Loading...
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, �-