HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/20/1996, 4 - A 157-95: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF AN APPEAL AND APPROVAL OF A REDUCED SIDE YARD FOR A CARPORT AND TANDEM PARKING. p,
Q,Iq^lyl►►IYlllllllul�IUIII MEETING DATE:
II RI i►��►►
city or san Luis osIspo a-a 0-%
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM Nu
FROM: Arnold Jo7--95, :
Community Development DirectorBY: Judith Lautnessociate Planner
SUBJECT: A 15 Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of an appeal and approval of a
reduced side yard for a carport and tandem parldng.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution denying the appeal, thereby approving the request as approved by the Planning
Commission.
DISCUSSION
Backg=nd
The applicant requested a side yard reduction for a carport, to replace an unusable parldng space in an older
garage. The Administrative Hearing Officer approved the yard reduction, along with tandem parldng. A
neighbor appealed that decision. The Planning Commission heard the appeal and denied it, thereby
upholding the Hearing Officer's action. The neighbor appealed the Planning Commission's action. Appeals
of Planning Commission actions are heard by the City Council. Details of the request are contained in the
attached Planning Commission report.
History
A building permit for a study addition was issued in 1975. A City Building Inspector recently visited the
site and compared permit information and determined that the room in the garage is the "study". It is
currently being used as a bedroom, a conversion that required no permits.
The remaining space in the garage is too small for a vehicle. It is unclear if the building permit issued in
1975 allowed the study wall to be located where it is now. It is this wall that determines the size of the
remaining space in the garage. A neighbor submitted a complaint against the property, contending that the
wall has been moved recently, and that therefore a required parldng space was eliminated. Because of the
uncertainty about the wall (there is no evidence to indicate that it is not where designed, either), the
applicant requested approval of a carport to replace the garage space. Staff added the tandem request to
clarify the parldng situation legally.
The Hearing Officer's Action.
The Administrative Hearing Officer approved the request, because the room in the garage had been
constructed legally and he could see no other reasonable way to provide a legal parldng space, and because
the carport did not appear to present any significant impacts to the neighborhood. The tandem space was
approved because the action is simply a replacement of one tandem space (directly behind the garage) with
another. Minutes of the Administrative Hearing are attached to this report.
����►�►�►��IIIIIII�p ����IIN city of San �. .O s OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
A 157-95
886 Lincoln Avenue
Page 2
The Appellant's concerns.
The appellant insists that the applicants moved the wall and therefore created an illegal parking space. He
asks that the wall be moved and the space in the garage be made usable. He is also concerned that a tandem
space behind the carport would result in gasoline fumes drifting into one of his bedroom windows, because
cars would be started in that location, possibly several times a day.
The Planning Commission's action.
The Planning Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's action, with little discussion. The Commission did
not feel it appropriate to require that a wall in the garage be moved, without proof that the wall is in the
wrong place. The two-foot exception for the carport was acceptable to the Commission, as was the
relocation of the tandem space. Minutes of the Planning Commission hearing are attached.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may approve the appeal, thereby denying the project. Findings for denial must be made.
The Council may deny the appeal, thereby approving the project, with modifications to the conditions.
The Council may continue action. Direction should be given to staff, the applicant, and appellant.
Attached:
Resolutions
Vicinity map
PC staff report
Site plan
Minutes - December 15, 1995 Administrative hearing
Minutes - January 10, 1996 Planning Commission hearing
Appeal letters
-a
RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER'S
ACTION APPROVING A SIDE YARD REDUCTION
FROM FIVE FEET TO THREE FEET
AND ALLOWING TANDEM PARKING AT 886 LINCOLN AVENUE
(A 157-95)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of public testimony, the
appellant's request and statements, and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff
recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings:
1. The reduction is for a minor addition to an existing legally non-conforming structure. The
structure does not conform to current regulations because it is set back 3' from the
westerly property line while a 5' setback would now be required.
2. The separate bedroom in the.former garage building was created in accordance with an
approved building permit. Therefore, that approval resulted in the legal removal of one
parking space. However, the size of the remaining parking space in the garage may be
narrower than the original permit allowed, and is therefore not a legal or practicalparking
space.. Therefore, to retain that wall the property owner must provide a conforming
Parking space to replace the narrow space within the building.
