required findings for approval of the variance cannot be made

Transcription

1 RESOLUTION NO Rqg A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PISMO BEACH DENYING THE APPEAL OF MICHAEL SULLIVAN REGARDING 162 BLUFFS DRIVE AND APPROVING THE PERMITS FOR PROJECT NO A On November Steven Jobst and Jill Anderson filed an application with the Community Development Department requesting a coastal development permit conditional use permit architectural review permit and variance for construction of a new 4888 square foot two story split level single family residence at 162 Bluff Drive Lot No 4 Tract 1618 in the City of Pismo Beach B Public hearings on this application were held by the Planning Commission on May June and June The applications were approved by the Planning Commission on June C On July Mr Michael Sullivan filed an appeal challenging this approval The grounds for his appeal are detailed in the attached Exhibit 1 and include an allegation that the average slope exceeds 30 and that the required findings for approval of the variance cannot be made D On August the City Council held a public hearing to consider this appeal After reviewing the record in this matter and considering the oral and written testimony received from the appellant the applicants and their attorney and agent the staff and other interested parties the Council voted to deny the appeal and uphold the action of the Planning Commission NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach does resolve as follows 1 The appeal of Michael Sullivan challenging the June approval of the application of Steven Jobst and Jill Anderson is hereby denied 2 The approval granted by the Planning Commission on June is affirmed In so doing the City Council approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project together with the applications for the Coastal Development Permit the Architectural Review Permit the Conditional Use Permit and the requested variances The City Council adopts the findings made by the Planning Commission for the Coastal Development Permit the Architectural Review Permit and the Conditional Use Permit The City Council also adopts the Conditions of Approval approved by the Planning Commission with the addition of the following Conditions A19 anda20 1

2 A19 All portions of the driveway which exceed a 20 slope shall be constructed of concrete and shall be latitudinally scored to improve vehicle traction for safety purposes as approved by the Public Works Director A20 Owner shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents officers and employees from any claim action or proceeding against the City or its agents officers or employees to attach set aside void or annul in whole or in part the City s approval of this application In the event that the City fails promptly to notify the applicant of any such claim action or proceeding or that the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense of said claim this condition shall thereafter be of no further force or effect Finally the City Council approves the requested variances and adopts the following findings in support of the variances and in response to the alleged violation of the slope limitations A Variances The applicant has requested a variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance to allow i A residential driveway with a maximum slope of 25 for approximately 88 of its 179 feet of length where the maximum allowable slope is 20 ii A retaining wall exceeding the maximum height of 42 by 18 to 30 in the front yard setback In order to grant the requested variances the City Council must find that 1 The variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated In support thereof the City Council finds that i Lot 4 of the Bluffs subdivision is one of the two smallest building envelopes in the subdivision Because of the steepness of the slope in the area of Lot 4 the building envelope is considerably shorter than all but one of the other 22 lots in the subdivision The shorter building envelope makes it difficult to construct a driveway which does not exceed 20 percent ii The hardship is not self imposed in that the building envelope was established by the approval of the subdivi 2

3 RESOLUTION NO R93 66 sion map and Sunset Palisades Ontario Ridge Specific Bluffs project Plan for the Alternatives considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council which attempt to employ a 20 driveway also require variances for walls in the front yard setback and in addition require in excess of three to five times more grading caused by the need to lower the alternative houses deep into the mountainside and to construct very high retaining walls on three sides of the alternative designs This increased grading causes the alternatives to conflict with the City s General Plan provi sions requiring minimization of grading building design to fit or complement site topography and minimization and articulation of retaining walls The Specific Plan and its EIR further require houses to respect the natural terrain and fit the existing topography Unlike the alternatives the house in the proposed project respects the natural topography as required by the environmental impact report and the Specific Plan for the Bluffs subdivision The proposed project is the most sensitive among all alternatives considered by the City s Architectural Design Review Subcommittee which noted as its only concern the height of the eight foot retaining walls at the rear of the project All alternatives would trigger the need for much larger retaining walls at the rear of the project and very large side yard retaining walls iii The deviation from the zoning ordinance is not excessive but is the minimal necessary for this property owner to enjoy the use of his property in that the driveway has been designed to rise as gradually as possible The steepness of the existing lot slope exceeds that of the proposed driveway necessi tating switchbacks to gain the required elevation No more than two switchbacks could be used and still place the residence within the required building envelope with the garage in the preferred location at the rear iv The retaining wall is necessary to permit construction of a driveway allowing access to the residence from the street Site topography is such that the driveway requires a retaining wall of this height to permit the drive to run parallel to the site contours and gain elevation 2 Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property including size shape topography location or surroundings the strict application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive the subject property of development potentials available to other properties in the vicinity and under identical current zoning classifications In support thereof the City Council finds that 3

4 i The development agreement for the Bluffs project recognizes the right to develop a single family home on each of the 23 lots in the Bluffs project ii The variance will allow the proposed house to be at roughly the same elevation and setback from Bluff Drive as the other houses built or to be built in the project Alternatives which provide a 20 driveway would be out of character with the other houses to be developed for the Bluffs subdivision because the in some alternative houses would be built into the hillside and alternatives located lower down the hill and far closer to Bluff Drive than the other houses Further all other houses would have garages in the rear of the houses as required by the CC Rs for the Bluffs subdivision and as recommended for this project by the City s Architectural Design Review Subcommittee iii Without a variance the garage will have to be on a lower level The variance will allow a living level garage as is possible without a variance for nearly all other lots in the Bluffs subdivision iv The requested variances are the minimum necessary to permit development of the site in keeping with the policies of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan The proposed project design minimizes the environmental effects associated with increased grading and hillside disturbance and offers a design solution which respects the existing topography Accordingly neither variance constitutes a of grant special privilege 3 Special circumstances affecting the subject property are unique to the site and do not apply equally to other lots in the vicinity under identical zone classifications In support thereof the City Council finds that i Lot 4 along with Lot 5 had far smaller building envelopes approved through the Specific Plan and subdivi sion map process due to steeper slopes on these lots compared to the other 21 lots in the Bluffs subdivision ii The developer of the Bluffs subdivision has demonstrated that only Lot 4 and Lot 5 will a require variance for driveway steepness while all the other lots in the subdivision can be built without the need for such a variance B Slope Calculations The appellant has asserted that the average slope of the existing topography of the building envelope for Lot 4 Tract 1618 is 308 based upon a calculation made by John Falkenstien a register civil engineer with the firm of CSD Engineering in San 4

5 Luis Obispo The calculation appears based upon the County of San Luis Obispo contour method and analyzes the entire building envelope including steeper portions in the back of the building envelope which are not to be graded or disturbed Mr Falkenstien sanalysis measures the difference in elevation from the front boundary of the building envelope to the rear boundary of the building envelope divided by the linear distance between the two points This contrasts with the City method of measuring from the center line of the street the front parcel line Due to the increasing slope at distances inland from the center of the street Mr Falkenstien sapproach would result in a slightly greater slope calculation The City laws and regulations do not prescribe a particular method for calculating slope for purposes of evaluating compliance with the 30 percent standard However the Ontario Ridge Specific Plan specified the use of the basic method of slope analysis as set forth in the County of San Luis Obispo Land Use Ordinance for this particular subdivision This method was further used in establishing the boundaries of the building envelopes for the tract map By memo dated April the engineering firm of John Wallace and Associates calculated the average slope of each of the 23 lots building envelopes and found them to conform to this requirement As applied in this instance the calculation was based on the difference in elevation between the center line of the street the front property line and the highest elevation along the rear boundary of the building envelope divided by the distance between the two points The slope calculated for Lot 4 was29 77 The average slope of the buildable portion of Lot 4 thus has been determined by the City to be in compliance with the General Plan the specific plan and the zoning policies and standards of the City These determinations were made at the time of initial approval of the specific plan related general plan amendments and vesting tentative map These determinations were reaffirmed in 1990 when modifications to these documents were and approved in 1991 when the final map was approved by the City prior to recorda tion Finally the project applicant s engineer Robert Vessely submitted a slope analysis using the basic method as well as the contour sectional and a non County equal slope area methods in calculating average slope of the area to be disturbed The City finds Mr Vessely calculations showing the area of disturbance to be under 30 as consistent with the City s own slope analysis for this lot and disagrees with Mr Falkenstien conclusions as based on the wrong methodology and as analyzing the wrong portion of the lot Therefore the action approving the Coastal Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit is consistent with and implement ed the 30 slope provisions of the General Plan Zoning Ordinance Local Coastal Program and the Ontario Ridge Specific Plan 5

6 UPON MOTION of Councilmember Brown seconded by Councilmember the Maroney foregoing Resolution is hereby passed and adopted this third day of August 1993 by the following roll call vote to wit AYES NOES Councilmembers Brown Maroney and Mayor Bittner Councilmember Mellow ABSTAIN None ABSENT Councilmember Morrow Tim Bittner Mayor ATTE APPROVED AS TO FORM 6