Loading...
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