HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/10/1961Drive from California Blvd. to Johnson Avenue. Councilman Miller stated he
was in favor of the green belt for San Luis Creek and would be willing for
the City to.accept restrictions on the area being granted to the City so that
no buildings could be placed on the property. Councilman Graves agreed that
restrictions should be placed on the property so proper control of this
green belt area might be maintained.
Mayor Davidson questioned the propriety.of the City accepting any land with
restrictions, as the City, in the future, might wish to develop this pro-
perty or sell it for other uses. He also stated that as far as he was con-
' cerned, the City had a greater need for recreation money in the Laguna Area
to develop a park then to spend money developing a small green belt area
along the creek.
Mr. Clawson. School Board Chairman, stated. there is some question as to the
steps required for the transfer of this property and asked that a committee
from each group be appointed to meet and resolve the problem and then bring
it back to the respective boards for final.approval. The City Council and
School Board Members and Staff present discussed possible uses and improve-
ments that could be made on this property being proposed to be granted to the
City. It was the common consent of the bodies present that committees from
both groups continue to :.meet and resolve these problems.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman. Graves, the meeting adjourned
to October 10, 1961, at 7:30 P. M.
Approved this 30th day of October, 1961
i i
' CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Joint Study Session
October 10, 1961
CITY HALL
Invocation was given by Mayor Clay P. Davidson
ROLL CALL: Present - Miss Margaret M. McNeil, R. L. Graves, Jr., Donald Q. Miller,
..Absent - Geraid W. Shipsey
Present - Commissioners Elizabeth Law, Leonard Lenger, Emmons Blake,
George Johnson, Kenneth Schwartz and Clell Whelchel.
Absent - Stanley Cole
CITY STAFF PRESENT - R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, William Houser, City
Attorney, J. H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk, D. F. Romero, City
Engineer, Frank L. Skiles, Building Inspector, Larry Wise,
Planning Consultant, J. W. Abraham, Director of Planning &
Building.
1. Discussion regarding appeal by Stimson and Sibilio regarding Planning Commission's
' determination on 50 foot lots in the Monterey Heights area.
The following letter from Arnett and Broadbent, Realtors, was read by the
Planning Director:
"This letter constitutes an appeal on behalf of Mr. Jules Sibilio and Mr.
Donald Stimson, who were denied variances by the San Luis Obispo Planning
Commission at their Sept. 19, 1961 meeting. These variances were requested
to allow the applicants to build on 50 foot lots of record. The following
events and data are submitted in support of this appeal:
1.11. On March 13, 1959, Mr. Lou Manderscheid purchased four 50 ft. lots
of record, lots 6, 7, 12, & 13 in block 5, Monterey Heights, with the
understanding that each lot was a legal building site. ,
2. On May 23, 1961, lot 13 was sold to Mr. Sibilio through our office.
Neither brokers, sellers, or buyers had knowledge that a 50 ft. LOT
OF RECORD would not qualify as a building site under the current inter-
pretation of our building code by the Planning Department. Prior to
purchase, Mr. Sibilio had the lot inspected and approved by John Badgl-
ey, architect, who subsequently designed a home to fit this lot.
3. On June 20, 1961, Kamm Realty sold a 50 ft. lot of record located
south of 2030 Fixilini Street. At a later date Kamm Realty learned
of this interpretation of the building code, and applied for a vari-
ance on behalf of the buyer, which was granted to him by the Planning
Commission. This was the first knowledge our office had concerning ,
the necessity of obtaining a variance to build on a 50 ft. lot of
record.
4. Our office informed Mr. Sibilio of this problem, and he submitted
a request for a variance on the lot which he had purchased.
5. On August 18,-1961, Mr. Stimson submitted to our office an offer
to purchase lot 12, adjacent to the Sibilio lot. Since the outcome
of the Sibilio variance request was uncertain, we recommended that
Mr. Stimson's offer to purchase be contingent upon his ability to.
obtain a bui-lding permit for said lot. Mr. Stimson subsequently ap-
plied for a variance on this lot.
6. At the Planning Commission meeting of September 6, 1961, these
requests were considered, and a decision was posponed until the next
meeting.
7. At the Planning Commission meeting of September 19, 1961, the
following facts were submitted to substantiate these requests:
(a) Both Manderscheid and Sibilio purchased without knowledge of
any possible problem in obtaining building permits.
(b) After personal contact with adjacent property owners, it was
determined that acquisition of additional property to increase ,
their lots to 60 ft. width was either impossible or not economically
feasible.
(c) After personal contact with other property owners across the
street from these properties, it was determined that there are no
objections on their part on the development of these or other 50 ft.
lots in this block.
(d) In accordance with San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Section 9200.17,
-sub-par. (b) quote: "Where practical-difficulties, unnecessary hardships
and results inconsistent with the general purpose of this chapter may
result from the strict application of certain provisions thereof, variances
may be granted in the manner specified herein. ", unquote, it is our con-
tention that an unnecessary hardship would exist if the requested vari-
ances are denied, which would result in a costly attempt to rescind
the Manderscheid- Sibilio sale. Expenses have been incurred to have
architects plans completed for a dwelling on this lot. From a practical
standpoint, acquisition of adjacent property is not economically feasible.
(e) The practical difficulties of a resubdivision in this block, along
with the financial hardship which would exist, are apparent.
(f) Under the Planning Commission's interpretation, certain'50 ft. lots
in this same block do qualify as building sites, with no necessity of ,
applying for a variance. For example, lot 8, owned by Mr. Corda. We
feel that this situation constitutes a definite inequity.
(g) We believe that a precedent has been established in this block
by the following sequence of events:
1. On April 13, 1959, Mr: Vince Cirone purchased Lots 23 & 24, block 5,
Monterey Heights, from the Fitzgerald estate, who had been the owners
of these lots for many. years. •
2. On October 27, 1959, Mr. Guy Bond•purchased lot 23 from Mt. Cirone.
3. On January 8, 1960, Mr. Cirone was issued a building permit for
lot 24, which is a 50 ft. lot of record.
4. On December 7, 1_960, Mr. Bond was issued a.biuilding permit
for his 50 ft. lot of record, lot 23.
5. Lots 22 & 25, the properties on each side of Mr. Cirone and
Mr. Bonds properties are vacant, and apparently no pressure was
brought against these gentlemen to acquire additional property.
We submit that the above conditions are an exact parallel to the
conditions surrounding the properties now in question.
(h) Since this subdivision has existed in its present form for
' approx. 40 years, and was originally approved by the City Council,
we feel that it is inequitable to discriminate against applicants
for building permits. Cirone and Bond were issued permits; Sibilio
and Stimson were denied permits.
(i) Estimated assessed valuations indicate that construction of
the homes desired by these applicants would increase present city
revenue from these properties approx. twelvefold.
(j) Since the adjacent property owners who were contacted also
believe that each of their 50 ft. lots of record qualify as build-
ing sites, it is our belief that if variances are denied, orderly
and proper development of this area may be discouraged for years
to come. In hillside areas such as this, large lots requiring
more detailed landscaping and expensive maintenance are not a
necessary prerequisite to good development. We feel that the
best and most practical development for this area would be the
construction of a nice home on each 50 ft. lot. New homes would
erase the unsightly weed patches that presently exist on the east
side of San Miguel Street.
We trust that after review of the facts, you will agree with us that the
Planning Commission's decision concerning these variance requests is im-
practical, inequitable, and will create unnecessary hardships to the
property owners.
Respectfully submitted,
ARNETT & BROADBENT, Realtors"
In answer to questioning by the Mayor, Mr. Lou Manderscheid stated that
when he had purchased the four (4) lots in the area, he had discussed
the development of the lots with a realtor and a local contractor and
he had been led to believe that he could develop each of the four lots
as individual lots.
The City Clerk stated that at the time the Council was holding the
publice hearings regarding this Ordinance, the realtors as a group
attended the meetings. He further stated that 1,000 copies of the
Ordinance were printed and sent out to the realtors so they were
aware of what was being done. The Planning Commission held six
meetings on this matter and the Council held three meetings.
The City Attorney stated that in 1958 the section was clarified in
the Subdivision Ordinance and when that section was adopted a letter
was sent to each realtor in the City. At that time the Ordinance was
recorded and sent to the title companies. The title companies stated
that they did not insure against any municipa laws, so would not be
affected by the new Ordinance.
Commissioner Lenger stated that even though the Ordinance had been
adopted, the Commission had not been enforcing it as they had always
considered lots of record as legal building sites.
The City Attorney stated that up until a short time ago, the staff had
misinterpreted the Ordinance and lots of illegal size had been allowed
to be developed.
Commissioner Blake stated that he had spoken to several realtors in town
and they stated that they had known of the Ordinance and had made a
practice to search this out when selling property.
Councilman Miller stated that there.was.no question that a great deal of
confusion surrounded this Ordinance and he felt that if building permits
had been issued to other lots of this size, the request by Mr. Sibilio
should be granted also, for the sake of equity and then from henceforth make
it known that the City will enforce the Ordinance, or, if the Council so chooses,
repeal the Ordinance.
Commissioner Blake pointed out the fact that this particular request would
be the key to the way 16 other lots in the area would be developed.
Commissioner Law stated that she had talked to two people living across from
the property in question who have purchased other lots to bring their lots
up to standard and they objected to the development of houses on the 50
ft. lots across from them because they did.not feel that "like" houses
would be developed on 50 ft. lots.
The City Attorney stated that the purchaser of property in this situation
would have the right to the return of his money for at least a year after
date of purchase under State law. However, people were not aware of the
fact that they could not build on these lots until they had had the pro-
perty two or three years, so the City, in an effort to make the people
aware of the requirements of the City as.to the size of the building sites
had (1) attempted recording the Ordinance with the title companies so that
they would recognize and govern their title reports; and (2) sent out in-
dividual letters to all realtors within the City warning them of the pro-
blem involved even . when large parcels were divided. He further stated
that if the purchaser was unable to get his money back, and the City
denied a variance on the size of the building site, there was the real
possibility that.a person might be left with a piece of land that he
could not actually use. He stated that the right to rescind would pro-
bably cover only the contract of purchase, so the purchaser would be
out the money he had spent for architect fees, and so forth.
Regarding item 3 of the letter from Arnett and Broadbent, the City Attor-
ney stated that this was a situation where it was the only vacant lot in
the block, in a block made up of 50 ft. lots. The owner had developed the
adjoining 50 ft. lot some time ago and had sold the remaining 50 ft. lot.:
The Commission, in discussing that application, felt that the lot would
either have to be granted a variance or remain as a 50 ft. lot, so they
granted it.
The Planning Consultant pointed out that this particular section was not
peculiar to San Luis Obispo; that this section is found in a great many
cities throughout California. Since this is not an isolated ordinance,
the real estate agents should be aware of it.
Commissioner Whelchel stated that he did not object to having houses
built on 50 ft. lots, however, that was not the question. There are
29 conforming pieces of property in the area with only 4 non - conforming
developments. Therefore, the majority of the developed properties were
conforming. A good many of .these conforming properties have been resub-
divided to bring them up to code. He pointed out that the applicant had
two other alternatives. He could either have the area resubdivided or
get his money back because the lot was not a building site. He stated
that if an exception was made for Mr. Sibilio, the same exception would
have to be made for the next applicant and so on. He expressed the
view that he personally would prefer seeing the Ordinance changed than
to be confronted with variances on 50 foot lots.
In discussing item (h) of the letter from the realtors, it was pointed
out that a number of mistakes were made 40 years ago and that times had
changed so that what may have been all right then would not fit in with
the thinking of today. Commissioner Lenger stated that Monterey Heights
was a subdivision around World War 1, and that it was a subdivision in
the County about 20 years prior to coming into the City.
Commissioner Johnson stated that he felt this problem was not an individual
one but one that would effect the entire subdivision. He and Commissioner
Schwartz asked the Council to consider and submit in writing, a new guide
for granting this type of variance if the Council reversed the Commission's
decision on this matter. Commissioner Schwartz stated that if the Council
felt that economics was a hardship, then possibly the applicant had a
problem, but in making this type of decision the Commission had to rely
on their findings as specified in the Municipal Code.
The Commission and Council briefly.explicated the interpretation by
the Commission of the proposed Subdivision Ordinance with regard to
hillside development and the thesis set forth by the Urban Land
Institute on this matter and the problems created by mass benching.
Commissioner Johnson reiterated the need for a new guide to make
determinations on variances if the Council reversed the decision of the
Commission.
The Planning Director reiterated the basis for making a determination
on a variance as set forth in Section 9200.17 (e) (2) of the Municipal
Code. He also stated that the State law was approximately the same.
To the question presented by the Mayor on whether or not the Ordinance
was workable, Commissioner Whelchel stated that it definitely was and
that it was proven by the fact that 29 of the properties developed in
the area were conforming.
Commissioner Lenger stated that,the reason he had voted for approving
the request of Mr. Sibilio and Mr. Stimson was due to the fact that
the Commission had always recognized lots of record as building sites
and he felt if they were not recognized as such, the Commission, in
his estimation, was taking away the rights of the people.
2. Discussion with regard to requirements attached to small subdivision
of:A. A. Baker on Foothill Boulevard.
.It was pointed out that it has been the policy to require curbs,
gutters and sidewalks on the small parcel or small lot that is being
subdivided off a large lot and if the large lot remaining could be
resubdivided, the improvements are not required on that parcel. If
a parcel is broken into parcels that cannot be further subdivided,
improvements are required along the full frontage.
The Planning Director read Section 9100.2 (1). He pointed out that
if a tentative map were submitted showing a subdivision that would be
detrimental to the entire development of the property, the Small Sub-
division Committee.would then deny the request for a small subdivision
and the applicant would then be required to submit another plan.
The City Engineer pointed out that in the development of a large sub-
division, the subdivider would be required to install not only curbs,
gutters and sidewalks, but also lights, fire hydrants, and so forth.
After a brief discussion, on motion of Councilman Graves, seconded by
Councilman Miller, the A. A. Baker subdivision was set for consideration
by the City Council at the regular meeting of October•16, 1961.
3. Discussion concerning Non- Access,Roads.
The Planning Director stated that the Commission was considering designating
certain streets as limited or non -acess streets; however, they felt that
a number of the streets within the City might have to be considered before
the adoption of a plan for non - access streets. The Planning Director
named a few of the streets that might be considered, stating that the
Commission felt the Council should be informed of this information.
Councilman Miller stated that it sounded like a splendid idea. The
Council agreed that they should be informed when the Commission would
be considering the adoption of a plan for non - access streets so that
they might attend a study session with the Commission.
4. Discussion regarding curb and gutter requirements on Emily Street for
the L. J. Morganti Company.
The Planning Director read the following letter from the'Building Con-
tractor's Association, Inc., dated October 10, 1961 and addressed to the
City Council:
"I am writing on behalf of Association member Eugene Jackson, to
protest the action of the City Planning Commission in regard of
the requirement for curb and gutter on the site of the new J. H.
Morganti Warehouse, being built at the corner of Roundhouse
Avenue and Emily Streets.
This building is being built at this location due to the
availability of a railroad spur adjacent to the building
site. The Public Utilities Commission requires that curbs
located adjacent to railroad tracks must be at least eight
(8) feet from the edge of the track. This will mean in this
instance that the curb would be located at a point approximately
19 feet from the building, or at a point approximately 9 feet
into Emily Street.
A question of proper drainage may arise, but we feel that this
is not a problem as the contractor is grading the site to pro-
vide for this factor.
We feel that further consideration of this matter is needed,
for this requirement will not be in the interest of the general
public, and therefore, solicit your further consideration of
the matter prior to a final determination.
For your information is attached a diagram showing the approxi-
mate measurements affecting this situation.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Yours very truly,
/s/ J. Dan O'Donnell,
Manager"
The City Engineer reiterated the action taken by the Commission at a
previous meeting regarding the Pacific Motor Trucking development on
Emily and South Streets. The Planning Director read a portion of the '
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of,October 3, 1961, regard-
ing the action taken by the Commission on Mr. Morganti's request, stat-
ing that the applicant had not requested an exception from the require-
ments for the sidewalk on Emily Street. However, the Commission had
determined that it would serve no useful purpose and had granted an
exception to this portion of the requirements.
The Commission briefly discussed the information brought out in the
letter from the Building Contractor's Association, Inc.
In the following discussion the City Engineer pointed out that a curb
would be necessary to control .the drainage problem and that the street
was so narrow that trucks would have somewhat of a problem manipulating
into.loading position.
It was - decided that it would.be best if the Commission verified the facts
presented in the letter from the Building Contractor's Association and
the applicant was instructed by the Mayor to present an alternate plan
for handling drainage and the location of *_the spur. The applicant agreed
to do so.
Councilman Donald Q. Miller left the meeting at 10:10 P. M.
5. Discussion of HHFA and 701 Grants and aids for Planning. '
The Planning Consultant briefly outlined what a 701 grant could do for
the City. He stated that-the Commission and staff had a backlog of
material to do that could be paid for with a portion of a grant. It
was pointed out that the.grant would be utilized for the preparation
of reports and ordinances to implement the General Plan.
6. Discussion with regard to certain dead -end streets and their future
development.