3. The addition, a 180-SF carport, to the front of the existing storage-bedroom building, is
a logical extension of the existing non-conforming structure.
4. No useful purpose would be realized by requiring the full yard, because it would make
access to the parking space under the carport difficult, and the small carport will not
significantly affect solar shading of the adjacent property to the west.
5. No significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are likely to
result from the addition.
6. It is impractical to obtain a 10-foot separation easement for the area between the addition
and any buildings on the adjacent lot to the east, because 1) a ten-foot separation does not
now exist between buildings; and 2) the easement would affect only property adjacent to
the new carport, making the requirement ineffective in maintaining a ten-foot separation
along the westerly property line.
43
Resolution no. (1996 Series)
886 Lincoln Avenue
Page 3
7. The parking spaces will serve the residents of the home only, and therefore are both under
the residents' control.
8. Both parking spaces will be set back more than 20' from the street property line.
SECTION 2. Appeal denied. The appeal of the Planning Commission's action is hereby denied,
and the project is hereby approved with the following
Conditions
1. A ramp must be provided from the existing driveway to the bricked patio and parking area
currently under construction, to assure that vehicles can be parked under the carport, to
the approval of the Building Division.
2. Access to the carport must not be blocked by plants or other means at any time.
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 , 1996.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
9ty torn
RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER'S
ACTION, THEREBY DENYING A SIDE YARD REDUCTION
FROM FIVE FEET TO THREE FEET
AND DENYING TANDEM PARKING AT 886 LINCOLN AVENUE
(A 157-95)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Fines. That this Council, after consideration of public testimony, the
appellant's request and statements, and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff
recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings:
1. The request for a yard reduction and tandem parking is inconsistent with the general plan
and zoning regulations because (COUNCIL FILL N.
SECTION 2. Appeal approved. The appeal of the Planning Commission's action is hereby
approved, and the requests are 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 , 1996.
�'D
Resolution no. (1996 Series)
886 Lincoln Avenue
Page 3
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City Attorney
TUI
ov
vlw- 07
0 . O F SUN ECT
�ti` O _
0
e
-•g^ '-p o � O ° ��PJB'• ` o - i� -lo .�
.2=
Ov O ° �►
1� G ee '� /' �• �fp
A140
O
.16
46/0
e / \
G
P
Oc$ fi
1 4
ti F�Ao
6�
r
VICINITY MAP gb(e tin aft' A'tle. "°R`"
15� - q5 stefeyc vvd k-e ttcftopl
�1- 7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMkSSION STAFF REPORT ITEM x 3
BY: Judith Lautnersociate Planner MEETING DATE: January 10, 1996
FROM: Ron Whisen nd, Development Review Manager{
FILE NUMBER: A 157-95
PROJECT ADDRESS: 886 Lincoln Avenue
SUBJECT.. Appeal of Hearing Officer's action approving a side yard reduction for a carport
and tandem parking
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Hearing Officer's action.
BACKGROUND
Situation.
The applicant requested approval of a side yard reduction from five feet to three feet for a carport,
to replace an unusable parking space within an older garage. The Administrative Hearing Officer
approved the yard reduction, along with tandem parking to bring the number of parking spaces
on site up to current standards. A neighbor appealed the decision. Appeals of actions by the
Administrative Hearing Officer are heard by the Planning Commission.
Data Summary
Address: 886 Lincoln Avenue
Applicants/property owners: Rick and Patty Reis
Appellant: Michael Mills
Zoning: Low-Density Residential (R-1)
General Plan: Low-Density Residential
Environmental status: Categorically exempt: class 3, section 15303.a (construction of
new, small structures)
Project action deadline: Action has already been taken; no state-mandated deadline.
Site description
The site is a flat rectangular lot developed with a one-story house and garage at the regi. A portion
of the garage has been converted to living space, and is currently used as a detached bedroom. The
remainder of the garage is used for storage.
The neighborhood is older and contains modest homes on similar lots, generally built in the same
time period.
A
A 157-95
886 Lincoln Avenue
Page 2
project Description
The project is a yard exception for a carport, and tandem parking. The carport would be built in
front of the existing garage and would line up with the garage on the westerly side. A tandem
space would be behind the new carport, in the existing driveway.
EVALUATION
1. Current requirements are for one covered parking space. The zoning regulations now
require homes in Low-Density Residential zones to have two parking spaces, one of which
must be covered.
2. Permit history is not exact. The applicants requested approval of a carport after the
garage conversion became the subject of a complaint. Staff research shows that a permit
for a study was approved in 1975, and that the size of that study corresponds with the
room in the garage and no other room in the house. Enforcement staff has therefore
concluded that a permit was issued for the conversion of a portion of the garage into living
space, thereby legally eliminating one parking space.
It is not possible to confirm absolutely that the wall of the converted room is located where
permitted in 1975. Although it seems likely that it is in the correct location, based on
square footage, the lack of an absolute determination led to a requirement by enforcement
staff that the remaining parking space in the garage, which is unusable because of its
narrow width, must be replaced by a conforming parking space. However, because the
1975 permit allowed the removal of one parking space legally, only one replacement space
is required.
3. The carport location is logical. Staff can see no other place for the carport that makes as
much sense as the proposed location. The minor yard exception will allow it to be more
accessible for vehicles and therefore more likely to be used. The driveway is long and will
allow a tandem space behind the carport without intruding in the required street yard.
4. The tandem space already existed. When a permit to convert part of the garage was
approved in 1975, that permit essentially created a tandem space behind the space
remaining in the garage. The approval of tandem parking at this time was simply an
approval to move the space from directly behind the garage to behind the new carport.
5. The appellant is concerned about the conversion. The appellant wants the applicants to
eliminate the room in the garage and use it for parking only, and says that "allowing the
carport sets a bad precedence" (sic).
A 157-95
886 Lincoln Avenue
Page 3
The City cannot renege on a permit lawfully obtained. The room in the garage was
constructed in accordance with a permit issued in 1975. It is possible that issuance of the
permit was not appropriate or in accordance with parking requirements at that time, but
the City cannot second-guess the reasons for that approval at this time. The Commission
may not require the applicants to convert the room back to a garage space.
It is also not reasonable to require that the wall of the conversion be moved to create a
large vehicle parking space, without greater evidence that in fact the wall was constructed
in the wrong place.
It is for these reasons that the Hearing Officer approved the carport yard exception and the
moving of the tandem parking space. The approval allows construction of a legal covered
space and a legal tandem space, thereby meeting current parking requirements.
ALTERNATIVES
The Commission can deny the yard exception and tandem parking. The applicants would the have
to provide a covered parking space someplace else on site. The Commission can continue action.
Direction should be given to the applicants and staff. The Commission can approve the requests
with modified findings or conditions.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
No other departments have concerns with this request. The carport construction can be built to
conform to current building codes at the three foot setback.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal, thereby approving the Hearing Officer's action, with all original findings and
conditions.
Attached:
vicinity map
site plan
minutes of December 15 Administrative Hearing
letter of appeal
Al./D
..r.....„
r
ID
s
' � P
0
DEr�ZED I
C49popur
i
06
W tY1GIpW `RA� v
L •
a
Sr
fVtI1�Ay `�AhC�H ,. '4, I
• 1
. i I 5f�fi
i m OL
1
a
n
LI ooc oL:N ANE t/�//
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING - MINUTES
FRIDAY DECEMBER 15, 1995
886 Lincoln Avenue. Use Permit Appl. A 157-95; Request to allow reduced side
yard from 5-feet to 3-feet for carport, and to allow tandem
parking; R-1 zone; Rick and Patty Reis, applicants.
Judy Lautner presented the staff report, explaining that the request is for a side yard
exception to allow a carport to be built closer to the property line than is normally
allowed. She said that the parking space in the older garage does not meet the City's
current standards for parking spaces, and it is uncertain whether the extra room inside
that garage was built in accordance with permitted plans, which made the garage
parking non-conforming. The applicants must therefore create another covered
parking space to replace the non-conforming space. The request for tandem parking
is not technically required, but if approved will bring the site into conformance with
current regulations
Ms. Lautner did not feel there was any other reasonable place to locate a carport other
then where it is shown on drawings submitted by the applicant. She felt it would be
a logical extension of the existing building, which is a legal non-conforming building
and is set back 3-feet from the property line. Based on this information, staff
recommended approval of the request, based on six findings and subject to two
conditions.
Ron Whisenand asked if there were two previously approved parking .spaces in
tandem. Judy Lautner responded that there is no record of whether or not tandem
parking was approved. She felt that most likely there was no tandem parking
approval, and the space in the garage was just removed. Ms. Lautner felt the
applicants are legally required to provide only one parking space at this time. She
noted that a significant street yard setback is being maintained.
The public hearing was opened.
Rick Reis, applicant, spoke in support of his request. He said he has been working
with the City to choose the best possible location for the carport. Mr. Reis said the
house was like this when he bought it, and he just wants to get this matter taken care
of.
Ron Whisenand asked there were any problems with the recommended conditions.
Mr. Reis responded that he had none.
Mr..Whisenand noted that in 1975, a permit was issued by the City to convert a
portion of the garage into a study.
Administrative Hearing - Minutes
December 15, 1995
Page 2
Mrs. Reis noted that, prior to their purchasing the house, a covered deck had been put
in which she felt was an attempt to fulfill the parking obligation. Then, a family room
had been added to the house which eliminated the access to the parking space.
Ron Whisenand asked what the garage conversion is to be used for. Ms. Reis said
it would be a detached bedroom with a bathroom. There would be no kitchen facility.
She noted that there is a small apartment-sized refrigerator in the converted area.
Mike Mills, 878 Lincoln Avenue, said he lives next door to the applicant. He asked
if cooking would be allowed in the converted area. Mr. Whisenand responded that
cooking facilities in the unit are not proposed, nor are they allowed by zoning
regulations. Mr. Mills also felt that there would need to be more than 28 feet to allow
two cars to park in tandem. He felt with this layout, the back of one of the cars
would face his back bedroom window, causing concern with exhaust fumes. He felt
they should turn the converted area back to a garage.
Ron Whisenand asked if the addition was a rental unit or a bedroom addition. Ms.
Reis responded that it is a legal bedroom unit that she rents out.
Ms. Lautner interjected that it is legal to rent out a bedroom. Whether or not the
space is rented as a unit or not is not relevant to this hearing and discussion, but
rather a separate enforcement issue which is being pursued by the Enforcement
Officer. She also noted that whether or not it contains a kitchen does not have
anything to do with the request for a yard reduction.
Mr. Reis noted that they try to rent to students who utilize the cafeteria at school, so
cooking is not an issue. They are allowed to occasionally use the kitchen facilities in
the house, or use the barbecue.
The public hearing was closed.
Ron Whisenand felt that the carport issue is not the major setback concern. He
agreed with staff's findings, and indicated that normally he would be concerned with
this type of expansion if it were not for the fact that a permit was already issued by
the City to convert a portion of the garage to a study. If that were not the case, he
did not feel he could support the exception request. He felt the permit allowed a
substandard garage space. He noted the carport will comply with the City's Parking
Regulations to have one covered space. He also felt that an existing tandem space
is only being moved.
Ron Whisenand approved the setback reduction request, based on the following
findings and subject to the following conditions:
d/-i3
Administrative Hearing - Minutes
December 15, 1995
Page 3
Findings
1 . The reduction is for a minor addition to an existing legally non-conforming
structure. The structure does not conform to current regulations because it is
set back 3' from the westerly property line while a 5-foot setback would now
be required.
2. The separate bedroom in the former garage building was created in accordance
with an approved building permit. Therefore, that approval resulted in the legal
removal of one parking space. However,the size of the remaining parking space
in the garage may be narrower than the original permit allowed, and is therefore
not a legal or practical parking space.. Therefore, to retain that wall the
property owner must provide a conforming parking space to replace the narrow
space within the building.
3. The addition, a 180 square foot carport, to the front of the existing storage-
bedroom building, is a logical extension of the. existing non-conforming
structure. .
4. No useful purpose would be realized by requiring the full yard, because it would
make access to the parking space under the carport difficult, and the small
carport will not significantly affect solar shading of the adjacent property to the
west.
5. No significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts
are likely to result from the addition.
6. It is impractical to obtain a 10-foot separation easement for the area between
the addition and any buildings on the adjacent lot to the east, because 1) a ten
foot separation does not now exist between buildings; and 2) the easement
would affect only property adjacent to the new carport, making the requirement
ineffective in maintaining a 10-foot separation along the westerly property line.
Conditions
1 . A ramp must be provided from the existing driveway to the bricked patio and
parking area currently under construction,to assure that vehicles can be parked
under the carport, to the approval of the Building Division.
2. Access to the carport must not be blocked by plants or other means at any
time.
y-iy
Administrative Hearing - Minutes
December 15, 1995
Page 4
He also approved the request for tandem parking, based on the following findings:
Findings
1 . The parking spaces will serve the residents of the home only, and therefore are
both under the residents' control.
2. Both parking spaces will be set back more than 20-feet from the street property
line.
Mr. Whisenand reminded everyone of the appeal process. An appeal may be filed by
anyone within ten days of the action. An appeal will be heard by the Planning
Commission.
y-�s�
Planning Commission Meeting
January 10, 1996
Page 7
3. 886 Lincoln Avenue: A 157-95: Appeal of a director's decision to allow a reduced side yard
from five feet to three feet for a carport, and to allow tandem parking; R-1 Zone, Michael T.
Mills, appellant.
Commissioner Senn stepped left the meeting because of a conflict of interest.
Associate Planner Lautner presented the staff report recommending denial of the appeal.
The public hearing was opened.
Michael Mills, 878 Lincoln Ave., appellant, said the City, is not absolutely able to confirm the wall
is located where it was permitted. He stated there was a lot of work done on the site last May
and June. The owners have changed the entire facade of the garage, moved the window over
approximately three feet, and put in a skylight without a permit. They installed a shower in the
main house without a permit. They destroyed the parking. He feels the wall should be moved
and the building made back into a garage. Mr. Mills was concerned that with tandem parking, the
car parked behind the carport will emit fumes into his bedroom window.
Rick Reis, 886 Lincoln, said he is trying to comply with the City regulations. He said they have
done improvements on the room in the garage to make it more usable. They haven't moved any
walls. He said people do park cars in the driveways. He said they are trying to be good
/6
Planning Commission Meeting
January 10, 1996
Page 8
neighbors.
The public hearing was closed.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens in answer to a question by Commissioner Cross, said there was a
kitchen in the detached bedroom at one point but it was removed.
Commissioner Kourakis expressed concern about having a car near the neighbor's bedroom.
Commissioner Cross stated he has problem with detached bedrooms and carports. He felt the
City should look at the issue.
Commissioner Ready moved to deny the appeal and uphold the action of the Administrative
Hearing Officer. Commissioner Hoffman seconded the motion.
AYES: Commrs. Ready, Hoffman, Cross, Senn, Karleskint
NOES: Commr. Kourakis
ABSENT: Commr. Whittlesey
The motion carried.
Acis i5 tj A U-0 66 A C,4910 02-T �4
i/f�' R�� � •��' �a- �-e��d T�� �,tar/� /�/rn�i.�i Tom"
AA10 T �� TN�ia ,d�c 6s�rs,� ro Kit'
IAI
ALcouf��lG� Tf�` 4,o&2P0QT SETS A 19AD /oi2fG�D��vcE
RECEIVED
DEC � U 1995
Cm OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
BUILDING DIVISION
y i�
���►►►►II�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�����III►°��►►II ���I cityO sAn hili oaspo
Imp APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of
PLANA) INCv COMM 1SStoA! rendered on UAuuAXy Io. Lam,9
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.)
COAIZT-2uarled of A C4kPoar' R 886 4.1Ne0j.N
'"E.1-6 Is Au ,-va-ritl6, CA1eAr*(7- 7W,47- /AAs 06PAl
Re No D Lei--) To M Ak A &-N-rA L U N I T TRIC 268 V
Doiuej) AW A-y IA11rH K CovbV,:5 6;`0 16A4ak/44 s. AcE
A �t.ow�u, T,�e�c couu� i3c Ap2oac.�'a-f f^11 rt,!
C,aeAoN k0AjcxtDd= A013 AAa1NAa4:.
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
on
Name/Department (Date)
Appellant: M1CAAEL. V HILLS_ 87g JQNC.QA,4, 93jQLf-
NamelTitle Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
5epl-85885
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative:
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
For Official Use Only: /
Calendared for .Z-20 - 96 Date &Time Received:
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s): A ,6 a C'V E D
[� �AirTNBP JAN 1 y 199E
•)Cp w
CITY CLERK
Original in City Clerk's Office SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA