PC 2017-03-21_08b APL 17-001 Ridgeview WayMEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: TERESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: SAM ANDERSON, PLANNING TECHNICIAN
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL CASE 17-001; APPEAL OF
DETERMINATION RELATING TO VIEWSHED REVIEW 16-005 &
MINOR EXCEPTION 17-001; LOCATION -250 RIDGEVIEW WAY;
APPELLANT -JONI BENAKOVICH
DATE: MARCH 21, 2017
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution denying Appeal
17-001 and approving Viewshed Review 16-005 and Minor Exception 17-001.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
None.
BACKGROUND:
Location
Subject Property
The subject property is zoned Residential Rural (RR) and requires a Minor Use Permit -
Viewshed Review for new two story construction and a Minor Use Permit -Minor
Exception for a 10% reduction in side yard setback.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION 17-001
MARCH 21, 2017
PAGE2
Pursuant to Development Code Section 16.16.100, notice of approval for the Minor
Exception was sent to all property owners within 300' of the project site. An appeal of
the project was submitted on February 22, 2017 (Attachment 1 ). The appellant has
indicated reasons for appeal based on the location and size of the new proposed
residence, and the potential impact the proposed dual driveway may have on protected
Oak trees.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
Project Description
The applicant is proposing to construct a new two (2) bedroom, three and a half (3Yz)
bathroom single family residence on 2.24 acres. The project proposes a 3, 139 square
foot home with a detached 754 square foot two (2) car garage. An existing secondary
dwelling unit and primary residence currently exist on site. The secondary dwelling unit
is to be removed and replaced with the new 3, 139 square foot single family home. The
existing primary residence is to be converted to a secondary dwelling unit. The existing
garage is also to be removed and replaced with the new detached garage.
The applicant is requesting a Minor Exception for a 10% reduction in the side yard
setback on the north side of the property. Although the site is 2.24 acres, the vast
majority of the site is unbuildable due to recorded Open Space Easements designed to
protect the large amount of Oak trees on the property. The side yard setback in the RR
zoning district is 10% of lot width, making the setback on the property 25'6". The Minor
Exception proposes to reduce that amount by 10% to 23'. By granting the Minor
Exception, the garage is able to be located in a location out of the neighboring
property's viewshed while avoiding negative impacts to existing Oak trees. The existing
garage to be removed is currently located approximately 1 O' from the property line,
therefore making the new garage, even with the Minor Exception, an improvement from
the current situation.
The appellant has indicated two primary reasons for the appeal. The first reason is the
possible removal of Oak trees for the construction of the dual driveway. The appellant
has indicated that certain Oak trees were not shown properly on approved plans. The
applicant has clarified the location of any potentially impacted Oaks, and no Oak trees
are slated for removal, nor would the removal be approved unless demonstrably
necessary, for the construction of the driveway.
The second reason identified is the location and scale of the home. The proposed
location of the new home will occupy the same footprint of the existing secondary
dwelling unit, but will project towards Ridgeview Way further than the original structure.
This will impact the neighboring property's viewing angles . However, the proposed
home conforms with all applicable development standards besides the Minor Exception
for the garage, which was requested to reduce other visual impacts to the neighboring
property. Additionally, shifting the home further away from Ridgeview Way would push
the structure into existing Oak trees.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION 17-001
MARCH 21, 2017
PAGE3
General Plan
The Land Use Element and Housing Element of the General Plan each contain
objectives and policies that support the proposed project. Land Use Objective LU2
states: the City shall accommodate a broad range of Single Family Residential (SFR)
within the City.
Additionally, Housing Element Policy A.2 states: that the City shall utilize incentives for
the production of affordable housing including allowing secondary dwelling units under
specified criteria.
