HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/04/1990, 2 - CONSIDERATION OF A TENATIVE MAP FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION CREATING TWO LOTS FROM ONE LOT AT THE NORTH 91 I+ II 'f�� o(� `IGINAL AGENDA REPORT FROM 8/7/'
"J r MEETING OATS:
Cl
�IIII san LUIS 0131s1)0 ITEM NUMBER:
NNaMp COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FROM: Arnold Jonas Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Greg Smith, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Consideration of a tentative map for a minor subdivision
creating two lots from one lot at the northeast end of
Sydney Street at the northeast city limit.
CAO RECOIDUM ATIOH:
Adopt the attached draft resolution denying the tentative map
for Minor Subdivision MS 90-127, based on findings recommended
by the Subdivision Hearing Officer.
REPORT IN BRIEF
The Hearing Officer recommended the council deny the tentative
map, determining that the requested exceptions to subdivision
and grading regulations were not justified. Staff concurs
with that determination.
The subdivider argues that the subdivision would be very
similar to other development the city has approved in the
vicinity.
The steepness of the site, its prominent location, the
existence of wetland habitat and the possible extension of
Sydney Street are evaluated in the staff report.
DISCUSSION:
Background
The Subdivision Hearing officer conducted a hearing on this
application on June 22, 1990, and recommended denial based on the
findings noted in the attached minutes of that meeting and draft
council resolution. The Hearing Officer's action on the tentative
map is in the form of a recommendation to the council, since only
the council may approve exceptions to standards contained in the
city's Subdivision Regulations.
Data Summary
owner/Subdivider: Casey O'Conner
Representative: Engineering Development Associates
Zoning: R-1
General Plan: Low Density Residential
Environmental Status: Mitigated negative declaration approved by
Director.
Project Action Deadline: September 11, 1990
MS 90-127
Page 2
Site Description
43,491-square-foot lot (0.998 acre) located between the east city
limit and the east end of Sydney Street. The lot has an average
cross slope of 27%. and a seasonal drainage swale crosses the site.
Approximately 2250 square feet of the site is occupied by willows
associated with the swale; the remainder of the site supports
introduced grasses, which have been grazed and/or mowed. Old
chicken coops are located on the lower elevations of the property.
The site is surrounded by houses on lots of 7000 square feet to
five acres in size.
EVALUATION
The subdivider proposes to create two lots, which would be served
by an existing private road. Extensive grading is proposed to
enlarge an existing flat pad on Lot 1, which was graded in the
past. The subdivider proposes to dedicate an open space easement
to the city above the 460-foot contour. That elevation reflects
the city's water service limit for the area, and development is
not normally allowed above the water service limit.
The subdivider proposes various exceptions to the city's
subdivision and grading regulations:
1. The subdivider proposes two lots on .94 net acre -
approximately 2.1 units per acre.
A maximum density of one lot per net acre is normally
allowed, based on the site's slope of 27% (as calculated
by the City Engineer) . Two lots per net acre are allowed
on sites which have a slope of 21-25%.
2. The site does not have frontage on a city street. A
forty-foot frontage is normally required for a flag lot
subdivision.
3. Flag lots may be approved only where it is not feasible
to develop the site by use of a standard street. Also,
the "stem" portion of the flag lot is not counted toward
net lot area, and the stem is to be owned in fee by the
furthest lot from the public street.
4. Based on the average cross slope, not more than 10$ of
the site may be graded unless an exception to the city's
Grading Ordinance is approved.
MS 90-127
Page 3
Staff suggests the council evaluate the following issues in
reviewing the tentative map:
1. General Plan Policies
The Housing Element and Land Use Element include policies
supporting infill developments as a means of avoiding the need for
development in expansion areas. The Land Use Element also includes
policies which encourage residential development to be compatible
with natural topography and existing and desired neighborhood
character.
2. Appropriate Lot Size
The city's Subdivision Regulations include standards for lot sizes
which vary with the average cross slope of the site. For this R-
1 site, with its average slope of 27%, the standards call for one
lot per acre. Thus, the net area of the site is smaller than the
are required for a single conforming lot. Since public and/or
private roadways are excluded from the net lot area calculation,
the average lot size proposed is somewhat less than half the normal
requirement.
The Subdivision Regulations require that the council make four
special findings if exceptions to the standards are approved:
1. The topography of the property to be subdivided is such
that it is undesirable to comply with the strict
application of the Subdivision Regulations.
2. The cost to the subdivider is not the sole reason for the
exceptions.
3. The requested exceptions will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or be injurious to
other properties in the vicinity.
4. Granting the exceptions requested is consistent with the
intent of the Subdivision Regulations, and is consistent
with the General Plan.
The Hearing Officer concluded that those findings could not be made
with regard to the lot size exception request, and staff concurs
with that determination.
3. Extent of Grading Proposed
The city's Grading Ordinance also includes standards based on the
site's average slope, and requires special findings for exceptions
to those standards:
MS 90-127
Page 4
1. The exception to the Grading Regulations is subject to
conditions of approval which assure that the it does not
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations upon other properties in the same
vicinity.
2. Due to special circumstances which apply to the property,
including its topography, location and surroundings, the
strict literal application of the Grading Regulations
would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed
by other properties in the vicinity .
3. The grading exception is consistent with the intent of
the Grading Regulations as set out in Section 15.44.020
of the Municipal Code (attached) .
Again, the Hearing Officer determined that the findings could not
be supported, and staff concurs.
4. Visual Impacts
Structures on the new lots would be prominent, particularly as
viewed from surrounding lots. Both new lots should be designated
as sensitive lots - ARC review required - if the subdivision is
approved.
5. Vegetation/Wildlife Impacts
The existing willows on the site are considered by the state
Department of Fish and Game to be significant seasonal wetlands.
Replacement at a ratio of 1-1/2:1 will be required for areas
disturbed by culvert extension or other grading. Refer to the
attached initial study for more detailed analysis.
6. Sydney Street Extension
The council must find that it is not feasible to extend Sydney
Street if the private easement is to be approved as the access to
Lot 2.
Planning and Engineering staffs see no physical obstacle to
extending the public portion of the street, and recommend that
Sydney Street be extended far enough to serve the building site on
the uphill lot if the subdivision is approved. The existing
private access road improvements are close to city standards.
Getting the right-of-way needed for extension could ultimately
involve use of the city's powers of condemnation, since it involves
an off-site dedication requirement.
�-Al
MS 90-127
Page 5
The public street should not be extended to provide access to
property outside the city; which is designated for
conservation/open space uses on the city's General Plan.
The proposed subdivision does not comply with access requirements
of the city's Fire Prevention Regulations, since it does not
provide a means for fire trucks to turn around. The Fire
Department has indicated they could support installation of
residential fire sprinklers in new structures as an alternate means
of fire suppression, although this would have less benefit to
surrounding properties than provision of an adequate turnaround
would. A "hammerhead" turnaround using the driveway to Lot 2 might
be feasible, but an unobstructed flat area 20 feet wide and 40 feet
long would be needed.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TARING RECOMMENDED ACTION
If the council denies the subdivision request, one house could be
built on the existing lot under current zoning regulations. An
exception to Grading Ordinance standards might be required to make
development feasible.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
The owner of the adjacent, uphill property spoke at the Subdivision
Review Hearing. She questioned whether two lots constituted an
appropriate density for the site, but indicated that the open space
easement might make it a plan that could be lived with.
CONCURRENCES
Comments by the City Engineer, Fire Department, and Department of
Fish and. Game are noted above. The City Engineer further
recommends that the tentative map be revised to show dedication of
the Sydney Street extension and other ordinance requirements prior
to approval.
The Subdivision Hearing Officer's action is noted above and in the
attachments.
ALTMMTIVSB
The council may approve or deny the tentative map, or may continue
the map with direction to staff and the applicant regarding
additional information or revisions needed. The subdivider Is
agreement to an extension of processing time should be obtained if
the map is continued, to insure that action deadlines are met.
�-5
MS 90-127
Page 6
BBCO�TD�TION
Staff recommends the council adopt the attached draft resolution
denying the tentative map for Minor Subdivision MS 90-127, based
on findings adopted by the Subdivision Hearing Officer.
Staff has also prepared a resolution containing suggested
conditions, if the council decides to approve the tentative map.
Attachments: Draft Resolutions for approval, denial
Vicinity Map
Tentative Map
Subdivider's Statement
Subdivision Hearing Minutes
Initial Study ER 10-90
gtsd:ms90l27c.wp
0 RESOLUTION NO. (1990 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO DENYING THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR MINOR
SUBDIVISION NO. 9.0-127 LOCATED AT 1815 SYDNEY STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, as
follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration
of the tentative map of Minor Subdivision No. 90-127 and the
Community Development Director's recommendations, staff
recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The design of, the subdivision is inconsistent with the general.
plan policies for development of hillside areas.
2. The site is not physically. suited ' for the density of
development proposed.
3. The design of the subdivision does not conform to the minimum
frontage and lot size standards of the city's Subdivision
Regulations, and circumstances_ which would justify approval
of exceptions do not exist.
SECTION 2. Action. The tentative parcel map for Minor
Subdivision No. 90-127 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 day of
1990.
C
2-7
Page 2 �
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk Pam Voges
APPROVED:
City Administrative Officer
City Attorney
Community Development Director
APPROVED:
City A inist tive, fficer
t t k- b
ou -
�.
Community Devel ent Director
RESOLUTION NO. (1990 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE MAP FOR MINOR
SUBDIVISION NO. 90-127 LOCATED AT 1815 SYDNEY STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration
of the tentative map of Minor Subdivision No. 90-127, and the
Community Development Director's recommendations, staff
recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements are
consistent with the general plan.
2. - The site is physically suited for the type and density of
development allowed in the R-1 zone.
3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements
are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat.
4. The design of the subdivision or the. type of improvement will
not conflict with easements for access through, or use of
property within, the proposed subdivision.
5. The Community Development Director has determined that the
proposed subdivision will not have a significant effect on the
environment and has granted a mitigated negative declaration.
The mitigation measures are incorporated in the conditions of
approval for the tentative map by reference.
SECTION 2. Exceptions. Density of 2.1 lots .per net acre
where one lot per acre is allowed; 0-foot frontage for Lot 1 where
40-foot frontage is required. (Note: Applies only if street
dedication is waived) . Grading of 30$ of the site area where
grading of only 10% is allowed.
C
z-9
4'
Resolution No. (1990 Series)
MS 90-127
Page 2
Findings for Excer)tions
1. The topography of the property to be subdivided is such that
it is undesirable to comply with the strict application of
the Subdivision Regulations.
2. The cost to the subdivider is not the sole reason for the
exceptions.
3. The requested exceptions will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or be injurious to other
properties in the vicinity.
4. Granting the exceptions requested is consistent with the
intent of the Subdivision Regulations, and is consistent with
the general plan.
5. The exception to the Grading Regulations is subject to
conditions of approval which assure that the it does not
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity.
6. Due to special circumstances which apply to the property, ',
including its topography, location and surroundings, the
strict literal application of the Grading Regulations would
deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity .
7. The grading exception is consistent with the intent of the
Grading Regulations as set out in Section 15.44.020 of the
Municipal Code.
SECTION 3. Conditions. That the approval of the tentative
map for Minor Subdivision No. 89-135 be subject to the following
conditions:
1. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the Community
Development Director for approval and recordation.
2. The subdivider shall dedicate land on- and off-site for
extension of the Sydney Street right-of-way, to a point
approximately 220 feet northeast of its present termination.
Right-of-way -shall be 5o feet in width, and shall follow the
approximate alignment of the 50' private access easement shown
on the map.
i
;L'/0
Resolution No. (1990 Series)
MS 90-12.7
Page 3
3. The subdivider shall install curbs and gutters on both sides
of Sydney Street extended, and shall install paving 36 feet
in width, in accordance with city standards and to the
approval of the City Engineer.
4. The subdivder shall comply with the following mitigation
measures required under application ER 10-90:
a. At the time of development, the driveway for Lot 2
shall be constructed to city standards to provide a
fire truck turnaround.
b. A separate water allocation for compensatory
landscaping shall be obtained prior to issuance of any
grading permit, if water allocation regulations are
still in effect at that time.
• c. Grading shall be approved by a soils engineer or
certified geologist.
d. Compensatory planting of willows or other suitable.
riparian landscaping shall be provided at a ratio of
U 1.5:1 o mitigate effects of disturbing areas currently
occupied by such growth.
5. The subdivider shall dedicate to the city an open space
easement over that portion of the site above the 460-foot
elevation. The easement shall be shown on the final map,
and recorded concurrently with the final map in a form_
approved by the Community Development Director. The
easement shall prohibit solid fencing, structures, and
grading; and shall provide for maintenance of the area in a
substantially natural condition.
6. Both lots are hereby designated as sensitive sites, and any
proposed development shall be subject to approval of the
Architectural Review Commission.
7. The subdivider shall dedicate to the city a creek drainage
and maintenance easement, to the approval of the City
Engineer. All new culverts, inlets, etc. , within the
easement and/or new right-of-way shall be constructed, and
existing drainage improvements shall be modified if
necessary, to the approval of the City Engineer.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
Resolution No. (1990 Series)
MS 90-127
Page 4
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1990.
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk, Pam Voges
APPROVED:
City Ad inis a ive fficer
t t ney
6t- ra-�
Community Deve op t Director
J
t -12-L
o
C tisr 0 �.
o �\
0 l27
.,
f' ap. '4w�0.' N M•I• '
r`•
13-R 't ^� •Ee •��
.,,.,-, - .fTY LIMITS�S o � � �,,...., 1�1■111,1■1■1■i■l■1
"1%4.I 0
C
0 low
0
O• ! •''P '� ��
s o O
=W
i
w ^ r
L-13- L L-14-I
Wt 1e I I LB 1D
trrrc ra! !�� •
K;1\
� ice– —�_.— -- --•—=---.— ./
IWWWL
wi
L7la
v�a+uau mnu.
*rci
t�1
(is
5 it
1
t F ,
r� ➢• 1 bi 'S tt to
1 j 1«f 11 tiff
F lipf
� I
Un 14 Uff lb
wuanau Taaauly ' I TIL-W
taaal • i'I' I �
•Ir«.ra w.
10
� l I . .'
i
�G- '.
......gin. .- _ a«««L Waa -� ♦ .
Lvr a
va+rw+a�at•aln+allTuna.
•• •! tri
y ��jjfititi!(S�i •�; ��.
,ia •`; � if = Vii ' f�?IpR`�i•�
6tijiii,I� i� !
i t ii lif u E fit' 1
DEVELOPER'S STATEMENT
FOR
SLO 90-127
This is the developer's statement for SLO 90-127 a subdivision of Lot 12 of the Goldtree
Vineyard Tract in the City of San Luis Obispo. The purpose of this submittal is to divide
the existing one-acre parcel into two parcels. Parcel One will be approximately 12,000
square feet. Parcel Two will be approximately 31,491 square feet.
The parcel is currently zoned R-1, single family residential. No change to the existing
zoning is proposed. The parcel is located at the easterly end of Sydney Street in the city
of San Luis Obispo.
The site will be serviced by extending existing water and sewer utilities located within the
right-of-way of Sydney Street. Water and sewer laterals will be extended to service both
parcels one and two of the proposed subdivision. An existing 54-inch storm drain
currently directs runoff towards the southwesterly comer of the site which affects parcel
one.
Improvements will include extending the existing 54-inch storm drain to the southwesterly
part of the parcel and construct a headwall. Access to the site is currently provided by
a private access easement. This easement will be retained and will provide access to
both parcels. In addition, the easement will be expanded in use to provide for all utilities
to be contained within a public utilities easement.
E % G ! NEERING - LAND SURVEYING • PROJ .ECT ADMINISTRATION
1320 NI-POMO STREET - SAN LUIS .0-B 15P.0 CA .805:- 549 . 86&58
city of San lues OBISpo
� 7�Ilillllll `�� il'i�liil; l►I,
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION APPLICATION NO.:ffb
PROJECTI)ESCRI IN
APPLICANT(��
F RECOMMENDATION:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INIT L STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY DATE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: DATE
ma4lTw tSalmir-pw
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
IL POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ...................................................
�
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH .......................................
C. LAND USE .......................................................................
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ..............................................
E. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................
F. UT1LfTIES.............................................0.........................
G. NOISE LEVELS ...................................................................
H. GEOLOGIC d SEISMIC HAZARDS 3 TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS ..................0-
L AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS...............................................
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY ..............................................
KPLANT LIFE.......................................................................
L ANIMAL LIFE.....................................................................
M. ARCHAEOLOGICALJHISTORICAL.....................
N. AESTHETIC ..........................................................
0. ENERGYIRESOURCE USE ..........................................................
P. OTHER ..........................................................................
of.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT 2--17ma
ER 10-90
Page 2
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project consists of dividing a 43,491-square-foot lot into lots
of 12,000 square feet and 31,491 square feet, grading to create a
building site on the smaller lot, and culverting approximately 100
linear feet of a storm drainage channel which crosses the smaller
lot. The site is currently zoned R-1, and it is expected that a
house would be built on each of the resulting lots.
In addition to the tentative parcel map, the project involves
variances to lot size and extent of grading allowed by city
regulations, and a streambed alteration permit from the State
Department of Fish and Game.
A seasonal drainage swale crosses the site. Approximately 2250
square feet of the site is occupied by willows associated with the
swale; the remainder of the site supports introduced grasses, which
have been grazed and/or mowed. A chicken coop is located on the
property.
The chicken coop and willows would be removed as part of the
project.
The site is surrounded by houses on lots of 7000 square feet to
five acres in size. The northeast property line coincides with the
northeasterly city limit.
II. POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW
D. Transportation and Circulation
Access to the site would be via an existing private access road
with a pavement width of 27 feet in a 50-foot access easement. The
private road serves an existing house located outside the city
limits.
The City Engineer has recommended requiring dedication of a city
street over the easement. The public right-of-way would not be
extended far enough to provide access to potential future
development beyond the city limits.
E. Public Services
The site lies within the four-minute response area for the fire
station located at Laurel Lane. It may be necessary to construct
the driveway at lot 2 as a turn-around for fire trucks, to meet
requirements for emergency accessibility.
F. Utilities -
i
The upper portion of the site is above the reliable water service
ER 10-90
O Page 3
limit for that .portiori of the city (elevation 4601 ) . •It will be
feasible to construct a residence on each of the two proposed lots
below that elevation, however.
The city's total annual water use exceeds the safe annual yield,
and water reserves have been seriously depleted by four consecutive
drought years. The city has adopted. emergency water allocation
regulations which require a project to retrofit existing structures
with water-conserving devices adequate to offset the new project's
use by a factor of two. These regulations are expected to mitigate
cumulative adverse effects on availability of water which might
otherwise occur.
The compensatory willow planting discussed below would require at
least seasonal irrigation for several years after installation.
The amount of added water use would fall within the normal range
of landscape water use after development of the lots, and would not
be great enough to constitute a significant adverse impact.
H. Geologic and Seismic Hazards and Topographic Modifications
Extensive grading is proposed on the lower portion of the site.
Soils in the vicinity are generally stable, and it appears feasible
to accomplish the proposed grading without creating hazardous
conditions. However, any grading should be done in accordance with
the recommendations of a soils engineer or geologist. Since this
is required by the city's grading regulations, no further
mitigation is needed.
The grading regulations require that 90% of the site remain
ungraded unless it can be shown that application of that standard
would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity, and that the requested exception is
consistent with the intent of the grading regulations. While it
is not clear that the special findings can be made to allow 30% of
the site to be graded as proposed, the issue will be considered at
a public hearing conducted by the city council. No further
mitigation is required, since failure to comply with this policy
on a small infill project is not judged to constitute a significant
effect.
J. Surface water Flow and Quality
The project involves extension of an existing culvert approximately
100 feet along the course of a seasonal creekbed. The creek enters
another culvert approximately 100 feet downstream.
Since the creek has been culverted both upstream and downstream
from the project, the culvert extension is not judged to have a
significant effect on surface water flow or quality.
l
ER 10-90
Page 4
R. Plant Life
Approximately 2250 square feet of the site is •occupied by mature
willows. The willow growth extends across the site to contiguous
property downstream. Most of the willow growth area on the project
site would be disturbed by the proposed grading and culvert
extension.
Cumulative elimination of wetlands - including seasonal streambeds
with .riparian vegetation such as the willow growth on the site -
has been identified as a cumulative adverse impact on a statewide
basis. The Department of Fish and Game has adopted regulations
which require compensatory planting and irrigation of any disturbed-
willow
isturbedwillow growth area at a ratio of 1.5:1. Since the existing willows
do not appear to constitute critical habitat for any wildlife
species, and since similar habitat areas are available within a few
hundred feet of the project site, no significant adverse impact
will occur.
The 3375 square feet of compensatory planting will require about
ten to twenty thousand gallons of irrigation water per year,
initially, and somewhat less after several years. This would
roughly correspond to the amount required for a lawn area of 500
to 1000 square feet.
N. Aesthetic
The additional building mass of a second house on the site might
result in view blockages for properties adjoining the site, or
within a few hundred feet, but would be unlikely to significantly
affect longer range views of the site. - The level of impact is not
judged to be significant.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The following mitigation measures should be incorporated in the
project description:
1. At the time of development, the driveway for Lot 2 shall
be constructed to city standards to provide a fire truck
turnaround.
2. Subdivider shall be required to obtain a separate water
allocation for compensatory landscaping prior to issuance
of any grading permit, if water allocation regulations
are still in effect at that time.
3 . Grading shall be approved by a soils engineer or
certified geologist.
4 . Subdivider shall provide compensatory planting of willows
or other suitable riparian landscaping at a ratio of
1.5:1 to mitigate effects of disturbing areas currently
occupied by such growth.
gtsd:erl090.wp
CI DIRECTOR'S SUBDIVISION HEARING - MINUTES
FRIDAY JUNE 22, 1990
1815 Sydney street. Minor Subdivision No. MS 90-127; Consideration
of a tentative parcel map creating two lots
from one lot; R-1 zone; Casey O'Conner,
subdivider.
Greg Smith presented the staff report, noting that the proposed lot
split would create two lots from one lot. These new lots would not
be of equal size; lot 1 would. be 12,000 square feet in area and Lot
2 would be 31,491 square feet in area. Neither lot would meet the
minimum requirement of one acre which is specified by the
Subdivision Regulations. In reviewing the circumstances
surrounding the subdivision, Mr. Smith explained that staff does
not see justification for the exception to lot size or the
exceptions requested to the lot frontage requirement or to the
exception which is to the city's Grading Regulations. He stated
that staff recommends the subdivision be denied. He further noted
staff has suggested some possible findings and conditions which
might be considered by the Hearing Officer if he wishes to
recommend approval. He outlined the suggested findings and
conditions.
C ,
The public hearing was opened.
Dan Lloyd, subdivider's representative, spoke in support of the
request. He explained that the site, as shown on the map, is
almost a one-acre parcel that has been graded severely in the past,
which raises the question as to what really is the appropriate
cross-slope for the property. Mr. Lloyd had concerns with the fact
that an access road has been placed on the property, and that
grading has been accomplished to handle some drainage issues as
well as provide pad or stepped areas for what appeared to be pens
for chickens or small animals. He felt the site has been abused
seriously in the past, in topographic terms.
Mr. Lloyd explained that he is very familiar with the city's slope
evaluation criteria based on the weighted average method, he felt
that it is an inappropriate means by which to evaluate slope
because of the severely altered condition of the property. He
further explained that he took the straight-line method of the two
side lines of the property in order to determine what the slope may
be. In doing so, he noted he comes up with just under 20% slope
for the property, on the averaging basis. That would allow more
than the two units per acre - he felt 20-25% in order to have two
units applicable within that category. Since the desire of the
owners is to create two building sites and no more, he felt his
interpretation was reasonable. He felt the numbers bear out his
interpretation of the averaging slope to be below 2.0%, and he said
�- he understands that the method adopted by the city does indicate
Page 2
a higher slope. He felt his method is reasonable and still
provides modest home sites for two structures.
Mr. Lloyd noted that this property is adjacent to a recently
subdivided property which this firm handled, and this project would
be consistent with that previously-approved project. He explained
that if approved, they planned to grant the open space easement,
place structures in a reasonably similar, vertical elevation as the
adjacent property, and would not violate any view shed or skyline
issues. With respect to grading more of the property than is
allowed by the grading ordinance, he felt that their approach is
to provide a better site for the property than presently exists,
and that at some point in the future, someone would probably want
to grade that site because of its severely abused existing
condition.
With respect to access, Mr. Lloyd said they are prepared to
consider either an exception for council approval, or to work out
a dedication which might satisfy the conditions of the subdivision
ordinance regarding frontage on a public road.
Mr. Lloyd noted that he became aware of staff's recommendation of
denial when he received a copy of the staff report the day before,
and with respect to time issues. with respect to AB 884, a 90-day i
extension could be granted by the subdivider to the' 6-month --
processing time, in order to allow time to provide information
which might be needed by the city.
Casey O'Conner, subdivider, said his goal is to get two buildable
sites. He said it disturbs him that some of the points now being
brought up by city staff, such as slope, didn't seem to be the
issue during the initial meetings with the city. The issues, he
felt, were whether the culvert could be extended, how much grading
could occur, and easement issues. Now, he felt the main issue is
the one that wasn't a major issue in the beginning. He said that
had he known of this issue in the beginning, his plans to purchase
the site may have been different.
Barbie Colombo, subdivider, said that all they want is to split the
lot into two parcels and build her dream home there so they can
live there.
Carol Skow, 1925 Sydney Street,, said her property is immediately
adjacent to this parcel; her horse corrals come to the edge of the
property. She said she has concerns with having two houses in
front of her property, and how the land is going to be subdivided
and how the houses will be placed on the property. She didn't feel
the site would be large enough to accommodate two houses. She had
not yet seen a copy of the proposed subdivision, and took time to
review the map. Her concerns were mainly where the houses would J
be located, and Mr. Bruce explained that the issue at this hearing
�-ate
Page 3
Cwas only the splitting of the lot; not the location of the proposed
homes. He noted that the maximum height of a .house in the city is
25 feet, and if it is on a sloping site, that would be the average
between the high and the low point. He did not feel that a two-
story house would block any view.
Ms. Skow indicated that with the open space easement, the
subdivision might be something she could live with.
Jim Jones, adjacent property owner and owner of a portion of the
Sydney Street extension, spoke on the request. He felt that if the
existing street is to be accepted as a dedication, it should be up
to city specifications.
The public hearing was closed.
Ken Bruce explained that the most awkward part of this request for
him has to do with the access (street/driveway) . Since the
existing easement encroaches into the lots that the proposed.
subdivider wants to create, it diminishes the lot area for
development severely in practicality, in terms of net area.
Another complication has to do with the drainage or seasonal creek
that runs through the property, of which some of it is already
culverted. This particular subdivision request would be to culvert
the rest of the creel site and grade. over it. Because of the
existing topography in the low area where the chicken pens are
located, he said that the Department of Fish and Game has
recommended that the area be left in its open and natural state,
and city staff is recommending the same. If no additional grading
happens on the site, he felt that building a house on proposed lot
1 is not impossible, but could be difficult. It is the city's
general policy to have drainage channels, creeks, and swales left
in their natural state and be open, as opposed to culverting, and
because of the Fish and Game requirements to keep some riparian
area, culverting could be complicated.
Ken Bruce explained that since there are exceptions to the
Subdivision Regulations being requested, the map must be acted upon
by the City Council, who is the only body allowed to grant
exceptions to the city's Subdivision Regulations. Therefore, he
referred this item to the City Council for resolution. He noted
it is tentatively scheduled for their meeting of August 7, 1990.
He explained that his recommendation to the Council will be denial,
based on the following findings:
Findings
1. The design of the subdivision is inconsistent with the general
plan policies for development of hillside areas.
2. The site is not physically suited for the density of
development proposed.
;Z-;23
Page 4
i
3. The design of the subdivision does not conform to the minimum
frontage and lot size standards of the city's Subdivision
Regulations, and circumstances which would justify approval
of exceptions do not exist.
�1�trr-l�ro ,
LATE �"'K'QCJ d�1�i # o�
To: Mayor Dunin
Members of the City Council,
City of San Luis Obispo ,
From: Mr. and Mrs. Donald M. Coats /--_, -•, ;= �, -�^
1751 Sydney Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: 1815 Sydney Street; R-1 Zone �_T•T.__ dr1w _
Request to create a two lot residential subdivision.
Before the Members of the City Council is a request to act on a
tentative parcel map creating a two lot residential subdivision at
1815 Sydney Street; R-1 Zone.
Our home, located at 1751 Sydney Street, is immediately adjacent to
the property in question and therefore any action by the council
directly affects us. For that reason we would appreciate your
consideration of our comments before you make your decision.
When we purchased our home over 20 years ago there were two
residences beyond our home on Sydney Street . Adjacent to our
property was one parcel of about 5 acres owned by James P. Jones,
1810 Sydney Street. During the past few years this parcel has been
subdivided into 6 lots [one of the lots is the subject of this
Council action] . The second residence is outside the city, but
reached via an easement through the 1810 Sydney Street parcel . In
recent years this land has been further developed causing an
�- increased flow of traffic through the easement.
In 1970 when we purchased our property there was a barricade across
the end of Sydney Street. An opening through the barricade allowing
access to the adjacent property is 13 feet wide and open on the
curbside directly in front of our property at 1751 Sydney Street.
This makes it impossible for us to use the entire curb length in
front of our house for parking as vehicles entering the area beyond
the barricade must hug the curb to pass thru the barricade opening.
A number of years ago I discussed the barricade with the City
Engineer, Mr David Romero. To the best of my memory he said if the
property was ever subdivided provisions would need to be made for a
cul-de-sac or other means for handling traffic at this dead end.
When considering the lot split, we request the City Council to also
consider the problem of handling the traffic and parking at the end
of Sydney Street. The parking problem in front of our house could
be easily solved by either removing or by opening the barricade
through the center instead of at the right side along the curb.
We do not object to the request to split 1815 Sydney Street into two
lots. However, we ask the City Council to stipulate along with the
lot split, provisions for a better access to the property as related
to the present barricade structure used as a closure ah the
Sydney Street. G EI V E
attachments [2l SEP 4
1990
h r Fr».
5 � �iL4R9,
w
N
1810 SYDNEY STREET 1815 SYDNEY STREET
O 9
os
too
a
BAnIcADE
4off
low
Lt7 1751 SYDNEY STREET
AC
E�+
c'
s�
PARKLAND TERRACE
_ +4 x, t •i
•i•
' _ QS � d 1 }'k N e j •�i
- � �1 � MSI rr S,s 133.E - � ix�-:✓
1• r . � 1 f i� { t �
a"'�^ � I a"Y'� '�•La � 11 Fq.K.y�? '`2'i tw.4'Airt; F 'M,y'
r ✓ t, / s .
11
:fd
a i Y•. S
n.�+t�rRt
., ,t �� rY t�� �F 'Ld 4�•t`iV.�S y�l I r'1 *.� 'S.
1, - .. �;f �3.5 .�ir;i�f� lP ��a� l��,li' 1��� t rl' � 'I'.1 } '•••.
,1, �i •i ' ��ji!'N •" y;R�7 t'✓>"t' 'RF moi'
v z.}¢i•yl :.'SSI w it -�' n
Illk
f 7l.r t •� �Y i C4 v r .1
. , yi a Ix . �X 1r_ "�, •II
1 � 1F1�a'V '.l"jE 1 l r .. 1 „•
11 kix5 ,�.,•'u C;?*s :� tlt r�Y. � 71 �v •i.jr.a
tr.
3P
•yam .�,•,r �,�; ,�.:
�•VV -
t T i `` a i•.. t,,�}WF�"� )r fxt r'! r! `qt•'. Y�
1p
r.
/
1 L'% yf, I�• R! U FILL'' w
i y�N
. ,I . .y -� � 1�� �,r r iitt�5e •�'' 1ri1,a5 , Ji� /f C—:
yy r
�� r 'I'` r Y•'. �•S I y_:., / ! 'srN � � it t / .. -
p,{ w
AGENDA
DATE E -4`-Qo ITEM # �
July 31, 1990
To: Mayor Dunin
Members of the City Council,
OCity of San Luis Obispo /
From: Mr. and Mrs. Donald M. Coats i
1751 Sydney Street / � • ..
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: 1815 Sydney Street; R-1 Zone
Request to create a two lot residential subdivision.
Before the Members of the City Council is a request to act on a
tentative parcel map creating a two lot residential subdivision at
1815 Sydney Street; R-1 Zone.
Our home, located at 1751 Sydney Street, is immediately adjacent to
the property in question and therefore any action by the council
directly affects us. For that reason we would appreciate your
consideration of our comments before you make your decision.
when we purchased our home over 20 years ago there were two
residences beyond our home on Sydney Street. Adjacent to our
property was one parcel of about 5 acres owned by James P. Jones,
1810 Sydney Street. During the past few years this parcel has been
subdivided into 6 lots [one of the lots is the subject of this
Council action] . The second residence is outside the city, but
reached via an easement through the 1810 Sydney Street parcel. In
recent years this land has been further developed causing an
increased flow of traffic through the easement.
In 1970 when we purchased our property there was a barricade across
the end of Sydney Street. An opening through the barricade allowing
access to the adjacent property is 13 feet wide and open on the
curbside directly in front of our property at 1751 Sydney Street.
This makes it impossible for us to use the entire curb length in
front of our house for parking as vehicles entering the area beyond
the barricade must hug the curb to pass thru the barricade opening.
A number of years ago I discussed the barricade with the City
Engineer, Mr David Romero. To the best of my memory he said if the
property was ever subdivided provisions would need to be made for a
cul-de-sac or other means for handling traffic at this dead end.
When considering- the;,lot ;Split, we request the City.- Council to also
consider the problem of handling the traffic and parking at the end
of Sydney Street. The parking problem in front , of our house could
be easily solved by either removing or by opening the barricade
through the center instead of at the right side along the .curb.
we do not object to the request to split 1815 Sydney Street into two
lots. However, we ask the City Council to stipulate along with the
lot split, provisions for a better access to the property as related
to the present barricade structure used as a closure at the end of
Sydney Street. RECEIVED
attachments [21 SEP 4 1990
w
N
1810 SYDNEY STREET =' 1815 SYDNEY STREET
a
e
oma
oa
a
BARRICADE
40{+
y
W a
1751 M-SYDSTREET
H
cn -
C' w
4
PARKLAND TERRACE
•: R a •r .t�� ��li: 3
! � � �• is �.
+�411It
�! 1
LV
• X v- �cY.
r - a
x t
it� :��I`�"� 'Y!ja�t�}� '1� `�i•` ;•, _ — ~. .
t t
� t:� L �'h l tr f •L 1yy�Y ,aft :� a't 1 1�
wf ti t. S•. I%� r l�r� rY°1 .. ,fir r .1�`
YYYYYY _ I�`
L{+ JI
I t
v t
rrlr'J_
-Z r - �
Y J
� d
„1...���yyy,,, S•
� ��"` .sit. ` � h�.• rk:��,