HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/21/1998, 1 - APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO UPHOLD THE HEARING OFFICER'S ACTION ALLOWING A CONFORMING ADDITION TO A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND DENYING A BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A 27-FOOT HIGH HOUSE WHERE A 25-FOOT HOUSE IS council M ftD° ai 9
j agenda aEpont
CITY OF SAN LUIS OB 1 SPO
FROM: Arnold Jonas,Community Develo meat Director
Prepared By: John Shoals,Associate Planne
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission decision to uphold the Hearing Officer's
action allowing a conforming addition to a non-conforming structure, and denying a building
height exception to allow a 27-foot high house where a 25-foot house is allowed; 121 Penman
Way, R-1 Zone.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Draft Resolution "A" (Attachment 1), denying the appeal, and upholding the Planning
Commission's action on the subject project.
DISCUSSION
Situation
On February 6, 1998,the City's Hearing Officer approved an administrative use permit to allow a
conforming addition to a non-conforming structure,but denied the applicant's request for a building
height exception. Based on this decision,the applicant agreed to reduce the building's height to
comply with the City's Zoning Regulations. Citing concerns over viewshed protection and
neighborhood compatibility, several neighborhood residents appealed the Hearing Officer's action
to the Planning Commission. On March 11, 1998, the Planning Commission denied the appeal
upholding the Hearing Officer's decision. The Commission's action is now being appealed to the
City Council.
For clarification, with the exception of an existing side yard setback, the revised project will
comply with all property development standards established for the R-1 zone. In addition, the
applicant has withdrawn his request for a building height exception.
BACKGROUND
Project Descrivtion
The project is an application for an administrative use permit to allow a conforming addition to a
non-conformingresidential structure.
Specifically,the applicant wants to remodel his home at 121 Penman Way. Constructed in 1951,
the existing house is 1,665 square foot (sq.ft.) and one-story. The proposed remodel/addition
would involve demolishing a 967-sq.ft. portion of the structure and adding 1,821 sq. ft. When
completed, the residence would be a 2,519 sq. ft. two-story structure. A copy of both the
proposed site plan and a building elevation is contained in the Planning Commission staff report
dated March 11, 1998 (Attachment 4).
A 6-98 appeal
121 Penman Way
Page 2
The existing house is non-conforming with regards to yard requirements. Specifically, there is a
bedroom addition, which was constructed legally in 1976, four feet from the north property line,
and a carport located that is less than one foot from the south property line. City code requires a
five-foot wide side yard. The existing structure complies with all other R-1 property
development standards. However, because the existing residence is a non-conforming structure,
the proposed remodel/addition requires an administrative use permit.
Project History
The applicant originally filed for an administrative use permit in January of 1998. After
reviewing the application and support materials, the project was scheduled for a public hearing
with the Hearing Officer.
On February 6, 1998, the City's Hearing Officer approved the applicant's request for the
conforming addition, but denied the requested height exception. The Hearing Officer's findings
and conditions are included in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 4). On
February 17 and 18, 1998, four appeals of the Hearing Officer's action were filed with the
Community Development Department. The appeals were scheduled for the Planning
Commission meeting on March 11, 1998.
Plannine Commission Action
On March 11, 1998,the Planning Commission, on a 4 to 3 vote, denied the appeal and upheld the
Hearing Officer's decision. The Commission's decision was based on the following findings:
1)the proposed addition would be consistent with the City's Zoning Regulations;
2)the addition would improve the structure's non-conformity;
3)the addition is a logical extension of the existing house; and
4)the proposed residential structure would not alter the overall character of the
neighborhood.
Attachment 5 is a copy of the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting. A copy of the
Planning Commission Resolution(No. 5217-98)is also included as Attachment 3.
ADDeals Filed
On March 19, 1998, two letters of appeal were filed with the City Clerk. No grounds for appeal
were specified in the letters. A copy of each letter is included as Attachment 6.
FISCAL IMPACTS
None
A 6-98 appeal
121 Penman Way
Page
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt Draft Resolution `B" (Attachment 2) to uphold the appeal thereby denying the use
permit for the residential remodel and addition. If the Council denies the project, it must
establish the appropriate findings for denial.
2. The City Council may approve the appeal and direct the applicant to modify the proposed
residential remodel and addition.
3. The City Council may continue action. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Draft Resolution"A"(Deny Appeal)
Attachment 2 - Draft Resolution"B" (Uphold Appeal)
Attachment 3 - Planning Commission Resolution No. 5217-98
Attachment 4- Planning Commission Staff Report,dated March 11, 1998.
Attachment 5 - Minutes for Planning Commission meeting of March 11, 1998.
Attachment 6- Applicant's Letter of Appeal,dated March 19, 1998.
. / - 3
t�f.
4 '
I
Resolution"A"
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION ON AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT ALLOWING A
CONFORMING ADDITION TO A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE
AT 121 PENMAN WAY,A 6-98
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 11, 1998,
and denied appeals to the Hearing Officer's action, thereby, approving an administrative use
permit allowing a conforming addition to a non-conforming structure and denying a building
height exception to allow a 27-foot high structure where a 25-foot high structure is allowed;
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission's action was appealed on March 19, 1998;and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 21, 1998, and has
considered testimony of interested parties including the appellants, the records of the Planning
Commission hearings, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of administrative use
permit A-6-98 and the Commission's decision, staff recommendation, public testimony, and
reports thereof,makes the following findings:
1. The proposed addition is consistent with the intent of Chapter 17.14 of the zoning
regulations as the project will improve the structure's non-conforming by
removing an existing non-conforming carport.
2. The proposed addition is a logical extension of the existing non-conforming
house,and it will not alter the overall character of the neighborhood.
3. The building roof can be redesigned to lower the overall building height to
comply with the maximum height standard in the R-1 zone(Section 17.24.020C).
/— ly
ATTACHMENT I
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 2
4. Compliance with the City's maximum building height standard(25 feet)will
minimize any obstruction of views from the adjoining properties on Serrano
Drive and Serrano Heights.
SECTION 2. Denial. The appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve
administrative use permit A-6-98 is 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 21 st day of April, 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
✓uf G�iy�
Atom
/—S
Resolution`B"
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION THEREBY DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT,
A 6-989 FOR A CONFORMING ADDITION TO A NON-CONFORMING
STRUCTURE AT 121 PENMANY WAY.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 11, 1998,
and denied appeals to the Hearing Officer's action, thereby, approving an administrative use
permit allowing a conforming addition to a non-conforming structure and denying a building
height exception to allow a 27-foot high structure where a 25-foot high structure is allowed;
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission's action was appealed on March 19, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 21, 1998, and has
considered testimony of interested parties including the appellants, the records of the Planning
Commission hearings, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of administrative use
permit A-6-98 and the Commission's decision, staff recommendation, public testimony, and
reports thereof,makes the following findings:
1. The architecture and scale of the proposed residential remodel/addition is not
compatible with the existing residential structures on Penman Way, Serrano Drive
and Serrano Heights, and it will alter the overall character of the neighborhood.
2. The site is sensitive with respect to hillside and viewshed protection,and the
project will have a significant impact on the views of the existing neighbors on
Serrano Drive and Serrano Heights.
ATTACHMENT 2
/—�o
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 2. Approve. The appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve
administrative use permit A+98'is hereby approved_
On motion of _ , seconded by
and on the following;roll call voter
AYES-
NOES;
ABsm-m
the foregoing resolution.was<passed and adopted this 21st day of April, 1998:
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED:
i Attorn y .. ey ...Jorgensen
i
ATTACHMENT 3
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5217-98
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
March 11, 1998 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application A 6-98, Donald Waller,
applicant and Madi Gates, William McWhinney, Natalia Neil, and Rick and Pam Racouillat,
appellants.
ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT REVIEWED:
A 6-98: Conforming addition to a non-conforming structure,and a building height exception.
DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development Department, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
121 Penman Way
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT:
Low-density Residential
PRESENT ZONING:
R-1
WHEREAS, said Commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and studies
made by itself, and in behalf of testimonies offered at said hearing has established existence of
the following circumstances:
1. The proposed addition is consistent with the intent of Chapter 17.14 of the zoning
regulations as the project will improve the structure's non-conforming by removing an
existing non-conforming carport.
ATTACHMENT 3
Resolution No. 5217-98
A 6-98
Page 2
2. The proposed addition is a logical extension of the existing nonconforming house,and it
will not alter the overall character of the neighborhood.
3. The building roof can be redesigned to lower the overall building height to comply with
the maximum height standard in the R-1 zone(Section 17.24.020C).
4. Compliance with the City's maximum building height standard(25 feet)will minimize
any obstruction of views from the adjoining properties on Serrano Drive and Serrano
Heights.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision to
allow a conforming addition to a non-conforming structure for Administrative Use Permit 6-98
be upheld and subject to the following condition:
1. Overall building height shall not exceed 25 feet above existing grade (at the existing
garage)and shall be confined to the portion of the roof shown on the submitted plans.
The foregoing resolution was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis
Obispo upon the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Ashbaugh, Jeffrey,Ready, Senn,and Whittlesey.
NOES: Commissioners Ewan and Kourakis
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
MK\PCL5217-98
1-9
w w
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM#I
BY: John Shoals, Associate Plannerlp MEETING DATE: March 11, 1998
FROM: Ron Whisenand,Development Review Manager
FILE NUMBER: A 6-98
PROJECT ADDRESS: 121 Penman Way
SUBJECT: Appeal of Hearing Officer's action approving a conforming addition to a non-
conforming structure and denial of a building height exception for home remodel at 121 Penman
Way(see Attachment 1 -Vicinity Map).
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal,thereby upholding the Hearing Officer's action.
BACKGROUND
Situation
On January 15, 1998,the applicant filed a request for a use permit to allow the construction of a
conforming addition to a non-conforming structure, and a building height exception to allow a
27-foot high house where a 25-foot high house is allowed. The existing house is a non-
conforming structure because a bedroom addition (constructed legally in 1976) is four feet from
the north property line (five feet is the current standard). The existing structure complies with
all other R-1 property development standards. Because the existing residence is a non-
conforming structure,the proposed remodel/addition requires an administrative use permit.
On February 6, the City's Hearing Officer conducted a hearing on the applicant's request. At
that hearing, the Hearing Officer approved the request for the addition, but denied the requested
height exception. On February 17, 1998, the hearing officer's action was appealed by four
property owners in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission is being asked to review the
hearing officer's action, the public testimony, the appellants' statements, staff recommendations
and to make a determination on the subject appeal.
Proiect Description
The applicant is requesting a use permit to allow an addition to a non-conforming structure.
Specifically, the applicant wants to remodel an existing residence at 121 Penman Way
(Attachment 1). Constructed in 1951, the existing home is a 1,665 square feet(sq. ft.) one-story
structure. The proposed remodelladdition involves the demolition of a portion of the structure
(967 sq. ft.)and the addition of 1,821 sq. ft. When completed,the residence would be a 2,519 sq.
ft. two-story structure. A copy of the proposed site plan is included as Attachment 2.
Attachment 3 is copy of the building's front elevation as originally proposed by the applicant.
ATTACHMENT 4
A 6-98
121 Penman Way
Page 2
Data Summary
Address: 121 Penman Way
Applicant: Donald R Waller
Property owner: Donald R. Waller
Representative: Clark, Conroy&Associates
Zoning:Low Density Residential (R-1)
General Plan: Low Density Residential
Environmental status: Categorically exempt: Class 1, Section 15301L(l): existing single
family residential.
Project action deadline: Action has been taken. State law requires that appeals be heard no
more than 45 days after the written petition is received(by April 3, 1998).
Site description
The site is a 13,200 sq. ft rectangular-shaped lot. It has a land use designation of Low Density
Residential and is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential). As shown in the vicinity map
(Attachment 1),the site is located in residential area and is completely surrounded by residences.
The site is situated on the hillside of Cerro San Luis and has a 5 to 9% slope from the west to the
east. Vegetation on the site consists of domestic landscaping, a 20' to 30' high stand of trees on
the westerly property line, and a combination of trees and shrubs on the southerly property lines.
Penman Way is a narrow private drive off of Serrano Way. With the exception of the roadway,
the house is fully served with public utilities including water,sewer, gas and electricity.
Hearing Officer's Action
On February 6, 1998, the City's Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing on the proposed
project. After reviewing the information presented and receiving public testimony, the hearing
officer approved the applicant's request for the addition, but denied the requested height
exception based on the finding and conditions outlined in Attachment 4.
Appeal Filed
At the hearing, several of the neighborhood residents spoke against the project. Attachment 5 is a
copy of the minutes from the February 6`ti hearing. On February 17 and 18, 1998, four letters of
appeal were filed with the City. Those letters are included as Attachment 6. A review of the
appeal letters and public testimony given at the hearing identified two primary resident concerns
with the project: 1) character of neighborhood and architectural styles and 2) building heights
and obstruction of views. Those concerns are summarized below.