Architectural Character
The project is designed in the Craftsman style, with classic hardboard siding and
pitched gables. The home is two (2) stories, totaling approximately 3, 139 square feet. A
1,243 square foot wrap-around porch defines the east and south faces of the home. The
home uses a variety of porches and entryways to provide variety, as well as varying roof
lines and multiple second story decks to soften the impact of the new structure. The
home is located in the middle of the property, situated to avoid the viewshed of the
neighboring property. However, the new structure will still impact the viewshed of the
neighboring property. Protected Oak trees occupy the majority of the rear of the
property, making it less desirable to place the structure further west. The standalone
garage is located to the north of the proposed residence and is designed in a similar
craftsman style, with individual garage doors and small dormers. The existing structure
to remain as the secondary dwelling unit is a craftsman style home as well. The new
structure has been designed with the home to remaining structure, and will be
architecturally complimentary. Colors and materials for the home have not been
finalized at this time, nor are they required for permit approval.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are identified for the Planning Commission's considerations:
• Adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal No. 17-001 and approving
Viewshed Review 16-005 and Minor Exception 17-001;
• Modify and adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal No. 17-001 and
approving Viewshed Review 16-005 and Minor Exception 17-001;
• Do not adopt the attached Resolution, take tentative action to approve Appeal
No. 17-001 and provide direction on specific findings for denial of Viewshed
Review 16-005 and Minor Exception 17-001; or
• Provide direction to staff
ADVANTAGES:
Denying the appeal will allow the project to move forward. The proposed project will llow
for an expanded primary residence to be constructed, is consistent with the General
Plan and Development Code, and would provide two (2) dwellings on a RR zoned
property.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION 17-001
MARCH 21, 2017
PAGE4
DISADVANTAGES:
The new structure will impact the neighboring property due to impacts upon viewing
angles. However, the applicant has taken care to mitigate potential viewshed impacts by
locating the structure as far back into the site as possible while avoiding impacts to Oak
trees.
ENVIRONMENT AL REVIEW:
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project has
been determined to be categorically exempt per Section 15303(a) of the CEQA
Guidelines regarding new construction of small structures.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
A public hearing notice was mailed to all property owners within 300' of the site, was
posted in the Tribune, and was posted at City Hall and on the City's website on Friday,
March 10. The agenda and staff report were posted at City Hall and on the City's
website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. No comments have
been received beyond the appeal.
Attachments:
1 . Letter from appellant
2. Project plans and letter from applicant (available for public review at City Hall)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING APPEAL
CASE NO. 17-001 AND APPROVING VIEWSHED REVIEW
16-005 AND MINOR EXCEPTION 17-001; LOCATED AT
250 RIDGEVIEW WAY; APPLIED FOR BY DAVID
DANIELS; APPEALED BY JONI BENAKOVJCH
WHEREAS, on September 28, 2016, the applicant submitted an application for Viewshed
Review 16-005 and Minor Exception 17-001 for a two and a half foot (2~') reduction of
side yard setback for a new two story residence and detached garage at 250 Ridgeview
Way; and
WHEREAS, on February 9, 2017, the Community Development Director approved
Viewshed Review 16-005 and Minor Exception 17-001 ; and
WHEREAS, notice of the Community Development Director's determination was mailed to
all property owners within 300' of the project site to alert them of the approved request;
and
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2017 an appeal of the approval was filed by Joni
Benakovich; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the project in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo
Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and has determined that the
project is exempt per Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines regarding construction of
a single family residence; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed the
project at a duly noticed public hearing on March 21, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public
hearing, that the following circumstances exist and findings can be made:
Viewshed Review Findings:
1. The proposed structure is consistent with the intent of Municipal Code Section
16.16.110;
T(le proposed structure will preserve the existing scope and character of the
established single-family neighborhood by replacing an older two-story structure
with a home designed to fit the constraints of the site and conform to the character
of the neighborhood. The proposed structure has been designed in such a way to
protect views and aesthetics on neighboring properties in a manner that is
compatible with reasonable expansion on a developed lot.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE2
2. The proposed structure is consistent with the established scale and character of the
neighborhood and will not unreasonably or unnecessarily affect views of
surrounding properties;
The property is zoned Residential Rural (RR), which is meant to provide for and
protect rural atmosphere and lifestyles. The proposed structure is intentionally
oriented away from the str:_eet and neighboring properties in order to avoid affecting
views of surrounding properties, is located to minimize impacts on existing Oak
trees, and is in scale and character of the neighborhood.
