HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/03/2004, PH1 - CONSIDERATION OF A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT MAP WITH EXCEPTIONS TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, 378 GRAN council "�°7
A agenda RepoRt '-N-1-
CITY
—
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT MAP WITH
EXCEPTIONS TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, 378 GRAND
AVENUE (LLA 172-03).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt draft Resolution "A," approving a lot line adjustment, with exceptions to the Subdivision
Regulations, based on findings and subject to conditions.
DISCUSSION
Data Summary
Address: 378 Grand Avenue
Applicant: Jeff and Melissa Blue
Zoning/General Plan: R-1; Low Density Residential
Environmental status: Categorically exempt as a minor lot line adjustment not resulting in the
creation of any new parcel (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15305(a)).
Situation
The City has received an application for a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) map on a 13, 896 square
foot site located on the northeasterly comer of Grand Avenue and Hope Street (see Vicinity Map,
Attachment 1). This property consists of portions of 4 existing lots of record created in 1902
(Lots 1 through 4 in Block 27 of Phillips addition to the City of San Luis Obispo). The property
owners, Jeff and Melissa Blue, would like to consolidate and reconfigure the four existing lots
into two lots to resolve encroachments where the existing residence and garage cross property
lines (see Preliminary Lot Line Adjustment Map, Attachment 2).
The project has been evaluated for consistency with the City's General Plan, Zoning Regulations,
Subdivision Regulations and building codes and it has been determined that exceptions to lot
area and width are necessary to approve the request. Normally lot-line adjustment applications
are acted on by the Community Development Director without the need for a public hearing.
When exceptions are requested, the Subdivision Regulations require the application to be acted
on by the City Council.
Site &Proiect Description
The project site is rectangular in shape and consists of approximately 13,896 square feet and four
underlying lots. These lots are nonconforming because their sizes range from 2,300 square feet
Council Agenda Report—LLA 172-03
February 3,2004
Page 2
to 4,500 square feet and existing site improvements (residence, garage) span multiple lots. The
site and surrounding neighborhood is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and developed with
single-family residences. There is a mature 36-inch pine tree located in the front yard that would
not be affected by the proposed adjustment.
The project involves consolidating the four lots into two and reconfiguring the lot line separating
the parcels in a north to south direction with street frontage and access off Hope Street. The new
lot pattern will provide vehicle access from a local street and reduce the number of
nonconforming lots at the site from four to one. Currently, the lot lines run in an east to west
direction with frontage off an arterial street (Grand Avenue). Exceptions are needed to the
Subdivision Regulations for lot area and width so the existing residence would not need to be
moved or demolished to establish a lot line that resolves existing building encroachments and
accommodates a developable building site.
Requested Exceptions
The proposed lot line adjustment requires exceptions to the lot area and width requirements
established for the R-1 zoning district. These exceptions are identified in bold in Table I below.
Table 1: Comparison of Proposed Lots and R-1 Zoning District Standards
Municipal Code Requirements Proposed Project
Parcel A Parcel B
Minimum lot size: 6,000 square feet 8,089 square feet 5,807 square feet
Minimum lot depth: 90 feet 101 feet 99 feet
Minimum lot width(Interior Lot): 50 feet 80 feet N/A Comer Lot
Minimum lot width(Corner Lot): 60 feet N/A Interior Lot 59 feet
Minimum street frontage: 20 feet 80 feet 59 feet
Evaluation
The Subdivision Map Act limits a local agency's review of a lot line adjustment to a
determination of whether or not the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to
local zoning and building ordinances. Although exceptions are being requested, the Subdivision
Regulations provide a process for the City Council to approve exceptions if specific findings are
made. Recommended conditions of approval are intended to insure consistency with City codes
and policies and to insure compatibility with the existing neighborhood. The following is an
evaluation of the lot line adjustment proposal in terms of consistency with City policies and
standards and neighborhood compatibility.
A. Consistency with City Policies and Standards
In order to approve the requested exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations, the City Council
must make four.specific findings (SLOMC 16.48.020), as follows:
f 1 i
Council Agenda Report—LLA 172-03
February 3,2004
Page 3
1. That the property to be divided (adjusted) is of such size or shape, or is affected by such site
or topographic conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular
case,to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in this title.