A 6-98
121 Penman Way
Page 3
Compatibility with Neighborhood Character. The residents characterized the neighborhood as
rural or semi-rural situated on a hillside with intensive trees. The neighbors indicate that most of
the existing homes are either single-story or they have a street appearance of one-story with the
second levels constructed into the hillside.
The existing home at 121 Penman is a one-story (12.5' high) California"Ranch" style home with
a stucco exterior. The applicant's plans are to remodel and construct an addition to the existing
home making it a two-story (25' high) Spanish Mediterranean style home with stucco exterior
and a hip roof. Attachment 3 is a copy of the proposed front elevation (facing Penman Way).
The neighbors feel that the proposed structure's scale and architectural style are not compatible
with the character of the neighborhood and that the residential remodel should be reviewed by
the Architectural Review Commission(ARC).
Analysis/Evaluation: While many of the homes in the area are older one-story or have the
appearance of a one-story, there are a variety of home sizes and styles in the Serrano Drive and
Penman Way area. In January and February of 1998,City staff and the hearing officer visited the
project site and surrounding areas to observe the existing homes and neighborhood character.
Based on these field inspections, it was determined that there is a variety of styles and sizes of
homes on Penman Way and Serrano Drive. Currently, there are five homes fronting or backing
onto Penman Way—three on the west side and two on the east side. The three of the homes on
the west side of Penman Way are older (pre-1960) single-story homes. The two homes on the
east side on Penman Way (535 and 539 Serrano Drive) were constructed after 1987. They are
both two-story structures (at least 25' high) with different architectural styles and exterior
finishes. There are also other two-story homes on the north side of Serrano Drive. The existing
homes on Serrano Heights do appear to be similar in size and style.
The applicant submitted a letter in support of Hearing Officer's action (Attachment 7) and
photographs to demonstrate the varying architectural styles (including building materials) and
sizes of the existing homes in the immediate area. Those photos are enclosed in the Commission
packets.
A review of the City's General Plan and Zoning Regulations found that the site is not designated
as a"sensitive site" which would require ARC review. It should also be noted that the presence
of single-story homes on a particular block does not usually dictate that all homes constructed on
that block be single-story. Staff is concerned about the legal implications and potential impacts
of applying more restrictive standards to this property when it is clearly not designated as a
"sensitive site." Staff feels that the residential remodel is an appropriate use for the site provided
the project complies with the City standards.
Viewshed Protection. The site and neighboring homes are situated on Cerro San Luis with some
views to peak and to the Santa Lucia ranges to the east. Residents feel that the project's design is
insensitive to the views presently enjoyed by the residents on Serrano Heights (west of the site)
and at 120 Serrano Drive. Specifically, the proposed increase in building height (from 12.5' to
A 6-98
121 Penman Way
Page 4
25') will block the views of three neighbors and a view corridor for pedestrians on Serrano
Drive.
To minimize potential viewshed impacts,the applicant's neighbors suggest three things:
1. Declare Serrano Drive,Penman Way and Serrano Heights above Palomar Street as a
"sensitive site" subject to hillside and viewshed protection through the ARC process;
2. Reduce the height limitation along Penman Way to 20'-22' and require flat roof
construction, if second story construction unreasonably interferes with a neighbor's
viewshed; and
3. Permit the applicant to shift his second story south 10' over the sewer easement-
eliminating much of the obstruction to 120 Serrano Drive.
Analysis/Evaluation: At the February Ob hearing, the hearing officer denied the applicant's
request for a building height exception to allow a 27 foot high structure. This decision was based
on the finding that building's roof could be redesigned to lower the overall building height fully
to comply with the maximum height standard (25') for the R-1 zone. In addition, the project
was conditioned to limit its maximum height to 25' above the existing grade (at the existing
garage) and to confine that height to a small portion of the roof. As shown on the original
building plans,the maximum roof height would be confined to the southern portion of the home
and would be approximately 9 feet long at the ridge before sloping down. The Hearing Officer
felt that the combination of requiring the project to comply with the R-1 zone building height
standards and the applicant's roof design (hip roof) would minimize any obstructions to the
neighbor's views.
1 Declare Serrano Drive Penman Way and Serrano Heights above Palomar Street as a"sensitive
site" subiect to hillside and viewshed Rrotection through the ARC process. According to the
City's geographic information system (land use inventory)and planning files,no other properties
in this area are designated as sensitive sites with respect to hillside and viewshed protection. As
such, identifying this site as a sensitive site would be inconsistent with limitations on similarly
situated lots.
2 Reduce the height limitation along Penman Way to 20' -22' and require flat roof construction
if second story construction unreasonably interferes with a neighbor's viewshed. Because the
project site and other properties on Penman Way are zoned R-1, they must comply with the
maximum building heights for that zone as specified in the City's Zoning Regulations (Sections
17.24.020C, 17.16.020 and 17.16.040). To restrict the height of structures on Penman Way to
20' feet, without factual justification, would be inconsistent with City policy. With respect to
the suggestion of a flat roof, a majority of the existing homes in the area have pitched roofs.
Moreover, it has not been City practice to dictate a specific architectural style, including roof
shape,for a project that is not subject to architectural review.
w w
A 6-98
121 Penman Way
Page 5
3. Permit the applicant to shift his second story south 10' over the sewer easement- eliminating
much of the obstruction to 120 Serrano Heights. As proposed, the second story is located on the
southern portion of the property, and it is in compliance with the R-1 property development
standards. If the upper floor were shifted south, the project, as designed, would not be comply
with the building setback and height requirements.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission may also consider the following three alternative actions.
1. The Planning Commission may approve the appeal, thereby denying the use permit for the
residential remodel and addition. If the Commission denies the project, it must establish the
appropriate findings for denial. The Commission should also determine whether this site is
"sensitive",thereby requiring architectural review.
2. The Planning Commission may approve the appeal and direct the applicant to modify the
proposed residential remodel and addition.
