days to comply with the approved Use Permit, City Standards, paint a dark color (brown or
green), and screen with landscaping to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Commission may approve a modification to Use Permit U 204-92 to allow the existing
4-foot tall fence to remain in its current location.. Staff recommends that the fencing be
painted a dark color (brown or green). It is important to note that if the encroachment permit
is not obtained along South Tassajara, that the fencing along that frontage will require
relocation out of the public right-of-way regardless.
2. The Commission may continue action, if more information is needed. Direction should be
given to staff and the applicants/appellants.
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Site Plan
3. Use Permit U 204-92
4. Sight Line Visibility Triangle
5. Opposition letter & package from Naoma Wright dated October 12, 2001
6. Planning Commission Resolution
a-�'7
Attachment 4
R 1 R- R '
�II
I
R-1 R- 1
R-1
aaf��Y
s. R-a
R-
-1
R-1
R-1
RA
R-1R
R-1
VICINITY MAP MOD 181 -01
N
399 FOOTHILL
A
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
°'° ^L" ttachment 4
i O TTRAFF I C
TRAFFIC
16,
❑P08E
X
X
M� �O
X
X
>
a
I
OTRUCTURE
a
toa
to
a
e �
PARKING HANDICAP
PARKING N
8!DE1Y
J
. TRAW DRIVEWAY
I
0
PARK INO PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING
0
o e e I
a �
Attachment 4
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5114-92
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did
conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chamber of the San Luis Obispo City Hall,
San Luis Obispo, California, on November 18, 1992, pursuant to a proceeding instituted
under application No. U 204-92 by Elyse Hazen, applicant.
USE PERMIT REQUESTED:
To allow a day care center.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
399 Foothill Boulevard.
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT:
Neighborhood-Commercial.
PRESENT ZONING:
C-N-S.
WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and
studies made by itself, and in behalf and of testimonies offered at said hearing, has
established existence of the following circumstances:
1. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of
persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity.
2. The proposed use and fence height exception is appropriate at the proposed
location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses.
a�a
Attachment 4
Resolution No. 5114-92
Use Permit U 204-92
Page 2
3. The proposed use conforms to the general plan and meets zoning ordinance
requirements.
4. The proposed use is exempt from environmental review.
5. No other day care center or large family day care home is located within 200 feet
of the proposed day care center.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that application No. U 204-92 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The day care center shall be subject to all applicable sections of the Noise
Ordinance. Outdoor play shall be prohibited prior to 9:00 am.
2. The operator of the day care center shall provide carpool matching services to all
clients. Evidence of this service shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department for approval by the Community Development Director:
3. Seven parking spaces, including one handicapped space, shall be provided on-site.
4. The day care operator shall obtain a license from the State Department of Social
Services Community Care Licensing Division.
5. The applicant shall obtain a sign permit for any proposed signs.
6. A 4-foot high fence located 18 inches back from the street line property line is
hereby approved with the sightline at the comer to be approved by the
Community Development Director.
7. The existing fence and trash enclosure shall be repaired to the approval of the
Community Development Director.
The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo upon the motion of Commr. Senn, seconded by Commr. Williams, and
upon the following roll call vote:
C - 1
Attachment 4
Resolution No. 5114-92
Use Permit U 204-92
Page 3
AYES: Commrs. Senn, Williams, Peterson, Cross, Hoffman, Settle, Karleskint
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
DATED: November 18, 1992
a -aa
Attachment 4
Barrier Height at
Street Corners
No barriers over 3' high
-.•
In this area
30'
ff-
•
IProperty Line
30f ' Curb
a -a3
- Attachment 4
Page 1 of 2
- October 12, 2001
Dear Tyler,
Thank you for sending me your letter of October 9 , 2001 regarding the
request notice of fence height exception at 399 Foothill Blvd . I also ap-
preciate speaking with you about this matter on Oct . 11 after receiving you
letter. I will do my best to write the circumstances of the many problems
at 399 Foothill Blvd. in this letter.
The owner of this property has reconfigured and radically changed the
whole yard, fence , signs etc . at 399 Foothill Blvd. without securing any
per-nits from the City.
The major problem is that this N. C.-S business in an R-1 neighborhood
is supposed to blend into the neighborhood. This was a major consideration
when the bicycle shop was allowed to locate there . Since the Child Care Cen
ter located there , the property has become an eyesore to many and sticks ou
like a sore thumb. This project should go back to the ARC as well as plan-
ning. No one is against the school, it is what it looks like that is offen-
sive to us.
Progression of the problems are as follows:
In the spring of 2001 the rainbow ( logo , advertisement, sign? ) on the
building was painted in large , bright heavier stripes. I do not believe tha
"Logos" are allowed on businesses, they especially do not fit in with R-1
neighborhoods. Refer to Earthling Bookstore project whereby logos were deni
The logo on 399 Foothill Blvd. should be removed.
On Saturday September 1 and Sunday September 2, 2001 the original fenc
at 399 Foothill Blvd. was removed. On IJlonday Sept. 3, 2001 a backhoe and
heavy equiptment ( see Pictures) were being used. The equintment cleared a
great deal of dirt from the property a couple of dump truck loads. All of t
greenery was removed,, shrubs, grass etc .
A trench along the perimeter was dug for the cement wall which the
chain link fence is now attached to . The cement wall now butts right up
against the City sidewalk.
Over the next week a very large sandbox about 12' by 20' was build
and a large cement mixer came and completely cemented the whole side yard
on the Tassajara Drive side of the school.
Then the chain link fence was installed on the cement base , the sandbc
were filled with sand, the white lattice covering was secured to the chain
link fence and 2 very large signs were mounted on the fence ( pictures)
Before the changes were made:
1. The previous wooden fence was 3' high and sat back about 18" from the
a-a
Attachment 4
page 2 of 2
from the City sidewalk on Foothill Blvd and Tassajara Drive.
2. Only one 3' sign was allowed on the Foothill side of the property. Now
2 large signs are mounted on the fences. ( sign violations? )
3. All of the greenery was removed. Front and side yards are now all cenent .
( Trees around the perimeter would be nice. )
4. Since the stripes on the building are now a large garish logo , they shoulc
be removed.
5. The sandbox is a safety hazard. When the wind blows the sand is blown all
over the City sidewalk. I have seen runners run around the corner and slip
on the sand. It is hazardous for the older folks to walk on as well. And the
children as children will do. throw the sand on the City sidewalk.
6. The workers on this project washed their cement covered machinery and
tools into the storm drains on Foothill and Tassajara: ( see picture)
7. This property has been radically changed from what was allowed when the
bicycle shop was approved by the ARC and allowed in this neighborhood.
8. This property as it now stands has a potential to devalue our neighborhooe
properties and it could set a president for other neighborhoods.
9. It is very disheartening to have to look out of my livingroom and bedroom
windows at this Mc Donald play .yard which sits in the middle of a beauti—
ful green treed area? our neighborhood.
We would appreciate all of the help that you can give us to get this eyesore
to blend into our neighborhood as it once did when the bicycle shop was al—
lowed into our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Naoma Wright
400 Foothill Blvd.
San Luis Obispo
California, 93405
543-5232
a�a s
r Attachment 4
s_
i
Preschool and day care center i
MORRO BAY—Pacifica designed to maximize student
Preschool and Day Care Center is potential and support teaching
the only non-affiliated, indepen- staff.The school offers quality
dent preschool in Morro Bay. It is programs for children ages two
located downtown on a large cor- through prekindergarten.
ner lot. An abundance of developmen-
- 11M is a large play yard with a tally appropriate activities are
play structure, as well as a flour- offered by a knowledgeable and
ishing garden area.There are caring staff.
three fully-equipped classrooms, . This opportunity is offered at
with two-year-old hardwood fur- 3729,000. Please contact Mary Jo
niture. Rogers, Gold Coast Realty,
The layout of each classroom is 805-772-2271.
r„-- l THE
1 1 OT_TIT BLVD.
I_:IS P3JSC _'GL BL�_.�S !P?LO T H 1GJP0 :00�. . iJ 399 �'G41___LL
a JJ.0 I T-T3 G_303T �0�.
a ��
47
d.�WIN�r
I.
�r 1+—
Malp
4•,i..,f
I � I i I j I li��.��.. �-7+�1 r{F'�`l<�! ` •: i1C, �� r
L ,
� •, �. [• ti . r�' ! � >� , 'Its
K '�• � i� f � :I iry .
1• � r.
_.�-,: `i�,`fit ''' i�y.L••' '�`T,;ia.�::- r
•
• j
V.
r,
FN
- y )
� �Ij I • �C t+r 4h t -
iY+ tmi I `ti
t
Id
t s
4.1
It
a
I � akfy ♦ , ..
I i
-ji
F p r
w
! I,
ty
I.
t " ?t ' .
Yl
Fill
cdd
It
f `.
` Attachment 4
Attached is my written response to Tyler Cory' s letter of
October 9 , 2001 along with a few of the pictures that I gave to
him concerning what my neighbors and I consider a major recon-
figuration of 399 Foothill Blvd.
Our greatest concern is that this C.N. S. business in our R-1
neighborhood does not blend into our neighborhood as required, it
sticks out like a sore thumb! We feel that it has the potential to
devalue our properties and above all it may set a president . for
other neighborhoods.
I believe that the enclosed information is self explatory.
If you have any questions please call me.
My neighbors and I will appreciate any help that you can give
us to help solve this problem.
Sincerely,
Naoma Wright
400 Foothill Blvd.
San Luis Obispo
CA. 93405
phone: 543-5232
P. S. Beside sending Tyler Co: y this information I am sending the
same information to Ken Hampian and all members of the City
Council because the City cannot reproduce the colored pictures.
a a9
Attachment 4
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING A MODIFICATION TO USE PERMIT U 204-92 FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 399 FOOTHILL BLVD., MOD 181-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on January 23, 2002, for the purpose of considering Application No. MOD
181-01, a request to modify Use Permit U 204-92 to allow an existing 4-foot tall fence to
remain located on property line and within the public right-of-way where 3-feet would
otherwise be the maximum height allowed in the C-N-S zone; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence,
including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the
following findings:
1. The proposed fence will adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons
living or working at the site and in the vicinity because the fence poses a traffic
safety hazard for sight line visibility at the Foothill Blvd./South Tassajara intersection.
2. The installed fence is located 2-feet within the public right-of-way along South
Tassajara which has raised valid concerns for safety from the City's Public Works
Department, which is not in favor of granting a temporary encroachment permit to
allow the fence to remain in this location.
3. The existing fence is not compatible with the site and surrounding residential
neighborhood because the color and location detract from the overall character of
the neighborhood and does not allow for landscaping to provide a visual transition
between the street and subject property.
4. The existing fence was constructed in violation of Use Permit U 204-92 for not being
set back 18-inches from property line.
c7o, -3D
Attachment 4
Resolution No. [ ]
Page 2
Section 2. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby deny application
No. MOD 181-01.
On motion by Commissioner [NAME], seconded by Commr [NAME], and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 23`d day of January 2002.
Ronald Whisenand, Secretary
Planning Commission by:
a-3I
11
Attachment 5
Draft Resolution"A"
RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION ON A MODIFICATION TO USE PERMIT U 204-92 AT
399 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD,U 204-92
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on January 23, 2002, denied a modification to
Use Permit U 204-92 to allow an existing 4-foot tall fence to remain located on property line and
within the public right-of-way where 3 feet would otherwise be the maximum height allowed in
the C-N-S zone; and
WHEREAS, Elyse Iverson filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on
February 4, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, March 5, 2002, for the
purpose of considering the appeal to the Planning Commission action on Use Permit U 204-92;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered testimony of the applicant/appellant,
interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearings and actions, and the
evaluation and recommendation of staff.
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 use permit application U
204-92, the Planning Commission's decision, staff recommendation, public testimony, and
reports thereof,makes the following findings:
1. The proposed fence will adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living
or working at the site and in the vicinity because the fence poses a traffic safety hazard for
sight line visibility at the Foothill Blvd./South Tassajara intersection.
2. The installed fence is located 2-feet within the public right-of-way along South Tassajara
c;7
Attachment 5
Resolution No. (2002 Series)
Page 2
which has raised valid concerns for safety from the City's Public Works Department,
which is not in favor of granting a temporary encroachment permit to allow the fence to
remain in this location.
3. The existing fence is not compatible with the site and surrounding residential
neighborhood because the color and location detract from the overall character of the
neighborhood and does not allow for landscaping to provide a visual transition between
the street and subject property.
4. The existing fence was constructed in violation of Use Permit U 204-92 for not being set
back 18-inches from property line.
SECTION 2. Action. The appeal is hereby denied.
On motion of seconded by and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 5t' day of March, 2002
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/11*0�zy
e Jorgensen
Attachment 6
Draft Resolution"B"
RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S ACTION,THEREBY APPROVING A MODIFICATION
TO USE PERMIT U 204-92 AT
399 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, U 204-92
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on January 23, 2002, denied a modification to
Use Permit U 204-92 to allow an existing 4-foot tall fence to remain located on property line and
within the public right-of-way where 3 feet would otherwise be the maximum height allowed in
the C-N-S zone; and
WHEREAS, Elyse Iverson filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on
February 4,2002; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted public hearings on, March 5, 2002, for the
purpose of considering the appeal to the Planning Commission action on Use Permit U 204-92;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered testimony of the applicant/appellant,
interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearings and actions, and the
evaluation and recommendation of staff.
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 use permit application U
204-92, the Planning Commission's decision, staff recommendation, public testimony, and
reports thereof, makes the following findings:
1. No public purpose is served by strict compliance with the City's fence height standards
and Use Permit U 204-92 because the existing fence is a child safety barrier.
,?-3
Attachment 6
Resolution No. (2002 Series) :.... .....:...___ _
Page 2
2. The existing 4-foot tall fence is architecturally compatible with the development on the
site and surrounding neighborhood.
3. The proposed Use Permit Modification will not cause any sight distance impacts at the
Foothill/South Tassajara intersection or for vehicles entering and exiting the property.
4. With approval of this modification, the existing fence complies with Use Permit U 204-
92 and the fencing standards contained in the Zoning Regulations.
SECTION 2. Action. The appeal of the Planning Commission's action is upheld, and
the use permit modification approved subject to all previously established permit conditions with
the following modification to condition number 6 of Use Permit 204-92:
6. A 4-foot tall fence located on property line fronting Foothill Blvd. and 2-feet within the
public right-of-way on South Tassajara is hereby approved upon recordation of a
covenant agreement between the property owner and the Public Works Department to
provide for the removal of all encroachments in the City right-of-way if deemed
necessary by the City Engineer.
On motion of seconded by and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
�5
- Attachment 6
Resolution No. (2002 Series)
Page 3
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 5`h day of March, 2002
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Jeffrey G. Jorgensen
a-3.�
Lee-Price-399 Foothill - -- - _ _ Page 1
'V'IEETING AGENDA
DATE 3:202 ITEM #
From: "Frank Merson" <finerson@longs.com>
To: <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <jmarx@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org>,
<jewan@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>
Date: 3/5/02 11:15AM
Subject: 399 Foothill
Dear City Council,
On the agenda tonight is an appeal to a decision about C OIL several non-conforming construction issues related to the CDD DIR
preschool/daycare in my neighborhood located at 399 ICAO O FIN DIR
Foothill. W ,,4_RNEY 13 FIRE CHIEF
f1�t-e�`CE�RWORIQ C3 PW DIR
I will probably make it in time for comment tonight since it
d0kPT
CRIG C1 POLICE CHF
EADS
is not the first agenda item. PEC DIR
However, had I not been alerted by a neighbor to watch for UTIL DIP
details in the notice in the newspaper about time and ❑ HR DIP
location of the meeting, I might have missed the opportunity ✓
to comment.
Knowing that a notice needs to be posted at the address of
an agenda item, I drove by looking for it at 399 Foothill.
It was not there last week, nor the stick is should be
attached to.
On Thursday I finally found the sign. It was laying face up
in the street.
This morning, Tuesday, at 10 am it was still stuck to the
pavement of Tassajara face up.
Possibly the appellant did not exercise courtesy and/or
legal obligation to insure that the public notice stayed
visible so those in the neighborhood with a view different
than the appellant might not see their opportunity to
participate in the political process.
Certainly signs fall or get blown down, but as I understand
this applicant/appellant is in the hot seat already for not
getting permission or approval for the issues before you
tonight.
Thanks,
Frank Merson
195 Ramona
CC: "Merson, Frank" <finerson@longs.com>
RECEIVED
f,A '% 05 2RI2
SLO CITY COUNCIL
Mar02 08: 17a CYDNEY HOLCOMB 805-594-0365 P. 1
IEETING AGENDA=
DATE -3-S-OZ ITEM #
all n
� eG _
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
P.O. Box 12604•San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
RECEIVED ,,,�UNCIL CDD DIR
,AAO ❑ FIN DIR
t! 0 ; 290:12 TT 0 O FIRE CHIEF
IzJ 11A ORNEY 11 PW DIR
March 5, 2002 ERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
SLO CITY COUNCILI ❑D PT HEA05 ❑ pEOIJIR
Faxed to: 781-7109 LITIL OIR
y l) by®!R
Re: March 5, 2002 - Agenda Item 2 ✓!1Q?
Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Fence Modifications for 399 Foothill
Boulevard (Mod 181-01)
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
RQN has reviewed this matter and supports the Planning Commission's decision to deny the
appellant's request for a modification of the existing Use Permit U 204-92.
The appellant has stated that a minimum 4-foot high fence is a Social Services requirement for a
yard enclosure at the pre-school. The original Use Permit U 204-92 issued by the Planning
Commission on November 18, 1992 allowed a 4-foot high fence to be placed 18 inches back of
the property line. This was a reduction from the greater distance normally required and was
apparently granted to accommodate a certain ratio of space per child at the school.
At issue is a new 4-foot tall fence that has been erected directly on the property line on the
Foothill Boulevard side and encroaches 2 feet into the public right-of-way on the Tassajara Street
side. The appellant is asking the council to overlook the fact that she violated the terms of the
existing Use Permit and allow the fence to remain in the unauthorized location. We strongly
oppose this request for several reasons:
1. Approval under these circumstances would set a precedent and sends a message that it is
OK to build without proper approval and then plead for mercy later.
2. City staff has stated that the height of the fence in its current location will cause sightline
visibility problems at the intersection of Foothill and Tassajara.
3. The Public Works Department does not support issuance of a required encroachment
permit for the Tassajara side, therefore, it seems inevitable that the appellant will have to
move that portion of the fence.
4. If the council were to approve the location of the fence on the Foothill side it would have to
be lowered to 3 feet high to meet the City Code. The lowered fence would then not meet
the height requirement imposed by Social Services for a pre-school yard enclosure.
5. Of a more subjective nature is the issue of incompatibility with the surrounding R-1
neighborhood. The color of the fence and other modifications that have occurred, such as
tree/landscape removal and extensive concrete work have drastically altered the
appearance of the property. It now sticks out like a sore thumb as opposed to blending in
with the rest of the neighborhood as it should.
Mar CS 02 08: 17a CYDMEY HOLCOMB 805-594-0365 p. 2
March 5, 2002
Re: 399 Foothill Boulevard Page 2
Relocating the entire fence in accordance with existing Use Permit U 204-93 would create the
opportunity to improve and soften its visual appearance. It is our opinion that:
1. The chain link fencing could be reused and slats of a more pleasing color could be
installed. Since painting the white vinyl slats seemed impractical to us we checked with
-The Fence Factory' for other options. We were informed that vinyl slats are available
at a reasonable price and in a range of different colors including Chocolate Brown and
Forest Green.
2. Landscaping and irrigation should be provided within the space between the fence and
the sidewalk to cover some or all of the fencing.
3. Shade trees could be provided within the yard to keep the sand and concrete play
areas cooler for the children and to provide a vertical element.
We therefore urge the Council to deny this appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's action
on this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
� �7-7�
Cydney Holcomb
Chairperson, RQN
cc: Tyler Corey
Planning Department
Fax: 781-7170
Naoma Wright
`
RECEIVE ceived
�7r EES 0 4 2@'12
.:luGi Cl 0
San lull OBISp0 SLO CITY COUNCIL
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION
l"y Sd' �✓-�,'s o n ���b��6���.._o c��340<,
Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
S44 S AVN
Phone Fax
E& 6/1 6n f.�
Represen ve's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
4111
Title Phone Fax
SECTION 2. SUBJECT OFAPPEAL
1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the:
P WaA0�% rte C o Mrs; SS: o r%
(Name of Officer, Co miitee or Commission decision being appealed)
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: �1 A /1uLo'cu\ �3 �aoO�
/
3. The application or project was entitled: AT-) (�L-P-% U.SS —0.Q Irv, (�aO Fi
Dk 2M kM.
4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member:
(Staff Member's Name and Departm nt) (Date)
SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL
Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your
appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if
necessary. This form continues on the other side.
Page 1 of 3
4
Reason for Appeal continued /
�D G�►2�Lc P GD� c , u t�� ay
A&O /W&U "V-i h;tt'06 rm fi�iar _.A4,4 ZAA' U'g4 I clR�
IV
la-r sJ16aott-M kZol 4.
,e'4 .-�
NAj t--o�
SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY
The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and
encourages all forms of citizen involvement. The City, unlike most in California, does not
charge a fee for filing an appeal. However, placing an appeal before the City Council requires
considerable work and cost, including agenda report preparation and public notification.
Therefore, your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an
appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be
notfed in writing of the exact date your appeal will be scheduled to be heard before the
Council. You or your representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be
prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes.
A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you
need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be
advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public,the
Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance
does not guarantee that it will be granted;that action is at the discretion of the City Council.
I hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when
said appeal is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council.
/ 3i(signatureAppellant (Date)
This item is hereby calendared for
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Department Head
Cityplerk(origin ,
�I
Page 2 of 3
,oro, �-