While the site is not affected by severe topographic conditions, it is constrained by the
location of the existing residence. Specifically, the siting of the existing residence makes it
impractical and undesirable to conform with the strict application of the Subdivision
Regulations. The house would either have to be moved demolished or modified (i.e., a
portion cut-off) to provide a corner lot that meets the minimum standards for area and
width. The proposed reduction in lot width for Parcel B of approximately ]-foot would
allow the existing residence on Parcel A to comply with the setback standards established
for the zone. Also, the proposed size and shape of Parcel B can accommodate a typical
single family residence and comply with the property development standards (i.e., height,
setbacks, coverage, parking)for new construction without the need for further exceptions.
In addition, the proposed adjustment would consolidate the four nonconforming lots into
two lots (one conforming, one nearly conforming) consistent with surrounding properties.
2. That the cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not
the sole reason for granting the modification.
The proposed exceptions will not reduce any costs to the applicant of developing the
property. It will allow the existing residence to remain in its present location without the .
need for building demolition or relocation.
3. That the modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or
be injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
With the requested exceptions, the resulting parcels will be consistent with the lot area and
dimensions of other properties in the vicinity. A survey of surrounding parcel sizes shows
that many corner lots in the vicinity do not meet the minimum width and area standards
(see Attachment 3). Future development will need to comply with the City's Zoning
Regulations and Community Design Guidelines for new development, which addresses
architectural design, building height and setbacks, overlook and privacy, and protection of
solar access.. The Community Development Director has designated the proposed corner
parcel (Parcel B) as a "sensitive site" to ensure that future infill development will be
compatible with the scale and character of the existing neighborhood In addition, the
development of a single dwelling unit will not significantly increase traffic or adversely
affect circulation on Hope Street. Therefore, granting this modification will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to other properties in the
vicinity.
4. That granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations,
and is consistent with the general plan and with all applicable specific plans or other plans
of the city.
A- 3
1
Council Agenda Report—LLA 172-03
February 3,2004
Page 4
The lot line adjustment is consistent with the purpose of the Subdivision Regulations
because the proposed lot design will minimize conflicts between adjacent properties and
is designed to help support a desirable living environment on the site. The proposed
exceptions are consistent with the General Plan Housing Element Chapter LI 0, which
encourages the conservation of existing housing, the development and, retention of
housing on sites that are suitable for that purpose, and the production of a wide variety
of housing types. General Plan Circulation Element Policy 7.4 encourages driveway
access from local streets rather than arterial streets consistent with the proposed lot
pattern. Also, General Plan Land Use Element Policies 2.2.6 and 2.2.10 support
projects that are compatible with existing neighborhoods and development that occurs as
part of a neighborhood pattern. The proposed project is consistent with these Land Use
Element policies because the resulting lots are similar in size and dimension to other
properties in the neighborhood.
B. Neighborhood Compatibility
HAYES STREET
The project site is located in an established low density
residential neighborhood. A survey of parcels in this area $
indicates that a significant number of properties have lot
o
sizes less than 6,000 square feet and corner lot widths less
than 60-feet (see Attachment 3). The properties
immediately adjacent to the site have parcels of a similar G s
size, dimension and orientation. Additional properties R R
located in the residential blocks adjacent to the ones N v
illustrated to the right, also contain a significant number of ° 5
nonconforming lots (see Attachment 3). Based on this v MC COLLUM STREET s
information, staff finds that the proposed size and E _ ___ R
dimension of Parcels B is consistent with the lot pattern u _--_-__-I I -- ____ E
established in the neighborhood. E -.____ _ _ E
Conclusion ----- - - ----
Staff supports the proposed lot line adjustment for several ;- ----
reasons. 1) The lot line adjustment will not result in a e
greater number of lots then presently exists. 2) The HOPE STREET
adjustment will consolidate 4 nonconforming lots into 2
parcels (one conforming, one nearly conforming) and allow for one additional building site. 3)
The appearance of the lots from the street will be consistent with the pattern and spacing of
development in the vicinity and with the City's property development standards. 4)The resulting
corner lot will be of a similar size and shape as other corner lots in the vicinity. 5) Granting the
exception allows the existing house to remain in its present location, facilitates the construction
of much needed housing, and provides driveway access to a future development from a local
street, all of which are considered consistent with the General Plan. 6) Staff believes that no
useful purpose would be realized by strict compliance to the regulations given the minor nature
of the request. p
P"
I
Council Agenda Report—LLA 172-03
February 3,2004
Page 5
CONCURRENCES
The Public Works and Utilities Departments have reviewed the project and provided comments
that have been incorporated into the recommended resolution as conditions of approval or code
requirements.
FISCAL IMPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may approve the lot line adjustment with modified findings and/or
conditions.
2. The. Council may deny the lot line adjustment and or requested exceptions if the
necessary findings cannot be made.
3. The Council may continue discussion if additional information is needed. Direction
should be given to staff and the applicant.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Reduced scale Preliminary Lot Line Adjustment Map
3. Nonconforming lots in the surrounding neighborhood
4. Applicant's letter dated November 26, 2003
5. Draft Resolution"A" as recommended by staff
6. Alternative Draft Resolution`B"to deny the proposed project
G:\tcorey\CC\LLA 172-03\LLA 172-03 rpt.doc
I�
Attachment I
=JIM
=JIM
Milo
Sill
i
oil
VICINITY MAP LLA 172-03
Attachment 2
G ow
H Oil
A Fill;
to
All i 2ps 10
c a
;1g Ill I
.O ��L Y MI�ObI'I LVA •1fo110i WWI
10
as
' i 99
s
mem
all -04 fim
l .,
9 Rai � 11 - FREDEFOMS FTT9 a,
�� HOPE
gilV z
FM
G) IHR
11 N 0 EF=] �LM
LOT LOdE ADJUSTMENT '�° •'• �;t' ''°
.,. .+ tea iffNoMUMMA
SITE PL•.
Attachment 3
HAYS
n w w
A w w A A
AAAAAA AAAA.
AA.AA . AA AAAAw.
A.A
A . A
AAAAAA.
A . . A n ^
wAw w .Aw w wA .
.
AAA AAAA
A..A AAAAAA AAAAA^
w w n
MCCOLLUM
A A
A AAAAA /1 A
A A .
A A A^n
A rywAAAwAAAAAw
Z
Q LLJ C13
O
Z > AA.A. Ix
LLI
w^A A A
AAn nww
wAwAwAw
wA.A A T
. wAwA L
wAwAwAw
HOPE
AAAAnw
A AAA A A w A A F
w . . w w .
A
w w w w.A
A
..w .w AAAAAAAwAAAw w A
w w .
Aw..
n�wAw
w
A
. . .
A A A
AA^.AA A-A
A A.A A AAAA
LOOMIS
® 378 Grand Avenue (Project Site)
0 Nonconforming Lot Area
Nonconforming Lot Width N
200 0 200 Feet ('g
November 26, 2003
Planning Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Lot Line Adjustment, 378 Grand Avenue, San Luis Obispo
Jeff and Melissa Blue request that the City review and approve an
application for a lot line adjustment to their property at 378 Grand Avenue
in San Luis Obispo, APN 052-117-011, to create two new parcels from the
existing underlying lots.
The applicants request that the City approve an exception to the lot line
adjustment since the new Parcel B will be short one of the required (60' x
90') lot dimensions (it is proposed to be 58.75' x 97.87') and will be below
the minimum standard lot size of 6000 sf(it is proposed to be 5807 so. The
exception is necessary to maintain the proper setbacks from the existing
house on the proposed Parcel A and to keep from relocating the home to
create the minimum 60' lot dimension on the front parcel.
Sincerely,
i
taratteu�t
tFS10p{i411
805-543-6680 Jeff Blue Melissa Blue1135 Marsh Street
A
Son Luis Obispo e-t�
California 93401
fox 805-543-1198
� ' V
Attachment 5
RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH
EXCEPTIONS TO THE LOT AREA AND WIDTH
REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
378 GRAND AVENUE, (LLA 172-03).
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on February 3, 2004, and has
considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties and the evaluation and recommendation
of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed lot line adjustment and minor
subdivision exceptions are consistent with the Zoning and Building Regulations, and other
applicable City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the lot line adjustment is categorically exempt as
provided for by California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15305 Minor
Alterations in Land Use Limitations.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project
(LLA 172-03), the applicant's statement,staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the
following findings:
1. The lot line adjustment will not increase the number of parcels and complies with Section
66412(d)of the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Regulations.
2. With minor exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations, the resulting parcels from the lot
line adjustment will conform to the City's Zoning Regulations and building codes.
3. The site is physically suited to the type and density of development allowed in the R-1
zone.
4. The proposed lot line adjustment is categorically exempt from environmental review,
pursuant to Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines.
5. The property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such site or
topographic conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in this particular
case, to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in Title 16 of the
Municipal Code (Subdivision Regulations) because the site is constrained by the location
of an existing residence that would need to be moved, demolished or modified to provide
Attachment 5
Resolution No. (2004 Series)
Page 2
a corner lot that meets the minimum standards for area and width.
6. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the
sole reason for granting the modification because the adjustment will consolidate four
nonconforming lots into two lots (one conforming, one nearly conforming), which
provides for one additional building site that is consistent with surrounding properties,
and allows the existing residence to remain in its present location without the need for
building demolition or relocation.
7. The modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be
injurious to other properties in the vicinity since the resulting parcels are consistent with
the lot area and dimensions of other properties in the vicinity and future development will
need to comply with the Zoning Regulations and Community Design Guidelines for new
development.
8. Granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations,
and is consistent with the general plan and with all applicable specific plans or other
plans of the City because the proposed lot design will minimize conflicts between
adjacent properties and is designed to help support a desirable living environment on the
site.
SECTION 2. Approval. The request for approval of the Lot Line Adjustment(LLA 172-
03) with exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations for lot area and width, is hereby approved
subject to the following conditions.
Conditions:
1. All future development on the affected properties shall comply with the provisions of the
Zoning Regulations, including building height, setbacks, lot coverage and parking.
2. The lot line adjustment shall be finalized with either a parcel map or a lot line adjustment
agreement. If the agreement is pursued, the applicant shall submit a "Declaration of Lot
Line Adjustment", along with the recording and processing fees, and an 8 r/s" x 11" map
exhibit suitable for recording, to the Public Works Director for review, approval and
recordation, based on samples available in the Community Development Department.
3. A separate exhibit showing all existing public and private utilities shall be approved to
the satisfaction of Community Development Director and Public Works Director prior to
recordation of the LLA. The utility plan shall include water, sewer, storm drains, gas,
electricity, telephone, cable TV, and any utility company meters for each parcel if
applicable. Any utility relocations shall be completed with proper permits prior to
recordation of the LLA. Otherwise, easements shall be prepared and recorded to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director, Public Works Director and serving
utility companies.
f, 1
Attachment 5
Resolution No. (2004 Series)
Page 3
4. Building setbacks, eave overhangs, exterior wall protection, utility locations, and utility
relocations or easements if applicable shall be shown to comply with all codes and
ordinances for all properties included in the LLA to the satisfaction of the Building
Official.
Informational Note:
1. The corner parcel (Parcel B) has been designated as a "sensitive site" by the Community
Development Director to ensure that future infill development will be compatible with
the scale and character of the existing neighborhood. An application for Architectural
Review will be required in accordance with Municipal Code Section 2.48.050.
On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 3`d day of February, 2004.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
City Clerk.Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney onathan Lowell
I � � ol
- Attachment 6
RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO DENYING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH
EXCEPTIONS TO THE LOT AREA AND WIDTH
REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
378 GRAND AVENUE, (LLA 172-03).
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on February 3, 2004, and has
considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties and the evaluation and recommendation
of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed lot line adjustment and minor
subdivision exceptions are not consistent with the Zoning and Building Regulations, and other
applicable City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the lot line adjustment is categorically exempt as
provided for by California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15305 Minor
Alterations in Land Use Limitations.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project
(LLA 172-03), the applicant's statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the
following findings:
[Council specifies findings]
SECTION 2. Denial. The Lot Line Adjustment at 378 Grand Avenue (LLA 172-03) 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 P day of February, 2004.
1 � � 3
Attachment 6
Resolution No. (2004 Series)
Page 2
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Jonathan Lowell
i r 1 'k
f AT M ING AGr`iDA
D
RECEIVED JbA
CCuNCIL er' CDD DIR
SEB 0 0 2091 1840 Hope Street g-CAO FIN DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 9R@SAO
SLO CITY CLERK ATTORNEY e,PW DIR
January 31, 2004 ja'CLERK/ORIG ZPOUCECt
DEPT HEADS >r REC DIR
5�-- 1 21 U?IL DIR
Mayor and City Council ^
City Hall Re: 052-117-012 FILE #172-03
990 Palm Street 378 Grand Avenue, San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo, CA California
Dear Mayor and City Council:
I own property at 1840 Hope Street, which abuts subject property, and 1890 Hope St.
My property will probably be most seriously impacted by the proposed exceptions to
Subdivision tiFan rds regarding minimum width and area, both of which were presumably
adopted for good reason. If neither of them need apply, revise said standards to be
met in this regard all over the City of San Luis Obispo and not for just one property
owner who was aware of the problem when he purchased said property less than a year
and one-half ago. (Escrow 9-5-02).
I thought the neighboring property owners were to be given a 30-day notice of said
hearing regarding exceptions to Subdivision standards. The first that I heard of
this matter was less than two weeks ago, which precluded a thorough investigation of
the matter by me.
I take exception to what I consider a very biased staff report, some of the somewhat
deceptive, in my opiniaie statements in the first and second paragraphs on Page 4
state. that the resultin4 lots are similar in size and dimension to other properties
in the neighborhood. Except for the property next tD378 Grand Avenue that was built
prior to 1959 when we purchased our 1840 Hope St. property on which our Cal Vet loan
hone was constructed-was in place and presumably .vas _allowed prior to the adoption
cf the-resent SubdLyisirn standards. We were told that the minimum lot size required
at least 60 feet in width and 6000 square feet and it was necessary to
.have a portion of a second lot to meet this criteria. From the lots depicted on Page
p. the report, it appears that-:both my 1890 Hope St. property and that abutting that
Property on Graves Street include four separate lots and certainly has presented no
problem to my knowledge. All of the corner lots in the square block in which subject
property. is .7 ted .exceed- the present .Subdivision standards. In view of this fact,
the Staff Report regir&ncr Neighbornood Compatibility is in error and the properties
immediately adjacent.to Oe site have parcels of similar size, dimension and orientation
is in error. The map on Page 4, of the Staff Report clearly shows that that is true
of the present site, but is NOT CORRECT if the exception is pexmitted.and the proposed
size and dimension of Parcel B IS NOT consistent with the lot pattern established in
the neighborhood. I'll addition Item 3) under conclusion that "The appearance of the
lots from the street will be consistent(wth;.•t3'e pattern and spacing of development in
the vicinity . and with the City's propeerty, 15bvelopment standards is incorrect and 4)
the resulting corner lotwill be of similar size and shape as other corner lots in the
vicinity,. (the square block in which subject property is located) is contrary t^ the
truth, as can be seen on the map shown on Page 4 of the Staff Report.
Item 2 on Page 3 of the Staff Report is deception at its best. As I understand it,
the Cit-,,T will. be literally giving Dr. Blue one or two huncir-ed thousand(s) of dollars,
because if the exceptions are not granted, the owner will not be able to develop the
property and the price of lots apparently is into the hundreds &Ftftou.^,ands of do �lars.
The Staff Report's statement that the cost to the subdivider cE strict-or literal.
a
i
Mayor and City Council 2 January 31, 2004
compliance with the regulations is not the sole reason for granting the modification
and the proposed exceptions. will not reduce any costs to the applicant of developing
the property is almost beyond belief. It is 100% to the property owners' financial
benefit that these exceptions be granted even though they should have been aware of
this development problem when the property was purchased less than a year and one-half
ago.
SOMETHING THAT THE STAFF REPORT OMITTED THAT IS OF SIGNIFICANCE, IN MY OPINION, IS
THE,.cuRRwr.:FLAN m REMOvE THE LARGE PORCH AND STEPS IN FRONT OF THE CURRENT DWELLING
AND MDVE THE ENTRANCE OVER TO THE HOPE ST. SIDE OF THE HOUSE'. THIS SHOULD HAVE THE
ADDRESS OF PARCEL A ON HOPE STREET AND PARCEL B WOULD REMAIN AS 378 GRAND AVENUE.
There is a parking problem associated with the present site and it will be exacerbated
if the exceptions-• are granted. The present site has a driveway about 10' x 20' and
the Blue's own a large SUV-type vehicle, a Porsche, and a bright yellow car, as well
as a long trailer parked within inches of my fence and just off the concrete slab
driveway and it extends several .feet into the "designated" sidewalk area, which makes
it difficult for me to reach the street on the right side of my house when people park
in front of and block my utility sidewalk. Blue.=s cars are also parked in the "desig-
nated: " sidewalk area. Needless to say, when all occupants are at home, usually two of
the cars are parked on the street, so this parking problem will undoubtedly not im-
prove if the exceptions are granted. Also, this is a "Permit Parking" area.
Also Grand Avenue is a secondary entrance to Cal Poly University and since the City
has chosen not to put a traffic light or stop sign between Monterey St. and the Uni-
versity, it is already hazardous to cross Grand Avenue from the side streets and this
traffic problem will become worse. if the entrance to Parcel B is near the corner on
Hope St. or affects the cars, bicyclists or persons walking on the sidewalk if on Grand.
The No.. 3 statement on Page 3 of the Staff Report that "granting the modification will
not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to other
properties in the vicinity" is vehemently disagreed with, as noted above.
In addition to the above, the owners of the property are already creating a safety
problem by not complying with the 3'. hedge height along the street and it is probably
about 3 times that high in a large:.portion of it and even that portion near the corner
exceeds this maximum height. A person could easily stand behind the-hedge unseen
until too latefcr .the young girls walking down the street.
Again, if there is a good reason to require minimum requirements for width and area
for corner lots, either make them mandatory or revise them to what minumuns should
be throughout the City and not make exceptions on one of the most well used streets
in the City to cause more problemsfor the residents on the eastern side of Grand
Avenue who wish to go downtown or enter the nearby freeway.
I also believe thAt i_t is incumbent upon .the City to progress in complying
with present Subdivision standards adopted to improve land development
and not regress toward the lack of such standards in this overall area
that existed prior to being annexed to the City and Cal Poly :rnlv hard
a few thousand students . andthe current traffic problems on Guand Avenue
woe: ..*on-existent.
T. can see -no logical reason, other- than f.inancially--bene fit-t if ii.g one of .ith' citizens,
at the expense of other residents in the area and those persons using' Hope Street. and
i
Mayor and City Council 3 January 31, 2004
Grand Avenue, for approving the proposed exemptions to the Subdivision regulations
in this instance. All of us have survived the current regulations for decades and
if they have any credence, don't make exemptions to reward a property owner which
should have been aware of the problems involved when it purchased the property less
than eighteen months ago.
It is realized that the City Council is very anxious to have building sites available.
However, making an exception to allow one additional homeon a corner- of QE of the
streets with one of the highest volumes of traffic at certain periods when the Uni-
�a;sity students are not on vacation not to comply with standards that are supposedly
necessary and/or desirable in less sensitive areas and must be complied with by other
comparable property awrxs'.Mikes little or no.sense. to the owner of two properties
that it is felt will be most adversely impacted by such exceptions.
It may not be true, but it is believed that it will be somewhat unique if two parcels
on one property have different addresses. As noted above, if the entrance to the
present dwelling is roved from Grand Avenue to Hope Street, it would appear that
the address of Parcel A should be on Hope Street, whereas..that of Parcel B will remain
:on Grand Avenue.
1-regret that due to the short period of time between receipt of the notice of the-
proposed exemptions and this hearing, as well as the fact that I had a very severe
cold during most of the past two weeks, I have been unable to adequately investigate
the proposed action and prepare a more comprehensive and persuasive written communi-
cation for review by the City Council as to why the proposed exemptions should not be
granted. This is particularly important due to the three minute maximum oral presenta-
tion policy of the City Council and presumably this document will not be read by most
if not all members of the City Council before it takes action regarding these exemptions.
It is requested that this comiunication be made a part of records of this Daring, as
�•Ae71 as a part of the Planning Department's File #172-03 listed above pertaining to
,. this matter.
Very truly yourp,
MARKET L. SIGE SON
CYDNEY HOLCOMB 805 594 0965 02!03/04 04:15pm P. 002
w O
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
P.O. Box 12604 - San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 R
ECEIVED
2004
LERK
February 3, 2004 Faxed to: 781-7109
MEETING DATE: February 3, 2004
ITEM *: PH-1
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT MAP WITH EXCEPTIONS TO THE
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, 378 GRAND AVENUE (LLA-172-03).
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
RQN supports the recommendation to approve a lot line adjustment with exceptions to the
lot area and width requirements for the property located at 378 Grand Avenue, for the
following reasons:
Parcel B will be declared a asensitive site" meaning any future development will
undergo specific design review to ensure its compatibility with the existing
neighborhood;
Both parcels will have separate driveways and will be accessed from Hope Street;
and,
The lot line adjustment producing the one non-conforming lot (Parcel B) will allow
the existing home to remain as situated on the property and meet required set back
standards.
For many years this property has suffered from neglect and disrepair. The applicants, Jeff
and Melissa Blue, have been painstakingly refurbishing this lovely old home for many
months and when completed it will be wonderful Improvement for the neighborhood. We
support their efforts.
Respectfully submitted,
Cydney Holcomb
Chairperson, RQN A44
/COUNCIL Z
- CDDIR
,i CAO R RED FILE
c. Tyler Corey, CDD Z ACAo HIEF MEETING AGENDA
ZATTORNEY
B'CLERK ORIG CHF DATE�¢� ITEM #1PN
El DEPT HEADS IR
X
IR