3. The Planning Commission may continue action. Direction should be given to staff and the
applicant.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map
Attachment 2 - Site Plan
Attachment 3 - Proposed Front Elevation
Attachment 4 - Findings and Conditions of Approval
Attachment 5 - Minutes from February 6, 1998 Administrative Hearing
Attachment 6 - Appellants' Letters of Appeal
Attachment 7 - Applicant's Letter in Support of Hearing Officers Action
10jojo oi01 oi 0 � o = _ ;�10 ' =0
al Fc as .- 1 ae _ .e .�•
' I 1
a
0 0 ' Oi0
i'1 m D Ill j
J.a iL
P
sa1. 0
X. s
V QQI171�.�b Q : fa 1
I IdVl�pbTm v ata - P ami
\ Cm -T"
7
1 aaa :�.� r....•S�P�(• •• tW" ,
va �•"l •frot?aa��r� ��
,y ` o.-o. v.w �+::wv iiia r.r rt`:r•i? "r w OI�lT��
rt 1
• to aewonNfcI -
a
.,
r liu
So
LU
N -7 -
I
M .y 4 I m cm:a s�•.ar�a.� i •Yjr • J
i, W v I � Et 1 pn%.r LL
3i � �y+5h ' I ,.•..-..aaa�-..._ . _ ._�.:;,:�:, -- — � rZ �
QiO m J
.2 . O
�.,0 yl�
N ' -( I I a .t`• -.-`L.. ( nit-_.- IL�J
LRUII �: I o .±r• .r • �wv
�i 't..•._ i I I � � Seo n:;oo a�--: �.,1�1 ^ ..
%
'Ir jai N'a. JY7!'n �
O \ i JIL�V ) All 'V"
3H!
0:
C O 0 0 "= 0O O � O
00 F%.
a
s' tJ Th O
.iaa aaaan — \ J mC--, o
[.0 <. [t fP Cl G
N 0 ! � I 0 I 0
J9„
Attachment 2 - Site Plan
PKOP. O
NF o A-6-98 121 PENMAN WAY
'T�i.•74'
f
Esz
GiCTme
• - OPiY I'!fb BRICK PA-ANO,
-q`�S
,`al.• 1 N _ +f�1.75 I — — .�✓ GIS L/>
.6F..35S.•Dv % 4 '��
. o. ?1L I T r
1 y Cut6DL pyA �Yj �V _�N Fey
C6TG WALL 1n 1F' w.r.Tlfl 5 � CO Ot
o d LING �. 4_�Fg
jut
P' E — —� — — - - - - a �oL ! o
IA
__ r
,•
ITfit
Yr
_a fl i Q_ `0INl
N
Is
1 .O y -5 rel '7b6
r- ,, r�
oil
a
: N� y ... 9 [0350• )
. ; � 6 5-I F 8.7 6)EJ ,
• � ELLS � .�. .YC.
—w—
RG!Y Llhfts.
' � •S�SLG T.RFB '
YF-NTIAN WAY C> XIS'(G.)
I—
a
� r
. I
• 6
I
.a'
/ e1
o : I -
0
\ T O
a
dd—
d l M
II d
- a
V
I J
z
---_ -
w w
Attachment 4 - Findings and Conditions of Approval
A 6-98
121 Penman Way
2-6-98
Item#4
Project Applicant: Donald R.Waller
Proiect Address: 121 Penman Way
Proposed Use: Use permit application to allow a conforming addition to a non-
conforming structure(the existing house is non-conforming in tenors of the
sideyard setback)and a height exception to allow a 27-foot high structure.
Recommendation
Approve the request to allow an addition to the non-conforming structure, and deny the height
exception based on the following findings:
Findings
1. The proposed addition is consistent with the intent of Chapter 17.14.E.2 of the zoning
regulations which allows other additions to residential structures upon approval of a use
permit by the Community Development Director.
2. The proposed addition is a logical extension of the existing nonconforming house, and it
will not alter the overall character of the neighborhood.
3. The building roof can be redesigned to lower the overall building height to comply with
the.maximum height standard in the R-1 zone(Section 17.24.020C).
4. Compliance with the City's maximum building height standard(25 feet)will minimize
any obstruction of views from the adjoining properties on Serrano Drive and Serrano
Heights.
Conditions:
1. Overall building height shall not exceed 25 feet above existing grade (at the existing
garage)and shall be confined to the portion of the roof shown on the submitted plans.
1 1
Attachment 5 - i.linutes from February 6, 1998 haministrative Hearing
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING - MINUTES
FRIDAY FEBRUARY 6, 1998
121 Penman Way Use Permit Appl. A 6-98: Request to allow a conforming addition
to a non-conforming structure, and height exception to allow a 27-
foot high house where a 25-foot high house is allowed; R-1 zone;
Don Waller, applicant.
John Shoals presented the staff report, explaining that the structure is non-conforming
because of a reduced side yard setback for a bedroom addition which was built in 1976.
He indicated he has spoken with the applicant, the representative, and neighbors, and
felt all parties were willing to work together to come to a resolution that was acceptable
to all. Based on information submitted, Mr. Shoals recommended approval of the
addition and denial of the height exception, based on findings which he outlined.
Ron Whisenand questioned the existing building line as shown on the site plan and
asked for clarification.
The public hearing was opened.
Brian Conroy, applicant's representative, spoke in support of the request. He said he
has been working on this project for about a year and has always kept in mind how the
building would look from the street. He explained that he had gotten overlay maps from
the City's Public Works Department, and the grades around the house are shown to be
much higher(approximately 4 feet) than what actually exists on the site. He felt that the
proposal is well within the 25-foot limit.
Mr. Conroy presented photographs of the site, showing the retaining wall area, and
explained how his calculations were made. He noted that the two-story portion would
be located over the carport area, and that a .hip configuration was chosen to keep the
height of the house down and to give the house a more pleasant appearance. He felt
that the height could also be lowered by changing the roof pitch.
Ron Whisenand asked why the overall roof couldn't be dropped down the way it is
currently designed. He felt the building is very low to start with, and much potential
exists to design something that would comply with height restrictions. He also noted
that he liked the design of the roof, but the height was the concern.
Brian Conroy explained that he is trying to achieve a volume of ceiling at 9.5 feet
instead of vaulting the ceiling. He did not feel that this addition would cause any
significant view blockage and did not want to change the design of the addition.
N
Administrative Hearing - Minutes
Meeting of February 6, 1998
Page 2
Ron Whisenand asked what the existing structure at the rear of the property (not the
shed) shown on the plans is used for. Mr. Waller explained that it had been used as an
art studio when the property was purchased, but now contains a N and some chairs.
Richard Racouillat, 511 Serrano Drive, felt the request for a two-story, Spanish style
structure with two high-ceiling levels, and a roof design which is nearly 7 feet high is not
environmentally sensitive, does not fit into the character of the neighborhood, and is
situated in the view shed of the surrounding neighbors. He presented a drawing of the
neighborhood. He noted that Penman Way is a one-vehicle wide road with three
houses on it, and another house to the rear which almost connects to Serrano Heights.
He said the neighborhood is rural with small homes visible from the street, and he felt
the Spanish style is not in character with the neighborhood. He felt the 7-foot high roof
will have a dramatic effect on everyone in the neighborhood.
Mr. Racoullat also felt that the proposed addition isn't compatible with the living quarters
in the back of the property, and that the rear living quarters are more in keeping with the
neighborhood with wood siding and composition shingle roof. He said he did not object
to the second story, but did object to a 7-foot high roof. He reiterated that he felt the
design is environmentally insensitive and did not consider what the neighbors above
him would be seeing.
Madi Gates, 125 Serrano Heights, spoke in opposition to the request. She felt that
building limitations are established to protect existing structures and occupants. She
noted that Serrano is a pedestrian street which is actively used by walkers and joggers
and it provides wonderful views of Cerro San Luis, as does Penman Way. She felt that
this request, as proposed, would block views of at least three neighbors and a view
corridor for pedestrians, and would create overlook and loss of privacy for other
neighbors. Streetscapes are primarily that of single level houses, accomplished by
having any second level built into the mountain and having relatively flat roofs.
Ms. Gates felt that this structure, as proposed, appears to have a height of a three-story
structure, as viewed from either street. It is too big and too tall, and she requested
denial of the request, and felt that redesign of the structure on a more modest scale
with less height to protect and preserve the neighborhood was in order. She also felt
the addition should require Architectural Review Commission approval.
Natolia Neil, 120 Serrano Heights, was concerned that this addition would block her
view, and opposed the request.
Bill McWhinney, 150 Serrano Heights, said he felt the height request was excessive.
He was also concerned with the massiveness of the structure in that location and
opposed the request. He also felt that ARC approval should be required.
1-20
Administrative Hearing - Minutes
Meeting of February 6, 1998
Page 3
Brian Conroy said that historically, there are many Spanish style homes on' San Luis
Mountain. He felt the style is compatible with the area. He felt existing trees in the
area block more of Ms. Neil's view than Mr. Waller's addition would. He also noted a
number of different styles of architecture in the neighborhood.
A question was asked if rather than changing the roof, the 9.5 foot ceiling height for the
second floor could be lowered by one foot.
The public hearing was closed.
Ron Whisenand summarized that the two main areas of concern are 1) character of the
neighborhood and styles, and 2) height issues and views. He agreed that there is no
other house in the area that is similar, however, he noted that none of the houses look
alike. He noted his main concern is with the height issue, and didn't feel it is injsensitive
to the neighborhood. In Mr. Whisenand's interpretation, he felt the neighbors do not
object to a second story nor Mr. Waller's right to a view, but object to sacrificing their
view so he can have one. Mr. Whisenand felt there are options available that would
reduce the height of the roof, a lesser ceiling height being one.
Ron Whisenand approved the request for a conforming addition to a non-conforming
structure, and denied the height exception based on the following findings and subject
to following condition:
Findin-gs
1. The proposed addition is consistent with the intent of Chapter 17.14.E.2 of the
zoning regulations which allows other additions to residential structures upon
approval of a use permit by the Community Development Director.
2. The proposed addition is a logical extension of the existing non-conforming house,
and will not alter the overall character of the neighborhood.
3. The building roof can be redesigned to lower the overall building height to comply
with the maximum height standard in the R-1 zone (Section 17.24.020C).
4. Compliance with the City's maximum building height standard (25 feet) will minimize
any obstruction of views from the adjoining properties on Serrano Drive and Serrano
Heights.
Condition
1. The overall building height shall not exceed 25 feet above existing grade (at the
existing garage) and shall be confined to the portion of the roof shown on the
submitted plans.
/fir'
w �s
Administrative Hearing - Minutes
Meeting of February 6, 1998
Page 4
He noted for the record that when the plans are submitted, staff will be measuring from
the existing grade. He also clarified that, regarding architectural review, this property is
not designated a sensitive site, and therefore should not be singled out (similar to a
spot zoning issue) for architectural review, provided the applicant is able to meet the
zoning regulations requirements in terms of height and setback.
He explained that his decision can be appealed to the Planning Commission within 10
days by submitting a letter to the Community Development Department, and that
anyone may file an appeal.
��Z
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 11, 1998
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday,
March 11, 1998, in Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners John Ewan, Mary Whittlesey, Paul Ready, John Ashbaugh,
Janet Kourakis, David Jeffrey,and Chairman Charles Senn
Absent: None
Staff
Present: Assistant City Attorney Cindy Clemens, Development Review Manager Ron
Whisenand, Recording Secretary Leaha Magee, and Associate Planner John
Shoals.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
The Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 14, 1997 were accepted as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no public comments.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 121 Penman Way: A 6-98: Appeal of the Hearing officer's decision allowing a
conforming addition to a non-conforming structure and denying a height exception to
allow a 27-foot high building where a 25 foot high building is allowed; R-1 Zone; Madi
Gates, William McWhinney, Rick and Pam Racouillat, and Netalia Neil, appellants and
Donald Waller,applicant.
1-23
Draft Minutes 0 0
Architectural Review Commission
March 11, 1998
Page 2
Associate Planner Shoals presented the staff report and recommended denying the appeal,
thereby upholding the Hearing Officer's actions based on findings presented in the staff
report.
Commissioner Kourakis asked if shifting the second story 10' south is possible, as suggested
on Page 5,#3.
Associate Planner Shoals stated this is not a valid option according to the City Engineering
Department because it may impact the public sewer main.
Commissioner Ashbaugh asked if a sensitive site designation would require rezoning.
Associate Planner Shoals replied no and summarized ways this designation could be
achieved.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked if the reason the applicant had to apply for permit is because
the city changed its setback requirements and the house is now considered non-conforming.
Associate Planner Shoals replied yes.
Commissioner Jeffrey stated the purpose of the Neighborhood Wellness Action Plan is to
help residents preserve/enhance neighborhoods and it encourages staff to facilitate this by
holding convenient neighborhood meetings.
Associate Planner Shoals stated an official neighborhood meeting was not held, but he has
spoken to neighbors. The applicant has tried to address some of the issues.
There were no further comments/questions and the public comment session was opened.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Brian Conroy, project architect, gave a brief project history and stated the applicant is
interested in the concerns of the neighbors. The applicant has met with some of the
neighbors on site to discuss the view shed. They have lowered the house to be within the 25'
height limit. The house is non-confonning as it exists in relation to the side yard setback.
They are making improvements which will make the house less non-conforming. He
described the photos of existing residences in the area, that were distributed to the
Commission. The applicant's house is set in the grade and can hardly be seen from Serrano
Drive. The trees at the rear of the applicant's lot are 20' tall and no views will be blocked.
He described the design of the roof and the rendering displayed on the wall. He indicated
that the home has a 50' front yard setback off Penman Way and a 36' rear year setback. He
feels that the house will not take away from the character of the neighborhood, and the style
of the house fits in with the neighborhood. He is concerned that designating the site as
sensitive would be spot zoning.
�-zy
Draft Minutes
Architectural Review Commission
March 11, 1998
Page 3
Commissioner Ashbaugh questioned Mr. Conroy on the elevation of the house as shown on
the renderings.
Mr. Conroy explained the drawing and elevations.
Mr. Conroy described the street-level photos of the 20' high trees at the rear of the project
site.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked for clarification of the photos and location of the trees. She
also noted that the redwood tree on the site isn't shown in any of the photos.
Commissioner Jeffrey is concerned the photos were taken from the applicant's backyard, and
they don't give the prospective from the neighbors' yards.
Mr. Conroy noted the 20' trees at the rear of the property block the view regardless of the
addition. Possibly only the rooftop would be seen.
Chairman Senn wanted to keep the meeting focused. He asked staff for a clarification and
guidance on the pupose of why the Commission is hearing this project.
City Attorney Clemens noted the previous lawful construction is now 1' out of the setback
compliance and additions have to come through the administrative use permit process. The
addition is conforming, but any addition to a non-conforming structure has to proceed as a
use permit.
The Commission and staff discussed Attachment 4- Findings and Conditions of Approval.
Brian Conroy concluded that the applicant would like the Planning Commission to deny the
appeal and no sensitive overly of the neighborhood.
Don Waller, 121 Penman Way, applicant, indicated that he needs a bigger home and can
only add a second story addition because of other area constrictions. He's sensitive to his
neighbors' concerns. He's raised a pole to view the height of the proposed addition and had
discussions.
Commissioners Kourakis, Jeffrey, and Chairman Senn disclosed they visited the
sitelbackyard on the same day and did not discuss the anything that would lead to a decision.
Rick Racouillat, 511 Serrano Dr., stated that he is a neighbor and friend of the applicant. The
applicant's house is small and he can understand the wanted expansion. He expressed that
the neighbors opposed the original 27' building height and feel a 25' high structure is too tall
as well. The applicant and architect have been cooperative. This addition will significantly
affect the only view from the home at 120 Serrano. If the 20' tall trees were removed, Ms.
Draft Minutes 0
Architectural Review Commission
March 11, 1998
Page 4
Neil's view would be blocked by the proposed addition. This design is environmentally
insensitive. The roof and chimney are at issue. He hopes another design can be found. A
sensitive view shed area should be created from Penman Way up to Serrano Heights. A two-
story house was built at 535 Serrano Dr. and has put the neighborhood on alert to protect
views. He asked the Commission to approve the appeal with direction to the applicant to
modify the remodel/addition.
Commissioner Ready asked for photos of the view from Ms. Neil's home.
Associate Planner Shoals displayed photos of views from Ms. Neil's home looking towards
the site.
Commissioner Ashbaugh asked if the trees have been or can be pruned.
Mr. Racouillat stated the trees were pruned,but not low enough.
Commissioner Kourakis repeated the suggestion of declaring the neighborhood as a sensitive
area subject to hillside and view shed protection. She asked if the Mr. Racouillat plans to
pursue this designation no matter what the Commission decides.
Mr. Racouillat would favor a sensitivity designation for the neighborhood from Penman up.
Chairman Senn doesn't believe an"S" designation can be granted by the Commission due to
noticing concerns.
Mr. Racouillat supports staffs Recommendation#2.
Commissioner Jeffrey stated the LUE clearly empowers neighbors to collectively work
towards maintaining a neighborhood and makes provision for City staff to help in this
process.. He asked if staff were to come to the neighborhood would the neighbors be able to
come to a mutual agreement in terms of design/view shed problems.
Mr. Racouillat replied yes.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked if a continuance would give the applicant/neighbors/staff time
to reach agreement.
Mr. Racouillat welcomes this suggestion.
Development Review Manager Whisenand noted there is a provision through the
discretionary use permit process for the Director, Hearing Officer, etc. to declare this site as
sensitive and require plan to go to the ARC.
Draft Minutes 0 0
Architectural Review Commission
March 11, 1998
Page 5
Madi Gates, 125 Serrano Heights, is concerned about the view and noted the wildlife in the
area. She feels the proposed addition is a new structure and will alter the appearance of the
neighborhood This area should be considered a sensitive site.
Commissioner Ashbaugh asked if there was any objections to the color.
Ms. Gates feels certain colors reduce the size appearance.
William McWhinney, 150 Serrano Heights, appellant, concurred with Mr. Racouillat. He's
concerned about setting a precedent relative to future house additions/remodels in the area. A
sensitive site designation is suitable from Penman Way to Serrano Dr. to Serrano Heights
and the City limit. This will be the second large, obtrusive house and all the homes in the
area are single stories. He feels the character of the neighborhood will be diminished by
taller homes.
Commissioner Ashbaugh asked if there is a concern of properties subdividing.
Mr. McWhinney replied yes. It's been tried but it has not been successful.
Commissioner Kourakis asked if the neighbors will advocate a sensitive area designation
after this project is denied or approved.
Mr. McWhinney believes so.
Jean Adamson, 180 Seranno Heights, has lived in the neighborhood for 44 years. She wasn't
notified of the February meeting. She submitted a written notice of appeal. She stated that
the area is very unusual and quiet. The view will be impaired and she's concerned about
setting a precedent for higher structures. She doesn't want the rural atmosphere changed.
She's interested in a sensitive site designation,but needs more information. The Hogans also
signed her letter. She objects to the 25' height addition.
Natalia Neil, 120 Serrano Heights, concurred with Mr. Racouillat and noted the trees are a
problem. She has offered to help with the pruning expense because they do block the view.
She is concerned about setting a precedent and views being taken away.
Commissioner Ashbaugh questioned the elevations of the new roof and the existing trees.
Mr. Racouillat explained the views from Ms. Neil and the Adamson' home.
Associate Planner Shoals stated the noticing requirement for the Hearing Officer's hearing is
for adjoining property, not the 300 feet required for Planning Commission.
z7
Draft Minutes
Architectural Review Commission
March 11, 1998
Page 6
Mr. Conroy described the building footprint, sewer easement and the square footage of the
house/proposal, noting that the chimney as shown on the rendering and meets the
requirements.