3. The proposed addition will not unreasonably or unnecessarily interfere with the
scenic view from any other property, judged in light of permitting reasonable use
and development of the property on which the proposed structure or expansion is to
occur.
The proposed structure, judged in light of permitting reasonable use and
development, will not unreasonably or unnecessarily interfere with the scenic
view from any other property. The structure is setback as far as possible into the
site, and is separated from the viewshed of the neighboring property by multiple
large Oak trees . Any further shifts into the site to avoid neighboring scenic views
would negatively impact existing recorded Open Space Easements designed to
protect Oak trees on site and affect other Oaks on the site not included in the
easement.
Minor Exception Findings:
1. That the strict or literal interpretation and endorsement of the specified regulation
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship;
The project is located on a 2.24 acre lot that is severely limited by recorded Open
Space Easements protecting existing Oak trees on site, reducing the building
envelope to approximately 100' wide. The strict or literal interpretation of the side
yard setback regulation would either shift the garage forward or backwards,
requiring grading work and creating more of an impact on the neighboring
viewshed, or creating potential impacts to protected Oak trees, respectively.
2. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same district;
The combination of significant existing Oak groves and neighboring view angles
impacting the project create exceptional circumstances and conditions that do not
apply generally to other properties in the same district.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE3
3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the
same d istrict;
The strict or literal interpretation of the specified regulation would deprive the
applicant of constructing and locating a detached garage in the most feasible
location on the property. Strict or literal enforcement of the regulation would shift
the garage either into Oak groves or into the neighboring viewshed.
4. That the granting of the minor use permit for a minor exception will not constitute
a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties
classified in the same district and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity;
The granting of the Minor Use Permit -Minor Exception will not constitute a grant
of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district due to the unique Oak groves and viewshed angles to consider
that do not generally limit other properties . in the same district. Conditions of
approval developed for this project ensure compliance with the Municipal Code
and the protection of public health, safety and general welfare.
5. That the granting of a minor use permit for a minor exception is consistent with the
objectives and policies of the general plan and the intent of this title;
The objectives of the General Plan are implemented through the Municipal Code
and the proposed project is consistent with the purpose and intent statement of
the Minor Use Permit-Minor Exception provisions in the Municipal Code, which
provides flexibility to allow adjustments to development standards that are
compatible with adjoining uses.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Arroyo Grande hereby denies Appeal Case No. 17-001 and approves Architectural
Review 16-005 and Minor Exception 17-001 as set forth in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, with the above findings and subject to the conditions
as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion by Commissioner
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
, seconded by Commissioner
The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 21 51 day of March 2017.
, and by the
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE4
ATTEST:
DEBBIE WEICHINGER
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO CONTENT:
TERESA McCLISH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
LAN GEORGE, CHAIR
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 5
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VIEWSHED REVIEW 16-005
MINOR EXCEPTION 17-001
250 RIDGEVIEWWAY
This approval authorizes the construction of a new single family residence and detached
two (2) car garage with detached secondary dwelling unit at 250 Ridgeview Way.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City
requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. The project shall substantially conform to the plans on file in the Community
Development Department, dated March 14, 2017 .
3. The applicant shall agree to indemnify and defend at his/her sole expense any
action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the
issuance of said approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The
applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court
costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be
required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such
participation shall not relieve the applicant of his/her obligations under this
condition.
4. The permit shall expire on March 21, 2019 unless a building permit is issued for the
project.
BUILDING DIVISION
5. The applicant shall comply with the current California codes including
the specifically adopted City of Arroyo Grande provisions.
6. Prior to any work being done onsite, the applicant shall obtain all necessary permits
from the Building and Life Safety Division.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
7. Applicant shall provide a grading plan prepared by a registered civil engineer
before issuance of a building permit.
8. Project shall have a storm water pollution prevention plan and shall meet post
construction requirements set by the Regional Water Board.
Ul
=i rn
II r
)> z
~
EXHIBIT "B" FINAL PLANS VIEWSHED REVIEW 16-005 MINOR EXCEPTION 17-001 250 RIDGEVIEW WAY
DANI ELS RESIDENCE ARROYO GRANDE . CA
II
~
()
II
()
I.fl rn
tJ
II r
)> z
I.fl ....
rn r rn < )>
-I
cs z
I.fl
:> "' :• "' a
0 "' . ::> .. CL. . -~ ., ac;·
:r-i ?
; 0 ;;; :"
()l
lJl m
(\
() z
Cl
r 9: m < m r ,,
r
()
()
ft)
"ll r
)-z
(j\
)-
ft)
)-
(j\
m
"ll r
)-z
DANIELS RESIDENC E
,,
;ii
lJl
-I ,,
1. 1
c;=;:;;:;:;l;I
() ~
ft)~~
"ll
~\\
1 I l·i ' c ' ! ' ~
ARROYO GRANDE. CA
\:)
~ < rn
2
)>-
-{
)>-
(\
(\ rn
(J\
(J\
r
()
(\
)>-
-;
6 z
II
I
()
-;
()
DANIELS RESIDENCE
() < rn ~
I rn
)>-
\:)
(J\
=i rn
< rn
2
#
()
< rn
~
I rn
)>-
\:)
(J\
=i rn
< rn
2
#
tv
ARROYO GRANDE. CA
4' \.~ D \.\I ~11 '~~~~~~-% ~ ?'o q,_ ~~ i, rj' ~ 1l"' ,,\\()'> \ '<,\\. C,\~'<\ \ i<c s",'Cl \v\ Cl'' (i\ :1 ' \D~\ '"'LL \\"..I'' YI •. \ \ st.I \-\IA"\,? p.,\'\D \ p.G 1,.S 11~\ ' " ~ \ .\~' \.h ~--~---· --\'\AA'S\ G\ ~ "·1· '"' 1R-'L'l ---·-----\\ ,. o"t\ !, \ Io ' . ---'-....---1 • '" 'U~_v ~---~-\\ . \ \-\"' ' --~ " \--~~)-~--iA s~· ~· -\-_...---;--\ .. -~ I ---\ ' '~<2}----00<--'Xf<\ \, ". ~. -. . .· ................... M·· -· t~l-:;,.--\ . ·' ' ,,,, SCALEl"•iO' . .,-~{,(,;\\\'-\\\~~~\\ .' · / ·' ,,,•""_'.O:"~~~cj ~,.\ """" • I I\ , J, ~\l\.. ,;<' , ··""" \? . ...-" a\\'<GS \ ~,"'". ,\\ .......... <o'<:-~" p" .. · <o~"''"' o~ SITE PLAN 0, •SEE SIDE YARD SETBAGI< REDUC. TION NOTES • SIDE YARD SETBACK 2 5'-6" REQUIRED REQUESTING 1 0% REDUCTION ',._.\ \ .,~ ~\' \~ ~ ..... 25'-2'-6 5/B"• 22'-113/8"•23'-o" I VICINITY MAP I ""'"'"j,'\" ":.::.":.1;·..,,,., .;:~' "" ....... 1.,_,} ... ) ~-,.._ , . \, ,,./" .I'/: J'·,.,.., \ Isaman design, Inc. ARCHITECT I ~l l .\lo r > h SI r • •* S uJ L• 1 u U S•n Lui• Obh.o, Ci\ •J '"I Ph .. nt: ~!1~1~~~.~&l? :a ... •~ .I• •n•~ ~ !'.~.-~~ ~5:: ! UUJ
lf\
=t rn
11 r
)> z
11
I
()
-t
()
()
< rn
11 r
)>
-{
DANIELS RESIDENCE ARROYO GRANDE . CA
SCALE 1/4" = l'·U" 1124/2017 u J ~i{==-1·· F:;~Ji::-;~~un= ii -1 ... -1-: --r--.~L:j l ... ,. I I ~/~15.TI~-~-SEC.ONO FLOOR PLAN J 41 fl -~_:\:-: OODROCM r·1 ~--~ ---·.,., .. ' ' i---~ALL LE0END I :IX4FU1-1-><e1o;KTF~~eD "'"LI-"'DDfD TO ,.,B,..NDON ~ o~ SQUARE FOOT AGE: TOT AL PREVIOU5 5F : 1410 SF ABANDONED SEC.ONO FLOOR 5F: NE~ TOT AL SF: 919 5F 1091 SF ALLO~A6LE SF· 1 :200 5F ) NE~ 109 1 SF l P~tT ,; i<ITC.~fN fN7RY . . I' ~ I , .. i··; 1J . I . . .... ,_ ·. ·~ . I I I j ,,_,, --··· ·~· I I I 7~rs_r1~-~.F!RST FLOOR-PLAN 131 1,----~--u---.L -&:=--,I F~~l.Kfll!o~T ~"LL~ ,,~ •qlt l .. :~ l'e-----' L 11 1 f'"~ -40•.9• --1 1 PR.OP05ED 5EC.OND FLOOR PLAN -------r21 111 • 1-0 .. ····· -~·~ ·~1 __ ,_,.,, __ ·1 I "'°"'" l f"TRY l . j ,,_,,., l :;i,·_,..,,. "": \t -I n. . I !I .IJ 1 f, ' .-1 • 1 .,._,. I I ~,':'.C:P~~.ED FIRST FLOOR PLAN 11 I Isaman design, Inc. PROPOSED GUEST HOUSE Sf REDUCTION ARCHITECT lU17Mor•hS1r••1 Suil•IUU .~an Lu I 1 0 bl<,., C .I t J ~ 0 I ~U~/S4~.~•1! ~ti s 15 4 4 . s ' 4 ! ~ u µ.j ~ ~ 0 0 >--0 ~ ~ u ~ Q ~ [/) ~ [/) ~ ~ ~ ~ Q
PROPOSED 5TRUC.TURE EXISTIN6 STRUC.TURE NEIGHBOR'S Y1El"i C.ORRIDOR VIEWSHED REVIEW APPLICATION GRAPHICS 9127/20!6 I I VIEi"! 2 -EXISTING SHED I 2 I Isaman design, Inc. Im-I I ;',,f"'!';.:· .. :.~· ,';,,,';' '" ~;;;;2'.:21,_:V=l=El"<=K=E=Y=P=LA=N=====-4.:34 ::•~•L .. 111 OD~l~p/i'/.:~·~ -~<J•I:; AUS IS~ CS b ~ l <l'. u .1 ~ Cl z ~ 0 0 ~ 0 ~ <l'. ~ u z ~ Q 1--1 VJ ~ VJ ~ ~ 1--1 ~ Q
\ VIEWSHED REVIEW APPLICATION GRAPHICS ')/27/2()16 "€. ----544"5~ -----------'( --4~ :· ---;;------__ 't--/ \---~60"D'HG50T6,0K \ \ !so RIDGEVIEW WAY \ APN 007-241-024 \ AG 87-240 \ \~c)\ ·1'''1>"0 \ 'b'.i.o \ '\ \ \ r l~ ~ ~\-"\, \;;,, \ <" \\,'\, C"~ \ '· \ \ \ 3.82 ACRES ' ' \ \ \ \ \ :._(, ----\ -\ ~· ~ /-'( '\><.__ Ji,, _, \ \\\ \ .;::----·-------~§6-<~ ~aaa --,.i.sS ...... -\ (......... \\ \\\ ............. ) ~· _/;/ ~ 0 ~.10"€-~ _./?" ' ' ;/?"/-~,.-I ~ ~ y1:~0 SHED MAP I 2 I #'-' ARCHITECT I Ol 7 .\lo r• h ~Ir• ol :I ul I• 2 U U s • h I.uh n ~I• p •, C,\ t) la I ~!l~/~~~.5,1! N b S IS ~ ~ . S i ~ l ",.,...lo •n••" d •don.<• m -<!'. u µj Q ~ 0 ~ 0 gi -<!'. ~ u ~ Q ~ VJ ~ VJ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q
APL / 1-
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF ARROY O GRANDE
l RECEIVED
FEB 2 2 2017
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DECI SION
TO PLANNING COMMISSION
-:Jorv 1 ·n f3-N Ai CJ\J tC--~ '2 /2 ""2-l zot 1
(Name)
2L1o 1(,p~2v1e\/\/
(Address) (City)
Code)
(Date)
Ci'3Lf20
(Zip
Project Appeal Name and Case Number V 5R I (p • 005 M l.\J( 11 -00 I
Project Approved/Denied by Community Development Director on 2. / 1/ 17
(Date)
SignatUl'.L~~~~~===::::.;:;;:=:=--"-----------------
Mailing
Address ____ :C_i' .... D ....... b .......... E .......... lr_._1 _6._..._W~)I-· ____ /1_{7....__ ___ .,........... ___ _
Telephone__._.f3 _o ..... >:_-_c::_s_o_-~'~Y~!5 ..... f2~---Email baciizJ ifCJ SicJCJ] io bq_f, fl1 /--
Receipt Number_j,...... _q .._'1tJ..,...· ......_ _________ Date A 12?>/ I 7
~ ;
D~lJ~~
Community Development Secretsfy
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420
Phone : (805) 473-5420 Fax: (805) 473-0386 E-mail: agcity@arroyogrande .org Website : www.arroy..Qgrande.org
~
~
~
-c\J ~ ,,-.> ~\ ~
'CJ ~" s
C'\
V\ c · 1. "' (\\ ' \'
~
~ c c c <;. Q ~ ~~ r (j ~
~
~ ~
_.\ ~ '={ 5 ~ ~2_ ~
\\1 ~ -0 () _\ s ~ -r ]5 c
1~ -C) ~ ~ c
~ ~ --\ ~ ~ ~ "l
\J\
~
I'
~ ~
~
-l
::t
:?:>
--\
r -T
\\\
~
~
~ c:-~
)>
"'(
\ st.\ \-\14" II'. t>.\-1\) \t>.G 1..S 1190 ~~ \ __ _ J-------\ 'o\ll'I\) i-114' I.I' t>.\-1\) \ t>.G 1.S .,~11 1>t.RR-'2 ~ ~~~'° ~~ ~.-:'· ~ 6' '° '1i 6', u> ~ < u> l?'. 'k. ~ ~. ·q,_ ~-"'a~--o,, \'I' \'I'~ '<<P o>,,. ~qo~~ "?~ --\ ·-' 6' 'o ~ 1!_ .,_, ~\\Q~ . ~\\'\ () ,s .... ."> 0'v ~~ r:J; ' \yo ' \ 'b '-" '0' l?'. \ \ ~x. :\s~5-\f.x.~ ' l's<t: <~\I' c.S' ' X.'il" ·i ' 'i' 11'''-it:l\) 'il"=-~~':i . -,<O, • \\)\ ·<:,'i:i ' v \'~\ \)\l 'i)~\\ ~<t>'l. \ ' ~' ' ti: ,'l,'.<i ,,'t> 'O "~ v ·'l.\'?,'?>· 'ciCl y \ ti ·'\\ ,'O \~ -;/:i 'O ~ .... ~ 'l.~ .._.ro , ~'t> v,\l· • ~~'\ ~-,'l: \to \ \ v <t>'., 'i)~'l: \ \ \ ' \ \ \ \ ~ \ ~ \ ' -. , 0 \ 'f.:i. \ 0 0 ,,>~ ~ ·o '-"· __../· ~--· -c.· ,,..,,,.,.' \ y \ ~ ,,> ~-\ ~\ ', ~~ ?) ~ 6'. 6'. \ ~ '?. f \ 6.0' P U.E \ \ ~'I 0'' s' C)'I' ei ,,, ll .. \, l?'. "' u>\ q,<5', ~\ .(;.\'\',_'.? ·~, PER THIS MAP ,,>. ~ x.I \~X."=-S \\ \)' .,,,~<t: '(X.~ '"'' . "'~" ,~Q'l\'' I" z: 20' r-..... ,./'/ __.,/,./' / '"'~ -P.' ~ '6' ~\ '6' ~ l?' ~ ' -P. \ .,,. 6'. \~sX."'r,;.~1 ... ·x.~1 'i'X.~ i'l\\S "'I'" . ~x.l'sx.~ ~ \ 'l." \ /. \ ~' \\' :t. \ \lx.s'~'I' , ~(J' x.Cl. \'l.':i \~ \ ~ \)' \ i ~~i~<:l ' . v-,si , ,.,io ...-/ \-'i)~'O~~~// y/ ,~i~-'l. s ___ ,,, \'l.~'l.~., c,; i·\ 0 r>-·'' _,/ ,,,.~· .. ,,,,. -~--/ _..../ ~,P ' . //' ~r:,S ~S ss'";\\'\\\\ ~..... tiX.~~\ ~ ,/ ~l'""'"Q SITE PLAN \ \ ..... _..../ \ , \ \ ,. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ... ~ --=---~-\ <Jl <Jl ~ 'Zr~. ~-u> "' ::.> ::.> <9, --~ ~ ~ 250 "/2-I 06 ~ l C:-l;\./ •SEE SIDE 'T'ARD SETBAC.K ~-----REDUC.TION NOTES \ \ \ \ S11·10·53.E 18 Tie Line J.15• (CAL ,,'\, s 17•10•39.E 193 c~lA TEo f ' ~ ~M ' s"=-s \ sS t: x.S· <,;_\< 1<· c,'<'t: ,,~\ i'-'~ x.s 'i' '\)I' ,,,1.\ I'\ '-''' \,~'l.· ,~\, A~'{\ \,\\;\ 'I.'~ '-i' r\J~. ,c, -.'),\S oC,'t: <.~\ \l'O\ \ .. "' 'i'~" x."'" 'i' >".!\ \Q x.~S ~~'il/<:-, . ._,., 'l'~'i) "~r:,X. \ ,,>~\ 'I, 1<·' ,..,~ ~,·"' i~' .....--~ ;....-? 'i) ~>l'ilX.'....--.c;'i'Cl i~~:..--Q~' :-{QG<·\l\S ~\<~~I'" Qt//:-{ Qt c,~\I"' / c,Q • S!DE '1'.AR!? SJ;TB~C.K 25'-b" REQUIRED REQUESTING 1 0% REDUC. TION 25' -2'-b 5/!l". 22'-11 5/!l". 25'-0" r -VICINITY MAP 1 \ \ ,,,_,:;.;:,:.s:~ \ :·.,,,~ (),> .... _"'· f',-"-\ ', I '-·,. : ...., I / "'., ,1 / ;.,. ' .r ,f w // l . I Isaman design, Inc. ,..RCHITECT lll1 ,\l•r•hSI•••• s .. 11.11g SI• L•h 0-hpe. C 4 '''DI I U ~ .'! ' 4 . ~ 6 1 ! • ll ~ 15 ' ' . 5 ' ' l