The public comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Jeffrey moved to continue this project to April 22, 1998. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Ewan.
Commissioner Jeffrey believes neighborhood input has been neglected. The General Plan
clearly empowers neighbors to collectively join together to determine what works in their
neighborhood and prescribes that staff be part of the process. He's concerned with Policies
2.2.12, 2.2.10,and 2.15.
Commissioner Ready cannot support the motion. There are no entitlements to view
protection. The height limit has not been exceeded and the applicant's proposal/request is
reasonable
Commissioner Ewan stated the neighborhood concern needs to be and can be worked out.
It's unfortunate this issue has come before the Commission. He can support the motion to
allow a solution to be reached so this doesn't continue to the next step.
Commissioner Ashbaugh feels it's unfortunate this dispute is before the Commission. He
understands the neighbors' concerns, but the proposal meets all requirements.
Commissioner Whittlesey would like to see a neighborhood resolution reached and can
support the motion. She would like to have seen better graphics/photos of the views.
Commissioner Kourakis can support the motion. She would like to have seen better
graphics/photos as well. Neighborhood protection, preservation, and conservation needs to
be considered. The General Plan does empower neighborhoods and this needs to be
enforced. She referred to Page 25 of the LUE.
Chairman Senn cannot support the motion. The city's regulations are clear. A 25' height is
allowed.
Commissioner Jeffrey amended his motion to direct that a staff person be available to meet
with the applicant/neighbors to help resolve issues as provided in Policy 2.15.
Commissioner Ewan accepted the amendment.
AYES:Commissioners Jeffrey, Ewan,and Kourakis
NOES:Commissioners Whittlesey, Ready,Ashbaugh, and Chairman Senn
Draft Minutes
Architectural Review Commission
March 11, 1998
Page 7
REFRAIN: None
The motion failed 4-3.
Commissioner Ready moved to deny the appeal based uaon findings and conditions of
Attachment 4. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ashbaugh.
Attorney Clemens suggested modifying Finding 1 to reflect that the proposed addition is
consistent with the intent of Chapter 17.14 because the project is not intensifying the non-
conforming aspect of the structure,but is actually improving it by removing the carport.
Commissioners Ready and Ashbaugh accepted staffs modification.
Commissioner Ashbaugh believes the neighborhood should pursue the possibility of a
sensitive area designation.
Commissioner Jeffrey cannot support the motion. This project and possibly others will
potentially have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood.
Commissioner Ewan concurred. The neighbors should be proactive and recognize the needs
of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Whittlesey can support the motion. The neighborhood should pursue the
possibility of a sensitive area designation.
Chairman Senn concurred.
AYES: Commissioners Ready, Ashbaugh, Whittlesey, and Chairman Senn
NOES: Commissioners Ewan, Kourakis, and Jeffrey
REFRAIN: None
The motion carried 4-3.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
A. Staff:
A. Agenda Forecast:
Development Review Manager Whisenand presented the agenda forecasts for the meetings
of March 25, 1997, April 8, 1997,and April 22, 1997.
Draft Minutes
Architectural Review Commission
March 11, l 998
Page 7
REFRAIN: None
The motion failed 4-3.
Commissioner Ready moved to deny the anneal based upon findings and conditions of
Attachment 4. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ashbaugh.
Attorney Clemens suggested modifying Finding 1 to reflect that the proposed addition is
consistent with the intent of Chapter 17.14 because the project is not intensifying the non-
conforming aspect of the structure, but is actually improving it by removing the carport.
Commissioners Ready and Ashbaugh accented staff's modification.
Commissioner Ashbaugh believes the neighborhood should pursue the possibility of a
sensitive area designation.
Commissioner Jeffrey cannot support the motion. This project and possibly others will
potentially have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood.
Commissioner Ewan concurred. The neighbors should be proactive and recognize the needs
of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Whittlesey can support the motion. The neighborhood should pursue the
possibility of a sensitive area designation.
Chairman Senn concurred.
AYES: Commissioners Ready, Ashbaugh, Whittlesey, and Chairman Senn
NOES: Commissioners Ewan, Kourakis,and Jeffrey
REFRAIN: None
The motion carred 4-3.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
A. Staff:
A. Agenda Forecast:
Development Review Manager Whisenand presented the agenda forecasts for the meetings
of March 25, 1997, April'8, 1997, and April 22, 1997.
/3�
Draft Minutes & a
Architectural Review Commission
March 11, 1998
Page 8
3. Commission:
Commissioner Ewan noted the Commission approved carport on Iris St. is a great
improvement and demonstrates neighborhood pride.
ADJOURNMENT:
Since there was no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:55
p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for March 24, 1998 at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Leaha K. Magee
Recording Secretary
Attachment 6= Appellants' Letters of Appeal
w w
IV
city of sAn tuts oBispo
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
Planning Commission rendered on 3/11/98
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.)
See attached - multiple appellants
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
on
Name/Department (Date)
Appellant:
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative:
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
For Official Use Only:
Calendared for A/-12/-f7 Date & Time Received:
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer =RECEIVEDCopy to the following department(s):
A. Jonas , R. Whisenand,J. Shoals
Original in City Clerk's Office
ATTArwm-PWT 6
7
.,ani O
96
GLi 7
�LG�1'�/dr✓ -�C/ dli/ ` '1dY6- °.e G�� .a,7
a,f- /�/ /�.e���r✓ `.c�a-� ��uJ/°1��ru� L2��e�Zie'-� to -91�J
71,� �- ��.�,v2�. .c� .� it--�.�✓'z.c.��-cam�'��
7?x�/.r� l�tf'ri:v9z� UR�n.-chi .,Gr,U�� rrr✓ cc, �l'7'Z�7,�n.��-�i�,�GIin�G jrn�
U ,
12
RECEIVED
FEB:17 1998
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
13 February, 1998
To the Planning Commission
I am writing to protest and appeal the recommendation of
the Planning Commission staff to allow the owner of the
house at 121 Penman Way to build a second story on his house.
As presently planned, this house with the addition of a
second story, would block the view from my house (which is up
hill and right in back of his house) by 13 feet.
The general appearance would not conform with the
neighborhood structures, nor take into consideration the
wild life, the semi-rural nature of the area, nor the problems
of drainage.
This matter was heard on 2 February, 1998.
Thank you for your attention to my letter.
Si y,
i
atalia Neil
120 Serrano Heights
Mail: P.O. Box 1104, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Phone: 543-4017
r
w w
RECEIVED
NOTICE OF APPEAL FEB 17 1998
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Re: Application A 6-98 (Height.Exception) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
121 Penman Way, San Luis Obispo
Application for 27' Waiver
We appeal the decision of the Community Development Department on
February 6, 1998, to permit a 25' high house at 121 Penman Way.
The height of the present structure is approximately 12'. The decision would
raise the present structure by 13'. The applicant proposes to construct a
two-story "Mediterranean" styled residence with high ceilings (9.51 and a 5'-6'
tiled roof. The design is environmentally insensitive to the rural character of
the neighborhood and the view shed now enjoyed by the applicants' hillside
neighbors.
Penman Way and the adjoining Serrano Drive have a distinctive rural, hillside
setting. Most homes are low, flat-roofed and generally of wood construction.
The proposed construction would place a 13' high by 37' wide obstruction
directly in front of the only viewshed for 120 Serrano Heights. Our home at
511 Serrano Drive also would suffer some loss of viewshed, but not nearly as
severe as that intended for 120 Serrano. Nevertheless, we object to this high,
massive structure.
To maintain our rural character and permit the applicant the opportunity to
build another story to gain a viewshed he does not presently have, we suggest
the following:
1) Declare Serrano Drive, Penman Way and Serrano Heights above Palomar
Street as a sensitive area subject to hillside and yiewshed protection.
2) Reduce the height limitation along Penway Way to 20' - 22' and require
flat roof construction if second story construction unreasonably interferes with
a neighbor's viewshed, as in this case.
3) Permit the applicant to shift his second story south 10' over the sewer
easement - eliminating much of the obstruction to 120 Serrano Heights.
Date: February 16, 1998 Respectfully submitted,
Rick and Pam Racouillat
511 Serrano Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
RECEIVED
22 � FEB 1_7 19913
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
46/
ell 6�
xl c
—49
Mr.William P. McWhinney
150 Serrano Heights Dr
Sri Luis Obisp CA 9340E-1748
=❖=a=❖=e=. v
�a
Attachment 7 - App„cant's Letter in Support of Hearing Officers Action
MEClark,
Conroy
& Associates
March 4, 1998
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Att: John Shoals- planner
Re: Use Permit A 6-98 -121 Penman Way,Appeal
The decision made by the Use Permit Hearing Officer on February 6, 1998 to allow the addition to the
existing non-conforming house and his decision that it will not alter the overall character of the
neighborhood should be up held for the following reasons:
The location of the residence is set for back from Serrano Drive and is accessed off of Penman Way
with a front yard setback of 50 feet. Staying with the some basic footprint,we are adding a second
level over the garage. The design of the residence is Mediterranean with stucco and mission file
roof akin to many Early California and present-day styles that can been seen in the neighborhood
and other areas of San Luis Mountain.
A lot of time has been spent on the design of the proposed addition and remodel to the existing
structure, given its location and environment. In light of the appeal a more in-depth review of the .
neighborhood was performed, along with taking photographs of the varied architectural styles
which exist above Palomar Street, mentioned in the appeal (see attached photos).The residence
at 535 Serrano Drive is directly in front and 120 Serrano Heights is in back of the residence in
question. Many of these homes are two stories in height;even those off of Serrano Heights become
two stories at the rear.All are unquestionably different from one another in style.
The building height of the proposed addition will not exceed the City 25 foot height limitation
requirement.The hipped roof slope and plate heights will be reduced and using the existing
elevation of 354.00 located at the side of garage the design will work.
The lot slopes up hill front to rear( 14 ft)with the original garage placed into grade 3 ft evident
by the side yard and rear retaining walls at the back yard.The grade elevation at the rear property
line, 36 ft from back of house, is 359.00 with a line of trees 20+ high across the back property
line. The viewshed from the property directly behind, at 120 Serrano Heights, should not be
blocked,with a living room floor elevation of 376.00, given the height of the existing tree line (see
attached photo of trees at rear of property).
I appreciate your time and consideration of this matter,
Sin erely,
non Conroy
Project Architect
BRIAN PATRICK CONAOY
9441 Boulevard Del Campo
Son Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805-543-7140 /Sy
o°
CO
Q'
Q
�7 Sr-
Ff s
0
E:J9• '
r--
- - - - - - - - - - - -- f2t — _ III— _ ,: :
N o
r
- •S
W/I� L" K 9E�, M0P L.-
Clark 12 I pt�,N MAN W/I.Y
Conroy &
Associates
ATTACHMENT 4�-�C
&Ian Conroy. (�9r, C IT1'GOr�ToUK MAP
007 CLJ n_i i_
March II, I998
NOTICE OF . APPEAL
Community Development Dept. RE: APPLICATION A6-98 (Height Exception)
City of San Luis Obispo 12IPenman flay, San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street Application for 27 foot Waiver
San Luis Obispo, CA City of San Luis Obispo
93402 Owner: Donald R. Waller
Vie oppose the decision rendered by the Planning Department and the
Community Development Department on February 2, 1998 in regard to
the remodeling of an existing one story non-conforming house. at
I2I Penman Way.
Our area is unusual in that it is a rustic, rural type, quiet hill-
side location with trees in a low density RI area that has mostly
one story older homes on undedicated private roads (rights of ways )
on Penman Way and Serrano Heights.
Vie object to the additional height proposed for this remodeling job
for the following reasons :
I. SII M7 IMPAIM- ME"T
' 2. If this extra height is allowed it could open an avenue
( establish precedence ) for others to use and could cause view
blockage for upper hill-side residents.
3. Over the years we have also seen new, landlords come in --
remodel their homes and then rent out rooms which cause more
noise, congestion, traffic and parking in RI zoned areas.
(This occurred only one house removed from I21 Penman -Way) .
Please give more consideration to the impact on the neighborhood
for granting variances of this sort.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert W. Adamson & Jean Adamson
ISerrano Heights
San
Luis Obispo, CA
93405
Tel: 805/543-5957
rl
L4,
&C,7
w w
NOTICE OF APPEAL
March 18, 1998
Re: Application A 6-98
121 Penman Way, San Luis Obispo
Application for 27' Waiver
We appeal the decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission on March
11, 1998 to deny the appeal of Hearing Officer's decision to permit a 25' high
house at 121 Penman Way.
Respectfully submitted,
Natalia Neil . Ri k and Pam Racouillat
120 Serrano Heights 511 Serrano Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
RECEIVED
MAR 19 1998
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
`;OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT